|
|
|
Alt-Right cannot be trusted to represent Whites, ethnonationalists on crucial matters  Yeeeehaaah! Sooweeeee! Get em ....Leroy and Schlomo“The United States Should Seriously Consider Peaceful Partition”, so says Vincent Law at AltRight on 24 April 2017. How convenient that Vincent Law, a Ukrainian American (?) living in St. Peterberg, Russia, would proffer how balkanization of The US might go. The right wing and Jewish perspective from which he comes is not to be trusted on either side of this issue. They created these conflicts, they created these immigration problems and now they want to create hackneyed “solutions.” They may bemuse and distract larpers, but in the end they will serve a Jewish and complicit right wing perspective. This will create disaster and conflict for others while these weasels A) escape to gated communities or B) escape the country entirely if need be (with their money, of course); finally, e.g., leaving remaining Whites to get raped by blacks (who are “really not so bad”, or perhaps “your problem”, when in fact, it was their perspective that long ago imposed them on normal Whites et al.). Meanwhile right wingers from other races will be trying to swing deals established by Jews and right wingers as well. Saying that the kind of Jews and right wing huxters posing as “ethno nationalists” on this thread at Alt-Right represent White people and their ethnonationalism. They don’t. And they will create conflicts with people that White ethno nationalists should ally (not integrate or fight) with: Asian and Amerindian ethno nationalists. The Right Wing/Alternative Right cannot be trusted with this issue any more than anything else - i.e., not at all. They are the ones who put Trump and his Jewish entourage into power. And that is just for starters in terms of their screw-ups. There are some basic issues that need to sorted out yet - not interminable matters, but too important to go right ahead and start bargaining on the bases and within the parameters that Jews and right wingers establish. They cannot even be trusted to say what is White or not.
DanielS: Silver is an (admitted) non-White (who “wouldn’t be surprised if he is part Jewish”, but at any rate, “has an affinity for Anatolia and the Levant”). He lives in England, not America, and agitates to deliberately stir-up strife among Whites while he tries to create enemies for them among non-Whites. In this case, with Asians. I drove him away from Majorityrights long ago for these reasons. He is in no way to be taken seriously, as a representative of Whites; nor as a negotiator of ethnonationalism in good or bad faith. While I draw attention to Alt-Righters, trolls and the experience that I have of them misrepresenting White interests, Kumiko calls some interesting facts to my attention about Alt-Right.com. - they allow for slurs against Asians in their comments, but if you use the word “Jew” the comment will be blocked. She also noted that she was the only one who gave an up-vote to Bowery’s comment:
Bowery’s idea of Sortocracy is among the most fair and intelligent on the thread, but the drawback of Sortocracy is for his/its empirical bias, as it lacks the historical element that hermeneutics corrects for. If that were to be incorporated, and it could be, it could be a very good vehicle.
Comments:2
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 26 Apr 2017 22:12 | #
I don’t think so. 3
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 27 Apr 2017 06:24 | # Jews are our greatest threat, and roughly speaking they are up to their old problem, reaction solution. There is a significant problem that we have in their commandeering our “solutions.” Their crypsis and war through deception not only deceives Whites, and exhausts them, it creates reaction and occasion to payoff opportunistic right wingers, to divert their aggression and friend enemy lines improperly. It should be clear by now that the most fundamental separation necessary is from are Jews. But it isn’t always easy for many of our people to make this distinction and besides, many of them grow exhausted at the end of the problem phase and make deals. How much less are other people going to be willing and able to see and make distinctions between Whites and Jews? They will confuse, exhaust and get them to react too, just as the YKW might want, in accordance with the friend enemy lines that the YKW might want. You begin to see the problem. That it is necessary to separate ourselves from Jews and that we don’t need the friend enemy lines that they would draw for us. WE need rather allies in the cause against them and their friend lines. We obviously need to separate ourselves from Islam as well. I should scarcely have to argue its danger and the need to outlaw its practice in our lands. Some people beneath Islam can potentially be friends, or even us, as in the case of European Albanians. Like all Abrahamic religion, we need to try to disabuse them of this. But non-European Muslims bear no consideration of negotiation (i.e., of different ways other than Islam, and of our letting them help against Jewish imposition in special cases) until they are back in their countries of origin. Blacks offer nothing to White ethnonationalism; their assertive bio-power and fecundity is a typically underrated problem by the right wing (let alone plain liberals). While people who don’t care about racial distinctions may make an argument that mixing and allying with blacks can increase flexibility, strength and intimidation for “our side” (it is an argument, but obviously one that I would counter), the destruction to EGI is vast; a destruction that we are not likely to have a lot of sympathetic help for if we side with them against others. On the crucial matters of these three groups then, which should be categorized as enemies to our racial interests, it is clear that Whites are not quite ready as ethno-nationalists to draw friend enemy lines and come to the preliminary bargaining table. Now, you say to me, shouldn’t Asians and Amerindians be enemies too? Not necessarily; they have their drawbacks, like we all do, but they will be our enemies -and terrible ones, whereas they could have been our most potent allies - if we don’t categorize those first three groups properly. So, we need to deal first with our own problem, which is largely our propensity to be enamored of objectivism, its susceptibility to naivete/disingenuousness, to selling out group interests for its willful blindness to indebtedness to its own group (even earthly ecological interests), in favor of acting as individuals or on behalf of smaller groups, perhaps not even racially organized. Nationalism is a good scale for Whites, as it allows enough for our individualism. Besides being too weak geostrategically, communitarianism is a gossip mill that will kill you (if you don’t believe me, give it a try) whereas gossip is neutralized in a national framework. We are talking about managing the relativism of a social group category, which is called left nationalism - a perspective to keep an eye on the objectivist pretenses that would have our so called leaders and progressives make deals with the first three groups: Zionists and their diaspora, Muslims and their compradors, black biopower. We are not asking who is better or worse, we are asking what works to defend our human ecology. Now then, are there drawbacks to Asians and Amerindians to be addressed. Yes. In the case of Asians there may be a lack of empathy which tends to be an inverse corollary to confidence. They have their reasons to be confident - intelligence, technological ability, but it is probably for another reason of their confidence, i.e., their massive populations with coherent backing - that we are infinitely better off doing our best to overcome their foibles, and make them allies - they would be either horrific enemies or powerful allies. And a monumental reason on top of that to make them allies is they tend to be against our greatest enemies, Jews, Muslims and blacks. Amerindios, rather, also cultivate an anti-Jewish stance; along with their infamous will to drive blacks out. That is, they could be another ally potentially. They are natural separatists too, which works well for us, as we are talking about a separatist alliance. Perhaps Kumiko and her Asian conspefics can attend to their drawbacks: The functional drawbacks to Amerindios, of course, are the apparent I.Q. problems: fecundity, societal destruction and with those problems the destruction of carrying capacity. Especially if accountability can be established - the DNA Nation is likely the best route - then legitimate grievances and anxiety can be greatly alleviated, to the point of a solidly functional separatist alliance. If they can see and respect the qualities that we bring (which they should if we draw friend enemies lines properly and underscore our qualities as left ethno nationalists), if they can respect our sovereignty as we might respect theirs (they are natural separatists too), then separatist alliance with them makes sense and our separatist alliance might take ever more vast tracts, sacrosanct states and counties of the Americas together while pushing-out our enemies more and more. I.e., claims of the northwest for Whites and the South west for Amerindios and Asians would be modest to the point of injustice for both parties, not to mention leaving us all with our greatest problems still in tact and in our face. 4
Posted by Anonimous on Thu, 27 Apr 2017 08:21 | #
I beg to differ. So, the most likely scenario will be: the fat cats will tell the commanders to reestablish order, then the enforcers will mow down the alpha males. Make no mistake, the ranks among the enforcers are indoctrinated to obey and execute commands, rarely do they engage the brain and evaluate the political situation. Also, all the bravado about patriotism and bravery is pure smoke and mirrors, for most of them, the only safe approach is to listen to their commander, to survive unscratched and collect the salary, no matter how many they have to maim or kill. I understand that something must be done, however, the only safe approach is through of the masses’ awakening. 5
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Thu, 27 Apr 2017 13:22 | # I cannot imagine why it would be the case that Majorityrights would even be having this discussion, as though I am somehow in the wrong, or as though we are somehow obliged to be accountable to the ‘Americans’. And I place ‘Americans’ in quotations here, because I thought that we had gotten beyond using existing nation-state boundaries as a basic unit of analysis. To quote myself from just a short while ago:
And in a separate thread I described my view of what the election of Donald Trump actually meant. I’m sure that everyone remembers it. The key question is ‘which America do you want?’ People seem to be very angry about the fact that I keep advocating stances that would lead to the attenuation of America’s ability to project power. The reason that I do it not because I’m ‘anti-White’ or that I ‘lack empathy’ or whatever story of outrage the ‘White Nationalist’ 32nd Internet Crybaby Battalion whisks out this time. Since when does Majorityrights put up whole front page articles which basically follow in the slipstream of the crying noises pronounced by people like Ted Sallis, people with Confederate flag and Swastika flag avatars, and Silvio Silver? Why is this even a topic? I should not be the subject of an attack from behind, and it’s frankly ridiculous that it should occur. These people are traitors to everything that the North Atlantic has tried to accomplish, and now they are upset because I’m advocating the dissolution of the political framework that they have captured and are using to effect that treason. Of course they are going to engage in crying about how my stance is ‘anti-White’. Their crying is also deeply ironic, because they don’t seem to want to live in a country surrounded by ethnic minorities, but then when I agree that they should just partition the country if they really feel that way, they suddenly have a problem with that. It’s very revealing. Is separatism a real thing that they want to do, or is it a talking point that is used to stoke racial tensions and misdirect people away from examining some other problem? La contrarrevolución At any rate, there is more than one lens through which my comments at AltRight.com can be viewed. When you take into account the fact that Kevin MacDonald once hilariously wrote that Donald Trump’s election marked the beginning of a ‘revolution’ in the United States, things get interesting. Firstly, take seriously for a moment that a ‘revolution’ has occurred. Consider the qualities that the ‘revolution’ has shown so far. Secondly, realise that we are contra—which is to say ‘against’—that revolution. The United States has been hijacked and steered into a mode that resembles a despotism of the ex-Stalinist Russian style, commandeered by a mixture of the worst imaginable people. Its state apparatus has now become the enemy. If it is not possible to shift the United States out of that mode at subsequent elections, then it may instead be sensible to abandon electoral solutions, and instead advocate cutting the country into two separate political AOs. The political energy released by doing so, could be transformative because it would open the possibility for advocating un-hijacking everything, and moving the Southwest toward a Central American style of governance, and the rest of the land toward a Northern European style. But obviously I could not literally write that in AltRight.com’s comments section. I’ll even be more concrete here. It is possible to make two arguments inside one argument, what was perceived by you as a ‘pro-Asian, pro-Hispanic, and anti-White’ argument, may in fact be something else in actuality. And it basically was. The part of my argument that I did not choose to say was that I think that if some of the old hands from School of the Americas and other haunts were to see the situation today, they too would agree with my position. The United States itself has been fully captured by the enemy. It’s sad, but true. In order to preserve the particular kind of freedom that those people had striven to protect, requires someone to now think the unthinkable: It may be worth talking about doing to the United States the very same kind of thing that was done in Central and South America the last time Russian influence encroached on the hemisphere. It’s easy to know what kind of things can be done, after all, it’s only been dress-rehearsed 50,000 times already. One way to save the spirit of freedom that once existed there, is to agitate to split the country demographically along lines that allow there to be explicit ethnic majorities within the two splits. For example, majority Hispanic in the Southeast, and majority White everywhere else. This then simplifies the conduct of politics within the two jurisdictions, because it then becomes possible to leverage two different kinds of majoritarian politics in both cases, which can lead to profound transformations of the political structure (and I will leave it to readers to deduce what those transformations would be—hint, it’s ultimately anti-Zionist and anti-Russian). There is nothing that can be lost from advocating that and seeing what, if anything, happens as a consequence. I have actually discussed this with you before in actual unvarnished detail with you before on a phone call, Daniel, so I can’t imagine why you are now acting like you don’t know why I’m trying to do whatever small part I can to propel this concept, or the seeds of that concept, into discussions. Technically I should not have been forced to write this response at all. Why I jumped in When I saw that Vincent Law was posting about the concept of separatism on AltRight.com, but that he had not actually defined what that separation would look like, I chose to deliberately go there and try to shape the conversation by engaging in a conversation about the Southwest seceding. I was not ‘misled’ by ‘trolls’. I was the one setting the atmosphere, until you decided to basically undermine me, Daniel. Also, even if it’s a long shot or the timescale is quite distant on the idea of actioning separatism, even the simple the act of discussing it and maintaining one coherent stance has a positive effect in that it spurs conversations about why someone would feel compelled to advocate such a drastic action. That in turn then leads to discussions of geostrategy, geoeconomics, and demographics, discussions which otherwise would not have occurred, and crucially, situates these discussions within a racialised atmosphere of “Asians and Hispanics on one end and Whites on the other”, rather than the more abstract and imprecise “Blue states on one end and Red states on the other”. I would have been able to follow up with a complementary article about the strategic utility of advocating separatism and why race is the most potent criterion on which to create geopolitical boundaries, and I could have probably continued to do it any time anyone raised the subject, for months, without having to draw back too much of the curtain too early on my thinking, if I hadn’t then been attacked here needlessly at the same time. The unique selling point of the way that I do this, is also that I am legitimately and honestly not advocating a retreat by anyone into parochialism or small-mindedness. My approach still can be understood within the broad expanse of globalisation, and I made sure to basically signal that fact in my comments on AltRight.com. Unfortunately, the present situation means that anyone who sees my comments on AltRight.com now, and who then follows the link on my profile through to Majorityrights.com within the crucial 5 - 7 day cycle, will instantly be met with your article on the front page contradicting my position. It’s also now ‘on the record’ that there is a divide among us here, even though it did not appear that there was a divide the last time I—more surreptitiously—unveiled this narrative. If anyone got taken in by the trolls, I would say that it might have been you Daniel, because all it required for them to get you to attack me, was for some guy named Jack Burton with a Confederate flag to fall on the floor and begin crying foul for no reason, and for Silvio Silver to swear at me. You then immediately became concerned that I was stirring up conflict, as though I am supposed to care whether our enemies feel upset about what I’m saying. Game theory or something People have been crying to you, Daniel, about how I was mean to people and that I’m ‘violent’, and ‘mendacious’, and ‘basically a militaristic psychopath’. I can’t imagine why you took their crocodile tears seriously enough to make a whole article about it. All I did was that I said to those commenters who wanted to advocate ‘race war’, that they should think again if they imagine that the benefits of war between the different racial groups in the United States would be preferable to a peaceful partition. Throughout the entire thread I supported peaceful partition. Here is an example of a response that I gave to a person who was basically calling for race-war as though such a thing would be a walk-over for White Nationalists. I simply told him that he would not be having a walk-over because people would fight back to defend themselves and their interests:
See that part I’ve highlighted at the end there? Exactly. What are the crybabies complaining about? They’re complaining because I reminded them that people aren’t going to just walk onto trains to be deported to who-knows-where because someone asked them nicely? It’s preposterous. It would be far easier for everyone if they just don’t start any fights, and instead support peaceful partition. That’s the point I was making throughout the conversation in that thread. And yes, the image I chose to use and the slogan on it was not accidental. I was indeed subtly signalling using that ‘contra’ aesthetic as way to indicate that there is something more to all this than mere ethnic conflict with ‘White Americans’. But apparently there is no combination of signals that I can use to ward off the paranoid response, when people get triggered and start complaining for no reason. Ridiculousness On some level you have to understand how annoying it is for me. The knee-jerk White fragility-based reactions to everything I do from all quarters, is about as bizarre as witnessing an argument in which—imagine—you have to choose between Fulgencio Batista Zaldívar on the one hand, or Fidel Castro on the other, and oops, Castro ends up as the president. And then, to continue this historical analogy, let us recall that in actual reality the NATO establishment and the Chinese Maoists after 1966 both agreed that Castro was basically a toxic Russian puppet (because Sino-Soviet split). Now imagine that there are people who believe that the alignment of the NATO and China against a Russian puppet who happens to be White, is only proof of Castro’s supposed ‘pro-White utility’ and that therefore they draw the conclusion that anyone who opposes their darling Castro is somehow part of ‘pro-Asian anti-White politics’. That would be an absolutely retarded conclusion based on completely ridiculous logic, and yet here we are. That is the Trump era in comedic historical analogy form. I don’t know what can be done to manage the messaging. 6
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 27 Apr 2017 15:29 | #
Well, this is where the discussion should be had.
Debating within enemy parameters is a mistake.
I am not talking about being accountable to Americans, I am talking about being accountable to a coordination of ethno-nationalists proper - I call them left ethno nationalists because they are separatists aligned against the exploitation and non accountability of Jews, right wing sell outs, Muslims and blacks.
I just said that we had. I am referring to a land mass when I refer to America.
Ok, be that history as it may, there is more possibility to do better for all three of our peoples through a mutual understanding of ethno nationalist coordination.
Well, Trump is obviously drawing friend enemy distinctions as Jews would have it. And not as we would have it, certainly not.
I want to look at all of the Americas, north and south, to be subject to a hegemonic alliance coordinated between Whites, Asians and Amerindios. In such a scenario it is possible for all of us to live better than we ever have before.
I am not angry about that. That is more than fine.
I didn’t say that you lack empathy. I drew negative stereotype for Asians as I have drawn stereotypes for all groups so that we might begin to deal honestly with people, especially if we want to ally with them.
I find it hard to believe that you think that my motive is to feel sorry for these people when in fact it is just the opposite - contempt for their pretense of representing White ethno nationlaism. I’ll repeat that as often as necessary because it is the absolute truth.
Becuase its very important that these people not cause reaction, muck up friend enemy lines, etc.
You aren’t being attacked from behind. This is a friend asking you to come back to position, here, and talk with us first, because the enemy is there to harass, distract, waste time, divert energy and resource from the cultivation of our ethno nationalist position - mostly, they do not want our alliance.
They are traitors to a helluva lot more than that.
Well, even Jewish infiltrators, perhaps especially, can and will use the “your just saying that because you’re anti-Wihte” meme Whatever they are crying the most trustworthy thing about these commentators is that they cannot be trusted.
Again, I will not speculate about what these commentators think and moreover do not care. Speaking for myself, this has been too abrupt. There is more preliminary discussion that needs to occur before lines are drawn.
More like the latter: well said.
OK.
At least we are talking seriously, even if I believe MacDonald is seriously and ironically (would be more ironic if it did not follow the right wing template) mistaken in his politics, at least we are not talking Silver. KM carries legitimate cred, upon which he can lead things powerfully astray out in the open, not just as a piddling troll.
Hmm, well I suppose you might say that there is something of a shared legacy in that their movement is stemming from a relationship of Jews and reactionaries, drawing lines, potentially deadly lines, as they will. Most people would see the analogy as far fetched, but the potential for disaster is there.
It always really was, but now Alt Right, so called White advocates, are identifying with it, whereas before the likes of Gottfried, Sailer and Mike Enoch, the US Government was the enemy for White Nationalists and their heroes, like The Order.
Ok, but before you start cutting things there has to be more understanding between (potential) allies so that they don’t turn against each other. Maybe it does seem more necessary from my perspective, but it is because it is less coherent and not sufficiently represented free of the Jew tint and other foibles of the right.
I for one, am not ready to think about that - I am not interested in a Northern European governance along with Jews and blacks.
I don’t care what they think anyway.
It is too soon to be concrete.
My concern is that people who purport to represent Whites and do it badly, not simply be allowed to do so; where people - or at least their place holding position - which might otherwise well represent Whites are not under consideration.
My school of thought has always seen the United States government as against etno nationalism and unhelpful to say the least.
Even so, I’ve not been part of the rehearsal and am not overly familiar.
Generally speaking, that would be true, but are Mexicans a majority in northern California, for example? Or should the people in this area revise the “State of Jefferson” movement that got interrupted by WWII? And should Whites lobby to keep remaining enclaves, such as Santa Barbara? I mean no doubt we have to kick Robert Stark out, but maybe others could stay?
There are parts of the south east (and elsewhere) that are majority black and hispanic too.
It’s not so simple, definitely not so simple for Whites; especially because they are not properly organized in their peoplehood (which would happen with ethno national understanding, as anonymous above has said).
Whites have had a majority population since the inception of the US. The objectivist errors upon which the US was founded need to be sorted out.
Well, I can see rallying ethno nationalism against Russian imperialism but I can’t see rallying it against Russian people who are content with a Russian ethno state - though I can agree the Russian Federation is not. Still, I don’t imagine that would be the burning concern of White people who are surrounded by N words, while their would-be allies don’t give a fig, and want them to find in themselves some revulsion to Maria Sharapova and not Venus Williams. There needs to be some quid pro quo. We can get the Sharapova’s to get their ass back to a Russian ethno state (she is actually a bad example, as her parents are from the traditionally Russian hating Belarus, and she lives in Florida now), if somehow it can be understood that we need to have Williams big black booty butt out.
You saw yourself as forced. I saw myself as forced by what was happening on the other threads, to protect this platform against the effects of trolls and right wingers who I’ve deliberately sent away.
That’s the way you are going to look at it, I suppose. But I see it as their trying to undermine a European Asian ethno nationalist alliance.
Better to discuss it here. We are better than they are.
Again, better to discuss here.
Well, I’ve explained why I did what I did. I won’t have those people represent my position, and I don’t want to talk within their parameters.
Well, we are the ones trying to coordinate ethno nationalism, while they are wielding imperialism.
But they will see that I am not contradicting your position, they will see me saying that the discussion is not ready.
No, there is not a dividing line. I am not on the side of the right wingers, I am on the side of ethno nationalists, which I take you to be; I am not on an opposite side, I am on a side of “I/we” are not ready to talk about that yet.
Come on, I explained this. You are mistaking my revulsion for what these guys are doing with sympathy or reaction. It is just the opposite, it is revulsion and active intervention.
