Majorityrights Central > Category: Race realism

.

(((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...

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...

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.

        This nonsense has got to stop.

#Earth2Trump

Join the Resistance to Trump’s Attack on Our Environment and Civil Rights

The #Earth2Trump Roadshow is coming — or has already come — to a town near you this month.

The roadshow is rallying and empowering defenders of civil rights and the environment to resist Trump’s dangerous agenda. Stopping in 16 cities on its way to D.C., it’s bringing thousands of people to protest at the presidential inauguration.

Having kicked off in Oakland and Seattle on Jan. 2, the #Earth2Trump Roadshow is touring the country bringing speakers, musicians, outrage, fun and hope to a total of 16 cities as it progresses toward the presidential inauguration on Jan. 20.

The free shows feature national and local speakers, great musicians, and an opportunity to join a growing movement of resistance to all forms of oppression and all attacks on our environment. We must stand and oppose every Trump policy that hurts wildlife; poisons our air and water; destroys our climate; promotes racism, misogyny or homophobia; and marginalizes entire segments of our society.

       
That includes White people and our species too, baldy. We are not Trump.
Trump does not represent White people, our best interests, nor our best relation to environment and others.

Brackets have been co-opting, along with their liberal trainees, issues of environmental and species diversity as if it is their cause and then militating against “racism” as if Europeans are not a species with habitat, as if discrimination against more prolific breeders and antagonistic species who encroach is not an essential capacity to maintain speciation and habitat sustainability; the liberals here also tuck a campaign against “misogyny” into their environmentalism, as if females should bear no critique on behalf of human ecology? As if hatred of men, White men, has not been open season for over 60 years now, and doesn’t warrant a response?

To allow our cause of European advocacy to be associated with right-wing destruction of human and natural ecology is no longer acceptable. Nor is it for the brackets to continually associate their liberal political causes with environmentalism and biodiversity.

We can give credit where credit is due to those living ecologically - e.g., a native American tribe living with the environment - great.

We can call to account our right-wingers and liberals where they are not living ecologically, where international capital, industrial, consumer society, liberal universalism impact ourselves and others deleteriously: a key difference of White Post Modernity is that unlike Modernity, it does not merely stop when it is forced to stop by nature. It recognizes internal relation, limits and differences that make a difference. It has a deliberate stance in that regard from the onset. Unlike the mono-culturalism of primitive groups and the universalim of liberal modernist societies, White Post Modernity recognizes the delimitations of pervasive ecology and reflexive effects in internal relation from the start....including instances where liberals and brackets try use “environmentalism” to prevent more developed countries from assisting growing ethnostates - and vis a versa, where they obstruct those growing ethno-states from cooperating with more developed nations in their contraction into ethno-states.

But we also need to be critical where criticism is due, not only of females, delicate and sensitive creatures though they are, not only of White right-wingers who screw-up the issue of ecology, in one way or another, where they try to deal with it, or where they’re downright antagonistic, but where racial groups impact the rest of the world.

Right wingers, liberals and their bracket masters are going to have to recognize that their “anti-racism” thing is a fundamental scourge against necessary human classification - which is requisite for accountability and necessary discrimination on behalf of human ecology, thus ultimately, all ecology.

READ MORE...

The toilet: where “Civil Rights” would place your senses.

Once you arrive at your destination - The United States Public Institution - there above the portal as you enter Orwellian hall, looms the placard, the ubiquitous injunction to leave your senses behind: “Discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sex, disability, etc, is prohibited by federal law.”

You are not to deploy your eyes, ears, sense of touch, senses generally, to discriminate in defense of yourself and your kindred folk’s group interests.

In the event that you get any ideas on the way to the public institution, ideas to return to your senses, react, perhaps even “over react”, big brother is there with you too, as you make your way via public transportation, U.S.A. - whether bus, tram, train or the waiting rooms - big brother is there to remind you, watching you, reminding you not to come to your senses too rashly - looming ominously, pervasively over your head, right along with cctv cameras and sundry advertisements are the “public service announcements” that “hate crimes” are subject to an additional massive fine and ten years imprisonment.

So as not to forget, there hanging over your head is a reminder of this specially enhanced law, “discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sex, disability” etc, is against the federal civil rights act - you are to be reminded of the compensatory penalties that you will be subject-to if you give way to your senses and react to patterns of black criminality and to the fact that they are rarely charged with this law, even though you know them to be racist, even though they commit vastly more racially motivated crimes against Whites. You are to be reminded not to embark upon that slippery sensible slope, especially because the sloping trail may lead you to the realization that the same can be said about Jews - that they commit vastly more crimes against Whites, viz., if White collar crimes are taken into account; if laws were properly drafted so as to proscribe deliberate or reckless destruction to E.G.I. such as perpetrated through the social engineering of School Integration, the ‘64 Civil Rights Act, ‘65 Immigration and Naturalization Act, The Rumford Fair Housing Act, Section 8 Housing, H.U.D. and the subsequent 2008 subprime mortgage crisis.

Of course the objectivists, so proud of this pure system of theirs, wouldn’t want to sully it by coming to their senses either - otherwise they might ask, “a crime is a crime, so why the additional penalty in recognition of cultural patterns?”

Alex Linder has a suggestion for them - blacks commit far more interracial crime, therefore, Whites “require” compensatory punishment to balance things out: “Hate crimes are affirmative action for Whites”, for their under-representation in interracial criminality. ....he might have added, probably would add, the vastly disproportionate representation by Jews in White collar and social engineering crimes (inasmuch as they could be on the books) committed against Whites and others’ EGI.

In regard to the Chicago incident, apparently the fact that the White kid was also mentally disabled facilitated liberal mentality to generate a rare hate-crime charge against black perpetrators:

ABC News, “Hate-Crime Charges Filed in Attack on Mentally Disabled Man”, 5 Jan 2017:

Four black people were charged with hate crimes Thursday in connection with a video broadcast live on Facebook that showed a mentally disabled white man being beaten and taunted, threatened with a knife and forced to drink from a toilet.

The assault went on for hours, until Chicago police found the disoriented victim walking along a street, authorities said.

The suspects, who were jailed, can be heard on the video using profanities against white people and President-elect Trump.

Police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi said investigators initially concluded that the 18-year-old man was singled out because he has “special needs,” not because he was white. But authorities later said the charges resulted from both the suspects’ use of racial slurs and their references to the victim’s disability.

DM, “Black teens are charged with a HATE CRIME after live-streaming torture of white disabled man who they held prisoner for days before he escaped - as cops reveal they have shown NO remorse,”  5 Jan (updated 8 Jan): 2017:

[...]

...that’s when the sisters tied him up and the group started torturing him for about six hours. Half an hour of this torture was live-streamed on Facebook, showing the group beating the young man, cutting off a piece of his scalp, forcing him to drink toilet water. At one point in the video, one of the four yells ‘f*** Donald Trump. F*** white people’ at the victim.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

READ MORE...

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

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

Laura Raim:

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

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

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

Greg Johnson:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The American Conservative sort of lost steam.

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

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

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

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

So, those organizations were handed over to Richard Spencer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Laura Raim:

You are more specifically a White Nationalist

Greg Johnson: 

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

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

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

Laura Raim: Oh, I know about him.

Greg Johnson:

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

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

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

Laura Raim:

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

Greg Johnson:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Those people are all ex-libertarians.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

READ MORE...

Regarding your people’s history and future, the (((choice))) you get with U.S. politics is no choice.