Brett Stevens: Not just a Government Issue Patriotard, but a Full-Blown ZOG Disinformation Agent

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”

Ibid:

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 -

Red Ice Radio, “Deconstructing Modernity” with Brett Stevens, 8 Feb 2017:

Henrik Palmgren 0:28 Today we have Brett Stevens with us, he’s the editor of Amerika.org and the author of Nihilism: A Philosophy Based in Nothingness and Eternity which we’re going to talk more about today in addition to some of the current events, analysis of the situation in America right now..there might be some differences and even disagreements that we have on certain issues but that’s alright, we never bring on people just to echo the same thoughts over and over. We’ve always been a show that want(s) to hear, different angles get a different flavor of things and try to understand things from a different point of view not only for the reason of course that mainstream media never gives people in the Neo-Reaction movement but also in the Alt-Right a fair hearing so of course we have to take on that role and give you and idea and a chance to know what many people and figures within this rising movement of resistance actually think about ..instead of going to the mainstream. Anyway, we’ve gotten a few requests to get Brett on the show and I’ve actually come across your site, Amerika, a number of times in the past Brett, searching on certain issues so it’s good to have you on the show, thank you for coming on.

Brett Stevens 1:31 Thank you, it’s great to be here, I’ve enjoyed your show for quite some time; it’s good to be on here.

Henrik Palmgren 1:36 Excellent! Thank you so much, yes, so, if I understand it correctly, you came to a lot of the topics that you write about today through the Neo-Reactionary movement. Tell us a bit about how you ended up there.

Brett Stevens 1:51 I actually started-out in the 80’s publishing to bulletin board systems and then through the 90’s wrote about right-wing topics, especially inspired by black metal and death metal..on my first site, which was the American Nihilists Underground Society, I wrote lengthy essays on these topics that were somewhat popular and somewhat defining..after that point I cruised around looking for some new areas and I found economics and through that Neo-Reaction, which seemed to be a good extension of the anacho-capitalist world view with a little bit more of a practical, geopolitical spin put on it so that you could give it a little more context without having to view it entirely from the perspective of somebody in one first world nation stating what they’d like their community to be like - which is sort of the bourgeois flaw in all libertarian thought.

Brett Stevens 2:44 ..and from there I ran with a Swedish fellow and a few others ran a site in the early 2,000s, middle 2,000s really, called “Corrupt. org” and we wrote about very similar topics to the Alt Right: Human biodiversity, nationalism, transcendental realism and a focus on restoring the West; and so we were basically a parallel and proceeding movement to both Neo-Reaction and The Alt-Right. 

Henrik Palmgren 3:10 ..so does, ah, the spelling, “Amerika” (name of Stevens site) that’s how that you spell it in Sweden, you know that right? with a “k” (chuckles).

Brett Stevens 3:17 ah, yeah, it was pretty much inspired by the (((Franz Kafka))) novel, but its also, most of our readership has always come from Europe and Japan, so it was sort of designed as an odd to that as well.

Henrik Palmgren 3:30 Oh, Japan, now that’s interesting, why is that do you think?

Brett Stevens 3:34 ah, I think it just appeals to a certain segment of people who are looking for a more analytical and less emotional take on things and that appeals to your high i.q. populations, they’re looking for people writing about tangible things that one can do with critical analysis that is not really tainted by the bad thought processes of this time and Northern European and Japanese societies retain a fair amount of traditional feeling and so I think why people are inclined to that. We have a lot of people visit from Sweden and they all speak better English than I do.

Henrik Palmgren 4:05 Yeah, efficiency, order, structure, discipline, I’ve noticed that a lot of the business people in Sweden do well with Japanese people and   ..there is some commonalities there so you are absolutely right. ..ah, now, lets talk about your book, Nihilism [Nihilism: A Philosophy Based in Nothingness and Eternity], and how you wound up writing the book, when was it released, it was released by Arktos of course, I was trying to find a date on it here, was it a year ago or more?

Brett Stevens 4:32 It was a year ago and it is actually released by Numan books.

Brett Stevens 5:15 Numan books is also a long time collaborator, someone I’ve written alongside and published with in the past and she puts out a lot of great writing at the intersection of the occult, traditionalism and sort of what you might call post, post- modern philosophy for lack of a better term. So, I’ve been very fortunate to work with both these groups (Arktos - Friberg’s publishing - and Numan).

This book rose from a collection of essays that I wrote in the early 1990’s through late 1990’s, and maybe with a couple outliers that were later, I’d have to go check all the dates, but what I did was compile them in such a way that it led people through a thought process, its sort of like a descent into what nihilism is. Nihilism requires stepping outside of everything we know entirely as part of the modern world; and re-orienting thinking toward a more mythological historical view that at first seems very anti-human but then it becomes clear that becomes the way that one can know the inner core of your being through knowing reality; its very much a realist philosophy, its also very much against the usual human drama, the emotions, the judgments, the feelings and desires that basically most people react-to; and that’s how they make decisions. Nihilism is an attempt to get to a clear thinking, a level of realism at which point one is able to understand the beauty of the world and through that reach a transcendental understanding. So, its sort of like going through a black hole. At first everything is destroyed and then its compressed down to the single clear moment and from there, hopefully on the other side, there’s a whole new world to discover; and you’re basically viewing the world we live in, in an entirely different way, at which point you are hopefully awakened from the sleep modernity.

Sounds similar in concern to GW’s “self perfectament,” and, in fact, assimilates concerns similar to that of GW’s Ontology Project altogether. Stevens realizes that he must get a handle on wailing modernist anxiety, and that if Modernity, Traditionalism and Post Modernity are sorted-out correctly, as I have done with “White Post Modernity”, that much is lost in the capacity for Jewish chimera to confuse people with fraudulent notions of “post modernity” or to hoodwink them with tried and failed “traditional solutions” to the problem of “modernity” - so he’s got to go back to work in obfuscating the proper topoi. In fact, what he’s doing could scarcely better define a mere return to modernity’s quest for universal empirical foundations. Henrik follows suit:

Henrik Palmgren 7:01 Very interesting, its kind of a path that I’ve gone through as well of just hitting rock bottom, of disconnecting from every kind of level of knowledge that we’ve ever been given and just kind of reaching a zero-point to a certain extent and then start from new, start from fresh understanding of the world in a new kind of way. So, I really can relate to that. 7:28 Do you think there was any of your interest in black metal, death metal that pulled you into that direction?

Brett Stevens 7:30 Absolutely, I think all of those genres are searching to deconstruct modernity to its roots, because they hate it. None of those musicians liked it, they all knew it was a path to death, so they were all looking for, how do we get to the most basic understanding we can, because all of our knowledge is corrupted. All of it has become infected with this mental virus of, we might call it socializing, we might call it individualism, solipsism, narcissism or even leftism, it’s all the same thing; and we’re trying to get outside of that and the only way to do that is to just strip everything down to the absolute basics.

He is not only assimilating a GW-type quest but with that he is also appealing (as Kumiko has observed) to the STEM predilection to radically pursue empirical foundations and cause and effect. Again, when Stevens says that he wants to “deconstruct modernity down to its roots”, he is purporting to deal with modernity by means of doing exactly more modernity.

Next he takes a tricky turn that Kumiko also has something to say about - Stevens notes that Nietzsche was proposing a transvaluing of values, however, while Nietzsche was about transvaluation of values, is is not quite the transvaluation that Stevens portends.

Brett Stevens 8:07 Nietzsche’s re-evaluation of all values comes to mind as does something you said, reminded me of course of Milton, and Satan being cast out of heaven and finding himself in a brand new world having to reconstruct everything he knew; so its got that feel, its a very Promethian, Faustian approach; which is just, when you wake-up and find yourself in the time when everything was lies and you have to find some way to destroy all of it and then re-invent what it is to be human, what it is to be a realist, what it is to be logical, what it is to be masculine; and through that re-discover how you want civilization to exist.

Henrik Palmgren 8:58 This is about building up not only yourself, not only your idea of self, but your actual self, according to the rules and principles of raw nature and reality itself, correct?

I will leave it to Kumiko to give her comment on what he is doing by Nietzschean, Promethian and Faustian implication. And again, it sounds similar in appeal to GW’s Ontology Project and concern for “perfectament;” along with an appeal to his and Bowery’s STEM inclination to view “sociology” with apprehension -

Brett Stevens 9:10 Absolutely, we live now through external selves that are defined by other people, by their concerns and by social tropes and memes, and if you remove those and then are forced to understand yourself on a basic, primal, animal level, ferel and atavistic level, at that point you start understanding how you can value anything in the first place; and start realizing what you thought were your values and what you thought you actually cared about were in fact extremely false.

More appeal to STEM type fascination with verifiable cause and effect as it might lead axiomatically to unshakable ontological foundations.

Henrik Palmgren 10:08 [Quoting a summation of Brett Stevens’ book, “NIHILISM: BETWEEN NOTHINGNESS & ETERNITY] The philosophy itself encourages a consequentialist, realty based outlook, that forms the basis for moral choice, unlike the control oriented system of thought, that forms the basis of contemporary society, nihilism reverts the crux of moral thinking to the relationship between the individual and the effects of that individual’s reactions in reality. From this a new range of choice expands, to a firm religious and moral truth as superior methods of Darwinistic adaptation to the question of human survival which necessarily includes civilization.

Henrik Palmgren 10:41 So how do you view this thing of many people looking at nihilism as something that now has come to plague our society? Specifically, modernity, that there isn’t anything there, there is no, to a certain extent, values there, some people I think they misappropriate what you said before about what Nietzsche said about the re-valuation of all values.

Brett Stevens
11:15 What they call nihilism, I call fatalism, because it is giving up on the world, giving up on the effects of one’s own actions .. but it has a covert purpose ..when a person says there’s nothing I can do, the next thing that comes out of their mouth is, well, I might as well make myself comfortable, I might as well stop giving a damn about anything, and start focusing on making some money and ....some booze or whatever…  and that’s the root of degeneracy. They’ve given up on having a positive effect, and they’re focused only on themselves; I track back the failure of The West, the current failure which we’re going to snap out of, and we’re going to resurrect the West, I track that failure back to something that I call hubris which is the Greeks identified as the root of evil.

More discussion of “consequentialism” aimed to appeal to STEM types; but the “irony” is that the notion of necessity that he is alleging as being opposed to fatalism and the humility (as opposed to hubris) to know one’s factual limitations is, in fact, of an appeal to a less socially interactive and agentive kind of cause and effect - it heads toward deterministic cause and effect quite the opposite of the agency that appeals of social critique and social constructionism.

Brett Stevens 12:27 To my mind all of the ills we face, from leftism and before, because in my mind the decay came long before leftism came on the scene, or started occurring, I should say, all of that related to this hubris, this crazy mixture of narcissism, solipsism and individualism that causes people to disregard the external world, and become naval gazing, introspective but not really in a discovery-oriented way, simply fixated on themselves like a closed circuit television camera and so, I refer to that as fatalism because I think its actually giving up on the possibility of having a good life, including a good civilization, and its giving it up for the purpose of writing-it-off so that they don’t have to be responsible to it. Now you mentioned consequentialism and I think this is one of the most important concepts that I deal with. Consequentialism has been re-defined to mean preference-based consequentialism, a type of utilitarianism, by most modern sources, that means that if you have a room full of 100 people, you ask them, “what makes you happy?” Whatever they say makes them happy you assume is the ultimate good. The consequentialism I speak of is the older variety, which is look at the actual results; instead of filtering it through intermediates, surrogates and proxies, like morality, money, popularity, voting, consumerism, etc, just look at the raw results: whatever action you take, you know that its going to be a cause that will have a certain effect.

You also know that many people have taken many actions and you can study what they’ve done and what the results of those were; so at that point you just have to go back down the list and say, if I want a certain effect, what are the causes that can produce that? ..and then you choose those 14:01. And by the same token, you can look back and say, well, ah, I can look at how all these actions have occurred in the past, and realize that if I do these certain things, these will be the results. And instead of having a reality based on method, where people say, oh, “thou shalt not kill”, this is a reality based on results, entirely and alone - saying, well, if you’re going to kill, this is what is going to happen, so it becomes more important who you’re killing, why you’re killing them, and what that achieves. Because I think everyone agrees we should kill at some times. Makign a rule like, “Thou shalt not kill”, makes no sense because there are whole bunch of exceptions and footnotes, side-rules to it and all that stuff; it doesn’t really work. 14:44 what we need instead is something saying, well, what is the result you’re aspiring to? and how is that good? And that’s what nihilism does, it escapes us from the world of these intermediates, and instead we look purely at consequentialist results.

Henrik Palmgren 14:49 What about, ok so how do we solve this issue of disagreements over, over the reality of those, not the consequences but like say, interpretations of the numbers and the statistics, now I bring this up because I see part of this to an extent hopelessness that we find ourselves in today, is related to a lot of the not only moral relativism, but also this idea that we can’t really know anything ...just a quick example:

Henrik then presents a challenge to Brett Stevens’ notion of necessity by implicating a tenet of social constructionism that was raised through the example of the Swedish Prime Minister - who rebutted a Czech’s observation as to the negative consequences of immigration upon Sweden by “taking an almost quantum physics perspective, that the observer changes the very thing observed;” and by that argument [the Prime Minister] somehow relativized the Czech’s own observation to such an extent that the PM’s response was taken as sufficient to dismiss the Czech’ comment as a non-serious challenge to Swedish liberalism in the public’s eye.

Brett answers that politicians are adept at saying things to alleviate people’s anxieties and they can go with a Nietzschean model of endless interpretations and the necessity to agree to disagree if they must, but… in a sufficiently dealt with reality a hierarchy is called for, in which the elite few, who are competent, rule, and democracy is put aside as something that doesn’t work because people start worrying too much about what others think.

Brett Stevens 19:51 You know, like social influences, who’s going to be offended if I say this?...[But] There’s no way to get agreement out of a group of people, democracy is nonsense and a nihilist recognizes this. You need to find the people who can do things and worry about their interpretation. If you try to come up with an interpretation that everyone in the group will like its bound to be a lie; so that’s my answer to the ‘we’ll agree to disagree people.’

Brett Stevens 22:15 I don’t believe in the non-aggression principle, I think that’s nonsense ..you need to be ready to fight when it’s time to fight but not before; and that’s why you first start with very reasoned, gradual solutions, trying to work people towards sanity, by showing them what works and by disincentivizing behaviors that reward parasites and the other types of people that you mention (the whateverists). At some point, you are going to have to say this is what the rules are and some people are going to have to leave. I fully support physical removal of leftists, I hope to do it without violence ...personally, I think all leftists would be much happier in Brazil, for example ...but I realize that at some point if I were saying, yeah, I’m going to remove all leftists from North America, some people are going to resist and you’re going to have to shoot them. That’s the end result of all things. War is what happens when diplomacy and social order breaks down; and our social order is pretty much destroyed here.

