EuroDNA Nations Registry/Category Development for Unionization

Through this post I will be developing the means for people to register their European genetic kind. I will provide some suggestions as to how registrants might be categorized but will basically let registrants propose how they might wish to be categorized, if they want to be more specific than genus European.

Lets begin with category development. 

European Genus would be the category for those who would like to be grouped with all Europeans, don’t care if they are; or may be such a mix from all parts of Europe that there is no other feasible category for them.

How that might work by the example of myself, I might choose to categorize myself as European Genus. And that would be valid. It would not be valid for me to categorize myself as North Western European, not specifically any kind besides Italian and Polish; and not even really simply an unhyphenated member of either of those nationalities. In the case of a person being two kinds of European, such as myself, I might propose the category of Two Kinds of European, favoring the father as the lead identifier. Perhaps three or more kinds when an entire half is the father. This may be mistaken as a proper assortment, but again, we are just now developing categories. If you are two or more kinds but fall into a particular region (say, Scots, Irish and English),  you may wish to categorize yourself as “North West European.”

Handle (pseudonym) / Genetic Group Paternal/Maternal / Proposed Categorization 1 / Category 2 / Category 3 / Category 4

Registrant 

  1. DanielS

Handle: DanielS

Paternal J-Z467 (J-FGC21357) Maternal U5B1E1 

Proposed Category 1: Genus European

Proposed Category 2: European (ethno) Nation

Proposed Category 3: Two Kinds, Italian father, Polish mother.

Proposed Category 4: South and North Eastern European

Handle: Your handle

Paternal and Maternal side genetic group

Proposed Category 1.

Proposed Category 2.

Proposed Category 3.

Here is the original paper, which sets forth DNA registry as a means of unionization and coordination.

Euro-DNA Nations

James Bowery’s “Laboratory of the States” platform proposes separatism through free choice, as people may “vote with their feet” to establish human ecologies through controlled experimentation. The control would be established through freedom from association—that is, the freedom to not associate with others. However, under the current circumstances, efforts to instantiate these deliberately organized “human ecologies” are best conducted in an implicit manner. Indeed, under the circumstances, they must be largely implicit (see Note 1 below). Bowery suggests promoting abstract terms such as “our valuation of freedom of choice”. Later, the communities would be able to enforce explicit freedom of and from association. Rather than state-sized units, county-sized political units are apparently optimal — the sheriff and county being the most viable and manageable scale of organization in defense against the nation-state apparatus in its death throes.

The right of dwelling, association and doing business within a county is granted by the consent of the people established in that particular county. Members would have the prerogative to deny association with anybody they deem unwanted. People who tried to impose themselves on that group, and insisted upon violating their non-consent, could be treated as a serious criminal offender.

This freedom from association is corollary to individual freedom of choice and association. Bowery argues that strong valuation of freedom of choice is a distinctly White characteristic and therefore precious. I concur. He elaborates farther that it is imperative to maintain the unique human ecologies that evolved with this White characteristic of individual freedom of choice. I concur.

This freely and deliberately chosen state/county human ecology is very different from the deeply situated, naturally evolving human ecologies of Europe and Russia, where our people have evolved over tens of thousands of years in relation to particular habitats. It is surely critical for us to maintain these ecologies as well. We would not want to be without either the freely chosen White state/county-sized ecologies derived by choice within a lifespan, nor without the truly deep, historical ecologies of our European and Russian nations. These are both goods that we would want to maintain, and yet they are very different concerns. The task at hand for White Nationalism is to coordinate them.

We would not really want to give up either, but how to coordinate these two goods?  This is where a Euro-DNA-based nation begins to look like a potential means of coordination, allowing for various expressions of our native Europeans while never losing sight of their essence.

There is a third crucial matter to coordinate. If a White nation is to have an economy big enough to fund a space program and other large projects, it is likely to need a size larger than the average state (let alone county) to provide for a sufficient economy; and if, as Conner adds, a White nation is to hold up to the growing power of China, it will need to be large.

Thesis: The Indigenous Euro-DNA Nation would provide a means for coordinating smaller White States/Counties, both freely chosen and those of deep, historical evolution, while providing the means for pursuing its larger manifestation as well.

Given the anti-White hegemony that Whites are up against from above, along with the turmoil and throngs of anti-Whites that they are up against on all fronts, an endogenous approach is the most practical for the coordination of White separatism.

By endogenous here, we mean from the inside out. That is, in proposing a White separatist nation, we should begin with those who would like to be a part of it first — begin by focusing on what we can do as opposed to what we cannot do. It is endogenous also in that the nation is corporeal, literally of the people — their native European DNA being the prime criterion for inclusion. That would be in contrast, though not in opposition, to other White nation building efforts using an exogenous (from the outside-in) approach, such as the Northwest Front.

There are clear practical advantages of a native Euro-DNA Nation that begins as a formal declaration of a wish as confirmed by voluntary signatories. Firstly, signing-up would only mean that one is expressing a wish to be a part of White separatism. It does not require relinquishing one’s current citizenship.

The indigenous Euro-DNA Nation focuses from the start on our most precious concern, our DNA, while not encumbering us with present obstacles to land-situated nations. The Euro-DNA Nation would be non-situated in the beginning (and to some extent always).

However, DNA without land, without habitat indefinitely, would be problematic for a number of reasons (e.g., “Cartesian”, detached from organic processes and development of natural human ecologies). Therefore, it must be an objective of the Euro-DNA Nation to establish sacrosanct Euro-DNA Nation “lands” eventually; the plurality of lands is a deliberate usage. In fact, more safety and resources would be provided if these lands are non-contiguous and disbursed throughout the world. Naturally, The White nation would seek to re-establish its traditional territories as White, particularly those in Europe, but also North America, South America, Russia, Australia and New Zealand. Nevertheless, in not being strictly contingent on obtaining land, the nation is rendered more flexible and more practical so that it can start with land claims of any size, even small claims.

Once coordinated as such, its ultimate viability may strive to cover the largest land-masses possible. Thinking about these issues first as a means of coordination with Bowery’s “Laboratory of the States” platform, and in line with that, the DNA Nation being freely chosen would allow people to select various native European sub-categories (if they match), some distinct, some perhaps blended in various ways and degrees. Considering the problem secondly in terms of how to coordinate a White nation of the largest possible size, it also provides a highly practical means to attain the goal of covering a protracted expanse, as it is highly flexible in its ability to cover territory.

The DNA Nation is also practical in that it does not require unnecessary risk and engagement on the part of participants. Signing-up does not render one complicit with illegal activity of any kind. It only means an expressed wish for separatism from non-native Europeans, and to be with persons of indigenous European extraction.

Separatism is a first step, Separatism is the ultimate aim, and Separatism is always possible.

If you wish to express a wish that you might one day be a part of this separate Euro-DNA Nation, you may sign up; and specify particular categories as you wish. DNA proof will ultimately be required for consideration of membership.

The Native European-DNA Nation sign-up along with its subcategories will be provided. 

Note 1: The freedom of and from association promoted by the Laboratory of The States/Counties is conceived by Bowery to be an implicit choice. In his estimation, explicit Whiteness does not work. Taking the example of the draconian legal constraints placed on American realtors regarding the mere mention of race to buyers or sellers provides a salient example of how hazardous explicitness can be. However, the explicitness of the DNA registry does not contradict the implicitness strategy due to its being voluntary and not representing a legal status, but rather an expression of a wish. Discretion is nonetheless advised.

Continue Reading EuroDNA Nations Registry/Category Development for Unionization

TowardTheoryof White(European)Separatism, EthnoNationalism, DNANations

  • Post author:
  • Post category:Central

This post is a work in progress.

The audience that I appeal to will share my primary concern for European peoples, where we are suffering, where we might be doing alright and how we might improve – in short, a philosophy of European interests. How we interact and get on with other peoples cannot be separated out of that concern, of course, but European philosophy, its history, progress and development is beset with distinct problems that must be resolved well enough if the dire, even lethal consequences that many of our people have already been confronted with are to be corrected; indeed, if we are not to be visited by cataclysm on the whole of our people for our errant philosophy and how it has been exploited against us. While our philosophy and attendant way of life has done many good things for ourselves and the world, the consequences of our philosophical errors and those who exploit these vulnerabilities have destructive effects to others as well, can be cataclysmic for them, as well. Hence it is time, urgent time, to get down and sort out this philosophical business and not allow interference in this concern for whatever reason antagonists may have.

When drilling down to the roots of western philosophy, in observation of its trajectory and indeed, where it has been prone to error, the classic radical starting point is with the pre-Socratics. No more formidable a thinker and no more relevant a philosopher in our European concerns than Martin Heidegger would look to the debate between Heraclitus and Parmenides to begin with; and for good reason he is far from alone in maintaining this convention.

The debate sorts out most clearly through time as a distinction between focus on patterns and thus process as opposed to permanence and thus forms. It would be wrong to state that these concerns can be distinguished and sorted perfectly from one another, at least in terms of utility. Even with the ancients, it’s more a matter of emphasis and focus; but an over-emphasis on one or the other can create problems for a people, if indeed, they are to maintain themselves as a people and not be destroyed and/or assimilated whether by other peoples or by nature sans humans.

Parmenides focus prevailed in emphasis through Plato and his forms, especially; and also through Aristotle, although there were important corrections in terms of concern for system and process through Aristotle.

It is a perfectly understandable reaction to turmoil, chaos, those antagonistic or indifferent to the form (existence) of one’s people (as the opportunistic casuistry of the Sophists rhetoric may be taken to be) to focus, perhaps over focus on the substance of form and permanence to buttress one’s kind, perhaps rigidly-so if the challenge is destructive enough.

In the limited state of communication of ancient times, Plato’s strong reaction to focus on permanence in the forms is understandable, along with his contempt for the Sophists and sophistry, their school of thought going around from city to city, teaching practical rhetoric – what Plato considered mere practical rhetoric – to look after one’s interests among the circumstance. There certainly would be, as ever, people looking to take advantage of the vicissitudes and volatile circumstance among would-be social order; hence the emphasis of the conscientious to seek a permanent realm of formal structures of the people by which they might abide above the turmoil and superior to pragmatic dishonesty in sophistry.

There was a bit of mystery, but functioning rather as a white box demonstrating “invisible” substance behind form which the Greeks observed in the phenomenon of physics shown to all school children that by holding the top of one’s straw and dunking it into water, one can draw up water with the straw, as if by magic.

Nevertheless, in the commonality of turmoil, short sighted self interest and the fragility of formal structures proposed to hold up despite proposed transcendent divorce from empirical reality emerges what remains a central concern of European philosophy; viz. how to maintain our forms.

Aristotle commenced to deal with this problem, taking the means to hold up back into empirical reality, diagnosing human nature, worse, better, optimal in function among the given turmoil, which for people groups he called Praxis. As his philosophy anchored more in nature and relative circumstance, dealing more with reality, in a word, Aristotle is generally the most respected figure, sine qua non, of European peoples.

Aristotle diagnosed human nature as biological, thus requiring optimal not maximal need satisfactions; deficiencies and excesses becoming toxic. Over focus on forms detached from interactive reality might lose track of this balance. 

Nevertheless, Aristotle maintained that the formal teleology of particular species, including human teleology, would guide them in optimality of that pursuit; with that, he asks the profound question, what makes people distinctly human? and he not only describes our biological genus, but species, mammals and its distinctions, but distinguishes us further from other animals, on the basis of abilities. Are we distinctly human for our ability to run fast, for example? No. Horses can run faster.

Even so, I have diagnosed Aristotle’s diagnosis of individual human teleology to Self Actualization as being susceptible qua overly rigid teleology, needing correction with more social interactive concern for praxis at preliminary basis – central, where not foremost in a circularity of need attendance (as opposed to linearity to teleological end), despite being preferable to the corruption of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs toward Self Actualization. A bit of rigidity here in teleology was where he maintained something of a western over focus on forms in theoretical conceptual end somewhat divorced from empirical process.

However, the means for correcting this over emphasis would be importantly set forth in Aristotle’s philosophical framework, where the political and social world is preliminary (man is a social animal and without correct politics, all other philosophy is for naught) and his description of the nature of this central component – the inextricable relative engagement thereof, it’s less than perfect predictability for the reflexive effects in its interaction; thus rendering us pragmatists because we must be (Aristotle maintained that this imperfect predictability required ‘phronesis’ – practical judgment), particularly for the humanly agentive interaction of the social world – Praxis.

Praxis, the social group, was not divorced from empirical reality, nor its constituent people, of course. Not only were they biological creatures, requiring optimal not maximal need satisfaction, but they were specific biological creatures, mammals, who care deeply about relationships, requiring them, of course. But Aristotle was even more familiar to contemporary philosophical concern than that in his description of the nature of Praxis in his Nichomachean Ethics, where he diagnoses the limitations of applying pure Theory to Praxis, for the interactive nature of Praxis.

The interactive nature and concern of human relations, along with our capacity for agency and thus what our contemporaries would call “reflexive effects” (including the means to learn and learn to learn) entails the ability to change course (as “second order cybernetic systems”) from what might appear to be the next logical sequence to the purely detached observer in their Theory. Given the interactive human nature of Praxis thus, Aristotle diagnosed that unlike the realm of pure physics and its more sheer predictions that scientists may value deriving, the realm of Praxis is not a place to put too much emphasis on pure causal Theoria. Rather, we are pragmatists, to some extent, because we must be (to take a page from my teacher), having to be more modestly satisfied with working hypotheses and heuristics for what Aristotle termed “Phronesis”, i.e., practical judgement.

If these working hypotheses are indeed “working”, they will facilitate transcendence of the bad characters among praxis and the bad aspects in us all, as were are all imperfect. It will allow us to sustain the more ideal overall pattern of Praxis, and keep our focus on the fist order of philosophical concern, which is political; for in failure of adequate political philosophy to maintain praxis, all else is a moot point.

This, then, brings us to the next major philosophical question: “If a tree falls in the woods and there is nobody there to hear it, does it make a noise?”

The correct answer, the White Post Modern answer, the social constructionist answer, the hermeneutecists answer, all those post modern things misrepresented by the YKW and their liberal minions in distortions which create right wing reaction in to the quest for forms beyond praxis nowadays, is to say:

While some crazy people might say that it makes no noise with no people there, most of us European peoples would say that it does make a noise, but is a meaningless question without other people to discuss it with and negotiate how this matter of physics comes to count for us.

Knowing that this social constructionist way of thinking is what people need, especially European peoples need in corrective, to maintain social group, the YKW have (((red caped))) the hell out of this and other post modern ideas in order to keep our people disorganized so that they may exercise power over us. And to date (Sept. 2021), they have been successful in maintaining these (((red cape))) misrepresentations and getting White people to react as right wingers, in ways worse, more self defeating than Plato’s impractical, formal response to the Sophists in Praxis.

But let us return then to where we, as Europeans, became susceptible to this sophistical (((red caping))) of healthy and important ideas; first setting out what that (((red caping))) is:

The basic strategy of Jewish group antagonism is to take a good idea, necessary to group defense, advocacy, homeostasis, and deploy it in the interest of non-Whites or anti-Whites; then exaggerate or reverse these advocacy concepts to the point of utter misrepresentation, absurdity, to where they are perceived as alien and repulsive to the common sensibilities of Whites, causing them to react (in white knuckle quest for unshakable foundation beyond or within non-human nature, and unwittingly beyond accountability and systemic correctivity in Praxis, as post modern ideas are conceived to provide) thus against the concept underlying this red caping and against thus, the very concepts that Whites need to understand and organize systemic homeostasis and group defense.

I can almost hear the Nordicist Europeans, Aryan aficianado’s objecting, but you are not taking into account the roots,  radically ancient philosophy and religion of the Northern Europeans – Armenius!, Odin! Valhalla! all the amazing science that has come from our parts, and you talk about the Jews, didn’t we ultimately try to do something about their malinfluence?

You only talk about the Greeks and will now probably tell us something about The Romans and their most popular derivative Greek philosophies, Stoicism and Epicureanism.

I will venture that the Aryan invasions that comprise the latest movement of people into Europe who are considered European, extended the proclivities of the Northern hunter gatherers who came fist, extending some of the ideas of the Southerners where naively conducive, but mitigated some of the buffering and corrective capacities of the Middle-Eastern hunter gatherer people who came into Europe earlier, but then having vast swathes of their Y-DNA wiped out with the Aryan killing of their men and the impregnating of their women.

Considering the impact and potential exacerbating effect of Stoicism first, it was a philosophy that encouraged poised acceptance of the myriad of continencies in life, many of them bad, by taking the position that all parts of the universe constituted a complete whole, and were all necessary as such: should be accepted, even the bad, as necessary.

Kenneth Burke perfectly ridiculed this philosophy, saying, “the Stoic acceptance was an attempt to trans- substantiate even the repugnant aspects of existence, the excremental, into the essentially divine.” Oblivious to the repugnant though it may be, it was a philosophy which one can see jibing with the conquering warrior invader Aryans, who might not wish to think too much about he reflexive effects of their warring.

The next philosophical school and influence to consider would be the Epicureans. Now then, the Epicureans were established in reaction, rejection rather, of superstition, custom, habit, mere tradition unverified by sensible utility and the means to adjudicate value; which required tracing everything to the physical realm – they coined the term “the atom” to designate the smallest physical unit of which the universe was composed – one can easily see how they stand as forerunners to the Empiricist philosophers of the Enlightenment and to empiricism more broadly. 

Based on misperception in popular media who use the term epicurean as something frivolous, as in discussion of cooking shows and the like, or use the epicurean term hedonism to describe a devil-may care Dionysian indulgence in sensual pleasure, Epicureanism was a serious philosophy, with the motivations listed in the previous paragraph, and governed by a hedonism which to them meant the careful use of pleasure, a hierarchic ordering of them, prioritizing thought and contemplation as the ultimate pleasure (Thomas Jefferson considered himself an Epicurean).

It isn’t hard to imagine how this scientific anti-superstitious, anti -traditional bent would jibe with the no nonsense warring and conquest concerns of the Aryans, as their interests melded with the Romans in the south and blended keenly, extended even, the concerns of the hunter-gatherers of the North of Europe.

These philosophies and the genetics from which they derive might blend with and extend the philosophies (more like religions) and genetics of their own along with the Northern hunter gatherers with whom they intermarried, advancing them where positive, exacerbating them where negative, while their genetic predispositions might have similar positive and negative effects among the Southerners with whom they intermarried.

However, while the Greeks had their influence on the Aryans – lets call them Germanics as we move on in history – look at Heidegger’s serious consideration of the Greeks, after all – the more north you go, the more their ancient predilections and ways were holding sway uncomplicated by the Southern European Praxis. Even less complicated by Middle Eastern Praxis.

Evolved in the cold north, where the challenges were more that of nature, the weather, seasonal deprivation of food supply, need for shelter and warmth rather than danger and competition from other tribes, their concerns were more of what Clerk Maxwell called an “Augustinian devils” concern for challenges of non-human nature which do not have the ready conscious agency to change in order to stump you again once the original obstacle is solved. This Augustinian nature is by contrast to a more prominent concern among Middle Eastern tribes to attend to what Clerk Maxwell called “Manichean devils”; i.e., the trickery that human agency is capable of, to change and deceive others where their game of advantage and exploitation might be detected; a skill set in climbs where the challenge is not as much the natural elements, lack of adequate shelter and food resource year round, but rather competition from other tribes in that circumstance.

While the Israeli Mossad’s very motto, “wage war by deception” is emblematic of the increased Manichean focus, and the Islamic strategy of “taqiyya”, the art of deception, also emblematic of increased Manichean focus, the vast predominance of great scientific discoveries which Europeans, Northern European especially, but not exclusively, is emblematic of their Augustinian focus. Although the Southerners may not be quite as responsible for as many of the later scientific advances, nor has their mitigated Augustinian nature been quite so unaccustomed, quite such a naïve species in encounter with the Middle Easterners and their Manichean trickery.

One might ask, but what about the Aryan invasion of Europe from the steppes, what about the Viking invasions into other European countries, or even the Nazi invasions of other European nations? Surely you are not telling me that these were products of naïve Augustinianism. But I am saying that it follows indeed.

The Aryans could be said to be following a natural urge to conquer, more a matter of natural Augustinian might makes right than Manichean trickery of themselves or concern for potential reflexive effects of that kind.

While the Viking compulsion to set aside worldly, reflexive self interest in service of Odin and the promise of a maiden in Valhalla was more consonant with the self detached, objectivist concerns of Augustinian tests, results, pure inquiry in a word, than Manichean trickery aimed in focus on adjustment, weak, cowardly and dishonest as need be, in order to ensure the survival of one’s self and distinct kind.

And in a final example I provide of the Nazis, wielding a philosophical underpinning of might makes right, based predominantly on natural fallacy, i.e. that non-human nature below Praxis and its systemic correctivty was what the people should emulate, a trajectory for runaway rough shod over other peoples in oblivion to the inevitable reflexive effects, a naturalistic fallacy below praxis corrections only exacerbated by Himmler’s esoteric occultism above nature and Praxis.

As this German and NorthWestern European proclivity has held predominance for better and worse in Europe, so too has it held sway for better and worse elsewhere in the world where they have migrated, but especially in America where they make up the overwhelming proportion of European American demographics.

While a predilection to attend to, and indeed to be proficient in attending to Augustinian “devils”, challenges of nature, is far from something to be ashamed of – on the contrary, it is behind our scientific prowess and is the ultimate concern, if we are to survive the precarious rigors of this lonely stone in the universe, susceptible to meteors from without, super volcanoes form within, climate disaster about, oblivious population overrun among, super nova’s if nothing else – it is the proclivity behind our scientific and engineering prowess, it is also an outlook which makes us  naïve, susceptible to be dupes, in a word, to the Manichean trickery of groups more dependent on their ethnocentric outlook, evolved more as they are, amidst intertribal warfare, less on the basis of “moral” communities, as Dr. Kevin MacDonald describes the northern proclivity; to form communities a bit less on the basis of clan and more on the basis of who is deemed moral in the sense of contributing either demonstration of moral trust or objective material contribution.

While the Southern and Eastern Europeans might be somewhat less naïve to the Manichean trickery, it is only somewhat less, and by no means an overall success in trajectory, as Nietzsche would point out in the crucified Jew to be worshiped as an image atop Rome, same in Eastern as in the rest of Europe. A (((red caping))) of our moral order not much less comprehensive and catastrophic in effects, at least not yet. So I will save my self righteous anger with the Germans more for the destruction of their World Wars, the “objective truths” and natural fallacy which left them “no choice” but to go over the top, beyond Praxis correctivity in that pursuit…. while more frustration and sympathy I reserve for the naïve species evolved in Sweden; subject as they are by the imposed predation of invasive, Manichean species from the Middle East and Africa.

But I exercise my anger to light up the pathways of under-deployed criticism, quite to the contrary among those concerned for European peoples, the over represented and pandered to perspective of aggrieving German and Irish demographics, with less affinity for those in the path of Hitler’s wrath in natural fallacy.

Far from trying to deny their magnificent achievements, philosophical, scientific and engineering or the survival of their ethnonational kind, I’m rather concerned to save us all, including themselves, for one thing, from the eternal Kraut; it’s well habituated logical capabilities that navigate in too much efficiency, with unanimity in rationalization of erstwhile social obstructions in Praxis, whether in justification of the destruction of Hitler’s wars one day or Merkel’s immigration policy the next. If German is likened to part of the body, it seems like the cerebral cortex, logical, producing some of our advanced human marvels, nothing we’d want to be without, but in need of the entire brain and body lest it come unhinged from corrective judgment.

Indeed, Germany, like the rest of Northern Europe could use help from the ecological buffering qualities of the Southern and Eastern nations; and this is one of problems with the ecologically imbalanced North Western European demographic of The United States,  more German (by far) and Irish than any other White demographic, while the English have come in third place …all other European demographics distantly small percentages by comparison.

Nor do I have any desire to deprive Ireland of their land, people, abilities and charms. Last I heard, they were derived largely of the Basques, of the oldest Europeans there are.

Do let me get out of the rabbit hole of criticizing Germans/Germany, as having part in our destruction can be rendered for all European peoples. Unfortunately this digression is needed some as they are demographically over represented in WN reaction, quite capable of too much unanimity, prone to seek redemption of their moral status from the World Wars, prone to too much sympathy for Nazism/Hitler and to unhelpful denial to be rid of guilt for matters that could be largely dismissed as not their generation’s doing; an over pre-occupation in White advocacy now, given predominant German demographics and those who gain audience in appeal.

Most recent case in point, Apostolic Majesty here: going on about how Kaiser Germany had no choice but to carry on with the von Schlieffen Plan of invasion of France through Belgium and with it? the “necessity” of burning the ancient library of Leuven, murdering civilians, etc. (the destruction of Kalisz, Poland another incidental casualty of “logistic” necessity)? As ever, Polish nationhood seems to be a blip that makes a brief, artificial appearance on the map as a result of that horrible racist, Woodrow Wilson, after WWII.

Thus, there is no consideration that if Germany had worked out a way to respect and work with Polish nationhood and sovereignty that there would be no Eastern front overwhelmingly exposed to Russian military build up, thus requiring the hasty enactment of the von Schlieffen Plan through Belgium in hopes of quick victory over France before the Russian military build up had gone too far to take on in the east, or as another front at the same time.

The same contention would hold true for WWII. That if Germany could have truly worked with the sovereignty of European nations, especially in the east, then the alleged urgent necessity of pre-empting Russian attack could have been largely removed. I know that Apostolic Majesty knowns a great deal about history and is worth listening to, but his perspective is not beyond reproach nor that of fellow historian, Otto Pohl, who inhabited this chat approvingly; the same Otto Pohl who had the nerve to ask me how I feel about the ancient Polish capital of Poznan being “ethnically cleansed” of Germans (by borders redrawn again by Stalin) after WWII, while neo Nazi’s egged him on and called me a Pollock (when I had nothing against Otto). But I digress. 

We’ll get to the problems of the other European nations, but first it is necessary to get back to our germane philosophic history. 

Circling back in our hermeneutic of European philosophy, it’s history and wrong turns, it is necessary to come back to the ancient misdirection of our European people in the (((red caping))) of our moral order by Christianity.

The genesis of Christianity begins with the Roman conquest of Judea.

In fact, Christianity would be a part of one of about ten power niches making sense enough to merit a working a hypothesis apparently to be credited to Fawcett (noted by Bowery). 

Having told the story several times before, I will merely adumbrate it thus:

With the Babylonian captivity, the Jews began to develop as a diaspora species, evolved to survive in niches not requiring strong native connection to the land. Whereas evolution more directly with and from the native land is called lateral transmission of evolved abilities, the evolution of cross-border capacities in diaspora, less related to the land, and more a niche function among other peoples, is called horizontal transmission.

Upon return from Babylonian captivity, the diasporic evolution moved not into direct relation to the land once again, but rather into niche capacities over the remaining population of Judea.

With the Roman conquest of Judea, the horizontal transmission of diasporic niche evolution began to be exacerbated exponentially as they were scattered among Asia Minor and Europe, beginning under Roman auspices.

Their predominance in one of the major niches, viz., Religion, was set forth as they sought to overthrow Roman control through a permutation of their Abrahamic religion – Christianity. 

The Book of Revelation as the culminating text of a religion worshipping a dying Jew ought to make it plain for anyone. Whereupon Rome, the new Babylon, mother of harlots, is fallen at the end times, bringing forth the messiah in salvation of 144,000 chosen Jews and Gentiles of any which kind, no matter their nationality, mixed or otherwise. One of the most virulent aspects of this universalizing religion, what GW calls the “undifferentiated gentile”, is that native nationalists are ineffectively deracinated and de-nationalized; their genetics being of no specific concern.

So egregious a usurpation of the European moral order was this religion, that Europeans were told by it that they could not enter heaven (and presumably would go to hell) if they did not place the fictional character Jesus, the Jewish son of god, before their own family. They were told that they were committing a similar cardinal sin if they did not believe that Jesus was an actual historical figure – which he absolutely was Not. Furthermore, in Christianity’s central statement, The Sermon on The Mount, espousing the Golden Rule and a purity spiral of Moses Ten Commandments to Jewish auspices such that even if you think of breaking the ten commandments, you may as well have done it, thus they are getting into the European head, scaring the hell out of them.

What Could Possibly Go Wrong?
As Jesus condemns even thought about breaking the ten commandments, unconscious guilt is established to reification through petrification; one constraint to the Cartesian point of purity is established and pursued by gentiles to purify themselves of guilt while later, Freud would provide a sterling example of exploitation of this Cartesian reification in his concept of “unconscious wish” – i.e., you really want to submit to this self destructive thing, as opposed to the non-Cartesian engagement in hermeneutics interactive thought process and inquiry,  wherein “the sinful thought” or self defeating thing considered, is more like an innocuous (because it is not done in action) thought experiment that is like one frame in an on going film reel to be amended and re-edited for ameliorative recontextualization as need be to show a better course of action.
 
Thus, for Freud to characterize a frame and reify a frame in a would-be thought process as a ‘subconscious wish” is an egregious guilt trip coming from an authority figure with power to enforce these ideas, as the Freudian school had; as opposed to something far closer to the truth, the White Post Modern truth, that these thoughts are considerations, mentally tested in order to gain bearings against competition against our interests… more or less experimental, especially if not actively engaged in and only thought about.
 
Of course, the Frankfurt School’s egregious Herbart Marcuse would go unfortunately far in popularizing the idea that “this Eros” of the Freudian diagnosed “subconscious wish”, needed to be “liberated from it’s libidnic suppression.”

But we’ve gotten ahead of ourselves. Coming back to the root problem of Christianity, as “our moral order” ….You, as a gentile, are born with original sin that can only be washed away with a pledge to the dying Jew on the cross.

First among commandments, there is only one god, the Jewish god, and you shall have no other gods before you. Tom Sunic does an excellent job of describing this affectation, as does Kumiko in an article that I published earlier in the carousel, so I will not elaborate further as the point should be clear enough. This usurpation of our moral order and its replacement with this false, misdirecting moral order – not really moral in fact, is one one of the greatest possible atrocities against our European people, with their having gotten away with it that is.

In fact, as Bowery astutely notes, the Bible and its dissemination in church was the ancient form of Media control – Media, being a second major power niche after Religion. 

Centuries later, Jewish niche function would play a similar trick on through Middle-Eastern populations with another Abrahamic purity spiral held over the people, viz., Islam.

Some White Nationalist colleagues of mine, Norvin Hobbs et. al, summed it up nicely by saying that Islam would function like a sword cutting into European nations while Christianity would function like a shield protecting the Jews; although this (((red caping))) of the moral order did create a Frankenstein for the Jews in its purity spiral against their loyalists.

Besides these backlashes which I will elaborate on momentarily as a part of niche evolution through horizontal transmission, the Jews were able to sneak their influence into European peoples further by the crypsis of Christian concersion at times, and by literal evolutionary crypsis, intermarrying with gentiles enough so that it was difficult to discern them from gentiles, though the world would learn more and more that their ethnic genetic interests were different from their gentile hosts, even if they looked quite similar.

While Christianity (and later Islam) forbade usury, Judaism did not, and European leaders were easily corrupted as the Jews developed in a third most important niche – Money. With the exponential effects of usury, enlisted as lenders and tax collectors, the Jews  began to consolidate the wealth of European nations to themselves while native populations would become enslaved to their vices and quick, superficial fixes.

At first flourishing in Northern Italy, their genetic trail shows them coalescing in the Rhineland of Germany to become the Ashkenazi. Highly ethnocentric, selecting for verbal I.Q. and adding International Business acumen as another niche to their diasporic capacity, Christianity became the clandestine vehicle of Jewish imperialism, backed by their other niche capacities, money, international business and media control. With that was added capacity in another niche, Law and Courts. And, of course, as they made their way in dispersal throughout Europe (whether kicked out to other nations or just migrating), they became more and more influential in Politics.

As Fawcett’s niche theory goes at this point, the native European populations eventually become aware that clandestine Jewish interests are screwing them, through converts, and they persecute the Jews through the Spanish Inquisition, through their business in vices and the consolidation of national wealth, leading to the pogroms in the east as the natives become aware, and finally, as the Jews exert more and more capacity in another niche, Academia – for example, Freudian Psychology and The Frankfurt School –  adding that to their other niche capacities, the Holocaust would add yet another round of selection for Horizontal Transmission, as each of these persecutions would tend to do.

According to Horizontal Transmission Theory then, what is happening in these belated reactions and persecutions of Jews in episodes such as the Inquisition, the Pogroms and the Holocaust, is that the native European populations are killing those Jews more intermarried, situated in Europe, indeed, more accountable, while the most virulent Jews are escaping over the border to another host nation – more efficient in their virulence than ever as it has been selected for – that is Horizontal Transmission – and they  go on to parasite the next host nation to death, the latest victim nation of their imperialism being The United States.

As Bowery would add, it was only with Luther’s Protestant Reformation, Gutenberg’s press and much later, the Internet, that Jewish Media control began to be mitigated somewhat. But that’s much ahead of ourselves now. Our hermeneutic of European philosophy needs to go back still, to the Enlightenment. GW makes a good observation that none of the Enlightenment figures had freed themselves of their Christian religion.

That observation then dovetails with my view on these matters. That the Enlightenment and its scientism was no mere rebirth and extension of Epicurean philosophy into Empirical philosophy, but in good part a purity spiraling reaction to the Jewish sophistry in praxis, thoroughly pervasive by then, taken for granted as the very moral order. Hence, the sort of quest for objective purity beyond the guilt trips of original sin, even “impure thoughts” of our own, and the impure sophistry, rhetoric of the Jews. As indicated before, Europeans, particularly Northern Europeans in their Augustinian evolution, were prone to this reaction for better, in scientific and engineering discovery, and worse, in losing site of their relative group interests, susceptibility to be dupes of Jewish manichean trickery, lack of accountability and thus proneness to treachery from nascent right wingers and liberals of our own.

The sine qua non of the purity spiraling reaction, of course, is with Rene Descartes; his efforts to take Christianity and the Abrahamic religion’s divorce from nature and relative interests to an objectivist extreme; pure warrant almost beyond accountability other than to say, “that’s just the way it is. No argument necessary.” This was the apex, liken it to an Archimedean point beyond nature, if you will, which set forth Modernity, all its scientific and engineering marvels,, all its destruction and roughshod over relative, ethnocentric group interests. From there, I have found it to make the best sense in our hermeneutic of European philosophy and how it has unfolded to pick up with John Locke. Locke represented the empirical side of the Cartesian divide, with an attempted purity within nature.

Now Locke understandably resented the English Aristocratic Class system instantiated with the Norman conquest of 1066. His desire to open that class boundary so that at least middle class kids could have an equal educational opportunity. This desire dovetailed nicely with his concept of empirical philosophy; that is to say, that all individuals had the same perceptions while classifications were an empirical fiction; hence the concept of individual civil rights should apply to all citizens and Aristocratic class discrimination should be abolished as pernicious fiction.

Immanuel Kant anticipated catastrophe if this empirical philosophy was carried to its logical extreme – the arbitrary destruction that would ensue without the principles and rule structuring of a moral order. in a noble effort he tried and failed to secure our moral order on universal, purely transcendent principles.

He noted three phases of morality, proceeding from common morals, in which people generally know what to do and do the right thing, abiding first principles to begin with more or less on the basis of common sense of consequences; e.g., don’t lie, don’t steal, don’t commit adultery. Then a second phase operates on people, which Kant called popular philosophy. Many excuses are available for deviating from first principles; e.g., “the complex relativity of my circumstance wouldn’t let me act otherwise”, when in fact, principles could have been maintained. Another popular reason to deviate from first principles, “everybody does it.” But the mere popularity of an idea, according to Kant, does not provide sufficient reason to deviate from first principles.

Arguments on the basis of popular philosophy are usually hatched to make quick work of accountability; and I find nowadays that even more typical than relativist excuses, liberals and right wingers try to rite off their immorality as objectivist facticity, “that’s just the way it is”, in a wish to maintain that no further account is necessary.

But Kant maintains rather that if moral principles are to hold up to the misdirection of popular philosophy, they must be sufficiently founded and gauged. If geared too much in the empirical direction, as with Locke, attention runs the risk of being arbitrary. On the other hand, if principles are geared too much in the transcendent direction, they run the risk of being speculative and irrelevant. Nevertheless, as it is easier to return to sensible evidences than it is to abide and restore the credibility of an unkept principle, it is better to err in the direction of principles.

Thus, to rescue the moral order from the arbitrary trajectory and catastrophe that Lockeatine empiricism augured, Kant set about to put moral principles on universal foundations.

The most fundamental principle, unanimity, means to think in agreement with yourself. In other words, if you come to a conflict, think first of why you might be correct, not why you might be wrong. An important step in coherence, accountability , agency and warrant is set forth straight away in this principle (thus, the crucially necessary means for coordination with other individuals and groups). Although Kant was a Christian, it is important to note that you will not find this in Christianity. Furthermore, like most Catholics, Kant was not part of our teaching; in fact, I was basically taught to think in disagreement with myself. This was hell to go through.

To test the veracity of our principles, Kant asserted that one must ask the universal question of them, “can this principle be good always and, for everyone?”

In principle with regard to other people, that means treating them as ends themselves. Kant calls this, the most important principle, “good will.” Without good will, other qualities, such as beauty, fortune, intelligence, strength and power only make a person more terrible.

Despite this fine reasoning, Kant tried and failed to secure unassailable foundations of a moral order. The fundamental reason diagnosed by Heidegger, that he was still Cartesian. It would take several aspects of the post modern turn to get our moral order on track; Descartes first major critic being Vico; but we are getting way ahead of ourselves regarding a necessary White Post Modern project that’s scarcely underway, it’s having been derailed by sundry (((red capes))).

But before that even, before Kant even, Thomas Jefferson had written Locke’s anti-classificatory empirical notion of civil individual rights into the American way; an anti-classification of group species patterns that might not have been too bad if operating only on European populations in America, but nevertheless ripe as concept for anti-White weaponization by Jews in the form of “Civil Rights” legislation for blacks to violate White freedom of association; and “anti-racist” legislature, which effectively prohibited White people from rendering group classifications in their own interests and in discrimination against others, particularly against blacks, no matter how reasonable in self defense.

Anti-racism is Cartesian. It is not innocent, it is prejudice against prejudice (to coin a term from Heidegger’s student, Gadamer); and in this prohibition of classificatory discrimination (for White people, anyway) on the basis of patterns assessed detrimental to one’s kind, it is hurting and it is killing people.

And there is the matter of the French Revolution which we must back track to. A typical overstated starting point for European based scholars to assert where in history things started really going awry, it is nevertheless important to discuss; while Lockeatine anti-Classification and its (((weaponization))) in ‘Civil Rights” and “Anti-racism” is the more fruitful avenue of making sense of the catastrophic disorder that we find ourselves in the wake of modernity’s Cartesianism, since America has had the world hegemony.

Before moving on to all that, it is first necessary to ask what is a moral order at all? And what is our moral order?

There wasn’t much discussion of the matter, particularly those coming from a Catholic background, you were just supposed to obey, rather rote, according to its edicts. Thus, while I dropped serious concern of the matter once I got to teenage years, was first of us four kids to Not make my confirmation, the Sunday school, the tradition, and the lack of considered options, was enough to hold sway in taken for granted resources, still as memes buried in the back of my mind and reinforced by the culture there that that, Christianity, had prime jurisdiction over moral order; so that despite having casually renounced it as a teenager, the pressures of college, the stress of seeing the indifference to the destruction of our ethnic genetic interests sent me reeling back to search for a bedrock fundamental kind of Christianity for a time, as the only moral order that I knew of that had any sufficient consensus, until I got through undergraduate school and the pressure of being unmoored by less relevant academic concerns was off.

Still, my inquiry into Christianity was serous enough to confront the fact of the fabrication of the Bible, the artificiality of its stories, the multiple apparent authors in a book, such as its culminating text, The Revelation; and it was serious enough to confront its insufficience, and impracticality as a moral guide to say the least. I remember even as a kid  the anguish I felt at having to adhere to this religion of humility and self hatred While blacks were teaching themselves and being reinforced in Media to revel in empowerment, self love, violence to others.

My inquiry and concern was serous enough to at least have had Kant pointed out to me, skimmed it enough to be clued on to pick it up again one day for at least some bearing. 

And with America still not making sense, to be finally compelled to go back and pursue graduate school in what were for me, these unarticulated matters.

Hearing the late Oxford Professor, Rom Harre, use the term “moral orders” plural, of itself, as a plural term, provided an important clue to jostle the deeply taken for granted background meme of Christianity being THE moral order, with no serious options in concern of moral jurisdiction for European peoples. And to hear Harre and the communications scholars that I worked with talk in terms of moral orders being an unavoidable concern and a matter of social negotiation that you could not simply put aside, brought home the realization that negotiation of a new moral order, sufficient to look after the interests of European people would be necessary; and indeed, it is possible, despite the obstruction and what says a boomer asshole like Guessedworker – “you can’t just go into your garage and start one up.” Well, no one besides you is saying that is where and how serious moral and philosophical negotiation is conducted. 

From my communications profs, I would be clued on to the idea that there is no avoiding moral orders. There has never been a pure anarchy and state of nature among humans – among us, there will always be rules governing some things that are Prohibited, some things that are Obligatory, and some things that are Legitimate. On a physical level, some things will be blocked or tangled, some things forced, some things free access

When one drops the stupid idea that moral orders necessarily come from god and are beyond human negotiation, but rather realizes, unlike the stupidity of a Guessedworker, that social negotiation is where moral orders gain adherence in determining how brute facts and beyond come to count in any relevance to begin with, one begins to take more seriously the possibility and responsibility of negotiating a new, sufficient moral order, looking at the episodic enactments vital to the survival of our genetic pattern over the aeons, historically and for our legacy, as to where to propose consensus of the sacral. And if not wanting to see your White children born into this planet of the apes hellscape isn’t incentive enough, and you feel that you need rather some distant and removed Abrahamic god, which doesn’t give a shit about our kind, then you may as well not be in on the conversation anyway.

Furthermore, one realizes unlike the boomer asshole Guessedworker and his cohorts, how necessary it is to get this project under way, to negotiate an understanding and consensus of our moral order transcendent of moment, episode, transcendent even of the hazard of close relations, to provide us rather with meaningful connection to our historical pattern, which extends into the future, in our worldly afterlife, through our legacy. This transcendent pattern, call it god and theological, if you will, is necessary not only for individuals to make sense, to establish coherence, accountability, agency, correctivity, warrant, but also necessary as such for groups of people in human and pervasive ecology; having provided thus, the crucially necessary means of coordination with other groups.

The anchoring of this moral order and transcendent realm is seen as acutely necessary to stave off demoralization in confrontation over the fact that a good percentage, if not most White people are on the bad side, and those who are on the good side, including ourselves, are flawed.

Thus we need these transcendent rule structures, such as an option for life long monogamy, not to be dismissed as “unnatural” and humanly impossible, because it is not. There is a difference  between harmonizing our morals with nature as opposed to the Cartesianism of natural fallacy – differences that our White Post Modern project illustrates. To have this option treated as sacral, rather than flouted, can be crucial to stave off the kind of demoralization in its absence for decreased incentive to loyalty, leaving us vulnerable to betrayal and predation from outside groups, including having them try to impose stupid affectations, alien moral orders such as the Abrahamic, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, serving alien and indifferent ethnic genetic interests.

But neither can we fall prey to universalizing marriage and monogamy as a panacea of universal, Kantian good will. For absent borders and boundaries to sustain homeostasis of our species genetic pattern, marriage and monogamy can be like having the best berth on F. Roger Devlin’s sinking boomer ship amidst the turbulent waters of female hypergamy, puerile incitement to genetic completion, anti-racism.

While repudiating Christianity as a (((red caping))) of our moral order and not seeing any other extant religion centralizing concern for the praxis of our ethnic genetic interests, neither can I favor efforts to faithfully replicate pre-Christian, European religions. It is worthwhile to look into these religions as they must have had some things better than Christianity, that isn’t saying much and would not be hard in terms of a better fit for our interests and our place in nature. But neither should we overrate the knowledge of our forebears, the state of barbarity gave way to the affectation of Christianity for a reason; the mystery of their being buried in the far away and long ago should not confer authority, shouldn’t remove the moral and sacred realm from our agentive participation, causing us to underrate our contemporary knowledge in comparison to theirs.

But we shouldn’t overrate our intelligence either, particularly not of the boomers. While there is no place, people or person beyond morals – of one kind or another, alright – the non-Christian boomers are frequently high on the luck of their generational situation, and believe in the story of their uber-self actualization beyond socialization. So, when boomer Jim Goad, for example, thinks that when he hears the word morals that he is hearing nothing more than hypocrisy or a person trying to drag him down because they are too weak to handle the might make right of reality, what he is really revealing is that his boomer mentality has not advanced in world view beyond his puerile years when he read Nietzsche, and chased away  the (((red cape))) of Christianity, believing that he had found some pure a-moral grounds or strength of uber-will within his uber-boomer self. Some puerile girls and naïve guys might find him compelling enough to reinforce this. There are persons powerfully positioned, including among the boomers, of course, to reinforce the pervasive and powerfully structured (((red cape))) and scientistic reaction to it, to our destruction in social systemic runaway.

Thus, I cannot fault myself for not having come upon the necessary moral order to replace Christianity for European peoples. It doesn’t yet exist. Only a few people have joined me so far in the project to negotiate a new one, while I have met with a lot of obnoxious antagonism from boomers and Christians in particular.

Even so, negotiating a new moral order is seen as acutely necessary when it is understood how the (((red caping))) of our moral order by Christianity, like all (((red capes))) function – to give Europeans one of two ostensible options: to acquiesce to the obsequious, self sacrificing liberal definition of what it means to be socially conscientious  / or chase after the red cape in its total rejection, in this case, taking the disposition that “morality” is bunk, given the misguided idea that the (((red cape))), Christianity, represents the moral order. Then as with Nietzsche and the Nazi will to power, we are in an even more toxic and unstable position, dangerous to our neighbors in European kind and ourselves as we seek warrant below praxis, in nature or beyond it; dangerous to ourselves in this over the top oblivion to praxis systemic correctivity and the hubris that does not  appreciate the capacity for reflexive learning and response among those we might harm; for the Jews as well, true – nevertheless tending as such to serve a part of their group evolutionary strategy, as this venom will tend to cull their diaspora, those more intermarried with Europeans, more wishing to be situated among them; thus looked upon by Zionists as traitors, and with the same kind of contempt that we WN look upon mudsharks – go ahead and kill them. 

That is not the full dynamic, of course, only one aspect and potential lurking idea among group evolutionary strategy; but the hazards are evident for European peoples in blowback for going over the top beyond or below praxis correctivity; the loss of agency, coherence, accountability warrant, the human and pervasive ecological disaster for the crucial lack of means to coordinate with other groups and in resource management – the disaster that we are dealing with now. What the White Post Modern Project is about rectifying – correction acutely necessary, as Jewish group evolutionary strategy has red caped this along with all good and necessary post modern correctives, now having Whites largely chasing after the red capes in a broad marketing campaign of characterology rubricized as “The Left.” This has Whites fighting against misrepresentations – distortions of group advocacy and marginal compassion that would gain for us popular adherence and fervent loyalty from the desperately marginalized; instead these concerns are altercast as strictly anti White, not the coldly objective way “we do things” in concern for the unvarnished truth and demonstrable adherence to nature in will to power.”

Thus, Whites reject and fight against the underlying ideas that they need for group advocacy and defense. And they do this fooled, serving Jewish interests as the Jews are (particularly after 2008), more on top of the power niches than ever; and need Whites, where not taking the objectivist liberal position and taking the license and licentiousness to be placated in complacent, no-account indifference to their people, then as right-wingers being more strictly their identity than ever, paid-off where need be to flatter their sense of objective merit; theirs and the Jews top positions not coming about by social means and process, but from pure objective truth bearing little in the way of account, to step up their reaction against the inersectionality of leftist coalitions that Jews academia cultivated, but which now take aim as their abusive power; mostly, they do not want a White Left Ethnonationalism taking part in that aim and coalition building. That is the motivation behind their (((red caping))) of “post modernity” and “the left”.

Dennis Dale, falling on the boomer side of the generational divide, even though he is a few months younger than me, frustrated me in a chat the other day when he wasn’t understanding what I was saying (and not lately tending to be ready to appreciate intelligence in what I say), when I called attention to (((Steve Sailer’s))) (((red caping))) of HBD (Human Bio-diversity), as a lateral issue of I.Q. in order to serve Ashkenazi interests, when of course, Human Bio Diversity should be a healthy concern for qualitative niche ecological differences, which are not served well by quantitative comparisons. In the cursory situation of the chat, Dennis’ initial reaction was that I was criticizing HBD rather than the ((red caping))) of HBD, a misunderstanding probably resulting as Dennis has grown accustomed to elaborating (which he does quite eloquently) within the altercast right wing box; and having gained attention originally as a long time articulate, supportive commentator on (((Steve Sailer’s))) right wing blog.

But we aren’t ready to talk about Post Modernity just yet, what I call White Post Modernity to distinguish it from the (((red caping))) of “Post Modernity.” Before we correct misunderstandings of that hyper-relative, “ironic” da-da (((red caping))), meant to keep us from the necessary (anti-Cartesian, systemic homeostatic reconstructive) resource of Post Modernity proper, it is necessary to go back still into our hermeneutic, to where the post modern turn began.

For the hermeneuticist, critique of Descartes, the Enlightenment and ensuing Modernity, the Post Modern turn begins to take form with Giambattista Vico (1688-1744)’s classic neo-Aristotelian epistemological platform: wherein 1) Theoria, the theoretical realm of eternal verities, is dealt with through science, technology and pure reason. 2) Praxis, the social realm, is dealt with primarily through phronesis, i.e., practical judgment, and slightly more modest means of analysis, working hypotheses and heuristics, since its subject matter is changeable though agentive capacity and reflexive effects of interaction. 3. Poesis, the realm of arts, literature and drama, to be dealt with primarily through technique.

Aristotle held that Praxis, the social/political realm, was the first and most central concern for the philosopher, for if the politics were out of whack, all other philosophizing was for naught. With that, Aristotle is siding with the “a tree falling in the woods may make a noise, but if there are not people to determine how it counts then it doesn’t matter” argument, nascent to the social constructionist position; which hermeneuticists like to attribute to Vico as setting forth in his critique of Descartes and argument against him to recentralize Praxis, the people, the social group and the reality of their practical concerns of which they were no mere passive subjects, but active, creative participants.

Being of southern Italian extraction myself, from my father’s side, I like to emphasize Vico – from the Naples area – for the underrated importance of his position in European philosophical history in challenging Descartes taking the Northern European penchant for objectivism to its logical extreme, in estrangement from Praxis, from social interactive concern. This goes along with my working hypothesis that southern Europeans occupy a vital buffering function for Europeans, more ethnocentrically aware, less naïve and susceptible to be duped by Manichean trickery in the rational blindness of their Augustinian objectivist penchant. I was quite disappointed to hear someone so important to White Nationalism an Professor MacDonald say something to the effect that nothing of importance has come out of southern Europe.

Hence, I like to bring out Vico and call attention to his influential place, acknowledged by the Germans to come later to the Post Modern turn, notably Heidegger’s student, Gadamer, who brilliantly maintained that the Enlightenment of Descartes was “prejudice against prejudice;” contributing a key component to my (White Post Modern) statement:

Anti-racism is a Cartesian impossibility of prohibiting social classifications; prejudice against prejudice as such; it is not innocent, it is hurting and it is killing people. 

Due to the philosophical illiteracy, particularly among the STEM boomers, I have been forced to clarify time and again that this is not a rejection of objectivist inquiry, nor even the utility of Cartesian coordinates (my microwave engineering friend told me that his field still uses them). Not even Vico renounced the Cartesian position was without utility. Rather, he maintained, along with Aristotle, that Praxis was a qualitatively different matter. I will temporarily jump ahead to my current position, to help clarify this matter to avoid misunderstanding and strawmanning.

That the delimiting classification of our social group forms what should be the central calibration of our world view; our relative interests as such provide the gauge of objectivist feedback, which is a necessary function, i.e., taking into account facts which can be either in/ or irrespective of our relative interests.

Without going too far ahead of ourselves then, the central problem for Europeans is that Modernity and the altercast White identity as right wing and corollary to objectivism (and Cartesianism beyond Praxis, beyond or within nature), in reaction to the internationalist, anti-White left’s Praxis, has both disrupted and left holes for subversion for the would-be social systemic homeostasis of our own Praxis, not only through our own historical tendency to identify as such, but also for a disingenuous marketing campaign on the part of Jewry which has augmented their association of White identity as corollary to right wing objectivism and reaction, now functioning as part of “the solution” to the problem they’ve created, i.e., chasing the (((red capes))) of “the left and post modernity.”

This is the perfect place to circle back to The French Revolution.

Now, among “conservatives”, The French Revolution is usually taken as the point at which things really started going wrong in a radically liberal way for European peoples.

I am neither, by contrast, engaging any permanent identity with the likes of Robespierre, his instrumentality in the Reign of Terror, where abstractions of universality and equality may have taken him and/or other revolutionaries beyond a reconciliation on account of the nation and its bio-systemic delimitation; even less do I defend and identify with the internationalist/anti-nationalist weaponizations by Marx in exploitation of these inarticulate abstractions. But by the same ethnonationalist token, neither, of course, will I defend and identify with the French monarchy of Marie Antoinette, the aristocracy which might defend her irresponsible reign against the common French, nor even less her internationalist ties and the abstractions which, in turn, gave pseudo justification to her position.

While I have found that following the path of Locke’s “empirical” anti-social-classificatory notion of civil individual rights as it made its way into the powers of the American constitution and finally weaponization by Jewish interests in the form of anti-White “Civil Rights” and “Anti-Racist” legislation, to make the most explanatory sense of the hegemony which conserves liberalism, I have nevertheless also found that observing the pattern beneath common usage, i.e., of terminological implication set forth in the French Revolution, makes sense both of genuine requirements of ethnonationalism as opposed to abstractive, internationalist elites, and the Marxist weaponization (((red caping))) of internationalist/anti-nationalist abstractions, the more superficial instruments, universally generic and destructive of the naïve, the would-be provisional transformative concerns of the revolutionaries until the anti-Cartesian, organic concerns of ethnonationalism were established enough to elaborate and coordinate with other ethnostates.

Through this I see, or one can see, patterns not only making consistent sense of ethnonational requirements, but also (((red caping))) misdirection thereof; and one gains a clear view of the motivations of those who do not want us to organize in systemic, ethnonational homeostasis.

“The Left and Right” terms derive, as is well known, from the French court wherein those most concerned for loyalty to the monarchy, maintenance of its power and ordering, sat to the right of the king and those most attendant to the interests of the broad populace sat to the left.

There happens through time a refinement of these positions, logic of meaning and action in what can be called a depth grammar moving through the purity spiral of Cartesian modernity: 

The Right takes a trajectory, narrowing from a small group of elites, to individual, such as kings and dictators, proposed to be warranted in their elite position for objective truth, natural endowment, god’s consecration, and in the sine qua non, below or beyond human accountability even, in brute nature, abstract Cartesian principles or god beyond nature; but little in the way of social accountability beyond a wish to be done with it in saying “that’s just the way it is.”

The Left, on the other hand, is revealed through depth grammar of unionization of the broad group, but not so broad as to be without delimitated boundaries; otherwise it would not have the means to hold members to account, to hold elites to account, the whole purpose being to stave off their no account might makes right and “that’s just the way it is” objectivism. It would not be able to stave off alien imposition brought to bear by the exploitative elites in order to weaken broad solidarity; and absent the strength of broad union, they could not form coalitions with other groups against exploitative elites. 

As with all good, and important ideas to social organization, thus species systemic homeostasis, the Jews red cape it. In perhaps the most importantly misdirecting red cape then, Marx takes the concept of unionization and makes it an international union – a near impossibility and contradiction to unionize the workers of the world –  organized in its international interests that will see as its ultimate goal, the withering away of the state. Henceforth, the left which would be understood as the tool to unionize national boundaries and hold elites to account, is now seen as “The Left”, an internationalist, anti-White monster which does anything but hold elites to account and protect the vulnerable within a nation from exploitation, alien scabbing and other imposition.

An inarticulate abstraction held to be central to the French Revolution, namely, “equality”, really is not essential at all; and falls away as an impossibility that nobody would aspire to for its quantitative terms, as it is respect and compassion for union members, for their part however meager, their niche contributions even where not at their best, that the left resonates with the populace and gains power. But rather than being seen as falling away from the depth grammar, the Marxists have held the impossibility of equality as a red cape to the White reactionaries, who then represent themselves as assholes to the people by being “against equality.”

Europeans, in their Augustinian nature, have typically, understandably reacted in a right wing direction to the sophistry which takes advantage of Praxis ambiguity since the days of Plato.

Sophistry of the right and left was refined and extended through modernity in the (((red caping))) of Marx, to where ultimately the international Marxist and Cultural Marxist (((red caping))) have been superficially but popularly taken as representing “THE left” in a stepped-up (((marketing campaign))) that extends its ((red caping))) over all so called “Post Modernity.”

While the Europeans remain hard nosed in their fancied objectivism, concerned in their reactionaries to establish ways to trace their group as empirical, scientifically verifiable – empirical despite evidence disappearing for a moment or episode, the rogue account of an individual or couple, and despite the words which they can never trust given the Jewish proficiency in deceptive rhetoric (including Christianity) which says your group is not important if it exists at all – the hermeneuticist, Gadamer (Heidegger’s student), circled back to provide a quite valid empirical criteria for identifying borders in Praxis (despite their mystification to Cartesian blindness); i.e., by means of marginals.

Now the Jews saw this and were not going to be upstaged as the chosen, presenting themselves to the gentile world as the teachers of what compassion means in their inhumane ways in need of “healing” the “idolatry” of their ethnocentrism.

The Jews never miss an opportunity for a manichean red cape twist of a good idea that would otherwise foster social systemic health and autonomy for Europeans. Thus, the Jews seize upon Gadamer’s hermeneuticist, post modern idea to instantiate the borders of group interests through the concept of respect for marginals (everybody from time to time); being at the frontier they are on the front line of danger to the group, know where the shoe pinches, have broad perspective on the system – have a vested interest in the group’s maintenance as an empirical part of it, likely dependent upon its strength for their survival. And what do the Jews do? Of course, they red cape marginals as those outside the European/White group, who should be included for their “enrichment”; along with those Whites who are for whatever reason themselves hostile to Whites. So right wing reactionary Whites chase away the idea along with the red cape.

After thoroughly and successfully imposing a Saul Alinsky-like tactic of makng Whitey live up to its right wing, modernist, Cartesain/Lockeatine objectivist rules by means of “Civil Rights” rupture of group classification for Whites… Jewish red caping of left wing and post modern concepts would pick up and proceed largely unabated as they might otherwise ameliorate White/European ethnonationalism. The “social compassion” and coalitions of anti-White unions were fostered through the increasing power and influence of their elite niche positions, where not of their biological disposition.

Nietzsche chased away the Jewish/Christian red cape of the moral order as bunk, thus making way for the Nazis to look upon morality as bunk; and instead go with the right wing, might is right notion of trying to found their quest beyond or below correctivity and accountability in Praxis, coming unhinged and going over the top to the destruction and discredit of White/European nationalism as their term, “national socialism,” was shown to be a euphemism to gain popular adherence in mere left cover for supremacist imperialism following the night of the long knives especially, when the more socialist elements among the Nazis were murdered by Hitler’s orders.

The biological Jew also served its group evolutionary strategy, albeit not likely very consciously, as the reaction to the red caping not only served to pit and divide Europeans against one another in Darwinist struggle, but also forced Jews more benign and integrated as continental European diaspora, to pay the price as traitors to the Zionists, while the most virulent Jews made there way to new hosts in England and The United States for a another permutation of horizontal transmission. And didn’t the puerile White female, powerfully positioned by the classificatory disorder of modernity exacerbated by Hitler’s racial anarchy, just adore Hitler in this incitement to genetic competition; until perhaps the fire bombing and mass Soviet rapes.

Conceived to protect the elite Jewish position against intersectional backlash from amongst their own Politically Correct, Marxist and Cultural Marxist coalitions – anti-national, anti-elite, anti White such that Jewish crypsis did not camouflage them but only exposed them further – Jewish interests developed a marketing campaign in urgent need of a negative characterology of “The Left” as their large gain and culpability in the 2008 financial crisis (mass consolidation of state wealth and theft as the latest extension of horizontal transmission) left them exposed and absolutely in need of increase rightist/objectivist argumentation in their support.

They needed to minimize accountability to no account, right wing “that’s just the way it is” pseudo objectivity where at all possible; bribe with license and licentiousness would be White leftists to stay liberal, pay off right wingers to remain in their objectivist purity spirals beyond accountability in our Praxis; and finally, put forth a marketing campaign to  designate “The” Left as the problem, with an anthropomorphized characterology, a red cape for Whites to fight against the most useful and vital tools of their organization, homeostasis and thus sovereignty.

However this red caping of “the left” was but one component of its red caping  of “post modernity”, i.e., concepts meant to protect social groups (such as an ethnogroup/nation) from the ravages of Modernity and the backward traditional ethnocentrism of one’s own where it might also leave us vulnerable; as where the traditional ethnocentrisms of others are pointed with right wing imperialism and supremacism to the aim of destruction of our own people.

But rather misrepresenting these crucial ideas in a red cape purveying hyper relative, cynically ironic, shallow nonsense that the objective merit of the elite Jewish position can lead the way in debunking, providing solutions to these problems, if perhaps gaining help form Whites who may more steadfatly accept their altercast identity as right wing, if not far right, alt-right, or neither left nor right – simply anti-social and conveniently prone to disorganization or disintegration.

With identity as right wingers they may take the payoff bribe in flattery of sheer objective merit, as opposed to what luck and social indebtedness they might not rather be reminded of and accountable to, rather ascribing to themselves no account “that’s just the way it is” reasons for their fortune and lack of social responsibility.

On similar pseudo objectivist grounds, the liberals are flattered for their sense of individual objective strength and beauty, independent of their group, taking prerogative as such in the license and licentiousness granted in the no-account Twilight Zone of the (((red cape))), where the depth grammar of “the left”, its broad but  delimited social unionization in defense against exploitation from narrow elite power or outside peoples, is red caped in contradiction in popular minds as “liberalism” – this (((red cape))) is a contradiction, an oxymoron (liberal = left), as a union, the essence of what is left, conserves what is within; while liberalism is about being open to, if not outright opening and/or going outside of borders and boundaries.

Nevertheless, for European peoples, for Whites, the Marxist inter/anti-national and Cultural Marxist ant-White coalitions advocated are not the White EthnoNational Left, they are liberal – dedicated to opening our boundaries and borders.

Whereas the ethnonationalist of England would indeed want to break the classificatory barrier of the Norman aristocracy with its Jewish corruptors to allow for those honorably serving the ethnonation to rise in influence against the internationalist destructors, the International Marxist and Cultural Marxists would obfuscate the actual Post Modern means to negotiate this ethnonationalist position properly, by (((red caping))) it, marketing the misrepresentation of what they need, in their Augustinian naivete and rational blindness of their purity spiral in quest to be rid of guilt and self responsibility, not seeing the manichean trick, that they are fighting against the underlying concepts that they need in following the marketing nudges to be against “the left.”

The right wing reaction into objectivist purity spiraling and scientism is understandable, particularly as managing the concept of the group requires a degree of hermeneutic sophistication lest one/or one’s people fall prey to the Lockeatine idea that it, the classification of one’s group or people, is an empirical fiction; or even an artificial “racist” construct where the difficulty of managing the Cartesian vacuum is weaponized by Jewry. One’s group is not always empirically apparent in the moment, episode, not even through close personal relations. And the difficulty of managing one’s group interests apart from one modernist Cartesian extreme or another is what the Post Modern project was conceived to deal with and what Jewish interests and those who take the pay off in one form or another don’t want European peoples to have; hence, they obfuscate the correctives  of “post modernity.”

But why assign the word “left” to White EthnonNationalism, with all the associations repugnant to Whites that go along with this red caped term? I would begin by asking why not? Words and terms are fairly arbitrary in relation to that which they designate, gaining adherence as currency accepted in consensus of participation. And here those who would object have their best argument. That the common understanding of “the left” is the red cape of international Marxist coalitions and anti-White Cultural Marxist coalitions, especially with the marketing campaign against a characterology of “the left” launched and promoted in earnest beginning around 2008. 

I would rebut by encouraging those concerned for White/European peoples to ask why Jews insist on altercasting White identity as right wing or far right? To take note of the obvious marketing campaign promoted to reactionaries, against a negative characterology of “the left.”

Can you imagine the inherent instability of this anti-social right wing position, bereft of social accountability and  corrective homeostasis? That it serves to keep White power disorganized? Ripe for incitement to headlong, over top supremacist, imperialist reaction in divide and conquer? Repugnant to would-be popular adherence for its cold dedication to “objective” truth and not concern for relative compassion of their own people even, scaring away would-be adherents for their no account brutality?

I understand your finding even the word “left” repugnant for associations by red cape. Do you understand that’s the idea? Obfuscating misdirection from the treasure to be found in structuring through the depth grammar of that term and all misrepresentations of post modernity?

It took David, “14 Words: We Must Secure The Existence of Our People and a Future For White Children” Lane and some radicals just down stream from him to encourage the natural revulsion to the right and to become comfortable in White identity on the left – our left. You see, furthermore, the White EthnoNational Left, having been left moribund as a positon is ripe to colonize in war of postion, as we can define it for all the good the left can do in calibration of relative parts of our interest; while intelligently using our right wing fact and true verification as crucial feedback in our proper deployment of the anti-Cartesian hermeneutic process of inquiry and homeostatic correction. This is an elaboration in the rebut of why not? But still does not fully answer why attach “Left” to White Ethnonationalism?

Glad you asked…

First of all, it sorts out anti-social and misdirecting ideologies, such as Nazism and Christianity. The epistemological blunder of Nazism is sized up as mostly a natural fallacy of might makes right but combining some spooky, otherworldly shit via Himmler; either way, above or beyond the healthy, corrective praxis which a left union of the people centralizes. Christianity is sized up for its non accountability to our people in praxis: you are supposed to be accountable to this fictional Jewish god instead. No thanks. And with our union(s) delimited by our genus and species of our European peoples [called White people in diaspora for the simple reason that it would be confusing to refer to them as European there], it blocks infiltration and subversion from non-Europeans, markedly by Jews, despite their crypisis. In short, unionization and accountability thereof, blocks the myriad ways of infiltration and manipulation that right wingers are prone to, including “third positionism” as it introduces right wing elements not as mere feedback, but as part and parcel, thus a back door for instigation, entry and subversion.

Centralizing praxis, it is highly practical by definition; and with that, it is helpful in sorting out egomaniacs, narcissistic personality disorder cases like Guessedworker, who thinks the obvious and the important should be put aside for some sort of sub-social, purely natural chart, that he would purport to be foundational, a-priori all important; anything anyone else in the history of the world could only contribute trivia by contrast. So, the left being a centralization of praxis, unionizing accountability thereof is repugnant to his kind, who’s built his egomaniac autobiography chasing red capes in white knuckle scientistic reaction; a phase of reaction that normal people are able to make their way past fairly quickly; so we can leave the boomer behind with the endless gaslighting and strawmanning of his narcissistic personality disorder.

And this pragmatism underscores one of the most beautiful aspects of unionization. It does not necessarily require some sort of psychological inspiration to participate – as when Guessedworker pointed to the giddy crowds before Hitler as indication that he had something foundational to emulate (like leading Germany and Europe over the top, into catastrophe, stigmatizing ethnonationalism for generations, as it lacked correctivity as it were?). Thus, it sorts out the scientistic and those prone to the epistemic blunder of natural fallacy.

In fact, one troll put up against me, STFU James, tried to say that all my concern for White people was for naught, because most people only care about making money to take care of themselves; well, even if that’s their motivation, it would be in their interest to unionize. Though we are, of course, talking about racial unionization, as unionization of industry is an entirely different matter, apt to become obsolete, fall in line with the arguments of right wingers, whose capital, share holders, cronies and cohorts see good business opportunity to take them beyond the people and beyond the borders. Nevertheless, our union will look after profit and move into niches serving our people’s prosperity, as we are not suck with a particular business prone to obsolescence. 

It sorts out obnoxious elitists like Greg Johnson over there at Counter-Currents. While a right wing identity serves Fudge Johnson’s snobbery, his penchant thereof for vertical rather than emphasizing the qualitative horizontal discrimination of race and ethnicity, leaves him susceptible to infiltration and to include misdirecting voices. Greg Johnson’s Right Wing identity and snobbish elitism along with it, is also probably why is  not up to date philosophically, not philosophically great.

But I want to include this section on “why White Left EthnoNationalism” by coming back to “Why Not?” The marketing campaign that has created a common misunderstanding among White people, a most radical oxymoron that “Left = Liberal” is among the reasons  to defy identity as right wing against “the left.” Moving into the moribund position of White Left Ethnonationalism affords the opportunity to define it for ourselves: we are not against private property, relatively free enterprise, wealth within reason, the paradigmatic conservatism that maintains borders and thus allows for more individual liberty within.

But having to explain so many times – because Guessedworker’s grandiose, puerile autobiography stems – STEMS – from his boomer reaction to (((red caping))); as champion of the right and the “common man” (egged on by Christians, Nazis and scientistic nerds), it depends upon the “non-empirical” red caped characterology of “the left” and the foil of academic pretense.

He’s of a generation wherein red capes of the left would have Margaret Thatcher’s statement, “there is no such thing as society” resonate, along with her (((Austrian School Objectivism))); against sociology so red caped as to have a fool like Guessedworker think that a discipline that takes the social group as its unit of analysis (and what could be more germane when analyzing racism/anti-racism) must be Jewish; like saying a telescope is Jewish, a microscope, Gentile.

Thus, for his intransigent grandiosity, in puerile, reactionary autobiography, he white knuckle clings to the grandiose illusion that only he sees the basics of who we are well enough, and a such, must forge a singular foundational response of this “ontology” not yet known sufficiently to man; only valid through his auspice, while all else is supposed to be unimportant; based on the interest of his puerile autobiography, its reaction to red caping which cannot be without the security blankets of these redcape mis-definitions – my belaboring the reason for using the term “left” in order to stave off the endless deluge of his strawmen and gaslighting to suit his autobiography has the unfortunate consequence of making it seem that my reasons are a kind of obsessive fixation, rather than practical structure maintained because it makes consistent sense.

I won’t “stand down” as he ridiculously tried to say that I should, because my terminological deployment works perfectly, like air traffic control radar tracking device, sorting out misdirection and infiltration, without doing violence to the essence of the ehtnonational project, while charting its proper course.

And here is an important point that those disinclined to the term “left” should consider, that does afford me the capacity to make consistent sense of our problems and where we we need to go in the future. But crucially, it sorts out and makes sense of work already done. Thus, if anyone has spent years of hard work and written fat books criticizing “the left”, your efforts are not rendered obsolete; it requires little more than a mental note from my part or yours that what you are talking about (that is to say, if you are a well meaning White ethnonationalist) when you say “the left” is the Marxist, international/anti-national left/ and or Cultural Marxist, anti-White Left.

Unfortunately, I might come across as ideologically obsessed for the necessity of redressing Guessedworkers’ endless strawmanning and gaslighting (which to the casual observer may have me seem like the same Leftist that GW wants me to seem like, but I doubt it); and that’s probably part of his idea, stupidly competitive businessman that he is, a boomer who had his personal needs served by Modernity and its pop psychology quest for self actualized individualism, taking for granted the fuel of traditional social order which it relied upon but destroyed with the self righteousness of its no-account, modernist oblivion, more concerned with winning that with good product if it comes from someone else; but the truth is that I am quite at ease about it; my reasons are practical – makes sense, and my terminological and conceptual deployment is not artificial nor superficial as asshole would try to make it seem; rather it stems from observations of this depth grammar making sense through cross contextual pattern.

