My advice is to treat everything you have learned in higher education exactly as you treat everything you have learned from Christian teaching, excepting only that, knowing of it, one might investigate the damage that it has visited upon the life of our race.  It is useful to analysis.  But do not seek to re-interpret and apply any part of it creatively to the European existential question.  The philosophy of our peoples’ life has not yet been written. - Guessedworker

My learning comes not from what was then called “The Tower Library” when I first came there, renamed the W.E.B. Dubois Library after the Mulatto Marxist, at the demand of liberally protesting students, which included classmates of mine (I rather wound up hoping that the library would tip over and fall onto our department’s Machmer hall which was right near the library to one side below).

In this bit of recent “advice” from GW, I find some exoneration for the vitriol and rebuke that I’ve visited upon him - starting when some tipping point was reached in his dismissiveness. I already had strong reason to believe that politeness and respect would not work to stop him from trying to minimize, misrepresent, dismiss and bury what I’ve brought to bear. But that statement confirms it for me.

And with it, that there are total inaccuracies in his concept of where what I’ve learned comes from. Inaccuracies that suit the stereotyping of his autobiography.

I have called attention to a feature of GW’s autobiography - the non-academic David who is going to singularly slay the entirety of the academic Goliath, preparing the ground for his foundational and comprehensive world view of the requirements of European peoples - an utterly grandiose aspect of his autobiography that was formed in reaction to YKW academic abuses of social organization and advocacy.

As I have explained, I am very sympathetic to this and, in fact, returned to graduate school for the purpose of defending White men in response - my thinking at the time, that it would be from an approach of scientific foundation - the very word “pragmatism” was repulsive to me and it took Pearce’s calm and sympathetic advice that I did not like mere pragmatism, to calm me down. He added, that we are pragmatists because we have to be. If you follow the pragmatist line of reasoning to its conclusion, even our ideals and our pursuit of our depths are pragmatic - though it is not my purpose to defend the pragmatists but rather to illustrate where I was coming from and how I was helped around. I believe Pearce’s teaching would hold that pragmatism, literally, would be short on prefigurative force, if not contextual or implicative force, where perhaps it should not be over emphasizing practical force, practically speaking.

To negotiate the post modern condition, he and his colleagues, along with grad students, would focus on the need to manage coherence, coordination and mystery. Coordination would be the feature that would require a more basic, universal language to negotiate.

GW said that I made the wrong choice to not follow up foundational science. GW is wrong. While it is good and necessary for some of our people to study cognitive science, that is not what our advocacy and its philosophical underpinnings most require at this point - we’re under attack psychologically, yes, but our concerns are deeper than that, we need more of a social perspective to look at the deepest problems, as we are under attack as a species, group system, a race - largely a matter of social classification as Pearce would show:

W. Barnett Pearce

Sexists, racists, and other classes of classifiers: Form and function of “...Ist” accusations

by Julia T. Wood and W. Barnett Pearce

An “. . . ist” accusation indicts an individual as a racist, sexist, or other “. . . ist” whose thoughts and/or acts discriminate on the basis of class membership. The self‐reflexively paradoxical structure of “. . . ist” accusations precludes refutation, but response is possible. Pragmatic and moral implications of alternative responses to “. . . ist” accusations are evaluated.

Quarterly Journal of Speech, Volume 66, 1980 - Issue 3. Brief provided by Taylor & Francis Online

In late 1989, I wrote to W. Barnett Pearce to discuss his work and how it might resolve problems that I was struggling with. Noting my struggles with accusations of ‘racism’ and ‘sexism’ - and having compassion! - he sent me this article, so on target and deft in the manner which it handled my concerns, that it demonstrated unequivocally that his was a discipline that I needed to be apprised of. Indeed, this article provided two of the most important clues for my WN advocacy. The first being that ‘race’ is (in an important regard) a matter of classification - at very least being treated as such by people who mattered, particularly by our foes, but also by our people, where they know what is good and necessary for them. Secondly, as the blurb above hints at, our antagonists can always shift its paradoxical structure to their anti-White agenda:

Viz., if you say, “no, I don’t discriminate based on race, sex, etc., I judge everyone on their individual merit”, then they can charge you with being disingenuous, willfully ignoring “the long history of discrimination, oppression and exploitation of these groups.”  But then, on the other hand, if you take the measure of saying, “ok, lets take that into account and use, say, affirmative action to help these groups into positions in which they are under-represented”, then you are classifying and discriminating thereupon, hence a racist by definition.

