Majorityrights Central > Category: Social Conservatism

  “There is no such thing as society”

In that act of being mistaken, anyway - let’s leave a way out for people understandably reacting to the Jewish misrepresentation of the terms, “left” and “post modernity”.

Internal Relation and Emergence

You don’t have to take a position which places your people (praxis) as the central gauge. You can go on like a right wing fool for Jews and place a “quest for truth, facts and universal foundations” (and “inequality” even?) above all - even wreck your own people in that “noble quest;” but you’d be an unnecessary fool, a dupe for Jews and Jewish thinking in so doing. You don’t have to put our people at the center - but you can, as factual verification and reality checking are available in an instant if you are not dealing with reality; whereas the principles upholding our people took many centuries to create and are much more precious and difficult to reconstruct, if ever they can be. It isn’t necessary to place facts at the center - people are born of facts and if afforded correct principles, proper agency and accountability, our people will come to continually adjust their interests with the facts. Hence, the right’s whole arbitrary-making quest for facts and episodic verification at the expense of principled interest in our people is the height of folly.

Chasing mere facts and perfect verification away from “faith” in our people will tend to take them into runaway, beyond our people’s systemic interests - as opposed to taking the White post modern turn into its facilitation of the preservation and reconstruction of our people - where the facts are ensconced in the sufficiently deep emergent reality of our people’s systemic history to afford re-framing at their authentic place in relation to our human ecological system.

Right and Altright reactionary fan club - scavenging the wreckage of continued reaction.

The right, “alternative right”, those in their orbit, lay in wait as vultures for things like GW’s latest surprise: as I stepped aside from a discussion of British politics, he applied the theoretical wrecking ball again to “THE left” and “post modernity” at their behest (he isn’t so lame as to have to do it for himself); ill-prepared for the surprise in that context, I put up a threadbare defense against what I’ve come to see as a part of GW’s autobiography - “champion of the right, universal foundational unifier against the left’s class divisiveness.”

GW - working class hero who sees their classification as a critical problem of imposed nationalist division.

If you are coming here, like myself, chances are that you appreciate GW’s ability - you delight as he wields a scalpel on behalf of White/ethno-national sovereignty, more often a wrecking ball to the pretenses of academia and scholarship that are working against it.

We value this, want him to continue, want him to be satisfied with his part and his contributions. 

What follows here is going to show little appreciation for that, which is abundant and shows forth in spontaneity for the surfeit of his intelligence - often yielding indispensable flourishes and insights that I myself cherish. This piece is rather an ungrateful piece in that regard, given that he has stood by me as I set about chartering a new platform for Majorityrights; and I sent scurrying many who had deep appreciation and respect for him as well; but it is neither for myself nor “his own good” that I proceed not feeling particularly guilty about that - nor is the matter of face saving a pressing matter for either of us - the sake is proper theoretical grounds, which is always my central motivation. Still this will appear rather like a hit piece - as it takes aim, focuses on the clumsier props of GW’s worldview, philosophical underpinnings and aspirations - not on better sides and ideas, which will emerge cybernetically in balance of fact.

If you are coming here, you probably appreciate and identify with GW’s rogue path: as a completely disaffected outsider to the academic fray, he early on rejected the nonsense coming out of there, particularly from fields dealing with social issues. And you delight along with him as he continues to apply the wrecking ball to their cherished liberal ruses under cover of “The left”, their wish to open important borders and boundaries, to bring down individual merit, to drag others down into primitive individual and group failure - instinctively, you sense him taking down liberal bullies who are smug enough to insulate themselves from the consequences of the unsupportable concepts of social “justice” that they wield against those native White populations least responsible for others problems, most likely to suffer from liberalism and least likely to gain from the applications known as “The Left” - applications which can recognize just about any collective unionization of interests except one kind - White. Certainly a (((coincidence))).

Most people who’ve come here, myself included, have also experienced mystification over GW’s not being satisfied with that. You have been at least temporarily mystified as he evades into the arbitrary recesses ever available by the empirical philosophy that underpins modernity; and as he continually applies its wrecking ball, secure in the faith that it will leave in its wake only that which is fine and good; a wrecking ball summarily dismissing scholarship, conceptual tools and principles that others set forth to guide social action.

I have been stunned as he sends the wrecking ball my way as well, summarily dismissing even carefully culled and profoundly warranted philosophical ideas, eminently useful conceptual tools and important rhetorical positions that I have geared to his same White ethno-nationalist interests; while his modernist philosophy willy-nilly casts me into the role of the “lefty academic” foil in key moments.

I am no longer mystified by this.

A reactionary position is mostly retreating (evading) and attacking - whatever looks like an enemy or Trojan horse - but for its instability, it is susceptible to chase after the red cape.

An early contentious streak in the autobiography over-reinforced by circumstance, ability and admirers.

GW is wonderful, we love GW, but like the rest of us, he is not perfect. There is a residual strain of contentiousness in his autobiography that stems from his early disaffection and precocious disregard of liberal prescriptions coming from academia. It’s a part of his autobiography that he takes a great deal of pride-in. It is also socially confirmed enough so that he continues to chase its red cape known as “THE left;” and keeps applying the modernist wrecking ball to any concepts the tiniest bit speculative in circumscribing social interests; or adopting any terms also used by liberal “left” academics - even if used in different ways, he will understand it in THE left way that he is familiar with - and summarily dismiss it as such or apply the wrecking ball.

Unlike most people disaffected of liberal academia, he is not of the working class sort content to shake his fist at academic pomposity, to find solace in a beer and the pragmatism of his working class buddies, allowing the union misrepresentatives to negotiate his interest with their fellow liberals of academic background; nor is he content to join in with the White collar and middle class who typically denounce the worst of academic socialists as unrealistic, while they go along with the liberal anti racism of the academe, signaling their one-upness to the lower classes by denouncing as backward superstition whatever defensively racist discrimination they might even require.

He does share a few things in common with the typical middle class perspective however. Naturally, he has a bias toward viewing his success in positivist terms, as having come about from his gray matter and personal initiative, not because he derived any benefit from artificially imposed social bounds against competition and to circumscribe cooperation. 

Though he can relate to the working class “xenophobia”, he maintains that their maintenance of who they are among a collective “we” (i.e., particular native European nationals) and their choice of whom to intermarry with (same particular native European national) is something that should and can emerge naturally from their genetics - an identity that will emerge naturally, provided they do not have liberal, Fabian and Marxist ideas imposed upon them; the last thing GW wants is to impose another artifice upon them, one which he believes could divide them against their upwardly mobile English brethren, and in turn, divide the middle class even more against them. I.e., the “left” and “right” is normally taken as an economic divider and unifier of class, not a racial nationalist one as I am proposing. The middle class, as much as any, might be reluctant to ‘get it’ and not identify with a “White left,” in which case we would be back to the divisive issue, not the uniting issue that both GW and I seek - we may not agree on terminology but we do agree on native nationalism.

