Why those arguing against “THE Left” and “Post Modernity” are badly mistken.

Posted by DanielS on Saturday, 23 July 2016 03:02.

  “There is no such thing as society”

In that act of being mistaken, anyway - let’s leave a way out for people understandably reacting to the Jewish misrepresentation of the terms, “left” and “post modernity”.

Internal Relation and Emergence

You don’t have to take a position which places your people (praxis) as the central gauge. You can go on like a right wing fool for Jews and place a “quest for truth, facts and universal foundations” (and “inequality” even?) above all - even wreck your own people in that “noble quest;” but you’d be an unnecessary fool, a dupe for Jews and Jewish thinking in so doing. You don’t have to put our people at the center - but you can, as factual verification and reality checking are available in an instant if you are not dealing with reality; whereas the principles upholding our people took many centuries to create and are much more precious and difficult to reconstruct, if ever they can be. It isn’t necessary to place facts at the center - people are born of facts and if afforded correct principles, proper agency and accountability, our people will come to continually adjust their interests with the facts. Hence, the right’s whole arbitrary-making quest for facts and episodic verification at the expense of principled interest in our people is the height of folly.

Chasing mere facts and perfect verification away from “faith” in our people will tend to take them into runaway, beyond our people’s systemic interests - as opposed to taking the White post modern turn into its facilitation of the preservation and reconstruction of our people - where the facts are ensconced in the sufficiently deep emergent reality of our people’s systemic history to afford re-framing at their authentic place in relation to our human ecological system.

Right and Altright reactionary fan club - scavenging the wreckage of continued reaction.

The right, “alternative right”, those in their orbit, lay in wait as vultures for things like GW’s latest surprise: as I stepped aside from a discussion of British politics, he applied the theoretical wrecking ball again to “THE left” and “post modernity” at their behest (he isn’t so lame as to have to do it for himself); ill-prepared for the surprise in that context, I put up a threadbare defense against what I’ve come to see as a part of GW’s autobiography - “champion of the right, universal foundational unifier against the left’s class divisiveness.”

GW - working class hero who sees their classification as a critical problem of imposed nationalist division.

If you are coming here, like myself, chances are that you appreciate GW’s ability - you delight as he wields a scalpel on behalf of White/ethno-national sovereignty, more often a wrecking ball to the pretenses of academia and scholarship that are working against it.

We value this, want him to continue, want him to be satisfied with his part and his contributions. 

What follows here is going to show little appreciation for that, which is abundant and shows forth in spontaneity for the surfeit of his intelligence - often yielding indispensable flourishes and insights that I myself cherish. This piece is rather an ungrateful piece in that regard, given that he has stood by me as I set about chartering a new platform for Majorityrights; and I sent scurrying many who had deep appreciation and respect for him as well; but it is neither for myself nor “his own good” that I proceed not feeling particularly guilty about that - nor is the matter of face saving a pressing matter for either of us - the sake is proper theoretical grounds, which is always my central motivation. Still this will appear rather like a hit piece - as it takes aim, focuses on the clumsier props of GW’s worldview, philosophical underpinnings and aspirations - not on better sides and ideas, which will emerge cybernetically in balance of fact.

If you are coming here, you probably appreciate and identify with GW’s rogue path: as a completely disaffected outsider to the academic fray, he early on rejected the nonsense coming out of there, particularly from fields dealing with social issues. And you delight along with him as he continues to apply the wrecking ball to their cherished liberal ruses under cover of “The left”, their wish to open important borders and boundaries, to bring down individual merit, to drag others down into primitive individual and group failure - instinctively, you sense him taking down liberal bullies who are smug enough to insulate themselves from the consequences of the unsupportable concepts of social “justice” that they wield against those native White populations least responsible for others problems, most likely to suffer from liberalism and least likely to gain from the applications known as “The Left” - applications which can recognize just about any collective unionization of interests except one kind - White. Certainly a (((coincidence))).

Most people who’ve come here, myself included, have also experienced mystification over GW’s not being satisfied with that. You have been at least temporarily mystified as he evades into the arbitrary recesses ever available by the empirical philosophy that underpins modernity; and as he continually applies its wrecking ball, secure in the faith that it will leave in its wake only that which is fine and good; a wrecking ball summarily dismissing scholarship, conceptual tools and principles that others set forth to guide social action.

I have been stunned as he sends the wrecking ball my way as well, summarily dismissing even carefully culled and profoundly warranted philosophical ideas, eminently useful conceptual tools and important rhetorical positions that I have geared to his same White ethno-nationalist interests; while his modernist philosophy willy-nilly casts me into the role of the “lefty academic” foil in key moments.

I am no longer mystified by this.

A reactionary position is mostly retreating (evading) and attacking - whatever looks like an enemy or Trojan horse - but for its instability, it is susceptible to chase after the red cape.

An early contentious streak in the autobiography over-reinforced by circumstance, ability and admirers.

GW is wonderful, we love GW, but like the rest of us, he is not perfect. There is a residual strain of contentiousness in his autobiography that stems from his early disaffection and precocious disregard of liberal prescriptions coming from academia. It’s a part of his autobiography that he takes a great deal of pride-in. It is also socially confirmed enough so that he continues to chase its red cape known as “THE left;” and keeps applying the modernist wrecking ball to any concepts the tiniest bit speculative in circumscribing social interests; or adopting any terms also used by liberal “left” academics - even if used in different ways, he will understand it in THE left way that he is familiar with - and summarily dismiss it as such or apply the wrecking ball.

Unlike most people disaffected of liberal academia, he is not of the working class sort content to shake his fist at academic pomposity, to find solace in a beer and the pragmatism of his working class buddies, allowing the union misrepresentatives to negotiate his interest with their fellow liberals of academic background; nor is he content to join in with the White collar and middle class who typically denounce the worst of academic socialists as unrealistic, while they go along with the liberal anti racism of the academe, signaling their one-upness to the lower classes by denouncing as backward superstition whatever defensively racist discrimination they might even require.

He does share a few things in common with the typical middle class perspective however. Naturally, he has a bias toward viewing his success in positivist terms, as having come about from his gray matter and personal initiative, not because he derived any benefit from artificially imposed social bounds against competition and to circumscribe cooperation. 

Though he can relate to the working class “xenophobia”, he maintains that their maintenance of who they are among a collective “we” (i.e., particular native European nationals) and their choice of whom to intermarry with (same particular native European national) is something that should and can emerge naturally from their genetics - an identity that will emerge naturally, provided they do not have liberal, Fabian and Marxist ideas imposed upon them; the last thing GW wants is to impose another artifice upon them, one which he believes could divide them against their upwardly mobile English brethren, and in turn, divide the middle class even more against them. I.e., the “left” and “right” is normally taken as an economic divider and unifier of class, not a racial nationalist one as I am proposing. The middle class, as much as any, might be reluctant to ‘get it’ and not identify with a “White left,” in which case we would be back to the divisive issue, not the uniting issue that both GW and I seek - we may not agree on terminology but we do agree on native nationalism.

Thatcherite obectivism a means for personal advancement and foundational unification of nationalism.

In fact, GW is a native nationalist, deeply offended by the class system which has long hampered English unity. Thus, he is not content to disavow the worst of liberal and Marxist academics, writing-them-off as the idiots that they are, while leaving the working class to the fate that liberalism will bring to them, and, if left unabated, to all of us eventually. Like a few, more ambitious among us, he set about to get things right, to open a platform for White nationalists, even before it was quite the immanent practical necessity that it is now.

He aspires to identify the ontological connection between all English classes which, if unfettered by artificial constructs, would have them acting as native nationalists in loyal unanimity to their interests.

In that regard, Margaret Thatcher represented to him a liberating moment from the incredibly burdensome artifices of liberal, Fabian and Marxist Left union delimitations and by contrast an opportunity to unite as nationalists on natural positivist grounds.

Normal first reaction that doesn’t take Post Modern turn as it fails to see liberalism flying under left colors.

Indeed, most anybody of this ambition, myself included, who cares about our race and its ethnonational species, starts out in reaction to the absurd, contradictory and destructive liberal rhetoric coming out of academia and reaches to grab hold white knuckle to foundational truths, particularly scientific fact, which cannot be bamboozled by the rhetoric of liberal sophistry (which we later come to recognize as more often than not, Jewish in original motive). And we do grab hold white knuckle - that is to say, scientistically, in rigid over and misapplication of hardish science to the social realm, as we cannot trust the social realm, its rhetorical caprice if not deception - its ongoing disordering effects that apparently threaten to rupture social order anew with every agentive individual. Coming from a non-Jewish, Christian cultural perspective, where our bias starts, if not Jesus, we first liken ourselves to Plato and then modern scientists seeking to gird and found our place and our people’s place, whereas “they” are Pharisees and sophists, wielding the sheer rhetoric that we are going to debunk with our pure, native ability and motives. In a word, we are going to do science against their dishonest bias against us - they are indeed being deceptive and biased on behalf of unfair people; we see it as our objective to establish universal foundational truth that will be unassailable to this sophistry.

That is the normal first reaction of a White person who cares about themself and our people - it was mine and it was GW’s - a nascent White nationalist in response not only to the anti-White discourse coming out of the university, but in response to the very frame of the discourse - that is to say, taking on the frame [Jewish and liberal social stuff and lies versus White science and truth] - against accusations of privilege, racism and exploitation, we sought pure innocence in truth beyond social tumult and disingenuous rhetorical re framing. We (understandably) acted with absolute revulsion to anything like social concern and accountability - why should we be accountable to ever more alien imposition? - itself neither offering nor asking for an account sufficient to maintain our EGI - and where our people are eerily unconcerned or antagonistic to our people as well, we are only more compelled to take on the task ourselves - to pursue pure warrant. Our first reaction to the liberal chimera called “THE left” is: “I” noble servant of postulates - theorems - axioms - upon universal foundational truth.”

Beyond our people’s relative social interests even, we must save ourselves from the lies of “The left” (never minding that their first lie is that they represent our left) and found our moral/ontological basis where Jews, other tribalists and our selfish liberals, who only care about themselves, can never again manipulate it. We hold white knuckle, rigidly, in reaction to Jewish sophistry.

History will show that our people who pursued and secured sovereignty, health and well being found a philosophy advanced of that - competent and able to secure their social interests. They’d taken the White Post Modern turn from this reactionary position.

