Majorityrights Central > Category: Blogs & Blogging

If anyone has any current news of the welfare and activities of DanielS ... if anyone has come across him online or has news of him in the real world ... would he or she kindly leave a comment below.

I have been waiting for some days for regular ConHome contributor Robert Halfon, a Jewish Conservative MP married to a Brazilian woman, and serving chairman of the Education Select Committee, to post a piece about his current report into the condition of white working-class children in the education system.  Halfon is a decent enough man as MP’s go, and his report does exhibit compassion and concern for this failing constituency.  It acknowledges, for example, that the system is guilty of neglect.  Halfon particularly deplores the current hard-left turn to Critical Race Theory.  He wants some rather obvious if also tepid action to assist the white child-victims of the education system.  But, of course, he can’t admit that the problem runs much deeper than that, and the condition of these children is more existential.

ConHome is edited by another Jew, the Catholicised Paul Goodman, who allows on the site any hard-left criticism of the Conservative government, and even milque toast, sub-Farage civic nationalist criticism of immigration.  But naming the native victims, now that’s one step too far and summary excommunication will follow.  Nevertheless, ConHome is the primary right-of-centre party-affiliated UK site which permits readers’ comments, so the war for freedom of expression has to be fought.  The circle of the say-able has to be widened.

Mr Goodman, or one of his gentile co-workers dedicated to the great Conservative cause of corporate whoring, will very shortly be rushing to narrow it again ...

Verry

It’s not simply neglect. It’s not even that the educational establishment and the teaching profession have sought to level to the ground what English children can know of their own history, culture, and peoplehood. It’s also that multiracialising the English homeland and life experience is a producer of the draining and destructive phenomenon of culture shock. Any native people made subject to colonisation, and then deserted and attacked by its own authorities wielding pure, malignant lies about equality and racism, will lose the golden thread of relation and meaning in its life. The resulting anomie, self-estrangement, powerlessness and hopelessness IS culture shock; and it will manifest in the education of the children and in their later lives, deepening with each generation.

You politicians have attempted murder.

“GW, who, like other Europeans, has a non-existent grasp of American realities, leaves out many of the real problems of the American “movement,” which are discussed at this blog on a regular basis.”

So says JWH at his blog EGI Notes in what he titles a riposte to a comment I made here.

My comment made three rather fundamental points concerning the mountainous task which WN faces in securing the existence of America’s European folk and a white future for their sons and daughters.  I will not reiterate them all now, not least because JWH had little that was of interest to me to say on the last two of the three points.  But over the first of them - America is a Jeffersonian liberal project - he did build up a bit of a head of steam.  So ...

By that remark I do not only mean that Thomas Jefferson’s view of the constitution, democracy and the individual equipped with inalienable but equal and guaranteed rights has charactered the American political DNA; though I believe this to be so.  I mean that, contrary to McLuhan, the medium is the man, and the medium here is the person of the white American himself.  As the bearer and transmitter of that political DNA, he is ineffably also its human product.  The two are one.  Further, it is particularly powerful in him - more powerful, for example, than the 1798 revolutionary cause typically is within the person of a Frenchman.  Why, because while the Frenchman has a life on French soil measured in ages, the white American is ripped away into newness.  His existential condition is one of ethnic caesura, which denies him some considerable part of the natural, moderating counter-weight to all of the personality-forming influences of his time and place.  He goes further and more openly into the world which is about him.  To European eyes he is both a brother and a stranger.  For all his welcome racial familiarity, he can also exhibit an alarming and child-like absence of doubt in his convictions, of reserve in his enthusiasms, of forbearance of those who try him, of critical sight of self, and of irony and world-weary cynicism in his expressions.  Europeans notice these things and have opinions about them.  They ... we ... are not surprised that this separation of three and a half centuries and three and a half-thousand miles has consequences.

That said, these things are not mandatory or absolute in any sense.  Our white American brother is not just one political thing.  He is not Jefferson Man and only Jefferson Man.  But he is always European Man outwith European soil, and without European manners; and that liberalistic manner in which he is made, while it conditions him, no doubt, to the freedoms of the self-author, does not condition him so well to the turn to that which is closest and most fitting in his European relative.  Caesura leaves behind a divide which is not easily bridged, and raises the question: to what can this man turn?  Another question: is he anyway too completely enculturated in the liberal Weltanschauung to come to the knowledge that this present-to-hand medium of Americana is what he must, in a sense, kill (or die to)?  For his particular human authenticity is not that.  Liberalism’s consequence is that.

Now let’s finish with some context for this problem.  For there is a wider story which afflicts every European people, however rooted.  Yes, the operative system in which self-hood is modelled is liberalism and, yes, it leads us away into the artifice and self-estrangements of individualism and a socially-structured identity.  However, liberalism does not stand in isolation, but in a deep and ancient structure of confected human meanings.  Likewise, our race’s own genius has visited upon us existential challenges, such that wherever we look today we see our collective life shot through with dangers.

We can distinguish these in two streams which act upon us, and which we might term the historical and the historiographical.  We might then array them as follows:

All of the European peoples have mapped their particular journey to the present through these two structures, which always direct us, as their human product, towards artifice.  Everywhere we are, therefore, be it on my side of the Atlantic or on JWH’s, there is the same vast need for a politics of authenticity.

One of the very last email conversations I had with JWH, before he left MR many moons ago, was about the form of a salvational nationalism for our race; for today our nationalism is without an all-embracing life-philosophy that might stand in the stead of the liberal organising system.  As I recall, he hoped to combine Salterism with Yockeyism, and I hoped to find a way to make Heidegger workable.  From memory, I made some effort to explain why a Nietzschean politics cannot answer an existential question.  I wonder whether the passage of years has mellowed JWH’s philosophical quest.  Mine has only intensified.

Richard looking down unironically on the post modernists. In truth, where pomo is not otherwise misrepresented by (((red caping))), Richard is assisting the disinformation through his customary misdirection, now misleading White interests by characterizing the erstwhile eminently necessary concepts of post modernity with one of the few concepts associated with it that should be left behind - Rorty’s shallow concept of “irony” and the ironic stance.

The astute in concern of White interests will observe and understand that Jewish interests are generating and marketing misdirection of concepts that would be essential to White group defense, and Whites continue to fall for it.

The basic strategy of Jewish group antagonism is to take a good idea, necessary to group defense, advocacy, homeostasis, and deploy it in the interest of non-Whites or anti-Whites; then exaggerate or reverse these advocacy concepts to the point of utter misrepresentation, absurdity, to where they are perceived as alien and repulsive to the common sensibilities of Whites, causing them to react even against the concept underlying this red caping and against thus, the very concepts that Whites need to understand and organize their group defense.

Since their assent to greater hegemony than ever with the 2008 financial bail-out, Jewish interests have been confronted with an intersectionality where their prior advocacy of social justice positions now threaten them in their elite power, and hence they have sought to align and co-opt White right wing reaction, elitists in particular, though any sort of no account liberal (notably, “conservatives” conserving liberalism unbeknownst: US Constitution’s “civil rights” weaponized against conservation of White group interests; Christianity’s individual souls irrespective of group interests; scientism’s liberal conserving of animal drives as opposed to the “artifice” of human group organization) to their cause against “the left” which might otherwise provoke awareness suggesting the unionization of White ethnonationalism to hold to account those who are fucking our race over - Jewish interests along with the naive or disingenuous complicity of White right wing elitists, who are fine with selling-out our people, and other no account liberals, happy to take the license offered in the disordered, no account fallout of modernity - the wake of “objective superiority” taken for granted.

While Pat Buchanan was disgusted by “the sewer of multiculturalism” (all Americans should be Judeo/ Christian, speak English), (((Gottfried))) and he took up the response of integration by carrying forward the mantle of (((Frank Meyer’s))) paleoconservative “fusionism” of Abrahamism and enlightenment values; handing it off to Richard Spencer for a paleocon 2.0 big tent called the “alt right”, until Richard’s “Faustian imperialism” blew that up. The paleoconcon false opposition has now been handed from Gottfried to Nick Fuentes’ court.

And since WN continue to fuck things up, reacting against (((red caped/ i.e. misrepresented))) “post modernity” as so much “left wing, da-da nonsense”; acting into the reactionary right wing positions altercast them by Jewry, supposedly on behalf of pure truth and morality, somehow transcending human interests, while chasing misrepresentations (((red capes))) of the erstwhile necessary concept of Post Modernity on the whole, along with (((red capes))) of its ancillary concepts, I must repeat, hopefully in a more clear and compelling way, things that I’ve said before but for some flourishes. However, it is a great advance of Post Modernity properly understood, to emphasize the fact that an idea does not have to be “new” in order to be understood as good, useful, important.

The essential move of the Post Modern turn is to call attention back from Cartesian estrangement, to re-centralize and provide means to sustain our world view in praxis - our social group – through an engaged process to protect inherited forms and helpful traditions of our people from the ravages of modernity’s linear “progress”; while allowing modernist change where salutary, and leaving behind tradition where unhelpful in sustaining praxis; but the post modern turn from modernity’s linear notion of progress would not take praxis so far in ethnocentrism as to be supremacist and imperialist, unable to respect and coordinate with other groups of people, let alone go so far as to revert to a more primitive form yet, Monoculturalism, to where the humanity of non-members is not recognized:
         
Rockefeller, oblivious to the fact that he will shortly become dinner for the natives.

Just as the Monocultural worldview of cannibals might view a White interloper as non-human, rather as something good for the communal stew pot, so tribal monoculturalism would perhaps view we “racists” as less than human, not worthy of life.

As Modernity has been on a trajectory for the reflexive effect of Monoculturalism in its globalizing pursuit of universal progress, particularly as its rule structure, performance requirements, narcissism and rational blindness are (((weaponized))), many of our right wing dupes have dutifully reacted against Post Modern responses to Modernity, which are also (((weaponized))) - (((red capes))) of concepts such as “multiculturalism” and “diversity” - and they double down against them in Cartesian reaction, in Modernity’s quest for pure universal warrant with objective detachment and its abiding rational blindness that opens the way for subversive infiltration and monocultural integration.

Liberals, operating on the same “objective” Cartesian premises taken for granted as currency by right wingers, have long found a way to prove their objectivity - by means of “color blindness” - “not seeing” the most obvious differences, such as black and White. That’s been an easy way to establish one’s legitimacy in the world’s liberal hegemony, the fallout and disorder of the enlightenment. But a reflexive effect of objectivity over-stressed is hyper-relativism, as corrections of Praxis and its means (means of social systemic homeostasis by way of human agency/correction in interaction) are thwarted.

Perhaps European Nations and all White Nations, markedly led by The U.S., its Constitution being the beacon of Enlightenment philosophy, had to reach the present level of destruction to White genetics for our advocates to look more critically at our own philosophy - observing vulnerabilities to our genetic patterns; notably on the empirical side of Cartesianism, in Locke’s conception of individual civil rights (so integral to the American way) as a technology to supersede the “empirical fiction” of social classifications.

The US Constitution and Civil Rights, held to be sacrosanct - the “ultimate warrant in defense” for a modernist, liberating them, so they believed, from the influence of suprafactual narratives and superstitious traditions  - came into doubt.

Indeed, the vulnerability of that Cartesian purity spiral was exploited against Whites, Alinsky style, making us “live up to our rules” in “Civil Rights”, 1964, which prohibited White people, anyway, from making group classifications and discrimination thereupon. In subsequent decades, the prohibition was stepped-up with Anti-Racism - basically anti-group classification and discrimination thereupon, for Whites, anyway.

Were it not for the (((red caping))) of the post modern turn and its attendant concepts, as our philosophers properly conceived them, our people could have recognized the countervailing significance to us.

Following a clear trajectory from the apex of Modernity in Descartes, to its empirical side in Locke, to Vico, the first major critic of Cartesianism, to Kant’s failed (still Cartesian) attempt to rescue our moral order from Lockeatine arbitrariness, then on to Nietzsche’s criticism of Modernity and through to Heidegger and his student, Gadamer, we can make the inference that:

Anti-Racism is Cartesian, anti-group classification and discrimination thereupon; it is not innocent, it is prejudiced. It is prejudice against prejudice (Gadamer), and as such, it is hurting and it is killing people.

As opposed to the Cartesian estrangement from praxis - which is a typical reaction to disingenuousness and the arbitrariness within our primordial human condition - Heidegger recognized that a second liberation was necessary, from mere facticity and into the hermeneutic turn.

Heidegger also called attention to the need to hold fast to emergent qualities, individual and group, within this otherwise arbitrary condition that he called the thrownness.

GW deserves much credit for holding fast to Heidegger’s concern for the emergent (basically, our inborn qualities, following a kind of teleology but in the end of which, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts). While holding fast to Being in one’s land, place and amidst one’s people is characterized by dwelling.

Hermeneutics is not anti-science. It is even necessary for non-fiction accounts.

Despite the fact that there is inborn capacity for agency, it is much more like animal reaction until it participates in narrative capacity to sustain a plan, make choices, and verify success.

While the emergent provides an important, deep guide to an authentic path of our telos - and though indeed, hermeneutic capacity is part of the multifarious emergent qualities - our biological foundation is not foolproof for its occurrence in our arbitrary circumstance (wherein it is still possible, for example, to breed with other peoples), particularly absent the corrective capacity of narrative facility shared of the social realm beyond our personal biology. Following a natural concern to maintain our species, it is necessary to have that second liberation from mere facticity, as narrative is necessary to maintain even non-fiction accounts - such as holding fast in coherence to one’s individual and group kind in overall homeostasis.

Post Modern coherence is not to be misunderstood as linear and impervious, as with the modernist tendency; it is rather knowingly interactive and coherent in overall trajectory.

This coherence is the first requirement of authentic human existence. With necessary concession made to a modicum of arbitrariness in our primordial condition, we may partake of that second liberation into narrative coherence, and with it, achieve accountability, agency, correctability and warrant to hold up deliberately - necessary for our homeostasis given that individuals of our group can rather decide that they find it healthy to betray us. And there are antagonists willing to tell stories about how our emergent qualities are evil, misdirecting people against our social systemic maintenance. More, narrative form is necessary to transcend paradoxes, contradictions, confusions, tangles, strange loops, etc. (which can be weaponized against us). We require thus, sufficient hermeneutic, rhetorical capacity to maintain our individual and group coherence.

The post modern concept of hermeneutics has been (((red caped))) as “anti-science”, as if it is conceived to facilitate narrative flights of fancy in which one can make just whatever they like of themselves - 57th gender etc.. But this is a red cape misrepresentation of hermeneutics anti-Cartesian mandate. Yes, hermeneutics is critical of and liberating from scientism - bad science or bad application of science - but as hermeneutics is engaged in circulating process of inquiry which facilitates movement from broad perspective, the imagination of hypotheses largely detached from myopia of the episode, and back to rigorous verification that may yield warranted assertability as need be, it is absolutely necessary to the scientific endeavor - facilitating it, not opposed to it.

Disordering Effects of Modernity Complicate Gender Relations

The rupturing of group classificatory bounds as a result of their “fictional status” yielding to individual civil rights, particularly as (((weaponized))) in “Civil Rights” and “anti-racism” instigates the disordering effect of modernity, particularly for Whites as they are prohibited from classification and discrimination thereupon.

As people have an inborn need to classify in order to make sense, despite the prohibition, the general classification of gender will remain as too fundamental to disregard, and classifications too highly contrasting such as black and White will remain as default classification by tropism. That is to say, these classifications will become heightened while others are diffused.

The naturally one-up position of females for their precious child bearing capacity will be increased within the disorder of modernity as they are solicited and pandered to from all sides given the rupture of group discriminatory bounds.

Even while puerile and unsocialized into maternal concern for her people, she may become a more powerful selective gate-keeper than ever and incentivized to as such to maintain the liberal status quo - pandered-to incessantly, markedly by (((YKW))), her selective predilections - what is merely confident, strong, impervious, undaunted no matter what will become dubiously maximized, as will her base, atavistic female inclination to incite genetic competition be without sufficient correction in socialization. Her gains may be short term and the grounds of comfort diminishing, but she can usually call in thugs to white knight for her, while the reason to hold out for broader pattern reward becomes more and more unclear. Indeed, it is harder to be a female from the standpoint of traditional morals as more and happier opportunities exist for her to make mistakes within the disorder of modernity.

Moreover, in the disordered circumstance, it isn’t only Feminists who are problematic to White men, but also Traditional women as they may not appreciate that the different circumstances of post modernity entail some different performance requirements in gender relations as compared to tradition - the disorder of modernity may not provide sufficient structure and support necessary for males to act into the traditional role, at least not quite as directly as convention might have her expect; and they get shunned aside unjustly for the circumspection.

Marginals

Even if social/political group classifications are prohibited, marginals would function something like systemic empirical border markers of sorts, irrespective.

However, Gadamer’s hermeneutic concept of marginals has been (((red caped))). Respect for marginals as sentinels of the systems’ bounds, having perspective on the system and knowing where the shoe pinches, to provide corrective feedback on systemic calibration, is an excellent idea.  And clearly, a marginal for us, is someone just inside, near the edges of the system, maybe down on their luck, they can even be marginalized because they are better in important respects, but they are marginal members within and well disposed to our group maintenance - their participation probably should be shown compassion if not respect and integrated a little better. We’re all marginals from time to time.

Nick Fuentes and E. Michael Jones’ best friend, a drag queen giving children’s story hour.

Now, what YKW have done is (((red cape))) the concept of marginals by representing them as aliens, those originating outside and antagonistic to Whites or those Whites who are anti-White and destructive to the system, advocating that they should be included and integrated into our system. Thus, repulsing Whites to this concept which would be invaluable to our social systemic homeostasis.

