Majorityrights Central > Category: Cultural Nationalism

To define the political against politics may seem only to be of interest to a few geeks and wonks who are unsatisfied with the usual utilitarian definitions.  “The stuff politicians do” ... that sort of thing.  But, actually, an understanding of how the political delimits politics, opening in any given time to the new, is key to its historical dynamic and also to people like us who wish to subvert and even replace that dynamic.

Perhaps the first thing to note is that, “great men” aside, politicians themselves are almost never the source of change.  As we saw with the long and disgraceful Remain rebellion, politicians of all mainstream parties are conservative in matters of their own position and persuasion.  They don’t welcome instability in their own political careers, or anything that might result in them being found out and forced out.

Because the class is self-selecting, its politicking from parliament to parliament, from generation of MPs to generation of MPs, tends always towards something vested and, in the longer term, alienating from the voters.  That self-selection occurs in no small measure on the basis of the possession of certain canonical values and beliefs which themselves refine and radicalise as other influences are brought to bear - for example, the agenda of those who actually fund political activity in this country, and all those who, at once or perhaps twice remove, participate in the process of developing (in our time, radicalising) “the stuff politicians do”.  Thus ...

i. Formal advisors have, of course, been a staple of government since the Pharoahs, and probably earlier.  The breed populating Westminster and Whitehall these days is the SpAd, dozens of whom provide ministerial teams with political strategy options and a very few ... Dominic Cummings being the notable case in Boris Johnson’s government ... with blue-sky thinking.  SpAds fill the party-pris space between ministers and their civil servants, whose terms of service include party-political neutrality.  They tend to come from, and eventually return to, the policy institutes and PR firms which have likewise thickly populated the political scene over the last few decades.  But while they are “in the thick if it” at their ministries or in Downing Street they are as much part of the political class as the honourable members and noble lords of Westminster.

ii. Immediately beyond the Westminster class is the oft-termed chattering class, the professional reporters, commentators and critics of the legacy media, all of whom have daily access to politicians, and whose relationship with them is symbiotic.

iii. Also very close to the politicians is the huge array of quangos, policy institutes, charities and organisations such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, and pressure groups such as the British Board of Deputies, the Muslim Council of Britain, Stonewall, and Hope Not Hate.  Their contact to MPs is more formalised, since information really only flows one way and MPs don’t need many of them as such - excepting left-of-centre MPs, of course, who can find gainful albeit chrony employment among the forest of Blairite quangos, international panjandrum bodies, and what-have-you when the Westminster career is done.  Much like Blair himself.

iv. The most cordial of political relations are those between Conservative MPs and corporate and banking interests.  Of course, said interests have to become party donors to gain access to ministers and actual influence over policy.  But it’s always money well spent - and valued by the politicians much more highly than, say, the loyalty of voters.  Career-expired Conservative ministers who have proved useful can expect to rack up a fine collection of non-too-taxing, two-afternoons-a-month non-exec directorships and consultancy arrangements.  Keeps the wolf from the no longer ministerial door, doncha know.

v. Beyond the clamour from all these entities is the source of the most fundamental input to the political process, and that’s the professoriate: the political philosophers, the political scientists and theorists, the economists, the sociologists, the historians, the jurists, and so forth.  It is their historical function to shape the future.  There are some instances where the political connection is direct.  Freidrich Hayek, for example, shaped Thatcherism.  Anthony Giddens shaped Blairism.  Even archly pragmatic governments such as David Cameron’s have their intellectual gurus (in his case the rather more humble Steve Hilton, an original member of the Notting Hill Set).  As a rule, though, the most historically re-defining government is informed by the most philosophically re-defining intellectual.

vi. Way out in the distant margins are the radical street activist groups such as Black Lives Matter and Unite Against Fascism, publicly toxic because of their extremism, but not so toxic that politicians can’t slavishly follow every demand they chant.  And that’s without these groups having any formal contact with them.  In these cases, of course, it’s not always about political cowardice.  A significant fraction of MPs, and not all of them in the Labour Party, very likely agree ideologically.

So these are the six sources of “the new” which feed the political class.  They define the boundary of the political not via their broad output (books, papers, lectures), much of which may never attract MP’s attention or interest, but via their input to Westminster and Whitehall itself, however restrictive that might be, however that may come about.  The political is the totality of theory in metamorphosis and theory already metamorphosed into practise.  The political is all that can be talked about in party political circles. 

