Greg Johnson Traces The Most Important Intellectual Roots & References Of The Alternative Right

Posted by DanielS on Friday, 25 November 2016 10:06.

In background preparation for a piece that Kumiko has coming up, which will set-out some hidden content and meta-frames of The Alternate Right in its history and current relation to President Elect Trump’s agenda, I decided that it would be helpful to provide a straight forward background of the Alt-Right - as detailed by one as capable as anybody of articulating its history and hoped-for future from an insider’s perspective - Greg Johnson. He was asked by French Marxist, Laura Raim, to trace the most important intellectual roots and references of the Alternative Right:

Laura Raim interviews Greg Johnson on The Intellectual Roots and References of The Alt Right.

Laura Raim:

The first question is, what are the intellectual roots and references of the Alt Right?

I read that some people say that it’s Sam Francis or James Burnham before him..

But what would you say would be the most important intellectual roots and references?

Greg Johnson:

Well, the term Alt Right, I believe was coined around 2008 by (((Paul Gottfried))).

He gave a lecture where he basically declared the paleoconservative movement dead.

I think in the same lecture he also called for the creation of an Alternative Right.

So, I see the Alternative Right as primarily emerging from the paleocon movement in American political thought -

And the paleoconservatives would be people like Samuel Francis, Joseph Sobran and Patrick Buchanan.

Now, Richard Spencer was working for The American Conservative which was founded by Patrick Buchanan, (((Taki))) and a couple other people, to be a kind of flagship for paleoconservativatism -

Paleoconservatism defined itself in contradistinction to Neo-Conservatism, which they were trying to combat.

The paleocon movement sort of got old, a lot of its leading figures died, it never really effectively institutionalized itself, never effectively mobilized large donors.

Of course Patrick Buchanan has written many best selling books and had a lot of media access, he was the main face of it but he’s getting old.

The American Conservative sort of lost steam.

(((Taki))) left, I believe, I can’t remember when but he did create (((Taki’s))) Magazine.

Richard Spencer ended up editing (((Taki’s))) Magazine for a while.

Then he left Taki’s Magazine and he created Alt-Right, um, “Alternative Right” in the beginning of 2010.

Sometime after that the fellow who was running Washington Summit Publishing and National Policy Institute, Louis Andrews died after a long battle with cancer.

So, those organizations were handed over to Richard Spencer.

I see really, primarily a continuity between the paleoconservatives and the birth of the term Alternative Right.

However, when the Alternative Right webzine was created, there was a fairly self conscious attempt to bring in a lot of different thought currents under that very vague umbrella -

That included things that were certainly not considered, uh, how to put it ..they weren’t necessarily welcomed in paleocon circles, and that would include things like: neo-pagans, paleomasculinity, White nationalism, things like that.

And so, under that broad, sort of umbrella, there are a lot of different, uh, thought currents that sort of came together.

I actually wrote something about this at, I think it was the Occidental Quarterly On Line, just after the Alternative Right webzine launched. So if you want to cite that or quote that it’s there on the web somewhere.

After a couple of years Spencer, I believe, sort of lost interest in editing Alternative Right and other people took it over, really, on day-to-day functioning and then he shut it down and launched his Radix publication.

I thought that was in someways a good idea because he felt like he had lost control of the brand.

On the other hand, Alternative Right was becoming a generic term.

And if you invent something like .. if you have a product that becomes synonymous with a whole genre, like Xerox or a Walkman, or something like that, the last thing you do is throw away such a valuable brand - but he did.

He walked away from the brand and Colin Liddell and Andy Nowicki have kept that alive.

And then a few years .ah, well, the last two years of course the brand has become much more mainstreamed -

Because of its vagueness a lot of figures that are, again, sort of closer to the mainstream of conservatism than I am ... I would define myself as a White Nationalist and as a New Rightist.. not as a, uhm, Alternative Rightist, although I would use that term because its a broad enough umbrella to encompass me.

Laura Raim:

You are more specifically a White Nationalist

Greg Johnson:

Yeah, and uh, I don’t feel the need to use sort of vague broad umbrella terms but other people do; just because of their well, because they’re not comfortable with being more specific; and I’m all for people being as explicit and involved as they want to be; and just respecting those decisions.

So, people like Milo Yiannopoulos, uh, Mike Cernovich, um, Vox Day, all of them, fairly prominent, connected with sort of the edgier reaches of the mainstream right, have started using that term (Alternative Right) as well.

Also a few people like Andrew uhm ...I’m blanking out his name…this is embarrassing… uh, the fellow that edits The Daily Stormer, uhm, Andrew Anglin..

Laura Raim: Oh, I know about him.

Greg Johnson:

Andrew Anglin of course ...as soon as, as soon as the term got popular, he started branding himself as Alternative Right. And that was just, it’s sort of a douchy move on his part, a kind of trollish thing, to just kind of take advantage of the popularity of the term. And I don’t blame him in the least for that.

Anyway, it [Alternative Right] is a very broad umbrella term but the main intellectual root of it comes out of the paleoconservative movement.

Now, as to what defines it today, I think the real core, the heart of it, the energy of it, really is White Nationalist, New Rightist people like that.

Laura Raim:

Richard Spencer writes, a “White Nationalist’ is sort of an identitarian.”

Greg Johnson:

Yeah, yeah. European identitarianism, that’s another term that we borrowed from Europe. It’s a good term, it’s analogous to libertarianism, it states what’s most important in your ideology, which is the preservation of your distinct racial, cultural and historical identity. So, it’s a good term.

That really is I think the, where all the real energy is. That is what’s generating a lot of the intellectual excitement, if you will ...on, on the right .... from the creation of memes and trolling and arguments.

In the past year and a half or two years, things that have come out of our sphere have actually started to shape mainstream political discourse….within the Republican Party for instance.

I think it was in 2012, Gregory Hood, at Counter-Currents, referred to mainstream conservatives as “cuckoled conservatives” - and that was really the inception of the “cuckservative” meme; which, when it became more widespread through Twitter, became a really effective barb that drove a lot of mainstream conservatives wild because it was so true.

So, we started shaping the discourse, and I think that’s very valuable.

Now, another current of thought that is sort of flowing into the Alternative Right, that’s very important, is, the sort of breakdown of the libertarian movement . This is very important.

I used to be a libertarian years ago, and I sort of followed this intellectual journey along time ago. Then in 2008, when the Ron Paul movement was getting started noticing how overwhelmingly White that Ron Paul supporters were ...and, it was an implicitly White thing. They weren’t aware of the fact that this was a very White form of politics, it made sense more to White people than any other group.

And I was sort of betting at the time that a lot of these people would start breaking away from this and start moving in the direction of White identity politics.

And, when I was the editor of The Occidental Quarterly, near the end of that time, I actually set in motion an essay contest, on libertarianism and White racial nationalism. And the purpose of that was really to get our best minds to sort of think about this idea and create an analysis and work towards creating talking points that we could use to sort of ease the way of a lot of people toward our position. That, I didn’t think bore any fruit at the time, at least I didn’t see any.

A few years later, after the 2012 election campaign and the end of the Ron Paul movement, basically, within the libertarian sphere there was a real push by cultural leftists to basically just take it all over; and to eject anything that seemed conservative, patriotic or whatever; it became this leftist globalizing and really sometimes quite explicitly Jewish take-over.

What happened was that a lot of people were pushed-out by just revulsion. There were these intense discussion groups on line, where they, people would be battling one another about this. And a lot of people just left in disgust.

One of those online groups, a FaceBook group, actually became the source of The Right Stuff.

..therightStuff.biz, which now has The Daily Shoah, as their flagship podcast and so forth.

Those people are all ex-libertarians.

They moved out of libertarianism towards White identity politics in basically the same way that I did and other people have.

So, that really is a broad tributary that is flowing into White identity politics; and into the overall, Alt Right umbrella; and its a very vital force, too.

Most of the people involved in this are quite young. Most of them are quite educated. It’s very interesting. I had a dinner recently with some new young people who have come into it in the past six months to two years; and then some people who have been around for decades: and um, the contrast could not have been more marked, because really, the people who had been in this for decades were all kind of misfits, you know they were uh, socially awkward and weird people. And uh, the younger crowd coming in were mostly quite impressive, sort of fratty, preppy, squared-away people, many of them with ex-recent military careers; most of them in their twenties or around thirty; and just a very different look and feel to this: people with a lot of agency, discipline and organization.

Now, there are a lot of people that we call “autistes,” who are, if not outright autistic are at least on that spectrum. They’re kind of socially awkward, yet they do perform valuable functions; they’re great meme creators and number crunchers.

But there’s also a large group of people coming into this who are just, they’re very normal; in their presentation, in their background; they’re the kind of people who, psychologically would not be inclined, to get involved with any kind of radical identity politics; but there’s a wind in our sails now. ..and they feel, not only conviction, but they also feel like this is something that they can put their effort into and it might actually bear fruit. So, there’s a great deal of excitement and intellectual vitality here.

And this is very interesting also uhm: one of the things that is sort of an internal, I guess, rift, within the Alt Right umbrella, is of course the Jewish question - I believe the term [Alt Right] was coined first by a Jewish writer, (((Paul Gottfried))), the paleocons have always been kind of friendly with Jews, publishing them and associating them in their conferences and things like that; and yet within the White Nationalist sphere there is a strong group of people who are quite critical of Jewish power and influence in our societies.

People like (((Milo Yiannopoulis and Mike Cernovich))) are Jewish to some extent, uh, in their identity - it’s kind of disputed in Cernovich’s case - because he put out his DNA profile and none of it came up Ashkenazic or Jewish at all. But there are people who left Russia claiming to be Jews who weren’t, so he might be descended from that kind of line.

But anyway, that is a factor: There is a Jewish camp and a Jewish friendly versus a Jewish critical camp, split within the Alternative Right.

One of the interesting things that I’ve now been hearing about is, young Jews, like, including young (((Orthodox Jews))), which seems like a very unlikely category, uhm, are now being drawn into this. You know, they’re reading Heatiste, they’re sharing Alt Right memes…

Laura Raim:

I don’t know who that is.

Greg Johnson:

Oh, Chateau Heartiste - it’s a blog run by this fellow who used to go by the name Roissy, now goes by the name Heartiste. The uhm “autiste” is a play on Heartiste.

But anyway, it’s a game blog. It’s a blog about um, it’s on a higher level than how to pick up girls, but it deals with sort of realism in the relations between the sexes; and it’s enormously popular; and he identifies himself as an Alt Right figure.

It’s part of the manosphere, which is a sphere that overlaps with the Alt Right.

But anyway, we’re finding these young Orthodox Jews who are now into Heartiste and into Alt Right memes.

And, one of the things I think is going on here is that they’re just drawn to something that’s intellectually vital and exciting.
So, this is something that I’ve been seeing signs of in recent months.

Laura Raim:

When you say there’s a split on the Jewish question can you just give me examples of those who are uh, more friendly and those who are more critical?

Greg Johnson:

Well, ok, I’m quite critical and uh, Kevin MacDonald is certainly quite critical, The Occidental Observer is his flagship publication, he also edits the Occidental Quarterly now. So that would be one wing. And there is definitely a wing which calls itself Alt Right which is basically just re-branded National Socialism; and of course they are quite Judeo-critical.

The people who are more neutral or friendly on the Jewish question would be people like Kevin MacD…I’m sorry not Kevin MacDonald, people like Jared Taylor, who runs Alt uh, American Renaissance, uh, some of the people who were involved in the original Alternative Right, are sort of neutral or friendly on the J.Q. as we call it.

Then of course there are just outright Jewish figures who contribute to this; and that would include sort of the grand old man, the dean of it I guess would be (((Paul Gottfried))).

Then, beyond that there’s Milo and Cernovich.

And within our camp there are people who say, well look, um, we can be White identitarians, but we can also, and i love the, I love to tweet this PC language, but we should seek allies of color.

So, if there are Jewish allies they would fall into that umbrella.

One of the interesting things about this, specifically the tributary coming out of libertarianism, is, although libertarianism and the Ron Paul movement were overwhelmingly White, there were certain out-layers who were say, black, um Ron Paul people, or Asian Ron Paul people, or South Asian Ron Paul people; and in the battle after the sort of collapse of the Ron Paul movement after 2012, a number of these non-Whites had sort of been swept along by the logic of it and personal relationships into being involved into sort of allies of White Nationalism.

Laura Raim:

Yeah

Greg Johnson:

And we’re happy, personally I’m happy to have any allies I can get, and so I’m in an awkward position where some of the people who share the best memes with me are showing up on my FaceBook feed ..you know, one’s a black guy, and a couple of them are South Asians..South Asian Muslims, actually ..which is even more awkward in some cases; but you know they put up with me and my remove kebab rhetoric and we’re all friends; they have an intense moral and intellectual interest in this.

The broadness of the Alternative Right category really helps, I think, you know, it allows a lot of people to participate in this but also the broadness of it is threatening to some people - because of course, in the end this isn’t just ideas and fun on the Internet; we really do have a vision of society: Personally, I’d like to see racially and ethnically homogeneous societies emerge.

And so, what we have is a strange moment in time where people in this multicultural context, some of whom are multicultural and multiracial are coming together in a context or in a movement that is aiming at separation.

Laura Raim:

Yeah

Greg Johnson:

And I admire the people who are involved in this; and they’re very very principled. Some of them say “look, I don’t feel at home in a multicultural society either. I feel less at home than you do.” This, speaking of The United States or Canada, “you guys created this society and you feel more at home here than I do.” But nobody feels at home anymore in multicultural, multiracial societies; and so we’re finding that we have allies of color.

One of the dominant traits of what we’re talking about, one of the main themes, ultimately boils down to alienation.

Everybody should have a homeland.

Everybody should have a room of their own, where they can go and be themselves.

A home of their own and then logically, a homeland of their own.

It’s nice to have a place where everything is familiar, where everything is intelligible; and where you don’t feel that you feel alienation; you feel a lot of stress and anxiety; and multicultural societies really are creating high stress situatons, low trust situations, and the breakdown of community.

So, we’re communitarians, if you will.

Laura Raim:

Yeah. And your idea of, how did you call it, the racially, ethnically, what was the word you used?

Greg Johnson:

“homogeneous”

Laura Raim:

This would be for the United States, right? So, what do you technically with the black citizens? ....Ideally -

Greg Johnson:

Well, ideally what I would like to do is, um, the land mass of The United States is quite large. And we do have to make some distinctions here:

First of all, there are indigenous people; and certainly they have rights to be here; and I uh, would not in any way expel them or remove the remaining indigenous peoples; but I would give them sort of maximum autonomy within their little ethnic reservations; and I think that’s the only fair thing that can be done at this point.

As for blacks, most of them came here involuntarily and descended from slaves ...I would, uh, the fair thing to do would be to give them their own territories, and their own autonomy and you know, basically separate that way.

Larua Raim:

For example, where could they go?

Greg Johnson:

Well, the South, there are large heavily black states in the South and a couple of those, they certainly have ample resources, and ports and things like that; and everything thing that somebody could need to have a sort of thriving country. Some states in the South might be a good black homeland.

Now, as for post 1965 immigration, that is really the main problem. Since 1965, America has gone from a country that was 90% European in descent to a country where, well, we don’t even know anymore, because the government, the government has been maintaining that there are 11 million illegal aliens for decades; and we know that that number has changed - It’s more like 30 million or more than that. So, we honestly don’t even know what percentage of our country is European descent; but it’s approaching 60%. And where there are statistics about children enrolled in school, there are large numbers of states where in six and seven year olds, we’re the minority now, just a distinct minority. Most of that is due to immigration into the United States in the last 51 years.

My view is the following: I wrote an essay called the slow cleanse, which sounds like a dieting thing but its about ethnic cleansing, to use an ugly term, but basically, I say that we shouldn’t allow ourselves to be seduced by these apocalyptic scenarios about race war and cataclysm and things like that.
We should recognize that the contemporary situation was created over a fifty year period and it was created by instituting demographic trends that are not favorable to the European majority.