Boy is that a VAST misunderstanding. I SAID THAT THEY ARE STIRRING UP CONFLICT, NOT YOU.
But I didn’t. I just said, “hey! these people are full of shit!”
Ok.
Its ok with me until the very last thing, again, I don’t want to be drawing lines with them first.
Good..
Well, its not so complicated. They are rightwingers and Jews, we are not.
There are genuine grievances that result from cultural Marxism, other Jewish antagonism and right wing BS; and there are people who are pretending, crying “anti White and White genocide” without a shred of sincerity - just trolls.
Cool story, thanks.
Left ethno nationalists of the world coordinate! 7
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Thu, 27 Apr 2017 18:28 | # What would be the purpose of discussing it here with you, when you believe that all of this is something that ‘Jews want’? That would be completely pointless anyway, I won’t be able to dissuade you from thinking that. You repeatedly refer to the fact that advocating a peaceful partition would leave White Americans basically ‘holding the potato’, in the sense that they would be left with all the African-Americans on their side of the line. I already answered that question at that time, since that question was already asked. You also are asking me about precise borders. I don’t know what the precise borders would look like, but based on the demographic situation I do know generally what they would look like. Hence why I said “the Southwest” would be one area, and the “all the rest” would be another area. Generally speaking. All of this “we’re not ready to talk about this yet” stuff from you, is basically just delaying tactics that you have been using all along, because in actual reality you don’t believe that it’s possible, or even desirable to partition the United States along ethnic lines. Taking this any further isn’t going to make a difference anyway, given that I now know that I can’t advocate for a peaceful partition without you obstructing the message. But know this, by getting me to remove my voice from future conversations in which this occurs, it means that I would no longer have any capability to shape those discussions. The moment that you chose to create this article and oppose me in public, that is the moment that it become impossible for me to credibly continue to give an input there. That said, it doesn’t really matter because what’s going to happen is still going to happen either way. I don’t have to address a White audience on this issue, and I won’t anymore. What remains objectively true is this: 30 to 70 years from now the demographic situation will have reached a point where the United States can either (1) have a peaceful partition or it can alternately (2) become a completely ungovernable mess like Brazil, or it could (3) become a conflict area like former Yugoslavia. Whether you or I like it or not, and no matter what anyone says about it, they will eventually be presented with that choice. And it will be for the people on the ground at the time to work out the details of whichever option they choose at the time. 8
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 27 Apr 2017 20:46 | #
I didn’t say that whatever accommodation that we reach would be something the Jews want: it’s likely to be just the opposite. Will address the rest of your comment later. 9
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Fri, 28 Apr 2017 00:44 | # Why even bother? I’m already done with this topic. I’m not going to constantly use up time trying to lecture White Americans, or talk about their ridiculous feelings. At the end of the day they are not my people and there is only so much that I am able, or even willing, to say or do. 10
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 28 Apr 2017 03:22 | # From my perspective, it has always been a “to whom it may concern” message sent to those interested in coordinating ethno-nationalism - therefore, it is a global concern of putting our own people* on proper theoretical footing (or maintaining or reconstructing it, as it were) and then coordinating it geostrategically among allies who’ve got that proper theoretical stance. * White Americans are not your responsibility, neither are those who identify with The United States my responsibility, but coordinating ethno nationalism makes sense geo strategically. P.S. Silver is not even an American, he is some sort of Turko-swarthoid living in England. Given chaos, people’s organizing themselves on racial lines will tend to happen, so I will do my best to coordinate those ethno-nationalisms on the most favorable lines as they emerge. Just as Jews, Muslims and blacks will do more damage than hurting feelings, truth be known, so too will right wing supremacist imperialists do more than hurt feelings. The United States has been hijacked for a long time (if it ever was in sane hands), has done enough damage to proper ethno nationalisms, that is why it is fair booty, along with the rest of the Americas; and there should be theorizing among ethno nationalists proper as how to carve it up and coordinate that deliberately for our side - it is either that or our enemies will maintain organization for their side and confusion for ours. 11
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 28 Apr 2017 04:04 | # So, to proceed with the rest:
First of all I am not ready to agree to lines being drawn. That’s the basic point. “Given” the lines drawn, however, your answer, “you can just send them to Liberia” doesn’t suffice because White ethno nationalists are not organized well enough to do anything remotely like that. Having lines abruptly set upon them, without a chance to deliberate is only a reaction to the instigation of our enemies - while it may well be that there were unintended consequences (bringing a bunch of hostile peoples into the South West), the host that they are most affixed to are Whites and that host is liable to most violently try to throw it off - and in that sheer reaction, is prone to be directed self destructively against people who are allied in their cause, of throwing off that virus and its impositions; and it can only seem more justified and garner less resistance from Whites if even those Whites who are innocent of malice toward Asians and Amerindios are victimized by them being organized trying to pull a fast one, obliviously, whereas they could have been reasoned with.
Though “generally speaking does suffice”, it is still a bit too general, and wasn’t spoken to me.
Not true. The trolls have got you to do a “transference” onto me, where you are accusing me of having motives that I do not have. I tried to advise you not to not take them seriously (or to view them as the Jewish and right wing trolls that they are), it is their task to provoke such reactions among allies. But they are not so smart and this is not delaying tactics - here it is, the discussion is right here.
I did not oppose you, I said that I was not ready to have this discussion under the rubric of the AltRight.
Well, the Jews are doing their level best to drive a wedge between the coordination of Asians and well meaning Whites (i.e., separatist ethnonationalists). But they won’t succeed by me.
I didn’t say that I am unwilling to consider scenarios and best solutions, but I like to be included in conversations that concern me. The AltRight has tried to mute the voices of Majorityrights for a reason. 12
Posted by All Nations Party on Fri, 28 Apr 2017 05:43 | #
Here’s how a guy calling his project “The All Nations Party” considers balkanization. 13
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Fri, 28 Apr 2017 06:30 | # That is a guy who I probably would have wanted to interview, since his views are good for the conversation and he brings a lot of the talking points that would need to be brought to demonstrate why separation should happen. Almost all of his talking points are the ones that I would have used. But I already said I’m no longer interested in doing any of that now. I don’t comment on American issues anymore. Let White Americans work it out for themselves. They are perfectly capable of doing it. It seems to be extremely important to them that the conversation should not include anyone who happens to be of a different race from themselves. My voice is non-helpful and is largely a waste of time, because it is not possible to get around the instinctive aversion that White Americans have to a face that doesn’t look like their own, particularly if they are racialists. In some sense it’s not even their own fault—it’s just neurobiological and, frankly, ideological. I’m not going to waste time forever trying to overcome that, I can’t even get you to overcome that—as is evidenced by the existence of this ridiculous article that we’re commenting under—and you are ‘on the same team’ as me, supposedly. Just because I happen to know something, does not always mean that I should be the one to talk about that thing. And just because it makes logical sense to for a given audience to want to advocate something, does not mean that they should be the audience for that thing. I test to find out how a particular point will be received. If it isn’t possible for me to get anywhere with it, then I stop. Sometimes it takes a while to know for sure whether talking is sensible or not, and other times you can find out almost instantly. This time it was really fast. So, I’m no longer talking to White Americans about this. A more workable strategy really is to let White American nationalists do whatever they want. When People of Colour or non-racialist Whites react to those tendencies with revulsion or dismay, it is those people who should then be told by someone like me that the best way to get away from White hegemony would be to support some kind of secession. I can see that as something that is easier to put across in the present circumstances. And no, I will not use Majorityrights as a platform from which to do that, because obviously that would make no sense. You keep referring to ‘coordination’. There is nothing to coordinate. It has to work itself out automatically. 14
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 28 Apr 2017 07:46 | # Kumiko, By and large, there are a lot of angry white men in WN, as you would expect. Folks of a more retiring nature and subtle expression have not yet come out into the light. This isn’t a comment on white Americans per se, but on the human type which fronts up first in a crisis - and, in this case, does so while being demonised on all sides. Naturally enough, they are aggressive. They tend, rightly, to a crisis mentality, and they tend to create crises even where none is required. They can be bloody annoying. But they are the racial organism’s white blood cells. I suspect that things cannot be any other way, and any other race of Man subjected to the same circumstances would produce the same first responders. As for drawing lines for a new ethostate - if we can talk for one moment about geographical not ethnographical lines - the primary consideration should be for the physical advantage and security of the new state. In terms of the present US borders consideration has to be given not only to concentrations of extant white and non-white populations but strategic issues such as oil reserves, agricultural land, aridity, sea and naval ports (with access east as well as west), mineral reserves, forestry, arms and aerospace manufacturing, high tech manufacturing, and so forth. It’s no use locking yourself away in a North-Western fastness. That won’t be sustainable. By way of an eastern border, TX to ND would be the easiest ask demographically. LA to WI would be better strategically. In the west, CA has to be re-taken. Mexico has to take back its people. 15
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 28 Apr 2017 08:21 | #
They really have achieved a transference onto me with their trolling. Because my reasons for not wanting to go full speed ahead with what you were discussing at AltRight don’t have to do with the way you look or your being another race, other than that I wanted to retrieve you from the snake-pit of right winger frauds over there, the Sallis’s and the Silvers et al., who will try to agitate against you for your race and drive a wedge against those Whites who are friendly to your interests - me, in particular. After that, again, my reasons were that I was not prepared for this balkanization conversation, but especially not under their auspices for reasons that I have given. As for my stereotyping of Asians, well, I could be wrong, stereotypes don’t always hold up, but I stereotyped Whites too - I would say they are culpable of an even worse foible in their susceptibility to become complicit with Jewish interests. The stereotype is valid, but it is important that Whites who would opt out of that be altercast that option. That is not a trivial matter. Hence my own intransigence that that one distinction at least be made. I am also alterasting to Asians the possibility of cooperating with them (this to whom it may concern group of Whites) against Jewish interests as opposed to their being automatically lumped on an adversarial side. 16
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 28 Apr 2017 08:33 | # In terms of delivery, the process has, I would say, five creative stages before the declaration of independence. It has to be a planned and managed process; not a disorganised white flight thing or even Manifest Destiny II. Matters cannot be left to just come out right. So perhaps something along these very general lines: 1. Theorisation and clarification of final goal. Active timescale: 10 to 12 years. 17
Posted by Igor Panarin's popular Russian view on Fri, 28 Apr 2017 10:05 | #
18
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Fri, 28 Apr 2017 14:40 | # Responding to both of you:
I have indeed taken that into consideration, it’s just that I am most likely working at cross-purposes to you on this. In a scenario of the US undergoing a partition, my desire would absolutely not be to preserve the power of White America at all. My desire would be to curtail it as much as possible and to deny them easy access to the Pacific. I assume you know why.
And I would like taps which when turned on, will dispense only ginger beer, for free. People can wish for that, but that’s never going to happen, ever. Quite seriously, even on a personal level, if there were ever a conflict in my lifetime over that territory, I’d be inclined to literally go there myself in person to provide assistance to the Hispanic side of that conflict. That would be a once in a lifetime opportunity, to actually attenuate America’s power.
You say that you are ‘not ready’ for the idea that the United States could be divided in 2 parts, but you seem totally willing to put up Igor Panarin’s ridiculous idea in which the country is somehow divided into 18 parts. Forgive me if I don’t buy the excuse that 2 parts is ‘too complex’ to just discuss now, but every random person who has drawn a map with multiple squiggly boundary lines on it is up for consideration precisely so that you can then claim that they are impractical. One thing I notice about all of these alternate maps that you are showing here, is that none of them have a single Southwestern bloc that includes California and is oriented toward the Pacific. Any particular reason for that? 19
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Fri, 28 Apr 2017 15:14 | # These are the kind of maps that I’m imagining. In all cases the ‘red’ colour denotes a bloc that is departing to get away from ‘White America’. Imagine that it’s 2048 and ‘White America’ is non-ironically trying to install Barron Trump or Theodore Kushner-Trump as president. The minimal scenario: Balkanisation happens, but people are being cautious. The demographic predetermination scenario: Balkanisation happens, along ethnic and political lines. “Can’t believe my luck” scenario: Washington DC seriously drops the ball and just keeps fumbling it. But no one wants to think about anything that looks like those. These maps are too logical, after all. 20
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 28 Apr 2017 15:58 | # Kumiko, the first fundamental here is the universality of human destining. In other words, peoples, like individuals, must be free to express their natural or reproductive or genetic interests (or else they would be, to a greater or lesser extent, slaves). The second fundamental is that this human universal contains one caveat, which is the right of the people of the land ... the people who have developed, or are developing, shared genetic distinctiveness on the land ... to defend their existence above the right of aggressing peoples to take their land from them. As nationalists we are universalists and we are strict advocates of the principle of self-defence. We believe that the ultimate interests are genetic, and the moral absolute is the native life. Nationalism, within this universalist framework, necessarily disallows the pursuit of self-advantage at all times and in all circumstances, most particularly where that self-advantage implies ethnic expansionism or change. This is why Judaism and Jewish ethnic striving in its present form is unacceptable. This is why German expansion eastward from 1938 was unacceptable. But there are around the world a number of fixed historical outcomes, so to speak, which imply not finality as such, because change is always humanly possible, but a moral finality at the level of this very fundamental human right to strive for life on what has become one’s people’s land. In America, as elsewhere, that right was ceded by the Red Man to the White Man through the latter’s victory at arms. White Americans are fully entitled to defend their life interests at any cost. As universal nationalists we cannot take issue with them. The claim of other peoples to the soil is inferior. 21
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Fri, 28 Apr 2017 18:43 | # I thoroughly disagree, because everything that you’ve said there can apply just as much to the Hispanics or any other group, as it does to White Americans. To state that there is a ‘finality’, is a convenient way of saying “what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is negotiable”. I don’t see how people who came across the Atlantic Ocean 600 years ago should have any greater ‘moral cause’ than those who came across the Bering Strait 32,000 years ago. I’m not even saying that one has a greater morality on the basis of a more ancient presence. I’m just saying that history has shown me that there is no morality in the first place. There seems to be only winning or not winning. The fact that any of that could happen at all, proves that there is no morality anywhere. What morality? At no point in time did the Natives ever willingly cede one inch of land, and at no point in time did anyone in Asia ever willingly invite the United States to undertake Westward Expansion until it ended up literally on the Pacific Ocean. And even if someone did invite it, the time would have come to change our collective minds on that. Yes, White Americans can be said to have conquered the land by force of arms. But Hispanics have waged a reconquista over generations, one which has been allowed because White Americans became overconfident and assumed that everyone was going to play along no matter what happened. The acceptance of America’s present borders by those who had been dispossessed or by those who had been placed at a geostrategic disadvantage, was never unconditional. The only reason that we haven’t been able to alter America’s borders and reach so far, is because each time someone has attempted to do so, America has managed to defeat the challenger. America itself has always taken the stance of “what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is negotiable”. Finally, it has come full circle and they are finally experiencing a case where what is theirs is once again negotiable. They may be entitled to defend their gains at any cost. But at the same time others are entitled to oppose them with equal ferocity. Only through struggle can it be discovered who is actually ‘correct’, and even then, it would only be so long as that situation can be maintained. The idea that it would be ‘wrong’ for me to pursue my own advantage when deciding who to support in any given scenario is basically incomprehensible to me. The whole purpose of reckoning in EGI, is to find one’s ‘ethnic genetic interest’ and then calculate what to do from there. To do anything else would be to buy into a petty-moralist framework, designed by American state propagandists, which is designed to bind the hands of their opponents. The state power When the Americans say that the United States is ‘indivisible’, they are simply asserting the ability of the US Federal Government to have seen off previous challengers. It is not some kind of universal law written by some god. Britain originally wanted to keep the republic of Texas out of the United States, in order to pursue a divide-and-rule strategy. Britain additionally opposed Western Expansion, preferring to leverage Native American tribes against the United States during the War of 1812. Unfortunately Tecumseh was killed during that war and the Tecumseh Confederation collapsed. During the Mexican-American War, several European powers had a preference for a Mexican victory, which did not materialise. During the American Civil War, Louis Napoleon installed an Austrian prince, Maximilian, as ruler in an attempt to turn Mexico into a French satrapy. In the years preceding the First World War, Imperial Germany and the US engaged in a kind of cold war in Mexico, the Caribbean and Central America. Franklin Roosevelt’s ‘Good Neighbour’ policy of appeasing landowner-backed dictatorships in Mexico and elsewhere in the hemisphere was leveraged to keep Latin American countries from becoming allies of the Axis powers. During the same Second World War, the United States fought a war in the Pacific against the Empire of Japan to try to retain its access to the Pacific Ocean and the resources in the tax franchises—er, I mean ‘countries’—therein. During the Cold War, the US, Russia, and China contested in a three-way war against each other for influence in the Latin American Third World. During that same Cold War, the United States utilised its access to the aforementioned Pacific Ocean to further its own ends in locations from Laos to Indonesia. For American strategic thinkers, the ultimate nightmare has been the scenario of an alliance between one or more geostrategic rivals and a hostile Mexico, or chaos in the American Southwest exploited by America’s geostrategic rivals to bring about the existence of a ‘Hispanic entity’ aligned politically to Central America and in exclusive trade relationships with East Asia and Oceania and/or one or more great European powers. The idea of the Monroe Doctrine, along with Western Expansion, the Asian exclusion laws, the purchase of Alaska, and the territorial grabs during the Mexican-American war, as well as the colonisation of Hawaii, the war against the Philippines in 1901, and the interventions in the Greater Caribbean, and the stern immigration policies before 1965, were all American attempts to preventatively secure the United States from being undermined both from within and from without. They definitely fucked up on the immigration side of things, and that has become a real vulnerability for them. Rather than leaving that alone, it should in fact be exploited. Vulnerabilities exist to be exploited. This is something that is so important to them that even during the 1970s with everything else that was going on, an ethnographer found the time to write a memo to Henry Kissinger pointing out to him that he needed to really think about 30 or 40 years ahead toward the ultimate problem, a Hispanic separatist tendency arising right inside the US itself due to a race-relations breakdown. It’s unknown as to what they thought would be the way to stop it, but I can guarantee that electing Donald Trump has not done anything to diminish the possibility of that happening—it’s a ditch effort which is only polarising them even more. Could do better If I were a ruthless person with political clout at the school board level in the Southwest of the United States, and oh how I wish I were, I’d take this opportunity to really focus on the core of CA, NV, AZ and NM, just those four states, and do everything possible to promote bilingual education. I’d want every Hispanic child to be speaking Spanish until they become just as insufferable as the Quebecois are when they are speaking French. That would undoubtedly cause the actually triple-bracketed so-called ‘White Nationalists’ Steve Sailer and Ron Unz to begin crying tears of great pain on behalf of their Washington DC cultural-assimilation hegemonic ‘ZOG’ machine, and any time that Sailer and Unz are upset it’s a key sign that you are doing something nice. It’s not a hard and fast rule, but generally speaking, whenever Sailer and Unz agree on some anti-Hispanic policy, it’s usually a sure sign that actually you need to start wishing for the exact opposite of whatever it is that Sailer and Unz want. It’s almost like the persons of Levantine extraction really are not very happy about Hispanics, chiefly because Hispanics are not interested in allying with them. Logic problem The above section also reminds me of another point I’d like to make. A fairly simple one. If everyone agrees that the US Federal Government has now completely become ‘ZOG’, why is it that whenever I get into a conversation about reducing the power of the US Federal Government, that suddenly people start trying to eternally guard the strategic interests of a government which they themselves admit is ‘ZOG’? That makes no sense. It seems curious to me that everyone remembers to talk about ‘ZOG’ when it’s time to attribute the development of some social issue to them, but then when it comes to say, curtailing the ability of that same ‘ZOG’ to perch itself over the Pacific Ocean and the Arctic Ocean, suddenly there are lines like, “this is all too much too fast” from Daniel, and now “we cannot take issue with them” from GW. Seriously, what? 22
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 28 Apr 2017 20:44 | # Kumiko, you must understand that we are, always and in everything, speaking and living from a philosophical perspective which, while it inclines to naturalism, certainly, does not seek to give effect to the rudest and most animalistic of our instincts. Such a philosophy would abolish itself on the first line of the first page of its founding tract. Abolishing philosophy reduces us to a Rwandan condition, whereby any group takes what it can and does what it wants, and there is no recourse beyond equally opportunistic savagery ... a pure, social darwinian hell. Philosophy points Man towards a life of some attainment. You and I are of the northern hemisphere. Our gift is a rare intelligence in our respective people. We are philosophical beings. We do not live a mere animal existence. We make a certain accommodation with our animal nature - quite an extensive one, actually. We make high moral laws and, thereby, properly moral lives, and that, and our intelligence, keep the cold north wind at bay and advantage us in a direct evolutionary sense You ask why Europeans in America have the right of primogeniture, and the answer is that this privilege is not given for all eternity to the first people to set foot on the soil but to the last people who won it and held it and commenced upon the process of natural selection upon it. Naturalistically, the key is the development of shared distinctive genes - a process of maybe five centuries among even neighbouring European peoples; but longer among peoples with the genetic variation of racial Europe. Nevertheless, that process is in train to the extent that, the Amish aside, few if any Americans now can trace their line from a single European group. One can perhaps discern in the peculiar juxtaposition of American individualism and religiosity the arising of modalities of behaviour which differ from Europeans in the old continent. If these are phenotypic traits and not just cultural varations, then the point is manifestly proven. But I don’t think we need that proof to make the case. Selection on the soil is the way in every human living space and at every point in human history. It must be and , of course, it is the way in the land which Europeans made and which is America. With it comes the natural right of this people to struggle for life on that land, which is the only right given in Nature (all others are contingent on human agency). Now here is the hard part for you to accept. As an ethnic nationalist, rather than, say, a member of NASDAP or a Jew, you must strive for consistency in principles and accord this right of promogeniture to all peoples of the land - no exceptions. It makes no difference whether the people are your own or their greatest enemy. It makes no difference whether the people live by their own free hand or under a colonial power. This is not about government but about natural right. The people of the land alone have that right. Hispanics are not the people of the land of America, not even of the south-west, but are invaders and colonisers; and have no such right. That’s how it works, Kumiko and how it has to work if we wish to live and be who we are. 23
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 28 Apr 2017 21:01 | #
I am not sure what that means. I am proposing a second revolution on the North American continent. What should I be saying to make that more apparent? 24
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 28 Apr 2017 22:47 | #
DanielS: This is an inarticulate and tactless way of making your point. A certain amount of power is necessary sheerly to defend one’s self. Even if you don’t mean to sound as if you want Whites to be defenseless, it is understandable that it could be taken that way. I would request rephrasing but it’s not likely to happen in the midst of your transference.
