Morgoth Anglin’ to be unassailable leader of The Right in The Altright Big Tent
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, 28 November 2015 11:48.
...she was pregnant
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, 25 November 2015 03:04.
Israeli spy most damaging ever to U.S. interests, yet U.S. Supports Israel & Israel supports Pollard
Posted by DanielS on Monday, 23 November 2015 16:38.
Christianity explains Jesse Hughes (Eagles of Death Metal) Confused Identity & allegiance
Posted by DanielS on Monday, 23 November 2015 08:33.
Ripper Location Then & Now
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 22 November 2015 19:00.
Poles burn effigy of an ultra-Orthodox Jew holding an E.U. flag
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, 21 November 2015 22:25.
Tea Leaves: Forecasting Merkel’s Political Demise
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Friday, 20 November 2015 22:07.
Liberalism’s Kid Glove: If You Need A Condom, Maybe You Should Get to Know That Person Better
Posted by DanielS on Friday, 20 November 2015 11:35.
Killed one-by-one: from implicit demographic to increasingly focused personal attacks on our people
Posted by DanielS on Monday, 16 November 2015 07:41.
No Peace For The Enemies of Native Europe!
Posted by DanielS on Monday, 16 November 2015 00:21.
Coordinated Islamic Attack on France!
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Saturday, 14 November 2015 09:45.
120+ killed, hostages taken in coordinated Islamic attack on France: Borders Closed
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, 14 November 2015 05:24.
The Alternative-Right’s big tent, would additionally include the Jews for some unknown reason.
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Friday, 13 November 2015 12:10.
The alternative right’s big tent, already too inclusive - includes Jews as well
Posted by DanielS on Friday, 13 November 2015 09:13.
EU flag burned as tens of thousands join Warsaw nationalist demo
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, 12 November 2015 06:50.
A three-quarter cup of Hungarian cheer
Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 10 November 2015 23:17.
Rubio Empowered to Put-Across, Increase H-1B prog at Silicon Valley’s Behest
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 01 November 2015 01:07.
On The Eve of Ethnic Genetic Interest’s Most Important Day
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, 31 October 2015 07:18.
European governments increasingly losing touch with reality as they defy security services.
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Friday, 30 October 2015 23:23.
Those who they wish to destroy they first make Christian.
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Wednesday, 28 October 2015 06:22.
What if Sweden were to be criticised from the left? What would that look like?
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sunday, 25 October 2015 11:55.
Notes for an MR Radio interview with Matt Parrott
Posted by Guessedworker on Saturday, 24 October 2015 19:46.
Liberal occupation government in Germany finds itself unable to enforce its own censorship laws.
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Saturday, 24 October 2015 03:22.
Netanyahu Plays Divide & Conquer - throws a conciliatory bone to those who would absolve Hitler
Posted by DanielS on Friday, 23 October 2015 17:00.
Easy Jet Breaks The Cycle of Life: Psy-Op Through Advertisement
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, 21 October 2015 07:49.
Angela Merkel, Prime Signatory of Europe’s Death Warrant.
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Tuesday, 20 October 2015 10:10.
French “Intellectuals” turn “Right”, “White”, “Judeo-Christian”: Jewish crypsis of the White Right
Posted by DanielS on Monday, 19 October 2015 12:58.
Endless revisions of the number of migrants entering #ProjectGermany: Now get ready for 7.36 million
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Saturday, 17 October 2015 06:50.
Netherlands: Jews love mass migration, so long as it is to your neighbourhood and not to theirs.
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Saturday, 17 October 2015 02:27.
Veterans of combat in Syria and Iraq: Entering Europe for unknown reasons.
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Saturday, 17 October 2015 01:49.
Tomislav Sunic talks to Kumiko & Daniel: On immigration as invasion.
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Wednesday, 14 October 2015 03:21.
Swedish Royal Couple among audience lectured as to their fellow immigrant status in Sweden
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:55.
Orthodox Jewish boys go secular, reap compound fortune in another Jewish tradition - loan sharking
Posted by DanielS on Monday, 12 October 2015 05:03.
Majorityrights Central > Category: Liberalism & the Red Left
Yes, the North Atlantic was completely destroyed, but for a wonderful moment in time we had no Islamophobic comments on Facebook!
There are few things in politics more fulfilling than seeing greed and fear—which are not ‘bad’ emotions, it’s all about context—combine to create genuinely good performance art, a kind of art that is a work of genuine originality. That’s how it is with the Facebook censorship story, it just gets better by the day.
The law firm Jun Lawyers, which specialises in IT Law and is headed by Jun Chan-jo, has seen an opportunity for publicity and profit. It is going to be found through the fact that between Angela Merkel, Heiko Maas, Anetta Kahane, Eva-Maria Kirschsieper and Mark Zuckerberg, they have virtually no capability at all of actually policing all the ‘hate speech’ that now exists on Facebook due to the reaction of a sizeable number of German citizens to the migrant influx that Angela Merkel herself invited into Germany.
The continued existence of ‘hate speech’ all over Facebook means that the liberal government is violating its own laws and its own constitution. Since Facebook is also possibly violating those same laws, and since none of them can do a single thing about it without installing something akin to the ‘Great Firewall of China’ or the ‘Great Keyword Filter of South Korea’ —except aimed at the all-pervasive ‘Far Right hate speech’ rather than say, ‘reactionaries’, or ‘Far Left Marxists’, or ‘anarchists’—Jun Lawyers can be sure that the German legal tangle is a gift that will keep on giving. The liberal government has effectively promised to win at whack-a-mole, has made it illegal to lose, and is now finding itself unable to stop losing.
