Category: Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests
High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice President of the European Commission FEPS
CALL TO EUROPE V “ISLAM IN EUROPE”: Brussels, 24th-‐25th June 2015
“Literally, why did this even become an argument?”
It’s been brought to my attention that we’re being accused of various things by various people as a result of the article that I posted that was titled ‘English genetic heritage is not German’. It appears that some people, including Carolyn Yeager at The Heretics Hour, have chosen for some reason to seize upon people’s remarks in the comments section of that article to build a characterisation of our position which is very incorrect. DanielS has been accused of being ‘anti-German’, and by proxy I have therefore been accused of abetting ‘anti-German’ thought.
Nothing could be further from the facts. DanielS is not ‘anti-German’, and I’m not abetting ‘anti-German’ thought. In good faith, I’ll assume that Carolyn Yeager’s misinterpretation of my intent is not intentional, and so I’ll explain in the most concise way what my outlook on this is, in the hopes that truth and understanding will prevail.
Heritage and slogans
When I put up the article about how ‘English genetic heritage is not German’, it was entirely for the purpose of showing a way of dispelling the usual liberal sloganeering in the UK that begins with the false appeal to the so-called ‘fact’ of English being all ‘mixed German immigrants’, which is then inexorably extended into a claim that ‘since they are already beyond identification, what is wrong with a little more mixing?’ Obviously the most effective way—a way that is also in accordance with reality—to fight against that kind of liberal sloganeering and to empower the British people to fortify themselves in the belief that the ground they stand on is theirs and that they have a justifiable claim to maintain dominance over their own civic space, is to point out that British people are not merely ‘mixed German immigrants’ of no discernible identity, but in fact they all evolved in the location that they are living in for many thousands of years and as such have a justification to really call themselves ‘British’.
Maintaining this view of a really-existent ‘Britishness’, and suggesting that it should be fashioned into a mass line and propagated to the British people, in no way detracts from the identity of German people, or Germanic peoples as a whole. I don’t see why that should be confusing to some people. It also does not suggest that there should be enmity between Britain and Germany. In fact, it remains our position at Majorityrights that all nations in Europe should stand together while respecting each other’s differences: pan-European regionalism. This is the same position that I also take with regards to Asia and pan-Asian regionalism.
Sometimes mistakes are made
I also get a sense that some of this fury that has been directed toward Majorityrights by the critics, has something to do with the fact that we don’t bow down to Adolf Hitler on every issue, historical and concerning the prosecution of the Second World War. I would say to those people who criticise Majorityrights that it is possible—and this is not a petty-moral statement, it is a statement of cold facts, total administration, and direct geostrategic power concepts—to recognise the structural achievements of the National Socialist movement in Germany and say that it was highly significant in not only raising critical awareness of the influence and threat of Bolshevism, but in fact showing that it was possible to marshal an equally deadly force against them, without having to literally endorse every single ridiculous action and personal preference of Adolf Hitler, every member of the SS, and the general staff of the German Army. Sometimes people do things that are really bad ideas.
It is possible to have a nuanced view, and my view is nuanced.
Obviously, the European war against the Russian Bolshevik regime and its collaborators in Europe, much like the Greater East Asia War against the liberal-capitalist powers, namely, the United States, France, Britain, the Netherlands, and their collaborators, was a crucial moment in history. No alliance in history other than Axis, has been able to unite so many people of diverse ethnic backgrounds against both liberalism and communism at the same time. And no alliance in history has ever come closer to overturning the liberal-capitalist world order in a war of manoeuvre.
These coalitions were to become possible due to the social and economic forces that were activated as a consequence of something like the National Socialist movement of Germany having arisen to power.
Germany rendered assistance to Japan by becoming a viable partner for the duration of the war, and this also engendered a situation where countries like Burma, parts of India, swathes of South East Asia, including Indonesia, Singapore, and others, were able to struggle against their colonial oppressors with the hopes both of independence and of a regional redress of the global systemic inequalities that characterised the liberal-capitalist world order. It also was the case that many Central Asians were enthusiastic about co-operation with Germany as well, particularly some of the Crimean Tatars who must have been relieved to see the 11th German Army under General Erich von Manstein as well as Stay-behind Group D show up in their territory to remove the Russian and Jewish occupiers that had been appearing on their land because of the Soviet incursions into Crimea.
It could be said that in the developing world, the international boundaries and the recognition of ethno-states governed by their own ethnic group’s elites rather than those of another group, is a kind of world that could not have come into existence without the ethno-nationalist consciousness and the live-fire demonstration of the use of deadly force that characterised the Axis approach, particularly in the Pacific.
It wasn’t that any particular person imposed National Socialism onto the German people from above only. It was actually the fact that the liberal-capitalist world view was vying for hegemony over all spheres of human life, and as a result, the ethno-nationalist world view had to fight against it in all spheres of life in order that it could triumph over it. This is the meaning of ‘totalitarianism’ when it is not used as a pejorative by liberals. While being coincident with ‘authoritarianism’, it is not a synonym for it, nor is it a synonym for ‘bad things’. The inauguration of the National Socialist state in Germany, was not the moment that ethno-nationalist world views triumphed. Rather, the inauguration of the National Socialist state was a sign and a consequence of the fact that the ethno-nationalist world view had already triumphed over liberalism among these people, and had in turn given rise to the change in the class character, ethnic composition and loyalties of the persons occupying the big tent known as the state.
This is of course the same logic that applies when talking about Fascist Italy, Right-Socialist Japan, and so on.
I am not necessarily inveighing against that phenomenon.
So with all of that said, where is the argument here? As far as I’m aware, one of the most significant disagreements is largely about the conduct of National Socialist Germany to its East. There are three elements of what happened in that region which are elements of a serious mistake that was made by Germany, a mistake which created excess risk for what—in light of the enormity of what was being fought for by Axis—was relatively little potential gain. Those elements are:
Now, any one of those reasons standing by itself, might cause someone to argue that they might be able to make it so that the benefit accrued to Germany would outweigh the cost, with respect to the larger agenda of war being conducted against the United States and against Russia.
But with all three points taken together as synergistic and inseparable as a complex system—an ecology—it becomes very clear that the conduct of Germany in Central and Eastern Europe was an inadvisable and unacceptable risk. Taking a preference for disrupting the complex systems that were the Central European nations, for the sake of ‘living-space’, rather than collaborating with the systems as they existed, produced an additional and unnecessary drag against European war-fighting capabilities, which heightened the risk of dis-integration of supply chains and thus heightened the risk of being defeated. You’ve heard of Richard III of England’s line “my kingdom for a horse!”, now try “my empire for the next shipment of ball-bearings within the appropriate time scale.”
This is the way that I look at it, it’s very much an Asian perspective that looks at the ‘big picture’, and it’s a view that I know is at odds with many of the people who criticise Majorityrights. But it is not an irrational view, and I wish that the critics would think about these issues and reflect on the errors where errors exist. I am in no way proposing that this is the sole reason for Axis difficulties in Europe at that time, but I am saying that it is a factor which certainly didn’t help the situation.
A way to the correct line
I would reiterate as well, that this is not a moralising condemnation of Germany, nor is it a moralising condemnation of those who have criticised Majorityrights. I am standing entirely apart from petty-moralist considerations and I am only talking about what I see as a matter of bad risk assessment and bad prioritisation by them when carrying out war of position and war of manoeuvre.
There are no belaboured moral statements or revisionist endorsements here, and so any liberals who are hyperventilating somewhere out there saying “isn’t this too much?”, I’d invite those liberals to take slow, deep breaths, and to not start making noises at me or overreacting.
Most of this post has been about the past, but it also has importance for the future as well, because getting the correct line on this issue of the past, allows people to also get the correct mass line for the future as well and to learn from mistakes. European ethnic-nationalists can be great if they can repair this rift between themselves, with all sides acknowledging errors where errors have occurred. It’s crucially necessary going forward, so that Europe can correctly define its borders and stand as one, as ‘Europe, whole and free’.
I’d like to also add that although the temptation for many to view it this way will be strong, this article should also not be interpreted as a ‘challenge’ issued by me to Carolyn Yeager. There will be no ‘Kumiko Oumae vs. Carolyn Yeager’ catfight-showdown at sunset with knives, so any observers having those thoughts ought to put away the popcorn, at least for now.
