Duda and Orbán against Brussels’ sovietisation
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, 27 October 2016 08:31.
Italy: More Invaders than all 2015
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, 26 October 2016 08:07.
Elated Muslim lunatic celebrates winning suicide bomber drawing
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 25 October 2016 07:32.
New technology facilitates composite sketch of Christine Franke’s black murderer
Posted by DanielS on Monday, 24 October 2016 09:10.
Contradiction in Lived and Told Narratives
Posted by DanielS on Monday, 24 October 2016 05:00.
“Bystander effect” regarding the Majorityrights contact email account caused it to go unattended.
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 23 October 2016 10:09.
Outrageous: Muslims mass protest by Roman Colosseum, in a nation where they have no right to be
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, 22 October 2016 16:44.
Philippine President Duterte Announces Alignment With China, ‘Separation’ From The ‘Loser’ - U.S.
Posted by DanielS on Friday, 21 October 2016 22:21.
Trump’s hypocrisy indicates he’s with ruling class, co-opting WN into Republican propositionalism
Posted by DanielS on Friday, 21 October 2016 16:02.
Donald and Hillary have a go at humor at Al Smith Dinner, NYC (Trump takes a serious turn)
Posted by DanielS on Friday, 21 October 2016 08:14.
New Bill Clinton Sexual Assault Accuser Urges Other Victims To Go Public
Posted by DanielS on Friday, 21 October 2016 02:16.
“A new template against anti-Semitism”
Posted by DanielS on Friday, 21 October 2016 01:12.
German State Media Silent After Teenager Murdered by Immigrant
Posted by DanielS on Friday, 21 October 2016 00:11.
Will Anyone Remember Jodie Wilkinson?
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, 20 October 2016 05:33.
Italy: Migrants Turn Central Milan Into Outpost of Africa
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, 20 October 2016 05:22.
Third Presidential Debate Between Donald and Hillary
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, 20 October 2016 05:02.
Orbán plans to double the Hungarian army and rise patriotism among children
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, 19 October 2016 06:42.
What Everyone is Missing About the Wikileaks Podesta Emails
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 18 October 2016 19:39.
“Asian Sex Gang” - Can the Daily Mail say “Muslim” ?
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 18 October 2016 10:30.
Hillary Leaks: Pick Your Outrage
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 18 October 2016 05:10.
Obama and Eric “My People” Holder Launch PAC for ‘Fairer’ Redistricting
Posted by DanielS on Monday, 17 October 2016 16:06.
The Dark Side of Self Actualization: Derek Black’s Reflexive Reversal on WN
Posted by DanielS on Monday, 17 October 2016 14:57.
“Euro founder Otmar Issing has predicted that the currency will collapse.”
Posted by DanielS on Monday, 17 October 2016 12:44.
European Border and Coast Guard Agency launches - incorporates “Frontex”
Posted by DanielS on Monday, 17 October 2016 10:08.
Who fears the wolf of globalisation?
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 16 October 2016 20:01.
MidtDasein: First is not the same as most essential - interests (inter esse)
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 16 October 2016 18:21.
All South African Universities Shut
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 16 October 2016 07:17.
Poland stepping-up efforts for Intermarium sovereignty
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, 15 October 2016 06:06.
The War for Germany
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, 15 October 2016 05:02.
Trump’s “anti-global elite”, pro-American proposition nation speech - sandwiching belabored beef
Posted by DanielS on Friday, 14 October 2016 09:44.
Hi-low on Catholic Church: Soros tools subversive direction/ Ghanan plunders 4 churches
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, 13 October 2016 05:01.
Michaloliakos to Italian TV: Golden Dawn will sturdily fight those who aspire to sell our Homeland!
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, 12 October 2016 16:24.
China’s Government Cracks Down on Jewish Organizations
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, 12 October 2016 05:15.
Majorityrights Central > Category: Psychology
First is not the same as most essential (inter esse), a take-away from prior thread.
Updated (significantly) the morning of October 18th CET
I agree that it is important to not set the bar too high and that is something which GW helps to articulate very well - i.e., the Heideggerian place of MidtDasein - by ensconcing the authentic consciousness of the subject in a world view that is not all that conscious - not feeling constantly compelled by the instrumental, for reasons too subjective, too objective, or too “the They” but resonating rather, with the emergent - he contributes thus significantly to the articulation of its authentic form, in this holding fast attention to resonance, from resonance of subjective emergence to resonance of the objective field, a position which does partake of the calculative (Cartesian) while not remaking stuck there, generally. On the other hand, also generally, Heidegger helps to not set the bar too high, by suggesting that authentic thinking generally occurs slowly, in a meandering, qualitative survey by poesis. While the subject is the inevitable entering point of caring interest, its viewpoint is calibrated authentically from there, taken away from inauthenticity and into engagement with its full organic process by re-attention to “there-being” (which occurs, I suppose, when resonance with a relative concern is particularly acute), from momentary concerns to a broad systemic view based in the relative interests (inter esse) of one’s folk (social group/midtdasein) within the emergent world - that is another description of midtdasein; and if the subject is centered not in objectivity, but within the purview of the folk, in praxis; and folk leaders share this view to their relative interests, the calibration of the group should feed back to serve the authentic interests of the subjective starting point which the subject will come back to inevitably in resonance - a resonance that should meld with the group’s interests, in the moment they seek to re-orient anew, to call back from estrangement their authentic position of caring. But if the subject is not getting sufficient feedback from the system, marginalized as such, their authentic concern would bring to bear their subjective perspective on the system’s inauthenticity, acting as a homeostatic corrective (I believe it was Heidegger’s student, Gadamer, who fostered this idea).
Thus, First - subject - isn’t the same as most Essential (inter-esse) - Midtdasein - subject ensconced in a world view of relation within the folk. In fact, the first subjective relation is not to this third person (Cartesian) point of view, but rather, the subject acting into relation of second person address - parental relation, as biological creatures with reflexive capacities unique among biological creatures. From that starting point, it moves into emergent and third person relation (us) to calibrate midtdasein - if the social system is correctly oriented - which it presently is not (because it is estranged, all too Cartesian: objective/subjective, all too moved into the third person “they”) - hence the need for centering not rigidly stuck in the Cartesianism of the psychological perspective, but in the communication perspective, in interaction, its affordance of a view confirmed and delimited by the relative interests of the human ecological system, beginning with the first to second person relation and then prompting engagement in non-universal maturity, to socialization in midtdasein - a worldview gauged against the relative interests of the social group. The interests of the subject as participant in the social group, its authentic being, are held fast as they naturally resonate in emergent delimitation against material reality, including its own affordances and constraints, matters of physics; and for the need to coordinate caring activity/existence in relation to the emergence of other authentic social groups, biological creatures, the necessities of their organic systems in emergent relation to our systemic organic necessities.
