|
|
|
DanielS in the enemy camp, continually hesitant, but inserts time bombs to bring down their campaign DanielS goes into the enemy camp, continually hesitant, but inserts the time bombs that will bring down their campaign against White sovereignty and systemic homeostasis. I’ve never seen Luke Ford so stressed (as I did the first time that I hung out with him briefly at the end of a hangout) and I’ve never seen him look so glum (the second time, when he gave me the floor with just him as an interlocutor). Actually, I take no delight in that. I’m sure that he felt pressure given his own position in defense of Jewry and from the Jewish friendly community around him to try to limit my message exposing the “objectivist” anti-“left” marketing campaign. Even so, I was able to say around 80% of what I’d planned - and some ideas will act like time bombs having gotten in there. This was my first “HANGOUT” and not having opportunity to practice and get feedback as to how I might sound beforehand, I did not realize how persistently hesitant I was and how it was coming across. It was hard even for me to listen to myself the first time around in this uniquely bad delivery of mine. I hesitate constantly, but nevertheless, the content is there and I realized that the second time around listening to it - that it wasn’t all that bad for that reason. I take solace in the fact of knowing that I don’t have to speak that way and don’t usually, in normal conversation. I was in enemy territory, resources at risk, and that is cause for hesitation. But knowing that my position and resources are robust, it was alright to go ahead - I know that my program works now, it can’t be destroyed by the enemy. The best they can hope to do is distract from it, obstruct and try to bury it.
I am honestly not happy to see Luke looking so glum. It’s telling that he adds a link to Cofnas’ critique, like holy water against a goyim assault (I wasn’t impressed by Cofnas’ critique, BTW).  I come on at (2:20:47) and am confronted by Bob, the “bad cop”, the one with one dark eye-glass, lower right.I had tested the water with him a few days before, on the evening of December 30th, in a Hangout called the “Victory of Social Justice Warriors.” Seeing the Jewish sponsored meme that’s been promoted since 2008 - you don’t want any of that social justice warring, do you? - I saw it as occasion to join the conversation, which I do, late in the hangout (2:20:47) having just woken up (I’m in a completely different time zone).  (((Kyle))), comes on and tries to intimidate me with a strawman soliloquy They had a little test or trap (depending upon how you look at it) waiting for me - three antagonistic, young interlocutors. One Jewish kid named (((Kyle))) was supposed to intimidate me with his brilliance. (((Kyle))) is a rather simple fellow, really, even if he can elaborate extensively on his simple cause - advocating his Jewish people (down with their program against “the left”). He interrupted my flow and straw manned me with soliloquys (he acted like I was “confused” - a typical Jewish canard), to clear up my “confusion” about Cochran, making some big deal about how I supposedly didn’t understand Cochran when he knew nothing about what I know, with my having made a few offhand, half joking remarks not intending any elaboration.  Luke Ford flanked by his good cop/bad copThen came a little “good cop /bad cop” pair against me. This Bob guy, goy, a Christian of the “irony bro” ilk (Irony Bro means obnoxious trolling with no pretense of trying to understand what the person you are trolling is trying to say, just bury them). Bob is the one with one dark eye glass - a flaming asshole who was attempting to bludgeon me with antagonism from the get go - “here, take this I.Q. test while you are waiting.” Sure Bob, I’ll do that. “Everything you say comes from 4-Chan” - going to show how he knew nothing about me, whipping out a comment perhaps applicable to Andrew Anglin. I have been to 4-chan briefly two or three times and derive literally none of my ideas from it; but that is the kind of immediate accusation this guy was rendering. He went on to say, “I can understand nothing you say” ...I rejoined that maybe his I.Q. isn’t high enough, idiot. (bad cop)  Salty Sage the “good cop” who tries to tell me that he’s on my side - yeah, right.At the same time they had this other guy, “Salty Sage”, who claimed to be on my side. I don’t know where his two comments are now; but in the hangout and comments, Salty Sage would “kindly”, condescendingly, ‘re-interpret’ me for the others to understand on “friendly terms”. Then he added in the comments, that my “misdirection” (tries to turn the game around on me, as if I am the one giving misdirection, not Jewry; no, Salty Sage, I am the one diagnosing mis-direction), he tries to suggest that I am the one that is giving misdirection and that he sees it “sympathetically” as stemming from necessary contortions of circumstance.. When I called attention to the fact that Gottfried instigated this marketing campaign against “the left”, another “friend”, Ruston, said that I had a thing against Gottfried, thinks he’s great, and that everyone should read him. Then Salty Sage says he’s on my side (good cop). He groans when I say that Christianity is bullshit, then says he’s on my side (good cop Salty Sage is “on my side”, yeah right). Anyway, that’s the context of my first hangout with Luke:(2:20:47); I make a few points that I don’t make in my subsequent talk, which is mostly me talking and Luke adding a few rejoinders. I didn’t get to say half of what I’d like to say, but the chat encouraged Luke to use the plausible excuse of my bad delivery to prevent me from subverting their position any further. Listen here: DanielS from Majorityrights talks with Luke on the topic of whether Jews are good for Western Civilization (and Europeans generally); you can listen here or Download the MP3: https://soundcloud.com/luke-ford-666431593/are-jews-good-for-western-civilization - Pinned by Luke Ford.  Brundlefly Norvin HobbsOne of Luke‘s frequent guests, “Brundlefly” (Jewish wife, Jeff Goldblum Avitar) tries his best to put the damper on my position in the comments (which I re-post under the fold) and was probably one of those who got Luke to shut down the discussion more quickly than he normally would (Luke typically allows discussions to go on for a couple hours and I had expected to say all I had planned to say, but wasn’t given the time). Brundedlefly starts-off amicably enough, while giving away the fact that he knows nothing about me, given his surprise that I am familiar with Norvin Hobbs.
After some commentators who agree with me that Jewry is NOT good for Western Civilization, things get more antagonistic and I defend myself. Only two people seem to be directly on my side, “Kat Ruby” and “Jewel Citizen”, who seems almost like Soren Renner, but I’m not sure who it is….
Transcript of DanielS talking with Luke Ford on the question of “Are Jews good for Western Civilization?”, 6 January 2019
Daniel, how did you become red pilled? DanielS: Well I became red-pilled, first of all, I’d like to say that I take some exception over the term red pill, the whole pill thing seems to trendy and part of a marketing campaign that I’m averse to. But anyway, I understand what you mean, so I won’t make too much trouble for you. Ah, Red Pill - I take that to mean becoming racially conscious or defiant of the fact that I am racially conscious despite the fact that you’re not supposed to be. That’s more like it. Because there always was that for me ... as I said, I remember not liking the chocolate nurses when I had my tonsils out. But lets see, in earnest? or seriously I uh, the uh, I grew up near Newark, New Jersey. And in 1967 and in 1998 [meant to say 1968] there were riots there. Was chocolate nurses ok? Luke Ford: yeah, that’s fine, there’s nothing wrong with that. DanielS: So, in 1967 and in 1968 there were these riots in Newark and uhm, this was not something that was, and even then you could sense that this was something that other people did…other white groups. Then you’re watching TV and I see Malcolm X saying that uh, the black man was going to rule. ..and I didn’t want to be ruled by blacks, I didn’t like that. Not long after that in ....when I was ten years old, there was a program in my town called school integration, which meant that you had to be bused to go to the other side of town where the blacks lived to go to school with them. [note, in introducing autobio, I should introduce the I don’t want/we don’t want final grammar stealth prohibition] ..and that was just a nighmare. But as I said, it, to me it was so obvious, that any normal white person was not going to want to basically, live with blacks, that I didn’t worry about it too much; because I figured you know that one day when I was adult I’ll go my way and have my friends and uh, even in that school that was heavily black there was the lunch room segregation that just naturally happend. You’re feeling it - anti-White man. Feminism was really bad in the 1970s. It was stepping up into high gear particularly after The Vietnam War was over. And I have some explanations for that. It’s not just the usual economic one that’s given, although I think that’s a part of it too. Again, you know I saw blacks, and as I’m becoming mature and liking women, I really liked White women and didn’t particularly fancy blacks I don’t ever recall being jealous of anyone who has had a black woman. I think that’s a pretty profound statement right there. But, I don’t know if people of this generation are aware, if the millennials and so are aware of it. But in the 70’s and early 80s you did not see, like working and middle class white women with black guys. It didn’t happen. There was the rhetoric, the implication was there. It was a bit scary - scary because I didn’t see anything to the exchange. I didn’t see anything that I wanted in exchange from blacks, really. So, you didn’t see these kinds of pairings. Once in a rare while, you’d see a White woman who was kind of a dog, and it was so rare and she was usually so pathetic that you didn’t even care. It didn’t really… ....finally, after a buildup in the media of anti-White man stuff, political correctness was not officially titled that until about 1990 but it was in effect. It was ...The Frankfurt School stuff was happening through media: blacks, gays and women against White men. ..and then finally in the late 80s, you finally started seeing interracial couples and some really, really fine White women. ..and uh. And I couldn’t see the reason to participate without taking severe issue with this somehow on a meaningful level. [taken for granted final grammar]
And the idea of abandoning America was just unthinkable for a man - it’s like to say you’re not a man. You’re turning away from all this opportunity, so… it was really quite a bind. I’d already graduated from undergraduate school but I thought at that point that ok, since I’m being bombarded with this anti-White man rhetoric, let me write to some of these professors who might be able to help me develop a platform in defense of White men. I didn’t have the words for it at the time, but using something like the interpretive/critical model. And I did that. I embarked upon a graduate school career in the early 90s. With that in mind and with the idea so it would be adversarial to both blacks and not really only feminists, because traditional women were problematic as well. And though I had some inkling of course, of Jewish power and influence ...in media, in money, there was the stereotypes going around…but it was such a taboo to broach that I wanted no part of it. I was of course concerned not to be associated with anything that could be construed as Nazism. I knew Jews, and I didn’t know them as groups, I knew them as individuals. I just figured that if they’re doing well, then why don’t White people emulate their style. Why don’t they sort of collectivize and look after their own interests. I figured these people are just jealous. But then, having the experience of realizing that I was not going to be able to develop this platform in graduate school. ..not without, well, I was not going to be able to do it; and it would be hell trying. I had to look at who was standing in my way. That basically caused me to abandon a graduate career and abandon America. I decided that I had to get out - the rule structure of America, the demographics. I mean, people talk about that it’s getting bad, but for me, looking at Newark, New Jersey in the 60s and 70s , I was already mortified by the demographic title wave that was building and what it augured. So then, yeah… I abandoned my graduate school career in America and tried to find where I could live and identify in Europe. I’m half Italian and half Polish so, it had to be one of those two countries for me. I thought it was going to be Italy, but it turned out that Poland was better for me. And I thought that I would go for the easy route, something like a Jared Taylor approach and try to red pill the Poles in the service of helping to maintain this Amazingly White country that I was concerned to protect; but that was difficult on a couple of levels and proved disastrous for reasons that I won’t elaborate. First of all at that time the Poles, so soon after, we’re talking about 1996, so soon after they came out of communism, they didn’t want to hear anything bad about America. And I already knew that American rule structure, that’s where the problems were coming from. So, that made it hard. Another thing is that they didn’t know anything about blacks. They only basically knew what they saw on television and movies - the misrepresentation of them as wholly benign and victims; and I did’t have the internet to back me up at that time. Long story shot, because I was labeled as a racist and a supremacist American, there were some local girls who sicked the mafia on me - probably because I didn’t particularly fancy this one and uh, and again that’s part of the disaster. So, I figured this is not working. I’ve got to get more radical. I did notice some anti-Semitism here and I was a bit taken aback by it. Even though I’d gone through a brief phase of remission or in sort of denial. I mean, I was teaching English at a university at one point and I had a class, and I was trying to explain to them about black in America, just sort of after class in non-serous talk. At that point I thought to get to the bottom of this and I organized an international conference featuring some of the highest ranking Jewish scholars in the humanities. On the topic of, under the rubric of pervasive ecology I conceived of social construction and…. “Cultural Clashes and the Social Construction of an Ecology of Cultures & People” 15:32 But they didn’t talk about what I wanted to talk about. I learned about, I learned quite a few things and I uh, got some more clues, but I realized that this was not uh, that I wasn’t going to be able to uh, sort of coordinate these issues as I might have hoped. That’s when, in my downfall from that, that’s when I came upon MacDonald - I saw his talk about the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965… And his presentation made me more comfortable with taking a critical stance toward Jewry. And I was listening to Metzger some too, and his criticism of the right wing made me comfortable with that as well. From there I began cultivating that perspective. But uh, just to back-track a little bit. This is segueing to your question of Jewish impact on Western Civilization and Europeans as I see it…. One of the ideas that I conceived of, back in the 80s… Doing that, I noticed something that other people weren’t calling attention to - that, in the 60s there was something of what I called at the time, a paradox - I would now say, incommensurate motives between hippies and feminists. So, I start my own hermeneutic positioning, there. And I began looking at what were the underlying motives of the hippies. And what were feminists doing. This was the time of second wave feminism, Betty Friedan and her book The Feminine Mystique. I was aware of all this stuff because I have an older sister who was a feminist. And she was into all that rotten stuff, very bitchy with all that…and I was being made neurotic as all hell for all that. But anyway, I had this notion of, I think that i had the notion of placing them within Maslow’s hierarchy of motives before I read Friedan. Because I noticed that hippies were sort of like Heidegger, they were associated a lot with Being. You know, the Be-ins in 1967 in Haight-Ashbury. So, you naturally associate that with very basic levels. Let me be, the basic levels of Maslow’s heirarchy. And then, to my delight, in accordance with the paradigm that I sought to fit-out…not only was Betty Friedan talking in terms of Maslow’s hierarrchy, she was actually a student of Abraham Maslow. And she saw women’s liberation as requiring that women have access to the higher reaches of Self Actualization, the top of the Hierarchy of Needs. And I began reading more into some of the basic feminist literature that was on my sister’s shelf. Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex. And I was able to detect the very sentence which provided the inspiraiton for Betty Friedan from in Simone de Beauvoir. I think it’s a prety close paraphrase to say: “This utility of the housekeepers heaven is why she prefers the Aristotlean morality of the golden mean, that is to say, of mediocrity.” So, this was at once, flouting Aristotle’s profound and I think accurate and important advice that humans, particularly as biological creatures and so on, require a pursuit of optimality not maximization. The denial of that was part of what was taking America and this pursuit of actualization into runaway and destruction of social consciousness as a priority, rupturing it. [should have said rupturing social systemic homeostasis] Then I began fleshing out some of the hippie stuff. 22:34 So, anyway, these motives were incommensurate between the hippies, White men were looking for a downward motion into Being, what Heidegger would call Dasein and MidtDasein, that is, Being amidst the group, communality amidst your folk. Whereas women [meant to say feminists] were pursuing Self Actualization. I’ve never been one for strict traditionalism or certainly not liberalism so it was natural for me to try to work this out. And I have tried to re-work a topoi of Maslow’s hierarchy. This is not going to go on forever, don’t worry. Seeing the problem ...well, I didn’t know at the time or I’d forgotten that actualization starts with Aristotle. He saw it as the end of your emergent teleology. ...as an individual or any creature. ..and that would be self actualization and… Maslow took it into pop culture, sort of extended the meaning which is ok that its not just teleology, that it becomes sort of like your creative expressions and so on, peak experiences. The problem with Maslow and with Friedan’s take on Maslow is that it looks upon achievement as strictly a differentiation of fulfillment on basic levels. And it was lending to a disingenuous, I feel, criticism of White men as such. In other words when they achieve its only because they’re so privileged from the get-go. And based on my experience I knew better than that. I mean, the Vietnam Draft, among other rites of passage, brutal rites of passage that men are forced to go through; it’s hardly a privilege and its…. [remember the talk of rage for being criticizes for having achieved for being strictly at an advantage…though some have achieved for a good start] So, a lot of men were achieving on the basis of Freudian or Nietzschean sublimation or even deprivation of basic needs. That is to say that they were overcompensating; and achieving despite that; and a lot of them were on top simply because they were great. ..a lot of them were on top because they somehow made it through and ..tradition, tradition had, I think, reserved places for men because they were required these tests and I think we’re not as apt to be as liberal as a result, not as apt to believe that it is all so easy. 27:07 So, as I see it, the thing to do is not to say that women can’t pursue higher reaches or [to say] that traditional roles are wrong either, but to allow them to gravitate where they usually will, but if they want to pursue higher reaches their tests should be a bit more rigorous, so that they are not so liberal when they reach there [include talk of confirmation, being talked to; becoming eloquent, the support and pandering that they benefit from that males don’t tend to have from basic levels]. Conversely, rites of passage or whatever should not be quite so brutal on men so that they’re not so overcompensating, so crazy, so given to malevolent transformation and reflexive reversal [sociopathology] when they [reach for and] reach positions of actualization, the top of actualization. I don’t think it should be conceived as a lineal thing so much as a circulating hermeneutic. That is you start with Being and MidtDasein -Socialization, is the essential matrix that White people especially need to be attuned-to. And this is something that the story of self actualization, the human potential movement…it’s dark side is that it ruptures that and its pursuit lends itself to creating crazy people. Another way of stabilizing the middle ranges of the hierarchy and these things ... [need talk of females being pandered to from all angles with the break up of classificatory discrimination,also rupturing group systemic homeostatis] are not lineal, they would kind of circulate around as need be…as I conceive it. In the middle ranges of the hierarchy are routine, I think people need routines to stabilize their existence and to practice their skills and to gain knowledge from their forebears and on the other hand, they need sacrament; that is, they need reverence for the profound inherited ways and episodic realization, representation of those inherited patterns. The practiced reverence for their significance. And these are things that don’t require so much luck, they would stabilize the overall pattern. Now, part of socialization of course is recognition of bounds and boundaries to social groups. That’s going to be another important thing that I’m going to talk about and this is going to come back to Jews in a second…of course we’re correcting two big Jewish misdirections as I see it now: Maslow, his misconstrual of Aristotlean actualization and Friedan, what Friedan is doing with it as well. And then the higher reaches would be ... a loose definition, it could be an expression of your emergentism, it could be your career but it would be within accountability to ..that it certainly doesn’t to harm to your social group; probably in fact, enhances it and that’s why you’re recognized and appreciated as this actualized being. So it would be to achieve an optimality of these things. Your not focusing on maximization and optimality in circulation of these topoi as I might call them. Let me go to my notes unless you have any questions for me. Luke Ford (33:15): Just to sum up my arguments for why Jews are good for Western Civilization - is the high average I.Q. High I.Q. people pay a lot more in taxes than they take out in government services. They also commit fewer crimes so that’s the essence of my argument. DanielS: I’d like to respond to that. Luke Ford: Go ahead. DanielS: The high I.Q. argument thing….one argument that I make against it again is that well, like Kant says, intelligence, fortune and fame or whatever other endowments one might have, bereft of goodwill, only makes a person worse. And if Jews don’t have good will toward Whites and there’s plenty of evidence that as a pattern they don’t necessarily care, that only makes them worse. Another thing I would say is that ok, they have high I.Q. - the Ashkenazi anyway, not necessarily the ones in Israel, I would say well good for you, they can have high i.q. with their people. We can take care of ourselves. They tend to look after their people, we can look after ours. The thing of crime, they don’t commit violent crime on an episodic and momentary basis but they commit White collar crime and crimes, things that may as well be criminal in terms of what they’re doing to the rule structures and the moral order of Whites. And… If you want to talk about civilization, going back to Christianity, which is the hugest, to me, Jewish trick…..deception. To me, its obvious that they were trying to overthrow Rome, so they likened it to their other adversary Babylon. ..intimidated people, saying that they were going to go to hell. And created this language game as GW says of the gradual undifferentiation as Bowery says, of their media of the times - which was the bible old and new testament - basically, Jewish nationalism, imperialism even and.. The Golden Rule. Jews pretty much practice the Silver Rule, which makes infinitely more sense. That you should get something in exchange that it should be a fair exchange. You should not do to others what [you wouldn’t want them] they would not do to you. Instead of this crazy obsequious golden rule. And after all, who are they worshipping? But a Jewish guy on a stick. It’s been a massive co-game. One of the reasons I reject Christianity is because I think that morals are so important. It’s just not a sufficient moral order - wherever it comes from. I went through a Christian phase because as an undergraduate I had nothing else to fall back on. I was so confused by what was going on. I found it so tangled and ...one of my religion courses, I took a religion course and one of my professors put me on to Kant: Prolegomenon to the Metaphysics of Morals - that was really helpful in weening me off of…of course there are problems with Kant too but ....it was helpful in weening me off of Christianity and giving me the structure that I lacked coming from a Catholic background. The principles and the thinking in unanimity, treating people as ends in themselves, these were really important ideas to help get me away from Christianity. And then talking to an Oxford professor some years later - he talked in terms of moral orders, plural. That people require moral orders so, the plurality of it provided a major infusion of the idea that Christianity is not THE moral order. ..and yet, something to be treated seriously. There’s not..you’re not going to go to any place in the world and among any people and not have..there’s always going to be somethings that are prohibited, some things that are obligatory and some things that are legitimate. On another level some things are blocked, confused, ambiguous. So, taking morals seriously as I think we must, that’s part of the reason why I reject Christianity and I don’t allow it to be promoted at Majorityrights. There, I discourage Christianity, Jewish definition of our terms, Nazism, scientism; crazy conspiracy theories. ok so unless you have any questions. Luke Ford (40:30): Ok let me just push back on a few points here. As for the idea that Jews don’t like Whites, 95% of Jews according to the general social survey identify as White and they feel more comfortable around Whites and are more trusting of Whites than of any other race. If Jews don’t marry a Jew overwhelmingly they will marry someone who is a White non-Jew. As for Jews wanting to overthrow Rome 2,000 years ago, yes, Jews wanted to overthrow Rome in Palestine 2,000 years ago because Jews wanted to run their own country, they didn’t want Rome running their own country - that seems like a reasonable desire. Yes, Christianity was started by Jews by very quickly became overwhelmingly non-Jewish. Jews, more than any other group in Europe were resistant to the claims of Christianity. Jews overwhelmingly don’t worship a Jew on a stick. The essential Jewish response to Christianity is that it is idolatry. Those are all my points so, I’m finished. DanielS(41:50): I don’t think that they were creating a religion that they meant to practice for themselves. And creation was not wholly rational. In some respects they created a Frankenstein and it came back to kill them at times. But still to me its a Jewish affectation. I don’t really want to get into it we can talk about Christianity another time. That’s the way I see it. That’s my hypothesis. It’s not a European religion. It’s not in our interests; and I would not at all recommend it, I don’t encourage it. I’ve had quite a bit of experience with Jews and I would say that they like you if your liberal. Maybe, as a second choice, as a Christian because your sort of under their yoke that way. Christianity ensures that the gentiles won’t fight back. Next choice after liberalism after Christianity they will go for another of the paleocon alternatives of sort of like race realism, especially now that the neocons and the political correctness has intersected with their interests….sort of a scientific take, which is like a lot of what you’re doing - sort of Judeo Christianity and objectivism, I would call it. Failing that they will basically encourage other right wing reactions - even Nazism, they’ll allow Whites to identify with because it’s basically going to go nowhere but perhaps causing Europeans to fight each other; perhaps causing a few of the traitorous Jews to get killed off. To say that they like Whites, I don’t think that presents kind of a complete picture. I think that maybe they have an arrogant attitude toward Whites; and they’re afraid of Whites and that’s the way they’re acting in their group evolutionary strategy which… One of the more intriguing ideas that brought me to Majorityrights was Faucettes’ notion that Bowery elaborated on of niche theory and horizontal transmission. Jews, starting form the Babylonian capiivity began to develop a parasitic relation to host nations. Those Jews in captivity came back and found their way into the upper niches over Judea. And then once they were taken out of Judea by the Romans ..again, I guess that shouldn’t have happened, but it did - they were making their ways into Europe in middleman and professions and things like that, they began developing a parasitic relation to the Europeans. What happened after that was they would begin consolidating money and after a time, people would recognize that they were ethnocentric that they were perceived as exploitative and not in the interests of the native folks, and you’d have things like the inquisition, the pogroms and then ultimately the holocaust. When people finally realize at some point, look at what the Jews are doing us! And they rise up and they attack. But the problem is that they wind up attacking the more ordinary, situated Jews, the less virulent ones. And the more virulent ones are selected for in the sense that they’ve got the money and they go over the border. That’s the theory. I’m repeating how this theory works. And after the holocaust they went over the border to the United States and they begin with a new host nation to parasite on. Now they’ve pretty much finished the United States. That’s how the theory goes. I think it’s an intriguing hypothesis and there seems to be a lot of truth to it. I’ve come up with an acronym - they do seem to have more and more niche power, let’s see: And I don’t think that they like Europeans all so much..their religion basically sees themselves as a light unto the gentiles, and the gentiles are largely an undifferentiaed other; and the way that they are treating them I think it’s clear that certainly in America, it had to do with immigration - you, you were very articulate about that yourself. You say well, the Christians do that too, yeah, well the Christians have got a Jewish [infiltrated] mindset. I don’t consider myself overly focused on the Jews. I concentrate on them, as I said, because I want to be sure that people know that the