The drag queen story hour (((red caping))) of marginals prompts occasion to discuss difficulties in post modern gender relations. There are interesting points to be made on behalf of Whites (not exactly for liberal purposes).

While there are excellent criticisms of homosexuality that should be ready at hand (won’t go into it here) and it should be discouraged, especially for males, we should not lose site that below its (((red caped))) politicization, queers should not occupy a priority concern generally speaking (you may have particular circumstances, that’s different).

Over reaction to this (((red caping))) can have negative effects for Whites; the vast exaggeration and distortion of advocacy of this relatively minor issue - e.g., homosexual defense transitioning into drag queen story hour - can place enormous pressure on young White boys to do stupid things in order to prove that they are not gay. With ‘the universal maturity©’ of Modernity upheld, people might not discern the different performance requirements of post modernity and White boys may be compelled to emulate non-White patterns of masculinity, which fail to manifest our best, most authentic nature.

There’s too much of this “White boys need to man-up” shit, not enough ‘White girls need to woman down’ happening in reaction to the red capes. “Manning up” under the circumstance is even more a matter of border and bounds creating than it is a matter of allowing one’s self to be incited into direct competition with arbitrary males.

As Bowery and Renner note: if you try to impose involuntarily contract with others upon us then you are a would-be slave master and supremacist; be loyal or be gone; don’t impose the consequences for your liberalism upon us.

There is an apparent inverse relation between confidence and intellectualism. Especially under the disordered circumstance, a modicum of intellectual wherewithal is necessary.

But as the predilections of puerile White girls are overly favored within the disorder of Modernity, increasingly one up as they are - pandered-to from all sides given the rupture of discriminatory out-group classifications - puerile females are empowered (don’t like it? she’ll call in the universal thugs/white knights) and incentivized to maintain this powerful one up position as gate keepers of liberalism for its short term gains, their base (sub praxis) female inclination to incite genetic competition exacerbated, their penchant to over value confidence exacerbated to the detriment of Whites.

Black boys, e.g., over-weening with confidence may win the day with momentary and episodic displays for their shorter evolutionary time horizons; their long pre-evolution which has quantified and maxed-out masculinity, creating an aggressive, presumptuous, hyper-assertive sort; their R selection vs K selection strategy suited to the atavistic episodic evaluative fall out within the disorder of modernity. While the value to be ascertained of the more sublimated, protracted cultural and relational patterns of White boys is obfuscated.

Besides the ill-fit of “universal maturity”, there’s another problem with the “traditional solution” to the universal disorder of modernity.

In addition to distracting urgent attention from the much more important issue of race replacement - given relative non-correctability - chasing a (((red cape))) of post modernity such as drag queen story hour suggests a (((red caped))) “Traditional solution” (((Judeo-Christianity))) to a “Traditional problem”, (((“Sodom and Gomorrah”))).

Social Constructionism

Similarly as with hermeneutics, Social Constructionism is another key post modern concept - conceived as an anti-Cartesian perspective to facilitate the Post Modern Turn into Praxis, but (((red caped))) as anti-scientific, unnatural and Cartesian by solipsistic (subjective) flights of imagination very much to our detriment. Understood properly, however, this perspective sensitizes to our relative indebtedness and social accountability to our people along with agency and responsibility to the correctability, i.e., social systemic homeostasis of our human ecology - to reconstruct the coherent species that is our group. And if we are under attack as a group, social classification, as we are with anti-racism, and particularly given our weak ethnocentrism, would it not make sense to sensitize our people to our social connectedness, responsibility, our indebtedness to our species, and agency IN FACT?

That’s what social constuctionism proper, does. It is another post modern project to bring our people back from Cartesian estrangement into Praxis.

And yet social constructionism has been (((red caped))) as if race is a mere social construct - as if you can make anything that you want of it, if it exists at all. But that rendition of “social constructionism” would be solipsism - not many people of the social world are going to agree with you that racial species have no biological, empirical bearing. Rather, to say that race - or, you know what we mean, profoundly different markers, well on the way to speciation among humans - doesn’t exist. That would be a transgression of its anti-Cartesian purpose as well.

Social Constructionism is conceived to call attention where European peoples need it: attention to the FACT of our social indebtedness and of praxis being the preliminary world view of any human merit; delimited as calibration, it provides for accountability and coherence; next, and as important, it works hand in hand with hermeneutics to call attention to the fact that there is always at least a modicum of agency while we’re alive.

Social Constructionism and its underscoring of agency takes three forms: 1) a more literal kind of social construction, as in constructing a building with others, in all facets of the process. 2) a more metaphoric kind, as in a couple getting together and “constructing” a child together, with all the social involvements necessary to bring about the conception and the raising of the child; and 3) Post hoc attribution as to how more brute facts come to count. In these cases, that much closer to sheer physics, one still has some agency and can come up with even far fetched interpretations of the event, though upwards of 95% of the human population will be forced (by dint of the will to survive, and thus beware laws of physics and biology) to look upon you as crazy. But narrative difference from empirical fact will not necessarily be ridiculous and may in fact be helpful to individual and group, distinguishing for example, hero from fool or villain in the brute case of death: “Good riddance to bad garbage” or “his virtuous sacrifice facilitated the living on of his children and people.” The brute fact can be “instructive” - what can we learn from this accident/ tragedy to avoid its happening again? The point and the reward remain in recognizing some capacity for agency - even if only as to how facts come to count, post hoc.

Even as we look back to discuss days of our pre verbal, pre mammalian evolution, if we are not here to discuss it, it is a moot point. Hence, the eminent validity of centralizing Praxis in our worldview.

If a tree falls in the woods… you want truth and morals, for what?

How can we let White children come into this without trying to deal with this mess?

With one example from disingenuous antagonists using modernist language - “there will be immigration flows” - as if these “flows” are “caused” like a brute force of nature, you can begin to glean the superiority of the post modernist, hermeneuticist turn and its attendant social constructionist concept as it invokes the means of agency to reverse these “flows”.

You can see how it would benefit our enemies to invoke such a strictly deterministic, Cartesian notion of necessity - “that’s just the way it is, no account, no arguments need apply” - in circumstances such as migration ‘flows’ auguring our race replacement.

You begin to sense how retarded it’s been for huWhites to argue against the red caping of post modernity, social constructionism and hermeneutics.

You begin to sense why our enemies have misrepresented post modernism, because they don’t want us to have proper understanding of post modernity and its attendant concepts of hermeneutics and social constructionism - precisely as it would give us that coherence, accountability, agency, correctability and warrant of our social systemic homeostasis.

Hopefully that’s enough of an interest arouser. I’ll provide more background then work through some other examples distinguishing White Post Modernity Proper from its (((Red Caping))).

Background:

Modernity’s roots

The deepest, most direct root of Modernism in European philosophy goes back to the ancients, to the Epicureans specifically. The Epicureans were committed to overcoming mere superstition, custom, habit and traditions which did not facilitate the good life; they sought instead to trace all experience to positive source and sensible apprehension to establish solid grounds to the good life. They were the ones to coin the term ‘the atom’ to designate the smallest physical unit of which the universe is composed. From there, they would propose a hierarchical ordering for the use of pleasure, with contemplation occupying top place. The Epicureans being direct forebears of Modernist philosophy are thus seen in clear line to the Enlightenment, especially the empiricists, Locke, Thomas Jefferson, later philosophers of science and the Logical Positivists.

Traditional European Society

Traditional European societies were ethnocentric, particularly in the south, as exemplified by Plato and Aristotle, Aristotle in particular with his Praxis (one’s ethnocentric bio-social-political group) providing a sound Traditional starting point for this analysis; i.e., aligning tradition and natural concern for species homeostasis.

Aristotle did place praxis at the center of his world view as evidenced by his position that politics is the first philosophical priority - if politics are out of whack, all else is for naught. And he did believe there were outsiders who were to be treated in a different manner.

A democracy limited to the philosophically capable, and those committed to group protection, is probably consonant with authentic European tradition as it provides means for correctability (systemic homeostasis). The way of government that a particular ethnostate chooses is beyond the scope of this essay and needless to say, the democratic franchise can and has been (((red caped))) as well.

Nevertheless, Aristotle is the most esteemed figure of Europeans (even more than Jesus) and understandably so, as his philosophy was profound enough to keep social systemics aligned with natural laws that would preserve our species. Thus, a tradition authentic to our nature, not an affectation. If northerners complain, it should be said that inasmuch as they survived as distinct species, they would either be deliberately, accidentally or naturally in accord with Aristotle’s philosophy.

Aristotle observed that people are biological creatures requiring optimal, not maximal need satisfaction (his golden mean applied across the board politically), as advanced mammals, they are engaged in the social world with relative concern for relationships, they have agency, reflexive effects, can learn, etc; thus Praxis does not have quite the linear predictability of the hard sciences and therefore requires a different epistemology, i.e., practical judgement, in order to maintain coherence and homeostasis.

The North of Europe probably forged a less ethnocentric evolution due to the fact that nature was often the greater challenge than other tribes; protracted spans of time passing when the differences of neighbors were not quite so threatening; but clearly they were ethnocentric nevertheless, having different rules for “outsiders” - e.g., Viking invasions did plunder others nations; and they worked out their politics in accordance with the predilections of their nature and circumstance as sustained their species.

Whether tribe, city state or nation, there was enough ethnocentrism for distinct European groups to maintain themselves.

Red caping praxis as political through and through.

One may argue that Aristotle is stretching the political metaphor, but his observations of human nature would argue otherwise. It is more likely that one would be reacting to (((red caping))) of the idea, to where everything is political and a challenge to White hegemony; and true to the (((red caping))) strategy, Whites wind up fighting against the correct underlying idea - centralization of praxis.

Maxwell’s demons

Clerk Maxwell draws a useful heuristic distinction here between “Augustinian Devils” and “Manichean Devils.”

Augustinian Devils are challenges of nature, which characteristically do not tend to have the concsciousness to change in order to foil solutions. An evolution in penchant and predilection to take on Augustinian devils can be anticipated in northern circumstances - and this would correspond with lower ethnocentism, objectivity and scientific solutions being more favored in natural selection.

Manichean Devils are trickster challenges. Given our agency, humans have capacity to change in order to foil solutions to their challenge. This capacity would be more favored in the natural selection of the South and the Middle East to sustain their ethnocentrism where the challenge was, on balance, more a matter of other people and tribes than brute nature and resource.

With this traditional background, the stage was set for Europeans to be taken as naive, to be duped by the Middle Easterners - most poignantly by YKW.

Red Caping European Moral Order

The first and probably most important (((red cape))) imposed was an affectation to become our “Traditional European moral order” - Christianity.

Its tangled, dread inspiring and self destructive rule structures which, among other terrible misdirection, compel a sacrifice of concern for the lived life in favor of some ‘hereafter’ beyond our biological legacy even.

Suffice it to say, they’ve got Christians worshiping the same Abrahamic god as Jews, except that the Jews are “chosen” as a special group by that god, whereas others are not special as groups, they are, as GW observes, cast as an ever undifferentiating other from “the chosen.”

Moreover, as Bowery observes, the Bible functioned as the Jewish media control even before the advent of Modern technology.

With threat of losing what semblance of belonging, if not penalty of death and hell, a fundamental strategy of Jewish (((red caping))) - to disrupt the ethnocentrism of Europeans and other non-Jews - was cast a central component of ‘our’ most fundamental ‘Tradition.’ Its almost like a tradition of non-tradition, as honoring “your parents” hardly constitutes a commandment to obey a long historical tradition of forebears held in high regard. Indeed, we have barely begun to be roused in indignation over the Christian church having buried our most sacred day of ancestor remembrance and replacing it with “All Saints Day.”

Another key function of (((red caping))) is established, in that it allows for Jewish infiltration, misdirection and subversion of the group - by means of conversion in the case of the Christianity. Anyone can become a member, including YKW, who are particularly disposed to our dissolution according to the red cape strategy.

Finally, as the Jewish (((red cape))) functions, overcompensating reaction can be even worse than compliance, as even the important underlying idea for group homeostasis - in this case, a moral order - is rejected in favor of a-moral concerns of Modernity - e.g “nature”, adherence to “survival of the fittest” to the point of natural fallacy, “might makes right” to the point of utterly immoral destruction.

Indeed, there is reason to believe that the compulsion to overcome these (((red cape))) guilt trips, divorced from nature, was an instigating factor in the purity spiral of Cartesianism, hence Modernity.

Modernity

Philosophers take Descartes to represent the sine qua non of Modernity, setting forth an ‘Enlightenment’ that unfolded into the epoch of Modernity.

Cartesianism is looked upon as a quest for unassailably warranted knowledge, whether above and beyond nature and human interaction or on the other side of the Cartesian divide, within nature and below human interaction.

This would come to be seen as problematic as the pursuit of these ” that’s just the way it is” warrants, whether above or within nature, where not utterly impervious to social concern and negotiation, tended to pay short shrift to social accountability.

The trajectory of Modernity did, indeed, make important contributions to overcoming backward traditions, customs and superstitions. Moreover, given the remarkable advances in science and technology that it provided for, it is understandable how a valuation of experimentalism and what is new could be derived as chractaristic of necessary progress.

The first major critic of Descartes was Vico, who anticipated the propensity of this impervious technology to run destructive rough-shod over what should be philosophy’s central concern and world view - praxis - and thus he seeded the post modern turn with its neo-Aristotlian project of retreiving philosophical inquiry from Cartesian estrangement and back into praxis.

Even so, John Locke, who represents the empirical side of the Cartesian divide, cannot be faulted for wanting to remedy an exploitative and intransigent class system divide WITHIN England. In opportunistic conception of his empirical philosophy, he proposed that social classifications were a fiction of the mind, as each individual has the same perceptions and discrimination on the basis of these fictional classifications - such as British aristocracy obstructing equal access to advanced education for ‘lower classes’ - should give way to his concept of individual civil rights. But the weakening if not disruption of social classificatory organization and discrimination thereupon as an abstraction that can be applied, on principle, to any classification in favor of civil individual rights, is risky business.

Kant anticipated the danger in Locke’s world view of myopic empiricism running arbitrary rough-shod over praxis, viz,, its moral order. Therefore, he tried to rescue the integrity of the moral order by establishing its principles on “categorical” (unassailably warranted) universal principles. Kant’s rescuing project failed, as the Post Modern philosopher, Martin Heidegger, would observe, because it was “still Cartesian.”

Digression

I’m typically greeted with strong negative reactions on this topic, especially from STEM types. Their misunderstanding me as ‘doing something bad by using the term Cartesianism’ stems from a few places.

Being outside the fray of academic humanities, they see negative use of the term Cartesianism as a sign of pseudo intellectualism, if not the down-right (((red caping))) which is all they tend to see of “post modern philosophy” in relation to science (including some useful bits of Cartesianism) and THE ‘truth’ they see as the means for combating whatever problems that we are confronted with.

Of an Augustinian nature, they may not apprehend the Manichean (((red caping))) of what is otherwise a legitimate and important underlying Post Modern critique of Cartesianism and Modernity. STEM. people, focused on Augustinian devils, are notorious dupes.

White Post Modernity would not tell you to abandon Cartesianism entirely, especially not in its utility, say, to algebra or microwave engineering. The WPM project would try to call you back from runaway of Cartesian anxiety, and encourage you instead to look upon these quests for truth and precision as characteristic of a right wing component, indispensable, but nevertheless provisional and functioning as feedback to be subsumed within its utility to yourself in tandem with the group calibration - praxis - social systemic homeostasis.

However, resistance to proper understanding - both from our people and because (((they))) don’t want us to understand - has been an intense challenge:

Firstly, you’re confronted by our high I.Q. STEM boomer pioneers of the internet, who had hegemonic presence, and who have known enough success by their way of doing things to want to see it as tried and true, and not, say, somewhat contingent upon the luck of their generation or the value of their skills in the Modern milieu. They hadn’t yet had enough holes poked in their world view to feel the need to examine its vulnerabilities with up-to-date philosophical vigor.

Their misapprehension is not entirely of their own making.

There has been the (((red caping))) of Post Modern ideas that they are reacting-to.

When I tried to discuss hermeneutics with Prof. MacDonald, because of its (((red caping))) he INSISTED that hermeneutics is anti-science.

But I need to mention that seeing through the torrents of (((red capes))) is not easy.

I understand his thinking ’ hermeneutics is anti science’ for all its Jewish red caping waved through college Sophomores. Academia is, after all, in the big business of selling talk - and the paying customers, 18 -24 year old undergraduates with Guaranteed Student Loans, are perfect consumers for self serving, anti-scientific, Jewish advanced, anti-White, liberal hermeneutic distortion peddled by tenured professors in perpetuity.

I even mistakenly presumed Gadamer to be Jewish for his association with the term. Greg Johnson embarrassed me by pointing out that Gadamer was German.

Our own Guessedworker has fought me tooth and nail on every important post modern term and concept that I’ve used, so offensive has been their hyperbolic (((red caping))) to his S.T.E.M. predilection and ethnonationalist concern.

When I began explaining WPM Proper at The VOR back in 2011, I invited Bowery, thinking that he’d be on board. Instead he proceeded obliviously to say that we needed to “reboot the enlightenment.”

Afterward, when I came to Majority Rights, James tried to forbid me from using the critical philosophical term/concept “Cartesianism” - “stay far away from it!” ... “You are demoralizing our people!”  ...and when I criticized The Empirical Philosophers (meaning Locke, Berkeley and Hume), he reacted as if I was denouncing science and its method. Finally, in indignation, he tried to tell me to not characterize Modernity as a big problem.