Thatcherite obectivism a means for personal advancement and foundational unification of nationalism.

In fact, GW is a native nationalist, deeply offended by the class system which has long hampered English unity. Thus, he is not content to disavow the worst of liberal and Marxist academics, writing-them-off as the idiots that they are, while leaving the working class to the fate that liberalism will bring to them, and, if left unabated, to all of us eventually. Like a few, more ambitious among us, he set about to get things right, to open a platform for White nationalists, even before it was quite the immanent practical necessity that it is now.

He aspires to identify the ontological connection between all English classes which, if unfettered by artificial constructs, would have them acting as native nationalists in loyal unanimity to their interests.

In that regard, Margaret Thatcher represented to him a liberating moment from the incredibly burdensome artifices of liberal, Fabian and Marxist Left union delimitations and by contrast an opportunity to unite as nationalists on natural positivist grounds.

Normal first reaction that doesn’t take Post Modern turn as it fails to see liberalism flying under left colors.

Indeed, most anybody of this ambition, myself included, who cares about our race and its ethnonational species, starts out in reaction to the absurd, contradictory and destructive liberal rhetoric coming out of academia and reaches to grab hold white knuckle to foundational truths, particularly scientific fact, which cannot be bamboozled by the rhetoric of liberal sophistry (which we later come to recognize as more often than not, Jewish in original motive). And we do grab hold white knuckle - that is to say, scientistically, in rigid over and misapplication of hardish science to the social realm, as we cannot trust the social realm, its rhetorical caprice if not deception - its ongoing disordering effects that apparently threaten to rupture social order anew with every agentive individual. Coming from a non-Jewish, Christian cultural perspective, where our bias starts, if not Jesus, we first liken ourselves to Plato and then modern scientists seeking to gird and found our place and our people’s place, whereas “they” are Pharisees and sophists, wielding the sheer rhetoric that we are going to debunk with our pure, native ability and motives. In a word, we are going to do science against their dishonest bias against us - they are indeed being deceptive and biased on behalf of unfair people; we see it as our objective to establish universal foundational truth that will be unassailable to this sophistry.

That is the normal first reaction of a White person who cares about themself and our people - it was mine and it was GW’s - a nascent White nationalist in response not only to the anti-White discourse coming out of the university, but in response to the very frame of the discourse - that is to say, taking on the frame [Jewish and liberal social stuff and lies versus White science and truth] - against accusations of privilege, racism and exploitation, we sought pure innocence in truth beyond social tumult and disingenuous rhetorical re framing. We (understandably) acted with absolute revulsion to anything like social concern and accountability - why should we be accountable to ever more alien imposition? - itself neither offering nor asking for an account sufficient to maintain our EGI - and where our people are eerily unconcerned or antagonistic to our people as well, we are only more compelled to take on the task ourselves - to pursue pure warrant. Our first reaction to the liberal chimera called “THE left” is: “I” noble servant of postulates - theorems - axioms - upon universal foundational truth.”

Beyond our people’s relative social interests even, we must save ourselves from the lies of “The left” (never minding that their first lie is that they represent our left) and found our moral/ontological basis where Jews, other tribalists and our selfish liberals, who only care about themselves, can never again manipulate it. We hold white knuckle, rigidly, in reaction to Jewish sophistry.

History will show that our people who pursued and secured sovereignty, health and well being found a philosophy advanced of that - competent and able to secure their social interests. They’d taken the White Post Modern turn from this reactionary position.

For reasons unfolding here, including reasons of his personal autobiography, GW has yet to appreciate and take the post modern turn.

Personal ability and interpersonal circumstances have facilitated his carrying-on in a typical first philosophical position of an amateur outsider in regard to academia - the epistemological blunder of “they are just sophists who provide nothing but nonsense while ‘I’ and my pure thoughts in relation to ‘theory’ am going to set the world aright” - an epistemological error in the relation of knower to known that is born in reaction and puerile hubris, carried on by being strong, smart enough to persist long after most people would shrink back from the signs of its limitations; going further uncorrected as it has been endorsed by “no enemies to the right” (a dubious principle, if there ever was one); it has grown into a surprisingly big and audacious ego wielded as a wrecking ball against “post modern philosophy.” We are supposed to rest assured on his faith that in the aftermath of wreckage, that the emergent qualities of his mind are all that is required besides the occasional foil to play off of in order to clarify and carry the modernist program forward to unshakeable, universal, foundational truth - unassailable to any social reconstruction. Never mind that we are already willing to agree upon most of the fundamental rules that he would seek - our agency is not necessary if it is going to suggest anything like planned social construction of systemic defense. No, that’s all impure stuff to be cast aside; and by contrast of true Platonic form, if you are freed from that ignorance and come to know the good he will secure, you will do that good.

He is not satisfied to simply negotiate, reason-things-out and reach an understanding among his people, he is not even particularly concerned that it won’t be a damn bit of good if people can’t understand his philosophical yield - he wants to secure that good on ontological foundations beyond praxis - beyond the capacity for manipulation. Most sophomores abandon this, their freshmen objective, as not only obsolete philosophy, but in fact, come to recognize it as destructive philosophy - a destruction which GW continues, with tremendous faith, without need of Aristotelian compass, that tremendous confidence to persevere where Wittgenstein failed.

The boomer generation - libertarianism and egocentrism.

The likes of Bowery and GW will be slower, if ever, to make the turn in direction, not because they are stupid, of course, quite to the contrary, but because they have the mental horsepower necessary to keep patching and operating the antiquated and obsolete technology that is modernity; and stem predilection both motivates them and enables them to do that; they are more self sufficient, less immediately reliant on the social (why carry others weight?); more confirmed by females by being reliable as such (concentrating on how to do things, not stepping on the toes of females by asking questions of social control - as long as you are at one end of the competition you are OK - liberal or the right wing end); confirmed by non academic workers in their more pragmatic concerns; and confirmed by right wingers in their penchant for anti-social theory beyond social manipulation - exactly, they are also slow to take the turn, of course, because they have an understandable lack of trust in liberal-social narratives; this unwillingness to suspend disbelief may be increased inasmuch as they have benefited as baby boomers, less harried for their identity in the parts of their life-span experienced prior to the culture of critique and in their personal initiatives after its reprieve - in Bowery’s case, with aspects of the objectivism behind Ron Paul’s libertarian “revolution”; and in GW’s case, during the Thatcher years (Thatcher’s initial backers having discovered her reading Wittgenstein’s cousin, Hayek, who obliviously carried forward upon the Tractatus) - years of brief, partial liberation from liberal-left union fetters - “there is no such thing as society” - in either case, a false friend facilitated as false opposition - viz., an expression of steered objectivism derived of Austrian schools beginning with Wittgenstein.

The title is a projection of objectivism. Subtitle: look who else is reading it.