We can fix it in the same way. We simply need to create positive trends for the European majority. So what would those trends be? Well, first of all, stopping immigration from non-White countries. Second, sending back all the people who have come here illegally. That would be a good thing. And just make it impossible for them to draw welfare, hold onto jobs, put their children in schools. Basically, take away all the incentives that led them to migrate here in the first place; and then they will deport themselves.

Beyond that then, there is a large population of people who are sometimes second, third generation now. They do have homelands; a lot of these people do have close contacts with people overseas; we know that because they are constantly trying to bring more relatives over here; and lord knows I’m all for keeping families together; and what we need to do is kind of reverse that chain immigration, family re-unification tendency.

Many many people move in America, all the time, we’re a very rootless society. People have to move (e.g.) because there’s a real estate bubble and the rents become too high for them to afford; and we just accept, oh well, rents are going up because of speculators, right? You have to move. No one sheds a tear about that. People’s jobs change. The factory they work on closes and is rebuilt somewhere in Mexico or Indonesia. We don’t shed many tears about that kind of forced uprooting of people. My attitude is that we should not shed any tears about uprooting people for something far more important than just, you know, the winds of the market, the private interests of capitalists.

We should basically have an attitude of well, look, people move all the time; if there are say non-White families that work for large corporations, or global corporations, the next time they’re re-located, we want them re-located overseas.

Especially in West coast American universities, the majority of students are now Asian. I think we should encourage those Asian students, many of whom are bi and trilingual, and have fairly shallow roots in America if any at all. We should encourage them to pursue higher education in Singapore or Japan or China. And if they do it there, they’ll not come back.

And basically, if we just start nudging things in those directions, we can wait fifty years; uh, but one of the things I constantly stress is that we would not have to wait fifty years before we could reap some of the psychological benefits of knowing that as a group, White Americans now have a future; because a lot of White Americans feel, that as a group, they don’t have a future; and I think this is part of the reason why the mortality of Whites, especially working class Whites has gone way way up, because a lot of people are, you know, are hopeless, you know they see nothing but diminished prospects for themselves and their children, they turn to alcohol and drugs; and risky behaviors; and things like that; and this has been rather epidemic, especially in the last four to eight years, since the current economic depression set in.

I think that people, if they felt like they had a future again, in America, or the French if they felt like they had a future as a people in France - today, they would start feeling a lot more optimistic: Probably they would start new businesses, have babies, and so we’d reap a lot of psychological benefits today and even though it might take fifty years for us to get back to say, status quo 1965.

In terms of my ultimate goals, I love the idea of neat, homogeneous, partitioned homelands. Things like that. But as a reasonable political goal that I would put forward, within the present political context, I’d say let’s return to status quo 1965 - that was when American workers were doing the best, when America was sending a man to the moon, when our cities were clean and vibrant, in a good way, vibrant with commerce and culture rather than Rastafarians and druggies and things like that… jungle music, whatever.

What we need, is, it would be perfectly reasonable to do that. The 1924 Immigration Act, set ethnic quotas, based on a certain base year; we could have a status quo 1965 principle; and if we got back there, I think we’d be at a point where, White Americans would probably feel so de-stressed, and so happy about their future that they probably wouldn’t even think that we would even need to go all the way to separate homelands.

In 2065, when I’m dead, I would want the next generation to move the goalposts in that direction.

But the fact of the matter is, it doesn’t need to be some kind of cataclysm or apocalypse like a lot of old right - and by old right, I mean fascists, like National Socialist influenced people, like William Pierce, for instance, envisioned.

Laura Raim:

Ok. Thanks. And um, back to my initial question about uh, the references - what would you say would be the main thinkers of White Nationalism? Either contemporary or older political thought?

Greg Johnson:

The main thinkers of contemporary White Nationalism are first, the people who are most read and commented on, would be Kevin MacDonald, Jared Taylor - they’re contemporary writers in their 60’s and 70’s ..they’re very very influential.

William L. Pierce of The National Alliance is certainly a huge and enduring influence on White Nationalism in the Anglophone world; and outside it ...it’s an ambiguous influence - there are many things I disagree with about him.

Laura Raim:

William Pierce?

Greg Johnson:

Yeah. William Pierce - he’s a very important figure.

Samuel Francis had a great deal of influence on it. He never really defined himself as a White Nationalist explicitly but he participated in many American Renaissance conferences and wrote many things that deal with race.

J. Phillippe Rushton wrote on human biodiversity and racial differences in his book Race, Evolution and Behavior and other papers. He was certainly a major influence in White Nationalism today. Probably the most canonical statements about racial differences for most White Nationalists are Rushton’s writings.

Laura Raim: That would be based on evolutionary biology?

Greg Johnson:

Yeah.

Laura Raim:

And could you sum-up for me William Pierce?

What does he bring to the..

Greg Johnson:

Well, I mean, Pierce ...Pierce is basically a neo-Nazi. He was, early on a follower of George Lincoln Rockwell’s American Nazi Party. He joined that. And after Rockwell was assassinated, he carried on, one strand of that one strand of National Socialist vision in America. He created The National Alliance and ran it until his death in 2002. It was a largish, the largest organization in The United States of its type. They published books, magazines, held conferences, encouraged people in various forms of activism. His most influential book, unfortunately, is The Turner Diaries, which is a kind of revolutionary pot-boiler, with a kind of race war apocalypse. Which I think fascinates a lot of people but I think that it also serves as an impediment to thinking about serous policies that we could actually put in place; that most people would not just shriek and run away from.

He was a somewhat contradictory figure, because, on the one hand he was an elitist, he had a PhD in Physics, he had a stratospherically high i.q. although he tended to have a sort of engineer’s mentality.

He was basically a kind of Leninist in his views about politics. He thought of himself as an orthodox national socialist but he was pretty much a Leninist in his revolutionary attitudes.

On the other hand he was constantly taking short cuts and compromising with what he, himself, called the buffoonery of populism - which led him to, for instance, buy a skinhead music label and recruit in the subculture of skinheads, which didn’t work out well for him.

So yeah, at his best he’s very very good and he really did influence me on a number of points. I remember in 2000 - 2001, listening to his weekly radio broadcasts, where he would analyze primarily current events and he would stress over and over again the relevance, basically the power of organized Jewish community in America in shaping events. Just hearing that repeated over and over again over a couple of years and seeing the relevance of it to the things that I was following was very very convincing to me. Before that I’d read Kevin MacDonald’s work and intellectually, it made a lot of sense ...and he’s dealing with psychoanalysis, The Frankfurt School, deconstruction, intellectual trends like that.. but to have Pierce bring it home to contemporary unfolding political events was very powerful for me; and it showed the relevance of that analysis. Really, I think that’s his greatest influence was his radio broadcasts, that and The Turner Diaries. Of course he’s no longer commenting on current events but The Turner Diaries is still being purchased and read, so…

Laura Raim:

When you say that he’s a neo-Nazi, is there an effort in the Alt-Right or at least in the White Nationalist branch to have a filter to Neo-Nazis, I mean to bound them?

Greg Johnson:

Well, yes and no. There are really three attitudes towards Neo-Nazis.

One is that there are people who are Neo-Nazis and they think that everyone esle should think there way.

Two, there are people who aren’t Neo-Nazis but they want to engage with them somewhat constructively; because a lot of them are very young, naiive and highly idealistic people; and they can grow intellectually; so what I’ve tried to do is I’ve tried to be somewhat constructive in my engagement and to say yes, I see the relevance of this, however, it’s more complicated. It’s not quite so simple as you thought and basically historical re-enactment from inter-war fascism is not the answer.

And then there’s a third group of people who basically wants to create a cordon sanitaire and just keep them out completely. Those are the three tendencies within the Alternative Right.

Laura Raim:

Ok, and you’re the second category.

Greg Johnson:

I’m in the second category. I think that unreconstructed National Socialism and Fascism, inter-war fascist movements, lets just call it that, are certainly not the way forward. These people were aware of a lot of truths; and I won’t deny that.

...and I do think that something like fascism in a very generic sense is what every society ends up with if they try to do things like reconcile different class conflicts, interests of labor and capital, for instance, if they take their own side in international conflicts. ..and I do think that a kind of organic idea of society is, you know, somewhat fascistic.

Societies move in that direction whether they want to call it social democracy or something else, they still move in that direction as they reconcile internal contradictions; and as they try to educate people to be patriotic and so forth.

But on the other hand, the thing that’s worst about these ideologies, is that, to me, they’re not realistic about how we’re actually ruled. They emerged at a time when we were literally fighting communists in the streets; and to beat Leninists, they adopted their tactics - they had to - you take a knife to a kife fight a gun to a gun fight; and when you’re fighting Leninists, you have para-military parties and militia’s and things like that. That’s what they did. Unfortunately, they adopted quite a few traits of communism, including some of its worst traits; and in the end, they didn’t beat it.

Today, we’re not ruled in a hard, Leninist, fashion. “The” Left controls us through soft power.

Update (missing from Greg’s account was a mention of Regnery):

“Bill Regnery is a co-founder of NPI ...there’s actually an inscription to Bill in a book that was edited by Samuel Francis who is the other co-founder of the National Policy Institute..and it’s Sam Francis’s final work which he created as an editor, it’s “Race and The American Prospect” ...and he dedicated it to Bill Regnery, “a man who did something”... that’s the kind of epigraph that I would like for my life that’s the kind of epigraph that everyone in here would like” - Richard Spencer

Comments:

Posted by NPR on NPI on Mon, 21 Nov 2016 01:09 | #

NPR, “Energized By Trump’s Win, White Nationalists Gather To ‘Change The World” 19 Nov 2016:

Richard Spencer addresses a room of press and conference attendees at a news conference held by the National Policy Institute during its “Become Who We Are” event in Washington, D.C. Prior to the news conference, which was held in the same room as the broader NPI event, Spencer told journalists they could not take photos of the room because attendees could be identified without their permission. (Ariel Zambelich/NPR)

Loyalists of the self-described white nationalist, alt-right movement from around the country gathered in D.C. Saturday afternoon, enthused by the election of Donald Trump and optimistic that their controversial, offensive views such as calling for a white, ethnocentric state were on the rise throughout the country.

“The alt-right is here, the alt-right is not going anywhere, the alt-right is going to change the world,” Richard Spencer, head of the white nationalist think tank the National Policy Institute (NPI) promised at a press conference.

About 300 people — split nearly evenly between conference attendees and protesters of the conference outside — were on hand at the downtown D.C. event.

Spencer told journalists that he doesn’t believe Trump himself is alt-right, the term he coined that’s come to embody white supremacist, anti-Semitic and sexist ideas. But it was clear that his surprise election has given the once fringe movement a jolt, and on Saturday they were eager to take a victory lap. Spencer called Trump’s campaign “the first step towards identity politics in the United States.”

‘We’re Not Going Away’: Alt-Right Leader On Voice In Trump Administration

Spencer also restricted journalists from taking photos of the crowd inside the building to prevent the identification of attendees without their permission.

Before Trump, Spencer said, the alt-right was like a “head without a body,” but then Trump came along and his campaign became “kind of a body without a head.” He described the alt-right as having a “psychic connection” with Trump in way they don’t have with other Republicans, and expressed hope that, “moving forward, the alt-right can, as an intellectual vanguard, complete Trump.”

One of their chief policy proposals they hope to push through is a 50-year immigration freeze, with a preference given to European immigrants coming into the U.S. Spencer told NPR’s Kelly McEvers in an interview Thursday that their ultimate goal was “a safe space effectively for Europeans,” arguing for a return to the white origins of the country and protecting the white race.

Spencer on Trump’s picks for cabinet, senior strategist

The alt-right movement has gained attention and support throughout Trump’s election and particularly through his appointment of Steve Bannon, the former head of alt-right-friendly Breitbart News, to be a senior strategist in the West Wing.

Spencer, however, argued that Bannon wasn’t fully representative of the alt-right movement either, but that it’s “very hopeful for me that Bannon is at least open to these things.”

Speakers taking questions from the press included alt-right supporters (left to right) Peter Brimelow, Kevin MacDonald, Jason Jorjani, and Jared Taylor. (Ariel Zambelich/NPR)

Bannon told the Hollywood Reporter on Friday, “I’m not a white nationalist, I’m a nationalist. I’m an economic nationalist.”

Ex-Breitbart Executive Brings Alt-Right Ties To The White House

Analysis

Spencer was highly complimentary of Trump’s first cabinet picks, particularly choosing Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions to be attorney general. Sessions is well-known for his hard-line immigration stances, and has had his own past controversy over race when he was voted down to be a federal judge in 1986 over remarks he’d made about the NAACP and allegedly called a white civil rights lawyer “a disgrace to his race.”

He said that while Sessions was not alt-right necessarily, his views on immigration — and a belief that he may not fully enforce some civil rights protections — were encouraging to Spencer.

“The fact that he is going to be at such a high level is a wonderful thing. What Jeff Sessions is not going to do, in terms of not prosecuting federal diversity and fair housing, I think is just as powerful as what he might do,” he said.

Spencer had praise for Trump’s pick of retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn to be his national security adviser, calling him an “independent thinker” who wasn’t aligned with the neoconservative movement, who the alt-right sees as too interventionist. In that same vein, Spencer said he would oppose former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton if he were selected to be secretary of state, criticizing him as too hawkish. He said the group was encouraged by Trump’s foreign policy, particularly the way he praised Russia throughout the campaign and his skepticism for the U.S. commitment to NATO.

The Two-Way

Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

Saturday’s tense atmosphere

There were well more than 150 conference attendees — mostly young, white males dressed in suits — at just the afternoon press conference at the Ronald Reagan Building, sitting behind journalists, often heckling or booing questions. NPI said more than 250 people had registered for the conference. Some donned the signature Trump hat emblazoned with his slogan “Make America Great Again.” When asked what the biggest Trump priority should be, there were loud cheers of “build that wall,” reminiscent of Trump’s massive rallies.

Protesters gather along 14th Street outside of the Reagan Building before the start of the press conference.
(Ariel Zambelich/NPR)

Outside the atmosphere was very tense, reflective of the mood of the country in the nearly two weeks since the election.

Around 1 p.m., just before the press conference began inside, a large crowd of the protesters began marching down Pennsylvania Avenue, coming from the new Trump Hotel toward the White House, which Trump will occupy come January, turning onto 14th Street Northwest outside the Reagan Building. They chanted “fascists we will shut you down” and “love trumps hate.” Some signs read “alt-wrong” and “white nationalism is un-American.” The confrontation got tense at several points, with protesters with bandannas covering their faces surrounding some apparent conference attendees, shouting “f—k off Nazis.” A man’s head was bloodied, according to WUSA, and NBC Washington reported police detained at least two people.

The NPI is classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, and Spencer and other alt-right leaders recently had their Twitter accounts suspended, something he decried as an assault on the First Amendment.

Several said they were longtime attendees of the conference, and that there was definitely a new energy injected into their movement after Trump’s victory.

Matt Forney of Chicago had attended past alt-right conferences, and said there was now an “infusion of new energy” and a lot of new faces who found out about the movement through groups on the internet and were encouraged by Trump’s election.

“It was more like a cocktail party among old friends,” Forney said of previous gatherings. “Now, it’s like we’re the vanguard of a new movement. People are happy and ready to change the world.”

Evan Thomas of Michigan said that alt-right in a way was a misnomer, and he preferred the moniker “identitarian.” He said that could encompass all sorts of people — as long as they were white.

“Identitarianism speaks to an understanding that, by nature, man is a creature of tribe,” Thomas said.

And while Trump had certainly energized white voters, he cautioned that unless immigration of any kind were ceased, Trump’s reelection in 2020 would be an uphill battle.

“He’s got to act very tough, very quickly to reverse the demographic decline of European-Americans very swiftly. The coalition that brought him to the White House, he’s got to keep that going and strengthen it, otherwise he will be a one-term president,” Thomas said.

Greg Dixon contributed.

