Definitions

Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 22 June 2014 11:26.

Adding (August 4th, 2014) a definition of Peace (at bottom).

1933 words

In response to “Flippityfloppity’s” concern regarding definitions

I may have deserved a barb for being a little hypocritically amenable to Anthony’s proposal that Christianity can serve an important constructive function in organizing a guiding and spiritual light for Whites. I was a bit too agreeable perhaps because I like the rest of what he says well enough. Though his including Buddha and Lao Tze into the mix would indicate that he can reach accord with people like me for whom race serves as the organizing spirit and transcendent, religious factor (our legacy being the hereafter). That is probably why I appeared to flip flop a little to accommodate him.

However, introducing Christianity into the mix, with its propensity for a myriad of definitions, including liberal and universal, non-accountability thereof, is problematic.

Regarding definitions, I do not flip flop. But people, including WN, do, especially between definitions of “Left and Liberal.” Basically because they are following an “official” (i.e., convenient to Jews) definition of “the left”, which fluctuates between being liberal and open to all; or specifically open to unions of non-Whites or unions of people with problems; imposed in special admission, inclusion and integration upon Whites under the guise of equality and undoing exploitation.

The chief reason why people might use The Left defined as such is because that definition has gained wide currency as the Jews have largely defined and promulgated the term through academia and the media – that being a confused definition promoted by Jews precisely because it is confusing and because it altercasts us as rightists (who are not necessarily against imposed liberalism, just against “equality” - great, we are accepting the definition of ourselves as elitist pigs, but open to others if they are “better”). The acceptance of this definition and its flip flop between left and liberal is exemplified by the way that the Political Cesspool (among others accepting the definitions, themselves as right, their opponents as left) will flip flop between saying “the left and liberal” in the same broadcast.

Those who accept the rightist altercast and endeavor its position are to blame as much if not more than Jews for enforcing the idea that leftism and liberalism is all about “equality.” That is even worse theoretically than it is descriptively. For as White Leftists, we would be basing discrimination mostly on an assortment and disbursing of qualitative differences, which would be a symbiotic, largely non conflictual basis; not subject to the false comparison that lends to conflict as the phoney “equality non equality” issue engenders. Equality/non-equality is neither sufficiently descriptive or prescriptive - unless, perhaps, you want to instigate what is likely to turn out to be mutually destructive conflict.

We might stay with the confused definition of The Left - as liberalism, advocacy of non-Whites, their equality and imposition on Whites because it has had currency through Jewish media. Then oppose that for obvious reasons, as has been the strategy of almost all WN. However, staying with that definition, just because it has wide currency - despite the fact that it is a disingenuous and confusing definition promulgated by Jews (for the reason that it is confusing and disingenuous as they want us to be “rightists”, to scare people, our own included) and turn people off, our own included, as such, by reflecting that disingen -uousness and confusion through disorganization and denial of accountability - is neither sufficient reason nor compensation for the price paid. It is like saying we should continue to trade in currency that makes Jews wealthy and destroys us. It is counterfeit currency (definition) aimed to circulate to our confusion and detriment.

It is obvious enough that plutocratic, traitorous and well, elitist pigs of any stripe, will conveniently cite “The left” as the great enemy.

I believe you make a good point, that we probably should nail down some definitions and try to make them stick, as best we can, at least here at MR. One trick will be getting people to do this despite me – so that they will not refuse to do it just to spite yours truly. That can be a problem because I am not always most tactful. I understand this motivation to not be ego bullied (for example, I would not use the prefix “Zio” or “Jewish supremacist” in part because Duke proposes it, in addition to the fact that I don’t like the sound). Nevertheless, I maintain that the aim here is not about ego but theoretical accuracy, viz. theory which serves White interests. I do use the following terms consistently and they continue to make perfect sense – that is why I “stubbornly” continue to do so.

These proposed definitions are holding up, making consistent sense of pro and anti White alike.

We must not be so averse to terms and concepts Jews have abused as to fall into the trap of their being didactic as the Jews may want, for us to rebel against what is good for us. This has happened with social constructionism and hermeneutics for example. To where even the Heideggerian notion of hermeneutics would be looked upon as Jewish and Marxist, such that we would not admit of that part of the non-Cartesian process which provides orientation on scientific focus, to allow for that tad of narrative speculation of the not-at-all-times-observable social classificatory boundary of the European biological system and its history (to allow for Heidegger’s admission of the form of the people as necessary as well, an observation by GW that I had missed).

