Majorityrights Central > Category: Political Philosophy

While I have made comments in this regard in the past, I have been meaning to make a post about this for a long time. Now is as appropriate a time as ever to forefront a critical position toward labor.

In The United States, Labor Day 2015 falls on Monday, September 7th
.................

People may think that as an advocate of a new position that I am calling “The White Left” that I am enormously sympathetic to White labor and that we are ready to hear detailed, practical, step by step, concrete advice, facts and figures as to what White labor ought to do.

On the contrary, I believe White labor are some of the biggest fools that there are, particularly where they do what they do best - dutifully putting their nose to the grindstone to make society run amenably for all. They keep the gears of this neo-liberal ship running smoothly and grinding away at our White EGI. Their labor is basically contributing to a system aimed at their destruction and if they had any sense they would try to find a way out. In effect, they should go on strike. 

                       
Last years’ Labor Day party in Miami, displaying what has become an appropriate image for the state of labor.

You say that you have a family to pay for? You are doing me a favor? I think not.

And if you are contributing to this society, are you even doing your kids a favor?

There are those who maintain that they must participate and work in a way that serves the system in order to take care of their White family and of course that may be true. But it would be tragic if they do not begin to build bridges with other Whites (and select non-White nativist nationalists) toward a unionization of EGI and White economic sovereignty, since the life boat they have put their family on by participating in the system is taking them to drift further and further out into the ocean of non-Whites. They are merely providing their children a superficially comfortable situation within what are destined to be increasingly horrible circumstances - and that comfortable buffer can be taken away in an instant without unionized rules for them to coordinate in defense against neo-liberalism and its Red Left, PC enforcement wing.

Still, so long as the unionization of Whites continues to be demonized by White Nationalists, as they insist on confusing “The White Left” with “The Red Left”, as they insist on associating “Third Positionism” with objectivist confusion and right wing crap, such as a religions which do not recognize EGI and concerns for this world as important, we are obviously not ready for a strike. No, don’t worry, I am not calling for you to walk away from your salary, for that would mean that we are ready for war of maneuver, ready to take over the system which we all agree is working against our EGI.

We are nowhere near ready for that, as the right wing or the right wing elements of third positionism continually confuse, disorganize and frighten away the popular support necessary for a war of position (conceptual organization, territorial and strategic position) as precursive to support a war of maneuver (taking over government).

In trying to organize a war of position thus, we must first render a theoretical sketch rather than get lost prematurely in the practical and concrete. We are talking metapolitcs: White workers of the world conceptually uniting with the aim of political separatism and sovereignty.

WN still insist upon either identifying as reactionaries, as “the right” or as being “beyond left and right” and as long as third postionism equates to confusion as such, obstructs organized unionizations of our people, and rather merges with counter-productive or downright destructive right-wing perfidy, then we are at the stage of having to stake-out a war of position. Unless we are coordinated there can be no war of maneuver for Whites to take control of our nations and see to our people’s interests.

Almost all sites and programs associated with White interests are still determined to argue that “the left” is the enemy or that the term has no utility. I am suspicious of their motives or of the motives of those from whom they gain support and guidance.

The most recent example is Matt Forney, who tried once again to put this needless confusion across. His latest gambit on behalf of his Jewish and neo-liberal masters occurred when talking to Robert Stark.

Matt Forney pushes the counterproductive, Jew prompted line now as something that we need in particular as men - as men we need to move beyond right and left, while favoring the right on balance.

Sure, Matt, we don’t want to do anything like unionize in our interests as White men. That would be an awfully fearful thing in the eyes of your Jew masters and your liberal White woman friends. We are “betas” because we don’t want their sloppy seconds or is it sloppy one hundred and 22nds? But who is desperate? We are not real men because we advocate a White left (which, as we define it, might look quite a bit like and have quite a bit in common with third positionism) but you are a real man?

We do have bigger fish to fry than poor Matt, who boasts about how he went around screwing and dumping Filipino girls (an appropriate place to aim his revenge?), and so we will leave him to the confused world that he would induce White men into, on behalf of his Jewish masters, supposedly moving beyond right and left - that is to say, beyond the call for White unionization and syndicalism.

To articulate a clear war of position, to where we, as White men, have intrinsic value as designated by union membership, for the first time ever, our inherent social capital recognized, innocent until proven guilty, now that would be a fearful thing indeed to his Jewish and neo-liberal masters.

Can you imagine? People would actually have to treat us and our EGI fairly?

That would be an awfully fearful thing to his Jewish masters and to the objectivists sell-outs, the White sluts who wish to block our war of position, maintain the neo-liberal anarchy and atomization among White men until there is no chance of us seizing power by maneuver…

Keep reading…

READ MORE...

This is being re-posted for a few reasons.

In the years since it was first posted there has yet to be any argument to refute its value to organizing the perspective of interests in whole and fundamental parts for those who care about European peoples. Though its further detail and application would provide benefit, it has not yet gained the currency it should have among WN, who mostly continue to argue that they are “of the right wing”, against “The Left” or “neither left nor right”, thereby foregoing organization in their power, and reacting as our enemies would have it.

The White left thesis may not have gained currency for another reason - it had a very short time (about 4 hours) as a leading article when first republished at Majority Rights before J. Richards posted a sensationalistict, highly conspiratorial and tabloidesque story, with ridiculous imagery leaping forth (the photoshopped arms on this man seem to parody the image just below on the White Left article) - distracting from the careful discussion that the White Left thesis deserves.

Next, for this essay to be understood properly, it needs the context of being published alongside the Kant essay (his moral system as coherence, accountability, agency and warrant). In fact, for the purpose of the Kant essay to be understood, it also needs this juxtaposition; but while important, it is a primary step at this point to the highly relevant arguments which the White Left essay makes. So as not to not distract from these more relevant concerns thus, I place the Kant essay secondly and under the fold, only advising that philosophically, theoretically, it is antecedent for a proper understanding of the history of European philosophical requirements. Finally, republication will provide occasion to shore-up minor errors that should not be passed-on as these essays are a worthwhile resource.

Leftism as a Code Word (Part 1):

When our advocates call our enemies The Left, they are making a crucial mistake: obfuscating our two greatest problems and the means of solution at the same time.

In an interview with Dr. Sunic, Professor MacDonald says, “these neocons, their only interest is Israel. [Otherwise] they tend to be on the Left [?]. They still are on the Left [?] when it comes to immigration. All these things are just really leftist.” [?]

