Majorityrights Central > Category: Political Philosophy

Way to go Alt-Right. You’re wise to them, don’t get played by them or anything: After decades of deploying anti-White left coalitions against the human ecology of White systems to rupture our boundaries and patterns, with YKW now having achieved hegemony in 7 key power niches, they have sought to co-opt White advocacy’s reaction in right wing alignment, if not coalition against “the left” - i.e., opposing all organization and unionization against the hegemony of the YKW and their right wing cohorts - whether those cohorts are White right winger/liberals, black biopowerists or Muslim comprador/imperialists

As of 24 February, I’ve combed-through and shored up the entire post, beyond the sake of clearer reading; as for torturing those ill disposed and of bad will, inducing them to look at what were still rough notes as I labeled the article “corrected” - that’s ok - creeps like Matt Parrott can have his petty angle that there was “bad writing” (as semiotic? what?) to try to dismiss what I say through his self appointed bureaucratic -paleocon gate keeping function. As for those of good will who kept silent, I don’t feel too bad either - they should get in the habit of bringing to bear benign questions and corrections. This is, in fact, a brand new reposting. There are important corrections.

This piece deals with matters important for our survival as a people. Much of it is dealt with in other pieces of mine that may be referenced; but as I circled back over point number three, toward a positive, active language of homeostasis, there emerged necessity to address not only relevant theoretical transgressions, but persons, or transgressions personified in the orbit of White advocacy - people and positions held that are misleading to our systemic homeostasis.

1. Our concern for our people is, in an essential sense, a concern of systems, their stasis and homeostasis. 2. In that concern, it’s been necessary to clear away confusing and misleading language games and concepts - rule structures which can tangle, misdirect and disrupt our stasis and homeostasis: call that clearing away a factual liberation from language and concepts that are false and misleading of our would-be stasis and homeostasis 3. With that disentangling of language and concepts misapplied to/against the factual semiotics of our natural system maintenance, a liberation from mere facticity and capacity for willing suspension of disbelief is necessary to marshal concepts/narrative of our less apparent group system - beyond perceptions of moments and episodes, beyond personal relationships even - to provide narrative coherence, guiding rule structures of coherence, accountability, agency and warrant in the patterns of our group interests - against dissolution, despite the Manichean forces (deception, trickery) of our antagonists or other forces oblivious to our group interests. 4. I need to address sundry but relevant examples of theoretical missteps from those acting under the rubric of “White advocacy.” These examples are relevant as theoretical obstructions that need to be cleared-away in service of operationalization.

The piece has grown to enormous length for the perceived necessity to digress in handling objections immediately - to the point where it might risk distracting and burying essential points if they weren’t fleshed them out in sufficient coherent gestalt with details and examples delimited by relevance of what I need to address at this time.

I did it this way in order to get to some important points before it quickly mushroomed beyond ten thousand words in my attempt a) to overcome the impervious gas-lighting that I have been invariably confronted with, as I try to overcome that by repeating, perhaps more forcefully, perhaps in slightly different, more elaborating ways, important points that I’ve made before; and then b) in anticipation of what underlies that gas-lighting, the incessant contentiousness of bad will, I endeavor to provide answers and qualifications in advance to any and every opportunistic objection that the YKW and their reactionaries will inevitably try to seize-upon in order to dismiss, in their gas-lighting bad will, the entirety of what I say as trivial; if not attack it, and me entirely, as bringing forth the very evil that we are up against; and thus the risk of burying essentials with a dauntingly long piece, fraught with arduous digressions as I might try to overcome these now thoroughly predictable contentions from the onset.

The YKW’s reasons for subjecting me to this level of contention make far more sense - they are acting in their imperialist interests - whether through their PC anti-White left unions and coalitions that have allowed them to march through the institutions of White power; or in their orchestration of right wing reactions now that they more thoroughly occupy the 7 key power niches; from whence they would supposedly “debunk”, e.g., what I say, treating it as if it is supposedly the same old misuse, the same old gross distortion, anti-natural, anti-White left, hyperbolic liberal misrepresentations, tangled terms and concepts as they have been promoting as the left for the past several decades - terms and concepts typically semantically reversed from what would be ethnocentrically beneficial - organizational for us - are instead represented only in one dimension and direction, only as hyperbolic liberalization of and against our bounds and borders, and promoted as such, as “the left.” White reactionaries to these machinations against them simply can’t make their way out of the box, or won’t, because of bad will, compounded mistrust, they can’t stop reacting - fundamentally against their own group interests - accepting the right-wing and “Alt-Right” altercast (where they do not self censor the semantic benefits of left conceptualization* on their own behalf by rejecting a right-left distinction as out-dated or unhelpful - when it is in fact, very helpful - we aren’t just nationalists whose nationalism the invisible hand of god and nature will look-after against elite and rank and file dereliction, defection and betrayal despite absence of unionized accountability) on the misapprehensions that they are orchestrated to believe, viz., a reaction in didactically invoked response to the terms and concepts they’ve received to believe must be geared in the same perverted, exaggerated, distorted, antagonistic way, with the same semantic content, application and implication, if not intent, that has been deployed against them; which invokes a didactic response, at best attributing received stereotypes against this “leftism”, as anti nature, etc., and at worst, but very typically, dismissing and attacking these very concepts that we need, as if they are unhealthy and Jewish from the ground up ...and characteristically of reactionaries, being manipulable and manipulated as such to actually take up Jewish “solutions” to those provocations; in alignment with their interests as they are ensconced now in the seven power niches against “the left” and any such unionized opposition against their power.

[* The semantic benefits of left “conceptualization”, i.e., working hypotheses serve as “topoi” - to take the angle that “topoi” / working hypotheses are “counter natural” (a rightist stereotype is that the left is counter-nature) is to drastically misrepresent and misunderstand the flexibility and correctability in the anti-Cartesian function - it is to be guilty of Cartesianism at “the other end”, the arbitrary “empirical end” as opposed to the “formal”, transcendent end.]

You don’t want to defend your people, don’t want to use any of that post modern stuff, that’d be Jewish or worse, “unnatural and leftist” - nothing but reactionary philosophical anachronism is authentic to our people to keep you good and disorganized (since sarcasm doesn’t always travel and translate well, let it be known as such for non-native English speakers in particular).

The same people who are prone to adopt that risible and susceptible position are liable to despair of our systemic “degeneracy”, turn around and say, that what we/you need instead is to worship a Jew as your personal savior - perhaps seeing it as the eternal guarantor of your characteristic, sovereign “Euroman” individuality - as it were, in obsequious martyrdom to, and as represented by, the Jew on a stick in delivery of his tribe’s ethnocentric homeland from Roman and Babylonian captivity.

But neither do I ignore the reactionaries secular variants as they respond to semantic deception and conceptual perversion by clinging white knuckle to their reaction formations.

I am always clear to not let the secular right-wingers off the hook either; in their reaction is phobia to any term or concept that even smacks of YKW abuses of the notion of theoretical integration with praxis (i.e., the task of integrating and adjusting theory, conceptualization and management, to deal with the practicalities of our social world, our/its particularly reflexive nature); looking upon social concept as a total Jewish project and lie, they proffer instead the pure natural struggle for power; i.e., YKW abuses of the Aristotelian project are taken in reaction to mean that the Aristotelian project is inherently Jewish. Absurd. And here we have the epistemological blunder of Hitler - our detached, unconcerned, objective assessment of facts and truth, our alignment with “pure nature” and natural selection, is supposed to necessarily provide guidance through the magic hand as guarantor of salvation - ours too, if we deserve it. Or will this minimized accountability rather guarantee systemic runaway and disastrous correction? Clearly. In ardent quest for pure naturalism absent praxis, its structuring, its correctability comes unhinged and you do what Hitler did, racial anarchism and runaway war mongering; running imperialist, supremacist roughshod over practical necessities of nationalist cooperation and coordination.

I’ve talked a good deal about the proper understanding and use of the terms and concepts in our interests as European peoples: social constructionism, post modernity, multiculturalism, “equality” vs commensurability, race and anti-racism, diversity, marginals, praxis, pragmatism and heremeneutics and will further specify their correct applications as need be - as need be being a crucial phrase, the operative term ignored by my interlocutors when it comes to hermeneutic survey - it, the hermeneutic circle as it were, doesn’t merely “go back and forth back and forth” arbitrarily, but may dwell on emergentism, focus on minutiae or provide a liberation from the arbitrary flux of mere facticity into broader historical patterns and orientation as need be.*

Despite having also talked a good deal, even in preceding paragraphs, about the misrepresentation of “the left”, why that’s significant, why it is important to Not identify as Right against “THE left”, I’ll have to come back to that again in further specification - given the aforementioned impervious antagonism and gas-lighting of right-wing reactionaries (recently I was invited to join in the initiation of an “intellectual platform” - as if this one isn’t - by contrast to the Alt-Right, proposed to be called “RadRight”, and to join under that moniker with those impervious to all I’ve said lo these years, for F-sake).

However, this imperviousness does bespeak and thus occasion my addressing another term that we’d do well to use in a different way, rather to override, to serve our interests in a philosophically competent manner. The quest for universal foundations and its semantic content, as it would run rough-shod over all practical concern, goes right to the heart of the Cartesian anxiety - which has people reacting into right-wing altercasting against the disingenuous rhetoric of the anti-White left; and against managing our interests through better method.

It’s not that you can’t, with validity, pursue and label some things “foundational”....

1. We’re talking about systems. Whether you are talking about mentality, the full body or a racial grouping, you are talking about a system, i.e., if it is organic, something that you would point to and observe as having stasis and homeostasis. This implies an optimality in sytemic maintenance which is a pervasive ecological quest of biological systems - it can be universalized but not foundationalized.

A system implies connection, extension and correction for stasis and homeostasis.

In talking about biological systems, especially, one of the governing mechanisms would be a barometer of optimality, not only the maximal delimitation of death (and it is here, regarding ownmost being toward death, that I believe Bateson is rendering a significant Aristotelian critique of Heidegger; discussing how, by contrast, that nature, biological systems, rarely operate within lethal variables but function rather on the basis of optimal levels of need satisfaction; Bateson added in that regard, “I don’t have to tall you about the tyranny of patterns, that is the (post WWII) rubric under which we meet; but what you may not know is that you have to accept them.” Living hermeneutic check points as to our systemic homeostasis such as that - optimality - should be placed, in fact must be fairly in place as harder points and structures of their being, which may be looked for in structural guidance so long as the system retains its being. These could form “check points” on the more empirical, ontological end in the hermeneutics of homeostasis. These can be scientifically verifiable in broad scope of genus and in the internal structures of individuals of species. But as humans, unlike other animals, we are born “unfinished” - our genus and species group systems in particular, require completion, homeostasis and delimitation in discursive structures - viz., as we are open systems that can interbreed with other human species, i.e., racial groups, and as that can be argued-for as an adaptive choice and as being natural, the capacity hermeneutics affords is necessary to provide systemic delimitation and closure at the other end, less clear in its empirical delimitation.

Nevertheless, it is also possible to establish operationally verifiable check points on the less readily observable end, i.e., regarding rule structures or confusingness thereof in language and concepts as they might constrain, guide and reinforce systemic stasis and homeostasis; or rather weaken and augur to destroy these systems; it should be possible to establish warranted assertability as to whether rule structures are native, from, conducive to our emergent homeostasis or not.

The means of connection with these check points in praxis (which, here, is taken to subsume ontology through accountability) is a worthy question. The word “transit”* could be coupled with “check-points” or the like of verification points, as a term deployed in the manner of hermeneutics harder end, if there’s a will ....but that remains to be seen.

I have long advocated a theoretical background of social construction in pervasive ecology: because ecology is universally applicable as a concern, and yet, with the biological requirement of optimality and context, it compels acceptance of interactional contingency and thus, with imperfect, relative foundations, prompts a sense of agency and responsibility in management; by extension social constructionism (again, with a people centric position - better, your people centric position - you don’t necessarily construct brute facts, but you do take on at least some post hoc and anticipatory ability to construct how these facts come to count and what to do about them) places our people’s relative group interests within the interactive center and essence of concerns in warranted stewardship of pervasive ecology. In a very real sense foundational concern becomes joined with practical judgment and relative, socially relevant interests.

It is most practical to say that the most universalizable moral principle is that which allows group survival along side other groups (and nature). Those groups or belief systems which do not allow for other groups to survive where they do not otherwise impinge, where it is not a matter of self defense, are immoral (including as practical defense, the survival of group habitat and environment is part of the equation).

For this reason, we may look upon the Abrahamic religions as fundamentally immoral, as they are imperialistic and recognize no importance to the material survival of other groups.

In service of our innocent and otherwise accountable ends then…..

In this regard, ethno nationalism is the proper form of morality, and its delimitations immediately invoke moral order within and in coordination between those nations.

As surely as it is valid to care for environment, land and water, endangered animal species, rain forests, it is valid to place ourselves, our species as not only objects, but stewards of pervasive ecology - our awareness thereof distinguishes this concern from sheer Darwinist competition (the mountain lion doesn’t reflect on how taking prey impacts overall systemics and reaction); particularly regarding human nature, cooperation is also part of nature (niche theory explains how symbiosis and conflict avoidance is also very much a part of even more sheer nature) and it is an eminently practical concern for peoples to look after their organic systems, along with organically derived social capital; and to hold to account, in check, those systems that would otherwise runaway to impinge upon other human ecologies and our pervasive ecology.

This concern is eminently Augustinian. Our enemies, the Abrahamics, are highly Manichean - tricksters, waging war by deception. Our more northern species especially, are, in a way, like naive species, evolved more for the Augustinian devils of natural challenge, not particularly evolved to be attuned to the Manichean challenge of invasive species, viz. of middle eastern tribal cultures; not even if it is a matter of their inflicting the sheer Augustinian biopower of blacks upon us. And those invasive species are not particularly evolved to be concerned for human and pervasive ecology beyond their tribes; they are not as aware, reflective or concerned for the consequences of what they might kill. We are not as biologically hard programmed for ethnocentrism and the deployment of Manicheanism if necessary; we are more naive and thus it is more possible to mess with the guidance of those rules and specificatory structures which would provide for our homeostatic correction. Nevertheless, as I’ve said before, that evolution or ours is not bad, as the world’s issues are ultimately Augustinian; but we must wise-up to do our part to save ourselves and serve that ultimate end, whether dealing with the ultimate consequences of super volcanoes, meteors, global warming or cooling, famine, disease, etc. and the means to stave off these catastrophes; along with the means to transcend them through space travel and farming.

