Claire Khaw & co. render Islam to normalize rape, Luke Ford renders Judaism to institutionalize rape

Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 10 December 2019 05:02.

As I have stopped taking her seriously, not even as providing an oppositional platform in which to air ethnonational views, I was neither carefully listening nor in attendance for all of this discussion; but I did catch Claire Khaw making some sort of assertion (in defense of those proposing rape as an unavoidable fact of war, therefore something to be accepted and to inspire ‘manly’ reaction?) that she believes it is normal for men to sit around and share rape fantasies while they are among themselves. I found this bizarre and utterly irresponsible, as I have never even had any such thoughts privately (Claire tried to say it is because I am older, but when I say never, I mean never) nor have I known any man who expressed these wishes.

The controversy flared-up with Con-Ops and That Woman leading the way to denounce Claire’s sanctioning of cohorts who were bandying the suggestion that the English might be incited to act more manly by the Muslim rape of English girls, and might thus, retaliate in kind by raping their enemy… Claire considers rape an unavoidable corollary of war; in attempted normalization of this “thought process” in discussion, she went on to suggest, as I’d mentioned, that ‘rape is a normal fantasy and desire lurking in the private thoughts of men, that they reveal when among themselves absent the company of women’....

You’d think that was bad enough, then Luke Ford got into the act of normalizing and institutionalizing rape (see below).

But first, Con Ops and That Woman review Claire and co. on rape:

Claire’s Secular Koranist disciple Ego Dik goes full Ted Bundy

Claire Khaw allies herself with incel jihadi’s


Spiritual Mamzer

Claire has tried to argue that EGO DIK’s incitements to sexual violence against English girls were just a part of a troll to trigger an angry reaction and to make a point.( https://youtu.be/RDKahR-5PwQ judge for yourself) Claire has called me hysterical and a virtue signalling liberal bitch for calling out EGO DIK and Jon Vance

For those who think these are but harmless spergs on the internet and would never perpetrate violence in real life. Think again! Jonathan’s friend Travis Patron another virgin with rage and currently the leader of the Canadian Nationalist Party, assaulted two lady’s. Travis told Vance he was going to pick up some woman and smash some puzz. He ended up smashing two faces.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskat...

Ego Dik and Jon Vance have naturally backed their fearless leader.

Comments

Richard Murdoch

1 week ago
Spiritual mamzer aka con ops did nothing wrong.
Big ups homie….keep it gangsta


That Woman
2 weeks ago (edited)
What I find amazing is they seem to believe that everyone secretly thinks this way and they are just being “brave and honest”. I must say, these horrible things they have been posting and saying have never crossed my mind.

As if normalizing rape wasn’t bad enough, Luke Ford gets into the act of institutionalizing rape..

Luke Ford’s barbarous right wing religion:

A Yazidi woman who had been a sex slave to Isis confronts her former captor:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7743453/Moment-Yazidi-former-sex-slave-comes-face-face-ISIS-rapist-attacked-14.html

       

Luke Ford shows this video (22:24) and then comments, shockingly…
       

Luke Ford (25:00) “Ok, let me move on so, how does the bible deal with rape in battle? So it’s been a very typical male behavior in battle * that after you win the battle after you take female captives from the out-group, that its traditional that if they’re attractive you rape them. So, how did the bible deal with this? It instituted a practice whereby yeah, you can rape them once; but after that you had to allow them to cut off all their hair and to mourn for I think, thirty days, for their parents who are presumably dead, then you have the option of marrying them, bringing them into your household or setting them free. So, I think that the bible understood that men are going to rape in battle. What it tried to do was restrict (holds back a chuckle) the amount of raping, tried to cut down on it, and provide some rituals to control male lust.

So, Judaism is a very practical religion, very much in this world.” - Luke Ford.

Luke Ford’s Judaic religion ‘understands’ that men WILL rape in times of war, therefore the bible prescribes that you may do this once, after which time the woman must be given an opportunity to shave her head and grieve for lost family (presumably dead parents and so on) for 30 days; followed by the rapist being given the option to marry the woman or to set her free..

The “that’s just the way it-is-ness” that “men WILL rape” is a tell tale sign of the right wingishness that Luke adopts in accordance with his brutally supremacist religion’s obscene prescription for the event - Luke speaks proudly of this prescription, saying how it illustrates that “Judaism is a very practical religion, very much in this world.”

Do you see what’s happening here with the language game that Luke Ford is playing? He and (his people) don’t want White people to have a social constructionist understanding, because that would provide us with social accountability and agency. He wants to continue to argue on behalf of a ‘beleaguered right wing facticity, a that’s just the way it is-ness for the ‘we’ on the right, who are dealing with reality’ (to protect our unjust Jewish hegemony, right wing and liberal complicitness with pseudo objectivst bullshit, that is).

The social constructionist understanding of these events is why a left ethnonationalist perspective is superior. Because a social constructionist understanding would maintain that the fact of rape is not something that has to be accepted and normalized. Not even post hoc - after the fact - as we have the agency to (socially) construct how facts come to count. In the case of rape, it can be looked upon as neither a necessary consequence of circumstance nor a mere natural fact in the course of life, but a very serious crime…let alone something fairly normal and a sign of manliness. In fact, it has been standard operating procedure for the U.S. Military to severely punish enlisted men who rape.

The story of Emmett Till, a young black boy who was lynched for sexually harassing a White woman in 1955 Mississippi, has been endlessly retold to the exclusion of the exponentially more common black on White rape and murder events.

It is interesting to note that Till’s father, a black serviceman in the U.S. Army stationed in Italy during WWII, was court martialed and hanged for having raped an Italian woman. Emmett was pre-empted in his trajectory as a chip off the old black.

So, no, rape is not necessarily accepted as a normal feature of war, and a liberty for victorious troops to take over the vanquished.


* Rape may have been condoned if not encouraged by certain primitive elements in armies like the Soviets, it may be considered normal for non-White armies, but it is strictly prohibited by White armies.

The whole rape issue and the fact that European men tend to be exponentially better behaved in that regard than blacks, more sublimated than the R selecting blacks and Middle Easterners, can be yet another selling point to our co-evolutionary women, and strong warrant for our sovereign ethnonationalism. If White women want to mix with them, that’s too bad, but White men are not obligated [that would be a form of White slavery] to support them or their offspring - the exploitation and punishment rather will be of her ... just as the reward of a better way of life will be for loyal women.


Related at Majorityrights:

Claire Khaw hosts “Focken” and “Ovfuckyou”Ovfuckyou says “Hitler did nothing wrong” and tries to equate Nazism with White Nationalism.

 



Comments:


1

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 10 Dec 2019 10:38 | #

Rape fantasy - non-violent, of course - is a common female fantasy, perfectly consonant with the female reproductive strategy of inciting male arousal.  According to Black Pigeon gang-rape fantasy is likewise a female fantasy, and that would make sense, I suppose.

Strictly speaking, men are focused sociobiologically on female sexuality at the optimum fertile moment in the menstrual cycle.  It is invitation at that moment which they properly seek, so a group endeavour it’s definitely not!  We filter constantly for signs of an invitation, which of course manifests as overt signals of female incitement.  Rapine coercion has at its core a weak interest in that moment, it being subordinate to a behavioural violence which is itself pathologically blind to the relational contexts of sexual intercourse.  It no more fits with the norms of male reproductive interest and expression than art theft does with collection.  It should never be generalised to men.

Rape in war is different again, it being a product of the necessary tendency to dehumanise the enemy one is trying to kill.  For the aggressor, the whole endeavour reduces to a crude and animalistic dominance over the enemy’s resources.  Being non-concombatants, the enemy’s women are a resource.  It should not happen, it is hardly necessary to say.  But it seems to be a commonplace among warring Africans (which one might explain through hyper-sexualisation except that it is most famously recorded in the rapine of the “hordes of Asia” who populated the Red Army in 1945).

I should add that men simply do not discuss their sexual lives, real or imaginary, with other men, or even with women.  The whole relationships thing is the principal female social obsession.  Mens’ discussions are about information, because our other great life-function is to provide and protect (which in cold-climate environments of evolutionary adaptiveness segues into the creation of order from chaos).  The social complexity of European society is a product of that exchange of information, as its advancement is a product of the European creative genius.

This sort of stuff is so simple to understand and basic to the way we humans - and specifically we European humans - operate, one wonders whether Claire Khaw has ever really thought about any of it.


2

Posted by Claire Khaw on Tue, 10 Dec 2019 15:24 | #

This sort of stuff is so simple to understand and basic to the way we humans - and specifically we European humans - operate, one wonders whether Claire Khaw has ever really thought about any of it.

What do you mean by “this sort of stuff”?

Are you in fact proposing censorship and really saying men and women should not discuss these matters with each other online?

I should add that men simply do not discuss their sexual lives, real or imaginary, with other men, or even with women.

This is patently untrue. It is my experience that sex-obsessed Westerners are always talking about sex with members of their own sex as well as members of the opposite sex.

You seem to conflate yourself with other people and assume they are part of you even if this is patently not the case even in the face of the fact that others disagree with you and do not conform to your practices. This failure to reach an essential milestone of childhood development, ie that of realising that your mother and other people are not an extension of yourself, seems to have had the consequence of making you unable to distinguish between where you end and where others begin, which is most probable cause of your difficulties in communication and relationships well into middle age.


3

Posted by Claire Khaw on Tue, 10 Dec 2019 15:27 | #

As I have stopped taking her seriously ...

May I know when and why you stopped taking me seriously?


4

Posted by Claire Khaw on Tue, 10 Dec 2019 15:32 | #

I am saddened to note that you have not yet published my response to your post, which I have taken the precaution of also posting at https://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2019/12/there-is-no-need-to-normalise-rape-in.html were you minded not to display it and give me the right of reply. It is very disappointing that you are not guided by the rules of fair play in these matters.


5

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 10 Dec 2019 17:08 | #

Though this is a response to a comment in this thread, where Claire sponsored a discussion of pro Nazis, it is more efficient and works quite well to to post my response here. My response to Claire Khaw. She Posts:

Posted by Claire Khaw on Tue, 10 Dec 2019 14:38 | # 2

Daniels: Claire Khaw continues to sponsor directions which are beyond abject irresponsibility, to what is outright egregious misdirection for White people.

Claire Khaw:Exactly what is the nature of this “outright egregious misdirection for white people” you are accusing me of?

DanielS: The nature of your (attempted) misdirection of White people is to accuse us of incorrectly blaming hostile outside groups of perpetrating injustices against us and then trying to gaslight people such as myself, who are proposing solutions, while installing your own misdirecting “solutions” for White people, notably by centering on the gender issue - and proposing that White people adopt a variant of Islam (which isn’t going to happen) and primitive means of controlling women accordingly to restore ‘the patriarichy’, while treating the Jewish variant as they’d have it, as our supreme guiding light…all the while egregiously misdirecting White people from the more fundamental issue, i.e., the need to secure our racial boundaries and borders - as opposed to them being thrown wide open by the combination of Jewish language games from the position of their power and influence in tandem with White right wingers taking the pay off and liberals taking the license they offer - which, if recognized and countered to re-institutionalize our racial bounds and borders, will then facilitate our being able to correct our own gender relations, thank you very much. Without bounds and borders even a good marriage is like the best berth on a sinking ship, and “patriarchs” without prioritizing interest of maintaining our racial species groups, likely to be insane reactionaries that guide that rudderless ship into destruction.

