White Left contra de Benoist’s critique of “left & right”

Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 11 August 2015 09:48.

In the last part of Eugène Montsalvat‘s review of de Benoist, he is shown to give organizational advice, including moving beyond left and right with observations as to where they both went wrong.

I don’t agree with how he is describing the left, and it is a good occasion to sort that out.

However, I am in significant agreement with the tenor - that capitalism is among our major problems.

With that, he confirms a suggestion from Kumiko to me, that I’ve already accepted. I would take to heart that in promoting the White Left platform that I have not emphasized enough the fact that there would be unions amidst the union that is the racial/national union. I have done that but not enough.

Because I have been so focused on the re-legitimization of racial classification and the unification of people as one class, Kumiko alerts me to the fact that I would be accused of disingenuously wallpapering over bona fide working class concerns for not recognizing their distinct situation. 

She advises talking more in terms of syndicalism, and I can see where her advice in that regard, and as it turns out, also de Benoist’s advice in that regard is correct.

My way of handling these differences could use that boost, though I have not exactly been remiss in that. In criticizing the insufficiently descriptive and ultimately dangerous paradigm of “equality / inequality”, I have consistently spoken in terms of qualitative differences within the White Class (and in relation to non-White groups). As opposed to “equality/inequality” and its false comparisons, I have tended to focus on niches, their paradigmatic incommensurability, qualitative symbiosis and the management of differences in respect of difference as opposed to inequality. Nevertheless, forms of syndicalism should correspond with systemic regulation of these differences.

Counter-currents Publishing, ‘Alain de Benoist’s On the Brink of the Abyss’, Eugène Montsalvat wrote:
Against this increasingly dismal situation Alain de Benoist writes of the possibility of a resistance, that will usher in a transformation of the system. He endorses the idea of moving beyond Right and Left.

As I have said in many places, and I am no less convinced than ever, that it is a mistake to relinquish the self designation as a left, a White Left. The Jews do not want us to adopt its powerfully organizing world view for that reason, because it does line things up correctly time and again.

ibid wrote:
while reminding the Right and the Left of their failures, which have resulted in the modern predicament

Not a left as properly defined in White interests.

ibid wrote:
He warns of idealizing the working classes as naturally good, of repeating the naive Enlightenment optimism that liberalism arose from.

I do not idealize the working classes nor would a White Left.

Benoist is correct and very articulate in citing the Enlightenment, its optimism (wow, never thought of that angle, but true) and the liberalism that came of it, but these are not elements of what we are calling the White Left.

The White Left designates these products of the Enlightenmet and categorizes them as “objectivism”, one of the two great adversaries to White/Left/Class/National/Union/Racial (all the same) solidarity.

The two great adversaries to the White Class/Left are Jewish interests and Objectivists/objectivism.

de Benoist needs to recognize where adoption of Enlightenment ideas among ordinary and working class folks is coming from.

Where it isn’t being promoted by Jewish interests it is being promoted by White elitist traitors disingenuously posing as “objectivists” (innocently great and not accountable) and naively accepted by the “lower classes” as “objectivism”, viz., the way it is.

But it is Not leftism, definitely not White leftism as it does not recognize the union’s right to discriminate and hold people accountable to the union’s interests.

Hence, we have not moved beyond right and left, we have merely not caught up to how Jews and White traitors have manipulated these terms to their interests, including not wanting us to have a “White Left” as its organizational capacities are dangerously powerful against them.

ibid wrote:
On the Right, figures such as Sorel and Péguy have been forgotten, and the fight against communism fooled the Right into aligning with capitalism.

de Benoist is correct about that. No argument.

ibid wrote:
Rather than attacking capitalism as the root of the loss of national borders and the cause of mass immigration, they fall into petty xenophobia, Islamophobia, and buy into the “Clash of Civilizations” that distracts from social conflicts at home.

Here I disagree with de Benoist, not in the sense that issues like these can’t be used to distract from objectivist treachery and problems of their exploiting “lower classes”, but in the sense that he is going to the other extreme, and in ignoring race and religious organization of groups antagonistic to race, that he is buying into the same right wing Enlightenment objectivism (and perhaps Jewish manipulation) that he claims to be wise-to.

He goes on to say..

ibid wrote:
On the Left, four main flaws are identified

First..

ibid wrote:
political universalism

That can be said to be a product of Red (Marxist) Left skullduggery; that is to say, how Jews would apply all peoples in unionized alliance against White capitalists (While Jews themselves maintain their union and the facile unions of those who oppose their enemies).

