Category: Anti-racism and white genocide
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.
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 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 - viz., the social, interactive, negotiated world corrected through human interactive agency).
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
It’s a shame that Tan would say that I’m “not using my brain”.. “don’t have my thoughts organized clearly” and then take an idea that I have clearly organized and advanced for some time, and promote it on the Hitler worshiping “Renegade Network”, saying that he has this idea that our objectivity has given us advantages but also susceptibilities.
On the topic of genocide vs suicide he has an informative discussion but it is a false either/or in that MacDonald is not taking his eye off of Jewish power and influence and arguing “suicide” by examining our own susceptibilities (nor am I arguing White suicide).
Tanstaafl argues for genocide of Whites as opposed to White suicide
Tan quotes (from a post that KM put on TOO!):
“That’s not suicide”
For a curious example of White passivity of my own recent experience, I was at a fare yesterday, thousands of people, 99 percent White, probably a few Jews, a few middle easterners and one interracial couple - lovely, elegant blonde with a special kind of blue eyes and a Negro in no way handsome or manifestly impressive.
I used a strategy of walking near them while not looking at them directly, saying loudly, “very good! 41,000 years of evolution destroyed, given it to an ape!”
The important point I want to make is that nobody of this White crowd even noticed or was the least perturbed by this sickening interracial spectacle.
It is legitimate to ask why a visceral response isn’t forthcoming. It would be paranoid to suggest that KM and I are trying to deny or distract from the Jewish influence. He has insisted, and so do I insist, that Whites can be brainwashed by the Jews media and academia.... lets add religion, law, politics, business procedures and financing.
Nevertheless, I hear Tan referring to other causes, some of our own making, for example my idea that our inclination to objectivism leaves us susceptible.
Objectivism, as I have been saying, has appeal by yielding some spectacular practical results and insights, powerful moral warrant and innocence from subjective concern, but leaves our people susceptible to be non-discriminatory - perhaps especially of the obvious - as one can readily demonstrate if not “prove” their objectivity by not noticing and making judgments upon even such obvious differences.
That’s called “rational blindness” and this relative blindness to our subjective position and interests is a requirement in quest of pure objectivism.
Rational blindness can blind us to our involvement, indebtedness and accountability to our people’s interests and other people’s impositions. Scientists can famously be dupes to Manichean trickery for the habit of this Augustinian mindset. * I remember a former MR regular who, rather than request an explanation which I would have readily provided, tried to suggest that I was being pompous and deliberately obscure with these terms: Manichean - human challenges which can change when solved in order to trick an adversary; Augustinian - natural challenges which do not change when solved just to trick you again (how does Kol Nidre versus science grab you?).
This isn’t making excuses for Jews or letting them off the hook in any way or form.
Or has KM fallen into disfavor because he does not think AH and revisionism are the royal road to White salvation?
I haven’t heard MacDonald talk of “suicide”, I know that I do not talk of suicide.
I do know that Tanstaafl has overreacted when I, and others, cited liberalism as a problem, as if we were trying to distract from the J.Q. when discussing liberalism or other causes for peoples being under threat (as if we are not aware of the shenanigans of Lawrence Auster, et.al).
In this podcast I hear Tan accurately criticizing the Jews for transforming World War II into “the Holocaust” and elevating themselves as the special victims. All true and foul.
But he doesn’t see how the Nazis, and his over-sympathy for them, have him mirror the Jews, to where Nazis are the special and only important victims, didn’t do anything (it’s all a “hoax”), their victimization is pure, removed from cause and interactive conflict.
Evidently, right-wing WN interest to make the Jews the “only problem”, to where they would even denounce MacDonald for looking at our role in the interaction, is a motivation of those who want desperately to redeem Uncle Adolf and completely disprove the holocaust, blind and oblivious to the fact that those tasks are unnecessary and largely counter-productive to pursue.
The key distinction is not “hierarchy” vs “leveling and equality”, the key distinction is (pseudo) objectivism of The Right and its susceptibility to liberal universalisms which transcend accountability to social group interests vs the unionized and therefore particular and relative social group interests of the Left, as rendered by a White Left.
Posted by DanielS on Monday, May 25, 2015 at 01:45 AM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Crusade against Discrimination in Britain, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, European culture, Far Right, Immigration and Politics, Liberalism & the Left, Libertarianism, Linguistics, No particular place to go, That Question Again, White Genocide: America, White Genocide: Europe, White Nationalism
Anti-Racism is a Jewish Construct.
Anti-Racism is Cartesian.
These are both sound aphorisms: either could be a “mantra”, with a caveat regarding mantras - that for best effect they will have to be used with discretion, changed sometimes and crafted on account of context and audience. Such is the judgement and deft rhetoric required of Praxis as opposed to the plodding imperviousness of scientism.
The two aphorisms can go well together:
Anti-racism is Cartesian, it is Not innocent, it is prejudice, it is hurting and it is killing people. Anti-racism is a Jewish construct.
The essential abstract of “race” is taxonomic classification of peoples. Locke’s Cartesian notion of civil individual rights took issue with discrimination based on social classifications. For their ethnocentric reasons, Jews weaponized this anti-classification and anti-discrimination by Whites on the basis of social classifications as “anti-racism.”
That is what it is in essence. It is true that the Jews have associated “racism” with supremacism, exploitation and genocide; but even taking away those elements, the common denominator of prohibition of discrimination based on social classifications, however benign, remains - as “racism.” Thus, David Duke is wrong (theory is not his strong suit) to campaign against “racism.” While that will gain popularity with the disingenuous and puerile, in so doing, he is reconstructing the liberal hegemony and its stigmatization of social classification for genetically conservative and discriminatory purposes. Moreover, classifications will happen whether they are acknowledged, deliberate or not, but we are much better-off rendering them consciously - as these classifications are essential to accountability and human ecological management.
Fat boy’s mantra is good too:
Whitaker’s, “Anti-racism” is a code-word for anti-White” will be effective in many instances, but in other cases will run into complications: in some cases, it will come across as a dead-ringer for subjective concern; a request for a definition of “White” can ruin the effect; it has also been criticized for having liberal underpinnings in its long form, which is true. Still, a good one if it takes into account context and audience.
Sometimes it is best to avoid the consternation of the J.Q. but rather undermine (as Cartesian disingenuousness) the underlying coup de grâce of “racism” and “anti-racism” by itself. At times, this will be even more problematic for Jews to contend with (why do you think I am so unpopular?).
Tanstaafl’s proposition of naming it a Jewish construct is important too and good to do where the audience is only slightly less primed. Because active anti-racism, as opposed to the mere “prejudice against prejudice” is, indeed, a Jewish construct. No argument.
You wouldn’t want to cut-down a rain forest would you? Then why would you want to cut-down ancient peoples of Europe?
This next one is somewhat harder to sell, but it has been a relief to me as a personal mantra and probably would be for other men as well:
To men, miscegenating women are as rapists are to women. They should be ostracized as a minimum punishment and in no way should their mixed offspring be able to participate in the resources of European men - as it makes our men servants to the worst betrayers of our 41,000 years of genetic evolution.
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 04:46 AM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Free Speech, Journalism, Linguistics, Marxism & Culture War, Media, Political Philosophy, Popular Culture, That Question Again, White Nationalism
Misguided Truck: http://renseradioarchives.com/stormfront/ Date: 04-27-15, Hr1:
On the April 27th Stormtrooper radio, Truck Roy discusses his theory with Don Black that the reason why Whites are allowing for, and even promoting, their own dispossession is because they are “moralizing”...
“We are too concerned with morals, of slave morality, etc, when we should care about power and survival.”
What this is about: people, e.g. computer nerds, or Hitler (by de facto Nietzschean) worshipers want to believe or argue that they’re sheerly, objectively superior, not “racists” relatively dependent upon their people and neighboring White people.
They take advice from Horace the Condescender as such.
