Majorityrights Central > Category: Race realism

Check points on hermeneutic of racial stasis/homeostasis - after sorting-out confusing terms

Posted by DanielS on Friday, 23 February 2018 22:33.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heidegger adds:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

READ MORE...

Tags: (((Alt-Right)))(((Neo-Cons))) vs. necessary geo-strategy(((Paleoconservatism)))Abrahamic Supremacism/imposition: Jewish, Muslim, ChristianActivismAnthropologyAnti-racism and white genocideBlack hyper-assertivenessBoundaries and BordersChristianityCompradorsCultural MarxismDiscourse AnalysisEthnicity and Ethnic Genetic InterestsEuropean cultureEuropean NationalismFar RightFeminismGenetics & Human Bio-DiversityGeo-politics/strategyGlobal ElitismGlobalisationGreater Israel ProjectHermeneuticsHistoryHuman EcologyImmigrationImmigration and PoliticsIntermariumIslam & IslamificationJewish collaborationJewish CrypsisJewish DiasporaLaw & OrderLiberalismLiberalism & the Red LeftLibertarianismLinguisticsMarxismMediaMemetic WarfareMilitary MattersModernityMulatto SupremacismMuslim IncursionsMyth & ModernityNazismPervasive EcologyPolitical analysisPolitical PhilosophyPopular CulturePopulation, overpopulation, territorial carrying capacity and managementRace realismRegionalismReligionSocial ConservatismSocial ConstructionismSocial liberalismSubsidiaritySyndicalismThat Question AgainThe American rightThe Proposition NationThe White LeftU.S. PoliticsWhite Genocide ProjectWhite Left Ethno-Nationalist AllianceWhite NationalismWhite Post-ModernityWorld Affairs


Pragmatism as ethnonationalism’s tool against radical skepticism

Posted by DanielS on Monday, 10 July 2017 18:49.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[...]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whereas for Northern Europeans in particular, but all Europeans, the issue of survival was more a competition against nature - thus a skill set more evolved to handle Augustinian, viz. natural devils, where human agency to deploy and solve trickery is not so central a concern.

By all evidence, Christianity is a Jewish trick, prescribing universalism and self destructive altruism to us, taking advantage of our evolved European nature in predilection to attend to Augustinian devils - as I have said, our predilection to attend to Augustinian devils is not necessarily bad, as we will ultimately be up against Augustinian devils to solve; however, we must not be naive simply because we’d rather not be bothered with the pettiness and trivial mindedness of Manicheans.

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

How is anti-racism Cartesian?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Those who are marginalized” in this sense, does not necessarily mean those who are falling behind, but can also mean those who are outstanding, though they would be ostracized as they are not understood and appreciated as being out in front; and well intending.

We would be bringing to bear correctiveness from the “rich and diverse perspectives of our ethnonational community.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At least one problem for emergentism is:

Jaegwon Kim

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

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

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

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

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

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

With anti-Cartesianism, we’re precluding the “that’s just the way it is” according to nature argument ...a void of accountability that the YJKW and Right Wing contingent can mess with to no end—- a nature argument so fundamental to liberalism and so destructive to us.  ...viz., how is anti-racism killing people? By holding them to a momentary and episodic basis of evaluation only, thus exposing them (particularly those on the margins of the lifespan or the systemic classification) to predation from outside group patterns - skeptically treating those patterns as “speculative”, even where those patterns are demonstrable as predatory and/or destructive patterns to the group that is not supposed to invoke classificatory discrimination.

Thus, it is a discrimination against those in marginal stages of a more protracted process, especially those who’s group evolution is of a more protracted yield to maturity, as K selectors in particular are going to manifest more often; exposing them to killing, consumption, subsumption by those that anti-racism is prejudice on behalf of - the victorious of “objective” standards - viz., those displaying winning moves by highly physical momentary and episodic evaluation, the “universal standard.” Actually, a better anti-Cartesian, anti-anti racist mantra would read:

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

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

READ MORE...


Fan Mail: Many Jews hate Zionism. Failure to report that makes you a racist, you racist filth.

Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 16 May 2017 07:58.

Quoting Gary Anderson, who wrote to MR: “There are many Jews that hate Zionism. The fact that you fail to report that makes you a racist. You probably are a Zionist because you undermine the antiZionist movement with your racist filth.”

I’m fully aware that there are many Jews who hate Zionism. Israel Shamir and Gilad Atzmon are well known examples among WN circles. I never duck that fact and do not need to. Nor am I a Zionist, as you conjecture. Nevertheless, whether Jews are anti-Zionist or Zionist, I do not consider them a part of our advocacy group, but as a different people from Europeans and more or less antagonistic to us - much more antagonistic for the most part, while the rest are a part of the pattern nevertheless and cannot be trusted. I do not hesitate to categorize them as such for three very fundamental reasons to begin A) They are the most ethnocentric people in the world overall, including non-Zionist members - whose ouliers tend to be liberal at best (not something Europeans need more of). Jews look after themselves while prescribing liberalism to others - Europeans by contrast, are not very ethnocentric, not good at looking after their group interests; and thus need to discriminate against Jews especially; because Jewish identity, negative though Jewish identity is for Whites, is not very clearly distinguishable to Whites, as being different from Whites, but tends rather to be hidden in crypsis - the natural “camouflage”, viz., appearance of being White - Jewish identity thus needs in particular to be distinguished and separated from. This crypsis is a part of their systemic process, wherein their liberal elements serve a function of mixing with (in this case Whites) to weaken any coherence and potential antagonism that might be directed at Jews from White groups. B) Jewish antagonism and destruction of Whites is easily documented; along with its stemming from disproportionate Jewish influence from seven power niches: 1) Religion 2) Money and Finance 3) Academia 4) Media 5) Politics 6) Law and Courts 7) Business, Investment and Industry - and with all of this, US Military (and other military) as well. C) I am a separatist, not a supremacist looking to exploit or kill them. Therefore, even if I achieve my goal of separatism, I have not pronounced a death sentence in naming Jews as an outside group. If I am mistaken about something that I attribute to them, it is not irrevocable and can be corrected.

I am not “racist filth” but there is something very wrong with you that you would try to deny the most elemental function of biological nature, to discriminate for the purpose of survival of one’s self and one’s kind - and to identify and classify kinds not only for defensive purposes, but for the purpose of human ecology, accountability to that and legacy of human capital. By contrast, your prohibition of discrimination and said accountability is a prescription for the exploitation of that human capital and of genocide. That is evil. You are the one prescribing the filthy thing that would destroy people. Shame on you Gary Anderson (Ramirez).


The Rove strategy, the Sailer strategy and Jewish playbook of Neo-Cons/Paleocons against “The Left”

Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 30 April 2017 09:05.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Alt-Right cannot be trusted to represent Whites, ethnonationalists on crucial matters

Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, 26 April 2017 14:18.