Posted by Breitbart Exec Brings AltRight Ties To White House on Mon, 21 Nov 2016 01:20 | #

NPR, “Ex-Breitbart Executive Brings Alt-Right Ties To The White House”, 19 Nov 2016:

Steve Bannon, the Trump campaign’s CEO and the former executive chairman of Breitbart News, will serve as chief strategist and senior counselor in the Trump White House.

Steve Bannon, the newly named chief strategist for the nascent Trump White House, boasts a resume packed with a series of seeming non sequiturs. He had a stint in the U.S. Navy, worked for a stretch at Goldman Sachs, became a Hollywood investor who made a fortune off Seinfeld reruns, and ran the secretive experimental community Biosphere 2 outside Tucson, Ariz.

Then there’s the line on the resume drawing all the controversy: Bannon’s time as executive chairman of Breitbart, turning the right-wing news site into the platform of the so-called alt-right, as he once told Mother Jones magazine.

That online community coalesced around the conviction that the Republican Party and establishment conservatives have turned their backs on a vision of America deeply influenced by nationalist thought, some of which is overtly racist. Certain alt-right adherents have unleashed a wave of anti-Semitic, racist and misogynist vitriol online against supporters of Trump’s rival Republicans, Clinton voters and journalists during this campaign.

In recent days, critics from the left and the right have charged that Trump has invited a modern face of racism into the White House. Consider these tweets from John Weaver, the former chief campaign strategist for Ohio Gov. John Kasich during this year’s Republican primaries, and Mark Salter, the longtime adviser and speechwriter for Republican Sen. John McCain’s 2008 presidential bid:

Sen. Bernie Sanders, who challenged Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination, urged Trump to reconsider Bannon in an interview with NPR for All Things Considered Monday. “I hope that he understands that in the year 2016, we are not going back to a society rampant with racism and sexism and homophobia and xenophobia,” Sanders told NPR’s Robert Siegel.

The Two-Way

Hundreds Of Hateful Incidents Reported After Trump’s Victory

Bannon’s appointment has been cheered by leaders of the Ku Klux Klan, the American Nazi Party and other white nationalist groups.

Under Bannon, Breitbart spoke increasingly to that alt-right audience with headlines and stories seemingly designed to offend African-Americans, Latinos, Muslims, women, gays, transgender people and others. The site already had built a following among the more conservative wing of Republicans for its gleeful stunts and the outrageous rhetoric of its founder, the late Andrew Breitbart.

Bannon pushed the boundaries further, according to Kurt Bardella, the site’s top public relations consultant for three years until his resignation earlier this year. I asked Bardella what he made of the criticism that the site published racist stories. “I thought [the criticisms] were all completely valid and all true,” he responded.

Bardella argued that Bannon sought to incite Breitbart’s more bigoted readers to generate more clicks and shares, more controversy and more pressure on Republicans to take nationalist and anti-immigration stands. Calls for corrections of fact or apologies for their rhetoric led Bannon to urge his writers to hold firm on their outrages, Bardella says.

“You look to the top for direction, for boundaries,” Bardella says. “And when there aren’t any, it empowers everybody beneath you to double down and do that to the nth degree. And that’s what really happened.” (Bardella is far from a liberal critic; he was previously the spokesman for the Republican-led House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that launched investigations of the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton.)

Trump Taps Reince Priebus As Chief Of Staff, Steve Bannon As Chief Strategist

One Breitbart headline declared: “Birth Control Makes Women Unattractive And Crazy.” Another called former Arizona Rep. Gabby Giffords, who suffered near-fatal wounds during an assassination attempt in which six others died, “The Gun Control Movement’s Human Shield.”

Some stories carried the designation “Black Crime” as though criminality were racial. Another headline proclaimed “Hoist It High And Proud: The Confederate Flag Proclaims A Glorious Heritage” less than two weeks after a racist white allegedly killed nine people at a historically black church in Charleston, S.C., in hopes of igniting a race war. South Carolina’s Republican governor instead removed the Confederate battle flag from state Capitol grounds. Transgender people are referred to with the dated slur Trannies. William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, was called a “Renegade Jew” for opposing Trump’s march to the Republican nomination.

Critics come out against Trump’s Chief Strategist Steve Bannon

Former Breitbart Editor-in-Chief Joel Pollak says that Bannon built on Andrew Breitbart’s already extant plans to unify a series of interlocking Breitbart blogs into a single news site.

The presidency of Barack Obama served as a rallying cry for the right. But Republican nominee Mitt Romney’s loss in 2012 became a pivot for the site. While Andrew Breitbart reveled in the Tea Party, he tended to urge coalescing around Republican nominees. Pollak says Bannon disdained the party’s conclusions that it needed to reach out more to Latinos and ease its stance on illegal immigration. Fox News pundits had become too cozy with the establishment, Bannon concluded. He became Breitbart’s executive chairman in 2012 after the death of Andrew Breitbart and he moved the site’s headquarters from Southern California to Washington, D.C.

Bannon’s own rhetoric could be severe as well.

“What we need to do is bitch-slap the Republican Party, and get those guys heeding, too,” Bannon told the conservative talk show Political Vindication Radio in 2010. “And if we have to, we’ll take it over.”

On the same program a year later, Bannon denigrated liberal feminists with an anti-lesbian slur and praised instead conservatives such as Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin. It was a rebuke to the women’s liberation movement, Bannon said, that “the women that would lead this country would be feminists, they would be pro-family, they would have husbands, they would love their children. You know, they wouldn’t be a bunch of dykes that came from the Seven Sisters schools up in New England.”

The new Breitbart under Bannon took flight from the primary defeat of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in 2014 by an economist who opposed easing the path to immigration, and the subsequent resignation of House Speaker John Boehner.

According to Pollak, Bannon emphasized original reporting and expanded the site’s staff.

“Breitbart News is a conservative website. And we are not racist, we’re not anti-Semitic, we’re not anti-gay, we’re not anti-woman,” Pollak tells NPR. “We’re not any of those things.” Pollak is now the site’s senior editor at large and general counsel.

In an interview, Pollak sought to counter the accusations of offensive material piecemeal. The “Black Crime” designation was an error, placed on a relatively small number of articles, he said. Pollak noted the “Renegade Jew” headline was written by the incendiary Jewish conservative author David Horowitz, who this week blasted Bannon’s critics as “the losers of the left.”

What You Need To Know About The Alt-Right Movement

Politics

And Pollak says the site should not be held responsible for the words or slurs or attacks of people citing, sharing or commenting on its articles — no more than NPR or the New York Times should be blamed for insulting words from their respective audiences.

Breitbart columnist Milo Yiannopoulos, a gay right-wing provocateur who has called feminists “a cancer” and explicitly written against Muslim immigration, has lionized the alt-right while saying he is not a part of it.

Yet that misses how energizing Yiannopoulos has proven to young and gay conservatives, Pollak says. “Conservatives are used to having that kind of open debate and we are confronted all the time about our beliefs but we don’t riot in the streets about it,” Pollak says. “You have to develop a sense of humor.”

Pollak says Bannon is inclusive, pointing to his own status as an observant Orthodox Jew.

“I have Saturdays off, Jewish holidays off and Steve Bannon always wishes me a ‘Shabbat shalom’ on Friday afternoon — just in case you were concerned about that,” Pollak says.

The accusation of anti-Semitism is a sensitive one. During a custody battle, Bannon’s former wife accused him of making of a series of anti-Semitic remarks in arguing over their daughters’ schooling. He has denied making those comments. Police records show that in 1996, before the divorce, Bannon’s then-wife accused him of physically attacking her. Bannon pleaded not guilty and the case was dismissed.

Reports: New Trump Campaign CEO Faced Domestic Violence Charge In 1996

The moment had an echo earlier this year when then-Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski forcibly grabbed former Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields to prevent her from approaching Trump after a rally.

Breitbart essentially backed Lewandowski’s denials over its own reporter — despite eyewitness accounts and videotape showing those denials were untrue.

Fields soon quit the site, as did Bardella, who called Trump a demagogue.

“Breitbart evolved to become the propaganda arm, a de facto superPAC of the Trump campaign,” Bardella told NPR. “And I think that was very evident if you looked at the home page every day.”

Breitbart has been a sharp critic of House Speaker Paul Ryan, a conservative who has been trying to drive the party’s policy positions and who has close ties to Reince Priebus, the Republican National Committee chairman. Priebus is a consummate establishment figure who has in the past promoted a more inclusive notion of the Republican Party; he has been named Trump’s White House chief of staff.

Former Breitbart writer Ben Shapiro, who quit the site in March, has written he has no reason to believe that Bannon shares the beliefs of racists or anti-Semites. But, Shapiro writes, Bannon is “happy to pander to those people and make common cause with them in order to transform conservatism into European far-right nationalist populism.”

Bannon is to be Priebus’ equal in the Trump administration. Outsider no more, Breitbart News can now serve as a voice reflecting the Bannon wing of the new Trump coalition. If desired, Breitbart can serve as its enforcer too.

Posted by We're not going away. We want White ethnostate on Mon, 21 Nov 2016 04:09 | #

NPR interviews, Richard Spencer: “We’re not going away. We want a White ethnostate”, 17 Nov 2016:

Stephen Bannon, Donald Trump’s incoming White House chief strategist, used to run the website Breitbart, which he called “the platform for the alt-right.” The alt-right has been associated with racism, anti-Semitism and misogyny. Its adherents believe they have a voice in the new administration. NPR’s Kelly McEvers talks to Richard Spencer, a white nationalist who coined the term “alt-right.”

...........

Transcript -

KELLY MCEVERS, HOST:

The new chief strategist for President-elect Donald Trump once said a website he used to run, Breitbart News, is a platform for the so-called alt-right. We’re about to hear more about that movement from the man who says he came up with the term alt-right. His name is Richard Spencer, and in 2008, he began arguing there should be an alternative to George W. Bush-era Republicans and conservatives.

Richard Spencer now runs a small think tank that pushes alt-right ideas. To be clear, the alt-right movement is also a white nationalist movement that’s associated with racism, misogyny and anti-Semitism. What the alt-right wants, Spencer says, is an awakening of identity politics, meaning white identity politics.

The alt-right used to exist mostly on the Internet, but with the rise of Donald Trump and his chief strategist, Steve Bannon, the movement is starting to hold conferences where hundreds of people attend. Spencer and others in the alt-right movement were suspended from Twitter this week. But now that Trump has been elected, Spencer says he believes the alt-right will continue to grow.

RICHARD SPENCER: This is the first time we’ve really entered the mainstream, and we’re not going away. I mean this is just the beginning. And I’m very excited.

MCEVERS: Just a warning here. There are words and phrases and ideas in the next seven minutes that many people will find offensive, even hateful. But because this group has influence, we think you should hear what the alt-right is and what it wants from a Trump administration. So I ask Spencer that, and he said his end goal is a white ethno state sometime in the future.

SPENCER: What I would ultimately want is this ideal of a safe space effectively for Europeans. This is a big empire that would accept all Europeans. It would be a place for Germans. It would be a place for Slavs. It would be a place for Celts. It would be a place for white Americans and so on.

For something like that to happen and really for Europeans to survive and thrive in this very difficult century that we’re going to be experiencing, we have to have a sense of consciousness. We’re going to have to have that sense of identity.

MCEVERS: Going forward, should only white European people be considered U.S. citizens?

SPENCER: Well, no, I mean the citizenship of the United States - like, this is not something that can be changed right away. So I mean I think we need to differentiate identity and citizenship.

MCEVERS: So in your idea, like, there’s a United States of America where different people still have citizenship but they’re living in separate enclaves; they’re living in places where they are kept separate from one another.

SPENCER: What I’m saying is that Europeans defined America. They defined what it is. Of course there are people who are non-European who are here, who are citizens and so on. What I would…

MCEVERS: Who many would argue also defined America.

SPENCER: Sure, and they did to a certain degree. But European people were the indispensable central people that defined this nation socially and politically and culturally and demographically obviously.

I care about us more. That’s all I’m saying. But I respect identitarians of other races. And I actually can see eye to eye with them in a way that your average conservative can’t.

MCEVERS: But you also believe that people of different races inherently do not get along. Isn’t that right?

SPENCER: I think world history believes that (laughter). I mean I don’t - it’s not just my opinion. I don’t see very many counterexamples.

MCEVERS: So you ride the subway in New York City. And you’re sitting in a subway car, and you’re looking at people from all over everywhere. And nobody’s punching each other. Nobody’s stabbing anyone. Everyone’s going about their life, going to work, you know? You don’t see that as, like, a way where people are getting along?

SPENCER: Do we really like each other? Do we really love each other? Do we really have a sense of community in that subway car? What I see are a lot of…

MCEVERS: Or a cul-de-sac or in kindergarten.

SPENCER: Whenever many different races are in the same school, what will happen is that there’ll be a natural segregation at lunchtime, at PE, at - in terms of after-school play.

MCEVERS: Richard Spencer’s views are obviously not easy to hear, but we do think they’re important to hear because of the link between the alt-right and Donald Trump’s team. I asked Richard Spencer what policies he’s pushing for - natural conservation, he said, a foreign policy that’s friendlier to Russia and this.

SPENCER: Immigration is the most obvious one. And I think we need to get beyond thinking about immigration just in terms of illegal immigration. Illegal immigration is not nearly as damaging as legal immigration. Legal immigration - they’re here to stay. Their children are here and so on.

And I think a really reasonable and I think palatable policy proposal would be for Donald Trump to say, look; we’ve had immigration in the past. It’s brought some fragmentation. It’s brought division. But we need to become a people again. And for us to do that, we’re going to need to take a break from mass immigration. And we’re going to need to preference people who are going to fit in, who are more like us. That is European immigration.

MCEVERS: You know, how likely do you think it is that some of these policies that you want to see happen will happen?

SPENCER: What I want is influence. And sometimes influence can be invisible. If we can get these ideas out there, if people can see the compelling and powerful nature of them, I think we really can change policy.

MCEVERS: I just want to go down a list of things. And you tell me if they are OK or not OK.

SPENCER: OK.

MCEVERS: Graffiti that says make America white again.

SPENCER: I don’t - look; graffiti is illegal, but…

MCEVERS: The slogan make America white again.

SPENCER: I don’t have a huge problem with that I mean that people…

MCEVERS: OK.

SPENCER: ...Are just expressing their opinion.

MCEVERS: Swastikas.

SPENCER: A swastika is an ancient symbol. I don’t - like, you know, if you’re asking me, do I have a problem with people expressing themselves and maybe, you know…

MCEVERS: With a swastika.

SPENCER: People want to express themselves. They can do whatever they want.

MCEVERS: So that’s an OK - wearing white robes or hoods like the KKK.

SPENCER: Look. I’m - you’re not going to get me to condemn any of this because you haven’t said anything that is really fundamentally illegal or immoral. I might not agree with some people. I might not like this. I might like that, not like that. But the fact is these are people expressing themselves. I’m not going to condemn any of that.

MCEVERS: Do you agree with those expressions?

SPENCER: I agree with people who want to get in touch with their identity as a European. That can take a number of different forms. I don’t support any kind of physical threats or anything like that. I think that does cross the line.

But in terms of people coming to terms with who they are, I don’t oppose it. And I actually would respect - deeply respect the right of non-white people to try to understand themselves and to express themselves as they see fit.

MCEVERS: What about Republicans in particular?

SPENCER: Not a fan.

MCEVERS: Right.

SPENCER: Well, I like their voters. Like, the voters are great. I - the fact that they just chose Donald Trump - that is great. I love them. In terms of Republican operatives, in terms of the conservative movement - not a fan.

MCEVERS: I guess I’m thinking of just Republicans in general - like, people maybe who did - who also voted for Donald Trump but who will say, you know, that your views are racist and are extreme and don’t have a place in this country. How do you deal with them?

SPENCER: If I had told you in 1985 that we should have gay marriage in this country, you probably would have laughed at me. And I think most people would have. Or at least - at the very least, you would have been a bit confused, and you would have told me, oh that’s ridiculous. The fact is, opinions do change. People’s consciousness does change. Paradigms are meant to be broken. That’s what the alt-right is doing.

