On The Regnery Circus Big-Tent-O-Sphere, Featuring Richard Spencer as its Ring-Master

Posted by DanielS on Monday, 13 February 2017 14:56.

  Regnery, Spencer, prime umbrellas of (((Alt-Right))) big-tentosphere.

Dear Daniel, I’m a reporter at Reveal News, a news service and public radio program in California. Thanks for responding to my Twitter message.

We’re doing some reporting on Richard Spencer and Bill Regnery. I saw the “Richard Thpenther” post on Majorityrights.com, complete with a foto of the 2 of them together, and thought that you could certainly point me in the right direction on some basic factual issues, if you were willing.

So, I’d like to have a conversation. I’m happy to abide by whatever ground rules you set. Here’s my bio, if you’d care to check me out, and my contact info is below. Thanks for your consideration, and please let me know how you’d like to proceed.

Looking forward, Lance Williams, Senior Reporter, Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting

Before moving on to detail the discussion that I had with Williams, I want to recap the left-right paradigm as it is conceived for majorityrights platform, since Williams was asking for my perspective on matters and since like everything that I’ve gleaned from academia and niftily re-tooled for our ethnonationlist interests, it has been attacked, no matter how well aimed, how effective and how coherent in those aims. Since I have not been able to overcome this misplaced jealousy, or naivety, bad advice or whatever causes the intransigence of this contentiousness, I must repeat myself.

Recently, I have been challenged again on the concept of left and right that I use. I refuse to back down and shouldn’t back down for the utility and intelligibility of the concept of left and right as I conceive it. It is intelligible, intuitive even, as it underlies patterns of ordinary language use. It only becomes confused and counter-productive as people try to play along with the more “sophisticated” versions (perversions, really) that Jews have spun through media and academia; which the disingenuous or naive have bought into - as they disingenuously/naively see it serving their interests - the more “sophisticated version” puts forth an oxymoronic definition - that the left is synonymous with liberalism - an oxymoron indeed, conceiving a “union” without prerogative of membership inclusion and exclusion; in fact, by this definition, a union would be just the opposite, it is a “union” that would constantly seek the opening of its membership bounds, to never exclude any “scab” as its highest value (to unionize the entire world as members of the union, we can only imagine). The “sophisticated” White response and what the Jews want, what those disingenuous/naively going along with the arrangement of their terms do, is to say, “no, I’m not a leftist, not a liberal, I’m on the right! - and I can prove that I am not a racist. I’m pure, not arbitrarily setting union bounds of my racial group, despite merit or not, I’m basing membership on unassailable, objective facts and merit alone.”

Ironically, this objectivist response underpins liberalism itself, the very form of the affliction against racial and national maintenance.

Naturally, any halfway intelligent and conscientious White, concerned for White EGI, is going to be mortified that Whites are going along with this, as it puts precious, circumspect patterns at risk and frightens-away potential membership for its lack of accountability. The Jews know this and they promote White identity as right wing because they know that it is going to deter group loyalty where it does not have them reacting into headlong disaster - a trap, fighting on supremacist grounds, (hubris) where they literally become the bad guys who get into disastrous conflict with those that should be their allies (some of them White ethno-nationalists, some of them non-White ethno-nationalists) - vilified as subhuman, these ethno-nationalist adversaries (nemesis) are nevertheless able to fight back very well, and greatly damage the EGI authoritatively designated by the right as its cause, as their adversaries have the collective moral high ground in the concept of social accountability. 
 
Of course those disingenuously/naively going along with the right wing, objectivist version of nationalism, are veering toward two dubious premises with regard to any claims of nationalism: 1) Where otherwise nationalism is not something that just comes together by the invisible hand of nature as it is supposed to, then one or a relatively small number of leaders will assert what is the national group and direct it by their authority which 2) Tends toward limited accountability, as their purported merit for the position is the result of sheer factual (gawd given or sheer natural) merit to make assertions of themselves - it “just wound-up that way” as a result of (gawd given or sheer) nature; and again, the same would supposedly hold true with group and national boundaries - they are supposed to hold up basically because of sheer nature (or gawd). It is a tendency to want to de-emphasize social accountability (to want to have unassailable warrant, to ascribe to oneself innocence/to be unburdened of guilt and responsibility); and to see outcomes as a result of one’s sole agency and sheer nature; while minimizing any joint construction and negotiation of those outcomes.

Quite naturally, such a fool’s game as this, bereft of social accountability as it is, and has been, is a sucker’s game that the Jews (and others, but the Jews most importantly) can take advantage of: it is ripe for them to find some White “leaders” and buy them-off or otherwise hoodwink them into leading, in accordance with Jewish interests, the White sheeple - who naively buy into the right wing, objectivist, “that’s the way it isness”, and less the matter of social construction and accountability that would allow them to effectively maintain their group defense, or even individual defense, ultimately - deliberate designation, delimitation of group boundaries, would immediately correspond with a form of unionization (you are in the union or you are not); an idea underlying any considered concept of “Left.” Whereas the disingenuous and naive go along with the Jewish arrangement of the terms, i.e., that “the left” means unionization only for non-Whites and those antagonistic to White men and their bounds - a prohibition of unionized boundaries for Whites, this is of course an absurd contradiction for Whites - from their end, it is liberalism: a prescription to rupture would-be unionized boundaries, borders, and the social accountability that would facilitate those boundaries and borders by contrast to sheer liberalized mishandling.

Lets pretend for a moment that people are not so retarded as to not be able to understand that and move on.

