Giving Guessedworker’s subject its due as a main blog post (and moving related comments here), Guessedworker wrote:

The questions raised here are extremely important.  They go to the very heart of the meaning and utility of politics.  If we do not address them but, on the contrary, simple assume that “everything will turn out right” providing Jewish struggle is removed from the equation, then we are proposing an anti-politics and a void where history should stand.  We become mere racial actors in a racial world, sans the traction of intellect.

Now, obviously I am not an advocate of the single Jewish cause.  I am an advocate of the European genius.  I believe that the long cycle of self-forgetting in modernity has to be broken, and the return to self-awareness that characterises less creative peoples, and which characterised Europeans during our collective phase of emergence from mere survivalism, has to be re-ignited.  I believe that is the challenge which the Jewish racial paradigm presents us (and it is a drive for the singular possession of ethnicity), and that it can be resolved only through that process of rediscovery.

But we will never achieve that through protest alone.  We will achieve it through philosophy.

READ MORE...

If Obama’s forgery attempt was as incompetent as indicated by the above video from Sheriff Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse, we are left with a confusing dilemma:

Couldn’t Obama come up with at least one competent digital document fabrication expert from among those decidedly nerdy white campaign volunteers?  Is there something about being an African extended phenotype that makes white nerds stupid?  The explanation sticks in my craw, not because I’m ashamed to be associated with such stupidity even if only by race, but because my prior experience with African extended phenotypes is that they are selectively brain-dead—not generally brain-dead.

What’s really going on here?

Here’s part of the story:

Documents that have been scanned to PDF and opened by Adobe Illustrator apparently do create layers automatically:

Indeed, from this video it appears that it is Adobe Illustrator, itself, that controls the scanning of the image hence creation of the layers in the resulting PDF.

So, we’re on our way to a forensic re-creation of the “crime”.  Next up, I suppose, is the variation in pixelation between these layers.  What caused that?

The DNA Nations - 2020 Update

A reading through of this update of a preliminary document of the DNA Nations concept to provide the basic specificatory structure to follow up for those who care for the curation of our diverse kinds of people. While our focus is on European peoples, curation for the preservation of our kinds - genus, species - and potential coordination on the basis of genetics, the concept does not preclude negotiating with mixed kinds, does not prescribe violence, exploitation in any way shape or form and does not preclude non-Europeans from curating their kinds for preservation and working out the means for their coordination with European kinds as well

The DNA Nations - 2020 Update

An implicit union of unions and coalitions thereof based on DNA criteria.

Euro-DNA Nations

James Bowery’s “Laboratory of the States” platform proposes sovereignty through free choice, as people may “vote with their feet” to establish human ecologies through controlled experimentation. The control would be established through freedom from association—that is, the freedom to not associate with others. However, under the current circumstances, efforts to instantiate these deliberately organized “human ecologies” are best conducted in an implicit manner. Indeed, under the circumstances, they must be largely implicit (for example, regarding laws which prohibit realtors from mentioning race to buyers or sellers). Bowery suggests promoting abstract terms such as “our valuation of freedom of choice”. Later, the communities should be able to enforce explicit freedom of and from association.

This freedom from association is corollary to individual freedom of choice and association. Rather than trying to overthrow the the liberal zeitgeist of our epoch, Bowery maintains that we ought to hold liberals to their principles. We will respect and grant their valuation of freedom to go/and or be associated with whom they like and we as European peoples expect the same freedom of choice to go/ and or associate with whom we like.

As far as European Americans and other European diaspora go, Bowery has, since his initial proposal for the laboratory of the states platform, concluded that rather than state-sized units, county-sized political units are more optimal—the sheriff and county being the most viable and manageable scale of organization in defense against the nation-state apparatus in its death throes.

I would argue that the initial state is rather a step toward unionization – a virtual and rules based association, though not made formal as a political action group to begin, just an informal union of unions based on voluntary DNA groupings.
 
Furthermore, Bowery argues that strong valuation of freedom of choice is a distinctly Western characteristic and therefore precious. I concur. He elaborates farther that it is imperative to maintain the unique human ecologies that evolved with this Western characteristic of individual freedom of choice. I concur as well.

This freely and deliberately chosen state/county human ecology is very different from the deeply situated, naturally evolving human ecologies of Europe and Russia, where our people have evolved over tens of thousands of years in relation to particular habitats. It is surely critical for us to maintain these ecologies as well. We would not want to be without either the freely chosen state/county-sized ecologies of European diaspora derived by choice within a lifespan, nor without the truly deep, historical ecologies of our European and Russian nations. These are both goods that we would want to maintain, and yet they are very different concerns. This focuses WN on the task of coordination.