For reasons unfolding here, including reasons of his personal autobiography, GW has yet to appreciate and take the post modern turn.

Personal ability and interpersonal circumstances have facilitated his carrying-on in a typical first philosophical position of an amateur outsider in regard to academia - the epistemological blunder of “they are just sophists who provide nothing but nonsense while ‘I’ and my pure thoughts in relation to ‘theory’ am going to set the world aright” - an epistemological error in the relation of knower to known that is born in reaction and puerile hubris, carried on by being strong, smart enough to persist long after most people would shrink back from the signs of its limitations; going further uncorrected as it has been endorsed by “no enemies to the right” (a dubious principle, if there ever was one); it has grown into a surprisingly big and audacious ego wielded as a wrecking ball against “post modern philosophy.” We are supposed to rest assured on his faith that in the aftermath of wreckage, that the emergent qualities of his mind are all that is required besides the occasional foil to play off of in order to clarify and carry the modernist program forward to unshakeable, universal, foundational truth - unassailable to any social reconstruction. Never mind that we are already willing to agree upon most of the fundamental rules that he would seek - our agency is not necessary if it is going to suggest anything like planned social construction of systemic defense. No, that’s all impure stuff to be cast aside; and by contrast of true Platonic form, if you are freed from that ignorance and come to know the good he will secure, you will do that good.

He is not satisfied to simply negotiate, reason-things-out and reach an understanding among his people, he is not even particularly concerned that it won’t be a damn bit of good if people can’t understand his philosophical yield - he wants to secure that good on ontological foundations beyond praxis - beyond the capacity for manipulation. Most sophomores abandon this, their freshmen objective, as not only obsolete philosophy, but in fact, come to recognize it as destructive philosophy - a destruction which GW continues, with tremendous faith, without need of Aristotelian compass, that tremendous confidence to persevere where Wittgenstein failed.

The boomer generation - libertarianism and egocentrism.

The likes of Bowery and GW will be slower, if ever, to make the turn in direction, not because they are stupid, of course, quite to the contrary, but because they have the mental horsepower necessary to keep patching and operating the antiquated and obsolete technology that is modernity; and stem predilection both motivates them and enables them to do that; they are more self sufficient, less immediately reliant on the social (why carry others weight?); more confirmed by females by being reliable as such (concentrating on how to do things, not stepping on the toes of females by asking questions of social control - as long as you are at one end of the competition you are OK - liberal or the right wing end); confirmed by non academic workers in their more pragmatic concerns; and confirmed by right wingers in their penchant for anti-social theory beyond social manipulation - exactly, they are also slow to take the turn, of course, because they have an understandable lack of trust in liberal-social narratives; this unwillingness to suspend disbelief may be increased inasmuch as they have benefited as baby boomers, less harried for their identity in the parts of their life-span experienced prior to the culture of critique and in their personal initiatives after its reprieve - in Bowery’s case, with aspects of the objectivism behind Ron Paul’s libertarian “revolution”; and in GW’s case, during the Thatcher years (Thatcher’s initial backers having discovered her reading Wittgenstein’s cousin, Hayek, who obliviously carried forward upon the Tractatus) - years of brief, partial liberation from liberal-left union fetters - “there is no such thing as society” - in either case, a false friend facilitated as false opposition - viz., an expression of steered objectivism derived of Austrian schools beginning with Wittgenstein.

The title is a projection of objectivism. Subtitle: look who else is reading it.

What is confirmed to me - in a roundabout way, when GW dons his powdered wig, grabs a quill pen, does his best John Locke or whatever voice serves, and says oh, “that’s just Aristotle and his rhetoric,” “all of the good ideas are coming from the right”, “based in nature, none of this praxis stuff”, says that he “never loses an argument against academics”, etc., then continually re-applies radical skepticism of the empiricists and their forerunners - is that he is showing an ego driven and confirmed desire to carry-on the “pure” modernist project; viz., in his ontology project and his destruction of everything in its path, even treating Aristotle and William James as utter morons, GW is revealing a vain desire to do something all alone, like a combination of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico Philosphicus and Heidegger’s Being & Time: “The world is everything that is the case” meets “the worldhood of the world” - without the post modern implications of the latter. All that is required is the emergent qualities of his mind to set the world’s ontology aright - it will be “unassailable” by liberal, social, “left” rhetoric.

His reaction, confirmation and penchant for empirical verification against Jewish rhetoric has apparently caused him to disregard the post modern turn that was occuring also in Heidegger’s philosphy, albeit in Heidegger’s case, in that somewhat rigid, German way (which I find endearing).

GW appreciates Heidegger, so why does he not move forward from 1927 and why does he retreat to 1921 and the Tractatus? That he consders “OF being” the better starting point than Heidegger’s “There Being” provides a clue to ego centrism and Cartesian anxiiety - he not only proposes the reconstruction of the Cartesian starting point, “Of being”, but proposes it as an exclusive position, not even taking hermeneutc turns with Heidegger’s non-Cartesan starting point, “There being.”

“Unassailably” proclaiming that “The world is everything that is the case”

Whereas Wittgenstein himself was forced to yield-to, if not recognize the necessity of, the post modern turn - so much so that he was embarrassed by his effort at a complete ontology in The Tractatus Logico Philosophicus - having proclaimed its logic “unassailable” at once upon completion, he later repudiated it, even took to referring to its author as if a different person.

The Motivation for Post Modernity

Part of the craze for “post modernity” is that people (correctly) sense that modernity is destroying their differences, their traditions, their ways of life, their people and their very lives. And yet they frequently found traditional societies destructive as well. Therefore they were happy to have not only backing of cross cultural studies, vouching that different ways of life are valid, but also some confirmation from the very foundational math and science which modernity pursued to an apex that finally turned back on itself.

Kurt Gödel had demonstrated that a theory of any complexity could not be both complete and unambiguous.

Neils Bohr had priorly announced that there is no instrument fine enough to resolve the wave/particle distinction.

Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle elaborating from that was subtler still - that the observer is engaged in interaction and has reflexive effects upon that which he observes.

Confirmation of Aritstotle’s Praxis and suggestion that it should be the radical basis of assessment, not pure objective facts.

These findings confirmed Aristotle’s premises as set forth in Nichomachean Ethics - on the nature of Praxis - people are in reflexive relation, mostly requiring a degree of practical judgement as they are less predictable than the theoretical causality which the hard sciences pursue. It also would suggest placing praxis more in the center than theory - i.e., a socially based perspective where people are the arbiter, as opposed to “I think therefore I am” in relation to mere, indisputable facts and non-interactive third person behavioral units; a pursuit even outstripping the subject ultimately in favor of fixed theoretical facts - the Cartesian relation (pursued non-relation, as it were) of knower to known.

Vico was first to take the hermeneutic turn against Descartes, to bring ideas into historical context, the relation of knower to known into the social world of praxis

A relation knower to known other than the Cartesian model is required by modernity’s recognized failures and impervious destruction.

Those who care about people, who see the destruction of Descarte’s “relation” of knower to known, understand the wisdom of Aristotle, and realize that Vico -  Descartes’ first major critic - was in fact, proposing the taking of theoria into praxis: i.e., correctly placing people and praxis at the center of his world view. He was setting forth the historical, hermeneutic world view, the post modern world view. And, in turn, those who understand Heidegger will see that he was following in that same direction, which may be called “existential” and which is centered in praxis - the social world.

The White Post Modern turn is, of course, the best and most moral perspective for advocating people - Whites especially - Jews don’t want that and so they fool the uneducated masses and most of the educated masses as well by reinterpreting the terms by which people - viz., White people, might understand this - and they get them to react against didactic misrepresentation. That is, they are getting them to react in aversion to what is good and healthy in racial advocacy by having made it didactic in misrepresentation - e.g., the highly sensible Post Modern is presented as “dada” (whereas I have secured its sensible form in White Post Modernity).

Bowery and GW were impelled on, for the didacticism of the (((liberal-left - contradiction of terms))) and for the (((misrepresentation))) that was this false opposition and its false promise to liberate us from The left, among other reasons. Objectivism, the neoliberalism and libertarianism of the Austrian school of economics, Thatcherism, is merely a false opposition that (((they))) set up against “(((The Left))).” It is a product of late modernity, derived of the Vienna School of Logical Positivism, which in turn was derived of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico Philosophicus.

Again, that was Wittgenstein’s attempt to set-out a comprehensive and “unassailable” ontology - “The world is everything that is the case.” He would later say that the Tractatus was “not a very good book”, lest he be mistaken for one not recognizing that those who had taken the post modern turn had left this philosophical quest behind. Nevertheless, the Austrian school of logical positivism founded upon the Tractatus lived on through his cousin Hayek (who Thatcher was discovered dutifully reading); it was then taken up by von Mises et. al, who would conveniently and explicitly adopt this no-account modernist program against any one of subsequent generations who was the least bit reflective, who had any social complaints about how they and their people had been left without social capital after this generation of egocentric locusts devoured all social capital in their path. Waiting generations of right wing reactionaries, ensconced in their well protected Internet bubbles, were ready to look up to these libertarians for their lack of social concern, conveniently blaming the socially conscientious of prior generations for the problems - “The Left”, where not “hippies”, were the ones asleep at the wheel and leading us over a cliff, “but not the objectivists” and not (((The YKW))).

One-up intransigence of boomers meets generation Internet bubble for a right-wing cocktail, silencing socially conscientious voices between.

Because of GW’s unwillingness to trust anybody but himself, he takes recourse in the one aspect of the post modern turn where his first person account of all the world’s foundations might be claimed - emergentism. He has a problem, however, when I say that the world still interacts.  He has to take recourse to the absurdly arbitrary claim that “life doesn’t interact.”

Emergentism, in fact, is one of the key contributing factors to the post modern turn - it challenges the reductionism and fixedness of the modernist ontology project in an important sense - the emergent whole being greater than the sum of its parts means that significant referents are changeable in complex systems, thus qualifying Bowery’s criticism - “there is either a referent or there is not” - as this charge must yield to the fact that facts can be re-framed as they emerge physically, as they are designated by individuals and as they emerge in social consensus. And yes, what emerges still interacts in a myriad of ways.

