From whence comes the eclecticism of the alternative right big tent concept.

Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, 17 February 2016 14:14.

Vintage Las Vegas Strip II - painting by Robert Stark

There is a significant problem in the theory of White/European advocacy.

Those who gravitate to White advocacy will, in veritable first order of necessity under the circumstances, seek to anchor their defense as right wingers; viz., upon objective grounds beyond relative socio-historical perspective and in unassailable universal warrant - the apparent necessity for that first step being that antagonism generally unbeknownst, namely of the Jews, has obfuscated other options.

A race is a social grouping and a discriminatory basis thereupon. Discriminatory social classifications are necessary for human ecology, coherence and accountability - and race would be one important discriminatory classification for humans.

However, the Jews came up with the concept of anti-racism, which is the effort to prohibit social classification of race and discrimination on its basis; and have applied the concept of prohibiting discrimination on the basis of other social classifications in relative social group interest as well - all weaponized for Jewish interests and primarily against White heterosexual males.

Implicit beneath everyday language, the term “the left” applies in a very distinct pattern to organizational efforts of full social unification and concern for a particular social group - union membership modeling what “the left” does. It is a model that can apply to any scale and purpose of group, including nation and race. Essentially then, “the left”, itself, would be called “racist” for classifying on the basis of race or would be called some other discriminatory “ist”, by Jews, depending upon what social group is organized, if they were not in power beyond criticism, looking after their interests and against White interests. In theoretical consistency, only “right-wingers” are antagonistic to these social classifications on principle. White unionization would be the normal defense for Whites, and it would be “leftist” in terms of ordinary usage. However, through academic, media, economic, religious, business, legal and political take-over, the Jews have been able to have Marxism, Cultural Marxism, its objectives to take-down White power and the ostensibly hallowed humanitarian social concern of their so-called social justice advocacy groups arrayed against it designated as “the left”; while White advocacy designated “the right.”

From whence Jewish advocacy has maintained that steady stream of infuriatingly convoluted language games, starting with provocation of absurdly self destructive language games that they set forth with Christianity, to Critical Theory’s incessant rhetorical abuse of White men, the exploitative and lethal implications to White men have been actively unleashed in fact, as sundry anti-White unions - “social justice warriors” who have been set against Whites, ultimately, despite their unwanted imposition, the necessity to force their social integration and to force Whites to share their most precious resources and vital resources with groups having vastly different Ethnic Genetic Interests - to the final incapacitation and elimination of White men going under the banner of “the left” and its objectives.

Not only has being told constantly and pervasively that which tortures you as a White man is “the left” repulsed White men to the ordinary term, but also to the concept of social unionization, full group inclusion and advocacy which lies beneath it. But the normal White response, of objectivity, has been eagle clawed by Jews as well. A system of universal and civil rights and “objective merit” - which started as a White thing, by Locke, to advance objective individual merit over elite class discrimination - was taken by Jews to weaponize Whites own rules against them - so that discrimination on behalf of their classification was held to be illegitimate as well, while this universalizing of rights over classification provided an exception - a special proviso for White men: Because they have enjoyed “historical privilege” as a result of the fruits of discrimination and exploitation, it would be “disingenuous” for White men to say that the same rights and means of judgment upon individual merit should apply to everyone. Hence, people in these minorities need group classification for the purpose of advocacy and advancement in compensation for having been historically discriminated against by White men; whereas White men need no such group advocacy.

Jews have been able to designate these “victim” advocacy groups and their anti-White causes as “The Left”, what it means to be civilly responsible,“socially conscientious” and they have been able to designate and maneuver Whites who object and resist in social defense of their own people as “The right”, and more usually, “The far right” with all of its socially irresponsible and recklessly dangerous implications.

Given the fact that White men, including ones who do not hate themselves, have found themselves in a situation where all kinds of unwanted social groupings have been forced upon them and that social imposition along with all social concern and sharing in resources has been called “the left”, of course their initial response is going to be revulsion to the term and what it designates, through and through - the second “through” is the key, i.e., not only through the groups the Jews designate as valid to advocate, but through the very idea of group advocacy as it has been made didactic by those heretofore successfully using its means.

With the “left” being a matter of social concerns, what sane White man, after all, wants to participate in that socialization? On the contrary, he would quite naturally and more desperately than ever seek objective and pure warrant to defend himself above the conniving rhetoric and impositions of Jews, other non-Whites and insane liberals in the topsy turvey social milieu pan-mixer.

“Group advocacy is not the way of true and real White men; and by golly, I am going to make it my life’s cause to find that pure way.”

While it is the Jews who proposed calling this quest “far right”, at least it is something that you can identify with along with those of kindred reaction. So long as you don’t mind being associated with people that the Jews want you to be associated with, because of the ineptitude, counter-productivity, deserved social stigma and divisiveness to White social organization in their particular reactive quests for purity, you can have a market to try to bring people around to your particular right-wing, supra-social but what amounts to anti-White-social anchoring point - a point above or below the social group that is White/European, but not in White/human social register: that is the organic ground upon which the right, itself, parasitically feeds.

As the Jews have, through the so-called “left” (correctly referred to as “the red left”) levied unbearable impositions and deliberate confusion on any means of maintaining White identity and defense, and because they have eagle clawed the sine qua non of White purity - objectivity, merit and rights - weaponizing it against Whites, Whites who care to defend themselves feel they must try to be more right-wing, pure and extreme than ever - and sometimes feel that they may as well “join the club” at that: after all, “they are going to call you these things”, e.g., “an extreme right-winger anyway,” right? So, you may as well choose one or more of these anti-White social things and get along with the rest: Right-wing elitist, Nazi, imperialist, chauvinist for one nation, Jesus freak, new age pagan kook, conspiracy theorist kook, anarchist, liberal who believes that real men are not bothered by miscegenation nor preoccupied with racial matters and so are going to calm us down from “reacting too much” against PC, masculinist heterosexual who ranks effeminacy and homosexuality the problem, right up there with White genocide, homesexual masculinist, who is going to teach White men what it means to be man, scientitistic Darwinist, polygamist, Arab who teaches PUA methods to go through as many White women as possible and ultimately impose R selective patriarchy upon them, objectivist who believes people should be judged on merit born of a pure vacuum, libertarian free enterpriser, mulatto with pretty French wife who ingratiates himself to Nazis by intimating a stiff arm salute and befriending sociopathic holocaust deniers, or even conservatively or liberally principled, anti-“left” or anti-Zionist Jew. I may have missed an anti-White social category or two, but you may as well identify as one of these, so they say: Take your pick. There may be squabbling as to which are included but that’s accepted as inherent in their paradoxic rule structure -

And there is the significant problem in the theory of White advocacy.

Because the Right is comprised of people who are holding white knuckle and can’t let go of the pursuit of pure objective warrant, Cartesianism beyond social accountability, whether in science, religion or theory - sub or above human social philosophy - it remains anti-social-reactionary, unstable, divisive and bereft of the socialial normative. To compensate somehow, perhaps through Regnery, a theory of theories has been derived which seeks to compensate for their anti-social alienation with a prosthesis of “the big tent.” This was the VoR model, it was/is the Alternative Right model and it is becoming more the Renegade model.

On the other hand, those whose concern is genuinely for the entire White/European social group from the start and from ground-up, who consider all White/Europeans as innocent until proven guilty (until proven disloyal and divisive) are treated as “trouble makers” and to be ostracized insofar as they do come to see the facile, opportunistic, tangential and obstructive positions coming from those given a pass under the big tent for what they are - as coming from and guilty of defending causes that are irrelevant and divisive of genuine White/European advocacy, ethnonationalism, coherence and coordination thereof.

The people identifying as alternative right and typically those hovering in and around the racial market, have thus a common problem of trying to maintain their anti-White/European social and socially divisive of Whites positions; and to compensate for the maintenance of their initial right-wing, anti-social positions, they have tried to establish a gentleman’s agreement - a big tent under which they might bring to bear their tangential and (actually) obstructive positions to the market of White/European advocacy and ethnonationalism - by (ironically) trying to prohibit as “anti-social” (“non-team players”, etc) those who reject their anti-White/European-social positions. In a word, they want to paradoxically define “socialized White/European” with a rule that would prohibit and ostracize those who would quite reasonably prohibit those who are anti-anti-White/European-social.

To repeat in somewhat simpler form:

All of the people identifying as alternative right, and Renegade (Tanstaafl* goes there agreeing with them that “Hitler was right”....right about what?) as well, have a common problem of trying to compensate for their initial right wing, anti-social positions - compensating for the marginality and obstruction of their positions to White/European advocacy and ethnonationalism - by (ironically) trying to prohibit as “anti-social” (“non-team players”, etc) those who reject their anti-White/European-social positions. In a word, they want to paradoxically define socialization of White/European-social advocacy with a rule that would prohibit and ostracize those who would prohibit those who are anti-anti-White/European-social.

“The alternative left” is a part of the alt right big tent. It is their attempt to provide a false opposition foil and a platform for their more liberal misfits who want to bring their own right wing unaccountable positions to bear on the ethno-nationalist market; while they obfuscate this true White Left platform as it operates in the interests of the White class and does not accept their anti-White positions.

* Finally, “neither right nor left” is another claim that right wingers will make in a last ditch effort to avoid social accountability to Whites in order to maintain their right wing aspect.

Comments:

Posted by Just Sayin' on Fri, 19 Feb 2016 02:37 | #

Interesting point, but the simpler form is probably a lot more efficient for communication. Trump speaks at a 4th grade level and we like that but we could probably handle 6th or even 8th grade.

So your point is that the alternative right is a collection of right wing misfits and extremists. (Somewhat true.) And you believe they’d ostracize more normal, more leftist pro-white people, people who could actually get stuff done. Because, it is feared that if they were allowed in, those normal, leftist people would ostracize the alternative right misfits?

But what I’m wondering is, where are these normal pro-white and who ostracized them from the alternative right?

It seems to me that the alternative right exists on a spectrum, from somewhat normal to extremely extreme. And anyone who wants to set up at the normal end of the spectrum can set up there if they want. And they’ll either get readers or they won’t. And if they get the wrong kind of readers, they can ban them.

And nobody would really try to “kick them out of the alt-right” for criticizing right wing extremism or Christianity or whatever.

But, speaking only about the American market, it looks to me like the audience for pro-white material is still dominated by misfits and right wing extremists. Although the market is, perhaps, less eccentric and right wing than it once was. Still, your hypothetical normal, left wing pro-whites seem to be about as rare as hen’s teeth.

So sites that cater to the actual market (of right wing misfits) are liable to grow a lot larger and get referenced more often than sites that don’t. If normal, leftist people started to become pro-white in large numbers, they could easily change the market. But that doesn’t seem to have happened yet.

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 19 Feb 2016 11:36 | #

Posted by Just Sayin’ on Thu, 18 Feb 2016 21:37 | #

Interesting point, but the simpler form is probably a lot more efficient for communication. Trump speaks at a 4th grade level and we like that but we could probably handle 6th or even 8th grade.

It’s never been Majorityrighs style. If not trying to challenge our readership intellectually, we are bucking the Jewish idea that they own intellectualism and are bucking their encouraged idea, i.e., the White habit of accepting their ruse that intellectualism is effeminate. But more to the point as far as I am concerned, I seek to fit my words to the purpose of what I want to say. Sometimes that will mean being a bit more theoretically thorough, though sacrificing the capacity for the audience to just immediately understand what I am saying without some effort. At other times it means speaking plain and clear, like on a 4th grade level in order to make a bold statement.

I will be a bit more free ranging in with respect for those different purposes. Kumiko tends to speak in a consistently user friendly register. GW speaks in a higher register than her, but in a rigorously conventional style.

The comments are here for the purpose of clarification. Hence, why it is that I speak to you now. Thank you for the feedback and interaction.

So your point is that the alternative right is a collection of right wing misfits and extremists. (Somewhat true.)

It is not enough to say that they are mere misfits and extremists. They are misfit and extremely marginal to the purpose of advocating White/European people as a full social group - which is what other social groups/races will do; i.e., give people the benefit of the doubt based on historical group pattern and the fact of their having survived - whether they are manifesting the top of the game, perhaps even beyond the game at this point or not. In fact, because they want to express to people who are included in their group, that they are included, even though they may not be on top of their game or blocked from utilizing their best attributes, they will reach out to them and incentivize their participation.

They are misfit for that purpose because those representing White/European advocacy are starting out from positions reactionary to “socialization” - which has come to mean being race-mixed away by Jewish definition (it can be by objectivist, right wing definition too). Since that definition of what it means to be social and “leftist” has been accepted by the broad masses, of course Whites who care for themselves are going to seek warranted anchoring for their survival above (in theory) or below (in nature) that social hurley-burley trammeling. And they will likely take extra-pride in their Cartesian difference and be extra defensive of their social defiance - making them more difficult to disabuse, more insistent upon maintaining their position - which is unfortunate, because those who are actually on their side may appear to be aligned with the Marxists (the Jewish assimilation of “leftist” procedures, e.g., to do “social justice” warring is to advocate things antagonistic to Whites) and they, in turn, will thus alienate those “marginal Whites” (i.e., virtually all of them, as you notice, but from a reverse perspective - Whites who are not marginalized from socialization are as rare as hen’s teeth; you can say “thanks Jews” and thanks Descartes for that) with their anti-White social positions, divisive of Whites, or integrative with non-Whites, threatening stance bereft of correct measure (relative to the White/European group) in compassionate social breadth - because it is distorted by Cartesian points - hence it cannot take proper measure and gauge even for the full White/European social group and the necessity to prohibit introduction of rule structures which rupture our systemic maintenance.

