|
|
|
GW’s Best Friend, Arthur Scargill (well, not really his best friend at all).  Arthur Scargill..since we have an international audience, and sarcasm doesn’t travel well, I am compelled to say immediately that Arthur Scargill is not GW’s best friend, in fact, more like the opposite. This article will be a work in process in regard to a hypothesis that I have of Scargill, that his successful fight against Edward Heath’s conservative government fits in with a broader hypothesis of mine - namely that Jewish interests take the best, most serviceable ideas in terms of social function and organization - specifically in this case, I am talking about the left social concept of unions, guilds, syndicates - and they make them didactic, i.e., Scargill’s union activism became didactic for the rubric and concept of the left, by having Soviet, Marxist and ultimately Jewish backing against ethnocentric, native nationalist interests; which forced right wing reaction. It is a reaction also manipulable, of which they will indeed make use in their interests. That is, where they fail to gain compliance with their international leftism - a “leftism” which spells liberalism against native ethnonationalism and tends only to allow for one nativist national union in the end - YKW. A union is a social concept of members and non members; that is, in and out groups, non-membership, membership, legitimated discrimination and accountability on its basis. This concept can be applied to the level of ethno-nation. It is that level of unionized application especially which Jewish interests oppose - under the rubric of Marxism or the international workers Left, while deftly protecting their own Jewish unionization and nationalism (Jewish ethnocentrism and Zionism). But right wing interests, typically flying under color of objectivism, also tend to oppose this level of national unionization; and tend to conveniently go with their narrow interests as luck affords them or to be bought off by neo-liberal international interests and Jewish interests in opposition to the organization of native nationalism. Thesis: It is standard operating procedure for Jews that they take good and compelling Left ideas for social organization, such as social unionization, and make them didactic (go over the top in misrepresentation with it to the point of reversal); compelling right wing reaction in their enemies as they are both more manipulable among enemies in that reaction and tending as such to frighten-off would-be popular supporters for the lack of empathic social perspective; its having been made didactic. By associating himself early-on with Soviet Marxism, and successfully contributing to the overthrow of Heath’s conservative government, Scargill was didactically facilitating the concept of international leftism which in the end would leave room for only one unionized nation - Zionism being the only native nationalist union to be allowed; thus it was that Scargill’s unions movement was backed by proponents of international leftism and deployed as liberalism against the native national concept of Britain, imperviously forcing a reaction - Thatcher, whose Jewish objectivism acted further as a blunt instrument against the native nationalist union.  Anders BreivikWhere younger generations don’t stay on page with the memo of the one unionized native nation to remain of international leftism, but maintain absolute liberalism against all native nationalisms - as the participants of a Workers’ Youth League (AUF) summer camp on the island of Utøya did in their protest against Zionism - then a Zionist Breivik may be coddled to act through the available valves of ethnocentrically sanctioned aggression, that which is allowed by Jewish controlled discourse - coddled as such in his LARP to murder 77 kids in a misguided right wing reaction of nativist nationalism - Jewish interests want White nationalists to be didactic right wing reactionaries and to not be White Left Ethno-Nationalists.  Scargill more recently, still wears the red tie, but…Coming back to the issue of Scargill, however, I thought he was going to more easily fit into the mold of a liberal, anti-racist, anti-native nationalist rat, masquerading as one concerned with unions and workers. Indeed, from what I know, admittedly not much, as I have not followed this history of British unions and their conflicts through the post World War II years, he perhaps still belongs in that category. There is evidence that he does, that he genuinely could have been a significant threat to the national interests, native and otherwise, of Britain and other European nations:
It is suggested and with likelihood that his strikes, such as those on the coal mines during Thatcher years, could have been used by the Soviets and could have had disastrous consequences for national security had they not been countered by British security who were aware of underlying Soviet design. Nevertheless, by recent talks of his - here, 1, 2, and 3 in favor of Brexit and against the European Union, its common market, etc, in which by contrast to neo-liberal interests, he goes so far as to argue against those who would depict as “racism” his and other’s objection to immigration, as it is clearly against the interests of native workers, it seems that it is not quite so easy to depict him as running contrary to native nationalism, let alone his means (left unionization) doing that - at least not at first blush. Forgive the newcomers to this issue. While he may well have an outmoded idea of the sort of work and unionization to be protected, his heart appears now to be in the right place and the concept of unionization seems indeed to prevail as the natural recourse for organizing the people against scabs, the traitors and the downright treacherous - yes, including the treacherous by means of imposing immigration against native nationals; i.e., the concept holds up despite the fact that it has been typically misrepresented, including through him, by geopolitical forces trying to put forth Jewish/Zionist internationalism on the one hand and neo-liberalism on the other - both converging at a prescription of liberalism for native European nationalists; and since both sides are controlled by Jews and right wing objectivists, neither side wants anything like the unionization, the syndicalism of left nationalism for native Europeans and White diaspora as it would threaten their interests. The concern now, of course, is that he is being used again by forces of neo-liberalism to placate naive native workers with promises of a place in obsolete production and protectionism in order to allow the YKW, Zionists and their Russian and American proxies to control the international market and labor - particularly Asia, as its rising interests would have little common ground with Zionist, Jewish and right wing interests as expressed through the Russian Federation and the United States; but may have a great deal to gain by making common cause with Left ethnonationalism among Europe and her diaspora. More Silk Road News: But wouldn’t Asians traipsing among Europeans be looked upon as “scabs” in this concept, thus not having common interests and at risk to its adoption? Not if they’re also characterizable as an accountable union, as opposed to the unaccountable ruse of objectivism. Comments:2