Dr. Norman Lowell says that “the Left” [?] has shipped industry and with it, jobs, to China.

In his article Women on the Left, Alex Kurtagic discusses some of the same subject matter that I had dealt with in a previous article, and to which I have given some consideration over the years – among that, sorting out different kinds of feminists in relation to White interests. In concluding that these “leftists” [?] have nothing to offer women, he places feminists in the same category: de Beauvoir, who did indeed fashion herself a leftist of sorts (taking women as her advocacy group, and Marxism as her guide), but was not Jewish; and Friedan, who was Jewish, but more liberal in what she promoted than leftist.

In an interview for Alternative Right, Kurtagic goes on attacking “the leeeft, the leeeft, the leeeeft,” and I cringe, not for the reasons that he may think; i.e, he may think that I am lamenting an attack on a centralized economy, or open borders multiculturalism, PC “enrichment”. Maybe he would think that I am waxing nostalgic for the Soviet Union where he and Sunic had the misfortune to grow up, or that I want to take away private property? Maybe he thinks I am cringing because I want to jealously limit his horizons, tell him what kind of art and architecture that he can have? Maybe he thinks I want everybody to be equal or treated equally? No, I am cringing because another perfect Jewish trick is being promoted to the detriment of White people.

These counterproductive ambiguities are circulating among our best advocates – hence the need of clarification and definition emerges salient. It is not about competing with them and showing them up; it is about getting the framework of our advocacy correct.

Naming the Jew can be risky business indeed and that assuredly accounts for why White advocates have used code words: e.g., liberals, non-Christians, leftists, etc. I submit that if one is in a situation where it is too dangerous to name the Jew, then liberal – at least in terms of its fundamental meaning, viz., openness to other groups of people – is the better code word as it also encompasses those problems of ours that are truly not of Jewish making but of our own. And that the Left is the worst code word. That is the subject of this thesis, for reasons that I will elaborate shortly. Agreed, the charge of liberalism is problematic, with a decided image problem, it has one appearing stodgy and logically entailing ground yielding conservatism in response; thus, another term should be supplied – but not the Left.

When one does have to confront the Jewish question more directly, but is in danger, not free to speak in just any way, one of the best strategies for defending against charges of anti-semitism should be to distinguish between “virulent” and “relatively benign” Jews in accordance with Faussette and Bowery’s theory regarding the cycle of Jewish virulence. Jews, long a people without a nation (beginning with Babylonian captivity and for nearly 2,000 years after that), developed an uncaring, parasitic relation to their host nations, particularly among the elites of their vested interest. After a period of consolidating the wealth of a nation to themselves, the most ‘virulent’ ones escape over the border for a new host country to exploit, while the relatively ‘benign’, situated and accountable ones are subject to the wrath of the host nation’s people who realize belatedly, “’the Jews’ did this to us!” This perpetuates the cycle as the virulent elite bribe their way into a new country, gain farther sympathy, critical absolution and pseudo-justification for their exploits as they point to what ‘they do to us’: the Holocaust, the Inquisition, the pogroms, the Roman occupation.

With this distinction however, we should be able to mitigate the charge of anti-semitism, noting that our large grievance is with the virulent elite (as well as with White traitors, especially those in influential positions) not with those Jews normal, situated and accountable to a local culture. Nevertheless, as anybody who has experience will tell you, the pattern of antagonism and indifference to European interests exists not only among Jewish elitists, but in them as a whole. Thus, we need to discriminate against them and separate from them as an entire group, even if some are worse than others and should be looked upon as more criminally liable.

. . .

As with most normal White people, liking my people and myself, I spent most of my life saying that I was neither Left nor Right, if those terms emerged as an issue.

For good reason: as with all normal White people, I’d been repulsed, had a very strong aversion to identifying as leftist. I saw rabid Jewish advocates of non-Whites along with anti-White Whites and heard them called “THE Left” all my life. Yet, I looked at what was being called “the Right”, and I could not quite do that either – it meant that one would be an ignorant hole by definition. I use this vulgarism deliberately to demonstrate that you can indeed, define a term through the pattern of its use in common parlance. Note that a person will be called a hole when they harm others when they do not have to; or, when they let people harm them when they do not have to. That’s characteristic of the Right for a reason – they’re not accountable; they wish to believe in their sheer, objective innocence and not accountable to an encompassing, but delimited “we”, as such.

However, with our struggle’s growing recognition of the disregard of our people in more difficult circumstances, middle, working class and more, their increasing awareness having shown in the Wall Street protests; moving to understanding of the consequences of corporate plutocracy’s quest for cheap labor; its transgression of borders; its relation to the military industrial complex - growing recognition that this is not in our interest as Whites – our need to not identify as rightists becomes acute.

At the same time, with the population explosion threatening to overwhelm our demographic and our environment, it is also of acute importance to not identify with the phony “Left” either, which is really just more catastrophic liberalism, if you look at it. That understood, I have come to the realization that saying one is neither Left nor Right is an inarticulate halfway point to extricating oneself from promulgated Jewish definition of the terms. That once one sorts out Jewish perversion and corruption of the terms, that the Left is the best way for us to identify as White advocates.

When our advocates call our enemies “the Left” they are making a crucial mistake: obfuscating our two greatest problems and the means of solution at the same time.

Our advocates are obfuscating the agency of Jewish machinations hiding behind a twisted definition of “the Left.” The Left has the moral high ground and the label, Left, has the appearance of that moral high ground because it is supposed to be socially accountable, even if it is a misnomer: which it is, in Jewish application of the term – leftist classification indeed, for Jews, non-Whites, and anti-White Whites, but prescribing obsequious, cataclysmic liberalism for Whites. With that, they are obfuscating the motive of Jews to define us as Rightists and their motivation to drive us there when we react to this misnamed liberal prescription.

At the same time, our advocates are obfuscating our other large problem – our wish for the “innocence” of objectivism or the appearance thereof, the pretense of such objectivism in order to avoid accountability – that is Rightism.

While Jews will use this argument too, that they are simply better, meritorious, when it serves their interests, Jewish political planners and academics generally want to maneuver us into a rightist position because it leaves us naive, organizationally weak, amoral, and unaccountable to our own as a relational class of people. White traitors also want us to be rightists so that they can avoid accountability.

Finally, in calling “the Left” our enemy, our advocates obfuscate the means of solution by creating an aversion to what we need – a social classification of ourselves as a people, a full class of people. The Left is always about social classification if you sort out abuse of the term.

