|
|
|
Chasing The Red Cape of Jewish misrepresentative terms against our interests It is clear that Jewish planners take concepts and terms that would be helpful to our group organization and well being, then reverse, distort beyond reason or confuse the meaning that the terms would signify in application to Whites. I’ve discussed this before but how their deception functions on two levels to our detriment bears farther differentiation. The two levels of deception are well captured in the analogy that misrepresentative terms are like “red capes” to the charging bull. They have right-wing White Nationalists charging after the false representation on the level of the misrepresentative term. At the same time WN become turned-off or hostile to the underlying idea which would be good for them/us. 1. “The” Left misrepresented as universal liberalism applied to Whites is the most fundamental “red cape.” The underlying idea of the left is social unionization. There are people in the union and people out of the union, therefore it cannot be universal or liberal. On the contrary. In fact, Jewish interests do not apply it as universal except to Whites. This causes WN to chase this “red cape” of “The” Left which is really imposed liberalism upon them. At the same time, because of the perversion of the term and abuses of Whites that go on under this false rubric, Whites become repulsed and in fact fight against what is the most important underlying social organizing concept [for group defense, accountability, agency, warrant, our human ecology]: the unionization of our peoples. It would keep an eye on the most dangerous traitors, elite ones, keeping them accountable as members of the class, while also keeping rank and file Whites accountable and incentivized to participate. All of the usual Marxist and other Jewish distortions such as abolition of private property, communal child rearing, race and gender blurring, no free enterprise that would create wealth for the industrious and innovative, etc. would be set aside as Not representing the “White” left / native nationalist left. There would not be an imposed economic class division in a White Left, but rather the nation of people would be the class: class, union, nation and people (in our case Whites and native Whites) would be synonymous. In subjecting us to the red cape of “The Left” misrepresented as universal liberalism as applied to Whites and altercasting us as “the right”, we develop Cartesian anxiety for our Augustinian nature, and desperately adopt objectivism to the extent of reaching for unassailable warrant. This has the effect of taking us beyond accountability to our subjective and relative social group interests. It makes us look and act less humanely. It scares our own people and it should as we are not only easily made to look like “the bad guys”, but are, in fact, dangerous in being bereft of sufficient accountability; made easy to defeat as the factual necessity of our cooperation is not sufficiently recognized and we remain disorganized in obsolete philosophy. 2. Equality: Chasing this red cape really makes WN look bad, as they argue for inequality. It casts discourse in elitist and conflictual terms straight-away; more, it is not accurately descriptive as it relies on false comparisons. The underlying concepts that YKW are trying to divert WN from grasping is the disposition to look first for qualitative sameness and difference. Within and between social paradigms there can be logics incommensurate to comparison but nevertheless amenable to symbiotic, non-conflictual functions, particularly if those respectful terms are invoked. 3. Social Constructionism and Hermeneutics: These concepts devised to counteract Cartesian runaway and facilitate systemic homeostasis instead have been misrepresented by Jewish interests with the red cape distortion that people and groups can just be whatever they imagine they might construct of themselves. Thus, the lie persists that these concepts are anti-empirical and anti-science. On the contrary, that would contradict the very anti-Cartesian premises of these ideas; in fact, these ideas are meant to enhance and make more accurately descriptive the conduct of science and reality testing. They are meant to correct the “scientism” which can result from myopic focus on narrow units of analysis only, such as blindered focus on moment or episode, the individual as socially unrelated, or the linear cause and effect of physics models to the detriment of how interactive, agentive, biological creatures can and do act in broad view of systemic homeostasis. These concepts importantly serve to correct the bad science put forth as evidence for anti-racistm, scientism evident in the statement by Spencer Wells of National Geographic’s Human Genome Project - “Racism is not only socially divisive, but also scientifically incorrect. We are all descendants of people who lived in Africa recently. We are all Africans under the skin.” .. by which he means that there are no important differences to justify discrimination. While maintenance of the social group must admit to at least a tad of relativism and subjectivity in its interests, this admission is also an “admission” of a modicum of agency and choice; which thus lends itself by this admission to the stabilizing gauge of group criteria and the answerable, corrective means of its social accountability. This is stable in a way that attempts of pure objectivism are not - as its lack of social accountability tends to have the reflexive effect of hyper-relatvism. Spencer Well’s objectivism has the reflexive effect of being susceptible to having him espouse a destructive hyper-relativism in line with that espoused by pedestrian liberals or Marxist Jews. Social constructionism and hermeneutics proper could correct this by adding dimensions of subjective and relative social accountability; thus coherence in historical process through accountability to historical social capital, manifest and situated delimitations, agency in racial re-construction and warrant in manifest and situated group evolution; but the Jewish red capes over these terms reverse the whole anti-Cartesian program that these concepts are meant to correct. Indeed, anti-racism is Cartesian. However, for the massive perversion and misrepresentation of these concepts they have turned-off Whites and in fact have them arguing against the valuable underlying concepts which in no way deny physical and social constraints to free choice but nevertheless would facilitate coherence, accountability, agency and the warrant of our race to exist: That is what we seek in rigour - warranted assertability. Social constructionism and hermeneutics proper facilitate that. Jewish interests with their red cape distortions do not want you to have that. As is the case with “Pragmatist” philosophy, you can tell if you are chasing the red cape if you have to put the word “mere” before what those presenting the concept are saying in order to make sense of their argument: if they are suggesting something is a ‘mere’ social construct”, then there is no physical, interactive and interpersonal accountability and it is Cartesian. 