It is surely wrong to accept the Jewish definition and calibration of the terms.

A union, a White Union, cannot be universal by definition. One is in the union or one is not.

Jews do not want us to have this because it would organize our people in a humane way which is accountable to excellence and differences at the same time.

Second:

ibid wrote:
the absence of a concrete anthropology leading to unrealistic assumptions about human nature,

It can err in this direction but only gets out of hand because the Jews exaggerate these possibilities in order to pander to their paying students. That is, Jewish academics are largely in the big business of selling talk to White female undergraduates: “possibilities” to create college courses and talk talk talk, criticize, criticize, criticize.

Third:

ibid wrote:
a belief in progress, and a moralism focused on the complaints and grievances of victim groups.

Again, exaggeration and distortion of these capacities are the result of Jewish academics who have mixed in and preyed upon enlightenment distortions in order to both misrepresent the left and turn White people off to their organizational capacity in a Left while actually using the victim groups they do marshal as an attack force against Whites.

Fourth:

ibid wrote:
Therefore, the Left disregards things such as national borders, ignores the value of pre-capitalist modes of production, and has fallen into the trap of fighting for various identity politics groups.

Again, those are Jewish cultural Marxist perversions.

How can a leftist union favor the scabbing of their union by an open borders policy?

They cannot, it is a contradiction of terms.

ibid wrote:
at the expense of class struggle. Instead of attacking capitalism, the Left now focuses on “anti-racism” or “sexual liberation,” which only serve to break down the barriers impeding the flow of capital and lead to further individualism in the social sphere.

That is what the Neo cons and other Jewish led interests are getting people to do.

The White Left is guilty of none of these things.

ibid wrote:
To challenge the capitalist system, a new class consciousness must reappear, against individualism a “collective will” must be formed.

True, a White Class, the White Left.

ibid wrote:
This will must come from the bottom up, being built locally, against the global hyperclass. It must be intransigently revolutionary. Benoist repeats the advice of Sorel to the revolutionary syndicalists.

This is quite well said, and I will probably take de Benoist’s and Kumiko’s advice to incorporate more snydicalist type thinking ..

ibid wrote:
“to take the early Christians as their example: those who absolutely rejected the world they were fighting against.”

I am on the radical side, but taking skepticism to quite that level is what led to the radical skepticism of the enlightenment and subsequently to liberal modernity.

The Christians are a bad example unqualified as such.

ibid wrote:
Finally, he identifies the target of this new struggle, “The principal enemy is at once the most harmful and, above all, the most powerful. Today it is capitalism and the market society on the economic level, liberalism on the political level

I would make it a dual entry, Jewish interests and Objectivism (which includes capitalist interests).

ibid wrote:
individualism on the philosophical level

I agree that individualism is a large part of our problem, I understand its philosphical difficulties, but I do not want to summarily and uncritically dismiss it; but rather set it aside as a non-priority while we are under mortal threat as a group by groups.

ibid wrote:
and the United States on the geopolitical level.”

The Jewish and Objectivist led U.S. is certainly a huge problem, but one must understand that it is Objectivism (admittedly written into its Constitution) and Jewish groups that marshal its forces against other group unionization of peoples.

I believe that Kumiko would like a chance to show that there may be a way to ride the tiger of NATO and US forces toward ethno nationalist aims.

ibid wrote:
He calls for an alliance from forces as disparate as Castroism and Christianity to challenge these enemies: “The enemies of my enemies are not necessarily my friends, but they are necessarily allies.

If Christians and Muslims are attacking our enemies that is fine but we cannot be so naive as to think that these universalist and race mixing religions are people we can form formally agreed upon alliances with.

Their overall pattern is overwhelmingly against our interests and untrustworthy.

Same with blacks and Jews. There might be times when they fight groups who are harmful to us, but their overall pattern is overwhelmingly against us and untrustworthy.

ibid wrote:
am notoriously not a Castroist, but I will always support Castro in his fight against American imperialism.

Castro is anti-racist. So, I cannot agree with de Benoist.

ibid wrote:
I am notoriously not a Christian, but I will always support Christians every time they struggle against the power of money. Those who reason otherwise do not have a sense of the priorities or the stakes. They are quite simply accomplices.”

Not true. Very untrue.

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


As I believe they are particularly well done, I am going to uncritically add these excerpts from Eugène Montsalvat‘s review of de Benoist’s, “On the Brink of Abyss”...