Now finding themselves trapped in a forest of the censorship laws of their own making which they are legally obligated to enforce, and with social media being used to propagate messages of ‘hate’ toward everyone and everything, the liberal-capitalist occupied German government is considering suing Facebook, the German court system is considering whether to find the German government to be in violation of its own constitution, while the Jun Lawyers firm is suing both the liberal government and Facebook simultaneously.
I would urge all ethno-nationalists out there not to be angry with Jun Chan-jo. His name will appear a lot in the media going forward, but it is prudent to regard him as the ‘Gordon Gecko’ of IT Lawyers, and to take a tolerant stance toward him. I’ve heard some unfortunate stories about people sending him hateful emails and tweets which insult him on the basis of his Korean ethnicity and so on. Please do not do this to him. It’s just business, isn’t it? Jun Chan-jo should not be regarded with hatred, he should be regarded with love, because he’s just doing his job and he’s doing it very well.
Let’s remember the relevant section of that famous speech that Gordon Gecko made in the 1987 film ‘Wall Street’:
The aggregate effect of the self-serving actions of Jun Chan-jo is that he’s basically calling the liberal government and Facebook on their own bluff and forcing them to try to follow through on their own laws. He’s performing the socially useful and totally logical function of holding the liberal government and the clique of Jews who own Facebook to account for the laws that they themselves committed to. But the government can’t comprehensively follow through on these laws, because it’s operationally impossible for them to police all of the things which are being said about Muslim migrants daily on social media in Germany. All the state apparatus can really do is strike a small number of ‘offenders’ randomly, and then when this proves ineffective, it turns on itself to play internal blame-games in response to legal challenges.
Look for yourself at the circular firing-squad which has manifested:
The best thing that can happen is for this chaos to continue. It’s an unlimited and unwinnable censorship battle which the liberal-capitalist occupation government in Germany has plunged itself into. About 35 million migrants in total may be heading toward Europe, and Germany is refusing to permit political discussion of Angela Merkel’s monstrous open-doors policy to take place on the public political stage. So, the conversation persists on the internet, and then the liberal government chooses to include such conversation under the rubric of the enforcement of its ‘racial hatred’ censorship laws.
If the liberal occupation government wants to adopt a zero-tolerance policy toward ‘hate speech’ and if they promise to follow through on that impossible task, then I give my warmest regards and a jaunty salute to anyone who is able to engage in culture-jamming or legal-jamming actions to put that ridiculous censorship system under stress. The liberal occupation government might as well be trying to censor discussion of the weather.
To all the patriotic Germans out there, I encourage you to keep posting ‘offensive’ things, and to keep organising and engaging in street actions, and in so doing, keep jamming up the liberal censorship system.
Kumiko Oumae works in the defence and security sector in the UK. Her opinions here are entirely her own.
It is appropriate that her name is Morano...
What is apparently happening here is that Nadine Morano, true to her name, is attempting to use Jewish crypsis to include Jews as “part of the ‘White’ race”... and that is probably why she has been able to get away with putting the two terms - White and race - together at all in a political context. Otherwise, her “controversial statement” in “defense of Judeo-Christianity” wouldn’t be worth a second thought.
What merits re-attention to Morano is this, however. It seems that indeed the masters of discourse are trying to create a false solution to a false polemic and some right wingers are taking the bait: French “intellectuals” (read, “Jews”) are trying to frame a discourse where some “Leftist” academics are going “rogue” and becoming “rightists.”
Of course there is no mention of the Jew in this “new academic amalgam of left and right” but rather an attempt to create an “intellectual framework” to ruse a coalition against Marine Le Pen for the extent that she represents true ethno-nationalism, i.e., as a representative of the native French - which her father knows very well does not include Jews as “White” nor “Judeo-Christianity” as their rallying cry.
So, lets look at what is behind her, starting with the latest bullshit artist who would try to dupe native Europeans into thinking that he is on their side. His name is Michel Onfray and the Jewish media is trying to create a sensation about how this “former leftist” is now incorporating “the right.”
As one reads through the media gibberish, however, it is apparent that Jewish academia is encouraging him to “turn rightward” in order to enable Jews to assimilate Whites, White interests, turn them away from authentic ethno-nationalism and toward a myopic focus against Islam on behalf of “we, the multi-cultural and pluralistic Europe.”
Their definitions of left and right, not mine.
Marianne magazine, created by Axel Kahn, the son of a Jewish father, Catholic mother…the magazine is now owned by Robert Assaraf, a Moroccan Jew ...the magazine calls Nicolas Sarkozy “a right wing candidate.”
Ah yes, now that Islam is becoming a bit much, enough of Sarkozy’s right-wingishness, some are even assimilating the “far-right” to take an audacious stance against… immigration!
“Alain Finkielkraut (born 30 June 1949) is a French essayist and public intellectual. He has written books and essays on a wide range of topics, many on the ideas of tradition and identitary violence, including Jewish identity and antisemitism, French colonialism, the mission of the French education system in immigrant assimilation, and the Yugoslav Wars.”