Now they are arguing “against morality, against ‘moralizing” as they call it.
Why? Because Hitler loses his place as the go-to guy for a false either/or. And they cannot stand the twilight of their god.
So we have Truck Roy saying that the reason why Africans are being helped to invade Europe and why Whites are allowing themselves to be displaced is because they’re “moralizing”, they’re of a slave morality, when they should seek power.
Not coincidentally, Truck goes to church every Sunday to practice his slave morality of obedience to the Jew on a stick.
So why has this happened, the about face?
As I have been explaining, the Right is inherently unstable. “Objectivity” and purity loses its grasp of the relative situation, of social accountability, and they oscillate to another toxically narrow extreme - typically Nietzsche and Hitler.
This false either / or - “morality” or “power and survival” - is one of the reasons why I reject Christianity and the Right’s proposed objectivism.
Truck Roy says the problem is that our people sit around “moralizing” about how right it is to help African boat refugees when they should be saying enough of this moral business, and be asking rather how do we go about survival?
What Horace the Condescender and misguided Truck are failing to recognize is that there is no avoiding morals - we live within them. Proper moral consideration is at one with power and survival. While moral rules are culturally contingent, there will nevertheless always be some things that are prohibited, some things that are obligatory and some things that are optional.
Jews know this and that is why they have cleaned the clocks of dumb-assed right wingers such as those at Stormtrooper radio.
Now, if people, White people especially, are truly thinking about morality, they do not reach the conclusion that they should be displaced by non-Whites.
That is a perversion of morals that the Jewish trick of Christianity is second to none in putting across to the sheeple.
Scientism can do it too.
While some, techno nerds perhaps, wanting to believe in their objective superiority and warrant yet find themselves having been outwitted by the relative interests of Jews, drowning in the instigated multicultural hell of America, will desperately seek recourse, will promote a mindless killing and die-off, even of their own brothers and European neighbors, rather than admit their moral indebtedness to their kindred people as opposed to just an elite few or a Jewish god.
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, April 28, 2015 at 02:52 AM in Activism, Anthropology, Anti-racism and white genocide, Awakenings, Christianity, Demographics, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, European culture, European Nationalism, European Union, Far Right, Global Elitism, Globalisation, Immigration, Jewish Diaspora, Marxism & Culture War, Popular Culture, The American right, White Nationalism
MacDonald At Stockholm, Sweden, April 20th 2015
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 06:14 PM in Anthropology, Anti-racism and white genocide, Demographics, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, European culture, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, History, Immigration and Politics, Race realism, Social Sciences, The Ontology Project, White Nationalism
By Lasha Darkmoon, April 18, 2015
It is now only too clear that Americans have lost their country. The Jews are our masters and we are their slaves. What can we do about it?
An abridged adaption by Lasha Darkmoon of a recent article by Video Rebel.
9/11 finally revealed to us the extraordinary chutzpah of our Jewish masters.
That the Israelis did 9/11 with the help of Jewish collaborators in PNAC and AIPAC has become all too apparent to the cognoscenti. The hidden criminality behind this event has been cleverly covered up by our Jewish owned media.
9/11 was a definite declaration of war against America by Israel.
The Israelis wired World Trade Center Towers 1, 2 and 7 for demolition. Tower 7 was never struck by a plane. Yet it fell down in 6.5 seconds.
The BBC was told by the Rothschild-owned Reuters news agency that WTC 7 had collapsed an hour before it did. America was still on Daylight Savings Time but Britain had just left Summer Time, so a confused BBC announced the collapse of WTC 7 fully 24 minutes before it happened in New York.
Knowing that your government can kill the President and blow up buildings with Americans inside, as in Oklahoma City and in New York, helps to restrain hostile criticism of the government. People are nervous and say to themselves, “If they can kill 3000 innocent Americans for Israel and get away with it, what chance do I have?”
9/11 unleashed America’s “War on Terror” against various Muslim countries unable to accept direct invasion and conquest by Israel. This was America doing Israel’s dirty work for it. Israel claims all the land from the Nile to the Euphrates. The War on Terror is simply a process allowing Jews to gain control of non-Jewish lands.
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, April 18, 2015 at 12:17 PM in 9/11, Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Awakenings, Political analysis, Popular Culture, That Question Again, U.S. Politics, War on Terror, White Nationalism, World Affairs
Far from the purview of European / American men were two conceptual weapons which could be alternated arbitrarily, wielded in an instant by feminists (or wielded similarly and unwittingly by neo-traditional women, for that matter), as equipped with the cynicism of these memes to dismiss, in either case, recourse to two profoundly important European moral orderings.
Most significantly, one weapon was to deride Europe’s natural Aristotlean morality, its observation of optimality and relationships as central to human nature, and another to destroy the propositions and principles initiated by the likes of Kant to gird, e.g., against arbitrary vicissitudes of empirical philosophy being taken too far – but in either case, the weapons distinguish females (including White females, of course) as having a separate moral order not beholden to White men and thus not beholden to Europeans as a system with shared social, moral capital and human ecology of millennia.
Deep within the wallowing abyss of de Beauvoir’s “The Second Sex”, its talk of “sacred ministry of betrayal” feeding extant dissatisfactions in females, lurked these weapons - far out of the casual purview of White men to apprehend from whence came what hit them and what it was about.
Betty Friedan (1963), with the modernist, “she’s just like one of the boys and, if liberated to participate, may do-so as an equal” approach to feminism, was the preeminent figure in the second wave of feminism; she took as her point of departure this line from Simone de Beauvoir, 1948, page 672: “This utility of the housekeeper’s heaven is the reason why she (speaking of traditional women) adopts the Aristotlean morality of the golden mean, that is, of mediocrity.”
My hunch that was her source inspiration is borne-out through multiple connections.
Carol Gilligan (1982), with the neo-traditional angle focusing on qualitative differences of females, but still within the feminist framework, also took a line from de Beauvoir as her point of departure - 1948, Page 681: “ but she knows that he himself has chosen the premises on which his rigorous deductions depend.. but she refuses to play the game.. she knows that male morality as it concerns her, is a vast hoax.”
My observation that this was the source for Gilligan was confirmed by Helen Haste, a colleague of Gilligan’s at Harvard.
While there are other significant non-Jewish feminists, forebears besides de Beauvoir, it is true that de Beauvoir’s feminist philosophy has roots in Marx’s notion that marriage and patriarchy are veritable slavery - women’s “liberation requires that these institutions be overturned, a revolutionary act corresponding to liberation of all.”
The situation was made ripe for exploitation and runaway by the logical extension of modernity, well-meaning at first as a liberation from mere, but harmful traditions and superstitions, it ran rough-shod and ruptured accountable social classification – their utility naivly or disingenuously pushed-aside in favor of the objectivist scientism of Lockeatine civil rights, objectivist neo-liberal capitalism, and seized upon in distortion by “neo-cons”, but not before these wielded “objectivist” rights were fundamentally weaponized and reversed in form against Whites, by Jews, Marxists re-deploying these ideas in the form of “anti-racism” and “civil rights” - discrimination against Whites and the prohibition of discrimination by White men.
Underpinning susceptibility to this all along was their saboteurs ticking time-bomb - liberal affectation planted into European culture and becoming more deeply embedded over 2,000 years; viz., in contrast to the exclusivity of Jews, (as GW notes) Judeo-Christianity’s propositional altercast as undifferentiated gentiles in the eyes of god, to include any race in its moral order, and the disordering effect of modernity to traditional European moral orders was virtually a necessary consequence.
With racial bounds broken but classification still necessary to human perceptual organ- ization, the least ignorable categories emerged in de facto high relief and resonance – gender being one of them. Within the disorder the female one-up position in partner selection (don’t think so? she’ll call upon the goon squad to show you who is boss) emerged with increased significance, whereupon they are pandered-to from males of every direction and most importantly, cynically and cunningly, by Jews, of course, to betray their co-evolutionary males. With White men vilified thus and White females pandered-to constantly, even puerile White females become articulate, over- confident, correspondingly under-empathetic, sometimes brazen with self righteous entitlement and prerogative.
