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.
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.
On 02 August 2015, Robert Stark interviewed Matt Forney and they had a conversation with each other that went on for some time. One thing which leaped out to me about it in particular, is the questions rhetorically asked by Matt Forney after the 55 minute mark in the audio, which are transcribed here:
Usually people aren’t expected to answer rhetorical questions, but these ones are too funny to resist. So I’ve inserted some numbers, and I’ll answer each one, so as to show the slavishness and unsuitability of Christianity when it comes to talking about the ethnic genetic interests of Europeans.
Christianity asks that you should show hospitality and support for all immigrants into your countries without complaining, which runs entirely contrary to your ethnic genetic interests. At the same time Christianity does however maintain that gay people are ‘bad’ and apparently advocates persecuting them for what seems to be no reason whatsoever. Of course, how that would help anyone’s ethnic genetic interests, has yet to be determined.
Forney scores one out of four. It’s a pretty bad score, but then most people don’t seem to know what Christianity is really saying, and that’s why they keep making these pro-Christian statements, even though Christianity is complete rubbish.
Kumiko Oumae works in the defence and security sector in the UK. Her opinions here are entirely her own.
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:
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.
Misguided Truck: http://renseradioarchives.com/stormfront/ Date: 04-27-15, Hr1:
On the April 27th Stormtrooper radio, Truck Roy discusses his theory with Don Black that the reason why Whites are allowing for, and even promoting, their own dispossession is because they are “moralizing”...
“We are too concerned with morals, of slave morality, etc, when we should care about power and survival.”
What this is about: people, e.g. computer nerds, or Hitler (by de facto Nietzschean) worshipers want to believe or argue that they’re sheerly, objectively superior, not “racists” relatively dependent upon their people and neighboring White people.
They take advice from Horace the Condescender as such.
Now they are arguing “against morality, against ‘moralizing” as they call it.
Why? Because Hitler loses his place as the go-to guy for a false either/or. And they cannot stand the twilight of their god.
So we have Truck Roy saying that the reason why Africans are being helped to invade Europe and why Whites are allowing themselves to be displaced is because they’re “moralizing”, they’re of a slave morality, when they should seek power.
Not coincidentally, Truck goes to church every Sunday to practice his slave morality of obedience to the Jew on a stick.
So why has this happened, the about face?
As I have been explaining, the Right is inherently unstable. “Objectivity” and purity loses its grasp of the relative situation, of social accountability, and they oscillate to another toxically narrow extreme - typically Nietzsche and Hitler.
This false either / or - “morality” or “power and survival” - is one of the reasons why I reject Christianity and the Right’s proposed objectivism.
Truck Roy says the problem is that our people sit around “moralizing” about how right it is to help African boat refugees when they should be saying enough of this moral business, and be asking rather how do we go about survival?
What Horace the Condescender and misguided Truck are failing to recognize is that there is no avoiding morals - we live within them. Proper moral consideration is at one with power and survival. While moral rules are culturally contingent, there will nevertheless always be some things that are prohibited, some things that are obligatory and some things that are optional.
Jews know this and that is why they have cleaned the clocks of dumb-assed right wingers such as those at Stormtrooper radio.
Now, if people, White people especially, are truly thinking about morality, they do not reach the conclusion that they should be displaced by non-Whites.
That is a perversion of morals that the Jewish trick of Christianity is second to none in putting across to the sheeple.
Scientism can do it too.
While some, techno nerds perhaps, wanting to believe in their objective superiority and warrant yet find themselves having been outwitted by the relative interests of Jews, drowning in the instigated multicultural hell of America, will desperately seek recourse, will promote a mindless killing and die-off, even of their own brothers and European neighbors, rather than admit their moral indebtedness to their kindred people as opposed to just an elite few or a Jewish god.
Dr Christian Lindtner, renowned Sanskrit scholar and author of standard reference works on Buddhism and comparative religion, talks to Daniel and GW about his acceptance of the Holocaust as an historical event, and about his latest book, Revelation of Bodhicittam, which uncovers the Pythagorean roots of the New Testament Gospels, and finds the story of Jesus Christ to have been transmitted from earlier Buddhist writings.
