White Left Imperative to defense, systemic health of European peoples

Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, 19 August 2015 13:21.

This is being re-posted for a few reasons.

In the years since it was first posted there has yet to be any argument to refute its value to organizing the perspective of interests in whole and fundamental parts for those who care about European peoples. Though its further detail and application would provide benefit, it has not yet gained the currency it should have among WN, who mostly continue to argue that they are “of the right wing”, against “The Left” or “neither left nor right”, thereby foregoing organization in their power, and reacting as our enemies would have it.

The White left thesis may not have gained currency for another reason - it had a very short time (about 4 hours) as a leading article when first republished at Majority Rights before J. Richards posted a sensationalistict, highly conspiratorial and tabloidesque story, with ridiculous imagery leaping forth (the photoshopped arms on this man seem to parody the image just below on the White Left article) - distracting from the careful discussion that the White Left thesis deserves.

Next, for this essay to be understood properly, it needs the context of being published alongside the Kant essay (his moral system as coherence, accountability, agency and warrant). In fact, for the purpose of the Kant essay to be understood, it also needs this juxtaposition; but while important, it is a primary step at this point to the highly relevant arguments which the White Left essay makes. So as not to not distract from these more relevant concerns thus, I place the Kant essay secondly and under the fold, only advising that philosophically, theoretically, it is antecedent for a proper understanding of the history of European philosophical requirements. Finally, republication will provide occasion to shore-up minor errors that should not be passed-on as these essays are a worthwhile resource.

jacket

Leftism as a Code Word (Part 1):

When our advocates call our enemies The Left, they are making a crucial mistake: obfuscating our two greatest problems and the means of solution at the same time.

In an interview with Dr. Sunic, Professor MacDonald says, “these neocons, their only interest is Israel. [Otherwise] they tend to be on the Left [?]. They still are on the Left [?] when it comes to immigration. All these things are just really leftist.” [?]

Dr. Norman Lowell says that “the Left” [?] has shipped industry and with it, jobs, to China.

In his article Women on the Left, Alex Kurtagic discusses some of the same subject matter that I had dealt with in a previous article, and to which I have given some consideration over the years – among that, sorting out different kinds of feminists in relation to White interests. In concluding that these “leftists” [?] have nothing to offer women, he places feminists in the same category: de Beauvoir, who did indeed fashion herself a leftist of sorts (taking women as her advocacy group, and Marxism as her guide), but was not Jewish; and Friedan, who was Jewish, but more liberal in what she promoted than leftist.

In an interview for Alternative Right, Kurtagic goes on attacking “the leeeft, the leeeft, the leeeeft,” and I cringe, not for the reasons that he may think; i.e, he may think that I am lamenting an attack on a centralized economy, or open borders multiculturalism, PC “enrichment”. Maybe he would think that I am waxing nostalgic for the Soviet Union where he and Sunic had the misfortune to grow up, or that I want to take away private property? Maybe he thinks I am cringing because I want to jealously limit his horizons, tell him what kind of art and architecture that he can have? Maybe he thinks I want everybody to be equal or treated equally? No, I am cringing because another perfect Jewish trick is being promoted to the detriment of White people.

These counterproductive ambiguities are circulating among our best advocates – hence the need of clarification and definition emerges salient. It is not about competing with them and showing them up; it is about getting the framework of our advocacy correct.

Naming the Jew can be risky business indeed and that assuredly accounts for why White advocates have used code words: e.g., liberals, non-Christians, leftists, etc. I submit that if one is in a situation where it is too dangerous to name the Jew, then liberal – at least in terms of its fundamental meaning, viz., openness to other groups of people – is the better code word as it also encompasses those problems of ours that are truly not of Jewish making but of our own. And that the Left is the worst code word. That is the subject of this thesis, for reasons that I will elaborate shortly. Agreed, the charge of liberalism is problematic, with a decided image problem, it has one appearing stodgy and logically entailing ground yielding conservatism in response; thus, another term should be supplied – but not the Left.

When one does have to confront the Jewish question more directly, but is in danger, not free to speak in just any way, one of the best strategies for defending against charges of anti-semitism should be to distinguish between “virulent” and “relatively benign” Jews in accordance with Faussette and Bowery’s theory regarding the cycle of Jewish virulence. Jews, long a people without a nation (beginning with Babylonian captivity and for nearly 2,000 years after that), developed an uncaring, parasitic relation to their host nations, particularly among the elites of their vested interest. After a period of consolidating the wealth of a nation to themselves, the most ‘virulent’ ones escape over the border for a new host country to exploit, while the relatively ‘benign’, situated and accountable ones are subject to the wrath of the host nation’s people who realize belatedly, “’the Jews’ did this to us!” This perpetuates the cycle as the virulent elite bribe their way into a new country, gain farther sympathy, critical absolution and pseudo-justification for their exploits as they point to what ‘they do to us’: the Holocaust, the Inquisition, the pogroms, the Roman occupation.

With this distinction however, we should be able to mitigate the charge of anti-semitism, noting that our large grievance is with the virulent elite (as well as with White traitors, especially those in influential positions) not with those Jews normal, situated and accountable to a local culture. Nevertheless, as anybody who has experience will tell you, the pattern of antagonism and indifference to European interests exists not only among Jewish elitists, but in them as a whole. Thus, we need to discriminate against them and separate from them as an entire group, even if some are worse than others and should be looked upon as more criminally liable.

. . .

As with most normal White people, liking my people and myself, I spent most of my life saying that I was neither Left nor Right, if those terms emerged as an issue.

For good reason: as with all normal White people, I’d been repulsed, had a very strong aversion to identifying as leftist. I saw rabid Jewish advocates of non-Whites along with anti-White Whites and heard them called “THE Left” all my life. Yet, I looked at what was being called “the Right”, and I could not quite do that either – it meant that one would be an ignorant hole by definition. I use this vulgarism deliberately to demonstrate that you can indeed, define a term through the pattern of its use in common parlance. Note that a person will be called a hole when they harm others when they do not have to; or, when they let people harm them when they do not have to. That’s characteristic of the Right for a reason – they’re not accountable; they wish to believe in their sheer, objective innocence and not accountable to an encompassing, but delimited “we”, as such.

However, with our struggle’s growing recognition of the disregard of our people in more difficult circumstances, middle, working class and more, their increasing awareness having shown in the Wall Street protests; moving to understanding of the consequences of corporate plutocracy’s quest for cheap labor; its transgression of borders; its relation to the military industrial complex - growing recognition that this is not in our interest as Whites – our need to not identify as rightists becomes acute.

At the same time, with the population explosion threatening to overwhelm our demographic and our environment, it is also of acute importance to not identify with the phony “Left” either, which is really just more catastrophic liberalism, if you look at it. That understood, I have come to the realization that saying one is neither Left nor Right is an inarticulate halfway point to extricating oneself from promulgated Jewish definition of the terms. That once one sorts out Jewish perversion and corruption of the terms, that the Left is the best way for us to identify as White advocates.

When our advocates call our enemies “the Left” they are making a crucial mistake: obfuscating our two greatest problems and the means of solution at the same time.

Our advocates are obfuscating the agency of Jewish machinations hiding behind a twisted definition of “the Left.” The Left has the moral high ground and the label, Left, has the appearance of that moral high ground because it is supposed to be socially accountable, even if it is a misnomer: which it is, in Jewish application of the term – leftist classification indeed, for Jews, non-Whites, and anti-White Whites, but prescribing obsequious, cataclysmic liberalism for Whites. With that, they are obfuscating the motive of Jews to define us as Rightists and their motivation to drive us there when we react to this misnamed liberal prescription.

At the same time, our advocates are obfuscating our other large problem – our wish for the “innocence” of objectivism or the appearance thereof, the pretense of such objectivism in order to avoid accountability – that is Rightism.

While Jews will use this argument too, that they are simply better, meritorious, when it serves their interests, Jewish political planners and academics generally want to maneuver us into a rightist position because it leaves us naive, organizationally weak, amoral, and unaccountable to our own as a relational class of people. White traitors also want us to be rightists so that they can avoid accountability.

Finally, in calling “the Left” our enemy, our advocates obfuscate the means of solution by creating an aversion to what we need – a social classification of ourselves as a people, a full class of people. The Left is always about social classification if you sort out abuse of the term.

Understood how the term is deployed when clear, “The Left” is a function of systemic classification, designating a group of people the interests of whom are to be looked after as a class – protecting against outsiders, e.g. “scab” union busters and plutocratic exploitation of labor. We classify ourselves as Whites for highly analogous reasons: to protect ourselves from opportunistic outsiders and from elitist exploitation and indifference.

