|
|
|
Its Lister or Bowery Graham Lister’s incessant invective against me here at MR requires some sort of resolution:
These are not the words of a man with whom compromise is feasible. There is no basis upon which we can “agree to disagree”. He is persistent in accusing me of having an important, perhaps even dominant, deleterious effect on MR. I could very well make the case that Lister’s persistent attacks are rendering the environment of MR repulsive to “semi-serious people”. It certainly seems to be making MR repulsive to me and although Lister would certainly deny that I am, at best, “semi-serious”, my own perception is that I am indeed very serious and that I no longer wish to cast my pearls before such swine. Therefore this will be my parting message to MR until such time as I have observed Lister to be absent for an extended period of time. The Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) Lab may not produce a Princeton Monograph, but it has produced work that requires serious philosophical inquiry: There are few people in the world who have sacrificed more in attempting to directly address the bankruptcy of scientific theory reflected in the frustration of the Princeton researchers in the above video. My own work includes obtaining funds from HP to continue work done by Paul Allen’s erstwhile think tank “Interval Research”, to correct foundational mathematics of the empirical world pursued by Russell and Whitehead in Volume IV of Principia Mathematica. That remedial work on Volume IV was directed toward a quantitative theory of relations that dealt with casting much of quantum mechanics and the science of so-called “paranormal” phenomena as a branch of mereology—Lister’s supposed, according to GW, primary area of potential contribution to “the ontology project”. My contention here is that this area of inquiry has been relentlessly repressed from two opposing directions by Jewish movements, one in the religious realm in the form, primarily but not exclusively, of so-called “Christianity”, and the other direction from the Jewish-dominated “Skeptics” who are the shock troops of post-Manhattan Project big science and the academy. These opposing movements work, in concert with the myth-making machine of Hollywood (aka “Dreamworks” as the founding Jews of that company call it) to mold collective consciousness in a way that alienates Euroman from his authentic self and does so not just with ‘mass psychology” but with the manipulation of “mass consciousness” and attendant paranormal “miracles”. This area of knowledge is a cornerstone of Jewish power throughout the ages and we can expect that the state of their knowledge is, at least as practical folklore, vastly superior to anything have been able to achieve in the area. This explains the virtual panic migration of east European Jews from within a relatively small geographic area, across Europe, across the Atlantic and across North America to Hollywood where they established “An Empire of Their Own” very shortly after Edison’s invention became known. We are dealing with armaments so advanced that they make our piddling efforts with “The Ontology Project” look like flint blades against a nuclear arsenal. So long as that project is significantly affected by rascals such as Lister, it will remain in the stone age. Comments:2
Posted by Ken on Sat, 07 Sep 2013 23:19 | #
Shouldn’t this be revolved by natural duel? 3
Posted by Dude on Sat, 07 Sep 2013 23:30 | # Lister is just an affected Lavender, who pops up to practice his superciliousness and vent on his pet hates (religion, Americans and such) and wraps it all with his exaggerated over-blown style, dropping names like an insecure polytechnic lecturer to his first year class. His contributions are best skipped over. 4
Posted by MOB on Sun, 08 Sep 2013 00:15 | # Nuisances are a tenacious breed. The problem is that people in a position to make them disappear don’t do so unless and until they, personally, have been driven to the brink. Graham Lister was already a nuisance back when I used to post here two years ago—I ranked him second, behind the one that I (and others) simply could no longer abide. That would, of course, be Leon Haller. He used to talk about being so busy he wouldn’t be able to post, but he never stopped or even slowed down. And both are still here (I only drop in once every few months, when I’ve nothing else to do, idle curiosity, in and quickly out again). Bad drives out good; that’s one of the truer truisms. (I’m not saying I’m good, just repeating a general principle that appears to apply to the case at hand.) 5
Posted by Bill on Sun, 08 Sep 2013 08:27 | # Showdown @ MR. Lister, this blog ain’t big enough for both of us. 6
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 08 Sep 2013 08:45 | # MOB, I’m not sure what you’re good for (probably nothing), but Dr. Lister and I, despite our mutual loathing and very pronounced ideological disagreements, are obviously two of the smarter persons who have associated with MR, at least in its recent history. This contention is made btw without reference to our respective pedigrees, which, given the anonymity of the internet, could be wholly made up (but I suspect not: well-educated persons recognize each other, even when they pursue different subjects). I judge only on the basis of writings. Lister is, I think, a true intellectual, though one in thrall to a host of unexamined leftist prejudices in areas other than race. Bowery, Graham attacks everybody. I haven’t noticed that he singles you out for special invective. He is a hard materialist, one whom, I believe, is admirably willing to maintain an open mind on what he would consider non-empirical questions (or at least ones which he does not believe can be resolved scientifically), but who is basically an atheist, albeit of a particular and, imo, salutary type - the type that is ever alert to bullshit being pawned off as ‘sophisticated’ thought (though that last assertion must be qualified in light of his over-fondness for Heideggerian musings, which most scientific naturalists would treat as derisively as they do theology). I’m always amazed at how many atheists go in for all kinds of nonsense, from Buddhism and deconstructionism, to racial and gender utopianism, wild-eyed conspiricism, and even to real belief (not merely openminded interest) in ‘singularities’ and extraterrestrials and so forth. Lister reminds me just a bit of the late Revilo Oliver (not ideologically, but psychologically and metaphysically), someone who would never give up God in order to put faith in ‘alternative’ medicine or mysterious and hidden shamanic ‘wisdom’. You sir, OTOH, I often don’t know what to make of. For example, I have no idea what this is referring to:
You go on to state that
Besides the fact that both Christians and Jews would find it strange to refer to Christianity as a “Jewish movement” (other than that its initial adherents were Jews - and I don’t need to re-tell a very old and very, very familiar story about what happened next, do I?), I have no idea what you’re asserting. Is it that Jewry opposes casting aspects of quantum mechanics (and scientific investigations of the so-called “paranormal”) as a branch of mereology? If so, why? If there are real ideas here, they need more patient elaboration if you expect others to follow your train(s) of thought. But my suspicion is that Lister would say that’s the whole problem - that apart from throwing around some fancy phrases, there is nothing substantive being said (for myself, I have no opinion, as I have no idea what’s under discussion). One can pull the wool over the eyes of a scientific neophyte, but not a scientist. 7
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 08 Sep 2013 10:40 | # /.......
