I coined the term Pervasive Ecology and hypothesized that it provides a context of the broadest utility that one may take in White advocacy because it may be universalized but not foundationalized.
Vs David Duke’s self proclaimed “New’ Paradigm for Human Diversity”
Prior to Duke, I coined the term Pervasive Ecology and hypothesized that it provides a context of the broadest utility that one may take in White advocacy because it may be universalized but not foundationalized.
Well prior to the supposedly “new’ paradigm for human diversity,” I had proposed this hypothesis of Pervasive Ecology as one way we might pursue White advocacy - a way that is both universalizable, as human ecology can always be said to be relevant as an important criteria to extend to everyone and everything; but that its utility is only increased as it cannot be foundationalized. What is ecological, viz. optimal and non-toxic satisfaction for the systemic and biological requirements of creatures, is relative and relational.
Nevertheless, it is because these systems are not closed but relative that they are afforded agency. Through the affordance and delimitation of constraint (classification) of the system’s diversity by consensus, paradigmatic differences that make a difference are established for authentic, self-corrective agency of and by the system. The implication, the true news of difference is a premium placed on the validity of ecological, including human, maintenance.
Diversity is bound to qualitative, systemic paradigms, with discernible rule structures.
Biodiversity is a reasonable ecological paradigm that corresponds with separatism, niche and otherwise. Of course, when Jewish interests speak of “diversity” it is doublespeak, by which they mean forced integration and in fact, the loss of genetic diversity. …
Vs David Duke’s self proclaimed “New’ Paradigm for Human Diversity”
However, when one leads the charge against Jewish power and oppression as he has, sticking his neck out in high profile to face its danger and the consequences of speaking out against it, that isn’t exactly true either. That does take some courage and character. He has amassed some incisive facts and figures of high places, backing his efforts with the confidence to function with aplomb - he does show skill under pressure. The CNN Wolf Blitzer interview provides a good example.
By contrast, coming from a position like mine, I definitely would not have thought to take on the very necessary and risky effort to spearhead awareness of Jewish power and influence with such focus as he has. Though like many, I became suspicious of the J.Q. by their obvious presence in media, money and academia and was encouraged to persist in looking in that direction largely by others, he is providing a service to White people who would find it nearly impossible to do the kind of thing that he is doing. Most of us have gained some critical information and confidence from his work. It does take skill, courage and it does take character to be so vocal on the J.Q.
Of course he has many predecessors and some contemporaries doing similar work; that is not so much at issue though the angle he takes does bear some critique. Style, taste and yes, issues of character are also a bit problematic.
Nevertheless, he generally does spearhead the J.Q. with well-backed facts and figures. Many of us, myself included, are reluctant to criticize him because he has provided a service that is both highly challenging and important to enact. That will have many of us tune-in and pay attention despite the fact that the synecdoche of his big-enough ego will have him invariably interrupting and talking-over guests, seedily imposing his own expertise [?] on matters of health and fitness (maybe he should do four days as week instead of five, nixing the “fitness Friday”?) conflict resolution and style of argumentative presentation, he will even jostle MacDonald aside for a commercial - about himself, David Duke.
Here we go, Duke’s shows kick-off with a song that is made ridiculous by the fact that its lyrics are of the most solemn and serious nature, but sung in the upbeat and cheerful manner that the tackiest marching band or nightclub singer might apply - the singing rendition has nothing to do with the original reason why the song lyrics were written. One might suspect that the song is about Dave, you see, “if just one man can stand tall, we can all be thankful, there is hope for us all.”
After the music he begins every show with an expressed concern for everybody in the world. One might suspect that some of these views that he advocates emphatically as being just about universal goods, are really what He needs to espouse in order to compensate for the quarter-full coffers of his social capital.
There are times, places, audiences where putting aside fiery rhetoric, profanity and epithets are appropriate. Even more places where putting aside the now silly costumes and anachronistic emblems of failed White advocacy regimes of the past are in order.
This is David Duke’s need especially - to overcome the associations that Jewish media has been able to stick on him, as it has stigmatized that manner of dress and speech.
It is not wrong for him to take the angle for himself of being a gentleman respectful of all people, and to recommend it as a practical staple for some, perhaps even most others.