Heidegger does advise or describe as authentic then, a holding fast of this essence, the resonance of emergent qualities of the subject, the people, the MidtDasein and its world setting taken to heart.
The holding metaphor is interesting because it implies two separated appendages, or at any rate, the capacity to embrace and coddle that which is inbetween and captivate it to one’s subjective attention.
This is good in that it helps supply a much fuller understanding, encourages attention to where our subjective emergent qualities resonate with the emergent qualities beyond the subjective; but you are sweeping aside other aspects that Heidegger suggests for relieving Cartesian rigidity, viz., the idea of Caring, there-being (taking attention out of one’s head), the folk and their delimitation as such - these are not an affectation to Heidegger nor an arbitrary application.
You have reminded me of the aspect of Heidegger in which he calls attention to “spreading out what is interesting - inter esse - and taking to heart what is most essential - then holding fast” - that would be a Heideggerian means for subjective emergence resonating with emergent qualities of the objective…
The holding metaphor is interesting because it implies two separated appendages, or at any rate, the capacity to embrace and coddle that which is inbetween and captivate it to one’s subjective attention.
What you may not be respecting in what I am getting at is how Heidegger’s system would assign being to the folk - and how the subjective would have a different qualitative relation to it, within it, in midtdasein, than to the rest of the “site of disclosure”... it would be a relative quality and a Caring which goes beyond and then delimits the subjective perspective from The They and The The which would make a non-Cartesian difference. The holding metaphor which you remind me of in your attention to emergence is interesting.
Heidegger does advise or describe as authentic then, a holding fast of this essence of resonance of emergent qualities of the subject, the people, the MidtDasein and its world setting taken to heart.
Well, you can put it that way, its implied in what I’ve said, but rather than its being incumbent upon me to “understand” a reification like “the personality”, you might be open to understand before criticizing the reason why autobiography will provide a better means of fitting predilections of the corporeal self to the “site” of disclosure - which includes one’s folk.
I can appreciate that you want “personality” to fit a closer reading of the corporeal and its genetic expression, but the concept of autobiography is not mutually exclusive and will, rather, facilitate “the fitting together” of authentic expression of the personality and the “site of disclosure.”
“There is no such thing as society”
In that act of being mistaken, anyway - let’s leave a way out for people understandably reacting to the Jewish misrepresentation of the terms, “left” and “post modernity”.
Internal Relation and Emergence
You don’t have to take a position which places your people (praxis) as the central gauge. You can go on like a right wing fool for Jews and place a “quest for truth, facts and universal foundations” (and “inequality” even?) above all - even wreck your own people in that “noble quest;” but you’d be an unnecessary fool, a dupe for Jews and Jewish thinking in so doing. You don’t have to put our people at the center - but you can, as factual verification and reality checking are available in an instant if you are not dealing with reality; whereas the principles upholding our people took many centuries to create and are much more precious and difficult to reconstruct, if ever they can be. It isn’t necessary to place facts at the center - people are born of facts and if afforded correct principles, proper agency and accountability, our people will come to continually adjust their interests with the facts. Hence, the right’s whole arbitrary-making quest for facts and episodic verification at the expense of principled interest in our people is the height of folly.
Chasing mere facts and perfect verification away from “faith” in our people will tend to take them into runaway, beyond our people’s systemic interests - as opposed to taking the White post modern turn into its facilitation of the preservation and reconstruction of our people - where the facts are ensconced in the sufficiently deep emergent reality of our people’s systemic history to afford re-framing at their authentic place in relation to our human ecological system.
Right and Altright reactionary fan club - scavenging the wreckage of continued reaction.
The right, “alternative right”, those in their orbit, lay in wait as vultures for things like GW’s latest surprise: as I stepped aside from a discussion of British politics, he applied the theoretical wrecking ball again to “THE left” and “post modernity” at their behest (he isn’t so lame as to have to do it for himself); ill-prepared for the surprise in that context, I put up a threadbare defense against what I’ve come to see as a part of GW’s autobiography - “champion of the right, universal foundational unifier against the left’s class divisiveness.”
GW - working class hero who sees their classification as a critical problem of imposed nationalist division.
If you are coming here, like myself, chances are that you appreciate GW’s ability - you delight as he wields a scalpel on behalf of White/ethno-national sovereignty, more often a wrecking ball to the pretenses of academia and scholarship that are working against it.
We value this, want him to continue, want him to be satisfied with his part and his contributions.
What follows here is going to show little appreciation for that, which is abundant and shows forth in spontaneity for the surfeit of his intelligence - often yielding indispensable flourishes and insights that I myself cherish. This piece is rather an ungrateful piece in that regard, given that he has stood by me as I set about chartering a new platform for Majorityrights; and I sent scurrying many who had deep appreciation and respect for him as well; but it is neither for myself nor “his own good” that I proceed not feeling particularly guilty about that - nor is the matter of face saving a pressing matter for either of us - the sake is proper theoretical grounds, which is always my central motivation. Still this will appear rather like a hit piece - as it takes aim, focuses on the clumsier props of GW’s worldview, philosophical underpinnings and aspirations - not on better sides and ideas, which will emerge cybernetically in balance of fact.
If you are coming here, you probably appreciate and identify with GW’s rogue path: as a completely disaffected outsider to the academic fray, he early on rejected the nonsense coming out of there, particularly from fields dealing with social issues. And you delight along with him as he continues to apply the wrecking ball to their cherished liberal ruses under cover of “The left”, their wish to open important borders and boundaries, to bring down individual merit, to drag others down into primitive individual and group failure - instinctively, you sense him taking down liberal bullies who are smug enough to insulate themselves from the consequences of the unsupportable concepts of social “justice” that they wield against those native White populations least responsible for others problems, most likely to suffer from liberalism and least likely to gain from the applications known as “The Left” - applications which can recognize just about any collective unionization of interests except one kind - White. Certainly a (((coincidence))).
