Leftism as a Code Word (Part 1): The White Left

Posted by Guest Blogger on Tuesday, 26 June 2012 23:14.

by Daniel Sienkiewicz

14-words shirt

When our advocates call our enemies the Left, they are making a crucial mistake: obfuscating our two greatest problems and the means of solution at the same time.

In an interview with Dr. Sunic, Professor MacDonald says, “these neocons, their only interest is Israel. [Otherwise] they tend to be on the Left [?]. They still are on the Left [?] when it comes to immigration. All these things are just really leftist.” [?]

Dr. Lowell says that “the Left” [?] has shipped industry and with it, jobs, to China.

In his article Women on the Left, Alex Kurtagic discusses some of the same subject matter that I had dealt with in a previous article, and to which I have given some consideration over the years – among that, sorting out different kinds of feminists in relation to White interests. In concluding that these “leftists” [?] have nothing to offer women, he places feminists in the same category: de Beauvoir, who did indeed fashion herself a leftist of sorts (taking women as her advocacy group, and Marxism as her guide), but was not Jewish; and Friedan, who was Jewish, but more liberal than a leftist.

In an interview for Alternative Right, Kurtagic goes on attacking “the leeeft, the leeeft, the leeeeft,” and I cringe, not for the reasons that he may think; ie, he may think that I am lamenting an attack on a centralized economy, or open borders multiculturalism, PC “enrichment”. Maybe he would think that I am waxing nostalgic for the Soviet Union where he and Sunic had the misfortune to grow up, or that I want to take away private property? Maybe he thinks I am cringing because I want to jealously limit his horizons, tell him what kind of art and architecture that he can have? Maybe he thinks I want everybody to be equal or treated equal? No, I am cringing because another perfect Jewish trick is being promoted to the detriment of White people.

These counterproductive ambiguities are circulating among our best advocates – hence the need of clarification and definition emerges salient. It is not about competing with them and showing them up; it is about getting the framework of our advocacy correct.

Naming the Jew can be risky business indeed and that assuredly accounts for why White advocates have used code words: e.g., liberals, non-Christians, leftists, etc. I submit that if one is in a situation where it is too dangerous to name the Jew, then liberal – at least in terms of its fundamental meaning, openness to other groups of people – is the better code word as it also encompasses those problems of ours that are truly not of Jewish making but of our own. And that the Left is the worst code word; that is the subject of this thesis, for reasons that I will elaborate shortly. Agreed, the charge of liberalism is problematic, with a decided image problem, stodgy and logically entailing ground yielding conservatism in response; thus another term should be supplied – but not the Left.

When one does have to confront the Jewish question more directly, but is in danger, not free to speak in just any way, one of the best strategies for defending against charges of anti-semitism should be to distinguish between “virulent” and “relatively benign” Jews in accordance with Faussette and Bowery’s theory regarding the cycle of Jewish virulence. Jews, long a people without a nation (beginning with Babylonian captivity and for nearly 2,000 years more recently), developed an uncaring, parasitic relation to their host nations, particularly among the elites of their vested interest. After a period of consolidating the wealth of a nation to themselves, the most ‘virulent’ ones escape over the border for a new host country to exploit, while the relatively ‘benign’, situated and accountable ones are subject to the wrath of the host nation’s people who realize belatedly, “’the Jews’ did this to us!” This perpetuates the cycle as the virulent elite bribe their way into a new country, gain farther sympathy, critical absolution and pseudo-justification for their exploits as they point to what ‘they do to us’: the Holocaust, the Inquisition, the pogroms, the Roman occupation.

With this distinction however, we should be able to mitigate the charge of anti-semitism, noting that our large grievance is with the virulent elite (as well as with White traitors, especially those in influential positions) not with those Jews normal, situated and accountable to a local culture. Nevertheless, as anybody who has experience will tell you, the pattern of antagonism and indifference to European interests exists not only among Jewish elitists, but in them as a whole. Thus, we need to discriminate against them as an entire group, even if some are worse than others and should be looked upon as more criminally liable.

. . .

As most normal White people, liking my people and myself, I spent most of my life saying that I was neither Left nor Right, if those terms emerged as an issue.

For good reason: as with all normal White people, I had been repulsed, had a very strong aversion to identifying as a leftist. I saw rabid Jewish advocates of non-Whites along with anti-White Whites and heard them called “THE Left” all my life. Yet, I looked at what was being called “the Right”, and I could not quite do that either – it meant that one would be an ignorant hole by definition. I use this vulgarism deliberately to demonstrate that you can indeed, define terms through the pattern of how people are using a term. Notice that a person will be called a hole when they harm others when they do not have to; or, when they let people harm them when they do not have to. That is characteristic of the Right for a reason – they are not accountable; they wish to believe in their sheer, objective innocence and not accountable to an encompassing, but delimited “we”, as such.

However, with our struggle’s growing recognition of the disregard of our people in more difficult circumstances, middle, working class and more, their increasing awareness having shown in the Wall Street protests; moving to understanding of the consequences of corporate plutocracy’s quest for cheap labor; its transgression of borders; its relation to the military industrial complex - the growing recognition that this is not in our interest as Whites – our need to not identify as rightists becomes acute.

At the same time, with the population explosion threatening to overwhelm our demographic and our environment, it is also of acute importance to not identify with the phony “Left” either, which is really just more catastrophic liberalism, if you look at it. That understood, I have come to the realization that saying one is neither Left nor Right is an inarticulate halfway point to extricating oneself from promulgated Jewish definition of the terms. That once one sorts out Jewish perversion and corruption of the terms, that the Left is the best way for us to identify as White advocates.

When our advocates call our enemies “the Left” they are making a crucial mistake: obfuscating our two greatest problems and the means of solution at the same time.

Our advocates are obfuscating the agency of Jewish machinations – hiding behind a twisted definition of “the Left.” The Left has the moral high ground and the label, Left, has the appearance of that moral high ground because it is supposed to be socially accountable, even if it is a misnomer: which it is, in Jewish application of the term – leftist classification indeed, for Jews, non-Whites, and anti-White Whites, but prescribing obsequious, cataclysmic liberalism for Whites. With that, they are obfuscating the motive of Jews to define us as Rightists and their motivation to drive us there.

At the same time, our advocates are obfuscating our other large problem – our wish for the “innocence” of objectivism or the appearance thereof, the pretence of such objectivism in order to avoid accountability – that is Rightism.

While Jews will use this argument too, that they are simply better, meritorious, when it serves their interests, Jewish political planners and academics generally want to maneuver us into a rightist position because it leaves us naive, organizationally weak, amoral, and unaccountable to our own as a relational class of people. White traitors also want us to be rightists so that they can avoid accountability.

Finally, in calling “the Left” our enemy, our advocates also obfuscate the means of solution by creating an aversion to what we need – a social classification of ourselves as a people, a full class of people. The Left is always about social classification if you sort out abuse of the term.

Understood how the term is deployed when clear, “The Left” is a function of systemic classification, designating a group of people the interests of whom are to be looked after as a class – protecting against outsiders, e.g. “scab” union busters and plutocratic exploitation of labor. We classify ourselves as Whites for highly analogous reasons: to protect ourselves from opportunistic outsiders and from elitist exploitation and indifference.

If our philosophy is correct, as White advocates, we are leftists - that is because we are advocating a people, not objective facts. We are not simply describing facts, independent of interactive involvement and consequences. We are, if we are good White advocates, saying, “if a tree falls in the woods and there are no White people left to hear it, to talk about it, at least, it may make a noise, but may as well not for all it matters.” We are taking a people-centric perspective and a White-people-centric position, specifically. We are acknowledging that nothing exists outside of interaction and how facts count must be negotiated between people. As mammals, caring about closer personal relationships, as we do, we most crucially care about White people.

In fact, the moment we refer to ourselves as Whites, or indigenous Europeans – when we refer to ourselves as a people - we are classifying, we are parcelling a relative classification of ourselves socially and that is the reality. Whereas the Right, inasmuch as it pursues objectivism independent of interaction, social interaction, and a negotiation of how things count, is always something of an illusion.

If Kevin MacDonald looks at two DNA strands and says, this one is Jewish and this one is White, he must address at least one colleague with this information, in seeking agreement. In some cases, data will be agreed upon by nearly 100% of people and that will generally be called, “objective.” A few may disagree, but they will be considered crazy. Nevertheless, the data, the observation and how it counts, occurs in social interaction (or it may as well not occur at all).

Moreover, to identify who we are as a full social class would give us the moral high ground and powerful organizational function at once. Whereas, when we are made averse to the term Leftism, we are blocked from classifying ourselves as a people – a classification that takes into account processes, all stages of development (within the lifetime) and evolution (beyond the lifetime); a classification that makes an important difference as it takes into account and respects our paradigmatic differences, differences that make a difference from other groups; our qualitative form and function, systemic pattern, its ecological disbursement, niche differences, logics of meaning and action understood as vastly different from non-Whites; that can make us more cooperative among ourselves and less conflicting with non-Whites when practicality is the better part of valor.

However, The White Class: viz., persons of native European descent, with interests relative to its class as such, would entail two-way accountability straight away, from those on top and from those in developmental, marginalized stages; i.e., our relative, relational interests, irrespective of whether White traitors and non-Whites, those outside The White Class, are more or less “objectively” capable. Non-Whites might be allies, but they are not in the class. White traitors are traitors, their abilities only making them more offensive. The White Class, The Indigenous European Class (with its subcategories, yes), would define who we are and to whom we are largely accountable

Coming back to our first big problem in calling “them” the “Left.” ...

When our advocates attribute Leftism to our enemies, they are not addressing the agentive Jewish machinations against our people, but rather attributing the problem to an ideology or less, a devil word, the “Left.” This obfuscates the fact that Jews are classifying themselves and looking after their own interests, hiding their own agency in promoting hyperbolic liberal ideas and antagonism to Whites – promoting those outside or antagonistic to the White Class as “marginals” come to “enrich” us. Jewish agency is hidden behind the attribution of “the Left” – whether the agency behind economic Marxism or the cultural Marxism of PC.

Our second big problem obfuscated by calling our enemies, ‘the Left.’

Our wish for the “innocence” of objectivism or the appearance thereof, the pretence of such objectivism in order to avoid accountability.

Whether of religious speculation which seeks to establish its pure innocence, a clique of scientistic elitists who seek to establish the pure objective warrant of their discoveries, or the pure might-makes-right of the quasi-individual and the corporate “individual” of U.S. law, the Right is characterizable as a quest for objectivism which would make quick work of accountability – through a naïve wish to be innocent through objectivism or worse, through a cynical wish to avoid accountability through a pretence of objectivism.

The White Leftist perspective would not begrudge persons who do some things better their due, their difference, so long as they are accountable to the relative interests of the class; however, people tend to want to believe their success is more a result of their sheer independence than it actually is – the Right is pseudo objectivist, faithfully, slavishly leaving nature to its own devices – “we are caused”, pseudo detached from the social, anti-social, therefore unaccountable and inhumane as such – “that’s just the way it is”, according to nature. Failing that, the Right would seek account in the elusive and insensible speculation of religion.

Michael O’Meara does make an excellent point that self-destruction is inherent within many of the Western ways that Jews are already exploiting – I would say viz., objectivism, scientism, technology, liberalism, Christianity, universalism, capitalism – these things which pose as “innocent” are largely naïve or disingenuous by definition in not calling for accountability to relative and subjective interests as a White class; and narcissistically not recognizing the relative/subjective interests of others (e.g., Muslims, Blacks, Asians) as a class. Given that, we would be susceptible to destruction and to being taken advantage of - it would leave us vulnerable to a destruction of our own making or to other groups, Jews or not. Note that I have relativized this notion since the first publication, as it is over stated to say that it is a necessary consequence – these are, however, inherent susceptibilities, which are not entirely a corollary to Jews.

While understandable, the wish to transcend relative and relational interests of the class, into the innocence and power gambit of sheer objectivist pursuit creates a narcissistic, hyper-relativistic upshot. In pursuing innocence of pure criteria, void of relative, relational and subjective interests, we limit accountability, reduce comparisons between people to singular, non-qualitative criteria, - e.g. “equality/non-equality” which distinguishes everything and provides insufficient distinction all at once - comparing, blending what are in fact paradigmatic differences, incommensurate logics of meaning and action between various peoples – typically to disastrous effect.

The Right is enamored of enlightenment objectivism, which reached its height in Descartes’ quest for a fixed logic transcendent of nature; and its depth in the empiricism of Locke, tried to find fixed foundational laws within nature. Locke was motivated by empiricism as an argument against the English Aristocratic class, which he resented for its superior educational opportunities. He asserted thus, that as each individual has the same perceptions, social classifications are a fiction of the mind which should be prohibited in favor of civil individual rights – that prejudice against classification of peoples was written into the U.S. Constitution, rupturing relations and developmental processes, leaving us weak to collectively organized enemies, such as Jews.