But I think there’s other ways to handle the problem, like for example, the first thing that I would do is to cut off all the subsidies, the welfare state, affirmative action, civil rights, unions, all sorts things that protect parasitic people…

Then I would remove the democratic state so that you stop having these politicians who are parasites doing things to help other parasites; and at that point I would allow people get themselves away from the parasites and make it less profitable for them to be a parasite; and then possibly suggest to them that they need to go elsewhere, then I’d give them a free plane ticket, maybe a free baggy of weed and coke or something to get them out of the country; if they resisted at that point then its time for machine guns and box cars, sending them over the border, whatever’s required. But you don’t want to go to that before you have to; I think anyone who says they’re non-aggression based is probably deluding themselves, because at some point all of us are aggression based. If you make a rule, that’s aggression, its still going to force one to obey it.

Really? It’s going to force them? Here comes instead the faith in rules of grand foundational “design” in nature..

Brett Stevens 24:36 Non-Aggression usually leads to more aggression and things get out of control. So, its better to just take a gradual approach, move people toward the right place with incentives, and disincentives, and then, if they’re still a problem, you might have to escalate, but not until that point.

Henrik Palmgren 24:50 The social order is quickly breaking down and polarization is spiraling out of control. 25:10 I think at the end of it, regardless of ideas that humans have, and what we think is good and maybe what feels good for us temporarily or in the short term, that doesn’t matter, at the end of it the day nature is going to win, regardless of what we think is important, we might have our ideas, as I said, but if something doesn’t operate within the structure of nature, we might think that we can bypass it for a time, and we might be able to bypass it for a time…it’s just going to lead to complete social breakdown and at that point we’ll see what the social rules are. It’s going to restore itself very quickly to a natural order that has worked throughout history, like the family unit and certain traditional aspects of handling things. It would show us once again what really works and I think that we would also realize that modernity itself was just a footnote in human history.

Modernity a footnote? Never. Modernity has not only been atop a short list of the most profoundly transformative ways of life, it will remain to feature as an integral capacity of any competent post modern culture.

Brett Stevens 26:52 I think modernity has clearly been a wrong turn, everything that we formalized starting with the Enlightenment has been a lie, and even before that starting with the peasant revolts and earlier changes we were clearly going down a wrong path. For me, it’s really a question if we want to survive. Nature will restore balance, but nature tends to downgrade things in complexity if they don’t fight for their survival. An eagle that does not strictly fight to be elitist and to be above the rest of the birds, and to be a top predator, is going to end up a sparrow in a few thousand generations; and I think that’s what’s happening to the west right now; but the other thing that I wanted to add is that most people view nature as something arbitrary. They view it as just being nature, it just does its thing for reasons unknown. The fact is that nature is a supremely brilliant design, that’s highly efficient, highly redundant, has localized failure and works extremely well as a result. It’s just humans have given themselves the power to rise above this. You know, when you think about civilizations, they start out, everybody’s starving and they have to do some hunting, and get organized, and build sewers, and all the things that increase survival so that people who can get along and increase in number, the problem is that at that point they are subsidizing a lot of people who are delusional and eventually they collapse.

Oh sure! The science and technology that came from the Enlightenment model were a lie and those peasant revolts! they were based in delusional thinking too - they should have just known their place! Perhaps Brett is the delusional one, to believe people will swallow this nonsense? Perhaps he has partaken of some of the cocaine and weed that was supposed to be used as incentive to send “leftists” over the border? Know your place goyim! (bong hit, line-snort - hey! Save that for the leftists!). Then again, many people will be too busy, too tired and so desperate for coherent sense in a world full of cruel and arbitrary nonsense like this, at the behest of YKW, that they will be ready to believe in any magical story wielded by charismatic sorts proposing relief.

Brett Stevens 28:10 Sort of, the task for us, is now that we’ve mastered nature, we have to go back and understand nature and stop pushing against it. So that instead, we can have an order that’s coherent with nature, that’s consistent with nature, and understands what makes nature so successful instead of making our own order based on human intent and human feelings and that kind of thing that is contradictory to nature; and even more, to the logic that underlies nature.

There’s a reason, for example, for tribalism, or nationalism, as we like to call it. It works best, its most efficient if creatures are able to recognize those like them and work together on a team. That way they have to spend a lot less effort constantly defending themselves and individuals can collaborate together. So you can build civilization; without that you cannot start a civilization, there has to be some way that the group strongly identifies as itself and genetics has been the usual way. Well, we’ve turned out back on that because hey, we’ve got all this money and power and we can make it work. Well now we’re seeing that that’s failed and I think that 2016 really was a watershed for he west, I think we saw so many things failing at once, and we saw Brexit and Trump on the horizon, and it became clear that this order that we’ve been pursuing since the enlightenment is not working. Not only is it anti nature, it’s anti-realistic. It’s not logical, given all of the inputs we need. We can always construct a mental model in our head that makes these things seem to work, but it involves leaving out key information, cherry-picking, in other words, in order to make it seem like it’ll work. And that’s what we’ve done - the enlightenment was a giant assumption that all humans had reason, and that we could build a society based on reason alone. Well now we’re seeing that arc come to its conclusion, and the answer is that it makes society hell, and everybody’s existentially miserable ..and the intelligent people are dying off from drugs and suicide and other things, so we need to go back and get back on the path that we’re on and then extend in a different direction and go someplace better.

Brett Stevens 30:13 There has been a massive denial of the wisdom underlying nature in the west, in fact its a bigotry; and I always compare it to Tolkien, ah The Lord of The Rings. The one ring of power makes people to act well above their station in the hierarchy. You have that ring, you can turn yourself invisible, you can do anything and I think that’s the kind of illusion we’ve been pursuing, that’s the hubris that I talk about.

I hear echos of Chief Matt Parrott in this, doing double-work as bureaucratic gatekeeper to the council - “pale face speak wrong at every turn, your DNA Nation, it is wrong at every turn, nature is supreme design, including our “community”, has been for many moons according to my divination of natural order - the organic design of Trad-Youth Worker Party community.”

I seem to recall that the Chief was following dark enlightenment at one point.

Brett Stevens 30:29 People in the west have been trying to make themselves more powerful than they are and I think that manifests in a form of revenge against nature. This is more Nietzsche again: people want to destroy nature, they want to destroy the beautiful, they want to destroy social order and anything true, because it is above themselves.

Is that what I want to do? YKW? What might say Chief Matt Parrott now in his Orthodox conversion?

Brett Stevens 30:51 They are like the mythological Satan. None shall come before me, I am the first and foremost.  Well, that doesn’t work unless you’re god; and most people I think on some level secretly believe they are god and that is the root of our problem.

Henrik Palmgren 32:15 Its very difficult for people like us to say there’s a scientific truth here which is very different from the one that is being pushed. 32:39 Beyond politicians, its academics its media its pop culture, right?

Brett Stevens 32:33 Indeed and I think one of the most useful things that I got out of neo reaction was this simple revelation: everything is a business, or at least acts like one. Government is a business, academia is a business, media is a business and so they’re going to sell a product, that draws any audience that’s large enough to support them. They don’t care who it is. They’re not looking for the best people, they’re not looking for the sane people. ...they just need a certain number of warm bodies to show up and buy the product; and so academia is just preaching what most people want to beleive. When you think about it, your average person, or your average group of people, they don’t want to believe that they might actually have to take affirmative steps to improve their world, they don’t want to believe that this nature thing is real and that any minute predation can happen, that we can be found wanting; that we can challenge ourselves with external reality and fail. They don’t want to believe that, they want to believe in a world, where nobody fails, where nobody fights, everything’s happy, we all just go to our jobs and buy stuff and then just have nice happy lives even if that’s soul killing and empty. Because they are afraid.

How enriching your naturalism! And sociopathic competition, based in a notion of “non-accountability” because things “just happen”, merely, according to natural law, thus “people can’t help it”, isn’t making ready excuses to kill souls and leave people empty, Brett?

In the paragraph above, Stevens has reversed my suggestion that universities, at least in the humanities, are in the big business of selling talk - that there is a supply side effect in their wish to expand words as product. Stevens reverses this, and says that the unversities are merely responding to what students want. He is disingenuously suggesting that these liberal teachers, cultural Marxist and Jewish academics are innocent, they are merely responding to market demand of students, not indoctrinating them and selling them endless words, endless critique aimed at effecting the teacher’s personal interests along with peer Jewish and liberal interests.

Brett Stevens 33:36 And these, academia, government, media, they sell products to assuage fear: they’re geared toward selling products to making people feel safe about being mediocre or the possibility that they are mediocre.

Indeed, he is reversing what I say here about the university, to blame the demand side instead:

Brett Stevens 34:00 and so, what they’re doing is buying these products, you know, by their clicks, their eyeballs, their votes, whatever, because that’s what they wanna believe. And so while I think academia is toxic as hell at this point, we have to look to the root of the problem. Which is that there’s a huge audience of people out there who want to believe something delusional and until we have a hierarchy that enforces, lets just say clearer statements of realism, these people are going to continue purchasing illusion products because they deal with the fears that they have on a regular basis.

Stevens is disingenuously suggesting that it is not Jewish academics and not their craven desire to make money by selling talk while buffering their interests - by teaching students in one sided critique to destroy White men and their institutions as being ALL to blame.

Henrik Palmgren 34:30 I want to frame this in the context of democracy and equality. I think democracy would maybe work if we only had solely had an informed who knew what they’re deciding on ..and we’d probably only have to have homogeneous population..take the situation with Trump, the media lied so tremendously about him, that most people who are protesting his Presidency..they do that solely on the basis that they are completely disinformed by mainstream media. What do you think?

Well, what I think about that is that there have been some right wing institutions of The US, created by White men (and exacerbated by YKW) that are egregious and very deserving of critique, but what we are getting now is the reaction of White men to the culture of critique, wherein White men are the subject of the singular blame that cultural Marxism has instilled in faculty, student bodies and the populace thereafter, and now Jewish interests have provided “the solution” to the reaction in the form of The Alternative Right and Trump: which only serves to reinforce permutations of those nefarious right wing institutions. But Stevens says, rather…

Brett Stevens 35:45 I agree, they are totally lying, but then again I don’t think this is anything new. The media has always been a profit driven business and as long as it finds people who are willing to purchase its product it will tell them whatever [it] thinks they will purchase. There is this illusion that the media exists to tell the truth but they have no obligation under law or under business to do so; and so all they have to do is say things that enough people want to hear, so they’re always going to lie and they’re lying about Trump….

Brett Stevens 36:30 I think you hit upon a couple of really interesting points. One is based on a study of history and simple logical fact - the only societies that function at all are ethnically homogeneous. You simply need everyone going in the same direction and culture is as much a genetic thing as anything else. You have people of similar ability, similar inclination. For example, Swedish people have this unquantifiable attitude toward life that is both pessimistic and extremely positive, you don’t find that anywhere else. It’s very unique to that population. That’s what keeps people working together and there’s a cybernetic model for it and that is that if you view people as different threads running in a program, you want to minimize the amount of communication they have to do between each other because that causes slowdowns and stoppage and that kind of thing. Well culture means that you have a shared set of assumptions, behaviors and you don’t have to communicate those.

It is communicated. You cannot not communicate.

Brett Stevens 37:53 The other thing you said, and I’m going to differ here - if you had a democracy just of intelligent people maybe it would work ...I would point to the American experiment here…originally the only people voting here were…generally your smartest people…that didn’t work…somehow they conned themselves ..into passing rules and laws and bills that eventually dismantled that franchise and incorporated people that didn’t understand it and eventually it went down hill…so, even if you have a group of highly intelligent people together, you’re probably going to get a bad decision, in fact, you may get a worse one, because by the nature of them being intelligent, they’re probably going to consider lots of other things and they can launch off on many different tangents.

Brett Stevens 39:30 I wish ..there was a way for democracy to work, I think the American Constitution is a beautiful document and a noble attempt, but as of 2016 it’s been proven that it doesn’t work. Democracy leads to terrible results. Some people would say look at the election of Donald Trump: I’m saying we basically hit rock bottom in this nation. I’m glad that we elected Trump, its a wonderful first step, but we’re trying to undo 200 years of bad decision making in one election, with one man, and that’s not going to work. If anything, this election says the process of compromise leads to bad results.

Here comes the Rabbi dictating from Zion. Here, as elsewhere in the talk, there is a great deal of misrepresenting the very realistic utility of the concept of the left, the dismissal of which is of course done at the disingenuous behest of Jews and right wingers, to protect their elite fortune, encouraging people to argue against equality, as if anyone is talking about “equality”, arguing against the bogey word “collectivism” instead of recognizing the benign hypothesis of group classification, as it lends to accountability to social capital, human ecology, coherence, agency and warrant; facilitates individuality in a way the natural fallacy that Stevens is pushing on the goyim cannot.

He’s pushing an idea of grand natural design behind the wreckage of modernity, a wrecking that he continues to pursue, knowing his Zionist masters don’t believe what he espouses, but it suits them to keep the opposition stymied, disorganized and led by chimera, because a quid pro quo pay off awaits a few right wingers like Stevens, the rest of the goyim can be yoked in Abahamism or die.

Brett Stevens 40:36 Even in a group of good people ..it just leads away from the truth ..little decision by little decision over the years, at some point down the line you find yourself acting entirely on assumptions that are shared, like viruses, through social contact and through language. You find yourself acting entirely on these assumptions and they are complete lies.

He would know.

Henrik Palmgren 42:11 I wanted to ask you about this, your philosophy makes this an individual journey ...take this issue of individualism in the west as being one of the highest values that we have; this ...42:50 most people are more conservative, shall we say, they have this attitude of well, we, I don’t care about color or where people come from or whatever..

How that’s supposed to be conservative I don’t know ...conserving of liberal values, I suppose:

Henrik Palmgren 42:53 Just as long as you adopt our precious values of the west and they’ll be fine, they’ll fit right in. But the problem is that we have all these other groups working collectively together against us. While we are denied to have a collective identity, to basically make a group compromise in order to fight on a collective level. I think we’ll always lose on an individual level and the group will always be more powerful. I see us in a position now whether we, at the end of the day, we want to have a collective society or not ...I see right now there’s a great need for collectivism of White people, of people of European descent to realize that they are targeted not only by all these groups that work on an ethnic level against us but by the globalists themselves.

So what do you think about that dilemma that we’re in right now?

Brett Stevens 43:53 Well, I think it’s important to separate identity and identitarianism, from collectivism. Collectivism is the idea that society owes an obligation to all of its members…

If its worth ten cents it certainly would have obligations to its members (but YKW don’t want you getting any ideas).

Brett Stevens 44:00 ..and is going to support them in some way and that they’re going to externalize the cost of their existence to the social collective for the purpose of making them equal. So, collectivism, when you get a group of individualists together, is actually the opposite of what we’re talking about. When we talk about identity, we’re talking about people giving up some individuality to work, not necessarily for the group, but for the organic ideal of civilization itself. So, that means that we’re able to have internal disagreements, and we’re able to say that some people who are of our group don’t belong here with us. And, we’re not required to subsidize everyone; but we’re all working toward the same goal, unequally. We’re all going to serve different roles, we have different abilities, and we work toward the same basic end.

That sounds like servitude, doesn’t it?

