The limit of the incremental

Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, 12 September 2016 19:15.

Trump in the USA, Hofer in Austria, the rise of the AfD in Germany and that of the Swedish Democrats, Le Pen and Wilders both leading in the polls, the Brexit triumph in Britain, and talk of Nexit and Frexit on the horizon … all across the West these are days of hope, even expectation if one is a patriot, and of definite glimmers of opportunity if one is a nationalist.

The worldly power of the liberal elites, of the political internationalists, and of the corporate players might not be waning just yet. They are, for the greater part, still in government or forming government agenda across the West. They still populate the global fora. They still have the media class to sell their economic and social values, and shape the public perception of any opposition. But despite all this they don’t have quite the control they once did over public discourse and, increasingly, over the electoral process. From the ever-widening political margins they are under sustained and successful ideological attack. Where this attack comes from the anti-austerity left, with its Achilles heel of anti-racism and open borders, it has proved possible for the Establishment to absorb it. But where it comes from the populist right, with its anti-Islam and anti-immigration elements, that’s just not possible. People start thinking the unthinkable, namely that these elites, who act like gods and dispose of the European life as they please, are nothing better than base criminals and deserve only our total contempt and, in the worst cases, perhaps a prison cell.

The most painfully and visibly destructive of the elite’s actions over the years since 1945 – the politically generated multiracialisation of the West, without consent - is especially corrosive of the public trust. That this terrible deed should also involve pouring a cold and haughty contempt on our natural rights in the matter, as if we are not peoples of the land at all but some form of disease, simply beggars the imagination. What healthy mind could even conceive of such a thing? Yet examples abound at every level, like this from the liberal ideological end of the spectrum:

The simple narrative runs that if the AfD can win even in Mecklenburg-West Pomerania, where Mrs Merkel has her constituency, it must surely represent a serious threat to German democracy as we approach the next year’s federal election where Mrs Merkel is expected to seek a historic fourth term.

But that misses a fundamental point about the appeal of parties like the AfD, with its nasty, narrow mix of nativist anti-Muslim bigotry and barely coded white supremacism – which is that the more white and mono-cultural the electoral district, the better they perform.

The middle-class urban liberal has considered himself entitled to judge his fellow man since early Victorian times, at least. But in our time it has become a kind of competitive madness. What would the liberal say about someone who claimed that “diversity” is morally uplifting for black people, while homogeneity among blacks (and blacks only) is somehow a progenitor of the “nasty”, “narrow”, “bigoted”, and “supremacist”? Anyway, who dreamt up this ridiculous, priggish fantasy of non-whites as angelic dispensers of white moral salvation? How did this grotesquely racist lie of an innate white guilt salved only by dusky thaumaturgy take hold?

Liberals plainly don’t believe a word of it applies to themselves. The whole thing seems to operate as a crude, pseudo-religious, vestigially Christian device to grant themselves, by the fastidious exercise of the liberal moral sensibility, not salvation and a place in heaven but a superior place on earth. The worldly white self, being lost to sin and, therefore, being without human worth, must be put away. Just not their worldly white selves, of course.

Because he thinks “diversity” is so much more desirable than white countries the journalist Peter Foster sees it as a duty of the German government, and doubtless ours too, to build more roads, houses, schools, and hospitals so that the colonisation, dispossession, genetic dissolution, and replacement of the natives can proceed, as he supposes, with the minimum delay and inconvenience for all concerned. After all, Mr and Mrs White can’t have any complaint when the infrastructure is so good and plentiful. Complaint would be racist.

So, how very galling and disconcerting for Mr Foster and his ilk to see how immigration consistently tops polling of voter concerns, and to have to witness the emergence of a world in which a Daily Mail news journalist can write:

Yesterday Theresa May was forced to deny going soft on immigration following her apparent rejection of points-based entry rules. Aides said the Government was working on a far tougher system. Whitehall officials have been told that as a starting point EU citizens wanting to work in Britain must secure a job before setting foot here.

That would stop tens of thousands coming to these shores each year to trawl for often low-skilled employment.

Figures close to Mrs May’s top team are pressing the Prime Minister to bring in a full work permit regime in which migrants would be treated the same regardless of nationality. That would mean those from both inside and outside the EU would need to secure a job that a firm was unable to fill with a UK recruit.

In Britain the liberal ideology on race and immigration is rapidly losing its formative purchase on political reality because the reality is the Arab and African migrant by the boatload, and the vast change in the faces on the crowded streets of our towns and cities. The reality is people are sick of it and sick of being told the mad, obvious lie that it is an Original Sin of White Skin to feel that way; and, eventually, every democratic politician, every liberal Anglican prelate has to acknowledge reality.

Consider the contrast with the secret machinations of the Blair clique who, only after three cautious years in government, embarked upon a process internal to the Whitehall machine to justify the sudden and complete opening of the borders in 2001. They knew they could not operate in the light. They knew they could not tell us the truth of what they planned to do. They knew they could never explain its meaning for us, because then they would be unable to explain why they were going to do it anyway. For a decade and a half that kind of thinking characterised the British political Establishment. It took the referendum defeat to take that Establishment over the ideological edge, and now they can’t get back.

So, this is a propitious time to ask how far this process can take us under its own steam. The commonplace presumption, not just in Western political thought but eastern too, that societal change manifests through the pretty mechanism of dialectic doesn’t help us that much in matters of expressing ethnic interest and consciousness. There is much too strong a steer from that imperative which is human instinct. Nature manifestly does not function by antithetical means. Her imperative is unchanging and compelling, and is characterised by directness and urgency. It eludes the historical question mark. It is that quiet, consistent and insistent apprehension of what is fit (in Darwinian terms), or what is vivifying, or desirable or good and necessary for human being. As politics, we may formalise it as nationalism or nativism or identitarianism. But it is always the politics of the people of the land, and of their blood and self, and all that belongs to them.

So profoundly unlike the liberal Weltanschauung is it, so ethnic, so un-Jewish, so much not the abstraction, that it is tempting to posit it at all times and in all circumstances as the antithesis to liberalism’s thesis. But there’s a hitch. Yes, its gravitational force does weigh on the earth’s liberal crust in that manner, provoking within the polity minor pertubations and change by increment. But changes take place strictly within the philosophical fundamentals. It is only the political conventions which stretch and adapt. There is some damage, of course, and even some political casualties. But the system synthesizes accommodations, and thereby preserves itself. And not everything and everyone has to adjust to a new station. The elites remain the elites. The career politicians mostly survive. The parties mostly survive.

Ultimately, though, as the nationalist thought world draws close, and its gravity on the polity grows ever more savage, any notional antithesis to liberalism is no longer answered by the synthesis of small accommodations but by a sweeping systemic revolution. The dialectic proposition collapses. The synthesis is swallowed whole. The antithesis turns out to be the All. Everyone has demonstrated to them what some knew all along: Life is indomitable and non-negotiable, and its expression in politics, as in everything else, is unanswerable.

So let’s set out some obvious limits to the current incrementalism.

1. The race project

The most fundamental characteristic of the Establishment’s step away from multiculturalism is that it is absolutely not any kind of expression of white ethnic interests. Nothing ever reduces the Establishment’s attachment to multiracialism (ie, its unconscious service to the Judaic vision of the singular Jewish possession of ethnicity and difference amid a gentile sea of deracination; and, thereby, Jewish exceptionalism and Jewish supremacy). The step away from multiculturalism is only ever strategic and intended to make the impossible possible. Thus, out of desperation, Britain and Germany are trying to tweak the strategy of integration which failed in France. Only one man – Sarkozy - has had the honesty (and sheer effrontery) to state, in 2007, that the only stable conclusion is to be got through a process of mass obligatory miscegenation - which, let it be said, he was perfectly prepared to countenance.

The holding to a racially destructive course for Europe’s sons and daughters, at all costs, is given cover by the supposed unconscionable nature of not holding to it. Apparently, sending out racial aliens whose parents happened to be already on our soil at the time they were born is too too awful a thing even to contemplate. As is oft said, these poor African and Asian souls have “never known anywhere but here” and are “as British as you or I”. For sure, the permanent, ineradicable replacement and genetic dissolution of my people is also awful to contemplate. But that is a crisis of the conscience which the elites can resolve merely by not contemplating it. Instead, they loftily assume that we have no interest in our own peoplehood and our future. If that sort of thing was ever also worthy of sympathetic consideration, not one person at any level in the British Establishment is considering it now.

2. The “racism” project

As with Peter Foster’s jarring assessment of AfD, the Establishment’s anti-racism is growing more, not less, strident. Even while public criticism of immigration is having to be accepted and accommodated, a counter-balancing intolerance of nationalists, is taking hold. In other words, for the Establishment it’s all about control, not the justice or otherwise of the native’s cause.

The very latest little Establishment stratagem, dated two days ago, is one step further than simply shutting out our claim on life in our own house. The following quote is from a Telegraph piece written in advance of, and about, a study undertaken by Louise Casey, the government’s “tzar” for the trope which is “integration”. Ms Casey’s very job title falsifies her own purpose. Manifestly, there is no integration. There is our physical dispossession. There is our demographic replacement. There is our genetic dissolution. But integration? It is not a function of human nature.

Here is that quote:

Only by promoting “core” British laws, traditions and cultures in every ethnic community can Britain hope to ensure that diverse communities integrate fully, and defeat the “hate mongers” from the far Right and Islamist extremists who want to divide the country, she argued.

So just the normal, universally human desire for our people to live is now defined as “divisive” and “hate”. It is a classic case of state betrayal in which the crime is so heinous and runs so deep, it even extends to identifying the victims’ betrayal trauma, to use a term from psychology, with terrorism. The next stage is to render the victims formally enemies of the state, and to employ the power of the state against them not just in their political role but as they go about their daily life. And it’s already here:

Mr Robinson had travelled to the university city yesterday with two friends and their four children to watch his home town’s football club, Luton, play against Cambridge. Following the match the party of ten went to a local pub to watch another football match on the television.

As they were enjoying the game they were approached by a number of officers from Cambridgeshire police who ordered Mr Robinson to leave the city, or face being issued with a Section 35 dispersal order.

When Mr Robinson protested that he was with his family and that no other Luton supporters were being ejected, another officer accused him of acting aggressively and told him “You’re going to get arrested in a minute.”

Security staff at the pub approached the police to insist that Mr Robinson and his party had not been causing any trouble nor given them any cause for concern, but Police – who moved the security staff away to prevent Mr Robinson filming the exchange – were unmoved.

The party then elected to leave but were followed down the road by four officers who told Mr Robinson “we’re following you and there’s no way out of that,” causing his two children, both aged under 10, to cry in terror.

Many of us concluded very early on that “the war on terror” would be exploited to facilitate state persecution of dissenters, and there it is.

3. The Jewish project

It won’t stop.

The latest little outrage occurred in the town of Béziers in southern French, where the Front National mayor Robert Ménard has been charged with a hate crime (thanks to a pillar of the Jewish, sorry, French Establishment named Alain Jakubowicz, president of LICRA). His sin? Reading a passage from Charles de Gaulle’s speech from 1959 on Algerian independence:

It is very good that there are yellow French, black French, brown French. They show that France is open to all races and has a universal vocation. But on condition that they remain a small minority. Otherwise, France would no longer be France. We are still primarily a European people of the white race, Greek and Latin culture, and the Christian religion.

… Those who advocate integration have the brain of a hummingbird. … Arabs are Arabs, the French are French. Do you think the French body politic can absorb ten million Muslims, who tomorrow will be twenty million, after tomorrow forty? If we integrated, if all the Arabs and Berbers of Algeria were considered French, would you prevent them to settle in France, where the standard of living is so much higher? My village would no longer be called Colombey-The-Two-Churches but Colombey-The-Two-Mosques.

Under LICRA’s pressure the courts are now expected to decide, in effect, whether the great 20th century hero of France would be a hate criminal today (ie, guilty of a Jewish-constructed category of political sin). The Establishment, driven mad by the Jewish contribution to Western intellectual and political life (ie, Marxism, Critical Theory, postmodernism, freudianism, second-wave feminism, “gay” equality, anti-racism, immigrationism, holocaustism, etc, etc, etc) is so sunk in its own blind, destructive bestiality, it is consuming itself the better to consume us.

No matter how healthy and promising the present political trajectory, no incrementalism will rein in the Jewish social and political project for our life. Nationalism alone will do that. Every single one of us knows it.

4. The globalist project

One aspect of the overall project for Europe’s peoples which is already being tested to breaking point, and on which the Establishment’s immobility is crystal clear, is Islam’s place in the West.

All across multiracial Britain young white girls possibly numbering in the tens of thousands have been abused, and many prostituted, by Muslim Asian gangs over the last three decades. All those in positions of power preferred these children to suffer than to alert the English public to what has been happening in this land, and they are still doing it. It’s not just that they showed no solidarity whatsoever with the victims, it’s that they actively colluded in covering up the crime from its beginnings to 2010, when one Times reporter broke the omerta with a feature on the Derby Trial. By this uniquely offensive betrayal the political class made themselves material accessories (under The Accessories and Abettors Act 1861). Needless to say, nobody has been held to account. Nick Griffin and Mark Collett were twice sent to court for speaking out, however; and the courageous Ann Cryer, Labour MP for Keighley, was sent to coventry by her own parliamentary party for the same sin.

In Sweden there is another rape crisis, involving offences against young women. But the Swedish Establishment has tried to suggest that this sudden epidemic is really a statistical uncovering of that well-known rapist class, the violent Swedish husband. Naturally, Swedish feminists have jumped at the opportunity to condemn the Swedish patriarchy. Deluded rape victims have appeared in the media (which tends not to be owned by Swedes) forgiving poor Adnan because he is a victim too.

In Germany, in response to a gathering rape crises, the authorities are teaching Muslim migrants how to be a bit more considerate when having sex with white women. Something like, “It would be a good idea if you could cut back on the gang-rape, guys, and use our women this way ....” Unsurprisingly, 60% of “Germans” (ie, not simply ethnic Germans) now say, contrary to Frau Merkel, that Islam does not belong in Germany. But this sane and necessary reaction somehow eludes the governing class, whose only worry is whether Frau Merkel might have gone too far too fast with her migrant programme, and woken up too many future National Socialists. Regardless, the lady is not for turning:

It would not be acceptable, Merkel said, for governments to say: “We don’t generally want to have Muslims in our country.”

Meanwhile in France, in excess of two hundred people have been butchered over the past eighteen months by Muslims who believe that jihad is a good deed, and a deed that is not just a defensive or interior, spiritual struggle. But any connection to the Quran or hadith … any suggestion that Muslims are obligated to undertake jihad, and that this is understood as obedience to the will of Allah by many of them in the West, and not just troublesome imams and radicalised or brutalised young men … any suggestion to that effect is denied by the powerful point-blank without further debate. Instead, they move the focus of national debate onto modesty-preserving beach-ware for Arab women. It is truly surreal.

President Hollande’s latest words of wisdom on the matter shift the emphasis back onto the French to make the integration possible, or at least to stop saying it is impossible:

“Nothing in the idea of secularism opposes the practice of Islam in France, provided it respects the law,” Hollande said.

Secularism is not a “state religion” to be used against other religions, he said in the speech in Paris, denouncing the “stigmatisation of Muslims”.

So here is a Western leader who, we must believe, has no difficulty with the notion that Charles de Gaulle, if alive today, would be a “hater” and subject to a prosecution brought by a Jewish quango. But two hundred people die and he and the rest of his class are fighting with everything they’ve got to protect Islam in the West. OK, they have developed the thesis that Islamic scholars explain Islam quite differently from the Neocon narrative of relentless jihad and physical conquest in the name of the Prophet. They have access to analyses which present Islam in its true hybridised form, enculturated as it is to vastly differing peoples across the world. They understand that this flexibility and hybridisation is a strength when allied to a process of racially diversifying the ancestral lands of peoples, whether Europeans or not. They understand, too, that the essential unity of Islam under one god, as a cohering influence in this ghastly genetic mess that they want to create, is also a strength. Finally, they understand that the forces of militant Islam are not a spear of conquest pointed at the European heart, but a reaction against the hybridity of Islam and a desire in consequence to bring the faith to unity and truth.

They may be correct in all this. But it doesn’t matter to us in the slightest. The fact is Sayeed Qtub existed. The Salafists existed. The fact is that there is a vast popular anger in the Muslim world at the actions of “the West”, particularly since the first Gulf War in 1990/91, but also with the West’s support for Israel, which has been a running sore since 1946. The fact is that polling indicates that between 15% and 25% of Muslims in the West sympathise with at least some of the aims of the jihadis. Not long after 7/7 an ICM poll of Muslims found that a fifth of respondees said they felt “some sympathy” with the London bombers. 40% supported the introduction of sharia, while just a single per cent more deigned to allow that we could retain our own legal system.

Our concern is entirely justified. As a race, we passed our verdict on Muslims and Islam long ago. Neither have we entirely forgotten the verdict of our distant forefathers. It makes no difference to the politicos. Nothing makes any difference. Why? I would argue that globalism and the coming Globality rest on five pillars:

1. Unified government by a single class of internationalists.
2. Maximal economic power and freedom for international finance and the dateline corporations.
3. The de-nationing and deracination of humanity.
4. Societal cohesion wrought by Islam.
5. Jewish exceptionalism.

Islam is essential to the globalist project in a way that, to be frank, Jewish exceptionalism is not – which isn’t to say that Jewry’s own project isn’t a very close relative or isn’t advanced by strategising and exploiting globalism. But the two are distinct in their character and in their formal objectives.

Islam, however, is not acting by its own power as Jewry is. It enters the globalist frame only as a tool (albeit an unpredictable one) of, let’s say, the Money Power, the ultimate power in the world - another element which will be untouched by, and scarcely even notice, the heady incrementalism which so interests and intrigues us.

5. The civic project

I quoted Louise Casey earlier, from a DT article on her forthcoming study report. Here is another quote from that article:

“I have become convinced that it is only the upholding of our core British laws, cultures, values and traditions that will offer us the route map through the different and complex challenge of creating a cohesive society.”