Finally, talking in terms of check, or verification points, and specificatory structures, as opposed to rigid adherence to foundationalism and the foundational persistence which can, in fact, run impervious rough-shod over human and pervasive ecology, also allows one to be free for the all important liberation from mere factcity and agentive accountability; liberation from mere facticity into a more coherent and agentive pursuit of our homeostasis - that is the matter of our “foundation.”

Talking in terms of check-points and specificatory structures, as opposed to Cartesian detachment in objectivst quest of universal foundations, encourages interactive engagement and participation in systemic reconstruction.

Even if you did call these matters of our being “foundational”, you’d pretty much have to treat these as check points and specficatory structures given our circumstance in praxis. If you want Heideggerian arguments for that, note his observation that being is a verb. That we are first confronted with what he calls the thrownness, a radical contingency into which we are born though no choice and no fault of our own, that nonetheless prompts the task of authenticity, i.e., largely a matter of coherence with our emergent nature, part and parcel of hermeneutic survey; in addition, these specificatory structures would offer promptings from the “forgetfulness” which he talks about as leading to inauthenticity. Another Heideggerian argument for the formal structuralization of social praxis is provided by his recognition not only of our thrownness into Heraclitus’ constant process of interaction, but his defense of Parmenidian authentication in the formalization of substance.

2. With our heremeneutic circling back then, applied to the concern for our group systemic homeostasis, we attend yes, to the clearing away of misleading language games in the service of its truth, yes; but also endeavor to facilitate the philosophically essential, necessary liberation from mere facticity and suspension of disbelief into the protracted, time immemorial significance of our systemic patterns, so that we can coherently and competently defend ourselves where the Cartesian position fails for its skeptical non-recognition of these patterns and relational interdependence.

3. Because our relative interests in maintaining the broad patterns of our social systemic homeostasis can go beyond what is always verifiable in a moment or episode, or even by close relations, it is necessary to have that second liberation - that liberation from mere facticity and capacity for willing suspension of disbelief in narrative coherence; it is necessary to capture our broader coherence through capacity to provide criteria for the homeostasis of these broader patterns.

In circling beyond mere arbitrary facts - beyond the arbitrary, reflexive upshot of objecivism, its limited accountability a key reason for the disruption of homeostatic patterns - into the broad concern for our group systemic homeostasis of praxis, it is necessary thus, after the continued effort to sort out our language games in the service of both truth and liberation from mere facticity, to deploy terms conducive to that liberation in a positive sense -

GW observes that an ethnic group, thought of as a nation, particularly in the radical etymological sense of the word nation - i.e., natio, implying birthing and designating a people born from the inside-out - is not a “union” in a readily observable, empirical sense; and indeed it is not in that sense.

Nevertheless, like other left concepts concerned with social grouping and accounts as they are, beneath their ordinary language, “unionization”, but unionization especially, facilitates the less-empirical aspects conducive to framing, structuring and funding the liberation from mere facticity and the maintenance of our full group systemic homeostasis - not only for the settled social perspective on both elite and rank and file accountability, but as it ensconces those speculative possibilities for social systemic, homeostatic inspiration and anchoring - i.e. against skepticism, as your place is not constantly buffeted by the brute facts and unaccounted-for challenges from persons from within and from without of your bio-system, as if these travails are no-account forces of nature.

A critical difference in the unionization of left nationalism (as opposed to Marxism) being that the fundamental union bounds are the nation; the issue of “wallpapering-over” important “subsidiary class” differences is countered with a proper niche ecology, a commensurable symbiosis of subsidiary guilds - which provide criteria enough for accountability while being fluid enough to allow for individual judgement and movement.

GW adds the refrain that “you can’t start a religion in your garage”, and indeed, you cannot if you try to do it all alone there, but you can start one with other people, beginning with a determination of sacrament in agreement between people as to what check points, specificatory structures and control variables are necessary to maintain the time immemorial pattern of your people, to help maintain incentive and faith in their bio system…

Unionization and its less-empirical aspect also affords formation of parallel nations, independent of physical, territorial constraint.

....

After unionized boundaries, I argue that the option to take monogamy seriously, “unnatural” as some may argue that that is, is a reasonable and important candidate for a social systemic control variable - that is among other matters that I will begin to set out for operationalization a little later..

...to be included along with a concept of social unionization and social accountability - now, there has been marked objection to the social end of the hermeneutic circle from the old timers of MR, having remained in reaction to the exaggerated, distorted form of YKW Leftism deployed unilaterally against Whites.

Echoing that, Heidegger does talk about the enframing, and, indeed, to be maneuvered into inauthenticity is something that can happen from that Cartesian extreme, from the conceptual-social end, and the abusive machinations of the YKW deployed as such, in their shifty, no-account Manichean ruses - obviously.

In the throes of social forces which were acting against natural instinct in emergent authenticity for self preservation, manipulations against the preservation of that and with it his authentic folk, Heidegger brought forth the more empirical end of check-points of individual corporeality against the “they.”

The threat to man does not come in the first instance from the potentially lethal machines and apparatus of technology. The actual threat has already affected man in his essence. The rule of Enframing threatens man with the possibility that it could be denied to him to enter into a more original revealing and hence to experience the call of a more primal truth. Thus, where Enframing reigns, there is danger in the highest sense.

There are two things to consider here. The first is our primal truth - which has two features: thrownness, a kind of arbitrariness the taken for granted of which given condition is something other than foundation, and then the condition there, of our human nature - i.e., in praxis.

To stay stagnant there, in that concern singularly against Enframing - viz. an epistemologically erroneous (because it does not account for human nature) theory of the conceptual, social end, would be inauthentic to our being as well. It would be to miss that point of co-evolutionary and contemporaneous process of hermenteutics, to misunderstand the post modern, post Cartesian project, which is to integrate theoria and praxis as conceived to defend peoplehoods, group differences - it would be an Enframing language game at the other end, in the inauthentic altercasting as Right and Alt-Right reaction against our social group interests, justice and accountability thereof.

Frankly, after that, I am not overly concerned to be faithful to every jot and tittle of Heidegger, because that - integration (or negotiation) of theoria and praxis - is either what his project is ultimately concerned with (and that was certainly the task at hand to begin with; whether he dealt with it satisfactorily is another matter) or his project is off the mark in terms of our requirements.

Heidegger adds:

Everyone keeps his eye on the Other first and next, watching how he will comport himself and what he will say in reply. Being-with-one-another in the “they” is by no means an indifferent side-by-side-ness in which everything has been settled, but rather an intent, ambiguous watching of one another, a secret and reciprocal listening-in. Under the mask of “for-one-another”, an “against-one-another” is in play.

There are one of two possibilities with regard to this statement - either taking it out of context contingency or that Heidegger would be guilty of something of a reification: Personally, I’ve known a steady and homogeneous White system where accounts requested, people listening-in and being-against in any preoccupied sense are rare. On the other hand, I don’t want to say that the extreme of a gossip hell, or having to be pre-occupied as if accountability reaches into your private thoughts (Jesus’ “even if you think of breaking a commandment” is infamous in that regard; as is some Marxist practice) - is of no concern and not likely; as I’ve experienced that nightmare as well. It’s just that I feel safe in saying that it is not the only possible general social treatment of accountability. In that regard, the ethno-nation (or even its larger cities) offer a relief where villages, small cities, groups and tribes can be a nightmare.

Again, there is the matter of “as need be” to be addressed, specifically here the distinction between accounts offered and accounts requested - in the latter regard, the rule to be established in the optimality of paradigmatic conservatism is that accounts requested should be kept to a minimum for ordinary folks regarding their personal affairs and opinions. Indeed Soviet communism can be taken as example of the other extreme, of “too much accountability from the people.” Accounts requested can be legitimately kept to a minimum when people are secure in their national boundaries, along with a clear and simple understanding of minimal basic expectations and obligations; a homogeneous society has been shown to help in that regard of social trust and participation as well.

It is in that regard, hermeneutic flexibility for optimality and grace in accordance with necessity in the philosophy of bio-social systems and their negotiation, reveals contentions by contrast of its being “clunky” or “bean counting” as idiotic.

I am always loath to mention Heidegger in this context, as it tends to degenerate into a game of “gotcha.” While I am confident in my understanding of the general assignment Heidegger was taking on, I am not concerned if I am perfectly translating every jot and tittle, because if his project weren’t a matter of how to deal with praxis in broad stroke, I’d consider him to be misguiding.

If, as it seems in Being and Time, he prioritizes concern to defend the individual authenticity against the they, whereas I would prioritize the defense of our group-sociality more, at this time, I really don’t care if I am a bit at odds there with Heidegger - since I take heremenetics as a means always to circle back, including to individual authenticity; if one cannot see that the protection of our group is necessary for the protection of our individualites, then I am really not interested in their opinion, especially since I am accountable for the protection and circling back to this individuality; open, where not indicating ways to come back to it as need be ...the project, Heidegger’s project as well, is about how to integrate theoria with Human nature; and our human nature is in praxis; there is a non-foundational thrownness to that, interactive even as emergent, which we did not choose, but which we might, if we are true our nature, marshal into coherent group and individual defense; without loss of fairness or full humanness to both genders - I will explain.
......

Pardon my having kept the comments closed - it was only for a few days. I didn’t want to digress for contentions before I made some basic points, particularly as some of that which has come might answer those questions and contentions. However, yes, comments are now opened, as to keep them closed would be against the philosophy to which I subscribe.

Indeed, as I will add, it is rather the habits of some of the old timers who would altercast me into someone who thinks of himself as a Moses figure, supposed to receive pure and perfect commandments from god, unassailable, and then transmit them somehow, non-interactively directly to you, the audience; that models this pseudo authority figure to be ridiculed and brought down, for one thing because he (supposedly) thinks he can do this all alone; uncorrectable. Indeed, if they can find anything that I say to be a bit off, then they will try to treat the whole as if it is off. Their will is that bad.

As ever, I want to scream, “hello”, we have something called the internet now, you can interact much more than before with media sources of knowledge, to help shape and craft our knowledge. Unfortunately, participatory good will of that kind has been in short supply; the grounds here have been fraught with disinformational trolling and contentiousness - a legacy of modernist philosophy: as if the endless putting of resources at risk, buffeting and criticism, skepticism alone, will leave only solid foundational knowledge in its wake and divert nothing of merit. In anticipation of that modernist fallacy and misdirection which has pervaded here, I need this language to come into being, as Heidegger says it does, in writing; to dwell a few more days unperturbed til I’ve rounded it out with the rest of this White post modern gestalt, so to speak.

Lets elaborate in regard to this critique of practical reason; with it, the “invisible hand” that would divinely or purely somehow, supposedly free of praxis, sort-out the “natural order” of our peoples, their nations…

The quest for foundational purity has the implication of blindering to the fact of interactivity (which we are never apart from) and our evolution. The insistence on this pure quest as a priority also implies, falsely, that we don’t have enough information to begin, while in fact we have a better than adequate hypothesis about who we are and what our homeostasis would require. And even were that not the case, particularly given our circumstance, it would be incumbent upon us to heed A.N. Whitehead’s remarks that “one cannot continually investigate everything but must be able to rest content taking some things for granted” ....and in that regard, “even a false or inadequate hypothesis is better than no hypothesis ...that one must begin from a given state of partial knowledge.”

We are not standing in the way of science, we are in fact providing the grounds for its being - its nerd labs have a place in our social philosophy like no other. And scientific quest for foundations and rationale, myopic though it can be when taken to an extreme, treated as mutually exclusive to socially relative issues, does nevertheless tend to yield invaluable help - for example, in showing the genetic Jewish identity behind Ashkenazi crypsis and behavior; but even before the time of genetic science, Jews were distinguishable by behavior, allegiance and knowledge of parentage, etc., there were some things to go-by.

The term “check points” (for an example, select a prettier term that does the same thing, if you will; perhaps “points of accountability” would be better) serves to remind if not require us to be accountable to use our agency for engaged participation in the relative interests of our homeostasis, in our people-centric focus, encouraging broader social responsibility for the reconstruction of our social group system - we are not after just a foundational “periodic chart of the ontological elements” - as if we are just a closed system, mere facts the description of which is for the sheer novelty of it, since “there can be no other” - thus, of no real practical use; and it can sit on Descartes dusty shelf along-side the bible, waiting to provide its Levantine “social guidance.”

Accountability points and specificatory structures rather sensitize and attune our attention to our homeostasis and away from forgetfulness and habitual detachment.

Accountability points, unionized, will of necessity invoke a moral order. The terms of morality cannot be avoided - there will always be matters obligatory, legitimate or prohibited - and this must not be associated with the misguidance from our systemic homeostasis that comes of the affectative imposition of Christianity (the golden rule, ugh) and the antagonism of the other two Abrahamic religions: they provide some of the most profoundly misguiding terminology to be sorted from our semiotics; as the YKW seek to bring us under Noahide law and disintegrate unionized opposition from the gentiles by their endless un-differentiation (as GW observes) of our non-Jewish peoples.

Be all that as it may, there will always be matters obligatory, legitimate or prohibited - there is no avoiding that, has never been a culture that did not have those three component rule structures, and people will always need and be looking for rule structures to go by - we allow others to structure and impose these rules at our own risk - we need rather for these rules to correspond with our social systemic homeostasis. We become vulnerable to being mislead in that regard when we try to proceed in a “purely naturalistic way”, “beyond morals”, or in some other pure, objectivist, univesalizing theoretical manner by our objectivist detachment in rational blindness to our relative interests, ensconced as they are in social interaction despite us - despite understandable distaste for sometimes messy and imperfectly predictable reflexive effects.

But that is our human condition and thus morality is more a matter of practicality (viz. social praxis - the social world and phronesis - practical judgment) than objective foundations. Though praxis (the social world) is relativized by the interests of peoples, that does not mean that it is unstable and unimportant. In fact, the insistence upon pure objectivism has a reflexive effect of hyper-relativism - it is often the culprit, in fact, for that hyper-relativism - because it tends to disrupt the relative but stabilizing criteria of praxis, i.e. of social criteria.