By contrast, what I have diagnosed as the concept of left nationalism within ordinary language and sustaining a consistent pattern of understanding, making consistent sense, is that: The moment one recognizes the truth by contrast - that we are in interaction, have some social connection and social indebtedness for the origin and maintenance of our manifest form of existence, therefore some responsibility and accountability; further recognizing that we make things together with other people, more or less - more, when we are more obviously responsible for a joint construction and less, but still some, in the agreement of how the more brute facts come to count - we are in the realm of the social and acknowledging the potential for accountability. And once we are in the world of accountability, we are in the world of delimitation, where not just anything goes. We are recognizing social responsibility and then the possibility that we have responsibility more to some than others - more responsibility to those within the “group”, the group designated by consensus and negotiated authority; including responsibility to those deserving of membership but requiring incentive to remain loyal, though they are not on top of the game and ready for higher organizational roles at this time.

In sum, leftism is about recognizing the inextricable reality of interaction, social indebtedness and responsibility, therefore the motion for unionization as a means of accountability and group maintenance, designating out-groups and in groups thereupon, with social accountability as such. Nationalism, ethno-nationalism and racial defense, are a matter of larger scale unions.

Rightism is a motion in its ultimate trajectory toward unassailable warrant in objectivity or divine ordinance, to reduce social accountability through purported objectivity, supra-social principles or divine will. Now, one might object that rightists can be nationalists, or responsive to social needs. What I would say to that is that the moment they are doing that, they are doing a “left thing”, they are going into the social world and its accountability, left nationalism, but without the premises that would solidly ground and sustain group systemic maintenance inasmuch as they retain rightist premises as their ideal and their aim, the lack of accountability thereof; as such, they are primed for subversion by people willing to use the leverage of collaborative agency against them.

Now lets see how this concept played out when I was queried by “RealNews” senior reporter, Lance Williams.

Majorityrights.com

Dear Daniel,

I’m a reporter at Reveal News, a mews service and public radio program in California. Thanks for responding to my Twitter message.

We’re doing some reporting on Richard Spencer and Bill Regnery. I saw the “Richard Thpenther” post on Majorityrights.com, complete with a foto of the 2 of them together, and thought that you could certainly point me in the right direction on some basic factual issues, if you were willing.

So, I’d like to have a conversation. I’m happy to abide by whatever ground rules you set. Here’s my bio, if you’d care to check me out, and my contact info is below.

Thanks for your consideration, and please let me know how you’d like to proceed.

Looking forward.

LW

Lance Williams
Senior Reporter
Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting
1400 65th St. Suite 200
Emeryville, Ca. 94608
https://www.revealnews.org/
office: 510-809-3175
cell: 415-298-2317

Naturally, at this point, I looked at the RealNews outfit’s website, took note of who headed and staffed it, what their basic mission is - obviously very Jewish, very anti-White (pardon the term, as it is misused by those who would misrepresent White ethno-nationalism), very involved in Jewish headed, non-White coalitions, antagonistic to White ethno-nationalism and its necessary alliances.

Reveal News Staff:

First on the list: Colored guy, perhaps mixed Semitc origin:

https://www.revealnews.org/author/aaron-sankin

Aaron Sankin
Reporter
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
@asankin
415-786-0793

Second on the list, Jewish guy:

https://www.revealnews.org/author/aaronglantz

Aaron Glantz
Senior Reporter
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
@Aaron_Glantz
510-982-2967

Third on the list,

Colored guy, who is apparently often assigned to do the audio interviews:

https://www.revealnews.org/author/al-letson

Al Letson
Reveal Host
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
@al_letson
510-809-3160

And on it goes; eventually the list comes to Lance Williams, who requested to talk to us and politely did just that (I don’t know if he’s part Jewish or not, but he clearly doesn’t have a big problem working with them):

https://www.revealnews.org/author/lance-williams/

Lance Williams

Senior Reporter
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
@LanceWCIR
510-809-3175

The list goes on like this, apparently having some Whites, obviously liberal, a strong representation of those who are not White males, but it is well over-represented by Jews in its staff and at its leadership.

Executive Director:

https://www.revealnews.org/author/robert-j-rosenthal

Robert J. Rosenthal
Executive Director
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
@rosey18
510-809-3162

Chair:

https://www.revealnews.org/author/phil-bronstein

Phil Bronstein

Executive Chair
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Bronstein! I’m not sure if he’s related to Trotsky, but!


Here is what I prepared, and in fact did say to senior reporter Lance Williams of Revealnews:


First, please let me say a few words about Majorityrights’ platform as I’ve taken it, because it will quickly come to the point of how I have developed it as a corrective to the kinds of errors being made by The Regnery circus, NPI, Richard Spencer and the Alternative Right.

Majorityrights (at this point) advocates White/European ethno-nationalisms and sees itself as allied with Asian and Indio ethno-nationalisms. It does not identify with Jewish interests, as if they are White, it treats them as a separate racial category, outside of the White/European race; and, in fact, does not identify with Abrahamic religions at all - seeing them as destructive [providing maps destructive] to ethnonational interests. It does not identify with Nazism or any kind of supremacism or scientism - by scientism, I simply mean the notion that sheer “nature” and “objective” science should decide our course of action without individual and social correctives and cultivation. We are not Alternative Right, not Right wing in any sense as I conceive right and left to be: The right and with it, liberalism, is based on an idea of objectivism which is short on accountability - “because that’s just the way it is according to natural or divine law.” It lends itself to disingenuousness and hubris among elites and to naivety in the masses.

The left - a White Left Nationalism and any ethnonationalism as I hold it to be properly defined, is about accountability to the full social group as maintained through a form of unionization - that puts it in contrast to the universalism and pretenses of objectivity of the right; because there are in groups and out groups - you are in the union or you are not and the union - it looks after your relative interests as a member, not solely because of what is deemed your objective merit. It is a perspective which looks after the rank and file, to ensure that they are treated fairly and have incentive to maintain the union even though they may not be on top of the game or marginalized somehow, to make sure that they do not facilitate scabbing of the union so to speak; but it keeps a particular eye on elites, to hold them accountable to group systemic interests, to make sure that they do not betray us since obviously they are capable of doing the most damage. That concern is bringing us to people like Regnery, Spencer and those in the Alt-Right.