Gen Xer’s were a bit late for the ride

“There is no such thing as society”

Their lack of faith in the social narratives as they are applied by YKW is understandable, the faith they show in the guiding principle of modernity to leave only what is fine and true in the wake of their wrecking ball is not. There comes a time to suspend disbelief. To draw a hypothetical boundary around our people is as good a time and place as any. “Wise men see lines and they draw them” - William Blake. And its not so hypothetical.

Perhaps because their boomer generation was early in line and they were intelligent enough to position themselves by means of objectivism for a deck chair on the higher end of a sinking Titanic, they can take some solace in writing-off those who might be going under first, if it does go down, as hazards of nature, having not acted “naturally” in EGI - Bowery in particular, being motivated by an affinity for the individuality of northern Europeans, abandoned ship (MR, anyway) when Dr. Lister and I began raising criticisms of “individualism über alles” and raising social concerns against that.

In fact, for this reason, Bowery issued an ultimatum (“either him or Lister”) which defaulted to Graham’s more social side, upon which Bowery expressed his “revulsion” for Majorityrights.

Despite the fact that GW still leans in an objectivist and libertarian direction, he does try to prevent the sinking altogether - because he is a nationalist and not a classist as he conceives classism to be, in its traditional, Marxist economic and Norman aristocratic terms.

  GW, the English tax-payer

But here also begins his reluctance to agree to a concept of the union, the social class, the White Nationalist Left, as it were, being one and the same with native Nationalism, while liberals and traitors of any economic level would be considered enemies to the native Nationalist Union. His reluctance, intransigence to that concept, is rooted deeper, in his personal psychology, his autobiography and its position in reaction to a rigged discourse.

Because he has the intelligence and confirmation to carry on with the contentious streak of his early days, because of his bias and stance against the pervasiveness of the culture of critique, GW finds himself unable to trust anybody but himself and his brain. He clings white knuckle to the reaction, “This is what the Jews have said that these terms mean, most people believe them, my right wing friends believe them, so it must be true - that is what these terms mean and we have to do the opposite. There can be no other.” That is to chase their red cape and to attack in the wrong direction - not always, even a broken clock is right twice a day and GW is right much more than that despite his conscious misconception - but mostly attacking against the sensitive underbelly of our own (would-be) social system.

They say Post Modernity means “dada” so we have to go back more determinedly than ever to modernity and smash what would be the means to save ourselves with an understanding that traditions and inherited forms can be too precious to subject to sheer experiment and that there are such things, of course, as modern advance which we can gauge and integrate with our homeostasis, unlike some Amish adherence to mere tradition.

The (((YKW))) have cleverly set up red capes, such as “The Left” and more..

Don’t worry, GW survives having chased the red cape of “The left.” But will he take the White Post Modern turn? Maybe not. His generation are in too egocentric a position in regard to the worldhood of the world

They say “The Left” means liberalism therefore we must smash the left and anything like an organizing, unionizing, syndicalizing principle for Whites - just as the Jews would have us react to their red cape.

They say hermeneutics and social constructionism means that you can make up your gender and race in any which way, if it exists at all, therefore that is what these things mean. And not that these concepts are anti-Cartesian tools of engagement between the conceptual breadth necessary to not do violence to historical systems and empirical verification - so as not to be overly speculative (and, e.g., hoodwinked by Jewish nonsense).

In truth underlying, The Left always corresponds with unionization - members and non-members - which is the opposite of liberalism; but they say the left is liberalism so that must be true.

No matter that there is no mention of a White left, a left the union of which is based on White people’s interests, as members, while Jews and other non Whites would be non-members. “The Left” is the enemy. Why? because adding a prefix, Jewish left, red left, Marxist left, Fabian Left, even the inherently contradictory, “liberal left”, is too much to ask of one who is smarter than Aristotle.

Because that is “not pure theory enough”, we have to get maneuvered and squeezed above praxis, beyond accountability to social justice and ecology, human or otherwise, into the anti social theoretical nonsense of the right - rather than looking at the right for what it is for those with wisdom: a moment of verification to be gauged against its utility in praxis. The right is but a moment of utility and then it is taken into the social - the left.

I would humbly request that prefixes to “The Left” be added to specify what kind of left is being accused of harming us; so that there is room for a White left, a position which recognizes the need for White social unionization against potential unaccountable betrayal by elites, on objectivist or other grounds; an organized accountability that will also serve to defend-against and punish rank and file for liberal betrayal; or to reward them for loyalty and good work by contrast.

You don’t have to call yourself or these people the White Left or the White Class - although I would recommend it.

I no longer have a great deal of hope that GW will take that recommendation because of his autobiographical position as someone outside of the university, criticizing anti-White academia, not having witnessed first hand what it is doing with terms and concepts, he will probably continue to treat these Jewish tricks as found objects - “The Left”, “post modernity”...construing anyone who tries to explain these things in White interests as a liberal, if not Jew emissary.

True, it is not so much “The White Left” moniker that I want as a way to distinguish this, a better theoretical praxis, from the right, Altright, their theoretical blindness, perfidy, susceptibility to infiltration, instability, reaction, manipulation and foolish destruction.

But what he cannot see is how that term, “The White Left,” does a good part of the work of sending away exactly those who should be put off. It is easier for me to see that in a wide survey of the White right, the Alternative Right and White racial advocates broadly.

Our project has everything that theirs has and more, without the susceptibility to its perfidies. Surely people will see this - but no, not where objectivism blinds the day.

I did not realize what was happening. That I am going to be treated as the public foil, the “lefty academic” who is to be debunked if he tries any of that social stuff.

The Transmission Model of Communication versus the Interactive Model.

The transmission model of communication upon which right wing thinking is based is the Cartesian model. The pure man, Descartes, is supposed to be in communication with pure thoughts and somehow, who knows how, that is supposed to be purely, non-interactively, lineally transmitted from him to you [on tabula rasa or operating on what will deterministically come forth in emergence, depending upon which side of Descartes you are on]. It doesn’t have to be Descartes, it can be Hitler before the sports stadium saying he dindonuthin’, it can be Moses issuing THE commandments from the mountain, Jesus issuing the insane Golden Rule, can be some scientistic nerd before a lecture hall. But stupidly, the right favors this model. It likes it both for positive reasons of its adoration of these authority figures and because it wants more than anything to knock others down. Either way, it is a puerile position, passive aggressive toward authority.

The right is using the same perspective, disposition and premises that a disgruntled teenager disaffected of academics and scholarship might - its reaction can only retreat or destroy - it expects “pure knowledge” and that’s why it doesn’t participate here, despite the fact that hey! the Internet was invented! We can interact, unlike the (((authorities))) of the transmission model that you like to complain about - TV, movies, radio, written material, preachers, politicians and academics bellowing before and brainwashing an audience which can’t even talk back - you can participate but you won’t. Why? Because you are stupid fucking right wingers with an obsolete philosophy, based on the Cartesian model. You expect me and what I say to be perfect and pure; if there is the least error, the least acknowledgment of indebtedness to what is social -  even, “please report typos”  - you will not lend a hand to correct it. You don’t want this ship to float because you are ego maniacs and Cartesian gibberish serves too well to obfuscate that fact. By contrast, we can construct our knowledge together - something that I intend to happen here. I have no desire to pretend to be a singular authority not in need of feedback and help in our struggle.

I’m being a bit mean as I really despise the personal psychological perspective, the egregious harm it’s done in denying the social and its necessary critique, observing that to be where problems derive, not in the head (usually a convenient, disingenuous attribution; but in the minority of cases, where there are organic problems and deficiencies, acting as if the problem being in the head is not even more a social matter of how it is to count and what to do), knowing that the group unit of analysis that I’m using is eminently better, more appropriate to the task of racial advocacy; thus I cruelly hoist a petard to personal psychology and seek help for our beloved friends stuck in a puerile contentious streak, be they Boomer or Generation Internet Bubble, and for GW, where he cannot help but apply the wrecking ball to social academia and scholarship, can’t for a moment suspend disbelief in some of its better ideas - not even for the best of Aristotle. GW should be satisfied to contribute as he does brilliantly in many instances and not dismiss everything with a whiff of university sociology, in highschool form, fist raised at pompous scholarship while promising the world is everything that is the case, there can be no other.

“Ho, ho, social constructionism, ho, ho, hermeneutics - nonsense! The right has the ideas now!” (not).

What social constructionism is honestly saying by contrast is that there are some things which can literally be socially constructed and other things, facts, which can be socially constructed in terms of how they count - by contrast to the arbitrary upshot of Cartesianism on both ends, it is very important for the matter of accountability, coherence, agency and warrant to sustain and advance our human ecology - requisites to save and advance our people.

It is a wonderful possibility and why it is such a shame that near 100% of our struggle has fallen for the Jewish trick of arguing against their didactic misrepresentation, their red caping of social constructionism and hermeneutics.

One does not have to place people, our people, at the center of concern, one can continue to play the objectivist game - to have faith that a tree falling in the woods makes a noise even if there are no people there to hear it - but so what if our people are not there to hear it? It may as well not make a noise. It doesn’t for us. And that’s the point.

Isn’t it better to have faith in the classification and value of our people? - To place our praxis as the central arbiter? Faith (as usefully defined in praxis, not the pure category that GW would ascribe to it) as confidence in something that works sometimes and reveals what is good and fine sometimes, as worthwhile in the long run, but not always - as in the case of our people.


It is a shame to take the position that there is nothing of intellectual value coming from anywhere else save perhaps a few bits and pieces of what can be salvaged and retooled through one’s personal gray matter, all the while ignoring the hermeneutic direction that Heidegger was taking in order to undo the Cartesian relation of knower to known, to re-engage knower to known in praxis, as opposed to the detachment of theoria.

But such, I guess, is the problem with a STEM biased brain, with horse power enough to imperviously plow through arguments about the social, perhaps for sheer predilection for science, not knowing when it shouldn’t do that. And for lack of trust (I know that when I do it, that that is the reason - inability to trust others with theoretical matters), but nevertheless, GW sometimes does not stop applying the wrecking ball, even to conceptual tools which are wholly conducive to his interests. However, ignoring and driving a truck over an argument does not mean that he has won the argument, as he might claim; though it does show a great faith.