Brett Stevens 44:49 For example, you know, lets talk about what Sweden is. Sweden is a place, Sweden is a concept, Sweden is a feeling in the heart, Sweden is an idea, you know, its a, I shouldn’t say a concept, its a cluster of concepts; but its also a goal. You know, you say, what do I do? I fight for Sweden. That doesn’t just mean the land, it doesn’t just mean the people as they are now. It means the past, present and future. It means the ideals, it means the spirit, it means the living sense of what it is to be that people: that is identity. And collectivism is the opposite thing, its saying, we’re not fighting for Sweden as this ideal, we’re not fighting to make Sweden better, we’re fighting for all these people here just to make them comfortable and to make sure that everybody is equally included; when in fact, what that does, is shift the goal from Sweden, to this sense of everybody that is here right now we need to rely on for political purposes. So, I would say those are two different things. The concept that you brought up earlier, is what Peter Brimelow, who’s a writer over at V-Dare ..great writer, truly great writer whose done a lot of great work for many many years, he calls the proposition nation. This is the idea and its very popular with American conservatives, god help me, that if you just get people in, teach ‘em the same language, teach ‘em the same rules, get ‘em introduced to the same economic system, everything’s going to work out fine. They’ll become just like us. Of course that’s destructive on many levels; it destroys identity. So there’s no longer a sense of America.

A lot of non-genetic criteria introduced here by Stevens as to what it means to be “Swedish.”

Furthermore, Peter Brimelow, whom he cites as a great writer, truly great writer, is Jewish friendly.

Brett Stevens 49:00: I remember the first time I encountered a hardcore liberal as a kid, we were driving down the freeway and we went past this car that was literally covered with bumper stickers, “save the wales”, “save the Indians”, “we can all co-exist” that kind of thing; and I was just kind of like, I was asking my parents, “what’s going on in that weird car, why does this person feel a need to broadcast all this stuff?” And of course they couldn’t answer because they were mostly leftists themselves. But the fact is these people base their identity and their existence in ideology; and ideology is a way of saying, we think this is how things should be, and it is the exact opposite of nihilism and conservatism, right-wing beliefs ..and realism which is this is how things are, here’s how we’re going to adapt to them and gradually improve. So, it’s the exact opposite and by that very nature, they are reality deniers, the hate reality, they feel it hates them and they want to destroy it, and so there is in them this pathology to tear down everything beautiful, everything good and everything true; and that includes happy groups of Swedish people, Swedish families, happy Americans, people who aren’t miserable; and so they’re basically spreading misery and destruction. Not because they’re nihilists, but because they’re fatalists, they have given up on everything but they’re own egos and they are angry at the world because it hasn’t made them god and they want to be god.

I guess that you think we need the bosom of Abraham, huh? Because you think that we just hate reality, beauty and happiness, we aren’t dealing with reality, not accepting what “is”, we only care about what we think “ought” to be. Do you really believe that Brett? I’ll tell you what you can believe, that I hate your lies - almost funny though they are.

Brett Stevens 50:44 Like all leftist ideas (of the modern leftist), this one is based on circular reasoning, he’s forcing on to us the assumption that we are not already divided, but the fact is that we are already entirely divided. People in America have nothing in common. You know you drive down the freeway and you’re surrounded by people from all over the world and true, they just want to go to their jobs too, they want to be safe, they want their kids to be educated to be successful, that’s great but those are very surface things, those things are very external. All the things that guide the soul, that actually matter to people and make them feel that their lives are worth living, those things are not shared and so at this point, if we had another world war ...I don’t think you’d see Americans signing up for it ...because the answer is who am I really fighting for?  ..and what am I fighting for? and the answer is I’m fighting for a job, some shopping and some legal protection that doesn’t even work that well. That’s nothing to fight for.

I think this is why the modern leftist is so geared against identity, they want us to live in this chaos, in this miserable state, and to essentially to require ideology for meaning in our lives….trying to find meaning in life, false meaning through ideology, and have other people share in that so that they have a sense of togetherness, but its about feelings its not about reality.

Now who is creating the “ideology” nonsense of trying to “Make America Great Again”? of saying that “We are going to love each other, black and White?” Has Trump suddenly become a “Leftist”? How is he going to get Americans to come together to fight another of your crooked wars? Will he create an “ethnicity” through a nation of Abrahamics   ..Abrahamics unanimous?   ..galvanize it culturally with the (((Alt Right))), Dark Enlightenment ..Neo-Reactionaries? What?

Henrik Palmgren 52:12 Yeah, you know that is also what the left have wanted, the Marxists, the cultural Marxists have wanted ..they’ve wanted to break down the nation state in this way, the goal has never been to actually build a utopia, this is just the carrot they use get people people to go along with their idea of demolishing everything that they see as violating their terms ...they hate nature, they hate order, they hate beauty and these kinds of things, it is truly a resentment for reality itself, for nature itself…

I can’t even be sarcastic, some right winger is likely to believe that I really hate beauty, hate nature, lolz.

Henrik Palmgren 53:27 You’ve started a podcast recently as well, so give us the details about that.

Brett Stevens 53:33 Yes, the podcast has been a lot of fun, I’m working with Everitt Foster, Roderick Kaine, who many of you know as “atavisionary”, the (((neo-reactionary))) writer who wrote the book “Smart and Sexy”...we’re joined by a fellow named (((Peter Vilzik))) (who confessed in that podcast: 9:45 “lest we have a Mike Enoch situation on our hands and because everyone is so damned obsessed with the JQ these days, I’ll open up my closet and let the bones fall out, I’m Jewish on my father’s side” - the podcast is even linked by his name - http://www.amerika.org/tag/peter-vilzik/ Thus, take note of who is acting as hand of “restraint” against activism), a philosophy student who has contributed a lot as far as cooling down the rest of us because we’re ready for a complete society make-over ...We do about an our of banter on (((Alt Right topics))).



Comments:


1

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 27 Feb 2017 02:31 | #

Being a normal White ethno-nationalist means never having taken Brett Stevens seriously; a cursory passing over his articles that had circulated among WN sites indicated a kind of right wing patriotardism - I’d always seen him casting issues in terms of “conservatism versus liberalism” - such that a Jewish hand behind him would not be the least bit surprising, to be expected, in fact; but even a cursory passing by his articles was enough to dismiss him and that is why I had never investigated him nor had interest in a site of his to look into his efforts further. In a sense then, I gave Red Ice a little too much credit in assuming that they would sort out any one with a long standing track record of advocating Jewish interests, let alone ardently so - otherwise, why the kid gloves:

Henrik Palmgren:

We’re going to talk more about today in addition to some of the current events, analysis of the situation in America right now..there might be some differences and even disagreements that we have on certain issues but that’s alright, we never bring on people just to echo the same thoughts over and over. We’ve always been a show that want(s) to hear, different angles get a different flavor of things and try to understand things from a different point of view not only for the reason of course that mainstream media never gives people in the Neo-Reaction movement but also in the Alt-Right a fair hearing so of course we have to take on that role and give you and idea and a chance to know what many people and figures within this rising movement of resistance actually think about ..instead of going to the mainstream.

...we might have some disagreements but we don’t want to preach to the choir all the time - as if to say without irony that Jewish advocacy and misdirection hasn’t gotten enough airtime in the mainstream media, that this needs to be heard in the “alternative media” as well .. particularly Stevens hard core Jewish advocacy?

That idea was inconceivable to me, this had to be a new gambit on his part, I would figure.

While it was not totally surprising that Alternative Right blog spot would unabashedly re-publish his Jewish advocacy, viz., the article quoted in the post, it was a little surprise to see it republished uncritically (save the capacity for critical comments) at Alt Right.com, and it appears that critical of them as I have been, that I still gave them too much credit. I assumed that it had to be the case that Stevens was not only selling a new podcast but a new website: why, after all, would these sites, supposedly wise to the JQ, be promoting the work of one with a long-standing track record of ardent defense and attempted exoneration of Jewish interests?, and why would AltRight re-post it, allowing for comments, yes, but re-post it un-accompanied by any critical editorialization of its own?

Critical as I have been of the Alternative Right, it seems that I have not been nearly critical enough, to realize just how complicit with Jews that they are and just how firm this quid pro quo is in their tentosphere.

FBI agent, Shabbos goy, hell - although I suspected he could be Jewish - it looks as if he may well be just a regular Jew. No doubt that he could be an asset as well, but I could not imagine The Alt Right not at least having the fig leaf of plausible deniability as to where this guy is coming from and plausible deniability of the Alt Right’s complicitness with promoting Zionist interests - i.e., if he was going to be above board about defending Jews, it must be a fairly new gambit. How else could The Alternative Right itself have plausible deniability except to present this guy as if he has a new angle that he wants to try, wherein he wants to focus on other sources to our problems as nationalists, besides the Jew?

But no, its not new, he’s been doing this for years and is as flagrant as ever in his defense of (((his position among the Alt Right))).

Brett Stevens – Nihilism: Deconstructing Modernity - Re-published at AltRight.com

Discussion on AltRight.com 36 comments

Brett Stevens

Brett Stevens / Katachthonios 7 days ago

Let us focus on a workable plan to escape civilization collapse. This is all we need to do.

Neither Spencer nor Friberg look Jewish at all to me. Milo seems to be part Jewish. This however misses the point, which is that anyone who is helping us to escape civilization collapse is an ally.

Brett Stevens

Brett Stevens /Marathon-Youth 7 days ago

Great observation. The Bhagavad-Gita, The Odyssey, The Aeneid, The Kalevala and the Eddas share a similar outlook in this regard, which we might regard as nascent Germanic Idealism (Kant, but mostly Schopenhauer, also influenced by the Upanishads). One might see this as the original Indo-European philosophy: that materiality is not cause, but effect, and that the zone of effect—like the realm of Plato’s forms—is much wider and idea-based than physicality.

Brett Stevens

Brett Stevens /the last tommy 7 days ago

Good question. Active nihilism of the type I endorse does not create values except as means to adaptation. It is a purely Darwinian/Nietzschean outlook. As a result, these are not arbitrary new values, but sensible analyses of the human condition elevated to the form of principle. This is the opposite of the Leftist idea of creating values based on humanistic preference.

Brett Stevens

Brett Stevens / Alt-Right Studies 7 days ago

Good points, but the Power is with the People: the voters. And the voters make terrible decisions (almost; hail Trump!) every time. The solution is to get away from this insane democracy.

Brett Stevens

Brett Stevens /-A 7 days ago

Even more, if they have ethnic autonomy and we have the same, we have no reason to worry about them or them about us.

Brett Stevens

Brett Stevens / VCAINE 7 days ago

Nazism failed in my view because it did not get far enough from the modern paradigm. The only way out of that paradigm is to stop playing the football match style identity politics of democracy, and to go to real identity politics, which means each nation is defined by its founding ethnic group and that group only. This solves all problems caused by diversity and can be done without undue violence, insanity, chaos, etc. like the last two world wars.

Brett Stevens

Brett Stevens / craicher 7 days ago

This is the nature of nationalism, which is a strong position: each nation is defined by its founding group only.

That means everyone else has to go, but it’s not necessarily a “race war” scenario, rather a shift in policy as happens on a regular basis in politics. It is for this reason that I argue for reparations-with-repatriation for all who are not Western European.

Brett Stevens

Brett Stevens / Mac Tírè 7 days ago

How do we cuck for the Jews? I write about nationalism for all groups, and how anti-Semitism will destroy the West because it lets the real villains off the hook, namely equality, solipsism, democracy, etc.

The only people who seem to oppose that view are those who secretly want to cling to the prole mob rule of democracy. If you are pro-democracy, you will definitely be offended by my opinions.

Brett Stevens

Brett Stevens / Crud Bonemeal 7 days ago

I believe I refer to nationalist Jews as “fellow nationalists” and have pointed out the role of Israel in debunking the taboo on nationalism. After all, Palestinians are the Mexicans of Israel. I have always endorsed strong nationalism and cooperation with any other nationalist groups, regardless of origin, to achieve this. It is baffling that anyone would oppose this.


2

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 27 Feb 2017 03:04 | #

And here is an article of his at Amerika from 2010!


Amerika, “Naming the Jew’ and why you won’t see it here”, Brett Stevens 10 Dec 2010:

The right-wing provides the only realistic view of politics, and the spectra of right from paleoconservative onwards to Plato provides the best hope for humanity, in my view.

However, this forces you in with some strange bedfellows. As Francis Fukuyama pointed out, liberal democracy dominates the globe, and so ended history. The struggle between overlords (kings) and peasants is over and the peasants won, owing to superior numbers.

As a result, the only real opposition in this world at all comes from the right, who by insisting on time-honored tradition uphold the values of not just the past, but a better form of a society, one where in total contrast to all liberal societies, the equality of all people is not presupposed.

In a rightist society, no one is equal — it’s an insult, like saying you are mediocre. People instead serve roles. As a result, these societies are neither individualist nor collectivist, but organic. They are people cooperating at a level of such maturity that each person finds a role they can serve and stays there. If that’s king, great; if it’s peasant, ditto.

Every other political system on earth is shaped around a single premise: the presumed equality of all people. Through mission creep this moves from political equality to assumed equality of ability. This idea underlies all liberal philosophies, and modern “conservative” (or neoconservative) ideals as well.

Because the right stands out as the only real opposition, it is a target of both (a) people who want to discredit it and (b) power hungry people, often those who have nothing to offer but outrage. There are also a number of good people getting confused by by of those other groups (which often share members).

Many of the latter, who are angry at life and want politics to be an outlet, participate in an odious practice of “naming the Jew” as a way of shifting blame. Some have asked in email why we here, who face all truths as much as possible, do not “name the Jew.”

In fact, some won’t stay out of my email box about it and while that behavior may be annoying, they have a point: only a coward backs down from a legitimate challenge to his beliefs. If the beliefs are good, they should be defended.

First, a definition: “naming the Jew” practice of using someone’s Jewish heritage, culture or religion to debunk their arguments or make them a target of aggression. It used to be a right-wing thing, but now that the left hates Israel for not assuming Palestinians are equal, it’s also left-wing.

Here is why this blog and this writer will never “name the Jew”:

- Blame is unhealthy. Diagnostics are good. We like to figure out where we went wrong. But we steer this ship. Just because the kid next door tells us a lie doesn’t mean it’s his fault we follow it. We are responsible for figuring out our own course. Among us there are good and bad people. Bad people love lies. Lies help them cover up their own bad deeds. Good people should hate lies. If an outsider tells a lie, and bad people repeat it and give him money for his products based on that lie, the problem is those bad people, not the outsider. Even more, focusing our blame on outsiders means we do not clean our own house. For every second we spend talking about how someone oppressed us, how someone screwed us, and how someone else did this to us, we experience a corresponding drop in our own power. We sabotage ourselves by undermining our faith in ourselves. Even if the outsider were to blame, and he is not, we make ourselves weak by not insisting that the solution lies within ourselves. If we feel the power to fix ourselves in our own hands, we have power to do what must be done. If we insist that this power lies in the hands of others, we feel helpless and convince ourselves to fail.

