Majorityrights Central > Category: Free Speech

Upon Trump declaring critics, “fake news” as “enemies of the people”, Political Cesspool advocates jailing along Sedition Act

Upon Trump declaring ‘fake news’ media ‘the enemy of the American people’

Independent, “Donald Trump says ‘fake news’ media is ‘enemy of the ‘American people”, 17 Feb 2017:

Donald Trump has branded his critics in the US press “not my enemy” but the “enemy of the American people”, in a tweet that came a day after he launched a sustained attack on the media during a White House press conference.

The Political Cesspool advocates “locking them-up” - i.e., Trump should jail creators of “fake-news” in accordance with his oath to defend The U.S. Constitution against “enemies both alien and domestic.” Note: The US Constitution has no explicit means to defend racial biological systems, but facilitates means to destroy them.

        Pursuant of The Alien and Sedition Act and his sworn oath upon Inauguration:

The Political Cesspool Podcast, 2/18/2017

  Hour 3

James [Edwards] and co-host Eddie “The Bombardier” Miller offer legal remedies available to the Trump administration for combating the media and other radicals who violate the boundaries of the Constitution and the First Amendment.

       

The Political Cesspool is a key tent of the (((Alt Right))) tentosphere, representing the bible-thumping, patriotard American South; this tent is CENTRAL to the paleocon basis of The Alternative Right: If you want to gauge who can always be deemed acceptable for the audience of the Regnery Circus (The Alt Right), think in terms of who might appear as a presenter or guest on the The Political Cesspool.

Ibid: The Political Cesspool Podcast, 2/18/2017

James Edwards (0:52): What we’re going to focus on in this hour in depth, just me and Eddie, just yours truly and “the bombardier”, we are going to talk about the fact that Trump declared the ‘fake news media’ [to be the] ‘enemy of the American people.’ Here’s a direct quote, he said: “The media is the enemy of the American people.” If they are an enemy of the American people, they are also an enemy of the state. What do you do with enemies of the State? This third hour, yours truly and the bombardier are going to be offering legal remedies available to the Trump administration for combating the media and other insurrectionists, other radicals who violate the boundaries of The Constitution and the First Amendment. In the third hour of last week’s show which I thought was incredible!, Eddie made mention of The Alien and Sedition Acts that were put forth by John Adams way back in 1798. I’ve been thinking about that ever since Eddie brought it up. Eddie said, “Trump needs to lock-up the press.” I said if you lock-up the press you’re going to get impeached. He said then you lock up the Congress also.

Eddie Miller (1:59): Absolutely, absolutely!

James Edwards (2:00): Alright, so! We’re going to start there. Now that may sound reactionary to y’all..

Eddie Miller (2:09): I hope so.

James Edwards (2:09): ..and certainly it is reactionary, it is reactionary compared to what you would expect from any administration going back many many years, but it is not unprecedented in American history; and again, what we’re offering here are legal and Constitutional remedies ..what, the problem with America is, we’ve become too desensitized and too numb to the treason that its abounds, that abounds in America.

Eddie Miller (2:39): It is treason.

James Edwards (2:40): we’ve become too numb to it. We have a government that advocates for felonious law-breaking, illegal aliens and terrorists to come into this country without any vetting, without any strictures what-so-ever; we have a Congress and a media that advocates for murdering its own citizens in the womb! How numb must you be?!

James Edwards (3:00): Alright, now, Eddie, you served this country twice as a member of its armed forces. You were a combat medic in Vietnam. You took a, an oath similar to what the president takes when he is sworn-in.

Eddie Miller (3:13): Its almost identical.

James Edwards (3:14): Give us that oath and lets go from there…

Eddie Miller (3:31): Anybody who’s ever been in the military did it, you took an oath basically to defend THE CONSTITUTION, THE CONSTITUTION of The United States, not the mom and apple pie, not the Country, we took an oath to defend The Constitution of The United States against ALL, ALL enemies both foreign and domestic.

James Edwards (3:53): Domestic! See, this is the key!

       
Eddie Miller (3:54): SO HELP ME GOD! We took that oath… the President of the Unites States ....took basically the same oath. He swore, he swore on the bible to fulfill the office of the The President of the United States and ‘to defend The Constitution of The United States against ALL enemies both foreign and domestic.’

James Edwards (4:21): Domestic is the key because you can be an American citizen and still be in violation of The Constitution, be an enemy of The State, and if you are in fact that..

James Edwards (12:33): Trump himself has declared, the sitting President of The United States has declared the “fake news media” quote unquote the enemy of the American People; if they are the enemy of the State then you have to lock them up; and there is a precedent for that…I even put forth two tweets this week, time for he President to re-visit the Alien and Sedition Acts .. a series of four bills passed-by and signed into law by President John Adams in 1798 that made it harder for an enemy to become a citizen, that was the Naturalization Act; allowed to the President to imprison and deport non-citizens who were deemed dangerous, or who were from hostile nations, that was The Alien Act, and they criminalized the making of false statements that were critical of the Federal Government that was The Sedition Act: so those four acts in harmony were The Alien and Sedition Acts.

James Edwards (18:20): Back to The Alien and Sedition Act ...what can Trump do that is legally and constitutionally sound ..look, complaining about the press, mocking the press, its important, it needs to be done, but action has to be taken, we have four, maybe eight years to set things right because when Trump’s out of office there will never be another Donald Trump, there will never be another Donald Trump, there will always be establishment insiders, Trump was a once in a civilization type candidate, so what can he do? He’s got to get serious though! and he’s going to have to get drastic and I think what we’re talking is a drastic measure but it is constitutionally and legally sound.

Eddie Miller (19:05): We’ve pounded George Soros to death but he’s just one of the very few insurrectionists, he needs to recognize the problem, and the problem is that people are calling, people in high places, including the media are openly calling for overthrowing law and order, they’re saying, I’ve seen their banners, I’ve heard them say, “become ungovernable” ...I’ll repeat that, they’re calling for people to “become ungovernable.”  ...

James Edwards (19:50): And its important to show that there is precedent in the office of the presidency to take actions like we were subscribing tonight, er prescribing.

Eddie Miller (20:05): The law of the land has been since 1789 has been the Constitution of The United States
...(20:23) these people are breaking the law, they’re trying to destroy the constitution, they’re not trying to hide it. ... he needs to come out and call these people, like James said, they, including the media have become an enemy of the state.

James Edwards (20:47): We have four, maybe eight years to set it straight and if he doesn’t get radical and I mean radical within the bounds of the Constitution its all for naught and he’ll be a blip on the radar and its going to be over after he’s done.

Eddie Miller (20:59): And you know what, he’s going to have to have these people arrested and put on trial for treason. Because they’re trying to overthrow The United States. I’ll repeat that, they’re calling for people to become ungovernable ....he’s got to come in and lock these people up.

Eddie Miller (31:00): I’m going to read this straight out of The Constitution, here is the oath that the president takes: “I do solemnly swear or affirm that I will faithfully execute the office of the president of The United States and will to the best of my ability protect and defend The Constitution and nowadays they added, ‘so help me god.”

James Edwards (31:35): And if these people are in fact, enemies of the American people..

Eddie Miller (31:37): He has to do it!

James Edwards (31:37): If they’re enemies of the American people, they’re enemies of the state is an extension of the citizenry… (31: 54) What I’m asking for and I don’t want to mince words, is Donald Trump should lock-up as John Adams did with the Alien and Sedition Act…

Eddie Miller (32:05): Any enemy of the state! any enemy of The Constitution of The United States.

James Edwards (32:08): And that includes members of the press and if member of Congress want to Impeach him over that, you lock-them-up too.

READ MORE...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Majorityrights.com

Dear Daniel,

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

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

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

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

Looking forward.

LW

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

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

Reveal News Staff:

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

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

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

Second on the list, Jewish guy:

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

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

Third on the list,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Executive Director:

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

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

Chair:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

READ MORE...

Black Coffee and Humble Pie - Eat It: British musicians quest for authentic organicism in their rock n’ roll took a turn to estrangement from Whiteness.

To the British hippie looking to pursue his dream of rock stardom unfettered by the inorganicism of letters and to facilitate his effort to outflank musical competitors by dint of his capacity to assimilate black organicism - black soul - his motives might have appeared one and the same as self actualization in the hippie agenda - appearing as universal expression, absent as it were authentication through confrontation of his own mortality, in the draft and the stark contrast with the reality of MLK’s “dream”, let alone Malcolm X’s.