MCEVERS: That was Richard Spencer, the leader of the so-called alt-right, a white nationalist movement that supported Donald Trump. Spencer says he is not in contact with the Trump transition team. We asked the Trump team to comment about links between Chief Strategist Steve Bannon and the alt-right, but we did not hear back.

Posted by Pre-NPI party protested by anti-fa on Mon, 21 Nov 2016 06:29 | #

Millennial Woes interviews Matt Tate, Richard Spencer and Nathan Damico about it:

Pre-NPI conference protested by anti-fa

...outside Trump International Hotel afterward.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 22 Nov 2016 11:36 | #

A few brief excerpts from Spencer’s closing speech:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o6-bi3jlxk

... which, unsurprisingly, has provoked much revulsion at the BBC and the Guardian. Not least because some of the audience can hardly stop the Strangelove right-hand from activating. Germans, I suppose, wanting nothing more than validation of the Third Reich.

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 22 Nov 2016 11:41 | #

Kumiko and I have looked at the whole speech (the transcript is on Radix).

We’ve dissected that disaster along with its connections…

I wish that she wasn’t such a perfectionist, such that her next post could not be up already.

Hopefully she’ll have her next article ready by tomorrow. .

Posted by Overman or Overfed? on Tue, 22 Nov 2016 12:54 | #

Alt lite or Alt heavy?

Overman of the Right/Alt-Right ...

...or Overfed?

Yes, cactus fruit is edible, but you don’t need it.

Posted by NPI Conference on Tue, 22 Nov 2016 14:58 | #

NPI Conference Washington D.C. 19 November 2016.

Part 2

Posted by Regnery on Tue, 22 Nov 2016 18:32 | #

William Regnery

Update - William Regnery is an important component of The Alt Right, left out of Greg Johnson’s account:

“Bill Regnery is a co-founder of NPI. There’s actually an inscription to Bill in a book that was edited by Samuel Francis who is the other co-founder of the National Policy Institute; and it’s Sam Francis’s final work which he created as an editor, it’s “Race and The American Prospect;” he dedicated it to Bill Regnery, “a man who did something.” That’s the kind of epigraph that I would like for my life, that’s the kind of epigraph that everyone here would like” -Richard Spencer

Posted by Nowicki, "Spencer doesn't define the Alt-Right" on Wed, 23 Nov 2016 06:11 | #

Alternative Right’s Andy Nowicki, “Richard Spencer does not define the Alternative Right.”

Posted by arcu ballist on Wed, 23 Nov 2016 06:18 | #

So, the Jews like being (((Alternative))), too. Right? The serpents are IN. All these up-standing ‘intellectual’ movers and shakers are gonna get bit. These (((snakes))) might be on the ground, but they do have backbones. And on vdare, John Derbyshire says he’s pro Jew.

These ‘olds’ have been at this game for too long and it will see them out. What else can they do? Light a menorah in front of a Star of D?
Happy Holidays, Third Reich. Whatever, yet.

Posted by First article using term Alternative Right on Sat, 10 Dec 2016 15:22 | #

This was apparently the first article to use the Alternative Right term. Spencer was editor of Taki’s at the time.

Taki’s Mag, “The Decline and Rise of the Alternative Right” 1 Dec. 2008:

by Paul Gottfried

The Decline and Rise of the Alternative Right

The following address was given to the H.L. Mencken Club’s Annual Meeting; November 21-23, 2008.

If the H.L. Mencken Club can achieve that for which it has been formed, it should have an eventful and for those who disagree with us, profoundly disruptive future. We are part of an attempt to put together an independent intellectual Right, one that exists without movement establishment funding and one that our opponents would be delighted not to have to deal with. Our group is also full of young thinkers and activists, and if there is to be an independent Right, our group will have to become its leaders.

For years I’ve belabored acquaintances with the observation by stating that the paleoconservatives who had spent their lives butting their heads against the American conservative movement, were becoming less and less useful. Note that I do not excuse myself from this judgment entirely, for what I’m describing is my own generation and those with whom I’ve been associated. Paleoconservatives did an enormous service in the 1980s when they kept the neoconservatives from swallowing up entire the intellectual and political Right. They had performed something roughly analogous to what the Christians in Asturias and Old Castile had done in the eighth and ninth centuries, when they had whittled away at Muslim control of the Iberian Peninsula. But unlike the rulers of Castile and Aragon, the paleos never succeeded in getting the needed resources to win back lost ground. Unlike the medieval Spanish monarchs, they also didn’t have the space of several centuries in which to realize their goals.

But equally significantly, the curmudgeonly personalities that had allowed the paleos to stand up to those from the Left who had occupied the Right prevented them from carrying their war further. Although spirited and highly intelligent, they were temperamentally unfit for a counterinsurgency. They quarreled to such a degree that they eventually fell out among themselves. Soon they were trying to throw each other out of the shaky lifeboat to which their endangered cause had been confined. Of course considerable disparities in resources and contacts put these partisans into a weaker position than that of their enemies. But their breakdown into rival groups, led by competing heads, commenced early in the conservative wars, and (alas) it has been going on up until the present hour. The founding of our club came out of such a fissiparous event, of the kind that had occurred with some regularity on the Right during the preceding two decades.

Nor is it surprising that the same paleos who broke from the movement often imposed their own litmus tests. Or that their sectarianisms involved highly sectarian opinions over such questions as whether Elizabeth One’s defeat of the Spanish Armada or the later discomfiting of the Stuarts doomed Anglo-American societies to unspeakable moral and political corruption; or (supposedly even more relevant) whether the ethics of Irving Babbitt as selectively filtered through the aesthetics of Benedetto Croce can help save this country from anti-intellectualism or from the disciples of Leo Strauss. Or even more timely, whether being instructed in Babbitt’s view of the Higher Will would have mitigated the misfortune of having the stock market plunge. Although there are other such paleo ruminations that can be cited, I shall be merciful and spare my audience the heavy burden of having to hear about them.

The late Sam Francis used to conjure up an ideal-type essay that sprang from the archaic conservative mentality. It was a fifty-page study by a now deceased University of Georgia professor of English; and it dwelled on how Western society was going to rack and ruin because no one read Flannery O’Connor any more in light of Eric Voegelin’s Order and History. There was, indeed, such an essay, which was not entirely a product of Sam’s fertile imagination and Menckenesque wit. And having read this literary-cultural exercise, I would have to agree that it typified a certain kind of paleo cultural commentary. It is moralizing aspiring to be scholarship. As a European intellectual historian, it seems to me that such tracts at their best strain to resemble something that might have been composed by a French counterrevolutionary two hundred years ago. But these reproductions operate at a higher level of abstraction without showing anything that strikes this reader as being historically relevant.

While not all paleo polemics fit this description, many of them do—or at the very least, bear more than a vague resemblance to what is being caricatured.

And I’ve been struck by how often these jeremiads have been accompanied by either frantic endorsements of third- or fourth-party politicians or else mournful laments about how the barbarians are climbing in through our windows and how we should therefore prepare ourselves for pious deaths. The fact that I myself have sometimes written in this vein need not detract from my critical remark. My observation is arguably true even if I too am an aging paleo.

To put this into perspective: what is now called paleoconservatism did not grow out of resistance to the Reformation or French Revolution. It is the product of recent historical circumstances, and it assumed its current form about thirty years ago as a diffuse reaction to the neoconservative ascendancy. It was never unified philosophically, and its division between libertarians and traditionalists was only one of the many lines of demarcation separating those who began to call themselves “paleos” about 25 years ago. In 1986 I noted in an article for the Heritage Foundation’s Policy Review that most paleo thinkers were Protestants or Jews. They were also preoccupied with sociobiology, a discipline or way of thinking that had influenced them deeply. Today the paleo camp looks markedly different as well as much older, and it shows little interest in the cognitive, hereditary preconditions for intellectual and cultural achievements. And the despair about American society among paleos may be pushing some of them toward the liberal immigrationist camp, providing they’re not already there. Others of this group have become so terrified by those on their left that they pretend not to notice the stark fact of human cognitive disparities. This quest for innocuousness sometimes takes the form of seminars on educational problems centering on endless sermons about values and featuring rotating lists of edifying books. Presumably everyone would perform up to speed if he/she could avail himself/herself of the proper cultural tools. The fact that not everyone enjoys the same genetic precondition for learning is irrelevant for this politically motivated experiment in wishful thinking.

More recently we have been confronted by another problem on the right, namely groups that give little evidence of being what they claim to be. As far as I can tell, there is nothing intrinsically rightwing about denying the claims of family and society on the putatively autonomous individual. And the dream of living outside of the state in a society of self-actualizing individuals, opening themselves up to being physically displaced by the entire Third World, if its population chooses to settle on this continent, is not a rightist alternative to anything. It is a failed leftist utopia. It is one thing to deplore the modern welfare state as a vehicle of grotesque social change or for its violations of the U.S. Constitution. It is another matter to believe that all authority structures can be reduced to insurance companies formed to protect the property and lives of anarcho-capitalists. Such a belief goes counter to everything we know about human Nature, and even such an embattled anti-welfare- statist as H.L. Mencken never hoped to destroy all government. He loathed egalitarian democracy but not the traditional social and political authorities in which communal life had developed and which conforms to our intertwined social needs.

Having made these critical observations, I would also stress the possibility for positive change represented by this organization. We have youth and exuberance on our side, and a membership that is largely in its twenties and thirties. We have attracted beside old-timers like me, as I noted in my introductory paragraph, well-educated young professionals, who consider themselves to be on the right, but not of the current conservative movement. These “post-paleos,” to whom I have alluded in Internet commentaries, are out in force here tonight. And they are radical in the sense in which William F. Buckley once defined a true Right, an oppositional force that tries to uncover the root causes of our political and cultural crises and then to address them.

And when I speak about the postpaleos, it goes without saying that I’m referring to a growing communion beyond this organization. It is one that now includes Takimag, VDARE.com, and other websites that are willing to engage sensitive, timely subjects.

A question that has been asked of me and of others in this room is why we don’t try to join the official conservative movement. This movement controls hundreds of million of dollars, TV networks, strings of newspapers and magazines, multitudinous foundations and institutes, and a bevy of real and bleached blonds on FOX-news. This is not even to mention the movement’s influence on the GOP, the leaders of which dutifully recite neoconservative slogans. To whatever extent the GOP still has something that can be described as a “mind,” it is what neoconservative surgeons have implanted.

Why then don’t the post-paleos ask to be admitted to this edifice of power? Even as the beneficiaries of second- or even third-rung posts, our younger members would be better off financially than they are in their present genteel, hand-to-mouth existences. It is easy to imagine that even the secretaries at AEI, Heritage or The Weekly Standard earn more than many of those in this room. Movement conservatives certainly have the wind in their sails; and perhaps most of us have been tempted at one time or another to join them in order to benefit from their considerable wealth.

Allow me to suggest two reasons that most of us have not gone over to the Dark Side. One, that side will not have us; and it has treated us, in contrast to such worthies as black nationalists, radical feminists, and open-borders advocates, as being unfit for admittance into the political conversation. We are not viewed as honorable dissenters but depicted as subhuman infidels or ignored in the same way as one would a senile uncle who occasionally wanders into one’s living room. This imperial ban has been extended even to brilliant social scientists and statisticians who are viewed as excessively intimate with the wrong people, that is, with those who stand outside the camp that the neocons occupy and now share with neo-liberals and the center-left. I suspect that most of us, including those who belong to my children’s generation, would not be trusted even if we feigned admiration for Martin Luther King, Joe Lieberman and Scoop Jackson and even if we called for having open borders with Mexico and for attacking and occupying Iran. Even then a credibility gap would be cited to justify our further marginalization.

But there is another factor, beside necessity, which keeps us where we are. We are convinced that we are right in our historical and cultural observations while those who have quarantined us are wrong. This is indeed my position, and it is one that the officers of this organization fully share. But to move from theory to practice, there are two counsels that I would strenuously urge. First, we must try to do what is possible rather than what lies beyond our limited material resources. What we can hope to achieve in the near term as opposed what we might able to do in the fullness of time is to gain recognition as an intellectual Right—and one that is critical of the neoconservative-controlled conservative establishment. Although that establishment does permit some internal dissent, and has even provided support for a handful of worthwhile scholars, it is at least as closed as were the Communist Parties of Eastern Europe before the collapse of the Soviet Empire. But unlike that now vanished domination, the neocon media empire is not particularly porous, and with the help of the Left, it is more than able to keep out of public view any serious challenge from the right. It is precisely our goal to become such a challenge. And it is my hope that a younger generation will acquire the resources to do so and will know how to deploy them.

Second, if we wish to advance our cause, we must meditate on the successes of our most implacable enemies. The neocons marched nonstop through the institutions and treasuries of the Right and took them over almost without breaking a sweat. And they did so without themselves having to move to the right. In fact they converted the Right to the Left, by equating their mostly leftist politics with reasonable or non-extremist conservatism. They then pushed into near oblivion anyone on the right who resisted their transformations. And as one of their victims, I certainly begrudge them these successes. But as much as I might rage over neocon mendacity and movement conservative gullibility and cowardice, I can also understand the magnitude of the domination achieved. And as painful as it may be for us, we must try to grasp that in Machiavelli’s language, it was not just Fortuna but also virtu that was at work in making possible our enemies’ spectacular achievements. Their opponents failed not only because they were obviously outgunned but also because we were less well organized, less able to network, and less capable of burying internal grievances.

A friend once noted my ambivalence when I describe my enemies. My repugnance for their shallow ideas and grubby personalities has always been mixed with deep admiration for how they stick together like a band of brothers. It is this side of neoconservative history that we must keep in mind and imitate if we intend to climb out of the oblivion into which they have cast us. Our enemies may be vulgar but they are surely not fools. And their indubitable successes have much to teach anyone who hopes to supplant them—ultimately to do to them what they have done to us.

The problem for that is the inherent instability of the right.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 10 Dec 2016 17:17 | #

What inherent instability? Conservatism, as an inchoate understanding that stability is the optimum condition for the development of freedom, is or seeks to be manifestly the opposite of what you claim.

I can’t help but think that you don’t possess a nuanced understanding of that which you seek to pidgeon-hole. “The right” ... a most general term ... is not “individualism”, if that is your thesis. Certainly, one can and should make a vigorous case to the effect that liberalism, as a particular Weltanschauung and as the fundamental thought-system of the Western world, contains within it the seeds of much philosophical error - attempts to correct which have, for example, included the 19th century development of Romantic Nationalism and the 20th Century development of Fascism. But alongside these reactionary ideologies has existed an ancient, gentle, stubborn, conservative resistance to the relentless breaking of new bounds which characterises the liberal journey. Of course, it has been a failing resistance, historically; but not so through any instability inherent to its character.

Personally, I have concluded that it is too partial and incomplete in its ontology. But that is only to be expected, given that it is, by its very resistance to liberalism ... trading in liberalism’s terms ... pulled within and incorporated by same (and forced between the sheets with definite aspects of liberalism like libertarianism and the other isms of the right), and that therefore it comprises a part, or a part of a part, of liberalism’s axial system. It survives in this alien environment - alien also because that environment is characterised by intellectual fervour - as something inchoate, as I have said, and non-philosophical, and ultimately impotent to effect change. But conservatism cannot be accused of inherent instability. To prosecute that argument requires, I would say, a more nuanced understanding of the connection - possibly an unstable connection - between it and its more liberalistic bedfellows.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 10 Dec 2016 17:41 | #

Even John Stewart Mill understood that his preferred liberal society could only work amidst the high social capital of an ethnically homogenous nation. This is how far we shall go, and no further. It was the Jew that took us further.

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 10 Dec 2016 18:39 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 10 Dec 2016 12:17 | #

GW, you make things difficult for me because it is obvious that you have never read anything that I have written nor bothered to try to understand it. I would have to refer you to dozens of articles now in which I have answered these questions.

I will answer again.

What inherent instability?

I have explained this dozens of times.

The right gravitates toward “objectivity” to prove its claims, overly so ...as opposed to the relativity of social agreement (which is not separate from facts, before you go there). This quest for objectivity beyond relative social criteria, interests, tends to rationally blind practitioners from their subjective and relative group interests and to have the reflexive effect of disrupting the social criteria itself, through its constant skepticism and arbitrary demand for empirical verification and proof anew, never taking for granted social norms, it disrupts the rule structures - I love reintroducing that concept because it is such a good concept and it is utterly wrong of you to have dismissed it as academic posing - dismissed it unnecessarily at that.

Conservatism, as an inchoate understanding that stability is the optimum condition for the development of freedom, is or seeks to be manifestly the opposite of what you claim.

I am not arguing against conservatism: that is a straw man, but it seems what you prefer rather than to understand what I say.

I can’t help but think that you don’t possess a nuanced understanding of that which you seek to pidgeon-hole.

You want to believe that because you whole concept is “debunk the Marxist academic” ..you want so much to believe that to satisfy your autobiography as such that you don’t care that I don’t fit into your pidgeon-holing me there, you don’t bother to read what I say and all the good and useful ideas that have passed through my articles - perhaps worst of all, that it can be in harmony with your half assed ontology project and do it some good.

“The right” ... a most general term ... is not “individualism”,

I didn’t say it was. More evidence that you have read nothing of what I’ve said. Individualism is only one of a cluster of things that gather into a rightward, anti-social trajectory.

if that is your thesis.

It is not.

Though a left nationalist perspective is oriented (though not fixed) in a perspective on the social group, with an eye toward accountability, particularly with regard to those who can do most harm and unnecessary injustice.

Certainly, one can and should make a vigorous case to the effect that liberalism, as a particular Weltanschauung and as the fundamental thought-system of the Western world, contains within it the seeds of much philosophical error -

Yes, and I point to several other causes; it saddens me that you haven’t read my articles. But if you did, would you try to develop any thoughts, or just try to destroy them where you did not present straw men?

attempts to correct which have, for example, included the 19th century development of Romantic Nationalism and the 20th Century development of Fascism. But alongside these reactionary ideologies has existed an ancient, gentle, stubborn, conservative resistance to the relentless breaking of new bounds which characterises the liberal journey. Of course, it has been a failing resistance, historically; but not so through any instability inherent to its character.

Again, you are inserting “conservatism” there, as if I was saying “conservatism” was inherently unstable. I have NOWHERE said that.

I said the right was inherently unstable, a particular reason why is because it perpetuates liberalism.

The right perpetutes liberalism by means of “objectivity” unbounded by prejudice while the left stabilizes by bounded social relativity and accountability thereof.

Personally, I have concluded that it is too partial and incomplete in its ontology. But that is only to be expected, given that it is, by its very resistance to liberalism ... trading in liberalism’s terms ...

Here we agree.

pulled within and incorporated by same (and forced between the sheets with definite aspects of liberalism like libertarianism and the other isms of the right), and that therefore it comprises a part, or a part of a part, of liberalism’s axial system.

Kind of yes, but it’s more because it is not processual and social enough.

It survives in this alien environment - alien because it is characterised by intellectual fervour - as something inchoate, as I have said, and non-philosophical, and ultimately impotent to effect change. But it cannot be accused of inherent instability.

I have not said that conservatism is inherent unstable - I have said that the right is inherently unstable.

To prosecute that argument requires, I would say, a more nuanced understanding of the connection - possibly an unstable connection - between it, conservatism, and its more liberalistic bedfellows.

Here is a point where you misunderstand me and where you might begin to understand how it is that I am not at odds with your aims:

We agree that England’s class system, the Aristoracy lording over the rest as a closed system, is improper.

In that context, what is “liberal” is to open up the boundaries of the Aristocacy so that Englishmen of merit can rise to the top and so that people of Aristocratic inheritance can return to the land and process on the other side, as the might, at times should - Englanders should become a more organic whole and more systemically homeostatic; or return to that, where it has been, or remains the case.

That is to say, liberal mindedness to people within the group is a good thing in that it would not sustain absolute imperviousness to its own people and would be a form of freedom and compassion to others within the group, perhaps marginalized, perhaps making sacrifices, etc. But, as I’ve written on many occasions, the YKW have abused this concept of marginals, quirky individuals and subgroups, which should apply to people within the nation and have instead called “marginal” those from without or antagonistic to the group

Here is where “The Left” has been mis-associated with liberalism - i.e., a liberalism beyond the nation, the people. And in truth, it is not Left Nationalism, it is liberalism.

Once the Aristocratic boundary is sufficiently permeable such that all of England, the nation, is one and the same as the class, then compassion for those English people who are temporarily marginalized or whose contributions are temporarily hidden (perhaps because they are a genius at work on some protracted equation), their incentive to contribute to the maintenance of the boundaries / rule structure makes more sense - because there is more shared stake and empathy in an accountable criteria as it is stabilized though generations if not aeons, and it is rewarded by their share in the social capital which they helped to reconstruct.

Recognition of their social indebtedness and the social accountability to rule structures as such provides the stability of the nation - not the objective quests of the right, which tend to say, “that’s the way it is according to natural law and physical fact” - accountability is minimized - that is one of the primary sources of its instability - it is an epistemological blunder to ardently aspire to do pure theoria in place of praxis. Necessary though objectivity is for a time, resting a nation’s interest on it alone, will be inherently unstable to the social group and its relative interests - which are destabilized as they are persistently pitted against universally objective standards.

I wrote about universal maturity - as a pernicious criteria. If we had a better quality of commentariat, that would have been developed more as in issue.

“Like Hegel before him, Heidegger rejected the Kantian notion of autonomy, pointing out that humans were social and historical beings, as well as Kant’s notion of a constituting consciousness.”

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 10 Dec 2016 21:34 | #

The right gravitates toward “objectivity”

Conservatism is an instinctual politics. Instinct, of course, requires reasoned explications, and accordingly, I wrote that conservatism “by its very resistance to liberalism” trades in liberalism’s terms. This is a signal cause of its failure to halt liberalism’s journey.

I am not arguing against conservatism: that is a straw man, but it seems what you prefer rather than to understand what I say.

Conservatives of all stripes, ie, ideologically mixed to a greater or lesser extent with other “right-wing” ideologies (economism, neoliberalism, libertarianism, for example) constitute the greater part of “the right”. If you are going to make a blanket condemnation of the rightward pole of the principal liberal axis, you are bound to do so also of conservatism. You can’t be both selective and consistent. Either conservatism is what you say the right is, or it isn’t, in which case you must develop a more nuanced critique.

What’s the problem with that? It’s very clear.

This quest for objectivity beyond relative social criteria ...

Conservatives and nationalists alike are heedless of sociology, and don’t give a damn about sociological criticism. Their politics are instinctual. Conservatives find their cause just in a doughty self-reliance couched in the unchanging national character - and not at all unmindful of or hostile to the wider kind, or incapable of shared suffering in the defence of the life and freedom of that kind; although that defence can and does segue into civic or constitutional forms. Still more vitally, nationalism derives its motivations from the blood ... from ethnic genetic interests. The difference is quite enough for liberalism to internalise its conservative antagonist but to push away, and against, its far more deadly nationalist foe.

As long as you divorce yourself from our blood, and pursue a notional social model, you will be off-target and speaking of rules instead of interests. You are very stubborn about this, but again it is completely clear.

Yes, and I point to several other causes; it saddens me that you haven’t read my articles.

You keep saying this, and I have bowed very low already. Perhaps lower than was really needed, but then I do not wish to be conflicted with you. I do, though, wish to make you see your thinking through my eyes

I read. I find the dense language and convoluted logic in some passages impossible to parse (a characteristic of your production on the page of your own thought - you are a really high class writer in other circumstances; good enough to be a novelist, which is something I do not believe I can claim for myself).

Further, I do not know why, as a nationalist, I am being taken away into sociology. It is not a revolutionary medium. Imposing rules does not invigorate the political imagination. I can see that a comparative sociological survey of a prospective European nationalist polity with the existing liberal “fact” would be an interesting and provocative way to critique the latter. But I strongly suspect that that’s as much as sociology can do to bring the whole thing into vision (understand that the nationalist solution has to be there, in the imagination, for a revolutionary phase to commence - nothing really inflammatory and constructive can be got just by an analytic critique of the existent).

Individualism is only one of a cluster of things that gather into a rightward, anti-social trajectory

Like patriotism, faith, social conservatism, traditionalism, you mean?

I said the right was inherently unstable, a particular reason why is because it perpetuates liberalism.

But conservatism is the greater part of “the right”, and it is predicated on the struggle for stability, as I noted. Further, liberalism perpetuates, for the greater part, as a journey to a radicalism of the equalitarian left. This isn’t just a Jewish thing. The French revolutionary parliament had no conservatives in it, but it did have, seated on the left, all the ultra-equalitarian radicals. The pattern is there for Jews to exploit philosophically and politically. But it is our pattern.

I do wonder whether your sociological focus is a product of an essential capture within that same paradigm. Certainly, there is very little ideological necessity for nationalists to become exercised over the left and right of liberalism. They are what they are, and they are not us and we are not them.

Kind of yes, but it’s more because it is not processual and social enough

The radical idealist nationalisms have a processual aspect ... process of constant, radical renewal ... but the existential or realist nationalisms have little in that regard once beyond the revolutionary phase. Conservatism as process? Not unless you count a pair of very long heel-marks in the ground as a process.

Nationalism has no interest in the social. Its interest in is the blood (or the identity). Conservatism cannot go that far, obviously. But it does have a tender generational understanding and a profound attachment to the fundamentals of man, woman, and family, and of course it is powerfully patriotic. You are right that that is not enough, as has been proven over the centuries of the liberal journey. But that’s why we are nationalists.

We agree that England’s class system, the Aristocracy lording over the rest as a closed system, is improper.

In that context, what is “liberal” is to open up the boundaries of the Aristocracy so that Englishmen of merit can rise to the top and so that people of Aristocratic inheritance can return to the land and process on the other side, as the might, at times should - Englanders should become a more organic whole and more systemically homeostatic; or return to that, where it has been, or remains the case.

British political Conservatism was born in 1485 with the coronation of Henry VII, who realised that the merchant class had to be freed of the burden of the warring barons so that it could enrich itself and the king’s coffers. Enlightened self-interest ... the primary tenet of the creed. Stability as the optimum condition for freedom and prosperity. The second great tenet of the creed.

And this is the bit which you may not fully get. From these principles we can see how a new form of personal freedom as well as widening of the interests in society beyond the barony came into the land. The name Conservatism only became attached to this much later, of course. It was Toryism before it was Conservatism, but it was not the politics of aristocracy, quite the contrary. The aristocracy eventually discovered the liberal model of freedom, and so we had the beginnings of the unholy alliance of the “morally superior”, “socially concerned” Whig elites using the underclass as a weapon to attack the power of the urban middle-class.

You use the term what is liberal. Let’s replace that with the term what is good. But which is it? Not the one you would expect. Of course, a proper understanding of the word liberal would require a different and more philosophically specific question ... something along the lines of what seeks to unfetter the will , which would have the answer you expect.

That is to say, liberal mindedness to people within the group is a good thing in that it would not sustain absolute imperviousness to its own people and would be a form of freedom and compassion to others within the group, perhaps marginalized, perhaps making sacrifices, etc. But, as I’ve written on many occasions, the YKW have abused this concept of marginals, quirky individuals and subgroups, which should apply to people within the nation and have instead called “marginal” those from without or antagonistic to the group

Strictly speaking, liberal mindedness is, like Christian mindedness, a highly ideological dedication to this notional salvation of Man as a radically free, self-creating cosmic entity. This is equally true of the left and right of the spectrum. The collective nature of the liberation of the left only approximates to nationalism’s profound this-world coherence of interests. It is not the same in its sense of the wholeness of the people. There arises the question as to whether, say, the early working-class self-help movements in British political life (sorry to always use Britain as the historical go-to) - so, chartism, early trade unionism, cooperatism, mutualism - were liberal in any sense, or had any class analysis to speak of. Further, the great social conscience movements of the new industrial era were middle-class in origin. These were not instances of a “recognition of ... social indebtedness and the social accountability”. These flowed from the love which precedes Christianity’s notional, universal love, and is the love of kin. The care was authentic interest, and from the blood. It had nothing to do with any ghastly, strangling rules (which again breaks the mould of your social analysis and commends a much more nuanced historical and philosophical approach).

it is an epistemological blunder to ardently aspire to do pure theoria in place of praxis

You have it 180 degrees the wrong way around! It is you who is trying to construct out of your head a reality which exists in Nature and in our very blood. If you were to tender one of your rules to a perfectly straightforward English working man, you will be on the end of a perfectly straightforward right hook. You cannot order men to do what they will only ever do because of love.

I will leave it there for now.

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 11 Dec 2016 00:15 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 10 Dec 2016 16:34 | #

The right gravitates toward “objectivity”

Conservatism is an instinctual politics.

And caring about one’s social group is instinctual.

Instinct, of course, requires reasoned explications, and accordingly, I wrote that conservatism “by its very resistance to liberalism” trades in liberalism’s terms. This is a signal cause of its failure to halt liberalism’s journey.

And I can agree with that. There’s more to it than that, but ok.

I am not arguing against conservatism: that is a straw man, but it seems what you prefer rather than to understand what I say.

Conservatives of all stripes, ie, mixed to a greater or lesser extent with other “right-wing”

No, I didn’t say that conservatism was the same as “right wing” ideology.

ideologies (economism, neoliberalism, libertarianism, for example) are the greater part of “the right”. If you are going to make a blanket condemnation of the rightward pole of the principle liberal axis, you are bound to do so also of conservatism.

No, because I am not using the same axis that the Jews have given you to consume.

You can’t be both selective and consistent.

I am consistent. Perfectly. Just because you can’t be bothered to trouble your ego by reading what I say, doesn’t make it not true.

Either conservatism is what you say the right is, or it isn’t, in which case you must develop a more nuanced critique. What’s the problem with that? It’s very clear.

I have developed a more nuanced critique, you did not bother to read.

This quest for objectivity beyond relative social criteria ...

Conservatives and nationalists alike are heedless of sociology, and don’t give a damn about sociological criticism.

I don’t believe all of them are that stupid - if nothing else than to believe that there is “no sociology that can serve nationalist interests”

That is fucking retarded. But anyway, Jewish sociology your pet peev, I am not a sociologist, Jewish or otherwise.

I do recommend that you stop listening to the folks that you’ve been listening to on the matter, they don’t know what the fuck they are talking about.

Their politics are instinctual.

I have no problem for a close reading for what will tend to be an instinctual basis for politics. I recognize that is not enough.

Conservatives find their cause just in a doughty self-reliance

Self reliance is a petty liberal thing, not that I have a problem of your being into that, so long as the borders are tight (conservative).

couched in the unchanging national character -

Well, one would hope that it would be changing only most judiciously. Unchanging is distinctly non-human.

and not at all unmindful of or hostile to the wider kind, or incapable of shared suffering in the defence of the life and freedom of that kind;

Fine.

although that defence can and does segue into civic or constitutional forms. Still more vitally, nationalism derives its motivations from the blood ... from ethnic genetic interests.

Fine.

The difference is quite enough for liberalism to internalise its conservative antagonist but to push away, and against, its far more deadly nationalist foe.

Well, it is primarily the Jews and their Abrahamic religions, and reactionaries thereof, seeking anchoring in objectivism, that will try to exploit liberalism and crucially, to pander to females (their proclivity to incite genetic competition and so on).

As long as you divorce yourself from our blood, and pursue a notional social model,

The blood is a social model.

you will be off-target and speaking of rules instead of interests.

There is no conflict between “rules and interests” except in your puerile quest for an academic foil to show off against. The problem is that you lose. It is not my objective to humiliate you, but your arguments suck, they are based in emotion, as sheer wish to “debuk the lefty academic”

You are very stubborn about this, but again it is completely clear.

No, you are stubborn about it. That’s a projection.

Yes, and I point to several other causes; it saddens me that you haven’t read my articles.