Because they take these right wing positions that we reject, positions which people cannot take or are justifiably afraid of, it turns-off a broad base as it is an incompassionate, insane and stupid position; but in order to try to connect with the mainstream and populism, they are forced to cobble together coalitions upon a tacit agreement to tolerate one another’s anti-social positions as such - whether its holocaust denial or supremacism, some sort of nutty Abrahamic religion; or, what is stigmatic from a White nationalist point of view, acceptance of Jews in their alliance. These cobbled-together anti-social coalitions of the Alt-Right I call the Alt Right tentosphere - a big tent of different tents. Some tents are completely friendly with Jews.

The template of running the gamut from Nazi sympathy to working with Jews and some members actually being Jews is completely consistent with Regnery, his publishing history and what I see as this strategy of Jewish alliance for shepherding masses into this tentosphere of the Alternative Right.

Now, the concept of the Alternative Right goes back to a 2008 article, edited by Richard Spencer, written by Paul Gottfried (who is Jewish); and with it he was trying to counteract the headlong destruction of Whites who could be valuable to Jewish interests and what he calls “Western values”, including Judeo-Christian values as he saw them being destroyed by means of a trajectory from Irving Kristol to the Neo-Cons; a trajectory that did not place enough emphasis on stabilizing enough useful idiots among Whites - the means to keep Whites from reacting too much and to be maintained as useful idiots for Jews was called paleoconservatism - it began with Frank Meyer, a Jewish scholar who shaped Reagan’s so called conservatism: Its not really a whole lot more conservative than the neocons because all it does is maintain capitalism (i.e., maintain a liberal economic system), maintain Judeo-Christianity (which for Whites is liberal - moral liberalism, altruism), pay some lip service to the wonderful culture of the west; while allowing for genetic arguments upon which Whites can survive on an “objective” basis; thus the selection for the relative interests and ways in which these useful idiots will be deployed and intermarry will remain with the Jews as the organizing factor among a right wing elitist cadre.

You’re witnessing that in Trump. But we need to say a bit more before we move onto Trump.

Now then, why do Regnery and Spencer take this position as “Alt-Right” against the quote “Left”? Well, you need to begin with why Jewish interests would want to take a position against the quote, “left.”

Jewish interests have had disproportionate power and hegemonic influence through seven key niches:

1) Media 2) Money and Finance 3) Academia 4) Politics 5) Religion 6) Law and Courts 7) Business and Industry.

Naturally, they don’t want organized peons criticizing, dismantling and taking away that power. So what do they do? Well, of course, they look toward the old faithful sell-outs among the White right-wing elitists - offer them deals in turn for compliance, ease their conscience with the objectivist arguments they’ve always coveted as unassailable warrant, “these are just the facts of life”....and “say, by the way, you’ve got money, want to keep it and have even more, don’t you? You can continue to do well for yourselves ..and you hate those ‘lefties’ anyway, complaining that they want some of that too, so lets organize a coalition, a “movement” to be popularized against the left. ...make it real stylish and edgy ...appeal to those disaffected millennials in their internet bubbles, we’ll call it ‘The Alternative Right”.

Of course now, a major left unit, left union so to speak, would be the union of ethno-nation. And the Jewish and right wing objectivist way to disrupt that unionization is to encourage right wing reactionary populism and its corollary reactionary liberalism.

Now then, again, Majorityrights platform is conceived so that a proper ethno-nationalist view is not buried by the Regnery circus (as our GW aptly calls it), not buried, enmeshed in what it has been doing with The Right and the Alternative Right.

They are only doing quasi ethno-nationalsim as it is perverted through objectivism and coalition with Jewish interests: fighting against social accountability, going along with the Jewish prescription of trying to represent White interests through right wing means.

Coming back to Regnery, his characterization and relationship with Spencer then: Regnery’s father was of German extraction, was a part of the “America First” movement which wanted to keep The US out of World War II. He started a publishing company - it is said that they received some funding from the CIA - anyway, it published right wingers like William Buckley who went on to become notorious among White nationalists for banishing from conservatism anyone he considered anti-Semitic - famously, Joe Sobran, who quipped, “it used to be an anti-Semite was someone who didn’t like Jews, now an anti-Semite is someone who Jews don’t like”...he added further that this was an expression of “Semitical correctness.”

Now we’re in the 90’s when Buckley is beginning this purge of quote anti-semites from quote conservatism - Sobran was first, Sam Francis hung on a little longer but got bounced as a mainstream exponent at the end of the decade, Pat Buchanan hung on until recently - but all of these guys were hanging on by the thread of their quote “paleo-conservative” response to the “neocons” ...paleoconservatives were Judeo-Christian friendly, therefore they were sufficiently useful idiots provided they didn’t get too anti-semitic. .. but some of them did start getting the anti Semitic idea a little too much and Paul Gottfried, a Jewish member of this paleocon cadre began to realize that he was losing the alliance of these useful idiots, so he called for a new and improved paleo-conservatism, an Alternatie Right, to supersede the old paleocons - which were really just Jewish controlled opposition themselves, from the start, and Gottfried and his Jewish cohorts wanted to reconstruct them as such - make them seem like they were rebels against the so-called “Left” which threatened Jewish power and influence. So again, he saw fit to make a deal with elite right wing Whites, both the disingenuous and the naive - naive rebels indeed, especially the legions of bible thumping southerners who are quick to jump into wars for Jewish interests; and to be hoodwinked into friend enemy distinctions drawn on Judeo-Christian biblical lines.