Most people who’ve come here, myself included, have also experienced mystification over GW’s not being satisfied with that. You have been at least temporarily mystified as he evades into the arbitrary recesses ever available by the empirical philosophy that underpins modernity; and as he continually applies its wrecking ball, secure in the faith that it will leave in its wake only that which is fine and good; a wrecking ball summarily dismissing scholarship, conceptual tools and principles that others set forth to guide social action.
I have been stunned as he sends the wrecking ball my way as well, summarily dismissing even carefully culled and profoundly warranted philosophical ideas, eminently useful conceptual tools and important rhetorical positions that I have geared to his same White ethno-nationalist interests; while his modernist philosophy willy-nilly casts me into the role of the “lefty academic” foil in key moments.
I am no longer mystified by this.
A reactionary position is mostly retreating (evading) and attacking - whatever looks like an enemy or Trojan horse - but for its instability, it is susceptible to chase after the red cape.
An early contentious streak in the autobiography over-reinforced by circumstance, ability and admirers.
GW is wonderful, we love GW, but like the rest of us, he is not perfect. There is a residual strain of contentiousness in his autobiography that stems from his early disaffection and precocious disregard of liberal prescriptions coming from academia. It’s a part of his autobiography that he takes a great deal of pride-in. It is also socially confirmed enough so that he continues to chase its red cape known as “THE left;” and keeps applying the modernist wrecking ball to any concepts the tiniest bit speculative in circumscribing social interests; or adopting any terms also used by liberal “left” academics - even if used in different ways, he will understand it in THE left way that he is familiar with - and summarily dismiss it as such or apply the wrecking ball.
Unlike most people disaffected of liberal academia, he is not of the working class sort content to shake his fist at academic pomposity, to find solace in a beer and the pragmatism of his working class buddies, allowing the union misrepresentatives to negotiate his interest with their fellow liberals of academic background; nor is he content to join in with the White collar and middle class who typically denounce the worst of academic socialists as unrealistic, while they go along with the liberal anti racism of the academe, signaling their one-upness to the lower classes by denouncing as backward superstition whatever defensively racist discrimination they might even require.
He does share a few things in common with the typical middle class perspective however. Naturally, he has a bias toward viewing his success in positivist terms, as having come about from his gray matter and personal initiative, not because he derived any benefit from artificially imposed social bounds against competition and to circumscribe cooperation.
Though he can relate to the working class “xenophobia”, he maintains that their maintenance of who they are among a collective “we” (i.e., particular native European nationals) and their choice of whom to intermarry with (same particular native European national) is something that should and can emerge naturally from their genetics - an identity that will emerge naturally, provided they do not have liberal, Fabian and Marxist ideas imposed upon them; the last thing GW wants is to impose another artifice upon them, one which he believes could divide them against their upwardly mobile English brethren, and in turn, divide the middle class even more against them. I.e., the “left” and “right” is normally taken as an economic divider and unifier of class, not a racial nationalist one as I am proposing. The middle class, as much as any, might be reluctant to ‘get it’ and not identify with a “White left,” in which case we would be back to the divisive issue, not the uniting issue that both GW and I seek - we may not agree on terminology but we do agree on native nationalism.
Thatcherite obectivism a means for personal advancement and foundational unification of nationalism.
In fact, GW is a native nationalist, deeply offended by the class system which has long hampered English unity. Thus, he is not content to disavow the worst of liberal and Marxist academics, writing-them-off as the idiots that they are, while leaving the working class to the fate that liberalism will bring to them, and, if left unabated, to all of us eventually. Like a few, more ambitious among us, he set about to get things right, to open a platform for White nationalists, even before it was quite the immanent practical necessity that it is now.
He aspires to identify the ontological connection between all English classes which, if unfettered by artificial constructs, would have them acting as native nationalists in loyal unanimity to their interests.
In that regard, Margaret Thatcher represented to him a liberating moment from the incredibly burdensome artifices of liberal, Fabian and Marxist Left union delimitations and by contrast an opportunity to unite as nationalists on natural positivist grounds.
Normal first reaction that doesn’t take Post Modern turn as it fails to see liberalism flying under left colors.
Indeed, most anybody of this ambition, myself included, who cares about our race and its ethnonational species, starts out in reaction to the absurd, contradictory and destructive liberal rhetoric coming out of academia and reaches to grab hold white knuckle to foundational truths, particularly scientific fact, which cannot be bamboozled by the rhetoric of liberal sophistry (which we later come to recognize as more often than not, Jewish in original motive). And we do grab hold white knuckle - that is to say, scientistically, in rigid over and misapplication of hardish science to the social realm, as we cannot trust the social realm, its rhetorical caprice if not deception - its ongoing disordering effects that apparently threaten to rupture social order anew with every agentive individual. Coming from a non-Jewish, Christian cultural perspective, where our bias starts, if not Jesus, we first liken ourselves to Plato and then modern scientists seeking to gird and found our place and our people’s place, whereas “they” are Pharisees and sophists, wielding the sheer rhetoric that we are going to debunk with our pure, native ability and motives. In a word, we are going to do science against their dishonest bias against us - they are indeed being deceptive and biased on behalf of unfair people; we see it as our objective to establish universal foundational truth that will be unassailable to this sophistry.
That is the normal first reaction of a White person who cares about themself and our people - it was mine and it was GW’s - a nascent White nationalist in response not only to the anti-White discourse coming out of the university, but in response to the very frame of the discourse - that is to say, taking on the frame [Jewish and liberal social stuff and lies versus White science and truth] - against accusations of privilege, racism and exploitation, we sought pure innocence in truth beyond social tumult and disingenuous rhetorical re framing. We (understandably) acted with absolute revulsion to anything like social concern and accountability - why should we be accountable to ever more alien imposition? - itself neither offering nor asking for an account sufficient to maintain our EGI - and where our people are eerily unconcerned or antagonistic to our people as well, we are only more compelled to take on the task ourselves - to pursue pure warrant. Our first reaction to the liberal chimera called “THE left” is: “I” noble servant of postulates - theorems - axioms - upon universal foundational truth.”
Beyond our people’s relative social interests even, we must save ourselves from the lies of “The left” (never minding that their first lie is that they represent our left) and found our moral/ontological basis where Jews, other tribalists and our selfish liberals, who only care about themselves, can never again manipulate it. We hold white knuckle, rigidly, in reaction to Jewish sophistry.