If our philosophy is correct, as White advocates, we are leftists - that is because we are advocating a people, not objective facts. We are not simply describing facts, independent of interactive involvement and consequences. We are, if we are good White advocates, saying, “if a tree falls in the woods and there are no White people left to hear it, to talk about it, at least, it may make a noise, but may as well not for all it matters.” We are taking a people-centric perspective and a White-people-centric position, specifically. We are acknowledging that nothing exists outside of interaction and how facts count must be negotiated between people. As mammals, caring about closer personal relationships, as we do, we most crucially care about White people.

In fact, the moment we refer to ourselves as Whites, or indigenous Europeans – when we refer to ourselves as a people - we are classifying, we are parceling a relative classification of ourselves socially and that is the reality. Whereas the Right, inasmuch as it pursues objectivism independent of interaction, social interaction, and a negotiation of how things count, is always something of an illusion.

If Kevin MacDonald looks at two DNA strands and says, this one is Jewish and this one is White, he must address at least one colleague with this information, in seeking agreement. In some cases, data will be agreed upon by nearly 100% of people and that will generally be called, “objective.” A few may disagree, but they will be considered crazy. Nevertheless, the data, the observation and how it counts, occurs in social interaction (or it may as well not occur at all).

Moreover, to identify who we are as a full social class would give us the moral high ground and powerful organizational function at once. Whereas, when we are made averse to the term Leftism, we are obstructed from accountability to the relative classification of ourselves and others as a people – a classification that takes into account processes, all stages of development (within the lifetime) and evolution (beyond the lifetime); a classification that makes an important difference as it takes into account and respects our paradigmatic differences, differences that make a difference from other groups; our qualitative form and function, systemic pattern, its ecological disbursement, niche differences, logics of meaning and action understood as vastly different from non-Whites; that can make us more cooperative among ourselves and less conflicting with non-Whites when practicality is the better part of valor.

The White Class: viz., persons of native European descent, with interests relative to its class as such, would entail two-way accountability straight away, from those on top and from those in developmental, marginalized stages; i.e., to our relative, relational interests, irrespective of whether White traitors and non-Whites, those outside the White Class, are more or less “objectively” capable. Non-Whites might be allies, but they are not in the class. White traitors are traitors, their abilities only making them more offensive. The White Class, The Indigenous European Class (with its subcategories, yes), would define who we are and to whom we are largely accountable

Coming back to our first big problem in calling “them” the “Left.” ...

When our advocates attribute Leftism to our enemies, they are not addressing the agentive Jewish machinations against our people, but rather attributing the problem to an ideology or less, a devil word, the “Left.” This obfuscates the fact that Jews are classifying themselves and looking after their own interests, hiding their own agency in promoting hyperbolic liberal ideas and antagonism to Whites – promoting those outside or antagonistic to the White Class as “marginals” come to “enrich” us. Jewish agency is hidden behind the attribution of “the Left” – whether the agency behind economic Marxism or the cultural Marxism of PC.

Our second big problem obfuscated by calling our enemies, ‘the Left.’ Our wish for the “innocence” of objectivism or the appearance thereof, the pretense of such objectivism in order to avoid accountability.

Whether of religious speculation which seeks to establish its pure innocence, a clique of scientistic elitists who seek to establish the pure objective warrant of their discoveries, or the pure might-makes-right of the quasi-individual and the corporate “individual” of U.S. law, the Right is characterizable as a quest for objectivism which would make quick work of accountability –  through a naïve wish to be innocent through objectivism or worse, through a cynical wish to avoid accountability through a pretense of objectivism.

The White Leftist perspective would not begrudge persons who do some things better their due, their difference, so long as they are accountable to the relative interests of the class; however, people tend to want to believe their success is more a result of their sheer independence than it actually is – the Right is pseudo objectivist, faithfully, slavishly leaving nature to its own devices – “we are caused”, pseudo detached from the social, anti-social, therefore unaccountable and inhumane as such – “that’s just the way it is”, according to nature. Failing that, the Right can and will often seek to evade account in the elusive and insensible speculation of religion.

 

Michael O’Meara does make an excellent point that self-destruction is inherent within many of the Western ways that Jews are already exploiting – I would say viz., objectivism, scientism, technology, liberalism, Christianity, universalism, capitalism – these things which pose as “innocent” are largely naïve or disingenuous by definition in not calling for accountability to relative and subjective interests as a White class; and narcissistically not recognizing the relative/subjective interests of others (e.g., Muslims, Blacks, Asians) as a class. Given that, we would be susceptible to destruction and to being taken advantage of - it would leave us vulnerable to a destruction of our own making or to other groups, Jews or not (Note that I have relativized this notion since the first publication, as it is over stated to say that it is a necessary consequence – these are, however, inherent susceptibilities, which are not entirely a corollary to Jews).

While understandable, the wish to transcend relative and relational interests of the class, into the innocence and power gambit of sheer objectivist pursuit creates a narcissistic, hyper-relativistic upshot. In pursuing innocence of pure criteria, void of relative, relational and subjective interests, we limit accountability, reduce comparisons between people to singular, non-qualitative criteria, - e.g. “equality/non-equality” which compares everything and provides insufficient distinction all at once - falsely comparing, blending what are in fact paradigmatic differences, incommensurate logics of meaning and action between various peoples – typically to disastrous effect.

The Right is enamored of enlightenment objectivism, which reached its height in Descartes’ quest for a fixed logic transcendent of nature; and its depth in the empiricism of Locke, who tried to find fixed foundational laws within nature. Locke was motivated by empiricism as an argument against the English Aristocratic class, which he resented for its superior educational opportunities. He asserted thus, that as each individual has the same perceptions, social classifications are a fiction of the mind which should be prohibited in favor of civil individual rights – that prejudice against classification of peoples was written into the U.S. Constitution, rupturing relations and developmental processes, leaving us weak to collectively organized enemies, such as Jews.

The means of solution

Kant tried and failed to resolve the problems of Cartesianism and Lockeatine empiricism by integrating it on universal foundational principles. It is rectified indeed, however, with the hermeneutic process, an optimizing, tacking back and forth as need be between verification of smaller units of analysis, such as our DNA and its relation to our environment, to the more protracted and patterned facets of our DNA’s expressions, relations encompassed in social classification; the answer in a word, is to re-establish the relative and relational interests of social classification – a people-centric perspective: a tree may make a noise when falling in the woods but if there are no (White) people left to hear it, or talk about it, it may as well not make a noise for all it matters to us – thus, we re-assert Whites as a Classification in particular, The White Class comprehending those of native European extraction, their sub-nations, regions (and not others) as the means and the solution.

At the same time, we observe the correction of the Darwinian unit of analysis, that the organism plus environment is the unit of survival – the organism which destroys its environment, it’s habitat, destroys itself.

For Kant, who had not rid himself of Cartesianism, good will was to treat every individual as an end in itself. For us, rather, the White Class and its environment ought to be treated as the relational, relative end in itself – it is those who fight on behalf of Whites, who tactfully flee on behalf of Whites or who stealthily infiltrate on behalf of Whites; those who respect the quality of differences that make a cooperative difference among the White class and toward other peoples who are of good will; it is a view of niche and pervasive ecology, as opposed to narcissistic comparisons of equality which entail unnecessary competition, reciprocally escalating diatribe and war. Succinctly, a White Class would call for more accountability to and from our individual members; and a more general sort of accountability to environment and non-Whites as a class – that we neither exploit them nor abet their over-population and incursion upon us.

Relative, relational separatism is always possible, is a first step, as well as our ultimate aim. If some of our members are better in some ways, and it helps, great! But we do not need that argument for separatism. In essence, we want to be separate, not to lord ourselves over and exploit others. That is a difference between White elitists and White Leftist Separatists, The White Class.

This article was originally published on Voice of Reason Broadcast Network, 6th November 2011.

....


The following essay is best understood as preliminary to the one above,

Transitional stages to a moral order conducive to White interests


Kant’s Moral System as Coherence, Accountability, Agency and Warrant

kantsgrave


In The Sunic Journal of October 18th 2011, on Christian Zionism, Professor Kevin MacDonald expressed frustration over Christianity’s influence on people inasmuch as it tends to be a universalizing religion, not particularly concerned for Whites as a group. As such, it leaves Whites susceptible to a demographic decline toward extinction.