So, Spencer, not long after his abortive attempt at a graduate career at Duke (where he was friends at the time with the very Jewish Stephen Miller of the Trump administration), becomes editor at the Jewish owned Taki’s mag - I guess he gets a kosher seal of approval there. While there, he begins to learn some of, many of, the ropes from one of their article writers, Paul Gottfried; and then Spencer moves on to something called Washington Summit Publishing - a Regnery outfit; so he’s moving in channels with both Regnery and Gottfried now, as Regnery also publishes Gottfried’s books. Moving in circles with both of them: Gottfried and Regnery steward Spencer into Regnery’s concept of a right wing big tent (that includes “friendly Jews”) in combination with Gottfried’s idea to re-instantiate paleoconservatism by adding new tents to the paleoconservative tent, a tentosphere, in the overall form of the Atlernative Right. These contacts bring Spencer directly into Regnery’s Charles Martel Society, which includes Kevin MacDonald, Jared Taylor ... Peter Brimelow. But KM is the most important one to turn deals with Jews as he has most of the anti-semitic cred… from there Spencer branches out, in fact, to form a webzine called Alternative Right, which he eventually abandons for more snobbish pedigree with Radix. And his Regnery connection ultimately puts him at the head of Regnery’s NPI, which neo-con outcast, the paleocon Sam Francis started and headed until his death, and which Spencer took over after Francis’ successor died as well.

While he’s busy with that, Jewish interests swooped-in to popularize the term “Alternative Right” so that they could both promote their own entyism and weaken genuine ethno-nationalism. Some right wingers, a bit disingenuous, a bit naive, believe that they can use the term and its tentosphere and the Alternative Right term takes off - including for Richard Spencer, who has come back to it to form a new website with Regnery called AltRight.

They are acting perfectly into the role of useful idiots for Jewish interests in corralling the White vote back into the Republican party, unaccountable objectivism, back into civic American nationalism (which is drastically different from ethno-nationalism), back into credulity of the two party system, back into an American political system which serves Jewish interests and objectivist (sell out) interests, not ethnonationalist interests. It used to be that White ethno-nationalists would say that The Republicans and Democrats were flip-sides of the same coin, and that was roughly true with regard to their systemic racial concerns; but now, “thanks” to the Alt-Right, many of them have been corralled back into the Republican party and back into reconstructing the system, a Jewish and right-wing allied mixer.

The Regnery circus, or the tentosphere, as I call it, that they promote with the Alt-Right, is characterized by Regnery’s Germanophilism and elitism, which identify with its mirror image of elitist Jews. The President of Regnery Publishing is Marji Ross, who apparently has affinity and ties with Jewish interests (i.e., she is apparently Jewish) - it seems Jews are ok, provided that they are “against the left”, ok with anti PC, some Gemanophilia and some of its foibles - holocaust revisionism and so on. Regnery’s paleoconservativism requires a tolerant attitude toward Naziphiles, the scientistic, Judeo-Christians and others, including Jews, who are sympathetic to those aims as they might build a grand coalition between Jewish tents, Germanophiles and the Russian Federation. Richard Spencer, being an elitist snob, half German and having a child with his now ex-Russian wife, is coming from a useful default perspective to be a ring master of that Regnery circus.

It is a strategy that plays not only to Jewish entryism, allowing them to play the angle of the “good” Jews, to play their angle of encouraging “the right and alternative right”; but, in fact, it also appeals to the entryism of America’s largest White demographics: German and Irish Americans, the grievances from their particular perspectives, the guilt trips that they do not feel they should be burdened with. They are the most prone to go along with reactionary right wingism as they are most burdened/don’t want see any legitimacy in guilt trips; and with that find appealing a simplified way of that unburdening, the idea that the Nazis had it all right and the Allies had it all wrong. Simple. Though it isn’t quite so. The Nazis right wing elitism and scientism was, and is, not really ethno-nationalism but an imperialism prone to headlong reaction, Jewish red-caping, mis-direction and counter.

Coming back to Lance Williams’ inquiry: “I saw the “Richard Thpenther” post on Majorityrights.com, complete with a foto of the 2 of them together, and thought that you could certainly point me in the right direction on some basic factual issues, if you were willing.” 


Regnery and Spencer under an initial umbrella, forming the (((Alt Right)) big tent-o-sphere.

To my understanding Spencer and Regnery plan together and go on vacations together (this one in Estonia, I believe). I have no idea what they do together, anything gay or whatever, and I only make fun of Spencer’s soft way of talking to use it as a critical handle, to chide him, because I see important epistemological blunders in his and Regnery’s platform - more than irritating, it is catastrophic.

They are leading Whites into a circumstance of Jewish defined friend enemy distinctions. Asians, Mestizos, “radical Islam” and “The Left” being the enemy. While radical Muslims are presented as a great enemy, Muslims overall are useful as attack dogs, divide and conquer agents for Jews and right wingers against true left nationalists, including left nationalist Whites and Asians. Muslim compadores serve to work with the right wing to control left nationalisms; and Islam ultimately serves also as a uniter for the naive and disingenuous under the Jewish rubric, those who want the rubric of being against terror, but not other races or Jews; but in fact Islam uses terroristic means of controlling their very liberal tendencies, critically necessary as a stage to awaken left national consciousness and participation to overcome its subression by the Abrahamic and Right wing coalition. The Abrahamic religions of Islam, Christianity and, at top, Judaism are against their Left Nationalist, i.e., ethnonational organization.

Williams asked me about the “heil gate” event and I informed him that (((Mike Enoch))) was the one who started it and that Spencer was in a way set up and in another way going along with it to build up his anti-Semitic cred for the Alternative Right tentosphere.