There was a significant difference in motivation between British and American hippies in that the British context lacked the personal being toward death that confronted American hippies through the Vietnam draft; and the collective being toward death confronting them directly in day to day life with blacks in numbers; especially absent, as Americans were, the deep, historically confirmed social group of their (White) people and place, which British hippies took for granted.

Taking that for granted, the British hippies had a distorted view on blacks, largely seeing the pleasantly presented musical aspects of blacks, initially by ((Chess Records))); or representations in (((American and British media))) of blacks as “arbitrarily” oppressed. Without the lived experience of having to deal with blacks in numbers, on equal nationalist footing (actually not equal - blacks had an advantage in the sense that they were allowed to organize in their group interests, having had strident and powerful Jewish backing as such), but by contrast, given British hippies’ capacity to rely on the superior warrant of their White historical people and place, their native experience lacked the existential circumstances of crisis which made for the profound element of hippiedom - its quest for midtdasein - especially for the White male part.

It is not that I lack of sympathy for their mistake, since when I was yet to be confronted on the precarious recourse of civic nationalism by blacks in numbers - as I would be in a few years, with “school integration” - I myself looked upon American southerner’s “prejudice” against blacks as “abhorrent.” I didn’t know from experience, but rather from what (((TV))) had told me. In fact, I incredulously asked my cousins from Alabama “why southerners were prejudiced against blacks?”

But whereas I merely needed to be bused to the black side of town, as I would be in 1971, to learn my lesson and eat humble pie, it could take considerably more to disabuse a British musician of his dream of being a part of the British rock n’ roll invasion of America. He had brushed-up for months on his black licks while he spun Howlin’ Wolf and Muddy Waters records as an isolated variable in his house - safely ensconced in a White nation (while perhaps envious of American success and seeing his superior lack of prejudice as means to rise above the crude, nouveau riche Americans) - removed from the American black movement’s disconcerting contrast with the hippies’ weird, organic expressions of White male midtdasein. On the one hand, there was the contrast of the intimidating aggression of black power as compared to the hippie goal for peaceful communal being; and on the other hand there was the awkwardness of the weird and unkempt hippies by contrast to the studied dress and manner (horn-rimmed glasses, thin ties and uniform black suits) that the Marxist Highlander School of Tennessee taught black civil rights activists to carry themselves with - an air prim and proper, full of “integrity” and “dignity” was to be projected with black “civil rights activism.”

To the British hippie looking to pursue his dream of rock stardom unfettered by the inorganicism of letters and to facilitate his effort to outflank musical competitors by dint of his capacity to assimilate black organicism - black soul - his motives might have appeared one and the same as self actualization in the hippie agenda - appearing as universal expression, absent as it were authentication through confrontation of his own mortality, in the draft and the stark contrast with the reality of MLK’s “dream”, let alone Malcolm X’s.

                     
While sleeping with White whores, Marxist trained MLK projected innocence and promoted “a dream” to the naive and disingenuous, that black and White children could blend to no harm; black Muslim trained Malcolm X preached to the black power militancy of his own, proclaiming along with Elijah Muhammad that “the black man would rule.”

He was not quite getting that the emulation of black organic being lacked the requisite delimitation of White midtdasein, the authentic, organic expression of its peoplehood; at that time organic White male being sought crucial reprieve from the habit of war, alleviation from monocultural (nee universal) male rites of passage and the overcompensating traditional male role of tribal aggression as a result. Having his ancient national recourse to duck the repercussions and the direct experience of living with blacks pursuing their own power nationalism and civic motives made it harder to dismiss the Enlightenment’s prejudice against prejudice and the Jewish hard-sell misrepresentation of prejudice against blacks was invalid. The British rock musician could more easily fancy his grand tour of The US market as a gospel barnstorm; imagine his band on an evangelical mission, to demonstrate non-prejudice and good will toward blacks et al; he could not fully appreciate that his vision was a controlled illusion of (((The Western Media and Powers That-Be, generally))) that might be woken up to reality if only cold water were thrown in his small face by tour’s end, when it was time to retreat home.

Still there was this great pitfall besides brackets for White males in their pursuit of authentic Being at this point. Their pursuit of midtdasein in correction of past over compensations that resulted of didactic incitement to arbitrary competition remained stigmatic against traditional gender roles -  midtdasein was not only going against the male role of aggressive competitor, but against his pursuit of sheer victory and achievement, going against the pinnacle of stand-out actualization above society, or rather atop, but still comfortably aligned, which was the linear traditional direction of male quest.

Moving beyond mere custom and habit of tradition, to reject this quest of pinnacle actualization as a priority nevertheless remained stigmatic from the newly hegemonic modernist standpoint also - its sanctioned pursuit of self actualization as a universal good and in a universal context, transcendent of group interests, was the offered reward for any man who’d compete for it and win it - but offering no sympathetic rest for midtdasein. No, the naively anti-social, a-historical, a-contextual pursuit of self actualization was not only the upshot of traditional objectivism itself, but exploited and exacerbated by Jewish tribal interests who maintained group organization for themselves while inciting profound group competition for others: pandering to female inclination to incite genetic competition in modernist feminism; and otherwise distorting beyond reason the modernist rule structure; saliently, by means of “civil individual rights” and the prohibition of group classification and discrimination by Whites as “racism”; i.e., aiding out-groups, and leaving midtdasein a highly unsympathetic quest by contrast. 

But another large pitfall of the hippie movement and why it did not succeed in becoming articulate in promulgating its organic motive of midtdasein, its profound importance, was that in an initial phase, at least, Being would move toward organic synthesis and against analysis - rebelling against the artificial divisions of analysis, whether the analysis facilitated by mere words or the more baroque analysis of academia and its traditions. Furthermore, males, especially in the disorder of modernity, tended not to be in the addressive position (how are you? can I have a date? Oh, I care about your feelings, why did he hurt you? etc.), a position that contributes to becoming articulate, a position that females occupy increasingly with the upshot of modernity, with the assumption that their intrinsic feelings and thoughts are worth consideration and worth more on the market - with incentive to maintain that increasingly competed for one up position through didactic incitement. Lacking that second person addressive position by contrast and incitement, males would tend to overcompensate, seeking stilted prosthesis in the detached third person position - e.g., a rock star to his audience.

This could result in a kind of estrangement, superficiality and naivete in the pursuit of authentic self actualization, particularly when pursued by alpha male musicians flouting education, “jive-talk” (as opposed to the basic talk), flouting the awkward sublimation, the nerdishness that is characteristic of a good part of authentic White male being. Again, this European soul, as it were, was distinct form the black power and civil rights movement which would view White organic variants as geeky White jive, lacking in the black man’s “sou- ee oo - ee ou—- ooouwel - oou - ouwhel” and “in-teg-ritae.”

Itchycoo Park: Over Bridges of Sighs.To rest my eyes in shades of green. Under Dreaming Spires. To Itchycoo Park, that’s where I’ve been. What did you do there? - I got high. What did you feel there? - Well I cried. But why the tears there? - I’ll tell you why - yyyyy. It’s all too beautiful, It’s all too beautiful. It’s all too beautiful, It’s all too beautiful. I feel inclined to blow my mind. Get hung up, feed the ducks with a bun. They all come out to groove about. Be nice and have fun. in the sun. I’ll tell you what I’ll do - What will you do? I’d like to go there now with you. You can miss out school. Won’t that be cool. Why go to learn the words of fools? What will we do there? We’ll get high. What will we touch there? We’ll touch the sky. But why..

Because authentic White male being will manifest the quirkiness of our optimal sublimation, the appreciation of which is a part of our K selection strategy, its authentic expression was revealed in initial spontaneous, organic expression - that is essential to why this celebration of the weird was a part of hippiedom as well. Blacks, and R selectors generally, are not circumspect enough in their concerns to be weird in the flighty way that Whites are - blacks are cool and overly comfortable, at home in the world, their patterns are too old, stable, masculine and no-nonsensical to be weird in the White way. If sufficiently understood, the appreciation of this optimal White male sublimation would serve to gauge authentic praxis, between the Cartesian extremes of empirical myopia and abstract universalism. This median male sublimation, as opposed to over-confidence, gives us sufficient empathy and pause to spawn intellectual creativity. But within the inciting context of modernity, the pursuit of midtdasein for White males, was but a flicker that was extinguished when it was no longer required consolation against the absurdity of the Vietnam war.

READ MORE...

Victorian houses have something about them which speaks the home-iest of houses.