DanielS: I can only guess that you want to conveniently blame and punish White people for historical events which they may be completely innocent of - even of their familial lineage and of intent? As I said to you before, I am not denying Japanese access to Hawaii and California for historical events and I expect the same respect - innocent until proven guilty - when entering discourse.. It seems I am going a bit further than you even, in that I am not looking to broad brush and punish them for war crimes of their ancestors, real or imagined.
DanielS: You really are amidst a transference, because I was not endorsing Igor Panarin’s ideas, I was illustrating that these ideas are being circulated among the Russian Federation, and therefore they will, of course, be looking for an angle in that to serve them. Furthermore, I wanted to illustrate with that, that Vincent Law was not necessarily presenting the matter innocently and out of the blue from his perch in St. Petersberg, Russia
DanielS: “Forgive me” if its too complex for you to make a simple 2 part distinction among Whites. I didn’t say balkanization isn’t a valid discussion here. I said there were discussions that need to happen before (such as that minimal distinction to be made among Whites) namely the sorting out of proper White ethnonationalism, sorting it out from Jewish and right wing influence (maybe you don’t listen). Furthermore, that I will not accept a dialogue that does not make at least a distinction between a guilty White perspective from one of relative innocence with regard to history and future intent.. I understand that position well enough so that I can represent it in a day or two after I’ve completed some personal business.
DanielS:We’ve got to work through these motives of others that you’ve transfered upon me, because they bear no resemblance to any motive that I have. It’s ridiculous. (I’ve stated my true motives for the Igor thing).
DanielS: Yes, claims made on California are not so simple and should not be made in a non-cooperative spirit of all White people deserve to have this taken from them; the resulting conflict is predictable and would be unnecessary for common courtesy. It is a huge issue. Silicon Valley is there. NASA is there. Stanford is there. It has among the most productive farms in America. It has a vast productive coast. Until recently, it would have been the world’s seventh largest economy, if it were a nation. Many good (and innocent) White people have demonstrated to be worthy stewards of the territory - that does not mean that Asians and Amerindios can’t be there, exercise political power if showing mutual respect, it means that I will not stand for these issues to not be taken into account in a cooperative manner as if all White people are responsible for historical crimes. 25
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Fri, 28 Apr 2017 23:24 | #
It’s not that I find it ‘hard to accept’, it’s that I have never accepted it because I have never agreed to it and can never agree to any of it. The Arctic The thing that I will agree with you on is that we are both originally ‘people of the north’, although in my case some of the northness involved is about a far north as it is physically possible to be on the earth. Based on my history, if you run me through the 23andMe you’d find there’s an interesting and entirely predictable overlap with the Arctic. Earlier on in evolutionary history, I might just as well have appeared as a Yupik or an Inuit, braving the cold and the snow and undergoing evolutionary selection there as a ‘tool-maker’ race. You’re also correct that it is a northern trait to be a philosophical being, but philosophy does not arise out of abstract contemplation, it arises out of a historical context and out of a desire of the subject to navigate the material conditions that they’ve found themselves in and chart a course to the future in which they continue to flourish. In the ancient world, people who had met Europeans for the first time, generally lowered their guard completely and went out of their way to welcome the stranger as that was the social norm at the time. This proved to be a mistake on a level so cataclysmic that the world was changed permanently as a consequence. As a result of the information derived from the world history which I don’t need to recite here, people changed their philosophies accordingly. Philosophy as ideology The chief difference between us is that you are arguing on the side of the victors, whereas I am arguing on behalf of the interests of the losers who aspire to fight again for yet another chance at becoming the victors. This means that you and I have a completely different consciousness. It is possible for you to make these comfortably bourgeois moral claims about the inviolability of the conquests of the victor, because you would stand to lose nothing from making that argument. It would only be a simple and easy maintenance of the privilege of your co-ethnics if I were for some reason to actually accept your moral prescriptions and comform my policy preferences to match yours as a consequence. However, I have everything to gain from absolutely not doing that, and I really think that my argument is the really true argument. In the end, as I’ve said before, philosophy is very much a servant of ethnic genetic interests and of socio-economic expediency. Life is struggle and it is warfare, or at least, it is from my perspective, it has to be. I don’t believe in any form of peace if that peace would disadvantage me or people whose interests are interlocked with my own. If that makes me, and others who think like me, ‘Asian Nazis’ from the ground up complete with sled dogs or whatever symbolic cultural icon they prefer, then so be it. There is no alternative. I’d rather be called a villain and credibly deter the aggression of a potential opponent, than be seen as ‘very noble’ by White Americans who want to ‘Make America Great Again’ and who would of course immediately stab me in the heart if I were to give them that opportunity (as well they probably ought to). Also, I’ve seen what life looks like for the losers. Being hailed as ‘noble’ while losing at everything, is definitely not worth it. “I lost everything, but the enemy thinks I’m a noble savage and will make a Disney movie about me, so that totally makes up for it—wow, it’s so worth it”, said basically no one, ever. Not trusting America to just respect me That applies geostrategically as a metaphor as well. If you think about some of the things which the White American colonists have done, and the generational gains which have accrued to them, and if I consider that White Americans may yet seek to do those things again in the event of them acquiring an ethno-state (and no, saying “by definition they should be cuddly bunnies” is not a convincing counter-argument), it would make me want to paint the entire world in red as a buffer zone to place between my people and Washington DC. But then, the only thing getting in the way of that thought is the competing and equally vital concern of also placing a resurgent Moscow into containment too. One of the advantages of the northern analytic mind is that I’m able to walk and chew gum at the same time, and also delay gratification, which is why we’re apparently playing on a 30 to 70 year super-slow timeline of wealth accumulation, coalition-building and the tactic triage of ‘going with the flow except when you really have to dissent’ that our foreparents embarked on eons ago and which I’ve simply picked up as a matter of course. 26
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Fri, 28 Apr 2017 23:57 | #
And yet if I dressed it up in lots of flowery language, everyone would still know exactly what I meant anyway. Let’s be real, everyone knows what ethno-nationalist revolutions actually look like, and everyone knows what the social, economic and geostrategic policy preferences of a movement that emanates from the Northeast and Midwest of the US would be. Some things are just natural imperatives, and they have to be placed into check. Obviously it would not be in my interest to have the entity which is undergoing that process be also covering the whole West coast and Southwest of the United States, and be also sitting over the Pacific Ocean and the Arctic Ocean. It is not unreasonable for me to look out for my own interests there, nor should it be surprising. The only surprising thing is that anyone thinks—or at least is pretending—that it is ‘wrong’ for me to do so. You essentially torpedoed my entire attempt to insert myself into the conversation at AltRight.com, because you think it’s wrong for me to want to defend people who come from the same macro-haplogroup as myself and who I’ve spent time with, from a potential threat that I see coming over the horizon. Seriously. Did you expect me to be a doormat for you on this? I’m willing to go along with a lot of things, but obviously I’m going to object if you invite the Americans to strategically place a serrated-edged hunting knife at my throat and then you tell me that I need to stand very still and not push that knife away from my neck when I actually see a possible chance to do so. The above maps with all that red highlighting on it, are basically the concept of ‘pushing the knife away by 2050’.
Well wow, that’s exactly what I’ve been thinking throughout this whole conversation!
No, I just don’t want to be an idiot for them, because we’ve all seen what that looks like before. Multiple times.
I’m fully aware of that, and that is why I jumped in immediately to try to shape the conversation so that it would take place on terms that would eventually allow me to present those maps that I coloured red without it being jarringly off topic. That’s why in the AltRight.com thread I immediately started talking about Southwest secession and dragged the conversation in that direction. Vincent Law had not defined the parameters of the partition himself, so I took that opportunity to try to stir things up and define the partition in the way that I wanted it to be defined. Not as ‘red states verus blue states’, and not as some LARPy pactchwork of squiggly lines, but as just one solid bloc and one solid line, one single cut along existing state lines. And then you interfered!
What is there to sort out? The discussions you’re referring to have happened myriad times already.
Well, it must be nice having the luxury to make it about individuals. These things sort themselves out. Any White people who choose to stay in the Southwest in the hypothetical case of its secession, would probably be White people who are perfectly happy to get along to go along. I can imagine that for example the kind of people who populate TRS’ comment sections would immediately depart from that region in the case of a partition. It literally solves itself.
You say that as though that hasn’t already occurred to me. What did you expect people to gravitate to? The open deserts inside Nevada? Granted, that is actually included too, a great location for solar power generation. 27
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sat, 29 Apr 2017 00:48 | # And not to be left out, Ted Sallis has chosen to contribute to the criticisms by firing off one of his classic blog posts in which he just complains and complains. This time it contains an interesting revelation, though. So let’s do this, I’ll answer him directly:
How dare I point out the fact that Asians and Hispanics are not going to just meekly hand over the guns to you and step meekly onto deportation trains to become refugees like some kind of ridiculous cucks, leaving all their assets for you to enjoy? The second amendment exists, fucko. And it’s not only for White people to make use of.
Yep, given the composition of many of these movements that would be capable of resisting you, you can find Asians among basically all of them now. If your aim was to destroy the Hispanic-Amerindians and Native Americans like it’s some kind of cakewalk and then continue to destroy Yupik and Inuit native living and hunting spaces to draw up oil to power the arch-Zionist Trumpian economy, that task just become a little bit more difficult over the 30 to 70 year time frame for you. Asians are on the scene with deep pockets, money to spend inside those pockets, and lots of books. Also, guns.
Not only is Sallis invoking the ‘moral claim’ meme, he’s doing it in a way that non-ironically privileges the non-existent claim of descendants of black African slaves, over the people who originally settled the Americas and members of their racial macro-group! According to Sallis, Amerindians have merely a ‘possible’ claim to the Americas. But at the same time, according to Sallis, Africans have a ‘moral’ claim to the Americas which is so solid that it can simply be taken for granted at the beginning of the sentence as a fucking benchmark to measure other claims against. Is any of this for real, or not? Really, that, everyone, is what the enemy looks like. Imagine being such an astounding White supremacist, that you think that black Africans have a ‘moral claim’ to the Americas because White people and Jewish slave traders forcibly put them there against the will of the native populations, and therefore since Whites made that incredibly stupid thing happen, it’s somehow universally legitimate. I mean, that’s the only logic here that can possibly have been in play. The logic stemming from Sallis smoking mountains of rocks of crack cocaine before posting so as to really up his confidence, and then saying really stupid things. It’s almost as though in Sallis’ conception, the whole world belongs to White people and Jews to remodel as they see fit. I’m sure next that Sallis will argue that if he gigglingly inserts 250,000 fresh black bucks into motherfucking Azerbaijan, they immediately become more legitimately a part of Azerbaijan than anyone else from anywhere in Central Asia would be in that location, because goddammit, the much-vaunted White Americans have decided it. And anyone who disagrees is ‘anti-White’. Or something. Better not be ‘anti-White’, or Sallis will tell you off, and you’ll be sorry. Frank Salter is dead right now, by the way. Ted Sallis killed Frank Salter, right when Sallis was writing that post, Salter literally died because of it. I mean, fucking wow, what even is genetic distance as a concept anymore? What even? 28
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 29 Apr 2017 02:08 | #
Flowery language is not necessary, being more articulate so as to at least make a simple binary distinction among Whites is.
No they don’t, because you are not making even the simplest distinction among White Americans.
No they don’t.
Again, this is vastly inarticulate. To say something is “just a natural imperative” is the essence of right wing objectivism and the typical excuse of supremacism, exploitation and even genocide itself. There are many ways to put negative, supremacist, imperialist quests into check.
To make this claim you must falsely broad brush all Whites; it remains a false claim nevertheless, that all Whites are guilty and unworthy of having their consideration of these areas taken into account - to begin with, in the manner of your affrontery that can only lead to reciprocally escalating diatribe and worse.
I don’t think anybody is worried about your looking after your own, and then some, in a rather protracted sense - you have a tendency to include as contrasting to Whites, people who lean quite a bit toward White.
It is wrong for you to broad brush Whites, and to place the whole group as having antagonistic motives - I have asked only one distinction of you - between right wingers (antagonisitic indeed) and left ethno nationalists.
Good. It is more clear than ever that it was off to a bad start.
It is not wrong for you to defend them, it is wrong for you to treat all Whites as hostile and unreasonable. Mexico already is largely an ethno-state. Foreigners cannot go there and buy property. Nobody is stopping the Japanese from helping them there; and this perspective is not looking to send all people of Mexican and Asian descent out of America. It is rather looking for a cooperative disposition against our common enemies. Japan is an ethnostate too - that’s good; just about everybody think so. Me too. Reasonable people would agree that its natural borders are impinged upon even; and that its ok for them to have some places in North and South America.
Again, I am not expecting you to endure right wingers; I am on your side against them.
It’s a very poor analogy. Where Jews, right wingers and whomever and whatever they might put up to use force against you where you are reasonable, they are opposed by this view.
It’s a convenient broad brushing to suggest that it is reasonable because supposedly every White is putting a knife to your neck, and disposed to do so, but it is just that, an overly crude convenience.
No, you’ve been talking about treating all Whites as if they are Columbus, there to exterminate native Caribs; Desoto or Andrew Jackson going on killing campaigns against Amerindians; father MacArthur, looking to wipe out Philippinos; Eisenhower looking to install Muslim compradors in Buddhist and Hindu Asia; White slave owners of blacks, looking to impose them upon natives, etc. But not once did I seek anything like the pre-emptive imposition that you suggest, despite the fact that Japan allied with the most disgusting Nazi regime, which not only sought to eliminate my Polish people, but in fact killed millions of them and got killed over 40 million other Europeans for the dumb, right wing concept of “natural imperative” that you now seek to invoke - also upon improperly drawn friend/ enemy lines. Improperly conceived lines, I must add, that not only precipitated a war of vast killing of my people, but has set in motion a threat to our existence entirely, its being “justified” as a response (on the basis of similarly one sided, Jewish arguments against White people as you indulge).
Well, I don’t want you to be an idiot for right wingers either, because that’s where the susceptibility to such atrocious non accountability comes from, which is susceptible to vast exacerbation by Jewish viral effect. Even Columbus - his first gesture was to set a cross into the islands he landed upon.
Those maps as you’ve drawn them suck.
Given that both Japan and Mexico have ethno-states, it is reasonable to consider that places like California should be sorted with other lines and criteria taken into account also.
I’m glad I did.
Ok, so it’s time that it registers with you.
I did not make it about individuals. Can’t you fucking hear? two kinds, those who can ascribe to Left nationalism as opposed to right wingers.
No they don’t.
Well, we can all be glad to be rid of our enemies, but.. I’m not moving past the matter of your laying claim to superordinate authority over a bunch of territory and things that your ancestors have no part in either.
Well given that you realize that, you understand that you are not being reasonable in expecting people to say, “hey, cool! No problem, no questions, lets do it!” It’s Ridiculous. 29
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sat, 29 Apr 2017 06:36 | # Well, that whole response from you is kind of like it’s funny but also not funny at the same time. It’s almost a legendary level of what happens when privilege combines with gaslighting to result in you telling me that something is ‘fine’ when really it’s not fine. The kind of thing so classic that if it were interpersonal rather than geopolitical there would be a pop song on that theme. Oh, wait, it does, Taeyeon has a song literally about that concept. Seriously, I don’t understand why you can’t see this. You’re trying to set the standard for safety for my people to a level below that which I or most of my co-ethnics are willing to tolerate, and then you’re upset when I point out that this is how it is. America is basically finished as we know it. It is never going to be the same again. That’s the reality. Schroedinger’s WN Box Imagine the concept of “Schroedinger’s White Nationalist Box”. There’s a box with White American ethno-nationalist revolution inside it. There is a chance that what is happening and the dangerous things that we have seen across the social space in which these people are interacting, is a case of nonprobability sampling, and that we do not truly have an overview of the situation within American White Nationalism that is representative of what they actually believe. But there is also a chance that analytical generalisation has caused us to in fact arrive at the truth and that massive systematic racialised violence is inside the box. I’m saying that it’s best to put some real distance, proper defensive buffer distance between the minority groups that I care about, and that box over coming decades. Why? Because I have judged the risk to those minority groups to be high enough to warrant it at this point. Your objection is that I should not take that defensive approach in the kind of policy that I advocate for, because I do not know for certain what’s in the box. It could be something of the tenor of the Scottish and Welsh devolution after 1997. Or it could be something like the tenor of the Bosnian war between Serbs and ethnic Albanians in 1992. We’re rolling the dice on that bet. Privilege difference The privilege, or advantage, that you have in this situation is that the cost of erring too much toward anticipating the benign social manifestation is less costly for you than it is for me. If you err wrongly in your prediction, if you should turn out to just be wrong, then Polish-Americans and other Eastern Europeans will not be harmed, because they are White and will not be the target of the systematic violence. If I err wrongly in that same way, it would mean that I would have consistently voiced the wrong prediction as Asian-descended people were coasting toward really being targeted in a race war. In other words, my side does not have the privilege of being able to survive underestimating the hostile intentions of the Other. We almost never do. The entire clash between you and I here can be reduced to that fact. You and I are making decisions from different standpoints, with completely different bets on the table, with completely different levels of acceptable risk. That does not mean that you are a bad person who is guilty of anything. It also does not mean that I am paranoid nor does it mean that I am blaming you for things you haven’t done. It just means that you and I are different. 30
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 29 Apr 2017 10:27 | # Kumiko writes:
Well, there may be a chief difference between us in this, but it is not that. My argument is specifically not utilitarian or self-serving. Ethnic nationalism, if it is to be a true life-guide, must be true in all circumstances and at all times. It cannot be partial. It cannot be ethnocentric itself. Its characteristic must be universality. This, therefore:
... does not apply. Broadly, there are three bases on which one can approach the issue of land and resource acquisition. These are the right of arms - of brute power - the right of capital, and natural right. The rights of arms and capital are supremacist forms. In operation, the former is social darwinism. As a life-principle, it is sociopathic. Its prospect is perpetual aggression committed by and to everyone. So completely dominant is the focus on own-self, it simply does not distribute human worth beyond its own bounds, or recognise the nested nature of genetic interests. It has no higher vision of the life of Man than a life of war-making, murder, rapine, looting, and shallow self-aggrandisement. To say it is without redeeming features is to miss the point that it desires none. It is the antipathy of that martial sentiment expressed by the late Christian General Sir John Hackett, who said, “You will find more compassion on a battlefield than ever you will in a church on Sunday.” There is, of course, traffic between the right of arms and the right of capital. But the latter imposes certain limits on the former. Its focus is not on conquest and colonisation per se but on strategic access rights. Its essentially violent nature is only revealed with its turn to force where persuasion fails, for example military-led colonialism. It does at least feel the need to justify its ascendancy, but it is a justification still predicated on supremacism. “These savages!” it said, by way of an evidential proof, of the Africans it enslaved. “These nomads with their aversion to work and their tribal backwardness!” it said of the Arabs whose sea of oil beneath their sea of sand it had want of stealing. “These goyim!” it says in its Wall Street towers today. And it is no doubt right. But by making the capacity to exploit land and resources the determinant in who should control that land and those resources, it defines the vast human Other as, at best, commodities; for it only perceives in terms of value to itself. Human beings are of no account at all otherwise. Thus, on the naked, muddy edges of the Brazilian rainforest today it says “These animals!”, and brutalises the world of the Amerindian peoples, leaving nothing of it to them. In spiritual opposition to these supremacisms stands our ethnic nationalism; because only nationalism which is ethnic and genetic, and fundamentally existential, can recognise the human in self and in the Other, and can make a moral life accordingy; and in this simple act is the redemption of supremacism and the giving of life to one’s own self and to all. On a baser note, the Hispanics of Mexico never owned the south-west of the North American continent. The tribes who did own it: http://www.davemcgary.com/southwest-native-american-tribes.htm ... were hostile to them, and that hostility has by no means disappeared today. For that reason, the Hispanic ingress is not revanchist. It is opportunistic and invasive. It is not morally equivalent to the natural right of self-defence which adheres to white Americans. Yes, that advantages European peoples and disadvantages non-Europeans. Yes, the migrational clock stops in so much as the natives’ right to struggle for homeland and the ethnic life homeland guarantees is of a different moral order entirely to the right of mere power described above. That does not mean that, historically, the natives’ win; just that as ethnic nationalists we cannot argue in principle for any other outcome; for, ethically, our own people’s life and homeland hang by the same necessitous thread. 31
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sat, 29 Apr 2017 15:40 | # That whole post is a sophisticated attempt to play divide-and-rule against the indigenous peoples, but that’s not how it has played out on the ground. Most of the migration that has occurred across the Mexican border has come from areas of Mexico in which small peasant farmers—who often have a genetic profile that is closest to that of the original inhabitants—have been dislocated by the mechanisation of the agricultural economy and have thus become ‘the reconquista’. Other Native American tribes, which are officially recognised by the United States, in places like New Mexico, California, Texas, and so on, have not chosen to re-open historical grievances with tribes that used to be their competitors in the pre-European era. Instead, Native Americans in those areas have refused to enforce the immigration laws of the United States and have instead been helping Mexicans to evade American authorities even if they are descended from a different tribe. You and I both know why that is. Ethnic genetic interests and a common opponent—White America—has driven previously rival tribes into de facto alliances that never existed in history before. Getting systematically brutalised and murdered by a single outside group for centuries will tend to cause that. Getting your assets seized in the Treaty of Guadeloupe-Hidalgo will also tend to cause that. That phenomenon is very similar to how there are numerous academics writing now about how ‘pan-Asianism’ only gained traction amongst Asian youths once they had all begun exchanging ideas in English and faced a common cultural threat called what? White America. Arguing that “well a long time ago you all used to prefer to fight each other”, is just that—a long time ago, not now. I maintain my stance, whether it be called ‘Nazistic’, or ‘psychopathic’, or any other adjective, I am simply not a universalist and never have been. Both Ted Sallis and yourself claim that my partiality toward my own side makes me a ‘supremacist’ for peoples of Asiatic origin (and this necessarily includes Amerindians of all sorts), but I consider all of the use of that word ‘supremacist’ in this context to be just be word games. The battlefield exists in the spacial domain and in the philosophical and psychological domain. The use of ‘bad words’ to try to get me to conform my stance to that of a rival is part of the war too, the use of philosophical and psychological flourish is about trying to get your opponents to grant you victories before actions have taken place. But it cannot work on me. And, as evidenced by the state of political play in North America today, it isn’t going to have traction there on the ground either and hasn’t had traction for years. Also, the whole narrative of “struggling against an opponent makes you just as ‘bad’ as that opponent in a universal moralistic sense, so stop”, is interestingly enough just liberal bourgeois moralism which you’ve re-packaged in nationalistic terminology. That’s basically what you’re saying when you claim that by fighting an enemy I somehow become that enemy. But the operational truth is that two opponents could not face each other and exchange fire if they did not have some amount of symmetry between them. It would be impossible otherwise. 32
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 29 Apr 2017 17:06 | # “liberal bourgeois moralism” Lulz English moralism. It is the will to power that is the law of life. The coming race war will reveal who is entitled to call itself a Master Race. 33
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 29 Apr 2017 17:36 | #
Standards of safety and guarantees of ethnic preservation both in quality and quantity are a very central concern to me - in my DNA Nation project. It also holds the means to begin to make up for historical genocides (where they were not complete, as most of them were not). Mitigation of threats to it, be they through violence or through war of position (out breeding and imposition on carrying capacity) need to take more into account than a unilateral claim to California on the basis of people who (may) have a relation to people who lived there in history, people who you are fairly related to; and whom you represent in a unilateral claim of California, that failing your unilateral claim, that White people will, you say, be all too prone to use position on the west coast to not only cleanse all, even the most legitimately warranted Mexican (and Asian) communities and sovereignty from California, but also as a launching pad to attack Asia via the Pacific.