I am not exactly sure how these things go together, or how the estranged might be helped, but rather I am thinking out loud here, liable to tweak these brief paragraphs around some, hoping and welcoming people to think about this with me and GW (though unfortunately, not yet expecting to get any audience to move beyond the transmission model, to a participatory model of knowledge acquisition). Anyway..
Fraser complains similarly against rationalism.
Though he correctly seeks to organize and coordinate “W.A.S.P.” diaspora through a shared rubric (as I propose we do through the DNA Nation) he proposes to do so through reviving the Anglican Church: http://www.radixjournal.com/journal/2015/1/5/the-dispossessed-elite
I believe that we are inclined to believe rather, and it seems MacDonald as well, that there is no putting the toothpaste back in that tube.
However, while DNA is not exactly thin gruel, it could use the vivification of which you speak and the vision of perfection which you and as Santayana note, orientation toward perfection, a girding and bounding like rocks against which the waves of chance crash.
This is what has me thinking of the sacred, how it has been trampled by the scientism/liberalism continuum, linearity of modernity, reckless experimentalism in pursuit of endless progress. How by contrast the sacred can ensconce those patterns safely which are beyond empirical purview or too precious for the efficiency of empirical, scientific testing.
Again, the postmodern turn sees the wreckage of modernity and allows for the reconstruction of traditional practices ...and the sacral rite, the episode…all of course revisable and modified by new understandings..we can take the best of both traditional reconstruction and modernist pursuit of innovation…. but we CAN take the best of tradition and sacral rite. ..and history….we are not duty bound by a pledge to be original ex nihilo and to endlessly pursue novelty and new invention, transformation without pause and elaboration.
The sacred..going back to the wisdom of the language that Heidegger and Vico valued.. sa – cred.. ..cred.. crede…sounds like something to go by..something in fact, cyclical, involving time and cycles, which if properly observed correspond with credibility.. the ability to establish historical continuity, coherence in protracted warrant… in a way that empirical myopia, focused on arbitrary presentation of the happenstance episode of circumstances does not afford. ..by contrast, the sacral episode re enacted does begin to build that social capital and with that the sacredness of the realm -sac-re-ment (kingdom minding).. sacral episode of re-ligion (reconnecting the realm, the kingdom).
Perhaps the sacral episode facilitates culture, the cultivated turn, turning back to the systemic essence and homeostasis of peoplehood..
Sacrament takes evaluation into a pattern of trust, beyond the episode and moment, beyond the life span and relationship even, connecting to the time immemorial pattern.
I’m turning this into a main post as I’ve put some careful thought into it and it seems trolls will try to bury it:
Hi MOB, don’t worry about Carolyn being advertised here. She has her niche and we have our direction which is not competing. Therefore, it is not necessary to give her inadvertent advertising in a staple of critical attention to her efforts.
“Without respectful recognition of the uniquely remarkable role played by Hitler and the Germans in the seemingly insurmountable struggle against Jewish world domination, you lose considerable substance and credibility.”
I never said that Hitler and the Germans were not unique and remarkable, nor that their focus on the J.Q. did not merit assimilation - particularly in the sense of prioritizing Jews as a concern and seeing the necessity to separate from them.
I did not say that we should reject everything about Hitler and the Germans - especially not the Germans, of course (and congratulations, I suppose, on drubbing Brazil, even if you do have an N, a Turk, an Arab of some sort, and a half Pole on your team). It is rather that we are not going to ignore and pretend the negative side of Hitlerism did not exist. Nor will we say that he was unique in being wise to the J.Q. or that he handled it in a uniquely effective way. It is clear that is not nearly true enough. *
If people come to MR and say, hey, you know, Hitler had such and such an idea right, I would not turn them away if it is coming from one who is not trying to promote Hitler as correct and worthy of our loyalty across the board - as Carolyn does.
We would not exclude an idea simply because Hitler held the same, nor for that matter just because Jews or Christians may have had similar thoughts on a matter. It is that we cannot endorse these world views on the whole as their drawbacks are too great.
Our agenda at MR is no mystery: we are here to advocate people of native European descent. As such, we would like to look upon peoples of native Europeans as a classificatory whole with subdivisions. The whole and the subdivisions to be maintained and fostered as ecologies symbiotic within and between each other.