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 23 Apr 2017 09:33 | # At this moment (ie, at this point in my understanding), my preferred solution to the rather American strategy of separating “liberals” and “leftists” and re-assigning meanings to each would be to return to the fundamentals of Enlightenment thinking and: (i) strip away its Christian/Judaic underpinnings ... which could or would furnish us with a view of what is useful and true that went into liberalism at the outset. It seems to me that this reformational exercise would act as a philosophical engine, creating the impetus for a natural, existential nationalist revolution, by which I mean, initially at least, an intellectual revolution. So I am talking here about a vertical, essentially nationalist critique of both “liberal” and “left” rather than a horizontal assortation of them, claiming for nationalism the natural virtues of most of the Western canon. 3
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 23 Apr 2017 09:40 | # On the subject of Scargill, the good thing about him is that he has a politics which is informed by love (which you, Daniel, would regard as effective in “unionisation”). The bad thing is that it is informed by revolutionary socialism and is, therefore, conflicted. It is a love that hates the co-ethnic Other based on social and economic class and politics. The action of nationalism in the heart of the people is to cohere all the interests predominating among them, which is done not by declaring a union but by bringing forth the shared truths of the individual and the people. Nationalism is the politics of genetic interests. 4
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 23 Apr 2017 10:12 | #
I don’t know of any American who is adopting this strategy - though every ethno nationalist should distinguish proper left unionization from liberalism - because clearing away that confusion is the antidote to the most fundamental weapon of the anti racism, viz., anti ethnonationalism that is being applied everywhere by the YKW. It has been the strategy, especially lately, of the YKW to gain right wing adherents against “the left”, i.e., against their unionized opposition ot their supremacist and sell out (of non Jewish ethno nationalism) interests.
Absolutely not, as that is a return to the sort of objectivism which had historical use against outmoded traditions, and will always have use in momentary verification but as a permanent objective is the sort of anti-social right wing (non) position which heads toward non accountability and the dissolution of our capacity to defend ourselves as a people. Objectivism has an important, in fact indispensable place, in our hermeneutic circle, but it is Not the basis: whereas a properly gauged social relativism is.
Yes.
That would be a Cartesian quest by itself. We should want to replace prevailing social and economic models, and to ensure a model of human freedom. ... which could or would furnish us with a view of what is useful and true that went into liberalism at the outset. Well, you are correct that we do not want to banish a liberalism that does not betray our interests. And there would be plenty of room for that to emerge naturally if accountable borders to native nationalism were firmed up, so that it could be more taken for granted.
Well, there is plenty of room for reformation provided there is a concept of accountability to the interests of our people, failing that, however, the experiment may turn up a hard core element, yes; or it may lead to the unnecessary destruction of many qualities and worse, to the utter destruction of the ethno-state - worst of all, perhaps, is that it would be unnecessary.
You might be trying to do that, but it would be to fly in the face of all evidence that the Jews and their right wing accomplices do not want us to not identify as “left”, have not wanted that for a long time (though it is amplified lately now that they are clearly on top) for an important reason - because it would be good for us and bad for them. They don’t want identity with the left because underlying the concept of the left is social unionization. If we do that and form coalitions with other powerful ethnostate unions, then we can regain our sovereignty and defeat them.. ...and they know it, that is why they will encourage a return to enlightenment thinking and its atomization… the belief that “the invisible hand” will take care of our economics and national boundaries. Sure (((they))) and their accomplices will. They don’t want accountability, they don’t want attention to the fact that they are on top and don’t care about us. A White left takes that perspective on them immediately, and begins taking measures to organize and/or coordinate in our defense and activism. It is the greatest threat to them, that is why they have so diligently misrepresented the concept of the left (as the hyperbolic liberalism which it largely has been in their hands, as they’ve directed it against us) and why they want to turn people off to its social organization, getting them into reactive positions instead - such as a myopic quest for foundations of matters, such as our racial existence and nature, which (while verification and refinement always remain necessary) are already well enough established to proceed with other matters as well, in attendance to imperative matters of systemic maintenance. 5
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 23 Apr 2017 10:14 | #
This, I agree with in part, but I would not regard it as effective unionization, but rather a demonstration that the concept of unionization does in theory and can in practice, work in nativist interests - where his concept is not effective is in cohering the classes - which I would do with the concept of National union - and restate again despite your egregious straw man in misrepresentation of what I regard as effective unionization. On that basis, of the superordinate national union and its two way accountability, he would not be bound and stuck to defending obsolete industry. Regarding your second statement, it is contentious false either/or.
There is no interference with promoting authenticating ideas, supportive stories of “the heart”, that might lead people to naturally unionize and cohere the parts, by declaring a union of genetic interests, that is what its about; to disagree with that is a contentiousness in disservice of ethnonationalism. 6
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 23 Apr 2017 11:27 | #
Not that strategy precisely. But the American political convention is to re-invent meanings for characteristics and positions within systemic liberalism. Naturally, as these are different to the European tradition, it leads to misunderstandings of the “two nations divided by a common language” kind. That is what I meant by “rather American”.