- Blaming Jewish people or Judaism is not accurate. What destroyed the West was class revolt. Peasants, who breed without concern for the future, breed themselves above carrying capacity for their land, then starve and blame their leaders. They overthrow those leaders and set up governments based on equality, because if you’re at the bottom of the totem pole of life you (a) want to rise but (b) lack the initiative to do so and therefore (c) your only option is to pull others down to your level. These societies re-create themselves with a founding mythos of revolution: anyone with more than The People, by nature of us all being equal not just in political validity but in ability, must have stolen it to rise above that equal state. Therefore, we band together and crush the rich, crush the authority figures, and crush anyone who tells us that we should do anything other than exactly what we desire right now. That is what did the West in. If — and I don’t endorse this view — a bunch of outsiders showed up to profit from your decline, it isn’t their fault. It’s just good business. Europeans, you defeated yourselves. Or rather: your peasants did.

- We share a struggle. This was the point that spurred me to write this column. Israelis, as a high-IQ population surrounded by a lower-IQ ethnically Syrian/Jordanian/Egyptian of “Palestinians,” are trying to find a way to say, “We need this space for ourselves, and we will not feel guilty about excluding you even though we are wealthier.” The West can’t seem to turn down immigrants of any kind because we feel so horribly guilty that we invented many things, built strong economies, and have high productivity. We forget that we forged these things in blood and horror from a relatively low-resource landscape, and that people arrived in Europe by fleeing from easier living areas where disorder was higher. Israelis did the same thing, as did Jews, who left Israel after political disorder, passed through Turkey, Armenia and Eastern Europe, and finally arrived in Western Europe. Both Europeans and Jews have risen above the rest by going to a different part of the world and making themselves useful despite misfortune. Now both of us are being told we cannot have our societies for ourselves, and that we must admit anyone who shows up with an excuse. Both Jews and Europeans are trying to find plausible arguments for their own nationalism, cultural preservation and even more, the ability to set standards for themselves according to their own values system. Together we are the vanguard of a conservative revolution.

Some will immediately begin countering my bullet points above with lits of crimes by Jews or faults of Judaism. While those may be true, the question is what made us go wrong, and the answer is that even if Jews or Judaism were a contributing factor, they were not the cause. Banishing them is not the solution. It may be an incidental factor, in which Europeans decide they want to live by European idealist values systems, in which physicalist Judaism may be out of place, and vice-versa. But that’s what occurs after a solution, and by pretending that naming the Jew is our solution, we blind ourselves to the solutions we really need to wake up and see.

by Brett Stevens on December 10, 2010. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.


3

Posted by Just Sayin' on Mon, 27 Feb 2017 12:26 | #

Brett Stevens is a fanatical philosemite, so it was troubling to see him published at Altright.com. Perhaps it falls in line with the bizarre direction taken by that site over the last month or so. (Zoroastrian Nationalism, which seems like an Israeli project)

On the other hand, it’s not too surprising to see him published at alternativeright.blogspot, since Liddell has always been a bad egg.


4

Posted by Brett Stevens on Mon, 27 Feb 2017 12:33 | #

Daniel, thank you for an interesting write-up. I will respond in the future on Amerika after careful consideration of your arguments. But if you want the root of my reasons for being pro-nationalist (according to the historical definition used in The Nationalism FAQ) and against White Nationalism, Racism and Anti-Semitism, you might try these older articles:

http://www.amerika.org/texts/nobody-wants-your-apocalyptic-hate-cult-vijay-prozak/

http://www.amerika.org/texts/the-danger-of-racism-and-anti-semitism/

These were from the early 2000s but reflect the philosophy I developed in the 1990s: we do not need to get sidetracked by questions of whether the Other is bad, because the fact that they are Other means that we cannot have a society for Us. For this reason, all diversity must go. We must wage war on nonsensical ideas like equality and diversity and remove those ideas entirely, because they are what empower any number of parasites both internal and external who are sabotaging our attempt to restore Western Civilization.


5

Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 27 Feb 2017 13:08 | #

I’d bet that if one were able to hold Stevens’ feet to the fire regarding the undeniably destructive historical record of Jewry’s impact on the West his response would be something of the kind, “Just because Jews have behaved badly in the past doesn’t mean they will keep doing it.  We just have to be extra nice to them and they will stop.”

Well, 50% of America’s billionaires are Jews and their money pretty much calls the tune that America marches to.  We have been plenty nice to them in letting them take over, and they still haven’t stopped trying to destroy Whites.  It seems like a clear case of incorrigibility.


6

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Mon, 27 Feb 2017 19:08 | #

I’ve been busy and wasn’t able to keep up with everything that has happened, but now I think I’m all caught up with everything, so here’s my view!

When I heard that Brett Stevens was a nihilist and a Promethean, it was something that would make me think that this was an indicator that he might be a person that I was going to listen to and not have any particular disagreements with. What wishful thinking that would be. Turns out I disagree with him on everything anyway.

I wouldn’t want to assume that Stevens is some sort of insincere person, as it can often be the case that people can disagree without it being something nefarious, and so for the sake of argument I’ll assume that Stevens is operating in good faith but just happens to be saying lots of things that I don’t agree with. I’m such a nice person, right?

The three biggest issues on which I disagree with him, I’ll quickly talk about in order:

1. The issue of nationalism and alliances,
2. The issue of modernity and democracy,
3. The issue of Prometheism.

1. Nationalism and alliances

If anything, one would have assumed that it would be an occasion within the nationalist circles to take a break from having to convince anyone on the issue of the danger of the Semitic religion and the population group which gave rise to it, because it would be simply assumed that you don’t make alliances with the very same group of people who invented the form of Semitic morality that has so far bound the world.

Instead, he’s somehow kind of pro-Zionist, and etc. How that could actually happen? Seriously, how?

I get that people don’t want to be absolutely howling about “the Jews” this and “the Jews” that, on a perpetual basis, it’s one of those things that should only be done when necessary. But in these times it is extremely necessary, because Israel is more active and more influential and more damaging right now than it ever has been, and all of its foreign policy preferences are antagonistic to those of the North Atlantic.

The only reason that the antagonistic position of the Israelis is not openly obvious to everyone is because members of that same ethnic group’s lobby happen to also have leverage over the media conglomerates in the United States, and because of their penetration of other key areas of the United States’ governing infrastructure.

People in Stevens’ camp (although maybe not he himself explicitly) like to allege that Israel is ‘a partner’ for ethno-nationalists because Israel too is ethno-nationalist. No, it isn’t a partner. That’s not how reality works. Ethnic groups fight against other ethnic groups. That is just a fact.

Just because the Israelis think that the sky is blue on that one thing, and it happens that the sky is indeed blue, does not mean that anyone should now be forming some kind of accommodation with them. Israel is still a geostrategic enemy to anyone who isn’t Israel (Saudi Arabia and Ethiopia being recent notable exceptions—which in a way somehow makes it all this even worse), it’s actually demonstrable at this point.

A key feature of modernity which is really nice is that states rationalised not only the distribution of economic gains through a network of patronage – ‘parliament’ or ‘house of representatives’ or ‘diet’ or ‘Bundestag’ is after all a mere strategy-tent for the producing classes – but states also developed a kind of taxonomy re-founded on the scientific method to also rationalise who is to be included in the jurisdiction of the state and how society should understand that inclusion.

So, for example, modernity enabled us to actually define using a scientific lexicon, what is a ‘Japanese’, what is a ‘Korean’, what is ‘Indian’, what is ‘Chinese’, what is ‘British’, what is ‘French’, on an ethnic level. This is not to say that it wasn’t understood before, but prior to modernity the knowledge of ethnicity was based on clan relationships and family lines, and communal bonds of blood. The idea that someone could be a member of a community on the basis of having a particular genetic structure which is most commonly found among members of said group, was something that was entirely unknown to the ancients. In the absence of that, they had to make do with an approximation, and were able to ‘get by’ on the fact that the lack of long-distance rapid communication and the inability to move large numbers of people rapidly across land barriers, kept people more or less isolated from each other for most of the time anyway.

With modernity – particularly the rise of the technetronic age (yes, really) – people are brought together, and as they are brought together it leads only to a deeper realisation of why all peoples were very different in the first place. Globalisation inevitably was going to lead to a great pulling-apart. One person cannot live the ethnic experience of another. Fundamentally we are always our own selves, but we negotiate our way through life to achieve collective goals that serve the world idea, when and where we can.

On the national level, the creation of the modern nation-state – with Britain as an example after the Glorious Revolution in which a single military coup sparked the beginning of the greatest explosion of economic development ever seen on earth – meant that ultimately individuals would pool their efforts to develop economies. As conflicts between families, clans, and tribes became muted or at least were formalised through the so-called ‘democratic’ system (now you vote in tension against the people from the adjacent town rather than trying to kill them), aggression itself did not go away, rather the site of conflict simply changed and went further afield. The site of conflict shifted away from clan versus clan, and toward ethnic group versus ethnic group, and even sometimes race versus race.

Just because some group acknowledges this reality, does not mean that they are somehow an ally. It can also mean that they are a knowing enemy, rather than an unknowing enemy. So it is with the Israelis.

2. Modernity and democracy

A. Modernity

Stevens’ often speaks of averting ‘civilisation collapse’. I think it really depends on what the definition of ‘civilisation’ is. And which civilisation? The neoreactionaries seem to think that modernity leads to that collapse, and in a sense it does. It leads to the collapse of all traditional feudalist elements that refuse to evolve and adapt. The neoreactionaries refuse to accept that this is actually a good thing. Modernity is utterly destroying all the old vestiges of feudalism which are unsuited to organising people for the present mode of production. Any groups which are unable to adapt to this – often terrifying –  transformation, are groups which have a very limited chance of surviving this era. War is happening silently around us all the time, technically we are living in an unnamed ‘world war’ right now. Those who cannot adapt to the circumstances will end up being destroyed down to their very clan/family names.

This is why economic development has been such an enormously important project, because economic power is the root of all other forms of destructive power, and destructive power is the most effective bargaining chip and the most highly regarded currency in the world. Destructive power of course does not just mean the creation of weapons. It can also mean control of commodities or control of consumer items. If everything in the shops were manufactured in jurisdictions that are either under my group’s political control or patrolled by anti-terrorist vehicles operated by my group, then my power would be pretty significant – the mere threat of withholding goods and services, even if only implied, would make us ‘indispensable’. This is what is meant by the concept that productive force is an exponent on destructive force. And destructive force is what we defend ourselves with.

If the old rotting feudal vestiges of society were allowed to persist as fetters on development, which in turn could hinder one’s survival in the next superpower contest, then it stands to reason that all the feudal vestiges must be destroyed as soon as possible. In other words, so-called traditional modes of organisation must be either hollowed out (like how an old British shop-front on a listed building often contains a modern Vodafone branch once you get inside), or simply destroyed outright (the building is condemned and removed – what was called in Japan ‘the architecture of ashes’).

Rather than trying to restore so-called traditional society as it once was, the strong position is to accept that it never had any meaning in and of itself, and that rather than trying to reconstruct it like some kind of snow-globe, it is in fact the time to draw the curtains on it all once and for all, and end it all. In other words, what I am describing is the very nihilism that Stevens professes to follow but is actually not presently following, whereas in fact I am following it.

B. Democracy

Stevens’ and the other neoreactionaries seem to hate democracy because democracy is part of modernity and they just hate modernity.

But the ‘democracy’ touted by liberals was never real anyway, at least, not in the way that they described it. All countries have always been a bureaucratic dictatorship of some alliance of socio-economic classes or the other. The only real question is which array of classes is it now, and which array ought it to be?

The answer to that question depends on what your objectives are.

For an even richer view, interpolate that concern with ethnic interests so that both ethnicity and class are taken into consideration. But I guess everyone already knows that.

3. Prometheism

I think Stevens’ has actually contradicted himself on this issue. Either he or someone else needs to try to make some sense of his statements in that interview.

At first, Stevens’ praises the ‘Promethian spirit’, the archetype of ‘Satan being cast out of heaven’, at 08mins 07secs:

Brett Stevens / Red Ice Radio, ‘Deconstructing Modernity’, 08 Feb 2017 (emphasis added):

Nietzsche’s re-evaluation of all values comes to mind as does something you said, reminded me of course of Milton, and Satan being cast out of heaven and finding himself in a brand new world having to reconstruct everything he knew; so its got that feel, its a very Promethian, Faustian approach; which is just, when you wake-up and find yourself in the time when everything was lies and you have to find some way to destroy all of it [...]

I agree with that sentiment. The true hero of that story – whether it is understood as a case of a literal fallen angel or whether it is understood as a clash between Jungian archetypal concepts – is indeed Lucifer, the sacrificing angel who brought the fire of mind and plunged it into matter.

Lucifer chose to fall, and is ‘the shooting star we once saw’ and ‘who we wished on’.

But then later, Stevens attacks this same concept, when he says at 30mins 51seconds:

Brett Stevens / Red Ice Radio, ‘Deconstructing Modernity’, 08 Feb 2017 (emphasis added):

They are like the mythological Satan. “None shall come before me, I am the first and foremost.” Well, that doesn’t work unless you’re god; and most people I think on some level secretly believe they are god and that is the root of our problem.

What? So twenty-six minutes later he’s suddenly changed his position 180 degrees. Which side is he on? The side of Jehovah or the side of Lucifer?

That is the biggest confusion in his talk, and may be the root of why everyone is confused by the direction that he’s advocating. It actually seems like he’s suddenly very concerned about Jehovah’s health, be it literal or metaphorical.

Speaking for myself, I’m not concerned about Jehovah’s health. I want Jehovah to die. I think that the root of our problems is that we have not yet fully constructed the social machine buttressed by an economic instrument – a sophisticated ‘ideological-civilisational weapon’ if you likelarge enough and well designed enough that when ‘fired’ it will finally ‘kill’ Jehovah. Killing the Jewish god is a work in progress but if we all work together we can accomplish it.

I think we can in fact take on the role of gods on earth only by killing Jehovah. And we should do precisely that.

And I guess that is how I end up being anti-Semitic and anti-Abrahamic. At the absolute root of it, that is what it is. It’s not some kind of weird thing. Popular modern culture has been already saturated with people who are giving these signals in basic seriousness, on every continent, if you know to hear it. You just have to want to actually leverage your talents to go out there and advance the agenda.

Flashback:

Kumiko Oumae / Majorityrights.com, ‘The Satanic Alliance: You really are ‘either with us or against us’.’, 04 Dec 2015 (emphasis added):

[...]

We are and have been and hopefully will continue to be—objectively speaking—living in an increasingly ‘Satanic’ society, if you take the definition of what ‘Satanic’ means from the religious texts of the three Abrahamic religions.

Look at what those three religions stand for, and then look at what we stand for and what we would like to see manifest, and you discover immediately that—as I’ve said beforewe are a threat to the Abrahamic religions, we are their adversary. What does ‘Satan’ mean? It literally means ‘the adversary’. [...]

And so the middle ground, and even the perception of there being a middle ground, can now begin to wither. Rather than whining about methods, such as who kills who in what kind of brutal way, we should begin talking about the purpose behind the conflict and what its philosophical and spiritual basis is, and then offer a choice. In other words, we need to get down to the fundamentals.


7

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 27 Feb 2017 23:38 | #

I will put this comment up temporarily just to indicate some corrections and clarifications that I’ve made to the text.

1) Added second set of quotations to make it more clear that I am not recommending these things:

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.

2) Changed syntax in this paragraph, added word modernity to clarify referent and the word yoking to emphasize that I am not really speaking of Noahidism as a consolation:

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).

