Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 14 Oct 2015 10:10 | #

I would question Tom’s comments on the role of Jewry, Jewish thinking, Jewish struggle in our present crisis.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 14 Oct 2015 23:23 | #

I would like to thank Tom once again for making a house-call to MR, Doctor of Semantic Distortions that he is - he performs a marked service in calling attention to the right-wing distortions of what ails and suppresses our immuno-defense, inhibits us in our would-be resistance to migratory invasion, namely: Christianity and Capitalism - the latter’s susceptibility to cheap labor; whether bringing it here or subverting the interests of normal Whites here by sending abroad what would be our means to viability.

However, I must agree with GW’s refrain and add that in this talk, anyway, we ought to call upon the opinion of a second doctor, a Doctor of Semitic Distortions.

For while it is true that The Red Left is promoting that Whites, in particular, should act in a liberal way, including the liberalism of borderlessness and anti-racism, these are not the prescriptions of “hippy-dippies”, they are not prescriptions of “The” Left (certainly not a White Left, anyway) and not prescriptions of White Post Modernism.

This part of Sunic’s analysis was flawed for a susceptibility to Semitic Distortion.

Part of it is due perhaps to the fact that the “the 68ers” of Europe assimilated the “hippies” of America, without the authentic White racial motivation that was beneath rebellion against the Vietnam Draft - viz. midtdasein.

People may misunderstand me for repeating this issue, but it irritates me that I have to.

Tom was going too far in diverting attention from Jewish responsibility for the migration invasion, but he was compounding that diversion by playing into Jewish hands with his argument against “hippy-dippies.”

1. Blaming hippies blames White men while absolving Jews: E.g., who was Herbert Marcuse if not pied-piper for the European 68ers? - free love and, again, civil rights and certainly black power were not native hippie motives, but Jewish-backed.

                   
        Marcuse in Paris 1967, surrounded by “hippies,” nee 68ers, nee enculturated Marxists

2. Blaming hippies increases the Jewish divide and conquer strategy by pandering to a younger generation of Whites and blaming an older White generation completely, without observing their deleterious circumstances, the lack of communicative resources, articulation and the Jewish antagonisms that they were up against.

3. He blames hippies for being “leftists”, when in fact it was Jews who were the proponents of Red Leftism, whereas hippies were inarticulate White guys, at worst susceptible to liberalism but not articulate enough to resist a sound argument based on their own interests if it could gain ascendance in social structure. With that, by blaming “the left” Sunic is promoting an anti-social position, where hippies were rightfully seeking being amidst their/our people, midtdasein, recognition of their/our integrity and the right of their/our people’s existence. So, to belittle “hippie-dippies” is a foolish right-wing thing to do on that score as well. It is a ruse not only of Jews to divert blame from themselves, but of right-wingers (males and females) to try to emasculate men who do not go along with the a-racial agenda of objectivist elites; and mostly the denial of ascribing intrinsic value to White men and White people generally (even if they are a little goofy, geeky and weird sometimes).

4. He criticizes the “post modern” direction that these “hippies” take, these “hippies” who are responsible for the migration crisis. But here again, critically, the second opinion of the Doctor of Semitic distortions is crucial: not only are those who he is rightfully criticizing not properly designated hippies, but Marxist (Red Leftist) Jews and those misled by them against their own authentic interest (as “hippies”  would pursue midtdasein), they are being misled by a Semitic distortion of what Post Modernity is and what to do about it. He is buying into the Semitic distortion of “post modernity” as a “dada” thing, as opposed to its crucial vehicle as a means for White people to negotiate their way to survival and well being with a proper understanding of Post Modernity - hence the need for the Doctor of Semitic Distortion to distinguish “White Post Modernity.”

Dr. Sunic, Doctor of semantic distortion, has rendered very useful opinions and observations about the responsibility of right-wing oversights coming by way of defense of Christianity and Capitalism. But his own defense of “The Right”, his understandable reaction to communism and lack of on-the-ground experience of what White American hippies of the times were really like has combined in this analysis for an analytic opinion that requires the second opinion of another doctor - one of Semitic Distortions.