Boomers in the STEM disciplines in particular, were susceptible to react stupidly to (((red capes))) of the humanities; and susceptible to remain intransigent in their obsolete, modernist way of doing things as they were in position to make money. And precision is a fine value for technology, but bad to over value in Praxis; bad that they dismiss the mild ambiguity of specificatory structures as a flaw in working hypotheses rather than a virtue. Hence, they remain a huge obstruction to the necessary social correctives of the Gen-Xers. The boomer self actualized individualists took for granted the social capital that set them in good stead, and wound up like a swarm of locusts devouring all social structures and resource in their path; they’ve done enough damage, they’ve been obstructive enough in their self serving myopia and naivete to the red cape; the gen-X social corrective must no longer be obstructed.

Nor should we allow this would be corrective to be re-directed in a rightward direction by Gen-X Fogies like “The Z-man” whom the astute may observe as having lifted and twisted a few of my ideas to that end: Notably here, social delimitation of the group (a function which unionization would perform), but as I develop the idea, is necessary for socialization as it structures the rigor of accountability but also facilitates imagination as such, to deploy the hermeneutic process in correctivity, i.e., homeostasis and autonomy of the group system, as it is liberated beyond mere facticity (into narrative coherence, accountability, agency, correctivity, and warrant in human and pervasive ecology, with the crucial means of coordination with other groups and management of resource thus facilitated), not always dependent upon what is empirically evident as it arbitrarily presents in the Cartesian perspective;

A liberation as such curing the anxiety gone mad in STEM boomer Guessedworker, who, in reaction to (((the casuistry of rhetorical abuses))) in Praxis, believes there is not empirical foundation enough, and that literally all people and all thought in western philosophy should be swept aside in favor of his unmerited, gargantuan ego for his grandiose “ontology” project as it wafts up from his armchair…appears as consecrated proclamations on his tablets held up, atop Mount Sanai  …certainly no need to join in social construction.

Enough. Lets come back to our history of European philosophy, where it goes off course and corrective measures that have been obstructed and neglected.

To recap the major points in the line of European philosophical history to this point – to Descartes-Vico-Locke-Kant.

We began with the pre-Socratics, Heraclitus and Parmenides.

As opposed to Heraclitus focus on process Parmenides focus on forms became the dominant perspective through Plato, and it began a convention of detachment from the impure rhetorical tactics of the Sophists in Praxis.

Aristotle corrected this significantly, with his notion of teleological actualization of the nascent creature, developing as they are naturally destined in kind from seed to maturity. That is, he was bringing the form back within the scope of nature, at least. He was even advanced enough to place human self actualization within the biological and social sphere of Praxis, its interactive complexity requiring practical judgment (phronesis) to manage its optimal biological and mammalian relational requirements.

However, Aristotle’s golden mean (balance) pn Praxis was overtaken by Christianity’s “golden rule” of original sin, guilt at birth, with proof of that in your very thoughts, which could only be forgiven by subservience to Jesus the Jews, and a the reward not a good life and legacy in Praxis, but the hereafter beyond the world and its sinful impurity. It was like Platonism re-directed by rogues into a mad purity spiral beyond nature.

While the Stoics are touted by some as a school which might regain traction, I prefer to make quick work of them with Kenneth Burk’s quote:

“The Stoic acceptance was an attempt to transubstantiate even the repugnant aspects of existence, the excremental, into the essentially divine.”

The Epicurean School has more to offer in legacy, with a hierarchical use of pleasure; aversion to speculation beyond the physical world, superstition, in a word, along with aversion to mere custom and tradition out of habit which serve no testable good. While this was a more responsible philosophy than the sheer hedonism of popular understanding, as it held contemplation to be the highest pleasure, what influence it had was ripe for corruption through what influence it had (e.g., on Thomas Jefferson), as it lacked the Post Modern sophistication of integrating social responsibility.

The middle easterner’s manichean trick – Christianity – was able usurp the moral order to one that made Europeans obsequious and served Jewish interests well enough, particularly in quest to overthrow Roman rule; and for the Catholics, who mostly did not know what was in the text, but did what they were told, their peoples were more or less protected from the horizontal virulence that the Roman conquest had spread into Europe, by inoculating them as supplicant Jews, like cowpox to the smallpox of Jewish virulence, as Bowery observes; at the price of drastically limiting their thought processes.

Ultimately, Christianity would provide the vehicle for Abrahamic imperialism, with Jewish power and influence, the exponential effects of its usury along with this religious and other power niche occupation riding shotgun.

For the northern Europeans, the interaction of Christianity with their stronger Augustinian predilection to purity spiral, made for an even sharper two edged sword as they went into Martin Luther’s protestant reformation; the Gutenberg press making the obsequious purity spiral of the bible’s text available for all to see for themselves.

Where casting off Praxis thus the purity spiral did not utterly destroy individuals and cultures via Descartes socially impervious Archimedean points beyond nature and Praxis, and Locke’s attempt to cite the stamping of impressions within nature, on the mind, aside from the “non-empirical artifice of social groups” in others, such as Gregor Mendel and the objectivists/scientists set forth in the modern epoch that had its personified extreme in Descartes unfolding thereafter, scientific and engineering marvels were developed despite Christianity; but also to the hazard of many people and cultures, running roughshod over them where they would stand in the way of this objectivist world view – short on social accountability as it focused on experiment and forward progress; leaving tradition behind and society to a detached, third person behaviorist perspective at best.

Descartes first major critic, Giambattista Vico is typically considered to be a forebear of social constructionism and the post modern turn (and by that, I mean not in the red caped versions, but in the proper, White  forms), as he rejected Descartes over emphasis beyond nature and praxis and sought to re-centralize praxis, the social group according to the Aristotelian framework.

Hegel tried not so much to correct but to purify the anxiety of the Cartesian quest by taking it into pursuit of foundation by dialectical process held to be moving inevitably forward; i.e., with an impervious, dehumanizing absurdity that took Marx and his mechanical adherents to be enamored of.

But from the ranks of STEM itself, Johann Carl Friedrich Gauss’s proposition of the possibility of non-Euclidean geometry cast doubt on the merit of singular devotion to the purity spiral of mathematical foundationalism.

Gauss claimed to have discovered the possibility of non-Euclidean geometries but never published it. This discovery was a major paradigm shift in mathematics, as it freed mathematicians from the mistaken belief that Euclid’s axioms were the only way to make geometry consistent and non-contradictory.

Søren Kierkegaard’s humorous but melancholy resignation to the existential situation made for one of my favorite contributions to the significance of Being, i.e., the most fundamental plank of self actualization, if you will:  “Sleep is the highest genius.”

Emergentism initiated a philosophical angle that I will not relegate to the past, but rather place on footing with social costructionism as one end, the rigorous, more physically evident end of the non-Cartesian, hermeneutic process of inquiry.

It would be convenient to take pot-shots at John Stuart Mill as an early proponent of emergentism, seeing how the catastrophe of our world-wide epidemic of liberalism can stem from this ideology where not liberated itself from its rational blindness to social impact by the imagination of hermeneutics and social-constructionism, the other end of non-Cartesian inquiry.

But Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher’s early efforts to reconcile the Cartesian divide with Christianity kept it wedded to liberalism (as we all know, in Christianity, you are supposed to hate your family and love everybody else, including your enemies; that’s as liberal as it gets).

Wilhelm Dilthey would take the pursuit of hermeneutics in earnest, moving its means of inquiry, which he called the hermeneutic circle, through various disciplines and units of analysis.

Sociology

Dilthey was also interested in what some would call sociology in the 21st century, although he strongly objected to being labelled as such, as the sociology of his time was mainly that of Auguste Comte and Herbert Spencer. He objected to their dialectical/evolutionist assumptions about the necessary changes that all societal formations must go through, as well as their narrowly natural-scientific methodology. Comte’s idea of positivism was, according to Dilthey, one-sided and misleading. Dilthey did however have good things to say about the neo-Kantian sociology of Georg Simmel, with whom he was a colleague at the University of Berlin.[31] Simmel himself was later an associate of Max Weber, the primary founder of sociological antipositivism. J. I. Hans Bakker has argued that Dilthey should be considered one of the classical sociological theorists due to his own influence in the foundation of nonpositivist verstehende sociology and the Verstehen method.

His reaction to the scientism of Auguste Comte’s logical positivism and the like was overcompensating, and his romantic emphasis unmoored interpretation from the rigors of ontology, setting forth some common abuses and misunderstandings of hermeneutics as it is supposed to function in non-Cartesian process of inquiry.

The school of Romantic hermeneutics stressed that historically embedded interpreters—a “living” rather than a Cartesian dualism or “theoretical” subject—use ‘understanding’ and ‘interpretation’ (Verstehen), which combine individual-psychological and social-historical description and analysis, to gain a greater knowledge of texts and authors in their contexts.

One can anticipate how this outlook would be convenient to sell hermeneutic bullshit in the university’s big business of selling talk a century later; incited by tenured Frankfurt Schooled professors in conversation with 18-21 year old undergraduates in perpetuity; as they are, after all, the paying customers, and the army of less talented to deploy against White interests.

Often called a critic of modernity, I am not sure that Friedrich Nietzsche was, outside of a few paragraphs saying that the strong prefer the ways of their grandfathers. He certainly did his darndest to tear down the idols of western philosophy and morality with his focus on the “who” as in who is talking?

The brilliance of Nietzsche is real, and he performed a real service in his attack on Christianity. European man needed the courage to throw off that nonsense. The problem is, he seems to be reacting like one who, in throwing off the (((red cape))) of Christianity, he considers all morality to be nonsense, something to be moved beyond, to be replaced by the will of the strong. Nietzsche says that women love his philosophy; well, not quite: puerile, unsocialized girls uncaring for the various positions arrayed in development, ready to incite genetic competition to run rough shod over human ecology, would love his philosophy. It empowers their irresponsible ignorance.

And this is toxic nonsense. As we discussed, there is no transcending morals. There will always be things that you can, must or cannot do. Furthermore, wise people and wise societies will follow Aristotle’s observation of human nature, as biological, requiring optimal not maximizing, overman needs – not on balance; and not impervious to human relations; as we are mammals. 

Nietzsche admires the digestive tracts of Negroes, metaphorically speaking that is, as a people who do not belabor problems, they are quickly done with them. I do not share Nietzsche’s admiration for blacks as a model; and it speaks to a fundamental problem in his liberal perspective; it is as if a puerile girl’s perspective, ready to incite destructive genetic completion, the kind of puerile idiot that would love Hitler and natural fallacy, as the anarchic destruction will have her breeding with “the winner”;  the admiring gaze always turned toward strong men, impervious, competitive, undaunted no matter what – like a thoughtless Nigger indeed, not at all with the measure of sublimation that infuses European men with genius.

Nietzsche’s perspective is like a puerile girl’s perspective if not like a homosexual in its admiration of strong, dominant men; no wonder the prissy Richard Thpenther loveth Nietzsche tho much (with his Fauthian imperialist thupremathithm, about the last thing that we need to represent ourselves when the world of people destroying Whites now are doing so feeling warranted for a history of that grandiose Abrahamic hubris).

What does a man admire in women? Rather, cooperation, thoughtfulness, someone who appreciates your sublimation and history, is concerned for our legacy, gives support, sensibility, beauty as an expression of health. Indeed there should be balance, the pragmatic functionality of men cannot be ignored. But in the disorder of modernity, as I will explain later, the female perspective and predilection has been way over represented. If society and the cause of human advance should prefer one perspective or the other, it would seem the male perspective toward females is the better value, yet where does Nietzsche express value of these things? He doesn’t.

While an obligation of Kantian duty would apply to both gender predilections, they would NOT be a matter of universal maturity (TM) but rather obligations to members of the praxis of genetic union in White Post Modern terms, and not in universal modern terms, universal maturity that would, for example, hold up the African as an admirable example of masculinity for Europeans.

Similarly, universality should not apply to rites of passage into manhood; cross cultural studies would also be a part of the post modern turn, shown in the example of Gregory Bateson’s remark that the “ignominious bullying of Naven ritual rites of passage produced harsh, overcompensating males.” This kind of universalizing which sprung an overvaluing of the female perspective is likely a part in the catastrophic world wars of Europe and civil war of America. And while Bateson was introducing cross cultural comparison and critique, he also maintained the Aristotelian Praxis, which would maintain the human concern for relations and biological need for optimal need satisfaction, not maximal, which becomes toxic. 

Having said my piece in criticism of Nietzsche’s toxicity, the anti-social and irresponsible individualism to an extreme, to where his beloved overman would take a propensity for mockery as a sign of health; he is not simply destructive if looked upon as a necessary step in our history, equipped with prescient insights. When Rom Harre chides psychologists for thinking that they are drawing maps of the mind, when in fact they are drawing maps of maps; he is drawing on Nietzsche. Whole sections of Heidegger amount to a brilliant advance on a Nietzschean language game. Questions fulminating instantaneously into answers in the brilliant writing of Zarathustra are illustrative of a non-foundationalist, free and interpretive philosophy that requires courage as he maintains that none of the traditions and intellectual luminaries can be absolutely relied upon. And that is true, that is the thrownness of our condition; yet we have more resource than to leave it at just that now; especially not his idea of “eternal recurrence”, a nightmare idea if there ever was one.

At this point in our history, it appears most important to discuss the unmooring of European and American ethnonationalism.

The unmooring began as Christendom and the Abrahamic imperialist idea spread with that to the detriment of ethnonationalism; particularly in Europe. As we said, modernity had brought with it a marvel of scientific and engineering advance, but its Abrahamism and Cartesian objectivism was not particularly sensitive to the ecologies of nations which might stand in the way of what was held to be manifest destiny in limitless progress.

While I am not interested in laying guilt trips on European colonialism into the Americas and elsewhere, nor the history of European imperialism; Nor am I eager to defend it; rather, I prefer to work with it as history and work in ethnonational coordination with the diaspora Europeans in situ as they are now outside of Europe, and the European nations, as ethnonations to be protected as such. And with history in the past, I am in particular disagreement with viewpoint overly sympathetic to Germany in WWI and lamenting their defeat. 

The argument that Germany had to go to war is predicated on the assumption that imperialism is necessary and the only means to acquire sufficient resource; furthermore, in the case of Germany at that time, that they were exposed to Russian military buildup in the east; this exposure, in turn, ignores the ethnonationlist positions, particularly of the nations (or would-be nations, with Frederick the Great’s imperialist aggrandizement taken for granted) between Germany and Russia: Poland, Belarus, then Part of Lithuania, Ukraine, Czech, Slovakia and so on. Ignoring these nations which would also have been interested in resisting Russian imperialism; while Kaiser Germany focused on the “necessary” expedience of the von Schlieffen plan to run rough shod over Belgium (murdering civilians, burning the ancient library of Leuven) and attack France in hopes of a quick victory there; so that they could then turn their attention Eastward (where their imperialism was destructive as was well, as in the example of Kalisz).

One might argue that England might have been better off staying out of the war; one can even ague that Europe might have been better off if Germany had been allowed to win that war. As an ethnonationalist, however, I am not sympathetic to Germany for starting and fighting that war.

Between significant proportions of German DNA in The UK and US, there’s been much massaging of nuances sympathetic to the German aggression in WWI. Not me. I’m ethnonationalist.

You may object, “but the Rothschilds” and the other YKWs behind the scenes in the upper echelons of The UK and US!” Indeed, there in imperialist, not in ethnonational interests.

Wherever the sympathy, all European sides tended to see WWI as the end of faith in Modernity’s endless progress. But not the Jewish Marxist side of the (((Russian))) revolution, of course. With Abraham in the background, it rather saw bloody wars and the destruction of European peoples as mere collateral damage; as it waved the redcape of leftism in ongoing revolution toward the inevitable rule of the internationalist workers union; while the union of the ethnonational state withering away in the wake of this “progressive” dialectic Cartesianism.

Meanwhile in the Americas, the “fruits” of Abrahamic imperialism and supremacism had come home with the importation of Negro slavery; a hubris to the ultimate detriment of colonial European and native American human ecologies (I like to note a likely contributing factor to the hubris of taking slavery for granted coming from Plato – in his reaction to sophistry – with the character, Callicles, who asks the seductively flattering question, “your slave is stronger than you, does not mean that they should rule, does it?”)

The concept of states having sovereignty was a good idea in service of human ecology, “arresting the progress of the evil, & for maintaining within their respective limits, …” as John Adams would say, as opposed to an unwieldly federal government over such vast territory as would be difficult to hold to account. However the South and the states rights position was embedded with the consequences of Ambrahamic imperialism; while it had no chance against the federalizing North, which too Locke’s individual civil rights over group classification a massive step further as it defeated the state sovereignty position, and its potential to “arrest the progress of the evil.”  

One may lament that Lincoln’s sagacious wish to re-patriate Africans might have been realized; that his  successor, Andrew Johnson, of the working class and its interests, knowing the hazard of blacks to normal White people, would not have been maligned and impeached; but this was not to be, as blacks had saturated the South and the Northern Whites were naïve and self righteous in their Abrahamic puritanism.

While (((Samuel Gompers))) trade unionism had much to be commended in its faith in the American nationalist context, going so far as to favor the Henry Georgist (taxation of propety sight value beyond homestead needs) means to thwart Marxist appeal; being against immigration; particularly Asian immigration; one could hardly expect him to be discriminating against Jews (save perhaps Yiddish speakers). But more importantly and germane to the American context:

Black Workers & the Unions

From the inception of the AFL in 1886, Samuel Gompers and its other leaders were committed to organizing without regard to race or religion. Ideologically Gompers never abandoned his opposition to excluding Negroes from AFL unions, but during the 1890s he apparently surrendered to the reality of racial discrimination. While emphasizing that it was good unionism to organize regardless of race, creed, or color, he finally decided that it was better to organize blacks and whites into segregated locals than not to organize at all.

But in the main, unionism was not America’s distinguishing idea of progress, which was still making its way through Locke’s Cartesian technology of individual civil rights over group classifications (a union being one such classification), blind to whatever nepotism or cronyism that may actually be helping to pull the individual’s bootstraps up in enterprise and industry.

One is likely to be able to cite this rational blindness and naivete as aiding and abetting the founding of The US Federal Reserve Bank, which facilitated the horizontal transmission of (((consolidated European money))) to combine with the (((consolidation))) of U.S. money. Last I heard, The US Treasury was composed of ten private banks, nine of them headed by Jews. And while the Balfour declaration was aimed in getting The US on side with The UK against Germany, the naivete of leaders at that point in history, to not understand that Jews would not be placated with Israel, is understandable. It would be hard to anticipate the level of malice to come, even against people who’d come to their rescue, and helped restore their ancient ethnonation.

The technology of the citizen, his rights, duties and incentives.

With the reaction to the (((red caping))) of our moral order, frequently Cartesian, if not over the top Nietzschean individualism, the technology of the individual citizen of the nation, his rights, duties and incentives were advanced over previous, more organic relations of knower to known.  

While the individual citizen was incentivized to participate in a quantifying comodification of social capital and other resource, the estrangement and alienation from organic process and the correctivity of praxis relations (with  Enlightenment spawned natural fallacy, such as social Darwinism) would also have him and his organic relations exploited by the powers as cannon fodder in The First Great War of Europe, a war between related species, which, in an organic sense, should have symbiotic relations.  

The Western Allies victory along with industrial productivity was only taken as further justification for the commodifying and quantifying incentive structure; along with its liberalizing estrangement from organic process and relations. Thus weakening by the Lockeatine technology of individual rights, the classification of organic ties and accountability thereof.

But philosophers were left with the desperate task of making sense of the dire consequences and social costs of this technological reaction. Some doubled down in objectivism, and by way of account for negative consequences, would take the position that they were merely describing what happens by nature’s corrective way itself; thus intensifying the anti-social/organic position.

We’ve mentioned Auguste Comte’s logical positivism as one such effort in objectivism. the Vienna School of Logical Positivism would be another. Its signature text would be Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico Philosophicus.

Although there were voices making cogent arguments that negotiations for peaceful relations made more sense for all concerned, and there were plenty of adherents to these voices, the powerful positions and compulsion of the Nietzschean, social Darwinian sorts (committing the blunder of natural fallacy, that humans were more strictly competitive, like animal species, short shrifting their human capacity for coordination and  cooperation); coupled with the entangling logic of meaning and action of war – encapsulated by Bateson where he said, “the road to hell can be paved with bad intentions  as well” – meaning that war, particularly as it was facilitated and leveraged by industrialization, could trap peoples in the apparently necessary logic of militarization and war in response – leading to a catastrophe for the European genus and species’ and also generating powerful rhetoric for the voices of liberalization of borders and bounds against ethnonationalism; even though these arguments were fatuous, as these wars were not nationalist in provocation, but rather imperialist. And by the same token, the war created fatuous arguments for internationalization  and anti-nationalization of the left, the Marxist left, which held an international union of workers, “workers of the world unite” against right wing supremacism, imperialism, and exploitation. This gained massive traction as the supposed position representing “the left.”

Meanwhile, as we’ve been saying, America’s neoliberal rupture of ethnonational classificatory bounds in favor of Lockeatine rights and impervious enterprise, fairly oblivious to the organic processes of human and pervasive ecologies, gained more traction as well.

Thus, there were powerful and destructive logics of meaning and action that were coming from “THE” Left, so called, and in rightist reaction that philosophers were having to contend with at a time when  communication and the social construction of ideas was more constrained.

And while the host ethnonations were weakened in their ethnonationalism, the horizontal transmission and parasitism of the YKW was more and more powerfully positioned in niches of supreme influence; including in capacity to bribe right wingers and flatter no-account objectivism in pseudo justification of what good fortune they might have; and pander to liberals on the same objectivist grounds, with pseudo justification of license and licentiousness to violate group borders and bounds.

Principia Mathemetica, Russel and Whitehead.

Still we’ve gotten ahead of ourselves a bit with Wittgenstein’s Tractatus and the Vienna School.

Wittgenstein’s Cambridge advisor, Bertrand Russel (who looked upon Wittgenstein as his protégé) and his partner Alfred North Whitehead were grappling with how it was that they might establish a consistent mathematical foundation for philosophy some ten years, before, with their Nobel Prize winning, Principia Mathemetica.

And very much at the heart of our concern was their grappling with the problem of group classification; viz. an ancient paradox presented by the lying Cretan.

I am a liar. All Cretans are liars.

Their proposes solution was that “a class could not be a member of itself”, that there were strictly different logical levels – logical types. Russel would confess that this was “the most ad hoc thing that he’d ever had to do.” But even so, as with so many rigorous efforts to work through the Cartesian anxiety, their Analytical School did provoke some important insights, even if not quite yielding the foundations that they’d hoped for.

For example, upon the theory of logical types, Bateson developed the idea of “metacommunication”, i.e., the idea that there was a level of communication, say, tone of voice, which would indicate how the content of a message is to be contextualized. Now, it does not achieve foundation, as these different levels of contextualization still occur with in praxis and are negotiable; but that is the important point of where this inquiry led Bateson: to take psychology out of the head and into interaction with his seminal paper, “Toward a Theory of Schizophrenia.”

Bateson provides an array of examples showing that the road to hell can be paved with good and bad intentions both in ensuing paradoxes of interactive logic; particularly troublesome for humans as they are sometimes force to make a near impossible choice between relations upon which their life depends, and their capacity to assess the truth accurately – upon which their life also depends, of course. My own “Charmed Loop of Didactic Incitement:” is an elaboration.

We will discuss how paradoxes of Classification are exploited by liberals and their anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-etc, a bit later, along with White Post Modern way of handling these difficulties; but first we’ve got a good bit of our history to cover just yet; beginning with Whitehead’s relevant remarks. He demonstrates nascent Post Modern Modesty (and sage advice) when he says:

“One cannot continually investigate everything; operations of thought are strictly limited (it’s another way of saying that we are pragmatists because we must be); we must rather rest content from time to time with a given state of partial knowledge.” But adding, pragmatically, “even a false or inadequate working hypothesis is better than no working hypothesis.”

In the US, William James and John Dewey cultivated this very pragmatic acceptance as a guiding principle of their philosophy. One can reasonably argue that the Pragmatist philosophy was too focused on practical force (forward progress) by definition; and not enough concerned with prefiguratively force (historical resource); not enough with contextual force (how things count, including ideals); not enough with implicative force (the change in context, to establish new ideals); one can say that Dewey was terribly naïve in his belief that the franchise of democratic vote should be extended as broadly as possible; that it will provide the necessary correctivity.

But James and Dewey might reasonably argue that they had the general idea correct: we are pragmatists because we have to be; and as such, they can play a game of no true Scotsman and issue a little paradox of their own,  claiming that “ideals are practical.” And Hilary Putnam points out a significant contribution of the pragmatists in that its correctivity combines the practical acknowledgment of fallibility without surrender to skepticism.

A bit too cute, I would agree; similar to the hypercapitalist who insists that the market is always sufficiently corrective; when obviously some adjustments are too late; as Bateson concludes, some resources should not be sacrificed on the alter of pragmatism and its instrumental experimentation.  As he would provide philosophical corrective to Heidegger’s ownmost being toward death” through his NeoAritotlean concern for biology and human  (mammalia) life in praxis, so too Bateson would forge correctives to the pragmatists by extending his interactive view to a concept of pervasive ecology (incl. unused potentiality for change); an excellent functional premise to incorporate into world view in a practical sense, i.e., to incorporate the praxis of human ecology into pervasive ecology, as it is always relevant (universalizable), but a practical concern , since biological systems are a matter of optimal satisfaction, not particularly about quantification and impractical quest for foundations beyond necessity – i.e., requiring but attuning concern to the necessity of practical judgement – phronesis.

At this point we need to circle back to the Tractatus, the Vienna Circle, its implications and Austrian School economics.

“Tractatus-Logico-Philosophicus”, 1921, was the pompous title, for a pompous aim, from an arrogant disposition, “I consider this to be unassailable”, Wittgenstein would say, upon the completion of this text, which begins, “The world is everything that is the case.”

The Tractatus-Logico-Philosophicus project had a broad goal: to identify the relationship between language and reality and to define the limits of science.

This became a touchstone for the Vienna Circle, a title assumed by those most capable and willing to take philosophy in a mathematical and scientific direction, convening with the aspiration to foundationalize it as such.

The philosophical position of the Vienna Circle was called logical empiricism (German: logischer Empirismus), logical positivism or neopositivism. It was influenced by Ernst Mach, David Hilbert, French conventionalism (Henri Poincaré and Pierre Duhem), Gottlob Frege, Bertrand Russell, Ludwig Wittgenstein and Albert Einstein. The Vienna Circle was pluralistic and committed to the ideals of the Enlightenment. It was unified by the aim of making philosophy scientific with the help of modern logic. Main topics were foundational debates in the natural and social sciences, logic and mathematics; the modernization of empiricism by modern logic; the search for an empiricist criterion of meaning; the critique of metaphysics and the unification of the sciences in the unity of science.[6] – Wikipedia

While there already existed seeds and premises of anti-Cartesianism/Modernity – e.g. in Vico’s anti-Cartesian recentralization of Aristotlean Praxis, Gauss’s possibility of non-Euclidean geometry, Schleiermacher and Dilthey’s early efforts in hermeneutics; the mass catastrophe of World War I cast great doubt on its faith in inevitable progress by its means – the Vienna Circle represents well enough the last great and desperate effort in Modernist philosophy before the Post Modern/Hermeneutic turn got underway.

Got underway, that is, in the consideration of some philosophy – markedly, in  Heidegger, with his clunky but creatively brilliant, endearing German way (patient, mechanical instruction without condescension) – but not getting very far into other spheres of life nor in public understanding.

Heidegger was taking his clunky first steps, himself still guilty of residual Cartesianism (as he would note Kant to be guilty of) with his metaphysics in remiss of biology and insufficient reckoning of the social interactive aspects of Praxis. We’ll need to circle back to Heidegger, because he is pivotal to the post modern turn, but not just yet.

Neils Bohr’s 1922 Nobel Prize winning inception of quantum physics, with inferences that there is no instrument keen enough to unite wave and particle, that we must also adopt a habit of  complementary in our analyses, in order to deal with the open-endedness, non-summativity, and unpredictability of quantum mechanics.

Thus, Wittgenstein’s supreme confidence was already shaken, and with Kurt Gödel‘s 1930 Nobel Prize winning proof that a theory of any complexity could not be both complete and unambiguous; and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, introducing the possibility of interactive reflexive effects of observer upon observed and vis a versa; to where by time he wrote his “Philosophical Investigations” 1953, Wittgenstein was referring to The Tractatus as “not a very good book” and not so proudly referring to its author as if someone else.

Now, it is not my concern to demonstrate how well these ideas and mathematics hold up to discredit foundationalism, whether that foundation is held to be above human nature or below human nature, as humans agentive, hermeneutic capacity to reframe events offers enough in the way of human reason and motive to take the post modern, hermeneutic turn. But again, not that that particularly happened by and large in the main nor as it should have, correctively, to protect the various species/cultures  of humanity – including European! – from the ravages of impervious modernity and its experimental “progress” in faith that this wreckage was the price and sign that “foundations” were at hand upon its clearing away.

For those looking for a way to understand the later Wittgenstein, I would suggest looking at his investigations as a matter of internal relation (a notion which he gleaned from continental philosophers), helpful in the suggestion that a place to re-engage in the means of orientation is ubiquitous; analogous to a landscape covered with fractal coordinates; and certain episodes can bring one back to the sense of traditions, as in a flag ceremony signifying the rallying a group together in defense. Similar as the pragmatists, he can be helpful as such; and his turning Kant on his head, advising that one look at what ordinary every people are doing (with their language as well) can provide true and useful correctives IF it becomes part of an overall hermeneutic corrective that will also refer back to principles; but I would not heed his ridiculous advice that philosophy is a pathology that requires therapy. Philosophy, rather, asks the most fundamental human question about how life is and who one thinks it should be. Wittgenstein emerged after WWI one of the riches men in Europe and his arrogant disrespect of others intellectual requirements literally ruined lives.

The Austrian School of Economics infamous “magic hand”, i.e., that market forces will be sufficiently corrective sans human intervention and explicitly social concern is an expression of this Modernist faith continued in its objectivist detachment from the relative gauge of praxis – that despite its leading figure (((Ludwig von Mises))) false friend term, “Praxeology”, short on Praxis  and accountability for his methodological individualism;, i.e., the principle that subjective individual motivation explains social phenomena, rather than class or group dynamics.

Upon graduation from the University of Vienna, Friederich Hayek was hired by Ludwig von Mises as a specialist for the Austrian government working on the legal and economic details of the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye.[47] Between 1923 and 1924, Hayek worked as a research assistant to Professor Jeremiah Jenks of New York University, compiling macroeconomic data on the American economy and the operations of the Federal Reserve.

On his mother’s side, Hayek was second cousin to the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein.[27] His mother often played with Wittgenstein’s sisters and had known him well. As a result of their family relationship, Hayek became one of the first to read Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus when the book was published in its original German edition in 1921.[28] Although he met Wittgenstein on only a few occasions, Hayek said that Wittgenstein’s philosophy and methods of analysis had a profound influence on his own life and thought.[29] In his later years, Hayek recalled a discussion of philosophy with Wittgenstein when both were officers during World War I.[30] After Wittgenstein’s death, Hayek had intended to write a biography of Wittgenstein and worked on collecting family materials and later assisted biographers of Wittgenstein.[31] He was related to Wittgenstein on the non-Jewish side of the Wittgenstein family. Since his youth, Hayek frequently socialized with Jewish intellectuals and he mentions that people often speculated whether he was also of Jewish ancestry. That made him curious, so he spent some time researching his ancestors and found out that he has no Jewish ancestors within five generations.[32] The surname Hayek uses the German spelling of the Czech surname Hájek.[17]

While Hayek devoted a considerable amount of pulp to argue against what he called “scientism”, he failed to fully render definitive scientism, i.e., bad and misapplied sciences, and its destructive implication for society/Praxis in this epistemological blunder of misapplication, because he was not fully emancipated from the detached, Cartesian position of Austrian school economics, defending the Objectivist upshot of hyper-relativism, by treating society as if was just too complicated for much in the way of human planning; thus paying short shrift to the heuristics of what Aristotle would call phronesis, what Shotter would one day refer to as specificatory structures and their means to accountability, and what may be broadly referred to as warrantably assertable and operationally verifiable working hypotheses.

And while Hayek called himself a “subjectivist” by way of his mentor, von Mises, the detachment from social interactive accountability left his subjectivist analysis taking for granted an objectivist matrix; a line which would be picked up in Ayn Rand’s “Objectivism”, which would have been more accurately called Subjectivism as such. We’ll follow up on that line a little later as it has important implications. But we need to stick with Hayek for now as his influence was considerable and broad, particularly in inferences that he would draw from World War II, Nazism and Communist totalitarianism.

The Road to Serfdom was to be the popular edition of the second volume of Hayek’s treatise entitled “The Abuse and Decline of Reason”,[5] and the title was inspired by the writings of the 19th century French classical liberal thinker Alexis de Tocqueville on the “road to servitude”.[6] In the book, Hayek “[warns] of the danger of tyranny that inevitably results from government control of economic decision-making through central planning.”[7] He further argues that the abandonment of individualism and classical liberalism inevitably leads to a loss of freedom, the creation of an oppressive society, the tyranny of a dictator, and the serfdom of the individual. Hayek challenged the view, popular among British Marxists, that fascism (including Nazism) was a capitalist reaction against socialism. He argued that fascism, Nazism and socialism had common roots in central economic planning and empowering the state over the individual.

Hayek is not understanding Hitler’s epistemological blunder as one of natural fallacy, unhinged from the correctability of social praxis, thus not seeing it correctly as right wing objectivist, probably because Hayek was coming from the same objectivist perspective on the social world.

In reaction such, Hayek’s position was escalating the liberal  – we’re defining liberalism as the opening of borders and bounds – the liberal position that has allowed our antagonists to aid and abet convenient right wing objectivst blindness and greed along with convenient liberal licentiousness to the systemic runaway of our praxis systems which confront us more and more catastrophically with each decade.

Add Hayek’s liberalism to the wake of Nazi Germany, with the Cold War threat of the Soviet collectivist horror, tales of Orwell and Kafka combined with The United States emerging as the most powerful nation on earth, with its central idea being Lockeatine (Cartesian) Civil individual rights, over and in rupture of group classification – weaponized (by the YKW in their verbal skill and through their niche hegemonies) as “Civil Rights” for blacks against would-be White classificatory defense; and further weaponized as “racism.” Leaving it a massive taboo, all but impossible to even think of an alternative to America’s liberalism; in fact, all “conservatism” conserved from the American premise was liberalism. Only exacerbated by Christianity’s no-account (save for Jesus), bizarre, universal liberalism and its divorce from cause and effect. Hence our disaster.

John Maynard Keynes polemic against the Versailles Treaty in The Economic Consequences of the Peace (1919) didn’t help a great deal to instill a balanced response to WW I. In fact, his overly German sympathetic perspective would not only play into Hitler’s hands before WW II, but into overly Nazi sympathetic elements among America’s predominantly German demographic among Whites (second most Irish, also disposed to be overly sympathetic to Germany). It has only been recently through Howard, Hastings, Strachan and MacMillan’s work that blame for the wars has been placed more where it should be, with German imperialist supremacism and military leadership; and that even in its worst aspects, the economic aspects, the Versailles Treaty was not as bad as it was presented to the public (as condemned by Keynes, while German peace terms would have been much more harsh, and presumed the continued non-existence of additional states along with the ones imperial Germany had already subsumed etc.) and even today, virtually nobody defends the historically defensible borders drawn by the Treaties of Versailles and St. Germain. 

The Corrective White Post Modern/Hermeneutic Turn which hasn’t taken hold, largely due to the obfuscating misdirection of (((Red Caping))).

While going on to discuss the post modern turn and its (((red caping))), we will also be discussing the (((red caping))) of Modernity in “civil rights”, “progressivism”, the boomers, the NeoCon takeover and PaleoCon false opposition through Thatcher, Reagan and beyond.

World War I’s catastrophe put the kibosh on the Modernist notion of its lineal, inevitable progress, detached faith headed by technology and science. Disillusionment with the consequences for his/our peoples in the Enlightenment ideal of Cartesian detachment was the setting where Heidegger would mark the epochal Post Modern/Hermeneutic Turn in our European philosophic history. Just as with Vico, a neo-Aristotlean framework is taken by Heidegger contra Descartes.

This neo-Aristotelian framework places foundational theory (Theoria) to one side, along with its pure means, Descartes and impervious technology. To the other side is (Poesis) the arts, its technical (techne) and rhetorical means. And in contrast to the Cartesian/Modernist view, Praxis (the people group) and its  means of practical judgment (phronesis) is placed in central perspective; with a radical change from Aristotle that epistemology (episteme), thinking about thinking, is embedded and generated from there; it does not belong to the first category of pure reason, but in the primordial ambiguity of Praxis which Heidegger calls the thrownness.

Heidegger has the Post Modern task at hand of helping to draw Europeans back from the Modernist/Cartesian estrangement from Praxis/and lostness in its arbitrary nature; from the destructiveness of consequent “inauthenticity” and into authenticity; which can be understood as coherence (without much violence to Heidegger’s meaning) through the embeddedness of praxis; as opposed to the Cartesian estrangement from Praxis; or incoherence in the other extreme, the arbitrary facticity of the thrownness and arbitrary concerns of “the they”, other people. His predecessors equipped him with two means to negotiate this non-Cartesian feat: one being emergentism, the other hermeneutics.

One continuously makes sense of Heidegger with this reading. With “Dasein” (there Being) he is directing attention back from the Cartesian estrangement into “MidtDasein” (Being amongst one’s people). When he talks of “holding fast” and allowing truth to be evinced as such, he is clearly talking in terms of the non-Cartesian position of emergentism and the capacities that are not directly borrowed from the social world nor contrived from theory. Where he talks of liberation from the mere, arbitrary facticity of the thrownness, he is talking about the non-Cartesian capacity of the hermeneutic circle – its historical, narrative perspectivism. When he says that thinking is more like poetry than science, he is clearly observing a correction to the Cartesian estrangement Theoria, noting that epistemology of thinking and its relevance to Praxis, is closer to Poesis, the arts. And for that thinking he observes the wisdom of the language in Praxis, the hermeneutics of its etymology, “thankian” – spread out matters of concern, wait, take to heart what is most interesting – inter-esse – i.e., most essential, and give thanks, “thankian.”

Hermeneutics:

Facts are underdetermining and can be put together or read in a myriad of ways, more or less confused or coherent, nevertheless requiring and undergoing a hermeneutic process in order to put them together for better or worse, to make good sense or not much.

This “underdetermination” by facts also applies to the individual, obviously autobiographical self having more hermeneutic leeway than the corporeal self and its emergent telos – while rejecting Cartesian reductionism, emergentism observes inborn telos and Heidegger commends holding fast to it whereupon it provides an authentic, non-arbitrary guide through the arbitrary thrownness of circumstance. But in the unavoidable engagement of our interactive circumstance (one cannot not communicate, we live in communication), we require hermeneutics to make coherent sense. 

Hermeneutics also shuns the pretense of pure Cartesian inquiry. And instead embraces the distinctly human capacity for language and spatial/analytic reasoning to interactively engage a circulating process of inquiry providing narrative, analysis, conceptualization and rule structure (descriptive/interpretive and prescriptive) as afforded for the sake of rigor and imagination as need be.

It is thereby a non Cartesian process, engaged in inquiry moving in circulation as need be from the broad perspectives that analytic conceptualization, language and narrative afford, providing imagination, orientation, conceptualization of historical and broad systemic processes; and then circulating back to rigorous empirical verification as need be; managing orientation between the Cartesian extremes beyond or within nature.

As the world is both underdetermined by presenting facts and confusing in the arbitrariness of what facticity there is, we require hermeneutics in order to make sense. 

This distinctly human capacity is needed in order to achieve a liberation from mere, arbitrary facticity, as Heidegger would say.

With this capacity of semi-transcendence, as it were, an individual and group narrative is able to amend, reframe, place into a new, better or more accurate context, interactive challenges, set backs, obstructions, confusions, tangles, dilemmas, paradoxes, strange and pernicious charmed loops, etc. and can instead achieve coherence, accountability, agency, correctability, thus systemic homeostasis, a viable alternative range of functional autonomy and sovereignty (which Heidegger might call “authenticity”).

Hermeneutics also provides capacity to transcend bad moments, episodes, bad relationships, flaws in ourselves, flaws others, bad people altogether among our kind, so as not to be disillusioned, skeptical of loyalty, to connect with our pattern at its ideal best.

This non-Cartesian, circulating process of inquiry is necessary for its narrative capacity to connect with our history, its perspectives and to capture the systemic breadth of group bounds, human ecology, social capital and accountability thereof, in the interest of our species and individual concerns.

Hermeneutics engagement of rule structures can be used to facilitate reconstruction of our genus and species – very important, of course, for White Nationalists – or it can be used by our enemies to misdirect and send our systems out of homeostasis into runaway dissolution. Hermeneutics is therefore crucial to get a handle on.

Hermeneutics is part of a two way process from genetic emergence and hermeneutic feedback on the biological facticity.

Hermeneutics is not anti-Science, it facilitates correctives to scientism, i.e., bad science and bad application of science. For example, where Spencer Wells of the Human Genome Project would say, “we’re all Africans under the skin”, hermeneutics would initiate critical inquiry to flesh out the significance of 40,000 years of European evolutionary differentiation that Wells’ scientism trivializes.

While it is true that Heidegger did not emphasize hermeneutics as much as he might have, as he was put off by Dilthy’s having taken the concept too far in detachment from the empirical world, it is also true that Heidegger’s metaphysic was too detached from the bio-social world of Praxis that Aristotle and Bateson would observe in nature and necessity to deal with. In fact, it is said that Heidegger had in mind a follow-up to Being and Time (which he never wrote) that would have grounded Praxis thoroughly in nature; i.e., below Praxis. How true and how far he would have attempted this foundationalism in nature is uncertain, but if he were to take it to an ontology below the correctivity of Praxis, he would have been committing the epistemic blunder of natural fallacy; the same kind which led Hitler and Nazi Germany to catastrophe. We want our praxis to be consonant and in harmony with nature, not obedient to subhuman nature, beyond accountability and correctivity.

But Heidegger is modest enough to suggest that thinking means taking what you find essential in his work, not following sheepishly, believing that you have to adhere to every jot and tittle, as the asshole Guessedworker insists that one must do. Heidegger took for granted that for the Germans of his time, social grouping was not  the biggest challenge – which White |Americans cannot at all take for granted – their/his concern amidst Germans was more that they not become herd minded and lose sight of their distinctly folkish ways, individual resource and coherence. He was also concerned that too much focus on biology would be violently reductive of the manifold of emergent properties. Again, not exactly our priority concern nowadays, with the denial of biological race (for Whites) and the multifarious bullshit of red caped hermeneutics – divorced from its anti-Cartesian mandate which would otherwise have it circling back to empirical/ biological verification as need be.

While the egregious red caping of the Post Modern/Hermeneutic turn had not yet begun, Heidegger had, in his own clunky but charming German way, re-instantiated the Aristotelian framework to facilitate the White Post Modern Turn. But not to be enframed by the episteme of that framework, in a mere reactive extension of Heraclitus emphasis on process through hermeneutics, he remained critically adherent to the emergent perspective and its non-Cartesian manifold, which would yield the forms of Parmenides; i.e., individual bounds and group borders. 

And Heidegger’s student, Hans-Georg Gadamer, would make pivotal contributions to the Post Modern/Hermeneutic Turn.

He made a critical contribution to the White Post Modern Turn with his remark that The Enlightenment and the Cartesian Objectivism of Modernity is “prejudice against prejudice.”

Hannah Arendt, another student of Heidegger, made the more modest but no less true claim that “the Enlightenment was far from innocent.”

From this I generate a statement against anti-racism:

Anti-racism is Cartesian. It is not innocent, it is prejudice against prejudice; viz., in pure objectivist stance of prejudice against classificatory social pattern recognition and discrimination thereupon; even where necessary to individual and human species survival; thus, it is hurting and it is killing people.

Another important contribution from Gadamer was his concept of “the marginal.” This should be of particular interest to those ethnonationalists interested in the more empirical side of the circulating hermeneutic inquiry as those on the margins of the group – which is everybody from time to time – personify an empirical frontier. There position may be valued to some extent as providing perspective on the full system; providing useful feedback as they know where the shoe pinches, where the border is being impinged upon, and it makes sense to incentivize their loyalty, as they can be in a dangerous position, susceptible to changing sides. Which, in fact, is the idea of the (((red caped))) form of this idea, exaggerated and reversed, even, as (((red caping))) does: “marginals” are not treated as those just barely within the (White) species system, but rather those outside of the White species, or Whites who have become antagonistic, who should for some reason be included.

We have to take a step back to the late 1920s, when (((Leon Trotsky))) coined the term “racisim”, further weaponizing the gentile-Christian purity spiral to a Cartesian point beyond group Praxis (for Whites), beyond nature, even. And then we’ll have to move forward to discuss once again the concept of group classification and how that is being played with in “anti-racism.”

But not just yet. We have to come back to the concept of Hermeneutics and how it was conceived as a non-Cartesian circulating process of inquiry, that might at once liberate individuals and groups from the empirical arbitrariness, the confusingness of mere facticity in the thrownness; a liberation into historical/narrative coherence; and also provide the means to negotiate, amend and transcend the paradoxes, dilemmas, confusions and so on of classificatory identity; dating back to philosophical struggles with the Cretan’s liar paradox.

As such, hermeneutics provides the narrative means to survey historical and temporal, systemic breadth beyond limitations of momentary, episodic, even close relational limitations, to establish individual and group coherence, accountability, correctivity, agency and warrant thereof, in maintenance of systemic human ecological homeostasis. With hermeneutics thus, accountability may be established to the forms generated by emergent patterns, moving gracefully (not clunkily, mother fucking sick fucking gaslighting/strawmanning narcissistic personality disorder case Guessedworker) as need be in a process of inquiry from imaginative expanse to encompass the formal breadth of the group, recognize its bounds; and back to as rigorous and microscopic an empirical verification of the pattern and holding fast to emergent qualities as need be for the sake of individual and group correctivity, i.e., systemic homeostasis, autonomy and sovereignty.

Hitler’s Nazi program is usefully looked upon as a pathological Modernist reaction to abuses in Praxis, particularly by the sophistry of Jewry in Europe and in their red caping of social unionization as internationalist through Soviet Russia. An imperialist war monger, who justified his world view on the natural fallacy of might makes right, that boundaries were determined by might, not by negotiation (a mere ruse), Hitler’s world view was unhinged of Praxis accountability and correctivity, running over the top into catastrophe for Europe; and for more ordinary Jews, who had been mixing and more situated in Europe. 

The Holocaust thus exacerbated the process of horizontal transmission, as it selected for the more virulent Jews, who were able to flee over the border where they were able to establish niche predominance and parasitism over new host nations, particularly the United States [religion, money, politics, media, academia, law and courts, international business, organized crime].

And through these positions of niche power, for example in the Federal Reserve, with connections to the Rothschilds and Keynes’s friends, the Warbugs; in the Supreme Court, beginning with Brandeis and moving through Frankfurter’s manipulation fo Earl Warren’s “Activist” court, high in the purity spiral of Lockeatine Civil rights; the critical Brown vs Board of Education decision was passed; ending school segregation; then the 1964 “Civil Rights” Act was passed, preventing Whites from discriminating (in practice, against blacks especially); then through the political niche of (((Cellar and Javitz))), the 1965 Immigration and Nationalization Act was passed to open America’s borders to floods of non-Whites; in 1968, the “Fair Housing Act” was passed, preventing discrimination in terms of whom you might rent or sell property to.

And on the absurd imposition against White interests through Jewish niche virulence proceeded, with the evil law of “Disparate Impact” subjecting corporations with back breaking lawsuits if they were “insufficiently represented by blacks” on the basis of sheer lack of qualification. Then there were deals made with black “community organizers”, who hung the threat of riots over cites, and took the payoff for bust boom gentrification plans (as in Starbucks); and in culmination of the Randian objectivist false opposition line, that ran from the Austrian School through Thatcher and Reagan, a (((NeoConservatism)))  hitting  mere speedbumps in (((Paleoconservatism))), while Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan stimulated the magic hand of the objectivist economy, used the black  community extortion of Acorn to extort banks to issue housing loans to blacks that they could not repay, while “insurance securities” were sold on these loans that could not be repaid. 

* A refresher note: Both the NeoCons and the PaleoCons are Jewish (and Marxist) controlled opposition in origin. The NeoCons coming by way of Crystal and Leo Strauss, used America’s Cartesianism as a nihilistic domestic weapon, for right wing opportunists to cash in on boom and bust cycles, and war mongering upon Israeli interests, making their way through the Operation Clean Break crew – Kagan, Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, Netanyahu – to use the American military, now the lone superpower, upon the fall of the Soviet Union to make war on Israel’s enemies. This “conservatism”, with its nihilistic magic hand running the domestic economy under Alan Greenspan, was destined to head America’s superpower to premature end, commencing in seriously in the 2008 financial crisis.

At that point, Horowitz and Gottfried saw the need to try to revive the (((PaleoCon))) false opposition; as the destruction and profit of Jewry was all too evident from the (((NeoCons))); and they needed to stave off backlash in the form of White Left Ethnonationalism; by re-directing reaction into a new (((PaleoConservativism))) Called The Alternative Right or the Alt-right; which would be opposed to a marketed characterology of “The Left.” Now, (((PaleoConservatism))) began with (((Frank Meyer))), originally a Marxist, he conceived of (((PaleoConservatism))) as faith in America’s Cartesian principles (which are liberal) and Judeo-Christianity (Which is liberal, for Whites). Meyer was a mentor of President Reagan, whom we can say was duped as such. But PaleoConservatism is even more dangerous in a way, than Neo-Conservatism, because it uses traditional American values; and through the back doors of this Judeo-Christian Cartesianism, the tribe was able to make its way further into power, to where the (((NeoCons))) could take over in the 90s, looking after the one ethnonation that they really cared about, Israel. 

With that, the PaleoCons, Paul Gottfried, Pat Buchanan, Joe Sobran (fired and stigmatized by useful idiot William F. Buckley) and Sam Francis were pushed aside. The new PaleCons – Alternative Right/Dissident Right – have been (((marketed as the opposition against a characterology of “the left” since 2008))).

While the Clinton Whitehouse took down the fire wall of the Glass-Steagall Act, allowing investment banking to gamble with private money; and when the housing bubble burst in 2008, do the Jewish bankers, the ring sell outs pay? Nope. 

In fact, with the Jews sitting pretty, but more obviously than ever, they have got to come up with a plan so that the White masses don’t get any uppity ideas and organize/unionize as a White Ethnonational Left. Nope, Herbert Marcuse’s student, Paul Gottffried needed to revive the  controlled opposition of Paleoconservatism an “Alternative Right” as opposed to a characterology of “the left” as a marketing scheme, where the red capes of leftist social advocacy are presented as a characterology of its own,  supposedly opposed to  ethnonationalism by definition. Thus, whereas the complaint with these Jewish sponsored  unions and coalitions of anti-Whites used to be referred to as “political correctness” in the 90’s, now it was a red caped characterology of “The Left”, lest Whites get any ideas of organizing in their interests. You don’t want any of that social stuff,  just ask asshole boomer GW, ‘that’s all Jewish”, as he looks over Thatcher’s shoulder while she reads Hayek; soaks in the Austrian school objectivism/subjectivism, absent the relative gauge of “society” and group interests.

International borders are opened up for the exploitation of big business and social liberals alike. And particularly after Hitler had obliged in his reactionary culling, nobody dared be associated with “racism or anti-semitism” – the Lockeatine anti-classification of civil rights was weaponized to a high, sadistic art, Alinsky style, making White men “live up to their ideal rules.”

Whereas the one up position of puerile girls, unsocialized for this weaponized modernist disordering of classificatory bounds, emerged more powerful than ever, pandered to from all directions; pandered to especially by the YKW in her subsocial penchant to incite genetic competition and act as gate keeper, only letting through men into power who would perpetuate the liberalization of borders and bounds; she thus maintain powerful position for a time to pursue the utopia, as Devlin calls it, of hypergamy; until the society begins to crumble around her for want of the stable family and society created by beta males; and starts taking down the less desirable women with it.

The black union remains enforce, as one of the few coherent groups allowed by Jewry to organize in their self interests and at the disposal of Jewry to unleash against Whites. And quite a powerful weapon too, not only protected under the rubric of “anti-racism” but adding to the biological hegemony that their much older evolution enjoys in disorder of modernity, where the protracted evaluation necessary to appreciate White talent will frequently pale in comparison to the momentary and episodic criteria which highlight black abilities; of their evolution, which has quantified and maxed out masculinity, whose higher testosterone levels and warrior gene and faster twitching muscle fibers create an aggressive, presumptuous, hyper- assertive kind of people; who have more sex partners, younger, single parent families, poverty, low time horizon, impulse control and violence. While Jewry and the liberal lackeys let through by the pandered to , subsocialized gate keepers, continue to enforce ‘anti-racism” as the incitement to genetic competition drives up their price.

Not only is the White classificatory discrimination prohibited, thus preventing White men from protecting their level of sublimation which is part and parcel of our sublimation and what distinctive greatness we posses, but the fact is, not only do we need to classify, it is virtually impossible not to cognitively classify, as noted by Lakoff in “Women, Fire and Other Dangerous Things.” The prohibition of classification combined with inability to avoid classification in order to make sense of the world, defaults defacto to another charmed loop to two classifications allowed and impossible to ignore: blacks and females; especially in juxtaposition with White women, as high contrast tropisms are more difficult to ignore; while nature abhors a vacuum, their (short term) coherent identity perpetuated and pandered to thus, she becomes more articulate and confident beyond her merit, especially with the liberal intimidation and enforcement thuggery of blacks, the cryptically camouflaged Jewish group identity ready to supply the charge of “racism” to buffer her gate keeping position. The most evil and un-American thing, she tends to make whether you’re “racist” or not a litmus test of initial interaction episodes.

Anti-racism thus, may be seen as Jewish weaponization against social organization by way of classification and discrimination thereupon by European peoples; the hosts and historical adversaries of Jews. And particularly in the American context, Jewry was able to weaponize the Lockeatine/Cartesian notion of individual rights to greatly rupture classificatory discrimination by Whites (the term is interchangeable with European, but only makes sense to use instead, when referring to Europeans outside of Europe). Absent the post modern/hermeneutic turn thus, the tribe was able to deploy and exploit the paradoxic aspect of classification.

With the charge of “racism” the accused White people are confronted by a lose-lose choice: say you don’t discriminate on the basis of race, but rather judge everyone individually, and you can be charged with being disingenuous; ignoring the pattern of historical discrimination against certain groups; On the other hand, if you say that you take this historical discrimination against certain groups into account, then you are classifying and a racist by definition. With regard to the sexes, the feminists could also deploy paradox: treat her gently, like a lady, then you could be looked upon as a condescending patriarch, who does not respect her autonomy and sovereignty; you are a “wimp” as charged. On the other hand, treat her as one of the boys and you are not respecting the special quality of her gender; you are a “pig” a male chauvinist pig as charged, only seeing the world through your male world view. 

It is important to note, however, that within the disorder of modernity, that traditional females were not necessarily offering great relief, as they still tended to hold White men to the same traditional standards while the bounds that once offered some stable support to achieving the expectations of the traditional role grew more and more shaky. We’ll come back to that in a few.

And we’ll circle back to the Frankfurt school – as the horizontal transmission would takeover the niche of Academia with its critical race theory  – after we’ve followed the line of feminism.

Following the Two World Wars in which millions of French men died as canon fodder, Simone de Beauvoir somehow, I don’t know how, had the nerve to publish “The Second Sex.”

As you can see, Simone de Beauvoir and her cohort Jean Paul Sartre were of Marxist orientation. Hence, they’d be in agreement as to a basic disadvantage in women’s position compared to men.

According to Marxist feminists, women’s liberation can only be achieved by dismantling the capitalist systems in which they contend much of women’s labor is uncompensated.[2] Marxist feminists extend traditional Marxist analysis by applying it to unpaid domestic labor and sex relations.

[…]

Engels rewrites a quote in this book, by himself and Marx from 1846, “The first division of labor is that between man and woman for the propagation of children”, to say, “The first class opposition that appears in history coincides with the development of the antagonism between man and woman in monogamous marriage, and the first class oppression coincides with that of the female sex by the male.”[4]

Gender oppression is reproduced culturally and maintained through institutionalized inequality. By privileging men at the expense of women and refusing to acknowledge traditional domestic labor as equally valuable, the working-class man is socialized into an oppressive structure which marginalizes the working-class woman.[2]

de Beauvoir was appraised of the classics of western philosophy, of course, and turned her critical disposition toward it, suspecting the artifice of teleology lurking behind the Cartesian quest for foundations. She was along with Sartre in turning Heidegger on his head, that we have freedom because life is open ended, not because of its delimitation in finitude.

As Hegelian logic largely structured Marxism in its rigidity, it also prompted de Beauvoir to consider the classic distinction between self assertion and self transcendence. I (and perhaps you along with me) would observe that European men do too much self transcendence and not enough self assertion;  again, not that this sublimation is not without its yields, but these will begin to accrue to outsiders and result in exploitation and large destruction absent the assertion of our borders and bounds. Easier said than done. Try asserting yourself with an African and their long pre-evolution is liable to demonstrate a strong inborn penchant for self assertion, that turns out badly for you as it has for many others who proceed in direct hubris or complacency where the rubber meets the road in self assertion. Nevertheless, self assertion is the corrective trajectory for European men. de Beauvoir’s idea of freedom and liberation for women called for self transcendence; setting in motion incommensurate gender agendas of individuation.

In fact, this agenda of self transcendence for women was claimed by Howard Parshley as the inspiration for taking on the daunting task of translating the massive text into English. This was a task that he took on as a professor at the elite women’s college, Smith; which by refraction became an epicenter of American feminism and lesbianism.

Parshley expressed his perhaps most revealing personal thoughts about ”The Second Sex” in a letter to Abraham Stone, a longtime friend and co-author, with Hannah Stone, of the popular book ”A Marriage Manual.”

”I would never have undertaken the work,” he wrote Stone , ”if I had not considered its . . . main message – ‘transcendence’ for women, too – not only morally and socially desirable but also too often denied in America. For every Dr. Hannah Stone or Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt there are, I thought, millions of women to whom de B.’s descriptions of the life of ‘immanence’ – of ‘church, kitchen and children’ – are more or less completely applicable, ‘happy’ as they may be in their situation.

”I have not been too happy, myself, about the author’s treatment of family life, and I was often tempted to soften her descriptions or insert qualifying footnotes. And the same with many of her remarks about ‘conjugal’ love and so on. But I had no difficulty in thinking of many actual examples of everything she described, and I thought she was presenting a point of view that needs airing.”

”Just last night,” Parshley continued, ”I heard on Barry Gray’s WMCA midnight program a discussion of the New York system of day nurseries by the man in charge of it, and I think that there one may see a hint of what de Beauvoir has in mind, in part, when she calls for the liberation of women.”

De Beauvoir’s response to the book was contained in a letter to Blanche Knopf, which Mrs. Knopf shared with Parshley: ”I find the book superb. The translation seems excellent.” Parshley must have been exceptionally gratified.

And yet, according to Deirdre Bair, who interviewed de Beauvoir extensively for her forthcoming biography, the French writer told her she had never read the American edition. Explaining that de Beauvoir’s ”personal life was consuming her at this time,” Ms. Bair speculates that ”she probably only thumbed through the book.” And de Beauvoir’s quoted praise? ”A white lie,” says Ms. Bair.

The white lie was to remain a golden fact for Parshley. On the night of May 18, 1953, with sales of ”The Second Sex” continuing to mount, its translator participated in a Smith College Symphony Orchestra rehearsal.

De Beauvoir had turned her critical perspective to the giants of European philosophy, irrespective, apparently, of any merit they might have in that esteem

While the girls at Smith might have been at leisure and inclination to move through de Beauvoir’s text which was near a thousand pages even abridged. But it was not going to be common reading among men.

Far from the purview of European / American men were two conceptual weapons which could be alternated arbitrarily, wielded in an instant by feminists (or wielded similarly and unwittingly by neo-traditional women, for that matter), as equipped with the cynicism of these memes to dismiss, in either case, recourse to two profoundly important European moral orderings.

Most significantly, one weapon was to deride Europe’s natural Aristotelian morality, its observation of optimality and relationships as central to human nature, and another to destroy the propositions and principles initiated by the likes of Kant to gird, e.g., against arbitrary vicissitudes of empirical philosophy being taken too far – but in either case, the weapons distinguish females (including White females, of course) as having a separate moral order not beholden to White men and thus not beholden to Europeans as a system with shared social, moral capital and human ecology of millennia.

Deep within the wallowing abyss of de Beauvoir’s “The Second Sex”, its talk of “sacred ministry of betrayal” (can you sing Madonna, “Like a Prayer”?) feeding extant dissatisfactions in females, lurked these weapons – far out of the casual purview of White men to apprehend from whence came what hit them and what it was about.

(((Betty Friedan))) (1963), with the modernist, “she’s just like one of the boys and, if liberated to participate, may do-so as an equal” approach to feminism, was the preeminent figure in the second wave of feminism; she took as her point of departure this line from Simone de Beauvoir, 1948, page 672:

“This utility of the housekeeper’s heaven is the reason why she (speaking of traditional women) adopts the Aristotelian morality of the golden mean, that is, of mediocrity.”

My hunch that that was her source inspiration is borne-out through multiple connections.

(((Carol Gilligan))) (1982), with the neo-traditional angle focusing on qualitative differences of females, but still within the feminist framework, also took a line from de Beauvoir as her point of departure against Kantian morality – 1948, Page 681:

“She knows that he himself has chosen the premises on which his rigorous deductions depend.. but she refuses to play the game.. she knows that male morality as it concerns her, is a vast hoax.”

My observation that this was the source for Gilligan was confirmed by Helen Haste, a colleague of Gilligan’s at Harvard.

While there are other significant non-Jewish feminists, forebears besides de Beauvoir, it is true that de Beauvoir’s feminist philosophy has roots in Marx’s notion that marriage and patriarchy are veritable slavery – women’s “liberation requires that these institutions be overturned, a revolutionary act corresponding to liberation of all.”

The obvious fact of men being drafted to die in Vietnam – a war for no clear and present danger no less – calling into stark question the advantage of men, was a mere speedbump in the (((weaponized))) bit of modernity that was second wave feminism; as it went on to wreak havoc with the buttressing of thousands of years of European tradition and nature. Its weaponization dovetailed with the (((weaponization of civil individual rights))) against classificatory discrimination; in (((weaponized Marxist coalition))) with black biopower and hyper assertiveness; the alliance was to bolstered with homosexual advocacy to form the coalition of Political Correctness against White men spearheaded through the aforementioned Jewish power niches; notably, academia to begin with:

With this accurate understanding of what The Frankfurt School’s horizontal transmission to American academia was doing in terms of Cultural Marxism and the rough shod it was running over the interests of White men, we’re at the point in our history where I need to excavate the agenda of White male Being [Dasein/MidtDasein]; which was incommensurate to second wave feminism, and buried in the torrents of its (((weaponization and coalitions))) and the (((red caping))) of erstwhile Post Modern correctives.

Part of my task at this point is to keep this section as brief as possible, since I’ve discussed this historical section many times; nevertheless, there is this important piece of the puzzle to fit here. 

With an important clue from Heidegger, that we gain perspective and coherence, part of the emergent authenticity that he talked about, by setting out the hermeneutic of ourselves, i.e., our autobiography into historical perspective – a task buttressed by the fact that the language comes into being in writing – I looked to the historical circumstance of my childhood, provoked by the conceited complaints of feminism, while men were being drafted to go die in Vietnam. How much sitting around Indian style with the hippies, being there with them in Brookdale Park, held something very appealing by contrast, that I would not want to be without.

As America was the land of opportunity, and proposed to deliver happiness through self actualization, an ancient teleological concept of Aristotle, altered in modernist pop-psychology form with the human potential movement, markedly (((Maslow)))’s “hierarchy of needs,” it made sense to me that the hippies were actually a proxy male agenda after the basic levels of the hierarchy of needs; while the feminists seemed to be after the top of the hierarchy.

De Beauvoir’s The Second Sex (1948) culminated in American popular culture with Helen Gurley Brown’s Sex and The Single Girl (1962) and Betty Friedan’s more academically got-up The Feminine Mystique (1963) as second wave feminism.

While popular and not pretending to be academic, Helen Gurley Brown’s book and the popular magazine, Cosmopolitan, that she parlayed with it, should not be underestimated in their (deleterious) effect. Deriving the idea from her husband, movie producer David Brown, Sex and The Single Girl is based on Soren Kierkegaard’s lament, Either/Or – you are going to suffer whatever you choose. In this case, if a single girl stays as “virginal as a Sunkist Orange” until married she will suffer. She will also suffer from sex that does not lead to loyalty and marriage, but at least she’ll have the experience and enjoyment, so her argument goes. This is a false either/or as virginity is presented as intolerable and life long monogamy is presented as near impossible on the basis of natural fallacy. There are ways that society may handle the important option for monogamy and the reality of non-monogamy, but that is a discussion for later.

Let me briefly say that the argument for female pre-marital indulgence, if not promiscuity, was usually based disingenuously on the notion of “the double standard” which was held to be “unfair.” The double standard held that while men were looked upon as sporting rogues if they pursued sex, women were looked upon as sluts if they did the same. But while that is a double standard, and men should not be beyond constraint for social effects, the general bias was fair in concept, as it is not as much of a challenge for women (because eggs and gestation are precious/ejaculation and sperm is cheap); they can be real bullies and have even more deleterious effects on society through promiscuity.

Enough about Helen Gurley Brown. While her magazine with its indexes of sexual adventure inside would be snapped up by co-eds at the check-out counter of the college book store, the far larger nodal point through classroom level academia was The Feminine Mystique.

To my theoretical delight, my working hypothesis that sense could be made of the conflicting gender agendas of individuation by placing them into Maslow’s hierarchy of needs to self actualization, was confirmed in spades. 

Taking as her point of departure de Beauvoir, 1948, p. 672, “This utility of the housekeeper’s heaven is the reason why she (speaking of traditional women) adopts the Aristotelian morality of the golden mean, that is, of mediocrity.”…

Not only did Friedan propose in The Feminine Mystique that women needed to be liberated from the neurosis instilling constraints of their traditional gender role and be free to pursue the highest reaches of self actualization on Maslow’s hierarchy of “needs”, but Abraham Maslow was actually her teacher!

Not particularly featured by her was that in Maslow’s scheme, these higher needs unfulfilled were called “high grumbles” whereas the lower, more basic needs unfulfilled were called “low grumbles.” Pearce would make me aware of the “grumbles” bit.

Betty Friedan, as with de Beauvoir, was pretty much ignoring the sacrifices on basic levels required of men, notably the Vietnam draft in Friedan’s time; and with that, not making the inference that men being over represented as the top of the hierarchy was not only an artifact of traditional practicality in the parental division of labor, and not only an expression of a fulfillment of basic Maslowian needs. Some men ascended to the top largely as they were greatly skilled; but to some extent, over representation by men at the top was also an expression of desperation for deprivation and threat of privation of basic needs. Furthermore, traditional European society reserved some space at the top for men in compensation for their sacrifice and presumed service to the protection of their people; that their hard road would not leave them taking these matters of borders and bounds lightly and liberally. 

“The ignominious bullying of Naven ritual rites of passage produced harsh, overcompensating males.” – Gregory Bateson.

And this aspect of overcompensating desperation to self actualization, which fits into the traditional come modernist paradigm, would have a reflexive effect of aberration, wreaking vast destruction on the social praxis of ethnonational Europe in the example of the Kaiser and Hitler; while in the USA, the liberal form of this Modernist, objectivist overcompensation wreaks havoc with any semblance of accountable boundaries to social praxis for White people. Particularly as the liberalism of individual rights was weaponized, not only as the sublime expression of American freedom and opportunity for men, but seen in contrast to Stalin and Hitler’s collectivism, its critique became utter taboo and difficult to articulate for men.

I had to decipher and infer the organic motive behind the hippie movement, decidedly implicitly White, as a right below rights, as Rollo May would say, from songs from the rock opera “Hair”, viz. Walking in Space, which defended the value of Being of itself as opposed to being drafted into the Vietnam war; “My Conviction” which weakly singled out the Male aspect of the rebellion, which was actually the essential aspect of the motive – the assertion of an intrinsic value to White male Being; but first of clues, “The Be-in” which inaugurated the hippie summer of love in Haight-Ashbury as semiotic of the essential motive – a reasonable attribution of intrinsic value to White men (as opposed to having to prove themselves in war representing no clear, immanent danger to their people) and securing of that basic motive along with intermediate motives/needs on the Maslowian hierarchy of needs; still not unarticulated by anyone but me, as pivotal in the central right of White survival as a species and in the interests of their systemic autonomy.

“Being” for men [Dasein/MidtDasein] was not only difficult to articulate as it ran in corrective counter to the traditional role, not only because it ran against the overcompensating modernist role, but as a motive to recover basic organicism, it was not given to analytic parsing, thus inarticulate by definition. Furthermore, it was incommensurate with the feminist agenda which was pursuing the heights, threatening to leave individual men with  nothing by way of compensation; also incommensurate with traditional women, who still expected men to stoically pursue the traditional role (and woe to he, who might whine and malinger). Further, “malingering in quest of organic being was in weird, incommensurate contrast to black civil rights, which sought strait-laced “integritae”; and in dangerous incommensurate contrast with black power, which sought the top of the hierarchy and did not exactly see White male Being as their concern.

Indeed, the problem then, when White men were considered so intrinsically valueless as to be drafted into a Vietnam war which defended against no clear and present danger to him or his people, is largely the same, most essential question today: the establishment of sufficient intrinsic value to White being – the right to live, among his people, innocent until proven guilty in common parlance. But Being [Dasein/MidtDasein] for White men would be only more difficult to articulate after the sympathy of the Vietnam war was over; after that Jewish niche power and influence put its feminist, black and other grievance coalitions into overdrive against White men. This was done with the leverage of the no-account modernizing objectivism of White right wing traditionalists and liberals. 

Indeed, with the gender agendas being incommensurate as they were, and women’s complaints (“grumbles”) seeming so conceited by comparison, its no wonder that more men did not go crazy in misogyny and that women did not complain more about the ones that did (because they were getting away with murder). But the reflexive effects of modernist disordering, particularly as (((weaponized))), were bad enough.

Kenneth Gergen’s scheme of the genders in four way individuating difference seems to have analytic merit under the stress of modernist disorder, with their being modernists overcompensating the traditional gender trajectory and reversing modernists of the traditional trajectory. Hippies and feminists would be reversers.

But coming back to our timeline where White right wingers and liberals were complicit as useful idiots, the YKW niches commandeered the anti-White coalitions into overdrive. 

The Europeans were even more prone to misdirection from the true nature of the White male agenda for Dasein/MidtDasein, as they were not subject to authentication of motive by ownmost being toward death as the Americans were by Vietnam draft. Hence, rather than being a spokesman for the hippies, one rather wished that John Lennon would shut up. Hence the 68ers’s, Marcuse’s misdirection of “liberating tolerance”, that “free love” was an essential part of it, when in fact, free love would be in stark contrast to Being for White males. While the Jewish media portrayed the hippie era all about free love, civil rights for blacks, Marxist left politics (read radically liberal when it comes Whites, as opposed to organic folkish), when in fact, the hippies were notoriously troublesome to Marxists.

Yes, drugs were a part of the quest for White male being, and that could be a big problem when messing with the profundity of evolution; but judiciously consumed and in moderation, it is vastly better than being a turbo charged aggressor and warmonger.

Never mind, once the Vietnam war was over, the crucial motive for White male Being [Dasein/ MidtDasein] was burred, as feminism went into overdrive and in ominous foreboding of its coalition with blacks. Yes, the right wingers have their paid off motives of union busting as ever; and liberal irresponsibility is rewarded with license and licentiousness; but the YKW set the (anti-White) coalition agendas, take the initiatives, grease the palms.

In fact, 1973, when the Vietnam draft was ending, was the only year that Gloria Steinem (said to be a CIA asset) made money with MS Magazine. Meanwhile Elizabeth Holtzman, running on the Equal Rights (for women) Amendment, unseeded long term incumbent Emmanuel Cellar, notorious exponent of the 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act which opened America’s borders to the third world (his dirty work accomplished enough). By 1982 Carol Gilligan would make a new wave in feminism by taking another line from de Beauvior,

1948, Page 681: “She knows that he himself has chosen the premises on which his rigorous deductions depend.. but she refuses to play the game.. she knows that male morality as it concerns her, is a vast hoax.”