It was only upon gathering an entry for what is becoming a Majorityrights tradition at this time of year - “I Believe in Father Christmas” - that I learned belatedly of Greg Lake’s passing. A handsome English lad, he also displayed his people’s incisive thought - penetrating nefarious Jewish influence masquerading as innocence; and doing so at a time, 1975, when there was no popular tide to raise this political boat to defiantly sail despite inevitably incurring the stigma of “anti-Semitism;” with the danger attendant to that and of flying in the face of popular support from millennia of European consensus, sheepish acquiescence; the only support would have been what he could have plumbed from the truer depths of his native culture and intelligence.

BBC, 8 Dec 2016: Greg Lake, who fronted both King Crimson and Emerson, Lake and Palmer, has died aged 69.

He died on December 7th after “a long and stubborn battle with cancer”, said his manager.

The news comes nine months after Lake’s band-mate Keith Emerson died.

Keith Emerson, Greg Lake & Carl Palmer

One of the founding fathers of progressive rock, the British musician (Lake) is known for songs including In the Court of the Crimson King and his solo hit I Believe in Father Christmas.

Lyrics: I Believe in Father Christmas.

They said there’ll be snow at Christmas
They said there’ll be peace on Earth
But instead it just kept on raining
A veil of tears for the Virgin birth
I remember one Christmas morning
A winters light and a distant choir
And the peal of a bell and that Christmas Tree smell
And their eyes full of tinsel and fire

They sold me a dream of Christmas
They sold me a Silent Night
And they told me a fairy story
‘Till I believed in the Israelite
And I believed in Father Christmas
And I looked TO the sky with excited eyes
‘Till I woke with a yawn in the first light of dawn
And I saw him and through his disguise

I wish you a hopeful Christmas
I wish you a brave New Year
All anguish pain and sadness
Leave your heart and let your road be clear
They said there’ll be snow at Christmas
They said there’ll be peace on Earth
Hallelujah Noel be it Heaven or Hell
The Christmas we get we deserve.

Written by: Greg Lake, Peter John Sinfield, Serge Prokofieff

READ MORE...

(((Frank Meyer, father of paleoconservatism))) and its (((opposition))) to (((neoconservatism)))

Both in terms of its meta-contextual frames and in terms of its content, this piece is meant to deepen Greg Johnson’s account of the Alternative Right history and trajectory.

Steve Bannon has brought into high relief the underpinnings of the Alternative Right and has crystallized the underlying agenda - implicit White nationalist support was to be used via The Alternative Right/Lite to win for the Republicans and then, as usual, implicit White nationalism was to be discarded, the primary difference this time being that it was not in favor of the bracketed refurbished version of conservatism, “neo-conservatism”, but rather in favor of a bracketed refurbishment of paleoconservatism - Alt Right/Alt Lite contra “The Left” - i.e., contra ethno-nationalism.

- It begins with the philosophy of (((Frank Meyer))):

Frank Meyer saw himself more sophisticated and opposed to the simplified hawkishness of (((Irving Kristol’s))) neo-cons - who advocated neo-liberal policies domestically while advocating wars for Israel abroad.

Meyer and his paleoconservatism are actually a more virulent expression of Jewishness. He wanted Americans to identify with, support and affix Abrahamic culture domestically (calling things like that “conservative”), while allowing for politics conducive to mediating neo-liberal interests through feudalistic compradors and Jewish interests abroad.

He would call his paleocon philosophy “fusionism”, that is, a fusion of Judeo-Christianity and the Enlightenment philosophy of America’s constitution - though these values were an awkward fit (having mainly Cartesianism in common), Americans were familiar with them as “conservative.” Ronald Reagan was sold on the idea, seeing Meyer as a mentor of sorts, and groomed to be President.

This is the school of thought from whence came (((Paul Gottfried))), Reagan “conservatism”, Pat Buchanan, and Sam Francis.

That (((paleoconservative))) school of thought, in opposition to the (((neocons)))), became foundational for The NPI of Sam Francis and William Regnery II.

Update March 2020:

In the original form of this article, I make Gottfried seem more deliberately Pro Israel than he is, when it is rather the Paleocon take to soften the backlash against Jewry, particularly diasporic American Jewry, rooting its Abrahamic world view (and proxy Enlightenment values) by being not so strongly pro Israel and focusing rather on this “fusionism” of Abrahamism and Enlightenment values domestically.

Paul Gottfried was instrumental in getting the Regnery circus and with it, Sam Francis’ replacement, Richard Spencer, behind the sexed up paleocon 2.0 that became the Alt Right against “the left”, but its spiraling into a facile and fragile coalition (tentosphere) of the anti-social alliance (trap) that Spencer and Regnery manifest was a popular but toxic reaction (trap) in the coalitions’s Germanophilia - the common ground they have with Gottfried to begin with in this right wing, anti- left make-shift alliance.

By 2008 Paul Gottfried recognized that both the neo-con brand and the paleocon brand had shot their wad in terms of marketable brand name. If he was to be able to co-opt the White vote in order to use it to put the ultimately neo-liberal / pro Israel, while friendly enough to Jewish diaspora Republican party back in power, useful to Jews and oligarchs as usual, he needed to re-brand the agenda as something other than neocon, something other than paleocon even, rather as something “new”, “rebellious”, “anti-establishment” and the term and general concept of the Alternative Right was born - essentially not a big tent, but a tentosphere (a tent of tents) of anti-social types (anti-“leftist” was to be the common angle that they were seeded: meaning anti- the (((distorted and abusive))) social advocacy of (((“PC”))) - which, from a White ethnonational standpoint, should rather have been called by the term liberalism or cultural Marxism of the Frankfurt school). In order to be accepted into the Alternative Right tentosphere one had to be against this, what they called “The Left” and was duty-bound to tolerate one another’s guiding anti-social organizing ideologies - for any of a gamut of stigma, ranging from adulation of Jesus, Darwin, Abraham or Hitler - Jew friendly Alt Lite to Hard Right Hitler idolatry - you didn’t have to be in a particular tent of the tentosphere, but you had to treat its given array of tents as valid ....until perhaps the paleocon finally came to power. Then your job as an Alt Righter, your duty to use Whites to resurrect the Republican party and the reason for the fame you could not believe had been granted you was done - unless, perhaps, you remain sufficiently Abrahamic or otherwise stigmatically, didactically right wing enough to be sufficiently yoked.

It is all more sinister than that as you hear Steve Bannon, believing himself to be objectively the ultimate pragmatist on behalf of Western ideals, having affixed himself like a fat, blood-filled tic, valencing, full, sucking goy blood, the ultimate Shabbos Goy - vectoring the horizontal transmission of the bracket.

America’s and Europe’s White ethno-national bases are being sucked and directed into friend enemy distinctions exactly as the brackets see fit according to their evil Abrahamic god.

Whites may be allowed to live as useful cows, technoslaves or breeding partners for Jews, but otherwise they, like all other ethnicities besides Jews, are to be bred-out with others.

Paleocon world view, the Frank Meyer world view supplants what should be the friend / enemy distinctions for White ethno-nationalism.

Whereas the fundamental outgroups if not enemies should be Jews, Muslims, blacks and liberal traitors (in the case of Whites, usually operating under some right wing ideas, notably Christianity, Austrian school objectivism, supremacism, yes, paleoconservatism too, etc).

And against them, the fundamental in-groups should be White ethnonationalisms in alliance with Asian ethno-nationalisms…

Instead the Abrahamic world view determines the friend enemy distinction:

America’s (((controlled))) proposition nation is “us” if not our “friend”; Israel, Jews, at least the “nice” ones, are “us” if not our “friends”, the (((Russian Federation - parasitic propositional empire bigger than the moon; equipped with its Jews and Orthodox church))) is “us”, if not our “friend”; blacks, their staggering population explosion, bio-power and hyper-assertiveness are “us”, if not our “friends”; Islam, especially “moderate” Islam is “us” if not our “friend”: these shock troops and compradors are marshaled against White and Asian ethnonationalisms in alliance.

Bannon puts the major friend-enemy distinction as the brackets would have it in stark relief -

Buzzfeed, Steve Bannon: “The Judeo-Christian West versus atheists. The underlying principle is an enlightened form of capitalism, that capitalism really gave us the wherewithal. It kind of organized and built the materials needed to support, whether it’s the Soviet Union, England, the United States, and eventually to take back continental Europe and to beat back a barbaric empire in the Far East.

In the meantime, Richard Spencer has had a wad of Jewish scum shot all over his face - he and the Alternative Right have been used by the Republicans and the YKW as usual. Now for the futile reaction, also part of the plan…along with the placation:

Buzzfeed News, “This Is How Steve Bannon Sees The Entire World” 16 Nov 2016:

The soon-to-be White House chief strategist laid out a global vision in a rare 2014 talk, one where he said racism in the far right gets “washed out” and called Vladimir Putin a kleptocrat. BuzzFeed News publishes the complete transcript for the first time.