3) For some interesting reason I had spelled the world “tenet” as “tenant” in this sentence, corrected now:

Henrik then presents a challenge to Brett Stevens’ notion of necessity by implicating a tenet of social constructionism

4) This sentence had begun with what looked like a jumble of words because the word about was accidentally omitted:

Well, what I think about that is that there have been some right wing institutions of The US, created by White men (and exacerbated by YKW) 

5) There are some other, even more minor corrections, furtive commas etc.


8

Posted by Brett Stevens on Wed, 01 Mar 2017 11:47 | #

Kumiko, I am on the side of reality, which includes God. Satan was misguided but more interesting than God. Such is the battle waged in early Slayer lyrics and Paradise Lost at least!

Anyway, I have posted a reply here:

http://www.amerika.org/politics/why-both-white-nationalists-and-leftists-attack-me/

Hope you find it interesting!


9

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 01 Mar 2017 12:09 | #

By the sounds of it we might anticipate that he is going to try to ride the Jewish tidal waves that have marketed the Jewish “god” and now their ultimate devil, “THE” left.


10

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 01 Mar 2017 15:39 | #

I will give a detailed response to Brett Stevens’ rejoinder in the comments section here at Majorityrights.

I will start by responding to a comment in his thread, however, since we have something in common. Just as this guy Pavol Horvath doesn’t think advocates of Jews should waste time on me, I don’t think White Nationalists and our allied ethnonationalists should waste time on Jewish advocates:

Pavol Horvath says:
03/01/2017 at 11:41 am

Please dont waste your time and effort to explain ANYTHING to people like this guy. Please dont waste your time and talent and rather bring some more interesting writting. Thanks.

Brett Stevens begins his essay response by immediately misrepresenting what I’ve said:

He begins:

Amerika, “Why Both White Nationalists And Leftists Attack Me”, 28 Feb 2017:

Over at a site that has been on my reading list for years (and on which my writings have appeared) a rather detailed and articulate attack against me has appeared. It makes sense to analyze this in good faith and see what points it makes.

The author argues that I am (1) a mainstream conservative and (2) a world Zionist disinformation agent. Unbounded accusations like this cannot be refuted simply because there are too many inputs; I can show that the Bank Of The Learned Elders Of Zion did not send me any checks, but maybe they used another source, or pay me in Kentucky Burley. Same with the mainstream conservative accusation: perhaps I keep a television in the basement crawl space to covertly watch Fox And Friends late at night.

The first argument takes this form:

  [DanielS out of context] dispatched to re-direct WN into American patriotardism

By “patriotardism,” the author seems to be suggesting an affiliation with the GOP and its defense of the “proposition nation”/”magic dirt” nation state. Fortunately, we have some source material: “Nationalism Rises As The Proposition Nation Fades Away”, The Death Of The Proposition Nation, Race-Nationalism Versus Ethno-Nationalism” and perhaps most fundamentally, “Patriotism Or Nationalism?”.

But that is not my argument. I said:

[DanielS - emphasizing context] “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.”

In other words, this was not an argument, it was a casual impression that I had, and had moved past. However, I was (negatively) impressed enough to not take him seriously. In fact, if I had taken him seriously enough to be a little more clear in recollecting the negative first impressions that I had of the few Brett Stevens articles that I’d read a few years back, it would not be the issue of patriotardism in any straightforward way, but because he was consistently placing his arguments in a framework of “conservative and liberal” and ignoring the J.Q.

Thus, it was not really an objection to patriotardism per se, which I only assumed a bit in cursory glance for his side-skirting the JQ - that’s an angle that an agent of some sort might take (whether in the background or in the foreground, and even if just as an agent in the sense of exercising agency on behalf of Jewish interests). Nor do I pursue the suggestion of his “patriotardism” beyond my cursory impression - it remains a background issue for a nationalist nevertheless (which he is), but especially a valid term for one who is lead stupidly by nefarious leaders - such as ZOG.

As for civic nationalism, that would be another default in the background - if you are arguing on the grounds of objectivity, individuality and inequality, this is a remove from organic nationalism and into civic nationalism - taken in the context of his other sentiments, I see a motive there to keep Whites disorganized. He will deny it, but it is clear enough to me. I will continue my answer here at Majorityrights.

To be continued..


11

Posted by Anonymous White Male on Wed, 01 Mar 2017 18:12 | #

I post occasionally at Amerika. I’ve noticed that Brett is not hardcore about the jews. He seems to be similar to others that have a better than average understanding of what occurs in the world in that he can’t believe that the jews could accomplish all they could without us all finding out. Because of what he views as an oversimplification and an inaccurate reading of history, he doesn’t want to be offensive to both jews and those that don’t view the jews as a threat. He seems to believe the typical jewish narrative that everyone everywhere has always persecuted them because,well, small-minded people need to blame those that are “successful” so that they can feel better about themselves. Apparently, Brett is unaware that jews have been expelled from countries more than one hundred times, sometimes from countries they had already been expelled from. He can somehow accept his own belief about the jews without acknowledging the jews brought this “persecution” on themselves. As the jew Henry Kissinger said, “any people that has been persecuted for two thousand years must be doing something wrong”. Brett can believe that the jews just wanted to live in peace, so they moved into countries where they weren’t wanted or welcomed, and then became involved in usury because the inhospitable hosts “wouldn’t let them do anything else”. Cognitive dissonance like this ignores that no one gets into the most lucrative businesses because “they’re not allowed to do anything else”. Plus, you constantly have to move into new countries to lend money at interest because you will cripple every nation where you are successful. Exonerating the jews is easy for “respectable” people since not every single jew is guilty. They view blacks the same way. Blacks can’t be a cancerous race because there are some “well spoken” mulattos. It is a common view that I see a lot of. People have to make the simple more complicated than it is to convince themselves that impossibilities are possible.


12

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 01 Mar 2017 19:37 | #

In other words Brett Stevens is a weak-minded pussy and simpleton who needs to stay seated at the kiddies’ table.  Lulz


13

Posted by thordaddy on Wed, 01 Mar 2017 19:44 | #

Daniel is correct in noticing Mr. Stevens’ lack of elaborating on the JQ.  Although, per the “your race is your father” tradition of white man, Mr. Stevens’ is in rare position of knowing his “race” as Jewish.  Can he not be in a position not yet fully internalized?

Daniel seemingly comes up short on the suggestive notion that answering the JQ absolutely is equal to the execution of white Supremacy at the place of the individual white male?

So once one answers the JQ with “anti-white Supremacy…”

The next step is white Supremacy.

Is white Supremacy killing Christ?


14

Posted by thordaddy on Wed, 01 Mar 2017 19:57 | #

Asking a man to deface his father is exactly the kind of pathological anti-racism that a brainwashed “white” mass needs to be learned OUT OF…  White civilization lives or dies with the relationship of white father to his white son.

Mr. Stevens’ occupies turbulent grounds by virtue of the radical sexual autonomy inherent to his birth.


15

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 02 Mar 2017 15:04 | #

I now move to address the next section of Brett Stevens’ essay response, “Why Both White Nationalists And Leftists Attack Me”

Oh my. I’ve got my shovel, am wearing my dung resistant boots ... Stevens continues:

Brett Stevens: One might also wonder how the GOP jives with the four pillars advocated here

I didn’t say anything much about the GOP in the piece other than to suggest that opposed to the Rove Strategy, of appealing to “Hispanics”, the Sailer strategy of winning the White house for the Republicans was conducted successfully - it appealed to a combination of Jewish elitism with right-wing (Alt Right and other) White elitism; and it appears very much aligned and only slightly in the background of Brett Stevens advocacy.

I add the “four pillars” of the link he’s provided:

Brett Stevens: Restorationists desire the four pillars of making civilization functional again:

1) Brett Stevens Rule by culture. Government and police are inferior methods compared to citizens who view society as a cooperative endeavor toward a goal, according to principles held in common. These are a product of culture. To defend culture, all who are not of the ethnic group must be excluded; this is a principle called Nationalism. With nationalism, government is deprecated and day-to-day order is kept through use of shame, ostracism and exclusion to keep outsiders and saboteurs at bay.

DanielS: One can sense the pattern of his efforts. He is trying to co-opt the idea of ethno-nationalism for the purpose of making it Jewish friendly - friendly to them especially in the sense of obfuscating just standards which do not serve their interests. When you see the word “culture” in this case, you ought to “feel yourself reaching for your Browning” indeed - read Abrahamic ethnie as “the culture” he means. His “Nationalism” is meant to be friendly with Zionism, greater Zionism (“Palestinians are like Mexicans”) and its elite imperialism.

2) Brett Stevens Hierarchy and excellence. Society can either take its rich and powerful and assume they are good, or find those among its people who are excellent — superior in ability, leadership, intelligence and moral insight — and give them the wealth and power to use well. 99% of humanity will make these decisions wrong, and all people in groups will choose to avoid facing real issues. We need those who do the opposite to have power and wealth to ensure that it is used well, much as (in theory) we entrust nuclear weapons only to those of excellent character.

DanielS: Well, its clear that he thinks Jews and those who kiss their ass are excellent. Not that they acquired their wealth through the “miracle of compound interest.” Stevens is proposing similar absurdity as Trump, when he proclaimed Alan Greenspan a man who knows what he is doing, and one who he’d put back-in as Chair of the Fed. Sure, we can trust people like Greenspan.

The character to deal with Nukes? The world’s business community has had a strategy and a deal with Iran. Israel had been largely isolated in disagreement - but has a powerful nation with them now, thanks to Trumpovitz and his “judgement of character.”

3) Brett Stevens Positive reward systems. Again we face a primary division: we either force everyone to conform and look for anomalies to punish, or we diligently reward those who do well so that they ascend to positions of leadership. A heroic culture does some of this, but on a more practical level, so does capitalism: it rewards those who find opportunity and meet needs, as kept in check by culture and hierarchy.

Incentives and disincentives are an issue that I deal with as well.

4) Brett Stevens: A transcendental goal. No healthy society has merely material goals. It aims to achieve the impossible so that it can constantly improve, such as the motives of ancient societies to achieve balance, harmony, equilibrium and excellence. Religion is part of this, but not the whole. We must collaborate toward a goal again and have it be more than tangible, but eternal.

DanielS: I don’t favor setting impossible goals, but I do favor a semi-transcendent guiding principles - i.e. “transcendent” in the sense that patterns are observed that serve to fill in the blanks as ideal guiding patterns which help the observer past individual and group imperfection, to aspire to patterns far better than what can always be expected in reality. Nevertheless, then, I do favor some vision toward perfection and permanence, as Unomuno says, for the purpose of girding us past the vicissitudes of fortune, taking them in some sense as waves crashing harmlessly upon our jetty.

Brett Stevens: For the restoration of Western civilization, the rejection of democracy, the dislike of equality, and other notions that are part of the mainstream conservative lexicon.

DanielS: I have dealt several times with why talking in terms of “equality / inequality” is perfidy, either pro- or con. This is philosophical amateurism. He is one example I’ve provided for a better paradigm.

“Western Civilization” is apparently something that those entreated to ally with Jews are welcome to advocate (Vox Day does the same thing, apparently so does John K. Press), as it has been laced with Judeo-Christianity, hence the yoke of Noahide law.


Response to Brett Stevens to be continued…


16

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 02 Mar 2017 21:35 | #

Responding to Brett Stevens article continued:

Stevens: He does make a good point about mainstream conservatives however which is that they are the Rightists who were willing to work with the new, post-Revolutionary order as established in France, giving rise to the terms “Right” and “Left.” However, the impulse toward conservatism occurred long before that, and it is this type of “roots conservatism” — found in Plato and Nietzsche — that informs my advocacy of it and understanding of the term.

DanielS: At least he has a sense that I am using the terms left and right in a significantly different way than has been received by liberal and Marxist tradition. I look rather toward how left and right play out in a patterned essence beneath ordinary language despite the Enlightenment’s transit mechanically through The American Constitution - read, individual rights versus group patterns - and Jewish (political, academic and journalese) distortion and manipulation thereof. In correction, i.e., toward “paradigmatic conservatism”, I see Plato as being more helpful than Nietzsche - it is not enough to ridicule the short comings of person positions and to say what is going to be popular with puerile females and those who wish to show-off to them. If you are going to look after the interests of a people and/or participate in their homeostasis - i.e., to foster the conservation and advance of a people - you must go further beyond the individual instantiation of “excellence” and into the essence of their patterns, as Nietzsche’s successor, Heidegger commenced to do.


17

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 02 Mar 2017 22:02 | #

Continued:

Brett Stevens: Moving on to the “Jewish Question” or JQ, which is always a point of conflict:

DanielS: 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.

Brett Stevens: My point is simple: Western Civilization’s decay is the result of poor decisions made by Western people. We cannot blame anyone else.

DanielS: I agree that we have much to blame of ourselves, commencing with Plato’s reification in forms, but even that went in transit through “our responsibility” for accepting the Jewish chimera of Christianity, which would render us hapless, undifferentiated goyim. 


“What could possibly go wrong?”

...then culminating in our rigid adherence to the Enlightenment’s naive Cartesian objectivity and prejudice against prejudice, it has nevertheless been once again manipulated again by Jewish interests - to say otherwise is to be naive or disingenuous. I strongly suspect Stevens is disingenuous.


18

Posted by Anonymous White Male on Thu, 02 Mar 2017 22:18 | #

FYI, there were no jews in Old Testament times or when the Messiah lived. They were called Pharisees at that time. The word in the New Testament translated jew is from either Judean or of the tribe of Judah. Please research it. Was Jesus a Pharisee? No. He was an Israelite. He wasn’t even a Judean. He was Galilean. He actually was of the tribe of Judah and in that sense he was a “jew”, but he despised the religion of the jews/Pharisees. As Rabbi Louis Finkelstein pointed out, “Pharisaism became Talmudism, Talmudism became Medieval Rabbinism, Medieval Rabbinism became Modern Rabbinism” which is now contemporary Judaism. The fact that very few churches teach you that they either do not know the truth or they are lying to you. Jews became the “chosen people” through a patient long game that changed the way Western man viewed this alien race.


19

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 02 Mar 2017 23:44 | #

Posted by Anonymous White Male on Fri, 03 Mar 2017 04:18 | # 18

FYI, there were no jews in Old Testament times or when the Messiah lived. They were called Pharisees at that time. The word in the New Testament translated jew is from either Judean or of the tribe of Judah. Please research it. Was Jesus a Pharisee? No. He was an Israelite. He wasn’t even a Judean. He was Galilean. He actually was of the tribe of Judah and in that sense he was a “jew”, but he despised the religion of the jews/Pharisees. As Rabbi Louis Finkelstein pointed out, “Pharisaism became Talmudism, Talmudism became Medieval Rabbinism, Medieval Rabbinism became Modern Rabbinism” which is now contemporary Judaism. The fact that very few churches teach you that they either do not know the truth or they are lying to you. Jews became the “chosen people” through a patient long game that changed the way Western man viewed this alien race.

DanielS: I have looked into Christian Identity first, many years ago, during a brief Christian phase that I went through; and since then periodically, to merely confirm the evidence against it for instances such as this.