...known for his theory of mediology — a critical theory of the long-term transmission of cultural meaning in human society — and for fighting with Marxist revolutionary Che Guevara (in Bolivia in 1967) and advancing Salvador Allende’s “Marxist” régime (Chile, early 1970s)
Éric Zemmour was born in Montreuil (today in Seine-Saint-Denis) on August 31, 1958, to an Algerian family that came to Metropolitan France during the Algerian War. He identifies as a Jew of Berber origin, and above all as a French Jew.
Besides Jews in support, Onfray has a Marxist revolutionary and a gentile who is willing to go to jail in order to fight Islam (with Jewish blessing). These are supposed to be our friends. They were “the left” and now they are “the right”, or leaning “right”...
What they don’t know is that we are The White Left and we don’t buy their shit for a moment.
Let’s carry on then…
Not even a good bluff at false opposition.
Of course not, the Jewish media would try to promote its controlled opposition as much as possible.
Gee, these “intellectuals” are daring.
Le Figaro is owned and controlled by Serge Dassault, born Serge Bloch, both his parents are of Jewish heritage.
Yes, sure, “the intellectuals” are coming to our European defense on the matter of immigration.
Onfray resents the possibility of European ethno-nationalism emerging.
Sapir is a “far left” economist, son of psychoanalyst, Michel Sapir (Sapir = Jewish), he teaches in Russia and is perhaps a part of negotiating a quid pro quo between Russia and Le Pen = continue to ease-up on the Jews and Russia will give you more support.
Like I said.
I.e., Onfray is a useful tool for Jews…
Oh yes, the problem is those damn socialists (don’t want to take away anything from plutocrats, especially not Jewish ones).
What a surprise! White Leftism works ..all of the people cannot be fooled all of the time.
Jews like to use “intellectual” as a code word for their own rhetorical bullshit artists, who will now try to disassociate themselves from the liberalism that their people and flunkies created, that they are here and now calling “the government of the left”.
But most truthfully and most crucially, neither will The White Left find a Jew on its side.
...by Jewish and objectivist sellout globalization.
...they found a useful idiot, an objectivist goy liberal to be a convenient foil for their false dichotomy.
Now the greater “intellectuals” are going to rescue us from this fool-hearty liberal.
...and women? French women are “minorities” that the “intellectuals” are going to defend against on behalf of who? ..and against who? ... seems both Jews and White objectivist sell-outs would like to blame the other.
Is that how we should think about it?
Bruckner is another convenient objectivist, a proponent for returning to the enlightenment; with that, Jews can set-him-up as a foil.
They again quote Joffrin, the other objectivist foil:
The new solution to the enlightenment’s radical skepticism, the Jews will tell us how to integrate “right and left” ... waiting ...here comes..
No, no, the Jews and their shabbos goy are here to save us from our skepticism…and put our long held prejudices into debate..
Come the “neutral media” to apply the hand of restraint to these “rogue reactionaries”
There is the payoff: all this build-up to allow Morano, and her Morano crypsis, to pawn-off Jews as White and manipulate White treatment of out-groups: “France is a Judeo-Christian country … a white race that welcomes strangers.”
And the Crescendo of the pilpul - playing the goyem off of one another:
Marine, your Russian Jewish alliance won’t spare you for being a shabbos goy - another one, Onfray, on behalf of French Jews, seeks to assimilate your position and use that against you.
Back to the other useful foil…
Yes, sure, we want those “intellectual” Jews to swing rightward ... right where we are not.
Didn’t you say that what “intellectuals” did best was organize debates?
Take heart, Onfray and friends, Islam didn’t come to debate either.
You might take the debate to the Middle-East, take Nadine Morano…she can defend her concept of Judeo-Christian Whiteness ...there.
Morano has felt that “we need a tonic, and UMP Jean-Francois Copé best placed to embody the word, with strength and ability to address the issues without taboos” ...a representation of the “uninhibited right.”
Stop giving up your personal information to these people.
Angela Merkel and her government full of rabid liberals, have decided that they’d like to raise the pitch and tempo of their agenda of increasing mass migration, to the next level. Now they want to actively data-mine Facebook so that they can track you down if you disagree with the mass migration plan.
Germany is probably one of the worst places in Europe to live, if you care about ethnic genetic interests in any sense of the term.
Merkel has found a perfect partner in crime in Zuckerberg, since Zuckerberg’s politics are almost exactly identical to Merkel’s.
Quite seriously. And it shouldn’t be surprising.
There is an amicable relationship between Facebook and German liberalism.
This is not unprecedented, given that Facebook has always had a very disdainful view of its users.
Recall from back in 2010:
I don’t know how many times I’ve had to tell people this, but if you give your personal information to Facebook, you are basically out of your mind. If you give your personal information to Facebook while making posts on Facebook that German liberals do not like, then you are even more out of your mind.
People need to stop giving personally indentifiable information to Facebook. Just stop giving it to them.
I present this article for the purpose of driving that point home to anyone who is still having doubts about this. Just stop giving it to them.
While I have made comments in this regard in the past, I have been meaning to make a post about this for a long time. Now is as appropriate a time as ever to forefront a critical position toward labor.
In The United States, Labor Day 2015 falls on Monday, September 7th
People may think that as an advocate of a new position that I am calling “The White Left” that I am enormously sympathetic to White labor and that we are ready to hear detailed, practical, step by step, concrete advice, facts and figures as to what White labor ought to do.
And if you are contributing to this society, are you even doing your kids a favor?