Yeeeehaaah!  Sooweeeee! Get em   ....Leroy and Schlomo

“The United States Should Seriously Consider Peaceful Partition”, so says Vincent Law at AltRight on 24 April 2017.

How convenient that Vincent Law, a Ukrainian American (?) living in St. Peterberg, Russia, would proffer how balkanization of The US might go.

The right wing and Jewish perspective from which he comes is not to be trusted on either side of this issue. They created these conflicts, they created these immigration problems and now they want to create hackneyed “solutions.” They may bemuse and distract larpers, but in the end they will serve a Jewish and complicit right wing perspective. This will create disaster and conflict for others while these weasels A) escape to gated communities or B) escape the country entirely if need be (with their money, of course); finally, e.g., leaving remaining Whites to get raped by blacks (who are “really not so bad”, or perhaps “your problem”, when in fact, it was their perspective that long ago imposed them on normal Whites et al.).

Meanwhile right wingers from other races will be trying to swing deals established by Jews and right wingers as well. Saying that the kind of Jews and right wing huxters posing as “ethno nationalists” on this thread at Alt-Right represent White people and their ethnonationalism. They don’t. And they will create conflicts with people that White ethno nationalists should ally (not integrate or fight) with: Asian and Amerindian ethno nationalists.

The Right Wing/Alternative Right cannot be trusted with this issue any more than anything else - i.e., not at all. They are the ones who put Trump and his Jewish entourage into power. And that is just for starters in terms of their screw-ups. There are some basic issues that need to sorted out yet - not interminable matters, but too important to go right ahead and start bargaining on the bases and within the parameters that Jews and right wingers establish. They cannot even be trusted to say what is White or not.

silviosilver ✓ᵀʳᵘᵐᵖ ˢᵘᵖᵖᵒʳᵗᵉʳ Kumiko Oumae • 2 days ago

Asians do not belong in white ethnostates. It’s as simple as that.

F—k off and die, please.

  Kumiko Oumae reply to silviosilver ✓ᵀʳᵘᵐᵖ ˢᵘᵖᵖᵒʳᵗᵉʳ • 2 days ago

I completely agree that Asians should not be on the same side of the line as White people if a partition occurs in North America. That’s precisely why I placed Asians and Hispanics together outside of the White ethnostate partition in the hypothetical scenario I described. Re-read what I actually wrote.

I would not even ask you to moderate the tone or language that you take when dealing with Asian people, since I think that Asian people do need to know how White Americans really feel on this issue, so as to shatter the illusion of there being any kind of shared destiny. You want to promote ethnic division in North America. So do I.

The American ‘melting pot’ was never going to work out. And even if it somehow did work out, it would be undesirable for all groups concerned. And so it should never be allowed to work out.

DanielS: Silver is an (admitted) non-White (who “wouldn’t be surprised if he is part Jewish”, but at any rate, “has an affinity for Anatolia and the Levant”). He lives in England, not America, and agitates to deliberately stir-up strife among Whites while he tries to create enemies for them among non-Whites. In this case, with Asians. I drove him away from Majorityrights long ago for these reasons. He is in no way to be taken seriously, as a representative of Whites; nor as a negotiator of ethnonationalism in good or bad faith.

While I draw attention to Alt-Righters, trolls and the experience that I have of them misrepresenting White interests, Kumiko calls some interesting facts to my attention about Alt-Right.com. - they allow for slurs against Asians in their comments, but if you use the word “Jew” the comment will be blocked.

She also noted that she was the only one who gave an up-vote to Bowery’s comment:

jabowery • a day ago

Sortocracy: Sorting proponents of social theories into governments that test them. http://sortocracy.org

Bowery’s idea of Sortocracy is among the most fair and intelligent on the thread, but the drawback of Sortocracy is for his/its empirical bias, as it lacks the historical element that hermeneutics corrects for. If that were to be incorporated, and it could be, it could be a very good vehicle.


Clicking on the map will take you to a site that allows you to click further onto particular states to see all of their counties. For various reasons this is a helpful grid when examining matters of secession.


Hardly The Battle of Cable Street: What Berkeley Doesn’t Mean

Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, 19 April 2017 12:16.

.

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

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

What Berkeley Doesn’t Mean -

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

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

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

 

READ MORE...


Women Without Class

Posted by DanielS on Saturday, 18 March 2017 23:42.

Where you lost the right to discriminate in private business as well.

Women Without Class

Originally Published November 26, 2011 at VoR; republished here for the sake of editorial correction and update - By Daniel Sienkiewicz


It was the ultimate YKW perversion of terms — civil rights, freedom and discrimination — culminating in the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Even a cursory glance over its statutes reveals obsolescence, disingenuousness and evil.

It takes no more than a glance at its statutes. One goes into an American institution and sees a placard looming overhead declaring “discrimination on the basis of race, color, creed, national origin…” to be illegal. Suddenly seeing discrimination rendered pejorative, illegal even, one experiences a vague feeling of dread.

You sense immediately that you are being told not to have so much as eyeballs by way of discriminatory capacity. You are to be utterly defenseless against biological antagonists, to have no present recourse against the destruction of that which is most important.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964

I) Barred unequal application of voter registration requirements. II) Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term “private.” III) Prohibited state and municipal governments from denying access to public facilities on grounds of race, color, religion or national origin. IV) Encouraged the desegregation of public schools and authorized the U.S. Attorney General to file suits to enforce said act. V) Expanded the Civil Rights Commission established by the earlier Civil Rights Act. VI) Prevents discrimination by government agencies that receive federal funds. If an agency is found in violation of Title VI, that agency may lose its federal funding. VII) Prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Title VII also prohibits discrimination against an individual because of his or her association with another individual of a particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, such as by an interracial marriage.

In detail this Act is more Byzantine than that, and the ramifications of these prohibitions of discrimination are horrendous.

Even freedom of association, as it does not account for full processual development of those within the class, would not be sufficiently deep by itself, were it allowed. But while that objectivist, rational blindness leveraged by the technology of “civil rights” was bad enough, YKW interests perverted its meaning to violate even freedom of association by means of the Civil Rights Act.

Alabama Governor Wallace confronted by school desegregation in the personification of D.A. Nicholas Katzenbach

Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach, working alongside a Kennedy clan willing to sell out and open its country to catastrophic integration in order to gain power, along with a similarly disposed Lyndon Johnson, making a good bid for worst president ever, sundry other YKW and objectivist Whites, oversaw departmental operations (implementing the 1954 Brown vs Board of Education decision) in desegregating the University of Mississippi in September 1962 and the University of Alabama in June 1963 – where he personally moved Governor Wallace aside to open the door for Blacks; also worked with Congress to ensure the passage of the Voting Rights Act, and had significant help from Javitz and Celler (of 1965 Immigration & Naturalization Act infamy), to pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

These initiatives also established precedent for California’s Rumford Fair Housing Act of ‘63 which prohibited discrimination regarding whom one rents or sells property; and the ‘68 Fair Housing Act which extended that ruling to a national basis.