You keep saying this, and I have bowed very low already. Perhaps lower than was really needed, but then I do not wish to be conflicted with you. I do, though, wish to make you see your thinking through my eyes

I know how you think and I have registered where you have made good points. You have not read my articles. I can’t make you do it, and at this point don’t even care to - I only ask that please, don’t act like you know what you are talking about when you criticize my efforts, because you don’t.

The sad thing is, you do this so automatically, every time, and usually attack the really good ideas, I guess because you are jealous.

I mean I made one short sentence and you started attacking, because you just can’t live without a “left” foil as an enemy.

I read. I find the dense language and convoluted logic in some passages impossible to parse (a characteristic of your production on the page of your own thought - you are a really high class writer in other circumstances; good enough to be a novelist, which is something I do not believe I can claim for myself).

Then you need some coaching though, some questions and answers.

Further, I do not know why, as a nationalist, I am being taken away into sociology. It is not a revolutionary medium.

Just because Bowery, in his singular dedication to harder sciences would make such a claim doesn’t make it true. Of course sociology can be revolutionary - sooner than the ontology project is likely to be. But why do you have me defending sociology anyway? Because Uh the Jew, Daniel A, Tanstaafl (and his Jew wife), Carolyn Yeager, Bowery and his pairwise duels can’t handle the fact that they are committing an epistomological blunder?

Imposing rules does not invigorate the political imagination.

Who said anything about imposing rules?

Do you know a sad thing about what you are doing, GW, is that people, unqualified people and antagonistic people are going to swoop in here and make hay with what we should be taking off with - instead I am having to defend myself.

If you only knew how surprising this is to me, because I can see how there is no necessary conflict with what you want.

I can see that a comparative sociological survey of a prospective European nationalist polity with the existing liberal “fact” would be an interesting and provocative way to critique the latter. But I strongly suspect that that’s as much as sociology can do to bring the whole thing into vision (understand that the nationalist solution has to be there, in the imagination, for a revolutionary phase to commence - nothing really inflammatory and constructive can be got just by an analytic critique of the existent).

Well, I scarcely even know what the fuck you mean by sociology as this thing that’s not suppose to be able to assimilate nationalist projects but your interpretation of the discipline makes no sense to me what so ever - because it absolutely can correspond with national interests; and Jews would absolutely NOT want White nationalsts to be adept in this discipline.

I am convinced that is what is happening to you. They want very badly to turn you and your likes off to it, so much that you are arguing against a sociologist that is not here - because I am not one.

Individualism is only one of a cluster of things that gather into a rightward, anti-social trajectory

Like patriotism, faith, social conservatism, traditionalism, you mean?

I don’t see patriotism holding firm in a patriotic position. Faith in purity - as a prelude to objecivism.

They don’t know how social conservatism comes about, or not well enough.

Tradition, well…could be the tradition of liberalism or conserving liberalism ...such has been the case.

With Christianity, for example.

I said the right was inherently unstable, a particular reason why is because it perpetuates liberalism.

But conservatism is the greater part of “the right”,

Not really. It may be its wish, but because it reacts, e.g. into strained objectivism, it reflexively effects liberalism.

and it is predicated on the struggle for stability, as I noted.

It may struggle, but left has the comfortable social group perspective - taken for granted - that conforms perfectly with the perspective of he relaxed point of view taken for granted in the nationalist psychology of your ontology project.

Further, liberalism perpetuates, for the greater part, as a journey to a radicalism of the equalitarian left. This isn’t just a Jewish thing.

Its a perfidy that the Jews have exploited.

It is so ridiculously quantitative. There is nothing about left nationalism that has to seek “equality” as an ideal. That’s ridiculous.

The French revolutionary parliament had no conservatives in it, but it did have, seated on the left, all the ultra-equalitarian radicals. The pattern is there for Jews to exploit philosophically and politically. But it is our pattern.

I see we are finally coming together a bit in our understanding. It is our pattern, but the idea of “equality” was at our Cartesian worst. Note, that I like to always present two poles (unlike Tansaafl, the great epistemologist NOT): Jewish antagonism and our proclivity objectivism as two key problems to our racial strife.

The category of quantity (as in equality/non eqaulity) makes comparison - false comparison - all too easy.

Reaction to it, to say you are against equality, can only have the Jews laughing for how you are turning off you own rank and file.

I do wonder whether your sociological focus is a product of an essential capture within that same paradigm.

It is not. And one of my main reasons for looking after sociology, i.e. the group unit of analysis, is because, it is so stupidly disparaged by the right. I am actually very very interested in DNA and origins of our people and our various strains. I’d like to talk about that more.

Certainly, there is very little ideological necessity for nationalists to become exercised over the left and right of liberalism.

The left, left nationalism, is not liberal.

They are what they are, and they are not us and we are not them.

White Left Nationalism is absolutely the proper organizing framework for ethno-nationailism against our enemies.

Kind of yes, but it’s more because it is not processual and social enough

The radical idealist nationalisms have a processual aspect ... process of constant, radical renewal ... but the existential or realist nationalisms have little in that regard once beyond the revolutionary phase. Conservatism as process? Not unless you count a pair of very long heel-marks in the ground as a process.

No, because our group, its system, is on a very wide of contingencies, it takes a lot and a lot of imagination to maintain that, to advance that - we stand on the shoulders of giants.

Nationalism has no interest in the social.

Bullshit. Totally wrong.

Its interest in is the blood (or the identity).

That too, they are aligned interests.

Conservatism cannot go that far, obviously. But it does have a tender generational understanding and a profound attachment to the fundamentals of man, woman, and family, and of course it is powerfully patriotic. You are right that that is not enough, as has been proven over the centuries of the liberal journey. But that’s why we are nationalists.

There is no need for your thing about sociology. You have gotten and taken bad advice.

We agree that England’s class system, the Aristocracy lording over the rest as a closed system, is improper.

In that context, what is “liberal” is to open up the boundaries of the Aristocracy so that Englishmen of merit can rise to the top and so that people of Aristocratic inheritance can return to the land and process on the other side, as the might, at times should - Englanders should become a more organic whole and more systemically homeostatic; or return to that, where it has been, or remains the case.

British political Conservatism was born in 1485 with the coronation of Henry VII, who realised that the merchant class had to be freed of the burden of the warring barons so that it could enrich itself and the king’s coffers. Enlightened self-interest ... the primary tenet of the creed. Stability as the optimum condition for freedom and prosperity. The second great tenet of the creed.

Well, that is a kind of liberalism within conservative interests of the nation, which is fine with me and in no necessary conflict with what I propose.

And this is the bit which you may not fully get.

It is not my place to study English history but that works just fine with what I’ve been saying.

From these principles we can see how a new form of personal freedom as well as widening of the interests in society beyond the barony came into the land.

Again.

The name Conservatism only became attached to this much later, of course. It was Toryism before it was Conservatism, but it was not the politics of aristocracy, quite the contrary.

Ok, but it doesn’t really matter whether it is the Aristocracy or some other group within the group of England that was discriminating and then became liberalised up to the point of national interests - my point remains.

The aristocracy eventually discovered the liberal model of freedom, and so we had the beginnings of the unholy alliance of the “morally superior”, “socially concerned” Whig elites using the underclass as a weapon to attack the power of the urban middle-class.

Because these “elites” tend to get ideas like that is why I maintain a left perspective, on the whole group interests because these sorts are in a position and easily of a mindset to screw the rest.

You use the term what is liberal. Let’s replace that with the term what is good. But which is it? Not the one you would expect.

It is good to be fairly liberal with people withing your group.

Of course, a proper understanding of the word liberal would require a different and more philosophically specific question ... something along the lines of what seeks to unfetter the will , which would have the answer you expect.

That doesn’t have to be the answer of liberalism and I believe it is too specific.

It suffers exactly because you lack the group unit of analysis.

You see, one can make liberal motions and cause curious looks withing the group - lets say they start practicing Buddhism, but still marry an English woman.

Lets say a conservative man starts going crazy because a spate of English youth start miscegenating.

He might really want to believe that the problem is the unfettered will, he’s got to control these people, and let them know that they have no choice.

But they do have a choice, it’s a bad choice, and there should be social rules which take into account the wisdom of the ancient English people, saying that you might have a modicum of agency to to do that, but it is not our responsibility to suffer the consequences -on the contrary. Those are the rules, they are sacred, they correspond with what is organic and sacred in the health of our beautiful and beloved English people, land and ways.

Strictly speaking, liberal mindedness is, like Christian mindedness, a highly ideological dedication to this notional salvation of Man as a radically free, self-creating cosmic entity.

Well said, that’s GW at his best.

This is equally true of the left and right of the spectrum.

Not the way I am using it and not the way it should be used against those who are being used by Jews.

The collective nature of the liberation of the left

There is a difference between “collective” and “social”

“collective” is Bowery’s bogey man and I am not guilty of this sin.

only approximates to nationalism’s profound this-world coherence of interests. It is not the same in its sense of the wholeness of the people. There arises the question as to whether, say, the early working-class self-help movements in British political life (sorry to always use Britain as the historical go-to)

That’s fine ...but why not use the example of the Lancashire Cotton famine?

- so, chartism, early trade unionism, cooperatism, mutualism - were liberal in any sense, or had any class analysis to speak of.

Liberal against classes discriminatory of them within England, but not liberal in an English sense - in a sense of English systemic interest.

Further, the great social conscience movements of the new industrial era were middle-class in origin.

Fine. I am not only about a working class, I am about the national class.

These were not instances of a “recognition of ... social indebtedness and the social accountability”. These flowed from the love which precedes Christianity’s notional, universal love, and is the love of kin. The care was authentic interest, and from the blood.

Well, that’s wonderful and where that works out I’m all for it. I always enjoy your description of emergent reality. I’ve never seen anything quite like it. It’s very good, even though incomplete.

It had nothing to do with any ghastly, strangling rules

This thing you have about rules now is just jealousy. You should be beyond that, really.

I’m not letting fat assed Millennial Woes take over these issues, sorry.

(which again breaks the mould of your social analysis and commends a much more nuanced historical and philosophical approach).

It’s far more nuanced than you realize and are apparently prepared to allow for. But it will happen - here.

it is an epistemological blunder to ardently aspire to do pure theoria in place of praxis

You have it 180 degrees the wrong way around!

No I don’t. You and a few other people are committing an epistemological blunder - a bad one.

It is you who is trying to construct out of your head a reality which exists in Nature and in our very blood.

Absolutely not true. I neither create these things nor deny their reality

If you were to tender one of your rules to a perfectly straightforward English working man, you will be on the end of a perfectly straightforward right hook.

Not true. Because they would fit perfectly with what he recognizes as common sense - unless he’s been bainwashed by liberalism - which can happen with the working people.

You cannot order men to do what they will only ever do because of love.

I am not ordering anybody to do anything.

I will leave it there for now.

Maybe you will begin to realize that I am not against you..you will get over this thing of requiring a foil ..an academic foil, whose words must be “bad” and against you and must be undone.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 11 Dec 2016 02:21 | #

And caring about one’s social group is instinctual.

No it isn’t. People don’t care about social groups. They don’t fight and die for the rugby club or the primary school parents association, or for the middle-class. People fight and die for kin, for homeland, for faith, and for the proxy of freedom.

No, because I am not using the same axis that the Jews have given you to consume.

My clear understanding is that the nationalist acting from his ethnic genetic interests and the liberal individual affecting to break the bounds do not, and cannot, live in the same philosophical house; but the conservative, by his habitually failing, reactionary nature, finds himself ineluctably pulled into the liberal system. I am wondering whether your understanding is that all these political entities occupy and contest a single space. That would explain quite a bit.

The blood is a social model.

There is no social except what is confected in the mind. In that respect, it has the self-same existential weight as a business, say, to which all the employees devote their working hours. It buys their labour and sells their product. It has fixed assets, and it can be bought and sold itself. But it does not exist outside of the head. Its identity is notional and therefore too plastic to be knowable. The blood in your veins, however, has an existential force and solidity. It is not plastic. It is not confected. It expresses something foundational, vital, and real.

There is no conflict between “rules and interests”

How do you know if you have only ever thought from a rules-based sociological analysis? If you don’t actually know what it feels like to effect the instinctual ... if everything has to be processed through some sociologically derived rule book, how on earth can you speak of instinct with any certainty at all?

You have not read my articles ...

Of course I have. I do my best to understand you, which isn’t easy because of the density and jargon. There is another issue, which is that, personally, I am addicted to light ... to the vivifying ... the philosophical and psychological things which energise me, and which burn themselves into my brain, and force me to create, which is the really addictive, exciting part. For me, this stuff has to have a certain taste, something to do with life and its attendants truth. It’s intellectual cocaine. So, of course, other stuff tends to have a darkened, leaden quality for me - not that that’s necessarily true of it, but the brilliance of the other just renders it thus as an habitual fact of the intellectual landscape. Not anybody’s fault, certainly not yours. It’s just the way I happen to operate, and may explain more than the model of an auto-didact’s “anger at academia” which you keep throwing in my face, and which I do not recognise.

Those are the rules, they are sacred, they correspond with what is organic and sacred

Rules would be tautological in an actively existentialist lived-life. As I said to you some weeks ago, even morality, as a set of informally established dictates, falls away in the turn to self. That does not, of course, imply a regnant immorality. It implies a more direct steer from the biology. In other words in this new context, morality, as a fitness gain already applicable to a self-estranged being, is a side-track ... a second-best way of knowing what vivifies.

I am about the national class.

There isn’t one, is there? At best, “class” is a redundant term, at worst, misleading. The division I see is not economic or social but psychological, and is measured in degrees of estrangement and alienation.

Not true. Because they would fit perfectly with what he recognizes as common sense

Well, there’s hardly anybody who the English working man hasn’t taken a swing at at some time or other. I think the Portuguese have had a good run. Not sure about you Poles. You’re not too popular around East Anglia at the moment.

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 11 Dec 2016 05:28 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 10 Dec 2016 21:21 | #

And caring about one’s social group is instinctual.

No it isn’t.

Yes it is. Just because Margaret Thatcher, or Uh said something doesn’t make it true.

A baby can distinguish between it’s social group and another.

People don’t care about social groups.

Yes they do.

They don’t fight and die for the rugby club or the primary school parents association, or for the middle-class.

If where you are going with this is “the nation” then yes, that is a social group as well.

People fight and die for kin, for homeland, for faith, and for the proxy of freedom.

Kin is a social group as well. Homeland, faith and logics of freedom are means of organizing social groups.

No, because I am not using the same axis that the Jews have given you to consume.

My clear understanding is that the nationalist acting from his ethnic genetic interests and the liberal individual affecting to break the bounds do not, and cannot, live in the same philosophical house;

I basically agree with that.

but the conservative, by his habitually failing, reactionary nature, finds himself ineluctably pulled into the liberal system.

This is probably what is happening to you.

I am wondering whether your understanding is that all these political entities occupy and contest a single space. That would explain quite a bit.

I’ve explained what I think many times now.

The blood is a social model.

There is no social except what is confected in the mind.

You’ve got to get this Thatcherite/ Austrian school bullshit out of your mind. It is poison.

In that respect, it has the self-same existential weight as a business, say, to which all the employees devote their working hours.

It is a unit of analysis as valid as any to begin iwth and more valid than the psychological unit of analysis given the attack that we are under - we are under attack as a group - a group of people - a race is a social entity - it is a biologigial unit also, but there is nothing “confected” about treating it as a social group.

It buys their labour and sells their product. It has fixed assets, and it can be bought and sold itself.

Your assigning these these things to it doesn’t make it true for all social groups. It isn’t.

But it does not exist outside of the head.

If you think that then you are a beginner, stuck in the ultimate Cartesian nonsense.

Its identity is notional and therefore too plastic to be knowable.

It is one unit of analysis, not everything is knowable by its means but many things are.

The blood in your veins, however, has an existential force and solidity. It is not plastic. It is not confected. It expresses something foundational, vital, and real.

It is internally related and follows the same logics of meaning and action as others in that blood type (social grouping).

There is no conflict between “rules and interests”

How do you know if you have only ever thought from a rules-based sociological analysis?