The means of solution

Kant tried and failed to resolve the problems of Cartesianism and Lockeatine empiricism by integrating it on universal foundational principles. It is rectified indeed, however, with the hermeneutic process, an optimizing, tacking back and forth as need be between verification of smaller units of analysis, such as our DNA and its relation to our environment, to the more protracted and patterned facets of our DNA’s expressions, relations encompassed in social classification; the answer in a word, is to re-establish the relative and relational interests of social classification – a people-centric perspective: a tree may make a noise when falling in the woods but if there are no (White) people left to hear it, or talk about it, it may as well not make a noise for all it matters to us – thus, we re-assert Whites as a Classification in particular, The White Class comprehending those of native European extraction, their sub-nations, regions (and not others) as the means and the solution.

At the same time, we observe the correction of the Darwinian unit of analysis, that the organism plus environment is the unit of survival – the organism which destroys its environment, it’s habitat, destroys itself.

For Kant, who had not rid himself of Cartesianism, good will was to treat every individual as an end in itself. For us, rather, the White Class and its environment ought to be treated as the relational, relative end in itself – it is those who fight on behalf of Whites, who tactfully flee on behalf of Whites or who stealthily infiltrate on behalf of Whites; those who respect the quality of differences that make a cooperative difference among the White class and toward other peoples who are of good will; our pervasive ecology, as opposed to narcissistic comparisons of equality which entail unnecessary competition, reciprocally escalating diatribe and war – that is good will. Succinctly, a White Class would call for more accountability to and from our individual members; and a more general sort of accountability to environment and non-Whites as a class – that we neither exploit them nor abet their over-population and incursion upon us.

Relative, relational separatism is always possible, is a first step, as well as our ultimate aim. If some of our members are better in some ways, and it helps, great! But we do not need that argument for separatism. In essence, we want to be separate, not to lord ourselves over and exploit others. That is a difference between White elitists and White Leftist Separatists, The White Class.

This article was originally published on Voice of Reason Broadcast Network, 6th November 2011.

Tags: That Question Again

Comments:

Posted by ken on Wed, 27 Jun 2012 03:28 | #

Marine Le Pen asked for a LAW against Anti-White Racism. Anti-white racism against the native French is causing havoc”.

Le Pen expressed her disappointment that her opponents “did not take the measures needed to fight this new kind of racism,” and she insisted on the need for a law “against anti-white racism”.

http://amren.com/news/2012/06/marine-le-pen-outlaw-anti-white-racism/
Source: http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2012/06/marine-le-pen-outlaw-anti-white-racism.html

“France’s far right leader Marine Le Pen will consider suing Madonna if she uses a video depicting the Front National president with a swastika on her face during performances in France.”

http://thebeerbarrel.net/threads/marine-le-pen-outlaw-anti-white-racism.13952/

MAKE THEM PAY

Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:17 | #

Danny - a good effort there.

I can’t offer in-depth thoughts right now but here are some brief thoughts:

One – expect a great deal of sub-Randian caterwauling about the evils of collective identity and agency from ‘nationalists’ that don’t know how profoundly stupid they are. Nationalism of whatever sort (even ‘vanilla’ SNP style stuff) is fundamentally premised upon making distinctions about discrete groups of people – i.e. “we are collective called a nation – you other people are from a different collective group and aren’t part of our collective group.”

A libertarian ‘individualistic’ nationalist is an oxymoron.

Two – the terms left and right are relational and obviously apply within broad ideological constructs like liberalism. Liberalism is foundational within in the West. It has ‘full spectrum dominance’ with a right-wing version and a left-wing version that present themselves in whatever local formations are acceptable to particular societies. Much of what passes from conservatism, especially in the USA, is warmed up Hayekian liberalism with the veneer of conservative tropes typically expressing quasi-religious cant from hucksters (Jerry Falwell and the like). Or is simply conservatism in its bovine sub-Burkean mode of defending the status quo (whatever it happens to be) because that’s how it unimaginatively roles. Such intellectually vapidity should not detain the non-brain dead for any length of time – unless of course a conservative would like to defend the ‘timeless truth’ of the doctrine of the “Divine Right of Kings” perhaps?

Politics obviously cannot really be entirely reduced to differentiation along a single ideological polarity (i.e. arguments within liberalism). However marginal, there are serious non-liberals to be found on the right, the centre, the left, and now in not so easy to classify formations such as environmentalism. But the key distinction in present times is between liberals (of whatever type) and non-liberals (of whatever type).

Three – Aristotle made questions of political mereology front and centre – what is the proper relationship between the whole and the parts? For liberals that’s, at best, a very distant secondary question for two reasons – one the ‘whole’ is merely the aggregate of the individual parts – thus the whole is never more than the some of its parts and as such has no real ontological status or validity or properties over and above the individual parts (in either intra-generational or inter-generational mode). The liberal theory of political mereology is effectively mereological nihilism. Put succinctly, “nothing is a proper part of anything”, such that relations between part and whole do not exist, since wholes themselves do not ‘really’ exist they are at best dangerous epiphenomenal illusions to be eschewed. Especially the ‘wrong’ types of wholes. The only true and valid differentiation of people for a liberal is at the individual level – anything else is ‘evil’. Americans are in general addicted to this mode of radically individualistic thought. It’s a mythology but a very dangerous one. There’s a healthy type of limited individualism and an unlimited, inflationary, rather toxic type. The cultural politics of limited appetites and restraint don’t find much traction in the ‘land of the free’. Equally, there can be bad and destructive forms of collective life as well as life-enhancing and healthy ones. No-one sane thinks Mao’s China or North Korea are good examples to follow. It’s getting the balance right.

Four – Darwinian social evolution revolves around the relationship between the ‘lower’ individual parts and the ‘higher’ collective groups or wholes. Of course all natural selection concerns changes in the frequency of alleles that produce particular phenotypes (the gene is ultimately the unit of selection) but the level at which selection occurs is open. For anything social to evolve and persist (multicellular life is a ‘social’ phenomena etc.) there must be mechanisms to punish and suppress ‘selfish’ free-riders that attempt to maximize their own direct fitness at expense of the inclusive fitness and/or the successful functioning of the whole.

It called hierarchical selection theory for a reason, as it’s about how phenotypic fitness (and ultimate selection for or against individual genes) is derived from different levels: individuals versus groups etc. Read some of David Sloan Wilson for a popular introduction to these concepts. Evolutionary biology is hierarchical and implicitly ontologically pluralist in its ‘background’ mereological assumptions. Wholes and parts are very real and their interdependences and interrelationship – such as the degree of modularity in phenotypic and developmental systems - is another key question within biology. Why should human socio-cultural systems escape the interplay between parts and wholes?

Five – serious non-liberals including the Marxist left recognise cleavages and differentiation between different groups. Non-liberals (like non-Marxist communitarians) also give the whole (and groups) ontological validity and genuine importance within socio-cultural systems. Something that is basically ‘invisible’ from within liberalism (and that’s an ideological blindness as well as a methodological one). In the case of the classical Marxist they obviously place their total explanatory weight upon the diagnostic of socio-economic hierarchy and differentiation. Thus class accounts for everything that is important about socio-cultural systems. In it’s own way Marxism is quite a radically deflationary account of the reality and importance of differential groups. Obviously there are more axes of variation that groups can coalesces and cluster upon – religious, the ethno-linguistic, breaking the big end of the egg or the small end at breakfast etc., but the ontological terrain of the non-liberal left is actually a far better starting point in getting a grip on those issues because it does not disprivilege the explanatory validity or importance of different groups in toto (unlike liberal theory) .

I was going to mention Schmitt as kind of right-wing small-m Marxist (He wasn’t called the “Lenin of the bourgeoisie” for nothing). But a more in-depth discussion of the ontological and conceptual affinities between non-liberals on the right and left will have to wait for another time.

Posted by daniel on Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:28 | #

Thanks Graham,

I appreciate this and recent posts of yours, being in large agreement with them.* In addition, of course, you provide insights new to me.

..will have more of a response to these posts in a few.

* I had not wanted to say too much as I wish to avoid diversionary fighting. There are some personalities around here which have been contending but I hope rather, that each can appreciate and enjoy a little more their own and others contributions - which are considerable - in cooperation toward our mutual aim.

Posted by anteo on Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:00 | #

There is no right and no left; these are legacy characterizations from the French revolution. Most revolutonaries have been identified with the ” left”. Who were the repositories of ” leftist ideology, and philosophies and political views” ? There is no need to mention them. Was there ever a rightist revolution ?. No. Who are the rightists ? The nationalists, the identitarians, the ethnicists, the patriots, defenders of the fatherland, their traditions, religion, culture, customs, language. Replacing the word leftists to identify the enemy is not going to be easy. The elites are on a different plane of existence, liberals, conservatives, rightists, leftists. They are totally divorced from the needs and aspirations of the people at large , nation, race, territory. The international elite is in itself a nation uber all other nations. They are going to be a tough nut to crack. They have acquired the power through bloodshed and wars. Now that is firmly in their hands, they will use the power indiscrimanetly and ruthlessly. Any resistance will be levelled at the outset. The analogy of any outstanding nail will be hammered flat is apt and appropriate. That is how they will treat any resistance to their designs and power . Finally the contest will not be dilucidated by Kantian or Cartesian precepts and overviews. Intellectualism is never militant. Marx was not an intellectual, neither was Mao, nor Castro, nor Lenin. All leftist blood thirsty revolutionaries.

Posted by daniel on Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:32 | #

Posted by anteo on June 27, 2012, 12:00 PM | #

Finally the contest will not be dilucidated by Kantian or Cartesian precepts and overviews.

Anteo, the essay addresses most of your contentions already and rebuts them to my satisfaction. In other places, you are advising that we not do things that I am not doing in the essay. There is a distinction to be made between hermeneutic topoi and some sort of Archemedian quest, which has no place in this essay.

Jews (and other anti-Whites) are not the repositories of the left, they are the academic and theoretical abusers of a distinction between left and right - that would otherwise form normally in the ordinary social realm - mis-definitining the left to their aims and mis-definiting the right to their ends as well: Who are the rightists ? The nationalists, the identitarians, the ethnicists, the patriots, defenders of the fatherland, their traditions, religion, culture, customs, language.

These matters of concern to White nationalists are associated with the right according to Jewish definition, for strategic reason - i.e., reasons not in our interest.

I suggest that you re-read the essay and understand it better or be quiet. I’d rather not assume the worst of you.

My fundamental aim with this essay is not revolution, but rather laying organizational groundwork for the identifying and maintaining of who we are as Whites.

Posted by daniel on Wed, 27 Jun 2012 22:09 | #

mis-definitining

Don’t ask me what kind of word that is - an oversight, really. I meant to say mis-defining.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 28 Jun 2012 08:15 | #

Why should human socio-cultural systems escape the interplay between parts and wholes?

It’s because acquired characteristics are not inherited.

Posted by daniel on Thu, 28 Jun 2012 08:55 | #

“Why should human socio-cultural systems escape the interplay between parts and wholes?”

It’s because acquired characteristics are not inherited.

Desmond,

Sure, there would be a measure of independence from our racial whole and some relation to other races, other systems - the White race is not a closed system. However, that the White individual and parts are also dependent to a various and large extent, upon the (“White”) system for its creation and maintenance is clear.

What is emerging as a working definition of Right and Left by way of ordinary language in normal use, is that the The Left encompasses and delimits the broad, social whole (e.g., The White Class), including those who are not the best or not yet developed, while The Right tends toward elitist exclusion and narrow focus in its units of analysis in order to narrow the terms of accountability to the vast, social whole.

However, I believe the two can be managed, in terms as Graham has pointed out, by an interplay between parts (the right) and the whole (the left) with symbiotic effect.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 28 Jun 2012 11:01 | #

“It’s because acquired characteristics are not inherited.”

Really?

So what about cultural evolution/inheritance? Which does have distinctly Lamarkian qualities for very good Darwinian reasons. We pass on acquired knowledge, specific cultural/symbolic systems and moral systems etc., (people contra liberal theory are not biological nor cultural blank states). Mathematics students generally don’t all rediscover the calculus, for themselves by themselves, totally from scratch now do they? And it’s amazing that Portuguese parents overwhelmingly have kids that end up speaking Portuguese, yes?

Just to be clear on the boarder point - multi-level/hierarchical selection is just standard neo-Darwinian theory with regard to social evolution. Inclusive fitness/kin selection is but a subset of that broader theory as is the theory behind sex-ratio variation etc. Read Steve Frank if you don’t believe me.