This faith has wreaked havoc with careful plans at times. An empirical bent and pursuit of foundational truth will have none of this rhetoric business, that’s for mental midgets like Aristotle - contentiousness is taken as a way to provoke and jostle its contrivance, get to true foundations and spontaneous expression. But denial of rhetoric for its alleged arbitrariness does not necessarily put one on more solid grounds, in fact it can have arbitrary upshot; and just because something is spontaneous does not mean that it is good.

Bad advice from old friends on the right - Carolyn is original?

Witness the havoc it wreaked with my plans for “Jan The White Uniter” - socially important, anchoring rhetoric for our side was turned asunder by GW in his bravery to go were the devil dare not tread - in swashbuckling display to his right wing friends. I organized the discussion with “Jan the White Uniter” explicitly for the fact that all too much of the right was enamored of Hitler, and here was a guy good enough to put Hitler behind - what does GW do? Near the end of the show, after so many arguments were made to put Hitler behind, GW chimes-in and says, “now, let’s ask how it was that Hitler was such a great inspiration! We need to get into the philosophy of that” - me stammering, my rhetoric in shambles, Carolyn Yeager “couldn’t stop giggling.”

..but King wasn’t brought here for that. He’s not a philosopher, though he was very eloquent and well positioned to wean people off of Hitler daddy. Me flustered. Why not edit that out? Because spontaneity is so good? That’s what I mean by showing off to the “no enemies on the right.” - Carolyn “couldn’t stop giggling.” Oh good. And that’s what I mean about the arbitrary tendencies and upshot of empirical foundational pursuit - its capacity to disrupt important upholding principles - which I wanted to set in place with John to put the struggle on solid cooperative footing and take it away from this divisive right wing Hitler rapture.

A preliminary distinction is not being acknowledge in what Kant set out to do by establishing principles in order to save us from Locke’s arbitrary-making empiricism.

In White Post Modernity, this anchoring in principles is done with hermeneutic method - “narrative” colloquially.

Generation Internet Bubble has been facilitated in circulating and buffering right wing nonsense of the Boomer generation, where convenient, using it to divert blame to previous generations of Whites.

...as in Generation Identitaire

I have also come to understand more that ours is a new movement, only recently available to broad participation, with the Internet providing an alternative to Jewish media hegemony.

There is a downside to that as it has allowed people to plug-themselves-in to become instant “experts” and “expert debunkers” on top of dubious epistemological premises. It short-circuits protracted experiential input from broader social perspectives - such as corrective social homeostasis from generations in-between - which can be requisite to sufficient understanding of ours and other social systems.

As such, it facilitates a reciprocally reconstructing inter-generational feedback loop between Boomers and Generation Internet Bubble as they block the social homeostasis of generation in-between. And the right wingers have a negative stasis of their own - abstract, anti-social reaction - they delight in their inhumane destruction; it is their revenge. They care not that they often misdirect it because it is not gauged in praxis.

That is, they are not required to go through the humbling experience that would compel them to accept being one-down at times, to understand that not EVERYTHING and ALL social ideas coming out of academia are nonsense, that the disordering effect of modernity and Jewish machinations thereupon have necessitated new performance requirements, requirements under the withering Jewish attack on our race that has us now more than ever needing to think sociologically about social issues. Nevertheless, our movement is full of right wing bulls chasing after (((red capes))) in their bubble, perpetually reconstructing right wing nonsense. Thus, they find it difficult to participate in necessary refinement of social ideas.

GW can gain the affection not only of lower classes, the chuckling approval of his friends to the right, and the same girls who used to coo at him as a teenager and a young man when he publicly humiliated academics - the reward to his personal psychology may be just too much to resist - he sends his wrecking ball against all scholarship, doesn’t matter - it could be the best parts of Aristotle or Heidegger, he won’t suspend disbelief, not for a moment -  they are “the left” after all, not only have his friends on the right told him so, but the Jews have told him so as well. It is these lefties who are the ones responsible for having brought so much water on board the ship to begin with - the liberal left (never mind that that is a contradiction of terms). He can gain strokes and the satisfaction of publicly humiliating them all while denying the vulnerability to enemy attacks to the ship that the rationally blind (socially blind), objectivist philosophy that he subscribes-to has created.

Never mind, reactionaries will egg him on, especially those who do not like me because they want Jesus, they want Hitler, they want scientism, they want Jews. Me and my White Left  and White Post Modernity become not the unifyer of native nationalism and the means of its negotiation and coordination with other peoples, as I correctly conceive these ideas to be, but rather, I become the “lefty academic” foil, sometimes emerging as the bobo doll in podcasts and in essays where I dare to show how the left functions as a nifty organizing principle, to speak of social things and race as if it is real and to organize concepts against the right and its anti-social, speculative nonsense. I need 25 seconds to say to Dr. Christian Lindtner that “I consider American hippie Dasein to be an authentic motive, but the 68er academics are completely different, inauthentic to Whites, an affectation and his criticisms of them completely valid” - I can’t finish 25 seconds without inducing GW’s frustration because GW doesn’t anticipate that I am going to say something other than that of the “lefty foil” of his empiricism’s arbitrary, albeit not fully deliberate, altercast. But it was an important point - the motive to midtdasein is central to our struggle - hippies ensconced that motive. Marxists, such as the 68ers, did their best to co-opt it to other (((causes))) - anti racist civil rights, liberal Jewish feminism, Marcusian “Free love” etc.

Marcuse and the 68ers, free love, polymorphous perversion, ‘liberating tolerance’ - these were cultural Marxist impositions, affectations on the authentic motive of the hippies - midtdasein

A new generation of right-wing reactionaries accept the Jewish media’s designation of what “The Left” and “post modernity” is, and ok, since I’m on the topic again, what “hippies” were about. Cathy Princess uses the term, “the hippy left”, and her talk show colleagues swallow the complete dada definition of post modernity; Lana (who Bowery describes as sigma gama something or other) has frequently blamed “hippie-dippies” as insufficient men; as if there was nothing authentically European and masculine about the hippies..“women like confidence, that’s basically what you need to know” (no wonder they like n*****s so much to the expense of normal, sensible White men, particularly as modernity and Jews have done away with protective boundaries and borders - i.e., leftist unionization). She read David Duke and announces that “Hitler tried to take back German lands in Poland that were annexed by The Soviet Union” - stop there! (1:14:25) She knows all there is to know, make her a star of the “alt-right”! Yes, lets accept the reactionary positions of subsequent generations who find it convenient to go along with Jewish and right wing attribution of what hippies were all about and ignore midtdasein (crucial barometer of intrinsic being, helping to determine appropriately when and how to go to war and when not to). The boomer generation can join a new generation of traditionally inclined males and especially females who do not want to be bothered either with the concept of intrinsic White male being, preferring to blame and cast aside those socially minded inbetweeners who are hearkening for its midtdasein - instead they plug right into the Internet bubble of a younger generation of right wing assholes, who had plugged themselves into virtual bubbles of those who know “the truth” about WWII - instant know-it-alls with an “awesome”, “edgy” “fashy aesthetic” - just everybody knows that Hitler didn’t do nothing - David Duke said so, William Pierce said so, must be true! If people don’t want you promoting that nasty ideology, they must be trying to hide the truth (?).

White modernity (Rockefeller, front) naively gets eaten by mono culture (background), which does not recognize other ways, perhaps not even their humanity as in the case of the cannibals who ate Rockefeller. White Post Modernity can avail itself of the best aspects of traditional ethnocentrism and modernity without the naivete or hubris of either.

And so Bowery and GW, in being egged-on by “no enemies to the right”,  and put off by the so called “Left” are unfortunately leaning rightward, whether encouraged by the Jesus people, the Hitler heads, or the “nice Jews” who tell you Nazi Germany wasn’t so bad, (i.e., they are so nice that they want Europeans to keep killing each other) or for their own penchant for scientism, to keep applying the modernist wrecking ball. They are supported in a reactionary position - i.e., they are basically reacting to Jewish rhetoric, doing the opposite of what that rhetoric is suggesting (which is often exactly what the Jews want you to do). And an epistemological blunder it is: it is to apply or over apply, in Aristotle’s terms, Theoria to Praxis. It is an epistemological blunder because we are under attack as a race, as a group of people. Thus, ours is primarily a social concern. Personal psychology is more like a Jewish tool to distract us from the social war being waged. The central tool, really, is rhetoric. Science is ancillary. That doesn’t mean that there is no such thing as truth, that facts should be denied, that we do not value science and pursue it as a very important means of inquiry; but it is an acknowledgement that how those truths and facts are organized and come to count requires artistry and practical judgment in social negotiation. Bowery says that using words in negotiation is evil - sure. All the while, I guess that he’d be denying the very capacity for us to articulate and unionize our defense - just as the Jews would have it.

Actions are a form of communication, thus in our communicological view, a kind of language and argument, which, like Bowery’s “Sortocracy,” require words, despite his idea that use of words is somehow evil (an evil that he partakes in).

Stem predilection, stem confirmation and stem reward. Capitalist business enterprise favors stem people. And socially minded people can step on the toes of girls, who, along with business people in turn, reward STEM while STEM is oblivious to the social world.

Stem predilection. So there is another thing about GW and Bowery STEMism. We are getting bad advice from people with stem predilections to begin with. By contrast to their penchant for more STEM approach, we need rather for people to fight on the sociological grounds that Jews are waging war against us. It is very bad advice to angrily write that off as “oh, the Jewish way of doing things.” Ignoring hermeneutic breadth to myopically focus on empirical, “natural depth” for “Isness” can create a negative, ostensible oughtness - like Roosh saying girls are evolved to like being raped by the murderer of their husband as opposed to me saying that these puerile girls are in an animal state uncompleted by the cultural guidance of our more sublimated ways and depending upon defense of its “speculative borders” - we are born incomplete and remain so. Our social world completes us and can do so in different ways. But in the more extreme example of truncation, Hitler brushed aside Aristotle’s distinction of human nature in praxis, found “true human nature”, or so he thought, in constant war, will to power and subjugation. No, that is not the truth. We are born incomplete and we are capable of different and cooperative ways in praxis, and ever so shall remain in terms of the biological system from which we derive and depend - its maintenance thus, requires hermeneutics.

“The right’ and its grounding in nature” is not on the better path, it is on the path of scientistic foolishness. In striving to be above or below praxis as the arbiter it is not gauged properly and it is subject to destructive runway. ..you get the arbitrary results of empiricism, brushing aside important scholarship, or perhaps worse, the insane runway of WWII.

