Posted by DanielS on Saturday, 25 February 2017 00:53.
Not just a government issue patriotard, but full-blown ZOG agent.
Brett Stevens isn’t just your average garden variety asshole - though he certainly is that as well - nor is he just your standard, government issue patriotard: he is an alphabet agent (or some proxy thereof) making word salad in service of ZOG and the YKW otherwise. The best that we can for him is that we might examine how an agent as such goes about twisting language games to the ends of his master.
I never liked what Brett Stevens was doing, was inclined to ignore him as being at best some sort of coward dispatched to re-direct WN into American patriotardism - with his dip-shit hamburger logo and all - likely an FBI agent, annoyingly, twisting our concepts around to that end: but now he’s emerged full blown didactic to illustrate how an FBI agent (or whatever kind of agent he is) goes about twisting and retooling language games to make them fully YKW and ZOG amenable.
Of course those in service of the YKW do not feel the need to be especially covert about their advocacy in all places nowadays, particularly with The Alternative Right Tentosphere being what (((it is))), as it is devised to be YKW friendly - markedly so in its charter name site, Alternative Right, which re-published the Brett Stevens article “The Roots of Modern Anti-Semitism.” They feel no need to be ashamed of their defense of Jewish interests, they are free to exercise their chutzpah, as they do by way of Stevens in this article. However, the real points for style in shabbos service come into play as Stevens and committee go to work confounding and re-directing proper ethno-nationalist understanding of the world that the more sophisticated and Jew-wise would otherwise be sorting out. We’ll have a protracted look at how Stevens is doing that in a recent Red Ice interview of his - “Deconstructing Modernity” with Henrik Palmgren - after we first take look at that short piece of his, “The Roots of Modern Anti-Semitism”, as it lays blame solely on the shoulders of Whites for their ethno-national disintegration, an argument typical of YKW chutzpah, and equally typical of them in tasking shabbos goy to argue as such.
Alternative Right, “THE ROOTS OF MODERN ANTI-SEMITISM, by Brett Stevens, 17 Feb 2017: While anti-Semitism makes no sense because it scapegoats one group for the failure of the much larger phenomenon of Western Individualism, it is easy to see how it came about in modern times because of the unfortunate affinity of a large percentage of Jews for egalitarian ideologies which also reveals the eternal tragedy of the Jewish people in Europe and Eurasia:
Ok, so we can see that Stevens is not only shabbos goy enough to play the eternal scapegoat card on behalf of the YKW, but he would also play their card of blaming our demise solely on our individualism and lack of rectitude, and how convenient an argument, now that Jewish interests have more money than god - according to them, we are supposed to see “a pathological desire for ‘equality’ in ourselves, to believe we are afflicted with a vain wish to emulate quite the magnanimity of Zion. They want these conceits to be seen as the key and sole cause of our problems. We should not try to emulate their organizational success with any of that leftism stuff. They want us to believe that they simply can’t help it that they have vastly disproportionate money, power and influence, it is merely an offshoot of their inborn talent that they are able to be so magnanimous with your freedom, they’re just better than you are. According to them, we should not succumb to time immemorial prejudices, they want you to believe that these prejudices, looking upon their money as having been funneled up to them by usury, are as “baseless” as depicting them as the veritable blood suckers of social capital in a wood carving of old.
Stevens supplants depiction of YKW as the blood suckers of ancient prejudice in favor of “The Wandering Person-of-a-certain-ethnicity”
More legs than body.
“In 1934, according to published statistics, 38.5 percent of those holding the most senior posts in the Soviet security apparatuses were of Jewish origin. They too, of course, were gradually eliminated in the next purges. In a fascinating lecture at a Tel Aviv University convention this week, Dr. Halfin described the waves of soviet terror as a “carnival of mass murder,” “fantasy of purges”, and “essianism of evil.” Turns out that Jews too, when they become captivated by messianic ideology, can become great murderers, among the greatest known by modern history.”
When 2% of the population represents nearly 40% of the Communist Party, they will be targeted. Theodor Herzl, one of the founders of Zionism, recognize this when he noticed that among national populations, those who do not fit the national profile are attacked whenever things go wrong. But even more, when a stereotype becomes somewhat true, the brutality that follows seems justified or at least forgivable to most people, despite being unrealistic.
Naturally the tragedy of the Jews comes into play here. The Jewish diaspora began before the Jewish people were exiled from Palestine. It lies in the mixed-race nature of the Jewish population, who were probably once European but became merged with Asiatics and Asiatic-African hybrids because of Israel’s place as the center of world commerce at the time.
Right. Stevens wants us to believe that the Jewish population were probably once European…and a species, we should suppose, perhaps to be considered in the same genus and cultural milieu with us once again: According to him, we are supposed to empathize with them on two grounds: After all, since their diaspora, they believe that they have been subject to unfair prejudice, viz. as being parasites upon the various populations of the world that they have circulated among - an unfair prejudice, they believe, against a symptom of their being homeless - kind of like our European diaspora in America have been depicted in their “White privilege”; and, secondly, we should be able to relate to them as being of common European origin - even though there is ZERO genetic evidence of that.