Waiting at Woolworth’s

We have here in culmination the ultimate in doublespeak terms: “civil rights” equals being told whose babies we must pay for, with whom we must study, whose children we must educate (with precious knowledge tortuously acquired), to whom we must rent, to whom we must sell, whom we must hire, whom we must serve even in private businesses – and this is called “freedom.”

Waiting at Woolworth’s

The related decision regarding the Woolworth’s Lunch Counter, telling a private business whom they must serve, was always one that caused my mind to glitch, even at a rather young age. M.L. King, with help from YKW overlords organized Blacks and others, including a few no-class White women - such as Joan Trumpauer Mulholland - to “sit-in” at Woolworth’s and force a legal decision regarding desegregation of its lunch counters. The decision never made sense to me from the moment I heard about it – not in terms of anything that you can call freedom, anyway. Telling a private business whom they must serve, how, and whom they must hire – that is called “freedom”? It must be a YKW definition. “Freedom marches, freedom riders, civil rights” – right? Wrong. Rather quite civil wrongs.


Mulholland and Dr. King


Mulholland participating in the “sit-in” at Woolworth’s

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 went further by banning racial segregation “by businesses offering food, lodging, gasoline, or entertainment to the public.”

Original Woolworth’s sit-in counter enshrined at The Smithsonian Institute

This would seem to be a clear violation of civic freedom, but YKW are skilled at promoting the self-destruction of Whites, who have been high on objectivism, while Blacks are hyper-assertive.

   


It is a civil right and its opposite is called illegal discrimination punishable by law. Do not discriminate; do not see the terror that you are confronted with; do not see that you are in something like a monkey cage, a planet of the apes (I can tell whether one has or has not been around many, depending upon an indignant response to that analogy or not).

M.L. King Jr. and Malcolm X

In the article on Kant’s moral system, I mentioned a kind of anguish bordering on torture that I experienced when I was groping after a moral order: That anguish stemmed from having inherited an obsequious Christian rule structure - the golden rule - by which I was to somehow go up against America’s rule structure, lording as it did competition as noble for all and yet presenting me with still another obsequious and imperative rule in the form of the 64 Civil Rights Act; in confrontation with antagonistic demographics. Having experienced more than enough of them through forced busing to go to school with them, their riots of 1967 and 68 in the town of my birth, I was largely convinced that I did not want anything to do with Blacks. I assumed in my young age that it would be my prerogative one day, and that sane people would make the same choice. How could I believe that others, women even, could do other than legitimate separatism after seeing such things?

M.L. King Jr. and Malcolm X were at the U.S. Capitol on March 26, 1964. Both men had come to hear the Senate debate on the bill. This was the only time the two men ever met.

With Blacks rioting in Newark in the summer of 1967, my father’s generation repeating the “greatest generation” mantra that ‘you can’t fight City Hall’, the Vietnam War escalating unintelligibly so that no young person with a penis was immune from the draft, yes, I did have a certain yearning for the San Francisco version of that same summer of ‘67.

Beatle’s guitarist George Harrison did go there - to the Summer of Love Be-In festival in San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park - but came away with a bad impression having dropped a bad batch of L.S.D. He saw these kids around him hideously spotted and vacuum-cleaner faced. From our perspective now, naturally it does not seem like such a bad scene, certainly the better option in the tale of two cities, Newark and San Francisco 1967. No wonder I was a bit reluctant to let that go, particularly enchanting it was to me as a child. I was a little disappointed when traditional women and men would say that was “all nonsense” or “the source of our problems”; and I was disconcerted to experience similar antagonism from feminists, particularly when the war had ended.

July 1967 Newark riots, left and center images.

Right, “The Summer of Love” follows the “Be-in” in San Francisco, 1967; George Harrison, Pattie (& the vacuum cleaner faces lol).

Before the late 80s interracial couples were rare.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 goes further to say that, “An employer cannot discriminate against a person because of his interracial association with another, such as by an interracial marriage.”

Just Great (for non native English speakers, note the sarcasm please): You cannot discriminate against people that you do not like, whom you find immoral and dangerous.

While the dam had not burst through the 60s, 70s, or even into the early 80s, it was a period of ominous buildup, the implications of the rule structure and demographic make-up were pervasive and auguring catastrophe…

Once the Vietnam War had ended, traditional women were rearing their ugly head and feminism went into high gear, steam-rolling any agenda for White male needs, though many boys still had need for being, communal being (midtdasein). I had just assumed that everyone would naturally reject forced integration and charges of “racism” but young women did not seem quite as inclined. Why?

Let’s qualify all statements made about young women below to mean, at their worst/most opportune, given defective social structure and pandering. It would be clearly wrong to say that there are not plenty of cool White women. (1)


Thesis:
Within the disorder resulting from civil rights (a feature of Enlightenment/Modernity) rupturing of classificatory (racial) bounds, the natural one-up position of young females (“you’re so wonderful, may I have a date?”; i.e., an expression of sperm being cheap, ovaries precious) emerges with increased significance as they are less accountable to their inheritance and more competed for, pandered-to even, from males of other groups.

READ MORE...


A view of Brexit from Asia: Britain as a Pacific trading power in the 21st century.

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sunday, 05 March 2017 21:40.

Red hanbok Korea-style eyecatch version 4

An important distinction

An article by John Morgan called ‘Alt Right versus New Right’ appeared at Counter-Currents Publishing on 28 Feb 2017. I tend to agree with the things that are written at Counter-Currents more often than I agree with things that are written elsewhere in the European nationalist sphere, and in this case what John Morgan was presenting was a very good article which I think all Majorityrights.com readers should also read.

Here is what I think is the most important excerpt:

John Morgan / Counter-Currents Publishing, ‘Alt Right versus New Right’, 28 Feb 2017 (emphasis added):

[...]

I understand that, given all the media attention it’s been receiving lately, there’s a temptation to adopt the term “Alt Right” universally. I, however, insist on viewing the Alt Right as something exclusively American, and the New Right as something particularly European.  

One thing that the two movements certainly share is a difficulty in determining what exactly they are. Especially in the hands of the mainstream media, “New Right” and “Alt Right” are two terms that have been used to refer to everything ranging from Tea Party-style populism to outright neo-Nazism, and everything in between, a problem that was inevitable given that neither group has a central authority that can pronounce who is and who isn’t orthodox, we might say, nor even what exactly that orthodoxy is. For my own purposes today, by New Right I mean the current of thought centered upon Alain de Benoist’s GRECE movement in France and its various offshoots since 1968, which represents a towering edifice of thought unparalleled anywhere else on the Right since the Conservative Revolution in Germany of the Weimar era.