Gilligan came across as representing a Neo-Traditional aspect of feminism’ that unlike Friedan’s grumbles, the problem is that women have always, traditionally, had a different morality; the problem was not that they were not allowed to be like men, but that their different ways and morality were not represented at the elite table. While I did learn some things about female patterns, and she had me fooled as being Irish for her name, her work really amounts to a slight of hand to make excuses for women’s liberalism and departure from moral principle.

Carol Gilligan. Only her name is crypsis.

In fairness, it is harder to be a girl and woman from the standpoint of traditional morality as more or happier opportunities exist to make mistakes.

The one up position of White girls/women in partner selection emerges with increased significance within disorder of Modernity.

The U.S. became the leading world power after World War II, leading in its Modernist trajectory through the anti-classificatory forces of modernity, with Lockeatine civil individual rights over classification then (((weaponized))) over White classification as as “civil rights” and “racism.”

That was the stick of anti-classification, while the carrot was held up in the implicative force of America’s promise of the freedom to pursue happiness and be all you can be in the human potential movement with its individualist, Maslowian notion of self actualization.

But there was a dark side in the human potential movement as well, with its disordering creating reflexive effects, where stasis reaction became the brute corrective force as opposed to the homeostasis that the buttress of classificatory bounds might afford to gender relations and their negotiation of social capital. Needless to say, this does not serve to reconstruct the White Class, but further polarizes them in antipathy; and what could be more painful than to be hated by those you are born to love.

“The sacred ministry of betrayal. You will never do anything more hateful to me than I have already done to you.” – Simone de Beauvoir

The anti-social-classificatory bounding of this hyperbolic liberal situation ruptured the means of social accountability, particularly regarding long historical and protracted systemic patterns, such that White females were being solicited and pandered to more and more directly from every direction, including alien directions, and most pertinently by the interests of the YKW from their elite niches and for their purposes. With this pervasive solicitation and pandering, the one up position of White females in partner selection – “you are so wonderful, may I have a date? – re-emerges with increased significance, to where even largely unsocialized (i.e., not structured in the responsibility to their human ecology for its delimitation and potential effects on other human ecologies) puerile White females become part of a powerful gate keeping system that maintains the liberal way, only letting liberal through to power as it protects their larger than ever advantage, at least in the short term.

Again, any attempt by a White male to broach the unjust complexity of (((weaponized modernity))) can be bludgeoned from the feminist perspective with the wimp/pig paradox: treat her with deference and you are a condescending patriarch at best, who does not respect her autonomy, and more like a wimp, in a word. On the other hand, treat her as one of the boys and you are a male chauvinist pig, who does not respect the special quality of her gender. Women of a traditional gender perspective may not offer relief either, as she expects the man to perform his traditional role oblivious to the fact that the disorder of modernity does not sustain his grounds.

With conceitedness of the feminist’s high grumbles flying in the face of his low grumbles, it is only a wonder that more White men didn’t veer into insane misogyny.

The charmed loop of didactic incitement will only perpetuate the liberal runaway, as his authentic agentive distinction and alternative range of functional autonomy can be written-off not just as a wimp for doing nothing, or a pig in fighting back, but also as a dupe for putting his resources at risk in an effort to negotiate the situation; and finally a permanent puerile initiate, the abusive incitement written off as not that bad at worst, if not a necessary lesson or even the inspiration for whatever accomplishments he manages despite the paradox to his agency. 

The struggle to find agency and achieve despite this will produce anti-social aberration as “success” becomes “failure” by the reflexive recontexting of the didactic incitement.

“As teachers, are we wise?” … “The ignominious bullying of Naven ritual rites of passage might produce harsh, overcompensating males” – Bateson. Indeed.

A sufficiently necessary grip (humble but confident) in practical logical tautologies is among the first things to suffer in the sarcasm and mockery of didactic incitement. The impractical speculation of Platonic forms followed by Christianity’s divorce from logical cause and effect in poorly bargained quest of innocence, self esteem and social confirmation, has been the traditional retreat, the Cartesian anxiety ensuing.

Whereas “the Stoic acceptance was an attempt to transubstantiate even the repugnant aspects of existence, the excremental, into the essentially divine.” – Kenneth Burke. Indeed. 

But the insane viciousness of it; you have White girls reacting in fear of you (!), because you don’t want them opening the gates to these wild, rabid niggers. Who should be afraid of who? Stunningly insane. And they take so for granted its legitimacy that it becomes like a litmus test of initial interaction episodes. “Isn’t racism so terrible?”

As solicited she becomes more articulate, confident, more able to move into the realms of self actualization once reserved in compensation for males tougher road, and the greater respect for boundaries and borders that would instill. And as pandered to, her base, subsocialized, female as opposed to womanly instincts come to force by way of brute incitement to genetic competition; all “racists” are written off as quaint weaklings as such; none of this historic social capital stuff.

You say to me now, “oh really? White women are at such a basic advantage? What about these heroine addicted whores on skid row? My answer is that this is largely a reflexive effect of the disordering of modernity. Traditionally, a girl/woman might be violated on her basic need levels, her Being, but this was an aberration to what was considered the social norm. But precisely for the advantage of White females in modernity, for the capacity of even unsocialized, puerile females to exercise their penchant for hypergamy with brutally liberal and anti-social alpha males of any race, creating victims of single mothers and poverty, that what once was aberration becomes more common. As I said, these females are at an advantage at least in the short term in the unsocialized disorder of modernity.

Again I would argue that so do blacks have particular advantages in the breakdown of cultural patterns, where momentary and episodic evaluation of this atavistic circumstance provides more opportunity for their long pre-evolved base functioning to reproduce with their own females and with others; and if nothing else, to be fostered as a weapon to be used (by YKW and their gate keepers – puerile females, liberals and right wingers) against White men who might think of organizing in defense; while the YKW remain sufficiently organized, so not overly threatened by black biopower deployed against them.

I would not go so far as to say that there should not be such a thing as feminism for White women, to make sure that they are being treated fairly; but in this circumstance of modernity, post modernity being weaponized, and red caped (which we’ll discuss in a moment), there certainly does need to be a platform in defense of White men, as they are singled-out for attack.

The problem is that the (((red caping))) of post modernity, including the marketing campaign against a characterology of “the left”, has both obfuscated the resource to instantiate that platform properly and has created reaction back into gauche modernism or neo traditionalism oblivious to the sophistication required to negotiate this circumstance.

For example, the “manosphere” might provide articulate descriptions of female behavior within the (atavistic, less socially structured) context of modernity, where the passions of young females are unbridled to ride the cock carousel, and neither is F. Roger Devlin wrong in describing a Prado 80/20 of fertile women gathering in “hypergamy” with those 20% alpha males. It is correct to say that this is less than satisfactory for men and women both, as most men are forced out of the pairing and mating market, while many women are left single mothers where at all, as the alphas move with impunity through their pick of the day, fuck them and leave them. And they are not wrong to say that this has destructive effects for society as the alphas leave feral, undisciplined bastards, hostile deprivation and poverty in their path; where betas would have made middle class families if given the chance to marry and stay married.

The manosphere’s solution is strictly modernist in response. They describe the alpha male behavior which is so alluring to women and teach betas to imitate it in what they call “game.” They add to this some pickup techniques, and they do defend that it can be applied to an effort to pick up your one and only wife to be, but…

the fact is, that with the focus on alpha impunity, they are not focusing on care and concern to evaluate Mrs right and the health of the social circumstance around, but rather instrumentalizing the means for less responsible sex, including her use of it; and deceptive not only to her, but to his better nature, teaching R selection strategy, where his more European, K selection nature would have been supported in a traditionally society, with borders and boundaries; borders that would buttress the wonders of his more circumspect “game” and the sublime results where his manly European sublimation can flourish; were his “manning up” assessed correctly as requiring attention to group borders and bounds first; while the means to identify an appropriate woman would come after, along with a secure environment for you, her and the people structured in accountability to your interests.

For while Roger Devlin’s proposed solution of re-instantiating the propensity for marriage is undoubtedly a crucial component for the correction of societal injustice and runaway problems; a merging of both Neo-Traditional and Kantian, Modernist/universal means (“can this be good for everybody”), its like having the best berth on a sinking ship without the White Post Modern concern of centering Praxis (social group, e.g., race and ethnicity) and buttressing against the oblivious, impervious roughshod of weaponized Modernity, ravages of competing ethnocentric traditions; unionized buttressing also facilitating coordination where other ethnonations might.

I need thus to turn attention again to the post modern turn, its red caping of what I call White Post Modernity in order to distinguish and articulate the accurate original purpose of its resource – to secure social group systemic correctivity; viz. homeostasis, thus autonomy and autonomy against the impervious roughshod of modernity, ravages of competing ethnocentrisms and even obliviousness to one’s people’s humanness, albeit different humanness unrecognized by monoculturism, an implication of the “racist” charge.

With that, I want to look at Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs to Self Actualization again; and discuss how it needs to be re-tooled in order to provide a framework to negotiate race and gender relations, survival and flourishing in the necessary White Post Modern way.

Maslow's hierarchy of needs, an artifact of Modernity, misguiding social systemic runaway.

Bateson commented on the liberal system and might well have been commenting on the lineal pursuit of “self actualization” with his remark:

“I don’t have to tell you about the tyranny of patterns. That is the rubric under which we meet. What you may not know is that you have to accept them.”

The reason for looking at Maslow’s hierarchy of needs to self actualization at this point is because is it of central and essential concern to the direction of western civilization by way of its leading power in the United States at that point, both for the arbitrary form of this (Modernist) expression of Self Actualization and even more importantly, for the non-arbitrary aspect of individualism toward “self actualization” being a central feature in its classic, traditional form of teleological individualism in western philosophy since Aristotle – its most important and esteemed philosopher.

Indeed, the first “critique” (read, shallow, offhand dismissal and straw-manning of an unworthy critic as it did not feature his unmerited, gargantuan ego) was that Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs was a “garden variety” concern, completely missing the point that the arbitrary expression and “garden variety” commonness through the popular psychology of the human potential movement was not being denied, but taken as a most useful and instructive example in significant part for that arbitrariness, meaning subject to change, critique and renegotiation, while surfacing about a common understanding over the profoundly obliged and popular pattern of individualistic pursuit now culminating from a central essence of western philosophy and its classic philosophical thoughts on individualism – a pivotal aspect of all European philosophy and ways of life.

It doesn’t even matter if asshole or anybody else points to the majority of people who were paying no attention what so ever to Maslow’s version of self actualization; it provides historical occasion and framework – a specificatory structure as Shotter would say, to difference from, shape and craft – in discussion of where this western philosophy of self actualized individualism is coming from, how it is being used, where it might be going wrong, how it might be corrected.

But it is indisputable that Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs to Self Actualization was a central aspect of second wave feminism, its definitive take on individualism by Betty Friedan through The Feminine Mystique, derived from the most influential European feminist text, de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex and its take on feminist individualism. Furthermore, that the individual freedom to pursue and accomplish all one can and “be all one can be” (a motto even taken for U.S. military recruitment), bubbling through the wildly popular human potential movement was the central appeal behind America’s claim and justification as the foremost western power. And it makes perfect sense to surmise that there was a different, unarticulated concern for males in the lower and medium level grumbles of Maslow’s hierarchy.

But finally, that the powerful allure of self actualization and direction of the idea was misguiding and compounding a deleterious implicative force on the social systemic context. … rupturing, pushing aside social systemic accountability, correctivity, homeostasis, in the self righteous, myopic quest of its popular expression, even if Maslow deigned social concern, rendering it as a secondary, “later”, medium level need and America touted its “democracy.” …and while “self actualization” becomes more and more the domain of sociopaths, the context more and more an abyss as much of human speciation and ecology heads toward systemic runaway; to where the pursuit of self actualization serves less and less an audience that can feedback appreciation and reward in their essential interests – hence, meaningless – instead a narrative trajectory largely serving the conceits of sociopaths who deserve not the esteem and reward for their irresponsibility to human ecology and its connection to pervasive ecology.

In correction of this, we need to come back to Aristotle, to where his philosophy on the matter was vastly superior; and then proceed to the White Post Modern turn, which would make further important corrections.

Observing biological nature and our human part in it, Aristotle noted that as biological creatures, we are evolved for optimal, not maximal need satisfaction; not only is deficiency toxic, but maximal excess also. This would be the first contrast with the Maslowian Hierarchy, with its singular focus on stages, once maximally satisfied, lineally sustaining the next “need” or “motive” as Maslow sometimes also referred to his proposed succession of steps to self actualization.

Aristotle would further note our further taxonomic distinction as mammals, creatures deeply dependent, involved and concerned with relationships from our birth. Whereas Maslow plucks out our physiological requirements as the basic level of need, as if we are independent from relationships from the start.

Next, Aristotle would observe that we exist in what he called Praxis, our broader social relations, demographically limited and politically looked after, if not well, then perhaps all for naught: that is why he considered political philosophy to be of first order concern. Nevertheless, humanity’s distinctive capacity for agency, to learn, to change directions (e.g., in mammalian concern for relations), the complexity of relations and reactions thus require a humbleness in concepts of analysis of individuals in praxis; i.e., a different epistemological means that he called “phronesis” – practical judgment; lets say “working hypotheses” as opposed to hard and fast lineal theory as one might hope to derive in observation of physics, like an absolute, lineal hierarchy of needs.

Thus we find in Aristotle’s description and prescriptions more in the way of constraint by which individuality would be balanced in health and responsibly related to social systemic defense from the onset. Whereas “love/belonging” and “democratic spirit” come as a midway concern to Maslow, facilitating the singularly ultimate concern of self actualization.

It would be ridiculous to play a “no true Scotsman” game with Maslow at this point, to suggest that Maslow considered democratic spirit to be expressive of self actualization. That would miss the thrust of his notion of self actualization as it made its way through the American population, where democracy operated more and more on a proposition nation; while the weaponized technology of individual “civil rights” and anti-racism rupture the buttress of classification of humans necessary to sustain the homeostasis of species and their relations through social accountability and thus individuality, its agency and self actualization.

No, Maslow’s version – and the human potential like, short on social context – would play its part in the technology of civil individual rights and anti-racism that rupture the classificatory bounds and borders that protect the White class, genus and species. If you don’t care about the human ecology of Whites, there are likely to be unpleasant consequences visited upon you and any descendants that you may have. If you do care, lets come back to Aristotle for a moment before taking the White Post Modern/Hermeneutic Turn.

Though great for his time, Aristotle’s severe ethnocentrism was liable to run into disastrous conflict with other groups; his teleological notion of individuality was not integrated enough conceptually with praxis, but also limited for its grounding in empirical rigor, lacking in the human hermeneutic capacity for imagination, different levels and orders of conceptualization – necessary, even, to transcend the flux of mere arbitrary facticity, dilemmas, paradoxes, confusing ambiguities, to provide transcendental inspiration and conceptualization over and against challenges to the individual in pursuit of self actualization and to remain abreast of the group borders and bounds that might sustain accountability, thus correctivity, systemic homeostasis, autonomy and sovereignty. His teleological compartmentalization was insufficiently cognizant of interactive contingency, including social interaction; lacking respect for contributions by many members of society, the potential interactive mutability of social roles; even going so far as to justify slavery (teleology of natural slaves); thus, he is justifiably challenged by modernity and post modernity, even if unfortunately (((red caped))) in these challenges.

These are the kinds of things that the post modern, hermeneutic turn was grappling with. Not to get stuck in Cartesian estrangement but turning  perhaps first, perhaps secondly, to look at the conduct of ordinary every day people and their language; observing then that not only does principle describe typical behavior but neither does natural fallacy: people are not exactly like animals constantly in struggle for dominance, in a will to power and at war with others; in fact, if one looks around, one sees much more in the way of cooperation and coordination – coordination being the less ambitious project to get along and not interfere with one another; establishing parameters from which the cooperation of fair exchange might be negotiated.

While I’m on the matter of negotiated exchange, let me make a note of the Judeo-Christian boondoggle of the golden rule, which was bound to get Europeans screwed as it does not expect anything in return for giving; as opposed to the silver rule which the (((conceivers))) of the golden rule abide for themselves – the silver rule, in which you expect equal value in exchange.

The White Post Modern perspective would look upon the golden rule as a precursor to the Modernist/Cartesian purity spiral and take a look back to the classic, Aristotelian position on exchange to determine white it might have veered into this error.

Of course Aristotle applied his golden mean to determine competent negotiation in exchange. Minimal competence cannot judge fair value in exchange, cannot receive less than fair value without being obsequious; nor give more than fair value without being ingratiating. Satisfactory understands the fair value of exchange but cannot receive less without being obsequious or give more without being ingratiating. Optimal competence knows the fair value of exchange but can receive less than fair value without being obsequious and can give more without being ingratiating. The White Post Modern view on the circumstance would observe that given the disorder of Modernity, there does not exist the stable criteria to reliably sustain satisfactory competence; one is either minimally or optimally competent.

What are the White Post Modern Implications for Self Actualization in its classic, Aristotelian teleological variant and its lineal/modernist/Cartesian, “foundational” variant of Maslow?

Our historic, hermeneutic turn brings White gender relations into the scheme, but also something radically more fundamental.

The first order of concern in White Post Modernity is the very context of Self Actualization, not only to integrate the Aristotelian process more from its teleological myopia, instead more as it actually comes about with social interaction at least as much as inborn emergence; while restoring his biological concern for optimal, not maximal need satisfaction, and his mammalian concern in priority of relationships right from the onset.

With that we come to the fundamental aspect of The White Post Modern Turn, which is the re-centralization of Praxis, our social group, genus and species.

Its not as if there is no choice for the inquirer here. If one wants to act like it matters a great deal that a tree falling in the woods makes a noise if there are no people left to hear it, to talk about how it counts, if you want to join Hitler in his adherence to natural fallacy that has already taken us far along the path to that oblivion, you can to some extent exercise that Cartesian anxiety.

But if you are not such an idiot, you will take the White Post Modern Turn with me to look upon objective truth inquiries as feedback – important feedback regarding what is true and what we might need to know despite our subjective and relative interests – but feedback to be gauged against our relative group interests, i.e., the people concerned, accountable and amenable to correctivity in homeostasis of the social system which our forebears bequeathed us (with much sacrifice), upon which we and our legacy rely. If you are charitably concerned with others, individuals and groups, this is the way to ensure you have the means to be of help.

Hence the White Post Modern turn would look upon Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and prescribe a radical revision; viz, that absent the social relations upon which we depend – delimited by group in order to facilitate accountability for practicality’s sake, for ideological sake and just the responsibility of those who care for our genus and species – in our case, White (i.e., people of European genetics, genus and species) – occupies the most basic level of needs; in fact, its overall context; in fact, absent conversation there among, accountability thereof, all other “levels” are but molecules in space about which we are oblivious. 

Again, I suppose you don’t have to care about the survival, systemic homeostasis and autonomy of our people; you can pursue your self actualization oblivious to social impact; you can throw your hands up and stand aside for the stasis of chance like a goodly detached objectivist, or irresponsible modernist jerk, as it were; but the runaway of our ruptured borders and bounds is not only an irresponsible and unnecessary destruction visited upon our human ecologies, but bespeaks the modernist roughshod over accountability, over border and boundary maintenance (the erstwhile ecology stewardship it might have facilitated) that might destroy us all. …on the way of that destruction, any meaning to your self actualization; watch, for example, as BLM tears down the statues of those once exemplars of White self actualization. Who will care about your self actualization?

Kenneth Gergen made what I found to be an insidious change to a blurb that he wrote for a social constructionist conference that I organized. He added the term “immigration flows” as if immigration was a force of nature beyond human accountability. That is very much NOT a social constructionist take on immigration; even though this was supposed to be a discussion promoting social constructionism. And his choice of the word “flows” was disturbing to me as well – how calmly soothing these waves of immigrants flow over us, almost hypnotic – you are getting sleepy White man, very sleepy…

I agree with professor MacDonald’s assessment that Jewish interests are largely intent on disrupting our borders and bounds; but in pandering to the no account objectivism that underpins right wingers and liberals both, they’ve found complicit White people, whether naïve or uncaring. The self actualization and and like anti-social individualist or narrow group interests that they imperviously pursue are an artifact of no account, Cartesian modernity.

And like all positive corrections that would be made in White Post Modernity, this too can and has been (((red caped))); i.e., accountability taken to a perversity beyond reason in the former East Germany, with its Stasi and insidious means were neighbors, families would spy upon each other. The insane environment that spawned the insane frau Merkel and her immigration policy that may well doom large swathes the European genome – forever..

By contrast, a healthy deployment of White Post Modern social accountability as optimal, would be primarily concerned with the borders. Accounts requested within, kept to a minimum. That is paradigmatic conservatism.

And traditional roles and divisions of labor would be observed as largely practical, but not unnaturally, inhumanly fixed, void of the balance, continuum and gray areas to provide the means of empathy necessary for that practicality. Still there would be recognition enough for the ecological requirement and biological profundity of disbursed niche preoccupations so that there would be respect for the value of their necessary contributions, if not holding pattern of evolutionary capital; and respect enough for human ecology so as not to burden it too much (I’m pro choice and pro death penalty because you can’t value life so much as to make it unlivable).

With this White Post Modern perspective of respecting the incommensurable quality of niche differences within the group systemic paradigm and between other groups, the insult and provocation of false comparisons are avoided. The (((red cape))) of being “against equality” and pressure to toxic, unbreathing, unbalanced and non-integrative quantification that puts us in vulnerable, dangerous hubris is put aside; as it might otherwise instigate reciprocally escalating diatribe and war. We are truly looking after the qualitative, horizontal niche concern and empathy of human biodiversity; not chasing Steve Sailer’s lateral, quantifying (((red cape))) of it to serve Ashkenazi interests, masquerading as a matter of I.Q. 

This respect for niche ecology is what is behind the benign and useful idea of “diversity” and “multiculturalism” that has been (((red caped))) as world integration and world monoculturalism.

Let us address the wails of the modernist asshole, who, in service of his unmerited, gargantuan ego, would try to suggest that the White Post Modern concern is overly complicated, while he attempts in futility to get back to the innocence of animal mood signs, saying that “nativism” is not a matter of communication, while he discusses the matter with us, how? oblivious to the fact that one cannot not communicate, that we live in communication; as if we are proposing something overly complicated with the idea that we should adhere borders and boundaries for our people; and that there are antagonists who want to overcome those borders and boundaries. As if by point of fact, that many people reacting instinctively in a nativist way is problematic and renders unimportant the White Post Modern project and its correction of red caped ideas. For him, beyond a false Cartesian binary, is a wish for mutual exclusivity to service his autobiography as the one and only voice in point of the foundation; blind to the fact that he chases red capes in his “sweeping aside” of all that “academic” “political” “mere philosophical” (name his strawman of the day) stuff  …that does not flatter him in his boomer armchair with his convenient, pop-psychological zen beyond words…. a red cape thrown by Wittgenstein if ever; you, White man, don’t want any of those critical words, any of that intellectualism, any of that philosophy now that its been thoroughly weaponized against you for several decades now, do you?

But nativism is a stable, universalizable criteria and foundation, no? I won’t add to our enemies steady stream of arguments against its being stable enough to be a serviceable criteria – (even if not thoroughly universalizable, as that would be deleteriously Cartesian; e.g. what of the ice age covering England, what then? – as the second most important concern of the English, e.g. 

Nor will I compound our enemies argument that as our people had once migrated to what we now consider to be our native lands, and even more profoundly, as we can in fact interbreed with all people on earth, that there is no foundational distinction to the native; no, I would not contribute to their argument; but would rather point to lines that distinguish our species as agreed upon in social construction indeed, reveling in the agency that affords us in attributing how these easily discernible facts come to count for us, and with that agency, locate accountability, coherence, correctivity, systemic homeostasis, autonomy, warrant of sovereignty.

And I would invite those with half a wit beyond the boomer’s reaction to the (((red capes))) of post modernity, to examine with us still further where post modernity was coming from to begin with in order to protect native, traditional cultures and profound, inherited forms against the ravages of modernity; and ethnocentrisms less naively blinded to their interests and advantages.

Exceedingly important though territory is, particularly that with which our mutations are evolved, not a tertiary concern, lets not get stuck, fixed a la Descartes on one place to our potential ultimate detriment. Lets rather find how philosophy of good will toward our people, White Post Modern philosophy, would look after the vital concern of our native lands while managing the dynamics of our group systems; handling the Cartesian anxiety that leaves us prone to hostile maneuvers as it occurs in reaction to modernity’s ravages, hostile etihnocentrisms and red caped post modernity.

The White Post Modern/Hermeneutic Turn to the communications perspective, the interactional view, social consructionism proper.

Central to the Cartesian anxiety which would seek for foundations beyond the substantial warrant already to be found in patterns that abound as opposed to anti-racism (anti-group classification, at least for White people), is the apparent lack of absolute and pure empirical fact of group classificatory bounds and borders; a thin wedge and anxiety in reaction that has been exploited by YKW in red caping.

As we’ve noted already, John Locke declared social classifications a non-empirical fiction that needed to give way to individual civil rights, as all people have the same sense impressions. A Cartesian technological rupturing of social classifications of pattern of connection that would be exploited by the YKW (the temporary gaps and exceptions to patterns being treated as all important), in weaponizations aimed against Whites in their Cartesian purity spiral – “the civil rights act” 1964 and “anti-racism.”

Wittgenstein made and abandoned his attempt at a foundational language scheme in the Tractatus. The Vienna School of logical positivism followed suit but also ran up against its limitations, finding that there was no avoiding some use of metaphor; words always having at least three components, a ‘signifier’  – the form which the sign takes; the ‘signified’ – the concept it represents; and its modifying context.

A sign must have both a signifier and a signified. You cannot have a totally meaningless signifier or a completely formless signified.

In the Analytic school, J. L. Austin would observe that not all language refers to concrete truth and facts like 1 + 1 = 2; but rather acts to determine how matters come to count: “I take you to be my wife” is not describing the world, it is changing the world. “Christening this ship the S.S. White Separatism” if you don’t have a ship nor the authority to confer this designation, and you have not christened a ship. But under certain conditions, that speech act will change the world. The same holds true with the speech act, “I hereby proclaim the union of unions, White genus and species.” 

 Posted by DanielS on Fri, 06 Aug 2021 04:48 | #

The fortune of the boomer’s position will apparently not allow them to see the lesson in what is required in responsibility, the social corrective, as their good fortune allows them to prefer focus, for their ego’s sake, on what they’ve done by themselves and ignore their social indebtedness – worse, subscribe to the likes of “Uh”, in chasing after the Jewish (((redcaping))) of sociology, its eminently relevant unit of analysis, the group (i.e., species systemic) – along with chasing after and away the (((red caped)), eminently relevant resource of post modernity proper, social constructionism, hermeneutics; chasing away these resources as properly understood and necessary to White homeostasis, with its governance though the emergent communications perspective; and its advance over the transmissions model of communication, which von Forester discusses in his statement that I will post below.

I have become reluctant to introduce this kind of thing here because GW is not honestly concerned for understanding and will treat this rather as an executive toy to display his superiority and to feed his ego, only able to see it from his boomer perspective as a perspective that has been exploited by Jewry, not seeing the neglect of what is being suggested here – that Europeans need to take responsibility for social construction and advocacy – to take the post modern turn from Cartesian estrangement and its vulnerability / mechanism as opposed to the exploitation of and from others, as it were.

But since James invoked one of his teachers, Heinz von Foerster, I wanted to add this little tidbit…

While both Heinz von Foerster and Bateson were a bit more sympathetic to the mechanics of sheer cybernetics, they are both pointing the way to social constructionism and aware of its necessity for the European perspective in order to introduce homeostasis, systemic corrective for the species.

Commenting on Gregory Bateson’s “metalogues”, Heinz von Forester would make the case thus:

What is language? Or better, what is “language”? Whatever is asked here, it is language that we need for the answer. Hence, if we did not know the answer, how could we have asked the question in the first place? And if indeed we did not know it, what will an answer be like that answers itself?

How would a dictionary handle this case that is so different from most others? At the instant it is to tell what is language, it must turn mute for reasons we know now well. I am particularly curious how my favorite dictionary, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, would do it. After the entry “language” will it leave, say, two inches of blank space? Or will it have a small mirror pasted at this place so that I can see my own puzzled face? Or what?

Apparently the editors decided against employing such warnings. After an account of the noises (or scribbles) associated with language spoken (or written) they adopted the following definition:

The transmission of meaning, feeling, or intent by significance of act or manner.

If one had no idea about “meaning”, “feeling” or “intent”, one could think of these nouns to stand for some sort of commodity that could be packaged and transmitted. (In fact this seems to become now a popular belief. Take for instance, “information processing,” “information storage and retrieval” and other ailing metaphors). Hence I was going to check on “meaning.” I get:

meaning (me ning)  n. 1. that which is signified by something; what something represents; sense; import; semantic content: “Pending a satisfactory explanation of the notion of meaning, linguists in the scientific field are in a situation of not knowing what they are talking about.” (Willard V. Quine)

This precisely was (and approximately still is) the state of affairs when Gregory Bateson and a small group of people sensed that certain pathological disorders of an individual could be treated to linguistic pathologies of this individual’s social environment and that these disorders resisted all orthodox approaches because the attempted therapies themselves suffered from the same linguistic pathologies.

To me it seems that the crucial step toward the success of Bateson and his co-workers was that at the outset they rejected a terminology that would admit notions of “transport”, “transfer”, “transmission”, “exchange” etc. in an epistemology of communication and instead returned at once to communication’s underlying process, namely, to interaction.

Shifting attention from a specific to a more general form of behavior, and, at the same time, brushing aside the semanticists problem of “meaning” seems, at first glance, to be trivial and naïve.

Not so!

There is indeed a fundamental difference between the orthodox and the interactional view, a difference Bateson must have seen very early and which he put in various ways in his many writings. Let me demonstrate this, and the power of this view, on one of Bateson’s charming vignettes called Metalogues, fictitious (or perhaps not so fictitious after all) conversations of a father (I hear Bateson talking) with his inquisitive daughter. Here is the one entitled:

            What is Instinct?

D. Daddy, what is instinct?

If I had to answer this question, I may have been easily seduced—as perhaps many among us —to come up with sort of a lexical definition: “Instinct is the innate aspect of behavior that is not learned, is complex, etc…..” Bateson, however, ignores semantic links (they can be found easily somewhere else) and alerts us to the, shall I say, strategic, political, functional, “interactional” consequences when “instinct” is evoked in a conversation. Thus father replies:

F. An instinct, my dear, is an explanatory principle.

I like to refer to this contextual somersault as “The Batesonian shift from Semantic to Functional Significance.” Of course, it does not satisfy Daughter.

D. But what does it explain?

F. Anything—almost Anything at all. Anything that you want it to explain.

I wish to invite the reader to reflect for a moment what it means to arrive at something that explains “almost everything.” Does something that explains anything explain anything at all? Perhaps there is nothing that explains anything? What has Daughter to say about that explanatory principle that explains almost anything?

D. Don’t be silly. It doesn’t explain gravity.

Excellent! How will father get out of this?

F. No. But that is because nobody wants “instinct’ to explain gravity. If they did, it would explain it. We could simply say that the moon has an instinct whose strength varies inversely at the square of the distance.

D. But that’s nonsense, Daddy.

F. Yes, surely. But it was you who mentioned “instinct,’ not I.

Okay, so father got himself out alright. However, I would like to draw the reader’s attention to two points: (1) in contrast to the great didactic dialogues of our literary heritage, for instance, the Socratic dialogues, or Galilei’s Dialoghi (delle nueve scienze) etc., etc., in which the partners mutually support one another by assent, confirmation, complement, agreement, etc., (semantic continuity), this metalogue, by kicking the semantics around, thrives on a personal involvement (functional continuity); (2) explanations—should we like to have one—are in the descriptive domain.” ….“we could simply say that the moon….” More of this later. Right now, lets hear Daughter again:

D. All right—but then what does explain gravity?

F. Nothing my dear, because gravity is an explanatory principle.

D. Oh.

Who would not join in Daughter’s exasperated “Oh”? But she recovers quickly and I shall not interrupt now the fast exchange that follows, I only ask the reader to contemplate the profound consequences of Bateson’s insistence on seeing explanations, hypotheses, etc., purely in the descriptive domain. Watch his use of “say”: “If you say there was a full moon….” etc.

D. Do you mean that you cannot use one explanatory principle to explain another?

F. Hmmm….Hardly ever. That is what Newton meant he said, “hypotheses non fingo.”

D. And what does that mean? Please.

F. Well, you know what “hypotheses” are​. Any statement linking together two descriptive statements is a hypothesis. If you say that there was a full moon on February 1rst and another on March 1rst; and then you link these two observations together in any way, the statement which links them is an hypothesis.

D. Yes—and I know what non means. But what’s fingo?

F. Well, “fingo” is a late Latin word for “make.” It forms a verbal noun from fictio, from which we get the word, “fiction.”

D. Daddy, do you mean that Sir Isaac Newton thought that all hypotheses were just made up like stories?

F. Yes—precisely that.

D. But didn’t he discover gravity? With the apple?

F. No, dear. He invented it.

D. Oh.

With the epistemological somersault, the Laws of Nature become inventions, rigor is married to imagination, and Nature is fiction, made up by us acting together. Interacting. Ultimately, this means, seeing one’s self through the eyes of the other.

Heinz von Foerster
Pescadero, California
March, 1981

Let us first issue the necessary caveat that von Foerster is (((von Foerster))) and that would explain his taking the intellectual exercise toward an absurd extreme 

But while von Forester’s culminating statement seems to confirm all the worst suspicions of the casual observer of today’s university toward scientific rigor, where undergraduates are encouraged to make of truth what they like, that would be to miss the point.

Bateson and Von Foerster are, of course, pointing to the need of Europeans for a social constructionist take …true that it can be exploited if whites fall asleep at the wheel in search for the innocence of mood signs below language as it were.

While both Heinz von Foerster and Bateson were a bit more sympathetic to the mechanics of sheer cybernetics, they are both pointing the way to social constructionism and aware of its necessity for the European perspective in order to introduce homeostasis, systemic corrective for the species..  …that Europeans need to take responsibility for social construction and advocacy – to take the post modern turn from Cartesian estrangement and its vulnerability / mechanism as opposed to the exploitation of and from others, as it were.

Furthermore, they are taking the hermeneutic turn, observing that there are different language schemes and contextualization of how facts come to count, which, again, implies responsibility.

Hermeneutics is no mere weasel device of its (((red caping))) as commonly misunderstood. 

 Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 06 Aug 2021 15:10 | #

What is instinct?  A connate and immutable, primitive reflex (and, therefore, non-“social” in origin) which instructs the rest of the cognitive machinery of the brain non-linguistically and non-ideationally to select, as urgently as is necessary, for survival and the vivifying.

Let me see you hermeneutic that into invention, imagination or fiction.

40 Posted by DanielS on Fri, 06 Aug 2021 16:11 | #

Ok, asshole. Here is my response, which is that you miss the point as always, no matter how often you are told. Social constructionism and hermeneutics proper, not its red caped and misunderstood variants, do not deny the more factual nor even inborn, but recognize that how these facts come to count has at least a modicum of social negotiation, contextualization, perspectives, at least post hoc; and if there is no post hoc, you are dead, can’t talk about it, others can/will talk and determine how those facts come to count for you.. Nevertheless, there are some things that are as close to mere fact as can possibly be and a person who would propose an alternative story will be (correctly) considered crazy or dishonest (or making a point, perhaps, like Bateson and von Forester).

The point is to invoke the fact of our shared social context, for what are these facts to us if we are not here amongst one another to discuss and deal with them? Hence the prioritization, a much needed adjustment among Europeans from the modernist Cartesian estrangement and instead to the centralization of praxis (our genus and species) as calibration, and the facts – such as instinct definitively spoken about – as feedback, which, by the way, as evolution reached human form, would have been furthered though social reproduction (not a sexuality). And again, even when we are talking of the instincts of our pre-human form, still requires social discourse for it to have any social import.

The bottom line being, Europeans especially, need the social constructionist perspective to sensitize our people to our social indebtedness to our kind and, if understood properly, rigorously, actually provides a better understanding of how knowledge is generated and how our lives work, what facts are.

There is no doubt that the marketing campaign against “the left” and directing White identity to the right and against the red cape misrepresentations of (proper, White) post modern philosophy – as if it were post modern philosophy – is meant to keep disrupting and rupturing (by right or by liberal, same sharp edged, purity and objectivist fetishizing root) our boundaries, keep us from this proper understanding and the homeostasis through structured accountability and systemic correctivity – i.e., the autonomy and sovereignty that proper understanding would facilitate.

 Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 06 Aug 2021 16:35 | #

You have no grand point to make.  You are arguing for something your profs said, and it’s contorted and feeble.

I already have, fucker.

And as I said to your dumbassed Christard flying monkey Thorn,

Thornblossom, you (have the nerve) to ask, in the spirit of GW’s gaslighting, what have I accomplished?

I have solved the riddling, contorted misdirection of Jewry and charted the path to sovereignty; lies will never take it away.

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 08 Aug 2021 15:28 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 06 Aug 2021 16:35 | #

You have no grand point to make.  You are arguing for something your profs said, and it’s contorted and feeble.

You stupid, dishonest, lying fucking creep with your narcissistic personality disorder. You never fail to disgust me at how you deceive yourself in order to adhere to your autobiography of the great slayer of academic pretense and chimera and your altercast of me as the your academic foil, merely regurgitating what professors of whatever Marxist stipe have told me.

Nothing, in the desiccated peanut that was your brain, now rattling around in the vacuous cavern that is your skull, will allow you to be honest:

To look at what I am saying as inference, significantly where not radically transformed in purpose from anything my professors have said or suggested where I have talked to them. If you were honest enough to make even a cursory effort, you could find NO such parroting on my part of things they said, nor sheer beholdenness and regurgitation of passively received information. Moreover, if you had any significant breadth of knowledge, you would know that many if not most of the things that I’ve presented I’ve generated apart from any conversation with professors; much of it not even erudition, but inference from life experience.

More, I have several “grand points to make”…already have, and your ignoring them for the sake of your unmerited, gargantuan ego (your narcissistic personality disorder) will never change that.

Hermeneutics is the crucial aspect of the Post Modern Turn, so much so that it is alternatively referred to as The Hermeneutic Turn. It is a method of inquiry engaging historical perspective and narrative form, providing liberation from mere facticity in the thrownness of arbitrary circumstance, flux, moment and episode to transcendent recontextualization as it were. With that capacity, it provides the means to amend and transcend paradoxes, strange and charmed loops, dilemmas, confusions and obstructions. As such, it facilitates the first requirement of any human  or group in the world – coherence (and what Heidegger would call authenticity). And this is not the lineal, impervious coherence of modernity, but rather interactive and engaged as White Post Modern. It’s mandate is anti-Cartesian and an alternative means of inquiry, moving, as need be, from securing our emergent qualities, holding fast, looking into facts as rigorously and microscopically as need be; achieving operational verifiability and warranted assertability as one might require; then moving with as much imagination and broad perspective as need be in order to provide contextualization, inspiration and working hypotheses.

Hermeneutics provides the means for coherence, thus accountability, agency, correctivity, thus systemic homeostasis, alternative rage of functional autonomy and sovereignty – not purely- hence warranted assertability of our human and pervasive ecology; of our emergent qualities of what Heidegger would call authenticity.

Hermeneutics is Not a matter of anti-science and the capacity to make of one’s self and matters whatever interpretation one likes; as the (((red cape))) sold by tenured (((professors))) and other liberals to 18-24 year olds in the big university business of selling talk would have people believe. That would be Cartesian and would fly in the face of its anti-Cartesian mandate.

Yes, hermeneuics counters scientism, i.e., bad science and bad application of science, but that is a good thing and a far cry from being anti-science (which Professor MacDonald once wrongly insisted to me that it was, having had the red cape of hermeneutics flung in his face enough times. Hermeneutics is what allows one to look at the scientist who might claim that “race is just a matter of a few genetic markers for skin tone” and a few other physiological differences; “but deep down, we are all Africans.”

Hermeneutics is what facilitated the late Rom Harre to initiate correctives to the Lockeatine “empirical” philosophical perspective in its presumption that all people have the same sensory impressions, and therefore should be simply presumed equal civil rights and standing. Rather, people occupy and moved through different positions in evolution, history and lifespan, equipped with different capacities and different narratives by which to make sense. Hermeneutics is the means by which Harre would show how the delimitations of the corporeal self and the contradictions and paradoxes confronted by the autobiographical self might be negotiated.

Hermeneutics is the circulating process that John Shotter rigorously moves through to correct the Cartesian first to third person perspective of objectivist cognitive psychology and behaviorist psychology, noting the rational blindness to its own participation for purported objective detachment, a disingenuous transmissions model of communication, where “mind stuff” pays short shrift to social accountability thereby – “it happens” in passive detachment is supplied instead by Shotter with the agency of observer moving through conjoint construction, shaping, crafting, correcting specificatory structures – more general shared sense making means with interlocutors and observed that are amenable to correction, specification.

Hermeneutics is the means by which I corrected Bowery’s scientistic proposition that a plebiscite vote in Danzig and “the corridor” would have resolved (justly, it is presumed) the dispute over those areas prior to World War II. Bowery’s view is overly limited by his sheer empiricism in this case. While Germans occupied Danzig overwhelmingly at the time, and had annexed the surrounding territory since the time subsequent of Frederik the Great’s aggrandizement, the Versailles borders for Poland and making Danzig neutral under The League of Nations were not arbitrary given historical and logistical understanding.

Hermeneutics was the discipline by which Heidegger’s student, Gadamer, diagnosed the Enlightenment, Cartesianism, the “prejudice against prejudice” …. a prohibitions against classifying peoples and discriminating against their pattern where necessary; and hence turning anti-racism on its head, as far from innocent; on the contrary, hurting and killing people.

Hermeneutics was the means by which Gadamer would circle back to empirical grounds to establish group bounds and popular moral appeal through marginals, which is everyone from time to time, including “the best” among the group. With accountability to and from marginals, we demonstrate ourselves compassionate and responsible to look after our own, thus on moral high ground with regard to other groups as well.

Hermeneutics provides the necessary means to overcome the hypocrisy and betrayal, the bad people among our own, in a word; it provides facilitation over the failed personal relationships; and facilitation over the bad aspects in even our better people, as we are all fallible; hermeneutics facilities transcendence to the pattern worthy of our loyalty and reverence.

Hermeneutics provides the means to transcend the failures and set backs of moment and episode, to connect in confidence and corrective guidance with our inspirational pattern.

Hermeneutics, is the vehicle by which our people, European, White as we are called in diaspora, will liberate ourselves…conceptualize the overcoming of setbacks, Manichean trickery, red capes, paradoxes, dilemmas, strange and pernicious charmed loops, overcome confusion and obstruction to establish coherence, accountability, agency, correctivity, systemic homeostasis, thus autonomy, sovereignty and warrant in our human ecology, stewardship in pervasive ecology.

Hermeneutics is the means by which we can sustain the concept of our classification – despite its apparent lack of empirical bearing – and establish by it the unionized structuring of our peoples, buttressing our ethnonations to provide the structuring of accountability, agency, correctivity, thus guiding systemic homeostasis, autonomy, sovereignty and warranted assertavility; despite the more speculative, less empirically obvious aspects of our patterns.

Hermeneutics provides the liberation of imagination and rigor to take our people to outer space; a necessary recourse should this earthly habitat pass.

Social Constructionism is begotten as the non-Cartesian implication through the shared, i.e., social aspect of language in the Post Modern, hermeneutic turn.

As such, we liberate and locate our coherence, accountability, correctivity, systemic homeostasis, warranted assertability and agency.

But by the same non-Cartesian social constructionist token, the White post modern turn provides accountability and operational verifiability for inborn emergence, qualitative differences, niche incommensurability and genetic limitations of individuals and species.

The White Post Modern Turn implies and looks for agency...

Why it is important to overcome the red caping of social constructionism.

Although I have been saying this more or less for years, the gas-lighting that I’ve gotten from those reacting to my disabuse of red capes, like children having a tantrum because their kosher coloring book has been taken away, has only forced me to become still more articulate of the matter and to stiffen my resolve. These concepts are simply too important to be swept-aside for whatever motives. There has been no good reason for it; perhaps Nazi idolaters don’t want me to be the purveyor of worthwhile knowledge, Christards don’t want their absurd excuse for a moral order to be shown to be unnecessary or, as I said, the conceptually lame, like children who don’t want to grow up (and out of the provided discourse box), don’t want their characterology of “the left” shown for what it is – a kosher coloring book.
 
And obviously, Jews don’t want their deceptive games exposed. While the gas-lighters try to deny accurate inferences that I’ve made independent of academic enforcement, in addition to lived, experiential perspective and various disciplinary perspectives, the disciplinary perspective that I am mainly coming from is a communicologist perspective (interaction unit of analysis); nevertheless, the sociologist unit, the social group concept is more than valid; it does not have to be the only unit of analysis, but when it comes to race and anti-racism, it is central, highly relevant, if not most relevant…and already there in nature, not denying any worthwhile science where it is worthwhile sociology….nobody is saying that we don’t also need biologists looking through microscopes, etc. or “ordinary people” contributing their deep experiential knowledge – in fact, that cannot be replaced. Social constructionism is bolstered by the input of different perspectives and disciplines. See this response to manciblack:

mancinblack: What is new, is that we are being told sex is more or less a social construct and that for this “the scientific evidence is incontrovertible”.

But mancinblack: “Social constructionism” is an important concept which has been Red Caped. It has been red caped as “solipsism” which is the idea that an individual can make of themselves or a group whatever bizarre speculation that they like. How’s that “social”? It isn’t; not for long. That’s the red cape that the right wing altercast chases, as characteristic of “the left”…57 genders from outer space to choose from, “race is an optical illusion”, etc. However, to allege that sex differentiation and gender are mere solipsistic choices, a mere social construct, is not socially warranted – it is Cartesian, as it denies the empirical reality of sex differentiation and the practical complementarity of gender roles (a reality which the vast majority of people will subscribe to for the sake of their survival, if nothing else).

But as Cartesian it is not social constructionist. It reverses the raison d’etre of social constructionism, which is to deal with the modernist, Cartesian estrangement, detachment that doesn’t deal with our social interactive reality, attentive defense of our groups – e.g., the genders and race – against ravages of modernity, particularly as (((weaponized))), etc. Rather, social constructionism corrects this by engaging the interactive process and lets add, emergence, to include GW’s important non-Cartesian emphasis (though emergentism was never shunned by social constructionism proper). Social constructionism proper, maintains that there are four aspects of social construction, always entailing at least a modicum of agency:

1. The more literal: as in constructing a building together. 2. The metaphoric: as in parents “constructing” a child, with the help of some sort of input from any number of people around them at present and historically… 3. The hermeneutic: to manage the non-Cartesian process of inquiry between rigor and imagination as need be to facilitate systemic maintenance (individual and group). Hermeneutics is necessary for the liberation from modernity’s mere facticity and the arbitrary episode into coherence and accountability for both individual and to follow the historical expanse and temporal systemic breadth of our people. 4. The post hoc attribution as to how facts count: That guy may think he’s a woman, but he has a weenie and a Y chromosome, that’s a fact and for us as sane people, that means that he cannot use the ladies room. Of course the bizarre gender stuff is a red cape to make the concept of social constructionism didactically repulsive to Whites, to dissuade our people from it. It’s what “the left does” “those social people” “from their sociology classes” …“those social justice warriors”… But to overshoot, to overreact to the red cape, to react to the deterministic extreme of scientism reduces our agency, keeps us rigid, rationally blinded, susceptible to infiltration, low on social accountability and correctability and thus manipulable…

..extreme reaction also serves our enemies by frightening away normal people as its anti social lack of balanced, real world judgement (phronesis), humaneness and accountability threatens them (‘that’s just the way it is’) .. scientistic reaction can, in fact, become a living nightmare as it can become an impervious/unaccountable founding principle in the case of dictatorships and misdirected war.

This White post modern concept properly understood is meant to provide some agency, but it comes at the price of social accountability (meaning you cannot simply make of yourself or a group of people just anything, not having any empirical lines of distinction – indeed, how is that social?); with that properly managed, it entails coherence through hermeneutic liberation from the mere arbitrary facticity rife of modernity, providing instead coherence, correctabilty (homeostasis is self corrective systems), agency, warrant; including to negotiate niche ecology.

It is important for both individuals and groups to have this concept in order to maintain what capacity for systemic homeostasis (self correction/governance) that we do have – even an authentic (as opposed to arbitrary reaction to moment, episode, relationships) holding fast to emergence, being’s authenticity is facilitated. It is an especially necessary concept for White people to understand given our susceptibility to social group dissolution in propensity for individualism and to take on natural, scientific challenges rather than social group challenges (e.g., trickery).

It is necessary to fight off deterministic concepts thrown at us by our enemies (the opposite of social constructionism, our adversaries will also use determinism against us), such as “migration flows” which happen like a “force of nature” that must be accepted as a mere fact about which nothing can be done  other than acceptance… acquiescence to deterministic arguments where it serves adversarial interests – “(((we)))’re vastly over-represented at Harvard because of our I.Q.”, “HBD” (not because of group nepotism).

It is also necessary to fight off the allegation that our freedom is being threatened as such: “they’re trying to take away our individuality”, when our individuality will be destroyed without a group structure to facilitate it somewhere along the line.

Our enemies have red caped social constructionism so that right wing reactionaries chase after the misrepresentation and miss its facilitation of social interactive agency and the vital social organizing function. The YKW are always looking to disrupt functioning organizational homeostasis. They keep right wingers chasing after the misrepresentation and right wingers might even feel clever: “see, scientists can look at a skeleton and determine what race and sex it is immediately” as if they’ve disproved social constructionism… what they’ve done is disproved the red cape and helped the YKW to obfuscate the important concept, which would not deny that factually, there are empirical differences between the races and the sexes.

By the same non-Cartesian token, the White Post Modern Turn recognized inborn genetic limitations of individuals and species.

Though The White Post Modern/Hermeneutic Turn recognizes our agency, is always given to look for our agency in praxis, through our social interaction and in the variegated emergent qualities of our individuality and the genetic clusters of our species, we’re also bound in rigor (accountable in white post modern turn from Cartesian runaway) to observe our inborn limitations.

What right wing reactionaries can’t find in the vacuous cavern of their skulls is that group maintenance, species maintenance, ethnonational maintenance – assuming one is responsible enough to care – is an anti-Cartesian, participatory matter of corrective, i.e. homeostatic process. In their reaction to the massive red caping of post modern concepts, they can’t see that the reason for post modernity wasn’t to deny the significance of inherent, inborn qualities and patterns, but rather to protect them from the ravages of modernity and hostile ethnocentrisms.

Desperate for some sort of stability and foundation to that which they have held dear and see being destroyed by the red, internationalist left, they cling white knuckle to its red capings like a child to security blanket – or insecurity blanket, is more like the red cape at it were – believing that they must do the opposite, fix it there and that they must fix what are parts of a corrective process instead among the red caped stereotypes antagonistic or degenerate of White interests.

What motive Keith Preston has in his endless catering to the marketing program – anything but White Left Ethnonationalism – I am not perfectly sure. But catering in this manner he does to his right wing Christian cohort, Todd Lewis, who chuckled along when Keith looks into the future balkanization and sees factions, some primitive; one small faction being hippies in green luddite farm communes divorced from the sophistication to sustain advanced technology and all it might necessarily afford to confront future challenges.

What motive Keith Preston might have I am not quite as sure, but enemies of Whites would be disinterested at best, and probably more like antagonistic to Whites seeing a profoundly important motive beneath the hippie manifestation. They would encourage right wingers to be freaked out by the organic manifestation, to disrupt articulation, writing it off as a communist movement of the SDS and (((civil rights))) “at best” while suggesting to stupid “trad” and right wing girls/women and other right wing reactionaries that it was all naively trivial, or about peace and love no matter what, the degeneracy of drugs and the free love of Marcuse/Freud at worst.

They do not want you to understand the unarticulated motive of Being that lay beneath the hippie manifestation. That Being is our life and what we want as White men; while they aim to eradicate us and disburse our co-evolutionary females among other peoples. That Being is a verb.

In clinging to the red cape marketing program thus, they do not want to see the Being of White men as a part of a White Post Modern process necessary to protect and reconstruct our most fundamental Being, the organically fundamental, enduring, permanent aspects of our individual and group patterns as they distinguish the human ecology of our species.

There should be no asshole suggestion that the manifest hippie style and aesthetics per se are absolute corollaries to Being and that I insist upon them. It is the motive of Being that these stylisms stood semiotically atop that are important. And critically opposed to the rigid, reifying right wing reaction one must rather see the motive to Being not as a simple, permanent motive of beta male hippies, grubby and weird organicism nor the wildly speculative imaginings of their eastern fetishes, but a fundamental part of an organic process, most essential and the most necessary concern at this point in history for White men still; necessarily instantiated in its emanant validity as part and parcel of the one and only true component of a properly re-tooled notion of self actualization, that is the delimit of socialization.

There is the White post modern hitch as opposed to the modern, universalist runaway. There must be social group delimitation, borders and boundaries in a word if there is to be human ecological accountability – socialization, in a word. Without that, Being is infringed upon and threatened; is constricted form what Heidegger called authenticity and what I might refer to as alternative range of functional autonomy. 

Thus, while Being for White men would reject the draft into a war such as Vietnam which represented no clear and present danger to his people; it is not about peace at any cost – as indeed Being is threatened if there are no borders and boundaries. There is no Being in “free love” .. that Marcusian affectation has nothing to do with White male Being. How could it? Men from everywhere vying for your would-be appropriate life partner and the other women that you need to sustain the group pattern upon which your Being and any notion of self actualization depend.

There is a very important misunderstanding in regard to Being through the red caping of social constructionism. Not only are you not free to be just anything that you want (that is neither social nor anti Cartesian) but hermeneutics and social constructionism correctly understood do not only consider autobiography and narrative, but must take into account corporeal grounds as well.

The myopic lure to self actualization through the prism of America’s promise of the opportunity to “be all that you can be” does not only wreak havoc with the borders and boundaries of socialization; it often raises unreasonable expectations to the insult and detriment of natural and inborn limitations; particularly stressed absent the scaffolding to support the way for achievement in niche abilities (in fact, demonstrating the merit in their store of social capital should sublimation be afforded by boundaries), but stressed by competition, threatened to be left behind, alienated from the social capital of which you are a part, co-modified, plundered, in toxic concern for maximization – money, status, whatever – as opposed to the optimal satisfactions of organic process. No time for sleep where there are no borders. No time to learn and value ordinary, practical skills either. 

Rampant overvaluation of competition is an atavistic fallout of the disorder of modernity, its ruptured borders and bounds. it is a natural fallacy that fails to appreciate the ordinary every day reality of human praxis; that most is about cooperation, and why should it not be? Are you sure that cooperation does not sustain creativity and that the stress of competition might not leave one only more rigid and repetitive, grasping at straws in platonic forms and Cartesian anxiety, certainly no time for logical tautology and the basics upon which achievement depends.

You say to me, “but look at all the amazing things that White men have done in their self actualization. Are you trying to stop them? Absolutely not. We are looking to facilitate achievement while having the more fundamental aspects of socialization (maintaining social boundaries), necessary to sustain organic Being, its meanderings in alternative range of functional autonomy; the necessary learning and instantiation of respect for routine practices; the honesty, reliability, respect and fairness for the various niche contributions upon which the ethnonational, as any society depends. To facilitate by means of the sacralization of our pattern at its best, in honorary commemoration of our forebears, in service of our legacy, for a world that we can feel ok about our children coming into; in reverence to that which is vital to our survival.

Asshole objects that this is complicated, but it is not. “Clunky”, certainly not. The whole point of a quaternary heuristic is to avoid over complication while doing justice to complexity gracefully, flexibly guiding working hypotheses as specificatory structures.

Where is it not important to our European peoples to have socialization/MidtDasein (the delimitation/unionization of social borders and bounds to provide accountability to our social capital, human and pervasive ecology); Being/Dasein (the anti Cartesian turn to organic being); to liberate our quests for Self Actualization? the respect for Routine Practices and learning; observation and reverence for the Sacred, held sacred for its vital importance to our group pattern survival? to understand this as a non-lineal, organic process interactively ensconced in our socialization.

And what an epicurean delight, the use of pleasure indeed to manage the specificatory structures of this hermeneutic process as need be. For there is not only pleasure in self actualization (be it defined as realizing one’s inborn teleological potential/ or achievement that is recognized as outstanding); but there is pleasure in Socialization/MidtDasein (the security of boundaries, important service thereof; accountability assured, alternative range of functional autonomy thereof); Being/Dasein; Routine learning/Sacred reverence.

The White Post Modern hermeneutic turn advances over both Aristotle and Maslow in its pursuit of these concerns by non-linear, interactive, corrective process, seeking optimal need fulfillment and the balance of being, routine/skill cultivation, the sacral and self actualization  in symbiosis with our social systemic homeostasis as the success.

Socialization and its accountability will structure our Augustinian nature in attendance to natural devils and strengthen our compassionate nature to serve our people.

Positive breeding is a fairly complex matter of human ecology and something that tends to happen without any eugenic meddling; anyway, we’re not about to stop people who are doing well from pairing up. For negative eugenics we want to put the breaks on. Yes, people who are not doing well are accountable as well, and should not be a burden, have a bunch of kids that they cannot take care of. But the first motion will be to extend the reasonable measure of help for survival and placement as to where that person might help our group, at least not interfere. Negative eugenics is a contrivance kindred to the shallow manichean trickery of our Middle Eastern enemies; not suitable to the noble Augustinian moral order of our nature. I’m not talking about obvious, extreme cases of genetic defect, making the drooling wheel chair bound a burden on us all. I’m talking about not being shallow and ridiculous.

I am pro-choice for the same reason that I favor the death penalty. You cannot value life so much as to make it unlivable.

And with our Socialization, borders and bounds to our people unionized, we can correct problems in gender relations, make them more fair and enjoyable as well.

Whether a man or woman wants/needs to go up to self actualization, down to Being/Dasein or to focus in the middle in Routine and reverence of the Sacred, we can manage it, accommodate it. The importance of monogamy and marriage will be well institutionalized – sacred and quite possible as an option (none of this natural fallacy crap about its being sheerly unnatural); with help to match people correctly and incentives to make it work. This will increase the incentive for loyalty to our people and take away the draw that the Abrahamic religions have to betray our people. Yes, the traditional gender trajectories and concerns  will be best for most people, but we will facilitate the means by which they can become full human beings, as opposed to rigidly fixed within a concern by mere tradition.

Those who opt out of marriage may have to do without a few of the benefits that married couples have, but provided accountability may be looked upon as adding to our fitness for the increasing natural rigor that they take on; provided that they stay within our group. If they want to mix with other races they will be flirting with ostracism; marriage licenses, birth certificates, citizenship, in a word, will not be granted for clear cases of racial outbreeders.

With the parameters of the group assured, much and as much as possible in the way of human affairs will be allowed to come about, bubble up naturally, without social interference, contrivance or accounts requested.

We will be on the moral high ground having structured the means of group coherence, accountability, correctivity, thus systemic homeostasis, group autonomy, sovereignty in human ecology and warrant in coordinated stewardship of pervasive ecology.

Nationalism for all peoples as a means to secure their species survival, a means to see to the needs of our peoples and coordinate with others will not end conflict within and between nations; but it will practically end the most severe justifications for extreme conflict. 

Be damned their Mulatto supremacism and the ecological systemic runaway of their global panmixia.

With our praxis, The White Class, centered but in coordination with other peoples by mutual nationalist respect, anti-imperialist and anti-supremacist, objective truth inquiries take their proper place as crucial feedback irrespective but nevertheless gauged against the calibration of our true, relative interests; and function with the corretivity of our systemic homeostasis.

To echo the words of the Basque philosopher, Unamuno, those who would do us harm will be “like waves crashing harmlessly against the rocks of our perfect vision” – that is our union of unions, genus and species of European peoples.

Wonderful the day when we literally cannot breed with other peoples (although that is not the only means by which adversaries can challenge our boundaries), but until then there is a modicum of biological arbitrariness to our distinctive speciation; our enemies will try to take advantage of that; and it will cause the assholes among us great Cartesian anxiety, grasping after absolute foundations and “transit” back to their kind; missing the difference that makes a difference here; that in modicum of arbitrariness also holds the opportunity for agency. Whereas we’d be caused and have no choice were their Cartesian anxiety to be satisfied, we have agency and with that the possibility for coherence liberated above the arbitrary tosses of empirical facticity, providing accountability for our genetic capital, correctivity, hence the means of systemic homeostasis, functional autonomy, sovereignty, and warranted assertability.

“Equality/Inequality” is their red cape. We are not the same. With the recognition of niche evolutionary variance within and between species, we see qualitative and largely incommensurate differences, and are not as prone to false comparisons that give way to hubris and the naivete that leaves us vulnerable. If not caught off guard in the complacency of our naïve insult; we are likely to instigate reciprocally escalating diatribe and war for the hubris.

As we have the means of communication now, we do not need to rely on violence to be heard; let alone a program for mass killing; it is impractical for its reflexive effects (a matter of practicality; not coincidentally, whereby Kant put his moral treatise in terms of pragmatics); we are not right wingers, looking to lord ourselves over and exploit others (with “objective” excuses to do so); they have no legitimate grievance with us; we have the moral high ground; we have the means to our end: separatism is the first step, separatism is the ultimate aim, separatism is always possible.

We may begin our unionization from the inside out, with those who seek to curate their DNA kinds, genus and species – a wildly popular activity, by the way – and from there we may coordinate our DNA Nations throughout the world and one day perhaps the universe.

Generations stuck in the old passive, transmissions model of communication. They are still awaiting Moshe Boomer to transmit the unassailable commandments, rather than participating in the social construction of our "salvation", i.e., our survival and furtherance as a genus and species..
You think that I’m not so great? Still looking for Moshe Boomer and his transmissions model of communication to deliver you unassailable commandments? Then you are as obsolete as Moshe Boomer in how you are looking at this. If nothing else, hello!, we have the internet now, we can interact, you can participate in the construction of knowledge; and I welcome your intelligence, corrections and improvements where they might be.
 
What I do not welcome is those who cannot see the obvious and will waste my time trying to take this project backward and down by insisting upon inclusion of Christianity, Jews, Nazi/Hitler redemptionism and Holocaust denial (millions of Jews died and the Nazis had something to do with it. That’s enough); I don’t expect you to feel guilty or be penalized; don’t expect me to feel guilty or be penalized for opposing Hitler’s war mongering supremacist imperialism. And I certainly do not need to be dragged down by idiotic calls for violence as I heard from Magnus the other day (“gas the …”). We have the path and means of expression now, we don’t need idiots taking us down. Nor do I need to be bogged down with reactionary scientistic idiots chasing red capes of the left, and in Cartesian anxiety trying to fix, white knuckle, some unassailable foundations to our race. 
 
We have foundations enough. And we can thank the STEM types for the amazing work that they’ve done in that regard by distinguishing genetic groupings. There will always be need to circle back to refinements of their rigorous empirical inquiries.  But we have warrantably assertable and operationally verifiable “foundation” enough. To use their engineering language in how to look upon the White Class without Cartesian anxiety for its lack of ever-present empirical manifestation, those well established reference points fall into a “black box” that might be referred to at any time. We are sure that our race exists as distinct and eminently worth defending by the unionization of our genus and species. We have enough “foundation” to warrant the calibration of our group, the black box …ongoing feedback and inquiry will remain valuable nevertheless; where we do not yet know, have not articulated certain details, those are “white boxed”, connoting information that must be there but is not yet articulated of The White Class.

Patterns can also be difficult on Cartesian anxiety because they are instantiated in manifest expression intermittently. Of course provoking this Cartesian anxiety is not only the intermittentness of racial/species pattern manifest instantiation, but the fact that liberals and YKW are always looking to note the exceptions to the rule, trying to dissuade your “racist” would-be discriminatory classification on those accounts. 

There is a folk wisdom in counter to this: “just what we need, the nice ones, to open up the gates for the typically bad ones.” However, neither this traditional folk wisdom nor wailing modernist pursuits of unassailable foundation have been a match for the machinery of YKW niche power and influence through academia, media, law and courts, money, religion, international business/NGOs, the military industrial complex and politics. And never mind anyway, they will say, once they’ve inflicted enough mass brown and black biopower against us.

The White Post Modern Turn of the White Class is requisite.

………

Let me place a first comment, as it were.

I can imagine the typical right wing reactionary response, taking issue with my recommendation that we not get caught in the hubris of false comparison, and rather learn to respect qualitative niche evolutionary differences and their incommensurability.

Taken in by the quantitative red cape of equality/inequality as opposed to qualitative sameness and difference. Taken in by the  red caping of “Human Bio-Diversity ” as a lateral, quantitatively comparative matter of “I.Q” (a convenient red cape for Ashkenazi) as opposed to HBD being a pervasive ecological matter of horizontal, qualitatively  incommensurate niche adaptational differences in evolution.

I may be mistaken as dismissing I.Q. tests of general intelligence and that is not the case; obviously these tests can help determine who is going to be better suited to educate for engineering skyscrapers, aircraft, to educate in the medical field, etc. The tests have shown predictive value in economic and other quality of life outcomes particularly in a stable society.

The caveat that it is necessary to respect different niche abilities and not get caught in hubris of one’s superiority across the board by false comparison may be illustrated by the example of the White nerd and his pretty girlfriend. Overly confident in his ability to navigate past the low I.Q. Negro, the White nerd casually and complacently makes his way among them; in an instant he is taken in by the relatively high verbal i.q. of a resentful black (who is contemptuous of the hubris of the White who he perceives as weak and derivative of his evolution, the black believing himself better for some abilities – are you John Colerain, Thelonious Monk, Jimmy Hendrix, Michael Jordon? etc. – abilities that he has that the White may not quite), perhaps resentful of the lifestyle that the White may be leading; he then:

Snatches and runs with the wallet of the White. I’ve actually seen this happen to an Australian tourist in New York City; in a friendly greeting of a black who came up to talk to him.

In another instance, the black’s mental state may be exacerbated by drugs and desperation; and he stabs and kills the White guy as he dares to assert resistance.

Another situation I’ve heard from a White co-worker as happening to him: a couple of blacks have a gun; tie him to a chair in his apartment and make him watch his White girlfriend is raped.

There are the countless instances of black on White murders and rapes to go along with theft and destruction of property and businesses. 

(While Whites in Cartesian industrialization may destroy land in another way, blacks have a way to destroy lands that were once White as well.)

And in recent decades, there has been the phenomenon of black men taking up with and impregnating White women, not almost always White dogs as used to be the case in the rare instance that you saw an interracial pairing.

Now hubris comes into play where the White guy uses his I.Q. and comparatively good life style that results to over estimate his comparative abilities across the board and in all given instances presented against the black. He may underestimate the use of deceptive verbal skills, sensory acuity, strength, quickness, aggression and ability of the black to assert himself in an instant.

Moreover, he may use the logic of his IQ. to rationalize these destructive affronts to him and his ethnic genetic interests and human ecology. “The coal burner is stupid, we are getting rid of her inferior I.Q.” Ignoring the other qualities that she may have, e.g. immunities, strength, beauty, and the supportive role that her position once played in an overall balanced human ecology. In fact, as the perhaps more physical, less cerebral White guy that was once her natural partner in that balanced human ecology is edged out by blacks who are able to assimilate his detail, rationalized, written off as just stupid (no help in that argument against the Jewish forced hiring and “anti-hate” programs); his reason to be loyal and to care vastly diminished where he dies not die off, once a valuable soldier on our side, managing the border, he’s rationalized away by the White nerd in his hubris; his kind more and more like the parasitic Jew in a niche atop a new Brazil, assimilation to the Mulatto jungle below the option for those lower I.Q. types not in line to have their children intermarry with the tribe.

Rationalizing, he is wise to all this; the blacks are no problem; its all the Jews doing… as the Jews avail themselves of every skill and resentment of that hubris that blacks have to destroy the middle and lower class Whites, their businesses and upward mobility in the red caping of the Covid pandemic, to double down in rationalization of human ecological destruction in reaction to the Jewish red caping (e.g., White carbon footprint should be penalized up to and including loss of livelihood, even death as a species), in red caping of human and pervasive ecology.

We should rather help our people within reason, help them find their niche in our service and hold them to account to no bring us down or be gone from our common ethnonational resource. That is, as much as reasonably possible in accordance with our Augustinian nature, allow natural, Augustinian devils to decide which of us live, where we do not die in service against our enemies and their war against us by Manichean deception.

….

This old post of mine in address of Ryan Faulk, a.k.a., “Alternative Hypothesis”, is also relevant in regard to the I.Q. thing. 

I believe the Greeks and Romans (for example) were more inventive than Ryan Faulk is giving them credit for. He is offering specificatory structures (an Alternative Hypothesis) which can work against bad will arguments proffered from the international liberalism of Marxists and Cultural Marxists.

However, that is one of the limitations to the I.Q. and genetics sort of rebuts – the main utility that they have is against bad will and rather stupid arguments.

We are defending our race (genus European) and its species (ethnicities), not I.Q. or even the accomplishments of I.Q. per se. True, the products of our genius are not only an added benefit, but crucial to our survival. However, ethnonationalism protects these differences.

It is primarily stupid and bad will arguments (typically cultural Marxists, projecting their launch into to power, i.e., nepotism and systemic discrimination onto Whites as an argument against White achievement/black non-achievement as opposed to I.Q.) that will need to be defended against when it comes to asserting the value of I.Q. and its necessity to populating functions that require high IQ among our ethnostates; arguments to rebut stupid objections; e.g., if someone were to say that their retarded son should be allowed to engineer a high-rise building.

On the other hand, if a black person, or a Jewish person has a higher I.Q. than your son or your daughter, should you then say that they are a fit replacement, your new child?

This is Luke Ford level absurdity.

It is like a magic trick or a card trick to distract attention from the fact that we are defending species, human ecologies, not a single variable.

Objectivist arguments in lieu of relative racial group interests can disingenuously serve to distract from aspects and doings – other than a blindered, narrow view of merit – that have had Jewish hegemony in niche power and influence as profound ever – a fact they wish to distract from as their qualitative, relative ethnocentric difference is of a different tribe who are largely indifferent where not antagonistic to our group interests.

Naturally we don’t want our positive attributes dragged down, to amplify malfunction, but again, I.Q. rebuts are largely limited to staving-off bad will, typically stupid arguments.

That Faulk is prone to rational blindness in his objectivism is evident in his having sought cooperation with (((Frame Games – who was all on board with the Jewish marketing campaign of controlled right wing opposition – ))) against “the left”, and susceptible to entryism/ infiltration/ subversion as such when he argues that Whites would be better off by shedding some of their low i.q. people and adding some high i.q. non-Whites to our group system.

And you can also see the danger in Faulk’s argument in that he may be isolating one group or area of Europeans; whereas ethnonationalism would serve to protect those distinctions anyway, while not running the risk of throwing under the bus and perhaps even creating antagonism rather than crucial allies among other parts of Europe which may be more a necessary part of our systemic function and survival than he realizes in addition to being perhaps more talented than he realizes.

Finally, the I.Q. and genetics rebut can indeed be used in bad will itself against social justice and to further supremacism, imperialism, exploitation as opposed to ethnonationalism and its coordination. If these arguments are not made judiciously and with the wisdom of ecological thinking (facilitated by ethnonationalism), they can generate unnecessary antagonism within and from without our genus; thus increasing the difficulty of maintaining our group systemic homeostasis, not reducing it.

…..

This issue also goes back to the problem of European human ecology suffering for lack of ecological buffering against non-Europeans; in the case of America for its preponderant North West European demographic; and in Europe, where Nordicism is over-done to the point of throwing Southern Europeans under the African bus and where petty nationalism and imperialism threatens buffering against Asians in the East. We are all under attack as “White.” Our enemies do not make distinctions; our best chances are not in a supremacist ideology that multiplies enemies. Indeed the YKW and their liberal and Marxist trained lackeys have a lot of nerve punishing ordinary, working class Whites for the right wing institution of slavery in America. Finally, presuming that one’s concern is the preservation of a particular European kind, clearly the best means is not to antagonize other Europeans, increase your enemies and reduce your potential allies, but rather the best means to preserve your distinct kind is ethnonationalism and its coordination.