Understood how the term is deployed when clear, “The Left” is a function of systemic classification, designating a group of people the interests of whom are to be looked after as a class – protecting against outsiders, e.g. “scab” union busters and plutocratic exploitation of labor. We classify ourselves as Whites for highly analogous reasons: to protect ourselves from opportunistic outsiders and from elitist exploitation and indifference.

If our philosophy is correct, as White advocates, we are leftists - that is because we are advocating a people, not objective facts. We are not simply describing facts, independent of interactive involvement and consequences. We are, if we are good White advocates, saying, “if a tree falls in the woods and there are no White people left to hear it, to talk about it, at least, it may make a noise, but may as well not for all it matters.” We are taking a people-centric perspective and a White-people-centric position, specifically. We are acknowledging that nothing exists outside of interaction and how facts count must be negotiated between people. As mammals, caring about closer personal relationships, as we do, we most crucially care about White people.

In fact, the moment we refer to ourselves as Whites, or indigenous Europeans – when we refer to ourselves as a people - we are classifying, we are parceling a relative classification of ourselves socially and that is the reality. Whereas the Right, inasmuch as it pursues objectivism independent of interaction, social interaction, and a negotiation of how things count, is always something of an illusion.

If Kevin MacDonald looks at two DNA strands and says, this one is Jewish and this one is White, he must address at least one colleague with this information, in seeking agreement. In some cases, data will be agreed upon by nearly 100% of people and that will generally be called, “objective.” A few may disagree, but they will be considered crazy. Nevertheless, the data, the observation and how it counts, occurs in social interaction (or it may as well not occur at all).

Moreover, to identify who we are as a full social class would give us the moral high ground and powerful organizational function at once. Whereas, when we are made averse to the term Leftism, we are obstructed from accountability to the relative classification of ourselves and others as a people – a classification that takes into account processes, all stages of development (within the lifetime) and evolution (beyond the lifetime); a classification that makes an important difference as it takes into account and respects our paradigmatic differences, differences that make a difference from other groups; our qualitative form and function, systemic pattern, its ecological disbursement, niche differences, logics of meaning and action understood as vastly different from non-Whites; that can make us more cooperative among ourselves and less conflicting with non-Whites when practicality is the better part of valor.

The White Class: viz., persons of native European descent, with interests relative to its class as such, would entail two-way accountability straight away, from those on top and from those in developmental, marginalized stages; i.e., to our relative, relational interests, irrespective of whether White traitors and non-Whites, those outside the White Class, are more or less “objectively” capable. Non-Whites might be allies, but they are not in the class. White traitors are traitors, their abilities only making them more offensive. The White Class, The Indigenous European Class (with its subcategories, yes), would define who we are and to whom we are largely accountable

Coming back to our first big problem in calling “them” the “Left.” ...

When our advocates attribute Leftism to our enemies, they are not addressing the agentive Jewish machinations against our people, but rather attributing the problem to an ideology or less, a devil word, the “Left.” This obfuscates the fact that Jews are classifying themselves and looking after their own interests, hiding their own agency in promoting hyperbolic liberal ideas and antagonism to Whites – promoting those outside or antagonistic to the White Class as “marginals” come to “enrich” us. Jewish agency is hidden behind the attribution of “the Left” – whether the agency behind economic Marxism or the cultural Marxism of PC.

Our second big problem obfuscated by calling our enemies, ‘the Left.’ Our wish for the “innocence” of objectivism or the appearance thereof, the pretense of such objectivism in order to avoid accountability.

Whether of religious speculation which seeks to establish its pure innocence, a clique of scientistic elitists who seek to establish the pure objective warrant of their discoveries, or the pure might-makes-right of the quasi-individual and the corporate “individual” of U.S. law, the Right is characterizable as a quest for objectivism which would make quick work of accountability –  through a naïve wish to be innocent through objectivism or worse, through a cynical wish to avoid accountability through a pretense of objectivism.

The White Leftist perspective would not begrudge persons who do some things better their due, their difference, so long as they are accountable to the relative interests of the class; however, people tend to want to believe their success is more a result of their sheer independence than it actually is – the Right is pseudo objectivist, faithfully, slavishly leaving nature to its own devices – “we are caused”, pseudo detached from the social, anti-social, therefore unaccountable and inhumane as such – “that’s just the way it is”, according to nature. Failing that, the Right can and will often seek to evade account in the elusive and insensible speculation of religion.

READ MORE...

“Natural rights”, “human rights” or “social classification”, what is the difference that can make a difference for us at this point? I would argue assertion of social classification. John Law is distinguishing our relative difference as a people but places it in the background to a distinction of “natural rights” as an expression overwhelmingly distinct from other peoples and a singular expression of Europeanness - apparently forever lost if we set it aside as a priority at certain times in the life span, in our system and in our history? I would argue that rights are one product of our social expression which will be lost if we do not, as de Benoist would advise, learn to prioritize the social from whence individualism derives. It’s a White Left thing.

..

John Law’s erudition is in evidence in distinguishing “natural rights”  vs “human rights” in European history.

He argues that de Benoist is making a mistake in bundling “human rights” with “natural rights.” That he is throwing out the latter along with the former in his criticism of human rights.

In effect, I would say that de Benoist is arguing that “Human rights” are a Cartesian, universalist derivation of rights which are to be done away with as both destructive to the very grounds of what individualism there is to be had and at the same time done away with as a naively adopted, neo-liberal, universalist imposition aimed to break down market barriers to, and differences from, the rest of the world.

Law’s point is, in effect, that in not distinguishing the universal and Cartesian “human rights” from its forerunner, the telos of “natural rights” as a telos relative only to European cultures, that de Benoist is also discarding the distinct and inherent civic rights as natural rights born of Europeans and meant solely as a means to express and maintain our particular European character, civility and liberty. These civil liberties are an epiphenomenon that are both a unique prerogative in expression of our relative kind and a crucial means to maintain our peoples.

It appears to me that de Benoist’s emphasis in criticizing individualism is more correct at this point. De Benoist may not be so much mistaken at this point in not distinguishing the kind of rights as in not emphasizing relativizing social grounds in firm contrast to other peoples and support as such that dynamic classification of bio-racial systems provide.