Nazis and Hitler idolaters can’t say that they are the only ones who are taking Jewish power and influence seriously. That can’t be allowed to happen. Luke Ford (51:30): Ok, let me ask you a question. What percentage of the problems of the Western world would you attribute to Jews? Because many people that I’ve spoken to, such as Erik Striker and Norvi Hobbs would say 99%. DanielS: No, not 99% Uhm, these people, uh, I don’t trust Erick Striker. But people like Norvin Hobbs and Tanstaafl who take it that far I think what they’re trying to do is that, they’re coming from a Germanic perspective which has the guilt trips lying right on top of them. So, to throw it off they push straight back. The best way to exonerate themselves and Hitler is to say that Jews really are the EVERY problem - the only thing to do is to just, kill, kill, kill, kill them Jews and take their shoes. So, I think there is that psychological motive there among Germans and Germanic Americans, these Nordic sorts. [should have said, as I have many times, they lack perspective because the guilt trip is directly on top of them]. I didn’t answer your question but, probably more than fifty percent though. Between fifty and a hundred percent, I’m not sure. It doesn’t totally matter; the issue is achieving systemic homeostasis for Whites. It means circulating the hermeneutic so that all relevant matters; and in the case of Jews because they are that powerful and important, because they do occupy these choke points that means that yes, attention has to be paid to them, critical attention has to be paid to them more often than other things. But they’re not doing it alone and they uh, as I see it, they are, they’re complicit with right wingers now. Right wingers tend to be either naive or sell outs, or naively creating backdoors for nefarious Jewish influence to disrupt the European homeostasis once again, or any sense of its order. As I was saying, it used to be, back in the 90s that people talked about political correctness that was the problem - it was terrible, reaching a crescendo. Luke Ford (54:43) Ok, let me ask you a question. Are there any Jews in the west who are not subversive, not interrupting European homeostasis? DanielS: uhm, I’m sure that there are ones who are not prolific and who are basically minding their own business, like these Hasidic communities, sort of. Nah, I wouldn’t even say that. The thing is, their antagonism is coming from two directions - it’s top down directives in creation of misleading rule structures and confusing rule structures; and from the bottom up, from their biology. So, even if they’re ok in this generation, you have to be concerned how they’re going to manifest in subsequent generations as I see it. That’s my experience of them. Luke Ford (55:49): So, in other words, no matter what Jews do they, if they’re not actively interrupting the European homeostasis, they are just incubating until they give birth to Jews who will interrupt the European homeostasis. DanielS: That’s my working hypothesis, yes. But the reason I’m not too concerned about rendering that is because the prescription is not to go and kill them then. The prescription is separatism through a rule structure of governance. I propose the DNA Nations. That Jews would become part of a different governance. And Whites would become part of a different governance. That’s something that even what, numbnuts, what’s his name, Kyle could go for. He wants to preserve Ashkenazi Jews, well go ahead. Yeah, so, I’m not proposing supremacism, I’m not proposing exploitation, Nazism, not denying holocaust or atrocities to Jews, anything like that. A separatist and one who seeks ethnonational sovereignty, and work to coordinate that with other ethnies and races. But yeah, I don’t, unfortunately, I don’t trust Jews and it is unfortunate, because usually, as you make your way through travels and academia, they are often the people that you gravitate to talk to first - well educated, intelligent and what not. Then I find, anyway, that uh, they tend to be a little bit or way too liberal on the issues that really matter to me. Obviously I find some Jewish women very attractive, maybe its the Italian element in them that I’m seeing, but uh..it would never get off the ground because the conversation would always end there, with their, their liberalism. But yeah, I think that Whites basically need to be separate from them. Luke Ford (58:48): Ok, I’m going to just jump in with a couple of points. You describe Jews as parasites, but that would be.. DanielS; NO!! that… it’s a metaphor but I don’t want to be coupled with that metaphor too.. Luke Ford: ok let me make my point. DanielS: But it’s dangerous. Because I’ve had it happen to me.. Luke Ford: Ok, I’m going to mute you, I get to say my points too. You’ll be back on in about 90 seconds. You argue that Jews act in parasitical ways. I would say that would be incredibly self destructive for Jews because they have to live in their home; so, you’re saying that Jews are destroying their own homes; most Jews in the United States, most Jews in England, most Jews in Europe, want to live in their gentile country of citizenship. They don’t want to move to the Jewish state. So, if Jews act as parasites, they’re just destroying their own homes; which I don’t think, makes sense. Then, you argue that Jews don’t like Whites but you need some empirical evidence beyond anecdotes, you need to point to some statistical evidence for this. And, you talk about Jews regard gentiles as an undifferentiated other - sure, there are many Jews who do that just as there are many Christians who regard all non Christians as non-Christians. Muslims regard all non-Muslims as just an undifferentiated other - that’s just the way social organization works. When you strongly identify with your group then everyone is just the other. I don’t think there’s anything unique about Jews there. [i might have said, no it doesn’t. groups can recognize that there are a variety of ethnonations among the gentiles] Ok, you’ll have to unmute but it’s back to you. Daniels(1:00:37): Ok, first off, I want to be very careful, with talk of parasitism and these things and Nazi ideology and like that, because I talk about these things, I try to talk about these things in a careful way that allows for a win win situation and co-existence and sometimes after discussions like this, its “oh, he hates Jews.” I don’t hate Jews. Regarding providing evidence and statistics, it could go on and on and I’m at the point of providing hypothesis which, based on experience and evidence that I’ve seen. with statistics along the way, I’m satisfied are backed enough. I could go back and provide statistics along the way but this is not the point that I’m at right now I’m at the point of proposing hypotheses , not proclaiming them as absolute facts which can’t stand correction. I have too much to say. I’m only a fraction of the way into this discussion to footnote everything. Even if I should it’s just not something I’m prepared to do. What was the other thing? Why a parasitic behavior would destroy its host? That’s just what it does. They don’t make sense. Jewish, in many ways, they’re encouraging Muslim, a lot of them are encouraging Muslim migration into Europe. It doesn’t make sense. And saying people are Islamophobic and things like this - Maybe they’re trying to get Whites to share their enemy. Whatever their reason, it doesn’t make sense a lot of the things that they’re doing, except maybe divide and conquer, mix, mix up the gentiles. Whether they are parasitic or not, I’m satisfied that there’s enough evidence to me that separatism is required. And the fact that I’m not recommending any persecution, outside of outright criminal behavior, makes that [wish for separatism] perfectly valid. We should come back to our a hermeneuetic travels into the Jewish influence on western civilization. I was talking about hippies and feminists we did that. White male requirements….affording of my attempt to put that across. Later at Majorityrights with DNA Nations…reconstruction of moral orders; anchored by sex as sacrament versus sex as celebration - a balance that can be if - the same, one thing I didn’t mention about the management of gender relations and individuation and a revamped hierarchy of needs, optimal circulating needs, is that this can be done if you have borders. Otherwise this system can’t be managed. One thing that would help stabilize our system as Whites is the institutionalization of sex as sacrament outside of Christianity. We start with narrative so to speak, this is the way people come into the world, this is the way people are confirmed, hopefully in a responsible way, with forethought. And a sacred attitude takes you to a relational level, beyond the episode and moment; and this allows for a defense against cynicism; even if its just like five percent of the population that are doing this, that are really serious about monogamy. That serves as an important defense; it not only stabilizes the system as a control variable, but it would form a defense against Islam being able to say that it has the answer to gender relations and to having a serious attitude with regard to sex or Judaism for that matter; or Christianity for that matter. And, by the same token, if we have borders, we can have the option of treating sex as a celebration or any number of ways that you can treat sex as long as you’re accountable, to the borders and especially to respect this aspect of monogamy for those who would choose that. And its understood why that is an important feature of our systemic homeostasis in ethnonationalism - what I call White Left ethnonationalism for a reason, as the antidote to the Jewish imposed language game, now, which has gone into overdrive. There’s been a long standing confusion of terminology between what’s called the left and what’s called liberalism. Whites in America and I guess anywhere, tend to use these terms interchangeably. And I ...using Wittgenstein’s notion of ordinary language philosophy, looking beneath this terminology, I have ascertained that the underlying ..the understanding of leftism is unionization. So its inasmuch the opposite of liberalism. You’re in the union or you are not. There might have been a liberalism to it in England when it was a matter of opening the Aristocratic class border at one time, as Lockeatine philosophy did, but even then it wasn’t entire liberalism because it was just that the Aristocracy was supposed to be accountable to the lower classes somehow. And then that became exaggerated and distorted as well into accountable to just fucking everybody in the empire and beyond. But if you take that concept of unionization to the national borders, then you have something - a left ethnonationalism to correspond with the other aspects of, positive aspects beneath the concept of leftism, which is a vigilance and accountability of elites, the people who are doing better, to make sure that they’re not betraying you. A looking after the rank and file to make sure that they’re happy and accountable as well. It’s a matter of social accountability of the full group, including marginals, to make sure that they don’t go out of the group with impunity, and invite scabbery into the group. That’s the idea of unionization. Now, what’s happened with this notion of what Jews are doing with leftism, basically going into full gear in 2008, with the financial crisis when Jews consolidated their wealth at the end of one of these [boom bust, parastic] cycles of parasitism, they had no more use for these leftist coalitions. They began intersecting with their interests - they’re so on top now that they don’t want people to get the idea of unionizing and looking at who’s on top and what they’re doing - because it would call attention to them and their right wing sell out cohorts. Luke Ford (1:12:09): While you take a breath I’ll just make a couple of brief rejoinders. You talk about sex as a sacrament and return of monogamy. Most Orthodox Jews are virgins when they get married. Even though they overwhelmingly live in highly urban areas in Beverly Hills and Manhattan (Daniels: “that’s good”). Luke continues: I see that as an example that other groups could emulate to their benefit. You talk about the importance of borders, well, the best book on nationalism of which I’m aware is written by an Israeli Jew, Yorim Yozoni. And you talk about Jewish imposed language games. So, how do Jews impose a language game and why do non-Jews permit it. Ok, I’m finished. DanielS (1:12:56): Well they shouldn’t permit it…and they’re so saturated. Well, ok, let me start here: there’s a lot of talk and I agree with it of Jews having been evolved in a middle eastern context where they are confronted with their main competition as other tribes. So they develop Manichean strategies. By Manichean I mean trickery. Those are just Manichean devils. It’s Clerk Maxwell’s demons. Augustinian devils and Manichean devils. Whereas Europeans, especially northern Europeans are evolved against the elements of nature, mostly; and those are Augustinian devils. Those are natural devils. They don’t change the rules when solved. And Europeans are more happy attending to those kinds of problems. So, that’s one reason why it happens and then uh, I guess the long history of antagonism and Jews having to survive in diaspora; and their protecting their niche power and interests; they developed these deceptive language games - like I said, the left is the most fundamental one at this point. They usually put out a name on top of a semantic content that’s it’s virtual opposite. And what happens is that they get Whites to argue against their interests. Because the Jews are masters at identifying concepts and language games that are protecting their group interests. So, Leftist unionization, for example, so that’s a natural ethnonationalist thing to do - to unionize your people and to maintain loyalty by being accountable to the full group including marginals and watching for elite betrayal and scabbery and so on and gratuitous liberalism of the borders. So, in the 1990s and before there was the Frankfurt School Political Correctenss. And along with leftism and distortions they turned it into an international matter, which is a bit ridiculous to have an international union. You kind of can but sort of can’t. And so, what it’s come to mean for Whites is liberalism. It’s a mainly Jewish liberal attack on their borders, to open up White bounds and borders. That’s why Whites look upon the left as liberal. It’s liberal for Whites as such because it’s opening their borders. But what closes that off is a White Left ethnonationalism. That’s what I’ve been doing and that’s what they don’t want Whites to do, I think, because it would resolve that problem..or that deception. As I said, they are taking, they are taking concepts and ideas that are in their interests and misrepresenting them, mainly through academia ...to Whites in distorted form. Through like Post modernity is one of the most important distortions. They’ve got everybody believing that post modernity is this da da gibberish nonsense and its all this BS. That you can be just anything and its all so incredibly relative. Well that’s not what the post modern turn was supposed to be about. The Post Modern turn, its major turn is with Nietzsche and then Heidegger into what’s also called the hermeneutic turn. Probably adding to the Jewish incentive to misrepresent Post Modernity to Whites is the fact that being academics, the fact is that undergraduates, its like a big business of selling talk and undergraduates are the ones who pay. And so if you sell undergraduates on this talk, which is essentially solipsism, that you can be whatever gender you want and race is whatever race you want to be and things like this [this game is maintained in perpetuity with tenured professors] it allows for even not so bright students to