It is significant that Kant entitles his major work on the topic of morals, “Critique of Practical Reason.” Now Kant is guilty of Cartesianism himself in trying to anchor our moral system in universal principles - but his heart was in the right place in trying to save our peoples from the arbitrary flux upshot of the Empiricists. Nevertheless, one can see that when addressing the grand matter of morality, he was attempting to critique Aristotle’s caveat that moral issues are a matter of phronesis - practical judgement - as they occur within Praxis, the interactive, reflexive, agentive social world that does not perfectly comply with the lineal rule structures of theoria. Nevertheless, one tends to find rigorous gems in the quest of those with intelligence who persevere in Cartesian anxiety, whether a GW, a Bowery or a Kant (in that regard, GW’s “Of Being” is a good idea).

Just as Kant says that it’s easier to return to sensible evidences in an instant and it is harder to rebuild a fallen principle, and therefore principles are more important to maintain, so too is it a reasonable priority to maintain the “principle” of our group homeostasis. While we are of necessity defending ourselves as a social classification since that is the basic unit of analysis on which we are being attacked and socially engineered, nobody is, or should be saying, that the hermeneutic circle should not circle back to provide for empirical correction and individual authenticity; and with that, hermeneutics circles back the issues that GW is correctly vigilant for, viz. emergentism, contemplation of psychological interiority and its gauge for authenticity.

There are also ways to fend-off Bowery’s horror scenario of eusociality, which Modernity, hypergamy, war and over collectivization can augur. I am quite aware that this circumstance can de-sex a large segment of males and that it can relegate them to functional units in something more characteristic of a de-individualized, dehumanized, i.e., eusocial group organism, but I would not look to a purer form of individualistic nature to correct for that, nor an institutionalization of a literal fight to the death. There are ways to test natural merit, to protect individual skills and group interests without lethal variable. As a social rule characteristic of our nature, Augustinian variables ought to determine who lives and who dies, not Manichean innovation (which the pairwise duel comes down to - you’ve got a trick on your opponent - perhaps inborn, which is only being selected for against our better nature) since what part a person plays in our group homeostasis and what hidden resource their genetics may contribute may not be readily apparent.

Again, the naturalism of Hitler absent the corrections of praxis is more prone to collectivization (Tillich 1961), just as the materialism of communism is; whereas a hermeneutic conception of praxis and group accountability, including to the interests of sundry individual members and their differences offers correction against that, as the liberation from mere facticity also liberates the position of members through the protection of agreement to accountability of ‘non-empirical’ boundaries; which, in freedom, one may choose to transgress, but not at the cost to the freedom of the inherent native group; itself having the right to be free from the imposition of alien DNA of the individual’s unaccountable whim - as Bowery and Renner have discussed - the transgressors are rather free to go join the foreign people that they chose to intermarry with, in their/or another accepting nation, and not impose their burdens upon virtuous but shunted natives. Now, that is a notion that probably cannot be implemented purely, for various reasons, but it can be implemented broadly, in ways that we will discuss.

One of my most original and important contributions, which I’ve frequently discussed, is in fact conceived to address the problem of recentralizing our social boundaries against the de-classifying rupturing of modernity and Jewish machination.

Modernity and the YKW both significantly impact and rupture the classificatory boundaries [the less empirical bounds, nevertheless requisite to unionization of our nation/social group/racial systemic homeostasis]; and this rupturing distorts gender relations as that classification emerges defacto and default perceptual classification among perceptual classifications that people have to go by in order to organize their lives; which, in turn, only further ruptures social classifications as gender differentiation becomes distorted, exaggerated (or subject of liberal reaction with a “myriad of gender autobiographies”) with the puerile female exponentially pandered-to, but especially from the YKW, for her power in partner selection, gate keeping - her predilection is unduly and exponentially increased in this liberal scheme - her baser, unsocialized inclinations are also exponentially pandered-to; her base inclination to incite genetic competition in liberalization, further rupturing social classificatory bounds, as the YKW especially, pander to the puerile female inclination to the base incitement to arbitrary competition; particularly taking advantage of incitement by the other default classificatory tropism in modernity - blacks and their highly “empirical” and episodic assertion, appearing very much the victor of modern disorder (or her potential Mulatto offspring) to her puerile estimation; in a circumstance where broad pattern evaluation seems futile; and that incitement to Mulatto supremacism/atavism is given institutionalized backing by the YKW as they make White people didactically live up to that Modernist-Lockeatine-Empirical - individualistic rule structure a-la-Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals in the form of anti-racism and Civil Rights (“rights”, i.e., for the PC coalition only, but especially blacks). Thus, individual “civil rights” are weaponized against White group classification/unionization, to exacerbate their disordering and rupturing - a situation of exponential disorder of group classification through its rupture in a modernity of Lockeatine empirical blindness to group classification; of modernist disorder which appears very much a matter of “natural empirical law” - to which no real American man or robust Western man could object. In response to this the puerile White male, following YKW instigation, also panders to females, tying to pretend that he is above it all and that its all a matter of the pure nature of gender relations, pulling a Matt Forney, overcompensates, tries to act like he is above the necessity for left nationalist classification (then promptly flees to nations with stable populations); or he pulls a Nowicky, pretending that real men are unperturbed by the increased instigation of gender relations and miscegenation.

Absent those bounds, the YKW (in Alinsky style) making us live by the Lockeatine rules of our social classification being mere fiction, weaponized against as “racism”, not only is our psychological requirement left primarily with the classification of gender, thus magnified as a priority in lieu of race, “our females” are competed-for and pandered-to from all directions; the pandering acts on and exponentiates the baser female propensity to incite genetic competition, forming a charmed loop of modernity which only serves to further break down homeostatic functions of group classification.

These modernist, right-wing and YKW forces are acting against our midtdasein (being amidst our group), particularly White male being amidst our group - implicating the significance of our capacity for social group classification, being-within it a very low grumble on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, and a highly significant motive by contrast to its rupture, e.g. by “women’s liberation to self actualization”, “Civil Rights” and the Vietnam Draft.

Because we are by nature a liberal people, who are distinguished by our quest for realization of our truth and achievement in self actualization (who wants to take women by force but some stinking Negro or Abrahamic?), we do not want to take these quests away - we are easily incited, stigmatized and ostracized as males for not being “man enough” for liberal modernity; and yet we must recognize in the singular focus of our typical reactionaries to this incitement to genetic competition, a Cartesianism, particularly by way of American civic nationalism, that requires correction for its myopic empirical prioritization (Cartesian individual observer detached from group consequence) that itself is a large contributor to the rupturing of our social systemic group homeostasis.

These destabilizing forces are to be corrected, I propose, by re-evaluating, re-ordering, organizing and systematization of “The Hierarchy of Needs to Self Actualization.” Unlike its self centered permutation through Maslow and the human potential movements of the 1960s and 70s, the connections of Self Actualization’s facilitation by and of our optimal social systemic homeostasis are to be accounted for - our Socialization, delimited social systemic classification is to be taken as as serious concern and reality to look after. Accountability of “Self Actualization,” to its indebtedness to the social group and its historical capital is further stabilized, as we said, by the profound recognition of the organic basis for our being, in midtdasein - being in social classification; and institutionally stabilized in the appreciation and reward for the place of Routine practice/ and Sacrament - to connect the episode with our profound, time in memorial social group patterns.

This is not “clunky.” These are topoi, to be administered with the grace that hermeneutics affords to negotiate optimal social group homeostasis, individuation and gender relations. These specificatory structures of being, socialization, routine/sacrament and self actualization should not be hard to promote, as each feature is useful and enjoyable; and necessary in order to negotiate socialization, individuation, fair and humane gender relations.

This new idea of actualization will include critique of the over-adulation of alphas - reappraisal of maxima and optima, beta and alpha (this is a note, marking an issue that I must come back to as it will well-up to confront me again otherwise).

Regarding the need for the liberation from mere facticity in service of coherence, agency and warrant in broad pattern accountability then, it is meaningful to come back to the concept of “the left”, exactly for its being stereotyped as the merely conceptual, hypothetical, “in opposition to brute nature and reality” position - a straw man supposed to be our great nemesis - so the Alt-Right and its kosher backers would have us believe, and encourage reactionaries to maintain.

As we properly apply its conceptual structure to our interests, it would not be “anti-nature” or “unnatural.” It wouldn’t be anti-individual either - but it would recognize purist and puritanical concern for “sovereign individual and nature” as symptomatic of reaction and misplaced priorities at this time, going off terribly to one direction of what is within our hermeneutic scope and survey. We can and will circle back to those focuses, but as we’ve said, that is not the most important issue now - the problem now is our group systemic classification and its maintenance against disruption. And again, hermeneutic “narrative” while a function of editing, is not the same as “fiction.”

You don’t have to call yourself White left nationalist or even left ethnonationalst. I’ll call myself that and explain as often as necessary why; I’ll also note when you are doing left ethno nationalism when you are doing it, which you will be doing if you are getting ethnohomeostais to work.

One more note before going further, the term “White” most consistently means people of European descent. It is obviously more practical to use that term rather than “European” when talking about European diaspora - Europeans outside of Europe. Use the terms with that in mind. If you want to use the term “European” for people of European descent, wherever they may be, that is ok with me, though it might be a little confusing for a time to come.

1. We’re talking about systems, their stasis and homeostasis when we’re talking about a concern to maintain our people.

2. One of the most essential deceptive language games that the enemies of our would-be ethno-national stasis and homeostasis have deployed in misdirection against it has been to compel over identification with the ordinary language beneath the term “right” (or with the idea that the terms right and left are meaningless - which, in effect, falls into default identification with the right). Corresponding with the term is a precarious and unstable pursuit of pure warrant in objective truth despite relative social interests and accountability thereof against the “left” - left populist ethno-nationalism, if you will - i.e, against the socially unionized delimitation that would provide for relative rule structure of accountability to our social systemic homeostasis against elite betrayal; and provide sufficient incentive and accountability through that criteria to maintain loyalty of rank and file and our marginals as well for their part in our social systemic homeostasis. In fact thus, the social organizing principles beneath ordinary language of the left are meaningful and important. We can observe there a “wisdom of the language” having come back to this in service of clarification - of necessity for the aforementioned impervious antagonism and gas lighting of right wing reactionaries and the YKW purveyors of their language. You may object that the “the right” has been associated with ultra nationalism; and it is true that (((the media))) has made this association, but the right is also associated with narrowing and destabilizing objectvist “principles” (Christianity, sheer Darwinsim, deracinating facticity) over the unionized populist interests of relative left ethnonationalism - a concept which is rendered invisible by the confusion of “Left” with “Liberal”, i.e. associated with what is an oxymoron to left ethno-nationalism - the scabbing of would-be unionized, ethno-national bounds.

Having achieved hegemony in the seven power niches particularly after the 2008 bailout, the YKW, a small minority world wide, have had clear motive to co-opt White right reaction, to promulgate the confusion in right wing populism, to identify “the Left”, paradoxically, with liberalsm; i.e. with the antagonism to reasonably, i.e., ethnonationally delimited compassion.

With the YKW’s distortions of the social concept, representing “the left” as a non-national liberal amorph, empowered by encouraging “activists” to fly in the face of facts if necessary, in order to overthrow through liberalizing of “White privilege” - a Jewish concept wallpapering over their cryptic participation in elite ranks, and the fact that rank and file Whites are not necessarily overly privileged or unwilling to be accountable. But in this denial of their possibility for their left populist interests, they tend to go into reactionary pursuit of unassailable warrant, which moves to a narrowing myopic concern* for pure, objective truth, nature, facts and principles against this “the left” - the otherwise benign and helpful semiotics beneath its ordinary language - social organization through unionized inclusion and exclusionary delimitation - buried beneath their (YKW) exaggerated relativistic rhetoric that is weaponized specifically against Whites - “a singularly privileged class” intransigently bounded (and there’s your “proof”, viz. in reaction) such that the unionized others are entitled in coalition (e.g. “people of color”) to liberalize, i.e. rupture our bounds and borders to no end (a liberalization that is called “the left”, which is in fact, an internationalist, non-national amorphous “left”); with that, against our would-be means to accountability through unionization and delimitation of our relative social interests; as that would, conceptually, require accountability from those of us in powerfully influential positions to our systemic homeostasis; and accountability to/of our rank and file for basic needs and rewards; requiring of the full class (full ethno-nation) loyalty and social accountability for their part in its maintenance.

The narrowing objective warrant sought by Rightist reaction applies to group advocacy as well, the narrowing function squeezing specific nationality and specific elite overseers to seek narrow supremacist warrant over and against the broad sphere of social interactive interests, of their own and other nations, where they do advocate nationalism: in the case of the Alt-Right, they are being used by Jewish coalition building tactics - the requirement for entry into their big tent is that you have to maintain some sort of anti-social stigma, some sort of anti-social classificatory function - against “the left” - because that’s good for Jews at this point, and for those right-wingers who’ve sold out to them.

3. Because our relative interests in the broad patterns and what is necessary to maintain our social systemic homeostasis can go beyond what is always verifiable in a moment or episode or even by close relations, it is necessary to have a second liberation, from mere facticity, to capture our broader coherence through capacity for willing suspension of disbelief in narrative coherence and as such provide criteria to look after the homeostasis of these broader patterns.

As this less-empirical end requires coherent linguistic and conceptual rule structures for its management, for our group systemic homeostasis, it is necessary, therefore, to sort out our language games - not only from “The They” as Heidegger says, in speaking about the ill fit and otherness of third person concerns. Rather, in speaking quite so abstractly he was perhaps taking for granted his group, and its part in inadvertently imposing upon individual, authentically manifest nature. We must be even more radical and concrete in sorting out habitual but misdirecting language and terminology, not only the they of our third persons as they go like right wing and liberal lemmings against “the left”; especially as terminology and both modern and post modern concepts have been abused by our enemies, notably Jewish and liberal interests, against us. But a full array of their terminological and conceptual abuse has to be sorted out, and here, in prior posts, it has been.

In fundamental terms, again, “Right” would be properly defined with a tendency for reactive narrowing from broad social accountability to union bounds, to less socially accountable spheres of interest, seeking warrant in facticity or principle, pure objectivity, pure nature, specific national, individual or narrow group power, without the mess of praxis, the agentive, social interactive world. With as brief account as possible (“that’s just the way it” is, is one of their favorites, “might makes right” another, “master-slave”, “supreme /inferior” “equality non-equality” still others), if giving any account to relative group systemic interests and ecology. It is perfectly understandable why Whites would react to seek absolutely unassailable objective foundations given the verbal skill and Manichean trickery of Jewry as it takes advantage of our nature and predilection to take on the “devils” of natural, Augustinian problems.