With that, others may have an opportunity to negotiate an amicable resolution. Graham obviously has the capacity to contribute many worthwhile things. I value things I have learned from Graham. More importantly, GW values him as well. Amidst Haller’s typically long, conceited post, he has a point, I believe: That this degree of invective is forthcoming is almost a compliment. It illustrates the amount of force that one must put behind criticism (e.g., of Bowery) in order to render that criticism. It can be daunting to criticize an idea of Bowery’s. I understand Jim’s emphases given the kind of European he cares about, the circumstances most likely to correspond with their survival and the perspective that he has there - in the harrowing stress of trying not to be swallowed into the equatorial herds and abyss of what America has become. Nevertheless, I do believe that at least sometimes, Jim has taken the concern for individualism to an overly vigilant and perhaps even deleterous extent, if we are to defend ourselves. With that, I have appreciated Graham’s erudition and critical observations along those lines; as I have said, perhaps even some mustard was necessary. However, Jim does have a point, that Graham is rendering things too black and white: as if there is nothing good about the people here at MR that he is criticizing and no merit in what they say - let alone the possibility of its being mostly good.
I don’t see anything especially wrong with those particular these things he criticizes. Though refinements can certainly be made, that is, after all, what we are here to do. That Haller seems to vote for Graham is hardly a complement. I would trust Leon only so far as the farthest F.B.I. office that I could throw him back to. Still, personally, I reject the choice as a premature ulimatum. Particularly given that this is GW’s site and he is fond of Graham (for good reasons): a call to redress this issue first, then perhaps a choice if it cannot not be resolved to better communication, would be appropriate protocol in my estimation. I can’t imagine the site without Jim; it was probably he who most inspired me to survey Majority Rights to begin with. He has put a great deal of innovative and constructive advice into this site (just today, I was contemplating the utilityof his defnition of civilization as an agreement of males not to fight over females in exchange for regimented border defense against foregn male interlopers. His focus on the transfer agreement is another recent, valuable one; but so many things). However, Jim’s criticims can be harsh and overly dismissive at times too. Even so, from where I stand, Jim has been rendering more sincere and constructive contributions to native European interests here and without the quantity of invective that Graham has been issuing. Hence, I am more defensive of Jim, though I think being forced to make a choice is premature as I have hope that it is unecessary. Jim, would you consider taking a step back to a negotiative discussion of the matter before making the damand for this choice? 8
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 08 Sep 2013 16:30 | # Another psychodrama at MR. Yawn. Really is Mr. Bowery’s skin so paper thin - like his intellect and political “philosophy” come “theology” - that even a mild rebuke in the comments section is too much? In what semi-serious setting could one talk about authentic phenotypes that allow for the “Holy Spirit” to be expressed and NOT be laughed out of the room? A conference on phenotypic evolution perhaps? A graduate level philosophy seminar? Perhaps a symposium on matters theological? Not even in what passes for that most degraded of subjects (known as theology) would such Bowery “PEARLS” of insight pass the “why is there some crazy fool in here” test - let alone would such views even approach that of putative interest or credibility for anyone with an IQ above room temperature. Seriously would anyone actually and honestly disagree with my assessment? If Bowery’s an “intellectual” (for some people) those same folks need to cognitively and conceptually get out a heck of a lot more - to put it very, very kindly. Or instead continue in the cod-theological nonsense that is Mr. Bowery’s stock and trade. Exceeding dull cod-theological nonsense - both politically and intellectually might I add - even if he attempts to spice it up by misusing scientific terms like eusociality. Don’t shoot the messenger. 9
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 08 Sep 2013 16:33 | # And isn’t it’s (as it is) rather than its? Call me a grammar nazi lol 10
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 08 Sep 2013 18:44 | # Here lies an actual and honest disagreement with the above message…A semi-serious setting…MR…Guessedworker long posited the existence of a Faith gene and thus the expression of the holy spirit as an authentic phenotype would be the building of churches/places of worship, like a bird builds a nest. 11
Posted by Silver on Sun, 08 Sep 2013 19:46 | #
It’s stock in trade. Don’t shoot the messenger. 12
Posted by Dover on Mon, 09 Sep 2013 00:05 | # Bowery should stay. No offense to the other contributors, but he’s the only one worth reading here. I don’t understand what Lister’s contributions are supposed to be. He mainly just utters banalities about “community” or something. Lister is from some sort of life sciences background. People from less rigorous and less technical backgrounds tend to be intimidated by more technical types and will often resort to verbally browbeating them to try to exert dominance. So Lister’s reactions aren’t surprising. 13