It is true that the situation and audience must be taken into account, and the costumes and symbols of yesteryear can be set aside without a loss, but when he and other figures of White advocacy, Kevin MacDonald and Matt Parrott come to mind, want to say there is no place for even well timed and skillfully used hot rhetoric, they are dead wrong.
Perhaps they are taking for granted that everyone wants and needs the same milquetoast they have for breakfast. That everyone has the pedigree of a gentleman to lose; that every White has found their way into a techno-niche or religious never-land that has insulated them indefinitely from the reality and effects of non-White aggression - and has also insulated against the relevance of our masculine assertion in defense against it. We all have women at our side, telling us, “no”, you don’t want to be so cruel to harmless little non-White people – they are so nice and everyone should play nice. Don’t you just have so much respect for them that you would never want to hear the N word or the sand-N word used to efficiently characterize what their patterns mean (destruction) for Whites. No, we must, in fact, be nice to them because Jesus freaks, Jews and the White women who wish to maintain N words as one of their most powerful weapons say so: we wouldn’t want to be on their bad side – we’d be in trouble indeed, and have.
We don’t want to hear about what we are going to do about people who have veritably enslaved us and given our co-evolutionary women to the highest and lowest bidders. We want to hear about the poor Palestinians in particular and rights for everyone – making sure that nobody ever pays any price for the destruction wrought upon Whites, our men and women. We don’t want to be a stereotyped as skinheads, no - we want to be characterized as White wimps, who have sand kicked in our faces while our women are escorted away.
We would never use violence because we all know that no revolution ever came about through strategic and guerrilla efforts. Or again, is that the disingenuous position that Duke needs to take to get the best mileage out of his modestly endowed social capital?
Many if not most of us who really care about Whites, our women, who have really felt the pain of imposition upon us enough to do something about it and fight, are not put-off by fiery rhetoric – because we know that it is the only oratory that can begin to capture the atrocity that has been committed against us and how we feel about it. We don’t need the strictures of those who have too much cush to lose by using epithets.
Duke’s saccharine is not sweet to us it is sickly. We want to throw him off of a bridge the next time he says that he cares about everybody. We need advocates of our own, not the zillionth White guy expressing his concern to protect non-White interests.
Where Duke follows MacDonald’s lead and concedes leftist critics may have a point with regard to Israel, it is the wrong point; and it is not Leftist - or not White Leftist anyway. He criticizes Israeli law as it does not allow for an Israeli to marry non- Israeli; as their borders are closed; as they deport Africans and require birth control among those who are in Israel. Of course that is not a leftist but a liberal argument based on the universal rights that we, as White advocates are, or should be, desperately trying to overcome. It corresponds with a confused notion of Leftism (really liberalism and Jewish machinations) that those who persist in assuming the Jewish imposed moniker of the Right stubbornly and foolishly maintain. http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/02/left-right-out/
This is why they might sound Gilad Atzmon’s horn, viz. because he is anti-Zionist, even though that corresponds with his being a flaming liberal and anti-nationalist across the board – they endorse him despite the fact that liberalism is the primary mode of our destruction and nationalism one of the most potent means of defense.
Which brings us to the main point here, Duke’s “My’ New Paradigm for Human Diversity.”
Duke’s “Paradigm for Human Diversity” is not new, not his and not properly delineated.
That he uses the word paradigm is the first clue of seedy appropriation, because that is a term germane to a whole school of ecological thinking – which Duke has no warrant to call “his.” Nor is “biodiversity” his.
I, and probably many other people before Duke espoused “his new paradigm”, had observed human diversity and ecology to be fundamental to a sound basis for White advocacy.
To my knowledge, I coined the term “Pervasive Ecology.” I began using it in the late 80’s to make explicit a pivotal notion of one of my intellectual heroes; and then to apply it as one of the most, if not the most abstract position, the broadest possible scope to accommodate various viewpoints that one might take while advocating Whites in various contextings.
Nevertheless, you can always say that ecology is a fundamentally important issue, for all creatures and resources. Yet, what is optimal, best, ecological, and fittest, cannot be foundationalized: it depends upon the context and more. It is relative. Nevertheless, that affords us the agency to care for our relative interests.
