Majorityrights Central > Category: Anti-racism

Who The English Are: correcting the definition and the warrant by Laura Towler

Updating DNA Nations thesis to focus on practical discriminatory prerogatives based on DNA correspondence rather than territory.

It’s been a while since I’ve re-visited the Euro DNA Nations article, and upon discussion, moving through the article with Ecce lux, I’ve come to realize that it is premature to talk about states, counties, nations and exclusion on their basis.

At this point, establishing a common ground and coordination in DNA is what we need to focus on. And with that, for example, if one wants to discriminate for/or against, say, “communists” or Christians, they may do so in correspondence with their DNA associations.

It was premature for me to say to Ecce that his wanting to discriminate against ‘communists’ is a matter for county and state prerogatives. At this point, rather, it is through correspondence of genetic grouping that we might decide which ideologies, religions, etc., that we do not want to associate with - in Ecce’s case, he and his genetic fellows would choose not to associate with those deemed communist.

There is no need to be so inflexible and put-off that kind of choice for the laborious and speculative prospect of organizing a county or state to your liking. That would, in fact, belie the nifty facility of DNA coordination as the fundamental basis, defeating much of its purpose - one of its best features being its flexibility and immediately ready implementation.

In fact, I’m going to add this remark as an addendum to the original article.

Ethnonationalism is the most reasonable means by which to pursue accountability and responsible negotiation of human and pervasive ecology - justice and decency, in a word. These audios discuss major sources disrupting ethnonationalism along with means to reconstruct it as it is necessary to structure social systemic homeostasis and coordination with other nations and cultures.

The Audio/Visual Files are now Found on Bithute

            Part 1 Audio                  Part 2a Audio                  Part 2b Audio

                      Part 2c Audio                                Part 2d Audio

      Part 3a Audio          Part 3b Audio        Part 4a Audio  Part 4b Audio

The Audio/Visual Files are now Found on Bithute

Part 1) Note: though it was written earlier, of course,  I’m moving this text here, to a later position so that the text can be read (and heard) in order

Welcome to my cozy apartment, where we’ll be setting out theory and philosophy of European /White ethnonationalism.

My use of the term White should not be controversial - it simply refers to the genus of European peoples as they may occur outside of Europe as well, since the use of the term European to refer to Europeans in diaspora outside of Europe would otherwise be confusing.

This is DanielS, the man who proponents of Jesus ergo Christianity, Hitler ergo Nazism, those meeting the kosher seal of approval, as well as other right wing reactionaries, the scientistically hide-bound, those given to nutty conspiracy theories say has ruined Majorityrights.

This is DanielS the man who Brundelfly said has a unique perspective, but will not be given a chance to discuss it because he has the charisma of a paper bag - and if Brundlefly says it, if his wife says it, must be true, even though he said that after having heard me for the first time in a hostile envirnoment; motivated to run interference so as to include his wife’s kosher interests.

Welcome to my cozy apartment, where we’ll be setting out theory and philosophy of European /White ethnonationalism.

Praxis, Theoria

Audio Part 2a, as I did not have room for all of part 2 at once. There is a significant edit from what has been the long standing text in that I should have, but do now, mention social constructionism straight off the bat as part and parcel of the post modern turn into praxis.

This first talk elaborating theory and philosophy of European/White ethnnonationalism will be entitled Praxis and Theoria, subtitle,  and not much about Poesis, to set out the framework of Western Philosophy.

Both for the sake of making a better presentation, but more importantly than acquitting myself in the matter of style, because rather the theoretical / philosophical backing of European/ slash White ethnonationalism that I’ve ascertained is highly significant in that it works to make consistent sense in diagnosis of problems and prescription of solutions for the homeostasis that is the ongoing reconstruction of European peoples systems, I need to lay out my findings at a comfortable pace, unperturbed by interlocutors who are either hostile or who find it difficult to allow for understanding given their habits, commitments, conditioned as they are, disinclined to suspend disbelief in what I present.

It hurts me to listen to my talk with Greg Johnson and GW as I came close to articulating this important matter but misspoke a word that could cause important misunderstanding.