You appear to have missed the point that I am talking about the same outcome, but emergent from within, and therefore re-founding as opposed to reforming. You are talking about identifying the weeds which have been cooked and served with your plate of food, and not eating them. I am talking about planting the kitchen-garden.
We have different understandings of what objectivism is, probably because I am an existentialist and you are not. Again, this makes the exchange of meanings problematic. Whatever you think I meant, I did not mean. Don’t be so trigger-happy with your own meta-analysis. Just allow for the possibility that some other meaning might be intended.
I have made several attempts to explain why a social communicationist analysis is partial and simplistic. I have also tried to explain that Man ordinarily lives in error quite inevitably and naturally, in consequence of the evolution of his consciousness; and this has profound implications for his means of communication with the world (ie, his personality ... the sum of all the influences acting upon him from Time and Place), and for the content - creative of the personality - of that world itself. I know you don’t like psychology. What I don’t know is why. Without it you will have no model of Man, no definitive idea of the human as such; just a model of his sociology. But it is essential to understand him. There can be little or no relational philosophy, little or no teleology otherwise.
Do we really have to revisit Heidegger ever time I make a comment here, to stop you from labelling in that way? James Bowery grew very tired of that. There is a lesson for you here to control your trigger finger.
The model of freedom. There is only one true. I wrote about this quite a while ago, on the basis of a reclamational historical analysis: https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/nationalism_as_emergent_nature_nationalism_as_reaction In the present case in point I am speaking not of history but of philosophy, so the argument is different: not reclamational, based on a discriminative capacity particular to nationalist thinking, but creative of that capacity itself.
Well, it wouldn’t, would it. Quite the opposite.
I don’t identify as “left”. I identify as my identity, which is ethnically English. 7
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 23 Apr 2017 12:37 | #
DanielS: Why did you say it then? That’s called being contentious.
DanielS: That isn’t my position, though you apparently want desperately to hang your straw men upon me.
DanielS: You see, GW, your concern that the concept of left and unionization will divide the English is taken into account in that the native nationalist union is the overriding and unifying union of subsidiary unions. I don’t want natives fighting among each other either.
DanielS: Absolutely not, you missed the point, in fact, left out the reference to what I was talking about: .. clearing away that confusion (between liberalism and Leftist unionization) is the antidote to the most fundamental weapon of the anti racism, viz., anti ethnonationalism that is being applied everywhere by the YKW
DanielS: No, you are trying to apply straw men to me in a contentious effort to “win the argument against academics” rather than seeing what I am saying and recognizing not only its merit but that it can cohere with your wishes (other than you being the sole worthy source of information and your ontology project being the only worthwhile thing).
DanielS: That’s an evasive nonsense.
DanielS: No, you don’t want to understand what I am saying. You can’t want to because I have explained it clearly many times. The objectivism that I mainly talk about is of the enlightenment variety which tries to see beyond subjective and relative social interests. It does some good and plenty of harm if taken too far, which it has been. Hence the hermeneutic turn toward perspectivism and historical ensconcement to go along with it in a circular investigation. There is another common understanding of objectivism which comes by way of Ayn Rand and the Austrian school, which was adopted by Thatcher - it is a Jewish weaponization of objectivism to provide the “solution” where Jewish leftism had gone far enough to create a significant reaction; this also serves to counter for them any development of White leftism - proper ethnonationalism.
DanielS: Nonsense.
DanielS: You are in need of your own advice. DanielS: ... it (your version of objectivism) is Not the basis: a properly gauged social relativism is
. DanielS: I didn’t say that it was everything - it is not trying to do science, for example. It can and does provide a complete frameork for enormously complex analysis - including science and ontology. I understand your jealousy, because your identity is wrapped up in one “who doesn’t lose arguments.” But you have lost this one; rather than taking a look to see that these ideas are not antagonistic to your interests, you proceed to try to destroy and bury better ideas which are fully conducive to your interests.
DanielS: Man tends to live in error, well maybe; you’re welcome to go with that hypothesis.
DanielS: Because it is limited. Apart from organic syndromes, its cure is the untangling and disconfirming of destructively negative ideas that are being directed against and adopted by the individual and the confirming of positive ones. Particularly when dealing with matters of national identity, these positive and negative ideas, rules, narratives are not merely housed within the head, but exists in social interaction. We are being attacked psychologically, yes, but also as a group, and that group attack is a part of creating negative psychology. If you insist that we can’t criticize social matters but must look in our heads, then you are applying the severest handicap to us before our enemies. If you were to recognize the concerns as not mutually exclusive it would be ok, but when you want to say only psychological foundationalism is valid, I have to conclude that you are in the throes of a severe reaction to Jewish trolling that called itself “Left” while trying to liberalize your nation.
DanielS: First of all, I do have models of man that I work with (your denying that does not make that untrue), secondly, I do not say that you or other people should not develop such models, that we should be without them or that they are insignificant. It is a straw man - and one which you need to stop - that I “only care about sociology.” The social group is an important stop in the hermeneutic inquiry, probably the most important now, but not mutually exclusive to other concerns - that is what hermeneutics is about, maintaining the process of survey and not getting stuck in one position as per Cartesian anxiety.
