Posted by Roof's lack of capacity inverse relation to ours on Tue, 23 Jun 2015 12:20 | #

What makes the Dylann Roof event (and the kind) a more valuable talking point than the case of a Frazier Glenn Miller or even an Anders Breivik is that Roof had still less cognitive responsibility than those two. The causes for his behavior thus fall more squarely within the currencies of commonly circulated narrative and the responsibilities hiddend under the currency of those narratives, as these interact with circumstaces such as his.

Posted by Mick Lately on Tue, 23 Jun 2015 15:15 | #

The Judaeo-left can’t eradicate racism or enact gun control so they have displaced their shrill, tired focus on a symbol, a flag:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/22/guardian-view-on-confederate-flag-tear-down-this-red-rag-south-carolina-shooting-charleston

And that traitorous Jew tool Dan Hodges has been going on about the Charleston shooting in the Telegraph, earning his lox lucre.

Posted by Guh? on Wed, 24 Jun 2015 01:15 | #

Lullulluzoooo! GW sounds Kitsonian in his interference.

Posted by "spirit" = logics of meaning and action on Wed, 24 Jun 2015 09:30 | #

The term “spirit” came up in conversation the other day.

What I would propose instead of spirit would be “logics of meaning and action” which guide a bio-social system, whether the rules of those logics are manifest in a given instant or not.

There will be some logics of meaning and action which correspond better than others to a given biological system - whether it is a social system or an individual’s bodily system.

Perhaps especially where not particularly manifest these rules have traditioally been refered to as “spirit”

But particulary if one wants to be rigorous, it is better to talk in terms of logics of meaning and action - which are traceable, as opposed to some kind of vague, elusive and mystic termiology of “the spirit.”

Posted by Mick Lately on Fri, 26 Jun 2015 16:24 | #

Colin Liddell has been hitting them out the park or at least making a solid connection for a while now:

http://www.counter-currents.com/2015/06/why-the-left-keeps-winning-and-how-to-fight-back/

And the U.S.A. slowly crumbles with social friability and demographic fungibility:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11701633/Gay-marriage-now-legal-across-America-live.html

http://www.city-journal.org/2015/eon0624mm.html

Bonus content:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/26/migrants-want-frightening-western-passport

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 27 Jun 2015 14:48 | #

It has become more clear than ever that Jewish interests have taken conceptual terms that would be helpful if not imperative to White interests and have distorted and reversed them to set up red capes for WN to chase:

1. Liberalsm with regards to White interests is misrepresented as “The Left.”  In fact, leftism is a unionization of a social group, which is the opposite of liberalism. However, all groups are allowed to unionize according to the Jewish sanctioned red cape except for White men, or White men together with White women.

Thus, when they have White men chasing the red cape of “The left” they are arguing against their own unionization and unionization with their co-evolutionary females.

I have been accused of being overly complicated, but it is not true.

All that I take as imperative to a definition of liberalism is that it is liberal of exit and entry of a group evolutionary system.

GW cares to examine far more nuance and that is more than fine, but his ontological focus is different from mine.

2. Social constructionism and hermeneutics: These non-Cartesian methods of inquiry would serve our people with a more accurate understanding of facts and ways of management; it would in fact enhance sicence. Understanding that, Jewish interests have set up perversions of these concepts, to where they are anti-science, espousing the interests of systemic interlopers and in fact, represented by flights of fancy such that peple can supposedly be just antying they might imagine (a very Cartesian separation indeed).

Thus, they’ve got us arguing against our agentive ability to undertake a healthy and honest process of inquiry, taking subjective, relative group interests and objective facts into account

3.Post Modernity: Jewish interests know that modernity by itself is destructive to healthy traditions and forms; whereas post modernitiy properly understood allows for us to take the best of modernity and time tested forms and ways.

The red cape misrepresentation is a “dada” definition as opposed to a deliberate and thoughtful management of modernity and traditional forms and ways.

4. Equality. This is a red cape in place of what should be there, which is “difference”, viz., a tendency to think in terms of qualitative differences. Emphasis on qualitative differences is a difference that makes a difference, because it tends to create symbiosis between incommensurate paradigms and roles as opposed to rendering false, dangerous and conflict instigating comparison - as is apt to happen by chasing the red cape in elitist hubris, arguing against equality,

5. Multiciulturalism,  diversity: Jewish academics have reversed these terms to where outside groups are introduced to one another in order to blend away and subvert their managed differences.

Then again, to chase the red cape and argue against the terms is to argue for integration with outsiders, e.g., non-Whites.