Donald Trump’s newly named chief strategist and senior counselor, Steve Bannon, laid out his global nationalist vision in unusually in-depth remarks delivered by Skype to a conference held inside the Vatican in the summer of 2014.

Well before victories for Brexit and Trump seemed possible, Bannon declared there was a “global tea party movement” and praised European far-right parties like Great Britain’s UKIP and France’s National Front. Bannon also suggested that a racist element in far-right parties “all gets kind of washed out,” that the West was facing a “crisis of capitalism” after losing its “Judeo-Christian foundation,” and he blasted “crony capitalists” in Washington for failing to prosecute bank executives over the financial crisis.

The remarks — beamed into a small conference room in a 15th-century marble palace in a secluded corner of the Vatican — were part of a 50-minute Q&A during a conference focused on poverty hosted by the Human Dignity Institute, which BuzzFeed News attended as part of its coverage of the rise of Europe’s religious right. The group was founded by Benjamin Harnwell, a longtime aide to Conservative member of the European Parliament Nirj Deva to promote a “Christian voice” in European politics. The group has ties to some of the most conservative factions inside the Catholic Church; Cardinal Raymond Burke, one of the most vocal critics of Pope Francis who was ousted from a senior Vatican position in 2014, is chair of the group’s advisory board.

BuzzFeed News originally posted a transcript beginning 90 seconds into the then-Breitbart News chairman’s remarks because microphone placement made the opening mostly unintelligible, but we have completed the transcript from a video of the talk on YouTube. You can hear the whole recording at the bottom of the post.

Here is what he said, unedited:

Steve Bannon: Thank you very much Benjamin, and I appreciate you guys including us in this. We’re speaking from Los Angeles today, right across the street from our headquarters in Los Angeles. Um. I want to talk about wealth creation and what wealth creation really can achieve and maybe take it in a slightly different direction, because I believe the world, and particularly the Judeo-Christian west, is in a crisis. And it’s really the organizing principle of how we built Breitbart News to really be a platform to bring news and information to people throughout the world. Principally in the west, but we’re expanding internationally to let people understand the depths of this crisis, and it is a crisis both of capitalism but really of the underpinnings of the Judeo-Christian west in our beliefs.

It’s ironic, I think, that we’re talking today at exactly, tomorrow, 100 years ago, at the exact moment we’re talking, the assassination took place in Sarajevo of Archduke Franz Ferdinand that led to the end of the Victorian era and the beginning of the bloodiest century in mankind’s history. Just to put it in perspective, with the assassination that took place 100 years ago tomorrow in Sarajevo, the world was at total peace. There was trade, there was globalization, there was technological transfer, the High Church of England and the Catholic Church and the Christian faith was predominant throughout Europe of practicing Christians. Seven weeks later, I think there were 5 million men in uniform and within 30 days there were over a million casualties.

That war triggered a century of barbaric — unparalleled in mankind’s history — virtually 180 to 200 million people were killed in the 20th century, and I believe that, you know, hundreds of years from now when they look back, we’re children of that: We’re children of that barbarity. This will be looked at almost as a new Dark Age.

But the thing that got us out of it, the organizing principle that met this, was not just the heroism of our people — whether it was French resistance fighters, whether it was the Polish resistance fighters, or it’s the young men from Kansas City or the Midwest who stormed the beaches of Normandy, commandos in England that fought with the Royal Air Force, that fought this great war, really the Judeo-Christian West versus atheists, right? The underlying principle is an enlightened form of capitalism, that capitalism really gave us the wherewithal. It kind of organized and built the materials needed to support, whether it’s the Soviet Union, England, the United States, and eventually to take back continental Europe and to beat back a barbaric empire in the Far East.

READ MORE...

In background preparation for a piece that Kumiko has coming up, which will set-out some hidden content and meta-frames of The Alternate Right in its history and current relation to President Elect Trump’s agenda, I decided that it would be helpful to provide a straight forward background of the Alt-Right - as detailed by one as capable as anybody of articulating its history and hoped-for future from an insider’s perspective - Greg Johnson. He was asked by French Marxist, Laura Raim, to trace the most important intellectual roots and references of the Alternative Right:

Laura Raim interviews Greg Johnson on The Intellectual Roots and References of The Alt Right.

Laura Raim:

The first question is, what are the intellectual roots and references of the Alt Right?

I read that some people say that it’s Sam Francis or James Burnham before him..

But what would you say would be the most important intellectual roots and references?

Greg Johnson:

Well, the term Alt Right, I believe was coined around 2008 by (((Paul Gottfried))).

He gave a lecture where he basically declared the paleoconservative movement dead.

I think in the same lecture he also called for the creation of an Alternative Right.

So, I see the Alternative Right as primarily emerging from the paleocon movement in American political thought -

And the paleoconservatives would be people like Samuel Francis, Joseph Sobran and Patrick Buchanan.

Now, Richard Spencer was working for The American Conservative which was founded by Patrick Buchanan, (((Taki))) and a couple other people, to be a kind of flagship for paleoconservativatism -

Paleoconservatism defined itself in contradistinction to Neo-Conservatism, which they were trying to combat.

The paleocon movement sort of got old, a lot of its leading figures died, it never really effectively institutionalized itself, never effectively mobilized large donors.

Of course Patrick Buchanan has written many best selling books and had a lot of media access, he was the main face of it but he’s getting old.

The American Conservative sort of lost steam.

(((Taki))) left, I believe, I can’t remember when but he did create (((Taki’s))) Magazine.

Richard Spencer ended up editing (((Taki’s))) Magazine for a while.

Then he left Taki’s Magazine and he created Alt-Right, um, “Alternative Right” in the beginning of 2010.

Sometime after that the fellow who was running Washington Summit Publishing and National Policy Institute, Louis Andrews died after a long battle with cancer.

So, those organizations were handed over to Richard Spencer.

I see really, primarily a continuity between the paleoconservatives and the birth of the term Alternative Right.

However, when the Alternative Right webzine was created, there was a fairly self conscious attempt to bring in a lot of different thought currents under that very vague umbrella -

That included things that were certainly not considered, uh, how to put it ..they weren’t necessarily welcomed in paleocon circles, and that would include things like:  neo-pagans, paleomasculinity, White nationalism, things like that.

And so, under that broad, sort of umbrella, there are a lot of different, uh, thought currents that sort of came together.

I actually wrote something about this at, I think it was the Occidental Quarterly On Line, just after the Alternative Right webzine launched. So if you want to cite that or quote that it’s there on the web somewhere.

After a couple of years Spencer, I believe, sort of lost interest in editing Alternative Right and other people took it over, really, on day-to-day functioning and then he shut it down and launched his Radix publication.

I thought that was in someways a good idea because he felt like he had lost control of the brand.

On the other hand, Alternative Right was becoming a generic term.

And if you invent something like .. if you have a product that becomes synonymous with a whole genre, like Xerox or a Walkman, or something like that, the last thing you do is throw away such a valuable brand - but he did.

He walked away from the brand and Colin Liddell and Andy Nowicki have kept that alive.

And then a few years .ah, well, the last two years of course the brand has become much more mainstreamed -

Because of its vagueness a lot of figures that are, again, sort of closer to the mainstream of conservatism than I am ... I would define myself as a White Nationalist and as a New Rightist.. not as a, uhm, Alternative Rightist, although I would use that term because its a broad enough umbrella to encompass me.

Laura Raim:

You are more specifically a White Nationalist

Greg Johnson: 

Yeah, and uh, I don’t feel the need to use sort of vague broad umbrella terms but other people do; just because of their well, because they’re not comfortable with being more specific; and I’m all for people being as explicit and involved as they want to be; and just respecting those decisions.

So, people like Milo Yiannopoulos, uh, Mike Cernovich, um, Vox Day, all of them, fairly prominent, connected with sort of the edgier reaches of the mainstream right, have started using that term (Alternative Right) as well.

Also a few people like Andrew uhm ...I’m blanking out his name…this is embarrassing… uh, the fellow that edits The Daily Stormer, uhm, Andrew Anglin..

Laura Raim: Oh, I know about him.

Greg Johnson:

Andrew Anglin of course ...as soon as, as soon as the term got popular, he started branding himself as Alternative Right.  And that was just, it’s sort of a douchy move on his part, a kind of trollish thing, to just kind of take advantage of the popularity of the term. And I don’t blame him in the least for that.