Along with that article, Pearce sent me another one regarding The Problematic Practices of Feminism: An Interpretive Critical Analysis, Communications Quarterly, 1984, with Sharon M. Rossi - which I found ironic, that being the exact name (same year as well) of the girlfriend of mine who drove me to psychic melt-down.

Anyway, the (very helpful) gist of that article, which I’ve noted several times before, is that within the context of liberal feminism, even a well intentioned man can always be put into the wrong:

You can always be treated as either a wimp or a pig, no matter what you do as a man.

If you try to treat her with deference, gentleness, help and respect, then you can be looked upon as a wimp and a condescending patriarch who does not respect her strength, agency and autonomy.

On the other hand, if you treat her as one of the boys, respecting her toughness and autonomy, then you can be looked upon as a pig, a male chauvinist pig, not respecting the special quality of her gender, but rather a male chauvinist pig, projecting the hegemony of your patriarchical world view over all and everyone.

* Note: while Pearce had compassion on me for what he might deem as unfair overcompensation on behalf of people of color, neither he nor his colleagues should be construed as “racists” nor endorsing my political activism and philosophical positions across the board - that would absolutely not be true.

And part of the problem of GW’s mis-assessement also stems from a STEM mentality, a predilection that he shares with Bowery, a predilection that essentially wishes that engineering, science and philosophy were practically the same endeavors. Not so much need for the “ought” corrections of the social world, we primarily need to find and describe what is, single out and fix any broken link. Compounding problems of STEM type predilections, is the head start this perspective has had through the internet, a STEM created medium to begin, amplifying this perspective (already amplified, as it tends to pay in the market, while social concern, not necessarily).

But it’s worse than that in terms of any concern for holistic philosophy and advocacy.

GW’s situation both as an ensconced Englishman and boomer who derived some benefit - economic and the satisfaction of free enterprise - from the other side of the controlled opposition from cultural Marxism - viz. some sort of “objectivism” - contributes to a confirmation bias that independent success of individuals and nations is basically a matter of freedom from all that superfluous and unnatural social advocacy stuff - which from his perspective on Jewish laden academia, is seen as possibly serving only liberalism and misdirecting notions of choice, where English emergence is the only legitimate default.

And it is worse still than that in terms of holistic, systemic philosophy in advocacy of our homeostasis, its recovery.

My learning comes not from visiting lecturers to the campus, Cornell West and the S.P.L.C.‘s Morris Dees - who spoke of his case to bankrupt Metzger for “vicarious liability” ..lectures brought on by the university to quell racial tensions being raised by I can’t imagine the likes of whom.

The luxury (compared to American Whites) of being able to say with stronger conviction, “here in my ancient homeland, with my people”, has afforded more confidence to double down on his STEM predilection and patch up a modernist, “natural” reaction (Modernity is also largely STEM in origin) to abuses of post modernism - and, he has received support in this reaction from other groups in reaction, groups that I’ve ousted from this platform and who, therefore, seek to bury the world view that I advance.

This has given GW more confidence than he should have in a modernist philosophy and a wildly inaccurate and disrespectful disposition toward what I bring to bear. Spontaneous reactions were brought out in me - in moments when I finally could not believe that he would stop trying to mute, minimize if not dismiss what I was bringing to bear.

Disconcerting though my spontaneous eruptions may have been to a tipping point in the level of utter disrespect for what I’d brought to bear by the very host of the site, I’ve taken solace in the fact that I was asked to take the site in a direction that I saw fit. I had and still have confidence that is fine for several reasons.

Through experience, I’ve come up with a philosophical framework to form the basis of advocacy for European peoples in coordination with other peoples and natural systems.

A major feature of my platform which gives me confidence is that it holds up and makes sense consistently of what is going on.

Despite that, another aspect that gives me confidence in my position is the fact that the notion of “correctability” - i.e., Praxis takes us into engagement with the input of others, where it is not only welcome - it is a built in requirement (particularly where it mirrors good will toward our group interests). This is “my ownmost innocence”, to turn Heidegger on his head for a moment.

Some people will try to say that because this platform rejects, for the most part, Christianity, Nazism, Jewish input, scientism (a susceptibility not only of modernists, but also neo trad types - incl. women who see beta males everywhere and see them as dead wood who need to be killed off) and wild conspiracy theories, that I am not open to input. That’s not true. These positions are rejected for what should be obvious reasons for those interested in fostering the interests of European peoples. And they have other places to go, whereas a WN platform that rejects these things exists only at Majorityrights.

My learning comes not from W.E.B. Dubois’s mulatto supremacism, which proposed that an African American “feminine man” who, in joining with the more “masculine” Teutonic would produce a common human/American civilization by a racial division of labor.”