Law, on the other hand, is jumping the gun a bit in presuming our relative distinction in the telos of natural rights. I can’t speak for de Benoist but of course I have acknowledged the importance of something like that protection of rights and individual liberties within the relative and bounded classification of European peoples, but I would favor a new way of devising them which would suffice for post modern performance requirements (e.g., warrant, accountability, coherence, agency, obligation, legitimacy, prohibition), since the telos of natural rights are likely to prove a partly obsolete relic of a more “stable” order and perhaps on a slippery slope to the Cartesian universality of human rights that came of them.

In either case, returning to the rights structures of bygone epochs is not our priority. Far from it, and in that respect, de Benoist is not wrong to be strongly critical of individual rights as a key agent in leaving us susceptible to destruction.

Neither again is Law wrong in emphasizing that something like rights are necessary to Europeans.

But until such time as we have overcome the Cartesian de-legitimization of social classification and Jewish exploitation of that de-legitimization, particularly in regard to White peoples’ ability to discriminate for that prohibition, individual rights are better treated as a subset and permutation of positive attributes that the class (whole social groups of European peoples) would birth were it not in jeopardy - rights would be an epiphenomenon and not the sole distinguishing characteristic and means of our salvation - indeed, preoccupation with abstract premises as such can be a hindrance at this point, particularly if belabored where no “rights” grievances are, or indeed, can be raised. Rights treated as a shining beacon of European virtue (even in teleological form) would tend to run stiffly roughshod over the radically social source of our distinct character, our interdependence as a social group, and the performance requirements of our post modern condition, which require the assertion of our classification as relatively distinct from the rest of the world - a crucial social classificatory distinction that makes a difference.

In the last part of Eugène Montsalvat‘s review of de Benoist, he is shown to give organizational advice, including moving beyond left and right with observations as to where they both went wrong.

I don’t agree with how he is describing the left, and it is a good occasion to sort that out.

However, I am in significant agreement with the tenor - that capitalism is among our major problems.

With that, he confirms a suggestion from Kumiko to me, that I’ve already accepted. I would take to heart that in promoting the White Left platform that I have not emphasized enough the fact that there would be unions amidst the union that is the racial/national union. I have done that but not enough.

Because I have been so focused on the re-legitimization of racial classification and the unification of people as one class, Kumiko alerts me to the fact that I would be accused of disingenuously wallpapering over bona fide working class concerns for not recognizing their distinct situation. 

She advises talking more in terms of syndicalism, and I can see where her advice in that regard, and as it turns out, also de Benoist’s advice in that regard is correct.

My way of handling these differences could use that boost, though I have not exactly been remiss in that. In criticizing the insufficiently descriptive and ultimately dangerous paradigm of “equality / inequality”, I have consistently spoken in terms of qualitative differences within the White Class (and in relation to non-White groups). As opposed to “equality/inequality” and its false comparisons, I have tended to focus on niches, their paradigmatic incommensurability, qualitative symbiosis and the management of differences in respect of difference as opposed to inequality. Nevertheless, forms of syndicalism should correspond with systemic regulation of these differences.

Counter-currents Publishing, ‘Alain de Benoist’s On the Brink of the Abyss’, Eugène Montsalvat wrote:
Against this increasingly dismal situation Alain de Benoist writes of the possibility of a resistance, that will usher in a transformation of the system. He endorses the idea of moving beyond Right and Left.

As I have said in many places, and I am no less convinced than ever, that it is a mistake to relinquish the self designation as a left, a White Left. The Jews do not want us to adopt its powerfully organizing world view for that reason, because it does line things up correctly time and again.

ibid wrote:
while reminding the Right and the Left of their failures, which have resulted in the modern predicament

Not a left as properly defined in White interests.

ibid wrote:
He warns of idealizing the working classes as naturally good, of repeating the naive Enlightenment optimism that liberalism arose from.

I do not idealize the working classes nor would a White Left.

Benoist is correct and very articulate in citing the Enlightenment, its optimism (wow, never thought of that angle, but true) and the liberalism that came of it, but these are not elements of what we are calling the White Left.

The White Left designates these products of the Enlightenmet and categorizes them as “objectivism”, one of the two great adversaries to White/Left/Class/National/Union/Racial (all the same) solidarity.

The two great adversaries to the White Class/Left are Jewish interests and Objectivists/objectivism.

de Benoist needs to recognize where adoption of Enlightenment ideas among ordinary and working class folks is coming from.

Where it isn’t being promoted by Jewish interests it is being promoted by White elitist traitors disingenuously posing as “objectivists” (innocently great and not accountable) and naively accepted by the “lower classes” as “objectivism”, viz., the way it is.

But it is Not leftism, definitely not White leftism as it does not recognize the union’s right to discriminate and hold people accountable to the union’s interests.

Hence, we have not moved beyond right and left, we have merely not caught up to how Jews and White traitors have manipulated these terms to their interests, including not wanting us to have a “White Left” as its organizational capacities are dangerously powerful against them.

ibid wrote:
On the Right, figures such as Sorel and Péguy have been forgotten, and the fight against communism fooled the Right into aligning with capitalism.

de Benoist is correct about that. No argument.

ibid wrote:
Rather than attacking capitalism as the root of the loss of national borders and the cause of mass immigration, they fall into petty xenophobia, Islamophobia, and buy into the “Clash of Civilizations” that distracts from social conflicts at home.

Here I disagree with de Benoist, not in the sense that issues like these can’t be used to distract from objectivist treachery and problems of their exploiting “lower classes”, but in the sense that he is going to the other extreme, and in ignoring race and religious organization of groups antagonistic to race, that he is buying into the same right wing Enlightenment objectivism (and perhaps Jewish manipulation) that he claims to be wise-to.

He goes on to say..

ibid wrote:
On the Left, four main flaws are identified

First..

ibid wrote:
political universalism

That can be said to be a product of Red (Marxist) Left skullduggery; that is to say, how Jews would apply all peoples in unionized alliance against White capitalists (While Jews themselves maintain their union and the facile unions of those who oppose their enemies).

It is surely wrong to accept the Jewish definition and calibration of the terms.

A union, a White Union, cannot be universal by definition. One is in the union or one is not.

Jews do not want us to have this because it would organize our people in a humane way which is accountable to excellence and differences at the same time.

Second:

ibid wrote:
the absence of a concrete anthropology leading to unrealistic assumptions about human nature,

It can err in this direction but only gets out of hand because the Jews exaggerate these possibilities in order to pander to their paying students. That is, Jewish academics are largely in the big business of selling talk to White female undergraduates: “possibilities” to create college courses and talk talk talk, criticize, criticize, criticize.