Claire Khaw: My definition of the alt-right is “those who believe that mainstream Republicanism/Conservatism will not be enough to deal with the social and political problems created by half a century of liberal, feminist and socialist legislation”.

DanielS: I have NEVER identified as Alt-Right and have been critical of it (many critical articles) from its inception.

As a Jewish created and instigated program, the Alt-Right may indeed be characterized as being largely about “those who believe that mainstream Republicanism/ Conservatism will not be enough to deal with the social and political problems created by half a century of liberal, feminist and socialist legislation”.

But it has been a studied attempt to keep Whites ineffective in racial defense as it continually identifies “the left”, that is to say socially organizing identity and group advocacy as “the problem” and not Jewish misrepresentation, abuse, distortion and often reversal, even, of these terms and concepts of identity and group advocacy as definitive of the left; repulsing Whites also with the association that socially organizing and advocating concepts associated with the left are necessarily anti White, and not that they are anti White when deployed in international Jewish interests in tandem with White right wing sell outs and liberals satisfied to take the no account licentiousness.

In short, the Alt-Right was meant to re-direct White reaction to Jewish rhetorical abuse of praxis with this “leftism” of PC advocacy groups, further into Cartesianian reaction to seek pure warrants (in futile hope that their proposed warrants cannot be fucked with by Jews and their minions), but so reactionary as to be beyond social accountability, into pseudo natural or supernatural warrant. Rigidly un accountable to the correctability of our people (praxis) thus, the “solution” is provided - of course - Judaic rule, Christian obsequiousness or, as you would suggest, Islam, even if only the variant you propose (in order to bring us under the Abrahamic yoke) as a purported leader of the Alt-Right that you are - indeed appropriate that you should be the leader of that farcical opposition.

Claire Khaw: I do not think that antisemitism, Islamophobia and racism is in fact compulsory since I myself associate with people who to a greater or lesser extent identify as alt-right without myself hating and fearing Jews, Muslims or other races.

DanielS: The Alt-Right, as a Gottfried/Regnery spin off of Paleoconservatism, was always a big tent (rather a tentosphere, a big tent of tents) of anti-social reactionaries, offering particular tents for scientistic reactionaries, Nazis, Christians of different kinds, Jews; and apparently ayou wish to introduce and Islamic tent, but it has been an overall eclecticism of right wing reactionary tents that don’t quite go together in the end (witness the short circuit of Unite the Right). It has been that way, just as its parent movement, paleoconservatism is a proposed “fusion” of reactionary movements - Christianity and Enlightenment values - that don’t go together.

Claire Khaw: Why is it wrong to associate white nationalism with antisemitism?

DanielS: It is not wrong to associate White Nationalism with anti-Semitism.

It is wrong to associate White Nationalism with Hitler/Nazism and other forms of supremacist imperialism that would go beyond an aim to defend Whites against supremacism, exploitation and genocide at the hands of Jewry, by instigating and promoting Whites in stating a goal for themselves of supremacism, exploitation and genocide of Jews and others, that would “justify” a response of genociding Whites.

It is wrong to suggest, as you do, that “anti-Semitism” is a psychological malady, a scapegoating “obsession” born of jealousy, as you categorize it, as you attempt to gaslight a very necessary response to Jewish power and influence, their abuses as such which call for our disentangling them from our midst - a very necessary critique and vigilance in guidance of our sovereignty, our separatism of governance from them.

Claire Khaw: It would be dishonest to deny the presence of antisemites in the alt-right.

No need to deny it, I’ve already acknowledged it. But as right wing reactionaries, they are susceptible to be misguided in their anti Semitism, headlong over the top into disaster. Sometimes purity spiraling with the “good Jews”, ignoring the depths of their genetics (that will likely resurface to our detriment in subsequent generations) they are associating on the wrong grounds (e.g. as Abrahamists, or Naturalists), beyond or below biological group correctability, and are susceptible thus, to being misguided into disaster.

Claire Khaw: I am aware that it is the antisemitism of the alt-right that also attracts antisemitic Muslims to it, even as they know that Muslims are hated and feared by the non-Muslim white Western gentile who is also Post-Christian.

DanielS: Its valid for any one to hate Islam and the other Abrahamic religions as well.

DanielS: Claire is apparently not troubled by this stuff as it was not over 50 million of her people who wound up being killed by it.

Claire Khaw:I am not sure what “stuff” you are referring to

DanielS: You always like to play stupid, as if the obvious is so hard to understand. “The stuff” is obviously Hitler/Nazism.

Claire Khaw: other than the understandable desire to protect one’s society and nation to expel or exterminate a group whom you sincerely (even if mistakenly) believe to be causing you and your group deliberate and active harm.

DanielS: These are understandable wishes, but the goal of extermination of another group is clearly impractical to enunciate and the invocation of Hitler/Nazism as being in tandem with White Nationalism as such, is an association that our White societies and nations need protection against, as it posits an absolute life or death mortal struggle between Jews and a divided (by rightfully socially stigmatized, or beleaguered by the Nazis supremacist attack on their particular European kind) thus ineffectively organized White population (either way, for or against Nazism) while Nazism is still upheld as a solution.

Claire Khaw: I hope you will acknowledge that I have been saying for some time now that the perceived Jewish problem is really a problem with Liberalism and President Putin helpfully pointed out this June that Liberalism is “obsolete”.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-48795764

DanielS: I have diagnosed liberalism as a key problem only with far greater penetration, for some time now.

Liberalism, the loosening or opening of in group / out group bounds, is a definitive operating procedure of the Enlightenment’s experimentalism and its Epicurean forebears rejection of “superstition” and mere tradition. With the steady influence of Jewish guilt tripping through Christianity, European liberalism became in part, something like an allergic reaction and rebellion against those guilt trips into a Cartesian purity spiral, consonant with our European penchant to attend to Augustinian devils.

Partly the “fault"of Whites in that this purity spiral, its quest for pure objective warrant - “innocence” - created a rational blindness to subjective and relative group interests, thus a vulnerability for Jewish interests hostile to Whites to exploit? Yes. Such as the Lockeatine prejudice against group classifications as non empirical fictions that ought to give way to civil individual rights, come weaponized (((civil rights))) circa 1964 i.e., the prohibition of White freedom from association. That is, Jewry took advantage of the liberal vulnerability to our system.

This liberal vulnerability was compunded by Jews in their internatonalist left concept of anti racism - which basically exploits the vulnerability of White Cartesian objectivism, and it does this very knowingly and disingenously:

Anti racism is Cartesian, it is prejudice, it is not innocent, it is prejudice against even (necessary) prejudice, it is hurting and killing people.

Knowing this, it can be said accurately, that anti racism is largely a Jewish construct, put forth in paradoxic forms, in their hypocritical interests.

Claire Khaw: If most Jews are Liberal, it is only because Liberal Gentiles are responsible for the Liberal Jew.

DanielS: No. The Jews recognize the vulnerability that liberalism has created in White systems and they encourage and exploit it, seeing it as a way to weaken the mortal threat of White unanimity and the power that it would entail. Jews are willing to sacrifice some of their outliers and diaspora as Judas goats of liberalism to lead gullible Whites astray.

Claire Khaw: If Liberalism is a problem, then it is time for us to examine the problem of Liberalism

DanielS: I’ve examined it well enough and diagnosed solution well enough for Whites to proceed on corrective course.

You will not listen and you will not change. You are an impervious minion for Jewry.

Liberalism by itself is no more a problem than “the left” by itself, other than a problem that attention to these terms, as they are mis directed and defined by Jews, if not encouraged muddling or mis definition, takes us away from their very Jewish weaponized misdirection - misdirection if you care about White group interests, that is.

Claire Khaw: Unfortunately, the alt-right are not known for their powers of political analysis and my attempts to discuss this were met with the insuperable obstacle of being unable to find anyone prepared to discuss this with me in an honest, rational or focused way.

DanielS: I don’t speak for the Alt-Right, having never identified with them. However, I must say that it is a clear case of projection when you speak of being unprepared to talk in an honest and rational way. You are impervious, a would-be “insuprable obstacle” to acknowledgement in good faith of real solutions for White group interests and the real menace of Jewish power and influence and other non White antagonisms ...that is, if only your “Secular Koranism” wasn’t just a laughable dwarf Abahamic expression that can be hopped over by anyone; its being a speed bump in brief conversation about how Islam recognizes that there can be problems in gender relations and anticipates the obvious, that liberalism can exacerbate these problems. But it is an angry dwarf, that does not provide solutions that we cannot deal with better, our own way, once our general population is freed of Abrahamic deception as “the moral order.”... “its Noahide laws” (as if it has a copyrite on all of these and they are a necessary package deal)

Claire Khaw: What a shame that you too share this characteristic because you refuse to consider my proposed solution of a one party theocracy governed by the principles of Secular Koranism in a way that is honest, rational or focused.
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2014/05/secular-koranism.html

DanielS: I don’t know about a one party theocracy, but I surely would not consider a proposed “solution” of one based on “Secular Koranism”.

Claire Khaw: While I would be only too happy to discuss such matters with public intellectuals, there seems to be a deliberate policy on their part not to engage with me. Fortunately, honest and intelligent Jews do not really believe me to be either antisemitic or a Nazi, even as you try to paint me in this light.

DanielS: Honest Jews?

Claire Khaw: Those flag and gun photos I had taken were part of a publicity stunt designed to associate me with nationalism

DanielS: That you would use this as “publicity” shows how alien that you are to European interests. Anyone who really cares on a deep, organic level about European people has an aversion if not revulsion to these symbols. Thus, you would not attract positive publicity as such and certainly not as a nationalist ...

..it shows that you don’t even understand nationalism as Nazism was imperialist.

Claire Khaw: nationalism, which I define as government in the national interest. I am arguing that the desire that our governments govern us in the national interest is in fact a universal desire, and it is the task of public intellectuals to discuss what constitutes the national interest in an honest, rational and focused way.

DanielS: Nationalism is probably universalizable enough as an interest, and public intellectuals ought to discuss it, normalize it, coordinate it and make it work. However, a rational discussion with you is futile as you are not rational, you are Abrahamic - worse, oxymoronic, combining “secularism” with the Koran, a theocratic text - and insisting on it, irrationally impervious to the fact that Europeans may not want it, seeing other, better ways of organizing their moral order.

Claire Khaw: I had assumed that my contention that it is impossible for me to be a Nazi since I was not even an antisemite would be accepted after I was given a chance to explain myself, but it seems that the liberal media are not interested in reporting the truth, only in smearing those they perceive to be their ideological opponents, especially if they are capable of formulating rational arguments against liberalism and asking questions they cannot answer honestly without losing the debate.

DanielS: I didn’t say that you are a Nazi by dint of these photos, but the association and promotion of those with strong sympathies as such clearly does not trouble your conscience, apparently since you are clear that you are not anti Semitic - and that’s all important to you, not the fifty some odd million Europeans that got killed for this imperialist, supremacist bullshit you uphold as “strong nationalism”.

Claire Khaw: If Judaism is divine ethno-nationalism, then then Islam must be divine civic nationalism.

DanielS: Judaism isn’t divine anything. And Islam is a religion that Sand Negroes can keep well within their desert hells.

Claire Khaw: If Islam is “Judaism Lite”, then Secular Koranism is “Islam Lite”.