4. Post Modernity: Jewish interests know that modernity by itself is viciously self perpetuating, paradoxic, impervious and destructive to healthy traditions and forms; whereas post modernity properly understood allows us to take the best of modernity and time tested forms and ways. The red cape misrepresentation is a “dada” definition (or non-definition, as it were) of post modernity as opposed to a deliberate and thoughtful management of modernity and traditional forms and ways. 5. Multiculturalism and diversity: Jewish academics have reversed these terms to where outside groups are introduced to one another in order to blend away and subvert healthy, managed differences within and between groups. Then again, to chase the red cape and argue against the terms is to argue for integration with outsiders, e.g., non-Whites. 6. “Marginals” is a concept that goes along with hermeneutics and group maintenance; Jews have set up a red cape of presenting “marginals” as those outside the group with the intention of their being agents of change in overthrowing group homeostasis. Chasing this red cape has WN arguing against humanitarian outreach to those within the group but most at risk to non-Whites; our marginals potentially have the greatest incentive to see to it that the White ecological system is maintained; they can lend perspective, feedback and accountability. It is important to note that one can be marginalized for being exceptionally talented and intelligent as well. 7. Hippies and the Sixties: These terms have been misrepresented as synonymous for White men being responsible for the Jewish radicalism of sexual revolution and black civil “rights”, viz. prerogative over Whites. Chasing this red cape is a diversion from the call for a reasigment of White men as having intrinsic value - Being - as opposed to being expendable in wars not of the bounded interests of our people; as opposed to chasing the red cape of universal traditional manhood in service of a universalizaing religious ideal, international corporations, oligarchs and the YKW; while in charging this red cape, the intrinsic value of White people overall, as the unit to be defended, is argued against - WN are arguing against our own deepest interests again, against the warrant to exist. The very thing we need most is prohibited by a Jewish language game in which they form coalitions with black power, feminism AND misinformed traditional women, to deny our being, our reality, value and warrant to exist in midtdasein - the non-Cartesian being there* amidst our people. * or “being of”, as GW prefers. 8. Social justice warriors - of course those doing the Jews’ bidding are not pursuing true social justice, but to argue against the term, “social justice warrior”, is to fall for the masters of discourse’s red cape once again. 9. The Jewish affectation of Christianity posed as “the moral order” for Europeans. The necessary good of a European moral order is dismissed right along with the red cape of Christianity or some “false” version of Christianity.
We are the White justice warriors and I invite you to join me in some bull-steak now that we’ve sorted away the bullshit… Why the Left Keeps Winning & How to Fight Back http://www.counter-currents.com Working from false premises he arrives at a false conclusion as to why “the left” wins. His false premise is that the left absolutizes. On the contrary, the left organizes relative classificatory unions of people to make sense of perceptual catgegorizations and provide social accountablity. That is why they win. They make human scaled sense. Perceptual catgegorizations are impossible to do without and when otherwise prohibited (as in “anti-racism”) will tend to organize by default according to those categories hardest to ignore - saliently females and blacks. This phenomenon puts the lie to the charge that “the left” as not dealing with reality and empirical sense. On the contrary, it is the right which blinds and wishes to ignore these relative, human sized social classifications - between the microscopic and the universal. At the same time, as the right chases the red flag (as Liddell and Johnson do and would have you do), viz. the Jewish presentation of “liberalism” for Whites as “the left” and unionizations of any but White males, they are having White men argue against their own unionization of theirs and their co-evolutionary female’s relative interests as peoples. Drawing clear lines around the White race and its subcategories as distinct from Jews and other non-Whites is not the same as being absolutizing in some non-optimal sense. The reason is because it is a separatist idea, not an elitist notion with a plan to exploit or genocide the other. Therefore, whether we over-rate Jewish power and influence or underestimate its extent is not ultimately important because we have not committed ourselves to any irreversible program. Comments:2
Posted by Mick Lately on Wed, 01 Jul 2015 14:29 | # Germany is fellating the Jew as it dies a demographic death. And while it is on its knees it can still point a stern finger and with a spunk-filled sputtering mouth and a straight face affirm ‘the Holocaust’ and enforce the terms of Money Power: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/01/accountant-auschwitz-trial-oskar-groening-admits-guilt Either we remove the grip that the Jews have on us or we will be done away with it. 3
Posted by documenting the sins on Wed, 01 Jul 2015 15:07 | #
Though it is plain to me based on my experience of Jews and academia, some proof will be a liittle more difficult (especially where people are intent on disagreeing) as it is expressed in patterns and practices that result from covert and implicit agreement among the YKW. I wanted to put the simple and clear list of ‘sins’ up-front first as I have been acccused of being long winded and evasively baroque in the language and extent of my exposés.