Jewish interests can take advantage of this; demoralize their adversaries by pandering to their co-evolutionary females in this position and the atavistic denominator of the disorder; for marked example, by promoting the high contrast tropism of White/black mixing –blacks being the other category hardest to ignore despite prohibition on class- ifications –while the prohibition of discrimination leaves the more protracted rate of maturity of White men susceptible to the more episodic, atavistic assertion of blacks.
Professor Pearce (with Rossi) might add that within the paradoxic performance requirements of feminism there is nothing even a well-intentioned male can do if a feminist wishes to put him in the wrong: If he treats her as one of boys, then he may be construed as a male chauvinist pig, who does not respect the special quality of her gender. If he treats her with deference to the special qualities of her gender, he can be construed as a condescending patriarch and/or a wimp who does not respect her agency, autonomy and independence.
The situation is only going to be perpetuated by a paradoxic (really, “quaradoxic”) phenomenon that Whites are prone to be up against, what I call the charmed loop of didactic incitement: This does require that sufficient power is brought to bear against Whites, but it is a likely predicament given social injunctions against discriminatory social classifications rendered by White men and the heavily pandered-to one-up position of females within the disorder of modernity; along with its exponentially more powerfully positioned puerile female inclination to incite genetic competition.
In this essay I will re-tell the story of how I began to understand and organize gender relations at the intersection of race and individualism in order to diagnose attendant problems and prescribe corrections. I will make refinements with what I have learned since initial instantiations of this hypothesis. I feel compelled to make this case again as there are popular sites in WN which are taking on the issue and I do not trust them to handle it well. For very specific reasons I have long held that there should be a platform for White men/males that both advocates them and is critical of female predilections, inclinations, politics. This will start out with a critical tone, as it is necessary to get to critical parts right away, but there is a happy ending for both genders.
In my first renderings of this hypothesis, I took Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs (which he also referred-to as a hierarchy of motives), as a preliminary framework in need of correction. That remains a particularly useful point of departure for a working hypothesis to address problems: of where and how individualism, peoples’ predica- ment within modernity and incommensurate gender relations may be exacerbated and pandered-to; whether by hostile interests (e.g., YKW) or indifferent interests (e.g. naive or disingenuous objectivist/relativists, neo-liberals); thereby rupturing racial bounds which could otherwise facilitate systemic homeostasis; instead runaway and reflexive reversals is perpetuated -e.g., “the dark side of self actualization.”
But rather than merely accept them, the proposition here is that we recognize them, take them to heart and work with them instead of against them.
For good reasons, I took Maslow as the preliminary framework against which to propose corrections (will explain momentarily). Neither is it necessary to discard the diagnosis of toxicity in this model of higher needs being founded in hierarchical succession upon maximal fulfillment of more fundamental needs, particularly as it has played-out in - and been an influence of - the pop-culture of European-American relations; nor is it necessary to alter its proposed general correction of taking attendance to needs and motives into a circulating process based on the Aristotlean recommendation of optimal levels of need satisfaction and the centrality of human concern for relations.
Unlike Maslow’s terms for the constituent needs, I have ever (since the early 90s) proposed four terms (the number of four terms are taken for reasons that I will explain) in place of the terms that he uses in this hierarchy –
Posted by DanielS on Friday, April 3, 2015 at 02:19 PM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Feminism, Marxism & Culture War, Military Matters, Popular Culture, Social liberalism, That Question Again, The Proposition Nation, U.S. Politics
Despite The Guilt Trips of World War II (discussed below on the anniversary of Dresden)
Here is an interview request that I sent to Dr. Christian Lindtner on February 12th
Dear Dr. Lindtner,
As producer for Majorityrights.com, I am writing you to inquire as to the possibility of arranging for an interview.
Majority Rights takes a position (secular) regarding Christianity which very much respects your scholarly critique.
Nevertheless, while I am writing you at this email address, my inquiry actually has more to do with a hope to discuss appropriate response to the fall-out of World War II, facts and mythos.
Your videos discussing holocaust revisionism are the most credible on the topic that I have seen. I do not see it as necessary to go-over that same ground in exhaustive detail. My position is that subsequent generations of Germans and others are innocent and ought not have to continue to pay, irrespective of the facts of Nazi Germany.
I am not anti-German and I am assuming that neither are you, anti-German.
My question is, how do we assert our innocence, along with that of present day Germans, to warrant implementing our defense of our nations as the preserves of our native nationals? - particularly in light of, and despite, the holocaust?
I believe that despite the holocaust that Germany and Europe does not owe the world, Jews, or anybody, its destruction through immigration and assimilation.
This is different from what holocaust deniers, even revisionists, are saying. Committed revisionists and deniers seem to believe everything, all of our defensive warrant, hinges upon debunking the holocaust. It is perhaps easier for me to see that as not necessarily the case as my ancestors even, had even less in the way of historical responsibility. Nevertheless, revisionists seem to have an overwhelming desire to unburden us of guilt trips* for these events, for which no guilt ought to be assigned them - and as a result, it seems to me that they are making the cause for European national sovereignty more resisted and less trustworthy when, in fact, it is a fully legitimate cause and ought to be seen that way irrespective of the holocaust.
What I seek from you in an interview is to help build this case to establish the warrant of European nations to preserve their nations for their native kinds despite The World Wars, whatever the facts.
Please say that you will grant us the interview Dr. Lindtner. It can be very important to inter-European peace and survival.
For those of you who take exception to my deferential use of the word “holocaust”, understand that by it I mean a name given to mass deaths of Jews in the world war, however they came about, irrespective of any obnoxious elevation of importance of Jewish deaths over European deaths - which Dr. Lindtner recognizes in his characterizing it, holocaustianity, as a religion.
At the Yalta conference, just days before the Dresden firebombing..
And this comment on the article..
From a particularist/nationalist perspective it’s best to write it off as a painful learning experience and get on with nationalism 2.0.”
I keep hearing these retarded arguments that the Nazis shouldn’t have invaded Russia and that Britain should’ve let Nazi Germany do as it liked with Poland. If 20/20 hindsight is exercised, then it should be said that Hitler shouldn’t have invaded Poland.
The next argument, also retardedly Buchananesque, is that Poland was betrayed to the umpteenth degree anyway and therefore Germany invading was of no matter.
But even under Soviet control, Poland retained a semblance of national boundaries, more importantly from its point of view, its language and more importantly still, its native genetic homogeneity. Horrible as Soviet control was, neither Poland’s boundaries, language nor genetics were in Hitler’s plans.
The holocaust of the peoples of Dresden is horrible. It is an unspeakable loss of European genetic treasure. As were all the European deaths of World War II - a war unnecessarily fought as a 1) conventional military war and unnecessarily 2) inter-European as it largely was, pitting R1b against R1a - both frames, conventional militarism and anti-Polinism/anti-Slav, were Hitler’s/Friedrich The Great’s.
If you want to use 20/20 hindsight to re-frame World War II and what should not have been done, take it to herr E1B1B1 Hitler.
Don’t kid yourself.
Look at how sick and enraged that Europeans were of ANOTHER World War, which Hitler and his worldview had some small part in initiating, a worldview that had the thin pretense of warrant to take lands and displace peoples up to the Urals on the basis of three and a half small cites being given to Poland by Versailles, a world view that had the design of removing your nation newly established after a bitter ordeal and fight of 123 years, and the realization of his plans of smashing it, taking it away again, killing your father, wife, your daughter, your brother, and you too, charged with an imperson- al mission of bombing a precious German city, might just allow yourself to do that.