The White Left as:

A social classification and classifying of a people (specifically native European people), legitimizing unionized discrimination against outsiders; accountability to those within; both in positive return on effort and what is brought historically; and in a negative sense against those would-be facilitators of “scabbing” and those elites who might betray the class. This would be in contrast to leftist classification and advocacy of other groups; and certainly in contrast to our universal obligation to include in (our) vital resources (esp. genetic) just anyone who appears to be down-trodden or desirous of entry, including those outside the socially delimited group. This is discrimination against individuals of classifications based on warranted prejudice of the pattern of which they are a part. The White Left would take the White Class as synonymous with the distinct genus of the native European race and its distinct sub-classifications. It is a social taxonomic classifying necessary to accountability and human ecology.

It focuses on qualitative and symbiotic differences while keeping to a minimum false, quantitative comparisons (as opposed to equality/non equality it focuses more on qualitative sameness or difference).

It is decidedly not against private property (may in fact work with the land tax / exemption scheme laid-out by Bowery)

It does not aspire to equal wealth (there can be some people who are significantly more wealthy than others), but does strive after some balance, a middle class and shared leverage on some basic necessities. The point is that the boundaries are maintained. More or less socialism or free enterprise can be flexible according to the particular state.

As a rule, it applies the silver rule to out-groups as opposed to the golden rule.

Thus, it is in contrast to liberalism as applied to non-Whites, which is what racialists normally mean when they say, “the left.”

Liberalism:

Beliefs and practices which intimate and can ultimately deviate and rupture reconstruction of the systemic biological pattern, accountable social classifications.

Racism:

Designating, classifying a social group as a race (a species of people distinctly evolved to circumstances and practices in history, who have discernibly more genetic similarity to themselves than to other human groups) and discriminating accordingly. It is a motivation to separatism, not elitism, exploitation and persecution. This separatist discriminatory motive is more than generally advisable, it is necessary for accountability, human ecology and biodiversity.

Anti-Racism:

The coercive prohibition against classifying people (could be even non-racial classifications) and discrimination accordingly. The coercive imposition of one people upon another, the denial of their freedom of and from association.

Modernity/Post Modernity:

As they are defined here, they even make sense of how other people bungle these terms.

http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments//standing_corrected_on_the_its_more_than_that_to_liberalisms_definition#c144061

This issue probably is worth this main post, as trade in the currency of these terms defined in this way would help a great deal to achieve clarity and direction. These definitions make consistent sense of organizing our people, their requirements and problems.

In my next post, I will attempt to show how modernity, as a pejorative term, does not contradict but contributes to the articulation of what Bowery sees as negative in his definition of “civilization.”

In connection with that, both Migchels and Bowery seem to have a concern to maintain individual integrity as an authentic and distinguishing characteristic among Europeans. GW’s close readings have some similarity there as well.

In that regard I would point them to Harré‘s suggestion that there are two vital aspects to self, and thus to authentic self and individuality, which are 1, the corporeal, embodied, genetic self, having biological requirements, potentials and limits (which you three are concerned to approximate in description of its authentic functioning as closely as possible, un-borrowed from non-native influence) and 2, a narrative self, which is crucial for the matter of coherence, orientation, connection with the systemic whole and history. Now, that narrative self can deviate, even terribly, from the authentic biological interests of the self and system. It is obviously better if it accords well with our biological interests and historical form. I believe the Jewish abuse of hermeneutics is why GW has been a bit averse, and surprisingly, as it is one necessary side of a would-be Heideggerian, hermeneutic process; but then, even MacDonald was averse, apparently for the same reason of Jews having made it didactic.

It is important to note that this hermeneutic view not only permits of individuality, integrity of self, I would argue that hermeneutics is absolutely necessary for it - a coherent, agentive and warranted self. What it does deny is that there is no social relatedness and indebtedness to its make-up, its construction and its constitution; or that one has no accountability for its direction other than “the countenance of Jesus” or some other unverifiable source.

Adding a definition of Peace

I will probably turn this into a post later, but I will propose this definition/ working hypothesis of “peace” in comment here.

Later, I will invite others to contribute to a working hypothesis of peace and correlate it to prior definitions proposed.

Peace is:

Peoples as they correspond with nations, states, regions, localities, mutually respecting and recognizing sovereignty of genetic accountability, prerogative to discriminate and prohibit association accordingly; while those who wish to leave may go to a consenting receiving nation, their return to the people they departed from may be prohibited; their offspring, if any, may be prohibited as well.

Negotiative, persuasive, non-lethal tests are sought as the normal recourse in conflict resolution (lest there be any misunderstanding, miscegenation is not a normal problem requiring negotiation - that is prohibited; expulsion being a softer variant in resolving the problem).

This would include the capacity for a people to maintain its genetic kind and the reasonable capacity for individuals to find an appropriate mate; with that, to have the means to provide for a family that does not require a detrimental number of hours away from family and leisure, is grounds of peace.