Nevertheless, they experience their isolation which runs against their instincts and they try to compensate for it with a paradoxic rule that says, “no, in this White social group, you cannot prohibit people who have anti-White social rules.” And then you wonder why normal and properly motivated participants and advocates are as rare as hen’s teeth.

Yesterday, I started going through a list of people in the struggle in a self comment on this post. I got interrupted but will continue later. The easiest example is people who can’t see the most obvious one - Hitler. No, don’t take away my Hitler, say Tanstaafl, The Renegade people, and Wolf Wallstreet (Bob D.C.): They try to say that they do not have a compensatory big tent prosthesis for their Hitler amputations, but they are indeed, a part of the right wing tentosphere. “Don’t take away my anti-White social position or you are anti-social; but you can be included otherwise.”

And you believe they’d ostracize more normal, more leftist pro-white people,

Yes, that is their rule in fact - that to be a part of the tentosphere that makes up 90% of those involved in issues of White advocacy in these initial phases as allowed for by the Internet and allows for a bubble for their dearly clung-to right wing positions, a bubble which will burst if confronted with normal White social breadth, they make a rule prohibiting the banishment of their anti-White social positions; and hence ostracize normal, socially conscientious Whites.

However, if you are to understand me correctly, you MUST NOT tread lightly in saying “more leftist”...“pro-White” people.

Because what is generally meant by the left as it applies to Whites, is the opposite of a White Left. It is Liberal for us and Red Left (anti White) for them. That is, a White left is fully social in its concern for Whites/Europeans but exclusionary to non-Whites. For those who are wondering, Jews are non-White and should be excluded.

Whereas the paradox of their Cartesian rules will have them including non-Whites in their club - e.g., because they are fellows in Abraham or Hitler admiration - or excluding Whites for no reason but because they want to protect their right wing ideology which, though it is ultimately irrelevant to White/European interests, is prioritized over White interests.

people who could actually get stuff done.

Well, yes, it will exclude people who can get things done mostly on ordinary levels, people who cannot and will not distinguish themselves in the non-sensical ways of the right, but also some people who are marginalized for the fact that despite their excellence they cannot tarry with the absurdly destructive participants and rule structure of the tentosphere.

Because, it is feared that if they were allowed in, those normal, leftist people would ostracize the alternative right misfits?

Again, if you are to understand me, you must be very careful in how these words are understood: “normal leftist” in our White/European sense would be having a normal concern for Whites/Europeans as a group; and not the Marxist sense of being liberal with regard to outside influences and preoccupied with non-White interests to the detriment of White interests. They are misfit only as they cling to a misfitting ideology. There is not necessarily anything wrong with them if they will join us in White social normalization - which is not pacificist, by any stretch, where our people are threatened whether even in quality, let alone quantity.

But what I’m wondering is, where are these normal pro-white and who ostracized them from the alternative right?

I have already answered who ostracized them - right wingers, in their anti social rule structure. Except that I might add that even within the tentosphere it is sometimes Jews, anti-Whites and just plain liberals who are infiltrating and turning normal Whites away from social organization within the group. And it is certainly even more the case that these anti-Whits are working to turn Whites/Europeans away from social organization from positions outside of the tentosphere: the most crucial move having been to get Whites to swallow a phony definition of what “the left” is and what its “social unionization” is - they have got Whites believing that “the left means liberalism” and social unionization means including Jews, niggers, etc - i.e., a union that doesn’t exclude scabs!?! - a universal union is an oxymoron. But because of their control of the media etc, they have gotten Whites to accept or intimidated to go along with, this definition of what it means to be “socially conscientious” and “leftist.”

The pervasiveness of this big lie and its acceptance, often insistence (that THE LEFT is the enemy) has caused Whites who care about Whites to identify as rightists, and with an intransigent vengeance - just as the Jews would have it, to turn our people off by stigmatizing our most normal cause with utter foolishness.

Tanstaafl says “Hitler was right”, apparently to maintain an access booth to the tentosphere, he gives the high sign. But Hitler was right about what? About how to coordinate Whites as a social group and not divide them against each other? Obviously not.

It seems to me that the alternative right exists on a spectrum, from somewhat normal to extremely extreme.

That is a deceptive way of looking at it because it is actually less complicated than that. Yes, you have people who are not very passionate about White biology - Christians and liberals who would come across as “moderates” in what has come to mean “socialization” but in terms of White socialization they are coming from a completely marginal and more like extreme outsider, universalistic position. And the ones you call extreme are more like the Darwinistic and Hitler types who would narrow White social acceptability to zero, ultimately in their theoretical position to a point outside of nature or sub atomic.

And anyone who wants to set up at the normal end of the spectrum can set up there if they want.

No they can’t do that within the tentosphere, because normal people would exclude the tentospherists precious right wing, anti-White positions.

And they’ll either get readers or they won’t. And if they get the wrong kind of readers, they can ban them.

Yes, well, we’re still setting up shop here and as we get back to podcasting (we haven’t yet put up the Matt Parrott debate conducted months ago) and are able to beat-off the Jews and right wingers in the tentosphere who have been trying to bury us (notably, Matt Parrott), we will have more readers and those of the right kind.

And nobody would really try to “kick them out of the alt-right” for criticizing right wing extremism or Christianity or whatever.

Yes, they would try to kick them out - Matt Parrott, again, being an example of a bureaucratic gate keeper in that regard. You can be critical, but you can’t exclude them from the tentosphere. Even Renegade, which is highly critical of Christianity, has included Christians in order to maintain the social prosthesis of the tentosphere.

But, speaking only about the American market, it looks to me like the audience for pro-white material is still dominated by misfits and right wing extremists.

To be a misfit in American society is normal, unless you want your daughter to be a coal burner or your son to be a techno-slave to Mulattoes, Jews, niggers, etc. And to look for an anti social Cartesian extreme to anchor your defense against that maelstrom is also a normal first reaction to what has become of American society - believe me, I know. Two months there and I am climbing the walls.

Although the market is, perhaps, less eccentric and right wing than it once was. Still, your hypothetical normal, left wing pro-whites seem to be about as rare as hen’s teeth.

Again, look at what the masters of discourse have done to the language, as I have explained above and how they’ve gotten our own people to frighten off and divide our people with their right wing positions and it is completely understandable why they are so rare at this point.

So sites that cater to the actual market (of right wing misfits) are liable to grow a lot larger and get referenced more often than sites that don’t.

Well, the bubble can be maintained for a time, as younger folks in their initial right wing reactionary phases are not yet sated with the novelty of being able to air what have heretofore been stigmatic views. And, it will have currency for a time as it operates, for example on a largely White German and Irish demographic of America (Italians too, but they are a smaller group) that may not quite have the empathetic need to recognize the legitimacy of that fuller what social sphere which will pop its currency bubble, because of the capacity to circulate tentosphere currency as maintained among their large group in America and its tentosphere rule: exclusionary of those who would exclude their anti-White social position.

If normal, leftist people started to become pro-white in large numbers, they could easily change the market. But that doesn’t seem to have happened yet.

Again, I must not let you use this word leftist in any sense of what has come to mean its normal usage. That is what the Jews are trying to do. And several people, for easy examples, Stark, The Truth Will Live, Robert Lindsay, and this “Rabbit” kid… among others, are set about to bury our normal and proper understanding of The White Left and its unionizating function. They seek to take its place instead and insert their booth in the tentosphere, setting up a false opposition to infiltrate and subvert a White Left, by adding their liberal right wing views, to the exclusion of a White Left which would otherwise exclude Jews and anti-White liberal positions from membership.

A White left bears no casual relation to “the left” as it is known. It is about an exclusionary union - exclusionary of Jews and other non-Whites, while at the same time it is inclusive of Whites/Europeans.

Posted by Just Sayin' on Fri, 19 Feb 2016 16:51 | #

a) The misfit & marginal nature of the alt-right might be limiting our effectiveness, but fundamentally, the problem is that misfits & marginal types are what we have to work with. Worsening circumstances have attracted a somewhat more normal crowd than we had 10 years ago, but most normal people are still heavily invested in normal, anti-white belief systems. Like Christianity, liberalism, conservatism, etc. Even the hardcore normie Trump supporters are very, very far away from any willingness be pro-white, if it came down to zero-sum interactions.

I really question the idea that normies would be pro-white if not for the alt-right.

b) You can exclude some types of alt-right misfits and still get promoted by / get traffic from the alt-right. Take MyPostingCareer for example. It pre-dates the Alt-Right but has effectively become part of it, gets traffic and promotion on podcasts from it, etc.

It’s a rabidly anti-Hitler, anti-Nazi site that is more politically pragmatic, combining elements of left and right, rather than being dogmatically far-right. It also attracts an older, more successful, more normal crowd. Despite their opposition to edgy right wing political extremism and constant criticism of the core Alt-Right, they get a lot of promotion and crossover traffic.

But the problem is that their normal is the “American normal”. IE: still Christian or Christian influenced. And so, despite being more or less fully aware of the plight faced by our people, they can’t really bring themselves to do anything about it. And the site slowly fills up with non-whites, mischlings and whites who have chosen to misceginate… because those people get driven away from the more hardcore Nazi sites.

The core Alt-Right is admittedly guilty of not attacking MPC for this, but doing so would just make the core Alt-Right into more of a Nazi echo chamber, which they’re also trying to avoid.

Attacking Christianity is also no barrier to inclusion in the Alt-Right, it’s a common theme, but it tends to draw a certain crowd that is less “normal” and more into right wing extremism.

Nothing is stopping an Alt-Right site from attacking *both* Christianity and Right wing extremism, it’s just that doing both *at the same time* alienates two major segments of the market for this sort of material, limiting growth and prominence.

c) Matt Parrott (who I’d view as more of a WN) can’t kick anyone out of the Alt-Right. Plenty of people in the Alt-Right are feuding with other people in the Alt-Right. But they can’t really kick each other out, the most they can do is argue against each other and refuse to promote each other. Because it’s the internet, everyone has their own platforms and nobody is in charge.

d) I admit that I know very little about Stark, Roberty Lindsey, etc. But I will say that I spend a whole lot of time consuming Alt-Right material and I’ve only heard a little bit about them, a couple articles mentioning them that people didn’t seem very interested in, thinking the Alt-Left was basically redundant because it was so similar to the Alt-Right.

So if your White Left is a real and potentially powerful force with a potentially large constituency, I doubt those guys are powerful enough to keep it down for long.

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 19 Feb 2016 17:10 | #

Just Sayin’, I’m going to read you comment before too long, and in the meantime encourage people to read my comment first. Enough experience went into it. Again, I’ll respond to you before too long.

Posted by Tanstaafl on Fri, 19 Feb 2016 19:28 | #

Daniel,

You’re not confident enough in your criticism to even link the podcast that set you off, so I don’t think it’s worth trying to figure out exactly what your beef is. To the extent I did try it seems to spring from your personal taste for an imaginary pro-White “left” and distaste for Hitler. Somebody less familiar with your writing might think it also has to do with Descartes, but I realize you just like to shoehorn “Cartesianism” into everything. Cognito about my navel, ergo ethnonationalism, or something.

You make a fuss about my statement, “Hitler was right”, as if you have no idea what I’m talking about, so I’ll spell it out for you. I think Hitler expressed his positions and rationale more lucidly than any leader ever has. I think he and the movement he led were more factually correct and morally righteous than any other worldview or political system the White race has ever produced. With regard to race, the jews, “left” and “right” and politics generally, liberalism, economics, I think they identified the things that matter and why. I think you, in contrast, come across as nearly unintelligible, and I think it results from you trying to sound like an intellect (which I think isn’t important) rather than to think and communicate CLEARLY (which I think is). That’s what I think.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 19 Feb 2016 20:11 | #

Tan, I believe I am speaking for Daniel when I say that this site’s rejection of Hitler-following is not founded in disagreement with his critique, however clearly expressed that may be, but in the non-critical, positive propositions which he and his variant of National Socialism advanced. Those who only focus on the critique have very little to say about the two grave foundational errors that he made; the first supremacism, and the second lebensraum. There is a third issue, that of militarism, and a fourth - state terrorism - which are deeply troubling; but they are methodological rather than foundational to the man’s thought itself.

Critique will not, of itself, generate any kind of vivifying, positive vision or philosophy. That’s what we here seek. I wish more did so elsewhere rather than chomp around in the same old pastures.

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 19 Feb 2016 20:24 | #

Tan, is it necessary to lie?

Here is the podcast link:

http://www.renegadebroadcasting.com/the-solar-storm-tanstaafl-team-white-2-7-16/

I had already linked it in a comment before, and didn’t feel the need to post it again, that’s all.

Largely a good show (shoring up other people’s ideas) except for the stupid “Hitler was right” remark and a few other minor details (though the Hitler remark, of itself, is not really a minor detail).

Daniel,

You’re not confident enough in your criticism to even link the podcast that set you off,

So, that’s taken care of. I am confident enough and you are still trying to play this bullshit angle about my emotions…so, lets move on to the next thing.

so I don’t think it’s worth trying to figure out exactly what your beef is.

You can pretend that what I am saying isn’t clear. I’ve made it plain as day and its not only about your stupid fixation on Hitler, it is about a pattern of anti-White anti-social right wing fixations as a pattern in the tentosphere. You are so smart and “such an original” epistemologist (lol) that maybe you can figure it out by analogy (but not until you translate it to Fuhrer friendly language?)

To the extent I did try it seems to spring from your personal taste for an imaginary pro-White “left” and distaste for Hitler.

No, Tan. That is just your particular thing. I criticize Christians, conspiracy freaks, Muslims, those who are scientistic, those who defend coal burners, those who want to introduce Jews and more.You just - dishonestly - try to say that it’s all about anti-Hitler for me, because you can’t get over that him, his flaws and his defeat..