4
Posted by Mick Lately on Wed, 01 Jul 2015 15:08 | # Latest article from that ubiquitous female academic Lolita Waddock-Hunt: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-michael/i-sometimes-dont-want-to-be-white-either_b_7595852.html “Being White—even with the feeling of culturelessness and responsibility for racism—is nothing compared to not being White. But being White—and facing the truth of what that means historically and systemically—can drive you to do the weird and unthinkable that we see in Dolezal today. It seems like a good warning. Rachel Dolezal’s actions are a potential pitfall for any White people on the journey towards recognizing the truth of what it means to be White and accepting responsibility for it. But we cannot not be White. And we cannot undo what Whiteness has done. We can only start from where we are and who we are.” More anti-white poison and affirmation of the Original Sin of Whiteness. 5
Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 01 Jul 2015 15:08 | # Banking reforms that don’t include taking away their power to create money at will are just a distraction. Change the system see http://positivemoney.org/our-proposals/debt-based-money-vs-sovereign-money-infographic/ 6
Posted by Mick Lately on Thu, 02 Jul 2015 10:22 | # Propaganda for our genocide: lol @ Israel: http://interactive.guim.co.uk/uploader/embed/2015/06/population-zip/giv-21277aBYsDY6qGpiC/ 7
Posted by to clarify on Thu, 02 Jul 2015 13:20 | # This part needed to be written a bit better, and now is, a bit better:
This paragraph is also a more clear.
8
Posted by U.K. in the dead of night on Fri, 03 Jul 2015 07:41 | # 9
Posted by Tracing the red caping of "The Left" on Fri, 03 Jul 2015 08:07 | #
I will start by sketching where I would begin to look to document where underlying good ideas for White socialization and the red cape misrepresentation germinated and began to circulate.. First regarding “The Left” 1. “The Left and The Right” We all know that the terms began with the French Court. This germinated an understanding that the right represented those loyal to the elite, specifically, the king, while the left represented the populace - generally, the broader court, and in turn, the concerns of the nation’s people. The French revolution would segue into the expanse of the currency and utility of the terms. I would guess that Jews as outsiders to poliical power could gain power by organizing and dividing people on the left - particularly dividing them from their own elites. I would search for some examples. They would likely take note that the revolution’s motto of “equality” did not include themselves and they would form coalitions of unions to transform “equality” to include Women and slaves who, for example, were not held to be equal. Men without property were not necessarily equal either - and Jews were frequently barred from propertty ownership. Jews would begin to see the utility in holding up and expanding this term against the power, derive benefit by hiding behind the red cape of its good-guy sound and the elitist and unfair sound of any who oppose it. Staying with the issue of Jews being excluded from property ownership and/or Europeans being able to exclude Jewish interests on the basis of national citizenship and property ownership, that would spawn the idea of Marxist transformation of the red cape of “The Left” as against private property and its being international as opposed to national. The workers not being property owners were being exploited but by unionization they could challenge the power. The most consistent, underlying aspect of anything referred to as the left, what it has behind its grievances is an organized group, is unionization, whether a literal union or simply a conceptual union. However, through Marxism, unions were not made on a national, but an international basis and set abstractly to represent the union of the working poor against the rich. Wheras a concern for White interests would have unions not based on economic class, but on nation - its native White people would be synonymous with the nation and the union. All documentation on the Franfurt school shows them transforming the Marxist left once again, the basis of unionization then becoming those they could represent as victim groups against Whites- non-Whites, women (dividing our co-evolutionary females against us by pandering to them when puerile), gays, etc…while altercasting “Whites” as “The right” or “far right” elites with power, private property, nationalism, etc. Marcuse’s “liberating tolerance” would tolerate only the left and not the right - making an exception to not tolerate a White union of White men nor the union with their co-evolutionaries, incl. women. While at the same time reifying what is in nature a condition, “tolerance”, meant to brace against transient toxic states, into a permanent condition of accepting toxicity until we are haplessly disolute Unionization of people in cooperation against non-unioized people is of course going to be a winning strategy. They can bilk and exploit European peoples for whatever they are worth. To search for examples of Jews altercasting our would-be unionized interests as “the right” or the “far right” through the sanction of media that they own, academic departments their texts dominate, is an absurdity. One would rather have to search hard for exceptions. The question then emerges “Why?” would they insist on calling us the right and I have addressed this in several places, but basically because it keeps us non-unioniized thus disorganized. And while they have us under attack by their unions they have WN chasing the red cape of “The left” as they have conceived it which is international lbereralism in its activist prescription to us. As our elites cop to the altercast as rightists opposed to “communism” they remain theoretically opposed to unionization and thus disloyal and not accountable to their people. Without accountability to and from them, and feeling the liberal attack the White rank and file defect and outbreed or do not breed at all. The stress and toxicity of “Leftist” pressure (read, international liberalism) felt by those Whites who do care for themsleves can be tremenous and their revulsion to all that has been associated with it causes them to look for unassailable warrant beyond what can be trammeled by “the people”, farther and farther into abstract objectivity….and farther and farther from a White left, a unionization of their people. It is incumbent upon us, as White Nationlists, to re-take the definition, of “The White Left” as a union snyonymous with nation and native people. To reject upon occasion the negative associations Marxists have associated with the term.
