It is clear that Jewish planners take concepts and terms that would be helpful to our group organization and well being, then reverse, distort beyond reason or confuse the meaning that the terms would signify in appliication to Whites.
I’ve discussed this before but how their deception functions on two levels to our detriment bears farther differentiation.
The two levels of deception are well captured in the analogy that misrepresentative terms are like “red capes” to the charging bull.
They have right-wing White Nationalists charging after the false represenation on the level of the misrepresentative term.
At the same time WN become turned-off or hostile to the underlying idea which would be good for them/us.
1. “The” Left misrepresented as universal liberalism applied to Whites is the most fundamental “red cape.”
The underlyig idea of the left is social unionization. There are people in the union and people out of the union, therefore it cannot be universal or liberal. On the contrary. In fact, Jewish interests do not apply it as universal except to Whites.
This causes WN to chase this “red cape” of “The” Left which is really imposed liberalism upon them.
At the same time, because of the perversion of the term and abuses of Whites that go on under this false rubric, Whites become repulsed and in fact fight against what is the most important underlying social organizing concept [for group defense, accountability, agency, warrant, our human ecology]: the unionization of our peoples. It would keep an eye on the most dangerous traitors, elite ones, while keeping rank and file Whites accountable and incentivized to participate.
All of the usual Marxist and other Jewish distortins such as abolition of private property, communal child rearing, race and gender blurring, no free enterprise that would create weath for the industrious and innovative, etc. would be set aside as Not representing the “White” left.
In subjecting us to the red caspe of “the Left” misrepresented as universal liberalism as applied to Whites and altercasting us as “the right”, we develop Cartesian anxiety for our Augustinian nature, and desperately adopt objectivism to the extenet of reaching for unassailable warrant. This has the effect of taking us beyond accountability to our relative, social group interests. It makes us look and act less humanely. It scares our own people; and makes us easy to defeat as we are disorganized in obsolete philosophy.
2. Equality: Chasing this red cape really makes WN look bad, as they argue for inequality. It casts discourse in elitist and conflictual terms straight-away; more, it is not accurately descriptive as it relies on false comparisons.
The underlying concepts that YKW are trying to divert WN from grasping is the disposition to look first for qualitative sameness and difference. Within and between social paradigms there can be logics incommensurate to comparison but nevertheless amenable to symbiotic, non-conflictual functions, particularly if those respectful terms are invoked.
3. Social Constructionism and Hermeneutics: These concepts devised to counteract Cartesion runaway and facilitate systemic homeostatis instead have been misrepresented by Jewish interests with the red cape distortion that people and groups can just be whatever they imagine they might construct of themselves. The lie persists that these concepts are anti-empirical and anti-science. On the contrary, these ideas are meant to enhance and make more accurately descriptive the conduct of science and reality testing. With that, they serve to correct bad science (the kind that anti-racists would espouse as well), i.e., “scientism”, and myopic focus on narrow unitis of analysis only, such as the individual, to the detrminet of the broad view on systemic homeostasis.
Their red cape over these terms is a reversal of the whole anti-Cartesian program that these concepts are meant to correct. Indeed, anti-racism is Cartesian.
However, for the massive perversion and misrepresentation of these concepts they have turned-off Whites and in fact have them arguing against the valuable underlying concepts which in no way deny physical and social constraints to free choice but nevertheless would facilitate coherence, accountability, agency and the warrant of our race to exist: That is what we seek in rigor - warranted assertability.
Social constructionism and hermeneutics proper facilitate that. Jewish interests with their red cape distortions do not want you to have that.
As is the case with “Pragmatist” philosophy, you can tell if you are chasing the red cape if you have to put the word “mere” before what those presenting the concept are saying.
4. Post Modernity: Jewish interests know that modernity by itself is viciously self perpetuating, paradoxic, impervious and destructive to healthy traditions and forms; whereas post modernitiy properly understood allows us to take the best of modernity and time tested forms and ways.