participate and pay their tuition fees. And be social justice warriors. And the idea of marginals is one that I think begins with Heidegger’s student Gadamer. Now you would be correct to say that I would need to offer proof that its Jewish responsibility but I’m sure enough that it is, for treating people outside the group or antagonistic to the White group as if they’re marginals who should be included. That’s to me a typical Jewish thing. As opposed to people who are just within the group, who need to be recirculated into the more mainstream Whites. And everybody is a marginal at times. Marginal can mean somebody who’s just like exceptionally smart and gifted; and they’re marginalized for that reason. The thing about marginals is that they are at the borders, they know where the shoe pinches so the give feedback on the system….and help protect the borders and maintain the system, its homeostasis. That’s why it becomes an important concept. And to me, Jews fucking that up is a really destructive thing to western civilization and European peoples. And they’ve done a lot of that with academia. Now, coming back to post modernity. Now Post Modernity was conceived to undo the ravages of modernity, in its universal quests, narcissistically run rough shod over different ways of life, different peoples. It’s all about progress and what’s new and different, experiment and innovation and things like this. Of course it brought many good things but it also was very destructive in many ways. ...it’s endless experimentalism, its ...I’m sure the Jews recognized its destruction as quick as anybody. But so did Nietzsche and Heidegger and others and so that’s why the post modern turn - you want to find a way to preserve your inherited forms, of course to the extent that you want to, which is for the mos part. You want to preserve your inherited forms, to not put your resources at risk, to preserve tradition where its benign and helpful. But you also want to be able to make use of the best aspects of modernity and where you want to be done with certain destructive habits and customs and traditions….and where our medical and other technological advances are helpful to people. ...so, you have to have a way of managing that and its not necessarily this deep irony or anything. For the most part it’s steadied by a sense of ethnonationalism. ..and it can be done in a graceful flowing way, i believe through a hermeneutic approach, cirucularity… Which is another thing that Jewish acaademics and their liberal flunkies have screwed up is hermeneutics. ..they’ve made hermeneutics into something that’s supposed to be anti-science. ....just like, you can make things up. Well, no. Hermeneutics, a narrative approach, is essential to achieving coherence, accountability, agency and warrant. Not only for individuals, if you are going to have a coherent autobiography. It doesn’t just tell fictional stories. It tells real stories and allows you to transcend the arbitrary flux and make a full, coherent story but not only for individuals for the group. So, Whites having some skill, if not mastery of hermeneutics, is essential. And for Jewish and other academics to misrepresent that, is an egregious bad misdirection. That’s just the start of it. Luke Ford (125:04): I’ll just make a few points. How can Jews marginalize anyone against the will of non Jews in the west. Jews are about .1% of the West’s population; they are only 1.7% of America’s population, so if Jews were marginalizing people and this marginalization went against the non Jews in the West. I just don’t see how it could be. [I didn’t say that they were marginalizing, I said that they were blowing open the bounds and borders that would ensconce and provide accountability to marginals - particularly by weaponizing the Lockeatein/empirical opening of classificatory bounds to liberalization]
And as for Jewish imposed language game (1:26:55) Jews have high average I.Q.s. People with high average I.Q.s like to play in the world of the abstract. And so people with high average I.Q.s and more susceptible to believing stupid, non practical things like communism; and they also like playing in abstract fields like uh, language and linguistics. So, one would expect this level of abstraction from a high i.q. group. I just don’t know why non-Whites would put up with Jews imposing language on them when they are such a tiny proportion of the west. [I already answered this] Luke Ford continues: And, just let me look at my notes here, and yeah, that’s it from me so Daniel, go ahead and unmute and back to you. DanielS: Ok, well, uh, why Whites would put up with that? Well, there’s been a couple thousand years a Jew has been their god. Whites do fancy themselves objective. The Swedes in in particular are a naive species, though there is definitely Jewish influence in their media. Why they would put up with it has largely to do with their penchant for objectivism. And Jews take advantage of that. I’m going to come to that but I need to finish off hermeneutics for a second. Hermeneutics is not anti-science. Hermeneutics is meant to be a way of taking inquiry into a non-Cartesian process. So, scientific verification, empirical verification, even objectivism for a moment can be part of the hermeneutic circle, circularity. Just to show you how forceful Jewry, Jewish academics have been in putting across this misrepresentation ... I could not get Kevin MacDonald to believe that. He said, “No!, Hermeneutics is anti-science.” He insisted on it! I know it’s not. But, he believes that. And probably because undergraduates, these students. It’s a system that operates in perpetuity. You’ve got tenured professors, largely Jewish, often Jewish in the humanities, and 18 to 24 year olds in perpetuity having the same liberal gibberish pumped into them. By the way, these Swedes that you call leftists, they’re not Swedish leftists. They are internationalist, maybe some kind of Marxist concept of leftism; but they’re not a left ethnonationalism. Otherwise that would be out of bounds. Ok, so that’s hermeneutics [I should have talked abut how hermeneutics crucially allows for broad and imaginative orientation and rigorous empirical focus and verification, also the liberation and negotiation of the flux of mere facticity into coherence, accountability, agency and warrant]. Yeah so the Swedes are evolved to deal with Augustinian devils. They’re not used to dealing with Manichean devils. Even the Arabs have, what is it, Takia. Deception. The Mossad has its motto, “wage war by deception.”...these are people geared more toward Manicheanism, to trickery. Yeah, so for a while they were working within Civil Rights, within the Lockeatine concept of Civil Rights, weaponizing that, that was a, that stems from the empirical side of modernity’s Cartesianism. Locke wanted the Artistocracy opened up to the middle class so they could be educated, so he devised the concept that classifications were a fiction of the mind, they weren’t empirical. Everybody had the same perceptions and therefore they should have individual civil rights. That notion was imbued in the American texts by Thomas Jefferson who was quite Lockeatine. And this is what Gadamer calls the prejudice against prejudice of the enlightenment texs. Hannah Arendt also comments that the Enlightenment texts were far from innocent. Still, people don’t want to be guilty and they want to pursue an innocent and warranted position. So that’s why they’re susceptible to the Jewish weaponization of civil rights which they did, weaponize that against Whites. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 - a nightmare: walk into any public institution there’s a placard on the door saying you can’t discriminate on the basis of race, religion, gender whatever else. You can’t have eyeballs. You can’t discriminate against these people who have nothing to lose, on behalf of your women who are a treasure of aeons; and these people who flout your existence…who are aggressive and prone to violence no… I mean, this is just insanity. That’s Cartesianism. And that’s the weaponization of Lockeatine rights. It happened with Brown vs The Board of Education. Which was spearheaded by Felix Frankfurter and a few other Jewish cohorts who forefronted Earl Warren who he called “the dumb Swede.”..the naive, “dumb Swede”... he called him that because he was afraid that Warren would take the bait a bit too seriously, a bit too enthusiastically, in being the spearhead of an activist court. Whereas Frankfurter would present himself as the hand of restraint. But Earl Warren would pursue that objective truth of civil rights and get that school integration. Felix Frankfurter was only concerned that he would pursue it so full throttle that it would create a backlash. And it did a little but not that much. Eisenhower sent in the troops. Then you had the Immigration and Naturalization Act..which was a uh, what was the guy’s name, the Jewish congressman. Do you remember, Luke? ..there’s a couple. Jacob Javitz was one (Luke Ford: The Hart / Celler Act, one of them was Jewish) and Emmanuel Celler and Jacob Javitz was involved too. And they got Kennedy involved. They forefronted him. And then there was the Rumford Fair Housing Act which had to do with the 9th circuit cour in California. Which mean that you couldn’t discriminate, you couldn’t decide who you would sell your house to. If a black wanted to buy your property you had to sell it to them, if a black wanted to rent your property you had to rent it to them. I almost forgot about the Woolworths Lunch Counter thing - the sit ins. There was that, quite a Jewish thing as well. As well as the NAACP and of course, the ADL. So, they’re weaponizing modernity. Aware all the while that it could act against their own interests. As it starts maturing the come up with concepts like multiculturalism and diversity. And what they’re doing there, the trick there is that they’re taking multiculturalism….of course its a good thing. You want different cultures in the world and you don’t want to be integrated… but the semantic content for them is integration. So they got people like, I’ve literally seen Pat Buchanan do this. This was when I began losing respect for Pat Buchanan - “the sewer of multiculturalism.”.... in other words he wanted all to become Christians and speak English and integrate. That’s the quickest way to die as White people. Same thing with “diversity”. Of course diversity is a good thing. ...but, well, really diversity is the counterpart of integration and multiculturalism is the counterpart of monoculturalism. So they’ve got people arguing against multiculturalism and in effect on behalf of monoculturalism. ...that’s stuff’s getting a bit old now though. There’s this thing about equality. I didn’t really come from a classic left perspective at all. Maybe was sort of a whatchumacallit, but certainly was not interested in Marxism, that sort of thing. So, I never saw anybody arguing for equality. And to have people arguing against equality is another thing that just doesn’t look good. And furthermore, it’s simple to say that there’s no such thing a equality and it’s really trite. Your partner, Kevin Michael Grace talks a lot about, or talks some about Thomas Khun’s “Structure of Scientific Revolutions.”...which talks about ‘paradigms’ and how scientists operate within little social paradigms that have their own logics of meaning and action… which can work for a time and sometimes are confronted with incommensurate paradigms which force a crisis and a paradigmatic shift. The key implication for sociology there is the notion of incommensurability and commensurability. For serious thinkers this is what people should be concentrating on. Does this person’s abilities, do their logics of meaning and action, do they work within this paradigm or not; are they commensurate? And can they fill a niche? Are they complementary? The alternative, you know, a quantified vain comparison, is likely to create ill feelings and unhelpful competition, that sort of thing. [And reciprocally escalating diatribe]. 1:42:37 Luke Ford: Ok, we have to wrap up in about five minutes. I have to go to bed. so…why don’t you go ahead and take the last five minutes. DanielS: Alright, can we continue like another time because I’m only like half through? Luke Ford: Yeah, why don’t you just go ahead and take five minutes now and we’ll figure it out later. DanielS: Now I got the sens that was an important thing and a dangerous notion, that it could actually be helpful to Whites to inculcate this notion of incommensurability, as opposed to equality…when one of the professors, one of the Jewish professors that I invited to that conference that I mentioned before decided to take issue with Thomas Khun’s notion of that. What else can I say to bring this to a gestalt here. Anyway, so yeah. I think a good way to wrap it up would be to say that with the 2008 crisis and Jewish consolidation of their hegemony over elite niches, power and influence, uh, the paleocon misrepresentation of conservatism was being promoted and it was imperative to construe the left as the enemy and to get Whites to construe the left as the enemy. You didn’t hear so much about the left being the enemy in the 90s, it was mainly PC. But now it had to be the left, whereas the neocons were Irving Kristol the paleocons were Frank Meyers, also Jewish - which combines maybe Christianity but also some scientific realism, things like this. And the idea was to do a sort of 2.0 through Richard Spencer and the Alternative Right and Paul Gottfried you know, he’s always really anti-left. It’s always the left, the left, the left. With Richard Spencer and Alternative Right, the Regnery circus…this kind of Germanophilic, right wing ‘tentosphere’ - a big tent of several tents that don’t really go together. The only thing they had in common was that they were anti social. They want to conceive of sociology as a Jewish thing; which is ridiculous. It’s like saying a telescope is Jewish. Sociology takes its unit of analysis as the group. Whereas psychology is the individual, communications is interaction. It’s a perfect unit of analysis if you want to deal with the destruction of anti-racism. Because a race is a group, you’re being attacked as a group. So you need to be able to defend yourself on a group basis. And if Jews have abused this, that’s all the more reason for Whites, not to say, oh, sociology is Jewish. I’m going to be purely objective. But everybody’s going along with this. We’re going to be right wing - oh ‘the left is doing all these things.’ They’re pointing to all these stereotypes that they’ve created of social constructionism - that’s another one. Social Constructionism is something that Whites need. They need what it does, the social consciousness. ..but they’ve got Whites trying to react in pure objectivity. As if they are on the side of pure truth, objectivity and science. Objectivity is a tool that you use in a moment, take its findings and apply them to your relative interests. We have our relative interests and this is what should be at the center. That’s why I take and we need to take a social constructionist perspective. A social constructionist perspective doesn’t mean that you can make up just anything - that is a Jewish misrepresentation or their liberal minions. ..a misrepresentation of what social constructionism is -that would be solipsism; that would be contrary to its anti-Cartesian mandate and contrary to its mandate for social accountability. That’s the whole idea. So they’ve got these people, Jared Taylor saying, oh they say race is just a mere social construct. If you have to use the word “mere” in front of social construct, it’s not social constructionism. This is Cartesianism. Luke Ford: Ok, lets just leave it there for tonight and I’ll talk to you another time, so that’s Daniel from Majorityrights.com. DanielS: Ok let me just bring it to a conclusion - they’ve got Whites identifying as right wingers against the left, against their group interests because that would be the means to organize in coherent accountability and further their group interests. And that’s part of why I don’t think they’re good for western civilization and Europeans generally because they disrupt their capacity to organize and maintain their homeostasis. I have lots more to say, i hope that i can finish it another time. Luke Ford: Ok great, Daniel from Majorityrighs.com, good night everyone. DanielS: Thanks Luke. Comments:2