Posted by Classic Sparkle on Mon, 09 Sep 2013 06:04 | #
zzzzlolllolzzz Smart MR Contributors include: Notuswind, PF, Guessedworker, Neo-Nietzsche, Wintermute, etc. Even Silver is much sharper than you and is also a more consistent mammonite. You two fags aren’t on the list. Serious intellectuals! Lulz me with a spoon. They don’t hang out here. 14
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 09 Sep 2013 08:15 | # I agree re Notuswind, GW, and PF, can;t recall much about Neo-N (other than a lot of really puerile atheism). I’ve heard much about Wintermute, but what little I’ve read by him was not especially impressive (I’d appreciate links to his best efforts). Silver is decent. I think Bowery is smart, too, until he goes off on what he probably considers his best stuff, which I find consistently unintelligible. Perhaps it’s my lack of a science background. But given Lister’s highly apposite pedigree, perhaps there just is little of value there. I let others judge. It is perfectly obvious (to me, anyway) who here is intelligent, who properly educated, and who wise (the latter being the rarest quality, here and everywhere). Having studied with elite professors now at three separate universities in my life, I also know to which MR regulars published scholars/professors regardless of ideology would gravitate for conversation, if forced to be present at an MR convivium of some type. Most of the MR community, past and even more so present, would find themselves very much alone. 15
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 09 Sep 2013 11:29 | # I wouldn’t say Silver is sharper than Haller. They are about equal in their propensity to divert worthwhile ideas into banal conservatism and the inevitable hapless disintegration that follows. ........ 16
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 10 Sep 2013 07:33 | # Well, it looks like it’s going to be Dr. Lister, at least for a while here at MR. Hopefully, Jim will find it in himself to come back and contribute once again to MR eventually. For the time being, however, he considers himself under-appreciated and accused of being an overbearing obstruction to projects here at MR, the objectives of which are not clear to him anyway. Adding to that, he has his plate full with other projects, so he figures he may as well take a step back and allow Dr. Lister to experiment unfettered with the direction he might like to take. However, those who like to follow Bowery’s considerations (count me among them) will probably be able to find him blogging elsehwere; until he finally returns to MR, which he hopefully will do. I see Majority Rights as a living organism. True enough, it is quite a bit different from what it was 5 or 10 years ago, and has a different cast of commentors. I miss some of them myself - I wonder in particular what has happened to Wandrin. However, I don’t at all agree with those who say that the site is ruined. It may have lost some bristling edges of intelligence that some of its former contributors had, but its calibration is becoming refined for its relevance in practical terms. That’s one argument that I would make against MOB’s claim that Bowery was the only one worth reading here. Bowery is worth reading, to be sure, but neither he, nor any of us, is unassailable. While I have made the mistake, more than once, of posting things prematurely, before they were sufficienly proofread (and becaue I made that mistake more than once, it is difficult to defend), once I did rectify the pieces, I am confident that they are worthwhile. I would say that my target audience is someone like me, when I was younger: what I would have needed to hear and know. In that regard, I am confident that it is worthwhile for persons who are not the utmost scholars just yet. But even those who are pretty erudite should find some of my pieces worthwhile as feedback, confirmation, calibration of relevant matters - that is to say, even those familiar with the terms I am speaking of can derive use by seeing them run through a different permutation; if not refining the focus, then a slightly different angle is provided that allows the reader to begin to supply refinement. I suppose that I am gong to “ruin” MR a little more by presenting a view that does not endorse Hitler and the Nazis as the ex nihlo innocent light of the world either. Nor were those who opposed him ex nihlo evil. As for the other contributors, GW, Graham, Soren, Reis et. al., there is clear worth in most all of their posts. I like the way that Graham tears into any sort of overly-speculative thinking and conspiracy theory (can’t stand that stuff). I do think it is worthwhile experimenting with a cooperative approach to coordinating White Nationalism. However, that project does seem to run counter to some of Bowery’s strong concern for individualism, shaking the tree of civilization and along with it, anything like its cooperative structures that might affix parasitism to individuals, take them into destructive collectivsm and even eusociality. Therefore, while it will be a big loss to be withouth Bowery for a while, it might be an opportunity to explore coordination and cooperative ways without having to continually defend against accusations of advocating pernicous collectivism.