But aside from that you really maintain that the health (or not) of the parts and the whole are not interconnected in some profoundly important ways? Well if you ever suffer a heart attack (a failure of a part) no need to worry as the whole will obviously not be effected. Of course not all part-whole relationships are quite as immediately important as that one.

In a very complex system like a human society those part-whole interdependencies, interactions and feedback loops are somewhat more diffuse and perhaps not immediately obvious, but still they are generally not all completely trivial. Especially over the longer term as cumulative harms are built up within the system. Rather like toxins being stored up in the fat reserves waiting to eventually be released.

Desmond, dear boy, reading a couple of Dawkins books hardly makes someone an expert in the biological sciences.

Of course I’m leaving very quick and brief comments on a blog so the detailed and nuanced fleshing out or development of concepts, lines of thought etc., is rather attenuated. But if life-history trade-offs, the degree of interdependence/integration between phenotypic traits (i.e. the modularity of such systems or put another way just how independent are the parts from each other and from the whole?), phenotypic plasticity, taxonomic systems of classification etc., is your cup of tea then we can perhaps discuss those in depth when time permits on another occasion?

Or even the biology of mutualisms etc., and a whole range of interesting inter-species relationships?

Or perhaps we can discuss the role and limits of reductionism and the potential problems around methodological individualism as a ‘catch-all’ assumption in modern Western political and social thought? Which is probably of more relevance to the cultural, philosophical and political questions that MR is concerned with.

Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 28 Jun 2012 11:14 | #

There is a perfectly good reason why individualists focus on the individual as the primary unit of society. It is the individual who exists, who thinks, who acts, who suffers, and who experiences. Even positing that something called ‘society’ that is greater than the sum of its constituent elements exists, does not thereby hypothesize the existence of any actual being apart from its constituents. ‘Society’ here merely expresses the observation that human groups can shape the mentalities of their members in collective, recognizable ways, including being a focus of loyalty, or, conversely, that individuals united into collectives can be better evolutionarily adapted than the same collection of individuals unbound by any common attachments - the difference between a ‘people’ and a mob. But it is still individuals who do the living and acting.

The growth and development of individual dignity and rights in the West is one of our civilization’s stupendous achievements. I see utterly no reason to reject those concepts merely because individual autonomy cannot be infinitely elastic, lest the society break down into a mere concatenation of individual actions, which can prove maladaptive for the individuals’ descendants (basically this is what is happening to the West now).

Note further that the fact that individual autonomy should not be allowed to threaten group cohesion and thus survival (a point I have never objected to) is not an open invitation to legitimate any but the most extreme forms of collectivism (eg, Maoist China). Putting the matter more bluntly, one can object to deracinated liberals and libertarians wanting to eliminate racial boundaries (eg, as in “open borders”), without thereby intellectually compelling oneself to accept any outrage against liberty, dignity and property in the name of an imagined ‘community’. Military conscription might be appropriate as a mechanism of both national defense and the furtherance of national unity; one can hardly say that unemployment relief or socialized healthcare (let alone ‘defined benefit’ pension plans paid for by overburdened taxpayers for the benefit of individually greedy public sector bureaucrats) rise to the same level.

Determining the proper relations between individuals and social wholes (like nations) is certainly a useful exercise. It seems as though the appropriate standard for assessing collective obligations as opposed to individual rights lay in the relationship between the obligation under consideration and the extent of its contribution to the perpetuity of the social whole. Such a standard will be somewhat context dependent. Telling a businessmen that he cannot import cheap labor from a racially alien land involves a minimal affront to his liberty when compared to the extremely negative impact such activity would have on the perpetuation of his society. On the other hand, telling a businessmen that he cannot set his own labor rates or schedules of employee hours is not at all related to collective national survival, and thus would constitute an impermissible violation of individual rights of liberty and property.

One suspects that many self-styled ‘communitarians’ are really confused about the respective natures of collectivism and socialism, and adopting the otherwise laudable guise of defending race and nation, are trying to smuggle in the latter under the rubric of the former. Tut tut, those of us who understand individual action and its relation to national prosperity and thus collective power, need not allow such a slight of hand, nor should or will we.

Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 28 Jun 2012 12:29 | #

Let me add that the libertarian tradition in the West is immensely valuable even if mistaken in some important ways. The great libertarians, from Locke to Jefferson to Acton to Mises, made many valid and valuable observations about man and society. Individual liberty can be carried too far, to the extent that it actually undermines the very conditions of its perpetuity (though the thinkers mentioned above mostly recognized this fact). But it should be embraced to the extent that it does not. Men wish to be free, and freedom is good. Few conservatives at least deny that some restrictions on individual autonomy should be put in place to preserve the very structure of liberty (or indeed, other goods, whether racial preservation, public morality, or the natural environment). Taxes for defense, immigration restrictions, public health quarantines against disease outbreaks, national parkland preservation, anti-pollution legislation, anti-miscegenation laws - such are examples of appropriate restrictions. All disproportionately affect the social whole. On the other hand, minimum wage laws, anti-discrimnation statutes, gay rights, abortion rights, single-payer healthcare, food stamps, etc - none of these affect the survival of the nation as a whole. Perhaps the standard should be this: infringements on maximal individual liberty are acceptable when they represent shared sacrifices (conscription, quarantine, pollution controls, etc); but they are unacceptable when one portion of the community is being asked disproportionately to sacrifice so that another portion of the community can disproportionately benefit - and when the latter sacrifices are not necessary to the overall perpetuity of society.

I think that is the difference between acceptable collective sacrifice (nationalism), and unacceptable because unequal sacrifice (socialism) (not that this injustice at the root of socialism is the only reason to oppose it).

Posted by daniel on Thu, 28 Jun 2012 13:54 | #

Leon, I like this distinction that you make here:

“It seems as though the appropriate standard for assessing collective obligations as opposed to individual rights* lay in the relationship between the obligation under consideration and the extent of its contribution to the perpetuity of the social whole.”

Otherwise your post number ten seems a reaction stemming from habituated thinking of the terms and I find myself by its end wondering, what individual dignity does he think other Whites and I would deprive him?

But it just goes to show, after your post number 11 begins with some reverence for obsolete philosophies, it seems you’ve cooled down a bit and basically overlap things that I too would restrict in a society (though personally, I would consider allowing some “communities” * to allow abortion - e.g. a Down’s Syndrome child) while also in this post you seem as if you’d allow for things (i.e., most of the freedoms that we have) that I would as well.

Aside from these posts, I am not very articulate as to economics, but know enough for my satisfaction now, to basically look upon Austrian school economics as passe as well.

Free enterprise and private property are fine and good; as are national parks, eco and wild life preservation, a modest safety net, work-fair and job training.

As for Christianity, if some people wanted to practice it, of course they can be free to do, but amen to those places and people who reject it in favor of a morality more relevant to our people and times.

* There are better ways of parsing the matter of individual sovereignty, deservingness and redress than “rights” talk.

** Maybe it is wrong of me to have an aversion to the word “community”, and maybe the word itself is not sufficiently representing its proponents theories to me, but as I may have indicated before, it seems to proffer highly artificial and flimsy boundaries, ones which would be very hard to maintain.

Posted by Silver on Thu, 28 Jun 2012 15:42 | #

Military conscription might be appropriate as a mechanism of both national defense and the furtherance of national unity; one can hardly say that unemployment relief or socialized healthcare (let alone ‘defined benefit’ pension plans paid for by overburdened taxpayers for the benefit of individually greedy public sector bureaucrats) rise to the same level.

True, true. Nothing builds national like unity like joblessness, sickness and starvation.

Better to allow a few people to cheat so long as no one starves; or better to allow a few to starve so long as no one cheats? You know where Leon Haller stands.

Posted by torpedo on Thu, 28 Jun 2012 15:51 | #

When our advocates call our enemies the Left, they are making a crucial mistake: obfuscating our two greatest problems and the means of solution at the same time.

They aren’t making a “mistake”. Obfuscating the problem and preventing any possible resolution to the problem is precisely what all of these people intend to do.

Naming the Jew can be risky business indeed and that assuredly accounts for why White advocates have used code words: e.g., liberals, non-Christians, leftists, etc. I submit that if one is in a situation where it is too dangerous to name the Jew, then liberal – at least in terms of its fundamental meaning, openness to other groups of people – is the better code word as it also encompasses those problems of ours that are truly not of Jewish making but of our own. And that the Left is the worst code word; that is the subject of this thesis, for reasons that I will elaborate shortly.

“Liberal” and “left” mean the same thing to virtually everyone, so there’s really no sense in using one of these words instead of the other. Neither is an acceptable code word for “Jew” under any circumstances. If you aren’t naming the Jew, you are making excuses for the Jew. There is absolutely no way around this fact. If it is “too dangerous” to name the Jew, then leaving the causes of the problem unstated or simply shutting up entirely are the best options.

With this distinction however, we should be able to mitigate the charge of anti-semitism, noting that our large grievance is with the virulent elite (as well as with White traitors, especially those in influential positions) not with those Jews normal, situated and accountable to a local culture.

Our problem is with Jews as a collective whole, not with this or that subset of them, or with some list of individual “virulent Jews”. Emphasizing the collective nature of the problem is better than trying to do the good Jews vs. bad Jews thing.

However, with our struggle’s growing recognition of the disregard of our people in more difficult circumstances, middle, working class and more, their increasing awareness having shown in the Wall Street protests; moving to understanding of the consequences of corporate plutocracy’s quest for cheap labor; its transgression of borders; its relation to the military industrial complex - the growing recognition that this is not in our interest as Whites – our need to not identify as rightists becomes acute.

In other words, liberals are far closer to sanity on economics, foreign policy, and a number of other things than conservatives are. And even if conservatives are somewhat better than liberals on race and immigration issues, you still have the problem that arguments based on free market values, Christian morality, etc. will generally trump racialism for the vast majority of conservatives. For people on the left, there is a striking amount of dissonance between their racial/cultural attitudes and their economic views (generally supportive of the White middle class), as well as their behavior in their personal lives (which usually does not include much intimate involvement with “diversity”) which can potentially be exploited.

I might write more later. I disagree with a lot of the points in this article, but we need more sensible discussion on how to engage with people who self-identify as left/liberal and this is a good start.

Posted by Classic Sparkle on Thu, 28 Jun 2012 17:37 | #

Graham,

Are you a neo-Lamarckian or not?

Silver,

True, true. Nothing builds national like unity like joblessness, sickness and starvation.

Better to allow a few people to cheat so long as no one starves; or better to allow a few to starve so long as no one cheats? You know where Leon Haller stands.

Couldn’t have put it better myself. I’d only add that mankind is inherently hard-working, creative, industrious and perfectible and he simply needs liberty to flourish! Can somebody please explain that this is the fucking heart of liberalism to this jackass?! It’s merely excessive taxes and a freedom deficit that’s the problem! None of what real conservatives write about the ugly truth of human nature had any idea what they were talking about I guess.

Posted by daniel on Thu, 28 Jun 2012 17:53 | #

They aren’t making a “mistake”. Obfuscating the problem and preventing any possible resolution to the problem is precisely what all of these people intend to do.

Yes, they are.

“Liberal” and “left” mean the same thing to virtually everyone, so there’s really no sense in using one of these words instead of the other.

Not true. And they are wrong were they do that.

Neither is an acceptable code word for “Jew” under any circumstances. If you aren’t naming the Jew, you are making excuses for the Jew.

Sometimes the enemy has to be sketched in general terms, as it is not Only the Jew that we are talking about; in other cases, one does need to be tactful, which is just as well if it has one focusing on the prescription that Jews are making for Whites - which is liberalism.

Therefore, you are wrong.

I go on to say just that in the next sentence!

Nevertheless, as anybody who has experience will tell you, the pattern of antagonism and indifference to European interests exists not only among Jewish elitists, but in them as a whole. Thus, we need to discriminate, even if some are worse than others and should be looked upon as more criminally liable.

In other words, liberals are far closer to sanity on economics, foreign policy, and a number of other things than conservatives are

No, White leftists are closer to sanity.

And even if conservatives are somewhat better than liberals on race and immigration issues, you still have the problem that arguments based on free market values, Christian morality, etc. will generally trump racialism for the vast majority of conservatives.

Race is the what we are concerned about. We can advocate free enterprise, private property, even versions of Christianity so long as they do not violate racial bounds..

White Leftism is paradigmatic conservatism - it is extremely harmoneous with Western man’s outlook.

For people on the left,

Here you are making the fundamental mistake. You are talking of a received, Jewish definition of THE left.

We are talking about a re-definition here, The White Left.

If it is not White leftism, about Whites only, count me out.

there is a striking amount of dissonance between their racial/cultural attitudes and their economic views (generally supportive of the White middle class), as well as their behavior in their personal lives (which usually does not include much intimate involvement with “diversity”) which can potentially be exploited.