The vulnerability of Christianity, for its universalizing aspects, is exacerbated by whatever ties it has to Judaism and affinity it has for Zionism. It is a connection that might predictably favor Jewish designs. In contrast to Christianity’s being potentially about just anyone who might take it up, Judaism is a religion which is concerned basically for the well being of an exclusive nation, Israel, and an exclusive people, Jews. With only Jewish ethnic interests being sanctified by contrast to Christianity’s non-ethnicity, they have been able to overcome what anti-Jewish defenses that exist in the text and tradition of Christianity; they have also undertaken machinations to use the vulnerability of Christianity.

In subsequent discussions, I will go on to elaborate non-religious facets to an overall quest for innocence – of which Christianity is a part – that leave Whites vulnerable as a group.

However, since Prof. MacDonald is searching for means to encourage Whites to adopt religious ways that will conform to reality and serve their own interests as Whites, I will begin with some of the things that brought me around. You see, I went through the infamous “phase” in my early twenties. I would like to share some of the things that brought me around to a view more concerned for Whites, in particular.

While people who are earnestly attempting to practice Christianity may hate to hear talk of its sincere pursuit called a phase, a phase describes well enough that period of time when I stubbornly attempted to assert belief over and against any evidence to the contrary. To begin, I visited a few evangelical and fundamentalists churches and felt a bit foolish.

Nevertheless, some things that were happening and foreboding – the imposition of the ominous demographic make-up and rule structure of America - were so horrible in implication for what I held most precious that I almost had to believe that Christianity was important to assert. The torture of all that mattered to me was near pervasive and only promised to get worse. I needed something to transcend that, some kind of consensus with people over the things that I cared about. Things should have been better, clearly. So, I pressed on with my personal evangelizing for and of the true Christianity, making a fool of myself.

I would be more embarrassed if I did not look back in empathy and realize that I could not simply shrug-off 2,000 years of European tradition, all the sacrifice, all the devotion, as if it were nothing; and if I did not know that I was trying to do the right thing – as are you, Christian readership.

In a lecture I attended, Professor Rom Harré of Oxford discussed morals with utmost sincerity. I was able to understand for myself that morals are indeed, as important as anything in the world (with the possible exception of concerns for survival, though the two concerns are probably not mutually exclusive). He added that people need “moral orders.” Moral orders - the plurality of the term was a large clue in my liberation from mere tradition, custom and habit. It meant that there were different moral systems, and one might seek one out that serves the kind of people and personal interests that one hopes to realize. Ultimately, I would look toward a moral order that would circumscribe and serve the interests of Whites - by that I mean persons of indigenous European descent.

However, prior to that was another crucial step in liberating me from the customs and habits of traditional religion – the moral system of the Christian thinker, Immanuel Kant. It provided, in all honesty, a more clear, sensible, fair and intelligible rationale than what I had read in the Christian text; but one that did not in all ways correspond with what was in the Christian text. Since it helped me, I am hopeful that it will help others in taking a step to a moral order more conducive to their own interests as Whites (while not necessitating mistreatment of out-groups, either). Now, do not beat me up if you are largely familiar with this or because Kant was talking in those universalistic terms. First things first: all thinkers have to take Kant into account. I have updated his system with the contemporary philosophical considerations of coherence, accountability, agency and warrant. I will move toward more specifically native European interests in subsequent discussions.

Further notes of semi-interest – when not obsequiously holding the door for the late Kara Kennedy after “Theory of Soviet Foreign Policy” classes at Tufts, I took religion classes as something I might cope with, if nothing else; including a class in critical bible study which I’d taken expecting my earnestness to be reinforced, not contradicted. However, the obvious man made-ness of the Bible became apparent: for example, The Revelation had to have had at least four different authors. The contrivance of the genealogy from David to Jesus was apparent as well. There are sundry other examples of obvious human fabrication in the texts – i.e., definitely not the hand of god. One of my religion professors was not especially patient with my “phase”. He asked me flippantly, “Did you read all of the Kant?” I answered “no, only the last chapter, as you’d assigned, on ‘religious intolerance’ being the greatest ignorance.” He grunted and dismissed me in frustration. But you see, at that point I did not want to hear that my devotion could be considered ignorant, because I was well meaning indeed. Maybe with a little more patience, I’d have come back to it sooner. I cannot say that I did not try though, as some things were shining in that Kant. So, what did I do? I went to the library, looked at it again and realizing that it was something I’d need, in my rash state of mind, I attempted to steal the book. Electronic door security detectors/sensors were a new technology then and the buzzer caught me – how embarrassing! ...and ironic, as it is the one book that will tell you that you should never steal.

It was not until five years later that I picked up the book again. It helped greatly to alleviate the worst of my anguish. So, if you have not read it already, I can save you some time and anguish, having put it here in updated and capsule form.

Kant’s Moral System as Coherence, Accountability, Agency and Warrant

It is vogue nowadays to deride Immanuel Kant as the quintessential “universalizer”, now that twentieth century science, mathematics and philosophy have sufficiently disproved what Kant considered to be “the imperative foundation of universal principles, always good for all people and all circumstances.” The disproving of Kant’s quest does not, however, eliminate the usefulness of his system as practical topoi – or framework in simpler English. Here is a practical update of his framework, using the contemporary philosophical concerns of Coherence, Accountability, Agency and Warrant.

I. Principles versus Sensibilities: Principles are guidelines and ideal rules which persons maintain to give them character and coherence. Coherence is the first task of any individual in the world; it means to make sense of things in a consistent manner. In following-up upon principles you’ve set forth, you may be Accountable, viz. able to provide explanations of your actions for responsible, defensive reasons; and you may establish Warrant, the credibility for proactive endeavor. If your actions are misunderstood or worse, false or negative accusations are made against you, then you can refer back to the principles that you are following and be sure of yourself. Kant calls this being sure of yourself, “freedom” - as such, you are freed from Arbitrariness: the confusion of natural flux; false and negative accusations; trivialities; and, of especial importance, freed from natural inclinations which may pull you in a negative direction. Finally, in that regard, as has been pointed out since Kant’s time (e.g. by Rom Harré in personal conversation), in referring back to these principles you’ve set-forth, you establish your self Agency, proving that you are the causal agent of your own actions. Now, if you get carried away with principles - which is called (over)speculation when it comes to the point where you are not dealing with sensible reality - you can always refer back to sensible evidences. However, as it is easier to attend to sensible evidence than it is to abide by principles and to restore credibility in an un-kept principle, it is better to err in the direction of principles.

The most fundamental principle, “unanimity“, means to think in agreement with yourself; e.g., if you come to a conflict, you should think first of why your actions and words might be correct, not why they might be wrong. Coherence, Accountability and Agency are begun in this principle straight away.

II. A) Common Morals B) Popular Philosophy C) Principled Philosophy

A) Common Morals: As a matter of practical convenience, people usually start out accepting implicitly, “first principles” (e.g., don’t steal, don’t lie, be monogamous), common moral ideas that it is worthwhile to be good, fair and decent. Then myriad and pervasive influences tend to divert them from first principles. That, Kant calls -

B) Popular Philosophy: It is ubiquitous. People will cite many excuses for deviating from common morals: 1. Typical of these excuses is the statement, “everybody does it;” but the mere popularity of a notion, Kant would observe, does not provide an excuse to violate first principles (consensus can be wrong). Beyond mere conformity to popular consensus, however, there are more cynical and even less accountable deviations from first principles 2. Perhaps most venal is the claim of “scientific objectivity”, which disingenuously denies accountability for the personal choices of its practitioners and their subjects; e.g., “it’s just human nature.” 3. People will cite religion, even, as in the statement, “it’s just god’s will” 4. Or, people may claim that the complex relativity of their existential situation would not allow them to act in accordance with first principles, when, in fact, they could have 5. Finally, there is the practice of didactically reversing a first principle (as in teaching through reverse psychology) under the rubric of “teaching”, exemplified in the statement, “it was really for your own good.”

In any case, their arguments for breaking with common morals are of two kinds: “that’s just the [objective] way it is” or “that’s just my/their [relative] circumstances.” Inasmuch, for the brevity of their personal accountability (“that’s just”…), they are not well warranted, and typically not, in their assertions.

C) Principled Philosophy: To correct the negative effects of popular consensus, Kant would proffer that we re-establish our first principles on an a-priori, i.e., transcendent universal foundation. Accordingly, we must test our principles by asking the universal question of them, “can this principle always be good for everyone?” In practice, that means treating people as ends in themselves. That would be in contrast to “treating people as the mere means through which other things pass”, as strict attendance to logics of nature, otherworldly ideas (Tillich, 1961) or technology would have it. Kant calls this, the most important principle, “good will” - without it, intelligence, beauty, strength, power and fortune only make a person more terrible.