Anyway, it [Alternative Right] is a very broad umbrella term but the main intellectual root of it comes out of the paleoconservative movement.

Now, as to what defines it today, I think the real core, the heart of it, the energy of it,  really is White Nationalist, New Rightist people like that.

Laura Raim:

Richard Spencer writes, a “White Nationalist’ is sort of an identitarian.”

Greg Johnson:

Yeah, yeah. European identitarianism, that’s another term that we borrowed from Europe. It’s a good term, it’s analogous to libertarianism, it states what’s most important in your ideology, which is the preservation of your distinct racial, cultural and historical identity. So, it’s a good term.

That really is I think the, where all the real energy is. That is what’s generating a lot of the intellectual excitement, if you will ...on, on the right .... from the creation of memes and trolling and arguments.

In the past year and a half or two years, things that have come out of our sphere have actually started to shape mainstream political discourse….within the Republican Party for instance.

I think it was in 2012, Gregory Hood, at Counter-Currents, referred to mainstream conservatives as “cuckoled conservatives” - and that was really the inception of the “cuckservative” meme; which, when it became more widespread through Twitter, became a really effective barb that drove a lot of mainstream conservatives wild because it was so true.

So, we started shaping the discourse, and I think that’s very valuable.

Now, another current of thought that is sort of flowing into the Alternative Right,  that’s very important, is, the sort of breakdown of the libertarian movement . This is very important.

I used to be a libertarian years ago, and I sort of followed this intellectual journey along time ago. Then in 2008, when the Ron Paul movement was getting started noticing how overwhelmingly White that Ron Paul supporters were ...and, it was an implicitly White thing. They weren’t aware of the fact that this was a very White form of politics, it made sense more to White people than any other group.

And I was sort of betting at the time that a lot of these people would start breaking away from this and start moving in the direction of White identity politics.

And, when I was the editor of The Occidental Quarterly, near the end of that time, I actually set in motion an essay contest, on libertarianism and White racial nationalism. And the purpose of that was really to get our best minds to sort of think about this idea and create an analysis and work towards creating talking points that we could use to sort of ease the way of a lot of people toward our position. That, I didn’t think bore any fruit at the time, at least I didn’t see any.

A few years later, after the 2012 election campaign and the end of the Ron Paul movement, basically, within the libertarian sphere there was a real push by cultural leftists to basically just take it all over; and to eject anything that seemed conservative, patriotic or whatever; it became this leftist globalizing and really sometimes quite explicitly Jewish take-over.

What happened was that a lot of people were pushed-out by just revulsion. There were these intense discussion groups on line, where they, people would be battling one another about this. And a lot of people just left in disgust.

One of those online groups, a FaceBook group, actually became the source of The Right Stuff.

..therightStuff.biz, which now has The Daily Shoah, as their flagship podcast and so forth.

Those people are all ex-libertarians.

They moved out of libertarianism towards White identity politics in basically the same way that I did and other people have.

So, that really is a broad tributary that is flowing into White identity politics; and into the overall, Alt Right umbrella; and its a very vital force, too.

Most of the people involved in this are quite young. Most of them are quite educated. It’s very interesting. I had a dinner recently with some new young people who have come into it in the past six months to two years; and then some people who have been around for decades: and um, the contrast could not have been more marked, because really, the people who had been in this for decades were all kind of misfits, you know they were uh, socially awkward and weird people. And uh, the younger crowd coming in were mostly quite impressive, sort of fratty, preppy, squared-away people, many of them with ex-recent military careers; most of them in their twenties or around thirty; and just a very different look and feel to this: people with a lot of agency, discipline and organization.

Now, there are a lot of people that we call “autistes,” who are, if not outright autistic are at least on that spectrum.  They’re kind of socially awkward, yet they do perform valuable functions; they’re great meme creators and number crunchers.

But there’s also a large group of people coming into this who are just, they’re very normal; in their presentation, in their background; they’re the kind of people who, psychologically would not be inclined, to get involved with any kind of radical identity politics; but there’s a wind in our sails now. ..and they feel, not only conviction, but they also feel like this is something that they can put their effort into and it might actually bear fruit. So, there’s a great deal of excitement and intellectual vitality here.

And this is very interesting also uhm: one of the things that is sort of an internal, I guess, rift, within the Alt Right umbrella, is of course the Jewish question - I believe the term [Alt Right] was coined first by a Jewish writer, (((Paul Gottfried))), the paleocons have always been kind of friendly with Jews, publishing them and associating them in their conferences and things like that; and yet within the White Nationalist sphere there is a strong group of people who are quite critical of Jewish power and influence in our societies.

People like (((Milo Yiannopoulis and Mike Cernovich))) are Jewish to some extent, uh, in their identity - it’s kind of disputed in Cernovich’s case - because he put out his DNA profile and none of it came up Ashkenazic or Jewish at all. But there are people who left Russia claiming to be Jews who weren’t, so he might be descended from that kind of line.

But anyway, that is a factor: There is a Jewish camp and a Jewish friendly versus a Jewish critical camp, split within the Alternative Right.

One of the interesting things that I’ve now been hearing about is, young Jews, like, including young (((Orthodox Jews))), which seems like a very unlikely category, uhm, are now being drawn into this. You know, they’re reading Heatiste, they’re sharing Alt Right memes…

READ MORE...

The White Left has NOT issued its first, or any fatwa, as Nick Cohen asserts, but what The SPLC has done is tantamount to aiding and abetting one.

One may argue that Nick Cohen is as confused as his audience about the terms “left” and “liberal”, but it is not likely that someone with the name Cohen and entrusted to a prominent writing position at The Spectator is trying to be careful about clearly describing a platform to serve the full class of White interests - i.e., a White Left, not to be confused with liberalism, a confusion of terms promoted by his fellow tribesmen, and by which they’ve been able to confuse the public for decades now.

In fact, he does indulge in a new twist. Whether he fancies himself as being descriptive of White liberals (in his view, Jews, such as Mark Potok of the SPLC, would be included as White) or he has some idea of the power of our burgeoning White Left platform, and therefore seeks to confuse it pre-emptively, he is attributing to the term “White left” logics of meaning and action which do not follow from our platform of White Left Nationalism - The White Class.

Indeed, I had discussed the case of Maajid Nawaz with Kumiko, who had explained to me the irony of The SPLC placing this man on their “hate list.”

While I am against making the distinction between “radical and moderate” Islam, as I recognize all of Islam to be harboring and wielding our destruction, whether most active in a present episode or not, I would not go so far as to put at risk to a fatwa a man who has, in fact, come to denounce the more violent and destructive expressions of Islam and is trying to encourage other Muslims to take advantage of more healthy, moderate and liberal life possibilities.

Kumiko showed me this video of a speaking engagement of Nawaz’s, where he describes his project. She and I agree that Nawaz is a bit off in his recommendations - we would ultimately prefer a full denunciation of Islam in favor of Left Nationalism for his people, but also agree that such sudden prescription is both unrealistic and would be even more dangerous to him; as would our taking his side, in defense of him against the SPLC. Kumiko figured that we would not help him, that we would contextualize him in a way that exposes him more to Muslim violence by associating him with platforms (such as this) of White advocacy; while making an association here would also expose him to further Jewish vitriol, such as The SPLC placing him on their “hate list.”

Nevertheless, we think, “of all the Muslims to put on their hate list!” ?

The last straw for me though, making it a bad option to keep silent, was this Cohen guy trying to say that “The White Left” has issued a “fatwa” on Maajid Nawaz, when in fact it is The SPLC that is putting him at that risk, with a clear signal to more radical Muslims - “have a go at him, we wash our hands of defending him in his attempt to moderate Islam.”

Now then, for a look at the article which attempts to blame something which Cohen calls “the white left” for this.

The Spectator, “The white left has issued its first fatwa”, by Nick Cohen, 31 Oct 2016:

Maajid Nawaz

[Cohen]: I have never advised anyone to use the English libel laws. I spent years helping the campaign to reform them, and am proud of the liberalisation I and many, many others helped bring. I have to admit, though, our achievement was modest.

...and hypocritical, as now you misappropriate the term and in fact libel what would be a proper articulation of The White Left, if the term were disentangled from decades of Jewish journalese confusing “left and liberal;” and understood properly by contrast - by the public, and somehow by copyright law.

Ibid: Libel in England remains sinister in intent – the defendant has to prove he or she was telling the truth – and oppressive in practice. Parliament and the asinine Leveson inquiry into the press failed to tackle the horrendous costs, and kept libel as the preserve of the rich and the reckless. You can risk spending £1 million before a case comes to court. Despite reform, libel courts remain the place oligarchs and charlatans go to suppress the truth.