There are those who maintain that they must participate and work in a way that serves the system in order to take care of their White family and of course that may be true. But it would be tragic if they do not begin to build bridges with other Whites (and select non-White nativist nationalists) toward a unionization of EGI and White economic sovereignty, since the life boat they have put their family on by participating in the system is taking them to drift further and further out into the ocean of non-Whites. They are merely providing their children a superficially comfortable situation within what are destined to be increasingly horrible circumstances - and that comfortable buffer can be taken away in an instant without unionized rules for them to coordinate in defense against neo-liberalism and its Red Left, PC enforcement wing.
Still, so long as the unionization of Whites continues to be demonized by White Nationalists, as they insist on confusing “The White Left” with “The Red Left”, as they insist on associating “Third Positionism” with objectivist confusion and right wing crap, such as a religions which do not recognize EGI and concerns for this world as important, we are obviously not ready for a strike. No, don’t worry, I am not calling for you to walk away from your salary, for that would mean that we are ready for war of maneuver, ready to take over the system which we all agree is working against our EGI.
We are nowhere near ready for that, as the right wing or the right wing elements of third positionism continually confuse, disorganize and frighten away the popular support necessary for a war of position (conceptual organization, territorial and strategic position) as precursive to support a war of maneuver (taking over government).
In trying to organize a war of position thus, we must first render a theoretical sketch rather than get lost prematurely in the practical and concrete. We are talking metapolitcs: White workers of the world conceptually uniting with the aim of political separatism and sovereignty.
WN still insist upon either identifying as reactionaries, as “the right” or as being “beyond left and right” and as long as third postionism equates to confusion as such, obstructs organized unionizations of our people, and rather merges with counter-productive or downright destructive right-wing perfidy, then we are at the stage of having to stake-out a war of position. Unless we are coordinated there can be no war of maneuver for Whites to take control of our nations and see to our people’s interests.
Almost all sites and programs associated with White interests are still determined to argue that “the left” is the enemy or that the term has no utility. I am suspicious of their motives or of the motives of those from whom they gain support and guidance.
Matt Forney pushes the counterproductive, Jew prompted line now as something that we need in particular as men - as men we need to move beyond right and left, while favoring the right on balance.
Sure, Matt, we don’t want to do anything like unionize in our interests as White men. That would be an awfully fearful thing in the eyes of your Jew masters and your liberal White woman friends. We are “betas” because we don’t want their sloppy seconds or is it sloppy one hundred and 22nds? But who is desperate? We are not real men because we advocate a White left (which, as we define it, might look quite a bit like and have quite a bit in common with third positionism) but you are a real man?
We do have bigger fish to fry than poor Matt, who boasts about how he went around screwing and dumping Filipino girls (an appropriate place to aim his revenge?), and so we will leave him to the confused world that he would induce White men into, on behalf of his Jewish masters, supposedly moving beyond right and left - that is to say, beyond the call for White unionization and syndicalism.
To articulate a clear war of position, to where we, as White men, have intrinsic value as designated by union membership, for the first time ever, our inherent social capital recognized, innocent until proven guilty, now that would be a fearful thing indeed to his Jewish and neo-liberal masters.
Can you imagine? People would actually have to treat us and our EGI fairly?
That would be an awfully fearful thing to his Jewish masters and to the objectivists sell-outs, the White sluts who wish to block our war of position, maintain the neo-liberal anarchy and atomization among White men until there is no chance of us seizing power by maneuver…
This is being re-posted for a few reasons.
In the years since it was first posted there has yet to be any argument to refute its value to organizing the perspective of interests in whole and fundamental parts for those who care about European peoples. Though its further detail and application would provide benefit, it has not yet gained the currency it should have among WN, who mostly continue to argue that they are “of the right wing”, against “The Left” or “neither left nor right”, thereby foregoing organization in their power, and reacting as our enemies would have it.
The White left thesis may not have gained currency for another reason - it had a very short time (about 4 hours) as a leading article when first republished at Majority Rights before J. Richards posted a sensationalistict, highly conspiratorial and tabloidesque story, with ridiculous imagery leaping forth (the photoshopped arms on this man seem to parody the image just below on the White Left article) - distracting from the careful discussion that the White Left thesis deserves.
Next, for this essay to be understood properly, it needs the context of being published alongside the Kant essay (his moral system as coherence, accountability, agency and warrant). In fact, for the purpose of the Kant essay to be understood, it also needs this juxtaposition; but while important, it is a primary step at this point to the highly relevant arguments which the White Left essay makes. So as not to not distract from these more relevant concerns thus, I place the Kant essay secondly and under the fold, only advising that philosophically, theoretically, it is antecedent for a proper understanding of the history of European philosophical requirements. Finally, republication will provide occasion to shore-up minor errors that should not be passed-on as these essays are a worthwhile resource.
Leftism as a Code Word (Part 1):
When our advocates call our enemies The Left, they are making a crucial mistake: obfuscating our two greatest problems and the means of solution at the same time.
In an interview with Dr. Sunic, Professor MacDonald says, “these neocons, their only interest is Israel. [Otherwise] they tend to be on the Left [?]. They still are on the Left [?] when it comes to immigration. All these things are just really leftist.” [?]
Dr. Norman Lowell says that “the Left” [?] has shipped industry and with it, jobs, to China.
In his article Women on the Left, Alex Kurtagic discusses some of the same subject matter that I had dealt with in a previous article, and to which I have given some consideration over the years – among that, sorting out different kinds of feminists in relation to White interests. In concluding that these “leftists” [?] have nothing to offer women, he places feminists in the same category: de Beauvoir, who did indeed fashion herself a leftist of sorts (taking women as her advocacy group, and Marxism as her guide), but was not Jewish; and Friedan, who was Jewish, but more liberal in what she promoted than leftist.