Those who overpopulate, burden the world’s ecosystem and create spill over effect - let alone deliberate exploitation or usurpation of other nations’ land - are seen as in violation of the peace.

Bumper music considered for the Anthony Migchels interview

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1A81XjWtIdM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7o4udq_OrA

Regarding this second song, “Emerald City” by Dramarama, I had heard it once on the radio years ago, in the early 80’s, loved it, but never thought I’d hear it again having latched onto only one line, “I’m living on chocolate ice cream”

When the Internet came along I was able to Google that lyric and find the song.

However, it is the line, “I went for the rental, those costumes were so continental”..that strikes me as MR appropriate. I had thought it was an English band because of that line. It turns out that they are from my native New Jersey.

They are unique in having me inspired to go to lengths to find the author of a particular song on two separate occasions. I was similarly moved by their song “anything anything” (just marry me), and when I found out it was them as well (Dramarama) I went to see them perform.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9V2OpsTbAw

Tags: Activism, Anti-racism, Awakenings, Christianity, Conservatism, Crusade against Discrimination in Britain, European Nationalism, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, History, Immigration, Immigration and Politics, Linguistics, White Nationalism

Comments:

Posted by North on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 15:48 | #

Warning: This post is by the troll, Thorn, calling himself in this case, “North.” Yes, it does throw a bad light on those advocating for Liberty GB

Re the definition of Leftist Ideology:

Via LibertyGB

Enza Ferreri on Destructive Leftist Ideology

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkrAK7MjD9M

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 16:13 | #

Well, before going into these examples, Liberty GB, in adopting “the Leftist/liberal” as the enemy thing, is almost assuredly going with the Jewish defined “leftism” that I have advised against.

It is not that these things that Liberty GB are against are good, nor what I am, or what we should be, advocating, but that they do not represent a White Left. Which, by the way, would correspond with White - European native Nationalism.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 09:55 | #

Unlike evolution, ecology straight away implies the idea of limits, delimitation, optimality and balance; but also deliberation and responsibility for consequences more-so than does evolution. It corresponds to conservative motivation whereas evolution more to liberal motivation.

Ecology contains evolution, but it also contains systemic reconstruction, symbiosis and balance (at least more-so in its general apprehension).

Eugenics happens anyway the moment you are accountable and deliberate in the reconstruction of your people; but when you try too much to quantify certain variables you can throw off the human ecology which probably contains necessary factors at work beyond casual, or even standard scientific observation. I.e., it is somewhat at odds, if not contrary, to ecological thinking, going too far onto the Darwinist level

If my thinking on eugenics is called “vague” I did not take it as an insult, as it is connected with the white boxing that is necessary since factors within the ecology may not be sufficiently knowable to conscious intervention; more, that there needs to be some flexibility in the system - unused potentiality for change.

Regarding “fair evolution”

Evolution is largely an objectivist argument, more-so than ecology. Therefore, it can fall too easily into false comparison, claims of better and worse, elitism, the “necessity” of conquest, exploitation – reciprocal diatribe and then really degenerate into the “necessity” of war, as people try to defend themselves from hubris aimed at their destruction (or to overthrow the hubris).

The term “fair” does not necessarily connect with the social in that: fair can be applied in an objectivist sense, bereft of more distinctly human concern - thus, the sperm that wins the battle and fertilizes the egg would have “won fair and square” but offers no great assurance to those who are concerned to deliberately defend themselves as a full human ecology from arbitrary or antagonistic forces.

I had a scientist friend tell me that a colleague of his tested his sperm’s vigor against a black’s in a Petri dish. He said, “he shouldn’t have done that” (because the black sperm won the competition). I was thinking, in fact told him, that I did not need to conduct this experiment; and that it does not argue against discrimination - believe it or not this guy was proposing this as an argument AGAINST discrimination - but it rather obviously argues FOR THE NECESSITY of discrimination, of course.

Whereas the deliberate stewarding of ecology, human and otherwise, would offer people recourse from being discarded by the “that’s just the way it isness” of forces and impacts or mere biological vigor on an episodic level and therefore should be of great incentive to participate to the overall pattern of Europeans - which is where we are both impressive and need help (as opposed say, to the endzone dance).

Ecology also provides a qualitative difference that makes a difference, by looking at tasks undertaken within (and without the ecology) as qualitatively disbursed, symbiotic and not conflicting in a zero sum manner to the system. This is opposed to the quantitative and perhaps false comparison to where you win, you lose, you live or you die, on the basis of a quantitative comparison. This dreaded fatalism can be tactlessly presented as unavoidable as levels of sheer physics and biological competition, subterranean of human concern, are invoked as preeminent over human concern; rendering it a matter of sheer, dreaded fate.