17
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 10 Sep 2013 07:57 | # (and because I made that mistake more than once, it is difficult to defend), once I did rectify the pieces, I am confident that they became worthwhile. I would say that my target audience is someone like me, when I was younger: what I would have needed to hear and know. In that regard, I am confident that they are worthwhile for persons who are not the utmost scholars just yet. etc
18
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 10 Sep 2013 12:08 | # accusations of advocating pernicous collectivism. And “accusation” was too strong a word to use there. One might have to continually defend against Jim’s vigilant concern to protect Euro-man’s individual integrity. There are times when not having the benefit of the doubt there is a bit of a strain. 19
Posted by Ex-ProWhiteActivist on Tue, 10 Sep 2013 12:27 | # Key to understanding the Graham Lister gag is understanding its origins:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qgx18W37AU0 It’s educational to watch all of it. I like the part starting at 0:56
I’m sure a ‘Majority’ can endorse that self-confession of Lister’s without any mental reservations. I once speculated that the person behind “Lister” is likely compelled in his professional life to grovel on his face nonstop before Her Majesty’s non-white imports. Here we can see how he warms up to his daily chore of vigorously rubbing his face in non-white feces. His inveterate hostility to all Americans is likely sourced in the same cause: “sex criminal”. At the present time there are only two ways an academic can lose his position here in America. The first is to express pro-white sentiments and the second is “moral turpitude”. This second offense now has the narrow definition of a white male tapping the coeds. “Competence” is no longer required. It has not been required for a longer period in non-Merrie Olde England, so no one need get huffy. Irrefutable proof of this is Dr. Eigenvalues was able to quickly find another academic position back in that insignificant backwater island.
Indeed. “Graham Lister” is fueled by these Walter Mitty fantasies of a personal authority that Dr. Eigenvector has never had and never will exercise in his real life. In a sense M-R is “educational”. It certainly disabused me of the notion that there could ever be any common purpose with a population enthralled by something as pedestrian as “Vic Reeves Big Night Out”. Or with someone so pedestrian he models his persona on “Graham Lister”. And yes, I understand that Vic Reeves’ Big Night Out was a cheesy 1990 TV revival of the old Music Hall format that once diverted Victorian England as it was breeding Britain’s modern Epsilon Double Minus population. Vic Reeves’ Big Night Out was the utter lack of creativity reigning 23 years ago. It is now a (de)generation worse. “Jodi” @3:14 (finger in mouth gagging) has her matronly 275 lbs seated at home while her daughter shags negro bucks in the parks in broad daylight.
20
Posted by J Richards on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 02:40 | # @James Quit acting like a kid. Challenge Lister to a natural duel. This pansy would surely decline the offer. In case you haven’t observed, Lister’s input at MR is commensurate with input undermining the interests of his hook-nosed community. If the latter diminishes so will Lister’s input, but you’d be foolish to take it as a green signal to come back. The saboteur will return to disrupt. There’s a simple solution to your dilemma. I used it the last couple of times I had to deal with Lister, and will use it again if I have the time to post a few entries. Because Lister is an intellectual cripple who can’t stand without the crutch of logical fallacies, and he loves verbal diarrhea, a simple rule appended to your posts—logorrhea, logical fallacies, trolling = trash!—will take care of the problem. It wouldn’t be deleting, just sending garbage where it belongs. Take a look at the trash section of MR. Perhaps you could start a competition between Lister and the other co-ethnic whose pearls of wisdom occupy much of the garbage in the trash bin: the one who contributes the most gets a hard copy of When Victims Rule [ http://holywar.org/jewishtr/open.htm ] to read and bash his head with. 21
Posted by Dude @ JRichards on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 07:40 | # JR, you vacated this place for a time under the cloak of building or contributing to a separate site. Did that ever occur? 22
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 10:42 | # Ahhh, here we see in microcosm exactly why the pro-white cause never goes anywhere: internecine bloodletting - fratricide - rather like the second Thirty Years’ War that put the nail in the coffin of our race. One thing I will say about both Christian conservatives and libertarians (having had some considerable personal experience with both groups; vicariously, I can say this in spades about neocons) is that they tend to be supportive of one another, building each other up as best they can. WNs spend their time dragging each other down (in this unsurprisingly resembling various Far Left groups over the century). I have found the low ethical level of WNs to be quite shocking. I suspect that the typical WN is a guy both high-IQ and high-T(estosterone) and resents belonging to a race which so disgustingly grovels before other races, especially when those other races are so obviously inferior. Hence the attraction to WN (the lower IQ types will settle for being skins, or just garden-variety rednecks or racists). Unfortunately, the high-T combined with Euroman’s innate individualism renders WN nearly worthless as a movement. I think it always will. If our race is to survive it will be due to successful efforts to convert non-WN conservative whites to race realism. And in that task, I think WNs are more of a hindrance than help. 23
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 11:10 | # Posted by Leon Haller on September 12, 2013, 05:42 AM | # Ahhh, here we see in microcosm exactly why the pro-white cause never goes anywhere: internecine bloodletting - fratricide - rather like the second Thirty Years’ War that put the nail in the coffin of our race. Leon, you only make yourself more and more suspicious. There is more cooperation going on here than you would allow for in your disingenuousness. One thing I will say about both Christian conservatives and libertarians (having had some considerable personal experience with both groups; vicariously, I can say this in spades about neocons) is that they tend to be supportive of one another, building each other up as best they can. Oh yeah, Christianity and libertarianism, those are winning formulas for White solidarity - not. Leon, it’s time to go back to the chalk board at the F.B.I. office. There is your other gambit to derail WN organization, by desparaging its most likely conceptual tool - unionization. Perhaps to the F.B.I. or A.T.F. rule of etiquette, with their flawless ethical level (hello Randy Weaver family!). Illana Mercer’s Jewish, wishful thinking. Another one of your tropes, to try to get us to take the bait of the ‘Supremacist’ label that anti-Whites are trying to hang on us, so that you can get popular sentiment against us.