“Hippie-dippies” are an easy mark, but are they really a powerful politico-theoretical entity or is blaming them just a sedative that Tom has been slipped by Jews to encourage and facilitate the completion of his argument, to take it from a legitimate position of “its not all the Jews” to a case where he says that it is “not the Jews at all” that are responsible for our problems?

Hippies, leftists, post modern… that part requires a doctoring of Semitic Distortion

Finally, I do not agree with “worse is better” in this case. We are talking about irreversible damage to our EGI. Worse cannot be better.

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Thu, 15 Oct 2015 04:19 | #

Well, I didn’t think that Sunic did anything much that was so wrong. I think that on the issue of the massive harm caused by Jewish influence, Sunic was speaking with the expectation that we all of course already know that Jewish lobby groups are intensely involved in facilitating the present migration wave, and that they do this almost as a form of political sadism.

He knows that we all know of it, and so he didn’t need to say it.

We’re all holding panzerfausts and ducking down in the same trench, at some stage that issue just becomes ‘implied’, that if we’re holding anti-tank weapons, there are probably tanks just around the corner that we might be using them on.

So it is similar with the Jewish Question. Standing up for the idea of maintaining one’s native population group’s dominance over its own civic space, is implicitly anti-Jewish. Sometimes it wouldn’t be mentioned front and foremost in every interview, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t there.

Sunic focusses on the mistakes that Europeans have made in the liberal environment, and the way in which Europeans can adjust their own behaviour so as to more adequately fight against those opponents. I think it’s demanding too much to expect that Sunic would have to delve into the question of Jewish lobbying and stay there. And besides, it’s almost like a case of ‘damned if you do, damned if you do not’. If he went on only talking about Jewish influence, then he’d be accused by someone of ‘monocausalism’, and if he didn’t talk about it, then he’d be accused by someone else of ‘not emphasising the role of Jewish influence enough’. Striking the acceptable balance would have been really difficult for him to do, particularly if he didn’t know that he was being graded on that question.

In the pre-prepared questions that I read to him before the interview started, the Jewish Question was not even on the list, so perhaps it could even be said that the fact that the Jewish Question was not addressed by him, was because I didn’t put it on the list before he started. It’s not that he evaded it, it’s more like I just never explicitly asked him it.

And in context, Sunic’s line about “it is not the Jews doing that at all”, was limited in scope to the realm of psychology, and he was saying that as a way to try to shift agency back into the hands of Europeans. That statement by him, has to be taken in context.

I didn’t think that Sunic was doing anything wrong in context, so I didn’t interrupt him on that point and I just let him say what he was saying. You were also right there Daniel, and you also didn’t interrupt him. So how was I supposed to know that you thought anything was wrong? It seems strange to me that everything seemed fine during the interview, yet now you think it isn’t fine.

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 15 Oct 2015 07:43 | #

I guess that you are right about the J.Q., seeing as Tom is a good friend of Professor MacDonald and a board member of the American Freedom Party, it would be absurd to assume anything but that he is fully aware of the J.Q., takes it for granted and sees fit to look away from that well-attended point of view in order to attend instead to issues neglected by WN.

As for why I didn’t say anything during the interview: I didn’t want to interrupt the flow, particularly as I was there primarily to facilitate the conversation. To interrupt what was a fascinating and highly informative conversation would be tedious, especially since 90% of what Tom had to say was excellent and belied normal right-wing, WN fare - it was outside of that box; whereas I’ve made the points before that I make in the comment above. Even so, these points are important enough to state again. We all have blind spots, even if only in a moment, as we cannot see both sides of an issue at the same time; and while these remarks could wait for the comment section, I believe these issues are important enough to not let go. I hope that Tom can forgive my criticisms - it is theoretical holes that I am after, not him. He is not only a scholar and very valuable to our struggle, an appreciable resource, he is also a very good man who has been good to me.

I know that GW would like to have a follow-up discussion and challenge him on the part of the J.Q. in the invasion. There is a reason why we take his opinion seriously enough to be critical.