This is only an invitation for conversation and perhaps conflict resolution. Something that is characterised less by knives, and more by tea and biscuits. Maybe.
Kumiko Oumae works in the defence and security sector in the UK. Her opinions here are entirely her own.
There is a common myth that English people are a mixture between Celts and Germans, and that they are mostly German. This myth is pervasive and opens the door to many misunderstandings. As a service to the Majorityrights’ readership, I will present just a small teaser quote from Stephen Oppenheimer’s 2006 article on this subject which exists at Prospect Magazine.
You can click the link in the quote and read the full article. These facts should be of great assistance to British readers—particularly the English—because it will allow them to demonstrate that they exist as a native people to the British Isles, and are distinct from continental Europeans such as the Germans who they are most often associated with.
Given that they are native people, and not a proposition nation, their claim to their land is beyond contention.
Kumiko Oumae works in the defence and security sector in the UK. Her opinions here are entirely her own.
Rather than having some kind of lengthy preamble to this article, it’s better to just say this directly, and in the clearest possible language.
Much has been said about Christendom, many nationalists of many different stripes have spoken about it, but the fact is that there is no ‘White Christian Civilisation’.
It’s just someone else’s spiritual framework and someone’s else’s jurisdiction. I think it’s time to shed some light on that fact, and so this will be the first of a multi-part series on the subject.
Here’s a premier example of this framework:
Yes, that is a reverend saying that. At the Daily Stormer, they carried this article and there they highlighted the mainstream liberal aspect of the content, but they unfortunately did not mention the root of the matter.
The narrative of your ‘white privilege’ acting as a justification for the expropriation of everything that you have in your own lands is not an aberration or a distortion of Christianity as some Christian ‘nationalists’ would propose. Rather, this is the logical and final trajectory of what Christianity is about and what Christianity does.
It is an inescapable fact that Christian churches have a tendency to preach doctrines advocating your dispossession and extinction. The fact that Dorhauer is a Shalom Award recipient is not an accident or an aberration. Most Christian authorities are openly in collaboration with Jewish lobby groups. Occasionally there are what appears to be exceptions to this rule, such as an occasional bishop or pastor criticising Jewish cultural power. But those are exceptions that only prove the rule.
Christianity is not a European religion, it originated in the Levant and its fundamental ethnic character is one that caters to its original owners. It was Saul of Tarsus, who would later be known as ‘Paul’, who projected Christianity into the Graeco-Roman world. The doctrines that ‘the meek shall inherit the earth’, and that ‘the last shall be first’ are ideas that were comforting to the lower classes in the Roman Empire and which stifled the will of the strong by stamping out diversity of belief and of thought, and stacked up their own funeral pyre for them.
Centuries later, as Rome was becoming crippled under an internal rot caused partly by Christians, the co-opted Roman state then imposed Christianity at spear-point onto all Indo-European peoples that it encountered, and spread from there.
But how precisely does it operate? Let’s tackle that now.
And head-off the risk of ambiguity, old and new, becoming a tool of liberal contention.
A few days ago Kumiko and I were contesting how this man - Zakirzhan Niyazov - should be designated.
She felt that he should be considered “Asian” whereas he appears to me, on balance, to be more of a Caucasoid prototype - that is, he seems to me to be slightly more kindred of The Caucuses and Europe. He probably could fool me as kind of sort of Bulgarian or something like that, but he is actually of the direct genetic lineage which, after coming out of Africa, has been in an area around southern Kazakhstan and its Kyrgyzstan border for 40,000 years.
That Spencer Wells (Niyazov’s genetic discoverer) would say that his people are closely related to Europeans does not help much in disambiguation - Wells also considers Europeans to be very closely related to Africans: “Racism is not only socially divisive, but also scientifically incorrect. We are all descendants of people who lived in Africa recently. We are all Africans under the skin.”
Nevertheless, we might proceed as if he provides operational verifiability enough in his genetic evidence to say that Niyazov’s is a proto-population of both Europeans and East Asians. If one hopes to investigate with rigorous disamiguation just who is European and who is not, Niyazov’s people are: a tight knot, gnarly lot, a gordian knot, or an important “white box” - an area where the details necessary to sort and name elements are unknown to us - choose your metaphor for the challenge.
Wells found that following a first wave out of Africa which went down the western coast of India, another wave - specifically, Niyazov’s forebears - came out about 40,000 years ago and went not to Europe through Turkey, or even through the Caucuses, but went straight east, to central Asia where they evolved alone in situ (apparently southern Kazakhsan near Kryzykstan) for about 10,000 years - incubating a primeval population from which sprang Europeans, East Asians and some of India.
Coming back to the contention over the ambiguity of this white box then, Kumiko argues that his people and nation belong clearly in “the Asian sphere of influence.”
Russians, a White, viz. European people, play insufficient part of this man’s people’s history to assert their designation, how they should “count” as a nation and people.
On the other hand, I look at him prima facie and see a tilt toward European. Especially when I look at his father, I see someone who at first blush looks like someone that I would guess to be “Russian.”
I would guess that his grandfather was from somewhere around the Caucuses, South Russia or Ukraine (one of the guys in the old Dannon Yogurt commercials about Ukrainian men who live to be well over 100, supposedly because they eat yogurt):
Granted that there is a slight epicanthic fold in Niyasov, his father and grandfather, but many Europeans have that degree of an epicanthic fold, including Germans, English and in fact, some people of most all European nations.
Europeans seem less perturbed and more familiar with these ambiguites than White Americans, but I digress. How do we handle these ambiguties?
When confronted with ambiguities of Europeans mixed with other Europeans and living in other European nations my first instinct is to look for means of damage control to native populations; conflict resolution to stave off overcompensation and destructive, incorrect puritanism in how they look at ambiguous Europeans. Therefore, in order to reduce anxiety as such, I seek to have their difference honestly recognized while recommending their right to abode being limited to safe, minimal numbers in porportion to the purer native stock.
In native populations that have been more mixed for a while, I would imagine that is their “native type.” It would be a matter of arriving at a more complex formula of what range and ratios comprise the natives. Naturally, those populations which were ambiguous from the start, in the sense of being a “primordial stew”, phylogenetic forebears to different kinds, they too would have native status to their nation.
My instinct thus, is to resolve matters of racial ambiguity by national designations and assignment. For those of us more serious minded, however, this is far from an arbitrary matter or flight of imagination. While these ambiguities do require at least a modicum of social constructing, real lives, ancient human and natural ecologies are at stake.
If Niyazov’s people are a primeval type which has both European and Asian elements and particularly as they are evolved in that area then that is a very powerful warrant as to their sovereign nation in consradistinction to regional imperialism, whether European or Asian.
Sorting out Niyazov’s people may not easily solve problems of the geopopolitical chessboard, but it should help greatly in clarifying just what and who is in dispute.
Freedom for Tibet! er, Kyrgyzstan, er Southern Kazakhstan, er proto- Europeans, er proto-Asians… Asians… East Asians..
..there you have it, a problem for the would-be nationalist solution seems to arise within the framework of geopolitics. Our case in point, regarding the European sphere of influence, viz. what is a nation of European people and therefore under its allied interests as opposed to an Asian nation and arguably thus, under its allied interests, closer concern and protection.
I confess to not being attuned to the need to fight on these lines of “Asian vs European” spheres of interest, but then I am not preoccupied with the relation of populations, their requirements and resource scarcity. Still, it is a practical concern and we are all pragmatists to some exent - because we have to be.
Thus, despite mine and GW’s more idealistic view, interested as we are in populations in relation to territory and habitats, human ecology and warrant, trying to sort out nations on genetic lines that are ambigously tangled can still give rise to contention and thus the requirement for negotiation on radical pragmatic grounds of “how things count” - as in the case of Niyazov, which requires the negotiation and social construction of our alliances as native nationalists.