Nevertheless, it was on the mark but for one misspoken word: I said “veer into” when I meant to say that we veer out from the pivotal and should be centrality of praxis when we get caught up in Cartesian detachment, taken up in estrangement as Heidegger would put it.

There are reasons why I was tongue-tied, but again, its not merely for the matter of saving my personal face that I want to address these matters with proper clarity. The matter that I was attempting to address here was of primary and most profound importance to European peoples.

I don’t know exactly why I said Cartesianism causes us to “veer into” as opposed to “veer out of praxis” but at any rate, this three way distinction of Theoria, Praxis, and Poesis was not being granted the gravity of its import as the basic framework of western philosophy from Greek antiquity to Modernity to Post Modernity; for its capacity to make sense of the ancient to post modern project - from Vico to Heidegger, that they were seeking to recentralize Praxis and take Theoria back into subsumption of Praxis as the context of pre- eminent relevance.

READ MORE...

Part 2a of the audio version as I didn’t have room for all of part 2 at once. There’s a significant edit from what has been the long standing text in that I should have, but do now, mention social constructionism straight-away as part and parcel of the post modern turn into praxis.

While White advocates do sparkle with intelligence and insight at times, seeing how badly they are screwing things up in some basic respects and believing that I’ve got a good handle on these philosophical/theoretical matters by contrast, I’m venturing a fairly comprehensive post; extending an overview of my conclusions from over the years to where we need to go now as a people in order secure our social systemic homeostasis; as it is threatened as a result of our own errant theory and by effective attack by adversaries seizing upon those vulnerabilities.

It is a long text - this is only the first installment of the follow up - and it will be reworked some as these are notes for audio - yes, I have mercy. I would not torture your eyes and mind with that much reading. I hope to start-in with the first installment of the audio form tomorrow.

........

A good place to begin this second installment on the philosophy of European/ White ethnonationalism is by addressing the most controversial claim of the first part - that there is no unassailable warrant. First, you have to look at the words in that statement - unassailable means ‘cannot be challenged’ and ‘warrant’ means ‘grounds of justification.’

Now, there are two aspects to this claim, one is pejorative and one is ameliorative.

On the pejorative side, these claims to doubt provide wiggle room for weasels.

It is true that this kind of objection can really get more than a little bit “cute”, but rather completely absurd, for example, when one ventures to dispute a DNA match that has a one in 65 septillion chance of being mistaken.

Or when liberals try to take a scientistic idea of race, “one race, the human race”, ignoring the phenomenon of speciation of racial differences, treating this as necessarily unimportant because all people can interbreed.

Or, when they ask a kind of indelicate question which should be almost non-existent, but is shockingly common - such as, ‘so what if Europeans go extinct, lots of them are jerks?’ Or, ‘what is the extinction of European peoples anyway? Aren’t they a mix anyway, and aren’t they still alive, even if mixed into other races?’

Part 2b audio, a significant chunk of information.

Liberals have the nerve to ask these disingenuous questions, while we know damn well that they’d be up in arms about the Amazon rain forest, endangered species or indigenous tribes being destroyed. We are eager to see them go and live with their beloved people.

Yes, we’re getting there, coming back to how the YKW and anti-White liberal cohorts tediously exploit even negligible capacity for skepticism, exploiting and misrepresenting the utility and capacity for willing suspension of disbelief for a facile deployment of concepts of species preservation only where it suits their hubris.

Even though our enemies have been assiduous in trying to get our kind to react away from the systemic homeostatic capacity that is to be found here, in that thin queer margin indeed, there is that positive side to be discovered in interactive pragmatism: where impure warrant and the truth of human fallibility invoke social accountability and the agency of our systemic correction from its current state of dissolution and runaway.

It has been said that the great contribution of pragmatist philosophers is that they upheld falliblism without skepticism - that is, they saw it as occasion to welcome correction.

It is a corrective measure for Europeans to place our relative group interests at the center of our perspective, whereas Not having placed our people at the center of concern but rather placing our penchant for universalism and objectivity at center has left us susceptible.