Thank goodness.
Of a right wing concept that has not drawn friend enemy lines properly, and is manipulated by Jews, whether directly or through reactivity, yes, it could be - hence the the whole reason for this thread which you think is “so stupid” even though I know that they don’t represent the typical attitude of Whites toward Asians and Amerindios, where the latter are at all reasonable. The whole basis of ethno-nationalism is separatism, which is an opposition to the kind of supremacism and invasive, imperialist ethnic cleaning of which you cite concern. Ethno-nationalists, particularly in the coordination that I seek, would be duty bound to oppose this what you fear and to take into account ethnonationalist claims by other peoples. I.e., it is not a simple matter of might makes right.
Alienating Whites who want to be allies by making unilateral claims based on broad brushing of them for wont of a simple binary distinction is a bad way to start. You got to stop treating trolls, Jews and right wingers as if they represent White ethno nationalism. You have many brilliant abilities, but in addition to being a rotten proofreader, who has left many obvious typos in my posts go unfixed, you are susceptible to being provoked and to thinking some absurdly obvious trolls are for real: You were inclined to believe the patently absurd “Stay Classy America” represented real sentiments of Americans toward Japanese, that Americans would mock the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was obvious to me that there was one, maybe two authors to what were supposedly a collection of many comments mocking the bombings. I’ve never met an American who would do that and all normal people including any American that I’ve ever known, look upon nuclear war as horrifying. I lived for the first 34 years of my life in America, spending almost all of my time with White people and they do not have anything remotely like the hostile attitude toward Japanse or other Asians that you think. I suspect that the composition was made by a Jewish female college student, whose soccer team lost to a Japanese team, further underscoring her disconcert that Japanese women were out performing her in her prestigious university (perhaps for the men she liked too). I’ve never known an American to be pre-occupied with dislike of orientals. But I suspect it can happen if they are being swamped - e.g., a long term resident of Vancouver or an engineering student who missed out going to MIT.
You are asking me to accept your decisions based on twitter and alt-right trolls, and I do not consider that sufficient criteria. I do consider that sufficient criteria is possible, however.
But Italians (my other half) might be mistaken for “Hispanic.” ...at any rate, I am not rolling the dice, I am very careful; that’s why I want the discussion here.
Japanese are surviving just fine. Mexicans are not going extinct. Nor Chinese, nor other Asians. I get it that right wingers such as Eisenhower have imposed Muslims (compradors) in Asia, and that is something to ally in opposition to. Some Asiatic peoples, such as Siberians, Carribeans and other native Americans have suffered terrible genocides and there should be efforts to rekindle them - that is what the DNA Nation is about.
I don’t believe in gambling at all, or as little as is necessary.
Sometimes simplifying things is an agency of intelligence. And asking for a binary distinction among Whites is simple enough. Those who can go along with true ethnonationalism and its solid alliance against its enemies will ascribe to the criteria we set forth - a criteria that is fair, amenable and safe for our peoples. 34
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sat, 29 Apr 2017 17:53 | #
It’s something, but I don’t even know if the British people adhere to this ‘English moralism’. All evidence seems to suggest that the British power structure doesn’t see it the way that GW sees it. Looking across history, as far as I can tell, Her Majesty’s Government and the City of London have basically never supported the United States against Amerindians ever. The British Empire always has looked for whoever is marginal and invested in the marginals so as to grant itself leverage on the chessboard of the Americas. I don’t see any evidence of them having changed that outlook today. It seems like it’s the same today in principle as it was in the year 1812. This even applies right now with Brexit and the future economic outlook of post-Brexit Britain. If you look at the statements of Theresa May and Boris Johnson, and the stances taken by the big players in the City, they are basically all ‘pro-Hispanic’ in effect. It’s as if they’ve all read ‘The Asian-American Achievement Paradox’, which was authored by University of California, Irvine, Sociology Professor Jennifer Lee and UCLA Sociology Professor Min Zhou. In it, they demonstrate that contrary to popular belief, there is not a hard line of achievement difference between Asian-American and Hispanic-Amerindians. In fact, Hispanic-Amerindians are really ‘the most successful second generation group’ because once you measure according to where they have come from, you realise that Hispanic-Amerindians have achieved an amount of progress in one generation on a level that is basically equivalent to the level of progress that ‘Asian Tiger economies’ made in one generation after the 1960s. There is obviously some evolutionary reason for that. By that logic it also would follow that the whole of Central America plus Mexico is also a massive engine of untapped economic potential. The logic of international capitalism post-Brexit therefore dictates that Britain will be ‘pro-Hispanic’ and will follow in the investment slipstream as it widens in a way that has already been opened up by South Korea in that region. This pattern of investment will also affect foreign policy and geopolitical attitudes. I can pretty much guarantee that you will never see Theresa May or any minister in HMG utter a single negative word about anything that Hispanic-Amerindians are doing in the Southwest of the United States. Because it would be diplomatically inconvenient to do so. In other words, GW’s position is some kind of moralism, but whatever kind of moralism it is, it’s apparently not English in the governmental sense. 35
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 29 Apr 2017 18:12 | # Of course English moralism is hypocritical and self-serving. 36
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 29 Apr 2017 19:56 | # Kumiko, you are confusing the issue, which is actually very simple. Eighteenth and Nineteenth century British colonial history, be in it relation to the North American continent or elsewhere in the world, does not instance ethnic nationalism. What does is the following statement:
Everything flows from that, and by everything I mean the ethical construct which I have laid out, and which is grounded in the human truth ... the truth of what we are. By comparison, the lie of the Aryan master race that CC likes to talk up died in the sands of North Africa on 11th November 1942. I have explained to CC on more than one occasion that it is a feminine weakness to portray oneself as the great racial master, and a strength to treat one’s defeated enemies with respect. If one fails in that respect then one pays with the sacrifice of respect for oneself. For example, from wikipedia’s entry of the minor but historically significant Japanese defeat to Australian forces at Milne Bay, New Guinea in September 1942: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Milne_Bay
History is never free from ethical choices. 37
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 29 Apr 2017 20:11 | # Here is another striking commentary on the cold, bitter fate of racial supremacism, which is to be found while browsing Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad
38
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sat, 29 Apr 2017 22:28 | # None of that has any effect on me. If you win, you win. If you don’t, you don’t. History is written by the victors, I thought all of this was obvious. It seems strange to me that all the ridiculous things that liberals spent their time talking about when referring to the Second World War, or basically any other war, are now being marshalled by you as though you think I haven’t been steadfastly ignoring it all since childhood. There is no guilt narrative that will ever work on me, if you want to defend America on the basis that opposing America is ‘Asian racial supremacy’ and that I shouldn’t oppose America because it’s ‘ethically wrong to do so’, then that is just completely laughable. Sorry, it is laughable on just so many levels. Maybe I should start calling myself a ‘supremacist’, that would detoxify the word so that you can no longer try to use it as a swear-word akin to ‘racist’. Regardless of what you say, and regardless of whatever psychological games you try to play, my stance will remain the same. I am not impartial. There is a side which I am on, and I take my own side deliberately. 39
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sat, 29 Apr 2017 23:06 | #
Except it really is a simple matter of the capability to wield destructive force being a deterrent. I don’t believe for one moment that anyone would adhere to any supposed ‘duty’ if there were a reason that they could come up with to not adhere to it. One thing that has come out of your decision to attack me on this issue, is that it has given rise to a conversation in which we’ve discovered that I don’t actually agree with either you or GW on anything when it comes to the fundamentals. There was no way that I could have known that otherwise. It would save time if you were to just admit that we are actual enemies when it comes to this issue, and there is no middle ground to be found. This entire conversation is simply a waste of time because there are no real shared values or goals to debate on the basis of. We’re simply not trying to accomplish the same thing. 40
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 30 Apr 2017 02:54 | # Kumiko, You are consistently not referring what I am writing on this thread to the writings I have offered under my ontology project, as if it could ever be said in isolation and just off the cuff. Well, I am not writing about a single subject (say, white American identity and political expression), or even in answer to an immediate question (say, the question “how” which is consequent upon David Lane’s fourteen sublime words). Always, for anyone who has a system of ideas, every subject and every question will necessarily be subjected to aspects of that system so as to throw into contrast its meaning and value. You routinely see that in the way Daniel approaches the AltRight. You should also see that in the way I am approaching the present subject matter. With that in mind, let’s quickly try another way to get to the underpinnings of what is under discussion here. Historiographically, the entirety of my still very crude and simplistic philosophical position on consciousness of self, authenticity, and the national experience should be understood as an attempt to get past the more subtle (non-liberal, non-Judaic, non-Christian) intellectual themes in the West of the years between 1914 and 1945 - themes which, of course, have never gone away. These are the principal themes which generated Heidegger’s broad critique of subjective metaphysics and the epistemological focus of the Western canon, and also informed the social and political critique of National Socialism. One might list them as subjectivism, humanism and democratism, modernism and techne. My purely personal position, evident in the offerings on this thread, is that reaction to these historiographic features in the form of anti-humanism, anti-modernism and so forth is incapable of producing the requisite natural equilibrium in the lived life (Daniel would say homeostasis). Reaction generally is its own nemesis, as those quotes from Wikipedia demonstrate. So where do we look for a solution to the riddle. Much to Danel’s chagrin I am looking to a more targeted focus on the consciousness of that which is singular and true in us. In other words, I would have us cease to be victims and creatures of that historiography by lifting ourselves clear of the harmful characteristics in it. This is the historiographical meaning of my re-definition of “the turn”. It means, in relation to the present question, that in a time of extremis your easy, implacable shutting out of the humanity of the Other is non-possible. There must be consistency from one time to another, one state of mind and of human being to another; and to aid in that profoundly humanising task there must be - and naturally will be - ethics. 41
Posted by Marble Mountain Wilderness on Sun, 30 Apr 2017 04:03 | #
I (DanielS) have to catch up reading these comments, but just wanted to note… I doubt that this part of California is majority non-White. Whites have shown responsible stewardship of the land and its carrying capacity, even for animals, having established national wild life areas such as the Marble Mountain Wilderness. One of my biggest concerns in regard to “Hispanics” and Asians is that they will come in and over-populate. For that matter, I see it as the duty of ANY nationalism with regard to ANY prospective immigrants to protect its territorial carrying capacity. I look at places like Peru and Mexico and I wonder; same with China and India really, even with the best of intentions would not the momentum of their populations simply overwhelm carrying capacity if they were somehow deemed more than welcome? But I digress. The Marble Mountain Wilderness is on the border of Oregon - larped as part of the “North West imperative.” There is already and American Indian reservation nearby and it is a land over all that’s been preserved by Whites. To me this may provide a model of how they can live in proximity. More, an example of how all of California should not necessarily be allowed to be claimed by Mexicans and Asians as theirs alone to govern and preside over.
They are apparently the product of a White, Amerindian mix, perhaps from a prior pairing of one or the other of the White couple, but nevertheless, relations hardly seem hostile. I doubt that they would be hostile to the idea of group preservation of Amerindians either - I believe that they could be appealed to on the basis of preservation similar as that of animal species. They do, after all, run a kennel, having compassion for dogs. They obviously have a good relation with these kids as well. I imagine that all parties could be persuaded of the necessity to keep their respect for the wilderness and carrying capacity. With coalitions like that, we can begin to hold up against right wingers on the one hand, and the oblivious on the other.
42
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sun, 30 Apr 2017 05:08 | # The reason that we have been getting nowhere in this conversation, and will be basically getting nowhere forever, is because behind all the words the entire thing could be boiled down this arrangement in principle, using just one of the states that I coloured red (AK):
Yes. I’m basically an ESKIMO SUPREMACIST vis-a-vis Alaska! I mean, taking that as just one example here, according to you two, if Russian Slavs seize Alaska from the Eskimo groups and then sell the stolen land to the Americans who then swap places with them to continue exploiting it, that is a ‘natural right’ which cannot be questioned. But my idea of secession is a form of ‘aggression’ against the ‘rightful owners’, who are apparently White Americans or the Russian Slavs depending on what time period we are in. In other words, according to you two, White people can seize whatever strategic assets they want, and conveniently no one can steal it back because you’ve just arbitrarily decided that the issue is settled, and just in the nick of time. That is then concealed behind very advanced philosophical argumentation. Basically both of you, GW and DanielS have invoked the spectre of Nazi Germany—or Axis more generally—in an attempt to deter me from advocating a stance that is detrimental to the United States. That’s simply not going to work on me. I didn’t do anything, and even if I did, I wouldn’t be sorry for it. In addition, the fact that Axis lost the Second World War is not a ‘lesson’ for me, because I don’t think there is anything to learn from it other than “Don’t lose wars, because losing is bad.” The problem is not that I don’t understand what you two are trying to do. The problem is that I do understand exactly what you are doing. I’m just on the other side. DanielS, you picked this fight with me in full knowledge of what my position is. Did you think I wasn’t going to respond in the comments section? I’m not going to budge on this. I have a position and that’s it. I explained the utility of it in my previous comments in this thread. If a chance opens up to undermine the United States, and it’s viable, and the timing is right, I will support it. And I will continue to reject all the rigged systems of ethics and morals, as I always do. 43
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 30 Apr 2017 05:35 | #
Then why do you make claims which are based on “guilt narratives” of White people if they are so irrelevant?
Saliently, Kumiko says: “admit that we are actual enemies” DanielS: It might be convenient for you in the short term to try to lump all Whites together, not making even the simplest of distinctions, but it is not and honest and true distinction and it will create the dangers that you seek to avert far more assuredly if you fail to deal fairly with the honest and good White people that there are. I have not attacked you and I am not approaching this matter as an enemy, but as a left etno nationalist working out coordination with other left ethno nationalists. It is natural and possible for them to coordinate their interests against right wingers and supremacists.
44
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 30 Apr 2017 05:50 | #
DanielS: I didn’t say the issue was settled and that I was unwilling to consider Asian and Amerindian claims.
DanielS: Speaking for myself, I raised the issue of Japan’s cooperation with the utterly disgusting genocidal regime of Nazi Germany because you raised historical guilt trips against Whites - many of whom had nothing to do even of their historical parentage with the grievances of historical genocide that you raise. Nor have they necessarily derived more benefit than punishment for the legacy of supremacism given the one sided PC “redress” (typically organized through Jewish controlled academia and marshaled through Jewish controlled government) of those historical grievances. Nor is their presence in America, including on the west coast, unjustified, especially if they can cooperate as left ethno nationlists against its world oppressive antagonists. 45
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sun, 30 Apr 2017 05:55 | #
I do not expect anyone to feel guilty for anything. I simply am saying, “I’m going to oppose you and here is the reason why.”
Absolutely absurd lies. 46
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 30 Apr 2017 05:58 | # And I am saying that I do not accept lumping as “you” and “they” and have given reasons why. 47
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sun, 30 Apr 2017 06:02 | # And yet it has happened. On some issues we are simply not going to be on the same side. That’s just how it is. 48
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 30 Apr 2017 06:05 | # No it isn’t. That is what you want to say at your convenience. 49
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sun, 30 Apr 2017 06:11 | # It’s openly apparent from the thread itself. You keep imagining that I’m going to find common ground somehow with you on everything. That is basically impossible, because I know what my interests are and in some instances they will cut against yours. You knew this from the start and your attempt to modify my stance on this issue was doomed to fail from the start. Just as any attempt by me to modify the position taken by you and by GW is not going to happen. 50
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 30 Apr 2017 06:51 | #
No, it is apparent that you want to avoid common ground - and if you insist on going right wing (as you are apparently intent on doing) then I will keep addressing my to whom it may concern audience, with the understanding that you (are not among them) can’t be reasoned with. I suppose that right wingers always bring about negative consequences for their disregard of the concept of relative innocence. Don’t expect me to say that left ethnonationalists should respect such a position, right wing and supremacist, as it neither respects the accountability of ethno nationalism and is complicit with Jewish problem - reaction - solution. The Jewish 9th court imposed immigration “fair housing laws” on California, not ethnonationalism, “White senility” or “White Americans.” You can try to say that right wing reactionaries and Jews represent White ethno nationalism but you are right if you think that I will never agree with that. Left ethno nationalists will look after ours and will shed not tears when right wingers predictably create unnecessary conflict and unjust results. Inasmuch, you are on the side of the Jews and the right wingers that they maneuver.
I didn’t know this and I don’t believe it is impossible to negotiate.
I can only speak for myself. I’ve modified my position quite a bit on the basis of new uderstandings that I’ve come by over the years. 51
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sun, 30 Apr 2017 08:14 | # Rationalise it however you like. Another thing about White Nationalism that is increasingly sickening to see, is how whenever you people run into a problem or a disagreement, you will use to some convoluted logic to try to argue that your opponent is ‘on the side of Jews’. Now you are here telling me that I am ‘on the side’ of Jews. Objectively speaking, we know that the Federal Government of the United States is definitively and irretrievably the Zionist Occupied Government as of November 2016 forward. I’m not the one who is here arguing on the side of the Zionist Occupied Government, you are the one doing that. I’m sick of seeing American Whites in basic collaboration with Jewish power at every turn, accusing everyone else of doing the thing which White America is in fact actually doing. Look at this here, let’s flashback to 2010 to revisit a typical example of this garbage, exactly seven years ago to the day:
Tom Horne is a Polish Jew who wants to tell the Native peoples of the Americas that they are not entitled to learn about their own history and culture, because learning about that history would cause them to want to overthrow the Arizona State Government of which Horne is a part. How convenient! I remember the very day that this happened, I said to myself, “The only solution will be Southwestern secession, because they cannot live with these parasites.” Tom Horne, Steve Sailer, Ron Unz, Kevin MacDonald and the entire cast of characters at VDARE and at the Occidental Observer are basically all on the same objectively pro-Jewish team, and consciously so. Any rational reading of their stances shows it. And now that is the tendency which is in charge of the United States, with the border policies being articulated by Stephen Miller. I’ve pointed out before that American Jews have not been able to make any headway in the Hispanic-Amerindian community. And that in Central and South America, Latino Jews have not been able to get on the inside track of Hispanic-Amerindian politics because they are seen as outsiders due to their phenotype being different enough that they can always be identified on sight. Asians have had much greater luck with Hispanic-Amerindians in that regard, and frankly, have had much better soft-power programmes aimed at facilitating friendship. Hispanics love, love, love Asians. Now, it turns out that with some searching around, it seems that Steve Sailer and his gang have been aware of the fact that Hispanics are a threat to Jews all along, since as early as 2001:
And where would fabulously powerful American Jews be without Steve Sailer and the staff at VDARE to warn them about every plot that is being fashioned against them? Readers should understand at this point what the Donald Trump phenomenon is about and why the entire Trump team on migration is basically Jews who oppose Mexican migration into the American Southwest. None of the contours of this struggle are accidental. It’s called ‘the Sailer Strategy’, and it’s the Hail Mary attempt by a specific group of Irish and German Whites, along with some Eastern Europeans and Jews in America to preserve their shared hegemony. I’m against that hegemony, obviously. And it is now at the stage where the only way to break that hegemony is to support ethnic balkanisation of the United States through secession, starting with the Southwestern region. All other avenues have failed, or are no longer useful. There is no alternative. Summary: Do not try to accuse me of being on the same side as Jews. I am quite consciously and deliberately against the side that Jews would benefit from. 52
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 30 Apr 2017 08:27 | # Kumiko wrotes:
Nothing is “rigged”. What follows, follows; that is all. That is why it is ethics and not, say, the arms business. Let’s test your dedication to racial interest. Suppose that the Chinese government embarked upon a policy of encouring large families at the same time as making available to all Chinese couples the sex selection of their families, resulting in a couple of generations in a vast over-supply of males. Suppose that the Chinese government then militarised these males and sent them out into the new industrial empire in Africa and in other parts of Asia too, and commenced upon ethnic cleansing and genocide of non-East Asian ethnic groups. Suppose that over the course of one generation the effect was to vastly increase East Asian racial power, even leading to a prospect in the not too distant future of eliminating the other races and occupying the entire globe. How far along this journey to total lordship over the earth would you personally go? Would you, for example, sacrifice your own life to achieve it? Would you sacrifice anyone’s life to achieve it? 53
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sun, 30 Apr 2017 08:55 | # That’s a completely ridiculous question which is actually more like an accusation disguised as a question. You’ve spent the entire argument trying on ‘flip the script’ on me by trying to make it look like I am somehow threatening everyone else through the act of advocating policies that would enable us to defend ourselves from White Americans who actually tried to genocide an entire continent full of Asia-descended peoples, a genocide they almost 90% succeeded at. It makes no sense whatsoever. That is the sort of thing that Russians used to say while they were wrecking Central Asia. It is the same kind of logic that the Russians use when they are claiming that NATO doesn’t have the right to engage in any kind of operations to protect the Baltic states from Russian designs, or that Ukraine is ‘part of Russia’. It’s just a total inversion of reality. The only thing more ridiculous than that, is DanielS calling me a ‘right-winger’ because I’m sticking up for Hispanic-Amerindians. There is nothing less right-wing than sticking up for the working class and the peasants of the Americas. 54
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 30 Apr 2017 09:01 | #
Yes, if you lump all Whites together as “the bad guys” then you are doing precisely what the Jews want you to do. 55
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sun, 30 Apr 2017 09:09 | # I didn’t do that. I don’t believe in ‘good guys’ and ‘bad guys’, I only believe in interests. You will not find that terminology being used by me anywhere. I also did not say that ‘all Whites’ are a problem from my perspective. No one reading this thread should be able to come away with that conception, since a lot of my narrative involves historical stories of other White groups triangulating against American Western Expansion. For example, I did mention the Tecumseh Confederacy earlier on in this thread. That entity was backed by the British Empire during the War of 1812. It was a case where British liberal-imperialism actually supported a progressive nationalist movement among Native Americans, against the United States, in the American Midwest. I also mentioned the time that France installed Maximilian in Mexico to try to spite the United States. And I mentioned the time when the British Empire tried to prevent Texas from joining the United States. I’m obviously not ‘lumping all Whites together’. At some point you are going to have to address my real argument rather than trying to construct some butthurt American Sallis-style strawperson of my actual argument. 56
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 30 Apr 2017 09:16 | # Kumiko, I am not trying to “flip the script”. I am not even arguing “against” you. You would know it if I did that. I am, of course, explaining that moral imperatives are part and parcel of our natural imperatives, and are not conflicted with ethnic interests. There is a synthesis which saves humankind from permanent psychopathy (which would be dysgenic). Any attempt to arrive at a fit philosophical articulation of ethnic nationalism must accommodate it. In that last question I am giving you the opportunity to attenuate your dedication to ethnic interest sans moral considerations to its logical conclusion of psychopathy. It is interesting to me that you do not want to go down that line, which indicates that you are, in fact, a moralist. It is merely a question of degree; which now provides us with a new line of enquiry. 57
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 30 Apr 2017 09:19 | #
Absolutely Not. Just because I don’t agree to your unilateral stance and objectives for the outcome for the opposition does not mean that I am not opposed to ZOG.