The matter of negotiation that is contested here again: Kumiko sees Niyazov, his father and grandfather as “Asian” and a clear line between them and Europeans. Whereas I see them as in an ambiguous continuum with Europeans. While such ambiguites don’t really surprise me, I was a little surprised (because I was not looking for it) to see him looking (to me) slightly more Europeans than oriental (Chinese, Japanese, Mongolian). But whatever is most characteristic of Niyazov’s type, I have a gut reaction to preserve him and his, with national sovereignty, the way that a zoologist would seek to preserve a precious species. I also believe that there is a kindredness in my visceral response - I sense Europeanness in this man that should be protected by necessary means, including national sovereignty.
It seems that Kumiko has a similar kindredness and wish for nationalism as a means to protect native populations, including his; but perhaps we both have a confimation bias - hers moving through the pragmatics of geopolitics and Asian regionalism while mine is filtered through a Eurocentric perspective.
From her perspective, because he has traditionaly been considered “Asian” means that his nation belongs in closer alliance with China, Japan, Korea, India etc.
In the first clues of the genetic evidence, I am inclined to say, “not so fast”.... there may be more connection to Europe in Asia than is being given its due by the traditional designation of “Asia” bereft of genetic data.
Not that a people’s co-evolution in a particular land is a thousand percent incontestable warrant, but it is strong.
Even so, if ideally proposing the sovereignty of ambiguous nations to harbor primordial types, questions and contentions can arise to their hazard, questions conveniently at the disposal of regionalist, internationalist and neoliberal forces. These poltical contentions seem to me to require more, not less attention to sorting out issues of genetic, racial ambiguity and native national alliances in order to establish warranted assertabilty.
Let us attend to sorting out and negotiating with peoples how it is that they count.
Don’t worry, I’m the kind of foreigner that you’ll like. Hopefully.
Majorityrights began with and has long been committed to freedom of speech, no matter how controversial the opinion, as I can clearly see from the archives. It has been published as an internet magazine with considerable bravery given the political environment and the risks that come from being misunderstood, and has had a pretty diverse set of contributors and viewers. On 14 October 2014, it marked its tenth year in operation, and I hope that its eleventh year coming in just a few months will be as illuminating as ever. As a newcomer, and as an East Asian woman, I feel privileged to be invited to submit articles from my perspective and experience.
Here, on what could be described as freedom of speech’s front porch in its tenth year, we have a good place to talk frankly and honestly as neighbours and allies with common interests. What I’m about to provide is what I see as a necessary polemic against some positions that exist in Majorityrights’ archives and an invitation to conversation as such.
It is said in warfare about the ‘turning manoeuvre’, that when you move into an opponent’s rear in order to cut them off from their support base, you are taking the risk of getting yourself cut off from your own.
A similar manoeuvre has been attempted by many ethno-nationalists in Europe since 2001 on a political level with regards to the War on Terror, through their decision to advance negative attitudes toward it and their decision to develop talking points that reinforce those attitudes. They are refusing to endorse the War on Terror under the belief that this non-endorsement is somehow a ‘good’ angle to protest the political establishment from. It is not good. Those ethno-nationalists are getting themselves cut off because what they are doing actually undermines their own ability to address a severe demographic threat and also undermines their ability to address a persistent international security threat. It’s an unfortunate situation, because it is crucial for people to be able to square the thoughts that are going on their heads with the reality on the ground: The reality of the necessity of overseas contingency operations.
To understand how things reached the stage that they have reached, first a person has to remember how things started out. The world was stunned to see the events that were taking place on television on 11 September 2001. Nineteen Arab men had hijacked airliners, and rather than putting the planes down at an airport and demanding a ransom, they chose to put the planes down by sending them into buildings in New York City.
People seem to have struggled to understand how this could happen.
Over time, a self-hating narrative built up in which the citizens of the North Atlantic were largely blaming their own governments for having allegedly ‘fanned the flames of conflict in the Middle East’ by allegedly ‘supporting radical Islamists’, while simultaneously also allegedly ‘fanning the flames of conflict in the Middle East’ by allegedly ‘opposing Islamists and offending Muslims’. Both of these narratives cannot make sense at the same time, and I would argue that neither of those narratives are true. Furthermore, the apparent implication in both of those narratives is that the North Atlantic should refrain from pursuing its interests in the zone to the south.