This wasn’t an easy challenge. They’re all very smart and have made important contributions.

However, their misapprehension may also be attributed to (((red capes))) targeted directly at their S.T.E.M. type, such as “The Dark Enlightenment” and “Neo-Reaction.” These (((red capes))) in the hands of a (((mencius moldbug))) would portray Modernity and things like Cartesianism/or its misunderstanding as THE problem, rather than vulnerabilities in our system that (((they))), along with our traitors/dupes, can exploit/can be exploited by.

There is also an apparent problem in the habit of STEM analysis that looks for the ONE problem that interrupts a circuit; a habit that can have them not see the holistic overview of what is being said here.

For a combination of reasons, our ensconced STEM boomers and right wingers aligned in a reactionary purity spiral, haven’t quickly recognized that I wasn’t myself fooled by the (((red capes))) if not spitefully wielding them myself, against our people’s interests.

Pardon the digression, but I won’t be dissuaded from using these post modern terms and concepts - not even by geniuses who’ve done as much great work for our people as those three. These terms and concepts are simply too important for our people to allow them to be confused and misdirected.

...

The better starting point for analyzing the unraveling of our social systemic homeostasis -

The French Revolution or The American Revolution and Locke?

Most people start with the French Revolution, and it is highly relevant to Modernity. There are useful inferences to be made. Among those I’ve heard, Keith Preston observing that the European Aristocracies were often not as much loyal to their own nation as to the Aristocracies of other nations. That lines-up generally with the concept of the right that I am finding to hold up cross contextually. I wouldn’t put too much concrete emphasis on this, however.

Literal mindedness in this argument takes you into the Marxian-Hegelian (((red cape))) where the Aristocratic classes all stand together and therefore the “workers of the world should unite” across national bounds; while the Hegelian dialectic works its way out historically, in accordance to its own inherent logic to bring about the withering away of the state, which is presumed an ideal result.

Marx’s internationalizing of class and revolution, as well as the slogan of equality, became huge (((red capes))) for reactionaries to chase after. Marxism and Cultural Marxism became more and more a (((red cape))) for “the left.”

There may be merit to the critique that recognized a disordering of society by the revolution that was new, yes, but bad in a different way, as it was financed largely by the Jewish (or White for that matter) merchant class to overthrow a better ordering of societal rule [e.g., priest, philosopher, warrior, artisan], other than by mercantile. However, rather than so much the who question that occupies top place in our society, I would tend to favor the ‘what’ - i.e., protection of our borders and the protection of our population - whereas ‘who’ occupies governing position would then be contingent upon their adherence to the ‘what.’

Left and Right

The French Revolution is where the traditional Right vs Left dichotomy began, with those representing the King and his leadership being on the right side of the court, while those representing the populace - who would rise up in revolution - sitting to the left of the King.

It’s of worms that I’ll open in more detail later. I will argue that the dichotomy remains useful, that “the left” has been (((red caped))) in representation as Marxist, internationalist, liberalist, equalitarian and anti-White, when it is better represented as a union of the ethnonational populace - Paris for Parisians.

The slogan, “Liberty, Fraternity and Equality”, especially Equality, has been a terrible (((red cape))) that right wing reactionaries chase after. I will argue that red cape and other semiotics that can guide a White ethnonational revolution are sorted out in the depth grammar of ordinary language patterns - necessary as currency in connection with logics of meaning and action which, in turn, direct behavior.

Language as currency and depth grammar being those connotations which hold up cross contextually over time.

For the moment, I’ll sketch a few things, and suggest that Whites should ask:

Why does Jewry want White identity associated with “the right” or “neither left nor right” and against “the left”?

And what are they doing with the connotations of the terms by compelling these identifications?

Has not the left been associated with social justice, social accountability, compassion for the ordinary, marginals and group unionization in defense against elite abuse of power? While the right associated with purported objectivity, truth, brute nature below human accountability, or principles, elite individual or narrow group interests if not a god beyond human nature and also beyond accountability?

When the audience looks with me at the reasons why Jewry has always wanted White identity to be attributed to “the right” and “far right” if not “alt right” or “dissident right” “against equality” and why they do NOT want Whites to identify as an ethnonational left, but as of late, especially, against “the left”, the audience will begin to understand my argument… it begins with the recognition of the original premise of the (((red cape))), i.e., to take a concept that is good for organizing the group and then to deploy it against Whites and make it obnoxiously didactic to Whites in order to weaken if not break up their social systemic homeostasis. Indeed, compelling Whites to identify with repugnant anti-social reactions that effectively preclude popular groundswell to our ethnonational cause.

Those of us a bit older, remembering the 80s and 90s, will recall that conservative arguments were not anywhere nearly so typically pitted against “the left.” Conservatism was pitted more against Liberalism and Political Correctness in the 90s.

It was only following the 2008 financial (((bail out))) that suddenly for fear of intersectionality of Cultural Marxism with Jewish interests, that the underlying connotations of “the left” would be discovered as useful for Whites against Jewish oppression that a (((mass marketing campaign))) was initiated with a whole pathological characterology of “the left” and what it does: it is anti-nature, does not deal with reality, wants equality, internationalism, wants unrealistic, international social justice, liberalism, sexual deviance, etc.

Whites have been shockingly on board with this characterology so convenient to the current interests of elite Jewry and so clearly indicating that this is not necessarily what “the left” has to mean as this characterology called “the left” was not the in-vogue bogey man 30 years ago.

In fact, if the left is characterized by a broad based “fraternity” of the people in unionized interests against elite betrayal, then it conforms perfectly to a left nationalism and ethnonationalism as well.

As a union, it would conserve the interests within, focus our accountability, compassion and concerns of social justice for our people, not liberalizing concerns internationally.

You can see how the red cape of “the left” as “international” and oxymoronically as liberal was used to have Whites arguing against their own organizing function through these misleading connotations.

With the heavy marketing of “the left” as Marxist international, oxymoronically liberal for Whites, as it became cultural Marxist, to where White unionization was prohibited while non and anti White scabbing/border and bounds transgressing was sponsored as a part of “the international fraternity” (marketing the idea that that’s what “the left” necessarily means), Whites felt compelled to identify as some form of Right, Neither Left nor Right or Third Position as a function of the (((red caping))) to rupture our systemic homeostasis, leaving us susceptible to infiltration and misdirection in headlong Right wing reaction. Unionization closes off that vulnerability and the neo-logism, White Left EthnoNationalism, allows us to make accountability and the definition of its aspects in our interests explicit.

The depth grammar of the right is not accountable to our ethnonational union of people: it is accountable to god, to “truth”, to principles, to the great man or small group of elites, to “nature”...but not particularly to praxis, to the broad systemic union of our ethnonationals, our people. The neologism, White EthnoNational Left, can make it clear in a way that “Neither Left Nor Right” or “Third Position” can, that praxis, the union of our people is our central concern and is where accountability is due and not in any Marxist sense precluding reasonable individual liberty, private property, free enough enterprise, abundant resource or ethnonationalism!

This ambiguous result of the red cape reaction, disrupting organization, is why they will settle for an identity of neither left nor right, or third position, failing identification as some sort of right if not liberal.

But for all the attention given the French Revolution as “the source of our problems”, I’ve found following the Lockeatine line making more coherent sense of our predicament in Modernity’s disorder, since that is where the taboo against classification (a term corresponding with unionization) for White men was set forth and ripened for weaponized (((red caping))).

This has created a mystification, disingenuously wielded or naively adhered to by those who identify as right wing as they criticize the left for wanting more state regulation of social justice, while at the same time allowing the red cape of internationalism to extend over whom the nation is comprised.

Our right wingers and other liberals are disingenuously or naively being encouraged to believe that they are objectively if not divinely entitled to be unaccountable and disloyal to the broad group of our own people and creating vulnerabilities, allowing for the rupturing of our social systemic homeostasis as such because individual rights are held sacrosanct while social classification (by Whites, anyway) is considered evil.

Locke’s anti-classification notion of civil individual rights creates systemic pattern vulnerability

John Locke was aggrieved by the Aristocratic Class’s discrimination against lower classes in Britain. His grievance dove-tailed with his concept of empirical philosophy, maintaining that all individuals have the same perceptions while social classifications are a fiction of the mind; therefore these fictitious classifications should give way to civil individual rights.

This concept suited the ‘enlightened’ Epicurean predilections of Jefferson, along with his wish to throw off British upper class and British rule all together, and thus he made Locke’s anti-social classification notion of Civil Individual Rights into a central component of the American way.

Jefferson missed the bus on Kant’s noble but failed attempt to rescue principles from the arbitrary empiricism of Locke, let alone Vico’s correct placing of group praxis at center of the world view. And the fairly arbitrary notion of civic individualism over classificatory patterns, this ‘liberation’ from traditional patterns, became characteristic of an America that would grow more and more powerful until it was the world’s hegemon, wielding power and influence over all, for better and worse.

Jewish (((red cape))) weaponization of “Civil Rights” was still way in the future when blacks and women were given the franchise. While Jews could be said to be influential, even if only indirectly through Christianity and their part in the slave trade, it is certain that some Whites were engaging a Cartesian purity spiral on the notion of civil rights.

As America’s ship sailed further into the abyss of Modernity’s disorder, Nietzsche, a critic of modernity, chided those who thought that they were merely describing reality and proper course of progress: “they are only drawing maps of maps”...

Nietzsche would be very influential on Heidegger and his Post Modern/ Hermeneutic turn.

Over in England, Russell and Whitehead wanted to tackle the problem of classification presented by the classic liar’s paradox, “I am a Cretan, all Cretan’s are liars.” In response, they came up with Theory of Logical Types, that class and membership were on different levels, and therefore, “a class could not be a member of itself.”

Russell would confide that he considered this “the most arbitrary thing he ever had to do.”

Arbitrary perhaps, but their focus on classification is interesting, and they were generating useful thoughts, indeed schools of thought in coming to terms with Post Modernity.

Whitehead would say that “even a false or inadequate working hypothesis is better than no working hypothesis.”...adding, “one cannot continually investigate everything, but must take for granted a given state of partial knowledge from time to time.”

Note: the legitimate existence of our race is beyond a false or inadequate working hypothesis - even if Post Modern (((red caping))) would try take advantage and exaggerate greatly the significance of our capacity to interbreed with other races. White ethnonationalists should take heed that the working hypothesis of our classification is sufficient to devote a large measure of our efforts to its advocacy.

Certainly Bateson made worthwhile use of logical types in his theory of schizophrenia; and the whole school of thought generated from there made important contributions to solid Post Modern philosophy. It dovetailed well with his Post Modern, neo-Aristotlean concerns. Class functions on a level of relational patterns. Humans are mammals and therefore care about relationships. It causes them confusion, pain and destruction when they cannot invoke this level to order their lives. Of Locke’s anti-classification program, he admonished that “it could only produce dark, Satanic mills”...

From his centralization of praxis (in a necessary, non Cartesian relation to environment and others) and communication in reflexive interaction, communications scholars would develop the very useful communications perspective, that we live in communication.

From his more social and biological position on praxis, Bateson was also able to offer some corrections to the deficiencies and toxicties of Heidegger (e.g., “nature rarely works within lethal variables”); it is significant to offer corrections to Heidegger as he was, on the whole, not just a great and important philosopher for Europeans, but rather prominently manifesting the Post Modern/Hermeneutic turn.

While Heidegger was beginning to wrestle with the Post Modern/ Hermeneutic turn, Wittgenstein was doubling down on Modernity, trying to map an unassailable correspondence of language to world in his Tractatus Logico Philosophicus.

Bateson would chide those who would engage in this scientistic wish to get away from any ambiguity of the language, social classification and its invocation of meta-communication what-so-ever, as having an apparent wish to “get back to the innocence of mood signs”...

Wittgenstein expressed his embarrassment in belatedly catching the post modern turn.

However, there were adherents to the Tractatus at The Vienna School of Logical Positivism, who never did catch on. And they extended the invisible hand to the Austrian school of economics, including Wittgenstein’s cousin, Hayek, and von Mises, Ayn Rand, Alan Greenspan, Thatcher, Reagan, on to the guys behind H.U.D., fannie mae, ginnie mae, freddie mac and fangled Wall Street instruments, finally Bernanke, Paulson etc. to the 2008 financial melt-down.

The Vienna School of Logical Positivism held a mandate to follow through on the Tractatus to establish a language that mapped and mirrored reality perfectly - free of any ambiguity and metaphor. But a few different aspects to words (e.g., referent, signifier, context) are always found to make some metaphor and thus human judgment and convention unavoidable and indispensable.

Language as currency and semiotics

While Heidegger is clearly the more useful and important philosopher to us, the 1/4 White Wittgenstein does have a few concepts that are useful to us in his later philosophy.

For example, his borrowing of the concept of internal relation - a co-evolutionary concept - from continental philosophers, operating much like fractal technology, provides a useful alleviation from the Cartesian anxiety: how does one think? All kinds of ways. Where does one start? Anywhere. You want orientation? Look at an episode - where perhaps a practice may have begun; look at what people are doing and consider the use involved. You want to penetrate deeper? Look at the depth grammar. As language is the currency of convention, the ordinary language philosophy that is derived of Wittgenstein is turning out to be useful - more on that when we finish the historical background ..the Heideggerian school, its off-shoots and advances in post modern thought since; before we detail our thesis of the (((red caping))) of these concepts and rectification in White Post Modernity.

This attention to language isn’t superficially caught up in Jewish language games. Heidegger was also keen to follow “the wisdom of the language” for what its roots and sources would offer as suggestions.

And as we exist in the arbitrary thrownness, as Heidegger calls the contingent nature of our classification at its most radical level, post modern philosophy steps back from a suffocating quest for a perfect Kantian architectonic or Hegelian dialectic; recognizing that we have to be pragmatists to some extent, it retrieves us from mechanistic quest of Theoria and takes us back into Praxis, going the way of the Pragmatists, looking more to the development of working hypotheses and specificatory structures in its pursuit of operational verifiability and warranted assertability.

I was chided for using the metaphor of “conceptual tools”, or a tool kit, ready to hand to bring to bear to our problems, as if we should just za zen manifest emergent ethnonationalism every moment.

When GW insists that we need a complete, unshakable “foundation” to the project of universal ethnonationalism, I would ask why he thinks that we do not already have “foundation” enough to begin - a working hypothesis of our people’s existence and need for advocacy enough to warrantably assert? He and other more scientifically oriented people might help greatly by shoring up our “foundation”, behavioral tendencies, etc. but the idea that we don’t know enough to proceed in our defense is absurd…as is the idea that it is not bespeaking deeply considered philosophy, but merely political advocacy.

It fits my working hypothesis that he’s reacting to Jewish red capes of and among praxis, along with other liberal rhetorical abuse that instill Cartesian anxiety, compelling the belief that we do not already have grounds to warrantably assert our advocacy, but need to have some pure, universal warrant beyond praxis; as if we don’t know enough about our people, the value of our different European kinds that merit homelands of our own and a means to survive as distinct kinds in diaspora…not that we can’t do better, find better popular inspiration, some key fundamental connections, but enough to begin.

Genetic evidence accumulated in recent decades bolsters our concern for human and pervasive ecology - that would certainly include concern for our own kinds.

Though we can infer many working hypotheses from experience, e.g., that Asians, Africans and Europeans have different rates of maturity with different advantages that can tangle each other up when brought together in interaction, operational verification of science does contribute to warranted assertability of the fact - R and K strategy, testosterone levels, lesser impulse control and sublimation, warrior gene, etc. - the point is that concerns of praxis and science are not mutually exclusive and should not be antagonistic.

There are many occasions when science uncovers issues not at all apparent to ordinary sense (e.g. Jewish crypsis) and that sort of excellent yield of science is not discouraged, unappreciated and mutually exclusive to hermeneutics either.

The antagonism that I’ve experienced from Bowery and GW - GW’s wish to “sweep aside” everything bespeaks a failure to see the underlying importance of Post Modern Concepts to Whites, to trust that application for Whites is very different from the red caping they perceive; failing to appreciate its function to protect the good in what is and has been, the value of agency and correctability in its outlook to stave off their worst fears (e.g., in Bowery’s case, a concern of “eusociality” and the loss of distinct European self sufficiency) and to create, in fact, the grounds of homeostasis, group and individual.

GW sees a susceptibility among academics to top down wish to impose concepts over what should be concern to describe what nature will do irrespective. This imposition upon nature has come to the utility of Jewry as a characterization of what “the left does.” This characterology of “the left” is a red cape.

He hasn’t been ready to accurately grasp what I’m saying, nor its significance due to his own vigilance to slay academic pretense and misdirection as it over motivates misconception that I’ve been the mere passive receptacle for Marxist indoctrination and not one making original inferences, weighing concepts for their utility to European people, leaving some things behind, willing to have what I’m taking for granted constructively questioned, but not constantly and with deconstruction being the only “input.” 

GW and Bowery are not appreciating that hermeneutics is a circulating process - and no, GW, its not “back and forth back and forth” in some trivial, plodding manner - it is inquiry that can gracefully and as a matter of utility take starting points from wherever necessary and engage utility (including the utility of ideals).

Where GW and Bowery make well placed, rigorous observations about sub praxis natural underpinnings, they should only contribute to refinement of our working hypotheses, specificatory structures, perhaps adding operational verifiability to the already warranted assertability: the eminent validity of ethnonationalism and the working hypothesis that the White/European race and its subspecies does, in fact, exist - and well it should - at least it is natural for species to defend themselves, even if you believe that we should not survive (as a Hitler might not, in his scienstism).