This centering in praxis brings us to the age old philosophical question: ‘if a tree falls in the woods and there is nobody there to hear it, does it make a noise?’ and provides the best answer - it assuredly make sound waves but for us, it may as well not if there is nobody left to talk about it and determine how it, among other facts, counts in our relative interests.

Audio Part 2c. Image from a conference that I organized. The late Barnett Pearce, right, his students and colleagues sorted-out the forms and ways of communication (Barnett liked what I was doing with Maslow; I’d been talking to him about it since 89) and Mary Catherine Bateson in blue, daughter of Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson, who is central to all this theorizing.

This effort to center praxis accounts for the controversial social constructionist perspective - which has been badly distorted and misreprestned to Whites, whereas it would be and will be quite helpful and necessary when it is understood properly. We’ll talk about that later; this side focusing a bit more on the social interaction of praxis; but I want to talk first about its sister anti-Cartesian, post modern notion of hermeneutics which facilitates the emergent side of praxis a bit more.

This corrective process relies a great deal now on what is called hermeneutics: this is the non-Cartesian, interactively engaged circulating process of inquiry that allows the inquirer to correct hypotheses by transcending mere facticity, re framing arbitrary, ostensibly confusing or even contradictory facticious logics of meaning and action; taking avail of broad narrative perspective to provide context and orientation - e.g., on temporal systems and their history. On the other hand, hermeneutics allows for a graceful zooming in for close, rigorous readings of facts and data in operational veifiability of hypotheses.

Fallibility and correction doesn’t merely impose the positive, rigorous side in correction of impure warrant and fallibility by asking important practical questions of an event’s frame - right DNA wrong person doing the criminal act? Wrong DNA kit?...

It also allows for imaginative breadth of narrative form in the hermeneutic step back, the willing suspension of disbelief in our broad and historical social systemics, to ask the legitimate question, in working hypothesis, where does the responsibility for what that DNA did/does begin and end? Again, this re-framing can be pejorative weasel stuff - the kind which we’ve been subject to under PC for these past few decades, or it can relieve us from truncations of accountability, the kind of weasel games that we’ve been subject to from the right, its pseudo objectivist position, weather of its liberal variant or under the pseudo conservative guise of the right wing that left us susceptible in rational blindness in the first place - a game of pure pseudo objectivity which the YKW have been reinvoking with increasing vigor and scope since 2008, while encouraging elite, deracinated White right reactionaries to sell out and join them against the concept of unionization and coalitions of Left ethnonationalism in order to make quick work of social accountability.

In either event, in service of requisite rigor or requisite imagination, by maintaining fallibility and requiring accountability, we bring humans, our relation to one another in praxis, into the centrality of concern - and no, that is not a call to universal brotherhood.

With hermeneutics we have the capacity to suspend disbelief and liberate ourselves from the arbitrary flux of mere facticity and engage the interactive process of negotiating our personal and group coherence. And ultimately, it rescues us from the dangerous runaways that result of Cartesianism, of seeking pure laws above, beyond, within or below praxis - in pure nature, such Hitler’s epistemic blunder in exaggerating struggle, competition and will to power, applied imperviously to praxis.

.......

Coming back to ground our hypothesis at this point we’re going to borrow some radical hypotheses about the nature of Europeans as opposed to people evolved in the Middle East and Africa (Africans discussed later on).

Clerk Maxwell’s Demons and Jewish Crypsis

Clerk Maxwell described two metaphoric “demons” to symbolize classic challenges that people are up against:

1) “Augustinian Devils” are natural challenges, which do not change when you’ve solved them.

2) “Manichean Devils” are man made challenges, which can change the rules of challenges if you’ve solved them.