In response to Katana, I will add this:
The term “White” is not especially problematic and works especially well in combination as “The White Class.” However, there is a danger in being too simple with “White” as a blanket term. “White” can be too unsophisticated in particular as it is susceptible to include Jews while excluding authentic Europeans. As we all know White is a more American term. It is better to ask Americans to be inconvenienced to drop it (especially since the country is going down in terms of our interests) than to ask native Europeans to drop the designation, “European.” It is a better strategy to resurrect “European” as meaning, “of native European extraction.” It is more descriptive and provides better grounding all around than “White”. Even for Americans it should be the better term in the long-run. Though again, I do not have a big problem with “White”, particularly necessary to designate those of mixed European ancestry living outside of Europe.
I will draw the line on the contention that I am speaking in tongues when I insist upon an ecological and classificatory view.
Classification represents the mediation between Cartesian extremes: assertion of social classifications is what has been deprived us (Whites/Europeans) and what we need to restore (as a matter of coherence, accountability, agency and warrant, as I always say – lets add operational verifiability).
More, the view of ecological classifications is particularly important as it directs attention to systemic depth, patterns, historical relations as naturally conservative aspects of our evolution and relation to natural environment.
This class of classifications of native Europeans, the White Class, classifies, primarily not hierarchically but horizontally, between peoples, and discriminates accordingly. With especial vigilance to the European/ non-European distinction. With that, unlike Hitler’s world view, the maintenance of all native European peoples and their distinct nations should fall within our interest group - we should not be fighting each other for territorial acquisition, to establish a master- slave relation, whatever.
We do not see Jews as a part of our interest group; but as a distinct pattern averse to our interests.
It is problematic that there are some who are not harmful to us, perhaps even helpful; nevertheless, they do not fall within our interest group. An individual Jew who may be different from the pattern is still classified as a Jew - a non-European.
Nevertheless, it is our agenda to separate and have sovereignty from Jews, and other non-Whites, not to exterminate them. That confers the moral high-ground upon us and theoretical innocence. Even as we know, in fact especially as we know, that they are not likely to simply leave us alone (note the trolling of Thorn, et. al - why don’t they go away? need to ask?); this position is particularly important to maintain in assertion of our will to peace, cooperation and warranted defense as it may come to declared war (instead of the undeclared war as it now is).
What to do about quarter Jews and one eighth Jews (as Lenin apparently was), is also problematic - not a simple concern.
However, MR is sufficiently nuanced to address these problems in our posts and commentary. That is among our merits - we are clear but not too simple.
We have a hermeneutic view, which circles between scientific rigor and comprehensive imagination as need be - particularly regarding our interests.
As for MacDonald endorsing Greg and Counter-Currents, I think that is proper on a couple levels. First, Greg is publishing some good and sincere work on our behalf. Second, that people not let anti-homosexuality override the good work that he has done and can do. Though coming from a more scientific perspective, MacDonald has a view regarding homosexuality that is largely aligned with what I see as reasonable - critical, discouraging, but not shrill, because it is not numerically sufficient a draw for our men to prioritize as a staple of concerned attention either.
Finally, they do have that kindred Nordic entering point that I’ve discussed, in addition to a bit of academic snobbery going on. KM and Johnson are PhD’s and scholars. Their drawing lines around that has valid and invalid points, good and bad sides.
As maintained, their scholarly and professional standards can always be pointed to against those who say that we do not have that on our side. More, it is not merely an artificial line. They are gifted and skilled to examine the literature and issues in an in-depth and competent manner.
However, it does have its drawbacks.
The mannerly protocol of professionalism binds them into logics that can be insensible.
For example, they will not use the “N” word because, they say, that would turn-off soccer moms among other “intelligent” and “educated” people.
But they will openly court those who fully endorse Hitler, as if that will not turn-off intelligent and educated people.
That is the kind of absurd and insensible contradiction that sheer logic and professional interface with the respectable public is susceptible to.
MacDonald and Sunic maintain that the only stereotype to avoid for White Nationalists is the vulgar skinhead. I have maintained that the wimpish (or yes, faggy) nerd, who will not say “N”, could be equally a turn-off. In advocating our group interest, they are insufficiently “othering” people who should be “othered” and over “othering” people who should not be “othered.”