But what many of those adhering to these world views have in common and have in common with GW, I believe, is that they are reacting to Jewish abuse - academia being the generating house of misrepresentations, gross distortions in theory of social organization and advocacy, which has become more and more blatantly anti-White social advocacy (it was blatant even thirty years ago).

I have called attention to GW’s autobiography, a significant part of which was formed in reaction to YKW academic abuses of social organization and advocacy.

I understand his reaction, as I have said, I went back to academia with the intent of pursuing a graduate career in defense of White men, not for any mere practical reason, but on the basis of foundational science.

GW said that I made the wrong choice to not follow up foundational science, and GW is wrong. While it is good and necessary for some of our people to study cognitive science, that is not what our advocacy and its philosophical underpinnings most require at this point - we are under attack psychologically, yes, but our concerns are deeper than that, we need more of a social perspective to look at the deepest problems, because we are under attack as a species, a group system, a race.

Now let me revisiit GW’s statment:

My advice is to treat everything you have learned in higher education exactly as you treat everything you have learned from Christian teaching, excepting only that, knowing of it, one might investigate the damage that it has visited upon the life of our race.  It is useful to analysis.  But do not seek to re-interpret and apply any part of it creatively to the European existential question. The philosophy of our peoples’ life has not yet been written.

While I can’t presume that his misrepresentation of where my knowledge comes from doesn’t come from the bad will of his business competitor world-view and/or the other antagonistic world views that spur him on, lets give him the benefit of the doubt for a moment and presume it is sheer misunderstanding - I will clear away the inaccuracies in his concept of where what I’ve learned comes from.

I spent the first three decades of my life learning from experience what it was like to be antagonized as a White man, without the backing of a particular group, not Italian, not Polish and certainly not as an English man in England. What I’m saying is that my racial circumstance was even more radical in its existential circumstance and requirement - the absolute need to understand what is requisite.

...

My undergraduate major was Fine Art, so even though my academic requirements at Tufts were comparatively minimal, happily for me, since that’s all that I could cope with, what Jewish influence there would not be heavily enmeshed in by me - again, because I could not process the liberalism that was only gaining in America at that time - given only ostensible reprieve by Reagan’s (((paleoconservatism))) - my response to liberalism and its advocacy in that moment was to take on a semblance of identity politics in Theory of Soviet Foreign Policy with an adviser to President Reagan (viz., with a non-Jewish expert on Soviet / Polish relations; true, the texts were (((Adam Ulam and Dimitri Simes))) but what was I going to do with this information anyway?); I took religion courses for my social requirements, trying to practice pure Christianity, but fortunately these courses planted the seeds that the bible might not exactly be the word of god, but the work of many all too human hands, and it was a phase that I would totally throw off once the stress of university was over.

Christianity had been the basic recourse that my family had shown me in response to liberalism (though it was not discussed, just go to church and Sunday school and shut up).

With the pain of the utter communicological confusion of my family and of that society, art, including the beauty of White women, was my first recourse in terms of sustaining motivation. Then when I realized in my undergraduate career that that was not going to be sufficient for a man trying to cope with the liberal world, I fell back on Christian religion to cope with my undergraduate academic years. I got through while embarrassing myself trying to defend that stupid religion against people with vastly superior resources to me. But to give myself credit, I did learn that it was not THE moral order and I moved on.

A major lesson I learned from academia was what a burden it was to be told what I was required to read. Once I graduated, it was a great moment of liberation - I not only had a key to learning, through erudition, but now I could read what I wanted and needed.

And I would later learn that without the solid guidance that a scholar can provide, that there could be a lot of wasted time reading material that was off the mark of what would be most incisively helpful.

So my field of inquiry and learning moved inefficiently from art, to religion and… the first subject matter that I started reading outside of university on my own was, of course, psychology. Carl Jung was first. Then some Jews, yes, Freud and Gestalt (Fritz Perls), Rollo May, most of it not very helpful but at least suggesting that there could be some empirical anchoring, means to self advocacy and guidance.

Then a truer learning experience as I read along these things at work, my first girlfriend, who would fly off the handle screaming at the suggestion that maybe she didn’t need to scream at me, that I was a nice guy, willing to work things out, despite the fact that I had a family that screamed at me (among other communicological pathologies), so I didn’t need more of it.

This caused me to see a psychologist as Sharon was a bitch (by her own admission and words) who was going to help inspire me by destroying my mind. In fact, when she sensed that I would be quite content to break up with her, she reappeared at my desk with hands clasped in a plea that I not break up with her - so she could really lower the boom and finish my mind off, so I would find.