History will show that our people who pursued and secured sovereignty, health and well being found a philosophy advanced of that - competent and able to secure their social interests. They’d taken the White Post Modern turn from this reactionary position.
For reasons unfolding here, including reasons of his personal autobiography, GW has yet to appreciate and take the post modern turn.
Personal ability and interpersonal circumstances have facilitated his carrying-on in a typical first philosophical position of an amateur outsider in regard to academia - the epistemological blunder of “they are just sophists who provide nothing but nonsense while ‘I’ and my pure thoughts in relation to ‘theory’ am going to set the world aright” - an epistemological error in the relation of knower to known that is born in reaction and puerile hubris, carried on by being strong, smart enough to persist long after most people would shrink back from the signs of its limitations; going further uncorrected as it has been endorsed by “no enemies to the right” (a dubious principle, if there ever was one); it has grown into a surprisingly big and audacious ego wielded as a wrecking ball against “post modern philosophy.” We are supposed to rest assured on his faith that in the aftermath of wreckage, that the emergent qualities of his mind are all that is required besides the occasional foil to play off of in order to clarify and carry the modernist program forward to unshakeable, universal, foundational truth - unassailable to any social reconstruction. Never mind that we are already willing to agree upon most of the fundamental rules that he would seek - our agency is not necessary if it is going to suggest anything like planned social construction of systemic defense. No, that’s all impure stuff to be cast aside; and by contrast of true Platonic form, if you are freed from that ignorance and come to know the good he will secure, you will do that good.
He is not satisfied to simply negotiate, reason-things-out and reach an understanding among his people, he is not even particularly concerned that it won’t be a damn bit of good if people can’t understand his philosophical yield - he wants to secure that good on ontological foundations beyond praxis - beyond the capacity for manipulation. Most sophomores abandon this, their freshmen objective, as not only obsolete philosophy, but in fact, come to recognize it as destructive philosophy - a destruction which GW continues, with tremendous faith, without need of Aristotelian compass, that tremendous confidence to persevere where Wittgenstein failed.
The boomer generation - libertarianism and egocentrism.
The likes of Bowery and GW will be slower, if ever, to make the turn in direction, not because they are stupid, of course, quite to the contrary, but because they have the mental horsepower necessary to keep patching and operating the antiquated and obsolete technology that is modernity; and stem predilection both motivates them and enables them to do that; they are more self sufficient, less immediately reliant on the social (why carry others weight?); more confirmed by females by being reliable as such (concentrating on how to do things, not stepping on the toes of females by asking questions of social control - as long as you are at one end of the competition you are OK - liberal or the right wing end); confirmed by non academic workers in their more pragmatic concerns; and confirmed by right wingers in their penchant for anti-social theory beyond social manipulation - exactly, they are also slow to take the turn, of course, because they have an understandable lack of trust in liberal-social narratives; this unwillingness to suspend disbelief may be increased inasmuch as they have benefited as baby boomers, less harried for their identity in the parts of their life-span experienced prior to the culture of critique and in their personal initiatives after its reprieve - in Bowery’s case, with aspects of the objectivism behind Ron Paul’s libertarian “revolution”; and in GW’s case, during the Thatcher years (Thatcher’s initial backers having discovered her reading Wittgenstein’s cousin, Hayek, who obliviously carried forward upon the Tractatus) - years of brief, partial liberation from liberal-left union fetters - “there is no such thing as society” - in either case, a false friend facilitated as false opposition - viz., an expression of steered objectivism derived of Austrian schools beginning with Wittgenstein.
The title is a projection of objectivism. Subtitle: look who else is reading it.
What is confirmed to me - in a roundabout way, when GW dons his powdered wig, grabs a quill pen, does his best John Locke or whatever voice serves, and says oh, “that’s just Aristotle and his rhetoric,” “all of the good ideas are coming from the right”, “based in nature, none of this praxis stuff”, says that he “never loses an argument against academics”, etc., then continually re-applies radical skepticism of the empiricists and their forerunners - is that he is showing an ego driven and confirmed desire to carry-on the “pure” modernist project; viz., in his ontology project and his destruction of everything in its path, even treating Aristotle and William James as utter morons, GW is revealing a vain desire to do something all alone, like a combination of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico Philosphicus and Heidegger’s Being & Time: “The world is everything that is the case” meets “the worldhood of the world” - without the post modern implications of the latter. All that is required is the emergent qualities of his mind to set the world’s ontology aright - it will be “unassailable” by liberal, social, “left” rhetoric.
His reaction, confirmation and penchant for empirical verification against Jewish rhetoric has apparently caused him to disregard the post modern turn that was occuring also in Heidegger’s philosphy, albeit in Heidegger’s case, in that somewhat rigid, German way (which I find endearing).
GW appreciates Heidegger, so why does he not move forward from 1927 and why does he retreat to 1921 and the Tractatus? That he consders “OF being” the better starting point than Heidegger’s “There Being” provides a clue to ego centrism and Cartesian anxiiety - he not only proposes the reconstruction of the Cartesian starting point, “Of being”, but proposes it as an exclusive position, not even taking hermeneutc turns with Heidegger’s non-Cartesan starting point, “There being.”
“Unassailably” proclaiming that “The world is everything that is the case”
Whereas Wittgenstein himself was forced to yield-to, if not recognize the necessity of, the post modern turn - so much so that he was embarrassed by his effort at a complete ontology in The Tractatus Logico Philosophicus - having proclaimed its logic “unassailable” at once upon completion, he later repudiated it, even took to referring to its author as if a different person.
The Motivation for Post Modernity
Part of the craze for “post modernity” is that people (correctly) sense that modernity is destroying their differences, their traditions, their ways of life, their people and their very lives. And yet they frequently found traditional societies destructive as well. Therefore they were happy to have not only backing of cross cultural studies, vouching that different ways of life are valid, but also some confirmation from the very foundational math and science which modernity pursued to an apex that finally turned back on itself.
Kurt Gödel had demonstrated that a theory of any complexity could not be both complete and unambiguous.
Neils Bohr had priorly announced that there is no instrument fine enough to resolve the wave/particle distinction.
Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle elaborating from that was subtler still - that the observer is engaged in interaction and has reflexive effects upon that which he observes.