Daniels: Nice try, but the (((Madison Ave.))) marketing firms are pretty nepotisitic and not likely to be hiring you for an advertising campaign.

Claire Khaw: It is regrettable that your autism and communication problems makes you incapable of having a rational discussion with me on the question of problems and solutions. What a shame that Western intellectuals all over the world seem to be suffering from your problem though!

DanielS: Claire, your imperviousness and absurd communication style makes it ultimately unworthwhile to talk to you.

It is a shame because you had the talent to make contributions as an interlocutor on a participatory level. However, the western world is suffering from a deluge of dishonesty and deception beginning with the usurpation and reconfiguration of our moral order by alien peoples to the east. A religion truly in our interests otherwise would be defending our biological kinds, not “patriarchy” per se and an Abrahamic god.

Egregiously, you are very much in the vain of dishonesty and deception Claire Khaw - shame on you, slut.


6

Posted by Claire Khaw on Tue, 10 Dec 2019 20:10 | #

I have NEVER identified as Alt-Right

Whether you like it or not, your undeniable antisemitism identifies you as alt-right. 

You are an impervious minion for Jewry.

I don’t quite see how I am a minion of Jews. 

I surely would not consider a proposed “solution” of one based on “Secular Koranism”.

Why not since you don’t have a better idea?

Honest Jews?

You seem to be saying that honest Jews do not exist.

it shows that you don’t even understand nationalism as Nazism was imperialist.

I am aware of the existence of imperial nations. Britain was such a nation.

a rational discussion with you is futile as you are not rational, you are Abrahamic - worse, oxymoronic, combining “secularism” with the Koran, a theocratic text - and insisting on it, irrationally impervious to the fact that Europeans may not want it, seeing other, better ways of organizing their moral order.

Are you really suggesting that no adherent of the Abrahamic faiths can be rational? I do not expect the gravely ill patient to want to be in the position of having to undergo an invasive and radical medical procedure, but it would be rational to undergo it nevertheless if the alternative is death.

I didn’t say that you are a Nazi by dint of these photos, but the association and promotion of those with strong sympathies as such clearly does not trouble your conscience, apparently since you are clear that you are not anti Semitic - and that’s all important to you, not the fifty some odd million Europeans that got killed for this imperialist, supremacist bullshit you uphold as “strong nationalism”.

I don’t recall ever describing Nazism as “strong nationalism”, though I might have said that Nazism was the strongest expression of antisemitism in living memory.

Judaism isn’t divine anything.

Just because you deny the Abrahamic God does not take away from Jews their status as God’s Chosen People whose national boundaries are defined in the Torah. 

Islam is a religion that Sand Negroes can keep well within their desert hells.

Whether you like it or not, Muslims now live in the West and the White House has its own Koran.

Claire, your imperviousness and absurd communication style makes it ultimately unworthwhile to talk to you.

How exactly is my communication style “absurd”? You seem to understand me well enough.

It is your communication style that is so absurd that no one ever knows what you mean. You must have been a horror to your English teacher at school.


7

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 10 Dec 2019 21:20 | #

Posted by Claire Khaw on Tue, 10 Dec 2019 15:10 | #

DanielS: I have NEVER identified as Alt-Right

Claire Khaw: Whether you like it or not, your undeniable antisemitism identifies you as alt-right.

DanielS: No, my opposition to Jewish power and influence over European peoples does not identify me as alt-right.

One of the distinguishing characteristics of Majorityrights is that we do not allow Jewish interests (including minions such as yourself) to define our terms and identity.

Recall that I was satisfied to part ways with Millennial Woes because he tried to defend (((Vivian Veritas/ Ruth, The Truth Will Live))) as she tried to define our terms for us.

DanielS: You are an impervious minion for Jewry.

Claire Khaw: I don’t quite see how I am a minion of Jews.

DanielS: You just demonstrated it in the example of trying to impose Jewish terms upon me, “Alt-Right” “Anti-Semite.”

And if you keep doing this, I will block you from being able to comment here.

DanielS: I surely would not consider a proposed “solution” of one based on “Secular Koranism”.

Claire Khaw: Why not since you don’t have a better idea?

DanielS: You are a liar and when better ideas are presented, you simply pretend you haven’t heard them; where you are not impervious, ideas go in one ear and out the other.

DanielS: Honest Jews?

Claire Khaw: You seem to be saying that honest Jews do not exist.

DanielS: I am saying that I generally don’t trust them where it comes to the well being of European peoples.

DanielS: it shows that you don’t even understand nationalism as Nazism was imperialist.

Claire Khaw: I am aware of the existence of imperial nations. Britain was such a nation.

DanielS: And Nazi Germany was modelling Imperial Supremacism, not nationalism per se.

DanielS: a rational discussion with you is futile as you are not rational, you are Abrahamic - worse, oxymoronic, combining “secularism” with the Koran, a theocratic text - and insisting on it, irrationally impervious to the fact that Europeans may not want it, seeing other, better ways of organizing their moral order.

Claire Khaw: Are you really suggesting that no adherent of the Abrahamic faiths can be rational? I do not expect the gravely ill patient to want to be in the position of having to undergo an invasive and radical medical procedure, but it would be rational to undergo it nevertheless if the alternative is death.

DanielS: Everybody is operating by some sort of “rationale”... but rationalism in the sense of making sense according to the practical requirements of European peoples is not characteristic of a woman (you) so lacking in empathy as to be trying to propose that Jews are not to be blamed for serious antagonism to our European interests, are not in a position to create vast problems for us and that adoption of the god of their conception, who views them as his special chosen people, should be the solution that we adopt.

DanielS: I didn’t say that you are a Nazi by dint of these photos, but the association and promotion of those with strong sympathies as such clearly does not trouble your conscience, apparently since you are clear that you are not anti Semitic - and that’s all important to you, not the fifty some odd million Europeans that got killed for this imperialist, supremacist bullshit you uphold as “strong nationalism”.

Claire Khaw: I don’t recall ever describing Nazism as “strong nationalism”, though I might have said that Nazism was the strongest expression of antisemitism in living memory.

DanielS: You said something quite like that, it represented “strong nationalism”, in another conversation, but you were clear to say to me that you were presenting it as an effective model of nationalism compared to what you saw as the weak-tea of BNP nationalism.

And the same sentiments are implied here. That you see this as a bold expression of “nationalism” when you say:

Claire: Those flag and gun photos I had taken were part of a publicity stunt designed to associate me with nationalism, which I define as government in the national interest

DanielS: Judaism isn’t divine anything.

Claire Khaw: Just because you deny the Abrahamic God does not take away from Jews their status as God’s Chosen People whose national boundaries are defined in the Torah.

DanielS: Don’t try to be a comedian either, Claire; that’s so stupid it isn’t even funny.

DanielS: Islam is a religion that Sand Negroes can keep well within their desert hells.

Claire Khaw:Whether you like it or not, Muslims now live in the West and the White House has its own Koran.

DanielS: They should not live in the west, your friends either brought them here with their immigration programs or they chased them here with their wars; and if any Muslims here are White, they should change their religion.

The White House Oval Office also has a bust of M.L. King. It doesn’t move me. Thomas Jefferson had a copy of the Koran too. People can have books they don’t adhere to.

DanielS: Claire, your imperviousness and absurd communication style makes it ultimately unworthwhile to talk to you.

Claire Khaw: How exactly is my communication style “absurd”? You seem to understand me well enough.

DanielS: you just made my point. You are absurd in that you will not accept “no thank you” to your stupid idea that nobody wants. I understand you, but you refuse to register anything that I say.

Claire Khaw: It is your communication style that is so absurd that no one ever knows what you mean. You must have been a horror to your English teacher at school.

DanielS: Console yourself with the idea that you are one with “everybody else”, including my horrified English teacher, who finds my communication style unintelligible ... and bugger-off back to your blog and pod.


8

Posted by Claire Khaw on Tue, 10 Dec 2019 22:42 | #

One of the distinguishing characteristics of Majorityrights is that we do not allow Jewish interests (including minions such as yourself) to define our terms and identity.

So what do you call yourself? You may have heard that birds of a feather flock together.

Recall that I was satisfied to part ways with Millennial Woes because he tried to defend (((Vivian Veritas/ Ruth, The Truth Will Live))) as she tried to define our terms for us.

Do you mean by that “Never speak to him again because you disagreed with him”?

You just demonstrated it in the example of trying to impose Jewish terms upon me, “Alt-Right” “Anti-Semite.”

So what do you call yourself?

You are a liar and when better ideas are presented, you simply pretend you haven’t heard them; where you are not impervious, ideas go in one ear and out the other.

What have I lied about? What better ideas have you presented? 

And Nazi Germany was modelling Imperial Supremacism, not nationalism per se.

It is only Jews that are not allowed to acquire empire because their borders have been defined in the Torah.

Everybody is operating by some sort of “rationale”... but rationalism in the sense of making sense according to the practical requirements of European peoples is not characteristic of a woman (you) so lacking in empathy as to be trying to propose that Jews are not to be blamed for serious antagonism to our European interests, are not in a position to create vast problems for us and that adoption of the god of their conception, who views them as his special chosen people, should be the solution that we adopt.

If Jews are the world’s most ancient and powerful tribe because they worship the most powerful entity conceivable, then it would make sense for gentiles to adopt the “Judaism Lite” that is Islam once it is finally acknowledged that Christianity is kaput. To ease the transition, you now have Secular Koranism. What better idea have you?

They should not live in the west, your friends either brought them here with their immigration programs or they chased them here with their wars; and if any Muslims here are White, they should change their religion.

Are you proposing to abolish the First Amendment by banning Islam? What is the new religion that you are in the process of creating for your fellow Americans?

you just made my point. You are absurd in that you will not accept “no thank you” to your stupid idea that nobody wants. I understand you, but you refuse to register anything that I say.

How is it “stupid” to point out that all peoples need a religion capable of maintaining minimum standards of morality to protect their identity and give them dignity?

 


9

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 11 Dec 2019 04:09 | #

DanielS: I can see that you are going to ask me questions that I’ve already answered over and over… but I’ll play your game for a moment. It will not go on indefinitely because your goal is to try to exhaust me and trivialize what I say by forcing truncated answers of what are complex issues ..you will then strawman the truncated answers.. I know your bullshit, but anyway, for now, until you force me to block you..

Posted by Claire Khaw on Tue, 10 Dec 2019 17:42 | #

DanielS: One of the distinguishing characteristics of Majorityrights is that we do not allow Jewish interests (including minions such as yourself) to define our terms and identity.

Claire Khaw: So what do you call yourself? You may have heard that birds of a feather flock together.

DanielS: I don’t flock with people presently or in the past having called themselves “Alt Right.”

I call myself an ethnonationalist. A White (meaning of native European extraction) Left ethnonationalist, if called upon to be specific.