The Alt Right is a much trickier animal to pin down. The New Right has produced literally hundreds of books outlining its beliefs and positions over the past half-century. The Alt Right, on the other hand, is a culture primarily of blogs, memes, podcasts, and videos. It has yet to produce a single book or other statement of principles that everyone involved would agree is the quintessence of the Alt Right’s worldview. This is a natural outgrowth of the anti-intellectualism inherent in Anglo-American political and cultural discourse, as opposed to the more innovative and livelier – dare I say superior – Rightist political tradition that you have here on the Continent. In attempting to think of a book that could in any way lay claim to being the Alt Right manifesto, the only thing I could come up with is Greg Johnson’s New Right versus Old Right, which has fortunately been translated into Swedish as well. Otherwise, the shelves of the Alt Right library remain pretty bare, although hopefully that will soon be changing.

[...]

But while the Alt Right and the New Right are coming at the problem of liberalism from similar angles, they do remain divided by several fundamental issues. First and foremost is race. The American Right (just as the American Left, albeit in different ways) is absolutely obsessed with race: evolutionary theories, comparative IQ scores, crime statistics, and the like. In America, this has led to the development of the term “white” to refer to anyone of European descent. [...] However, I do believe that the attempt of some to import this idea of “White Nationalism” into Europe, and who in some cases have even called for political unification between America, Europe, and Russia, is a severe disservice to the diversity inherent in European civilization. The issue for Europe, as the New Right has always understood, is as much based in ethnicity, language, and culture as it is on race. We can’t pretend that an Irishman and a Russian are interchangeable.

[...]

What John Morgan says there about the divergence between the Alternative Right and the New Right strikes me as being completely true and is perfectly in line with the experiences that I’ve had in Europe. 

It is also something that Alain de Benoist has talked about quite a lot. The attempt by Americans to impose their understanding of ethno-racial politics and their propensity to try to effectively obliterate all intra-European differences through imposing their concept of ‘Whiteness’ onto other regions quickly becomes unworkable. It simply lacks the appropriate level of sophistication and that lack stems from the fact that many of the American White nationalists who are generating these ideas, have neither lived in a European country nor held any financial stake in the future of a European country.

Ted Sallis took exception to this in the Counter-Currents comments section, because he is precisely the kind of White nationalist that is being criticised. He responded by asking the following:

Ted Sallis, comment 1381496, 28 Feb 2017 wrote:

“We can’t pretend that an Irishman and a Russian are interchangeable. ”
 

That canard again. I want to know – who says that? Who believes it? Who advocates that? If ethnonationalists don’t want to be viewed as fundamentally dishonest then you guys really need to stop making the most absurd strawman arguments.

By asking those questions, he was basically trying to force John Morgan to either go around looking up examples of people who he knew were doing it but which he did not have ready to hand, or to retract his whole argument.

Morgan responded:

John Morgan, comment 1381497, 28 Feb 2017 wrote:
 

I’ve heard such rhetoric from many people on the Alt Right. Specifically here, however, I’m thinking particularly of ideas that Richard Spencer has outlined in the past.

To which Sallis fired back:

Ted Sallis, comment 1381545, 01 Mar 2017 wrote:

If Spencer ever advocated such interchangeability, I’d like a quote. In my 20+ years of activism, always with a strong pan-European focus, I’ve only encountered one – one! – person who advocated any sort of “homogenizing” of Europeans – that was Hoffmeister in the introduction to Lowell’s book (and I critiqued him for that on this blog). And even Hoffmeister (insofar as I know) doesn’t believe these groups are the same, he just advocated their intermarriage. If Spencer suggested that all Europeans are the same, I would denounce that also. But don’t pretend or imply that those all people who advocate for a “Big Europe” idea actually believe such nonsense. It is factually incorrect, and its offensive.

One could just as easily look at ethnonationalist squabbling among Slovaks, Hungarians, and Romanians, or the Balt animus toward Russia, and accuse ethnonationalists of all supporting intra-European conflict.

At this point I decided to jump in, because I actually had the answer to Sallis’ aggressive questioning. It’s a slightly lengthy comment but I’ll reproduce it in full nonetheless:

Kumiko Oumae, comment 1381582, 01 Mar 2017 wrote (emphasis added):

There are some people who are essentially doing that. I can think of two offhand, Richard Spencer has been doing it in a subtle way, and Constantin von Hoffmeister has also been doing it in a completely explicit way.

Here’s an example of Spencer doing it in a podcast on 19 Dec 2015: http://www.radixjournal.com/blog/2015/12/19/trump-putin-and-the-future-of-the-white-world

Again, Spencer doesn’t explicitly do it, he just establishes the kind of framework which could lead a person to arrive at those conclusions. He does acknowledge in the podcast that the ‘unity’ he is talking about is a long shot.

Here’s an example of Hoffmeister doing it in an interview on Stark Truth Radio on 28 Feb 2017: http://www.starktruthradio.com/?p=3913

In that interview Hoffmeister actually calls for ‘an alliance of Berlin, Moscow and Tel Aviv’. He repeats it three times and seems to have no self-awareness about how a large percentage of listeners will regard him and that savagely obscene idea with the utmost horror and revulsion.

And Hoffmeister had also appeared at Identitarian Ideas IX, on 25 Feb 2017: https://altright.com/2017/02/27/identitarian-ideas-ix-rising-from-the-ruins-2/

Hoffmeister’s appearance at that venue seems to show that he is no longer totally the half-joke and half-eccentric figure that he was apparently seen as in the 2006 – 2009 period. It wouldn’t be impossible that his ideas might have some currency with some people in the Alt-Right.

A scan of comments sections often will also show random commenters affirming those kinds of views, and they seem to have received a renewed – albeit still limited – push since the emergence of Russian Active Measures which strove to amplify certain aspects of the Alt-Right message that the Russian state assessed to be useful to cultivating a social support for their energy interests in Europe. By amplifying the parts of Alt-Right ideology they agree with, or inserting themselves into identitarian movements, or by simply funding organisations, Russia has been able to shape some of the contours of these social movements in ways that could be conducive to their interests.

John Morgan’s article was really good, I think, he is on to the truth. Morgan may or may not have had quotes or specific podcast links immediately to hand when he was writing his article – after all, not everyone has browser bookmarks as beautifully organised as myself – but his sense of the situation wasn’t wrong. This is a thing.

The people who believe in the ‘Big Europe’, often tend to also assert that anyone who disagrees with them is ‘in favour of intra-European conflict’ or something like that. But actually on a basic level the ideas propagated by those who believe in a so-called ‘Big Europe’ – by which it is understood as a ‘Lisbon to Vladivostok’ concept – are the ideas that really are promoting an intra-European conflict because the persons promoting them must know on some level that Britain specifically will be dramatically opposed to any such thing.

What do I mean by that? Well, no one ever tries to utter the phrase ‘London to Vladivostok’, and I think we all know why they do not say that. It’s because they know that they cannot. At the end of the day, people do quietly understand that Britain’s geostrategic and geoeconomic interests are to strive against allowing any single power to control access to the transit lanes and the mineral and energy resources of Central Asia, navigation across and around the Baltic area, the strategic depth of the Visegrad countries, or the natural resources of Siberia. The legacy of the Great Game, the Crimean War, and the First World War’s covert and semi-covert theatre in Central Asia trace the contours of that fascinating phenomenon.