Alain de Benoist

On the Brink of the Abyss: The Imminent Bankruptcy of the Financial System

London: Arktos, 2015

  Alain de Benoist’s On the Brink of the Abyss is a collection of essays dealing with the capitalist system and its deleterious effects. Written in response to the 2008 crisis, it uses current events as the starting point to investigate how the trends of global neoliberalism, free trade, finance, and the general logic of capitalism have brought the world’s economy to the threshold of destruction, destroying peoples and cultures along the way by eliminating limits and atomizing societies

  ....

  Ultimately, what we witnessed in 2008 was the sign of a major collapse, the death throes of the capitalist system. Capitalism is unsustainable, the towers of debt used by the creditors to extract the real wealth of nations can only grow so high before they collapse. We are approaching the self-destruction of the capitalist system, we cannot continue to purchase more and more while wages shrink. This small collection is an incredibly valuable look at the roots of the current problem and it offers much needed insight in order to confront this situation in an age where governments, Left or Right, have essentially abandoned financial sovereignty to the global moneyed elite.

  “Immigration, the Reserve Army of Capital” details how immigration is part of the capitalist system and shows that it cannot be opposed without opposing capitalism itself. In France, mass immigration was encouraged by the Pompidou at the behest of several large capitalists, who were seeking a cheap labor force unconcerned with the politics of class struggle that had characterized labor relations with the native born working class.

  ....

  De-industrialization and automation have reduced the need for actual labor. Even a growing economy no longer creates the necessary amount of good paying jobs. Employment opportunity has been permanently reduced. The institution of a citizenship income would give the unemployed a level of purchasing power to afford a basic standard of living, and reduce income inequality. Moreover, it would give the workers more leverage bargaining with capital as they would no longer be forced to work out of fear of impoverishment.

I would not care to take great issue but rather largely commend these observations of de Benoist…




Comments:


1

Posted by Anti-Zionism, a fake anti-Jewish position on Thu, 13 Aug 2015 07:17 | #

Gerald Celente taks a classic fake anti-Jewish position - to loudly announce that one is against Israel and imply that the Jews should go elsewhere, such as Europe.

No thanks!

No thanks Gerald Celente. Your anti-Jewish credentials are not established, no more than Gilad Atzmon or any of the other liberal anti-zionists.

Of course Jewish interests are going to scatter their positions and influence around so that they cannot be an easy target. That may be good for them ; and if they leave Israel, perhaps good for those in that area, but it is not good for us if they are not quarantined and accountable to a particular nation known as theirs.


Gerald Celente: Donald Trump is a Clown, Hillary to Win 2016! Kitco News
Gerald is becoming personal with the chosen:

The other issue is Israel. I do not— why give my money to Israel? I do not support their government. I do not want to be called an anti-Semite. It is the same thing that I want about any government. I do not want to be called names about it like people so frequently do. By the way, they are Ashkenazi, who are the heads of these governments, the Eastern Europeans, they are not Semites in Mesopotamia. Beginning with Ben-Gurion. Ben-Gurion, Golda Meir, Netanyahu, they are all Ashkenazi, Eastern Europeans. It is a colonial overtaking of a country. They kill a lion. It is headline news. But I just told you 4,000 Yemenese are killed. They do not count. 2,000 Palestinians slaughtered last year by Israel. They do not count either.

Radical Islam? What would you do? If you had an invader coming to your country and keeps killing your land, a violation of international laws and Geneva Conventions and you come out with a whine that God was a real estate agent and the Bible was a land deed?


2

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 15 Aug 2015 10:59 | #

I’m still struggling, Daniel, with your division of a Jewish left and a white left, when the former is so very European, racially - judging, at least, by the head-office staff of The Guardian :

?w=620&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&s=6ff9beede589aecce9e024c731d24cc5

?w=620&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&s=b755b87629a2bbe47b272e7fffe15069
(Forget Russell Brand and his silly hat - neither of them are paid Guardian staff.)

... and when I can only see the Guardianista type as motivated by a learned contempt for and denial of the collective self that originates deep in our intellectual and religious past -  ultimately, in the conflict between the Judaic view of the form and function of the gentile and our reality as a race of Man; and finds its way into the life of our people through Christianity and liberalism, and the model of society and of Man which these things pressage.

