26 May 2015 at 10:32 am
Tanstaafl says, *Hitler is your bugbear, your litmus test. That’s your idea.*

It isn’t my bugbear. I advocate all Europeans and recognize the obvious fact that he cannot be a unifying figure, but will be divisive and unnecessarily so - those people who think we need him are tediously oblivious to the obvious (you call my irritation with their idiocy my “bugbear”). It is rather their teddy bear, their security blanket, their pacifier and surrogate daddy. It is not too much to expect White advocates to have the respect to recognize him as having made bad us/them distinctions, to relegate him to history as pejorative on balance as such, not to be held up in sought-for redemption.

Daniel A, as he would, agrees with Tan’s psychologizing and slips in a plug for Jesus:“yep, Too bad he ruined Majority Rights over that and Christian metaphysics instead of starting his own website.”

To which I say, Daniel A,  Bullshit. It is an infinitely better site without Jesus freaks and those who insist upon trying to redeem Hitler.

Good riddance to you.

Tan says:

“DanielS, you write so much, even though it’s very simple:”

He quotes me: the problem is that Hitler also made Slavs of nations to his east into enemies. He wasn’t an advocate of all Whites in defense against Jews, simple as that.

Then Tan says:

I get it. You think Hitler was bad for Slavs. Again, that’s not how I see it. Suffice it to say I understand jewish parasitism (and to your point, judeo-bolshevism) came before Hitler. You forget the pathogen. I don’t.

You may think that you can read my mind but I have forgotten nothing of the kind. You are far from a mind reader.

Further, you say, “You think Hitler was bad for the Slavs. Again, that’s not how I see it?” Was he being good to Slavs? Sure. He was being good to the Greeks too. So good for everybody he turned-out to be.

Tan:

All the rest of what you’re saying stems from this disagreement.

No it doesn’t. Perhaps you aren’t as smart or as honest as I had thought. “All the rest stems from”...do you see his computer training as it causes him to try to trace a single cause…to a thing, by the way, which I never said - “judeo-boshevism came before Hitler.” - let alone maintain over and against seeing Jews as an antagonistic group, not in part, but on the whole.

Tan:

“You get so wound up that you can’t even read what I’m writing straight. For example:

  Wait a minute! I don’t criticize anything you say about the Jews!

Exactly. You’d like me to focus on the jews then you call that monocausalist/myopic. You are rambling and incoherent. Your mind is clouded with emotion.

I’m not going to change what, where or who I say it to just because it upsets you. Get over it already

I’m over it man. Associate with all the right-wing asses that you want; just wanted to say my bit as you are a part of a struggle and purporting to advocate all Europeans, and you cannot in that way.

Now calm your psychoanalytic babbling Tan, and read what I say:

Not that computer training is the only thing playing into monocausality or even that there is anything wrong with focusing on the Jews; but that you are taking too myopic a perspective and that (computer training) might be one factor..

For example, lets say KM wants to connect with Jarod Taylor (something I would not bother to do, but that’s not the point), let’s say KM wants to see if he can bring Taylor along to achieve more alignment and coordination, shares empathically in Taylor’s way of talking, says “yes, it’s suicidal to do this..” (all the while KM has already argued conclusively for himself that what is going on is genocide not suicide).

I’ve experienced the hair-trigger reaction by computer nerds to a social meandering too many times now, sudden conclusive reactions to innocent zig-zags and the merest theoretical ambiguity, even if a part of a process wholly intended to be corrected in fairly short order to alignment with what the nerd might wish as a result; but he will treat it (the slight zig-zag meander) rather as unbearably pernicious because it does not fit into the false either/or of his theoretical mindset misapplied to praxis: the social world, requiring negotiation, correction and adjustment by and for its interactive reflexivity and complex human agency; a complexity negotiated by means of phronesis - viz., practical judgement requiring of its kind of necessity therefore, a negotiated surveying process.

In this I am not saying Tan is crazy or applying psychoanalysis to him, I am suggesting, as per Aristotle, that he is over- or mis-applying lineal, either/or theory (which Aristotle designated “Theoria”) to the more ambiguous, interactive social world, which Aristotle called “Praxis;” which Tan and Katana might, in turn, want to call “jargon”..

or Daniel A might smear as “rationalism” bereft the salvation of Jesus “metaphysics.”

.......
Jews are an overriding source of our problems from their elites, as they exercise influence from 7 powerful niches, which I do not short-shrift; and as a whole people in their inherent genetic proclivities, from which I do not seek-out “the good ones” to include in our group; but objectivism, for example, as it disrupts organizational* abilities in our defense against them, is another problem.

* What I mean by organization, specifically and generally, is in regard to an understanding of group and national boundaries of our people which is shared enough to be accounted-for and acted-upon.

The inquiry into our own responses, or lack thereof, WILL NECESSARILY BE connected with the inquiry of those who might obstruct and suppress them - hence it cannot distract from the J.Q. ultimately. Rightfully angered response and resistance to it would provoke inquiry as to whom is resisting and promoting our dispossession.

It’s a shame that Tan would say that I’m “not using my brain”.. “don’t have my thoughts organized clearly” and then take an idea that I have clearly organized and advanced for some time, and promote it on the Hitler worshiping “Renegade Network”, saying that he has this idea that our objectivity has given us advantages but also susceptibilities.

   

On the topic of genocide vs suicide he has an informative discussion but it is a false either/or in that MacDonald is not taking his eye off of Jewish power and influence and arguing “suicide” by examining our own susceptibilities (nor am I arguing White suicide).

Tanstaafl argues for genocide of Whites as opposed to White suicide

http://blogtalk.vo.llnwd.net/o23/show/7/641/show_7641145_2015_05_25_04_37_05.mp3

Tan quotes (from a post that KM put on TOO!):

Le CRIF and La France LICRAtisée (literally “Licratized France”) are extremely rigorous works and, as well shall see, their conclusions are highly compatible with The Culture of Critique. In short, these Jewish groups have spearheaded efforts to delegitimize French ethnic identity and indeed the French nation itself, to destroy majority self-confidence with references to “racism,” colonialism and the Vichy Regime, to aggres- sively promote Afro-Muslim immigration and “multiculturalism,” to margi- nalize the Front National from any participation in politics, to censor speech found threatening to perceived Jewish interests, and raise the Holocaust as the supreme crime above all crimes that legitimizes their activism by placing Jews as the supreme victims. This activism, plainly, is based on ethnically-motivated hypocrisy and selfishness, evident in the LICRA and CRIF’s simultaneous support for Israel as an explicitly Jewish ethno-state.

“That’s not suicide”

While it is helpful to unfold the matter of genocide vs. suicide, MacDonald is not letting the Jews off the hook while attempting to examine why our people are not responding better to obvious impositions. For example, he has readily discussed such Jewish coercion as incentivizing Whites to sell-out their people.

For a curious example of White passivity of my own recent experience, I was at a fare yesterday, thousands of people, 99 percent White, probably a few Jews, a few middle easterners and one interracial couple - lovely, elegant blonde with a special kind of blue eyes and a Negro in no way handsome or manifestly impressive.

I used a strategy of walking near them while not looking at them directly, saying loudly, “very good! 41,000 years of evolution destroyed, given it to an ape!”

The important point I want to make is that nobody of this White crowd even noticed or was the least perturbed by this sickening interracial spectacle.

It is legitimate to ask why a visceral response isn’t forthcoming. The inquiry into our own responses or lack thereof, WILL NECESSARILY BE connected with the inquiry of those who might suppress and obstruct them - hence it cannot distract from the J.Q. ultimately. Rightfully angered response and resistance to it would provoke inquiry as to who is resisting and promoting our dispossession. Moreover, it would be paranoid to suggest that KM and I are trying to deny or distract from the Jewish influence. He has insisted, and so do I insist, that Whites can be brainwashed by the Jews media and academia.... lets add religion, law, politics, business procedures and financing.

Nevertheless, I hear Tan referring to other causes, some of our own making, for example my idea that our inclination to objectivism leaves us susceptible.

Objectivism, as I have been saying, has appeal by yielding some spectacular practical results and insights, powerful moral warrant and innocence from subjective concern, but leaves our people susceptible to be non-discriminatory - perhaps especially of the obvious - as one can readily demonstrate if not “prove” their objectivity by not noticing and making judgments upon even such obvious differences.

That’s called “rational blindness” and this relative blindness to our subjective position and interests is a requirement in quest of pure objectivism.

Rational blindness can blind us to our involvement, indebtedness and accountability to our people’s interests and other people’s impositions. Scientists can famously be dupes to Manichean trickery for the habit of this Augustinian mindset. * I remember a former MR regular who, rather than request an explanation which I would have readily provided, tried to suggest that I was being pompous and deliberately obscure with these terms: Manichean - human challenges which can change when solved in order to trick an adversary; Augustinian - natural challenges which do not change when solved just to trick you again (how does Kol Nidre versus science grab you?).

As for looking at ourselves…

GW’s ontology project advocates evincing our authentic natural systems such that we may proceed by our own lights, not largely react and mirror the Jews as has been known to happen (in the case of the Nazis).

