..and movements. Proscriptions of European organization and defense, promulgated under a guise of moral acceptability, that have European peoples arguing against their own interests and organization thereof.

                                                       
                                                  promulgating the perversion of terms…

Conservatism

Racist/Racism

Leftism

Equality

Diversity

Multiculturalism

Post Modernity

Social Constructionism

Hermeneutics

Marginals

Tolerance

Civil Rights

Hippies/Feminists

Sexual conservatism as pathological

Christianity

 

For an MR radio discussion coming-up, I set-about to speak with Stan Hess, seeing him as a comfortable voice in public speaking for European advocacy. It was suggested against my original plan that I might be featured in this discussion - not something I really wanted to do, but conceding the utility in that, I prepared for it as such. However, as the conversation turned-out, I wasn’t able to emphasize the significance and unfold some ideas that I had carefully plucked-out of my experience as I had intended. Knowing that the subject matter is important, viz., understanding what, why and how Jewish academic power-brokers are devising, manipulating, perverting and reversing terms by which we might understand ourselves, our European interests and the permissibility of organizing in defense thereof, I have set-out the key terms here so that they might be unfolded and analyzed for their (pejorative) significance for European interests. Some terms are more well-known and accepted as coerced and coercion than others but I have included them with those still met by more resistance from European advocates in order to underscore the pattern.

Conservatism: As Jews have promulgated the term in reverse, it means preservation of libertarianism, constitutional individual rights and the preserving of capitalism - all forms of liberalism. More, it extends to free enterprise beyond borders and “preemptive” wars of aggression. This is familiar to us now as the Jewish “neo-con.”

It is extended to Christianity as well, which, being a universalist religion is also liberal.

Thus, when American Whites argue for “conservatism” in these terms, of course they are really arguing for neo-liberalism.

Racist: A term which has exploited, exaggerated still further, Locke’s proscription of discrimination on the basis of social classification to weaponize it against White social organization - social classificatory discrimination imperative to establish accountability among the protracted temporal and historical pattern in order to maintain its ecology.

Jews are keen on this, of course, knowing how Locke’s rejection of social classification as non-empirical worked against their group organization. However, confident enough of their group organizational maintenance, they weaponized anti-classification against Whites in the form of anti-racism.

Thus, when a White Nationalist such as David Duke argues against “racism” and expresses indignation at the hypocrisy of Israel as it prohibits interracial marriage, he is falling for the trick of arguing on behalf of liberalism and the stigmatization of what is necessary to European interests - social classification and discrimination on its basis - for the purpose of systemic accountability and human ecology.

Best to re-define it thus as assertion of social classification for those purposes; not deny being racist or the term, but reject its definition as supremacism and undue aggression.

Leftism: a big one and hard to get European advocates to accept. It is probably so for two primary reasons. First, the perverted version of leftism as it applies to Whites - a reversal, in fact proscription of their unionization and instead enforcing their liberalization - has been promulgated for a long time; exaggerating the original application from the French Revolution to be synonymous with Marxism and rabid anti-White activism. It is exactly for its effectiveness as an organizational device, against Whites, that many (including myself, originally) are put off from the correct use of the term as applied to White advocacy and its efficacy thereby. 

Thus, the Jewish trick: For Whites to argue against “the left” as the enemy (or even against “the ‘phoney’ right/left paradigm), is to argue against White unionization (organization for the purpose of their defense, accountability and human ecology).

A White Leftist framework would provide a succinct organizational framework. It is a union for European peoples only, establishing key maintenance points of accountability straight away: Those most potentially destructive to our interests would be held accountable - there would be vigilance of the elite so that they do not betray our interests; and there would be accountability and incentive for the middle and lower classes to remain loyal - their disaffection and looking for satisfaction outside the race being another critical problem for solidarity.