What is confirmed to me - in a roundabout way, when GW dons his powdered wig, grabs a quill pen, does his best John Locke or whatever voice serves, and says oh, “that’s just Aristotle and his rhetoric,” “all of the good ideas are coming from the right”, “based in nature, none of this praxis stuff”, says that he “never loses an argument against academics”, etc., then continually re-applies radical skepticism of the empiricists and their forerunners - is that he is showing an ego driven and confirmed desire to carry-on the “pure” modernist project; viz., in his ontology project and his destruction of everything in its path, even treating Aristotle and William James as utter morons, GW is revealing a vain desire to do something all alone, like a combination of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico Philosphicus and Heidegger’s Being & Time: “The world is everything that is the case” meets “the worldhood of the world” - without the post modern implications of the latter. All that is required is the emergent qualities of his mind to set the world’s ontology aright - it will be “unassailable” by liberal, social, “left” rhetoric.

His reaction, confirmation and penchant for empirical verification against Jewish rhetoric has apparently caused him to disregard the post modern turn that was occuring also in Heidegger’s philosphy, albeit in Heidegger’s case, in that somewhat rigid, German way (which I find endearing).

GW appreciates Heidegger, so why does he not move forward from 1927 and why does he retreat to 1921 and the Tractatus? That he consders “OF being” the better starting point than Heidegger’s “There Being” provides a clue to ego centrism and Cartesian anxiiety - he not only proposes the reconstruction of the Cartesian starting point, “Of being”, but proposes it as an exclusive position, not even taking hermeneutc turns with Heidegger’s non-Cartesan starting point, “There being.”

“Unassailably” proclaiming that “The world is everything that is the case”

Whereas Wittgenstein himself was forced to yield-to, if not recognize the necessity of, the post modern turn - so much so that he was embarrassed by his effort at a complete ontology in The Tractatus Logico Philosophicus - having proclaimed its logic “unassailable” at once upon completion, he later repudiated it, even took to referring to its author as if a different person.

The Motivation for Post Modernity

Part of the craze for “post modernity” is that people (correctly) sense that modernity is destroying their differences, their traditions, their ways of life, their people and their very lives. And yet they frequently found traditional societies destructive as well. Therefore they were happy to have not only backing of cross cultural studies, vouching that different ways of life are valid, but also some confirmation from the very foundational math and science which modernity pursued to an apex that finally turned back on itself.

Kurt Gödel had demonstrated that a theory of any complexity could not be both complete and unambiguous.

Neils Bohr had priorly announced that there is no instrument fine enough to resolve the wave/particle distinction.

Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle elaborating from that was subtler still - that the observer is engaged in interaction and has reflexive effects upon that which he observes.

Confirmation of Aritstotle’s Praxis and suggestion that it should be the radical basis of assessment, not pure objective facts.

These findings confirmed Aristotle’s premises as set forth in Nichomachean Ethics - on the nature of Praxis - people are in reflexive relation, mostly requiring a degree of practical judgement as they are less predictable than the theoretical causality which the hard sciences pursue. It also would suggest placing praxis more in the center than theory - i.e., a socially based perspective where people are the arbiter, as opposed to “I think therefore I am” in relation to mere, indisputable facts and non-interactive third person behavioral units; a pursuit even outstripping the subject ultimately in favor of fixed theoretical facts - the Cartesian relation (pursued non-relation, as it were) of knower to known.

Vico was first to take the hermeneutic turn against Descartes, to bring ideas into historical context, the relation of knower to known into the social world of praxis

A relation knower to known other than the Cartesian model is required by modernity’s recognized failures and impervious destruction.

Those who care about people, who see the destruction of Descarte’s “relation” of knower to known, understand the wisdom of Aristotle, and realize that Vico -  Descartes’ first major critic - was in fact, proposing the taking of theoria into praxis: i.e., correctly placing people and praxis at the center of his world view. He was setting forth the historical, hermeneutic world view, the post modern world view. And, in turn, those who understand Heidegger will see that he was following in that same direction, which may be called “existential” and which is centered in praxis - the social world.

The White Post Modern turn is, of course, the best and most moral perspective for advocating people - Whites especially - Jews don’t want that and so they fool the uneducated masses and most of the educated masses as well by reinterpreting the terms by which people - viz., White people, might understand this - and they get them to react against didactic misrepresentation. That is, they are getting them to react in aversion to what is good and healthy in racial advocacy by having made it didactic in misrepresentation - e.g., the highly sensible Post Modern is presented as “dada” (whereas I have secured its sensible form in White Post Modernity).

Bowery and GW were impelled on, for the didacticism of the (((liberal-left - contradiction of terms))) and for the (((misrepresentation))) that was this false opposition and its false promise to liberate us from The left, among other reasons. Objectivism, the neoliberalism and libertarianism of the Austrian school of economics, Thatcherism, is merely a false opposition that (((they))) set up against “(((The Left))).” It is a product of late modernity, derived of the Vienna School of Logical Positivism, which in turn was derived of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico Philosophicus.

Again, that was Wittgenstein’s attempt to set-out a comprehensive and “unassailable” ontology - “The world is everything that is the case.” He would later say that the Tractatus was “not a very good book”, lest he be mistaken for one not recognizing that those who had taken the post modern turn had left this philosophical quest behind. Nevertheless, the Austrian school of logical positivism founded upon the Tractatus lived on through his cousin Hayek (who Thatcher was discovered dutifully reading); it was then taken up by von Mises et. al, who would conveniently and explicitly adopt this no-account modernist program against any one of subsequent generations who was the least bit reflective, who had any social complaints about how they and their people had been left without social capital after this generation of egocentric locusts devoured all social capital in their path. Waiting generations of right wing reactionaries, ensconced in their well protected Internet bubbles, were ready to look up to these libertarians for their lack of social concern, conveniently blaming the socially conscientious of prior generations for the problems - “The Left”, where not “hippies”, were the ones asleep at the wheel and leading us over a cliff, “but not the objectivists” and not (((The YKW))).

One-up intransigence of boomers meets generation Internet bubble for a right-wing cocktail, silencing socially conscientious voices between.

Because of GW’s unwillingness to trust anybody but himself, he takes recourse in the one aspect of the post modern turn where his first person account of all the world’s foundations might be claimed - emergentism. He has a problem, however, when I say that the world still interacts.  He has to take recourse to the absurdly arbitrary claim that “life doesn’t interact.”

Emergentism, in fact, is one of the key contributing factors to the post modern turn - it challenges the reductionism and fixedness of the modernist ontology project in an important sense - the emergent whole being greater than the sum of its parts means that significant referents are changeable in complex systems, thus qualifying Bowery’s criticism - “there is either a referent or there is not” - as this charge must yield to the fact that facts can be re-framed as they emerge physically, as they are designated by individuals and as they emerge in social consensus. And yes, what emerges still interacts in a myriad of ways.