I suppose so. And I have indicated why that is - because leftist classification of the group system, has the moral high ground. It is naturally a sufficiently broadminded view, that would appeal to those who are somewhat skeptical of elites and somewhat empathetic toward those not on top at a given moment.

Given that you have flatly missed my points, I’m not exactly looking forward to it, but it seems like your view could match very well with this one, if you were so disposed to give it a positive reading.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 28 Jun 2012 20:14 | #

@Silver

Yes nothing builds societal cohesion and in-group loyalty like massive ‘off the scale’ economic inequality, poverty etc. Let the market rip because the criminals of Wall Street and elsewhere are, by acting in their narrowly defined self-interests, actually the biggest altruists in history. And if Main Street is destroyed in the process well that’s economic efficiency for you.

On Scandinavia: (1) every public service seems to work in an excellence way; (2) the quality of life is very good for almost everyone; (3) the natives have a very profound but very understated sense of national community and deeply felt sense of ‘we’ (both deep and wide social-capitial).

The Scandinavian societies are very communitarian – the precise socio-cultural balance between ‘we’ concepts and ‘I’ impulses is very much more healthy than in the USA or the UK (the two most ‘me, myself and I’ societies in the Western world).

Now apart from all the silly flag waving does the USA enjoy a deep sense of ‘we’? Or is everyone very much viewed as a potentially untrustworthy and ruthless rival? No wonder ‘in-group’ loyalty isn’t very high on the agenda under such circumstances – after all if all the socio-cultural and economic signals are directed towards promoting a ruthless, brutal and unrelenting ‘individualism’ and never-ending competition (aka ‘market Hobbesianism’), then no-one but a fool would place too much trust in anyone (even their extended kin). There is simply no potential space, to borrow an anatomical term, within the socio-economic order for such sentiments to be allowed to develop, let alone to be nurtured and amplified.

I think if it was a trade-off between a healthy and robust ethno-community (with a communitarian ethos) and the size of his stock portfolio, investments etc., Mr. Haller’s only loyalty is ultimately to the size of his bank balance. Perhaps he is one of these ‘masters of the universe’ or under the delusion he will be one at some point in the future. Then his position becomes understandable in its own terms.

Posted by Silver on Thu, 28 Jun 2012 21:39 | #

In his defense, maybe Haller simply believes that libertarianism is where the white people are. The tea parties attracted vast hordes of whites, and realistically very few of those people would have had any serious understanding of economics. More than anything they were motivated by an uneasy and a growing sense that something is very, very wrong with their country.

Also, while you may say that basic degree of “leftism” is necessary for community cohesion and optimal human development, there are obviously some seriously sick and demented leftists out there who really do wish for no less than toppling the entire system of capitalist production (the “confiscation” that Haller not unreasonably fears so much). It won’t do to sweep this aspect of “the left” under the rug.

Posted by Classic Sparkle on Thu, 28 Jun 2012 22:17 | #

Only ones that really don’t understand it. The intellectually serious and committed socialists are concerned with distribution as such. That don’t have the Uh/Sparkle tendency to want to destroy everything and send us back to the stone age. They, like Marxists before them, are truly concerned with outproducing and outconsuming the Capitalists.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 28 Jun 2012 22:55 | #

@Silver

Sure but I’m not suggesting North Korea or Mao’s China as models. They do have markets in Sweden, Denmark, Norway. Indeed they also have very wealthy people too. Markets have their uses and value but not as foundational to a social-order. They are secondary to it. The peoples of Europe existed long before modern liberal-capitalism and in some cases had outstanding, glorious cultures etc., despite their lack of individual ‘economic liberty’.

Market Hobbesianism does not simply stop at the economic level – it penetrates and shapes the whole terrain of the socio-cultural system. Free-market ideology is of course liberal ideology with all of its flaws, half-truths and deflationary ontological commitments.

As for unjustly confiscating wealth – do these ‘sovereign individuals’ really think they are entirely self-made men? That the background conditions which allow them to exercise their talents are simply a given? That they owe nothing to the collective intra and inter-generational ‘moral economy’? They they do not stand upon the foundations of a collective socio-cultural inheritance? If they do think that none of that matters then they are truly deluded liberals of the very worst type. And does not the whole – society at large – have the duty and indeed obligation to protect itself from those ‘free-riders’ that would dump all types of toxins upon the whole via physical, social, cultural externalities for their own short-term profit?

As for the Tea-Party it started on the back of rightful rage directed at the criminals of Wall Street - Goldman Sachs is a Mafia gang with spreadsheets – but soon turned into the dumb-ass politics of Glenn Beck et al. Within a year 80% or so of those involved with the Tea-Party movement at the height of its popularity are no longer involved I believe.

On that point about Glenn Beck lovers, the ‘socialist hell-holes’ of the Nordic nations come top of studies of happiness, well-being, human-development etc., with far less recorded levels of various types of social pathologies. This is just a well observed empirical phenomena about the world as we find it today. Why if they are so hellish do they top such metrics? What dear followers of Glenn Beck is the answer? And why does the USA have appalling statistics on deaths in childbirth etc., such that not only do rich and developed nations have better records on these matters but also so do many 3rd world/developing nations?

Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 29 Jun 2012 03:03 | #

However, that the White individual and parts are also dependent to a various and large extent, upon the (“White”) system for its creation and maintenance is clear.

No so clear, Daniel.

“Majorities have never wrought creative achievements. Never have they given discoveries to mankind. The individual person has always been the originator of human progress.”

Chapter 3
RACE AND WILL IN THE STRUGGLE FOR POWER
Hitler’s Zweites Buch

Posted by Lurker on Fri, 29 Jun 2012 03:36 | #

Im finding it hard to imagine a cliched mad (white) inventor coming up with a better mousetrap while living as an individual in an entirely black nation.

Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 29 Jun 2012 08:25 | #

hmmm, considering whether I wish to respond to such unbelievable ignorance ... The difference in sheer analytic quality is quite amazing ...

Note this, however:

Better to allow a few people to cheat so long as no one starves; or better to allow a few to starve so long as no one cheats? You know where Leon Haller stands. (Silver)

Spoken like a true leftist! Not sure about Australia, or whatever is the homeland of Silver, but in the US we now have FORTY SEVEN FUCKING MILLION people getting food stamps! A “few” to cheat? A few!? How little you understand of real world political economy!

This reminds me of what I’ve long thought about attempts to prove the existence of God. Even if some genius were actually to formulate an argument that did indeed prove the divine, it would doubtless be too abstruse for all but a handful of persons to recognize its validity - and thus the very attempt, if pursued for the benefit of an anxious humanity, is defeated at the outset.

It is tiring, being wiser than others ...

Posted by daniel on Fri, 29 Jun 2012 10:03 | #

Posted by Leon Haller on June 29, 2012, 03:25 AM | #

“It is tiring, being wiser than others” ...

Leon, easy does it, you are setting yourself up.

In these recent posts, it seems you are more concerned for the traditional underpinnings American patriotism (convoluted though they are) than you are to White advocacy.

“In the US we now have FORTY SEVEN FUCKING MILLION people getting food stamps!”

Who said anything about giving food-stamps to non-Whites? That would have nothing to do with White Leftism. White Leftism is for Whites only and entails accountability to the White Class.

Posted by Horvath on Fri, 29 Jun 2012 11:23 | #

Greg Johnson’s boyfriend has AIDS: http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/06/from-the-editor-4/

Posted by Classic Sparkle on Fri, 29 Jun 2012 23:24 | #

let them eat gold… let them eat gold…

how could you be so fucking devoid of compassion? i’ll take a guess rich kid…

It is tiring, being wiser than others ...

you’ve got to be fucking kidding me…

hey leon, wisdom is justified by her children.

Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 29 Jun 2012 23:56 | #

Chapter 3
RACE AND WILL IN THE STRUGGLE FOR POWER
Hitler’s Zweites Buch

I take it daniel meant to say, within the limits of his Polack articulacy, no less than the Limey Newton when he stated, “If I have seen farther it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.”

Posted by Silver on Sat, 30 Jun 2012 00:08 | #

Haller,

in the US we now have FORTY SEVEN FUCKING MILLION people getting food stamps!

Yes, the program seems to be working quite well.

Seriously, in my experience, it’s the existence of the program itself that makes people like you livid, not the numbers. Or am I to believe that it’s only the fact that it’s forty seven fucking million that infuriates you, but you’d be fine if it were thirty million or maybe twenty million or ten million?

A “few” to cheat? A few!? How little you understand of real world political economy!

Oh, lookie here now, real world empirical results all of a sudden matter decisively to Mr. Haller. Of course, when real world empirical results flatly refute his contention that only Austrian economics can produce economic growth, that everything else is the rankest idiocy, only damning the country to penury, then he’s only too comfortable hiding behind abstract theories.

Oh, and Haller, calling it “political economy” doesn’t make you sound any wiser than just calling it “economics.” Quite the contrary.

Posted by Silver on Sat, 30 Jun 2012 00:17 | #

Hiya there Crapandchaos. Long time no speak. Check out the following link from some recent debates for a view of what life is like in the trenches of raical opinion-change. It ain’t easy. I’ve got renewed appreciation for what GW goes through in the papers. http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/4474868/25/#new I think that link takes you to the latest postings; if not, I think I enter the fray on page 22 or 23. Some semi-serious banter there but worth reading for a taste of where racial opinion is at among people willing to actually discusses these issues without fainting. Don’t let the obscure url of that forum fool you. I think its readership compares well to other “anthro” boards, so there’s more than a few people reading there.

Posted by Randy Garver on Sat, 30 Jun 2012 02:27 | #

Silver,

Interesting reading.

I think the ethnicity issue often seems to be downplayed in such discussions, and surprisingly so (to me at least). People such as yourself seem willing to draw bright lines around “race”, and express a desire to defend that line, but that presupposes that there’s much less inherently valuable about being, say, “Italian”.

Ought not a preservationist perspective advocate that perhaps the most valuable atomic unit worthy of protection is the ethnicity? Isn’t that generally what’s considered to be “a people”?

Would those of you who are English weep not were your road signs to read in Polish on some future bright morning?

Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 30 Jun 2012 03:20 | #

Silver,

I’m just as interested in saving the right kinds and culture(s) of whites, as with saving the race itself. That is, let’s say all whites were either Nazi prison thugs (and, yes, a lot of AB types are not simply Nazis for rational self-protective reasons, but are genuine criminals who have victimized innocent whites on the ‘outside’), or Hillary Clinton style left liberals. Would I really then give a shiite about saving whitey? Why should I? He would have disqualified himself as an object of care.

I’m a racialist because 1) I’m a realist (ie, not an idiot) about race differences, 2) I’m a conservative (ie, in conjunction with point 1, I recognize that my kind of conservatism is basically a white cultural artifact, and cannot survive inundation by racially alien peoples), and 3) I assert the superiority of whites, and thus that we have a special right (and duty) to survive. However, that posited superiority is itself dependent in no small measure on the extent of our collective embrace of Christian ethics and political conservatism (ie, the morally correct interpersonal, as well as political, behavior).

So if whites started to act like Nazis they might still retain my electoral support, but they would forfeit my moral concern. If they started all acting like leftists, I would end any concern for the race, even though in principle that would not be right, as the race still exists and is worthy of preservation even if the current generation is a bunch of liberal/leftist douchebags. My point is simply that my own involvement with WP would end, rather in the same way as I would not risk my health or life aiding a white female being abused by her nonwhite boyfriend: her prior reproductively treasonous behavior has forfeited any moral claim on my chivalry.

I am involved with WN forces because I am a true white conservative. Most “conservatives” are either bullshitters or cowards. Conservatism is meaningless unless built on a foundation of racial preservation. Conserving the DNA of the people is the very first step in preserving the people. But I’m not a relativist, in this context someone who thinks preserving biodiversity needs no additional moral justification (ie, justifies itself). There are many disgusting species (rats, scorpions, piranha, etc) that I would rather see go extinct. I wish to preserve our race because we deserve preservation. We are the most valuable life form objectively known (many believe in God, but it remains belief). I have no desire to preserve other races (which should not be taken to imply that I advocate harming or eliminating them; merely, that I feel under no compunction to make any special sacrifices in order to preserve them if they should happen to be facing extinction).

Thus, for me, if whites abandon the culture and values which in my mind make them uniquely worthy, then my concern for them diminishes to the level of mere group interests: eg, I’m white, therefore I would still oppose mass immigration (unless I could profit from it), affirmative action, loss of group respect, etc. But the race would have forfeited its claim on my patriotism.

Thus, just as I am enraged by those white conservatives who refuse to accept racial realities, so, too, I am disgusted by those WNs who try to combine racial preservation with evil or stupid politics. I’m not fighting to make the Western world safe for the Clintons, Gores, Blairs, Bushes, etc.

Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 30 Jun 2012 04:23 | #

in the US we now have FORTY SEVEN FUCKING MILLION people getting food stamps!(Haller)

Yes, the program seems to be working quite well.

Seriously, in my experience, it’s the existence of the program itself that makes people like you livid, not the numbers. Or am I to believe that it’s only the fact that it’s forty seven fucking million that infuriates you, but you’d be fine if it were thirty million or maybe twenty million or ten million? (Silver)

Yes, the very existence of ONE PENNY in socialist redistribution of any kind is a gross moral outrage!

There should be NO food stamps, or govt monetary manipulation, public education, welfare, public healthcare, old age pensions, public housing, workman’s regulations, lawful trade/public unions, etc etc. No interference with private property rights except as necessary to preserve the system as a whole (don’t worry, Silver, I intend to write a book on this someday after I finish my doctorate, delineating the precise extent to which state interferences with absolute private property rights can be justified; I believe there are more such exceptions than pure libertarians do, but very few in comparison with today’s USA, let alone neo-communist Europe).

Of course this should not be interpreted, as Sparkle does, to mean that I am opposed to private charity. Not at all, though I do oppose most forms of interracial charity on principle. I think interracial aid should be conditional on something in return: submission to sterilization procedures or implantable contraceptives, mining or other resource concessions, military bases, etc.

One can strongly support private charities, while condemning public welfare. That today’s Europeans (eg Dr. Lister) don’t get this merely reflects their enervated spiritual state.

A “few” to cheat? A few!? How little you understand of real world political economy! (Haller)

Oh, lookie here now, real world empirical results all of a sudden matter decisively to Mr. Haller. Of course, when real world empirical results flatly refute his contention that only Austrian economics can produce economic growth, that everything else is the rankest idiocy, only damning the country to penury, then he’s only too comfortable hiding behind abstract theories.

Oh, and Haller, calling it “political economy” doesn’t make you sound any wiser than just calling it “economics.” Quite the contrary. (Silver)

Fool of a Silver!

I almost never misspeak. I am perfectly aware of the distinction between economics and political economy. Economics is a pure discipline, the study of exchanges as such. Political economy is the study of the interaction of politics and economics (mainly, of how politics and legislation fuck up the economy). My statement above is not referring to your faulty understanding of economics (I’ve elaborated on that elsewhere), but rather, your misunderstanding of one particular welfare program in the real world.

I never said that “only Austrian econ can promote economic growth”; indeed, I expressly rejected such a blanket statement in conversation with you (reading comp problems, now, too?). I have asserted that Austrianism offers the correct understanding of the economy, and that radical laissez-faire is most likely to maximize the rate of economic growth, even if (real, not merely nominal or inflationary) growth can occur under any system (is this rather basic point too conceptually sophisticated for you? I have been offered no evidence as of yet that you grasp it).

Of course, even laissez-faire can be coercively improved upon, at least in the short run - though not by Keynesian methods. Let us imagine that under laissez-faire, a substantial portion of a national population wishes to spend its time gambling, playing games, shooting heroin, and downloading porn. Imagine then that another country has an authoritarian rulership that arranges “life-incentives” so that making money through industrial activity is encouraged, while gambling, drug use and porn watching are severely punished. Assuming rough equality of abilities between the two peoples, similar geographic endowments, and otherwise identical political economies, which country will have the higher growth? Obviously, the less free one.

People (you, Lister, Sparkle, others) completely fail to grasp what I write about economics here. I have always stated that economic freedom ought to be subordinate to the macro-goal of racial perpetuity. [I don’t want a defense contractor selling his missiles to al-Qaeda, either.] Somehow, this NEVER FUCKING PENETRATES!!! It’s unbelievable to me.

My point continues to be that economic liberty is superior as a method for achieving national prosperity - and that the more liberty, the greater the prosperity. Empirical reality absolutely backs me up on this (hmm ... W. v. East Germany; N. v. South Korea, Hong Kong v. China, Maoist v. Dengist China, California v. Texas, etc etc), but, yes, as Mises demonstrated, theory is indeed more important, as empirical economic reality is always the result of a near-infinity of often unparsable variables (Lister: this in no way contravenes conventional scientific method; you need to read Mises or other Austrians on economic methodology to understand what I’m talking about here). One cannot interpret economic reality correctly unless one already understands and uses the proper method of interpretation.

There is all the difference in the world between providing stats on food stamp use (an empirical issue), and trying to claim that, because there was (arguably) higher econ growth in countries groaning under Keynesian tyranny than these same nations had before the onset of Keynesianism, it can be stated as an empirical truth that Keynesianism does not impede (or, indeed, promotes) econ growth.

Posted by Classic Sparkle on Sat, 30 Jun 2012 05:11 | #

Of course this should not be interpreted, as Sparkle does, to mean that I am opposed to private charity.

I don’t think you’re opposed to private charity.

Oh I get it. I don’t deny you’ve put the race ahead of economics in your mind.

Posted by daniel on Sat, 30 Jun 2012 05:42 | #

Posted by Randy Garver on June 29, 2012, 09:27 PM | #

Silver,

Interesting reading.

I think the ethnicity issue often seems to be downplayed in such discussions, and surprisingly so (to me at least). People such as yourself seem willing to draw bright lines around “race”, and express a desire to defend that line, but that presupposes that there’s much less inherently valuable about being, say, “Italian”.

Ought not a preservationist perspective advocate that perhaps the most valuable atomic unit worthy of protection is the ethnicity? Isn’t that generally what’s considered to be “a people”?

Would those of you who are English weep not were your road signs to read in Polish on some future bright morning?

It is not either/or. I go by a few metaphors which seek to preserve both, recognizing potential symbiosis:

The Compartmentalized Ship (compartments are the different kinds of native Europeans), the Ship are all native Europeans.

Or The Body (native Europeans) and Its Parts (the different kinds of native Europeans).

A general ecological metaphor of native Europeans serves well to call attention to the various functions that different kinds of European might play in service of overall native European systemic survival.

Posted by Leon Haller on June 29, 2012, 11:23 PM | #

ok, race comes first for Haller - good. So noted.

..and Austrian School economics is a quintessential growth model. I thought that the growth model was a large part of our problem?

Posted by Captainchaos on June 29, 2012, 06:56 PM | #

Chapter 3
RACE AND WILL IN THE STRUGGLE FOR POWER
Hitler’s Zweites Buch

I take it daniel meant to say, within the limits of his Polack articulacy, no less than the Limey Newton when he stated, “If I have seen farther it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.”

Captainchaos, coming from you that is a compliment - thank you. But while I do stand on the shoulders of giants where I can, I haven’t made much use of uncle Adolf’s - we can think for ourselves now.

The limey Newton? Time for an epithet update:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbRom1Rz8OA

Posted by Graham_Lister on Sat, 30 Jun 2012 12:09 | #

All behaviours have some form of cost/benefit ratio associated to them. In inclusive-fitness models the fitness of an allele that produces a behavioural trait that promotes cooperation or altruism (both defined quite broadly) is determined by the individual cost/benefits and the relatedness of those behaviourally interacting with each other. Relatedness does not trump all considerations. In many species full siblings will ruthlessly kill each other in order for one of them to survive and monopolize parental investment/resources, thus maximizing their own direct individual fitness at the expense of their family members. In some cases, such the parasitic Hymenoptera, the genetics involved produce sisters that enjoy an average 0.75 relatedness co-efficient - yet lethal fighting is still observed in many such species (the vast majority if I recall correctly). Equally similar behaviours are observed in many other types of animals.

One reason such behaviours are not more widely observed is the ‘parental power-continuum’. When the ecology and developmental situation is such that parents have the power to directly manipulate and control juvenile behaviour much less intense competition is observed (direct intra-brood competition is basically suppressed by parental interventions). When the ecological and developmental factors result in very much less parental interventions (or in fact no parental care or direct intervention) then lethal and near lethal competition between siblings is much more widely observed. Killing one’s brothers and sisters is sometimes the proper fitness-maximizing Darwinian conduct. This is a basic prediction arising from inclusive-fitness theory.

Now if one is going to take seriously that culture and societies are, in part, selective systems with some neo-Darwinian selection processes acting upon them then is it possible that maximally individualistic, maximally competitive environments (aka ‘Market Hobbesianism’) is not the optimal adaptive landscape for the selection of altruistic or cooperative traits/behaviours/attitudes? Cooperative or collective forms of ‘in-group loyalty’ thus will be that much more difficult to foster and maintain, let alone be robustly healthy under such environmental circumstances (in this case the socio-cultural and socio-economic environments). The costs associated with actions/attitudes/behaviours that do not directly benefit the individual actor/agent will be much higher and the benefits of cooperative/altruistic collectively orientated conduct is reduced thus shifting the cost/benefit ratio towards maximally ‘selfish’ or ruthlessly competitive behaviours on behalf of individuals. Anything else in such circumstances is the behaviour of naïve losers, chumps and mugs. Hence the fostering of coordinating mechanisms and subsequent coordination of any form of ‘in-group’ loyalty become a near impossibility to even get off the ground.

(On a side note what word might we use as the collective noun for a group of radical individualists demanding maximal individual liberty and personal freedom – a fool of individualists or a sovereign of individualists, perhaps even a beck of individualists?)

Returning to my main point - this could all be put in another framework such the demands of instrumental rationality, game theory (free-riders) etc. And yes inclusive-fitness theory can be transcribed into game-theoretic terms and frequently is (see John Maynard-Smith’s work for a start on evolutionary game theory). So we can ask why not be a maximally ‘selfish’ free-rider if such conduct is rewarded enormously, at least in the short term? The longer-term collective well-being of society is of no concern, yes? That’s only the concern of the quaintly naïve or a mere cover for an illegitimate money grab that would make the likes of Locke, Hayes, Nozick, Rand et al., all cry-out with righteous outrage, yes?

Another side note: a psychologist recent published a study on the psychological traits of top business executives in the USA and UK. Guess what? A high proportion of this group displayed attitudinal traits that make them near-psychopathic or indeed high-functioning psychopaths (I’ll try to look it up later). Is that the personality type that has the collective interests of anyone else at heart or would know what in-group loyalty even is, unless it is to be abused for their own gain?

Of course human society, behaviour and cultural environments are a long way from those of relatively simple species of insects and birds etc., yes the complexities are much much greater (we don’t have a societal parent to intervene for a start but we do have collective public action as a possible constraint upon selfish ‘siblicidal’ behaviours). The point being that if one wants to take inclusive-fitness seriously as a heuristic for understanding some of this issues then one must take it fully on board – including the insight that under certain conditions relatedness means practically nothing in shaping the nature of interactions between individuals.

Unrestricted and unbounded ‘Market Hobbesianism’ might just be one of those conditions.

Posted by daniel on Sat, 30 Jun 2012 14:35 | #

Graham, post number 35, another really good one.

Posted by daniel on Sat, 30 Jun 2012 16:20 | #

Graham, there is one question that I have with regard to another post of yours:

You have cited Sweden as a model country, ranking high in its quality of life, happiness index.

I do not doubt that its economic/political system are aspects to be emulated.

However, so far as I know it is slated to be the first European country to be a majority non-native.

Now, I don’t know about you, but it is not my objective to make those who would destroy the White race happy.

There is a fair argument that non-Whites and other migrants are attracted by generous welfare.

With that, it is said that one of the reasons why Poland has so few immigrants for example, is because its welfare is so meager.

I am not assuming it is impossible to block foreigners and migrants from getting onto welfare.

I just wanted to call attention to the fact that in a very important respect, that of White genocide, Sweden, which you cite as an exemplary nation, can rather be looked upon as the anti-model.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Sat, 30 Jun 2012 17:13 | #

@daniel

Really?

A quick Google and I found this:

Demographics (of Sweden).

According to Eurostat, in 2010, there were 1.33 million foreign-born residents in Sweden, corresponding to 14.3% of the total population. Of these, 859 000 (9.2%) were born outside the EU and 477 000 (5.1%) were born in another EU Member State.[9][10] The largest groups were:

Finland (166,723)
Former Yugoslavia (155,166)
Iraq (125,499)
Poland (72,865)
Iran (63,828)
Germany (48,442)
Denmark (44,951)
Turkey (43,909)
Norway (43,058)
Somalia (40,165)

Obviously the Euros from Norway, Finland, Denmark etc., are not too much of a problem in the wider scheme of things. Somalia, Iraq and the like very much more so. And of course many Iranians will have children that are counted as Swedish I presume. My own experience/knowledge is really based upon Denmark. Perhaps it was an oversight and/or unwise to treat the wider region as a block in that case.