We should note at this point that this essentially technocratic arrangement came to real prominence not in Thatcher’s time but a decade later with the drive by Clinton, Blair and Shroeder to fix for all time the then regnancy of the progressive left all across the West.  In part that was to involve ideological radicalisation.  The formal institution of culture war, anti-racism, and political correctness moved wholesale from the American campus, where they incubated in the 1970s and 80s, into national party systems; and at the same time Third World immigration was massively ramped up.

So it was that in his famous and very candid article for the Evening Standard in October 2009 Andrew Neather, a previously unheard-of speechwriter for Blair, Straw and Blunkett, reported “coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended - even if this wasn’t its main purpose - to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.”

The other weapon in the progressive toolkit was the system of appointments to Third Sector bodies at all levels.  John Major’s government had installed Tories in 57% of these appointments.  But Blair completely changed the ideological balance. By 1998, Labour supporters made up 75% of appointees and Conservatives only 13%, a trend which carried right through the years of Labour rule, Gramscian style, and onward to that of Theresa May.  They were the years of the networker in an ideologically progressive, state-funded managerial system allying not in their hundreds but in their thousands with like minds in government.

Blair’s intention - to render right-wing opinion politically inoperable and thereby dominate government in perpetuity - was never achieved.  But he did succeed in insulating party politics from the more inconvenient opinions of the people.  In place of the steering hand of the voting public MPs had all the expert advise and creative thinking they could possibly need.  Politics could function for four or five years at a stretch without once taking account of what the people thought.  And why not?  The votes still rolled in on election day.  Blair won three general elections.  Brexit notwithstanding, he made politics safe for politicians.

For nationalist parties trying to mount electoral challenges dependent on unbridling the will of the natives his dispensation presents a near-insuperable barrier.  How do you make a breakthrough when your own arguments are simply, cleanly excised from every area of the political, and all anyone ever hears of you is the usual mechanical abuse and condemnation?  How do you make a breakthrough when you don’t really understand why the political is so impossible to penetrate ... not just ideologically because the Establishment and the media are hostile to nationalist thought, but literally, because the political is filled to the brim with the unholy marriage of economically hyper-individualist policy and socially hyper-egalitarian policy.  There is no room for kinship when all is individualism.  There is no room for particularism when all is universalism. 

The question, then, becomes one about how to drive a nationalist wedge into the rockface - or, perhaps a better analogy, how to strew the political ground with nationalist seeds.  The good news is that it is possible.

It’s “THE Left”, they want to take away your Christianity, they’re not dealing with reality!

David Horowitz and Paul Gottfried occupy two axial points of Jewish motivation to promote a marketing campaign against “the left” and characterology thereof, while altercasting manipulable right wing reactionary positions for Whites given intersectionality with the (((progressive stack of PC victim groups))) against their Jewish interests, their need to get ahead of the reaction to NeoConservatism’s Operation Clean Break / Wars for Israel and reaction to the 2008 financial meltdown/ bail-out.

While I have called attention to David Horowitz as a leading Jewish figure in advancing the marketing campaign - in Jewish interests, obviously - against “THE Left” and indeed, he has contributed to exposing the Cultural Marxist/PC Anti-White Left, I have focused more on Paul Gottfried in terms of posing “The Left” in opposition to White identity and nationalism by definition. Nevertheless, both conveniently ignore the possibility (and necessity) of a White Left Ethnonationalism, instead altercasting any White identitarianism which might respond as some kind of Right -

Gottfried continues to orchestrate a program against “THE Left”, as best he can, presenting Christianity as spunky “rebellion” that “the left” wants to do away with, while Spencer was enlisted to advance a youthful, secular element to align with Paleoconservatism.

Alt-Right in Gottfried’s case, with flunkey Richard Spencer figure-heading the addition of new tents, more youthful, flagrantly rebellious and anti-social, secular, along with Paleoconservative and Jewish right wing (Alt Lite) tents - moving to “Dissident Right” after Charlottesville and “Hail Trump”, Spencer then falling to the wayside in favor of a more streamlined but still edgy/ironic Paleoconservatism (Christianity being what it cannot deviate from) and Third Positionism (includes right wing elements, obviously) - But I have not talked as much about David Horowitz’ part in the marketing campaign, positioning White identity against “The Left” and altercasting White Nationalism as some kind of Right (come Third Positionism, or neither left nor right populism, susceptible to infiltration and ineffective if not self destructive right wing reaction).