There’s the problem of your putting all Whites into one position, with Jews. Sure, we all are responsible for letting Jews have power, for blacks being brought to the Americas, for right wing supremacist exploitations and genocide, for not opposing this - no, we are not all responsible for that.
58
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sun, 30 Apr 2017 09:26 | # @GW: On principle, it would be logical to use it, if it were even possible, which it isn’t. I am definitely not a moralist of any sort. However, it might have operational blowback which has to be considered in any case. In other words, the only reason not to do it, would be because it might not work out the way it has been advertised. Not because there is any universal judge that we will ever be held accountable to, and not because killing people is ‘inherently wrong’ or anything like that. Technically, we could kill every human being on the earth and there would be no meaning to that action, because there is no higher power who could ever criticise us for it and no inherent meaning for existence. There is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. We’re all here struggling, and all we can do is our very best. My assertion here however, which has nothing to do with mass killing at all anyway and thus does not even rise to that level of severity, is that the secession of the Southwest of the United States into the hands of a majority Hispanic-Amerindian population would provide considerable strategic gains for everyone in the Pacific who has ever had reason to be afraid of the United States, and the blowback would be minimal. If that were to happen, conflict would be reduced, it would not be increased. Your attempt to conflate an ethnic-based secession with mass killing in the first place is just astounding to me. 59
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 30 Apr 2017 09:28 | #
Yes, you have been lumping all Whites together. Anybody who doesn’t automatically agree with lines as you’ve drawn them is a “White American”, on the side of ZOG. Your accusing me of being like Sallis is a (totally ridiculous) example of psychological transference upon his trolling you. I never was interested in his site and I don’t take him seriously. 60
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sun, 30 Apr 2017 09:49 | # Answer me this: Is there any trench that you won’t fight in when it comes to defending the interests of the United States? Both of you have executed the most convoluted defence of America that I’ve ever seen. It just astounds me that now that the United States is literally worse than useless in 2017, suddenly you all are fighting tooth and nail to save the structure. I’m really pretty annoyed about that, but let it not be said that the humour of it all is lost on me. There is an extent to which this is like a tragi-comedy. The lines I’ve drawn exactly trace the political and ethnic fracture of greatest importance in the United States, taking into account the population of ‘under 5s’. It then projects to the year 2045-ish and presents a scenario on that basis. If your lines are somewhere other than where I’ve placed them, then objectively speaking it must mean that you are okay with forcibly rounding people up, putting them forcibly onto trains, and forcibly deporting them, while confiscating their property. That’s what makes this whole conversation so amazing. It is you and GW who are arguing for the use of naked violence against Hispanic-Amerindians, so as to preserve the hegemony of the United States Federal Government. That was how this whole conversation started. How I became the villain and the aggressor for saying that Hispanic-Amerindians should defend themselves and their property against any such attacks, is truly an amazing thing to behold. 61
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 30 Apr 2017 09:51 | #
Yes, you have been lumping all Whites together. Anybody who doesn’t automatically agree with lines as you’ve drawn them is a “White American”, on the side of ZOG. Your accusing me of being like Sallis is a (totally ridiculous) example of psychological transference upon his trolling you. I never was interested in his site and I don’t take him seriously. 62
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 30 Apr 2017 10:08 | #
Saying that there are not moral rules to be negotiated, that its all might makes right and biological imperative, that there are no White Left nationalists that should be talked with, is right wing indeed. 63
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sun, 30 Apr 2017 10:10 | # Oh please. You knew exactly that I was going to respond in the way that I’ve responded, because I talked about these issues with you before, and you would have known that I distinguish between the various White groups with a high degree of care. It’s just that I also believe that there is an aggregated thing called ‘White American power’ which is one of the key anchor points of White supremacy in the Pacific, and that it would be in my interest to see that attenuated. You also know that I present it as ‘a deal’, because I believe that it would be only possible to bring people to accept that idea, if it is done in the context of the creation of an ethno-state for Whites, so that they could stay there and just stay out of the Pacific. In other words, everyone agrees to just go their separate ways. Which is what separatism is all about! I had described my stance on Hispanic-Amerindians to you before, and you knew completely what it was, this is not the first time you are hearing of it. You also know that I have a historical view that is not ‘anti-White’, because you yourself asked me about the wars on the American continent one time on Skype on one Saturday a few months ago, and I proceeded to respond by waxing lyrical about the War of 1812 for a full five hours. Which ‘anti-White’ person is going to sit down and drag you through the details of how ‘convenient’ the British Empire was in that context? People need to stop accusing me of hating White people. It’s fucking absurd. I presented the historical view that the formation of the United States was a world-catastrophe in the sense that it could be rationalised as a movement to overturn the existing limitations on Westward Expansion which the British Empire had—thankfully—maintained for its own convenience. That’s quite a bit more sophisticated than “Whitey is bad”. I also bent your ear on several occasions regarding seemingly random issues that Natives in Canada are dealing with and so you would have known full well that it’s actually important to me. None of this is really ‘coming out of nowhere’. You know exactly what my view are on these issues. And yet you still tried to pretend that I was coming out of nowhere with this. No. You consciously and deliberately to create this as a front page topic so as to undermine my attempts to promote my viewpoint at AltRight.com’s comments section, and to divert my attention so that I could not vector the ‘mutually beneficial separatism’ memes further. I had to basically cancel that to come back and argue with you, and thus I missed that crucial window of time which should have been used more effectively and which should have been coupled with an article written by me. By forcing me to waste time defending myself from the charge of being ‘anti-White’, you made it so that I would have to talk about the antagonism between White America and the rest, rather than the fact that peaceful partition is the safest solution to the problem. You absolutely deliberately did that, and you have even said as much in this thread. You said that you were glad that you ruined what I was trying to do, because we had “gotten off on the wrong footing”. According to who? According to you? Fuck you. 64
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 30 Apr 2017 10:13 | #
No, as you’ve constructed it. Hell, I left America. That’s what I think of it and here you are accusing me of being an America patriot who’ll defend its government at any cost (a government that has shown steady antagonism to my EGI) because I don’t automatically accept lines that you assert nor your transference. 65
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 30 Apr 2017 10:17 | # Well, there are several problems in that short response. The refuge in practicality comes right off the bat. Mao’s Cultural Revolution and the Khmer Rouge’s Year Zero evinced a perfectly comfortable and murderous relationship with what all normal people would consider to be, at the very least, impractical. Under the appropriate circumstances the East Asian mind, like the European Mind, the Arab Mind, the African Mind, the Amerindian Mind ... is eminently capable of making the pathological practical. You write (humourously, I know; but bear with me) of genociding Muslim Arabs by some clean, mysteriously scientific means, “On principle, it would be correct choice to use it”. So, two questions. What principle? And if the chosen means was not clean and scientific but up close and personal, involving orange work-suits and large, serrated knives, the terrible, cold fear of the victims, their death agonies, and copious amounts of blood and body fluids ... would it still be a principled action on your part? Where, in essence, is the limit of your morality-free ethnic action? I have already disposed of the claim of Hispanics of Central American origin to the South-West. They are not the indigenes. The Mexican government fought for and lost Texas in 1836. It was incorporated in 1845. Arizona was purchased from Mexico beween 1848 and 1853 (Geronimo, let it be said, having fought against both Mexican and white settlers). New Mexico entered the Union in 1912. The estate of indigene belongs to white Americans today. The Hispanics crossing the river are not revanchists but invaders and colonisers, and as such they do not have rights on that soil. White Americans are morally free at any time to eject them; and will have to do so to secure their children’s future. The will is there, except in the Federal government. You write:
... which is to misunderstand the nature of the question. I am interrogating your claim to entertain no moral considerations in respect to East Asian ethnic expansionism. Let’s not slide into other areas to escape the question. 66
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 30 Apr 2017 10:18 | #
This is just a disingenuous and got up version of “what I say goes” no need for your opinion. You didn’t address the issue of Northern California; let alone the biologically deterministic arguments (demographic trajectories decide) that you would never stand for being made against you and yours if the situation were reversed regarding such strategically important areas as Silicon Valley, Mountain View (NASA), Palo Alto (Stanford) ... The Napa Valley…. and more. 67
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sun, 30 Apr 2017 10:29 | #
There is no limit.
And I have already responded to your attempt to dispose of it, by bringing it back out and putting it back on the table again. Why are we going in circles on this?
And I disagree because I reject the entire framework within which you are drawing those conclusions. I’d be willing to back it up by joining the Hispanic-Amerindian side in any conflict that emerges if—and let it be said that I do not desire it—it ever becomes an actual civil war, and I’d be willing to fight to the death on the side of the Hispanic-Amerindians.
And I will not address it.
I don’t believe in the Golden Rule. And let’s face it, neither does the United States Federal Government. Also, all of this is actually me ‘not standing for it’. For generations, the situation has in fact been one way. My desire to reverse it the other way, is a product of me not standing for it being one way. 68
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 30 Apr 2017 10:41 | # Well, neither will I stand for a one sided view. I will join those who will oppose your right wingedness 69
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 30 Apr 2017 11:17 | #
Then you are content for a billion and a half East Asians to manifest in perpetuity as pathological killers? You hold that this would be an evolutionarily adaptive choice in every way, and not in the slightest disfiguring and dysgenic, or different from the extant sociobiology now? East Asians are automatons and psychopaths anyway and do not have moral limits of their own; only militaristic ethno-racial strivings; and do not recognise or accommodate any value but their own millenarian destiny to possess everything. And, after all, such an ambition coud not possibly bring down all humanity on the head of East Asia and cause its utter and complete annihilation? It’s just a sensible thing to do; the only thing is it’s “impractical”. For now. You see, my duck, you have to be willing to embrace every extreme, and dismiss every last wail of your victim, every dead child, every little drop of blood on your shoes ... everything, if you are going to go down the road of having no empathy outside your own in-group. You have to be Pol Pot squared, and you have to require every last one of your co-ethnics to be the same. Consequentially, you have to make an account of humankind in terms of the physical assets East Asians would take unto themselves, and find it a good deal. And afterwards you would have to find a way to stop the psychopathy from turning within, and destroying again. This is the life sans morals which you are courageously claiming. You can’t say, “Oh, it’s not practical to bring up such examples.” Human history is by no means without examples of such thinking, and there are whole classes of international law which have been universalised in consequence. Murderous tyrants in the heart of Africa - men who have never even heard of the 1948 Convention, and may not even be able to read at all - have been stood in the dock in The Hague, and forced to answer to the deontological mind. As it happens, I don’t believe you would harm another human being for their possessions on this earth merely because they are of another racial group. I don’t believe your bold claims to psychopathy for a second; though I worry that you may believe you. 70
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 30 Apr 2017 11:20 | # Looking again at Xing’s PCS plot:
... it isn’t obvious to me that Kumiko’s ethnic interests overlap greatly with those of Central Americans. 71
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sun, 30 Apr 2017 11:33 | #
Okay, but don’t try to claim that I’m ‘anti-White’, because I’m just following a precedent of minorities who are capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time.
In other words, it is possible to serve two sets of interests simultaneously, when the situation allows for that to happen. All that is happening in this thread is that same kind of thing, but in miniature. Another instance of this play can be seen with Manuel Noriega:
You’re upset with me because, much like poor Mister Noriega, my cooperation isn’t completely transparent, it comes with other motives and conditionalities attached. Slightly comedic analogy here, but entirely serious at the same time. You had to intervene against me when I was at AltRight.com, because I was doing something that didn’t directly serve your American interests. Except you couldn’t tell me that it was because of that. Much like how the United States suddenly ‘discovered’ that Noriega was actually a drug trafficker when it became a real liability to America, similarly, Majorityrights suddenly ‘discovered’ that my talking points are actually anti-American when those points began to actually threaten to cause some kind of real anti-American effect among the readers. Again, it’s a funny analogy, but there it is. In other words, you aren’t upholding the unspoken deal between us, you are reneging on it whenever it suits you. 72
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 30 Apr 2017 12:56 | #
I’m not upset. This is a projection. You are upset with me because I don’t just agree with you without even having pondered the issues. That’s what this is about.
First of all I’ve been opposed to the AltRight from the start, as just another permutation of right wing reaction/complicity with Jews. How many times do I need to say to you that it isn’t about the “American interests” which I do not have, but about left ethno nationalist interests? Any time that I try to explain to you that not everything is wonderful for White people in America, that they have been under attack by Jews, under the bus by right wingers and beside opportuntism from blacks, that this has been done with the vehicle of the US government and constitution, you try to look upon it as a petty complaint of “white fragility” - i.e., you simply adopt the wallpapering Jewish perspective of White privilege across the board.
I’m not pro American and never expected you to be. I have argued with you before about your wish to keep White people off the west coast, but I had some hope that you could be reasoned with. I’ve explained to you in truth that I’m willing to share the enemies (Jews, Muslims, blacks and their right wing vehicles) and share the booty - i.e., if I could replace every last Jew and black in the Americas with Asians and Ameridians, I’d make the deal - adding sacrosanct territories for all three groups, Whites, Asians and Amerindians, while further refining (and perhaps even commencing) its motive of securing EGI through the DNA Nation. I know your argument about the practicality of lopping off California for you - and I’m not ready for it to be discussed without White left ethno nationalist interests represented - particularly not without even so much as me alone at the table. The problem for me is that you would not make even a binary distinction between White left ethnonationalists and other Whites. In fact, you started wanting to treat right wingers and even Jewish trolls as definitive of all White Americans, White nationalists, even White ethno nationalists.