Look no-one would claim that the Nordic nations are perfect in every regard. The Swedes generally seem to be the very worst in their moral vanity and pretensions. We all have our blindspots (some larger than others). Multicultural PC (diversity is the 7th wonder of the world etc.) is an unfortunately folly observed almost everywhere. And of course all European nations should have extremely strict immigration laws. Welfare etc., is (and should be) very much an ‘in-group’ phenomena not a free-for-all for every African or Arab or Turk that wants to ‘free-ride’ upon system.

But the high 80s as a percentage of a population is a better starting position than the mid 60s as a percentage of a population. In politics one must be at pragmatic enough acknowledge where one is actually starting from and not where on would like to start from. Stopping the rot is the #1 priority. The demographic shift of the USA is probably irreversible under almost all foreseeable conditions, but in Europe I think we have a bit more of a chance but a change of policy direction is urgently needed (let’s stop digging the demographic hole for starters).

But for example Norway is rather better placed:

Ethnicity Population
Norwegians 4,305,886 (86.2%)
Swedes 78,830 (1.6%)
Poles 65,294 (1.3%)
Danes 53,630 (1.0%)
Germans 40,847 (0.8%)
British 36,312 (0.7%)
Pakistanis 35,722 (0.7%)

5.7% of the population is of mixed Norwegian-foreign ancestry. People of other European ethnicity are 5.8% of the total, while Asians (including Pakistanis, Iraqis, and Turks) are 4.3%, Africans 1.5%, and others 0.6%.

Not ideal but it’s a council of despair for Norwegians to be told to think “it’s all over let’s all get over to White Zion asap.”

Posted by daniel on Sat, 30 Jun 2012 18:10 | #

I hope that these statistics are accurate and cause for optimism, despite the fertility rate of what non-White migrants there are.

Perhaps the replacement schedule that I’ve heard (a few times) was a overstated.

I have also heard a number of complaints about migrants in Malmo; a number of complaints about a strong cultural pattern of feminism among Swedish women.

But I haven’t been there, so it is quite second hand information.

Perhaps it came from lemmings, but where genetic interests are concerned, Swedes + 40,000 Somalis…that’s enough to cause concern…add Bantus, Arabs…

Nevertheless, I’d say that it is liberalism and P.C. that brought them there, not White leftism.

Posted by daniel on Sat, 30 Jun 2012 19:41 | #

I have heard of a Jewish name implicated as having large responsibility for non-White immigration to Sweden..misplaced the name however, have to find it again..

Posted by Graham_Lister on Sat, 30 Jun 2012 19:44 | #

Well the left has many aspects some derived from liberal theory -I think multicultural/cosmopolitanist ideology is predominantly an offshoot of liberalism. Just like free-market ideology is predominantly an offshoot of liberalism also. The question is can we sort the wheat from the chaff?

Incidentally for all of its many faults I didn’t notice the old USSR attempting to import millions upon millions of Africans (or whomever) to Russia.

Speaking of which here is everyone’s favourite Stalinist buffoon Slavoj Zizek on the Avengers movie, the failure of political imagination and the totalitarianism of narcissistic hedonism - he says it’s the true ideology of the West.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tP4pcDLI57c

Speaking of the Avengers I’d definitely give Scarlett Johansson a good seeing to (not all hedonism is bad). And her character in the film is dubbed a “mewling quim” (aka a snivelling cunt) which is rather nice and un PC.

Why precisely doesn’t Mr. Haller want a Euro girlfriend btw? I don’t get the Asian thing at all. Oh well different stokes for different folks as they say.

OK this is getting way off-topic…

Posted by daniel on Sat, 30 Jun 2012 19:53 | #

Scarlet Johansson was born in New York City on November 22, 1984.[1] Her father, Karsten Johansson, is a Danish-born architect originally from Copenhagen. Her mother, Melanie Sloan, a producer, comes from an Ashkenazi Jewish family from the Bronx.[

Posted by daniel on Sat, 30 Jun 2012 20:06 | #

Multiculturalism as applied to Whites is liberal, and as I argue in Part 2: more Jewish abuse of the terms. Viz., what would be good terms if accurately implied, but they are perverted (by Jews) - multiculturalism instead becomes a liberalization leading to monoculturalism (Mulattoism, etc.) as they apply it to Whites, (bio and cultural) Diversity becomes integration as applied to Whites..

Posted by Silver on Sat, 30 Jun 2012 20:57 | #

Haller,

There is all the difference in the world between providing stats on food stamp use (an empirical issue), and trying to claim that, because there was (arguably) higher econ growth in countries groaning under Keynesian tyranny than these same nations had before the onset of Keynesianism, it can be stated as an empirical truth that Keynesianism does not impede (or, indeed, promotes) econ growth.

Let’s just start with this.

As is my wont, I’ve read the thread from the bottom up. The above paragraph had Leon Haller written all over it (on briefly checking so it was) and I thought I’m going stop reading right there in case Haller says something that pisses me off so much that—particularly in this inebriated state of mind—I fall prey to the temptation to say something I’ll later much regret (as as happened so many times before).

With that out of the way, well, yes Leon fucking Haller, yes, surely that is the appropriate conclusion: keynesianism (or the welfare state in general; your tendency is to conflate the two) doesn’t impede (if by that we mean prevent) economic growth. I’ve never claimed it promotes it. Indeed, on this point—read carefully now—I’m inclined to agree with you. One more time: I’m inclined to agree with you, Leaon fucking Haller (it’s fun saying that). I’m inclined to agree that the Austrians, or at least libertarians in general (big L and small l) are onto something.

The point is who the hell wants a 50,000 ft mansion overlooking a rubbish dump (besides Ayn Rand)? My belief (reasonably arrived at, not emotionally) is that that’s indeed what we’ll have if we blindly follow libertarian prescriptions. Graham Lister had a post that I very much agreed with regarding the need for guidance that the, er, let’s call them “the stupids,” have before they engage in anything productive, rather than the counterproductive or destructive (both of themselves and of others), which is apparently their natural proclivity. “Leftism,” or let’s speak plainly, incomes transfer, accomplishes the goal of giving them a nudge in the right direction as well as a stake in society; libertarianism does not. Dig?

Now, let’s see what else the man has to say.

Posted by Silver on Sat, 30 Jun 2012 21:14 | #

Yes, the very existence of ONE PENNY in socialist redistribution of any kind is a gross moral outrage!

A moral outrage. Not any other kind of an outrage, but a moral outrage. Let’s just leave that hanging in the air.

There should be NO food stamps, or govt monetary manipulation

Stop there. I know more about money than you. I can say that in complete confidence. I’ve read the books you’ve read (I reckon; Rothbard’s influence is obvious in your posts), but you haven’t read what I’ve read, and my guess is you haven’t thought about it as long or as deeply. I could be wrong, but that’s my bet. We won’t really know though, because you refuse to debate. And for the dumbest of reasons, too. Lol. You know, you’re Leon (fucking) Haller, and i’m just some chump off the street, and not even of the same race (strictly speaking), so why bother? Great attitude, pal.

, public education, welfare, public healthcare, old age pensions, public housing, workman’s regulations, lawful trade/public unions, etc etc. No interference with private property rights except as necessary to preserve the system as a whole (don’t worry, Silver, I intend to write a book on this someday after I finish my doctorate, delineating the precise extent to which state interferences with absolute private property rights can be justified; I believe there are more such exceptions than pure libertarians do, but very few in comparison with today’s USA, let alone neo-communist Europe).

I suppose you regard 20th latin america as kind of paradise on earth in the making then. After all, they exemplified the attitude to public education you recommend here. “We don need no steeenkin schoool. Pedro has to work on dee faaarm to support his familia.” That’s probably what “God wants” too (talk about “tyranny.”)

Anyway, to save you time, don’t worry about the book. It’s all been said a thousand times before, and probably better than you can say it. (No one reads anymore, anyway, so in this sense it’s almost as if public education had been done away with. That’s one development I can guess you can take comfort in.)

Posted by Silver on Sat, 30 Jun 2012 21:31 | #

Randy,

I think the ethnicity issue often seems to be downplayed in such discussions, and surprisingly so (to me at least). People such as yourself seem willing to draw bright lines around “race”, and express a desire to defend that line, but that presupposes that there’s much less inherently valuable about being, say, “Italian”.

I have two answers to this.

Firstly, you’re not wrong, but is it really so “surpising”? People are willing to compromise when compromise is seen as worthwhile.

Secondly, one can also consider racialism a finer expression of ethnocentrism. Even at my most ethnocentric I always drew a distinction between racial familiars (ie ethnic neighbors) and racial outsiders. I just never quite believed that racialism was workable (ie politically actionable). That’s understandable given the world my views were originally formed in. But circumstances have changed, drastically (and will change even more drastically in but a few short decades).

And while I’m at it, thirdly, do you even care? I wouldn’t necessarily dismiss you (as others do), but in fairness, so far you haven’t given anyone much reason to believe you do. My suspicion is that this is just “angle.” (I know all about “angles.” If you check back on that thread I’ll make rather stunning revelations.)

Ought not a preservationist perspective advocate that perhaps the most valuable atomic unit worthy of protection is the ethnicity? Isn’t that generally what’s considered to be “a people”?

Yeah, yeah, angle, angle, angle. “Peoples” come and peoples go (who today misses the Hittites?), but if the race remains there’s always something to build on.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Sat, 30 Jun 2012 21:33 | #

@daniel

Well I honestly had no idea about Scarlett - she certainly doesn’t look a typical member of everyone’s favourite tribe. That’s too bad lol.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Sat, 30 Jun 2012 22:50 | #

@Silver

I tend to ignore Mr. Haller when he is in his very naive, libertarian fuckwit, ‘market Hobbesian’ mode (so that’s nearly all the time). Really this isn’t the place for liberals.

But did he really write this?:

“Yes, the very existence of ONE PENNY in socialist redistribution of any kind is a gross moral outrage!”

How about this:

Yes the very existence of ONE PENNY of capitalist profit based upon the disintegration of our collective social-capital and the destruction of our collective physical, cultural and social environments through free-riding and the production of toxic externalities is a moral outrage.

Look let’s have an example of the insidious effects of becoming a market society (rather than a society with markets within it). College education. Students are customers. They are paying for a service. They get a bad grade and go to the professor demanding a higher one or they will complain about his or her poor standard of teaching. Another professor will not give any student a lower mark than a B - why? The student-customers will complain to his superiors in the management structure about his poor teaching. Even if they don’t then his superiors might ask “what’s going wrong with your classes; you have too many failing students what are you doing wrong?” Examinations that 50% of the students fail are ‘re-normalized’ so no-one fails as the exam was ‘too hard’ despite being very similar to all the previous ones (so the students were not lazy nor stupid - no it is a problem with the instructor). Graduate students that are generally ignorant of even the basics of their subject or suspected of falsification of data are passed as PhD candidates because to do otherwise is to risk a lawsuit for the university. All of which I’ve witnessed in the US college system (and no not at some shit-hole ‘worst of the worse’ colleges - quite the opposite).

Make education free at the point of use (evil socialism) but funded by a graduate tax or even just general taxation (even worse!) and the ethos can perhaps return to something along the lines of my student experience: it is a privilege to study here, a gift for which one should express gratitude. Moreover it is for you the student to raise yourself to our standards of excellence, not for us to lower ourselves to the standards of the most lazy, bone idle ‘customer’ with a large checkbook and a sense of unmerited entitlement. It would be a sign of civilizational health for the university to not be a degree factory of ever less value with each passing year.

I think Mr. Haller should read Michael Sandel’s latest perhaps?

“In recent decades, market values have crowded out non-market norms in almost every aspect of life—medicine, education, government, law, art, sports, even family life and personal relations. Without quite realizing it, Sandel argues, we have drifted from having a market economy to being a market society. Is this where we want to be?”

“What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets”

http://www.amazon.com/What-Money-Cant-Buy-Markets/dp/0374203032/

Another example: in England their is exists a for profit ‘free-market’ in examination boards and exams for schools - guess what? For 20 years (or so) this brilliant ‘market’ system has been in place we have witnessed a race to the bottom in the chase for profits for the examination companies (by providing the easiest exam to pass) and on the schools side (as customers) demanding and wanting ever easier examination year on year - thus producing better pass rates and better average grades year on year without fail. No-one who is honest about school education in the UK really thinks standards are up from twenty years ago. Behind closed doors everyone involved acknowledges the damage of both the implicit (and in some case explicit) forms of corruption pervasive is this utterly stupid system.

How about one set of national exams, set by a mix of the various stakeholders and experts in the subjects in question on a public and not for profit basis? Perhaps standards will not be constantly pushed downwards for a quick buck?