Despite this fine reasoning, it is true enough that Kant has been solidly refuted in seeking universal foundations. Nevertheless, as a practical outline, it is brilliant of itself and of practical use as criteria toward being Coherent, Accountable and establishing Warrant - all three necessary to establishing individuality and Agency - in the confusing flux of contemporary society.

Part of what Kant tried and failed to do with his proposed a-piori realm transcendent of nature and establishing universal foundations, was an attempt to save the world from empiricism.

This is still one of our major problems, as Whites. The empiricism of Kant’s predecessor, John Locke, held a prejudice against social classifications. Locke treated social classifications as fictions of the mind that should give way to empirically based sensory impressions of individuals - a notion that was canonized as Civil Individual Rights in The U.S. Constitution. This sanctified rupturing of group classification and responsibility (for prime example, prohibiting the classification, “the White race”, which I shall call the White Class) has left us susceptible to exploitation and manipulation by collectively organized groups, such as Jews.

The empirical bias is to be corrected by the hermeneutic process of tacking back and forth, managing the White Class from observations more closely read (sensible), such as D.N.A. sequences, to broader historical and temporal patterns, encompassed with narrative and other (speculative) conceptualization.


That establishes the premise for the White Left essay posted at the top.

 



Comments:


1

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 20 Aug 2015 19:13 | #

If our philosophy is correct, as White advocates, we are leftists - that is because we are advocating a people, not objective facts.

But is that not semantics, rather than philosophy?

Daniel, what is the axiality of the nationalist worldview?  Is there a left and a right at all?  If there is, what do they relate to, exactly?  If there isn’t, why are you defining nationalism by the terminology of a worldview which is competitive with it and hostile to it, namely liberalism?


2

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 20 Aug 2015 20:20 | #

If our philosophy is correct, as White advocates, we are leftists - that is because we are advocating a people, not objective facts.

But is that not semantics, rather than philosophy?

No, it’s not mere semantics, it is a philosophy which forefronts the relative interests of the social group (say, a race), which is extremely important because that is what is both prohibited by the charge of “racism” and what we need in response in order to defend ourselves. That, as opposed to right wing arguments which attempt foundation on a-social, objective grounds.

That is a philosophical distinction and choice, to be sure.

Daniel, what is the axiality of the nationalist worldview?

The nation represents a social group, a systemic human ecology, especially if it is not a proposition nation (not based on ideas).

Is there a left and a right at all?

Yes. The left is about social unionizations. The right usually relies on objectivist arguments or failing that, speculative religious arguments, usually for practical and personal reasons (whether disingenuous or willfully naive in order to get along).

If there is, what do they relate to, exactly?

The left relates to the social in its relative and delimited concerns. The right relates to an objectivist quest for purist, a-social foundational warrant. 

If there isn’t,

There is.

why are you defining nationalism by the terminology of a worldview which is competitive with it and hostile to it, namely liberalism?

I am NOT defining nationalism by terms of liberalism, just the opposite. You are not seeing the central thesis, which is that liberalism has been mistakenly called “The” left (at the prompting of Jews, the disingenuous and the naiive) and liberalism is the dissolution of nationalism - nationalism which, when nativist in particular, is synonymous with a social union. Our enemies do not want us to have that, they want to prescribe the opposite of our social union, which is liberalism.

Thus, we should not argue against “The” left, because it is to argue against the concept of unionization. Which is what we need to stave off its opposite, which our enemies would impose upon us, namely, liberalism.

A social union cannot be universal and it cannot be liberal by definition - one is in the union or one is not.

 


3

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 20 Aug 2015 23:14 | #

Imho, the division of left and right is virtually meaningless within a nationalist thought-world.  Indeed, the use of the word social is itself hardly necessary.  Nationalism is socialism in the sense of the connectedness and unity of the people. But that does not hurl it into opposition to the freedom of the individual.  In nationalism the single person and the plurality of the people are not observed through a filter of conflicted interests.  For example, the genetic interests of the endogamous individual are not distinct in human kind from ethnic genetic interests, only in relation.  The endogamous individual is the unit of holding.  Just so with freedom and authenticity.  The experience of the real might only be knowable by the individual, but the endeavour is a shared one made possible by a politics that is, of course, common to all.

We in this place have to be primarily concerned to refine and enunciate such a politics for the men and women of our race.  It is very hard to do, and of course I accept that the world we all know ... the world of liberal thought and action ... remains formative for us, and difficult, therefore, to set aside.  I understand why you would want to define terms.  But I do not see what we need in that.  I think it would be helpful to reach further into the theory, and work from the axes which operate within nationalism in the round, and which, in my view, are realism <> idealism (or existentialism <> palingeneticism) and conservatism <> progressivism.  Of the sundering of the individual and the social body I see nothing.


4

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 21 Aug 2015 09:41 | #

Imho, the division of left and right is virtually meaningless within a nationalist thought-world.

It is VERY meaningful in terms of our capacity to organize, in clarification for ourselves and crucially in regard to other nations.

A White leftist perspective lines things up correctly every time and provides capacity to organize as such, which is being denied needlessly by a white knuckle clinging to warrants of genetic interest which it is not going to take away from you.

Nationalism is socialism in the sense of the connectedness and unity of the people.

Yes. That is why nationalism is unflinchingly considered the same as a leftist classification - the unity of which you speak is a union.

But that does not hurl it into opposition to the freedom of the individual.

Neither does the White left. Even if people want to leave and intermarry with other peoples (those outside the union), they are free to do so, but beyond a measured number of accounted-for exceptions, might lose their union membership (their citizenship).

In nationalism the single person and the plurality of the people are not observed through a filter of conflicted interests.

Neither are they in the White left, unless an individual makes these things a conflict of interests by betraying the national/union.

For example, the genetic interests of the endogamous individual are not distinct in human kind from ethnic genetic interests, only in relation.

There might be more tension between individual and group interests than you are seeing, but I don’t believe it is an insurmountable conflict even where it may exist, it is the task to harmonize these concerns.

One of the fundamental problems seems to be that you think I am against the individual. I am not, the White left is not. We are providing the only grounds upon which sufficient individualism can be. There has to be an optimum of social order. Too much or too little solidarity and the individual is lost.

The endogamous individual is the unit of holding.

No. It is A unit of holding, not the unit of holding.

Its relation to the social system is maintained through interactive processes - viz., (forms of) communication and social rule structures - which are also a unit of holding. That provides the shared social structure upon which the individual’s membership is confirmed and reconstructed.

Just so with freedom and authenticity.

These things can and should match up with group interests, yes - both individual and group confirming the other in its authenticity.

Matching these things up is a worthwhile project, that is why I do not object to your ontology project; but you should not see the necessity of setting out working hypotheses of the broad perspective on the class as being in conflict with your ontology project. On the contrary, it provides means to calibrate and gauge those inquiries. It can and should coincide perfectly; it is equiprimordial if not pre-requisite.

The experience of the real might only be knowable by the individual, but the endeavour is a shared one made possible by a politics that is, of course, common to all.

The shared experience of a number of people in a group isn’t known? It can be known, even better and with more capacity for correction of error; to think otherwise is Cartesian nonsense; granted, it is also Cartesian nonsense if it is not acknowledged that there is also capacity for distortion in concepts proposed to comprehend the social; and that is why hermeneutics will also pay careful attention to the more empirical and individual end - to avoid distortions and speculation of the broader, classificatory end.

We in this place have to be primarily concerned to refine and enunciate such a politics for the men and women of our race. It is very hard to do,

That requires most fundamentally being able to define in and out groups

The nature and antagonism of out-groups

What elements are needed within the group to ensure its maintenance: a perspective on the necessities of loyalty among ordinary members and those with more elite power.

the world of liberal thought and action ... remains formative for us, and difficult, therefore, to set aside.

It is not difficult theoretically. Lockeatine or Lockeatine style rights, particularly as perverted by Jews, clearly represent the liberal end.

As a rule structure, it prohibits social classification, treating it as a fiction (do you see how the Jews used “our rules” against us, calling that fiction a mere social construct and racism?).

This creates a kind of liberal Darwinistic free-for-all and unaccounted for victims to whom the right wing responds, “that’s just the way it is”...“its nature and you are anti nature”.. or “its gods will”, etc, and not the result of a socially negotiated power arrangement.

People with more heart and depth in perception of relatedness will then yearn for a view of social solidarity, responsibility and justice.

Some will be ripe for Jewish interests to exploit as social justice warriors.

