|
|
|
The final question Given that the West is saddled with a tradition of freedom and democracy (which its elites want to retire, of course, but never mind for now), and given that a Sino-Russian global hegemony is the end-game of the Ukraine adventure, should we not look into the Eurasian face, mindful of its natural affinity for authoritarianism and conformism, and ask the final question: Would it be easier for us to fight for our people’s life and land in a Western hegemonic system or in a socialist system under the tutelage of, principally, China, with input from Russia, India, and Iran, if these are indeed the alternatives? Comments:2
Posted by Al Ross on Wed, 25 May 2022 02:37 | # And Balaam’s Ass was given the gift of speech by the old Jew God. At least Thorn can converse with an intellectual equal . 3
Posted by Thorn on Wed, 25 May 2022 22:32 | # It’s suspect as to the validity of Escobar’s info ... nevertheless this is an interesting read:
4
Posted by Thorn on Fri, 27 May 2022 17:31 | # New Developments on the Ukraine Front: A French Military Expert Explains Ukraine, a Story You Will Never Hear from the Presstitutes, and the New York Times Abandons Its Demand for Victory Over Russia 5
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 27 May 2022 22:58 | # If my hypothesized layering of interests being served (as in food-chain) by Western civilization’s collapse (Euromen eaten by late-20th-century-Jews-as-biological-weapons of a Chinese gain-of-function conspiracy demographically eaten by Africans as ultimate digestive “deep culture”) is correct, we are already the victim of the Chinese Art of War. Russia, as an Eastern extension of the West, was merely the earliest victim, and its recovery from the Jewish oligarch to Putin-esque “nationalism”, being driven by Jewish neocon virulence into the arms of China, is entirely consistent with this hypothesis. The natural evolution of this situation is _devolution_ of the West into roving gangs that denude entire populations of life and property as Jews attempt, and fail, to execute on their usual centralize-then-take-the-money-and-run nation-wrecking—nation-wrecking amplified by Chinese gain-of-function of natural Jewish virulence to engineered civilization-wrecking. It is a psychological failure of individualistic peoples to think it necessary that conscious conspiracy must be behind the manifest virulence of organizations like Jews, the WEF, Federal Reserve, World Bank, etc. It is, however, entirely plausible that we are the victim of a Chinese thinktank hatched under Mao’s reaction to “a century of humiliation” at the hands of the West’s mercantile corruption by natural Jewish virulence. The way this is to play out is a Thirty Years War on steroids, to the point that there are, indeed, roving gangs denuding the populations of the West of life and resources, until the Chinese are seen as our saviors. We must prepare for and, if possible, bypass the roving gangs stage of devolution and reorient Western civilization based on an entirely different model of political economy including monetary system that is adapted to our nature as the most individualistic of all peoples. This is the real “Great Reset” opportunity that awaits us. I have proposed Property Money as that model and challenge anyone to come up with a similarly simple and comprehensive model that so bypasses the roving gangs stage of devolution that may arrive far more rapidly and catastrophically than people unfamiliar with history are willing to contemplate. 6
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 28 May 2022 22:06 | #
I’ve spent the last few days explaining on other boards that Putin came to power as Yeltsyn’s prime minister in 1999; and has been surrounded by Jewish and Russian oligarchs ever since. Putin’s Russia has always been a kleptocracy. His nationalism is revanchist, imperialist, and fundamentally Duginist. He may or may not be so spiritually-obsessed that he harbours Dugin’s pseudo-mystical assertion that Russia has a messianic destiny by which it shall establish an empire “from Lisbon to Vladivostock” and purify the decadence of the West. But Russian soldiers are encouraged to believe as, along with their Chechen and Syrian comrades, they destroy Ukrainian lives that they are in a sacred war for the motherland and the white Christian race. All in all, then, I don’t believe that Putin was in any way forced to fight by the neocon Nuland. I think that the neocons were reacting to Putin in the Maidan. Removing his puppet Yanukovych saved Ukraine from being another Belarussia. It was entirely legitimate to act against Putin’s first throw of the imperial dice. As a result Putin hired the Wagner Group to foment conflict in Donetsk and Luhansk - these are not organic, popular conflicts. There was also an attempt in 2014 to foment unrest in Odessa, but it failed for want of local patsies. It now turns out, of course, that Putin is attempting to steal the whole of coastal Ukraine and to link up with Transnistria - something I pointed out here weeks ago. That will give him the possibility of attacking the vestiges of Ukraine from four fronts, and taking Moldova whenever he feels like it. The southern attack alone is sufficient to prove that Putin is not reacting to neocon manipulation or NATO expansionism. That’s a Kremlin lie. So we need to begin from the right place, which is that Putin has a vision of empire which he is attempting to realise. It remains entirely legitimate for the West to block it; and for obvious reasons highly desirable to fight that cause via a proxy rather than directly. The Jewish role is confused. Jewish influence is powerful within Putin’s circle. Israel is an ally in Syria, and is loathe to oppose Putin’s Ukrainian adventure too overtly. Jewish influence is powerful within Biden’s administration, very plainly (Blinken, Nuland). Jewish influence is powerful within the moral monsters who gather at Davos. But then Kissinger wants accommodation while Soros is more hawkish. Zelensky is a Jew, and has modelled the national resistance leader perfectly since the moment Putin gathered his forces. It seems to me that once one dispatches the “neocon cause”, and accepts that Putin is not reacting but has a long-term vision, there is very little common ground in the actions of these Jews to give us a coherent account. The Chinese angle is simpler, and a good sighter is supplied by the Russian economist Sergey Glazyev here: https://thesaker.is/events-like-these-only-happen-once-every-century-sergey-glazyev/ His account is suitably arrogant and geopolitical, and fits well with what we know of the relationship of Putin and Xi.
This begins as a philosophical undertaking, in my opinion. It cannot be reactionary. It cannot be aimed at avoiding collapse or gangs or Chinese socialist hegemony. It must stand in its terms as an account of human truth, and must supply an opening to authenticity even in an age of total artifice such as ours. The principle that then follows is not that men of will and capacity design a solution fitting to our presumed individualities but that our truth dictates the solution, or certainly its framework. That is the very essence of individuality, after all. 7
Posted by Thorn on Sat, 28 May 2022 23:49 | # “His nationalism is revanchist, imperialist, and fundamentally Duginist” Or maybe Putin’s intentions are to protect Russia from attack from the decadent West—be it militarily and-or culturally? 8
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 29 May 2022 07:08 | # Well, what in the behaviour of the Russian Army suggests that this is a defensive action? Why is the Russian Army occupying the southern cities? Russia has been a well of lies for a hundred years. The Kremlin propagandists tell their own people that they very nobly never target civilians, and they tell the rest of the world that they only target domestic buildings because the “cowardly” Ukrainian forces hide among civilians. These are lies. The Kremlin policy is ethnic cleansing and re-population with Russians. So far, ten million Ukrainians are in internal or external exile from the place of their home. It is not fitting for you, Thorn, to be guided in your thinking by such a morally debauched entity, or by those among us - who are many - who have internalised its lying. One of the strange things that I have come to understand about dissenters like ourselves is that we are subject to the same conflictedness, the same hatred projected outwards, as the anti-racists who create symbols of us in their minds and rail at it. We, too, create condemnatory symbols but of “the West”, “the Jews”, “America” and so forth, and rail away with the best of them. As soon as the condemnation sets in, rational, evidence-based argument leaves by the front door. 9
Posted by Thorn on Sun, 29 May 2022 11:14 | # “The Kremlin policy is ethnic cleansing and re-population with Russians.” Given the Russian population is declining at an alarming rate, how is that even possible? I maintain Russia is defending herself against NATO aggression. Even Pope Francis—of all people—said as much. Ukraine should take Kissinger’s sound advice and cede territory. Period. 10
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 29 May 2022 13:43 | # GW writes: This begins as a philosophical undertaking, in my opinion. In some non-trivial sense, everything begins as a philosophical undertaking. The problem with philosophy is words get in the way. Sometimes one must know a tree by its fruits. You perhaps can relate to the words “ethnic genetic interests” so let’s try something that is even more to the point than Salter’s math: Genetic Correlation Structures Just as we may say “genes matter”, so we may, by virtue of my first post here at MR lo these many years ago, say “genetic correlation structures matter”. So let’s talk about Genetic Correlation Structures mattering and Property Money as regards Hitler’s invasion of Poland & Putin’s invasion of Ukraine: In both cases territorial disputes turned into “brother wars” due to unstable ethnic correlations with territorial jurisdiction. Ethnicity correlates with genetic correlation structures. If the military aged men had all been receiving the land rents, the most likely resolution of the dispute would have been transferring some of those rents, by individual choices, to a corporation representing their respective ethnicities interests in “bidding wars” over land, as a dispute processing mode prior to “brother wars” breaking out. Does this eliminate brother wars? No. It does, however, reduce their likelihood. Now, if you are true to your pattern of responses to anything I set forth as a solution to the problems facing us, you will say something along the lines that this is not “philosophically grounded” or something. That it, like any attempt to “solve a problem” is a “reaction”. But at some point, GW my old friend, doesn’t it behoove you to set forth what you see as the consequences of your philosophy in operational terms—not because there is no underlying “philosophy” but because people want to understand the consequences of all your words, so they may “by your solutions know your philosophy”? Why do you presume there to be no underlying “philosophy” to my “reactionary” proposals? 11
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 29 May 2022 17:36 | #
James, first of all, you provide a disservice in taking an overly sympathetic stance toward the invader in these instances, contributing to the counterproductive over-sympathy for Nazi Germany that exists in WN and now, bizarrely, with Putin. In the case of America’s White population, predominantly German and Irish, beleaguered with PC and suffering in reaction indeed, prone to pandering false currency which continues to circulate, with no help from the scientistic view that you propose, bereft of historical depth. As with all of this false currency, history and thus the situation of a “fair”, empirical negotiation of plebiscite, would begin only where it is convenient for Hitler and his imperialist idol, Frederick the Great: Thus, the German voters would be occupiers of his aggrandizement, every bit as disinterested that Poles had this territory before F. The Great, and that the Treaties of Versailles (and similar, St. Germain regarding Czech) were restoring lands to Czechs and Poles with hermeneutic (historical) consideration that a pure empirical plebiscite of the moment as you propose, does not take into account (and is quite arguably wrong, not to take into account). Particularly with the perspective of hindsight, the boundaries decided by the Versailles committee appear fairly considered; with Danzig rendered neutral and Germany still retaining Breslau and East Prussia. Germany was still huge. Did Hitler have to embark upon a “brothers” war, or did he want lebensraum at the expense of his neighbors, well beyond Poland, Ukraine, especially for its fertile land, going to up to the Urals and oil fields of the Caucuses. And did he not render lies, big lies, that WN to this day are all too willing/wishing to believe (in “The Greatest Story Never Told”) that Poles killed 56,000 German civilians (interwar)? and was Hitler’s last decree to have the body of Frederick the Great exhumed and moved further into Germany? Frederick the Great, an imperialist who hated the Poles and who held it as a strategic article of faith that if you remove Poland’s access to the sea, that you cut off the life blood of their nationhood. That, before his heir annexed the western part of Poland in the three part division with Austria and Russia. The point being it wasn’t that far back in history that Prussia invaded and took this land from Poland; and yet that is where history always seems to begin with American WN, with no help from your over emphasis on empirical resolution in plebiscite or tax negotiation in situ absent hermeneutic (historical consideration): not even the fact that Germany had just lost a brutal first war which arguably (I would argue, along with Hastings), was largely at their blame - after its destruction, it is valid to ask, who were they to complain (except in the currency of America’s pandered-to White German reactionaries)? But Hitler was NOT the “great statesman” that Greg Johnson, functioning under the misdirection of William Luther Pierce’s false currency among other false currency, held Hitler to be.
You make the same convenient historical oversight with regard to Ukraine’s eastern provinces, or, rather, what were Ukrainian lands before the holodomor; lands which have been important for mineral and industrial resource. Now, were I empowered with the decision, I would not countenance fighting by Ukraine for these provinces, not fuel a war, whether by (((Zelensky’s))) Operation Clean Break regime, courtesy Nuland and her husband, Kagan, by whatever neo Nazi contingent may exist of the Azov Battalion or anyone else - not worth it; go for a soft melding of the Ukraine/ Russian relation over time. They are indeed, more kindred than Poles and Germans. But conceding these Eastern provinces to Putin would have been enough for the time being; his imperialist war is an absolute disgrace; there was no excuse for him not to join in coordination with true ethnonationalists in alliance against the Neo-Liberal Mulatto supremacy of the West. A civic nationalist, presiding over an imperialist kleptocracy with the veneer of Orthodox Christian countenance and oligarchic support which is largely Jewish… tacit approval from Israel ... probably Chabad Lubovich ...whatever other thugs from Chechnya, even Africa that he might deploy.
12
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 29 May 2022 18:08 | # Don’t know how true it is, but it could make sense that Israeli Jews would seek alternative safe haven in Eastern Ukraine, old haunts. Forgot to mention kosher Oligarch, Ihor Kolomoysky, who had a big part in installing Zelensky, but we knew; it’s only to say that I wouldn’t support his war as he does not represent Ukrainian ethnonationalist strategy; has been all too willing to spill European blood, obviously willing to lead us expanding into absolute catastrophe. 13
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 29 May 2022 20:26 | # Whatever historic disservice my exemplars may have done, it pales in comparison to the disservice done by those who elide my solution. In what way did you respond to Property Money*? It isn’t that difficult a read so there really is no excuse to fail to respond to it. Pick other examples if you must, but don’t get lost in the details of historic grudges when we have to deal with the present crisis—and especially don’t pretend to respond to me if you haven’t bothered reading what I wrote. *Understand that by resorting to a critique of “empiricism” in response to my request for a mode of philosophical discourse that permits people to consider the consequences of an underlying philosophy, you are doing a disservice to the philosophical project itself, as is GW. “Words have consequences” as the saying goes, and especially when grappling with the difficult, necessarily ineffable aspects of philosophical discourse, if you remove from our toolbox certain modes of discourse, you are sabotaging the effort. 14
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 29 May 2022 22:26 | #
The model breaks down when one side is not engaging in a local ethnic dispute but has a sacred vision of empire. I would certainly argue that both Hitler and Putin were/are ambitious for empire, not merely for bringing together a folk made disparate by history. Again, I come back to the southern coastal cities. Boris Johnson trolled Putin the other day asking when, now that the Azov Brigade has been defeated and “denazification” is a fact on the ground, he would be ordering his forces out of the south. Zelensky’s government is fixating on a renewed Russian attack on Kiev once they’ve tied down the Donbas. An ethnic dispute this ain’t. That it has been presented as such by the Kremlin to their own people and to their competitors is normal practise. Ultimately, the great powers operate geopolitically, and their foreign agendas and geopolitical calculations are well concealed. Personally, I like Daniel’s historical approach. Don’t know if I would take Putin’s historical background as far into the past as Daniel takes Hitler’s, but it surely behoves us to know that the root cause of the Ukraine war is not Nuland’s deft defenestration of the puppet Yanukovych or, indeed, NATO expansionism, which is another favourite of the WN Putinists. The root cause lies in the collapse of the Soviet empire, and the definite sense of national humiliation that occasioned to Russia’s elites, not unlike that of Germans after Versailles. In the ensuing years neoconservatism captured the GOP and PNAC became central to its analysis. The two contrary forces ... the humiliation and the neocon geopolitics ... collided in Russian minds, and from 2000 (so before 9/11) what was now Putin’s Russia began to leave the orbit of nations oriented or orienting towards the Western model. The revanchism and geopolitics was established from there. That’s my own historical position at the moment. If one takes the view that, on the contrary, it’s all about the failings of the West one denies Russia political and intellectual maturity and agency. She deserves that, at least. I’ll have to think separately about your question concerning philosophy. 15
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 29 May 2022 23:14 | # GW writes: “The model breaks down when one side is not engaging in a local ethnic dispute but has a sacred vision of empire.” Any PAX will view incursions from outside, for whatever reason, to be grounds for neutralization if not elimination. Both you and Daniel, with your “historical approach” are being unresponsive. You may wish to believe you are being responsive, but you will be irrelevant* when the time comes. * “irrelevant” in the sense that, to first order, one must address the mode of dispute processing. Your respective historical approaches will be relevant only after the bloodshed has put in place dispute processing within which your arguments may hold some sway in deciding those disputes to the extent their *words* are persuasive. 16
Posted by Thorn on Sun, 29 May 2022 23:16 | # Good grief, GW! Simply, the Russian invasion of Ukraine could have been avoided if Zelenski declared Ukraine will forever be a neutral country!! He didn’t. Why? Because he is a puppet of the CIA et al. Follow the history of the events leading up to the overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych until now. Putin is justified. 17
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 30 May 2022 00:22 | # James, your criticism of “my historical approach” ignores the fact that hermeneutics is a process of circulating inquiry, not fixed on the present circumstance, nor stuck in history, but rather able to return to a more empirical verification / implementation and recognizing that end of operational verification where necessary. Indeed, I was not addressing your tax/dispute idea. You did not address the problem in your statement that I was addressing. You were the one who brought Hitler and his invasion into the discussion (without apparent concern of exacerbating the poorly informed demographic of American WN) and this is not the first time you proposed border conflict resolution in that example (in prior proposed dispute processing, plebiscite and voting with feet) to resolve this border dispute without the historic consideration of hermeneutics. 18
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 30 May 2022 02:21 | # I didn’t criticize your historical approach. I said it was not responsive. Your historical approach was critical of an irrelevant detail of my offering, hence unresponsive. Understand that I’m perfectly willing to accept whatever position you wish to set forth so we can get down to brass tacks and minimize if not avoid the blood-letting that is likely to erupt not only between “whites” and “non-whites”, but between people of your opinion on these conflicts and those who I was attempting to appeal to. My apologies for being less than sensitive to your and GW’s sensitivities but we have to cut out the horseshit and deal with reality—which is that we’re being set at each other’s throats by our common enemies and we’d better come up with a dispute processing mode that denies them their strategy. And lest I be accused of being inadequately “philosophical” there really is this “problem” of European individualism that I am addressing by working with it in Property Money. Money is a technology. Property is a technology. The dispute processing modes for distributing money hence distributing property, including land holdings, are technologies. Failure to deal with these technologies in a manner that aligns with our nature is the start of “the problem of technology” leading, via land holdings, to the problem of war. So pick whatever historical narrative you want, and let’s talk about the problem at hand: war. 19
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 30 May 2022 04:53 | #
“A likely blood letting between people you are attempting to appeal to” ? ...and “people with opinions on these conflicts, such as mine?” You are attempting to appeal to those sympathetic to Hitler and Putin? And you would mitigate the (NOT) likelihood of their letting my blood (what a foolish waste of their young life should they even try) by helping them to try to erase the history for their convenience and feel themselves justified for their better position in “bidding wars as adjudicated by tax collectors of land rents” ? Is that it, why your remarks weren’t directed to people with my opinion? - You are right, I was not addressing the point of the tax collector adjudicator, though it may be worth consideration if he had some historical knowledge; but then, you have not given a great deal of consideration to the DNA Nations concept (though I attempted to put you at the forefront). The incisive act of bringing our genetic groups under our unionization and leaving others out, even if they are in an eastern city, is a helluva lot better idea than hoping that the cities will get nuked. Last I spoke to MacDonald, less than two months ago, he said that he might get behind the DNA Nations project if it is gotten underway; but he didn’t feel that he could contribute much at this point, “not being much of an organizer.” Maybe people should help out with the DNA Nations, or maybe they should go with Matt Parrott’s agenda and pray for Armageddon and for Jesus to return.