Posted by Classic Sparkle on Sat, 30 Jun 2012 23:22 | #

All of which I’ve witnessed in the US college system (and no not at some shit-hole ‘worst of the worse’ colleges - quite the opposite)

Inflation of grades, calories via toxins and horrible agribusiness, humanity via capitalist tendency to concentrate on quantity rather than quality is no big deal!

It’s only inflation of currency that’s a problem!!!

fiatcarbz for all makind! lozlzozlzlzozlzo

Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 01 Jul 2012 03:45 | #

Is that the personality type that has the collective interests of anyone else at heart or would know what in-group loyalty even is, unless it is to be abused for their own gain?

This assumes, of course, that the pursuit of self-interest provides no incidental benefit to the group. An assumption that is continually being overturned.

Psychopaths like Breivik, or those in the IRA are “social predators who charm, manipulate, and ruthlessly plow their way through life…completely lacking in conscience and in feelings for others, they selfishly take what they want and do as they please, violating social norms and expectations without the slightest sense of guilt or regret”. Thus the question is whether psychopathy is adaptive and whether it might serve the collective interest (i.e. boost the RC percentage of the population in NI).

Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 01 Jul 2012 06:05 | #

Silver,

Look at my comments 31-32 directed to you, and then your comments 44-45 directed to me.

And you have the nerve to speak of MY “refusal to debate” YOU? Is that a joke?

For what it’s worth you do not know more about money than I do (it is possible that you have read more, though I haven’t seen evidence of it). If you did, we would not be in disagreement. An expert in the Ptolemaic system, if also an adherent, does not know more about real astronomy than a non-astronomer who happens to embrace Copernicanism.

No one with a serious understanding of economics can be a Keynesian (unless, ideologically speaking, there is an ulterior motive beyond fidelity to truth).

You have this tendency, often joined by Dr. Lister (though he does it in more sophisticated fashion) to construct endless series of outrageous straw men, claim that I constructed or support them, and then claim to have exposed my errors by shredding them.

Here is a typical example, your response to my objection to the very existence of statist education (which I reiterate):

I suppose you regard 20th latin america as kind of paradise on earth in the making then. After all, they exemplified the attitude to public education you recommend here. “We don need no steeenkin schoool. Pedro has to work on dee faaarm to support his familia.” That’s probably what “God wants” too (talk about “tyranny.”) (Silver)

From the fact that I oppose public education, it does NOT follow:

1. that I oppose education per se

2. that I think only for-profit education is valid or admirable

3. that I think modern Latin America is a model for anything

4. that I oppose charitable provision of education

5. that I think private schools must always necessarily be better than public schools (as though there were no other variables in determining the quality of education provided by any particular institution!).

Leftists have a very difficult time understanding (so this must implicate basic psychological differences) the logical and even banal notion that state provision of schooling might seem to some of us wrong and/or inefficient. Somehow the leftist seems to lack the requisite imagination to conceive of an alternative situation whereby a service or need is met without governmental initiative.

Of course, real world data, as always, refute the Left (so of course they merely ignore them; if they can’t, they try to silence their presenters). Throughout much of the 19th century, when the USA was much absolutely poorer than today, we had higher rates of literacy, despite very limited formal schooling for most of the population (the equating of schooling and education is a logical howler that even you and Dr. lister can be supposed not to make). That is, people managed to get themselves tolerably educated without the gigantic education bureaucracies so beloved of the egalitarian Left (the same applies to the UK, btw).

Anyway, I am happy to refute your leftwing nonsense, but you must endeavor to submit it in argument form, so I have something to grapple with. State, eg, your positions on money (incidentally, what of the Austrians have you actually read? I’d like to know), and I will illustrate your errors (only Sparkle ever tries to meet this criterion of actually proposing something definite, and he does so at best in a very half-ass way).

Did you read the original article defending the euro by Huerta de Soto that I linked to recently? I’m still waiting for someone to read it, and then attempt to demonstrate its alleged errors.

Posted by daniel on Sun, 01 Jul 2012 06:58 | #

Of course, real world data, as always, refute the Left

Leon, I wish that you could show enough respect for this thesis to avoid using the word “THE’ before Left”.

Talk about straw men!

Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 01 Jul 2012 10:18 | #

What was I saying about dogmatism the other day? Now we have Mr. Haller’s ‘logic’ that the evidence ‘always’ proves his world-view to be 100% ‘correct’ along with his counter-factually, under all circumstances ‘correct theory’ (talk about banality and nugatory analytical skills). Obviously fallibilism and the notion of falsification – both central to the scientific method are not his thing…cough, cough…dishonest ideologue warning.

Does Mr. Haller actually think a free-market in exams for schools provided by private, for profit examination companies is a good thing? It would be nice if instead of rhetorical bluster he could address the specific point once in a while. Or is that too much to ask?

As Silver said it’s a bit like debating a toddler that goes ‘nah nah nah nah nah I’m not listening’ and sticks his fingers in his ears when anyone says something he does not like.

Why should his very narrow definition of efficiency (i.e. maximal profits) be accepted as the most societally healthy one under all and every circumstance?

For example is the US healthcare system really efficient in delivering the maximum healthcare bang for one’s buck? Nearly double the spend of the vast majority of European systems with considerably poorer health outcomes on a number of key measures. What’s not to love about the private insurance-medio complex, right? How much of the total US health spend is taken up in administration costs – something like $1 in every $3 – great value for money I’m sure. Its main efficiency is in generating massive profits for vested interests who can then buy…sorry lobby…the politicians that make the rules which deliver the said massive profits. No scope for any form of corruption in that system is there? And some pigs just flew by my window. And of course such private providers would never ‘cherry-pick’ profitable medical problems and dump unprofitable ones would they? Incidentally American children are the most medicalised in the Western world with an epidemic of a cluster of ‘conditions’ such as ADHD that just so happen to require ‘treatment’ with enormously expensive but profitable drugs. Who could have guessed children’s bad behaviour was really an illness - a very profitable one as well. I do wonder how much ADHD was around in the 1910s or 1820s still call me an old cynical ‘leftist’.

I don’t typically and approvingly cite Michael Savage but with his thoughts on the false and bogus overdiagnosis of certain childhood conditions he might just be onto something.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1Dw5YtkoPw

And yes before anyone brings it up I know the NHS is not the best of the best (but it is run on a comparative shoestring budget) but try France, or Holland for two much better examples. Of course public action can be crappy, serve a vested interest or set of vested interests, or be done for mixed motives but then so can private ‘free-market’ actions especially when one naively believes in the inherent goodness of the market and market actors whilst allowing those that at the top to ‘game the system’ to their own very narrow interests – see for example the breaking scandal of he endemic culture of corruption within British banking.

“The emails that have been published display in excruciating detail a culture in the investment banking side of Barclays that treated the rest of us as “little people”. A culture that showed a complete disregard for probity and honesty. Behaviour that was conspiratorial and possibly criminal.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jun/30/barclays-corporate-culture-disregard-honesty

And that’s a quote from a sympathetic insider/apologist for these bastards.

Or try Mervyn King (that well-known ‘radical leftist’ that happens to be the Governor of the Bank of England) launched a scathing attack on the culture of British banking.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jun/29/mervyn-king-banks

Now if that’s what an establishment figure is prepared to say in public we can only imagine his private assessment. Unfortunately the political class as constituted presently is in the pocket of these City people (along with being in pocket of certain media groups) and have their own considerable problems with both moral and monetary corruption.

Posted by Randy Garver on Sun, 01 Jul 2012 12:23 | #

Silver:

“Secondly, one can also consider racialism a finer expression of ethnocentrism.”

Wouldn’t the appropriate adjective be “cruder” rather than “finer”? I do understand the pragmatism of the perspective though.

Having grown up Irish and Italian, I recall specifics from each culture, including the food, language, beliefs, and the history from the family’s former homes in Europe. Did both have more in common with each other than they did with say black American culture? Sure, but “non-black” isn’t a heritage but more akin to a measurement of distance.

I never ate classic non-black Christmas cookies, drank a shot of non-black traditional liquor with my coffee which was given to me by an elderly family member, sang non-black songs and talked for hours about the non-black village where our ancestors raised olives. I did have classic Italian cookies, sang Italian songs, drank anisette, and talked about the village in Italy where our relatives lived and still farm olives.

Again, the pragmatic argument of defensible boundaries seems reasonable, but what’s then left for loss, at least to my view, is nearly all of the actual culture and heritage which has value. Seemingly, that’s a Mad Max type of viewpoint which I can understand if that’s what’s being argued. If ethnicities are preserved, doesn’t everything else follow?

Silver:

And while I’m at it, thirdly, do you even care? I wouldn’t necessarily dismiss you (as others do), but in fairness, so far you haven’t given anyone much reason to believe you do. My suspicion is that this is just “angle.”

That’s at once a perfectly reasonable question, and yet also a queer one coming from you.

I care for a few probably very common reasons: I have a general intellectual curiosity and a desire to seek greater truths, I feel that my previous understanding of such matters was naive and based upon a dogmatism which I was discouraged to critically examine, and I feel this topic has an impact on the long term welfare of my family and my fellows.

Why do I say that it’s a queer question? You’ve advocated for a philosophy which purports to offer a way of social organization that generally works to the benefit of everyone. If you and others who share a similar perspective have succeeded in demonstrating the worthiness of the idea, shouldn’t everyone care, really?

As for “angle”, I’m not quite sure what you mean as I’ve nothing to sell.

Posted by daniel on Mon, 02 Jul 2012 04:27 | #

Just as Italy deserved to win The World Cup in 2006 for having the integrity to play with their own men against France, a team comprised largely of mercenary Negroes, so too Italy deserved to have their ass kicked in the 2012 Euro final, for playing with a mercenary ape.

Posted by daniel on Wed, 12 Sep 2012 10:29 | #

http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/09/robert-stark-interviews-alexander-jacob/

It is a very interesting perspective of Dr. Jacob that America is proletarian rule in its culture. Though I had considered that The American Revolution was largely set against the English Aristocracy, I had not quite conceived of America as thoroughly proletarian. However, it is evidently true enough, with its having been cultural standard to flout intellectual concerns; along with a kind of reverence for work and making money that ostensibly excuses the most destructive and ignorant behavior: as Jacob notes, in terms of cultural standard, there is little difference between the rich, middle and working class in America.

I nevertheless maintain that at this juncture, we need to promote a general union in Whites (though in Europe in particular, the emphasis would be on a cooperation of White nations while not a blending), not stratification (and being unification, it is rather a “leftist” thing) – once organization of the entire class is conceptualized and widely understood, we can foster qualitative differences among our members. Then we might advance the views of subgroups and persons of cultural refinement as they naturally express it; while not permanently blocking some circulation of participation in ideal practices and the grounds of practical concerns.

...

Though I had considered that The American Revolution was largely set against the English Aristocracy, I had not quite conceived of America as thoroughly proletarian – in its culture anyway, it makes sense.

I would add, not only was the American Revolution set against the English Aristocracy, but as a consequence, any hint of class snobbery has been strictly taboo in America.

A particular example would be the more casual nature of American English language* by contrast to the more mannerly and stylish British English (at least those forms closer to R.P.), which would normally be flouted as pompous in an American context, even in American academia.

* Sometimes stifling in its requirement to be “down to earth”, on the other hand, American English can perhaps at times be more practical, as it may lend itself more easily to operations of thought, not being quite as preoccupied with style.

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 24 May 2013 16:55 | #

./
Collin Liddell is definitely a smart guy, but the cookie-cutter requirements he is beholden to over there at Alternative Right have him missing on a few important points. He is required by their platform to portray “the left” as the enemy and to avoid naming the Jew.

http://alternativeright.com/blog/2013/5/23/extremism-and-the-displacement-of-the-political-spectrum

He says:

“The fact that extremes exist in any system is not a problem in itself, and, in the grand scheme of things, may even be necessary. The problem we have in the West is that “the bulge” has been dislocated so that now the weight of opinion and power has been dislocated to the extreme Left for the last 60 years.

What is ‘centric’ or moderate about the ideas on which modern Britain is based? Nothing! The viewpoint that race is a construct, that blood exerts no pull on the human heart, that loyalty to your own kind is evil, and that we are all blank slates is self-evidently an extremist Leftist one, but it is one that has become displaced towards the centre of our society.

What is “extremist” about the wish to prevent your country being colonized and your race sunk in a flood of Third World immigration, degradation, and animalistic violence? This is self evidently a centric notion, but in today’s insane world this is given the name “far-right,” “fascist,” or “racist,” all words signifying extremism and evil.”

Let me take this one paragraph at a time:

When you stretch “leftist” concepts beyond the unionized interests of the group, they are no longer leftist but liberal, as they have been for the last 60 years.