Comments:


1

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 17 Feb 2017 01:28 | #

Daniel,

There is a lot of good stuff in this.  The detailed historical critique of activism emanating from the Regnery faction deserves to be heard and weighed by every WN.  It is clear that you are having some success in putting your case over; and given the inevitability of disillusionment with the AltRight over the course of the next couple of years of the Trump presidency, it is good that the blog is positioning itself as it is.

I am not that interested in politics, as you know.  But I am interested in public discourse.  I accept that the process of changing the discourse is gradualist.  In that respect, Trump’s election, whatever its failings in terms of strategic alignment, was a significant break with what went before, which WN can exploit only if it can develop a clear, fit alternative to the AltRight.  At some point, therefore, you will need to switch out of the present critical mode into a propositional mode, which would be an exciting development.

Obviously, I will never consent to the proposition that the left/right thing is a comment on nationalism as such.  Its purview is activism.  It is perfectly acceptable as a communicative strategy or tool, principally for engaging in terms familiar to people of the conventional left.  Against that, it carries a clear risk of alienating people of the conventional right, which casts a doubtful shadow on your stated wish to escape false antagonisms.  We are not at war with our own people who are drawn to either the left or right of liberalism.  As nationalists, though, we are anti-liberal.  In my view we are also anti-egalitarian and pro-freedom - that being the freedom in being.

This:

Since I have not been able to overcome this misplaced jealousy, or naivety, bad advice or whatever causes the intransigence of this contentiousness ...

... is disappointing.


2

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 17 Feb 2017 03:17 | #

Against that, it carries a clear risk of alienating people of the conventional right, which casts a doubtful shadow on your stated wish to escape false antagonisms.  We are not at war with our own people who are drawn to either the left or right of liberalism.  As nationalists, though, we are anti-liberal.  In my view we are also anti-egalitarian and pro-freedom - that being the freedom in being.

As for freedom in being, that certainly requires our systemic support network to allow for it. Pursuit of freedom of itself would be liberal nonsense.

A Left Nationalist platform, properly conceived as it is here, is not against any of ours because they are wealthy, “unequal”, relatively independent and free or even because they hold some right wing ideas, it is against the trajectory of those right wing maps which they might use as they point toward betrayal of our race, our people, and especially if they insist upon placing these maps above the racial union and/or act accordingly and cause other people to act accordingly.

It is a little disappointing that you don’t want to see how this Left Nationalist perspective holds together and why it should not be abandoned; despite those who might be alienated by the term “left”, as it alienated me, originally, as the term has been abused by YKW against Whites. Then I realized why they deployed it against us and why they wanted to discourage us from using it - viz., because of its organizational power - but when I realized that that organizational power could be deployed for ourselves, I overcame that aversion - so will other Whites. There are decades of Jewish controlled media to overcome in the deployment of the term against us, but the Internet will work fast to remedy that in our favor for other ethno-nationalists, just as I finally overcame the initial aversion to the term, an initial aversion which I understand very well.

I would hasten to add, these terms are not found objects, they are for us to seize and define, especially the opening to define a White Left for ourselves. We need not and should not allow what really amounts to superficial aversion to the word in itself and misdirected concept of what lies beneath it to work against us. It works all too well for us to abandon - and I won’t do that.


3

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 17 Feb 2017 06:28 | #

If, by contrast, we go along with right wing trajectories, they are all too easy to become unhinged, as Sunic has in the hair brained “racial advocacy” and depiction of ethno-nationalism that he renders in his recent article at, where else, AltRight, going right along with Richard Spencer’s Regnery Circus, right wing blender - Lisbon to Vladivastok, ethnonationalists be damned:

Until recently, the concept of national identity played for all of us here in Europe an important role. Today, however, we must redefine our national identity. Following the massive influx of migrants who do not share our civilizational patrimony, the need arises to reformulate or reconceptualise the meaning of European identity. What has become of the old meaning “national identity” in today’s Europe, in which over 10 per cent of citizens are of non-European extraction? Presently I feel I have much more in common with the abovementioned “WASP” from North America, a Slav living in the Far East of the Russian Federation, or a native of any of the Baltic States, who may know nothing about the culture of my particular homeland of Croatia, but who, nonetheless, belongs to the same or similar bio-cultural pool and to the same extended geographic area. My particular national consciousness, in light of the current non-European mass migrations, must take on, therefore, a different meaning. Having this in mind it is outdated for the Croats and Serbs, or for the Poles and Germans to wage war with each other or to dwell endlessly on their mutually exclusive historical grievances

I call this hair brained because it is. What lies behind it is the same German imperialism that Sunic always panders-to. No matter how much you tell him that Poles and Germans are NOT fighting, he will say that they are because the Nazis that he talks to and fetishizes are in a minority who can’t let Nazi imperialism be part of history. Because he perhaps wants to see the conflict that he experienced between Serbia and Croatia as representing a currently useful analogy to the situation along all borders: it isn’t and probably would not have become intractable without meddling from the kind of imperialist Slavs that he suddenly feels affinity for, those imposing themselves imperialistically in the Far East of The Russian Federation - well outside of reasonable ethno-national bounds. When Sunic professes to be concerned about “war between Poles and Germans” we must ask, who is outdated in their understanding? We know what Sunic is doing, really, this is a wink to the audience of the Regnery circus, with a wish to return to German imperialism - Sunic has gone so far as to absurdly refer to Poland and the German homeland - whatever, right? None of this “petty nationalism.” (“You Poles, you Czechs, you Belarusians, you Ukrainians, you don’t want those borders, do you? You know those are rightful German lands, don’t you?”). The hope of these right wing imperialists, who claim to have more in common with their imperialist relatives imposing themselves in the Far East of Asia, is to build a grand alliance of some German and Russian elitists to lord over a haplessly undifferentiated mass. They can work that out with Dugin’s philosemitic ‘Eurasianism’, right? A perfect situation, void of ethnonational control, perfectly ripe for the machinations of the international Jew to wreak havoc with us, our relations among ourselves and with our allies.