6. Marginals is a concept that goes along with hemeneutics and group maintenance; Jews have set up a red cape of presenting “marginals” as those outside the group with the intention of their being agents of change in overthrowing group homeostasis.

Chasing this red cape has WN arguing against humanitarian outreach, perspective, feedback and accountability.

7. Hippies and the Sixties: These terms have been misrepresented as synonymous for White men being responsible for Jewish radicalism of sexual revolution and black civil prerogative over Whites.

In chasing this red cape, the call for a reasigment of White men as having intrinsic value and with that, White people as having intrinsic value, is argued against WN are arguing against their own interests again in chasing this red cape. The very thing we need mos is prohibition by the Jewish language game which denies our being, our reality, value and right to exist.

8. Social justice warriors. Of course those doing the Jews bidding are not seeking justice, but to argue against the term, social justice warrior, is to fall for the masters of dscourse’s red cape once again.

Unlike the right wing of WN, I am not chasing the red cape of Jewish twisted terms, I have gored the sucker through the mouth.

Posted by Chasing the red cape of "The" Left on Sun, 28 Jun 2015 11:44 | #

Worse than chasing the red cape, Colin hoists it and reinforces the false, Jewish definition of “The Left.”

Why the Left Keeps Winning & How to Fight Back
Colin Liddell

http://www.counter-currents.com

Working from false premises he arrives at a false conclusion as to why “the left” wins.

His false premise is that the left absolutizes. On the contrary, the left organizes relative classificatory unions of people to make sense of perceptual catgegorizations and provide social accountablity.

That is why they win. They make human scaled sense.

Perceptual catgegorizations are impossible to do without and when otherwise prohibited (as in “anti-racism”) will tend to organize by default according to those categories hardest to ignore - saliently females and blacks.

This phenomenon puts the lie that “the left” as not dealing with reality and empirical sense. On the contrary, it is the right which blinds and wishes to ignore these relative, human sized social classifications - between the microscopic and the universal.

At the same time, as the right chases the red flag (as Liddell and Johnson do and would have you do), viz. the Jewish presentation of “liberalism” for Whites as the left and unionizations of any but White males, they are having White men argue against their own unionization of theirs and their co-evolutionary female’s relative interests as peoples.

Drawing clear lines around the White race and its subcategories as distinct from Jews and other non-Whites is not the same as being absolutizing in some non-optimal sense.

The reason is because it is a separatist idea, not an elitist notion with a plan to exploit or genocide the other. Therefore, whether we over-rate Jewish power and influence or underestimate its extent is not ultimately important because we have not committed ourselves to any irreversible program.

..............................

Moving on to address the Devlin article running next to Colin’s.

I maintain my point that without the reinstantion of social classifications, which I call leftist hypotheses, that Devilin’s call for taking monogamy and marriage seriously again is insufficient - like having a good berth on a sinking ship.

It is interesting but only logical that Devlin arrived at similar inferences about the social situation, atavistics and Africans as I have. And he is generally a good thinker.

But his idea that we should not balk at miscegenation does not correspond with EGI. His proposed “solution” that we should just focus on having more babies wrong minded. We cannot and should not try to compete with third world breeding patterns. Saying “miscegenation is overrated as problem” but we should have more children is tantamount to breeding female sex partners for exploding African populations.

It figures that Daniel A would think this is a great idea (Catholics, sheesh).

The correct path is separatism from third world peoples and those who wish to breed with them, while finding ways to reduce their population.

Posted by Mick Lately on Mon, 29 Jun 2015 15:40 | #

Putting two and two together: that the Maastricht treaty forbids EU member states from printing money to finance their national debt, including non-Eurozone countries such as Britain & and the deby at 60%-of-GDP limit set out in the Treaty.

One would have to say that a major reason for the Maastricht Treaty was to compel EU countries to control by the Money Power without completely sinking themselves and derailing the whole project.

Posted by Mick Lately on Mon, 29 Jun 2015 16:11 | #

What would we do without these higher mammals known as ‘Jews’ to tell us what’s what?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/02/only-the-radical-left-can-save-greece-and-europe-from-disaster

Their prescriptive commentary functions as a kind of dry comedy: as they continue to drain us.

Host desiccation.

Posted by NY times interviews Liddell on Mon, 06 Jul 2015 06:20 | #

NY Times reporter asks Colin about his site and Daily Stormer. Good scoop into the mainstream. Colin handles it well.

http://alternative-right.blogspot.com/