A habit, custom, and world view following the line of Friedrich the Great, based on inter-European militarism and a friend enemy distinction of Germanics/Slavs is what should be rejected with 20/20 hindsight - not that Roosevelt and Churchill shouldn’t have gotten into the war, but that Hitler shouldn’t have ordered it in that way.
And don’t kid yourself either - if you know that a European nation like his has plans to take your nation and eliminate you (that was basically known) and some Jew points a gun at that European guy looking to kill you, what are you going to say? No, Mr. Jew, don’t shoot at this guy looking to kill me?
If you want to exercise 20/20 hindsight, for all the European deaths, where it should not have started, the epistemological blunder was with herr E1B1B1 Hitler’s world view and actions thereupon. And if you want to keep Europeans hating and fighting each other, just keep promoting the “innocence” of his worldview and the “supreme and singular guilt” of the Allied leaders.
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, February 15, 2015 at 12:38 AM in Anti-racism and white genocide, Far Right, History, Marxism & Culture War, National Socialism, Revisionism, That Question Again, White Nationalism
Posted by DanielS on Friday, January 30, 2015 at 12:59 AM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Awakenings, British Politics, Crusade against Discrimination in Britain, Demographics, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, Immigration, Immigration and Politics, No particular place to go, Popular Culture, White Genocide Project, White Genocide: Africa, White Genocide: America, White Genocide: Europe, White Nationalism, World Affairs
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
Some Mulatto with a White French mother (and White French girlfriend) intimates a stiff-arm salute and right-wing revisionism and he’s one of us? I think not.
Jews are bad for us. Ok, enough evidence. But from there the right goes on to stretch the inference, to where blacks are ok. ? Some are wise to the J.Q., some are separatists who need guidance to help the rest understand that we only want separation as well, not their exploitation, but to kiss their ass and act like they are in our interest group? Give us a break. To make matters worse, the right not only typically panders to blacks, but condemns Southern and Eastern Europeans as not being in our interest group.
The right has the hallmarks of a lack of courage and a general policy of pandering.
Among that, the right pander to negrophilic inclinations and diversions coming from females (the problem is only the “Muslims” or only the “Jews”) to mask their cowardice of standing up for our European people. They admire Dieudonné.
This perspective is allowed by female gate-keepers to Jewish and corporate power, and their divide and conquer as it augurs to have Europeans fighting one another; pandering to the basest puerile female inclination of incitement to competition - “don’t worry about those pretty mudsharks, or those rabid blacks getting over”, it doesn’t bother some White woman, whose fat-ass is in a powerful control point and can drive a hard bargain as a result.
And they (right-wingers) don’t wonder why Atzmon thinks Dieudonné is wonderful?
Je ne suis pas Dieudonné
They might be able to get through female gate-keepers some, get on one side of a divide and conquer in their incitement - e.g., as favored by a particular group of European females.
That is a dubious strategy, let alone of merit as a battle plan. The troops, the people in full, as it were, must be grounded in their cause and authentically motivated as they will not be sufficiently, only focused on Jews. When you tell a young man that the tossing aside of what he is born to see as his ultimate treasure is not an important problem, or that some Mulatto with a lovely French wife is OK, simply because he coddles Faurisson’s focus on gas chambers and memes some covert intimation of a stiff-arm salute, how is that supposed to help his morale and address his concrete, fundamental concerns? And how is it supposed to gain her respect? Never mind an appropriate White woman for him. We hate Jews! Now that’s inspiration!
We can see who these self described elite don’t like. Who do they care about? Not White women, obviously, apparently not White men. Perhaps one other guy, one with E1b1b, if not the Jew on a stick ..besides perhaps advancement of their own position.
The last time I was in Paris, I had planned to stay five days but could only manage two. I was so absolutely disgusted, outraged to see the kind of women whom I might dream of, only to see them with blacks. I had to get out, retreat to save my sanity.
Some right-wingers are saying we have to drop everything, basically adopt blacks and others as a part of our interest group and focus only on Jews. Blacks are OK, mudsharks are just genetically defective. Talk about someone whose balls have shriveled-up.
This is a woman of German descent, I care that she not do this and believe that she is not genetically defective – don’t you believe she has been corrupted?
Until fairly recently, I wondered to myself what were the genetic components among European women that made them most resistant to out-breeding. It was an intriguing question to me. It still is, to a limited extent. To my surprise, I found myself changing - upon a more complete survey of what is going on. I do believe that corruption of the culture and rule structure is the deeper concern. There are just too many Europeans who were perfectly good for centuries who are suddenly doing this, rupturing their ancient lines – it cannot all be written-off as genetic defects. It is a second black plague, but coming from different rats and using cultural auspices as its vector. This is not time for the medieval medicine of Christianity nor of scientism for that matter.
While being against the Jew is absolutely necessary and a primary concern, an antagonist of ours second to none, that is not a full culture, not even a grounding of an army to fight. The hermeneutic perspective implied by Majority Rights would be, as it premises our outlook on the full genus and species of our European peoples, the reconstruction of the ecologies of our cultures and people, addresses problems of our own making and ranks, problems and antagonists in due course.
The two world views that the right puts forth are Christianity and Hitler.
Some may foolishly wish to ignore the Trojan horse that is Christianity. Most people cannot play with its obvious absurdity, do not like the games that charlatans play “to make sense of” and dupe us with those tarot cards; others readily see the Trojan horse for what it is, implications of its texts and what it leads to being all too obvious.
Matt Parrott says that he has “given up on the generation 68ers,” but that appears to be just more of his bureaucratic straw-manning for the right – brushing aside competition with false attributions of people who might know better and not let people put one over on younger folks. Perhaps he has a wish to see everyone who opposes Hitler and Jesus as “sixty eighters” whereas the hip kids “get it.” “ We are generation Identitaire!” - it is not the fault of the Jews or the right-wing White elitists and plutocratic traitors, it is the fault of older White people - older than Matt, anyway. It appears to be just an attempt to push-aside competition for the position of spokesman who might maintain that position by blowing smoke up the ass of the young and naive with Jesus stuff or pander to women with Hitler shit.
The well motivated idea is not to abandon “teaching” 68er’s, as his straw man suggests, but to allow the experience and abilities among those whom it may concern, though a bit older than Matt, to contribute to European interests where they might. And if they do not believe in Hitler and Jesus that does not mean that they need to be shamed, but rather that their experience has them honestly looking at these darlings of the right for their inadequacies and that they are prepared to forge a new, more authentic European way of life, unlike the young fogies made incredibly self righteous by the mixed fortune of growing up with the Internet.
Andrew Anglin says his eyes watered when he saw the clip of Nazi girls doing exercises in unison, he gushes over the rallies for Hitler, expresses admiration for the assimilation of the lock-step eusocial behavior of animal species such as birds, ants and bees. I find this sort of thing and the rallies, a whole nation beholden to one ranting inter-European war-monger, Hitler, repugnant; and I do not think that I am alone of any generation. Nor am I a baby boomer or a generation 68er, but an Xer – I will cop to that; I recognize a great deal of selfish destruction among the baby boomers (like a swarm of locusts); more, that the world war 2 generation were bamboozled by the context of the war into accepting radically anti-White changes, much commenced in The 1950’s. But to blame hippies, i.e. White men, is a convenient diversion for the Right to pander to feminist bitches and take the Jewish and corporate deflect at once.
No, I will not accept blame for things that happened before I was born or when I was a small child. I will not see myself as a failure because my attempts to do something about it were not facilitated by the Internet.
As I have mentioned previously, I can tell you from that perspective that the Internet provides huge advantages. Life is so much easier, everything from word processing to information acquisition, confirmation and comraderie is possible in a way that was impossible before. There is not much good to be said for years of isolation. However, it did not allow one to easily bypass lived experience and plug into what is mistakenly, sometimes badly mistakenly, presented as a fully considered system such as Hitler’s. One was forced to live through and see plainly the fact of its philosophical failures (along with the failures of liberalism).