You just crave opportunity to stereotype, misrpresent and disparage WN, don’t you? Trying to demoralize us? Hell, we should not even put up a fight, but rather join your Jewish friends in the chruch of White Zion, no?
To put them into the realm of scientistic non-accountability, along with the Christian non-accountability that your Jewish friends can so easily manipulate. And in that task, I think WNs are more of a hindrance than help. Yes, indeed. Amen.
24
Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 18:59 | # Yes for Mr. Richards pointing out the unfalsifiability of conspiracy theories is “trolling” and being an “intellectual cripple”. Perhaps he rejects falsification as an important criterion for hypothesis testing? Perhaps he’s an anti-realist, a constructive empiricist in the mode of van Fraassen? Then again perhaps not. WN - especially American WN - really does deal in the shallow end of the gene pool doesn’t it? 25
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 20:04 | # WN - especially American WN - really does deal in the shallow end of the gene pool doesn’t it? I’m not yet clear how the mereology of community relation to broader social units is supposed to hold-up absent national bounds and cooperation. Perhaps we should join Leon in White Zion, and you will join us? White Americans, transcend your ignorance, embrace John Coltrane’s Americanness as yours, as one with your neo-biology….none of this racism and we’ll have none of those smoking J-Lizard conspiracies. Graham, since you don’t like the term White Nationalist, for similar reasons apparently as those outlined by McIntyre, that nationalism is “rather like pledging allegiance to the post office” (though I feel no such genetic tie to the post office), what moniker do you prefer for those Europeans outside of Europe who do not want to be assimilated into non-European people? Euro-communitarians? Is racial solidarity not for export? Is it too “post modern”? Should White Americans embrace being toward death? 26
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 13 Sep 2013 01:02 | # DanielS, You really don’t ‘get’ White Zion, my arguments, or Dr. Lister’s quite different points, do you? Lister is not objecting merely to the term “white nationalist”, nor is he arguing for whites outside of Europe to amalgamate their genomes into the mongrel multiculture. He is pointing out that American WN, whatever its merits for the unique American predicament, is not appropriate to the situation(s) in Europe, and that, moreover, in many ways American WN actually - metapolitically - recapitulates the ontological errors of that liberalism to which it is superficially opposed. I don’t agree with him (and GW, one suspects) that America was racially corrupted in embryo, as it were, as though America’s multiculti present was somehow foreordained from the Founding (nor do I support Lister’s attempts to smuggle into nationalist ideology various leftist policy preferences which in fact have nothing directly to do with white empowerment). But his perspective is intellectually plausible, and at least worth considered reflection. Of course, in the statement you quote he is merely observing that American WNs do not seem to arise from the best portions of the population - intellectually, morally, or socioeconomically. That needs to change, or the pro-white movement will continue to languish, and our nation and race continue their decline. 27
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 13 Sep 2013 03:28 | # ...........................
DanielS, You really don’t ‘get’ White Zion, my arguments, Of course I get your White Zion argument, but I don’t agree with several points and emphases of yours - emphases that are reflected in your stubborn insistence on using that term held, with good reason, in such disregard.
I get Dr. Lister’s points where he makes them. There is nothing to get when he does not answer a question, or only criticizes without proposing a positive alternative. Lister is not objecting merely to the term “white nationalist”, Yes, he is. nor is he arguing for whites outside of Europe to amalgamate their genomes into the mongrel multiculture. That is a bit of a cartoon characterization as he is disposed to do the same to his argumentative opponent’s views. However, I would say that it is an unfortunately fair characterization given that he continually flouts all proposals for explicit White separatism and offers no deliberate alternative to amalgamation. He is pointing out that American WN, whatever its merits for the unique American predicament, is not appropriate to the situation(s) in Europe, No. I am the one who has been noting that the circumstances of Whites in Europe and America are not perfectly commensurate. Dr. Lister has been taking the position that the concerns and proposals of White Americans are silly - apparently because he is not taking into account their circumstances: The fundamental difference being this: For a European concerned for his people and heritage, liberalism would be anathema as it would represent a movement away from responsibility and accountability to the locus of the ancient folk. On the other hand, for White Americans concerned for their more closely related people, a liberal step would be necessary in order to establish separatism from the forces of amalgamation, prior to staving off the more broad forces of liberalization and return to responsibility and accountability for their ancient kin, their differences (and places). These are differences which I anticipated in rendering the Euro DNA Nation; matters which are coordinated therein.
Not at its best. At its best it is recognizing this preliminary liberating stage. You, Leon, are the one who is recapitulating the liberalism to which he is opposed: through Austrian school economics, Christianity and more. Now you are using a cartoon characterization, but in this case, one that I feel is more justified. They are sort of doing that, as I have observed as well. (nor do I support Lister’s attempts to smuggle into nationalist ideology various leftist policy preferences which in fact have nothing directly to do with white empowerment). Yes, Leon, as we do not support your attempts to smuggle in right wing liberalism. But his perspective is intellectually plausible, and at least worth considered reflection. It is worth consideration but as yet vague, rendering no clear alternative, especially not for White Americans. Of course those marginalized are going to be the first one’s to speak-up. That’s natural and normal. It is for the better educated to articulate their case better for them. As I said. 28
Posted by Jon on Sat, 14 Sep 2013 07:12 | # Lister:
You missed Haller’s far more egregious incorrect use of “whom” in post 6. 29
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 14 Sep 2013 08:12 | # Jon@28 You’re correct. But these are internet comments, written in the heat of battle, not polished essays. Occasional typos or grammatical lapses are par for the course. If I noted every instance of bad grammar, I’d be here all day. Incidentally, I’d say my comments are among the very least ungrammatical at MR. 30
Posted by Ben tillman on Tue, 17 Sep 2013 03:11 | # I agree with your most of your ideas, Jim (including this one). I vote for Jim. 31
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 17 Sep 2013 07:31 | # Since these are being considered egregious errors, perhaps in a moment of lucidity, it may occur to run comments through a spelling and grammar check elsewhere prior to posting them, since the comment section does not have that feature.