Confirmation of Aritstotle’s Praxis and suggestion that it should be the radical basis of assessment, not pure objective facts.
These findings confirmed Aristotle’s premises as set forth in Nichomachean Ethics - on the nature of Praxis - people are in reflexive relation, mostly requiring a degree of practical judgement as they are less predictable than the theoretical causality which the hard sciences pursue. It also would suggest placing praxis more in the center than theory - i.e., a socially based perspective where people are the arbiter, as opposed to “I think therefore I am” in relation to mere, indisputable facts and non-interactive third person behavioral units; a pursuit even outstripping the subject ultimately in favor of fixed theoretical facts - the Cartesian relation (pursued non-relation, as it were) of knower to known.
Vico was first to take the hermeneutic turn against Descartes, to bring ideas into historical context, the relation of knower to known into the social world of praxis
A relation knower to known other than the Cartesian model is required by modernity’s recognized failures and impervious destruction.
Those who care about people, who see the destruction of Descarte’s “relation” of knower to known, understand the wisdom of Aristotle, and realize that Vico - Descartes’ first major critic - was in fact, proposing the taking of theoria into praxis: i.e., correctly placing people and praxis at the center of his world view. He was setting forth the historical, hermeneutic world view, the post modern world view. And, in turn, those who understand Heidegger will see that he was following in that same direction, which may be called “existential” and which is centered in praxis - the social world.
The White Post Modern turn is, of course, the best and most moral perspective for advocating people - Whites especially - Jews don’t want that and so they fool the uneducated masses and most of the educated masses as well by reinterpreting the terms by which people - viz., White people, might understand this - and they get them to react against didactic misrepresentation. That is, they are getting them to react in aversion to what is good and healthy in racial advocacy by having made it didactic in misrepresentation - e.g., the highly sensible Post Modern is presented as “dada” (whereas I have secured its sensible form in White Post Modernity).
Bowery and GW were impelled on, for the didacticism of the (((liberal-left - contradiction of terms))) and for the (((misrepresentation))) that was this false opposition and its false promise to liberate us from The left, among other reasons. Objectivism, the neoliberalism and libertarianism of the Austrian school of economics, Thatcherism, is merely a false opposition that (((they))) set up against “(((The Left))).” It is a product of late modernity, derived of the Vienna School of Logical Positivism, which in turn was derived of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico Philosophicus.
Again, that was Wittgenstein’s attempt to set-out a comprehensive and “unassailable” ontology - “The world is everything that is the case.” He would later say that the Tractatus was “not a very good book”, lest he be mistaken for one not recognizing that those who had taken the post modern turn had left this philosophical quest behind. Nevertheless, the Austrian school of logical positivism founded upon the Tractatus lived on through his cousin Hayek (who Thatcher was discovered dutifully reading); it was then taken up by von Mises et. al, who would conveniently and explicitly adopt this no-account modernist program against any one of subsequent generations who was the least bit reflective, who had any social complaints about how they and their people had been left without social capital after this generation of egocentric locusts devoured all social capital in their path. Waiting generations of right wing reactionaries, ensconced in their well protected Internet bubbles, were ready to look up to these libertarians for their lack of social concern, conveniently blaming the socially conscientious of prior generations for the problems - “The Left”, where not “hippies”, were the ones asleep at the wheel and leading us over a cliff, “but not the objectivists” and not (((The YKW))).
One-up intransigence of boomers meets generation Internet bubble for a right-wing cocktail, silencing socially conscientious voices between.
Because of GW’s unwillingness to trust anybody but himself, he takes recourse in the one aspect of the post modern turn where his first person account of all the world’s foundations might be claimed - emergentism. He has a problem, however, when I say that the world still interacts. He has to take recourse to the absurdly arbitrary claim that “life doesn’t interact.”
Emergentism, in fact, is one of the key contributing factors to the post modern turn - it challenges the reductionism and fixedness of the modernist ontology project in an important sense - the emergent whole being greater than the sum of its parts means that significant referents are changeable in complex systems, thus qualifying Bowery’s criticism - “there is either a referent or there is not” - as this charge must yield to the fact that facts can be re-framed as they emerge physically, as they are designated by individuals and as they emerge in social consensus. And yes, what emerges still interacts in a myriad of ways.
Gen Xer’s were a bit late for the ride
“There is no such thing as society”
Their lack of faith in the social narratives as they are applied by YKW is understandable, the faith they show in the guiding principle of modernity to leave only what is fine and true in the wake of their wrecking ball is not. There comes a time to suspend disbelief. To draw a hypothetical boundary around our people is as good a time and place as any. “Wise men see lines and they draw them” - William Blake. And its not so hypothetical.
Perhaps because their boomer generation was early in line and they were intelligent enough to position themselves by means of objectivism for a deck chair on the higher end of a sinking Titanic, they can take some solace in writing-off those who might be going under first, if it does go down, as hazards of nature, having not acted “naturally” in EGI - Bowery in particular, being motivated by an affinity for the individuality of northern Europeans, abandoned ship (MR, anyway) when Dr. Lister and I began raising criticisms of “individualism über alles” and raising social concerns against that.
In fact, for this reason, Bowery issued an ultimatum (“either him or Lister”) which defaulted to Graham’s more social side, upon which Bowery expressed his “revulsion” for Majorityrights.
It is my experience and my hypothesis that there is a pattern of Jo Cox types who are in an increased one up position of female predilection as a result of the disorder of modernity - a disorder created by the disruption of racial and other social classificatory bounds - with that, they are pandered to from all directions (particularly by the YKW) and they become more articulate and confident, more prone to not move beyond a liberal propensity to gratuitous prerogative and incitement to genetic competition - more able to dismiss as “losers” those who question their judgment (who conversely, become more inarticulate); these increased one up females act as gate keepers, letting through only men (like Jo Cox’s husband Brandon) who maintain the liberal disorder that empowers them - never mind the expense to others in their historical, systemic pattern: “it’s nature” ...at least it serves their narrow personal interests to believe in this powerful determinism.
Sell-out couples like Jo and Brandon Cox operate with a contextual force to quell voices in objection to the liberal destruction they visit upon our people - White men often squelched first for liberal abandonment and invitations to interlopers.
The voice that liberals would silence is meaningful of a pattern - not to be treated uncritically or with perfect sympathy, but certainly not to be dismissed as having no possible reason to be angry with the status quo - looking upon it as hideously and unnecessarily unjust - so much so as to contemplate it as actionable.