If called upon to be more specific, I define what I mean by Left, which means unionization of the people, not of a kind of work but of our European people as a genus and unionizations of our European species, unionization being synonymous with borders and bounds, passports, birth certificates, marriage licenses, citizenship and governance in a word.

and no, I don’t care how people claim “left” is usually defined as liberal and Marxist.

a union is not liberal, it conserves member interests against non members…

and because we define White Left Ethnonationalism for our selves, we determine that it is not opposed to private property, a percentage of private industry, it is not equalitarian - does not oppose unequal outcomes according to merit, allows a good deal of individual liberty and free enterprise..

but critically, unionization provides for accountability…

critically, it provides for accountability to us members, from those of us who are in powerful and influential positions, as they are are members as well.

they can do quite well for themselves, but they cannot betray our unionized interests, which centers on our human ecology (and no, human ecology is not synonymous with ruthless Darwinism, as you tried to strawman before, it is rather more like nature conservation of humans).

the unionization of our human ecologies facilitates coordination with other human ecologies (left ethnonationalisms, optimally) and matters of pervasive ecology as well…which would otherwise be susceptible to systemic runaway caused by neo liberalism’s disingenuous reliance of the “invisible hand” of market correctability, which tends to kick in too late, if at all.

But the union would also require accountability to and from rank and file, to make sure our middle class is happy it will provide for accountability to and from marginals as well - marginals being those just within the union bounds, not those from the outside who want to scab us (this is stark opposite of how Jewish interests typically represent “marginals” to Whites - i.e., non-White or anti-White.

These corrections of Jewish language games, while adding and emphasizing the idea of accountability and pervasive ecology is just a few of the things that I do well for my people, much more importantly than anything you do.

DanielS: Recall that I was satisfied to part ways with Millennial Woes because he tried to defend (((Vivian Veritas/ Ruth, The Truth Will Live))) as she tried to define our terms for us.

Claire: Do you mean by that “Never speak to him again because you disagreed with him”?

DanielS: It was the case that he withdrew from cooperation with me in a gesture of white knighting for ((( “the truth will live”‘s ))) because he claimed to be insulted by ,u rejection of her, his good friend (who he talks to all the time) in her attempt to define terms for Whites.

DanielS: You just demonstrated it in the example of trying to impose Jewish terms upon me, “Alt-Right” “Anti-Semite.”

Claire: So what do you call yourself?

DanielS: You already asked that, and the short answer is ethnonationalist. the long answer is answered above.

DanielS: You are a liar and when better ideas are presented, you simply pretend you haven’t heard them; where you are not impervious, ideas go in one ear and out the other.

Claire: What have I lied about?

DanielS: You’ve lied (terribly) that I have not provided any significant ideas, that I have not sufficiently answered these questions (which you are asking me again and have asked me more than once.)

Though you may be more characterized as coming from a position of arguing in bad faith. You are clearly not in good will, trying to see and register the good in what I am saying but trying rather to gaslight me, then straw man and trivialize to move on to your stupid “secular koranism” shit, which you have the nerve to say is a good idea for European peoples to adopt.

But you do have nerve, don’t you Claire, “borrowing” a woman with small children’s husband for ten years and then, slut that you are, promoting “slut shaming”, including whipping of sluts as a center piece to your proposed religion.

DanielS: What better ideas have you presented?

I have answered this before, asshole. ..and I will play this game a limited number of times, this may be the last.

Including what I have said above, I have cleared up a number of post modern philosophical concepts and shown how they are to be properly understood and applied in White interests. This is crucial to our survival.

It includes applications of Aristotle, corrections of Descartes, Vico, Locke and Kant, proper applications of Heidegger and American Pragmatists ..and later, more obscure scholars in the realm of social constructionism - which is a misrepresented bugaboo to and of “the Alt-Right”.. I have singularly put across the correct form of these ideas very important to our survival.

In following Heidegger’s hermeneutic recommendation (hermeneutics correctly understood, being another idea that I’ve singularly championed for Whites), I unearthed the specificatory structure - common but somewhat generalized way of understanding things that facilitates participatory refinement - specification -  “Self Actualization” as it was leading astray from social emphasis, leading gender relations astray in Betty Friedan’s application of her teacher, Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy to Self Actualization; while it is in origin a very European concept, from Aristotle, applying his teleological understanding of Self Actualization, it can and should be “specified” yet further, to correct modernist rupture of social systemics and runaway, correcting it for a post modern circumstance, to correct for the runaways of modernity by re-centralization in the calibration of our social group. Which will allow for accountability and negotiation of fairer gender relations.

But because you don’t really care about our people, you propose a mispriorty of the Lockeatine blunder and (((weaponization))) thereof rupturing group bounds with the technology of individual rights. Ignoring that fundamental, you go straight ahead to gender relations which is a secondary concern - failing bounds and boundaries, as I said, even a good marriage is like the best berth on a sinking ship.

But I have unearthed problems in gender relations a good deal, from the feminists in de Beauvoir, and her influence on Friedan and Gilligan, their common antagonism to Aristotle and Kant, even at his best. I have also provided insight into the very popular and influential Helen Gurley Brown’s Sex and The Single Girl.

I have also diagnosed that traditional women can be as much a problem as feminists (modern) women in post modernity, as they do not understand that the traditions which facilitated traditional male behavior are not protected and in tact.

It was my idea that with the disorder of modernity that the “one up” position of females, even puerile girls emerged with increased significance as they are pandered t from all angles, significantly by YKW - to maintain their short term power and gains by maintaining this liberalism.

A vicious loop of liberalism is facilitated by their gate keeping.

It includes academia (the big business of selling talk) as (((tenured professors))) pander and prescribe liberalism to 18 to 24 year olds in perpetuity.

What is your problem, fuck headed Claire? That not enough yet?

I diagnosed that “The Alternative Right” was a quasi marketing campaign instigated by Gottfried and Horowitz in recognition and fear, particular upon the unparalleled Jewish hegemony reached in 2008, that Whites would organize as left ethnonationalists, unionize and see who was on top, fucking them over - Jewish interest in tandem with White right wing sell outs and liberal traitors willing to take the licence (licentiousness).

The Jewish spearheading liberalism (PC anti White coalitions tasked to misrepresent post modernity, “social justice warring” and “the left”) were actually an anti-White, internationalist left, proposed as “THE LEFT” to serve as a foil for the revamped controlled opposition that is (((paleoconservatism))) 2.0, the Alt Right, a campaign equipped though 4chan pol and Mike Enoch with blue pills, red pills, normies, social justice warriors, a whole characterology of “the left” that was “not dealing with reality’ especially not the “reality” of inequality.of “Jewish superiority” and injustice, why, after all would we want social justice when Jews own half the world?

I have seen the system and its accidental and deliberate breakdown as a whole which make sense cross contextually:

Jews organize themselves and anti White coalitions - an international, anti White left and conceive of White identity as Right and Far Right, getting reaction from Whites with their anti White rhetoric and activism as representing “the left” ..turning Whites off to social organization proper, i.e. a White ethnonational left. Getting them to react more strongly in identity as right wing into psudeo objectivity and pure warrant that can’t be fucked with by Jewish language games… as I said, getting Whites into Cartesian anxiety, a futile quest for pure warrant beyond nature, above social/human accountability and correctability or within nature, below social/human nature and correctability.

Jewish interests are pushing this objectivist right wing White anti left identity hard…as they know it keeps us short on accountability, the right is inherently unstable as it lacks the anchoring in social systemic correctabilty, it removes our people in reaction from the look and very real practice of social compassion - turning off the would be popular groundswell, taking us into no account “that’s just the way it isnes” among the right’s disorganizing concepts, arguing against the socially organizing concepts that we need, and would be useful, such as White social justice warriors.

As I was explaining to Citizen Reporter, it is not pure truth that we should be after by itself, that is just a wailing modernist expression of reaction to Jewish war by deception. rather truth and objectivity are to be applied as corrective feedback as need be to the calibration of our European social group(s) relative interests, centralized as it should be in White Post Modern world view.

That’s just the tip of the ice berg of what I’ve contributed. And my reward has been having to endure much hatred and ostracism for my position against Jews, Nazis and Christians….

I don’t care if you don’t understand the basics of it or the significance or if you pretend to not understand, as you always do. Failing that you will “understand” a trivializing strawman.

DanielS: And Nazi Germany was modelling Imperial Supremacism, not nationalism per se.

Claire: It is only Jews that are not allowed to acquire empire because their borders have been defined in the Torah.

DanielS: Their imperialism and supremacism manifests by their belief that they are the chosen people who are to “bring light to the goyim” by “perfecting them” ..and their idea of “perfecting us” does not care an iota about protecting our species (except some elites, as breeding partners), on the contrary - it promotes pan-mixia, as does Islam,to brown us off for the most part.

I have identified the essential epistemological blunder of Nazism. That’s another thing I’ve done.

I have identified issues of The Versailles Treaty and Treaty of Saint Germain and historical factors that show that in terms of its territorial divisions, the Treaties were rational - though you never hear that from American WN and “Alt Righters” as you call them.

DanielS: Everybody is operating by some sort of “rationale”... but rationalism in the sense of making sense according to the practical requirements of European peoples is not characteristic of a woman (you) so lacking in empathy as to be trying to propose that Jews are not to be blamed for serious antagonism to our European interests, are not in a position to create vast problems for us and that adoption of the god of their conception, who views them as his special chosen people, should be the solution that we adopt.

Claire: If Jews are the world’s most ancient and powerful tribe because they worship the most powerful entity conceivable,

Daniels: Jews are not the most ancient tribe, they only became progressively hegemonic through a process of horizontal transmission from the Roman conquest, then through mixing with Germans in the Rhineland some 900 years ago, then the sundry persecutions which wound up selecting for their most virulent types, facilitating their occupation of elite niches, including religion and the pretense that their god is most powerful and all about them as “chosen” and the gentiles to be beholden as (Guessedworker notes), as undifferentiated other from the Jews, “the gentiles.”

Claire: then it would make sense for gentiles to adopt the “Judaism Lite” that is Islam once it is finally acknowledged that Christianity is kaput. To ease the transition, you now have Secular Koranism. What better idea have you?

DanielS: It makes no sense what so ever. We have already made that mistake with Christianity, we don’t need another sand negro religion.

I have touched on the genesis of religion (to bring the people of the realm together though the lamentation of a rule structured moral order… that this happens not through your fake god, middle eastern affectation that it is..but a moral order is generated through social interaction and a recognition of what is practical to obligate, legitimize and prohibit. In further specification, what should be looked upon as sacred as it upholds the god-term of our patterned excellence through the ages, well beyond the moment and episode that is all that modernity has to offer.

I have suggested the crucial option of treating sex, marriage and monogamy as sacrament and I have given many original insights into that, along with the option to treat sex and gender relations in other ways, provided our people are accountable to our union bounds and demographic make up.

The option of sacrament will take away Abrahamism’s holier than thou traditionalism that they hang over our heads, while our more liberal option will provide for a liberty and feral invigoration and verification that they cannot offer.

Still, the conservative element (of sex, marriage and monogamy) will prevent rampant cynicism, disillusionment and abandonment of reason to be loyal. It will facilitate our fight against the false god upheld by Islam and Judaism hat seeks to conquer and destroy our people (along with Christianity which seeks to humbly tie our hands behind our backs and infiltrates our minds with guilt).

But again, a moral order, a religion is NOT born of a god apart from nature and people. it is born of social interaction and a negotiation of practicalities…so, we will look at what works in that regard and cultivate it, while rejecting what doesn’t work for our moral rule structure.

DanielS: They should not live in the west, your friends either brought them here with their immigration programs or they chased them here with their wars; and if any Muslims here are White, they should change their religion.

Claire: Are you proposing to abolish the First Amendment by banning Islam? What is the new religion that you are in the process of creating for your fellow Americans?