….

A note on “hermeneutics”

I have been criticized in the past for not being clear in what I mean by “hermeneutics.” That criticism has been mostly of bad will, where not outright disingenuous on the part of those who do not want me to be clear because they are anti-White, pro-Nazi/scientism; or against me as the proprietor; or because they have gotten so used to the (((red cape))) of hermeneutics that it has become an integral part of their stage repertoire. 

Whatever their problem, their dismissiveness and lack of participatory corrective demonstrates the lack of good will. Nevertheless, in order to stave off misdirection as it should be understood in White Post Modern terms, I’ll endeavor to define hermeneutics; so far a bit more complete than clear and concise a definition, but intelligible enough for those of good will to make sense. I will figure out later how to fit this in the body of  the post as need be:

Hermeneutics:

The world is both underdetermined by presenting facts and confusing in the arbitrariness of what facticity there is, and thus we require hermeneutics in order to make sense.

Hermeneutics shuns the pretense of pure Cartesian inquiry and embraces the interactively engaged, circulating capacity of inquiry that language in its means of narrative and conceptualization affords for the sake of rigor and imagination as needed.

And this distinctly human capacity is needed in order to achieve a liberation from mere, arbitrary facticity, as Heidegger would say.

With this capacity of semi-transcendence, as it were, an individual and group narrative is able to amend, reframe, place into a new, better or more accurate context; and with that, interactive challenges, set backs, obstructions, confusions, tangles, dilemmas, paradoxes, strange and pernicious charmed loops, etc. can be amended and transcended; hence affording coherence, accountability, agency, correctability, thus systemic homeostasis, a decent alternative range of functional autonomy and sovereignty (which Heidegger might call “authenticity”).

Hermeneutics provides capacity to transcend bad moments, episodes, relationships, flaws in ourselves, flaws in others, bad people altogether among our kind, so that we don’t become disillusioned, skeptical of it all, and rather might connect with our pattern at its ideal best.

This non-Cartesian, circulating process of inquiry is necessary for its narrative capacity to connect with history, its perspectives and to capture the systemic breadth of group bounds, human ecology, social capital and accountability thereof, in the interest of species and individual.

Hermeneutics is provides a liberation from mere facticity and a corrective to scientism (bad science and bad application of science). It is not anti-science; in fact, it is as necessary to the rigor of warranted assertability through operational verifiability as it is to the inspiration, perspective and comprehension of imagination.

Additional remarks:

The White Class is not a divider of ethnonationalism but a unifier of it – the white class. It refers to the class of classes, i.e., the genus European and the classes of species – ethnonationalism of the various European nationalities.

It is these borders of our people which are the most firm rule, particularly of the genus, European.  The borders are not up for vote; the democratic function is not a clunky, quantifiable function of voting, but a negotiation between those having demonstrated themselves to be of sound understanding and judgement of the requirements of ethnonationalism. While certain functions will need to be national, it is probable that around a 60/40 rule of private ownership is necessary. Rules within, particularly for now, shall remain a more flexible matter for the ethnicities to manage; respecting free enterprise inasmuch as it functions symbiotically with the human ecology. True to Bateson’s concept of ‘paradigmatic conservatism”, national borders will have hard bounds, while individual liberties within will be fairly free. Guilds or whatever else designating the niche differences should be allowed to emerge a bit more organically than concern of the borders.

 
Key concept (Courtesy of Bowery).
 
As an independent nation, we establish what is a matter of our consent. For example, we say that a European woman is free to leave and have children with Nigerians but she will forfeit her citizenship with us as a result. Neither she nor “Conops” have the right to impose their prerogative or mixed child upon our human ecology against our consent – they do not have our consent and we would not be “cruelly” throwing her out of the nation, as Conops disingenuously tried to say; rather she would be appraised of her option beforehand and would be electing to forfeit her citizenship. If Conops, the woman or the like, try to impose outside relations and mixed kinds upon us, violating our freedom from association, they are trying to force us into involuntary contract and occupy a would-be supremacist, slave master position with regard to us by definition, forcing us into involuntary contract: this supremacist and slave master position is evil, by definition (abrogating human respect and agentive reasoning). We have the right to defend ourselves against the evil of Conops, the woman or anyone else who attempts to impose this involuntary contract upon us.
Continue Reading TowardTheoryof White(European)Separatism, EthnoNationalism, DNANations

Trance Adventures in White Separatism Part 2, From Newark to Europe

  • Post author:
  • Post category:Central

…he (speaking of the original trance inductor) either wanted this outcome – the same as I might – or I’ve done it despite hypnotic suggestion/coercion.

Note: this post as a work in progress.

…..

I remember its being the day after Frank Zappa died (4 Dec. 1993), ironically, the night before that having sent a prank phone call to my second hypnotist, mockingly playing a recording of Frank Zappa’s “Central Scrutinizer”, an episode that I discussed in part One of Trance adventures. That is, I remember this being the first time that I was thrown off the U. Mass. campus, a prohibition of two years by the campus police.

As I played “The Central Scrutinizer” I was called by a NYC police captain who told me that they had a trap on my phone, that Naomi did not want to press charges, she just wanted me to stop prank calling her.

The next day I was called by U. Mass campus police to come in and discuss the matter of my campus activities with the police captain. I must say that he seemed to be somewhat sympathetic, tried to be a bit helpful even. He explained that I was being banned from campus by combination of the frizzy haired mediocrity that I accidentally harassed more than I really felt interested to do (because I didn’t realize in two instances that this was not a different interracial couple); and for my prolific postings of “White Women For Sale!” throughout the campus and town. The police captain tried to persuade me that there were different ways to protest other than confronting and harassing people (i.e., interracial couples). I responded that this was a relatively safe way to make a point where my voice was otherwise completely blocked, and the conventional academic route through an advanced degree was not practically available to my concerns. With my documented banishment in hand, I was calmly resigned to the two year ban as a prompt to look elsewhere for a base of operations.

Nevertheless, fate had me malinger and cause mischief in Amherst for another year and a half (discussed in part one), until time came for the big trance at the Al-Anon meeting in July of 1995. Fate called me to Europe, to try to reconnect with my homelands and people.

That's me, top left, with Magda Fuhrman, center, her friend Helen, top right and Magda's cousin, bottom left, in late September 1996 on Helska peninsula, Poland - where I had no rational reason to go, but was prompted there by the recognition that I had seen Magda ("not even the rain has hands so small") in trance; and recognized her belatedly in another trance on 9-6-96 after having met her in Salerno. So there I was, having chased her, "god" calling me to Poland (she thought I was crazy).

I’ve briefly mentioned another trance that I fell into spontaneously, years before, five years before the grand trance at the Alanon meeting in Amherst, Mass. With Don, the German American Harvard trained psychologist whose services I sought out to help me work through Naomi’s intervention, I fell into trance. Besides seeing that I’d encounter Ann Richards, who would pleasantly respond, Yheaas! to my identifying her as “silver foot in the mouth” on a walking bridge in Venice; and, being prompted to its humor by his good sense thereof, as I would compare the prices in my future adventure through Italy, a Salerno supermarket in particular, where “Succo di Banana” (banana juice) would be only 1,500 lire. And there, in Salerno, I would meet Magda Fuhrman, who would query me with stern skepticism, “you said something about a house?” Don would laugh as I imitated her impatient voice in response to my trying to impress her with my resources – speaking of a couple houses that my father owned on Newark’s North 11th Street.

One of the houses was that of my late grandmother at 457, and the other was one that my father picked up the mortgage on a block away, just about next to Bloomfield Ave. That would be where I would land in 1996 after finally having to give up any hopes of using my Amherst ties as a vehicle to further academic pursuit. 

Newark’s North Ward was one of a few once apparently vibrant Italian American communities along with Iron Bound and The First Ward – which was a classic example of what E. Michael Jones talked about, as the powers that be visited “urban renewal” upon the Catholic communities in order to break them up by bringing in blacks from the south, providing high rise housing projects for them (incubators) and scattering the Catholic allegiances, diffusing them into the suburbs where they could not effectively organize as ethnogroups against the establishment.

It’s hard to exaggerate how bad most of Newark became as a result of this policy. As my father would drive me around the city as a kid, vast swathes of it looked like America had just lost WWII. My father would tell me what a beautiful city that Newark was and he seemed oblivious to what it was now: A blighted post industrial nightmare of burned down buildings, lots filled with garbage, dirty concrete pavement everywhere. The North Ward, which bordered on Bloomfield, was not quite as bad – still mostly Italian, but there was nothing inspiring, maybe a grudging ethnic Italian market or overly well lit cafe to hint pathetically at the culture once there. Sad place.

It wasn’t always sad, as I was reminded by a teller at the bank on the corner of Bloomfield Ave and North 11th. “It used to be the place to be. Not just a bedroom community and easy commute to New York City, but having many things going in its own right.” That bank was the place where I waited on line, observing and remarking from a passive distance to clearly indicate that I was no threat, “is that an Italian girl with a nigger baby? What a shame.” But we’re getting ahead of ourselves. A little background is in order first.

My sister Cara, myself, brothers Tom and Larry

I was born in the North Ward in September 1961, but my parents moved me and my three older siblings to Montclair in time for Christmas. Montclair is a green suburb of New York, with a broad demographic from lower middle class white neighborhoods, some poor black areas as well, but also some of the most wealthy estates in America as you made you way up the Watchung Mountains overlooking New York City. While I grew up in a lower middle class White area and went through primary school experiencing only a sprinkling of blacks, it was enough to know that you didn’t want anything to do with them as a sane White person. The Montclair Board of Education’s decision to bus White kids to the black part of town for “school integration” in 1971 put an end to any doubt about that. It was like being sent to school in some kind of planet of the apes, some kind of wild monkey cage. And alas, Newark was still there; with our visits to our grandmother every Sunday on North 11th street serving a reminder enough of what loomed.

One block away from North 11the Street was a Newark City Stadium. That was where the National Guard parked its armored vehicles when L.B.J. called in the troops to quash the black riots in the summer of 1967. Police had gotten rough with a black taxi cab driver. 

Black riots would erupt in Newark again in April 1968, when news came over that Martin Luther King had been shot. I found the disruption of my cartoons for the announcement to be annoying, especially with the announcer saying “I repeat, Dr. Martin Luther King is dead” four or five times, as if I was supposed to care. I may not have found him as directly offensive as Malcom X saying that “the black man would rule”, but it was already clear to me in my childhood that King’s “dream” of coming together with blacks would be a nightmare for me and the people I cared for.

Had I been a teenager at that time, going through a rebellious stage where Jimi Hendrix music seemed to channel my masculine rage and creative vision, I may have been at Newark Symphony Hall, where Hendrix played an abbreviated show amidst the riots the day after King was shot. Legend has it that Hendrix sullen performance “for a friend” moved the audience and even police to tears. But I would eventually be brought back to the hard line through interactive experience that something like music, no matter how good, was not worth my women, people, way of life.

Anyway, after I was (understandably) asked to leave by Jim and there was no hope left in squeezing anything more from Amherst, I threw caution to the wind and went to Italy for six months in my first effort to escape from America. Having exhausted my means, I had to come back to the U.S. by February 1996. I took up my father’s offer for me to stay in the three family house that he’d bought on North 11th, down the block from my grandmother’s old house.  So there I was, back in Newark.

My father wanted to see if I would be an industrious asset, if I would just start cleaning, painting and spiffing the place up.  But that wasn’t going to happen. My mind could never be devoted to practical matters of making anything work in America, keeping the S.S. Mulatto Supremacist functioning and on course for the singular and massive anti-racist atrocity it was perpetrating.

I had this overwhelming priority of mindset particularly after my experiences of America, its academic trajectory and by contrast just having just spent six months in Italy; knowing from that it was sill possible to live in a nation predominated by its native European concerns; that mattered infinitely to me.

The sequence of events is a little bit murky after all these years, but I’ve already discussed it in the first trance thread; after the episode when my father detonated my primordial rage with his stupid incitement – he was going to teach me about “accountability” ..and with that the chthonic element that he kicked to reaction decided to tell him what it thought about my brother’s kids – Despite having made myself radioactive, I had to go from Amherst to his house on the Jersey shore in order to fetch my Passport. 

When I arrived, my sister-in-law was there with her son and she scurried out to the car with him and locked the doors while my father was repeating “call the police” like a mantra, as he held my Passport in his hand. I snatched it from him and told him to shut up; as if I was going to risk my well being in order to enact some sort of revenge against my brother’s little shits.

Anyway, I was now as set as I was going to be; and within days I would be headed for Italy on time for the feast of August 5th in my grandfather’s village, Calabritto. “Mother of the mist” is the name of the mountain adjacent to Calabritto, as it peaks through the clouds with a small church atop; where every August 5th a procession carries the virgin mother up to /or down from the mountaintop church depending where it had been left the prior year.

I was going there, of course, with the idea of finding an Italian wife to live, gain citizenship and have kids with; to do my part in rekindling Italy’s birth rate, which at that time was among the lowest in the world; an alarming fact, if you care about the people, as I did and when compared to the exponential birthrates of sub-Saharan Africa.

Calabritto, Caposele, Materdomini, August, 1995

It is difficult to recall the first trance experience that I’d have gone into at this point – difficult to recall more for the psychological embarrassment than chronology, although that’s not entirely clear either; but the chronology is not really important and I think that I’ve more or less got it, so..

What brought on embarrassing trance expressions, when they were embarrassing, was not knowing my weaknesses and limitations; as if I was supposed to be a superman of liberal virtue.

Indeed, not knowing that I could not perhaps withstand as much stress and alcohol consumption as others was part of what would push me over the threshold of normalcy into quasi trance states which moved into psychological states beyond my full awareness and control. I made a practice of making myself comfortable in a town that I arrived in, having some beers in Salerno and then in Calabritto when I arrived there a day or two later; even though drinking beer is not exactly the Italian custom, it provided a comfortable familiarity to a different situation for me. 

So, when I wasn’t a bit drunk, I’d be hung over and stressed, pressed by the messianic service of post hypnotic suggestion to follow my fate.

As I walked on the one main street of Materdomini a few boys whisked by me on a scooter, shouting at me “for shame!” … I didn’t know what they were talking about. … 

I had drunk plenty of Peroni (beer) for the feast of August 5th in Calabritto; stayed as long as I could in my cousin Emilia’s quasi extra apartment on the old market square – an apartment, by the way, which should belong to my family as my father had paid off the leans and debts amassed by his grandfather, my great-grandfather, Arcangelo Corbo; while Emelia (who had lived rent free with my grandmother for years at 457 North 11th in Newark) finagled the paperwork to her ownership – but anyway, that was all the more reason for her to promote a discouraging angle against me getting situated in Calabritto.

So I took recourse with cousins from my grandmother’s side of the family in Caposele, figuring that I might network for a wife through them. But instead that is where I would go into a rather stigmatizing trance in my stressed, alcohol hazed machismo over the matter. After that mess, I’d get a room at hotel “Sete Bello”, owned by another cousin up the road in Materdomini. And that is where I’d be prompted that there was something I should be “for shame” about …as the trance episode had been suppressed from what minimal awareness I had when I was under.

I must say that I was going about my hunt for a wife all the wrong way –  if the goal was acquiring a good wife, that is. As a man, you should be going about your business making your life better and preparing the financial grounds for family formation; then keep your eyes open and be ready for the good opportunities that present, as they will on occasion. 

But not being satisfied with my own orientation and understanding of the anti-White political circumstances, nor with others understanding of it, the search for a wife became blurred with politicking, and this translated to a rather dyslexic reaction to women, where I would shy away from the good choices, not trusting in the circumstances surrounding them, seeing them as insufficient, like good berths on a sinking ship, while I desperately tried to gain agreement with women more broadly and arbitrarily. But it is also true that I had a physical concept of a woman that I wanted, not altogether common, though it does exist among Italians. 

F**K everyone who says that a woman is not supposed to look like this.

I wanted to test women a bit; I wanted the women least disposed (you can say genetically as well, then), least disposed to go with blacks…and so protect my legacy from that as well.

So, between following what I perceived to be my fate, and holding out for the possibility that I would be able to be very selective in the kind of woman I took, even physically, I was narrowing my chances and passing up some really good wife material.

And I brought those motives and that mindset into a talk with Guidannine and Geraldine at their home in Caposele. Hence, there are a few prefigurative ideas of mine parleyed in post hypnotic suggestion which manifest trance with them. Firstly, there was the idea that I’d brought from my very first trance – the one with Wally Weikert way back in 1985. That is, being a quintessential continental European, I/we were part of an ecological buffering of Europe from Africans and other non-Europeans (“you don’t like niggers”).

Adding more of a personal touch to this positioning, I brought with me a yearning for a very under represented and under appreciated kind of female attractiveness in America. Too much of the cute victim look, small nose, straight up and down features, blonde hair and big boobs. While the cutesy, victim look could be offset some by another look, the “official” look in these North West European peoples – i.e., the long nose and serious adult woman look – I had a yearning for something more radical in female attractiveness, and I’d seen it in some Italian woman. It struck me as meaningful in the sense that Africans could have this radicalness as well, and the dynamism of it (e.g., long extended chins, big noses that weren’t always the ugly, flaring nostril type) could explain some of the attraction of miscegenators, as nature abhors a vacuum in the ecological scheme of things. Thus, I had this idea that there needed to be more of this radical Italian look to offset what might otherwise be an unbuffered, unmediated difference in Africans, making them more intriguingly exotic than they need to be.

I suppose that I was looking for something like the female counterpart to my grandfather.

I know, I know, to some of you it sounds crazy, but there are women with rough features, big noses and such, who can be very attractive ... to me, anyway.

I was also equipped with the idea that Italy had the lowest birthrate in the world and needed help; particularly as the population of Nigeria was tripling. Further, that Italians had nothing to do with slavery and therefore were in better position to throw off guilt trips about it and speak more candidly about niggers.

We were in an awkward position as Italians in America. White enough to take blame from the PC battalions for White privilege and misdeeds, but not exactly White enough to have an easy inside track to what White privilege there might actually be. Thus, I sought to protect my Italian relatives and to so my part in the population dearth and ecological buffering.

It was a few days after the August 5th feast, and quite frankly, as with most of my trances, a combination of being hung-over and emotionally stressed precipitated the trance that I was about to fall under. But to begin, I was trying to explain over the language gap my concerns, what I was looking for and why. I told Guidannine and Geraldine that I was looking for a woman with a tough look, who looked like a buffalo with a big nose. I’d actually seen a woman like this fleetingly, on a Vespa down a furtive alley; but I never saw her again. She was a rare type and nobody knew who she might be. The closest thing otherwise was one of my Mattia cousins, but she was spoken for and not the least bit friendly besides. Then I began voicing my concern for Geraldine’s young daughters, Guidanna and Annalisa. The stress of that is probably where I started to go under trance.

Not that I would care to specify otherwise, but the Barbara Streisand type nose can raise eyebrows in our circles; thus, I will specify that the woman on thee left is not family. Annalisa is the dark-haired girl on the right in this video.

As my memory of it came back to me after this trance episode, I recall…

Though I might not rather recall, a thing that I went into under trance as I had in my grad class, and I think that I’d go into one or two more times in trance episodes yet to come…

The only saving grace is that I was indeed, in trance and not in control. Not that by legitimate traditional standards that makes it acceptable or even forgivable. An adult man is supposed to have control over his faculties, and I can understand that standard; may not be forgiving myself of someone else… but as it was myself and I truly was not in control, I have no choice but to forgive myself; and note that after one or two more episodes like this, it would never happen again. I healed myself and was no longer susceptible in decades that followed.

It was the Casale’s that my brother and I had stayed with way back in the summer of 1972, when my parents tried to give us some of our European culture following my bussing to a largely black school on the other side of town for Montclair’s policy of “integration” back in 1971. 

Now it was the summer of 1995, and I was back, desperate to reconnect with my Italian roots after a brief taste in a(n encouraged) vacation with my father in 1992. I came to Vincenzo (my grandmother’s nephew), his wife Guidanine, Gerardo and his wife, Geraldine in August 1995, intent on riding the credibility of my recent, even if failed post graduate experience in the Caposele/ Materdomini and Calabritto area. Along with getting myself situated and hopefully a wife, I wanted to protect them from what I experienced as the genetic horror going on in America. To give them the real dope on what was going on there and some means to keep their kids on good course. Since 1972, Geraldine had married Gerardo and had three kids, a a nice boy, Vincenzo and two delightful girls, Guidana and Analisa. In this episode, I found myself talking to their grandmother, Guidanine and Gerardo’s wife, Geraldine, who informed me that she was related to me by way of Maria Giuseppa Cecere as well.

My grandmother's mother, Maria Giusseppa Cecere, lived to be 107, from 1860 - 1967.

I bought Geraldine’s son primer books on Aristotle and Kant, to give him philosophical grounding to pursue a solid direction. And I would try to segue awkwardly into a stigmatic non sequitur to try to explain to Geraldine and Gudianine the horrors of having blacks imposed on us as European peoples, that its not like what they might see on TV. But before imploring them not to allow Guidana and Analisa to slide into this black hole, I went into my description of what kind of woman I sought and why; and my presented warrant, a corny chest thumping bit about how I was the re-manifestation of my great grandfather, Archangelo, a patriarchal authority figure. In the beginnings of a trance state, the stress of this fraudulent muster of supernatural authority sent me into an altered state for real, but not one with much of the redeeming, verifiable psychic phenomenon of other trances. Pretty much only the stigma. One fortunate thing for me was that Geraldine was a good person, ready to suspend disbelief in my having a bonfide message.

Sensing that perhaps, I was banging on my chest like an idiot going on about how I was manifesting the spirit of my great grandfather, Arcangelo, a patriarch, demanding the wife of my choosing and obedience from the local Italian girls, insisting that her girls Analisa and Guidana must not adopt the nigger loving ways of American girls.  …and with the stress of overstressing my capacity for dominance and self assertion, I blacked out more deeply for a moment, same as when I went into trance in the grad school class, wavering in and out of consciousness…

I come out of blacked-out consciousness to the prompt of Guidanine moaning in pity, I’ve got my legs spread and I’m rubbing my member through my pants (at least I didn’t have them down!) and squealing teasingly with a giddy smile on my face. Again, fortunately, Geraldine was cool about it (didn’t run screaming for the police the way that Trudy did in grad class). I regained consciousness enough to stop myself from this of course shameful involuntary act which represented nothing of my deliberate self. However, the awareness put me into a modality where I felt that to explain myself more and call for empathy. So in the anxiety and ambiguity of this passive aggressive state I wavered from hard assertion to whimpering and crying confessions.

Having fessed to them some fairly perverted sexual thoughts in my life (never homo, by the way) and experiments with drugs, including psychedelics (never opiates or much speed, never really over-indulging in anything except alcohol at times), I will spare myself further confession to you, my reader, as fessing up to this stuff to my old world Italian cousins and aunts is bad enough. When I entered back into more consciousness, I believe that my hope was to explain to them that there were reasons for my difficulties and experimentations but that I was harmless, not going to commend drugs or wayward sexuality to the children of Caposele/Calabritto. Of course, you ask, why the confession at all. Well, these trance states are like being a cornered animal in an utterly ambiguous mental state; one feels sussed-out to the umpteenth degree and is just desperate to purge oneself of any potential guilt accusation and to find the way to innocence. It’s a form of tortured confession, if you will. While I managed to achieve pity from Guidanine, as opposed to her calling the police, and Geraldine was kind enough to appreciate some of the paranormal aspects coming through me, neither was I making a good case for the kind of guy you’d like to have in your village.

This was an awkward place to stop, but as you see, it is heavy going; and there is much more to come in these trance adventures, which require my placing incidents in their correct time, not always easy to sort out and then reflection upon them in observation of significant implications.

However, after a break to attend to other matters and the holidays, I shall be resuming this post.

My brother Tom and I, visiting Calabritto, summer of 1972; seated in the stairwell by cousin Emilia and Angelina's house; with their dog, Fido; I wasn't happy with the bowl cut, but what could I do.
Old Calabritto, months before the 1980 earthquake which destroyed it.

So, for the first week of August 1995, I was treated by cousins in Caposele like family and given a place to stay, I guess for about two weeks in this sort of guest carriage house over their garage;  my brother and I had stayed with the Casales in the summer of 1972 (these villages were in a different world then, let me tell you). Though my father and grandmother had accommodated them in the US when their family was there, I still did not want to overstay my welcome, especially as I was an adult now with a free will to party, i.e., drink a little hard than was the local norm. Speaking of that, Peroni beer has a property about it that went straight to the center of my brain, quite powerfully, and produced quite a hangover as well. Like I said, this stress apparently precipitated some of the trance states.

The Piazza in rebuilt Calabrittio, with a monument to the 1980 earthquake in the foreground and the mountain, "mother of the mist", where Saint Mary is carried to and fro each August 5th.
View from cousin Justine's bar. My garage apartment was right next door.

Imbibe I did, like an American, not like an Italian, relaxing as I might in the feast of The Mother of the Mist over in the adjacent village of Calabritto, my grandfather’s village.  Cousin Justine, a bar owner, was ok with it; and nobody was bothered much, only annoyed, and put off understandably, if I could not remember their names. A tactless drunken fool, I could not remember the name of a girl that I was trying to chat-up, even though she’d already told me twice. Worse, I could not remember the names of adult cousins (in fairness the two brothers looked similar) as I chatted on separate occasions with them and some towns bureaucrats who seemed ready to put some weight behind my claim to family property. By the end of the second episode, the cousin embarrassed me, asking if I remembered his name now, making the whole idea of my familiarity and family ties to the area seem tenuous and crass.

Once I had left my cousin’s carriage house in Caposele, My cousin Emilia did let me stay in her, well, kind of a garage with a bed in it, right on the old market of Calabritto. Again I was treated with reciprocity like family to begin with; and rightfully so, as Emilia had not only lived rent free with my grandmother in the US for years, but had managed to usurp a property claim to an apartment that should have gone to my father, who had paid of the debts of his grandfather, Arcangelo, once the largest property owner in Calabritto, who lost it all for a drinking and gambling habit. So, when Emilia got wind that I was interested in the righteousness of my family claim to an apartment in Calabritto, I was subtly told that she and her sister Angelina would be needing this garage in a few days. I’d have to look into a cousin’s hotel in Materdomini.

A frazzled outlook, too late to re-connect with community support that I sought beyond intense nuclear family provocation and incitement…

A view of Materdomini
Owner of Hotel Sete Bello, my grandmother's nephew, Cheech Malanga, an oldest son, inheritence served him over siblings.

And so I took recourse to the third village of the area, Materdomini, where just about everyone was a cousin of some sort, same as with Caposele and Calabritto. My grandmother’s nephew Chich Malanga owned a hotel there, Sete Bello, were I could stay at an affordable rate. This imperfect answer to getting a toe hold proved less secure than I thought when I emerged from the hotel on one of the first mornings there to hear some kids wizzing by on a Vespa, saying to me, “for shame!” …so, gossip had gotten around quickly. I tried to talk to one of the none too abundant pretty girls that I saw on the street and was greeted in Italian with “not a chance.” The proprietor of the Sete Bello restaurant that evening insisted that a young Spanish cook be introduced to me to establish their anti-racist bonafides. 

You see, my father’s fantastic, volcanic temper tantrums and histrionics, flamboyant assertion and commands void explanation, even ability to communicate a coherent idea, even if he wanted to, was a largely a form of display and entertainment to break up the boredom and monotony of the village life back in the day… but back in the day, I would have been ensconced among people closely related and sympathetic, helping to pick up the pieces of a shattered mind; so it would not have been the handicap that it was in America – where there is nobody to help, but rather a few hundred million competitors out for their own selves.

My frazzled outlook was too late to re-connect with community support that I sought beyond intense nuclear family provocation and incitement…

Materdomini location; it's Saint Gerardo is the patron saint of fertility.

I was getting the conscious impression now that if I were to pursue my own interests, fertility or otherwise, that I would have to pursue it, along with my racial politicking in the broader Italia. I already knew that I wanted to get back to Salerno and parts further south, Sicilia in particular.

Salerno was always like a home base for me in Italy; even more than Calabritto, because it was ensconced in my native area, yet a big enough city, providing anonymity from the nasty gossip of family villages; While the hostel where I would stay comported the challenges of international travelers that I was unfortunately used to having to take-on (people more familiar with the issues, whether they were liberal or not) along with the occasional normalizing, corrective effects of their varied perspectives. On this particular trip, August 1995, I had not stayed long in Salerno to begin, but fled there after the alienating experiences in Calabritto chased me on my fated way.

As a step in our trip to Calabritto back in 1972, my brother and I had stayed a night with a cousin in Salerno, not at a hostel, but as independent adult, hosteling became normal accommodation.

And so I was back to the Salerno hostel, my most homey base of operations of sorts; from there I would follow the whims of my romantic fancy, encouraged as it were by an undeniable sense of fate beyond trance suggestion, in foretold destiny. I will do my best to recall the sequence, but there was a bit of back and forth and exact chronology can be hard to sort, especially when it is not important; but I took a broad line of travel from August 1995 in Salerno to Sicily, viz., the Lipari Islands, Taormina, Catania, Agrigento, Canicatti, Selinunte, Sciacca, Mazara del Vallo, Trapani, Egadi islands, Palermo (esp. Mondello area), Corleone (and adjacent villages), Bagheria and then back to Catania with junkets to Aci Creale and Aci Costello (I’d already been to Siracusa back in 1993 as I’d previously described in my reverse “Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy experience; where I would find profundity at the end of my vast excursion, rather than trivial familiarity). Finally, I came back to Salerno from where I’d get a train to Paris in late January 1996, as I had to get a plane back to the U.S. from there.

Although the relevant  incidents, stories and implications of these events are not hard to recall, the chronology, for all the to-and-fro, can be hard to recall, and so I will block-out the locations and fill in the events as I can place them. Again, starting from my urgent return to my family’s Italian villages given the stigmatic reaction to my father’s incitement (discussed in the first part of trance adventures) that finally drove me to the almost unthinkable abandonment of America and its dream for great personal success. But though I fled to my ancient familial homes of Calabritto, Caposele, Materdomini, I was not not to be so quickly unburdened of a life time of PC stress; my strategy of trying to get comfortable upon arrival in a town or village with a beer Peroni only exacerbated my stress and proneness to the stigmatic trance states that I’d brought with me …  it contributed to stigmatizing lapses in memory for names that I should recall, cousins, girls that I was trying meet … the good will of the town bureaucrat who endorsed my right to an apartment as he sat with me and a cousin (whose name I could not remember), among others; one young woman sitting at a table with me at the Calabritto village feast recognizing the significance of my great grandmother, Maria Giuseppe Cecere age 107, saying to me, “you must stay.”  But all for naught, as people shied-away from me, alerting me that gossip was stigmatizing me; on a subsequent day “for shame!” decried two strange village boys of Materdomini who road by me in a scooter, apparently having gotten gossiping wind of my trance state. So I was headed back to Salerno –

Salerno, August 1995

Salerno became for me a comfortable home base in Italy, because it is big enough a city, away from family ties and deadly gossip. The hostel there was a life stream of normalcy, as tourists, mostly young, educated people, would be passing through, with interesting discussion to share.

While I have come to find that life with the benefit of internet outweighs its drawbacks more then 90%, there was one this one thing in particular that was wonderful about not having the internet when you were trying to travel and immerse yourself in a new place in order to escape from where you’d been, as I sought to escape from America; you’d have to go out of your way to know what is going on in America. You were in a different world with no internet to bring you back into immediate contact with America or anywhere you’d just as soon leave behind.

And if anywhere in the world I was akin to a native host to visitors from other parts of the world, taking a stand against liberal globalization, it was here in Salerno. But despite this comfort, Salerno was not free from the black plague and western liberal influence imposed itself, thus any attempt of intervention on my part was futile.

I brought my aesthetic arguments with me from the earliest part of life in response to an insane world, as aesthetics and the beauty of women, our women, were sensible braille if not empirical rational by which to make sense and provoke shared perception, if not grounds for an especially good argument. By the same token, it was not all lighthearted, as I liked to shock the Nordic liberal Hegelian self transcendence with some Italian Hegelian self assertion.

Thus, I would tease interlocutors that the only aesthetic advantage that blacks have over Whites as a rule, is a chin that extends out gracefully. I played down the fact that their big noses (not always the piggish, fairing nostril kind) and dynamic features can sometimes out-do Italians, played it down because Italians do capture these aesthetic delights in a way not appreciated enough by the aesthetics promoted of White America — blond hair, straight up and down facial structure, small nose, big boobs, fairly tall. Nature abhorring a void, and the genetic buffering of Italian aesthetics under represented in The US, blacks may come to seem more exotic and alluring for their difference from its preponderant Nordic White population. And so in my home base now, I’d judiciously spice these observations into conversation. Then if I felt an interlocutor was susceptible and able to handle a small shock, I would add that I do not care for the brillo hair; that I do not like the color of their skin, it is the same color as shit. Shocked, well, while there is nothing in fact so shocking as a naked White woman – I mean that’s naked – dignity brought down to natural sublimation; one cannot say the same thing about the bubble butted all too symmetrical monkey that is a naked black women. I did not know that a monkey was supposed to wear clothes. What is special? But in fact, if you get to know blacks in pattern, they do not just look like monkeys, they act like monkeys. etc.

But as with the irony of a curse, this issue would follow and confront me. On the main street of Salerno during a quite afternoon, when almost all people were in their homes for the afternoon meal and nap, a lone black sat on a bench in the center way. And it wasn’t my imagination this extended chin of the African; two teenage Italian girls stood, ogling his profile; not quite ready to approach him, I tried to intervene, to say something mean about blacks to discourage them; they barely paid any attention to me while they had been riveted to the African’s profile.

I don’t recall if it was this same time in Salerno, because Salerno has always been a hub for me in the several times that I’ve been to Italy, but it may as well have been the same visit where not even a block away from the previously mentioned episode, next to where you get the bus to Calabritto, I see a gorgeous blond woman arm and arm with a coal black. I mean, beautiful woman, not tawdry either, by all outward appearance healthy and normal, fine manner of dress, no tattoos, the kind that any White guy would be more than proud to call his wife. Obviously she was not Italian but from somewhere in Northern Europe.

At any rate, at least I can say that in this case, I was not alone in taking demonstrable issue with the coal burner as an Italian guy insisted on sitting provocatively near by her and staring at her, trying to get her to make eye contact and gain attention to his derision; while his Italian girlfriend was upset and tried to pull him away; not a bad looking girl, not as hot as the blond, but that’s not the issue; her boyfriend was right and I joined in his protest with a few choice words, which, as in the last incident, were simply ignored by the coal burners. They were unperturbed. The Italian girl was  eventually able to pull her boyfriend away from his protest once I joined in; at least I’d given him a sense of support, that he was not alone. Small consolation for the destruction of 40,000 years of evolution; and for what in exchange? A monkey wife and a planet of the apes sci-fi night mare existence? More destruction of 40,000 years of evolution. No, these coal burners are not innocent and needless to say we are not being “enriched.”

Lipari Islands August/September 1995

The Lipari islands are a set of a few volcanic islands to the north of Sicily’s northeast coast. I was interested to visit given my cousin’s advice that these were beautiful places, that he’d spent his honeymoon there and in Catania. Thus equipped with the bravado of my status as American in its newly minted unipolar empire and my trance mandate to assert the justice of racial discrimination, particularly against blacks, I set upon the hostel of Lipari to assert the message.

I came into Sicily through the ghastly sight of Messina by night, dark, sooted by diesel, everything closed and shuttered with metal security shutters, no people on the streets, a deadness speaking only as an epitaph of the place where the black plague introduced its dead crew and vector to Europe in October 1347. From this ancient portal of the black plague, I ferried to the Lipari islands, where I would continue my effort to forewarn native Europeans of the next black plague.

The hostel itself was a large medieval structure; despite being well attended by international hostellers, I was practically the only one occupying a bed in a large dorm room of what must have been a hundred bunk beds. There was a court yard where hostellers would gather in the evenings to talk, share stories of their adventures, a bit of guitar playing, that sort of thing.

This port area serves as Lipari's main square.. The hostel was up in the castle fortification.

The first few nights were an accompaniment of the usual sorts of hostellers, some Italians, of course, an ordinary but amiable French girl (I think, can’t quite recall) who spoke perfect English, a reasonable young German guy, a young Irish guy, very friendly but unabashed, leaning decidedly my way politically, two Irish girls, not beauties but good nature showing through despite a feistiness, a bawdiness, a radiantly healthy, beautiful young woman from Denmark, a decent woman from I don’t recall which country, long blondish hair, had a slight accent but aimed to please, a frumpy but respectable young au pair from England and a young Italian guy, good natured while he enjoyed trying to be a challenge; and he had a strange “Italian” friend, who, though light skinned and not speaking any English, nor having the nigger lips or the worst kind of nigger nose, looked like a nigger indeed; even his friend remarked, “is a Nijer with White skin.” Never mind, not much to say besides a bit of uncomfortable ambience to that. Besides the proprietors, a gnarly and unattractive middle aged Italian man and wife, these were the main cast of characters for the time that I spent there.

During the first night the amiable French girl brought forth an enthusiastic profusion of travel advice about the islands: Lipari island, with its medieval structure4s and cobblestone main square on the port, understandably most popular; Stromboli, a literal volcano, which you can climb in an afternoon to gaze into the wonders of its lava display, “the greatest experience that I ever had;” Panarea, a smaller island where all the jet-setters go; and finally, Filicudi, the smallest, most removed and wildest island, for nature lovers.

The second night, all in the courtyard could hear her whimpering and crying, sobbing from her room for minutes on end, something terrible must have happened. The German guy learned that when she was queried, it turns out that someone had spilled shampoo in her open luggage. He commented, what to say to her? “well, wash it and”… and what could you do but laugh, comedy being someone else’s “tragedy” and all.

Her advice was hyperbole as well. On the third evening, another German guy returned utterly exhausted, having made the hike up and down Stromboli volcano through the cold rain; not witnessing anything at all worth it to him. So, he saved me that trouble, anyway, but not the disappointment of Panarea, the “jet setters” island, which I would treat myself to for my 34th birthday – hopefully meet a hot Italian chick looking for an upwardly mobile Italian American.

The boater’s club on this not particularly beautiful island was ok, but not boasting great luxury, nor bedecked with jet-setters; rather a straggle of families having dinner and after they left, two or three waitresses, two Italian girls, not ugly but nothing special and a large black girl, of course brimming with confidence as they always inexplicably are. I could tell that she viewed me as an Italian boy tied to his mommas apron strings, as I didn’t fancy making the move on her bubble butted swarth. They quietly, disappointedly brought my bottles of red wine through the night, as the planned celebration of my upward mobility mutated into a tranquil but solemn reconciliation with reality until the ferry would arrive in the morning to take me and my hangover back to Lipari.

I can’t really say Lipari proper was disappointing though, with its intriguing medieval charm; and the hostellers were fun, too. With my mandate by post hypnotic suggestion, I took every opportunity to tell them that they should not accept blacks into their European countries. The Irish guy understood, generously referring to me as “Alfonso”, as I wanted to be called by grandfather’s name, in mafia-chic. The beautiful woman from Denmark sat comfortably at my table when she heard me talking that way. The spirited young Italian guy pointed at me and shouted loudly, “you are a racist!” While it was sporting of him and he accepted that I was unperturbed by this moniker. The feisty Irish girls took in stride my banter as rough sport. The girl from I don’t recall where sat by understandingly, while the au pair was apparently the one dissenter, sitting apart by herself with a worried look on her face as I spoke of my disgust that we’d now gotten to a stage in America where human women were dating blacks.

Typically as drunkenness would, I was wavering into semi-trance state. I recalled something from the Amherst trance. That a girl that I met on the train near Messina had been shown me as part of the wonder wall against Africa that I had to that I was destined to meet and had to meet again. I could tell that she liked me, obviously enough to give me the name for the hotel that she was staying at in Palermo. And she was beautiful except for one not so small detail. She had nigger lips; not slightly, but the whole protruding mouth area thing with big thick lips that only stopped short of the full baboon’s ass look. It is a testimony to my beholdenness to a sense of trance destiny, that I ignored my revulsion and set about an arduous junket to Palermo into order to rendezvous with this nigger lipped destiny of my wonder wall. I had my custom made suit, looked sharp but for one thing – traveled wearing cheap backpack; hardly the complementary attaché.

Arriving in Palermo by night was ghoulish; dark, dead and spooky like some horror movie from the 1930’s, Frankenstein or The Mummy, actually, as there was an ancient Egyptianness about it. Of course that was only intriguing to me, and a welcome contrast to the plastic lobby of the hotel, where I waited for nigger lips.

As I was wont to do in these trance circumstances, I instructed the hotel clerk what my mission was about and to send me on my way after I met the girl. After some hours, she returned to the hotel from wherever she was, with a bouquet of flowers. Some guy didn’t mind her nigger lips; but anyway, I stupidly tried for about forty minutes or so to arrange a date with her; my appeal finally ending with her declining my overture, saying “Io stressato” (I am stressed by this). The annoyed hotel clerk wryly watched me leave. With nowhere to stay and no train til morning, I slept on bench in the Palermo train station; that might have been more frightening were it not right next to a police booth. And come the morning, I took the train all the way back for Lipari on the other side of Sicily. An extravagant and exhausting junket this was, outside of any organic motive, as only beholdenness to trance suggestion could prompt in me. I mean, all this to pursue a nigger lipped girl, who I did not honestly like?

I got back to Lipari with a story to embellish anyway.

I was ready to overcompensate with some brazen confidence, as I was in top form in these days, having worked my way back to my high school weight just before leaving Amherst. It was a confirming moment, at the beach with the fellow racialist Irish guy, who had no problem calling me Alfonso (I liked the so goofy that its cool mafioso name of my grandfather); and a couple of nice, normal (English? don’t remember) girls who called me Alfonso timid deference when I took my shirt off; and eagerly engaged me with their experience of worried revulsion over their experience of a visit to Lost Angeles – “it’s just too much!”

The social and moral disorder of late modernity was not my private issue and it was flattering to be looked upon as someone to appeal to for remedy of some kind. But what could I do, really; these were the days before the internet and I had just experienced full force the futility of taking on America’s bad influence through the university systems and hence, the futility of transforming its political system. What to do? Get drunk and bellow my trance mandate back at the hostel.

The Irish girls were randy and as eager to support my Italian nationalism as I was to support their Irish nationalism. They were amused by my pursuit of the girl I’d met on the train and my determination to get Italian women pregnant in order to help Italy with its problem of having the lowest birthrate among the world’s nations. The chided me. “So why are you not with this girl in Palermo?” I fired back. I began caressing her on the very train. She loved it. And when we arrived in Palermo, I fucked her and I got her pregnant! With twins, I am sure. The more amiable won laughed kindly, no, you would not know so soon if she were pregnant. The other was more feisty, though in good sport. I told her this girl loved being fucked by me. She said incredulously, “you? You didn’t get her pregnant, you didn’t fuck her, you’re an arsehole!” 

What could I do but laugh and fire back again: Oh yes I did, and when I fucked her, her eyes were half closed in ecstasy! The amiable one laughed, the feisty one repeated, “you didn’t fuck her, you didn’t caress her, you’re an arsehole! We laughed again and I began slipping into semi trance state. I am frankly glad that I cannot remember much of what I said beyond the gist of the kind of thing I would have said. First of all, in addition to being obnoxiously chauvinistic for Italians (the wonder wall of Europe) I would have been abusive to women I did not think were pretty, calling them ugly and so on. All that, of course, while brazenly expressing my disdain for niggers. Typically enough, the English nanny girl sat aside, worried. The Irish guy told her that she could come to Ireland and cook for him.

Well then, with dinner finished, I made my way to my room to fetch what I needed to go out on the Lipari plaza. And I was confronted with a sick irony, as I always seemed to be. A slender and fresh faced young Italian girl was with a nigger, both equipped with camping gear, they were obviously hosteling together. I knew better than to confront them directly, that would be futile. I made my way out to the plaza to to take in the night ambience. sure enough, I see these two sitting near some monument across the way. This really – really enraged me. She was pretty, like ideal pretty; any red blooded White guy would love to have a wife or girlfriend that looked like her.

Where did she get the idea and the temerity to do this? I remember a time not that long before – as recently as the 70’s and early half of the 80’s – when you wouldn’t see this pairing. I was determined to make it known to this girl, somehow, that she was destroying the most valuable things in the world.

At first I scowled at them to get their attention, but they didn’t seem perturbed. Then I tried scratching my sides in monkey gestures. The nigger pointed at me like I was the fool, and maybe it was not the best angle. So I bore down more seriously, looking at her, I made a cradling gesture with my arms, as if I had her future mixed baby in my arms, and then I slammed the imaginary baby to the ground and stepped on hits head. And then I mouthed words as if she could hear, as it was not hard to imagine that what I was saying was neither approving nor prone to forgiveness – indeed she gave me a look of obedient respect, but it did not mean much, as I could not hope to change much. I went back to the hostel with my wrecked mood,, drunk, moving in and out of semi-trance. When I asked the proprietor woman for my room key, I gave her the trance suggestion that I’d gotten from Amherst; which was to remind me of business Ihad to take care of in France.

The next morning when I went to leave the key at the desk and sign up for another night, her husband said to me angrily, “Mr., I need your bed tonight.” Odd, there were a hundred empty beds in my dorm room. He said, “there is a class of school kids coming in, I need your bed, tonight.” I caught the drift that he’d gotten wind of some of my trance induced unpleasantries, and was kicking me out. There was a consolation, however. His wife looked at me with a calm smile, apparently understanding that I was in trance and that I was concerned to defend Italians and all Europe. She reminded me indeed, with a calm, approving, friendly smile, “you have some matters to attend to in France?”

People apparently understood from my trances that some sort of plan of trance suggestion was being enacted through me, but it was protracted, an overall plan indeed, as I would not be going to France for another four months and there would be several strange adventures before that.

Toarmina, September 1995

I made my way to the beautiful tourist city of Toarmina, with its ancient Greek amphitheater ensconced in a florid atmosphere beneath the volcano Mount Etna on one side and peaked view of the Mediterranean on the other side. I was eager to don my custom made three piece suit to project authority on its streets, not just any Italian, but an Italian American, wielding its experience and power.

Though affordable, I had a private room which was considerable step up from a hostel bunk. My room had a balcony that opened out to a view of the main walking street below and Mount Etna in the distance above, shrouded in florid vegetation. The shops below were luxuriantly equipped with my favorite intoxicant, the Belgian beer Chimay blue – brewed by Trappist monks, their pent up sublimation seemingly fulminated through its leavening properties, the closest thing to a cocaine high that isn’t cocaine.

I got a bottle of my drug at a small shop with a curtain over its door; the clerk was a tallish blond, not exactly ugly, not beautiful either, with whom I found mutual irritation.  Me, because I resented the impositions of blond and tall as a standard of any kind in Italy, and her because she took me for a conceited American man with money, reading a cliché of power unbridled by wisdom.

As I walked up and down the main promenade of course my fate would have me encounter a pretty woman with some very apish looking black. For god sake, this is Italy – Sicily! The men are supposed to be ultra tough and mean, not put up with anything remotely like this. The mafia! people are supposed to be afraid of disloyalty. I tried my hand at asserting myself, with an angle that I’d tried unsuccessfully a few years before against an interracial couple in Maratea Italy, when I was visiting with my father (English woman and her black husband on vacation there). 

Flashback fall 1993, Maratea, Italy, visiting a resort with my father – a resort we were at because my alcoholic mom had been snookered into a time-share scheme. Anyway, I had my custom made suit, still had hopes at the time of a PhD., and was trying to swagger the crazy Italian thing of my trance deal (“in exchange for an education”); so when I saw this English tourist lady walking by the pool with her black husband and daughter, along with another English couple and their daughter; I remarked (In Italian), “cock big enough.” The two girls were saddened but days later when the couples and their children were leaving the said some mocking thing toward me (couldn’t hear it, probably “cock small enough?” or the like) and were laughing. The point being that they weren’t hurt by what I said; and I should not have repeated that tact.

With the head of the theater production I tried another angle of discussing this new phenomenon of interracial dating, which barely happened before 1985. I was with my father and I told her that if they allowed blacks to take Italian woman I would come and bomb this place! My father’s cybernetic response for this grandiosity on my part was to put his fingers together in a tedious way and say to the girl that he doesn’t like it when the White girls get together with the black guys. Needless to say, this was futile. Oh, the days before internet were such a lonely wilderness. As I think I said before, but will repeat in case I have not, my father was asked by my professor to take me on this trip to clam me down, if he could about the interracial stuff and to ease my mind about financial worries – he bellowed, “I’ll give you $800 a month for the rest of your life! It wsa stupid of me, but it infuriated me that he considered his money the only thing that mattered with all that I felt up against, with all the White hating people were doing. 

And with that, the way that he would pontificate his American story ignorance as authoritative rebuke of my racialism. “When Italy invaded the Somali and there was a lot of fraternizing!”  … a famous Jewish lawyer once brought me before the Supreme Court of The United States to testify befre labor union discrimination to say, “I just want the same rights as everyone!” He’s “teaching” me this after I’ve been leaning the egregious nuances of Lockeatine rights. He’s making me furious nad I could not keep my tact well enough to not berate him and ruin my chances for $800K a month commencing then and there. Ever since his looks given to me as a small child, amblazened with hatred from the cthonic depths, I could d neve trust him and never avoid automatic retaliation, fighitng back of sorts, whenever he would assert himself (which, when it came to anything but money was usually a bit stupid, to be honest).

Anyway, so I didn’t quite learn from that experience and when I saw the interracial couple in Toarmina, I growled at them in the first passing. A street artist smiled and winked at me. That was about all there was in notice and bother about this abomination – not enough of a statement. And so the next time I passed them, I said (in Italian), “cock big enough?” She only laughed and grabbed him for a hug. The blond girl from the shop happened to be out there at the moment and leered at my crotch saying, “piccolo cazzo.” Now I’m really pissed. Minutes later I would pull open the curtain of her shop where she was huddled a bit worried, her partner apparently more conscientious then her. 

But what more could I do than present as threatening, potentially dangerous. That’s not much and really, while the girl had her carefree laugh, this is is a serious matter, the demographic, genetic and behavioral clashes are catastrophic, and particularly wrangling when Jews, whose part I was not fully prepared to take on, even if aware, preferring the less stigmatic angle rather to take on their weaponized liberals.

So that didn’t work; and while I’d find more effective remarks to intervene with interracial couples on the street (which I’ll discuss later), I was left with no avenue to autonomy from liberalism than to buy a couple more Chimays, enough to make me sick; prostrate on my bed, oblivious to the fact that I’d left my door open for anyone in the hotel to see me in that condition. Embarrassing, but nobody said anything. No matter, I’d be off to Catania, a big city where I couldn’t be trapped in a fish bowl with poisonous gossip.

Catania, September/October 1995

And so I went back to Catania, which would become for me a home base of sorts, within Sicily. I’d been there briefly, with exuberance of a deep cultural connection back in 1993 when I travelled to Italy with my father. The city resonates with me somehow.

I flashed back to the moment that I first came into Catania (staying for four days in 1993) at night, driving through this, yet another ghastly Gothic nightmare of a city by night, and loving it..I was in Europe…a Europe that I could embrace, I did not have to hear the American bullocks about Sicilians being this or that…while I drove drunk out of my mind, a car marked “Vigilanti” drove up beside me and I shouted unafraid, big smile on my face, “Catania Bella!” …I was so happy that I was utterly unafraid despite driving drunk; still driving beside me, they caught my drift, shouted – asked me cheerfully where I was going and escorting me safe to Piazza Duomo where my penzione would be.

Piazzo Duomo, Catania

I took a “penzione” (cheap hotel) on Piazza Domo. With my first steps onto the plaza would try my hand at flirting with the girls attending the ice cream and espresso bar. One was a raven haired beauty, elegantly dressed but not speaking any English. I gave myself no chance – even if I was dressed the part in my three piece suit, I knew I was nowhere near being ready to back it up. The other was a beauty as well, but had this high cheekbone look, that to me, rightly or wrongly, felt like underlying African symmetry, even though her skin was white, her hair a limp reddish brown. With my phobia she wasn’t quite what I was looking for even if friendly, ready to play along with my flirting and speaking some English – some: “managia!” her frustration as I didn’t understand the Italian word for “closed” when I asked if Club Banacher was open this evening.

Although I would eventually find my natural anti-circadian rhythm, i.e, my mediterranean genetic proclivity to sleep in the afternoon during pranza time, that would be years off. Therefore, I had to bide my time in the afternoons in the park, trying to catch up on my reading (William James at that time, Pragmatism and The Meaning of Truth). 

Catania's central park - beautiful

It was quite near this spot that a trance premonition from Amherst came to pass. An Italian boy was getting fresh with one of the Italian school girls entering the park, “seniorina, avera pantaloni nienta!” (miss, you do not have panties on). I had uttered these words to the Jewish incest victim during the Amherst trance. I was eager to be out and about in Catania in the evening, remembering the time in 1993, when like a school of tropical fish, the most subtle beauties fulminated at a festival gathering off the main drag that led from Duomo to the park. That experience of a collection of subtle beauties was never repeated, though I would move through the cafe’s and bars hoping to spot the ideal Italian wife. Instead, of course, I would up getting drunk, solo, on Chimay, capping my evening with a bit more of it in the park, near a monument which I’d also foretold in the Amherst trance. It was fraught with right wing graffiti. One remark said, “Auschwitz Lives.” That surprised me as an American, and still having hope that an alliance could be formed with Jews against blacks, I remembered the tears of my Amherst trance, intermittently singing Wonderwall, as I told how I’d scribble out the words and leave instead my jacket at the base of the monument, “nigger out!” 

I also attempted to recapture the magic of my first visit to mafia discotech Banacher in nearby Aci Costello, also no-avail fishing after a school of fish that weren’t quite there anymore. I did happen to see Maria (was her name), the pretty but not my type girl from the ice cream/espresso bar on Piazza Duomo; and she was delighted to see me though amidsts friends of her own, “rigarda!” The other big disco in the area, “Maclntosh” was nearly empty, and worse, was playing videos of black American d.j.’s spinning records at George Washington University! I’d be back to Catania and Banacher to fish after the initial magic, but for now, it seemed best to pursue adventure elsewhere in Sicilia.

Agrigento, October/November 1995

Agrigento, an ancient city with Greek ruins in testimony to its challenge and fall, for a time, to Islamic incursion, was a must-see in my wonderwall destiny tour. At noon everyday, the overwhelmingly loud sounds of church bells left no doubt that Islam no longer reigned here – the wonderwall holds (by this Christian religion, for now).

I was given my own small, cedar wooded room with but one tiny window on the top floor of a convenient hotel,. The room was the size of a jail cell but I felt secure in my privacy and holed up there for a month. Though addled by wine (and hangovers) much of the time and tormented by my experience in America, I was determined to do my part to promote Italy’s fending-off Africanization. 

Having finally gotten used to napping during the afternoons, along with everyone else, I would make my way on to the streets, viz. the main street of Agrigento during the evening. I would ogle the women I passed-by and poke around the local shops, coming to one, a wine shop titled with my family name. I went in and talked to the proprietor in pursuit of genealogical information. The middle aged man, bald, humble but in no way offensive looking warmed-up to my earnest concern for our name and its history. I was surprised to find this name in Sicily, as my family is from Campania. He told me that all Corbo’s come from Canicatti (a city to the northeast of Agrigento), that there were two brothers there, and one went up north to Regio nel’Emilia (I wonder now, as there is reason to guess that a great, great, great grandfather of mine may have made his way from Regio nel’Emilia to Calabritto during the late 1600s – an issue for anther time, complicated for the fact that line might account for my tiny trace (2.58%) Jewish ancestry.

Mr. Corbo handed me a free bottle of red win and kissed me on both cheeks Italian style as I parted with his acquaintance. In subsequent evenings I popped-in and began testing how he’d receive my racial politics, floating skepticism of immigration from the “big people” of the north and of more dire concern, the potential deluge by an exploding African population. I talked about my experience of the nature of blacks and asked why a firm stance could not be established against African immigration. Mr. Corbo gave a surprisingly good answer – “it’s the regligion.”

In my wine addled days to come, I seethed in anger that anyone or anything could our people, our sublime women to risk – just one for me. I would stupidly leer if I saw a half way decent one passing by on the evening walks from the main street to a side walk way where couples walked together and I stupidly intruded by myself, humming the sounds of the Cranberry’s “Zombie”, its sounds having a profound resonance to me – while some took note of this weird solo guy and his yearning ditty. But to my addled mind, I was not upsetting the apple cart, instead stewing over an Italian priest I’d seen on television, discussing immigration, and saying, “what’s wrong with darkening our skins.” To me, I was with them, hoping to find a woman for me, true, but just one. 

As with all of Italy, the blacks that you saw were straight out of Africa and not integrated into Italian life, as well they should not be. That does not mean they did not have their drives. Corresponding to one of my hypotheses that qualitative distinction in women is susceptible to the black hole of miscegenation, I noticed that some Africans were alerting each other to the most qualitatively beautiful Sicilian woman that I saw in my whole time in Agrigento. The horror that these apes should think they have any such hope in prerogative.

I found my way to the church the next day, to try to talk with the priest, to update him on philosophy. I mean what would Giambattista Vico say? Well, I suppose that “anti-racism  is Cartesian, it is not innocent, it is prejudice, it is hurting and it is killing people.” The priest thought with a smile that I was denouncing racism in my poor Italian. I corrected him. No! Anti-racism is not innocent, niggers are destruction! He begged off in a mild panic, “mi dispiace’ , and scurried away. Between that and my other addled antics, word was apparently getting around that I was a bit awkward here. The next evening a teenage boy apprehended me and with some of his friends pushed me against a wall. I did not understand. He pointed to his eyes and then pointed to a young girl who I’d made uncomfortable by staring at her. I would see Mr. Corbo a short while after and he cringed at the sight of me.

But still there was some appreciation of where I was coming from. Some young right wing guys set up a card table to take political ballot signatures and I handed them a note saying that I love Italy and do not recommend Africans. My hand was shaken vigorously. Later at night I went into a western style bar, western style in that it was showing MTV videos on a big screen. Some girl fawned retardedly as the Michal Jackson / Lisa Marie Pressley video came on. A young Italian boy handled it perfectly, staring at her with a smile on his face, not needing to say, “what an idiot!” The place was owned by one of the few Arabs around, and I slipped into trance with him at the bar, saying, “this is not Akragas (Arab name for Agrigento) anymore, you are going to give me as sign as to whose side you’re on, Italy or Africa.” He was moved near to tears by the recognition of a profound state. And when some wayward mixed black walked in the next day, the Arab held his lighter to light the cigarette for the nig an extra long time, to let me know where his support was.

Addled, at times hung over and frustrated by all of this, I tried my hand at asserting myself, pulling rank at an African standing near the entrance of my hotel. I made a disparaging remark as I walked past the nigger; he remarked back defiantly as I passed by. I walked back ot him and pointed my finger in his face. He grabbed my arm and pulled it down. I pointed in his face again, and he pulled my arm down again. Best to leave it with a nasty remark; but the truth is, the nigger has won the gesture of assertion. Their evolution makes them good at self assertion – hyper assertive, even – so, Whitey better be prepared when attempting to assert himself with niggers.

I made my way to shake the hands of  the proprietors of my hotel, who had been patient and cool with me, understood that I was benevolent toward Italy and trying to work through a political message. One was a tough middle aged buy whose baldness only made him seem more tough. He was a bit cool, but had given me some slack in case I was more important than he realized, like the son of an important guy who needed a mental rest. The other guy was older, an understanding type. But whatever the case, the cooler one had apparently heard enough gossip and had given me enough slack already, eight dollars a night in a really nice room. I was getting the hint that it was time to move on from Agrigento.

Oh, one more thing perhaps made the locals want to ease me away. One older guy that I talked to was perhaps a bit too empathetic with me and spilled some beans that could’ve been dangerous for him to divulge. After saying how blacks were not good for “the quiet life” (being “quiet” was seen as a virtue by the kid in Lipari, too), he told me that he’d been a taxi cab driver in New York City and “came back a man after shooting a nigger who gave him a hard time in his cab.”

Canicatti

I was not going to sojourn westward without first investigating Mr. Corbo’s assertion that Canicatti was the aboriginal point of my Corbo family, two brothers from there, one going north to Regio  nel’ Emilia. I wasn’t able to find much beyond the obvious. There were a number of Corbo’s in the phone book. Like any of these places, and any place in the world, I suppose, cooperation was not going to be forthcoming for a young man looking for connection, especially female connection. When I asked one guy for directions to the discotech called “Academia”, he gave me directions in the opposite direction. When I got there, the place was empty except for a few guys. I was able to speak to them in English. They asked me what I was doing there, because Corbo is a common name here? Yes. But nothing much more than to possibly check with the priest who looked after the archives.

I did that, next day. A little boy showed me the way; I’ll be darned if this priest didn’t seem like a rabbi with his long beard and room overflowing with dusty antiques and volumes of books covering the walls, stacked up to the ceiling and piled up on the floor. With a circulating gesture of his hand the ancient sage was ready to believe that I could be related to the people of Canicatti but with the language barrier, there wasn’t much to be gleaned from this visit.

About the neatest thing about it was the feeling that I had ascending the steep hilled street leading up to his house. I noticed something about my evolution: how adapted that I was for this hilly terrain, how easy it was for me to walk up and down these hills keeping my balance. I have big feet, short legs with thick thighs, and a skinny torso, perfect for maintaining balance on these steep inclines.

But Canicatti was practically dead. Nothing happening and not much hope of finding anything revealing about my family history. No place where I wanted to linger. It’s no wonder that they’re offering to sell houses and apartments there for one Euro just to try to repopulate the place.

Sciacca, November 1995

Well, the whole reason for traipsing around Sicily, other than the allure of skinny, raven-haired beauties with arduous facial structures… was the intrigue of mystery and hint of danger in the background of its oblique confrontation of reality. With that, how could I resist trying to rub elbows with the native culture of a place named SCIACCA.

Playing hooky from the mainstream, as I was, there was little chance of unfolding this mystery. I did see one beautiful, impeccably well dressed, and impeccably out-of my reach woman tending to her baby in a stroller; a precious thing, given our low birth-rate. But I had to find my way down to the unmanicured, on the port, in order to have human connection.

Sciacca is a fishing village, of course; and there was a make shift bar – with an ice cream counter, lol – set-up in what must have been a storage area on the beach: anything but beautiful, but that was part of its charm. It was about function, like the gruff fisherman who gathered there in the morning – to drink beer! Now that was something that I could relate to, connection with the priority of functionality, the non-snobbery which would admit to adventures through beer in the morning, as any mental tasks for the day were already well understood, not requiring any subtle mental agility. Indulge in the radicalness that this ordinary position ironically affords, to come into the day with primordial drunkenness. I could relate. I was a pirate of life.

Rather than cool, hidden and mysterious, however, the atmosphere was a bit casual, revealing and funny. The owner of the bar and ice cream dive was a youngish guy who’d moved back to the old world from Brooklyn, New York. His equally young but lumbering cousin had followed him there from Brooklyn and was dispensing the ice cream.

I told the owner of my passionate concern that Italy defend itself against African incursions. He straightened up and looked off into the distance with the assurance of one who understood. It was clear that he understood perfectly; and he created an atmosphere for me of colleague and friendly fellow traveler among the middle aged and old fishermen getting drunk on beer in the three or four mornings that I was there. Even though I was accepted, I tried to speak Italian.

Especially as hard as the beer was hitting me, however, I couldn’t quite manage to say, as I should: “Vorrei un gelato al cioccolato.”

The cousin helped me, in a way that still tickles my funny, as he said in a thick Brooklyn accent, “you want CHOAWKLIT”?

Funny, as I attempted to go native with a guy who was also a boat blown back to native shore from the harrows of Africanization. Indeed, that is where the Brooklyn accent is a comedic veneer upon the tragic fact. The owner indicated to me that a part of the reason that this man, in the prime working years of his life, was scooping ice cream on the shores of Sciacca, was to get away from niggers; as anyone with any sense would, as anyone who has experienced certain parts of Brooklyn would have experienced.

[I need to relate an analogy to the funny Brooklyn accent thing from the old 1960’s sit-com, “F Troop.” The situation of the comedy was dealings between U.S. soldiers of the 1880s and Hekawi Indians. Anyway, the chief described how the Hekawi got their name – chasing a herd of buffalo through the dust they’d kicked-up until finally the whole tribe accidentally fell over a cliff in pursuit of the buffalo herd that had also fallen over. Arising through the death and trauma of the fall, the great chief rose and asked, “we-artheheck ah we?” – get it, yuk, yuk? ‘we’re (not where, for the accent) the heck ah we?” in a Brooklyn accent. An Indian is not supposed to have a Brooklyn accent; its funny, don’t care if it is a joke that doesn’t travel well].

Where the heck was I? By the third or fourth day finding myself awkwardly about the only one there drinking after a point and with no really connections and reason to stay, seeing that it was time to move to the next point of intrigue.

Selinunte, November 1995

While the Greek ruins of Selinunte are among the best preserved, I have to admit that desert-like topography and the equally deserted lack of human hub-bub in surrounds did not render the proposed inspiration for me. Even so, a force of historical greatness speaks, even if muted and lacking in color and human animation.

It was November, and I stayed there for about a week in a camping ground, thinking that just my sleeping bag and my hammock would keep my comfortable and warm at night. After all, this is about as south as Europe gets, the very southern coast of Sicily. Wrong. on the third night it was raining and cold; the campground owner had the sense and decency to let me stay inside a camper that he had on the grounds.

I ran into a pretty Anglo-Australian girl waiting for the bus at the ruins; she was complaining about the Italians at the hostel she was staying at, saying that they were trying to cheat her. I tried to encourage her that the Italians were basically good people and had to be a bit scrappy, de-fanged as they were for their role as defenders of Europe. The beauty of our women, for example, an under appreciated buffer against African exoticness. By the way, you’re very cute too (she was, I was flirting with her); and she apparently liked my flirting, and let me believe that she was available. This provided an embarrassing moment as her boyfriend arrived subsequently. He was a diminutive, nerdy but decent Anglo-Australian, nobody I’d want to hurt; but he shared the kind of absurd Australian chauvinism that I would come to find among travelers. At least we could agree on the significance of one thing, not many blacks there, “that’s another thing they we got right”, he said.

There was one and only one bar in a picturesque setting in a beach enclave where I’d go at night. The proprietor was half Sicilian and half English and she looked very much like Jane Seymore; i.e., she was gorgeous. Even though she was out of my league, I spent as much time as I could pretty much the only customer there at her bar,  talking with her. She told me that she spent most of her younger days in Australia but didn’t like it because it was to anti-social – you go to your house, I go to mine – whereas she fell in love with the communitarianism of this Sicilian enclave.

Despite her beauty and having found her place, she was depressed. For the fact that she identified with Tina Turner and would play her, along with music from the 1950s that included a lot of Motown music, it was clear that my hints at racial politics were not going to endear me to her. Even though I did perhaps not have enough Italian verve to be more than a commercial interlocutor, she was too old to be serious about anyway. Her (not so great looking) daughter would come in from time to time with her boyfriend, to lighten the atmosphere by playing some A.C.D.C., snapping along in her sunglasses to “Hells-Bells.” But it did not help me break through the gloom of mother’s depression. She was down on relationships. The only clue I got: she was married to a Swiss man and lived in Switzerland. “We go into a marriage with expectations; and then there are surprises.”

A young snappy German motorcycle tourist popped by one evening and chided me – you come here every night just for that (to talk to the Jane Seymore look-alike)? I took it in grace, I suppose he was right. He took occasion to speak of his politics, which did seam fairly reasonable in fact.

He said that most people are normal, they want to stay where they come from, implying that the causes of immigration are not necessarily in the immigrants in any inherently opportunistic way. 

He said he liked Italy because it maintained a sense of history (I could agree) while France, he not even go there, “they are nationalists!” … I couldn’t quite agree with nationalism being France’s problem. Africanization, yes, that’s a problem.

I mentioned to him that I liked Italian woman and that I was here in part to find an Italian wife. I took some exception when he warned me about how some German guys come down here, falling for a lovely young 18 year old girl and they come back two years later and its not the same woman – big and fat, everywhere, fat ass, fat tits. Stereotype though that may be, and though most Italians are thin (certainly thinner than Americans) and often stay that way, I would have to admit that there was a grain of truth to what he’d said as I would see this in some female cousins in Calabritto, who I’d see two years later.

Still, I proffered my theory that Italians were a neglected demographic buffer in America. He understood that America, its Whites, anyway, were predominantly German. He reserved agreement as to whether they did not interface with blacks as well as could be, as well as Italian evolution, for example, which has been an ecological hypothesis of mine.

I told him that I was here to escape America. He remarked with moderate disgust, “it’s so big!”

I said Blacks are taking over. And then a foreboding came over him as if a cold wave dashing years of careful liberal cultivated thought … psychically, I could see his right arm going up in a stiff arm salute and his dread for the involuntariness of his arm betraying him, going up in a stiff arm salute. He didn’t actually put up his arm, of course, but it was there in his dread. lol.

We talked more, his liberalism persevering. “These damn German tourists go to Poland and take prostitutes, doing to these Polish girls things they’d never think of doing to a German woman. I didn’t say anything about that but remarked that I found Germans and Germany quite pleasant – Neuschwanstein Castle – amazing! and bratwurst and beer, I love it! He said, “yes, beer. Germany might not have much in the way of culture but our beer is magnificent.” The only foreign beer we drink is Pilsner Urquell, because that is the original Pilsner. I agreed that is good beer, but added that I like the Belgian beer, Chimay. “Ugh!”  he said, “I can’t even drink it.” … and now, in recent years, neither can I, because drinking it has literally nearly killed me that last few times I drank it. I guess they’ve got some Monsanto Franken-Wheat in the brew now, which causes an allergic reaction in me, near completely cutting off my capacity to breathe. But I digress. 

He was one of the many who come to mind when I speak of my experience of German people in my travels, as good people, not represented by the American Nazis of so-called White Nationalism.

Mazara del Vallo, November 1995

Next I moved on to Mazara del Vallo. So, I’m getting to the extremities of south-western Sicily. There was nowhere reasonable to stay for a hotel, so I found an unused horse stable to crash by night. If that sounds a bit risky to you, you’re right. I did this for consecutive nights, maybe less than a week; and I noticed a revolver on the ground in the stable; by the last night, it was missing. Not sure if I was discovered, but I did have occasion to talk to the son of the owner and I tried my racial politics on him. Young guy, he asked me if I was an “Aryan” and of course I said “no”, but I caught the drift that was not OK with him, that he associated racialism of this anti-African kind with northern Europeans.  He introduced me to a light-skinned, mild manner black worker of his premises the next time that I we met in the morning: ugh, I have to shake hands and be nice, and wonder how much these Mr. Nice guys will interfere with Italy being able to assert its difference.

But I emerged from my nightly sleeps on the ground in a horse stable and put on my three piece custom made suite to appear as if I’d just emerged from a five star hotel. Then, with not much to do, of course, I’d get sloshed on red wine. This can be rather a trip as the winos of the world might tell you, and a rather enjoyable trip to take by day, especially as I found the most amazing church, its alter shrouded by the stone carved image of leopard skin parchment and scrolls – huge, exquisitely tasteful ornamentation. I was playing hooky from the world, alone to enjoy this wonderous church, drunk on wine by day.

By night there were people strolling by the shore walk, with vendors, some from other countries. A bit seedy. I remember a polish couple selling a deck of cards decorated by a white woman ogling a black guy with a dick hanging down below his knees.

But there was another aspect of surprisingly superior culture – to me, anyway. The town had a small piazza and in the evenings people would gather there and talk. I thought this was great. I would just observe them in my wine state, but it was all so civilized; seemed to me the way some evening hours should be spent among the community. The only other place I’d seen this kind of communal discussion going on was in synagogue when I chauffeured Itzhak Perlman from New York to a New Jersey synagogue. I must say, I did notice that some of these Italians looked a bit Jewish; my prejudice against Jews though extant at the time, was tempered with respect for practices of theirs which we should emulate, such that even if there were blood mixture, that perhaps it was contributing to what I saw as good, intellectual practice.