That is an idea that should be rejected on the basis that it leads only to paralysis in the political sphere, and a loss of initiative in the military sphere. Groups which argue that the North Atlantic should adopt a passive stance and not assert its interests, and those who place blame onto the wrong people, may mean well, but they do not realise that the narratives they are creating can lead to serious crises which may not have actually been intended by those dissenting groups.
Zoologists refer to native species long evolved in isolation as “naive species” as they are susceptible to predation against which they have no evolved defense. Thus, it can have devastating effects when alien species are introduced to naive, native populations and habitats, even if inadvertently - as in the case of the brown tree snake or brown rats coming along with ships to the South Seas Islands, introducing them to naive species.
Recent inquiry into my DNA revealed that the root of my maternal side - U5b1e1 - has been long evolved in isolation in Northern Sweden and Finland.
This fact combined with discussion regarding the murder of Swedish native, Lisa Holm, to prompt the issue of naive human species being subject to predation against which they are not particularly evolved. The matter bears acute attention whether introduction of alien species is inadvertent or deliberate - as it surely is, in large part.
Beyond the Augustinian devils of nature and inadvertent human behavior, comes the manichean capacity of human behavior where the “naivete” of native species may be concerned - the issue of the powers-that-be and their means of exploiting “naivete” in native Whites. The imposition of predatory species must also be inflicted knowingly - as Tanstaafl correctly argues, nobody is more aware of genocidal effects than YKW.
Migration and lack of native preparation is not merely a result of Augustinian forces of nature or causes and impacts of market tendencies which might be solved conclusively. It is also a matter of manichean trickery - YKW rule changes of what openness, marginals and even what diversity means, to where they have imposed non-native “diversity” within native White populations, creating an atmosphere where social trust is and should be lowered - exploiting the fact that despite the unfortunate necessity of lowering trust for this alien introduction, that it is difficult for native Whites to relinquish trust for the conflict with their deep evolution of trust and the vastly preferable way of life that is corollary to that trust.
In a word, they are using manichean tricks to foil and exploit the Augustinian disposition we have toward problems - i.e., in regard to natural obstacles, in solution to which we are more evolved. The borders that might protect our habitats and evolution are impacted not only in an objectivist but also in a manichean fashion.
As Bowery has noted, our species, Northern in particular, have had a corrupt aspect of “civilization” imposed against our evolution. According to his cogent definition, “civilization” means that as opposed to individuals rising to defense, delegated groups are supposed to be responsible for border control - which would stave-off interlopers, especially in opportunistic pursuit of native females; in exchange, native European males are required to forgo, as unnecessary, our natural individual capacities to defend against interlopers; and with that, are expected to forgo untoward competition among our own for native co-evoltionary females.
The key problem is that the border control end of the bargain has been reneged upon, with YKW and objectivists opening-them-up, while the native males remain beholden to that part of their evolution as sublimated and aligned for civilization in trust that their social capital is guarded. More, even where they might respond they are prohibited from fighting as individual White men against interlopers as they are forced to unilaterally uphold their end of civilization’s bargain.
A corruption is in place, therefore, where our natural sublimation and meandering ease with our co-evolutionary females is ensconced - held in place, we are required, forced, to “live by our rules” of civilized behavior, our dormant natural abilities to compete effectively with our individual innovation and group organizational capacity against non-Whites is blocked, as we are corruptly held to standards of civilization unilaterally - to where we are prohibited from competing as we naturally might, while those entrusted with border/boundary control are blinded, bribed, corrupted to reneg-upon their end of the bargain as YKW impose invasive species upon us, allowing no defense.
It is profoundly difficult to come to terms alone with the fact that our co-evolutionaries might betray us and that we should even have to say anything about it.
We might care to observe from there that as the border control end of the bargain is reneged upon, the native’s evolved trust is corrupted thus as cynicism, creating hatred for the native kind’s female “altruism”, which becomes more like incitement, just as corresponding White male sublimation is transformed to resignation.
It’s a shame that Tan would say that I’m “not using my brain”.. “don’t have my thoughts organized clearly” and then take an idea that I have clearly organized and advanced for some time, and promote it on the Hitler worshiping “Renegade Network”, saying that he has this idea that our objectivity has given us advantages but also susceptibilities.