A more rigorous, scientific focus, a closer reading as it were, shouldn’t be considered mutually exclusive to what I’m saying.

It can be a problem if they veer into scientism - try to say that what I’m saying should be swept aside - probably as they perceive and react to red capes or are stuck in a STEM habit of trying to isolate “the problem” in a circuit while making all else redundant (e.g. me and what I’m adding) by comparison to their “new model”...not realizing that they are attempting to sweep aside things that are far more important than their straw man contentions. They are habituated to issue straw men as they are not prepared to see friendly concepts coming from the humanities and therefore interject straw men in place of working to complement what I am actually saying with their valuable input.

I over reacted to GW’s reaction to non-foundationalism, when saying there “can be no unassailable foundations” - technically true philosophically, but stretching hermeneutics to the point of absurdity to ignore laws of biology and physics; call them foundational if you will. Our biological species is, after all, what we’re about; not some alternative narrative to that, possible though it may be. Its frustrating to be confronted with misreadings of post modernity as being absurd. In its proper understanding neither I, nor any scholar that I’ve ever talked to, deny evolution, laws of biology and physics, facts…we take these matters for granted while someone reacting to the (((red cape))) misrepresentations would try to characterize us as absurd - or, rather, going along with the (((red cape))) characterology of “the left” as not dealing with nature (as opposed to one who deals in verifiable and specifiable hypotheses).

Concluding the history and moving on to specifics should help people to see this as a collaborative enterprise, not mutually exclusive to their reasoned concerns.

Specificatory Stuctures

- are suited for Praxis. Aristotle observed that people: are biological creatures evolved for optimal need satisfaction; registering reflexive systemic effects of excess, deficiency and actions of others - as mammals in particular who have relative concern for relationships, have agency, can learn to learn, can reframe agendas hermeneutically. Social science thus differs from hard sciences, especially from physics but even from biology in our human capacity for agency and reflexive effects in interaction. To make sense of this requires what Aristotle called phronesis (practical judgment), or what Shotter calls specificatory structures: largely or partly finished general frameworks, slightly ambiguous, but having ready understanding to act as participatory currency by the public - frames that can be shaped and crafted for broad perspective, not suffocating necessary imagination to transcend moment and episode into broader patterns as need be, nor precluding re-specification in precision, down to genetic or molecular levels, as need be.

This hermeneutic capacity in liberation from mere facticity to transcend stray moment and episode, paradoxes, strange loops, tangles, defeats, is necessary not only for individual coherence, accountability, agency and warrant, but also for groups.

READ MORE...

Before you complain

An American once said to me that whenever they see me post an article about the United States now, they just have to brace for a total assault on their morale, and that “it is almost like seeing something like Tokyo Rose’s work in written form.”

I don’t know whether to take that as a compliment or not, since despite her best propaganda efforts, Iva Toguri D’Aquino was ultimately not able to convince the Americans to stop supporting the United States. Perhaps some of the Americans did have pause though, perhaps they did think occasionally, “You know, those things that Tokyo Rose is saying on the radio, could there be something to all that?”

But really, it’s not like I have to go out of my way to come up with these socio-economic angles against the ‘Make America Great Again’ concept. They present themselves to the world daily in such a high volume that it’s almost like trying to catch a cup of water from a firehose of negative developments. One has to be very selective about which part of the non-stop blast of negative news one is going to select, interpret, and develop a piece on, on any given day.

Today’s selection is going to really induce a feeling like when you’re sparring with someone and they forget to hold back, and next thing you know their foot is trying to tickle your kidneys or something, and it’s just like, “Oh wow, this pain is real.” It’s pretty bad. I apologise for the pain that you’re going to feel in advance.

True to the tradition I’ll get things started by putting the music on.

How things reached this stage

When Donald Trump was inaugurated on an overcast day about two months ago, he stood in front of the lectern and in a stern voice spoke the words that initiated a miserable new trade war:

TIME, ‘Trump Inauguration: Transcript of Donald Trump Speech’, 20 Jan 2017 (emphasis added):

We assembled here today are issuing a new decree to be heard in every city, in every foreign capital, and in every hall of power. From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land. From this day forward, it’s going to be only America first, America first.

Every decision on trade, on taxes, on immigration, on foreign affairs will be made to benefit American workers and American families. We must protect our borders from the ravages of other countries making our products, stealing our companies and destroying our jobs.

Protection will lead to great prosperity and strength. I will fight for you with every breath in my body and I will never ever let you down.

America will start winning again, winning like never before.

We will bring back our jobs. We will bring back our borders. We will bring back our wealth. And we will bring back our dreams.

It may seem on the face of it that Donald Trump was saying that all the decisions he would make would be based on whether they will benefit American workers and American families. His mouth said that somewhere in there, but is that what protectionism actually does in the longrun?

We know that it does not benefit ‘workers and families’ in the longrun. 

There is widely understood empirical evidence which shows that in the present era, free trade is what benefits the broad mass of the people, not protectionism. Free trade is what enables wider access to products at a cheaper price. Free trade enables this indirectly by facilitating regional division and specialisation of production to enhance productivity on a planetary basis. 

Broadly speaking, tariff and non-barrier barriers are mostly retrogressive, as it is low income consumers who spend a greater percentage of their income on food, clothing, consumer electronics and vehicles, which tend to be most highly protected under the kind of tariff regime proposed by Donald Trump’s White House and supported by his Alt-Lite and Alt-Right supporters.

So if American ‘workers and families’ do not really stand to benefit, does this mean that I am saying that Donald Trump is not putting America ‘first’? By no means. The misunderstanding that many have is that they conflate rhetoric about a country’s interest with the interest of the broad mass of the people. Trump essentially tailored his speech to exploit that misunderstanding.

In fact, America is indeed being ‘put first’ by Trump, but that is not a positive thing. The policies which he is advocating ensure that those who really stand to benefit are primarily the American financiers and the upper-bourgeoisie stratum of big and middle-sized manufacturers, who feel themselves to be under stiff competition from their counterparts in Europe and Asia. This scenario comes at the end of a long cycle of a widening pattern of global investment during and after the Cold War environment, which had led to the repair and economic rehabilitation of that section of the world that America had razed to the ground in the process of destroying Axis. 

The repair and rehabilitation was possible because the leaders of various European and Asian economies opted to play the longest of long games, accommodating the liberal global order that the American victors had maintained for their own diplomatic and geostrategic benefit (to economically contain their next opponent, the Soviet Union), but which were used by the former Axis countries and other Third World countries to build something again from the ashes of the Second World War and to take advantage of the mutual benefits that came from having the economic vitality and thus the military wherewithall to deter the Soviet Union. 

A hegemon’s dilemma

The flourishing of any world order in which a hegemon has to allow power to devolve into the hands of outsiders, is a world order which will eventually unravel itself as the hegemon will come to fear its own deputies. Much as the Greek Empire unravelled itself when each of the governors, tribes, and exarchates which had been permitted to accrue power so as to encircle common enemies, suddenly realised that they had reached a stage where they could bid for global power in their own right, so too the American liberal world order is coming to a close as this cycle of capital accumulation draws to a close.

The productive capacity which had been offshored from the United States and implanted into the European and Asian periphery so as to reinforce economic containment and encirclement against the Soviet Union during the Cold War, now becomes in 2017 the potential weapon which the American high-bourgeoisie fears will be turned against it in a multipolar world, the first chapter of which is now opening. America’s old Cold War gendarmes of capital, are now gendarmes that are increasingly operating autonomously, and the United States is struggling to chart a course to address that new reality.

The American high-bourgeoisie wants what it views as ‘its wealth’ back. But they are not the actual owners of it. The wealth, limited though it is, and not without imperfection in its distribution, which is presently enjoyed by the peoples of Europe and Asia was re-built through hard years of work by the generation of people who survived the Second World War, and who, seeing their ideals crushed by the Americans, resolved to build their countries again during the Cold War.

The American high-bourgeoisie knows that it cannot fight the world alone, since it is only a small class of people, and therefore it must assert leadership and bind the other American classes to itself. They do this by appealing to a form of populism, where people like Donald Trump, Mike Pence, Steven Mnuchin and Gary Cohn, knowing that they cannot appeal to a class consciousness, instead appeal to a civic nationalist mantra: “Make America Great Again.”

What is America that anyone should want to make it ‘great’ again? That is the most astounding development in this whole sequence, particularly in the context of the Alt-Right and other nationalist opinion-formers such as David Duke, who largely made themselves responsible for having enabled all of this. For example, Hunter Wallace at Altright.com said late last month: 

Hunter Wallace / Altright.com, ‘We Are The Vanguard’, 24 Feb 2017 (emphasis added):

[...]

The primary reason the media is so interested in us is because it is our ideas that have entered the political mainstream. For years now, we have been the ones calling for an America First trade policy, an America First foreign policy, an American First immigration policy, rapprochement with Russia, scrapping the refugee resettlement program, stressing our interests as opposed to liberal ideology, strong borders and a crackdown on immigration, assaulting political correctness, making peace with the labor movement, etc., etc. [...] Now, we are living in the digital world of social media and young people are watching us on YouTube and Periscope. They are interacting with us on Twitter. We don’t need the “mainstream” to network or spread our ideas.

[...]

We are the vanguard now. The world has changed, the “mainstream” is dead and the media is trying to catch up with the times. Rich Lowry’s National Review and Bill Kristol’s The Weekly Standard are at the nadir of their influence over the Right. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter if flyover country conservatives are familiar with Richard Spencer and the Alt-Right. If our ideas are triumphing over David Frum’s ideas and Bill Kristol’s ideas, it doesn’t matter. If our discourse triumphs over and displaces “mainstream” discourse, then we are having a massive impact whether the “mainstream” cartel acknowledges it or not.

The same kind of people who for years had operated under the suspicion that the United States was possibly falling under a ‘Zionist Occupation Government’, are now the very same kind of people who are actually trying in these days and hours to fight as hard as they can to attempt to defend and perpetuate the global reach of the United States government and its centrality as a manufacturing centre now that it is  transparently going into openly-verifiable overdrive in that regard. Now that the ‘occupation’ is openly parading itself in their faces from the White House in verifiable statements that have been reproduced in mainstream media outlets, they suddenly and magically cannot seem to see it.

Perhaps it may be that it is difficult to understand why that contradiction exists until you look at the socio-economic class dimension. Perhaps they choose not to notice the Zionism issue now, because it’s the case that it is inconvenient for them financially, given that most Trump voters are middle class and may believe that they stand to gain from the Trump administration’s budgetary, financial and economic policy direction. Or perhaps it is the case that they are just really bad at politics and aren’t paying attention to what is happening, and are more interested in identitarian form and signalling, than in actual policy. Or maybe it is the case that there is a kind of ongoing entryism which is usually not visible to the public but which only is revealed in short glimpses, such as, for example, when it emerged that Heritage Foundation analyst Jason Richwine had actually been writing for the old AlternativeRight.com website in 2010. Or it could be some combination of all of these things.

Whatever the case happens to be, for all those who ever believed in anything that those people previously said, these present developments can only be seen as a betrayal. If they are ‘the vanguard’ and this is what they have produced, then they have a considerable amount of explaining to do.

Unfortunately with the situation as it is, I am not expecting that an explanation will be coming from them, but I am expecting that the Alt-Right and Alt-Lite opinion-formers will continue to act as a kind of grassroots support for the Trump administration, one which will have a high resilience and effectiveness because it couples a tacit support with a consistent pseudo-denial of actually being on the same side as the administration. We hear on the one hand the Alt-Right continually saying that they are ‘not Trump’, but then on the other hand they like the specific actions the administration is doing and its overall direction which they see as a ‘stepping stone’ (to where?), they just wish that that those actions would be done with more intensity.

The effective function of the Alt-Right internet presence is basically that they remain engaged on social media as a ‘grassroots’ presence which continually presents narratives and arguments that serve to socially legitimate Trump administration spokespersons, supporters and key cabinet figures and their policy preferences in a way that is completely independent of the state, as it is done at arms length, behind a veil of denial and disavowal by the White House itself. The bonus that the White House receives in all of this is that there is no-one who has to be paid or instructed to do this for them. The Alt-Right doesn’t need to be paid, they do it for free.

Introduction

Getting started: This article is about one facet in the process of the Trump administration making its programme operational. The first operational step that the American high-bourgeoisie are taking is that they are seeking to enhance their structural power, or to turn a phrase, they are seeking to make themselves great again, by weakening the efficacy of checks or dissents against their power domestically. This would place them in the best command position imaginable, which would allow them the ability to then turn their focus to foreign policy and trade policy as their second step, with minimal interference at home. That second step is outside the scope of this article and will be covered at a later date. The first step is what will now be described here today.

Enhanced dictatorship of the high-bourgeoisie

There are four major actions that the Trump administration is carrying out right now which would allow the American high-bourgeoisie to enhance their structural power domestically. These actions are as follows:

1. H.R.985 - Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017.
2. H.R.720 - Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act.
3. The appointment of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court of the United States.
4. The elimination of all federal funding for the Legal Services Corporation.

Let’s go through them in the order I’ve listed them. And in case you are trying to guess what the four items have in common, yes, what all of these things have in common is that they pertain to the ability to form a class so as to bring a class action lawsuit against companies or government agencies, and to raise funds to carry out that endeavour.

H.R.985

When people are facing systemic abuse from companies or from government agencies, class action lawsuits are a vital tool that is used to bring a halt to their behaviour. By bringing about a class action lawsuit, a few people can stand in for a larger number of people in a lawsuit against a perpetrator and seek either injunctive relief (where the perpetrator must cease a bad practice) or compensation (monetary damages).

The bill, H.R.985 which passed in the US House of Representatives by recorded vote 220 - 201 on Thursday 09 March 2017, and will next be placed before the US Senate, is a bill that makes it more difficult for people to bring class action lawsuits.

Bill H.R.985 makes it harder for people to form a ‘class’ by further restricting and constraining the criteria under which people may come together to bring a case, and placing various hurdles in the way of the collection of lawyers’ fees, thus decreasing the incentive for lawyers to take on class action lawsuits.

The net effect of this is that it will sharply reduce the ability of people to seek injunctive relief or compensation in any scenario where they are being harmed by a company or a government agency.

The architects of the bill and its proponents, such as Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), have tried to mask their intentions by presenting it to the media as a bill that is designed to prevent supposedly-existent ‘lawyer-driven litigation’, by which they mean a kind of ‘trolling’ litigation which is designed to enrich lawyers rather than address any actual grievance of the plaintiffs. By masking their intentions with such a cover story, the lawmakers have sought to conceal the actual reality of the attack which they themselves are conducting against working people and families.

The factor which exposes their cover story as a lie, is the simple fact that if they really thought that they needed to write a bill to prevent ‘lawyer-driven litigation’, then they wouldn’t have written a bill that attacks people’s ability to seek injunctive relief, in which money is not awarded but practices are changed, as well as compensation. However, that is precisely what they have done, and in doing so, their motive was revealed along with the effect.

On the issue of the hurdles placed in the way of the collection of lawyers’ fees, the bill deliberately limits lawyers’ fees in injunctive relief cases to “a reasonable percentage of the value” of the relief. This of course makes no sense, by design, because it is quite impossible for a court to determine what the monetary worth of a non-monetary action is, so as to calculate such a percentage. The effect is that lawyers would be disincentivised from taking the risk of bringing an injunctive class action case.

Furthermore, the bill also places a condition on the timing of the payment of lawyers’ fees to the date of full monetary recovery. This could even sometimes deny lawyers the ability to be paid their fees altogether, since some cases have a term of settlement that is longer than the remaining lifespan of the lawyers who are working on the case. For example, in a case where full settlement is expected to take fifty years, it would mean that the lawyers would not be paid until the end of those fifty years. Even with that potentially disastrous scenario aside, with regards to the duration of the litigation itself, the condition incentivises defendants to drag out and prolong litigation.

The possibility of never receiving lawyers’ fees or having to wait years to receive them, will act as an enormous deterrent for any law firm that absolutely requires those fees to pay their staff and keep their business running.

H.R.720

H.R.720 the so-called ‘Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act’ is a cunningly named bill which will actually require all federal judges to penalise any lawyer who brings what they consider to be a ‘frivolous lawsuit’. Up until now, it has up to the judge’s discretion to decide whether to do this.

The interesting thing about this is that for a lawsuit to actually make it to the point where it has come before a jury, it means that a judge clearly already considers it to be a valid lawsuit. Legislation like H.R.720, simply incentivises the behaviour where a defendant can continually protest that everything that is happening is ‘frivolous’, and it disincentivises lawyers from trying to bring a lawsuit to find out how it will be regarded.

In practice, this means that the legislative and executive branches of US government are seeking to attack lawyers for trying to help people to seek relief or compensation through the court system. After all, a corporate defendant would likely start out from the stance that any lawsuit brought against their esteemed selves is definitely ‘frivolous’.

The appointment of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the SCOTUS

An ‘originalist’ Judge Neil Gorsuch, having previously been nominated to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit by George W. Bush on 08 August 2006, has been nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States by President Donald J. Trump. A decent summary of his background has been written at FiveThirtyEight.

Beltway conservatives immediately feted him as having come out of the mold of another now late ‘originalist’ Judge Antonin Scalia, or at least something close to that. Evangelicals celebrated Gorsuch’s statements about his belief in the ‘pro-life’ stance, as that is a pet issue of maximal all-consuming importance to them. 