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 10 Jan 2019 11:17 | # LoL, Very true Mancinblack: In addition to the white collar criminality that I noted and the crimes from on high that simply aren’t named as such, they have the capacity to manipulate and even create the system. How about their hegemony in law schools, law and courts? where they can literally make the rules (create the tax loopholes, etc.). Last word that I saw on it was that the “U.S. Federal Reserve” was comprised of just shy of a dozen private banks (Goldman-Sachs chief among them), all but one kosher headed; which can literally print money for themselves; loan it to themselves at next to zero interest; while a string of Federal Reserve Chairmen until this one have been Jewish (Fed Chairman controls probably the single most important economic factor - the prime rate) - I was going to talk about how Fed Chair, Alan Greenspan, was at the end of a long string of Austrian School economics (Hayek/Friedman) that stems from the Vienna School of Logical Positivism of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus misconception - to Ayne Rand - to Thatcher/Reagan - to Clinton/Glass Steagall (which allowed investment banks to use private money) - to Greenspan and the magic hand’s boom bust cycle that culminated with the tribe cleaning up in the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis (complete with “securities” of insurance on those government bonds - Ginnie Mae / Fannie Mae); its sponsorship put into full swing through HUD, where deals were cut with Obama’s “community development”; “the invisible hand” looked visibly kosher through this indeed, and ended in one of the largest thefts in human history; finally consolidated America’s wealth through Securities and Exchange Chairman (((Henry Paulson, conveniently, the former CEO of Goldman/Sachs))) authorizing their bail out - no convictions, no loss even of the millions in bonuses for their top executives for “jobs well done.” And how about how their pervasive political dominance through campaign funding for their special interests that ensures sweetheart deals, contracts for their tribal interests. ...and so we become Paleoconservatives ergo…(((alternative right))) ....(((dissident right)))...against “the left” None of that social justice warrior stuff… none of those illusionary, non empirical ideas of groups (like unionization and taking vigil on account of who is in power, selling us out, our collective interests). Never mind that the Paleocons are just as much a Jewish ruse as the Neo Cons, who got us into wars for their Operation Clean Break, to secure the realm around Israel. Yes, a great service their intelligence has been to America and its economy keying as it does on war goods manufacture (which will often find their way to Israel on top of the billions in foreign aid). Here’s one lengthy discussion at Majorityrights about Jewish intelligence as responsible for their success as opposed to the cause being more about their control of the money supply: Intelligence vs. Control of the Money Supply Here’s another example Orthodox Jewish boys go secular, reap compound fortune in another Jewish tradition - loan sharking Another: 3 of Them Defraud London Olympics Investors of £80 million And another… Merkel and Zuckerberg are teaming up to attack you on Facebook etc. ............. Speaking of Jewish I.Q. ... In my first hangout with them, the one that I spoke of entitled, “The Social Justice Warriors are Winning”....I joined the conversation after Luke emphatically made the point of the cross contextual efficacy of I.Q. testing. Especially because Luke is a big fan of Steve Sailer, I wanted to add the observation that “HBD” presented as being synonymous with race and I.Q. was another example of Jewish misdirection, a “red cape” as I call it. “Human Biodiversity” should be a horizontal matter of qualitative differences and ecological niches. But for their convenience, the YKW have misrepresented and misdirected it as a lateral matter of I.Q. Soon after, I was asked by Luke and Kyle, why Ashkenazi Jews are outmarrying with Whites at rate that would eliminate their kind if the rate of outmarrying continued. I answered that out marriage was a part of their group evolutionary strategy; as such, their way of infiltrating and weakening outgroups (there is another part of the Jewish system which maintains loyalty, even where its liberal elements do not). Kyle then attempted to ask rhetorically, whether Whites intermarrying with blacks wasn’t just the same - weakening blacks? Brilliant rebut Kyle, just brilliant I.Q. I answered (correctly), No, because Whites are not organized that way. In fact, Whites are not organized racially (in America) on anything but biological defaults. Of course there is vestigial organization more or less through European nations, but even that is technically implicit and by default. LOL: As if Whites are going to “weaken” blacks, who have evolved some 200,000 years prior to White differentiation, giving them something like a biological hegemony (in basic level genetic/evolutionary dominance) ...as if their massive population and its growth won’t absorb Whites like drops of difference into an ocean (that which it does not literally kill-off, that is). White intermarriage with blacks is going to weaken black genetics and group solidarity? Not much and nothing that won’t be taken care of by their broader pattern before long (just ask Toussaint Louverture); and the mulattoes certainly will not be coordinated to the interests of Whites proper the way mischlings are to the Cohanim. They already have a system for doing that with maternal lineage required for Israeli citizenship, while maternal and paternal Jewish background is required for membership in the Cohanim; while innumerable programs, foundations, etc. are initiated to look after the infiltrating diaspora and coordinating with them. For example: https://twitter.com/AdamMilstein https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Milstein ............. ...of course, a concern for them is that the Ashkenazi, the ones with the high i.q., are outmarrying in diaspora, whereas Israeli Jews do not have a very high i.q. on average.
3
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 11 Jan 2019 18:24 | # ...another key aspect for their focus on I.Q., of course, is that they want to portray their power niche hegemony having come about for objective reasons, not on nepotistic grounds of prioritizing their relative, tribal interests. 4
Posted by Cantwell on Sun, 13 Jan 2019 10:26 | # Christopher Cantwell obliges Luke Ford and his Jewish agenda by aligning White Nationalism with the right wing, Hitler and Jewry: buying into every cliche about what “the left is” and what Whites are by response.
[No, you are chasing after the red capes of distorted misrepresentations, primarily by Jewish academia, but by their minions as well, of what would otherwise by true, realistic and accurate means for social organization and homeostasis]
[the epistemological blunder that you are buying into is what is suicidal].
[He hasn’t done enough research on World War II to comment intelligently either, but he will…]
I’m going to have more to say about this starting today as I begin to comfortably lay out philosophy of European/White ethnonatnionalism uninhibited by interlocutors who are hostile or cannot understand and appreciate what I’m saying… - DanielS
5
Posted by Rithtard Thpenther on Fri, 18 Jan 2019 12:42 | #
No it isn’t; that’s the guilt trip center for you in your Regne-Gottfried-Germanophilic/centric world view. There’s nothing hard about what narrative to take regarding Nazism and Hitler, Rithtard. Hitler/Nazism are history and they should be put behind as having perpetuated an epistemic blunder and imperial supremacism with the catastrophic results that would necessarily follow. Ethnonationalism, the ethnonational coordination that your masters have you rejecting as petty, is the way forward for Whites. Nevertheless, sir Richard pompaloaf goes on to say…
He’s not in our life-time. That’s an important point.
Hitler was taking the side of Whites Richard?
Stop trying to redeem Hitler and stop equating his world view with advocating White people.
That’s not the center of Post Modern Morality. That’s you buying into Jewish misdirection: 1) To make Hitler/and Nazism a corollary to White Nationalism 2) To make Post Modernity into a pejorative if not nonsense term, whereas it is conceived to manage the best and worst of inherited forms and ways - our human ecology alongside others and with modernity.
Goad is not coming from a deep perspective nor even originally from a perspective of White advocacy - typical alt-right Regnery circus tentosphere folly, he has furtively engrafted himself as just another pop-writer pandering to a niche.
I don’t think so.
6
Posted by (((Black Dahlia Killer))) on Wed, 30 Jan 2019 20:32 | # “My father was a serial killer who murdered The Black Dahlia” ...and he had a 186 I.Q. and his parents were Russian Jews Dr. George Hodel
7
Posted by (((Halsey Jewish))) on Thu, 31 Jan 2019 08:13 | # (((Luke Ford and co.))) are at it again - 30 Jan 2019. Ford Says that he basically agrees with everything that (((Kyle Rowand))) says. Kyle Rowand is not hard to understand. In effect, he is rather a simpleton. He is advocating for Jews - what is best for Jews? At this juncture, it is best for them (some in key postions, anyway) is to push a right wing, objectivist position ad absurdum against “The Left”: Rich people are there because they are more “virtuous.”.... just because of their high I.Q. High I.Q. people, such as Ashkenazi Jews, commit fewer “crimes.” .... (((Halsey))) English is one of the most visible proponents of this agenda - “The Left is the enemy.”
With that, (((Kyle))) has been pushing for the need to unite the “dissident right” with elite interests. Then he points to the example of how Hitler/Nazis did this (48:00) [“they offered a compelling value proposition to the entrenched elite, who feared communist evolution ... and that was part and parcel of their success”]and became most “effective” then… “The National Socialists would not ‘succeed without the entrenched elites in Germany” ....would not succeed ...in what? (((Brundlefly, Jewish Wife and Kid))) proclaims Halsey and Kyle to have “nailed it.” ... ................. Hitler’s deal with the Krupps and Dyson’s (right wing industrialists) was the disastrous turn rightward from the night of the long knives on that sent them over the top into disaster…..Luke & Brundlefly would promote this shit (the final cycle of parasitism). ........... Luke has brought a couple of ethnics on for the show. One Jockish Italian / American patriotard…
Has a concise and clever critique of Islam (as if we didn’t know)...“if you know about Islam at all, Islam is something that backs pedophilia, murder, female genital mutilation, rape, killing all infidels - which is, by they way, anybody who is not a Muslim - and, they wack eachother because they can’t agree on how radical to be… ..you can’t let them be treated as just your average everyday citizen, like everyone - they’re not everyone; they’re in a class of their own. They’re savage, they’re crazy, they have something called takia that they’re taught, which teaches them to lie and deceived you to think that they come in peace so that they can go Jihad on you. ..so, even the most “trustworthy, non-radical” of Muslims are a concern, because you don’t know - at any point they can go San Bernadino on you… I have been trouble communicating this to [my] Christian community because god loves everyone… and he couples this critique of Islam with Zionist shilling (apparently his key to pass on the Luke Ford Show) Luke informs him that there are women in the chat who want to know if he’s single - indeed there may be Kosher broads eager to swallow his filthy ginzo-Zionist load. ................ ...and Luke has this “Legal Latino” guy on the show… LL shows that he has learned, after a phase of futile American patriotism, to focus on Jewish power and influence as the key problem…ok.. and he’s fairly clever too… (he took a massive hit to his Youtube following, “going from 10,000 viewers a “based Maga Trump supporter to F-ing 7” as he started looking at Trump’s Jewish shilling)...so how did he come to Luke Ford? What’s the catch? Where’s his key?
His Key: “We shouldn’t be fighting right vs left” ....
...and they’ve got this Asian guy (using a pencil sketch of a White guy as his avatar) advancing the Chinese term of contempt for Whites who fall for advocating the kosher-PC-Liberal agenda - “the White Left” - Chinese Slur, “White Left” - He calls it a hoax that these people are coming up with a “character” of the right, as if YKW aren’t promulgating a “character” of “The Left” as well - pushing their charactarization hard, while White reactionaries continue to swallow it, as opposed to defining a White left ethnonationalism in our interests. ...rather than have Luke Ford, Halsey, Kyle Rowand and Brundlfly advance definitions in service of confounding true White organization as it is efficiently self defined under White left ethnonationalism.
8
Posted by (((Frank Meyer))) on Sun, 10 Feb 2019 17:59 | # (((Frank Meyer))) is the magic word that Luke Ford doesn’t want heard too loudly because he was the Jewish father of Paleoconservatism, the forefather of the Alt-Right (then dissident right, etc). Why do I suggest Luke Ford doesn’t want Frank Meyer emphasized? Because he edited out my talk exactly where I say that Frank Meyer, the father of the Paleocons, was Jewish (with Jewish motives, as such, of course). This is a transcript of the first part of my first hangout with Luke Ford. I transcribe it up to that point where Luke Ford edited out my remark on Frank Meyer. I did get to say that the Paleocons were another Jewish movement on the other side of the Neo-cons and the Kristols, but I didn’t get to name Frank Meyer as their counterpart:
DanielS: (2:20:58) OK, Can you hear me? I saw that you were talking about social justice and then I.Q. I don’t want to talk a lot about I.Q. ...and the reason is because I think it’s interesting, true enough, but it’s not the most interesting to me. The interesting aspect about I.Q. to me is…how the… I’m talking in sort of an enemy camp now so I have to be a bit careful. Uhm, I figure that um, that the bracketed folks are going to, it’s going to give them opportunities to counter me, but I think that my ideas are robust enough to hold-up anyway, so…I may go ahead, uhm… Regarding I.Q., I see it as one of a series of red capes that the YKW are now using - it’s emphasis, that is; and HBD is a perfect example of ...YKW red-caping. uh.. Human Bio-Diversity, as I see it.. Kyle: YKW? Explain that acronym please? YKW? DanielS: Jewish people. Kyle: OK. DanielS: HBD is a perfect example. Human Biodiversity should be talking about something horizontal - basically qualitative differences between people. And I.Q. is a a quantitative measure. True, true enough, I’m not disputing the findings, its importance, but ...and.. uh.. Just before I go on… another thing that makes it less interesting to me is the very fact that there’s agency, there’s not a lot of agency with regard to it, as you acknowledge you give an I.Q. test to an 8 year old as when they are an adult. So, I’m more interested in things that you can do something about.
9
Posted by (((Frank Meyer))) on Sun, 10 Feb 2019 18:01 | # Continued: But anyway, the HBD, uhm, there’s a series of terminological and conceptual red capes that I see Jewish academics initIating. You say that came from Steve Sailer? I don’t know but HBD, I mean, making it about I.Q. is deceptive. I mean that’s a completely, its a vertical measurement. I mean we’re talking about differences between…. the need to separate races. That’s kind of separating people on their ability. Which goes along with this entire program as I now see it… ...since about 2008, when I gather that, mostly Jewish people profited from this Wall Street take over [that was one place where I did not articulate the 2008 bail out exactly and clearly enough, but close enough to be a specificatory structure - i.e., good enough. I should have said, “2008, when Jewish people disproportionately profited from the bust end and bail out of this artificial boom bust cycle largely instigated by Greenspans’ invisible objectivist hand, HUD, fannie mae, ginnie mae, repeal of Glass Steagall etc.]. Kyle: People with the best I.Q. are generally against immigration, are generally quite right wing. How do you square that? DanielS (2:24:17): Well, I’ll come to that. ...you know, who’s right wing? Anyway, this is the measurement.. Ok, whose right wing - it’s not an ethnonational right wing for other people. It’s not an ethnonational right wing for other people, it’s that they don’t want to be so socially accountable for, uhm, for basically, anybody. It’s not so much their own group - they don’t want to be socially accountable to um Indians, blacks, uhm lower intelligent White people, what have you. So it’s a disingenuous emphasis on objectivity as opposed to group differences. Kyle: If you don’t want to take into account I.Q.difference how do you expect for people to take you seriously? On the basis of feelings? DanielS: I’m not saying don’t use objectivity and I.Q. measurements, you people can be my guest, that’s fine but the thing is ...take me seriously ...but the thing is, then I want to know, what group that they’re doing this for? Like Kant says, without good will toward our people, that only makes, intelligence and fortune only makes the person worse. DanielS: (2:26:44): Uhm, that’s a part of, I see that as a part of their evolutionary strategy. That they outmarry, that both infiltrates the enemy, the enemy the host and weakens them, weakens their solidarity. ..and they judge Jewishness by the mother anyway so that’s their way of weedling into.. I don’t like to over-emphasize the parasite metaphor, although I think there’s some truth to that. But that’s their way of infiltrating the enemy. Luke Ford (2:27:16): So when Whites marry black people is that infiltrating the enemy? DanielS: No. Luke Ford: Why? So when Jews outmarry that’s just part of their group evolutionary strategy, but when Whites outmarry that’s disruptive to White interests. DanielS: Yes. Luke Ford: So, you’ve got two groups doing the exact same thing but when Jews do it, it’s nefarious when Whites do it, it’s self destructive. DanielS: Because Whites just aren’t evolved to take advantage of that situation. They’re not organized that way.. BobAsshole: No. You’re going about this the wrong way. DanielS: No I’m not. BobAsshole: Hold on DanielS: Ok. We’ll disagree but go on.. Bob Asshole: Uhm, the I.Q. difference from a White person to a black person is far greater than.. DanielS: Now we’re talking about I.Q. again. BobAsshole: You’re going from interbreeding. From marrying outside.. DanielS. No! Luke went to interbreeding, I didn’t. BobAsshole: Ok, dude, let me finish. DanielS: Ok, but now you’re talking about I.Q. again. I was answering Luke’s question. BobAsshole: Luke asked you why is it not the same for a White person to marry a black person? Well you see, the average black I.Q. is far lower than the average White I.Q. Ok? We can both agree on that becasue that’s fact. The average Jewish I.Q., is not that much higher than the average White I.Q. So it’s not necessarily hurting the Jewish people, genetically. DanielS: No, it’s not hurting Jewish people much genetically. I didn’t say it did. They might have gained some of their I.Q. from intermarrying say, with Germans. BobAsshole: Alright, Luke. Are you seeing my point compared to his? Luke: Yes. BobAsshole: Alright, good. That’s all I need to happen. Kyle (2:29:19): You understand, Daniel, that Jews arouse from complete separation. if Jews were constantly intermarrying there would be no differences on 23 and Me. DanielS: But they don’t constantly intermarry. Kyle: Now they are, at a rate that would.. DanielS: In America maybe, not in Israel and other places. The Orthodox are not outmarrying that much either. Kyle: well the overall picture of introgression, non-Ashkenazi into Ashkenazi population, it’s at a rate that will destroy the distinct Ashkanazi population very shortly. DanielS: Didn’t Corchoran say that the Ashkenazi germinated by intermarrying with Italians? I have 3% Jewish heritage myself on my Italian side. Kyle (2:30:10): You didn’t understand Corchran. What Corchran said was that..you had these males.. DanielS: No, I wasn’t trying to understand Corchran I was just.. Kyle: What Corchran said that was that you had these male from the Levant that came into Europe and married entirely European women, ok? And so you had this blend. And when you blend these populations and they, uhm, and they keep on intermarrying, you have uh, you have a completely distinct flavor. Like if I were to take a population that were 60% black and 30% American Indian and they were to interbreed only with themselves forever, they would create a unique signature that would be different from if I had a 20% black and 80% native American population. They would be completely distinguishible if they kept blending together - it’s like a blend as these chromosomes have their intertwining, these cuts being made, eventually, over many generations they’d blend into a very distinct group. Right, so.. DanielS (2:31:08): OK, Fine. The point is that we’re different people. Europeans and Jews are different people; and as I see it, I believe very strongly in the working hypothesis that we need to be separate - whether from Israelis or diaspora. And I see HBD and its corresponding with I.Q. as one red cape - a disingenuous thing that’s been set up…...I understand that there are some people on the so called left who have been saying that they want equality. I never met one. Who say that they want equality, who say that the problems with blacks and others not having achievement is because they’re not given resources, they’re not being given education.. and whatnot and the counter to that is I.Q. tests. But I’m not arguing any of that (2:32:08) Luke Ford: OK Daniel. I’m going to mute you so that Kyle can finish his point. You keep interrupting people. (2:34:20) Why don’t you just take five minutes without anyone interrupting. DanielS: OK, thanks. So, I.Q. and HBD is just the first of a series of red capes that uh have been set up and emphasized since about 2008 as I see it. The Alternative Right was a big one - a big tent, ah, basically initiated by Paul Gottfried’s uh, his determination to make the quote, “left”, into the enemy. ..and he got Richard Spencer and others to go along with that. You know, why do Jewish people want “the left” to be the enemy now? Well, let me tell you, I use, I use ordinary language a lot, I use ordinary language philosophy a lot - at least it influences me a lot and that’s an idea that comes from Wittgenstein. ...to look at patterns of what’s happening..and terms, and what the Jews are doing. So, beneath ordinary language, when considering things like left and right…. Left is going to be correlated with things like social justice, with uh, accountability to the full group, including marginals, with compassion, with unionization of group interests to stave off powerful elite [should have said eye against their betrayal, not against their excellence]- it’s got a vigilant eye on elite and what they’re doing and also maintains the interest of rank and file to make sure that they’re not defecting and being overly liberal, allowing scabs in, or betraying their responsibilities..seeing themselves as unaccountable. Now, on that basis, uhm, the polar opposite of that would be a paradigm that’s not based on group interests but on narrow interests, from small groups, to small elite groups to elite individuals to at its, at its apex, objectivity - a pretense of sheer objectivity. And that becomes a disingenuous way to avoid accountability - “it’s just a fact, there’s nothing you can do about it, I’m not responsible to anybody; I’m not accountable to anybody, it’s just a fact.” That’s at its extreme. As of 2008 in particular, they Jewish interests are going to want to emphasize that and that’s probably when this whole talk of social justice started. I mean, it’s like, social justice, its a really horrible thing (laughs). Since when did pursuing social justice become a terrible thing? Oh, yeah, we don’t want any social justice now because we don’t want be on the left, we don’t want to unionize because that would have people looking up and seeing who’s largely in power. Now before you say that I see everything, and this is where I want to take issue with the magic key argument - Before you say that I say everything is the Jews - it’s not. Obviously it’s not. But if you look across seven or nine power niches, they’re going to be over represented. I’ll maintain that hypothesis. And they’re not necessarily acting in White interests. I don’t think they are for the most part. But, no they don’t do it alone. They have lots and lots of money and power and there’s always desperate and unscrupulous White people who will act as right-wing cohorts; and sell out group interests - here, shake hands, yeah, I’ll take the pay-off. So, that’s basically how I see the system functioning now - is Jews encouraging disingenuously encouraging them to see the quote “left” as the enemy and making deals with right wing Whites who want to feign objectivity ...or if they can’t do that then they’ll go into some freakish religion like Christianity or whatever. I’m not finished. So you have this arrangement, that they’ve got. This narrative that they’ve been cultivating. It’s almost as if they have a marketing firm on Madison Avenue, enlisting Mike Enoch to come up with this array of terminology, this cool terminology, the “normies, and countersignalling” you know all this, this stuff that they say. The fundamental point is that they want the left to be the enemy because they don’t want Whites learning how to organize - how to unionize, how to organize in their interests. And a union… They continually confound leftism with liberalism when they should be opposites. Because leftism is about unionization. With a union, you are in the group or you are not in the group - you conserve what’s in and you exclude what’s out. Those who are liberals want to open boundaries. There was a time when it was liberal relatively speaking within England. You wanted to liberalize against the Aristocracy. Ok but that’s within what I see, what I would want to see as the grander union which is the ethnonation. That would correspond with a left ethnonationalism….which I’m pursuing and we say no.. It doesn’t matter if Mr. Jewish guy has a high I.Q., he’s of another ethnogroup. He’s of another ethnonation. He doesn’t want the Ashkenazi marrying out? Well, ok, fine. Don’t marry out. And that would be sort of controlled by nationhood, you know and birth certificates and marriages those would be one way of maintaining the distinctions. So, yeah, social justice warriors. That’s a bad thing, its really amazing. But part of it is misrepresentation through academia - the Jewish academics largely, and their liberal cohorts, uhm I meant to say that liberalism and right wing are founded on the same objectivist basis as I see it which again, is the opposite of social group, holistic thinking, ecological thinking. But.. It used to be, I would say in the 90s, that people, you didn’t hear much talk about, people complaining abut “the left.” They were talking about political correctness back then. That was more accurate, I think, representation of what the enemy is about. I think it was David Horowitz who began doing some damage control. He saw I guess, there was intersectional destruction of Jewish interests through this PC stuff that was being promoted through academia. And so they began retooling and working with the Paleocons who, which is just another Jewish movement on the other side of the Neocons. the Neocons were started by what’s his name, the uh Luke Ford: Irving Kristol DanielS: Kristol and [at this point a last little part was chopped off of my discussion] Luke Ford: Ok Daniel that was five minutes we’ll come back to you. I had said “and the Paleocons were Frank Meyer” Apparently Luke Ford and co. didn’t want the goyim to latch onto that part; i.e. the Jewish roots of the Paleocons (((Frank Meyer))). Note, the paleocons are the forerunners of the the Alt-Right by means of Frank Meyer, Paul Gottfried, Sam Francis and Pat Buchanan. It is a strange mix of an Abrahamic and objectivist yoke for White people. 10