Moreover, by asserting the term “White Left” we are begging the question from others, perhaps surprised, what do you mean? Thus creating an occasion to define the term in terms of White interests and in contrast to Red (Jewish) Leftism, which is liberalism for Whites and anti-White unionization for non-Whites. Your needs and aspirations are cared for, even if you are not the best in every way (unlike many facets of the right). We believe in private property. Equal outcomes in wealth and achievement are not the goal; though incentive for achievement is sought along with a basic safety net for those sufficiently accountable to the class and its social capital. More individualistic, free enterprising or more social ways of life are accepted provided the borders of the race are upheld. As a union of Whites it is contrary to liberalism and anti-Whites, it advocates the maintenance of European group borders, national and otherwise; not tearing them down as Jewish/Red Leftism has had it.

White leftism comports the moral high ground as it provides for accountability of its members and elite while not narcissistically viewing all peoples of the world as members of the same group and having the same interests; recognizing our different interests the means are provided for negotiation or coordination with them without necessarily trampling their interests or having ours trampled by them.

Well aware of its - White Leftism’s - power as an organizational tool, Jewish interests do not want us to have it and constantly refer to our enemies as leftists; and to us, accordingly, as “right-wing extremists” and “supremacists” (another form of rightism). 

Equality: I have talked about this one a lot and so I will try to be brief here. But it is very important that we not fall for this trick of arguing against equality and for inequality. It not only makes us look bad by unnecessarily projecting vulgar elitism, it buys into a narcissistic paradigm that paves the way for hubris and false comparisons; which ensue with escalating conflict as qualitative and incommensurate differences have not been respected from the onset - as they should have been, as potentially symbiotic and worthy of respect, as not the same but qualitatively different - inequality not being the issue at all.

However, Jews, in setting-forth the paradoxic injunction, have gotten Whites to take the bate and make obnoxious fools of themselves, stirring-up resentment and hate for them by arguing against “equality.”

The hubris becomes worse as many Whites find that in reality, non-Whites can be better in some ways as they are confronted with objectivist/equality testing (ignoring improper comparison of incommensurate paradigms) running rough-shod over the qualitative differences of Whites that do distinguish us as more than worthy of defense.

Diversity: Jewish academics have presented the motion of foreign racial introduction and their ultimate integration with European cultures as “diversity.” Whites have often complied with the paradox, arguing against “diversity;” tactlessly, angrily even, arguing on behalf of its Jewish endgame, complaining that these “foreigners do not assimilate.” The slogan “diversity equals White genocide” even commits this error to a minor extent. Of course genetic and bio-diversity are good and important things ecologically speaking, both between and among races. Therefore, even though we know (and they probably know too) what is meant by the “diversity = White genocide” slogan, it is probably not a good idea to rail against diversity in the long-run. Nevertheless, David Duke has arrogated this angle, and therefore most WN are now familiar with “true diversity” as opposed to the Jewish ruse of its reversal.

Multiculturalism: quite similar as diversity, it is a two phased ruse devised by Jews so that there would be an initial phase where the foreign introduction is accepted because, on the surface of it, both their and our differences would be respected. But as they begin to conflict and impinge upon resources, White advocates would unwittingly argue on behalf of the second phase of integration into a monoculture with us (being the ones who are assimilated). Pat Buchanan fell for this one, faithful dupe that he is, arguing against “the sewer of ‘multiculturalism’ in his Presidential campaign; that everyone should speak English (the last thing we might want), everyone in the nation should be a Christian, etc.

Post Modernity: knowing that White philosophers and scientists had rightfully identified limits and downsides to modernity, and set-forth remedy, Jewish academics perverted its remedy - post modernity; while post modernity was meant to allow for some modernization and put limits on the ravages of its blind objectivism, it could also reconstruct our own time immemorial forms and traditions where adjudged correct, as would most often be the case. However, Jews promulgated a notion of “post modernity” as a rootless, transient, ironic and arbitrary free play - a kind of “dada” nonsense instead of a serious matter which upheld accountability to immemorial forms, practices and traditions - controlled and respected them, did not put them at risk for reckless and a-historical testing.