The Alt-Lite and Alt-Right’s reaction to the nomination was in a sense no more sophisticated or diligent than that of any of the other groups. Hunter Wallace published a very strange article at Alt-Right.com which referred to Gorsuch as a “real American”, as though this were a reason for why he wanted to see Gorsuch nominated in and of itself. Richard Spencer produced an article which had a similarly strange central thrust, referring to Gorsuch as “America’s wise, WASPy dad—an avatar of the ruling class of days gone by.” Spencer’s view was echoed by James Edwards on the Political Cesspool, which carried Spencer’s article verbatim. 

In my view none of this matters anyway, but while ‘Gorsuch’ may be an old Anglo-Saxon name, the man himself is ancestrally Irish. Additionally, Gorsuch was raised as a Catholic, and then he converted to Episcopalianism later, so he is not a ‘WASP’. He’s also not America’s ‘dad’, he’s a nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States, for goodness sake.

Unfortunately no real analysis of Gorsuch’s views on class action lawsuits has been done by anyone in the nationalist sphere. If anyone had chosen to do so, then some extremely meaningful patterns, all of which are negative, would have emerged into view immediately.

SCOTUSblog gives us an interesting look in with the summary containing this excerpt:

Amy Howe / SCOTUSblog, ‘A closer look at Judge Neil Gorsuch and class actions’, 08 Mar 2017 (emphasis added):

[...]

Covering the Wal-Mart decision for this blog, Lyle Denniston described Scalia as the court’s “most dedicated skeptic about the class-action approach to litigation.” Whether Gorsuch, if confirmed, would follow in Scalia’s footsteps remains to be seen. During his decade on the bench, Gorsuch has participated in relatively few class action cases. In the cases involving class action issues in which he has participated, he has generally, but not always, ruled for the defense. Notably, both in cases in which he has ruled for the defense and those in which he has ruled for the plaintiffs, Gorsuch has emphasized the need for courts to stay in their lane, so to speak – that is, not to exceed their authority, particularly when it comes to decisions that are in his view best left to Congress.

[...]

The Bazelon Center has a review which also contains some example of cases that were not class action lawsuits, but seem to give some idea of how Gorsuch interprets civil rights law in general:

Bazelon Center, ‘Review of Disability Cases Involving Judge Neil Gorsuch’, 17 Feb 2017:

In Hwang v. Kansas State University, 753 F.3d 1159 (10th Cir. 2014), Judge Gorsuch wrote an opinion ruling against a longtime professor at a state university who had taken a six-month leave of absence to recover from her cancer treatment. At the end of that period, she requested a short period of additional leave at the advice of her doctor in order to avoid a severe flu outbreak on campus that could endanger her already compromised immune system. The university refused to grant additional leave. Judge Gorsuch began his analysis of Professor Hwang’s claim by asking: “Must an employer allow employees more than six months’ sick leave or face liability under the Rehabilitation Act? Unsurprisingly, the answer is almost always no.” Although the ADA and Rehabilitation Act say nothing about the length of leaves granted by employers and specifically require that that such accommodation requests be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, Judge Gorsuch held that a leave of absence as long as six months would “turn employers into safety net providers for those who cannot work.” He also described Professor Hwang as “a problem other forms of social security aim to address”—even though the professor was willing and able to resume her duties through online classes immediately, or through in-class teaching after the additional short leave. Judge Gorsuch also rejected her argument that the university’s inflexible six-month leave policy was discriminatory, instead reasoning that applying the same leave policies to all employees, without providing reasonable accommodations for qualified employees with a disability, would protect employees with disabilities from being “secretly singled out for discriminatory treatment.” Judge Gorsuch thus concluded that the six-month leave policy was “more than sufficient to comply” with the Rehabilitation Act. [...]

I’m sure everyone can guess where these examples are going. Here’s another:

Bazelon Center, ‘Review of Disability Cases Involving Judge Neil Gorsuch’, 17 Feb 2017:

In Wehrley v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, 513 F. App’x 733 (10th Cir. 2013), a panel including Judge Gorsuch found that the plaintiff had not established that he had a disability that entitled him to the ADA’s protections. Wehrley, an insurance field claim adjuster, injured his knee and back in a workplace accident, and his employer fired him because of his inability to work on claims that involved going onto roofs. At trial, Wehrley introduced evidence of significant limitations in major life activities, including a medical report stating that he could not walk or stand for prolonged periods, that his pain disrupted his sleep, and that he had to change positions every 30 minutes while sitting. Judge Gorsuch and the panel concluded, however, that Wehrley had not shown that these impairments were substantial because the report did not say that he was unable to “walk or stand in the ordinary course of a day,” nor did it describe the extent or severity of the disruption to his sleep. Without sufficient evidence of a substantial impairment in a major life activity, the panel found that he did not meet the definition of a person with a disability.

And one more:

Bazelon Center, ‘Review of Disability Cases Involving Judge Neil Gorsuch’, 17 Feb 2017:

In Adair v. City of Muskogee, 823 F.3d 1297 (10th Cir. 2016), Judge Gorsuch joined an opinion affirming summary judgment against the plaintiff after finding that he was unable to perform an essential function of his position. The plaintiff, a firefighter who held the position of HazMat Director, injured his back during a training exercise. The city required that he complete a functional-capacity evaluation, which showed that he had some restrictions on his lifting ability. He sued the city under the ADA for disability discrimination, alleging that he was constructively discharged when the city encouraged him to retire rather than be terminated because it regarded him as disabled. The plaintiff argued that he was capable of performing the essential functions of the HazMat Director position even with the lifting restrictions, testifying that he did not need to lift in his position and had never performed regular firefighter duties during his four years as HazMat Director. However, Judge Gorsuch and the panel discounted the plaintiff’s testimony and instead deferred to a state law listing the ability to lift up to 200 pounds as an essential function for all firefighters, regardless of specialized roles. Since the plaintiff suggested no potential accommodations other than being relieved of the lifting duty, the panel concluded that he was not a qualified individual under the ADA.

Being an ‘originalist’ and a ‘textualist’ seems to involve being deliberately absurd in ways that happen to be generally convenient for the defence. The addition of Gorsuch to the Supreme Court of the United States meshes with the thrust of the pieces of legislation, H.R.985 and H.R.720, which were described earlier and which are presently making their way though the US Congress, in a way that enhances their effect.

The addition of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court returns it to the balance that existed when Judge Antonin Scalia was still alive. It is not beyond possibility that sometime in the next four years another judge will be replaced, and at that point Donald Trump may even be able to appoint an additional ‘originalist’ and ‘textualist’ to the court, such as for example Judge William Pryor.

But it is sad that no one is paying any attention to these developments. Choices made during the Trump administration will shape the character of the American system for a generation or longer.

The elimination of all federal funding for the Legal Services Corporation

They suggested that it was going to happen, and now they are moving toward doing it. See here:

New York Times, ‘Popular Domestic Programs Face Ax Under First Trump Budget’, 17 Feb 2017 (emphasis added):

WASHINGTON — The White House budget office has drafted a hit list of programs that President Trump could eliminate to trim domestic spending, including longstanding conservative targets like the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Legal Services Corporation, AmeriCorps and the National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities.

Work on the first Trump administration budget has been delayed as the budget office awaited Senate confirmation of former Representative Mick Mulvaney, a spending hard-liner, as budget director. Now that he is in place, his office is ready to move ahead with a list of nine programs to eliminate, an opening salvo in the Trump administration’s effort to reorder the government and increase spending on defense and infrastructure.

[...]

Eliminating all funding for the Legal Services Corporation is the same thing as abolishing it. Some people may be wondering what it does, and such people would now be wondering about that at a time when it is too late to make a difference. Although the United States Constitution contains language that promises equality in the provision of justice, the language is operationally meaningless unless it can also be said that all people have the ability to access legal services and legal remedies.

Defendants in criminal cases are guaranteed the right to have a lawyer because of the outcome of the United States Supreme Court decision in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), but the same right to a lawyer does not actually exist for civil cases.

The beginning of the United States government’s effort to provide legal assistance Americans with low-income for civil cases, emerged during Lyndon B. Johnson’s ‘War on Poverty’, which gave rise to the creation of the Office of Economic Opportunity in 1964. In 1965, the office created the Legal Services Program, which provided assistance all over the United States.

However, the Legal Services Program was up for White House review in 1969, and the Office of Economic Opportunity itself was in existence because of the Economic Opportunity Act which was scheduled to expire in 1970.

President Richard M. Nixon, who took office in January 1969, asked the US Congress in February 1969 to extend appropriations for the Office of Economic Opportunity. The Ash Commission, headed by former United States Army Air Corps Captain Roy Ash, found “virtual unanimity that organizational improvement of the Executive Office of the President is needed.” Among the recommendations made on this issue, the Ash Commission advocated that Nixon ought to create an independent corporation which would receive funds from the US Congress to disburse to local legal aid organisations.

Nixon made the memo public in February 1971 and in May 1971 he sent a special message to the US Congress proposing the establishment of the Legal Services Corporation.

On 25 July 1974, Richard M. Nixon signed the Legal Services Corporation Act.

The Legal Services Corporation has not been without controversy during its existence, and several unsuccessful attempts to abolish it have been attempted over the years. The most recent unsuccessful attempt to abolish it was in 2005:

TexasLawyersHelp.org, ‘Eliminate LSC and Other Programs, Says Republican Study Committee in “Operation Offset” Budget Report’, 30 Sep 2005 (emphasis added):

A recent report issued by the Republican Study Committee (RSC), a group of nearly 100 conservative House members, calls for the elimination of all federal funding for the Legal Services Corporation. U.S. Representatives Mike Pence (R-IN), RSC’s chairman, and Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), RSC’s budget and spending task force chairman, issued the 23-page report on September 21, 2005. The report—called “Operation Offset: RSC Budget Options 2005”—urges Congress and the President to eliminate federal expenditures as far-ranging as Medicaid and Medicare, graduate school student loan subsidies, foreign aid, the National Endowment for the Arts, matching grants for presidential candidates, and LSC. [...]

Yes, that is the same Mike Pence who is presently the Vice-President of the United States. It’s interesting how that has happened to work out.

Another interesting fact is that the Heritage Foundation which submitted the list from which Donald Trump selected Judge Neil Gorsuch’s name to nominate him to the United States Supreme Court, is also visibly active in crafting and giving legitimation to the budget which will abolish the Legal Services Corporation:

New York Times, ‘Popular Domestic Programs Face Ax Under First Trump Budget’, 17 Feb 2017:

[...]

Stephen Moore, another Heritage Foundation economist who advised Mr. Trump during his campaign, acknowledged that powerful constituencies were behind many of the programs that are on the chopping block. But he said now that Republicans are finally in control of the government, they must make a valiant effort to fulfill the promises they have been making to voters for years.

“I think it’s an important endeavor to try to get rid of things that are unnecessary,” Mr. Moore said. “The American public has a lot of contempt for how government is run in Washington, in no small part because there is so much waste.”

If you know anyone who seriously believes that the Heritage Foundation along with all the other personalities I’ve mentioned here are just innocently trying to ‘get rid of things that are unnecessary’, send that person to me, because I have a bridge to sell them — and it’s on the moon.

Conclusion

Particular factions among the American ruling class are seeking to enhance their structural power, or to turn a phrase, they are seeking to make themselves great again, by weakening the efficacy of checks or dissents against their power domestically in an environment in which they have total power over all branches of the government and are receiving virtually no criticism from their own constituency on any economic issues. This would place them in the best command position imaginable, which would allow them the ability to then turn their focus to foreign policy and trade policy.

Everything that the American ruling class is doing to pacify and constrict the power of their own constituents at home, is a preparation and a prerequisite for them being able to efficiently conduct a trade war against European, Asian, and Latin American states.

Enacting a tariff regime as a necessary centre-piece of the trade war is an action which will raise the cost of inputs for all American manufacturers. One of the ways that they will offset that cost will be to enable American companies to act in cost-cutting ways that disregard the interests of American workers and families without having to worry about being subjected to lawsuits brought by those workers and families.

Passing H.R.985 and H.R.720, as well as appointing Judge Neil Gorsuch to the United States Supreme Court and abolishing the Legal Services Corporation, are four key actions that are part of the process of them ‘moving the ball down the playing field’ in that regard.

Evidence has been presented here which illustrates that the entire edifice of ‘Make America Great Again’ is going to be constructed atop a foundation of socio-economic retrogression and misery.

An important distinction

An article by John Morgan called ‘Alt Right versus New Right’ appeared at Counter-Currents Publishing on 28 Feb 2017. I tend to agree with the things that are written at Counter-Currents more often than I agree with things that are written elsewhere in the European nationalist sphere, and in this case what John Morgan was presenting was a very good article which I think all Majorityrights.com readers should also read.

Here is what I think is the most important excerpt:

John Morgan / Counter-Currents Publishing, ‘Alt Right versus New Right’, 28 Feb 2017 (emphasis added):

[...]

I understand that, given all the media attention it’s been receiving lately, there’s a temptation to adopt the term “Alt Right” universally. I, however, insist on viewing the Alt Right as something exclusively American, and the New Right as something particularly European.  

One thing that the two movements certainly share is a difficulty in determining what exactly they are. Especially in the hands of the mainstream media, “New Right” and “Alt Right” are two terms that have been used to refer to everything ranging from Tea Party-style populism to outright neo-Nazism, and everything in between, a problem that was inevitable given that neither group has a central authority that can pronounce who is and who isn’t orthodox, we might say, nor even what exactly that orthodoxy is. For my own purposes today, by New Right I mean the current of thought centered upon Alain de Benoist’s GRECE movement in France and its various offshoots since 1968, which represents a towering edifice of thought unparalleled anywhere else on the Right since the Conservative Revolution in Germany of the Weimar era.

The Alt Right is a much trickier animal to pin down. The New Right has produced literally hundreds of books outlining its beliefs and positions over the past half-century. The Alt Right, on the other hand, is a culture primarily of blogs, memes, podcasts, and videos. It has yet to produce a single book or other statement of principles that everyone involved would agree is the quintessence of the Alt Right’s worldview. This is a natural outgrowth of the anti-intellectualism inherent in Anglo-American political and cultural discourse, as opposed to the more innovative and livelier – dare I say superior – Rightist political tradition that you have here on the Continent. In attempting to think of a book that could in any way lay claim to being the Alt Right manifesto, the only thing I could come up with is Greg Johnson’s New Right versus Old Right, which has fortunately been translated into Swedish as well. Otherwise, the shelves of the Alt Right library remain pretty bare, although hopefully that will soon be changing.

[...]

But while the Alt Right and the New Right are coming at the problem of liberalism from similar angles, they do remain divided by several fundamental issues. First and foremost is race. The American Right (just as the American Left, albeit in different ways) is absolutely obsessed with race: evolutionary theories, comparative IQ scores, crime statistics, and the like. In America, this has led to the development of the term “white” to refer to anyone of European descent. [...] However, I do believe that the attempt of some to import this idea of “White Nationalism” into Europe, and who in some cases have even called for political unification between America, Europe, and Russia, is a severe disservice to the diversity inherent in European civilization. The issue for Europe, as the New Right has always understood, is as much based in ethnicity, language, and culture as it is on race. We can’t pretend that an Irishman and a Russian are interchangeable.

[...]

What John Morgan says there about the divergence between the Alternative Right and the New Right strikes me as being completely true and is perfectly in line with the experiences that I’ve had in Europe. 

It is also something that Alain de Benoist has talked about quite a lot. The attempt by Americans to impose their understanding of ethno-racial politics and their propensity to try to effectively obliterate all intra-European differences through imposing their concept of ‘Whiteness’ onto other regions quickly becomes unworkable. It simply lacks the appropriate level of sophistication and that lack stems from the fact that many of the American White nationalists who are generating these ideas, have neither lived in a European country nor held any financial stake in the future of a European country.

Ted Sallis took exception to this in the Counter-Currents comments section, because he is precisely the kind of White nationalist that is being criticised. He responded by asking the following:

Ted Sallis, comment 1381496, 28 Feb 2017 wrote:

“We can’t pretend that an Irishman and a Russian are interchangeable. ”
 

That canard again. I want to know – who says that? Who believes it? Who advocates that? If ethnonationalists don’t want to be viewed as fundamentally dishonest then you guys really need to stop making the most absurd strawman arguments.

By asking those questions, he was basically trying to force John Morgan to either go around looking up examples of people who he knew were doing it but which he did not have ready to hand, or to retract his whole argument.

Morgan responded:

John Morgan, comment 1381497, 28 Feb 2017 wrote:
 

I’ve heard such rhetoric from many people on the Alt Right. Specifically here, however, I’m thinking particularly of ideas that Richard Spencer has outlined in the past.

To which Sallis fired back:

Ted Sallis, comment 1381545, 01 Mar 2017 wrote:

If Spencer ever advocated such interchangeability, I’d like a quote. In my 20+ years of activism, always with a strong pan-European focus, I’ve only encountered one – one! – person who advocated any sort of “homogenizing” of Europeans – that was Hoffmeister in the introduction to Lowell’s book (and I critiqued him for that on this blog). And even Hoffmeister (insofar as I know) doesn’t believe these groups are the same, he just advocated their intermarriage. If Spencer suggested that all Europeans are the same, I would denounce that also. But don’t pretend or imply that those all people who advocate for a “Big Europe” idea actually believe such nonsense. It is factually incorrect, and its offensive.

One could just as easily look at ethnonationalist squabbling among Slovaks, Hungarians, and Romanians, or the Balt animus toward Russia, and accuse ethnonationalists of all supporting intra-European conflict.