Ibid: Jews are a bourgeois tragedy: successful in business, they accepted everyone, which led to them changing from a European population to a mixed one. This guaranteed a home on none of the continents and, when their homeland in the middle east was dispossessed them, a wandering group who could never point to an origin and say “there, alone, we belong.”
Like the good businesspeople of the West today, the original Jews accepted diversity because it made good business sense. Thriving businesses do not turn down customers because of their national origin. But in doing so, the Jewish people invited in the hybridization that ensured they would never have a racial home or continental home except themselves.
This fundamental alienation led to a fascination with anti-majority movements for many Jews, explaining their higher participation in Leftist movements. However, their lack of an identity in one of the four root races — Australid, Caucasian, Asian and African — then turned against them, as even the Communists recognized the power of nationalism.
While this seems like a problem without solution, nationalism solves [it]. A new race was made: the Jewish people. It belongs to no one but itself, and it needs its own homeland, whether in Israel or Madagascar. It will never be European again, but it can be the best of what it is, and this begins with a divorce from the alienation that has led it into so many disasters.
In the meantime, these historical events prove how nonsensical anti-Semitism is. Our problem in the West is that we are following the path that the ancient Jews did because, as individuals, we are willing to “succeed” at the expense of civilization. We cannot blame others for our own moral failing, and indeed, doing so obscures what we must do, which is to change our ways. First published at Amerika.org
Yes, they would have us believe that we should fully empathize with their right to a sovereign homeland while they have been integral in imposing unimaginably vile and burdensome numbers of interlopers upon us, in our nations and against our groups, against our will, because now they would lie and say, “we are of common stock and culture”...“but even so, they have evolved from us in these beleaguered diaspora circumstances to be different enough”, even more “the special light unto us goyim - to give us a lesson of what it means to live as diaspora among diversity; from their besieged sovereign of Zion.” According to them, we should be sympathetic to their aloof perch, because they are still like us in having started out in the same place as us; and with that duel empathic circumstance of origin and diaspora, were so “kind” as to have bequeathed a common Abrahamic “ethnic culture”, of Noahide law, a tutelary yoke of obsequiousness to their rule, which we are supposed to recognized as a kindness offered and accepted just as the Alternative Right has in their quid-pro-quo with Zionism ...we are supposed to treat it not as the imperialist base and rule of Jewish diaspora operations, but as a completely sympathetic national ally which never did us any harm, just like its scapegoated diaspora, who started out just like us - we are supposed to believe, were wandering tribes of Europe, just like us.
OK, that’s enough baloney there from Stevens’ more forthright advocacy for Jews. However, Stevens has not only been put-up to turning simple anti-Semitic “prejudices” of old on their heads and into “sympathetic” excuses for them, he is also tasked with going after the more arcane and sophisticated kinds of topoi used by myself, Kumiko, GW and Bowery - Stevens is at pains to twist careful ethno-nationalist thought around and into ZOG interests, as one can see in the recent interview that he did to pitch his book, “NIHILISM: BETWEEN NOTHINGNESS & ETERNITY”, in a podcast called “DECONSTRUCTING MODERNITY” with Henrik Palmgren at Red Ice Radio, 8 Feb 2017.
First of all, deconstruction is a mainstay premise of what modernity does to clear-away “the arbitrary” in its quest after foundational essences. It is NOT so concerned to not subject to arbitrary deconstruction and experimentation the precious inheritance that is. So, we already have a clue that Stevens is probably not going to give us something radically different from the modernity we’ve been getting as it concerns our interests at all (certainly not something like White Post Modernity) but something a lot more like bald modernity and nihilism in the service of the “reality of inequality”, a “reality” that just so happens to serve the ehem, rather unequal position now of Jewish power and interests - who will try to placate us, if we are good sheeple, by sneaking-in some “radically” traditional Noahide consolation (yoking).
Brett Stevens - Profile of a ZOG agent? Probably Yes.
Brett Stevens says that he “came to the Alternative Right” through the “Dark Enlightenment” and “Neo-Reaction” - the latter two spheres of the Internet always struck me as Jewish language games as well; though I never investigated these Internet bubbles, Kumiko tells me that they are, indeed, fronts to divert the attention of STEM types, in particular, away from Jewish power and influence as key problems; and to direct people instead to see problems as being located strictly in “modernity” and “solutions”, even if only stoically conciliatory, to be found by embracing “traditional” reaction by contrast - i.e., owning “reaction”, the devil term attributed by leftists to right-wingers (“reaction” being a “good thing” now that the YKW are on top). Not only are these YKW/Zionist dodges of “The Dark Enlightenment” and “Neo-Reaction” the auspices that Stevens has come through, but they have emerged especially meaningful to understand as strategic language games within the political era at hand, as it has been revealed by Steve Bannon that he recommends this material, having read it and having been significantly influenced by it.