It is not only factually incorrect, but ideologically a terrible idea to identify with Jewish narratives. We are already tangled enough with that mess and suffering terribly for it.


20

Posted by Anonymous White Male on Fri, 03 Mar 2017 00:19 | #

“It is not only factually incorrect, but ideologically a terrible idea to identify with Jewish narratives. We are already tangled enough with that mess and suffering terribly for it.”

Whether you agree with it or not, what I was trying to point out to you was that Christianity is not a jewish narrative. Why? “Jews” didn’t exist when the original texts were written. The precursors of the jews existed, but they did not have the kind of power that the entity called the jews today does. You also need to understand that modern jewry is 95% Ashkenazi, not the Sephardic branch which is all that existed in first century AD Judea. The Ashkenazi are derived from an Asiatic Turko-Finn stock called the Khazars. I personally don’t care what you believe. All I am interested in is the truth. While jews have infected the planet for centuries, their modern power did not really manifest until the return of the jews to England (thanks to Cromwell and the jew that convinced him that their return would begin the events prophesied in Revelation), and the formation of the Bank of England in 1695. They burrowed into Europe, the group of Whites that conquered the world, and rode them to become an immensely wealthy group of parasites.


21

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 03 Mar 2017 00:40 | #

Posted by Anonymous White Male on Fri, 03 Mar 2017 06:19 | #

“It is not only factually incorrect, but ideologically a terrible idea to identify with Jewish narratives. We are already tangled enough with that mess and suffering terribly for it.”

Whether you agree with it or not, what I was trying to point out to you was that Christianity is not a jewish narrative. Why? “Jews” didn’t exist when the original texts were written. The precursors of the jews existed, but they did not have the kind of power that the entity called the jews today does. You also need to understand that modern jewry is 95% Ashkenazi, not the Sephardic branch which is all that existed in first century AD Judea. The Ashkenazi are derived from an Asiatic Turko-Finn stock called the Khazars. I personally don’t care what you believe. All I am interested in is the truth. While jews have infected the planet for centuries, their modern power did not really manifest until the return of the jews to England (thanks to Cromwell and the jew that convinced him that their return would begin the events prophesied in Revelation), and the formation of the Bank of England in 1695. They burrowed into Europe, the group of Whites that conquered the world, and rode them to become an immensely wealthy group of parasites.

We’ve been through this here at Majorityrights and we don’t agree with you on the matter of Christianity. Burrowing their way into international banking, yes. GW sees truth and utility in the Khazar theory and there is genetic evidenced of a Turkic source steam to the Jews prior to their emergence as a people of the Levant, but for practical reasons that only underscores their difference from European populations - trying to find evidence of their not being the rightful inheritors of Israel is not our preoccupation, even less is it a concern of ours that they are shown to not be the rightful inheritors of biblical narratives of the chosen. Nobody is.

But as for the Christian Identity stuff, none of us buy it and you’d be wasting your time, and everyone else’s as far as we’re concerned, by trying to persuade us here: this is central to our platform - we don’t do Christianity here. We find it neither factually true, a story native to our people, nor narrative that should have been adopted. Jews have burrowed their way into the European psyche and rule structure by its means. The podcasts that we’ve had with Dr. Christian Lindtner and Kenneth Humphreys are among the discussions that we refer people to on the issue, along with Kumiko’s and GW’s wonderful discussions about the destructive affectation to European culture that is Christianity of any kind.

Sephardic and Ashkenazi are both genetically Jewish, and like all Jews, more closely related to each other than Europeans. Ashkenazi have a larger percentage of European admixture. This hijacking of European genes has contributed to their higher i.q. and crypsis, making them especially dangerous - because they are a different people from Europeans nevertheless, with hostile and nefarious moves in regard to European peoples irrespective.


22

Posted by Anonymous White Male on Fri, 03 Mar 2017 01:09 | #

“But as for the Christian Identity stuff, none of us buy it and you’d be wasting your time, and everyone else’s as far as we’re concerned, by trying to persuade us here: this is central to our platform - we don’t do Christianity here.”

Like I said, I don’t care what you believe. I am a student of history. To me historic National Socialism is a joke as is contemporary Christianity. Some truth, a lot of BS.

“Sephardic and Ashkenazi are both genetically Jewish, and like all Jews, more closely related to each other than Europeans. Ashkenazi have a larger percentage of European admixture.”

If you are familiar with the Khazars, this would not be true. The semitic component of Ashkenazic jewry would be insignificant because the Khazars were a non-semitic group of people in what is now southern Russia and the Ukraine, the Pale. While I don’t know a population of Khazaria was in the 7th century AD, but it was probably much greater than the handful of Judeans that moved there after King Bulan adopted Talmudist (Judaism). And I am the first to admit that the truth of the Khazars is lost in history. I can’t prove any of it. I do know that Ashkenazic jews exemplify the hook-nosed jewry of Jud Suss. The Sephardic resemble Arabs.


23

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 03 Mar 2017 01:19 | #

You admit that you can’t prove it and the genetic and linguistic evidence points overwhelmingly against the Khazar theory. If you really did care about truth, you would settle on that.

Worse, your insistence upon discussing this here is derailing the thread. I haven’t even finished addressing Stevens’ response, so I’m going to have to close any further comments of yours here that you make in defense of Christianity or Khazar theory so that I can turn attention back to addressing his response. Before you confirm my suspicion that you are motivated, along with Stevens, to turn Jews into quasi Europeans, I will ask you to stop wasting your time and ours.


24

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 03 Mar 2017 13:14 | #

Continued:

Brett Stevens: Moving on to the “Jewish Question” or JQ, which is always a point of conflict:

In addition, we should cheer Jewish nationalism because it ends the diaspora and revitalizes nationalism. Western Civilization rose by being reflective, or intuitively bonded to the best aspects of reality and geared toward qualitative improvement of the experience of life, and breaking away from that by relying on scapegoats is beneath us, inaccurate and will lead to more horrifying stuff like The Holocaust. We are not murderers, nor are other racial groups our concern; our goal is to restore Western Civilization and make it better than ever before. This is the goal of any sane and healthy civilization, and we are not sane and healthy now, nor have we been for a long time, although the French Revolution really formalized our decline.

DanielS: We should not cheer Jews for anything. We will facilitate separatism by means of our rule structure. How they negotiate Zionism is their problem but Israel is NOT our friend nation.

When I say that we will develop rule structures that exclude them, these rule structures will, indeed, be closer to intuitive and easily understood among ethnonationists to negotiate their good life.

We will kill, just as any organism will, if our lives and people are mortally threatened.

However, in theory the Jews have nothing to fear from us, because it is not our goal to kill them, it is our goal to be separate from them. Some people say that they are so parasitic that they simply will not stand for our separatism - it’s their choice, but if they would impose themselves upon us (involuntary contract) then, as Bowery says, they are effectively supremacist slave drivers and we have every right to defend ourselves.

Western civilization has good and bad features, maybe mostly good, but this is not what we are fighting for (in fact, it can be part of the problem), what we are fighting for is our people and their sovereign ethno-nations.

Brett Stevens: He wonderfully clarifies my argument here:

  DanielS: blaming our demise solely on our individualism and lack of rectitude

Of course I am not looking at this as beautiful. There are two aspects of blame here, but a very significant part is with Jewry. But he says its all on us, and we should not blame others at all:

Brett Stevens: Yes. That is our illness. Everything else is a symptom. We do not achieve victory by fighting symptoms, but by going to the cause. Degeneration — first moral, then mental, and now physical — is the hallmark of the decline of the West. As one observer said, “Civilizations die by suicide, not murder.” We lost our way and have made ourselves miserable, and are now self-destructing.

DanielS: And certainly one of the key components of our “suicidal” behavior was the Jewish trick of Christianity which prescribed that suicide - hence, it is murder.

It is absolutely dishonest to say that Jews have no part in our degeneration through: 1) Religion 2) Politics - e.g., having a part in instigating us to wars in their interests; immigration policy 3) Academia - promoting many of the things you would undoubtedly describe as degenerate. 4) Law and Courts - creating insane laws (Brown vs. Board of Education is a good example) and overturning the sane popular will of the people (being against immigration is a good example). 5) Media - 8 Hollywood studios, all Jewish owned; television heavily controlled by them as well; news papers, book publishing, and now key aspects of the Internet. Jewish control of Swedish media is infamous now. 6) Business and Industry 7) Money and Finance - We all know the Rothschild quote and we all know the power of compound interest. They are eminently powerful in British banking and in America as well: The Fed is 10 private banks, 9 are Jewish owned. And that’s just two nations, they are all over these seven key niches, vastly over represented.

But you want to say that what’s going on in our decline has had nothing to do with their machinations.

Brett Stevens: This is the difficult problem we must solve. If stopping civilization decline were easier, there would be more great civilizations still in existence. Instead, it serves as the means by which every advanced human civilization so far has passed into darkness. This is the challenge before us: to save civilization.

I’m not sure how you keep a straight face when writing this stuff.

To be continued


25

Posted by arcu ballist on Fri, 03 Mar 2017 21:21 | #

Very interesting. Thanks for your effort, DanielS. So, another dis—informer and diversion agent = Mr. B S.
And, mileswmathis, has written recently that Sofia Smallstorm and James Fetzer are possible plants misdirecting with big bits of truth.
Unfortunately, unhappily, sadly all this philosophizing will do nothing for my White neighbors; except put them to sleep. They have a sleepy sickness and think it is normal.
The Sheenies are parasites living off my people, and have produced a sophisticated symbiosis. Europeans are accustomed to the Kikes toxins. How would they react if the parasitic Jew was removed? Would there be a call to have the poison returned? Jew sickness is “normal”; all want normal.
This battle is in the mind, and Europeans have a parasite controlling their thoughts.
Maybe, this is evolution of the White People. A sifting out of the weak-minded, the ‘mud-sharks’, the gullible, the order-takers. Is the parasite controlling this process? It definitely does not need the strong, healthy and rebellious.
According to Rae West of big-lies.org, and I agree with his idea, Whities are responsible for their own slavery, because they tend to be lazy, preferring a thoughtless existence, [+ other negative adjectives]. They accept the symbiosis as normal, knowing only this. [Well, jews, again]. And education as propaganda is controlled by parasites.
-
@ redice = it’s becoming too big a business and needs feeds. So, in the end, anything goes from anywhere and with any point of view. Even the parasites toxins are aired. To fill in time slots, [and confuse].
__________________
This is off topic, but in the news:
@ Joanna Scheuring - Wielgus and Piotr Wielgus = are they jews?
She has a ‘nose’. His mug-shot = jew!


26

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 04 Mar 2017 11:02 | #

Thank you for your understanding and support, arcu ballist. I realize that unfortunately a huge percentage of Whites are used to this Jewish viral symbiosis - it seems at this point as if it is almost written into the genetic code of a huge percentage, now expressed as the Trump voter and Alternative Right - wherein Whites become more and more assimilated to Jews themselves - inasmuch as they remain HuWhite, compliantly accepting their role of being cows to breed stock that blacks and Jews can, in turn, breed with at their discretion.

But I think that this argument:

arcu ballist: Maybe, this is evolution of the White People. A sifting out of the weak-minded, the ‘mud-sharks’, the gullible, the order-takers. Is the parasite controlling this process? It definitely does not need the strong, healthy and rebellious.

...veers in the direction of passive naturalistic fallacy that Jews and Jew advocates like Brett Stevens would want us to accept as prescription - good right wing dolts, “nature” decides what is exactly good and true for us, unmediated by human, cultural intervention. At one time, when mudharkery was a rarity, I might have been more susceptible to arguments that it was me who isn’t being naturally tough enough, but then, as it became commonplace and you began to see women who could not be considered merely something for the scrap-heep, the idea of merely letting “nature” weed out those without loyalty, judgement, intelligence, whatever it is that they are supposed to lack became more obviously an insufficient position to take.

       
Maybe she should be “sifted-out”, or maybe the naturalistic fallacy is cuck narrative itself.


Continuing with my response to Stevens article, next he goes on to say:

Brett Stevens: Whether or not Jews are a symptom of this problem, they are not its source.

DanielS: One can and should say that they are not the only source, but one should also add that they are a predominant source of our problems who should clearly be looked upon as another people and NOT among our “friends”, to say the least.

Brett Stevens: Even more, whipping people up in a fury against them fails because it both distracts us from the actual cause, and inspires people to do ignoble things like genocide. We do not need to kill those who might appear to be our enemies; we need to fix ourselves, which includes excluding everyone else.

I never said that it was our objective to genocide Jews or anyone else. Our objective is separatism from them and other non-European peoples, and sovereignty. That implies fixing our own problems for ourselves, thank you very much. We just need the Jews to butt-out.

Brett Stevens: It is the same way with the African-Americans. Some wish to blame them, but the actual cause is diversity, which in fact gets more deadly if it involves “nice” groups because then your people hybridize with them, erasing the original population. This type of soft genocide leaves behind a civilization capable of none of the great acts of the old.

DanielS: As I have said in many places, “Diversity” has been a Jewish red cape: because in a straight forward sense it would mean that different people co-exist in respect of each other maintaining their differences. However, in light of the Jewish marketing campaign of “Diversity” and the reaction to the reality of it in Jewish practice - which means imposition of alien integration against those goyim looking to maintain their difference - Jewish media disingenuously altercasts rights of display to suckers like Pat Buchanan who would argue against “Diversity” and in effect, for integration (as opposed to “the sewer of multiculturalism and diversity” we should all speak English, be Christians, etc). Integration used to be the straight forward Jewish agenda back in the 60’s and 70’s but now they hide that agenda behind “diversity” and get Whites to react against diversity and into integration.

As far as the “nice” blacks go, I have long argued that the Uncle Tom and the Oreo are more dangerous than the ghetto thug in the long run because the thug is didactic whereas the Oreo and Uncle Tom, in “being so nice”, open the gates for the pattern, which is more the thug and destructive to Whites. As far as this leaving behind a less capable populace, well, your Jewish friends would know, that’s why they have imposed “diversity” and integration on our patterns while prohibiting it in Israel and among their more orthodox diaspora.

         
Katzenbach imposing integration upon Whites, in the days before that agenda was hidden behind the Jewish red cape of “diversity.”

...and yes, just as we can “blame” (i.e., recognize) in Jews their inborn biological behaviors, uncaring and exploitative of our people to an extreme, and thus see the need to discriminate against them and separate from them, so too can we “blame” (i.e., recognize) in blacks an inborn lack of impulse control, along with an inborn tendency to aggression and hyper-assertiveness - translating to group predatory behavior as expressed typically in this episode in South Africa; and hence the need for “artificial selection”, i.e., cultural rules of discriminatory separatism.

If you notice, at the beginning of this clip, the woman and her son were completely relaxed, had inculcated and cultivated no instinctual rules in vigilance for the inborn pattern of predation that would manifest in that moment: the anti-apartheid conditioning had worked that far to their detriment.


Predators sensing prey.

Predator signaling to pack that the coast is clear for the attack. White woman’s son can now be seen in left of screen.


Predator pulls-out his weapon.


They start to attack the mother.


When the son tries to protect her, they try to hold him and aim for the back of his neck.


While they hold the mother, the son begins to put up a valiant fight.