DanielS: I am not. I am rather proposing germinating new political and religious order, at first virtual and parallel to The United States, that will ultimately serve to maintain our European nations for natives of the nations and places for our European peoples on other continents as well. The politics will be worked out…

DanielS: you just made my point. You are absurd in that you will not accept “no thank you” to your stupid idea that nobody wants. I understand you, but you refuse to register anything that I say.

Claire: How is it “stupid” to point out that all peoples need a religion capable of maintaining minimum standards of morality to protect their identity and give them dignity?

DanielS:It is not stupid to suggest that we need a religion to uphold minimum standards of morality, to protect our identity and maintain our dignity and more, to guide us at least in ritual episodic reminder of our patterned excellence, virtues through the ages beyond moment and episode, beyond personal relationship level even, as we need transcendence of the fact that a good percentage of our people are bad enough to invoke cynicism outright, while the rest are flawed enough to call for god concept - what I call a guiding pattern of European excellence - that transcends their defects as well, lest cynicism drive the final nail in our coffin.

But it is stupid propose upholding minimum standards of morality, to protect our identity and maintain our dignity through the Jewish god and its war of deception and denigration of Europeans.. what dignity there? There is no dignity in worshiping a Jewish god and being beholden to Jewish tricks in place of a moral order properly in our biological interests… to guide us by ritual episode to our patterned excellence, virtues through the ages beyond moment and episode, beyond personal relationship level even, as we need transcendence of the fact that a good percentage of our people are bad enough - in significant part degenerate for the disillusionment in tangles and the Jewish trick of Christianity, its confusingness invoking cynicism outright regarding our worst people, while the rest are flawed enough to call for a god concept - what I call a guiding pattern of European excellence - that transcends their defects as well, lest cynicism drive the final nail in our coffin.

Our European concept of Hermeneutics provides both a transcendent liberation from mere facticity, to maintain the working hypothesis of our historical and systemic breadth as a people and also an accountability to factual verifiability

Our religion will not come from you, nor from the god you claim. It will come as any religion does originally, through a negotiation by our people, of moral rules as practical and super practical, in interaction.

And I have have not touched upon many of my contributions which are far more important to Europeans than your propositions, Claire. It does not matter that you don’t understand or care to understand that.


10

Posted by Claire Khaw on Thu, 12 Dec 2019 02:40 | #

... unionization provides for accountability… critically, it provides for accountability to us members, from those of us who are in powerful and influential positions, as they are are members as well.

How is unionisation more accountable than the liberal democracy the West is currently operating under?


11

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 12 Dec 2019 02:48 | #

Because this unionization is based concretely on our biology and delimited as such; whereas liberal democracy is subject to a myriad of interpretations and liberties - a central constitutive rule of liberalism being ‘thou shall not constrain my individual liberty by obligation to group membership’ - which makes accountability far more elusive.


12

Posted by Claire Khaw on Thu, 12 Dec 2019 02:51 | #

our unionized interests, which centers on our human ecology

What do you mean by human ecology?


13

Posted by Claire Khaw on Thu, 12 Dec 2019 02:54 | #

What do you mean by “pervasive ecology”?


14

Posted by Claire Khaw on Thu, 12 Dec 2019 02:59 | #

What do you mean by “Cartesian anxiety”?


15

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 12 Dec 2019 03:05 | #

DanielS: our unionized interests, which centers on our human ecology

Claire Khaw: What do you mean by human ecology?

It is the recognition that evolution manifests in ecological systems. People, as other creatures and organisms, evolve in systemic relations which entail niche abilities of members, which they contribute to leverage the system in capability beyond what individual members could manage - obviously.

The appreciation of niche abilities is significant because it calls for a different perspective on evolution and ecology, especially with the capabilities of human reflection, that not only is cooperation (symbiosis on the brute natural level) possible, but it is more common behavior in the human day to day than is ruthless Darwinist competition, survival of the fittest.

Unionization as such allows us accountability and compassion, in stark contrast to the brutal “realism” , “the ruthless that’s just the way it objectively is-ness” that right wing reactionaries take on as identity, to the satisfaction of our antagonists, who are always looking for opportunities to vilify White group interests.


16

Posted by Claire Khaw on Thu, 12 Dec 2019 03:07 | #

We have already made that mistake with Christianity

What mistake are you referring to?


17

Posted by Claire Khaw on Thu, 12 Dec 2019 03:16 | #

I have touched on the genesis of religion (to bring the people of the realm together though the lamentation of a rule structured moral order… that this happens not through your fake god, middle eastern affectation that it is..but a moral order is generated through social interaction and a recognition of what is practical to obligate, legitimize and prohibit. In further specification, what should be looked upon as sacred as it upholds the god-term of our patterned excellence through the ages, well beyond the moment and episode that is all that modernity has to offer.

I have suggested the crucial option of treating sex, marriage and monogamy as sacrament and I have given many original insights into that, along with the option to treat sex and gender relations in other ways, provided our people are accountable to our union bounds and demographic make up.

The option of sacrament will take away Abrahamism’s holier than thou traditionalism that they hang over our heads, while our more liberal option will provide for a liberty and feral vilification that they cannot offer.

Still, the conservative element (of sex, marriage and monogamy) will prevent rampant cynicism, disillusionment and abandonment of reason to be loyal. It will facilitate our fight against the false god upheld by Islam and Judaism hat seeks to conquer and destroy our people (along with Christianity which seeks to humbly tie our hands behind our backs and infiltrates our minds with guilt).

But again, a moral order, a religion is NOT born of a god apart from nature and people. it is born of social interaction and a negotiation of practicalities…so, we will look at what works in that regard and cultivate it, while rejecting what doesn’t work for our moral rule structure.

Am I correct in thinking you are proposing to create a religion from scratch?


18

Posted by Claire Khaw on Thu, 12 Dec 2019 03:19 | #

But it is stupid propose upholding minimum standards of morality, to protect our identity and maintain our dignity through the Jewish god and its war of deception and denigration of Europeans.. what dignity there?

Do you believe Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the same Abrahamic God?


19

Posted by Claire Khaw on Thu, 12 Dec 2019 03:21 | #

Our European concept of Hermeneutics provides both a transcendent liberation from mere facticity, to maintain the working hypothesis of our historical and systemic breadth as a people and also an accountability to factual verifiability

What are you trying to say in this sentence?


20

Posted by Claire Khaw on Thu, 12 Dec 2019 03:22 | #

Our religion will not come from you, nor from the god you claim. It will come as any religion does originally, through a negotiation by our people, of moral rules as practical and super practical, in interaction.

With whom will you be “negotiating” your religion?


21

Posted by Claire Khaw on Thu, 12 Dec 2019 03:24 | #

And I have have not touched upon many of my contributions which are far more important to Europeans than your propositions, Claire.

Please would you list them.


22

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 12 Dec 2019 03:26 | #

Posted by Claire Khaw on Thu, 12 Dec 2019 03:54 | #

What do you mean by “Cartesian anxiety”?

Cartesian anxiety is the anxiety that one may feel within the social interactive realm, when on experiences people challenging their world view, their interests and does not allow them to take it for granted as legitimate. If their interlocutors are skilled and antagonistic enough in the art of rhetoric (as Jews are, having the highest verbal I.Q. and being generally indifferent if not antagonistic to White group interests) they may turn their social world into vertigo, what they experience as a kind of disordered hell - the sadistic destruction of all they love - at very least the auguring thereof, causing great anxiety: Hence, they try to cure this by seeking pure and perfect warrant beyond or below the tumult, confusion, deception and manipulation of social rule structures - they seek relief from the anxiety this causes by quest for perfect warrant either beyond and separate from nature and human influence or within nature as sheerly causal, below human and social agency.

It is an understandable response to try to protect oneself and one’s people this way against powerful antagonists. The problem is, in seeking this perfect warrant to be relieved of the responsibility for agency in regard to your relative interests, you are taking yourself into a truncation of accountability and correctability (that might come of your social interlocutors accounts) if not a near perfect removal of accountability to yours and other people - “that’s just the way it is” - and Jewish intelligentsia know very well how to take advantage of this no-account irresponsibility and rigidity.


23

Posted by Claire Khaw on Thu, 12 Dec 2019 03:28 | #

Because this unionization is based concretely on our biology and delimited as such; whereas liberal democracy is subject to a myriad of interpretations and liberties - a central constitutive rule of liberalism being ‘thou shall not constrain my individual liberty by obligation to group membership’ - which makes accountability far more elusive.

Is what you are proposing apartheid?


24

Posted by Claire Khaw on Thu, 12 Dec 2019 03:30 | #

It is the recognition that evolution manifests in ecological systems. People, as other creatures and organisms, evolve in systemic relations which entail niche abilities of members, which they contribute to leverage the system in capability beyond what individual members could manage - obviously.

The appreciation of niche abilities is significant because it calls for a different perspective on evolution and ecology, especially with the capabilities of human reflection, that not only is cooperation (symbiosis on the brute natural level) possible, but it is more common behavior in the human day to day than is ruthless Darwinist competition, survival of the fittest.

Unionization as such allows us accountability and compassion, in stark contrast to the brutal “realism” , “the ruthless that’s just the way it objectively is-ness” that right wing reactionaries take on as identity, to the satisfaction of our antagonists, who are always looking for opportunities to vilify White group interests.

Could you explain in one sentence what you mean by human ecology?


25

Posted by Claire Khaw on Thu, 12 Dec 2019 03:34 | #

What do you mean by “pure and perfect warrant”?


26

Posted by Claire Khaw on Thu, 12 Dec 2019 03:35 | #

Why do you express yourself so unintelligibly using such strange words?


27

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 12 Dec 2019 03:35 | #

Posted by Claire Khaw on Thu, 12 Dec 2019 03:54 | #

What do you mean by “pervasive ecology”?

Pervasive Ecology is a coinage that I can take credit for and will, because it efficiently brings into focus one of the many important ideas that I have brought to bear.

It is the idea that ecology pervades all aspects of existence (at least our perception thereof, when it comes to more inanimate, non biological nature).

The same principles hold true as for human ecology, but extend through everything, including the world of ideas:

It is the recognition that evolution manifests in ecological systems. People, as other creatures and organisms, evolve in systemic relations which entail niche abilities of members, which they contribute to leverage the system in capability beyond what individual members could manage - obviously.

The appreciation of niche abilities is significant because it calls for a different perspective on evolution and ecology, especially with the capabilities of human reflection, that not only is cooperation (symbiosis on the brute natural level) possible, but it is more common behavior in the human day to day than is ruthless Darwinist competition, survival of the fittest.


28

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 12 Dec 2019 03:40 | #

Posted by Claire Khaw on Thu, 12 Dec 2019 04:34 | #

What do you mean by “pure and perfect warrant”?

A pure justification and grounds for holding a position or for doing something, which requires no argument or further account as it impacts others.


29

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 12 Dec 2019 03:43 | #

Posted by Claire Khaw on Thu, 12 Dec 2019 04:07 | #

We have already made that mistake with Christianity

What mistake are you referring to?

To adopt Islam would be to adopt another Abrahamic Jewish controlled opposition, just as Christianity is Abrahamic, Jewish controlled opposition, which is not concerned for the protection and extension of our European biological species into the future.


30

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 12 Dec 2019 03:44 | #

Posted by Claire Khaw on Thu, 12 Dec 2019 04:35 | #

Why do you express yourself so unintelligibly using such strange words?

Why are you such a stupid, dishonest asshole?