Right wingishness is not only the terminus of our system, in stasis confronted by our aboriginal circumstance, where other groups and their manicheansim were not the primary terminus - where natural cycles and death were the terminus. It is also a habitual reaction, as objectivity has worked for us before, as we were not especially looking after our relative interests as a people, we were looking primarily for what worked against nature.

In that predilection we are susceptible to fall into habits of the Right, to fall prey to arbitrary reaction as opposed to looking after our relative social group interests; we are susceptible to being maneuvered into an exaggerated form of that reaction - so much so that they, right wing reactionaries, react to what I am saying as if its more of the same from the YKW, even though it is copiously, markedly and importantly different - it is crucial for our ethnonational interests in fact; but Jewish and disingenuous right wing/liberal trolls will only encourage this reactionary misapprehension. “The Alt-Right” is rather a big tent the requirement for entry of which, i.e, for having your own “tent,” requires you to have and to accept the membership of other tents which maintain these stigmatic and easily manipulable reactionary positions: Jews may participate in our definition, Jesus/Abrahamism, Hitler/scientism, obvious stigma otherwise, like nutty conspiracy theory against “the left.”

READ MORE...

Tim Snyder’s 20 lessons looked at from the reality of our present situation - ethno-national oppression by universalized liberal tyranny.

YouTube, “ON TYRANNY: 20 LESSONS FROM THE 20TH CENTURY”, Published by Arts & Ideas, 17 June 2017:

1. Tim Snyder (34:00): the first (lesson) is don’t obey in advance - if there’s anything that historians of Nazi Germany agree upon, and they don’t agree on everything…. but one of the things historians tend to agree upon is the significance of consent in 1933.

Now lets consider that from the perspective of the decades following World War II. The hegemonic liberalism and Cultural Marxist political correctness that only grew with each decade from 1945 - 2008, and still prevails, but culminates now in the newly promulgated controlled opposition: the controlled right-wing reaction. The forced reactive alignment of the Alternative Right with Jewish interests (not only right-wing Jewish, but right-wing Jewish led interests upon their attainment of fuller hegemony in the seven power niches) as the proposed “solution” to their Jewish created problem - a problem the solution to which is to be marketed in prevailing “anti-leftism”, a precarious objectivity of reactionaries (desperate for any acknowledgement of empirical reality after the boondoggles and abuses of post modern relativism, social constructionism and hermeneutics) leveraged on an “anti-PC” platform which they share with their kosher fellow travelers, whether they call themselves Alt-Lite, Alt-Right, Anti-PC, Paleocon, “true conservatives”, “Judeo-Christians”, etc.; together with their complicit and instrumental goyim, elitist right-wing sell-outs to Jewish aligned interests.

The World War II generation was indoctrinated with consent giving - “you can’t fight city hall.” Their children, the boomers, didn’t have to give consent, didn’t dare oppose anti-racist politics after Hitler did his thing. They were on the side of “the winners”, to be grateful and put their nose to the grindstone - work in compliance with signal command to keep the S.S. Mulatto Supremacist sailing on course, smoothly. Though it loomed ominously over the horizon, coming into purview of generation Xers’ who were given the same command - “go to work and keep the ship on course” - despite the fact that consent was making less and less sense - what the signal augured and its early manifestations were catastrophic but unspeakable by way of televitz - its one way channel to your head told you resistance was futile; indicating the seven Jewish controlled choke points were growing in power to maintain your “consent” - and how they pandered to females, their inclination to incite genetic competition and derive short term power from the increasingly liberalized situation - how many times you were lambasted by feminists, or “traditional” western women, for that matter, that this (liberalism) was reality, to which you must acquiesce (because it served their short term convenience while they paranoically and brutally preempted imagined beta uprisings that they “saw coming” from afar). There were plenty of right wing dolts willing to “man-up” to the “reality” of liberalism if you didn’t (e.g. President Bill Clinton), willing to pander for a piece of ass, giving their tacit consent to liberal tyranny - and now the alt right girls find it convenient to sound this right-wing “reality call” to “man-up”, to rid them of the “dead wood” - none of these hippie low grumbles about “being” and “what’s in it for me?” in a draft to kill Asians. In this liberal tyranny you are supposed to be willing to die at the behest of their right wing liberal and Jewish sponsored interests.

Think of what the casual liberals, the feminists, the “trad women”, the anti racists, what the black advocates were trying to put across under the manufactured consent of the YKW and their right-wing liberal cohorts ..what they were doing to you - enlisting your ethnic genetic interests in servitude to the good ship Mulatto, gate-kept by the newly increased one-up position of young females (in partner selection), increased as it were in the disorder of modernity, their base inclination to incite genetic competition more prone than ever, pandered-to exponentially from all comers (but especially by the YKW) - they become articulate and authoritarian within the disorder of modernity, a disorder which their Jewish and brown sisters encouraged them to maintain for narrow and short term gain against the bogey White man - the amazing extremes of abuse they went in hyperbolic liberalism, “anti-racism” institutionalized and “normalized” against the EGI of White men - going beyond any reasonable law and human treatment, the lengths they went in order to compel “consent.”

“Consenting” to the rule-structures of America, such as they are, leading toward the destruction of the ethnic genetic interests of normal White men - their servitude to the reckless panmixia of universalized liberal tyranny. While betas would make for relationships and systemic homeostasis, the bastards of hypergamy leave chaos and systemic vulnerability.

Tim Snyder Ibid:

When we imagine a Hitler or a Stalin, we imagine that they come striding on stage as fully empowered super villains, capable of doing anything. That’s not how it happens at all. In the case of Hitler there was an election in the background, which his party won. There was a legal appointment to power and then there were other things but what was necessary for Hitler and what is almost always necessary, because there are almost never pure revolutions, is consent.

Consent doesn’t have to be by voting or by marching, consent can be just not doing anything. Looking away. Saying that its normal.  Saying that it can’t happen here. Saying that the institutions are going to save us ..and doing nothing. That’s consent. That’s the kind of consent that authoritarian regimes need.

They need some active participation, but mostly they need that kind of consent.

And so the hardest thing, and the crucial thing that enables all the other forms of disobedience, is Not to obey in advance. And it’s harder than it sounds. Its harder than it sounds, it sounds easy but it’s actually the hardest one. Why is it so hard? Because psychologically, this is what we do. We look around for cues as to who has authority and then we react.

I was introduced so I knew that I was supposed to give a talk, so here I am. You, as audience, know what you’re supposed to do. And you generally do it and 99 percent of the time that’s appropriate; and so it’s hard, it’s physically hard to say wait, this is not normal. The apparent rules do not apply. But that’s a precondition for being free, it’s a precondition for being a citizen, in fact. You have to feel that discomfort. You say wait, there’s something not right here. And now I’m just going to be a stick in the mud until I figure out what I can do myself - so that’s rule number one - don’t obey in advance.

Our audience may be gaining a clue as to why I do not consent to the “Alt-Right” and its right wing alignment with Jewish interests against, “the left.” They are effectively controlled and blindered (through objectivism) opposition to the universalized liberalism tyrannizing over ethnonationalism. Just as I am slowly gaining more sympathy for my younger permutation, as I spun my wheels unable to give consent to this universalized liberal tyranny, despite the vast hegemony, including our most precious “resources” largely arrayed against my dissent.

What was spooky is that White people really, honestly could not understand my dismay as I witnessed horrors unfolding all around me. They gave consent all over the place indeed. Why didn’t I just put my nose to the grindstone to keep the SS Mulatto Supreme running smoothly? Why don’t you just accept this, the imposition of men who have nothing you want and who take what is most important to you? - inflicting significant casualties and destroying its sustaining way of life in broad form before too long.

Tim Snyder Ibid:

The reason why number one (don’t obey in advance) is so important - if you don’t get that one right, then psychologically, you’re done for. Because if you don’t disobey in advance then you normalize. You normalize the world beyond you, which means normalizing yourself. It means adjusting to what’s coming from the outside world. Psychologically, that is extremely hard to un-do later.

And politically, to make matters worse, here comes the point about time, historians love points about time - if authoritarian regimes are to be resisted, they have to be resisted within the first 6 - 18 months. If they are not, then you lose the chance to do anything. The devastating psychological-political connection is when you say, well, it can’t happen here…or well, I’ll do something tomorrow, or well my friends aren’t doing anything yet. ...and then the time passes and the tragedy is, you have lost time that you cannot get back. So that’s why lesson number one is lesson number one.

2. Lesson number two is support institutions (basically, the state tends to provide some recourse against arbitrary abuse of power).

Snyder basically observes the social constructionist perspective, that institutions require social construction, people do not take stands alone and cannot succeed alone. This is the kind of knowledge (proper social constructionism, hermeneutics, post modernity and leftist social unionizing) that the YKW want to keep us away from in order to maintain their universalized liberal tyranny - “consent and be on side with the objective reality of the Alt-Right White man!” Join your kosher brethren against “the left”, for the hermeneutic circle would never circle to empirical verification, reality testing and pragmatic correction, would it, in its anti-Cartesianism, would it? (oops, that’s right, it would).

This next lesson lines up nicely with the right wing’s control over reaction to PC’s hyperbole. You don’t want any of that willing suspension of disbelief stuff, nah! None of that coherence, accountability, agency and warrant….  just the hard facts for a real (stupid and incoherent and socially irresponsible) man… we’ll do the thinking for ye, nose back to grindstone techno-slave…my daughter’s Mulatto child is getting cold in her house.

Tim Snyder Ibid:

10. Truth: “What is truth?” - I’m trained-up in philosophy, but… in politics the notion that there is some kind of factual world out there is pre-condition for everything that we take for granted… Who understands this, maybe we don’t. We can say hey, what is truth? Maybe Trump’s tweets are just as valid as the New England Journal of Medicine. Maybe you think that’s cool, that’s fine, that shows that you are cynical and great - like hey, doesn’t he have access to his own truth? Isn’t it just my narrative and your narrative, isn’t life just a story? My point is that in politics, that way lies doom.

And who understands that? The authoritarians understand that. The fascists denied every day empirical truth in order to affirm the myth of an organic unity of the people - not all people but “the” people. The communists denied your every day experience in truth, or rather they sacrificed it, to what they saw as the one truth, the utopian future which justifies doing whatever in the present.

Modern authoritarians don’t have these visions, but they still go after the truth and they go after it according to a three part scheme that is so widespread that it might as well literally be a handbook.

1) The first part is that you filled the public space without any conscience. You fill the public space with lies (Tomasz Marcin Pacocha) and contradictions and you don’t acknowledge that there is such a thing as a lie or contradiction. You don’t acknowledge truth standards at all - that’s step one.

2) Step two is that you say it’s the journalists who lie. They’re the professional liars. Not me, they’re the fake news peddlers, them.

3) And then step three is, if you win, then people say, ‘well, maybe he’s right, what is truth, who knows? You have your story, I have my story…...I’m just gonna watch Netflix’ ...and “I’m just gonna watch Netflix’ is basically what Putin has tattood on his thigh.

“I’m just gonna watch Netflix” is basically how Russian style authoritarianism works, Russian post modernism, our untruth is better than your untruth,...you create this state of doubt, and if you haven’t noticed it (happening also) in the United States, you’re not getting out enough.

...none of its true, the media, the media, and yet you prefer your own untruth. That’s what modern right wing authoritarianism looks like.

A nationalist will say that it can’t happen here, which is the first step toward disaster….a patriot says that it could happen here but we will stop it.

“What is truth?” -  who understands that creating an atmosphere of hyper relativism, hyper-skepticism spells doom for political opposition. The authoritarians understand that. 

The fascists denied every day empirical truth in order to affirm the myth of an organic unity of the people - not all, people but “the” people

A people doesn’t have to deny empirical reality, but they cannot be beholden to the arbitrary facticty of objectivism to steer their relative interests at all times - there must be at least a modicum of willing suspension of disbelief, taking for granted its narrative virtue - in the relative good of one’s people, if they are to cohere and have a chance to be maintained systemically in a protracted sense against antagonistic and oblivious forces.

A nationalist will say that it can’t happen here, which is the first step toward disaster….a patriot says that it could happen here but we will stop it.

One problem, difficult problem, is that it has been the matriots who’ve “pre-empted” correction of liberal runaway from a perspective of beta male interests…. because the matriots have been pandered to in their hypergamous aspirations and, as we were saying above, as if we were the bad and scary guys who wanted bad, unfair, “beta uprising”, unjust and unfree things, to take away their choices from them.

And who understands that? The authoritarians understand that - indeed they do, and what they understand and right wing reactionaries, Alternative Right, etc., don’t understand is that when considering post modernity, hermeneutics and social constructionism for themselves, in their high places and among people who know - for their interests (and should be for ours) - is that these conceptual tools do Not deny truth and reality, nor verification, scientific or otherwise; they provide for accountability and social systemic governance.

...saying that [this liberalism, imposed mixing] is normal, that it can’t happen here ...they need mostly consent, even if passive

it’s harder than it sounds; it’s actually the hardest one…psychologically, we look at who has authority and we react… most of the time that’s appropriate..

....it’s hard to say this is not normal, the rules do not apply.

Conditioned as some of our women folk are, they might talk about how a black woman pulling a White woman’s hair is out of bounds, how manspreading should be allowed, but they will not discuss how being forced to live with blacks and under the same governance is inhumane for Whites and should not be given consent from any White person hoping to act responsibly and in broad self interest.

If you don’t disobey [Imposed “tolerance” of liberal, racial imposition] in advance then you normalize in advance.

Tim Snyder:

Then Lesson 18: Be calm when the unthinkable arrives. The sudden disaster that requires the ends of checks and balances, the dissolution of opposition parties. Suspension of freedom of expression, the right to a fair trial, is the oldest trick in the Hitlerian book. Do not fall for it.

The Reichstag fire was the moment when Hitler’s goverment - which came to power mainly through democratic means - became the menacing and permanent Nazi regime. It is the archetype of terror management. What matters is that this spectacular act of terror enacted the politics of emergency. Whether or not the Nazis set the fire, Hitler saw the political opportunity - “there will be no mercy now” - anyone standing in our way will be cut down. Hitler’s claim was that the fire was the work of Gemany’s enemies…round up of left wing political parties and placement of them in improvised concentration camps.  ...the authoritarians of today are also terror managers, and if anything they are more creative.