As it stands and amidst the vast destruction of European peoples, the right reacts with renewed conviction in “the tried and true” - really, the tried and failed - Jesus and Hitler, rather than a genuine holistic concern for our peoples, which these views certainly are not. It pretends that we must put all aside in order to focus on the Jew. By ignoring our concern as a people with a complete, authentic set of concerns, they can engraft HItler worship as a pseudo-justification, as the Jew is presented as an all encompassing concern. Thus, taking comfort for their disastrous war plan as put forth by their savior, Hitler; failing that, they might fall back on Jesus as savior, rather than a concern for our people.
If sheer faith in Jesus or natural competition resulted in appropriate genetic pairings and justice then what is happening with miscegenation would not happen. The attitude of “just let it happen, the defective will be weeded out”, is very poorly considered.
Seeing that our people are not the true concern and that White men are not able to hold up to Jews and blacks because they are not organized by these “leading voices”, by anything other than Jesus and Hitler, females will allow for the Jesus guys to beguile people from their hypergamy; and allow for the Hitler guys to prevent the ethnocentric from coming up with a better solution, better cultural guidelines to supersede the horrific injustice and destruction as a result of stupor and exploitation; they will revert to scientism, “nature’s competition, the way it is”, so say our god, Adolf. One of their hopes is to add females to the ranks by pandering to their most puerile inclination to incite competition. “Blacks are ok, they were no problem before the Jews manipulated them.” Talk about weak White men. And how does that hold up to EGI? Do we really need them so badly that we can ennoble them and their White women because they might think they are wise to the J.Q.? Will not people, our own included, respect us more if we do not pretend that we care so much about them, as much as ourselves, even to where their fucking us, literally, is no problem?
Hitler was great, he targeted millions of Slavics for elimination – pretty White women and all. Get rid of that competition. Seems to be a pattern among the right.
Again, some take the tack that we should not worry about these White women going to blacks, they are genetically defective and being weeded-out. That is small consolation and when one views, even by happenstance, the White women that non-Whites are getting it finally becomes apparent that genetics cannot be all of the problem.
There is something to be said for the men who will not try to rationalize it; and a wariness that should be applied to the kind who do rationalize it, as the ones with bad instincts for our people, who contributed to getting us into this mess in the first place. The idea that one who hates miscegenation is being distracted from the J.Q. is nonsense, as I have said all along, as it inexorably leads to the J.Q. through investigation of its various causes.
President Sarkozy, in 2008, obligating the native French to interbreed with non-Whites
While I used to be more curious about what sort of women would be least disposed to this, now I do see the culture and its rules as more fundamental an issue. As humans, we are born very incomplete, and it is incumbent upon those looking after the social rule-structures of our culture to assimilate the proper guidance of our behaviors, even to our own best interests. We could say, like Uncle Adolf, that it is all about competition and struggle at bottom, denying human agency and the corrective guidance of culturally mediating rules, parenting, stewarding and cooperation between European groups. We can allow his e1b1b and all is struggle at bottom perspective to work its wonders, pandering to those who would just as soon see Europeans kill one another for all it really cares about Europeans.
But if we are to be true to ourselves, yes, we must be vigilant against Jews and the Israel Lobby as they operate against European interests from seven choke points and their genetic/cultural pattern; we must be vigilant against their liberal Marxist lackeys - Je ne suis pas Charlie. But neither are we Dieudonné. It is also undoubtedly a part of female nature to get-off on acquiescing to the victorious bully. We must be vigilant against the Right’s pandering - including pandering to the increased one-up position of females within he disorder of modernity, where they are more powerful gate-keepers than ever - with the rupture of social classificatory bounds through anti-racism their base propensity to incite genetic competition more arbitrary than ever, where there will be guys coming from every direction, looking to show how tough they are by pandering to females as to how “objective”, rational, above it and liberal that they are.
Je ne suis pas Dieudonné
“Unlike its predecessor Hara Kiri, Charlie Hebdo, the liberal-libertarian newspaper, has become one of the organs of the dominant ideology. They can recognize their own.”
They recognize their own..
As such, Tanstaafl’s account is even more descriptively accurate of those behind the policies of Charlie Hebdo - they’re an organ of “neoconservatism” (a Jewish platform):
And they recognize their own under attack..
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, January 7, 2015 at 10:25 PM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Awakenings, European Nationalism, Free Speech, Immigration, Immigration and Politics, Islam & Islamification, Journalism, Law & Order, Media, Military Matters, White Nationalism
On the radio page now, Paul Weston, the man who managed to get himself arrested for reading from Winston Churchill’s The River War, talks to GW and DanielS about himself, his party, nationalism and the political climate, the nature of UKIP, blogging on the DT, that adventure in Winchester, and (even) the JQ. He’s a good guy. You should listen.
Upon Winchester Guildhall, Paul Weston quoted the following passage from Churchill’s “The River War”:
Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, December 22, 2014 at 02:29 PM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, British Politics, Crusade against Discrimination in Britain, Demographics, European Nationalism, European Union, Free Speech, Immigration, Immigration and Politics, Islam & Islamification, Journalism, Law & Order, Media, MR Radio, Political analysis
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, December 18, 2014 at 03:10 PM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Awakenings, Demographics, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, European Nationalism, Immigration, Immigration and Politics, White Communities & Micro-Economies, White Genocide: Europe, World Affairs
In Richard’s case, fate had him stuck next to one Randy Scheunemann. Despite the discomfort, it was instructive (for me, anyway) to learn who this man was - an insider neo-con, influential during the W. Bush Administration and in fact, a member of Project For A New American Century, a.k.a., Operation Clean Break (to secure the ‘realm’ around Israel). Scheunmann was one of its loud voices advocating all of its wars and military operations going on behalf of Israel, using The U.S. and any other nation it could press into its service. But once out of a job with the “neo-cons” out of office, there he was, helplessly hovering, captive with an enemy.
My own experience in the fate of helplessly hovering did not have me placed in the company of an enemy, but with a man who was on amicable terms, could have been a good friend. Instead I ruined his day and caused a very uncomfortable, seemingly endless ski-lift ride to the top of Aspen Mountain. As this particular episode did not highlight the large fall of a once prominent man, but the pathetic bungling of normal relations, I intend to examine rather what I believe to be a non-trivial aspect – and that is the connection of fate. It is not my purpose to state that I have anything like a sufficient explanation yet for the meaning of fate. Rather, that I am compelled to believe in its more or less possibility – whereas I had not, and would not take the notion of fate seriously prior to experiences which I will recount.
Unlike Richard Spencer, I have been skiing exactly twice in my life. The first time was in the White Mountains of New Hampshire. Having taken my ski lessons and mastered what was called “the intermediate slope” quite handily, I developed a bit of hubris in my ability – at least for the intermediate slope. I tried the advanced slope once and could not even stand before falling and being jettisoned downward. Nevertheless, even little kids were whisking down past me and I could not believe how they did it – I only realized that I could not handle the advanced slope.
Satisfied nevertheless, I returned to my hostel that evening (but did of course I see an interracial couple on the way, in case anyone believes New Hampshire is immune). One of the townies was there talking about how he advocated Pat Buchanan, who was running for Presidency (was that the year he had a Negro running mate? Perhaps); it struck me as strange for a kid that young to be promoting Pat (whom I never thought to be very good - “rather than ‘the sewer of multiculturalism’ all Americans should integrate as English speaking Christians” - good thinking, Pat. No wonder the mainstream media kept you around as a convenient foil all those years), but I appreciated his defiant conservatism. New Hampshire was one of the few places where Buchanan could win. Fate was kicking in, the trance recollections before and during my recent trip to Europe from which I’d just returned were prompting me..