Again, this position of ordinary White males can become quite inarticulate within the disorder of modernity, as they are ostracized, shunned and altercast by the YKW into right wing anti-social aloofness and ultimate alienation - inarticulate and without perceived recourse to this alteracst, they can act into its dangerous and counterproductive role.
How to correct that, to hear these White voices that liberals would silence and engage them such that their grievances can lend corrective aid and be channeled into effective activism - a more productive means than murdering a Jo Cox: who, for her professed compassion, may have been compelled to account for compassion to Whites?
It is precisely because White men are evolved in more sublimated and circumspect patterns of interaction that their reproductive paths require the “prosthesis” of place holding grammars to lend social support against the myriad of occasions that modernity affords for the opportunistic to seize-upon their more protracted biological constituents.
It is with a notion such as this, “just a few more words added to his grammar of motives might change a sociopath into a merely neurotic sort” (Kenneth Burke) that we make an ongoing reference place for our good and loyal women - hopefully, more than merely staving off misogyny, an extended grammar of motives can transform him, lending sufficient alternative range of functional autonomy for him to become an articulate spokesman for our people otherwise terribly manipulated and pandered-to by those in power…
It will do no good to deny the capacity for the terrible treachery that exists among our co-evolutionary females as well - and in service of systemic correction there needs to be capacity for criticism as such - to rupture imperviously destructive denial; an honest platform that will provide a place for anger to go and be channeled into further correction, as violations of our more sublimated patterns are difficult to express - depending on our NOT having to seize every opportunity, to play “game” a la Roosh V. Nevertheless, support and reconstruction of a protracted grammar of White motives allows for emergence of attention to the more quiet, loyal ones. In these circumstances rife with treachery and traitors, European men need reminders of our loyal women.
With that in mind, I start this thread of videos or just plain music that expresses loyalty and sensitive concern from our co-evolutionaries.
This one is a good start - Dido showing loyalty to what appears to be an ordinary, working class White man.
I will be adding more videos of this kind and, of course, welcome others to contribute their favorite videos of this kind to this thread
The Sermon on The Mount Ensconces The Golden Rule of Altruism
Majorityrights prefers to deal with verifiable reality as opposed to speculative theory and faith based systems of rules as we look after the interests of our people. We are looking after genetic groupings and genetic interests as key criteria, even if these are not the only important verifiable criteria to keep track of our peoplehood and that of others. Rationale and rule structures are another criteria for that purpose.
While existence is of course equiprimordial to genetic interests, to secure it for any span and legacy requires rationale and varying degrees of sophistication to negotiate complex rule structures of interaction. “Rules” (1) are the term of common currency that we will use for the logics of meaning and action that people use to negotiate interaction and these complex, protracted exchanges beyond episode, close personal relationships in yield to maturity of their full social system; and its relation to other social systems.
It is even more difficult to understand European peoples allowing, even welcoming foreign incursions into The U.K., Sweden, France and Germany - it is difficult to fathom the mindset of a Merkel, who would destroy our European peoples in service to non-Europeans. But there is one rule, convoluted rule, that they have in common and makes their position intelligible to us despite their apparent irrationality.
This post will prepare a discussion of the work of Jan Tullberg - viz., the difference between the golden rule of benevolence as opposed to the silver rule of reciprocity - as it applies to assist in the reconstruction of a necessary consensus of moral rules among European peoples and for coordinating our relations to others.
There is a consensus among advocates of European peoples that in essence we seek to secure the existence of our people. There is much dispute over how that is to be done…
Besides capturing beautiful location shots, this documentary provides more insight and even some balance to the heretofore mainstream media portrayal of Craig Cobb’s gambit to start a White preserve in tiny Leith, North Dakota. The bit of balance is surprising given that the production is coming from a perspective which is highly unsympathetic to Cobb and the White separatist cause.
1) The documentary does allow for Cobb to sneak-in the fundamentally legitimate argument that Whites should be able to establish separatism in order to preserve themselves.
2) However, it takes advantage of a wrong turn that Cobb takes in separatist advocacy, and one that the demographic preponderance of American WN can be susceptible to, which is to associate White separatism with Nazism and its corollary of pursuing an antagonistic, literally supremacist, even “exterminationist” agenda. This willing association of WN with “NS” Germany stems from a false either/or regarding WWII, an either/or which maintains that there was simply a wrong and simply a right side in that conflict.
3) Stemming from a myopic reaction to Jewish sponsored liberalism in America and the frustration for unpopularity that will result of the “NS Germany simply right” response not being accepted (not even by many Whites who would be sympathetic to White separatism), the SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center) has a rather easy task to demonstrate that Cobb is not just trying to build a separatist White community that can amenably coordinate with others.
a) He invited-into Leith some of the most salient and provocative White advocates, purchasing property in Leith for Alex Linder, the NSM (“neo-Nazis”) and Tom Metzger.
Linder of course couldn’t be more brazen in his rhetoric, calling for the elimination of Jews and so on; the NSM couldn’t be more flamboyant in their display, as they literally came into town bedecked in Nazi regalia, posting the like flags around Cobb’s house in Leith, and unabashedly proclaiming their unanimity with “NS” ideology.
Metzger doesn’t approve of such flamboyant and anachronistic tactics, but he has taken a position contrary to the PTB (powers that be) over the years, a position that the SPLC has tried to associate with senseless violence - despite his clear advice against that.
b) Along with the negative media reputation of these White exponents as embellished by the heretofore mainstream media and the SPLC, the SPLC begins to build a case to trace Cobb’s associations with these figures, as they have been following them over the years in an effort to connect them to a history of violence with further implications.
- as in the case the SPLC brought and won against then California resident Metzger, who was found “vicariously responsible” through a tenuous association with a skinhead who killed a black in a spontaneous street fight in Oregon.
- Matt Hale, fellow in Cobb’s religion -“Creativity” - was effectively set-up (by a wired-FBI informant who coaxed Hale to almost say that he approved of killing a judge) on charges of plotting to kill the judge who ruled against him in a patent case regarding the church logo and was sent to jail for 40 years. In connection with that bogus case, Cobb had published the address of the judge. Heidi Beirich (SPLC) admits that it is unknown whether that information aided and abetted the subsequent murder of two family members of that judge.