I explained my reasons for doing this. It has nothing to do with a pro American sentiment and everything to do with an anti right wing, including anti alt right and Jewish sentiment. I didn’t even get to a point of formally disagreeing with your proposition, I just wanted to discuss it first; and the mere wish to discuss it before and outside of the AltRight box had you accusing me of being “pro American”, of being of one mind with Ted Sallis for F-sake! lol
I’m reneging on nothing. I never agreed that the AltRght and its trolls could speak for my people’s interests. 73
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sun, 30 Apr 2017 14:00 | # The reason that I obviously will not believe you, is because creating a front page attack article against what I’m doing, does not give the impression, “I want to discuss this strategy with you.” Especially since I had in fact already given you my whole logic in painstaking detail previously. Stop pretending that you are not doing what you are transparently and obviously doing. There is no further discussion to be had. 74
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 30 Apr 2017 16:50 | # White Americans will initially establish an ethnostate in the places where we already enjoy demographic strength - in the Pacific Northwest and the Midwest. From there, with but a single generation raised to manly hardihood, we will descend upon the south of the continent with a ten million man blitzkrieg, crushing the muds under tank treads and jackboots to reclaim what is ours. 75
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sun, 30 Apr 2017 19:21 | # Okay, I’ll engage this hypothesis just for the fun of it, to illustrate that life is not that simple. Two dirty wars Assuming that someone down in the Southwest thinks like I do, there would not be a case where anyone sits there and watches you do that. To keep you occupied, giant shipments of fresh cocaine could be sent into Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin, which would be your industrial heartland in such a scenario. While you’re battling that problem of literal armed cartels selling cocaine to your workers, and gangs selling cocaine to disadvantaged people in the streets, the funds generated from those activities could then be used to fund contras and mercenaries to begin making an insurgency in whichever of your states has the highest percentage of Hispanics who have not yet departed for the Southwest territories. The excuse? Oh, you are brutalising populations and so there was a ‘spontaneous uprising’, in say, Oklahoma, which would of course be secretly getting coordinated out of some letter agency in California but you would never be able to prove that. And yes, in case you are wondering, that’s why none of my maps earlier in this thread have Oklahoma coloured in red, despite the fact that Oklahoma would actually be 40% Hispanic in 2045. I deliberately left it inside your territory on the map as an ambiguous buffer zone which could be set on fire at any time and sacrificed if your side tries anything funny. I had thought of that way ahead of time. I guarantee that in reality the planners would think that way too—at partition time in any hypothetical scenario you would always be given Oklahoma as a bomb which can be activated at any time. Hot propaganda At the same time, Information Operations could be conducted in Oregon and Washington state to frame all of the events as signs that your White ethno-state government is incompetent and unhinged. Perhaps some radio talk show hosts saying lines like, “It’s clear that the government has failed on law enforcement, failed at creating economic opportunity—I mean hell, just this week we saw school children in the street smoking crack in Illinois—and now they are bogged down in a counter-insurgency war in Oklahoma? This government is insane! I mean, even while that’s going on, leaks have emerged detailing the fact that government wants to commit us to war against the entire Southwest? No one signed up for this!” Posters with the slogan “No one signed up for this.”, could then begin appearing everywhere. A website called noonesignedupforthis dot com could be run. There could be an iPhone and an Android app with the latest ‘updates’ on how much your government sucks and is a racist militaristic out of control kleptocracy. Half of it wouldn’t even have to be true. This might not require much convincing to work, because even though your side would not be responsible for the violence fomented in Oklahoma, everyone will believe that you are because your government would be the only one that is swaggering around pre-signalling racially antagonistic intent. And while we’re exploiting your ‘freedom’ to propagate those messages, we’d be locking down the Southwest, softly, softly, behind a ‘great internet firewall’ and protecting ourselves from any ‘fake news’ that your government might respond with. The question would become: Two different kinds of WHINSEC-style asymmetrical dirty war would be going on simultaneously in two locations inside your territory, as well as Information Operations, such as black propaganda in other places, to delegitimise your government. All of that would threaten not only your economic productiveness but also your government’s ability to rally citizens to commit to a conventional war. Given all of the above, would your White ethno-state still have enough time, resources and political capital to use on carrying out that single-thrust ten-million-man Blitzkrieg against the Southwest’s standing army of juicy weightlifting Hispanics? I would wager a “No”. But you know, you could avoid all that violence and chaos. You could just be nice and not try to have a race-war in the first place. Why not just have a peaceful partition? 76
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 30 Apr 2017 19:29 | #
You have discussed things with me about how you did not like westward expansion (“manifest destiny”), but I never agreed that the matter of California is non-negotiable. If you were going to bring it here, I would nevertheless object, so it was only a matter of time; and I’d also object to the idea that Whites are biologically programmed to attack across the pacific and into Asia from California and the rest of the West Coast. I’d further reject the idea that Whites can’t respect sacrosanct territories for Asians and Amerindians within the Americas - Indian reservations are a primitive example, but an example. I’m sympathetic to the genocides against the Amerindians, such as those of the Caribbean islands - but particularly when you consider the utterly revolting fact of their having been replaced by blacks (sometimes forced to breed with them). I believe their species should be revived and replace the blacks - replace Jews and any Whites who would impose them as well. Of course, Captainchaos is not helping matters, but you know, this is a guy who thinks Hitler and his idealized wars of annihilation were wonderful. He needs a Popsicle and a video game. 77
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sun, 30 Apr 2017 20:16 | # Well, Captainchaos and the others like him are precisely why I have to think up such horrible scenarios. Sometimes you might think that I’m unnecessarily ‘hostile’, but everything I say is a defensiveness based on the fact that I go though the comments sections of White Nationalist websites to see what the sentiments are, and I do keep up with what the other sites are saying in podcasts as you know. I would not trust these guys to just sign up to a partition and adhere to it out of a sense of ‘duty’ or ‘ethno-nationalist principle’, because no one seems to be playing by those rules, and they’ve already dehumanised all non-Whites in their discourse. I’m not saying that they are ‘bad people’, in the typical sense that you often hear of, but rather, that it’s just something that has to be taken into account. It’s just a thing which is what it is. Game theory can be used to deter conflict by arranging things so that they know that if they violate the partition borders, it will be unacceptably costly for everyone. It doesn’t mean that I desire to kill White people, or that I have dehumanised them in any way (although GW keeps accusing me of doing so). White Americans are indeed people. I probably respect White Americans in general more than they respect me. However, I also know that I can’t just trust White American Nationalists, given the track record of things that happen if you are not vigilant. For example, I’m sure Captainchaos is a fun guy to have a beer with or whatever. But I don’t just automatically trust him in a border partition scenario. It has to be trust and verify and peace through strength. Both sides would have to keep each other in check. 78
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 30 Apr 2017 21:12 | #
On the contrary, I am just trying to help you be a lot more human than you really want to be. 79
Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 01 May 2017 00:27 | # This is ridiculous. A collection of spic gang bangers and drug cartels would stand a snowball’s chance in hell against real Nazis? I don’t think you fully understand, there will be no non-Whites left in our ethnostate. So how is it that they could deal drugs and demoralize us with street graffiti within the confines of our ethnostate? Also, once the Nazis arrive I can solemnly assure you they won’t be there to play patty cake and fuck around. They will have arrived to push every last shitskins with a pulse south of the Rio Grande as fast as their legs can carry them. Any resistance, even so much as a cross sideways glance, and they will be executed on the spot. Tougher pockets of resistance will be starved out or put down with chemical weapons. 80
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 01 May 2017 05:49 | # Capacity for force is an ongoing necessity, but once quality and quantity control is established, the positions held will be warranted in such a way that facilitates the replacement of YKW, blacks and sand blacks, such that anyone would be a fool domestically and geostrategically to not take a far more cooperative stance on balance. The problem at this point is that quantity and quality control has not been established on either side - we are dealing with the upshot of Jewish and right wing handiwork. 81
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Mon, 01 May 2017 06:32 | #
It is with some sadness that I say this. I don’t understand why the people in your camp always get this all backwards. You should know already that the people who are still acting out the shadows of the Axis policy preferences, the inheritors of that position on the North American continent now are in fact the Hispanic-Amerindian social formations which actually comprise a class and racial group which is outside the grasp of the present Zionist-owned United States government. You are hating the wrong people. Who is in Axis’ shadow? The first thing that I will show you is this:
It’s pretty complex, but basically the inertia has continued. The present Mexican strategic position is basically shaped by the networks that were created in the 1930s, and is now self-propelling toward a future that no one can foresee. I have said before that the Western world is struggling against itself internally, and it is also being acted upon by social formations that are outside of it. This is an element of the social formations that are outside it and which are acting and being acted upon by it. The Cartels Regarding the drug cartels and so on, you are also doing them a disservice. Many of these drug lords were actually NATO country intelligence assets during the Cold War and worked against the Soviets. So it really depends on which cartels you are talking about. Some are just criminal gangs, but others are something much more sophisticated than that. For example, it is a little known fact that Pablo Escobar of the Medellin cartel carried out missions against the Soviets, using the money he had accumulated to create parallel forms of social transfers among poor villagers. Escobar and others also enjoyed covert relationships with elements within the United States, Panama, Colombia, Peru, Mexico, Italy, Japan, Taiwan and South Korea, and so on. Some of these people are actual heroes of freedom who served in silence to make a better future for us all and to put a spanner in the wheels of the Soviet global machine. But you guys in American White Nationalism never give them any credit for their service. Instead all they get is the ethnic slurs that the American ‘alternative’ media (which is not really ‘alternative’ at all) has taught you to throw at them. Honestly, it is saddening. The hypothetical Regarding the hypothetical scenario I was talking about, who would deal drugs in the White ethno-state that you are referring to? Obviously if someone were to do that, it would be White people that would be paid to do it, and the stories read by radio hosts would be planted by White journalists who would be seeded with stories that attack the authority of the United States Federal Government. Everything that is old would simply be dusted off and made new again, and applied against the United States’ rogue government. That’s what I was talking about. The emergent Kushner-Trump machine is the opponent Here’s the thing. You seem to think that the presently existing movement in the United States is going to produce ‘real Nazis’. I don’t know what the definition of that actually is, but I can assure you that the United States is not capable of producing what you are imagining now. With the election of Donald Trump, a new dynasty has been created and it is Israeli. Furthermore, does anyone really imagine that a movement that is popularised through people like Paul Gottfried, Peter Brimelow, Mike Enoch, Mike Cernovich and also people like Curtis Yarvin, is going to somehow result in ‘real Nazis’? What does ‘real’ even mean? So far, all it has resulted in, is the rise of neoreactionary American patriots. Whose side? I say this with absolute seriousness. Cue the grainy footage of shadowy figures from the past walking through the rain, and fleeting faces that you could swear you saw in the doorways of the old halls of power. If the people of the 1940s who struggled on the side of Axis were brought forward from beyond the grave into the present day and were asked to adapt to the present realities and then make a choice, the choice would be clear. None of them would tactically side with the United States now, and none of them would side with the social formations that gave rise to the electoral result of November 2016. They just wouldn’t. 82
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 01 May 2017 07:01 | # Has it occurred to you, CC, that National Socialism and the behaviours and attitudes associated with it, which so inhabit your fantasies, was an aberration of the German mind brought about by, among other things, national defeat and humiliation and complete economic destruction and hopelessness; and that these were quite different circumstances to those we face across the West today? Further, might it perhaps be the case that National Socialism is not, in fact, the default setting for the European mind in extremis, and that we have no such setting but must find one appropriate to the task ahead of us? In other words, and notwithstanding the obvious perverse pleasure that you derive from your naughty and daringly crude observations, could it be that you would do better to ask a question of history rather than supply an answer from it? 83
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 01 May 2017 13:19 | # One of the questions CC might ask is: How does a movement predicated on an irrational and ecstatic surrender to the Volkisch experience - an experience which, in its militarism, is destructive of identity and even of the value of life - arise in a liberal project such as America? 84
Posted by Harper on Mon, 01 May 2017 17:13 | #
What about the geopolitical dimension? Gangs and drug cartels may have no chance, but there’d be plenty of organized state militaries like Canada, the UK, Europe, etc. who’d intervene to “fight Nazis,” if only for economic and geopolitical reasons and for greater influence on the continent. 85
Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 01 May 2017 22:20 | # How did National Socialism arise to begin with? It was created by, yes, “Germanic alpha males with giant brass balls.” 1. We will tear lose the Pacific Northwest from ZOG with an IRA style insurgency. 2. We will indoctrinate the first generation born to the new republic according to the tenets of National Socialism. 3. We will invade the remainder of the continent, cleansing it entirely of muds, thus reclaiming it as our own. 86
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 02 May 2017 04:46 | # Captainchaos, I actually started out thinking like you do. Then when I came to the idea of coordinating European/White ethnonatonalism with Asian ethno-nationslism, and I saw its potential for profounder and lasting victory, I came to believe that we could do better with a cooperative relationship worldwide. It would be only practical to develop world wide coordination by beginning with a more cooperative relationship in the Americas. Given that Asians, i.e., especially their branch that came over the Bering Straits, have legitimate claims there, it is practical to cultivate cooperative relations on both north and south America. They have natural adaptation, will know and be able use the lay of the land against our enemies. We can avail ourselves of the “hispanic’ disinterest in Jews, where they have not outrightly cottoned on to the JQ entirely (for fear of that the (((Sailer))) strategy), along with their infamous penchant to cleanse blacks from their turf; it makes sense to ally with them against YKW, blacks and sand blacks world wide - its biopower, violent aggression and propensity to overpopulate. We can only incentivize cooperation against our enemies by being good neighbors, by being willing to share the booty. But by doing so, we can all have more and do better than we ever have. Your position that you would simply betray any such negotiation on the north American continent is by contrast highly problematic. Would you side with blacks and Jews in order to get Asians and Amerindios out of there? It is far more practical given the situation and relational configurations that we should side with Asians and Amerindians and look upon the Americas as spoils to divide up in ways that are better for all of us, to create living situations and relations better than they have heretofore been. We can extrapolate from there world wide. Far better to have potent allies like Asians against Jews, Muslims and blacks, than yet another massive and potent enemy. 87
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Tue, 02 May 2017 07:32 | # It seems like this whole conversation just oscillates between two non-optimal ideas. On the one hand, there is a whole formation of American White Nationalists who have spent the past two decades slowly building up to a completely anti-Hispanic and anti-Asian position and are essentially calling for race-war. On the other hand, you, DanielS are not calling for them to simply disengage from doing that, rather you are calling for both sides to reach out and find some kind of explicit cooperation, which is just politically impossible. That is just not possible on the American continent. Nor is it desirable. Check this out:
And if you really think about it, that’s what they really want. Regardless of what anyone thinks of it, they have things that they believe that I certainly cannot stop them from believing. There is also the fact that when you are talking about ‘alliances’ you have to take in account that you are talking about real human beings on both sides. As soon as you try to make an explicit alliance between social movements and not just a strategic decision to ‘give each other space’, you are taking on a huge task. Sometimes I have to get visual to make my point, because you seem to forget that the Asian youth is relentlessly ‘normal’. Imagine the head space that the average Asian in her mid-twenties is operating in, the generation that listens to IU, uses English loan-words and thinks that free trade is wonderful and that Theresa May is politically edgy, and then imagine you actually telling that demography that, “I’ve got a great idea, I think you should talk to American White Nationalists right now in 2017.” Think about any of the average people in the comments sections of White Nationalist websites right now. What do you think would happen if you placed any of them in a conversation with the average Asian or the average Hispanic? I can tell you, it would just be a less intellectual version of what happens every time myself and Sallis get into a conversation. The White Nationalist will be generally offensive, and might even use racially denigrating language, and the Asian person will say “that’s racist!” and etc. The White Nationalist will then begin crying crocodile tears about ‘political correctness’, as though objecting to being directly insulted is now a Frankfurt School conspiracy. You can’t even get me to play along with that despite the fact that I’m specifically trying to interact with them, how on earth would the average Asian person be able to stick it out with that? It simply wouldn’t happen. The public relations of the entire right-hand spectrum of the United States—which includes racialists—is seen as basically toxic. And that’s because, really, it actually is. 88
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Tue, 02 May 2017 08:02 | # On a separate note: Since in my previous post I did mention Ted Sallis as an example, there is something perverse which is worth considering about his outlook. Given the state of play in Asia and in Latin America at the moment, there might actually be a utility to amplifying that kind of American voice rather than striving to suppress it. At the moment, language separates them from being ‘understood’. Imagine Ted Sallis, or the Daily Stormer, or say, any of the stuff that goes up at The Right Stuff—including comments sections—translated into Japanese or Korean and vectored into the hands of the average reader of those languages? For example:
This would actually be the best possible message that I could ever want people to see coming out of a White American mouth. Sallis would actually be playing into—or at least fuelling—the apocryphal and existing borderline conspiracy theory that the United States has not only refused to help to end the North Korea problem in the mid-1970s when they had the chance for reunification, because they desired to leave it there as a thorn in the side of Asian regional integration, it would also make it appear that it is an expression of White American EGI for them to want to go further and sign a peace treaty with that sick place, and to then dump the problem suddenly onto their former economic ‘partners’. Maybe it is time to have that conversation in coming decades. Maybe South Koreans would be very angry with the United States. And maybe that would not be a bad thing. I would want Asians to believe that White Americans really think this way, because it would be a real wake up call for a lot of people, and perhaps it really would result in South Korea and Japan finally acquiring nuclear weapons. We need nuclear weapons very badly, for the same reason that China needed them. Because nuclear non-proliferation is a joke:
They were right, by the way. It’s just game theory. Japan and South Korea need nuclear weapons. 89
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 02 May 2017 08:26 | #
DanielS: NO. That is how the dick-headed Ted Sallis - the man who wants to suck Jewish cock - wants to draw the lines. Yes, we want separatism, but the real intense agitation that we want is between our groups contra blacks and Jews. There are other ways to manage our separatisms - such as Spanish speaking, cultural and religious differences. Yes, there should be separatism between Amerindios/Asians and ethnonationalist Whites too, but not of the same kind as with regard to blacks, Jews, Muslims and those who would inflict them upon us. And what you are doing by reacting to Ted Sallis (the man who wants to suck Jewish cock - perhaps he favors to suck Russian Jewish cock) is that you are forcing right wing positions before left coordination has even been remotely considered.
90
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 02 May 2017 08:38 | # DanielS: You persist in conveniently allowing “the AltRight”, infiltrated by Jewish interest though it is, to be definitive of what “they”, Whites, want. That’s wrong generally and especially wrong while White Left Nationalism is not sufficiently promulgated. The Alt Right is just another Jewish means to subvert that definition, in fact.
DanielSYou are giving the Jews exactly what they want. They want Jewish and White right wingers to be amalgamated, to define “White” and to direct conflict against Asians. 91
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 02 May 2017 09:12 | #
Giving “each other space” upon lines that have only recently changed as a result of Jewish machinations and right wing complicity will be treated a disingenuous, and well it should be.
DanielS: But I didn’t say that. I said that adults who understand Left ethnonationalism should talk to one another. Then try to teach the children what for. Do you want your daughter, wife, sister, sucking nigger dick? Because that’s what the enemy wants.
DanielS: I don’t indulge the right wing.
DanielS: I would not place them in that conversation, and I have encouraged you to cease from this morbid pass time of yours.
DanielS: That’s right. That should tell you, this is not the man by which to gauge discussion or negotiation.
DanielS: Well, again, they should be put aside for the moment. Later, we might consider that there might be relatively good people who can use foul language as their consciousness bursts into the open, a sometimes necessary umph of self assertion, when breaking free of Jewish and objectivist fetters.
DanielS: It is not crocodile tears to say that there has been a Frankfurt School conspiracy against White men in America. You are badly mistaken in taking up this Jewish idea of “White fragility” for convenience sake. Hell, it is not even a big inconvenience - a binary distinction is all that is required.
DanielS: I’m saying that you should not be talking with them, because they are reactionary and infiltrated - not representative of our interests. 92
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Tue, 02 May 2017 09:43 | # You’re completely jumping the gun on this, I wanted the observers to actually realise there’s something very wrong with that scenario, without you having to be the one to tell them that. Yes, obviously White Americans should not team up with American oligarchs, Russian oligarchs, rabid Jewish Zionists and weird African-American Hoteps, so that they can all together most effectively initiate a conflict against Hispanic-Amerindians and Asians. It would be stupid, and additionally even if it were not stupid, it would be a case where they would have actually initiated the hostilities and would have basically empowered the most hardline elements among their opponents who are in fact more organised than they are. So there are two different but interlocking reasons for why they should not do that. However, saying that to them directly has not been effective. So I’m looking to see if I can induce them to realise that on their own. 93
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 02 May 2017 09:48 | #
DanielS: For those who want war between Whites and Asians (and who might that be?), there is utility.
DanielS: Well, if Japanese and Koreans can’t even see through the patently absurd “Stay Classy America” black op or Sallis’ similarly obvious misrepresentative nonsense, then we could be trouble indeed.
DanielS: I believe in letting Japan and South Korea defend themselves. But with regard to “letting what will happen” state side, that is recommended by Sallis because he knows it is going to result the bitter, diversionary conflict that he wants. It may seem alright and convenient to you to refuse to entertain the fact that by giving the Jews the conflict that they want that not only will many good Whites who would be your allies be destroyed, but you will increase the force of anti-Asian animus among the right wing - catastrophically, in all likelihood.
DanielS: Like I said, Sallis, as a man after the Jews heart, would be achieving the lines that he wants, but I must inconvenience all with an understanding of a true White perspective, so that his trolling does not destroy honest negotiation.
DanielS: You wanted to believe it so badly that you are prepared to allow Silver and Sallis define White advocacy, and to say that I am one with Sallis when I objected.
DanielS: I don’t mind Japan and South Korea having nuclear weapons but there needs to be an undoing of the Jewish, and let me now say, right wing crypsis before it gets us all killed - and perhaps first makes things so miserable that we won’t even care and hence prepare the way. Because nuclear non-proliferation is a joke:
DanielS: circle back up to what I’ve said. I have responded to this.
94
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 02 May 2017 10:46 | #
DanielS: I know how Whites might react; I don’t think it’s necessary or good; the situation is too volatile and the stakes too high. The lines to be drawn need to be bold and clear so that broad populations can understand and act upon them.
DanielS: Yes, that would be a bad alliance, and White ethnonationalists are not organized, but the Jews and their right wing attache’s are organized.
DanielS: I do not believe saber rattling will induce right wingers to any good and it will disempower your would-be allies, diminishing the justification for their empathy and willingness to ally with you. 95
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Tue, 02 May 2017 12:08 | # No matter what I do, you are going to always react by tone-policing me, whenever I talk about anything to do with deterring violence. It’s basically upside-down land. Everything that has happened in this thread is a sign that there’s no rhetorical strategy that I can take up that you won’t in some way try to undermine. All that you and I can do is agree to disagree. 96
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 02 May 2017 13:02 | #
DanielS: Deter all the violence you want against your people (I will too) in whatever tone you like: all I ever sought was a distinction of White Left Nationalists and the opportunity for those who wish to act into that altercast.
DanielS: You may want to disagree; and to want to act in the most robust way possible in response to the grievances that you have (which are legitimate) is understandable. I trust that you are closely related to Native Americans, 95% of whom were killed. I believe that you will feel that like a part of your body being chopped off and it will hit your consciousness in waves for the rest of your life, particularly when provoked by the kind of mindset that did that killing, directly and indirectly. You want revenge and you want reparation. That can happen with an alliance against the right wing, their preferred master and their preferred pets. It’s my tone that has been off at times in this thread. I don’t suppose apologizing for that will do any good, but I know Whites, and I know how successful Jews have been in demonizing any concept of the left for Whites. Thus, they will not simply come here identifying as White Left Nationalists simply of their own accord. If you/we identify the Whites (et al.) who are attacking you as right wingers, then Whites might begin to make the inference that there is such a thing as White left, see that they are being offered a positive alteracast as such and act into the role. 97
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 02 May 2017 13:23 | # Kumiko is as related to native Americans as I am to the tribes in northern Europe 12,000 years ago - actually, less. 98
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 02 May 2017 13:35 | #
This cannot work, since thinking nationalists do not identify as left or right. Further, it runs counter to the general understanding of the left of liberalism as an historical focal point of radical egalitarianism, and not merely a recent, Jewish-created false identitarian consciousness. Likewise, the right of liberalism has its own historical association (with radical individualism), and is, in its own way, an expression of the European sociobiology, and not some vast, Jewish-authored obstacle to peoplehood. The real obstacle, of course, is the liberal ontology. Remove that, and the late-order Jewish constructions have no point of reference. 99
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 02 May 2017 14:07 | #
Of course it can work. And by proclaiming yourself and the people who think like you, like Margarate Thatcher, the only “thinkers” doesn’t make it so - rather the opposite: slaves to empirical arbitrariness. Japan, for example, on the other hand, sees their “right socialism” as the right side of left socialism. Assad’s government is left socialist; any good, nationalist government is.
Only as you insist on going along with the Jewish definition of the terms; but not otherwise
Well, you are wrong.
You are doing a liberal ontology in the moment that you will not allow for a hypothesis of a group to conserve. You insist upon putting that in the most negative terms, e.g., the imaginative and necessary breadth and scope allowed for by hermeneuticss suddenly becomes “bean counting.” It doesn’t matter that hermeneutics allows for you to flesh out as best you can what it would mean to actually live nationalism along with the imaginative breadth that is our potential, you will try to destroy what I say - and really for no good reason. You’ve never shown any good reason (and you never will), only a will to ignore the proofs that are put before you. You remain in reaction. One doesn’t have to use the term “left” in order to be doing what I am talking about properly, but there are good reasons to use the term - which you will undoubtedly ignore because the Jews have conditioned you - and as such, you think the “cure” is in your reaction to social accountability. 100
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Tue, 02 May 2017 14:16 | # No matter how much psychological stuff is thrown at me, it’s not going to make any difference. The two possible avenues of you both trying to make this ‘about me’, would be to go with the angle of “Let’s talk about your feelings” on the one hand, and the contradictory notion, “Your stance lacks EGI backing to start with” on the other hand. The former is obviously just DanielS trying to project some random things about ‘feelings’ onto me to try to get me back into the conversation, with the setting changed to make it be about myself as the subject who is being problemetised and who has to be fixed. The latter is just Guessedworker trying to downplay the meaning of the actually-documented bi-directional geneflow between the Americas and Asia so that he can try to play divide-and-rule on behalf of the United States, a country that I have no incentive to support. And let’s keep in mind that DanielS knew precisely what my views were before he opened this attack thread against me in the first place, and so no part of anything which has happened here should be surprising to him now. All of this is just a form of warfare that is taking place in the domain of ideas. You two are not going to be on the side as me on this topic, and I’m never ever going to come over to your side. What more is there to discuss? 101
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 02 May 2017 14:21 | #
Japan is not a liberal project.
So we should pay no heed to the intellectual history of Europe? We should just shout “Jew” a lot?
Individualism is a characteristic particular to the European sociobiology. Radical individualism is its attenuation in the liberal canon.
You won’t conserve anything by hanging yourself out to dry on an ideologically-driven PowerPoint philosophy, with which absolutely no one agrees, or will ever agree. You will only make yourself irrelevant, and do harm to the other services you may contribute, the utility of which is not in doubt.