In an interview for Alternative Right, Kurtagic goes on attacking “the leeeft, the leeeft, the leeeeft,” and I cringe, not for the reasons that he may think; i.e, he may think that I am lamenting an attack on a centralized economy, or open borders multiculturalism, PC “enrichment”. Maybe he would think that I am waxing nostalgic for the Soviet Union where he and Sunic had the misfortune to grow up, or that I want to take away private property? Maybe he thinks I am cringing because I want to jealously limit his horizons, tell him what kind of art and architecture that he can have? Maybe he thinks I want everybody to be equal or treated equally? No, I am cringing because another perfect Jewish trick is being promoted to the detriment of White people.
These counterproductive ambiguities are circulating among our best advocates – hence the need of clarification and definition emerges salient. It is not about competing with them and showing them up; it is about getting the framework of our advocacy correct.
Naming the Jew can be risky business indeed and that assuredly accounts for why White advocates have used code words: e.g., liberals, non-Christians, leftists, etc. I submit that if one is in a situation where it is too dangerous to name the Jew, then liberal – at least in terms of its fundamental meaning, viz., openness to other groups of people – is the better code word as it also encompasses those problems of ours that are truly not of Jewish making but of our own. And that the Left is the worst code word. That is the subject of this thesis, for reasons that I will elaborate shortly. Agreed, the charge of liberalism is problematic, with a decided image problem, it has one appearing stodgy and logically entailing ground yielding conservatism in response; thus, another term should be supplied – but not the Left.
When one does have to confront the Jewish question more directly, but is in danger, not free to speak in just any way, one of the best strategies for defending against charges of anti-semitism should be to distinguish between “virulent” and “relatively benign” Jews in accordance with Faussette and Bowery’s theory regarding the cycle of Jewish virulence. Jews, long a people without a nation (beginning with Babylonian captivity and for nearly 2,000 years after that), developed an uncaring, parasitic relation to their host nations, particularly among the elites of their vested interest. After a period of consolidating the wealth of a nation to themselves, the most ‘virulent’ ones escape over the border for a new host country to exploit, while the relatively ‘benign’, situated and accountable ones are subject to the wrath of the host nation’s people who realize belatedly, “’the Jews’ did this to us!” This perpetuates the cycle as the virulent elite bribe their way into a new country, gain farther sympathy, critical absolution and pseudo-justification for their exploits as they point to what ‘they do to us’: the Holocaust, the Inquisition, the pogroms, the Roman occupation.
With this distinction however, we should be able to mitigate the charge of anti-semitism, noting that our large grievance is with the virulent elite (as well as with White traitors, especially those in influential positions) not with those Jews normal, situated and accountable to a local culture. Nevertheless, as anybody who has experience will tell you, the pattern of antagonism and indifference to European interests exists not only among Jewish elitists, but in them as a whole. Thus, we need to discriminate against them and separate from them as an entire group, even if some are worse than others and should be looked upon as more criminally liable.
. . .
As with most normal White people, liking my people and myself, I spent most of my life saying that I was neither Left nor Right, if those terms emerged as an issue.
For good reason: as with all normal White people, I’d been repulsed, had a very strong aversion to identifying as leftist. I saw rabid Jewish advocates of non-Whites along with anti-White Whites and heard them called “THE Left” all my life. Yet, I looked at what was being called “the Right”, and I could not quite do that either – it meant that one would be an ignorant hole by definition. I use this vulgarism deliberately to demonstrate that you can indeed, define a term through the pattern of its use in common parlance. Note that a person will be called a hole when they harm others when they do not have to; or, when they let people harm them when they do not have to. That’s characteristic of the Right for a reason – they’re not accountable; they wish to believe in their sheer, objective innocence and not accountable to an encompassing, but delimited “we”, as such.
However, with our struggle’s growing recognition of the disregard of our people in more difficult circumstances, middle, working class and more, their increasing awareness having shown in the Wall Street protests; moving to understanding of the consequences of corporate plutocracy’s quest for cheap labor; its transgression of borders; its relation to the military industrial complex - growing recognition that this is not in our interest as Whites – our need to not identify as rightists becomes acute.
At the same time, with the population explosion threatening to overwhelm our demographic and our environment, it is also of acute importance to not identify with the phony “Left” either, which is really just more catastrophic liberalism, if you look at it. That understood, I have come to the realization that saying one is neither Left nor Right is an inarticulate halfway point to extricating oneself from promulgated Jewish definition of the terms. That once one sorts out Jewish perversion and corruption of the terms, that the Left is the best way for us to identify as White advocates.
When our advocates call our enemies “the Left” they are making a crucial mistake: obfuscating our two greatest problems and the means of solution at the same time.
Our advocates are obfuscating the agency of Jewish machinations hiding behind a twisted definition of “the Left.” The Left has the moral high ground and the label, Left, has the appearance of that moral high ground because it is supposed to be socially accountable, even if it is a misnomer: which it is, in Jewish application of the term – leftist classification indeed, for Jews, non-Whites, and anti-White Whites, but prescribing obsequious, cataclysmic liberalism for Whites. With that, they are obfuscating the motive of Jews to define us as Rightists and their motivation to drive us there when we react to this misnamed liberal prescription.