I needed the psychologist very badly in order to try to keep it together.

During these few years in the mid 80’s, I gleaned a little something from Heidegger and took his advice, as I’d said, to put my perspective into a historical time line and this was when I began my critical revision of the Maslowian Hierarchy, seeing the significance of the hippies in relation to feminism, Maslow’s story of Actualization and its negative implication of modernity and the systemic runaway of the American project - a rupturing of the first and most essentially human perspective, social systemic homeostasis; and how this (((American story))) of ‘being all you could be in individual human potential in the land of opportunity’ was opposed to Aristotelian Actualization and its emphasis on optimality and human nature, to be augmented with a post modern furthering of his emphasis on the difference of praxis (social world) and its requirements in circulating inquiry of phronesis (practical judgment).

I’m getting a little ahead of myself.

By the way, GW, this would be among several lines of my inquiry which would have me say to you and your dismissiveness - Fuck You and Fuck Off. You are not only an insulting idiot to me in these diversionary and dismissive suggestions but a detriment to our people.

Anyway, still in the mid 80s with that psychologist, I will now reveal that he was also a hypnotherapist, practicing the hypnotic technique of Milton Erickson.

I was not in a hurry to go into this, as it will be one of the last two remaining long articles that I absolutely need to post - that is, I will post a part three detailing the trance episodes and their induction that I had not discussed before. This is interesting in its supernatural aspects, but complicated as I will have to explain my agency despite the fact of hypnotic suggestion and its post hypnotic manifestation.

He first induced trance in me, somehow, by farting indignantly while I was talking. He then told me that I have “a nigger nose” (among other assorted insults to my physicality) ..that you “don’t like niggers.” .. I balked a bit ...even though it was generally true; I offered the refrain that Jimi Hendrix was my favorite musician.

And as if I wasn’t mad enough, he added, “your father is a nigger.” (later disproved by genetic testing, my father didn’t have even 1%).

He saw the anger in me - we Italians can be quite sensitive at such things. And that was his point, exactly: “Good, you reacted like an Italian, with anger.” You are a continental European - the implication being less aloof to prejudices and occupying a necessary ecological buffering niche that can otherwise remain derelict for northern European aloofness and rationalism.

Moving ahead, one of the suggestions that I would agree to take up was to write to some communications professors lurking in the bibliographies of the books on his shelf - “because those liberals in NorthEastern universities think that they’re smart, but they’re not. And you are going to show them how a continental European reacts to all that stuff - you will act like a crazy Italian.”

I spotted among the books on his shelf ones by/dedicated to Gregory Bateson. These books would not only help explain much of the difficulties that I was experiencing (It was hard even to talk with any coherence. I was a wreck), but I learned an eminently important lesson from Bateson, as he took psychology out of the head and into social interaction with his Theory of The Double Bind.

In line with that, fine Aristotelian that Bateson was, he was passing on the best aspects of Aristotelian philosophy, including, albeit implicitly, taking us out of the Cartesian estrangement and into praxis of the social world. With that, a necessary feature that is lacking in Heidegger, careful attention to our part in and of the biological world, its requirements for optimal, not maximal need satisfaction; and our concern as mammals, for our relationships; to go along with our human capacity for reflexive learning and learning to learn.

But coming back to my “payment” for this deep learning experience, I was to “act like a crazy Italian?”

I will? And what will I get out of it?

“You are going to save the world.”

But I don’t want to save the world, the way its going, I’d just as soon it be blown up.

“What you’re going to get out of it is an education. At Tufts, you just crammed and passed exams (true), this will be a real education.”

I said I also wanted a virgin wife and two kids.

He made check mark motions.

He added, and “you will fight against racism.” Showing my agency, I responded that I would do no such thing.

This seemed to provoke him; he said, “alright, you’ll be didactic.” ... invoking my revulsion over a teacher having used what was to me a pseudo intellectual word, “didactic” to indicate doing something so much as to get people to react in opposition (for the record, his mentor was Minuchin, a famous Jewish structuralist family therapist; and I would later be directed to the Jewish woman hypnotherapist who caused meltdown number one of my depth grammar - I don’t want/“even if it was a long time ago?”).

I thought to myself, alright, he may think he can do this, but I’m up for the challenge, I feel no guilt (quite the opposite), I’ve had enough experience of blacks already, see no reason not to defend my people and I don’t like what others are offering by way of proposed trade off.