Gen Xer’s were a bit late for the ride

“There is no such thing as society”

Their lack of faith in the social narratives as they are applied by YKW is understandable, the faith they show in the guiding principle of modernity to leave only what is fine and true in the wake of their wrecking ball is not. There comes a time to suspend disbelief. To draw a hypothetical boundary around our people is as good a time and place as any. “Wise men see lines and they draw them” - William Blake. And its not so hypothetical.

Perhaps because their boomer generation was early in line and they were intelligent enough to position themselves by means of objectivism for a deck chair on the higher end of a sinking Titanic, they can take some solace in writing-off those who might be going under first, if it does go down, as hazards of nature, having not acted “naturally” in EGI - Bowery in particular, being motivated by an affinity for the individuality of northern Europeans, abandoned ship (MR, anyway) when Dr. Lister and I began raising criticisms of “individualism über alles” and raising social concerns against that.

In fact, for this reason, Bowery issued an ultimatum (“either him or Lister”) which defaulted to Graham’s more social side, upon which Bowery expressed his “revulsion” for Majorityrights.

READ MORE...

Abraham Anon

Kumiko was telling me about her disgust with Hillary and the YKW’s wars, citing an egregious collateral damage to schools and education: this will obstruct solutions to the root of social problems and exacerbate social problems from the root as the schools and formative educational years of vast demographics are being destroyed. She is enraged by the damage this will do to personal and social skills. She asks what can be done?

I suggest a new variant of the 12 step meetings. Why? Because when people have been that damaged and obstructed by an interpersonal problem - such as Islamic abuse - it will be primarily these people who have sufficient understanding; they will have sufficient concern; it will be a necessity for them to take the time and show patience; to articulate the difficulties in full significance of the impact to them and society; and to search for solutions.

People who have not gone through this will generally not have sufficient understanding of the difficulties of getting through it, even if they did have inclination and take time from their faster track to a good life to put up with the wild and frustrating expressions that result from traumatic experiences and pervasive abuse.

The “victims” themselves will carry most of the load - by “sharing their hope, strength and inspiration” indispensable coping skills will find their way among them. But that doesn’t mean that people coming from a background undergirded by normal philosophy and interpersonal relations shouldn’t interact with them; in fact, that is one of the first differences I would make from the 12 Step programs - to have intermittent interaction from people from healthy backgrounds so that they can model normalcy for them and share normal skills. To make sure that bad thinking doesn’t keep circulating and gets directed out before long.

So, there could be Visitors Meetings and Skilled Workshop Meetings to go along with the usual kinds of 12 Step meetings -

Speaker Meetings, in which one person tells the story of their struggle with the problem.

Step Meetings, in which one of the Steps is focused-on, with each person in the group having a chance to discuss their take and experience with that step.

The next change that I would propose is putting into question whether 12 should be the number of steps; of course it has pagan origin and has been hijacked by Abrahamism, but perhaps another number should be proposed to make the break more clear.

Of course the content of the steps should be significantly different as well. I will only sketch-in what they might look like. Suggestions from others are more than welcome.

One of the excellent features of the 12 step program idea is that one is not excluded for lacking skills or for not contributing dues. All that is required is a belief that you have a problem with the stated issue of the meeting group and that you comply with a few of its basic guidelines. There are no leaders. You agree to not expose the identity of those who go to meetings and to not gossip about them to people outside the group. You agree enough with the 12 steps (rather, we’ll go with 14 steps, why not?) to allow them to provide coherence; and, except for speaker meetings, you allow a chance for each person who wants to talk.

Ok. There are probably some things that I’m forgetting but that’s enough to start. Let me have a stab at how the steps might read:

The 14 Steps of Abraham-Anon

1. Came to understand that I had a problem with Abrahamism and that I could not handle it alone.

2. Came to identify positive attributes of my distinct race and my share in these positive attributes. Affirmed these daily to provide faith in mine and my people’s worth as opposed to the Abrahamic god.

3. Conducted a fearless and searching personal inventory in order to purge its memes which may harm myself, my people, and in order to make amends to anyone who I have harmed in the name of Abrahamism or because I was inappropriately directing my response to it.

4. Came to understand the truth of how harmful Abrahamism is.

5. Came to understand Abrahamism is not a necessary evil nor a relative cultural preference; there are other “gods” and better ways.

6. Came to understand that its practice and promotion must be rejected by our people.

7. Came to understand that its perpetrators can and must be punished - ranging from denunciation, to social ostracism, to denationalization, to severe personal punishment in some cases.

8. Came to believe in the priceless gift of serenity to be found in the faith that my race, my place within it, and our interests are being looked after by the best and greater part of my people; by myself included.

9. Came to believe not only in the reality of distinct kinds of people, but also their right to preserve their differences.

10. Came to believe in the DNA Nation and international ethno-nationalism (genetic and territorial bounds); as the means to such maintenance of distinct peoples; their quantities and qualities of genetic inventory; their habitats through national territorial delimitations; qualitative and quantitative foreign enclave delimitations.

11. Came to believe that the Abrahamic religion and the Abrahamic man is already an imperialist hybrid and therefore his fate and place is the subject of our discretion.

12. Came to believe that Abrahamism can and should be destroyed once and for all.

13. Came to believe facilitating that destruction to be our prerogative as the people who are willing and capable of respecting racial differences, their right to be preserved in ethno-states, among the DNA Nation; and knowing that there is no avoiding the issue of morals - that every society will have some things that are legitimate, some things prohibited and some things obligated - will seek moral orders based on the Silver Rule as opposed to The Golden Rule.

14. Came to understand that the homeostasis of our ethnostates are contingent upon having the decency and wisdom to respect an option for sacred and devotional enclaves for those preferring strict monogamy (e.g., they want to choose carefully enough, devote themselves to that important choice; and/or concentrate on their endeavors otherwise, not chasing around for partners); and that those wanting to protect more liberal personal prerogatives must assent to that sacrosanct option and to strict national borders of citizenship -  paradigmatic conservatism.

          The Sermon on The Mount Ensconces The Golden Rule of Altruism

Majorityrights prefers to deal with verifiable reality as opposed to speculative theory and faith based systems of rules as we look after the interests of our people. We are looking after genetic groupings and genetic interests as key criteria, even if these are not the only important verifiable criteria to keep track of our peoplehood and that of others. Rationale and rule structures are another criteria for that purpose.

While existence is of course equiprimordial to genetic interests, to secure it for any span and legacy requires rationale and varying degrees of sophistication to negotiate complex rule structures of interaction. “Rules” (1) are the term of common currency that we will use for the logics of meaning and action that people use to negotiate interaction and these complex, protracted exchanges beyond episode, close personal relationships in yield to maturity of their full social system; and its relation to other social systems.