“What is ‘centric’ or moderate about the ideas on which modern Britain is based? Nothing! The viewpoint that race is a construct, that blood exerts no pull on the human heart, that loyalty to your own kind is evil, and that we are all blank slates is self-evidently an extremist Leftist one, but it is one that has become displaced towards the centre of our society.”

The view that race is a construct is a leftist one, however, only as it is realist. When it becomes idealist as it has at the hands of Jewish academics, it become liberal, because it takes on the idea that anything can be made of anything, anything goes, anything can be made of anyone, anyone will do just the same. That is not a union, that is liberal by definition.

“that blood exerts no pull on the human heart, that loyalty to your own kind is evil”

These too, would be unionizing notions and their denial would be liberal, not White Leftist - in fact, just the opposite.

The blank slate is similarly an extremely liberal notion.

“What is “extremist” about the wish to prevent your country being colonized and your race sunk in a flood of Third World immigration, degradation, and animalistic violence? This is self evidently a centric notion, but in today’s insane world this is given the name “far-right,” “fascist,” or “racist,” all words signifying extremism and evil.”

Yes, and who wants to call these things “the far right”? but those who Collin Liddell cannot name for the cookie-cutter requirements over there at Alternative Right.

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 15 Aug 2013 17:18 | #

I must say that I find Stark untruth in Robert Stark’s continual invocation of the claim of the uselessness of the “phoney left-right” paradigm to be highly counter productive of Counter-Currents.

To repeat, it is a highly useful paradigm - it is especially nifty as an organizational tool for Whites to adopt a new leftist perspective, if we sort out the Jewish tangle of misrepresentations of that paradigm heretofore. To obfuscate that fact is to stand in the way of proper and crucial organization.

Robert has had four guests in a row now who only seek to contribute to that tangle of confusion, inhibiting our organizational capacity:

Keith Preston

Sirya Akda

Paul Gottfried

Matt Forney

Keith Preston continues to treat (swallow) Leftism as a found object, “out-there”, accepting Jewish prescribed liberalism as synonymous with “leftism.”

He makes a concession that it is possible be a White leftist, as in the case of Metzger, whom he describes as classic leftist, besides his racial advocacy.

Metzger is one of the best among White advocates no doubt, and more a leftist than a rightist. However, he is a rightist in some significant ways. Most radically, in his maintenance of might makes right - in fact, that is a definitively right-wing position. TT also does not exactly shrink from the culling of a eugenic end - that is right wing as well. Finally, he tends to deny “out of Africa” - that is probably not a characteristically leftist position, not even White left.

Akada denies the utility of nationalism, citing the priority of Asian immigrants for economic motives. While there is a large measure of truth to people having economic priorities, his emphasis of that seems to stem mostly of a common denominator he shares with these three other guests, that they are not especially concerned for White organizational interests.

In that, I have to wonder about Stark. My guess is that those behind him, perhaps Johnson and Parrott, want to deny the utility of this leftist organization that I propose, so that they may craft an organizational structure to their liking -viz. with them and their right wing priorities at the helm (albeit obfuscated, because the right-left paradigm is “phoney”)

Paul Gottfried is the same old Paul Gottrfried, trying to blame White problems not on Jews, but well…not on the left now, but on cultural Marxists…actually, not even then, but some White insanity that has taken over, going beyond the restraint of even his teacher, Herbert Marcuse.

...kind of like the Nazis were overcome by some insanity ex-nihlo.

Matt Forney makes a good point about the nanny state contributing to the egregious phenomenon of hypergamy and consequently to the non-need of beta males among women. That is a problem for White leftism to address.

However, his looking at the co-opting of Occupy Wall Street (by Soros and liberals) as proof of the phoneyness of White leftism is disingenuous.

As are all four of these Stark guests and his continual insistence that “the right-left paradigm is phoney.”

They all seem to equate leftism with open borders immigration. But how is The White Left as a union, open to scab labor or scab voters, or scab immigrants imposed upon Whites? How could it be in favor of White traitors who would see to that? Whether some flighty cultural Marxist type or corporate interested type?

This distortion of “the left” is only phoney as Jewish and international business interests have construed and portrayed it.

Re-calibrated for White interests, White Leftism has high organizational value.

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 17 Aug 2013 10:21 | #

And yes, I know this is not a good sentence:

I find Stark untruth in Robert Stark’s continual invocation of the claim that “left-right paradigm is phony and useless “- this is highly counter-productive of Counter-Currents.

That’s better. And I maintain the content of my comment. White Leftism is highly servicible as an organizing framework.

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 17 Aug 2013 10:23 | #

I find Stark untruth in Robert Stark’s continual invocation of the claim that “left-right paradigm is phony and useless “- this is highly counter-productive of Counter-Currents.

and still accidentally left-out the article “the” in that sentence

I find Stark untruth in Robert Stark’s continual invocation of the claim that the “left-right paradigm is phony and useless “- this is a highly counter-productive claim of Counter-Currents.

whew! there it is!

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 21 Aug 2013 08:30 | #

Metzger is one of the best among White advocates no doubt, and more a leftist than a rightist. However, he is a rightist in some significant ways. Most radically, in his maintenance of “might makes right” - in fact, that is a definitively right-wing position. Nor does TT exactly shrink from the culling of a eugenic end - that is right-wing as well. Finally, he tends to deny “out of Africa” - that is probably not a characteristically leftist position, not even White left.

I’d forgotten that there is another salient right-wing position that TT takes, his stance against “equality.”

“there is no such thing as equality”...“free men are not equal, equal men are not free.” etc.

He’s eased-up on that argument but..

I’ve maintained that is counterproductive if not a red-herring that the right has taken.

But whether or not any of these positions of his are good or not, they are not leftist.

Since I’m on the topic of TT - he has been advocating trickery and deception lately, charging “the right” with being too simple for that.

Actually, there has to be above-board and straight-forward enunciation of White separatism if any underground effort is to be coherent, to gain understanding and potential growth in popular or meaningful assent.

Posted by White Left on Thu, 15 Jan 2015 03:16 | #

Notice that Paul Gottfried insists upon identifying the enemy as “the left”
http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2015/01/RIR-150112.php

Gottfried is up to his usual clannish tricks. Like Atzmon, he panders in divide and conquer. And tries otherwise to portray the enemy as “the left.”

Jews don’t want us going there:

Furthermore, Whites who call themselves right-wing or third position will find essential, large, if not entire overlap with what is meant by the White left. But with distinct advantages:

I. Indeed, it provides opportunity to explain what we mean by the left when we say, “White left.”

2. It attunes one to the most dangerous potential traitors - the elite and the most typical traitors - the disaffected and disgruntled rank and file. It immediately suggests organizational responsibility.

Posted by Nationalism vs Internationalism on Sat, 07 Mar 2015 20:18 | #

March 3, 2015

Robert Stark interviews Eugene Montsalvat, who gives an articulate leftist account, seeing the problem not of nation against nation, but nationalism against plutocratic internationalism and colonialism:

http://www.starktruthradio.com/?p=1045

Turn Left Old New Right:
http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/07/turn-left-new-right/

Posted by Stuck-Up White Voice on Wed, 11 Mar 2015 07:29 | #

Joe Adams has apparently been given a tip by WN elitist/insiders to open his show by saying that his “pet peeve” was anybody who rails against “right wingers” (that would include Metzger then), because by Joe’s (false) definition of left-wing fascism, the corporations and the state merge (it’s not that kind of corporation they were talking about, Joe):

http://www.thewhitevoice.com/thewhitevoicenetwork/2015/3/9/the-white-voice-95-favorite-alcohol-education-issues-e-mail-encryption-transgendermania

Posted by Misguided Truck on Tue, 28 Apr 2015 07:11 | #

Misguided Truck

http://renseradioarchives.com/stormfront/
Date: 04-27-15
Hr1:

On the April 27th Stormtrooper radio, Truck Roy discusses his theory with Don Black that the reason why Whites are allowing for, and even promoting, their dispossession is because they are “moralizing”...

“We are too concerned with morals, of slave morality, etc, when we should care about power and survival.”

What this is about is that people, such as computer nerds, or Hitler (and by de facto Nietzschean) worshipers want to believe or argue that they are sheerly, objectively superior and not “racists” relatively dependent upon their people and neighboring White people.

They take advice from Horace the condescender as such:

Now they are arguing “against morality ’ ‘moralizing” as they call it.

Why? Because Hitler and his false either/or loses his place as the go-to guy. And they cannot stand the twighlight of their god.

So we have Truck Roy saying that the reason why Africans are being helped to invade Europe and why Whites are allowing themselves to be displaced is because they’re “moralizing”, they’re of a slave morality when they should seek power.

Not coincidentally, Truck goes to church every Sunday to practice his slave morality of obedience to the Jew on a stick.

So why has this happened, the about face?

As I have been explaining, the Right is inherently unstable. “Objectivity” and purity loses its grasp of the relative situation and they oscillate to another extreme - Nietzsche and Hitler.

This false either / or - “morality” or “power and survival” - is one of the reasons why I reject Christianity and the Right’s proposed objectivism.

Truck Roy says the problem is that our people sit around “moralizing” about how right it is to help African boat refugees when they should be saying enough of this moral business, and be asking rather how do we go about survival?

What Horace the condescender and misguided Truck are failing to recognize is that there is no avoiding morals - we live within them. Proper moral consideration is at one with power and survival. While moral rules are culturally contingent, there will nevertheless always be some things you can do, some things that you cannot do and some things that are legitimate.

Jews know this and that is why they have cleaned the clocks of dumb-assed right wingers such as those at Stormtrooper radio.

Now, if people, White people especially, are truly thinking about morality, they do not reach the conclusion that they should be displaced by non-Whites.

That is a perversion of morals that the Jewish trick of Christianity is second to none in putting across to the sheeple.

Scientism can do it too.

While some, techno nerds perhaps, wanting to believe in their objective superiority and warrant and finding themselves having been outwitted by the relative interests of Jews, drowning in their instigated multicultural hell of America, will desperately seek recourse, will promote a mindless killing and die-off, even of their own brothers, rather than admit their moral indebtedness to their kindred people as opposed to just an elite few or a Jewish god.

The folks over at Stormtrooper radio simply cannot live without their god Adolf Hitler (where their other Jewish god, where the one on the stick fails them)

Quote of the day from MR’s archives:

Captainchaos said:

“Computer geeks make for shitty political philosophers.”

Graham said:

Very true - narrow technical intelligence doesn’t often translate very well into the much broader field of political thought. Well done CC! There’s hope for you yet!

Posted by repeat on Wed, 13 May 2015 23:43 | #

repeat

Posted by taken for granted as right on Wed, 13 May 2015 23:50 | #

Rebels in the Elite

Guillaume Durocher · May 12, 2015

Perhaps the greatest power of all is the ability to impose one’s narrative upon the minds of others. Without coercion, without violence, one epistemologically dominates others through the values and “facts” that they takes for granted. The greatest power is to determine what is “normal.” Cultural struggle is thus one of the highest political struggles.

I am always astonished at how unconscious most people are to the character and nature of the cultural power elite. If a figure is demonized by the media, academics, and the official intelligentsia, most people (even self-styled “free-thinkers”) will follow. Paradoxically, though perhaps unsurprisingly, a leftist—who is happy to cite Antonio Gramsci’s concept of “cultural hegemony” or Noam Chomsky’s “manufacturing consent”—will be the most prone to this sort of Pavlovian reaction, being the most intolerant of the “Emmanuel Goldsteins” manufactured by the regime (who are termed “racist,” “fascist,” “homophobic,” etc). The leftist will gladly admit that the media (except, of course, for the liberal sites they read) are dominated by plutocratic and corporate interests. But if he works in public education, as is often the case, he will deny that his employment by the State somehow makes him an agent of regime propaganda. And while he may denounce bias in the media due to corporate ownership and White ethnocentrism, he will become hysterical, frothing at the mouth, if the examination of the ethnic composition of media ownership were pushed further, towards the recognition that the most culturally powerful ethnic group in America, certainly at the elite level, is of Middle Eastern origin.

He will not denounce White ethnocentrism and become hysterical if he is a White Lefist - rather he will be emphatic about noting the non-Europeanness and Middle Eastern origins in particular, of his powerfully positioned oppressors.

“one epistemologically dominates others through the values and “facts” that they takes for granted.”

And, of course, Durocher is expressing his being dominated by the narrative imposed by the other by taking for granted their designating advocates of native European peoples as “Right” or “Far Right” and “The Left” as our enemy as opposed to distinguishing a White left as the unionizing defense of our peoples against interlopers and traitors high and low.

Posted by J.B. Stoner from the White Left on Tue, 09 Jun 2015 18:48 | #

J.B. Stoner talking White Leftism against elite exploitation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw4M5gqNTy0

Comments:

Post a comment:

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Links

MR Central & News

Comments