We wouldn’t really want to give up either, but how to coordinate these two goods? This is where a Euro-DNA-based nation begins to look like a potential means of coordination, allowing for various expressions of our native Europeans while never losing sight of their essence.

There is a third crucial matter to coordinate. If a nation of European descended peoples is to have an economy big enough to fund a space program and other large projects, it is likely to need a size larger than the average state (let alone county) to provide for a sufficient economy; and if, as Conner adds, nations of European peoples are to hold up to the growing power of China, they will need to be large.

Thesis: The Indigenous Euro-DNA Nation would provide a means for coordinating smaller States/Counties, both freely chosen human ecologies and those of deep, historical evolution, while providing the means for pursuing a mutual larger manifestation as well.
Given the anti-White hegemony that European peoples are up against from above, along with the turmoil and throngs of anti-Whites that they are up against on all fronts, an endogenous approach is the most practical for the coordination of European peoples sovereignty.

By endogenous here, we mean from the inside out. That is, in proposing autonomous, sovereign nations of European peoples, we should begin with those who would like to be a part of it first—begin by focusing on what we can do as opposed to what we cannot do. It is endogenous also in that the nation is corporeal, literally of the people—their native European DNA being the prime criterion for inclusion. That would be in contrast, though not in opposition, to other WN nation building efforts using an exogenous (from the outside-in) approach, such as the Northwest Front.

There are clear practical advantages of a native Euro-DNA Nation that begins as a formal declaration of a wish as confirmed by voluntary signatories. Firstly, signing-up would only mean that one is expressing a wish to be a part of sovereignty for European peoples. It does not require relinquishing one’s current citizenship.

Nor does it mean antagonizing non-Europeans. We may extend the DNA Nation concept and its freedom of association to them as well. But just as the conscientious are concerned for the preservation of genus and species, pervasive ecology, so too is it perfectly legitimate to look after our European kind.

For whom it may concern, the indigenous Euro-DNA Nation focuses from the start on our most precious concern, our DNA, while not encumbering us with present obstacles to land-situated nations. The Euro-DNA Nation would be non-situated in the beginning (and to some extent always).

However, DNA without land, without habitat indefinitely, would be problematic for a number of reasons. Therefore, it must be an objective of the Euro-DNA Nation to establish sacrosanct Euro-DNA Nation “lands” eventually; the plurality of lands is a deliberate usage. In fact, more safety and resources would be provided if these lands are non-contiguous and disbursed throughout the world. Naturally, WN would seek to re-establish our traditional territories as European, particularly those in Europe, but would also seek to secure sovereign territory in North America, South America, Russia, Australia and New Zealand. Nevertheless, in not being strictly contingent on obtaining land, the nation is rendered more flexible and more practical so that it can start with land claims of any size, even small claims.

Once coordinated as such, its ultimate viability may strive to cover the largest land-masses possible. Thinking about these issues first as a means of coordination with Bowery’s “Laboratory of the States” platform, and in line with that, the DNA Nation being freely chosen would allow people to select various native European sub-categories (if they match), some distinct, some perhaps blended in various ways and degrees. Considering the problem secondly in terms of how to coordinate WN of in its largest possible size, it also provides a highly practical means to instantiate a goal for protracted expanse, as it is highly flexible in its ability to cover territory.

The DNA Nation is also practical in that it does not require unnecessary risk and engagement on the part of participants. Signing-up does not render one complicit with illegal activity of any kind. It only means an expressed wish for sovereignty from non-native European coercion, and to be with persons of indigenous European extraction.

Separatism is a first step, Separatism is the ultimate aim, and Separatism is always possible.

If you wish to express a wish that you might one day be a part of this union of unions that is the Euro-DNA Nation, you may sign up; and specify particular category/union as you wish. DNA proof will ultimately be required for consideration of membership.

The Native European-DNA Nation sign-up along with its subcategories will be provided.

Note 1: The freedom of and from association promoted by the Laboratory of The States/Counties is conceived by Bowery to be an implicit choice. In his estimation, explicit Whiteness does not work. Taking the example of the draconian legal constraints placed on American realtors regarding the mere mention of race to buyers or sellers provides a salient example of how hazardous explicitness can be. However, the explicitness of the DNA registry does not contradict the implicitness strategy due to its being voluntary and not representing a legal status, but rather an expression of a wish. Discretion is nonetheless advised.

Daniel Sienkiewicz

READ MORE...