The result of this confusion is that Whites/Europeans would be arguing against “post modernity” - construing it as being strictly against tradition and ancient forms, when in fact it was meant to preserve them, in fact holding the cure to the modernist destruction of our people and borders; whereas de facto arguing on behalf of either strict and sometimes anachronistic traditions or for more modernity, would correspond with being almost laughably hide-bound with easy mark traditions or foolishly going along and resuming the modernist project (the default) of hazarding liberal experimentation and impervious, unaccountable destruction as it does.

Social Constructionism: It seems I have had a bit more success in disabusing White advocates of arguing against the Jewish abuse of this term and concept; an importantly useful school of thought for White interests if properly deployed. As I have indicated, social constructionism is a reasonable inference of interaction facilitating joint construction if not in the first place then definitely in terms of how things count for our interests. In contrast to modernity’s Cartesianism, it provides for agency and accountability when properly utilized whereas Enlightenment era scientism does not; being rather impervious to human accountability, agency, interests even. Jewish academics have perverted this good idea and encouraged its misrepresentation at the other Cartesian extreme from scientism, i.e., of sheer imagination. This fraud can be readily tested and debunked by seeing if the world “mere” needs to be applied before the claim of social construction. If you must apply the word “mere” to make coherent the argument for an entity being called a social construct, then you have evidence of the Jewish re-introduction of Cartesianism - a misrepresentation of social construcionism, as social constructionism was conceived as a non-Cartesian movement.

Whites falling for the Jewish trick, laughing at “social constructionism”, are laughing-off one of the most important means to defend and advance our interests.

Hermeneutics: In response to findings of science, and brought forth from a dark corner of Christian scholasticism by Heidegger, “hermenetics” is another non-Cartesian discipline meant to take the misdirected attempts at thinking from an impervious, lineal, static monadic pursuit, with all the blind destruction its technological misapplication to human affairs comports, rather into an ongoing, “circular” process of situating one’s perspective in a historical, engaged and ultimately social and agentively reflexive process, whereby one could expand orientation on patterns through language and concepts and bring them to bear with close focus, closer and scientific readings to achieve warranted assertability

Heidegger’s Jewish student, Gadamer, and Gadamer’s students promulgated by contrast a notion of hermeneutics which served Jewish interests and antagonized Whites, claiming it as central that “marginals” (read not marginals, but outsiders) must be included in order to achieve perspective. Furthermore, its anti-scientism was associated with anti-science, to such an extent that when I broached hermeneutics with Professor MacDonald, he insisted that this idea put-forth by Heidegger was strictly anti-science - when it is not anti-science at all outside of Jewish abuse. On the contrary, science is one end of the hermeneutic process, the closer reading as opposed to the broader narrative orientation, the two ends continually complementing one another in an ongoing process.

Again, Whites are encouraged to argue against a discipline that would serve our interests because we’ve been put-off by Jewish abuse of the term and concept.

Marginals: yet again, Jews have taken a potentially useful concept, that of feedback from those nearer to the border and margins within a social classification, as ones who might know when and where the group interest’s borders are being infringed-upon; from people who know where the shoe pinches and have a broad perspective on the pattern and its health (or not); to discern where turns in position need to be made and resources distributed sufficiently to maintain systemic integrity of full social capital.

Here again, Jews reversed the notion, to where “marginals” were not marginals to the social classification at all, but outsiders from it, who were somehow and for some reason to be introduced as “enrichment”, etc, supposed to be included in European classification. Camus and Derrida are notable exponents of this ruse. They made the marginal, who could be our most loyal supporters and useful centurions guarding the fronts, into a repugnant catch-all PC category of queers, non-White interlopers and anti-White Whites. I.e., marginals were rendered from our most dependent advocates into some of our worst traitors.

In having Whites argue against marginals, they wind-up arguing against humaneness to our own marginals, which is all of us from time to time, including those marginalized for their excellence. More, such harshness, inhumaneness, demoralizes and de-motivates participation in White/European organization and defense..