About Tom Sunic

Tomislav (Tom) Sunić is a former US professor, author, translator and a former Croat diplomat. He did his undergraduate work in literature and languages in Europe. He obtained his doctoral degree in political science at the University of California. Dr. Sunić has published books and articles in French, German, English and Croatian on subjects of cultural pessimism, the psychology of communism and liberalism, and the use and abuse of modern languages in modern political discourse.

In corrective then, it must also be said that Dr. Sunic does state in the interview regarding immigration, that Germany, as all EU member states, must dance to the tune of their Jewish “masters” in Israel and elsewhere..

Thus, in addition to recognizing Sunic as Dr. of Semantic Distortion, we belatedly confer recognition of his Doctorate in Semitic Distortion.

Posted by Old man Soros expendable token to "conservatism" on Thu, 15 Oct 2015 15:46 | #

Billionaire George Soros is under fire in Hungary

... for promoting liberal migrant policies.

Money breeder, George Soros, is the man behind “the open society”, “black lives matter” in America and the “color revolutions”  abroad - the color revolutions are meant to open Eastern European nations and caucasia to Jewish predation. With advanced age, and his ostensible stance against Jewish conservatism, he is apparently one that his tribe is ready to throw under the bus.

                         
Which of his tribesmen is next billionaire gadfly for liberal Jewish causes?

CNBC, “Billionaire Soros comes under fire in Hungary”, Oct 14, 2015:

Hedge fund mogul George Soros has come under fire in his native Hungary, where politicians have accused him of supporting illegal migration amidst a refugee crisis that’s brought the right-wing government under pressure.

Government representatives including Prime Minister Viktor Orban have slammed Soros in recent weeks for promoting liberal migrant policies and backing a variety of organizations through his pro-democracy charity that have criticized the way Orban’s government has dealt with the crisis.

In opinion pieces published by the Financial Times and Project Syndicate, Soros has said frontline states like Hungary were shirking their asylum obligations, and controversially suggested that a comprehensive European refugee plan should provide each asylum seeker with $16,800 annually for two years to help cover housing, health care and education costs.

“[Soros] keeps bombarding the international public with his earth-shattering plans, quite obviously, in the name of true selflessness which he has manifested in so many ways in the countries where his activities have resulted in sovereign default in the past 30 years,” Hungarian Minister János Lázár, who currently heads the Prime Minister’s Office, said at a press conference earlier this month.

Orban’s regime itself has been lambasted by fellow EU leaders for its tough stance on migration, following the construction of a four-meter high fence along sections of its border with Serbia to block further border crossings. The prime minister has also made controversial claims, including those which suggest Hungarians “do not want a multicultural society.”

Soros, who is best known for his namesake Soros Fund Management firm, is also the founder of a charity network under the Open Society Foundations (OSF) umbrella, which runs many of its programs out of the Hungarian capital of Budapest.

In a September statement on the migrant crisis in Hungary, OSF warned officials to scale back their attacks on migrants.

“We urge caution in the language used to debate the refugee crisis by public officers. The rhetoric of fear and repression may contribute to discriminatory and even violent attitudes towards refugees,” OSF said in a September statement.

“The Hungarian crisis demonstrates the dangers radical populist regimes pose not only to the hundreds of thousands of refugees, but also to the values of Europe and to the humanity of the local populations,” the release went on to say.

Orban’s regime itself has been lambasted by fellow EU leaders for its tough stance on migration, following the construction of a four-meter high fence along sections of its border with Serbia to block further border crossings. The prime minister has also made controversial claims, including those which suggest Hungarians “do not want a multicultural society.”

Russia may ban Soros charity in NGO crackdown

Soros, who is best known for his namesake Soros Fund Management firm, is also the founder of a charity network under the Open Society Foundations (OSF) umbrella, which runs many of its programs out of the Hungarian capital of Budapest.

In a September statement on the migrant crisis in Hungary, OSF warned officials to scale back their attacks on migrants.

“We urge caution in the language used to debate the refugee crisis by public officers. The rhetoric of fear and repression may contribute to discriminatory and even violent attitudes towards refugees,” OSF said in a September statement.

“The Hungarian crisis demonstrates the dangers radical populist regimes pose not only to the hundreds of thousands of refugees, but also to the values of Europe and to the humanity of the local populations,” the release went on to say.