They will be organized by what stupid White Nationalists are calling THE left, that is to say, unions of non-Whites or anti-White Whites against Whites. They will advocate these created unions to an extent but also advocate liberalism - in effect, make it cool to scab against what would be the White union bounds.

The Jews step into a void left by the right and in absence a White left, they unionize (anti White) victim groups and get/allow people to call this “The left.”

But it is not The White Left. And it is exceedingly important to organize our compassion, power and accountability in this way. Even if you call it another name, you are sill organizing things in this way if you are conceiving matters in terms of ethno-nationalist EGI

But I do not see what we need in that.

So, we absolutely need that, and are handicapped without it - primarily because we have been associated with an anti-social term - the right (and blocked from an accurate understanding of the real world practice and function of its components)  and against a socially responsible term - the left (and are obstructed from an accurate, real world understanding of its components and functions).

I think it would be helpful to reach further into the theory, and work from the axes which operate within nationalism in the round,

One must be sufficiently comprehensive as well as deep. If one is drilling down endlessly into “the depths” they are going to lose sight of the system and its practical requirements - practicality here being no small theoretical matter (ironic though that may sound). More, I have reached down deeper than anyone in the struggle on this issue of matching both depth and comprehensive breadth, and it would be retarded to adopt the terms as they have been laid out and defined to serve the interests of Jews and traitors. Even the terminology of “neither right nor left” serves their interests as it is a de facto right wing/liberal term of non organization.

It fails to name the provide the capacity by which people can easily perceive their necessary organizational structure.

and which, in my view, are realism <> idealism (or existentialism <> palingeneticism) and conservatism <> progressivism.  Of the sundering of the individual and the social body I see nothing.

You see nothing because there is nothing. I am not sundering the individual from the social, just the opposite. I am not focused on the individual because our concern is to save ourselves as a people, a social group.  Anti-racism is against our group organization. Therefore I am more focused on the group defense.

That requires classification and social unionized solidarity - a new brand of leftism to be shaped and crafted in our interests, not in Jewish or traitorous interests.

Our control over the term and the organization of the term means that we can define it as we will - e.g., we are not averse to the individual (or private property or wealth) in White leftism

I understand why you would want to define terms.  But I do not see what we need in that.

I suspect that because you have not had university experience that you would be more inclined to believe that things just are, and the ideas that are circulated just are, and not so much as having been made, as I saw them being made at university.

...I suspect that is why you are inclined to believe that academia just is Marxist, and are more inclined to think that when I take back terms that Jews have appropriated that I am beholden to their interests or not seeing the “necessity” to use the reactionary terms they’ve altercast fro us, when, in fact, it is just the opposite.

I saw what was being made by Jews, why, and why it is important to make them our own way

Again, anti-racism is against our group organization. Therefore I am more focused on the group defense.


5

Posted by Susanne Shank on Mon, 24 Aug 2015 10:58 | #

SUPRISE SUPRISE

When most Americans think of Wall Street, they think rich, White men. Hardly would the image of a Negro woman come to mind. …not only is there a Negro, female financing plutocrat on Wall Street, but she has accumulated a net worth of over a trillion dollars!

Susanne Shank, a 1987 Wharton MBA graduate in finance installed herself as the CEO, President and municipal bond trader of her own Wall Street finance company, Siebert Brandford Shank & Co., LLC. She holds a civil engineering degree from Georgia Institute of Technology. According to UrbanIntellectuals.com, her finance company is the largest, minority-owned municipal finance firm in the United States.

So, how did she get her trillion dollars status? Her company acts as “managing underwriter” for municipal bond transactions exceeding $1.2 trillion dollars and her firm is ranked among the top 10 in seven key infrastructure categories for underwriting municipal bonds in the world.

The budgets of government bureaucracy have long been dedicated to black employment, benefits and welfare.  It would be a mere logical extension for a black woman to “underwrite” this scam.

 

 


6

Posted by Alt Right's desperation on Tue, 01 Sep 2015 06:43 | #

The “alternative right” continues to desperately grasp at straws to try to subvert the idea of the White Left.

They have been looking to set up their own version of a controlled opposition (to Richard Spencer, having a bourbon every evening at 9:30, just like his grandfather did, is the expression and integration of his “leftist” side.)

Now they’ve trotted-out Robert Lindsay to pronounce the he’ll be organizing a new “alternative left” platform… of course it will bear little difference from liberalism and be a Jew friendly professional wrestling partner with NPI and the rest of the right-wing fools of WN: http://www.starktruthradio.com/?p=1515

Notice that Alt Right is promoting “Millennial Woes” - http://alternative-right.blogspot.com/ - he’s the guy who was crying because we had the nerve to not let his Jewish friend, Ruth, be the one who defines for us what “the left” means. In fact, he demanded that his link be removed from MR because we had “besmirched” his Jewish friend by questioning her authority.

If you don’t recognize how wonderful it is to have a place to go that is free from this right wing nonsense, then you should recognize it. Pay attention.

 

 


7

Posted by TT says, well done, but.. on Tue, 01 Sep 2015 23:22 | #

TT SAYS:

Well done but still following the old failed right street activity. Lone Wolf is the only way at this time. Don’t do the enemies job for them; at least make them work for it.

LIKE A SUBMARINE.TRAVEL AT PERISCOPE DEPTH.

 


8

Posted by Jewish reaction to the 14 Words on Fri, 04 Sep 2015 19:25 | #

A not so anecdotal experience related to this jacket.

I walked into the grand opening of an ‘Irish bar’ in Poznan, Poland.

Proudly wearing this jacket, I made sure to stand front and center while watching the band so that everyone in attendance could read my jacket.

Thinking nothing of it (why would I, after all? Who could object to concern for White children?), I went to the bar to procure a drink.

Suddenly, coming up behind me were two individuals speaking frantically. And the answer to the aforementioned question was automatic in my mind…when they said/asked me, “hey shit eater, what is that shit on your back? Go back to your own country!”

Without even having turned around, I responded instantaneously, “This is my country, go back to Israel”

I knew the answer to the aforementioned question, a nonsensical question really - who could object to White children? There is only one answer: Jews.

When I turned around and looked at them it was confirmed that they indeed, had dark hair and fit the bill. I had known without hesitation where they were coming from. They turned and looked at each other in surprise.

As their aggression had apparently never failed before, they tried their tried and true verbatim once again:

“Shit eater, what is that shit on your back?”

I responded, what would you like it to be?

They said, “go back to your own country.”

I told them, “this is my country, go back to Israel.”

They looked at each other again in semi shock, as if to say, “what now?” and they went away.

The bar location failed (Tanner’s moved to another place), but I have a strong suspicion that the property was owned, as many properties are owned in Poland, by Jews. These Jews were a party to Jews who were charging an exorbitant rent and not at all concerned if one or another business makes it - provided that it toes their line - “hear that, ‘shit eater.”

Jews said that to me, seeing this jacket. Hear that, “shit eater” ?


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

On the 10th of October, 2007, at Hotel Hilton in Tel-Aviv, Israeli President Shimon Peres stated the following:

“From such a small country as ours this is most amazing. We are buying up Manhattan, Hungary, Romania and Poland.”

And the way I see it we have no problems. Thanks to our talent, our contacts and our dynamism, we get almost everywhere.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JL4Cu-K17vE

 

 


9

Posted by Millennial Woes on Tue, 15 Sep 2015 15:11 | #

“he’s the guy who was crying because we had the nerve to not let his Jewish friend, Ruth, be the one who defines for us what “the left” means.”

No, I’m the guy who pointed out that you were lying about a friend of mine. That you call this “crying” is quite pathetic. I think you know that you were in the wrong but don’t want to admit it.

“In fact, he demanded that his link be removed from MR because we had “besmirched” his Jewish friend by questioning her authority”

Yes. I don’t want to be associated with a website that lies about people. Call me crazy.

You seem intent on making as many enemies as possible. You should examine that, and consider the effect it will have on the movement as a whole.


10

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 15 Sep 2015 15:57 | #

Am I establishing a normal platform or “seeking enemies”?

“he’s the guy who was crying because we had the nerve to not let his Jewish friend, Ruth, be the one who defines for us what “the left” means.”

Yes, that remains an accurate assessment of where you are coming from.

No, I’m the guy who pointed out that you were lying about a friend of mine.

I did not lie about your Jewish friend. Show me where I am supposed to have lied about her.

That you call this “crying” is quite pathetic. I think you know that you were in the wrong but don’t want to admit it.

Your snivelling complaints that we called attention to the fact that her agenda ran contrary to the interests of Whites/Europeans and, in fact, sought to promote significant bum steers (for European people) in connection with the “alternative right”, is what is pathetic.