The red cape misrepresentation is a “dada” definition as opposed to a deliberate and thoughtful management of modernity and traditional forms and ways.
5. Multiciulturalism and diversity: Jewish academics have reversed these terms to where outside groups are introduced to one another in order to blend away and subvert healthy, managed differences within and between groups. Then again, to chase the red cape and argue against the terms is to argue for integration with outsiders, e.g., non-Whites.
6. “Marginals” is a concept that goes along with hemeneutics and group maintenance; Jews have set up a red cape of presenting “marginals” as those outside the group with the intention of their being agents of change in overthrowing group homeostasis.
Chasing this red cape has WN arguing against humanitarian outreach to those within the group but most at risk to non-Whites; our marginals potentially have the greatest incentive to see to it that the White ecological system is maintained; they can lend perspective, feedback and accountability. It is important to note that one can be marginalized for being exceptionally talented and intelligent as well.
7. Hippies and the Sixties: These terms have been misrepresented as synonymous for White men being responsible for the Jewish radicalism of sexual revolution and black civil “rights”, viz. prerogative over Whites.
In chasing this red cape, the call for a reasigment of White men as having intrinsic value and with that, White people as having intrinsic value, is argued against - WN are arguing against our own deepest interests again in chasing this red cape. The very thing we need most is prohibited by the Jewish language game aligned iwth black power, feminism AND misinformed traditional women, to deny our being, our reality, value and right to exist in midtdasein - being there (or of) amidst our people.
8. Social justice warriors - of course those doing the Jews’ bidding are not pursuing true social justice, but to argue against the term, “social justice warrior”, is to fall for the masters of dscourse’s red cape once again.
Unlike right-wing of WN, I’m not chasing the red cape of Jewish twisted terms, I’ve gored the sucker through the mouth.
We are the White justice warriors and I invite you to join me in some bull-steak now that we’ve sorted away the bullshit…
Posted by DanielS on Monday, June 29, 2015 at 10:50 AM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Crusade against Discrimination in Britain, European Nationalism, Far Right, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, Journalism, Liberalism & the Left, Linguistics, Marxism & Culture War, Political Philosophy, Popular Culture, Psychology, Social Sciences, That Question Again, The American right, White Genocide Project, White Nationalism
She is the one in the Cheerios commercial. Andrew Hamilton gives background on Saatchi and Saatchi, the advertising firm behind the Cheerios ad:
In her crypsis as a White role model, she specializes in teaching betrayal, insolence and negrophilia to White girls and a message of “resistance is futile” for White men.
She is the pig in crypsis as a White woman, specializing in demoralizing Whites.
Here are her videos which are supposed to be funny but are so laced with contempt for Whites that the only thing that comes-through is her jealousy for European beauty and ability which would compete with her. She will do anything to drag it down.
...and Mary Poppins
Posted by DanielS on Friday, June 19, 2015 at 12:24 AM in Activism, Crusade against Discrimination in Britain, Jewish Diaspora, Journalism, Marxism & Culture War, Media, Popular Culture, Psychology, That Question Again, White Genocide: America, White Genocide: Europe, White Nationalism
26 May 2015 at 10:32 am
It isn’t my bugbear. I advocate all Europeans and recognize the obvious fact that he cannot be a unifying figure, but will be divisive and unnecessarily so - those people who think we need him are tediously oblivious to the obvious (you call my irritation with their idiocy my “bugbear”). It is rather their teddy bear, their security blanket, their pacifier and surrogate daddy. It is not too much to expect White advocates to have the respect to recognize him as having made bad us/them distinctions, to relegate him to history as pejorative on balance as such, not to be held up in sought-for redemption.
Daniel Antinora, as he would, agrees with Tan’s psychologizing and slips in a plug for Jesus:“yep, Too bad he ruined Majority Rights over that and Christian metaphysics instead of starting his own website.”
To which I say, Daniel A, Bullshit. It is an infinitely better site without Jesus freaks and those who insist upon trying to redeem Hitler.
Good riddance to you.
He quotes me: the problem is that Hitler also made Slavs of nations to his east into enemies. He wasn’t an advocate of all Whites in defense against Jews, simple as that.
Then Tan says:
You may think that you can read my mind but I have forgotten nothing of the kind. You are far from a mind reader.
Further, you say, “You think Hitler was bad for the Slavs. Again, that’s not how I see it?” Was he being good to Slavs? Sure. He was being good to the Greeks too. So good for everybody he turned-out to be.
No it doesn’t. Perhaps you aren’t as smart or as honest as I had thought. “All the rest stems from”...do you see his computer training as it causes him to try to trace a single cause…to a thing, by the way, which I never said - “judeo-boshevism came before Hitler.” - let alone maintain over and against seeing Jews as an antagonistic group, not in part, but on the whole.
I’m over it man. Associate with all the right-wing asses that you want; just wanted to say my bit as you are a part of a struggle that pretends to advocate all Europeans, and you cannot in that way.
Now calm your psychoanalytic babbling Tan, and read what I say:
Not that computer training is the only thing playing into monocausality or even that there is anything wrong with focusing on the Jews; but that you are taking too myopic a perspective and that (computer training) might be one factor..
For example, lets say KM wants to connect with Jarod Taylor (something I would not bother to do, but that’s not the point), let’s say KM wants to see if he can bring Taylor along to achieve more alignment and coordination, shares empathically in Taylor’s way of talking, says “yes, it’s suicidal to do this..” (all the while KM has already argued conclusively for himself that what is going on is genocide not suicide).
I’ve experienced the hair-trigger reaction by computer nerds to a social meandering too many times now, sudden conclusive reactions to innocent zig-zags and the merest theoretical ambiguity, even if a part of a process wholly intended to be corrected in fairly short order to alignment with what the nerd might wish as a result; but he will treat it (the slight zig-zag meander) rather as unbearably pernicious because it does not fit into the false either/or of his theoretical mindset misapplied to praxis: the social world, requiring negotiation, correction and adjustment by and for its interactive reflexivity and complex human agency; a complexity negotiated by means of phronesis - viz., practical judgement requiring of its kind of necessity therefore, a negotiated surveying process.
In this I am not saying Tan is crazy or applying psychoanalysis to him, I am suggesting, as per Aristotle, that he is over- or mis-applying lineal, either/or theory (which Aristotle designated “Theoria”) to the more ambiguous, interactive social world, which Aristotle called “Praxis;” which Tan and Katana might, in turn, want to call “jargon”..
or Daniel A might smear as “rationalism” bereft the salvation of Jesus “metaphysics.”
* What I mean by organization, specifically and generally, is in regard to an understanding of group and national boundaries of our people which is shared enough to be accounted-for and acted-upon.
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 01:32 AM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Far Right, Political Philosophy, Popular Culture, Psychology, That Question Again, The American right, The Proposition Nation, 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…
Jez Turner is under no illusions as to the powers-that-be: capitalist-marxist-liberal, they are heads of the same beast and not going to grant us our autonomy without a fight.
However, they are experts, of course, in exploiting our weaknesses, providing diversions, disempowering and demoralizing our people. Consequently, motivating our people to fight as a group, in our group interests, is problematic.
Bearing in mind that what is meant by “fight” in this post is not necessarily literal combat but all aspects of fighting for our interests..
On the topic of organizing the motivation* of our fighters then, we might refer to war historian, Prof., Sir Hew Strachan’s thoughts on the matter.
He observes that some motivations of fighters are not recognized because they are out of fashion and not cool to tell the public.
Of course a state sanctioned excuse for exercising blood-lust and revenge among the particularly violent is just a mask and direction of already existing motivation - which requires to be directed appropriately therefore. To gain cooperation from a balance of the population requires a normalizing if not ennobling of incentive/motivation.
Humanitarian concern - higher national ideals - booty.
Humanitarian concern is considered a legitimate public reason nowadays. And it can be one reason why fighters are legitimately motivated.
Higher national ideals can be and have been traditionally a reason why people fight - they still are, but it is not so cool to state as a motivation nowadays (largely as a result of vast over-compensations in that regard in the World Wars).
Booty is even more stigmatic nowadays to cite as your motivation. Yet, Strachan observes, this has been the primary reason for most fighting though the ages. He notes that this motivation initially became problematic and remains problematic as wars have emerged more often a liability than a profit - hence, no profit to be shared.
But particularly when the matter is taking back resources that are our co-evolutionary birthright, there might be reward to motivate and allocate to our peoples for fighting. Humanitarian concern would work there as well, as there are clear matters of inhumaneness to our peoples, injustice - justice to be had. While we work on the meta-national** narratives that GW advises as necessary inspiration..
The question becomes the formulation, the proportion and the content:
Humanitarianism, Nationalist Ideals and Booty
** GW would probably not approve of the word “meta” in this context but I used it deliberately, to make a point that meta-communication is neither wholly nor necessarily disconnected from the essential.
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 12:51 AM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, British Politics, Demographics, European culture, European Nationalism, Immigration and Politics, Military Matters, Popular Culture, Psychology, White Nationalism
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, December 31, 2014 at 07:19 AM in Activism, Awakenings, Business & Industry, Economics & Finance, Education, European culture, Homeschooling & Adult Education, Psychology, Science & Technology, Social Sciences, White Nationalism
Posted by DanielS on Monday, December 15, 2014 at 03:37 AM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, European culture, European Nationalism, Journalism, Linguistics, Media, Popular Culture, Psychology, Race realism, U.S. Politics, White Genocide: America
Jan The White Uniter has initiated a new website and will be talking to MR soon..
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, November 11, 2014 at 11:33 AM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Awakenings, Feminism, Health, History, Marxism & Culture War, Popular Culture, Psychology, Social Sciences
I’m waiting to hear or read what’s not to like about this guy. Though I reserve the right to change my mind, and admit that I am not disposed and have not been looking far and wide for what not to like about him, from what I have heard (some interviews and some text), so far he seems alright.
Greg Johnson criticizes him for wasting his time, but I don’t see where Ransdell has said that standard political channels were the only means that he would ever seek - and it is clearly only a strategy to get heard. Moreover, he is also explicit in not recommending or insisting upon this strategy for everyone and all places.
Ok, he is associated with VNN and Stormfront, inspired by Rockwell and to a lesser extent by Pierce; there may be (probably is) some guilt by association with them and other opinions on those discussion forums; but so far, from what I have heard, he himself has not said anything that I find objectionable. It would be interesting to hear what MR readers think.
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, October 16, 2014 at 09:38 PM in Activism, Media, Political analysis, Political Philosophy, Popular Culture, Psychology, That Question Again, U.S. Politics, White Nationalism
Posted by DanielS on Monday, September 1, 2014 at 10:19 PM in Activism, Anthropology, Anti-racism and white genocide, Art & Design, British Politics, Conservatism, Crusade against Discrimination in Britain, Demographics, Environmentalism & Global Warming, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, Globalisation, Immigration and Politics, Linguistics, Myth and modernity, Psychology
“Operations of thought are like cavalry charges in a battle — they are strictly limited in number, they require fresh horses, and must only be made at decisive moments.”
Am I really seeing this?
Before proceeding to disconcerting examples of media abuse and manipulation against us, let’s look at some background that Bill provided, of an England as it used to be:
“Yes. I’ve shown this before. Pity the music is not English but I still love it. Today its the BBC* (modernity) that gives us our culture so is it surprising we are what we are?” - Bill
There are other obvious examples from that time, notably -
And in the late 80’s, the dam bursting with
..which, btw, was shown continuously in Eastern Europe prior to the fall of communism.
However, there are examples of liberal envelope-pushing that are promoted not so much to cross the line (though they do) but to put it across as Taken For Granted.
Where these tactics are effective indeed, Whites can feel all the more alienated and foreign in their sense of righteous indignation, as no shared social, let alone institutionalized, response is forthcoming.
This is perhaps more of a pre-Internet phenomenon, when non-interaction with media provided little recourse to discuss the shock of this kind of assault on White interests.
Yet, as we have had these experiences, of seeing galling transgressions of White interests in media or in day-to-day interaction, it may help to know that you are not crazy: yes, you saw this and it is outrageous to an extreme. With that, these experiences acknowledged, it may be possible to redress not only these episodic instantiations, not only patterns, but lynchpins behind their occurrence.
Contributing to the feeling of “did I really see that?” is having these shocking experiences shrugged-off by others (Whites), either simultaneous to the occurrence or in the attempted report of it as an outrage.
I would encourage commentors to list a few of these experiences of “did I really see that? Could this be true?” (typically treated by others as if nothing, the fault is in you).
Posted by DanielS on Friday, August 1, 2014 at 03:29 AM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Awakenings, Crusade against Discrimination in Britain, Marxism & Culture War, Media, Popular Culture, Psychology
Am I really seeing that?
Posted by DanielS on Friday, August 1, 2014 at 03:27 AM in Activism, Art & Design, Awakenings, British Politics, Media, Popular Culture, Psychology, Social Conservatism, Social liberalism
Did I really see that?
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
Is liberalism in my European head?
...or in interaction with social influences such as media?
Posted by Guessedworker on May 05, 2014, 12:18 PM | #
“There is no psychological immune deficiency. MacDonald made a mistake. He is a psychologist, not a philosopher. He looked in the structure of the mind for what exists in its thought. Those who have internalised it and speak from it are not to blame for their suggestibility. But nothing useful can come of a mistaken beginning.”
Posted by Guessedworker on May 06, 2014, 02:27 AM | #
“Incidentally, how does this crazed universalism of the European Mind square with the evidence for implicit racism?”
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, May 7, 2014 at 03:37 AM in Activism, Anthropology, Anti-racism and white genocide, British Politics, Conservatism, European culture, Far Right, Feminism, Political analysis, Political Philosophy, Popular Culture, Psychology, Social Conservatism, Social liberalism, Social Sciences
John Shotter’s “Social Accountability and the Social Construction of ‘You”
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, January 14, 2014 at 09:15 AM in Activism, Awakenings, Education, European culture, European Nationalism, Free Speech, Political Philosophy, Popular Culture, Psychology, Science & Technology, Social Conservatism, Social liberalism, Social Sciences, The Ontology Project, White Nationalism
The most fundamental questions of who we are and how we might organize in our defense has a cogent, preliminary answer outlined by the Euro-DNA Nation
The very act of participating in the Euro-DNA Nation establishes a degree of merit to individuals as worthy members from the onset: This person is willing to undertake a minimal act in essential distinction of themselves and their group in flight or fight for the defense of European types.
There are additional qualities that need to be drawn-out by means of criteria other than genetics, of course. For example, Bowery might seek demonstrations of particular skills to confirm the type that he is looking for in his particular community. Lister would be correct to look for additional criteria beyond genetics and so on. These particular qualitative concerns are provided for in the Euro-DNA Nation as well.
We may hypothesize and verify that we do have a definition of White/European Nationalisms which can move easily in consensus, neither yielding to slobs or snobs.
Although there is some confusion over what constitutes White/European Nationalism by way of slobs and snobs, there is a de facto consensus that all people of indigenous European parentage, including Russians, are valid members. With that, there is a normal provision that the various kinds of Europeans ought to be able to maintain their distinct demographics and not have them blended away, not even with other European types. This normal provision protects against the slobs, those who cannot see the depth and importance of European differences from one another and in some of their slovenly cases, not even seeing difference from non-Europeans. It also protects against snobbish definitions of White, which would deny the overwhelming Europeanness or the value of some European kinds; in this case again, they are not seeing or acknowledging a difference that makes a difference from non-Europeans. Their concerns that some patterns among those others which are unlike theirs and not distinctly European might damage their kind if integrated, are alleviated by the human ecological accountability of the particular national and subnational bounds.