Fast forward, I write to one of those scholars influenced by Bateson, a communicologist named Barnett Pearce (because his name sounded Anglo and not Jewish - it was already obvious enough that Jews would not be as sympathetic to the effects of anti racism on White men). I send him my ideas about Heidegger, Hippies, Feminists, Re-doing Maslow and he finds it interesting, likes the idea of me using his theoretical models to work on it and adds some real insight, with real compassion, using Maslow’s terminology (even though he was anything but a Maslowian), “your grumbles are pretty low” - he felt bad for me (basic needs unfulfilled are called “low grumbles” in Maslow’s terms), he knew that I needed his teachings and that of the department.

Barnett welcomes me to come there and try to matriculate into the graduate program. Barnett soon moves to a university in Chicago but his theory partner remains and sees promise in my efforts as well. He’s Jewish but I don’t realize it, thinking he’s Irish in initial meetings, I start discussing the horrors of the liberal media, and I say to him, “you’d think the Jews would have learned their lesson by now.” ..that was among a few really nasty stories that I tell him about Jews ...this is 1991.

Anyway, when I found out that he was ((())), and in my contrition he was satisfied that I am not necessarily inherently prone to want to kill Jews and that I don’t see the Nazis as my friends either, it combined with his appreciation of my work and its necessity as a response to liberalism to be enough to allow me to take classes with him.

I’m skipping over a lot which I will detail in the trance story because for now I want to get to a point: Now, he was a great scholar and I did learn a lot from him - the first point that I need to make to rebut GW’s utterly arrogant, egotistical and utterly stupid suggestion that I should “disregard” EVERYTHING that I’ve learned in academia is that some of it, no matter who the purveyor, is abstract enough so that it is a neutral instrument that can be applied in European interests just as readily - incommensurability would be one such an idea.

Now, I suppose that Thomas Khun was Jewish, but I could not be bothered to finish reading his book and I use two or three very abstract ideas from it. I find it ridiculous to have to defend such deployment. Even Tom Metzger would use the analogy: if you are without a weapon on the battlefield, and you see an Uzi lying there, are you not going to pick it up and use it for your purposes just because the particular manufacturer is Jewish?

Don’t get me wrong, when ideas are more complex, I’m not suggesting that they do not have to be carefully examined for Jewish bias; far from it - I even agree with Carl Schmitt that even hard science authors deserve warning (((brackets))).

But it is a problematic way of thinking (or not thinking) altogether that GW has consistently applied, that if you take one notion from a given “scholar”, that you have to take it all. It’s mind boggling to me that anyone could make that inference, but anyway…

Taking an idea from Habermas was another such example. I cited Habermas’s good advice that without subjective interest, one was not likely to learn (which, for the record, was assuredly said by others before Habermas); and there was Carolyn Yeager leading a bandwagon suggesting that I was all about Habermas (I know almost nothing about Habemas. I got that quote from one paragraph discussing him by another philosopher). But GW was on the bandwagon, and I had to address the exact same accusation not once, but to illustrate the prefigurative force of bad will directed toward me, on two different occasions - the false accusation that I was all about Habermas and could be dismissed as trivial, as such.

After all, Carolyn Yeager said it, so it must be true (lol).

Conversely, GW would say that I can’t just pick and choose among Heidegger’s philosophy, despite the fact that Heidegger himself says that’s the way thinking works - you spread the work out - looking at what is interesting (inter-esse - inter essential), take to heart from what is essential, what you need, and you give thanks - “thankian.”

To flout the grand STEM approach to philosophy all the more, Heidegger said that thinking is more like poetry (poesis) than science.

But the insult, the insult of GW, to apply this stereotype of Jewish academics being the all encompassing purveyors of EVERYTHING in academia and me as the utterly passive receptacle of their teaching, is so untrue, so stupid and destructive in terms of distracting from necessary ideas as to be completely unacceptable.

Even by this Jewish professor, a large part of what I was being “taught” was the Greeks and what would be their (negative) response to Jewish liberalism; by which remedies were already apparent for me to take and craft for my own ends of White advocacy.

While he was smart enough to understand what the rebuts to liberalism ought to be - and to see that they were being overwhelmed, therefore reality required advocates from my position - I will not say that he was not a liberal in the end - and to say that I merely accepted and went along with his liberal inferences from the cannon of historical and more recent scholarship is untrue to the maximum. I reacted in such a manner that I cannot repeat it and save face.

I will repeat for now only one of the less fierce reactions from my part.