Another factor which has not been considered by many people, is that the advent of ‘Brexit’ which will be implemented sometime in the next thirty days, will further unshackle Britain from the continent, and thus unshackle Britain from the (relatively speaking) moderating effect that European institutions suffused with Franco-German stakeholders have previously exerted on British policy toward Russia. In other words, Brexit will not herald a softening of British policy toward Russia, but rather it will herald a sharpening of British policy against Russia.

It is ironic that many of the same people who supported ‘Big Europe’ also gave moral support to ‘Brexit’ (and thus they accidentally supported #GlobalBritain!), because these things are totally opposed tendencies. Britain was asked to choose between the continent and the sea, and it chose the sea again, as it absolutely had to. And there’s nothing wrong with that, that is an integral part of the identity of the British people as a seafaring trading nation with ‘historical connections’ to Central, South and East Asia.

In summary: For people to call for ‘an imperium from Lisbon to Vladivostok’ or ‘a Euro-Siberian imperium’ as Hoffmeister does, is effectively the same as those persons announcing an intent to have conflict with a whole laundry list of countries who will of course disagree with it, namely, all the countries which would have to be unwillingly dragged into such an arrangement, as well as offshore balancers like the British who would rightly see their interests being threatened by any such suggestion.

‘Big Europe’ is also a maximum autistic LARP which is open for exploitation by Gazprom, because the concept doesn’t intersect with realities on the ground and ends up functioning as a mere cheerleading squad for the Kremlin. It additionally seems to want to include large swathes of land in the so-called ‘RFE’ that are not even inhabited by Europeans to begin with.

Greg Johnson told me it was a good response, saying:

Greg Johnson, comment 1381651, 02 Mar 2017 wrote:

Thank you. This is an excellent comment.

And it really is excellent, if I do say so myself.

Ted Sallis was of course having none of that. His rebuttal to the fact that his precious ‘Big Europe’ from ‘Lisbon to Vladivostok’ had just been been branded a ‘maximum autistic LARP’, was to respond with the absolute classic: “no, you!” It could be said that all of history’s best ethnic wars start this way:

Ted Sallis, comment 1381611, 01 Mar 2017 wrote:

No, your insane Asian imperialism of Silk Road White Nationalism is the LARP that we should all beware of, for autistic Asiaphiles selling out to the inscrutables of Beijing, Tokyo, and Seoul. We do not need Russian-hating Japanese dictating to Europeans what our relationships to each other should be.

Britain’s “geostrategic” interests helped lead to two World Wars that lost them their empire, wrecked the White world, and led to the colonization of Britain and the rest of Europe by the Third World. It’s high time that the British stop applying 19th and early 20th century strategies to a 21st century world.

And, yes, by the way, I’m a Big Europe person who was enthusiastically in favor of Brexit, since the EU is the perfectly inverse mirror image of what a sane Big Europe would be like. The EU is monstrous, not because European cooperation and collegial feeling is bad, but because it is a vehicle for globalist aspiration (which the government of Britain and all other Western European nations also is).

“the British people as a seafaring trading nation with ‘historical connections’ to Central, South and East Asia.”

Right…Britain should make common cause with Asians against Europe so as to please Asian imperialists who covet the Russian Far East. Sorry, I do hope the British people don’t fall for that Asiatic swindle.

I suppose this is what the time period 1854 to 1917 was like, at least in terms of rhetoric. Some may see that time period as being a kind of hell, others may see it as heaven, but whichever it is, we are going there; it’s geographically predetermined.

Also, Ted Sallis obviously just hates me, doesn’t he? He seems to regard me with a special kind of hatred and I don’t even know where it’s coming from, because as far as I know I never actually did the things that he is constantly accusing me of all over the internet.

I’ll use this article as an opportunity to address a wide cross-section of the issues that he keeps raising. As such I’ll be responding not only to the specific comment that he made, but to a selection of things that he’s said about my stances over the past eighteen months on his site as well, since there is considerable overlap.

Not ‘dictating’ and not ‘seducing’

Ted Sallis, comment 1381611, 01 Mar 2017 wrote:

[...] We do not need Russian-hating Japanese dictating to Europeans what our relationships to each other should be.

[...]

I don’t have any desire to ‘dictate’ anything to any Europeans. I simply offer my ear in sympathy and solidarity and I make suggestions that I think are good suggestions. At no point do I demand anything. I don’t even take that tone. My views at their strongest are merely firm recommendations. Sallis has previously suggested – or at least strongly implied – on his blog that I go around ‘seducing’ people into doing or saying what I want them to. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is no ‘Asian woman privilege’. To imagine that it is so would be completely delusional and paranoid. I know that popular media makes it look like we tend to gain automatic admittance to any venue on the basis of charm alone and then destroy the place, but I can assure you that in reality it doesn’t quite work that way. It would be fun if it did work that way, though.

So let’s dispel these fictions.

If Asians had the fantastically manipulative social powers that Sallis constantly claims we have on his blog, then either the Chaebol-preferred candidate Jeb Bush or the Keidanren-preferred candidate Marco Rubio would have attained the GOP nomination, whereas the Mossad-preferred candidate Donald Trump would have been blocked from entry. In such a scenario the GOP also would have somehow come under the sustained lobbying sway of what are actually weak Asian lobbies in the United States. And if either Jeb or Rubio then happened to fail against Hillary, then it would have simply been a Hillary Clinton presidency, in which the status quo would continue but at least the Iran JCPOA deal would not have come under threat, and existing global problems would somehow not have been made worse by Americans choosing to conform themselves to Israeli policy preferences on the subject of Iran.

There is no perfect solution because the United States is basically political hell, but one at least does what one can. Trump was the least-preferred candidate for Asian interests.

Some of course may be asking what right I have to say anything about American politics, a question that White nationalists like to hotly ask me whenever I give my opinion on anything that they have done. The answer is that what happens in America affects everyone.

All of the candidates were unacceptable in some way, but they existed and could not be wished out of existence or wished into a form that was different from what they were. Thus, it was necessary to prioritise what policy preferences were most important and do triage on that basis. This could not be done merely on the basis of statements uttered on the campaign trail, but rather, the network of institutions and people who the candidate is enmeshed with or beholden to, as well as the family and blood connections of the candidate also had to be seen as indicative of what that candidate may be likely to do if elected.