During an interview with Hungarian channel TV2, Orban said many civil society organizations supported by Soros have “launched themselves into action. They all demand that the Government leave the border open.”

However, Orban denied media interpretations of a previous speech that suggested charitable organizations were conspiring to serve foreign interests. Instead, he called for transparency: “I ask civil society organizations active in Hungary to reveal who their supporters are and what amounts they receive from them.”

It’s not the first time OSF and Soros have hit a sore spot in eastern Europe. OSF came into trouble with the Russian government in July, which nearly banned the foundations alongside a number of pro-democracy organizations accused of launching “soft aggression” in the country.

Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 15 Oct 2015 17:14 | #

The hippies constituted just another niche of useful idiots ripe for Jewish exploitation as they were, generally speaking, a bunch of pseudo-intellectual, doped-out, empty headed fuckwits.

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 15 Oct 2015 17:21 | #

Unfortunately, that is not far from the truth…but it is only due to the fact that they were largely inarticulate of their essential motive: Their organic motive was non-trivial - a protest in activism toward midtdasein as a response to conscription in the Vietnam war was significant.

...I should say that your criticisms are true but for one thing - “psuedo intellectuals”... the hippies didn’t even really try… that was part of the problem of their ineloquence…but there is an explanation for that too…namely that the motive of “being” (midtdasein) is about organicism, which is a form of synthesis… it is not a motion of analysis.

Posted by Ryan on Thu, 15 Oct 2015 19:07 | #

In many cases unless you go into the details, quotes, dealings behind the scences and how things link discussing the Jewish influence can make a discussion not flow well. It can link to all aspects as well not linking to some. Of course we could find out that these ships sailing out of North Africa are crewed by Jews or that Jewish organisations/Israel is spreading propaganda in the third world to encourage people to come to the West (not just George Soros). The phenonom and the actions are thus directly linked. However the red pill right still heavily relies on the mainstream media and Jewish news outlets for information. Barber Spectre’s video came from an Israeli broadcaster. For the mainstream media said owners, editors and journalists (whether they are disproportionately Jewish or not) are unlikely to investigate/report on Jewish activity as that would provide legitimacy to the truth tellers. Journalists will report what a priest says in a Church service but would they report what is said by a Rabbi in a Synagogue?

Unless research is done before hand discussions can often lead to “this Jew said this”, “so and so is a Jew and has this position” etc. Unless it is being done to equip people with sources it can be a bit of a dead end to a discussion. Issues such as the Church, Liberal syche and Capitalism are to an extent more abstract and allow wider discussions, viewpoints and deconstruction which allows, to an extent, a ‘battle plan’ to be formed on how to overcome them in the political arena. With Jews it is negative and the same conclusion is reached: they are not on our side.

Even so a focus on 0.1% of the population can distract us from our own people who have adopted it to varying degrees or are apathetic. Historically 2% of the population of Poland were Jewish but Poland is still a patriotic nation which has not embraced liberal terminology too much in it’s moral consioucess and is very jew-wise. Of course that was a different era in different cirumstances but analysing the reasons why one nation prevails and one weakens can help in finding the right fix for the problem.

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 15 Oct 2015 21:29 | #

After my initial knee jerk reaction, I am having second thoughts about what Sunic may have meant by “worse is better” ... outside of the realm of genetics in particular, Sunic was talking about the rules, the soft rules of liberal democracy which prop-up a system which does not have the venom and force to remove migrants… where “worse” can undermine those rules and the soft totalitarians riding upon them enough so that people with the right idea of defending the natives can take action, then it is better indeed…

Posted by Clueless on Fri, 16 Oct 2015 04:18 | #

Someone help me out here.  How is having the US and Europe turn into muzzie/african/‘spanic dumps be good for Jews and Israel?

Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 16 Oct 2015 05:13 | #

Good question.  If you ask me the Jews really are cutting their own throats.  The sad and tragic answer seems to be that Jews suffer from some kind of collective psychosis.  They have such a mind-bending fear and loathing for European gentiles that it distorts their perception of reality.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 16 Oct 2015 10:03 | #

CC, that is pretty much what Auster, in his very careful way, said back in 2004 (on David Horowitz’s Frontpage Magazne):

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=12534

First of all, as crazy as it may sound, there is something that many American Jews fear in their heart of hearts even more than they fear Moslem anti-Semitism, and that is white Christian anti-Semitism. Steinlight himself pointed to this phenomenon at a recent panel discussion hosted by the Center for Immigration Studies:

“Every high profile Jewish institution, whether it’s a national organization or a major synagogue, is surrounded by concrete barriers to prevent car bombs exploding too close to the buildings. If you go through the lobbies into those buildings you have to pass metal detectors and double-doors of bulletproof glass. You are then frisked by security guards, mostly retired New York City police or Israeli agents, and then are scanned again with metal detectors.

“What is truly comic about this—were it not an instance in the theatre of the absurd, and were it not so appalling an indication of the kind of mass denial that is still governing major American Jewish organizations, including the one I used to work for that’s currently meeting across the street—is that the staffs of these organizations pass the car bomb barriers, go through the double bulletproof glass lobbies, get frisked, then go upstairs into their offices and spend their days talking about the threats posed by evangelical Christians….”

Jews’ risible obsession with non-existent evangelical Protestant anti-Semites, combined with their obliviousness to actual mass murdering Islamist anti-Semites (whom, moreover, the Jews’ favored immigration policies have allowed into this country) is an amazing phenomenon that we should not dismiss as simply a bizarre ethnic idiosyncrasy. It expresses, rather, a central preoccupation of a significant number of Jews, namely their corrosive apprehension of what they think the goyim might one day do to them—a fear they entertain despite the fact that, apart from some social exclusions and other ethnic prejudices that existed up to the end of World War II, Jews have never faced serious anti-Semitism from the white Christian majority in this country.

...

Now, when Jews put together the idea that “all bigotry is indivisible,” with the idea that “any social prejudice or exclusion directed against Jews leads potentially to Auschwitz,” they must reach the conclusion that any exclusion of any minority group, no matter how alien it may be to the host society, is a potential Auschwitz.

So there it is. We have identified the core assumption that makes many liberal and neoconservative Jews keep pushing relentlessly for mass immigration, even the mass immigration of their mortal enemies. As these Jews see it, any immigration restrictions against Moslems would release a latent ethnocentrism in the white American majority that would then turn instantly against the Jews. To state this thought process in the baldest terms, these Jews believe that if philo-Semitic white gentiles exclude Jew-hating Moslems from America, it would lead those same gentiles to commit another Jewish Holocaust.

Even if they don’t take it to the absurd point of envisioning a Jewish Holocaust or some other anti-Jewish persecution in this country, various Jewish writers and spokesmen have continued to express a deeply suspicious attitude towards white Christian America. In the cover article of the November 1999 issue of Commentary, entitled “California and the End of White America,” Ron Unz predicted that if the current non-European immigrants fail to assimilate, the danger will not be an uprising of unassimilated immigrant cultures, but an eruption of white nationalism. “[W]e face the very real threat of future movements along the lines of Proposition 187, each worse than the last, and on a national scale,” Unz wrote. “There are few forces that could so easily break America as the coming of white nationalism.”

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 16 Oct 2015 18:42 | #

A European woman who speaks Arabic explains how the invaders were openly discussing raping her and robbing other Europeans on the Budapest trains:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U36fCE_vCE

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 17 Oct 2015 16:21 | #

There is another huge injustice in blaming “hippies” for the “civil rights” and “immigration” events of the 1960s, and telling White males to “man-up” by contrast..

It distracts from how horribly out-of-turn feminism was as an agenda during the Vietnam war and soon after- feminism’s relatively (high) grumbles compared to the (low) grumbles of males. Once that imbalance commenced*, i.e., the liberal incitement by feminist females, who ostracized any organic conservative motives on the part of males as wimpish or patriarchal, they set in motion a runaway of group boundary non-control as their liberal tendencies and inclination to incite genetic competition was commandeered by Jewish interests.