Third:

ibid wrote:
a belief in progress, and a moralism focused on the complaints and grievances of victim groups.

Again, exaggeration and distortion of these capacities are the result of Jewish academics who have mixed in and preyed upon enlightenment distortions in order to both misrepresent the left and turn White people off to their organizational capacity in a Left while actually using the victim groups they do marshal as an attack force against Whites.

Fourth:

ibid wrote:
Therefore, the Left disregards things such as national borders, ignores the value of pre-capitalist modes of production, and has fallen into the trap of fighting for various identity politics groups.

Again, those are Jewish cultural Marxist perversions.

How can a leftist union favor the scabbing of their union by an open borders policy?

They cannot, it is a contradiction of terms.

ibid wrote:
at the expense of class struggle. Instead of attacking capitalism, the Left now focuses on “anti-racism” or “sexual liberation,” which only serve to break down the barriers impeding the flow of capital and lead to further individualism in the social sphere.

That is what the Neo cons and other Jewish led interests are getting people to do.

The White Left is guilty of none of these things.

ibid wrote:
To challenge the capitalist system, a new class consciousness must reappear, against individualism a “collective will” must be formed.

True, a White Class, the White Left.

ibid wrote:
This will must come from the bottom up, being built locally, against the global hyperclass. It must be intransigently revolutionary. Benoist repeats the advice of Sorel to the revolutionary syndicalists.

This is quite well said, and I will probably take de Benoist’s and Kumiko’s advice to incorporate more snydicalist type thinking ..

ibid wrote:
“to take the early Christians as their example: those who absolutely rejected the world they were fighting against.”

I am on the radical side, but taking skepticism to quite that level is what led to the radical skepticism of the enlightenment and subsequently to liberal modernity.

The Christians are a bad example unqualified as such.

ibid wrote:
Finally, he identifies the target of this new struggle, “The principal enemy is at once the most harmful and, above all, the most powerful. Today it is capitalism and the market society on the economic level, liberalism on the political level

I would make it a dual entry, Jewish interests and Objectivism (which includes capitalist interests).

ibid wrote:
individualism on the philosophical level

I agree that individualism is a large part of our problem, I understand its philosphical difficulties, but I do not want to summarily and uncritically dismiss it; but rather set it aside as a non-priority while we are under mortal threat as a group by groups.

ibid wrote:
and the United States on the geopolitical level.”

The Jewish and Objectivist led U.S. is certainly a huge problem, but one must understand that it is Objectivism (admittedly written into its Constitution) and Jewish groups that marshal its forces against other group unionization of peoples.

I believe that Kumiko would like a chance to show that there may be a way to ride the tiger of NATO and US forces toward ethno nationalist aims.

ibid wrote:
He calls for an alliance from forces as disparate as Castroism and Christianity to challenge these enemies: “The enemies of my enemies are not necessarily my friends, but they are necessarily allies.

If Christians and Muslims are attacking our enemies that is fine but we cannot be so naive as to think that these universalist and race mixing religions are people we can form formally agreed upon alliances with.

Their overall pattern is overwhelmingly against our interests and untrustworthy.

Same with blacks and Jews. There might be times when they fight groups who are harmful to us, but their overall pattern is overwhelmingly against us and untrustworthy.

ibid wrote:
am notoriously not a Castroist, but I will always support Castro in his fight against American imperialism.

Castro is anti-racist. So, I cannot agree with de Benoist.

ibid wrote:
I am notoriously not a Christian, but I will always support Christians every time they struggle against the power of money. Those who reason otherwise do not have a sense of the priorities or the stakes. They are quite simply accomplices.”

Not true. Very untrue.

READ MORE...

I would like to take occasion to set out a neglected and important matter for consideration - the hypothesis that “testing” and “lesson giving” are not only underpinnings of liberalism but can be disingenously used and enormously abused as excuses for all manner of trangression. With the false halo of innocence under the rubiric of enlightenment empiricism these ways of looking at the world moved from the laboratories of science to gain vast popularity and practice, not only for the good reasons of solid, verfiable warrant and benign remedies, but also for utility among the populous contra postive traditions and inherited forms - the enlightenment’s prejudice against the superstition of prejudice can serve as powerful and destructive warrant in the wrong hands, giving thoughtless actions, ill-considerd for their ramifications, an ostensible appearance of noble precedent.

For decades now, I have been considering the idea that “lesson giving” could provide a convenient excuse for liberalism, viz. as an excuse for those taking liberties by its means and in regard to the effect on those who are more or less violated by the taking of liberties, which is then written-off as “a lesson.”

I saw that the idea of “testing” could also be disingenuously used along with “lesson giving” to provide excuses for excessive license and liberal behavior. I suspected thus, that “testing” and “lesson giving” were being used all too conveniently to bypass accountability to social capital and human ecologies.

The excess of these ideas, their pervasiveness and popularity are set in motion at the very theoretical underpinnings of liberalism. To begin, these were a liberation from mere tradition, custom, habit, superstition - e.g., from absurd religious requirements. The evangelizing of these values gradually spread through just about all of the world. Liberalism became the water in which we swim - toxic waters for its impervious linearty, promise of limitless progress, pursued as an impervious and deliberately non-discriminatory technology to the destruction of our peoples in their distinct human ecologies. Liberalism which started out as a liberation from tradition became a pervasive tyranny of its own, requiring a second liberation. Nevertheless, to begin, and to some extent always, the empirical project of suspending belief, testing and learning from the results is a positive liberation and compelling for some very good reasons.

Even so, testing and lesson giving become overvalued for their material yield, of course, and as a holdover of the enlightenment’s own customs, habits, positive attributes in culture and peoples. There remains a willful naivete of these notions which is very compelling, seductive as it combines a promise of both innocence and powerful warrant; to get there, however, requires theoretical detachment from human agency, subjectivity, social relevativity and with that, a detachment from accountability - leaving adherents susceptible to the disingenous: the perversion of these notions to the point of hyperbolic liberalism is largely a result of Jewish academia, media and political manipulation; but also provides convenient excuses for objectivists to disingenuously accrue power; while the promotion of objectivism at the same time serves as a means of creating a naivete ripe for exploitation as it finds its way down to an intransigence in pop-culture.

Left unaccountable, unsophisticated by the post modern turn and in the wrong hands (e.g., popular puerile hands and those who would pander to them), these ideas can provide almost boundless excuses for the most destructive liberal behavior. Just about anything can be written-off as “testing” and “lesson-giving.”