. 32
Posted by Al Ross on Wed, 18 Sep 2013 08:53 | # JB should remain. He is a stratospherically intelligent and rational man whose loquacious enemy might very well be , as J.Richards shrewdly discerned, a Red Sea Pedestrian. The only man to have stood up to the Jews was Herr Hitler. His policies are as valid today as they were when the Tribe declared War on Germany and all things German. 33
Posted by Firepower on Fri, 27 Sep 2013 05:43 | # The separatism caused by sects within the white area are what destroy any chance of The Left ever fearing us. 34
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 27 Sep 2013 10:57 | # / Ok, I relaxed on the Thorn and Haller team’s last comment distracting from White, non-Jewish organization, though it was once again another attempt to suggest The Left is our enemy: Thorn said (in the “saw this driving to work yesterday wtf? thread) - “the Trayvon Martin shooting as evidence “it is legal to hunt down and kill American children in Florida” is being blasted as the latest evidence of a left-wing bias on campus.” This comment from Firepower is one too many to ignore: “are what destroy any chance of The Left ever fearing us.” That’s backwards. The White Left is organization. Any White/European organization is by definition, a White Left. It is for others to fear and that is why they do not want us to adopt that position. 35
Posted by Thorn on Fri, 27 Sep 2013 12:57 | # DanielS, I agree with how YOU use the term ” White Left” but 99.9999% of race realists associate the term left or leftist with memes such as, but certainly not limited to, “white skin privilege”, “social justice”, “shared sacrifice”, “anti-racism” etc. etc. Joe Bageant is someone, I believe, who exemplifies the White Left. Moreover, I share a lot in common with him; thus, I share his worldview WRT the middle and lower white working classes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LD1qpZ6znU and 36
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 27 Sep 2013 13:46 | # Ok, Even MacDonald insists on “the left” as a blanket term for the enemies of White interests. Other than the fact that is the common understanding, and though that is one good reason to use the term pejoratively, I have not seen good reason to vacate a positive identification with the position that The White Left corresponds with White organization, inasmuch as White organization exists. 37
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 28 Sep 2013 08:48 | # “The Left” has always been associated in ideological history with both egalitarian and universalistic claims and aspirations. “The Right” has always been associated with the defense of inequality and moral particularism (ie, that moral obligations are hierarchical, not ‘flat’: some are owed greater duties of care (eg, your own parents/children) than others). These terms are a little bit more than two centuries old, and their specific contents have changed over time. It is true that at one time (in the 19th century) nationalists, which DanielS is not (he’s a racist - a claim not in the least meant pejoratively), were mostly located on the Left, insofar as they were generally opposed to aristocratic (hereditary) privilege, never much of an issue here in the US, of course, and thus were more egalitarian than their rightist opponents. Since the final destruction of the ancien regime in the wake of WWI, however, the Left has always been associated with socialism, as well as the flattening of hierarchies (except for that of the State rulers themselves- “dictatorship of the proletariat”), and the erasure of boundaries. Libertarians like to try to classify the Nazis as leftists because they embraced “statism” and “big government”, but no on else is fooled. Despite their name, the Nazis were racial national collectivists, not socialists. The Western Left today is defined preeminently by its rejection of biological inequalities, both as empirical facts (race and IQ), and as public policies (“stop and frisk”). As biological inequality and the social policies that arise from it are at the heart of white nationalism, it is ridiculous to try to pretend that WNs are really leftists. The vast majority of serious scholars and students of politics would interpret the phrase “White Left” to refer to leftist causes or movements whose most passionate advocates are disproportionately white (eg, gay rights, environmentalism, extreme ‘civil liberties’ activism, feminism, etc). 38
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 28 Sep 2013 15:25 | # I don’t want to make rejection of prevailing definitions of the left an overriding cause, but it is important enough to remain vigilant about this redefinition of “The White Left” so that I will steward readjustment until it is more broadly accepted. It is important. It is important for reasons that I have detailed in http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/leftism_as_a_code_word_part_1_the_white_left It facilitates the proper way of looking at ourselves - as a unionized group: setting outsiders and those who would bring them upon as as something akin to scabs and elites as potentially, sheer self interested traitors. Those are our two biggest problems and the union of Whites is our concern in response. Again, I was reluctant to respond to this one, as it is not the only thing being screwed up by White/European Nationalists, White/European separatists etc. Inequality / Equality vs Sameness and Difference is another: Qualitative differences, differences that make a paradgmatic difference