For the Nazis the event that allowed them to take totalitarian control was the Reichstag fire. For our enemies - viz., universalizing liberal totalitarians, the enemies of ethnonationalism - the Reichstag event was the Nazis.

That event happened and allowed universalizing liberal tyrants to take control and smash ethnonationalism, manufacturing consent with hegemonic and near total control.

You might think that I am especially worried about Nazism. I am not at all worried about it as a direct threat. I am only “worried” about it in the sense of misdirecting our efforts into failure in the face of our enemies - their vigilance for a Reichstag event again, whether by way of right-wing reactionaries or false flag, to ostensibly legitimize the further clamp down that might ensue is not half as bad as the disorganization and diffusion of our efforts for rational blindness and the hyper relative upshot of objectivism and natural fallacy - on the moral low ground, in disdain of normal and humanitarian concerns, into the internecine among conflicts that will be instigated by overcoming “bad optics”, “equality”, “social justice.”

Even if universal foundations were possible and believed to be prerequisite of perfect ethno-national guidance, particularly given our crisis, which by definition calls for immediate practical responses; and particularly as that way of pursuing truth and comprehensive serviceability is unnecessary, we cannot abide delays for radical skepticism in service of that end in lieu of what is already clear and indubitable in ethnonational interest.

Pragmatic philosophy has conceptual tools that could serve and save us as ethnonationalists, but it is necessary to wrest their application from civic democracy, taken for granted as a virtue at its onset by its liberal American charter members, and taken over the top in universalizing that application against ethnonationalism by the YKW.

It is not far fetched to believe that they have taken good conceptual tools, exactly which we would need as ethnonationalists, only to apply them against our interests; moreover, taking them so far over-the-top in misapplication as to get a didactic reaction from ethnonationalists - who react by playing opposite day from the tools that we most need - and who, in reaction so overdrawn as to reject its humane virtues, repel and antagonize the would-be sufficient bases of ethnno-nationalists that they might otherwise coordinate with. That is not far-fetched, it is by now highly detectable as standard operating procedure of YKW academia with regard to conceptual tools which would best serve ethnonationalists.

Nevertheless, there are important differences between a philosophy necessary to uphold ethnonationalism as opposed to the philosophy of pragmatism as it has been taken into practice; but these differences are not to be found only after successfully overcoming our fallibility through establishment of universally unassailable foundations for ethnonationalism.

The difference that makes a difference for ethno-nationalists is rather in emphasis and elevation of the concept of indubitabililty - working hypotheses of which there is no reason to doubt as being in ethnonational interests; whether a logic so plain that we may take it for granted, or more complex, but warrantably assertable through operational verifiability - we recognize no need for anything remotely like a relentless critique of these working hypotheses - especially not from those known to hold antagonistic ideologies to ethnonationalism. Thus, we de-emphasize critique and presumed correctability of working ethnonatonalist hypotheses, particularly by those with antagonistic motives and ideologies - markedly, those advocating civic democracy drawing upon genetically universal population; and those advocating imperialistic and supremacist ideologies which would not allow for ethno-nationalist sovereignty.

The principle working hypothesis of ethnonationalism, of course, would be the assertion that in our given genetics we are warranted to go on existing as a nation while our nation is warranted in turn to maintain our genetics inasmuch as we can allow for others to maintain theirs; and vice versa.

We may proceed without the pseudo-prerequisite of universal foundations, recognizing radical skepticism as being misdirected for that aim and an expression of Caresian-anxiety caused by philosophical abuses such as those promulgated under the rubric of pragmatism; alleviating that Cartesian anxiety in fact, by attending in contrast and emphasizing instead pragmatism’s finer virtues, which are three:

1) Acknowledgement of fallibilism and affordance of its participatory correction not only provides ongoing availability of correctability of our knowledge, but it can do so for ethnonationalism as such, providing for a correction of mere pragmatism, and into an institutionalizing of ethnonational delimitation. As such, it allows us to build our ranks qualitatively but also quantitatively in the varied contributions necessary for our community to flourish and defend our people against infiltration, exploitation and genocide.

2) As such, it is not just any correction, but an ongoing correctability which, when coupled with pragmatic delimitation in the aims of correctability to the requirements of our community as ethno-nationalists, can relieve “the Cartesian anxiety” - an anxiety given our antagonists’ relentless attack on our ethno-nationalist community (and yes, they have made me hate that word too, for their didactic abuse of it - the disingenuously vague, merely cultural, non-genetic connotations they’ve associated with the word “community”), we feel a sense of anxiety, a longing for the grand Cartesian either/or. To explain that further..

“But lets turn to the ideas of these thinkers [Pierce, James and Dewey]. I’m going to present a composite picture with some dominant themes. The first theme is anti-foundatonalism and the critique of Cartesianism. Descartes, in his meditations, was searching for a solid foundation for the edifice of knowledge. Something that is indubitable and incorrigible; a truth that can be known with certainty, and that can serve as the real basis or foundation for knowledge. Descartes is haunted by what I have called in some of my writings, “the Cartesian anxiety” - the grand either/or. Either, there is some support for our being, a fixed foundation for our knowledge, or we cannot escape the forces of darkness that envelope us with madness and intellectual and moral chaos. Now, there is a way of reading a good deal of philosophy from its beginning, to its present, and especially from Descartes to the present, as a search for a firm foundation. Whether we take the foundation to be the intellectual grasp of eternal forms, or the direct grasp of immediate empirical intuitions, or the cogito itself.

The appeal to such a basic, rock bottom foundation, cannot be underestimated. In our time, the failure to discover, quote, such a foundation, is said to lead straight right to a defeating relativism, that denies the very foundation of truth, objectivity and moral fealty; and I think unfortunately to a great extent, that still infects a great deal of popular consciousness. ‘If I don’t have something basically to believe in, then anything goes.’

Now the pragmatists, all of them, challenge this way of thinking, challenge this kind of grandeur, they seek to exorcise this Cartesian anxiety; they reject the ideal that there is an absolute grounding or foundation of our being. I think one of the best statements of the pragmatic alternative was succinctly stated by Wolfred Sellers, when he writes, “for empirical knowledge, like its sophisticated extension, science, is rational not because it has a foundation, but because it is a self correcting enterprise that can put any claim into jeopardy, although not all at once.” The alternative to the foundation metaphor is to think of inquiry as a self correcting enterprise; that has no fixed absolute beginning points and no absolute end.”  {1}

What is requisite is what is required, not a universal foundation.

In fact, participation in our fallibilistic correction can include contributions as deep, abiding and scientific as any - i.e., you can, in theory, question anything, even the most verified scientific law; though sane people, in vast percentage may consider you insane, dishonest, at best engaged in some speculative inquiry that will require you to compile verifiable information for you to bring to bear once you’ve completed your rather impractical inquiry; but the skeptic is not owed a privileged position of non-accountability for the initiation of inquiry over that which the community holds fast (the burden of proof is on the skeptic, so to speak, given) that which shows no practical need to change for the rather impractical inquiry; this holds true for many requirements of ethnonationalism -

3) The great contribution of the pragmatists is to show that fallibilism and anti-skepticism are compatible:

This alternative paradigm, this alternative way of thinking, leads me to a second theme, that I think is characteristic of the pragmatic tradition, and that’s the theme of fallibilism. If inquiry is a self corrective activity, that can put any claim into jeopardy, then this means that all knowledge claims, indeed all validity claims are fallible, in the sense that we never can claim that we know anything with a type of certainty that cannot in principle be questioned. But there is a difference between indubitability and fallibility. Many of our beliefs are indubitable in the sense that we do not doubt them; and indeed may not even be aware that we have such beliefs. But what is indubitable today may turn out to be false tomorrow. Furthermore, fallibilism is not to be confused with epistemological skepticism. Hilary Putnam, who is one of the outstanding pragmatists of our time, and still alive, once wrote that the great contribution of the pragmatists is to show that fallibilism and anti-skepticism are compatible. Pierce, for example, never doubted that we can know a reality that is independent of ourselves. But he also argued, that we’re never in a position to claim that we know this with absolute certainty ...and I think we can illustrate what is meant by anti-foundationalism and fallibilism by an appeal to an understanding of scientific inquiry (or we could relate it to all kinds of inquiry). The validity of a given theory or explanatory hypothesis in any of the sciences is not dependent on showing that it rests on an absolute foundation, but rather that it is supported by the best empirical evidence and the best reasoning. Every serious scientist today knows, that our current theories and hypotheses will most likely be mollified or even abandoned in light of further inquiry and evidence. So strictly speaking what we take to be true today might turn out to be false. Nevertheless, it would be hyperbolic to say that consequently, we don’t really have any knowledge because any knowledge claim that we make may turn out to be false… rather the pragmatic point is that all knowledge is fallible and all knowledge is corrigible - in principle it can be corrected.

[...]

The question arises, if we cannot know anything with absolute certainty, how to warrant and secure our knowledge claims? And answering this will bring me to our third theme, the importance of the community of inquirers and the sociality of our practices that shape us. {1}

The principle working hypothesis of ethnonationalism, of course, would be the assertion that in our given genetics we are warranted to go on existing as a nation while our nation is warranted in turn to maintain our genetics inasmuch as we can allow for others to maintain theirs; and vice versa.

That our genetic genus and species exist as significantly discreet from others on the planet is indubitable. That sheer skepticism of the “reality” or “significance” or “sufficient grounds to defend” these classificatory differences will jeopardize these differences, particularly when discriminatory rules in their defense is prohibited though anti-racism and anti-discrimination laws is indubitable.

That there are good reasons to want to protect these differences is indubitable.

That game corresponds directly with an attack on any would-be gentile left, i.e., socially accountable, nationalism and unionization; particularly as Jewish interests have reached clear hegemony, they have sufficiently greased the palms of right-wing elitists to be complicit as they take control of right-wing reactionary platforms as much as possible; and have promulgated the vilification of “the left” (“speculative” social organization/unionization) as much as possible to try to counter any gentile social classification gathering as left, social nationalism to challenge their hegemony.

However, whereas the pragmatists stance against foundationalism and Cartesianism and its charge for us to accept fallibilism has been co-opted against us, it also offers us the best tool, weapon in fact, by which to warrant our defense - viz., that anti-racism itself is Cartesian. As such, we may come loaded for bear against the enemies of ethno-nationalism:

The attack on the ethnonational community comes principally from Jewish community’s extrapolation on the prejudice against social classificatory discrimination, with facilitation of their fellow Abrahamics (note that Abahamics are not nationalists, they are imperialists; and we do not have to respect them as nationalists) and the liberal community: The central component of anti-racism is a game of weaponized social classification against gentile ethnonationalism.

This Abrahamic attack is well cast in terms of Manichean as opposed to Augustinian devils. Judaism and Islamics were coming from a place in evolution to compete more against other tribes for resource - thus, how to trick (Manichaen devils) them became a central skill.

Anti-racism is Cartesian, it is prejudice, it is not innocent, it is hurting and it is killing people.

How is anti-racism Cartesian?

By artificially separating us from engagement in account of our broad, but very real, biological patterns and relative interests as such; as opposed to approximating our natural homeostatic delimitations, we are prohibited from observing these relative delimitation by means of classificatory delimitation - incited for the modicum of vaguery, ambiguity, arbitrariness and contingency at the edges of these classifications; for the history, where classifications were often used by one group to abuse another, we are obligated instead to put these patterns at risk to pure objectivism - on universal foundations - which is Cartesian.

Because our classifications are fallible in the sense that we can interbreed with other races, their communities charges that there are no important differences to warrant discrimination. This is Cartesianism on the empirical side, where the classificatory distinctions are held to be arbitrary and of dubious, if not fictional significance. Furthermore, as our antagonists and liberals confront us with the fact that all races can interbreed, they can and do argue that evolutionary competition and integration will produce good, if not the best results.

It is not practical for our community to try to foundationalize as an objective fact that this cannot possibly, in any way be true; and fortunately, it is not necessary.

The best we can do, and we can do very very well, is make the best arguments (practices, e.g., might of arms, count as “argument” here) in our defense, achieving warranted assertabilty - with operational verifiability of that warrant so much the better.

How do we argue in the face of this Cartesian incitement?

To begin, it is practical is to acknowledge that we can interbreed, but to argue and assert, in the event that their hypothesis just might just be wrong, that it is nevertheless indubitably valid to classify peoples according to genetic groupings for the sake of accountabilty; to keep “reserves” (i.e., the vast majority and their prerogative for a separatist homeland) and with that to build counter-arguments in warranted assertability that we and our qualities are worth saving despite their purported infallible claim that they aren’t. We establish warranted assertion in defense of our classification - as having distinct and long standing evolution, merited to remain in its trajectory, provided we allow for others to maintain theirs. The act of classification and its implementation affords agency thus, coherence, accountability, warrant in inherited social capital and human ecology.

And again there is a crucial difference for ethno-nationalists from academia’s (particularly Gadamer’s/Derrida’s ) crucially abused (as Cartesian) notion of “marginality” - where “marginals” are taken to be those who are from without, outside the classification and/or antagonistic to it, as opposed what would be the ethno-nationalist concept of marginality - i.e., those remaining just within the classification despite pressure, but well disposed to its reconstruction; and having the additional existential benefit of “knowing where the shoe pinches.”

As such, marginals would contribute to a homeostatic function of the ethnonational system, against incursions and crass exclusion of sufficient basic function and of outlier advance.

What is practical toward that end is the unionization of our relative interests as classifications so that we may not only have criteria to be accountable to our relative interests, but also to objective facts beyond our relative group interests; and to the relative interests of other genetic classifications.

But either way, pure racial distinctions or “one race, the human race”, it is an unnatural and impossible standard of purity which, when observing history and what happens with this void in means of bio-historical accountability, will show that it is prone to reaction and attack on other classificatory groups. It is a game that can be countered with pragmatism and hermeneutics applied, as I have said, with ethno-national delimitation - but we must ask, why has that not happened? To answer that question we have to know a bit more about where the prohibition of classification comes from, the context it operated\s in, and where these remedies came into play.

Where does this classificatory game, a game that is weaponized against us, particularly as Whites, come from? a little history is in order:

The YKW, in their ordeal of civility, as a self interested group classification, were confronted and threatened by the civic nationalism of America, viz., its civil individual rights which, as an instrument holding no proviso to recognize their group interests, observed that America’s civil rights were based on the Cartesian and following that the Enlightenment and modernity’s prejudice against prejudice - viz., given Locke’s prejudice against social classifications as they happened to operate against him; he took a position against social classifications that they are necessarily, universally pernicious fictions of the mind, only a machination of the dishonest; and against that deployed the Cartesian notion (on the empirical end) that only sense perceptions of the individual mind are real and that group classifications are non-empirical, nefarious fictions which should be prohibited in favor of civil individual rights.