Do we really have to revisit what I’ve said? that undoing Cartesian myopia is of central philosophical importance for defending European peoples, maintaining their health and advancing them.
DanielS: James Bowery was wrong, and like you, didn’t bother to understand what I am saying and what philosophers are saying about Cartesianism. Like you, there are some clearly traceable reasons for his reacting as you do - narrowly (can say myopically) into what he does well, a STEM approach, but more importantly against the red menace and Marxist attack, abusing leftist ideas against our people as experienced in formative years. Like you, he experienced the attack so intensely, that it created a permanent vigil against it - contentiousness. Both of you are overly competitive anyway, but these factors just made it intransigent. Like you he wants to keep sizing up the enemy in association with some of the terms and concepts that they’ve abused (and wants to maintain those definitions, despite the fact that their proper definition would serve us well) but not other concepts, which are also subject to abuse despite being more conducive to your predilections: i.e., you want to believe that hermeneutics and the social unit of analysis, etc., is, as they put it across, an attack on science and truth; as opposed to a critique of “scientism” - viz., a critique of bad science or misapplication of science which it is meant to do. And want to believe that I am saying the same things as the people at the university which you and him are reacting to.
DanielS: talk about simplistic.
DanielS: You know, GW, it is really disgusting that you think that your contributions are the only worthwhile material and that you need to thoughlessly trash with straw man what others say. And you have to use straw men because if you addressed what I am saying honestly your criticisms would not hold up.
DanielS: Fine, I don’t object to looking into organic capacities, no conflict there.
DanielS: Well, while you are obstructing social conceptualization you are definitely aiding and abetting destruction of concepts which are urgently needed and you are doing that unnecessarily; because they would allow, in fact facilitate your project concomitantly; they are harmless to your project, which you speculate will emerge in comprehensive nationalism - if it does, well and good; but in the meantime there are urgent matters that need attending - conceptualization at the group level which need to be readied for application in the real world. Truth be known, that will always be necessary and psychology will always be limited. P.S. it might be of interest to you that the cognitive psychological idea of the human necessity to categorize (“in human sized categories”) which I call classifications, is not objectivist - it is relative (and correct as such).
DanielS: As usual, you left off the important part - for good reason - for good reason because it reveals your conceptual defeat on an important matter. Here is the full context and quote:
8
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 23 Apr 2017 15:06 | #
Naturally, there is no process of unionisation, at least in the European context, although America may be different. This is my point of disagreement. Naturally, a people is not a constructed identity. Nationalism does not attempt to construct that which pre-exists. Politically, its action is to cohere the separate interests in the life of the people. Typically, the relationship between corporations and workers would be aligned for the latter’s long-term benefit, and the benefit of the country as a whole, as profit would tend to be re-invested, rather than consumed; which advances growth. 9
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 23 Apr 2017 15:34 | #
You are disagreeing with your straw man concept. The effect is the same. If they are loyal to their own and discriminate against outgroups, I am calling that unionization. Furthermore, just as it is natural to call the union Jack a UNION jack it is natural to refer to the nation as a union.
After all this time you still don’t acknowledge what is meant by constructionism properly understood, even though its been explained fifty million times - if something is obviously made by people, like Buckingham Palace, it is constructed. If part of it burns in the course of physics, we can nevertheless construct a determination of how that counts - a disaster. If The English come together naturally, that’s fine - and there is no harm in saying that coming together counts as a union - no need to hector people for accounts where they naturally do what is best for the union; but it is a help, in fact as it provides accountability where its natural course may fail (which some people can without proper guidelines) and where alternative conceptions might drive them off course - as is more apt to happen with no account objectivism.
That can be largely true, but your concern to look at it that way comes back to your utter misunderstanding of constructionism and your will to misunderstand it according to our enemies abuse of the concept. Proper constructionism would say that even insofar as our people pre exist given language forms, that we nevertheless have the capacity to designate how those pre existing forms/patterns count - and we should designate them in a way that serves our/their interests - a left national perspective, a social unionization, does that best, as it is accountable to and from the broad pattern; particularly on the matter of its borders.
That goal is entirely consonant with my project.
10
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 23 Apr 2017 17:07 | #
But ethnocentric feeling isn’t a unionisation process. There are no constituent parts to unite. I know this is difficult for you to understand. I know you want to see only process. But that is your mistake, and a most Cartesian mistake it is too, to use your own label (in the sense of proofs satisfied by self-referentiality). A people is an extant organism. The degree to which it is self-conscious is the degree to which it can discriminate non-accidentally, ie, non-mechanically for its own good. That self-consciousness is a disclosure not a construction. We are in the world of Heidegger’s ontology, in particular there-being and essential thinking (or “the turn”, as I have characterised it), and it has revolutionary import, which I have tried to explain to you several times; but which you have stated plainly you will not interiorise. Not to put too fine a point on it, ethnocentrism very much makes of identity “the same as itself with itself”. Subject and object appear together in the perception ... this is the state of appropriation ... agency. So what does this mean for someone whose understanding is that there must be a construction process? Well, he would be messing about with an image of the extant organism which exists in his own mind and trying to pass that off (ie, communicate it) as the authentic animal always “out there”, so essentially notional. Meanwhile, another person, and another, and another would have their own similar processes going on, creating not a single energy but a confusion ... confusion and fragmentation being the natural estate of ordinary waking consciousness. Always, the key is in consciousness, of course, which alone bestows a general agency. But you will not listen. 11
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 23 Apr 2017 19:48 | #
Oh for fuck sake! You know I’ve had to take time out from important personal matters that I have to attend to in order to shovel out the constant horseshit that you dump on top of cogent explanations! You lost the argument. Get over it. You don’t want to call it these things because it hurts your ego, don’t call it that. But what you or others do, if you do it right, will be tantamount to the same thing. Now, let me shovel your next pile of shit.