20
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 30 May 2022 07:39 | # Thorn, Zelenski offered neutrality after the Russian’s were defeated at Kiev. But he didn’t concede territory in advance, only offering “negotiation”, which is diplomatically standard. Putin did not respond but, instead, concentrated his forces to attack in the north. Why? Because he does not want negotiation. He never wanted negotiation. He wants empire. His objective is always and unchangingly empire. Nothing you are imbibing elsewhere on this war is serving your purpose of understanding why it is happening. WNers do not understand, and most do not seem to want to understand. They are misleading themselves because their hatreds are too pleasurable to give up. This morning I put up the following comment at The Conservative Woman to try to show people what lies beneath: https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/while-we-fight-the-bear-the-red-dragon-grows-ever-stronger/
21
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 30 May 2022 09:48 | # I don’t think I am being unresponsive, James; but the present circumstance in Ukraine is just not an ethnic dispute. That’s a wrong reading of it, although I concede it is the reading which most of WN applies. There are ethnic disputes around the world, obviously. The last one in Europe was in the Balkans in the 1990s, although that was also a religiously-defined struggle. The terms on which your scheme can work, or at least weigh against the slide into a shooting war, probably need defining more narrowly to exclude the over-arching agendas of the great powers. 22
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 30 May 2022 13:10 | # daniels writes: you have not given a great deal of consideration to the DNA Nations concept “DNA Nations”: 200k words, and no clear mechanisms defined for dispute processing When the blood starts soaking the ground, no one is going to bother wading through your endless prose and even now it is unrealistic to ask that anyone do more than you claim KMac has done, which is basically agree that ethnic genetic interest-based separatism (which everyone has been talking about since at least Robertson’s “The Ethnostate”) is a good idea. 23
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 30 May 2022 13:23 | # GW writes: There are ethnic disputes around the world, obviously. The last one in Europe was in the Balkans in the 1990s, although that was also a religiously-defined struggle. The terms on which your scheme can work, or at least weigh against the slide into a shooting war, probably need defining more narrowly to exclude the over-arching agendas of the great powers. Broadly defined, all war depends on the “religious” beliefs of the armies as the source of their morale. If your men are demoralized, you lose the war—at least to the extent that you depend on your men to wage war. So even Putin’s war is and Hitler’s war was quasi-religious. The bloodiest conflict in European history on a per capita basis was religous: The Thirty Years War—and that followed on the Gutenberg Press (just as we are now in the analogous Internet age). That’s why my approach is based on maximizing individual moral agency. Consider that “moral communities” is the central concept in KMac’s thesis in “Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition”—and it is within these “moral communities” that “altruistic punishment” functions. If you fight this, you are fighting European nature. If you wish to change European nature due to a “philosophical” objection to it, then I get where you are coming from and we simply have a philosophical disagreement. BTW: My relationship to KMac’s evolutionary psychology of European individualism is reminiscent of Jung’s dream about his “depth psychology” and its relationship to Freud’s psychoanalytic theory. Although I can’t locate the reference at present, Jung had a dream in which he and Freud were digging in the dirt but then Jung kept digging deeper until he broke through to a cavern filled with archaeological artifacts which he regarded as the “collective unconscious”. In my particular take on “individualism”, the “cavern” I’ve found is not just pre-European, but pre-hominin extending back 600M years (yes, GW, I know “sex” is older than that and the Cambrian explosion is slightly younger than that—don’t try to score pedant points at the expense of our people, ok?). The “philosophical” relevance? So let’s forget, for the moment, that there is empirical validation of this since to admit anything of the external world into our “philosophy” puts me in danger of being dismissed as “Lockean” or “Cartesian” or something. We must find a point of departure that is purely internal in order to avoid such dismissal, right? So what about our sexual feelings? Can we agree those are sufficiently internal as to avoid being called on the carpet for attempting to self-create devoid of heritage? Can we admit that sexual feelings can, under some circumstances, be regarded as part of Authentic Being? Can we also admit that the strength of sexual feelings aroused are not just those present in the procreative act, but may also involve feelings of aggression? Finally, is it a bridge too far to bring up Sexual Being as differentiated into male and female aspects—the male aspect being more associated with aggression? Or does that bridge carry us across the Cartesian divide into observation and hence, into verboten territory? Since we are not permitted “reaction” to “problems” must we put off talking about what is being done to sexuality in the contemporary world—or may we, at least, be permitted to talk about our feelings about what is being done to our sexuality—especially as men—despite the fact that it a “reaction”? 24
Posted by Thorn on Mon, 30 May 2022 18:46 | # “He wants empire. His objective is always and unchangingly empire.” Yes, GW, that’s what many western propagandists are contending; that’s what they’d have us believe. But I’m on the side that thinks Putin is mainly looking out for the security of Russia and its citizens. (FWIW, and if you believe the Russian polls, Putin is currently enjoying the highest favorability ratings of his entire political career, >80%.) At any rate, my opinion has been pretty much swayed by people such as Douglas Macgregor—especially vis-a-vis Ukraine. Of course he doesn’t always hit the bullseye, but he’s always on target.
Watch: https://www.bitchute.com/video/Bms5XCkaxFK0/ Topics:
25
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 30 May 2022 19:00 | #
Hey James, your word count does NOTHING to prove that it is incumbent upon me to come up with a novel dispute processing method. You’ve held up this absurd requirement that I must compete with you for a better idea than pairwise duels. It does NOTHING to disprove the value of the DNA NATIONS project and to demonstrate that you might have done better to help facilitate it. If you think it needs your spin on Sortocracy, then YOU could add that concern in promotion; in fact, I included the idea (roughly, without the goofy stuff about pairwise duels). 1000 Words, since you are into word counts. Furthermore, I don’t care what you think about my “endless prose” because I know the value in making sense of what is going-on in what I write and say. You and GW were never going to acknowledge that; it’s bad, speaks badly of you, but I don’t care, as I am not the slightest mystified by it anymore. I know that you are selfish, dishonest and limited enough for it not to matter that much to me. You can go and cry with your Hitler and Jesus people in despair that ‘nothing can be done’ and hope that the American cities will be nuked for the prayer of dueling farmers and shield maidens. ... when you were altercast to be at the helm of the way forward and chose instead to turn it into a competition. You could have helped encourage MacDonald to publish the 1000 word paper (which I gladly conceded for him to edit and which he did edit). Finally, your opinion of my work (GW’s either) means NOTHING to me.
26
Posted by Thorn on Mon, 30 May 2022 20:53 | #
Watch: CrossTalking with Glenn Diesen and Maxim Suchkov. https://www.rt.com/shows/crosstalk/556280-ukraine-propaganda-machine-cracking/ 27
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 30 May 2022 21:47 | # Thorn, please desist from planting links to “expertise” on the thread. It is extremely tiresome to encounter the endless stream of vocal individuals who think it is useful for the civilisational glories of the European mind to be lost just to get even with DC or “neocons” or whatever. These people have little to no geopolitical reading, and absolutely no conceptual ability. If you want to access the thoughts of an expert, read Sergey Glazyev. He is a guaranteed cure for all “Itz dah Joos, itz dah Deep State” artistes: https://thesaker.is/events-like-these-only-happen-once-every-century-sergey-glazyev/ 28
Posted by Thorn on Mon, 30 May 2022 22:21 | # Thorn, please desist from planting links to “expertise” on the thread. Sure thing, chief. (But did you watch the vids? I doubt it.) He is a guaranteed cure for all “Itz dah Joos, itz dah Deep State” artistes Did my links indicate “Itz dah Joos”? No. ... As for “itz dah Deep State”, that depends on what your definition of the “Deep State” is and what their interests are.
29
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 30 May 2022 22:41 | # daniels, I provided a link to each of the word-counted documents. Do us the same courtesy for your 1000 word essay if you claim it to be a succinct description of the dispute processing mode offered by your proposal. And if you are going to bring in “The State of Nature” as “goofy” then you need to also include details on how you plan on dealing with prisons or the state of ultimate exile. And don’t pretend that this is a huge part of my offering since prisons are virtually eliminated and this applies only a very small portion of the population under Pax Sorotcracy—but it does need to be spelled out for those that insist on dealing with the human civilization vs nature conflict up front and in a way that isn’t just “We’ll have Top Men who are Accountable taking care that we don’t denude nature.” The culture of critique strategy hides behind the parapet of vague offerings that aren’t even wrong while attacking in unfair ways the clarity offered by others—which is what you just did with your “goofy” comment on a yet another irrelevant detail. 30
Posted by Thorn on Mon, 30 May 2022 22:41 | # @27 Good piece you linked to there, GW. I couldn’t articulate what Sergey Glazyev said any better than he. /wink 31
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 30 May 2022 23:12 | #
That just goes to show how fucking dishonest that you are. That same link will show that your word count includes comments. The essay is 1000 words long.
I have to do no such thing. 32
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 30 May 2022 23:50 | # James, the methodological problem with the empirical is that it a microscope. One can make a photographic image. It can be absolutely true to itself. But it is relatable to the life of human beings only via a detailed comparitive process. In philosophy one aims to make a living space for human being itself. The living space may not be bearable. It may be a prison cell. But then it may be something perfect. Anyway, methodologically, it is a completely different exercise. One simply cannot fit the square peg of a quantitative answer into the round whole of a qualitative question. Still, the philosophical mind will patiently work through the scientist’s offerings but then lapse into an awkward silence. The scientist may well then interpret the silence as disinterest, which is understandable but not strictly accurate. That said, there is a safeguarding role for science in philosophy, which is to be available when required for verifying purposes. Philosophy should not be grounded in or produce literal untruths. An someone who is simply not able to even imagine what religious feeling is, I might well be tempted to conclude that the Thirty Years War was an argument over untruths. Untruth and the human capacity to internalise it are curses upon all men. Speaking scientistically of sex and the European psyche, I think that individuality is cost-controlled by fairness; and that this tensioned bipolarity which so interests MacDonald begins in the European woman’s demand for life-long devotion from the father of her child. In other words, in the European survival strategy of encephalisation over sexualisation. Moral punishment begins with woman’s stricture to her husband not to wander away from the home. That is the meaning, obviously, of “house bond”. This answers for the development of fairness. But individuality (let’s avoid the “ism”, which is a separate thing) also begs an explanation. If we are to root that in reproductive behaviours too, we have to let go of MacDonald’s thesis about hunter-gatherers and farmers (is that right? I have not read the book). We probably also have to let go of his prior thesis about small groups evolved in the northern woodlands or whatever. In the cold climate northern hemisphere women select for intelligence, it is true. But that doesn’t take us very far. Does your Cambrian explosion thesis offer insights into the problem? 33
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 31 May 2022 00:10 | # But, Thorn, does Glazyev convince you that Putin is acting in Ukraine in accordance with the geopolitics and not merely from reaction to the “neocon” removal of his Lukashenko-style puppet , or some made-up paranoia about nuclear weapon sitings? 34
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 31 May 2022 01:25 | # GW says:
GW thinks a lot of himself, this, after having demonstrated that his level is a yoke and a burden to philosophy, nothing more. After 10 years of gaslighting, GW predictably moves into assimilate ideas that I have been saying all the while, to present them as his thoughts.
With stupid right wing cliches adopted from his cohorts whose hatred of me because I don’t love Hitler and Jesus served his unmerited gargantuan ego, he has for years tried to fit me into the role of his foil for his autobiography - absurdly reactionary to anything remotely academic, trying to position me as regurgitating Marxist “sociology” top down, nothing more. And when I have called attention to the absurdity of this, noting first of all that sociology is a useful instrument, in some ways most relevant, as its unit of analysis is the group (a race is a group; and sociologists will tabulate immigration numbers, demographic change and impact, etc.) and thus, that criticism of this neutral unit of analysis is absurd of itself, like saying a telescope is bad and only a microscope is good… ...but moreover, is only one unit of analysis that my discipline (he will stupidly gaslight that I am a “communicationist”) will examine in the graceful process of hermeneutics (a process that he will ignore in favor of trying to reify provisional topoi, which he will call “clunky” in service mainly of himself, and say “everyone” agrees with him - “everyone” as in a few Nazis, Jesus freaks and other jealous, scientistic boomers chasing (((red capes)))). And now, for the inherent instability of his right wing reaction, he is going to say that people are obsessed with “the Jooz”, as if they are not instrumental in setting the agendas, taking the initiatives, and greasing the palms - their red capes of hermeneutics waved before the STEM boomers to provoke a reaction that no matter how many times I explain to him that the hermeneutic process is duty bound for its non Cartesian mandate to circulate back from the more speculative “broader space” of human authenticity to empirical verification as often as need be, never sinks in as the graceful process that it is, but which he has called “clunky” in service of himself. Gaslighting from him known no end - sine qua non, the definition that he accused me of creating privately, of incommensurability, out of whole cloth. It’s non private reality provided, its utility demonstrated, but nothing but gaslighting in response. 35
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 31 May 2022 07:15 | # I do wish, Daniel, that you would refrain from writing your missives when the Polish vodka bottle on the table in front of you only has a few drops of its contents left. Alcohol instils in you the need to drag everything back to your misunderstood “self” and the shocking offences against this “self” occasioned by “right-wing, red-caped, boomer, gas-lighter, jealous scientistic, Nazi Jesus freaks”. Do you not see that you make the point of these “Jesus, STEM, Cartesian, non-mandated, incommensurable microscope users” for them. (Should I have thrown in “Hitler”? Probably. But never mind.) Which is convenient and saves on having to reply; but also inflicts upon the innocent reader the fate that is wading waist-deep through the treacle of your mind. And I wouldn’t inflict that on anyone. The point, of course, is that you never use one word or one thought when a couple of dozen will do. I mean, this:
... is a doozy even for you. Self-awareness is obviously not your thing. Like world peace, one can’t expect discipline and precis to break out any time soon; although I have observed before that when you write of your personal history and your travels the tangled, faux-philosopher gives way to an observer of life bathed in light. You are a natural writer. You have something to say. But you are not satisfied with that. You desire to be not that but a thinker, and so the vodka bottle comes out of the cupboard, and the trouble starts all over again. 36
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 31 May 2022 11:13 | #
Frist of all, I haven’t had a drink in three weeks and less than seven times this year (not more than four in those isolated instances). So there is the end of the your first inevitable straw men issuing forth from your naricissitic personality disorder. 37
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 31 May 2022 12:07 | #
. I would say, “nice try” but it isn’t. Because you are merely projecting your dishonesty, the dishonesty of a narcissistic personality disorder case, on to me. Indeed, you had Bowery try to forbid me from using the term “Cartesian” as it would demoralize “our” (i.e., his and yours, I suppose) people. The microscope metaphor was invoked because you invoked it here, without, of course, copping to the fact that you were trying to appropriate the analogy by which I had tried to correct your objections several times, that is when you tried to criticize me as being under the sway of Jewish sociology, while ignoring the fact that sociology is one instrument, but a neutral instrument, the unit of analysis of which could not be more relevant, as its unit of analysis is the group; and a race is a group (while we are beleaguered by anti racism (anti groupism). And while, moreover, neither I nor my discipline as a whole is stuck on this or any other unit of analysis, to ridicule attention to it, as opposed to your idiotic focus on the largely irrelevant unit of analysis which is psychology, is like saying only a microscope is good and a telescope is bad. It’s that stupid, especially when heremeneutic inquiry moves through different units of analysis, where necessary; i.e., I am not fixated on “top town” sociology, as your idiotic strawmanning desperately tries to assert; despite my having corrected your in this regard many times. Hermeneutics (like emergentism) is of a non-Cartesian mandate indeed, but a necessary process of inquiry thus, not stuck in the role that you would try to altercast for the sake of foil to your autobiography. You and James are of a STEM background and while your preference for more of a scientific approach is understandable, it does not excuse you from seeing what is brought to bear as complementary, not mutually exclusive or antagonistic to science and, truth be known, that it is philosophically superordinate. You tried to co opt this argument that I have made against your strawman many times by talking about verification above, as in the rigorous end of the hermeneutic circle. The obnoxiousness of your attempting to appropriate to your unmerited, gargantuan ego, ideas that you have gaslighted coming from me for years, was something I did not want to let go; though arguing with the sick, dishonest man that you are, never changes anything. Here is your gaslighting psychologizing now again, trying to say its in my mind. While “Hitler” and “Jesus” are invoked as favorites of the few allies that you have, egging- on your gargantuan, unmerited ego in its strawmanning campaign against anything that I have said, as the purveyor of worthwhile information; you’d rather “sweep aside” rather than not be considered as having the only deep and serious opinion.
Yes, I do. And just because I have not done so here, does not mean that every word I use does not count. All words have been chosen for exact reasons. And while your gaslighting is the sine qua non (nothing substantive behind it), the example of incommensurablity was probably the most flagrant example ever, as you accused me of “making up a private definition” (I have saved the evidence, even if it was erased here to save yourself the embarrassment of having been exposed so badly in your bad will.
“A doozy”
Oh, really? like I don’t realize that I write this for the audience, as you will never cop to what I am saying? Having made these points before; and putting them together in compound sentences because I want to say what needs to be said for the record and then get the hell out of here, away from your disease, your lying, gaslighting, ignorant, narcissistic personality disorder.
In your narcissistic personality disorder you project again; your drinking, your lack of contentment to be a participant for your modest abilities. I am not a drinker, you are. There is nothing faux about what I write. I am always concerned with relevance. My thinking has made sense, deep sense of European philosophical history and its necessary applications to current circumstance, a sense making that continues to grow, while you remain not only unsatisfied by your limited contributions (in fairness, a few things moved along - the undifferentiated other of gentiles; holding fast to emergentism) but wanting to be the be-all and end all of philosophy for which you lack the personality, and with that far removed from sufficient judgment, intelligence, knowledge and skill.
38
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 31 May 2022 12:11 | # Frist of all First of all. So there is the end of the first inevitable straw man issuing forth from your narcissistic personality disorder. 39
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 31 May 2022 13:33 | # daniels writes: That just goes to show how fucking dishonest that you are. That same link will show that your word count includes comments. I don’t think so. The way I selected the subset of text on your front page for dnanations was to CTRL-F for “Posted” to find the first comment, and then select all text prior to that as the content. But I did make an error which overcounted the words in my linked documents as well as in your linked document—so the relative counts remain correct. I used the linux ‘wc’ command and read off the last number (character count) rather than the second to last number (word count). Here are the corrected word counts: “DNA Nations”: 33669 words, and no clear mechanisms defined for dispute processing But let’s say that you were correct, that I over-estimated your word count: The fact that I provided links to the source documents provided you with the ability to check my statements. Please do the same for your “1000 word” essay which you say KMac endorses and which you appear to be claiming provides a succinct introduction to the essence of DNA Nations that can orient us in reading the rest of your offerings.