That does not really answer GW’s suggestion, but it begins to clue in on where one/I might look for documentation, dates, quotes, etc. while already naming and circumscrbing a few. 10
Posted by Bernstein contra incommensurability/eco-difference on Fri, 03 Jul 2015 11:54 | # 2. Equality/Inequality While I have discussed this red cape quite a bit, having never been immersed in a community of what I will call the received (from Jews) “left” or a nation controlled by the received “left,” I can only say to begin, thet I have never heard much talk of people wanting “equality”, whether from our liberal enemies, from Marxists or from anyone; thus, it strikes me as strange that WN would be chasing after it. Demand for equality was something that I heard a bit in relation to feminism in the sixties and seventies but only once (also in relation to feminism) in the 80’s that I can recall, and it was the late 80’s in fact. But as I alluded above, it is a reasonable inference that Jewish interests would take this moniker of the French revolution and exaggerate it to their ends through Marxism, to include themselves and those previously not included in the original conception of national equality. I can imagine it would not be too difficult to find Jewish academics holding up the term; nevertheless, I have begun my critique of equality/inequality on the basis of having experienced Jewish academics distracting from the better underlying concepts. First, the better underpinning ideas that I am familiar with are from Bateson and Thomas Khun. With an Aristotlean framework, Bateson criticized the application of the category of quanity and the purview of physics to biology and especially misapplication to humans. He argued that as biological creatures that we are evolved for optimalities and the contingency of interaction, including our mammalian relations and human capacity for agency. To capture our differences and not distort and wreck human relations we ought not think in terms of quantity (as equality/inequality does) but rather in terms of qualitative/or paradigmatic sameness and difference. “The difference that makes a difference” was a distinguishing phrase of his. These are good ideas, terms which would allow for better within and between group relations than equality/inequality. So why have they not become popular among Whites? The reason is because they have been abused and twisted with a Jewish red cape. One can see the abuse and misapplications of these ideas ubiquitously in what is called political correctness. Where rather than truly respecting qualitative differces, diversity and multiculturalism, we are forced together in oblivious integration. Now, Thomas Kuhn’s notion of “incommensurate paradigms” is another good concept which would help Whites to maintain our social systems properly. It advises against quantitative comparisons, especially where paradigms are incommensurate. In developing a proclivity to look for incomensurabilty and qualitative differences, we would tend to think in terms of symbiosis and differing functions, niches as opposed to false and competitive comparisons. We would have more control over our group system and function better. What clue do I have that Jewish interests might not want us cultivate this idea? I organized a conference in 2008. A few prominent Jewish scholars spoke. The topic of Professor of Philosophy, Richard J. Bernstein was this:
My personal experience of Bernstein was that he did not seem to like my using non Jewish scholars of ecology to defend Europeans. But to show beyond personal experience that Berstein is motivated by Jewish interests is very easy. One can take a look on youtube and find Bernstein discussing how Jews “pioneered ecological thinking”..... this was after my conference, which I thematized by “pervasive ecology”, a way of thinking that I inferred from Bateson and a theme which was barely addressed by the Jewish shcolars at the conference despite the fact of its being an important argumentative basis for European survival. Nevertheless, in the clip linked below, one can hear Berstein detailing how the Jewish “Hans Jonas was the pioneer of ecological thinking and bio-ethics in the 1950’s, well before it was fashionable.” One can also in that same youtube see Bernstein discussing the discrimination quotas that had existed against Jews in the Ivy League….but not how they are now grossly and unjustlly over represented by dint of nepotism in the Ivy League.
For another example of Bernstein’s motivation, take his book: Freud and the Legacy of Moses
etc.