Co ethnic feeling is created by a shared confirming social narrative. That is the case. I thought that you would be satisfied with your straw man to Dr. Eigenvector about “my singular concern” for the “tool” of communications (reverting to the transmission model that I don’t use and ignoring what I’ve said repeatedly about hermeneutics surveying various subject matters); I even ignored the bit about how we should be talking to fucking priests.
No, it is difficult for you to understand or admit, that that is not all that I do. You simply can’t live without strawmaning me. Because it will mean having to acknowledge what I am actually saying and what I am not saying and doing.
It is not a mistake and it is not Cartesian because it does not stay fixated an a historical perspective, trying to deny interaction, social agentive and otherwise, but is rather an ongoing inquiry conducted with social and empirical verification. You simply cannot help but cooking up horse shit. What is worst of all, is that people coming here may not realize that I’ve shoveled aside this bullshit dozens, probably hundreds of times now. And what I have actually said and its utility will get buried in this stuff. The Jews have a great asset in what you are doing.
I have never said they weren’t an extant organism. Their discriminating consciously for their own good is not helped by helping Jews to confuse matters, by insisting on their definitions of terms. I have otherwise disentangled, demystified and disabused people of their disconfriming terms and concepts.
For the millionth time, you have not understood what I said about construction, probably for your phobia and butt hurt about being corrected in your misunderstanding of “academic” terms. If you and others want to say that its only a matter of disclosing the truth of pure nationalism, then constructionists proper are saying that you all are constructing that as how that counts. We might agree, we might not. I don’t. I recognize it as terribly incomplete of human requirement.
That is the story that you tell. Others of us may have an awareness of self, our people, midtdasein and what we need to do; and we are turning to that vital project.
You are not doing revolution. You are more like a scared youth returning to the security of his enlightenment hobby kit in his basement in order to avoid dealing with reality. Rather like setting the computer chess on the easiest level and taking back your opponent’s moves to declare yourself the winner every time.
It’s fine if things match up, but (in the event their personal outlook or the social outlook doesn’t) I have been giving what-for explanations all along for the benefits of ethnocentrism so that people can be conscious of its benefit; including to agency. Perhaps people will glow in the dark once their inner truth is disclosed to them and they will radiate their nationalism so much that a passport and border control will never again be needed; they will just naturally repel and be repulsed by every other race with their emergent resonance; no need for English language, instruction from parents, let alone history lessons! etc. Perhaps the only thing a child needs to become a nationalist is GW teaching them emergence - somehow, without words even, just consciousness vibes. But I don’t think so and neither does anyone else with half a wit. You can keep dumping stuff in distraction and obfuscation from what I’ve actually said, but I can always refer back to what I’ve actually said. 12
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 23 Apr 2017 23:23 | #
You are prescribing your own thoughts, as I explained. Prescription does not lead to consciousness. Psychologically, you are making a category error, confusing a produced behaviour with willed behaviour and obedience with consciousness. 13
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 23 Apr 2017 23:53 | #
No I am not. I am describing important features of what ethnocentrism is, what it does and what its benefits are. You keep trying to apply this stereotype to me of “the left”, the force of “anti-nature”, that applies concepts out of nowere, with no reference or concern for reality or testing. That accusaton doesn’t hold up against me - anti Cartesianism has correction and verification built in from the start. In fact, you are making the category error, by misapplying theoria (trying to foundationalize nationalism in psychology) to praxis. Ridiculously, you accused me of being Cartesian, and when I described how that was not true in the comment above, you simply ignored it and went on to another straw man. 14
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 24 Apr 2017 04:54 | # Daniel, I told you from the first that, as a friend, I will not debate you point by point. I will only offer criticisms and correctives to try to pull you out of the quicksand of jargon and pride in which you are caught; because nobody else in this world is remotely interested in doing so. In a manner not disimilar to an anti-racist or pee-cee slave, you have fashioned a political world for yourself which you are trying to prescribe to everybody else. It cannot possibly work for you. To give it utility its prospective range and power has to be re-assessed and brought into the realm of a real world possibility. Some aspects of it have to be dropped completely. Others (such as, for instance, your somewhat “out there” and unsupported assertions about Jewry’s collective action in the world) have to be made workable. To then give it effect it has to be fitted to the greater process of making a nationalist world, so that it might find its true place and scale of action. That’s the way forward with it. That’s what I am trying to push you toward. I do not mean to stamp out your personal contribution to our struggle, but to give it historical potential. 15
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 24 Apr 2017 08:15 | #
Those are called projections. I am not in quicksand. You are in quicksand with your “ontology project” - it is a bottomless, silly quest (vain, though self destructive and potentially more broadly dangerous in its dehumanizing reductionism, its oblivousness to true human nature); carry on with it as you will, I’m not getting stuck there. I do not use jargon (what word do you not understand?); I have explained this before, I don’t use words decoratively or to obfuscate. I use words which say exactly what I mean and can explain what I mean and why I use them. I am not caught - you are. You are impervious; and not in a good way. Carry on with your ontology project; but don’t expect me to get caught up in matters of the “personality.” My way of organizing and understanding matters works to make consistent sense, to see where problems are and what needs to be done.