There were some English skiers there at the hostel. A couple of young lads and an older English gent there solo. I could not forget his name, as it was Hamilton. We talked candidly about race. He expressed his admiration at how Germany had built their country right back up after World War II. When discussing the problems of our respective European nationalities, he gritted his teeth and said, “Jews!” I was not ready to go there. I still needed to hold breadth that this may be in some part, if not primarily a distraction from deeper issues. It was probably not in that moment but somewhere in that evening that I felt myself being aware that I was outside of my normal consciousness, castigating (laced with the vilest profanity) the girls running the hostel, one from France in particular, for being a nation of feminist bitches. They apparently understood that this was a trance as they calmly instructed me the next morning that I had to visit North Hampton - as I had told them that they were going to tell me to go to North Hampton in the next few days to meet my fate among the greatest concentration of lesbians in The U.S., North Hampton being the proximity of two of America’s most prestigious women’s colleges – Smith and Mount Holyoke.
The parting with Mr. Hamilton did not go as I might have liked. It was clear that we were both dearly committed to defending Europe against liberalism and non-Europeans. I had told him in the trance state the evening before that you can trust a man if you can look him dead in the eye and he does not look away. The next morning Mr. Hamilton had a big smile on his face as he saw me (my trances always seemed to have a healing effect on people); we shook hands in parting, he looked me dead in the eye; but I turned my eyes away and a puzzled frown came across his face. Though I regret making myself didactically untrustworthy in that instant, I know now that I did that because I did not yet know enough to express full enough agreement with him. That day, Hamilton, a Thomas Hamilton rather, massacred school children in Dunblane, Scotland. So it must have been the 13th of March 1996.
Hubris meets Nemesis
My hubris in prevailing over the intermediate slope of the White Mountains is humbled by the Nemesis of Aspen’s “intermediate” slope.
The next and last time I went skiing was in March again, four years later, in 2000, a few weeks after my father passed away. I had to drive his car from New Jersey to my brother in Arizona. On the way I decided to try skiing again – this time in Aspen, Colorado, on Aspen Mountain precisely. I must have made an awkward sight in my Carhartt pants amidst all other people equipped in proper skiing attire. But such was my hubris, I had mastered the intermediate slopes in The White Mountains. I could do this, just as I am. I rented my skis, took a day pass and hopped on the ski-lift next to a guy maybe around my age, late 30’s, obviously a nice guy – as one who clearly had experience, he nevertheless told me not to worry about my pants; and gave me some tips; to watch what other people were doing and encouraged me to have fun. We proceeded to talk and he said that he enjoyed hot air balloon racing.
I quickly chimed in with the story of the two balloonists who had accidentally drifted over Belarus the prior September, only to be shot as helpless sitting ducks. As I recounted the story to him, I did what many of you would do - I laughed, because it was so ridiculous and pathetic: the thought of these two sitting ducks, helplessly hovering there, American passports in hand, pathetically shot down as they dangled above the doltish force of nature that is a neo-Soviet mentality.
My raucous, cynical humor was not well placed. A sudden pained expression came over his face. “These were my friends” he said..
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
Its egregious intentions betray its egregious misnomer as “The Left” by the YKW media. Whereas a White Left would be a union of the entire nation of native peoples and thus organized in entirety against immigrant imposition - these workers and beneficiaries being the theoretical equivalent of scabs - and the consequences of elite betrayal. Accordingly, a true European Nationalist Left would not be of just one class, say the workers, let alone be in representation of scabs (foreigners) - as the latter in particular would be defined properly not as The Left but rather as a Neo-Liberal concern imposed on the classification of native national interests. The reason for the misnomer is plain, the YKW and the sell-outs, particularly of the international corporatist order, do not want us to be clear in the organizational concern of that union, which is a merging, in fact an overlap, of the class with native nationalism. Instead they want it associated with what is most repugnant to our interests.
The YKW and corporate elite sell-outs are aligned in this perversion of class interests - you can be even more afraid now as they obligingly ask:
The “Left Party” (wink), read “neo-liberal” and ask rather, what union of your interests do they represent - i.e., how are they a leftist union for you as a native European? Particularly when they advocate (hyerpbolic) neo-liberal policies as such?
Gysi pretends the leftist, denouncing the The EU for “pursuing ‘neo-liberal’ policy:”
But then his party pursues this policy on immigration -
You can’t get much more neo-liberal than that.
What does that have to do with the unionized representation of native European national interests?
We hear nothing representing the unionized interests of native European nationals in YKW media. Our interests are ignored and obfuscated beginning with the very terms, with the deliberately confusing mis-designation of neo-liberal policy - immigration and non-native imposition in particular - as “The Left.” By contrast, designating the proper representation of native European national interests as The White Left is to distinguish it from the liberal and Jewish affectations imposed on native European nationalist interests by The Red Left.
Posted by Guest Blogger on Sunday, December 7, 2014 at 01:11 AM in Anti-racism and white genocide, European Nationalism, European Union, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, Immigration, Immigration and Politics, Journalism, Linguistics, Marxism & Culture War, Political analysis, That Question Again
A few weeks ago Daniel sent a request to Frank Salter, author of On Genetic Interests, to consent to be interviewed for MR Radio. He was then in the process of a double-session interview with Red Ice. We hope he might be interested in a more intellectually demanding approach to his thesis in OGI and his hopes for European peoples in the West. He was unavailable.
In anticipation of a positive reply from Dr Salter I had scribbled down some questions – heads of discussion, really - which I hoped to put before him. It is unlikely that they will be asked in that form now. I thought they might be of interest to readers all the same, duly embroidered with some of my own understandings which would have emerged in the discussion.
1. Academics, science and politics
Dr Salter, you describe your profession as that of a political scientist and ethologist engaged in studying the motivational and organisational aspects – the laws that are at work, if you like - in human group dynamics. In the process you have afforded us all some unique insights into normative human behaviour, most particularly in the central thrust of On Genetic Interests. Purely for myself, I would like to thank you for that; and I’m sure very many others with our politics would feel the same.
(a) Can I begin by asking how you see yourself and your work? Is an ethologist like you, with his basis of work with empirical data, fundamentally of the humanities or the sciences? How do your politics, which are clearly quite nationalist, influence your selection and formulation of research projects? Do you have to make additional efforts to function as a disinterested researcher, while your peers down the corridor in the politics and sociology faculties are quite free to operate as de facto campaigners for progressive causes?
(b) More than a decade since the death of Stephen J Gould, and with the Sociobiology Study Group a forgotten entity, what is your assessment generally of the state of truth-speaking in the biological sciences, in particular about human difference? Would you say that the era of strict censorship has passed, and academic freedom now obtains? Or has the focus merely moved from a rigid control on what can be studied to a more subtle but no less widespread control of how studies can be framed, how results can be presented, and so forth?
(c) What kind of reception have your conclusions had among your academic peers? For example, has EGI, as a concept, been discussed by, or even incorporated in the thinking of, other political scientists with your ethological focus, or that of evolutionary biologists and psychologists, or even sociologists?
2. Politics and the public discourse
Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, December 1, 2014 at 12:17 PM in Anti-racism and white genocide, Australian Politics, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, European Nationalism, Islam & Islamification, Liberalism & the Left, Marxism & Culture War, White Nationalism
- Bob in D.C.
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, November 25, 2014 at 07:45 AM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Awakenings, Blogs & Blogging, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, Law & Order, Marxism & Culture War, Popular Culture, The Proposition Nation
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, November 22, 2014 at 11:20 PM in Anti-racism and white genocide, Awakenings, Crusade against Discrimination in Britain, Demographics, Economics & Finance, Environmentalism & Global Warming, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, Globalisation, Health, History, Immigration, Immigration and Politics, Liberalism & the Left, Marxism & Culture War, Race realism, Social liberalism, Social Sciences, White Genocide Project, World Affairs
Paul Sperry, Hoover Institution media fellow and author of “The Great American Bank Robbery,” which exposes the racial politics behind the mortgage crisis - government attempt to increase minority home-ownership instigated the sub-prime housing crisis.