At this point I decided to jump in, because I actually had the answer to Sallis’ aggressive questioning. It’s a slightly lengthy comment but I’ll reproduce it in full nonetheless:

Kumiko Oumae, comment 1381582, 01 Mar 2017 wrote (emphasis added):

There are some people who are essentially doing that. I can think of two offhand, Richard Spencer has been doing it in a subtle way, and Constantin von Hoffmeister has also been doing it in a completely explicit way.

Here’s an example of Spencer doing it in a podcast on 19 Dec 2015: http://www.radixjournal.com/blog/2015/12/19/trump-putin-and-the-future-of-the-white-world

Again, Spencer doesn’t explicitly do it, he just establishes the kind of framework which could lead a person to arrive at those conclusions. He does acknowledge in the podcast that the ‘unity’ he is talking about is a long shot.

Here’s an example of Hoffmeister doing it in an interview on Stark Truth Radio on 28 Feb 2017: http://www.starktruthradio.com/?p=3913

In that interview Hoffmeister actually calls for ‘an alliance of Berlin, Moscow and Tel Aviv’. He repeats it three times and seems to have no self-awareness about how a large percentage of listeners will regard him and that savagely obscene idea with the utmost horror and revulsion.

And Hoffmeister had also appeared at Identitarian Ideas IX, on 25 Feb 2017: https://altright.com/2017/02/27/identitarian-ideas-ix-rising-from-the-ruins-2/

Hoffmeister’s appearance at that venue seems to show that he is no longer totally the half-joke and half-eccentric figure that he was apparently seen as in the 2006 – 2009 period. It wouldn’t be impossible that his ideas might have some currency with some people in the Alt-Right.

A scan of comments sections often will also show random commenters affirming those kinds of views, and they seem to have received a renewed – albeit still limited – push since the emergence of Russian Active Measures which strove to amplify certain aspects of the Alt-Right message that the Russian state assessed to be useful to cultivating a social support for their energy interests in Europe. By amplifying the parts of Alt-Right ideology they agree with, or inserting themselves into identitarian movements, or by simply funding organisations, Russia has been able to shape some of the contours of these social movements in ways that could be conducive to their interests.

John Morgan’s article was really good, I think, he is on to the truth. Morgan may or may not have had quotes or specific podcast links immediately to hand when he was writing his article – after all, not everyone has browser bookmarks as beautifully organised as myself – but his sense of the situation wasn’t wrong. This is a thing.

The people who believe in the ‘Big Europe’, often tend to also assert that anyone who disagrees with them is ‘in favour of intra-European conflict’ or something like that. But actually on a basic level the ideas propagated by those who believe in a so-called ‘Big Europe’ – by which it is understood as a ‘Lisbon to Vladivostok’ concept – are the ideas that really are promoting an intra-European conflict because the persons promoting them must know on some level that Britain specifically will be dramatically opposed to any such thing.

What do I mean by that? Well, no one ever tries to utter the phrase ‘London to Vladivostok’, and I think we all know why they do not say that. It’s because they know that they cannot. At the end of the day, people do quietly understand that Britain’s geostrategic and geoeconomic interests are to strive against allowing any single power to control access to the transit lanes and the mineral and energy resources of Central Asia, navigation across and around the Baltic area, the strategic depth of the Visegrad countries, or the natural resources of Siberia. The legacy of the Great Game, the Crimean War, and the First World War’s covert and semi-covert theatre in Central Asia trace the contours of that fascinating phenomenon.

Another factor which has not been considered by many people, is that the advent of ‘Brexit’ which will be implemented sometime in the next thirty days, will further unshackle Britain from the continent, and thus unshackle Britain from the (relatively speaking) moderating effect that European institutions suffused with Franco-German stakeholders have previously exerted on British policy toward Russia. In other words, Brexit will not herald a softening of British policy toward Russia, but rather it will herald a sharpening of British policy against Russia.

It is ironic that many of the same people who supported ‘Big Europe’ also gave moral support to ‘Brexit’ (and thus they accidentally supported #GlobalBritain!), because these things are totally opposed tendencies. Britain was asked to choose between the continent and the sea, and it chose the sea again, as it absolutely had to. And there’s nothing wrong with that, that is an integral part of the identity of the British people as a seafaring trading nation with ‘historical connections’ to Central, South and East Asia.

In summary: For people to call for ‘an imperium from Lisbon to Vladivostok’ or ‘a Euro-Siberian imperium’ as Hoffmeister does, is effectively the same as those persons announcing an intent to have conflict with a whole laundry list of countries who will of course disagree with it, namely, all the countries which would have to be unwillingly dragged into such an arrangement, as well as offshore balancers like the British who would rightly see their interests being threatened by any such suggestion.

‘Big Europe’ is also a maximum autistic LARP which is open for exploitation by Gazprom, because the concept doesn’t intersect with realities on the ground and ends up functioning as a mere cheerleading squad for the Kremlin. It additionally seems to want to include large swathes of land in the so-called ‘RFE’ that are not even inhabited by Europeans to begin with.

Greg Johnson told me it was a good response, saying:

Greg Johnson, comment 1381651, 02 Mar 2017 wrote:

Thank you. This is an excellent comment.

And it really is excellent, if I do say so myself.

Ted Sallis was of course having none of that. His rebuttal to the fact that his precious ‘Big Europe’ from ‘Lisbon to Vladivostok’ had just been been branded a ‘maximum autistic LARP’, was to respond with the absolute classic: “no, you!” It could be said that all of history’s best ethnic wars start this way:

Ted Sallis, comment 1381611, 01 Mar 2017 wrote:

No, your insane Asian imperialism of Silk Road White Nationalism is the LARP that we should all beware of, for autistic Asiaphiles selling out to the inscrutables of Beijing, Tokyo, and Seoul. We do not need Russian-hating Japanese dictating to Europeans what our relationships to each other should be.

Britain’s “geostrategic” interests helped lead to two World Wars that lost them their empire, wrecked the White world, and led to the colonization of Britain and the rest of Europe by the Third World. It’s high time that the British stop applying 19th and early 20th century strategies to a 21st century world.

And, yes, by the way, I’m a Big Europe person who was enthusiastically in favor of Brexit, since the EU is the perfectly inverse mirror image of what a sane Big Europe would be like. The EU is monstrous, not because European cooperation and collegial feeling is bad, but because it is a vehicle for globalist aspiration (which the government of Britain and all other Western European nations also is).

“the British people as a seafaring trading nation with ‘historical connections’ to Central, South and East Asia.”

Right…Britain should make common cause with Asians against Europe so as to please Asian imperialists who covet the Russian Far East. Sorry, I do hope the British people don’t fall for that Asiatic swindle.

I suppose this is what the time period 1854 to 1917 was like, at least in terms of rhetoric. Some may see that time period as being a kind of hell, others may see it as heaven, but whichever it is, we are going there; it’s geographically predetermined.

Also, Ted Sallis obviously just hates me, doesn’t he? He seems to regard me with a special kind of hatred and I don’t even know where it’s coming from, because as far as I know I never actually did the things that he is constantly accusing me of all over the internet.

I’ll use this article as an opportunity to address a wide cross-section of the issues that he keeps raising. As such I’ll be responding not only to the specific comment that he made, but to a selection of things that he’s said about my stances over the past eighteen months on his site as well, since there is considerable overlap.

Not ‘dictating’ and not ‘seducing’

Ted Sallis, comment 1381611, 01 Mar 2017 wrote:

[...] We do not need Russian-hating Japanese dictating to Europeans what our relationships to each other should be.

[...]

I don’t have any desire to ‘dictate’ anything to any Europeans. I simply offer my ear in sympathy and solidarity and I make suggestions that I think are good suggestions. At no point do I demand anything. I don’t even take that tone. My views at their strongest are merely firm recommendations. Sallis has previously suggested – or at least strongly implied – on his blog that I go around ‘seducing’ people into doing or saying what I want them to. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is no ‘Asian woman privilege’. To imagine that it is so would be completely delusional and paranoid. I know that popular media makes it look like we tend to gain automatic admittance to any venue on the basis of charm alone and then destroy the place, but I can assure you that in reality it doesn’t quite work that way. It would be fun if it did work that way, though.

So let’s dispel these fictions.

If Asians had the fantastically manipulative social powers that Sallis constantly claims we have on his blog, then either the Chaebol-preferred candidate Jeb Bush or the Keidanren-preferred candidate Marco Rubio would have attained the GOP nomination, whereas the Mossad-preferred candidate Donald Trump would have been blocked from entry. In such a scenario the GOP also would have somehow come under the sustained lobbying sway of what are actually weak Asian lobbies in the United States. And if either Jeb or Rubio then happened to fail against Hillary, then it would have simply been a Hillary Clinton presidency, in which the status quo would continue but at least the Iran JCPOA deal would not have come under threat, and existing global problems would somehow not have been made worse by Americans choosing to conform themselves to Israeli policy preferences on the subject of Iran.

There is no perfect solution because the United States is basically political hell, but one at least does what one can. Trump was the least-preferred candidate for Asian interests.

Some of course may be asking what right I have to say anything about American politics, a question that White nationalists like to hotly ask me whenever I give my opinion on anything that they have done. The answer is that what happens in America affects everyone.

All of the candidates were unacceptable in some way, but they existed and could not be wished out of existence or wished into a form that was different from what they were. Thus, it was necessary to prioritise what policy preferences were most important and do triage on that basis. This could not be done merely on the basis of statements uttered on the campaign trail, but rather, the network of institutions and people who the candidate is enmeshed with or beholden to, as well as the family and blood connections of the candidate also had to be seen as indicative of what that candidate may be likely to do if elected.

The priorities looked something like this:

1. Maintaining the Iran JCPOA Deal,
2. Passing the TPP,
3. Taking decisive moves against North Korea’s nuclear ambitions,
4. Attenuating and disrupting Russian/Gazprom gains in Eastern and Central Europe,
5. Incentivise the de-linking French industry from Russia by passing TTIP,
6. Stopping the construction of further Israeli settlements and thus disrupting the American-Israeli relationship,
7. Locking down Europe’s southern border and boxing in ISIL,
8. Disrupting Turkish-American cooperation,
9. Maintaining the US-imposed sanctions against Russia ‘until the Ukraine crisis is resolved’ (ie, until whenever), so as to alter the patterns of international investment in Russia in a way that forces sections of Russian territory to become economically reliant on China, and thus, structurally tame and subordinate Russia to China.

To focus in on the top priority, which is maintaining the Iran deal, the reasons for desiring that the deal be maintained are as follows:

1. It would allow Iran the ability to safely and reliably vend more of its gas to European countries, which offsets Russian energy preponderance. Since Russian energy preponderance is one of the key mechanisms that Russia uses for political leverage in Europe, having Iran on tap as the alternative would serve to erode Russian power in Europe.
2. Allowing Iran to trade with the rest of the world, allows the rest of the world to invest in sectors of the Iranian economy that are starved for cash and innovation, and could potentially have structural effects that empower local moderates as Iran shifts away from the isolated command model of economy over time.
3. Eases the economic relationships between Central and Eastern European countries, and Iran, which is a net good for trade because part of China’s OBOR will run through Iranian territory. The OBOR is the key link which offers a physical high speed connection between the East Asian supply chain network on the one hand, and the European market of consumers on the other.
4a. Enhancing Iranian energy exports would exert downward pressure on energy prices globally, which is good for consumers and bad for rent-seeking oil-despots.
4b. Long-term low prices forces energy services companies and extractors to streamline and innovate their shale operations even more, which reinforces the ‘price cap’, and thus disrupts the cohesion of the effectively Saudi-led OPEC cartel.

Needless to say, the ‘Donald J. Trump’ option would not satisfy any of those priorities.

Since total withdrawal from the scene would have been pointless, Asian and European lobbyists and donors had to remain engaged in that form of electoral triage and stay close to America during the 2016 election cycle in the hopes that the outcome could be shaped in a way that is least disadvantageous to the participants. 

It is possible to model projections on the basis of past signals at previous cycles, combined with the new inputs that had arisen in the 2016 cycle and from that, it could be possible to construct a strategy for that situation. The past signals come from polls and social sciences studies which give people insight into how different cohorts in American society respond to various stimuli when elections are on. Consider it a form of electoral bandlimiting.

But there’s a problem. The Heisenberg–Gabor limit. All real-world signals are timelimited.

Wikipedia, ‘Bandlimiting > Bandlimited versus timelimited’:

A bandlimited signal cannot be also timelimited. More precisely, a function and its Fourier transform cannot both have finite   support. This fact can be proved by using complex analysis and properties of Fourier transform. [...]

One important consequence of this result is that it is impossible to generate a truly bandlimited signal in any real-world situation, because a bandlimited signal would require infinite time to transmit. All real-world signals are, by necessity, timelimited, which means that they cannot be bandlimited. Nevertheless, the concept of a bandlimited signal is a useful idealization for theoretical and analytical purposes. Furthermore, it is possible to approximate a bandlimited signal to any arbitrary level of accuracy desired.

A similar relationship between duration in time and bandwidth in frequency also forms the mathematical basis for the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics.

To make a long story short, there is an extent to which all of this is a form of gambling.

It was clear that Donald Trump’s network was the narrowest. Trump’s network was basically a collection of Israelis, real estate developers and construction companies, and former Goldman Sachs employees.

The other candidates were much more multifaceted in terms of who they were allowing to influence them, and this would mean that in the case of the other candidates, there would be a greater chance for more diverse donors and lobbyists to exert influence to counteract whatever Israeli influence might be aimed at them.

From that perspective, it made sense to throw as many resources as possible against Donald Trump’s campaign once it became apparent that he could be a serious contender, and to support others in their efforts to signal against Donald Trump’s candidacy.

But it didn’t work out.

What actually happened in the end of course was that no one, absolutely no one was able to prevent Trump from winning everything. As a result of Trump winning, Israel was able to walk away with basically all the prizes. More prizes than they’ve ever had before. It was the worst possible outcome.

So this gameplan that Sallis is accusing Asians of trying out on America, is a gameplan which didn’t even work, did it?

Asian state actors may or may not have literally come in and stacked Federal Reserve Notes to the roof at the US Chamber of Commerce, networked with the CATO Institute and many others on trade issues, while private citizens may or may not have gone around the other side of the right-spectrum and leveraged the ideological components of the HBD/ethnopluralist movement to raise Asian social status through repeatedly publicising the stories of academic high achievers – and then after all was said and done and spent, White Americans still got up, declared that Asian producer nations were somehow ‘the problem’, filed into the voting booths, and voted for the anti-Asian candidate: Donald Trump.

Misplaced emphasis?

The hyperventilating emphasis that Sallis places on exhorting White nationalists to combat Asian diaspora lobbies and the home nations, seems very strange to me, given that our primary opponent is not White people. The number one threat to the East Asian post-war success story is a United States and/or a Russian Federation which is controlled preponderantly by the state of Israel’s lobbyists.

Our number one opponent in actual reality is Israel.

Every time an Asian takes aim at the Israel lobby for whatever motive, people like Sallis end up jumping in the way to unintentionally shield the Israelis because some White nationalists tend to think it’s aimed at White people. For example, when someone engages in industrial targeting against companies which are controlled by people with blatantly Jewish names, people like Sallis who are in the anti-Asian camp always show up to sound the alarm by protesting about ‘the Asian takeover’. Americans and Russians inadvertently end up defending many of the existing Jewish Zionist oligarchs in their own countries from the machinations of everyone else’s oligarchs.

Everything really hinges around what people’s priorities are. Is your priority to defend the structural integrity of the propositional nation called ‘the United States’ or ‘the Russian Federation’ or whatever? Or is your priority to counteract the power of the Jewish lobby which is firmly entrenched in those two locations above all else? The answer cannot realistically be ‘both’. Choose one.

Or to put in the bluntest terms, are you primarily anti-Semitic, or are you primarily pro-‘Big Europe’ and pro-America?

At Sallis’ blog I have actually seen him claim that the outworking of Asian interests are – in his view – a ‘greater longterm threat’ to White people than the outworking of Jewish interests are.

It is frankly amazing to me that he could arrive at that conclusion.

Also, he has repeatedly mischaracterised what I have meant by ‘collaboration’. By ‘European and Asian collaboration’ I have only meant moving toward the kind of détente where we agree to maintain the presently-existing trade and investment arrangements and that ethnonationalists on both sides should refrain from taking up protectionist stances and that both sides should avoid stoking communal tensions in their publications. I have never asked for anything else. It’s a request that didn’t even require White people to do or change anything, since that is a status quo position anyway.

If someone said that it was anything beyond “don’t step on each other’s toes if you can help it”, then such a person is wrong, or is overly-enthusiastic.

At any rate, a lot of the ‘harder’ stuff that I say to people about geoeconomic issues is done low key and non-publicly (as those people who receive the occasional email from me could attest to), I only have to defend myself like this if I’m basically accused directly of something, as Sallis keeps doing.

So here we go!

Sallis refers to my stance as being effectively ‘Asian imperialism’, but it remains a mystery as to where this ‘imperialism’ actually is. Accusing me of ‘British imperialism’ would be a misnomer too, but at least that would sound a bit more coherent with respect to what I’ve actually been writing, given that what I’m saying is all cast within the already-presently-existing British framework anyway. Or is he accusing me of promoting both Asian and British ‘imperialism’ at the same time? I think he needs to define his terms, since I don’t know what definition of ‘imperialism’ he is using. ‘Imperialism’ as contrasted with what?

If I sell you a basket of products and then spend the money to improve our standing in the world, that is not ‘imperialism’. Also, even if it were ‘imperialism’, what difference at this point would it make? Next Sallis would be telling me that the fact that I continue to breathe oxygen is objectively bad in and of itself.