Somebody less familiar with your writing might think it also has to do with Descartes,

It does have very much to do with that too. How dare you try that rhetorical bullshit?

As if I have not been discussing that for years - anybody who is familiar with my writing, knows that I have.

Why, oh why would you say otherwise!? !

but I realize you just like to shoehorn “Cartesianism” into everything.

Because you don’t understand what I am doing of necessity for what is being done with it. Perhaps you refuse to understand.

Cognito about my navel, ergo ethnonationalism, or something.

Nice try honey. Take it to your Jewish wife and kids. Maybe if you salute Hitler enough, the Hitler freaks will give you a pass.

You know Tan, I really have a tendency to like you and respect your work for the most part and I don’t even really care about your Jewish wife and kids, but if you are going to be an ass in order to cover up for your wrong turns and try to deflect attention away, in over compensation, not caring if White advocacy is given a divisive bum steer in your over correction, then that isn’t acceptable.

You make a fuss about my statement, “Hitler was right”,

I know I know what they say over there: can’t let a little thing like Hitler come between us. Baloney. It was a stupid thing to say.

Again, you claimed to care about all Whites. You heard what asshole Hitler had to say about Ukraine and Ukrainians and yet you refused to downgrade your approval rating of him to where it belongs: quite negative on balance for White relations. To be rejected.

as if you have no idea what I’m talking about, so I’ll spell it out for you.

It was an unqualified statement, and you were clear before to say that you have no problem with Hitler - went out of your way to say that to me here at Majorityrights.

So that implies that you think he was generally right.

I think its clear and very important, however, that he was NOT right in terms of how to build European relations. That is very important among other significant negatives.

I think Hitler expressed his positions and rationale more lucidly than any leader ever has. I think he and the movement he led were more factually correct and morally righteous than any other worldview or political system the White race has ever produced.

Ok. well, refer back to the last point as enough said because I am not going to expect you to read further to disabuse you of your daddy worship. That should be enough for any sane person - was he right about how to build European relations? Obviously not. You value clarity, physics is more clear than the social world, but no less real. When I used the word “praxis”, a word from Aristotle, the most famous and important European philosopher ever, you tried to say that I was using “jargon"and being pseudo intellectual.

So that is that. You are not honest.

With regard to race, the jews, “left” and “right” and politics generally, liberalism, economics, I think they identified the things that matter and why. I think you, in contrast, come across as nearly unintelligible,

No, you don’t want to understand what I am saying Tan, maybe you don’t want what I am saying to be heard because you know that I don’t like Hitler and I might able to show people why. So, you don’t understand or pretend not to understand me so that you can translate what is being said, if not by me, then by others, into your own phrasings because you are not an original thinker. You do good work in refining other people’s ideas (crypsis is a good example) but you are not original. No shame in that but when you try to stigmatize me for stating the obvious (Hitler was doing no favors to White relations and attempts at his resurrection should be left behind) then you should be criticized for that.

and I think it results from you trying to sound like an intellect

Oh for fuck sake. I said in the first part of this comment the honest truth. I try to conform my words to what I need to say. I am not trying to garb thoughts and obscure matters in fanciful words, I am using the words and phrasings that I need to say just what I mean.

You have tried this bullshit before and that is just what it is - bullshit.

I don’t try to sound intellectual. I say what I mean and I mean what I say.

Now, stop lying!

(which I think isn’t important) rather than to think and communicate CLEARLY (which I think is). That’s what I think.

Well, if you can’t be bothered to read what I say and don’t want to understand it because it doesn’t lead to the errant conclusion that Hitler had it all figured-out perfectly (he didn’t) then that is your wishful thinking.

You can have Bob D.C. tell you how great you are because you send the 88 password, you can have Jan Kaminski on your team (lol).

Perhaps you all can get into a hologram with John Friend and fly into the world trade center or building 7.

But you can’t lie to me, though you will try, and you can’t hide from the truth for ever, because I can explain everything I’ve said. And I’ve said it because it’s important.

Posted by Tanstaafl on Sat, 20 Feb 2016 01:53 | #

GW, I didn’t come here to argue about what this site should advocate, I came to answer some sniping aimed my way. Daniel, your ad hominem comes through clear enough, still too verbose.

Heil… Heidegger.

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 20 Feb 2016 02:18 | #

Posted by Tanstaafl on Fri, 19 Feb 2016 20:53 | #

GW, I didn’t come here to argue about what this site should advocate, I came to answer some sniping aimed my way. Daniel, your ad hominem comes through clear enough, still too verbose.

Heil… Heidegger.

Still too verbose? If you want to advocate the position that Hitler was right, then how about we start by taking your wife and kids shoes and then putting your wife and kids into a work camp?

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 20 Feb 2016 02:46 | #

Daniel, I take by your criticism of “Cartesian” thinking you mean a rejection of a thought system, a worldview which takes as its foundation stone, it’s grounding of existence, in the inherently solipsistic and therefore solipsism inducing “I think therefore I am”. All manner of nonsense can flow from this as the thinker is accordingly free to think of reality in a more self-defined way. This is as opposed to Heidegger’s “dasein” which takes its foundation stone as a broader qualia of being in the world.

For if that is not what you mean, I have no idea what you mean.

Posted by readerfirstcomment on Sat, 20 Feb 2016 06:52 | #

I think this applies to DanielS way to write (at least in this article):
“in contrast, come across as nearly unintelligible” ... “rather than to think and communicate CLEARLY.” “I have no idea what you mean.”
The other commenters have to 1st try to understand what DanielS wrote to comment, possibly responding then to something not originally there (good try, “Just Sayin’”, but I think is a waste of time because he just doesn’t write clearly). His usage of ‘liberal’ and ‘anti-white’ (ascribing that to alt-righters?!?) makes no sense, as in general his article and his explanation of it.

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 20 Feb 2016 10:06 | #

readerfirstcomment

You are an idiot and dishonest. What I am saying makes perfect sense and I can explain exactly what I mean. I’ll do that later if I feel like it, though I am not enormously inclined as you are one of a few hostile commentors here. I’m not gong to change you and you are not going to give me credit.

His usage of ‘liberal’ and ‘anti-white’ (ascribing that to alt-righters?!?) makes no sense, as in general his article and his explanation of it.

Idiot, an ideology that is divisive of the White social group or is steering it into breakdown in favor of univesalism is anti-White - anti White social. Divisiveness can be said of Hitler’s ideology. Universalism can be said of Christianity and many other right wing positions.

Liberalism is that which takes us beyond the socially exclusive treatment of our people (such as Christianity, or the wish to include Jews or Arab PUA’s). It applies in several places in the alt right.

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 20 Feb 2016 11:43 | #

Captainchaos, I have a longer response that I can give you later, but the short one is to say first of all, that I’ve answered this before.

Cartesianism as philosophers deal with it, as a theoretical issue, is not only or even mostly a matter of solipsism.

They are talking mostly about the quest for theoretical purity above nature or within nature: but in either case, the unit of analysis is taken beyond the social calibrative range/gauge; viz., of our human social systemic nature, historical perspective and human interactive nature, its capacity for change and even agentive change in direction.

Though it is the case that when one is in pursuit of pure theory that one is inclined to downplay if not ignore our interactive nature, one thing I may not have always been clear enough about is that one can still perceive and acknowledge the existence of interactive systems and yet be “guilty” of being too Cartesian if such a person does not take into account our human interactive nature enough and is instead basing their analysis and theory of interaction more on a physics model of forces and impacts, as opposed to a human interactive model, which is not as neatly deterministic.

At any rate, I am dealing with problems of Cartesianism not to be “intellectually pretentious” or obscure, as Tanstaafl disingenuously suggests, but because that is one of two great problems that we must address as Westerners - that quest for theoretical purity which leaves us naiive, wreaks havoc with our relation as knowers to what is known and gives us improper theoretical guidance particularly when over applied to the social world (what Aristotle called praxis), our human nature and problems within it - which goes directly to the other big problem, of course, which is antagonists, markedly, the Jew. I laid this out in “Leftism as a Code Word*” - an article which you liked. It addresses the matter of objectivism, a form of Cartesianism, as a problem of our own.

* Tanstaafl didn’t want to recognize my arguments about objectivsm. When I put forward to him the argument that objecivism was a problem too, and that by ignoring that he was being a bit “myopic” for his singular attention on the Jew, he tried to say that I was calling him crazy, evil, sick, trying to blame us for “pathological altruism” (a term that I don’t use) and he additionally claimed that we were not taking the Jew seriously. After that he went to the Hitler sites, Renegade and Red Ice, and started talking about objectivism being one of our problems. Like you, apparently he doesn’t want to understand me and doesn’t want to believe that what I am saying is intelligible, because then he and his Hitler camp would not be able to be cast as the theoretical heroes.

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 20 Feb 2016 17:43 | #

Just Sayin” on Fri, 19 Feb 2016 16:51 | # #3

a) The misfit & marginal nature of the alt-right might be limiting our effectiveness, but fundamentally, the problem is that misfits & marginal types are what we have to work with.

This does not contradict my point. It implies a concept of prioritizing positions that are popular, even if those positions are wrong and to the detriment of White interests, as opposed to trying to appeal to Whites on the basis of what is the correct advocacy platform and then trying to promote that platform.

Worsening circumstances have attracted a somewhat more normal crowd than we had 10 years ago, but most normal people are still heavily invested in normal, anti-white belief systems. Like Christianity, liberalism, conservatism, etc. Even the hardcore normie Trump supporters are very, very far away from any willingness be pro-white, if it came down to zero-sum interactions.

So, it seems that despite what Tanstaalf and the “readerofthefirstcomment” say, you can understand me to a large extent.

I really question the idea that normies would be pro-white if not for the alt-right.

Well, you have to understand what I mean by “normal”. What I mean by “normal” in our sense, are those Whites who do not have a problem with other Europeans and who would include all peoples of native European descent in their advocacy group; these “normal” people see the need to fight on their own behalf and that that entails the need to cooperate in alliance with other Europeans - such that they would not permit those who insist upon bringing to bear concepts that run counter to those purposes.

b) You can exclude some types of alt-right misfits and still get promoted by / get traffic from the alt-right. Take MyPostingCareer for example. It pre-dates the Alt-Right but has effectively become part of it, gets traffic and promotion on podcasts from it, etc.

I imagine that when our bi-weekly podcasts are re-started that we will get some traffic from people we would not necessarily seek out. That’s fine.

It’s a rabidly anti-Hitler, anti-Nazi site that is more politically pragmatic, combining elements of left and right, rather than being dogmatically far-right. It also attracts an older, more successful, more normal crowd. Despite their opposition to edgy right wing political extremism and constant criticism of the core Alt-Right, they get a lot of promotion and crossover traffic.

That’s good. Conratulations on that.

But the problem is that their normal is the “American normal”. IE: still Christian or Christian influenced.

Well, that is a problem. I tried to take a tolerant position of Christianity in the past but found it impossible to tolerate those who insist upon Christianity here for various reasons. Obviously, I’m not going to try to prevent people from listening and looking on and I do not make people take a litmus test to swear that they are not a Christian before commenting. On the other hand, it is necessary that people not bring Christianity here and it is necessary that they are able to accept our anti-Christian position.

And so, despite being more or less fully aware of the plight faced by our people, they can’t really bring themselves to do anything about it.

This is one of the reasons why I have been persuaded by Kumiko that it is necessary to step up efforts to disabuse people of Christianity. It is counter-productive.

And the site slowly fills up with non-whites, mischlings and whites who have chosen to misceginate… because those people get driven away from the more hardcore Nazi sites.

These people would also be kept away with a strict rule that Jews and other non-Whites are not welcome.

The core Alt-Right is admittedly guilty of not attacking MPC for this, but doing so would just make the core Alt-Right into more of a Nazi echo chamber, which they’re also trying to avoid.

It’s very good that you acknowledge that. My hypothesis is that the MCP tendencies can be attacked and as Hitler is rejected on balance, rather than rejecting people who do not accept him on balance, that that will get us away from the Hitler echo chamber.

Attacking Christianity is also no barrier to inclusion in the Alt-Right, it’s a common theme, but it tends to draw a certain crowd that is less “normal” and more into right wing extremism.

Attacking Christianity is fine with me, but certain positive rule structures and social understandings need to be suggested instead.

Nothing is stopping an Alt-Right site from attacking *both* Christianity and Right wing extremism, it’s just that doing both *at the same time* alienates two major segments of the market for this sort of material, limiting growth and prominence.

Again, I believe that prioritizing popularity is both a dubious objective and a dangerous one. It allows our enemies to wreak havoc with our social rule structures and to wreak havoc with the promotion of those social rule structures.

c) Matt Parrott (who I’d view as more of a WN)

Matt Parrott is NOT more of a WN. He has made it clear that he prioritizes Christianity over Whites. Despite that, and with the blessing of those WN who see it as necessary to include Christians, Matt has fashioned and positioned himself as a moral gatekeeper of certain prominent WN circles; that is why he has been an obstructive gatekeeper to a normally grounded WN platform.

can’t kick anyone out of the Alt-Right.

He is fairly articulate and has made himself fairly popular and available to several sites in the tentosphere - figures and sites that have been most critical to the popularization of WN. He can work with Christians or those who might not like our platform for our exclusion of other right-wing positions, and they can discourage support of us (he has done this to some extent) while they promote and divert attention elsewhere. However, it is true that we will overcome this.

Plenty of people in the Alt-Right are feuding with other people in the Alt-Right. But they can’t really kick each other out, the most they can do is argue against each other and refuse to promote each other. Because it’s the internet, everyone has their own platforms and nobody is in charge.