Tolerance: is a temporary adjustment to an uncomfortable situation, encounter, that calls for a provisional bracing against pain, a narrowing of deliberation, agency and consciousness in order to endure some necessary test to the system. It requires a bit of blind confidence and faith that is a perfect state of mind for Jewish brain-washing and infliction upon Whites of that which should not be tolerated in anything remotely like a permanent condition. For tolerance is not meant to be a permanent condition at all, but a temporary bracing against toxicity. Beyond a provisional stance tolerance will have one either be assimilated or killed by the toxin.

Civil Rights: Along with many others, I have covered this one pretty well already. It is a violation of White freedom from association, imposing people on Whites, taking away White freedom to associate with, serve, sell, educate, rent to whomever they like. “Don Advo” has taken it further, interestingly to argue quite persuasively that it is the holding captive and enslavement of Whites - for example of White school children.

Hippies/Feminists: This is more conceptual than terminological, but what Jews have done with these concepts is quite similar to what they have done with the other terms.

Hippies did have an authentic and important motive for White interests - midtdasein, viz., the right of the male to Be-in his social classification. More specifically, being in his social classification meant that his basic human needs were readily attainable: intrinsic valuation, food, shelter, protection, sleep, security, communal interface and acceptance as an organic member of the group. This was sensed as violated by the Viet Nam draft and hippies rightfully rebelled on behalf of their midtdasein - a motive expressed in many ways; e.g., long hair* and varied, colorful clothes as opposed to the look of male anonymity and military regimentation. However, it was difficult, stigmatic to articulate in comparison to historical expectations, though a necessary adjustment to oppose incessant militarization which took for granted males as intrinsically valueless (disposable rather than having inherent value to genetic interests). While nature does not consider them as valueless as this tradition there is a price to pay for male being, intrinsic valuation, and that is defense of the borders (as opposed to attacking nations on the other side of the world to secure corporate interests). And, for these low grumbles to be assuaged, some allowance for the higher grumbles of feminists to be relieved. Note the rage and bad blood that might be engendered between the genders that relatively petty complaints might inspire in contrast to low grumbles ignored.

Thus, our hermeneutic process can manage gender in a humane way, allowing women to develop their potentials where they should and not treating males as disposable.

Unfortunately, the Jews put the high grumbles and comparatively trivial complaints of feminists before the fundamental needs of White male being (which should have been prioritized). Moreover, rather than allowing this motive to be apprehended, the ineloquence of the hippies was exploited, any concessions to White male midtdasein vanished after the pathetic sacrifices of Viet Nam were over. Jewish feminism, having that embarrassing shadow no longer cast on it, went into over drive with its perversion (note there were White forerunners and Europeans are distinguished by their generally good and flexible treatment of their co-evolutionary genders by contrast to non-Whites; thus, feminism aimed at White males is, again, a backwards, Jewish thing).

The bonafide motive of White males was buried with Jewish promoted movements of feminism in antagonism to White men, black civil rights, Herbert Marcuse’s destructive “free love”, the Marxism of the 68ers (GW tells me they occupied the London School of Economics with a sit-in) none of which was essentially related to White male being; all of which were affectations associated with hippies, by Jewish media, and have come to provide another way of not only blaming White men where Jewish radical activist programs were behind the liberalization of the times (not wanting to go to Viet Nam is not liberal, it is conservative), but also a way of burying the essential White male motive of midtdasein - a project still to be incorporated into White nationalism

* This is not meant to promote nor to insist upon the hippie look and ways but rather to insist that the military look and regimented ways not be idealized.

Sexual conservatism and quest for monogamy as “pathological” or “neurotic:” As I have argued before, this is to be countered by the sanity of voluntary enclaves to support those who wish to pursue monogamy and treat sex and pairing in a more sacral manner.

Christianity: Argue against it and you come across as a Jew, argue for it and you are enculturated as a Jew.

Special mention to Jimmy Marr for his recent observation of “Hate” prohibition as a Jewish way of anticipating and heading-off a natural and normal response to the impositions and destruction of White E.G.I. that they have gotten away with.