11
Posted by Gottfried's foil on Fri, 03 Jul 2015 19:37 | # Doing the bidding of his master, er, mentor (Paul Gottfried), Richard Spencer goes Stark and frantically tries to divert attention from a White Left. http://www.starktruthradio.com/?p=1384 He proposes the shlock “Generation Identitaire” model. Which, of course, rather than citing Jewish power and influence or even international capital, blames everything on “68rs”, i.e., diverts attention to a generational conflict with White men of a different time - corresponding with Marxist take-over of European academe.
12
Posted by Red cape over socialconstructionism & hermeneutics on Sat, 04 Jul 2015 08:25 | # 3. Social Constructionism and Hermeneutics The red capes over these good ides, is explained fairly well in this essay except that I had apparently mistaken Gdamer to be Jewish, instead of Jew thinker or a thinker convenient to Jews, because of the appreciation for him that Jewish academics displayed. I have not fully explicated where these ideas began to be perverted by Jewish interests. But in the case of social constructionism I might begin by looking at the Berger and Luckman book. Examples of perversion of social constructionism by Jewish headed academia in ensuing decades is all people know. Once again it would be more dificult to find examles of social constructionism proper. Shotter would tend to be a more favorable example.
Again, examples do not only abound but have been insitutionalized - Most importantly the notioin of “marginals” not as those just within the group bounds, but those from without looking for inclusion. This imposing of pseudo marginals (every freak, non-White and White traitor in the world) upon us is a flamboyant red cape (Chutzpah) that has been very successful in creating revulsion to hermenetuics and the concept of marginals. I have already indicated that the Algerian Jew, Derrida, is a particurly influential source of this perversion, and other perversions of hermeneutics. 13
Posted by "dada" post modernity vs White Post Modernity on Sun, 05 Jul 2015 11:38 | # The red cape of Post Modernity as “dada” nonsense is to confuse Whites about the crucial utility of Post Modernity as a concept which would allow us to simply manage both the good and bad aspects of modernty and tradtion (incl. inherited forms) in our favor. Noting that Whites do not often understand this concept so crucial to our survival as peoples and the fact that Whites will often react to the term “post modernity” with revulsion and cite examples associating it with “dada” nonsense leads me to an infernce of Jewish responsibility. It is true that non-Jews whom we might call “wailing modernists”, inlcuding those wedded to a strictly scientific view on the world, can be susceptible to be skeptical of the importance of the post modern turn and thus prone to accept the dada misprepresentation. However, Jewish responsibily for promoting or allowing for this obfuscation (whereas post modernity is not against science, reality, coherence and facts) is an inference and a hypothesis that I make at this point from their heavy inluence through academia, particularly regarding sociological concerns, media and the arts. It does require more documenation, and if we are to be true to White Post Modernity, we might take opportunity to get away from the modernist, Cartesian model of information transmission, wherein I am supposed to glean this information from pure reason and inference then transmit the information to you as a complete package and have you open the package of this perfecly assembled and complete infromation… ....as opposed to the way knowledge acquisition really happens, which is more or less in joint construction.. I have sent you, the reader, a “specificatory structure”, partly finished information that is a working hypothesis, that there are significant Jewish sources promoting a misinterpretation of “post modernity” as “dada nonsense”.... As as specificatory structure, partly finished information requiring further specification, the reader might kindly participate by helping to “compete the theory”, helping to shape and craft the hypothesis with me by providing some instances, examples, peoples and dates. I can do this by myself, taking info from books and on line, but we are capable of getting a quicker and fuller picture of the truth with some joint participation. This is not a competition to see who can be Moses issuing the commandments received from god to the masses in 1 -3rd person lineal transmission. This is you and I, first to second person negotiation of the truth. It is not a competition wherein I try to show-off to you and you try to show off to me, it is a competion against bad theory, including theory that does not serve our White/European Native nationalist interests. 14
Posted by neil vodavzny on Sun, 05 Jul 2015 12:00 | # I’m a bit worried that terms in themselves can be a form of red-herring-ing. Underlying any reasoned argument is the question of ontology. There’s the whole idea of “otherness” which says to understand things you need a dialectic. “The question is its own answer” seems the Hegelian response. Everything to do with racial matters can probably be considered as a type of “other”. If we understand people as other, then the question has already been answered. It’s that basic, but today that is disallowed. It’s because we are not allowed to do that we apparently get into long-winded discussions. #1 of ERFE has something on that; maybe it is a more populist idea. By discussing pop-culture without authorial intent, the mind is not closed-off, one can get to the root of what is there. “Authorial intent” is sometimes a red-herring when it’s the work you’re considering. 15