Still, this is Sicily, and I must have cut a suspicious figure, walking around in my three piece custom made suit. So when I emerged from one of the primitive squat and go latrines about four policemen were there asking for my documents. The first one that I presented was actually my grandfather’s passport which I showed him exactly hoping for the effect that it would get from the police officer, the bellowing laugh at the most primitive Italian face, but nothing but Italian face that you could ever see, mi nonno (grandfather). So, it worked. The interrogation lasted spanned less than a minute and a few questions.

The passport photo of my grandfather, Alfonso Corbo, which I showed the Sicilian policemen, inducing a bellowing laugh of recognition from him.

Still, truth be known, I was never going to go native in a place like this, too American, too half Polish, not rich enough to broach the difference nor having enough of the language. Nothing to do but remain a tourist and move on to the next place, testing my anti-American racial politics where I might.

Marsala, November 1995

From its name, Marsala, imposed over its once Roman name, “Li Libya” – toward Libya, as a Roman Stronghold against the Carthaginians, Marsala was a disappointment for an empty promise of history, its vestiges not just destroyed by the Muslim invasions which imposed the name, “Marsala”, tantalizing us only by the name of a famous dish (veal Marsala), Marsala was a disappointment for what looked to be the extremity of exoticness: rather a dreary modern city, built upon the ruins of its having been destroyed in World War II. The only significant bits of history remaining in a museum, which houses one of two remaining boats from the Punic wars.

Punic boat aside, a tour guide as disappointing and uninspiring as Marsala, for her wish to return to Chicago.

The lady museum guide, having been born in Chicago, was taken to Marsala by her parents as a teenager for the same reason that I was escaping America, apparently; but she was dissatisfied, with accounts of a difficult economy, an example of some boys having snatched her purse a few days before; and an expressed wish to return to Chicago – instructing me that I might put on blinders to what I don’t want to see in America. No sense arguing with her that I can see niggers in abundance straight before my eyes. Not much more to add about Marsala; what I hoped to be an extremity on the map of this exotic adventure was a dreary disappointment.

Trapani

I would spend quite a while, probably more than month in Trapani on the western coast of Sicily. It combined a placid topography, flowers and palm trees with a harrowing background of mafia peril. But what does one go to Sicily for, after all? I’d never before seen armed guards inside plexiglass booths, with sand bags at their base, in front of all police stations, court houses and banks. The lovely park featured bust after bust of judges who had been murdered by the Cosa Nostra. Nevertheless, I sat there several afternoons, drinking wine and reading William James, “Pragmatism and The Meaning of Truth.”

Coming form the park to a street that was main but not having much in the way of cars or pedestrians; the main sign of life being the armed guards I’d mentioned, I had my first occasion for an emergent anti-nigger mini-alliance. I walked passed a boutique selling clothing items. Being chased out of the store was an African, bedecked with belts and other items to sell. I’m not sure if the pretty young Sicilian woman or her man was more angry, or what they were most angry about: whether the nigger was under-selling their goods or, quite possibly, if he’d sent out some offensive sexual vibes to the woman. Whatever the case, as the couple followed the nigger, yelling at him, I joined in their pursuit, yelling at him in English, be gone nigger! The nigger started swinging his belts back in forth, as to say he’d hit us if we came any closer. But he was on his way and that was enough. Not that much appreciation was shown from the store owners, still ii felt ok, I guess, to show that my point of view had practical utility.

I stayed in two or three different hostels while I was there; and my views would not meet up with much cross-cultural coordination.

The first hostel that I stayed at in the Trapani area was a massive, spacious, modern structure, clean and well over equipped for the trickle of hostellers that I’d encounter upon my few days there. As always, I tried to complement a German tourist in whatever way I could, describing how nice the German hostels are; he remarked, “not nicer than this.” The way was clear to try to engage this decent, if mildly dorky middle aged solo traveler. I eased into my talk about how America was going to hell by way of non-European demographics; and I hoped for a way for Europe to avoid this fate, particularly from the skyrocketing African birthrate. My German interlocutor wasn’t very receptive, made some remark about how there are some nice African immigrants, some of the usual Pablum about immigrants being necessary. While I woke up the next morning hung over and straggled to the shower area where he efficiently made his way through the three s’s and sort of made a waving-off motion with his arms, not directly at me, but a forget about it motion nevertheless, as if to say he wanted nothing to do with conservative politics: The World War II experience of his parents was enough.

The only other guy in my bunk room was a young French guy, and I tried talking to him, but he was very clear that he was only interested in talking about what he wanted to talk about – “only the abstracts”, particularly of the American Pragmatists – C.S. Pierce most of all.” Perhaps this should have been ironically appropriate, as I was reading Pierce’s protégé, William James, at the time. But in addition to being liberal by indifferent default, I found this French guy weird, in that brisk, French way that some of them do. The bunkroom was empty except for us two and he decided to sleep in the bunk right next to me. I asked him if he could choose another bed. He said that “this was strange.” So I got up and moved to another bed. And I wasn’t going to suffer the discomfort of this weird Frenchman to discuss American pragmatism with him.

And finally I remember two other Germans – a young couple who grew up in East Germany and had somehow retained Communist ideology despite that. I started off easy by commenting that Italian pizza could be surprisingly disappointing, quite short on cheese. They laughed that this was a frequent remark by German tourists, how terrible Italian pizza was compared to the pizza in Germany.

One thing about their being Marxists though (and think about it, these were East Germans and the wall had only been down a few years at that point), at least their Marxism made them gauged toward “intellectualism” (what else was there to do in that accounts requesting hell hole besides talk of one’s fidelity to Marx) and thus I could attempt to engage them. My resources of erudition were not well cultivated to say the least at that point, especially not when beer addled as I was. I think I began taking offense after I remarked that Antonio Gramsci did have some interesting things to say and the girl said, “he was the only Italian intellectual.” Though they were not Jewish (I don’t think) I was familiar with the “intellectual = Marxist” thing coming from Jews, but I was in no mood for the slight against Italians, as my thing at the time was to defend Italy’s place as “the Wonder Wall.” Drunk, I got sloppy and tactlessly assertive.

I baited them, listing what meager Polish intellectualism that I knew of; and added with very embarrassing ‘American authority”, that “we don’t want to make the same mistake as Adolph Hitler, do we?” (I said that! ugh,  how embarrassing a drunk). The girl tried to placate me, pointing out the verse in Nietzsche’s final days of dementia when he said that he comes from Polish nobility. As I was undoubtedly tactless enough to talk about my preference for dark haired women, she encouraged my enthusiasm for the dark haired beauty who was passing through: a Mexican girl, easily as pretty as any of the Sicilian beauties.

Next morning the Hostel proprietor angrily asks me to leave. Hate to say it, but can’t blame him.

I found a smaller hostel and a Serbian couple were roomed with me. This was awkward as well, with Serbia having been bombed by the US for their war against the Muslims. An awkwardness exacerbated by my cock sure ignorance. This was quite an embarrassment, in retrospect as well.

They were a couple, both medical students from Serbia. At this time Bill Clinton and (((Madeline – ” its worth it to kill hundreds of thousands of children”, in the case of middle eastern Muslims – Albright))) had just finished clobbering Serbia. So, they were on a combination vacation and reprieve from the heated situation. I hadn’t bothered to consider the situation beyond what the mainstream media had said. They offered a critical angle on the Muslims there, and I responded, confident ignoramous that I was, offering no other way, no gray area, but that the Muslims were to be respected in their right to be there. I could read the disappointment in this (very pretty) woman’s face. I don’t know, at the time I looked upon fighting Islam as a conflict of religious fancies, intolerably tedious, especially if it was between genetic Europeans.

But this Serbian couple were proud nationalists, and obviously intelligent – medical students – as such, they did not quite share my enthusiasm for Italian patriotism, and the woman was disappointed when I quoted my cousin complaining that “thousands of Serbian refugees were now in Italy”… but by the same token, they were able to relate to my distaste for America, even if they did hope to reason with me, as an American. As a matter of fact, the guy had spent some of his teen years as an exchange student at a high school in New York State. He said, “I wouldn’t do it again.” .. he was referring to the homely quality of the females. In this regard, he had a radical connection to my concerns. His girlfriend bent over to get something from my luggage. They noticed that I was looking at her ass. I cringe to think of it, in retrospect as well.

I think back on my general intransigent ignorance on the matter and the uncomfortably cheerful reception given me by a taxi cab driver, Serbian man, as he drove me from the train station to the ferries in Copenhagen. Why would he treat me, as an American, with such friendly enthusiasm?

Egadi Islands

The Egadi islands are a few small islands off the west coast of Sicily. It was cold and wet this time of year, which, on the positive side increased the intriguing atmosphere of its few ancient town areas, cobble stone streets and so on, but on the negative side, increased the my sense of loneliness and alienation – what the hell am I doing in a backwater like this, at this time of year?

I was not completely alone in my tourism there. I spotted some big guy with a Pittsburgh Steeler’s hat on, and I presume that he must have been one of them. though I was not particularly interested, there were other things from the west somehow coming to this remote place.

There was no place affordable to stay. Some older Italian lady let me stay in the camper by her house. After two days, her son and his wife explained to me that they “had a problem”, their mother expected me to pay good money to stay there; that she was trying to teach them how to be enterprising by taking me in.” Ok, they’re reasonable. I sympathize. You, know, mothers. 

So, I’m talking to them and the guy is pretty cool, but is going on about how much he likes, how important he considers the music of black American blues artists…  the creep of how you can’t escape this shit only has viral attachment in his tastes; at least his wife was Italian and she did try to join with me in damping his impression of the value of black artistry. I wound up sleeping in a wrecked boat near their house the rest of the time that I was on the island.

There was a sunny day. And I saw a lovely young Italian girl, in a colorful dress – totally normal looking, pretty girl – walking around with a black. It’s like you can’t escape this shit. Even here. I tried to get their attention with some nasty remarks, and again, I did get a wink from one of the portrait artists on the street, but that was about it. And as if that example wasn’t bad enough. I ventured onto more remote parts of the island. Walking on some ancient path, I see another young, beautiful Italian girl bike riding with a black. Here. Even here.

That’s all I have to say about this place. Gradually settling further in is the idea of having to find like minded people and a place to take a stand. But this is 1995. No internet. As if I am the only one who notices these things and cares.

Palermo, Dec/Jan 1995

Despite the fact that I spent over a month in Palermo, there isn’t much that I need to say about it, for better and worse. I spent most of my time there in a port area, which was quite mild, pleasant, rather middle-classish in its temperament. On the good side was the fact that despite Africans being allowed to set out items for sale on the piazza area, by around 11:30 P.M., if they had not otherwise made themselves scarce, they were rounded up by the police, unceremoniously forced into a paddy wagon and removed.

To note for the assholes out there who are always trying to maintain the urban legend that Sicilians are part black, among the crowds meandering around the piazza at night, there was only one man who apparently had some black admixture; and he did all he could to overcompensate with all the Italian mannerisms, kissing everybody on both cheeks and so on; while I distinguished myself as not approving of him.

I also distinguished myself by making a gun gesture with my hand, pretending to shoot a black in a few instances; and I guess you can say that it was cool that some of the teenage girls smiled, thinking that this was cool on my part (understanding the menace and danger of Africans), in retrospect, I am not too sure that this was cool of me, despite their understanding.

This particular area of Palermo being named “Mondello” added a quirk of starchy reminder to my disposition, as the name of the Italian kid, Keith Mondello, who killed black Yusef Hawkins because he came into his Italian Brooklyn neighborhood to pursue a White girl. I remember the time when that happened, I was just starting to take umbrage to the affront of blacks. Mondello got twenty five years, and my father asked me, “was that worth it?” I answered. “It wasn’t worth it, but I don’t care that he did it.”

So, I wasn’t about to go as far as Mondello in Mondello when… I ducked into the bar off the piazza … these Italian bars leave something to be desired, bright,, more like clean, uncomfortable ice cream parlors, but its the only place where you can sit with a drink. Of course, eventually in walks a tall nigger with two girls, one blonde, and the other a skinny, dark haired Italian beauty.  And they did not have an uncomfortable shred about them. I tried to change that, scowling and saying some nasty things in English. It made no difference, after the bought what they wanted, they walked out unperturbed. The proprietor, a handsome young Italian man, gave me the wink of approval. Hardly a consolation when clearly nothing was going to be done about this, not even in Sicily, for all its purport of dangerous ethnocentrism.

I stayed at a camping ground, where I met an Iranian couple. The woman was beautiful. The Muslim man asked me if I was Muslim, I told him no, although I believed in monogamy. He told me that he liked The US more than Russia.

At the bus stop, I saw one of those type girls that I like a – a small forehead, jet black hair, slender. She was so young, however, that I did not think I had a realistic chance. I hopped on the bus and there was an older woman trying to discipline some unruly boys in English, hoping that I’d join it. I disappointed her by taking their side, wanting to encourage their feral rambunctiousness. I called a black kid on the bus, “a monkey” and he just laughed at me. Futile.

The next time I waited for that bus, I was at the stop with the same girl that I liked. As I was about to get on board the bus, I asked her what time it was, “che ore sono?” … she answered with happy enthusiasm, “dodici mezza” … she was just so happy that I had said anything to her. But I got onto the bus and saw that she was looking away in despair. The opportunity for this Americano to rescue her from Sicilian poverty had been missed. I still regret not getting off the bus to connect with her.

University of Palermo, Psychology Department (trance).

At the time, I still had this stupid idea that I might be able to rekindle my graduate career, there in Italy. So, I’d visit the University of Palermo Psychology Department to inquire as such. The few times that I went there, I saw another cute Sicilian girl, with the same, what are for Americans, rare and exotic features of skinny, raven hair, pretty face and white skin. At least I made a pathetic effort to try to talk to her, saying that I’d come to study psychology; and although she was very smiley and friendly, I was probably not wise to try to push through the language barrier when my excuse to be there was thin indeed – no way was I going to study there.

But I did go in to speak with a few lady psychology professors…

I met with the two ladies from the department twice, and I suppose that they were interested to compare notes as I was just recently coming from my top level academic contacts through U. Mass. I thought they might not have heard of Harre, but would be impressed if I name dropped colleagues of his, such as Jerome Bruner – they were impressed. And then I got to the point.

The topic that you were not allowed to talk about. The imposition of miscegenation. The giving away of our women to blacks as it had begun to commence apace in America. I wanted to warn them and appealed to help against this heart breaking affliction. I even broke down a bit in my pain at telling them about this. And I fell into a trance at the stress of it.

I made a jerking off motion to tell them I’d be jerking off in my tent that night – which of course I would do. And then I leaned forward in one of those patent trance moments, wherein the interlocutor understands that they are going to get insider information. Similar as in the Amherst trance, when, in the position of “the Godfather”, I said, “this is what is going to happen” and everyone listened in silence, with the two Sicilian professors, I leaned in quietly and informed them that within a week or two, I’d be going back to the Catania area, and I would meet with a support group headed by a beautiful Italian woman who had Mafia connections at Club Banacher and in fact, thought of herself as The Godfather, il Padrino.

I said, “this bitch thinks that she’s the godfather.”

The two lady professors laughed uproariously.

I proceeded to say that I was on a mission to put her in her place and get a man in position. The lady psychology professors understood that I was under trance suggestion and did not worry.

I went back to visit them once more, the dark haired more mature one was outside the entrance way of the university looking upset as she talked to another professor, I would guess about my  despair about miscegenation White girls spreading their ways from America. I went into talk to the younger one. She humored me and assured me that she liked Italian men.

But before that appointment with destiny, I  had a few more stops on the mafia tour. Bagheria, a city to the east of Corleone, was notorious for being the most mafia of mafia cities. And then, I had to see Corleone and a few of the villages around there.

Bagheria, December 1995

While Bagheria may have had a spicy reputation as a mafia stronghold, and may well have been, my day there did not prompt me to stay longer, as I found a city that was pleasant enough, but not exciting, just a place where families live. Maybe that’s why I took assholish occasion to add some spark by giving an intimidating angry glare to the one black guy that I saw walking around with his family. He reacted by bringing his children closer to him. And so the day there passed to evening without further event. I found a phone made a collect call to my father, to try to reconnect to him through our heritage, thinking that he’d be interested in where I was. He merely informed me how expensive the collect call was, and added, “you call me for this?”

And so I went back to Palermo that evening. In the morning still not interested in its museums or much else for what might be found beyond the dead afternoon hours, I attempted to talk to a woman I found in the phone book, who shared my family name, Corbo. Went to her house and opened the door to the stairway leading to her door. She screamed, in Italian, “close the door!”

Ok, lets try something else. Since I’m a free man, let me see the paesa made famous in The Godfather as the cradle of the Mafia: Corleone.

Corleone December 1995

I did it There actually is this place made mythical by the book and movie, The Godfather, and I actually took a bus and got there; disembarked to a moment when there were no people about the quite unadorned central square, some grass, paths, a few unimpressive trees and a bit of disrepair. Not horrible but far from the fastidious pride you might expect in such a land mark.

There was a distinguishing aspect to the names on the storefronts surrounding the market square, however – on after the other: Gambino, Bonanno, Gambino, Bonanno, Gambino, Bonanno.

Infamous mafia family names of the Cosa Nostra, not only here, but in America as well, of course. In fact, if anyone’s personal story of emigration from here as a boy to go on to become Capo di Tutti Capi, it would be Carlo Gambino.

On the other hand, life should be so clear as to create characters who might not require a composite from actual people. Carlo being a rather shy mousy type of personality, the Godfather archetype would have to draw upon 

Bonanno did not approve of Gambino as a personality, “shy and wincing”, and in fact, probably would have been better cast than Marlon Brando, who would sit stroking a kitten and require patrons to kiss his hand in deference.

Sorry Marlon, if you were playing Cleopatra then to be tenderly stroking a kitten in the context of your council might be in character.
Joseph Bonanno, a genuine tough guy Mafia boss.
While his name is not attached to Corleone, the composite figure of the Godfather has to include Lucky Luciano. Although he would characterize the branch of mafia turning their back on honor and loyalty. Indeed, Luciano would break fidelity with Sicilians, teaming up with the Jewish Meyer Lansky while Luciano himself would eventually be taken down by some of his prostitutes. He said toward the end of his life, "I figured out too late that it takes just as good a brain to make a crooked million as it does to make an honest one."
Luciano and (((Meyer Lansky)))
While my grandfather was meaner than the devil, he never killed anyone, was not a "made man" mafioso; however, he did make money on the side by building stands for the stills for one of the families, Gambino or Bonanno, during Prohibition and The Depression. One cousin remarked indignantly, "what is he (my grandfather) doing with that truckload of sugar in the backyard!?"

Truth be known, I don’t like the mafia, for all their talk of loyalty, what they are really about, in a disgustingly vulgar way, is money. And while I like the artistry of the movie, I did not like the story of The Godfather either. But I digress.

Corleone is set amidst a rather arid climate in central west Sicily.

Coming back to our adventure to Corleone, I set about exploring… now where did they get this and that shot from The Godfather?…

"Questa Corleone"

But before I was about to move out of the “central square” – and I use those square quotes deliberately, as it was a poor excuse for anything showing social concern with its crumbling paths, absence of flowers or a fountain, just sort of a square grassy area with some stunted trees and those crumbled paths – a school bus let out. And this was not the kind of thing I would tend to speak loudly about either, especially not in the company of WN, whom I typically have to defend the Whiteness of Sicilians against, typically with unambiguous conviction. But in the case of the Corleonese kids, all of them, without exception, seemed to have a dangling version of African kink to their hair, despite otherwise White features and skin. Their hair was a bit discomfiting, but shhhh, it was the only place in Sicily where I noticed this.

And I moved to explore the City, or rather paesa, as it were….

“…now where did they shoot that scene from The Godfather?”

I meandered into the city’s labyrinth, not that much of a labyrinth but some bit thereof. Down a few old streets I came to a place where the streets widened, one of these mini piazzas that the old Italian villages have, this one equipped with a fountain, or rather, not equipped, as the fountain was dry and its element was rusted and pathetically fallen over in the center. I didn’t quite understand this pathos and negligence on display but then, there was nobody around but me to notice, or care, it seemed.

Finally though, some woman from a third floor window did take notice of me traipsing around; and apparently did not approve. Seconds later some youngish man comes and apprehends me, forcing me against a car and pat me down. Then he opens his wallet, suggesting that I’m supposed to put money in there. Needless to say, I was a bit alarmed, and armed only with my genuine good will toward the people. I pleaded with him, “please senior, I am just a student (I was already in my thirties, but a grad student of sorts), I don’t have much money …I am just a tourist”, then, even more stupidly, I said, “I am not against the Mafia”.. he throws me against the car and pats me down again. Then he say, “go to Palermo, don’t come here!”

Believe me, I eagerly got the next bus out of town.

I got back to my room in an adjacent village; actually, it was not a room, but a bed, awkwardly in the living room of an old woman and her daughter. Ever a bit under the consequence of red wine in these days, I made a stupidly bold and persistent attempt to ask the daughter on a date, probably promising her the world, which I felt entitled to do, wearing my custom suit and all. She was quite awkward as well, apparently flattered and humbled by my overture, as I promised her economic security, but she countervailed with her sights set on returning to Germany, “where there was no problem finding work.”

Giuliana December 1995

I had intended to visit Prizzi the day after, its name having been made famous to Americans by the Jack Nicholson movie, “Prizzi’s Honor.’ Giuliana was closer, so first to see, a nestled village the name of which got my attention I suppose, under the impression of NYC Mayor Rudolph Giuliani who had just done the seemingly impossible of transforming Times Square from a dirty sex industry hell hole into a clean and family friendly entrance into New York – even if on the antiseptic side of Disney. But I digress. Entering Giuliani promised the usual rustic Italian village scene, good for art photos kind of thing. But I barely got to the closed door of its church when I was confronted by a group of angry young men. The leader of this pack had eyes going in different directions, sort of like the guy from the Australian group, “Men at Work.” He asked me what I was doing here, and he too opened his wallet, suggesting that I put money in.

I tried to reason with him, saying that I was Italian, loved Italy and Sicily, that I wanted to see these lovely villages and that I’d be soon moving on to see Prizzi. “Prizzi!” he exclaimed, as if I had uttered something unconscionable. I was afraid they would not let me go, but I was somehow able to scurry away and I began walking back down the country road out of the village.

I walked briskly down the road from Giuliana, a road that was on a shrub covered hillside, completely vertical to my left and a steep ravine, with shrubs and trees to my right. I was not far out of the town and uh-oh, I hear the voices of the boys and the sneer of Vespa engines revving-up their rpm’s. This isn’t very good if they’d want to hunt me even out of town. As I heard them getting closer, I leaned into the vertical embankment to my left. There was enough shrub cover so that you could not see me with a straight on view down the road. I also knew that they knew that I was not far out of town and could not have disappeared. And in the moment I stood there, hoping that they would not be bothered, one of the boys on Vespa slowed down and looked directly in my eyes. Maybe I lucked out that this was not the inbred looking one that was looking to extort me, but just a hanger on; whatever, he did not try to apprehend me but rather turned around to rather the rest of the pack on Vespas.

I saw my chance to play it safe. I bolted to the other side and went down into the ravine, traversing its rather precarious steepness and ducking under some brush and trees. I intuited that they would not eagerly follow me down there and I made up my mind to holed up  there as long as necessary until I was satisfied that they gave up looking for me.

Indeed, about five times over the span of forty minutes or so, I heard the sneer  of their Vespa’s passing back and forth where the one guy had spotted me, just above. It’s a subtle thing, but I was and am proud of myself for more than three hours, until it was dark, to be safe that they had given up trying to apprehend me. I made my way back to my bed, told the story to the nice young lady I’d solicited the night before while here mother farted as she left the room and we pretended not to notice. I told this story to a high school friend, Andy, some years later and he said it sounded horrible. It wasn’t really. It was an adventure. kind of classic for the setting.

Catania, December 1995/January 1996

I got back to Catania in time to spend Christmas and New Years there. Somehow, I managed to get what must have been an old fashioned honeymoon sweet at a penzione, but for a price that was affordable to me, only a little more expensive than a dorm room.

The proprietor spoke English. Naturally, given my fate, this “Italian woman”, I put that in parentheses, because she had dirty blonde hair and was now pregnant with her, eh, husband – a very black nigger. Not that this was very common, but: my fate. Her old mother disgusted me, like a dirty old woman, with a big giddy smile on her face delighting over her genes going Mulatto via her scuzbag daughter. I had to pretend this was all ok with me, of course, the room was too good and it would be impossible to find anything better for the holiday season.

I wasted no time making the least of the opportunity of my royal quarters, what, with a canopy over its king sized bed and all. What I mean by that is that I’d be getting drunk on my Chimay and red wine, not exactly refining my “game” to fulfill my mission of finding a hot Italian wife.

Nevertheless, I’d be out and about in and around Catania, and that would bring interesting ventures through my trance fate. Before setting out on the town, I had occasion to talk to a tiny retired professor from America, he taught at Berkeley, if I recall. “I never fit in there.” Different values, I proposed. “Yeah, it’s all about money.”

I went out on the city, bedecked as it was with its Christmas festival ornamentation and I made my way to a small plaza off of the main, Piazza Duomo, where a stage was set up for a band and a small crowd watched a band called, unoriginally enough, “The Silver Beatles.”

I would not even mention this story except for the fact that this was one of the more clear episodes that I had seen back in the Amherst trance. The band fashioned their cool look with conservative dress and short hair only accented by sunglasses; their music in a late 50s, early 60s style featured a lead singer on a stand up bass, bellowing, “adesso, adesso, adesso!” …which I could never forget, going back to the Amerherst trance, as I spoke “adesso, addesso, adesso!” mockingly to the lawyer guy who had prompted the trance’s onset. But it was deep into the trance when I likened his style to a style that I didn’t care for, the pre-hippie era, kind of greasy, a bit conservative, kind of be cool by caring a whole lot about cars culture. This mockery and trying to liken the lawyer guy to this type as if it was something to mock, was a bit stupid of me, but I was in trance and have that excuse. Anyway, I was experiencing now, in Catania, what I’d been shown in trance back in Amherst, the “Silver Beatles”, their lead singer in a leisure suit, with sunglasses, playing a standup bass, bellowing “adesso, adesso, adesso!” (now, now, now).

View from near mafia run "Club Banacher", toward the ruins of a Norman fortress, "Aci Casello"

While the sublimated Belgian monk’s frustrated sexual energy fulminated to the 9% proof Chimay beer and a near cocaine high that addled me through the bars and piazzas by Catania’s night, there weren’t all that many happening bars to choose from, but there were a few.

Club Banacher, up near Aci Costello, was less interesting every time I went there and the other big alternative disco tech in the area, “Club Macintosh” was completely dead – worse, amidst the dead club videos were played of black D.J.s from America’s George Washington University spinning records. However, Catania remained intriguing and I found a few clubs and a plaza with several bars and cafes that I would frequent by night while during the day I could read in the park and duck into a few of the espresso bars and a small library off the main street through Catania.

At Club Banacher I did run into the classically featured Maria – when I say classically featured, I mean a version thereof having some of the high cheek bone dynamics that you’d expect of an African, but without the dark skin, broad nose and thick lips – she was a girl who I’d met in the ice cream cafe below my penzione; she recognized me “subido” (immediately) from two years before and greeted me with a big smile, “rigard”; and with that prompting, I took occasion whenever I could to flirt with her as best I could at the cafe, even if she was not really my type, despite being, “beautiful” – classic beauty, i.e., a high price tag, while I was shopping for my off market type – you know, big nose, diminutive, small breasted, dark hair, maybe some acnes scars.

Nevertheless, the scene was set for me to flirt with her, me in my sharp custom made three piece suit – “The Godfather.” I told her, Io, il Padrino, faccio tu bello adesso percha to hai regard. Due anni fa, tuo brutto.” Translate, “I, the godfather, make you beautiful now because you have regard. Two years ago you were ugly!” Fairly confident in her appearance, she played along: “two years ago I was ugly?” I answered, “si” (yes). Her co-worker, I nice and pretty enough Italian girl two laughed. My social skills were working a bit for a change. I was making friends with the girls. Of course, through the addling of the Chimay and stress bringing on semi-trance states, I would take one very stigmatic turn with them.

I had been trying to tactfully explain to these girls that blacks were bad news and I tried my line on them, that “the only thing they have is an extended chin.” I guess Maria lit my fuse by saying that she liked the looks of African men, their faces. That, combined with the slight look of a nigger with White skin that she had disagreed with me. So when I cam back from the bars, stopping into her cafe before my penzione, I fell into a brief tirade: “You thought you could fool a Corleone? You are a White nigger and you will not bring niggers to Italy! I will kill them and you if you do!” Needless to say, this was insane of me, very dangerous; her co-worker at that moment, there for the first time that night became frantic and tried to wave to the police to come to the cafe. I quickly scurried out. I think what saved me was the several funny and friendly exchanges that we’d already had, my clear genuine concern for the well being of our people; my excuse, that I was very drunk coming along with a sincere apology, equipped with flowers and a small gift. Amazingly, she accepted my apology, called me “crazy” in the generic sense, as in ah, he’s just a crazy guy; she shared a coffee with me and we went on with our friendly exchanges every morning before I set out and in the evening before I went into my penzione. 

One anterior piazza had a few different bars, but none especially popular nor promising for my Italian woman hunting. Particularly not this one, despite being hip in its decorum, music and clientele. A small problem was that the bartenders were all these very pretty Swedish girls; you may think I’m crazy, but that’s just not what I was looking for – I was on a mission to shore up the Italian birth rate and the Wonderwall against Africa of tough, raven haired women. Not tantalizing blonde victims held up supposedly to be the ultimate prize even to Italian men. In a word, it was a bit insulting to me. I mean, I was glad they felt safe here, but… not what I was looking for.

Not that there were so many, but I was very angered when one of the times there outside of this bar, I saw three blacks, comfortably dressed and seated a curb. I gave them a note: we don’t need your women, black women are ugly, go back to Africa. I went into the bar and after a few minutes one of them came in with the note and gave it to a male bar tender. He became visibly scared but said nothing. I was seated next to a fair looking Italian girl and the black put out some vibe to her and she fixed up her hair. I guess you can say that the nig successfully one-upped me; but worse was the sexy raven haired girl who took occasion to call me “una racista!” as exited.

Bringing forth a consciousness that black genetics were a threat was going to be an uphill battle, even here. Again, while there was not a lot of it, I saw yet another pretty young women walking with a tall, nothing special at all black, down the main street of Catania. I berated them in Italian that black women were ugly, that we didn’t need the. While a pained expression came across the nig’s face, the woman said, in English “I don’t understand.” She seemed a bit bemused, not to worried. It was futile- and as such, infuriating – at this point to challenge this kind of travesty.

A bar right off piazza duomo had two stories in classic exterior architecture and interior architecture, but had the advantaged of being populated by young, middle class kids and so it became like my home base among bars. This would be where one of the more freakish trance experiences in Catania would occur, but not until I cam back in the summer. The only noteworthy incident from the winter there was the time when three Americans sat at a table on the second floor. They were young enlisted people as there is a U.S. Naval base off of Catania. I found this offensive as well, and as I passed by them on the way to the bathroom, I told them that they might be happier back in America with the niggers and ugly White women. As I came back out of the bathroom one stuck his foot out and tripped me so that I almost fell.  I think that I called him a piece of shit and told him to go back to America; nothing more came of the incident.

But in the summer, I would be back to that place for a weirdee.

I did spot one girl who was kind of the type that I was looking for; and maybe people would say that I am crazy, that she was kind of plain, but to me not – she was diminutive, had the dark hair; and seemed a conservative type, working in a shop where I would always try to buy my Chimay, hoping to screw up the courage to ask her to dinner. She obviously spoke no English and, well, she was a conservative girl, so, probably not looking for a foreign man – confirmed after raising her suspicion and irritation by going there a dozen times. In the end I left her a white rose as a gesture of peace and did not go back to her shop. It was cowardly of me, perhaps, but what was I supposed to do, play “game” with her, in order to try to get her into bed?

Back at my hotel, where I had this sweet good for a king’s wedding night, I got through the holidays alone, drunk. The proprietor lady, the one with the nigger husband and her mother who struck me as a perverted old woman for her giddy smile at the prospect of her very pregnant daughter about to bring forth a niglet, they tried to be nice to me. Anna, I think her name was, said that I “have time”, as I worried about my age, mid thirties, and prospects for finding a wife.

Anna actually gave birth to the niglet during this time that I was there. And her mother (something out of Rosemarie’s Baby) was delighted to let me know. Anna needed something from my room (bundle of fabric) and said that I could hand it to “her husband” … I guess that she was testing to see if I could get along with his kind. I stuck extended the bundle down the stairwell to him while refusing to even look at him or greet him in anyway. I could hear Anna let out a huge wail as I snubbed normal relations with her “husband.”

It was time to get the hell out here and the next morning I got the train back to Salerno.

Paris (by train from Salerno), late January, early February 1996

I arrived back in my home base hostel in Salerno with the idea that I’d be taking of from Rome with my standby voucher within the next few days. Problem was, there were no seats available from Rome for the next few weeks and the closest airport with standby seats available in the next week was Paris. It wasn’t quite within my budget but what a shame, I’d have to go to Paris for the first time, and the next day I made my way to the Salerno train station to get a train to Paris … “me scusi”, I said, accidentally bumping into a cute American girl in line, as I pretended to be Italian, and she volunteered a generous smile for ‘my’ culture.

Going to Paris and taking the train there was risky, beyond my budget and totally Not in my plans, but I was committed to following my fate – it was calling me there indeed ….as the hostel proprietor lady from Lipari had suggested, with a smile (in ironic contrast to the anger of her husband who threw me out because I upset the girls with my wild racism), to my own claim made to her while I was under trance the evening before, that she would prompt me the next day that I have a mission in France to fulfill. People generally know when you are under trance suggestion and they are happy to oblige when they think a benign force is behind it.

Boston, Mass, February 1996

New Hampshire, March 1996

Unlike Richard Spencer, I have been skiing exactly twice in my life. The first time was in the White Mountains of New Hampshire. Having taken my ski lessons and mastered what was called “the intermediate slope” quite handily, I developed a bit of hubris in my ability – at least for the intermediate slope. I tried the advanced slope once and could not even stand before falling and being jettisoned downward. Nevertheless, even little kids were whisking down past me and I could not believe how they did it – I only realized that I could not handle the advanced slope.

Satisfied nevertheless, I returned to my hostel that evening (but I did of course see an interracial couple on the way, in case anyone believes New Hampshire is immune). One of the townies was there talking about how he advocated Pat Buchanan, who was running for Presidency (was that the year he had a Negro running mate? Perhaps); it struck me as strange for a kid that young to be promoting Pat (whom I never thought to be very good – “rather than ‘the sewer of multiculturalism’ all Americans should integrate as English speaking Christians” – good thinking, Pat. No wonder the mainstream media kept you around as a convenient foil all those years), but I appreciated the defiant conservatism of the kid promoting Pat. New Hampshire was one of the few places where Buchanan could win. Fate was kicking in, the trance recollections before and during my recent trip to Europe from which I’d just returned were prompting me..

There were some English skiers there at the hostel. A couple of young lads and an older English gent there solo. I could not forget his name, as it was Hamilton. We talked candidly about race. He expressed his admiration at how Germany had built their country right back up after World War II. When discussing the problems of our respective European nationalities, he gritted his teeth and said, “Jews!” I was not ready to go there. I still needed to hold breath that this may be in some part, if not primarily, a distraction from deeper issues. It was probably not in that moment but somewhere in that evening that I felt myself being aware that I was outside of my normal consciousness, castigating (laced with the vilest profanity) the girls running the hostel, one from France in particular, for being a nation of feminist bitches. They apparently understood that this was a trance as they calmly instructed me the next morning that I had to visit North Hampton – as I had told them that they were going to tell me to go to North Hampton in the next few days to meet my fate among the greatest concentration of lesbians in The U.S., North Hampton being the proximity of two of America’s most prestigious women’s colleges – Smith and Mount Holyoke.

The parting with Mr. Hamilton did not go as I might have liked. It was clear that we were both dearly committed to defending Europe against liberalism and non-Europeans. I had told him in the trance state the evening before that you can trust a man if you can look him dead in the eye and he does not look away. The next morning Mr. Hamilton had a big smile on his face as he saw me (my trances always seemed to have a healing effect on people); we shook hands in parting, he looked me dead in the eye; but I turned my eyes away and a puzzled frown came across his face. Though I regret making myself didactically untrustworthy in that instant, I know now that I did that because I did not yet know enough to express full enough agreement with him. That day, Hamilton, a Thomas Hamilton rather, massacred school children in Dunblane, Scotland. So it must have been the 13th of March 1996.

Amherst, Mass, March 1996

Newark, N.J. (short trip back to Amherst), April to July 18, 1996

By late 1995 my efforts to pursue graduate studies in Amherst, Mass. were clearly over…

In the Spring of that year was the big trance.. I went under and became an impromptu master of trance ceremonies for about 30 people who attended a 12 step meeting (for the children of alcoholics). All the people there went into the trance with me, for about 3 hours…

Though the events of the trance would slip from my consciousness during the normal course of my days, that trance, in particular, instilled in me a sense of fate – because, among other phenomenon of trance, I was seeing some things that would happen in the future – mostly trivial, such as speaking some Polish (whereas I knew no Polish) and seeing that I would pick mushrooms with my cousin Ryzard in Poland. But these phenomenon, which I would not believe had I not experienced them, were compelling enough to cause me to follow my fate, even where it did not make full, rational sense. I told you about that in part one of my trance adventures.

The goal of an advanced degree being kaput, I left Massachusetts and went to Newark, New Jersey, where I was born – an Italian enclave in a horrible, mostly Black city. But my father had an empty house there that he’d bought as an investment. It would be a place to gather myself and find my next step. Though I did not grow up there, my grandmother lived in the area until her death in 1984, and so I had some roots of sorts, there.

There would be a few interesting episodes there, in this lower middle class, White section of Newark’s North Ward.

Adriano, the young, handsome Italian guy, that I had foretold the German 5 about in the grand trance of Amherst was here, fresh from Rome, as my father hired him to paint the house, getting it ready for sale. Of course, I was being tested, to see if I would join him and help to get the house ready for sale; perhaps I should have but my head was elsewhere. I did not remember at the time that I had told the German 5 about this guy, telling her that he was handsome, looking like a young Pete Best and that he was clear to say that he liked German women; but Not Jewish women, “I don’t need their women; you can’t trust them.” …in that important respect, he was ahead of me, although steeped in my American experience, I countered with confidence, saying “no, niggers are the big problem”, going into the matter of their long pre-evolution, aggression and so on, while Whites should group-up in our defense, like Jews do. Being much younger than me, he took a step back and offered that maybe I was way ahead of him in terms of experience and knowledge.

He was hooking up with Denise, the realtor who was trying to sell the house. Denise was not especially interested in him, but saw me as a potential viable partner. Adriano, stereotypically jealous and temperamental Italian, did not understand that I was not interested in Denise sexually when I went to visit her socially. He came rambling over, and I was able to defuse his temper with a bit of old world, Italian ethnocentrism. I said to him, “you thought you could fool a Corleone?” After he left, Denise explained how jealous that Adrian was, that he said he was going crazy as he saw the ten toes in bed through her window. Denise was with her Arab boyfriend, in from Sweden at the time. I didn’t especially like that, but liked even less the way she talked about Swedish men; she’d visited him in Sweden and said the men were “wimps and the women see that (Arabs) and …  I made some remark about at leas their not being black and that they were wise to the shenanigans of Jews. She said “you don’t know” (how much they hate them), but where I could agree with her more readily, knowing enough about the JQ to express disgust with “the Jewish media.”

Anyway, during those days I was immersed in reading, The Godfather, among those books, and probably to my discredit to spend my time that way, whereas I might have been helping Adriano and his partner to spiff-up the house for sale

While out and about in those days, Adriano wound up stabbing someone whom he found insulting – “acting like a jerkoff, made some remark about my mother” – lucky for Adriano, the guy did not die. And nevertheless, my spiritual replacement had been delivered to America for the German 5, who had enthusiastically agreed that she would like him, perhaps envisioning him as well, when I explained how he looked in the Amherst trance

On April 6th, I saw in the newspaper that one of Jimi Hendrix’  X girlfriends, Monika Dannemann, had committed suicide after losing a libel case against another of Jimi Hendrix’s White girlfriends, Kathy Etchingham. This was a reminder of my days when I was a Hendrix freak, his music combing the manifold creativity of L.S.D. and the ultra aggression of hard rock that captured my disposition. But just who I was placing my admiration before? True, there was the semi-excuse of there being no internet  to interact with, engage ones thoughts and emotions, and all we had as an outlet was the proxy of music. This left me, anyway, inarticulate, pressured with these misguiding musical overtures of woman as panacea, for which no price was too high.

Because you did not see White women with blacks until the late 80s, the pressure of competition from him or his kind did not enter my mind; the pictures of Hendrix with pretty White women off in Europe did not strike home.

While there’d been many years of ominous build up of hyperbolic feminism since the 70s in which White women seemed to ridicule White men to no end for everything while being aggravatingly defensive of blacks, you still didn’t see human women walking around with black men. That damn burst around the time of the Madonna “Like a Prayer” video.

In part one, I talked about how I’d been prepared through post hypnotic suggestion to do my part in protest, “acting like a crazy Italian” on campus. Having to retreat from that, what was becoming a war, I was back on the streets of the non academic world, in an old family neighborhood, experiencing the impact of academia, as it does influence the mentality of those in non-academic circumstance/ neighborhoods and their behavior.

I went to my bank, which was on the corner of North 11th Street and Bloomfield Ave. and I noticing a young, pretty Italian girl with a mulatto kid. I remarked, “is that an Italian girl with a nigger baby? What a shame”… I said that calmly seated on a chair, waiting my turn for the teller at a clear distance from her, obviously intending to take no action.. days later, I bought a slice of pizza two blocks a way, on the corner of 11th and 2nd Ave., not knowing that the nigger that they had working there was the father of this nigger boy… it tried my patience as I heard him happily listing the girls that had been at a party with him while he served my pizza. I think that I grumbled the N word under my breath as I walkd out.

He came out of the pizzeria shouting at me, “are you a racist!?!… are you a racist?!” I stood there unafraid but not wanting to get into a physical fight, believing that I had the right to my thoughts, thank you very much. But he pushed me and I slipped because my shoes were slippery… I hit the sidewalk on my face, around my eye… I stood up smiling, because I could not believe how stupid the nigger was.. I grabbed a chair and raised it slowly, showing him that I would be glad to bring it down on his head.. the owner of the pizzeria said, “don’t, I’ll call the police!”… I calmly said “go ahead, I’ll have him locked up for assault. Just give me my three dollars back;”  I walked away and the Italian girl was there with her nigger son, saying, “remember the bank?” while the nigger was screaming at me, that “you will never look at my son again!”.. well, later I would send a note to the pizzeria.. addressed to the nigger, saying that “you, nigger, will never hit a White man again.”..  my strategy being to put him into a double bind – he is either beholden to my orders as White man.. or goes ahead defiantly and stupidly maintains that it is his prerogative to dictate how people must feel about niggers and to assault them if they are “racists”, taking him one step closer to the jail – even better…

But on that day, I had my giant facial bruise, just as foretold I would, as in the Godfather movie. And with that bruise I would drink and go in and out of trance for a day in the top floor apartment of the house my father was selling (more on that in a moment); and during the week I would wear the bruise as I called The U.Mass. Amherst college newspaper (from a phone on the same corner as the incident) to ask about the controversial status of my “White Women For Sale!” editorial that I wanted run. ..and one ridiculously futile call to my father, in which he would bark at an automated telephone service, asking him if he’d accept a collect call, “is this ATT”!?

… I would see the nigger from a distance up the street  a week or two later; something interesting to say about that; but let me not get ahead of myself.

Such were my days there.. me with a big black, swollen eye, just like the episode in the “Godfather”, and just like the godfather I was.. and there, on this  particular day, I drank into night and went into a trance.. while outside, yet another girl, a blond, waited with the the nigger across the street, cuddling with him, securing him to show support for him and defiance of me…

Many songs that I had sang in the big, Amherst trance, were being played on the radio, resonating the sense of fate, particularly “Ironic“, by Alanis Morissette… equipped with its lines:

Mr. Play It Safe was afraid to fly
He packed his suitcase and kissed his kids goodbye
He waited his whole damn life to take that flight
And as the plane crashed down, he thought
“Well, isn’t this nice?”
And isn’t it ironic, don’t you think?

The song concludes:

And, yeah, life has a funny way of sneaking up on you
Life has a funny, funny way of helping you out
Helping you out

It was being made clear to me that I had to get the hell out of here and get back to Europe come hell or high water; not to give up the fight, but to have a more conducive base of operations, where I’d be with my people, first of all a part of those still considering themselves a people, discrete from non-Europeans and worth defending in our particularity.

Political Correctness had become the religion of the West, drifting down from (((the universities))), liberalizing White boundaries on punishment of all manner, and giving females, including the puerile, a large, unmerited, short term advantage, pandered to from all kinds with the prohibition of classifcatory discrimination (“racism and civil rights”);  susceptible as such to this brainwashing. While the amygdala generates fear responses in Whites when shown a Black face, Jewish mediums of power (movies, The New York Times, “higher education” etc.) have been steady at work to brain wash White people that their instinct for survival is evil, and they manipulate newer parts of the brain to suppress that survival instinct  (K.M.) – convincing Whites that Blacks are harmless or victims; they are not. They are dangerous and violent to Whites. Dangerous even, in the less immediate sense of imposed cohabitation within the same polity, as the PC taboo prohibiting discrimination and reversing prohibition of miscegenation, elevating it to social heroism, is equivalent, when carried-out, to eliminating so many White offspring, depending on the Distance of Ethnic Genetic Interests, blacks being the most distant.

In fact, the year (2011) would be the first year when more non-White children were born in America (not by popular democratic choice, but because it was orchestrated to be that way by Jewish interests).

Ok, but at this point, 1996, I was only somewhat aware of the Jewish thing (especially money and media);; still giving them some sympathy for possibly overreacting from the holocaust, hoping that they could be reasoned with. I was still thinking in terms of liberals and conservatives..  and trying to find out who cares.. I had just spent about six months, mostly in Italy after my university plans had fallen through. 

I stewed in and out of trance and drunkenness on the day of incident with the nigger, him sitting defiantly of me across the street with a pretty young blonde all afternoon; add to that a subsequent trance with my family (that I will detail in a moment) and it became clear to me that I had to go back to Europe sooner than later. I wanted to go, but had been figuring that I may have to make better preparation rather than using my credit card.  It didn’t matter. I really could not stand America – hated it there. The people were so alien to me. I needed to be able to say, “this country is my country. These are my people.” I could not do that in America. 

But I was still there, physically, in that day of 1996, learning through the phone on that same corner by the pizzeria, that the U. Mass. college paper staff had voted against running my “White Women For Sale!” editorial.

And in returning to my house I’d see an older lady across the street greeting her neighbor, of the one nigger family on the block; they were assuring one another that they were ok with each other, as I passed with my big black eye; they knew about the  incident; as did her ugly nigger daughter who, on another day, sat in a rocking chair staring at me with contempt and smug superiority.

And the final episode stemming from that incident, as I mentioned, seeing (from a distance) yet another White (possibly Hispanic) girl saunter up to this (ugly) nigger on the corner with a smile on her face; while a Hispanic boy walked away in disgust, obviously disgusted as this nigger was going through choice young girls at his whim, as they made themselves quite available to him.

It was not long after the incident with the nigger, the trance of that day and a subsequent trance (with my family, that I will detail next) that it became clear to me that I had to go back to Europe sooner than later. I wanted to go, but had been figuring that I may have to make better preparation rather than using my credit card. Nevertheless, the social environment had gotten desperate enough so that “practical and rational deliberation” was not the pre-eminent concern; especially not given a sense of trance destiny calling me. I really could not stand America – hated it there. The people were so alien to me, including my family, in their concerns. I needed to be able to say, “this country is my country. These are my people.” I could not do that in America.

I don’t remember the exact reason why I went to my father’s house in Brielle, New Jersey (maybe to get my Passport), but when I did go there, my siblings (two brothers and respective spouses) happened to be visiting; and that set the stage for another trance of major significance for me.

Trance with family in Brielle, N.J., Spring or Summer 1996

Trance with family

So, with bridges of rational negotiation with my family burned, in utter disgust and desperation to escape America’s panmixia identity and a sense of destiny and fate to launch me on my way irrespective of lack of normal rationale, I used my credit card (i.e. money that I did not have – though my expenditures in that manner would be based on the budget that my father bragged would be entrusted to me during our trip to Italy in 1993) and bought a stand-by voucher – these are special air tickets that allow you to board a plane if there are empty seats on the flight.

FLIGHT 800

It was now July 17, 1996. I talked to my travel agent and he told me that there might be seats on the flight to Rome. Well, after making the 2 hour trip to JFK airport, I discovered that the flight to Rome was full. I could not get on. But, I called my travel agent, and he told me that there was one remaining available seat on a flight to Paris, leaving in 45 minutes, if I made a fast decision.

Now, Paris was not my objective; I had been there the previous February for the first time and I liked it, but my purpose was serious, to get to one of my homelands.  Still, going to Paris would get me into Europe and it was not impossible to get to Italy from there…so,  I got on the airport shuttle bus and road it to the terminal of Air France. I did not get off the first time, but rode the bus around once more. . I really could not make up my mind… passed the Air France Terminal a second time…maybe it would be nice to go to Paris for a few days? I could always get to Italy from there..but I really just wanted to go to Italy.. but Paris could be ok…it had been good last time that I was there.. I could not make up my mind.. I vacillated in decision back and forth, finally coming to a hard decision that I would go to Paris as I arrived at the Air France Terminal the third time and then, for some reason, I just said, ‘Naaah!‘..  and I road the shuttle to the bus that would take me back to Newark.

The next morning I woke up and got the newspaper. The headlines read: “Flight 800 to Paris Explodes in Mid-Air.” All passengers dead. 

Ok, Ok, the flight to Paris that I almost took for the one available seat was another flight also to Paris which had left 45 minutes prior to Flight 800, but the dangling proximity was weird enough.

Salerno, Italy, July 1996

Calabritto and Materdomini, Italy, August 1996

Catania and Aci Costello, August 1996

Wonderwall

Adventures of a racialist following trance and fate – to Sicily and Poland.

Peter on Tue, 16 Dec 2014 03:25 | #

Perhaps next I ought to begin with what was the big trance for me, when I inappropriately talked about race in an Al-Anon (ACOA) 12 Step meeting at a Church in Amherst, Massachusetts – must have been in early 1995. There were about 30 people there from all walks, a Muslim woman, tunic and all, a French girl I had a crush on but who was never at that particular meeting, Jews, German Americans, a large gamut. In my stressful but impassioned despair over miscegenation a fart came out. Not loud but audible and I apologized. Being the nice people that they were they told me not to worry about it. But one of them was a lawyer who angrily said that I probably had not broken any law, not for the fart, but for the racial talk. At that moment, I farted loudly and said slowly, “niggers and Jews”…everybody laughed and we all went into a collective trance for the next few hours… DanielS

Peter: can’t tell if you’re being facetious here.

Did this really happen? How did you end up talking about miscegenation and farting out loud in an AA meeting? What do you mean by collective trance?

DanielS Posted by Yes, it happened. on Tue, 16 Dec 2014 04:28 | #

Yes, it really happened but it was not AA, it was ACOA (adult children of alcoholics). It happened at a meeting as such, which means there were witnesses (for better and worse). The fart was involuntary. Miscegenation was such a serious matter and so prohibited to discuss that it sort of forced its way out as a topic as well.

Continuing to expound upon said adventures here and here.

It marked a difference of this group, an Amherst Alanon meeting of thirty or so, as I bluffed in the same way that I would, by standing up and pretending to shoot with my finger – Bang! Bang! Bang! But from this group ensconced at a church literally across the street from Emily Dickinson’s house – nothing. No reaction. They looked calmly upon me as only a harmless fool – A bullfrog on a lily pad. ..I’m nobody, who are you?

I foretold them that the Sicilians would act differently.

More than a year later, it was August of 1996, when at a similarly conciliatory meeting of similarly normal people seated in the same circular formation, I stood up, raised my finger like a gun barrel and shouted Bang! Bang! Bang! aiming at the Sicilians in rapid turn around the room in Aci Creale to their immediate fright and panic. To them, it was quite possible that this would be a real gun.

I woke up late on a morning as it turned September to see an unusual funeral procession moving through Piazza Duomo. Two coffins were being moved.

Salvatore Botta, 14
Santa Puglisi, 22

I saw the names of those who I would learn were Salvatore Botta 14 and Santa Puglisi 22, the nephew and niece of a rival mafioso. They were shot on August 27th while attending the funeral for Santa’s husband – who had also been shot…

Back to the conciliatory meeting of Sicilian friends for purposes of mutual healing, I castigated the beautiful and stylishly dressed woman who seemed to organize it:

“With your friends at Banacher, you pose as godfather but you are not the godfather!” I was walking on thin ice and knew it. I attempted to prove myself genuine as I knew without evidence that one of the girls had been incested. I charged the group to answer, “how did I know?” I was scared, emboldened by trance or not. I made it worse, blurting out that Maria was ugly (painful to talk that way about anybody, but especially Maria, a kindly lawyer who I met in a book store, who had brought me to the meeting) and that she didn’t care about her. Maria howled in pain. Seeing Maria’s (non-present) sister in my head, I imitated her voice and gestures, again, indicating my veracity. I ordered the “godmother” to hug and console Maria. She did and everybody clapped.

When I told the godmother that weeks before I had attempted to take a small, carved stone from the street ruins of Tiberius’ Villa on Capri, she reacted in horror, as if I was pulling a rib. Then I knew she was genuine enough for me. I told this group of Sicilians the truth, that I loved them, as tears poured down my face.

Tiberius’ Villa Jovis as it was on Capri

Attempting to collect a souvenir by picking one of the small stones from the path meticulously and anciently leading to Tiberius Villa had created a look of dread on the face of ‘the godmother’, like tugging at one of her ribs in order to pry it from her.

Visiting The University of Palermo to look into matriculation a week before brought me into the Sicilian city at night – they can have a ghastly feel at night, like some Gothic Frankenstein movie, no people on the streets, no stores open, just dark and eerie silence among ancient buildings – a tinge of Egypt and mummification.

The next day I went into trance while talking to two lady psychology teachers, looking from side to side then spontaneously telling them, “this bitch thinks she is the godfather”… they laughed and I was on my way to that meeting in Aci Creale.

I stayed in a penzione off of Piazza Duomo in Catania. In evenings I would go to bars, eventually finding my way to one appropriately named Sonnambula. In these days and nights I tranced, remembering who a girl whom I’d met in Salerno weeks before was, Magda, as foretold and seen in my mind’s eye in Amherst, “not even the rain had hands so small.”

September 14, 2021, is twenty five years to the day from when I followed the irrationality of recognizing events and persons as foreseen in trance as giving me a sense that I must follow my fate, with destiny then calling me to Poland for the first time. I took a train to Poland from Salerno, having met Magda there, recognizing her in my memory from trance only after she’d returned to Poland from her vacation, as I tranced all day, the entire day, on 9-6 96.

Salerno, September 1996

I went back to Salerno where, on 9 6 9 6 I tranced the whole day. The Amherst trance came back to me, and fate gave me the excuse of spiritual mandate, even though in reality I could not afford to go and visit Magda in Poland.

On September 13th, to one of my biggest regrets, I forfeited an opportunity to connect with a half Italian half English girl at the hostel – she was bemoaning troubles, breaking up with her boyfriend in Australia and bought me a glass of wine to commiserate with me…but I had my ticket for Poland and appointment with destiny already. I told her I regretted not being able to stay. She was lovely. I kissed her on the hair and left. To make matters worse, that evening the hostel was having a hospitality night for African refugees. As I opened the door I saw a lovely Italian girl cheerfully coming to meet one of the Africans. I was disgusted. I couldn’t escape this even in Italy. I protested but knew that in the overall, for now, there was no fighting. I had to leave.

Krakow, Poland (after a brief, accidental visit to Warsaw) and Auschwitz, from September 14, 1996 to...

September 14, 1996, I arrived in Krakow for the first time, made my obligatory visit to Auschwitz from there and so on. As foretold (in trance with my kindly German American Harvard trained psychologist), one of the tips of my new boots would be coiled as I turned a Krakow corner and my toe collided with the toe of a large Polish oaf turning the sidewalk corner from the other direction at precisely the same time.

Gdansk, Gydynia, Sopot and Helska penninsula, September 1996

After a few days in Krakow, I went to Gdansk (where the Nazi attack had begun), and, as foretold, I met-up with Magda where she lived in Gdansk, Zaspa, and where Lech Wałęsa also lived during his Solidarność days. As I explained “fate and god” had brought me to this rendezvous she naturally thought I was crazy; though maybe funny, equipped as I was with stories of my having to intervene on behalf of a broken Sicilian goddess who’d been snapped up by a strange Mulatto in Catania (I could see the energy waves emanating from him, and I told two girls in trance episode before, in the Catania restaurant, to acknowledge the phenomenon and its catastrophe – they obediently sat on each side of the pair; acknowledging and pointing out the catastrophe. Surreal sounding stories aside, Magda went out with me a few times and I was able to treat her fairly extravagantly at the still humorously inexpensive Polish restaurants. 

Helska Peninsula with Magda ("not even the rain has hands so small") Fuhrman, friend and cousin.

Pila, Poland, October 1996

Balcony in Schneidemühl, where Hitler once gave an inspirational torchlight speech for the likes of Duke, Anglin, Hunt and other assholes.

After some days the Gdansk area, I went to Piła, because that was the only place in Poland where I knew that I had cousins. This was where my grandmother’s brother, Bronislaw, was moved as the Poles were moved westward – his hometown became a village in Belarus and Schneidemühl became Piła (again) – following the Nazi defeat in their territorial gambit for lebensraum at the expense of the eastern nations and for which they received justifiable territorial penalty in return.

My Grand Uncle Bronislaw was gone by then but his wife was still alive (still living in the same house in Pila and having letters from my grandmother). I met all  three of sons and their families. One of the sons, Ryzard, took me picking mushrooms in the woods. Spotting a good one he identified it and spoke, “Podgrzybek” – as I foretold in the Amherst meeting, my first Polish word spoken there, when I had never heard or spoken Polish in my life, but slowly did there, in the Amherst trance, saying, “Pod-grzy-bek ”…I could see my cousin Ryzard and explained to the group that I’d meet him..that Poland would appeal to me among other reasons because the women were beautiful and there were no niggers there (in fact, the Amherst group laughed as I asked, surprised and innocently, “are there niggers there?” Particularly funny as I was oblivious to the fact that two Oreos were sitting right next to me).

Upon return to America, I arrived in Boston and stayed at an international hostel for two weeks; a lovely, otherwise normal seeming middle class Australian girl was “seduced” by Chuck (she asked me where “Chuck” was), seduced, as in, I had watched this nigger like an animal seizing prey, grab her cunt and for the heavy taboo and prohibition against “racism,” I could say nothing, as he remarked, “love happens.” She apparently responded favorably to this and was now looking for him. In the common cafeteria, a beautiful French girl was chatted up by a local nigger who gave her a line about how White people gobbled up American land for pittance and drunken gambling games while they had blacks doing slave labor; the French girl stretcher her arms upward in relief and beamed a smile at the end of this rap while I wiped the smile from her face, catching her eyes at this exact moment, to let her know that no, she did not know niggers, and they were not alright (to mate with and so on).  I banged into her in the hallway, chiding, “nigger, nigger, nigger.” After two weeks there, I had to leave as that was the maximum stay.

I moved to the Irish hostel near the Boston Garden. I saw what was (to me) a beautiful Italian woman with a black husband and mulatto child going to “Disney on Ice.” … I tried talking racial politics, with an Irish girl, explaining that I’d just come back from Sicily and it was a common misunderstanding that Sicilians had African admixture; nevertheless she told me that Sicily deserved to be swamped with Africans because of Mussolini. Nice as the hostel was, and well meaning though these liberal girls were, this was making me angry already and making the hospitality shown to a non-Irish person difficult to reciprocate with levity.

I went to one local Irish bar during the day where a young black sat innocently drinking a beer at the bar; as I can pass for Irish, I decided to make him uncomfortable for being there; and I enlisted the ire of a cherry faced old Irishman to do the same. He did and the black asked me in annoyance, “is this an Irish bar?” I said yes. I guess he didn’t stay for another beer, and it was a futile gesture, but I was trying things out.

As I did at another bar, hip one, where a lot of college kids flocked on weekends; in fact, I recognized U. Mass Amherst students there; one Jewish girl in particular would be familiar with my testing (mostly dirty looks) from my days at U. Mass, and got me kicked out of the bar. That really pissed me off. I had done nothing in this case to warrant that; and I wasn’t doing anti-Semitism in those days. I was one of those, the queen says, “I’m uncomfortable” things.

Back at the hostel, the thickly accented Irish girl who ran the hostel said that I should take advantage of discount tickets to the Boston Celtics basket ball game (niggers). Of course I was not going . But she also added that I should have a Guinness at the bar downstairs, “because they know how to pour it.” Having gone there to fetch one , a barmaid put “Wonderwall” on the jukebox. It was the first time that I heard the song – besides as foretold in the Amherst trance – and it all came back to me, resonating with my fate to be here.

In the last years prior to Internet taking hold, it was seemingly only me who had notice enough to care about the vastly unjust imposition of interracial politics and to to care enough to want to take on the daunting forces of anti-racism in its array to want to fight or flee. In the bar below the hostel the barmaid put a song on the jukebox, “Wonderwall”, which I “heard for the first time.” I say, “heard for the first time”, because it was not the first time – actually, I belatedly recalled why it was so familiar: I sang it repeatedly in the Amherst trance which happened in early ‘95, months before the song came out. It was apparently the summary song about me and that collective trance in which I was the unwitting master of trance ceremonies.

Amherst, Mass., October 1996

Fort Monmouth, N.J., (homeless shelter), November 1996

1997 was my last full year in The United States, living at a few different places on the Jersey shore.

1998, starting in the summer, I traveled several European countries

1999, after wintering on the Jersey shore, attending the feast in Calabritto in the summer, I attempted to get situated in Pila, Poland

Winter 1999 - 2000, I took care of my sick father in Brielle, New Jersey until he died in early February. Then I drove his car out west to my brother in Arizona.

Helplessly Hovering

Two flew over Belarus

Shortly after my father’s death in the first days of February 2000, I had the task of driving his Toyota Camry from his house in Brielle, New Jersey, to my brother in Pine Top, Arizona. I made some detours along the way to take in some sights, including some time in Aspen, Colorado, to try the ski-slopes, secure for having done fairly well in my first ever attempt at downhill skiing in what were designated the “intermediate slopes” of New Hampshire’s White Mountains in 1996.

Richard Spencer’s experience of being fated to a ride a ski-lift to its conclusion in highly uncomfortable company prompts a story of my own fate on the chair.

In Richard’s case, fate had him stuck next to one Randy Scheunemann. Despite the discomfort, it was instructive (for me, anyway) to learn who this man was – an insider neo-con, influential during the W. Bush Administration and in fact, a member of Project For A New American Century, a.k.a., Operation Clean Break (to secure the ‘realm’ around Israel). Scheunmann was one of its loud voices advocating all of its wars and military operations going on behalf of Israel, using The U.S. and any other nation it could press into its service. But once out of a job with the “neo-cons” out of office, there he was, helplessly hovering, captive with an enemy.

My own experience in the fate of helplessly hovering did not have me placed in the company of an enemy, but with a man who was on amicable terms, could have been a good friend. Instead I ruined his day and caused a cringingly uncomfortable, seemingly endless ski-lift ride to the top of Aspen Mountain. As this particular episode did not highlight the large fall of a once prominent man, but the pathetic bungling of normal relations, I am prone to examine rather what I believe to be its non-trivial aspect – and that is the connection of fate. It is not my purpose to state that I have anything like a sufficient explanation yet for the meaning of fate. Rather, that I am compelled to believe in its more or less possibility – whereas I had not, and would not take the notion of fate seriously prior to these experiences which I recount.

Hovering with (people who should be) friends – a different kind of fate, the fate of a non-snob. Hovering with what should be friends above, friends below, friends on the level and not realizing who were and who were not friends – with bad effect.

To recapitulate a paragraph:

Unlike Richard Spencer, I have been skiing exactly twice in my life. The first time was in the White Mountains of New Hampshire. Having taken my ski lessons and mastered what was called “the intermediate slope” quite handily, I developed a bit of hubris in my ability – at least for the intermediate slope. I tried the advanced slope once and could not even stand before falling and being jettisoned downward. Nevertheless, even little kids were whisking down past me and I could not believe how they did it – I only realized that I could not handle the advanced slope.

Hubris meets Nemesis

My hubris in prevailing over the intermediate slope of the White Mountains is humbled by the Nemesis of Aspen’s “intermediate” slope.

So the next and last time I went skiing was in March again, four years later, in 2000; it was a few weeks after my father passed away. I had to drive his car from New Jersey to my brother in Arizona. On the way I decided to try skiing again – this time in Aspen, Colorado, on Aspen Mountain precisely. I must have made an awkward sight in my Carhartt pants amidst all other people equipped in proper skiing attire. But such was my hubris, I had mastered the intermediate slopes in The White Mountains. I could do this, just as I am. I rented my skis, took a day pass and hopped on the ski-lift next to a guy maybe around my age, late 30’s, obviously a nice guy – as one who clearly had experience, he nevertheless told me not to worry about my pants; and gave me some tips; to watch what other people were doing and encouraged me to have fun. We talked more and he mentioned that among outdoor activities, that he enjoyed hot air balloon racing.

I quickly chimed in with the story of the two balloonists who had accidentally drifted over Belarus the prior September, only to be shot as helpless sitting ducks. As I recounted the story to him, I did what many of you would do – I laughed, because it was so ridiculous and pathetic: the thought of these two sitting ducks, helplessly hovering there, American passports in hand, pathetically shot down as they dangled above the doltish force of nature that is a neo-Soviet mentality. My raucous, cynical humor was not well placed. A sudden pained expression came over his face. “These were my friends” he said..

Oh, Christ. We were near the beginning of the ride. Dangling captive, far above ground. I had to go all the way up the mountain with him after having laughed about his friends being killed. And he was nothing if not a nice guy. I don’t remember what I said to try to help us past my faux pas, but as the day went on, it became clear that it did not help. I saw him from time to time, either at the top of the mountain or from the lift. He was not mad at me, despite witnessing my pathetic struggles, as someone who clearly did not belong, out of his element, trying to eke down the mountain perpendicularly, at a ridiculously slow pace (and still falling constantly!); he did not pay particular attention to me, but was, in fact, clearly despondent, withdrawn into himself, not the cheerful man I’d set upon the ski lift with.

I took to the intermediate slope only to find that the “intermediate slope” here was like the advanced slope in the White Mountains (and there were no beginner’s slopes on Aspen). It was all I could do to stand up – with that degree of incline beneath me it took every muscle in my body just to do that – using muscles that I had barely used in my life, just to keep from falling. I was bewildered as people whisked by me, dashing down the mountain with joyous skill, virility and strength, while I eked down in the most horizontal pattern that I could manage so as not to be hurtled down the mountain uncontrollably. It was during my first trip down that I realized my most important task was not to enjoy this, but to not get hurt.

Still, I wanted to do it. I made it down and back up twice this way. Some experienced skiers commended me, saying they were watching me, approved of my careful enjoyment of the slope. In truth, it wasn’t particularly enjoyable. I was way out of shape for this. After the second trip and at the top of the mountain, I saw myself in a mirror, face as red as a cherry, having to concentrate on breathing. I was exhausted. Other people, Nick Buoniconti among them, went about calm, relaxed, passing me by and enjoying their skiing. After resting, I managed to make it down and back up a third time. Now I was completely exhausted and I wondered how I could even make it down the mountain a last time, but as the slope’s closing time approached I had to try.

This time I was at a true snail’s pace in my perpendicular pattern down the slope. I was in pain. Falling down every two or three minutes after a while. It started to get dark. Skiers passing me by became fewer and fewer, more intermittent. Eventually it became clear that the last skier had passed me as I lay on the side of Aspen mountain unable to move. Finally, this lady in a red suit, white cross on her chest, whisked up to me and asked, “are you hurt?” I answered, “no, I just can’t move. And I don’t want to get hurt.” She said “it happens all the time”, got on her walky-talky and called for help: “we have a tired skier.”

Then this guy also clad in red suit and white cross whisked-up with a stretcher. Oh my god how humiliating. I have to lie down on that stretcher? Yep. With me humbly on the stretcher, he skied me down to the bottom of Aspen Mountain. About the only thing I can give myself credit for after having ruined the balloonist day and otherwise making a fool of myself was that I steered clear of pushing myself so hard as to hurt myself, perhaps winding-up embracing a tree in the manner of Sonny Bono or Michael Kennedy – who collided to their death against a tree, fated or otherwise, the later of whom on that very mountain.

In the ski lodge that evening, I sat at the bar having a glass of wine. Some famous looking guys saddled up to the bar. They looked like musicians I’d seen on television. One got on the bar phone and asked if he could speak with “Jane Seymour.” He looked at me and I pretended to be unimpressed, though I was thinking – that Jane Seymour? As in, Bond-girl, James Bond girl? Doctor Quinn, Medicine Woman. Hmmm. I’ve got to see her.

That's probably the same chiffon dress that she was wearing when I saw her in Aspen.

Soon she did indeed emerge from the stairwell in a shimmering white chiffon dress and made her way to a table right nearby. Appearance-wise, she has always been among my favorite types. It was surprising that she did not disappoint, but was as beautiful, if not more, in person. The conversation I overheard was not particularly interesting and she did not touch her glass of wine before leaving. It is too bad that she is half Jewish.

Maybe it was not a coincidence but fated to encounter her, as I had always cited her as an exemplary beauty. Gene hijacking is a terrible thing; and tanstaafl’s focus on Jewish crypsis is well emphasized.

I will detail more of my experience of what appears to be a phenomenon of fate, and perhaps speculate on its meaning and truth, in some posts to come.

I have discussed in part 1 of these trance adventures what was the big trance for me, when I inappropriately talked about race in an Al-Anon (ACOA) 12 Step meeting at The First Congregational Church in Amherst, Massachusetts – must have been in about July 1995. There were about 30 people there from all walks, a Muslim woman, hijab and all, a French girl who I had a crush on but who was never at that particular meeting, Jews, German Americans, a large gamut. In my stressful but impassioned despair over miscegenation, a fart came out. Not loud but audible and I apologized. Being the nice people that they were they told me not to worry about it. But one of them was a lawyer who angrily said that I probably had not broken any law, not for the fart, but for the racial talk. It was a deadly serious moment with tense silence, but then I farted loudly. Everyone laughed. I said slowly…..“niggers and Jews”…. everybody laughed again and we all went into a collective trance for the next few hours…

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Here is an account (by Tom Hamilton, naturally) of the balloonists shot over Belarus


Tragedy in Belarus

by Tom Hamilton

The grand event in ballooning, Coupe Gordon Bennett, lifted off from Wil/SG, Switzerland on Saturday September 9. The 15 teams from seven countries had excellent conditions and it appeared that new records might be set for this prestigious event.

Founded by publisher James Gordon Bennett in 1906, this international gas balloon race is decided by which balloon flies the greatest distance. Pilots have been known to stretch the limits in order to achieve the best result.

As the race progressed, Jacques Soukup, president of the International Ballooning Committee, was giving lively updates on Internet. A number of teams had stayed in the air two nights. And then three nights. As reports of the team’s progress filtered in one could sense the excitement. This year’s event was going to be a true test of which team could fly the longest.

By Wednesday morning, September 13, four teams were reported to be still in the air. Then the magic of this event was shattered by an AP wire story from Minsk, Belarus. Two Americans flying a balloon had been shot down and killed by a Belarussian military helicopter near the Polish border.

The shooting occurred on Tuesday, September 12. The Belarus government waited 24 hours to inform the U.S. Embassy that the two pilots, who were carrying American passports, had been killed.

Alan Fraenckel, 55, and John Stuart-Jervis, 68, representing the Virgin Islands, had been shot down after crossing into Belarus airspace from Poland and, according to an official statement from Belarus, failed to respond to radio calls and warning shots. Their balloon was reported to be near the Osovtsy military base and an adjoining missile base.