The priorities looked something like this:

1. Maintaining the Iran JCPOA Deal,
2. Passing the TPP,
3. Taking decisive moves against North Korea’s nuclear ambitions,
4. Attenuating and disrupting Russian/Gazprom gains in Eastern and Central Europe,
5. Incentivise the de-linking French industry from Russia by passing TTIP,
6. Stopping the construction of further Israeli settlements and thus disrupting the American-Israeli relationship,
7. Locking down Europe’s southern border and boxing in ISIL,
8. Disrupting Turkish-American cooperation,
9. Maintaining the US-imposed sanctions against Russia ‘until the Ukraine crisis is resolved’ (ie, until whenever), so as to alter the patterns of international investment in Russia in a way that forces sections of Russian territory to become economically reliant on China, and thus, structurally tame and subordinate Russia to China.

To focus in on the top priority, which is maintaining the Iran deal, the reasons for desiring that the deal be maintained are as follows:

1. It would allow Iran the ability to safely and reliably vend more of its gas to European countries, which offsets Russian energy preponderance. Since Russian energy preponderance is one of the key mechanisms that Russia uses for political leverage in Europe, having Iran on tap as the alternative would serve to erode Russian power in Europe.
2. Allowing Iran to trade with the rest of the world, allows the rest of the world to invest in sectors of the Iranian economy that are starved for cash and innovation, and could potentially have structural effects that empower local moderates as Iran shifts away from the isolated command model of economy over time.
3. Eases the economic relationships between Central and Eastern European countries, and Iran, which is a net good for trade because part of China’s OBOR will run through Iranian territory. The OBOR is the key link which offers a physical high speed connection between the East Asian supply chain network on the one hand, and the European market of consumers on the other.
4a. Enhancing Iranian energy exports would exert downward pressure on energy prices globally, which is good for consumers and bad for rent-seeking oil-despots.
4b. Long-term low prices forces energy services companies and extractors to streamline and innovate their shale operations even more, which reinforces the ‘price cap’, and thus disrupts the cohesion of the effectively Saudi-led OPEC cartel.

Needless to say, the ‘Donald J. Trump’ option would not satisfy any of those priorities.

Since total withdrawal from the scene would have been pointless, Asian and European lobbyists and donors had to remain engaged in that form of electoral triage and stay close to America during the 2016 election cycle in the hopes that the outcome could be shaped in a way that is least disadvantageous to the participants. 

It is possible to model projections on the basis of past signals at previous cycles, combined with the new inputs that had arisen in the 2016 cycle and from that, it could be possible to construct a strategy for that situation. The past signals come from polls and social sciences studies which give people insight into how different cohorts in American society respond to various stimuli when elections are on. Consider it a form of electoral bandlimiting.

But there’s a problem. The Heisenberg–Gabor limit. All real-world signals are timelimited.

Wikipedia, ‘Bandlimiting > Bandlimited versus timelimited’:

A bandlimited signal cannot be also timelimited. More precisely, a function and its Fourier transform cannot both have finite   support. This fact can be proved by using complex analysis and properties of Fourier transform. [...]

One important consequence of this result is that it is impossible to generate a truly bandlimited signal in any real-world situation, because a bandlimited signal would require infinite time to transmit. All real-world signals are, by necessity, timelimited, which means that they cannot be bandlimited. Nevertheless, the concept of a bandlimited signal is a useful idealization for theoretical and analytical purposes. Furthermore, it is possible to approximate a bandlimited signal to any arbitrary level of accuracy desired.

A similar relationship between duration in time and bandwidth in frequency also forms the mathematical basis for the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics.

To make a long story short, there is an extent to which all of this is a form of gambling.

It was clear that Donald Trump’s network was the narrowest. Trump’s network was basically a collection of Israelis, real estate developers and construction companies, and former Goldman Sachs employees.

The other candidates were much more multifaceted in terms of who they were allowing to influence them, and this would mean that in the case of the other candidates, there would be a greater chance for more diverse donors and lobbyists to exert influence to counteract whatever Israeli influence might be aimed at them.

From that perspective, it made sense to throw as many resources as possible against Donald Trump’s campaign once it became apparent that he could be a serious contender, and to support others in their efforts to signal against Donald Trump’s candidacy.

But it didn’t work out.

What actually happened in the end of course was that no one, absolutely no one was able to prevent Trump from winning everything. As a result of Trump winning, Israel was able to walk away with basically all the prizes. More prizes than they’ve ever had before. It was the worst possible outcome.

So this gameplan that Sallis is accusing Asians of trying out on America, is a gameplan which didn’t even work, did it?

Asian state actors may or may not have literally come in and stacked Federal Reserve Notes to the roof at the US Chamber of Commerce, networked with the CATO Institute and many others on trade issues, while private citizens may or may not have gone around the other side of the right-spectrum and leveraged the ideological components of the HBD/ethnopluralist movement to raise Asian social status through repeatedly publicising the stories of academic high achievers – and then after all was said and done and spent, White Americans still got up, declared that Asian producer nations were somehow ‘the problem’, filed into the voting booths, and voted for the anti-Asian candidate: Donald Trump.

Misplaced emphasis?

The hyperventilating emphasis that Sallis places on exhorting White nationalists to combat Asian diaspora lobbies and the home nations, seems very strange to me, given that our primary opponent is not White people. The number one threat to the East Asian post-war success story is a United States and/or a Russian Federation which is controlled preponderantly by the state of Israel’s lobbyists.

Our number one opponent in actual reality is Israel.

Every time an Asian takes aim at the Israel lobby for whatever motive, people like Sallis end up jumping in the way to unintentionally shield the Israelis because some White nationalists tend to think it’s aimed at White people. For example, when someone engages in industrial targeting against companies which are controlled by people with blatantly Jewish names, people like Sallis who are in the anti-Asian camp always show up to sound the alarm by protesting about ‘the Asian takeover’. Americans and Russians inadvertently end up defending many of the existing Jewish Zionist oligarchs in their own countries from the machinations of everyone else’s oligarchs.

Everything really hinges around what people’s priorities are. Is your priority to defend the structural integrity of the propositional nation called ‘the United States’ or ‘the Russian Federation’ or whatever? Or is your priority to counteract the power of the Jewish lobby which is firmly entrenched in those two locations above all else? The answer cannot realistically be ‘both’. Choose one.

Or to put in the bluntest terms, are you primarily anti-Semitic, or are you primarily pro-‘Big Europe’ and pro-America?

At Sallis’ blog I have actually seen him claim that the outworking of Asian interests are – in his view – a ‘greater longterm threat’ to White people than the outworking of Jewish interests are.

It is frankly amazing to me that he could arrive at that conclusion.

Also, he has repeatedly mischaracterised what I have meant by ‘collaboration’. By ‘European and Asian collaboration’ I have only meant moving toward the kind of détente where we agree to maintain the presently-existing trade and investment arrangements and that ethnonationalists on both sides should refrain from taking up protectionist stances and that both sides should avoid stoking communal tensions in their publications. I have never asked for anything else. It’s a request that didn’t even require White people to do or change anything, since that is a status quo position anyway.

If someone said that it was anything beyond “don’t step on each other’s toes if you can help it”, then such a person is wrong, or is overly-enthusiastic.