To deal with this, the YKW made American Whites live up to their rules (Saul Alinsnky style), but weaponized them over the top as “civil rights acts” which denied White freedom from association, thus effectively put them into involuntary servitude where operative. Moreover, they made Whites live up to Locke’s prohibition against classification and took it over the top as well in the form of “anti-racism.” Anti-racism is essentially a prohibition against social classificatory discrimination.

Kant had anticipated the dangers of Locke’s purely empirical perspective, how destructive it could be perhaps especially to conscientious people, and his major work, “The Critique of Pure Reason” was an effort to solve this problem, to provide universal foundations in “the nouminal concept” against this empirical arbitrariness; a noble effort, thought it failed; as Heidegger said, it was still Cartesian.

The analytic school’s Whitehead and Russell, in taking it upon themselves to try to solve the liars paradox [classically, “all Cretans are liars, I am a Cretan”, or plainly, “I am a liar”] provide a later example of a philosophical method insufficiently equipped to deal with skepticism of social classification. The analytic school’s tools in fact would be susceptible to paradox and dealt with these issues clumsily - with Russel admitting that the “theory of logical types”, viz, “that a class cannot be a member of itself”, was “the most ad hoc thing he’d ever had to do.” Nevertheless, while it may have been ad hoc to his analytic sensibilities, logical types did have practical applications.

We are all pragmatists - because we have to be - and Whitehead, a renowned mathematician was acknowledging this when he said: “we cannot continually investigate everything, but must be able to take some things for granted and proceed from a given state of partial knowledge. Even a false or inadequate working hypothesis is better than no working hypothesis.”

And he was in the ballpark before WWII forced a shying away from more explicit, concrete applications, when he said “philosophy must now perform its final service and save a race of people sensitive to values beyond mere physical pleasure.” If his having used the word “race” was not made radioactive by the supremacist Nazi campaign of WWII, we might have been sooner to implement the idea of classificatory function, despite its fallibility.

The experience of Whitehead and Russel of trying to solve the liar’s paradox with the ad hoc theory logical types, that “a group cannot be a member of itself”, is an example of the clumsiness of a sheer analytic philosophy in dealing with classificatory paradox; while right-wing purity spirals to go beyond social problems are equally prone to paradoxing and hoodwinkng into runaway. By contrast, these are matters which a judicious implementation of pragmatic correctability could handle, well, practically, and matters which an additional hermeneutic component can handle gracefully - it will deftly put aside “paradoxes” with narrative sequentiality, furtive, hierarchical and other provisos.

The Vienna School of Logical Positivism (from which the Vienna School of Economics derives) was another effort in this vain. The tried to establish a pure positive language free of metaphor and failed for confrontation of the fact that words have more complex, ambiguous and contingent relations to their referents - they couldn’t avoid metaphor, in a world. The later Wittgentsein was forced to acknowledge this, calling the Tractataus upon which the Vienna School of Logical Positivism was based, “not a very good book.”

Heidegger’s invocation of hermeneutics was effort in the right direction as a way of dealing with Cartesian duality, the Cartesian anxiety, and our authenticity of dasein. As one might guess following the coherence of this article, I would add the dasein of social classification, some facimile thereof to round out his philosophy, falling a bit shy of a sufficient philosophy as it did for phenomenology’s first person overemphasis and lack of emphasis on group pattern connecteness, criteria and accountability - there was something like that in Heidegger but not emphasized enough; his philosophy strained in the reification of anxiety before individual death as the source of meaning, being, dasein. Like the pragmatists, the method for our interests was there, but underused for lack of proper basis (for what we’d fallen into) and emphasis, especially among later practitioners.

Like pragmatism’s “participatory correction” from an ever more enriching and diverse basis of civic democratic universalism, hermeneutics could serve the YKW in its academic big business of selling talk, to any mathematically challenged, verbal brained undergraduate with an axe to grind against White men in particular, in non-stop culture of critique; and any fallback they might take in science: as if hermenutics is anti-science simply because its capable of critiquing scientism, viz., bad science or bad scientific application. 

Thus, what happened when I tried to talk to Professor MacDonald on the basis of hermeneutics - he insisted that “hermeneutics was anti-science” because all he’d seen in academia was YKW fostered abuse of the concept - they’d done what they always do; they’d taken concepts which would be most serviceable to ethno-nationalism, de-emphasized the aspects which would be most helpful to ethnonationalism and put over the top those features which when exaggerated would be most destructive; made them didactic; so instead of the coherent means to pursue our authenticity in organic form, and take hold (responsibility, the other interpretation of ownmost “guilt”) for our historical and systemic breadth, hermeneutics is associated with people who think that history and events can mean virtually anything they imagine, rather what cultural Marxists might think, divorced from empirical reality.

The pragmatists have shown that fallibilism and anti-skepticism are compatible; that we can hold up to our opponents outlandish metaphors, speculations and narraties; while asserting and warranting our interests instead, more imperfectly at first and less so with ongoing correction by community interests. And together with that, hermeneutics has shown the means to overcome the Cartesian anxiety, a way to overcome paradox, arbitrariness and nefarious positivist chicanery against ethnonationalism. However, given (dasein’s thrownness into) the setting of its charter, America’s civic, democratic nation, the liberal democratic motives of its charter members and YKW co-opting, pragmatism has over-emphasized and rather exaggerated fallibilism’s correctability through social participation - viz., extolling a “diversity” of critique, alternative “narratives” in an ever broadening, and thus ever more arbitrary “democratic community”, giving us an “enrichment” which is, like classical liberalism, insufficiently committed by state administrators charged with accounting for the upholding of biological groupings, and citizens accountable to uphold their biological grouping, as would concern the ethno-nationalist; nor do they conceived to account for protection of these protracted historical bio-systems by delimitation of ethno-nationalism (that classification = “racism”); hence the predictable denouement into radical skepticism, as it becomes more and more the case for gentiles that one must look after one’s narrow interests completely (a problem not sufficiently helped by the pragmatists or Heidegger, and especially not as they’ve come into popular discourse), whether that position is most advanced by those who’ve managed to do well for themselves, despite and perhaps because of their complicity with group classificatory disintegration, or those, notably the YKW, who also do well for this disintegration, hypocritically promoting the prohibition of unionization of social group classifications where they cannot be exploited by their own institutionalized group classification.

This democratic correctibility, now called “social justice warriorism” for its didactic form as promoted by YKW pragmatism and neoliberal complicity, is already a skepticism of gentile classifications, its relentlessness and hyperbolic attack provoking a longing on the gentile part for otherworldy foundation by contrast; and offered (((“neo” reaction))) in kind to promote a new skepticism to social justice and unionized, participatory means of correction; the (((alternative right))) is offered to institutionalize their new position in defense of their supremacism, YKW and complicit supremacism, at the expense of institutionalizated accountability to ethno-nationalism.

Skepticism toward the unionization of group discriminatory classification is institutionally perpetuated, assimilating the “reality” that one must accept - this “inequality” not only has force of itself, but also the intellectual cache of the elites; both elitist gentiles and now also promoted more as a form of activism by Jews via the alternative right; promoted more now as a mere fact of nature, to which only the delusional and unrealistic would object and try to be so leftist as to unionize against, given their increasingly obvious hegemonies. Radical skepticism, especially toward the practicality of ethnonational classification and unionizations thereof, is almost part of our DNA and its inherent susceptibility to be exploited by now; it is the last things we need.

Nevertheless, gentile vulnerability to skepticism of group unionization and aversion to taking what we might refer to as the anti-Cartesian turn with the Pragmatists and the hermeneuticists, has also been exploitable not only because their anti-Cartesian remedies were taken over the top in didacticism; but because anti-Cartesianism came only after Cartesiansim and its means of exploitation had already been institutionalized, taken for granted and embedded in civil individual rights - divorced as they were, in fact prohibiting discrimination of group classification - while especially promoted through the rule structure of America - that is no small matter; as its rule structure spread in ostensibly warranted hegemony to further purity spiral given its victory over right wing reaction in WWII; a reaction which was similarly a purity spiral, though more explicitly seeking to throw-off, to purify itself of the guilt and burdens of the YKW and their priorly institutionalized means of infiltration and exploitation of group classificatory interests; viz. to throw off Jewry and their ensconced purity spiral of guilting the gentiles with ethno-sacrificing Christianity by means of “natural law”. American victory only increased the hegemony of liberalism’s liasz ez fair relation to the YKW purity spiral of Christianity, a liasz ez fair relation reinforced initially by its Cartesian constitution; and later, as intersectional (where Jewish hypocrisy is confronted) reaction increased to the point where it might notice Jewish ethnocentrism, paleoconservatism and its spawn, the alternative right, were unleashed to maintain that liasz ez fair - “our Judeo-Christian, ‘western’ culture.”

On a level of more common concerns, as Cartesianism was institutionalized in the American Constitution, leaving patterned concerns only implicit, and suspicious of groups, particularly those suspected of Aristocratic snobbery, Locke’s form of empirical individual rights increasingly ran roughshod over biological systems, doing its purity spiral, in prejudice against classificatory prejudice - mostly done naively by the gentiles, but often disingenously by elites beholden only to their narrow interests and a quid pro quo with an equally disingenuously YKW.

Note: we are not proposing doing away with the concept of individual liberties and rights, only that the Locketine technology was not the way, we have better ways now. But failing the implementation of those better ways, the ethnonationalist community remains largely in reaction to hermeneutics and pragmatism’s participatory correctability for the exaggerated misuse of those disciplines against our classification and truth; laregly in a reaction not only instigated with didactic exaggeration, but on pain of social ostracism. You gonna question muh rights? - nothing more sacrosanct than to an American (or to many UN charter activists for that matter) than their rights; you a Nazi? - need I say more? We remain stuck in the Cartesian realm of reaction, where analytic at all - and failing that, engaged with its faith cousin - you gonna question muh Abrahamic religion?

But another factor which had lent to the taken for grantedness of Cartesiansim and its increasing hegemony was the impetus of its yield to science and technology (and the lucrativeness of that); modernity’s progressiveness indeed, running roughshod over the human ecologies that left nationalism might otherwise serve and protect - commie leftist pinkos.

You gonna question muh capitalism, science and technology? muh manly pristine theory with that messy pinko lefty rag girly social pragmatism stuff? With this amateur understanding of the philosophical remedies that we are up against, the lack of understanding of the problems that we are up against and the means to correct them for the inability to see past and get past their abused forms; even though we would get past theme if we use of their correct forms. However, so long as we remain in reaction, we remain outside of our advanced philosophy and correctabilty for ethnonational ends. And in this mindset bereft of hermeneutics liberation from mere facticity, we remain stuck in the physics envy of clean lines and highly predictable cause and effect (to our enemies too), as opposed to the (only somewhat) messy but facile narrative coherence, agency, accountability and warrant to wrest our ethnonational sovereignty. And in this wish for pure analytic coherence, we remain unduly hindered by paradox and chimera that can be used by our enemies to hoodwink casual, implicit ethnonationalism.

Thus our plight begins with a form of skepticism, that such patterns exist that can and should be classified for their discriminatory protection, and that terrible things will not necessarily happen if such discriminatory classifications are rendered. The YKW version of universal civic democratic participatory correctabilty is a steady, grating skepticism writ large.

The assault by the YKW on our people, as if we are not importantly distinct - neither ideally nor practically, in classificatory assessment of genus and species, and not precious in such distinction, is centuries long.

As GW observes, it is an assault evidently prescribed by Jewish tribal interests to rupture differentiation and defensive exclusion among “the gentiles”, viz. the non-Jews, as gentile distinctions, complementary, coordination and the defense thereof may threaten Jewish power and influence. 

This centuries long assault on our distinction began with neither Boas nor Descartes. It is narrative of classificatory disintegration, divorcing us from our complementary relations and coordination, from our land, nature and and earthy connection; it is a narrative that has been hegemonic over European peoples through and of a YKW mass media control that is not only decades long but, as Bowery observes, it is centuries long, with their Bible having functioned as the predominant “mass media” and medium of this narrative transmission for the better part of two centuries - promoting a narrative culminating with Jews as the chosen people, the light of the world, while the gentiles might only enter the hereafter by being purely altruistic, non-self interested. Dissent of that narrative, on the other hand, was on pain of otherworldly damnation, or literal, this worldly persecution - at times, even penalty of death.

And when in church, the priest did not say “let us think”, he said “let us pray” - viz. repeat by rote the priest’s call to submission to the Jewish god. It is a narrative trajectory increasing in hegemony and culminating in their story told as light of the world over the correspondingly undifferentiated gentile other.

European thinkers only began to shake this hegemony, throw it off as imposed superstition and return to the rationale of the Greeks and our own northern lights in The Enlightenment. Nevertheless, European peoples were not fully emancipated, as they would need to be in distinction of our peoples, by means of Luther’s proclamation that “here I am, I can do no other”, nor by Descartes, proclamation that “I think, therefore I am”  ...as he was, in pursuit of universal foundations.

These pursuits would have a loyalty nevertheless, but a loyalty not to the organization and relative interests of group patterns, but rather a loyalty to elitist objectivism, to mere facts and the upholding of the pretext of their objective pursuit - if one was to have the tacit approval of the scientific mavens and engineers who were becoming a new priestly caste, and that panderers (and pandered-to, frequently puerile females) against those who would operate against our classificatory interests.

...as with Nazism, warrant was not to be located in the differentiation and coordination with the other, but in the demonstration of purity of “natural law”, and supremacy that served the purging reaction of the meme virus.

Speaking of what is indubitable, taking advantage of the obvious disagreeableness of this concept, a reaction really, like a massive fit of coughing and diarrhea - a case of your struggle and stink is ok only if you are German supremacist - the YKW have with this indubitable didacticism amplified means to lay guilt trips and cause the gentile other to pursue warrant of innocence by a doubling down in Cartesianism; particularly through the victorious American enshrinement of enlightenment Cartesianism in the Lockeatine notion of civil individual rights - as they serve their aim to rupture the danger of opposing group classifications as “non-empirical”, a rupturing imposed on lines of “anti-racism”, “anti-Nazism” etc.