In the Middle East, where differing tribes found themselves pitted against each other, the challenge was more about one tribe against another; the challenges were not so much about securing natural resources and withstanding the forces of nature as in the northern climates, but the challenge was rather other tribes and their cunning self interest, and so they evolved more in capacity to deal with manichean devils, as Clerk Maxwell called the man made devils which hinged about trickery that could change the rules if you solve them: the Jews Masada literally goes under the motto, “wage war by deception” and the Muslim religion has its practice of takia, which is another form of Manichean trickery, lurking deception, like a snake in the grass ready to be called to jihad.

Perhaps the most naturally ingenious part of this group evolutionary strategy of manichean deception on the part of Jewry is “crypsis” - Crypsis is a phenomenon in nature where a creature can blend-in and become indiscernible from its environment; or in the case of the term applied to Jews, their crypsis is that they can look White and pass for White (European) as they moved into Europe and intermarried with Whites.

On a genetic level they remain distinct as a group and apart from Whites, largely by their own insistence. On a behavior level, their group strategy is typically at odds where not catastrophically antagonistic - notably, while they have maintained their own group homeostasis, their group strategy has a pattern of ‘activist’ disruption of White group bounds and homeostasis.

This evolution follows the Faucett theory of Jewry’s evolution of ‘horizontal transmission.’

Those Jews who returned to Judea after the Babylonian captivity epoch moved into power niches and commenced to develop a parasitic relation to the population and its resource. This parasitic relation was compounded after the Romans conquered Judea and Jewry scattered into Europe. There was some intermarriage with Europeans, but in overall pattern they maintained their distinction and closer relation to even the most distant other Jews as opposed to Europeans. At the same time, as diaspora people in the host nations, their parasitic relation increased as they moved into middle man and professional niches through which they’d eventually consolidate wealth of a host nation. The people of the host nation would eventually realize that they were being exploited and rise up - in the form of the pogroms, inquisition, the holocaust; but some part of the Jewish population would manage to escape to a new host nation. In these murderous events, the European peoples would tend to be killing off the more innocuous, grounded, accountable, if not intermarried (with Euiropeans) Jews. This cycle of horizontal transmission was compounded as the more “virulent” Jews, who had the greatest cunning and wealth, the least social conscientiousness, were “selected for”, as they were able to buy their way out and escape, moving on to a new host to start the cycle of parasitic relation again.

Now, this type of evolution is in contrast to European evolution, especially Northern Europeans. Whereas Jewry was evolved in circumstance where the greatest competition was other tribes and thus manichean deception and parasitic relation was a more pronounced strategy compared to Europeans, for Europeans the challenge to survival was more a matter of ability to deal with the “Augustinian” challenges of Nature, markedly the seasonal changes, and markedly the winter. The Northern European evolutionary attention was not thus putting a premium on the relative interests of the group and its cohesion to deal with challenges from other tribes, as there was not as much flocking to these environs less hospitable in terms of food and or shelter, but the selection was more for those who could objectively deal with the brute facts of nature and survive these “Augustinian Devils” ..this enhanced our penchant for objectivism, science and their attendant susceptibilities - scientism and rational blindness.

As it was understood that people who could get things done in objective terms were valued, and the threat from other peoples was not normally the day to day concern, they also created “higher trust” societies that facilitated marvelous scientific, technological advances and great social resource. Pit these European qualities against the Jewish strategy of Manichean deception, crypisis and parasitism, and you have the makings of a problematic relation indeed.

Now then, after the holocaust, the cycle of horizontal transmission led the select, more virulent Jews to flee to the United States where their parasitism permutated to its greatest hegemonies.

But before I elaborate, I want to emphasize that parasitism is a metaphor that does Not describe all of Jewish behavior, not even all of their bad behavior, which can be more straight forwardly antagonistic - antagonism being something different than parasitism.

The saving grace of this metaphor of horizontal transmission is that the prescription is not knee-jerk reaction and murder, as that has tended to perpetuate the cycle by only killing-off the more accountable, grounded, vulnerable, sympathetic, less cunning and less virulent Jews. Rather than murder, the prescribed answer is maintained separatism in ethno-nationalisms and forcing Jewry to develop “lateral transmission”, a non parasitic relation from the ground up.

However, we need to render a great deal more description of the circumstance. [No, this theory will not hold Jews solely accountable as all powerful; the niches are hypotheses of where they exercise disproportionate influence if not hegemony; we will address their relation to other elites, including deracinating White right wing sell-outs (and the liberals that come form the same root) but later].

As the Jews ascended into European and American niches of power and influence after the holocaust….

The Niches:

It is the hypothesis here that their group evolutionary strategy, crypsis and horizontal transmission has led Jewry into significantly disproportionate representation if not hegemony in more than seven niches of power and influence over society:

1) Media:
Now, as Bowery observes, the bible was the controlled media particularly in times prior to print media, radio, television, movies and internet - combined with other power niches, this niche control would probably spawn other means of communications control. [note the Manichean trick of Christianity]

2) Academia:
Having been selected to pursue earthly success, power, intelligence and in particular, for verbal I.Q. combined with nepotism, they have gained vast over-representation in academia - particularly in the humanities (determination over how society is described, the concepts and stories that are ascribed to ourselves and prescriptions thereupon). [note the Frankfurt School and PC; the lawsuit of Harvard, which reveals that in Ivy League admissions, Jews are vastly over represented if the criteria is merit, while Asians and Whites are vastly discriminated against.]

3) Money/Finance:
As it has been famously said, “give me the purse strings and I care not who is elected”... this is probably the most important category, because even if you have things figured out, there are always people dishonest or desperate enough to be bought off. [Note the 2008 subprime crisis, the culmination of a boom bust cycle which put Jewry into its greatest hegemony in the horizontal transmission cycle - whereupon “the left” became the great enemy [story from Frank Meyers to Alt and “Dissident Right”].

4) Politics: AIPAC is the most powerful lobby in Washington; just about all politicians are controlled by Jewish interests, particularly by campaign funding through lobbied interests. They can get the United States to do the bidding of Jewry, weather diaspora or Israel, whether through the Democrats or Republicans - Donald Trump gained the presidency by promising to undo the Iran Deal for Israel.

5) Law and Courts: Jews have disproportionate representation in the profession of law; judges; in law school professorships; and in devising and passing legislation - which can overturn popular, democratic vote, as they have overturned popular opinion against immigration and spearheaded other significant liberal changes in law - Brown vs Board, Civil Rights Act, Immigration and Naturalization Act, Rumford Fair Housing, and generally in anti-discriminatory, anti-racism, anti-“hate” legislation.

6) International Business: to which we can extend NGO’s, Foundations, Unions (especially as they can control them, liberalize them and internationalize them) and such - this is an effective means to traverse national boundaries, profit from the exchange, devastate adversaries while increasing their niche hegemony.

7) Technology, e.g., genetic, military and such - such as Stuxnet - can come of their other hegemonies.

8) Religion: Judaism, Islam and the Jewish trick of Christianity - devised to overthrow Roman hegemony, it was ultimately effective in overthrowing Europe.

Now, to be clear, there is no escaping the issue of moral order - not completely, anyway: you cannot simply be beyond moral concern. There will always be actions that are obligatory, actions that are prohibited and actions that are legitimate.

In terms of maintaining social systemic homeostasis, moral order ranks high among concerns. Perhaps survival comes first, but it’s near a chicken / egg question, moral concern is typically related closely to survival; and to matters of practicality - that’s probably why Kant placed morals under the rubric of pragmatics.

Our concern, of course, is with European moral orders, what is happening with them and what has happened with them.

I take a classic White Nationalist hypothesis, which is highly critical of Christianity, not only rejecting the popular idea among western civilization for a thousand years or more, that it is synonymous with moral order, but believing it rather to be worse than a Jewish affection, rather more like a trick played by them upon European peoples.