When the said professor said, “nobody believes in racism anymore” it violated my final grammar a second time (WE don’t want/ have the right to discriminate); as I’d previously mentioned, in the late 80’s while trying to get through the Series Seven, a social worker, Jewish lady, triggered a first melt down when she violated my final grammar the fist time (I don’t want/have the right to discriminate) by trivializing it, altercasting me as the bully: “even if it was a long time ago?”, i.e., that a woman had dated a black you would reject her?

Anyway, back to the classroom episode and my melting down into a trance when the professor said, “of course, nobody believes in racism anymore.” It’s a long episode of itself, but one aspect that is most relevant now was that in the trance, expressing as much revulsion for “the left” as any of these alt righters, come dissident righters, I was yelling at the professor and to my fellow students, “we need to get to the right, we need to get to the right!...and those who are on my side will join me on the right side of the table in the next class, though I will not remember the trance.”

How much they were ideologically committed to “the left’ or whether they sat on the other side of the table from me during the next class because they were legitimately horrified by me (I was didactic), I don’t know - things happened in trance that I cannot repeat and still save face - but, next class, they sat to the professor’s left and he acknowledged approvingly, “I see you’re sitting on the left.”

Was this a “learning moment”? as GW and his right wing cohorts would apparently hope to characterize it, where I said, hey yeah, I’m going to be a leftist, just like them, like these liberals!

Absolutely not. Although it did momentarily make me uncomfortable to be associated with what any sensible person would recognize as stupidities that typify right wingers as well.

I must say in truth, however, this professor was empathetic enough and dedicated to intellectual rigor enough so that he was trying to provide me with the resource to advocate my position. For example, he told of the anecdote of the destructive “red-haired people” and the one exception, the one good-natured red head - “just what we need!” (said sarcastically, of course, regarding their opening the gate for the pejorative pattern). He even shared my distaste for liberalism to an extent. He remarked that there are “some interesting couples on campus” (and he would laugh about my antagonizing them or railing against the university news paper staff when some outrageously anti-white article was written).  He said that he hated Madonna, thinks that she’s been a terrible influence…

When on another occasion I began displaying the rhetorical skills of advocacy by first uttering the phrase, “these hate infested Mulatto supremacists”, he also smiled approvingly.

He also approved of my critique of feminism, as something that should be…

He was trying to help me as much as he could, again, apparently showing my theses in Washington where I guess Al Gore couldn’t move past the first paragraph - bunch of “nebulous words” ...  I had changed the intro at the last moment, making it a bit more complicated with some “improvements”, despite being advised by the prof not to make any more changes.

Now, I would look upon “the left” as being a neutral instrument which can be deployed in White interests as well, and that he was not necessarily approving of the students sitting on the left for anti-White reasons, but because it was the most intelligent and best perspective for social advocacy.

But I did not give the left right thing another thought and even made the same impassioned plea for rightism (in another trance) to the mafia when I met them in Aci Creale, that “we need to associate with the right!”

All along I’m advocating for Whites and going after what I see as the low hanging fruit of advocacy against blacks - any normal White person should want to resist imposition of blacks.

I wasn’t yet fully open to taking on the Jewish conditioning that Whites were subject to for the stigma of that angle’s association with Nazism (nor did I have the resource of the internet to back me up much in those turbulent waters - the Aci Creale episode was in 1996, after my grand trance, when I abandoned my attempted academic career for life in my European homeland in order to make a stand).

It was not until I began listening to Metzger more than ten years later that I finally was given a kind of reprieve to see that I did not have to identify with the right and its stupidity and could in fact take the best of what the left might have to offer White advocacy.

Then I had a less faint clue to think back to that moment at the university and critically ask why my classmates sat down on “the left.”

The reasons started becoming clear to me, because it advanced the best means for social group advocacy. And what anti-anti-racism is about, what anti-anti-White man-ism is about, is about social group advocacy - and groups are a semi-speculative affair that require the non-Cartesian process of a liberation from mere facticity along with the re-engaging inquiry that heremeneutics and the coherence and agency that social constructionism has to offer in order to manage and warrant their homeostatic defense - moreover, Barnett had the best concept of the post modern condition and what it took for this defense of discreet peoples and their cultures in order to hold up to the roughshod of modernity and the intransigence of ethnocentric groups and traditions that don’t respect ours.

Adding:

More inferences for the concept of the left and right derive from observation of ordinary language patterns, rather the depth grammar: It is my working hypothesis that the left corresponds to a concept of social unionization (in defense against elite exploitation it has means to hold them accountable e.g., by going on strike), members are held accountable to union bounds and performance rules but rewarded with more power and higher standard of living, while outsiders are prohibited from infiltration (“scabbing”) and subversion of the quality and standard of living of rank and file members. The analogy of unionization to national boundaries and citizenship is nearly a tautology, should barely require defense as an analogy for anyone remotely normal.