At the same time, our advocates are obfuscating our other large problem – our wish for the “innocence” of objectivism or the appearance thereof, the pretense of such objectivism in order to avoid accountability – that is Rightism.
While Jews will use this argument too, that they are simply better, meritorious, when it serves their interests, Jewish political planners and academics generally want to maneuver us into a rightist position because it leaves us naive, organizationally weak, amoral, and unaccountable to our own as a relational class of people. White traitors also want us to be rightists so that they can avoid accountability.
Finally, in calling “the Left” our enemy, our advocates obfuscate the means of solution by creating an aversion to what we need – a social classification of ourselves as a people, a full class of people. The Left is always about social classification if you sort out abuse of the term.
Understood how the term is deployed when clear, “The Left” is a function of systemic classification, designating a group of people the interests of whom are to be looked after as a class – protecting against outsiders, e.g. “scab” union busters and plutocratic exploitation of labor. We classify ourselves as Whites for highly analogous reasons: to protect ourselves from opportunistic outsiders and from elitist exploitation and indifference.
If our philosophy is correct, as White advocates, we are leftists - that is because we are advocating a people, not objective facts. We are not simply describing facts, independent of interactive involvement and consequences. We are, if we are good White advocates, saying, “if a tree falls in the woods and there are no White people left to hear it, to talk about it, at least, it may make a noise, but may as well not for all it matters.” We are taking a people-centric perspective and a White-people-centric position, specifically. We are acknowledging that nothing exists outside of interaction and how facts count must be negotiated between people. As mammals, caring about closer personal relationships, as we do, we most crucially care about White people.
In fact, the moment we refer to ourselves as Whites, or indigenous Europeans – when we refer to ourselves as a people - we are classifying, we are parceling a relative classification of ourselves socially and that is the reality. Whereas the Right, inasmuch as it pursues objectivism independent of interaction, social interaction, and a negotiation of how things count, is always something of an illusion.
If Kevin MacDonald looks at two DNA strands and says, this one is Jewish and this one is White, he must address at least one colleague with this information, in seeking agreement. In some cases, data will be agreed upon by nearly 100% of people and that will generally be called, “objective.” A few may disagree, but they will be considered crazy. Nevertheless, the data, the observation and how it counts, occurs in social interaction (or it may as well not occur at all).
Moreover, to identify who we are as a full social class would give us the moral high ground and powerful organizational function at once. Whereas, when we are made averse to the term Leftism, we are obstructed from accountability to the relative classification of ourselves and others as a people – a classification that takes into account processes, all stages of development (within the lifetime) and evolution (beyond the lifetime); a classification that makes an important difference as it takes into account and respects our paradigmatic differences, differences that make a difference from other groups; our qualitative form and function, systemic pattern, its ecological disbursement, niche differences, logics of meaning and action understood as vastly different from non-Whites; that can make us more cooperative among ourselves and less conflicting with non-Whites when practicality is the better part of valor.
The White Class: viz., persons of native European descent, with interests relative to its class as such, would entail two-way accountability straight away, from those on top and from those in developmental, marginalized stages; i.e., to our relative, relational interests, irrespective of whether White traitors and non-Whites, those outside the White Class, are more or less “objectively” capable. Non-Whites might be allies, but they are not in the class. White traitors are traitors, their abilities only making them more offensive. The White Class, The Indigenous European Class (with its subcategories, yes), would define who we are and to whom we are largely accountable
Coming back to our first big problem in calling “them” the “Left.” ...
When our advocates attribute Leftism to our enemies, they are not addressing the agentive Jewish machinations against our people, but rather attributing the problem to an ideology or less, a devil word, the “Left.” This obfuscates the fact that Jews are classifying themselves and looking after their own interests, hiding their own agency in promoting hyperbolic liberal ideas and antagonism to Whites – promoting those outside or antagonistic to the White Class as “marginals” come to “enrich” us. Jewish agency is hidden behind the attribution of “the Left” – whether the agency behind economic Marxism or the cultural Marxism of PC.
Our second big problem obfuscated by calling our enemies, ‘the Left.’ Our wish for the “innocence” of objectivism or the appearance thereof, the pretense of such objectivism in order to avoid accountability.
Whether of religious speculation which seeks to establish its pure innocence, a clique of scientistic elitists who seek to establish the pure objective warrant of their discoveries, or the pure might-makes-right of the quasi-individual and the corporate “individual” of U.S. law, the Right is characterizable as a quest for objectivism which would make quick work of accountability – through a naïve wish to be innocent through objectivism or worse, through a cynical wish to avoid accountability through a pretense of objectivism.
The White Leftist perspective would not begrudge persons who do some things better their due, their difference, so long as they are accountable to the relative interests of the class; however, people tend to want to believe their success is more a result of their sheer independence than it actually is – the Right is pseudo objectivist, faithfully, slavishly leaving nature to its own devices – “we are caused”, pseudo detached from the social, anti-social, therefore unaccountable and inhumane as such – “that’s just the way it is”, according to nature. Failing that, the Right can and will often seek to evade account in the elusive and insensible speculation of religion.
“Natural rights”, “human rights” or “social classification”, what is the difference that can make a difference for us at this point? I would argue assertion of social classification. John Law is distinguishing our relative difference as a people but places it in the background to a distinction of “natural rights” as an expression overwhelmingly distinct from other peoples and a singular expression of Europeanness - apparently forever lost if we set it aside as a priority at certain times in the life span, in our system and in our history? I would argue that rights are one product of our social expression which will be lost if we do not, as de Benoist would advise, learn to prioritize the social from whence individualism derives. It’s a White Left thing.