By contrast, this is the great advantage of The DNA Nation: it does not abandon the common genetic alliance, but neither does it abandon ethnonationalist territorial delimitations as one of the three central components of its mission statement.

That, as opposed to muh unhinged, ungrounded, right wing Cartesian principles.


4

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 17 Feb 2017 11:33 | #

Fascism and palingeneticism, the spirit of race, the life of glory, Nietzschean morality and imperialism ... these are not “right-wing” or “left-wing”.  They are aspects of a progressive nationalist idealism.  Ethnic nationalism and identitarianism are not “right-wing” or “left-wing” either.  They are aspects of a conservative nationalist existentialism.  In between the two we have way-stations such as traditionalism, revolutionary conservativism, and volkishness, none of which are compatible with the “right” and “left” of the liberal Weltanschauung (because, of course, a politics of genetic interests is not compatible with a politics of the unfettered will).

I would say that for the whole of the 20th century the progressive, idealist interpretations held sway among nationalists in continental Europe, and there does seem to be a temperamental tendency towards idealism among southern and south-eastern Europeans and among Eurasians.  So Tom has that excuse.  There was always more of a contest in the English-speaking world and probably in the Nordic and Baltic lands.  But ethnic nationalism is not a naturally assertive animal, so there too idealism tended to make the biggest noise, certainly among educated nationalists.  I think with the death of Jonathan Bowden, though, it has lost its last really intellectually competent proponent in Britain.  I don’t know about elsewhere.  I don’t actually know of any current English-speaking nationalist who was seriously examining ethnic nationalism and identitarianism from a foundational (ie, non-rhetorical) perspective before I started trying to drive the thing along.

The pattern, of course, was laid down by Heidegger when he famously sought a conversation with the NSDAP.  I imagine that he must have challenged the new masters to progress intellectually (that is, in the consideration of cause and principle) beyond their political act of re-formulating a herd of Germans to match their vision of an heroic folk.  To him, that vision would have been fatally inauthentic, and the method crass and brutalistic in the extreme, as if this folk was not already an holistic entity for whom the true process of destining nationally was not got from prescribed behaviours but from their act of being emerging into consciousness and seasoning everything in the only way that was truly German.  What is of being is known in being in kind.


5

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 17 Feb 2017 13:11 | #

GW: Nietzschean morality and imperialism ... these are not “right-wing” or “left-wing”

DanielS: These are right wing as I (correctly) conceive right wing to be (as opposed to left wing). My reason for placing them in that category makes consistent sense, I wish that you would recognize that; it’s too important, even if contrarianism is hard for you to resist.

And, if what you mean by “fascism” is Nazism, that fits there too, as right wing. I don’t use the term fascism, and especially not as a synonym for Nazism, because fascism, like National Socialism, was conceived with some Left National components in mind; though in the case of Nazi Germany, it did not remain left wing, it became imperial and supremacist along with key components of Hitler’s ideology. That is why I call it “Nazism”, to distinguish it as pejorative, and to distinguish it from the confusing term national socialism - confusing because it has a benign, ethnonational sound to it, and some ethno-national components to its platform in fact.

As far as “palingeneticism” and “the life of glory”, those are speculative terms where I prefer to think in terms of rule structures. Whether those palingenetic and life of glory rule structures, as I would call them, are right wing or left wing would depend upon what rules are ascribed in the palingenetic and life of glory map proposed.

GW: Ethnic nationalism and identitarianism are not “right-wing” or “left-wing” either.

DanielS: Ethnic nationalism is not right wing if it is done faithfully to an ethno-nationalist concept.

Identitarianism can be right wing, if one identifies with a right wing ideology. However, in that case, it would be a less stable identity and one which tends to have less chance of peaceful co-existence. 

GW: They are aspects of a conservative nationalist existentialism.

No, there are components of them which can be apects of ethnonationalism, but the ideas which you itemize as “not right wing” - most obviously imperialism, for F sake, are right wing in their framework.

GW: In between the two we have way-stations such as traditionalism, revolutionary conservativism, and volkishness, none of which are compatible with the “right” and “left” of the liberal Weltanschauung (because, of course, a politics of genetic interests is not compatible with a politics of the unfettered will).

DanielS: traditionalism can be an aspect of left or right, depending upon the tradition.“Revolutionary conservatism” would apparently lean heavily toward a left nationalist concern, but it is vague enough a term so that whether it is left or right would depend upon the content and the motives of whomever espousing it.

GW: and volkishness, none of which are compatible with the “right” and “left” of the liberal Weltanschauung (because, of course, a politics of genetic interests is not compatible with a politics of the unfettered will).

DanielS: Left and right are a part of the “liberal Weltanschauung” as you have introjected the Jewish misrepresentation of the terms and the compliant right wing reaction, and refuse to dislodge as you are wedded to the Jewish framework and right wing reaction. Left and right are not a part of “the liberal Weltanshauung” as I correctly conceive of the terms - because, of course, genetic interest can obviously be compatible with politics, but not of the unfettered will - which I NEVER espouse - that is Cartesian - and does not adhere to Left Nationalism correctly conceived (right wingers might try to pursue unfettered will, but they will fail). That kind of pursuit of “purity” in “unfettered will” above social concerns, is of the pursuit of objectivism, which is behind right wing and liberal projects. To say it is behind the right left arrangement as I set it out is a complete straw man to anything that I am assessing as left nationalism.

Furthermore, it is clear that you are going with the oxymoronic definition of “left as liberalism” with that straw man.


6

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 17 Feb 2017 14:39 | #

GW: I would say that for the whole of the 20th century the progressive, idealist interpretations held sway among nationalists in continental Europe, and there does seem to be a temperamental tendency towards idealism among southern and south-eastern Europeans and among Eurasians.  So Tom has that excuse.

DanielS: I guess you are talking about emphasis on non-genetic factors, and I don’t know if I would grant anybody an excuse to take it very far from accountability.

GW: There was always more of a contest in the English-speaking world and probably in the Nordic and Baltic lands.  But ethnic nationalism is not a naturally assertive animal, so there too idealism tended to make the biggest noise, certainly among educated nationalists.  I think with the death of Jonathan Bowden, though, it has lost its last really intellectually competent proponent in Britain.  I don’t know about elsewhere.  I don’t actually know of any current English-speaking nationalist who was seriously examining ethnic nationalism and identitarianism from a foundational (ie, non-rhetorical) perspective before I started trying to drive the thing along.

DanielS: Well, you have regard for yourself and you should, I do too. But it is easy to see from my perspective that what you are trying to do is not quite as unique, nor as perfectly correct in its objective as you think it is. The worst error is not extending your regard broadly enough where you should and consequently sweeping aside ideas - with straw men in their place, because if you addressed them as they are, you’d have to recognize their merit - ideas which are not only solid, but often better and more important than those which you are trying too pursue and attribute uniquely to your project ...though you will come up with very good and useful ideas along your quest, just as Bowery has. The effort won’t go to waste; but it is also key to not let other efforts go to waste.

GW: The pattern, of course, was laid down by Heidegger when he famously sought a conversation with the NSDAP.

DanielS: Well, he would have been attracted to national socialism as true national socialism, as any thoughtful person would.

GWI imagine that he must have challenged the new masters to progress intellectually (that is, in the consideration of cause and principle) beyond their political act of re-formulating a herd of Germans to match their vision of an heroic folk.

DanielS: He would find out sooner or later than in Hitler, he had the problem with the alpha male and his tendency to be an intransigent right winger. That he was placing a principle of nature (which worked for him and his cadre for a time) above the correctives of praxis. The result of not making that correction to left nationalism, was catastrophe.

GWTo him, that vision would have been fatally inauthentic, and the method crass and brutalistic in the extreme, as if this folk was not already an holistic entity for whom the true process of destining nationally was not got from prescribed behaviours but from their act of being emerging into consciousness and seasoning everything in the only way that was truly German.  What is of being is known in being in kind.

DanielS: I do, in fact, have respect and confidence enough in Heidegger to believe that he would have advised and seen these things as emergent of the Germans; and that these things are good and fine. Unfortunately, Hitler ruled the roost and as a man of war, could not get past his Friedrich the Great fetish, his war mongering imperialism, accompanied by any excuse in “nature” that he could find as pseudo-justification, aspects of scientism, master race, master/slave, might makes right, his right wingishness in a word, that in the end, made even his own people “unworthy” of survival or having “proved their worthiness” by dying for an ideal that Hitler held to be more important than them.


7

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 18 Feb 2017 06:39 | #

I am trying to get to the bottom of your curious attachment to the left-right axis of liberalism, which you reify to the status of a prism for understanding All.  How does individualism function in nationalism, Daniel?


8

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 18 Feb 2017 08:23 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 18 Feb 2017 06:39 | #

I am trying to get to the bottom of your curious attachment to the left-right axis of liberalism, which you reify to the status of a prism for understanding All.  How does individualism function in nationalism, Daniel?

It is you, and I imagine some of your friends on the right/alt right, who have accepted a position of reification. I have overcome deliberately instilled aversion and developed what is not a reification, but rather what are topoi; and it is not curious when you see how effectively they, and specifically this one functions to organize and make sense of our concerns. Nor can it be said to be an attachment to THE left-right axis that you mean, as I have said fifty million times now, a White Left, a union, is the opposite of liberalism! It is about a union of protecting, to conserve, if you will, the EGI of Whites!

Lets put aside this destructive Boweryesque, reductionary bullshit attribution that “All” I say boils down to, “All” I say is understood in terms of this (I deploy many other topoi) ... but because you asked me (again, specifically) about the left/right (as I deploy the terms), I need to focus there once again to try to help you overcome your fixation (though I have no reason to be optimistic about overcoming your autobiography as eternally contentious teenage right winger):

One would need to return to the post (and prior ones if need be) and see how well it functions to organize and understand our concerns. But “one” might just as well bother to re-read this post to start, for a good example.

When we are talking about Left Nationalism, or specifically White Left Nationalism, we are not talking about “the workers” only, they are just one component of the natio, the people of the nation; but we are saying that the nation is a delimited union. A union, having exclusionary in and out groups is opposite of liberalism.

Imperialism is an opposite of nationalism.

Now, if I were shouting and advocating, “workers of the world unite!”... perhaps that would be a kind of quasi left imperialism ..and it would be a vague union, not much good against liberalization indeed; but when I talk in terms of White Left or Left Nationalism, that is not what I am doing.

Since the union, as left nation, is accountable to the interests of the nation’s people in all stages and situations, the individual is more free to develop in accordance with his/her nature unharmed and un-diverted from authentic course and is also free to conduct themselves in a more far reaching and particularly individualistic way being free to take their place in the systemic ecology of the nation more for granted than they otherwise would absent unionization.



Post a comment:


Name: (required)

Email: (required but not displayed)

URL: (optional)

Note: You should copy your comment to the clipboard or paste it somewhere before submitting it, so that it will not be lost if the session times out.