You don’t speak for everyone. Oh, perhaps also for Daniel Jesus and Hitler Antinora and Carolyn Yeager.
No, I have not, I have a framework, a working hypothesis which holds up and makes sense time and again.
I am not trying to prescribe, I am describing a workable perspective - its called left nationalism. Kumiko understands it, but she has not yet unveiled articles that she will do on this matter as well.
But it does work. Your selfish pride is keeping you from acknowledging that.
And it does work in the real world. Your willful misunderstanding is an obstruction, but your objections are easily disabused, and I’ve gotten used to the fact that you can’t be reasoned with; so I’ll work around you.
Bullshit.
Easily verified. Not “out there” at all.
Well, I see that you have begun to copy a talking point of mine when you talk about “scale”, but call it what you like, nationalism is in large part a social classification (if its worth a damn, racially); but matters of territory come into play, negotiation among other nations and matters of the world; and much more, of course.
GW, I am ashamed of this comment of yours. If that’s all you can make of what I’ve done. You have shown no capacity in this comment to distinguish useful and important ideas from rubbish. Worse, you have shown a dedication to burying useful and important ideas. It seems a matter of selfish pride and jealousy - because you have an uncanny propensity for attacking and dismissing the best ideas. You are not over your reaction to “leftist” (liberal) trolling of your early years, and I’m afraid that you might never be - its your problem; not mine, I am prepared to carry on knowing that you will be hostile to my ideas (or the ideas that I purvey); I am satisfied knowing that they are important whether you want to acknowledge it or not. I have dealt with your objections and they are bogus. 16
Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 24 Apr 2017 23:32 | # “make them didactic (go over the top in misrepresentation with it to the point of reversal)” Lulz Do you even know what the fuck “didactic” means? On planet earth words have generally accepted meanings so that people can use them and know what the hell each other are talking about. Maybe things work differently on planet sperg. 17
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 25 Apr 2017 03:55 | # On my planet I’ve been using ‘didactic’ to mean doing something so much as to teach its opposite, i.e. to achieve a reverse effect.
It is true that even in service of my extrapolated meaning (which has tended to be understood by interlocutors, adding a little explanation, parenthetically if need be) that rather than saying Jews “make” them (terms/concepts) didactic, it would have been more clear to say that Jews “take them” as didactic. Thus, Jews treat moral rules coming from Whites as didactic and then, by Alinsky’s rule, make Whites live up to their moral rules purely with regard to other groups and to the point of reversal for Whites.
Diversity - means integration. Multiculturalism - means monoculturalism Leftism - means liberalism for Whites, their inability to form social unions on their basis and discriminate accordingly. Praxis - historical determinism Minority rights - become the majority standard. Marginal - becomes someone just barely outside your boundaries instead of someone just barely inside. Discrimination - the most essential sensory capacity for an organism’s survival becomes prohibited as “taboo.”
Of course, I am tempted to say that it is rather Whites who don’t get it, i.e., on the whole, as a social classification it is they who are out to lunch on this one - because to even think of themselves that way (as a social group) is to have broken the commandment of individuality - pure Euroman individuality: to draw lines of social classification in service of accountability to social capital and warranted leverage thereof, human ecology, protracted systemic maintenance, heritage, historical coherence, in treatment of particular European evolution as precious ..that would be irresponsible: that is social classification and against individual rights - that’s racist. We might become inauthentic and lose our individuality in doing that ... in the moment we think it we might perhaps mutate rapidly as a people to become like insects.
Hermeneutics - means avoidance of survey and verification Post Modernity - means the incoherent upshot of modernity taken to a linear extreme. Nightmares - dreams.