Well, I will not initiate a case against the sinister intent of Jewish media, even though I believe it is their sinister intent to prevent White (as in not Jewish) people from organizing, unionizing in their exclusive defense - a defense of those Whites who are relatively innocent, who are not right wing supremacists, but are rather characteristically cooperative, non-coercive separatists: White Left ethnonationalists -  that there is by contrast an antagonism, a persistent, sinister intent on the part of (((media, academia and other niches))) to confuse the term “left” with “liberal” when it applies to Whites and a would-be “White Left” in order to keep them from defending themselves against the genocide that is being launched against them by Jewish and neo-liberal interests: by means of open immigration of exploding non-White populations, “anti-racism” (i.e., prohibition of White discrimination on the basis of racial and ethnic groups, even in national interest), ubiquitous promotion of race-mixing, endless propaganda of Whites as evil, advancing non-White interests with and against the concept of “White privilege” applied across the board, to all Whites, as something to be “legally corrected” ...their right to abstain from forced contract and imposition undone - a feudal differentiation of laws which disadvantage White organized defense; compelling their mere servitude, their ultimate extinction enforced at the behest the YKW and neo-liberal PTB.

Not only would Cohen libel the term, “White Left,” saying “it has issued a fatwa” but he’s libeled The White Left also by associating it with neo-liberalism and the SPLC in its nefarious irresponsibility to put further at risk a man who is risking his safety to try to encourage more reasonable ways for Muslims.

The White Left is issuing no such fatwa against this man, and rather believes that his heart is in the right place, even if still a bit misguided.

Ibid: Last night, however, I found myself advising the anti-fascist campaigner Maajid Nawaz to sue in the London courts.  I even gave him the names of lawyers who would be happy to help. The attack he is facing is so grotesque, ferocious remedies seem the only response.

It is not “fascism” that he is campaigning against inasmuch as he is articulate - it is the right-wing feudalism of Islam and its (terroristic, if need be) imposition of imam compradores, radical shock troops and the feudal Muslim way of life against what would have been Left ethnoationlaist nations; if not for the destructive imposition as aided and abetted by neo-liberals.

Ibid: Nawaz’s enemy is not the usual user of the libel law: a Putin front-man or multinational. It is an organization that ought to share Nawaz’s values, but because of the crisis in left-wing values does the dirty work of the misogynists, the racists, the homophobes, the censors, and the murderers it was founded to oppose. It does it with a straight face because, as I am sure you will have guessed, the fascism in question is not white but Islamic. And once that subject is raised all notions of universal human rights, and indeed basic moral and intellectual decency, are drowned in a sea of bad faith.

Lets clarify what is really going on here, Nawaz’s enemies are right wingers, Jews (such as the SPLC) and neo-liberals who seek Islamic compradores and shock troops to disrupt Left ethnonationalsm.

Ibid: Nawaz is from Essex. He has fought and been beaten up by white British neo-Nazis. He fell in with Hizb ut-Tahrir while he was young. When he ended up in a torture chamber in an Egyptian jail, he abandoned Islamism for liberalism. Since then, he and his Quilliam Foundation have struggled against both the white far right and the Islamist far right. They have defended liberal Muslims and, indeed, all of us from lethal blasphemy taboos and the threat of terrorism. They respect freedom of speech, including the freedom of their enemies to speak. (When they asked me to introduce their report on online extremism, I was pleased to see them warning the state against the folly of trying to ban extremism rather than argue against it.) Quilliam and Nawaz support women’s rights and gay rights. They believe that there is no respectable reason why men and women with brown skins should not enjoy the same rights as men and women with white skins. They think they should try to stop young Muslims joining Islamic State, not just for the sake of the Yazidis they will take into sex slavery, or the civilians they will tyrannise and kill, but for the sake of the young Muslims themselves.

And now you would try to say that we, “The White Left,” are issuing a “fatwa” against a man who is trying to do this good work? Who is libelous here? Not The White Left: we issue no such fatwa. On the contrary, we commend his good intention.

READ MORE...

  “There is no such thing as society”

In that act of being mistaken, anyway - let’s leave a way out for people understandably reacting to the Jewish misrepresentation of the terms, “left” and “post modernity”.

Internal Relation and Emergence

You don’t have to take a position which places your people (praxis) as the central gauge. You can go on like a right wing fool for Jews and place a “quest for truth, facts and universal foundations” (and “inequality” even?) above all - even wreck your own people in that “noble quest;” but you’d be an unnecessary fool, a dupe for Jews and Jewish thinking in so doing. You don’t have to put our people at the center - but you can, as factual verification and reality checking are available in an instant if you are not dealing with reality; whereas the principles upholding our people took many centuries to create and are much more precious and difficult to reconstruct, if ever they can be. It isn’t necessary to place facts at the center - people are born of facts and if afforded correct principles, proper agency and accountability, our people will come to continually adjust their interests with the facts. Hence, the right’s whole arbitrary-making quest for facts and episodic verification at the expense of principled interest in our people is the height of folly.

Chasing mere facts and perfect verification away from “faith” in our people will tend to take them into runaway, beyond our people’s systemic interests - as opposed to taking the White post modern turn into its facilitation of the preservation and reconstruction of our people - where the facts are ensconced in the sufficiently deep emergent reality of our people’s systemic history to afford re-framing at their authentic place in relation to our human ecological system.

Right and Altright reactionary fan club - scavenging the wreckage of continued reaction.

The right, “alternative right”, those in their orbit, lay in wait as vultures for things like GW’s latest surprise: as I stepped aside from a discussion of British politics, he applied the theoretical wrecking ball again to “THE left” and “post modernity” at their behest (he isn’t so lame as to have to do it for himself); ill-prepared for the surprise in that context, I put up a threadbare defense against what I’ve come to see as a part of GW’s autobiography - “champion of the right, universal foundational unifier against the left’s class divisiveness.”

GW - working class hero who sees their classification as a critical problem of imposed nationalist division.

If you are coming here, like myself, chances are that you appreciate GW’s ability - you delight as he wields a scalpel on behalf of White/ethno-national sovereignty, more often a wrecking ball to the pretenses of academia and scholarship that are working against it.

We value this, want him to continue, want him to be satisfied with his part and his contributions. 

What follows here is going to show little appreciation for that, which is abundant and shows forth in spontaneity for the surfeit of his intelligence - often yielding indispensable flourishes and insights that I myself cherish. This piece is rather an ungrateful piece in that regard, given that he has stood by me as I set about chartering a new platform for Majorityrights; and I sent scurrying many who had deep appreciation and respect for him as well; but it is neither for myself nor “his own good” that I proceed not feeling particularly guilty about that - nor is the matter of face saving a pressing matter for either of us - the sake is proper theoretical grounds, which is always my central motivation. Still this will appear rather like a hit piece - as it takes aim, focuses on the clumsier props of GW’s worldview, philosophical underpinnings and aspirations - not on better sides and ideas, which will emerge cybernetically in balance of fact.

If you are coming here, you probably appreciate and identify with GW’s rogue path: as a completely disaffected outsider to the academic fray, he early on rejected the nonsense coming out of there, particularly from fields dealing with social issues. And you delight along with him as he continues to apply the wrecking ball to their cherished liberal ruses under cover of “The left”, their wish to open important borders and boundaries, to bring down individual merit, to drag others down into primitive individual and group failure - instinctively, you sense him taking down liberal bullies who are smug enough to insulate themselves from the consequences of the unsupportable concepts of social “justice” that they wield against those native White populations least responsible for others problems, most likely to suffer from liberalism and least likely to gain from the applications known as “The Left” - applications which can recognize just about any collective unionization of interests except one kind - White. Certainly a (((coincidence))).

Most people who’ve come here, myself included, have also experienced mystification over GW’s not being satisfied with that. You have been at least temporarily mystified as he evades into the arbitrary recesses ever available by the empirical philosophy that underpins modernity; and as he continually applies its wrecking ball, secure in the faith that it will leave in its wake only that which is fine and good; a wrecking ball summarily dismissing scholarship, conceptual tools and principles that others set forth to guide social action.

I have been stunned as he sends the wrecking ball my way as well, summarily dismissing even carefully culled and profoundly warranted philosophical ideas, eminently useful conceptual tools and important rhetorical positions that I have geared to his same White ethno-nationalist interests; while his modernist philosophy willy-nilly casts me into the role of the “lefty academic” foil in key moments.

I am no longer mystified by this.

A reactionary position is mostly retreating (evading) and attacking - whatever looks like an enemy or Trojan horse - but for its instability, it is susceptible to chase after the red cape.

An early contentious streak in the autobiography over-reinforced by circumstance, ability and admirers.

GW is wonderful, we love GW, but like the rest of us, he is not perfect. There is a residual strain of contentiousness in his autobiography that stems from his early disaffection and precocious disregard of liberal prescriptions coming from academia. It’s a part of his autobiography that he takes a great deal of pride-in. It is also socially confirmed enough so that he continues to chase its red cape known as “THE left;” and keeps applying the modernist wrecking ball to any concepts the tiniest bit speculative in circumscribing social interests; or adopting any terms also used by liberal “left” academics - even if used in different ways, he will understand it in THE left way that he is familiar with - and summarily dismiss it as such or apply the wrecking ball.

Unlike most people disaffected of liberal academia, he is not of the working class sort content to shake his fist at academic pomposity, to find solace in a beer and the pragmatism of his working class buddies, allowing the union misrepresentatives to negotiate his interest with their fellow liberals of academic background; nor is he content to join in with the White collar and middle class who typically denounce the worst of academic socialists as unrealistic, while they go along with the liberal anti racism of the academe, signaling their one-upness to the lower classes by denouncing as backward superstition whatever defensively racist discrimination they might even require.

He does share a few things in common with the typical middle class perspective however. Naturally, he has a bias toward viewing his success in positivist terms, as having come about from his gray matter and personal initiative, not because he derived any benefit from artificially imposed social bounds against competition and to circumscribe cooperation. 

Though he can relate to the working class “xenophobia”, he maintains that their maintenance of who they are among a collective “we” (i.e., particular native European nationals) and their choice of whom to intermarry with (same particular native European national) is something that should and can emerge naturally from their genetics - an identity that will emerge naturally, provided they do not have liberal, Fabian and Marxist ideas imposed upon them; the last thing GW wants is to impose another artifice upon them, one which he believes could divide them against their upwardly mobile English brethren, and in turn, divide the middle class even more against them. I.e., the “left” and “right” is normally taken as an economic divider and unifier of class, not a racial nationalist one as I am proposing. The middle class, as much as any, might be reluctant to ‘get it’ and not identify with a “White left,” in which case we would be back to the divisive issue, not the uniting issue that both GW and I seek - we may not agree on terminology but we do agree on native nationalism.

Thatcherite obectivism a means for personal advancement and foundational unification of nationalism.

In fact, GW is a native nationalist, deeply offended by the class system which has long hampered English unity. Thus, he is not content to disavow the worst of liberal and Marxist academics, writing-them-off as the idiots that they are, while leaving the working class to the fate that liberalism will bring to them, and, if left unabated, to all of us eventually. Like a few, more ambitious among us, he set about to get things right, to open a platform for White nationalists, even before it was quite the immanent practical necessity that it is now.

He aspires to identify the ontological connection between all English classes which, if unfettered by artificial constructs, would have them acting as native nationalists in loyal unanimity to their interests.

In that regard, Margaret Thatcher represented to him a liberating moment from the incredibly burdensome artifices of liberal, Fabian and Marxist Left union delimitations and by contrast an opportunity to unite as nationalists on natural positivist grounds.

Normal first reaction that doesn’t take Post Modern turn as it fails to see liberalism flying under left colors.

Indeed, most anybody of this ambition, myself included, who cares about our race and its ethnonational species, starts out in reaction to the absurd, contradictory and destructive liberal rhetoric coming out of academia and reaches to grab hold white knuckle to foundational truths, particularly scientific fact, which cannot be bamboozled by the rhetoric of liberal sophistry (which we later come to recognize as more often than not, Jewish in original motive). And we do grab hold white knuckle - that is to say, scientistically, in rigid over and misapplication of hardish science to the social realm, as we cannot trust the social realm, its rhetorical caprice if not deception - its ongoing disordering effects that apparently threaten to rupture social order anew with every agentive individual. Coming from a non-Jewish, Christian cultural perspective, where our bias starts, if not Jesus, we first liken ourselves to Plato and then modern scientists seeking to gird and found our place and our people’s place, whereas “they” are Pharisees and sophists, wielding the sheer rhetoric that we are going to debunk with our pure, native ability and motives. In a word, we are going to do science against their dishonest bias against us - they are indeed being deceptive and biased on behalf of unfair people; we see it as our objective to establish universal foundational truth that will be unassailable to this sophistry.

That is the normal first reaction of a White person who cares about themself and our people - it was mine and it was GW’s - a nascent White nationalist in response not only to the anti-White discourse coming out of the university, but in response to the very frame of the discourse - that is to say, taking on the frame [Jewish and liberal social stuff and lies versus White science and truth] - against accusations of privilege, racism and exploitation, we sought pure innocence in truth beyond social tumult and disingenuous rhetorical re framing. We (understandably) acted with absolute revulsion to anything like social concern and accountability - why should we be accountable to ever more alien imposition? - itself neither offering nor asking for an account sufficient to maintain our EGI - and where our people are eerily unconcerned or antagonistic to our people as well, we are only more compelled to take on the task ourselves - to pursue pure warrant. Our first reaction to the liberal chimera called “THE left” is: “I” noble servant of postulates - theorems - axioms - upon universal foundational truth.”

Beyond our people’s relative social interests even, we must save ourselves from the lies of “The left” (never minding that their first lie is that they represent our left) and found our moral/ontological basis where Jews, other tribalists and our selfish liberals, who only care about themselves, can never again manipulate it. We hold white knuckle, rigidly, in reaction to Jewish sophistry.

History will show that our people who pursued and secured sovereignty, health and well being found a philosophy advanced of that - competent and able to secure their social interests. They’d taken the White Post Modern turn from this reactionary position.

For reasons unfolding here, including reasons of his personal autobiography, GW has yet to appreciate and take the post modern turn.

Personal ability and interpersonal circumstances have facilitated his carrying-on in a typical first philosophical position of an amateur outsider in regard to academia - the epistemological blunder of “they are just sophists who provide nothing but nonsense while ‘I’ and my pure thoughts in relation to ‘theory’ am going to set the world aright” - an epistemological error in the relation of knower to known that is born in reaction and puerile hubris, carried on by being strong, smart enough to persist long after most people would shrink back from the signs of its limitations; going further uncorrected as it has been endorsed by “no enemies to the right” (a dubious principle, if there ever was one); it has grown into a surprisingly big and audacious ego wielded as a wrecking ball against “post modern philosophy.” We are supposed to rest assured on his faith that in the aftermath of wreckage, that the emergent qualities of his mind are all that is required besides the occasional foil to play off of in order to clarify and carry the modernist program forward to unshakeable, universal, foundational truth - unassailable to any social reconstruction. Never mind that we are already willing to agree upon most of the fundamental rules that he would seek - our agency is not necessary if it is going to suggest anything like planned social construction of systemic defense. No, that’s all impure stuff to be cast aside; and by contrast of true Platonic form, if you are freed from that ignorance and come to know the good he will secure, you will do that good.

He is not satisfied to simply negotiate, reason-things-out and reach an understanding among his people, he is not even particularly concerned that it won’t be a damn bit of good if people can’t understand his philosophical yield - he wants to secure that good on ontological foundations beyond praxis - beyond the capacity for manipulation. Most sophomores abandon this, their freshmen objective, as not only obsolete philosophy, but in fact, come to recognize it as destructive philosophy - a destruction which GW continues, with tremendous faith, without need of Aristotelian compass, that tremendous confidence to persevere where Wittgenstein failed.

The boomer generation - libertarianism and egocentrism.

The likes of Bowery and GW will be slower, if ever, to make the turn in direction, not because they are stupid, of course, quite to the contrary, but because they have the mental horsepower necessary to keep patching and operating the antiquated and obsolete technology that is modernity; and stem predilection both motivates them and enables them to do that; they are more self sufficient, less immediately reliant on the social (why carry others weight?); more confirmed by females by being reliable as such (concentrating on how to do things, not stepping on the toes of females by asking questions of social control - as long as you are at one end of the competition you are OK - liberal or the right wing end); confirmed by non academic workers in their more pragmatic concerns; and confirmed by right wingers in their penchant for anti-social theory beyond social manipulation - exactly, they are also slow to take the turn, of course, because they have an understandable lack of trust in liberal-social narratives; this unwillingness to suspend disbelief may be increased inasmuch as they have benefited as baby boomers, less harried for their identity in the parts of their life-span experienced prior to the culture of critique and in their personal initiatives after its reprieve - in Bowery’s case, with aspects of the objectivism behind Ron Paul’s libertarian “revolution”; and in GW’s case, during the Thatcher years (Thatcher’s initial backers having discovered her reading Wittgenstein’s cousin, Hayek, who obliviously carried forward upon the Tractatus) - years of brief, partial liberation from liberal-left union fetters - “there is no such thing as society” - in either case, a false friend facilitated as false opposition - viz., an expression of steered objectivism derived of Austrian schools beginning with Wittgenstein.