Outnumbered, they are subject to more beating before escaping (this time).


White man and his mother subject to the natural state of black predation.


Response to Brett Stevens to be continued..


27

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 04 Mar 2017 19:31 | #

The Sheenies are parasites living off my people, and have produced a sophisticated symbiosis. Europeans are accustomed to the Kikes toxins. How would they react if the parasitic Jew was removed?

I really do despair of Americans sometimes.  What on earth is the problem with moral principle?  Does the use of hateful terminologies provide some kind of catharsis that I don’t understand?  I mean, what is the point of looking exactly like the demon they want you to be?

For heavens sake, let’s not sink to this level.


28

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 04 Mar 2017 20:47 | #

“Does the use of hate terminologies offer some kind of catharsis that I don’t understand?”

Indeed.  And plus it’s just good for lulz.


29

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 05 Mar 2017 06:39 | #

Response to Brett Stevens continued…

Brett Stevens: On this issue [interaction with more collective groups, esp, “nice ones”] the philosophers have it right:

DanielS: it is an absurdity to claim there is only one school of philosophy and this matter and that ....

Brett Stevens: ...our civilization entered into decline because people became individualistic, or acting for themselves first against the natural ways a civilization structures itself. Individualism is reality-denial, a form of hubris. The only solution is a cultural change reversing this pathology.

This sounds to me like he’s taking an issue that is problematic - how an individualist people, as Northern Europeans in particular are said to be - can hold up to the impositions of groups more collectively organized…

..and then turning it into an Old Testament Story, proposing some divine order of “nature and civilization at bottom” in place (probably just temporarily) in place of Noahide order: This plays upon stories deeply buried in the western psyche now, beginning with “Nimrod” the first “great man” on earth, who “defied god”, to the story of “Lucifer”, to the people of Israel turning away from Yaweh, into degeneracy and the worship of Baals and so on - many similar biblical themes, particularly OT. I believe Stevens is taking advantage of the vast background of this thought and putting it behind ostensible scientific concern to mystify people, spook them, if you will, with these deeply habituated Abrahamic narratives; in due time, he or his Judeo-Christian cohorts will spring “relief” upon them in the form of the Abrahamic god when they are sufficiently vulnerable..

As for the actual problem of how to deal with individual and group homeostasis in good faith, these things are interrelated, individualism emerging out of close relationships, which, in turn, differentiate further in group relationships, the extent of differentiation depending upon the nature of the group and its rule structures - but there apparently comes a point of diminishing returns of individuality when the group’s parameters are not recognized, are shattered, e.g., in favor of universalism.

As a problem, it should not be reduced narrowly to a matter of “hubris” - that is a mere convenience as it plays into Abrahamic narrative. There are some cultures where there is almost no concept of self. Ethnographers consider that legitimate, and so do I. There are others, MacDonald holds Northern European, for example, which are highly individualistic. This is not necessarily a matter of hubris; and we should fight to preserve our group distinctions in their qualitative difference. However, if we want our groups to hold up, it is highly advisable, only common sense to recognize our relatedness to the group, our indebtedness and a certain amount accountability to its social capital and human ecology - this requires rather a rationally cultivated understanding of the necessary relation and interplay of individual and group homeostasis - and a respect for the group, reverence a times, for a reality of patterns that have been prohibited explicit defense under the phony rubric of “anti racism”. These are interesting problems and they are real problems that can be addressed rationally, no need for mysterious talk of “fallenness.”


30

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 05 Mar 2017 09:15 | #

Response to Brett Stevens continued:

DanielS: Stevens wants us to believe that the Jewish population were probably once European

Brett Stevens: Much of Jewish genetics originate in Southern Europe, which makes sense given the proximity of that region to Israel, and that we know Israel was a trading hub between West, East and Africa. That would lead to a mixed-race group of Caucasian and Asian roots with some African.

DanielS: All genetic evidence indicates Middle Eastern origin, which later moved out and mixed a bit with Italy and some other Southern European countries - not the other way around! I.e., they did not originate in Europe.

Eupedia:

Region/Haplogroup I R1a R1b G J2 J1 E T L Q N

Ashkenazi Jews 4 10 9 9.5 19 19 20.5 2 0.5 5 0 1.5

Sephardic Jews 1 5 13 15 25 22  9 6 0

The most distinguishing haplogroup is apparently J1.

Turkey/Anatolia has the second most J1 at 9%.

Cyprus has 6% of J1

A few places in Europe have 4 percent:

Midi-Pyrénées 4% J1

Sardinia 4% J1

Moldova 4% J1

Wikipedia:

Studies of autosomal DNA, which look at the entire DNA mixture, show that Jewish populations have tended to form relatively closely related groups in independent communities, with most in a community sharing significant ancestry.For populations of the Jewish diaspora, the genetic composition of Ashkenazi, Sephardi, and Mizrahi Jewish populations show a significant amounts of shared Middle Eastern ancestry. According to Behar and colleagues (2010), this is “consistent with the historical formulation theories the Jewish people as descending from ancient Hebrew and Israelites of the Levant” and “the dispersion of the people of ancient Israel throughout the Old World”

Recent studies

Recent studies have been conducted on a large number of genes homologous chromosomes or autosomes (all chromosomes except chromosomes X and Y). A 2009 study was able to genetically identify individuals with full or partial Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry.[1] In August 2012, Dr. Harry Ostrer in his book Legacy: A Genetic History of the Jewish People, summarized his and other work in genetics of the last 20 years, and concluded that all major Jewish groups share a common Middle Eastern origin. Ostrer also claimed to have refuted the Khazar theory of Ashkenazi ancestry.[2] Citing autosomal DNA studies, Nicholas Wade estimates that “Ashkenazic and Sephardic Jews have roughly 30 percent European ancestry, with most of the rest from the Middle East.” He further noticed that “The two communities seem very similar to each other genetically, which is unexpected because they have been separated for so long.” Concerning this relationship he points to Atzmon’s conclusions that “the shared genetic elements suggest that members of any Jewish community are related to one another as closely as are fourth or fifth cousins in a large population, which is about 10 times higher than the relationship between two people chosen at random off the streets of New York City.


About 20% of Jewish people belong haplogroup J1-P58, most of whom are also positive either for ZS223, L858 (Z642, YSC76 and FGC12) or Z18297. L816 represents a minority of Jewish J1. ZS223 comprises the Cohen Modal Haplotype. In the Hebrew Bible, the common ancestor of all Cohens is identified as Aaron, the brother of Moses. Roughly half of all Cohanim belong to J1-ZS223. The Cohanim haplotype (YCAII=22-22) of ZS223 matches the Z18271 deep clade.

All three branches of J1-L858 (S640, YSC76 and FGC11) are found in Europe, principally in Spain, Italy, central and eastern Europe. Their relatively recent time of divergence with their Middle Eastern cousins (Late Bronze Age to Iron Age) suggests that they would have arrived with the Phoenicians (Sicily, Sardinia, Spain), and later in greater numbers with the Jewish diaspora. Spain and Portugal have the highest percentage of FGC12 in Europe, but this amounts to about 12% of J1 lineages, i.e. less than 0.5% of the population, suggesting that the Arabs had a much smaller genetic impact on the Iberian population than the Jews and the Phoenicians.
The two most common Jewish subclades of J1 downstream of P58 are Z18297 and ZS227. The latter includes the Cohanim haplotype.

DanielS: This is what the Human Genome Project 2.0 has to say about the Ashkenazim, who have more European admixture than other Jews: viz., that they are distinctly identifiable as Jewish -

Ashkenazi Jewish

  Arabia
  3%

  Jewish Diaspora
  95%

  Eastern Europe
  2%

Ibid Wiki

In 2004, Behar el al found that approximately 32% of Ashkenazi Jews belong to the mitochondrial Haplogroup K, which points to a genetic bottleneck having taken place some 100 generations prior.[61] Haplogroup K itself is thought to have originated in Western Asia some 12,000 years ago.

A study conducted in 2013 found no evidence of a Khazar origin for Ashkenazi Jews and suggested that “Ashkenazi Jews share the greatest genetic ancestry with other Jewish populations, and among non-Jewish populations, with groups from Europe and the Middle East. No particular similarity of Ashkenazi Jews with populations from the Caucasus is evident, particularly with the populations that most closely represent the Khazar region.

DanielS: However, Brett Stevens says..

Brett Stevens: Think about this another way: if you take New York and analyze the people who are successful in business there, most will be Caucasian, followed by Asians, with a few exceptional African-Americans who have made it big in business. If all of these wealthy people go to the same schools, country clubs and the like, they will intermarry, producing an ethnic mix resembling the Judaic mixture.

DanielS: This “hypothesis” is of course bizarre. First of all the genetic evidence shows that Jews are not so much distinguished as a mixed group of these peoples you cite as they are distinguished by their distinctly Jewish genetics; again quoting Wiki:

the shared genetic elements suggest that members of any Jewish community are related to one another as closely as are fourth or fifth cousins in a large population, which is about 10 times higher than the relationship between two people chosen at random off the streets of New York City.

Secondly, you are apparently promoting a gene hijacking program on behalf of elitist Jewish EGI.

Brett Stevens: Jews are not the enemy; they are what is left after a civilization dies in the higher socioeconomic classes.

DanielS: They are what remains after they have sucked their hosts dry.

Brett Stevens: Again, think of New York. The reason pro-Aryanists fear The Eternal Jew is not because the Jew is the threat, but because the Jew is a symbol of our future if we do not end diversity.

DanielS: The eternal Jew is indeed a threat, and we fear the imposition of other peoples upon us by means of their niche power and influence and the right wing sell-outs to them.

DanielS: You say that we should be able to relate to them as being of common European origin - but it has already been established that they have Middle Eastern origin, whereas ours is European. Furthermore, they would identify as Jews, not as White whether we wanted them to or not - and we don’t want them to.

To be continued…


31

Posted by mancinblack on Sun, 05 Mar 2017 10:13 | #

Nor is it all down to biology. “Ashkenazi Jews are not white”..

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/ashkenazi-jews-are-not-white-response-to-haaretz-article/


32

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 10 Mar 2017 11:01 | #

Responding to Brett Stevens continued. Brett Stevens quotes me, while I add here the parts he leaves out in bold:

DanielS: So, Stevens wants us to believe that...we should be able to relate to them [Jews] as being of common European origin - even though there is ZERO genetic evidence of that.

He says

Brett Stevens: Race is not binary. Consider the fringes, such as parts of Italy where the population is clearly intermixed with Persian and Phoenician remnants,

DanielS: Italy is more R1b than anything else, even in its South. You see that it has a very small percentage of the Jewish thing (J1). E1b1b (Hitler and the Wright Bros) is frequently misunderstood - it is actually a mutation of Europe that migrated to the Middle East and North Africa (though typically misunderstood as having migrated vis a versa).


DanielS: Regarding his next claim, that percentage “Admixture” and “percentage of ‘Asian” depends upon what Part of “Russia” we are talking about - overall, when we are talking about Russian people, they are about 4% Asian. But the farther into their imperial overstep to the RFE, the more you will find people who are not Russian at all (besides Russian city colonies, such as Vladivastok).

Brett Stevens: or parts of Russian where the population despite being blonde/blue has a quarter Asiatic mixed into it. That does not mean we should do more than understand these other groups as being similar but crucially different to us. The same is true of Spain, for example. Many Spaniards show clear evidence of admixture with Moors or Sephardim. Many Americans have Asiatic (Amerind) heritage, or some like the Melungeons of Appalachia, show African admixture. What does this mean? For starters, that admixture makes a group different, but not so radically different that we cannot understand them.

DanielS: Finally, geneticists don’t go by the “admixture” to determine genetic classification, they go by distinguishing haplogroups, such as J1 for Jews.

DanielS: As for Spain and the Moores, the YKW are infamously responsible for opening the gates to a long Moorish occupation and typically thus, a predominant cause of forcing what integration and admixture that there is in Spain.

Brett Stevens: My hope for the Jewish people is the same as their hope: for the diaspora to end with a prosperous, safe and stable Israel as their ancestral homeland and a place for all Jews. Of course, the White Nationalists would work to prevent this and instead focus their energies on dreams of genocide, which then allows the actual problems of the West to go unchallenged.

DanielS: Well, your dream of a “prosperous” Jewish diaspora and Israel has come true in spades.

Their safety and the safety of Israel is their problem. They made enough problems and enemies around the world that we don’t need. It is not our dream to genocide them but our dream is rather of ultimate separation from them: Separation is The First Step, Separation is The Ultimate Aim, Separatism is Always Possible.

To be continued..


33

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 11 Mar 2017 05:30 | #

Response to Brett Stevens continued. He quotes me:

DanielS: 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: Deconstruction is also a powerful method for reducing the seeming omnipotence of certain socially-acceptable illusions. For example, “the reality of inequality” applies to the failure of democracy and diversity.

Again, “equality/inequality” is a Jewish red cape that the right stupidly chases after: arguing against equality - face palm. The real issue should be qualitative commensturability or incommensurability.

“Diversity” is also a Jewish red cape: they take the great idea of diversity - allowing for niches of biodiversity to come about in natural differentiation and they reverse it - selling it as validation for their imposition and integration of alien peoples upon homogeneous groups, Whites in particular. This has right wingers following Brett Stevens cue to chase the red cape and, in effect argue for integration of alien elements and against diversity (separatism).

Finally, on the matter of democracy - it is context dependent whether it can function well or not: If the people and rule structures that they adhere to are homgeneous, commensurate, homeostatic and humanly ecological, and if the voting group is limited to those competent and aware of how to maintain that stasis, then it probably could be a helpful means of steady, ongoing feedback to facilitate bio-systemic function.

To be continued..


34

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 16 Mar 2017 10:21 | #

One can see in this article of mine originally written in 2011, that I had already taken a critical disposition toward Brett Stevens to the point of being dismissive:

If people are going to keep going around making equality a straw man and non-equality the thing as opposed to paradigmatic difference(s) and race (class) being the matter, we’re going to create false comparisons and unnecessary, counter productive conflict; i.e., not that we should seek to avoid all conflict necessarily, but we do want the chips to fall on our side. (2)

You can see from this critical remark linking to a Brett Stevens discussion (with Robert Stark), that I was his already exposing his bullshit back in 2011.

But to continue with my reply to his recent direct response:

He quotes me -

DanielS: ..the “irony” is that the notion of necessity that he is alleging as being opposed to fatalism and the humility (as opposed to hubris) to know one’s factual limitations is, in fact, of an appeal to a less socially interactive and agentive kind of cause and effect – it heads toward deterministic cause and effect quite the opposite of the agency that appeals of social critique and social constructionism.

Brett Stevens: And yet, life is deterministic. People have different innate abilities and inclinations. It sounds almost like he is arguing for Leftist universalism here, or the idea that people are equal and that accurate portrayals of reality are discernible by all people equally. That is clearly not the case, which is why hierarchy is needed.

I’ll respond to this now ..

DanielS: When talking about creatures and especially humans, as social creatures, life is still largely genetically determined, but not so completely, and has a great deal more interactional necessity which plays into how this life comes to count where not literally having agency in how it comes into being (while there is that too).