as they underscore incommensurability are the important ones. Quantitative comparisons, on the other hand, obnoxiously compare rule systems that should not be compared and can instigate misunderstanding and unnecessary conflict. “ho ho ho, they want to say race is just a social construct” is another peeve of mine - one that necessitates their use of the word “just” or “mere” - if they just or “merely” see it as a social construct, then they are disingenuous. If one rather sees race as social construct used in the original intent of social cosntructionism, then it is a highly serviceable conceptual tool, which does not conflict with science, but which may critically enhance science. Another pet peeve is the idea that we need to cop to the Supremacist label that The ADL and SPLC are trying to hang on WN’s. This can happen all too easily when WN’s cop to Another pet peeve, which is copping to the Neo Nazi label that they try to hang on WN’s. As happened with Craig Cobb recently - the “millions of dollars of advertisement that he generated” served to hang the Nazi label on people who are not Nazis and/or who do not need it. - I will address that in my next essay (am waiting long enough so that two months will have passed and people cannot say that I am inundating MR with essays and my POV). Next pet peeve, Ho HO HO Diversity, ha Ha HA Multiculturalism - WN’s are letting Jews misuse terms that should be used properly. Others besides Duke - whose “new paradigm” is neither new, nor his, nor executed properly - finally got the “diversity” ruse. One of the things that turned me off to Pat Buchanan early-on was his position that “multiculturalism was a ‘sewer’ and that we should all be good English speaking Americans.” Well, we certainly do not want different races within one country, though we do probably want different micro-cultures. However, what we definitely do not need is the likes of Pat Buchanan getting foolishly suckered into arguing on behalf of integrationism of various races when arguing against multiculturalism. Diversity, Multiculturalism vs integration, Social Constructionism vs Scientism, Difference/vs Inequality, Nazism vs nationalism, Post modernity vs modernity, Socialism vs Capitalism, Collectivism vs Individualism, Christian vs Atheist (even though we are religious in our attitude about our folks despite not being Christian) etc. Jewish interests are playing these things like a fiddle against White organization and people are falling right into it when identifying as rightists: whether as Christians, Nazis or Darwinists. And they continue to maneuver Whites into identifying as “rightists” when the way to organize is as leftists. But not, by the definition of the left that you would insist upon. If you are with the F.B.I. maybe your better disposed handlers will appreciate this. I doubt it, as too many of them are controlled by Jewish interests. Let me now address you post: Posted by Leon Haller on September 28, 2013, 03:48 AM | # “The Left” has always been associated in ideological history with both egalitarian and universalistic claims and aspirations. “The Left” in recent history, since Marx at least, has been associated that way. It has been a somewhat mutable concept however, and it needs to change to accommodate its benign and useful potentials for Whites - e.g., egalitarianism needs to moved aside for an emphasis on qualitative differences; that’s something that notions of ‘diversity and multiculturalism’ properly handled - i.e., intra-racially - could facilitate; while the agency of social constructionism could stave off the scientistic runaway of objectivist argument which would disingenuously allow for those doing better to betray their race. You see, we, The White Left, do not seek equality, but we do rather maintain a vigilance and accountability so that the people are not screwed, whether by the high or the low. The right’s objectivism is naturally averse and unsuited to this sort of unionized accountability. “The Right” has always been associated with the defense of inequality and moral particularism (ie, that moral obligations are hierarchical, not ‘flat’: some are owed greater duties of care (eg, your own parents/children) than others). It is not that some people are not naturally suited for some roles rather than others, of course they are. Some people will qualitatively be suited for some hierarchical authority - it is not a flattening, but the recognition of the qualitative difference and systemic relation that we seek to re emphasize. These terms are a little bit more than two centuries old, and their specific contents have changed over time. Exactly, they are not old and they are mutable, they can change and we need to change them to our service: Jews are a small minority, we can begin to promote our definition in service of our interests. It is true that at one time (in the 19th century) nationalists, which DanielS is not Yes, DanielS certainly is a nationalist
Yes, Daniels is a racist and you are also correct in that he does not view that as a pejorative. were mostly located on the Left, insofar as they were generally opposed to aristocratic (hereditary) privilege, never much of an issue here in the US, of course, and thus were more egalitarian than their rightist opponents. Well that’s old history, but at least you are acknowledging that leftism and nationalism can overlap. It was deliberately associated with an extreme, socialism which accorded to Jewish interests initially, those antagonistic to White hereditary hierarchies and bounds.