Be that as it may, Duke being the right-wing fossil that he is, and trying to ride the wave of hipper ideas, can’t let go of some of his right-wing staples and casts his “new” paradigm in the same old universalistic but imperviously foundational, inflexible terms of “rights” for everybody.
Whereas ecology is kindred to pattern disbursement, “rights” are similar to a technology which ruptures pattern or its apprehension. Hence the concept’s utility of appreciating the hide and seek of patterns is largely undone.
We’re stuck, here with his little 16 year old mudshark admirers with their rights, the Muslims breeding in our lands and how much their Allah cares about our rights, the Jews espousing liberalism and how they care about our rights, The Blacks taking, raping and killing off our women, so concerned for our rights, the Chinese buying our property and grunting while they ignore our sacred history, lets respect them and be so concerned for their continued existence – the right for their existence really ought to be a priority for us.
Obviously not. But you see, Duke’s bad aesthetic taste corresponds to a lack of judgment. Dealings with non-Whites are not a foundational issue. They are a matter of taste and judgment. Maybe you should not use the N word as it sounds heavy-handed to the soccer mom who has a homey Black woman to help around the house or chat for tea. It may sound bad to parishioners of a church in Indiana. Or to people from places where anything they think they know about certain non-Whites comes from what they see in the Jewish media.
Of course it depends upon the audience and the circumstance. It is prima facie true that you might not want to use the N word before a group of 16-year-old Black boys in an alley.
Moreover, on a theoretical level of organizing and presenting ideas, the rigor of not relying on the bold strokes of inflammatory rhetoric can be a helpful discipline to unfold rationale.
Nevertheless, both MacDonald’s genteel and Linder’s profane approach helped me into the open.
And there remain times when the kind of deference MacDonald advises as protocol just isn’t right: I recall creating an oratory in which I said that Bill Clinton pandered to Negro-loving White women. It just doesn’t have the bite.
For a South Afrikaner whose daughter has been killed, to be told that such and such a word must not be said; or a truck driver whose wife has been cuckolded that he ought to be socially eloquent and pay no heed to his will to fight; or for many of the Whites who have suffered offenses while non-Whites have been coddled, their nature covered-up, while the highly predictable bad side of their patterned nature had been denied, is poison. To be silent or utterly polite and concerned for the existence of all is not what we need to hear from White advocates.
I will not say that Duke’s arrogation and highly unoriginal “paradigm for human diversity” is totally wrong in principle. It is pretty much true enough that we are on more solid ground to argue for our own diversity, our own part of a multicultural world if we express an understanding that other peoples might want to survive and survive unexploited in their lands as well. There is no point in exploiting others, in particular.
Duke still talks in terms of rights for everyone, which is an ecological catastrophe of the highest order, by itself, reconstructing the rights babble so efficiently on the lips of every White traitor to dismiss our concerns where they are the least circumspect – the least circumspect!
I don’t want this to come across as if I do not appreciate what Duke is doing, has done and that I do not want him to continue. But before he casts aspersions on the taste and decorum of others’ White advocacy, he might qualify and modify his own program a bit.
It is also true that when we criticize other groups besides Jews, providing that the measure of our response is correct, we are not doing the bidding of Jews but rather redressing their misrepresentation of these other groups; hence, we are taking on the Jew’s rhetoric.
One of the major points in promoting pervasive ecology and its focus on the ecology of patterned disbursement is that provides an alternative to the impervious technology of “rights.”
Duke weakens our defense when he reconstructs the attempt to foundationalize the same Modernist, leveling concern for everybody, a concern not extended by them to us, one that has been so destructive to us - of impervious individual rights for everyone irrespective of context and stages in process.
No. Rather, we might extend a pragmatic rule to out-groups: The Silver Rule of doing no harm to those among non-Whites who do no harm and have not done harm to us; where they do not transgress our habitats and people. But the Golden Rule of universal obsequiousness is not to be foundationalized by any means (e.g., The New Orleans Protocol?). No, that, as a universal foundation, is out. It is not for us to ensure their survival even; only that we will not aggress against them if they do not aggress against us. But even if they only aggress against us by dint of ecological destruction and population explosion, we do not owe them our castration, which censuring is, in the preparation of our own destruction; whereas our own anger, our aggression is that which transcends the thicket of oppressive rules and provides the map to our salvation.
Post a comment: