White Left contra de Benoist’s critique of “left & right” 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.
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.
Not a left as properly defined in White interests.
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.
de Benoist is correct about that. No argument.
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..
First..
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:
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:
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:
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.
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.
True, a White Class, the White Left.
This is quite well said, and I will probably take de Benoist’s and Kumiko’s advice to incorporate more snydicalist type thinking ..
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.
I would make it a dual entry, Jewish interests and Objectivism (which includes capitalist interests).
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.
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.
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.
Castro is anti-racist. So, I cannot agree with de Benoist.
Not true. Very untrue. ...................................................
Alain de Benoist
I would not care to take great issue but rather largely commend these observations of de Benoist… Comments: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 ... 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 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 | #
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..
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 | #
See full article at TOO Post a comment:
Next entry: Natural rights, human rights or social classification apprehending the important distinctions?
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) Computer say no by Guessedworker on Thursday, 09 May 2024 15:17. (View) |
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: