Posted by equality/inequality, another red cape on Fri, 29 Mar 2019 06:04 | #

Daniel Sienkiewicz:
Coming from top down directives, confusing and contradictory rules and from the bottom up biology: Check out Faucett’s theory of “Horizontal transmission”, discussed at Majorityrights in several places. Bowery does a good job of it, of course, in his talk with Jim Giles and Stark. Thanks again for talking Norvin!

Daniel Sienkiewicz
Another red cape they have Whites chasing, I forgot to mention - “equality/inequality”. The matter, rather, for paradigmatic, group management, social systemic homeostasis, is “commensurability/incommensurability”, i.e, do rule structures match and complement the paradigm or not. Casting matters in those qualitative terms allows you to harmonize both intra-group roles and niches AND intergroup relations as you are not rousing conflict and ire through false comparisons which disrespect ecological niche functions.

Posted by instability of the right on Sat, 30 Mar 2019 08:36 | #

Another feature that is important to point out about the right, is that its desire for pure and narrow focused warrant makes it inherently unstable, and with that, because it is typically reactionary, it is easily misdirected against what should be its ends - if it cares about its resource/people, that is.

The problem with left unionization is that it can be too stable, but as it is pragmatically based within praxis (people in interactive relation), it allows more for accountability correction through interpersonal participation, whereas the right is not so inclined.

Posted by right wing reaction vs social systemic homeostasis on Fri, 12 Apr 2019 09:59 | #

You might say that the right wing quest for narrow, unassailable warrant beyond social accountability, the social, the relative and negotiated interest of praxis, is frequently a reaction, as opposed to actionary process in ongoing quest of (in our case, White) social systemic homeostasis

Posted by Response to Norvin and Tom on Sun, 27 Oct 2019 06:55 | #

There is no way I’d take a backseat to you guys (as Thomas White suggested I should in a hangout with Norvin, Marshall and him) You don’t know enough and don’t have enough experience.

You misrepresented what I said, which is that it will be a challenge to get a consensus on a moral order, not that it is impossible and comes from nowhere.

Of course you can draw on pagan elements, but building consensus for example, to anchor monogamy, will be a challenge.

There was no reason to be so dismissive.

Norvin, you are a 24 year old a bit too enamored of the sound of your own voice and the right wingers who egg you on against me.

None of you has said anything to make me believe I should take a back seat to you.

...
I didn’t say that I was suspicious of you for paganism. I was frustrated by your dismssiveness of the challenge of reaching a moral consensus.

That was when I used the phrase pagan bullshit…because some of it is outdated bullshit…other aspects are good and in tune with nature and the interests of our people.

 

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 28 Oct 2019 07:31 | #

There is an additional strawman that Norvin issued-forth just after he booted me from the hangout, which is that I am attempting to initiate agreement on some highly complex moral order for Europeans.

That is the exact opposite of the truth.

I seek to encourage the invocation of a moral order which would serve the biological genus and species of European peoples.

Toward that end, I would draw out two simple and important rules to begin:

1. The correspondence of biology and boundaries to citizenship/governance.

2. The significance of life-long monogamy as an option.

As I began to discuss the challenges for this, Norvin began to counter signal me, suggesting that paganism could make this simple…

Actually, more unnecessary complexity is projecting from his side…

and I lost patience as this was one of a succession of counter signals to carefully placed ideas (here, that it would be a challenge to get Europeans on a consensus of a non Christian moral order)...

He had just finished counter signaling Kumiko’s article on White Privilege as Warrant for Expropriation and Christianity as its Executing Jurisdiction.

Before that, counter signaling the challenge of a provocative inquiry into the combination of intelligence and stupidity that some Christians markedly exemplify.

Before that, counter signaling the sociobiological fact (as “exaggerated”) that females tend to incite genetic competition… I had to fight back with my position, adding yes, when girls/women are socialized they may not be so bad in that way, but when they are puerile and pandered to, they can be.

This follows a tendency of Norvin to white knight for White women, which is sometimes good, but sometimes bad.

The day before he had counter signaled the Zeitgeist segment on religion, failing to see it as an informative stepping stone to discrediting the Abrahamic religions, that we don’t have to follow all the movie (which is Jewish misdirection on the whole) into discrediting mythology and all religion.

But most importantly of all, he refused to be warned off the foolishness of his Fed posting.

He tells me that he wants to pursue a different direction, on the order of Tanstaafl and Scott Roberts, apparently, where we do not apportion significant concern and responsibility to our people (partcularly our right wingers/liberals short shrift of accountability) for reconstructing our sovereign system, but rather focus on the Jews as THE source of our problems and get rid of that problem.

I argue that even if he thinks that, and even if he were right, to announce it is utterly tactless.

But more deeply, tanstaafl and Roberts are proposing an epistemic blunder which pays short shrift to our agency.

It will not only draw the heat before you have the social systemic support for any effective militarism as such, but it will preclude effective social organization in our well warranted defense as would-be sympathizers are turned away by your tactlessness if not insufficiently articulated moral warrant

Norvin kicked me out of his hangout for “tone policing”...

Tom White said it was time for older guys like me and Metzger to take a back seat…

Leading me to believe that this was a planned assassination of my voice to begin with.

They want to believe that their way is new and well oriented and that mine is old, tried and failed.

Firstly, I am of a different generation from Metzger, and my platform is not in perfect agreement with his (though he has some lessons that they can certainly use).

Secondly, Norvin and Thomas don’t appreciate that theirs is the tired and failed way that boomer generation right wingers and Jews umbillically feed to them and egg them onto against the truly new and corrective position for White interests that I, in my position as an early X’r, am outlining.

But Tom White wouldn’t know that because he doesn’t have a cursory familiarity with some of the basically important articles at Majorityrights.

He doesn’t feel that he has to, because the right wingers who hate me (usually because I don’t love Hitler and Jesus), have told him that they have the well oriented direction, and I don’t….  thus, Tom says I should take a backseat.

Not on that bus I assure you that I won’t.

...my way is not going their way into repetition of foolish mistakes for pathetic if not tragic results, but rather for the securing of the existence of our people and a future for White children.