31

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 12 Dec 2019 03:48 | #

Is what you are proposing apartheid?

No, because we are not proposing to make use of, let alone exploit the labor of non-Whites in our nations, nor are we seeking to exploit or lord over them in their nations.


32

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 12 Dec 2019 03:53 | #

Posted by Claire Khaw on Thu, 12 Dec 2019 04:24 | #

And I have have not touched upon many of my contributions which are far more important to Europeans than your propositions, Claire.

Please would you list them.

No, I will not. First of all, you are requesting the laborious task of listing a life time of work; and secondly, who the fuck are you to expect that I should do this?

I see it as an attempt on your part to try to reduce, trivialize and ultimately strawman my work. i have already set out enough of what I’ve done, have acquitted myself enough before a hostile interlocutor. Get the fuck out of here.


33

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 12 Dec 2019 03:59 | #

With whom will you be “negotiating” your religion?

Especially and more deliberately with whom it may concern, we will be negotiating in the sense of exchanging and correcting ideas as to how it should be developed.

With those not particularly interested or aware, we will be negotiating in the sense of negotiating around an obstacle, despite their disinterest or antagonism.


34

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 12 Dec 2019 04:11 | #

Am I correct in thinking you are proposing to create a religion from scratch?

No, you are not correct, because a religion in the biological interests of European peoples will be examining, cultivating and sacralizing those extant practices which are most important to sustaining the systemic pattern of our peoples through the ages, reflecting moral bearing in respect for what our ancestors have bestowed upon us, the responsibility we show to the social capital and human ecology they have bequeathed us, and our descendants, to bring them into a tolerable and as enjoyable a world experience as possible - a religion will thus, not be from scratch, but cultivating the understanding of those patterns which facilitate our people in transcendence of momentary, episodic and relational failings of our people and the setbacks put upon us by non Europeans.


35

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 12 Dec 2019 04:15 | #

Do you believe Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the same Abrahamic God?

It may have different intermediaries, but it boils down to the same reconstituted Egyptian bullshit, yes.


36

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 12 Dec 2019 04:50 | #

Our European concept of Hermeneutics provides both a transcendent liberation from mere facticity, to maintain the working hypothesis of our historical and systemic breadth as a people and also an accountability to factual verifiability

What are you trying to say in this sentence?

In that sentence, I am clearing-up a couple of misunderstandings perpetrated by academic Jewry.

1) By noting that hermeneutics is a European concept in origin and proper understanding, though one would not get that impression for Jewish hijacking and abuse of the term.

2) And, in that proper understanding, hermeneutics is NOT anti-science.

First, by saying this:

“Our European concept of Hermeneutics”

I am calling attention to the fact that the excellent concept of Hermeneutics is European in origin and that its correct form is necessary for European group systemic maintenance.

This would be opposed to misunderstandings perpetrated by the YKW or their misguided students, which would have people believe the Jewish rendering of the concept that hermeutics is anti science, against truth, facts and nature - you can make up just any narrative, story, no matter how fantastic or detached from biology and facts and its valid.

If you try to just make things up irrespective of scientific and social reality that would be an expression of Cartesian quest beyond the natural world - thereby, a violation of Hermeneutics raison detre: which is a remedy to Cartesian anxiety, to take our quests for truth and meaning into an engaged social interactive, corrective process, wherein we are afforded the liberation from mere facticity (the empirical end of Cartesianism, which does not allow for quite enough detachment to be free from the endless flux of facts and interactions which may tangle one up arbitrarily into incoherence with paradoxes, contradictions, and dilemmas) on one end, as narrative allows us to view, to put these lesser facts (contradictions, etc) in a wider frame, a scheme whereby they may be subsumed and organized in broader sequences, facilitating a transendent resolution and sorting out of momentary, episodic and relational contradictions - i.e., facilitating Coherence for individual and group in this liberation from mere facticity. With that capacity to narrate, conceptualize if not imagine a broad perspective, we are afforded the necessary capacity, to maintain working hypotheses, such as “our White race importantly exists” even though I cannot see it in this moment, even though some may say it is not a discreet enough to assert as a real, warranted distinction for the arbitrary line drawn against the very real capacity for miscegenation.

On the other hand, we may circle back with hermeneutic narrative to rigorous focus on facts and empirical verification of our hypotheses where need be, in order to establish warranted assertability.

It is important to emphasize that Hermeneutics is an engaged process, including engaged to social and factual account, so that people don’t get derailed from this crucial notion by thinking it is “anti science” “anti truth” “anti nature” etc..

This was the second important thing that I was emphasizing in that sentence, that heremeneutics is not anti science. In fact, it is necessary to facilitate hypotheses.

Then again, it is perhaps even more important that our people understand the crucial idea of “liberation from mere facticity” of which Heidegger spoke.

This is how hermeneutics facilitates taking us out of the arbitrary “thrownness” as he calls it and into Coherence (“authenticity” as he discusses it, in the broader ramifications of coherent, distinctly human existence): Coherence then facilitating accountability, agency, warrant and human and pervasive ecology.


37

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 12 Dec 2019 04:57 | #

Could you explain in one sentence what you mean by human ecology?

Humans are born into relations that form defacto group (species) systems, wherein members move into different niches to correct the system from runaway, to maintain its homeostasis as members complement, balance and facilitate the system ecologically.


38

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 12 Dec 2019 11:25 | #

Daniel, how would your account of the essential socially cooperative, niche-filled ecological group incorporate the search of Man for female beauty and Woman for male status?  Surely this ineluctably Darwinian pursuit does not inflict negatives upon the group but, on the contrary, advances its fitness.  It holds no obvious negative implications for what you would term unity but, rather, shifts that unity sideways from organisation into appropriation ... the common sense of ownership of the strong, beautiful whole.  Thereby, the servile ant-world of niche-filling becomes the holistic identity.  The competitive anxiety which always underlies the social analysis, and whose foundation is difference, dissolves with the knowing of blood and kind and love.

This has always been our point of disagreement.  For me, your vision contains faint but key traces of the Judaic proscription, albeit at some remove from that point of origin, namely an acceptance of the absence of identity and of servility.  I am not saying that these offences against us are in your vision as such, just that your thinking never entirely consigns them to the trash bin.


39

Posted by Claire Khaw on Thu, 12 Dec 2019 12:09 | #

Daniel, how would your account of the essential socially cooperative, niche-filled ecological group incorporate the search of Man for female beauty and Woman for male status?  Surely this ineluctably Darwinian pursuit does not inflict negatives upon the group but, on the contrary, advances its fitness.  It holds no obvious negative implications for what you would term unity but, rather, shifts that unity sideways from organisation into appropriation ... the common sense of ownership of the strong, beautiful whole.  Thereby, the servile ant-world of niche-filling becomes the holistic identity.  The competitive anxiety which always underlies the social analysis, and whose foundation is difference, dissolves with the knowing of blood and kind and love.

This has always been our point of disagreement.  For me, your vision contains faint but key traces of the Judaic proscription, albeit at some remove from that point of origin, namely an acceptance of the absence of identity and of servility.  I am not saying that these offences against us are in your vision as such, just that your thinking never entirely consigns them to the trash bin.

Daniel Sienkiewicz, is this you pretending to be someone else asking yourself a question?


40

Posted by Claire Khaw on Thu, 12 Dec 2019 12:10 | #

What is homeostasis?

May I know your educational qualifications? 

What do you mean by facticity?

What do you mean by hermeneutics?

the same reconstituted Egyptian bullshit

Are you claiming that the Abrahamic God is Egyptian in origin?

we are not proposing to make use of, let alone exploit the labor of non-Whites in our nations, nor are we seeking to exploit or lord over them in their nations.

Will there be any non-whites in America or Europe if you had your way?

When you talk about the unionisation of the white race, do you mean by that giving white people a system of rules within an organisation that they are to join?

To adopt Islam would be to adopt another Abrahamic Jewish controlled opposition, just as Christianity is Abrahamic, Jewish controlled opposition, which is not concerned for the protection and extension of our European biological species into future.

Are you suggesting that Christianity did not directly or indirectly lead to the advancement of Western civilisation in Europe and America?


41

Posted by Claire Khaw on Thu, 12 Dec 2019 12:22 | #

a religion in the biological interests of European peoples will be examining, cultivating and sacralizing those extant practices which are most important to sustaining the systemic pattern of our peoples through the ages, reflecting moral bearing in respect for what our ancestors have bestowed upon us, the responsibility we show to the social capital and human ecology they have bequeathed us, and our descendants, to bring them into a tolerable and as enjoyable a world experience as possible - a religion will thus, not be from scratch, but cultivating the understanding of those patterns which facilitate our people in transcendence of momentary, episodic and relational failings of our people, and set backs put upon us by non Europeans.

Would you agree that all the five world religions promote marriage and family values and that this is what you mean when you talk about “a religion in the biological interests of European peoples”?


42

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 12 Dec 2019 13:15 | #

Guessedworker #39

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 12 Dec 2019 06:25 | #

Daniel, how would your account of the essential socially cooperative, niche-filled ecological group incorporate the search of Man for female beauty and Woman for male status?

There is no problem with recognition of these general proclivities of the genders; the problem comes into play when these proclivities are held to be beyond account (“that’s just the way it is, no more account ever necessary”) and are absolutized at the expense of the equally obvious fact that these predilections will be mitigated in some individuals and sometimes by circumstance; and that’s normal and not necessarily a problem either.

Surely this ineluctably Darwinian pursuit does not inflict negatives upon the group but, on the contrary, advances its fitness.

It can inflict negatives on the group when you stop to consider the beautiful air-head having been selected for, who can’t tell the difference between the value of Watson and Crick as opposed to a basketball player.

And there are many problems that can result of “the natural” instigation to status seeking, unmitigated by social account ..the internet is replete with cases of narcissistic personalities, sociopathic personalities… the dark side of the pursuit of self actualization and status - reflexive reversal and social aberration.

  It holds no obvious negative implications for what you would term unity but, rather, shifts that unity sideways from organisation into appropriation ...

Well, GW, I am very familiar with your wish to take a pejorative slant on my positions but..

These characteristics taken to be sheerly natural and absolutized beyond accountability and correctability in social praxis can have negative implications by rupturing group unity and homeostasis (self correcting systems) as I’ve just indicated - “that’s just the way it is, iron clad rule of nature beyond social account”; as if there are not women who will settle for a man who’ll be loyal to them and take care of her and her children as opposed to one with status who will be a lure for a myriad of female competition, disregarding her concerns and her children.

Puerile females especially, who are unsocialized, may be even more inclined to status, but many of them will get burned and learn to hate the these alfas.

As women mature and come to have empathy for children, they are more likely to settle for normal status, less abusive and less socially irresponsible men, especially if the borders of the system are secure.

the common sense of ownership of the strong, beautiful whole.

Nothing wrong with a common sense of the strong, beautiful whole; accountability is not just for the elite, but for the rank and file and marginals too….they ought not be an obstruction or burden or resentfully opening enemy gates on the beautiful, the strong and the more intelligent.

Thereby, the servile ant-world of niche-filling becomes the holistic identity.

Well, look, you are trying to apply causative “nature” below human praxis and agency to my metaphoric use of niche filling, calling it servile, trying to suggest that I am attempting to impose insect-like eusociality rather than describing the necessary positioning that people may move into (or emerge into) with a good deal of freedom, dignity and honor as it is part and parcel in the holistic identity of the system, the open system.