While I have not done a scientific study to verify this undercurrent pattern sustained within terminology of “the left”, I am satisfied that it can be conducted and would yield operationally verifiable confirmation.

The term left would also correspond with social justice, but there is no harm in that, in fact much benefit to derive for the purpose of gaining popular support and moral high ground. Whites should be asking, why this media campaign against “social justice”, coincidentally surfacing circa 2008?

Though “equality” is part of the phrase of the French Revolution where the concept of left and right started, I believe a scientific survey would also reveal the pursuit of equality to be a straw man precisely for reasons cited by it’s critics - there’s no such thing (it is a red cape to have right wingers chase after to make them look bad - “against equality”); and why I have always posited commensurability/ incommensurability as the key criteria for group (‘union”) membership - do you fit in a niche (“role”) of the group (“union”) or not?

“Equality” before the law for union members, as opposed to a feudalist differentiation of laws to apply for an Aristocratic class, is a valid rallying cry, of course.

However, what right wing reactionaries are reacting to is the YKW red cape of “equality” as a “description”, come deconstruction, rather - de-description of natural differences.

If you look at the patterns below the term right, you will find a quest for a narrowing and absolutizing of warrant beyond correctability - whether above nature or as iron clad law within nature - beyond correction through the feedback of praxis -  praxis being the social world, which would be managed accountably through unionization of the people; whereas the right would rather place warrant narrowly in the hands of a small group, individual, god, principle or impervious law of nature.

White advocates should be asking themselves, as I do, why YKW identify White advocacy as right and far right, and why they want you to be against “the left.” The YKW want us reacting beyond social accountability, with bad reputation thus and disorganized as such.

And, well, homeostasis, such as would function in governance of an autonomous group of people, is a self corrective system - and would be if our people’s feedback were guided by the correct parameters (calibration), stories/rule structures of our necessary unionization - to hold up that is, against liberal stories, rule structures being imposed upon us. We would gain popular support, strength and a deserved good reputation this way, for our conscientiousness, compassion and responsibility to our correctable, socially self correctable system and our coordination with systems beyond our own, which feedback on our own system - can be in a negative way of stasis, if we are not self correcting - homeostatic).

Another inference from patterns observed:

Observation of Jewish abuse of praxis: through the socially organizing concept of the left, initially by their long extant religious conviction of their “union” (chosen people), verbal skills, rhetorical deception and abuse on behalf of themselves; along with social victim groups unionized and weaponized coalitions against perceived enemies, they instigate right wing reaction - which they happily designate right wing and far right, knowing that it tends to be an anti social and socially disorganizing reaction. It generates “the Cartesian anxiety”, a quest for foundations, whether beyond nature or foundationally within nature, beyond the manipulations of Jewish sophistry, their rhetorical abuse and casuistry.

I gathered from a few people who do identify as Marxist left that they considered their position as opposed to liberalism. That made sense to me when gauged against the concept of unionization - you conserve what is in the union and that which tries to open the union bounds, whether from within or from without, is a liberalizing force.

Nevertheless, because of typical Jewish trickery of taking a concept that is useful to social organization and distorting it beyond all reason in representation to others, the union became not the nation (except for Israel) but the workers of the world with the Jewish/Marxist distortion of the union concept - ultimately, in cultural Marxism against Whites (and perhaps Japanese/Koreans). With that distortion, they’ve got Whites adhering to a self destructive oxymoron “left = liberal” in their rhetoric (because this internationalst, nationless, territoryless, private property-less., race-less, disembodied, gender confusing left is an attack and a liberalization of White bounds and borders), effectively subverting White capacity to organize by consistent terminology.

One may further verify the patterns of left and right that I go by examining the extent to which “The Left” and its pejorative stereotyping as “unnatural”  and “unrealistic” etc. and so on, became promulgated after the 2008 financial bust.

Suddenly prominent Jews were railing more than ever against “The Left” and White identitarians were being granted rights of display to argue against “The Left.”

The Jewish motive was clear, they didn’t want Whites and non-Whites to unionize and form coalitions against the now greater than ever hegemony of Jewish power and influence; this observational perspective (of unionized accountability to social bounds and borders) would also put an eye on who is betraying union interests along with the YKW, i.e, right wingers would be susceptible to take pay-offs based on arguments favoring their pure “objective” merit (minimal account to their group), while liberals would also be those susceptible to pure/objectivist (minimal account to their group) arguments for the sake of taking the license pandered to by YKW (e.g., Freud/ Marcuse sexual license).