Obviously I admit to no wrong, having done no wrong there.

“In fact, he demanded that his link be removed from MR because we had “besmirched” his Jewish friend by questioning her authority”

Yes. I don’t want to be associated with a website that lies about people. Call me crazy.

We removed your link without ceremony or objection.

I didn’t lie about her. Show me the “lie” ?

You seem intent on making as many enemies as possible. You should examine that, and consider the effect it will have on the movement as a whole.

We seek to drive advocates of Jews, Hitler and Christianity away from Majorityrights as anything like a comfort zone for them (reserving the prerogative to entertain them and their positions at our discretion). In initial stages it is necessary to be loud and clear about this. This is a platform for those who wish to be unburdened by those positions (along with other non-White imposition and imposition of Islam through PC, liberalism, especially “anti-racism”, objectivism and scientism).

With an assessment of the normal requirements of White ethno nationalism, those are the abnormal positions, yet just about all sites advocating White/European interests are laden with one or more of them. It is obvious, infuriatingly so, that these are not the positions to take in European advocacy. Yet, as circumstances for European peoples continue to deteriorate and people in these positions become only more recalcitrant it becomes an urgent matter to emphasize the difference of our platform.

That is, we have examined this { it is MR’s platform } and by contrast, you are mistaking the marking of our difference from those positions that are overrepresented by supposed White advocates and worse, sometimes represented by people who insist on trying to impose them here, against our editorial lines, as “going out of our way” to make enemies.

 


11

Posted by Arthur & Alice on Sat, 02 Jan 2016 20:22 | #

John Conlee writes songs for the working-man and woman.

       

And he wants you do know that retired couple, Arthur and Alice, are doing OK.

Arthur and Alice played shuffle-board, down, underneath, today.

They packed the best picnic, they could afford.

And drove down by old Tampa Bay.

49 years on assembly-line way back up Michigan way..

Now they’re in a trailer, b’neith Florida pines.

Arthur & Alice are doing OK.

Arthur & Alice make love every night, but in their own special way.

Sometimes by just holding each other tight, courting dreams of yesterday.

But then sometimes they still love-up a storm, just like on their wedding-day!

Way down, where even, the winters are warm…

Arthur & Alice are doing OK.

Arthur & Alice have seven grand-kids, in Ann Arbor and in L.A.

They’ll come to visit,

Last Winter they did - a Bush Gardens / Disney World Day.

Poor Arthur he’s got a bad heart and she’s nearly blind.

...at least, that’s what the doctor’s say.

But his heart’s full of love and she reads his mind!

Arthur & Alice

Arthur & Alice

Arthur & Alice .....are doing OK.

       


12

Posted by Punk came from Anime (lol) on Wed, 06 Jan 2016 11:42 | #

   
“Punk came from anime”

While Robert Lindsay remains suspect inasmuch as he’s been put-up to proposing a false “alternative left” - playing this game obfuscating of a true White left, proposing an “alternative left” instead, by terms of which I take the alternative right to mean its fellow Jew friendly sock puppet, viz. “the alternative left”.... it seems that he also has fun being a part of the quirkiness of Stark’s guests that I, and others, enjoy. I have to give him some credit for playing a funny game generally, whereby he just asserts things so blatantly absurd that you have to laugh:

In this podcast: “Punk came from Anime

Even Charles Lincoln did a double-take on that one.

Robert Stark talks to Charles Lincoln & Robert Lindsay about LA, the 1980’s, & Blade Runner, January 5, 2016


13

Posted by The sham of the "Alternative Left" on Sat, 09 Jan 2016 17:46 | #

These clowns who try to propose this “Alternative Left” are becoming more clear in their absurdity: Pat Buchanan, eugenics, Return of Kings, Millennial Woes, The Truth Will Live… these things are apparently what they want to say are “alternative left.” lol

Poor Paul Gottfried….. and Richard Spencer: crying in his 9:30 P.M. glass of bourbon - “left-wing practice of his” (lol).



Alternative Left and Right - yeah, right.

Paul Gottfried seems particularly intent on maintaining “THE left” as the enemy designate.


14

Posted by problem of unions on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 08:20 | #

While I am confident that unions and syndicates are in someways necessary and important, I would not care to deny that the concept and implementation can get out-of-hand - sometimes way out of hand.

It is actually an interesting question to discuss, not only the pros and cons of unions but the real nitty-gritty of how to implement them to their best effect and so that one side or the other doesn’t go too far.

In fact, an interesting point of contention occurs with the very title of this Politico article, as they designate the anti-unionists as “conservative.” That, i.e., conserving liberalism and individual liberties, has been part and parcel of the sham definition of “conservatism” in Jewish-journalese for these past several decades.

But if you think about it plainly, the individual liberty that the anti-union, Constitutional argument is based-upon is certainly not conservative in the sense of conserving a social group, which would be the idea taken for granted in any normal refection beyond the media’s double speak. While a workers union, corrupt, unproductive and totally destructive though it may well be in implementation would be conservative of a social group.

It is an interesting and important question how to work-out the concept of unionization; and how it might work alongside non-unionized free agents (a freedom of enterprise which should, of course, be allowed for as well).

Nevertheless, I am convinced that we should begin discourse by rejecting the YKW media’s designation of anti-unionization as “conservative.”

Politico, ‘Conservative group nears big payoff in Supreme Court case’ 10 Jan 2016:

The conservative Bradley Foundation has spent millions over three decades to smash labor unions. Now an investment that could barely buy a house in Washington may bring it closer to that goal than ever before.

The vehicle is a Supreme Court case, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, to bar public employee unions from compelling payments from nonmembers. The lawsuit, about which the high court will hear arguments Monday, was brought by Rebecca Friedrichs and eight other California public school teachers who declined to join the union that represents them in collective bargaining. But the lawsuit’s true author looks to be the Milwaukee-based Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation.

The Bradley Foundation funds the Center for Individual Rights, the conservative D.C. nonprofit law firm that brought the case; it funds (or has funded) at least 11 organizations that submitted amicus briefs for the plaintiffs; and it’s funded a score of conservative organizations that support the lawsuit’s claim that the “fair-share fees” nonmembers must pay are unconstitutional.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/friedrichs-california-teachers-union-supreme-court-217525#ixzz3wv7BV6yJ

 


15

Posted by White Left/Social optimization News on Tue, 19 Jan 2016 11:14 | #

This post by The New Observer is White Left worthy news:

New Observer, Capitalists: Cashing in on the Invasion, 18 Jan 2016:

Hundreds of German workers have been laid off as ruthless capitalist hotel owners rake in millions of euros by converting their buildings into “asylum centers” and establish regular incomes from the taxpayers, an investigation by the German Einprozent organization has found.

A recent article on the Einprozent website—which is the mouthpiece of an organization seeking to rouse Germans against the invasion—reviewed several hotel chains in Germany that have fired their workers, turned their buildings over to “asylum seekers”—and are earning millions in the process.

The capitalists’ shortsighted rationale is that they can now earn more money from the German state than they can from ordinary hotel guests, because their “residents” are now funded by the state, as are the “workers” in the establishments.

The H-Hotels AG group, under the control of Alexander Fitz, is a particularly prominent offender in this regard. H-Hotels AG is a privately-owned company which has its own brand H4 Hotels, H2 Hotels, and H+ Hotels in its portfolio. In addition to this, H-Hotels AG is also a sales partner of the American Wyndham Hotel Group for the brand RAMADA in Germany and Switzerland.

“A well-known case is the former Maritim hotel in Halle,” the Einprozent report said. “Here, the operator (H-Hotels AG) has signed a contract with the state government for three years and now accommodates some 740 refugees. Eighty employees have lost their jobs.”

In addition, the company’s hotel in Halle-Peissen now holds up to 600 refugees for which the country has an agreed annual rent of up to three million euros. There, the 50 employees now face an uncertain future.

Recently, the Einprozent article continued, a four-star hotel became a refugee camp in Bautzen, Saxony. Peter Killian Rausch, the company director, was quoted as saying that he makes a good living out of the conversion.

The hotel now houses 150 “refugees.” At a daily rate of 13 euros per person, this means Rausch’s annual income is now over €700,000, all courtesy of the German taxpayer.

The Einprozent article points out that since the hotels are now “full” and are incurring no marketing or personnel costs, they are making “lucrative profits at taxpayer expense.”

Other examples provided in the overview included a Best Western hotel in Stuttgart-Winterbach, which now houses some 250 “refugees” and has been rented by the state for a minimum period of five years.