Remember me


Next entry: Donald Trump gives Benjamin Netanyahu everything he wants.
Previous entry: Where and How (((The Alternative Right))) is Drawing “Friend-Enemy” Lines of a Coming Revolution

image of the day

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Establishment Problem

Categories

Links

Endorsement 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

Comments

Sue Howarh commented in entry 'Petition for White South Africans to return to Europe' on Fri, 24 Feb 2017 19:18. (View)

Petition release of baby spitter commented in entry 'A familiar face in the crowd. Well, not crowd exactly.' on Thu, 23 Feb 2017 11:06. (View)

White women and civil wrongs commented in entry 'Black history 'stolen' in Birth of a Nation, 're-appropriation' in Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?' on Thu, 23 Feb 2017 03:55. (View)

Florr commented in entry 'Rioting in Rinkeby, Sweden - my friend driven out by muslims' on Wed, 22 Feb 2017 17:46. (View)

Bill commented in entry 'Rioting in Rinkeby, Sweden - my friend driven out by muslims' on Wed, 22 Feb 2017 17:32. (View)

Tony Blair commented in entry 'When Theresa said Brexit Theresa meant Brexit' on Wed, 22 Feb 2017 13:20. (View)

And some problems with Poland's 'Pis' Party commented in entry 'A problem with inviting American troops into Poland' on Wed, 22 Feb 2017 09:53. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Rioting in Rinkeby, Sweden - my friend driven out by muslims' on Tue, 21 Feb 2017 08:33. (View)

Jez leads protest of politically motivated firings commented in entry 'A familiar face in the crowd. Well, not crowd exactly.' on Mon, 20 Feb 2017 11:55. (View)

Alt-Right Politics commented in entry 'Alt Right Uncritically Effusive for Trump's Parallels in Russia and France' on Mon, 20 Feb 2017 07:24. (View)

Celebrate Tynwald Day commented in entry 'Solstice in the Deep of European Rebirth' on Mon, 20 Feb 2017 04:50. (View)

Britons murdered since death of Stephen Lawrence commented in entry 'A Nation Rejoices: Justice at Last!' on Mon, 20 Feb 2017 03:51. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Martin Schulz is 'the new Donald Trump'. Is there somehow a meaning to be found in this nonsense?' on Sun, 19 Feb 2017 21:08. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'EP President Schulz: Germany exists only in order to ensure the existence of the Jewish people.' on Sun, 19 Feb 2017 20:18. (View)

Kumiko Oumae commented in entry 'Regarding Trump's Statement on "Fake News", Political Cesspool Advocates Jailing Critics of State' on Sun, 19 Feb 2017 17:10. (View)

Kumiko Oumae commented in entry 'Regarding Trump's Statement on "Fake News", Political Cesspool Advocates Jailing Critics of State' on Sun, 19 Feb 2017 14:30. (View)

Political Cesspool advocates Jailing vocal dissent commented in entry 'Regarding new-found U.S. patriotism of Alt-Right & so-called WN: TRI-COLORED TREASON - by David Lane' on Sun, 19 Feb 2017 06:29. (View)

Kumiko Oumae commented in entry 'Alt Right Uncritically Effusive for Trump's Parallels in Russia and France' on Sun, 19 Feb 2017 00:04. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'On The Regnery Circus Big-Tent-O-Sphere, Featuring Richard Spencer as its Ring-Master' on Sat, 18 Feb 2017 08:23. (View)

South African mother found... commented in entry 'Petition for White South Africans to return to Europe' on Sat, 18 Feb 2017 07:11. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'On The Regnery Circus Big-Tent-O-Sphere, Featuring Richard Spencer as its Ring-Master' on Sat, 18 Feb 2017 06:39. (View)

Evidence Vetrano targeted because White commented in entry 'Black violence is the norm rather than the exception' on Sat, 18 Feb 2017 05:11. (View)

"Keep Quiet" commented in entry 'TRS founder Michael ‘Enoch’ Peinovich was exposed as being a Russian Jew.' on Sat, 18 Feb 2017 03:45. (View)

Fried Chicken & Corn Bread commented in entry 'Black history 'stolen' in Birth of a Nation, 're-appropriation' in Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?' on Sat, 18 Feb 2017 03:33. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'On The Regnery Circus Big-Tent-O-Sphere, Featuring Richard Spencer as its Ring-Master' on Fri, 17 Feb 2017 14:39. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'On The Regnery Circus Big-Tent-O-Sphere, Featuring Richard Spencer as its Ring-Master' on Fri, 17 Feb 2017 13:11. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'On The Regnery Circus Big-Tent-O-Sphere, Featuring Richard Spencer as its Ring-Master' on Fri, 17 Feb 2017 11:33. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'On The Regnery Circus Big-Tent-O-Sphere, Featuring Richard Spencer as its Ring-Master' on Fri, 17 Feb 2017 06:28. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'On The Regnery Circus Big-Tent-O-Sphere, Featuring Richard Spencer as its Ring-Master' on Fri, 17 Feb 2017 03:17. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'What if we're not 'the bad guys'?' on Fri, 17 Feb 2017 02:35. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'On The Regnery Circus Big-Tent-O-Sphere, Featuring Richard Spencer as its Ring-Master' on Fri, 17 Feb 2017 01:28. (View)

Just Sayin' commented in entry 'What if we're not 'the bad guys'?' on Thu, 16 Feb 2017 20:55. (View)

Kumiko Oumae commented in entry 'Donald Trump gives Benjamin Netanyahu everything he wants.' on Thu, 16 Feb 2017 16:41. (View)

pedro commented in entry 'Donald Trump gives Benjamin Netanyahu everything he wants.' on Thu, 16 Feb 2017 14:11. (View)

(((Alternative Right)))'s Love Child commented in entry 'Tillerson, Putin, Sakhalin, Fukushima: Why would Japan Hate Trump's outreach to Russian Federation?' on Thu, 16 Feb 2017 13:49. (View)

affection-tone