It tangles-up Europeans most important concerns with Jewish interests - look, after all, at who the Christian god is - and look who the most evil civilization is supposed to be, the enemies of Israel - Babylon and Rome. But its worse than that, in that this manichean trick, played on Europeans originally to overthrow Roman occupation, operated on the European penchant for Augustinian detachment and purity spiraling with the obsequious golden rule [instead of the silver rule, which would simply ask that you do not harm others as you would not want to be and that it is good to expect a reasonable exchange for your deeds], moreover, they added to the purity spiral by universalizing of the moral concern to un-differentiate the gentiles (as GW observes), destroying their capacity for organized resistance and compounding it further with disingenuous directing of away from temporal self interest and to speculative concern for after life instead. They scared people and kept them in line with notions of hell (even if you think of sinning!) and these narratives were their version of media control (as Bowery observed) for nearly a thousand years.

Now, it is true, that one can pluck out verses and apply them selectively even to an ethnonationalist end, that has been done to some extent historically and people might do it again; it is also true that in Christianity, Jewry have created something of a Frankenstein that comes back to kill its creator, but perhaps only culling, like the Nazis did, their less “controlled members;” perhaps non-Christian ethnonationalists would not object too stridently. But I am skeptical of their prospects for long term success, sympathetic to those who don’t like and don’t believe in Christianity - and it is these people we seek to talk to and serve here. We don’t go out of our way to dissuade Christians nor do we revel in mocking them - they are trying to do the right thing, to invoke a moral order, but going about it the wrong way with reams of useless and misdirecting text. Once the broad population could begin reading the text for themselves, let alone comparing it to the gains they made in scientific and other knowledge, the religion would have trouble functioning as an ethnonational moral order.

We do need the semi transcendent, narrative means of hermeneutics to foster a religion that serves our people, to transcend the fact that most of ours are not very good and those who are good, significantly flawed nevertheless; we need the guidance of our patterns which inspire, loyalty and faith in ours past and future; and while there are ways to instantiate this that we’ll discuss, they have not germinated to any kind of significant consensus yet - 14 Words, great start, but our enemies keep tacking on the 88 to derail consensus.

Nevertheless, for those who want to continue to worship the Jew on the stick, who never existed in the flesh, by the way, so long as they don’t get any of that crap on us, we’ll let them go. For Europeans, however, the usual starting points of moral order come with Socrates, Plato and Aristotle - with Aristotle’s framework of Theoria, Praxis and Poesis being given the general nod as the epistemological framework, while there is an increasing Nordicist argument for our natural penchant for attendance to Augustinian detachment, sublimation and planning resultant from nature being the greatest obstacle and translating to a severe predilection for science and technology. The Nordicist view is not necessarily at odds with the Aristotlean view but you see that it has us veering away from attention to social sources and responsibility and can rationally blind us to our social participation for its valuation of warrant as objectively pure and scientific as possible. It has rendered the Northerners in particular, like a naive species when confronted by the Manichean trickery and group interestedness of Jewry.

Northerners continue to be most prone to Jewish trickery as they purity spiral in reaction to Jewish tricks by pursuit of pure and universal foundational warrant against them. This makes them like a bull chasing after red capes - the red capes being distortions and misrepresentations set up largely by Jewish academia, to make them didactic, to have the goyim reject and fight against the very ideas that they need to reconstruct their social systemic homeostasis.

Our Southern European penchant for objectivity may stem from the Greek teleology while our Northern penchant for objectivism from Augustinian confrontation with nature proper; and Christianity magnified this purity spiral greatly with scriptures such as “even if you think of committing a sin, etc”, culminating in “The Prejudice against Prejudice” of Cartesianism that seeks pure warrant divided from natural, relative and engaged concerns on the transcendent, mathematical end; and in Lockeatine foundationalism on the empirical end.

Part 2d audio: Hippies and Feminists in incommensurate agendas of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

Now, Locke becomes much more relevant even than the French revolution in telling the story of where Western Civilization went wrong vis a vis America, thus basically, where we have gone wrong, period, largely of our own accord, at least in terms of leaving us vulnerable in our capacity ot protect our group patterned interests.