The racket has become so profitable that “investors” are now buying up old and closed hotels and retirement homes, sprucing them up and then renting them to the state.  The state has long realized that these hotels are a quick way of accommodating the hundreds of thousands of nonwhite invaders who have poured into Germany, demanding to be fed and accommodated at the taxpayer’s expense.

“While countless jobs are being lost due to the hotel operators’ profiteering, even more of our economic and social security is lost, not to mention the impact on future generations, all because of political irrationality,” the Einprozent review concluded.


16

Posted by Jack London from individualist to socialist on Sat, 23 Jan 2016 16:22 | #

       

        How I Became a Socialist - Jack London

It is quite fair to say that I became a Socialist in a fashion somewhat similar to the way in which the Teutonic pagans became Christians — it was hammered into me. Not only was I not looking for Socialism at the time of my conversion, but I was fighting it . I was very young and callow, did not know much of anything, and though I had never even heard of a school called ” Individualism,” I sang the paean of the strong with all my heart.

This was because I was strong myself. By strong I mean that I had good health and hard muscles, both of which possessions are easily accounted for. I had lived my childhood on California ranches, my boyhood hustling newspapers on the streets of a healthy Western city, and my youth on the ozone-laden waters of San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean. I loved life in the open, and I toiled in the open, at the hardest kinds of work. Learning no trade, but drifting along from job to job, I looked on the world and called it good, every bit of it. Let me repeat, this optimism was because I was healthy and strong, bothered with neither aches nor weaknesses, never turned down by the boss because I did not look fit, able always to get a job at shovelling coal, sailorizing, or manual labor of some sort.

And because of all this, exulting in my young life, able to hold my own at work or fight, I was a rampant individualist. It was very natural. I was a winner. Wherefore I called the game, as I saw it played, or thought I saw it played, a very proper game for MEN. To be a MAN was to write man in large capitals on my heart. To adventure like a man, and fight like a man, and do a man’s work (even for a boy’s pay) — these were things that reached right in and gripped hold of me as no other thing could. And I looked ahead into long vistas of a hazy and interminable future, into which, playing what I conceived to be MAN’S game, I should continue to travel with unfailing health, without accidents, and with muscles ever vigorous. As I say, this future was interminable. I could see myself only raging through life without end like one of Nietzsche’s blond beasts, lustfully roving and conquering by sheer superiority and strength.

As for the unfortunates, the sick, and ailing, and old, and maimed, I must confess I hardly thought of them at all, save that I vaguely felt that they, barring accidents, could be as good as I if they wanted to real hard, and could work just as well. Accidents ? Well, they represented FATE, also spelled out in capitals, and there was no getting around FATE. Napoleon had had an accident at Waterloo, but that did not dampen my desire to be another and later Napoleon. Further, the optimism bred of a stomach which could digest scrap iron and a body which flourished on hardships did not permit me to consider accidents as even remotely related to my glorious personality.

I hope I have made it clear that I was proud to be one of Nature’s strong-armed noblemen. The dignity of labor was to me the most impressive thing in the world. Without having read Carlyle, or Kipling, I formulated a gospel of work which put theirs in the shade. Work was everything. It was sanctification and salvation. The pride I took in a hard day’s work well done would be inconceivable to you. It is almost inconceivable to me as I look back upon it. I was as faithful a wage slave as ever capitalist exploited. To shirk or malinger on the man who paid me my wages was a sin, first, against myself, and second, against him. I considered it a crime second only to treason and just about as bad.

In short, my joyous individualism was dominated by the orthodox bourgeois ethics. I read the bourgeois papers, listened to the bourgeois preachers, and shouted at the sonorous platitudes of the bourgeois politicians. And I doubt not, if other events had not changed my career, that I should have evolved into a professional strike-breaker, (one of President Eliot’s American heroes), and had my head and my earning power irrevocably smashed by a club in the hands of some militant trades-unionist.

Just about this time, returning from a seven months’ voyage before the mast, and just turned eighteen, I took it into my head to go tramping. On rods and blind baggages I fought my way from the open West, where men bucked big and the job hunted the man, to the congested labor centres of the East, where men were small potatoes and hunted the job for all they were worth. And on this new blond-beast adventure I found myself looking upon life from a new and totally different angle. I had dropped down from the proletariat into what sociologists love to call the “submerged tenth,” and I was startled to discover the way in which that submerged tenth was recruited.

I found there all sorts of men, many of whom had once been as good as myself and just as blond-beastly; sailor-men, soldier-men, labor-men, all wrenched and distorted and twisted out of shape by toil and hardship and accident, and cast adrift by their masters like so many old horses. I battered on the drag and slammed back gates with them, or shivered with them in box cars and city parks, listening the while to life-histories which began under auspices as fair as mine, with digestions and bodies equal to and better than mine, and which ended there before my eyes in the shambles at the bottom of the Social Pit.

And as I listened my brain began to work. The woman of the streets and the man of the gutter drew very close to me. I saw the picture of the Social Pit as vividly as though it were a concrete thing, and at the bottom of the Pit I saw them, myself above them, not far, and hanging on to the slippery wall by main strength and sweat. And I confess a terror seized me. What when my strength failed? when I should be unable to work shoulder to shoulder with the strong men who were as yet babes unborn? And there and then I swore a great oath. It ran something like this: All my days I have worked hard with my body and according to the number of days I have worked, by just that much am I nearer the bottom of the Pit. I shall climb out of the Pit, but not by the muscles of my body shall I climb out I shall do no more hard work, and may God strike me dead if I do another day’s hard work with my body more than I absolutely have to do. And I have been busy ever since running away from hard work.

Incidentally, while tramping some ten thousand miles through the United States and Canada, I strayed into Niagara Falls, was nabbed by a fee-hunting constable, denied the right to plead guilty or not guilty, sentenced out of hand to thirty days’ imprisonment for having no fixed abode and no visible means of support, handcuffed and chained to a bunch of men similarly circumstanced, carted down country to Buffalo, registered at the Erie County Penitentiary, had my head clipped and my budding mustache shaved, was dressed in convict stripes, compulsorily vaccinated by a medical student who practiced on such as we, made to march the lock-step, and put to work under the eyes of guards armed with Winchester rifles — all for adventuring in blond-beastly fashion. Concerning further details deponent sayeth not, though he may hint that some of his plethoric national patriotism simmered down and leaked out of the bottom of his soul somewhere — at least, since that experience he finds that he cares more for men and women and little children than for imaginary geographical lines.

To return to my conversion. I think it is apparent that my rampant individualism was pretty effectively hammered out of me, and something else as effectively hammered in. But, just as I had been an individualist without knowing it, I was now a Socialist without knowing it, withal, an unscientific one. I had been reborn, but not renamed, and I was running around to find out what manner of thing I was. I ran back to California and opened the books. I do not remember which ones I opened first. It is an unimportant detail anyway. I was already It, whatever It was, and by aid of the books I discovered that It was a Socialist. Since that day I have opened many books, but no economic argument, no lucid demonstration of the logic and inevitableness of Socialism affects me as profoundly and convincingly as I was affected on the day when I first saw the walls of the Social Pit rise around me and felt myself slipping down, down, into the shambles at the bottom.

Source: The War of the Classes (1905), http://london.sonoma.edu/writings/WarOfTheClasses/socialist.html

 


17

Posted by Chinese Exclusion Act on Sun, 24 Jan 2016 12:47 | #

A relevant comment from TOO:

Curmudgeon, January 23, 2016 - 11:36 am | Permalink

The Chinese Exclusion Act and Gentlemen’s Agreement were not just about banning Asian labourers, they were about stopping mass 3rd world immigration that would change the nature of the nation. China and Japan were the principal source of unscrupulous labour contractors, but India was also a huge source. It was not a US phenomenon, but an early exercise, world wide, to flood the new “White” countries with non-Whites. Canada had similar legislation, implemented only after riots in Vancouver early in the last century. Post Boer War, South Africa received Indians. It was only the remoteness of Australia and New Zealand that saved them in earlier days

.


18

Posted by Unparalleled Invasion on Sun, 24 Jan 2016 15:26 | #

Though Jack London’s denunciation of individualism is a breath of fresh air coming from an early American and classic White advocate, his opinion of the Chinese leaves something to be desired (though Ted Sallis might be in his fan club for that reason).

             

When there are plenty of blacks around, to reserve this much venom for orientals is strange.

The Unparalleled Invasion

Is a science fiction story written by Jack London. It was first published in McClure’s in July 1910.