Carolyn Yeager “couldn’t stop giggling”.

Oh, good. She is very original, if following Hitler and his world view verbatim can be said to be original.

“No enemies to the right?”

Ah yes, but it isn’t really faith, a confirmation known since high school days, humiliating wimpy academic nerds who say there is such a thing as society, who threaten the dinosaur disorder that validates negro-like confidence and the social unconsciousness that follows the law of the jungle. Girls like confidence and what IS is good through and through, none of this OUGHT business. Right?

The trick is how to have GW continue to be happy to contribute his brilliance (and that he has) to our ethnonationalist causes as opposed to liberal internationalism and not entrench further into reaction or silence for this hit piece that I have launched against his clumsier props. Perhaps he might understand that when the wrecking ball hits something solid it will bound back his way - and maybe knock over some artifice in his scaffolding, some of the right wing artifices that he has errantly relied upon.



Posted by Generation Right Wing Internet Bubble on Sat, 23 Jul 2016 08:36 | #


Generation Right Wing Internet Bubble chases (((Red Capes)), “THE Left”, “Post Modernity” etc, along with Libertarian Boomers

Libertarian Babyboomers in communion with Generation Right Wing Internet Bubble


Ryan, I might open and move your comment later but I closed it for now because I don’t want the first comment to be coming from someone who had not even read the post - you couldn’t have, it hadn’t been up long enough. It was therefore contentious - you didn’t know what you were arguing against, only that you had a sense that you wanted to dismiss it.


Posted by Internet Marxist Unruh takes note of us on Sat, 23 Jul 2016 10:06 | #

- not sure to take it as an insult or complement -

Youtube Marxist, Jason Unruhe, seems as if he is taking note of our arguments


Posted by Miracle Man on Sat, 23 Jul 2016 14:17 | #

Miracle M an


Posted by Ryan on Sat, 23 Jul 2016 19:48 | #

The amount of effort taken to deconstruct and falsily extrapilate GW’s position is of your own vilition but is just superficious.

The ‘White Left’ does not work as for that to exist there must also a ‘White Right’ which sounds silly.

The left-right political spectrum should be rejected as illegitimate and inaccurate rather than providing it with legitimacy as those in power will position themselves as being near the centre and their opponents on the fringes.

From my understanding when you are mentioning the hippe movement you are evoking cosmoplitan attitudes of appreciating the new and different, which you bemoan GW as not having and being inflexible and rigid in his right wing identity which sees him more attached to cuckservative figures like Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and the Tories than the explicitly pro-White ‘left wing’ politics of say John Londen and pre-WW2 Trade unions in the South USA and Australia.

Rather than bemoaning the ‘rights’ lack of flexibility due to it taking the opposite position of the ‘dynamic’ left it is better to sell it as us owning the space and are opponents being the inflexible ones which can’t offer anything new and who are in the end beholden to globalist financial, zionist and explicitly anti-White, nihilistic agendas; which is what we get with Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, Francois Hollande, George Soros etc.

Cosmopolitanism is about appreciating foreign, native cultures and the new: whether in the form of food, art, music, architecture, or different points of view. Cosmopolitans generally focus most of their energy on European culture. Innevitaibily those who genuienly appreciate foreign cultures will seek to preserve it.

For an example a tourist from the USA or Britain would visit Italy and experience the food, lifestyle and art of that culture. A true cosmopolitain would appreciate this and seek to preserve it. Meanwhile the types of people who ‘own’ the cosmopolitain image: rootless, mass immigration supporting internationalists are technically not cosmopolitians, they are just nihilists. They appear on the surface to appreciate different native culture but hypocrticially support political policies, the most predominant being mass immigration, which removes the native culture while they pubically signal how embracing they are.

Thus rather than attack our own side we should, in the current year, look to creatively take ownership of the ‘cosmopolitain’ lifestyle as being a Patriotic, Pro-White identity:

Pro-Whites are the true cosmopolitains


Posted by DanielS on Sun, 24 Jul 2016 02:06 | #

Posted by Ryan on Sun, 24 Jul 2016 00:48 | #

The amount of effort taken to deconstruct and falsily extrapilate GW’s position is of your own vilition but is just superficious.

You have apparently been delegated for this, Ryan. This is your detail. To try to get people in line with the “alternative right” big tent.

I haven’t falsely done anything, but you can’t do everything at once.This is not all that there is to GW. For example - in the John King interview, GW was undoubtedly going for something more - he wanted to capture what was inspiring the Hitler-heads and bring them to our side. He would not contradict me in the final tally - he would ultimately be critical of Hitler, but my plodding schedule could not keep pace (and my argument is that it was important enough so that it should not have to keep pace) with his digression in order to reach out quite so immediately to the folks who like him.

The idea is to get to better theory, not to hamper GW.

The ‘White Left’ does not work as for that to exist there must also a ‘White Right’ which sounds silly.

Actually it does work. Furthermore, you already have a White right and it contains elements that many sensible people want no part of. If you don’t want to call yourself “the White left, that’s OK, but I am developing a platform here free from the things that many people will not like about “the alternative right” and the White right. This platform is coherent. People don’t have to call themselves “the White left”, just not be into some of the things that the right is prone to.  I do think “the White class” sounds good though.

And talk about sounding silly - “rootless”

I won’t be using that one and don’t think anybody else will either.

The left-right political spectrum should be rejected as illegitimate and inaccurate

I totally disagree. Besides, you folks are calling yourself the alternative right. Furthermore, you haven’t read and understood what I’ve written here on the matter.

rather than providing it with legitimacy as those in power will position themselves as being near the centre and their opponents on the fringes.

I am not legitimizing their framework, that is what you don’t understand. This is to take definitive control of the narrative: A White left, the White class (and that does sound good) does not include Jews.  That is why I would not let Millennial Woes try to sneak in that (((Ruth “the truth will live”))) with her criticism of “the left” and proposal to re-define the terms for us.. and why I reject Robert Stark’s friend’s “alternative left” moniker - it is devised to try to subvert this platform on behalf of the pro jew, pro Hitler, pro scientism, pro Jesus right…or in his case, the pro Pat Buchanan right, which contains just about all of that bullshit.

From my understanding when you are mentioning the hippe movement you are evoking cosmoplitan

Well, you totally do not understand why I mention hippies. So be glad if I do not delete this comment as complete waste of time, coming from someone who hasn’t read the post with any attempt to understand it in the friendly terms that it is.

attitudes of appreciating the new and different, which you bemoan

I do not “bemoan” new and different ideas.

This is what is so frustrating about talking to people on the right and alt right. They refuse to understand things which I have said many times - White Post Modernity also facilitates the capacity to pursue and incorporate what is new.

I said it plainly here again, in this piece:

They say Post Modernity means “dada” so we have to go back more determinedly than ever to modernity and smash what would be the means to save ourselves with an understanding that traditions and inherited forms can be too precious to subject to experiment and that there are such things, of course, as modern advance which we can gauge and integrate with our homeostasis, unlike some Amish adherence to mere tradition.


GW as not having and being inflexible and rigid in his right wing identity which sees him more attached to cuckservative figures like Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and the Tories than the explicitly pro-White ‘left wing’ politics of say John Londen and pre-WW2 Trade unions in the South USA and Australia.

I don’t really care so much about politics that have gone before. I don’t hate Thatcher and Reagan - To myself, quietly (though naively) I appreciated their signal (hollow though it was) to people, like myself, who were against liberalism.

They were cuckservatizing however.

I voted for Bush senior primarily because I did hate Clinton and could see his bullshit a mile away.

I don’t know that much about the trade unions of which you speak. However, there are problems with the concept and practice - an issue which would be very worthwhile to pusue.

Rather than bemoaning

I don’t bemoan.

the ‘rights’ lack of flexibility due to it taking the opposite position of the ‘dynamic’ left it is better to sell it as us owning the space and are opponents being the inflexible ones which can’t offer anything new and who are in the end beholden to globalist financial,

First things first. I am firstly concerned with what we should want no part of, then how to organize, or at least coordinate, those who are in agreement. Being against elite traitors is a good place to start in either case.

zionist and explicitly anti-White, nihilistic agendas; which is what we get with Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, Francois Hollande, George Soros etc.

...and Donald Trump.

Cosmopolitanism is about appreciating foreign, native cultures and the new: whether in the form of food, art, music, architecture, or different points of view. Cosmopolitans generally focus most of their energy on European culture. Innevitaibily those who genuienly appreciate foreign cultures will seek to preserve it.


For an example a tourist from the USA or Britain would visit Italy and experience the food, lifestyle and art of that culture. A true cosmopolitain would appreciate this and seek to preserve it. Meanwhile the types of people who ‘own’ the cosmopolitain image: rootless, mass immigration supporting internationalists are technically not cosmopolitians, they are just nihilists. They appear on the surface to appreciate different native culture but hypocrticially support political policies, the most predominant being mass immigration, which removes the native culture while they pubically signal how embracing they are.

I guess that I can agree with that characterization and likelihood. And it doesn’t contradict what I am saying.

Thus rather than attack our own side

I am not attacking “our side.” I am attacking theoretical error and those who insist upon it. That’s one good thing about the word, “left”, it grosses-out people who have not matured enough in their thinking to not react but to think about social matters. Adding the prefix “White” takes care of removing ambiguities thereafter. It also provokes the questions that I/we would want to answer in our interests.

we should, in the current year, look to creatively take ownership of the ‘cosmopolitain’ lifestyle as being a Patriotic, Pro-White identity: Pro-Whites are the true cosmopolitains

You have just supplemented the argument for White post modern communication. ...and the White Left, the White class. ... I suppose we can include the word radical (for its etymology) in order to do justice to your root thing



Posted by DanielS on Sun, 24 Jul 2016 04:37 | #

Cosmopolitanism per se,  is not the objective, advocacy of our race and securing its boundaries and borders is the objective.

That goes to your complete misunderstanding (more like ignoring of ) my reason for mentioning the hippies - not because I value their “cosmopolitan difference”, but because at bottom of their motive they were pursuing midtdasein, there-being for White males amidst our people (our people suggests delimitation)

The matter of being is central to racial advocacy. Our enemies are trying to end our being (or they don’t care about it - perhaps we are just supposed to be tools, servants. They are trying to prohibit White male being in particular, antagonizing it form all angles.


