“Aspen Institute”: (((Panel discusses))) Active Measures

The Alt-Right is discussed in minute 14:45:

Evelyn Farkas: Former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia: 14:45: It drives me crazy when Former Director Comey says that the Russians are coming back. To your point, they never left. I mean they’re still here, they have all that information, they’re in our cyber- and in our information-sphere.

Ned Price: And its broader than just Wikileaks and the overt or semi overt organs of the Russian government. I think one thing we noticed even after the election; you take the sort of trending story in Alt-Right or so-called Alt-Right circles: [example] hashtag #Syriahoax started in Russia and somehow make their way to the United States and started trending in some of the same circles that are collectively known as the Alt-Right. And I think the linkage between the two is not something we fully understand; how something jumps across he Atlantic like that and tends to land with the same group of people after originating in pro-Russia circles.

Now we need a non-Jewish panel discussing Israeli and Jewish influence over the American electorate - lol.

..in fact, there are some questions toward the end that bear upon that -

Charlie D. from Duke Law: 52:00: Would it help if we broadened the discussion about all foreign nations who are trying to influence our campaigns?

Panel averts the question -

Ned Price: 52:19: I would start with the proposition that it’s natural for governments to have policy preferences. Clearly I would suspect lots of the NATO member countries were made uncomfortable listening to Donald Trump during the campaign speak of NATO being obsolete. I think that the issue is that in today’s environment there has been attempt at criminalization on policy preferences on the part of foreign capitals. But I think we have to remember is a far cry from a NATO country, you know, privately rooting for Hillary Clinton and a strategic adversary getting involved in our election with Active Measures, covert influence, social media, you name it.

Julia Ioffe: They weren’t probing and scanning our election infrastructure, yeah.

Audience Member: Have any of you considered the business role of the president and Russia; because he has, right now, no one will lend him money in New York City, no one will do business with him in New York City. He owes a great deal of money. Where does he get the money? There are a lot of rumors that he gets it from Russia. Have any of your explored any of that?

Julia Ioffe: 53:48: Both of his sons said that he (Trump) gets most of his money from them (Russia) ...and its not a crazy proposition either that if he’s doing real estate in New York and Florida ...and guess where (((Russians))) who want to park their money outside of Russia, guess where they want to buy real estate? - (((New York and Florida))).

GW: We will carry our formative influences with us into the new life, which will, therefore, turn out not to be a new life at all.  You know it of the proto-typical German-American Hitler fan who is actually a libertarian.  You know he will never be Nazi.

No, the Jews would never try to play them off of other White people:

(((Julia Ioffe))): This time I have to say, like, if there’s a third world war, it’s like the Chicago Cubs, maybe its their turn, maybe its not so bad; they (Germany) kind of deserve it now.

GW: No matter how hard he tries he will only ever be a libertarian, as will the world he makes.

In certain contexts he may make a libertarian, as if libertarianism, a Jewish idea, is not destructive enough in America and to our group systemic maintenance broadly. But in Europe he is likely to stir up terrible conflict if not inter European war.

It’s “the end of Europe” (i.e., the end of Jews feeling comfortable there; but after they flee… let the goyim and liberal mixed Jews have at it).

....

What is important to be taken under consideration, particularly with regard to Bowery’s perspective - though it is shared significantly by GW and to a lesser extent MacDonald (because he was studying groups and therefore the topic is not verboten of itself) - is that:

In his treating pure nature and the individual as sacrosanct, he is not only committing an epistemological blunder (which would be characterized as Cartesian, yes) of separating nature and individual from the relativizing criteria of group interests [the requirement to integrate theoria with praxis, the social realm - which has been the western philosophical assignment beginning with Aristotle, and proceeding through Heidegger and others] which would provide the means to hold individuals and “our nature”, even our group interests to account, but moreover he sates explicitly that when it comes down to it, what he cares about is individuality - and he cares about that above our race: I.e. if not “Euroman” then if he perceives another race doing a better job of fostering individualism, he would join their side.

This kind of maintenance of that strict reverence for “nature”, for the “courage to be one’s natural self” has had the ironic upshot in precipitating, as Tillich observed, the “most elaborate and oppressive of totalitarian regimes” - he was talking about the Nazis. Whether they were the worst, one can argue, but they were bad enough, certainly did their part in instigating the world wars - They were not ethno-nationalists and it is no coincidence that with their epistemological blunder, their over emphasis on pure theoretical nature - that they thought not in human, moderating and relativizing terms, but headlong in naturalistic fallacy of imperial conquest, dominate or be dominated, war is natural, master and slave….“you can do no other, its just a fact of nature”, etc. - no accountability.

That is to say, this naturalism and hyper “naturalized” individualism is going to precipitate catastrophic collectivism as it is bereft the human criteria of praxis.