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, November 15, 2014 at 04:04 AM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Awakenings, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, Globalisation, Immigration and Politics, Marxism & Culture War, No particular place to go, Popular Culture, Social liberalism, That Question Again, The Proposition Nation, U.S. Politics, White Communities & Micro-Economies, White Genocide Project, White Genocide: America, White Nationalism
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
The Apollo 11 project, which had legions of well behaved admirers who descended upon Cape Canaveral to observe its event.
Now, if we couldn’t expect hippies, not even John Lennon, to be articulate of what was important about the hippie motive how can we expect Don Black and right wing cohorts to be articulate of their motives?
Don says Timothy Leary was the poster hippie boy with the emblematic phrase, “tune in turn on and drop out.” Not exactly.
And his colleague, “Don Advo,” preferred Ayn Rand’s take on hippies in “Apollo and Dionysus,” disparaging hippies by contrast to achieving technocrats, viz. contrasting the Apollo astronauts and witnesses to the Dionysian Woodstock performers and crowd.
But whereas Any Rand’s individualist objectivism was motivated to rupture the communality and other organization of European peoples by contrasting it with “heroic” but disingenuous individualism, the hippies did have a very important motive which is continually skirted-over by those who ignore the background of The Vietnam War Draft.
In rebellion against the draft, hippies were there at Woodstock, singing..
“Well, come on all of you, big strong men, Uncle Sam needs your help again. Yeah, he’s got himself in a terrible jam way down yonder in Vietnam. So put down your books and pick up a gun, gonna have a whole lotta fun.. and its one, two, three…
What are we fighting for? Don’t ask me I don’t give a damn, next stop is Vietnam”..
“Ain’t no time to wonder why (Being, midtdasein, nah!) whoopee! we’re all gonna die!
Yeah, come on Wall Street, don’t be slow, why man, this is war au-go-go
Plenty good money to be made by supplying the army with the tools of its trade”
In all seriousness…
Their fundamental project was very significant in the advance of European peoples - a quest for midt-dasein - communal being amidst the class of one’s people for White males - as opposed to having those basic levels on the hierarchy of needs sacrificed by males in deprivation and privation; where a few males might make it through the stress to the higher reaches (often transformed into sociopaths for the effort), to the higher aims on the hierarchy of needs - e.g., exploring the moon. To where in fact, these traditional trade-offs in gender differentiation were exploited and exaggerated beyond reason.
Sacrificial White males on the way, as in Vietnam, no matter how needless, be damned.
The point is, these motives/needs should not and ultimately, in fact, cannot be mutually exclusive, but must be balanced in optimality. The hippies were not protesting the Apollo landing. They reasonably sought organicism and being in balance to technology. However, they might upset a Jew like Ayn Rand because they were insisting that the intrinsic value of White men - White male midt-dasein - be recognized, in fact its institution was/is a necessary priority.
But the hippies were inarticulate of that motive. Moreover, requisite to their motive of midtdasein was “racism” * - i.e., social classification and necessary discrimination thereof, duty when mature to guard the boundaries thereof - there is no being in one’s group without discriminating against its antagonists - ironically prohibited with the newly mis-coined “civil rights” making such requisite discrimination into a veritable taboo and largely illegal in fact. Needless to say that was hard to articulate at the time as it is still now. Midtdasein’s articulation was made yet harder by the fact that it could easily be emasculated against the traditional role/motive for males to quest after the top of the hierarchy and man-up in sacrificing the basic needs of the hierarchy. Furthermore, turning back from actualizing the top of the hierarchy apparently belied the whole American project as the “land of opportunity.” Indeed, White males would not necessarily want to sacrifice the possibility for the top of the hierarchy either. Nor would they want to sacrifice the middle - relationships with co-evolutionary women:
Articulating the motive of White male midtdasein was further complicated by its incommensurability and confusion with Jewish interests and right-wing interests - who sought to associate it with the Jewish radical agenda of Marxism: expressed as imposed liberalism for Whites but by contrast to that relaxation of vigilance, a unionized activism for non-Whites against Whites - the prim “civil rights” and upwardly black power totally incommensurate with White male midtdasein. As was Marcuse’s “free love and “poly- morphous perversion” incommensurate with White male midtdasein, especially as bounds of accountability and human ecology were ruptured as “violation of ‘civil rights”
The second wave of feminism, another thing wrongly correlated with hippies, was also in fact incommensurate, quite literally incommensurate with White male midtdasein.
In fact, it was the thesis of Betty Friedan, leading exponent of that second wave of feminism, that in order to be healthy, full and free, women needed access to the higher levels of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
It is apparent how the “high grumbles” which Maslow called higher needs on the hierarchy, and as feminists who followed Friedan’s thesis would espouse, could cause extreme friction between White women and White men, who had the “low grumbles” of not wanting to be treated as being so intrinsically valueless as to have to be subject to a draft and die in a senseless foreign war of aggression; and rather than being left alone in peace, being amidst the class of their people, were subject in still further violation thereof - violation of their freedom from association with outsiders as imposed by “civil rights” - violation of freedom from association, violation of midtdasein - taking away the most basic freedom of White men.
* Needless to say, along with hippies, Ayn Rand found “racism” appalling - disCusting!
Sometime back a fellow calling himself Lonejack agreed with my assessment:
Thank You Lonejack
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, October 22, 2014 at 10:41 AM in Activism, Anthropology, Anti-racism and white genocide, Awakenings, No particular place to go, Political Philosophy, Popular Culture, Social liberalism
With appreciation of Dr. Lister’s recent participation, an abstract distinction re-emerges not only as potentially useful to the struggle in general, but also in explaining what may otherwise be apprehended by Dr. Lister as some of my brute efforts here at MR.
A light-bulb moment in formulating my racial activism occurred when I read a distinction which Hegel made use of, viz., that of “self transcendence vs. self assertion.”
I later came to understand that that distinction goes farther back than Hegel and tracing its history may or may not have bearing. But what does have bearing is its teasing-apart now. By its application I am not so literal minded as to limit transcendence and assertion to the self in individual interests only but rather see it as largely a matter of self assertion of one’s borrowings from the group’s genetic capacities and interests and self transcendence on behalf of, and in payment of, the group’s genetic capacities and interests for its assertion – or, crucially and mistakenly the pragmatic activist would argue, a self transcendence beyond the group’s interests. To an extent that would often be understood correctly as a mistake of European obsequiousness, whether through Nordic individualism, objectivism, Christianity, etc. or, of course, by Jewish coercion. This was one of the first, clarifying applications for me in making sense of my experience. That for whatever reason, European men were too self transcendent and needed more self assertion.
Around the same time I realized that intellectualism should not be a bad term - rather it makes use of the extant body of literature, conceptual structures and our inherited mental abilities, applying them to organize and make sense of our experience.
The frequent charge of the boring, disingenuous and ill-willed (most recently, by TD at Daily Stormer, who tried to say that I was an “intellectual wannabe” and also tried to say that I was against National Socialism – again, missing the point, deliberately in all likelihood, in claiming those terms only apply to Hitler’s regime’s distortions thereof) is “pseudo-intellectualism.”
Kievsky echoed my sentiments exactly when he made the astute observation that our enemies have weaponized the meme of “intellectualism as unmanly” among European men. My father and older brother ate that up and modeled it perfectly for me, i.e, what brute pragmatism was, making it didactic in fact, closing off other routes by their capacity to get on without conveying articulation of much broad, social sense; to where I had no choice but to take the (daunting) intellectual route as far as I could and as its utility would allow in order to extricate myself from the arbitrary confusion that is the upshot of “no-nonsense” - by which they meant, intellectual structures which served a semi-transcendent purpose of orientation, organizing and making coherent sense of self in relation to the world; or any girlish motivation to even broach such a topic. That was “nonsense” or what others would call “pseudo-intellectualism.”
What I would call the more speculative side of the hermeneutic circle.