Thus, by maintaining national, regional and communal differences and values we may handle concerns of the snobs and the slobs. The snobs, those who do not really care for certain native Europeans, not recognizing them as a part of “us”, may be placated by the fact that borders with these groups that they do not particularly care for are maintained. They have the means to stem limitless blending away. Therefore, they do not need to throw these people overboard along with the non-Europeans. On the other hand, the slobs, people who have a tendency to be lax in recognizing the differences between Europeans or even worse, from non-Europeans, are, by the means of these national, regional and communal accountabilities, also prevented from going too far.
This framework allows for more and less pure alike, it maintains both genus and species of Europeans and thus provides a crucial basis that in theory might serve organizational grounds for our identity, its defense and expanse, even, into new territories.
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, January 4, 2014 at 07:47 PM in Activism, Anthropology, Demographics, Education, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, European Nationalism, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, Linguistics, Psychology, Social Sciences, The Ontology Project, White Nationalism
GW has expressed the constraint:
DanielS has expressed the constraint:
An approach offered by John Harland is to admit the historicity of Jesus in His essential mythic image as descendant of God evidenced in his own over-ruling of texts with direct bodily connection with God as Father, but to deny the historicity of the extant texts—deny them as yet another means by which dastards attempt to interpose themselves between the God-heritage of individuals and their Father, in spirit and flesh.
Ridicule of Harland’s own editing of the texts to suit his view may be conducted only at the sacrifice of the two constraints establishing the context of this presentation. Offer a superior approach if you don’t like Harland’s—either that or declare folly the entire effort to connect with the spiritual force of Christianity.
Click this link for a pdf document containing part of Harland’s account starting with “The Germans” (in the anthropological sense meaning what many identify as Celtic and Nordic pagans of the pre-Christian era), “The Catholic Church Promotes Judeo-Christianity”, “The First Breaking Apart of the Church Serpent” (regarding Henry VIII and Martin Luther), “A Further Break From the Serpent” (regarding the establishment of America), “The Strange Phenomenon of ‘Money-Mad’ Americans” (regarding the closing of the frontier and replacement of Nature and Nature’s God with money-based “culture”), “The American Dream” (the commodification, by conspirators, of the American spiritual renaissance), “The German Reich” (the parallel processes occurring in what became the nation state known as “Germany” during the 1800s leading up to WW I), “The World Picture After WW I” (the situation leading up to WW II) and the concluding section of this pdf document is “The Second World War”.
The entire book is “Word Controlled Humans” by John Harland, ISBN 0-914752-12-X available from Sovereign Press, 326 Harris Road, Rochester, WA 98579 (with which I have no business or personal relationship).
Posted by James Bowery on Wednesday, March 13, 2013 at 08:37 PM in Anthropology, Archeology, Books, Christianity, Conservatism, European culture, History, National Socialism, Political Philosophy, Psychology, Revisionism, Social Sciences, The Ontology Project, U.S. Politics
Another speech from the London Forum earlier this month - Mike Thwait, described as “perhaps the most promising rising British star of the Nationalist Cause”, on how we might use the mass psychology techniques that are used against us. Video in 4 parts.
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
The number of whites stands at 500 million. White women on average give birth to 1.4 children each. Not all of these children are white, and the number of white children born per white woman on average is 1.2. Very pessimistic assumptions, aren’t they?
Under the following assumptions, how long will it take to reduce the white population to 50 million, 10 million, 5 million and 1 million? If the extinction point is reached at 500 white people, how many years will this take? What can be inferred from this exercise?
At start, the age distributions are as follows, the birth and death rates remain constant throughout, only women between the ages of 20-40 give birth, and men and women are matched in numbers.