However, this combination of feminist motives, their higher grumbles, being pandered-to and compounded by Jewish interests and, along with that, the low grumbles of White males - “hippie motives” of midtdasein - being quashed, brought throngs of non-Whites to bear in destruction of Whites (males being expendable first, though you would never hear about that for all the feminist and Jewish tandem was prepared to concede) - i.e., Jews used perversions of feminism and its divide and conquer of White male instincts - including the ability to marshal their instincts against immigration, and now….. right-wingers, feminists and Jews are wanting to lay essential blame on hippies, males, for not “manning-up”, when Jews, feminists and objectivists (right wingers, neo-liberals) were four square behind inciting non-Whites against them and creating the situation that we have now.

* Once that imbalance commenced it is nearly impossible for right-wingers to make arguments against it because race and gender relations are, after all, “just nature”, whereas we want to do these “crazy things” like treat race a social construct which we have agency to (re)construct, despite these “natural” facts of “the way things are.”

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 17 Oct 2015 19:16 | #

...and an agency that allows us to reconstruct our borders… as opposed to swallowing the line that there is an inevitable “natural cause and effect” - like forces and impacts, e.g., of “immigration flows” - a notion of causality that objectivism would be blindly susceptible to and that Jewish interests would take advantage of.

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sat, 17 Oct 2015 19:59 | #

With regards to the issue of the Vietnam War and feminism, no one ever seems to remember to mention the fact that while white people were having that argument with themselves, they were pouring enormous amounts of kinetic force onto the heads of Vietnamese women who were tasked with defending the skies of North Vietnam from American bombers, and also with infiltrating South Vietnam.

But that is not all. Even the South Vietnamese women who were ostensibly on America’s side, frequently found themselves being targeted randomly for all kinds of bullying and assault, by the American men who everyone is being asked to feel sorry for.

To say that feminism was ‘out of turn’—at least in the context of the socialist revolution in Vietnam—just does not compute to me. In the South East Asia in general, feminism is in my view never ‘out of turn’, especially when you are trying to defend your house and its garden from American soldiers who have been ordered to burn your garden and the contents of your kitchen, so that you can’t feed your family, and American soldiers who have been ordered to shoot you on sight if they see you reach for a gun in response to it.

One of the fastest ways to have a woman transformed from being a passive accepter of the imperialist system offered by South Vietnam, and into a person willing to struggle for socialism on behalf of North Vietnam, was to have a male American ‘poor’ soldier show up and behave badly. I would think that basically anything from Americans be they male or female would be ‘out of turn’ compared to that.

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 08 Nov 2015 13:26 | #

If you go outside of the American context, what you say is true enough but would miss crucial points of agreement even from that context: both feminists and hippies were against the Vietnam war - so, you can say that they recognized not fighting that war as a priority. However, if the hippie protest against being expendable in the draft to that war had been recognized as having priority in the American context, i.e., if his being amidst his people had been recognized as not something to expend in a war of no clear and present danger to himself and his people - and his basic motive on the hierarchy of motives (midtdasein) not been subject to privation just because he was an 18 year old male in combination with some flimsy right-wing excuses -  then points of agreement with you would come into effect concomitantly: They would not have been going to Vietnam to begin with; there would not have been as many crazy men, who were that crazy in their treatment of women (incl. Vietnamese), as the healing effect of midtdasein would also have had a salutary socializing effect (and on judgment thereof) - as opposed to incitement to universalized maturity and a-racial ubermasculinity (void of “feminine” qualities of caring, social sensitivity, sympathy), an incitement against which comes through day-to-day interface with females, exponentially, in a situation where social classification is void - if not through her, then through general social rules of “this is what a man does”, then through indoctrination say, in the brutal right of passage - e.g., of war for war’s sake, just because that’s “what men do”.