Now, this also corresponds to the “phase” I was wrapped up in whereupon the The Book of Revelation held great fascination for me; probably in large measure because I wanted it to be true, as I hated so much what was happening with the social world around me, to our profound and precious evolution, the way people were carelessly throwing it away, that I wanted to see that kind of destruction augured in Revelation as punishment.

It also connects with enjoyment of our will to kill (particularly those who deserve it, for their injustice) as our manly compensation for our being blocked from much control over procreation. It probably also connects with some of our American colleagues feeling that it is all “too late” and why they focus on bringing everything down more than they do on trying to defend that which is worth defending. This motive to take initiative and kill probably explains some of the appeal of Hitler for some.

This would explain the appeal of The Revelation despite the fact that nothing can more horrifying and rightful a turn off to people than arguments on behalf of dreaded unavoidable fate - that is, unless they are in so much pain that they want the world to be destroyed as in the case of the evangelicals.

So, the question is, when you are seeking an appealing European way of life, which will be appealing enough to compel them to fight for its existence, sacrifice themselves if need be, the question is: how do we get these people who are suffering for lack of moral order, assent and accountability to their evolution, who have become so completely misanthropic, to rather see the value of trying to preserve that good part of humanity, to see how good White humanity, their White humanity, can be, for example, by understanding how important it is and how good it can be when experiencing a homogeneously White society.

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 24 Jul 2014 07:15 | #

David Duke keeps saying that “you don’t just re-define ‘racism’...

We are not re-defining racism, we are describing it as people use it, not by what the Jews say it means.

However, he says it means this, that and the other thing to the public…

What that this, that and the other thing to him is: supremacism, hate, exploitation.

No, that is what Jewish interests have tried to promote as corollaries to racism…and most people do believe these things can come about as a result of racism..

..a supremacism they (rightfully) fear in the scientism of the right’s mishandling of social classification (associations the Jews have been able to place upon the right, and which the right has bought into thanks to its hubris).

However, when you listen to the way ordinary people discuss ‘racism’ in the every day, they mean social classification and discrimination on its basis. Even the most innocuous discrimination is considered racism.

Which again, is what we need to be free to do. Whereas Duke suggests that the endeavor to pirate and take control of the meaning of racism in its benign sense is stupid. I disagree. I believe his playing into the Jewish demonization of what is designated by racism is stupid. Metzger is more correct in his analogy of the Quakers - originally a derisive term, they owned it and took it over. I would not deny being a racist myself - in fact, Paul Weston has done this to great effect (owned racism) - Duke is free to do as he pleases.

It isn’t necessarily stupid for him to do that (denounce Jewish racism) as a provisional strategy, which he does to good effect in order to get word out articulating Jewish power and influence - as he does very well.

What is “stupid” however, is to say that everyone should adopt this strategy, because “everyone sees racism as supremacism” - most people’s understanding of racism is much more subtle than that and is closer to the matter of discrimination.

At any rate, Duke is free to talk about it as he wishes.

I, for one, am not going to go around calling people racists, as if that is such a terrible thing.

I doubt that I am the only one who could not control his gag reflex at the idea of playing into the Jewish demonization of the very thing we need to do.

Moreover, to focus everything on the J.Q., deposing them, as Duke proposes, is perhaps not a goal that can be achieved on time; he is free to work on that in his project.

MR’s audience is better advised to keep that hermeneutic process turning: Yes, as problems for us go, Jewish power and influence should be prioratized and looked at as frequently as anything, but not beyond reconstructing our own health and ways, and not to the exclusion of looking at other problems.

To look upon other groups as harmless is another way of buying into Jewish language games. If you connect with your senses, you are going to be able to take care of yourself against their immediate threat, develop immunities to their particular dangers, and will naturally ask how is it that they are being imposed upon us? Thus, it is not necessarily a distraction from the JQ at all. On the contrary, not accepting Jewish language games of these people being harmless is part and parcel of being Jew-wise. But even incidental contact with the most benign blacks (for example) * in the longer term, will be harmful; whether imposed on us by Jews or not. Caring about our own interests and not being obsequiously concerned about non-Whites is the road to recovery. The moral high ground that European people’s rightfully insist upon is to be found in the Silver Rule.

It is fine and tactful to be concerned about atrocities against Palestinians, but we have to take care of ourselves and have other concerns as well. Yes, Jewish power and influence should be in focus, but here, the hermeneutic process will be an ongoing survey of our full landscape of concerns, as we should.

* Though I strongly disapprove of his platform, it would be wrong to say that Andrew Anglin does not make a good point now and then: “I don’t know what the people are talking about who say blacks are going to help us bring down the system. Blacks are completely dependent upon it.”

Comments:

Post a comment:

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Links

MR Central & News

Comments