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 05 Jul 2015 12:32 | # I’m a bit worried that terms in themselves can be a form of red-herring-ing. That’s extremely modernist of you, Neil. As if we are supposed to do without so much as shared language and shared understanding of its meaning. I categorically deny that I am givining red herrings in these terms; it is the Jewish red capes that are the red herrings. The underlying concepts have strong truth value and survival value. There’s an underlying ontologically necessary IS-ness to these 9 terms that I’ve set out and a corresponding falsity to the red capes. There’s the whole idea of “otherness” which says to understand things you need a dialectic. “The question is its own answer” seems the Hegelian response. There is an inherent otherness in the notion underlying “the left” which is a union of people (correspondingly, others who are not in the unions) and corresonding accountability which is not sufficiently captured by sheer description of what is. To take objectivity that far outstrips agentive responsibility to the social, its organization and its “oughtness” - an ought of accountability more invoked by an agreed upon union than by sheer description of what is.. Everything to do with racial matters can probably be considered as a type of “other”. If we understand people as other, then the question has already been answered. It’s that basic, but today that is disallowed. Some thngs need to be simplified but that’s going too far. It is not too complicated to propose that a group of people, the natives of a nation, the nation, the left, the union, the class are one and same. Reliance on a sheer objecivist pursuit of the foundation of otherness is unnecessarily susceptible in its modernist naivete, as we are connected to the other in terms of our ability to interbreed with them, and therefore we must to some extent “construct” our racial difference and to some extent actively and deliberately invoke accountability to it. It’s because we are not allowed to do that we apparently get into long-winded discussions. #1 of ERFE has something on that; maybe it is a more populist idea. By discussing pop-culture without authorial intent, the mind is not closed-off, one can get to the root of what is there. The only risk to long windedness is due to GW’s valid request that I give more evidence and document my hypotheses of these red capes. The post modern “mind” is not closed off, Neil, disucssing pop-culture is perfectly valid. “Authorial intent” is sometimes a red-herring when it’s the work you’re considering. Its true that there may be some Jewish artists who do not intend to render a “dada” image of post modernity in order to obfuscate a proper understanding. But then they simply would not be good examples of agentive intent. It is probably much the case that Jews are simply allowing for this misunderstanding and not shouting, “no, no, you’ve got it wrong, you White people should understand Post Modernity in its correct function in order to protect yourself in healthy tradition and advance your interests with Modernity where possible.” But if it has fallen down to me to make this case, with all the jews there are ensconced in academia, media and other influential positions, it is safe to say that as a group, that at very best, they do not care to stop Whites from this msundestanding and do not mind them chasing the dada red cape. 16
Posted by Native National Left synchronous with White Left on Mon, 06 Jul 2015 07:50 | # Having taken it so much for granted that The White Left would defer to the national nativist unions of people in Europe, I neglected to emphasise that. GW called my attention to the fact. He is correct. The thing is, there is still the fact that the term “White” saves confusion as a term referring to people of European descent and the union of European descent in general, particulary when those people have citizenship outside of Europe. Whereas in Europe, GW is correct, the “native” aspect does need to be emphasized, even in tandem with the term “European.” When applied to people, the term “European” should automatically imply people of native European descent; however, its become at least somewhat confused with political citizenship in a propositional sense rather than its retaining its necessary organic, contexualized, evolutionary meaning. And in any case, “European” only refers to the genus, not to the discreet national species which ARE crucial to maintain with the genus. I won’t argue which is more important, both are important. It seems the problem of confusion is contextual and requires an alternation of terms which all imply the same things consistently. 1. There is the term White Left which implies the union of peoples of native European descent wherever they might be. 2. There is The Native Left which, in the case of Europeans, of course, implies the union and unions of native European evolution. 3. The Native National Left: it will need to be emphasis as often as necessary to make it understood that the union of native Europeans defers to the union of National Native Europeans with regard to their national territory and people. With regard to their native territory and genetic make-up, the natives have hegemonic warrant. Thus, The White Left, The Native Left and The Native National Left imply consistently the same message but need to be used interchangeably to avoid confusion when addressing the matters of Europeans and their specific and general union in diaspora - whether on other continents or within Europe. It would be consistent to say that one is of the native English national left and one is of the White left at the same time. The “class” is synonmyous with the genus of people of native European descent; and the species of their native nations are other discreetly unionized classes which include all of a nation’s native people, from rich to poor: innocent until proven guilty and with no design, in fact, to drag people down or bring people up unnaturally. All are in the union but all are acccountable. 17
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 07 Jul 2015 08:38 | #
Including some news we’ve got for you about the NPD. But, yes, it will still have Gates of Vienna and the others besides Alternative Right (only for the sake of allowing them to come around, not because I didn’t see your point). I agree with you that it is an important section and a good service. ........................ We are still in the process of revamping the site’s look ... to name a few works in process.. The contrast of the two beige colors on the right needs to be a bit more subtle (background color needs to be a bit brighter and the color overlaying the comments needs to be a tad brighter too).