Reiterating my Amazon book review of “The Extended Phenotype” by Richard Dawkins:

Ever since Richard Dawkins wrote “The Extended Phenotype” (of which he says “It doesn’t matter if you never read anything else of mine, please at least read _this_.”) he has been made to pay penance in the form of attacks on creationists when not addressing his books to assorted popular scientific fashions. As someone who sees more to life than mechanism, I certainly have a bone or two to pick with Darwinians and mainstream science in general; but as mechanistic science goes, “The Extended Phenotype” was, indeed, a triumph of intellectual synthesis on par with Darwin’s original “Origin of Species”—and that is precisely why I believe Dawkins was stopped intellectually dead in his tracks once it was published it in 1982. I couldn’t agree with his assessment more: If you read nothing else of his, please at least read “The Extended Phenotype” and I would go further and say, don’t bother reading anything else by Dawkins after “The Extended Phenotype” as it amounts to paying penance to the new inquisition for heresy. Further still, if you read nothing else in main stream scientific literature, please, at least read “The Extended Phenotype” chapter “Host Phenotypes and Parasite Genes” with particular attention to his comment on the extended phenotypic generalization of epistasis, modifier genes and dominance—because that will be the insight future historians of science recognize as the most important, not only of Dawkins’ work, but of 20th century science.

The seeming hyperbolic nature of this review will herein receive some support in the context of the momentous paper “The Evolution of Eusociality” by Martin A. Nowak, Corina E. Tarnita & Edward O. Wilson.

Quoting E. O. Wilson’s book “The Social Conquest of Earth”, page 55, chapter “The Creative Forces”:

Natural selection at the individual level, with strategies evolving that contribute maximum number of mature offspring, has prevailed throughout the history of life.  It typically shapes the physiology and behavior of organisms to suit a solitary existence, or at most to membership in loosely organized groups.  The origin of eusociality, in which organisms behave in the opposite manner, has been rare in the history of life because group selection must be exceptionally powerful to relax the grip of individual selection.  Only then can it modify the conservative [emphasis JAB*] effect of individual selection and introduce highly cooperative behavior into the physiology and behavior of the group members.

The ancestors of ants and other hymenopterous eusocial insects (ants, bees, wasps) faced the same problem as those of humans.  They finnessed it by evolving extreme plasticity of certain genes, programmed so that the altruistic workers have the same genes for physiology and behavior as the mother queen, even though they differ drastically from the queen and among one another in these traits.  Selection has remained at the individual level, queen to queen.  Yet selection in the insect societies continues at the group level, with colony pitted against colony.  This seeming paradox is easily resolved.  As far as natural selection in most forms of social behavior is concerned, the colony is operationally only the queen and her phenotypic extension [emphasis JAB] in the form of robot-like assistants.

Here E. O. Wilson all but credits Richard Dawkins with the critical insight that forms the basis of “The Evolution of Eusociality” by Nowak, et al, of which Wilson was coauthor, but not even Richard Dawkins himself gets it, as can be seen in his critique of “The Evolution of Eusociality”.

Let me restate what Wilson haphazardly tried to state, but botched, when he introduced the term “group” in the final paragraph of the above quote:

The hymenopterous eusocial insects consist only of reproductive individuals: queens and drones.  The so-called “workers”, “soldiers”, etc. are not individuals and therefore give only the illusion of being insects.  They are mere extended phenotypes of queens and reproductive drones.

The fact that E. O. Wilson, in his own haphazard way, gets this and Richard Dawkins himself fails to get it merely adds credence to the hypothesis I put forth in my Amazon book review, that something horrifying happened to Dawkins—upon the publication of “The Extended Phenotype”—that may even have turned him from a semi-functioning intellect, to something more resembling this cricket:

*The use of the word “conservative” here is very apt—more so than E. O. Wilson recognizes—and will be the subject of a future post.

Something rather wonderful happened last week in London’s Green Park.  The long-awaited monument to the aircrew of Bomber Command was unveiled by the Queen in front of some 800 surviving aircrew.  It had been funded by private subscriptions and funds from the National Lottery.  It is sixty-seven years late, but it is there at last.

For those who are unaware, the post-war Labour government of Clement Atlee chose to deny the boys who had flown in Bomber Command - the boys in their Hampdens, Whitleys and Wellingtons, Stirling, Halifaxes and Lancasters - the customary campaign medal marking their service to the nation at war.  The policy of denial was continued in the thirteen years of Conservative government that followed. The bomber aircrew were alone among all those who fought under British arms to be so denied.