Posted by Dr Doom on Sun, 24 Jul 2016 12:51 | #

Adolf Hitler didn’t lose, you did.  He beat them, and then Americans and English were tricked in helping Stalin and the jews to destroy his Aryan Empire.  Hitler didn’t start the War.  The international jewry declared War in 1933, long before any Polish Invasion.  Hitler actually made a deal with the Zionists to end the War the international jewry banksters started, but they ignored his peace gestures.
What is good for Whites.  That’s all that matters.  It begins and ends there.  Those political and philosophical arguments are very interesting, but in the Real World, it all comes down to what is good for Whites.  I don’t care about niggers, I don’t give a flying fuck about any “Holocaust” mythology.  You can take a long walk off a short pier.  I will acknowledge no wrong done by my ancestors.  They worked, fought, bled, suffered, toiled and survived to put me here.  I will hear not one word against them.  I care nothing about your people.  My people and my race are what I care about.  You others are nothing.  Less than nothing.  Only the benefit of my people and my race matter to me.


Posted by DanielS on Sun, 24 Jul 2016 15:33 | #

Nobody is suggesting that you should feel guilty about history nor that you had any blame for it.

We care about all Europeans, it’s a shame that you only care about some kinds..


Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sun, 24 Jul 2016 16:05 | #

This has to be one of the longest articles ever posted at MR. The way it reads is that people might even falsely think that you dislike GW, even though obviously you like him.

You’ve opened up with every kind of gunfire here, DanielS, and I’m wondering how GW will fire back and whether it will be an article of equivalent length! I don’t necessarily agree that having this kind of discussion across the front page is the best idea ever, but it may be that I’m generally more reluctant since to some extent I too view things more through the lens of ‘the transmission model’ than others do, despite the advance in social media platforms.


Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 25 Jul 2016 01:24 | #

GW is an Englishman of the very finest sort. A yeoman type, really. His understandable annoyance with the class system of his nation was, of course, shared, mutatis mutandis, by Herr Hitler.

Just as the Poles in 1939 (and centuries prior to that year ) resented the obvious superiority of the Germans , so DanielS balks at the ineffable superiority of GW’s autodidactical intellect.


Posted by DanielS on Mon, 25 Jul 2016 01:45 | #

Make no mistake, I recognize that GW is smarter than me. But I don’t resent it at all. I love it. Perhaps that is why this post degenerated to ad hominem in parts, because I don’t have the horsepower to finesse it. Still, I hope, feel that I need to get that intelligence and all of us on solid theoretical footing. The tactlessness of parts of this essay is in part an expression of frustration for all the blows that I’ve had to take from right wingers here at Majorityrights and the intransigent brushing-aside of ideas that are eminently useful in the name of that reactionary and unnecessarily accepted identity. I am sorry about that but I am so focused on solid theory and putting aside anything that would obstruct in our urgent need, that I could come across in this essay as if I don’t like him - when the opposite is true, of course. I like him very very much. And unlike some of our Nazophilic German brothers, I like and value the English and all Whites very much..

Speaking of that, do you think that Merkel is being spiteful? “You want liberal, I’ll give you liberal!”


Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 25 Jul 2016 12:48 | #

The first person plural (we) is a pre-political attitude or stance that allows for a demos to exist as a political community over generations (it is inherited not chosen) - as such it requires both an intra & inter-generational moral vision (that we owe each other something). Liberalism eschews any boundaries on that collective identity. Potentially all members of the demos are fungible (and can be replaced by Africans etc). Non-liberals (communitarians of whatever sort) reject the fungibility nonsense of liberal ideology. Collective identity requires a collective unit. Obviously within any collective unit the possibility for free-riding, cheating, dumping negative externalities onto a sub-section of that collective unit always exists. This is basic evolutionary biology/game theory. Given power, and power differences, will always be part of the human condition we need mechanisms (psychological & political) to limit free-riders exploiting/undermining the common good of the collective unit. Why is any of this remotely difficult to understand?


Posted by DanielS on Mon, 25 Jul 2016 14:52 | #

“We” does imply a taken-for-grantedness of pre-existing relations and agreements, but there would be that beginning - where people were cooperating with some measure of choice in the relations; the pronoun “we” certainly implies a human and at least faintly speculative designation of broader relations; also the capacity to reconstruct those relations or not. It is important to acknowledge at least a modicum of agency. However, you know that I absolutely agree that there would be grounds of biology and social capital which can and should be invoked, will be invoked to some extent, on behalf of human ecological systems - most interestingly, that could be backed with strong scientific warrant - that in a sense, one cannot do such and such a liberal thing without doing significant damage, ranging to the profound. In an important verifiable way then, it can be said to not be an option as far as the system or collective is concerned - it is only an option for suicide or an option so detrimental to the system as to warrant ostracism.

I suppose in a most radical vision of liberalism all members could be held to be fungible but there are lesser degrees of liberalism. A certain amount of liberalism within the group is going to be healthy. I suppose that we do not want to throw atheists off of buildings, etc.

Nevertheless, descriptions of the damage that liberal choice does to biology and social capital is where the IS gets to be really interesting. That’s a place where science becomes very interesting and necessary.

And I believe a very useful discussion is to be had on the social issues that you mention here -

Obviously within any collective unit the possibility for free-riding, cheating, dumping negative externalities onto a sub-section of that collective unit always exists. This is basic evolutionary biology/game theory. Given power, and power differences, will always be part of the human condition we need mechanisms (psychological & political) to limit free-riders exploiting/undermining the common good of the collective unit. Why is any of this remotely difficult to understand?

The concept of unionization seems to be very stable in its applicability, and I’m not just talking about classic workers unions - but in whatever collective, it can keep an eye on and potentially maintain accountability on who and what it should - potential liberal abuses of elites and rank and file, while looking after fair reward for all members; the problem is that it can be too stable, protecting things that should not be protected and blocking some abilities that should be afforded; I think that there are ways to work that out; and before anything the rampant prerogatives of liberalism have to be curtailed with some form of unionization. What to do about sloth and incompetence, free riding, genetic detriment, perhaps crypsis and cuckoldry as well, etc. on the one hand; and on the other hand, how to not limit the abilities of those who would excel, create; to allow for sufficient experimentalism and leisure outside of routine requirements; an option for those who need and would do no harm in a more independent situation, is an interesting matter - I suspect not impossible to formulate and resolve to a good extent. It’s an interesting and important discussion to be had, in my opinion, anyway.


Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 26 Jul 2016 05:46 | #

Liberalism eventually is effectively a free-rider/source of negative externalities upon a collective unit (society) akin to the tragedy of the commons. Note the word common. Collective identity - contra Hayekian liberalism -implies that social ontology includes the emergent property of the social that is very real, and of vital importance to the well being of all. Basic stuff. Of course there is an Aristotelian balance between needs of individuals & collective common good which is always somewhat context dependent within history. Liberty within community but not at the long term health of that community - it’s not hard to get that basic conceptual framework is it? Ethno-communtarianism for the win.


Posted by DanielS on Tue, 26 Jul 2016 07:03 | #

OK with me.


Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 26 Jul 2016 09:20 | #

Daniel, it’s not about right & left as exist within liberalism - it’s about right & wrong. Our politics is, or should be, a morally grounded ideology (that doesn’t imply religiously based politics btw).


Posted by DanielS on Tue, 26 Jul 2016 11:35 | #

Graham, Whites circulating in and around White advocacy are often saying that it’s not about right and left and then, if they do not actually refer to themselves as some kind of right, which they usually do, then their mistakes in not acting in White/European native ethno-national interests keep showing them up as being rightists as I conceive of the term (e.g., their liberalism is based on “objectivism”)

Where they refer to “the left” it is either some kind of liberalism or it is some kind of coalition (union) that is either not particularly in White interests and more usually a Jewish union coalition deliberately antagonistic to White interests, but it is not a White left - a native nationalist union of Whites to make sure that there is accountability to and from elite and rank and file Whites - I.e., acknowledging that things aren’t necessarily going to remain aligned and fair enough by the magic hand.

If people refer to themselves as ethno-nationalists I will not object. If they refer to themselves as native nationalists, I will not object. If they refer to themselves as racists, I will not object.

If they refer to “them” as “Marxist left”, the “Jewish left”, the Jewish coalition left”, “the anti-White left”, “red left”, “Fabian left” even the contradictory “liberal left”, the “(name your ethnicity that is against Whites/ native europeans) left” I am not going to object.

I am not going to object if they call our enemies liberals, Jews, oligarchs or objectivists (Abrahamics are a species of that), “anti-Whites” or “anti-racists” ..I will not object..

I suspect that neither you nor GW have sufficient time or inclination to survey the full landscape of White advocacy and hence do not realize why it is so important. But you would not have to look far and you would see how this lines things up every time.

I am not asking for a lot:

If you refer to “them” (the adversaries of ethnonationalism) as liberals or neoliberals instead, I will not object.

If you add a prefix to specify the kind of left that you mean as opposed to “The Left”, I will not object.

You might understand that what I mean by the White left is the same as European and White ethnonationalism only maintaining an eye toward accountability to and from elites and rank and file, where the right does not, for its objectivism.

And yes, it is important to look at the nation as a union in that way, not just something that will happen and maintain itself by magic and without corruption and betrayal absent the means of deliberately invocable accountability and stable criteria - a union: you are a member or you are not. If so, there are responsibilities to and from.

I don’t suspect that either you or GW have time or inclination to survey White advocacy enough to know how important this is and how well it works to make sense of things.

In a word - no, you are mistaken. It is very useful. Both of you might take time to read one of my essays one day.

And GW really shouldn’t be so immediately dismissive of things, but I’ve beat him up enough about that for now…

BTW, I was not going to be provocative upon your last comment, but you have acknowledged the best scientists are hermeneutecists..


Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 26 Jul 2016 13:08 | #

Daniel - You’re right insofar as I really don’t have the time (nor wish) to engage with the typical WN type in cyberspace. It’s a waste of time - far too much intellectual dishonesty etc., for me to bother with them.


Posted by DanielS on Tue, 26 Jul 2016 15:02 | #

Well of course I believe that the whole comment is right.