18
Posted by TT on controlled opposition on Tue, 07 Jul 2015 09:13 | # Speaking of controlled opposition: TT SAYS:HOW THE SYSTEM USES THE HOLLYWOOD NAZIS TO DEGRADE THE WHITE STUGGLE. Smart White Racists aren’t marching they are biding their time. Beware the many false flags that attempt to draw you out.
19
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 07 Jul 2015 11:39 | # Daniel, I am very pleased with the improvements you and Kumiko are making - good to see the pagination again (which was lost during James Bowery’s attempts to rid the site of a particularly annoying bug in the system). On the matter of Lurker’s links, he is the editor of that section; and his decisions should prevail unless there is a strong reason, which everyone involved can appreciate, to make a change. There was such in the case of a couple of sites on the roll which carried highly Nazistic content to which we do not need to draw attention; and I’m sure Lurker would concur on that. No doubt, Daniel, you can resolve any other issues with him. It is great to see the blog moving forward. If we can now continue the process of improving and diversifying our content and, maybe, opening a YouTube channel based on the radio interviews (and maybe some articles, including Neil’s, if they could be adapted) that would be terrific. 20
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 07 Jul 2015 13:02 | # On the matter of Lurker’s links, he is the editor of that section; and his decisions should prevail unless there is a strong reason, which everyone involved can appreciate, to make a change. There was such in the case of a couple of sites on the roll which carried highly Nazistic content to which we do not need to draw attention; and I’m sure Lurker would concur on that. No doubt, Daniel, you can resolve any other issues with him.
We have already discussed that the controlled opposition section should be restored…. and it will be. The only reservation that I had was in including Alternative Right there given that they are not very far from our POV and might come around. However, I understand why they were put there, to force them to make a decision on the J.Q…. so, it is fine if they stay there too. The controlled opposition section is an important service of MR. In addition, Kumiko cites some interesting reasons for adding the NDP link to the controlled opposition section. 21
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Tue, 07 Jul 2015 15:57 | #
As Daniel said, it is only that we haven’t put it back yet. It’s a work in progress and the links section is still incomplete. At the start of editing these, I was thinking to myself ‘what is a controlled opponent?’, and whether it is different from those who have drifted into ideological errors and revisionism. Those who are propagating errors and revisionism, may be simply misguided groups who have a different view than nativists do, but whose hammer is aimed at some of the same targets as nativists. So in that case I would think it is not wrong to link to such people because it provides an opportunity to agree with them when they are correct, and to criticise them when they are wrong, and people can then see that you have engaged them and come out on top. It also means that in some cases you can have people crossing from their side into your side when they see that you are better, and that you are rooted in the better foundation. However, those who are controlled opponents, would be those who are consciously in the employ of an enemy, and are seeking to subvert and exhaust the potential of a movement. It’s those groups that I thought we should not even link to, because if they really are genuinely controlled opposition, then why even link to them at all? So I removed the category entirely. However, Daniel has persuaded me that there is a certain utility to having ‘controlled opposition’ as a category, so it will come back. It’s just that I am wary of it becoming a kind of bucket into which any group who is not liked is thrown, since then it starts to look like a ‘conspiracy theory’ kind of thing. If you are going to have that category though, then something like the German NPD party link definitely would belong under it, since they are controlled opposition in the real sense of the word, because the German security services are very active within that group, and not for the purpose of helping anyone. I would not expect that something like Alt-Right would be under that category though, since while there are clearly disagreements between Alt-Right and Majorityrights, it would be a really severe accusation to accuse them of being controlled opposition. But I am of course open for debate on that, and I defer to you guys in any case, if you should happen to disagree. Since it may also be that I don’t have all the necessary information. 22
Posted by tarqin on Thu, 09 Jul 2015 13:51 | # There would probably be three categories in terms of classification. i. Genuine controlled opposition. Besides the obvious GoV, I think it will be hard to put too many in the first category. After all, if they were obvious, they wouldn’t serve any purpose. To a more skeptical viewer (me), sites like Amren, Radix would also be put in the first category but then they have numerous supporters with ready-made excuses e.g. They’re a gateway. So the question is, how is “gateway” any different to “obfuscator”? This is the internet… a person has complete freedom to go anywhere they want . We’re not the Freemasons here where secrets are reserved for only higher level initiates.