The problem, of course, was that the sudden unfolding at the end of the war of the devastation caused to Germany’s cities and towns by the Area Bombing campaign and the USAAF 8th Air Force’s daylight offensive was a huge shock for the political Establishment, and a gift for many ambitious men.  The wartime service values of duty, discipline and self-sacrifice were falling away as the nation struggled to find its feet and move forward.  In the battle for the new moral centre there could only be one victor - moral universalism - and the treatment accorded at this time to Arthur Harris was a highly visible function of that.

The political exodus from support for Bomber Command fractured national feeling more or less along the lines that pee-cee and anti-racism fracture it today.  During the war, aircrew were treated with great affection and generosity by the public.  They understood that in the long years from the Battle of Britain to D-Day the strategic bomber was the only means of carrying the war to Germany.  The service performed for them by Bomber Command constituted an act of endurance at arms matched in British military history only by the BEF in 1914-18.  They, the public, did not shift their opinion as their rulers and “moral betters” shifted theirs.  They did not condemn the aircrew because of the excesses of the campaign, or because of the questions over its strategic value.  If its results were very terrible then that, too, represented a victory of sorts over the enemy, for the Germans, who sunk their development efforts into jets and rockets, never produced a bomber with the lifting capacity of the Lancaster, or any bomber at all with four engines.  Had they done so, they would have used it on Britain’s cities and towns to the same effect.

For nationalists the subject of the Allies’ destruction of urban Germany comes with two large and extremely sore points attached.  First, there is the feeling among many, which I do not share, that “the wrong side” won ... the Jewish side, the side of anti-nationalism, of European national destruction.  The people who make this wholly utilitarian argument are very often American WNs of German descent.  But if pressed on their politics they turn out equally often to be right-liberals (in the English sense of that word).

Second, there is the belief among older British nationalists - the generation who fought (and lost) on the streets to the anti-racist left in the final decades of the 20th century - that National Socialism and like forms of Judaic fantasia are viable and true philosophies in their own right ... indeed, that they are nationalism.  If I thought that I’d give up thinking entirely.

I often wonder what kind of national feeling the boys in those bombers, in all their war-will, would have expressed.  That, too, is there somewhere in the new monument to them in Green Park, in the folds of the battle-dress, in the set of the jaw and the line of the eye’s gaze.  One day before too long, I hope, I shall go there and ponder that.

In the ongoing war of words on the website of the only national daily where some semblance of free speech exists, the poor, benighted anti-racist fraternity, that blight on light of humanity and hope of all who desire a world without white people injustice, has devised a new response to the foul, horrid, nasty, articulate, winning, emotionally-whole racists and haters who have dominated everyone are abominated by everyone.  They’ve discovered the Public Order Act, 1986.

Here’s a few, rather disembodied samples of the fine use to which they are threatening to put it, all from the same DT thread titled Hispanics: the rising power in the United States

simon21
Yesterday 11:39 AM

 Hispanics are white
And as a holocaust denier and advocate of ethnic cleansing you don’t really have any credibility to comment
you may feel you are being satirical, sorry the courts don’t recognise satiical advocates of racial violence.

simon21
Yesterday 10:46 AM

 To advocate ethnic cleansing is against the law full stop.
So is genocide.
You may think this is wit, the courts have decided otherwise
You will end up being reported and arrested.
I urge you to stop posting, the moderators may be compelled to hand over your details such as they are.

simon21
Yesterday 11:11 AM

 I strongly advise youto stop posting.  Blog posts can be used as evidence.
You have advocated ethnic cleansing of Europe’s jewish people.
This is beyond incitement.  May I remind you what happened to David Irving?

zedeyejoe
Yesterday 12:35 PM

 Sorry no, anti-racist is what it says, an equal acceptance of people regardless of their skin colour. To say otherwise is a lie.
Of course you can decry a murderer or thief regardless of their race and should do so.
I feel that you are rapidly approaching the point where you can be prosecuted under section 18 of the Public Order act 1986.

TimMiddleton
Yesterday 02:03 PM

I have repeatedly expressed concern on this site that the Telegraph does an unacceptably poor job of enforcing its own moderation policy. There is material posted on this thread which is truly sickening. Repeatedly, we have been subjected to crude and hysterical racism - including holocaust denial - which would debase the reputation of the back of a toilet door, never mind a supposedly credible national newspaper.
Apart from anything else, much of what has been spewed out below is very probably illegal, and it is to be expected that the Telegraph would be anxious to take such steps required to prevent its own prosecution.
If this newspaper really wishes to be taken seriously by anyone other than a rabble of adolescent hooligans it desperately needs to get a grip.

diatomkid
1 day ago

I have made the same point myself Tim many times.  Sometimes my comments have then been deleted whilst comments quite openly advocating genocide, discrimination and general levels of violence and thuggery have been allowed to stand unchallenged by moderators.  I do wonder just what sort of editorial policy the DT secretly has and just why this contemptible, reprehensible filth is permitted

zedeyejoe
1 day ago

Reading the posts would do it.