To save you some time with regard to appreciating the significance of what this organizing concept of the White Left is doing by contrast to what the rest of White racial advocacy is doing, and why it is important, I’ll supply you with a few examples in a moment, nothing too much. After that, you’ll observe how the pattern holds up in examples as they present to you at your leisure, without having to go out of your way.


Posted by DanielS on Wed, 27 Jul 2016 01:50 | #

The first thing that I would say is that it is a mistake to be dismissive of general rubrics of White advocacy (unless you want to go with the cumbrous phrase, “people of European descent advocacy”) since that is the advocacy of European peoples, wherever they are, including Europe. We cannot leave that advocacy in the hands of fools who will draw bad lines. Furthermore, in all likelihood European nations are going to need cooperation (at least not indifference or antagonism) from White diaspora, even if they’d prefer it not. I don’t necessarily mind the term communitarian as you describe it, but there also needs to be a comprehensive term for advocating the European genus and species (their native kinds in European and in diaspora). The term has to be drawn on proper lines. And there needs to be a means to establish that term’s homeostasis.


Posted by Radio Aryan on Wed, 27 Jul 2016 11:34 | #

Radio Aryan

Jez talks with Sven Longshanks (Christian Identity of the Daily Stormer) and Richard Edmunds



Posted by Spencer/TRS: "We Are The Right-Wing Now" on Wed, 27 Jul 2016 11:52 | #

                      “We Are The Right-Wing Now”

Richard Spencer talks with the “The Right Stuff”

Republican convention and the Milo party…


Posted by DanielS on Thu, 28 Jul 2016 03:29 | #

I haven’t finished listening to “The Right Stuff’s Daily Shoah Summer of 88 Episode 14” yet - because I got bored after nearly an hour of it - at the prospect of another hour of arrogant and off-hand jocularity..

But noteworthy to the point here is the fact that SeventhSon and Mike Enoch are referring to “them” as “THE left”....

SeventhSon and Mike Enoch say that a notable “leftist” - Julian Assange of “wikileaks” fame - showed a clear sign of having an implicit wish to come around to “the right” by making a brief Twitter (((faux-pas))) using the (((echos))) that TRS coined.

Assage quickly deleted the tweet using the (((echoes))) when he was informed that it was an anti-semitic code. He tried to explain his faux pas by saying that he thought it was a code way of identifying “elites.”

SeventhSon and Mike Enoch go on to “explain” that Assage is an old “hippie” and therefore that he is generations behind on the new critical lingo. He doesn’t understand that “we” (the alternative right) are the “elite” now and we don’t have to criticize elites anymore. That the only people of this generation who are attracted to that kind of talk are the hippie type Bernie supporters up in Vermont, the kind who attend to Phish (soft psychadelic rock band in the vein of the Grateful Dead).


OK, a couple of things that I need to straighten-out inasmuch as these would be criticisms directed the way of my conceptions:

Besides “THE Left” thing..

Certainly Assage would not be representing a White Left as I conceive it: if he can’t bring himself to be critical and (((expository))) of Jewish influence. I don’t know that much about his politics, but that much can be said for sure on the basis of those facts.

They say that “The Left” used to be supportive of Wikileaks until Wikileaks started also exposing “leftist” things as well. It is all but certain that my organization sorts out better what’s happening there in terms of what the The Powers That Be criticize and when they criticize it.

As far as the current year “hippies” of Uncle Bernie’s farm, his Phish farm, up in Vermont: in having the look and some of the aesthetics of the hippie era they are appreciating an aspect that was partly significant for the time but not essential and requisitie to the point (midtdasein) at all. These Dead heads and Phish people are more mixed up with red leftism than the original hippies even - who I never claimed fully grasped the significance of their movement (midtdasein, especially for males) either, while (((the YKW))) tried to impose its Red Leftist politics upon them. The (((YKW))) have sold subsequent generations on the idea that (((these Red Left motives))) were what the “hippies” were all about - liberalism, civil rights, free love, Jewish feminism, endless critical abuse of the older (White) generation’s ways.

Moving to another point…

In maintaining a critical eye on “elites” it does not mean that Whites cannot have elites who are a part of the union; only that from a White left perspective, there is an eye on accountability from them, and that inasmuch as they betray our people’s interests in a significant way, they go outside of the union, they are no longer one of us but an adversary of some sort. So, it is not a matter of being critical of “elitism” or wealth per se, because we are old fashioned red leftists, trying to make everything equal - it is not a matter of that.

To SeventhSon and Mike Enoch’s credit however, I must say that the echoes are a good idea - it is crucial to expose Jewish crypsis and denial.

(((Ben & Jerry’s, Vermont’s finest)))

But you must understand that when (((they))) trick younger generations (or anybody) to argue against “The left” and “hippies” what they are really dong is getting them to attack White unionization and White midtdasein.


Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 29 Jul 2016 04:29 | #

Obsolete triple brackets for Ben and Jerry (in the commercial sense). This Vermont company was purchased by the Anglo - Dutch giant corporate giant, Unilever, some sixteen years ago.


Posted by DanielS on Fri, 29 Jul 2016 09:12 | #

Ok, Al, well I’m glad you acknowledge that there is still that (((cultural aspect))) to Ben & Jerry’s and left open room for the fact that the Anglo - Dutch giant corporate giant, Unilever, which bought them out may or may not be acting largely in White interests (very probably not; probably largely based on objectivist grounds).

On another matter:

Alternative Right tentosphere:

Robert Stark (((1/16th ridiculous to say, but he acts like that bit matters))) and (((Alex von Goldstein))) interview Peter Brimelow

Brimelow’s commentary on MacDonald:

“KM had been a ‘leftist’ and was reacting to that .... KM admitted to never even having fully read the Old Testament”

...which had (((Alex von Goldstein))) wagging his tale frantically…

Brimelow takes under careful consideration his Jewish colleagues’ assessment of MacDonald.

Brimelow seems particularly concerned to maintain good rapport those who contribute to VDare (e.g., Sailer is apparently part Jewish)

“But, MacDonald makes a rational case which can be argued against, so I will continue to publish him at V Dare even though I got put on the SPLC hate list and do not get calls from major networks anymore for having published him….

Brimelow wants to ague against MacDonald’s hypothesis. He is not satisfied that Jews are a group pattern that are looking after theirs, and basically antagonistic to ours, that it is therefore completely reasonable for us to look after ours and to make a point of putting them in an out group, no matter how benign individuals among their pattern may come across as being?

Brimelow: I will publish anybody who argues against the 1965 Immigration Act and I think that KM is not seeing the complete picture. The other side of it is that Anglo-saxons don’t want to seem like Nazis after WW II and so they go to an opposite extreme.

And, as a Jewish colleague said in distinction from the group evolutionary strategy proposed by KM, that ‘Jewish intellectuals’ are ‘crazy”...

Brimelow’s analysis falls short of my own, because he is not getting it when it comes to Jews. KM is more correct than he is - Jews are a group evolutionary strategy and a very destructive one to Whites. But Brimelow, being a part of the pattern of White objectivism cannot see that that is the tendency that Jewish interests act upon and turn against us.

This Jewish guy who told Brimelow that these were “just crazy” Jews was just trying to flatter his sense of rationality and deceive him for his wish to separate “the good Jews” from the pattern of Jewish ways.

On the other hand, KM’s objectivism sometimes comes at the expense of the pattern of Whites as it leaves him susceptible to affiliate with intelligent and rational people, academics especially who are ok with Jews (or Jewish ways of thinking in the case of Christians); that, as opposed to siding decisively with people who will take the relative interests of Whites. It is a bit of detrimental objectivist snobbery on KM’s part, that Jews can take advantage of.

An example of EGI giving way to elitist snobbery is evident in the case of his affinity for Jared Taylor, even though Jared Taylor denies his hypothesis.


Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 30 Jul 2016 02:13 | #

Daniel, what portion of the North American continent, all things considered, do you believe would best present itself to form an ethnostate for Whites?

GW, what portion of the North American continent, all things considered, do you believe would best present itself to form an ethnostate for Whites?

The man that does not give an honest and prompt answer has no balls!


Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 30 Jul 2016 03:59 | #

Everything west of the state line from North Dakota to Texas, I guess.

I am not responding directly to this current post.  I will make an indirect reply shortly.


Posted by DanielS on Sat, 30 Jul 2016 04:08 | #

West Virginia, Eastern Tennessee and North Carolina is a tempting answer, with NC apparently being home to some sorts of high level operations these days (that would entail a White coup of those operations); WV and ET being quite White and beautiful besides….adding Arkansas (Ozarks really good) and Western Tennessee because it is on a continuum is tempting as well….

Maybe include Northern Michigan, northern Minnesota and North Dakota, Western Pennsylvania, Western New York, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine together or separately.

Hey, Add Montana, Idaho, Wyoming and Colorado (has an underground command post to take over as well) .. Oregon, Washington and Northern California..

However, if you think consolidating in the North West is best, go for it: I’m not against it.

But I would strongly advise paying attention to the concept of satellite enclaves. It is something that we can work out with Asians.

Consider enclaves in any of these places. ...

including in much of Canada and Alaska since you ask about North America…

Giving up California has always struck me as bizarre for White people to let happen.


Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 30 Jul 2016 07:56 | #

Texas is essential.  There has to be a port to the Atlantic and Europe.


Posted by Mary on Mon, 01 Aug 2016 05:53 | #

Hillary’s servant, iranian muslim Daryush RooshV Valizadeh,
(who is on one week trip out from Poznan, Poland
and currently in Maryland DC with his parents)
got caught desperately trying to divert the public’s attention from
the fact that Munich shooter is iranian muslim, trying to paint the shooter “german” instead

Why? Because of course, no surprise here,
the Munich shooter who killed 10 germans was exactly an iranian muslim, just like Daryush Valizadeh…


Posted by Chimera on Mon, 01 Aug 2016 08:02 | #

Well, it must have been very recently that he took off because he was spotted just last Friday night.

He was sitting in front of Chimera cafe -  on ul. Żydowska, just off of Poznań ‘s rynek -

He was wearing a T-shirt and had the same big, ratty beard with a gray patch in it on one side. He was not with a girl this time, but with some other middle-eastern male.