40
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 31 May 2022 13:40 | # GW writes: James, the methodological problem with the empirical is that it a microscope. While I appreciate and largely agree with your perspective on the empirical, I did go to some effort to avoid any reference to observation in my “BTW” which is where I asked you questions—ending in asking your permission for Sexual Being to do so much as perceive there to exist an opposite sex. That’s pretty damn accommodating of someone who is, repeatedly suspected if not accused of, trying to set forth an “empirical” ground, is it not? 41
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 31 May 2022 14:13 | # GW writes: An someone who is simply not able to even imagine what religious feeling is, I might well be tempted to conclude that the Thirty Years War was an argument over untruths. Untruth and the human capacity to internalise it are curses upon all men. It is rather urgent that we correctly understand The Thirty Years War since the Internet has unleashed on our world dynamics reminiscent of the Gutenberg Press. And I do have some rather valuable real world history and credentials when it comes to this topic, so please pay close attention. When I say “broadly defined” of “religious feeling” I mean it in this sense: Every decision is an act if not leap of faith. All our decisions are informed by our limited knowledge and limited intelligence to act on that knowledge. While we may remain true to ourselves in our phenomenal perceptions, we are on shaky ground the moment we begin to interpret them—yet interpret them we do without so much as a prayer that we may “bracket” them to attain the elusive transcendental attitude. So we are creatures of faith. Now, you may wish to interject a qualitative distinction between the kind of faith it takes to, say, interpret a collection of sensations as an object of our world, vs faith it takes to believe in a big hairy thunderer who intervenes in our affairs based on what rituals we engage in, but I would assert that these are on a spectrum of faith. It is in this sense of “religion” that I think it reasonable to be concerned that we are under a supremacist theocracy that demands our obsequious acceptance of its articles of faith even as it destroys us with them—and that its demands are enforced with techniques vastly more sophisticated and malign than those available to the Holy Roman Emperor. 42
Posted by Thorn on Tue, 31 May 2022 17:19 | #
Much of what Glazyev says WRT the reasons for provoking Russia’s execution of the “special military operation” correspond to what Douglas Macgregor has been saying. GW, can we agree the USA is using Ukraine as a proxy war to weaken Russia? Is the goal of that proxy war to oust Putin and return Russia back to the good ol’ Yeltsin days? If the USA succeeds, then the Western powers, led by the USA, can move in and capitalize on Russia’s wealth. Once that’s accomplished China is their next target ... at least that’s what many believe is the course the rich and powerful have embarked on. (We shall see if Glazyev’s scenario number 3, “Destruction of mankind”, is triggered as their grand scheme unfolds.) Such fun! .... NOT!!! 43
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 31 May 2022 18:02 | # Thorn, Washington is “using Ukraine as a proxy war to weaken Russia”. But we have to be careful not to suggest that Washington somehow initiated or made necessary the Russian Army’s invasion. Glazyev’s whole point is that Moscow has its own geopolitical analysis and a programme which reaches far beyond Ukraine, and connects with China’s attempt to assert its civilisation, values, and economic and financial power across the southern hemisphere, defenestrating American and Western influence, and succeeding to global hegemony. Washington is acting in defence of that hegemony and of Western civilisation as a whole. Does the “walking pace” of Washington’s arming of the Ukrainians suggest that its objective is to castrate rather than just throw back the Russian forces? Yes, because the Kremlin’s drive for empire has to be defeated completely yet, because of the nuclear dimension, at a speed which reduces the possibilities for conflict-shock and sudden, escalatory decisions by the losing side. Strategically, I don’t find anything to disagree with in the American approach so far. We’ll see if they can pull it off. 44
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 31 May 2022 18:24 | #
Not true. The DNA Nations document that was posted here at MR and was presented to post at OO by MacDonald (and which he edited) is 1000 words. 45
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 31 May 2022 18:28 | #
Again, it is not incumbent upon me to develop a dispute resolution mechanism that you deem novel, nor to engage your retarded proposal to re-institute pairwise duels. 46
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 31 May 2022 18:36 | #
I did not claim that this can re-orient the rest of my offerings. Here is the latest version 1,352 Words I will look for the version that MacDonald edited in a minute…
James Bowery’s “Laboratory of the States” platform proposes sovereignty through free choice, as people may “vote with their feet” to establish human ecologies through controlled experimentation. The control would be established through freedom from association—that is, the freedom to not associate with others. However, under the current circumstances, efforts to instantiate these deliberately organized “human ecologies” are best conducted in an implicit manner. Indeed, under the circumstances, they must be largely implicit (for example, regarding laws which prohibit realtors from mentioning race to buyers or sellers). Bowery suggests promoting abstract terms such as “our valuation of freedom of choice”. Later, the communities should be able to enforce explicit freedom of and from association. This freedom from association is corollary to individual freedom of choice and association. Rather than trying to overthrow the the liberal zeitgeist of our epoch, Bowery maintains that we ought to hold liberals to their principles. We will respect and grant their valuation of freedom to go/and or be associated with whom they like and we as European peoples expect the same freedom of choice to go/ and or associate with whom we like. As far as European Americans and other European diaspora go, Bowery has, since his initial proposal for the laboratory of the states platform, concluded that rather than state-sized units, county-sized political units are more optimal—the sheriff and county being the most viable and manageable scale of organization in defense against the nation-state apparatus in its death throes. I would argue that the initial state is rather a step toward unionization – a virtual and rules based association, though not made formal as a political action group to begin, just an informal union of unions based on voluntary DNA groupings. This freely and deliberately chosen state/county human ecology is very different from the deeply situated, naturally evolving human ecologies of Europe and Russia, where our people have evolved over tens of thousands of years in relation to particular habitats. It is surely critical for us to maintain these ecologies as well. We would not want to be without either the freely chosen state/county-sized ecologies of European diaspora derived by choice within a lifespan, nor without the truly deep, historical ecologies of our European and Russian nations. These are both goods that we would want to maintain, and yet they are very different concerns. This focuses WN on the task of coordination. We wouldn’t really want to give up either, but how to coordinate these two goods? This is where a Euro-DNA-based nation begins to look like a potential means of coordination, allowing for various expressions of our native Europeans while never losing sight of their essence. There is a third crucial matter to coordinate. If a nation of European descended peoples is to have an economy big enough to fund a space program and other large projects, it is likely to need a size larger than the average state (let alone county) to provide for a sufficient economy; and if, as Conner adds, nations of European peoples are to hold up to the growing power of China, they will need to be large. Thesis: The Indigenous Euro-DNA Nation would provide a means for coordinating smaller States/Counties, both freely chosen human ecologies and those of deep, historical evolution, while providing the means for pursuing a mutual larger manifestation as well. By endogenous here, we mean from the inside out. That is, in proposing autonomous, sovereign nations of European peoples, we should begin with those who would like to be a part of it first—begin by focusing on what we can do as opposed to what we cannot do. It is endogenous also in that the nation is corporeal, literally of the people—their native European DNA being the prime criterion for inclusion. That would be in contrast, though not in opposition, to other WN nation building efforts using an exogenous (from the outside-in) approach, such as the Northwest Front. There are clear practical advantages of a native Euro-DNA Nation that begins as a formal declaration of a wish as confirmed by voluntary signatories. Firstly, signing-up would only mean that one is expressing a wish to be a part of sovereignty for European peoples. It does not require relinquishing one’s current citizenship. Nor does it mean antagonizing non-Europeans. We may extend the DNA Nation concept and its freedom of association to them as well. But just as the conscientious are concerned for the preservation of genus and species, pervasive ecology, so too is it perfectly legitimate to look after our European kind. For whom it may concern, the indigenous Euro-DNA Nation focuses from the start on our most precious concern, our DNA, while not encumbering us with present obstacles to land-situated nations. The Euro-DNA Nation would be non-situated in the beginning (and to some extent always). However, DNA without land, without habitat indefinitely, would be problematic for a number of reasons. Therefore, it must be an objective of the Euro-DNA Nation to establish sacrosanct Euro-DNA Nation “lands” eventually; the plurality of lands is a deliberate usage. In fact, more safety and resources would be provided if these lands are non-contiguous and disbursed throughout the world. Naturally, WN would seek to re-establish our traditional territories as European, particularly those in Europe, but would also seek to secure sovereign territory in North America, South America, Russia, Australia and New Zealand. Nevertheless, in not being strictly contingent on obtaining land, the nation is rendered more flexible and more practical so that it can start with land claims of any size, even small claims. Once coordinated as such, its ultimate viability may strive to cover the largest land-masses possible. Thinking about these issues first as a means of coordination with Bowery’s “Laboratory of the States” platform, and in line with that, the DNA Nation being freely chosen would allow people to select various native European sub-categories (if they match), some distinct, some perhaps blended in various ways and degrees. Considering the problem secondly in terms of how to coordinate WN of in its largest possible size, it also provides a highly practical means to instantiate a goal for protracted expanse, as it is highly flexible in its ability to cover territory. The DNA Nation is also practical in that it does not require unnecessary risk and engagement on the part of participants. Signing-up does not render one complicit with illegal activity of any kind. It only means an expressed wish for sovereignty from non-native European coercion, and to be with persons of indigenous European extraction. Separatism is a first step, Separatism is the ultimate aim, and Separatism is always possible. If you wish to express a wish that you might one day be a part of this union of unions that is the Euro-DNA Nation, you may sign up; and specify particular category/union as you wish. DNA proof will ultimately be required for consideration of membership. The Native European-DNA Nation sign-up along with its subcategories will be provided. Note 1: The freedom of and from association promoted by the Laboratory of The States/Counties is conceived by Bowery to be an implicit choice. In his estimation, explicit Whiteness does not work. Taking the example of the draconian legal constraints placed on American realtors regarding the mere mention of race to buyers or sellers provides a salient example of how hazardous explicitness can be. However, the explicitness of the DNA registry does not contradict the implicitness strategy due to its being voluntary and not representing a legal status, but rather an expression of a wish. Discretion is nonetheless advised. 47
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 31 May 2022 18:43 | #
48
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 31 May 2022 18:47 | # Pleased and yes, it can be edited Daniel Sienkiewicz, VoR Radio <daniel.sienkiewicz@reasonradionetwork.com> Dear Kevin,
Indeed, I am happy that you would consider publishing it at TOO.
Yes, of course it can be edited. If you have any questions for that purpose I would be glad to help.
Sincerely Yours,
Daniel Sienkiewicz
P.S. Here is one link to Bowery’s Laboratory of The States: http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/laboratory_of_the_states_platform/
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Kevin MacDonald <Kevin.MacDonald@csulb.edu> wrote: Dr. MacDonald, if you’d be interested in running this essay at TOO, of course that would be fine with me too ... [Message clipped] View entire message Kevin MacDonald <Kevin.MacDonald@csulb.edu> Daniel: I went over it and send it for your approval. However, it seems to me that this is premature until you actually have a site where people can sign up. Kevin 49
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 31 May 2022 18:55 | # Here is the version edited by MacDonald - 1,200 Words
The right of dwelling, association and doing business within a county is granted by the consent of the people established in that particular county. Members would have the prerogative to deny association with anybody they deem unwanted. People who tried to impose themselves on that group, and insisted upon violating their non-consent, could be treated as a serious criminal offender. This freedom from association is corollary to individual freedom of choice and association. Bowery argues that strong valuation of freedom of choice is a distinctly White characteristic and therefore precious. I concur. He elaborates farther that it is imperative to maintain the unique human ecologies that evolved with this White characteristic of individual freedom of choice. I concur. This freely and deliberately chosen state/county human ecology is very different from the deeply situated, naturally evolving human ecologies of Europe and Russia, where our people have evolved over tens of thousands of years in relation to particular habitats. It is surely critical for us to maintain these ecologies as well. We would not want to be without either the freely chosen White state/county-sized ecologies derived by choice within a lifespan, nor without the truly deep, historical ecologies of our European and Russian nations. These are both goods that we would want to maintain, and yet they are very different concerns. The task at hand for White Nationalism is to coordinate them. We would not really want to give up either, but how to coordinate these two goods? This is where a Euro-DNA-based nation begins to look like a potential means of coordination, allowing for various expressions of our native Europeans while never losing sight of their essence. There is a third crucial matter to coordinate. If a White nation is to have an economy big enough to fund a space program and other large projects, it is likely to need a size larger than the average state (let alone county) to provide for a sufficient economy; and if, as Conner adds, a White nation is to hold up to the growing power of China, it will need to be large. Thesis: The Indigenous Euro-DNA Nation would provide a means for coordinating smaller White States/Counties, both freely chosen and those of deep, historical evolution, while providing the means for pursuing its larger manifestation as well. Given the anti-White hegemony that Whites are up against from above, along with the turmoil and throngs of anti-Whites that they are up against on all fronts, an endogenous approach is the most practical for the coordination of White separatism. By endogenous here, we mean from the inside out. That is, in proposing a White separatist nation, we should begin with those who would like to be a part of it first — begin by focusing on what we can do as opposed to what we cannot do. It is endogenous also in that the nation is corporeal, literally of the people — their native European DNA being the prime criterion for inclusion. That would be in contrast, though not in opposition, to other White nation building efforts using an exogenous (from the outside-in) approach, such as the Northwest Front. There are clear practical advantages of a native Euro-DNA Nation that begins as a formal declaration of a wish as confirmed by voluntary signatories. Firstly, signing-up would only mean that one is expressing a wish to be a part of White separatism. It does not require relinquishing one’s current citizenship. The indigenous Euro-DNA Nation focuses from the start on our most precious concern, our DNA, while not encumbering us with present obstacles to land-situated nations. The Euro-DNA Nation would be non-situated in the beginning (and to some extent always). However, DNA without land, without habitat indefinitely, would be problematic for a number of reasons. Therefore, it must be an objective of the Euro-DNA Nation to establish sacrosanct Euro-DNA Nation “lands” eventually; the plurality of lands is a deliberate usage. In fact, more safety and resources would be provided if these lands are non-contiguous and disbursed throughout the world. Naturally, The White nation would seek to re-establish its traditional territories as White, particularly those in Europe, but also North America, South America, Russia, Australia and New Zealand. Nevertheless, in not being strictly contingent on obtaining land, the nation is rendered more flexible and more practical so that it can start with land claims of any size, even small claims. Once coordinated as such, its ultimate viability may strive to control the largest land-masses possible. Thinking about these issues first as a means of coordination with Bowery’s “Laboratory of the States” platform, and in line with that, the DNA Nation being freely chosen would allow people to select various native European sub-categories (if they match), some distinct, some perhaps blended in various ways and degrees. Considering the problem secondly in terms of how to coordinate a White nation of the largest possible size, it also provides a highly practical means to attain the goal of controlling a protracted expanse, as it is highly flexible in its ability to cover territory. The DNA Nation is also practical in that it does not require unnecessary risk and engagement on the part of participants. Signing-up does not render one complicit with illegal activity of any kind. It only means an expressed wish for separatism from non-native Europeans, and to be with persons of indigenous European extraction. Separatism is a first step, Separatism is the ultimate aim, and Separatism is always possible. If you wish to express a wish that you might one day be a part of this separate Euro-DNA Nation, you may sign up; and specify particular categories as you wish. DNA proof will ultimately be required for consideration of membership. The Native European-DNA Nation sign-up along with its subcategories will be provided. Note 1: The freedom of and from association promoted by the Laboratory of The States/Counties is conceived by Bowery to be an implicit choice. In his estimation, explicit Whiteness does not work. Taking the example of the draconian legal constraints placed on American realtors regarding the mere mention of race to buyers or sellers provides a salient example of how hazardous explicitness can be. However, the explicitness of the DNA registry does not contradict the implicitness strategy due to its being voluntary and not representing a legal status, but rather an expression of a wish. Discretion is nonetheless advised. Euro-DNA Nation
The right of dwelling, association and doing business within a county is granted by the consent of the people established in that particular county. Members would have the prerogative to deny association with anybody they deem unwanted. People who tried to impose themselves on that group, and insisted upon violating their non-consent, could be treated as a serious criminal offender. This freedom from association is corollary to individual freedom of choice and association. Bowery argues that strong valuation of freedom of choice is a distinctly White characteristic and therefore precious. I concur. He elaborates farther that it is imperative to maintain the unique human ecologies that evolved with this White characteristic of individual freedom of choice. I concur. This freely and deliberately chosen state/county human ecology is very different from the deeply situated, naturally evolving human ecologies of Europe and Russia, where our people have evolved over tens of thousands of years in relation to particular habitats. It is surely critical for us to maintain these ecologies as well. We would not want to be without either the freely chosen White state/county-sized ecologies derived by choice within a lifespan, nor without the truly deep, historical ecologies of our European and Russian nations. These are both goods that we would want to maintain, and yet they are very different concerns. The task at hand for White Nationalism is to coordinate them. We would not really want to give up either, but how to coordinate these two goods? This is where a Euro-DNA-based nation begins to look like a potential means of coordination, allowing for various expressions of our native Europeans while never losing sight of their essence. There is a third crucial matter to coordinate. If a White nation is to have an economy big enough to fund a space program and other large projects, it is likely to need a size larger than the average state (let alone county) to provide for a sufficient economy; and if, as Conner adds, a White nation is to hold up to the growing power of China, it will need to be large. Thesis: The Indigenous Euro-DNA Nation would provide a means for coordinating smaller White States/Counties, both freely chosen and those of deep, historical evolution, while providing the means for pursuing its larger manifestation as well. Given the anti-White hegemony that Whites are up against from above, along with the turmoil and throngs of anti-Whites that they are up against on all fronts, an endogenous approach is the most practical for the coordination of White separatism. By endogenous here, we mean from the inside out. That is, in proposing a White separatist nation, we should begin with those who would like to be a part of it first — begin by focusing on what we can do as opposed to what we cannot do. It is endogenous also in that the nation is corporeal, literally of the people — their native European DNA being the prime criterion for inclusion. That would be in contrast, though not in opposition, to other White nation building efforts using an exogenous (from the outside-in) approach, such as the Northwest Front. There are clear practical advantages of a native Euro-DNA Nation that begins as a formal declaration of a wish as confirmed by voluntary signatories. Firstly, signing-up would only mean that one is expressing a wish to be a part of White separatism. It does not require relinquishing one’s current citizenship. The indigenous Euro-DNA Nation focuses from the start on our most precious concern, our DNA, while not encumbering us with present obstacles to land-situated nations. The Euro-DNA Nation would be non-situated in the beginning (and to some extent always). However, DNA without land, without habitat indefinitely, would be problematic for a number of reasons. Therefore, it must be an objective of the Euro-DNA Nation to establish sacrosanct Euro-DNA Nation “lands” eventually; the plurality of lands is a deliberate usage. In fact, more safety and resources would be provided if these lands are non-contiguous and disbursed throughout the world. Naturally, The White nation would seek to re-establish its traditional territories as White, particularly those in Europe, but also North America, South America, Russia, Australia and New Zealand. Nevertheless, in not being strictly contingent on obtaining land, the nation is rendered more flexible and more practical so that it can start with land claims of any size, even small claims. Once coordinated as such, its ultimate viability may strive to control the largest land-masses possible. Thinking about these issues first as a means of coordination with Bowery’s “Laboratory of the States” platform, and in line with that, the DNA Nation being freely chosen would allow people to select various native European sub-categories (if they match), some distinct, some perhaps blended in various ways and degrees. Considering the problem secondly in terms of how to coordinate a White nation of the largest possible size, it also provides a highly practical means to attain the goal of controlling a protracted expanse, as it is highly flexible in its ability to cover territory. The DNA Nation is also practical in that it does not require unnecessary risk and engagement on the part of participants. Signing-up does not render one complicit with illegal activity of any kind. It only means an expressed wish for separatism from non-native Europeans, and to be with persons of indigenous European extraction. Separatism is a first step, Separatism is the ultimate aim, and Separatism is always possible. If you wish to express a wish that you might one day be a part of this separate Euro-DNA Nation, you may sign up; and specify particular categories as you wish. DNA proof will ultimately be required for consideration of membership. The Native European-DNA Nation sign-up along with its subcategories will be provided. Note 1: The freedom of and from association promoted by the Laboratory of The States/Counties is conceived by Bowery to be an implicit choice. In his estimation, explicit Whiteness does not work. Taking the example of the draconian legal constraints placed on American realtors regarding the mere mention of race to buyers or sellers provides a salient example of how hazardous explicitness can be. However, the explicitness of the DNA registry does not contradict the implicitness strategy due to its being voluntary and not representing a legal status, but rather an expression of a wish. Discretion is nonetheless advised.
50
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 31 May 2022 18:58 | # Here is the version edited by MacDonald - 1,200 Words Sorry, I accidentally posted the essay twice in the last comment (and for heaven’s sake, Bowery is likely to count all the words two times thus).
The right of dwelling, association and doing business within a county is granted by the consent of the people established in that particular county. Members would have the prerogative to deny association with anybody they deem unwanted. People who tried to impose themselves on that group, and insisted upon violating their non-consent, could be treated as a serious criminal offender. This freedom from association is corollary to individual freedom of choice and association. Bowery argues that strong valuation of freedom of choice is a distinctly White characteristic and therefore precious. I concur. He elaborates farther that it is imperative to maintain the unique human ecologies that evolved with this White characteristic of individual freedom of choice. I concur. This freely and deliberately chosen state/county human ecology is very different from the deeply situated, naturally evolving human ecologies of Europe and Russia, where our people have evolved over tens of thousands of years in relation to particular habitats. It is surely critical for us to maintain these ecologies as well. We would not want to be without either the freely chosen White state/county-sized ecologies derived by choice within a lifespan, nor without the truly deep, historical ecologies of our European and Russian nations. These are both goods that we would want to maintain, and yet they are very different concerns. The task at hand for White Nationalism is to coordinate them. We would not really want to give up either, but how to coordinate these two goods? This is where a Euro-DNA-based nation begins to look like a potential means of coordination, allowing for various expressions of our native Europeans while never losing sight of their essence. There is a third crucial matter to coordinate. If a White nation is to have an economy big enough to fund a space program and other large projects, it is likely to need a size larger than the average state (let alone county) to provide for a sufficient economy; and if, as Conner adds, a White nation is to hold up to the growing power of China, it will need to be large. Thesis: The Indigenous Euro-DNA Nation would provide a means for coordinating smaller White States/Counties, both freely chosen and those of deep, historical evolution, while providing the means for pursuing its larger manifestation as well. Given the anti-White hegemony that Whites are up against from above, along with the turmoil and throngs of anti-Whites that they are up against on all fronts, an endogenous approach is the most practical for the coordination of White separatism. By endogenous here, we mean from the inside out. That is, in proposing a White separatist nation, we should begin with those who would like to be a part of it first — begin by focusing on what we can do as opposed to what we cannot do. It is endogenous also in that the nation is corporeal, literally of the people — their native European DNA being the prime criterion for inclusion. That would be in contrast, though not in opposition, to other White nation building efforts using an exogenous (from the outside-in) approach, such as the Northwest Front. There are clear practical advantages of a native Euro-DNA Nation that begins as a formal declaration of a wish as confirmed by voluntary signatories. Firstly, signing-up would only mean that one is expressing a wish to be a part of White separatism. It does not require relinquishing one’s current citizenship. The indigenous Euro-DNA Nation focuses from the start on our most precious concern, our DNA, while not encumbering us with present obstacles to land-situated nations. The Euro-DNA Nation would be non-situated in the beginning (and to some extent always). However, DNA without land, without habitat indefinitely, would be problematic for a number of reasons. Therefore, it must be an objective of the Euro-DNA Nation to establish sacrosanct Euro-DNA Nation “lands” eventually; the plurality of lands is a deliberate usage. In fact, more safety and resources would be provided if these lands are non-contiguous and disbursed throughout the world. Naturally, The White nation would seek to re-establish its traditional territories as White, particularly those in Europe, but also North America, South America, Russia, Australia and New Zealand. Nevertheless, in not being strictly contingent on obtaining land, the nation is rendered more flexible and more practical so that it can start with land claims of any size, even small claims. Once coordinated as such, its ultimate viability may strive to control the largest land-masses possible. Thinking about these issues first as a means of coordination with Bowery’s “Laboratory of the States” platform, and in line with that, the DNA Nation being freely chosen would allow people to select various native European sub-categories (if they match), some distinct, some perhaps blended in various ways and degrees. Considering the problem secondly in terms of how to coordinate a White nation of the largest possible size, it also provides a highly practical means to attain the goal of controlling a protracted expanse, as it is highly flexible in its ability to cover territory. The DNA Nation is also practical in that it does not require unnecessary risk and engagement on the part of participants. Signing-up does not render one complicit with illegal activity of any kind. It only means an expressed wish for separatism from non-native Europeans, and to be with persons of indigenous European extraction. Separatism is a first step, Separatism is the ultimate aim, and Separatism is always possible. If you wish to express a wish that you might one day be a part of this separate Euro-DNA Nation, you may sign up; and specify particular categories as you wish. DNA proof will ultimately be required for consideration of membership. The Native European-DNA Nation sign-up along with its subcategories will be provided. Note 1: The freedom of and from association promoted by the Laboratory of The States/Counties is conceived by Bowery to be an implicit choice. In his estimation, explicit Whiteness does not work. Taking the example of the draconian legal constraints placed on American realtors regarding the mere mention of race to buyers or sellers provides a salient example of how hazardous explicitness can be. However, the explicitness of the DNA registry does not contradict the implicitness strategy due to its being voluntary and not representing a legal status, but rather an expression of a wish. Discretion is nonetheless advised. [edited by JAB to delete the redundant copy] 51
Posted by Thorn on Tue, 31 May 2022 22:38 | #
Washington’s “acts of defense” has pushed Russia into forming strategic alliances with China ... and that’s not a very good strategy particularly if the defense of USA hegemony is the goal. Let’s face it, the USA’s unipolarity is all but over. The US Dollar is now on its way to losing its world reserve currency status (an important point Glazyev made in the interview you posted). We’re witnessing the emergence of a multi-polar world: one pole is the Eurasian alliance and the other is the USA and its allies. Glazyev also explained why the China economic model (and to a lesser extent the India model) will wind up dominating the world economy; the West’s economic model is unsustainable. The China-Russia-Iran alliance (with the very real possibility of India et al joining in) is a profound game changer.