Believing that one is on the side of such objective power, unhesitatingly of pure nature in all its power, might be compelling and intoxicating, but it is prone to vast hubris.

Now, hermeneutics has a way of handling this error and managing its correction. We can begin with the hypothesis that you and Bowery were influenced by the prevailing narratives of the 50’s - the Cold War and The Soviet Red scare of collectivism,* the need to protect the individual from totalitarian collectivism. That was seen as the greatest threat at the time. You would be influenced by literature like Orwell and then all the pop psychology of the 60’s talking about personality, you would have been “validated” by the misrepresentations of “leftism” (cultural, anti-White Marxism) in the 70’s the Reagan Thatcher/(((Vienna Schools))) boom of the 80’s, “language and social/society is bad” .....and as things started to get really bad with cultural Marxism kicking into full gear in the 90’s, Austrian school individualism be damned, Bowery, in particular, would be repulsed by the word “social”, socialism and social things as they are associated singularly with Jewish leftist, anti White internationalism; and the enslaving requirement that individual White Americans must pay and sacrifice themselves for this “social” realm, in which they have no interest (neither did I, that’s why I left).

               
It is very interesting to note that even with MacDonald’s excellent study of old brain reaction to different races, the Jews present a challenge to this in crypsis. Talk about the need to transcend perception, intuition even, with language and history. In some cases in particular you need language, talk and historical understanding to realize, “this person may have seemed ‘intuitively’ to be on my side, but now I realize that they are not.”

It is perhaps telling that in his call for a formal declaration of war that Bowery does not especially specify who his side is - vaguely Euro man, but not very specifically; and neither are friends and enemies specified. That’s how much priority he is giving to the individual “Euroman” over our group(s) interests ...he would declare war now, and yet I am being called headlong, I am being told that I am the one jumping the gun.

      - DanielS

* Which was a legitimate scare, but there’s another problem, as we can see, of protecting the group (or group DNA before you wrongly accuse me of saying that the individual comes sheerly out of the social a le Descartes) that would in turn protect our individualism, and out of which our individualism emerges.

....

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 08 Nov 2017 08:30 | #

Captainchaos: Just what kind of solution does Heideggerian philosophy offer for staving off racial extinction anyway?  What, if you spend a lot of time meditating, you may, just maybe, experience a few fleeting seconds of instinctual clarity in which your biological imperatives are perceived as of overriding importance?  But what about the rest of the time, which just happens to be most of your life?  Back to la la land! 

And what about the vast majority of people who won’t even bother to meditate, and who will dismiss all this as just new age horseshit?

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 08 Nov 2017 08:43 | #

DanielS:

Well, as with any good, social organizing principle (or socially disorganizing ideas, such as objectivism can instigate, where they want to block organization) the Jews have latched onto hermeneutics and associated it with their antagonism - associating it (wrongly) with strict antagonism to scientific facts, to the reality of race, etc. - that’s how they turned off - not only no-nonsensical normal folks - but even very intelligent and scientific minded people like MacDonald, GW and Bowery, turned them off to its, not only utility, but necessity, even. They’ve turned them off to it even though its not a Jewish idea!

In shorter answer, the majority of people will treat hermeneutics, when its done well, as shared stories which allow them to transcend set backs and contradictions, despite obstacles, to project their motivation, their authenticity (which liberation from facticity requires) with sustained coherence (thus also accountability, agency and warrant), being part of a people, into the future.

On the other hand, if our people tell confused, arbitrary and endlessly self critical stories* (or simply allow for negative stories to be told about us) we are in big trouble.

* GW plucked out an excellent scholar, who critiqued the golden rule in depth.

And, in further defense of GW, his holding fast to emergentism does reflect a deep lesson as to how European peoples think, a kind of organic slowness and poesis of thought*, a healing sense of how we are, as opposed to the facile, speedy, stealthily imposed affectations and lies of Jewish and liberal narratives, stories, concepts…. or of arbitrary thrownness and mere facticity as upshot from the rupturing effects of modernity and Cartesianism. Emergentism thus, is a part of our hermeneutics circle nevertheless; and that’s good.

* As you know, the nature of our thinking has evolved not just to think in facile terms of defeating the manichean devils of neighboring middle eastern tribes and implementing manichean trickery of our own, in low trust, tightly group organized competition right back at them; we have not had the luxury of being so superficial, we rather need to solve grand problems of nature - augustinian devils.

It will take some adjustment, perhaps evolution on our part to overcome the naivete of our species born in isolation from manichean competition: we must be better at handling both details, not only augustinian but manichean as well.

It may be a fact that most people would think (((Julia Ioffe))) doesn’t look Jewish, many men would think she is attractive, but a willing suspension of disbelief facilitates liberation from mere facticity to apprehend the broader Jewish pattern, enabling critical distance and more rational evaluation; and thus protection of our own kind.