John Law’s erudition is in evidence in distinguishing “natural rights” vs “human rights” in European history.
He argues that de Benoist is making a mistake in bundling “human rights” with “natural rights.” That he is throwing out the latter along with the former in his criticism of human rights.
In effect, I would say that de Benoist is arguing that “Human rights” are a Cartesian, universalist derivation of rights which are to be done away with as both destructive to the very grounds of what individualism there is to be had and at the same time done away with as a naively adopted, neo-liberal, universalist imposition aimed to break down market barriers to, and differences from, the rest of the world.
Law’s point is, in effect, that in not distinguishing the universal and Cartesian “human rights” from its forerunner, the telos of “natural rights” as a telos relative only to European cultures, that de Benoist is also discarding the distinct and inherent civic rights as natural rights born of Europeans and meant solely as a means to express and maintain our particular European character, civility and liberty. These civil liberties are an epiphenomenon that are both a unique prerogative in expression of our relative kind and a crucial means to maintain our peoples.
It appears to me that de Benoist’s emphasis in criticizing individualism is more correct at this point. De Benoist may not be so much mistaken at this point in not distinguishing the kind of rights as in not emphasizing relativizing social grounds in firm contrast to other peoples and support as such that dynamic classification of bio-racial systems provide.
Law, on the other hand, is jumping the gun a bit in presuming our relative distinction in the telos of natural rights. I can’t speak for de Benoist but of course I have acknowledged the importance of something like that protection of rights and individual liberties within the relative and bounded classification of European peoples, but I would favor a new way of devising them which would suffice for post modern performance requirements (e.g., warrant, accountability, coherence, agency, obligation, legitimacy, prohibition), since the telos of natural rights are likely to prove a partly obsolete relic of a more “stable” order and perhaps on a slippery slope to the Cartesian universality of human rights that came of them.
In either case, returning to the rights structures of bygone epochs is not our priority. Far from it, and in that respect, de Benoist is not wrong to be strongly critical of individual rights as a key agent in leaving us susceptible to destruction.
Neither again is Law wrong in emphasizing that something like rights are necessary to Europeans.
But until such time as we have overcome the Cartesian de-legitimization of social classification and Jewish exploitation of that de-legitimization, particularly in regard to White peoples’ ability to discriminate for that prohibition, individual rights are better treated as a subset and permutation of positive attributes that the class (whole social groups of European peoples) would birth were it not in jeopardy - rights would be an epiphenomenon and not the sole distinguishing characteristic and means of our salvation - indeed, preoccupation with abstract premises as such can be a hindrance at this point, particularly if belabored where no “rights” grievances are, or indeed, can be raised. Rights treated as a shining beacon of European virtue (even in teleological form) would tend to run stiffly roughshod over the radically social source of our distinct character, our interdependence as a social group, and the performance requirements of our post modern condition, which require the assertion of our classification as relatively distinct from the rest of the world - a crucial social classificatory distinction that makes a difference.
In the last part of Eugène Montsalvat‘s review of de Benoist, he is shown to give organizational advice, including moving beyond left and right with observations as to where they both went wrong.
I don’t agree with how he is describing the left, and it is a good occasion to sort that out.
However, I am in significant agreement with the tenor - that capitalism is among our major problems.
With that, he confirms a suggestion from Kumiko to me, that I’ve already accepted. I would take to heart that in promoting the White Left platform that I have not emphasized enough the fact that there would be unions amidst the union that is the racial/national union. I have done that but not enough.
Because I have been so focused on the re-legitimization of racial classification and the unification of people as one class, Kumiko alerts me to the fact that I would be accused of disingenuously wallpapering over bona fide working class concerns for not recognizing their distinct situation.
She advises talking more in terms of syndicalism, and I can see where her advice in that regard, and as it turns out, also de Benoist’s advice in that regard is correct.
My way of handling these differences could use that boost, though I have not exactly been remiss in that. In criticizing the insufficiently descriptive and ultimately dangerous paradigm of “equality / inequality”, I have consistently spoken in terms of qualitative differences within the White Class (and in relation to non-White groups). As opposed to “equality/inequality” and its false comparisons, I have tended to focus on niches, their paradigmatic incommensurability, qualitative symbiosis and the management of differences in respect of difference as opposed to inequality. Nevertheless, forms of syndicalism should correspond with systemic regulation of these differences.
As I have said in many places, and I am no less convinced than ever, that it is a mistake to relinquish the self designation as a left, a White Left. The Jews do not want us to adopt its powerfully organizing world view for that reason, because it does line things up correctly time and again.
Not a left as properly defined in White interests.
I do not idealize the working classes nor would a White Left.
Benoist is correct and very articulate in citing the Enlightenment, its optimism (wow, never thought of that angle, but true) and the liberalism that came of it, but these are not elements of what we are calling the White Left.
The White Left designates these products of the Enlightenmet and categorizes them as “objectivism”, one of the two great adversaries to White/Left/Class/National/Union/Racial (all the same) solidarity.
The two great adversaries to the White Class/Left are Jewish interests and Objectivists/objectivism.
de Benoist needs to recognize where adoption of Enlightenment ideas among ordinary and working class folks is coming from.