Both pilots were reported to have died from injuries suffered when their deflated balloon fell to the forest floor near Beryoza, about 60 miles from the Polish border.

Alan Fraenckel, a professional airline pilot for TWA, resided in St. Croix, Virgin Islands, and Ballston Lake, NY. John Stuart-Jervis, a retired Royal Navy pilot and business man, also resided in St. Croix, Virgin Islands…

http://www.balloonlife.com/publications/balloon_life/9510/tragedy.htm

Another take, from one of the widows:
http://www.rferl.org/content/Widow_Of_Slain_Balloonist_Still_Seeking_Answers_From_Belarus/1760608.html

….

An analogous, but even more senseless and numerous killing of helplessly danglers (This time by a US fighter pilot flying into cables of a ski-lift as a result of reckless daredevil flying):

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/02/04/world/20-die-in-italy-as-us-jet-cuts-a-ski-lift-cable.html

Summer 2000 began two years of hell in Pila, Poland (detail in separate post;) punctuated by a trip to parts south, incl. Calabritto.

Summer 2002, I began living in Poznan, Poland, back to the U.S. only twice for two months since then; some inter-European trips.

That’s me, top left, on Helska peninsula, Poland – where I had no rational reason to go, but was prompted there by the recognition that I had seen Magda (“not even the rain has hands so small”) in trance; and recognized her belatedly in another trance on 9-6-96 after having met her in Salerno. So I chased her as a muse to Poland. There I was,  Magda Fuhrman, center, her friend Helen, top right and Magda’s cousin, bottom left, in late September 1996

Continue Reading Trance Adventures in White Separatism Part 2, From Newark to Europe

Wonderwall: Hypnotic Suggestion, Future Glimpses, pursuingWhite Separatism

  • Post author:
  • Post category:Central

As with just about all of the seventy some odd posts at dnanations.com, this is a work in progress; some posts will need more work than others, and this one more than others will begin as a work in progress.

The reason being that it is important that the matter have presence among the basic oeuvre – and it is more important that the story or stories, as it were, of my sense of destiny implicated by trance be indicated as a post that is yet to be completed than to wait for the myriad of detail to be added and refined before posting.

…he either wanted this outcome – the same as I might – or I’ve done it despite hypnotic suggestion/coercion. I believe the latter is more true, thus more clearly expressing my agency and independent autonomy from post hypnotic suggestion.

I’m talking about a therapist that I sought council from, as I’d mentioned previously, to seek relief from emotionally harrowing family circumstances compounded by a fiercely unsympathetic first girlfriend who shocked my psyche but good.

I met this therapist by myself at first and then came with my parents and two of my three siblings for two sessions.

A session or two after that I came by myself and he farted, said something like, “hmm, smells like baloney sandwich” …and for some reason I went into a hypnotic state,

I fell deeper under when he said me, “you have a nigger nose” (I’d always been insecure that I have a kind of semi-pug nose)… he added to my consternation by saying, “your father is a nigger”…and, “you have a little White dick.”… adding, “You smell, but don’t worry, women like that,”

Next he commended the fact that I reacted with anger at his saying my father was “a nigger.” …the way an Italian would react. Then he said, “you don’t like niggers.”

Although I kind of agreed that I did not like niggers, I did offer some resistance to that suggestion for the sake of dealing with the reality of the social/ political circumstances of New Jersey, circa 1985. I rejoined, “but I really love Jim Hendrix music and have several of his posters on my wall”. He said that Hendrix represents the part of me that I don’t like. I didn’t exactly agree with that, but he said, “ok, we’ll agree to disagree about that.”

He went on to explain about my nose and somewhat ambiguous appearance, that I have a “continental European look” and “that’s good.”

By the way, DNA tests show that I have zero African ancestry. Seeing my father, I would not have bet on zero percentage. But anyway….

The suggestion was that continental Europeans were undervalued in their importance as a European ecological buffering people against non-Europeans – a Wonderwall perhaps – this was the sense that I was getting from him anyway, and I could agree to that.

I saw a book on his wall, the title of which I liked and repeated aloud. It was an academic book and he said to me that I was going to write to some professors whose articles are in that book. That I am going to save the world.

He added, that I will fight against racism. I told him in no uncertain terms that I would do no such thing. Nor would I. Sensing my intransigence on the matter, he said, “alright, you’ll be didactic.”

He was using the word ‘didactic” against me because I had spoken of it as a pretentious sounding word that some of my undergraduate teachers had used, meaning “being or doing so much something as to get the opposite reaction.” 

I believe that I have transcended this post-hypnotic suggestion; that I have not sold my sold to the foolery of anti-racism and anyone worth their salt, who pays attention to what I say, will not be turned off so as to become anti-racists.

Hence, my initial remark; that he either wanted this outcome, or (more likely), I have achieved it, demonstrating my agency and autonomy despite his post-hypontic trance suggestion.

Anyway, in following up writing to them, he said that I was going to go to a North Eastern University, where the liberals think that they are so smart, but they are not; and show them continental European assertion by contrast, I would “act like a crazy Italian.”

I asked him, “what do I get out of this?” He said, good question. At Tufts you just crammed; now you’ll get a real education.

I said that I didn’t know if that was enough. He asked me what ele I might like, and I replied, I’d like a virgin wife and two children by her. He made a check mark, as if the wish would be granted.

Finally, in that trance state, I must have seen in my mind’s vision, anyway I said, “Polish women are the most beautiful in the world?”

I don’t know if that’s true, but I’d one day find that they certainly have their share of beauties, quite unlike the impression that we had growing up during the cold war, thinking that women behind the iron curtain were like the brutish women that we saw from the Eastern bloc in the Olympics.

…thus, I was off on my adventures of navigating the ostensibly benign direction and flows of post-hypnotic suggestion along with the turgid waters of White separatism.

…

In 666 & The Final Grammar, I detail some of my paranormal experiences that occurred prior to altered state trance experiences – which will include some “clairvoyance”,  seeing some future occurrences. There was no seeing into the future or the like in the strange psychological experiences in days prior to trance induction; these were qualitatively different experiences.

That article moves through a time in my preliminary struggle for a sufficient world view and corresponding, coherent autobiography – beginning times during high school and college when I was forced to study things that were not highly relevant to my concerns, I began by backing off into identity as “an artist” and defaulted into pursuing a moral ordering of world view through religion, viz., Christianity.

Having graduated from college, I discovered the wonderful freedom of being able read what I actually wanted and needed – which at that point was material that would help me deal with harrowing social and interpersonal circumstances. A primer on existentialism contained some tidbits from Heidegger which were particularly instrumental. Specifically, Heidegger suggested that it was somehow necessary to place one’s life, one’s autobiography in historical context. It was then that I began thinking about the childhood years of my life and considering feminism and hippies as unresolved conflicting agendas, with the hippies being an unarticulated White male agenda for the more basic needs on Maslow’s hierarchy – Being, as opposed to being drafted into a war in Vietnam where there was no clear and present danger to him (the hippie) and his people; while the feminist “higher grumbles” and claim to necessary pursuit of the higher reaches of self actualization (in order to be liberated from the basic and ordinary need levels being marketed to women and limiting them as their lot) was rather conceited and out of turn, by comparison. Nevertheless, the vital White male motive beneath the hippie manifestation was not articulated and in fact, feminist destruction went into overdrive while traditional women resumed their age old, “none of this cry baby stuff about how intrinsic value should be recognized in you, that you have the right to exist or something.”

Anyway, my first girlfriend, Sharon, was having none of that. In a distinct episode after I made myself happy in the decision to break up with her – though she had, until this point, been the one instigating the idea that we were not a good match – she stood before my desk where we worked, hands clasped, in a pleading gesture that we not break up. And shortly after luring me back in, she began to lower the boom on me, doing what she might to destroy my psyche (I might have learned a valuable lesson right there: once you part ways with someone, stay parted. If you let them back into your life, they might be looking for revenge or some sort of punishment for your being able to live without them).

Thus, I was desperate, willing to return and listen to the therapist, “Wally”, whom I’d stopped seeing after only a few sessions a year before, when I was having difficulty remembering things under the onslaught of Sharon’s psychological abuse. It was in these return visits to Wally that the trance induction happened, “your father is a nigger” and so on…

I was becoming aware that there wasn’t going to be a lot of sympathy and taking into account the emotional/ intellectual handicaps that I was saddled with, what with my father’s fantastic rage tantrums in a matrix of indifference otherwise. He made no sense, could not communicate clearly and yet was enraged when he was not understood (wonder why I had to take up study of interpersonal communication?). My mother having been broken by his propensity to attack vulnerability, became very sick, psychologically and unremittingly hostile – largely toward me – leveling bizarre negative attributions while prohibiting any metacommunicative challenge to false attributions, in classic double bind mode; my older sister Cara’s feminism channeled my father’s style but with ice cold unsympathy and seething hot, humiliating eruptions (e.g., if I remarked on a woman being pretty); while my brother Tom channeled my mother’s unremitting antagonism toward me, endless insulting, degrading, alienating names, indifferent sarcasm, loud mockery and displays of taunting whimsical merriment when sensing that he’d caused me consternation.

Tom would frequently back off at the last minute so that I would look like the instigator when my mother came to intervene with a few held back slaps of repremand on the shoulders. My father would say, “I don’t understand!” …as if it was hard to understand that Tom was jealous and bullying me. If Cara set about to “intervene” in our fighting (i.e., Tom bullying me) it was always to say, “stop it, both of you!” …as if I had equal responsibility.

“Rationalizations”, denial as it were, was possible in way for the prior generations that my parents and older siblings represented, along with the denial of society at large, regarding the planet of the apes that America was becoming, which was not possible for me. Black power and civil wrongs (“Civil Rights”) for blacks was being imposed in an earlier time in my life, childhood, such that I was not able to take for granted in comfort my rights, integrity and prerogative as a White male being recognized by the American system. 

Martin Luther King and "Civil Rights activists" march through towns in the American south.
As southerners already had meaningful enough experience of blacks to be more conscious of the need for discrimination, Eisenhower had to call in the National Guard to impose school integration.

Imposition of blacks had been set in motion before I was born by The Brown Versus Board of Education Decision, 1953, and imposed by the National Guard in the south by the late 50s. These blacks “Civil Rights” were further imposed by the Woolworth’s sit-ins and “freedom marches” of the early sixties, and ratified shortly after my birth by the “Civil Rights Act” of 1964, before I would have any consciousness of the issue. But still the less ostensibly benign side of black imposition was only getting in gear in a way that could throttle my would-be denial wall (“ego barrier”) in a way that it could not with older generations; as Malcolm X’s proclamation that the black man would rule might seem a threat that could be simply dismissed in its implications; the black riots of 1967 and 68, which indeed spelled the death of the Italian community that we were born into (along with the death other ethnic communities); and should have settled greater aversion to blacks in the minds of the older generations than it did in fact. They were able to maintain denial.

MLK and Malcolm X meet briefly in front of Supreme Court after Civil Wrongs Act passed into law.
"The Honorable Elijah Muhammad said that the black man would rule."

And in my family’s case, they were able to maintain denial in large part because we were engaged in White flight. We had moved out of Newark to the suburb of Montclair when I was still an infant.

The Rumford Fair Housing Act which prohibits one from discriminating on the basis of race with regard to property sales and rental was only ruled in 1968.

We were here, ensconced in Montclair, while this was going on in Newark....
Newark never really recovered after black riots in 1967 (following an alleged White police brutality incident against a black motorist) and 1968 (upon the assassination of MLK). The stage had already been set for destruction as one of Eisenhowewr's highways cut through the etnic communities (right next to Ethel Berg's house; she was the kindergarten teacher of my older siblings and the sister of famous WWII spy, Mo Berg. But the killer blow, the death of the city, as E. Michael Jones describes it, was the importation of blacks to bust up the catholic communities.
The boomers were able to enage in implicit White Being, remaining largely unconscious and inarticulate of the political ramifications of their own motives in distinction from black "civil rights" and black power (and even from feminism and traditional women). Of course these casual gatherings in the park (for me, Brookdale Park, N.J.) appealed to me, but profoundly.
Danny Eigo and Kate Harrison, hippie friends of my older siblings at Brookdale Park, N.J.
My brother Tom (left) and I, in Disneyworld, Florida, May 1972

But it wasn’t as if Montclair didn’t have a growing and sizeable percentage of blacks as well; it’s just that the school classes of my older siblings neither had as high a percentage as they did for me, and worse, they were not bussed to go to a monkey cage, er, mostly black school as I had to in a program of forced school integration in the fall of 1971.

Bussed to a monkey cage, er, planet of the apes, er, Nishuane School on the other side of town.

And as the Vietnam war draft came to a close around 1972/3, the modicum of human leniency extend to White male Being in the form of the Hippie expression began to evaporate almost overnight and feminism went into overdrive with their no win criticisms of White men: wimp or pig, no matter what you do. And worse, an alliance between feminists and black power against White men was being developed and looming ominously in its implications.

I went to college as a Fine Arts major, ok because I had talent, but also because it was about all that I could cope with – barely did that, but did manage to get a Bachelor of Fine Arts degree (1984) from Tufts – university with a pretty good reputation. I suppose this was a rogue way of getting a degree and not a very substantial education, but it gave me some clues as to how to pursue learning and the relief, as I said, to pursue learning what I needed now that I was free.

I was happy about that but not quite prepared for the rigors of the real world and its women.

When I reached an age to start to attempt to date women in my early twenties, I was getting roughed-up by my girlfriends, who didn’t particularly want to make up for the emotional backlog – some of them not for a minute – Sharon would start screaming. even though I really was Not going to go-on-and-on; which I would not do …but to be disallowed from now and then discussion of circumstance? No, I was the bad one, society was an even and wholesome playing field, its rigors beyond critique.

This shocked me to where my consciousness literally shut down involuntarily in some ways (which caused me to go to the first hypnotherapist, Wally); My sister Cara gave me a Playboy Magazine featuring an article giving the advice, “don’t ask her questions.”

I found difficult to tolerate how my family had treated me in combination with their accepting attitude toward society – as I was not being treated particularly well by society at large either – of high context, I was bewildered by the implications for my EGI, given the pervasive feminism (which Sharon acutely manifested as well) in combination with anti-White advocacy; and more personally, I was being roughed-up Sharon for my neurosis, timid/angry personality – a back-log if things that are not generally welcome to be heard on dates (and where else to turn? of course, to a therapist (viz., Wally and Naomi), to sort out the neurosis resulting from emotional/intellectual family preparation, rather lack thereof.

Upon graduation, I met my first longish term girlfriend, Sharon, at a job that I took provisionally. If I think of anything particular about the experience that might be instructive, I will insert it here, but lets say for now that “the manosphere” talks a lot about the insanity of “shit tests.” Sharon leveled a pretty severe version, enough for me to accept my mother’s invitation to visit a counselor, despite my resistance to the idea that the problem was in me.

Nevertheless, I did visit “Wally” once, presenting the problem that my psyche was frozen, petrified by Sharon’s traumatic propensity to fly off the handle for tripping wires that I could not see and could not even imagine as infractions, that I might venture a modicum of explanation that my circumstance, as any, was not an even playing field, and the false attribution that not only was I not supposed to talk about these things once, but that I would not stop and lacked any judgment as such. It got to a point where I literally could not remember things for the humiliating terror of her reactions in connection with the evident fact of her far more keen intellectual functioning revealed to me the depressing/infuriating fact of what a deficit my family background had saddled me with emotionally and intellectually; while showing what an advantage that she had having an emotionally decent family and, significantly, being a go-getter woman at that time.

Anyway, I saw “Wally” only once at that time (some time in 1984), finding him weird – his premature white hair did give him an Andy Warhol effect, not a comforting look for a therapist. 

I struggled on my own throughout the year, against all too much empathy for, not exactly Ted Bundy, because I was never sadistic and calculating, but a guy who might like to take out some deserving bitches – would like to, anyway.

I  had been moving through what I believe is a fairly normal means to articulate a world view given very confusing family and societal circumstance: starting with an identity as an artist, as it had safe emotional distance and perspective of world-view, noticing what was beautiful in life and semiotic of health in contrast to this crazy and mean family and society.

Next, I began to be confronted by the dead look of disgust and disinterest when I’d answer, “artist”, to a young woman’s questions, “who are you, what do you do?”

With that, one is thrown into trying to grapple with showing more substance in dealing with the ugliness and arbitrary cruelty of the world by looking into religion; and given my background and circumstance, discursive structures everywhere prompted and suggested that Christianity had not been taken faithfully enough by people, that they were not trying hard enough to understand its true and pure message. Anyway, adding a few religion courses to help round out my social studies requirements at Tufts provided subjective enough opinion, identity and unmeasurable enough means to help bullshit my way to a degree. The best thing to come out of that was the understanding of what fabricated bullshit that the bible is.

Nevertheless, being disabused of nonsense merely clears the way, it does not provide positive means for negotiating what IS the reality and bitches like Sharon (and my sister and mother). My misogyny at the time is something that I can understand even now that I am healed-up, given her coup de grace to my psyche, on top of my mother’s unremitting hostility, my sister’s cunning feminism, concealed in the background as resource not at risk, but behind an icy cold, defiant indifference to my feelings, mixed with sudden, shrill, searing hot eruptions of humiliating ridicule if I was stupid in a moment or focused too much on women’s beauty. 

This created a horrible intentional oscillation in me with regard to women, sometimes called “ambivalence.” I loved them in the sense of their beauty, feel and charm; for what they could be for me, but not necessarily for what they were in my experience.

My ad hoc solution to this horrible intentional oscillation in my psyche was to fashion a one to ten scale from the psychological requirements – found in one of those pamphlets illustrated with circle-headed people that I found in a clinician’s office (i.e., Wally’s office) – requirements of “emotional”, “physical”, and “intellectual” with regard to estimating needs in a partner. I found my own most innocence in the idea that I was willing to take my equal in a woman on a 1-10 scale of emotional, intellectual and physical bearing. Innocent though I may have been, it was barely enough to gird me against my sister’s hatred and skepticism, against Sharon’s onslaught; thus, I moved on with the natural progression of worldview that I mentioned, by trying to negotiate psychology with beginner’s erudition in Carl Jung, Freud and Gestalt Psychology (Fritz Perls).

This erudition alone was not  enough to get me fully functional, but perhaps I felt equipped enough by it to negotiate my defense in psychology, that the problem was not all, or even largely in my head, but that family and society at large should bear significant critique. 

Thus, I sought out Wally again, a year after my first visit with him. That’s when he induced me to that trance and post hypnotic suggestion. He was still placing a bit too much blame on my shoulders, but drawing upon some sophisticated psychology (his mentor was Minuchin) which drew upon sophistications from other disciplines, from biology, sociology, communicology to philosophy, so at least I had a good lead as to how to make my way from there. 

Like I said, he suggested that I write a few of those scholars published in a book on his shelf, then go up there to the North East to get a real education from them in exchange for showing those liberal sons of bitches ‘what for‘, by (being ‘didactic), acting like a crazy Italian. But that would come a few years later. There were still a few hypnotic detours for me to go through.

By January 1986, I was talking with older brother as he changed the diapers on his first born son. I was still trying to sort out the mental abuse that Sharon had subject me to, I responded to my brother’s comment that I should not remain “angry with the bitch”, by saying that this was no accident. She was deliberately trying to fuck my mind up enough to due me in: it was evil. Tom was charitable enough in that moment to agree, “that is evil.’ … but then he went to say, pedantically, as he changed his son’s diapers:

He said something to the effect of “and our parents didn’t have the skills to raise us right, so we have to do better for our children.” I found this flabbergasting for a couple reasons. One, I was 24 years old and he was treating my life as if it was a done deal, time to make way for the next generation, but not acknowledging any of his (large) part in creating the misery for me during my rearing as a child and adolescent. And now it was as if to say “and here is your replacement.” It was kind of shocking to me. None of this history was convenient for his wife either but I’ll get to a strange mention of that factor a little later

My survey of thoughts came to a focus. I didn’t say anything but was thinking to myself, is he kidding me? This brother of mine, almost five years older, fat and jealous, who did anything that he could get away with to destroy my emotional balance, ego boundaries, render me intellectually ineffective, ruin the foundational period of me life, handicapping my capacity to make a happy and successful life for myself, is now conversing over his infant son as if to say, ‘here is your replacement’, ‘never mind that I did my best to wreck your chances in life’. What the fuck? I was just 24 years old and he was going to tell me that I should put my life behind? How about ‘No.’

That's me, center, with my brothers Tom, left and Larry, right; on my sister's wedding day in 1980

Soon after that my mother had the idea of giving me a graduate present of a plane ticket so that I could meet my oldest brother, Larry, in Colorado. I determined that being given this trip by my mother was a means to control my agency and keep me in family control whether it was good for me or not. Sensing that it was rather her way of trying to maintain control over me (deciding what priorities that I should have), I played along, using it as a stage to get me to the Stanford, California area, in hopes somehow, furtively or otherwise, to study under some of those deemed (in the books on Wally’s shelf) to be masters of psychology; in hopes of gluing together my poor mind and making sense of expanding liberalism. In retrospect, had I been truly able to see into the future and able to read minds, I might have become a millionaire if I’d been able to help Larry with a plan (that he never told me about) to buy land in Telluride, California. But I can understand my lack patience with Larry, who last time I saw him living home on steady basis, was headed to Woodstock (the original) with a can of tuna fish.

Now it seemed he was going to “question the authority” of my academic learning (which I had no intention of authoritatively imposing) by dint of the shamanic wisdom he’d gleaned from his American Indian friends. I had no intention of putting up with this nonsense and fled to the Bay area of California, in hopes of supporting myself with menial jobs, getting situated there and, as I hoped, never talking to my family again. I was having none of that American Indian nonsense, but here I was crashing secretly in a hideaway nook at Theta Kai Fraternity at Stanford, and that evening defending psychology – yet to take the step of ranking it behind in importance (a step that GW will never sufficiently make)  – defending it as a science against a student who mocked it: “some people think psychology is a science.” I called up a former landlord, whom I lived with in my first year of college, at CCAC in Oakland, and he picked me up and (I now know grudgingly) let me stay at his place again.

Just goes to show, even in 1986, between paying off my student loan and other basic living expenses, I could not make ends meet with those menial jobs. I remember watching about the Chernobl nuclear disaster on TV, Saturday 26 April 1986, and not long after getting some sage advice from this landlord (whom I was having difficulty paying; even at what was to him, a friendly favor rate): “couldn’t you just take what you need from your parents.”? And so I grudgingly called home and found my parents truly relieved, worried something might have happened to me.

My mother paid my in-arrears rent and bought me a plane ticket back home, which I took, despite my spite and sense of a big, even if temporary defeat.

I had in the back of my mind that I would visit with Larry in Colorado and then escape to California – I hoped to escape my family forever and start a new life.  I wanted to visit some of my intellectual heroes in Palo Alto. And, as I had mentioned before, I hoped to work odd jobs and write screenplays. That may sound grandiose, but I really only hoped to write them – I had a couple of really good ideas (I still hold to them), and I did not presume that I could ever get them produced. I looked at it as a potential way of exercising my demons and gaining voice on a society that I had significant grievances with. Long story short, I could not make ends meet, and my landlord gave me the good advice to “just take what you need from your parents.”I called and my parents were both relieved (I hadn’t talked to them in months); they bought me a ticket home.

I came back somewhat defeated, working odd jobs and living in my recently deceased grandmother’s house.

When I visited Tom and Eva’s house, Tom questioned and pried out of me, as he would (the bear* pawing at the fish of my burgeoning mind/consciousness coming up stream), “what was I doing in California? He would often play coy, pry out of me my private, unfinished ideas, and then burst out in mockery to humiliate me. The bear was waiting up stream eating the fish of my intellectual aspirations and would even paw and kill the ones he couldn’t eat (while Tom was like a bear waiting upstream with regard to my conscious development, Cara was like a queen bee, stinging, humiliating and killing any nascent critical conscious about to be born – always using her feminist perspective to trivialize, limit, humiliate and control).

Anyway, Tom did pry out of me what I was doing, I told them that I wanted to write a screenplay and then added a bit of self deprecating humor – “and then become famous in Hollywood.”

Then something very strange happened: Tom and his wife Eva embraced each other in glee – apparently because my “grandiose” plans had been thwarted. They couldn’t have been happier. It was really strange to me.

While staying at my grandmother’s house, I resolved more than ever to read-my-way to advancement. That meant opening my consciousness in the times I concentrated – always a risky prospect for me.

I tried to live independently from my family, between renting rooms to living at my recently departed grandmother’s house in Newark. My mind was tortured at this point. I worked for a funeral home conglomerate, and, I must say, I can’t image that they had a worse worker than myself, ever. If there was a mistake to make, I made it.

At their Bloomfield funeral parlor, I was an usher, and I failed to catch an old lady as she tripped walking in the doorway and she sued my employer. For their Jewish affiliate, Bernheim-Goldsticker, I attempted to pull their limousine into the garage in an improper angle, and smashed up the  whole side. I left an apologetic note, offering to forfeit my pay. Bernheim was very nice about it, I must say, “insurance will pay for it.” He even called upon me to drive him and Jewish associates from New York to New Jersey after that. I screeched short of an accident at an intersection and one passenger commented on his mortality. Another time, I drove the famous violinist, Isaac Perlman, to New Jersey (no tip – he complained that the trunk door was slightly ajar and that the vibrations might do something to his Stradivarius which was stored there for the trip). Again in Bloomfield, while on the clock and doing nothing, I complained about being asked to wash windows. When picking up a body from south Jersey, I mistakenly put the straps over the blanket, leaving it obvious that a body was there as I passed toll-booths on the New Jersey Parkway; I could not help but laugh at the reactions: unprofessional.

During this time I was trying to read my way to health; and this ran the risk to me of opening my consciousness to that which had afflicted it and blocked it, largely my mother’s false, hostile attributions to and prohibition of metacommunication. Upon the rage this set off in me on one occasion, I biked over to my mother’s house and told her that I hated her guts. A look of intense pain came across her face. But I held the theory, better vent my spleen to her, the perpetrator, than take it out say, on a future spouse.

I was expected to live in the basement apartment of my grandmother’s house, and prepare the other floors for rental; when I was slow to go about it, because I “wanted to” (needed to read and sleep), my mother came over and woke me up, noisily cleaning the room I was in. When I shatched the eye glasses from her face in order to get her attention and stop her, it accidentally chipped her nose bone and caused her pain. I should not have done that but to cause her any physical harm was an accident. Nevertheless, my feminist sister, still fresh into her family law career, had deeply imbued discursive structures, looking for a lifetime for a moment like this: “There’s such a thing as domestic violence!” I cursed her out, both to make short hand of the complexity of it and for my confidence in my relative innocence

My bother Tom paid a special visit to me.

He said that “people are saying you are like Jeff, setting yourself up to be a loser.”

I knew the situation enough to decode it: “People are saying” means my sister’s husband, the over respected and self righteous opinion of a six foot four boomer, who reaped the additional benefits of a private school and an inherited business. 

(Jeff was a friend of my oldest brother Larry; and Jeff was not respected because he had a hard time holding down a job). I don’t think that Jeff was much for erudition, so the comparison was limited, but whatever, right?

Tom then said, rather contradictorily, “your killing them” (our parents). I might have asked Tom, did he ever consider that he and my mother were killing me?

But then he went on to say, “I don’t know if you know this, but your bringing them together” (as a competitive, winning team against you). I would later kind of come to understand this when, for example, I would overhear my father remarking to my mother, “he’s got to have his fix.”  … commenting on the fact that I liked to have coffee in the morning: terrible habit, I know (lol). But I digress. And Tom went on to say, “I have this little baby.” These fucking people with “their family” and kids, they act like they are doing you a favor for automatically reproduce without much in the way of social concerns and their overriding personal concerns as such.

He went on to say, “I used to not care what people thought about me.” Was that ever an understatement , coming from THE most sarcastic  person I’ve ever known; wielding endless insulting names for me, shocking my system with sudden, loud mockery, followed up, as I said, with whimsical indifference to any consternation he might cause.

I cited our father’s incoherent personality, inability to make himself understood, then rage when he was not understood.

Tom said, “that’s his problem.”

I think that was more an expression of Tom’s comparative mental health to mine than good advice, though it was that.

I asked Tom if he thought our father was a good teacher?  The way he acted with indignation if you asked a question, for example.

Tom conceded that he was the worst.

I cited a instances of the cruel insanity of working with him: “do this, do this, do this.” …”get me this, get me this, get me this” ..bring him the wrong tool and he’d slam it on the ground, stand there seething, shaking in rage, clasping his hands in mock prayer, looking skyward and cursing in Italian, gritting his teeth, turning red, eyes bulging out of his head, then focusing on me, making it clear that he’d like nothing more than to crush my head…

Tom added a better piece of advice in this regard, “you know what I do when dad is that way? I treat it like he’s trying to help me.”

That was even better advice, advice that I wish I could have taken; but again, he was more psychologically stable than I was; didn’t have an older brother like him, abusing him; was probably literally given that advice, “your father is trying to help (toughen) you”, at time, in the late fifties when my mother wasn’t quite so sick and the society wasn’t quite so unforgivingly critical of White self esteem.

Before he left, he said, “we’ll talk.” Oh no we wouldn’t. I would read. Stupidly, I showed him the books on my floor. I did not have a good sense of “not putting personal resources at risk.” This is one of the vulnerabilities resulting from the Charmed Loop of Didactic Incitement” – which my brother wielded against me with impunity. 

Around this time my mother heard a therapist (MSW) named Naomi talking with Susan Forward on a New York radio station. Forward had just topped the New York Times Best Sellers list with her book, “Men Who Hate Women and The Women Who Love Them.” I guess my mother believed  that Naomi might intervene on her behalf against my “misogynic isolation from my family” … I was given the line that she wanted to help me, “let’s go for it!” my mother said. I figured that if she really wanted to help me, that I would get to tell my side of the story and sort things out. But after seeing her once, she came across with too much levity by contrast to my serious concerns. I sensed that she was not really on my side, but adopting  the pop-feminist psychology of the day that my mother would want to sue against me, as Naomi asked me (in levity), “why this isolation? She expressed dismay by phone – “Why?!” – when I told her that I would not be back, that I was not comfortable with her.

All the while I was attempting to keep my distance from my family. I worked other jobs, stocking a liquor store, even clean up work on a farm out in Peapack-Gladstone, having remembered from a Boy Scout hike how beautiful it is out there. Finally, took a job as a waiter at Dale’s Steak and Pancake House in Bloomfield, and I was disastrous at that too. The boss and his friend, head waitress, cute blonde lady with a black, former N.B.A. basketball player boyfriend, did not fire me (though they probably should have). Screwed up many orders among a myriad fiasco. I was mortified to find myself waiting on Sharon’s mother in one moment (I had been sending enraged communiques of on kind or another to Sharon); startled, she asked for two teas and I simply got another waitress for her. Stupidly, I crashed my hand into the glass (not breaking the glass, but clumsily not having seen it either) when reaching for a desert for a customer. One nice old lady made the remark upon that that I was “going places”, because I was “sincere.” I find that heartening, even now. Finally, my parents popped in, leaving a twenty dollar tip, and a clue that a Tufts graduate might try for bigger and better things.

As I was still struggling with the wreckage of my emotions and self esteem that Sharon had left in her wake, I did attempt to talk to my father, but talking about psychology with him was worse than a waste of time. When I tried to address the deficit that the family had set before, his response was, “don’t you think that other people had that deficit too?” My father’s response was always to have me to think of the other; and that is why when I finally would read Kant, his first principle, of unanimity (thinking in agreement with yourself) was such an important corrective revelation. Next he went to another standard fallback of his, “you (my three siblings and I) were all raised the same!” ..which was infuriatingly stupid to me. Because it did not take into account birth order, my older siblings advantage in competitiveness and cruelty, in addition to the social climate being less hostile to their generation. He added, “you think people have no regard for you, they do have regard for you.”

For the final indignation, my father said, “I just want to be done with this shit!” I sensed, and later confirmed, something unoriginal here. My father was  always a “Zelig”, a person who had no consistent personality of his own, but and arbitrary and incoherent personage, obnoxiously and with embarrassing obviousness, adopted the persona and mannerisms of others around him. [Indeed, learning how important that the autobiographical self is to go along with the corporeal self to establish coherence, accountability, agency and warrant, is just one of the reasons why I despise asshole Guessedworker – trying to tell me to drop the hermeneutic (autobiographical) side and just examine the corporeal; for his jealous stupidity and the obstruction of his gargantuan, unmerited ego project; and this idiot purports to be rigorously Heideggerian; while ignoring the necessity for hermeneutics to liberate one from the arbitrariness of mere facticity and afford human, autobiographical authenticity, of which coherence is a prime feature]

I would learn indeed that this “desire to just be done with this shit” was expression of Naomi’s strategy of Jay Haley and John Weakland’s “Brief Therapy – based on crude “pragmatic” intervention techniques of hypnotherapist Milton Erikson. This was manipulation which would devistate any response and “resistance” by the patient and providing the “relief” after frustrating them sufficiently to act in some way that the therapist wanted them to. And this was supposed to correct “the problem” (which is being located in the head of the patient and obstructedd by their “resistance”), “to be done  with it”, without protracted psychoanalysis.

This dovedails another subtle difficulty here about my father – his anti-intellectualism, which included being veritably proud of speaking with bad grammar (e.g., saying “he come” when he was supposed to say “he came”). With a dumb smile on his face, as if he was joining you in social affinity on the porch of the Italian neighborhood of 1930’s Newark, he’d relate fantastical stories about how  Ted Williams could see the  commissioner’s name on a speeding fastball; or how they really believed Martians were coming down Market Street when Orson Wells aired his “War of the Worlds” on the radio.

He would apparently get a pat on the head both from women, who sought to control men by keeping them dumbed down and  elites who wanted rank and file American men to know their place. My father would literally repeat that WWII veteran mantra, “you can’t fight city hall.” Literally, with a smile on his face, expecting approval from you.

To make matters worse, he was strong, and could humiliate your efforts as effeminate and pretentious if you tried to take an intellectual approach to doing better than that.

There was nothing famine about him, ranging from his catatonic TV watching, indifference to music and art, to his fantastic temper tantrums over arbitrary matters – I figure that these nonsensical temper tantrums were an evolved form of peacock feathers and entertainment to relieve the boredom of Italian village life. Not so devastating there, as everyone was a cousin, ready to make relative sense of this and pick up the psychological pieces of a child; but in America there was no community to pick up the pieces and make up for that emotional/ intellectual deficit.  

Nevertheless, one has no choice but to do their best with the cards they are dealt. The stock market was doing well at that time and I asked my father what he thought about my trying to be a stock broker? He said that he thought it was not a bad idea. This was an expression on the good side of my father; while he was an emotional and intellectual disaster, when it came to money, while were not rich, I would not complain. In fact, we were well enough materially, such that it facilitated some correction of the emotional / intellectual deficit.

I looked through the want ads and saw one for “Stock Broker Trainee.”

Now, I knew nothing about economics or Wall Street, and truth-be-known, I was not particularly interested. But I figured I might be able to make money this way, gain my independence from my family, and go back to school to study science (of people, society, somehow study it scientifically, in a foundational way that could not be messed with by liberals). So I went to the library and read up on what being a stock broker entailed. I latched onto the fact that honesty was of utmost importance. That I could do, perhaps help to manage part of their money, in service to wealthy and aspiring people. With an additional bit of advice from Roger’s Rules For Success, I actually rehearsed for the interview. And into   …my first trance with the president of the brokerage house, Steve Kowitski, who was conducing interviews that day only because the underling usually assigned that task was out sick.

The Mentally Retarded Genius of Wall Street

Equipped with my rehearsed lines, and the idea that I might garner investment for the brokerage house by protecting some part of my richer cousin’s wealth in safe and honestly managed securities, I sat before Philips, Appel & Walden’s Brokerage House President, Steve Kowitski, at his desk for the interview.

After listening to him pontificate and lecture about what it took to make it in this business, I took my turn to rattle off my rehearsed lines. He must have been bored and was saying something to end the interview, obviously unimpressed and obviously not going to hire me.

In that moment a loud fart erupted from me in spontaneous response to the stress, as if the depths of my psyche were shouting sarcastically, “are you kidding me?!!!”

Laughter came over Kowitski’s face and we both went into a trance state.

I called him a mentally retarded genius, said that I am one too and he burst out laughing again.

I said, “he (I) calls the guy who is interviewing him a mentally retarded genius.” We laughed again.

I explained to him that I’d  had a difficult family background and all that I could cope with emotionally and intellectually in terms of academics, was a Fine Arts major. Thus it was not full fledged immersion in its resource, but I did get a degree from a fine university  – Tufts.

He charitably confirmed, “but you rubbed elbows with them.” Then he added, “we have other brokers here, who were fine arts majors. Sometimes we prefer that; because the business schools teach students to pursue ways that are not in the brokerage house’s interest, whereas we can teach the art students our way. I’ll take you under my wing and show you how it’s done.

I told him about my wealthy cousins and how I hoped to get some business from them. He cautioned, “that if I ever left the firm, those contacts would be theirs.” I told him that I assumed that to be the case. He said that my assumption “would be correct.”

He cautioned me further that the brokers at the firm were independent contractors, some were of better character than others; and that I should be careful who I learn from. Who I associate with will be part of the determination as to whether I advance from Stock Broker Trainee to become a full fledged, Series 7 sponsored Stock Broker.

He then went on to tell a favorite story of his about how he became a big time stock broker, predicting the upward value of NASA stocks. May have been the Wall Street Journal, but probably was The New York Times that profiled him in an article titled, “The Wizard of Wall Street.”

I then told him that there would be other rewards for hiring me; and here is a big tip of my own. I don’t know how I know this, but you should write this down, because there is going to be a company called “Starbucks” and they are going to be a boon for ground floor investors.

There were other niceties exchanged and then he told me that I had to come back for a follow up interview with the usual interviewer, but it’s a mere technicality. I would learn that he’d interviewed over twenty prospects on that day alone and I was the only one that he liked.

He concluded the interview by saying, “it’s been a pleasure.” And we shook hands.

Turns out Starbucks is a (((tribal))) vulture capital scheme, largely taking advantage by scooping-up distressed inner city property, paying off black "community activists" (extortionists: "pay us or we riot and burn your property; or worse, allow Whites to gentrify the place instead"); in the wake of the Jewish created real estate bust culminating in 2008; having been created by their forcing banks to give blacks housing bond loans that they wouldn't be able to repay. More, selling a new investment medium scam to bondholders, "insurance" to guarantee a return of their bond investment.
The heads of the brokerage house would tell the brokers, "I don't know how we know this, but Starbucks is going to be big." The truth is, I didn't know how I knew this either. I was just a trance medium of clairvoyance. That interview in which I carried this message was in early summer 1987.

This presented to be a great opportunity but also a daunting transition for a fine arts major.

I felt the need for support in this transition and believed that if Naomi could serve as a normal conversational partner – just normal – that this could serve to deal with emotional issues that might crop up, flood-in and overwhelm any progress as I opened my consciousness in order to study for the series 7 and other requirements for this brokerage career.

Naomi enthusiastically assured me that she was “sure that she could help me!” As her stated method was to “help me do better”, and “act as a coach” to “achieve clarity”, there was reason to believe that she might help me negotiate this daunting career transition.

And so I went back to Naomi, and there was this air of levity about her – and about my situation, apparently. I was mystified as to how this was supposed to help me, but all I really hoped for was someone to talk with (seriously) about what I wanted to talk about. I figured it must be possible. I was demonstrating responsibility and accountability, therefore, why not be accorded prerogative over what to talk about in my therapy for F sake.

With this cognitive dissonance I returned for the follow-up interview at Philips, Apel and Walden. A mere formality perhaps, but this was the brokerage house’s top performing broker. He told me that Kowitski likes me (which was all important) and then went on to detail some of the requirements of brokerage after I got out of the mail room and passed the Series 7 – a fairly hard exam, the stock broker’s equivalent to the bar exam for an attorney’s license. 

He said that you have to have ready answers for people, you can’t just say, “I don’t know, I don’t know, I don’t know.” Then he was interrupted by a phone call as I sat there for a few minutes. When he hung up the phone, he asked (and answered) “do you know what I was doing? I was doing some hand-holding. A client just lost $20,000.”

I sat mostly silent, tried to say something about my wealthy potential contacts and my honesty.

He went into this thing about how in this business, you’ve got to put people below you. 

It was all so alien to my natural concerns that I just shut down. I choked, utterly. Could not talk. Felt my pulse speed up. I’m sure that I was beet red. 

He asked me if I had anything to say. I could not talk. It was utterly humiliating, even though it was just him and I in the room. I’m sure that he didn’t quite know what to make of it, and so he just repeated, “Kowitski likes you. You can report for work starting in the mail room on Monday.”

I returned to Naomi for some “coaching” to navigate through this turbulence. 

I wish that I could make this part shorter, but this part about Naomi’s therapy has complexities and detail that are important to provide necessary context. Though I made it as short as possible, the need to provide this old context hazards an unbecoming, wallowing feel (I have the same trepidations about perhaps including too much family background). Nevertheless, I believe this is a necessary hazard and it is the most difficult part of my statement overall to articulate. The final parts should come much easier and faster.

Why I believed them

Naomi told my parents to tell me that she wanted to “help me do better”, though she was apparently hired with a disposition in significant part to “intervene” against me.

While I was not inclined to go back to her after my first consultation with her, there are several reasons why I was induced to return and went along with her to the extent that I did.

To begin, she deployed that trick, telling my parents to tell me that she wanted to “help me do better”, though she was apparently hired with a disposition in significant part to “intervene” against me.

With that, I was fooled a bit when my parents repeated this phrase of Naomi, that she “wants to help me do better.” I would expect a minimal professional responsibility behind it, wherein a person educated in psychological matters could be reasoned with; would of course treat my side of events as potentially valid. Further, it made sense to me that if it is stigmatic and difficult to talk about personal difficulties elsewhere (particularly as a man, a “white man”), then therapy is a place to sort out these matters.

Naturally I wanted to believe in the redemption of my parents view toward me, that they were enlisting these therapists primarily to “help me”, as claimed – and when I surprised myself by getting a job as a stock broker trainee, I figured that would increase evidence enough of my own responsible motivation and intent to be self sufficient, to carry on in independent interests; it then seemed to make sense to take my parents advice that Naomi might indeed help me in this endeavor, “to do better.” I presumed that I would have a chance to talk-through my side and solve problems to help manage my consciousness in relative equanimity as I endeavored this large transition from art major to stock brokerage.

Of course I thought that was the basic point of “helping me to do better”, not intervention on behalf of a view where I was sheerly responsible for my problems, as if I had no legitimate criticisms to try to get a handle on regarding family, girlfriends, and a liberal society which, for its part, had a lot negative to say about my kind. Some confirmation and anchoring might have “helped me to do better” so that these issues wouldn’t overwhelm me when they cropped-up – as they inevitably would – when I opened consciousness to study for the Series 7 and tried to concentrate on the fiduciary matters of stock brokerage.

Brief Therapy/Eriksonian hypnotherapy objectives

But the primary motive was intervention. I could speculate about my parents motives, as Jay Haley, one of the key proponents of the hypnotic end of Brief Therapy observed of what was typical of parents in such cases: “mom and dad feel like failures, so they don’t want junior to do too well by contrast.” With that, The Milan Group of Family Therapy, in one of their better moments, might deride Naomi as having been enlisted as “Dr. Homeostat” – viz. one who puts a negative family system and altercasting back in place. Indeed, I would be mystified as she would treat even major, positive changes and initiatives on my part – such as budgeting my time to study hard as I embarked upon on a brokerage career – as if they were old intransigence that had to be overcome. When I told her how I budgeted my time to study, she surprised me by being taken-a back in fear, as if I was doing something terrible. I.e, there was a strong element about Not helping me to do better at all, but in fact an intervention to “disempower” me and to get me to do sheerly what I was wanted me to do, ultimately, in Naomi’s liberal societal interests.

This Brief Therapy combines seduction of the patient with magical feelings of trance and magical promises that are enlisted for highly pragmatic ends – to open the patient to techniques and suggestions, even admittedly “dirty tricks”, to coerce them to merely act in line with what the therapist deems the practical course of action. That being “the thing to do” was, in turn, based on notions of Wittgenstein: “the will to philosophy is a pathology that requires therapy, emphasizing episodic, ‘how-to questions’ that facilitate the patient to ‘move on with their life” – more buzzwords of the times, which I believe are more convenient to hegemonic positions than the necessary truth of what the patient needs. In these therapies, we are also talking about a theoretical cluster of hypnotherapists, viz., Milton Erikson and Jay Haley doing Haley’s Brief Therapy based on Milton Erikson’s strategy for hypnotherapy; and the Pragmatics of intervention suggested by Paul Watzlawick, Janet Beavin, John Weakland and Don Jackson. 

There is another relevant concept behind Brief Therapy derived of Wittgenstein, but also Dewey, Adorno and Horkheimer (The Authoritarian Personality) and promulgated by Rorty, that is the “necessity” to reach and undermine the patient’s final, “authoritarian grammar” – to force the patient to accept participation in the more relativistic concerns of liberal society, whereas he might otherwise wish to uphold his proposed final grammar as authoritative foundation in avoidance of liberal participation – and of final concern to its proponents, might be used as authoritative challenge to their ‘free and liberal way of life.’

“I just want to be done with this” wasn’t a highly original thought to my father, it was an indication of his Zelig-like personality relaying expression of his being sold on the “brief therapy” technique in vogue at the time – in vogue because it was high time for White men to defend themselves and turn the critical perspective back at the proponents of liberal antagonism of White men; hence it was trendy in intervention against this correction to deploy a brute pragmatism where “therapists” weren’t trying to sort out people’s deep problems but rather to coerce them to the course of behavior that they saw fit, “curing them” in a relatively brief time span

Indeed, that vulgar pragmatism behind Brief Therapy intervention merged also with my mother’s own final grammar, as she oft repeated what might be the closing lines of the heroine in a Hollywood B-movie of 40’s: “Because honey, I’m not dong it! I’m fed up!” – repeat in rasping anger hundreds of times.

It is unbecoming to mention this, as it is not the altogether unusual character of a stressed mother (of four kids, which being after all, would make me crazy too), but all too true – I needed to give some consideration to her extreme expression at that; combined with how pop feminism became a convenient vehicle for her to express her resentment, with me being the most available audience besides my father. My mother’s default mode, like Cara’s, was of the feminist trends of the times, of “taking the woman’s side” against – “assuredly, though perhaps hidden and needing-to-be-sussed-out male chauvinist pig motives.

Because of my fathers odious penchant for attacking vulnerability, my mother manifested an inability to trust, exacerbating a susceptibility to bi-polar syndrome in which she became truly sick, exacerbated further by alcoholism, she went though long spans of time when she was unremittingly hostile; and she could not admit that she could be wrong about anything (she would block metacommunication), while harshly rendering false and negative attributions of me; I recall correspondingly long spans in childhood when I was apologizing constantly, feeling as if I had to begin anything that I said with “I’m sorry.” I did not know how to get her to stop yelling and complaining in hostility and just wanted relief from the hostile atmosphere from her in particular but the rest of the family as well.

The search for relief from guilt feelings had me go through an embarrassing Christian fundamentalist phase at age 21 (’82/’83), lacking and not knowing of other coping resources at a height of stress in my last year of undergraduate studies – as I sought relief from feelings of guilt, insecurity, antagonistic family relations; and to move by contrast toward thoughtful relations instead and a stable social/moral order. My mother did not suspend disbelief in my quest to be a good person, yelling at me when I sent $40 to Mother Theresa that I was “spending her money on charity to try to make people feel guilty.” She would angrily yell, that if it was her going to college, she would “study French!” It reminded me of how she would reiterate dozens of times throughout my adolescence, that she “wanted a divorce, wanted to go to France, wanted a divorce, wanted to go to France.” 

It was traumatic for me to find my first girlfriend (at age 22) not only far more intellectually/ emotionally equipped than I, but also fiercely equipped with these pop-feminist ideas to not “baby a man”, to humiliate, and to not hear in sympathy the first word of a circumstantial explanation without screaming as if it were interminable transgression; but I digress – psychic difficulty from that experience was the presenting matter of my first hypnotherapy. There was a new problems: You can’t talk about old girlfriends with new girlfriends – you’ll hear, “all they want to do is talk about their old girlfriends.” So where do you go to sort this out? You hope a therapist can help.

Let me go back to where we were chronologically, (beyond some events that I will have to return to later)…

She couldn’t conceal the angry competitiveness behind what was for her an affected suggestion – “let’s go for it!” (belated popular jargon of the day, 1987) – to get me to go along with Naomi’s intervention against me, as it were, all too equipped, as she might well suspect, with grievances.

So after my initial gut reaction had kept me away, I came back to Naomi, seeking help for this heavy transition from fine art to brokerage, despite the fact that she made me uncomfortable, mystified me really, by her un-serious attitude. That was basically why I completely choked in a panic attack with my second interviewer at the brokerage house. I apparently only got hired anyway because a scheduling discrepancy led to my getting the head of the brokerage house for my first interview and I intrigued him as an upstart. He was about to dismiss the interview in indifference, but I farted loudly in response to him, making him laugh with that and we immediately went into trance together – the additional audaciousness of my calling him a “mentally retarded genius” deepened the trance; in trance, I recall telling him that “a company called ‘Starbucks’ was going to do well and he ought to encourage people to buy stocks in it, I don’t know why.”…in any event, through the trance, he got the idea that he should hire me; and his opinion held sway at the brokerage house, despite my utter choke in the second interview.

Having the need more than ever for someone to talk-to, I went back to Naomi.

She induced an ecstatic trance experience for me. With the ecstatic, magical experience, I was further inclined to stick with her, believing that she could help me. It might give me a quasi magical edge and thus another reason why I believed she might help – the phenomenon of trance, its ecstasy and the apparent extra sensory capacity it entailed lent credence to the proposed “soft magic” of this Brief Therapy; along with its “magical” verbal suggestions that great accomplishments were in the offing (“saving the world”, a virgin wife – don’t know if I believed that still, but a wife and life of my relative choice) with the help of this therapy.

In a subsequent session, under the stress of my attempted brokerage career, when I said that I might like to be hypnotized again to help me relax, she angrily rebuked me, saying that I should not try to “manipulate her!”  When I responded honestly, “ok, I don’t expect you to hypnotize me or to do anything you don’t want; what I seek is nothing so spectacular at all, really, what I need is quite ordinary – I just need some normal feedback (and orientation).” She gritted her teeth and angrily told me that if “I don’t start asking women out how did I expect to get the feedback!?”

This confused me as I was overburdened with concern in preparation for the series 7 – why should I be concerned with asking women out in the few months leading up to it?  Wouldn’t I be in better position for such pursuits afterwards? Nevertheless, in seeking relief from her psychological pressures, I did in fact very awkwardly, ask-out a secretary at the office (she blushed in embarrassment at my stupid overture – by the way, the secretaries formed something like a gate-keeper class) and this, along with the confused state of mind that Naomi exacerbated in me was a large part of the reason why I would get fired. That went along with things like one of the bosses seeing me weirdly talking to myself. I was happy to have gotten a warm response from one of my wealthy cousins, and saw prospects opening and so I was talking to myself with a spontaneous grin on my face (I suppose because I had nobody to talk to – least of all Naomi).

In fact she almost never answered any question straight forwardly, but with a question, or studied indifference.

Of course I had thought Naomi was going to help me in this big transition and I was mystified as she did not take my concerns seriously at all. Instead it was continuous disconfirmation – even if she would agree on a semantic level, it was said a tone of voice like “what’s the big deal?” If I was provoked enough by that to try be taken seriously by talking about my deeper, potentially significant, but innocent ambitions; she would trivialize that too – by therapeutic design (she would be looking at my feet, to avoid looking at my face); she would keep me seeking for a human response; and she would keep devastating my attempts (“until I learned to accept being one down” – Jay Haley). The thing is, while I am getting this lesson, others will not tend to accept being one down.

Meanwhile at the brokerage house, besides being seen talking to myself and besides stupidly asking-out the secretary, I was the usual disaster at work. In the mailroom, we (me and the other trainee) accidently set the stamp meter a few digits off, such that we were sending postings stamped for hundreds of dollars for part of a day. Who screws up in the mailroom? Well, we did. I was told to be selective in which brokers that I tried to learn from. I took a shining to Charles Messina; turns out the guy was into corrupt penny stocks and junk bonds. Sold me on this idea of stock based on fire proof paint. I persuaded my sister to buy a thousand dollars worth; probably went to zero a few weeks after that. Even though I had studied diligently enough to pass the Series 7, the final straw came when Kowitski wanted to show a broker something with my computer and for some stupid reason I wanted to check a stock first and turned the screen toward myself. Well, Kowitski, Vietnam mental casualty that he was, exploded at me before the entire brokerage house and that was the end of my stock broker career

The bull market of the 80s turned into a bear marked by the end of 1987 as the market tanked and most brokers didn’t make it in fact; but that was only some consolation as my strategy was more contingent upon quality contacts than a quantity of sales.

One more stressful bit that I’d forgotten to mention. I was required to sign a contract liable for the brokerage house sponsoring the 25k fee for entry into the Series 7. That was quite a risk for me. I had other things to consider, and could do without the stress of issues so secondary to me. I decided to not try and pick up with another firm.

I guess that I felt the need to resolve the “therapy” with Naomi, so I resolved to go back to find out what this was about. Only after the therapy would I learn that the idea was to provoke a ‘transference’ of emotional hostility which could then be ‘worked through’ in theory. ..when that was going to happen, I don’t know, but she was ‘helping me to do better’ by didactic incitement. I felt like the treasures of my soul were being emptied and discarded.

However, I had been caught up by the allure of the blissful trance states (they would produce a spontaneous erection in me) with magical promises and uncertain as to the keys to success which her trances seemed to indicate – I wanted to get to the bottom of this stuff that she was doing for better or worse. I remained in a weekly visit, but everything that I could say would be minimized, disconfirmed and humiliated – including getting fired (“oh dear”). When I recognized that she would never treat anything that I had to say seriously and I went silent, she showed that she was happy and had apparently succeeded in her objective to “overcome my resistance” – she showed me the literal, proverbial couch – it seemed urgently important to her that I lie upon it; though a strange notion to me, she still had the combination of my anxiety and an understanding of the magical euphoria that she could induce with trance to lure me, along with my wish to prove my innocence; thus, I agreed to lie on the couch with her sitting where I could see her at first, and then sitting behind the third time I did it. When I did talk about the things that I had said I didn’t want to talk about (because I wasn’t supposed to “control the therapy”), she would have nothing to say and would express trivializing annoyance at my being disconcerted that she had nothing to say after insisting that I talk about these things. Would let me catch her reading a magazine, indifferent to what I’d said, if I turned around to see her while I was talking. When I said sarcastically that maybe I should come there (paying decent money per session) to say nothing, she said “that was fine, I could come there and be a couch potato.”

 I told her that I want her to suck my dick. She said ‘what if I want that too?” I said, “thanks mom” (for paying for the therapy) and she laughed. I ordered her to let me know that she was sincere by asking me again, why I want to know, once outside the door of her office; she did that.

After a few sessions putting up with her sitting behind me while I lay on the couch like a fool for two or three session, in position to promote ultimate discomfort – a cliché of the nightmare therapist – I refused and sat in a chair opposite her in the remainder of session with her.

When I hadn’t wanted to come two or three times a week but only once, because I needed to study and I explained how exactly I budgeted my time to study, she had reacted with fear, as if I was about to do something terrible. When I explained furthermore that I wasn’t inclined to come two or three times a week and that I wasn’t quite comfortable with the techniques she was using  – reflecting back, answering questions with questions etc . – she very angrily told me that “anyone who tried to ‘control the therapy!” [merited these kinds of absolutely one sided intervention techniques]. This intimidation about being “controlling” was a part of what she would call ‘always working’ as she would, “freely admit to being a manipulator.”

After I refused to lie on the couch anymore, insisting that I be able to talk about what I want, including how I objected to her techniques; that I didn’t want her to use these techniques; would never again go to a therapist who used them; and that I wanted to assert what were for me important ideas and truths that she had been disconfirming. She told me that “she’d always be working.” I wasn’t quite sure that she meant coercion nevertheless, but that was the case.

Rupturing of Final Grammar Number One: "I Don't Want."

She would always be working, as she said – i.e., every utterance was an occasion for a brief therapy intervention. She did think that I should join her group therapy with women who had weight problems. In another hypnosis session she was concerned to put across to me her social outlook in a kind sort idealized mantra  – that she was suggesting to me that I would like women of every race. But I was never so disoriented that I would allow anyone to tell me what kind of woman I had to like.

I told her angrily that “no, I don’t like black women” (as partners). She was beginning to traverse my final grammar – which was that  I wanted to be able to choose a type of woman I like and beyond that, “I didn’t want a woman who has dated a black.” I said this to her angrily in order to test her civility, the civility of this society – shouting when she mocked me. At the time, the capacity for a woman to say ‘no’ was being raised as sacrosanct (and well it should be, I thought even then), but it was not being upheld as important for a White man. She responded with subversive technique, as she would, with a quiet, coy, underminingly slow delivery, as if the shy victim to a hegemonic oppressor, plaintively asking, “wh…………eell, even if it was a long time ago?” this caused a meltdown in me (in my ability to have any trust in this society enough to participate normally).

This caused a meltdown (and concomitant hysterical trance – which she mocked) as any concern on my part to participate practically in that society was rendered untrustworthy. It had been for me a huge concession to put aside active critique of society, and in particular women who acted on that “prerogative” – viz., I wasn’t saying “you can’t”; and correspondingly, I considered it imperative for my personal integrity, and to a feeling that I could trust in the justice of this society that it respects my freedom, let alone the ancient resource of EGI, to be able to discriminate and to say “no”, I don’t want people who would impose it against my will in my personal life.

It was necessary to have confirmation of that prerogative as being significant – confirmation which was hard to come by in PC days prior to the internet. I needed that to be able to trust in the society enough to participate in the confidence that it shows respect for my freedom, by displays of that in professional, official status as well – my prerogative to enter into voluntary agreement or not was tied to my capacity to reject a woman in my personal life for choices that she might make. Then I could trust in the societal context enough to negotiate practical matters, including relationships. By contrast, for the official line to be that my capacity to discriminate among women was invalid and to be humiliated was for me wholly unacceptable.

No, Naomi did not have to confirm that, but as a matter of judgment, in my opinion, she should have confirmed that in fiduciary responsibility and it should have been clear. To me, under the circumstances, that should have been acknowledged as important – my prerogative to say “no” and to be able to discriminate accordingly, to have that considered not only my right, but recognized as a very fundamental prerogative; not something to be trivialized and undermined by the narratives circulating, those allowed/not allowed in society at that time: it was clear that she was not alone in her antagonistic position, to say the least , in fact – it was she who was among the oppressive hegemon – acting against deep (I can say sacred) concerns of my ethnic genetic interests – not just the epiphenomenon of social capital and human ecology, deep matters though those are as well. She mocked me and she made it clear by contrast that she would uphold a position of continuing to do the exact opposite of my most serious concerns –  toying with my frustration, with little half objections, pronouncing half the word “well” (“wu”) or “but” (“bt, bt”)…  as if I was the hegemonic oppressor and not its rather being the case, as it was, that the oppressive force was the pervasive and pernicious liberalism that she was “defending against me -Doing everything that she could to get to stigmatizing, disempowering, blackmailable response.

Overwhelming negative emotions triggered and elicited, brought forth these stigmatic and blackmailable reactions to awareness upon opening consciousness – awareness of the destruction to my EGI that was going on before and what was still in process – again, accounting for all of those instances that my family might point to as warrant to ostracize me and obstruct the resource to make corrective moves against the antagonism to my EGI.

It wasn’t only brokerage that went out the window at that point. Practical matters, routine concerns, making money, focus on material gain, the kinds of concerns of which my sister Cara, for example, would criticize me for not being my central focus, became then matters that I could pay attention to only as much as I absolutely had to.

What I needed in order to suspend disbelief in the trustworthiness of a society to participate on that, the level of “how to” make things work was a society that at very least showed respect for my capacity to say no, to defend myself and my EGI against people who I deemed abusive to me personally and my EGI; I needed a society that represented the recognition of reasoning-that-out is significant.

When I finally decided that I had enough, and did not want to meet with her anymore, she introduced a last Brief Therapy pragmatic trick – “do you know how to teach a woman?” Which would leverage my predilection to be careful about partner selection against me – to not be so careful in a prefigurative sense of “who”, but rather with the suggestion I could try to bring a more arbitrarily pursued woman around to my view, by “carefully teaching her” – in a word, practical force would override prefigurative force – when she presented the one clear bit of advice among the pressure of her confusion techniques. This led to me to pursuing and getting together with a woman who I really did not like very much in the first place and who was not appreciative of my “teaching.” This was not what I needed. I guess that this was suppose to placate me (because “all men want is arbitrary sex”) and make it so that I couldn’t substantially object to any sexual license among women. In fact, I felt that this trick made the most important decision of my life for me; without any concern for what I really wanted. This infuriated me, made my sense and location of my agency still more difficult. I did not date a woman for years after that, so dislocated was my sense of agency.

Why would I go along with suggestions manifest after these therapies, like “teaching a woman”, “being didactic”, or “acting like a crazy Italian”? Because these hypnotherapies and Brief Therapy techniques induce severe confusion, discomfort and anxiety and propose some clear means of relief by contrast – e.g., “do you know how to teach a woman?” … “Your prejudice is valid, in fact you are going to save the world by means of it through your continental European identity and a move to Poland as your base of operations.” With that, one is not just searching for relief from the stigmatizing, blackmailable, disempowering response that the “therapy” provokes, but offered its solution.

It wasn’t just me who was stressed by this, a prior patient had peed on Naomi’s sofa, affording my first opportunity to decline to  lie on it.

To repeat: This Brief Therapy combines seduction of the patient with magical feelings of trance and magical promises that are enlisted for highly pragmatic ends – to open the patient to techniques and suggestions, even admittedly “dirty tricks”, to coerce them to merely act in line with what the therapist deems the practical course of action. That being “the thing to do” was, in turn, based on notions of Wittgenstein: “the will to philosophy is a psychopathology that requires therapy, emphasizing episodic, ‘how-to questions’ that facilitate the patient to ‘move on with their life” – which became another buzzword of the times, which I believe is more convenient to hegemonic positions than the necessary truth of what the patient needs. In the proponents of these therapies, we are talking about a theoretical cluster of hypnotherapists Milton Erikson and Jay Haley along with Haley’s Brief Therapy based on Erikson’s ideas and the Pragmatic intervention suggestions of Watzlawick, Beavin, Weakland and Don Jackson. 

There is another relevant concept behind Brief Therapy derived of Wittgenstein, but also Dewey, Adorno and Horkheimer (The Authoritarian Personality) and promulgated by Rorty, that is the “necessity” to reach and undermine the patient’s final, “authoritarian grammar” – to force the patient to accept participation in the more relativistic concerns of liberal society, whereas he might otherwise wish to uphold his proposed final grammar as authoritative foundation in avoidance of liberal participation – and of final concern to its proponents, might be used as authoritative challenge to their ‘free and liberal way of life.’

There was a problem, however, with regard to this concept being applied to my “final grammars” in that my “final grammars” were already conceived in a liberal way – “I don’t want” (a woman who’s dated particular kinds of men), not “you can’t” – a radical concession to liberalism made and that I needed to take for granted in order to participate in liberal society on a practical level – such as attending to brokerage – I needed to be able to take that for granted as generally respected; to not have to deal with deeper theoretical matters of whether I could trust that the society was sane and just enough to respect my freedom as well – with that I could put deeper questions of society aside and attend to the practical matters of how-to participation; only expecting respect of my final grammar generally in public and confirmation in formal settings – but particularly in the formal setting of therapy which is presumably in concern of my personal well being and therefore presumably with concern to look after my prerogatives and integrity.

Transition from the subversion of final Grammar 1 – personal prerogative – sets-up subversion of Final Grammar 2 – consensual prerogative.

So there it was. The subversion of my personal, final grammar, “I don’t want” (a woman who has dated a black, etc.). You may say that it was only Naomi. But I had a clear sense not only from her, but from all around that her subversion was connected to a pervasive rule structure weaponized against my interests. Indeed, I would learn afterward that (((Naomi))) is Jewish. At the time, I was only vaguely critical of Jewry and it would not have caused me to stop seeing her of itself. Though I did ask her, “you’re Italian, right?” Relieved to think that as I gathered it would make her more empathetic. She did not answer. That was deceptive.

Anyway, this intervention set in motion the daunting quest to establish final grammar number two, “We don’t want”, i.e., our group prerogative, though I was not yet articulate of the fact.

Not long after I got fired from the brokerage job, I got a job as an undercover operative (monitoring for theft and incompetence) posing as just another salesman in the electronics department of a large home appliance retailer in Edison, New Jersey. The fact that the secretary of this investigative frim was the daughter-in-law of penny broker Charles Messina, whom I’d met from by brokerage house job in a distant city poked at my sense of destiny a bit.

But undercover investigation is a funky business, as I would find, you wind up learning more dirt about people that you like than than anyone else. And your bosses want you to rope people in; it’s a good bit of pressure, especially with my state of mind – America’s values were not working for me. Nevertheless, I was a good salesman; this was among a the few jobs I was good at along the way; i.e., despite struggling psychologically with my revulsion to America’s liberal trajectory.

These were days well before the internet and a burgeoning ethnonationalist was very isolated – my being Italian/Polish I’m sure had a good part, as I did not see the Nazi and Klanish routes as an option. The concern for EGI was alien to America’s proposition nation and land of opportunity that offered material extravagance in exchange. I seethed in anger. Couldn’t relate.

What younger guys might not realize, is that to that point in time, seeing White women at all, let alone pretty middle class ones with blacks was still pretty rare. However, although it seemed that I was the just as rare person who would notice it and be very bothered by it while others were oblivious, the logic of meaning and action was there, the implicative force was there in the societal rule structures which were moving toward holding up miscegenating women as saints of the sacred, while those who objected, most evil. 

While in years gone by it was me who was noticing a fine young white girl going into a house with a black while a my friend was oblivious, now I was getting a trickle of being confronted outright – the drop dead gorgeous blonde coming into my electronics department with a nigger; and by years end, the Madonna Like a Prayer song and video came out; and it seemed the dam burst. One way that Italian women seemed better than others had always been that they had been more averse to blacks. It would be most disillusioning for me to see these pairings.

I had long been bothered by how movies and television were backgrounding interracial couples in order to make condition people that it was socially taken for granted; but more and more they were foregrounding it - like in your face with Madonna's "Like a Prayer" song and video.

My mother’s refrain that “it doesn’t rub-off” with regard to my complaints about miscegenation” did not sit well with me. I also remember her saying around this time, “used to be you never saw a White woman with a black, now you see it in the Shop Rite every day” – the tone of voice being that she accepted it as no problem, right along with everyone else.

I still had my three piece custom made suits from my aborted stock brokerage persona and I was making ok money, so I guess I figured I may as well go the material route – but it was really a kind of suicide of materialism for me. Even though it was not expensive as sports cars go, there was no way that I was going to be able to keep up with the monthly payments, insurance, maintenance and endless repairs (FixItAgainTony), let alone manage the hazards and headaches that go along with this material thing removed from my essential concerns. My psyche was committing suicide to the standard material compensation for my EGI. 

Fiat Bertone X 1/9 near exact to mine, except mine was a bit cooler with the addition of a black wing spoiler on the back. You could take the roof off and put it under the hood. Noisy and fun when it was working - when it was working. Fix It Again Tony, the same things breaking over and over. It was a nightmare - an electronics nightmare, literally like a haunted house in rain storms, the lights would be going on and off and the hide-away headlights would be going up and down of their own.

At the time Toyota was marketing its economy car, the Civic, for $99 a month payments. It was an ugly model and would not have been impressive to hot women – all the more reason, I suppose, why my sister took me to the lot to see it, and all the more reason why I was not going to buy it, despite the fact that economically, it was the right thing to do. It was “transportation” as she said, correctly in the economic sense. But it also meant fitting in humbly, subserviently into a system that was looming to set me up to be a cow, at best, to siphon-off my EGI, directing it in the most destructive way. My concerns were deeper than mere economic sense.

Buying that car was definitely not my careful way of doing things; but the way this society was constantly telling me that I had to hate myself as a White man (we’re talking 1988 now, and I’d already long been making this complaint) and the implications of its rule structure were not conducive with my aims and humble participation. The best options, even women appropriate to your kind, were being snapped up and you’d be left holding the bag.

My sister Cara and her husband did offer attempted dissuasion from this didactic materialist suicide, with Ted saying, “you want to attract women, people are going to say, there he is with his expensive car but he has no money to spare every month”… my sister adding, “and people who buy cars like that at this stage are never going to have money.”

But Naomi’s intervention, the fact that my parents steer me into it put the final kibosh on my already minimal respect for their pragmatism, lack of empathy and care, the fact that it was in the destructive trajectory implied by this society’s logics of meaning and action, not in my true interests, made it impossible for me to just put my head down and humbly “mind my own business”, concentrate on material gain. It was all too wrong for me to merely participate uncritically in disregard of social capital – to benefit from a term not available to me then – hence my didacticism. You want this stuff from me? Here it is with a short fuse to tell me what it’s worth before it explodes.

Nevertheless, I still had human desires. There was no apparent way out and America purported to be the world’s best option, land of opportunity. While it was the idea of such intervention to instill as much discomfort and confusion as possible and then provide the one avenue for relief: do you know how to teach a woman?”

My garish materialism being a mere lure, I was still crawling along with my erudition and had finally got around to finish Kant’s little work on morals that I’d ignored, despite my professors’ recommendation. Exhilarated with the sense of freedom that this book instilled, I was all the more susceptible to Naomi’s trick, to overcome my prefigurative critically idealistic judgment of prospective female partners; and instead leverage practical force by suggesting that I merely take a woman who was available to me and “teach” her. Even on the evening that I pursued Veronica at Seaside Heights, there were other girls that I really felt more attracted to, but she was kind of pretty and didn’t seem like she’d be too hard. In effect I was aiming wide of the mark of what I really wanted and practicing, as it were. Of course she would not wind up appreciating this, not my “teaching her” the freedom of Kant, either. “I’m sick of this free stuff; I like a guy who’s laid back, wears a leather jacket.”

Ugh! My most important decision in life had been made for me by a trick, and left me devoting what is sacred to a fucking greaser, who I did not even feel especially attracted to. This, according to Naomi, was to make me happy? Overcome my “problem?” 

I know that in popular culture that men are not supposed to be selective, but are rather to prefer the quantitative approach; however, that was not me. I don’t care what anybody says, it is more alpha to be selective and to want monogamy, at least for White guys. To have this liberalism imposed on me was infuriating and left me no choice but to try to find a way to develop a critical platform in challenge to liberalism (although I might not have been articulate enough to say exactly that at the time).

Perhaps inarticulate isn’t the word at this point, more like a simmering rage and and abject loss as to what I might do in order deal with this looming catastrophe. I still had my screen play ideas:

Nimrod, some sort of moral tale about deceptive Babylonian mystery religion and awakening.

Another about 

Misogyny & Feminism, with an opening scene of about five minutes hearing over and over again:

“And what a woman wants and what a woman wants and what a woman wants and what a woman wants and what a woman wants, and what a woman wants, and what a woman wants”…

But even if I developed the screenplays, even if they were produced, would this have societal impact on liberalism, would it bring complete personal satisfaction? it was speculative and a long way off to verify.

I stood there on the balcony of the (((Jewish owned, of course))), Tops Appliance City electronics department: in my three piece suit; with my cute sports car out in the parking lot; trying to think how I might make this worthwhile; looking down at this skinny little sexy thing; one of our cashiers, half White Hispanic half  some other kind of White; and I decided to ask her out Clint Eastwood style – “I am (my name).” Alyssa, “So”? Me, “so I’d like to make your acquaintance.”

I arrange for a date, she says “yes”. My sports car, custom made, three piece suit, hair – sprayed ….lets make reservations at the 5 star restaurant that I used to work at (where I met Sharon) ..and, equipped with cocaine – never something that I did I lot of, but the special accoutrement of boomer culture in the 80s…I drive to her house, her mother says that she’s not home.