Posted by (((Frank Meyer))) on Mon, 11 Feb 2019 16:57 | # Continuing the text from the later part of the Luke Ford Hangout 29 Dec 2019. “Social Justice Warriors are Winning” BobAsshole is given the floor at this point - he puts some test in the chat, “Daniel, here, just quickly take this for me [it’s some sort of “psych central autism scale” or something obnoxious. The guy should kill himself.] As I listen back to this, I fail to see what is not informative content-wise and worthy of respect. But he is obviously enlisted by the YKW to blow smoke. Piece of shit. Now he begins to lie, blatantly lie. “So many buzzwords with so little actual meaning behind it” What a liar this piece of shit is. “I was starting to think that I was starting to listen to Heel-Turn. Alright, I was just really, just, you need to know when to stop man, I don’t even, I heard that for five minutes…I couldn’t take a way a single thing. [The kid is a fucking idiot] “Other than this guy is a very confused man who went on way to much POL in his younger years” Ruston: I think he wants a White country that has some kind of communist like, nationalization of industry or something. That’s as much as I could get out of it. Kyle: says that DanielS needs to be more blunt The truth is that I said what I meant. Salty Sage: I didn’t understand all of what DanielS was saying he was getting a little too autistic and stuttering I was just getting mad. But one thing that he was saying that I can kind of agree with is that people are replacing the differences between races with differences between I.Q. and it seems to me that its replacing one evil for another, to be sort of blunt, not necessarily an evil. ...it’s sort of replacing one hierarchy for another. [That’s not what I said] Salty Sage continues: and I don’t think it’s really the correct way to go about things and that’s kind of what Daniel was saying in the end there maybe a little bit but, uhm. [I don’t know why this guy thinks that he has to reinterperet me] Salty Sage continues: I just don’t think the I.Q. is as important. Like Luke and Kyle are defending I.Q. but you can’t measure morality or I guess, virtue; but everyone would agree that if there were some metric for that that would be far more ideal than I.Q. You would much prefer to be in a virtuous nation, an orthodox nation, a Jewish nation, not a Jewish nation but a religious nation than a-ah, we can move onto this later. Luke Ford: My question for you Daniel is how did you become red-pilled? DanielS(2:48:40): The pill thing is another one. That’s another in the series of red capes that goes back to the Matrix movie right? And this is a good question to ask to Bob, who thinks that I came up through POL and all this ah, trendy stuff, because it’s simply not true. Luke Ford: How did you become racially conscious? DanielS: Racially conscious, ah, that happened early-on, i’d say - when I was seven years old I didn’t like the chocolate nurses when I got my tonsillectomy. The, the uhm, getting bused, while my grandmother lived in Newark, New Jersey. And in 1967 the blacks were rioting there…aaah, so it was pretty clear that these were a different people and then I think an then I saw Malcolm X saying that he was going to rule White people [meant to say the black man will rule, but it’s understood], and i just didn’t like that idea. Aahm, then I got bused to got to school, exactly to go to school, a with blacks, when I was ten years old; and it was a nightmare. It’s like I couldn’t understand why anybody would force me, why I had to go to school with these people. I don’t, i don’t want to be saying anything that’s uh, dangerous to your chat that’s uh.. Luke Ford: Thank you, no. I appreciate it. DanielS: It was a bad atmosphere for me and a night, just a nightmare; and I, I knew that I, I wanted nothing to do with them. I didn’t want to live with them, I didn’t want to go to school with them; and, and anybody, to me anybody with any sense would feel the same way so I didn’t, at that point I didn’t particularly worry about it too much because I thought well these, you know, normal people are going to you know, want to be separate and so that put it, my so-called red-pill into sort of dormancy for a while. And you know, pffff, I…of course [BobAsshole is laughing at my stuttering at this point] DanielS (continues) some of the music is great, I know smart, what? ok, I’m not allowed to stutter or ....[he laughs again] ..the uh, the uh, some of them are really smart, fine people but, as a pattern I, I basically didn’t want anything to do with it and I wanted to make it a point that I should be able to do that, that I should be able to live separately and discriminate against them and… As you all know, they had changed with the Frankfurt School into advocating blacks, women and gays against and everybody ganging up on White men and I thought that I was going to go back to university graduate school and address this and advocate for White men and.. The bigger red-pilling with the J.Q. started to set-in there. Not at “POL” but in about 1991-92, when I realized that I wasn’t getting anywhere with this. I wasn’t going to be allowed to do that; and it was, you know, a certain kind of people that were primarily in the way of that happening, uhm, so, that’s where it started. So I guess I was doing a sort of nascent Jared Taylor perspective. And I tried, I tried..after I had some bad experiences with Whites for my quote, “racism”, that I was trying to quote, “red-pill”, I went back to trying to talk to high level Jewish academics - Jewish academics primarily. - to see if I could bring them around to an ethnonational, or what I know now is an ethnonational or called an ethnonational perspective - an ecological perspective. And they wouldn’t, they simply wouldn’t…. I organized a conference and they would not talk about what I wanted them to talk about. So I gave up, I gave up on that and..and.. and.. That’s when I looked at Kevin MacDonald’s work and Tommy Metzger - talk a lot about uhm, you know, he, he is very critical of the right; and so that’s when I, between those two things I began getting comfortable with uh, with being critical of Jewry, uhm, and the right which I never thought of (doing)... Luke Ford: What year was that? DanielS: 2009 Luke Ford: and when did you start trying to do something about it? When did you start trying to host conferences? 11
Posted by Frank Meyer))) on Mon, 11 Feb 2019 17:24 | # BobAsshole: Why does it seem like all the people who started out old in the movement, like before it really took off in 2016, like why are all of them (sigh), like you? [BobAsshole is so stupid and so wrong. None of them are like me and all the people who are the same after 2016 are the ones who should fall under suspicion]. DanielS: (laughs): I don’t know what’s supposed to be so bad about me—I’m I’m against Nazism, I’m not advocating genocide of any people, I’m not a supremacist, I’m not trying, I don’t want to persecute anybody, I don’t want to exploit anybody. I don’t know what supposed to be so bad about me. BobAsshole: You’re very unnecessarily verbose. DanielS: Well, I don’t agree because there’s nothing that I said, there’s nothing that I said that’s non-essential. You’re just here to antagonize me. BobAsshole: No, let me.. DanielS: No, you can talk, it’s Luke’s show but I’m really not interested in your perspective. You’re like on the level of the “Irony Bros” ...you’re just slathering-on bullshit. BobAsshole: Thank you! Damn! DanielS: Yeah, you’re welcome! Maybe its the first time you’ve had the truth of your bullshit reflected to you. BobAsshole: No, I uh, I take that as a complement. Because the Irony Bros are.. DanielS: Oh, you like the Ir..well, that just goes to show. You’re full of shit. BobAsshole: They’re hilarious, but…Daniel, I’m going to just analyse something you said, alright? DanelS: oh no! BobAsshole: You said uh, I said.. that you are unnecessarily verbose. And you said, I am not. DanielS: Yeah, that’s right, I don’t agree. BobAsshole: and then you went onto a few more sentences explaining like why you weren’t with words that I can’t even remember. DanielS: No, I’m not trying to make myself sound… I am saying what I mean and meaning what I say. I’m not trying to put on any pretense whatsoever. Dude, you’re full of shit! BobAsshole: Every time you.. DanielS: I don’t ..yeah, go ahead, go on.. you’re just like some kind of rhetorician or something. You’re not trying to talk, you’re not trying to understand. You’re just trying to win. This is ridiculous. BobAsshole: Alright. Listen man. I can’t understand what you’re saying. DanielS: Well, that’s your problem. Maybe your I.Q. isn’t high enough. Ruston: I don’t think he likes your John Madden style of conversation. You kind of sound a little like John Madden. Luke Ford: That, that’s not a criticism. I mean, John Madden was the most successful NFL announcer of…for about ten years so… it’s a particular style. DanielS: I’m, I’m a bit rusty, this is my first chat…tiny bit nervous, I’m in hostile territory. Luke Ford: I understand what you said there, Daniel, so, Majorityrights.com, that’s your website, right Daniel? DanielS: Yeah, it’s the website that I work with. Luke Ford: How long has it been going? DanielS: Well, Majorityrights has been there since 2004. GW started it. And he had, basically, ah, organized a free speech platform that, as I see it, is based on a modernist conception - where, you know, just continual experiment and a buffeting of ideas to no end which is going to boil down to ah, the truth and so they’ve allowed for a lot of talk of the J.Q. and so on over the years. But I -yeah, so they started in 2004 and then GW asked me to take, take direction around 2012 because he was getting tired of it. I did that. But that was after I was at The Voice of Reason to argue with Carolyn Yeager (laughs). I originally came to The Voice of Reason because I didn’t like Carolyn Yeager’s Nazism and I didn’t like her hatred of Polish people and so on…and I wanted to…..I’m concerned to get, to coordinate the European ethnonationalisms. I want them to be coordinated and cooperative and I don’t want them fighting each other, I don’t want them fighting anybody they don’t have to. And so, this is a very important motivation for me; having people work together and not fight. And I see the right and people who advocate Nazism as diametrically opposed to those interests. They’re going to instigate inter-European fighting and uhm, there’s no reason for it. Salty Sage: Daniel, could I just ask, what do you think of Mel Brooks and you know, Jewish comedy? DanielS: I thought The Producers was funny. I don’t think I ever laughed so hard as when, you know, “buy bullets, kill the actors!” I thought I was… I was on the floor. It was just too, too funny. I don’t, I don’t like his other… I didn’t think Young Frankenstein was funny. I’ve enjoyed Woody Allen movies. Salty Sage: Ouch DanielS: You don’t like Woody Allen? Salty Sage: Just kidding. DanielS: Yeah, not all of them. Sorry, uhm I have. I put that in past tense. Salty Sage: History of The World, you know,that kind of stuff, you were… DanielS: No, I liked Star Dust Memories and Purple Rose of Cairo. Salty Sage: Ok, I thought we were talking about Mel Brooks but um.. DanielS: Mel Brooks, well I only really saw The Producers and Get Smart was a Mel Brooks production.. Salty Sage: Because I feel that people are thinking, I don’t exactly understand all the conversation going on but I feel that people are thinking that you’re, that you’re incredibly anti-Jewish or something like that… DanielS: Like I want to kill them all or something. No. Salty Sage: Right, you don’t really. Like you appreciate Jewish company because I feel that despite all the ah, because I agree with you that ah.. DanielS: I came to it very reluctantly, the last thing that I wanted to do was to be critical of Jews. I understood you know, how dangerous that was. I didn’t want to be associated with Nazism what so ever. I saw how destructive it could be to your career aspirations to your social life. It’s just…in the end, I had to. There was no choice because I saw what was happening. I saw up close and personal how things were functioning in academia…how they were arriving at concepts and this is what I’m trying to explain. This guy says that I’m verbose, i’m just trying to explain things. Salty Sage: Are you saying that you had to turn to more extreme notions because… DanielS: It’s not extreme. It’s just analysis of, I had to; there is a a sense in which I had to be, not extreme but focused enough on Jewry to demonstrate to people who earnestly believe in Hitler and Nazism that they are not the only one’s who take Jewish power and influence seriously. Salty Sage: It is important for people to notice like, that Jewish people have higher I.Q.s that Chinese people have higher I.Q.s than other groups. DanielS: I wasn’t talking about I.Q. Salty Sage: Well, whatever, they have higher intel, I kind of…somewhat agree with you on I.Q. stuff. Maybe somewhat. DanielS: I’m just not most interested in that topic. Salty Sage: That these groups uh, at whatever level of intelligence we want to qualify things as..do engage in subterfuges and whatnot that are easily overlooked by the general populous in many ways… DanielS: Not only overlooked, but you can’t, you can’t say anything about it…. it’s like, you’ll lose your job, worse, all kinds of things will happen… Salty Sage: OK Daniels:..you’ll lose your Youtube channel. As I see it, they have…my working hypothesis is..and I’ll stand corrected if I’m wrong… is that they have hegemonic influence in academia, in politics, in religion, in law and courts, in business, in economics and finance, I always forget a few, NGO’s, Frame Games was talking about, I started out with seven, I forget, oh, and media, of course, and media. 12
Posted by (((Frank Meyer on Mon, 11 Feb 2019 17:31 | # Continuing to the conclusion of that Luke Ford Hangout: DanielS: That, that, they have hegemonic influence in that and they are advocating, its in their interests apparently to advocate for a liberalization of White boundaries; what you could call it either liberalism or international leftism. Anything that smacks of White unionization, that would exclude them and organize Whites is what they’re going to be antagonistic to. This thing about the Alternative Right or the Dissident Right, that’s just another version, you know of liberalism, really, of liberalizing the White bounds. Salty Sage: Have Jewish people earned a place in American society in your view? DanielS: I, you know, American society, you know, I’m not, whether they have or not you know I’m not… Salty Sage: Because I feel, I’ve thought about this a lot to since becoming red-pilled. DanielS: I’m not defensive of America. Salty Sage: If I could head you off there Daniel because I want to say this and then I’ll let you comment…it is that I think that uh, black people came with American blacks, came with the country, and Jewish people, many of them did fight in World War II and what not. They’ve kind of comedically at least..the black and Jewish and White comedy..kind of merged and there’s confluences going on with those kinds of groups and I feel like they’ve kind of earned a place where like, in American culture in our country ...you know, there’s other groups that I think um, that argument’s less so…like it used to be, like in the Roman times you would see like only allow, potentially give citizen votes to the Latins or whatever, south of Rome or whatever, because they started fighting in the war with the Romans; like that there was a process within countries of these people having to put their blood in the soil or whatever concepts you want to put out, to show that they’ve kind of earned a place to become part of, um, that larger society, that could develop some level of cohesion potentially. Verses other groups, I would say, potentially, you know, one would question, you know, Hispanics or other groups, you know, as disparate as they are, have they earned their places. You know, usually like, the model was like, well, you’ve shed your blood for this country in big ways, so therefore we can try to incorporate you into society because you’ve shown you’re willing to put a lot on the line to get in there. Do you think that uh, that Jewish people have gotten to that point or could there ever be that point; or its just a non-starter? or what have you? DanielS: Uhm, I, first of all, I’m not here to defend America. I think that it’s an obsolete paradigm as of nationhood. But, as far as i would argue if I was trying to defend America, I would say that Jews have done some good things but on balance they’ve been a detriment. The 1965 Immigration Act. The Civil Rights Act. The Rumford Fair Housing Act. The Civil Rights Act [meant to say Brown vs Board] All these things have been a nightmare and primarily spearheaded by Jewish interests. And that’s [now I say it] ..The School Integration. So, on balance, no. Yes, my mother would always say, if you want a good doctor, go to, get a Jewish doctor. She was a nurse She said ... [but] I’m willing to forego some good doctors and whatnot, perhaps a good lawyer. But it’s not really for me to say. As far as the war thing goes, I think that Jews were probably a bit under-represented in terms of fighting forces. They might have invented the atomic bomb, you know, how wonderful. But, the um, I don’t uh, no. I don’t think that they’re doing White people any favors by being there. And, at this point, it seems that they want to uh, amalgamate with Whites. Trump’s family is a perfect example. They want to get together with elite right-wing sell-outs and intermarry with them and that seems to be the strategy now; and get them to be against the left, against broader, against broader left ethnonational organizations. Because people would the scratch their heads and look at who is in power and what to do about it, and how to defend ourselves against this uh, this onslaught. ....this liberal onslaught; this liberalization of our boundaries and borders. It’s terrible. Luke Ford: Ok uh, thanks Daniel. I want to start wrapping up the show, so Bob, final words from you. BobAsshole: I wanted to address something he said, he said that Jews had died in World War II they died fighting for the country? 