black man - role model for White boys, ideal partner for White girls. Queer discretion and respect - flamboyant public displays and imposition Tolerance - beyond momentary endurance, into toxic imposition. God - a Jew
18
Posted by Student unions boycotting Israel warned on Thu, 27 Apr 2017 17:55 | #
- comment DanielS
19
Posted by Robert Stark and The Wobblies on Tue, 02 May 2017 07:24 | # One good thing about Robert Stark, in selling-out White ethnonationalism and kissing Jewish ass in order to facilitate his broadcasting career, he does well to flesh out our enemies: In the course of interviewing David Spurlock - who is, indeed, Jewish - Spurlock discusses “the wobblies”, its history and the kind of people attracted to that movement. Internationalist “Industrial Workers of the World” a.k.a., the “wobblies”, and those who would gravitate toward their sheer, a-racial, international “left”, have been literally opposed to racially, nepotisically, nativist and nationally organized unions. That is to say, they are indeed against our ethno nationalist left and its coalition. Spurlock and friends -
20
Posted by Robert Stark on Mon, 08 May 2017 00:51 | # Robert Stark interviews Drew Friedman’s brother Josh Allan Friedman. Maybe that’s how he came across Spurlock. Josh wrote fro Al Goldstein. 21
Posted by Asian Aryanism? on Tue, 09 May 2017 00:37 | # What is Daniel’s opinion of Robert Stark’s co-host Pilleater and his Asian Aryan thing? 22
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Tue, 09 May 2017 02:52 | # I’ve seen the question first, so I’ll jump in before he does. My view on Pilleater’s ‘Asian Aryanism’ is that—whether he intends it or not—it would actually just lead to: 1. The destruction of cohesive Asian ethnic communities on the North American continent through mass mestizaje with Whites, In other words, ‘Asian Aryanism’ has a utility only for people in the White majority in the United States who want to literally fuck their way out of America’s so-called ‘Asian problem’. It’s basically just soft Asian Genocide. I don’t know if he intends that, but that’s basically what the effect would be. Needless to say, I oppose the whole concept root and branch. 23
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 09 May 2017 02:56 | # My short answer to Pilleater’s “Asian Aryanism”, is that like everything featured on Stark’s network, it is generally misdirective of ethnonational interests (especially White) and taking them in a YKW friendly direction. 24
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Tue, 09 May 2017 03:04 | # I don’t know that Pilleater is doing anything on purpose. I’d be completely open to having a conversation or debate with him about how his ideas have extremely negative consequences. From what I’ve heard from him in his podcast appearances, he seems pretty new to all this, and his mistakes might all be sincere mistakes. I wouldn’t want to leap to the hyperbolic conclusion of “Aha, it is a plot by the sneaky Levantine tribe” so quickly. People are far too quick to leap to that conclusion on everything. He could just be wrong because he’s wrong, not because of any plot. 25
Posted by Pilleater on Tue, 09 May 2017 04:27 | # What’s up my chigga Oumae? This is pilleater. Hit me up through the contact button through social media or send me an email. We can talk and do a podcast. I’m on Skype. Speaking of “Asian Genocide,” isn’t it also “white genocide?” Chigga please. You don’t know what its like to be a hapa brother. What’s your answer? Ethnonationalism for everyone? And let the race mixers die in their own corner? -pilleater 26
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Tue, 09 May 2017 08:05 | # I have a complex answer to those questions (which is different from what you might expect the typical response to be—my answer doesn’t involve anyone dying, seriously), but I won’t get into it in this thread. I’ll send you an email and I’ll add you on Skype later on this evening and we’ll see how it goes, I’ll ask you some questions and so on. There definitely needs to be a podcast as well. Even if we disagree on things it’s still good to have the conversation, since the whole American demography situation and how you are trying to grapple with the problems, is something I do consider worth exploring. 27
Posted by Robert on Tue, 09 May 2017 19:43 | # It is inevitable that some kind of Eurasian identity will form. White Asian mixing is only excelerating in North America and at least a 3rd of SWPL white men are with Asians now. It is preferable for these new Eurasian off springs to have a healthy form of identitarianism rather than just being rootless atomized cosmopolitans. 28
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 09 May 2017 20:56 | # First of all the “term” “Asian Aryanism” is silly. With that, it smacks of a Jewish language game. It is all important that Jews not be allowed to interfere with the relationship between White/European ethno-nationslims and Asian ethno-nationalisms. 30
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Wed, 10 May 2017 04:12 | # I previously said that I wouldn’t get into the issue of Asians in the Americas in this thread, but here I am doing it anyway. Le Forced Meme I’m concerned that all of it is a forced meme, and this is not to say that forced memes are bad in and of themselves, but I think that the kind of forcing which is involved here is basically one that unfortunately centres the needs of White hegemony over a what is actually a multiethnic demography on the North American continent. I understand that Hapas sometimes get upset with the present state of play, and this may motivate some of them greatly, but there does not need to be a separate ‘Euro-Asian’ identity. The social negotiation of identity that presently exists is one which is based on the historical understandings of the people involved and the different levels of willingness that the population groups are willing to take to absorb genes of other population groups and scatter them. There is also strategy to take into account. Overlay American demography atop something like ‘people who did not vote for Donald Trump’, and the reality of a future of racial-political division becomes obvious. Given that everyone knows that White America utilises a more stringent system of identity-based exclusion than Asians, Native Americans, Asian Hispanics, Hispanic Amerindians, or Pacific Islanders do, and given that we know that it is White Americans who have spearheaded the charge toward re-forming some kind of ethno-state on the American continent which is defined as being contra-Pacific in every way, then it does not make sense for people of the Pacific to apply rigorous ‘blood quantum’ rules which would needlessly exclude people and create a ‘swing identity’ which would merely add more layers of complication. Rather than doing all of that, Hapas should simply accept that they are in fact Asian-descended and that being Asian means you are not a White American. Transformations which must