Age-Range | Percent | Death rate per 100k 0-20 | 20 | 300 20-40 | 40 | 150 40-60 | 25 | 500 60-plus | 15 | 5000
Most answers in this excel sheet (if you can’t open it, install the free and open source open office or libre office suite).
More or less all my “thinking life” I have wondered at the third component in that little phrase in the American Bill of Rights, “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” How, I asked myself, could serious people raise happiness (the pursuit of), a product of many factors and passing circumstances, most of them not within the gift of politicians, to the status of an existential absolute? If one needed an explanation of how we children of the liberal age, when given the choice of wealth or goodness, choose wealth, choose materialism, hedonism, nihilism, it is pretty much enshined in those four words.
To my mind, happiness as an abstracted and singularised human purpose leads away from itself. It does it by creating in the mind of the subject a cheap and cheapening, easily met standard for itself. For example, civic nationalists are satisfied with the lowest-hanging of political fruit - a few gestures in the direction of la patria, a flag, some symbols of military power, a bit of back-slapping with perfect strangers over some feigned shared value ... It means nothing. It is nothing compared to the sum at which the true nationalist prices the human meaning and worth found in the familial and in kind, in brotherhood, rootedness, belonging, trust, love, and the good of his people.
These are, in reality, the psychological essentials. But, politically, they belong to another universe, a nationalist universe too discreet for non-nationalists to penetrate. Even ones who are psychologists.
From a study published earlier this month in the Association of Psychological Science:
From Nature Neuroscience:
The study is interesting for two reasons. First, it is pleasing to see the emergence of gene studies into the racial phenotypes of individualism and collectivism. This, of course, is a live issue for us but as always much depends on its handling - which brings us to the second reason. The two lady researchers have linked causal pathogens to the pressures producing collectivism, which has the effect of rather neatly pathologising the individualism of Europeans as anxiety-ridden and presenting Asiatic indifference as calm!
The ladies concerned are:
Dr Joan Chiao, an assistant Professor of Psychology working in the Brain, Behaviour, Cognition and Social Psychology programmes. She is also affiliated with the Asian American Studies programme, among others;
Kate Blizinsky, a grad student interested in - wouldn’t you know it - the neurology of stress and well-being.
Speaking purely as a know-nothing racist white man, I find the dynamic opposites used in this study misleading from the European perspective. To my cavalier mind, the individualism of Europeans is not polarised in that evolutionary human way against the collectivism of East Asians, but against the Europeans’ own weak cooperative nature. We Europeans cannot and do not seek to collectivise, and lose ourselves therein. That is an affront to our nature. I strongly contend that if Europeans ever “slough off their anxiety” and so evolve away from individualism, it would not be towards indifference.
I am reminded from long ago of a couple of television programmes on military confrontations with East Asians, one being Slim’s campaign in Burma and the other the forced retreat from Gloucester Hill in Korea. What those two programmes left me with was the negligible (not to say pathological) value which, respectively, the Japanese and Chinese soldiers attached to life. In both programmes, the British ex-soldiers described them as vermin throwing themselves into the fire of the enemy. These were not men, for they did not behave in any way the Brits knew men to behave, and killing them was not difficult or a cause for regret.
We Europeans can cooperate on the basis of our natural values, but it takes a certain effort. It is not our default position. We definitely cannot “do” blind collectivism like the East Asians, and I don’t accept that the polar opposite to East Asian collectivism is our innate individualism. It might be something closer to the chaotic assertiveness endemic among Sub-Saharan Africans. Perhaps a third leg to Africa - ending no doubt in West Africa - would make the research more complete and enlightening. It certainly seems to me that more racial space and a greater degree of subtle thinking is required of anyone seeking to split this psychological log. But what we have in this study is a Chinese woman who probably doesn’t comprehend very much about us, and a Jew whose “interest” would, in some hands, lend itself well to the tribal delights of pathologisation.
So with that (perhaps unfair) caveat, here are the money quotes:
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