7,000 in total. And that’s with attrition. That’s with under supplies, that’s not even combat necessarily. 7,000 Jewish people died in WWII. DanielS: I just wanted to interject that I said that they were under represented, I didn’t say that they died in World War II. I said that they might have invented the atomic bomb, I didn’t say that they were over represented in fighting forces. I said exactly that they were under represented in fighting forces. Ruston: Well, it’s only about two percent of the population, so… Luke Ford: Which is what Jews were, I mean they were 3% so, it was definitely under represented somewhat, but when you account for I.Q., I wonder if that is under represented because uh, higher I.Q. people would be less likely to die in combat. BobAsshole (laughs). Oh, you were serious? Luke Ford: Yeah, I’m dead serious. Stupid people die much more readily. Do you disagree? BobAsshole: I think that it’s more like it would be more likely that it would be poor commands. Poor leadership. Not necessarily individual decisions and actions that would be the cause of the most deaths. Luke Ford: Yeah, that’s an excellent point. Ruston we’re coming up toward the end of the show, do you have any final words for us? [I can see now that I had mistakenly accused Salty Sage of advocating Gottfried, whichis a red flag for me, as (((Gottfried))) is the (((Frank Meyers, Paleocon))) most hell bent on making everthing about “the left” as enemy. Luke Ford: According to the Chicago Tribune, 500,000 American Jews fought during World War II. I would suspect that it was less than the percentage of the population. But lets go to Salty Sage. Salty, take up to five minutes sir. Salty Sage: I don’t really have five minutes necessarily but uh, yeah, like I was saying, I think that people can try to earn their place in the society potentially if they can be cohesive like I was saying and I don’t know the numbers and all these things but uh, but yeah, great show, thanks Luke for having me on. You can follow me at Salty Sage on Alt Right sort of random things. Luke Ford: Ok, so, just some statistics here. During the Course of WWII some 550,00 Jews served in the armed forces of the United States. They accounted for 4.32% of all soldiers, which was above their percentage in the general population. About 60% of Jewish physicians under the age of 45 served in the military. 11,000 were killed. Luke Ford: Ok, Daniel, you get two or three minutes to say your final words. DanielS: Ok, so well, I maintain that my working hypothesis to be critical of Jewish power and influence is perfectly valid because I’m a separatist, not a supremacist, not looking to exploit people not looking to genocide people. Just a separatist. I think that White people should be able to be, live, among their own and to be able to discriminate on the basis of borders and bounds, and to have autonomous governance over themselves. Without, from all I can gather, Jewish power and influence is to our detriment; and I want to be separate. I think that we need to be separate from them. That’s my hypothesis and people who think otherwise, who think Jews should be integrated have other places to go. So, basically, I plead innocent. I’d like to come on the show again with a different panel just to see how things interface with different speakers. Luke Ford: Absolutely. Ok, Thanks guys, I’m going to head to bed. In 12 hours maybe I’ll be streaming again, so maybe I’ll catch you then so..by bye. 13
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 15 Feb 2019 08:59 | # I’ve added the transcript to the audio post above of my interview with Luke Ford on the question of “Are Jews good for Western Civilization?”, 6 Jan 2019. Upon review, one interesting point that I didn’t notice at the time was that Luke was asking how it was that Jews, as such a small percentage of the population, could marginalize people? I didn’t say they that they were marginalizing people. I said that they are opening the borders and bounds to liberalization and therefore running roughshod over accountability to and from marginals. But the whole transcript is interesting - probably better than waiting through my uhms and ahs - though I must say in my defense, I deliver significant content after a short wait as surely as I hesitate in those ums and aahs. I finally looked at Luke Ford’s chat room and these people are totally full of shit. I mean really stupid, even in their lame attempts to obstruct my voice and message. Perhaps the most disappointing antagonist in the chat was Holly - a lawyer but a Christ-tard and shockingly stupid. It’s a shame because her comments about the OJ trial (at Dennis Dale’s Hangout) were well considered, but her remarks on this chat were, well, there is no other word but stupid. Halsey, it’s to be expected. Like the rest of them, his comments were so lame that I can’t even take them seriously. The chat’s mind was so clearly made up beforehand that it made it too obvious. There was no way to be hurt by it. There was no pretense of objectivity, just sheer malicious intent from the get go. ...only a few grudging acknowledgments. Those people really suck. Honesty has a very limited role in their platform. 14
Posted by Rodney Martin, Halsey, Holly, Brundlefly et al. on Sat, 16 Feb 2019 14:55 | # Below and in further comments I am going to present excerpts from the chat. Here’s a Look at all of the most malicious characters. You can get a sense of their political/ideological perspective. Halsey, we know, is a Jewish guy who is figuring heavily in promoting “The Left” as the enemy and “the Leftist Jews are the bad ones, while we right-wingers need to stick together to fight the real enemy, ‘The Left.” Of course I am promoting a White Left ethnonationalism which is entirely different and at odds from international leftism or the liberalism that he wants people to take for granted as “the left”. It closes off the Jewish games and entryism, also shuts out their misrepresentations as it affords us capacity to define it for ourselves (not liberal, not taking away private property, not seeking equality, though justice, yes, and not against wealth], and finally, it brings to account those right wingers who would sell us out to them] I call him and people like him out on the games they are playing and suckering people into [ “The Left” is the enemy and the right is the solution is a variant of problem - reaction - solution ] and so he and his kind are doing all they can to bury and misrepresent my platform. “Movement Critic” is the Nazophile Rodney Martin. Rodney used to be on friendly terms with Carolyn Yeager until right wing schisiming did its thing. On a subsequent stream he said that he has no sympathy for the Poles that were killed in the Polish Warsaw uprising. He calls me “Polish and Jewish” in this stream. I am half Polish and half Italian, with trace 3% Jewish from my Italian side (according to DNA tests). Holly R. is a lawyer and a Jesus freak, making a very strong case for the phenomenon of compartmentalized intelligence. Not only utterly stupid in her assessment, not only malicious (some Christian), but doing it an a puerile way. I’ve listened back and can’t for the life of me hear how I am supposed to pronounce “modernity” in a ‘gay sounding’ way. Not sure who James James is yet, maybe Babylonian Hebrew. Brian Brennan is a confused and misguided White guy. Alex Delarge, well who cares? Brundlefly is a Christard with a Jewish wife and son. In a subsequent stream’s chat, he told me to “gass myself.” Some Christian. Ecce Lux (El Jim) has his heart in the right place, but he’s being misguided into the company of these Jews, and taking the bait of their right wing misdirection. Church of Entropy is a kind of Jewish groupie lady. She takes her physics degree and tries to promote a fanciful version of reincarnation - when it is clear to anyone that DNA reconstructs at least to some extent over generations. Furthermore, for the degree of intelligence required of that field, she is surprisingly stupid in her remarks. 1) When I talk about Clerk Maxwells Demons, the Augustinian and Manichean Devils. these are clearly metaphors for two different kinds of classic challenges that people are up against. a) Augusitian devils: natural challenges which don’t change their rule structure if you solve them. b) Manichean devils: man made challenges, which can include deception and trickery - including changing the rules if you solve them. Stupidly, Church of Entropy acts like I am talking about literal devils rather than clear metaphors. David Hival (Doovid): Doovid, is a classic liberal Jew. And he doesn’t believe in evolution, lol. Why should anyone take him seriously? Norvin Hobbs: pro White Anglo American needs to get out of the right wing. and of course, Luke Ford (Orthodox Jewish convert): who tries to suggest that Jews can’t have such important influence because they are such a small population; and with that, straw mans my argument about “marginals”, asking how such a small population can create marginals, when I did not say they were creating marginals, I suggested that they were opening the bounds and borders that would protect marginals first. Worse, when I described the theory of horizontal transmission and its prescription (which is separatism, not genocide), Luke Ford then tried to say that I was saying that Jews are parasites. And a few people in the chat tried to make that smear stick. Furthermore, what Luke Ford is doing by pushing this right wing agenda and coddling Nazi sympathizers is evil - the trajectory of conflict that he’s instigating is evil. In the subsequent comments I will present the most virulent excerpts from the chat - there was almost no support except from Norvin Hobbs who said he wanted to talk to me and pushed back on Holly’s insistent Christianity and Ecce Lux (El Jim ) who is largely well disposed as well.
15
Posted by Halsey, Rodney Martin, Brundlefly, Holly et al on Sat, 16 Feb 2019 15:03 | #
16
Posted by Halsey, Holly, Rodney Martin, Brundlefly et al on Sat, 16 Feb 2019 15:08 | #
17
Posted by Church of Entropy, Ecce Lux, Holly, Rodney M et al on Sat, 16 Feb 2019 15:16 | #
18
Posted by Brundlfly, Rodney Martin, Holly, ChurchOfEntropy.. on Sat, 16 Feb 2019 15:21 | #
19
Posted by Nazophile Rodney Martin on Sat, 16 Feb 2019 16:33 | # ...Nazophile Rodney Martin, who calls me “Jewish” and Polish for having 3% trace Jewish from my Italian side…
21
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 17 Feb 2019 06:14 | # Ha ha ha! 3% (Probably rounded off from 2.58%). I want my duel citizenship and a bank now! 22
Posted by mancinblack on Wed, 20 Feb 2019 12:07 | # “We Need To Talk About White Identity Politics” - Eric Kaufmann Or “The Correct Temperature To Boil Frogs”.
23
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 22 Feb 2019 02:16 | # A question for mancinblack: are you a boomer? ............... Captain Cunt asks “Manginia in black” .... because his “irony bro’s” wanna know.. ..they are Christians with a ‘great sense of humor’ That’s all you need to know and all they need to know. Young trad-fogies, who think they know everything that you have to say before you’ve said the first word, don’t need to listen to anything, because ‘they know everything’, just start mocking - bla ha ha! it’s so funny! ...just listen to retarded Bob, er, Punished Christard Bob. Post a comment:
Next entry: “A central tenet of the Dissident Right is its absolute rejection of human equality.” Inspired Yet?
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA Nations
|
Posted by mancinblack on Wed, 09 Jan 2019 23:14 | #
Luke Ford “I’m going to jump in for about sixty seconds here to sum up my argument for why Jews are good for Western civilization is the higher IQ. High IQ people pay a lot more in tax than they take out in government services, they also commit fewer crimes, so that’s the essence of my argument”
Really? that’s it? lol. I would suggest that high IQ people pay less tax (as a percentage of their earnings) because a) they are smart enough to know the loopholes or b) they are smart enough to employ an accountant who knows the loopholes. Those who pay the most tax (as a percentage of what they earn) tend to belong to the “squeezed middle”, often public sector employees. As for crime, only dumb criminals ever get caught. Just look at the White House and Wall Street.
I find the Right’s obsession with IQ ratings hilarious, frankly. For twenty three years I was a member of MENSA and during that time the member with the highest IQ was a Home Counties housewife. There was also a number of unemployed people with IQ’s that put them in the top twenty percent (in the UK). Some of them hadn’t worked for years. My conclusion is that some people are intelligent enough to realize that the only life worth living is the one you want to live, as hard as that is for the Right to comprehend.
I don’t know what it’s like in America or elsewhere but here in the UK the British taxpayer pays £ millions every year for extra security for Jewish institutions due to “Friends of Corbyn” having blown up Jewish stuff in the past. It is not tax deductible.