I am trying to save you from your own stubborn self. 102
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 02 May 2017 14:44 | #
I have corrected that statement - it now reads Of course it can work. Japan sees their “right socialism” as the right side of left socialism.
We make our history. I have shown the reasons to define the terms for ourselves in this manner, now.
On the contrary, radical individualism is the liberal cannon.
Well, like I said, you think that by casting what I say in ridiculous terms that makes it untrue and you the winner of an argument. It does no such thing.
This is a projection GW. What I am doing is perfectly coherent. Your one sided way of doing your ontology project (in reaction to the social and a misrepresentation of the left) will fade into oblivion.
I would say that its a projection (which it is) but I am not trying save you from your stubborn self anymore. I don’t believe that you can be persuaded by even the most obvious proofs - things that I’ve put up even this day! You are just too stubborn.
103
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 02 May 2017 14:56 | #
DanielS: I don’t think in terms of “feelings,” I don’t do psychology. I have sensibilities and emotions which act like maps to logics of meaning and action that are connected to social arrangements.
DanielS: Well, I am not trying to duck matters of DNA, I have been trying to promote the DNA nations to be as precise as possible about looking after our people. The controversy highlights how it can be used as a vehicle to rekindle endangered peoples and their natural habitats.
DanielS: Actually, it is surprising to me.
DanielS: Being on different sides does not preclude coordination for the sake of the best outcome for all sides. 104
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Tue, 02 May 2017 15:27 | # There does seem to be one more element that needs to be highlighted. In a move that will not come as a surprise to anyone, AltRight and the American White Nationalist sphere have decided that Donald Trump’s praise for Andrew Jackson that was made yesterday, was somehow a call for ‘no more brother wars’ among Europeans:
Wow, amazing. Andrew Jackson, American Scots-Irish extraordinare! However, this is actually Andrew Jackson’s record:
If a ten year old girl from another civilisation (eg, my younger self) were to be asked to look upon this and draw a conclusion about American White Nationalism (which is largely a Scots-Irish affair), without the use of any fancy words, that girl would quite reasonably arrive at the conclusion that the chief purpose of the Scots-Irish in North America is to act as the gendarmes for a Washington DC regime that is absolutely determined to find new reasons every day to kill British people, kill Spanish people, kill French people, and kill Native Americans, all while continually surpassing themselves at spreading black Africans as far across the fucking planet as possible. By the time they were done finally done wrecking yet another array of Native American locations, they had transformed those locations so that they were demographically African at 50% in 1860s on the eve of the American Civil War. Also, contrary to what Trump and Spencer assert, if Jackson had lived the prime of his military career in the 1860s rather than the 1810s, there would probably still have been a war anyway. Jackson, much like Lincoln, was a big protectionist who loved to enforce unpopular tariffs with armed threats. As it turned out, in reality Jackson’s time was over in 1845. War would have still happened. The only difference would have been that Jackson would not have had the abolitionist element in his justification for it. Lincoln’s war was about slavery and tariffs. Jackson’s hypothetical war if he were in Lincoln’s place and presented with the same scenario, would have been about just tariffs alone. Either way, there’s a war. The joke of the month in this regard is that over at Morgoth’s Review, when I presented similar logic to them, my support for the British Empire over the United States, yes my objectively pro-British stance, was characterised as ‘anti-White’. I keep saying that the term has no meaning, and this latest development between Spencer and Trump is another example of that, and it is also an example of how “No more Brothers’ Wars” is a slogan that has no substantive meaning at all, and serves only to rally people around American populists in Washington DC. I guess White people would never fight each other over anything ever again, if all White people would just adopt American policies lock, stock and barrel, and would just kill any non-White person who American populists instruct them to kill, so as to most adequately satisfy the needs of the United States. Maybe they could start with me. 105
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 02 May 2017 22:59 | # There are three versions of nationalism on view on this thread. The simplest of these is that which is, to all intents and purposes, shared by Kumiko and CC. It reduces human being to a mechanical and absolutist devotion to race/ethny in any circumstance. It makes no distinction between the defence of the life of kind and attacking the life of an Other. All value adheres to kind, none to the Other. The second is Daniel’s belief that nationalism is socialism and a process of union in accordance with a central dictate. The third is mine, which is that nationalism is the politics of natural (or genetic) interest ... in our hostile world, a discovered or conscious politics of identity and relation. If I have done an injustice to anyone, doubtless I will be corrected. But it does seem to me that neither the life of the insect nor the life of the sheep amounts to much. 106
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 02 May 2017 23:11 | #
DanielS: No, that is NOT my definition of nationalism that it is socialism as a process of union in accordance to a central dictate. 107
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 02 May 2017 23:19 | # You see, GW has a problem. He cannot stop competing. He will just disagree with you. He sees interlocutors as opponents and rather than seeing that they might be right or that they might be doing something consonant with what he might want (nationalism, with particular concern for native nationalism) with a different angle, focus and slightly different terminological pallet, he puts up straw men to misrepresent what you say. However, as long as he is doing a nationalism that looks after native kinds of Europeans, that is fine with me. I call it left ethnonationalism for reasons that I’ve given and will stand by. He doesn’t have to call it left nationalism. If he is looking after his national interests, he is doing something social (to my satisfaction) he doesn’t have to call it that (though he’d be doing the same thing, or rather, just a variant of what my view circumscribes, despite himself). 108
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 02 May 2017 23:33 | #
It will be shown that you are doing injustice to better ideas and wasting time; but not mine anymore because I know your game and you can play it but not with me. Whatever I say will be “wrong” to you and if you can’t easily make it seem that way, you will put straw men as you have here. It doesn’t matter to you how many times I say, in truth, that hermeneutics circles back to empirical verification, vivification of nature. You will try to impose your stereotype of “the left” that imposes a concept upon nature. You will never make it stick because it is not true. It is your sham, your vain wish, your utter will to misunderstand everything that I say to suggest that what I discuss would make sheep or insects out of people. Your ridiculous wish to make nationalism adhere strictly to “nature” is the surest way to tyranny and to turn people into insects or sheep. This time I will treat it as an error. But if you once again say that by my saying that I believe that race is real, a people are real, that I believe a concept of national boundaries and borders is valid and verifiable and defensible (arrived at by nature and consensus both - not a dictate)...if you say that that is a “dictate” I will call you a liar because that is what you’d be. 109
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 03 May 2017 00:13 | # Muh hermeneutics is for omega spergs. It belongs in the dung heap. 110
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 03 May 2017 01:22 | # No it doesn’t. Your right wing bullshit belongs there. Hell, you don’t even do national socialism right; nor do you do justice to Heidegger in wanting to send the concept that he brought to attention as curative for those wanting a coherent means to oppose the destruction that modernity (plus Jewish and right wing manipulation of the vulnerabilities of objectivism) pose to nationalism/national identity. 111
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 03 May 2017 01:33 | # And while I’m on the topic of “socialism”, I almost never use the term because it will tend to be understood strictly as an economic term and a term of centralized planning. A guy like GW doesn’t even need an excuse to misrepresent what I say, but he immediately jumped on the opportunty to misrepresent what I meant by that term. All I would mean by socialism would be a responsibility to and from the people of a nation; once the boundaries and borders of a nation are fairly drawn, even if only implicitly, as GW would have it, there is socialism. I am open to many different ways to express the economic aspect, individual liberty but it is not my focus, EGI is - and the social group that I am focused on defending as such are Whites/native Europeans. 112
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 03 May 2017 01:52 | # “PowerPoint philosophy, with which absolutely no one agrees, or will ever agree.” That’s really beside the point. First they’d have to be able to make heads or tails of his incoherent gibberish. PS. One day I intend to make a pilgrimage to the Silk Road…so that I can take a shit on it! Lulz 113
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 03 May 2017 01:59 | #
What I’m saying makes consistent sense. It is easily traceable for any one who wants to see, as it holds up and comes into high relief through different circumstances and applications. Further, anybody who does ethnonationalism is agreeing in the moment they do it. The only difference is that I am articulating more explicitly the opportunities and constraints thereof. When GW says that I’m doing PowerPoint he is desperately trying to apply his concept of “the left” - that it imposes artificial concepts onto nature. He is completely deaf to the fact that mine is a process of two way feedback, which insists upon verifiability and therefore precludes the “dictatorial” artifice he would attempt to ascribe to me. Furthermore, CC, you wouldn’t be the first person to shit along the Silk Road, go ahead; it would be preferable to your continued dumping of your shit here. 114
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 03 May 2017 03:39 | # GW, I fear that Daniel may suffer from some form of undiagnosed autism. That would certainly explain his bizarre, pointless obsession with empty and erroneous jargon. 115
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 03 May 2017 04:06 | #
There is nothing bizarre in what I say - it all has verifiable referents. It has very important points. It is not erroneous and it is not jargon - I don’t use words to be decorative or obfuscating. If you want to worship Hitler, and want to dismiss discussion which does not seem to vindicate him (your motive, one must suspect, for your dishonest depiction of what I say) you must go to one of the many available sites for that. And while you honing your Hitler idolatry, you might come to appreciate that he did not exactly share your appreciation for The Russian Federation, let alone in its expansive form. You might also come to appreciate that his right wing imperialism got its ass kicked because it ran rough shod over would-be allies against the Soviet Union. 116
Posted by SERG on Wed, 03 May 2017 04:22 | # Whites are already minority in the US I am Italian and was living in a Mexifornia(today in brazil) southern suburb that is far from the city center, however, the percentage of people under 30 who are White is not more than 05% 117
Posted by SERG on Wed, 03 May 2017 04:38 | # whites were not invaders. they settled a desert and not sovereign territory. the Indians not inhabited 0,00,01% of what today comprises the American territory. 118
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 03 May 2017 04:57 | # Daniel,
Yes, you say that. I have responded in two ways. First, I have asked you to exemplify this “circling back”. Show us what that means, how that works, and how it has meaning for Everyman who, presumably, does not perform such intellectual exercises but simply receives instruction from those who do. Second, explain how rules can be set ... by whom, and by what authority?
I’m not trying to impose anything. I am simply advising you not to invent things which are not there, because nobody can go along with you in that. I am pointing out the historical truth that the left of the liberal spectrum was “white” and radically egalitarian for two centuries before revolution visited Russia, and a further half century before Adorno, Horkheimer, and Marcuse gained traction in American academia; and this conditions the general understanding of the terms “left” and “right” - an understanding which cannot be wished away. That said, it is perfectly reasonable to theorise a current Jewish capture/characterisation of the left and right of liberalism ... to posit the neo-Marxisation of the polity (not simply of the left), the French-Jewish capture and re-assignment of the revolutionary energy of Heideggerian thought, and the neo-con and Alt-Right coups in Republicanism in America as stratagems in the eternal Pharisaic struggle to advance the qualitative difference and destiny of G-d’s Chosen People. It is just not reasonable to ignore the non-Jewish radical egalitarian antecedent. Likewise, it is not reasonable to demonise the right of liberalism for its (non-Jewish) individualism. Radical egalitarianism is a means of bringing the greatest number to liberalism’s individualism. There is no “left” in liberalism that is not completely liberalistic. Critique liberalism in its entirety, therefore - left and right, “white” and Jewish. Don’t try to polish up and present a little bit of the left as some pristine and pure will to socialism - which term has different meanings in liberal and nationalist thinking anyway.
The naturalisation of Dasein is its politicisation.
But I had assumed that your hermeneutic dance must produce something to make rules about beyond the scientific truth of ethnicity and the human truth of homeland, and the defence and preservation of both of these truths. David Lane captured the essence of it in one fourteen-word rule. How many do you need? What more will you communicate? 119
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 03 May 2017 06:25 | #
I do it all the time. When talking about DNA, for example. Scientifically verifiable behavior for another example, etc.
I show what it means all the time. Look at the article on the Sailer and Rove strategy. The fact that you would try to dismiss evidence like that is disgusting. The wobblies provide another perfect illustration of the difference between a Marxist left and what a White left would mean by its contrast to them: https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/gws_best_friend#c152408
They are set by a combination of brute interaction with facts and in negotiation with people who can negotiate, wield and force the power of protracted social frames of reference, even if only for their eloquence. That sketch will have to suffice in lieu the discussions that you’ve ignored. It’s too big a homework assignment to detail. Perhaps you should take it on if you are in a hurry for more.
Yes, you are. You apply this stereotype time and again to what I do. And it is NOT true.
I am not inventing things that are not there. That illustrates your imposing your stereotype again. But I already know that I can expect nothing other than impervious contentiousness from you.
Luckily, they don’t have to, because I am not doing that.
I am not doing the left of the liberal spectrum. Furthermore, I/we are not bound to historical definitions, even before the Jewish distortion. If you want to go along with your phobia to the world left, so much so that you would even excise the social organizing function beneath it that would be idiotic. I would suggest that you simply drop the word “left” and leave the function, but you have been so brainwashed to Jewish solution to a Jewish problem that you won’t even do that. GW, just do nationalism and don’t use the world “left” Ok? But don’t try to persuade me of your Thatcherite horseshit - try to bear in mind that Hayek was a Jew too and his tribe wanted you to be a Thatcherite for their reasons.
As it was represented through Marx and the French Revolution, but not as its been represented by me EVER - A difference with an important difference that I’ve discussed in articles about incommensurabilty. Equality/inequality is just another perniciously unhelpful stereotype that you insist upon applying, and a red cape that you chase after. So much so, that you once accused me of being about “equality” when I NEVER ONCE DISCUSSED THAT AS AN OBJECTIVE. IN FACT, ELABORATED SEVERAL TIMES WHY IT WAS A BAD IDEA ON EITHER END - to argue either for equality or inequality. Be that as it may, the term and concept of “the left” carries with it in ordinary language important notions of social organization, unionization, critique of misused power, critique of liberalism, accountability to and from the social group, compassion and the wisdom of protracted vision. Furthermore, Jews have left us this vacuum to move into, to take these ideas and define a White left, so that it will be a left that has none of the things that we do not like about their left. There is a reason why they’ve insisted upon calling our cause “the right, the far right and the alternative right.” ..while they’ll settle for “neither left nor right.” ..i.e., so long as we’re disorganized. There is a reason why they are hysterical that we not organize as a left. They of all people know how powerful it is. It always follows that they take good ideas and misrepresent them to Whites so as to turn them off to utilizing those good ideas. They presented “the left” as liberalism for Whites. Which would be the antithesis of a White Left.
I have explained this. They do not use the prefix “White” Left and they are always talking about an internationalist “left” that means boundless liberalization for Whites - not their left, their unionization. At the same time, it allows them to usurp the concept of group accountability and compassion.
I am not working from a liberal paradigm.
Well, they are re-assigning everything in their interests. And, unlike you, I’m not going to let them define the terms.
I don’t ignore it. It’s a nonsense concept that I have dispelled and put aside as a red cape (red herring, if you will).
I don’t demonize individualism. Provided its accountable, there is great latitude and you and Bowery are welcome to focus on in your lucky, self centered, baby-boomer, Cold War era obsession with it by contrast to the bogey collectivism that you think I have in mind for you.
Well, whatever. If you want to argue a special application for “we are all equal”, I really don’t care. The important thing is that people are not exploited, that false comparisons are not made so as to destroy important qualities; or that liberal individualism not destroy our borders on the other hand. I think we stand a better chance to maximize individualism’s benefit if we secure our boundaries and borders first.
Maybe not, but I am not arguing within the liberal paradigm.
I didn’t do that. As usual you pay no attention what-so-ever to what I say. Who said anything about a pure will to socialism? Ridiculous. It is an organizing function, a concern of unionization on different levels, most importantly the national. If you don’t like the world “left” then don’t use it, but you have persuaded me of nothing but that your reactionary phobia and contentiousness is as intransigent as ever. I already know that I you can’t be reasoned with - you will just ignore whatever I say, no matter how clear it makes the case of its significance.
Good luck, you’ll need it.
How cute to call it a “dance”, does that make Locke and Thatcher any less the bock head? Yes, there is more than these mere evident truths. There is the history and systemic scope, as yet to be develped or matured abilities, among other non evident factors. etc.
The 14 Words are fine with me. But your whole concept, GW, is based on an abject jealousy of anything that smacks of education and a good idea that didn’t cross though your transom first. You won’t stop doing this. You want to believe that what I am saying is pretentious when in truth its very useful and you are the one who is full of shit. I remember the first time I lost my temper with you. It was after I’d written an article comparing Swedes to what biologists call “naive species”, who can suffer for the introduction of invasive species - as certain native birds have suffered as a result of rats and snakes being brought along with cargo ships. To develop that idea is extremely important to counter liberal arguments - why not let brown people in? When they are so nice, poor and needy? It begins to circulate the idea that perhaps their introduction, even their incidental presence can be harmful, can lead to (human) ecological disaster. This is the kind of discourse that the public needs to become comfortable with. As “liberals’, you don’t want that, we believe in the preservation of biodiversity and endangered species,” etc. But instead of elaborating on that idea, for example, you chose to criticize the fact that I was jumping around in my examples (which I did deliberately in that article). Perhaps Bowery has a hand in these irrelevant criticisms of yours; competitive demands coinciding with your commitment to the transmission model, taking a sublime emphasis on individual source of information which is ridiculous on a discussion site, in particular. You should be ashamed of yourself for making petty competition your focus rather than latching onto and fostering the elaboration of an issue like that - the analogy of “naive species.” 120
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 03 May 2017 18:11 | #
Well, don’t use the “social” term if you are truly moved to advance genetic interests. Like “left” and “right”, “social” already possesses a definite meaning fixed over a vast period of general usage. You cannot successfully communicate with nationalists if you insist on describing blood-groups, which alone have common first-order reproductive interests, as “social” groups. Call the group was it is. If you have a philosophical point to make about the social form of human groups, then make it. But don’t subordinate the primary characteristics of nationalist thinking to it, because you step outside nationalism when you do so, and that is obvious to all. These things are not complicated, Daniel. It isn’t that peoplehood does not have a social dimension, but that this dimension is not an organising or ordering factor. Likewise, it isn’t that peoples, in our age, are not subject to manifold influences which cause actual or perceived fracture and atomisation, but that there is no labour of unionisation because peoplehood itself is extant and peerless, above all the travail, and even in the most extreme circumstances only awaits to be discovered (as the Nazis proved - not an example you relish, I know; but a truth, nonetheless). The differences between what you are saying and the rest of nationalism, including me, says are small; but they are differences of ordering, for the most part; and such differences can lead to quite contrary outcomes. I am gently trying to help you move towards the body of your own just and necessitous belief. I understand that this makes you extremely angry and hurt, but what else am I to do? So much of what you have to say is right, and has to be said. But these few small, noisy points of difference definitely require attention. 121
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 03 May 2017 21:02 | #
Absolutely not, the word social is the term of our group relation and it is your utterly counter-productive, Jewish induced, phobic reaction into hyper Lockeatine empiricism (“social classifications aren’t empirical - they aren’t real"_ that has you constantly trying to put across your destructive, nonsensical obstruction of the more important ideas that I put across as distinct from your ontology shit. I will address the rest of your fresh, steaming pile of shit later. I’m calling it that for now, because I don’t have time. You’ve been distracting me from completing important matters in address of a death in the family. 122
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 03 May 2017 21:35 | #
Yes, I can. It can’t be communicated to you, because Uh and a few other idiots told you what the Jews want you to say - “don’t use the group unit of analysis” - which is a nation is. The nation is a social group unit of analysis. You can look at it like a biological phenomenon as you do, that’s fine, it can provide data, but it is not how a “nationalist” is best communicated with.
A group has social relations, minimal obligations, prohibitions and legitimacies recognzed among its members and their kinds of relationships.
I’ve made many points, many times and it is horrendous for you to force me to keep repeating myself. Go back and read my old posts - either that or stop presenting the lie that I have said nothing of import.
It is not obvious to all, you don’t speak for everyone. You speak for those who yearn for a hyper empirical take - a take which I am not opposed to at all in the rounds of hermeneutic survey - which is precisely the opposite of being “stuck” - a stuckness which you project onto me from your stuck and jealous position as you try to falsely render me your opposite day foil.
I didn’t say they necessarily were, and I am not making them complicated GW.
DanielS: I didn’t say they necessarily were, and I am not making them complicated GW. We are ethno-nationalists, you, Kumiko and I. Adding - One complicating factor that remains, however, is that your modernist quest for universal foundations simply ignores any effort at coordination among ethno nationalism because it has a narcissistic assumption that all nationalisms are universally the same in their structure and stages of process - whereas you will find that they are not - obliviously, you will proceed as if all people are universally guided by this “natural” wish - thus, you see no need to coordinate (to recognize and negotiate an orienting overview) not only to any complexity of different nationalist ways, but of those who do not proceed by ethno/natonalism at all.
When it has rules of national borders and bounds it is.
I explicitly have not used the word labour before unionization because I am rendering the idea of unionization anew, apart from the kind of Marxist stereotypes that you adopt, want to maintain and attribute to me as opposed to what I am actually saying.
That is utterly stupid.
It’s called a phobic reaction into a biological level that is below human function, into a mechanistic group level, ripe for disaster. Yes, you illustrate why your ontology project is shit and will remains so as long as ti is unaided by hermeneutics.
You do not speak for the rest of nationalism. In fact, you speak for very little of it. You speak for some sort of hair brained scientistic perspective on it.
Yes, your scientism leads to your European people losing human agency and getting killed. Mine leads to them understanding their individual and group agency, defending themselves and coordinating with like minded nationalists in our best interests.
You are not gently doing anything. You are simply ignoring where you can’t successfully bludgeon what I say. And you can’t bludgeon it, because what I say is true.
No it doesn’t. It makes me angry and annoyed. You were the one who is “aggrieved” at having been shown to have lost an argument, having been shown to have been wasting all of our time and obstructing better ideas.
Stop being a nuisance for your jealous competitiveness, your reaction to Jewish academia, and your wish to believe that what I am saying is the same, your wish to believe that you are providing the solution - you aren’t, but go ahead and carry on with you “ontology project”, I will carry on with my projects. Again, you ask me what you should do? If you can’t discuss things productively among my offerings, then get out of my way or expect me to defend what’s true and good against your misrepresentations and obfuscations.