Jewish interests want White identity to be associated with the right because it disrupts White social organizing capacity and accountability thereof. It tends to be an anti social identification, seeking “that’s just the way it is” explanations (narrow, objectivist claims of pure warrant), scaring off popular support for the lack of compassion as such, and not only providing payoff for right wing elites to betray us, right wing objectivism underpins “license” for liberals to betray us; and this right wing purity quest provides means for liberal entryism and subversion also by moral “cure” of liberal license - the Jewish rendered Abrahamic religions: in which you are not accountable to the union of your people so much as you are accountable to “god.”

At bottom, in just this one example, of how I use “right and left”, it is revealed that almost nothing of my concept comes from academic instruction. My concept rather comes from observation and negative inference of patterns of Jewish use and abuse of the concept; and their skill in getting Whites to go along with their (confusing and reversing) terminology (aimed at disrupting our group homeostasis) - through marketing schemes such as “the Alt Right” and so on.

There was NEVER an instant where I was instructed by academics to take a White Left Ethnonational Position.

White advocates should be asking themselves why YKW identify White advocacy as right and far right, and why they want you to be against “the left.” The YKW want us reacting beyond social accountability, with bad reputation thus, disorganized as such and with no-account right wing introductions which leave us susceptible to infiltration and misdirection as such.

This, White Left Ethnonationalism by contrast, was just one inference, which actually spent almost no time at all incubating through tutelage in academia, but was just one inference, cultivated through years of experience, trial and error, supplemented with erudition, the teachings of experienced and dedicated White advocates, crafted to the ends of White advocacy. ...and those of European interest, such as our ancient, modern and turning White post modern philosophers.

I can provide many many more examples of the bonafides of where my philosophy in advocacy of European peoples comes from - that White post modern condition requires the hermeneutic turn, that we centralize our relative interests and gauge objective findings against them; that we find our agency in social constructionism - proper, not as it has been abused against Whites and scientific facts; managing our inherited interests with the best of tradition and modernity while leaving the worst for favor of ourselves and coordination with other groups and environment.  Simply stated, an emphasis on objectivity, or on the subjective or any sort of personal psychology is not an emphasis that we need - to say the least.

We need an emphasis on the relative of our social group interests, our connectedness and involvement, and this is very much a central part of the European, post modern project.

I can elaborate on what is important from my learning and where it comes from (hard to say much at all has been received fully packaged and then opened by me from academia).

But for now, when GW says:

My advice is to treat everything you have learned in higher education exactly as you treat everything you have learned from Christian teaching, excepting only that, knowing of it, one might investigate the damage that it has visited upon the life of our race. It is useful to analysis.  But do not seek to re-interpret and apply any part of it creatively to the European existential question. The philosophy of our peoples’ life has not yet been written. - Guessedworker

I will not yield to the astonishing arrogance and conceit of this autobiographical aspect, and to its utter irresponsibility as the sole apparent, worthy of writing the philosophy of European peoples, that all else is worthless! This is utterly backwards.

Of all the people in my life, I’ve not met one person who is not intelligent in some ways (besides the literally retarded, perhaps) and stupid in other ways.

I am no exception to this and neither is GW.

GW has brilliant and penetrating insights in critique of Christianity, on the value of nationalism, and he deserves great credit for holding fast to emergentism.

He deserves absolute respect for the courage to maintain an eye on the J.Q. and attendant racial issues. His intelligence shows through in other ways, but so does lack thereof show through in other ways, like the rest of us.

To contribute to an overall adequate philosophy, he has got to be satisfied to be a participant, appreciative of the respect shown his intelligence and appreciative of those who recognize that he has some but not all necessary contributions to bring to bear; and that he can recognize, or has the capacity to recognize important contributions from others (he may not demonstrate this capacity sufficiently - it is something of a problem - he’s not completely closed off but almost completely - it is an unimaginable absurdity).

So it is time to write up the final part, part three of the story of my trance episodes.

To note, the other long article will be on the subject matter of some foul Poles that I had the misfortune to experience. I’ve had to delay going into that one because White Nationalism is a world fraught with Carolyn Yeager type ultra Germanophiles, who are eager for any way to demonize Poles; I’ve also been reluctant because the Poles are like any people for the most part, they have their percentage of bad people while most of them are quite fine.  Being here has saved me in a very deep way. I do not want to come across as ungrateful. Nevertheless, there has been some post communist cultural hold over that can stand some correction.