52
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 31 May 2022 23:21 | # First of all, since I created sortocracy.org back in 2013, I’ve limited my use of the phrase “laboratory of the states” to discourse with those who claim violation of consent is justified by the social sciences. I did this, in part, to try to avoid misunderstandings of my position from folks like you and GW who are suspecting me of all the usual epithets. The sales phrase “Sorting proponents of social theories into governments that test them.” retains some of the vulnerability to your epithets, but once you get past that, you can see that it is about maximizing consent. And, yes, I do place a high value on individual consent so I’m not going to back off from that despite the likelihood that I’ll continue to be suspected of being John Locke reincarnate or some such—despite the fact that I’ve repeatedly pointed out the need to organize for war and that “individualism” has no place in a war machine. It is tiresome to deal with this but it is important because people who see themselves as defending white interests are devaluing the heritable individualism of Europeans because whites aren’t playing by the enemy’s rules. These people don’t understand that under the right conditions, it is precisely the culture of individual integrity that makes for the most deadly and effective war machines—most deadly and effective by far which is why “white supremacy” and even “whiteness” are so often touted as the greatest danger to the powers that be. This is true because the powers that be are submerged in a continual unstated state of war in which the only “individualism” is that which parasitically castrates components of their group organisms/mobs/swarms. They instinctively understand they don’t have the individual integrity it takes to fight whites that have decided on a formal declaration of war. Secondly, what you—and all who are suspicious of my “implicit whiteness” approach—are worried about is the lack of any guarantee that particular land areas will end up being under the control of particular genetic correlation structures. You want a declaration of war that specifies so much that you dare not really specify what you want lest you realize it won’t gain the support required to win. You have to back off a bit and have faith that there is enough implicit whiteness that, if allowed to express itself, will become explicit. While I understand the lack of faith in fellow whites given their recent history of being parasitic castrati and defectors exploiting their fellow whites, this is caused by their being unable to have any ground on which to simply Be hence upon which Being may Become. Our enemies are quite aware of the fact that they want to continue to eat us alive and that we may unite and destroy them at any moment if we are allowed to crawl, bleeding and crippled, from their dining table long enough to be concerned about something more than the pain of the next *chomp* they are going to take out of us. Give us a break as we try to wriggle off their dinner plate. 53
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 01 Jun 2022 02:57 | #
I used the term laboratory of the sates to connect with ideas of yours that I liked and merited incorporation into the project from the onset. In later versions, I’ve qualified that you see the county as the better unit than the state as the place for implicit organization by freedom for association of individuals who have voted with their feet to get to be with their preferred people. I forefronted your ideas with the hope that you would see them/and yourself appreciated and thus, perhaps interested in participating, if not taking a leading role in making it happen. Being a European man, I value individualism. But I also value borders and boundaries, which I am not explicit about in the paper. I am a “paradigmatic conservative,” which means in favor of strong borders and boundaries, and relatively free individual liberties within (including private property and free enterprise within reason). The crux of borders is citizenship (not land boundaries); I don’t know where you get the idea that I want some promise of definitive land boundaries (wait for my comment on GW’s situation, two paragraphs below, before reacting). I say something the opposite. To begin, and for an indefinite time, though it is not optimal, the land boundaries can be anywhere or not at all; that’s part of the beauty of DNA Nations as opposed to conventional nations. After organizing as such, flexibly, we may be opportunistic, making land claims, even small ones, wherever suitable; and then, when tactical, support those who prioritize re taking as much of our ancient homelands as possible. Particularly when I made such effort to include you and your concerns, your take is paranoid and tiresome (petty and selfish) - to say that you wrote the laboratory of states to avoid being accused of things, like being “John Locke” and other “epithets”, along with “empirical’ (if I spoke in short hand of the empirical philosophers, you would react as if I was besmirching science; ridiculous), and absurdly took my use of the term Cartesian as a term of personal insult, not understanding the philosophical philosophical use of the term as it is opposed by hermeneutics and emergenism.
I resent very much this very untrue statement. That is not what I am worried about. But just as I appreciate your motive to be free of those who you’ve been thrown in with in America, I can understand GW’s motive to keep England for the English and his English folk together. Yes, GW is worried about that and I can understand that; and I saw where the project accommodated people with his focus as well. How it is not mutually exclusive. He is concerned to keep England and in a sense, its people, together. I call that social, and he reacts to that word stupidly, the way you react stupidly to the suggestion that Descartes, Locke and scientism (bad science / or bad application of science) can bear philosophic criticism. You treat me as making personal insults rather than being empathetic with your American situation and the motives of a White guy there, which would be in some sense the opposite of GW’s in the first step - the last thing you’d want is to keep that sociality together, the people you’ve been thrown in with there; your emphasis would be freedom, freedom from associate to begin with.
That’s so untrue that it looks more like a projection. I have to wonder if you are alright Jim. Maybe not. I do not favor a declaration of war at all at this point. Maybe we’d do well implicitly, but we cannot control what everybody is going to do anyway and organizing on the basis of DNA is a way forward irrespectively, without headlong reactions of implicit nature presumed to take the proper lead and mutually exclusive to what would amount to a more scientific approach. DNA curation (perhaps need a better word) is a hill that I, for one, am willing to die on. If they are going to try to kill me because I am trying to curate my genus and species, let them try. It should be noted that it is about preserving not just the genus but the species, their distinctions, including those species of European that you and MacDonald might value more than others.
You know, I have addressed the pairwise duels bit. To me, it is your lack of faith in us that (if we have boundaries), there is not a less strange combination of literal mindedness and cartoon as means to correct transgressions - e.g., not competitions to the death (though I am not against the death penalty), but ones for the most part the loss of which can mean greater or lesser reward, penalty or expulsion, depending upon the violation - to correct evolutionary direction for violations of the people, including encroachment on individualism, the authenticity of the individual, so to speak in Heidegger’s terms. But never mind, all this will do is get me drawn away from the (1,350 word) DNA Nations project and into your spider web of words - a deluge of words by you, coming from your paranoia that I want to take away your individualism and turn you into an insect. It would be good if I am mistaken, but it seems like James, a typically selfish boomer, does not want take responsibility to help correct for the imperfection of those generations who’ve been operating on outdated philosophy, and is selfishly unwilling to participate, who only wants “yes” men, rather than people who might appreciate fallibility as opportunity for correctivity and who appreciate that the good ideas that he does have are not mutually exclusive to other good ideas, like this one 54
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 01 Jun 2022 02:59 | # .... .
I used the term laboratory of the sates to connect with ideas of yours that I liked and merited incorporation into the project from the onset. In later versions, I’ve qualified that you see the county as the better unit than the state as the place for implicit organization by freedom for association of individuals who have voted with their feet to get to be with their preferred people. I forefronted your ideas with the hope that you would see them/and yourself appreciated and thus, perhaps interested in participating, if not taking a leading role in making it happen. Being a European man, I value individualism. But I also value borders and boundaries, which I am not explicit about in the paper. I am a “paradigmatic conservative,” which means in favor of strong borders and boundaries, and relatively free individual liberties within (including private property and free enterprise within reason). The crux of borders is citizenship (not land boundaries); I don’t know where you get the idea that I want some promise of definitive land boundaries (wait for my comment on GW’s situation, two paragraphs below, before reacting). I say something the opposite. To begin, and for an indefinite time, though it is not optimal, the land boundaries can be anywhere or not at all; that’s part of the beauty of DNA Nations as opposed to conventional nations. After organizing as such, flexibly, we may be opportunistic, making land claims, even small ones, wherever suitable; and then, when tactical, support those who prioritize re taking as much of our ancient homelands as possible. Particularly when I made such effort to include you and your concerns, your take is paranoid and tiresome (petty and selfish) - to say that you wrote the laboratory of states to avoid being accused of things, like being “John Locke” and other “epithets”, along with “empirical’ (if I spoke in short hand of the empirical philosophers, you would react as if I was besmirching science; ridiculous), and absurdly took my use of the term Cartesian as a term of personal insult, not understanding the philosophical philosophical use of the term as it is opposed by hermeneutics and emergenism.
I resent very much this very untrue statement. That is not what I am worried about. But just as I appreciate your motive to be free of those who you’ve been thrown in with in America, I can understand GW’s motive to keep England for the English and his English folk together. Yes, GW is worried about that and I can understand that; and I saw where the project accommodated people with his focus as well. How it is not mutually exclusive. He is concerned to keep England and in a sense, its people, together. I call that social, and he reacts to that word stupidly, the way you react stupidly to the suggestion that Descartes, Locke and scientism (bad science / or bad application of science) can bear philosophic criticism. You treat me as making personal insults rather than being empathetic with your American situation and the motives of a White guy there, which would be in some sense the opposite of GW’s in the first step - the last thing you’d want is to keep that sociality together, the people you’ve been thrown in with there; your emphasis would be freedom, freedom from associate to begin with.
That’s so untrue that it looks more like a projection. I have to wonder if you are alright Jim. Maybe not. I do not favor a declaration of war at all at this point. Maybe we’d do well implicitly, but we cannot control what everybody is going to do anyway and organizing on the basis of DNA is a way forward irrespectively, without headlong reactions of implicit nature presumed to take the proper lead and mutually exclusive to what would amount to a more scientific approach. DNA curation (perhaps need a better word) is a hill that I, for one, am willing to die on. If they are going to try to kill me because I am trying to curate my genus and species, let them try. It should be noted that it is about preserving not just the genus but the species, their distinctions, including those species of European that you and MacDonald might value more than others.
You know, I have addressed the pairwise duels bit. To me, it is your lack of faith in us that (if we have boundaries), there is not a less strange combination of literal mindedness and cartoon as means to correct transgressions - e.g., not competitions to the death (though I am not against the death penalty), but ones for the most part the loss of which can mean greater or lesser reward, penalty or expulsion, depending upon the violation - to correct evolutionary direction for violations of the people, including encroachment on individualism, the authenticity of the individual, so to speak in Heidegger’s terms. But never mind, all this will do is get me drawn away from the (1,350 word) DNA Nations project and into your spider web of words - a deluge of words by you, coming from your paranoia that I want to take away your individualism and turn you into an insect. It would be good if I am mistaken, but it seems like James, a typically selfish boomer, does not want take responsibility to help correct for the imperfection of those generations who’ve been operating on outdated philosophy, and is selfishly unwilling to participate, who only wants “yes” men, rather than people who might appreciate fallibility as opportunity for correctivity and who appreciate that the good ideas that he does have are not mutually exclusive to other good ideas, like this one 55
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 01 Jun 2022 03:37 | #
Where the F did I ever say anything like this? Don’t keep my comments pending for long. That is a really dishonest and dangerous thing to say about me. 56
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 01 Jun 2022 03:42 | #
DanielS: I used the term laboratory of the sates to connect with ideas of yours that I liked and merited incorporation into the project from the onset. In later versions, I’ve qualified that you see the county as the better unit than the state as the place for implicit organization by freedom for association of individuals who have voted with their feet to get to be with their preferred people. I forefronted your ideas with the hope that you would see them/and yourself appreciated and thus, perhaps interested in participating, if not taking a leading role in making it happen. Being a European man, I value individualism. But I also value borders and boundaries, which I am not explicit about in the paper. I am a “paradigmatic conservative,” which means in favor of strong borders and boundaries, and relatively free individual liberties within (including private property and free enterprise within reason). The crux of borders is citizenship (not land boundaries); I don’t know where you get the idea that I want some promise of definitive land boundaries (wait for my comment on GW’s situation, two paragraphs below, before reacting). I say something the opposite. To begin, and for an indefinite time, though it is not optimal, the land boundaries can be anywhere or not at all; that’s part of the beauty of DNA Nations as opposed to conventional nations. After organizing as such, flexibly, we may be opportunistic, making land claims, even small ones, wherever suitable; and then, when tactical, support those who prioritize re taking as much of our ancient homelands as possible. Particularly when I made such effort to include you and your concerns, your take is paranoid and tiresome (petty and selfish) – to say that you wrote the laboratory of states to avoid being accused of things, like being “John Locke” and other “epithets”, along with “empirical’ (if I spoke in short hand of the empirical philosophers, you would react as if I was besmirching science; ridiculous), and absurdly took my use of the term Cartesian as a term of personal insult, not understanding the philosophical philosophical use of the term as it is opposed by hermeneutics and emergenism.
I resent very much this very untrue statement. That is not what I am worried about. But just as I appreciate your motive to be free of those who you’ve been thrown in with in America, I can understand GW’s motive to keep England for the English and his English folk together. Yes, GW is worried about that and I can understand that; and I saw where the project accommodated people with his focus as well. How it is not mutually exclusive. He is concerned to keep England and in a sense, its people, together. I call that social, and he reacts to that word stupidly, the way you react stupidly to the suggestion that Descartes, Locke and scientism (bad science / or bad application of science) can bear philosophic criticism. You treat me as making personal insults rather than being empathetic with your American situation and the motives of a White guy there, which would be in some sense the opposite of GW’s in the first step – the last thing you’d want is to keep that sociality together, the people you’ve been thrown in with there; your emphasis would be freedom, freedom from associate to begin with.
That’s so untrue that it looks more like a projection. I have to wonder if you are alright Jim. Maybe not. I do not favor a declaration of war at all at this point. Maybe we’d do well implicitly, but we cannot control what everybody is going to do anyway and organizing on the basis of DNA is a way forward irrespectively, without headlong reactions of implicit nature presumed to take the proper lead and mutually exclusive to what would amount to a more scientific approach. DNA curation (perhaps need a better word) is a hill that I, for one, am willing to die on. If they are going to try to kill me because I am trying to curate my genus and species, let them try. It should be noted that it is about preserving not just the genus but the species, their distinctions, including those species of European that you and MacDonald might value more than others.
You know, I have addressed the pairwise duels bit. To me, it is your lack of faith in us that (if we have boundaries), there is not a less strange combination of literal mindedness and cartoon as means to correct transgressions – e.g., not competitions to the death (though I am not against the death penalty), but ones for the most part the loss of which can mean greater or lesser reward, penalty or expulsion, depending upon the violation – to correct evolutionary direction for violations of the people, including encroachment on individualism, the authenticity of the individual, so to speak in Heidegger’s terms. But never mind, all this will do is get me drawn away from the (1,350 word) DNA Nations project and into your spider web of words – a deluge of words by you, coming from your paranoia that I want to take away your individualism and turn you into an insect. It would be good if I am mistaken, but it seems like James, a typically selfish boomer, does not want take responsibility to help correct for the imperfection of those generations who’ve been operating on outdated philosophy, and is selfishly unwilling to participate, who only wants “yes” men, rather than people who might appreciate fallibility as opportunity for correctivity and who appreciate that the good ideas that he does have are not mutually exclusive to other good ideas, like this one. 57
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 01 Jun 2022 04:31 | #
It is a bit ironic that one of Bowery’s original (rather paranoiac) objections was to the word “control” here, especially as that was an editorial change by Macdonald. My original version used the word “cover” - and I still probably prefer that word (cover) in those places. 58
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 01 Jun 2022 07:57 | # Thorn, The Sino-Russian partnership was signalled as a joint objective back in 1996, when Li Peng went to Moscow to meet Yeltsyn. A formal treat was signed by Vladimir Putin and Jiang Zemin in 2001: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China–Russia_relations Among other things, it formalised a joint interest in economic contest with America, Japan, and the EU. The present hostility is not a thing born out of the American action of 2014. America reacted in defence of its own interests, which obviously do not include sitting back while a party to such a treaty re-builds its dominion in the West. Pre-Maidan Ukraine was a nation in crisis, and one which had suffered political crises for a decade. Part of that, and the reason for the long series of Euro-Maidan protests, was that under Yanukovych it was being pulled back into the Russian orbit. The will of the majority was for modernisation, Western prosperity and freedom, and security within the Western political structures. These were completely moral and just aspirations, and they very plainly remain such today, after Moscow has launched its war of conquest. There is no overwhelming security requirement for Russia to have control of peoples living peaceably beyond its own borders. It isn’t some kind of great offense against world peace and historical necessity for Ukrainians to reject Russia’s will and go their own way in this world (there was, incidentally, no NATO proposal to site nuclear weapons on Russia’s borders - that is a Kremlin lie). Neither does Russia have some mystical right to militarily “defend” ethnic Russians in another country, particularly in the context of a local conflict it has fomented from nothing itself. The Kremlin may not like the post-Soviet settlement of Ukraine’s borders but it has absolutely no right in international law to change them by force, or to annexe the country in its entirety by overt military or by political means. While I am pleased that you have got Glazyev’s meaning viz-a-vis the financial and economic geopolitical aspects of China’s drive for global hegemony, you should now focus on its inhering political, military, and social aspects. I saw an interesting piece about Alibaba on Zerohedge last week. It demonstrated how far the worst aspects of the Davos mass-control project are instaurated within Chinese corporate and political planning. Davos and China are one socialist project, and Russia is tied in through its own geopolitical aspirations, and through its own authoritarianism and socialism. The meaning for the Western way of life couldn’t be clearer. The only chance we have of saving our race is via the maximal preservation of traditional Western freedoms. It is a thin, golden thread by which our life hangs, and we cannot rely on our own political class save, just possibly, through American reaction to Russian and Chinese global power. Don’t knock it. It’s literally all we have. 59
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 01 Jun 2022 09:14 | # A minor request to James and Daniel. Can we endeavour to move away from the the use of the term individualism. An “ism” is necessarily not a concrete fact, rather a belief- or assumption-based interpretation. Fine for discussions adhering to the liberal model of Man, which is precisely a belief predicated on a willed movement from an imposed personhood to a self-authored personhood. This is liberalism’s pursuit of the subject without confines, and it thereby owns the concept of individual-ism. It is just not commensurate with ethnic nationalism’s revealing model of human authenticity. The European sociobiology is heavily scored with individuality; literally, a singular self-possession. It’s a natural glory of our race, and far from the errors of liberalism. We should make efforts to oppose the conflation of the two, because not everyone is as free as us from the systemically liberal mind-world into which all Westerners are born. 60
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 01 Jun 2022 18:54 | # GW, I agree this word has been poisoned to the point that it has made it impractical for us to communicate—even here at MR let alone in the wider culture. KMac’s magnum opus, “Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition” struggles with this toxic conflation of definitions which is right up there with the conflation of “Supremacy” and “Superiority”. It almost would have been better if he’d chosen the the title “Individualism and Individuality In the Western Liberal Tradition” so he could separate out the natural history of Western “individuality” (in the sense you intend) and then discuss the ways it has been exploited by the enemies of the West in various flavors of “Individualism”. That’s the topic of a chapter of a book I’ve put off writing until conditions are ripe—which they appear to be reaching. The dictionary definition of “individualism” has two senses, the first of which is consistent with “individuality” and the second with its valorization. Of course, when we talk about valorization of the “individual” we get into the problematic definition of that entity since anyone who has any sense understands that there is no such thing as completely “independent” organism—nor is there any rational mind that could value such an organism short of it being God (in the sense of universe as ultimate mind). There is a theological sense in which the error of “self creation” by we creatures corresponds to “The Fall” hence to the source of all evil. As regards “individual” I’ve coined, by contrast” “dividual” to distinguish organisms that lose viability when divided and those that reproduce by division. Of course, there is the old phrase “a house divided” which points to a loss of viability by group organisms in a state of war or, worse, the conflict within a nuclear family. And there are partially sexual organisms that can optionally reproduce by budding and parthenogenesis—but such points along the continuum between asexual and sexual reproduction are why I emphasize the Cambrian explosion appearance due to restriction of geneflow across ecological boundaries by individual male intrasexual selection concomitant with predation and shell fossils. And, yes, I’m acutely aware that talking about this as relevant in any way to the evolution of Western individuality and border enforcement causes eruption of primitive emotions that interferes with rational thought about these vital issues. But, there we are… 61
Posted by Thorn on Wed, 01 Jun 2022 19:40 | # “Neither does Russia have some mystical right to militarily “defend” ethnic Russians in another country, particularly in the context of a local conflict it has fomented from nothing itself.” GW, your sentence there reminded me of short opinion piece I read last December. The title: No, Putin isn’t trying to bring the Soviet Union back. (And just so you know, I’m not disagreeing with the content of your comment @58, it’s just that that sentence jogged my memory.)
My personal opinion is Putin has no real goals or aspirations of reconstituting the Soviet empire; however, I’m well aware others make a good case that he is indeed intent on doing just that.
62
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 02 Jun 2022 15:25 | #
That’s not the charge I made against Putin. No one is suggesting that he is a Brezhnev-age communist party man or an ideological communist per se. A Russian leader is not required to be a communist in order to be an imperialist.
Bit puzzled with the language there. What the post-Soviet border settlements did with respect to the Russian diaspora has to be viewed through the prism of ethnic politics as they are rooted in history and the consequences of (not infrequently forced) migrations. Geopolitics is something else, to do with the political, cultural, economic, financial and military power and influence of the state in the widest geographic context. The two do not correspond.