  The competitive anxiety which always underlies the social analysis, and whose foundation is difference, dissolves with the knowing of blood and kind and love.

It seems your goal, as ever, is to try to render all thought that looks to you that it may have been served by academic resource redundant and superfluous.

I don’t know that “competitive anxiety” underlies all social analysis, but I do know that competition over emphasized as the natural way, especially if held to be the exclusive way of human nature has been an obvious vulnerability and catastrophe to our systemic homeostasis. ...more particularly in this case, as you continually chase after red capes (Jewish mis represented social advocacy/ and representing the means of social organization and advocacy as strictly anti White) This has been ridiculous. You are attacking the very things that we need most, for their very misrepresentation. That is by (((their))) design, and you are not alone in falling for it.

The English may experience the unity of holistic emergence as more “natural” than American Whites, since the English have called the southern half of the island their home for centuries and have had natural and political boundaries which still nominally obtain to them as a more genetically coherent entity…and may that remain ever so.

What you need to understand about what I am saying is that my inquiry into what is required of homeostasis moves between two poles, one looking more upon the socially interactive perspective and one emergent -  of the individual and group.

Both perspectives are necessary to inquiry as emergence does not exist outside of interaction (and may as well not exist outside of social interaction) and interaction irrespective of emergent consideration (and holding fast) is trivial flight as you would rightfully maintain.

You should look upon what I am doing by correcting Jewish misrepresentation of key academic terms and concepts as part and parcel of the “clearing the ground” project.

If the emergence of English people does most of the work of maintaining their system that is not objectionable, contradictory nor a problem in any way to anything that I am saying in theory.

It is only a problem in that you are distracting from good and important ideas unnecessarily, even destructively, apparently for the sake of your old axe to grind - showing how your “common sense” can render academic input wholly unnecessary.

- which you would especially like to do if it so much as uses a single word that has been abused by Jewish academics in the humanities, and can add something important if properly understood otherwise, showing that STEM thinking is not all thinking, but in fact, can tend to be socially gauche; at times lacking in crucial epistemic judgment - why?

Because STEM is more about the rigor of following logical connections rather than the imagination that provides sound judgement. STEM types, in their myopic attendance to Augustinian devils are notorious dupes.

That is why Graham Lister remarked that the best scientists are hermeneuticists, why Heidegger remarked that thinking is more like poetry than science.

This has always been our point of disagreement.

That’s your fault. You seek disagreement and there is no excuse for it, as you could easily participate without trying to compete against my offerings.

I will add, that if you want to say that England will be fine without borders, bounds, passports, birth certificates, citizenship and marriage licenses based on blood and soil English, but requires focus only on pure emergence instead, this would be a disagreement; I’d say good luck to you and your magic hand….[and wasn’t it you, GW, who not long ago showed some Tommy Robinson fans as if they were a natural expression of patriotic emergence?] whereas a very moderate and unobtrusive hand of deliberate restraint (i.e., the boundaries I call unionization of native citizenship) could serve just fine, without any interference in emergence (without all the stuff you’d like to accuse me of being up to and supposedly lurking in my ideas, as if the capacity for correction were not built into my program where these ideas are being misapplied); the unionization of these boundaries is wholly unobtrusive and does not even require that accounts be requested where English people just naturally tend to abide by their emergent group interests.

Adding:

Moreover, most of us can recognize that disentangling confusing or misguiding rule structures and replacement with proper rule structures which uphold the guidance and inspiration of moral order - based in understanding of our human nature - are necessary to sustain a peoplehood through the trials and tribulations of various challenges, whether they be natural catastrophe (Augustinian) or man made (Manichean) challenges of genetic type or group assault (as in various kinds of warfare).

This requires the crucial resource - and respect thereof (not dismissivness, as if superfluous Jewish academic talk) - that I bring to bear to these matters rather than the subhuman interpretation of emergentism that you seem to wish would suffice (a wish to return to the innocence of mood signs) by itself, absent its social interactive source and hemeneutic bearing (of human authenticity) to coherence, beyond the arbitrary flux, the thrownness of our human condition (even in emergence).

For me, your vision contains faint but key traces of the Judaic proscription,

You would see it that way - disregarding original and careful inference based in European thought and wishing to see me as the uncritical consumer and unwitting purveyor of Jewish suggestion and coercion - because all you can see that does not come from your STEM “common sense” and rigid and skewed understanding of Heidegger’s project, are the Jewish red cape misrepresentations of social advocacy, chasing and fighting against which forms the centerpiece of your autobiography.

Hence, you have always desired to make me into your foil as such - representing these issues not as they should be, properly, by and for European interests, but as the Jews have misrepresented them to you, having gotten you to a near permanent state of reaction to these red capes; while the Nazis, scientistic reactionaries and Jesus Freaks will encourage you to do this - render me your foil, supposedly doing the Jewish “post modern” sociology thing, while you supposedly speak truth to power.

I deserve much better and our people deserve much better - rather an honest assessment of my motives and the value of what I say as opposed to the petty competitiveness that derives of your resentment of academia and your over preparedness to fight against its Jewish mis representation of important ideas, terms and concepts.

albeit at some remove from that point of origin, namely an acceptance of the absence of identity and of servility.  I am not saying that these offences against us are in your vision as such, just that your thinking never entirely consigns them to the trash bin.

Well, GW, unfortunately it appears to be same old (obscenely jealous, competitive) you.

There is no acceptance of the absence of identity or servility. These are things that you want to see, because you’re always trying to trivialize what i say, because apparently, deep down, it’s much more important than your ego can tolerate coming from someone else.

I am supposed to relegate ideas to the trash bin that are a hundred times more important than your ego being the singularly valuable purveyor.

The ideas that I propose are in no way or degree offenses to our people.

Your “naturalism” and refusal to understand the crucial and wholly European project of post modern philosophy - as it is properly understood through European thought and conception from Aristotle through Heidegger and Bateson - your refusal to understand and acknowledge what I say has been a hideous and unnecessary obstacle.

I wish that i could say that I respect your judgment on these matters, but it’s clear that your ego would have you and has had you try to call for me to set aside all that our people need, so that you can prescribe you ego and common sense “naturalism” in its place.

You disgust me.

Who is doing the muffled bidding of Jews, GW - have you had your DNA tested?


43

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 12 Dec 2019 13:32 | #

Claire, I have combined your shorter questions into one comment post, as you were gunking up the thread.

Some of these questions have been more or less answered already but I will answer them again as soon as I catch my breath.

I don’t intend to continue to allow you to do this, however. If you are too lazy to go back and read things that I’ve posted in the past then I will not continue to spoon feed you, ungrateful, impervious and antagonistic witch that you are.


44

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 12 Dec 2019 13:52 | #

Hi Claire,

As a rule I try to avoid (a) direct confrontation with fellow strivers after the free and secure life of Europe’s family of peoples, and (b) attacking the possession of faith merely because I possess nothing like that myself.  So there are two good reasons for not entering into a debate with you of the aggressive and counter-productive kind I observe all too often among Americans in WN and members of the Alt-Right (I’m English myself, and neither).  However, in defense of my friend Daniel, I do believe that it might help to affirm what he is saying here, namely that Christianity functions as a system - Daniel would say - of misdirection, and I would say of reconstitution of our race, indeed, of all humanity except one tiny, predictable group, into the deracinated, de-nationed, amorphous gentile of the End Times and Olam Ha-ba.

This, of course, is a clean and simple thing to see on the page.  But it isn’t until one begins to ponder the existence in our political culture of equalitarianism and universalism and their moralised counterparts of social justice and humanism, and to connect them to the Christian dispensation, that the enormity of scale and sheer ambition and chutzpah of the endeavour begins to materialise before our eyes.  All of 1500 years ago our forefathers’ being of the land and being in kind was replaced by degrees, and by coercion, by the Christian sinner’s struggle for salvation and everlasting bliss by the grace of the Judaic deity.  Their ownmost sense of self and kin were usurped by an entirely notional but primary relation to that deity.  Truth and authenticity were pitched into an eternal conflict with artifice; and in our age, finally, we are witnessing the total and extremely dangerous dominance of artifice - sped along by Christianity’s modernist child which is liberalism, and by all the philosophical and political extrapolations that have emerged from it over the last one and a half centuries but do not change Christianity’s essence of self-alienation and abandonment by one iota.

So the question is: how do we who desire the full and authentic self-realisation of the European kinds address what is now very literally an existential crisis?  More Christianity ... more Abrahamism ... is plainly not a useful direction in which to go, either for faith or for the moral order (for these are not the same, and should not be confused).  It is in this sense that Daniel properly seeks a new over-arching system that will express the old vivifying force of life.  It is a noble goal.  It reaches beyond the conventions and received wisdom of our time.  It is not less ambitious than the original Mosaic scheme.  Please try to understand it.


45

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 12 Dec 2019 18:33 | #

Adding:

Moreover, most of us can recognize that disentangling confusing or misguiding rule structures and replacement with proper rule structures which uphold the guidance and inspiration of moral order - based in understanding of our human nature - is necessary to sustain a peoplehood through the trials and tribulations of various challenges, whether they be natural catastrophe (Augustinian) or man made (Manichean) challenges of genetic type or group assault (as in various kinds of warfare).

This requires the crucial resource - and respect thereof (not dismissivness, as if superfluous Jewish academic talk) - that I bring to bear to these matters rather than the subhuman interpretation of emergentism that you seem to wish would suffice (a wish to return to the innocence of mood signs) by itself, absent its social interactive source and hemeneutic bearing (of human authenticity) to coherence, beyond the arbitrary flux, the thrownness of our human condition (even in emergence).

...

In addition to other, more minor corrections and improvements to the comment in response to GW above, I am

Adding this to the comment above:

What you need to understand about what I am saying is that my inquiry into what is required of homeostasis moves between two poles, one looking more upon the socially interactive perspective and one emergent -  of the individual and group.

Both perspectives are necessary to inquiry as emergence does not exist outside of interaction (and may as well not exist outside of social interaction) and interaction irrespective of emergent consideration (and holding fast) is trivial flight as you would rightfully maintain.

If the emergence of English people does most of the work of maintaining their system that is not objectionable, contradictory nor a problem in any way to anything that I am saying in theory.

You should look upon what I am doing by correcting Jewish misrepresentation of key academic terms and concepts as part and parcel of the “clearing the ground” project.


46

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 12 Dec 2019 22:22 | #

Claire # 39

Daniel Sienkiewicz, is this you pretending to be someone else asking yourself a question?

No, that was GW (Guessedworker asking).

Claire: What is homeostasis?

Self corrective systems.

Claire: May I know your educational qualifications?

An undergraduate degree from Tufts University, followed by life experience and erudition, then graduate studies at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

I did not complete a PhD as the academic climate was far too hostile to my chosen course of study, i.e., defense of White men against PC.

However, I did spend a great deal of time (more than four years) with outstanding scholars, both of the university and visiting professors, taking courses and guidance to focus my erudition which would otherwise be far more arbitrary and liable to typical misundersandings and mistakes. I gained the gist of what I needed to know (and more) to pursue my program independently, in real life, as it were, where it counts.

It is illustrative that a PhD student of philosophy (at a European university, but may as well have been an American university) once said to me:

“You can’t be a racist and gain a PhD.”

I said to him, “that’s why I don’t want a PhD.”