Thus, it is an eminently worthy consideration for Majorityrights to engage and focus on these matters which underwrite liberalism. We need to understand where they go too far, what qualitative and quantiative limitations there should perhaps be and by contrast also the proper applications - post modernity does not only evaluate progress but the value of tradition and inherited forms as well.

I would call attention to the detriment of the popular application of the empirical view, in its tendency to focus on momentary and episodic units of analysis, while doing violence to relational and cultural/systemic processes and ecology; with that, rupturing historical evolutionary patterns.

At this very moment I realize that I have been misunderstood previously as not recognizing that science proper is capable of taking patterns into account. Of course it can. Let me correct that here by noting that it is especially in the popular manifestation of empiricism through enculturation of the enlightenment project, in turn instigated for hyperbolic liberal purposes by YKW, that this “empiricism” is conducted with crass and destructive carte blanche.

We call these problems of “modernity” while recognizing that they have been twisted and exaggerated beyond all reason by the YKW.

They (the YKW) have done the same to post modernity, to where it is unrecognizable as the postive correction to modernity that it was meant to be (e.g., a liberation from mere facticity and a capacity to reconstruct traditional and inherited forms where good and benign). That is why I have been so vigilant to articulate the post modern remedy for the public project as it is supposed to be - as a means to manage the best and worst of modernity and tradtional/inherited forms.

I have called attention to the fact that hermeneutics and social constructionism proper provide a post modern remedy - especially for the public -  to help them away from this myopic, scientistic focus and disingenuous bypassing of accountability that filters down from the specialty of the scientist to common, everyday, popular menality and practice.

I have called attention to the fact that reconstructing the validity and warrant of social classification (viz., “race”) is necessary to provide delimitation to calibrate, regulate and govern accountability to systemic historical processes and human ecology.

I have indicated that the idea of sacrament (monogamy, life-long and or partner-wise) must be introduced for people to have the authentic freedom of choice within and between group relations. Particularly as ritualized, this would re-connect the episode (the empirical) to the broader relational and historic pattern - accountability to its ennobling and caring ensconement. It is a connection of accountbility to the historical systemic group pattern. It provides integrity to the whole group - and a control variable, if you want to look at it scientifically.

But these are only the broadest outlines. I have yet to get people to participate in this critique and remedy of modernity and of its Jewish distortions, despite its obvious necessity and importance as it bears upon our experience of runaway liberalism to the detriment of our group’s human ecology.

Hence, I pluck-out and focus on the popular abuse of these two enlightenment memes: “testing and lesson giving.”

Consider with me, if you will, where the use of these memes are valid and where they become abuse.

And what to do in remedial application? How does it work?

How can you know things before you test them thoroughly? How do you know if your partner is, or will be appropriate enough unless you “test” them? Can “testing” be relied upon to provide an accurate assessment? Testing can have an episodic bias and focus to the detriment of the relational and protracted cultural/systemic patterns. A lesson may be too costly.

The problem and the question is to provide practical means for assessment when trying to correct for the potential reckage of an over-emphasis on “testing” (writing-off caution), “lesson giving” (writing off the damage) and its resultant liberalism.

Testing and lesson giving create a problem for accountability. These ideas are all too facile. The “tester” can apparently always justify the test as providing a lesson and postive feedback therefore - even if the consequences were negative in the sense of being destructive to individuals, relationships and the cultural/systemic pattern.

Hermeneutics seeks to amend this relation blindness with the inclusion of broader social systemic historical views.

READ MORE...

Rather than having some kind of lengthy preamble to this article, it’s better to just say this directly, and in the clearest possible language.

Much has been said about Christendom, many nationalists of many different stripes have spoken about it, but the fact is that there is no ‘White Christian Civilisation’.

It’s just someone else’s spiritual framework and someone’s else’s jurisdiction. I think it’s time to shed some light on that fact, and so this will be the first of a multi-part series on the subject.

Here’s a premier example of this framework:

Huffington Post, ‘An Open Letter to White Men in America’, 24 Jul 2015, Rev. Dr. John C. Dorhauer wrote:

Rev. Dr. John C. Dorhauer
President of the United Church of Christ, author of two books, Doctorate in White Privilege, Shalom Award recipient for peace commitments.

Dear White Men,

You are persons of privilege.

You didn’t earn it. More than likely aren’t yet prepared to either admit to it or lose it. This letter, written by one of you, is offered to invite you on a journey of insight, honesty, hard truth and just living.

[...]

Yes, that is a reverend saying that. At the Daily Stormer, they carried this article and there they highlighted the mainstream liberal aspect of the content, but they unfortunately did not mention the root of the matter.

The narrative of your ‘white privilege’ acting as a justification for the expropriation of everything that you have in your own lands is not an aberration or a distortion of Christianity as some Christian ‘nationalists’ would propose. Rather, this is the logical and final trajectory of what Christianity is about and what Christianity does.

It is an inescapable fact that Christian churches have a tendency to preach doctrines advocating your dispossession and extinction. The fact that Dorhauer is a Shalom Award recipient is not an accident or an aberration. Most Christian authorities are openly in collaboration with Jewish lobby groups. Occasionally there are what appears to be exceptions to this rule, such as an occasional bishop or pastor criticising Jewish cultural power. But those are exceptions that only prove the rule.

Christianity is not a European religion, it originated in the Levant and its fundamental ethnic character is one that caters to its original owners. It was Saul of Tarsus, who would later be known as ‘Paul’, who projected Christianity into the Graeco-Roman world. The doctrines that ‘the meek shall inherit the earth’, and that ‘the last shall be first’ are ideas that were comforting to the lower classes in the Roman Empire and which stifled the will of the strong by stamping out diversity of belief and of thought, and stacked up their own funeral pyre for them.

Centuries later, as Rome was becoming crippled under an internal rot caused partly by Christians, the co-opted Roman state then imposed Christianity at spear-point onto all Indo-European peoples that it encountered, and spread from there.

But how precisely does it operate? Let’s tackle that now.

READ MORE...

Within the disorder of modernity, where puerile females are so one-up and so pandered-to, where their base proclivity to incite genetic competitition is in runaway, uncorrected by the homeostatic control of social group boundaries, it is more than dubious to add another exponent to their poison cynicism.

Andy well articulates a view on the cuckold meme in line with my view thus.