Ultimately, I guess that’s true. But for the time being, certain groups have more backing and prominence and they can and do exclude people. At present, the are generally organized around this “tentosphere” (my coinage) rule that “you must accept that I have an anti-social” (anti White social) position in this big tent. There are a handful of tents in the tentoshere which have overlapping audiences; they will include some members in common and they will exclude some members that others include; but they all basically have that rule structure of “you must accept that I have anti social positions (even thought they are anti-White social) which serves their social-prosthetic function - even as they socialize among their own contradictory positions, having negative identity in common.

d) I admit that I know very little about Stark, Roberty Lindsey, etc. But I will say that I spend a whole lot of time consuming Alt-Right material and I’ve only heard a little bit about them, a couple articles mentioning them that people didn’t seem very interested in, thinking the Alt-Left was basically redundant because it was so similar to the Alt-Right.

Yes, they are not necessarily important and I was not saying that they were. I was pointing them out to show how desperate the tentosphere is to bury this White left platform, that they have had Stark and others for years, trying to obfuscate our platform - normally saying, “I don’t think right and left are useful categories”, but because they are experiencing the fact that that cannot organize people, they are grasping at straws; hence rather than drop their rightwing pets and acknowledge the viability of our platform, the tentosphere even lamely tried to create a controlled opposition in that case.

I will go through a list of other examples of people illustrating the tentosphere’s negotiation of the contradictory rule structure necessary to include its right wing positions. My point in the example of Stark and his guests was not to say that they are significant, but to illustrate how desperate the tentosphere is for MR’s platform to be buried in favor of their right wing nonsense and personal egos - - so much so that they would refuse to acknowledge our cogent reasoning for the White Left position. They would continually try to go along with Jewish definitions of the White / Left paradigm; or sometimes try to say that they are “a new and improved right”; or try to say that the categories are not useful; or try to deny that they are either right or left. However, it is not nearly true enough that they are “new and improved”, “neither right nor left” nor that the categories are “not useful.”

So if your White Left is a real and potentially powerful force with a potentially large constituency, I doubt those guys are powerful enough to keep it down for long.

Good. You are open to reasoning. I am encouraged by that.

Posted by Our people are significantly the calibrative gauge on Sat, 20 Feb 2016 22:22 | #

Captainchaos, I am adding the emboldened phrase, “in either case the unit of analysis is taken beyond the social calibrative range/gauge; viz.‘of our human social systemic nature”

..to this sentence:

They are talking mostly about the quest for theoretical purity above nature or within nature: but in either case, the unit of analysis is taken beyond the social calibrative range/gauge; viz., of our human social systemic nature, historical perspective and human interactive nature, its capacity for change and even agentive change in direction.

It should help make sense of this “man is most significantly the measure of our things” kind of argument for you.

Posted by explain on Sun, 21 Feb 2016 02:26 | #

How “a strict rule that Jews and other non-Whites are not welcome” can be reconciled with having Kumiko as a main writer here? Isn’t it a of ‘tentosphere’/alt-right position that you are supposedly against?

(Note. I personally think White-Japanese mixing as a positive thing, both have similar IQs).

Posted by Tanstaafl on Sun, 21 Feb 2016 03:55 | #

Daniel,

If you want to advocate the position that Hitler was right, then how about we start by taking your wife and kids shoes and then putting your wife and kids into a work camp?

After that he went to the Hitler sites, Renegade and Red Ice, and started talking about objectivism being one of our problems.

As I informed you the first time I heard you make this insinuation (the last time I spoke to Kyle), I’ve been talking about objectivity since late 2012. None of my thoughts on this subject or any other come from anything you have ever put forth. Nothing.

Likewise you know very well that I hold and espouse the same views toward national socialist Germany today that I did two years ago when you invited me to speak with GW and yourself. My wife and kids, who now loom so large in your mind, didn’t matter to you then. The main change is that you thought I was anti-Hitler and then realized I’m not. Your bitterness toward me springs from this specific point.

You liked me and wanted to talk with me because you assumed I had dumped Carolyn for the one reason you would have. Then you found out you were completely wrong. YOU misinterpreted me, specifically with regard to Hitler, and YOU still can’t accept that YOU fucked up. So since then you’ve been sniping and whining about me, insinuating that I’m doing something wrong, that I stole ideas from you, that I changed, that I say what I’m saying because of my family, or to ingratiate myself with others. The truth is you don’t like me now for the same reason you don’t like Carolyn or Kyle or “Hitler sites” (which in your mind includes Red Ice). All because you despise “asshole Hitler”.

Do yourself a favor and stop denying it. Stop pretending your animus has to do with a failure in logic or reason in anyone but yourself.

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 21 Feb 2016 08:05 | #

I will address tanstaafl first:

Posted by Tanstaafl on Sun, 21 Feb 2016 03:55 | #

Daniel,

If you want to advocate the position that Hitler was right, then how about we start by taking your wife and kids shoes and then putting your wife and kids into a work camp?

After that he went to the Hitler sites, Renegade and Red Ice, and started talking about objectivism being one of our problems.

As I informed you the first time I heard you make this insinuation (the last time I spoke to Kyle), I’ve been talking about objectivity since late 2012. None of my thoughts on this subject or any other come from anything you have ever put forth. Nothing.

Maybe, or maybe you gleaned the topic from me without realizing it, but it’s not my most important point - which was/is that objectivism as our problem was the key non-Jewish thing that I wanted to explain in defending as to why I do not focus singularly on the Jews and why I was defending MacDonald and MR for having more of a circular survey of concerns, while coming back to the Jewish issue most often. Moreover, I have been talking about problems of objectivism, and in far more detail, not since just 2012 but since the early 1990s.

Likewise you know very well that I hold and espouse the same views toward national socialist Germany today that I did two years ago when you invited me to speak with GW and yourself.

No, that’s not true, I was under the impression when you parted from Carolyn that you had second thoughts about Hitler after she read the part in Table Talk about Ukraine. It would only make sense that you would back off from endorsing him at that point. I was surprised when you (“mr. logic”) said in discussion after the interview that you wanted to make it clear that you had no problems with Hitler.

My wife and kids, who now loom so large in your mind,

You are a liar. It’s never been a big concern of mine. Still isn’t. You’ve accounted for it, but…

didn’t matter to you then.

Still doesn’t much. Just observing the contradiction in that regard, that’s all.

The main change is that you thought I was anti-Hitler and then realized I’m not. Your bitterness toward me springs from this specific point.

Probably mostly yes, if you want to call my observation that you are making an important theoretical error in White advocacy “bitterness”, but that’s not how I would characterize valid criticism.

I had actually intended and still intend to do a survey of White advocacy figures to see how they fit with my hypothesis of the tentosphere. You are just one - a salient one because you have many things right besides this absurd contradiction (Hitler unanimity).

You liked me and wanted to talk

I like your work for the most part, and your personality yes. I am inclined to like you BUT, I do not appreciate your uncharitable interpretation of my work and efforts. Your doing that - straw man rhetoricizing - is changing my mind about you - I wish you’d stop it.

with me because you assumed I had dumped Carolyn for the one reason you would have.

I did assume that you moved away from her because she maintained too pure an agreement with Hitler - too much in perfect unanimity.

Then you found out you were completely wrong.

Yes, I found that you maintain complete unanimity with Hitler.

YOU misinterpreted me, specifically with regard to Hitler,

Uh, I thought you were intelligent enough and had better judgment than that, yes.

and YOU still can’t accept that YOU fucked up.

Ha! ha! ha! How did I fuck up? For interviewing another Hitler-head? I don’t care.

So since then you’ve been sniping and whining about me,

I don’t whine about you, you are just one among many and were at the front of the line of people in the tentosphere whose positions I want to consider. You think I am preoccupied with you because you have a big ego and are defensive - with reason to be defensive because you are going by some glaring contradictions.

insinuating that I’m doing something wrong,

Oh, no! Saying that Hitler was perfect is no problem what-so-ever! lol

that I stole ideas from you,

OK, get over it. I have said in the past that you could arrive at these ideas independently and I will say it again. But the primary reason objectivity had come up was because I needed to make clear as to why it was legitimate for people to take their focus off of the Jews for a moment - because that is the second analytical pole that I use along with the Jews. And, I had in fact been talking about it for years - and prominently on The VoR site well before 2012, a site that you were involved with. So, my suspicion that you were at least ignoring significant points that I was making is quite valid.

that I changed,

I’m not saying that you changed. That is my point in fact, that you remain fixed to Hitler

that I say what I’m saying because of my family,

Well, maybe, but I don’t really know and I don’t care very much about your reasons for staying fixed on Hitler. What I care about is that his resurrection and idolization is a detrimental position to White alliance.

or to ingratiate myself with others.

Maybe, again, I don’t really care about your reasons. I understand Hitler well enough to know that he’s not worth redeeming in unanimity.

The truth is you don’t like me now for the same reason you don’t like Carolyn or Kyle or “Hitler sites” (which in your mind includes Red Ice). All because you despise “asshole Hitler”.

Do yourself a favor and stop denying it. Stop pretending your animus has to do with a failure in logic or reason in anyone but yourself.

I don’t have to pretend anything. This failure of logic is yours. I admit mistakes and work to correct them where I may make them because theoretical issues are too important to allow ego to interfere. You may not want to read things I say - fine. But don’t pretend to represent what I say or to represent me as illogical when you have not bothered to look at what I say.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 21 Feb 2016 11:51 | #

Had Tanstaafl been a citizen of Germany during National Socialist rule his wife and children would most likely have been accepted in the German collective under a strict interpretation of the Nuremberg Laws.

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 21 Feb 2016 15:22 | #

Perhaps his wife and kids would be allowed-for - there were quite a few partial Jews allowed even into Nazi Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe ranks. Maybe that is why - despite the fact that he knows that history has shown that a 1/4 Jew is enough to be defensive of Jews and destructive to Europeans - Tan has no problem advocating in perfect unanimity for a regime that killed millions upon millions of Slavics and any other Europeans who stood in its supremacist/imperialist way; viz., so long as he can continue burying his face in and worshiping Jewish pussy, weeding out its ranks, fostering its most virulent spawn he will continue to take its directives to kill millions of upon millions of Slavics and anybody who would stand in its way; taking its directives because its/his logic is so consistent that, like the Nazi military machine, it has enough Jew thinking where not actual Jews in its logical structure, to thus argue in a highly dishonest way where necessary to maintain “the logical consistency”, to include big lies, exactly like them. This is war against a singular mortal enemy, after all, logic argues thus for complete “unanimity” in its concerns despite absurd contradictions and its destruction to Europeans, including destruction of its own true national socialists. These facts and contradictions are no obstacle to unanimity so long as its “logic” is maintained on the offensive against true social/national European advocates, in reverse logic of the actual case, such that his side is not seen as having much agency, not to be considered the aggressor but pure and total victims, who had and have no choice, while others are completely to blame for everything because that is just the way it is according to the “logic.”

Arguing with Nazis is remarkably consistent in its similarity to arguing with Jews.

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 21 Feb 2016 18:26 | #

“explain” (comment # 16), I will get to your question in moment. It isn’t particularly hard to answer but requires a little care and nuance that I will explain in a moment (when I come back in a few hours).

Note, for whom it may concern, I’ve corrected some typos that occurred in my comments on this thread and they read better now.

Posted by Tanstaafl on Sun, 21 Feb 2016 19:24 | #

Daniel,

I do not appreciate your uncharitable interpretation of my work and efforts . . . my suspicion that you were at least ignoring significant points that I was making . . . so long as he can continue burying his face in and worshiping Jewish pussy

Yes, I understand your animus toward me is no longer only about Hitler, but also because I disrespect your great intellect. It’s true. I’ve never been interested in whatever it is you imagine you’re philosophizing about. I don’t think any reasonable man could blame me after you’ve made it so plain how petty and emotional your mind actually is.

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sun, 21 Feb 2016 21:33 | #

Captainchaos wrote:
Had Tanstaafl been a citizen of Germany during National Socialist rule his wife and children would most likely have been accepted in the German collective under a strict interpretation of the Nuremberg Laws.

No no, that’s not how this works. If you apply the law properly in both word and spirit, you will discover immediately that none of what’s he’s done is allowed.

Tanstaafl’s wife is a mischling first grade, who was born after 31 Jul 1936, and henceforth would be categorised as a Jew. Under the Nuremberg Laws, marriage between a German and a mischling first grade after 31 Jul 1936 was prohibited, and any offspring would also be counted as having occurred ‘extra-maritally’, and the offspring would be considered Jewish.

Why? Because the leniency shown regarding things that happened prior to 31 Jul 1936, was a leniency extended only because of practical considerations and fairness based on the idea that a law should not apply retroactively. But the law was different going forward from 1936, because it would entirely reasonable to demand that people should actually follow the law once they know what the law is.

In short, by NS logic:

1. Tanstaafl’s wife is classified as a Jew.
2. Tanstaafl’s children are classified as Jews.
3. Jews cannot be considered part of the German nation.

The rest is up to your imagination.

There would also be nowhere for them to hide, since Germany, Italy, and Japan were all playing ‘pass the potato’ at one stage of the war, where Germany would chase Jews out of places like Poland and Czechoslovakia, and then those Jews would try to flee as far as Shanghai, and then Japan announced that as soon as it was to become logistically practical (ie, as soon as the USSR is defeated in Central Asia and there is a clear road), all the Jews hiding in Shanghai would be deported back to Poland. The same Poland where the concentration camps were.