I have thought through it enough - you have not - a rule is a logic of meaning and action and so it an interest. Can you understand?

If you don’t actually know what it feels like to effect the instinctual ... if everything has to be processed through some sociologically derived rule book, how on earth can you speak of instinct with any certainty at all?

Who said it was “derived” through some sociologically derived rule book? I wouldn’t say that: Instinct shares in and is internally related with social rules.

You have not read my articles ...

Of course I have. I do my best to understand you, which isn’t easy because of the density and jargon.

I think its made hardest by your contentiousness. I said one sentence here - its a good point (the right is inherently unstable) - and as usual if I make a good point, the first thing you do is attack and say it is not true and then you go into a series of straw men.

There is another issue, which is that, personally, I am addicted to light ... to the vivifying ... the philosophical and psychological things which energise me, and which burn themselves into my brain, and force me to create, which is the really addictive, exciting part.

Me too.

For me, this stuff has to have a certain taste, something to do with life and its attendants truth. It’s intellectual cocaine.

Margaret Thatcher is a tainted batch and the game of radical skepticism that it has you are endlessly playing is counter productive.

So, of course, other stuff tends to have a darkened, leaden quality for me - not that that’s necessarily true of it, but the brilliance of the other just renders it thus as an habitual fact of the intellectual landscape.

Pay attention to what you like. But if you misrepresent what I say or dismiss it where I know that it is important I must defend it.

Though I must add, that it is a shame, because there has been much of utility and we should have been elaborating on it along time ago. But as I said, I/We will carry on despite your contentiousness.

Not anybody’s fault, certainly not yours. It’s just the way I happen to operate, and may explain more than the model of an auto-didact’s “anger at academia” which you keep throwing in my face, and which I do not recognise.

Well, maybe: but it might help if you could somehow come to the realization that these ideas, at least as I render them, are not in conflict with what you want to do ultimately.

Those are the rules, they are sacred, they correspond with what is organic and sacred

Rules would be tautological in an actively existentialist lived-life.

Some would be, some wouldn’t.

As I said to you some weeks ago, even morality, as a set of informally established dictates, falls away in the turn to self. That does not, of course, imply a regnant immorality. It implies a more direct steer from the biology. In other words in this new context, morality, as a fitness gain already applicable to a self-estranged being, is a side-track ... a second-best way of knowing what vivifies.

Well, you used the drug analogy. The “second best” way of vivification may be the more normal for the most part - adaptive life is not going to be constant orgasms and breathtaking revelations.

I am about the national class.

There isn’t one, is there?

Yes there is. A nation of people is a classification of those people.

At best, “class” is a redundant term, at worst, misleading.

No, because it invokes the idea of unionization, exclusion, inclusion and responsibility,

The division I see is not economic or social but psychological, and is measured in degrees of estrangement and alienation.

Well, that’s ok but it is not the only or the best unit of analysis when taking on our racial opponents. I would not say to you that it - the psychological perspective, should not be explored, but I would expect you to not try to tell me to look at other units of analysis - unfortunately, that has been the case. I wish that you would understand that they can these units of analysis can complement each other

Not true. Because they (the working man inclined to fight) would fit perfectly with what he recognizes as common sense

Well, there’s hardly anybody who the English working man hasn’t taken a swing at at some time or other. I think the Portuguese have had a good run. Not sure about you Poles. You’re not too popular around East Anglia at the moment.

I am half Polish, identifying primarily with the genus of Europeans and trying to help coordinate (not mix) our nationalisms.

I haven’t been following the Poles in East Anglia. Poles, as with any group, have their are good and bad - and you are likely to get some of the bad ones over there. I am sorry for that, but I never agreed with The EU.

Even the better ones should not be there in vast numbers. Those that are there should be accountable to facilitate the ongoingness of English quantity and qualities.

There should be rule structures , such as the DNA nation (which would include numbers of Visas; marriage licenses, property deeds, right of membership, entry, matriculation etc), to manage the English population and protect its genetics. That should also help facilitate, coordinate the protection of its land for English posterity.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 11 Dec 2016 12:15 | #

A baby can distinguish between it’s social group and another.

So sexual reproduction is not instinctual, but is a learned behaviour, like .... oh, line dancing? But wait ... dancing is a proxy for intercourse, exactly like a woman’s reddened lips and made-up cheeks and eyes represent her sexual excitation. Beneath the social construction beats the sociobiological fact. Mores mimic Nature. But you are trying, in your own inimitably stubborn, singularly determined way, to order these about-face, Zeit before Sein in Heidegger’s terms of reference, personality before identity in mine.

I have held my baby in my arms, and the babies of friends; and I can tell you the first time one does the former is entirely unique and a life-changing revelation. My daughter was not consulted but I expect she felt much the same.

If where you are going with this is “the nation” then yes, that is a social group as well.

If you mean that “the nation” is that knowable thing kind, then it is not a confected social category. Our blood is not a mental form derived from Time and Place. It is a physical reality derived from Nature’s sole imperative to transmit information for fitness in the teeth of Time and Entropy.

Kin is a social group as well. Homeland, faith and logics of freedom are means of organizing social groups.

Kin is the unique human bond. Nationalism is the politics of that bond. Sociology does not master that bond, for learned behaviour does not connect with it. It wasn’t only Jewish academics in sociology departments who, in the period from 1975 to 1999, sought to decapitate the science of sociobiology. Sociology itself, as an intellectual discipline, cannot accommodate the principle of emergent human characteristics and connections. In a sense, the rule-setting runs too much the other way for the sociologists. The too too solid, too too human dictate of the genes steps on their freedom to aver, and leaves them making accommodations where they are want to order the field.

You are not allowing for the flow of the existential current in the opposite direction to that which derives from Time and Place. As I have said before, it leads you into a category error so serious you deny Nature itself and put the nationalism for which you would gladly contend into a fruit-bowl along with everything else. That is the effect of it.

As thinking men at the end of our race’s life, we endeavour to wholly, profoundly change the philosophical-political system ... to reverse the historical current ... to reveal the natural being of our kind and to open all avenues before it. So fundamental is this change, we cannot be too radical in our attention to it. We are obliged to be radical, and I invite you to look again at your attachment to your sociological prescription and ask yourself whether it really constitutes a vision of the scale and verity to startle and inspire and move millions. Because that is what we must aim at. Even if we personally can do no more than gesture in the general direction of something grand and life-giving, that is our duty.

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 11 Dec 2016 16:26 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 11 Dec 2016 07:15 | #

A baby can distinguish between it’s social group and another.

So sexual reproduction is not instinctual, but is a learned behaviour, like .... oh, line dancing?

How does that question follow?

But wait ... dancing is a proxy for intercourse, exactly like a woman’s reddened lips and made-up cheeks and eyes represent her sexual excitation. Beneath the social construction beats the sociobiological fact.

Here we go with the elemental misunderstanding of social construcionism, that I have to correct time and again….

Mores mimic Nature. But you are trying, in your own inimitably stubborn

No GW, you are the intransigently stubborn one.

, singularly determined way, to order these about-face, Zeit before Sein in Heidegger’s terms of reference, personality before identity in mine.

I did not put nurture before nature, but you keep trying to put words into my mouth, very disingenuously.

I have held my baby in my arms, and the babies of friends; and I can tell you the first time one does the former is entirely unique and a life-changing revelation. My daughter was not consulted but I expect she felt much the same.

That was my point exactly - in citing studies that babies can recognize racial differences (and paternal differences, I’m sure, as well).

If where you are going with this is “the nation” then yes, that is a social group as well.

If you mean that “the nation” is that knowable thing kind, then it is not a confected social category.

Just because you say that looking upon that nation as social is “confected” doesn’t make it so.

Our blood is not a mental form derived from Time and Place. It is a physical reality derived from Nature’s sole imperative to transmit information for fitness in the teeth of Time and Entropy.

Nature has no imperative to transmit our kind - it allows for fitness to survive (sometimes) if it can survive accident as well as selection. And there is no absolute natural imperative for our race to Not see other races as more fit and therefore select them - obviously and unfortunately (as our enemies prey upon and pander to this possibility).

Kin is a social group as well. Homeland, faith and logics of freedom are means of organizing social groups.

Kin is the unique human bond. Nationalism is the politics of that bond.

Sociology does not master that bond, for learned behaviour does not connect with it.

First of all, as I am forced to repeat, for you and Uh, sociology is not my only unit of analysis - unlike you, I am not locked into one unit of analysis. That is the advantage of hermeneutics.

But secondly, your understanding of sociology is lame anyway, as if there could not be people paying attention to the group unit of analysis who take the more naturalistically deterministic position that you seem to prefer.

It wasn’t only Jewish academics in sociology departments who, in the period from 1975 to 1999, sought to decapitate the science of sociobiology.

No, I suppose not.

Sociology itself, as an intellectual discipline, cannot accommodate the principle of emergent human characteristics and connections.

I believe that it can, but even if it could not (and I don’t see why not) then hermeneutics certainly can make its rounds, often as need be, to the emergent.

In a sense, the rule-setting runs too much the other way for the sociologists.

This is where you are completely dishonest in trying to lock in and misreprresent what I say - trying to say that I set all the rules*; that there is no interpretive/descriptive aspect.

* I advise some things - like a voluntary groups for those who want to abide monogamy more seriously than others (if you say that is being tyrannically prescriptive then you are the one who is tyrannically backwards).

The too too solid, too too human dictate of the genes steps on their freedom to aver, and leaves them making accommodations where they are want to order the field.

The problem is that you (and Bowery) and also some right wingers never want to admit of a good idea coming from me - that’s all, really. It’s a shame, but the ideas will persist long after you are gone, because they are true, good and valuable as they conform to and serve the interests of our nature.

You are not allowing for the flow of the existential current in the opposite direction to that which derives from Time and Place.

So you try to say, but its not true.

Hermeneticists absolutely allow for the two way flows of co-evolution.

Those stuck in scientism do not - not willingly.

As I have said before, it leads you into a category error

No it doesn’t. It forces you to project a category error (your epistemological blunder) onto my statements - you have to render straw men in order to disagree with them and still be “correct.”

so serious you deny Nature itself and put the nationalism for which you would gladly contend into a fruit-bowl along with everything else. That is the effect of it.

Full and compelling nationalism is involved with many other issues.

I would not call it a fruit bowl and would not recommend that no analytic distinctions be made.

Fruits and nuts are for Los Angeles.

As thinking men at the end of our race’s life, we endeavour to wholly, profoundly change the philosophical-political system ...
to reverse the historical current ... to reveal the natural being of our kind and to open all avenues before it.

Yes, and that is not only done by the ontological end, contrary to what you and Bowery claim, but also with imagination through units of analysis and perception of rule structures afforded in hermeneutics.

So fundamental is this change, we cannot be too radical in our attention to it.

Your radical skepticism is too much. You are a wailing modernist.

We are obliged to be radical, and I invite you to look again at your attachment to your sociological prescription

I do not make socioliological prescriptions.

That is your life script speaking. What I said in the essay, “why people who argue against the left and post modernity are badly mistaken”, is even more true than I had thought when I wrote it - and sadly necessary. The puerile contentiousness of what you perceive as “academic hubris”, a contentiousness that appeals to those who egg you on, with their reactionary right wing positions and with a scientistic bent, like Bowery, is something that you find it hard, probably impossible to get over - as you said, the spiteful thrill of trying to destroy important ideas is like cocaine to you - and it is perhaps as bad a habit.

and ask yourself whether it really constitutes a vision of the scale and verity to startle and inspire and move millions.

Yes, but your obstruction doesn’t help. Nevertheless, it will break through your obstruction - obstruction driven by jealous misguidance from right wingers and Jews, whatever the misadvising cause of your motive.

Because that is what we must aim at. Even if we personally can do no more than gesture in the general direction of something grand and life-giving, that is our duty.

Ok, we will keep doing our duty.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 11 Dec 2016 18:43 | #

How does that question follow?

It says you have not grasped the reality of the two worlds in play here. You presume for a “social” singularity - and, although you do not intend it so, your sociology stands in the same world with the amorphous gentile and all the rest of the unnatural things in our life. You have grouped them together by default, because you have not intellectualised from the nature and identity of our people. Why Sein and why Zeit ... why the two, separate and distinct in the same title? To what do they refer in the existent Man? Towards what do they turn?

You will not think through those questions. I know that. But it is not in my interest to push you harder.

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 11 Dec 2016 19:23 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 11 Dec 2016 13:43 | #

How does that question follow?

It says you have not grasped the reality of the two worlds in play here.

Bullshit.

You presume for a “social” singularity -

I do not. Hermeneutics is a back and forth process.

and, although you do not intend it so, your sociology stands in the same world with the amorphous gentile and all the rest of the unnatural things in our life.

Bullshit.

You have grouped them together by default, because you have not intellectualised from the nature and identity of our people.

Not true. There is no choice but to “intellectualize” from a natural position of identity.

Why Sein and why Zeit ... why the two, separate and distinct in the same title? To what do they refer in the existent Man? Towards what do they turn?

You will not think through those questions. I know that. But it is not in my interest to push you harder.

No, you will not think through the issues that confront us as humans, but I know that yours and Bowery’s ego’s can’t handle it. Your scientism is more like a security blanket than a crutch even. Sorry, but you lose:

“Like Hegel before him, Heidegger rejected the Kantian notion of autonomy, pointing out that humans were social and historical beings, as well as Kant’s notion of a constituting consciousness.”

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 11 Dec 2016 21:45 | #

“Like Hegel before him, Heidegger rejected the Kantian notion of autonomy, pointing out that humans were social and historical beings, as well as Kant’s notion of a constituting consciousness.”

By quoting that you demonstrate that you model Man in singular terms. You think mention of the word “social” favours you. No. Man is mechanism and is, therefore, absent. Man is conscious and is, therefore, present. Man is both. Man is binary. Man is transitive. That is what it says. It does not say that ethnicity and identity are ordered within the category “social”. It says the opposite and, by extension, and in my terms, the human personality is derived from Time and Place.

Now do you understand? You are, in effect, ordering the sociobiology within the social. It’s that bad.

To make an identitarian nationalism conceptually sound one has to model the differences in a dynamic way, and to further the philosophy into an ethnic nationalism one has to predicate the whole on an appropriate ontology; and the academic paper I sent you recently by an MR reader, setting out an ontology “of”, is a definite contender for that task. (Strictly speaking, it should be done the other way around, but anyhow ...)

Put those two elements together and then it is time to detail the lower-order strategies, such as how to handle the question, which so exercises you, of what is acquired in Man. But that has to be within the lineaments and guides of the founding philosophy. You can’t go off and grab bits of sociology that don’t mesh with the whole.

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 11 Dec 2016 22:52 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 11 Dec 2016 16:45 | #

“Like Hegel before him, Heidegger rejected the Kantian notion of autonomy, pointing out that humans were social and historical beings, as well as Kant’s notion of a constituting consciousness.”

By quoting that you demonstrate that you model Man in singular terms.

No, I have shown that you model man in insufficient terms - and not in a social sense as well..

Hermeneutic inquiry circles from the more physical and deterministic end that you prefer to broader perspectives - e.g. on our human system.

Neither heremeutics nor myself is limited to the sociological perspective (just because Uh might try to tell you otherwise doesn’t make it true).

You think mention of the word “social” favours you.

It doesn’t do anything for me, I do things with it.

No. Man is mechanism and is, therefore, absent. Man is conscious and is, therefore, present. Man is both. Man is binary. Man is transitive. That is what it says. It does not say that ethnicity and identity are ordered within the category “social”.

The social is one way of looking at it and there is no getting beyond the social concern as long as we are alive and conscious.

My goodness, it is almost as bizarre as your assertion that “life doesn’t interact”

It says the opposite and, by extension, and in my terms, the human personality is derived from Time and Place.

I don’t find that a particularly useful notion, but feel free to elaborate where you will. It’s just not very interesting to me.

Now do you understand? You are, in effect, ordering the sociobiology within the social. It’s that bad.