At any rate, a lot of the ‘harder’ stuff that I say to people about geoeconomic issues is done low key and non-publicly (as those people who receive the occasional email from me could attest to), I only have to defend myself like this if I’m basically accused directly of something, as Sallis keeps doing.

So here we go!

Sallis refers to my stance as being effectively ‘Asian imperialism’, but it remains a mystery as to where this ‘imperialism’ actually is. Accusing me of ‘British imperialism’ would be a misnomer too, but at least that would sound a bit more coherent with respect to what I’ve actually been writing, given that what I’m saying is all cast within the already-presently-existing British framework anyway. Or is he accusing me of promoting both Asian and British ‘imperialism’ at the same time? I think he needs to define his terms, since I don’t know what definition of ‘imperialism’ he is using. ‘Imperialism’ as contrasted with what?

If I sell you a basket of products and then spend the money to improve our standing in the world, that is not ‘imperialism’. Also, even if it were ‘imperialism’, what difference at this point would it make? Next Sallis would be telling me that the fact that I continue to breathe oxygen is objectively bad in and of itself.

Obviously from my perspective, if my breathing oxygen is ‘imperialist’ and anti-Russian, then I had better keep being ‘imperialist’ and anti-Russian, because oxygen is pretty sweet! Obviously no one could reasonably expect that either myself or the Britons would feel any kind of guilt about that. We can only step over it. It would do nothing to change the present situation on the ground, which is what it is.

My stance simply boils down to speaking against economic protectionism, and guaranteeing the gains that were accrued after 1991 at the end of the Cold War and the economic defeat of the USSR. The new order which manifested after 1991, when the frontiers of Muscovy were mercifully rolled back on all sides by over fifteen thousand miles, became an order focussed on deepening global supply chains so as to cut costs while also battling the ‘loose ends’ of radical Islamic terror and migration crises.

It is possible to attend to those above issues while also being aware of the racial issue: which is that the nation-state is the richest and most developed repository of historical experience and governmental best-practices, and furthermore it is the surest source of inner motive energies (call it ‘EGI’) which motivate people to fight and to strive for a better seat at the table and a brighter day in the sun.

Sallis dislikes the supposed ‘inscrutables’ of ‘Beijing, Tokyo, and Seoul’ (and presumably New Delhi and the rest too), but how inscrutable can it be? It’s transparent that people do not want to be subjected to trade policies and foreign policies that are crafted by people in North America who seem to want to pretend that all North America’s problems are coming from Asia in the form of molded plastic and semiconductors.

The idea that Britain should conform its foreign policy to satisfy those very American concerns also doesn’t make any sense, since European states have legitimate interests that do not mesh with those of the United States. It’s way past time that people should continue to pretend that the United States has identical geostrategic and geoeconomic interests as European states do, much less that the different European states all have identical interests.

A thing America actually now did

I mean let’s be real, the Americans just somehow non-ironically elected a guy who came out with a speech 120 hours ago where he advocated what? This hilarious list:

a. 54 billion more drunkenly spent on defence spending targeted at nothing,
b. 1 trillion more for infrastructure spending for inner city no-go zones which will have pitiable return on investment,
c. More o’ dem social programmes for the poor baby Trayvons in Detroit who lost their jobs – despite them never having had a job – to the allegedly ‘bad bad’ people in Manila or ‘bad bad’ people in Ho Chi Minh City who are apparently ‘ripping’ you, because why? Because of course. Apparently according to Hunter Wallace, African-Americans are now more valuable to the Alt-Right than trade with Asian states is, so what the hell.
d. Free cash-money for Israel. Because Trump just loves Israel. Because his family is married into it. All of them will continue to studiously ignore that tendency.

So there I was, watching that mortifying clown-car of super-horrible policies unpacking itself into the international arena and I was asking – while I was drinking white rum directly from the bottle – a single question. Only one question.

“But Bernie—I mean, Trump, how are you planning to actually pay for any of this stuff, fam?”

The answer arrived shortly thereafter! The ‘answer’ is apparently:

a. Doubling-down on protectionist tariffs and incoherent ‘buy American’ sloganeering to socially reinforce it, a move which depends on the absurd and not-ever-happening idea that Asian economies will passively allow the United States to subject them to a tariff regime designed by Gary Cohn which would literally grab money out of Asian financial centres and reroute it back into the treasury of the Zionist Occupation Government,
b. Lower taxes on American people
c. Lower taxes on American corporations
d. Every American gets a tax refund to pay for medical care to replace the ACA.

Hmm! But that’s okay perhaps, since certain commodities stocks have spiked up since 09 November 2016, and maybe if the markets reorder themselves around that, those positions can continue to grow. People can make instruments which tap into that expansion, and then people and the state itself can borrow against those instruments using some very fancy mathematical formulas to predict their performance. Detroit and other Rust Belt disaster zones will somehow magically be rebuilt, and the African-Americans will somehow crank out billions of widgets while somehow not being at all socially-dysfunctional, so that all of the big spending will totally somehow pay for itself. The formulas may or may not have documentation associated with them. The formulas may or may not even be based in any kind of rational thought. Your children can then repay the money to Goldman Sachs about 35 years from now. And all of that is to be done so that the allegedly heroic America can finally defeat the allegedly undead East Asia.

Wow, right? Really very much wow. I mean the whole Trump-style plan has literally never failed before except for like every single time ever.

I guess you could say that I disagree with the Israel-backed Trumpist manchild plan, because my geopolitical stances are all anti-Semitic in one way or another. You could say that I disagree with the Israel-backed Trumpist manchild plan because I am of course an Asian woman, which is another factor that makes me very scary and perhaps ‘evil’. But I’ve never lied or swindled about anything in that regard.

Separate destinies

Theresa May is the polar opposite of Donald Trump on those issues, and thank goodness she is the polar opposite. No false appeals by the usual suspects to ‘the White race’ and its supposed ‘unity’ are going to induce the British to make common cause with the American economic-protectionist suicide pact against their own interests, because – frankly – the British public are on average simply savvier than their American counterparts, just enough so to have deftly evaded the protectionism con-game, and to have correctly supported Brexit at the same time.

Of course, there are some Trump-supporters out there who would say that this entire article could be summarised as being ‘an example of what the siren-song of globalisation sounds like’, but those people are not even capable of rigor in their analysis of anything because they’ve become ensnared by Donald Trump’s cult of personality and cannot help but senselessly parrot every one of his forced memes.

I’m incredibly optimistic about Britain because everything the British people are doing recently is just great, and the interests being expressed in these isles are legitimate. 

I will therefore reiterate: Britain was forced to choose between the continent and the sea, and Britain chose the sea again. And there’s nothing wrong with that, that is an integral part of the identity of the British people as a seafaring trading nation with historical connections to Central, South and East Asia.

If people such as Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin and Angela Merkel don’t understand this, it is only because it is not in their national interest to try to understand it. But there is no reason why anyone should be held hostage to their trade preferences.