Where it isn’t being promoted by Jewish interests it is being promoted by White elitist traitors disingenuously posing as “objectivists” (innocently great and not accountable) and naively accepted by the “lower classes” as “objectivism”, viz., the way it is.
But it is Not leftism, definitely not White leftism as it does not recognize the union’s right to discriminate and hold people accountable to the union’s interests.
Hence, we have not moved beyond right and left, we have merely not caught up to how Jews and White traitors have manipulated these terms to their interests, including not wanting us to have a “White Left” as its organizational capacities are dangerously powerful against them.
de Benoist is correct about that. No argument.
Here I disagree with de Benoist, not in the sense that issues like these can’t be used to distract from objectivist treachery and problems of their exploiting “lower classes”, but in the sense that he is going to the other extreme, and in ignoring race and religious organization of groups antagonistic to race, that he is buying into the same right wing Enlightenment objectivism (and perhaps Jewish manipulation) that he claims to be wise-to.
He goes on to say..
That can be said to be a product of Red (Marxist) Left skullduggery; that is to say, how Jews would apply all peoples in unionized alliance against White capitalists (While Jews themselves maintain their union and the facile unions of those who oppose their enemies).
It is surely wrong to accept the Jewish definition and calibration of the terms.
A union, a White Union, cannot be universal by definition. One is in the union or one is not.
Jews do not want us to have this because it would organize our people in a humane way which is accountable to excellence and differences at the same time.
It can err in this direction but only gets out of hand because the Jews exaggerate these possibilities in order to pander to their paying students. That is, Jewish academics are largely in the big business of selling talk to White female undergraduates: “possibilities” to create college courses and talk talk talk, criticize, criticize, criticize.
Again, exaggeration and distortion of these capacities are the result of Jewish academics who have mixed in and preyed upon enlightenment distortions in order to both misrepresent the left and turn White people off to their organizational capacity in a Left while actually using the victim groups they do marshal as an attack force against Whites.
Again, those are Jewish cultural Marxist perversions.
How can a leftist union favor the scabbing of their union by an open borders policy?
They cannot, it is a contradiction of terms.
That is what the Neo cons and other Jewish led interests are getting people to do.
The White Left is guilty of none of these things.
True, a White Class, the White Left.
This is quite well said, and I will probably take de Benoist’s and Kumiko’s advice to incorporate more snydicalist type thinking ..
I am on the radical side, but taking skepticism to quite that level is what led to the radical skepticism of the enlightenment and subsequently to liberal modernity.
The Christians are a bad example unqualified as such.
I would make it a dual entry, Jewish interests and Objectivism (which includes capitalist interests).
I agree that individualism is a large part of our problem, I understand its philosphical difficulties, but I do not want to summarily and uncritically dismiss it; but rather set it aside as a non-priority while we are under mortal threat as a group by groups.
The Jewish and Objectivist led U.S. is certainly a huge problem, but one must understand that it is Objectivism (admittedly written into its Constitution) and Jewish groups that marshal its forces against other group unionization of peoples.
I believe that Kumiko would like a chance to show that there may be a way to ride the tiger of NATO and US forces toward ethno nationalist aims.
If Christians and Muslims are attacking our enemies that is fine but we cannot be so naive as to think that these universalist and race mixing religions are people we can form formally agreed upon alliances with.
Their overall pattern is overwhelmingly against our interests and untrustworthy.
Same with blacks and Jews. There might be times when they fight groups who are harmful to us, but their overall pattern is overwhelmingly against us and untrustworthy.
Castro is anti-racist. So, I cannot agree with de Benoist.
Not true. Very untrue.
Well, the politicians’ faces are different. Al Qaeda has been substantially replaced in the chamber of Moslem horrors by Islamic State. Public opinion is better informed, public patience shorter in supply. But none of the rest - the terrorist violence, the stubbornly bien pensant political language, the lies in the press, the Establishment’s oily submissiveness towards Islam:
... and its endless devotion to multiculturalism - has changed from ten years ago today, when the London bombings scarred British national life.
In memory of that event, I thought I might reproduce the article I wrote just four days after it. I wonder if, in another ten years, the same alignment of forces will obtain, or whether something new and powerful and surprising will have entered the picture.
A train journey through the geopolitics of Al Qaeda. Or make that liberalism.
I don’t often travel to London these days. I can’t feel the same for the place as I did in my childhood. But it happened that last Thursday I was required to catch the 8.20 from Lewes to Victoria. The previous evening a Portugeuse client had flown in to London to meet with me next day at 10.00am in a Bayswater hotel. These guys pay the piper. So a trip to town could not be avoided.
Actually, it was a pleasant enough journey - quiet carriage, no twenty stone slab of lard sitting next to me. The rush hour was mostly past. The train didn’t fill until it reached multicultural East Croydon. It got in to Victoria shortly before 9.30am.
The next two hours of my life were spent going nowhere very fast and being dragged to the inevitable conclusion that my Portugeuse client would have to lunch alone. I learned from the station tannoy that the Underground was closed due to “incidents”. Other travellers, no less frustrated than I, had come into possession of the knowledge that somewhere a bus had been bombed. Then the tannoy confirmed it. Bus services were also suspended. Outside the station, London’s amazingly ubiquitous black cabs had become as rare as hens’ teeth. My mobile phone did not function. I assumed that weight of call traffic was the cause (only later did I learn that the system was switched off for fear of remote detonation of terrorist bombs).
It was time to get out of town.