Libertarians like to try to classify the Nazis as leftists because they embraced “statism” and “big government”, but no on else is fooled. Despite their name, the Nazis were racial national collectivists, not socialists. Fooled? That’s what the Nazis were originally, socialists, leftists. They knew that they could gain popularity by showing concern for all Germans, not only the elites; they also knew that they could undermine the growing popularity and appeal of the Jewish left - the Communists. As Metzger, Graham Lister’s best friend Lee John Barnes and others have argued quite well, however, However, the Nazis did originally gain organization and popularity, legitimately, as both left and nationalist. That is legitimate because it is organic and correct. The Strasser brothers were not happy with what Hitler did to their concepts of leftism. We need a White left which does better than even Strasserite Leftism, one which will suit our times and needs as White Nationalists. One which will facilitate cooperation among White/European Nationalisms. One which will not be co-opted, but will allow for differences in outcome - for some to have more money than others is fine. Equality is not the object. We seek to avoid unnecessary desperation, exploitation and betrayal. No, the Jewish left may be defined that way. And their adherents may even call themselves the left. But one reason why they would gain popularity with criticism of arguments based on biological inequalities is that they can be used disingenuously and perniciously. People can be justifiably scared of such arguments (which are not usually presented as arguments) and that is probably why many people gravitate toward anti-racism while WN’s tactlessly take on such biological supremacist arguments - tactlessly, because they are unnecessary. You do something better? Fine, go to it. If its good for our people, and you are not looking to exploit me or kill me as a result, I hope you make a few million while you’re at it. both as empirical facts (race and IQ), and as public policies (“stop and frisk”). Well the practical does not necessarily have to do with inequality: it is practical to be away from blacks even if your Nation’s Summer Olympic team will do better by including them; it is practical to keep jews out of your nation, even if they have higher IQ’s and sheer verbal skills:http://alternativeright.com/blog/2013/9/27/129w16b91vnsrv4r5c2dz8mlm74y0i As biological inequality and the social policies that arise from it are at the heart of white nationalism, Absolutely not. They are not at the heart of White Nationalism, they are at the heart of what would give White Nationalism a rightfully bad name - names that The ADL and SPLC would love to hang on us. it is ridiculous to try to pretend that WNs are really leftists. I do not have to pretend, they/we ARE leftists in the moment they organize as a social group with accountability thereof. The vast majority of serious scholars and students of politics would interpret the phrase “White Left” Given that the universities and the media are so Jewish controlled, of course those speaking through those venues would interpret Leftism in the way you speak. to refer to leftist causes or movements whose most passionate advocates are disproportionately white (eg, gay rights, environmentalism, extreme ‘civil liberties’ activism, feminism, etc). They would be copping to Jewish, deceptive misnaming of these issues, as all of these, with the exception of environmentalism, is liberal or Marxist. 39
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 28 Sep 2013 16:56 | # .............. The right does the same thing with gender roles, when we can make use of the corrective outlook of post modernity to mollify gender roles by providing some option for a little more ease of being and routine among White men, while grounding their achievement and thus facilitating traditional gender roles at the same time; and allowing for White women to make use of their talents on our behalf as well, so that they might be happier with us to boot, as we are the ones likely to facilitate their achievements where they should be (not Muslims, not blacks, not Chinese, Arabs or Indians; and Jews only where it is antagonistic to Whites, thus a short sighted achievement). And again, because we are post modern, we can reconstruct our traditional gender roles as well, and as a rule, feeling not the least bit funny about having women be mothers at home with our children. 40
Posted by Thorn on Sat, 28 Sep 2013 17:15 | #
I think what Pat is trying to do is get a foothold in on the brainwashed “anti-racist” masses. His tactic appears to be, as a first step, to get the masses to agree, at the very least, enforcing that everyone speak one common language: English. In the current heavily polluted by PC environment, that in and of itself would be a monumental accomplishment. Yes, the culture of the masses has devolved that far. And no, Buchanan is far from being pro integration; on the surface he may appear that way, but my reading/analysis of him informs otherwise.
I’m beginning to see a lot of wisdom in the suggestion. Besides, the Left’s playbook is vastly superior to that of the Right. It might be high time we co-opted their tactics and attack them from behind enemy lines, so to speak. God knows what we’ve been doing has amounted to little more than a flop. 41
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 28 Sep 2013 17:32 | # I’m beginning to see a lot of wisdom in the suggestion. Besides, the Left’s playbook is vastly superior to that of the Right. It might be high time we co-opted their tactics and attack them from behind enemy lines, so to speak. God knows what we’ve been doing has amounted to little more than a flop.
But the thing about Buchanan not being in favor of integration, while I believe that, promoting English speaking and participation in the same religion for blacks, Mexicans and Whites has the defacto implication of integration - the last thing we want is Mestizos proficient in English, and blacks comfortable in our church. 42
Posted by Thorn on Sat, 28 Sep 2013 23:41 | # Danny, You certainly don’t know how to use the art of nuance to advance your cause. Pat Buchanan does. Maybe you could take a lesson from him. 43
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 29 Sep 2013 03:31 | # I disagree about Pat Buchanan’s artistry. I have more (negative) things to say about his arguments.
44
Posted by Thorn on Mon, 30 Sep 2013 00:36 | #
Well, okay, but can you disagree with the “artistry” of my ace #one booncoon, Rayon Macintosh? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vB3n9Juh_f4 LMFAO!
45
Posted by uh on Mon, 30 Sep 2013 20:44 | #
Ken for the win! 46
Posted by uh on Mon, 30 Sep 2013 20:57 | #
Charlatan Lister drives mountebank Bowery off of an obscure bog - and it’s “rather like the second Thirty Years’ War”. Oookay. Post a comment:
Next entry: On prescriptive ontologies – Part One, Judaism and Christianity
|
|
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 Thorn on Sat, 07 Sep 2013 21:38 | #
Bowery,
You need not threaten to leave MR just because Dr. L is an accomplished put-down artist (Man, does he ever have a wicked sence of humor!).
The best course of action for you, Bowery, is just take his attacks with a grain of salt.
The impression I get is he’s in compitition with your intellect. In an odd way, it’s kind of a compliment, really.
I’d say go with my take.