Posted by Alan Greenspan on Mon, 01 Aug 2016 16:46 | #

Alan Greenspan’s libertarianism - The Warning


Posted by Daryush Roosh Valizadeh is back in Poznan on Tue, 02 Aug 2016 11:29 | #

So as everyon expected, the multiple serial rapist Daryush Roosh Valizadeh, aka RooshV,  is back in Poznan already

Thank you very much Chimera for keeping us updated.

There is a 5,000 eur prize on his head, by the way, for anyone who shows him that it’s not ok to rape since 2011 so many white girls, many of them underage


Posted by Rightwing: Greenspan's version of objectivism on Wed, 03 Aug 2016 03:26 | #

In preparation for the analysis of PBS Frontline’s, “The Warning”, I have to issue my own caveat: When I talk about “objectivism” it is not the same thing as Ayn Rand’s “Objectivism.”

When I talk about objectivism it means a quest for objectivism beyond subjectivism and relativism. Though it cannot really be pure of these two other perspectives, that is the purported idea. It does naively or disingenuously, often in denial, contain subjective (and relative) interests. Whereas Ayn Rand’s Objectivism treats it as third person perspective objectivism, leaving the contradiction of objectivism as individual subjectivism (individual interest). Nevertheless, Rand, in her own disingenuous way (objectivism = subjectivism?) has built upon with the Austrian school program which purported objectivist quest (in the pure quest that I mean it) as set forth by Wittgenstein and The Austrian School of logical positivism and economics.

Now then, coming back to how The Austrian School came to exercise massive and catastrophic power and influence through Alan Greenspan’s adoption and wielding of Ayn Rand’s version:

The Warning” - Alan Greenspan’s deployment of Ayn Rand’s version of Austrian School objectivism, libertarianism, and its catastrophic moving aside of regulation.

Very few people wanted to take him on because he knew so much more than they did and if he didn’t he certainly appeared to. Alan Greenspan was looked-upon as the great Wizard - nobody understood what he said, but he said it in such a way that everybody bought it.

It started back in the Ford Administration.

Alan Greenspan was a financial consultant who was hired by Gerald Ford, first to be head of his council on economic advisors in the 1970’s

...he had made himself rich on Wall Street and embraced an unusual guru…Any Rand.

Greenspan is a disciple. She is the great champion of government as a destructive force that just gets in the way.

Rand, “I am opposed to all forms of control, I am for laissez-faire, I am for a completely free unregulated economy…let me put it briefly, I am for the separation of state and economics.”

He had a very clear ideology. His philosophy was in the form of what would be called “libertarianism”

Those who do well prosper, those who do not fail and the market clears the transactions.

It was a philosophy made to order for Ronald Reagan.

“Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.” - Reagan

in 1987, Reagan made Greenspan the most powerful banker in the world.

Greenspan was a believer in Ayn Rand, a believer in free market, a little bit curious for a central banker because what is central banking? It’s a massive intervention in the market, setting interest rates.

Greenspan worried about the contradiction, he knew that he was sworn to abide many laws of the land which he believed to be wrong…“I had long since made up my mind to engage in reforms of capitalism as an insider, rather than as a critical pamphleteer.”

He intended to do as little as he could in terms of regulation and he proceeded to do just that.

...The Chairman of The Federal Reserve (a regulatory body that now had at its head a Chairman opening its gates)

When Clinton was elected, he asked Alan Greenspan to stay-on.

Clinton also announced that he would “ask Robert Rubin to serve as the assistant to the President for economic policy.”

The Glass-Steagall Act was repealed under Clinton’s administration: The act did away with the separation of commercial and private banking - allowing investment bankers to use private money, to gamble with the money of private citizens.

Rubin was the best known financier at that point because he had run the legendary Goldman-Sachs.

Bob Rubin was Clinton’s emissary to Wall street and Clinton placed a great deal of trust in Bob Rubin’s knowledge of financial markets and financial regulation.

He had an enormous amount of credibility because he was a business success; and Democratic administrations always seemed to worship people who could excel in business.

And at the White House and as Treasury Secretary, Rubin found an “unlikely” ally.

Bob Rubin and Alan Greenspan had very similar views on Wall Street: it boiled-down to ‘the less regulation the better’

Rubin populated the White House with a network of free market true believers; including Timothy Geitner and Larry Summers.

“The market will take care of everything and regulation will be counter productive.”

Brooksley Born, regulatory interventionist:

Clinton was presented with the opportunity to hire market interventionist Brooksley Born as Attorney General of The US but hired Janet Reno instead. He is said not to have hired Born because he found her “boring.”

Born was given a role of running the obscure CFTC (Commodities and Futures Trading Commission) .... from there she remained a representative of regulation and was invited by Greenspan to lunch.

It didn’t take long for Born to realize that she and Chairman Greenspan were not going to see eye to eye.

He said something to the effect of, “Brooksley, we are never going to agree on fraud.”

She said, “well what do you mean?”

He said, “You probably think there should be rules against it.”

She said, “Well, yes, I do.”

He said, “You know, I think the market will figure it out, and take care of the fraudsters.”

Brooksely Born, as a derivatives expert, saw the catastrophe ahead and tried to challenge this and Rubin told her that she “didn’t understand the law”

SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt had been personally lobbied to shut Born down in her challenge to this.

And then it was Alan Greenspan’s turn:

He was adamant that this was a serious mistake, that it would cause significant damage to the financial services market and that she should stop.

Rubin, Greenspan, Levitt attack..

They were believed by Congress, 90% of whom did not know what a derivative is, they only knew that these (((guys))) seem very smart and they say that if we do this it will be a disaster.

Born responds, “we’re trying to protect the money of the American public, which is at risk in these markets.”

She had no support anywhere.

They banish her powers.

In the aftermath of the 2008 crisis it would be hoped that people would see what went wrong and say, “let’s fix it”...but…it may well be that we’ve passed that critical moment and the necessary reforms will be much more difficult to come by.

Born concludes, “I think we will have continuing dangers from these markets and we will have repeats of the financial crisis of 2008 ..they may differ in details but there will be significant financial downturns and disasters attributed to this regulatory gap, over and over until we learn from experience.


Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Mon, 08 Aug 2016 05:10 | #

You’re right insofar as I really don’t have the time (nor wish) to engage with the typical WN type in cyberspace. It’s a waste of time - far too much intellectual dishonesty etc., for me to bother with them.

I’ve observed some of it too, in the social media domain particularly, there is a lot of completely uninformed and even provocateurish discussion that goes on out there, and it can be pretty disheartening.

It seems to overwhelmingly come from American and Australian people who call themselves “WNs”, or “Alt-Right”, but who actually hold all of the policy preferences of Newt Gingrich and the populist Trump phenomenon.

Populism in the Anglo-Saxon world has become essentially a byword for completely co-opted centre-right modes of thought which are mostly designed to promote the maintenance of US hegemony worldwide, and which can almost be characterised as shameless ‘pilpul’ debate (a Jewish practice of just arguing a position to falsify the position of an opponent for the sake of it, rather than actually advocating any kind of comprehensive solution to problems), designed to funnel the listeners back into registering as a voter with one of the established mainstream parties so as to revitalise them. They always do this whenever they reach a point of party membership crisis.

It’s like a form of pageantry, in which everything old is made new again, by presenting very old liberal positions in new and exciting gift wrapping. “It’s a movement!”

I’m of course in agreement with you on this, the scepticism is warranted.

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: For Such A Time As This: Hillard Clump policy against Iran & Asian/White Ethnonational cooperation
Previous entry: Donald Trump announces that it is the present year.

image of the day

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Establishment Problem



Endorsement not implied.


Islamist Threat

Anti-white Media Networks






Historical Re-Evaluation

Controlled Opposition

Nationalist Political Parties


Europeans in Africa

Of Note


Putinism commented in entry 'Putin's Revenge' on Fri, 19 Jan 2018 08:12. (View)

Jewish occupy, demonstrate for open borders USA commented in entry 'Africans Deported from Israel “Appear” in Rome' on Fri, 19 Jan 2018 02:08. (View)

question commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 23:15. (View)

mancinblack commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 17:43. (View)

Crazy Over You commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 14:22. (View)

mancinblack commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 13:24. (View)

I'm a Man commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 12:41. (View)

mancinblack commented in entry 'Carolyn Emerick talks pagan folk culture and ethnonationalism with Tara's alt-right panel' on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 08:15. (View)

uh commented in entry 'Spencer: My conception of the ethnostate is imperialist - true ethno nationalism is a zero sum game.' on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 08:07. (View)

mancinblack commented in entry 'Carolyn Emerick talks pagan folk culture and ethnonationalism with Tara's alt-right panel' on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 07:18. (View)

100% European commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 06:39. (View)

The ancient is the modern commented in entry 'Snyder's lessons applied to reality now: universalized liberalism tyrannizing over ethnonationalism' on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 02:19. (View)

100% European but you might not guess commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 00:45. (View)

Near 100% European commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 00:18. (View)

95% Native American (Central) commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Wed, 17 Jan 2018 11:11. (View)

20% sub-Saharan commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Wed, 17 Jan 2018 09:53. (View)

We knew these things commented in entry 'Hermeneutic construction of Putin and Trump's character, positions and relation:' on Wed, 17 Jan 2018 04:13. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Wed, 17 Jan 2018 01:18. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'MR Radio: Greg Johnson talks to GW and Daniel' on Wed, 17 Jan 2018 01:09. (View)

henry m commented in entry 'MR Radio: Greg Johnson talks to GW and Daniel' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 18:29. (View)

mancinblack commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:51. (View)

This is the Day commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:17. (View)

Emerald City commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 15:46. (View)

mancinblack commented in entry 'America: Making The World Safe for Hypocrisy' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 15:41. (View)

Anything, Anything commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 15:26. (View)

The Allman Brothers commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 15:04. (View)

Nobody to Depend on commented in entry 'America: Making The World Safe for Hypocrisy' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 14:56. (View)

Pearl Jam commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 14:09. (View)

John McLaughlin commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 13:55. (View)

Hatfield & the North: Mumps commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 13:29. (View)

My Love is Alive commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 13:23. (View)

Wild Swans Love Will Tear Us Apart commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 12:39. (View)

Happy commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 12:18. (View)

Wild Horses best version commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 12:13. (View)

Hangout, Johnson, Lewis, JF et al commented in entry 'MR Radio: Greg Johnson talks to GW and Daniel' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 11:44. (View)