For those of us who are coming from this kind of perspective, where we perceive ourselves as rationally and empirically grounded, it is difficult to understand someone like pastor David Blackburn, his love of Jesus that would have him not only forgive, but want to share his love of Jesus with the men who raped and murdered his wife and unborn child; but to my knowledge, he is at least not hoping to get them released from prison.

It is even more difficult to understand European peoples allowing, even welcoming foreign incursions into The U.K., Sweden, France and Germany - it is difficult to fathom the mindset of a Merkel, who would destroy our European peoples in service to non-Europeans. But there is one rule, convoluted rule, that they have in common and makes their position intelligible to us despite their apparent irrationality.

The Golden Rule is a part of the Sermon on the Mount, which is a central text in the Christian faith. It states: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. There are similar instructions in many other cultures.

Despite receiving high respect and wide popularity, the rule raises critical questions. What is the recommendation more exactly, and is it good advice?

This post will prepare a discussion of the work of Jan Tullberg - viz., the difference between the golden rule of benevolence as opposed to the silver rule of reciprocity - as it applies to assist in the reconstruction of a necessary consensus of moral rules among European peoples and for coordinating our relations to others.
____________

There is a consensus among advocates of European peoples that in essence we seek to secure the existence of our people. There is much dispute over how that is to be done…

READ MORE...

Huge anti-Trump protest by Mexican advocates at Costa Mesa, California

Bobby civic Knight endorses Trump: What the cuck?

Cuckservative and famous college basketball coach, Bobby Knight, is a typical Republican and a typical Trump supporter - i.e., a no-nonsense, civic “real man”, one who would unite black and White in civic patriotism - a consummate disaster for EGI. However, there is hope in the kind of racial strife that might come about and be exploited of Trump’s ascendancy.

One of the best litmus tests as to whether or not you are being too liberal, too promiscuous with regard to sex, is whether or not you need to use a condom. If you don’t know someone well enough to be sure that you are not going to get a disease or have an unwanted pregnancy, then maybe you ought to get to know them better before having sex with them. If you really like someone and if they are really worth it, you are not likely to have to use condoms at all. And would you really like to use them?

Subtitle: don’t forget to forget your condom. A.I.D.S. is a most beautiful disease, generally targeting people who deserve to die for their bullying, irresponsible, reckless treatment of sex.

Particularly when the bounds of EGI are unguarded, the need to treat sex carefully, as an act which can endorse or undermine our EGI, becomes all the more important. Sex will be used by our enemies in psy-ops, such as the profusion of interracial porn. It will be used by our enemies to promote liberal politics, empower those horribly destructive to our interests and to dis-empower those thoughtful of our interests - those concerned with our people in our broad pattern. It will be used by our antagonists to outbreed our race, including outbreeding some of our most qualitatively differentiated genetic capital. As de facto safeguards of liberalism, they have their go-to “moral arguments” to distract us from the moral re-ordering of our people.

After marriage, the condom is taken by liberalism as one of its lines of defense. Don’t be fooled, there’s no substitute for the White class and its bounds. This holds the freedom in sacrament and in celebration that gives our people life and health as opposed to destruction.

There can be a time to be Dionysian, promiscuous for some who choose to be - i.e., among our own people - but that time is when the borders of our EGI are secured and members accounted for. Until then, good riddance to those who treat our genetic treasures irresponsibly; it couldn’t happen to worse, more deserving people of a miserable fate.

Don’t you just feel so sorry for her…

Always remember, er, forget your condom. If you think that you have to use one, you’d better get to know who you are screwing around with a little better - maybe a lot better.

Daily Beast, ‘Porn World in Panic Over Charlie Sheen’s HIV Diagnosis’, Nov 20, 2015:

‘There is so much fear right now amongst the girls…’

Well-known for his porn star companions, Charlie Sheen’s recent admission to being HIV-positive has sent a ripple of fear through the adult industry. There’s no protocol in place for this. There are no records of who Sheen’s hired, thus no quarantine list for the porn stars he’s been sexually active with.

In the semi-regulated world of adult film, when an HIV scare is made known everyone asks, “Did I perform with the person who tested positive?” Fear turns to panic if it was a close call, relief if it wasn’t. That’s only after a name is released—or patient zero comes forward. Production shuts down, quarantine lists are drawn up for first generation, second, third, and so on. An ideal “who’s performed with whom” list chronicling before and after known exposure is made available. Some call this “the honor system.”

Unfortunately, those outside the business don’t always play by the industry’s self-regulated rules. Needless to say, former Two and a Half Men actor Charlie Sheen plays by his own rules.

“There is so much fear right now amongst the girls…like who have I had sex with that has had sex with them, or have I had sex with a girl who has had sex with Charlie?” says Alana Evans, 2015 AVN Hall of Fame recipient. “Maybe we can get Charlie to put together a list of all the porno girls he’s had sex with so the rest of us can make sure we’re okay? That’d be great.”

In case you missed it, Sheen admitted on the Today Show that he was HIV-positive, and has known of his diagnosis for four years. He also alleged “all sexual partners have known” about his condition with “no exception.”

While some are applauding Sheen for his bravery in coming forward, there’s speculation amongst industry insiders as to why now? Some credit the 27-year-old blonde who spoke anonymously to the Daily Mail with forcing Sheen’s hand. She estimates the A-lister had sex with at least 50 porn stars since his diagnosis and “fears the porn industry could face an ‘HIV epidemic’ as a result.”

‘There is so much fear right now amongst the girls…’

Sheen’s latest role as victim is a bit hard to swallow. He paints a vivid portrait of his suffering at the mercy of his addictions, depression, and multi-million dollar extortions from ex-lovers. Even so, that his two ex-goddesses are contradicting his story raises questions concerning his credibility.

Ex-goddess Bree Olson, who dated and lived with Sheen for seven months in 2011, appeared on The Howard Stern Show to claim she had no idea about her ex’s condition, and claimed she learned about his HIV-positive status “right along with everyone else.”

“He never said anything to me,” Olson added. “I was his girlfriend. I lived with him. We were together. We had sex almost every day for a year—with lambskin condoms.”

Now lambskin condoms—incredibly thin condoms are billed as providing the closest thing to not using condoms at all—only guard against pregnancy and do not prevent the transmission of HIV. Olson told Stern that while she wanted to use standard Trojan condoms, lambskin was Sheen’s condom of choice.

While Olson tested negative for HIV, in Sheen’s home state of California it’s a felony punishable by up to eight years in prison for a person with HIV to have unprotected sex with the intent to infect someone who’s unaware of their status. Though that is incredibly hard to prove in criminal court, California also has a misdemeanor charge carrying up to six months in prison for willfully exposing others to HIV.

No thoughtful person makes AIDS prevention a cause.

Of the hundreds, or thousands, of women who made themselves available to Magic Johnson, he said: “I tried to accommodate as many as possible. Some of them were unbelievable.”

This liberalism, this irresponsibility to our EGI, is not what we’re here to defend. With unspeakable irresponsibility and selfish uncaring (to say the least), they bring into the world behavior and genetics destructive to any reflective people - especially our European people.

Africa is one of the only places where AIDS is on the rise. That is good. Their population needs to be drastically reduced and its increase, let alone interbeeding with others, needs to be thwarted.

Magic, er, E.T. says, “Remember to not use a condom. AIDS is a beautiful thing.” It kills those irresponsible and reckless with our EGI.

Because not all merit defense, we need an order to secure those who do. 14

Magic Johnson, crying Trojan proponent

“No glove no love”, so the motto of condom proponents goes - a condom being referred to as a “glove”, in their liberal slang.

With Charlie Sheen “preferring lambskin condoms”, in particular, an older slogan comes to mind as particularly apt to capture the refrain of those who would contest the facilitation of liberalism - they are treating those who engage in reckless and socially destructive behavior “with kid gloves” - that is to say, they are protecting them too much and therefore enabling bad behavior in the long term.

Handle with kid gloves

Meaning

Handle a situation, or a person or an object, delicately and gingerly.

Origin

Kid gloves are, of course, gloves made from the skin of a young goat. I say ‘of course’ but, in fact, when they were first fashioned in the 18th century they were more often made from lambskin, as that was easier to come by. They were clearly not intended for use when you were pruning the hedge and wearing kid gloves was the sartorial equivalent of pale white skin, that is, it indicated that the wearer was rich enough to indulge in a life of genteel indoor idleness. The earliest mentions of kid gloves are from England in the 1730s and the following is a typical report of a wealthy gentleman, laid out in his ‘Sunday best’, from Bagnall’s News, in The Ipswich Journal, December 1734:

The Corpse of Mr. Thorp, A Distiller in Soho, who died a few Days since, said to be worth £10000 was put into his Coffin, quilted within with white Sattin; and after several yards of fine Holland [best-quality linen] were wrapt about his Body… on his Head was a Cap of the same Holland tied with a white Ribbond; he has about his Neck two Yards of Cambrick; a Cambrick Handkerchief between his Hands, on which he had a pair of white Kid Gloves: and in this manner he lay in state some Days and was afterwards buried in Buckinghamshire.

At that time, kid gloves were viewed as rather ostentatious and only suitable for the nouveau riche - much as heavy gold chains might be viewed today.

* Originally posted 20 Nov 2015 as a news item, the subject matter merits evergreen consideration and is therefore being re-posted here.

READ MORE...

We have a great deal of respect for the work of Professor Kevin MacDonald and Dr. Tomislav Sunic here at Majorityrights.

However, the historical analyses and social criticisms of capable academics do not necessarily extend to sober prescriptions with regard to political requirements at hand and that is a fact unfortunately in evidence by their AFP’s proposed Cabinet for a Trump Presidency.

While most people recognize that a White Nationalist political party putting-forth a platform and candidates is not likely to have a great deal of success at this point in history, what can be expected is that they use the platform to get an articulate message out, one that well represents European/White peoples. However, with the Cabinet that The American Freedom Party proposes for a Trump Presidency, they undermine not only that nominal value of running for mainstream political office, but the very credibility that they could have lent as exponents of White interests.

Nevertheless, the substantive issues to be dealt with are too important and therefore I want to avoid alienating people who should be on our side by proceeding to simply flout the ill-conceived offerings of some of White Nationalism’s leading proponents; I will therefore spread blame around since its blunder is in truth most likely to be a joint effort.

Instead of focusing on any individual with their pants down, I want to look at a situation where the distortions of momentary euphoria and surprising cooperation have fueled the nostalgia and desperate larping of old timers, who should know better than to allow the insufficiently experienced to cast a net on their behalf all too wide in search of popularity - a big, big tent approach, or a tentsophere all too grand, for a more apt metaphor. I will venture this hypothesis as to the psychology behind this offering, more specifically, the apparent psychology of the positions of those who appear to be behind it. My guess (hypothesis) is as follows:

With the euphoria of the realization that their Internet radio programs are gaining wide audience and the fact that they were able to come together and to some extent combine their disparate audiences for a radio show at each other’s networks (here and here), James Edwards and Lana Lokteff were able to influence a desperate lot of right-wing WN with the idea that they’ve got White representation figured-out and that they can bridge the differences between various right-wing positions in negotiation of the tentosphere.

What Lana and James do not understand is that they are afforded the opportunity by our enemies to do their thing for significant negative reasons - they are right-wingers who the Jews and liberals can count on to take people into easily controlled positions where not into positions so stigmatic and idiotic as to turn-off intelligent and capable people who might otherwise join our side.

Along with their effusive self congratulations, James Edwards and the Political Cesspool do a great job of repelling and/or stigmatizing WN from their first and foremost position as Jesus freaks. Despite that significant drawback, Keith Alexander is an intelligent man and is the brains behind the outfit. James is ordinary at best. However, he’s gotten so caught-up in the enthusiasm of his show’s WN popularity and the fact that despite being a Jesus freak, he has been able to combine efforts with another show taking-off in WN popularity - Red Ice - despite its espoused paganism and its position that Christianity is destructive to European interests. They are both intoxicated by the possibility of pooling their audiences and James even goes so far as to refer to the anti-Christian, Lana, as “a great mind.”

In addition to larpish paganism, Lana, Red Ice, Radio 3-14, etc, traffics in idiotic conspiracy theories and Hitler/Reich resurrection - Red Ice will not for long suffer anybody who denounces Nazi Germany, doesn’t think their objectives were perfectly conceived and entirely legitimate, who thinks Operation Reinhardt was a fact, etc. Where pandering to Reich nostalgia does not gain audience, they are all too happy to gain audience through a litany of conspiracy theorists too boring, too tediously absurd and too many to enumerate.

Enter the right-wing old timers and academics who are getting desperate - so desperate that when they see the kind of broad audience that these right-wing kids on the block are having, they want to believe it represents rigorous truth - after all, they are objectivists, they have the numbers, therefore what they are saying and doing must be good and true.

What then would James Edwards say? He’s having success. He’s a board member of The American Freedom Party. He has the approval of that Yankee PrOfessor MacDonald. He can represent wholesome 1950’s Christian America. He thinks Pat Buchanan is fine and good ..“unnecessary wars”, the “revisionists” have it figured-out and all that bit.

James is getting real politically sophisticated too now. A regular pragmatist. He is even willing to reach-out into the big tentosphere and pool his efforts with the pagan/Hitler network, Red Ice.

Lets get swept-up with his enthusiasm and even larp a cabinet for President Trump. Oh, my, the right-wing: alt-right and tentosphere.

With the enthusiasm of this discovered magnanimity, he might try out his candidacy for “Press Secretary” of President Trump’s Cabinet.

But even so, being the humble guy that he is, he will ask the counsel of his wise elders.