Locke resented the English Aristocratic class having exclusive educational privileges and believed the English middle class should have access; with that, as an empirical philosopher, he argued that there were no classifications evident in perception, they were a fiction of the mind and all individuals had the same perceptions - therefore, all Englishmen should have equal civil individual rights in pursuit of resource. Now, this was a liberalization of bounds within England, specifically a call to liberalization of the Aristicratic class’s exclusionism, but it does not necessarily follow that it would or should break up the union of English national bounds, that they should be opened as well - that weaponization would have to wait for Jewry, their instigation of radical liberal and right wing objectivist purity spiralers who felt they were individuals beyond classificatory/racial loyalty.

This Lockeatine notion of individual civil rights over and above the discriminations of “pseudo” classifications was written into the American way of life, becoming the most distinctive American idea - individual life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It is true that Kant recognized the danger to our moral orders by Lockeatine empiricism - the arbitrary flux that he saw we’d be taken into by this vast over emphasis on the empirical end. Kant tried but failed to rescue our moral order through a foundation of universal principles. Indeed, for those unfamiliar with Kant, he does provide steps in moral rationale superior to Christianity, that can help people get over it - beginning with unanimity, the fist principle, to think in agreement with yourself, to the principle of “good will”, treating people as ends in themselves, without which beauty, fortune and intelligence only make a person worse; to his three part sequence of morality, from common principles, to deviations in popular philosophy, to foundational philosophy to secure principles against the vicissitudes of which common and popular philosophy are subject. He failed, he was still Cartesian as Heidegger said, he was still pursuing a universal foundation, in many respects the last thing we need to emphasize for our social systemic homeostasis, for our relative interests; and while Kant was taking a step in correction, alas, Locke’s idea of Civil individual Rights was already institutionalized in America.

Particularly after the horizontal transmission of a more virulent YKW to America following the holocaust, the notion of Civil Individual Rights would become one of their key instruments of weaponization against potential threats of White grouping.

READ MORE...

Part 3a audio:The increased one up position of puerile females within the disorder of modenity; empowered and pandered to from all angles, their incentive escalates to incite liberalism and genetic competition

I’m going to continue this in additional posts, primarily because I was running out of the text space allowed by our posting configurations. I date this date prior to the earlier post so that it reads in its proper sequential order -

“I don’t have to tell you about the tyranny of patterns, that is the rubric under which we meet. What you may not know is that you have to accept them.” - Bateson

In this disorder of modernity, resulting of the rupture of classificatory bounds, her increased one up position emerges as it is pandered-to from all angles and with that her predilections are confirmed overly and prematurely…

In this position pandered to thus, she can become a powerful social gatekeeper despite her ignorance. She sees herself gaining in power (albeit short sighted, prior to the empathy that she would develop for the vulnerability of children of her own kind in a stable order), her most base inclination to incite genetic competition as a female (otherwise sublimated to a more Augustinian level - sperm after egg and so on) is in a charmed loop and becomes normalized - her hyperbolic liberalism institutionalized through her gate keeping auspices. Solicited and pandered to in this addressive position, she can become overly confident and articulate of her predilections; and as she talked-to, has support (e.g., can make her way up the academic ladder) she becomes a powerful and brutally liberal gatekeeper - don’t like it? She’ll call in the thugs, the anti racist YKW, whomever.

The disorder of modernity creates an atavistic circumstance where it is hard to trust and have patience for the yield of protracted patterns wherein the best tally of Whites and Asians is to be found; and this circumstance not only bumps-up the contextual force of puerile female selection, it merges to favor the atavistic selection of blacks.

Part 3b Audio: I realized belatedly that this text needed cleaning up (sorry about that) when I went to do the audio; but I have smoothed it out with clarifications and transitions. This part discusses a history of YKW redcaping “the left” as “liberalism” to Whites

And while the masculine qualities - confidence, bravery, assertion, strength, decisiveness - are certainly good and necessary in balance, these qualities can be over selected to the detriment of empathy, survey, cooperation, sublimation, intellectual query - these later qualities being of the male perspective, the bias of what they value in females; and isn’t it rather a shame to not favor that bias.

But that’s not what’s happening as the selective predilections of puerile females are as one-up as they are in modernity.