The trouble is that nobody can really explain what “cultures, values, and traditions” are actually British and still extant. The more one seeks to define them, the more nebulous they become. London’s Cockneys used to eat jellied eels. Is that British culture? But the Cockneys have gone from the East End now. In the northern towns of England the industries and the hard, honest labour they demanded ... industries which produced characterful settled communities ... have all gone, and the life which those communities lived has changed completely. In the countryside, farming mechanised and intensified massively during and after WW2, de-manning by 90% and breaking its ties to community in the years which followed.

For three decades at least the radical left … the Judaised left ... worried away at the interstices of our peoplehood, conducting a culture war against us, attacking the psychological foundations of masculinity, marriage, childhood and the family, and generating social failure, anomie and alienation. The radical right … the Judaised right … likewise attacked the solidising politics that exercised the patriotic, conservative mind, advocating atomisation via the individual self. Now, after all that, the idiot political class clasps a hand to its forehead in realisation that it has a race project on its hands which it cannot cohere. Ah, but wait … isn’t there always a handy British value or British tradition or British something or other?

It was Gordon Brown, back in 2004, who began hand-signalling to the press and the politicos about “British values”, which he defined as liberty, tolerance, and fair-play. Nothing concrete came of his efforts, and nothing will come now, or ever. It wouldn’t have made any difference if he had told the truth. But, inevitably, he lied. He wrote:

... there is indeed is a golden thread that runs through British history of the individual standing firm for freedom and liberty against tyranny and the arbitrary use of power. It runs from that long-ago day in Runnymede in 1215 to the Bill of Rights in 1689 to not just one, but four Great Reform Acts in less than 100 years. And the great tradition of British liberty has, first and foremost, been rooted in the protection of the individual against the arbitrary power of first the monarch and then the state.

This from the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the government which, according to Andrew Neather, opened Britain’s borders out of pure malignancy towards the “right-wing” English identity, in defence of which baleful event, presumably, dear Gordon had this to say:

It is because different ethnic groups came to live together in one small island that we first made a virtue of tolerance, welcoming and included successive waves of settlers - from Saxons and Normans to Huguenots and Jews and Asians and African-Caribbeans - and recognising plural identities.

The self-serving, historical ignorance of the man is quite astonishing. The Saxons fought a long and evidently successfully series of pitched battles against the British tribes. The Normans conquered, and conducted a killing campaign across the disobeying north. There were only 50,000 Huguenots, of whom perhaps 30,000 shipped on to the American colonies. The Jews were kicked out by Edward I in 1290, and only really returned in the 19th century, and then only 50,000 did so. Their descendants have never allowed themselves to be assimilated.

Further, tolerance entered the British political lexicon in the Restoration, after a century and a half of religious pertubation culminating in the English Civil Wars. It has no connection with immigration.

He is equally stupid or deceiving – take your pick – on liberty.

Liberty meant not just tolerance for minorities but a deeply rooted belief - illustrated early in our history by trial by jury - in the freedom of the individual under the law and in the liberty of the common people rooted in constantly evolving English common law.

Liberty never meant tolerance for minorities. There is no such concept in English history. Further, I think he is in danger of stretching a point with his claim that justice is intimately linked with individual liberty. Social order, yes. But then, stability as a foundation for freedom is a conservative, not progressive, value; and still not especially or meaningfully British.

If Gordon Brown and the rest of these intellectual titans cannot even make a clear, coherent and defensible argument for identifiable “British values” and their post-racial utility – and, of course, they can’t - then clearly they have no hope of concretising anything very much in the life of the people. But that doesn’t really matter, because this Sisyphean task is all they have, and they won’t give it up until the racially alien populations in this land are governed – but briefly, we must hope – by nationalists.

6. The identity project

Hand-in-hand with a civic definition of national identity goes an appropriately deracinated personal identity, constructed for you, probably, by some very thoughtful Jewish academics, and good for all gentile colours and sexes (oh, yes, there are five now, I believe, though don’t ask me what they are). That is to say, sans borders and boundaries between same. All nicely “fluid”. All terribly “open” and without any of that shocking “prejudice”. An identity without actual identity, anything that actually belongs to you, comes out of you, cannot be taken from you. Just a work of artifice, a personality thing. Smile for the camera, won’t you.

What was that you said? Identity is in nature and the genes, just as the sociobiology is ... just as the characterful elements of culture are, actually? Because they are gifted from the nature of the people? I couldn’t agree more. Identity in any real sense IS genetic, at the end of the day. The sum of the acquired is always only acquired.

But there is nothing in our changing world today – not the liberalism of right or left, not the Critical Theory, not the globalism, nothing – that could or would want to make use of your natural ethnic self-consciousness or the pureness of your witness to self. Political power and cultural heft are being used to gene-kill the European people. The future will belong not to you, European Man, but to Homo deracinatus, in whose brazilianised psychological person the contest between the constructed identity and the thing of the blood simply does not take place. Academia and education, entertainment, television, radio, the press are powerful tools in the construction of identity, and are working at full bore today. In the Globality, diversity and cultural cross-overs, even gender cross-overs if enough confusion can be generated and if healthy gene-lines can be engineered out, will become routine matters of the self. The conventional categorical necessities of him and her, us and them, black and white will become redundant. Only those with serious power and those with Jewish identities will be distinct and aloof from the endemic, standardized dross.

Do you really think that Trump or the Brexiteers or AfD will grasp the sheer radicality and terrible permanence of this? Do you really think it isn’t going to take our authentic nationalism and a very determined reckoning to give life to racial Europe again, and a decent prospect of freedom to the rest of ethnic Mankind?

Worth remembering when you vote. But still vote, of course.

Tags: Cultural Marxism, European Nationalism, Global Elitism, Globalisation, Immigration, Islam & Islamification, That Question Again, The American right

Comments:

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 12 Sep 2016 22:24 | #

Wonderful sentiments, good points encapsulated in the list of five especially, but it is a piece compromised by the same adherence to right wing reaction.

Still arguing against post modernity…

Still refusing to understand what should be meant by construction ....as if it is going to inspire people to remove their agency by contrast ...as if people have none with regard to whom they choose to partner and to create offspring with..

And how is it that the right wing are effected by immigration and not nativist unions? How is the White nativist union, i.e., the White left, not scabbed by all of this…and how is that Not a more accurate way of understanding who is betraying whom?...

It is not an “Achilles heel” to White leftism to be “anti-racist”... it is an Oxymoron.

A White left union is about native White race at home and White racial unions in diaspora, it is not anti White union.

No, it is the right which has the Achilles heel…through its ostensible objectivity..

But it still lures people in ...

Trump and his Jewish heirs, his Jewish this and that… he is the “last hope” and he is going to install good Supreme Court Justices? As if a Supreme Court Justice will do anything but liberalism with The Constitution and its version of individual rights anyway? Its either Hillary or Donald? “Radical WN” are saying this? Republicanism and party politics as usual? and not radically defending race against it… instead getting sucked into Republican - Democrat Marxist dialectic bullocks once again? Created problem - reaction - solution: problem - Mexicans/ Asians taking jobs. Solution - get good with blacks and Jews.. i.e., create a status quo of the fundamental problems introduced prior by the right wing (both Democrat and Republican)...Otherwise, you know, its Hillary and the threat of even bigger problems. Since when did WN and the “alt right” become creatures of conventional politics? Since the parties, Democrat and Republican, wanted them to assume the position and forget that there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference… They forget that if they want to defend their race, that this political system is not conducive, especially not with these demographics and their Abrahamic religions..suddenly its radical to vote and do party politics..forget the radicalism that would have none of this political structure presented as the only way, the “unassailable” way - Trump - the indisputable choice - by contrast to the radicalism, speaking of sentiments of our Nationalist fathers that could get one thrown in jail if uttered in the context of the now..

“The tree of liberty has to be watered every few generations with the blood of tyrants and patriots.”

Yes, it is the right which has the Achilles heels ..misplaced hope in leaders being one of them:

In Europe I guess “the problem” for the right wing is “radical Islam” ...while comprador Islam would be ok..and those pagan Asians, rather than a vast resource, indispensable ally against Islam, the middle East and Africa ..are just another opponent..vast one, at that.

AfD, speaking of compromised incrementalism… we can hope that they can do some good, nevertheless..

Same with Le Pen.

(((Geert Wilders)))! .. now there’s a friend!

I’ve heard some things negative about Hofer from a racialist standpoint as well.. same with the Swedish Democrats, but haven’t been following either. Hopefully, they’ll help more than harm, but the right wing Achilles heel is instability that allows for compromise, infiltration, placation or counter productive going over the top ...over reaction, chasing red capes..

Still, the hermeneutic place of the lexicon of “tolerance” and “liberty” among a people - a native English people, Welsh, Scotch and North Irish - so precious and so betrayed by their right wing leadership, is moving.

With the exception of Wilders, perhaps Whites should vote for these candidates, but we have more radical and important concerns to attend to in our interests.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 13 Sep 2016 11:03 | #

I don’t understand why you have the left of the liberal spectrum designated as the Jewish left with a healthy “out” into the “white left”, but the right of the liberal spectrum you designate as bad all over, basically, with no “out” to anything useful whatsoever. What about social conservatism and traditionalism, for example? Why not just allow for the Judaisations which occur in the liberal thought-world, both in the form of its deep Judaic and Christian foundations and in the 19th and 20th century influences of Jewish intellectualism, but accept that they are not the whole of the liberal canon? Why not accept that nationalism (or nativism or ethnic identitarianism if you prefer) has an holistic form of its own, issues from human nature, and is foundationally distinct from and existentially hostile to liberalism? The two cannot co-habit in one body politic. They are bound to contest for total control (indeed, all holistic systems are totalitarian in that singular sense).

Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 13 Sep 2016 20:48 | #

It seems to me that a “white left’s” Achilles’ heel is its barely comprehensible pretension of profundity. Just what the fuck would a “white left” DO other than ramble on autistically about muh hermeneutics?

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 14 Sep 2016 00:17 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 13 Sep 2016 06:03 | #

I don’t understand why you have the left of the liberal spectrum designated as the Jewish left

I am very clear. You have not bothered to read what I say. So called “leftism” which seeks to open boundaries and borders of White unionization - whether of native Whites or Whites in diaspora - is not White Leftism (Leftism for Whites) and tends to have been a Jewish backed political objective - whether by the Frankfurt School, straight forward Marxiism, or by tendency of Jewish biology etc. - it has formed anti White unions and coalitions to bust White unionization where not promoting straight forward liberalism (of White boundaries and borders).

What is so hard to understand about that? I’ve been clear.

They pander with it (antiWhite male coalitions or straight liberalism) to puerile girls in particular, who tend to adopt it because it gives them an advantage, at least temporarily .... and young boys seeking to show off to them will do liberalism as well, while non Whites will see their way in with liberalism..

with a healthy “out” into the “white left”,

Because a White Left is a union of Whites. It is not an “out” - it is accountable. You are in the union or you are not. It is the right and liberalism that leaves the unhealthy, unaccountable “outs.”

but the right of the liberal spectrum you designate as bad all over, basically, with no “out” to anything useful whatsoever.

No. As I have clearly said (in the post below - Why people who... and in other posts), it has its moments of truth which it then must find a place for in social utility (for Whites, first of all).

What about social conservatism and traditionalism, for example?

I’ve also clearly outlined that these things can be Judaised as well - incl. in the post, “Why people who” - indicating that problems with tradition are one of the reasons for post modernity, because not all traditions and traditional societies are good and helpful in part or on the whole - e.g., to facilitate authentic ways of European people. That’s the case with the tradition of Christianity - Jewish affectation that it is.

Why not just allow for the Judaisations which occur in the liberal thought-world, both in the form of its deep Judaic and Christian foundations and in the 19th and 20th century influences of Jewish intellectualism, but accept that they are not the whole of the liberal canon?

Well, I did not say that they are the whole of the liberal canon. Are you pretending to not understand what I say? You are the one who is doing liberalism.

Why not accept that nationalism (or nativism or ethnic identitarianism if you prefer) has an holistic form of its own, issues from human nature, and is foundationally distinct from and existentially hostile to liberalism?

A concept of a union does that (keeps holistic form) with the added crucial asset of accountability, whereas your liberal concept of just letting it happen is not effectively opposed to liberalism…

Evolution, Stress, Variation, Competition, Selection, Survival.

Because the compulsions of variation, competition and selection among all of these aspects, really, can be fairly liberal in the scheme of things…. they can be liberal particularly for the puerile and un-enculturated as to hermeneutic breadth of our people’s value.

Among humans, because we are capable of breeding with one another, Evolution, Stress, Variation, Competition, Selection, Survival can be “Liberal” particularly in the sense of not maintaining our newer, European forms…. while being “conservative” of older types ...

The two cannot co-habit in one body politic.

The instincts do and can co-habit, but they must be enculturated with hermeneutics and maintained with unionized accountability.

They are bound to contest for total control (indeed, all holistic systems are totalitarian in that singular sense).

A union is totalistic. You are in or you are out. But it is not so sheerly bound to nature as to be deterministic, as lower forms, idiotic, non-agentive, unaccountable and impervious to reason. etc. ... it has negotiative properties (to finish with a devil word for you).

Posted by Dr Doom on Wed, 14 Sep 2016 02:51 | #

Anyone not of your race can only ever be a temporary ally at best and a fearsome eternal enemy at worst. The jew is an alien. A hostile organism. An enemy of all law and order, filled with greed and malevolence, with no survival skills of their own. They are the parasite. They have no worker class and feed solely off others labors. They create nothing and bring misfortune and harm wherever they go. There can be no compromise and no coexistence. They hate anything not them.

They have not the numbers so they destroy by assisting invasions by others. They revel in disorder and shrivel before lawful policing. They cannot defeat you, they can only create harm and foul events to allow their parasitism to continue. By constantly attacking you by assisting your enemies they distract you long enough to loot your larders and use your women. These scum are invariably weak, and stupid as well. Only by causing disorder can they keep you from seeing their perfidy and casting them out permanently.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 14 Sep 2016 04:22 | #

I did over react myself a bit to the undue zest for standard political avenues - as Western forms lend to the glossing over of White racial advocacy. It is possible to do it (White racial advocacy by these means) somewhat, and of course we need to try, but the last thing to do is to leave it in the hands of a theoretical retard like David Duke - who wants to reconstruct “the principles” which made America “great.”

But we cannot be distracted from our fundamental tasks by these corrupt structures and from the fact that they are generally geared to elites who are corrupt and disposed to rationalize selling-out their people.

As for Dr. Doom’s comment, while it is necessary to cast Jews as an out group, I doubt that it is a tactful thing to announce an agenda to eliminate them.

As for Asians, the only sane option is to try work out a permanent alliance with them.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 14 Sep 2016 07:04 | #

Dr Doom,

Anyone not of your race can only ever be a temporary ally at best and a fearsome eternal enemy at worst.

All peoples of the land and all settled peoples are permanently allied by their common natural right on and to their land, and by their common interest in survival and continuity thereon. We are ethnic nationalists and nativists, and our philosophy is universal.

The jew is an alien. A hostile organism.

For a general apprehension of the meaning for us of Jewry and Judaism to exist would require a degree of trust, freedom and clarity in the public perception (social capital, basically) that might not have been present in western European societies since 1914 or even earlier, perhaps since the upheaval of urbanisation.

In the absence of that, an understanding of the Jewish Question can’t simply be propagandised into being. For example, in 1930s Germany the NSDAP government’s early and absurdly offensive anti-Jewish propaganda had to be retracted because the populace (rightly) rejected it.

To restore the requisite social capital to any native people is not impossible. I would say it would require, at the very least, that (i) government is done in the true interests of the electors, and (ii) a culture of truth-speaking existed throughout the public space. It would likely also require a definite probity in the speaker, ie, a comity and responsibility between all of us.

In such a social dispensation something of the common reality not only in respect to Jewry but all things could be communicated.

An enemy of all law and order, filled with greed and malevolence

This sort of expression is part of our problem, as nationalists. It’s not that Jews are not, on average, highly materialistic, or that their religion does not grant them ultimate title to all wealth and possession. It’s not that Judaism and Jewish nationalism in diaspora aren’t powerful vehicles of competition with the host, as MacDonald has ably demonstrated. It’s that we have to hold ourselves to the highest standard of probity in our language, or the message will not only be lost but will damage us. It will also not be adequately accurate.

They are the parasite. They have no worker class and feed solely off others labors. They create nothing and bring misfortune and harm wherever they go. There can be no compromise and no coexistence. They hate anything not them ... These scum are invariably weak, and stupid as well. Only by causing disorder can they keep you from seeing their perfidy and casting them out permanently.

Same point applies. No human population is “scum”. No matter how angry you feel about the whole thing, negative emotionalism like this will free no one, least of all yourself. That said, there is some substance in your remarks about labour and about the Jewish practise of selecting or creating proxies (aka minorities). On the former point, Catherine the Great quickly discovered the affinity which Jews have for a middle-class life. It is why the Pale was created. If she had settled her Jews in the empty east instead of distributing them among the Poles and Belarussians a baleful history for Europeans and Jews alike might have been avoided. But then again, it might not.

If we are to reform the public understanding of the Jewish Question, and rehabilitate it in the public discourse, we have to reform our way of communicating what we know. A basis is there in MacDonald’s trilogy. We should try not to depart too far from its objectivity.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 14 Sep 2016 10:58 | #

Fantastic piece GW.

On social change I think it’s an example of asymptotic emergence/phase changes.
To give a biological example generally disruptive selection does not immediately result in speciation, rather there is a gradual process of differentiation which ultimately reaches a critical threshold which once traversed results in an asymmetrical change and a new parameter space being ‘explored’ by the system (two species rather than one with various polymorphisms).

In political/social systems a similar dynamic works. At first ideas are marginal and only held or promoted by weirdos and outsiders on the fringe. However, if those marginal ideas in some salient way track reality more accurately than the ideological doxa of the age, they slowly gain traction (a snowballing effect) until a critical threshold is reached. Then a phase shift occurs and a new paradigm emerges. In essence the incentive structure around the previously marginal idea changes, the social desirability bias is altered such that ‘normals’ give themselves ‘permission’ and/or are ‘nudged’ to believe in the new ‘common sense’.