And that finishes the strawman. No one is saying he wants to restore the Soviet Union. The charge is that he wants to strengthen Russia’s place alongside Xi’s China in the latter’s drive to replace America as the dominant global power, which strengthening is an exercise in prestige and resource acquisition. 63
Posted by Thorn on Thu, 02 Jun 2022 21:29 | # “No one is saying he wants to restore the Soviet Union.” But umpteen pundits are stating Putin’s plan is to restore/reclaim/reconstitute the Russian Empire. I’ve been hearing that for at least 15 years now. Every major news outlet here in the U.S. has been spreading that misleading propaganda. I assume it’s no different in the UK. 64
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 03 Jun 2022 07:48 | # I don’t know about anyone else but I have stated that Putin’s adventure in Ukraine began with the intention of recovering at least the associated parts of Catherine’s empire; so, Moldova and those parts of Poland containing Ukrainian and Belarussian populations. The second, more challenging question would then become how a land route to Kaliningrad - Russia’s only ice-free northern port - could be created, which would realistically involve taking the Baltic states. Using Catherine’s same population metric, there is an ethnic argument with regards to Latvia, which has an ethnic Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarussian population of 1.21 million out of its total 2.66 million. The position in Estonia and Lithuania is less extreme. Estonia has a still sizeable ethnic Russian, Ukrainian and Belarussian component of 364,500 out of its total 1.3 million. Lithuania has an ethnic Russian, Ukrainian and Belarussian population of only 82,000 out of its total 1.33 million. But geographically, Putin would need to prise all three from the West. Incidentally, when you encounter folk telling you with a straight face how Russia could never allow NATO to station nuclear weapons on its border with Ukraine, remind them about Kaliningrad and its nuclear arsenal actually inside the European Union territories. The Russian’s assault on the Donbas will succeed by dint of massive artillery power. The Russian Army is in the position of not caring about the death and destruction it creates in Ukrainian population centres, and has been free to deploy and concentrate its heavy offensive superiority in artillery, especially post-Mariupol. The Ukrainian forces have perhaps a quarter or fifth of Russia’s artillery, have the rest of the country to defend, and can’t treat their own citizens with the abandon which the Russians - for whom ethnic cleansing is a strategic goal - freely exhibit The West is moving slowly in supplying weaponry to Ukraine, and it is deliberate. But eventually, the force build-up will be overwhelming. The Ukrainian Army will grow accordingly. How much Washington wants to eviscerate Russian military power will determine how much and how soon arm-twisting is applied to Zelensky’s government to negotiate a settlement. Some guesswork. In the longer term Russia will lose all its raw material exports to the West. The Russian economy will be hobbled for the next twenty years at least, unless of course the Russians are willing to give up Kaliningrad for access to Western markets (perhaps also in lieu of Ukrainian reconstruction costs). Putin will retire from the scene and promptly die of whatever ails him. His attempt to participate on more equal terms in China’s global ambitions will he humiliating to even think about. Unless it can be reined in by the West or if it can’t control its eastern border issues, India will take Russia’s place as China’s principal partner. The Davos model of elitism + socialism will advance for a while yet. 65
Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 03 Jun 2022 10:35 | # Well , perhaps, but any educated person might conclude the Russia is a huge house with few inhabitants and China is a smaller house with too many . Putin faced West instead of East. 66
Posted by Thorn on Fri, 03 Jun 2022 11:08 | #
Russia has a tremendous reservoir of natural resources and China has a tremendous need for them. In the longer term the West will suffer because of the redirection of those resources. Western elites should have forged friendly relations with Russia while it had the chance, but instead chose to treat them as a mortal enemy. FOOLS!!! 67
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 03 Jun 2022 11:46 | # Thorn, It should be clear how Russia orients towards our world. It is wholly antipathetic to liberal democracy and human freedom, not merely for geopolitical purposes but because its sociobiology, as it is distributed through the whole, diverse genome, is Asiatic and not Western European; and authoritarian government and law is its norm. There is no basis for real friendship. What there is, unfortunately, is competition, which we are now seeing for the fourth very bloody time since Peter the Great became Tsar of Russia in 1688. Like Islam, Russia has far too many bloody borders, and is now proving why, as an historical actor, it cannot be trusted. Russia is not a jilted bride, and the West is not a heartless and scheming suitor. Russia is not a supine victim in disingenuous Western hands. Russia is not dependent on the West for vision and agency. @6 above, I wrote:
Give Russia it’s due and let it be responsible for its choices. 68
Posted by Thorn on Fri, 03 Jun 2022 12:29 | #
If that’s the case, GW, then most of Ukraine east of the Dnieper should be ceded to the Russian sphere of influence. After all, most there are ethnic Russians whereas most Ukrainians west of the river are descendants of Galatians. Makes sense to redraw the boundry otherwise civil war between the two ethnicities will perpetuate. 69
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 03 Jun 2022 13:10 | # GW writes of the “Jewishness” of Putin’s regime: I’ve spent the last few days explaining on other boards that Putin came to power as Yeltsyn’s prime minister in 1999; and has been surrounded by Jewish and Russian oligarchs ever since. Putin’s Russia has always been a kleptocracy. <a >Kevin MacDonald disagrees quite strongly.</a> Perhaps you could invite him to do an MR Radio interview about this rather crucial point. 70
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 03 Jun 2022 14:08 | # James, I’m not doing radio at the moment, though I might pick it up again at some point. The Jewishness of the body of Russian oligarchs is a matter of record: “Russia’s Jewish oligarchs and their donations come under threat of Western sanctions amid Ukraine war” “The Fate of Putin’s Jewish Oligarchs” “At Putin’s side, an army of Jewish billionaires” 71
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 03 Jun 2022 14:20 | # Thorn writes:
Once the borders of a nation are established it is for the peoples therein to decide on their destiny. Or are you suggesting that the Ukrainian or French or Irish government should annexe Canada because there are Ukrainian, French and Irish people in the country and their ethnic identity must determine the empire to which their living space belongs? Ukraine’s borders were agreed under international law. If, after that, there are ethnicity-based differences of vision and destiny and loyalty in the country it is for all the people and the politicians they elect to sort the matter out, within international law. It is not for a foreign government to foment armed conflict using its own resources, or to attempt to kill the members of the Ukrainian government and annexe the whole country. 72
Posted by Thorn on Fri, 03 Jun 2022 15:33 | #
I dunno, GW ... I’m not an expert on international law but I think it’s safe to assume the USA using its CIA to perpetrate the 2014 coup in Ukraine is a breach of international law. After the coup, one ghastly thing led to another….. Now it’s past time for a rational solution to this war ... and that solution would be for puppet Zelensky to cede territory. The madness has to stop before it escalates into nuclear war. 73
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 03 Jun 2022 15:47 | # GW writes: “he Jewishness of the body of Russian oligarchs is a matter of record:” KMac asserts the “Jewishness of the body of Russian oligarchs”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wf0rQQSXKrs&t=906s Where he apparently differs with you is Putin’s effect on that body. As I understand the Nuremberg Laws enacted by Hitler, KMac would say Putin’s effect was just shy of those laws: Excluding Jewish oligarchs from cultural and political influence—and it is that restriction which turned the West’s Jews hysterically anti-Putin. 74
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 03 Jun 2022 21:42 | # I dunno, James; but Roman Abramovich’s wiki page has this:
75
Posted by Thorn on Fri, 03 Jun 2022 22:38 | #
It would be foolish to believe those reports. That same U.S. media and U.S. intelligence community advanced the complete bull capital S with a hit story that Trump clouded with Russia in order to steal the 2016 presidential election. The U.S. media and the U.S. intelligence agency have been thoroughly corrupted and politicized by the Left. 77
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 04 Jun 2022 00:22 | # Thorn writes:
1. But Russia was already engaged in turning Ukraine into a second Belarussia via its puppet Yanukovych. It was entirely legitimate for the USA to restrict Russian geopolitical action. If Ukrainians had wanted to be under Russia’s dominion you might have a moral point. But they didn’t and don’t, and now most certainly never will. 2. The rational solution is to kick Russia out of Ukraine and, in the process, eviscerate its offensive capacity and, if possible, bring down its current leadership. Talk of rewarding Putin with territory is just immoral. It is for the Ukrainian people to fight if that is their will, and for us to aid them howsoever we can. 3. Teaching an aggressor and dictator like Putin that the West is not willing to defend its interests cuz nuclear weapons will only encourage him to continue in his quest. He has to be stopped. As I noted @ 8 above, out-of-hand condemnation of “the West”, “the Jews”, and “America” is a commonplace among nationalists. I understand. But we should always be above falling into a mechanical, reactionary opposition, regardless of the strength of feeling we would normally hold on the matter. Under certain, admittedly rare circumstances, those whom we routinely oppose are, even if by accident, capable of defending interests which are important to us and which we need; and that is this case here. It is short-sighted if not irresponsible to continually give Russia the benefit of the geopolitical doubt, and complacent to assume that the tradition of freedom peculiar to the West is bound to continue if the West’s power is ended. Our entire possibility to speak and to dissent resides in the continuation of that tradition. It is too critical to us to risk just out of hatred of our immediate political masters. 78
Posted by Thorn on Sat, 04 Jun 2022 11:18 | # GW, allow me to state the obvious: The world is complicated; human nature is complicated; the inner and outer workings of Ukraine is complicated—frankly, post Euromaidan resulted in turning Ukraine into a genocidal clusterfuck. I’m not out to prove you wrong or change your mind but I feel the need to provide you some additional info, thus it might expand your understanding of the situation. Consider it an alternative yet legitimate perspective. Alexander Nepogodin: Modern Ukraine was built on an anti-Russia foundation, but a large part of the country refused to play along https://www.rt.com/russia/556334-ukrainian-camp-nationalistic-narrative/ 79
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 04 Jun 2022 12:58 | # Nepogodin is out of time. That question was settled when Putin invaded, having fomented and prosecuted a war in the north. At that point, there was no moral case to answer for the Ukrainian government. Putin, in his hubris, made the assumption that Russia was a global military power with rights over the nations it had historically forced into vassalage. Neither assumption was true. Ukraine is being born as a nation of the West, which is where its destiny lies; and where its own people - including a majority of Russian speakers - know it to lie. The time has come to to understand that we do not profit from the imposition upon the world of Chinese global hegemony. Putin has been in power since 1999. Xi has been in power since 2013 and passed a law four years ago to end time-limitation on Chinese presidential terms. In Russia and in China there is no dissent. Glazyev has told you that the political model in the new Sino-Russian age will be socialist, adapted to individual national circumstances but not in any way a liberal democratic system grounded in the Western sociobiological product of human freedom. What are you actually fighting for? What good for our people can come from the defeat of our own nature-based tradition? 80
Posted by Thorn on Sat, 04 Jun 2022 13:33 | # “What good for our people can come from the defeat of our own nature-based tradition?” Our own ruling-class is doing an effective job of taking away what’s left of our freedoms. Moreover, western elites instituted policies that all but guarantee the eventual extinction of our race. Segregation is the solution to our continued existence, but your stance seems to cast that aside. IOWs if the west prevails in Ukraine, the native Ukrainians will go the way of all the other Western nations: self-infliction with a fatal case of racial diversity—that via massive immigration from non-white counties. It will sure a sh-t happen to Ukraine if they join the West. In any event, it’s out of our hands; nothing we can do or say will change the course of events there. But it is good to vent about such issues…. 81
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 04 Jun 2022 13:58 | # Imagine you are in a frying pan. You say, “Look, our own ruling-class is doing an effective job of taking away what’s left of our freedoms. We have to jump out of the pan.” You jump. You find yourself in the fire. You say, “But the western elites instituted policies that all but guarantee the eventual extinction of our race.” You are being consumed in the flames of Sino-Soviet indifference to your nationalism. You shout that “Segregation is the solution to our continued existence.” You try to scramble clear but the Davos-Cheka force you back in because there is no dissent, no political struggle tolerated in the Sino-Russian technological model. You have completely miscalculated. Try. To. Understand. Our racial and ethnic survival is not possible to advocate outside of the Western system. The Western system is anathema to the Sino-Russian model. The Western system will not be maintained if Western power is not able to defend it. The fact that the Western elites have been hostile to us does not change that or take precedence over it. Frying pan and fire. 82
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 04 Jun 2022 14:01 | #
—Guess Who The geographic Sino-Russian interface is Lake Baikal where the Mongol descendants (Buryatia people) are on the eastern shore and the Rus Vikings descendants are on the western shore. I was there, in Irkutsk, on business over the Orthodox Christian celebration of Christmas during the creation of the Euro in New Years 1999—the same time the transition from Yeltsin to Putin was happening. My contacts were high-enough level that I was invited to become a professor of CS at Irkutsk State University via Akademgorodok—despite my lack of credentials—on the strength of my resume. While on an excursion to the Buryatia region, I was the guest in a Buryatia household in which a picture of the Dalai Lama figured prominently. Throughout the region, there was evidence of very active Tibetan Buddhist communities (stupas, etc.). While there was stress due to the economic crisis and some non-trivial friction between the Orthodox Christians and Tibetan Buddhists (an professor expressed this to me while my guide into the Buryatia region) it was nothing compared to the violent hostility toward what was coming into their homes over the television: Music videos featuring black men and Russian women lovers. I really have a hard time relating to people who get upset about violence. 83
Posted by Thorn on Sat, 04 Jun 2022 14:27 | #
C’mon. GW! We are bombarded each and every day with the reality that it’s verboten to publicly advocate for the White race inside the Western system. It’s been that way for how many decades now? 84
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 04 Jun 2022 16:01 | #
Given facts such as you’ve mentioned, that Russian populations give way to Asian at Lake Baikal (a profound native warrant or lack thereof); that there are no Russian cities of a million east of Lake Baikal (a highly practical concern); and that Japan and Korea might be willing to pay Russia for eastern territories, and help Russia with self sufficient development rather than maintaining its imperialist kleptocratic expanse, which might be a means to put relations on a more rational basis, and thereby increase Russia’s security - and thereby potentially transform conflict into ethnonational cooperation (including ethnonational cooperation against the pan mixia coming from the west); Irkutsk/Lake Baikal appears to be a good place for international negotiation if not war of position to bring Russia to a semi normal size for an ethnostate: it would still be the largest one by far. There would be carrots and sticks for ethnonational cooperation against Russia’s civic imperialism. And if each side, Russian/Asian, are unwilling to yield some enclaves within the other’s generally controlled side, perhaps a negotiation of enclaves could be worked-out.
85
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 04 Jun 2022 17:36 | # Thorn, still determined not to understand his own freedom, writes?
Not the point. In Xi’s China and Putin’s Russia you couldn’t advocate for your current opinions. In any way. The defeat of American hegemony and the collapse of the Western model has consequences, regardless of whether or not the Western elites are Judaised and hyper-aggressive towards our people’s survival and continuity. In the West we can talk and advocate. Cut that lifeline and what have you got? Now, this guy: https://vigilantcitizen.com/vigilantreport/top-10-insane-wef/ ... has part of it down:
What he is missing is that China is not Schwab’s bitch. Schwab is China’s tool. China is using the Davos programme to recruit the unwitting Western elites in a drive for Sino-Russian hegemony. If it is successful, the Chinese won’t be respecting your petty personal right to speak for and about threats to that hegemony. You will be silent. In other words, what we have here is a straightforward contest between east and west that is masked for the Western elites - and for most nationalists - by their complacency. Yes, said elites are busily destroying us as kin-groups. Yes, they are doing it because, knowingly or not, they are creatures of the prior Judaic globalism (which staggers onward within the banking-corporate/UN sector of technocratic globalism). No, they don’t understand the geopolitics or the distinction between geopolitics and globalism, or that China is engaged in advancing its geopolitical objective while they are engaged in advancing China’s globalist tool. For clarity: New World Order: The form to be achieved, in its own good time, through the old Judaic model of globalism predicated on the ownership of debt, the dissolution of European ethnic and racial distinctiveness, the radical neo-Marxist equalities, and the melding of nation states into a global bloc. Principle gathering: Bilderberg, a talking shop. The Great Re-set: The commencement, scheduled for 2030, of the technocratic model of globalism predicated on the ownership of hard assets, the development of the Fourth Industrial Revolution and transhumanism, property-less communism in the smart city, and government by algorithm and total, internet-based surveillance. Principle gathering: Davos, a programme-writing and policy-setting body. Global hegemony: the condition of supremacy by which one (or more) globally influential and agentive nations imposes its will on the rest of the world, in so much as it is able; and does this through international bodies as well as through its own agencies, systemically changing the course of other nations to its own enduring advantage. 86
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 04 Jun 2022 19:56 | # DanielS, I wish you wouldn’t throw in Jewish style critiques to score pedantry points when you have something substantive to offer. It not only detracts from what I offer of substance but it also detracts from what you have to offer of substance. What you quite probably have to offer of substance is the story behind your “kiss in Omsk” picture. Provenance? Your “culture of critique” obscures a still-relevant point I was making about the cultural situation in Siberia involving the Buryatia and Russians—both of whom share reasons to be at odds with the CCP despite their differences with each other. In order to pull off your Jewish-style critique you had to reword “eastern shore of Baikal” to imply there are no substantial Russian populations east of Baikal. It’s fine to interject what you see as an important specific to my brevity, but keep it in perspective. 87
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 04 Jun 2022 20:49 | # Holy Shit, Bowery, for (my) putting forth something cooperative in order to join with what you say, you respond with hyper comepetitiveness, dishonesty and nastiness. The dishonesty coming from you has many examples now, and I was not seeking yet another (just above, your word count of the DNA Nations 1,200 words becomes 32,000) and that somehow I must come up with a “better idea” than pairwise dues, a novel means of conflict resolution (according to your assessment) or the rest of what I prose is useless and ought to be ignored. Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 04 Jun 2022 19:56 | #
“Jewish style critiques” ... what the fuck are you talking about? The guy in Adidas clothes? The Russian Federation can merit some disrespect for Putin’s invasion. A little joke but illustrative of a point for those who see the less than stellar underside to the Russian population (there is a nobler and graceful side). But ask a true Belarusian (not Jewish) if they don’t view Russian imperialism with a modicum of disrespect; same with a true Ukrainian or true Japanese non Jewish person, etc. Your throwing in the Jewish stuff is ill informed. You are ridiculously sensitive and take things ridiculously personally.
Many times now, you’ve ascribed motives to me that are not there (“trying to score pedandry points”), this is just another.
Good god what a stupidly over sensitive reaction.
What the hell are you talking about? It pissed me off, just like you said that you were pissed off about the music videos pumping in imagery of blacks with Russian woman. I’ve known enough Russian people to know that this is problematic. And I was connecting to the anger that you and true Russian ethnonationalists would feel about this.
I obscure nothing and your trying to say that the specificatory structure I’ve proposed in good will, to sketch out a possible means of negotiatiation is a “culture of critique” is the response of a fucking asshole. Remember when you tried to tie me to Curt Doolittle (after YOU were the one who was saying he was so smart?) trying to tie me together with him for the fact that I use the word “warrant” and he uses the word “warranty” ?
Doesn’t obscure it. Provides welcome occasion to elaborate on it as you are now doing.
“Jewish style critique” ... what kind of asshole are you?
Not only was I explicit that there are substantial Russian populations east of Lake Baikal (less than a million doesn’t mean “insubstantial’) but I sketched a way of peaceably leaving them in situ.
I used to think that GW was considerably more sick and dishonest than you are. To think I went out on a limb to put you at the forefront of the DNA Nations project. Nothing but paranoid hyper competitiveness from you: “it’s no good/irrelevant if I don’t come up with a novel method of conflict resolution” ..as if the DNA Nations is mutually exclusive to what you have to say about sortocracy (again, when it is generally included from the onset) and as if I am stopping people from considering your ideas, even where they are silly - as if there are not better ways of resolving conflict than pairwise duels, even if the concern is to preserve individuality and sexual differentiation. 88
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 04 Jun 2022 21:13 | # In amongst all this friction, Daniel, I would like to know more of your opinion of the contest in Ukraine, the Western support for Ukraine, and whether Putin is a saviour of our race or, at least, “on our side” merely by dint of opposing the Western elites. This, after all, is what most of the nationalist scene in the West appears to have concluded - and not just Hitler-mongers, 89
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 04 Jun 2022 22:55 | # ...one more remark I want to add first, regarding Bowery’s negative reaction: I know that he doesn’t pay much attention to what I’ve said (and I don’t really care; can’t require him to, would only hope that he not speculate about what I say and my motives) but I have been talking about Lake Baikal being a proper dividing line for years now; lest James think that I was merely speaking derivatively of his discussion. Now to answer GW as briefly as possible, as an answer could go on and on..