Obviously from my perspective, if my breathing oxygen is ‘imperialist’ and anti-Russian, then I had better keep being ‘imperialist’ and anti-Russian, because oxygen is pretty sweet! Obviously no one could reasonably expect that either myself or the Britons would feel any kind of guilt about that. We can only step over it. It would do nothing to change the present situation on the ground, which is what it is.

My stance simply boils down to speaking against economic protectionism, and guaranteeing the gains that were accrued after 1991 at the end of the Cold War and the economic defeat of the USSR. The new order which manifested after 1991, when the frontiers of Muscovy were mercifully rolled back on all sides by over fifteen thousand miles, became an order focussed on deepening global supply chains so as to cut costs while also battling the ‘loose ends’ of radical Islamic terror and migration crises.

It is possible to attend to those above issues while also being aware of the racial issue: which is that the nation-state is the richest and most developed repository of historical experience and governmental best-practices, and furthermore it is the surest source of inner motive energies (call it ‘EGI’) which motivate people to fight and to strive for a better seat at the table and a brighter day in the sun.

Sallis dislikes the supposed ‘inscrutables’ of ‘Beijing, Tokyo, and Seoul’ (and presumably New Delhi and the rest too), but how inscrutable can it be? It’s transparent that people do not want to be subjected to trade policies and foreign policies that are crafted by people in North America who seem to want to pretend that all North America’s problems are coming from Asia in the form of molded plastic and semiconductors.

The idea that Britain should conform its foreign policy to satisfy those very American concerns also doesn’t make any sense, since European states have legitimate interests that do not mesh with those of the United States. It’s way past time that people should continue to pretend that the United States has identical geostrategic and geoeconomic interests as European states do, much less that the different European states all have identical interests.

A thing America actually now did

I mean let’s be real, the Americans just somehow non-ironically elected a guy who came out with a speech 120 hours ago where he advocated what? This hilarious list:

a. 54 billion more drunkenly spent on defence spending targeted at nothing,
b. 1 trillion more for infrastructure spending for inner city no-go zones which will have pitiable return on investment,
c. More o’ dem social programmes for the poor baby Trayvons in Detroit who lost their jobs – despite them never having had a job – to the allegedly ‘bad bad’ people in Manila or ‘bad bad’ people in Ho Chi Minh City who are apparently ‘ripping’ you, because why? Because of course. Apparently according to Hunter Wallace, African-Americans are now more valuable to the Alt-Right than trade with Asian states is, so what the hell.
d. Free cash-money for Israel. Because Trump just loves Israel. Because his family is married into it. All of them will continue to studiously ignore that tendency.

So there I was, watching that mortifying clown-car of super-horrible policies unpacking itself into the international arena and I was asking – while I was drinking white rum directly from the bottle – a single question. Only one question.

“But Bernie—I mean, Trump, how are you planning to actually pay for any of this stuff, fam?”

The answer arrived shortly thereafter! The ‘answer’ is apparently:

a. Doubling-down on protectionist tariffs and incoherent ‘buy American’ sloganeering to socially reinforce it, a move which depends on the absurd and not-ever-happening idea that Asian economies will passively allow the United States to subject them to a tariff regime designed by Gary Cohn which would literally grab money out of Asian financial centres and reroute it back into the treasury of the Zionist Occupation Government,
b. Lower taxes on American people, 
c. Lower taxes on American corporations, 
d. Every American gets a tax refund to pay for medical care to replace the ACA.

Hmm! But that’s okay perhaps, since certain commodities stocks have spiked up since 09 November 2016, and maybe if the markets reorder themselves around that, those positions can continue to grow. People can make instruments which tap into that expansion, and then people and the state itself can borrow against those instruments using some very fancy mathematical formulas to predict their performance. Detroit and other Rust Belt disaster zones will somehow magically be rebuilt, and the African-Americans will somehow crank out billions of widgets while somehow not being at all socially-dysfunctional, so that all of the big spending will totally somehow pay for itself. The formulas may or may not have documentation associated with them. The formulas may or may not even be based in any kind of rational thought. Your children can then repay the money to Goldman Sachs about 35 years from now. And all of that is to be done so that the allegedly heroic America can finally defeat the allegedly undead East Asia.

Wow, right? Really very much wow. I mean the whole Trump-style plan has literally never failed before except for like every single time ever.

I guess you could say that I disagree with the Israel-backed Trumpist manchild plan, because my geopolitical stances are all anti-Semitic in one way or another. You could say that I disagree with the Israel-backed Trumpist manchild plan because I am of course an Asian woman, which is another factor that makes me very scary and perhaps ‘evil’. But I’ve never lied or swindled about anything in that regard.

Separate destinies

Theresa May is the polar opposite of Donald Trump on those issues, and thank goodness she is the polar opposite. No false appeals by the usual suspects to ‘the White race’ and its supposed ‘unity’ are going to induce the British to make common cause with the American economic-protectionist suicide pact against their own interests, because – frankly – the British public are on average simply savvier than their American counterparts, just enough so to have deftly evaded the protectionism con-game, and to have correctly supported Brexit at the same time.

Of course, there are some Trump-supporters out there who would say that this entire article could be summarised as being ‘an example of what the siren-song of globalisation sounds like’, but those people are not even capable of rigor in their analysis of anything because they’ve become ensnared by Donald Trump’s cult of personality and cannot help but senselessly parrot every one of his forced memes.

I’m incredibly optimistic about Britain because everything the British people are doing recently is just great, and the interests being expressed in these isles are legitimate. 

I will therefore reiterate: Britain was forced to choose between the continent and the sea, and Britain chose the sea again. And there’s nothing wrong with that, that is an integral part of the identity of the British people as a seafaring trading nation with historical connections to Central, South and East Asia.

If people such as Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin and Angela Merkel don’t understand this, it is only because it is not in their national interest to try to understand it. But there is no reason why anyone should be held hostage to their trade preferences.

Those who continue to oppose Britain will continue to do so no matter what we say. But the ways in which they do so will become increasingly subtle. It is one thing to have continental European or American allies – alliances imply cooperation between distinct groups – but it is absolutely a different thing entirely to have these people actually as part of our own groups, browbeating us because we won’t bend our knee to the Kremlin, Berlin, or Washington DC. Letting opponents of Britain shape the contours of how Britain should express its national interests is not ‘European racial solidarity’, it is subversion by hostile foreign groups whose interests do not align with Britain’s.

It is perhaps no coincidence that Britain’s opponents are fully engaged in concern-trolling about supposed Asian ‘swindlers’ in Britain in the aftermath of Brexit, because Brexit is apparently not enough for the American and Russian concern-trolls. It is however quite enough for the British people who wisely voted to block the mass migration of Arabs and North Africans via the European Union into Britain, but are quite sensibly not willing to burn down the entire civil society and economy of Britain just to pointlessly antagonise Asians because some American or German or Russian enemy asked them to do so in the name of a non-existing ‘European solidarity’.

You have to wonder if these people even understand what Brexit means. Do they know? It means ‘British Citizens Politely Exiting From Your Actual Disaster Zone’. It is literally the opposite of ‘solidarity’. There is no solidarity, nor should there be any solidarity in the present circumstances.

Necessary trade

Free trade and the economic integration of Britain and the East is not an ‘Asiatic swindle’ as Sallis would allege, but rather, it is regions of the world exchanging goods and securing the world’s most important transit zones, for mutual benefit. It is a dividend arising from of forty years of work which was done by the previous generation of actors, and which we in the present have inherited.

Our motives can be expressed in the material realm in a transactional way, and as such this expression eliminates the uncertainty that would accompany idealistic or sentimental reasons.

For British Asians in the Brexit environment, our lives and our property are bound up with the fortunes and the flag of Great Britain, so it is only natural that we would stand with Britain against any and all opponents. We are not ‘loyal’ for just some kind of sentimental reasons alone. We are ‘loyal’ because everyone appreciates that Britain will now be well-placed in a secure position to participate more than ever in the ongoing process of global development in the places that need it most.

Furthermore, Brexit would not be economically viable for Britain without the maintenance and expansion of trade relationships with growth regions in Asia to fill the void left by Britain’s departure from the European Common Market. The precise way in which that will manifest is presently a ‘blank page’ with a title heading over it in the Brexit plan, but the correct way of looking at the concept of there being a ‘blank page’ with a title heading over it is to recognise that as an opportunity for people to write something mutually edifying there.

Cloudflare’s bufffer overrun was dubbed ‘Cloudbleed’ as a historical reference to ‘Heartbleed’.

Why am I talking about this?

Some interesting events have occurred surrounding Cloudflare, one of the largest global CDNs, and I’ll take the opportunity to put some opinions out there about what has happened.

What a CDN is

A Content Delivery Network is a system of strategically positioned servers. Those servers maintain and accelerate the delivery of content. The main goals of a CDN are about speed, scalability and high-availability. A request from a consumer will generally be routed to the nearest geographic point-of-presence. The consumer’s physical distance to these servers has an impact on loading time. A closer and highly performing point-of-presence significantly improves user experience as a result of reduced loading time, lower latency and minimised packet loss. A Content Delivery Network also cuts operational costs by allowing businesses to effectively outsource the logistics and maintenance of these servers. This allows companies the ability to benefit from global load balancing and leverage the cost-savings that accrue due to economy of scale, because CDN provisioning is structured in the economic domain as an oligopoly.

Sounds nice, so what’s the problem?

There isn’t a problem in principle. In practice however, sometimes really bad things happen. When you have an oligopoly, the effect of someone accidentally placing an “==” equal sign in their code when they actually meant to write an “>=” greater-than-or-equal sign, can have pretty dramatic effects in terms of the number of people who might be affected by whatever happens as a consequence. Which, incidentally, is how ‘Cloudbleed’ happened.

It’s all part of the advantages and disadvantages of the present infrastructure. The advantages outweigh the disadvantages, but it means that this is the way that internet has developed and people have to basically be prepared for this kind of incident.

The story

The unwanted behaviour at Cloudflare was coming from an HTML parser chain that is used to modify webpages as they pass through the service’s edge servers. The parser carries out a range of functions, such as inserting Google Analytics tags, converting HTTP links to HTTPS links, finding strings that look like email addresses and then obfuscating them, and preventing malicious web bots from accessing some parts of a page.

When the HTML parser was used in combination with three Cloudflare features – email obfuscation, server-side excludes and automatic HTTPS rewrites – and if an HTML page being served to a consumer by a Cloudflare proxy had a specific combination of unbalanced tags, then a pseudo-random leakage of memory pages outside the boundary of what was supposed to be served would also be interspersed into what was being served.

This means that encryption keys, cookies, passwords, sections of POST data, chat messages from some online chat services, online password manager data, and HTTPS requests from other Cloudflare-hosted websites were being leaked pseudo-randomly.

Because the structure of the system is such that the proxies are shared between all Cloudflare customers, all customers were affected, and leaked pages of memory for pages being served on behalf of any given customer, were being interspersed among the expected responses for any other given customer.

Cloudflare optimises the performance of more than 5 million websites, and as this story unfolded, it really has become clear to everyone just how significant that number is. The duration of the ‘bleed’ is also significant, since this ‘bleed’ may have been occurring since 22 September 2016, and the period of greatest impact was between 13 February 2017 and 18 February 2017.

Furthermore, web crawlers and archivers, search engine cache services, corporate squid proxy-cache networks, and browser caches on consumers’ workstations globally were all downloading and holding the pseudo-random data that was ‘bleeding’ for the entirety of the duration of this period. It was just that most people didn’t understand what it was that they were seeing or where it was coming from, or otherwise didn’t notice it.

At that stage, it is not known whether anyone had realised it was happening before 19 February 2017, or whether it was exploited in any way.

What’s the appropriate response?

In situations like this, you have to decide on how good you think your luck is, and how important you think that you and your organisation are, and how thorough you are willing to have your response be. What you or your organisation chooses to do in response may be different from what you might recommend on a wider level to others. On principle, given the scale of the ‘bleed’ and the possibility that passwords may have become exposed, many security professionals are advocating that it may be best for all consumers to change their passwords for basically everything on the internet as soon as possible.

Another way of looking at it however is that the internet – much like the feudal structure of pre-modern Japan, or Korea, or India – has a kind of informal rank system. Messaging has to be different for different groups, because not everyone performs the same function, or has the same time available to devote to a particular task, and some people and groups tend to be more in scope of hostile state and non-state actors than others.

Changing all passwords everywhere, while technically the correct response for the ‘Brahmins and Kshatriyas’ of the internet, may seem like a complete overblown response to a scenario where 0.00003% of HTTP requests were affected, if narrated from the perspective of the ‘Vaishyas and Shudras’ of the internet.

In other words, sounding the alarm as loudly as possible could induce a kind of security fatigue among the ‘normal people’, and may even incentivise bad behaviour from ‘normal people’, since when mass-changing their passwords, they may be more likely to repeat the usage of many similar passwords across the services they use, and they may – in their haste – be inclined to reduce the complexity of their newly-crafted passwords.

In other words, sounding the alarm in the loudest and most severe way possible will have the effect of inducing the correct and thorough response from the custodians of key infrastructure – who already were going to display that correct response anyway regardless of the words in the media – while in fact also having the unintended effect of inducing a wrong or inadequate response from ‘normal people’.

It also has the effect of creating a ‘morning after bounty’, since for people who are engaged in signals collections and tailored access operations, this would be a luxurious time since the percentage of transmissions which will be about the changing of passwords would be spiking over the next one or two weeks if every individual in the entire world were asked to change all their passwords. Such adversarial actors would be incentivised to mount subversive campaigns during this time because the possible cost-benefit ratio of carrying out the project just tilted a bit more toward the ‘benefit’ side of the equation.

Thus, paradoxically, the panicked response to the already-fixed problem could be what in fact creates the environment in which a technically unrelated but socially ‘subsequent’ actual array of attacks could occur which otherwise may not have occurred.

Similar to a problem that has been discussed in relation to CT

If all of this sounds similar to the problem of managing a population’s response to terrorist threats while also maintaining a strong counter-terrorism posture, you’d be correct. It is basically similar.

It also comes with the same danger faced in erring too much to the side of ‘downplaying’ while trying to avoid inducing ‘panic’. Downplaying an incident so as to avoid triggering inadequate or inappropriate responses from the ‘normal people’, deprives them of information and can make people become suspicious of the intentions of the system. It can make professionals look like they are ‘incompetent’ or even that they ‘have something to hide’.

In such a case, a panicked response in the general public as a result of the feeling that they are being lied to by authorities or that authorities do not appreciate the scope and scale of a threat, may inadvertently end up leading to the very same damaging outcomes that the authorities were attempting to avoid in the first place, with the additional downside being that distrust of the persons in authority and the proliferation of conspiracy theories become added to it.

This is why it’s vital to find ways to assess the mood of the general public and to model their responses in some way, in response to almost any issue in society. The messaging for different geographic, occupational, and socio-economic groups has to somehow be different without being completely contradictory between themselves. If people in authority in any given situation are unable to leverage the social domain with sufficient adeptness to do that, then they may lose control of the narrative which is something that can have potentially unpredictable or even disastrous consequences.

Mastering the social domain and producing outcomes that mesh with and evolve with operational necessities, is something that is vital to continuing effective governance, be it governance of a multinational company which controls one of the Content Delivery Networks, right the way up to, say, governance of a country or of a regional supra-state.

Additional thoughts on Cloudflare

I of course do have criticisms of Cloudflare, but they are criticisms which are not about criticising the concept of what a CDN is, and rather, are more specific to Cloudflare as a company.

I’ll cover two issues.

I’ll start with the less concrete and more speculative one. For dissident groups that are not tacitly supported or at least allowed by the states in the North Atlantic, Cloudflare might present a risk to such groups because Cloudflare is within the jurisdiction of the United States and they could conceivably respond to legal requests made within the United States. Another factor to consider is that Cloudflare has taken dark funding and may actually be ‘on side’ with FVEY-related collections since at least 2012. Admittedly, it is difficult to substantiate this claim, but it’s something worth considering.

The more concrete criticism which I can definitely substantiate is Tor-related. Matthew Prince, the CEO of Cloudflare, took to his blog on 30 March 2016 to make what appeared to be a rather nuanced argument in favour of anonymity but against Tor in its present form due to the issue of malicious abuse of the network.

Much of what he wrote was eminently reasonable.

For instance, Prince suggests that Cloudflare could become friendly toward Tor under the circumstances where onion addresses were to begin using stronger hashing algorithms than the presently-existing SHA-1 80 bit hashing algorithm. Under such a circumstance, Prince suggested that the stipulation that onion addresses only be issued certificates if such certificates are EV certificates – which require extended validation procedures, cannot be issued automatically, and undermine the very anonymity which Tor was intended to promote – could be relaxed, as CA/B Forum would likely be open to discussing the automatic issuance of certificates in such a circumstance. Cloudflare could then allow its customers to create onion sites in some kind of automated way, and the issuance of certificates for those onion sites could also be automated. Tor traffic could then be whitelisted when it is directed toward those onion sites, while blacklisting could continue for Tor traffic which is directed toward the non-onion sites.

The world described in Prince’s suggestion would certainly be an interesting world to live in. However, we don’t actually live in that world.

Instead, we live in a world where Cloudflare alleges that 94% of the traffic directed toward its customers across the Tor network is ‘malicious’, based on the data from the Cloudflare IP reputation system. That may or may not be true, but given that there are a lot of people using Tor and a limited number of Tor exit nodes, this means that Cloudflare is either CAPTCHA-challenging or blocking 80% of Tor IP addresses and this number is steadily growing. This has the effect of discouraging people who have legitimate intentions from using Tor to access sites that are protected by Cloudflare.