This isn’t making excuses for Jews or letting them off the hook in any way or form.

Has KM fallen into disfavor because he does not think AH and revisionism are the royal road to White salvation?

I haven’t heard MacDonald talk of “suicide”, I know that I do not talk of suicide.

I do know that Tanstaafl has overreacted when I, and others, cited liberalism as a problem, as if we were trying to distract from the J.Q. when discussing liberalism or other causes for peoples being under threat (as if we are not aware of the shenanigans of Lawrence Auster, et.al).

In this podcast I hear Tan accurately criticizing the Jews for transforming World War II into “the Holocaust” and elevating themselves as the special victims. All true and foul.

But he doesn’t see how the Nazis, and his over-sympathy for them, have him mirror the Jews, to where Nazis are the special and only important victims, didn’t do anything (it’s all a “hoax”), their victimization is pure, removed from cause and interactive conflict.

Evidently, right-wing WN interest to make the Jews the “only problem”, to where they would even denounce MacDonald for looking at our role in the interaction, is a motivation of those who want desperately to redeem Uncle Adolf and completely disprove the holocaust, blind and oblivious to the fact that those tasks are unnecessary and largely counter-productive to pursue.
........................

Neither does Tan handle well the distinction between Right and Left; in saying the Right is hierarchical and the Left is about leveling egalitarianism. He is blind to the seeds of serious conflict he is laying with this notion of “necessity.” Whereas a White Left of good will toward fellow Whites would encompass a full nation and nations as “the class;” it is not about leveling, equality or doing away with distinctions and provisional hierarchical arrangements as they are qualitatively appropriate and accountable - but not only accountable to themselves; rather they are looked upon as organically related yet discreet, symbiotic as qualitative niches orchestrated among other niches - recognized as necessary as well; and also within the class. The niches are generally treated as characteristically incommensurate to comparison. That, as opposed to vain and false comparisons which tend to instigate conflict rather than complementarity.

The key distinction is not “hierarchy” vs “leveling and equality”, the key distinction is (pseudo) objectivism of The Right and its susceptibility to liberal universalisms which transcend accountability to social group interests vs the unionized and therefore particular and relative social group interests of the Left, as rendered by a White Left.

 

READ MORE...

Anti-Racism is a Jewish Construct.

Anti-Racism is Cartesian.
It is Not innocent.
It is prejudiced,
It is hurting and
It is killing people.

These are both sound aphorisms: either could be a “mantra”, with a caveat regarding mantras - that for best effect they will have to be used with discretion, changed sometimes and crafted on account of context and audience. Such is the judgement and deft rhetoric required of Praxis as opposed to the plodding imperviousness of scientism.

The two aphorisms can go well together:

Anti-racism is Cartesian, it is Not innocent, it is prejudice, it is hurting and it is killing people. Anti-racism is a Jewish construct.

The essential abstract of “race” is taxonomic classification of peoples. Locke’s Cartesian notion of civil individual rights took issue with discrimination based on social classifications. For their ethnocentric reasons, Jews weaponized this anti-classification and anti-discrimination by Whites on the basis of social classifications as “anti-racism.” 

That is what it is in essence. It is true that the Jews have associated “racism” with supremacism, exploitation and genocide; but even taking away those elements, the common denominator of prohibition of discrimination based on social classifications, however benign, remains - as “racism.” Thus, David Duke is wrong (theory is not his strong suit) to campaign against “racism.” While that will gain popularity with the disingenuous and puerile, in so doing, he is reconstructing the liberal hegemony and its stigmatization of social classification for genetically conservative and discriminatory purposes. Moreover, classifications will happen whether they are acknowledged, deliberate or not, but we are much better-off rendering them consciously - as these classifications are essential to accountability and human ecological management.

Other Mantras - -

Fat boy’s mantra is good too:
“If we had our own country this would not be happening.”
Optional - “If White people had their own country this would not be happening.”

Whitaker’s, “Anti-racism” is a code-word for anti-White” will be effective in many instances, but in other cases will run into complications: in some cases, it will come across as a dead-ringer for subjective concern; a request for a definition of “White” can ruin the effect; it has also been criticized for having liberal underpinnings in its long form, which is true. Still, a good one if it takes into account context and audience.

Sometimes it is best to avoid the consternation of the J.Q. but rather undermine (as Cartesian disingenuousness) the underlying coup de grâce of “racism” and “anti-racism” by itself. At times, this will be even more problematic for Jews to contend with (why do you think I am so unpopular?).

Tanstaafl’s proposition of naming it a Jewish construct is important too and good to do where the audience is only slightly less primed. Because active anti-racism, as opposed to the mere “prejudice against prejudice” is, indeed, a Jewish construct. No argument.

Here are two more aphorisms/mantras that I have found to work well over the years:

You wouldn’t want to cut-down a rain forest would you? Then why would you want to cut-down ancient peoples of Europe?

This next one is somewhat harder to sell, but it has been a relief to me as a personal mantra and probably would be for other men as well:

To men, miscegenating women are as rapists are to women. They should be ostracized as a minimum punishment and in no way should their mixed offspring be able to participate in the resources of European men - as it makes our men servants to the worst betrayers of our 41,000 years of genetic evolution.

Adding:

Anti-Racism is Genocide of Whites

...that’s a good one too.

“You fucked my brother? Yeah, I did and”... scene from Raging Bull:

I must say in defense of my father that he was never physically violent (aside from knocking-over the occasional sofa or hamster cage). But in display of rage, anger and hatred, Raging Bull was mellow by comparison, no comparison to my father, in fact.

This post may not ingratiate me any further with our Nordicist camp, but honest auto/biographical facts may help achieve a fuller picture of what we are up against and how we might cope. Although understanding can sometimes create more conflict than it alleviates, it is not necessarily the case that this will create conflict with the native national interests of northern, or any, European countries - and it may facilitate coordination of our interests.

Captain Chaos said: “Daniel, before you wedge your head any further up your own keister with all this talk of “hermeneutics” you should pay heed to this quote from the philosopher Hume”:

“Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.”

Perhaps by “passion” CC was in fact suggesting something in line with what Ramzpaul was discussing with Stark  - that “you should follow and work on what you feel most strongly about, even if you can only manage it as a hobby… that way, even if you don’t make much money at it, you will still be spending your life in a way that you find meaningful and enjoyable.” GW’s ontology project might be concerned to note that “passions” are speaking from our authentic nature and therefore provide an essential impetus in guiding an authentic narrative that mere rationalism cannot.

However, since CC posed empiricism in contrast to hermeneutics, I thought I’d draw upon an extreme example of “passion” to illustrate not only how passions might, but probably should, be ameliorated, crafted and channeled better with hermeneutics.

There is no reason why hermeneutics cannot take heed of the passions, if not follow them - if I were being cute, I’d say that following them would be another narrative (say, like the story of “raging bull”), with its own logic of meaning and action, but particularly as we are talking Hume, I’d tend to look at this as an observation to take under consideration at the empirical end, a part of the “circular” process of inquiry.

It’s good feedback though and that is why CC has been missed here.

                         

He must be right that rationalism can be exaggerated. Even so, passions will be mitigated and subject to some rational consideration by socialization. If proposed as an alternative narrative by which to guide one’s life, the passions unbridled by the rational cultivation of hermeneutic process and its testing by social concerns would emerge quite speculative; life would be short and/or brutish.

             

Having been a very temperamental person (still am, some times), and not having had recourse to much rational discourse - being surrounded by people who gave free reign to their passions (temper) and wish to be expediently done with annoyances - I used to use my anger (which was intense, often a rage bigger than I was) as maps to show the way to social critique. It did seem to work to uncover some mysteries, but eventually it was used against me by those who know how to manipulate emotionalism - (as Truck Roy explains that sociopaths skillfully do; they are not moved by empathy with emotional appeals) - especially where I was not in Italy and sociopaths could stereotype me, “other” me and vilify me as a “crazy Italian.”
               
I figure that my father’s FANTASTIC displays of temper - histrionics of rage that honestly made “raging bull” seem fairly rational - were an evolutionary product of the small Italian village. It wasn’t so much a matter of serious competition, though frightening it was - it was more a matter of entertainment and display to break-up boredom and monotony of a small village. That was apparent in his displays of fantastic rage over quite trivial matters: whereas raging bull had a clear rationale of jealousy, my father’s rage over trivia bespoke histrionics of a vague power that was not welcoming any challenges or questions; the only semi-practical aspect of which was to enliven and dramatize matters otherwise unnoticed. Where it was confusing and disorienting, which it was quite, everyone around in the village would be kindred enough so that someone was likely to have affinity and empathy enough to help pick up the pieces of a shattered cortex.

                             

The problem with this evolutionary strategy for me was that I was in America, not an Italian village. Therefore, there was not a community of kindred people around who could be bothered to talk; in fact the rule of individuality, particularly for males, would tend to look upon any such request to talk as manipulative or weakly borrowing against sovereign individuality; thus, you were likely to get a very angry rebuke rather than finding one who could understand and help pick up the pieces in an efficient way. Taking for granted the level of emotionality as the Italian village did may have served in a common population, as Christianity may have served there as well, but not in the antagonistic heterogeneity of The U.S.

         
      “To be born is to be forced to choose to think” - Pascal

My grandfather’s village, Calabritto - a Nordicist might see signs of gang collective in this, or even beginnings of eusociality; the more well-disposed might see optimal communitarianism; and the honest might experience a nightmarish gossip-mill.

 

Jack Sen at The London Forum:

So it’s all over for another five years.  Perhaps.  David Cameron is the first Conservative leader since Margaret Thatcher in 1983 to increase the number of Conservative MPs sitting at Westminster, and will govern with a thin majority of twelve.  He will, he says, do it for all the country.  He will have a clear ride for the first year of this second term, because the political left that is Labour and the Liberal Democrats is in total disarray, not just electorally and emotionally after a traumatic election night, but ideologically.  Which is much more meaningful and dangerous.

One of the most eye-popping sights in the aftermath has been that of senior Labour people trooping into the TV studios to talk about how the party must not rush into electing a new leader and plough on with the struggle at Westminster.  It must ask where it went wrong … where the trick of appealing to the majority of the electorate was spurned.  Specifically, it must think through who it has been speaking for since 2007, when Gordon Brown took over the top job from Blair.  It must think through how it can respond to nationalist sentiment (in the broad sense), as expressed by the five million who gave their votes not to it and not to the Tories but to the Scottish Nationalists north of the border and UKIP to the south.

READ MORE...

On the Radio page now Prof. MacDonald discusses four topics with GW and Daniel: the individualism of the European, implicit whiteness, the psychology of Jews, and the problem of nationalism dwelling in the past.  In addition, certain technical questions raised by Graham Lister are put to Prof MacDonald for his comment.

The interview is quite a long one by our standards, but I believe it is entertaining and informative throughout.
...... 
                                   
Well, you could ask him how inclusive fitness theory predictions change under increased competition (the scale of competition) - siblicide and other related phenomena (parent-offspring conflict) are very real (Google sibling rivalry in nature) and are examples of intra genomic conflict as predicted by Hamilton’s work.

Given that no-one seems to conceptually acknowledge the dark side (so to speak) of inclusive fitness theory it perhaps undermines the creditability of those that wish to make broad political points using inclusive fitness theory as to (1) do they actually fully understand the theory and (2) do they understand how excess competition effectively removes relatedness from the picture (siblings killing siblings is perfectly optimal within many animal species from the point of view of the victorious Sib).

Given that fitness within social evolution can be derived from both the individual level and the group level (note all evolutionary change concerns changes in alleles and their frequencies) as demonstrated by Hamilton and Price’s work (and Steve Frank etc) in hierarchical selection theory how do these insights relate to political economy?

For example, if we take Aristotle seriously than any polis must be a balance between the parts and the whole (individuals and the group) what mechanism can be used to discourage ‘free-riding’ and self-serving perfidy by our own indigenous elites? Accountability to the groups interests seems lacking in contemporary Western life.

If Europeans are so ‘individuated’ - uniquely so? - why is it that only a few centuries ago that Celts, Nordic people etc were so tribal and ultra-communitarian in their cultures. Why the stark difference in pre-modern pagan social ontology compared to the ontology of liberal modernity. Given the relatively short time frame any explanation based upon changes in gene frequency would seem analytically bankrupt. The Greeks also had a more communitarian social-ontology (Sparta anyone?, Aristotle and virtue ethics etc).

Given the social ontology of liberal modernity (massive ideological emphasis on individ- uals and individualism) what type of personalities and psychological traits succeed within such a environment? If all human interactions are viewed through the prism of individual competition is that healthy or wise for the long term sustainability of the group (one could speak here too of free-riding and the slow accumulation of toxic ‘externalities’ cultural, environmental, social etc generated by liberal modernity which in short term benefit certain individuals but at the longer term determent of everyone).

Given that all political societies are ultimately about power and power relationships (see Carl Schmidt), and that power is always open to abuse, a high degree of relatetedness/ homogeneity/ social capital is by itself not enough. What mechanism of elite accountability and social cohesion are possible and necessary?

If denied the siblicide point, then why are civil wars so vicious and nasty (often the worst)? Higher levels of relatedness (on average) didn’t stop Englishmen, or Irishmen from utterly hateful behaviour towards their brothers during civil wars…

Prof Kevin MacDonald talks with GW and DanielS about European individualism, implicit whiteness, the psychology of Jews, and the problem of nationalism dwelling in the past. 1hr 30min; 82.2 MB.