There might be some susceptibility to that in Germanophiles or Nordicists as they may resort to their logical abilities in transcendence and to focus on themselves in relation to Jews (an over focus on the most intelligent and formidable adversary indeed, but conferring an undue measure of benign innocence on other non-Whites; while unduly pejoratizing other European peoples); as Germanics and Nordics have not evolved in interface with Africa, but in antagonisms with other Europeans and Jews; they escape there, take cover in not being “prejudiced” against blacks; allowing other Europeans to take the brunt of black reality. It can be a logical perspective which, for its insensibility, leads to an unmeasured narrowing of prejudice and overcompensating response. This might only be compounded by Christianity, Hitlerism and Jewish incitement.
For my part, when a person uses the N word in an intelligent way, with proper context, it does not turn me off, but tells me clearly that this person has sense, knows what they are talking about, organizes matters properly. That will resonate for others as well.
The largest reason why I do no use it here is because it is my understanding that it is literally illegal in some European nations. I am not an agent provocateur trying to lead people to jail, fines or other limitations on their effective advocacy.
I am not a “Professional.” That gives me some advantages and disadvantages. It does illustrate that I am not the all conquering world beater, who can succeed in just any circumstance - a man whose ability and will carried him to a PhD even in America’s multi-cult hell hole. It also means that I am not so insensible as to carry on by dint of sheer logic, “rise above” and ignore what I should not. I did embark upon a PhD, but I cannot say that I regret not contributing to America’s multicultural hell hole or not saying anything sufficiently critical of it - contributing to it or not saying anything critical of it having been two requirements to go ahead in American academia. Nevertheless, I did participate in the PhD program and audited it enough to get a good feel, if not understanding of things I need to know.
On the positive side, my “inability” to achieve a PhD reflects sensibility on my part, an unwillingness to ignore the destruction of our people that was imperviously entailed in the “hegemonic logics”, i.e. PC requirements, of a PhD.
A Philosophy PhD once said to me (even though not knowing me or much about me), that you cannot be a racist if you are going to be a PhD.
I responded, “that is why I do not want a PhD”
He smiled as he understood my reasoning automatically.
Nevertheless, admittedly, being unprofessional does have drawbacks. For example, over indulgence of vulgarity (in my defense, against people who were vulgar with me and having vulgar motives) because I don’t see the status to be lost in such association - which could cost us an interview, say, with Frank Salter, who in turn would not want to be associated with vulgarity. Still, those indulgences were before GW suggested that I might take over the wheel and steer MR’s direction.
In this case, I do have more responsibility to not drag GW’s project down, as it is a noble and beautiful one. Thus, I would try more to refrain from unnecessary vulgarity as it might send intelligent professionals away from helpful connection with us.
Even so, it has been my position and continues to be that Europeans need to be more assertive, not self transcendent and self censoring. I believe that there is an optimal balance between intellectualism and efficiently asserted prejudice - the N word, for example, can be very effective coming from a scholar or an intellectual on occasion. More, it will signal to people that one has sense, sense enough to see and organize the pattern for what it is - thus connecting to people who have to rely more on their senses, where they cannot figuratively escape in and through baroque logics; and where they cannot literally escape their inundated circumstances. It would confirm from high and authoritative places that indeed, these people are not to be intimately mingled with. They are not ok for your daughter.
But “no no no, musn’t refer to those people as N’s. We must care about their families and how Jews are misleading them.” Upchuck from up-in-the-head logical escape of “White Enterprises” that of all positions should know better and provide feedback protective of Whites. But no, “Newsome and Christian were in the wrong place, should have known better” - really?! (if you can believe it, “Father Francis” actually said that)
“What would constitute tasty and nutritious food to draw WNs into the MR parlor on a regular basis? What would affirm and strengthen their present White Nationalist orientation?”
I would submit the essay below, “The Pejorative Side of Modernity or Civilization, Competing Theories or Allied? Part 1” as a good start
Note, MOB, that I do not consider or treat you as a troll, even though you have some disagreement with our editorial direction, you are different in being sincerely concerned with all Europeans and their significant distinctions.
Now that we have begun to clear away what and who we are not representing, we can begin to elaborate more and reach more for what and who we are representing.