Next time at work, it was quite embarrassing to realize that she was watching me from the cashier area, watching me angrily talking to myself at length. That’s how off in the world of my anguished thoughts that I was – didn’t even realize that she was there; quite embarrassing to verify her as correct, that I was too weird and unstable for her to go on such an invested date.

Well, the gram or so of cocaine didn’t go to waste. I did it by myself for the next couple days. As ever with cocaine, you’ve never felt better for about fifteen minutes, then when the cocaine crystal wears off and your coming down (“jonesing”) you’ve never felt worse because the cocaine assimilated the natural endorphins of your brain’s chemistry and so stopped producing them for a time – it’s totally depressing; nothing is good about life. I’ve talked to heroine addicts who’ve told me that jonesing on cocaine is worse. Indeed, when I’ve heard that someone has killed themselves, it is my first hypothesis that they were jonesing on cocaine.

Fortunately, I had a little more to my repertoire, given my value of erudition and intellectual betterment, I was able to intellectualize the experience. I knew that I would be depressed, and I decided to get into it; and then I asked myself, why should I waste this kind of money only to get depressed? That was the last time that I did cocaine, except for a little bit in a funny experience that I’ll tell you about later. I never did it much, less than 25 times.

While my idea that erudition and intellectualism is better than drugs may have been self deceptive and toxic, there is some truth to it – some. But then again, you don’t want to wind up like Ted Nugent. Those who do not occasionally plumb the depths of a little drink and mushroom wind up displaying shallow, mean and self righteous “logic” as Nugent does.

Not the place or the essay to talk about other drugs, which I had more or less under control as well. I had maintained that people, especially women – a bit hysterical, a bit jealous that there was pleasure to be had beyond their control, had drugs as a problem backwards, they were more of a symptom of problems. In retrospect, that was a bit too liberal, experimenting with ancient evolution like that is something to be careful about. If you’re looking for pedantry, I might suggest that life is weird enough. If you’re drinking to excess, for example, you may be looking to take a break from the non essential concerns of school and job. Try to get yourself to a situation where you are no stressed to pay so much attention and energy to things that you don’t care about; to where you can sleep as much as you need – “sleeping  is the highest genius” – Soren Kierkegaard. But I digress.

Coming back to having been stood-up for the fancy date that I had arranged with Alyssa…

I was bothered but not devastated, after all, I didn’t know her. It was a bit more disconcerting to be so awkward about it – this kind of White nerdness (spergness, they say nowadays) can show in a big way when in contrast to the switch-blade precision cool of a semi-Puerto Rican type.

However, shortly thereafter, I did have what was for me, anyway, a significant episode, viz., over dinner with my sister and her husband.

I was expressing my annoyance at having been stood up by Alyssa, when my sister rejoined in her rhetorical, lawyerly feminist bitch way – she asked me angrily, “what would you think?” I didn’t know, what would I think? I said, “judging by he way she dresses I’m sure she is aware that she is sexually alluring but”…

My sister said, “I don’t believe it; you’re one of these guys who thinks that a woman should be raped for the way she dresses?”

I was flabbergasted and infuriated. I said something to the profanity laced effect of, here feminists are complaining bout how indelicate men are and then they go around sucking-off the same old men who are hitting them over the head and dragging them away by the hair!

I said it loud enough so that other people in the restaurant could hear it.

Anyway, a lifetime of feminist stereotyping and ridicule of me crystallized in that moment. I sensed that she was much the source of my neurosis with regard to women –  instilling my ambivalent intentional oscillation as mentioned before. I did not want this in my life – someone who did not only not respect my boundaries, keeping me on my back foot, back peddling, going into my head, even.

I never even thought of raping a woman in the privacy of my thoughts.

I don’t think that a woman should be raped for anything, let alone for the way she dresses. 

Rape is torture and even in my most misogynistic times, I was never sadistic.

I cannot relate to it. Especially with regard to sex – why would I want someone who does not want me? Why would I lower myself, that she is either so worthy  or so important a target of defilement that I would risk the law or other men who would protect her coming down on me?

Sister or no, I needed her out of my life; she was not only too aggressive and hostile in her altercasting, but it was disconfirming in being so off the mark from who I am – even when she was offering a compliment, it was usually inaccurate. There were other things about her which I would decode in time, but there is no need to elaborate. There was her own “delightful sexuality” and her hatred of men’s interest in beautiful women… at bottom, her typical disposition toward me was to trivialize, limit, humiliate and control. She would let out a loud, disgusting belch to metacommunicate that she did not care what you thought of her; and as I said, could not be bothered to have an accurate understanding of me. It’s called disconfirmation and I didn’t need it.

That's my sister Cara with our grandmother, circa 1980. Nobody is all bad, not Cara either, but her bad side was too much of a burden for me.

The next time she called me, I told her that I never wanted to talk to her again. She said that a lot of people happen to like me (her) very much. I responded that I am not among them and I hung up, as I would hang up any time that she called me. I would not talk to her again for some twelve years, until when my father was near death.

I hung on at Topps Appliance City/the undercover investigative firm until January 1989. I did go into a trance with the bosses of investigative firm in the meeting in which we discussed my departure. It was a mess. As I would find in most of my trances, I am quite abusive and disgustingly profane; too arbitrary in that primordial state to represent my mature position; and certainly not at that point, as I vacillated from telling these guys that they’d better not be K.K.K., to letting the (very beautiful) secretary overhear that she’d better not suck nigger dick.

To their credit, the bosses seemed to understand the nature of the situation. In a subsequent meeting one added some solace, putting things in perspective, talking about the absurdity of governments moving nuclear bombs around on trains so they won’t be hit by their opponents nuclear bombs; and the one bit of perspective that I liked in particular – “you can fuck a thousand women, but if you suck one dick you’re a faggot.” I agreed.

1989 had me living awkwardly back with my parents, in their carriage house while I bided my time with odd jobs which were not particularly demanding so that I could read and hopefully find my way back more directly to graduate school. Toward the summer I got a job as a pizza chef in Point Pleasant, New Jersey.

About a block away was a used book store owned and operated by a very pretty woman – woman – not a cute girl. Needing to get a handle on feminism, I found three books that I remembered from my sister’s book shelf: Sex and The Single Girl; The Feminine Mystique; The Second Sex. I thought these were the three most important feminist text and she confirmed, “yup, that’s it.”

Shopping there gave me the added excuse to be in her company; I asked her a bit more about feminism and she said that “we’re still working toward it.”

Toward what, I asked?

She said, with atone of annoyance, “Equality.”

I mention this in particular, because it is the last time – and this was 1989 – that I heard anyone speak of “equality” as a cause; and I can’t say that I remember anyone making that their cause in the years before.

[As a poignant aside, neither have I ever made “equality” a cause, of course; in fact, I would go on to elaborate in articles how incommensurability/ commensurability and qualitative niche difference is the difference that makes a difference, not the narcissistic and false, quantitative comparisons of equality and inequality, which are likely to spawn hubris, disrespect, unnecessary conflict and reciprocally escalating diatribe. Despite being careful, it is just one of dozens of important issues that the asshole known as Guessedworker would ignore – in fact, he would write an article which, in his opening paragraph acuse me of advocating “equality” – something I had NEVER DONE and, as I have said, had written articles explaining how equality inequality was not the right paradigm – not to argue against it, either. That is to chase a red cape which not only makes you look like and asshole, it really does make you an asshole. When I responded to Guessedworker that I was horrified by this strawman, he would later take my being horrified as a reaction to his somehow having shown-me-up intellectually, when in fact, I was horrified that he was such an idiot, so desperate to have me play the fool and to “win” against me that he would ignore what I say entirely and just make shit up. But I digress; there was eight years of this kind of bullshit from Guessedworker and I will have to add to the examples over time in Part 12 of Zodiac Sign of the Boomer. And I digress…]

The one last thing I’d add about the pretty used bookstore lady, besides its being a shame that she had a chip on her shoulder, is that she always had “A Course in Miracles” (((Marian Williamson))) advertisement in her window. Of course I was neither foolish nor desperate enough to be interested in that new age bullshit.

Meanwhile, back at the restaurant, one of the main chefs expressed delighted bemusement, saying, “it makes you wonder when a pizza chef reading Simone de Beauvoir.”

In those weeks I would follow-up the post hypnotic suggestion to write to some of those professors from a North East University. In my letters, I explained my hypothesis about analyzing gender relations within the context of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, and the need to re-evaluate the needs according to gender and social requirements.

I would send the poor guy (Barnett) voluminous writings that it would be cruel to expect him to read. But it was somehow so exciting to send exchange material with him by Western Union, from the only outlet around, down at Lakehurst Airfield, same place where the Hindenburg went up in flames. While he could not have read all my stuff, he did get the gist of it – basically, that through the decades of feminism there hadn’t been much representation of the male position and discussion of women/female’s abuse of men/males – he saw its merit and he wrote back, saying that my ideas were interesting, that they might work with his C.M.M. analysis; and he sent along the two articles that I’ve mentioned, regarding “Racist, Sexist and Other ‘Isms” and The Problematic Practices of Feminism – co-authored by a woman named Sharon M. Rossi, same name as my former bitch girlfriend. Shivers radn down my spine.

I was euphoric. Big time career prospects loomed, the the possibility of having societal impact.

Meanwhile, back at my pizza chef job, I had started out well. For some reason I made some really fantastic pizzas at first. One customer like mine so much that he ordered 30 for a party!

Eventually, my scatterbrain would come through with some really embarrassing mistakes, the kind that other people don’t make. I sent out a meatball sandwich, not well cooked, but it was sent back to me. I had given a customer a sandwich the consistency of a rock. Another time, for some reason it took me near a half hour to get a pizza done and in my hurry, I tried to slip the giant pizza spatula beneath the pizza only to find that it was still quite wet and it coiled up. There was no time to make a new one. So I tried my best to re-assemble the pizza in the box. I don’t think the customer failed to notice. For some reason, out of the blue, some weeks before, the head cook, Cutty, had drawn a clock on the wall near my pizza making area. The clock hands read 10:10. I would be fired (deservedly) on October 10th.

However, I stayed afloat with some Manpower temp jobs; and I kept up the correspondence, reading into the necessary literature until I screwed up the courage to take a bus up to Amherst, Mass, to visit Barnett in person on February 24, 1990.

When I disembarked from the bus at the Amherst commons, I saw some bohemian sorts gathered in a circle beating drums around a burned spot in the ground. This was where a man had just burned himself to death only days before to protest the Iraq war.

As I arrived on campus, I could not help but be impressed by this symbol of priority – the library was a tower that dwarfed all other structures on campus. Originally named “The Tower Library”, with equal symbolism of the troubled times, it would be renamed “The W.E.B. Dubois Library” named after the Mulatto supremacist Marxist by students of that bent during my time there.

U. Mass's Tower Library, later renamed The W.E.B. Dubois Library at the insistence of Marxists.

It was disconcerting to find college girls laughing at me in my three piece suit; but I had indeed been given a clue as to the unofficial style guide among the ethnographic literature that Barnett sent me. Students were expected to dress in the most modest, unadorned and undistinguished attire, like monks in humble deference and reverence to the singular cause of learning.

After something of a wait, I finally got in to speak with Barnett, who was then Chair of the Department of Communicology, about the possibility of matriculating into the program.

We exchanged some pleasantries and I provided a bit of background orientation. I commented on the guy who’d burned himself in the commons as an example of male desperation’ then had Barnett look at a diagram of social aberration as being a reflexive effect of self actualization to desperately sought and not effectively corrected by the social system. Somewhere along the line in the conversation Barnett offered, that my “grumbles” were pretty “low.”

I scrambled at bit to regain ground against what I thought was a relegation of my concerns to lesser importance. Then Barnett corrected my misunderstanding, pointing out that “Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs” proceeded from “low grumbles”, when basic needs were not satisfied, to “high grumbles”, when higher needs were not satisfied. That is not to say that low grumbles are less important – quite the contrary, this level being satisfied i preliminary to anything else.

I should have known that, since re-tooling Maslow was central to my proposed thesis and the concept of “low and high grumbles” is an integral feature. But that was Barnett, he would put into practice a concept of subtle mockery. He asked me what I thought of ethnography, I answered, “ethnography” and he then explained, well, “ethnography is what anthropologists do”… Barnett was subtly  embarrassing me. But it was good natured. I showed him my transcripts from Tufts and he remarked that my record was well below the  usual for entry into the graduate program.

In defense of myself, I explained that I was quite willing to start on an undergraduate level, taking whatever courses that I needed to make up for remiss in my academic preparation.

Not really understanding why I could not proceed in careful steps, but had to be thrown in the deep end, acceptance to grad school or nothing, I began to get stressed, and stress is the usual thing that brings on trance. It wasn’t a deep or protracted trance, but I remember insulting Barnett, calling him an albino Aglo-Saxon and then, in due course of the trance telling him that I was a genius, but did not know it yet. I explained the dealt that I was going to antagonize the liberal hubris as a crazy Italian in exchange for a real education.

I came out of the trance and, as always, forgot what had just transpired (perhaps suppressed in order to protect my ego from the embarrassment). Barnett apparently got the message that some luminaries of hypnotherapy had induced me to come there with a mission that he should not obstruct. He took me to his secretary’s office, telling her that I would be a student here, and that I was brilliant, but did not know it yet. Barnett walked away from our meeting with a big smile on his face.

I went home to New Jersey and excitedly gathered my resource in preparation for a big move to Amherst, Massachusetts come the fall 1991 – that would give me more time to prepare.

When I arrived in late summer to resume talks with Barnett about how to negotiate matriculation, I got a surprise. I learned that Barnett had moved on to a University in Chicago.

There was an option of talking with his partner in the development of C.M.M. theory, but I had devoted all this effort in correspondence with Barnett and had gained his approval, in particular. Furthermore, I had been writing Barnett from the start, as I gathered his was an Anglo-Saxon name and he would have a quintessential insider’s empathy for my concern to defend White men. Whereas, his colleage had some kind of ethnic name – Irish maybe?

Anyway, I was there in Amherst and there was no practical option but to try to appraise his colleague as to what I had been discussing with Barnett and hope that he would also see the merit in letting my pursue a graduate thesis, using C.M.M. analysis to look at gender relations in the context of Maslow’s hierarchy problematized; with the proposal that its constituent aspects be reconsidered in prescriptive service of social systemic optimization and more fair and congenial gender relations.

Here in 1991 Political Correctness was already nearing hegemony, and I figured this guy had to have some sympathy for what I was up against and the legitimacy of what I was trying to do. 

Indeed, after I had discussed the tawdry big haired women that I was confronted with in a series of bars along the Jersey Shore, Barnett remarked that I’d find lots of those big haired sorts in the nearby town of Hadley, where there were lots of Polish women. I did not reveal to him that my mother was of Polish extraction but took it for what it was – i.e., him wanting to show that he could be relaxed about P.C., skirting the old American standard, the Polish joke.

And so in initial talks with his partner, I ventured some political incorrectness not so much to test the waters, but rather to demonstrate that I wasn’t afraid to defy political correctness. He was, after all, Irish, and therefore should empathize, not being immune to PC vitriol either. 

We were talking about group interactions. I thought I’d illustrate how Jewish interactions with blacks could be funny by an episode that I witnessed on the streets of New York city, between a Hasidic Jew and a black man who was sweeping garbage from the sidewalk into one of those long handled devices attached to a small bin at the bottom for you to sweep dirt and debris into.

The Jew expediently threw a piece of garbage into the pile that the black was sweeping as he walked by. He then turned around, laughed in an awkward wince, “hee-hee.”

I put my hands up to my face to push my cheeks up for comic effect and made sure the “hee-hee” sounded extra squeaky, awkward and Jewish.

The black addressed the Jew in his full Hasidic attire and said slowly: “Do. you. have a problem. Mo-tha-Fuck-a!!!

In truth, this was not my story; I had, in fact, borrowed it from a rather audacious childhood friend, who would violate taboo in his kind of outrageous sense of humor, if you can call it that. It provides only something of a reprieve as such, as I would borrow far worse irreverence from him in order to demonstrate my bravado: (needling tone of voice): You know, the Einzatzgruppen used to line Jews up, one in front of the other, so that they only had to use one bullet to kill two.

From another guy I knew, was friendly with, a literary sort, into the arts, I borrowed the (stupid) remark, said with contemptuous dismissiveness, “and there were people making love in the concentration camps, probably thinking they are very poetic.”

Next I went on to observe, more authetnically and by my own lights, what not only seemed to be and inordinate number of Jews around campus, but an inordinate influence of Jews in academics, media and liberal PC culture.

I added ominously, that “you would think they would have learned their lesson by now.”

I added the hypothesis that I really didn’t think that Jews were so smart but that they were not yoked with the anti-intellectualism of Christianity – a Jewish trick, I noted – and that they stuck together in a culture that values intellectualism and education and allows them to rise to the top. 

….unlike gentile culture.

[sensing that he was not taking my anti-PC ice-breakers all that well, I expounded…]

Perhaps saving my prospects I added this other part to my hypothesis, that European peoples were just jealous and that they should do this too – organize and value intellectualism. It saved me because I would learn that this, what I thought was Irish professor, was actually Jewish.

Oops!

I was able to overcome this awful faux pas in subsequent meetings with demonstration of knowledge and appreciation of his work and the prospects of developing it with some worthwhile ideas of my own. Having steered through that obstacle, however, I was beset by another. This professor would be going on exchange to The University of California, Long Beach, for a year.

With my commitment to the U.Mass program augmented by a sense of destiny, I decided to use the year for erudition and other preparation which I needed anyway.

[I was reading cognitive brain functioning stuff, the kind of shit that GW might think is most relevant. I would go on to tell GW, circa 2015, that I’d passed through that reactionary stage in pursuit of unassailable foundation where he remains  not only with a sense of priority, rather than secondary relevance, but with a retarded sense of mutual exclusivity (the asshole literally tried to tell me that I’d studied the wrong thing) – the idiot is now saying that the English, for example, are a singular organism and not a social group; as if these are not merely different units of analysis, with the latter unit – social group – having important advantages and distinct relevance in the context of anti-racism – notably providing defense of groups under attack by delimiting social group  thus coherence, accountability, agency and warrant,  but I digress… back to 1991…]

The only academic left familiar with C.M.M. that I might talk to over the course of the next year was Sally Freeman. In fact, it seemed that all roads led to her, because, in addition, she was familiar with the feminist literature that I was trying to integrate (the other profs had not read de Beauvior and so on) and she was a psychological counselor – I could use some hand holding.

It was going ok at first. I described her relevance to my project. I talked about how I found the area relevant in fact, with nearby women’s colleges of Smith and Mount Holyoke, I might find plenty of feminists to work these things out with – the high percentage of lesbian population there only added to this relevance.

I added sincerely, “I think that we can do something about the rape problem”, and she smiled.

I then discussed the article that Barnett had sent me, on the Problematic Practices of Feminism, which diagnosed a paradox wherein even well meaning males could be put in the wrong no matter what they did – he could be altercast as a male chauvinist pig if he treats her as an equal, one of the boys, for not respecting the special qualities of her gender; on the other hand, he could be altercast as a condescending wimp of the patriarchy for not respecting her agency and autonomy, if he treats her with deference,.

A tone of disappointment came over her. She said that she did not like that article because it stereotyped women. This was very frustrating for me because that article had untangled a a very obstructive knot for me and I’m sure for other men. I was beginning to sense that rather than being a help that she was liable to be an obstruction, especially when she talked about this “patriarchy.” I started getting mad and rebutted that I thought this was more like a matriarchy.

She said indignantly, “what are you talking about?!”

I responded with equal indignation, “what are you talking about?!”

At this point she deployed a psychological technique to get me to show my hand. She got up, turned around and started walking away. I think I said something to the effect of women bringing much of their abuse upon themselves with the kind of men they select. She turned back around with a “gotcha” look on her face.

I was overwhelmed by how far removed that she was from my reality – I had just spent thirty plus years being told what a terrible person that I was for being a White man, pseudo warranting all manner of abuse and exploitation – and this women was speaking from a place of vast, embedded obstruction to any correction of this.

She tried to be empathetic, saying, “I’m seeing a person who doesn’t fit.”

So at this moment I broke, went into a hysterical reaction: (laughing hysterically), “the only thing that they care about are niggers!” “I’m not a tall kraut” (tall and generic Germanic sorts seemingly the only popular alternative to blacks). Come to think of it it, this was the exact hysterical reaction that I manifested when Naomi attempted to subvert my final grammar.

I came out of that emotional state (not quite a trance) and she said that she was glad I was working with the other professors. Disappointedly,  condescendingly, she said that I did not have to worry about the department turning me away for having a quirky individual and rare perspective – as if White man bashing was rare and only my personal experience. She would never see me again except once, by accident at Price Chopper, me greeting her with delighted enthusiasm, the unpleasantry of the episode completely suppressed from my memory; while she put her head down, depressed to see me. This is not to besmirch the late Sally; I’m sure things looked different from the perspective of her and her wife.

Come the fall of 1992 my “Irish” (lol) professor had returned and angrily asked me, “what can I do for you?”, when I met with him. He wasn’t keen on much to do with Maslow, seeing him as outdated pop-psychology, but I stuck to my guns, as his being outdated while manifesting an essence of American values was precisely the point. Still, he was committed to pursuing inquiry from a social constructionist perspective – which was fine with me.

I discussed the evolutionary perspective and inborn properties with him and its integration with social constructionism, which was NEVER a problem (despite what a moronic asshole like Guessedworker would try to say).

I provided an anecdotal hypothesis that I’d come up with, that I liked Sharon’s acne, not only because it provided little pink and purple accents to go with her striking features; I respected the fact that it could be an adaptation to make a girl who was too young to have children look diseased, and thus put off suiters until she was sufficiently mature. The professor asked if I thought she was “deliberately choosing the acne.” I answered that of course she did not choose the acne, that’s ridiculous. He smiled and answered that he “just wanted to see how far I was taking social constructionism.” I added, however, that acne did have survival value for the said reason and that its selection was social (or more than social enough, I should say).

I added some other anecdotes, that baldness evolved to make a man ugly so that he was less likely to stray from his wife and children. Perhaps also to help in the absorption of vitamin D. 

..and a more ethnographic anecdote, that women made men wear ties to symbolize a penis that was sufficiently institutionalized to make money.

I began to rebuild the credibility and relevance of my intellectual concern; and he asked, “what do I want out of this program?” I said, “justice.” He answered that’s the right answer from a social constructionist perspective.

I asked him, as I asked Barnett about Gregory Bateson, whom they met toward the end of his life. He said that everybody starts there, and he related as story of sitting on a log on the California beach with Barnett and Bateson – “he hated Watzlawick’s guts” – Bateson loudly mocking Paul Watzlawick who was walking by in a big blue suit, “there goes Paul Watzlawick, he hasn’t had an original idea since 1967!” Whereas Barnett described Bateson a bit more sheepishly as very sick, and an “idol manifesting feet of clay” for his advanced cancer.

Bateson hated Watzlawick's guts - "There goes Paul Watzlawick. He hasn't had an original idea since 1967!" (Watzlawick, Beavin, Jackson, "Pragmatics of Interpersonal Communication.")

Although I had wanted to start on an undergraduate level, as I still felt (and in fact was) academically underprepared, the prof signed permission for me to take the introductory graduate school classes in the department. I imagine that he figured he could advise my way through the program, as indeed, he would meet with me just about any time that I wanted over the next few years (half realizing or nor that the deal was not a PhD, but a real education in exchange for antagonizing the liberals as a ‘crazy Italian” might with the underappreciated wisdom of his continental European ecological buffering). Over the next two semesters, I took the introductory course – given by him (brilliantly) by coincidence because the usual teacher had been hired away by another university; and another course also taught by him on C.M.M and the matter of individuality and selfhood – apparently with the prompting of my concerns.

In this time I had to try to manage my emotional balance between academic concentration, always dangerous for me, as it opened my consciousness to horrible injustice to me and my kind, while not going too far with my mandate as a “crazy Italian” which I took to counter the PC activists, interracial overtures and pairings: about always woman / black male when happening.

A few years before, while still in New Jersey, I had taken to attending 12 Step, Adult Children of Alcoholics (my mother) meetings; and I resumed here in Amherst to try to maintain my composure. I knew that it would help, but that it would only go so far. I had been resistant to those meetings for the same reason I’d been resistant to psychological counseling – it seemed to place the blame on you, in your head. When I finally did go (encouraged by the PBS Bradshaw on the Family programs), I attended the local meeting in Manasquan. I had been wrestling psychologically with all the anti-White male propaganda in the media, the stepped up promotion of White woman / black male pairings and their increase in reality.

By the second or third meeting, I let it out when it came my turn to speak: “It bothers me very much to see White women with blacks.” Arthur (local Manasquan barber), the chair of the meeting, was indignant, “What does this have to do with Alcoholism?! What business is that of yours?” I seethed (and indeed, what does his proclamation that it was none of my business have to do with alcoholism?). Resigned to stick with the meeting, I responded painfully that “Ok, I respect that.” After the meeting, one sympathetic older guy, said to me I know what you mean, and I try to think what I’d say to my daughter, “are you trying to be a martyr or something.” But then he tried to persuade me that it should not be a big deal, it was just a different color skin.

Then an ugly little curly haired Jewish guy came up to me, leering at me through his thick glasses. He was angry and I was surprised by his aggressiveness and sense of urgency, as if I was about to genocide Jews or something (I was not even considering the J.Q. at this point, barely a wry remark where they might be obviously obnoxious). I said nothing to him and continued with the meetings.

At a subsequent meeting, I was last to speak and a force came out of me, as best I can describe, it was like the radiating energy emitting from my grandmother when she died. Waves of energy came from me, moving through everyone at the meeting, as I said, “I am grateful for my capacity for violence, because there are some people who just don’t know when to stop.” In defense of myself, this was sheerly an abstract and spontaneous thing; I had no person or group in mind.

Nevertheless, it was against 12 Step Meeting rules which was only inadvertently covered by the visibly shaken chair of the meeting as did the perfunctory reading of Alanon rules to conclude the meeting. After the meeting one guy, Harvey (handsome guy and no, I’m not gay: I mention this to emphasize that he was not operating from beta-weakness), a principal of Bricktown Highschool, apparently appreciated the paranormal experience and message; giving me a big smile and a robust pat on the shoulder, saying, “how you doing there old buddy?”

Talking with him after later meetings, I would find that he was very familiar with a legendary incident that occurred after a football game in Montclair between my high school (the half black) Montclair and his high school, the all-White Bricktown. After the game, a mob of irate “fans” (blacks, but we did not specify that) from Montclair pushed over the bus (!) that was set to take Bricktown fans back home. One man lost one of his eyes when the bus crashed to its side. Gingerly now, approaching the political in defense of Whites against antagonists, I said, “that’s a dramatic episode” …”but it illustrates the kind of thing that they will do.” Harvey responded, “yeah, they will.” We both knew who “they” are and the kind of behavior that they will do.

The take-away is that I would mostly find people that I liked in the program, however, where they were ignorant, the program might not help for the passivity of  its imposed “acceptance.” Nevertheless, you are encouraged to ‘take what you like and leave the rest.” And being able share your experience with people struggling with the like problems was big help overall. So, I continued attending 12 Step Al-Anon (ACOA) meetings when I moved to Amherst, Mass.

But again, the Al-Anon program was limited in its capacity to anchor my emotions with political alliance. One otherwise really cool guy, a biology student, asked me to sponsor his program (sponsors look after a person’s progress through the 12 Steps) and I tested him, telling him that I had a problem with blacks and asking him what he thought of that. He replied that he didn’t have a problem with blacks, that its “just a few genetic markers having to do with skin tone.” That was scientism indeed. I had to sadly decline being his sponsor, as I didn’t need to add to my struggle.

The other emotional outlets if not anchors that I had were my old standby rock music, which would be nicely augmented by the grunge music of the time, viz., Alice in Chains, Nirvana, Pearl Jam … cup of coffee …a 40oz. Malt liquor, more like two of them = 80oz. When I said before that I had drugs more or less under control that was true, and I was never an alcoholic, didn’t feel like I had to have it. However, getting drunk did exacerbate any proclivity for bad decisions and risky behavior as my emotions erupted with the growing consciousness and knowledge of where the oppression of me, the way of life and the people I valued was coming from.

Nevertheless, I can’t say that I didn’t enjoy getting drunk, whether straight off in the bars of Amherst or well primed first, chilling by a stream in the woods of North Amherst with a couple of 40oz Power Master Malt Liquors – and did I feel powerful as I stormed into town looking to antagonize interracial couples and so on.

Even in applying a dichotomy that I had gleaned from Hegel, between Self Transcendence and Self Assertion, asserting that White men were too given to self transcendence, my other emotional outlet was a rather seedy, even by my indignant standards, means of self assertion – I would leave enraged phone messages, a few with my sister, but mostly with Naomi. Seedy, but I felt that I had no recourse to locate my agency against metacommunicative blockage – the impervious assertion of (could be serious) negative attribution against me. Questions were responded to with hostility and sarcasm by my family, deflected back to me imperviously by Naomi.. While I was technically connected to the “internet” by 1991, it was not yet interactively remedial as it went on to be, only partly, by ’97 and then more effectively a decade later in support against anti-racism. I.e., a little too late for me.

So anyway, back in the fall of 92 and spring of 93, immersed in this academic course, I was getting the idea of how this department could be entrusted with Public Relations for the Clintons and Gores; this stuff was pretty good; not that that stopped me from saying that I hoped that Clinton got assassinated (clearly a scumbag who pandered to women; his bad character was evident from the start. I voted for Bush to vote against him); and I said plainly, “of course I don’t vote Democrat, I don’t hate myself for being White.” My prof had the same ‘sometimes-I-forget-who-I’m-talking-to smirk on his face that he had when I told him that I thought Christianity was a Jewish trick; yes, I thought that even back then (though even then, it was becoming apparent that the Republicans weren’t doing normal Whites, their sustaining patterns, anyway, any favors either; and I was gaining insight as to why having gleaned furtive remarks indicating potential exploits in America’s constitution. Hence, that would be the one and only election that I would vote on) and I was feeling cocky, with my professor warming up to the merits of my project. He told me that this was a neat thing that I was doing and that I had the basis of a graduate school thesis.

Indeed, my prof would wave “bye bye” in my face when I defied the theoretical efficacy of asking “how” questions as opposed to “why” questions, defiantly asking yes, “why, why did Heidegger sign up for the Nazi party twice.” Prof would wave “bye bye” in my face in times coinciding with some of my more spicy prank calls to Naomi. My suspicions would be later confirmed that my phone was tapped. In fact, believing that to be true, I used it as an indirect way to get across some of my more stigmatic messages (about niggers, nigger lovers and so on).

However, I was able to bring him around to stick with me as a potential PhD candidate for a time.

Despite this heavy stigma of mine, which would only get worse with my flamboyant antagonism of interracial couples and advocates of blacks on campus and in town, the prof would stick with me, having a sense of the crazy Italian thing as my part of the bargain (which I let him on-to as “my part of the bargain” through a trance or two that I fell into with him). 

There were additional factors why he put up with this. My work was beginning to bring good and important ideas to the table; ideas capable of reconciling complex and significant problems; along with representing a terribly under-represented, beleaguered perspective.

He had enough pride in his academic work, and was competitive enough about it, to want to foster important work, to maintain as rigorously close to the truth and justice as his culture, the culture of critique, i.e., liberal with regard to others, could bear.

In fact, he knew the arguments conservatives should be making better than 99% of them; even agreed with some of those arguments. But his sticking with me was not only a matter of academic integrity and rigor; he had genuine compassion for me; he knew that White men were being abused and wanted to help me work-through the transference that Naomi had induced. And finally, PC was getting bad enough so that it was beginning to intersect with the interests of his Jewish people, as Farrakhan and Tony Martin had been brought to campus to give speeches. While he perhaps hoped to cultivate a friendly alliance with my ethnic perspective, intersectionality also bore upon on a personal level – he remarked sarcastically about seeing some “interesting” couples around; and was candid enough to say that he hated Madonna, thought that she’d had a terrible influence.

Things were getting bad indeed in that regard, presenting more sporting challenge than my crazy Italian mandate would care to take on – then again, one was too many; especially when you remembered a time not long ago when you did not see these pairings – except rarely, a White dog; but now? You were starting to see some pretty hot chicks.

But finally, there was the tribal motivation in his culture of critique, of wanting to get ahead of the opposition; again, he was forgetting who he was talking to – though he would come to realize (as GW should have) that I was  not one to be misguided against my people’s interests, would not be used by academic ideas against my people’s interests, but would rather use them as I might in service of European peoples.

Hence the alarm and disillusionment that would come over his face after we read Gadamer’s discussion of the Enlightenment’s prejudice against prejudice and I drew the independent inference that anti-racism is Cartesian, it is prejudice against prejudice, it is not innocent, it is hurting and it is killing people. And there is an independence and significance, a value to this kind of inference that a reactionary moron like Guessedworker would never want to acknowledge for the sake of his autobiography and unmerited, gargantuan ego – against which I am altercast as sheepishly parroting cultural Marxism, and late Christian, liberal skullduggery garbed up as scholasticism – against which he must stand heroically stalwart to “sweep away”, to clear away, all western thinking in order to make way for the invisible hand and Zen majesty of his armchair farts. This radical skepticism and oblivious “clearing away” project of his is the quintessence of the now well established destructive penchant of modernity and GW is indeed, a “wailing” (aggrieved) modernist; not having the intelligence, knowledge, experience of the lay of the land, perhaps not the decency to grant the value of the White Post Modern ideas that I’d bring to bear.

But I digress. The GW stuff is some 20 years hence.

I always find it strange when I hear people speak of the 1990’s as somehow not as bad. Well, not where I was. Political Correctness was reaching a crescendo and – its hard to emphasize enough – how alone you were without the internet’s means to coalesce with like-minded people in the fight back against PC’s increasing provocation. With the voice of objection blocked and stigmatized, my crazy Italian strategy was a relatively safe means of signaling – i.e., by means of flamboyant antagonism of mudsharks, to wearing t-shirts with provocative messages written upon them, postings throughout campus and town for more elaborate message, and vitriolic graffiti to go with my phone pranks when the chips were down.

In the worst case scenario, I could be written off as a petty misdemeanering, stupid, unhinged drunk, while perhaps signaling to those in position to do something. Because it was becoming clear that it would be a long time if ever that I would be in position to do something; exercising tact and holding my tongue in the meantime of that unlikely outcome was akin to slow torture, to having my mouth taped and my hands tied behind my back; then being mocked while everything that I loved and cared about was being destroyed – what was most sacred was being fucked by the least sympathetic and not by means of rape, but by offer, as Simone de Beauvoir would say, in “sacred ministry of betrayal”, that “you will never do anything more hateful to me than I have already done to you” – thus offered as a matter of discretion among planet of the apes and abetted by those looking to signal their “pure”, “color blind” morality, fit for stepping on the sensibly prejudiced as means to advancement in the ever more “enriched liberal utopia.” Everything was backwards. Miss-Egenator was held up as the most holy and noble liberator while my values were those of “the most hateful oppressor.”

Despite the profoundly upsetting context, my academic program continued to show progress – and great promise. It was no surprise to me that we’d have visits from the esteemed Milan Group of Family Therapy and then Rom Harre, from Oxford. And strangely, not only was I the only student to be involved in meetings between my prof and the Milan people, but also the only one to meet with him and Rom Harre. Neither of us could understand the other students passing up the opportunity to meet and talk with Harre.

Rom Harre

I remarked wryly, that if it was one of UMass’s famous alumni, Dr. J. or Bill Cosby, that they’d be flocked by grad students wanting to talk to them.

During my time at U. Mass, famous alumni, Dr. J, appeared on campus with his (White) girlfriend.
Famous alumni Bill Cosby didn't appear on campus at that time; he was probably too busy drugging and raping (mostly) White women.
Cornell West came to speak, allegedly to ease the kind of tensions that I was spreading about.
Spike Lee was given $10,000 for a speaking appearnce at U.Mass while I was there. This was shortly after his "Jungle Fever" movie came out.
Students, including some of my White classmates, would get the Tower Library re-named...
..The Tower Library re-named after the Mulatto supremacist, W.E.B. Dubois.
Nobel Laureated Desmond Tutu came to campus to speak about the undoing of Apartheid.
While Khalid Muhammad was in the air, in media, speaking in America (e.g., Keane University) and Gifed here, addressing adressing blacks in South Africa about how he'd like to resolve Apartheid:

“Get out of town by sundown. I said, if they don’t get out of town, we kill the men, we kill the women, we kill the children, we kill the babies, we kill the blind, we kill the cripple, we kill the crazy, we kill the faggots, we kill the lesbians, I said god damn it, we kill ‘em all!

You say, well why kill ‘em all? Why kill the women? First, why kill the babies They’re just little innocent blue-eyed babies! Because god damn it they’re going to grow up one day to rule your babies. Kill ‘em now! Why kill the women in South Africa?

I say kill the women because the women in South Africa are the military manufacturing center. Every nine months they lay down on their backs and reinforcement rolls out from between their legs. So shut down the military manufacturing center by killing the White woman!

Why kill the elder crackers? The old ‘crepid crackers in South Africa. How in the hell do you think they got old?!? They got old opressin’ and killing black people.

I said kill a [at this point there is some gibberish sounding like “culla kipple killa aufra”], god damn it, kill ‘em all! Kill the faggot! Kill the lesbian! And after you kill them all! I said that day about Mandela to let you know what he really knows about me, he don’t know a damn thing!

I said then you go to the god damn grave! And dig ‘em up! And kill ‘em a-god-damn-gain because they didn’t die hard enough! And if you don’t have the strength to dig them up after you’ve done all that work? Just go to the grave and shoot in the damn grave! Kill ‘em again!

Because they didn’t die hard enough!”

Farrakhan made a speech at UMass, coming along with his Nation of Islam cohorts. As I was not one of those who favored alliance with blacks of any kind, and still believed that Jews should see the sense of my perspective, I maintained tenuous hope of staying in the program.
Tony Martin came to speak. A Jewish student said she broke down and cried, he was so hateful.
Morris Dees of the SPLC was another who came to speak. I didn't know much about TT Metzger at the time, but I recall having sympathy for TT, having seen him interviewed by Whoopie Goldberg; while now Morris Dees bragged about bankrupting him and taking away his family assets.

Tom Metzger on Crossfire, 1985

I warmed up to Metzger when he told Whoopie Goldberg that "Christianity was all a hoax, that your race is your religion." That might not work for everybody but it resonated with me. Further, it would one day be Metzger who would make me comfortable with the idea of identifying White defense with the left and the right, by contrast, as highly problematic (despite what the asshole known as Guessedworker would try to say - with the encouragement of Jews, the scientistic, Hitler-heads and Christ-tards - that I was conditioned to identify with the left, as he understands it, by university).

Anyway, as I said, things were moving along with “the ORE model” that I was cultivating, this neat thing that was shaping up to be a graduate thesis. At one point, just before my prof was about to go to Washington D.C. as one of a few representatives from our department, he told me in hushed tones as we read over it, “now don’t change it.” Meaning that he thought that it was in good form to show to somebody worth making an impression to down there.

However, ever the perfectionist, not wanting to be misunderstood, I could not resist adding a few more words to the title and first paragraph so that it not be taken as prone to this or that philosophical error. It did not yet take on the full baroque absurdity that I would eventually take it to, but just about. A few days later, I saw Al Gore on the news, talking about how we have and need people with clear and simple answers, not a nebulous bunch of words. When I spoke to my professor’s wife to ask when he’d be back she sounded very disappointed. When my professor got back, he seemed disappointed too, but said nothing. I knew my thesis did contain sound analysis and answers, understood why Al Gore might be put off by the baroque absurdity of the title and introduction; but for myself, didn’t care that much, as I did not really want to help Al – “we’ve got to get past this racism” – Gore, let alone Bill – “Whites will be a minority in America and that’s good” – Clinton and his equally egregious wife, Hillary.

Before anyone suggests that I was foolish, exercising all too much “integrity”, that I should have played along with the program, I would say that not only was this administration and its backing part and parcel of the torture that I was undergoing, but that it wasn’t just going to be hard for me to get into the program, it wasn’t going to happen – it was not in the fate of the deal, i.e., a real education in exchange for raising hell with the liberal professors and students. With a deep sense of that, I could rest content that I really did not want to help the Clintons and Gores, nor anybody who liked them.

My department did public relations for the Cliintons and Gores.
I didn't care, didn't like them. It was clear to me from the start that they were pandering to women, the gatekeepers of this hyperbolic liberal society; and it worked again in 1996.

Neither did I see the Republicans as a viable alternative. The pattern was clear. The Democrats actively perpetuated racial pan-mixia while the Republicans took the position that “conserving” this liberalism, the upshot of this mulatto supremacism, is what “real American men will do.

Rupturing of Final Grammar Number Two: "We Don't Want."

Naomi’s intervention already achieved a stigmatic, blackmailable reaction in me through the rupture of final grammar number one (I don’t want), which added to the stress of sensing that my phone was tapped, including reports of my ongoing calls to Naomi being issued to my prof; all the while as the on campus anti-White activism of blacks and White girls (mostly, where Whites were concerned) made my blood boil. Nevertheless, I was still immersed in the graduate school course and my prof still saw the academic and moral reason to try to help me, despite his own ultimate liberal bias. He was trying to prepare some grounds of legitimacy of my position by denying its participation in the worst. He said to the class, “of course nobody believes in racism anymore”, intending to move quickly beyond that qualifier.

But before he could go on, I broke out in a hysterical laugh/cry, and went into trance.

He was not going to merely run roughshod over what was emerging as my new and deeper final grammar – we don’t want: i.e., we, the group that I identify with, have the prerogative to reject association with this, that or the other kind of person.

And this time, I was more articulate as to why, because: anti-racism is prejudice, it is not innocent, it is prejudice against the prejudicial act of classifying people for the necessary act of accountability to human ecology and as such, a prohibition of necessary discrimination without which is hurting and killing people.

Now that I consider this trance episode, I am not exactly sure if it happened before or after the incident of the prof going to Washington, but it was around that time and doesn’t necessarily matter if it came before or after. The trance was meant to convey a message that I was here to learn, share an important, under-represented perspective and do some important work with the prof (that might work toward reconciling race and gender relations) …and while I was at it, stir things up in and around campus because the liberals up here thought that they were smarter than they are. As with all my trances, I abused my interlocuters, and this trance in particular was fraught with emotion and highly charged anger (while that was terrible, I would observe that people who were abused in my trances seemed to come out transformed, a better, more pure, strong and confident version of themselves). If one is to give advice to anyone in this primordial, ambiguous state, I’d advise to say as little as possible; because you can feel like a cornered animal, inclined to lash out in self indicting ways; nevertheless, I tried to talk in order to acquit myself, in between threats of mass destruction and war (if my European peoples were going to be treated this way), mostly making stupid arguments (being “didactic”, I suppose) as I was not prepared to articulate my position as yet – especially not in that state. However, some bits of clairvoyance came through, on the trivial side, but enough to lend legitimacy to the episode and me as conduit, purveyor as it were, fated and warranted to be around there a while longer.

This trance began, as with the original trance, with me recounting how the original trance began, with me being told that, “your father is a nigger.” This of course brought a laugh from the prof, who was, of course, familiar with Minuchin, the mentor of Wally, my first trance inductionist.

I went on, following the original trance induction, “you (I) have a nigger nose.” Then went straight to the point, in line with Bateson’s thinking, that I represented the ecological buffering of continental Europeans against the hubris of North Western European vulnerability if not propensity for liberal self destruction based on the rational blindness of its Cartesian absurdity.

But I was on somewhat weak ground here, in that some of my argument was based on the same learning that my liberal classmates were undertaking. But more deeply, the remedy, of taking on the underpinnings of America’s liberalism, i.e., the constitution, rights, expanded franchise of democratic vote and so on, was near impossible to broach in the effort to get into that program and in 1990s America. Things had not yet gotten bad enough for enough people for them to question the constitution and other bedrocks of the American way.

Not even the L.A. riots and the Reginald Denny bludgeoning were enough to allow for serious defense of Whites against Political Correctenss.

Thus, it became exceedingly difficult for me to effectively rebut the grad student Dave in his push backs when he started talking sympathetically about Rodney King, the black motorist whose beating at the hands of L.A. police was caught on tape, triggering spectacular riots. And then sarcastically asked permission to pursue the freedom of democratic society and intellectual pursuit. Still feeling out my grounds among the arbitrary beyond the trance even, I was reduced, in my ineloquence thus, to ad hominum. I asked him why, as a kraut, if he thinks he’s better, did he have a Polish girlfriend? I never met her but it was augured that I would see them together some other time, in town.

The prof then intervened charitably, saying that he did think that there was a way out for me. And I addressed him, “ladies and gentlemen, ‘nigger loving Jew. indeed, I will return to Europe and then, if you impose your nigger loving values on me, with all moral authority, I’ll kill you.”

Then I turned my vitriol to Julia, who was in the committee to rename the tower library after W.E.B. Dubois. She looked for the prof’s approval by saying that governance by liberal, constitutional democracy has to be better than the K.K.K. With her being very fat, I told her to choke on turkey leg and the professor could not hold back a laugh.

Next, I turned to Trudy, a feminist and not exactly a beauty, though not really as ugly as I was about to lay into her as being. I began by discussing my concept of re-negotiating gender relations through a re-tooling of Maslow by post modern conceptualization. I don’t remember if she pushed back on that, but I was slipping deeper into trance and I started abusing her, calling her ‘cartilage head’ and saying that Italians have the means to buffer Mulatto supremacism. We know how to deal with blacks. She asked, “how do you deal with them?” And I answered with a pathetic tautology, “we just don’t allow them to participate.” Though in the right direction, that was not exactly enthralling rhetoric that was going to persuade liberals to my side. Sensing this, I started coming unhinged. At first, I went on about how much prettier, sexier that the Middle Eastern? Indian? woman student was than her and the other women in the class. Then I sensed somehow that she was partly Jewish and I accused her of being prejudiced as well. Knowing that she was from San Diego, I hollered to let the Mexicans flood in. A look of desperation came over her face. I was getting to her. Then, before I realized what was happening, she started screaming. I realized that I was giggling insanely, my legs parted, rubbing my erect cock through my pants.

She fetched the police as I berated the class. The appearance of the cop brought me to my senses temporarily while Trudy looked at me with a sense of smug satisfaction that she’d fixed me, I did call attention to the fact that she had called upon a man to protect her.

The prof stepped out into the hall to assure the policeman and the chair of the department that all was under control, that this was a trance and he wanted to see where this was going for academic purposes. When he closed the door and sat down, I started singing, loud enough to be heard in the hallway, a rendition – in female voice – of “My Country, ’tis of Thee” to top Eleanor Roosevelt’s black trophy, Marian Anderson. The point being the talent, perhaps hidden, that these literals were short shrifting and killing  off by burying the position of White guys like myself.

Then some clairvoyance came through me; nothing necessarily revelatory in the particular examples of what I’d see (or say, or sing), but demonstrably seeing into the future enough to illustrate that neither the experience of myself nor this episode was some ordinary thing, the merely subjective expressions of some merely aggrieved ignoramus to be summarily written off. No, there was the divine underwriting of fate.

About the closest thing to some profound vision of the future was seeing Magda Fuhrman, and repeating the e.e. Cummings line that “not even the rain has hands so small” to underscore a story of romance from a previous life that would cross paths once again. I can say for sure that I saw her in trance and would meet her about three years in the  not sure about future, but I am not sure if the story that I told to go along with it is true. I would suddenly cry, “Auschwitz!” and then explain that I was a Polish intellectual shot there in loyalty to my 1/4 Jewish girlfriend (Magda Fuhrman). I allowed for this story to emphasize the fact that as ever, I was not then a Nazi nor sympathetic to it, despite my opposition to blacks and my skepticism of Jews. That is, this kind of narrative might allow me to negotiate a career path with and despite Jewish obstruction.

In fact there was nothing for me to congratulate myself about in this episode, no clever agency generated within the episode, only rather pathetic groveling and shots in the dark amidst the arbitrary state. I remember at one point yelling for about two minutes straight and then suddenly stopping and saying calmly that “I like broccoli.” Everyone broke out in laughter.

Nevertheless, many concrete facts of a meeting that I would have with Magda were coming through as true clairvoyance. I will elaborate on that when I discuss a larger, subsequent trance in which I had these visions again.

I can’t remember everything. Maybe I saw 9-11, and maybe I saw the solving of “The Unibomber” mystery, revealing him to be a Polish genius, Ted Kaczynski, though I definitely would see his capture in the subsequent trance; as I would foresee – in this and the next trance episode – the death of Princess Diana, with her car crashing into the thirteenth pole of an underpass. Perhaps most amazing, I spoke a little bit of Polish – a language that I had ZERO knowledge of – I spoke a little Polish in this episode, as I would the next.

I also sang, or tried to sing some songs, as I would more extensively in the next  In fact, I would mostly hum the Anita Lipnicka song that I could hear, but not understand. On this better side of my impromptu crooning, I would sing Oasis’ “Wonderwall” (which hadn’t come out yet and would be the veritable theme of the subsequent trance) to signify the ecological buffering function of continental Europeans. On the low side I was singing childish songs like the carpet bagger’s song from Mr. Magoo’s Christmas Carol, and another popular song (which I conveniently can’t remember for the sake of my ego) supposed to mock Trudy for my aesthetic advantage over her, but only made me look like a total idiot. It got so bad and so deep into the recesses of my psyche, that I was reciting lines from the cartoons that I watched as a kid. I would be more embarrassed if I did not have the excuse of being in a trance and not having much control.

I would rescue some intelligence and agency with the clownish gesture of standing up, turning around, pulling my pants up into a wedgie and squeezing my ass cheeks together; then, while they were laughing at the ridiculous forms of my ass as such, turning around again and saying, “you see? I made you laugh and now you believe  in the death penalty. Prof was laughing while nodding his head in agreement. I added a serious note, that I agreed with their liberal position of pro-choice on abortion for the same reason that I favor the death penalty: you can’t value life so much as to make it unlivable.

If I think of anything else that I need to add about this trance episode with my grad school class, I’ll do it later. Oh no, I’ll do it now, almost forgot.

One of the things I was screaming in rage is that “we need to get to the Right!” in order to defend what is to be righteously conserved about American society. I added that, “I want you to show me that you’ve heard my message by symbolically sitting to the right of the professor next class.”

The next thing to mention thus, in regard to that trance is the following week’s class. I came in upbeat, having totally forgotten about the trance the prior week; I guess that’s a normal thing, to suppress the memory of such an event, at least for a time.

I was the first to enter the classroom and sit down (to the right of where the professor would be, of course). Then a very pretty Japanese girl came in and sat next to me; I’d never seen her before; she asked me my name; and I was beginning to get the vibe that she might be some kind of psychology student emissary tasked with keeping an eye on me; with that, some consciousness of the event was coming back to me, but I felt like it was a positive thing, and it conferred a special mission upon me, warrant to be there, not warrant for expulsion. Then the other students started coming in, including the one black student, Peter, who had mercifully not been there the previous week, to hear me wing the “N” word about five million times. 

Anyway, as the students filed in, all but one, Logan, sat on the other side of the table (and Logan was still at some distance from me, while on my side of the table), they sat on the other side of the table, to what would be the professor’s left. It was very conspicuous and not a natural happenstance; something like an expression of aversion to me. The professor took his seat and looked to the students with a smile on his face, nodding approvingly, “I see that you’re sitting on the left.” I felt isolated and alienated, a bit angered but not really surprised by this aversion, this defiance of my message.

Now this requires some careful explanation, because it is the kind of thing that the asshole known as Guessedworker will take advantage of, misconstrue, straw man in his penchant for unnecessary mutual exclusivity, to the significantly detrimental obstruction of ethnonationalism ….for another eight years, for the sake of his unmerited, gargantuan ego, which features an autobiography in which he alone makes all academics redundant; what needs to be done rather, according to him, is for all to be swept aside on behalf of his unmerited, gargantuan ego.

Quite an arduous prelude that the wailing modernist boomer requires in order to make a fairly straight forward point – which is this: 

This episode did NOT encourage, let alone condition me to become a “Leftist” and certainly not in any Marxist international, anti-national/Cultural Marxist sense (liberalizing in terms of White borders and bounds, “revolutionizing” as such); it did not end my aversion to the term Leftist nor these connotations to the term.

It did not cure my aversion to the term “left” not allow me to disassociate it from these hyperbolic negative associations. All it did was plant the seed of a vague question in the back of my head, “why were they identifying as being on the left?”

It would not be until many years later, after I had taken the academic angle as high and far as I could go (I’ll tell you about that later, because it’s interesting too), that I came down off my horse and listened to some of the people who had been fighting in the same concern for my European people that I had. I’m talking about David Lane’s disavowal of right wing identity and Metzger’s follow up, which made me comfortable with the idea of advocating Whites from a left perspective. Now, of course I would shed some residual right wing ideas that stuck with Metzger and go on to cultivate a White Left Ethnonationalism. But that’s getting way ahead in the story. 

I want to talk now about how this and other factors enabled me to look back on what the seed of that question was doing – why identify as “left”?

The answer is in the depth grammar of ordinary language. “The Left” corresponds with social group delimitation and organization, unionization as it were. As such, it structures accountability to social capital, correctivity, coherence, agency and warrant.

This is the classic means, according to Plato, to take on the tyranny of might makes right – to be social justice warriors on behalf of your people – on behalf of your people, not stuck on some abstract principle, truth, moral law – that’s what the right wing does, and gets stuck there in reaction when its practitioners forget or get red caped, as they now are, in this desperate attempt for pure, unassailable warrant, where warranted assertability and operational verifiability is not taken to be enough (which it is, by definition);

That is, people identify with the left because it is the correct priority, centering your people as calibration, providing for accountability, compassion (thus, gaining popular adherence), the means to stave of cynicism to provide incentive for loyalty – providing for correction, homeostasis of group, systemic maintenance, as opposed to the brute, “that’s just the way it is” of the right wing ideal of pure warrant.

And a great deal of (sound) post modern thinking has gone into providing resource as to how a people will manage this group maintenance against the impervious roughshod of modernity’s Cartesianism and the antagonistic, traditional ethnocentrism of other cultures. I.e., we should organize White/European peoples by these “leftist” means as well. But as ever, it is a part of Jewish group evolutionary strategy, their culture of critique, to disrupt White organization/ homeostasis; therefore they red cape post modernity and these leftist concepts in such a way as to get Whites to react and attack the very concepts which are most necessary to their survival. And sadly, there is no shortage of elitist Whites, willing to take the payoff and screw their people in disingenuous, no account, right wing, liberal and third positionist, ‘that’s just the way it is”-sim.

While I ALWAYS held that nationalism was one important means to unionize a people, thus to importantly organize and maintain the species of the European genus, I was forced to explicitly spell it out – awkward though it may be for its lack of brevity and familiarity –  WHITE LEFT ETHNONATIONALISM. Because a reactionary boomer asshole like GW is so fixated, in his autobiography, on chasing the Jewish red caping of our organizational resource and doing their work of disrupting it that I had to spell it out. Let me tell you how desperate he has been to misrepresent what I say in order to fit the conceits of his autopbiography and umerited, gargantuan ego. After years and several posts of being explicit about this, spelling out White Left Ethnonationalism explicitly, so that Guessedworker et. al could not just straw man me as advocating the liberal (for us) internationalist/anti-nationalist Marxist/Cultural Marxist Left, what does he do in argument with me in the comment section? He says that I have always argued for a White left! Just a white left, not adding the specification of ethnonational. And, he added the exclamation point ! to his false assertion.

Now, he’s taken that comment down, presumably because he finally bothered to take a cursory glance at what I’d actually been saying and realized that it plainly wasn’t true and it would make a fool out of him. Fortunately, Dr. Eigenvector made an image meme of my response. I’ll post it as soon as I find it and then return from this digression to Amherst ’93, going into ’94 and beyond.

Here it is. Notice my response in the upper right, saying, "I have not always called my position 'White Left'. I rebutted as such because he tried to assert in comment (since taken down) that I had "ALWAYS called my position 'White Left!", not specifyiing White ETHNONATIONAL Left, which, in fact, I had done, carefully and consistently for years, despite his emphatic assertion to the contrary.

I digressed but it was important because what the asshole Guessedworker has been saying and will continue to try to say is that his “ontology project” is deeper and more preliminary, to the point of mutually exclusive concern, that all else is trivia, mere political decorum by comparison.

But this is not what Aristotle and post modern philosophers such as Vico and Heidegger at his best thought, or were doing, I should say – they were retrieving our people from Cartesian estrangement and recentralizing our world view through praxis – the calibration of our people, their delimited, relative interests as a people. Objective, Catesian pursutis of truth and principle to be gauged as feedback in this service. Aristotle would say, the “political” as such, is a preliminary aspect of philosophy, otherwise all other considerations can be for naught as a people is led astray into dissolution as ours has been with this red caping of post modern thought.

Bateson would suggest that this reactionary wish to sweep aside all linguistic and social conceptual realms is a naïve wish to get back to the innocence of mood signs and to misunderstand human nature: An epistemological error. But it is important to note for all who fall for the Jewish red caping of “the left’s” concern for social organization and justice, that neither mine nor any scholar concerned with praxis whom I respect, deny, the biological reality of race, ethnicity and their differences; it is integral to praxis as is the maintenance of these genus and species a profound concern – achieving the ultimate end of warranted assertability and operational verifiability that John Dewey’s pragmatism would seek at its best. As such, not only yielding more than enough “foundation” for an asshole like Guessedworker, but also providing for correctivity, as the pragmatic recognition of fallibility does not necessitate resignation to radical skepticism. Nevertheless, that is pragmatism at its best. In its focus on practical force and thorough democratic enfranchisement, it runs rough shod, in lock-step with modernity, over pre-figurative force: pre-figurative forms and proper ideals.

But I digress. Bringing this ack to Amherst….

Since Jews are going to Jew, it would figure – and this is place to wrap-up these classroom episodes – it should not be surprising that my prof would favor this destructive side of Dewey, telling the class that ever extended liberal democratic participation leads to ever “richer and richer” human experience (yes, that is where this talk of “enrichment” comes from). Hung-over and wavering in semi-trance, I responded, not so cleverly, “ever bigger and blacker cocks for them to study in the black cock studies department, er, I mean the women’s studies department.”

While the more eloquent work of Bateson would conclude with an admonition that we not sacrifice western philosophy on the alter of pragmatism, I was up against a university system the economic model of which perpetuated this pragmatic destruction for the participation of paying 18-21 year old undergraduates in reciprocally reinforcing conversation with liberal tenured professors in perpetuity.

Hence, while my crazy Italian routine of antagonizing blacks, miscegenators and increasingly (since they were emerging as being among the most active in antagonizing my values), antagonizing Marxists of varying hue, was met with not-so-tacit approval by my prof in some instances as I carried on simultaneously with my course of study, I came came against increasing liberal resistance and provocation from him. This only instigated me to step up my “activism” on campus, on the streets of town and in the pubs…. 

Louis Farrakhan

As noted above, the rather anti-Semitic Louis Farrakhan made a speech at UMass, coming along with his Nation of Islam cohorts. As I was not one of those who favored alliance with blacks of and kind, and still believed that Jews should see the sense of my perspective and be on friendly terms. I maintained tenuous hope of staying in the program (perhaps representing a fellow ethnic White minority contra the hubris of White majorities and black and Muslim minorities.

Islamic student activist Hussein Ibish allied with Marxist Shyamala Ivatrury (head of the “re-name the Tower library after Dubois” committee; proponent of Palestine, etc.), a few Marxist White students and some other Middle Eastern or Indian (I have trouble distinguishing them) graduate student to mock a Jewish professor who editorialized in the college paper that the university ought to enforce a “despicable speakers policy”, prohibiting the likes of Farrakhan and Tony Martin from speaking on campus. That Middle Eastern/Indian graduate student (whose name I’ve forgotten) had lengthy editorial rebuts published in the college paper, mocking the “despicable speaker” proposition, going on about how free speech was at the heart of the university purpose.

In the meantime, I packed one 8 by 11 inch piece of paper with as much rhetoric as I could arguing for the eminent legitimacy of Whites to discriminate against blacks. There was almost no white space left on the page for my concern to fill the page with all that I needed to say (I’m told that this compulsion is a sign of psychological problems; and I guess that’s true). I then made hundreds of photocopies of it, and began posting it liberally throughout campus, including the most provocative places, such the women’s studies department or outside the office doors of choice professors. It was titled

“White Women For Sale!”

At the same time, a female student’s editorial in criticism of the college paper for running ads for a local stripper bar was met with a stinging rebut; saying that while the college paper should not be running these ads, don’t dare obstruct awareness of stripping’s existence. Nobody made you leave your nursing job just because stripping pays better.

I would add that the quick and easy money along with the help and information from desperate men trying to ingratiate themselves to her was instrumental to her getting straight A’s as she was; i.e., so much for the bullshit about career paths being necessarily more difficult for women. 

Anyway, a female student editor of the college paper, defended that female critic and others who thought the paper should not run ads for striper bars. She remarked, “how would you like it if we ran ads featuring a long black dong for you to go and see?”

I stormed to the office of the college paper and told the (woman) director and female student by her side, that I wanted to enter a statement into the paper expressing how much I loved sweet, tight, young White cunts. The director giggled but the female student blushed in embarrassment. 

The director invited me to the back room to talk to the editorial staff. I began shouting and haranguing them, “I want to talk about sweet, tight, young White cunts, I want to talk about sweet, tight, young White cunts!” …then I left with no resolution to the issue.

Soon after, I called up my professor, as I typically would, to set up a meeting to discuss my ongoing academic work; not to discuss the incident at the college paper, as I did not even know if he’d be aware of that and might have preferred that he not be. However, he spoke to me through a hushed giggle, cluing me on to the fact that he was not only aware of the incident but recognized the legitimacy of my pushback.

I stepped things up with the college paper, submitting, “White Women For Sale!” to be published as an editorial, including its gems, such as “vocalizing the fact that we had noting to do with slavery …. they do not have a grievance with us, we do not want their women.”  …that “blacks had evolved some two hundred thousand years prior to European differentiation, giving something of a biological hegemony to their dubious form of selection, which has quantified and maxed-out masculinity, creating a presumptuous, aggressive, hyper-assertive kind of people.” etc.

I was told by the editorial staff that they had to vote on whether they would publish it in the paper or not. I continued to post it throughout campus while wearing t-shirts that I fashioned, saying, “Big Mulatto Bro is Watching. Foil Her Mulatto Supremacist Dream!” and as I got even more angry, “We Have a Consensus! Black Women are Ugly!” I made sure to have a pretty blonde girl – who I happened to know to be miscegenator – to print my copies of “White Women For Sale!” and to find an excuse to turn around so that my t-shirt messages loomed in her face. I had noticed her previously as the type that I would like as girlfriend – pretty, but not ridiculously so.

She would be sullen and sheepish (for the time being) as I left the print station.

I would return to the office of the college paper from time-to-time to check on the progress of their vote on whether to run “White Women For Sale!” or not. And I would sometimes wait outside the office before or after these inquiries, only to see the Middle-Eastern/Indian (I don’t know which and forget his name) activist, proponent of free speech against the proposed “despicable speakers” prohibition frantically running into the office to stop them from running my editorial after ripping down as many as he could from the walls where I posted it. Big “Mr. Free Speech.” 

“The crazy Italian” thing of antagonizing miscegenators was something that I brought with me from my days of bar hopping on the Jersey shore. Obviously I carried on with it and continued to get an idea of what was more or less effective and satisfying in intervention as such. But the one thing that I’d known for years was that I could not say or do nothing. It would eat me up inside.

While other people seemed oblivious, I could not help but notice that at least some White girls, some quite lovely ones, were not concerned to hide the fact that they had more than a passing interest in black guys. I saw one brunette playing a fine piano in the campus center lounge one day and then another day standing there and looking at three black guys (who I happened to recognize as being) from the “black students of engineering society” and she was jiggling her pocketbook up and down, as if to say, “may I have your attention, I am available to you.” This flagrant signaling of interest was weird. I’d never seen it before for any kind of guy. Her interests were clear and I would see her in town pursuing such pairing. Every time I saw her, I would yell at her, “nigger women are ugly, nobody wants their goddamn women!” I could tell that this was causing her consternation. So “thoughtful and sensitive” these anti-racist miscegenators are  …and what about how they are affecting black women? Not that I gave a damn.

I became particularly feisty if I saw a brunette who was my physical type with a black. Though I might not be able to tell if she was Italian or Jewish, that distinction didn’t concern me at the time; and that may have helped me to play the crazy Italian game on campus a little longer as the faculty was surely over represented by Jews, enough of whom did not want the Jewish girls who were part of a whopping 20% of this public university, to take up with blacks.

Sometimes you could tell. Like the time in a North Amherst bar that I saw a pitch black with his arm locked around a gorgeous Jewish girl with a shit eating grin on her face. Some were quite naïve, as in the instance of a girl who brought a black into that same bar, while another girl was becoming aware of the problem, illustrated by her tears as that black literally radiated biopower.

And there was no shortage of the fairer, Northern European type involved with blacks. Right near that bar in North Amherst was Watroba’s foodmart and liquor store, where I would frequently buy my 40 oz. malt liquors. As I waited in line at the cashier, a really fine blonde – I mean really fine face and body; exquisite, not some gaudy, ornamentative thing – queued up behind me with three blacks. I quickly moved from a few furtive remarks to outright yelling at them. Another Watroba cashier, seeing the trouble that was about to break out, hopped out of his cashier station and took me over to the foodmart section which was closed at that hour and let me purchase my malt liquor from there; I don’t know why he was brave and kind enough to resolve the issue that way, but I appreciated being able to buy my malt liquor.

At that liquor store I would see a pretty brunette pull up with her care covered, literally covered with anti racist slogan stickers. It reminded me very much of the priest in the Omen who well papered his room with pages from the bible to ward off the evil spirits; only in her case, she wanted to ward off the evil ones who were critical of her coal burning inclinations.

Another time that I approached the same liquor store, I did not get to buy my malt liquor.

I spotted a nice looking brunette with a ghetto black and I started giving them a truck load of shit. The black then produced a knife and said “hey, I got something for you!” Now I knew, that especially given the political rule structure, that even if I were to “win” in that altercation, that I would be in big trouble. The only thing to do is to get out of there quick, which I did, running into a nearby restaurant, with the nigger chasing me all the while, yelling, “I got something for you!” The restauranteur would not let the black in; which was good of him and ironic, as just weeks before he closed the curtains on me as I berated some woman who sat with her mystery meat husband near the window. Nevertheless, the bigger irony would be revealed to me in the grand trance still ahead  when I would learn more about the then obscure brunette with the black who came after me with the knife.

North Amherst Library, the town's cutest edifice.

Not all of my yelling would go unheeded for its merit. Through the zebra stripe crosswalk near the North Amherst library, I could see a young White boy starting to run across the street without having looked both ways; in fact, he looked only in the direction away from a car that was speeding toward him. I yelled, “stop! stop!” and luckily he did, returning toward the sidewalk just in time. He would have been killed. I saved his life..

In the meantime, I am still attending 12 step Adult Children of Alcoholic meetings all over the area even though I did not exactly manifest program goals of acceptance and serenity.

But in fact, the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles and then the O.J. Simpson incident, murder of his White wife, were rather lending credence to my perspective. I pointed out that O.J. would beat Nicole for complaining that he was fucking another White woman in another room of the house. That is a nigger.

At a North Amherst meeting I would meet my friend Kim, who identified with me as the child of an alcoholic mother. “We have more problems.” She introduced me to her husband, a microwave engineer, and I would have dinner and talk with them, of course voicing my racial stuff. While the reality is the reality they were Christians (of a W.A.S.P. denomination, forget which) and so could not agree with me on the liberal theological grounds of the church; they could only hope that their good will would bring me around to Jesus’ universal love.

Kim was never so far gone as to not be indignant regarding the Ruby Ridge incident.

Anyway, Kim was having very real psychological problems, which I will not elaborate on, but only to say that my communications discipline enabled me to stave off some of the more egregious interpretations and prescriptions that psychiatry might apply to her.

For example, Jim was prepared to believe that she was suffering from delusions when she stood in the middle of her kitchen and said that she “had to turn to gold.” I observed, rather, that she was using biblical type language, the only deep, moral language that she knew  upon to say that she had to be more moral and good than she’d ever been before for the sake of her child – a child that they were so grateful to have, and would not have  had (they agree), if I had not expressed indignation and told Kim to defy her psychiatrist’s advice that she not have a child. Though Kim still had problems, Jim was able to pick up the slack for the most part; until he nearly got fired for neglecting his work. I told him that he would get fired. He asked me to help for F-sake but I had sense enough to tell him to call Kim’s mother and tell her to make the trip from Ohio once again in order to help Kim. As time went on, they could not have been happier to have their daughter, Amelia, and the psychiatrist could not have been more surprised by how well she was turning out.

Kim, Amelia and I, who did come over with pickles and ice cream to share with Jim and Kim, having a craving when I learned of the pregnancy.

Not long after, I was walking to an Al-anon meeting with Kim and her baby. Coming toward us from the other direction was an interracial couple – need I specify that the girl was White? Of course not. She was a blonde, quite pretty enough, with a kindred look, as if a cousin that you’d expect to be able to take for granted as comfortably satisfied and loyal, not wanting to harm “our” people. Instead, she flashed a warm smile at me, taking for granted that I’d be just fine with this, especially because he was a more mannerly sort of nigger. Allowing them to pass on about twenty yards, I let them have it, repeatedly yelling, “Nigger women are ugly! Nobody wants your goddamn women!” Needless to say, this made Kim uncomfortable and she tried to stop me. But I made sure that the message hit home. Indeed, I would happen upon this couple some time later in North Hampton; both of them put their head down. Indeed, what about the natural partners of White men and black women?

It wasn’t as if I had to go out of my way. Another time, as I was about to cross the street to Kim’s house, a black driver pulled to a stop and waved me across with a sheepish smile on his face; again, sure that I would have no problem with a (gorgeous) blonde being in his passenger seat. I started berating him and he wound up turning the car around and going the other way.

Like the obscure girl with the knife wielding boyfriend, the Jewish woman who lived with her black husband across the street from Kim and Jim would become relevant at the grand trance yet to come. And then there was the miscegenation that came to greet me, as it would, where I lived on 19 Hobart, North Amherst. 

We had various international students coming and going, renting rooms in our house. I saw this as an opportunity to test my arguments against PC with intelligent people, mostly graduate students in the hard sciences. I also saw it as an opportunity to practice my tact and tolerance in hopes of hanging on for the big picture, i.e., a PhD. At one point we had a girl of mixed French, black, and Vietnamese move in. It didn’t help. She wound up making me furious.

Though I was experiencing reasons to have serious doubts and not particularly surprised, during my time there I’d invite two different half Jew/ half Anglos who would prove to be about the nastiest, most self righteous PC combination. John sobbed about his former half Polish/half Italian girlfriend (my racial admix), very pretty, who ran up his credit card to fueled a drug habit and then wound up going to the projects to fuck niggers. “Women dig black guys, he said; but maintained the psychological view that health meant adjusting to this. When I floated taking a hard line against this sort of thing, he became aggressive against my insecurity. He said, “all I can think about is the skeletal bodies of my Jewish relatives.” Being lumped with Nazis always infuriated me, for various reasons, not only because I am half Polish (by the way, John would say, when he didn’t know my mother was Polish, “watch out for the Pollocks in Hadley”). I won’t elaborate further on his liberal bonafides other than to say that he was accepted to the graduate program at the renowned Smith college; which is an all women’s school for undergraduates, but accepts male graduate students – including ones that hate women, as he did.

Tony was another half Jew half Anglo who moved in. I spent quite a bit of time with him going into town and getting drunk. He was even more aggressively antagonistic in defense of blacks and miscegenators, despite admitting that it “is kind of that way” (a pattern of women favoring blacks). I would say that he represented a point that made it clear that Jews were other, they were antagonistic to my interests, and it was inborn to the them. I began angrily referring to him as a Jew, which I’d never done before. In a semi trance state, as stress and drunkenness could bring on, I told him that he was going to tell me, ‘that he’s not going to let me get away with it.” Never mind what, even I didn’t know, but he gladly complied, stating this emphatically, ‘he’s not going to let me get away with it.” He would add, “what does it matter what you want.” I saw the fear in his eyes when I asked him if he would advocate prohibiting gold fish from discriminating against piranha. Some time later I got into racial altercation at “The Pub” in town. He said that I was guilty of doing something like yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. I maintained rather, that the “theater” was burning. I’ll describe the incident below. He has since gone on to become a lawyer with a powerful California firm, and features pro bono work sponsoring African immigration.