He smiled, knowing that I had an important point.

Claire:What do you mean by facticity?

I first came upon the term in my graduate studies.

Based on my reading of Kant, I ascertained that the emprical end of inquiry, bereft of guiding principles and working hypotheses (as Whitehead would say, even a false or inadequate working hypothesis is better than no working hypothesis) was subject to destructive arbitrariness.

Thus, I took facticity (correctly) to mean that facts can arbitrarily present and blend in confusing and contradictory ways from moment to moment, episode to episode, confronting one sometimes in ways averse to one’s longer term interests, while the momentary or episodic presentation of the arbitrary fact is not necessary to adhere to, unless one wants to react like an animal.

If one wants to act like a human being, one requires a liberation from mere facticity, into narrative/autobiographical/group coherence. That’s where heremeneutics comes into play as necessary.

I later came to understand that Heidegger spoke of the liberation from mere facticity ..and our general, initial human condition of “thrownness” into that arbitrary state as he put it… the liberation from it into what he would call authenticity and what I would prefer to call coherence, for the sake of clarity: Coherence then crucially facilitates Accountability, Agency and Warrant.

Claire: What do you mean by hermeneutics?

An engagement in inquiry through narrative process, it provides the liberation from mere facticity, allowing one into transcendent coherence, whereby working hypotheses may be maintained - such as the White race exists, despite the fact that I cannot factually see it in this moment - providing the breadth of historical and full systemic perspective while also allowing one to ‘circle back’ to rigorous scientific verification of the facts contained in the hypotheses and narratives as need be.

In addition to being a liberation from mere facticity into broad working hypotheses, imagination and narrative coherence, accountability, agency and ultimately warranted assertability and operational verifiability, as such, hermeneutics is a socially engaging process which provides relief from the Cartesian anxiety and estrangement.

DanielS: the same reconstituted Egyptian bullshit

Claire: Are you claiming that the Abrahamic God is Egyptian in origin?

DanielS: That probably was the origin, yes, but I definitely don’t care and don’t believe in it in any case.

The Zeitgest segment on religion shows Judaism to be as foolish as Christianity… Judaism barely changed the name of Moses from the Egyptian figure it lifted the idea from.

Zeitgeist

DanielS: we are not proposing to make use of, let alone exploit the labor of non-Whites in our nations, nor are we seeking to exploit or lord over them in their nations.

Claire: Will there be any non-whites in America or Europe if you had your way?

Yes.

Claire: When you talk about the unionisation of the white race, do you mean by that giving white people a system of rules within an organisation that they are to join?

No. Not in the sense of my giving hard and fast rules, other than maintenance of the borders/union boundaries to maintain our genetic kinds and ostracizing those who prove to be a threat to our genetic kind.

I would advise and persuade the use of rules both descriptive and prescriptive, but I am not a dictator.

But as GW believes that rules should be kept to a minimum, I would tend to agree; same goes with accounts requested, kept to a minimum.

DanielS: To adopt Islam would be to adopt another Abrahamic Jewish controlled opposition, just as Christianity is Abrahamic, Jewish controlled opposition, which is not concerned for the protection and extension of our European biological species into the future.

Claire: Are you suggesting that Christianity did not directly or indirectly lead to the advancement of Western civilisation in Europe and America?

Especially as they were not able to understand the text for themselves, or where they took liberty to interpret it with a good deal of license, Europeans are talented enough so that they could achieve despite it and with its increased sublimating factor.

However, looked at as a whole, I’d say that European advancement has been enormously retarded by Christianity.  ...some text of Archimedes was re-discovered only recently because it happened to remain beneath the text of Christian scribes who used Archimedes parchment to write over….the perfidy goes on….the wars of Charlemagne ...the persecution of Galileo… the divorce from our relation to nature… it goes on and on… the disregard for this life, the fear of what we might be thinking even in our private thoughts, the faith in some nonsensical hereafter beyond life on earth…the replacement of our ancestor reverence….only to have people believing in this wholly illogical and irrelevant shit.

Claire: Would you agree that all the five world religions promote marriage and family values and that this is what you mean when you talk about “a religion in the biological interests of European peoples”?

These religions might promote marriage and family values but are not anchoring the maintenance of European (broader ‘family’) biological borders, and interests, no. So, again, marriage is like a berth on a sinking ship absent genus and species borders, as far as Europeans go.


47

Posted by Light Your White Light, St. Lucia on Fri, 13 Dec 2019 13:30 | #

Light your White Light, Saint Lucia…  Saint of Yazidi as well.


48

Posted by Light Your White Candle ..Saint Lucia on Fri, 13 Dec 2019 14:56 | #


49

Posted by Your White Light, for the protection it brings... on Fri, 13 Dec 2019 15:03 | #

Shine Your White Light, for the protection it brings…


50

Posted by uknleo/Dr_Eigenvector on Fri, 13 Dec 2019 19:00 | #

Happy Christmas and a fantastic 2020 to GW and DanS (and Manc if you’re out there).

Have one on me, please.

We go again.

All the best.

 


51

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 13 Dec 2019 22:07 | #

Thanks uknleo/Dr_Eigenvector…

...will do, Cheers!


52

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 14 Dec 2019 02:03 | #

Adding:

“competitive anxiety” bespeaks your (GW) penchant to be hyper competitive against academic notions and specifically to try to turn academic ideas around on the purveyor, thus turned against a good idea, such as anti Cartesianism and the alleviation of Cartesian anxiety and estrangement through hermeneutics, social constructionism and other White (i.e., properly understood in our interests) Post Modern ideas, etc.

I don’t know that “competitive anxiety” underlies all social analysis, but I do know that competition over emphasized as the natural way, especially if held to be the exclusive way of human nature has been an obvious vulnerability and catastrophe to our systemic homeostasis. ...more particularly in this case, as you continually chase after red capes (Jewish mis represented social advocacy/ and representations of the means of social organization and advocacy as strictly anti White) This has been ridiculous. You’re attacking the things we need most, for their misrepresentation. That is by (((their))) design, and you are not alone in doing this, WN have have been falling into this trap across the board.

As you take a reactionary stance to these red capes, I want to repeat:

Anti-Racism is Cartesian, it is prejudice, it is not innocent, it is prejudice against prejudice - i.e., working hypotheses of detrimental group patterns to be discriminated against, despite possible individual exceptions - and prejudice against prejudice as such, it is hurting and it is killing people.

It is a very important idea (among several) which I have brought here in application to White/European interests. You heard it here first.

If one wants to add that anti racism is a Jewish construct (as Tanstaafl does), that would be true enough too. It is a weaponization of Cartesian purity spiralling; viz. a weaponization of Locke’s conviction that groups are fictions of the mind, a “necessarily pernicious” concept. [Note: groups can be pernicious and individuals have to be protected as well, but we’ve discussed that, and you’ve only liked the deaf mute, mood signalling corporeal individual and not the autobiographical one, who has coherence, accountability, agency and warrant - though both corporeal and autobiographical are necessary to the concept of individual].

Your attack on the application of niche theory reflects a pernicious misguidance as well, which reads into it pejoratively the suggestion of permanent, subservient positions, rather than fluidity within an organic whole. ..more fundamentally, ignoring the metaphoric, specificatory quality of the suggestion: if everyone or every man in the nation wants to be “a sovereign jack of all trades” as Bowery would have it, they are free to try it as far as I am concerned ...seems to me that can also be taken too far whereby it would not allow for sufficient focus on particular tasks and overall group leverage.


53

Posted by mancinblack on Sat, 14 Dec 2019 17:30 | #

@50, Thank you Dr_E and all the best to you too.


54

Posted by Brutus the Saxon on Sun, 15 Dec 2019 14:35 | #

On issues of porn, soft and otherwise.

Here he considers fighting fire with fire by reinstituting the page 3 girl - I don’t think it’s an especially good idea - but he only throws it out there as food for thought.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8m6OgGcXBRQ

Here he suggests

Don’t watch other men having sex

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBgk5eIwAt4

Yeah, porn is bad, but on the other hand, it can help one to get a grip on things (no pun intended lol*) and work through issues without experimenting on others in real life (actors experiments aside).

And then he’s got this other longer stream which he conducts with some other English folks. .. taking on the issue of pornography.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVSXpFCngTk


* Thou Shalt Not Fap
  Polish the rocket
  Choke the chicken
  Shake Hands with the President.


55

Posted by Longbaugh on Sun, 29 Dec 2019 04:49 | #

Longbaugh at VNN:

Originally Posted by Hugh Akston View Post

David Duke has publicly admitted he’s a Christian. What should we make of that?

Longbaugh:

That he’s divorced from reality.

Adults with imaginary friends aren’t adults.


56

Posted by When Bosnia Turned Muslim on Mon, 06 Apr 2020 13:27 | #

When Bosnia Turned Muslim


57

Posted by Yazidi survivor on Thu, 23 Apr 2020 01:01 | #

Yazidi survivor: ‘I was raped every day for six months’ - BBC News


58

Posted by Transformation of Shaming on Fri, 19 Jun 2020 16:50 | #

Why Women Have No Shame


59

Posted by Invigoration and verification not vilification on Tue, 07 Jul 2020 11:41 | #

The option of sacrament will take away Abrahamism’s holier than thou traditionalism that they hang over our heads, while our more liberal option will provide for a liberty and feral invigoration and verification that they cannot offer.

I don’t know how the word “vilification” replaced the word “verification” or “invigoration”. It is probable that spell check inserted it without my noticing..

But what I can say for sure, is that “feral vilification” is not what I meant.

It is of concern to me, as “Feral” is a term dear to Bowery’s heart - his blog is even named “Feral Observations” - its having the connotation of getting back to a more natural state as opposed to a coerced and rather hapless domestication.

Furthermore, with Bowery (and GW) being quite literal minded about terms (a bit less ambiguous, fuzzy bordered and metaphoric than is healthy for praxis), I can see this erroneously inserted term playing into the apprehension that I am attempting to impose controlling prescriptions upon “Euro man.”

Not true.


I am quite sure that the word that I meant originally (replaced inadvertently by spell check with “vilification”) was “verification” though invigoration and verification together would be better to describe the capacity for rigor on the more wild side by contrast and in complement of social rigor.

 



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: Discourse Analysis of The (Dave) “Rubin Report” discussion with the Weinstein Brothers, Bret & Eric.
Previous entry: Football Team analogy by contrast to false comparisons, non-equality and supremacism.

image of the day

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer.

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

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 23:47. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 23:15. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 22:48. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 22:02. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 16:55. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 16:38. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 14:36. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 12:50. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 10:26. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 05:37. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Tue, 26 Mar 2024 15:07. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Tue, 26 Mar 2024 11:00. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Tue, 26 Mar 2024 05:02. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Mon, 25 Mar 2024 11:39. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Mon, 25 Mar 2024 09:56. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Mon, 25 Mar 2024 07:51. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Mon, 25 Mar 2024 07:46. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Mon, 25 Mar 2024 07:41. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sun, 24 Mar 2024 12:25. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sun, 24 Mar 2024 00:42. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 22:01. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 21:20. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 20:51. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 20:45. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 17:26. (View)

Manc commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 15:56. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 14:55. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 14:07. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 13:12. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 12:51. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 12:38. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 10:01. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 05:13. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Fri, 22 Mar 2024 23:51. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Thu, 21 Mar 2024 11:14. (View)

affection-tone