Related:

Though J.F. Gariepy claims to be thinking independently in his terminological deployment, the discourse parameters he follows are within the altercast box prescribed by Jewish interests and serving them; as ever, a caveat thus in regard to Gariepy’s use of the term “The Left” and its “characterizations;” while this usage and characterology is fairly true when looked upon as a Marxist Internationalist or Cultural Marxist Left, assailing White national, group and personal boundaries, absent the delimiting working hypotheses of the White Ethnonational Left, viz., unionization to structure accountability and gauge correctivity for Whites, Gariepy’s advice is more free floating (and, he admits, nihilistic) than it should be - providing feedback looking toward the more objective facts irrespective of our subjective and relative interests, but lacking the radical orientating context without the centering calibration of White Left Ethnonationalism’s relative, systemic interests.

JF Gariepy discusses recent Youtube bans, including Red Elephants: He adds (6:31)“But then, lets not fool ourselves into thinking that the current order is a liberal one. We don’t live in a liberal society. In a liberal society, you can’t lose your channel like Vincent James just lost it today. That is bullshit. These people are not liberals.”

And in regard to his assessment given the recent Youtube bans, viz., of Vincent James, actually, Gariepy is off the mark. The internationalist Marxist, anti-White Cultural Marxist agenda is about liberalizing White National borders and boundaries to the extreme completion - to where we can conserve nothing (not even a Youtube channel with the aim of conserving any vestige of White human ecology).

The discussion below, from NPR Fresh Air, does well to place David Horowitz in the scheme of things. However, it only provides a semblance of explanation of his motivation for terminological and conceptual misdirection of White interests in order to serve Jewish interests as they’ve been intersected by their former client advocacy positions….

All text except for images and captions are from NPR, Fresh Air:
.....

NPR, Fresh Air, 24 Aug 2020

Guerrero is an investigative reporter who formerly was with KPBS, the radio and TV station in San Diego. She previously covered Mexico and Central America for The Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones Newswires. She’s the author of a previous book called “Crux: A Cross-Border Memoir” about growing up with a Mexican father and Puerto Rican mother.

It’s impossible to understand the Trump era, with its unparalleled polarization, without tracing Stephen Miller‘s journey to the White House. That’s what my guest, Jean Guerrero, writes in her new book, “Hatemonger: Stephen Miller, Donald Trump, And The White Nationalist Agenda.

[...]

GROSS: So David Horowitz, who we’ve been talking about, who became a mentor, a far-right mentor to Stephen Miller - you know, Horowitz started off as as a leftist. He was one of the editors of the leftist magazine Ramparts. He, I think, was, you know, an ally of the Black Panthers. Like, what do you know about why and how he changed so radically? He moved from, like, one pole to the other.

GUERRERO: Yeah. I mean, David Horowitz had recommended his friend Betsy (Van Patter) to work on the accounting for the Black Panthers. She’s a white woman. And she ended up being murdered. And the murder was never solved, but David Horowitz blamed the Black Panthers Party and became convinced that they had murdered her. And after that, you saw David Horowitz go through this transformation where he became convinced that the movement that he had been a part of, the left, had waged a unfair war on whiteness - is what he called it. He felt that whiteness was actually something that needed to be preserved.

And, I mean, he tries not to write about it outright as whiteness being preserved. But he talks about how the only important racism in society is racism against white people and that racism against Black and brown people is a figment of your imagination. And it really goes back to the murder of his friend Betty, who he blamed on the Black Panthers.

And it really started to lean into these, you know, misleading statistics that are put out by publications like American Renaissance, this white supremacist publication that paints brown and Black people as innately more violent than white people. And David Horowitz is the one who introduced Stephen Miller to websites like American Renaissance. He describes the founder of American Renaissance, Jared Taylor, to me, as a very smart man, who he claims has a perverse ethnic view because, again, David Horowitz, you know, tries to distance himself from the white nationalist movement because he knows how important it is to launder these ideas through the language of heritage and national security if you want them to appeal to the mainstream.

GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. Let’s get back to my interview with Jean Guerrero, author of the new book “Hatemonger: Stephen Miller, Donald Trump, And The White Nationalist Agenda.” She is a former investigative reporter for KPBS, the public TV and radio station in San Diego. She’s now freelance and continues to report for public media. She previously covered Mexico and Central America for the Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones Newswires.

So we’ve been talking about how David Horowitz mentored Stephen Miller. And Horowitz helped Stephen Miller launch his career. He first got him a job with Michele Bachmann when she was elected as a congressperson, and she was very conservative. So what job did he get working with Michele Bachmann?