Next, one must consider the necessity of the midtdasein project even more fundamental for the context of a proposition nation such as The U.S. - (one did not have the semblance of midtdasein afforded in being able to say, e.g., “I am English, this country is bounded for my people, of my blood”) - without that midtdasein, its contextual classification of the male ensconced amdist his people to take for granted then, combining with puerile female incitement to genetic competition on pain of being desexed as a male; add to that circumstance the pandering of males from every direction, to his co-evolutionary females (i.e., bidding for what were his naturally evolved, appropriate partners - note markedly that Marcuse’s “free love” is not a native hippie motive, does not correspond with being, midtdasein), exacerbating to over-confidence, to hubris, such negative inclinations in her as incitement against group accountability, the desperation of the male to get on top the harrow of the consequent disorder in actualization (to get on top of the society) can create the harsh, overcompensating acts of harsh, overcompensating males - such as the war in Vietnam and the atrocities that went along with it. Thus, with midtdasein articulated and prioratized over feminist “self acualization”, that overcompensation would be nipped in the bud. More, males would not be so desperate to get on top of society when they are not ready and not socially qualified, nor would they be as intent to keep positions at the top a strictly male preserve (i.e., even for socially narrow, brutal, unworthy males), wouldn’t feel the need to exclude women even where they have the necessary social skills of defending the social group against over liberalization and recognize the genetic social capital shared in the social group; with that recognition of his genetic value, he would be treated fairly; therefore the males might trust that they can be satisfied for having sufficient time and ease to cultivate preparatory levels on the hierarchy of motives a bit more without being subject to didactic incitement and desexing. That is, there would be structures and rules to fairly negotiate gender relations - each gender being treated fairly and decently - not losing the character and qualities of masculinity and femininity, but not manifesting these qualities in socially (racially) destructive, counter-productive and overcompensating form.

If you were to say to me that Betty Friedan’s “The Feminine Mystique” was a Jewish corruption of feminism and did not represent true feminism, I could agree with you. I look forward to your improvements to a feminist perspective.

Toward that end, Friedan’s adoption of “the hierarchy of needs” by her mentor, Abraham Maslow, if re-tooled not just to its Aristotlean teleological base, but to a social constructionist neo-Aristotleanism, can provide a paradigm upon which to map a fair negotiation of gender relations.

In fact, it is clear to see by looking at the all too liberal (individualistic and insufficiently social) and lineal (moving fixedly and only from bottom to top) rendition of the hierarchy of needs, that “the grumbles” (as Maslow called them, as one quested after new levels on the hierarchy - from lower grumbles to higher grumbles) of hippies, were even lower, more fundamental grumbles than those of feminists - males were “grumbling” that their very life, their being, should have value enough to not be considered expendable in draft to a speculative and aggrandizing war; but rather their most fundamental need, midtdasein, and its racial boundaries should be recognized by the society. The desperation that a male can feel to achieve (and by and for what? hard not to be misanthropically nihilistic where there is no social accountability, not even to inherited social genetic treasures), particularly in the context of a proposition nation (like America, and it by way of negative instruction, as European nations become more propositional) is only going to perpetuate the runaway of anti-social quests for self actualization to the detriment of all in the end. Thus, feminism, or rather the Jewish, anti-racist brand of Friedan, was out of turn, for where it was not laced with the Marxist critique/attack on “all White men as privileged and pernicious in every way,” it generally self centered White women on career and other self actualization (while ignoring the downsides to being male, dismissing their absence of basic grace in midtdasein); it instead reinforced anti-social, individualistic and worse, gender divisive self actualization; and most basically of all, its critique failed to address the necessity of socialization - race/class/midtdasein - to maintain the homeostasis of particular human ecology (it is true that Friedan did not sufficiently recognize the differences of cultures to the gender relations equation; thus, your bringing Vietnamese culture to the equation is very valid indeed) and accountability thereof.

Posted by Entretien avec Tom Sunic on Sun, 10 Jan 2016 19:43 | #

Entretien avec Tom Sunic (ex-dissident croate) sur la crise du système en Europe

Posted by Timothy Murray on Mon, 07 Nov 2022 17:39 | #

My apologies for hammering your server with 7 or so consecutive downloads…

On this one, “Discussion of weaknesses of Christianity in the face of an enemy.”

Is something I am very interested in as this was not always so as any cursory reading of Eusebius will show.

TOO gives voice to my working hypothesis that RCC was/is under the same assualt as all of Christendom is and that this flaccidity is a result of changes made there.

Anyway, I am very much looking forward to listening to your MR work.

Cordially,