Because my need for intellectualism was real, not a garish display, I had to keep my eye on its life-line: There is a difference between superfluous display of erudition, an obnoxious critical parsing or an honest effort to get things done - an effort which may in fact, be served by some “intellectual” abstraction or another merged with consensus and utility. I may not be the world’s most confident person and I am certainly not claiming to be among the smartest, but what I will claim in confidence is that I keep an eye on relevance; with that, whatever “intellectualism” I deploy is not for the purpose of impressing people, but for its utility in relevant aims. Anyway, if a man is not dealing with reality, then reality will take care of it, yes?
I decided that I would strive after a good balance and blend to incorporate intellectual structures where useful with assertion of self and White group interests against non-White antagonism and liberal uncaring.
My effort to blend these two things may explain why I might seem contradictory and confusing to people, but I am really not. What I am doing is the hermeneutic circle, an engaged process of critique and inquiry, which moves from more speculative attempts at comprehending group patterns – such as self transcendence and self assertion - and closer readings, such as those of genetic compatibility.
Those of bad-will, will attempt to seize upon the more speculative moments to charge me with pseudo-intellectualism, trying to seem smart, using intellectual terms and concepts for the sake of using them, not for a purpose of defending our people. Of course, that’s not true; but our enemies are our enemies, the assholes among us are assholes (such as TD).
On the other hand, I, we, go to the assertive side of the hermeneutic circle for its sundry utility: testing the speculative side’s truthfulness against the concrete moment, deploying it for the sake of getting something done (e.g., posting a guy with a sign to make it clear that Europeans with sense should agree that “with Jews we lose” - and if that does not inspire the confidence and conviction of confirming what one already knows, should cause them to verify the assertion); in short, the hermeneutic process is to manage the orientative process in relation to reality. But it is a process which requires the speculative, broader temporal and historical comprehension of the pattern as well, particularly to maintain systemic group coherence and accountability.
That is probably why our enemies are so keen for us to not have the “pseudo-intellectualism” to maintain our group orientation.
Ok, Dr. Lister may appreciate that. And for sure, I would like to have an “adult” conversation with mature and scholarly individuals such as him contributing to MR.
But when the word “adult” is used in this context, my antenna goes up that we may get fixed on one end of what should be a corrective back and forth process. The end that I am talking about not wanting to get stuck on, of course, is the self transcendent end, the one that does not test itself and assert itself against reality quite enough if it does not circle back to self assertion.
It is also a matter of assertion of the empirical end, testing and verification, so it is not, as GW might fear, a call to mere practical action.
But again, my initial critical perspective on European peoples, that they/we were having these problems (I am going back to an observation from the mid 80’s now), held that is because they/we were too self transcendent. They needed to incorporate more self assertion in terms of their group interests in particular. Now, that is not a contradiction if you recognize that the self is composed of historical/social inheritance – to be marshaled in a new and novel way, displaying agency and difference hopefully, but nevertheless.
A stark contrast illustrating this was that of blacks in their hyper-assertiveness of self and group interests as opposed to Whites in their exasperating self transcendence – imagine a White guy with a high voice saying to a nigger, “kill as many Whites as you want, take my woman and our girls for sex slaves and fuck me in the ass too!”
White men of normal instinct will not “intellectualize” and try to explain White obsequiousness away. A solid intellectual will not view this predicament as an intelligent response from Whites. But a lot of White guys will try to seem smart, tough, “above it” by “explaining” it away, and gain approval from a lot of White females for doing that.
In fact, one of the benefits of intellectualism by contrast is that one can say upon erudition that, “I am being an over-intellectualizing bag of books.”
One can do that in an instant whereas one cannot read and digest a hundred good books in an instant. Moreover, as Aristotle so correctly stated, “it takes courage to study.” To put out of mind all else that one might attend to in order to cultivate rigorous and long-term views. In line with favoring rigor against arbitrary sensibility, Kant observed that it is easier to return to one’s senses than to restore a principle.
Even so, the nagging callings back, mockery from beautiful but tattood women whose pimps make fools of us in their own way, is a call to courage as well, to practical intelligence, not just imaginative, to implement, to apply our theories in reality.
People who have been ensconced among their fellow Europeans and not forced to interact with blacks en mass, for example, may not understand the importance of asserting the word “nigger.”
If you cannot assert the word nigger you can barely think it, you can barely defend yourself with the strong assertion of the pattern of blacks to be discriminated against for the testosterone and hyper-assertiveness of a people who can assert themselves in an episode – even having our women cooing despite their marked violence - to the detriment of course, of the broader pattern of Whites, where White men shine. But if we are too timid to assert the word and think its wrong to classify them pejoratively, what might our co-evolutionary young women think?
This is why I take a step back when Dr. Lister calls for an adult conversation. I worry that we are being called into the “universal maturity” which does not take into account our more protracted rate of sexual maturity and the black’s more direct route – and the fact that they and other non-Whites obey their own relative maturity, not universal maturity. Young White men in particular need this word “nigger” to signal that they know the pattern, that they know how to counter it, that they know how the Jews are deploying them against us, and that they don’t buy it for a moment. No intellectual noodling, no logical contortions* to excuse them for imposing upon us – they are niggers. Moreover, this is a warning to White women as well. There will be no excuses. If that is what you want, you will go and live with them and the consequences of their ways. We are not going to pay for your lack of judgment, your mulatto children, the abuse of our men, their sacrificial sublimation and ancient legacy. With that comes the liberating assertion (for White male being) that miscegenation is equivalent to rape.
All this implies judgment and taste, of course. One does not go around just using this word, but will use it where necessary and effective. For the sake of practicality, one does not treat White women who betray our legacy in the way that Sharia law might, but does take measures to separate from their influence and make them pay (by banishment and cutting them off from shared resources) for the consequences of their bad judgment. We do not pay the price, they do, but they deserve respect of a fair warning, and here it is – that’s a nigger and that’s what niggers do as a very predictable pattern. Nobody is worth putting-up with it.
Along with self transcendence seems to come a secondary sex characteristic of displaying excessive logical capacity. One way of expressing excessive logical capacity AND independence that may appeal to females as display of dominance and advanced ability is the logical excusing away of non-White affliction on Whites. Moreover, the dishonesty and disingenuousness in regard to one’s group interests by self transcendent liberalism, the willingness to put other Whites below and allow them to be extinguished by non-Whites will serve the short term interests of young females. They can identify who is “strong” and “logical” in being that treacherous and independent of group cooperation. More, liberalism, as I have often noted, increases the disorder by breaking group accountability and ecology in favor of individualism, which strengthens the one up position of young females in partner selection. Male and female becomes the chief conceptual organization as opposed to race. As it gives them short term benefits, young females will encourage liberalism and be pandered to by non-Whites (Jews especially, of course) to allow liberal males through their gate-keeping.
By none of this do I mean to be cynical of intellectualism, adult conversations or the professional contributions of Dr. Lister. On the contrary, my hope is to explain my reasoning so that he and people he might value as professional colleagues can find a way to participate. I’m willing to forgo the spitballs and the high hard ones underneath the chin (e.g., we don’t need to say “nigger” here) in exchange for a modicum of understanding – I see true intellectualism as a process embracing self assertion of group interests as well as the maturity of self transcendence on behalf of group interests.
Posted by DanielS on Monday, October 20, 2014 at 01:53 AM in Activism, Anthropology, Anti-racism and white genocide, Awakenings, Crusade against Discrimination in Britain, Feminism, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, Social Sciences, White Genocide Project, White Genocide: Europe, White Nationalism
..and movements. Proscriptions of European organization and defense, promulgated under a guise of moral acceptability, that have European peoples arguing against their own interests and organization thereof.
Sexual conservatism as pathological
Posted by DanielS on Monday, September 29, 2014 at 11:24 PM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Awakenings, Conservatism, Crusade against Discrimination in Britain, Feminism, Journalism
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