So contrary to popular belief, in a world where Axis had actually won and where no one would have had to apologise for anything, and where logistics permit, there would have been nowhere within the Axis territories for stateless Jews to hide. They’d all have to either flee to an Allied country or face the obvious consequences of being sent back into German-controlled territory.

In light of all that though, I’m surprised that Tanstaafl remains married to his wife, and I’m also surprised that no one has made a big deal out of this already. One would think that his maintaining that marriage would be the single biggest possible offence that he could commit in the eyes of ethno-nationalists, yet everyone seems to be strangely relaxed about all this.

Why is everyone so relaxed? Is there something here that I’m overlooking or haven’t been made aware of? This is not a rhetorical question, I actually want to hear some kind of answer.

People can’t just be like, “Oh, Tanstaafl’s married a Jew, this just happens sometimes, what can ya do?”. No. No, no. Nothing ever ‘just happens’.

Posted by Just Sayin' on Sun, 21 Feb 2016 21:51 | #

Well, he didn’t have the benefit of being raised in a society that actually taught people about Jews. And Jews appear human at first, crypsis being a key element of their strategy, so it us understandable how it could happen.

Obviously it compromises him to a degree and likely encourages some people to avoid associating with him, but what else are you gonna do?

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sun, 21 Feb 2016 22:05 | #

Well, what would be expected is that upon learning the reality, that marriage would be something that would be ended.

In times long past, he might have had difficulty ending it in America because a person would have had to justify themselves. But in the present environment, ‘no fault divorce’ exists, and so theoretically he could end his marriage literally at any time, without even having to give a reason.

If he wants to come across as 100% consistent, then this is something that is not only within his power to change, but also fairly trivial to practically accomplish. So why has it not happened?

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 21 Feb 2016 22:41 | #

Kumiko, if Europeans, particularly Northern Europeans, were indeed the mad and dishonorable butchers of Jewish lore I doubt you as a non-European would be willing to support the cause of our survival. Consistent with our honor we reward our friends and allies with generosity. Tanstaafl’s reward is that his family gets a pass. A special exception is made in his case. This was the spirit of Hermann Goering’s proclaiming, “I decide who is a Jew and who is Aryan.”

Posted by Just Sayin' on Sun, 21 Feb 2016 23:55 | #

If he wants to come across as 100% consistent, then this is something that is not only within his power to change, but also fairly trivial to practically accomplish. So why has it not happened?

Well, it’s his choice. His family or “the movement”.

Presumably if “the movement” had ranks, his ability to rise to certain positions would be compromised by the characteristics of his family. But since the movement doesn’t have ranks, that’s not the case. People simply have to choose for themselves whether or not they are interested in the material he puts out, given these circumstances. And whether or not they want to network with him in any way.

Going back to my previous post, I should note that as an East Asian, you are poorly positioned to fully understand the devastating effects of Jewish crypsis, especially in a deracinated, de-ethnicized society like the United States, where the cultural transmission of knowledge about Jews has been suppressed and not transmitted from generation to generation. There are huge segments of the society that know almost nothing about Jews and most people who do learn about Jews do so later in life. I’m sure you understand all that at an intellectual level, but you probably haven’t had the visceral, lived experience of thinking Jews were just another kind of white and then finding out that they were actually a highly evolved parasitic organism decades later.

Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 22 Feb 2016 06:50 | #

http://thegreateststorynevertold.tv/as-many-as-150000-jews-served-in-hitlers-military/

Brian Rigg , PhD (Cantab), wrote the above book - ‘Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers.’

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 22 Feb 2016 08:38 | #

That was quite an eloquent statement on the circumstances, Just Sayin’.

The circumstances of media and other social choke point control by Jews and the added obscuring by Jewish crypsis have been such that many of us were not only in the dark about the nature and motives of Jews, but were intimidated from criticizing them, especially, as a group in post World War II America. There was enough going against most of us that we didn’t need the stigma while we whistled in the dark in hopes that we could advance as individuals far enough to eventually make it to the company of sane people - White people who would join us in choosing to be with Whites, not with blacks, and willing to assert as much. From that perspective, it made sense to give Jews the benefit of the doubt - it made sense to look upon them as a somewhat weird White ethnic group, understandably perhaps a little paranoid given their history, but comprised of individuals who would respect America and “other” Whites as we were eager to show them our good will and give them the chance to share in the American experiment, pursuing their individual advancement.

It seemed that their history may have made some of them overcompensating liberals. But though there were clear signs of their destructive nepotism in the media and other realms, things that didn’t make sense about what they tended to advocate, neither did it make sense that they would, as a group, persist in destroying us and everything that mattered to us. I mean, America, which played a huge part in saving them and offered them infinite reward! It made no sense that they would destroy those who had saved them and created this opportunity for them. It still makes no sense until you understand them as group evolutionary strategy which sees us as an inherent threat; or if perhaps you perceive them as a parasitic organism blind to the consequences to its host. And it would have been just about impossible to even begin to think in those terms as “an American.”

Ok, we now know that they have properties like that, but we were not even inclined to traffic in these theories in America in the wake of World War II. From that perspective it was far easier and made more sense to give them the benefit of the doubt of an altercast of their being just another White minority.

Besides, some of the women looked very good. I could have gone for one myself but a few things stopped me. First, the confusion and dismay of my circumstances spoke too loudly through me, such that their better specimens were not likely to find me appealing as I could not naturally tarry with what had become America’s rule structure - of their people’s making, largely unbeknownst to me - a rule structure so confounded that it would have me looking to connect with a woman on the grounds of agreement that that rule structure was absurd, wrong, needed to be fought and changed. In the case of Jews, you can talk to them critically about society, sure; at the onset, you can typically talk to them more easily than other people, as they will have more “education” and words to apply to social problems. However, I invariably found that somewhere along the line you’d hit a wall where they’d be prescribing liberalism, anti-racism, showing disrespect and lack of empathy for my/our concerns as Whites. Quite the opposite of being empathetic, they were more or less antagonistic, such that I would invariably be repulsed by them and want to pull their hair out. That was the case with their females too, and why I was never close to even having taken one on a date. Not only did they reject me, but I rejected them because they held destructive positions. Further, you could tell that they were part of a destructive culture that was going to have them generally reconstituted in those positions.

All told, I can take credit for rejecting Jewish women but I can also understand how Tanstaafl might wind up with one in his circumstances.

I think you, Just Sayin’, are arriving at an excellent explanation of those practical circumstances.

And it is not necessarily reasonable to expect Tanstaafl to disown his wife and kids; more, he says that he is not going to do that.

In provocation, Kumiko posed a theoretical question as if a practical matter, as if it could be a simple practical matter - it might even seem fairly simple from an Asian perspective, unfamiliar with the perspective of a White American man, particularly in the post WWII, pre-Internet era, among crypsis.

However, you (Just Sayin’) are not seeing that there is a deeper question, a theoretical question, that Kumiko is asking behind the “practical” question of divorce being facilitated by “no fault” rules, etc.

If Tanstaafl wants to rise above practical complexity and propose himself as an exemplar and theoretician of pure White advocacy - such that he would, in theoretic fidelity, be willing to facilitate millions upon millions of White Europeans being killed in order to maintain unanimity with Hitler - then theoretical consistency entails a very simple choice: Hitler or his family. If he wants to maintain loyalty to the point that he’d have half of us Europeans be killed for unanimity to his god, then he should disown his family, probably should kill them. If he wants to remain the exponent of pure Aryan logic and theory, that is what he should do.

I believe the better option for him is to acknowledge his fuckups - he’s acknowledged one set of fuck ups, viz. a Jewish wife and kids. The other fuck up is being dishonest in order to facilitate a “pure logic” which puts White people at risk in order to maintain perfect unanimity with Hitler.

Kumiko asked me what I thought was the bigger transgression? Tanstaafl having a Jewish wife and kids or his being totally loyal to Hitler? The question may be another expression of a Japanese warrior perspective which is not yet fully empathetic with European praxis - where it would not be a particularly difficult choice.

Tanstaafl is just one guy with a Jewish wife and mixed Jewish kids.

Hitler killed millions of Whites and maintenance of his pure logic of meaning and action would do it again.

Obviously, it is most important to reject Hitler on balance and advocate the White race instead, let alone endorse his program across the board.

If Tan can show some rational sanity and care for our people’s safety by doing that, he might not do harm to our cause in the long run by talking with us, despite having a Jewish wife and kids. However, that is questionable. I believe his theoretical recklessness with regard to our people is probably in part an expression of loyalty to his family - the messy complexity of that fact combines with a concern for Whites that has him stretching to assimilate right wing purity in Hitler. It is another version of a right wing effort to get above the trammel, hazards and messy negotiation of praxis - rather than assimilate the calibrative gauge and feedback of the social group, viz. the White social group and its normative functions - he clings and panders to the anti-social social prosthesis of the tentosphere - with its contradictory rule structure: it is anti-White social to denounce anti-White social positions. Perhaps in frightened protection of himself and his family, he has fashioned himself a go-to guy, pure Hitler; Tan probably believes, probably correctly, that Hitlerists would be inclined to forgive him if he is loyal enough to Hitler - never mind his treachery to the millions of Whites that Hitler had killed and would kill. His Jewish wife and kids and Hitler are more important.

I believe that Tanstaafl should be looked upon with considerable skepticism, even though he does tend to shore-up and articulate many ideas very well. If he were not so loyal to Hitler, I probably would look upon him as an intelligent guy who made a mistake in having a Jewish wife and kids, was contrite about it, trying to make amends and doing fairly well, despite a situation that is overwrought with practical complexity: though overall, and on the whole, Hitler’s program was a fail for White interests, after acknowledging that lesson with caution in regard to its dangers in praxis, we should be complicated enough to discuss those things which he may have had right, as well. With regard to Tan’s family we may acknowledge extenuating circumstances and deal with it in decent manner if he does not try to promulgate the purity of his right-wing ideology as it lends itself to divide and conquer of our praxis.

It remains a theoretically simple choice: a pure and perfect Hitler and a divided praxis or a complicated Hitler, recognized as destructive on balance to White praxis. The latter option is honest, true and does not ask Tan to make an absurdly pure theoretical choice against his family nor against our race. In this, I’m not saying that he and his family are just ok, and should be included, but we can talk with him perhaps to no great harm.

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 22 Feb 2016 13:42 | #

Still had some corrections and clarifications to make to that last comment.

“Explain” I’m not ducking your question, just haven’t gotten to it yet.

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 22 Feb 2016 22:02 | #

Posted by explain on Sat, 20 Feb 2016 21:26 | #

How [can] “a strict rule that Jews and other non-Whites are not welcome” be reconciled with having Kumiko as a main writer here? Isn’t it a of ‘tentosphere’/alt-right position that you are supposedly against?

(Note. I personally think White-Japanese mixing as a positive thing, both have similar IQs).

Thanks for asking me to explain that. I have been using the phrase “Jews and other-non-Whites” to consistently designate the “out-group” for some time now.

The first reason for using that phase is to make clear from the onset that I consider Jews to be “non-White” and outside of the sphere of White genetics, along with other non-Whites.

Like most Whites perhaps, I never had the antipathy to Asians that I had for blacks and then toward Jews, once I learned fully enough what they are about….

As a rule, the more European a people were, the more empathetic I was inclined to be. I was not tolerant toward people mixed with blacks, but Europeans mixed with Amerindian, Asian or Middle Eastern could basically be a part of White nations as they were closer to 100% European and as they were more mixed, could be a part of Amerindian, Asian or Middle Eastern countries on friendly terms of universal nationalism as far as I was concerned.

I never viewed blacks or mixed black nations on friendly terms, only grudgingly according them the practical follow-up of universal nationalism. I did not have the visceral response to Jews, but came to understand intellectually, so to speak, the need to consider being rather puritanical regarding what amount of their genetics were benign to us within individuals in our nations and on the whole in our nations. I hate to say it, but even 1/4 really might be too much, even 1/8 might be…hell, 1/16th! - look at Robert Stark, what is his problem? I’m kidding, only a little. I might be wrong about where and how to draw the line, but I am sure that there is a such thing as Jewish genetics, it has detrimental properties to Whites and lines need to be considered carefully and drawn.

The next complication that I’ve been forced to consider though it has never effected me in any immediately perceptible way, not even now, is Islam. I was never inclined to be tolerant of it and I’ve only become more persuaded to see it along with the other two Abrahamic religions as a universalizing race-mixing apparatus. Thus, particularly the Middle Eastern people who have evolved under its mixing and aggressing auspices must be more rigorously discriminated against; while Whites must be disabused of Christianity.

Finally, while I have from the dawn of my racial awareness (since childhood) experienced America’s rule structure as problematic, I had to begin to consider the governing rule structures of European nations, the European Union and The Russian Federation. Though I view the European stock beneath these structures to be among our EGI advocacy group, the governing structures can be over influenced by Jewish and neo-liberal interets, obviously are in some cases.

As I talked with Kumiko, I began not only to be persuaded of a harder line against Abrahamic religons, but that Asians would be a good ally for Europeans to actively pursue against the Abrahamics and Africans.

Because of their conflicts with Russia, I began considering looking upon Russia in a similar way as I, and many White Americans, already have looked upon America’s governing bodies - with skepticism; viz. with an eye toward the probability that Jews and neo liberals were at work to the detriment of prospects for ethno-nationationalism and coordination with other ethno-nationalisms. Though I had not given it a lot of thought until talking with Kumiko, because I did not consider Russia my problem, I am more open to the possibilites that their Jews and neo-liberals (orthodox church would be a part of that) are behind an imperialist expanse against other ethno-nationalisms. And again, because we would do well to have a Eurpean-Asian alliance, that we might look upon it as preferable that The Russian Federation end and a Russian State be reformed in contracted, more normal ethno-nationalist proportions. That would serve the European relations with Asia, but would also create the possibility for Russia to be in a less conflicted position.