It is important, therefore, to understand not only agent Stevens overt advocacy of Jews, but also to untangle the more covert web-spinning that he is using to obfuscate, enmesh, entangle and frap-up genuine ethno-nationalist concerns with whatever arcane language games, including Dark Enlightenment and Neo-Reactionary misdirection that he can avail, in this case with Henrik -
(21:00) Charles: Yeah, so, we got kicked off of Reddit. I was one of the moderators there. I organized all of the “ask me” anythings. We got kicked off of Reddit for sharing the researcher bounty that was looking to identify the antifa that attacked you, Richard.
(29:00) Richard Spencer: To kind of transition to a bigger issue. We’re in this weird state, if you will. Everything that has happened in a way that I never imagined it would happen, basically. I never imagined Donald Trump would be memed into an Alt Right hero. ...We have this weird situation where there’s been this top-down revolution in the Republican party. Donald Trump is soui generis; and he has some people who are on his side: obviously Bannon and (((Steve Miller))) are kind of (sigh) they’re definitely not Alt Right but they’re hard, they get it at some gut level and they’re behind him and pushing him to do this:
[Jewish paleo-nationalism as opposed to Jewish neo-conservatism]
(30:50) Richard Spencer: So, there’s this weird top-down revolution that’s going on; we can say that Donald Trump has all this access to directly reach the people through Twitter and Youtube and his celebrity and so on; but at the same time this is going to be really, really hard because he is going up against every institution in society. He did a travel ban that is total weak-tea. I’m not bashing Bannon and (((Miller))) who are behind it at all, I’m just like kind of like challenging them, challenging Trump.
(31:45) Richard Spencer: It’s a start of something; and obviously the left is freaking-out; they’re losing they’re shit because it is the first time that they’ve seen a White man stand up to the world and say, “no, we’re not helping you, we’re not declaring war on your behalf, you’re not coming here, no, this is our country, sorry, but your out of your own country, bye bye”; and they cannot take that, a White person saying that drives them fucking nuts….and so that’s where we’re happening, that’s what’s happening, we’re in this weird situation, we’re winning on this top-down level from the Presidency. But in terms of all of these institutions, in terms of the digital institutions, in terms of society itself, like we’re, I can’t say that we’re winning. We are triggering them, we are freaking them out, we are fighting back against them maybe for the first time in a long time. But we’re not winning.
(32:44) Richard Spencer: You know, they are fighting-back too, the antifa are getting hard-core. They are attacking Milo for god’s sake. ..and they are attacking us in the streets. ..ah, the digital, Silicon Valley people are kicking us off of platforms, like they’re, the Empire is striking back as well, we’re just in this very strange situation that I, again, that is totally unpredictable and is also unpredictable going forward. I don’t know how this is going to play out. ..it is precarious to say the least. We are basically losing and winning and fighting back and getting fought-back against really hard in ways that we never had before.
[Blending Alt lite with Alt right]:
(33:30) Charles: Oh, this is how you get Caesar. They are so hysterical, I mean, when they’re saying that people like Milo Yiannopolis, is a gay, Jewish, race-mixing, libertarian; and they’re putting him along side Adolf Hitler; it’s just so bizarre, it’s like you guys have lost your shit. They’re not just attacking Richard Spencer anymore, they’re attacking Gavin McInnes, they’re attacking Milo Yiannopolis, they’re attacking normal, like normal people, like normal Trump people, at their little airport protest over in Portland…there was a guy who just had a Trump hat and I guess I don’t know, he may have said something, but a whole mob of people attacked him, knocked him out, gathered around and were like you deserve it you Nazi, ra, ra, ra! ...it was a very disgusting scene..I’ve never seen, like that before in my life; and they’re literally saying everyone’s a Nazi now and you can be violent toward Nazis at the Gavin McInnes protest. A professor at NYU was like, “you fucking police, you’re protecting a bunch of Nazis!” ...and its, like, its Gavin McInnes ok? He has a Native American wife, he likes Pat Buchanan, ok? He’s not Adolf Hitler. They’re just losing their shit so badly.
(35:57) Charles: This is the first time that the right has ever pushed back and they’re losing it.