Prince’s explanation for this is that Cloudflare is forced to behave that way in order to protect their customers from abuse, and that they can only rely on IP reputation because there is no way to do browser fingerprinting to differentiate between different Tor browsers, because the Tor browser is specifically designed to lessen the ability to generate unique fingerprints. Cloudflare can in such a circumstance only evaluate the communication on the basis of the reputation of the IP and the content of the request. That is also true and is a reasonable explanation, but at the same time it is what it is.

While Cloudflare’s default behaviour is to CAPTCHA-challenge Tor, it is possible to add the country ‘T1’ to the Cloudflare firewall whitelist, which would exclude Tor users from having to complete CAPTCHA-challenges. This behaviour became possible in late 2016, and so ‘dissident’ sites that continue to present challenges to Tor users are responsible for choosing or not choosing that behaviour.

In a kind of funny irony, Prince also notes that 18% of all global spam begins with an automated bot harvesting publicly available email addresses through the Tor network. Given that a significant subset of this spam is phishing-related, it is an unintentionally hilarious statement by Prince because 40% of all phishing sites in 2015 were using certificates that were issued by Cloudflare’s ‘Universal SSL’ service.

Furthermore, Cloudflare’s ridiculous ‘Flexible SSL’ – billed by them as ‘the easiest secure sockets layer ever’ – provides what is essentially security theatre between Cloudflare’s proxy and the client, without any of the actual security that would be required between the client tier and the middleware, and has the damaging effect of giving consumers a false sense of security. The so-called ‘Flexible SSL’ is so ‘flexible’ in that scenario that it is essentially non-existent. Consumers have been trained to look for the padlock in the address bar before submitting sensitive information to any website. ‘Flexible SSL’ grants phishing sites and other malicious actors the ability present that padlock to users with minimal effort. ‘Easiest SSL ever’, indeed.

I tend to prefer actual, real, end-to-end SSL to be the only possible implementation. But hey, that’s just me, right?

But now I’m just bullying them, so I’ll dial it back a bit and bring this article to a close. It’s possible that the people at Cloudflare didn’t anticipate that their services would be abused in these ways, and they did get unlucky with the Cloudbleed buffer overrun incident, but in any case, those who are inside glass houses should be careful not to throw stones. Matthew Prince should reflect on the recent incident and refrain from throwing any stones at anyone for at least a couple months.

Was Majorityrights.com affected by Cloudbleed?

This should go without saying, but I will say it anyway.

We don’t use Cloudflare here. As such, Majorityrights.com was not affected by any of the events described in this article.

If we were to ever have a burning need to actually use a CDN here, for various reasons I would probably suggest using either Yottaa or KeyCDN anyway, and not Cloudflare.

Regnery, Spencer, prime umbrellas of (((Alt-Right))) big-tentosphere

Dear Daniel, I’m a reporter at Reveal News, a news service and public radio program in California. Thanks for responding to my Twitter message.

We’re doing some reporting on Richard Spencer and Bill Regnery. I saw the “Richard Thpenther” post on Majorityrights.com, complete with a foto of the 2 of them together, and thought that you could certainly point me in the right direction on some basic factual issues, if you were willing.

So, I’d like to have a conversation. I’m happy to abide by whatever ground rules you set. Here’s my bio, if you’d care to check me out, and my contact info is below. Thanks for your consideration, and please let me know how you’d like to proceed.

Looking forward, Lance Williams, Senior Reporter, Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting

Before moving on to detail the discussion that I had with Williams, I want to recap the left-right paradigm as it is conceived for majorityrights platform, since Williams was asking for my perspective on matters and since like everything that I’ve gleaned from academia and niftily re-tooled for our ethnonationlist interests, it has been attacked, no matter how well aimed, how effective and how coherent in those aims. Since I have not been able to overcome this misplaced jealousy, or naivety, bad advice or whatever causes the intransigence of this contentiousness, I must repeat myself.

Recently, I have been challenged again on the concept of left and right that I use. I refuse to back down and shouldn’t back down for the utility and intelligibility of the concept of left and right as I conceive it. It is intelligible, intuitive even, as it underlies patterns of ordinary language use. It only becomes confused and counter-productive as people try to play along with the more “sophisticated” versions (perversions, really) that Jews have spun through media and academia; which the disingenuous or naive have bought into - as they disingenuously/naively see it serving their interests - the more “sophisticated version” puts forth an oxymoronic definition - that the left is synonymous with liberalism - an oxymoron indeed, conceiving a “union” without prerogative of membership inclusion and exclusion; in fact, by this definition, a union would be just the opposite, it is a “union” that would constantly seek the opening of its membership bounds, to never exclude any “scab” as its highest value (to unionize the entire world as members of the union, we can only imagine). The “sophisticated” White response and what the Jews want, what those disingenuous/naively going along with the arrangement of their terms do, is to say, “no, I’m not a leftist, not a liberal, I’m on the right! - and I can prove that I am not a racist. I’m pure, not arbitrarily setting union bounds of my racial group, despite merit or not, I’m basing membership on unassailable, objective facts and merit alone.”

Ironically, this objectivist response underpins liberalism itself, the very form of the affliction against racial and national maintenance.

Naturally, any halfway intelligent and conscientious White, concerned for White EGI, is going to be mortified that Whites are going along with this, as it puts precious, circumspect patterns at risk and frightens-away potential membership for its lack of accountability. The Jews know this and they promote White identity as right wing because they know that it is going to deter group loyalty where it does not have them reacting into headlong disaster - a trap, fighting on supremacist grounds, (hubris) where they literally become the bad guys who get into disastrous conflict with those that should be their allies (some of them White ethno-nationalists, some of them non-White ethno-nationalists) - vilified as subhuman, these ethno-nationalist adversaries (nemesis) are nevertheless able to fight back very well, and greatly damage the EGI authoritatively designated by the right as its cause, as their adversaries have the collective moral high ground in the concept of social accountability. 
 
Of course those disingenuously/naively going along with the right wing, objectivist version of nationalism, are veering toward two dubious premises with regard to any claims of nationalism: 1) Where otherwise nationalism is not something that just comes together by the invisible hand of nature as it is supposed to, then one or a relatively small number of leaders will assert what is the national group and direct it by their authority which 2) Tends toward limited accountability, as their purported merit for the position is the result of sheer factual (gawd given or sheer natural) merit to make assertions of themselves - it “just wound-up that way” as a result of (gawd given or sheer) nature; and again, the same would supposedly hold true with group and national boundaries - they are supposed to hold up basically because of sheer nature (or gawd). It is a tendency to want to de-emphasize social accountability (to want to have unassailable warrant, to ascribe to oneself innocence/to be unburdened of guilt and responsibility); and to see outcomes as a result of one’s sole agency and sheer nature; while minimizing any joint construction and negotiation of those outcomes.

Quite naturally, such a fool’s game as this, bereft of social accountability as it is, and has been, is a sucker’s game that the Jews (and others, but the Jews most importantly) can take advantage of: it is ripe for them to find some White “leaders” and buy them-off or otherwise hoodwink them into leading, in accordance with Jewish interests, the White sheeple - who naively buy into the right wing, objectivist, “that’s the way it isness”, and less the matter of social construction and accountability that would allow them to effectively maintain their group defense, or even individual defense, ultimately - deliberate designation, delimitation of group boundaries, would immediately correspond with a form of unionization (you are in the union or you are not); an idea underlying any considered concept of “Left.” Whereas the disingenuous and naive go along with the Jewish arrangement of the terms, i.e., that “the left” means unionization only for non-Whites and those antagonistic to White men and their bounds - a prohibition of unionized boundaries for Whites, this is of course an absurd contradiction for Whites - from their end, it is liberalism: a prescription to rupture would-be unionized boundaries, borders, and the social accountability that would facilitate those boundaries and borders by contrast to sheer liberalized mishandling.

Lets pretend for a moment that people are not so retarded as to not be able to understand that and move on.

By contrast, what I have diagnosed as the concept of left nationalism within ordinary language and sustaining a consistent pattern of understanding, making consistent sense, is that: The moment one recognizes the truth by contrast - that we are in interaction, have some social connection and social indebtedness for the origin and maintenance of our manifest form of existence, therefore some responsibility and accountability; further recognizing that we make things together with other people, more or less - more, when we are more obviously responsible for a joint construction and less, but still some, in the agreement of how the more brute facts come to count - we are in the realm of the social and acknowledging the potential for accountability. And once we are in the world of accountability, we are in the world of delimitation, where not just anything goes. We are recognizing social responsibility and then the possibility that we have responsibility more to some than others - more responsibility to those within the “group”, the group designated by consensus and negotiated authority; including responsibility to those deserving of membership but requiring incentive to remain loyal, though they are not on top of the game and ready for higher organizational roles at this time.

In sum, leftism is about recognizing the inextricable reality of interaction, social indebtedness and responsibility, therefore the motion for unionization as a means of accountability and group maintenance, designating out-groups and in groups thereupon, with social accountability as such. Nationalism, ethno-nationalism and racial defense, are a matter of larger scale unions.

Rightism is a motion in its ultimate trajectory toward unassailable warrant in objectivity or divine ordinance, to reduce social accountability through purported objectivity, supra-social principles or divine will. Now, one might object that rightists can be nationalists, or responsive to social needs. What I would say to that is that the moment they are doing that, they are doing a “left thing”, they are going into the social world and its accountability, left nationalism, but without the premises that would solidly ground and sustain group systemic maintenance inasmuch as they retain rightist premises as their ideal and their aim, the lack of accountability thereof; as such, they are primed for subversion by people willing to use the leverage of collaborative agency against them.

Now lets see how this concept played out when I was queried by “RealNews” senior reporter, Lance Williams.

Majorityrights.com

Dear Daniel,

I’m a reporter at Reveal News, a mews service and public radio program in California. Thanks for responding to my Twitter message.

We’re doing some reporting on Richard Spencer and Bill Regnery. I saw the “Richard Thpenther” post on Majorityrights.com, complete with a foto of the 2 of them together, and thought that you could certainly point me in the right direction on some basic factual issues, if you were willing.

So, I’d like to have a conversation. I’m happy to abide by whatever ground rules you set. Here’s my bio, if you’d care to check me out, and my contact info is below.

Thanks for your consideration, and please let me know how you’d like to proceed.

Looking forward.

LW

Lance Williams
Senior Reporter
Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting
1400 65th St. Suite 200
Emeryville, Ca. 94608
https://www.revealnews.org/
office: 510-809-3175
cell: 415-298-2317

Naturally, at this point, I looked at the RealNews outfit’s website, took note of who headed and staffed it, what their basic mission is - obviously very Jewish, very anti-White (pardon the term, as it is misused by those who would misrepresent White ethno-nationalism), very involved in Jewish headed, non-White coalitions, antagonistic to White ethno-nationalism and its necessary alliances.

Reveal News Staff:

First on the list: Colored guy, perhaps mixed Semitc origin:

https://www.revealnews.org/author/aaron-sankin

Aaron Sankin
Reporter
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
@asankin
415-786-0793

Second on the list, Jewish guy:

https://www.revealnews.org/author/aaronglantz

Aaron Glantz
Senior Reporter
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
@Aaron_Glantz
510-982-2967

Third on the list,

Colored guy, who is apparently often assigned to do the audio interviews:

https://www.revealnews.org/author/al-letson

Al Letson
Reveal Host
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
@al_letson
510-809-3160

And on it goes; eventually the list comes to Lance Williams, who requested to talk to us and politely did just that (I don’t know if he’s part Jewish or not, but he clearly doesn’t have a big problem working with them):

https://www.revealnews.org/author/lance-williams/

Lance Williams
Senior Reporter
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
@LanceWCIR
510-809-3175

The list goes on like this, apparently having some Whites, obviously liberal, a strong representation of those who are not White males, but it is well over-represented by Jews in its staff and at its leadership.

Executive Director:

https://www.revealnews.org/author/robert-j-rosenthal

Robert J. Rosenthal
Executive Director
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
@rosey18
510-809-3162

Chair:

https://www.revealnews.org/author/phil-bronstein

Phil Bronstein
Executive Chair
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Bronstein! I’m not sure if he’s related to Trotsky, but!

Here is what I prepared, and in fact did say to senior reporter Lance Williams of Revealnews:

First, please let me say a few words about Majorityrights’ platform as I’ve taken it, because it will quickly come to the point of how I have developed it as a corrective to the kinds of errors being made by The Regnery circus, NPI, Richard Spencer and the Alternative Right.

Majorityrights (at this point) advocates White/European ethno-nationalisms and sees itself as allied with Asian and Indio ethno-nationalisms. It does not identify with Jewish interests, as if they are White, it treats them as a separate racial category, outside of the White/European race; and, in fact, does not identify with Abrahamic religions at all - seeing them as destructive [providing maps destructive] to ethnonational interests. It does not identify with Nazism or any kind of supremacism or scientism - by scientism, I simply mean the notion that sheer “nature” and “objective” science should decide our course of action without individual and social correctives and cultivation. We are not Alternative Right, not Right wing in any sense as I conceive right and left to be: The right and with it, liberalism, is based on an idea of objectivism which is short on accountability - “because that’s just the way it is according to natural or divine law.” It lends itself to disingenuousness and hubris among elites and to naivety in the masses.

The left - a White Left Nationalism and any ethnonationalism as I hold it to be properly defined, is about accountability to the full social group as maintained through a form of unionization - that puts it in contrast to the universalism and pretenses of objectivity of the right; because there are in groups and out groups - you are in the union or you are not and the union - it looks after your relative interests as a member, not solely because of what is deemed your objective merit. It is a perspective which looks after the rank and file, to ensure that they are treated fairly and have incentive to maintain the union even though they may not be on top of the game or marginalized somehow, to make sure that they do not facilitate scabbing of the union so to speak; but it keeps a particular eye on elites, to hold them accountable to group systemic interests, to make sure that they do not betray us since obviously they are capable of doing the most damage. That concern is bringing us to people like Regnery, Spencer and those in the Alt-Right.

Because they take these right wing positions that we reject, positions which people cannot take or are justifiably afraid of, it turns-off a broad base as it is an incompassionate, insane and stupid position; but in order to try to connect with the mainstream and populism, they are forced to cobble together coalitions upon a tacit agreement to tolerate one another’s anti-social positions as such - whether its holocaust denial or supremacism, some sort of nutty Abrahamic religion; or, what is stigmatic from a White nationalist point of view, acceptance of Jews in their alliance. These cobbled-together anti-social coalitions of the Alt-Right I call the Alt Right tentosphere - a big tent of different tents. Some tents are completely friendly with Jews.

The template of running the gamut from Nazi sympathy to working with Jews and some members actually being Jews is completely consistent with Regnery, his publishing history and what I see as this strategy of Jewish alliance for shepherding masses into this tentosphere of the Alternative Right.

Now, the concept of the Alternative Right goes back to a 2008 article, edited by Richard Spencer, written by Paul Gottfried (who is Jewish); and with it he was trying to counteract the headlong destruction of Whites who could be valuable to Jewish interests and what he calls “Western values”, including Judeo-Christian values as he saw them being destroyed by means of a trajectory from Irving Kristol to the Neo-Cons; a trajectory that did not place enough emphasis on stabilizing enough useful idiots among Whites - the means to keep Whites from reacting too much and to be maintained as useful idiots for Jews was called paleoconservatism - it began with Frank Meyer, a Jewish scholar who shaped Reagan’s so called conservatism: Its not really a whole lot more conservative than the neocons because all it does is maintain capitalism (i.e., maintain a liberal economic system), maintain Judeo-Christianity (which for Whites is liberal - moral liberalism, altruism), pay some lip service to the wonderful culture of the west; while allowing for genetic arguments upon which Whites can survive on an “objective” basis; thus the selection for the relative interests and ways in which these useful idiots will be deployed and intermarry will remain with the Jews as the organizing factor among a right wing elitist cadre.

You’re witnessing that in Trump. But we need to say a bit more before we move onto Trump.

Now then, why do Regnery and Spencer take this position as “Alt-Right” against the quote “Left”? Well, you need to begin with why Jewish interests would want to take a position against the quote, “left.”

Jewish interests have had disproportionate power and hegemonic influence through seven key niches:

1) Media 2) Money and Finance 3) Academia 4) Politics 5) Religion 6) Law and Courts 7) Business and Industry.

Naturally, they don’t want organized peons criticizing, dismantling and taking away that power. So what do they do? Well, of course, they look toward the old faithful sell-outs among the White right-wing elitists - offer them deals in turn for compliance, ease their conscience with the objectivist arguments they’ve always coveted as unassailable warrant, “these are just the facts of life”....and “say, by the way, you’ve got money, want to keep it and have even more, don’t you? You can continue to do well for yourselves ..and you hate those ‘lefties’ anyway, complaining that they want some of that too, so lets organize a coalition, a “movement” to be popularized against the left. ...make it real stylish and edgy ...appeal to those disaffected millennials in their internet bubbles, we’ll call it ‘The Alternative Right”.

Of course now, a major left unit, left union so to speak, would be the union of ethno-nation. And the Jewish and right wing objectivist way to disrupt that unionization is to encourage right wing reactionary populism and its corollary reactionary liberalism.

Now then, again, Majorityrights platform is conceived so that a proper ethno-nationalist view is not buried by the Regnery circus (as our GW aptly calls it), not buried, enmeshed in what it has been doing with The Right and the Alternative Right.

They are only doing quasi ethno-nationalsim as it is perverted through objectivism and coalition with Jewish interests: fighting against social accountability, going along with the Jewish prescription of trying to represent White interests through right wing means.

READ MORE...