The counsel has a key new member - his imagination. And a central orientation to this new imagination is to project what he figures would please Lana Laktoff’s audience to round-out the tentosphere’s base - to make-up a cabinet that Donald Trump couldn’t possibly lose with.

He’s not fooling around here and as sure as “there is not a wasted word in the bible” and the ways of its elders hold the truth, he would never be so foolish as to place all hope in Lana’s non-Christian audience. He’ll also take into advice, real or imagined, those he and his close cohorts have more common rapport with:

James and Lana have inspired the counsel of Daniel Johnson, Keith Alexander, MacDonald, Sunic, Jared Taylor, Paul Gottfried…and ?

The result is this American Freedom Party “proposal of a Cabinet for Donald Trump.”

I want to be kind. It does not make me happy to be critical or to cause humiliation, if it does. However, one of the crucial services that MR ventures to perform is to look after the correct theoretical - translate metapolitical - underpinnings of European representation.

Therefore, we will not treat this as it might seem at first blush - like a prank by our enemies - and will instead examine this list presented by American Freedom Party members. It is apparent that older members of pre-Internet, ivory tower insulated or business compromised positions have gotten swept-up in the enthusiasm of the Political Cesspool’s and Red Ice’s popularity, dubious though it, and the judgment behind it, may be. We will look at how the people in these proposed Cabinet positions would not well represent White/European peoples.

The bizarre eclecticism of this proposed Cabinet is an expression of - “tentosphere” prosthesis - its social organizational ineptitude:

American Freedom Party
2753 Broadway, Suite 245
New York, NY 10025
www.theamericanfreedomparty.us

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

March 28, 2016

Re: The Board of Directors of the AFP Offer a Proposed Trump Cabinet

The current policies of the federal government have resulted in considerable dispossession of America’s founding stock.  Indeed, its awkwardly promoted policies of “diversity” are in reality tantamount to the physical removal of Americans of European extraction.  At long last, we have in the candidacy of Donald Trump a possible bulkhead against the forces that are destroying the peoples of European extraction worldwide.  We believe, therefore, that it is necessary for Donald Trump to choose his “Ambassadors, Public Ministers and Councils” with great deliberation while keeping in mind that, as president, he represents all U.S. citizens, including large segments of dispossessed white Americans. The present proposal is only a suggestion and an opinion of ours, which in no way implies that we are requesting Donald Trump’s agreement or endorsement of the American Freedom Party.  We would like to point out, however, that a significant number of American citizens of European extraction, often summarily labeled in the media as “White nationalists,” are firm Donald Trump’s supporters. 

In this wise, the American Freedom Party proposed to Donald Trump and the American people the following persons for his Administration’s key posts:

Vice President:  Gov. Chris Christie.  Governor Christie possesses the experience and temperament to balance a Trump Ticket. 

Secretary of State: Sen. Jeff Sessions.  Secretary of State is such an important position in a Trump administration that President Trump should pick someone whom he can rely on totally.  This person is Senator Sessions. 

Secretary of Treasury: Sen. Rand Paul.  Senator Paul’s father, Rep. Ron Paul, would be a better choice for this position, but due to the senior Paul’s age, we feel that Senator Paul would handle this difficult assignment admirably—primarily because of father’s teachings and influence.

Attorney General: Congressman Trey Gowdy.  Congressman Gowdy has been a U.S. prosecutor and is a Tea Party member.  He would be a good, solid choice for Attorney General.

Secretary of Defense:  Newt Gingrich. Mr. Gingrich informally advised Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and hopefully has learned that foreign entanglements are bad for America.

Secretary of Homeland Security: Ann Coulter. Ms. Coulter will do what needs doing and she will give proper direction and coordination with the Secretary of Agriculture to achieve administration goals.

Secretary of Labor:  Oregon Governor Kate Brown.  In keeping with Donald Trump’s populist underpinnings, Oregon Governor Kate Brown would be a good choice.  She is a proven champion of a living wage.

Secretary of Health and Human Services: Prof. Kevin B. MacDonald.  Professor MacDonald is renowned worldwide as professor of Psychology at California State University, Long Beach (emeritus).  He has written numerous scholarly works and is the leading White advocate and scholar.

Secretary of Transportation: Elon Musk.  Mr. Musk is such a leading figure in industry, engineering and transportation (both on earth and in space) that every president should seek his advice and service. 

Secretary of Energy: Senator John Thune. Senator Thune is a great choice for Energy Tsar because of his leading role in the senate in formulating energy policy.  Also, because of his polished demeanor, his very presence commands respect.

FBI Director:  Former Congressman Virgil Goode. Virgil Goode is an excellent choice for FBI director because he was a member of the Liberty Caucus, a libertarian-leaning congressional group and while he has strong, white-nationalist leanings, he will protect the individual liberties of all Americans—something that has been missing in past FBI directors.

Secretary of Veterans Affairs: General Jack Keane. General Keane is a four-star general and recipient of the Legion of Merit.

Secretary of Agriculture: William Daniel Johnson. Mr. Johnson is Chairman of the American Freedom Party. He is a farmer and a white nationalist. This cabinet post is extremely important because it handles food stamps and WIC (women, infant and children) food subsidies. These programs will be powerful tools to achieve repatriation of 30+ million illegal aliens in America.

United States Trade Representative: Senator Bernie Sanders. Senator Sanders is for protective tariffs. He would be a good choice to move America away from the job-killing trade approach of the last thirty years.

United Nations Ambassador: Jared Taylor. A clear choice for UN Ambassador is the urbane and intellectual Jared Taylor, founder of American Renaissance, the leading white advocate educational organization.

EPA Director:  Jill Stein. Jill Stein is (and has been) the Green Party’s presidential candidate.  She would do an admirable job in protecting our environment for generations to come.

OMB Director:  Former Governor Gary Johnson. Libertarian presidential candidate and former governor of New Mexico, Gov. Johnson has an outstanding record of spending reduction against a spendthrift state government. As Director of the Office of Management and Budget, he will keep executive spending in check.

Surgeon General: Dr. Ben Carson.  Dr. Carson endorsed Donald Trump early on.  This position would be good for both Dr. Carson and the nation.

Press Secretary:  James Edwards.  James Edwards is the host of “the Political Cesspool” radio show, a pro-white radio show.  He has been a leading figure in the media fight to stop the genocide of the white race.  President Trump could do no better than James Edwards in this position.

Poet Laurate: Michael Derrick Hudson.  Not only is Mr. Hudson an accomplished poet, he courageously exposed the anti-white bias in today’s poetry publishing world.

Chief of Staff:  Former Governor Sarah Palin.  (Last listed, but first in importance.)  Gov. Palin’s most demanding task will be in the dismantling of the below agencies.