- VNN (Linder) associate and Cobb supporter, Frazier Glenn Miller, came unhinged one day and shot three people involved with the production of “To Kill a Mockingbird.” This was after the Leith Fiasco was over and Cobb was driven out of town not to return; but with that, the SPLC et al. were able to argue more persuasively that there was a danger when he was in town; and with some Leith property still in the hands of White advocates that the danger loomed of these types coming to Leith again and coming unhinged.
It is already well known to the world that Cobb’s case was not helped by his gun toting stroll with Kynan Dutton, a display compounded with verbal taunting of a neighbor. They were arrested for that and brought-up on charges of making terrorist threats.
Further threatening gestures alleged to Cobb that the documentary makes known to people who’d not been riveted to the event’s details, are that Cobb was apparently publishing the address, names and other information about family members of his neighbors - the Christian couple whom he antagonized in the gun stroll. While people of our sophistication might understand Christians are a part of a hostile world view, Cobb was not exercising necessary discretion with regard to their skill level - nor for their emotional latitude given that the man he was verbally antagonizing on line and in the end, in his gun toting walk, had a 17 year old daughter murdered in Washington prior to coming to Leith, North Dakota. But to make Cobb’s indelicacy hardest to ignore, this man read online where Cobb was encouraging ex-convicts to come to Leith and telling them that, “now is the time to draw your sword.”
Of course the context of Cobb’s words and actions must be taken into account - these things will be given hostile framing by the SPLC in advice to the movie makers and this couple along with the other liberal town folk. But still, anyone who would tout Cobb as having aced as a fine PR man for WN is sorely mistaken.
...and there were people whom he could have won over - the documentary shows one Leith townsman who does not seem hostile to Cobb, saying that “people can believe what they want, I guess.”
Additional new information, adding some balance and mitigating circumstance sympathetic to Cobb’s perspective is noted in the film. Prior to the stroll, Cobb and Dutton’s property had been vandalized; Dutton’s car tires were slashed and the car was spray-painted with the words, “go home.” Dutton’s partner is also seen being confronted by a neighbor who drives up to her, apparently to intimidate her. Hence, there was some provocation from the other end and reason to perceive the need to defend themselves against their neighbors prior to their ill-fated stroll. And there are other indications that Cobb and Dutton were up against threats.
These factors were in addition to all of the media hoopla and antagonism that had preceded, the “anti-racist” rallies and SPLC attention that was brought to bear against Cobb’s initiatives in the town.
Another irony came about when the SPLC summoned go-to victim group coalitions to harangue the White separatist - WN circles note that the American Indian groups who were among those brought-into Leith to protest Cobb’s effort to build a separate and sovereign territory based on his people’s genetic kind had been bused there from reservations which are their exclusionary racial preserves.
In addition to showing the counter-intimidation and vandalism by Cobb’s neighbors, there was another bit of balance provided in the film, significantly against the case that Cobb was “terrorizing” people to where they felt in immanent danger.
A photographer named Gregory Bruce came on a moral high-horse from another North Dakota town to intervene in Leith. He not only made a special effort to thwart and document the thwarting of Cobb’s plans, but he also boldly announced that neither he nor anybody else in town was afraid or threatened by Cobb. This bravado that Bruce horned-in with undermined the case for Cobb’s threateningness and opened the way for Cobb to be granted a plea bargain.
Another mitigating factor to the charge of “terrorist threats” and the idea that the people of Leith considered themselves to be in immanent danger was that Cobb was never threatening to the interracial couple in Leith (Bobby and Cheryl Harper) nor to Bobby by himself. The documentary tried to make hay out of the DNA test given by the talk show (The Trishia Goddard Show that Cobb appeared-on with the interracial couple), “showing” that Cobb was 14 % black, but Cobb dismissed it graciously despite being publicly hoisted by the petard of his objectivism (Cobb is not 14% black by any reasonable metric).
While Cobb was imprisoned for his gun toting walk and threats, had a felony put on his record, can no longer legally posses fire arms and underwent significant costs, he did manage to mitigate his sentence by admitting his mistake and was freed; finally, the documentary showed some balance again, by interviewing legal counsel advising the audience that justice was served - and in terms of the relative circumstances of the Leith fiasco, it was a fairly just result.
Justice to the eminently legitimate and noble cause of White separatism, however, was not served; but that is largely due to Cobb’s association with Nazism as it cut him off from broad support for what should be his absolutely legitimate goal of White sovereignty and survival; but with his “public relations” effort, he gave legitimacy instead to the worst antagonists to the cause of White survival and the separatism that is necessary to that end.
“The Poznan Institute” - A Middle Eastern Attempt to Defraud European Identity and Birthright of Genetic Capital
The reason I had not become immediately aware of the attack on this front, so close to home, is that I am not particularly interested in “Game” and “P.U.A.” I have learned about myself and my nature through my dating experience and reflection thereupon that there are important differences in my motives as opposed to what is being promoted in what might be called popular philosophy - such as P.U.A. My point in “dating around” wasn’t at all to screw as many women as possible - quite the opposite. What did I know about them? I cared whether they cared about themselves, their people and I, of course. Thus, while I might have been “intellectually promiscuous” in order to get and give feedback surrounding the well-being of our people and culture, it was not remotely my goal to merely go through women’s defenses in order to discard them and cultural differences. Again, quite the opposite, it was more my motive to help them build-up defenses for their sake and ours as Europeans. I was intellectually promiscuous but otherwise careful because where I sought a partner, it was to be - a - partner who was appropriate to me and thought very much like me - as an ethnonationalist. In regard to the other women that I dated along the way, the primary objective was talking - that is, achieving political alignment to what would now commonly be called ethno-nationalist terms. And with that, I was acting in accordance with my European evolution as a K Selector. That is in marked contrast to Roosh V. and the R selection strategies that he is promoting.
So far removed from European mentality is Roosh V. that he was honestly surprised when a BBC interviewer responded that he “had not”, when Roosh asked, “haven’t you ever had sex with a woman who was drunk and asleep”? Roosh honestly presumed that the answer of his interlocutor would have been “yes, of course”, he’d done that.
By way of contrast, not only am I capable of sleeping - just sleeping - with a woman; but especially if I do not know her well, of course I’d prefer that, and to part ways as we might, on friendly terms rather than to screw around with someone whom I do not know.