By my reading, your assignation to “the left” of “Jewish left” does not do justice to the very foundational, social democratic feeling of this crowd, as well as their post-Christian moral sanctimony.  Granted, they have given themselves up entirely to a Jewish left in the sense of modern maladies such as:

Classical Marxism
Revolutionary internationalism
Critical Theory
Postmodernism
Freudianism
Second-wave Feminism
Gay Rights/LBGT Rights
American Civil Rights
Human Rights
White Privilege/White Abolitionism
Agitation for open borders and mass immigration
Academic race-denial
Promulgation of hate speech law

But I think there is enough cleavage of the intellectual and socio-economic history here to bring more nuance to the terminology we use - and also to reflect that nuance in our interpretation of the conventional political right (and not just write it off as individualistic and anti-solidarity).


3

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 15 Aug 2015 11:21 | #

Before I look at the examples that you provide, I will go ahead and address your struggle with the division of a Jewish left and a White left first, as it should not be a struggle at all: it is very clear.

The Jewish, Marxist, Red Left advocates unions of people, whether they are groups considered to have a grievance with Whites (“victim” groups) or other races, including Jews, supposed to have a grievance with Whites. This Jewish/Red Leftism, of course, does not permit of White unionization. While the Red Left can organize discriminatory organizations of people, according to them/it, you can’t - on the contrary, it requires liberalism of Whites. And Whites have been hoodwinked into calling that “leftism”, so that they could be manoeuvred into a right-wing “objectivist"position which is, at bottom, a liberal position (a lessening of social accountability); corresponding with what the Red left prescribes overall to Whites, i.e., not leftism for Whites, just the opposite - they prescribe liberalism for Whites, the scabbing of White unionization.

This is the cultural Marxist derivative of classic Marxism. Classic Marxism would have cast this in terms of economic class, so that the working class would be pit against the elite and bourgeoisie.

In cultural Marxist terms Jews have cast the elite and bourgeoisie as any White unionization (White social classification as a people is called “racism” or a violation of “rights”), they conceive of unions of non-Whites and “anti-racist/anti-discrimination” victim groups in coalition against any unionization of Whites, viz. what would be a White left, and do all they can to impose liberalism (scabbing, race mixing, border crossing into their lands) upon Whites instead.

But whether classic Marxist or cultural Marxist, we would call it the Red left as the Jewish racial, anti White agenda behind both of them is only a bit more veiled in the classic Marxism. In either case, White genetic unionization, the relativized delimitation of our EGI, is prohibited, White liberalization is mandated by the Red left. It is not “the left:” It is a Red left, not a White Left.

They want to call us the right because it corresponds with objectivism, warrant in mere facts, and lacks accountability to a union of people.

This objectivism also corresponds to the liberalism that they want to impose upon us to break our union(s).


4

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 15 Aug 2015 14:33 | #

By my reading, your assignation to “the left” of “Jewish left” does not do justice to the very foundational, social democratic feeling of this crowd, as well as their post-Christian moral sanctimony.

Of course my reading explains that.

They are gravitating into a vacuum - which the right leaves by giving social accountability short shrift (a vacuum where there would have been social conscientiousness, but was vacated by the right) - where they instead find ability to participate and be accounted for in red leftism. In that vacuum, while “Whites” act self righteously, as opposed to identifying socially, and conscientiously as White, Jewish activists, and Jew tools like Brand, capitalize on grievances and discontent of those marginalized, disenfranchised, or just plain dissatisfied with the lack of social/moral concern, bringing their power to bear against the (White) man in Judeo/Christian fervor.

As a matter of fact, the Red leftist compassion, humaneness and “righteousness” that they find provides exactly what is absent where Judeo/Christianity* is not literally an animating factor in their social activism….

..let alone in the absence of a White Left.

 

P.S., among the laundry list you’ve provided, I don’t see why I have to keep explaining the Jewish misrepresentation of “post modernity

...and that the performance requirements of “modernity” were not in all ways good for our race..


* Christian universalism would be an early, “evangelical” form of Jewish imposed, scab union busting


5

Posted by Montsalvat on de Benoist on Wed, 19 Aug 2015 10:13 | #

Robert interviews Eugene Montsalvat on Alain de Benoist

http://www.starktruthradio.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Eugene-Montsalvat-on-Alain-De-Benoist.mp3

* Note, Montsalvat’s audio is a bit muffled beginning minute 35.