The title is a projection of objectivism. Subtitle: look who else is reading it.

What is confirmed to me - in a roundabout way, when GW dons his powdered wig, grabs a quill pen, does his best John Locke or whatever voice serves, and says oh, “that’s just Aristotle and his rhetoric,” “all of the good ideas are coming from the right”, “based in nature, none of this praxis stuff”, says that he “never loses an argument against academics”, etc., then continually re-applies radical skepticism of the empiricists and their forerunners - is that he is showing an ego driven and confirmed desire to carry-on the “pure” modernist project; viz., in his ontology project and his destruction of everything in its path, even treating Aristotle and William James as utter morons, GW is revealing a vain desire to do something all alone, like a combination of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico Philosphicus and Heidegger’s Being & Time: “The world is everything that is the case” meets “the worldhood of the world” - without the post modern implications of the latter. All that is required is the emergent qualities of his mind to set the world’s ontology aright - it will be “unassailable” by liberal, social, “left” rhetoric.

His reaction, confirmation and penchant for empirical verification against Jewish rhetoric has apparently caused him to disregard the post modern turn that was occuring also in Heidegger’s philosphy, albeit in Heidegger’s case, in that somewhat rigid, German way (which I find endearing).

GW appreciates Heidegger, so why does he not move forward from 1927 and why does he retreat to 1921 and the Tractatus? That he consders “OF being” the better starting point than Heidegger’s “There Being” provides a clue to ego centrism and Cartesian anxiiety - he not only proposes the reconstruction of the Cartesian starting point, “Of being”, but proposes it as an exclusive position, not even taking hermeneutc turns with Heidegger’s non-Cartesan starting point, “There being.”

“Unassailably” proclaiming that “The world is everything that is the case”

Whereas Wittgenstein himself was forced to yield-to, if not recognize the necessity of, the post modern turn - so much so that he was embarrassed by his effort at a complete ontology in The Tractatus Logico Philosophicus - having proclaimed its logic “unassailable” at once upon completion, he later repudiated it, even took to referring to its author as if a different person.

The Motivation for Post Modernity

Part of the craze for “post modernity” is that people (correctly) sense that modernity is destroying their differences, their traditions, their ways of life, their people and their very lives. And yet they frequently found traditional societies destructive as well. Therefore they were happy to have not only backing of cross cultural studies, vouching that different ways of life are valid, but also some confirmation from the very foundational math and science which modernity pursued to an apex that finally turned back on itself.

Kurt Gödel had demonstrated that a theory of any complexity could not be both complete and unambiguous.

Neils Bohr had priorly announced that there is no instrument fine enough to resolve the wave/particle distinction.

Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle elaborating from that was subtler still - that the observer is engaged in interaction and has reflexive effects upon that which he observes.

Confirmation of Aritstotle’s Praxis and suggestion that it should be the radical basis of assessment, not pure objective facts.

These findings confirmed Aristotle’s premises as set forth in Nichomachean Ethics - on the nature of Praxis - people are in reflexive relation, mostly requiring a degree of practical judgement as they are less predictable than the theoretical causality which the hard sciences pursue. It also would suggest placing praxis more in the center than theory - i.e., a socially based perspective where people are the arbiter, as opposed to “I think therefore I am” in relation to mere, indisputable facts and non-interactive third person behavioral units; a pursuit even outstripping the subject ultimately in favor of fixed theoretical facts - the Cartesian relation (pursued non-relation, as it were) of knower to known.

Vico was first to take the hermeneutic turn against Descartes, to bring ideas into historical context, the relation of knower to known into the social world of praxis

A relation knower to known other than the Cartesian model is required by modernity’s recognized failures and impervious destruction.

Those who care about people, who see the destruction of Descarte’s “relation” of knower to known, understand the wisdom of Aristotle, and realize that Vico -  Descartes’ first major critic - was in fact, proposing the taking of theoria into praxis: i.e., correctly placing people and praxis at the center of his world view. He was setting forth the historical, hermeneutic world view, the post modern world view. And, in turn, those who understand Heidegger will see that he was following in that same direction, which may be called “existential” and which is centered in praxis - the social world.

The White Post Modern turn is, of course, the best and most moral perspective for advocating people - Whites especially - Jews don’t want that and so they fool the uneducated masses and most of the educated masses as well by reinterpreting the terms by which people - viz., White people, might understand this - and they get them to react against didactic misrepresentation. That is, they are getting them to react in aversion to what is good and healthy in racial advocacy by having made it didactic in misrepresentation - e.g., the highly sensible Post Modern is presented as “dada” (whereas I have secured its sensible form in White Post Modernity).

Bowery and GW were impelled on, for the didacticism of the (((liberal-left - contradiction of terms))) and for the (((misrepresentation))) that was this false opposition and its false promise to liberate us from The left, among other reasons. Objectivism, the neoliberalism and libertarianism of the Austrian school of economics, Thatcherism, is merely a false opposition that (((they))) set up against “(((The Left))).” It is a product of late modernity, derived of the Vienna School of Logical Positivism, which in turn was derived of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico Philosophicus.

Again, that was Wittgenstein’s attempt to set-out a comprehensive and “unassailable” ontology - “The world is everything that is the case.” He would later say that the Tractatus was “not a very good book”, lest he be mistaken for one not recognizing that those who had taken the post modern turn had left this philosophical quest behind. Nevertheless, the Austrian school of logical positivism founded upon the Tractatus lived on through his cousin Hayek (who Thatcher was discovered dutifully reading); it was then taken up by von Mises et. al, who would conveniently and explicitly adopt this no-account modernist program against any one of subsequent generations who was the least bit reflective, who had any social complaints about how they and their people had been left without social capital after this generation of egocentric locusts devoured all social capital in their path. Waiting generations of right wing reactionaries, ensconced in their well protected Internet bubbles, were ready to look up to these libertarians for their lack of social concern, conveniently blaming the socially conscientious of prior generations for the problems - “The Left”, where not “hippies”, were the ones asleep at the wheel and leading us over a cliff, “but not the objectivists” and not (((The YKW))).

One-up intransigence of boomers meets generation Internet bubble for a right-wing cocktail, silencing socially conscientious voices between.

Because of GW’s unwillingness to trust anybody but himself, he takes recourse in the one aspect of the post modern turn where his first person account of all the world’s foundations might be claimed - emergentism. He has a problem, however, when I say that the world still interacts.  He has to take recourse to the absurdly arbitrary claim that “life doesn’t interact.”

Emergentism, in fact, is one of the key contributing factors to the post modern turn - it challenges the reductionism and fixedness of the modernist ontology project in an important sense - the emergent whole being greater than the sum of its parts means that significant referents are changeable in complex systems, thus qualifying Bowery’s criticism - “there is either a referent or there is not” - as this charge must yield to the fact that facts can be re-framed as they emerge physically, as they are designated by individuals and as they emerge in social consensus. And yes, what emerges still interacts in a myriad of ways.

Gen Xer’s were a bit late for the ride

“There is no such thing as society”

Their lack of faith in the social narratives as they are applied by YKW is understandable, the faith they show in the guiding principle of modernity to leave only what is fine and true in the wake of their wrecking ball is not. There comes a time to suspend disbelief. To draw a hypothetical boundary around our people is as good a time and place as any. “Wise men see lines and they draw them” - William Blake. And its not so hypothetical.

Perhaps because their boomer generation was early in line and they were intelligent enough to position themselves by means of objectivism for a deck chair on the higher end of a sinking Titanic, they can take some solace in writing-off those who might be going under first, if it does go down, as hazards of nature, having not acted “naturally” in EGI - Bowery in particular, being motivated by an affinity for the individuality of northern Europeans, abandoned ship (MR, anyway) when Dr. Lister and I began raising criticisms of “individualism über alles” and raising social concerns against that.

In fact, for this reason, Bowery issued an ultimatum (“either him or Lister”) which defaulted to Graham’s more social side, upon which Bowery expressed his “revulsion” for Majorityrights.

READ MORE...