Some object as Roosh himself objects to ask why people are making such a big deal about him, when there are these invaders and rapists all over Europe. Well, we do make a big deal about that as ethno-nationalists. However, as a common topic, he provides not only a ready illustration of their mentality, but also occasion to “make common” (etymology of communication) the understanding of it and the insidious means by which it would infiltrate. Witness now “The Poznan Institute.” Having moved on from the P.U.A. / Game angle of infiltrating White genetic pools, he presents himself as only more completely one of a universal “We” - “neo-masculinity and patriarchy” camouflaged under the rubric of an ancient European city.
Poznań was founded by Polanie, the tribe from whom Poland has its name. The word “Poznań” comes from the Polish phrase “to make acquaintance” - because legend had it that the original Polish man, “Lech”, the original Russian man, “Rus” and the original Czech man “Czech” met here, came to accord and then the latter two went on to establish their kingdoms in what are now their respective territories; while “Lech” nested in Gniezno (Polish for “nest”) next to Poznań - which was in fact, the first capital of Poland. A percentage of Germans eventually settled in Poznań as well, largely encouraged to help build the city. For reasons similar as The U.S., Poland was weakened by incorporating Enlightenment principles in its (second ever, after The U.S.) Constitution. This left it susceptible to the territorial aggrandizement of Friedrich The Great and the Partition which erased Polish existence from the map for 123 years - from the 1790’s to 1919 - when Józef Piłsudski led the Wielkopolska uprising to re-take Poznań on behalf of the Poles and the newly reforming Poland. It was audacious, it was brave, it was heroic, it was historically justified.
What fraction the man is Roosh V compared to Józef Piłsudski? How dare Roosh claim the name and the straight forward imagery of Poznań to drape himself - Roosh V - and his foreign agenda?
Roosh V. and his agenda are so alien and superficial to Native European interests that he was not on my radar. I was not interested.
Perhaps I should have noticed this long ago, but the truth is that until recently I had not paid much attention to Roosh. One commentator in a prior thread mentioned that he has presumed to situate himself in Poznań, Poland. Though I’d never seen him around, I had no reason to doubt it. When looking into the matter, not only did I find that he is in Poznań, but I was surprised to find just how comfortable Roosh intends to make himself in Poznań.
Middle Easterners apparently share with blacks a brazen presumptuousness to make themselves at home among other peoples and in other people’s homelands.
With that, he has this new “neo-masculinity” venue which he calls “The Poznan Institute”:
Of “The Poznan Institute”, he says:
First, a little background about some of the stuff that he intends to bring to Poznań and encourage among visitors here.
These are some scenes that Roosh looks upon approvingly from bars in Virginia, USA.
Here is the kind of European gene pool that he hopes to seize upon. This one in Iceland.
Roosh V. has written several sex tourism and P.U.A. strategy guides. Bang Poland is one of them -
Moving on to The BBC story that finds him in Poznań -
In December, The BBC aired a feature about Roosh: “Men at War.” It starts by covering a Roosh seminar in England.
One of the attendees describes the meeting as having “a broad spectrum in terms of race and background.”
Next, in order to keep up with Roosh, the BBC have to track him down for an interview in Poznań, Poland:
The BBC flies there to find out what Roosh is up to…
On the basis of the BBC interview, here is what is discernible about Roosh’s living circumstances in Poznań.
“Roosh moved to Poznań a year ago”...
He had scurried back from Canada after having been met with popular protest and official denunciation there. “I’ve been back for only about 5 days. I’m still recovering from the drama,” Roosh will go on to say in The BBC interview - which would place it in August, 2015..
Before the BBC meets with Roosh,
“It took at least 30 repetitions of no, Roosh, no,
A clip of Roosh’s is spliced in, as he narrates,
Here the BBC is making his way from the hotel and down ul. Wroniecka
He moves through to the other side of the Old Market, directly across, at the end of ul. Wrocławska,
The very last moment of the BBC clip shows this scene,
Here is what the BBC proposes to be a close-up location shot of his apartment
What they propose to be his apartment street entrance should be that brown entranceway with the semi-circle top at the end of the street
Alex Linder interviewed (try not to let the Australian accent of his interviewer bother you).
There is or can be a misunderstanding.
- that I simply want to refrain from going ahead and killing Jews et al. on principle, naivete or for petty moral reasons.
- that I and we could not be content nor ever recognize that we’d be better off if they were gone.
But that is not the case.
It is the case rather that it is generally not a good idea to announce that you want to get them all whether you think it is necessary or not.
It would be hard to implement and worse, might work to our detriment if not conceived and promoted properly.
It is not only a strategic matter but a theoretical matter: for what we want ultimately is separatism (killing is a species thereof).
As opposed to Alex saying so, if they are to be killed it would be for the broadly intelligible, broadly acceptable (therefore possible to facilitate) and operationally verifiable reason that they will not leave us alone when given the option, but insist on their imposition to our exploitation and long term extinction - a verifiable consequence and reason for their imposition - to eliminate us as a people, therefore a highly assertable warrant to preempt it.
This could be demonstrable even in their refusal to allow our benign and fair act of separating and expelling them from our people.
Given these considerations hence, my motto: separatism is the first step, separatism is the ultimate aim, separatism is always possible.
However, the right-wing hasn’t yet gotten the significance of my argument. Where they do see merit, they want to put it in their own Cartesian terms. They miss a crucial hermeneutic point in history, that Friedan’s second wave of feminism had women acting through and in accordance of this paradigm - highlighting the vulgarity of its social disregard, self righteously pursuing “self actualization” while ignoring the “privilege” that men alone had of being required at the same time to go to Vietnam to die. But rather than seeing the valid gender aspect of the hippie protest of the draft as a male thing (a quest for midtdasein for males), the right-wing in their desperate, reactionary way, go along with the Jewish story that it was all about “free love”, “civil rights for blacks”, and “universal peace” or they cater to the right-wing story that hippies sought nothing that a real man should pursue - they were part and parcel of the downfall of Whites - our men, by reactionary contrast, have to learn how to be real men: and now the right-wing will be..
Defining real White men for you… with a lisp..
Ignore our many discussions as to the drawbacks of black hyper-masculinity in comparison to terms of optimal White/European masculinity - which need to be confirmed and which only MR has confirmed…
Instead toss the idea with a gay friend..
Appropriate Asian lands and resources, allow Jews and neo-liberals to parasitically trade on that..