(36:07) Richard Spencer: Whether this is due to social mood, or what have you… Bannon, as well, is interested in this fourth turning concept…it seems every thirty to fifty years or so there are these points where there are these paradigm shifts and people recognize it in their gut ...and they react to it and that’s when violence returns ...the inter-war period was a very clear example about this ....political violence, street violence, ideologies, I don’t like the word extremism, but compared to the bipartisan consensus of the 1980’s yes, it was kind of extremism. Very different visions of the world were clashing. You have a similar situation three decades after in the late 60’s and 70’s…where again, violent action, underground societies, bombings, again, a lot more things were in question, people were willing to do things. .. and as I grew up, I was born in 1978 so I grew up in the 80s and the 90’s, all of that stuff seemed totally impossible. The notion that you would kill someone over politics was basically insane. It was unthinkable. ...now it is clearly thinkable. There is no doubt that at one of these future events, whether it is I speak or whether its an NPI conference or whether its Gavin McInnes or whether its like Steven Crowder, there’s going to be blood on the fucking street, there is going to be deaths due to politics. That is something that everyone just assumed was over, but its back. There does seem to be a very intensely negative social mood going on and I think there is also this demand, and it comes from both the left and the right, this radical demand for a new paradigm, and we’re a part of that…. I was actually joking, but the Alt Right actually does have something in common with the anti-fa.
[That’s right, they’re both controlled opposition]
[Now to wrap up the friend enemy distinction as Jews would like to develop it]
(56:56) Richard Spencer: This is the way I would end it [wrap-up the podcast] one aspect of the civil war, at least as I would see it, is that ultimately it becomes two sides; and we are seeing that…what I’ve been used to, my career in this, has basically been… like your fighting two battles, on the one hand you’re fighting the left and the liberals, but I always viewed the real enemy as the phony right, like that’s the real enemy that you have to displace and destroy, the phony right, they’re the ones preventing a new right, a different right, an Alt Right from emerging…and so that’s how I viewed it… what’s happening now, I think is a different dynamic….and that is that we’re getting pushed-onto the same side, whether we like it or not.
It’s like the type of Alt Lite moral signalers, who want to talk about how un-racist they are, how Trump is going to be great for everyone, whether you’re a Korean shop owner, an African American or an Indian immigrant, we’re all going to be making America great again, that is just, I’m sorry, that is really quaint and kind of fun for you know, Cernovich. ...but that is all just total objective nonsense ..no one is going to take that seriously, like it’s already over. Basically, the Alt Lite people are going to be attacked by the exact same people for the same reason [is this sounding more like plan than a prediction to you too?], using the same language and ideology as Richard Spencer or David Duke, or literally Hitler would be attacked by these people. You cannot differentiate yourself. There will ultimately be two sides ..at the end of the day, even they (honest liberals who would condemn anti-fa attacks) will be pushed onto the same side.
(59:23) Richard Spencer: And that’s where we are, we’re getting pushed onto two sides; and that is also a sign of a civil war. This isn’t some market place of ideas, this is a civil war where one side will win and one side won’t.
(59:44) Charles: Well, to purposely misquote Richard Nixon, we’re all national socialists now, when libertarians and cuckservatives and the likes of Bill Mitchell and Mike Cernovich, Gavin McInnes are compared to Adolf Hitler, it’s a preposterous time to be alive.. that’s where we’re at right now, the “basket of deplorables” is now the basket of Goebbels. .. we’re past the point, we can’t have a reasonable discussion. So when you hear Paul Joseph Watson in his British accent or whatever it is, talking about “oh, the ‘tolerant’ left, oh my, they just don’t want to have a discussion.” You’re right, they don’t want to have a discussion, they want fight you, they want to kill us all. So what do you say, Paul, do you want to join us? Do you want to fight back? Or do you want to get beat up?
(101:06) Richard Spencer: The irony is that you and I would literally have a discussion with Paul Joseph Watson.. whereas the other side won’t. ...there’s a reason for that ..whatever you want to say about Paul Joseph Watson or Milo or whatever, we can talk with them .. there’s a compatible aspect to what we’re doing, we’re kind of like left and a right in a way.
(102:47) Richard Spencer: In terms of the Alt Lite, I can only imagine that a lot of them are waking up to this obvious reality
(102:59) Charles: I think they are. (((Lauren Southern))), I think, just made a video saying that it’s time to fight back.
(103:07) Richard Spencer: Yeah
(103:07) Charles: and it is, if you’re being attacked by these people, you have to defend yourself.
(103:15) Richard Spencer: Absolutely. Well, anyway, lets leave it on that note; this was great; unfortunately Andrew had to leave us a little bit early; yeah, so, we’re back and we’ll be doing this regularly. So, get ready. I’ll talk to you soon Charles.
At TRS, Lawrence Murray (pseudonym) talks to two Mexicans. Murray, a writer for TRS, has given several clues (in this interview as well) to lead one to suspect that he might be Jewish himself - at least tasked with trying to soften attitudes toward Jews and Zionism, leave them certain outs, if not being Judeophilic. He was also the one responsible for their Castizo article, apparently meant to soften the blow of mixing Whites, Indios and blacks. Whatever the case, with the Mexicans he covers topics that those who actually are dealing in good faith need to consider: “The bad Jews” (as opposed to the “good”, Zionist ones, as these Alt-Righters propose the distinction), those Jews who are against Trump and the Alternative Right false opposition. Another matter discussed is world demographic population trends - relevant to this thread is a mention of Chinese population in Vancouver and New Zealand. Also discussed are Indio, Mestizo and “Sambo” (Castizo) populations for their better and worse, their presence in South, Central and North America.
(43:00) Mexican interlocutor: What we were talking about, the imperial spirit of the British Empire that had, like Larry was saying, that had a government based in London but was trying to be a world government, really fit into the merchant style of the international Jews at the time that they didn’t even have land, and it kind of fit into a synergy because at the same time whenever the British empire wanted to conduct new businesses, or get new contacts, or a new route in the merchant enterprise, the could always count on the Jews to have a cousin or a friend, or simply walk into a synagogue and say hey, we come from very far away, we have this plan, who do you know? can you make this work? can you make this happen? and there were kinda Jews everywhere, so it does make sense for the British to synergize because on the one hand, they like the merchant cast, international Jews, and at the same time, the British like the amount of contacts and the kind of a-priori expansion that the Jews had around the world. So, I think that kind worked both ways.
Lawrence Murray: Yeah, the British, oddly enough, if you look at the time of the first world war, actually had a sense that the Jews were powerful. Like, they actually had that ethnic awareness. Part of the reason that the Balfour Declaration is made, you know, the promising of an establishment of an Israeli homeland in Palestine, part of the reason why the Prime Minister and the Cabinet go along with this is because they believe by offering this as sort of a gift to the Jews, the international Jewish community will side with Britain and help them out. So, they were actually aware of Jewish power, but by then the empire was on its way out anyway..so it’s kind of interesting, they don’t really grasp it until it gets near the end, how powerful the faction they’re dealing with; and by the time that the British empire ends, Israel manages to literally bomb its way out of it, which is a fitting end..a bookend to the collapse of the British empire.
The Israelis launch a terror campaign against the British government (laughs), which had given them Israel, in order to become independent, yeah, you know, so that’s how it ends.
So, beginning in the 30’s an 40’s The British started to back-peddle on Zionist policy, where they were going to let Jews migrate to Palestine, because, as it turns out, that made the Arabs angry. And the British, of course, having to maintain the empire, couldn’t have the Jews and the Arabs fighting each other within the empire because that’s bad for the government because it leads to anarchy; so they started trying to say no, the Jews can’t migrate to Palestine anymore, because that’s causing tensions and the Jews of course did not like that idea.
(46:07) Mexican: What’s the name of the hotel that they bombed?
Lawrence Murrary (pretending to be unsure): I think it’s the Hotel David. ..yeah, I believe that’s the one.
(46:25) Mexican: There’s another aspect that led the British to be so susceptible to Jewish influence, basically the crazy Protestant sects. [Note Jewish angle of directing blame to Whites]
(46:50) Mexican:...you know had this crazy belief about the Jews going back to Israel to fulfill some prophesy…
(47:23) Lawrence Murray: That’s why I’d recommend reading not just Kevin MacDonald but also Paul Gottfried, who is Jewish, but I believe grew up in Connecticut and New York; and, you know, he’s a paleoconservative writer, so he’s not a nationalist but he did analyze in the book, “Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt” how there’s a chain of connection between you know that northern, New England, Puritan Protestant culture that eventually gives rise to the title of the book, Multiculturalism and the Culture of Guilt, because guilt is such a Protestant thing .. you have guilt and you have salvation and you’re sort of born damned…and some of it spills-over to Catholicism as well, but it wasn’t the Catholics who brought to America the idea that you have to atone for slavery and discrimination ...Catholics did not found the United States.
(48:31) Mexican: If we come through the current year, as they say…as Larry was saying, there are Jews that are writing about these kinds of things…there are so many nationalists in Israel, and you know, the British people realizing that the, the British empire idea and the world finance idea simply is not working ... now how should we approach the issue? Because, on the one side, we have what we’ve been talking here, that they they did this and they did that, that they’ve been doing it, they’re probably going to keep doing it, they’re going to keep doing it, and its in their blood and all that and on the other hand we see an opportunity to kind of just wheel in all the people, the British people, and even talk to the Jewish people about our understanding this concept of identity and of different nations and of commerce between sovereign nations, not between nations that are ruled under one capitalist global finance system. Should we just ah, should we call it even? and let bygones be bygones? and let the Jews have their own state in the Middle East and let the British you know, obviously keep their land and peacefully dismantle the global financial system without holding any grudges?
(50:10) Mexican: I mean seriously, because there’s so much momentum in the Alternative Right and all these things .. I use that term as an umbrella for all the awareness that is coming in the world, even among Jews and non-Whites, so if the momentum keeps growing and we actually get somewhere, do we want some kind of conflict with anybody or do we just want to learn form our mistakes and create a new system, that if we use it differently in each nation, as each identity wants can actually work to keep world peace and to let Europeans prosper [note that he’s talking about Europeans prospering while they are being genocided] and to let other countries, you know mind their own business [rather, let the compradors mind it for them] you know, if they get back on their feet or they don’t well, that’s their problem. You kind of get the idea of what I’m saying, right Larry?