That is, I am not going to jump on that bandwagon. It sucks. It is a meme not without some merit, but largely for a-holes by a-holes too cowardly and self centered to see the radical point. The best angle is not for a-hole males, the kind that screw others, including their own people, when they do not have to, to incite other a-hole males, the ones who let others screw their people all too easily, when they do not have to.

Both of these types represent something outside of authentic European masculinity, its optimal level of sublimation and qualtative expression.

Because it is didcactic incitement, it is prone to play into the hands of our enemies as another way to merely blame White men, to perpetuate and take the heat off of our adversaries - our adversaries who know that these marginal men are interfaced with boundary maintenance and are, therefore, to be disempowered, humiliated, their conservative instinct to be disrupted, to remove their correcive function and doubly punish them despite the fact that they are most likely to be victims rather than responsible party victimizers; but who cares? The true culprits have diverted attention from themselves and will be immune to this additional poisoning of our boundry demarcating marginal peoples - with the more forethinking men incited into oblivion, and the narrow alpha male a-holes left standing, this will play into the hands of those who would Africanize our population, have us more stupid, kindred to blacks and mulattoes, more easily controlled.

No, the far more advisable, more valid critique, one which would in fact entail easier and more reasonable compliance ought to be criticism directed at peurile femalenss, a puerile femaleness that is all too used to being panderd to. They ought to be incited to be more decent, cooperative and fair - in a word, to be worthy of being defended as our co-evolutionary women, mature women, if not ladies.

Until such time, these puerile bitches deserve incitement - Mulatto supremacist BJ machines - whatever you might like to call them, let those who do not deserve that label object and let the ones who do deserve that label try to defend themselves.

It is a puerile femalness that is mean beyond belief in its self righteousness; indeed, in its privilege it is getting away with murder, torture, the destruction of the profoundest evolution for the most idiotic reasons, out of ignorant spite, a puerile femalenss whose acts, while on par with rape, are normalized and institutionalized by the right-wing in foolhearty, naive or disingenuous complicty with Jews, as “natural” acts, or even heroic defiance of the “backward” - which, in incitement, we are supposed to adjust to, as the way it is in “universal maturity.”

We all know that puerile females can never do anything wrong.

Scientists and Jews say so.

It is for White men to adust to their infinite wisdom.

If men drag their feet, are unwilling to participate in the paradigm that Jews have outlined, then they are “cuckservatives.”

It is another Jewish meme to blame White men, if there ever was one.

Sure, we should adjust to the predilections of puerile females, as pandered to by Jews, Muslims et al, in the cataclysmic destruction of European peoples and our co-evolution.

We should act into the loop, a Jewish loop, engage in such didactic incitement. Rather obviously, we should not. It is far better that the puerile females of Western nations be subject to incitement, to become mature, decent, responsible women. For those who know American females, as they are, and as it stands, know that typically they are egomaniacs.

Worse, they’re typically the vilest tyrants - manifest through ceaseless pandering of Jews to their one-up position in partner selection. This has put an exponent by their worst inclinations - incitement to genetic competition and appeal of the brute, episodic view of masculinity, a hyper-assertive, unsublimated masculinity more characterisic of blacks and mulattoes.

And we all know what a wonderful way of life that they create. So wonderful, that we should emultate them on penalty of being called a “cuckservative.”

Nice try Mr. Jew.

You won’t find me buying into this Jewish meme of “cuckservative.”

You might, however, hear me chiding these puerile female tyrants that you’ve had integral part in creating as “mulatto supremacist B - J machines.” (I would like to use the full-out word, but I guess you get the drift).

Incitement of White males at this point is more characterisitc of right wing pefidy. To think, they accuse the left of being against nature. But what do they know about White nature? They’re so objective, displaying transcendent, univesal masculine strength - they don’t even need anybody else, just their own individual Herculean strength. What it really is, of course, is their own gang of Jewish marshalled punks, piling-on anyone unfortunate enough to be in a vulnerable position, to need their people, their race, to show off in contrast to them for unworthy females and “the objective measurer.”

But I do get it when it comes to conservatives and the need to drive a wedge against their Jewish designated “conservatism”, which is not conservatism at all, but the propensity to conserve liberalism, to conserve the destruction of Whites. That wedge criticism IS central to our program here at MR.

I just don’t trust the cuckservative meme. It’s based in a universalist liberal perspecive. It’s an incitement generally biased in the wrong direction, piling on White men who’ve been incited ad infinitum; and as a meme, being slowly nudged beyond reach of normal men; into toxicity for those who would otherwise be best positioned to see the sense of our cause, to swell and empower our ranks. It’s playing into Jewish, liberal and puerile hands, deflecting from their responsibility.

A further note on these lines of right wing perfidy…

I recently heard that Angelo John Ganucci had been banned from the campus of Boston University.

Well, that’s nothing.

I was banned form campus of The University of Massachusetts at Amerhest no less than four times. I must admit that I got a certain satisfaction in manifesting activism from the other side.

I would walk around campus with a shirt that read:

“Big Mulatto Bro is watching, foil HER Mulatto supremacist dream!”

And sometimes with a shirt which read:

“We have a consensus, black women are ugly!”

That came in handy when encountering interracial couples - because the female was ALWAYS the White one.

I could simply walk in front of them. This was extremely awkward for them and extremely hard for them to respond to.

The black woman, who was being insulted, was not there, the black male was being called-out on the fact that he viewed his own co-evolutionary females as inferior, and the White female, who pretends to be the sensitive social justice warrior, is shown to be the thoughtless pig that she is, e.g., having little or no concern for black women, whose men she is taking away.

Because walking in front of them so that they could read the shirt didn’t involve aggressive and loud verbal confrontation, this did not arouse enough attention from third parties to provide one of the occasions that got me thrown off campus. But it did get a potent message across. It was one of the better strategies that I experimented with.

As I have said in other places, “mulatto supremacism” is a confusing, difficult and all too accurate charge for our enemies to handle; that is why I was prevented from posting an article about it on Wikipedia.

It is difficult for them because it does not confronts Jews, blacks, or miscegenators directly, while it calls dramatic, critical attention to the egregious upshot of PC politics.

And head-off the risk of ambiguity, old and new, becoming a tool of liberal contention.

A few days ago Kumiko and I were contesting how this man - Zakirzhan Niyazov - should be designated.

She felt that he should be considered “Asian” whereas he appears to me, on balance, to be more of a Caucasoid prototype - that is, he seems to me to be slightly more kindred of The Caucuses and Europe. He probably could fool me as kind of sort of Bulgarian or something like that, but he is actually of the direct genetic lineage which, after coming out of Africa, has been in an area around southern Kazakhstan and its Kyrgyzstan border for 40,000 years.