If Putin were “fighting”, i.e., in tactful, non hot war ways, the imposition of PC coming from the west, and joining ethnonationalists, including the Ukrainians in that cause, of course I would view that as proper. But there is no excuse for his hot war invasion of Ukraine. Those reacting to the plague of the west (or trying to impose it, in line with Stephen Cohen) are not appreciating the obvious, that Yanukovych was at the behest of Putin, who tried to install him as President by literally poisoning his opponent first go round in 2004 and then tried to install him by playing off the naivete, greed etc of Biden (e.g., his son), Trump (his campaign manager, Manafort), etc; the point being that it is bizarre to me when I hear WN or anybody say that Yanukovych was fairly elected and that the west was turning its back on democracy by backing those who would not stand for him in the Maidan protest. However, that is not to say that Zalensky is legitimate either. He has all the hallmarks of a manifestation of Operation Clean Break, “courtesy” Viktoria Nuland, her husband, Robert Kagan (one of its authors) (((et al.))). This is where I seriously disagree with you that his call for hot war against Putin ought to be heeded and supplied as representing organic concern for Ukrainian ethnonationalsm. It seems you’ve taken a more dismissive attitude to the imposition of Jewry than you used to do, and I am satisfied that this is a mistake: “war is a Jew harvest.” Modelling ethnonational motivation in situ, based on Belarusian colleague, who could not hate Lukashenko and Russia more (for historical reasons, Belarusians having been killed in the millions over the years by Russian invasions), but who, after having visited western Europe and the US; and after seeing the pan mixia there, pulled back dramatically to look upon the deep freeze of Lukashenko’s oppression, bad as it is, as being something that should be tactfully opposed and waited out; as at least it preserves the ethnonatonal population for the time being, I would apply the same motivation to Ukraine given the situation; of course it would be good if things had worked out differently; but given the invasion by Putin (which I do not see as justified, at all); organic Ukrainian ethnonationalism (not headlong neo Nazi reaction at the behest of their Jewish masters) would have played along with Putin, humor him by allowing him to install a puppet like Lukashenko for the time being. Ukrainian ethnonationalim and all ethnonationalism got a big boost of sympathy for Putin’s imperialist attack against it; and would be in good position to re-take its ethnonationalism over the long haul. Having been to Lukashenko’s Belarus several times, I know of its bad sides. He has murdered at least ten political opponents. People go to horrible jails for relatively minor offenses; I’ve known people who have been beaten for hours for protesting his “elections” .. newspapermen and bookstore owners who’ve had their businesses shut down. The media controlled and infused with anti-American propaganda. And Lukashenko removed Belarusian as the official language (Belarusians are nearly 90 percent of the population), the official language which Shushkevich had installed upon his dissolution of the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, if one is not hell bent on promoting liberalism, defying Lukahenko’s rule, the life there is fairly well provided (programs for young couples to get apartments and so on) and the atmosphere and diversion pleasant enough (nice parks, bars, restaurants enough). But most importantly, the native population is in tact whereas it would be in more peril in the throes of the west. Hence, for that and other reasons I would not agree with you or Greg Johnson that the non-organic Jewish motive of Zalensky should be ignored and that Putin should be engaged directly in a hot war. War is a Jew harvest. Now, there is “poz” coming from the west as I point out in this brief video that I captured in L’viv: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEB1T8ZUX4g And that is a challenge that must be opposed and defeated with a form of war in superior intelligence than the Jewish folks, largely responsible for its imposition.
90
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 04 Jun 2022 23:46 | #
91
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 04 Jun 2022 23:54 | # Oh yeah and this dishonesty almost too big to register:
Saying not only that I want “a declaration of war” which I NEVER said anywhere, but you add that I require exacting particulars for the goals of this declaration - a declaration which I never made or sought. 92
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 05 Jun 2022 00:28 | # But while I am being hard on you for where I am satisfied that you are mistaken (let me leave off the adjective, “badly”), let me also point out your significant contributions, including one that has been for me, probably the most pivotal to the well being of my outlook in my life: that people are free to choose to go with others, but they are not free to impose their choice upon us; and if they do, they are the supremacists, would-be slave masters trying to put us into involuntary contract, trying to take away our human/moral agency; foregoing what might be respect for their own respect as human/moral agents. The sense of being freed from this imposition and the relative confidence that these traitors will find punishment amidst others and their betrayal of us, has been for me probably the single most important idea coming from another. I wish that you could be satisfied with the several ideas of yours that ARE respected, that people a have respect for your contributions; and that you might rather bear correction where you are imperfect like the rest of us, not be paranoid, hyper competitive, dishonest (to the point of absurdity) and disrespectful of the contributions of others. 93
Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 05 Jun 2022 03:38 | # Carl Jung , an early indulger of his Utopian fantasies , realised , because he was a psychiatrist , that they might drive him mad , or as we say in non - American English, ungovernable anger , in the manner experienced by pre - syphilitic Nietzsche , Hoelderlin and quite a few others. Look to it , DanielS. 94
Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 05 Jun 2022 04:16 | # GW , you are DanielS’s ex - Catholic persona’s earthbound intellectual deity . He is a Pole and his culture , like that of all Europeans, has been adulterated by the Jewish importation of Christianity , so forgiveness may be in ( ironic ) order . 95
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 05 Jun 2022 04:59 | #
Al Ross, growing up in America, with an Italian American father and a Polish American mother, “a Pole” does not exactly fit as my primary descriptor; I identified more as White (of European extraction) first, Italian American second, than any other racial descriptor. After not making my Confirmation and not practicing Catholicism or believing any form of Christianity through my teens, I shed remaining attempts to draw upon Christianity by my early twenties; I did have to come to Poland to discover that “Polish” was hardly something to be ashamed of - after growing up in America with its primary connotation being “the Polish joke” at the convenience of largely German American population and Jewish elitist power and influence there; and it has not exactly been the case that I deify GW, as proxy or otherwise, in case you haven’t noticed. 96
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 05 Jun 2022 05:07 | # P.S. Not sure, Al, if you got that my last comment was directed at Bowery, not GW. And Not being a STEM guy myself, I have been susceptible to be mystified by this type at the onset - impressed and giving them the benefit of the doubt (at times, more than they deserve), projecting my own good will onto them; but I will catch on and have eventually where their arguments don’t hold up. 97
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 05 Jun 2022 07:36 | # Daniel, Al finds it necessary to say very little about himself. That, it seems to me, is a healthy thing. On the Ukraine war, thank you for your take. Of course, we differ on the question of whether the war requires a response from us to China or to the too too familiar neocons and other tribalists. For me the question is settled by two factors: 1. Not since the days of British gunboat diplomacy do world powers honestly go to war for minorities and their rights. They go to war for deep geopolitical reasons that never escape the confines of their own counsel, although they are, of course, plainly understood by the other world powers with whom they contest. Russia went to war for deep geopolitical, China-related reasons, not to “save” Russian speakers in Ukraine post-Maidan. I agree that Yanukovych was Putin’s poodle, governing for Putin exactly as Lukashenko does, and overthrowing him was perfectly legitimately. It was also perfectly legitimate for America to push a little behind the scenes. Maybe not quite so vulgarly as Nuland did it, though. 2. The Ukrainians represent the ethnic principle, the native principle in the whole affair; and their peaceful life, their survival, their right on the soil, their gene interests, indeed, are the primary moral cause; and for us, as ethnic nationalists (I am not an “ethno-nationalist”, btw, I do not require to be defined by an American academic) ... for us the ethnic principle is what we are bound to support. It does not matter whether Jews are on the scene. It does not matter whether the West is a multiracialising hell-hole today. What matters is that Ukrainians are not effectively driven from their home or killed or made impotent victims by Putin. First life, then, for only life - obviously - contains the possibility to fight for freedom from the dictates of Judaism. What would be the point of destroying one’s nationhood and peoplehood so as not to have it destroyed by those dictates five generations from now? Life first. In conclusion, I would remind you that the vaunted Re-Set is scheduled for eight years from now. China is riding it in the expectation that it will deliver the collapse of the Western model across the world, including in the West itself, and the imposition of the Chinese model ... Chinese global hegemony. If we want to resist Davos - which we do - we have to know that for the Chinese it is their tool. 98
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 05 Jun 2022 07:55 | #
You are wrongly presuming that I am saying that Ukraine should not fight for its nationhood, nor have support from the west in its ethnonationalism (your ethnic thing is petty, ignoring that ethnonationalism always refers to genus and species - e.g., Ukrainian) but rather they should not be fighting in this forthright a way. Life first is exactly why Ukraine should not be engaging in a direct, hot war with Russia. And you are very wrong that the Jewish component is not significant in the nature of this conflict; to deploy a phrasing that I gleaned from a former poster at MR, they are typically the ones who set the agendas, take the initiatives and grease the palms. I did not thoroughly answer your question as to whether or not I view Putin as the White savior; I might answer simply that he is not in any satisfactory way that. As to how Putin will size up with China, my provisional understanding is that he is naïve, and that China is looking to take advantage of him and the Russian empire as well. .... A note on Al Ross, you are probably correct that he should not be too open about his commitment to Hitler redemptionism. 99
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 05 Jun 2022 09:02 | # 1. Where did I say that you said Ukrainians shouldn’t fight? I said that, for me, two factors determined the correct stance on the whole question: the nature of the geopolitical state and the native principle. I am explaining the context of Great Power warfare and the necessity of the native’s recourse to self-defence as primary determinants for us. Most nationalists are so glued to the counter-Judaic thing they can’t manage that. I rather hoped that you might share a little more of my view on it. 2. Neither is the native principle petty. In Europe it is the fundamental giver of right on and to the soil, and it is the natural redoubt on which all Europeans will have to fight, politically or otherwise, one day. “Life first” ... the existential cause ... applies in spades to the position of Ukrainians now. A quarter of the population has been made internal or external refugees. It is very clear that the Russian method of warfare, namely smashing everything with artillery fire, is an exercise in ethnic cleansing as well as warfare itself. If you think that would change one iota if Ukrainian men became flower children overnight you are wrong. Beyond the tipping-point of the first artillery fire “life first” means picking up a rifle and killing the enemy. No half-measures. Men are sociobiologised exactly to that end. It is what we do, and it is an act of love and devotion. 3. The Jewish component is not significant to the Chinese geopolitical and Ukrainian native components, which are the primary determinants of how we should stand, in my view. Dragging on and on about Jews is functionally irrelevant at this point. The time for that was in the three decades after the establishment of the Ukrainian state in 1991. Once the gunfire sounds the existential issue is All. 4. Putin has been in power for 23 years. Stalin only had 31. It is beginning to show. His understanding of actual Russian military capability has been exposed as complacent, to put it mildly. Accordingly, his geopolitical reading was naive. He misread the strength and unity of NATO, and has increased its membership by rendering neutrality unviable. He misread the determination of the Western powers to unite in sanctioning the Russian economy. He has reduced Russia’s standing with China, not strengthened it. He has exposed India and Iran as geopolitical enemies of the West, and brought globalism’s fundamental condition of globalisation into serious question for the first time since the late 1970s. Most of all, he has lost Ukrainians for a hundred years or more, and made it impossible for Russia to expand its sphere of influence anywhere to the West for the next decade or three. With luck and the spirit of the Ukrainian fighting man, he will lose all the Ukrainian territory he has shelled his way into. We will have to look elsewhere for a saviour, or not look at all and do the job ourselves. 100
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 05 Jun 2022 09:51 | #
No, where did I say that? I’ve been saying that they should not fight in conventional, hot war fashion. 101
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 05 Jun 2022 09:54 | #
I didn’t say it was petty. I said that your preference for the word ethnic nationalism as opposed to ethnonationalism is petty, when the latter term covers both genus (European) and their specific kinds of nationalism. 102
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 05 Jun 2022 09:55 | # But they have to fight when the fight is brought to them and death is the alternative. 103
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 05 Jun 2022 09:57 | #
I was clear to say that they should fight (not become “flower children”) but rather not fight a direct, conventional war. 104
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 05 Jun 2022 09:59 | #
Were they going to start killing the entire population of Ukrainians any more than they were going to kill the entire Belarusian population? Obviously not. If you are under direct fire, sure, defend yourself; otherwise, in the situation, live to fight another day. Life first indeed. 105
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 05 Jun 2022 10:02 | #
The Jewish component is obviously significant in the Zalensky regime, those who are backing him there and those who are backing him form the US, from Blinken, to Nuland and Kagan. As you have acknowledged, it is significant on the Putin side as well. 106
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 05 Jun 2022 10:06 | # On Walker Connor’s invented term, our nationalism is ineluctably ethnic and existential in a philosophical form he could not grasp. What is the point of confirming his language? He was not seeking to help us. He was seeking, in the main, to correct the mendacious culturism and civicism of the other, most Jewish academics in the field from the immediate post-war years. Our task is to define our philosophy ourselves in accordance with its actual substance, and not have it defined with some catchy little appellation by a creature of the liberal zeitgeist who was not one of us. The only reason it is used in the English-speaking white world today is because the nationalists of the past (a) wanted to escape from the antifa hate-attacks, and (b) didn’t know or care what ethnic nationalism was anyway, because they remained Nietzscheans and vestigial fascists. We can and must think better than such people. 107
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 05 Jun 2022 10:08 | #
But it is not significant to the Ukrainians’ existential struggle with Russia, which is just in its own right and is in no way compromised by Zelensky’s ethnicity. 108
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 05 Jun 2022 10:14 | # Actually, a lot of military specialists appear to think that the Ukrainians have been highly innovative in the early phases of the war. One reads this often. Once the conditions changed to the wide open spaces of the Donbas the Ukrainian tactics had to change too. They need long-range artillery to prosecute those new tactics, but for their own reasons the Americans and British have been slow to act and the Germans have done nothing at all. Macron, meanwhile, is trying to assert himself for reasons of personal vanity as the “thinker” who will bring the headstrong and stubborn Russians to the table. 109
Posted by Thorn on Sun, 05 Jun 2022 10:18 | # GW @ 85:
China has its many vulnerabilities. Currently China is on the rise; its ascendency will level off then it will begin to decline. The population projection for China is that by the end of this century it is on track to decline to one third of what it is today - a 66% decline. Hence, not worried about China in the long term. The population explosion taking place in sub-Saharan Africa leading to a continuous massive migration into Europe is the existential threat. That on top of what’s already there. (As an aside, you mentioned that, in effect, white nationalists are viewing Putin as some sort of savior for the white race. If so they are wrong. “Pootie-poot” Putin is looking out for the interests of Russia and its Russian citizens. Period. The foreign policy makers in the USA know that thus they deliberately provoked Russia into invading Ukraine. I lay the blame for the consequences of this war first a foremost on the USA, secondly on Zelensky and thirdly on Putin. That’s my take.)
110
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 05 Jun 2022 10:30 | #
I don’t know anyone who misunderstands the term ethnonationalists in the way that you suggest that they might. I don’t like the term ethnic because I don’t hear it as a racial, genetic thing, but as a matter of language, religion and other culture, softly ensconcing ethnicity and cuisine. I understand that you don’t mean it that way, but given that nobody misunderstands what I am saying (in fact it is dangerous to use the word ethnonationalism on youtube exactly because it is clearly about genetics), I will continue to use the term ethnonationalism. Use the term ethnic nationalism as you might, I will not. 111
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 05 Jun 2022 10:33 | # Thorn, the drive for Chinese global hegemony is a parallel to Davos’s drive for the Great Re-Set. We are talking 2030 here, not the end of the century. It has nothing to do with Chinese demographics.
I know. But you won’t treat the Russians as adults with their own power of decision. You won’t treat Russia as a great power. So you won’t understand that great powers don’t go to war for minorities in other lands. They go to war for reasons which are structural to international relations and the modern equivalent of The Great Game. 112
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 05 Jun 2022 10:34 | #
The Ukrainians existential struggle is just in its own right and is absolutely endangered by Zalensky’s war mongering in Jewish detachment from organic European interests - asking NATO to enforce a ‘no fly zone’? - this fucking Jew is threating to take all of us into World War Three. War is a Jew harvest. 114
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 05 Jun 2022 10:58 | #
I don’t know of anyone in the English-speaking European world who understands the nationalism of ethnicity, or has even thought about its constituent principles, parts and processes. The French have Alain de Benoist and the dead Faye. But these guys remained attached to the old continental, Nietzschean thinking. De Benoist is very slippery. English-speaking nationalists assume the whole thing must be self-explanatory. People pitch in with their four-penneth but nothing holistic and world-making can ever come of that. We don’t bloody well know what we are supposed to be replacing liberalism with. “The life of glory”? Distributism? Tradition? They don’t know any different. Blindly picking up Connor’s term and sticking it on this mess is plainly thought-free and non-optimal. On the question of associations with food and culture, that’s fine. That’s a strength. Peoples have cultures and cuisines because they have land. These things come from the act of living on the land. The association does not imply that ethnic is only cultural, but certainly a people should claim its culture and do so jealously. 115
Posted by Thorn on Sun, 05 Jun 2022 11:00 | #
Relax, GW. The Great Reset is a fantastical idea that ain’t gonna happen - not even close. 116
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 05 Jun 2022 11:02 | #
I’m not sure that the Ukrainian families under the Russian air bombardment in the early phase of the war would have said, as the bombs rained down, “OK, let’s not ask anyone to give us protection from this. War is such a Jew harvest, doncha know.” 117
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 05 Jun 2022 11:04 | #
Have you had your booster shot? 118
Posted by Thorn on Sun, 05 Jun 2022 11:42 | #
I have, but I personally know a sh-tload of ppl who refuse the mRNA vaccine - some in my own family. Point being there’s a substantial amount of non-compliance and push-back - at all levels - against government enforced mandates. 119
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 05 Jun 2022 13:07 | #
They would have said have your Jewish leader get out of power, doncha know. 120
Posted by Thorn on Sun, 05 Jun 2022 13:08 | # The Great Reset: Resetting the World https://soundcloud.com/world-economic-forum/the-great-reset-resetting-the In the comments section people be talkin’ smack about the Schwabster. LMAO! 121
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 05 Jun 2022 13:09 | #
Everyone who cares about our kind(s) understands it, know one is allowed to practice it. 122
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 05 Jun 2022 14:02 | # DanielS writes: Holy Shit, Bowery, for (my) putting forth something cooperative in order to join with what you say, you respond with hyper comepetitiveness, dishonesty and nastiness. Consider my response to you @86 withdrawn. My apologies for failing to give adequate attention to what you actually said, Daniel. The problem is not so much hyper competitiveness on my part (let alone dishonesty and nastiness) but the adversarial relationship that has developed between us, combined with demands on my own time, has led me to respond to you when I should hold my tongue until such time (if ever) I have adequate time to read what you actually say rather than permitting our “priors” to impute unwarranted meaning on the information I missed. 123
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 05 Jun 2022 14:41 | # Nobody in America whom I know understands what a nationalism of ethnicity truly is, and nobody in England either, from what I can see. YOU do not understand what a nationalism of ethnicity truly is, and you prove the fact by insisting that it is generic knowledge. By my reckoning this captures the essence of it:
... and this covers the wider nature of it: https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/what_british_nationalism_can_become 124
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 05 Jun 2022 14:44 | # A woman conscious that her strength in confrontation with a white man derives not from herself or from God but from the prison gangs of color cultivated by the government, is a rare and valuable creature whose hind brain might be restrained from demanding he destroy civilization. To elide this in portraying my radical approach to all but eliminating prisons in Sortocracy as “goofy” does not evince a close reading of what I’ve advocated. It doesn’t evince any kind of reading at all. Since it was through my associates with a hard-leftist background and their contacts with Human Rights Watch that this issue achieved sufficient prominence to become legislation at the Federal level, I would ask for a little closer reading of what _I_ actually have said. 125
Posted by Al Ross on Thu, 09 Jun 2022 04:31 | # DanielS #92 , your introductory ” While I am being hard on you” may be derived from the partially forgiving jargon of past disappointing, doctoral supervisory opinion. 128
Posted by Thorn on Fri, 10 Jun 2022 11:33 | # It’s a welcome relief to know there’s still a majority of the Americano population who’re capable of properly putting their priorities in order; moreover, they’re not being fooled by the MSM’s ridiculous anti-Russian/anti-Putin propaganda. .
129
Posted by Thorn on Sat, 11 Jun 2022 13:21 | # Science versus Scientism (part 2) Continued root cause analysis of the COVIDcrisis https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/science-versus-scientism-part-2?s=r 130
Posted by Thorn on Sun, 12 Jun 2022 10:22 | # Excerpt from the link I posted @# 129
131
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 12 Jun 2022 11:27 | # P.S. It’s a nice looking and well laid out (in its conception) website, if I do say-so myself - DanielS; thanks to Kumiko for all the computer-tech work involved. 132
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 12 Jun 2022 11:34 | # ...and note GW lifting the use of a feedback loop type diagram in this post - the kind my “communictionist” discipline, which he derides (in whichever way he can try) is known to use. 133
Posted by Thorn on Sun, 12 Jun 2022 14:17 | # This poor fool bought into the anti-Putin propaganda, and for it he’s likely to pay the ultimate price.