(51:05) Lawrence Murray: Yeah, I think the fault-line is going to be ‘pro-White countries versus anti-White countries.’ I don’t know how that’s going to unfold entirely, but I think in terms of foreign policy, people that are willing to work with us and permit us, speaking from a white American perspective, people who are willing to let us have our own state, and not try to destroy it, I think that’s a good starting point to be friends. People who do not want us to have that, we’re obviously not going to get along with. So, we don’t know what that’s going to look-like yet. I’ve spoken to people who argue that Israel may wind up being an ally of Europe and a White America, simply because the same people who hate Israel, hate the United States, I’ve heard argued ...I don’t know that that is entirely true but there are people who are both anti-Zionist and anti-White, so you know, we don’t know what these things are going to look like, what we do know is that from my perspective, at least, I want a White homeland; and people who support a White homeland will be my allies and people who don’t, won’t be.
Note the Israeli alliance part, it’s the old, “this is what THEY say . ..I didn’t say it”.
Posted by DanielS on Monday, 09 January 2017 13:07.
This nonsense has got to stop.
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 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.
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.
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 08 January 2017 00:06.
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.
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, 29 December 2016 07:21.
A Zeitgeist may be described in sober terms as the largely taken for granted (unconscious, hence “ghostly”) logics of meaning and action comprising a moral order - the characteristic obligations, legitimacies and prohibitions constituting social paradigmatic parameters. I don’t need to refer to the oft quoted statement by Voltaire to suggest that given our prevailing zeitgeist, even where the progenitors of a theory via academia or media are not themselves Jewish, that they have dared not lay blame in the hands of the Jews. To cite Jews, their religion and practices as explanatory of social problems has been strictly prohibited since World War II; media and academia having circled the wagons more fervently and thoroughgoingly than ever against heretics of the paradigm - the zeitgeist of Jews as sacred cow. Nevertheless, it has only been more strong a taboo since the western world viewed footage of Operation Reinhard’s wake, and the Nazi mirroring of themselves as chosen, but it is not a new taboo. The Bible, Old and New Testament, has in fact been “the Jewish media” for 2,000 years, designating Jews as chosen (if not misguided), as having donated Christ, the savior of Gentiles, savior of all non-Jews, Whites included; and texts be known, has made taboo self interested defense and action for Gentiles, interposing and prescribing upon them instead an obsequious Golden Rule that the Jews themselves would not adhere to.
It is an observable Jewish strategy within this zeitgeist for their adherents to be granted “rights of display” as they might disseminate, via academia and media, a good deal of penetrating, truthful information; but in the end those rights of display are curtailed and attention deflected from just those parts of information where Jewish ways and means are shown responsible for negative social and genetic consequences for other peoples.
- the 2007 film Zeitgeist; viz., its segment on religion. After setting out an array of fascinating information tracing sources of Judeo-Christian mythology to pagan roots - largely to Egyptian sun worship - there is, by segment’s end, blame laid on the use of Christianity, by Roman leaders in particular, followed by a logical fallacy stealthily deployed: i.e., that all religions are mythologies used to cover-up the truth by those who know the truth and seek nefarious social rule by the obfuscating properties of religious mythos - all religions serve this purpose, therefore the Abrahamic religions generally and Judaism in particular should not be singled-out for special critique.
In fact, Christianity was not as much the means by which Roman leaders beginning with Constantine took power over the rest of Europe, so much as it was the means by which the Jews overthrew ancient Rome and ultimately, all of Western civilization - placing it all vaguely under the auspices of Noahide law - our Zeitgeist.
Posted by DanielS on Monday, 24 October 2016 00:00.
Rom Harré, Philosophy of science and psychology Professor at Oxford and Georgetown. Notable ideas: ethogenics, positioning theory
Contradiction in Lived and Told Narratives
Brownwyn Davies, University of New England, Australia
Rom Harré, University of Oxford
The ubiquity of contradiction in human affairs has long been commonplace. Social contradictions were identified by Marx as the source of social change. Repertoires of mutually contradictory “personas” have been demonstrated to be characteristic of people living in complex societies (Argyle, 1976; De Waele & Harré, 1976). At the same time it is evident that there have also been powerful social norms requiring at least the appearance of consistency in displays of character, in modes of talking and writing and even in patterns of thought.
Research on language and social interaction, vol. 2; 1991/1992: 1-36
Though contradiction is a logical concept that names a relation between propositions, it has a well established use as a general metaphor for incompatibilities of many kinds. It is one of the concepts by which “modernity” has bee defined. So in post-modernity one would expect at least some of the uses of “contradiction” to be called into question, particularly those in which it has a normative role. According to Parker (1989, p. 48), modernity itself, “is contradictory: Its discourse promises scientific truth as the solution to humanity’s problems on the one hand, and on the other attributes responsibility and the power to make meaning to individuals.”