That Spencer Wells (Niyazov’s genetic discoverer) would say that his people are closely related to Europeans does not help much in disambiguation - Wells also considers Europeans to be very closely related to Africans: “Racism is not only socially divisive, but also scientifically incorrect. We are all descendants of people who lived in Africa recently. We are all Africans under the skin.”
                   
Hiding behind PC for popular audiences, Spencer Wells downplays or ignores the signficance of mutations that have occured since man left Africa.

Nevertheless, we might proceed as if he provides operational verifiability enough in his genetic evidence to say that Niyazov’s is a proto-population of both Europeans and East Asians. If one hopes to investigate with rigorous disamiguation just who is European and who is not, Niyazov’s people are: a tight knot, gnarly lot, a gordian knot, or an important “white box” -  an area where the details necessary to sort and name elements are unknown to us - choose your metaphor for the challenge.

Wells found that following a first wave out of Africa which went down the western coast of India, another wave - specifically, Niyazov’s forebears - came out about 40,000 years ago and went not to Europe through Turkey, or even through the Caucuses, but went straight east, to central Asia where they evolved alone in situ (apparently southern Kazakhsan near Kryzykstan) for about 10,000 years - incubating a primeval population from which sprang Europeans, East Asians and some of India.

Coming back to the contention over the ambiguity of this white box then, Kumiko argues that his people and nation belong clearly in “the Asian sphere of influence.”

Russians, a White, viz. European people, play insufficient part of this man’s people’s history to assert their designation, how they should “count” as a nation and people.

On the other hand, I look at him prima facie and see a tilt toward European. Especially when I look at his father, I see someone who at first blush looks like someone that I would guess to be “Russian.”
               

I would guess that his grandfather was from somewhere around the Caucuses, South Russia or Ukraine (one of the guys in the old Dannon Yogurt commercials about Ukrainian men who live to be well over 100, supposedly because they eat yogurt):
               

Granted that there is a slight epicanthic fold in Niyasov, his father and grandfather, but many Europeans have that degree of an epicanthic fold, including Germans, English and in fact, some people of most all European nations.

Europeans seem less perturbed and more familiar with these ambiguites than White Americans, but I digress. How do we handle these ambiguties?

When confronted with ambiguities of Europeans mixed with other Europeans and living in other European nations my first instinct is to look for means of damage control to native populations; conflict resolution to stave off overcompensation and destructive, incorrect puritanism in how they look at ambiguous Europeans. Therefore, in order to reduce anxiety as such, I seek to have their difference honestly recognized while recommending their right to abode being limited to safe, minimal numbers in porportion to the purer native stock.

In native populations that have been more mixed for a while, I would imagine that is their “native type.” It would be a matter of arriving at a more complex formula of what range and ratios comprise the natives. Naturally, those populations which were ambiguous from the start, in the sense of being a “primordial stew”, phylogenetic forebears to different kinds, they too would have native status to their nation.

My instinct thus, is to resolve matters of racial ambiguity by national designations and assignment. For those of us more serious minded, however, this is far from an arbitrary matter or flight of imagination. While these ambiguities do require at least a modicum of social constructing, real lives, ancient human and natural ecologies are at stake.

If Niyazov’s people are a primeval type which has both European and Asian elements and particularly as they are evolved in that area then that is a very powerful warrant as to their sovereign nation in consradistinction to regional imperialism, whether European or Asian.

Sorting out Niyazov’s people may not easily solve problems of the geopopolitical chessboard, but it should help greatly in clarifying just what and who is in dispute.

The Regional Imperialist Twist (also known as Igor’s boogie):

Freedom for Tibet! er, Kyrgyzstan, er Southern Kazakhstan, er proto- Europeans, er proto-Asians… Asians… East Asians..

..there you have it, a problem for the would-be nationalist solution seems to arise within the framework of geopolitics. Our case in point, regarding the European sphere of influence, viz. what is a nation of European people and therefore under its allied interests as opposed to an Asian nation and arguably thus, under its allied interests, closer concern and protection.

I confess to not being attuned to the need to fight on these lines of “Asian vs European” spheres of interest, but then I am not preoccupied with the relation of populations, their requirements and resource scarcity. Still, it is a practical concern and we are all pragmatists to some exent - because we have to be.

Thus, despite mine and GW’s more idealistic view, interested as we are in populations in relation to territory and habitats, human ecology and warrant, trying to sort out nations on genetic lines that are ambigously tangled can still give rise to contention and thus the requirement for negotiation on radical pragmatic grounds of “how things count” - as in the case of Niyazov, which requires the negotiation and social construction of our alliances as native nationalists.

The matter of negotiation that is contested here again: Kumiko sees Niyazov, his father and grandfather as “Asian” and a clear line between them and Europeans. Whereas I see them as in an ambiguous continuum with Europeans. While such ambiguites don’t really surprise me, I was a little surprised (because I was not looking for it) to see him looking (to me) slightly more European than oriental (Chinese, Japanese, Mongolian). But whatever is most characteristic of Niyazov’s type, I have a gut reaction to preserve him and his, with national sovereignty, the way that a zoologist would seek to preserve a precious species. I also believe that there is a kindredness in my visceral response - I sense Europeanness in this man that should be protected by necessary means, including national sovereignty.

It seems that Kumiko has a similar kindredness and wish for nationalism as a means to protect native populations, including his; but perhaps we both have a confimation bias - hers moving through the pragmatics of geopolitics and Asian regionalism while mine is filtered through a Eurocentric perspective.

From her perspective, because he has traditionaly been considered “Asian” means that his nation belongs in closer alliance with China, Japan, Korea, India etc.

In the first clues of the genetic evidence, I am inclined to say, “not so fast”.... there may be more connection to Europe in Asia than is being given its due by the traditional designation of “Asia” bereft of genetic data.

Not that a people’s co-evolution in a particular land is a thousand percent incontestable warrant, but it is strong.

Even so, if ideally proposing the sovereignty of ambiguous nations to harbor primordial types, questions and contentions can arise to their hazard, questions conveniently at the disposal of regionalist, internationalist and neoliberal forces. These poltical contentions seem to me to require more, not less attention to sorting out issues of genetic, racial ambiguity and native national alliances in order to establish warranted assertabilty.

Let us attend to sorting out and negotiating with peoples how it is that they count.

READ MORE...