Obviously within human history these processes are very complex (agency matters) and they are highly context dependent. First of all there must be a noticeable gap between some aspect of reality and the ideological doxa of the age, secondly people must believe that change is possible/necessary and thirdly and most vitally the proposed change must actually connect with some aspect of perceived reality (creditability/tractability). There is always a functional kernel to all social change. Power is not eliminated from human life/affairs. Rather the focus is on whose benefit is power exercised within any ideological framework? We will always have elites, but to whom are they accountable, by what feedback mechanisms/loops to we keep the elites honest?

Notions like the Overton window only superficially describe these complex and emergent phenomena. Evolutionary biology, condensed matter physics etc., the mathematics of networks are far, far better models to view/understand such developments. Anything that studies systems at both the abstract level and in their concrete particulars. Of course analogies are powerful but they also contain disanalogies such that we are discussing robust generalities rather than invariant universalities (which is a much more intellectually sophisticated approach than typically idiotic Marxist theories of history – let alone Whiggish liberal notions of historical ‘progress’).

Human historicity rhymes with itself but does repeat itself in any simple-minded way.

Brexit and the rise of Trump are themselves not the answer in and of themselves but they are symptomatic of the emerging crisis of global hyper-liberalism. People are starting to see too much of a gap between its rhetoric and the reality. Equally the power to ‘shame’ people within the liberal paradigm is losing its grip. Brexit is a great example. The entire liberal establishment was on full propaganda mode with unsubtle hints that to be in favour of leaving the EU was to embrace ‘moral evils’ such as hate and racism as well as ‘destroy’ the economy etc. Those tactics didn’t work and it isn’t working with the rise of Trump (or nationalism in Europe).

Even among the upper-middle class professionals I encounter the SJW tendency has ‘jumped the shark’. One example – people ‘embracing’ transgenderism as a ‘good thing’. Simply ask them if it is fair for a ‘woman’ that used to be a man to compete against biological women in elite sports? Either the response is one of massive cognitive dissonance, indecent silence or an acknowledgement of reality (these ‘women’ are biologically male and that significant physical differences exist between males and females). It’s a simple question. If it’s not fair then why not? The SJW ideological bullshit is, in that simple question, destroyed as anything like a coherent account of reality.

Look it’s understandable why multiculturalism was ‘accepted’ by ordinary people for such a long time. For many it was a cost-free piece of virtue signalling (diversity is wonderful for the working classes but doesn’t change my life negatively), the incentive structure around these issues favoured acquiescence against a backdrop in which a form of hyper-nationalism proved itself to be utterly disastrous for European life/interests (some 50-60 million bona fide Europeans dead is not a success story).

The new paradigm for ethno-nationalism (or actually ethno-communtarianism) embraces virtues such as fairness, justice, self-determination, human bio-cultural diversity and political/cultural autonomy.

The universal right for people’s to govern themselves and maintain their communities in their own group’s self-interest is something we can all embrace. The English have a right for England to be English, ditto the Japanese etc. Our nations are both our collective home and a communal inheritance that we have stewardship over in the interests of ourselves and those that come after us. Moreover, loving my own people doesn’t imply hating anyone else. Finally, to maintain human bio-cultural diversity (heterogeneity) at a global level of resolution requires homogeneity at the local level (nations). I want Japan to be Japanese (which requires the Japanese people to exist as a distinct phenomenon ditto England, or Scotland or even Nigeria etc.).

I genuinely think in their heart of hearts most ordinary people are on board with these notions. The liberal elites and their ideological structures are strong but increasingly brittle in nature. Expect a doubling down on their project (witness the idiotic EU bureaucrats’ response to Brexit ‘more of the same shit that resulted I Brexit please’). These people are either deeply cynical or genuinely delusional ‘true believers’.

Reality is calling and more people are willing to take the call.

P.S. I cannot sum up in words just how much I loathe the likes of Gordon Brown. I think I best not describe what should happen to such people in an ideal world.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 14 Sep 2016 14:05 | #

Well Graham, hopefully your good will toward Japan will help some in encouraging Kumiko to finally put up this piece of hers that she’s been discussing with me. From what I gather, it could potentially be an ore model of sorts for a broader political movement in our favor as ethno-nationalists - communitarian subsidiaries, if you will.

Though she does not see Hillary as a favorable alternative, she nevertheless has serious reservations about helping the sorts who are backing Trump hard and she has very good reasons for those reservations.

It seems a little out of character for you, of all people, to be commending Trump as “MR. reality emergent forebear.” I believe on the contrary that his candidacy is quite contrived and suspiciously steered; and might’ve thought he was everything about blind American patriotism that you disdain.

I recall that there are a few Scottish farmers who do not like him; apparently having to make way for a golf course project of his..

Anyway, just thought I’d mention that the old grumpy Graham, disdainer of American patriots, would have been more the thing if one of your furtive aims was to encourage Kumiko to help us out.

I don’t see it as an impossible conflict of interest really.

Nobody likes Hillary - at best, most people have a contingency plan for her as “a worse is better President.”

True, in order to keep her out and buy some necessary time and space for Whites to re-gather, a big enough percentage of Whites need to put aside lesser disagreements with Trump and get behind him so that he can defeat Hillary. But we can afford to allow others to do that, since in either event (Hillary or Donald), our work is cut out for us.

Even most of his staunch supporters among the alternative right are aware that we need to keep a focus on defending our systemic biology in either case, whether he loses, and in some ways, even more-so if he wins.

It is good for us to maintain a critical view of Trump - especially if he is to become President.

While I never hated Trump, I never liked him either (I can’t for the life of me understand Richard Spencer when he describes Trump as a likeable guy; what the F is to like about this hollow and vulgar business functionary?), so it’s not hard for me to empathize with Kumiko’s position, which in the long run can be more valuable than a Trump victory; and I find him very suspect in many ways regarding European interests of himself - beginning with his neo-connish hankering to undo the Iran Deal ..the stated initial motivation for his Presidential run.

The Iran Deal is good for European peoples. To Jews and their Project for a New American Century, it is an obstacle.

If Kumiko ever does put up this piece, you are going to see the plot thicken very interestingly..

Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 14 Sep 2016 15:48 | #

Hi Daniel,

I think Trump is a grade A self-serving wanker - but I don’t expect better from politicos. I guess I was pointing out that ‘Trumpism’ signals something shifting in the social body - just as Brexit did. They are both symptoms of underlying phenomena but not the thing itself (so to speak). Not quite a tipping point but a stop along the way perhaps?

As for the empty rhetoric of ‘Americanism’ my views remain the same. Lots of people unreflectively say and believe daft things - it’s doesn’t mean they are bad people. But what’s the point in going over the same ground again and again? Look even if Trump serves some form of elite interest it’s the fact that his framing of key issues speaks to millions upon millions of Euro-Americans is worthy of comment/investigation/critical reflection.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 15 Sep 2016 03:25 | #

Daniel,

I don’t like to press too hard on your ideological certainties because I do not want to drive wedges between us. But you have no such concerns, and therefore I am bound to make at least some gesture in the direction of proper thinking in reply.

Some of this has been stated before, so I know you will not accommodate it. Regardless ...

I am a man of my own people. It is perfectly apparent to me that we are not a union. We are an organism. Organisms do not require to be connected up ab initio by politics. The notion has no real meaning to the ethnic man - the machinations of Frankfurt notwithstanding - and is, I would say, an answer to a question that, for reasons of Nature, cannot be asked outside of the looser, racial circumstances of North America.

I have no objection whatsoever to efforts to address the problems of bringing together white Americans of diverse European heritages. But that is a subsidiary issue to the fundamental and universal questions of peoples and politics which it is our privilege to address.

Likewise the notion of calling to account is non-applicable to actual peoples in the classic, organic sense. There is a threshold of familiarity here, in which errors of perception overlay actual connectivity, actual brotherhood. The process is one of awakening to or turning to the real and away from error and illusion. It belongs to the instinct and to love and to the consciousness. There is no external moral standard to be brought to bear ... no “should” ... no private or public moment of calculated judgement over representations in the mind. One does not choose one representation over another, and does not decide to “unify” with same because it is the right thing to do. It isn’t a selection process, or any kind of preference. It is a remembering and a coming home, a finding of that which was always there closer to you than any other thing could be.

For much the same reason I am also troubled by your founding emphasis on the social. As a man is not his personality alone, so a people has a social dimension, but it is not that social dimension. It isn’t defined by it or lent particularity by it. Ontologically, the social as such has a spacial quality which is universal and a-particular. It is fundamentally indiscriminate. It can be filled with one thing or another, and it remains itself: a potential for anything. To colour it with behavioural consequences and preferences is the work of the intellectual (the hermeneutician, I suppose), not the common man. It is a (more than likely, clumsy) artifice fatally separate from the life of the common man. It cannot be communicated to him without prescription. It is not how the common Man’s ethnocentrism and love function, for these are prior, a-social functions of Mind.

It is interesting in this regard how, when I mentioned tradition, you replied concerning traditions. Of course, I speak of the psychological, not anything social. I did not mention Christianity, nor had any need to refer to the development of healthy psychological impulses into politically-definable forms. But you answered for where your own mind intervenes: in an area which is essentially more political than mine. This renders understanding rather improbable, as one sees in your regular dismissal of me on the grounds that I am a rightist or even a liberal ... a Lockean given to objectivist crimes! It is embarrassing and painful to read these things, and reminds me that one cannot defend oneself when thinking is pulled out of one’s own relational universe to re-appear in another as something else. Relational certainties define, and different sets define differently. Communication of ideas is not perfectly possible (experience of the instinct, however, is a common action).

It would also help us both if you tried to reflect more of my own eclecticism and intellectual tolerance. I don’t mind opposing views. I don’t mind if those views are occasionally expressed in an unkind or even mischievous way. Nor should you. There was, for example, no need to lift CCs comment. You know CC. He’s a friend even if he says he isn’t, as also are you.

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 15 Sep 2016 06:22 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 15 Sep 2016 03:25 | #

Daniel,

I don’t like to press too hard on your ideological certainties because I do not want to drive wedges between us. But you have no such concerns, and therefore I am bound to make at least some gesture in the direction of proper thinking in reply.

Some of this has been stated before, so I know you will not accommodate it. Regardless ...

I am a man of my own people. It is perfectly apparent to me that we are not a union.

Citizenship and a Passport is a union and a racial classification is unionizable - that’s an ethnostate

We are an organism. Organisms do not require to be connected up ab initio by politics.

But you call yourself a nationalist? And people will require politics anyway. I’m not particularly big on politics either. You have kind of an elastic sense of what you call politics - it seems that you might call anything beyond the biological and science doing politics.. you can say that, but I think of what I am doing as more in line with other disciplines.

The notion has no real meaning to the ethnic man - the machinations of Frankfurt notwithstanding - and is, I would say, an answer to a question that, for reasons of Nature, cannot be asked outside of the looser, racial circumstances of North America.

I disagree. I am doing much the same with the idea of unonization as you are doing with nationalism. And you are incorrect that it has no function. The undoing of unionization (discriminatory classification) for us, denying it for us and the deployment of it against us, is the key theoretical weapon that the YKW has used against us - it is the theoretical backing of anti racism and PC.

I have no objection whatsoever to efforts to address the problems of bringing together white Americans of diverse European heritages. But that is a subsidiary issue to the fundamental and universal questions of peoples and politics which it is our privilege to address.

I am concerned for all European peoples and will defend them so long as they can live within decent parameters.

Likewise the notion of calling to account is non-applicable to actual peoples in the classic, organic sense.

ridiculous.

There is a threshold of familiarity here, in which errors of perception overlay actual connectivity, actual brotherhood. The process is one of awakening to or turning to the real and away from error and illusion.

Fine, but there is no conflict.

It belongs to the instinct and to love and to the consciousness.

You have a tendency to be too precise about words, such that if I talk about communication or accountability, you will be disagreeing with your very precise misunderstanding of what I actually mean.

Generally speaking, I see the ambiguity of language as more of an asset than a liability.

There is no external moral standard to be brought to bear ... no “should” ... no private or public moment of calculated judgement over representations in the mind.

Sounds like David Hume or something.

Well, let me say that most nations have seen fit to defend themselves when they are being invaded and overtaken. They have tended to agree that they “should” defend themselves.

One might not, in a moment, recognize someone as a Trojan horse, an enemy infiltrator…but they might put that together in narrative sequence, arriving at a “should.”

Probably because of habits of objectivity [part of the motivation for which can be to free one of guilt trips ..perhaps even for a momentary perception or thought.. (that one might not have to feel guilty about if they fit it into sequence properly)] and a corresponding penchant for individualist punctuation, we have been rationally blinded to our connectedness and our indebtedness to our connection ... wanting to be objective about it may rationally blind you to the fact that a nation is a union and if it is not treated as such, with obligations, prohibitions, accountability, it is vulnerable ....to the YKW and whomever else.

One does not choose one representation over another, and does not decide to “unify” with same because it is the right thing to do.

One does not choose a physical manifestation at birth nor typically at first experience of a perception, but does have some leeway in agreement with others as to how it counts. And one does have some choice, moreso as one matures, in its reconstruction (or not), to unify with it….as did our parents have some agency in creating us and determining how we and things fit and count within broader EGI - a part of such and such group (or not), etc.

It isn’t a selection process, or any kind of preference. It is a remembering and a coming home, a finding of that which was always there closer to you than any other thing could be.

Well, describing the feelings of finding a soul mate is well and good and it might even help in defending our people. But antagonism to deliberation is unnecessary, it can hamper constructive ideas and activism with which it is not necessarily in conflict.

For much the same reason I am also troubled by your founding emphasis on the social.

Defending ourselves against “anti-racism” is the rubric under which we meet. A race is a social unit.

As a man is not his personality alone, so a people has a social dimension, but it is not that social dimension.

This really does look like the old empirical philosophy, Locke, Berkeley, Hume ...the stuff that left us susceptible in the first place.

It isn’t defined by it or lent particularity by it.

It’s one unit of analysis. If you were to say to me that it should not be the only unit of analysis, I would agree. That’s what hermeneutic process does, it is a thought process and process of inquiry conducive to systemic process, conceptualization that allows for the inclusion of parts of the process not presently in temporal or historical view, to allow for its healthy inventory and maintenance, to tend where tending is needed, verification where needed, as opposed to the Cartesian penchant for getting locked into a myopic attention to a form, insufficiently complete unit of analysis or a linear runaway.

In a word, it provides necessary orientation and imagination.

Ontologically, the social as such has a spacial quality which is universal and a-particular. It is fundamentally indiscriminate.

If many people think this way, I should see why we’re having problems maintaining borders. The nations seem pretty distinct and distinguishable to me.

It can be filled with one thing or another, and it remains itself: a potential for anything.

The social realm can be filled with one thing or another and remain itself? What are you talking about?

To colour it with behavioural consequences and preferences is the work of the intellectual (the hermeneutician, I suppose), not the common man.

Well, people all over are characterizing social groups and seeing consequences from their behavioral patterns.

I am anticipating that you are about to do the thing of drawing an over precise misinterpretation of hermeneutics in order to do your thing, on behalf of the working class and “the right”, of destroying anything that has passed through a university.

It is a (more than likely, clumsy) artifice fatally separate from the life of the common man.

Yep, you did it.

It cannot be communicated to him without prescription. It is not how the common Man’s ethnocentrism and love function, for these are prior, a-social functions of Mind.

Well, to be accountable does not mean that an account has to be requested. If what he is doing is fine, legitimate or obligatory, then, well and good - leave him alone, no need to request an account (though accounts requested can be helpful in terms of orientation).

It is interesting in this regard how, when I mentioned tradition, you replied concerning traditions. Of course, I speak of the psychological, not anything social.

The tradition of the psyche? That’s a little weird and I can forgive myself for going to the example of Christianity as an unhealthy tradition..and a more normal example of a tradition..but let’s see where you go with this..

I did not mention Christianity, nor had any need to refer to the development of healthy psychological impulses into politically-definable forms.

OK, but I am not alone in believing that Christianity is a tradition which misguides people, taking them away from healthy psychological impulses.

But you answered for where your own mind intervenes: in an area which is essentially more political than mine.

You call these things political, and they are a bit, but really, my concerns are more philosophical - because I am a bit more concerned with theory than practice - practice being the realm of politics and activism.

This renders understanding rather improbable, as one sees in your regular dismissal of me on the grounds that I am a rightist

I don’t dismiss you. You dismiss what I am saying and assume (incorrectly) that what we are doing is in conflict. There are ways to make your concerns jibe with mine but your penchant for contrarianism and contentiousness keeps you from doing that sometimes.

or even a liberal ... a Lockean given to objectivist crimes!

I called you a liberal above for the first time ...because you called me a liberal ...and it struck me, hey ..here’s this guy saying that people should just be able to do their thing… who is the liberal here? I wasn’t particularly serious about it. You were jousting with me and so…

Lockeatine and objectivist crimes…yes… I do think you are a criminal in that regard.

Its part of your contrarian sociopathology (please see a bit of ribbing here).. it cropped up again with your remark to Dr. Doom. I wasn’t going to say anything, but pointing to MacDonald as a guiding light for his “objectivity” ... objectivity is a useful provisional tool ...and MacDonald has made valuable contributions by adding more rationale and reason to the J.Q., less ranting and craziness…

But I would not look to him as complete enough philosophical orientation… again, that “objectivity” is what makes for blind spots and ways in for (((trojan horses)))

It is embarrassing and painful to read these things, and reminds me that one cannot defend oneself when thinking is pulled out of one’s own relational universe to re-appear in another as something else.

Well, I am sorry for that, but the thing is, a tipping point was reached, where once again I experienced you trashing ideas that I was trying to put together - things that are really important - and a complete picture of how this was happening came to me. I discussed it because you are a brilliant man and a wonderful asset to our struggle.. and there are a few things which you might reconsider - contentiousness and an allergy to scholastic terminology - especially that which has passed through the Semitic distortion chamber. ..an allergy that sometimes has you move in the wrong direction by its design ...resulting in things that have been somewhat embarrassing and painful for me too. Not unbearable, well worth enduring, but ...things to reconsider.

Relational certainties define, and different sets define differently. Communication of ideas is not perfectly possible (experience of the instinct, however, is a common action).

It would also help us both if you tried to reflect more of my own eclecticism and intellectual tolerance. I don’t mind opposing views.

I have a penchant for eclecticism and tolerance as well, in that I want to allow for some flexibility in consideration of different ways of life and philosophy - provided they do not do real harm to the genetic groups that I am concerned about.

I don’t mind if those views are occasionally expressed in an unkind or even mischievous way. Nor should you. There was, for example, no need to lift CCs comment. You know CC. He’s a friend even if he says he isn’t, as also are you.

I didn’t lift CC’s comment permanently. I took it down provisionally as a distraction. I was trying to prepare a stage for Kumiko’s article to go up .. just wanted primarily Lister’s, Bowery’s and Your comments there for a while..

I’ll put the comments back up.. as I don’t know when Kumiko is going to put that article up…it’d be a tragedy if it doesn’t go up, because from what she tells me of it… its important stuff ... it seemed to be just about ready for a while now.

Note to CC, yes I did muh H again but I think you should have a second look to what I say here before being complicit with diversion and disinformation, attributing un-intelligibility, “autism” or other cliches from the already stale Alternative Right bag.

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 15 Sep 2016 12:53 | #

In further answer to your question, CC, as to what a White Left Does...

It would unionize social units - centrally, ethnostates; and with that subsidiary syndicalism of diaspora and enclaves; etc; on a broader regional level, Europe, and on a Racial level , as genus.

This could maintain a broad view on the social group; a perspective oriented toward accountability of elite in particular, but rank and file as well; looking after betrayal as well as reward.

Now, Lockeatine empirical philosophy would say that these unions are not real because they cannot be “seen” ...he would say that they are fictions of the mind, and that they are mere social constructs which should not be treated as real. That’s the kind of insane nonsense that the right goes along with and gets us taken for every ride in the Jewish carnival - which abuses the notion of unionization and makes it didactic to Whites.

As I’ve mentioned, there can be problems with unionization. But there should be ways to work that out among ourselves.

An added benefit to unions is that they are apparently against Sharia law - so that will be a way of weeding out Muslims.

Posted by Bill on Thu, 15 Sep 2016 14:22 | #

I’ve being saying this ever since I started.

The last is most important because it’s the media which imprisons our consciousness, which stamps out any embers of independent thought or resistance, which ultimately supports the entire System

Counter Currents - Memeing the God Emporor - Gregory Hood.

http://www.counter-currents.com/2016/09/memeing-the-god-emperor/

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 15 Sep 2016 15:51 | #

The God Emperor’s Legacy..

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 17 Sep 2016 07:05 | #

Daniel,

Citizenship and a Passport is a union and a racial classification is unionizable - that’s an ethnostate

That is politics, and the political derives from the thought-world, which derives from founding philosophy. We here are concerned primarily with the latter, the approach to which, broadly speaking, may be scholarly (ie, Counter-Currents, TOQ at its one-time best) or originative. Now, obviously, sans the thought world … the holistic, articulating body or system of ideas which feeds into ideologies and thence to politics … nothing nationalist in the political world today will be connectable with or traceable to our originating thought. There is still nothing at all wrong with political activism or commentary. It is an inevitability, and in large measure it is “the fight”. But those who work at the other end of the intellectual supply chain heed it only insomuch as they want, one day, for it to be product of their work. They will likely impute to it an inchoate necessity but an accidental character that stands in need of regularisation.

I am doing much the same with the idea of unionization as you are doing with nationalism.

I am “doing” human truth, as near as I am able. I am doing foundation, as far as I can see it. I am not making something up to address extant ideological and political facts. I am not doing reaction. I am not doing activism. Thus this:

The undoing of unionization (discriminatory classification) for us, denying it for us and the deployment of it against us, is the key theoretical weapon that the YKW has used against us - it is the theoretical backing of anti racism and PC.

... is not what I am doing. At least, not at this point. But all things shall have their day.

The social realm can be filled with one thing or another and remain itself? What are you talking about?

Time and place as a single psychological medium; its product in Man, and the singularity of that product notwithstanding its boundless forms; and its dynamic contrast to the existential truth of him (which we may present as identity ↔ personality, or the innate ↔ the acquired, or authenticity ↔ artifice, or consciousness ↔ mechanicity; and so forth). That sort of important stuff.

If what he is doing is fine, legitimate or obligatory, then, well and good - leave him alone, no need to request an account (though accounts requested can be helpful in terms of orientation).

Let’s suppose that one fine day - well, night actually - the secret police, all arrayed in secret policemen’s garb, are sent out en masse from their secret bunker under some secret hill, with secret instructions to round up all the political traitors in the land, and deliver them to some, of course, secret location where they are to be held – in secret - to account. Let’s suppose that during capture some of the targets, the filthy, traitorous swine, end up shot dead, regettably in front of their children. The others are not actually shot - well, not dead, anyway. But quite a lot of them are notably accident prone, and seem to remain so in captivity, which is awfully bad luck. Let’s suppose that the whole dire mess resolves such that most of the traitorous swine never show sufficient remorse during their “holding to account”. They grow prematurely old and white-haired and lost to hope, as men do in such circumstances. Many die in the darkness. Because it isn’t always easy to get medical help for disease, malnutrition, ruptured kidneys and so on, is it? Let’s suppose that, oh, twelve or fifteen or twenty years later the, of course, always compassionate and beneficial state tires of them. But only a handful remain to be released quite without warning. Well, spat out really; blinking in the light of a staggeringly beautiful, cool summer’s morning ... free, broken, silent men; at least until the next knock on the door at three in the morning.

What has this to do with the creation of a whole system of life to expand and free and adorn our racial kind, in peace and perpetuity?

Our crisis is existential and issues not from one source but several, and ultimately from the dis-accommodation with reality which these sources generate in us – all of us, you too - and which we in turn, as unconscious agents, generate for our own children. There is no holding of account for an entire population of unconscious agents, piecemeal or general. There is only the gift of new, formative thought, and the making of it into something whole and life-giving.

I am concerned for all European peoples and will defend them so long as they can live within decent parameters.

Then allow for the natural, important advantage of a narrow peoplehood which Europeans in the old continent enjoy.

Well, let me say that most nations have seen fit to defend themselves when they are being invaded and overtaken. They have tended to agree that they “should” defend themselves.

Self-defence is a natural imperative. It’s Heidegger’s being-before-death. It is not a consideration of the thinking faculty predicated on the reservations of GE Moore. Life “must” be. No should about it.

One does not choose a physical manifestation at birth nor typically at first experience of a perception, but does have some leeway in agreement with others as to how it counts. And one does have some choice, moreso as one matures, in its reconstruction (or not), to unify with it.

You thought that up. Actually, you had to think that up. But we are talking here about the intellectual cleaving of and to life, and our brothers and sisters don’t think like that. They tend to have a 100 IQ, more or less. They don’t stop to think at all about matters of existential necessity. Everything flows from the instinct. If it can find a route through into the lived life ... if it is not blocked or corrupted or debilitated ... then matters will proceed well.

... it [ie, hermeneutics] provides necessary orientation.

It is too partial, too elitist to have a role in the common people’s struggle for life. It, and any “orientation” which it determines, will never be more than prescription, and no substitute at all for new world values, new world thought, new world living.

More to follow.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 17 Sep 2016 10:42 | #

Daniel,

The tradition of the psyche? That’s a little weird

Tradition satisfies a deep psychological need, and that need is for some sort of situational meaning … some sense of belonging in the historical group identity, particularly in relation to place. It can also extend into affirmation of the permanent moral life of the group (which, very obviously, tends to fitness). This is all a good in itself, and is not the same as any given single religious or memorial practise. As you well know. You are not obtuse, so don’t act obtuse.

Same goes for your previous, quite deliberate failure to understand what I am saying about the ontology of the social. Even if something looks a bit off the wall at first reading, it is quite likely to have a content which it is intended for you. Don’t let me down. Don’t make the mistake of thinking I am arguing with you, which mistake leads into needless oppositionalism and intellectual isolation.

... habits of objectivity [part of the motivation for which can be to free one of guilt trips ..perhaps even for a momentary perception or thought.. (that one might not have to feel guilty about if they fit it into sequence properly)] and a corresponding penchant for individualist punctuation, we have been rationally blinded to our connectedness and our indebtedness to our connection ... wanting to be objective about it may rationally blind you to the fact that a nation is a union and if it is not treated as such, with obligations, prohibitions, accountability, it is vulnerable ....to the YKW and whomever else.

Since when was a necessitous reliance upon fact over negative emotionalism a sign of some foundationally liberal disposition? Since when was a preference for negative emotionalism a sign of some foundationally non-liberal disposition?

I suspect that there are some serious problems with the division of objectivity and subjectivity, and with its extrapolation from the liberal historiography. I might easily be tempted by your barbs to have a dash at exposing them.

I am a bit more concerned with theory than practice - practice being the realm of politics and activism.

Speaking purely in terms of personality, an interesting possibility exists that Americans, educated or otherwise, are so enculturated in the liberal project, and have so extended a relation to their own in-group, that the very idea of philosophy takes on an elastic and uncertain character for them. There is just too much that is floating free and too little that is coloured by the specifics of ethnic identity. I don’t know this for a fact. I am just proposing the possibility, based on personal observation and the general sense of the solid and grounded which seems to be a correlate of a long period of settled existence. Hence the rural human type also tends to offer a sweeter odour, a more solid presence than his or her urban counterpart. There is always a price to pay for ceasura.

So what I am suggesting here – not, I would think, unrealistically and by no means originally - is that the more rooted a given group is, the more its deep culture is attached to existence, and the more available and recognised in observances is its grounding philosophy. This is rather important on a number of levels. Such groundedness has to be respected by Power, for example, because it will not easily retire before arbitrary ideological diktat, and will not see itself in abstractions - as urban populations, with their orientation towards the febrile, the loose, the modern, seem rather able to do.

How, then, one discusses the specificity of existential philosophy with a mechanically liberalised American I am not so sure. The signs are not good! Politics, of course, is never a problem.

Lockeatine and objectivist crimes…yes… I do think you are a criminal in that regard.

Well, obviously, it is going to take some time to wean you off such comforting illusions. Thing is, I am not an educated man, and there will be word-crimes that I commit out of ignorance of the academic rules. Ignorance does not imply guilt. Give us a break, won’t you?

Posted by Elisabeth on Sat, 17 Sep 2016 14:39 | #

I want more than a prison cell for the traitors. Public floggings and execution, JUSTICE must be served and must be seen to be served.

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 17 Sep 2016 23:40 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 17 Sep 2016 07:05 | #

Daniel,

Citizenship and a Passport is a union and a racial classification is unionizable - that’s an ethnostate

That is politics, and the political derives from the thought-world, which derives from founding philosophy. We here are concerned primarily with the latter, the approach to which, broadly speaking, may be scholarly (ie, Counter-Currents, TOQ at its one-time best) or originative. Now, obviously, sans the thought world … the holistic, articulating body or system of ideas which feeds into ideologies and thence to politics … nothing nationalist in the political world today will be connectable with or traceable to originating thought.

Well, that is a bunch of horseshit.

There is nothing at all wrong with political activism or commentary.

It is not activism, it is analysis of academic analysis that has filtered into the public way of speaking and acting.. you have not been a part of the academic end (and are therefore resentful of that).

It is an inevitability, and in large measure it is “the fight”. But those who work at the other end of the intellectual supply chain heed it only insomuch as they want, one day, for it to be product of their work. They will likely impute to it an inchoate necessity but an accidental character that stands in need of regularisation.

Again, that is just a got up way of saying, “you are speaking ‘psuedo intellectual’ and what we need is common sense.”

And, as Heidegger said, “common sense” is the charge of the intellectually jealous.

I am doing much the same with the idea of unionization as you are doing with nationalism.

I am “doing” human truth, as near as I am able. I am doing foundation, as far as I can see it.

You are doing one end, the empirical end, of a hermeneutic circle so far as you can and willfully blind yourself to the rest.

I am not making something up to address extant ideological and political facts. I am not doing reaction. I am not doing activism.

Yeah, I know, you “are speaking the “truth” like Plato and Jesus and everyone else are just sophists or pharisees.

Thus this:

The undoing of unionization (discriminatory classification) for us, denying it for us and the deployment of it against us, is the key theoretical weapon that the YKW has used against us - it is the theoretical backing of anti racism and PC.

... is not what I am doing. At least, not at this point. But all things shall have their day.

I didn’t say it is what you are doing, it is what the Jews are doing. But if you insist on this empirical/ analytical school game, actually, you would be doing something much the same - only with naive intent.

The social realm can be filled with one thing or another and remain itself? What are you talking about?

Time and place as a single psychological medium; its product in Man, and the singularity of that product notwithstanding its boundless forms; and its dynamic contrast to the existential truth of him (which we may present as identity ↔ personality, or the innate ↔ the acquired, or authenticity ↔ artifice, or consciousness ↔ mechanicity; and so forth). That sort of important stuff.

It is not wholly solipsistic, as you would perhaps like it to be.

If what he is doing is fine, legitimate or obligatory, then, well and good - leave him alone, no need to request an account (though accounts requested can be helpful in terms of orientation).

I said accounts do not have to be requested, and I said in my writings that there was another extreme, which you conveniently did not register…and so you go on to render this cartoon dystopian nightmare, the kind of which I accurately suggested was a part of the backing of your pseudo justification for disallowing discussion of accountability.. and here is the horror scenario…which my discussion would head off, if you didn’t preclude the conversation…but here it is:

Let’s suppose that one fine day - well, night actually - the secret police, all arrayed in secret policemen’s garb, are sent out en masse from their secret bunker under some secret hill, with secret instructions to round up all the political traitors in the land, and deliver them to some, of course, secret location where they are to be held – in secret - to account.Let’s suppose that during capture some of the targets, the filthy, traitorous swine, end up shot dead, regettably in front of their children. The others are not actually shot - well, not dead, anyway. But quite a lot of them are notably accident prone, and seem to remain so in captivity, which is awfully bad luck. Let’s suppose that the whole dire mess resolves such that most of the traitorous swine never show sufficient remorse during their “holding to account”. They grow prematurely old and white-haired and lost to hope, as men do in such circumstances. Many die in the darkness. Because it isn’t always easy to get medical help for disease, malnutrition, ruptured kidneys and so on, is it? Let’s suppose that, oh, twelve or fifteen or twenty years later the, of course, always compassionate and beneficial state tires of them. But only a handful remain to be released quite without warning. Well, spat out really; blinking in the light of a staggeringly beautiful, cool summer’s morning ... free, broken, silent men; at least until the next knock on the door at three in the morning.

What has this to do with the creation of a whole system of life to expand and free and adorn our racial kind, in peace and perpetuity?

I have already outlined in a couple places that it was an important discussion to have that accountability can be taken too far - that was the case in the Soviet Union, East Germany etc.

Western society has tended to go to another extreme.

I have said, and maintain, that it is an interesting and important discussion, that you obstruct, because you want to pretend that it is all “pseudo intellectual.”

You perhaps prefer that Thorn, Haller, Joe et al bludgeon such discussion with their “dissenting opininions” and “free speech.”

Our crisis is existential and issues not from one source but several,

I didn’t say it came from one source.

and ultimately from the dis-accommodation with reality which these sources generate in us – all of us, you too - and which we in turn, as unconscious agents, generate for our own children. There is no holding of account for an entire population of unconscious agents, piecemeal or general. There is only the gift of new, formative thought, and the making of it into something whole and life-giving.

A way of life, a way of talking, a rule structure, provides a means of holding to account members of a population - but it does not have to be unreasonable.

I am concerned for all European peoples and will defend them so long as they can live within decent parameters.

Then allow for the natural, important advantage of a narrow peoplehood which Europeans in the old continent enjoy.

I do allow for that natural advantage.

Well, let me say that most nations have seen fit to defend themselves when they are being invaded and overtaken. They have tended to agree that they “should” defend themselves.

Self-defence is a natural imperative. It’s Heidegger’s being-before-death. It is not a consideration of the thinking faculty predicated on the reservations of GE Moore. Life “must” be. No should about it.

It’s best if people naturally defend themselves. A large part of our people have been deceived into opening the borders and boundaries. The language games that provide pseudo justifications for them to do that need to be disabused.

You quote me here:

One does not choose a physical manifestation at birth nor typically at first experience of a perception, but does have some leeway in agreement with others as to how it counts. And one does have some choice, moreso as one matures, in its reconstruction (or not), to unify with it.

Yes, and I added that…

...as did our parents have some agency in creating us and determining how we and things fit and count within broader EGI - a part of such and such group (or not), etc.

You thought that up. Actually, you had to think that up. But we are talking here about the intellectual cleaving of and to life, and our brothers and sisters don’t think like that. They tend to have a 100 IQ, more or less. They don’t stop to think at all about matters of existential necessity. Everything flows from the instinct. If it can find a route through into the lived life ... if it is not blocked or corrupted or debilitated ... then matters will proceed well.

No, it is the case that we have some agency in reconstructing our patterns and determining how they count.

you quote me..

... it [ie, hermeneutics] provides necessary orientation.

I added… provides necessary orientation and imagination.

It is too partial, too elitist to have a role in the common people’s struggle for life. It, and any “orientation” which it determines, will never be more than prescription, and no substitute at all for new world values, new world thought, new world living.

Nonsense. that is the oppoisite of the case. The reverse is the case - what you are doing in your rigid attendance to the more “empirical” end is too partial. My diagnosis of you as the guy with the chip on his shoulder about academia and academic talk..who is going to “debunk” all that “pseudo intellectual nonsense” on behalf of “common sense” was even more true of you than I thought. In the name of theoretical accuracy, I encourage anyone to read the post below.. “Why people who argue against The Left and Post Modernity are badly mistaken.”

More to follow.

Unfortunately..

17

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 17 Sep 2016 10:42 | #

Daniel,

The tradition of the psyche? That’s a little weird

Tradition satisfies a deep psychological need,

Maybe. There are an awful lot of traditions in history.

and that need is for some sort of situational meaning … some sense of belonging in the historical group identity, particularly in relation to place. It can also extend into affirmation of the permanent moral life of the group (which, very obviously, tends to fitness). This is all a good in itself, and is not the same as any given single religious or memorial practise. As you well know. You are not obtuse, so don’t act obtuse.

The tradition of Christianity serves as a perfect example that a tradition can be deleterious - a collective bad habit. Other traditions are conducive to fitness of the group ...that’s why White post modernity does not take the position that traditions are necessarily bad.

Same goes for your previous, quite deliberate failure to understand what I am saying about the ontology of the social. Even if something looks a bit off the wall at first reading, it is quite likely to have a content which it is intended for you. Don’t let me down. Don’t make the mistake of thinking I am arguing with you, which mistake leads into needless oppositionalism and intellectual isolation.

This is a projection, GW.

Groups are a social unit. You isolate yourself when you deny the validity of assessment of group patterns and try to replace it with psychology. There is no bigger let-down.

... habits of objectivity [part of the motivation for which can be to free one of guilt trips ..perhaps even for a momentary perception or thought.. (that one might not have to feel guilty about if they fit it into sequence properly)] and a corresponding penchant for individualist punctuation, we have been rationally blinded to our connectedness and our indebtedness to our connection ... wanting to be objective about it may rationally blind you to the fact that a nation is a union and if it is not treated as such, with obligations, prohibitions, accountability, it is vulnerable ....to the YKW and whomever else.

Since when was a necessitous reliance upon fact over negative emotionalism a sign of some foundationally liberal disposition? Since when was a preference for negative emotionalism a sign of some foundationally non-liberal disposition?

Of course objectivism lends itself to liberalism - it’s clear. It sheers one away from accountability and group ties.

I suspect that there are some serious problems with the division of objectivity and subjectivity, and with its extrapolation from the liberal historiography. I might easily be tempted by your barbs to have a dash at exposing them.

I have already said that objecivism, subjectivism and relativism are not perfectly separable…only more or less, as a predilection or proclivity… but you don’t pay attention to what I say..

I am a bit more concerned with theory than practice - practice being the realm of politics and activism.

Speaking purely in terms of personality, an interesting possibility exists that Americans, educated or otherwise, are so enculturated in the liberal project, and have so extended a relation to their own in-group, that the very idea of philosophy takes on an elastic and uncertain character for them.

No. You are too wedded to something like the analytic school of philosophy. You want science and philosophy to mean practically the same thing. It is as boring as it is wrong.

There is just too much that is floating free and too little that is coloured by the specifics of ethnic identity.

No there isn’t. There is every opportunity for people to color in specifics of identity.

I don’t know this for a fact. I am just proposing the possibility, based on personal observation and the general sense of the solid and grounded which seems to be a correlate of a long period of settled existence. Hence the rural human type also tends to offer a sweeter odour, a more solid presence than his or her urban counterpart. There is always a price to pay for ceasura.

If the rural type is more vivifying that’s wonderful. I will not obstruct its manifestation and that form of life. I will defend it and my philosophical outlook does defend it.

So what I am suggesting here – not, I would think, unrealistically and by no means originally - is that the more rooted a given group is, the more its deep culture is attached to existence, and the more available and recognised in observances is its grounding philosophy. This is rather important on a number of levels. Such groundedness has to be respected by Power, for example, because it will not easily retire before arbitrary ideological diktat, and will not see itself in abstractions - as urban populations, with their orientation towards the febrile, the loose, the modern, seem rather able to do.

I do not expect this population to retire its proper ways and thoughts. However, if it tries to tell me, for example, that Christianity is the truth, I am not going to defer to its judgment. I am not going to defer to it, if it is wrong.

How, then, one discusses the specificity of existential philosophy with a mechanically liberalised American I am not so sure. The signs are not good! Politics, of course, is never a problem.

I am not a mechanically liberalized American. You are man who is so resentful of academia that you feel compelled to reject everything, just everything that looks like it has passed through it. I have known other Englishmen like you. You think that what you are doing is true and good in just trying to destroy everything that looks academic.

Lockeatine and objectivist crimes…yes… I do think you are a criminal in that regard.

Well, obviously, it is going to take some time to wean you off such comforting illusions.

This was a semi joke, but only a semi joke. You are guilty of a very counter productive empirical bias.

Thing is, I am not an educated man, and there will be word-crimes that I commit out of ignorance of the academic rules. Ignorance does not imply guilt. Give us a break, won’t you?

There is nothing wrong with that unless you refuse to be informed and obstruct other people from being informed (which, unfortunately, you seem to be doing). When you continually deny what is good and healthy information I cannot let it go.

To repeat: there is a difference between being argumentative, which is to present a counter argument to something that you understand or are trying to understand in good faith ...and on the other hand, to be contentious , which is to seek disagreement from the get-go, without really understanding what you are arguing against, and not really making the effort in good faith to understand it.

My frustration with you has to do with the fact that you have been contentious. You have a tendency to simply walk into a conversation and dismiss what I say without due consideration, not bothering to understand that it can be good for you, not destructive to you, your project or your concerns, that it can be useful and even rigorously applied - I add that because I sense that you like rigor.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 17 Sep 2016 23:49 | #

I think living well is indeed the best revenge. That is why White Americans are ultimately in a more enviable position than Europeans. In creating the Northwest Republic we will have at our disposal a much cleaner canvas to draw statecraft upon than do Europeans. We can simply chase out all forms of human detritus. Why should we give two damns about “punishing” them if we can simply compel them to leave? Jews, muds, mongrels, liberals, race-mixers, faggots - none of their lives will be worth a bucket of warm piss in the newly formed Republic.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 18 Sep 2016 07:38 | #

CC,

The question we ponder is how “living well” is actually undertaken. If racially conscious white Americans assorted themselves tomorrow from their unconscious brothers and the mass of non-whites, still they would live by their existing religious and political principles and ideas, albeit with a heavy charge of racialism in the first generation - because they have nothing else (perhaps you remember how Alex Linder once stated on an MR thread that he is basically a libertarian; he could not say he is a nationalist, not even a nazi, because he knew in his heart that that isn’t remotely true, or even possible).

They - the North-West ethnostaters - would do this without even having to ask themselves what they are doing. They would simply carry into the life of the group, and communicate to future generations, the same basic flaws that have shaped the American life today. So, over time, they would develop the same tension between the electric consciousness which characterised the founding generation and the self-estrangements which characterise the American life now. The same false philosophical gods, the same life, the same political paradigms, the same treacheries would eventually re-appear because they are in the philosophical DNA, and because the mass consciousness of identity and its grounding in the lived-life takes real, functioning, systemic nationalism to sustain; and neither white Americans nor Europeans have hold of that system today.

The disagreement between my friend Daniel and myself is really over the role of academics in the effort to develop that system. Daniel’s famous hermeneutics, in the sense it applies to us, is really about interpreting reality. What is the method of interpretation? Who is the interpreter, and for whom does he or she interpret? If Daniel and I were sitting on a see-saw, the fulcrum would be Martin Heidegger’s assertion that not reality as such but the interpretation of reality is a common act articulated between us all through our individual perceptions of it and communication of same. Daniel tends to the belief that intellectuals and only intellectuals are in a position to prescribe the necessary political meanings to the rest of us - for example, to stiffen our nationalist resolve and understanding, and sustain and eventually win the war against our Christian-liberal DNA. Daniel is, therefore, a nose-to-the-grindstone intellectual activist for nationalism operating with a clear political sensibility. At least, as far as I can see him, anyway. He doesn’t like that judgement, but he probably knows that, while an emphasis on the methodological and ideological does constitute activism in the founding context, it is a corrective focus on re-founding the community. I am focused on founding a naturally identitarian philosophical DNA out of which the common life emerges.

Daniel particularly doesn’t like my fundamental disavowal of prescription, which he has now taken to deriding as an appeal to “commonsense”. Underneath this is another, perhaps still stronger dislike of the implications for human intent and action of my observations about the binary nature of conscious processes, ie, their evolution ↔ involution. I am trying to explain the human condition, of course, because it is inescapable. But it is an explanation that preferences instinct over intellect and nature over artifice; and offends every ideologue, academic or otherwise.

Ours is the difference between a gardener tending his plants and a plant-breeder creating stock for the garden, or perhaps even the landscape gardener creating the garden itself. But the plot of land is our shared ancestral home, and no disagreement on focus can divide us on the meaning of that ground.

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 19 Sep 2016 07:56 | #

It isn’t really true that I am motivated to disallow non academic perspectives. Though I do see it as crucial to sort out what is taken for granted in ordinary language, particularly as it is received from academic and media authority. The concern is inextricably linked to ordinary every day understandings - the rectification of them, actually.

In you analogy of the seesaw, I can see a means to move forward - that is, you at least suggest that some people (e.g. myself) concerned for European peoples might take telescopic perspectives on our racial concerns and that could be valid along with critical, microscopic examinations. Thus, I will leave that narrative alone except to say that “hermeneutics” is not merely a matter of interpretation - it is a process of inquiry that, while allowing for interpretation on one end, also requires circling back to critical verification.

I am highly motivated to allow for useful perspectives and conceptual tools’ and am bothered when they are obstructed disingenuously.or naively. ... or for some errant motivation, like trying to brush all social conceptual apparatus with Jewish motivation, Marxist motivation, unnatural affectation, etc.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 19 Sep 2016 09:34 | #

This ...

My frustration with you has to do with the fact that you have been contentious. You have a tendency to simply walk into a conversation and dismiss what I say without due consideration, not bothering to understand that it can be good for you, not destructive to you, your project or your concerns

... is a subjective response to one of the questions I am seeking to pose. That question is: what is the extent and effect of human absence?

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 19 Sep 2016 12:35 | #

There are a lot of questions in the plight of Europeans - firstly there is antagonism, not to mention sometimes conflicting choices, in addition to “absence”, but if it is all reduced to “absence” then I imagine that what you are talking about is a European’s most “natural” and healthy behavior by contrast.

I am not going to venture a suggestion as to how one might disabuse fellow natives from their absentness, since I gather that you’d like them to find your description of authenticity so compelling, so singular, that they simply fall into line. I suppose that some will, and that’s well and good. But it’s not the only project and not the only question.

GW, even scientific articles are argumentative essays in essence. Whether it’s E.O. Wilson or whomever. That should tell you something. Even where you want to be as descriptive as possible in observing that people should act in accordance with their biology in its ownmost adaptive fitness, you are still arguing the point.

The problem is perhaps that you don’t want to consciously embrace argument, but nevertheless feel the need for a foil - someone to argue against - and as you seem to want to deny it, and rationally blind yourself to the place and the realm of rhetoric, this makes for inauthentic argument as you are not really arguing with your interlocutor in a commensurate way. Because of that you have a tendency to not appreciate that I can see the merit in your project - you seek a minimum of prescription and so be it - I wish you well. Hopefully, people will all just naturally act correctly and the English will make themselves English loyalists again.

Nevertheless, I see no problem and no conflict with a modicum of “prescribed” borders, boundaries, passports, propositional rule structures and more as valid guidelines, for when people “forget” or to help them act into more rewarding though still authentic ways.

There is more to our concerns than the artifice of borders and naturally occurring boundaries; for example, the discussion of rules as they correspond with, OK, let’s say description, and analysis of these rules as they might become confused and tangled; or simply present a dilemma or a compound of healthy options that cannot all be met - with our own natives and, if nothing else, with groups of people with different ways and values. This is all very real and interesting to me; and I am sorry if it is not interesting for you because we would disagree; I could not let you simply subvert and dismiss inquiries and their means as such; it is both too important and simply too interesting (to me). And there is plenty of rigor to be had there that should satisfy an executive mindset such as yours. Nevertheless, I will not beg your indulgence.

Although, like Bowery, your Cartesian anxiety can be a drag on productive inquiry, unnecessarily denying the merit of non- Cartesian tools, it is also true that, like Bowery, your intelligence in straining and craning as such, produces some gems. While I have been critical of you and your psychological perspective, I do think you came up with a gem in your diagnosis of the authentic mindset being more like a relaxed orientation on one’s and one’s people’s ways, not a highly instrumental affair - not as a general mindset. I know that I am not doing it justice in this paraphrasing, but that was an excellent and important point for people to understand.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 19 Sep 2016 12:37 | #

I would add the commentary that this particular question should, by its revolutionary absolutism, affect genuine turmoil in any open, perceptive, critical thinker (which, by definition, should include any competent thinker in nationalism), for it attacks all certainties, and sweeps away everything that it loosens. If there exists a more revolutionary question I don’t know what it is.

Of course, that does not necessarily mean than a given thinker will be open enough to receive its meaning. Absence is the universal condition, but openness is a quite specific thing, to do with the possession of a certain quality of doubt. Maybe that is a much rarer thing, even among nationalists, than I allow for.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 19 Sep 2016 13:24 | #

Daniel, that last comment, together with your earlier contribution on “commonsense”, demonstrates that you have not yet grasped that authenticity, as the attendant quality of identity, cannot be prescribed ... not by me, nor you, nor any other person. It eludes the puny efforts of people like me to talk about it. It is too ineffable, light and immediate to be caught in words. That, again, would be prescription.

I understand that you are, in essence, offended on behalf of the entire catalogue of Western thinkers. But thought itself, certainly in the form of Heidegger’s calculative kind, is a thing fashioned in the dark, without the light of presence, and belongs therefore to the personality.

It is the personality - not communication, or transmission, or culture, or the social - that hermeneutics would do well to address so as to be of some utility, at least, to human being. But even then, the taking up of thought, as someone must have said a couple of thousand years ago, will achieve nothing by itself. Attentional consciousness, not thought, is the missing element.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 19 Sep 2016 13:37 | #

This is all very real and interesting to me; and I am sorry if it is not interesting for you because we would disagree; I could not let you simply subvert and dismiss inquiries and their means as such; it is both too important and simply too interesting (to me).

Intellectual interest is fine. But information about freedom is not freeing per se, and is certainly not freedom itself. Information can be piled sky-high but it has less cumulative power to free, by orders of magnitude, than one decisive, instinctual moment of national consciousness.

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 19 Sep 2016 15:30 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 19 Sep 2016 13:24 | #

Daniel, that last comment, together with your earlier contribution on “commonsense”, demonstrates that you have not yet grasped that authenticity, as the attendant quality of identity, cannot be prescribed ...

I grasp it just fine. One’s authentic nature cannot be prescribed, but certain rule structures are more conducive to one’s authentic nature, helping to keeping it on track so to speak, better than others.

You are doing your over precise misunderderstanding thing with “common sense”, with what was a sketchy remark.

not by me, nor you, nor any other person. It eludes the puny efforts of people like me to talk about it. It is too ineffable, light and immediate to be caught in words. That, again, would be prescription.

Excuse me, but if it can’t be explained here, it doesn’t seem to be much good to any of us.

I understand that you are, in essence, offended on behalf of the entire catalogue of Western thinkers.

No, I am offended on behalf of useful ideas. And I will proceed with them, knowing that you will act dismissively. Now I am prepared for that.

But thought itself, certainly in the form of Heidegger’s calculative kind, is a thing fashioned in the dark, without the light of presence, and belongs therefore to the personality.

This personality thing that you have, it’s so ossified late 60’s pop psychology human potential movement-like…. Erik Erickson or something.. this talk about personality - anachronistic psychobabble.

It is the personality - not communication, or transmission, or culture, or the social - that hermeneutics would do well to address so as to be of some utility, at least, to human being. But even then, the taking up of thought, as someone must have said a couple of thousand years ago, will achieve nothing by itself. Attentional consciousness, not thought, is the missing element.

You refuse to understand what I’m saying. You won’t dissuade me by misunderstanding me. Emergentism is fine, as for Zen, well maybe, but this ineffable stuff, I don’t see much good in it for a the kinds of concerns that we are up against.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 19 Sep 2016 13:37 | #

I said: This is all very real and interesting to me; and I am sorry if it is not interesting for you because we would disagree; I could not let you simply subvert and dismiss inquiries and their means as such; it is both too important and simply too interesting (to me).

You said: Intellectual interest is fine. But information about freedom is not freeing per se, and is certainly not freedom itself.

It has already proved freeing in many instances; but I don’t recall saying that “freedom” was the objective. Use, enjoyment, solving problems is more to the point.

Information can be piled sky-high but it has less cumulative power to free, by orders of magnitude, than one decisive, instinctual moment of national consciousness.

Well, you have never given anything that I’ve said a moment’s chance, so I cannot take your objections seriously. You are just automatically dismissing things, without really knowing what you’re disagreeing with.

Posted by Cara M. Corbo on Mon, 19 Sep 2016 16:01 | #

My sister died on Friday. She was part of that human potential psychology and attendant feminism of the 60’s and 70’s.

She was 61, but had a successful marriage, law career, much luxurious travel, lovely house, and is leaving my nephews well heeled.

I think she bears an uncanny resemblance to Polish poet laureate, Wislawa Szymborska, at least in this photo

In this photo, circa 1965, in my grandmother’s basement (grandmother bottom center), you can see the coldness in her (to the right of my mother, also wearing Easter bonnet) for having to wear that Easter bonnet - she would have nothing of traditional roles being forced upon her.

I can see the mischief lurking in my brother Tom - the kid with the red tie to the bottom right - he was out to get my goat.

Me still looking happy-go-lucky (far left bottom), though having a swollen cheek from some sort of tooth issue; and not knowing what I’m in for (e.g., the Immigration and Naturalization Act just passed that year; Civil Rights Act the year before; forced school integration in the decade before; black riots in that very city of Newark in 1967 and 68; Rumsford Fair Housing Act in 68, feminism going into overdrive in the 70’s exactly when I was in adolescence).

Mother’s hand on my shoulder, trying to protect me from my boomer siblings…

I can see that my brother Larry (center right, older cousin Angelo’s arm over his shoulder) was making his confirmation at that time….he would be at Woodstock four years later.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 21 Sep 2016 05:03 | #

“The Daily Shoah” - the guys debate Elle Reeve from (((Vice News))).

They argue on behalf of a race realist and advocate position.

They suggest that she believes that race is a socio - economic category (she accepts this) and propose that by contrast it is a taxonomy.

For me this is false dichotomy. It is both.

I like to emphasize how it is a social category in order to sensitize our people to the fact conceptually, connect with the agentive and to help them defend themselves against other peoples who are looking after their groups as more of a social-political-economic category.

Though emphasizeing the social (because European and American individualism has tended to de-emphasize relatedness and indebtedness), I don’t like to emphasize the political and especially not the economic because that can lend too much attention to a Marxist, dialectical material perspective, its way of looking at things, and thus distract from EGI, which is my main concern.

Although I readily acknowledge that the political and economic are important - inextricably linked to a manageable ethno-state that can be coordinated among other ehtno-states, would be left nationalist (for its social group accountability) - White Leftism is not to be confused with Marxist, Fabian, etc.

I recognize this to be true despite TRS and the rest of the “Alt-Right” maintaining “THE” Left as their adversary.

Now then. Interesting (to me) is that Enoch is taking the term “social being” that Richard Spencer apparently bandied in a not yet posted discussion about Heidegger. I would not be surprised if Richard Spencer is taking notes from us here.

Social being would correspond with the “midtdasein” that Michael O’Meara unfolded, and well took to heart from the Heidegger literature.

Rom Harre also wrote a book (though not his best, unfortunately) entitled “Social Being.”

So, it is not a new idea though it is necessary to White Nationalism. I have been ahead of the curve in terms of its necessity; hopefully GW will be able to see that it is symbiotic with what he reasonably seeks in his ontology project.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 21 Sep 2016 17:08 | #

certain rule structures are more conducive to one’s authentic nature, helping to keeping it on track so to speak, better than others.

The key is maximal emergence and world-influence, and minimal prescription. The boundary between these is established by the limit of the former. Prescription needs no more selective form than factual reporting and information, on which basis the identitarian subject may, for example, discriminate for genetic interest. Maladaptive choices may be costed by naturally emergent social forms such as stigma and exclusion.

Of course, this refers to the essential nationalism of a new dispensation. I’m not talking about revolutionary activism within the liberal dispensation - nor can we, really, until we have a reasonable idea about what revolution must produce. That so many of do so all the time is a result of our weak aptitude for founding thought. Most of us - nearly all, actually - simply assume that some isostatic process will take hold, and raise us up inexorably to a new life.

if it (the authentic) can’t be explained here, it doesn’t seem to be much good to any of us.

I did not say it cannot be “explained”. I said it cannot be “caught in words”. I might be able to explain it as, let’s say, the character of the true subject of the consciousness. But words are not the deed of conciousness itself; and can never produce anything useful in its absence.

This personality thing that you have, it’s so ossified late 60’s pop psychology human potential movement-like…. Erik Erickson or something.. this talk about personality - anachronistic psychobabble.

Heidegger referred to personality at one remove as “the they”. That is a weakness, because “the they” is in us all, and is us and at the same time is not us. Personality is a construct, the artifice of Time and Place. It is inauthenticity itself, and the natural psychological output of what I have called ordinary waking consciousness (with its declensions of immersive attention, mechanicity of function, and absence). This model exceeds the ground covered by the rather light consideration which Heidegger gave to the matter. It has nothing to do with pop psychology. I have not derived any part of it from that. It repays the effort to identify its relational meanings and dynamics. After all, it explains who and what you are as you sit reading this, and why you are a passive agent in the world.

Indeed, one way to approach it would be through agency (which I know you understand well). That which is authentic wills circumstance or seeks the means to do so. That which is artifice is far too readily willed by circumstance, and knows not its own self or condition.

I don’t recall saying that “freedom” was the objective

The freeing of the will ... its free expression ... is surely a high-order political objective, no?

You are just automatically dismissing things, without really knowing what you’re disagreeing with.

At worst, I am fashioning an existentialist psychology of human action. At best, I am setting down a few human truths which, I believe, underpin the existentialist and identitarian philosophy required by European peoples to survive the post-Christian, post-liberal, post-racial era into which we are being hurried.

Social being would correspond with the “midtdasein” that Michael O’Meara unfolded, and well took to heart from the Heidegger literature.

Michael is not a Heideggerian. He is an American neo-fascist. I think I am right in saying that his Heidegger piece ended on the spirit of race. Again.

For us, the (literally) vital point about being in the midst of one’s people is that its character is ineluctably racial and ethnic. One can also be in the midst of a multiracial soup, but the character is profoundly negative for our racial and ethnic sensibilities and instincts. Both are social events. The utility of the former, however, is not in that but in its relational verities and in consciousness of same. Without consciousness, the difference between what is essentially ethnic life and ethnic death will not be acted upon. Words - one’s own or another’s - are never a replacement for deeds.

it is not a new idea though it is necessary to White Nationalism. I have been ahead of the curve in terms of its necessity; hopefully GW will be able to see that it is symbiotic with what he reasonably seeks in his ontology project.

All nationalisms have some shared DNA. But which nationalist can answer that question: What is the extent and effect of human absence? And this one: What makes the self-consciousness of peoples?

Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 22 Sep 2016 04:30 | #

GW, what do you care if Daniel wants to create a neo-Jesuitism for nigger-haters, er, racialists? A few days ago Vox Day had an interesting post about how people with IQs around 130 have a greatly increased chance of succeeding at high-end, long-term employment. But as an individual’s IQ increases after that point the long-term viability of their employment in such fields decreases. Vox speculates that exceptionally high IQ people are more likely to call bullshit on various professional dogmas they are expected to adhere to. Heresy gets you fired. Vox calls these 130 IQ people “midwits”. Basically they are are bunch of pussies good at learning and applying complex protocols - university professors, bureaucrats, etc.

Such people are needed to run a complex techno-industrial society. Nothing makes them cream their shorts like a thick rule book. That is basically what Daniel is offering. I see a niche for it.

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 22 Sep 2016 05:13 | #

Because of your tight focus, you’ve gotten into a bad habit of dismissing posts summarily. At times, there could have been adjustments, but because you refuse to look at the social unit of analysis, you blind yourself to both the overwhelming necessity and utility to analyze these patterns.

It shows in this example, when I said:

certain rule structures are more conducive to one’s authentic nature, helping to keeping it on track so to speak, better than others.

And I might add, that certain rule structures are more conducive to the authentic nature of the social pattern, helping to keep it on track better than others.

And because I look at these suggested rules as patterns, they are not absolute foundations. Because you have a habit of looking for absolute foundations then, you invariably miss the profound issue - and dismiss it off hand, as unimportant, when it is anything but.

You did this, for example, with the suggestion of sacrament, and a voluntary option of single sex partner for life hopefuls.

You destructively took the would-be discussion of that option as important (and not in conflict with the authentic) into a realm of “prescription” and thus re-consruct the liberal pattern - which is based on your individualist, psychological world view.

The key is maximal emergence and world-influence, and minimal prescription.

Being Aristotlean in outlook, I am wary of a goal toward “maximization” as it tends to be toxic and have reflexive reversals in effect. Maximization is very much of the Maslowian, human potential school which has wreaked so much havoc with our capacity for social systemic maintenance. That important discussion was another that you dismissed for no good reason.

Your being enamored of what Hitler did to inspire his people, as if it was something altogether wonderful, provides a perfect example.

It was “foundationally” and maximally nature based in a manner that you seek; and not tempered and optimized in praxis - concern and respect for praxis - and thus blind to human sociality, its additional affordances and constraints.

It would have the backing of puerile females, as Hitler did, and thus have powerful gate keepers open its gates for their base nature in having too many and “unnecessary” suitors ...thus it would provide an excuse for their “nature” based ways overly exclusionary and overly inciting of genetic competition.

The boundary between these is established by the limit of the former. Prescription needs no more selective form than factual reporting and information, on which basis the identitarian subject may, for example, discriminate for genetic interest.

Again, you tend to read absoultizing prescription into what I say, and thus sweep aside many useful ideas (can be importantly ideas) when they are indeed a “factual” reporting of rule structures and ways which can help the identitarian subject discriminate on behalf of genetic interest.

Maladaptive choices may be costed by naturally emergent social forms such as stigma and exclusion.

Shotter actually says much the same thing (in how accountability comes about). I can live with that within bounds, and a few other known and basic social rule structures - but we don’t have those bounds and a few other rule structures; and in your case, you will libel them as prescriptive if even proffered.

Of course, this refers to the essential nationalism of a new dispensation. I’m not talking about revolutionary activism within the liberal dispensation - nor can we, really, until we have a reasonable idea about what revolution must produce. That so many of do so all the time is a result of our weak aptitude for founding thought.

Here again, you are looking for your foil in “The Left” - it is evident in a few missing words here [That so many of do so all]

You wanted to say “That so many of ‘you leftists’ do so all the time”...

But that would have been to acknowledge that what I am saying works as a systemic outlook, in that by advocating the right wing, you are on the side of anti-social objectivism, you are advocating what you take to be pure nature against me. While in fact, I am advocating human social nature and its concern for relationships, its capacity for conceptualization of delimitation of its group interests and coordination with other groups and other aspects of nature, including those aspects to which you myopically attend.

And for your Cartesian myopia, you attend to one side of what is necessary as symbiotic process (if it is otherwise to contribute to a functioning system) you go on to say…

nor can we, really, until we have a reasonable idea about what revolution must produce.

And have thus tried to characterize me and my goals as the Red Left, Marxist foil of your convenience.

That so many of do so all the time is a result of our weak aptitude for founding thought.

A “weak aptitude” for foundational thought can be and is, in my case, a mistaken attribution for a different priority. When you spend your formative years witnessing the vast social disaster being unleashed against your EGI and you have people insisting that you ignore this and put your nose to the grindstone (e.g., attend to what they take to be “foundational” thought), you have different, social “foundations” that you are necessarily attending to - as they, the world war II generation and boomers, were such massive fuck ups and self indulgent egocentric pigs, that they did not want to be bothered, and rather sought excuses.

And then, as the social destruction unfolds only more an more, they want to say that they have had it right all along and they are going to fix it with more right wing anti-social myopia.

..Donald Trump and Geert Wilders ... Margaret Thatcher, Ayn Rand and Alan Greenspan will emerge with minimal prescription.

Lets do 2008 again!

Lets go back to the Eisenhower 50s!

Most of us - nearly all, actually - simply assume that some isostatic process will take hold, and raise us up inexorably to a new life.

Who assumes that? I don’t.

if it (the authentic) can’t be explained here, it doesn’t seem to be much good to any of us.

I did not say it cannot be “explained”. I said it cannot be “caught in words”. I might be able to explain it as, let’s say, the character of the true subject of the consciousness. But words are not the deed of conciousness itself; and can never produce anything useful in its absence.

Well, words cannot perfectly match experience and this conspicuousness that you describe, but patterns of words should be able to come close enough to coddle this perspective (which is, what I call, with good reason, a White Left Nationalist perspective).

I said:
This personality thing that you have, it’s so ossified late 60’s pop psychology human potential movement-like…. Erik Erickson or something.. this talk about personality - anachronistic psychobabble.

and you said:

Heidegger referred to personality at one remove as “the they”. That is a weakness, because “the they” is in us all, and is us and at the same time is not us. Personality is a construct, the artifice of Time and Place. It is inauthenticity itself, and the natural psychological output of what I have called ordinary waking consciousness (with its declensions of immersive attention, mechanicity of function, and absence). This model exceeds the ground covered by the rather light consideration which Heidegger gave to the matter. It has nothing to do with pop psychology.

You may think your undue attention to this matter has nothing to do with being influenced by pop psychology of the times in which you grew up. But for the fact that you are elaborating on personalty, in a positive sense, as if a “foundational” issue, as opposed to something which Heidegger saw as “inauthentic”, goes to show.

When I discussed Harre’s distinction of Self 1, The Corporeal and Self 2, The Autobiographical you dismissed Autobiographical.

I was disgusted with that. Because it is both necessary (reality, including the reality of self, is under determined by the facts), and it is infinitely more useful than discussion of “personality” - you make yourself into a dinosaur when you do things like this. You should rather be seeing utility and working to refine ideas like autobiography.

You unconsciously try to do that here:

I have not derived any part of it from that. It repays the effort to identify its relational meanings and dynamics. After all, it explains who and what you are as you sit reading this, and why you are a passive agent in the world.

Giving a closer reading is fine; whereas dismissing conceptual tools that have been carefully considered is not - it is irresponsible to our cause.

Indeed, one way to approach it would be through agency (which I know you understand well).

There is more ways than one? Amazing!

That which is authentic wills circumstance or seeks the means to do so. That which is artifice is far too readily willed by circumstance, and knows not its own self or condition.

That would be a suggestion which can be a guide to consciousness, but there can be complexities of social circumstance - various factors working which make the possible and impossible - in terms of personal and circumstantial (social) authenticity - hard to gauge and implement; e.g., for lack of meta communication - the blocking of which would be a proclivity in highly competitive, individualistic circumstances.

I don’t recall saying that “freedom” was the objective

The freeing of the will ... its free expression ... is surely a high-order political objective, no?

Well, it seems again that you are appealing to your straw man lefty liberal foil and not your authentic interlocutor and trying to defend the triumph of the right wing will - to which I would raise the caveat.

No, I am not in favor of sheer, unsocialized freedom, unsocialized by praxis and accountability.

Our social capital is worth far more than the whims of puerile females and those who would pander to them. Coordination with other groups of people is worth more than that as well.

Freeing of expression as a high order priority is once again an artifact of your generation, of the 40s and 50s totalitarian scare, of the 60s and 70s pop psychology human potential movement, the 80s Randian libertarianism that it made way for, to plow through social concern, including concern for ours, the 90s and 00’s when the YKW went into overdrive going for the kill, operating on that weakened social immuno deficient system….

And now it is an inauthenticity.. that plays into the hands of generation internet bubble, as these somewhat more delicate, but necessary social concerns have been buried - by Jews and self righteous liberals, libertarian objectivists of prior generations…and these same egregiously empowered opinions blame “The Left” for all the world’s problems.. rather than liberalism and its proponents, a liberalism which you continue to espouse.

Thus, you will never argue against what I actually say, but will rather set up straw men in order to avoid acknowledging that your outlook was flawed and much to blame. You want to call liberalism “The Left” and you fall into the Jewish trick of their getting you to say that social heuristics are to blame, and not YKW politics, right wing-liberal politics unbridled of social accountability.

You are just automatically dismissing things, without really knowing what you’re disagreeing with.

At worst, I am fashioning an existentialist psychology of human action.

No, at worst you are sweeping aside and burying crucially important ideas.

... an obfuscation and burying of this platform that the right and (((alternative right))) has been intent upon.

At best, I am setting down a few human truths which, I believe, underpin the existentialist and identitarian philosophy required by European peoples to survive the post-Christian, post-liberal, post-racial era into which we are being hurried.

At best you are contributing some ideas which are significant and can be useful if you stop treating them as mutually exclusive, at odds and not in need of the other end of the social hermeneutic spectrum.

Social being would correspond with the “midtdasein” that Michael O’Meara unfolded, and well took to heart from the Heidegger literature.

Michael is not a Heideggerian. He is an American neo-fascist. I think I am right in saying that his Heidegger piece ended on the spirit of race. Again.

That doesn’t really matter to what I say.

Because when discussing midtdasein, non Cartesian there being amidst one’s folk, we know what we mean by our folk; and if others don’t we will tell them about our EGI.

For us, the (literally) vital point about being in the midst of one’s people is that its character is ineluctably racial and ethnic.

Yes, as I said.

One can also be in the midst of a multiracial soup, but the character is profoundly negative for our racial and ethnic sensibilities and instincts. Both are social events.

Yes, and maybe even Heidegger’s philosophy would not have connected to biological social group enough. But when I talk about social group and socialization it is always with an eye toward our EGI.

Nevertheless, you and Bowery, for your habits, don’t treat what I am saying that way no matter how much I say it. In Bowery’s case largely because of his American circumstance where indeed, your “social” circumstance is with sundry others and the last thing you’d want to do is have anything social to do with them ... as if I don’t understand that and as if that is what I mean when I invoke the need for social consciousness and accountability.

Your tendency to misconstrue what I am doing with the social heuristic has similarities and differences from Bowery - similarities, in that you are the same generation, brought up to view collectvism as the grand dragon, libertarian objectivism as the natural and good way… and in position where that worked for you but to the detriment of social organization and defense.

A difference being that in Bowery’s case the social had no grounding and was deteriorating quicker; like myself he could feel that to an extent which made personal material advancement (and thus benefit) a non priority - he felt the need to do something about it but was trying to do it as best he could with the objectivist “anti (((leftist)))” resources of his discipline. He would of course want to free himself from that social circumstance as did I, as would any sane White person.

Whereas your circumstances were a little more settled and conducive ..you could take for granted a bit more that pursuing your personal interests lined up with an ancient country that you could say is yours and that many others would agree with you..thus you take it for granted and only see challenges to that coming from the prescribed liberalism of the university (Red Leftism prescribes liberalism for Whites) and do not see that the objectivist philosophy that you subscribe to serves to undermine that social system and because you take it for granted and (understandably) want to continue to take it for granted are blind to the positive, agentive possibilities of a small margin of arbitrariness at basis, in that it allows not just for deviation, but for remedy through agentive social reconstructve thought - it can be a corrective tool (call it, like Bowery does, the culture of “artificial selection"if you will).

The utility of the former, however, is not in that but in its relational verities and in consciousness of same.

It is not the utility, it is an aim, or can be the aim. Some might say that they want the White race to manifest new possibilities and expressions, not only be beholden to the verity of what is.

Without consciousness, the difference between what is essentially ethnic life and ethnic death will not be acted upon. Words - one’s own or another’s - are never a replacement for deeds.

Words correspond to rules structures. Proper words can guide consciousness and deeds, including consciousness and deeds of healthy ethnic life; while confused and misguiding words and concepts can send us, our imaginative, and, on the other hand, sometimes overly rigorous ways, astray - into to destructive deeds. ...and sometimes those destructive deeds seem justified only for lack of a few more words to be added to the grammar of motives.

it is not a new idea (social being) though it is necessary to White Nationalism. I have been ahead of the curve in terms of its necessity; hopefully GW will be able to see that it is symbiotic with what he reasonably seeks in his ontology project.

All nationalisms have some shared DNA. But which nationalist can answer that question: What is the extent and effect of human absence? And this one: What makes the self-consciousness of peoples?

It a shame that you pose this question, which is not the most practical and urgent to answer, as a priority and to the exclusion of all that I’ve said.

The extent and effect can be examined and gauged by tracing behavior through language games anecdotally (though its a bit awkward to call a qualitative instances and the macroscale anecdotal - e.g. when a species, a race no longer exist), and catalogued and measured scientifically.

What makes self consciousness of peoples is an outlook socially accountable to a group - that is, in our case, a White Left Nationalist consciousness.

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 22 Sep 2016 06:23 | #

I had a little bit botched this sentence (in comment # 30), the Daily Shoah TRS comment I made above - it needed to be unpacked a little as I have here:

Although I readily acknowledge that the political and economic are important - inextricably linked to a manageable ethno-state that can be coordinated among other ehtno-states, would be left nationalist (for its social group accountability) - White Leftism is not to be confused with Marxist, Fabian, etc.

Another reason why I find charges galling of my being “bureaucratic”, “overly prescriptive”, “applying ‘unnatural’ artificies (always the charge of the right, and often quite disingenuously) or even being of a “Jesuit” bureaucratic mindset as CC alleges, is that really, in terms of my theoretical outlook (not in terms of what can practically be done in this moment) I am quite in agreement with Alex Linder where he says, to paraphrase:

You can have any number of ways between socialism and libertarianism within the racial bounds; if you rupture or augur to rupture the racial bounds, that I am willing to kill for.

There are probably a minimal number of rules that are necessary to maintain a racial structure, but there are a few (not a fat rule book).

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 22 Sep 2016 07:50 | #

I should not have put up this comment #33 before finishing my first cup of coffee.

It was in need of correction from top to bottom. For anyone with the misfortune to have tried to read it after I first put it up, my apologies. It is worth another look, corrected as it is now.

Posted by Al Ross on Thu, 22 Sep 2016 09:37 | #

Interesting speech from President Obama :

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/24104-obama-to-un-u-s-must-accept-constraints-on-sovereignty-in-order-to-accomplish-un-goals

Posted by Bill on Wed, 28 Sep 2016 15:07 | #

We’re all a BBC construct now.

Question to the BBC …. Who do you think you’re talking to?

I don’t watch television save the BBC news mostly at lunchtime.

From my lofty perch at my computer I note how normal everything seems. Neighbours chatting going about their chores, children ready for school, the postman on his round. This is how it’s always been for all of my life. Neat houses - manicured lawns. Most folk at work, leaving a peaceful dormer suburb to welcome them home at the end of a day’s work. From my window I reflect on the just seen news and ask myself how can this be? This state of affairs is cognisant dissonance on a pandemic scale

More likely than not I’m looking and listening on screen at a non-white face confidently reading from the autocue informing me my nation’s current events and history. Be it political, economic, whatever, maybe even the burning question of reintroduction of Grammar schools or whatever else- to distract the viewer to look the other way.

Do the native Brits watch the news with their eyes wide shut, can’t they see what’s coming down the pike? Perhaps more importantly - do they care?

Recently we had the Olympic Games from Brazil, for which the whole of the BBC’s output for the duration was the glorification of the nation state of these isles. The BBC are very picky as to how they portray the nation to the nation’s viewers, whether to glorify or denigrate. Praise the natives for their tolerance, or amp up the megaphone of racism for such as Brexit. It’s all according in what context our nation is being judged by the media. The BBC basks in the reflected glory of supremacism of team Britain and yet in reality, in the eyes of the BBC we’re all equal, and yet in other quarters, they denigrate our browbeaten population into abject submission.

Our country is on the cusp, it’s reached its tipping point. Old Britain is slowly receding to the water’s edge. Britain already is no more. Alien people in their millions from every quarter of the globe setting sights on reaching Britain, the indigenous Brits, balefully gazing, have no answers.

All of which, leads me to ask again of the BBC, to whom are you addressing? Is it Somali’s, Bangladeshi’s, Syrians, Filipinos, Iranians, Indians or a myriad of other communities from around the Globe? Perhaps, just perhaps, it is the native people of this land but I doubt it, for long ago they have been abandoned to a fate we know not which.

I suspect the BBC will respond by jubilantly declaring that Britain is now a multi-cultural, multi-racial society - we are as one. Get over it!

When young Turks straight from uni gather in the newsroom to compile the latest news, how do they decide to which community to address?

I watched a piece recently about the centenary of the Battle of Jutland, I couldn’t help but notice how incongruous it all seemed. A non-white face telling a white nation of its history. Do the BBC do it deliberately?

All of this leads a once homogenous people to disorientation and chaos, without bearing, how can the BBC talk to a whole nation with any degree of consensus? I despair how the British people have allowed this state of affairs to come to pass. To me it defies gravity.

It is manifestly clear the BBC (MSM) have been charged with normalising the situation for the past 60 years. People can’t say they were never warned.

Auster was right, the English have done it to themselves. They didn’t resist - and are still not resisting.

Bulldog Spirit! You must be joking!

Posted by Uh on Thu, 29 Sep 2016 23:59 | #

In creating the Northwest Republic we will have at our disposal a much cleaner canvas to draw statecraft upon than do Europeans.

You too?

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 01 Oct 2016 01:28 | #

Uh, unlike the pussies at Chateau Heartiste I will drink with you - once I arrive in the Homeland. If, after that, due to your characteristic effrontery, it is required that I kick your ass, we can do that too. Cheers, you magnificently cynical bastard!

Posted by Uh on Sat, 01 Oct 2016 01:34 | #

At this stage in my illness, kicking my ass would likely result in my death. Which might be negotiable. But they are pussies though, aren’t they? He’s snipping comments now.

Danielj is in Portland. I’m in Spokane. We don’t talk anymore though. Cheers - hope you make it out.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 01 Oct 2016 06:44 | #

I’ll probably be settling in Spokane once I get out there in the next few years. I’d be willing to rent a room to ya if it works out. Hell, who knows, maybe first few months free. Odin bless!

Posted by BBC sacks Jon Holmes for being White on Sun, 02 Oct 2016 09:03 | #

Posted by Bill on Wed, 28 Sep 2016 15:07 | #

We’re all a BBC construct now.

Question to the BBC …. Who do you think you’re talking to?

DM, “BBC sacked me for being a white man”, 2 Oct 2016:

... even though I work in radio: The Now Show comic was told he was being axed to make way for more women and diversity

‘Even Corporation’s former diversity boss says that it is unfair’
Bafta award-winning comedian Jon Holmes axed from The Now Show
Bosses told him ‘we’re recasting it with more women and diversity’

In his own words, below, Jon Holmes asks: ‘Should I, as a white man (through no fault of my own), be fired from my job because I am a white man?’

The BBC was at the centre of a damaging diversity row last night after one of its top radio stars was sacked for being ‘white and male’.

Bafta award-winning comedian Jon Holmes was axed from The Now Show – the hit Radio 4 programme he has appeared on for 18 years – when bosses told him ‘we’re recasting it with more women and diversity’.

Last night, leading figures from the world of entertainment and across the political spectrum reacted with fury to the BBC instigating a policy in which it was now choosing performers based on their gender or skin colour, instead of their talent.

Mr Holmes revealed that since his sacking he has heard from other stars who have been rejected by broadcasting bosses because of ‘positive discrimination’. He told how one woman presenter was given a job only later to be told ‘we can’t have you, because you are too white and middle class’.

Another performer was considered ‘perfect’ for a role but could not be employed because bosses had been told to cast someone Asian, he said.

In an article for The Mail on Sunday, below, Mr Holmes said he accepted the need for diversity but asked: ‘Should I, as a white man (through no fault of my own), be fired from my job because I am a white man?’

Damningly for the BBC, he revealed that even bosses responsible for setting up the Corporation’s diversity policies had got in touch with him to say that political correctness ‘had all got out of hand’.

Posted by Bill on Sun, 02 Oct 2016 21:01 | #

To chronical the role of television (MSM) in the modern age would take a tome.

So what do I mean when I say we’re all a BBC construct now?

I suppose what I’m saying in a roundabout way is the BBC is the most powerful institution in the land, far outweighing the influence of our elected governments. Nobody votes for the BBC, few know their names and yet they have this immense cultural vice like grip on a whole population.

Fortunately for me, my lifespan has almost mirrored exactly that of the British Broadcasting Corporation. Born in 1938 you might say I’ve grown up with the BBC, especially with regard to the development of Television. By the onset of 1950’s I was old enough to appreciate this marvel of the modern age. Back in those days I cannot claim to know how television would progress and what role it would play in the future of my country. However, I can say for certain one cannot today measure the distance in years the gulf of character of 1950’s to what television has become today. In a way, myself and those of my generation have had a ringside seat in witnessing the progress and development of post war television from Muffin the Mule to Star Trek?

With hindsight, the 1950’s to me represented the pinnacle of old Britishness. I could give an account of how it was for me, but suffice to say, by the onset of the 1960’s the Britishness I loved so much - had gone. Mostly, I don’t have the time to narrate how this sea change came about, but I did witness first-hand what a vital part BBC television has played in Britain’s downfall. I also heavily note (by passive viewing) the era of the 1950’s is unfailingly depicted by the BBC as oppressively deferential, wishing good riddance and a kick up the backside to the decade. I can only ask did the producers and script writers experience living during the 1950’s? As an aside, television has been given a new task – the rewriting of history. This sinister trait is in conjunction with the complete destruction of white identity. I note postmodern relativism rearing its head here. One man’s meat is another man’s poison! Hmm! Don’t let’s go down that road.

As I commented above, the role of the BBC’s remit from the beginning was to sway the whole of the British public into accepting whatever the BBC were peddling. I used the term normalising the status quo. In a nutshell, the BBC (media) have, over many decades, inculcated into the British viewer’s psyche the acceptance of mass immigration into their living space. With undreamed of success.

Fast forward to the present narrative which is dominating certain sections of the Internet and one can see how successful the media have been. All those here know perfectly well the tactics employed with such professional dedication, I don’t think I need to expand. It has never ceased to amaze me over the years how little comment from bloggers has been on the subject of the role of the media’s devastating contribution to Britain’s demise.

I’ve lost count of the number of my comments saying without the input of British media influence, the elite’s agenda could not have succeeded to the absolute degree it has. The hubris of the media and its hanger’s on knows no constraint, to them they are cock-a-hoop basking in success beyond all expectation. Who can argue with that?

The BBC’s talking heads jubilantly polish their halos and declare Multicultural Britain is a fact and resounding success. Does this mean the media will relax its grip on poor battered Britain? Is it all over? To quote those immortal words of Kenneth Wolstenholme – It is now!

I asked here some time ago. Before Facebook and Twitter had grown to what it is today, what were the chances of a ‘revealing mail’ going viral thereby highlighting the parlous plight of whites. I’m surprised the media has not been forced to enter this conversation, surely the centre cannot hold – something’s got to give.

I can’t wait for that moment.

As I write this, the political western world (as Blair once opined) is in flux. The kaleidoscope has been shaken - the pieces are still falling.

Posted by Uh on Mon, 03 Oct 2016 01:12 | #

CC,

That’s white of you - thanks man.

Was afraid you’d say Spokane though. Honestly it’s going down fast, and knowing what we do about the way of things, it’s obvious the area is a few years away from crashing.

The muz are coming in fast. Very noticeable downtown. If you look at an immigrant distribution map (like in those “where the refugees are going” pieces), there’s a big circle around Spokane. They know that, owing to the lack of groids, they can offload a few thousand or more without totally crashing it outright. And this is before the Tri-Cities area belches out more of its latrino population.

Not trying to discourage you, just warning you to adjust expectations if you don’t know the place. White people here are polite and harmless, but totally dull. Women absolutely vapid, but I guess that’s the case everywhere now. It’s extremely easy to talk a mile above their heads.

Think about living as near the Idaho state-line as possible. Or even over the line if you’re flexible. Coeur d’Alene is nicer, more echt white folk in the country.

Positive side, you can get away with 100% realtalk with the people here. Zero resistance. But that just means they’ve no fight in them, natch.

Posted by Bill on Tue, 22 Nov 2016 09:32 | #

I’ve just skim read through a Guardian piece by Paul Mason which has garnered at this moment over 3000 comments.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/21/how-do-we-fight-loudmouth-politics-authoritarianism-populism-paul-mason#comments .

Harold Wilson, one time British Prime Minister opined a week was a long time in politics. It just reminded me that not long ago a large percentage of these 3000 comments would have been summarily deleted. Surely, “My God what have we done”? will rise up soon.

Britain is being systematically deconstructed on a daily basis.

Posted by Bill on Thu, 01 Dec 2016 10:15 | #

Snapshot of Britain - The Guardian as my bellwether.

Recently I made comment with reference to the Guardian which to me is fairly representative of the Left’s postmodern Liberal flagship newspaper, sort of like the BBC only in tabloid form. The essence of my comment was what a difference five years makes in this war of globalism we find ourselves in.

It comes as a surprise I find myself skimming through the Guardian content with increasing frequency these days, but yes, surely things have moved in the belly of the Guardian. Once past the obligatory headlines the belly of the beast is revealed.

If anyone doubts that ‘worse is better’ then take a trip among the comments section where I last remarked comments which would have been summarily been deleted are now waved through unhindered. In many instances very little attempt are made to nuance the meaning of content.

What I find most satisfying is the manifest evidence many comments can be attributed directly to ‘Worse is better’ in the mind of the author of the comment. We all knew this is where it would all end but it is with little satisfaction. It’s taken far too much lost time.

The pace with which this edifice of liberalism is crumbling is becoming startling, (shades of the Soviet Union.) I can recall once commenting (with very little confidence) when it all goes belly up, we might find we’re pushing on an open door.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2016/nov/30/sleaford-lincolnshire-brexit-byelection-young-video

Posted by Bill on Tue, 06 Dec 2016 09:53 | #

Paul Mason, guru of the Guardian is looking into the abyss.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/05/soviet-union-collapsed-overnight-western-democracy-liberal-order-ussr-russia

He gets little quarter from the comment section. Faces are getting glummer each day that passes.

What will the pheonix look like? Economic nationalism - what’s that?

Posted by Bill on Sat, 28 Jan 2017 05:59 | #

Bannon’s broadside against the media should signal an all out offensive to bring the media down.

Morgoth seems to see this is the way to plough straight through them, step over them, leave them trailing in our dust. It’s doable.

God knows how many times have I commented this was the Achilles heal of the whole cultural Marxist project, without it they’re sunk.

Needless to say Trump gets it.

Posted by Bill on Fri, 10 Feb 2017 10:39 | #

Some thoughts on the state of Britain.

I’m addicted to not missing the BBC’s lunchtime news, for it points the way to the jigsaw assembly of the New World Order - phase by phase. Again I confess to suckling brutishly on the BBC teat for it is most instructive in the art of how to swindle the average soporific viewer.

As I type, the BBC have for days launched an investigation as to why Britain’s enduring socialist flagship National Health Service (NHS) cannot cope with the demands being made upon it, for it is surely sinking.

The BBC is laying this state of affairs squarely on the shoulders of the white natives of Britain as we are living older with long term illnesses. There’s also a more than a hint the NHS itself is to blame for its unforced errors. The BBC in its inimitable fashion give the politicians and mass immigration a free pass. It is also interesting to see how the BBC reinforce the Sophist’s view by showing accompanying hospital footage of exclusively old white people occupying beds in the A&E corridors. The obvious inference being; is to show non-white faces would be a breach of BBC code by conflating crisis (negative) with mass migration. A fate worse than death to the offender.

Schools (and) prisons are treated in exactly the same manner. White face negative - non-white face – positive.

Regular talking heads are wheeled into the studio (which looks like a mock-up of the deck of the Star ship Enterprise) to give their invaluable opinion as to what ails the NHS. The current expert is one Hugh Pym who is introduced as ‘our’ Health Correspondent who until recently was ‘our’ former political correspondent. Very versatile are the BBC’s expert correspondents.

The tactics of the BBC correspondents are tried and trusted methods, which have proved successful for decades. They are without doubt Sophists supreme and can mesmerise the glazed viewer into nodding sagely in agreement.

The BBC’s modus operandi is straight from the liberal handbook of how to lie by omission, of which they do on an industrial scale. This lying by omission is so simple, just don’t don’t mention the true reason as to why the NHS is a walking corpse. Any person with an active brain cell on active duty (Icke) should be able to join the dots of political agenda and mass immigration but no it’s all the fault of old white folk and NHS management. No matter, Pym will return tomorrow expounding the same thing as yesterday - but in a different order. Simples.

Running concurrently and perhaps on a comparable scale with the NHS is the ongoing crisis of the inability to provide more homes for a burgeoning population. The same treatment is given by the BBC Sophists as in the NHS debacle. Apparently the government is predicting a target of one million additional new homes being built by 2020, by which time another two million migrants will have been added to the housing list.

There’s no way these two examples above of mega crisis can be resolved; only more such similar crisis will arise. It will be interesting to try and gaze into the crystal ball of the future, trouble is the mind boggles.

PS. OT. Millenial Woes replies to Joe Owens.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jT9tr02JA-Q

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 10 Feb 2017 14:41 | #

OT. Millenial Woes replies to Joe Owens.

I will say this about Millennial Woes, in addition to being too fat, he’s completely toed the (((Alternative Right))) line, and for all his self righteousness about his free speech, he insisted that his link be removed from Majorityrights because I had the nerve to criticize (((“The Truth Will Live”))) as she set about to define the terms of our discourse; terms which Millennial Woes still adheres to: “the problem with the world today - it’s The Left!!!”

Posted by Bill on Sat, 11 Feb 2017 12:16 | #

Some thoughts on the politics of Postmodernism in Britain.

When was Conservatism officially declared dead? The politics of the 21st century is no longer about Left versus Right but good against evil. The end of the Second World War seems to have signalled and triggered a whole raft of new paradigms, since which the left has ruled supreme. How ironic is it that we have a situation where in Britain, the ruling political party is the Conservative party?

Why do millions of British voters continue to slavishly vote and elect such a party when the Conservative party has long since ceased to exist? Surely it was a master stroke to continue to name the long defunct Conservative party as Conservative when it was manifestly no such thing. Somewhere between the end of Second World War and present day, Conservatism died, or to be more accurate killed off by liberalism. Being a young man in the 60’s, I was, with hindsight, able to connect the dots as to how and when traditional Conservatism was ethnically cleansed from the political scene.

Today, millions of British voters still kid themselves the Conservative party is for them, which just shows how loyalty of tradition and family becomes engrained in the nations psyche. How do these people reconcile such stuff as mass immigration and same sex marriage and the Conservative party? I suppose this is such another example of the epidemic of cognisant dissonance I hear about.

In the opening 21st century, (coincidence?) postmodern politics has rendered traditional politics obsolete and unworkable, but by some miracle the mainstream media manages to prolong the illusion as business as usual.

Oh the irony that conviction politics inhabits those who espouse relativism and non-discrimination. – You couldn’t make it up. With their mantras of all being equal and no such thing as objective truth, religious commandments of political correctness, the recipe for sane dialogue is a no brainer. Chaos ensues.

We are now in a global one party liberal state. They sold us freedom but gave us totalitarianism in a gilded cage.

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 11 Feb 2017 12:58 | #

Post moderniism is the opposite of universalism (globalism), recognizing the destructive problems of that objective, it is a critique of universalism to allow particulate nations and ways of life to maintain their differences.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 11 Feb 2017 18:21 | #

Daniel,

How would you have us label the semantics of the post-structuralist rabble which arose from Derrida’s deconstructionism?

Would it not be easier, given that the postmodern train left the station all of fifty years ago, and cannot be called back from its destination in the public mind, if we develop a new label? After all, modernism has not ended, as we both know perfectly well, and there is a conceit to announcing its passing which befits the post-structuralist mindset, but not ours. Is it really such a worthwhile label to possess?

Perhaps, then, something more particular to our worldview ...something which implies post-Judaic .... post-liberal ... but pre-nationalist. Something not obsessive about structure in a mechanical universe… a universe of forces. Or the lack of it. An intellectual bridge not restricted to linguistics and communication, which are only tangentially interesting. We are not sociologists. We are ethnicists. We work with the whole cloth.

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 11 Feb 2017 20:12 | #

Daniel,

How would you have us label the semantics of the post-structuralist rabble which arose from Derrida’s deconstructionism?

Derrida’s deconstructionism is Jewish liberal havoc making. The man was Jewish and doing the usual Jewish things.

Even looking at the term deconstruction at face value, without his motives, if you are not re-constructing things, and allowing things to be maintained against arbitrary and unwanted change, then you are only doing more modernity, because you are simply deconstucting things with the modernist assumption that you’ll reach an unshakable foundation, as if not having discarded anything worthwhile - in which case you are naive. And if, on the other hand, you do know what you are destroying, you are a rat. But either way, you are not doing the thing which makes post modernity essential - providing a relief from the destruction of modernity.

Would it not be easier, given that the postmodern train left the station all of fifty years ago, and cannot be called back from its destination in the public mind, if we develop a new label?

White Post Modernity (or post modernity “proper”) is a sufficient place holder, but even if another label might be preferred, it needs to serve the identical function that I’ve outlined in White Post Modernity.

There absolutely needs to be a break from modernity, its unversalism, it objectivism which underpins liberalism, etc: that is a huge part of the problem that we are up against; and post modernity - something after modernity - is absolutely necessary to allow for in defense of particular cultures by contrast. So, no, the answer is not to simply allow the Jews to define Post Modernity, absolutely not; no more than any of our other terms should be defined by them, but especially not with so important a concept as Post Modernity is.

After all, modernism has not ended, as we both know perfectly well, and there is a conceit to announcing its passing which befits the post-structuralist mindset, but not ours.

It has not passed fully, but the recognition of the necessity of its being superseded does not merely serve a post structuralist mindset. It allows us to move beyond the pejorative aspects of modernity - the unwelcome changes, transforms, the non-differentiation between peoples, cultures and legitimately different ways of life; these are just some of the aspects of modernity which should end; thus the term modernity delimited of itself, as something that can be pejorative, is necessary of itself. These aspects need to be brought to an end as soon as possible, and there needs to be an ongoing platform not only for its critique, but it is also necessary to steady and reconstruct what is being defended against its would-be unwelcome changes, transformations, indifference that runs rough-shod: thus, a concept of something after - post - and outside of modernity - is critical. Modernity, its disingenuous and naive objectivity is the secularized contribution, largely of our own forebears, to all sorts of liberal maladies, prejudice against prejudice etc. .. its will to objectivity and universal foundations is a key factor in having left us susceptible to anti racism.

Is it really such a worthwhile label to possess?

As I have said and explained carefully, dozens of times now, YES! If putting the prefix “White” or the suffix “proper” and linking to what is meant by that doesn’t suffice, then a new label needs to label the identical function that I’ve outlined in White Post Modernity. I’m sorry to have to repeat myself so often: Post modernity (proper) incorporates modernity but allows some capacity to step in and out of its framework and into respect and defense of inherited forms and traditions where they need not or should not be subject to new experimentation and modification. It is a crucial concept.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 11 Feb 2017 23:39 | #

I agree, of course, with your critique of Jewish intellectual opportunism. So I agree with your philosophical critique, in as far as it goes. I agree that postmodernism/post-structuralism is a continuation of modernism (with added nihilism). I suspect that the structuralism that was attacked twice, in different ways and at different times, by Jewish thinkers was in serious error right from the beginning (in terms of its presumption for structure as a kind of god of the foundation); and a critique of it from an holistic nationalist perspective is long, long overdue. Perhaps such a critique could provide an entree to a postmodernism that expresses something along the lines you desire. But I don’t think that you can simply declare for a white postmodernity in order also to declare for an anti-modernist shopping list. You must get the ducks lined up properly, and you have not done that.

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 12 Feb 2017 04:12 | #

I agree that postmodernism/post-structuralism is a continuation of modernism (with added nihilism).

How can you agree with something that I did not say?

I suspect that the structuralism that was attacked twice, in different ways and at different times, by Jewish thinkers was in serious error right from the beginning (in terms of its presumption for structure as a kind of god of the foundation);

Well, now you are talking about structuralism/ and post structuralism.

It is a different conversideration than modernity and post modernity.

Both modernists and post modernists (proper, for f sake) can see/propose structure or not, for better or worse.

(in terms of its presumption for structure as a kind of god of the foundation); and a critique of it from an holistic nationalist perspective is long, long overdue. Perhaps such a critique could provide an entree to a postmodernism that expresses something along the lines you desire

I certainly have provided “something on those lines.”

Perhaps such a critique could provide an entree to a postmodernism that expresses something along the lines you desire. But I don’t think that you can simply declare for a white postmodernity

It is not a mere declaration for a desire, there is a strong measure of something close to the description that you covet, not only in what is going wrong with modernity, but in what is going right when people “do White post modernity”, i.e., negotiate modernity/post modernity (as it is properly understood, for f sake).

in order also to declare for an anti-modernist shopping list. You must get the ducks lined up properly, and you have not done that.

Yes, the ducks are aligned properly and the matter was ready for elaboration years ago (details which you apparently wish for), instead I’ve had to spend time saying over and over what I am NOT saying (as I fend off straw men) and why post modernity is important by contrast to a sheer quest for universal foundationalism alone, objectivity alone, etc. the litany of things that modernity is prone to (if anyone is sheerly desiring something, you retain the desire of its sheer quest). The more you continue to try trivialize and divert from the arguments that I have already made many of times the more time wasted and the more harm done as the enemy controls this crucial distinction -

The distinction from modernity needs to be made, first of all, and also understood properly by consensus lest people languish in the narratives of modernity by default, and a false/Jewish misrepresentation of “post modernity.”

The difference of its distinction being made and being understood properly is a difference that makes a profound difference indeed: modernity vs post modernity as it is properly understood.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 12 Feb 2017 07:38 | #

How can you agree with something that I did not say?

Evidently, I interpolated. But surely you understand that modernity, as an epochal phenomenon, is not touched in the least by intellectual semantics. Intellectuals can’t just declare for change like a children’s magician with his hat, smoke charge, and white rabbit. To properly, actively change an all-encompassing epoch, or significant elements therein, takes more than that. Structurally, we do not even know if the removal of certain negatives is possible, because we do not always know their genesis and relation. So we come to the question, for example: how much of the decadence and ambivalence of our times is generated by near factors such as historically recent Jewish philosophical and cultural offerings, and how much by the working-out, say, of the earlier alienations of urbanisation and industrialisation ... technology, in the Heideggerian analysis?

Attacking structure, obviously, is the revolutionary stratagem of pulling the rug from beneath everything: deconstruction as destruction; leaving only the basic, pliant human clay for other hands to work. Judaically, it is a (would-be) rendering of the gentile as a borderless, formless product unto Jewish dictate; an immediate translation to the age of moshiach.

It’s always the same schtick.

Both modernists and post modernists (proper, for f sake) can see/propose structure or not, for better or worse.

OK, so the idea of structure is not structure, and structure itself, certainly if organic, is not foundational and may not even be the primary issue. DNA, for example, has structure, volume, co-relation and non-relation, function ... Why is structure the vital consideration?

A nationalist critique of structuralism would first seek the means to differentiate between the abstract understanding and the emergent reality, and would generally favour the holistic. At some later point - I don’t know where exactly - it would seek what you are seeking now ... affirmation in the emergent, and ways to cut it loose or change it where negatives arise. This latter, by the way, makes Jewry scream to the skies about the six million; but Christians would scream too in your power scenario, and quite a variety of other historical agents.

I am not going to pursue this particular enquiry. It just seems to me that it is lacking a proper exposition of the real fundamentals, and that will have costs down the line.

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 12 Feb 2017 07:42 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 12 Feb 2017 08:38 | #

How can you agree with something that I did not say?

Evidently, I interpolated. But surely you understand that modernity, as an epochal phenomenon, is not touched in the least by intellectual semantics.

Of course it is: this is where the recognition occurs that this isn’t just the way it IS, but is subject to negotiation of alteration for the better.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 12 Feb 2017 07:52 | #

No, Daniel, I did not say that intellectualism is semantics, or that ideas don’t make the world. I said that intellectual semantics cannot stop a steam train. I said that there is a qualitative issue with the Derridian project which rendered it a joke for many perfectly serious people. Its product was nihilism among a narrow cohort of thinking Europeans. The great engine of the modern age, with all its magnetic and dangerous attractions, bore onward, gathering speed as always.

Post-structuralism lacked real historical agency. The miracle is that the “structure” which is academic/political trickle-down worked as well as it did, given the quality of the material to hand.

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 12 Feb 2017 08:25 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 12 Feb 2017 08:52 | #

No, Daniel, I did not say that intellectualism is semantics, or that ideas don’t make the world. I said that intellectual semantics cannot stop a steam train.

Not if its obstructed from coming into common shared understanding, it won’t.

And it isn’t just the likes of Derrida. It is modernist precepts as well that are a part of the steam train:

I said that there is a qualitative issue with the Derridian project which rendered it a joke for many perfectly serious people.

More like an offense than a joke to me, but I think we can agree that it isn’t good for us.

Its product was nihilism among a narrow cohort of thinking Europeans. The great engine of the modern age, with all its magnetic and dangerous attractions, bore onward, gathering speed as always.

I’m not exactly sure where you are going with that decorum, but I imagine that you are saying that there are good things about modernity, which I have said (agreed to) a million times, which Post Modernity (proper) also maintains, and which I will continue to say.

Post-structuralism lacked real historical agency. The miracle is that the “structure” which is academic/political trickle-down worked as well as it did, given the quality of the material to hand

Well, I’m not here defending “post structuralism and Derrida” ... never have been.

Again, there’s this habit of lumping what I say into enemy categories. This is product of the right wing mindset which tends to accept Jewish definitions, classifications and reaction thereof (as the Jews would have it).

Posted by Bill on Sun, 12 Feb 2017 09:17 | #

The wages of fake war.

A Guardian report this morning headed ‘Britain’s extremist bloggers helping the ‘alt – right’s go global report finds’.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/feb/11/how-britains-extremist-bloggers-helped-the-alt-right-go-global

Western MSM are incandescent, nay gutted at the alt-right’s muscling in on their age old rite of passage to hoodwink their viewers and readers. Who do they think they are?

Here’s me, all these years, thinking the entire raison d’etre of the BBC is to disseminate fake news to its soporific viewers.

Is it me?

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 12 Feb 2017 09:20 | #

Yes, its you Bill, if you think the Alt Right isn’t entangled with where not outright in cahoots with our enemies.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:18 | #

Again, there’s this habit of lumping what I say into enemy categories. This is product of the right wing mindset which tends to accept Jewish definitions, classifications and reaction thereof (as the Jews would have it).

I am beginning to think that you are trapped in your own definitions.

There is no right-wing in systemic nationalism, as I have tried to explain many times. There is a right wing in systemic liberalism, generally descriptive of a nominally conservative resistance to the progressive and ideological egalitarianism of “the left”. These categories are not simple products of Jewish intellectual interventionism and capture.

It is not a requirement of nationalism that the language and general axial form of liberalism be maintained. I grieve, somewhat, for our inability to intellectualise our own systemic terminologies, and worry over the consequences of having nothing distinctively ours to apply to liberalism while, at the same time, affecting to be anti-liberal.

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:39 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 12 Feb 2017 14:18 | #

DanielS: Again, there’s this habit of lumping what I say into enemy categories. This is a product of the right wing mindset which tends to accept Jewish definitions, classifications and reaction thereof (as the Jews would have it).

GW” I am beginning to think that you are trapped in your own definitions.

No GW, and I am groaning every time that you approach these matters, as I realize it will be like having to clean up a freshly dumped pile of horse shit in a stable that I just cleaned.

There is no right-wing in systemic nationalism,

Yes there is, as I correctly conceive of it.

as I have tried to explain many times.

You were wrong many times and I tried to correct you many times.

There is a right wing in systemic liberalism, generally descriptive of a nominally conservative resistance to the progressive and ideological egalitarianism of “the left”. These categories are not simple products of Jewish intellectual interventionism and capture.

I didn’t say that they were simply a product of Jewish intellectual interventionism. Seeing Jewish or other nefarious motives that don’t exist in helpful and neutral academic terms is precisely your problem. That is only farther proof that you haven’t bothered to understand what I have been saying, why and how it works.

It is not a requirement of nationalism that the language and general axial form of liberalism be maintained.

I don’t want the general axial of liberalism to be maintained, and if you bothered to understand what I’m saying (which you wont), you’d see that that is not what it does, on the contrary.

I grieve, somewhat, for our inability to intellectualise our own systemic terminologies, and worry over the consequences of having nothing distinctively ours to apply to liberalism while, at the same time, affecting to be anti-liberal

You grieve for something like a hallucination, because what I’ve done has nothing to do with liberalism, it has many important things to say, it is original enough and where “non-distinctly ours” that is just a concern of your modernist pathology, that if something is not 1,000 percent new and original it must “not be good” - this is beyond ridiculous. I would be “aggrieved”, as you say, but instead I am more enraged for all of the hard, good and important material that I’ve put forth that you absurdly sweep aside, apparently thinking that your simply ignoring it means that it should be ignored and not applied. And, as revenge, I will apply it to great effect despite you.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 12 Feb 2017 14:54 | #

Daniel,

I have encountered nobody of any note in thinking nationalism ... nobody except you ... who asserts that there is a political left-right common to everything, like some elemental law of Nature. Ethnic genetic interests do not map ideologically on the liberal compass. What you obviously don’t understand or accept - one or the other - is that a decade ago at this very blog we conclusively proved that.

You are forcing an analysis of a post-Christian salvatory individualism onto a politics of ethnic genetic interests. It is a square peg round hole exercise. Now, I don’t mind you doing this if that’s your thing. That’s up to you. It can have some utility as a way of broaching the divide to non-nationalists. But it isn’t a universal truth of Mind and Being. You need to respect and make way for people who are interested in theorisations of the latter, whether those agree with you or not.

While you are doing that, you might also reflect on the assertion that such theorisation is “modernist” or “Cartesian”. These are an ideologue’s labels, and they are growing stale. There is a world of thought which is not ideological, and which sometimes approaches Descartes, for example, and sometimes moves away. We discussed this fairly profitable quite recently, on the matter of Dasien versus the Cartesian subject. You seemed to accept the point I was making, but then compartmentalised it so that it would not spread through your thinking, making anew the connections, opening vistas. I seem to recall you said at the time that it was not a revolutionary idea for you. But it is a completely revolutionary idea.

Perhaps you are a man in a hurry, which is wholly understandable. I am too, but not in a political way. I have devoted my life, for what it’s worth, to trying to light a path, or at least a possible path, for others to understand enough of the human circumstance to find the space, eventually, for the development of a foundationally nationalist life politics ... a system more wholly and fundamentally opposed to liberalism and Judaism than ever you, as things are, will likely aspire to be. Please don’t strew ideological rocks across that path. That path will also perforce be yours, if I can help it.

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 12 Feb 2017 15:33 | #

GW, my uses of the terms “left and right” make consistent sense, always have and they are in accord with patterns that underlie most people’s use of the terms. Furthermore, I have made clear the reasons to go by my use of the terms. I understand and have adjusted to the fact that you will ignore it (as you are inclined to dismiss most things that I say, no matter how good, not matter how well reasoned, no matter how important) and I am not interested in arguing with you about it.

Have your ontology project, I will carry on with my project - because it works. As for the rest of your comment, I’ll look at it later.

Comments:

Post a comment:

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Links

MR Central & News

Comments