And her selective predilections are on a self-reconstructing loop as she is pandered-to from all angles and incentivized to maintain her powerful position as liberal gatekeeper with continued incitement to genetic competition.

Confirmation of the predilections of her perspective as it values, rather over-values, confidence, hyper-assertiveness, intrepid masculinity, impervious and undaunted no matter what, through incitement to genetic competition to the most brutal natural fallacy and universal maturity has one basically describing - well, you’ve just described a black man…. to the interests of black men and to the detriment of White men, their predilections and the more sublimated society that they would create.

...it becomes/became like a litmus test from her in initial interaction episodes: are you a racist, are you ok with blacks?

And modernity’s rupturing and short circuiting of patterns in favor of moment and episode makes worse the incentive and power structure for White men.

Taking our hermeneutic survey back to appropriate a more scientific, working hypothesis of black evolution here:

While evolving in the warmer climates where resources were abundant, shelter and forethought of seasonal deprivation not as much the obstacle, sublimation was less important. As hunter gatherers without as much need for cooperation, forethought and care, a hypergamous style of selection of the “alpha male” developed. Males were being rewarded for their ability to fight other males and assert themselves with females, not as much for their cooperation and ingenuity with regard to the elements and child rearing; R selection prevailed - having more babies and taking less care of them was more the birthing strategy. No need to elaborate, black behavior readily exemplifies results that would lend credibility to this oft suggested hypothesis.

But the predicament for Whites is worse than that as right-wingers and liberals have imposed them upon us (and if you think that slavery wasn’t a right wing thing, you are absurd).

READ MORE...

Part 4a audio: A note on being against “equality” before talking about strategies for our social systemic homeostasis. Note, the image was accidentally put up sideways, but the image is arbitrary anyway, while the audio and text is the point, so I might not bother to fix the image.

Before I begin Part 4, I need to make a preliminary note about one major red cape that I’d neglected to mention - that being equality/inequality red caping sameness and difference.

I’d mentioned that equality and inequality was redcaping the issue of commensurate and incommensurate logics of meaning and action; and that remains true and important with regard to distinguishing paradigms and niches that should not be subject to false comparison.

But there is the simpler matter of “inequality/equality” red caping sameness and difference - as in qualitative sameness and difference; markedly, being evolved for different aims, at least in evolutionary context and thus, its not being entirely sagacious to apply a singular, quantifying comparison of equality / inequality across the board THE universal merit lest one hazard not only those on the short end of the stick but one’s own where other criteria become relevant.

I’ve discussed these matters so often - and have been gas-lit so often by obnoxious right wingers determined to hang on to the claim that “THE ESSENTIAL MATTER OF THE LEFT IS ALL ABOUT EQUALITY”, that I’d forgotten to mention it because I’m a bit tired of it and there is the unconscious wish to not be too repetitious even though a fundamental issue hasn’t been driven home.

Anybody who argues that our enemies are the left and the left is all about equality should shut up.

It sounds bad (elitist) to our people and our adversaries to chase that red cape and it is not nearly sophisticated enough to stave off vain, narcissistic and false comparisons that can backfire; whereas the qualitative differences of niche theory and the notion of commensurate/ incommensurate niches and paradigms are far more likely to facilitate coordination rather than provoking reciprocally escalating diatribe.

Part 4b audio: Conclusion/wrapping up

I recognized a red cape being prepared where a tribal professor took issue with Thomas Khun’s notion of commensurability/ incommensurability and its potential application to the social sciences: a good and important idea for our social organization and defense was being readied for red caping and misdirection.

..... As for for Part 4

Systematizing our resistance.

To achieve this, I’ve set out a limited number of problems in our way in step 1.
Now for step 2:

2) Corrective Measures for Europeans/Whites

A) Unionization and other good things from the left vs its misrepresentation to Whites as liberalism.

B) The DNA Nations

C) Re-tooling Maslow’s Heirarchy of Needs/Motives to effect White social systemic homeostasis.

READ MORE...

Part 1

From Greek Antiquity to Modernity to the Very Necessary Post Modern Turn.