134
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 12 Jun 2022 16:03 | # For Ukrainians, and for any native people, “anti-Putin” means pro-human freedom, pro the native principle. If you are a hater of human freedom and the native principle, Thorn, your position makes sense - you want the native people of Ukraine bombed to hell. But I don’t think that you want that. What you want is the humiliation of the West. You just cannot see that buying this humiliation through the death and destruction of the people of Ukraine is immoral. 135
Posted by Thorn on Sun, 12 Jun 2022 17:12 | # “For Ukrainians, and for any native people, “anti-Putin” means pro-human freedom, pro the native principle. If you are a hater of human freedom and the native principle, Thorn, your position makes sense - you want the native people of Ukraine bombed to hell.” Wrong, GW. I’d prefer that the West would’ve never instigated this war in the first place. The U.S. State Department worked hand-in-glove with the CIA at fomenting the Euromaidan coup - a clear aggressive provocation against Russia. But the provocations didn’t stop there; no, they the continued on-and-on crossing red-line after red-line. “But I don’t think that you want that. What you want is the humiliation of the West.” HAHA! What I want is immaterial. In reality the West has already humiliated herself numerous times; I regret the West has made a habit of doing that. For example: If the idiotic attempt at nation-building in Afghanistan wasn’t bad enough, the recent bungled military withdrawal there took the cake! Of course, the list of examples is long and getting longer…. Bottomline, My hope is for the West to STOP humiliating itself. In order to do that it must—amongst other things—stop its immoral practice of fomenting and-or waging illegitimate wars under the guise of “spreading freedom and democracy”. Good little piece that may be of interest to you: Excerpt,
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/03/zelensky_suspends_media_and_opposition_parties.html
136
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 12 Jun 2022 19:00 | # Only prisoners of the usual dictate who cannot see past the Maidan believe that Putin has no wider geopolitical purpose, and that his Russia is operating in an historical vacuum, wholly obsessed with NATO and “the West”. It isn’t true. Indeed, it is infantilising Russia to suppose that it does not act as the great power it considers itself to be. I just do not understand how totally immoral people like yourself become when you see a clearly inhuman attack on a neighbour and manage to blame the neighbour. For heavens sake, it’s a war on a people, not “Zelensky”, not neocons. It is the life and will and freedom of the people which is the moral cause, not Russian expansionism. Stop reading “American thinkers”. They are shrivelling your humanity. 137
Posted by Thorn on Sun, 12 Jun 2022 20:34 | # GW, I along with many others view this war from the perspective that it’s a proxy war between the USA and Russia. The USA is using Zelensky as their puppet and the native Ukrainians as their army/cannon fodder. The West’s stated goal is to prolong the war as long as they can for the purpose of weakening Russia’s military, economy, and last but not least Putin’s hold on power. This gambit initiated by the West (mainly the USA and the UK) may prove to backfire in spectacular fashion. In fact, in many ways, it already has. Again, I don’t blame the neighbor that’s being attacked, I blame the third-party (the USA) who deliberately, knowingly, and cunningly instigated/provoked Russia to launch the attack. They knew how far they could push Putin before he’d strike, and they pushed him beyond the breaking point. The sad and obvious aspect of this war is it could have easily been avoided, but the West did not want to avoid it. They obviously want war with Russia using Ukraine as its proxy. Another white-on-white war instigated by the West’s traitorous anti-white ruling-class. I, like many others, saw this proxy war between the NATO (led by the USA) and Russia coming 15 years ago. Any casual observer also saw it coming—it was too obvious to miss especially after the Euromaidan coup. 138
Posted by Thorn on Wed, 15 Jun 2022 19:48 | # The Mexican president is correct.
https://www.rt.com/news/557177-mexico-ukraine-policies-immoral/ ******* Even a broken pope is correct twice a day.
139
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 16 Jun 2022 09:03 | # That, Thorn, is an example of how morality is lost to secondary concerns. The moral principle on the land of Ukraine is the defence of the life of its people. Since 2014 the aggressor has been Putin’s Russia. If Ukrainians desire to live free of Russia then it is entirely moral to supply them with the means of doing so. There is no argument for Russia. Anyone claiming that it is moral for Russians to be allowed to crush a neighbouring people has completely lost his senses. 140
Posted by Thorn on Thu, 16 Jun 2022 13:51 | # “Anyone claiming that it is moral for Russians to be allowed to crush a neighbouring people has completely lost his senses.” Nobody is claiming it is “moral” for the Russians to be allowed to “crush” the people of Ukraine. What many are claiming - including myself, of course - is it was immoral for the Western powers - led by the USA - to provoke Russia into invading Ukraine. Anyone with a lick of sense recognized the West’s provocations would inevitably lead to war. So the question is: Are the NATO powers in any way culpable for agitating this war? Of course all the evidence clearly indicates they are. Putin’s invasion is not moral but we must consider the immoral behavior of the Western perps who instigated it. The immorality is found in leadership of the US/NATO, the Zelensky regime, and in the Kremlin - in that sequential order. Bottom line, Putin will not comply with the globohomo agenda so he’s been deemed an existential threat thus must be eliminated at all costs. To the globohomo leaders, the sacrifice of the Ukrainian ppl is a small price to pay - it’s incidental to their overarching agenda. Truth: the globohomoists are the supreme practitioners of immorality - straight out of the Synagogue of Satan. 141
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 16 Jun 2022 16:01 | # Defending European peoples from the Russian imperialist project cannot be wrong. Would you rather Ukrainians had the possibility, as they themselves wish, to destine in their own cause or: i) prior to Maidan exist as another Belarussia under the control of the local Lukashenko (ie, Victor Yanukovych), or The moral case is so clear it is a continuing mystery to me why otherwise sane people want Russia to have its way cuz Joos or cuz “globo-homo”. First Ukraine must survive. Any subsequent struggle comes, well, subsequently. But there is no point at all in fighting “Joos and globo-homo” when Putin is at the front door with his army. One fight at a time, for heavens sake. 142
Posted by Thorn on Fri, 17 Jun 2022 10:24 | #
Nope, no it isn’t. Your understanding of the situation is way too simplistic. I suspect your hatred for Putin (your emotions) is impeding/overriding your objectivity vis-a-vis the dynamics of Ukraine’s civil war and subsequent Russian invasion. 143
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 18 Jun 2022 08:53 | # So geopolitics, Russian prestige and the fourth empire in the West, the drive for Chinese global hegemony, China in Davos, CBDCs and the dollar reserve ... all that’s “way too simplistic”, and really it’s all about poor Vlad being so terribly pushed by wicked Joos into defending his beloved Russian-speakers in the Donbas. History begins in July 2014 when all by themselves, Joos overthrew their Russia-lackey government by demonstrations all over Ukraine, not just in the Maidan. It’s Joos and there’s nothing simplistic in that. Oh no, not at all. 144
Posted by Thorn on Sat, 18 Jun 2022 12:33 | # GW, May I suggest you abandon your obsession with the “Joos” and, instead, consider the facts? Facts that point out why the Putin regime felt compelled to invade Ukraine. Facts such as right-wing neo-Nazi Ukrainians trapping pro-Russia protesters in the Trades Unions building in Odessa, lighting it afire resulting in 39 murdered. Concurrently and continuously the Ukrainian armed forces attacking/murdering ethnic Russians and Ukes sympathetic to Russia—especially but not exclusively in the Donbas region. Add to that the Zelensky regime signaling his intentions and desires to join NATO. I think you can understand the threat to Russia Ukraine joining NATO entails. TALK ABOUT PROVECATIONS!!!! All that and more put Putin in the position where he had to make the rational decision to launch a preemptive strike on Ukraine; he timed it before Ukraine joined NATO. Smart move on his part, IMHO. If only the Zelensky regime would’ve have abided by the Minsk accords this war would had never become a reality. As an aside, Marine LePen et al warned it’s utterly foolish for the West to act hostile towards Russia; it will result in driving Russia into the arms of China. Meaning Russia, the largest country in the world WRT landmass (loaded to the brim with natural resources) allied with China (the manufacturing workshop of the world) will be aligned against the debt-ridden, morally bankrupt, LGBTQ obsessed West. Within the next decade or two (sans nuclear war), who do you think will hold the upper hand? My bets are on the Eurasian alliance. 145
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 18 Jun 2022 15:01 | # None of that is actually true. But it is successful propaganda, obviously. Above and beyond the petty little WN world and its endless, boring and completely counter-productive Joo-stuff there is, as I have demonstrated, another world of serious geopolitical thinking by adults. Here is a bit on our friend Sergey: https://thecradle.co/Article/interviews/9135 I have tried across two threads to introduce you to that world, but you insist on remaining within the bounds of WN’s compulsions. I will just leave it there. 146
Posted by Thorn on Sat, 18 Jun 2022 17:40 | # This, from the world you tried to introduce me to: “Trump’s attempts to limit China’s development through trade war methods have failed. At the same time, they boomeranged at the United States itself. Then the Americans opened a biological war front by launching the coronavirus in China, hoping that the Chinese leadership would not cope with this epidemic and chaos would arise in China.”—Sergey Glazyev Does ol’ Sergey reflect that of “serious geopolitical thinking by adults” or crackpot conspiracy theorists? I contend it’s the latter. Be careful who you hold up as an exemplar, GW. Just sayin’.... BTW, I’ve made it clear here on numerous occasions that I regard WN—in its current form—an abject failure ... and an embarrassing one at that. 147
Posted by Thorn on Sat, 18 Jun 2022 18:43 | # Ron Unz writes: “Prof. John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago ranks as one of America’s most distinguished political scientists. In 2016 he gave a 75 minute lecture describing the extremely provocative policies of America’s Ukrainian client-state, and warning that such total disregard for Russia’s legitimate national security interests would eventually provoke a forceful Russian reaction. His prescient analysis was ignored by all our policy-makers and languished on Youtube for six years until recent events suddenly brought him more than 24 million worldwide viewers, an audience probably matched by few serious foreign policy presentations in the history of the Internet. Our current disaster might have been averted if his views had been taken seriously in the past.” Why is Ukraine the West’s Fault? Featuring John Mearsheimer 149
Posted by Thorn on Wed, 22 Jun 2022 23:37 | # Kaliningrad = provocation. Can GW understand that? Doubtful. 150
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 23 Jun 2022 03:06 | # As I commented on a prior post:
Kaliningrad is more precisely described as yet another sting from the swarm. This swarm has its roots in the culture of group integrity’s reaction to Trump’s election, seen by that culture as awakening the culture of individual integrity to its need to formally declare war on its enemies that have thoroughly infiltrated the West. That it acts like a eusocial insect hive rather than a fully conscious war machine is predictable and is going to have a predictable outcome: Mao’s “century of humiliation” remedied by “unrestricted warfare”, utilizing its ongoing enhancement of Jewish virulence ever since WW II, will win* as the West self-immolates over its inability to admit that “DA JOOOZ” actually are a serious problem—even if only as a biological weapon engineered by a Maoist thinktank. Russia? It’s a sacrificial pawn. *Modulo Africa’s demographic digestion of the planet’s biosphere, including China. The Chinese don’t have the kind of wise leadership that burned that eunuch’s merchant ships upon return from Africa in their properly aborted “age of exploration”. 151
Posted by Thorn on Thu, 23 Jun 2022 15:29 | # Delusion
RTWT 152
Posted by Thorn on Thu, 23 Jun 2022 23:14 | #
Or TPTB regard the Putin regime as an obstacle thus must be overthrown. Same goes, to a lesser extent, for the Trump movement. But I think the rest of your take is pretty much on target. 153
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 24 Jun 2022 18:11 | # Mitch McConnell’s support of purple-hair-Studies MA-social-worker confiscation of guns (aka Red Flag Laws) is more of a provocation by BLOB than was Ukraine joining NATO. This may well be the flash point for the modern rhyme with The Thirty Years War that I’ve been warning about. The scenario is pretty obvious: some shit-testing thot gets pimp-handed and ups the ante with a call to purple-hair. Purple-hair calls the “judge” who cows before the royal hue and orders the Sheriff to confiscate the guns of a guy who still has some balls. Guy with balls has friends with balls. Knock on his door by a poor SOB deputy. Answers. Guns demanded. Guy with balls puts out call for help for protection from castrati-enforcement. Bunch of guys with balls show up. Sheriff backs down. Purple-hair, remembering all those movies about bigoted southern Sheriffs resisting Federal authority, calls on FBI for backup. FBI, remembering all those movies about bigoted southern Sheriffs resisting Federal authority, mobilizes its sterile warrior caste bugtheys. Guys with balls start drooling at the idea of killing a bunch of sterile warrior caste bugtheys showing up from DC. And so forth.. Now, I’ve been warning for decades about the Internet being the equivalent of Gutenberg’s triggering the Thirty Years War against theocratic supremacy. While the Feds will win in these skirmishes with Guys With Balls, the conflict will quickly escalate to taking out the life-support infrastructure of the space-stations known as “urban areas”. The skeptics like to pretend that this can’t happen because it hasn’t happened thus far and men just don’t have the balls to do it anymore. This is wishful thinking on their part: They _wish_ it wasn’t as _easy_ as it is to blow the bolts on the airlocks of the urban space stations. They _wish_ all men were as cowardly as they are—but it only takes a few percent to blow the bolts. Think of it like this: The Feds are The Big Shit-Testing Thot. TBSTT deeply desires to be pimp-handed—so she’ll escalate to the point that the only options left will be economical enough to be pulled off by a small number of Guys With Balls ... The Sampson Option: Blow the Bolts on the Urban Space Stations. Russia may well join in. Now, during all this chaos, what will China be doing? What will _you_ be doing to prepare for China stepping in to take over what’s left of the self-immolating West (and Russia)? And what will exponential-Africa be doing with all its military-aged men displaced by polygyny? And now we have the Roe v Wade decision by US SCOTUS: If pro-lifers had any reasonable leadership, they’d immediately start campaigning for replacing a woman’s right to an abortion with the right to RELOCATE to another State and associated expenses, coupled with the right of any State to excluded anyone for any reason whatsoever. Yeah, you’d have to ditch the 14th Amendment to do that, but you can do so by extending to all citizens the right to relocation—including those incarcerated—and reallocating State territory each 10 year census based on which States are so disgusting that they lose people. Since this isn’t going to happen*, nor anything remotely like it, we’re in for a blood-letting, the likes of which Western Civilization hasn’t seen since The Thirty Years War. *in no small measure because of folks who hear my ideas and start screeching “CARTESIAN” at me. 154
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 24 Jun 2022 18:39 | #
Is that what I do? “Screech” and issue forth “endless prose” and “jargon” to borrow words from your Hitlerist friend, Tanstaafl, at the behest of his Jewish wife? LOL. James, you can’t get over the fact that “Cartesian” is an important term philosophically, for our people especially, not exactly conceived as insult term for you in particular. Could I prevent people from attending to your offerings even if insult to you were my purpose in its usage? Let alone be responsible for the new Thirty Years War? Ah yes, I am quite powerful. LOL. 155
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 24 Jun 2022 19:01 | # You did manage to destroy MR. MR occupied niche with unique potential. 156
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 24 Jun 2022 19:39 | #
That’s an idiotic remark. I put the best ideas here And it’s been out of my hands for how long now to return to the predilections of audience who want the same dead shlock? 157
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 25 Jun 2022 17:20 | # I’m in no position to criticize your ideas because I don’t understand them. Nor am I in a position to criticize GW’s ideas for the same reason. Likewise for others, such as Langan’s CTMU or Doolittle’s Propertarian theories of everything, that seem to be offering radical notions of “identity” that would reorient our practical actions to more effectively defend (or, in GW’s opinion, be at _all_ effective in defending) things that we can all agree are of value. What I am in a position to criticize is the way some of these philosophers seem to insist on criticizing action on the basis of their abstractions without offering alternative actions that are equally operationally defined and clear to those who are witnessing, right before their eyes, everything they hold most dear being systematically destroyed to the point that young men are offing themselves (either actively or in learned helplessness) to such a degree that, for example, Wyoming’s Senator wants gun control to stop the high rates of rural men blowing their brains out. When I see you guys blather shit like “CARTESIAN” at specific, operational pragmatic proposals that are clearly stated as though you aren’t pulling the trigger on those young men, it makes my blood boil. 158
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 25 Jun 2022 18:03 | #
Boil your blood all you like, I don’t know how GW uses the term (and definitely do not care how he uses it); but you should get over your hostile reaction to the term Cartesian as it is used in better philosophical deployment - a very important term the deployment of which has rarely been aimed from my part, with you in mind (that you express “Cartesian anxiety”, yes, that I’ll say), and a term the only absurdity in regard to which is where you try to see me as capable of ‘cutting down the entire worth of your proposals with it’, and how the mere mention of it has the power to pull the trigger on the suicidal and start another 30 years war.
159
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 25 Jun 2022 18:54 | # Let me go with a plain example that I’ve given a dozen times before in futile effort to overcome GW’s gaslighting, not that it ever works because the man is sick, and he will never acknowledge anything positive even when shown to be dead wrong: I mention the fact that I’ve used this one illustration a dozen times already to indicate how disgusted that I am with both of you: I definitely do not want anything more to do with GW and I am content to part ways with you as well (for all the shit that you two have needlessly aided and abetted against me - requiring me to response with “endless prose” ... remember when you let that piece of shit Jesus freak, “Joe” have at me for a few weeks?). Heidegger says, but “Kant was still Cartesian.” Am I to presume that Heidegger was talking nonsense because it might offend GW’s unmerited gargantuan ego? Because it triggers scientistic reaction on your part, such that you would try to forbid me from using the term, as I am “demoralizing our people by its use” ? Or do I plainly see the meaning of how Heidegger was deploying the term in accord with the way other learned people in my experience have used it: pursuit of unnatural detachment from engagement in the interactive world, in unhealthy separation if rigidly fixated upon in reification impervious to relevance and specificity. I did not say that I would advocate Ukraine fighting for its eastern provinces because of historical claims, hermeneutic objection. Just the opposite. 160
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 25 Jun 2022 19:12 | # Or to put it another way, detachment from sensibility. My favorite example is that of Heidegger’s student, Gadamer, in “the prejudice against prejudice.” With that, I like to say, anti-racism is Cartesian, it is prejudice against prejudice (against pattern recognition and classification); it is not innocent, it is hurting and it is killing people. And you accuse me of removing important tools from out disposal? Fuck you. Leave it to Tanstaafl to try to say that I was using this to avoid the J.Q. “Anti-Racism is a Jewish construct.” As if that is not true as well…and as if it contradicts what Gadamer says. 161
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 25 Jun 2022 19:15 | # Or to put it another way, detachment from sensibility. My favorite example is that of Heidegger’s student, Gadamer, in “the prejudice against prejudice.” With that, I like to say, anti-racism is Cartesian, it is prejudice against prejudice (against pattern recognition, classification and necessary discrimination thereupon); it is not innocent, it is hurting and it is killing people. And you accuse me of removing important tools from our disposal? Fuck you. Leave it to Tanstaafl to try to say that I was using this to avoid the J.Q. “Anti-Racism is a Jewish construct.” As if (in service of “my jargon”) I would say that is not true as well ...and as if it contradicts what Gadamer says. 162
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 25 Jun 2022 19:44 | # ...and if that’s not clear enough, try adding the phrase, “too much,” as in too much effort to be detached and purely objective, to where one is rationally blinded from important sensible distinctions ..and if you say that scientists always recognize and distinguish patterns, then consider what Spencer Wells (no obscure figure of science) says here:
163
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 25 Jun 2022 21:02 | # ...a stretch in objectivist purity spiral so over-compensating as to not take history sufficiently into account. 164
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 25 Jun 2022 21:32 | # DanielS writes: “Boil your blood all you like.” followed by more not-to-the-point blather about “philosophy”. I’ve set forth, concise, easily understood in the vernacular, points of departure for operations to provide young men with options other than suicide. Until you offer something comparable cease criticizing my proposals from any point of view—most particularly from behind the parapet of philosophical terms. 165
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 25 Jun 2022 22:05 | # Here’s an example of what you “philosophers” need to match in vernacular terms, with a comparable degree of parsimony, before your “critiques” are anything but intellectual cowardice if not subversion contributing to the disaster befalling our peoples:
But little “philosophers” like you “poke holes” pointing to an ancillary measure as “goofy”, without recognizing it addresses the problem of civilization called “prisons” that most people have had no direct experience with yet utterly rely upon for their precious little civilization. (hmmm… that gives me an idea…) 166
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 25 Jun 2022 22:27 | #
Stop being paranoid. I scarcely address your proposals, so “the parapet of ‘philosophical terms’ is not a valid complaint. I’m No more interested in your stuff than you are in mine. 167
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 25 Jun 2022 22:42 | #
Bowery, let me be plain, because you seem to have the illusion that I spend time (I mean ANY) concerned to “poke holes” in your stuff. Along with the rest of the world, I recognize pairwise duels as a goofy. You can try to rename it “the state of nature” but it changes nothing. Besides observing your Cartesian anxiety which spawns that bit of absurdity, I haven’t had much else to say in elaboration. I’m bored with your paranoia which has you think I am absorbed with your stuff. You can’t be bothered with my stuff and I cannot be bothered with yours. If its so interesting to others then they will come here. If you can’t handle pairwise duels being called goofy - and more like a state of acute anxiety than a state of nature - tough shit. Let your blood boil, or better yet, find another interlocutor rather than try to lure me in to defending myself against your absurd accusations of me doing this that and the other terrible thing to you and others (30 years war etc). You think you have the answers? You have posting administration here. 168
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 25 Jun 2022 22:56 | # Ethnocracy, Sortocracy and the Euro-DNA Nation by Daniels:
The afore-itemized rules for Sortocracy are simple and clearly stated enough that their implications should be equally clear. Yet, to this “philosopher” they are “a kind of Cartesian fiction” rather than the removal of the oppression which imposes that fiction. Moreover, the removal of that oppression is done in such a manner that those choosing to continue under its fiction are forced to either expose themselves as the enemy (by opposing Sortocracy) or be put to the therapeutic consequences of their adopted fiction. Either way, those who recognize Sortocracy are provided the necessary morale and clearly stated objective for waging a formally declared war on the now-exposed enemy. And this is how you transmute the primary weakness of our peoples in our current environment, into the decisive strength in that same environment. No ideas that have been set forth by anyone in “The Movement” are even a remote second to this. PS: It isn’t my job to phrase the rules of the prison system in a manner palatable to “leaders” pretending to be on the side of young men by throwing around words like “Boomers” as an insult—“leaders” who wouldn’t last more than a week in one of this “civilization’s” prisons before being punked out by a gang—although I can see why it is important psychologically to them to suppress thought about it with various epithets. But I’ll tell you one thing for damn certain, if you insist on putting your young men up against my young men, ya’ll be maggot food in very short order. 169