Coming back to the story of my change to a more positive alliance with Asians as opposed to a kind of laissez faire mostly un-bothered attitude toward them…

Though I experienced some important lack of empathy from Asians, for example as I knew them in American academia, there nevertheless remained a more reasonable and civilized way about them in the main, and they were not nearly as offensive to deal with as the others - hence the occasional pairings I witnessed and having adjacent communities, e.g. the China Towns nearby, within numerical reason, did not offend me - particularly when compared to the other groups (though I am not necessarily lumping White / Amerindian mixed people so quickly into a group of people who cannot be worked with either - I haven’t configured that potential alliance/or not).

In any event, I’ve always wanted to maintain Whites in our numbers and qualities. I’ve taken that for granted in the past and take it for granted now. I’ve never been a liberal at heart, never one who doesn’t care and throws caution to the wind with regard to our genetics.

It did not occur to me as necessary to assert as strong a rule against some co-existence and some mixing with Asians in that regard because they never struck me as quite the existential threat. I felt rather that they were intelligent and sublimated in such a way that they liked themselves enough and were empathetic enough to like and appreciate our differences enough to allow us to do what we have to do to maintain ourselves as Whites genetically, in quality and quantity. That is a hypothesis and it obviously has to be verified and monitored.

Nevertheless, a limited amount of mixing even, between Whites and Asians, appeared tolerable to me because they were generally a less harrowing people - who could be reasoned with to comply with measures that we need to take to preserve our core numbers, our various qualities and sacrosanct living spaces.

However, when I came into White nationalism proper and started working with and listening to Tom Metzger, I came to hear a harder, more consistent line, to the tune of, “if we are going to maintain our race we must be clear that Asians are not us either.”

Having in my life to that point been more anti-black and more against whatever would impose them upon us, to then be included into a perspective on full White advocacy and what it meant to be concerned about our survival was new for me.

I admired Metzger’s position and saw the logic of it. While I still thought that mixing with Asians was not the crime that mixing with blacks is, it was not a problem for me personally to abide a rule against mixing with Asians, as I have never had yellow fever. Asian women were never my thing. I thought they were pretty and intelligent, sure, but I did not feel anything like a compulsion to bridge that gap. Hence, I could afford to plunge right ahead and join the clear line in saying consistently and simply that “Jews and other non-Whites are not us.” Moreover, I saw the utility for that for more than one reason. To inspire confidence in White women that we are loyal, as I was aware that they can sometimes be as angered by yellow fever as White men are by jungle fever. I didn’t want to add to the logic of their justification for mudsharkery by completely soft peddling yellow fever while condemning jungle fever. There were and are other reasons to be consistent in maintaining Asians as an outgroup - simply stated they are not us, and do not have perfect empathy for us, our traditions, ways and concerns.

I’d hate to come across as a softy who thinks that Kumiko should necessarily be more empathetic to Whites or empathetic to empathy in general. There is real value in being a warrior not all caught up in empathy when the friend enemy lines are properly drawn.

She will just need some feedback at times to have a clearer understanding of European people in places she’s not inclined to pay attention to in the first place, just as we may need feedback where we don’t have experience and prioritized concern - for example, regarding conflicts within Asia or against Asians we may need feedback to understand the significance to Ethnonationalism - which side is right, which side is wrong in ethnonational terms - who are the true culprits.

From a perspective of White/European EGI, I do have to be somewhat careful even of Kumiko for her perspective, because she does not always have perfect empathy for Europeans in Europe and when they are in diaspora - depending on where they are, more or less. She can be reasoned with but still…she is an Asian woman who sees things from the perspective of Japanese and Asian regional interests first. While her perspective does tend to coincide with ethno-nationalism, universal nationalism and regional cooperation - Asian and Europe - the view of our aligned interests does not always so easily happen, though it usually does happen - and happen in both the near and long term, as the trajectory of our cooperation has every promise to proceed without too much difficulty because the ultimate logic of our cooperation is clear. I will come back to her in a minute, but let me touch again on the general framework.

Frankly, I felt that when, for example, Tom Metzger and others said that people like Frazier Glenn Miller should be banished on the grounds of having a half Vietnamese kid that that was a little too hard - especially considering that he disowned the kid. Whereas as Tanstaafl would not consider disowning his Jewish wife and kids and WN are completely lenient on him; furthermore, given that it also happened to Miller before he was racially conscious, and considering that he went on to have White kids and fight for the White race. Of itself, the half Vietnamese kid was a bit of a “so what?”

I must be clear that this is not to defend Frazier Glen Miller on other grounds, this is only in regard to the mixed Asian child component. For his other right-wing instability, I would not bother to defend Frazier Glenn Miller.

Now, in regard to cohabitation and mixed offspring with Asians, it can, of course be problematic and perhaps get us tangled up with people who are not sufficiently empathetic or empathized with - the Virgina Tech shooter; the Elliot Rodgers phenomenon. Kumiko and I had a good laugh at the meme “only you can prevent Elliot Rodgers”...These are not differences to be broached willy nilly, without care. It is called accountability.

Derbyshire is a different matter. He is more of an objectivist and an anti-PC guy than he is a White advocate. If he were more of a White advocate, taking on the J.Q., I’d be willing to allow for a certain amount of his kind in our advocacy, provided that they (White men with Asian wives and offspring) were accountable and bound to defend the reconstruction of European types and numbers.

That is the fundamental matter and where there is no contradiction. The European DNA Nation is a commitment to maintaining our genetic numbers and qualitative differences. There is simply no contradiction in its commitment and saying that our White kinds and numbers cannot be allowed to disappear in favor of mixed Asian/White offspring. Nor that there need not be White spaces that are overwhelmingly our sacrosanct domain.

There is a difference thus, that I began to consider and have cultivated upon working with Kumiko - which is considering an exception to ally with Asians as representing their own ethnonationalisms and in coordination of their region with our ethnonationalisms and region. The fundamental purpose, however, for this cooperation is to ensure our genetic and territorial integrity as they are the most practical allies for that purpose and would have the most benign influence in cooperation.

Are there tricky places and complexities to be worked out? Yes. I respect the upholding of more strict lines, and those inasmuch as they hold a more consistent line in that regard, but I believe my plan is more practical and more viable. Do we have to watch out for the potential loss of qualities and quantities of our kinds? Absolutely. I respect that concern most definitely; but I still believe that Asians are not an equal comparison to blacks, Jews and Arabs; and that the predominant religions of Asia are far more amenable to ethno-nationaism than the Abrahamic religions; that mixing with Asians to a minimal extent is not nearly as bad; and that they can be worked with to facilitate the possibility of accountability to The Euro DNA Nation concept.

Could you call what I am proposing something of a tent in that regard, that would include other left ethno-nationalists? Yes, I suppose, but it is not the contradictory prosthetic alliance that right-wing alliances require. There is the difference that makes a difference. Kumiko can understand that and is empathetic enough to work toward our alliance.

Having an alliance of Asians with our ethno-nationalisms is obviously a good option to give us a better chance against Jews in their cunning ethnocentrism, against their neo-Marxist coalitions, Arabs (and their Muslim religions) and blacks in their biopower.

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Tue, 23 Feb 2016 07:37 | #

Well, I see there is lot of disagreement, or at least the general feeling among commenters here is that I’m ‘not being empathetic enough’ to Tanstaafl’s situation. I do understand that in the environment that he lived in, he was very easily deceived by the system.

But I just don’t see how my question was really so unreasonable given that you all have pretty forthrightly described the Jews as being basically “the world enemy”, or “the top priority enemy”, and even—to quote Just Sayin’ exactly, “a highly evolved parasitic organism”.

So when I ask, “How can Tanstaafl remained married to a highly evolved parasitic organism while simultaneously arguing that all highly evolved parasitic organisms should be shut out of his society?”, that shouldn’t be seen as an unreasonable question.

I’m sure that Tanstaafl produces great material and that he’s liked by many people. However, I just think that his maintenance of that intimate relationship with a Jew and everyone’s apparent desire to avoid scorning it, is something that makes the whole movement look slightly strange. Yes, it is not a top-down movement with formal organisation, but it is a net-type configuration in which people’s words and endorsements matter, and so when you all are implying that all of this is okay and that Tanstaafl is ‘an exception to the rule’ and so on, it actually provides ammo in the form of talking points for the opposition. They can be like, “Look at the hypocrisy, and look at how many people have supported that hypocrisy!”

I want to focus in on this concept of ‘making amends’ for the mistake, that you all are talking about. How exactly is Tanstaafl supposed to make amends for a thing that he is continuing to do? Is it really possible to ‘make amends’ for an ill-chosen marriage while simultaneously remaining in that very same Jewish marriage? Shouldn’t our reaction to that be one of scepticism? You all have to admit that there is something very wrong there. This is really huge and obvious.

And it is especially huge and obvious in light of the story of Frazier Glenn Miller that DanielS quite rightly talked about. Frazier Glenn Miller was basically pressured into disowning his Vietnamese lover and child for no reason at all. Yet Tanstaafl is never asked to disown his Jews, his highly evolved parasitic organisms. Isn’t that astounding?

One would think it should be the other way around. Tanstaafl ought to have been given the hard questions, but Miller, not so much.

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Feb 2016 09:13 | #

Greg Johnson has posted an article in response to Roosh, who is apparently taking exception to him and the “Alternative Right.”

Yes Roosh, White Nationalists Want to Control Sexual Behavior

Of course its a good thing that Johnson maintains a stance to denounce Roosh and to encourage the rest of WN to be rid of him as well.

However, it will be interesting to see how the tentosphere copes with this one.

And as for the people who are dumb and/or nihilistic enough to embrace his [Roosh’s] position: they are of no use to us anyway, so he’s welcome to them. - Greg Johnson

Forney continues to embrace Roosh and has written an article apparently intended to take my observation that Roosh is teaching and promoting R selection strategies to people evolved predominantly for K Selection and turn it on its head to charge that Feminists are the ones promoting R selection strategies and “proving this” by a secret desire to be raped made evident, among other reasons, by their otherwise inexplicably contradictory selection of anti-rape targets - viz. prioritizing an attack on Roosh as opposed to migrant Muslim rapists.

Forney has recently appeared on an Alternative Right Podcast with Colin Liddell, Andy Nowicky and Matt Parrott. Forney has recently appeared on Daniel Friberg’s (Arktos publisher) first-ever podcast for his website hatched to represent the “true right.” Ann Sterzinger is an assistant editor for Friberg’s project and a friend and collaborator with Forney. Sterzinger writes for Johnson’s Counter-Currents. Johnson has recently appeared on a round table at Red Ice with Friberg and Richard Spencer.

Richard Spencer’s Radix and Alternative Right’s Collin Liddell and Andy Nowicky have gone on record with articles that people have gotten hysterical about Roosh. Alternative Right posted the (right wing) biologically deterministic audio/video that blames women’s natural drives for the take-down of civilization and a lack of patriarchy in accepting those drives (while it suspiciously says nothing about the Jew).

Andrew Anglin has proudly endorsed the same video.

I’m sure the list of tentosphere contradictions can go on, but that’s enough to begin.

....

Johnson has done well to denounce Roosh and admonish other WN right wingers who might be inclined to stand by Roosh.

In response to Roosh’s claim that “repression” is being imposed on him, Johnson is correct to say that “yes” we want to control sexuality. Nobody is going to find a civilization, society, group or individual even, that did not have some sort of measures for that.

However, because Johnson apparently feels the need to partake of the tentosphere and maintain standing with the WN right, he goes on to try to assimilate an endorsement of “normal” traditional gender roles.

Johnson has many talents, but in that regard a weak point of his shows through glaringly, as he once again endorses Anglin as a shrewd exemplar of White masculinity:

“As Andrew Anglin astutely observed, Roosh sells interracial cuckold porn”

The world knows now what I think of the Renegade tent (thumb’s down, right wingers) of the tentosphere, but they had a good rejoinder to Anglin‘s approval of the “women, destroyers of civilization by racial infidelity” video.

Johnson goes on to make a transparent right wing attempt to maintain a place in the tentosphere through appeal with a prosthetic offering of his own - a call to and offering of traditional right-wing gender relations in the social prosthetic tentosphere, anchored, of course, with anti-social, right wingish overstretch for purity:

Beyond that, White Nationalists have to stand for the restoration of biologically based and traditionally hallowed sexual norms: heterosexual marriage, the nuclear family, the single-breadwinner household, men as protectors and providers, and women as wives and mothers. And beyond that, a well-ordered white society should recognize that every regime encourages either eugenic or dysgenic breeding patterns, thus we must institute eugenic incentives.

There is nothing especially wrong with these values, not even the “eugenics” if it is understood and taken into a normal social context, viz. that “eugenics” is going to happen anyway in a normal society. But it can potentially go off the rails in sheer right wing hands. For example, in losing the White Left social sense of what is an appropriate match, what is ecological, and what are likely to be socially ecological adaptations, the right wing may over extend certain variables in favor of its “pure selection” and also create deleterious offspring through inappropriate matches as a result over-reach in that quest for an “improved and superior form” - instigating systemic breakdown and runaway as a result of that blind overreach.

Because of the right wing fixation to stay perpetually and narrowly atop the hierarchy as opposed to creating a social system where positions and perspectives would move and alternate in balance a bit more, tentosphere figures maintain their anti-social positions.

In an attempt to maintain his own right wing position along with the social prosthesis and credibility of the Right, Johnson tries to banish Roosh from the Right, saying:

We believe that people today are miserable because they are free. Civilization is founded upon laws, including sexual norms. Therefore, there is nothing Right-wing at all about Roosh

Johnson only wants to say that there is “nothing Right-wing” about Roosh; and he is free to banish Roosh to another part of the tentosphere, now that Roosh has denounced his particular tent. However, Roosh IS a right-winger: he cites objectivist, highly deterministic grounds for his theory of gender relations in pseudo warrant (right wing) of his socially destructive (to Whites especially) R selection style pursuits and prescribes a rigid (right wing) R selection patriarchical form of gender relations (not reflecting White social balance) to maintain that “objective” position. But Roosh will scurry to another tent in the tentosphere, as the general right wing social prosthetic rule remains among the tentosphere, “it is anti-social to prohibit my anti-social pseudo objective warrant.”

Posted by FFS on Tue, 23 Feb 2016 12:12 | #

FFS DanielS, you have an obsession with being critical of Tanstaffl that makes you look very petty minded. In particular you pick and taunt him about his family situation that, yes, rather ironically finds him, as a strong critic of jews, in the odd position of being married, with children to a half jewish wife.

He explains his situation in a 2010 blog post here: http://age-of-treason.com/2010/01/14/a-personal-disclosure/

He writes:

“My wife’s father was an ashkenazi jew. He died when she was young but was by all accounts a loving, intelligent, and productive man who was not involved in stereotypically jewish politics or activism. My wife was not raised as a jew, though she is of course genetically 1/2 ashkenazi, and thus our children are, on average, genetically 1/4 ashkenazi.
…
When I first started blogging in 2005 it seemed no more relevant to what I was thinking and writing than any other detail of my personal life. At that time I had no explicit racial awareness. I knew little about jews and considered them “white”. People who thought otherwise seemed insane to me.”

Shouldn’t it all be fairly simple, DanielS? He got married and had children to a half jew before he was aware of the JP.

What should a decent man do in his his situation? Abandon his own children and wife for some idealogical purity? This is nonsense talk!

Tan has acted admirably by not doing what lesser men would do, either stopping all activism or even start shilling for the jews, but rather, has become a ferocious and insightful critic of the jews.

Tell us DanielS, what you would do exactly in his situation? Are you married with children?

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Tue, 23 Feb 2016 12:24 | #

Why are you asking DanielS that question, given that I am the one who is making an issue out of it?

My answer by the way is that yes, Tanstaafl ought to divorce his wife. Why would that be ‘nonsense talk’?

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Feb 2016 12:37 | #

Posted by FFS on Tue, 23 Feb 2016 07:12 | #

FFS DanielS, you have an obsession with being critical of Tanstaffl

FFS, I have not been obsessed and am not obsessed with Tanstaaffl.

He was and is among the first of several people whose position I intend to critique. His case became a bit protracted when he came to argue and that added to the length required for an already complicated situation. But to say that I am “obsessed” is the kind of psychologizing ad hominem that he himself is given to resort to rather than caring to honestly understand my purposes..

that makes you look very petty minded.

If you think being critical of a guy taking the lead in extolling Hitler as merely “right” and maintaining a pure line of unanimity of his world view and program is being “petty” then you are colossal fool or dishonest.

In particular you pick and taunt him about his family situation that, yes, rather ironically finds him, as a strong critic of jews, in the odd position of being married, with children to a half jewish wife

I do not “pick on him” for that. I call attention to the glaring contradiction since he is presenting himself as Mister “pure theory” with a dangerous, destructive and false idea that Hitler was perfect.

He explains his situation in a 2010 blog post here: http://age-of-treason.com/2010/01/14/a-personal-disclosure/

Yes, I heard that podcast when it came out. In practical terms, I was and am sympathetic to his account - he basically takes account of the issues that I would.

He writes:

“My wife’s father was an ashkenazi jew. He died when she was young but was by all accounts a loving, intelligent, and productive man who was not involved in stereotypically jewish politics or activism. My wife was not raised as a jew, though she is of course genetically 1/2 ashkenazi, and thus our children are, on average, genetically 1/4 ashkenazi.
...

When I first started blogging in 2005 it seemed no more relevant to what I was thinking and writing than any other detail of my personal life. At that time I had no explicit racial awareness. I knew little about jews and considered them “white”. People who thought otherwise seemed insane to me.”

I know this and have made it plain that I know this.

Shouldn’t it all be fairly simple, DanielS? He got married and had children to a half jew before he was aware of the JP.

What should a decent man do in his his situation? Abandon his own children and wife for some idealogical purity? This is nonsense talk!

Tan has acted admirably by not doing what lesser men would do, either stopping all activism or even start shilling for the jews, but rather, has become a ferocious and insightful critic of the jews.

Tell us DanielS, what you would do exactly in his situation? Are you married with children?

I do not have a wife and children (yet).

You apparently didn’t read what I said. I did not say that he should abandon his wife and kids. I suggested rather that he abandon instead the idea that Hitler was theoretically perfect.

As for his wife and kids, that’s up to him if he wants to remain living with them, but their inclusion in a White genetic system should be viewed with a great deal of skepticism - perhaps they should have to live in Israel.

My criticisms of Hitler should not be construed as a defense of Jews.

Posted by FFS on Tue, 23 Feb 2016 13:43 | #

Well, fair enough, you caught me there DanielS in a minor way.

You deny being just obsessed about Tanstaffl and his family, despite mentioning it many times in one comment alone in this thread.

But no, you have another obsession about him, namely his statement that, “Hitler was right”.

So now we are getting to the crux of your concern. It’s not really about his half jewish wife, it’s all about his admiration of Hitler.

If he had said that, “Hitler was wrong”, I imagine you would gloss over his jewish wife as no big deal, wouldn’t you?

Now the issue of whether Hitler was right or wrong, or somewhere in between, is the big historical question.

For most of my life I thought Hitler was likely a monster, as we have been told, repeatedly. But there was always a niggling sense of doubt. It didn’t quite add up that the highly educated and cultured Germans would endorse Hitler unless there was something basically right about him.

After much research, I can say that I also now agree with with the likes of Tanstaffl, in that, Hitler was right. Simply put, he saw the Jews as the enemy of white people, which they clearly are.

Consequently, Hitler wanted to expel them from Europe.

Posted by FFS on Tue, 23 Feb 2016 14:00 | #

Kumiko: “My answer by the way is that yes, Tanstaafl ought to divorce his wife. Why would that be ‘nonsense talk’?”

Why would you divorce someone you love and have two children with? It doesn’t make any sense.

I recall that he said in one interview or podcast that his wife is on board with his views on organized jewry.

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Tue, 23 Feb 2016 15:06 | #

Of course it makes sense for Tanstaafl to divorce her. She’s literally a Jew.

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Feb 2016 15:40 | #

Posted by FFS on Tue, 23 Feb 2016 13:43 | #

Well, fair enough, you caught me there DanielS in a minor way.

You deny being just obsessed about Tanstaffl and his family,

I don’t just deny it, asshole. I told you the truth. He is just one person in a list that I’m considering. The discussion about him (and his family) got drawn out (a little) for a few reasons, but was not meant to stop with him and will not stop with him. He is not that important, let alone an “obsession” - you are obsessed with the word “obsession” apparently.

despite mentioning it many times in one comment alone in this thread.

I told you why he is mentioned several times in this thread, because in addition to being tangled in fairly complex issues, he came here to argue and so did some people, like yourself, on his behalf.

But no, you have another obsession about him, namely his statement that, “Hitler was right”.

Oh, you are going to tell me what I’m all about aye? It’s not that I care about advocacy of White people, it is that I’m obsessed with his statement that “Hitler was right.”

How about we keep this simple since you value plain talk. You are full of shit.

So now we are getting to the crux of your concern. It’s not really about his half jewish wife, it’s all about his admiration of Hitler.

No, its about his epistemolgical blunders and his conflicted motives for having a Jew wife and kids.

If he had said that, “Hitler was wrong”, I imagine you would gloss over his jewish wife as no big deal, wouldn’t you?

If he had an accurately complex view of Hitler and did not take the line that he was perfect, that he was mistaken where he was mistaken… and if, instead, Tan held a sound praxis, then I would not see the need to take marked issue with him about his theory.

However, his having a Jewish wife and kids is a problem in any event - definitely. Their genetics are poison to us.

Now the issue of whether Hitler was right or wrong, or somewhere in between, is the big historical question.

It does not have to be difficult or overly complicated; but it is obviously the case that he was right and wrong about somethings and that on balance, he was wrong for White advocacy because his world view was too divisive of Whites. That is chief among other reasons why he should not be held up for redemption and as the model of inspiration to rally Whites.

For most of my life I thought Hitler was likely a monster, as we have been told, repeatedly. But there was always a niggling sense of doubt. It didn’t quite add up that the highly educated and cultured Germans would endorse Hitler unless there was something basically right about him.

They got caught up with a world view that centered heavily on themselves, their own people, and naturally tended to treat neighboring European nations as antagonists as a result of the prior wars, particularly the First War and Friedrich the Great’s wars and world view.

The idea of Europeans fighting each other was (unfortunately) normal and the Germans of Hitler’s era got caught up with an idea of “getting it right” this time and went for broke, thinking they’d be able to pull it off. It was unfortunate, Hitler misled them for his Friedrich the Great fetish. I understand how they could have gotten caught-up. I probably could have made the same mistake, but that was a mistake - for which I do not blame present day Germans at all.

After much research, I can say that I also now agree with with the likes of Tanstaffl, in that, Hitler was right. Simply put, he saw the Jews as the enemy of white people, which they clearly are.

He was right about some things and other things not.

Consequently, Hitler wanted to expel them from Europe.

That would have been good. He should have respected the sovereignty of eastern nations, pursued more cooperation with them and other nations to expel the Jews. He was not the only one who was Jew-wise and wanted to expel them.

His Friedrich the Great fetish and ambition for lebensraum blinded him to the fact that there were leaders and popular movements in the very nations that he wanted to destroy and take over, whom, if cooperated with, would have been more than willing to expel Jews and defeat the Soviets.

Instead, for his vain ambition, he made enemies of these people, their nations and got us into a war that killed 54 million White people.

Posted by Alliances on Tue, 23 Feb 2016 19:42 | #

“Having an alliance with Asians is obviously a good option among to give us a better chance “... I think that alliance is the only hope, even if just from demographics: http://www.amren.com/features/2015/07/an-african-planet/
If Africa’s growth is not stopped, they will invade other -internally divided as they are- continents no matter what.
(I would hope Africa inhabited/divided between Japanese (because their islands are so permanently at the edge of natural destruction -and of course their culture-) and whites (north and south Africa, because historical precedence).

Posted by Just Sayin' on Tue, 23 Feb 2016 19:52 | #

Only responding because I was mentioned, thread seems to have gotten a bit silly. And I’m not going to go back and forth with you on Hitler, as I regard it as mostly a matter of interpretation; how evil do you think the Western allies and their values were / are.

I’m not really saying you should emphasize with TAANSTAFL. I’m just saying that getting trapped in that way isn’t necessarily a sign of a mental defect that would render all of his writings inherently suspect.

You do of course have to be on the lookout for situations where someone is rationalizing his life circumstances. But that’s something you have to look out for with every writer and knowing more about someone actually make potential rationalizations easier to spot. There are a whoooooooole lot of people out there who are rationalizing life circumstances that they keep hidden. (For example, NRX is largely made up of people whose life circumstances render make them unwilling to be pro-white and most of them don’t advertise those circumstances)

Perhaps in a perfect world he would personally fly his wife and kids to Israel, then get a new family. And perhaps that might be expected of someone who was going to become a core member of a hypothetical real life movement that is going to do real life stuff.

But human weakness being what it is, it seems a bit unrealistic to expect someone to divorce his wife and disown his kids… in order to participate in a movement which primarily consists of him posting free content on his own website.

Many of the white bloodlines existing today aren’t going to make it to the ethno-state. Heck, many of the *white nationalist* bloodlines existing today aren’t going to make it to the ethno-state.

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Feb 2016 20:27 | #

To call what’s been said here “silly” is much too facile. As it is to say that Hitler is all just a matter of interpretation. However, I’ll settle for not talking about Hitler at any chance, as soon as people are ready to leave him in history, so am I. I didn’t say all of Tan’s discussions were rendered useless, but he was the one who proposed that Hitler’s was a flawless agenda. That absurdity combined with the absurdity of that coming from a man with a Jewish wife and kids actually provided occasion for a meaningful discussion (not silly, Just Sayin’).

Posted by Just Sayin' on Wed, 24 Feb 2016 16:36 | #

Sorry, I meant that as two separate statements, not as a pejorative against your argument.

I felt that going back and forth with Kumiko on the “he should divorce his wife stuff” was getting a little silly and that we had made our points.

Your point about Hitler was not silly, I just don’t want to get into a long discussion on that topic, since it could go on indefinitely, given that we have VERY different interpretations of European history and how Jewed the Western allies were. And given the theme of this site it would probably be inappropriate for me to denigrate Britain as thoroughly as I’d need to.

So I’m out for now.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 24 Feb 2016 17:11 | #

That “VERY” part strikes me as where you are, according to my hypothesis, remaining fixed to right wing transcendent (hoped for transcendent) anchoring which is anti-White social praxis but allowed for in the social prosthesis of the tentosphere by means of its contradictory (and ultimately to fail) rule of social exclusion.

If you were to join us as White Leftists, you would find that we are quite capable and willing to criticize British/English elite traitors. The capacity of that perspective to maintain a bead and an account of these high level traitors and infiltrators, and low level scabs and union busters as well - all the while engaging positive maintenance of the whole of our people (European race and subcategories) - is the point of taking a White Left position.

But the full organization of that perspective is what is blocked by the right wing rule structure of the tentosphere.

You are making an argument that I just wouldn’t understand because it is all so relative - and that kind of hyper relativism is what happens as an upshot of right-wing objectivism, because it does not allow for stabilization and homeostasis of the White social classification through feedback in its calibrative gauge.

Posted by trying on Thu, 25 Feb 2016 21:11 | #

Created *or not* by Jews, if almost everyone is using/understanding the terms ‘left’, ‘liberal’, ‘alt-right’ (as pro-whites), etc in a way, DanielS’s reinterpreting/pushing for a different understanding of them -even if he is correct, which he could be not- only creates confusion and hinders any kind of interchange relating practical matters. A ‘new’ (even if it can be argued to actually be old) defining of those terms makes a ton of articles past and present unintelligible, it would make DanielS’s work that of a misinformation agent -let’s hope he is not that…- . So please DanielS, why won’t you use neologisms, something like ‘nonjewtrueoldleft’ ‘nonjewliberal’ or whatever you wish so your discourse can be understood by all the people -the majority- that is not going to change their mind definitions -much less their already written documents- just to fit your ‘correct’ uses of terms.

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 25 Feb 2016 22:16 | #

First of all, I do use the term, “the White Left” and distinguish it from “the Red Left” - to designate the Jewish, Marxist, liberal anti-White meanings that our people normally ascribe to the term “the left.”

I understand and am sympathetic to the tons of written material and years that people have invested in using the terms, a long convention of usage that runs counter to our organizational interests, namely as it, the left, means liberalismfor us (Whites) and socialized monetary/resource redistribution to non-Whites. And that is the simple point. The writing of those who have used these terms remains useful if the reader generally reads what they mean by “left” as “liberal for Whites” and “anti-White Marxist/socialist coalitions (unions) for acquisition from and exploitation of Whites.”

So, that is quite simple and requires very little of the reader, actually, who is normally having to change “liberal” and “left” in the same sentence anyway, because of this confusion.

Moreover, the White Left as understood, is too valuable a perspective and organizational tool to give up: it keeps an eye on accountability, specifically those who could be our most important traitors (the elite) and the ordinary traitors as well, as they might be prone to liberalism for the union’s lack of accountability to them or their own lack of accountability to the would-be racial union. Finally, by insisting upon the term “the White Left” people are forced to ask, “what do you mean by that?”, which is what I want them to ask and what we should want them to ask.

While it is true that many people have devoted much writing and effort based upon the terms as confused by Jewish interests, it is also true that terms change over time and neo-logisms emerge: hence The White Left/The White Class.

It is a necessary neo logism and it is quite different from The Red Left.

Posted by question on Fri, 26 Feb 2016 02:02 | #

“we at Majorityrights are not part of the Alt-Right, but we are ethno-nationalists”* Could all the authors of this site please explain clearly an succinctly the difference (the alt-right is for many the same as ‘white-nationalists’, how can this be dif. with ‘ethno-nationalists’; also say ‘alt-left’ is in practice the same as ‘alt-right’...)? also, what is the difference of all this with ‘national-socialists’? Are all writers of the site ‘white-left’?

Please clarify all these, the different writers so that a clearer understanding than from only the ‘tentosphere’ article emerges.

_____________
*Editor’s note: This quoted statement appeared in “The demagoguery of the centre-right [...]” article. However, the question is more relevant to this thread.

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 27 Feb 2016 21:45 | #

Posted by question on Thu, 25 Feb 2016 21:02 | #

“we at Majorityrights are not part of the Alt-Right, but we are ethno-nationalists”* Could all the authors of this site please explain clearly an succinctly the difference (the alt-right is for many the same as ‘white-nationalists’, how can this be dif. with ‘ethno-nationalists’; also say ‘alt-left’ is in practice the same as ‘alt-right’...)? also, what is the difference of all this with ‘national-socialists’? Are all writers of the site ‘white-left’?

Please clarify all these, the different writers so that a clearer understanding than from only the ‘tentosphere’ article emerges.

_____________
*Editor’s note: This quoted statement appeared in “The demagoguery of the centre-right [...]” article. However, the question is more relevant to this thread.

I will go first to answer this.

We are in agreement on ethno-nationalism as a genetically based nationalism - which is particularly valid when it designates and circumscribes the native people evolved and adapted for a particular area - such as European nations. However, we all allow for the prospect of reorganizing genetic kinship based nations on some other continents - The Americas, Australia and New Zealand. Obviously, it is awkward to call Europeans living outside of Europe and looking to organize a nation there, “European”, hence we tend to call them “White Nationalists” when they are trying to organize nations based on European genetic delimitations outside of Europe. There can be both utility and problems with applying the term “White” and “White Nationalism” in Europe. The advantage is that inasmuch as “White” is treated as a synonym for “native European” it can put aside connotations of “civic propositional nationalism” that can sometimes be associated with the term “European” and thereby clarify the fact that we are talking about genetic based nations. The negative side is when people don’t observe the fact that cherished and important differences can be maintained through strict accountability to universal nationalism - including distinctions among the European people. When they lose sight of the utility of nationalism, the term “White” can create more problems than it solves. So, it is still a judgment call as to when “White”, “European” or a clarifying phrase is best to use.

Though Kumiko is more concerned with Asian ethno-nationalisms than I would tend to be, I believe she generally tends to agree with what I’ve said to this point. Because she is a military person and of a military nature, she tends to want to kick ass. I want to kick ass too, but not where our people are not yet organized and coordinated in our ethno-nationalist distinctions, so that we are not fighting among ourselves and so that we are not an easy mark for others.

I have become convinced that White Left ethno-nationalisms are the best way to organize and coordinate in our defense. Kumiko is closer to agreement with that than GW, though I believe that GW should agree with it as well because it does not conflict with his inquiries and goals.

Once our ethno-nationalisms are more operative and coordinated, then we can move onto a next phase where we can take measures outside of our borders, in cooperation with The Asian region and ethno-nations, to do whatever we might need to do in the Middle East and Africa. That doesn’t mean exploit them necessarily, but it does mean doing what we have to do to secure what we need from these places and to prevent their populations from wreaking havoc and spilling over to our realms. GW might see these considerations as premature, Kumiko might see them as lagging.

Kumiko will tell you quite eloquently that though some of its people claim similar objectives as ours, that “The Alt Right” has primarily been defined negatively in response to “PC” and thus, they lack a unifying ethnogenetic basis as a commitment.

I see that ethno-genetic commitment as requiring a commitment to its social groupings - classificatory groupings of both genus and species.

It is an accountability concerned for maintaining and fostering our genetics, its social groupings*; protection by means of national bounds of those groupings and regional cooperation among its nations; in particular, of Europe, its nations, region, cooperating and coordinating of itself and with Asian nations and the Asian region in particular.

* This I call a function of “Leftism” - it is necessary to the unionization of our peoples, accountability of both elite and rank and file members of the class (the ethno-nation); this focus on the social group as the unit of analysis distinguishes my view, anyway, from right wing views which tend to be more pre-occupied with principles, objective facts or perhaps a narrow and elite group of people at the expense of social accountability.

Again, I believe that Kumiko is in fair agreement and can be in fuller agreement where she is not sure yet .. so is and can be GW, though he would perhaps deny it because he tends to take contrarian positions in pursuit of ever more fine ontological grounding as a result of a habitual fight with the Marxist rhetoric coming out of academia that he knows mostly from their language games as they came downstream and are taken for granted as “received” and not “made” (twisted) information - corruptions of important scholarship.

We all have some disagreements with “National socialism” inasmuch as it designates Hitler’s regime. We all have sympathy for the circumstances, abilities and some of the things that they conceived and did. Kumiko has more sympathy and fewer reservations than GW and I. GW and Kumiko are a bit more interested to persuade some of its present day admirers to cooperate with us than I am. My experience is that that is impractical - people who revere Hitler make more trouble than they are worth and it is very disappointing - frustrating because it is unnecessary as we are are on the side of German ethno-nationalism - which is not the same as Nazi so-called national socialism, which was really a surpemacist imperialism.

Posted by Cortes on Mexico's Neo-Liberal predicament on Sun, 06 Mar 2016 22:38 | #

Robert Stark and Charles Lincoln talk with Fernando Cortes:

http://www.starktruthradio.com/?p=2111

It is worth listening to. He covers ground thoughtfully on issues of Mexico and how it has been impacted by Neo-Liberalism.

However, Cortes comes by way of Duke and The IHR - and is being interviewed by Lincoln and Stark who apparently met him there - so, one should be aware that he might have a right wing hook serving the tentosphere. I (DanielS) will listen again. I’ve only heard the first third so far; he is pretty subtle.

Ok, finished it…sounded pretty good so far. Except for the company he keeps he seems pretty good so far.. he is not only about the Jews, but takes neo-liberalism seriously as well. That’s a good sign.

Posted by Right quest & tentosphere prosthesis on Sun, 13 Mar 2016 15:11 | #

The right wing quest for transcendent warrant

The failure of the tentosphere’s social prosthesis thereof

Posted by doubling down on 'the left' on Mon, 14 Mar 2016 09:32 | #

Colin Liddell and Andy Nowicki bring in go-to-guy Keith Preston, as the tentosphere does whenever they want to reconstruct “THE LEFT” as the enemy. He obliges in this discussion, helping them with a career move (selling words), helping their right wing financiers to stand above accountability, and helping Jews to keep Whites disorganized all at once, “the left, the left, that left.”

However, Preston does slip a bit in saying what “the left means now ..tends to be identitarian groups and social justice warriors.”

..you’re getting closer Keith.

Note, Keith Preston is an anarchist, not a White racial advocate. As I said, the tentosphere brings him in anytime they want to try to reconstruct what amount to Jewish definitions of right and left.

Andy Nowicki is a Catholic writer who has is not racial advocate; he has some trouble with PC and other popular trends, otherwise he goes along to get along and worse, opposes racial advocacy.

Collin Liddell is a writer, probably the closest thing to a racial advocate among the three but mostly concerned with his writing career - which is to multiply and sell words.

Among these three and their supporters their doubling down on “the left, the left, the left as the enemy” is motivated, but the connections of those motivations might be interesting and telling.

Posted by von Goldstein: tentosphere's next Abrahamic barker on Sat, 02 Apr 2016 12:04 | #

Alex von Goldstein -

The tentosphere’s latest barker against racial organization and attempt to herd sheeple into Abrahamic jurisdiction.

Posted by tentosphere & Jewish infiltration on Sun, 12 Jun 2016 06:06 | #

Via Stark, the tentosphere brings von Goldstein back again for another stab at persuading the masses that the “we” who are fighting the power includes Jews.

In a similar argument as Ruth, a.k.a., “The Truth Will Live”, Goldstein tries to recruit the young and naive into that Jewish inclusive “we”, by presenting his “radical centrism” as a “new”, “edgy”, “rebellious trend” against the “left establishment”..
...he proposes that “radical centrism” is symbolized by Pepe the frog

The lies will try to live, but they’re not White, they’re Jewish

Posted by What is the (((Alt-Right))) on Tue, 20 Sep 2016 01:54 | #

What is the “Alt-Right” - a sarcastic look at Jewish influence in the Alt-Right:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=474&v=oO30y3Vmqx8

Posted by Larry Fernandes on Tue, 18 Oct 2016 05:54 | #

THE SHITLORD HUB is the Alt Right Central, aggregating over 100 feeds for Alt Right websites, updated 24/7. Check it out: http://theshitlordhub.blogspot.co.uk/

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 18 Oct 2016 06:21 | #

It also lists and updates Majorityights - which is not Alternative Right.

The alt right smorgas board is apparently (((their strategy))) for entryism - the kitchen sink approach, overloading which includes (((them))) in a mix of right wing reactionaries that can be maneuvered as need be.

Posted by More BS from (((The Alt Left))) on Mon, 28 Nov 2016 08:14 | #

Latest in bullshit and obfuscation from the so called (((alternative left))), which is proposed as a Jewish friendly, liberal and propositional working class advocacy; as opposed to The White Left, which is exclusive for Whites (i.e., not inclusive of Jews and other non-Whites).

Posted by (((Luke Ford))) against "The Left" on Tue, 29 Nov 2016 01:16 | #

(((Luke Ford))) tries to promote his bullshit Abrahamic worldview/friend enemy distinction - enemies are “the left.”

Posted by dsc on Thu, 19 Jan 2017 17:34 | #

New Movement on the Alt-Right: Israeli Aryanism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gg56XV1FiKA

............................................
Editor’s note: at least you admit where ((Pill Eater))) and Stark are coming from.

Personally, I do not find these blonde Jewish women hard to resist at all.

To find Jewish women repugnant is to know them.

Posted by (((John K Press))), a writer for Alternative Right on Wed, 01 Feb 2017 01:42 | #

Robert Stark interviews (((John Kenneth Press)))

(((John K. Press))) runs the website Culturism and writes for Alternative Right.

By “Culturism” he explains that he means integration of the various races in The Unites States under a common American culture.

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sun, 05 Feb 2017 19:32 | #

Robert Stark’s latest interview with Pilleater and The Adventure Kid is probably the most eclectic thing I’ve ever seen. That whole interview pretty much defines what ‘eclectic’ means.

DanielS’ article should probably be picked up once again and dusted off. It will be necessary to go through everything that the guests on Stark’s show are doing so as to better understand what to expect from them next, since the eclecticism may only be an apparent eclecticism, a multitude of vectors which seem disordered, but—when resolved—actually point toward a deliberate agenda which I suspect absolutely no one is going to like.

Comments:

Post a comment:

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Links

MR Central & News

Comments