Marxist and neo-liberal YKW both would, in their elite mentorship, recognize the susceptibility of European peoples’ defense in their adherence to Cartesianism, and the YKW operate against it in mimicry of its own terms, in anti-racism, naturally - with particular emphaticness after WWII, they would be marching through our 7 institutions, and let us add another, even more so would they march through our very genome.

If the young White man is to have hope to be let past their gate-keepers - often the bitches who didn’t want to be fair, but want to incite genetic competition beyond their merit (their typical shit test in initial interaction episode, “isn’t racism terrible?”) - he must embrace the advancing meme structure, loyalty all the more fiercely to objectivism, to anti-racism, to the incursion of African and Arab hoards - if he hopes to extricate himself from the broader community of subjects as they are beholden to objectivist naivete, blind to individual and group Manicheanism (rule changing devils), who only mimicked adherence to Augustinian (natural) devils where it suits them in their “objectivism” as it is bound to be infiltrated by YKW: from Wittgensteins’ Austrian school positivism to its heirs Hayek and Austrian school libertarianism, to its neo forms, neocon, neo anything, as Irving Kristol admits, it is weaponization against Whites, still holding the undifferentiated gentile other as template of purity, innocence and warrant - the prejudice against prejudice was to make Whites live up to their own rules, as those rules worked against them.

Categorization, what I call classification, is not an artifice, is not Cartesian - it is a perfectly natural and necessary emergent function, to sort out, to discriminate healthy social patterns from unhealthy - “Women, Fire, and other Dangerous Things” (lets call that chocolate women, fire and other dangerous things). 

Anti-racism is Cartesian, it is prejudice, it is not innocent and it is killing people.

Even if it is by means by a crass version of Darwinist competition:

As I have said many times in one of my original theories, Modernity’s Cartesianism has had a vast disordering effect on society. And the “anti-racist” extrapolation of anti-social classificaiton is a union busting function of the YKW writ large, playing manichean games with social classification/anti-classification as it suits their interests. Just because European peoples are prohibited from discriminating by social classification, doesn’t mean that other’s aren’t doing it, allowed to do it; and doesn’t mean that classification (categorization) doesn’t happen naturally - it happens anyway; with the categories too difficult to ignore, because they are basic, even in “universal” human terms: particularly male and female.

The result is that the patterns of our protracted maturity as K selectors are truncated, our female co-evolutionaries are pandered to from males from every direction, predated upon by R selectors, particularly as the YKW foist race mixing upon Whites to demoralize White men and to bust gentile unionization; they pander to the basest tendencies of females to incite genetic competition.

They take advantage of another category impossible to ignore - black men, particularly by contrast to White females, a category and contrast so stark that it is almost impossible to ignore as a tropism. They take advantage with their “anti-racism”, with the fact that blacks are not necessarily at a disadvantage as they say, in all cases and ways - not given their license to discriminate on their behalf and make coherent sense; not within the disorder, where black aggression, hyper-assertiveness and abilities on an episodic levels are a more salient criteria for partner selection; they are not disadvantage in these circumstances of anti-racism, if you take into account that opportunism is acting in concert with their ancient history, the bio-power of their long pre-evolution to Whites; which serves them in this mix, to privilege them over females, to provide them with females and children (frequently at the zero zum expense of Whites); along with the fact that their coherence, their classificatory identity is allowed, they are offered remedial programs by the liberals and YKW, to make up for a history of oppression that we had nothing to do with; furthermore, their daring is increased as expectations of them, as individuals, are low; group ethnocentrism backs them in their risk taking. They often have less to lose (some of their women are nice, but….). Whereas European men have a lot lose, and become skittish; furthermore, the merit of European men tends to show over protracted patterns, patterns that are ruptured by anti-racism; and truncated by the opportunism of males, R selectors and what-not, that they are not allowed to discriminate against.

Meanwhile the one up position in partner selection that females occupy (because eggs are precious, gestation vulnerable and sperm is cheap) emerges with increased significance, with puerile European females gaining in premature confidence and discretionary power as gate-keepers, as they are talked-to, solicited from every direction and pandered to - her opinions matter; as she has ready recourse in all directions to brute enforcing males, if anyone objects to her prerogatives. As she is pandered to, she is encouraged by the power of her position in this liberal mix. Her base tendency as female to incite genetic competition, which would be vastly and healthily sublimated in classificatory maintenance, is exacerbated, probably exponentially. This incitement further ensconces the Cartesian rupture of ethno-natinonalism, as liberalism affords puerile females incentive to maintain the easy advantages her increased one up position affords in the disorder - it is, as it appears, “only natural.” - Just as the gamers will tell you, as they promote R selectionism to move through European girls. And the disorder and disintegration absent the assertion of our classificaitons is perpetuated as such.

Thus, the Cartesianism of anti-racism is disastrous for our species.

The central component of anti-racism is game of weaponized social classification against Whites. As exemplified in the racist’s paradox:

Again, the “racist’s paradox - if you say, “no, I don’t discriminate, I judge everyone by their individual merit”, then you can be charged by the anti-racist with disingenuously ignoring the history of (your alleged) classificatory discrimination and exploitation of blacks ...on the other hand, if you say no, “I take affirmative action on behalf of their group to take into account the history discrimination and oppression against their group” then you are classifying, thus a racist by definition.

Thus, by means extant of Cartesian structures the proposition nation was brought to bear in exploitation by the YKW and complicit liberals against our fallible hypotheses, with predictable results..

It is a purity spiral ever more Cartesian and divorced of practicality in its reaction than that of the Cartesian anxiety which they had already exploited.

And their rhetorical flourish magnifies the anxiety that we must have a foundation somehow prior to words and discourse for our peoplehood, otherwise we cannot potentially challenge with their rhetoric, anywhere in the universe.

But toward our defense and in defense of human ecology broadly thus, it is necessary to overcome the Cartesian anti-social classification that underpins anti-racism ..its Cartesian detachment from land and resource relation as well.

With the pronouncement, denouncement really, of the Cartesian prejudice against prejudice - specifically its proposed innocence in prohibiting discriminatory social classification - that:

Anti-racism is Cartesian, it is prejudice, it is not innocent, it is hurting and it is killing people.

Given the existential threat to our people for the devastating, decades long march through our institutions, of the YKW and their lackeys wielding the wholly unnatural, weaponized Cartesianism that is “anti-racism” ....the last thing that we need is mis-applied skepticism regarding the very antidotes to mis-applied skepticism - i.e., mirroring the anti-classification which is “anti-racism.

And we must avail ourselves of pragmatic correctabilty and the hermeneutic turn delimited to ethnonational aims - that is the way to resolve Cartesian anxiety. It is the way that allows for historical and conceptual breadth to capture the “non-empirical” classifications, that would provide for agency, coherence, thus accountability and warrant in maintenance, use and protection of our social capital and human ecologies.

It is not my purpose here to defend Pragmatist philosophy nor to proclaim myself a Pragmatist philosopher - Pragmatist philosophy is rather to be treated as a tool. It is not only to be taken to where the school of thought has been taken by academics, against the loftier aims of our people…  it has made its way to the ordinary language of our “communities” that it might otherwise serve, to be taken as concerns ranging from laboriously dull to obnoxiously undeserving of participation. No, rather something like Sam Dickson’s suggestion that we subscribe to a kind of race idealism - that might be most pragmatic; and those who complain that Aristotle’s turning away forms was a turning away from the breadth of European imagination, they can find imagination resurrected in hermeneutics, along with rigor! Finally, though pragmatism tends to be associated with a lack of deeper concern in a particular respect - that is a lack of sufficient respect for prefigurative force - for matters of enduring importance - it is a bit unfair, particularly if we see pragmatism as a tool.

If GW wants to tighten the connection between what is, the ontology, and what ought, that could be part of correctibility - any organization of sense making in that case, in an instant anyway, would have to a part of inherent evolution.

Emergentism has kindred aims with pragmatism and hermenuticism, namely and aversion to the reductionism and anti mind body distinction, if not anti-Cartesianism on the whole; however, it has run into some problems that may receive aid from pragmatism and hermeneutics. Again, pragmatism and hermeneutics proper would not look at emergentism as necessarily adversarial, but rather a closer reading, at a more rigorous and of an ongoing survey.

It is confronted with difficulty in managing dichotomy that may perhaps be mollified by hermeneutics.

At least one problem for emergentism is:

Jaegwon Kim

Figure demonstration how M1 and M2 are not reduced to P1 and P2.

Addressing emergentism (under the guise of non-reductive physicalism) as a solution to the mind-body problem Jaegwon Kim has raised an objection based on causal closure and overdetermination.

Emergentism strives to be compatible with physicalism, and physicalism, according to Kim, has a principle of causal closure according to which every physical event is fully accountable in terms of physical causes. This seems to leave no “room” for mental causation to operate. If our bodily movements were caused by the preceding state of our bodies and our decisions and intentions, they would be overdetermined. Mental causation in this sense is not the same as free will, but is only the claim that mental states are causally relevant. If emergentists respond by abandoning the idea of mental causation, their position becomes a form of epiphenomenalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergentism

It is true that more (and more) information about more genetic and emergent levels will help guide us better; the process of ongoing correction does provide for that.

Anti-racism is Cartesian, it is prejudice, it is not innocent, it is hurting and it is killing people.

“Anti-racism is anti-broad classification of peoples and against classification of peoples being used as criteria for discriminatory accountability. This prohibition of discriminatory classification is Cartesian, it is prejudice, it is not innocent, it is hurting and it is killing people.”

That’s a safer mantra because anti-anti-racism is less likely to be misunderstood as such, in a supremacist or other needlessly aggressive, exploitative, destructive senses.

READ MORE...

Prior to Kumiko having mentioned “the Sailer strategy” on the previous thread, I had planned to put up this post comparing “the Karl Rove strategy” with “the Steve Sailer strategy” in the Jewish playbook. Even though she would elaborate upon this far better than I could, I trust that she’ll recall that it was I who first brought “the Sailer strategy” to her attention; and allow me to go ahead without the charge of having jumped her train (in fact, I’ve wanted for her to do this article).

Obviously Netanayhu’s preferred candidate at the turn of the century was George W. Bush, as he could be manipulated by Wolfowitz to pursue the neo-con agenda in Operation Clean Break to secure the realm around Israel; a plan to use the US military to effect regime change in Israel’s threatening neighbors - Iraq’s Saddam Hussein to begin with. If playing to the Hispanic vote via the “Rove strategy” could gain W. the White House, then so be it. That was expedient for Jews. Anything to get Bush in there.

Having inserted Bush, the US military was used as planned to pursue Israeli interests to its disastrous ends. The neo-con agenda would continue to be squeezed for all it was worth through Obama’s Presidency - despite his resistance to antagonism of Iran as per Brzezinski’s mentorship, with Hillary in The State Department, regime change was effected in Libya and Egypt ..perhaps even the awkward campaign in Ukraine fit into that agenda under her State Department successor (((Kerry))) - it would seem so, given the campaign’s Jewish nature and initiators: The Ukrainian regime change spearhead was Victoria Nuland and her husband, Robert Kagan, was a Clean Break insider.

With the Neo-Con agenda of Levi-Strauss and the Kristols having been “solution enough” to make for increasing problems - that is, creating discontent enough among the goyim on the home front, it was time for Frank Meyer’s Paleocon movement to be re-branded, via Paul Gottfried as “the Alternative Right”, and slipped to White right wing reactionaries to the Neo-Con agenda and the “Rove strategy.” They were to adopt the oppositional “Sailer Strategy” of a unified voting block of White and Jewish paleoconservative interests, a Judeo-Christian union used as a nostalgic “conservative” tranquilizer while diverting any blame from Jews and right wingers onto Asians abroad and Hispanics domestically; further, the Sailer strategy rallied the so called Alternative Right coalition against them under a broader diversionary red cape of “enemies”, an over arching enemy called “The Left.”

Unz Review, “Will Trump be Good for the Jewish People? by Steve Sailer”, 7 Dec 2016:

Much of the hysteria sweeping the fraction of the country that voted for Hillary Clinton originates in understandable Jewish worries about whether the rising tide of populist nationalism will be good for Jewish people.

Note the disparate media treatment of Trump’s two Steves. The press has gone nuts baselessly tarring the working-class Irish-American Stephen Bannon, Trump’s strategist, as anti-Semitic (in reality, Bannon helped bankroll Seinfeld), while largely ignoring Jewish-American Stephen Miller, Trump’s brilliant speechwriter and warm-up act, because he doesn’t fit into the Narrative.

While unfair, it’s reasonable for Jews to feel uneasy about Donald Trump’s promises to bring change to a global system under which, whatever its failings, Jews have prospered more than any other ethnic group.

Burkean prudence advises the people on top to be cautious about proposed changes. After all, they have the most to lose.

You are beginning to see why my White Left Ethnonationalist platform is being resisted with every turn.

Now then, why do Regnery and Spencer take this position as “Alt-Right” against the quote “Left”? Well, you need to begin with their good fortune, the hubris that spawns in the wish to believe oneself a self made man, and put it together with the question of why Jewish interests would also want to take a position against the quote, “left.”

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

1) Media 2) Money and Finance 3) Academia 4) Politics 5) Religion 6) Law and Courts 7) Business and Industry - and with all of this, US military as well.

With the Alternative Right and Lite sufficiently hoodwinking people on behalf of Jewish interests against the “the left” they could also divert attention away from the immigration problems created by Jews and their right wing coalitions, and onto so called “social justice warriors” - to be otherwise called “leftists” in the media, these typically White liberals are trained in the collusion of Frankfurt school (cultural Marxist) guilt trips to attack and be annoying to Whites. But let us please move beyond such frivolous diversion, opposition to gay marriage and moldy locks, etc. and into the important substance of negotiating racial separatism despite Jewish imposition of integration and right wing complicity:

The best way to organize against the unaccountable hegemony of Jews, complicit right wingers, their black and Muslim thugs and compradors is in Left ethno-nationalism, not only for Asians and Amerindios, but also for Whites ..a coalition of the three would be most effective; and most fearful to Jews. Particularly the White ethnonationalist left and especially in coalition with the other two groups. Thus, they will put every obstacle in its way and silence it at every turn.

Operation Clean Break is not nearly completed. Trump’s campaign was initiated and made viable with his willingness to dismantle the Iran deal. Iran and its ally Syria being the next steps in Operation Clean Break. 