23
Posted by Mick Lately on Thu, 09 Jul 2015 15:45 | # Jew writing in Jewish “Salon” attacks white paranoia over Jade Helm 15: Jewess writing in Jewish “Slate” does much the same: While I don’t believe that this operation Jade Helm 15 will be “the endgame” I do believe that the Jewish hostile elite in the U.S.A. is planning to use military means against white Americans. 24
Posted by Mick Lately on Thu, 09 Jul 2015 17:20 | # Remember that two Jews wrote about “The Growing Right-Wing Terror Threat” in the Jew York Slimes: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/opinion/the-other-terror-threat.html?_r=1 And the next day (June 17th, 2015) the shooting in Charleston took place. Could be a coincidence but there seems to be a push to convince American whites of a right-wing terrorism threat and there’s an obvious egging on of blacks and other non-whites to hate whites (Ferguson, etc.) both of which are being pushed by the Jewish hostile elite. 25
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Fri, 10 Jul 2015 06:49 | #
I don’t know much about what happened in the past, but basically I was asked to accomplish these things: 1. Make the website look better by changing its appearance, but doing so without fundamentally altering the design. This is not controversial, I don’t think anyone can say that I’ve done anything wrong here, particularly since no one can deny that the site - visually - looks and works considerably better than it did a couple days ago, and the only thing that has changed around here in the last couple of days is that I decided to do things. Regarding the content, if you had seen what the ‘Links’ section looked like before I edited it, you’d completely understand why I was very pro-active in the changes that I made. Previously, it was such a long list that no one could possibly keep track of what was happening in all those sites that were being linked to, and many of the links that I removed are ones that had content which directly cut against the stated goals of Majorityrights. Furthermore, everything that I’ve done so far, has been with the approval of Daniel and Guessedworker. 26
Posted by red cape of the hippies on Wed, 15 Jul 2015 11:45 | # Regarding the red cape of blaming “hippies and the 1960’s”.. This red cape succeeded in getting Whites to fight against what is best for them - the pursuit of midtdasein (as opposed to being assigned expendability as a male); which was the largely inarticulated but crucial motive of the hippies. It also serves to blame White males by falsely treating them as if they were the progenitors of what were in fact Jewish motives. Regarding “the sexual revolution and free love” I would first look at Marcuse, Eros and Civilization, 1955: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eros_and_Civilization Regarding Civil Rights, I would begin by looking at the well documented, long history of Jewish control over the NAACP Marxist (Jewish) promotion of black power, violence has been discussed by Michael O’Meara. I have illustrated how how Hannah Arendt was instrumental in the Jewish retooling of “civil rights” on behalf of black integration. I have discussed, as have others, how Frankfurter and other Jews have been influential on The Warren Court’s decision on school integration - Brown vs. Board of Education… ...how Nicholas Katzenbach and other Jews were instrumental in the perversion of “Civil Rights” legislation against discrimination ... in schools and even privately owned businesses. etc. These things were not conveived by the Hippies nor were they even commenced in the decade of the 60’s, but well before… 27
Posted by Jews, fetuses and Reagan on Fri, 18 Sep 2015 08:07 | # “How many f—-ing Jews do these people think are in United States?”
“The entire Republican Party is pro-Reagan, pro-life, pro-Israel,’ ‘I like the Jews, I like fetuses, I like Reagan. Didn’t need to hear applause lines about them all night.’ ...explaining in her Fox interview that she was merely criticizing “pandering” by the GOP candidates.”
28
Posted by Millenials ok with limiting free speech on Wed, 25 Nov 2015 02:33 | #
29
Posted by Josh Berger new chair British Film Inst. on Sun, 10 Jan 2016 20:21 | #
30
Posted by "Human Bio-Diversity" another YKW misnomer on Wed, 07 Jun 2017 10:07 | # Another Jewish misrepresentative term would be “Human Bio-Diversity” (HBD)
...however, YKW in tandem with right-wingers have misapplied the term as basically matter of I.Q. and hierarchicalization - typical distortion of a term to make it repugnant. Post a comment:
Next entry: Ten years, and how much has really changed?
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) CommentsThorn commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Thu, 19 Dec 2024 01:13. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Thu, 19 Dec 2024 01:11. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Sat, 14 Dec 2024 21:35. (View) Manc commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Sat, 14 Dec 2024 20:51. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Sat, 14 Dec 2024 19:49. (View) Manc commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Sat, 14 Dec 2024 18:47. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Thu, 12 Dec 2024 23:29. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'News of Daniel' on Thu, 12 Dec 2024 22:01. (View) Manc commented in entry 'News of Daniel' on Thu, 12 Dec 2024 19:52. (View) Manc commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Thu, 12 Dec 2024 18:17. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'News of Daniel' on Thu, 28 Nov 2024 00:02. (View) Manc commented in entry 'News of Daniel' on Wed, 27 Nov 2024 17:12. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Mon, 25 Nov 2024 02:05. (View) Manc commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Sun, 24 Nov 2024 19:32. (View) |
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 01 Jul 2015 10:10 | #
Daniel, this list of sins would benefit from some scholarship ... names, publications, dates, quotes, etc, to put beyond doubt that they can indeed be assigned to Jewish authors. Where possible, said authors should be shown to exhibit Jewish ethnic concerns.