Well, finally a concession that there is much that I am saying that needs to be said. Now if we can get you to understand that hermeneutics circles to the kinds of things that you may feel are neglected and are not mutually exclusive. It is the opposite of being stuck, of being about a single cause, or of being neglectful of the most important matters, or any matter that bears attention. 123
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 03 May 2017 22:02 | # You should be ashamed of yourself, GW. Every time you make a sperg cry, he dies a little inside. Lulz 124
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 03 May 2017 23:48 | # I’m not crying CC, I’m really ok, other than being annoyed by frivolous contentiousness while there are matters that need tending. On the other hand GW has mentioned his being “aggrieved.” While you seem rather out of sorts as well. Isn’t there a Hitler shrine in Spokane that you can attend to regather yourself? Perhaps you can share a pew in the Palouse with fat-boy Covington?
125
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 04 May 2017 05:21 | #
DanielS: I didn’t say they necessarily were, and I am not making them complicated GW. We are ethno-nationalists, you, Kumiko and I. Adding - One complicating factor that remains, however, is that your modernist quest for universal foundations simply ignores any effort at coordination among ethno nationalism because it has a narcissistic assumption that all nationalisms are universally the same in their structure and stages of process - whereas you will find that they are not - obliviously, you will proceed as if all people are universally guided by this “natural” wish - thus, you see no need to coordinate (to recognize and negotiate an orienting overview) not only to any complexity of different nationalist ways, but of those who do not proceed by ethno/natonalism at all. 126
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 04 May 2017 11:15 | #
Don’t label. Rather, go and read (or re-read) the opening pages of Being and Time. Then come back and explain how the historiographical context of Heidgger’s project can be “modernist”. 127
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 04 May 2017 12:20 | #
Heidegger is not modernist, he was one of the key exponents to the onset of (what I call White post modernity in order to avoid mis representations of) post modernity. You, however, are modernist and demonstrate as much in all you do. You’ve very much earned the label. 128
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 04 May 2017 16:22 | # That is the re-application of a label. I asked for an explanation, not the label back again. 129
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 04 May 2017 16:30 | #
Re-read, or rather, read for the first time, the many posts that you have willfully ignored. It’s all there. 130
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 04 May 2017 16:37 | # Daniel, please do me the courtesy of explaining yourself clearly and concisely. If you cannot do so, then have the goodness to admit as much. Don’t wave your hands in the direction of your prior output. 131
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 04 May 2017 16:47 | #
I’m afraid that for the moment I’m going to have to “wave my hands” at the prior output that you endlessly ignore - since there is obviously no end to your game of ignoring what I say. GW, go do your ontology project. Attract with it whom you will. I don’t care. 132
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 04 May 2017 16:50 | # But you care enough to label me a “modernist”, among other things. 135
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 04 May 2017 17:34 | # Many reasons, lets start with you quest for universal foundations, your endless dismissal of anything that I, or anybody else, might say, indicating that you think you are going to get to some empirical bedrock by doing that, your “radical skepticism”, etc. Go read my prior posts or stop making me repeat myself. 136
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 04 May 2017 19:02 | # Point A - universal foundations - we will return to in a moment. Point B. Is disagreeing with you on your usage modernist? And ... am I the censor of other’s speech or are you? Point C - empirical bedrock - is point A Point D - radical scepticism - is point B. We need not detain ourselves with points B, C, and D. But let us examine point A. What is non-modern, ie, eternally true, that is not universally foundational? 137
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 05 May 2017 01:36 | #
...
How stupid. Disagreeing with my usage is not necessarily modernist no. But, your constant disagreement is a sign and aspect of your being what would accurately be called a modernist. You are very accurately described as a modernist (probably even more accurately called a “wailing modernist”): https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/white_post_modernity1
It is not accurate to say that I censor people when I prevent them from derailing (a form of censoring) discussion otherwise free from the interference of Jews, Hitler and Jesus idolatry - there are places for these things. People can go to many places for that. This is a rare place where we are not effectively censored for the endless filibuster of trolling and derailing from people who insist that these figures must be upheld. So, no. I don’t censor people, I don’t let them censor this point of view. The endless “frees speech” forum, rife with trolls and people intent to derail discussion is an expression of a modernist view - you just endlessly crash ideas together and somehow the best ideas will come of it yes? Well, so long as people don’t get exhausted with the disingenuous trolling there might come some good ideas, but they will never be allowed to settle and be elaborated upon - because they are “not new”, time for something else - that is exactly an expression of the modernist quest and its pathology. It is also susceptible to be taken advantage of by the likes of YKW, as they will constantly embroil any discussion in unproductive dispute. So that hypotheses can be elaborated, I’ve established a platform so as not to waste time with people who are obviously arguing in bad faith. It was, is, and remains the right thing to do. I’ve said these things before, I’ve asked you to not make me endlessly repeat myself (go back and read what I’ve said to you before), but imperviousness is an expression of modernity as well, a part of what makes it as destructive as it has been. It is blind and uncaring of other ways; and its quest for pure ideas goes with a wish to be beyond accountability for the destruction - e.g. destruction of coordination with other ways - it causes in that pursuit. So, in answer to your question, you, in your endless disagreement are the more censorious.
I suppose that is convenient for you, but if it allows us to move on, it is well enough for me too.
Indeed a modernist doesn’t believe in such a way, such a delimitation as modernity; that is part of why they can never settle on the idea beyond their oblivious modernist quest for universal foundations, that there are different ways of life beyond the most brute cause and effect of physics and biology - which can be said to be universally true (but for whom?) 138
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 05 May 2017 05:05 | # If we stick with Dasein as the key to the lock, we can say that, as an existent perceptual state or act, or as the more crudely understood site (there) of disclosure (being), it belongs to identity. It is of identity, and it discloses that which is of being ... it relates identity to its living world. This relation is not characterised by nihilism or indifference. It is inherently discriminatory in quite the same sense that Mind discriminates for fitness, for life’s continuity is in that discrimination. The character of discrimination is care or concern for well-being (or continuity) in the midst of that which is of being. Now, this is, I suppose, the ontology of evolutionary theory, as it is the ontology of genetic interest. Can you explain in what sense it is not universally foundational? Leave aside the labelling, please. 139
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 05 May 2017 07:11 | #
I suppose that you can look upon that as a universally foundational orienting mechanism to take people in the right direction for a moment (and its not a bad idea to bring people to their senses and put them on the course of their emergent tendencies) - also facilitating a pretty basic sense and re-orientation for a territorial nationalist identity (there), but it is not necessarily universal and foundational for identity, not even in it’s there sense, because (without hermeneutics systemic and historical breadth) it may only be a momentary re-orientation, calling back from Cartesian absence to identify (if you will) with your inherent biology, its constraints and affordances of a given moment - which, however, can then also lead one to change identity, by adapting to new environments and integrating with other people with whom we are capable of interbreeding. That is to say, absent the concept of midtdasein (Social constraints, delimited and negotiated of praxis) our emergent biology does afford its prior identity to be broached - from the side of those of ours who might choose to outbreed and from the side of others who might persuade, coerce or impose. If you want it to be “foundational” of nationalism, you are almost certainly going to have to negotiate it with at least a modicum of hermeneutics and social construction - the breadth that language gives and to establish consensus of the discriminatory lines to be drawn of the nation. Particularly if you are going to negotiate coordination to establish friendly nations; which will come in handy as a buffer if not be absolutely vital (almost certainly) to the survival of your identity. It may not be hard to do theoretically (the lines you want might be pretty clear as in the case of an island nation) but it must be done nevertheless, at least some, given that the lines can be disputed; i.e., the lines that seem to come naturally to you can be contested by outsiders and your own traitors - who may see their identity as more broad or even something transcendent of earthly matters - “there being”, there I am in a multiculti church. My biology may recoil at certain of its members but, well, as the lines are blurred and there is no language there to prohibit mixing, in fact, there is language to prohibit any objection thereof…. 140
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 05 May 2017 18:57 | #
It isn’t simply a mechanism. It isn’t a piece of strategic thinking. It isn’t a political card-trick. It is a (much abbreviated) presentation of a foundational natural truth; the absolute foundation of which is once-subsistent life as identity. Identity’s action is being, which means, and can only mean, continuity. It is the antithesis of mechanicity, which leads only to deadness and objecthood. Mechanicity is the essence of a physical cosmos which is subject to Time and Entropy. Arising once in opposition to that essence, Being’s essence, therefore, is interest in or care for continuity. Obviously, the death of the organism is a return to the objecthood of the cosmos. The living organism only continues with effort. Mechanicity pulls at Dasein in life with a gravitational constancy, sapping its energy, making its capture of the being-meaning in the world non-original ... subject to reference ... and the quality of the secondary process of quiet, discriminative judgement, by which being’s subsistence hangs, imperfect, perhaps even corrupt. Thus, as you put it, “our emergent biology does afford its prior identity to be broached”. It is not the biology (or sociobiology) which conditions such an outcome, but the constant forces against which that biology has to fight to exist and to continue existing. It is from this contest of being and mechanicity (in their psychological extremes, presence and absence) that the model of Man and consciousness which I employ is abstracted. We are still in the realm of ontology, which is why it is titled the Ontological Transit. But, plainly, we are naturalising Dasein and giving it a form in the consciousness so that its disclosed meanings and subsequent interpretations and actions may enter into the realm of the lived life of the individual and the group, accreting in it, vivifying, authenticising, and re-ordering it. They can do no other. That is the emergent aspect of the schema. Because this is still philosophy rather than psychology it’s not simply what comes out of Nature, but what has a revolutionary verity ... what re-makes the world. One might make social rules in accordance. One might have a fuhrer and torchlight parades. But these would function as expressions or helpmeets or even just corollaries ... confirmations. The energy is from the philosophy. 141
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 05 May 2017 21:43 | # GW, according to muh ontology is the British singer Adele a fat-trash, nigger-loving slag? 142
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 05 May 2017 22:25 | # How do you think Adolf Hitler won the ecstatic love and devotion of the ordinary German citizen, CC? The usual story from national defeat and humiliation and economic collapse to restoration of national prestige and economic stability isn’t enough. Many a leader had taken his people through such a change. But only one was loved liked that. Martin Heidegger joined the party in 1933 with a clear understanding of the answer to that question; which the party itself could not accommodate because, ultimately, it had invested everything in the myth of der Fuhrer. Are you a thinker and an identitarian, or a submissive and a myth-wallower? 143
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 06 May 2017 03:40 | #
DanielS: Well, I stand corrected in the use of the word “mechanism” there and thank goodness I can probably agree with you that your comment #140 is true enough ... That is, I can agree inasmuch as dasain can be considered a necessary, i.e., foundational element of identity but not foundational of identity… when you say:
DanielS: In that biological fight for existence, is identity necessarily limited to our nation? Obviously not. That can be tragic, but our evolution affords us the capacity to mix in permutation of new identities. That’s why I have taken to O’Meara’s advice that midtdasein is the consummating factor of identity. Dasein may bring a consciousness with it, it may advise us of genetic distance and threat, it may advise us of possible extinction for our kind, but the only in-continuity that Dasein absolutely precludes of itself is that which can have no place, ever, in a biological system. That’s an inference. However, if one is attempting to be most faithful to Heidegger’s word, it would be necessary to defer to what he meant by Dasein, as he may see in it something more human, something more of praxis (which would be more fully existential, appreciating our thrownness into its flux, a flux that is increased by our human agency). .. it would seem so, since in his hermeneutic turning over the word, he talked about Care in its association, with a capital C, which indicates something beyond a mere mammalian concern for relationships .. in other words, in providing orientation in identity, Dasein points back to the social - midtdasein - which will, in turn, not only apply affordances and constraints that deconstruct prior systemic identity, but also the necessary reinforcement in reconstruction of inherited systemic identity. 144
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 06 May 2017 07:00 | # Daniel, The concept of care, like the concept of Dasein, is not anti-biological. Actually, there is no division between philosophically derived understanding and scientifically derived understanding. It is a conceit and probably a form of desperate intellectual self-preservation to suppose that some holy qualitative distinction saves philosophical untruths from the too too awful, brawny, bullying grip of the sciences. Dasein, as a philosophically derived concept, would have no further utility if science proved it false. It would not be worth saving because the scentific method is “modernist”, or some such crappy principle (ie, self-justification for wrong-thinking). The concept of Dasein should not be sanctified and protected from naming in solid and prosaic terms, open to investigation. Its laboratory name is perception. It is how we human beings perceive human being. Or meaning in the being of human beings, to be precise. Let there be synthesis. Thus ... Heidegger had it that Dasein’s sorge or care is for being. He says that being there at the disclosure of meaning is not without a certain subtle, discriminative, orienting character. That we may perfectly well understand today as interest in the Salterian sense. This doesn’t mean that thinking directly about or adjucating upon interests takes place (which is why I only talked in my last comment about “subsequent interpretations and actions”). It just means that a pre-disposition to or facility for interest exists in our openness to a given meaning. A contrivance by which one may grasp the co-formational position of interest in respect to identity is to form an image of first life ... the showers of billions of sparks of something organic which must have flickered for an infinitessimal moment and disappeared. My scheme stitches on that image identity → interest → continuity, in that operative order. That would be the process of transformation to the first true organism. Being there at the disclosure of meaning only becomes advantageous at the point where continuity is enhanced thereby. So Dasein is posterior to identity, which is true foundation. Beyond identity, formationally speaking, is only the mechanical universe in the form of the laws of Time and Entropy. So ... care for being is a primordial and foundational concept, which fact has to be respected. It has a place in that little history where it is giving of being’s continuity. That is the only basis from which we can abstract its value for use today. You can’t just rush off and pick ‘n mix convenient Heideggerianisms and stick them where you like. Midtdasein, for example, is spoken of by Heidegger in highly specific terms as an a priori setting for Dasein, if you like ... something interior to and constitutive of Dasein. It isn’t about people. Hence all racial and ethnic connotations are missing. This is ontology, remember; not raciology, sociology, or politics. O’Meara knows next to nothing about Heidegger, by the way. It is embarrassing. At the end of his short essay titled The struggle for an historical worldview, written in 1925, Heidegger quoted Wilhelm Dilthey from 1899 thus, “It appears to me that the oscillations brought about by the principle of eccentricity, which led to a new era more than four hundred years ago, have become extremely broad and flat. Knowledge has progressed to the point where it annuls itself, and human beings are so removed from themselves that they can no longer see themselves. Modern Man, ie, man since the Renaissance, is ready for burial.” When Heidegger noted that quotation, he had already been writing Being and Time for two years. It is a book about Man knowing himself, because only out of that knowing of self can life be lived in truth. That’s our challenge. You are shirking it because you won’t accept the redundancy of your own academic study. 145
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 06 May 2017 09:49 | #
DanieS: I didn’t say it was.
There is not a clean and absolute distinction but there is a different in perspective and it is important difference.
DanielS: I am not trying to save philosophical untruths and I see science (as opposed to scientism) as being of critical assistance in the articulation of solid philosophy.
DanielS: Maybe not.
DanielS: Scientism is modernist, the use of science in managing verification in (White) post modern is more than valid, it is important: it is a kind of Dasein indeed. But where its perspective remains myopically locked into levels of physics and biology below human praxis, it would no longer be grasping the authentic “there” of there being. It would be getting into a dehumanizing, leveling, bean-counting - a modernizing rough-shod over qualitative differences: Hence the need for Dasein to exist in hermeneutic survey so that it does not level over the qualitative differences of praxis - The social, midtdasein, if you will, captures not only the fact that we have relationships, and if we are sufficiently aware, recognize our obligations to them, but that we have an obligation to recognize that those social relations are composed of various different qualities which make up a gestalt.
DanielS: Unfortunately, we might not perfectly well understand it that way. I can be persuaded that Dasein can be perceptive of distance and lend aversion to too much distance; I don’t believe that it is fool proof of itself, unaided by hermeneutic, social reinforcement.
DanielS: I can agree with that part.
DanielS: It sounds to me like a static picture that cannot be true at a human level. At its worst, you would wish to flatten, on behalf of this picture, all evolution, history and social systemic interaction. At best you are trying to find the biological common ground of nationalism. It would still require dealing with the realm of praxis, because it will not simply re-prescribe itself anew outside of its proper articulation in the hermeneutic and social realm.
DanielS: Being there only becomes advantageous to nationalism when it is guided by it. Of itself, its continuity can be that of sheer biological survival - it may perceive breeding outside of the nation as its best option.
DanielS: For a nationalist. That is not to say that it is not a good position to take; but “there being” as orientation of itself, especially when you are talking about its coming out of and not being against biology, does not mandate fidelity to one’s group. Maybe as Heidegger meant the word as it would be taken in his hermeneutic survey, ok. and as you mean it, ok. I am certainly not recommending irresponsibility to you/our people, whom you call the nation, nor do I favor creating an interpretation of of yours or Heideggers terminology which would divert from its meaning where it is showing the way to care for our/your people.
DanielS: Yes, ok, but unfortunately, people are capable of taking on identities beyond the nation, not only in their imagination but in their biology.
DanielS: I can probably agree that we as Europeans can go with that, as foundational for Europeans who want to be competent participants in the care of Europeans. Though there are philosophically disciplinary reasons to be averse to the word “foundational” - to begin with, quest of foundations has been at the heart of the impervious, universalist modernist quest that has had it run rough shod over important qualitative differences between people in a kind of evangelical liberalism, blind to differences and to people who might not agree (e.g., people who believe their being and orientation is in god, while their biology moves on despite their beliefs and despite ours), blind to a meta level that recognized groups of peoples with differences that needed to be dealt with if not coordinated. Importantly, Dasein has an individual locus that other peoples might not share. They might not care so much for their individual being there, but rather for their broader group, or the mono god in the case of Abrahamics or perhaps mother earth and animals in the case of radical greens.
DanielS: “We”, you must speak for yourself as you try to shoehorn an idea as if will necessarily produce nationalistic fervor without “a little history” and then some.
DanielS: That is precisely what you are doing when you take him out of context. For my purposes, I do not feel duty bound to be faithful to Heidegger, but rather to the best philosophical premises for the defense and coordination of European peoples. Thus I am not arbitrarily applying concepts as you suggest with the metaphor of “mix and match.” I am applying terminology with care and for important reasons, that go beyond a concern merely for what Heidegger said.
DanielS: Good, I would agree with him, to treat the social as a kind a-priori is the best way to look at things if you care about your people. That is the proper social constructionist outlook. GW, you have finally arrived!
DanielS: Sure, you can say that Dasein and Midtasein are not all about people, but they certainly are deeply involved with them from the onset.
DanielS: So long as you try to keep your ontology quite so pure it will remain Cartesian and stuck in places where Heidegger had not gone far enough (don’t tell me you don’t want to take biology and biological systems into account).
He might not know enough about Heidegger by your estimation, but he was right to pluck-out “midtdasein” as an important matter for racial preservation, identitarianism, if you will. Thank you for showing us the social constructionist essence of the concept.
DanielS: There is no redundancy in my own “academic” study, the redundancy is in your convenient, obstinately contentious mis-representations of what I say. Your vain wish that what I am saying be made redundant by your ontology project is an expression of scientistic reductionism - an expression of modernity and its a-holishness indeed. I recommend for you and interested onlookers to go back to the top of this comment and read it again.
146
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 06 May 2017 11:34 | # Your assumptions here would profit from a study of chapters 5 and 6 of Division 1 of Being and Time. 147
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 06 May 2017 16:03 | # ...as your assumptions would profit from reading what I say along with an understanding of what is actually going on in order to help realize why I say these things instead of projecting straw men onto what I’ve actually said so that you can pretend it is all wrong or all unimportant for your personal grudge against “academia” (as if those are the interests that I represent). Others are well advised to not be misdirected by a contentious wish to bury and misdirect from what I actually say. 148
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 06 May 2017 16:54 | # Daniel, you say a lot, even about Heidegger. Little of it is subtle or accurate - and to be accurate with Heidegger you have to be subtle. The chapters I noted deal with, among other things, discourse, which you call communication. You might find them interesting. You might, in addition, put together some of the other elements, which would be instructive and even make it possible to hold an informed communication with me! Give it a try. 149
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 06 May 2017 17:13 | #
DanielS: To be true to Heidegger’s project you have to understand the premises from which he works. Not only do you not understand these things, you absolutely refuse to understand.
DanielS: I am not stopping you from discussing chapters 5 and 6 of Division 1 of Being and Time. Nor am I am trying to parrot what Heidegger says. I am only concerned to deploy what I need from him and in the spirit of the premises from which he works (again, which refuse to understand). Give a try reading things that I say instead of installing straw men and pretending that’s what I’ve said. If you do not want to read what I say that’s your prerogative but it is not your prerogative to bury what I say in straw men instead. Post a comment:
Next entry: The Rove strategy, the Sailer strategy and Jewish playbook of Neo-Cons/Paleocons against “The Left”
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) Patriotic Alternative given the black spot by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:14. (View) On Spengler and the inevitable by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 21 February 2024 17:33. (View) Twilight for the gods of complacency? by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 02 January 2024 10:22. (View) — NEWS — Moscow’s Bataclan by Guessedworker on Friday, 22 March 2024 22:22. (View) Soren Renner Is Dead by James Bowery on Thursday, 21 March 2024 13:50. (View) Collett sets the record straight by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:41. (View) CommentsThorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 25 Apr 2024 15:19. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 25 Apr 2024 11:53. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 24 Apr 2024 22:36. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 24 Apr 2024 14:20. (View) weremight commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Tue, 23 Apr 2024 04:24. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 22:54. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 16:12. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 14:44. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 12:34. (View) weremight commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 06:42. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 23:27. (View) |
.html
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 26 Apr 2017 21:48 | #
The future of the White race on the North American continent will be decided by Germanic alpha males with giant brass balls. We will create the Northwest Republic in which we will nurture our strength. We will concede some territory to muds in the short term and effect a total reconquest of North America in the long term. No gook foothold in North America will be permanently tolerated. Why not? I refer you to the first sentence of this paragraph.