Having installed the new right wing Jewish functionary that is Trump largely for that aim and having diverted White dissent into a disorganizing, dehumanizing and ultimately misdirected demonization against “the left”, Jewish marketing interests have thus far been successful in silencing Left ethnonational opposition and have done their level best to rupture its coalition.

Right wing reactionaries have served their function by means of the re-branded paleoconservatism that is the Alternative Right against the demon organizing left. Alt-Rght functionaries are discarded where hapless, bought-off with celebrity where in/convenient - Kumiko cites an instrumental quid pro quo achieved through Kevin MacDonald and Sailer, which we found would reach Bannon and Steven Miller - Jews are free to pursue their agenda more than ever through Trump and his Jewish entourage that they put into power. Not only can they direct foreign campaigns against their chosen enemies, but they can also direct enemy lines at their discretion domestically as well; which is the special difference of the Jewish movement known as Paleoconservatism - it offers “conservatism” that consolidates Jewish jurisdiction - such as Christianity, but not only; it could be science (A Troublesome Inheritance), or the civic patriotism of Trump’s “make America great again movement”,  but it is a “conservatism” designed and promulgated to be conducive to Jewish interests.

With the Sailer strategy, Paleoconservatism re-garbed as the Alternative Right, the gimmicky marketing expertise of Jewish firms on Madison Ave., Alt Right celebrities have been equipped with “red pills” “black pills” “indigo pills” to go against “social justice warriors”, “the left” and to troll our would-be allies as “anti-White”, etc.; with this stuff, Jewish interests, duplicitous White right wingers or just plain White right wing dupes have largely mis/represented White interests as being somehow aligned, if not with Jewish interests in diaspora, then with the Jewish jurisdiction of Judeo-Christianity and Zionism.

There’s every reason to believe that Jews would like to divert White American animus strictly toward Amerindios and Asians, and ramp -up their hatred toward us. Just as they’d like to divert European animus strictly toward Islam and vis a versa. But there is a difference in the necessity to over-come the bullshit, and misdeeds of Jews and right wingers as best we can to establish harmonious if not cooperative and coordinated interests with Asians and Amerindios against our enemies; while alliance with Jews, Muslims and blacks is only a fool’s errand. It is Jews and right wingers, a.k.a. liberals, who’ve imposed blacks and Muslims upon us; and nobody needs that.

.

(((Lauren Southern))) equipped with gas mask, helmet and protective eye goggles, ready for the “surprise attack” from anti-fa.

In his discussion, “What Berkeley Means”, Richard Spencer characterizes as a seminal event the prepared altercation between “anti-fa” and those gathered to hear Lauren Southern and other Alt-liters/ Alt-Righters (“doesn’t make any difference ((())) or )))((( they’re all under attack by anti-fa”) at their free speech rally in Berkeley. Apparently it doesn’t matter either that the bubble-headed Lauren Southern is Jewish and showed up equipped with a gas mask, protective eyewear and helmet; that the YKW are on both sides of this, alt-lite/right and antifa, as can be expected - no, according to Spencer this is to be marked as a day of such historical importance that it might be observed through the ages. Really, its clear that the YKW are on both sides of this one and that it is a continuing part of a strategy to put Whites and YKW on the same side. Spencer has done this before.

What Berkeley Doesn’t Mean -

Unknown, Baked Alaska, Lauren Southern and Brittany Pettibone - Brittany needs to get away from these right wingers.

It’s hardly something like The Battle of Cable Street in reverse, as Spencer would depict it.

He doesn’t tell you that Lauren Southern, a key promoter of the Berkeley free speech event, is Jewish; however, he does say that “she and other ‘alt-lite’ figures are being attacked just the same as ‘alt-right’ people, therefore they are in the same boat.” This is tantamount to saying that Jews are in the same boat as Whites. Clearly there is an agenda to that. He’s done this before, as I mentioned in this article - Where and how (((The Alternative Right))) is drawing friend / enemy lines of a coming revolution:

READ MORE...

Joint press conference

In a move that surprised no one other than the denizens of the American Alt-Right, Donald Trump has just handed Benjamin Netanyahu a collection of the largest diplomatic prizes that any Prime Minister of Israel could ever hope to attain.

Donald Trump highlighted the prospects for a “great peace deal” in the Middle East while at a joint press conference, as both Israel and the United States are signalling a change in the relationship compared to that of the preceding US administration. Whereas previously relations were fraught with issues on which the two countries did not see eye to eye, Donald Trump is reorienting the United States toward a stance where there will be virtually no daylight between the two countries.

Handing over the keys

Donald Trump simply walked into the room and began systematically undoing four decades of US diplomacy, with a completely casual air of confidence.

Speaking cordially alongside Netanyahu, Trump announced that he does not actually care whether the ‘solution’ to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should be centred around negotiations of a two-state solution, or whether it should be some other kind of solution, nor was he concerned about the structural content of the solution.

“I’m looking at two-state and one-state and I like the one that both parties like. I’m very happy with the one that both parties like,” Trump said.

In a single sentence, Donald Trump had just given Israel the green light to proceed ahead on course with its plan for ‘Greater Israel’.

Some may ask how that conclusion could be derived from the statement.

It’s easy, Gaza and the West Bank have no real leverage at a negotiating table with Israel, other than that which other countries wield on its behalf. Israel is the occupying power which holds de facto control over 100% of Palestinian natural resources and all the investment banks. Additionally, the system of checkpoints used by Israel have the net economic effect of dis-integrating the Palestinian economy to the point that greater than 40% of Palestinian GDP is wasted on dealing with the effects of the security infrastructure which is in place.

Therefore, when Donald Trump says that he is going to ‘be happy’ with whatever deal the Israelis and Palestinians reach between themselves, he is essentially saying that the United States will no longer utilise its power to cajole or corral Israel into actually having to sit at the table with the Palestinian Authority in any substantive way.

Starting the engine

Trump seemed to forget that Palestine even needed to be part of the conversation, as Israelis and their concerns remained firmly centred throughout the joint press conference. Trump touched on all the issues that were strategically important to Israel, the issue of Iran, anti-Zionist messaging in the Palestinian school system, and the Israeli desire to get Palestinians to acknowledge and recognise Israel as a ‘legitimate Jewish state’.

The United States also stopped being part of the conversation, effectively. Having cleared the United States of any actual obligation to do anything, and having alleviated the United States of having any part in the process, Trump was essentially indicating that the role of the United States would now be reduced to that of letting whatever happens, happen.

Driving away after a small caution

As Trump continued to basically give Israel everything it wanted, Benjamin Netanyahu began actually physically vibrating with pleasure at what he was hearing. The United States would no longer even play the limited role that it had been playing as a supposed peace-broker anymore. That responsibility has now passed into the hands of Netanyahu.

Much has been made in some quarters of the fact that Trump chose to say to Netanyahu, “I’d like to see you pull back on settlements for a little bit.”

Netanyahu absolutely did not care about being told that. Minutes later, Netanyahu dismissed the caution entirely by saying that settlements are “not the core of the conflict”, and that they would talk to each other more about it so as not to keep “bumping into each other.” He then made no commitment to halt the construction of settlements.

So Netanyahu accepted what was basically a small caution for him to hold back on building settlements for a little while, presumably because it was starting to look too brazen in the news cycle, a caution which he is free to ignore if he likes. In exchange he got Donald Trump to drag forty years of US diplomacy into the recycle bin.

‘Compromise’

During the joint press conference, Trump said that there would need to be “compromise from both sides.” There was no mention of precisely what that ‘compromise’ would look like, but I think that we just saw what it looks like. We saw it on live international television.

Basically, Netanyahu will agree to let Trump gently needle him on his state’s violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and in exchange, Netanyahu will continue to violate that very same convention while shaping the circumstances under which Israeli-Palestinian ‘peace negotiations’ will take place. The United States will simply let that happen. The United States will also at the same time completely adopt the foreign policy preferences of Israel with regards to Iran, and help Israeli commanders to achieve their objectives absolutely for free.

That’s the ‘compromise’.

It’s unprecedented, because prior to this moment no American president – not even Ronald Reagan – had budged on the basic commitment to the two-state solution, nor had any US president prior to Donald Trump entered into a dialogue with Israel in which the opening salvo of the diplomatic exchange was to constrain America’s role to that of a mere cheerleader on the sidelines. Donald Trump reversed both of those things in less than half an hour.

‘Strategic Cucking’

Over at the Daily Stormer, Andrew Anglin non-ironically and non-sarcastically described the aforementioned ‘compromise’ in which Netanyahu gets 100% of what he wants, this way:

Daily Stormer / Andrew Anglin, ‘Trump Prods Bibi on Palestine Settlements’, 15 Feb 2017:

[...]

Very minimal cucking there.

And the cucking there was was strategic cucking.

[...]

Seriously. What the fuck.

What the actual fuck.

Related Articles:

• Trump and his cyber ‘czar’ Giuliani want to outsource US cybersecurity. Can you guess where-to?
  Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Saturday, 14 January 2017.


• Only The US Remains in Support, Israel’s Illegal Settlements Rest on the Alt-Right’s Trump
  Posted by DanielS on Monday, 26 December 2016.


• Is Donald Trump playing 181 dimensional underwater jenga-chess? (Hint: No.)
  Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Monday, 05 December 2016.


• Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman: Trump Won Thanks To ‘The Jews’
  Posted by DanielS on Monday, 21 November 2016.


• Alt-Right or Alt-Lite? It’s worse than you think.
  Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Friday, 18 November 2016.


• Obvious ambush: Donald Trump embraces the Jews, and then opens fire against White Nationalists.
  Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Tuesday, 22 March 2016.


• We Told You So: Trump Panders to Israel
  Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 22 March 2016.


• Big Tent quartermasters faced with fresh spate of pro-Jewish pandering from Donald Trump.
  Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Wednesday, 16 March 2016.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Majorityrights.com

Dear Daniel,

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

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

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

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

Looking forward.

LW

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

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

Reveal News Staff:

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

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

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

Second on the list, Jewish guy:

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

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

Third on the list,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Executive Director:

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

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

Chair:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

READ MORE...

It’s really great

Question. What’s the difference between:

• being a pirate running a multi-ethnic drug-ferrying operation to generate money which is kept off-the-books for the financing of covert operations,
• being a mercenary who is paid to attack slave-ships and liberate slaves,
• being a radically forward-deployed coastguard which defends the borders of Britain at the edge of someone else’s shores on extended lines of supply, and
• being a Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire?

Trick question. They are all potentially the same thing, and that’s what makes Britain great.

The only people in parliament who seem to have any understanding of this history however, are the people in Theresa May’s wonderful cabinet.

Weaponised history

The difference in opinion between Amber Rudd and Justin Welby is very instructive:

ITV News, ‘Home Secretary faces backlash in parliament for capping lone child refugees’, 09 Feb 2017:

The Home Secretary faced a backlash in parliament after it was announced that the number of lone child refugees coming to the UK will be capped.

Amber Rudd insisted that the move to cap the scheme to just 350 children, far fewer than the 3,000 originally expected, closed to avoid encouraging people-traffickers.

Ministers quietly announced on Wednesday that 200 children had been brought in under the so-called Dubs Amendment and it will close after another 150 are settled in Britain.

[...]

Responding to the Commons, Rudd said: “I am clear that when working with my French counterparts, they do not want us to indefinitely continue to accept children under the Dubs Amendment because they specify, and I agree with them, that it acts as a draw. It acts as a pull.

“It encourages the people-traffickers.”

She also suggested that local authority funding had come into the equation when deciding how many child refugees would be settled under the programme.

[...]

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby said he was “saddened and shocked” to learn of the Government’s decision to stop the scheme.

“Our country has a great history of welcoming those in need, particularly the most vulnerable, such as unaccompanied children,” he said.

“Refugees, like all people, are treasured human beings made in the image of God who deserve safety, freedom and the opportunity to flourish.”

He added: “We must resist and turn back the worrying trends we are seeing around the world, towards seeing the movement of desperate people as more of a threat to identity and security than an opportunity to do our duty.

“We cannot withdraw from our long and proud history of helping the most vulnerable.”

The Home Secretary is correct, and the Archbishop of Canterbury is incorrect, as per usual, because Christianity is stupid and will make you become stupid.

The apparently long, proud history of British people ‘helping the most vulnerable’ in a scenario like the one that is presently unfolding in Syria, has only one historical precedent actually, and it is the historical precedent of the West Africa Squadron.

Philanthropic activities

The West Africa Squadron sprung out of the changing economic structural necessities in 1808 after Parliament passed the Slave Trade Act of 1807. The Squadron’s mission was to suppress the Atlantic Slave Trade by attacking slave ships off the coast of West Africa.

Letters of Marque were also issued to allow private security contractors, also known as ‘pirates’, to act on behalf of the British government under ‘false flags’ to attack Spanish, French, Portuguese, Arab, and American slave ships within the same mission scope. A particularly iconic practice was to approach a contact while flying the British red ensign, and then run it down the flagpole at the last minute and elevate the black Skull and Bones flag in its place before attacking the contact. Under the Skull and Bones, it was possible to exist in a parallel legal reality where you could do anything to anyone without a care in the world. This also happens to be the essence of what Ernst Junger would later refer to as the ‘dual state’.

The programme was later expanded by the 1840s to encompass North Africa, the Middle East, and the Indian Ocean, as Pax Britannica began to become entrenched across the major sea-lanes into the western hemisphere.

Notice how none of that involved inviting every single African into Britain. On the contrary, by taking the fight to the slave traders – both legally and extra-legally – it enabled the British to accomplish:

• a great work of humanitarianism,
• the pursuit of various geostrategic and geoeconomic objectives against Britain’s rivals,
• disincentivising the activities of the slave traders, and
• the ability to simply hijack virtually any ship and steal it, with popular support.

As Cecil John Rhodes once said, “Pure philanthropy is very well in its way, but philanthropy plus five percent is a good deal better.”

And really, it is, isn’t it?

Anyone who doubts can simply contrast the premiership of Theresa May against the premiership of Angela Merkel. Which is faring better? Exactly. I rest my case.

Related Articles:

• Dear monotheists: We will attack your semitic god. By what method? By all methods.
  Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Thursday, 10 September 2015.


• The Satanic Alliance: You really are ‘either with us or against us’.
  Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Friday, 04 December 2015.


• Herding people into the institutions of the enemy is always a bad idea.
  Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Thursday, 10 March 2016.