NO. You don’t understand that I am not ordering sociobiology into the social. You think that because I don’t focus on the sociobiological end that I do not take it into account.

I do every time, for example, when I speak of the female inclination to incite genetic competition.

GW, I don’t care that you don’t pay attention to what I say, but please stop trying to put out false ideas about what I am saying.

I don’t know what it is about you that must have a foil and will resort to constant straw manning in order to have that, but the best I can offer is to defend myself against your false attributions as efficiently as I can and carry on despite your misrepresentation and obstruction.

To make an identitarian nationalism conceptually sound one has to model the differences in a dynamic way,

Which hermeneutics can do perfectly well. Your ignoring and misrperesenting what I say does not make it “not dynamic.”

and to further the philosophy into an ethnic nationalism one has to predicate the whole on an appropriate ontology;

Just because all details are not there does not mean that broad ontological premises are not sound as topoi.

Furthermore, the defense of ethnic nationalism has to be free of your epistemological blunder.

and the academic paper I sent you recently by an MR reader, setting out an ontology “of”, is a definite contender for that task. (Strictly speaking, it should be done the other way around, but anyhow ...)

I don’t think so, we can run it, but there is an underlying misdirecting political angle there that comes through as one moves into the article.

Put those two elements together and then it is time to detail the lower-order strategies, such as how to handle the question, which so exercises you, of what is acquired in Man.

The questions that I ask are the deeper ones. They comprehend the scientific questions that engage you and more.

But that has to be within the lineaments and guides of the founding philosophy. You can’t go off and grab bits of sociology that don’t mesh with the whole.

It is your wish that I am grabbing bits of sociology. It is your wish that I am saying nothing of value. It is a shame. It is a bad habit of contentiousness. Most of us we can handle the idea of co-evolution. Most of us can walk and chew gum at the same time. Because we can deal with the fuller social connections and reflexive relations as well does not mean that we are not also concerned with and taking into account the more physical and pre-figurative aspects of our evolution - DNA and so on - and modifying our working hypotheses where necessary.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 12 Dec 2016 01:04 | #

Daniel, when someone offers substantive commentary, thus:

“Man is mechanism and is, therefore, absent. Man is conscious and is, therefore, present. Man is both. Man is binary. Man is transitive.”

... commentary, I might add, upon your flawed appeal to authority ... you must contend in the same currency. You can’t fend off substance with this courageous claim:

No, I have shown that you model man in insufficient terms - and not in a social sense as well.

You accuse me of not reading you, but in these exchanges there is so little to get to grips with. This, for instance:

The social is one way of looking at it and there is no getting beyond the social concern as long as we are alive and conscious.

What do these words mean? What are their referents? This sentence is like a shapeless sackful of cotton wool. What am I supposed to do with thoughts like that and then - oh glory - the punchline, “You’ve lost”? Lost what? Who is competing?

From first to last, I have been attempting to explain that the creative act of cleaving what is in front of us, as dissidents and thinking men, in such a way as to yield philosophical utility ... and ideally to arrive at the truth of everything! ... begins with the segregation of the things of the blood, the given things, from the acquired. That is the first thing we must do, because, obviously, no identitarian focus can be got from an undifferentiated worldview. To put it more pointedly, the authentic is not in the social. That is the problem here. That is what I cannot seem to get you to understand.

If you wish to respond again, can I ask you to do so with actual commentary, rather than simple claims to value. Then we might actually get somewhere.

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 12 Dec 2016 01:58 | #

Daniel, when someone offers substantive commentary, thus:

“Man is mechanism and is, therefore, absent. Man is conscious and is, therefore, present. Man is both. Man is binary. Man is transitive.”

Fine.

I have never said that man did not combine both elements.

And if you want to pursue your personality project such that it helps European individuals to become articulate of their embodied selves and in making adaptive choices, choices which reconstruct their inherited biological system (in the corporeal/ bodily sense) that could be worthwhile. Rather like the “skin is your nation idea” (which is good too) it can help people to carry and advance their race, their people, wherever they are.

... commentary, I might add, upon your flawed appeal to authority ... you must contend in the same currency. You can’t fend off substance with this courageous claim:

No, I have shown that you model man in insufficient terms - and not in a social sense as well.

That was an accurate claim. You have been arguing right along that I have nothing worth listening to, that I am a “sociologist” and only of a sociological perspective - which is not true - though I maintain that there is nothing wrong with the sociological perspective - on the contrary, it is the most relevant unit of analysis to what we are up against.

And in citing the fact that Heidegger does not agree with you, but more so with me, it indicates the limitation of your perspective - an authority? Well, you are the one who acts like his word has to be treated rigorously (as authoritative).

You accuse me of not reading you, but in these exchanges there is so little to get to grips with. This, for instance:

The social is one way of looking at it and there is no getting beyond the social concern as long as we are alive and conscious.

Yes. That is a perfectly valid and true statement. You can’t come to grips with that?

Furthermore, social classification has been even more at the crux of the matter in my assessment.

They are nifty tricks but they are tricks to get racially concerned Whites to identify as right, as unaccountable objectivists, “against equality” against “social justice” and instead of calling their adversaries liberals or Jews, to call them “social justice warriors”...nevertheless, these are tricks that it would be stupid to fall for; and they are meant to take us away from a necessary social perspective.

Moreover, with regard to your not reading me, I’m talking about my previous many articles, not something that you might have maneuvered me to say in frustration to put an end to your endless contentiousness.

You recently accused me of arguing for “equality” - I have never done that. I have written articles on how “equality/inequality” is a bad dichotomy whether you want to argue for or against it. It is plainly stupid to argue against equality, just as it is stupid to argue against “social justice” or to call liberals that you are arguing against “social justice warriors” - these are tricks that the YKW get right wingers to fall for.

You accused me of being against “elites”. I have nowhere argued anything like that - I have argued for accountability. That’s much different.

The social is one way of looking at it and there is no getting beyond the social concern as long as we are alive and conscious.

What do these words mean? What are their referents?

Use a dictionary and look around.

This sentence is like a shapeless sackful of cotton wool.

No it isn’t.

What am I supposed to do with thoughts like that and then - oh glory - the punchline, “You’ve lost”? Lost what? Who is competing?

You are competing. Endlessly. And I should not be surprised that you would not be able to accept your defeat.

GW, one of the most absurd things that I ever heard was when you asked me if I had “won”? That is, you were asking me if I had “won” with the academics that I encountered at university.

As if it was a competition, a competition with people with wrong ideas and nothing more.

..not perhaps a pursuit of ideas and useful means for understanding the world?

From first to last, I have been attempting to explain that the creative act of cleaving what is in front of us, as dissidents and thinking men, in such a way as to yield philosophical utility ...

As I said, go for it - i.e., your advice about what the individual European personality does when its healthy and making adaptive choices ... just don’t try to tell me that what I am doing is no good, because I will defend it because it deserves defense ..it deserves much much better than the dismissal that you invariably begin with.

This is not the first time. This is usual. I say there are good ideas to be garnered from Epicureanism, you say there is “nothing to be gained from Epicurieanism” On and on. I render a carefully considered argument as to why we should identify with the left and rather than read it, you dismiss it straight away. You know what started this whole long argument? One sentence. It insulted your beloved terms “no enemy to the right” and “left as the enemy.” ..by making the true observation that the right is inherently unstable. You contended with a straw man that “conservatism is stable.”

and ideally to arrive at the truth of everything! ...

Oh brother, well go ahead.

begins with the segregation of the things of the blood, the given things, from the acquired.

Yeah, well, that gets you into the bad habit of dismissing important ideas and acting as if a child born on an island will teach itself all it needs to know, acquire language, etc. - it won’t.

That is the first thing we must do, because, obviously, no identitarian focus can be got from an undifferentiated worldview.

Again, some of us can walk and chew gum at the same time, we can sense what is normal and native and what is an affectation and non-adaptive.

To put it more pointedly, the authentic is not in the social. That is the problem here. That is what I cannot seem to get you to understand. If you wish to respond again, can I ask you to do so with actual commentary, rather than simple claims to value. Then we might actually get somewhere.

To put it pointedly, the authentic absolutely has to take the social into account. Again, the baby does not raise itself on a desert island with all it needs to know, including the ability to speak English, etc.

Please stop being ridiculous.

Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 12 Dec 2016 05:12 | #

I fail to see how the social is not an expression of the intrinsic. Take for example introversion versus extroversion. If a person is an intrinsic extrovert obviously he will socialize more than if he were intrinsically introverted. So there you go.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 12 Dec 2016 09:07 | #

CC,

There is no “social”. It is our attempt - perhaps inevitable, certainly predictable, given the assumption that sociology should exist - to objectify and clothe the determinative, memetic forces - often very small, quicksilver behavioural things - acting on the human personality from within the generality of personalities themselves. Personality, in this context, is the inauthentic anti-self, and its generality is Heidegger’s “the they”. I don’t doubt that every existentialist and religious ontology has recognised it in one form or another, and cleaves it from what actually belongs to us.

We cannot avoid this act of cleaving. Ontology is, by its radical difference from our ordinary ideas about what it means to be human, always a creative act of thinking. It does not come naturally to us. We don’t casually ponder the being of things. It has to be forced, and once begun its progress cannot be halted in some convenient place. The radical nature of human truth drives everything before it. In the process, the comfortable, habitual notionalities that seemed to have existential force before we began, those fall away, now exposed as a somewhat grotesque dance of self-reference ... “the they” boldly advancing their theyness.

What happens next would be the beginnings of a truth revolution.

Posted by uh on Mon, 12 Dec 2016 11:42 | #

“notionalities”

“theyness”

“truth revolution”

I could be reading a first-year text on intersectional feminism.

WAKE. UP.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 12 Dec 2016 12:15 | #

You, my friend, are objecting to word selection? That may not be an adequate response. Let’s see.

That comment challenged the customary interpretation in sociology of the social as a realm unto itself. It explained that this interpretation is part of a wider interpretation of Man which is ontologically indiscriminate.

Now, do you think that is a relevant observation? Or is any relevance it may have completely voided by the selection of certain words to which you object?

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 13 Dec 2016 02:12 | #

Not that I am recommending Father Coughlin in particular, but it is interesting to note that his program was called “social justice.”

It serves to illustrate (what should be) the obvious fact that social justice is a term that does not necessarily have to serve Jewish and liberal interests. Setting aside for a moment that catholicism can do both in an indirect way, it goes to show how the YKW can take a popular concept and turn it against White interests. And right wing reactionaries accept it.

There is no “social”

That is tantamount to the empiricist philosopher John Locke’s claim that social classifications have no empirical reality, they are but fictions of the mind. All we have are our individual perceptions and we should have individual rights to make our way as we might.

But patterns (of people) do exist and classification of them, though a tinge arbitrary, are more than valid, they are necessary to coherence, accountability, agency, warrant and human ecology.

The stubborn denial of these patterns, of their classification, and the wish that individual rights as a cause rendering these patterns tyrannical or artificial because it is hoped that a pure unconditional result will ensue, is the essence of the liberalism that is killing us - it is a reaction (in our time, to badly organized collectivisims, to reactionary collectivisms, to Jewish organized coalitions - PC - against Whites) but is nevertheless the essence of naivete/disingenuousness that the YKW seize upon, encourage even, in order to weaken our group defense and ultimately destroy us.

Race is real, groups are real, the social classification of our people is real.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 13 Dec 2016 11:16 | #

... but you are only saying the latter because you are so habituated in, and unquestioning of, the general and academic presumptions of modernity, and so unfamiliar with nationalism and the centrality of the folk. If you do not allow for the change which must develop out of a genuine nationalist philosophy - not a paradigm shift but a full and fundamental, profound revolution, reaching into everything - you are only paying lip service to nationalism and, indeed, to the postmodernity you espouse.

That is tantamount to the empiricist philosopher John Locke’s claim that social classifications have no empirical reality, they are but fictions of the mind. All we have are our individual perceptions and we should have individual rights to make our way as we might.

Any parallels between Locke’s or, indeed, Descartes’ ideas about the individual and Mind and my scribblings are incidental. As I have explained before, a nationalist ontology does not lead to liberal presumptions. “Society” is a liberal presumption. It is not in nationalism. It may become so, within the confines of the cohered interests of the folk. But you are nowhere near possession of a concept of that today.

patterns (of people) do exist and classification of them, though a tinge arbitrary, are more than valid, they are necessary to coherence, accountability, agency, warrant and human ecology.

In nationalism that sentence has to be run in reverse. That is really the gist of the point I am labouring to make. You cannot get nationalism out of a liberal dispensation. You cannot gently sashay into another philosophical universe by the thaumaturgies and ministrations of a sociological priesthood.

You are not radical enough.

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 13 Dec 2016 14:14 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 13 Dec 2016 06:16 | #

... but you are only saying the latter because you are so habituated in, and unquestioning of, the general and academic presumptions
of modernity

This is called a projection.

It is you who is habituated in and not questioning of the academic presumptions of modernity.

I have been critical of them right along ...critical of the Jewish abuses of these presumptions as well.

and so unfamiliar with nationalism and the centrality of the folk.

I doubt that I am unfamiliar with it - but I am all for it, whatever the case - that’s why midstasein is always central to my argumentation.

If you do not allow for the change which must develop out of a genuine nationalist philosophy - not a paradigm shift but a full and fundamental, profound revolution, reaching into everything - you are only paying lip service to nationalism and, indeed, to the postmodernity you espouse.

A genuine nationalist philosophy is perfectly available through the frameworks that I use.

That is tantamount to the empiricist philosopher John Locke’s claim that social classifications have no empirical reality, they are but fictions of the mind. All we have are our individual perceptions and we should have individual rights to make our way as we might.

Any parallels between Locke’s or, indeed, Descartes’ ideas about the individual and Mind and my scribblings are incidental.

I don’t think so. It seems pretty clear that you have a libertarian bias - which would be a bastard child of these characters.

As I have explained before, a nationalist ontology does not lead to liberal presumptions. “Society” is a liberal presumption.

No it isn’t. It’s “non existence”, or “controlling, tyrannical” existence is a liberal presumption.

The assertion of the legitimacy of social classification and discrimination on its behalf provides accountability, coherence, agency, warrant and human ecological management - a natural and non-liberal position, a de-liberate position, which will render nationalism as an optimal, human sized, social category - in the non Cartesian time and space of judgement between empirical fact and sheer abstraction.

It is not in nationalism. It may become so, within the confines of the cohered interests of the folk. But you are nowhere near possession of a concept of that today.

Although you keep saying (in ignorance, I am sorry to say, but it’s true - you probably don’t have time to know better than to say) that I am merely parroting what I have been told in academia, and that I am doing sociology (and not say, hermeneutics) if you really knew what was gong on there and in other parts of the struggle, you would see that what I am saying is quite different and that I have essential and significant things to say for ethno-nationalists and people who are concerned for their racial survival. The only reason it is not more acknowledged so far is because the YKW and right wing reactionaries have tried to steer people away from what I am saying. But that won’t last.

patterns (of people) do exist and classification of them, though a tinge arbitrary, are more than valid, they are necessary to coherence, accountability, agency, warrant and human ecology.

In nationalism that sentence has to be run in reverse. That is really the gist of the point I am labouring to make. You cannot get nationalism out of a liberal dispensation. You cannot gently sashay into another philosophical universe by the thaumaturgies and ministrations of a sociological priesthood.

It is your hallucinatory wish that I only begin from a “sociological” starting point and will stand for no empirical correction.

You are not radical enough.

Your radical skepticism is not radical enough. It is not philosphically radical enough at all. It is modernist wailing - the wailing of one who cannot accept that his philosophical underpinnings are obsolete. As with Bowery, you would like to reboot the enlightenment. You are left with scientism and the wish to tear down ideas better than what modernity had to offer.

Yes I am radical enough. You are not.

You are a dinosaur. But your hulk has performed many services and will perform many services even as it enters the soil - for one thing, thoroughly oiling the grounds of emergentism and providing a proper mindset for (what I would call left - social -) nationalism.

Comments:

Post a comment:

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Links

MR Central & News

Comments