Of course we could turn it over to the police and let them sort it out if you prefer?

zedeyejoe
1 day ago

Silence you, rubbish. Just making people aware of the trouble their ranting could get them into if they break the law. The law has been around for over 25 years now of course.

The Act, by the way, sets a reasonably high bar to prosecution.  The Crown must be able to demonstrate not only the presence of language that might be threatening, abusive or insulting, but that racial hatred has been stirred up by same.  There has to be a linkage.  Further, Section 18 states:

A person who is not shown to have intended to stir up racial hatred is not guilty of an offence under this section if he did not intend his words or behaviour, or the written material, to be, and was not aware that it might be, threatening, abusive or insulting.

It is not easy to manufacture an intention to stir up racial hatred from an articulate presentation of the morality of survival.

Now Dan can come along and tell me that it is!

by Daniel Sienkiewicz

When our advocates call our enemies the Left, they are making a crucial mistake: obfuscating our two greatest problems and the means of solution at the same time.

In an interview with Dr. Sunic, Professor MacDonald says, “these neocons, their only interest is Israel. [Otherwise] they tend to be on the Left [?]. They still are on the Left [?] when it comes to immigration. All these things are just really leftist.” [?]

Dr. Lowell says that “the Left” [?] has shipped industry and with it, jobs, to China.

In his article Women on the Left, Alex Kurtagic discusses some of the same subject matter that I had dealt with in a previous article, and to which I have given some consideration over the years – among that, sorting out different kinds of feminists in relation to White interests. In concluding that these “leftists” [?] have nothing to offer women, he places feminists in the same category: de Beauvoir, who did indeed fashion herself a leftist of sorts (taking women as her advocacy group, and Marxism as her guide), but was not Jewish; and Friedan, who was Jewish, but more liberal than a leftist.

In an interview for Alternative Right, Kurtagic goes on attacking “the leeeft, the leeeft, the leeeeft,” and I cringe, not for the reasons that he may think; ie, he may think that I am lamenting an attack on a centralized economy, or open borders multiculturalism, PC “enrichment”. Maybe he would think that I am waxing nostalgic for the Soviet Union where he and Sunic had the misfortune to grow up, or that I want to take away private property? Maybe he thinks I am cringing because I want to jealously limit his horizons, tell him what kind of art and architecture that he can have? Maybe he thinks I want everybody to be equal or treated equal? No, I am cringing because another perfect Jewish trick is being promoted to the detriment of White people.

These counterproductive ambiguities are circulating among our best advocates – hence the need of clarification and definition emerges salient. It is not about competing with them and showing them up; it is about getting the framework of our advocacy correct.

READ MORE...

With the recent successes, of the “liberty movement” among Ron Paul supporters, in taking over the Republican Party in several States, the issue among them now has become immigration and it is very intense.  There is now a full-frontal assault going on within the liberty movement to dispense with any notion of national borders so that the threat of the founding stock Americans finding their political voice is terminated.  Founding stock Americans, highly individualistic as they are, become very animated and moved by rhetoric appealing to the “individual” but are bereft of any outside the Austrian School of economics to provide an organized voice on their behalf in the verbose stew of confusing words that is political discourse.  This is where the decades of preparation by the Jews of the Austrian School of economics pays off for them.  They saw this coming.  They prepared for decades.  Now is unleashed a highly disciplined, well versed vanguard.  The hapless founding stock American is deluged by words from high verbal IQ sophists that attack his core being and betray all his deeply rooted feelings about liberty and America.

My prior discussions of the uniquely innate individualism of Euroman making him uniquely valuable at the same time that he is uniquely vulnerable to abuse by civilization, are illustrated in excruciating detail by this heated battle of words that has real potential to go “hot” in the physically violent sense.

Two of the most heated battle of words on the topic of immigration appear at the website “ronpaulforums.com”.  Below the fold, I offer the two responses that appear to have terminated those respective battles within the liberty movement.  Although there will be many more such battles in this war of words (and even these battles may yet linger) they are offered as a kind of instrument for analyzing the structure of that movement as well as a summary of my political economic views that are “friendly to civilization while upholding the individual”.

READ MORE...