Christian Zionist Michelle Bachmann

GUERRERO: He was hired as a press secretary for Bachmann, and that was his first job. And that’s kind of where Stephen Miller starts to learn about, you know, how to write these very hyperbolic press releases. And he starts to, you know, bombard reporters late into the night with his press releases and links and FYIs.

GROSS: So David Horowitz first gets Stephen Miller a job with Congressperson Michele Bachmann. And then from there, Horowitz gets Miller a job with Jeff Sessions when Jeff Sessions was a senator from Alabama who, like Stephen Miller, was very anti-immigration. So what was the relationship like between Sessions and Miller when Miller was working for him?

Jeff Sessions by Gage Skidmore

GUERRERO: So Miller - you know, he really helped to turn Jeff Sessions into sort of a very combative personality. He - I mean, Sessions was already a leading nativist on Capitol Hill when Stephen Miller joined. But Stephen Miller started to model Jeff Sessions, his remarks, after the far-right, combative media personalities that Stephen Miller had been familiar with his entire life - so really pulling, you know, talk radio talking points onto Capitol Hill and having Jeff Sessions, you know, talk about how too much immigration is going to, quote, “decimate” this country and how anyone who supports immigration reform is part of a globalist elite who wants to destroy the country through limitless importation of cheap labor in the form of mass migration. So these ideas of demonization Stephen Miller really incorporated into Jeff Sessions’ rhetoric.

GROSS: So he becomes Jeff Sessions’ press secretary, and then Sessions and Miller end up in the Trump administration. And Steve Bannon helped get Stephen Miller into the Trump administration, and Bannon was another one of Stephen Miller’s mentors. What was Bannon’s role in Stephen Miller’s life before Bannon was pushed out of the Trump administration?

Stephen Miller and Steve, “ethnonationalism, it’s losers and we’ve got to crush it more”, Bannon

GUERRERO: So Bannon, you know, gives Stephen Miller a platform on Breitbart while Stephen Miller was working for Jeff Sessions. Basically, Stephen Miller was given free reign over a lot of the writers at Breitbart to just kind of shape their stories and provide them with ideas that they were expected to turn into stories. And during this time is when Stephen Miller was feeding, you know, articles from white nationalist and white supremacist websites to Breitbart and having them do stories about them, you know, painting immigrants as an existential threat.

So Bannon - you know, he gives him a platform on Breitbart and helps connect him with the people on the Trump campaign, where Stephen Miller was initially providing free labor for the Trump campaign, you know, sending over talking points and memos and then eventually gets himself hired in 2016 as the senior policy advisor and top speechwriter for President Trump.

[...]

GROSS: The book “The Camp Of The Saints.”

GUERRERO: “The Camp Of The Saints,” yeah. It demonizes people of color. But it also demonizes their allies. It demonizes anti-racists as agitators and anarchists and as mobs, which you then now see Trump using that exact same language to talk about anti-racist protesters ever since, you know, the police killing of George Floyd. So Stephen Miller is really drawing - whether he’s doing so consciously or not, I mean, Stephen Miller read this book. He promoted this book. And a lot of the language in this book you are now seeing Trump using.

[...]

GROSS: Well, among the many riddles surrounding Stephen Miller is - you know, he’s Jewish. His grandparents were immigrants. And he espouses some views that are espoused by white supremacists. White supremacist hate Jews.

GUERRERO: Mmm hmm.

GROSS: They would like Jews to, like, leave the country or at least live in a separate space on their own. How does he reconcile that? I’m sure you don’t know the answer to that. But don’t you wonder?

GUERRERO: I do. You know, I - one of the stories that I found the most interesting in my research for the book is the story of Stephen Miller’s grandmother Ruth, who on his - his grandmother on his mother’s side who spent her retirement compiling the family history, you know, how they were refugees who fled the nationalist agitators and, you know, these pogroms against the Jews, these massacres against the Jews and came here to the United States. And she recorded the family history. She said she was recording it for her grandchildren, like Stephen Miller, so that they would never forget the value of people who come to this country with nothing but the clothes on their back and speaking no English, just as Stephen Miller’s ancestors came to this country.

GROSS: How have people in Miller’s extended family reacted to his extreme views?