Contents

  1 Plot summary
  2 Background and context
 
Plot summary

Under the influence of Japan, China modernizes and undergoes its own version of the Meiji Reforms in the 1910s. In 1922, China breaks away from Japan and fights a brief war that culminates in the Chinese annexation of the Japanese possessions of Korea, Formosa, and Manchuria. Over the next half century, China’s population steadily grows, and eventually migration overwhelms European colonies in Asia. The United States and the other Western powers launch a biological warfare campaign against China, resulting in the destruction of China’s population, the few survivors of the plague being killed out of hand by European and American troops. China is then colonized by the Western powers. This opens the way to a joyous epoch of “splendid mechanical, intellectual, and art output”.

Background and context

“The Unparalleled Invasion” was included in The Strength of the Strong, a collection of stories by London published by Macmillan in 1914, which also included “The Dream of Debs”, a critique of capitalist society in the US, and “The Strength of the Strong”, which used a primitive background as metaphor of social injustice among men.

The story has been controversial for its depiction of genocide and has been cited as evidence of London’s racism. The genocide is described in considerable detail and nowhere is any objection made to it. The terms “yellow life” and “yellow populace” appear in the story. It ends with the “sanitation of China” and its re-settlement by Westerners.


Worse than blacks? One should doubt it.


19

Posted by Millennial Woefulness on Sat, 19 Mar 2016 09:17 | #

It’s hard to believe, but Morgoth is still plugging this Millennial Woes guy..and in no small way:

Morgoth Mod • 4 days ago

**************** This is an official Blog announcement****************

I’m going to hold off from putting any new posts up till Sunday when we can have the Millennial Woes vs Sargon of Akkad smackdown live at M-Rev in its own post, which should be fun. Thing is I like to give each post a few days at the top and don’t want to sandwich a post which will be knocked down by Sunday, fight night.

It also means our over worked and under appreciated graphics department can get to work on banners for the big fight. I’ll ‘‘feature’’ this comment so everyone knows what’s going on.

Pictures just in of Woes training in Edinburgh.


20

Posted by White Left, Unite on Tue, 03 May 2016 23:25 | #

Counter Currents, “The White Race as Global Proletariat”, 3 May 2016:

Donald Thoresen

One of the intellectual developments responsible for transforming numerous Italian Leftists into Fascists was the notion of a nation-based proletariat. Realizing that a political consciousness based on class alone was a failing strategy for national rejuvenation, the men who would set the ideological groundwork for Fascism began to understand that more was needed to unite those nations oppressed by the global power hierarchy. Myth, symbolism, and mass national sentiment were seen as crucial to the revitalization of Italy and the Italian people. Contra Marxism, history as conceived by these intellectuals was not simply the scientifically-discernible unfolding of material processes but rather a more nuanced interplay of both matter and spirit. Italy, underdeveloped and unable to compete economically with its neighbors, was conceptualized as the underclass of a global system dominated by Anglo-Americans.

There can be no doubt that Italian Fascism was heavily influenced by Marxism. It accepted some of its premises and conclusions, but, crucially, rather than an international, borderless collective of workers fighting against an oppressive bourgeoisie, Fascists intellectuals thought in terms of classes of nation-states. In this conception, Italy was considered to be a proletarian nation, struggling to makes ends meet in a world system rigged against it. Thus Italians themselves were also proletarians — a label which applied equally to workers and producers alike. The unification of these classes was determined to be an essential part of the restoration of Italian prestige and power. This was a tremendously important conceptual innovation that created an ideological foundation for those in Italy who saw the Left-Right dichotomy as flawed, insufficiently explanatory, and incapable of addressing the needs of Italians both in the present and in the future.

About a century later, White Nationalists around the world are making a related and similarly momentous conceptual transition: the political prioritization of race over the neatly packaged bundle of values and assumptions that is the modern “proposition” state. In doing so, White Nationalists have adjusted and broadened Fascist thought to fit contemporary realities, making it possible to conceptualize the white race in its entirety as the global proletariat.

As a consequence of the convergence of Left and Right that frequently occurs within White Nationalist discourse, the white race has been re-characterized as a political collective that is both national and supranational. Like Fascism, White Nationalism shares a similarity with Marxist thought in its conception of broad antagonistic international coalitions. That is to say, there is a recognition of a ruling elite working in opposition to a worldwide “class.” Fascists believed that the class system was more appropriately applied to the global state system and, with surprisingly few exceptions, rejected the idea of biological race. For White Nationalists though, the chimerical international class consciousness of Marxism, as well as the civic national-class consciousness of Fascism, has been replaced by an international race-consciousness. Though there is certainly a wealth of historical examples of allied white ethnicities, these alliances were rarely deeper than temporary arrangements in order to accomplish very specific political, economic, or military goals. The idea of international racial unity would have seemed ludicrous to no more than a few extraordinarily prescient thinkers a century ago (even two or three decades ago). This idea, however, is clearly gaining traction in the 21st century and, while only in its historical infancy, seems destined to change our entire understanding of geopolitics.

The purely hypothetical and historically false notion of international class-solidarity was duly rejected by Fascists and has, generally, been rejected by the Right in all of its various manifestations throughout the world. The presence of sub-national oppositional collectives has always been seen as a problem by Rightists, even those for whom nationality means nothing more than legal recognition from the government and a nominal commitment to vague civic ideals. In the modern nation-state, the tensions arising from the presence of various oppositional collectives have most often been brushed aside as anomalies or handled by lame attempts to channel differences into broadly inclusive identities based on juridical citizenship. But for White Nationalists, mere juridical citizenship is not sufficient to turn any random border-bound collective into a nation. The nation must reflect something greater than the mechanics of a particular form of economy, the worship of law qua law, and the bureaucratic blessing of rubber-stamped membership. The nation must have primordial racial roots and the state must be the vehicle for ensuring the security and success of the primordial nation. The state must be the ultimate manifestation of a racial Rousseauvian “general will.”[1] White Nationalists are ideologically devoted to the notion of a white racial collective that crosses political boundaries but which also requires various national borders to maintain its integrity.

[...]

Conceiving the white race as a global proletariat engaged in an historical, life and death battle against a Judaic multiracial bourgeoisie is a move in that direction.


21

Posted by No Islam isn't a race it's a social classification on Thu, 02 Jun 2016 10:18 | #

No, Islam isn’t a race, it’s a social classification and that’s the point.

No, Islam isn’t a race, it’s a social classification - and the YKW don’t want Whites doing that.

In fact, Islam is anything but a race, it is anti-racial classification, therefore well suited for the YKW to allow to run its course, while they cultivate their own genetic (read, racial) classification).

No, Islam is not a race but it is nevertheless a social classification which Whites are prohibited from doing by the YKW (and naive objectivism).


22

Posted by David Hume on Sat, 17 Dec 2016 05:39 | #

In his radical skepticism, David Hume shares much in common with fellow empiricist John Locke.



Post a comment:


Name: (required)

Email: (required but not displayed)

URL: (optional)

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

Remember me


Next entry: General Announcement: Planned Maintenance
Previous entry: Natural rights, human rights or social classification apprehending the important distinctions?

image of the day

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Establishment Problem

Categories

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Immigration

Islamist Threat

Anti-white Media Networks

Audio/Video

Crime

Economics

Education

General

Historical Re-Evaluation

Controlled Opposition

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Europeans in Africa

Of Note

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AltRight features talk with Tommy Robinson commented in entry 'Where and How (((The Alternative Right))) is Drawing "Friend-Enemy" Lines of a Coming Revolution' on Thu, 16 Feb 2017 13:42. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Donald Trump gives Benjamin Netanyahu everything he wants.' on Thu, 16 Feb 2017 11:43. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Donald Trump gives Benjamin Netanyahu everything he wants.' on Thu, 16 Feb 2017 07:35. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'What if we're not 'the bad guys'?' on Wed, 15 Feb 2017 06:59. (View)

Just Sayin' commented in entry 'What if we're not 'the bad guys'?' on Tue, 14 Feb 2017 19:23. (View)

Kumiko Oumae commented in entry 'What if we're not 'the bad guys'?' on Tue, 14 Feb 2017 17:39. (View)

Just Sayin' commented in entry 'What if we're not 'the bad guys'?' on Tue, 14 Feb 2017 17:27. (View)

Kumiko Oumae commented in entry 'What if we're not 'the bad guys'?' on Tue, 14 Feb 2017 16:43. (View)

Michael Flynn resigns commented in entry 'Trump's Cabinet Appointments - The List of Nominees & Brackets Complete' on Tue, 14 Feb 2017 15:40. (View)

affection-tone