Cabinet positions and Agencies to be Eliminated:  We propose that the Trump Administration eliminate the following Agencies and their cabinet posts. 
Secretary of Interior
Secretary of Commerce
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
Secretary of Education

Very truly yours,
Tom Sunic, Ph.D
AFP Director in Charge

Contact:  Tom Sunic, Ph.D, Director
Cellular 00385 91 1722 783 (Zagreb, Croatia)
or (213) 621-3000
Fax: (213) 621-2900
Email: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

“Third Worlders”, “Non-Whites”,  “Asians”... There are DIFFERENCES THAT MAKE A DIFFERENCE

                      “Third World immigration is the real culprit” - TNO

               
                tari-huli images from this site.

               
               
                Photo: Dabiq/Corbis

  Observe the DIFFERENCES, they are NOT TOO COMPLICATED TO DISCERN
               
                   

Since I am paying more attention to things Asian as a result of Kumiko’s participation here, a couple of videos and a composition of Facebook comments relevant and illustrative of issues that I have been discussing have come to my attention.

Asian illustrations of..

1. Advised social confirmation and elevation: of the value of ordinary routine practices; in this case, participation in social routine.

3. A composition of fake tweets: attributed to Americans apparently mocking the atomic bombing of Japan:
Captioned “stay ‘classy’ America” - the fraud and motive to create a division between Whites and East Asians is traceable to Jewish motives.

Coming to these examples throwing light on racial accountability from Asia, one at a time -

1. Advised celebration of ordinary routine:

Kumiko likes Korean and Japanese pop music videos and she showed me this Japanese one.

Participation in..

..routine social service..

If WN can show bearance upon what might otherwise be construed as an appeal to yellow fever by the presentation of this video, there is actually bearing upon an important point that I made in my article about “the dark side of self actualization” and how to otherwise moderate and optimize actualization.

That is to say, one thing that needs to happen in our re-socialization of actualization is for the value of individual self actualization to become part of a rotating and optimizing process of attention, to where it does not always and statically occupy the top of a hierarchy. That over-emphasis has, of course, destabilized and lent to the rupture of our racial/social systemic homeostasis. The inference I’ve made is that one of the aspects of actualization that needs to be constructed, elevated in importance and encouraged to enjoy is not only a sufficient amount of routine but also routine cooperative social participation in our tried and true practices and procedures. That will not only allow us to learn and develop skills from our forebears, to cultivate them, but it is also necessary to create a platform for elaboration and innovation; i.e., it is prerequisite and socially as important as actualization.

This video shows a song and dance of girls in Japanese postal service uniforms. The point that I am trying to make is that celebrative or otherwise reverential treatment like this, of the ordinary and social routine, might help to emphasize sufficient sufficience, so to speak, in enjoyment of necessary but ordinary social routines, unions, trade guilds, syndicates and with it, an elevation of appreciation of ordinary necessity so that it is not dwarfed nor its vital necessity discouraged by singular social appreciation and veneration of the extraordinary and the sacred.

I hypothesize this elevating celebration of routine (in this case social) practices as one side of the necessary elevation of the social esteem of routine; another side of “routine” elevation would be ceremony and sacral treatment of exemplary practices.

2. Bad parenting advice: The oriental woman in this video was adopted by Swedish parents and brought-up with that idea that she is “simply Swedish, the same as any other Swede”, by proposition.

If she were taught that she was an adopted girl of Korean descent, who was and should be welcomed as counting of a manageable, benign but accountable enclave of Swedish nationals, she would have an efficient enough explanation at her disposal to discharge most conflict on the issue.

By contrast, there is insufficient accountability in insistence upon her parents well meaning but bad advice - simply asserting that she is Swedish just like all other Swedes.

She sets herself up for abuse

Adopted by Swedish parents and growing up in Sweden, she responds to the question from a Swedish man, “where are you from?” that she is “from Sweden.” The man responds in turn, “no, where are you really from?”

She takes this as an example of “racism” and tries to correct the man in the motive she perceives of his question, answering that she is “Swedish just like every other Swedish national” - as her parents taught her.

However, I’d guess that the man’s question was not “racist” in a negative sense. Yes, it was racial in the sense that he was trying to get an accurate sense of how to classify her, but why? Because he thought negatively of her and of her being in Sweden? Probably not.

He was quite possibly asking her for one or all of the following three reasons:

a) He found her attractive and wanted to know where her sort was from for future and general reference.

b) He found her attractive and saw the question as an opportunity for an ice breaker.

c) If she answered, “Korea”, chances are that he would enjoy showing his good-will toward her, by confirming her honest account and her people as really OK, and that as a part of a reasonable and accountable number of her kind of immigration, take occasion to show support for her participation with Sweden.

That is to say, what the man was doing was “racism” by definition in the sense that he was attempting to classify people genetically (not doing the mere liberal thing of pretending to be blind to racial classifications but judging people instead by propositions), but it was, in all likelihood, a benign kind of classifying, motivated by respect and a wish for accountability.

Because she treated it as “racism”, i.e., classification for negative motives, she attempted to denounce it and hide behind the well meaning but fundamentally dishonest advice of her parents that as a propositional Swede she was the same as an evolutionary Swede.

As such she denies the possibility of honest accountability that would serve to limit negative treatment of her in Sweden and gain her support from those who have an honest concern for the management of native Swedes.

Instead, for denying accountability and denouncing the account requested as “racist” she sets herself up for abuse from at least two kinds in particular.

She will perhaps get some abuse from jealous and racially concerned Swedes, e.g., Swedish women miffed with yellow fever. That would be understandable if Asian immigration were taken too far at any rate, but when there is no accountability it is likely to be more provocative of the racially sensitive Swede for her to say, “I am the same as you”, have the same history, etc. But even at that, it is probable that she did not really receive much of the gaffe from true Swedish women. What abuse that she got and experienced, with truly saddening pain, most likely came from Jewish trolls looking to stir conflict between Whites and Asians.

She gets abused by what probably are some Jewish trolls trying to provoke conflict between Asians and racially aware Whites:

3. What makes me hypothesize Jewish trolling? viz., that Jewish trolls can be trying to provoke her and provoke conflict between Whites and Asians?:

How about this. Kumiko showed me this composition, supposedly of Facebook posts by American people speaking of their own accord, saying that they are happy that Japan sustained nuclear bomb attacks in WWII and would be quite happy for it to happen again.

I grew up in America and for 34 years spent there never encountered an American who would speak remotely like this about Japan or the atomic bombing of Japan. Furthermore, if one reads these comments it is clear by a careful discourse analysis that the writer of all of these comments is one or a few people. If one is more careful still, to take style and motive into account, the Jewish hand is evident.

Though it may seem like obvious trolling to some of us, unfortunately this was apparently taken seriously by some Japanese audiences and even shown on Japanese news as if it were an honest reflection of American sentiments - when in truth, these are not remotely accurate statements of Americans: Stay classy America? No, stay “classy” with your divide and conquer chutzpah Jews - greatest shame is upon you and we are watching you.

Full composition under the fold..

READ MORE...