GUERRERO: You know, I interviewed a number of his relatives. And most people in his family, with the exception of his parents and his siblings, who declined to talk to me - they’re very ashamed to be associated with Stephen Miller and the legacy that he’s created around the family name because of the fact that, you know, they know where they - where the family comes from and the fact that they - you know, they initially came here without any knowledge of the English language and without any money in their pockets and started out as, you know, peddling fruit on the streets and eventually made their way up and made something of themselves and contributed in a very strong way to this country in the way that, you know, many immigrants do.

And so a lot of them told me that they see him as someone who needs to be punished for crimes against humanity. You know, one of his aunts was telling me that she truly believes that he’s unleashed what she calls a Pandora’s box of hatred in this country that is going to be very difficult to contain after they leave office, if they do.

..................................

Related at Majorityrights:

If you are able to articulate public relations manipulation so well, how did you wind up altercast?

Paleocon Bannon arrested, indicted in private sector crowd-funding fraud, build-the-wall campaign.

These Are White Nationalists? What Is Behind TRS And The Alt-Right’s Gushing Effusion For Trump?

(((Mike Peinovich, the “Serbian”))) who hates Albanians and thinks they should have been genocided.

Here’s How Breitbart And Milo Smuggled Nazi and White Nationalist Ideas Into The Mainstream

Paleoconservatism as “Cultural Controlled Opposition” to Neo-Conservatism and its Clean Break Memo.

In a recent podcast, Dangerfield ran clips from an English village in the 1970’s celebrating The Queen’s Jubilee.

Dangerfield remarks among his derision of “Post Modernity” read (((post modernity))) as opposed to White Post Modernity, and “The Leftists”, read international, red leftists as opposed to White ethnonational left, that these “Leftists” will denounce the celebration of “The Queen’s Jubilee as right-wing reactionary nostalgia.”

This is not really quibbling on my part. Rather, it provides a good example of why it is important to understand Post Modernity correctly, viz. White Post Modernity as opposed to its (((red caped))) misrepresentation along with other language currency counterfeiting the depth grammar of left and right.

Dangerfield says, “these leftists want to say that these English villagers celebrating the queen’s jubilee” is an expression of right wing reaction.”

However, Post Modernity proper, viz. White Post Modernity/left ethnonationalism, would say, on the contrary, that it can be fine and good for these English villagers to celebrate the Queen’s Jubilee. Unlike the rule structure of Modernity, a practice (and a people) does not have to be different and new in order to be good; and should not be put at risk to uncontrolled experimentation.

If it is a healthy tradition, one can feel free to participate and reconstruct the practice/people without the pangs of self loathing for the appearance of conformity (as opposed to modernity’s paradoxic mandate to the individual: “be different so that you can fit it”); one invokes a willing suspension of disbelief in the hermeneutic (liberated from Modernity’s mere facticity) and one does so understanding when it is healthy for one’s people (while one is free to Not participate and can give way to Modernization when a tradition is not healthy for one’s people).

You begin to see why it is important to have a clear understanding of Post Modernity, viz., White Post Modernity.

For one clear example, for capacity that it provides for Optimal Competence, as per Aristotle’s description of performance requirements: minimal, satisfactory, optimal.

A minimally competent person could not participate in the Queens Jubilee appropriately, because they would not understand it well enough - thus, not understanding how to reconstruct the practice normally, or adjudge where the practice might be right (despite modernist derision) or where it might be going wrong (despite its having been tradition).

A merely satisfactorily competent person can ONLY participate in a rather verbatim reconstruction of the practice. But given the disorder of Modernity, lacking the stability that once underpinned the practice with assurance (e.g., The Queen has our interests at heart and would never decry those against immigration as “racist”, nor lord accountability to the universalizing Jesus over us, as opposed to accountability to our native people, nor have a grandson married to a Mulatto), there is no such thing as the kind of stable criteria for one to reconstruct; one must have more understanding of the context.

Hence, given the disorder of Modernity, especially (((weaponized))), as it were, there is no stable traditional order to practice satisfactory competence, one is either minimally competent or optimally competent.

* Aristotle’s discussion of minimal, satisfactory and optimal competence uses the example of fairness in exchange and knowing the difference.

Satisfactory competence can only make an equal exchange.

Minimal competence doesn’t understand an equal exchange, might make an equal exchange by accident, or give less than the appropriate value or more than the appropriate value, not really understanding it.

Whereas optimal competence knows the equal value of an exchange but can exchange less without being niggardly in truth or can give more without being ingratiating in truth.