We two, as individual authors, have been both constituted by, and active participants in, the construction of that modern world. We now find ourselves fascinated by the spaces opened up by its deconstruction, particularly in the work of feminist authors (1) such as Weedon (1987), Walkerdine (1981, 1984, 1985), Haug (1987). This paper, then, stands at the interface between the modern and the post modern worlds: While still being caught up, inevitably, in the discursive practices of the modern world we nonetheless wish to make contradiction a topic for examination in light of such feminist post-modern/ post-structuralist writing.
As a person in our contemporary world one has access to many ways of talking about oneself and one’s activities in that world: that is, one has access to multiple forms and styles of discourse. These ways of telling may remain discreet and the contradictions that sometimes exist between them may not become manifest nor present problems for resolution or accommodation. But they may overlap. They may be used as parts of some larger whole. And within that whole they may be profoundly contradictory. Furthermore each discourse may itself be made up of contradictory elements. Billig et al. (1988) give the example of liberal discourse containing ideological commitments to the rights both of the individual and the collective. He also cites educational discourse which espouses as values both equality and authority. In each case there is a discreet discourse containing oppositional and and contradictory imperatives.
Yet one of the predominant features of ways of producing ourselves as persons in the modern world is to present what we do as relatively coherent and non-contradictory, both as we interpret what we do and in the various accounts that we give of what we have done and will do. Numerous strategies exist for dealing with blatant contradictions in those productions. For instance there is the bureaucratic device of “wearing different hats.” Each “hat” represents a different set of constraints, aims and repertoires of proper actions.
The movement from the complex array of lived experience to the relatively coherent stories that we tell about that experience will be a central focus of this paper. Like Haug (1987) we see lived experience as inherently contradictory and the appearance of coherence and and non-contradiction as discursive constructions. As Haug (1987) puts it, “human beings, in the process of their socialization, work at restructuring the given elements of their lives until such time as their existence becomes relatively uncontradictory: In other words until social action becomes possible.” We wish to explore how it is that non- contradiction has become such a fundamental requirement of the production of self and in contrast how the recognition of contradiction has been greeted by feminist post structuralist authors in particular as fundamental to understanding their experience.
Told and Lived Narratives
Told narratives, including both the stories one tells about oneself and other people, and those narrations we call literature and drama, are generally framed within coherent conventions of discourse and tend to show each character as continuous and often, though not always, as predictable. The purpose of told stories in everyday life is often to show how conflicts and contradictions have been, might be, or even should be dealt with (Sabini & Silver 1981). Told stories are usually finite with well marked beginnings and endings. An orderly state of affairs is interrupted by the appearance of a predicament, a course of events unfolds in which the problem is resolved, and a new orderly state of affairs comes into being (Harré,1979). Such stories appear as accounts, told versions of events that are used retrospectively to order the complex array of lived experiences. As Huag (1987, p. 48) says:
We are not assuming that human beings live according to plan, or in continuities, nor even that they are always determined by the same consistent factors…continuities are manufactured retrospectively in the mind.
One focus in this paper is on those discursive practices through which intelligibility and warrantability are created.
Told stories are the means of providing the narrative frameworks through which we interpret strips of lived experience as they occur, that is they serve to guide the actions that make up lived narratives. Who one takes oneself to be at any one time and what one takes oneself to be doing form essential parts of the lived narrative. One’s actions are played out with interactive others who provide one with (and whom one provides with) subject positions in the collective flow of talk. These positions may be taken up or refused (however difficult that refusal might be), by any one of the members of the momentary collective. Thus lived narratives inform readings of told narratives and told narratives inform lived narratives (Bruner, 1986; Davies, 1989; Davies & Harré, 1990)...
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 16 October 2016 13:21.
First is not the same as most essential (inter esse), a take-away from prior thread.
Updated (significantly) the morning of October 18th CET
I agree that it is important to not set the bar too high and that is something which GW helps to articulate very well - i.e., the Heideggerian place of MidtDasein - by ensconcing the authentic consciousness of the subject in a world view that is not all that conscious - not feeling constantly compelled by the instrumental, for reasons too subjective, too objective, or too “the They” but resonating rather, with the emergent - he contributes thus significantly to the articulation of its authentic form, in this holding fast attention to resonance, from resonance of subjective emergence to resonance of the objective field, a position which does partake of the calculative (Cartesian) while not remaking stuck there, generally. On the other hand, also generally, Heidegger helps to not set the bar too high, by suggesting that authentic thinking generally occurs slowly, in a meandering, qualitative survey by poesis. While the subject is the inevitable entering point of caring interest, its viewpoint is calibrated authentically from there, taken away from inauthenticity and into engagement with its full organic process by re-attention to “there-being” (which occurs, I suppose, when resonance with a relative concern is particularly acute), from momentary concerns to a broad systemic view based in the relative interests (inter esse) of one’s folk (social group/midtdasein) within the emergent world - that is another description of midtdasein; and if the subject is centered not in objectivity, but within the purview of the folk, in praxis; and folk leaders share this view to their relative interests, the calibration of the group should feed back to serve the authentic interests of the subjective starting point which the subject will come back to inevitably in resonance - a resonance that should meld with the group’s interests, in the moment they seek to re-orient anew, to call back from estrangement their authentic position of caring. But if the subject is not getting sufficient feedback from the system, marginalized as such, their authentic concern would bring to bear their subjective perspective on the system’s inauthenticity, acting as a homeostatic corrective (I believe it was Heidegger’s student, Gadamer, who fostered this idea).
Thus, First - subject - isn’t the same as most Essential (inter-esse) - Midtdasein - subject ensconced in a world view of relation within the folk. In fact, the first subjective relation is not to this third person (Cartesian) point of view, but rather, the subject acting into relation of second person address - parental relation, as biological creatures with reflexive capacities unique among biological creatures. From that starting point, it moves into emergent and third person relation (us) to calibrate midtdasein - if the social system is correctly oriented - which it presently is not (because it is estranged, all too Cartesian: objective/subjective, all too moved into the third person “they”) - hence the need for centering not rigidly stuck in the Cartesianism of the psychological perspective, but in the communication perspective, in interaction, its affordance of a view confirmed and delimited by the relative interests of the human ecological system, beginning with the first to second person relation and then prompting engagement in non-universal maturity, to socialization in midtdasein - a worldview gauged against the relative interests of the social group. The interests of the subject as participant in the social group, its authentic being, are held fast as they naturally resonate in emergent delimitation against material reality, including its own affordances and constraints, matters of physics; and for the need to coordinate caring activity/existence in relation to the emergence of other authentic social groups, biological creatures, the necessities of their organic systems in emergent relation to our systemic organic necessities.
Heidegger does advise or describe as authentic then, a holding fast of this essence, the resonance of emergent qualities of the subject, the people, the MidtDasein and its world setting taken to heart.
The holding metaphor is interesting because it implies two separated appendages, or at any rate, the capacity to embrace and coddle that which is inbetween and captivate it to one’s subjective attention.
GW: Cartesian epistemology, then, is dangerously self-referential, and that applies to the Cartesian sum as well as its cogito ... to what the model can say about the subject. Subjectivity truly is a chalk circle.
To break this, Heidegger proposed that every thing from a single particle to the universe has a being of its own and, therefore, a truth thereof which discloses itself to an action or state or site (depending on one’s interpretation) called Dasein. Now, to overcome the difficulty of representation in the Mind, because thought, emotion and sensation are each, in their own way, representational, Hiedegger proposed essential thinking as the mind-activity which is active in Dasein’s way of seeing what is disclosed.
This is good in that it helps supply a much fuller understanding, encourages attention to where our subjective emergent qualities resonate with the emergent qualities beyond the subjective; but you are sweeping aside other aspects that Heidegger suggests for relieving Cartesian rigidity, viz., the idea of Caring, there-being (taking attention out of one’s head), the folk and their delimitation as such - these are not an affectation to Heidegger nor an arbitrary application.
You have reminded me of the aspect of Heidegger in which he calls attention to “spreading out what is interesting - inter esse - and taking to heart what is most essential - then holding fast” - that would be a Heideggerian means for subjective emergence resonating with emergent qualities of the objective…
The holding metaphor is interesting because it implies two separated appendages, or at any rate, the capacity to embrace and coddle that which is inbetween and captivate it to one’s subjective attention.
What you may not be respecting in what I am getting at is how Heidegger’s system would assign being to the folk - and how the subjective would have a different qualitative relation to it, within it, in midtdasein, than to the rest of the “site of disclosure”... it would be a relative quality and a Caring which goes beyond and then delimits the subjective perspective from The They and The The which would make a non-Cartesian difference. The holding metaphor which you remind me of in your attention to emergence is interesting.
Heidegger does advise or describe as authentic then, a holding fast of this essence of resonance of emergent qualities of the subject, the people, the MidtDasein and its world setting taken to heart.
GW: Only by fitting the two realms together may one reconcile false Dasein to “midtdasein” ... may one reconcile the formed personality, with all its error, to the “site” of disclosure of the thing which is the people. That is what my Ontological Transit, in all its gauche simplicity, is designed to do. Understand it before you criticise it.
Well, you can put it that way, its implied in what I’ve said, but rather than its being incumbent upon me to “understand” a reification like “the personality”, you might be open to understand before criticizing the reason why autobiography will provide a better means of fitting predilections of the corporeal self to the “site” of disclosure - which includes one’s folk.
I can appreciate that you want “personality” to fit a closer reading of the corporeal and its genetic expression, but the concept of autobiography is not mutually exclusive and will, rather, facilitate “the fitting together” of authentic expression of the personality and the “site of disclosure.”