take place Given the sheer demographic weight and the strategic objectives of Asians in the Americas, as well as ethnic genetic interests, it should be obvious that the ‘mission’ of Asians in the United States should be to cultivate a positive relationship (spoiler: this relationship already exists, it’s Ron Unz’s nightmare but our great dream) with people of Hispanic Amerindian descent, of which there are no shortage given that there are about 56 million Hispanics, almost all of which have at least some Amerindian admixture. Add to that the 600 thousand Asian Hispanics, the 700 thousand Euro-Asian Hapas, 18 million Asians, and 6 million Native Americans and Alaskan Natives. A picture develops. And it’s not one that involves Euro-Asian Hapas needing to create a separate identity with a separate politics. What all of these share in common are three basic things: (1) an underlying economic interest as peoples who are internally colonised within North America and as such are effectively ‘Third World’ or even ‘Fourth World’, (2) the fact that White America has actively chosen to ‘Other’ them since 2016, (3) the fact that the ancestral home countries of the most economically affluent groups among them are being targeted for a punitive trade war initiated by the social formations that produced the Alt-Right. That alignment of social and economic pressures is a once-in-a-blue-moon alignment, and it can perhaps in 20 to 30 years be utilised to make an argument for the secession of the West coast and Southwest regions of the United States. My stance is, to put it simply, that a line needs to be drawn and that White America needs to be allowed to go its own way. Both politically, and genetically. Pilleater keeps advocating for more White people to have children with Asian people. That is the exact opposite of what needs to be done. It needs to stop as soon as possible, and the existing Hapas ought to return to living with Asians so that they can be re-absorbed back into Asian communities where possible. The Hapas out there need to appreciate that they already have an identity, they are people with some Pacific ancestry of one sort or another, they are part of the aggregated Asian social and political bloc which is taking form in the Southwest of the United States with Californian values.
In other words, Pilleater is arguing for ‘Asian Aryanism’, but in clear contrast against that I have always been arguing for basically an accommodation of the ‘La Raza Cosmica’ concept with a self-segregative resistance against the further ingress of White genes, as a strategic precondition to strengthening the defensive position of East Asian economies and for constraining the geographical and political reach of Washington DC’s Zionist Occupied Government. This is plausible The advantage that my idea has also, is that I don’t have do much fundamental work at convincing people that there is something to this, given that race relations in the United States are at an all time low and I’m not trying to invent something new from whole cloth. I’m simply saying that people ought to work carefully toward enacting a concept which tens of millions of people are already completely familiar with. For people who advocate this position, tactically speaking we don’t need to overtly declare an ethno-state. We just need to let the kind of social formations that gave rise to the Alt-Right declare their de-facto or de-jure ethno-state first (some would even argue that the Trump administration implicitly did this already), and then define the West coast as being ‘definitely not a White ethno-state’ in all messaging. You can even see the beginnings of that sentiment in the words of the some of the angry young people who are prancing around yelling “Not my president!”—they would need to be steered in a direction that leads ultimately to “No longer my country!” What should White people do? Why even try to prevent it? My message to White Nationalists and White Identitarians is that you basically should stop interfering in the process of the shaping of cohesive non-White identities in North America. Interfering in it will help no one and would only destroy all groups. There is a transformation taking place in the Southwest where people are pooling their lived experiences into a larger classised and racialised framework with geopolitical and geoeconomic utility, which may someday lead to a peaceful partition and separation. That separation would be the end-result of a transformation which must take place, because otherwise, peoples of Asian or Amerindian descent, much less even people of European descent, would not be able to survive in North America. It’s still early days, but in 20 to 30 years you will see what I’m talking about, as demographic projections converge with political and economic disparities to produce a material basis for what I’ve described in this comment. Post a comment:
Next entry: Alt-Right cannot be trusted to represent Whites, ethnonationalists on crucial matters
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 23 Apr 2017 08:50 | #
Nevertheless, by recent talks of his - here, 1, 2, and 3 in favor of Brexit and against The European Union…
Inasmuch as Scargill argues against the EU and for Brexit, which he does, on the basis that its rules and immigration hurt native workers and the nation generally, he is demonstrating that the concept of left unionization does hold up theoretically and can be applicable in our interests.
Done from our perspective, what we complain about would not be “leftists”* but rather “liberals” who are trying to open nationalist borders and boundaries subserving nationalism otherwise - for example, it would not be the idea to bring down proper nationalists who are high ranking, well off and accomplished, just because they are high ranking, well off and accomplished. The boundary that allowed them to keep doing what they do well in serving directly or indirectly the native national interests, would be a union or association of sorts, though all unions would have more permeable bounds than the national union.
* Moreover, the legitimate complaints that sincere native nationalists have had with “leftists” would still hold up, being simply read as them talking about leftism from an internationalist, Jewish and Zionist perspective - which is against White Leftism, our unionization and ethnonationalism. But as the term leftism has been allowed to stand unprefixed (as in White leftism), but rather remains their “leftism”, it is, and has been liberalism for us - liberalism of an interloping unaccountable sort.
With paradigmatic conservatism in place, a great deal of individual liberty (liberalism) can be afforded as more can be taken for granted for the fact that it is operating on accountable criteria and can be reasoned with as it might threaten to encroach vital boundaries. Finally, that accountability will allow full actualization of individual potential to its farther reaches; in a way that focus on emergence alone cannot.