By “Leftist univesalism” he is probably trying to say that you can make life up out of whole cloth and sheer imagination with no limitations placed upon us by the facts of physics and biology - that would be Cartesian and against my mandate if I were even trying to do that - which of course I am not doing.

Brett Stevens: as if he’s saying “people are equal and that accurate portrayals of reality are discernible by all people equally”

DanielS: I have never said that, and have argued repeatedly that we should neither argue for nor against equality, have stated many times that I believe it is a deleterious paradigm. This quantifying comparison fails to characterize important qualitative differences and to call attention to how the reality of these qualitative differences should be handled. I will post one of my old articles detailing what I say - drastically different from Brett Stevens’ straw man presented here.

Brett Stevens: That is clearly not the case, which is why hierarchy is needed.

DanielS: A certain hierarchicalization is natural and will express something like the “union” of those entrusted with key niches given that they are competent, conscientious, accountable and have the best interests of the full class pattern at heart. However, it would be part of a hermeneutic process such that they could step down into more ordinary routines and basic functions where desirable and people from other parts of the pattern can make their way into to do their part in contextual force governance when they are ready and worthy.


Note: it is not a trivial, negative thing that Stevens is trying to do by misprepresenting and obfuscating our clear understanding of The White Left. This is part of an ongoing campaign by YKW in tandem with right-wing sell outs precisely because they do not want us to have this understanding.


35

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 18 Mar 2017 19:50 | #

Yeah, so anyway, these people who accept the Jewish altercast that advocacy of our peoples is a “right wing” concern and that the enemies of its Truth are “the left” of course have the position of advocacy backwards.

Nevertheless, “the right” or some “objective truth beyond beyond left and right” is promoted as the “the new paradigm”, the “alternativie right”, promoted disingenuously and deliberately by Jewish academic design; and it is an angle that is bought into and promoted disingenuously/or accepted naively by right wing (objectivist) interests as well - it suits both Jewish interests (now that they are on top of so many niches) and right wing sell-outs (who wish to avoid social accountability) to oppose “the left.”

What they want to say is that “The Left” doesn’t deal with The Truth and Reality and that They, the Alterantive Right, Right (or whatever) care about The Truth, whereas we don’t.

Of course that’s ridiculous.

What they are trying to prescribe is rational blindness to social concern - they want to hoodwink people (Whites especially) back into the pure modernist concern for sheer advocacy of “the truth” (as if sheer truth is in ultimate jeopardy and not our people) because the unit of our defense in fact needs to be the social group - that is what is under attack. Beneath ordinary language, that is a left concern - and anybody who tells you that it is not our most important task to harmonize that social concern with facts of physics, evolution and biology is either disingenuous or naive.

In short, they want to say that they are defending “The Truth” and that we should be defending “The Truth” as well (“stoically, unpopular as that may be”), whereas “They”, “The Left” are defending “liberalism” and “feel-good Untruth.”

But it is the YKW and those who go along with this narrative who lie. First of all, regarding their attributing “liberalism” to “the left”, again let me set the record straight to make clear that that is an oxymoron: The key action of Leftism is unionization, which is the opposite of liberalism, as it prescribes boundaries and borders - you’re in or you’re out of the union. Liberalism is an antagonism to what is perceived as the fetters of boundaries, borders and social accountability thereof.

There is nothing in the motion of unionization which prescribes that you and your people should not or will not deal with biological, evolutionary or physical reality - it merely adds a level of sophistication, so that you can deal with the agency of social reality as well, recognizing that there are other groups who are looking after their interests and who can be uncaring if not antagonistic where your people won’t defend themselves on that level.

They (Jewish interests and complicit right wingers) want to propose stupid altercasts that “the left” is all about a Pollyanna liberal illusion seeking equality, when in fact what it does seek is to create an accountable social system which has the means to be more just in how it looks after social capital, more worthy and motivating of defense. There is a big difference in that non-Cartesian mandate and what the Alt Right and other Jewish vehicles (such as Brett Stevens) are tying to altercast (attribute) to “The Left” and its motivation.

So, when Brett Stevens talks about hierarchy was if we are opposed to some hierarchical ordering (when in fact, we are not opposed to that) what he is doing is trying to prepare a mindset for Jewish and complicit right wing sell outs to rule.

Continuing with my response to Brett Stevens’ article..

DanielS (paraphrasing Brett Stevens): democracy is put aside as something that doesn’t work because people start worrying too much about what others think

Brett Stevens: Yes, and for many other reasons too. Democracy is what the cucks defend. Mob rule is the downfall of the West.

DanielS: You can see Brett Stevens here, merely preparing the way for Zionist rule along with their complicit right wing sell-outs.

He wants to say that we are “social justice warriors who are cucked in defense of some abstract notion of democracy.” Whereas in truth we are defending our group very concretely - and whatever feedback (“democratic input”) that is necessary to that defense is of a highly pragmatic kind at this point; inasmuch as we care about our people we are not defending and abstract notion of democracy. That is what Jewish academics and right wingers would have us do when they are trying to control us through liberalism. And when they are trying to get ahead of the inevitable reaction, they will try to prescribe some non-democratic, Abrahamic rule (or sham proxy thereof - e.g., a facile interpretation of Nietzsche). We might detect a bit of the old Jewish antagonism for Greek majority structures in Stevens having drawn upon this red herring disdain for democracy - his disdain for the cucks of Jewish interests who would be so naive as to fall for the Jewish and right wing trick compelling people to fight to defend pure democracy in and of itself.


36

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 20 Mar 2017 20:13 | #

The Jewish ordeal with civility, i.e., their struggle as a tribal people with modern, civil society highlights a few issues in its very premise:

On the one hand, it highlights not only how the Jews would be confronted with the problem of maintaining themselves as a people against civilization, but it also confronts any system of people with the issue of how they would maintain themselves as a people against modernity and the civil society that it proposes to supplant tribalism.

Tribal marginals would be the first “discontents” to notice the lack of group support.

On the other hand, it confronts those who recognize this abstract concern with modernity as phenomenon which does in fact run rough-shod over group maintenance and accountability, with the typical right wing reaction: “Oh, the Jews have a complaint with it - modernity - therefore modernity must be “good”; and post modernity must be “bad” - all and only the shams that they propose it to mean (for us).”

In truth, either way, modernity or “post modernity” (as they might have us understand “post modernity”, viz., basically just a further degenerated and fragmented expression of modernity), they are using our own rules - modernity and civility - against us, a la Alinsky.


37

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 21 Mar 2017 00:09 | #

Response to Brett Stevens continued:

DanielS: Modernity has not only been atop a short list of the most profoundly transformative ways of life, it will remain to feature as an integral capacity of any competent post modern culture.

Brett Stevens: Modernity, which is the era which begins with the assumption of equality, has created vast degeneration in the West. The sooner we escape this time of illusion the better.

DanielS: The notion of equality features as means of limiting variables as scientically expressed in some pre-modern philosophy. But more importantly it became a rhetorical trope for Jewish recruitment into the Noahide yoke of Christianity before modernity. Once this bit of scientism was adopted as a part of the French Enlightenment’s slogan and by Jefferson in The Declaration of Independence (in order to appeal to French Revolutionaries), it got seized upon typically by Jewish interests, via Marx and the cultural Marxism of America. Again, this was an Alinsky-like gesture of making the enemy - Whites - live up to “their” rules; typically of Jewish rhetorical tropes, it has the benefit for them of being a red cape, such that arguing against it - i.e., “against equality” - not only sounds bad, but it is a bad argument.

They seized upon this scientistic aspect of Modernity, one of the features which made it an epoch that needed to be superseded indeed, but in exaggerating it in the face of Whites instead, got Whites to largely overcompensate the equality/inequality paradigm in reaction - arguing harder for or “against equality.” With that, Whites were buying into an epistemological error of the wrong frame-work, the wrong paradigm so to speak. What is needed is (White) post modern reformation - a new paradigm.

In fact, talk of “paradigms” and “paradigmatic shifts” came about exactly from Thomas Khun’s discussion of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions - the context that scientists were working upon premises - within paradigms - the rule structures of which were more qualitative, socially negotiated, relative and agreed upon among themselves, provisionally, than the modernist, objectivist narrative that they operated upon would allow them to readily articulate. It would typically take a crisis to the scientific paradigm’s credibility in order for them to abandon it - i.e., for a “scientific revolution” and a new paradigm to be set in motion. The issue of analyzing compatibility was not quite so simple as a quantitative measurement of equality/inequality, but rather a qualitative matter of whether or not rule structures were commensurable or incommensurable within and between paradigms.

To make a long story short, Jewish interests and complicit right wingers, because they are on top of the game want to promote the idea that challenging their unequal, advantageous position is “unnatural”, “unrealistic”, “THE central problem” ..“these inequalities came about, well, just because, just because they are naturally better - it’s just a fact, there is no negotiation, no argument - ‘the only task at hand is to disabuse people of the illusion of seeking equality’ - their wish that these are injustices to be corrected through social critique and activism is an evil ‘leftist fantasy’. Down with ‘social justice’ warriors.”

They want us to believe that we need the Alternative Right to defend “truth” and inequality!

Hence, they try to promote the red cape of the false paradigm of equality/inequality for people to chase after - making people look bad for arguing on such stupid grounds where it does not frighten them (legitimately) that people could take that to be the ultimate criteria. In fact, the proper criteria of debate is not equality/inequality at all, but rather the relative, qualitative commensurability and incommensurability of social paradigms and members within.

Incommensurability and Ecological Niche Theory vs. Non-Equality



Post a comment:


Name: (required)

Email: (required but not displayed)

URL: (optional)

Note: You should copy your comment to the clipboard or paste it somewhere before submitting it, so that it will not be lost if the session times out.

Remember me


Next entry: #Cloudbleed: The rank system perspective.
Previous entry: Regarding Trump’s Statement on “Fake News”, Political Cesspool Advocates Jailing Critics of State

image of the day

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Establishment Problem

Categories

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Immigration

Islamist Threat

Anti-white Media Networks

Audio/Video

Crime

Economics

Education

General

Historical Re-Evaluation

Controlled Opposition

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Europeans in Africa

Of Note

Comments

DanielS commented in entry 'Alt-Right cannot be trusted to represent Whites, ethnonationalists on crucial matters' on Thu, 27 Apr 2017 15:46. (View)

Kumiko Oumae commented in entry 'Alt-Right cannot be trusted to represent Whites, ethnonationalists on crucial matters' on Thu, 27 Apr 2017 13:28. (View)

Terror Suspect Arrested commented in entry 'Terror in Westminster and the official lies which follow' on Thu, 27 Apr 2017 13:05. (View)

Student unions boycotting Israel warned commented in entry 'GW's Best Friend, Arthur Scargill (well, not really his best friend at all).' on Thu, 27 Apr 2017 12:55. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Alt-Right cannot be trusted to represent Whites, ethnonationalists on crucial matters' on Thu, 27 Apr 2017 10:29. (View)

Kumiko Oumae commented in entry 'Alt-Right cannot be trusted to represent Whites, ethnonationalists on crucial matters' on Thu, 27 Apr 2017 08:22. (View)

life immitates story commented in entry 'Hermeneutics Circles Back to The Passions of Captain Chaos' on Thu, 27 Apr 2017 04:16. (View)

Anonimous commented in entry 'Alt-Right cannot be trusted to represent Whites, ethnonationalists on crucial matters' on Thu, 27 Apr 2017 03:21. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Alt-Right cannot be trusted to represent Whites, ethnonationalists on crucial matters' on Thu, 27 Apr 2017 01:24. (View)

Patrick Le Brun's Bomb (((Shoah))) commented in entry 'In search of a nationalist majority' on Wed, 26 Apr 2017 23:15. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Alt-Right cannot be trusted to represent Whites, ethnonationalists on crucial matters' on Wed, 26 Apr 2017 17:12. (View)

Captainchaos commented in entry 'Alt-Right cannot be trusted to represent Whites, ethnonationalists on crucial matters' on Wed, 26 Apr 2017 16:48. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'A Possible Explanation for the Flynn Effect' on Wed, 26 Apr 2017 13:11. (View)

Sea Hawk commented in entry 'A Possible Explanation for the Flynn Effect' on Wed, 26 Apr 2017 11:34. (View)

Miss Turismo Carabobo commented in entry 'See Caracas Then Die' on Wed, 26 Apr 2017 02:30. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'The coming battle over the meaning of Brexit.' on Tue, 25 Apr 2017 22:26. (View)

SERG commented in entry 'The coming battle over the meaning of Brexit.' on Tue, 25 Apr 2017 18:00. (View)

Kumiko Oumae commented in entry 'Minister: Russia hacked Danish defence for two years' on Tue, 25 Apr 2017 13:02. (View)

Russian"Pawn Storm" phises Macron campaign commented in entry 'Minister: Russia hacked Danish defence for two years' on Tue, 25 Apr 2017 09:29. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'GW's Best Friend, Arthur Scargill (well, not really his best friend at all).' on Mon, 24 Apr 2017 22:55. (View)

Captainchaos commented in entry 'GW's Best Friend, Arthur Scargill (well, not really his best friend at all).' on Mon, 24 Apr 2017 18:32. (View)

Dugin: Bannon an "ideologicl ally" commented in entry 'The Paleocon agenda behind the Alt-Right & Trump becomes explicit with Trump's attack on Syria' on Mon, 24 Apr 2017 13:33. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'GW's Best Friend, Arthur Scargill (well, not really his best friend at all).' on Mon, 24 Apr 2017 03:15. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'GW's Best Friend, Arthur Scargill (well, not really his best friend at all).' on Sun, 23 Apr 2017 23:54. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'GW's Best Friend, Arthur Scargill (well, not really his best friend at all).' on Sun, 23 Apr 2017 18:53. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'GW's Best Friend, Arthur Scargill (well, not really his best friend at all).' on Sun, 23 Apr 2017 18:23. (View)

Kumiko Oumae commented in entry 'Hardly The Battle of Cable Street: What Berkeley Doesn't Mean' on Sun, 23 Apr 2017 15:31. (View)

Kumiko Oumae commented in entry 'Hardly The Battle of Cable Street: What Berkeley Doesn't Mean' on Sun, 23 Apr 2017 15:13. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'GW's Best Friend, Arthur Scargill (well, not really his best friend at all).' on Sun, 23 Apr 2017 14:48. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Hardly The Battle of Cable Street: What Berkeley Doesn't Mean' on Sun, 23 Apr 2017 14:35. (View)

Kumiko Oumae commented in entry 'Hardly The Battle of Cable Street: What Berkeley Doesn't Mean' on Sun, 23 Apr 2017 14:03. (View)

Dr_Eigenvector commented in entry 'Hardly The Battle of Cable Street: What Berkeley Doesn't Mean' on Sun, 23 Apr 2017 13:39. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'GW's Best Friend, Arthur Scargill (well, not really his best friend at all).' on Sun, 23 Apr 2017 12:07. (View)

Captainchaos commented in entry 'Hardly The Battle of Cable Street: What Berkeley Doesn't Mean' on Sun, 23 Apr 2017 11:58. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Hardly The Battle of Cable Street: What Berkeley Doesn't Mean' on Sun, 23 Apr 2017 11:02. (View)

affection-tone