Those who continue to oppose Britain will continue to do so no matter what we say. But the ways in which they do so will become increasingly subtle. It is one thing to have continental European or American allies – alliances imply cooperation between distinct groups – but it is absolutely a different thing entirely to have these people actually as part of our own groups, browbeating us because we won’t bend our knee to the Kremlin, Berlin, or Washington DC. Letting opponents of Britain shape the contours of how Britain should express its national interests is not ‘European racial solidarity’, it is subversion by hostile foreign groups whose interests do not align with Britain’s.

It is perhaps no coincidence that Britain’s opponents are fully engaged in concern-trolling about supposed Asian ‘swindlers’ in Britain in the aftermath of Brexit, because Brexit is apparently not enough for the American and Russian concern-trolls. It is however quite enough for the British people who wisely voted to block the mass migration of Arabs and North Africans via the European Union into Britain, but are quite sensibly not willing to burn down the entire civil society and economy of Britain just to pointlessly antagonise Asians because some American or German or Russian enemy asked them to do so in the name of a non-existing ‘European solidarity’.

You have to wonder if these people even understand what Brexit means. Do they know? It means ‘British Citizens Politely Exiting From Your Actual Disaster Zone. It is literally the opposite of ‘solidarity’. There is no solidarity, nor should there be any solidarity in the present circumstances.

Necessary trade

Free trade and the economic integration of Britain and the East is not an ‘Asiatic swindle’ as Sallis would allege, but rather, it is regions of the world exchanging goods and securing the world’s most important transit zones, for mutual benefit. It is a dividend arising from of forty years of work which was done by the previous generation of actors, and which we in the present have inherited.

Our motives can be expressed in the material realm in a transactional way, and as such this expression eliminates the uncertainty that would accompany idealistic or sentimental reasons.

For British Asians in the Brexit environment, our lives and our property are bound up with the fortunes and the flag of Great Britain, so it is only natural that we would stand with Britain against any and all opponents. We are not ‘loyal’ for just some kind of sentimental reasons alone. We are ‘loyal’ because everyone appreciates that Britain will now be well-placed in a secure position to participate more than ever in the ongoing process of global development in the places that need it most.

Furthermore, Brexit would not be economically viable for Britain without the maintenance and expansion of trade relationships with growth regions in Asia to fill the void left by Britain’s departure from the European Common Market. The precise way in which that will manifest is presently a ‘blank page’ with a title heading over it in the Brexit plan, but the correct way of looking at the concept of there being a ‘blank page’ with a title heading over it is to recognise that as an opportunity for people to write something mutually edifying there.

Kumiko Oumae works in the defence and security sector in the UK. Her opinions here are entirely her own.


Page 1 of 29 |  [ 1 ]   [ 2 ]   [ 3 ]  | Next Page | Last Page

Venus

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Establishment Problem

Categories

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Immigration

Islamist Threat

Anti-white Media Networks

Audio/Video

Crime

Economics

Education

General

Historical Re-Evaluation

Controlled Opposition

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Europeans in Africa

Of Note

Comments

Comments from prior, rough draft thread commented in entry 'Check points on hermeneutic of racial stasis/homeostasis - after sorting-out confusing terms' on Fri, 23 Feb 2018 22:39. (View)

Russian trolls and bots commented in entry '4 things we learned from the indictment of 13 Russians in the Mueller investigation' on Fri, 23 Feb 2018 13:11. (View)

"narrative vs science" commented in entry 'Cheddar Man's dark skin an example of how mere facticity can be misleading or used to mislead' on Fri, 23 Feb 2018 06:18. (View)

European Beauty commented in entry 'The facial proportions of beautiful people' on Thu, 22 Feb 2018 20:26. (View)

Billy Graham commented in entry 'Sam Francis on the Jewish Question' on Thu, 22 Feb 2018 11:40. (View)

Sanhedrin puts Trump's face on Israeli half-shekel commented in entry 'There's your boy! Pats on the head for your Zionist quid pro quo: nice Right-Wing, nice Alt-Right' on Thu, 22 Feb 2018 02:13. (View)

Play that Funky Music White Boy Holdsworth commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Wed, 21 Feb 2018 10:14. (View)

Tara Westover commented in entry 'American Experience: Ruby Ridge' on Wed, 21 Feb 2018 07:31. (View)

If you're watching this... commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Wed, 21 Feb 2018 04:32. (View)

99.6% European commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Wed, 21 Feb 2018 03:50. (View)

99% European/ 38% Great Britain commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Wed, 21 Feb 2018 03:22. (View)

Camille & Kennerly commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Tue, 20 Feb 2018 18:40. (View)

Ieva Baltmiskyte commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 21:39. (View)

Are The Finns European? commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 16:44. (View)

Green Sleeves commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 16:40. (View)

Jerry Cantrell commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 15:59. (View)

Nutshell commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 15:41. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'The New Religion Exclusively for Those of Indigenous European Extraction' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 08:29. (View)

mancinblack commented in entry 'The New Religion Exclusively for Those of Indigenous European Extraction' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 08:16. (View)

Blue on Black commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 08:12. (View)

2016 commercials commented in entry 'WHITE WOMEN FOR SALE!' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 06:27. (View)

Like a bad neighbor, State Farm is there commented in entry 'WHITE WOMEN FOR SALE!' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 05:40. (View)

2018 Olympic Hockey Tournament commented in entry 'Winter Olympics not diverse enough for US media' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 03:38. (View)

Taken For Granted commented in entry 'WHITE WOMEN FOR SALE!' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 02:42. (View)

Commercials: "resistance is futile" commented in entry 'WHITE WOMEN FOR SALE!' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 01:10. (View)

The Mountain Between Us commented in entry 'WHITE WOMEN FOR SALE!' on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 23:27. (View)

Kristy Boden commented in entry 'Two more London attacks' on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 15:54. (View)

The Rooster commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 11:06. (View)

Uncomfortable Bear commented in entry '4 things we learned from the indictment of 13 Russians in the Mueller investigation' on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 09:23. (View)

Nikolas Cruz commented in entry '"What We Don't Know - Motive." Likely: revenge against societal incoherence, lack of accountability' on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 02:09. (View)

Maccabees commented in entry 'The alternative right's big tent, already too inclusive - includes Jews as well' on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 00:57. (View)

Max Musson article mapped commented in entry 'Dark Side of Self Actualization & Incommensurate GenderAgendas' on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 00:14. (View)

8,606 fake refugees so far in 2018 commented in entry 'More Than A Thousand Illegal Immigrants Reach Europe In First Week Of 2018' on Sat, 17 Feb 2018 18:52. (View)

Orson commented in entry 'Serial killer white-out' on Sat, 17 Feb 2018 15:58. (View)

Toba commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Sat, 17 Feb 2018 11:02. (View)

Majorityrights shield

Sovereignty badge