It is not only necessary for English and all European peoples to understand Post Modernity properly, but it is also quite possible, not too hard at all for the vast majority of our people to understand its performance requirements; minimal/optimal. Hence, we must not be deterred by Jewish red-caping of terms and concepts.

Related at Majorityrights:

White Post Modernity: corrects reactionary chase of (((red capes))) fucking up necessary pomo ideas

White Post Modernity

Superchat question (52:40): “I wonder at what point we have to choose to either digest these people in our society, as the hippies were in the ‘70’s, or to understand that their culture and mores are indigestible and must be cast out of our society.”

Styx (53:01) “You mean the far leftists? Well, they’re already being…

Ramzpaul (53:38): “And your point about the hippies is good, because, I did a video about this (”Revolution Fatigue”), why you have to catch the momentum…I think the left, these radicals, they think they’re going to have a revolution like its 1917 Russia or its The French Revolution..or they think they’re in Weimar Germany and they’re fighting the Nazis. But see, that type of thing, there’s a lot of differences and you need to really make it happen pretty quick. Whereas I remember, I don’t remember, but I read about the late 60’s, early 70’s, there was like The Weather Underground, they thought they were going to topple the United States and have a revolution. But by the time that I got to university in 1981, they were already considered very dated…people who had that mindset were considered old.

DanielS:

Your understanding of “hippies” is idiotic. The Weather Underground were not hippies. The hippies were not Marxists in their essential motive; in fact, they were notoriously frustrating to Marxist revolutionaries. It matters, because the adversaries of Whites love to blame hippies; it is a way to blame White men as opposed to the culpability of liberal/Marxist programs spearheaded by Jewry; and because they wish to turn White right wing dolts against their own people, while burying an understanding of the profundity of the hippie motive for White men: a fundamental and profoundly important motive on behalf of White male Being / (Dasein/MidtDasein for White men especially) as opposed to their being considered so intrinsically valueless as to have to go to war in Vietnam, exploited for the custom, habit and tradition of their gender role as obligated to war - even in this case, where there was no clear and immanent danger to them and their people; where there could have been other means of dealing with Vietnam rather than conventional war).

A White ethnonational left would not be in “revolutionary” mode where the interests of our union - a union of our people - are being served by those in power. If they are not, i.e., if our interests are not served, then we would seek revolutionary transformation so that the union of our European peoples are secured. This is a big difference between a White ethnonational left and the Marxist, internationalist left. When our ethnonationalist union is secured, we are no longer in revolutionary, transformative mode, but are, rather, elaborative and self corrective.

Note that the hippie epoch lost all impetus once the Vietnam draft was over….

The grievance that caused “the hippie union” “to strike” against the powers and ways that be had been “settled.”

The Beatles, “Revolution” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGLGzRXY5Bw

Ramzpaul and Sytx are weird and annoying in their very insistence upon normalizing Jewish discourse.

_____________

For the sake of invoking a provocative perspective, I would like to momentarily change the pronoun in the anti-war song, “Walking in Space”, from “how dare THEY try to end this beauty, to how dare SHE try to end this beauty…

How dare she try, to end this beauty…

Right wing women who go along with the Jewish cover-up -

- ignoring the underlying motive of the hippies and wanting to blame them instead for having created “our problems”, suggesting that men should man-up in universal maturity, rather than manning-up to create group boundaries (e.g., by unionization process), or manning-up where our people’s boundaries are violated (as opposed to the other side of the world, in Vietnam, nowhere near our people’s boundaries, or where Jewish/Israeli boundaries are threatened)

- are particularly annoying…

I also interpose the pronoun change to suggest that this valuation of impervious confidence to the sacrifice of intellectual, critical apprehension of the power’s directives is a tendency in female predilection, and that the hippie movement was a (un-articulated intellectual/political) White male motive by balancing contrast to female valuation, e.g. of sheer confidence.

This also suggests a “foundational” reason as to why intrinsic value should be attributed to White males, for their perspective, as its predilections can, if anything, be better than female predilections; but in any event, provide a necessary systemic corrective in balancing the human ecology of European peoples.

Again, this momentary pronoun change is provocative. Of course women aren’t to blame for men getting sent to Vietnam to kill and die. However, traditional gender roles could have destructive consequences for men as well (second wave feminism kicking off in the 60’s as well), when hidebound, “foundationally” inflexible to the natural emergence and interactive development of White masculinity and its requirements (in praxis).

Related at Majorityrights:

A Conspiracy Theory of A Conspiracy Theory to Divert From White Male Dasein.