On the topic of genocide vs suicide he has an informative discussion but it is a false either/or in that MacDonald is not taking his eye off of Jewish power and influence and arguing “suicide” by examining our own susceptibilities (nor am I arguing White suicide).
Tanstaafl argues for genocide of Whites as opposed to White suicide
Tan quotes (from a post that KM put on TOO!):
“That’s not suicide”
For a curious example of White passivity of my own recent experience, I was at a fare yesterday, thousands of people, 99 percent White, probably a few Jews, a few middle easterners and one interracial couple - lovely, elegant blonde with a special kind of blue eyes and a Negro in no way handsome or manifestly impressive.
I used a strategy of walking near them while not looking at them directly, saying loudly, “very good! 41,000 years of evolution destroyed, given it to an ape!”
The important point I want to make is that nobody of this White crowd even noticed or was the least perturbed by this sickening interracial spectacle.
It is legitimate to ask why a visceral response isn’t forthcoming. The inquiry into our own responses or lack thereof, WILL NECESSARILY BE connected with the inquiry of those who might suppress and obstruct them - hence it cannot distract from the J.Q. ultimately. Rightfully angered response and resistance to it would provoke inquiry as to who is resisting and promoting our dispossession. Moreover, it would be paranoid to suggest that KM and I are trying to deny or distract from the Jewish influence. He has insisted, and so do I insist, that Whites can be brainwashed by the Jews media and academia.... lets add religion, law, politics, business procedures and financing.
Nevertheless, I hear Tan referring to other causes, some of our own making, for example my idea that our inclination to objectivism leaves us susceptible.
Objectivism, as I have been saying, has appeal by yielding some spectacular practical results and insights, powerful moral warrant and innocence from subjective concern, but leaves our people susceptible to be non-discriminatory - perhaps especially of the obvious - as one can readily demonstrate if not “prove” their objectivity by not noticing and making judgments upon even such obvious differences.
That’s called “rational blindness” and this relative blindness to our subjective position and interests is a requirement in quest of pure objectivism.
Rational blindness can blind us to our involvement, indebtedness and accountability to our people’s interests and other people’s impositions. Scientists can famously be dupes to Manichean trickery for the habit of this Augustinian mindset. * I remember a former MR regular who, rather than request an explanation which I would have readily provided, tried to suggest that I was being pompous and deliberately obscure with these terms: Manichean - human challenges which can change when solved in order to trick an adversary; Augustinian - natural challenges which do not change when solved just to trick you again (how does Kol Nidre versus science grab you?).
As for looking at ourselves…
GW’s ontology project advocates evincing our authentic natural systems such that we may proceed by our own lights, not largely react and mirror the Jews as has been known to happen (in the case of the Nazis).
This isn’t making excuses for Jews or letting them off the hook in any way or form.
Has KM fallen into disfavor because he does not think AH and revisionism are the royal road to White salvation?
I haven’t heard MacDonald talk of “suicide”, I know that I do not talk of suicide.
I do know that Tanstaafl has overreacted when I, and others, cited liberalism as a problem, as if we were trying to distract from the J.Q. when discussing liberalism or other causes for peoples being under threat (as if we are not aware of the shenanigans of Lawrence Auster, et.al).
In this podcast I hear Tan accurately criticizing the Jews for transforming World War II into “the Holocaust” and elevating themselves as the special victims. All true and foul.
But he doesn’t see how the Nazis, and his over-sympathy for them, have him mirror the Jews, to where Nazis are the special and only important victims, didn’t do anything (it’s all a “hoax”), their victimization is pure, removed from cause and interactive conflict.
Evidently, right-wing WN interest to make the Jews the “only problem”, to where they would even denounce MacDonald for looking at our role in the interaction, is a motivation of those who want desperately to redeem Uncle Adolf and completely disprove the holocaust, blind and oblivious to the fact that those tasks are unnecessary and largely counter-productive to pursue.
The key distinction is not “hierarchy” vs “leveling and equality”, the key distinction is (pseudo) objectivism of The Right and its susceptibility to liberal universalisms which transcend accountability to social group interests vs the unionized and therefore particular and relative social group interests of the Left, as rendered by a White Left.