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 26 Jun 2022 01:27 | # If I understand GW’s valorization of the West in “The Final Question” regarding the Ukraine war, it is that despite all its manifest flaws, the West still retains sufficient freedom, relative to the “Asiatic” character of Russia and China, that there may be some hope for a philosophical remedy (ie: “The Ontology Project”) to those manifest flaws—but that under the Asiatic character, this less certain if, indeed, it is at all plausible. Therefore, supporting action against Russia is justifiable on what might be thought of as meta-philosophical grounds: A philosophical remedy is at least plausible under the West, despite its manifest flaws, even if increasing toward the day when such support is no longer justifiable. Since I have proposed a action that would guarantee land to those wishing to put their philosophies into practice, it seems really quite strange that DNA Nation, The Ontology Project, Propertarianism, CTMU, etc. proponents aren’t falling all over themselves to support its concise and clear rules of dispute processing. This is, I suspect, due to the same reason none of them find the Rosetta Stone project appealing. Reaching out to others is not high on their priorities. 170
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 26 Jun 2022 05:47 | #
I never called myself a “philosopher” and I never said your rules are a kind of “Cartesian fiction” ... though perhaps a story told for you to sort out with people willing to go along with your sort (as in, probably not me, nor most people). It is you, James, who is deliberately trying to mislead people. You should be ashamed for being so childish. “Oh, mommy, he called ‘pairwise duels goofy, wha wha wha, what will the shield maidens say? Wha wha wha, he used the term Cartesian, gawd forbid he not see my modernist industry as flawless.” ...lets feed the mushrooming population of Africa with algae to make it grow even more.. lets have second world economies of Europe fund a carbon pipe line that would cost more than an outer space project to feed the algae farms. But lets never have anyone believe that I, in my modernist hubris, could be fallible. Poor little boomer, so sensitive. Are you aware that you just turn everything into a competition, no matter how intent one might be in trying to connect with your efforts? You make no effort to see how another is connecting, to let some things go, be a part of your sort as it were, saying perhaps instead, ‘Daniel and others see other ways perhaps of resolving disputes other than pairwise duels but in my sort, we like to keep that one as in my estimation in bears the brunt of ultimate individuality and sexual differentiation. DanielS seems to think there are other ways besides pairwise duels to maintain individuality and sexual differentiation. Let’s let him have his experiment as well.” 171
Posted by Thorn on Sun, 26 Jun 2022 23:02 | # An excellent two-part book review/essay from a somewhat moderate’s POV. It parallels with the message put forth by TheCamp of the Saints https://johnwaters.substack.com/p/europes-death-rattle-part-i https://johnwaters.substack.com/p/europes-death-rattle-part-ii 172
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 28 Jun 2022 19:21 | # DanielS, under what conditions do you think Sortocracy’s rules invoke pair-wise duels? 173
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 28 Jun 2022 19:40 | # Presumably after well inculcated understanding of what consent to be among a community entails and allegations of transgression are brought before a jury (innocent until proven guilty), if a guilty verdict is reached, the transgressor is subject to duel to the death with the plaintiff “sovereign”. If a shielded person, say, a woman, is making the charges, she is not likely to bring them lightly, as she is risking the life of the sovereign man she most depends upon/loves. 174
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 28 Jun 2022 21:41 | # The only rule that might be confused with your interpretation is rule #5. So, again, I’ll ask: Under what conditions do you think Sortocracy’s rule #5 is invoked? 175
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 28 Jun 2022 22:51 | # The offender will not leave and no other state wants to take the convicted offender either. 176
Posted by Thorn on Wed, 29 Jun 2022 00:08 | # Let’s just eliminate all the white liberals - as a result most of the darkies will starve to death. Sortocracy/DNA Nations implemented Thorn style. Easy peasy. 177
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 29 Jun 2022 03:13 | # DanielS writes: The offender will not leave and no other state wants to take the convicted offender either. Exiled offender, yes. (“Convicted” isn’t used in the rules.) Keep in mind there are no “human rights” (eg: No 14th Amendment) other than those enumerated in the rules, so some states will have arbitrarily harsh conditions imposed on arbitrary people, up to and including voluntary slavery, hazardous work, etc. So what percent of the population would end up being excluded from all states? 178
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 29 Jun 2022 13:19 | # Thorn, you should probably know, if you don’t, that I consider what you call “white liberals” to be “extended phenotypes” of “deeper cultures” due to the ecological genetic dominance of those cultures, e.g. victims of a mind/body parasite that diverts reproductive resources from the victim to the parasite. My shorthand for this condition is “parasitic castration” since it is observed, as such, in nature when a parasite will, in some cases and quite literally, eat the gonads of the victim altering the hormonal makeup, hence behavior of the victim while providing the parasite with a tasty meal. These castrati are like zombies—the undead. So I sympathize with your suggestion. However, many of them are economically salvageable by the simple expedient of depriving them of their metaphorical “limousines” as in “limousine liberals”. One of the chief ways parasites achieve their dominance is the centralization of wealth from the white population to then be harvested by infecting the white elite—as we see with court Jews throughout history (recently “Wall Street”) and as we see in the Washington DC “beltway” and “civil service” that is increasingly dominated by blacks where reproductive resources in the form of highly secure “jobs” are diverted to them. In this respect white liberals rely on the “working class white men” for their largesse. Yes I certainly _sympathize_ with the desire to kill these things, but there are two ways in which this bloodlust may be satisfied without discarding the salvageable white liberal: 1) The limousine liberals will oppose Sortocracy for the obvious reason that it decentralizes power and, in the form of land, wealth. Kill them and be happy. 2) The ones that do not oppose Sortocracy and cannot be salvaged because their minds are gone will die naturally—probably being eaten (metaphorically if not literally) by their precious parasites. Watch with glee from a distance without lifting a finger. Their precious parasites, being excluded from further hosts by rule #1, will die of starvation which you may also watch with glee from a distance without lifting a finger. PS: None of this evolutionary medical treatment of the public is to be taken to discount the importance of more philosophical approaches to our plight. From the public health perspective, it is quite “cartesian” in that it relies on a cause->effect mechanical model of society. Push this button and that happens. But there _is_ a philosophical aspect to this: “physician heal thyself” in the sense of “consent” to “self-treatment”. Some would argue that the white liberals that will abide their “morality” being excluded from some states are not being treated with adequate compassion since they have lost much of their moral agency to an infection. This view permits those so philosophically inclined, to commandeer these people as one might an insane, but treatable, person on a similar philosophical ground. So, yes, I’m treading on some toes here with my radical support of “consent”—and some may even accuse me of being “cartesian” in my moral “anxiety” over whether my judgement of these unfortunate creatures is correct or not. “I might be wrong!” says the poor self-doubting Cartesian in his anxious state. Well, all I can say is “Kill You.” 179
Posted by Thorn on Wed, 29 Jun 2022 17:57 | #
No doubt to a large extent that’s true (a view I share) but IMHO that explanation doesn’t apply to all white “liberals”, i.e., many of them are mental defects from the get-go—it appears to be rooted in their DNA. Just as the data indicates IQ is heritable so too is the propensity towards “liberal” pathologies. Journalist Pedro Gonzalez termed white liberals’ behavior as “psycho-sexual ethno-masochism.” An apt term bc he correctly observes that white “liberals” appear to experience perverse sexual pleasure from selling-out their own race. Sick azz mo fos indeed! Then there are the faux morally sanctimonious / virtue-signaling pukes. White “liberals” fall into a lot of different behavioral categories ... all of them are destructive to white identity. Furthermore, destruction/deconstruction of white identity is, of course, leading us, the white race, into extinction. The Noel Ignatiev types of the world fully understand my last sentence thus exploit the self-destructive aspect of white “liberals” to the max. 180
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 29 Jun 2022 21:19 | # Those expressing defective genes as the “white liberal” phenotype will fall into one of the two terminal categories I described above. A more dangerous genetic defect in that scenario is the “white nationalist” who sneaks through the exclusionary barriers to “lead” whites by centralizing wealth and power so that it can be more easily absconded with by stealth parasites. 181
Posted by Thorn on Wed, 29 Jun 2022 22:08 | #
HAH! You make an excellent point. The pattern of that behavior is well established. It reminded me of an old Waylon and Willie song released back in 1978 titled The Year 2003 minus 25. One of the lines: “Who’d've thought them Arabs would’ve bought the USA, just to give it to the Jews.” 182
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 30 Jun 2022 12:44 | #
If I were to venture some answer, would that result in your coming off of your high horse and getting yourself and MacDonald to help with the DNA Nations project (of which there is no good reason why either of you should Not help)? The answer is no. So why bother; while by the same token, I must recognize that it won’t do any good to call pairwise duels “goofy” when another term for this unnecessary nonsense would be still more appropriate, something like STEM-nerd retardation. 183
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 30 Jun 2022 19:06 | # I thought we were making reasonable progress toward mutual understanding up until that response. Why would you demand prior commitment from me to support something I don’t understand before pursuing mutual understanding? 184
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 30 Jun 2022 19:20 | # You don’t understand that 1,200 words that’s been sitting here for ten years? Soren Renner was first to edit it. It was shown by him to you to ensure that it would not insult you. What was I expecting/hoping for from you and MacDonald (who gave it the second edit)? That you’d encourage him to run it at TOO. I never claimed it to be a means to conflict resolution - you said (incorrectly) that I made that claim and for some reason expected that I should come up with a novel means (according to you). The mutual exclusivity of your proposed requirement didn’t make sense ten years ago and doesn’t make sense now. If KM requires a sign up then people can do it at my website. If he thinks it should be better somehow, more secure, whatever, then commentators can make suggestions. 185
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 30 Jun 2022 19:24 | # You don’t understand those 1,200 words that have been sitting here for ten years? 186
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 30 Jun 2022 21:22 | # Don’t pretend to be reciprocal here, DanielS. I did _not_ demand, as a condition of my effort to reach mutual understanding with you about Sortocracy, that you commit to supporting Sortocracy. Since you have now basically run away from that dialogue, I’ll offer my diagnosis: Your repeated insult was about to be exposed, by your own answer, as, at the very best, a petty critique in the mode of the culture of critique. 187
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 01 Jul 2022 00:58 | #
Why can’t you ever respond honestly? I am “pretending to be reciprocal” because I do not treat you and your words as if they are the only thing that matters after you have ignored this project for ten years? Tried to avoid it, saying it was 32,000 words, when it is 1,200 words, saying that it does not answer some claim (conflict resolution) that I never made. Tried to say that I ruined this site (and, further, asshole) ignore things that I say which are gleaned from hard experience, inferred and cultivated from those who actually know what they are talking about. Important things.
That’s not what I said. You said, in your absurdly, gratuitously competitive way, “show me that you can do something better (than Sortocracy), ‘make it (DNA Nations) operative’, by offering some means of conflict resolution - e.g., the mutually assured destruction of nuclear war (that’s just an example, doesn’t have to be that one).”
I did not run away from dialogue. I’ll make the last comment (to repeat and elaborate a bit about the duels). I won’t get lured further into your shit, where you want yes men, even where what you say is stupid. Remember when (for just one example) you said “no women like my article ‘sex as sacrament / sex as celebration.” You claim to know every woman and their opinion on it: that’s stupid. That’s just one example of why I hold your opinion of my work in low esteem. And yet, you want me to go into fine detail about your absurd communion with what you believe to be god or whatever.
This is projection. You were about to be exposed as trying to enforce a petty expression of modern culture, as if there are not other, better ways than pair-wise duels (even if the goal is to enhance individual integrity and sexual differentiation), if you are going to bother with jury trials. 1) If the verdict is guilty and death its the penalty, then get it over with. No point risking a good man by offering a duel. 2) If the verdict is not death, and a pairwise challenge is offered, because the person is thought to deserve a chance at proving themselves in a challenge and participating in the community, then make the competition non-lethal and the winning and losing the pair-wise duel a matter of greater reward/lesser reward/penalty. Otherwise, you are just selecting for NERD capacities for ingenious lethal battle (a pretty bad thing to quantify when not tempered by other qualities), while potentially killing off other, perhaps more beneficial qualities. I don’t want to dialogue more about your shit. I have to my satisfaction. I have what is necessary in a positive sense from it. You were/are positioned to promote your details if you decide to help encourage MacDonald to post it. Don’t expect me to promote your stuff, pair-wise duels, shield maidens and all. I’ve done enough to promote you and paid a price for it, getting associated with your absurdity. You have done nothing for the DNA Nations project nor for me. There are aspects to your project that are not to my taste (I’m sure repugnant to others as well) and which I simply find wrong. YOU have been insulting to my ideas, not paying attention to them either (like GW, never trying to reconcile them, where you should have and not see them as mutually exclusive, which you did), whereas I am sure that they are sound and very important. I do not care to argue with you more or engage in what you call “dialogue.” It is a spider web for your self promotion. You were given the opportunity to promote your sortocracy project yourself. I fore fronted you in The DNA Nations project. But even that’s not enough; similar as with GW, everything is supposed to be about your goddamn self. You are dishonest. You are the one being evasive.
188
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 01 Jul 2022 14:54 | # When I say I don’t understand—even after 10 years—a mere “1,200 words” (that presumably defines what the “Euro DNA Nations” is all about) I mean it in the sense of what you are attempting to do by contrasting it with your portrayal of my ideas. You could have merely stated:
This is a simple and clear call to action that doesn’t imply anything about my ideas which you have characterized as “goofy”. If you are going to call my ideas “goofy” and yet want me to support your characterization of my ideas implicit in the “1,200 words” then it should come as no surprise that I express a lack of comprehension. Just cut out reference to my ideas (which you have mischaracterized) and focus on what you are asking people to do. 189
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 01 Jul 2022 16:04 | # James, I am starting to realize that you are absurd. Let me explain why I think so given your latest impervious response.
Why does it presume what “the Euro DNA Nations is all about”? What I sought in this instance was for your help in getting that document attention and support, preferably by encouraging MacDonald to publish it at TOO and then your helping with its processing.
I have not attempted to get the document attended to by contrasting it to your ideas - THAT IS WHAT YOU HAVE DONE! - TURNED IT INTO A COMPETITION. You say
No! that would not curate, catalogue and set in line unionization and coalition building of European DNA in quantity and quality. I can’t believe you would ignore and try to dismiss fundamentally important concerns in so trivializing a way. Remember when you gave me that little perverted Occam’s razor laugh, when saying that with your sortocracy, we wouldn’t need the DNA Nations? Well it isn’t true, and the perverted little laugh was an expression of your hyper competitiveness which would cast important projects aside for the sake of your esteem, apparently, and your pet projects which you apparently consider the only important matter.
It is not a call to action that is being sought with the DNA Nations, it is primarily a means to account for and look after our European genetics in quantity and quality.
I did not characterize the body of your ideas (you use a plural form) as goofy, I said that pair-wise duels is goofy - and let me be more clear, it is more like stupid, STEM retardation.
I did not call your ideas goofy, I called pair-wise duels goofy. You tried to change the terms and call it “the state of nature” to try to make it sound elegant.
You keep saying this untrue line, that I “characterize your ideas (plural) as goofy.”
I do not mischaracterize the ‘sortocratic’ matter of voting with feet, right to exclude and so on. But I will indeed cut mention of you out of further instantiations of the paper. I’m tired of your incorrigibility, hyper-sensitivity, dishonesty, scientism and hyper-competitiveness. I have had it with you. Goodbye. Try not to talk about me either. 190
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 01 Jul 2022 19:25 | # I’ve repeatedly stated that I don’t understand DNA Nations so I can’t very well say that there is no need for it. What I _have_ said is that whatever DNA Nations, Propertarianism, CTMUism, etc. may be (none of which I understand to the degree to render judgements about them), they are accommodated within Sortocracy by the simple expedient of providing _territory_, with the minimal additional constraints, via individuals who _do_understand and agree to their terms. Likewise since DanielS (who presumably is no longer going to respond since he considers me “absurd”) has demonstrated he did not understand Sortocracy, he can’t very well understand the reason for rule #5’s inclusion of mutual hunt in nature as the place of ultimate exile after all other options for mutually consenting territorial occupation by an individual have been denied that individual. Not understanding the reason for this he can’t very well pass judgement on it either as a single “idea” nor as integral to the body of my “ideas”. Suffice it to say, it is integral to those ideas—just as any philosophy of civil society must be founded on dispute processing and therefore how it deals with those who will not comply with its processes. It’s quite understandable that he might find the very idea of mutual hunt in nature to be so “goofy” that there is no conceivable body of ideas to which it is integral without those ideas also being goofy, but he’s not going to be able to pick apart my individual integrity as reflected in the integrity of my ideas by taking out of context one idea and calling it “goofy”. This is all quite reminiscent of those who take one look at anything remotely resembling separatism and immediately start squawking about “white supremacy”. It’s not simply moronic—its far worse than that. It’s a mendacious attempt to form a mob of leering morons to attack something that is quite defensible in rational and moral terms—and even in open warfare terms—but not in terms of “civil” society’s coddling of such vermin. 191
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 01 Jul 2022 20:57 | # Bowery, my adjourning with you was and is conditional upon your not misrepresenting me. As you have done that I will respond.
You have said this only a few times and have done so only recently. The concept is very simple, based on the old “O.R.I.O.N” principle: our race is our nation idea. Wherever you genetics go, you carry your nation with you. Since (presumably) we all care about preserving our broad genus (European) and species (Specific kinds of Europeans) the project can begin to curate (so to speak) the numbers and qualities of our various kinds through subscription. This would be on the order of preserving endangered species and looking after their health, but for us, rather than just animals. “Citizenship of genetics” is the essence of exclusion and inclusion (not land boundaries) and with subscribers unionized (so to speak) we may coordinate world wide; and then we might cooperate to whatever extent we may with those who stake out land claims (as sacrosanct territories will be necessary) even small claims to begin; and then work with others who might hope to retake the ancient European nations as predominated by their European kind. Ultimately, the genetic union of unions may coordinate economically to hold up, for example, to the growing power of China and, for example, to fund exorbitant projects such as space exploration. This all is obvious in the 1,200 words. You could not have made the slightest effort to understand. It is about coordination and accounting for our genetic kinds, to look after our survival. You trying to liken it to Doolittle’s baroque nonsense or other shit is an asshole move.
If you were to say that your sortocracy idea can be coordinated with the DNA Nations, I can agree. But as you try to say it makes it redundant and unnecessary that is dead wrong. Because the idea of collecting our genetic kinds and coordinating on the basis of our European DNA is not conducted within your discussion.
Yes, I consider you absurd, but I will respond if you continue to attempt to misrepresent me.
I understand what I need from it and what is necessary from it.
You are free to have all those who agree with you clamor to your assistance in rule #5. I’m not interested.
I already did pass my judgment. You are free to try to sell your experiment to others. No sale here.
While dispute processing is fairly contemporaneous to establishing who we are, it is not quite a chicken and egg conundrum. Sorting who we are is a bit prior; dispute processing emerges from there.
Oh, the horror, “he called my idea goofy!” what a baby boomer indeed. I already did pick your fucking pairwise duels apart in comment #187. And I’ve acknowledged that “goofy” was the wrong word. Idiotic, retarded stem, sci fi novel nonsense that ...who will subscribe to?.. that’s more like it. Go sell it to whomever you might. You think that YOU have not been insulting to me? If you don’t want me to defend myself here, then don’t try to lure me into your jive. You have all these people lined up to attend to your pairwise duel concept; engage with them (lol).
192
Posted by Thorn on Sat, 02 Jul 2022 23:38 | # Question: At present, which country is more morally degenerate, England or Russia? My answer is England. Not even close. 193
Posted by Thorn on Sun, 03 Jul 2022 00:03 | # England’s most popular singer (Adele) has a negro boyfriend. The whole country is celebrating that. 194
Posted by Thorn on Sun, 03 Jul 2022 11:56 | # Adele says she ‘would like a couple more kids’ with boyfriend Rich Paul https://www.yahoo.com/news/adele-says-she-couple-more-084142937.html 195
Posted by Thorn on Sun, 03 Jul 2022 22:56 | # Hey, GW, you say it isn’t the Jooos that did it to ya ... so what iz your explanation for why native English ppl are so fucked up in the head? And they are fucked up in the head!!!! 196
Posted by Thorn on Tue, 05 Jul 2022 00:00 | # Just so you don’t think I’m too out of touch, I base my opinion on a substantial set of facts. This being one of them: Yet the British authorities are doing next to nothing to stop this. 197
Posted by Thorn on Fri, 08 Jul 2022 22:46 | # RTWT – (Transcript) Yesterday In St. Petersburg: Putin Addresses The Duma Leaders 198
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 09 Jul 2022 10:20 | # Unbelievable confusion among libertarian gun-nuts, of all people, who actually believe that supporting a murderous, imperialist Russian war-monger engaged upon killing a native people somehow advances our struggle against our own elites. How on earth do these guys swallow the war-monger’s line that war and repression is liberation? Yet there are thousands of these deluded people. Just staggering. 199
Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 25 Jul 2022 03:56 | # The sooner the Blacks , Latinos and burgeoning Brown immigrants outnumber US Whites the more like Heaven it will look for you and your Jewish deity’s end game for Euros , both Terrestrial and Celestial. 200
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 28 Jul 2022 17:06 | # https://twitter.com/TOOEdit/status/1552645162831998976?t=aw-gz-8FfbQOs7sQRTPEXA&s=19 Zelinskyy throws oligarchs under the bus? 201
Posted by Thorn on Thu, 28 Jul 2022 23:04 | # My hopes are the nasty bitch Brittney Griner gets the maximum sentence. 202
Posted by Thorn on Sat, 30 Jul 2022 22:43 | # My apologies, GW, but I feel a need to post this piece here at your site. The message contained therein has already been obvious to us for a while now, yet it needs to be rearticulated and repeated. https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2022/07/29/the-biggest-problem/ Post a comment:
Next entry: On faith and gods
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by Thorn on Tue, 24 May 2022 01:54 | #
Revelation 13:4, KJV: And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?