6

Posted by Political correctness, i.e., cultural Marxism on Wed, 19 Aug 2015 10:33 | #

The history of political correctness, what we are calling “cultural Marxism”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjaBpVzOohs

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/2009/11/19/the-roots-of-political-correctness/

Video and article by William Lind


7

Posted by DeBenoist cites economic aspect of invasion on Wed, 09 Sep 2015 14:42 | #

The Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations has recently released a report about the European countries which says that “ in the absence of the replacement migrations the population decline is inevitable.” It also states that “for Europe, as a whole, what is needed is twice the level of immigration, as recorded in the 1990s” — barring which the retirement age will be pushed to 75. Europe is aging, immigration will save it; this is the perfect illustration of the idea that men are interchangeable, regardless of their origin. Therefore economic imperatives must prevail over all other imperatives. The ethics of “human rights” is only a cover-up for financial interests.

See full article at TOO



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: Natural rights, human rights or social classification apprehending the important distinctions?
Previous entry: We are accused of ‘anti-Germanism’, and other similar ‘offences’: Literally, why?

image of the day

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer.

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

Thorn commented in entry 'Trump will 'arm Ukraine to the teeth' if Putin won't negotiate ceasefire' on Thu, 21 Nov 2024 12:46. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Trump will 'arm Ukraine to the teeth' if Putin won't negotiate ceasefire' on Wed, 20 Nov 2024 17:30. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Trump will 'arm Ukraine to the teeth' if Putin won't negotiate ceasefire' on Wed, 20 Nov 2024 12:07. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Trump will 'arm Ukraine to the teeth' if Putin won't negotiate ceasefire' on Mon, 18 Nov 2024 00:21. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Trump will 'arm Ukraine to the teeth' if Putin won't negotiate ceasefire' on Sun, 17 Nov 2024 21:36. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Trump will 'arm Ukraine to the teeth' if Putin won't negotiate ceasefire' on Sat, 16 Nov 2024 18:37. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Trump will 'arm Ukraine to the teeth' if Putin won't negotiate ceasefire' on Sat, 16 Nov 2024 18:14. (View)

Manc commented in entry 'Trump will 'arm Ukraine to the teeth' if Putin won't negotiate ceasefire' on Sat, 16 Nov 2024 17:30. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Trump will 'arm Ukraine to the teeth' if Putin won't negotiate ceasefire' on Sat, 16 Nov 2024 11:14. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Olukemi Olufunto Adegoke Badenoch wins Tory leadership election' on Tue, 12 Nov 2024 00:04. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Olukemi Olufunto Adegoke Badenoch wins Tory leadership election' on Mon, 11 Nov 2024 23:12. (View)

Manc commented in entry 'Olukemi Olufunto Adegoke Badenoch wins Tory leadership election' on Mon, 11 Nov 2024 19:02. (View)

James Bowery commented in entry 'Nationalism's ownership of the Levellers' legacy' on Sun, 10 Nov 2024 15:11. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Olukemi Olufunto Adegoke Badenoch wins Tory leadership election' on Fri, 08 Nov 2024 23:26. (View)

Manc commented in entry 'Olukemi Olufunto Adegoke Badenoch wins Tory leadership election' on Wed, 06 Nov 2024 18:13. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Olukemi Olufunto Adegoke Badenoch wins Tory leadership election' on Mon, 04 Nov 2024 23:48. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Sat, 02 Nov 2024 12:19. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Sat, 02 Nov 2024 04:15. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Sat, 02 Nov 2024 03:57. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Sat, 02 Nov 2024 03:40. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Fri, 01 Nov 2024 23:03. (View)

Manc commented in entry 'The legacy of Southport' on Tue, 29 Oct 2024 17:21. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Mon, 28 Oct 2024 23:14. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Fri, 25 Oct 2024 22:28. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Fri, 25 Oct 2024 22:27. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Thu, 24 Oct 2024 23:32. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Wed, 23 Oct 2024 16:37. (View)

James Bowery commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Wed, 23 Oct 2024 14:54. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Sun, 20 Oct 2024 23:23. (View)

Manc commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Fri, 18 Oct 2024 17:12. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'What can the Ukrainian ammo storage hits achieve?' on Wed, 16 Oct 2024 00:51. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'What can the Ukrainian ammo storage hits achieve?' on Wed, 16 Oct 2024 00:44. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'What can the Ukrainian ammo storage hits achieve?' on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 11:19. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'What can the Ukrainian ammo storage hits achieve?' on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 05:59. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'What can the Ukrainian ammo storage hits achieve?' on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 00:28. (View)

affection-tone