Venice moved in and she had a White boyfriend. At first. I tried to put behind the story she told of her rebellious past, when her parents had to track her down living with her drug dealer black boyfriend in Chicago. Then she took up with another black. Besides the fact that Venice was something of a 4, I found it somewhat conciliatory to blast Tull’s “My God” and The Stone’s “You Can’t Always Get What You Want” (viz., the line when Jagger “says to Mr. Jimmy, I said nigger”…) while they occupied the next room. Then Venice took on another black boyfriend and I must admit, I quite enjoyed giving him a nasty working over when I would answer his calls for Venice (when she was not there). I eventually drove Venice out of the house and that was good. But not before she’d inspired confidence in an optimally fine Italian brunette to go black. I left message with her that I am not the only guy who would never date a scumbag. I saw her in town a few times and could tell that she was stunned and devastated, That was not the end of this indirect, if tacky means of politicking, getting my message out, by trolling over the phone, mostly calling Naomi’s answering machine, sensing that my phone was tapped. But I’ll come back to that.

So, I’m not going out of my way to look for this, and it isn’t just the substandard, the optimal and the ideal that we’re talking about – though again, there was the ideal. As in this sublime feminine creature who came to look at a car that my roommate Xi Li was selling. She came with her little black boy. This one really freaked me out. After shouting a few choice words, I stormed into town, badly needing a couple of 40 oz. Power Masters.

And even if they weren’t coal burners yet, tolerance thereof always appeared as a litmus test of initial interaction episodes. That is, if you wanted to advance past their increasingly powerful liberal gate keeping position within the increasingly disordered fallout of modernity. Thus, another female student who moved in, asked me with a smile on her face what I thought of the movie, “Jungle Fever.” As if I would go to see that shit. Which brings me to another movie that came out around that time, “Pulp Fiction”. Jim and Kim asked me if I wanted to go see it. I told them “no” because I knew that like all Hollywood movies it was going to be about making excuses for White women to go with niggers. Jim, who’d already seen the movie, was surprised, saying “yeah, you know, actually, the movie did end with Lawrence Fishburn congratulating some Whites for their anti-racist work (something like that, never fully stomached the whole movie) while he lounged poolside with Uma Thurman. I’ve come to hate anybody who likes this movie. When I gave in and went to see “The Crying Game” with Jim, I was only proven right again.

Quentin Tarantino, teaching us what it means to be virtuous in the modern world.

During my time at 19 Hobart, my parents sent me a “care package” that included a computer, which my computer studies roommate, Hong Konger Ming, connected to the “internet.” Xi Li’s Chinese associates downloaded viruses which gave me and the print station at the university, fits, running its fonts in perpetuity. The same place that (((Weev))) would troll decades later, having them automatically print out swastikas for “World White Supremacy.” Anyway, there were too many examples between the two for me to get into, but it was clear that for their lack of empathy with Whites and America as such, it was not the greatest idea to have too many of them coming to America. Also included in my parents care package was microwavable popcorn, the partial hydrogenation of which made me faint and break my finger. And a book, “The Prince of Tides.” The title struck me as eerie; and indeed, my mother would be diagnosed with lung cancer and die soon after. As would my uncle Arthur die at that time. When I talked to my father about it, he began speaking in the manner of Arthur, such a Zelig my father was, never fully having his own personality. I mention this as that personality defect would become relevant a little later. 

Venice’s replacement, Mike, would easily get hired to the kinds of jobs that I had applied to and needed if I was going to hang on. Maybe, it was because he didn’t have an ethnic sounding name. At one point he invited some girls over and they made a point of being overheard calling me a racist. I was thinking to my self, this is a world full of women who couldn’t ever be bothered to say to me, “Hi, how are you doing? Would you like to talk?” Who have no curiosity about what might be on my mind, and yet, they’d make a special trip to be overheard calling me a racist. Mike turned out to be a nasty piece of work too, calling me a greaser and saying that he didn’t like me at all. A greaser? no Mike, you’ve got the wrong slur. I won’t be too hard on him considering me unlikeable for what he knew (nothing) and may have overheard. I was suffering badly at that point, and using the only means to let off feedback steam that I had in those days just shy of the internet; i.e., my hostile messages to Naomi’s and my sister’s answering machines.

My sister’s response was to send me a note, saying that “You have a very promising future, don’t blow it.” Along with three popular books that I guess were supposed to put things in perspective. But the disrespect of her giving me reading material when I was already overloaded with grad school reading material and that it would be at such a low level by comparison infuriated me. It reminded me all of a sudden, all over again, of her determination to trivialize, humiliate, limit and control me. And I exploded with a phone message, “as long as I’m alive you’re not safe.” Try unburning that bridge. But I was deep on the floor of a toxic liberal ocean, with a meager oxygen tank. Consciousness was always dangerous, liable to set off a volcanic eruption as my ego sought to assert and protect itself from years of intimidation against my interests.

Meanwhile, back on campus… Venice had apparently put word out to try to intimidate and humiliate me. As I came into the campus center lounge area, Venice was showing me her thumb at its most protracted distance from her index finger. Oh, what a surprise, here I was thinking that she was very sensitive to the impact of her behavior, right? More sadly, the optimally pretty girl from the print station was giving me the same hand signal. I hope that girls like this will end up living with niggers, it will serve them right. And as far as I was (am) concerned, if I ever saw blacks or their kind again, it would be too soon.

It what must have been a surreal episode to a group of onlookers from some distance as I cam into the campus center one evening and confronted a healthy looking and pretty White blonde girl who was with a group of blacks, about three or four males and one female, who was seething and saying something about her freedom before she hit me. Then I said to the blacks, “you think that your physical ability is indominable; I can just get a gun and that’s the end of that.” The runt of the males piped in, saying that he would “advance himself intellectually and intimidate me even more.” Then another of the males said, condescendingly, “you’re just drunk (that much was true), you better get out of here.” Finally the alpha put his bare barrel chest in my face, shouting, “go get da gune din!” (go get the gun then). Then he went for a kill shot, hitting me hard on the back of the head. The blonde girl shrieked with delight, shouting “oh yeah!” But the “kill shot” didn’t even phase me. I calmly walked over to the blonde and put my index finger to her head, saying about five times in succession, “I’m talking about this mentally retarded piece of shit right here.” She stood with a look of mild horror on her face, perhaps realizing that the black girl didn’t care that I was abusing her and that the black males had no intention of coming to her rescue.

I then I left, moving past the group of stunned onlookers, saying something like, “did you enjoy the show, you dumb fucks!” and I made my way out through a hallway past a police officer who did not realize that he was hurrying past one of the guys he was looking for.

During the days I continued posting “White Women For Sale!” (it’s concluding statement …”and we support the eradication of Mulatto Supremacism”), moving around campus in my “Big Mulatto Bro is Watching”  t-shirt and antagonizing any miscegenators that I came upon.

One brunette really enraged me as she was a type that I fancied. From an adjacent path at some distance, I berated her and her black escort for a couple minutes as they walked by the pond. They would become relevant in the pub incident that was yet to come. 

I would make excuses to buy something at the campus center stationary/sweet shop in order to leave a critical remark with the miscegenator cashier, viable, though mediocre though she was. She would become more relevant as well.

I did experiment a little with how things might look from the other perspective; going to a crafts market in the Amherst commons park with my 1/4 black 1/4 French 1/2 Vietnamese girl roommate to see what kind of reaction that I’d get. A lovely woman with straight blonde hair seethed at me from her vending booth, a cage that she was trapped in, all that prevented her from stabbing me. She did not realize that my smile was for her feeling that I was a part of her people that I was disloyal to. Never mind that she was miffed by a pairing that rarely happened and in this case, was not real (of course I never slept with a black woman; in fact, I consider it profound that I have never been jealous of anyone who has). In retrospect, I wish that I had said something to her, like how happy I’d be to have a woman like her for a wife.

I still held out hope of negotiating the situation in pursuit of graduate school. I attended feminist brown bag lunches in the campus center and I continued to talk with my professor. 

As I recall, I attended four of the “feminist brown bag lunches” held at noon in The Campus Center. They each featured a speaker on woman’s concerns. There was a black woman attorney, who spoke about her experience at Harvard Law School. There was a woman who spoke of her experience of being incested by her father. It was quite disturbing to hear. She handled it admirably with help from her husband. Politician Ellen Goode spoke on career inspiration for women and did not talk about her step nephew who was the one who burned himself in the commons. Lastly, a pretty but tough edged White female student spoke about how White women needed to stop relying on black women for guidance in how to overcome the patriarchy. At this moment I sensed that this girl’s beliefs about how the power structure was actually configured and where it should go was so far removed from my experience and corrective justice of it that reconciliation with people like her was impossible. My eyes went out the window and to the distant clouds in despair. Interestingly, a White girl with dread locks looked at me with abject fear. As did a White Muslim woman rivet on me in fear. I knew that she was Muslim by her turban, or whatever you call it; not important. Of significance was that she’d be at the grand trance to come.

With pleasure I attended the major three day social constructionist conference at the beautiful University of New Hampshire campus, hosting all the luminaries of the perspective; and I verified what I expected to be true, that through my efforts with my prof, that I was able hold up pretty well with these scholars, particularly for someone at the beginning stages of my program. I was able to meet with Barnett once again as well, and he gave me some helpful advice, observing that my work was a bit different in that I was focusing on general patterns whereas most graduate work focused on more concrete, particular issues. He said make sure to include Carol Gilligan in my assessment of feminism; I assured him that I had. He then pointed to the morass in my paper and asked “is that the thesis statement?” Barnett had a way with subtle mockery; truth be known, I didn’t know how to write an argumentative essay yet. I don’t know if that was the moment I fell into trance, but I sank into trance calling him and an albino with a mail order bride….. and the next thing I remember was waking up as Barnett nudged my leg to stop me rubbing my cock through my pants. I had sunk plumb out of it. Needless to say he and the few other professors who witnessed this avoided me for the rest of the conference.

I did manage to make one contact at the conference though I never followed up on it. Helen Haste of Harvard was a friend of Rom Harre and a feminist, so we had things to talk about. She confirmed for me the passages in de Beauvior that I’d identifies as serving as points of departure for Friedan and Gilligan; and, as the conversation went on, she invited me to come talk with her at Harvard. 

My prof was not there to witness this nor the trance incident and was only glad to have my company to discuss the terrific event upon return to Amherst. I was encouraged to keep up my efforts to work my way into the program. However, as I was not yet hired to the program, I would need to find work to sustain my efforts.

My need to apply for jobs brought me something of an area-wide survey of the PC pandemic. Applying for a job at sneaker store in Springfield was tantamount a trip to Planet of the Apes. Waiting for the bus home, there were two other people outside the mall entrance way besides me. There was a tall, sleek black, looking like a lion in front of a public library and a White woman, who could easily grace the cover of a magazine. She stared at him intent on getting his attention, signaling all too obviously, sucking the straw in her drink; while he ignored her, as she ignored me entirely while I made an equal effort to get her attention to let her know what an asshole that she was. I must have gotten her attention enough for her to be perfectly annoyed by my presence when I saw her way back at the Amherst campus.

I continued to pay visits to the print station and stationary/sweet shop in the campus center to make a little statement when I could. 

And then there were the two Italian girls (I could just tell); one of them, Aiello (I would learn her name later), had a pretty face, yeah, cutesy, not in the official way that I like; but her ass, that was sublime. And she was similarly flagrant in her appeal to niggers. I’d see her giving them a leering beholden eye as she would pass them in the campus center. So it was a similar thing on my part to get her asshole attention. I would walk up beside her and graze her arm briskly, then walk in front of her wearing one of my t-shirts; stop suddenly and yell something in at her face.

When not alone or with the other Italian girl, she was escorted by this White anti-fa sort, bedecked in dreadlocks and a red beret. And a giant Mulatto cyborg was her other escort. As I stepped up agitation against her, the White anti-fa followed along with me as I made my home one day, menacing and threatening me as much as he could, making like he had some sort of weapon beneath his shall. He followed me until I was able to get to a phone booth and call the police. Then he cleared out.

She wound up filing assault charges against me, and only technically was that true. I barely touched her. I have never hit a woman and I never would. No woman is worth lowering one’s self and risking the wrath of violating that taboo. If she is that offensive to you, and negotiation can’t reconcile it, part ways. Nevertheless, she filed charges against me and I interviewed several lawyers to take my case.

Like my prank phone calls, I used this shopping around for lawyers as an occasion for some politicking. I called two female lawyers from North Hampton. One shrieked, “You called her a nigger lover?!” Yes, I did.  Not quite believing it, she shrieked more emphatically, “You called her a nigger lover?!” Yes. “You called her a nigger lover!?” Yes and she responded, “Yes I’ll defend you!” I said No you won’t and I called the next lawyer; who was also taken aback but not so much that I couldn’t explain myself enough to be fairly impressive and provocative – “though their music is overrated, their athletic prowess obsolete and their women are ugly, they still have a formidable biopower to content with.” I then began to flirt with her, telling her that I’m not a bad looking guy, maybe near a “7.” She began to take an interest. Having suckered her enough and realizing that she was not the right lawyer, I asked her if she had a fat ass. It’s alight, she could lose the weight. She saved face by concluding the call by saying that she found me very offensive. On another day, she probably would have taken me up on my offer to get her pregnant.

Next I was asked by a Jewish lawyer in North Hampton to come in to see him personally, “because he wanted to get a look at me.”  He tried to intimidate me, saying that I better hope that I am not confronted with the black magistrate. He concluded that he was not inclined to represent me. Finally, I called another woman lawyer in North Hampton and when she responded “that’s not illegal” to my having called Aiello a nigger lover, I felt that I had my lawyer. She knew all the judges and lawyers in town and could represent me as well as anyone – for $500.

On the way to her office I passed through a gas station where a nigger tanked up while his beautiful brunette girlfriend sat in the car. I don’t believe that I’ve ever given a more fierce look of  hatred to anyone in my life.

My lawyer turned out to be a big fat woman who pocketed the $500 and then let her arms dangle by her side like a hired gun slinger on my behalf, ready to start shooting.

I explained my project to her and while she said that she didn’t agree, it was evident that she had at least some empathy, particularly as we went into a minor trance, and I called upon her concern for her White son; some emotion came into her eyes; but more to the point, she believed that the charge, “assault,” was bogus, as I’d barely touched her. that I should be charged with harassment, if anything. Furthermore, she believed in freedom of association, that I should be able to discriminate as to who’d be my roommates. She believed in freedom of speech, noting that “sometimes the Right is most concerned with freedom of speech.” I told her that I’m not sure that I identified as right wing. She smiled. Anyway, she got the charges dropped in exchange for an agreement to stay away from Ms. Aeillo.

However, I did come across her on the streets of Amherst sometime later, walking with her anarchist /anti-fa type friend and the Mulatto Cyborg. And, as I moved passed them, I said, “try brining your nigger friends to Italy, bitch.” They seemed a bit rattled. This time I did well (I didn’t always, sometimes came across as a bit silly and neurotic).

In the meantime you’d see groups of White girls marching around campus led by this black guy, Martin, chanting, “racist! sexist! anti-gay!” In similar pc activist fervor there were organized “Women Take Back the Night” marches on different occasions.

I continued meeting with my professor and I must say, he was really trying to help me, work through the transference that had occurred with Naomi, build my confidence and encourage my unanimity, overcoming the obsequiousness that my family had saddled me with.

He said, “you’re not saying that people shouldn’t be able to walk the streets in safety, you’re just saying here’s a different way of looking at gender relations that you might want to consider.” I smiled in thanks.

I assimilated an overture to a broader rhetorical position, saying, “now, these hate infested Mulatto supremacists” …then trailing off… and he smiled, acknowledging that I had the trail of a significant response to PC.

He asked me what I hoped to get out of antagonizing these women on campus? I answered, “I don’t know, maybe they’ll have a nervous breakdown and commit suicide.” He smiled.

To a superficial take that might seem sinister. But it was actually very good of him. He knew that I was not a sadist, that I was overcoming a lifelong oversensitivity, deeply inculcated obsequious concern for the feelings of women. He agreed that there should be critical response to feminism and recognized that on an effective intellectual level there wasn’t much going on in that regard.

I said of all my bluster at interracial couples, “wouldn’t they want me to care?” “Maybe some parents would be grateful for a rebut to swarthy objectivism.” And finally, “it is a relatively safe way to make a point.” He gave me the under the table smile again.

And again when I reviewed some of the things that I was up to in trying to gain ethnographic experience, I explained, “you might see me at feminist brown lunch” .. ‘you might see me at a church.” He smiled.

That was one of the earlier clues that Jews did not necessarily oppose Christianity for gentiles. They might not like it as much as straight forward liberalism, but they like it better than, you know, some other reactions…

And indeed I tried going with Kim and Jim to their church on the Amherst commons, not because I believed in that shit at all, but to be social and move around a bit. I found myself in a pew behind an interracial couple, the woman a font of health and pure beauty. I fixed on them in hatred. The male priest who served my wine forced it on me in anger, while the female priest who assisted him seemed rather amused by me. Though Jim Clark had a bad reputation for sexual impropriety with female church goers, like giving them hugs and rubbing his erection into them, he was nevertheless ensconced as head priest at the church of Jim and Kim’s denomination; so they asked him what to do about this racist friend of theirs – me. He rendered a sermon bragging about having marched with Martin Luther King in Alabama. He went on, saying that “if someone is a racist, that it was his business.” After the sermon, he made sure that I heard him say to the coal burner that anyone who objects must have a short dick. Lovely priest. I made my way to the exit and a White woman was handing out flyers appealing for financial and legal help for a black incarcerated in the Midwest on some felony charge.

Amherst commons. As I once road on a bus there, a giant, apparently mentally challenged black, would not stop needling a nerdy White guy who sat near the rear door of the bus. Finally, the black got off the bus through the rear door one stop before I got off. Relief came over the nerd. Then relief came over the other two remaining passengers, a young woman and surprisingly, markedly over the face of and old woman as I shouted, “Why do they want to bring these goddamn niggers up here!” And as I got off my stop, Amherst Commons, the driver thanked me!

Some people were grateful, the old woman’s reaction to my indignation was as if to say, ‘what a relief, not everyone has lost their mind.’ I got cheered on and met with approval by White guys in a few occasions One pretty White girl working at pharmacy in North Amherst made it clear that she was on my side as I stormed through the isles sarcastically shouting, “racist, sexist, anti-gay!” In North Hampton I shouted anti-anti racist things and two White girls said, “oh, hi!” but I had such trajectory that I did not register that they were taking my side in disgust with the anti-White male, pro miscegenator agenda. I hurtled verbal abuse at them in a foul way. They looked at each other puzzled. I regret my misunderstanding. It should have been clear that there would be some understanding of reaction to the insanity among the PC of North Hampton, the prestigious women’s college, Smith, giving rise to a place where there more lesbians per capita than anywhere else in the U.S.

A WN Hitchhiker's Guide to The Galaxy.

You have to pick your fights, can’t fight everybody all at once, and because I needed my father as a financial life-line to continue my studies, I tried to maintain him as an ally, give him a sense of the situation and what I was learning. If he could stick with me just a little longer and if I was, in fact, able to matriculate into the Gradschool program, I would not be paying, but would be paid (not much, but enough) as an employee of the university . However, I needed the leeway that his help afforded in order to make up for vast gaps in my academic, intellectual and emotional background to concentrate on my studies alone if I was to do well on the GRE test and in requisite preparation. So, I did not prank phone call him, but rather tried to reason with him.

Even though he was kind of an idiot on matters other than making money, which does matter a great deal, I concede; I hoped to get him to see the point in helping me in my pursuits. While not a millionaire, he did well enough; and well enough so that I tried to reason with him on what common grounds that we had, despite his infuriating stupidity in other ways.

We both hated Clinton. And while I could easily see that my father could not think outside of the box to see that the Republicans were basically flip sides of the same liberal coin, only a slower, more torturously burning liberalism which didn’t merit his ardent fanship, it was nevertheless the case that anything was better than Clinton – while ironically, my department was responsible for his Public Relations. It’s the kind thing that should have impressed him more, but my father, in a sense, was one of these idiots like GW who hasn’t been to university but thinks that he knows everything. So, you’d explain something and he’d begin his response, “yeah”, dismissively, quick work, ‘he knew that.’ You wanted to scream, fucker, you didn’t even know that!

Though he took for granted the sense of support that he got from his coherent Italian/American identity, he was, unfortunately, tough enough (and base and thick enough as it were), to actually go along with the fundamental liberalism beneath even the Republican party in The United States propositional nationalism. I tested him on this. How would you feel about a Jewish grandchild?  If I took up with a Jewish student (that would be a winning career move). “Beautiful!” he said. He then said, “I want a black baby!” to really embellish his liberal magnanimity. It was very hard to contain my anger and I barked back, “that’s not going to happen!”

 My father learned from his childhood days on the doorsteps of the Italian section of Newark, New Jersey, that if he displayed good natured stupidity and was liberal enough, that he could advance enough through the gate keep of American women; and have enough the blessings of the powers that be as he would literally repeat the mantra, “you can’t fight city hall” inculcated in his late call to service in WWII. He would say this with a dumb smile on his face, as he would, when speaking in bad grammar to display how unpretentious, safe and working class that he was. I hated that he would smile at me in this, expecting that I should join him in limiting and disadvantaging myself against thoughtful people. Again, questions to him were treated by him as if an affront. He was distinctly anti-intellectual and strong enough to humiliate nascent attempts to compensate.

Thus, in saying that he “wanted a black grandchild”, my father was displaying his “good natured stupidity”, said with a smile, if you were there in his presence; ready for the pat on head from the liberal powers that be and the female gate-keeper class – gate-keepers of liberalism, as it were. I then tried to steer the discussion to the lighter side of having to deal with multiculturalism.

I related an anecdote of how my Chinese roommate played the Polish “Beer Polka” for me on his accordion. My father’s ‘understanding’ response was that “yeah, everything is all” – pause for words to come – “INTER-MIXED” – pause, ready for register of correct response, high level pat on the head. I cannot over emphasize my rage at this man, my father, who should, even for an instinctive level of understanding, be looking to protect my/our ethnic genetic interests.

To render this utterly hapless response, as if I was saying that the gene pools of the world were so hopelessly intermixed that you should just adopt a pleasant acceptance … and the way he struggled so stupidly to say this word, “inter-mixed”, but said it with assurance that his was the good natured position that should meet with my agreement  …well, I would have liked to kill him.

He went on, “I told this black kid that I sat next to on the bus, ‘hang in there, you’ll get there.” Again, expecting approval, while I am thinking what a stupid asshole that my father is. I would respond a bit more plainly, that I did not like niggers, and I explained why. He replied, “I didn’t teach you that” (there was suspicion from the university that he had taught me that; and though he should have, he didn’t; life experience taught me anyway). He went on, “I’ve talked to everyone and nobody agrees with you.” Now I’m seething. He’s messing with the tectonic plates of my second final grammar (“we don’t want”) that had already been jostled once by my prof in class (“nobody agrees with racism”) producing a volcanic eruption. I already sensed that my lines were tapped, the university police, my prof, my sister, Cara, sister in law, Eva, Naomi and other mental health people were all in contact to some extent as to how to deal with me. They were trying to work on me through my father’s ultra-compliant, in fact Zelig like adopt-a-personality: “Nobody agrees with you.” Well that did rupture the tectonic plate of my second final grammar again, 

Unleashed were some of my most vitriolic calls to Naomi’s and my sister’s answering machines (Cara insults me by sending stupid books for me to read, I respond by telling her that as long as I am alive she is not safe). At this point, a traditional strategy was adopted of proposing that my father take me on a father-and-son trip to Italy. This would allow us to  talk father-to-son, build up my identity and confidence with it, and perhaps steady me through the prospective graduate school program. Even though I could never get along with my father, this I could not resist. The thought of Italy, where I could be comfortable being European, particularly my kind of European, seeing it again for the first time since 1972, when I thought that I might never again experience the beauty and antiquity of my heritage.

It was 1993. The political correctness of the campus, the demographic make-up and rule structure of America was becoming toxic for me; intolerable in an emotional sense.

Though it was never a part of the original trance bargain (viz. “a real education in exchange for being a ‘crazy Italian’ in opposition to the university liberals”), I was not aware that a PhD was not in the cards. Though its pursuit kept me on track of study.

Again, the prof did try, supplying an argument for me to the class, “that (racist stuff) may have been there (in me) but it wasn’t a problem.”

“The good ones”, the exceptions (of name the group that you need to discriminate against); “just what we need!”

And finally, “I think there is a place to go with this (my project).”

If there was any hope of my continuing on to be matriculated into a graduate program, I needed more cultural support and relief. Thus, my father was called upon to make a father and son trip to Italy with me to try to calm me down and bring me around to his more tolerant, liberal American mindset. I played along, wanting the trip to Italy to be sure, but seeing it as a scouting trip upon a place I might have to go to escape the insanity of America’s demographics and rule structures.

At the airport, my sister had a confidential chat at the check-in counter with my father, the kind she does when she approaches the bench in court; this time (by inference, I could deduce that she was) to quietly tell my father to tell me that “nobody agrees with you” – viz. with your racialist positions. Now, again, at that time, prior to the Internet, MacDonald and WN support, to hear that nobody agreed with me was toxic to the point of being poison. I was fighting this battle of my second final grammar very much alone. At the very moment my sister quietly passed this advice on to my father, in the seating area nearby, an exquisite Italian girl was kissing her Negro boyfriend. Of course my father and sister were oblivious to this, a woman whom I would be happy to say was my wife, at least based on her looks to be sure. I seethed with the flagrant reminder that I needed to get out of America, to get to cultural backing and the genetic grounding that I did not have in America.

For it was already this statement, “nobody agrees with you”, that had produced one of my largest trances, one taking place in graduate class. It provoked a trance rage in me that had me lashing out at my professor and the class.

It was a level of pathology that my professor could not ignore. That must have been around the time that he called upon my father to have a conciliatory father – son vacation to Italy.

Since it had become more clear to my professor that I was having trouble being persuaded to go along with that program, and he was apparently in cahoots with the suggestion that my father take me to Italy, he decided to add one more measure of consolation – by telling me a story, the moral of which was to not get my expectations too high about this trip to Italy, or, by analogy, how one should not take things too seriously and get their expectations too high in general:

So, just prior to leaving, my professor related this additional conciliatory anecdote, lest I be disappointed by the experience; he would let me down gentler still.

He told me about a book he’d read, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to The Galaxy. It is the story of a wanderer who travels throughout the galaxy, surveying the planets, enduring much to perhaps find intelligent life. My professor asked me, “What do you think he came across when he arrived at that special planet?”

He smiled when I guessed correctly, “a souvenir stand.”

Anyway, I did go on the trip to Italy with my father. This trip was supposed to render me a bit more relative and tolerant in my thinking – if anything would help to make me educable to liberal sensibilities, this was supposed to do it. 

Italians are know for being very emotional; my father was exponentially volatile in that regard, and I was in no mood to put up with his brash assertiveness, so we wound up having fights  that escalated in volume – though I loved Italy, first time I’d been there since 1972, having to deal with my father was not doing my emotions and mind the good that it was supposed to do.

It started on the airplane. My father was going to help me be assertive with women;  told the stewardess that, “he’s coming on to you!” I couldn’t believe it. I was doing no such thing, and the last thing that I needed was help being an awkward fool with women. She brought a male steward over to make sure that I didn’t try anything. Thanks dad.

We had a rental car, and I was disgusted that he did not appreciate the scenic routes. When we got to a hotel in Rome, he triggered by bellowing when I reached for a beer in the minnie bar, not bothering to explain calmly that minnie bars are a minnie racket, attaching high prices to your tabor anything you drink

We visited a time share in Maratea beach resort (my mother got ripped off by this, another racket – time shares – having bought one; a bit of fate would be indicated later in regard of the time share as well). Two English couples were there at pool side, or should I say one English couple, the other couple that they were with was an English woman and a black man. Last thing that I wanted to see. When I told you before that I was quite often awkward in my attempts at assertive Italian bravado, this occasion was one of them. I attempted to assert my distaste for such pairings in general, warning members of the evening entertainment entourage that I would not stand for this practice coming to Italy, the particular woman that I addressed didn’t quite understand who I was to be making such a claim. It was awkward but my father capitalized on that in a humiliating way, pointing his fingers together in a tedious gesture, saying disgustedly, “he doesn’t like it when the White girls get together with blacks.”

I tried to explain to my father the kind of opportunity that I had before me and how its resource could make a real difference in counteracting the injustices of political correctness. It didn’t register with him as anything more than a business proposition, an opportunity that he and others “were giving me.” He liked America, and was oblivious to everything ugly about it. So, if I told him about John Locke and the technology of civil individual rights as being destructive, it would not absorb, he would be onto a story in great swagger, about how he’d testified before the Supreme Court that he “just wanted the same rights (of union access) as anyone.” Jimmy Hoffa came looking for him after that; the FBI was stationed in front of our house for weeks to come.

And before I got any ideas about Italians being so good, he had to tell me this stupid bit, with pomp and splendor, as if unrolling a scroll “when the Italians invaded the Somali land, there was a lot of fraternizing  going on.” He told me “you weren’t raised to think like this. I didn’t teach you that” Finally he said what for me were the magic, poison words, “nobody agrees with you.”

I was seething, and showed him the rashes and skin disease on my hands from washing dishes at Jake’s No Frill’s Restaurant in North Hampton; how wiling I was to make my way through academia independently and as I saw fit. He started inciting me, “wash dishes then, wash dishes then!” Then he said with great bluster, “I’ll give you $800 a month for the rest of your life!” Never one to respond well to didactic incitement, I responded with shrill indignation, throwing peanuts at him and yelling stupidly, loudly, voice cracking with insufficient masculinity, like Richard Spencer on the infamous Milo tape, not like a cool and confident Italian. With my father having cornered the market on masculinity, it would take me a while to ground my manly gestalt. He incited further, “kill me then!” and I bark back, “like I’m going to waste my life to kill you , you old piece of shit. You aren’t worth it!” 

But it really wasn’t just me. When we got back to our family villages, I gave advice to my cousin’s young daughter explaining that “she should listen to mother, because mother is very smart.’  I was doing post modernity proper, affirming tradition where it is benign and good. The girl was placid. Then my father turns it into a command that offers no explanation, only dumb resignation, said with the usual dumb smile on his face, as if you should happily accept the restricting of your agentive leeway, and the kid starts screaming, “No! No!”

We go to my cousin’s hotel. Sete Bello in Materdomini. My father is talking to him in Italian and suddenly turns around and asks me to go up to our room and fetch “the envelopes.” So naturally, I go through his bags looking for mailing envelopes. I come back telling him that I can’t find them. He’s very angry which makes me explode at this, the millionth time he has gotten furious for not being understood when he cannot communicate for shit. He had coffee which was packaged like tea bags in ‘envelopes.’ While my cousins understood me, finding this funny, my loud temper tantrum was poorly done. I’d give myself near lowest rating for that one; but it was not the biggest faux pas.

I was doing my level best to gather all the genealogy that I could through the archives and my cousins. My father found this tedious. If I asked him a question about a relative, he would respond in anger, as he would with any question. No explanation as to the connection and relation, he would just bark out in anger, “it’s your cousin!” Then he really pissed me off by saying that “you want to do this genealogy shit!” In the evening while I was mapping details of our genealogy with some cousins, my father slept in the next room. The next morning he told me that he heard everything, as I had made and offhand remark to my cousins that he’ll be dead soon and I’ll have $800 a month. I would  have said this in response to a suggestion from my cousins that he might be of help, observing that no, he was not interested in this “genealogy shit.” While my cousin was not exactly wrong to say, ‘he’s your father” …it has taken me a long time to sort out this faux pas. First of all, it is not really me. I am not one who is jealous, would deny people their wealth, happiness and life. I was not only under tremendous stress, typically hung over, but my father was not appreciating the significance of the project that I was taking on here and at the university. But it would not be until many years later, as I was closer to death myself, that before I die, I could think of no better thing than to work with my son  (still hope to  have one) to help set him on solid financial ground. But moreover, I would see it as my duty, as a father, to protect the family’s genetic interests, not this liberal American shit.

Nevertheless, the faux pas would cost me heavily when it came time to draw up his will.

But I could not keep my composure to play that well. though he turned out to be largely correct about the importance of money, his treating what it could buy (or what other people could buy) by criteria was hard to respect. Growing up in the poverty of the depression made his generation too materialistic. His “can’t fight city hall” compliance was intolerable when the not so naïve were destroying, well, our people. His arguments of how I shouldn’t be racist were especially repugnant in light of all that I was up against and how obviously important our cause should be to a father: It was the opposite of conciliatory – infuriating, extremely insulting to the hard battle and academic work that I was doing to counter the popular sentiments so destructive to our people.

That was enough to have me fly-off the handle at him – enough so that he would all but cut me off from my inheritance thanks to a chain of command: my sister and sister in law’s rank (she had not yet produced a second grandson for him, but already had one), their Jewish overlords pandering, of course. That episode set in motion right then, what would wind-up being an all too costly fight for my life a few years later.

To have some peace from one another, my father let me take the car and he stayed behind in our grandparent’s villages. I had a hankering to go to Sicily, Syracuse in particular – the antiquity and the thought of slinky, raven-haired beauties drove me on.

I drove all day and arrived in Sicily by night. Coming into a Sicilian city like Messina at night can be frightful when first encountered; so fitting that the Bubonic Plague had come to Europe through its port in 1347; it was like some kind of Gothic nightmare, nobody on the streets, shops all closed up and ancient, worn down buildings sooted-up dark from deasil fumes, giving a ghastly effect to the edifices; pretty scary at night, all the stores closed up.. eerie looking, but for me this was nothing but intriguing. I loved the experience of coming into this exotic old world.

I was ill advisedly drunk driving but enjoying every minute of this exotica that was part of my history and carried on to my penzione destination for the night in the city of Catania. As I drove into Catania center drunk, a car marked “Vigilante” drove up beside me, but rather than buckle to fear, I let my euphoria win out and just shouted at them with a big smile on my face, “Catania bella!” The smiled back and asked me where I was going. And I followed them to Piazza Duomo where I would find my penszione.

Piazza Duomo, Catania, Sicilia

The following night I came upon a phenomenon, a street-fair in Catania laced with a font of the subtlest White beauty of its kind that I’d ever seen. Like so many wild flowers: their skin was White, bodies so lean and feminine, their eyes so beautiful, so subtle. So much for the urban legend that Sicilians are part black, these women were the most subtle White women that could be. Though I could not know at the time that I’d never again recapture this moment of so many subtly beautiful women of this kind in one place, I was grateful to have it confirmed for myself, just how beautiful these women could be, and it assured that I would have to come back one day (I did notice on black street vendor noticing the same thing, and it bothered me).

The next night I found the hottest disco-tech around, mafia owned Club Banacher in Aci Creale.

I was looking sharp in my three piece custom made suit, but must have cut a suspicious figure to the owners as I waited on line to the entrance. A young boy was sent to tell me, “no whiskey” as I entered. In I went to this club with its palm trees, outdoor swimming pools (well, sort of, more like reflecting ponds) and elegant woman who looked as if they’d walked out of the ancient gallery, off of an ancient Greek vase. After about ten minutes, I went to the bar and turns out that the kid followed me. ‘No whiskey.” It may have made for a more dry experience but it was flattering to be thought of as slightly dangerous. I’d be sure to come back to this place.

Nevertheless, it was Siracusa that I felt destined to see, and I took off the next day to see its complex where three important historical sites exist adjacently.

Having arrived at my ultimate destination, I went straight to where I knew to be the ruins of an ancient Roman coliseum.

What did I see first? Of course – a souvenir stand – with three kindly, pleasantly plump Italian ladies standing around.

I walked in without cynicism and sat down alone in the ruin of this surprisingly small Roman coliseum. I looked around. There was a lot of grass overgrowth and the edges of the rocks had been worn, rounded by the ages.

I was the only one there and sat down about midway in the seating area.

I was moved by how relatively small it was – the scale of it had a subtle quality to it.

Then something happened to me that never happened before in my life.

I saw the crenellations near the top, something diminutive about the spacing of them, the scale…something profound and important in the human scale had been rushed-by by America. I began to cry, then to sob. It was like nothing I’d experienced before. It was only partly grief, partly catharsis, partly the joy of revelation. It was as if my whole body was having an orgasm.

It was something.. the scale of it, the small scale of it, as I looked at the undulating turns of its upper wall.. I realized that America, in its hurry and in its ambition, had passed by, rushed by something profound… a human quality something profound.

I cried profoundly, from the profundity of it – cried as I never had before; though of grief it was not only that, it felt good.. totally cathartic…it was if my entire body was having an orgasm in this grief – my whole body cried.

As I gathered myself a little, I walked out of the coliseum past the old ladies at the souvenir stand. Seeing the tears still streaming down my cheeks were very upset, visibly shaken, not understanding why I had been crying so hard… but I was able to wish them a goodbye, so they understood that I was not in need of help…

It was a great irony. Here I had been prepared for the potential superficiality and disappointment of travel.. I went through the trouble, I went past the souvenir stand and had an absolutely profound experience.

To think, my professor had prepared me for a let down.

I can only interpret beyond the profound feeling that something important of scale was being tragically left behind, run over rough shod by the American project.

Next I crashed a group of English tourists, tagging alongside while they were getting a professional guide of the Greek amphitheater nearby.

This Greek Amphitheater had not only hosted performances of the plays of Aeschaelus and Sophocles, but had actually been attended by them, Plato as well. Fucking Plato!

Teatra Greco, Siracusa

After that, the tour guide took us over to “The Ear of Dionysius.”

The Ear of Dionysius is a cave where the Roman legions kept prisoners of war. The prisoner’s would be given an option to remain alive as slaves or take the chance to win their freedom in a life or death battle as gladiators – yes, fights to the death that would occur in the Roman colosseum that I’d just come out of. The tour guide added, that colosseum was one of the places where the defeated gladiator would get the “thumbs up”, to spare him, or the “thumbs down” to execute him. The tour guide then claimed that Christianity put an end to this barbarism, “thank god.” And maybe Christianity did do some good, provisionally, stupid Jewish trick, imposter of our moral order though it is.

The Roman coliseum of Siracusa being the scene of vast carnage added much consideration to the cathartic experience that I just had. It was not only America that was running rough shod over much that was profound, but Europeans had a history of it and one might start by considering the great Archimedes who was slain by a Roman centurion who had no idea of the value of this life that he ended.

Archimedes, a Siracusan, had lived nearby. His talents were brought to an end by an independently acting Centurion, one homicide that perhaps set European math and science back thousands of years.  In the ear of Dionysus, one could remain as a slave to the death or fight to the death as a gladiator in the improbable hope of gaining freedom. Our natural means of defending ourselves have been interrupted by the call to blind and dumb courage. Christianity is alleged to have been crucial in ending the brutality.

The military campaigns of Charlemagne would seem to argue otherwise. The Teutonic Knights destruction of the pagan Lithuanians was no sympathetic Christian salvation. The cataclysmic Thirty Years War was inter-Christian. And lets not go into the way this obsequious religion, this false moral order has tied our hands behind our backs to where we are now yielding our land and our genome, to our own genocide without a fight.

And beyond this stupid religion, as we hack our way toward a moral order which will look after our biological interests and the systemic homeostasis that will sustain them, we will see among the gladiators, the fratricidal battles, the likes of Caesar contra the Gauls, Pickett’s suicidal charge, The Kaiser army’s rape of Belgium, The Battle of The Somme and Verdun, Hitler’s cataclysmic war of supremacist imperialism, costing more than fifty million European lives and treasure, we will look upon the greatest evil. Among the corpses of these catastrophic avalanches burying our evolution, those surviving will resurrect and rebuild our authentic ontology, its moral order.

Nay to any matriarchal thumbs down to our being: It is time to begin on the true ontological course of our co-evolutionary warrant in European Being.

This brutal puerile female incitement to genetic competition, a weaponization of modernity’s “empirical” rupturing of our necessary hermeneutic group borders and bounds, through the pandering of the YKW, liberals and right wingers, installing them, well, not exactly as a matriarchy, but as gatekeepers of power, letting only the brutally liberal (with regard to our White European borders and bounds) into power. For they will breed with the winner no matter what, and so what matter of the pathetic vanquished males then and their tested inferior genes – they are losers, just like Archimedes.

I returned to Amherst, Massachusetts anything but placated liberal by my father, but with the rejuvenation of the deep meaning for which I fight and the palpable experience of it.

My prof. happily greeted back the world traveler and almost seemed disappointed that I was anything but disappointed by Italy and, he would become aware, discombobulated to learn, that I was anything but placated by my father. I think that I only audited one course that fall while I worked a restaurant job in North Hampton. As there had not actually been anyone in the department focusing on feminism, they hired Leda Cooks, apparently as polemic counterpart if not to me, then to my kind of thing. I noticed that she brought a new field of studies with her: “Whiteness Studies.” I thought, oh, that’s nice, finally they will be taking our side. Then I saw the syllabus and realized it should be called “Anti-Whiteness” studies.

Meanwhile, in evenings I’d be chopping vegetables at Friendlies, not able to say a damn thing as I’d see an alpha blonde female sitting there in a completely taken for granted attitude with a nigger. Waitresses clueless as to what I could be upset about…while on break, the half Jew half Anglo line cook Jhhhon Dhhay (pompous and effeminate prep school way of talking) would be telling me about his beautiful half Italian/half Polish girlfriend who’d run up his credit card (that’s why he was working there, to pay it off) and finally gone to the projects to get drugs and get fucked by niggers; then white knighting her, ready to take issue with me if I took issue with her, Jew that he was. The steady flow of this kind of agitation kept my blood simmering.

I mean, in some of my initial correspondence to Pearce, I offered a rebut to the conclusion that I’d seen in some communicology work that toxic expressions of male masculinity were the result of “social impotence.” I suggested rather, that it may be an expression of “social I-don’t want-to-ness but everything is making me feel like I-should want-to-anywayness.” To alleviate the sense that you would necessarily lose out to rogue males otherwise, the power and incentive structure having been disordered of modernity, there needed to be voluntary secular enclaves of single sex partner for life hopefuls. A societal respect for the institutionalized sacralization of sex and monogamy as it were.

As the script writers for the television series “L.A. Law” were getting ideas from our department and indirectly from me, the one and only bit of feedback I got for that idea was a scene in one episode where a poindexter type White guy with a squeaky voice stands up on his desk, index finger pointed in the air, proudly proclaiming his wife the one and only woman that he’d ever had …. while everyone else in the busy office goes on talking noisily among themselves, completely disinterested in what the little poindexter has to say. So, my proposal was not being considered with eh seriousness that it merited. You think the writers of “L.A. Law” would not lift ideas from me? How about the Corbin Bernsen character (Arnold Becker) repeating verbatim, “this incitement may cast the punishment as not that bad, at worst, if not a necessary lesson, or even an inspiration which takes credit for the achievement”, from the “permanent puerile initiate” phase of the Charmed Loop of Didactic Incitement concept that I developed.

* This is one place, i.e., the scriptwriters of “L.A. Law”, where my memory or rather, my original perception may have been inaccurate. This may have been my mis-perception in beta-state in-between a sleep and waking state, wherein I thought the Corbin Bernsen character was given my lines. However, my sensitivity to the potential for communication between my department and L.A. area media productions is not unfounded; as my professor had just come back from a year exchange at U.C. Santa Barbara, and would remain in conversation with their communications department at the same time that he would be talking to me. Furthermore, as I was talking quite a bit about the importance of life-long monogamy as an anecdote to the tumult of modernity’s Darwinism, another episode of L.A. Law, in which a poindexter type stands on his desk to proclaim his life long fidelity to his wife, while a busy office carries on chattering amongst themselves obliviously to him. Mocking my concern, whether in response to me or not. There were other examples of C.M.M. influence in media, such as commercial for a car in which decision makers reflexively reverse their choice; and the car is shown turning from right side up to upside down and right side up again.

I continued with my “activism” on campus, having the optimal blonde coal burner from the campus center copy shop print up “White Women For Sale!” for me and then giving her the finger as I went to post it throughout campus and in town. I resumed making excuses to buy things at the stationary/sweet shop near the campus center entrance way so that I could make a nasty remark to the brunette mudshark there and let her see my “Big Mulatto Bro is Watching” T-shirt which I wore everywhere. I could see that she was quite upset as she entered the nearby woman’s room, seeing the words, “nigger lovers,” on the door. And I continued to make my prank message calls to Naomi’s answering machine.

With compound irony, the last message that I would send her before a New York City police officer would call me and say, “we have a problem; she doesn’t want to press charges, but we have your phone tapped and you need to stop.” …the last message from me was me playing this from Frank Zappa’s “Joes Garage” to her answering machine:

Neighbor’s mother: 

I’m calling the police! everyday this goes on around here! He used to be a very nice boy! He used to cut my grass!

Joe:
Speak to me
Oh no . . .
The golden shower must have shorted out
His master circuit
He’s, he’s, oh my God
I must have plooked him . . .
Hey
To death . . .
Hey
(police sirens)
 
Central Scrutinizer (voice sounding as if through a bullhorn):
This is the CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER . . .
You have just destroyed one model XQJ-37 Nuclear Powered Pan-Sexual Roto-Plooker
And you’re gonna have to pay for it!
So give up, you haven’t got a chance.
Joe:
But I . . .
I, I, I, I, I . . .
I can’t pay
I gave all my money
To some kinda groovy religious guy . . .
Two songs ago . . .
Central Scrutinizer:
Come on out son . . .
Between the two of us
We’ll find a way to
Work it out
I say compound irony because the next morning as I made my way to the campus center stationary/sweet shop, I learned that Frank Zappa had died. It was 4 December 1993. While the brunette coal burner was not working that day, the optimal blonde from the copy shop sort of positioned herself near the door to stare at me to make it known that I did not bother her. I just walked away a little surprised and maybe she was a little one up in that instance, but so what? I wanted to send a message, her feelings don’t matter to me either. I might have given her one last middle finger and if I could express my wishes to her now, she’d be one more rape/murder victim at the hands of blacks. I want to be in a separate governance from this kind of person.
 
Later that day, campus police called me and told me that the brunette from the campus center stationary had filed a complaint against me and they were banning me from campus for two years. At first I was a little shocked but then the policeman was disappointed as I immediately recovered, dismissing it as a minor inconvenience to my bigger and better plans. And with his permission and beforehand notice, I could still meet with the prof to hammer out future plans.

Actually, I did not have a plan B, but I was still had a sustainable living situation there and more importantly, the prof was still willing to talk to me as I tweaked my would-be thesis into baroque absurdity. I became increasingly frustrated with him as I would sometimes get the subtle message that “your best interests may be elsewhere”, sometimes not so subtle provocation, sometimes a revealing of his liberal bona fides (e.g., he hoped that the races would mix); this resulted in at least two episodes in which I berated him horribly at close range, and then groveled in apology to be able to speak with him again. Though I am loath to describe those instances, I might just do that when they come up in chronology, but he was turning up the heat in my slow simmer; which instigated more of my “activism” over the next two years there in Amherst and in North Hampton, where I worked. But it was not only convenience and the possibility of academic networking that kept me there, but fate and an increasing sense of fate that moored me there.

I continued with my 40 oz., ok, maybe 80 oz Power Master malt liquors two or three days a week, ok, maybe four, sometimes five. That fortified my initiative to move through the streets of the area in my slogan bearing T-Shirts, to keep posting “White Women for Sale!” throughout the town and to antagonize miscegenators to the extent that I might. This coincided with working my restaurant jobs in North Hampton and attending Al-anon meetings (Adult Children of Alcoholics) throughout the area more evenings than not. I also asked my professor for the advice of a good shrink that I might talk to in hopes of getting back on track of an academic career. With that, I got counseling from Harold Raush, a psychologist who was collegial with the big shots of the time. I would go into at least on trance with him and see/say some things that I’d seen and said in other trances and would again in the grand trance to come.

I really liked the new music that I was hearing from Alice in Chains,  Nirvana and Pearl Jam. While I resonated with this “Grunge music” as inarticulate heir of the inarticulate hippie motive for White male being, I was sure, am sure, that I had the articulate answer to their angst in the form of post modernity proper, what I would one day call White Post Modernity. Thus, I remember the day that Kurt Cobain died, and telling my prof soon after that this was an expression of an unheeded call-back to Being and the ordinary levels of life from a misfired pressure to self actualization. It is probably semiotic of this “shot out of canon” phenomenon that you can only listen to “It Smells Like Teen Spirit” about a dozen times, excellent though it is. “Come As You Are” is a bit more enduring. Eddie Vedder had his cannon fodder too, in “Once”, but I will probably always be able to listen to “Black” which played throughout the bars and captured the tragedy of the times perfectly. Still, Alice in Chains was my favorite of the Grunge by far. They displayed the aggressive masculinity, strength and creativity that was always there in the hippies, though I always have to explain this to younger people who are misled by right wingers, traditionalists and YKW that hippies were merely drug infested pacifist wimps and therefore “the problem.” in stead of manifesting  something profound of White men, Dasein and MidtDasein, that needed to be incorporated. But alas, Alice in Chains was subject to the same PC misguidance and lack of White Post Modernity that would destroy two of its band members as well.

As an aside for a moment, I must say that Kim and Jim gave me a Mozart record to listen to and it struck me in such a way as to cause me literal shame at it’s beauty and depth in comparison to the music I’d grown up with. I must also add, that this was another sublime experience that I was never able to recapture, never finding a Mozart recording that had that effect on me.

As the situation was becoming more and more provisional, i.e., unlikely to support my pursuit  of a PhD, not even somewhere else, I stepped up efforts to be sure that I left the footprint of my message on the area. One black started charging at me, can’t imagine why, maybe it was because I wore a jacket that said, “Nigger Out!” I scurried into the open door of a frat house and grabbed a broom. He came in and I looked directly at his temple, causing him hesitation as he knew that he’d get a serious whack. Stupidly, he grabbed and all too heavy item, a leaf blower I think it was; and as he lifted it I saw my moment to run out and I managed to cross the street just before a glut of traffic would block him from catching up to me.

I would see walking around a tall, goofy Mulatto with a decent looking blond, who would wear a “just fucked smile” to try to put it in my face when I remarked on them. After that, there was several instances when a car full of White girls would stop a bit ahead on the street when I walked the sidewalk adjacent to university; the nigger would then stick his head out with a smile on his face, saying “you mama likes niggers.” I would yell, “not she didn’t, that’s why I’m not ugly like you.” … they I really let him have it, as he left his head stuck out the window like a target at carnival, I yelled, loud: “Nigger women are ugly! Nobody wants your goddamn women, they look like monkeys with shit colored skin!” I repeated this three times loud and then laughed as the smile came off of his face and he shrank back into the car; the White women therein probably calling him back in, getting a bad feeling about the dynamics.

In another instance, at Jakes No Frills Restaurant in North Hampton, I’d say that I was a bit more awkward but no less bold as I berated an interracial couple from the kitchen where I worked. I wanted to put on a display on behalf of a waitress of French extraction, seeing it as important to protect the continental buffering and always having a thing for French women, dark hair, white skin and in her case, small breasted – my type. I told the couple that “there is Rene, and she is French! French! Spreads Charles de Gaulle’s butt cheese on crackers and eats it mmmm, pate! French! Now get out of here!” The owner of the Restaurant had to duck back into the kitchen laughing. Not that that and other things would keep the owner firing me a few weeks later, he had to. But everyone knew that I was up to something and the job was expendable. When he saw me in another place sometime later, he made a point of shaking my hand. I’d given him a copy of “White Women For Sale!” You see, he was a southerner and had not gotten used to these things either. And at this place, I would see the same interracial couple that I’d recently seen at the North Amherst bar, attractive White academic lady, all smiley, carefree and confident, fondling the muscular arm of her Negro consort.

Despite being a seasoned tarot card reader, Rene was momentarily spooked when "the devil" and "death" kept coming up for me despite shuffles. She regained herself to observe that it might just mean that I am the kind of person who likes to fight. That's true enough if the fight is worthy.. And this would not be the last time that a tarot card reader would present the devil and death card to me repeatedly, despite shufflings. The next time, in Poland, would be even more intense.

I would become friends with Rene for a little while; she was into reading Tarot cards, but even as a seasoned Tarot card reader she was momentarily taken aback, a bit spooked when “the devil and death” cards kept coming up for me despite how she shuffled the cards.

She regained her poise, however, and explained that it might just mean that I am the kind of person who enjoys a worthy fight (true).

That resonated as true enough. I like to fight if it’s a worthy cause.

I would learn that her father and other men were into Satanic rituals in which they raped her; she was aggrieved at having lost a pregnancy by her father when he punched her in the abdomen. For her trauma she would usually be more normal than normal and then occasionally freak out. Not to be outdone, I suppose, I began shouting “incest, incest! ” in a crowded North Hampton restaurant as we ate together. I can’t say that this was good of me, but there was a bit of amateur psychology of exposing it to the light and expressing disgust only at the thought of languishing in guilt about it. Nevertheless, she did say that “I went too far;” and I would swear that she put a curse on me, in which every so often everything that I could ever want would be put before me and then whisked away to sadistically deprive me of it.

A few more events underscore the context of North Hampton and Smith College of lesbians. It wasn’t just x-first lady Barbara Bush’s college, nor even just that of H.M. Parshley, translator of de Beauvoir’s ‘The Second Sex” into English. It was al ma mater to Gloria Steinem, one of the leading figures of second wave feminism, and she’d be there to talk; though I didn’t see her talk, I did see then head of “NOW”, Patricia Ireland debate a Christian minister at Smith. It was a bit sad in retrospect to note that a few nice Christian girls who came along as his parishioners, showed interest in me; but I could not yoke myself with that nonsense. Of course he made himself look silly by denouncing ‘witches’ and when I couldn’t help but laugh, Patricia Ireland smiled, thinking that she had a sensitive male on her side. Then for some reason she mentioned interracial couplings and cheerfully looked for my approval, only to immediately display marked disappointment as she saw me shaking my head, “no.”

Patricia Ireland would just a few years later write a book titled, ‘What a Woman Wants.” This, in turn, was already anticipated by me through the the saturation of this expression, such that I would begin the anti-feminist screenplay that I was conjuring with about five minutes of “what a woman wants, what a woman wants, what a woman wants and what a woman wants” over and over again… to make the point, of this society that I’d experienced for over three decades then, that is all you ever hear and that seems to be the only concern other than the interests of blacks.

With Tony, my other half Jewish /half Anglo roommate, I went to the nearby lesbian bar. One girl, apparently from England, thought that I’d be empathetic when she called English men “pigs” and “racists.” When I responded that “it is England” she freaked out and brought over this little lesbian who was saying that she did like some men, but tall ones, not short ones like me. I am 5-9, neither tall nor short, the average height of men in the world and taller than more than 90% of women in America. And yet indeed, to American women I was “short.” I used to read classified ads, and women looking for men invariably specified 5-10+. You’d always see them with taller guys too. It was daunting. They were getting the interpersonal confirmation and the affection. Tony came to my defense, ridiculing the girl who was half my size. But then Tony, who’s mother was a lesbian and father a Jew with afro-hair, would stupidly accuse me of wanting to go there for the sexual allure of it. In truth it was an ethnographic matter. I’ve never found lesbians sexually exciting in their act, other than the fact that I can see two different woman that I might like. Anyway, even at the time, I held that affection was almost a need, and outside of monogamy and masturbation, lesbianism is preferable to heterosexual promiscuity, especially interracial. However, I do not extend the same understanding to men – sorry Millennial Woes – there are some things that a man does not do.

Speaking of which, there were a few sightings of ‘Miss-Egenators’ in North Hampton that stood out for me. There was a handsome bar not too far from Smith College of lesbians. Walking in before me was a short little nothing Negro with a dapper hat and cute  brunette on his arm, who smiled by his confidence as he looked at the door and said, with Ebonic accent, “ah choose this!”

Always so at home in the world and feeling so entitled I’ve found the Negroes. Simply his prerogative. If he chooses to have a woman who could be my wife or daughter, there is no question or doubt. Try counter assertion and experience the rubber hitting the road in their hyper-assertiveness. I didn’t try it this case, because my situation was becoming legally delicate. However, the next time that I walked into that place…

The next time that I went into that place, I sat at the bar some distance from two blondes, one of whom I would never even consider approaching, assuming that I’d have no chance. She seemed a bit on the athletic  side by the sneakers that she wore, but everything that she wore was new and nothing vulgar. Ah nice to see, one for our side. But every time it seemed, every fucking time: in walks this Negro right into their delighted greeting to claim the alpha blonde. of course they did not even notice me fuming, but the only other customer at the bar, the Jewish (you could just tell) sportscaster who was on the area news every night, was worried by my indignation. But you know, the woman did wear a baseball cap. This is apparently something liberals suggest for Miss-Egenators to do, “wear a ball cap, you’ll ingratiate yourself to enough jocks, distracting hem and diverting them to their objective concern for sporting excellence and unbiased concern beyond the merit of who helps your (mercenary, surrogate) team to win.”

Since I lived in Amherst, most of my engagement with Miss-Egenators happed there. “The Pub” was the main college bar in town and I was sure to run into them there.  “How did you know?”, Tony asked, when I said, “and she has a black boyfriend,” referring to the cool looking half Sicilian / half Puerto Rican girl that was a friend of his girlfriend. As heated arguments would ensue, “what does it matter what you want?” he angrily conceded that “ok, it is kind of that way!” – White women being inclined to be nigger lovers. As if I should be placated by his admitting this.

The Pub would be attended by some ‘What The Fuck is she doing with that nigger?’ types. Another standard blond Miss-Egenator with the ball cap strategy. The cute Italian or Jewish one that I berated along the path by the U. Mass reflecting pond as she walked along with her monkey boyfriend, was there. And in a comical irony, I saw a Miss-Egenator from behind, sitting with a Negro and I yelled at her. I guess it was an “all look the same” moment regarding the Negro. But when the White girl turned around I saw that it was the same girl who’d contacted the police to get me thrown off campus. Now, I’m bold and assertive enough but not so crazy as to continue to provoke a girl who’d already set the police on me. Not with such fervor, and especially not for the kind of mediocrity that she was. However, fortified with Power Master malt liquor I’d go to The Pub to antagonize Miss-Egenators anew. It was a kind of rough sport with me and when it came to The Pub, it would culminate in one of the most marked episodes of my activism at Amherst.

After a morning with my coffee, I revved up with the radio, hearing some Alice in Chains unbeknownst – I don’t think that I even knew who they were, just found the hard music resonating with my soul, so to speak’ and I’d follow that, if scheduling permitted with blissful time by a stream in a wooded area of North Amherst with some Power Master malt liquor. By evening I’d make my way into Amherst center; typically first to some small bar near The Pub, it had a pool table and a juke box with some good music. I liked to play U-2’s “In God’s County.” No need to tell me about Bono’s politics, please, most all musicians and artists are idiots who know nothing. A blond girl, lets call her a 6 or 7, apparently recognized me from my street activism, antics as it were. She said to me, repeating three or four times in succession, “I’m fucking sorry, ok? I’m fucking sorry, ok?” As if this this vulgar and aggressively dismissive “apology” was anything but futile and apt to make more angry.

I emerged from that bar and there was the Negro boyfriend of the one who got me thrown off campus, straining with Ebonic pronunciation that didn’t seem didn’t seem like his natural dialect, “why you comin’ after ma woman!” He had to know that he was not exactly a scary figure of himself, diminutive as he was. But suddenly three White jocks ran over to me, enlisted PC enforcers. The grabbed and tore my shirt and began punching my face; it didn’t hurt, but again, with the police connection and potential legalities, I scurried back into the bar and then through its back door rather than giving them time in the event to impose their meaning. I was waiting to make a statement to a bigger, fresher audience at The Pub a few days later.

Although I did see a few mudsharks that I’d known from around, such as the aforementioned Italian or Jewish one, there were others to pick on here. At dinner time, a very dignified brunette woman, respectable, glasses, that sort, dined with a mildly petulant look on her face, defying anyone to perturb  taking for granted the appropriateness of her nigger husband. By evening, there’d be more, such as another blonde, using the “I’m just sportingly neutral” pretext, i.e., wearing a baseball cap. Standing by the dance floor before I began my agitation in earnest, a pretty young brunette, maybe not even college age, was giving me these signals like “oh shucks, we like you too”, when I signaled that I was not ok with her mudshark friends. I too, can have a White woman if I cuck enough (as they say nowadays) ….and let the miscegenators make their selections first, I guess. No deal.

I began to see consternation on the dance floor. I can’t imagine why, maybe it was because I was scratching my ribs histrionically, as a monkey would. One silly looking black with a pretty White girl in tow, was particularly aggrieved, a “c’mone man, daggone” look on his face, wincing in pain as I agreed with him that nigger women are ugly, White women far preferable.

As I increased my volume, suddenly I realized that I was literally picked up off the ground from behind by the giant black bouncer, carried out of the front door and to the side of the building

The whole place was in something of an uproar, inside and out. The giant Negro bouncer asked me what I said, and I told him, ” I said that nigger women are ugly!” Him, “what?” I repeated and he punched me in the nose. It didn’t hurt and I told him that’s assault and it’s illegal (I think that I said it’s a “felony”, which it probably is not, but illegal, nevertheless). Then some other nigger came along with a smile on his face, what did you say? I said fuck you, nigger, or something like that and he punched me in the nose. It didn’t hurt but I told him also that it was illegal; then as a crowd gathered they tried to restrain me and I told them to fuck off, I just want to go home now; wresting myself free, I made my way through the hubbub of parking lot toward the street.

I’m yelling “nigger women are ugly!, nobody wants your goddamn women!” just so everybody in the area can hear the message. Then a mixed group of blacks and White workers from The Pub grabbed me and tried to detain me; which I (correctly) found outrageous. I mustered my Power Master super strength – lol – and pushed the whole bunch of them away; they barely kept their balance. They regrouped and grabbed me again saying that they were calling the police. I said, “call the police, I didn’t hit anybody, I was hit, that’s illegal. Then the same Negro pubgoer from before, with the smile on his face punched me in the nose again. Again it did not hurt and I told him that was illegal. Then suddenly, wham! I was slammed to the ground. It was stunning to hit pavement like that, never had before. On my stomach the cops handcuffed my hands behind my back and put me into the back of a police car. They had a brief discussion with The Pub staff then made a radio call in to the police station to take me in.

The police station is not far away; it’s right across the street from Emily Dickenson’s house. Now I was a bullfrog on a lily pad, as they took my wallet and any personal items, removed my shoes and stood me in a stark interrogation area. I was a little embarrassed by the fact that I was wearing mismatching socks, one white, one black, but it didn’t stop that me from yelling at my interrogator. The young White cop was visibly nervous as I berated him. Why am I the one being taken in when I was hit, when I didn’t hit anybody. He nervously said, “welcome to Amherst.” At that point, a woman cop came into the room and told me to back off, that I was there to answer questions, not ask them. So I gave my account of events and then was taken to a jail cell.

This was clearly a classic ‘cooler’ cell, designed to maximize isolation and discomfort for a night to make you think about perhaps never wanting to be locked up again. There was a small window with bars on it at the top of the iron door. There was a metal toilet and a camera high up on the ceiling that could see everything. Besides that, everything was concrete, including “the bed.” No blanket and not much chance of getting any sleep on that. It was cold and ooh, I was going crazy at the thought of all. Being locked up like that was horrible. If it was meant to make me a bit more cautious so that I was never locked up again, it worked.

Then in the morning I was let out and escorted to the front desk, where a police officer behind plexiglass told me of my charges – “disorderly person” – produced the paper work designating when a court appearance was set in North Hampton; and levied an $80 cost against me; which luckily I could cover with the $90 that I happened to  have in the wallet which they returned to me. I yelled some things as I walked out, a futile gesture, but having my agency again after a night of utter constraint, I guess that I wanted to rev up the engines a bit.

I was to appear in the North Hampton Court, which stood beside a statue of Calvin Coolidge, former President and former Mayor of North Hampton. Ironic that such a prudish historical figure would be an icon of lesbian town. When my court date came, the lawyers and judge were apparently disappointed that I adopted a meek demeanor as they were probably expecting and hoping for a firebrand, willing to defiantly inject some testosterone against the world of PC, she-boons and liberal imposers of the dindu, while white knighting for White women. The lawyer who gave me a preliminary interview before I was to appear before the judge, was a beautiful young blond. She gave me a smile as if to kind of approve of my antics and to say, don’t you see how beautiful I am? But I could not show inspiration that was not in me; and just looked at her deadpan. She was disappointed, but I could not be placated by any woman who was invested in the American system. What did she want from me? Gladiator entertainment? Was she going to make the niggers go back to Africa? No, so her being a beautiful woman lawyer only invested her further into this Mulatto pustule of a nation and she wasn’t going to lure me into it. The judge was dignified blond woman who looked at me with a smile on her face. I got the impression that the lawyer I had used for the Aiello assault charge had spoken to her; and the judge thus understood my Pub incident as an activist event backed by some surprisingly well informed consideration. 

I must say that I don’t blame her for being disappointed in me for wimping-out, meekly answering, “no objections, not statements, your honor.” But again, I was neither in any position nor with any inspiration to be a hero to these women. I just wanted to get out of the situation as lightly as  possible. The court was arrayed by lawyers, almost all of them women. When they heard that I had a degree from Tufts, that seemed to help. I had a future to strive for. So, I just had to cover the few hundred dollars court fees and the judge assigned a six week alcohol counseling class; with some guys who were kind of surprised to see me – I wasn’t the kind of company they were used to seeing that side of the law.

During this time, I was continuing with my Al-Anon, Adult Children of Alcoholics meetings throughout the area. One was headed by a sublime brunette Anglo-creature. I’m afraid that I accidently chased her away from the meeting as I made her uncomfortable, catching myself a bit too late as I would stare at her almost involuntarily. This was the North Amherst meeting where I met Kim, and I met another guy, pre-med student who was cool too. He invited me to a party. His girlfriend was, well, a bit on the wrong side of plain. I’m thankful for guys who’ll take this kind of woman, don’t want them to suffer and be discarded but, then, neither did I want his girlfriend’s sister to be discarded; a subtle beauty, I would find. Where are you from? I asked her. She answered “Pelham.” I didn’t push it, because I’ve always felt reluctant to pursue the trophy women of another man’s culture, especially when my pre-med student friend was settling for her sister who was, well, not a trophy.

I moved back to a conversation with my pre-med student friend and some guy he was talking to, just so happens, talking about the girlfriend’s sister that I so gingerly and respectfully backed off from pursuing. The other guy talked about another party they’d been to, where “she was slow dancing with Henry” he remarked with delighted humor, “she wants black cock!” I said that “I don’t like that.” The pre med student said, “oh, keep coming back” as in the Al-Anon motto, “keep coming back”, assessing a problem in me, needing to accept the (social) things that I ‘could not change.” Not that I would stop going to Al-Anon meetings, but I knew better than to merely accept these things, could not – it would eat me up inside, but would not given that I knew that there was recourse to social change and justice for our side. Nevertheless, I’m seeing a pattern of White guys taking plain White women (of course, not going with black women) while letting the most interesting and qualitatively differentiated women go to blacks. I’m increasingly aware that this situation is hopeless. I’d have to set up a base of operations in another country if I was to have a sufficiently unobstructed path of social justice activism for our people.

Even so, I was sill well situated there to prepare any kind of move, whether to another university town in the the U.S. in pursuit of my lingering hopes or maybe I could somehow latch onto a university in Europe. And speaking of Pelham, I took a job in an apple cider mill there, in part for the challenge of getting into my best shape; as I’d have to ride my 10-speed bike there and back, from Amherst, up mountains, then work the strenuous job of boxing gallon cider jugs into boxes on a fast assembly line. I learned that the Anglo guy and the Mennonite guy who worked there, were not only bigger than I was, but stronger. I had to apply some technique in order to manage it, but did; and could have been hired more permanently if I wanted. As indicated before, even this rural town of Pelham was not immune, and as I walked my bike up a hill I could see an interracial couple coming in a car, and I removed my overshirt on time for them to see my t-shit saying, ‘we have consensus, black women are ugly!” The White women, wholesome looking type with short hair, gave me a look like, “you don’t bother me.” I sneered at her, having no illusions that she cared about other people. 

Anyway, I got into the best shape of my life, below my optimal, which is 157.5, below my high school weight, which is 155; down to 149 – a bit too thin. At some cafe in Amherst, a black Muslim guy said to me, “I don’t mean to be insulting, but do you need a sandwich?”

I had some displays of interest from women, a few who were looking at rooms in my house, one was cute and if I had to do it over again, I would have surprised her with a kiss when she displayed interest. Another, Polish girl, nor so cute was almost too interested, and her sister, who was gorgeous, was disgusted with her. A German girl made a special point of buying some furniture that I was selling off and making known that she liked me. I had dates with Rene, the French incest girl that I mentioned before; and finally, I had a date with a half Jewish/half Anglo girl from NYC. She had a cute face, and I did kisser; but then when I went to put my hand around her waist…. oh my goodness, her breasts were bouncing around down there; poor girl had a sever case of wet socks, sagging turkey tits, whatever you might call them. I might have felt a bit more sorry for her, but she was trying to test me with the Italians are not White, they are on our side, right?”… she went on, “these White guys think that they know how to make pizza, and they put ketchup on a piece of Wonder Bread. Italians aren’t really White though.” I told her yes they are, and one of the best things about Italy is that there are hardly any blacks there. Only saw her one other time, as she drove past me on the street and gave me a disappointed wave.

So that was the picture; not much in the way of appealing reason to stay, not even in America, only the dwindling possibility of latching onto a graduate program somewhere. Still, something more was keeping me there through the Spring of 1995, apparently a bit of fate.

The Grand Trance (that's what I'll call it, anyway).

I haven’t been able to pinpoint the exact date, but from incidental reference points, it must have been well into June or July 1995. Superman actor Christopher Reeve was paralyzed after falling off his horse on May 27th and that was not very recent news, probably a few weeks passed. The song, ‘One of US” (what if god was), by Joan Osborn had been out since February. Alanis Morissette’s album, Jagged Little Pill, was already abounding on airwaves, though officially released 13 July. And while Beth Hart’s album was not released until 1996, I can’t claim to be psychic about her single, “Immortal,” either, as it was already getting radio play in Amherst.

Of serious note, but far enough past to no longer bear a great deal of discussion, was Timothy McVeigh’s bombing of an Oklahoma City Federal building, killing 168, including 19 children on 19 April. The last of “the Unabomber” victims had been killed on 24 April, though the Unabomber had not yet been identified as Ted Kaczynski. The O.J. Simpson trial had been ongoing, and by 15 June he had tried on the gloves, which didn’t quite fit, facilitating his black lawyer (Cochran)’s ebonic rhyme to the predominantly black female jury, “if the gloves don’t fit, you must acquit.”

The trance occurred in an Al-Anon, Adult Children of Alcoholics Meeting that I had been to many times, at First Church Amherst.

The rainbow gay pride flag and the "black lives matter" banner which First Church of Amherst sports circa 2021 is not exactly a big surprise.

The church is next to the police station with it’s holding cell, where I’d been guest for an evening.

And across the street from the house of Emily Dickenson: "I'm Nobody! Who are you? Are you Nobody too? Then there's a pair of us! Dont tell! they'd advertise you know! How dreary to be somebody! How public, like a frog To tell your name the livelong day To an admiring bog!"

First, let me make some  preliminary remarks as to what is to be learned and some of the things to be cautioned about regarding trance induction. There is the obvious, of course, that ‘the hypnotist, hypnotizers, are trying to induce you to talk and behave as they think you should and induce a self incriminating confession from you where you might be resistant.

Indeed, where one is holding out against popular philosophy as I was, quite reasonably critical of where it was going, in search of yet to be sufficiently articulated better premises, it is advisable to try to be cautious, not to talk too much, since the primordial, ambiguous state exacerbates any unmoored unpreparedness. In an attempt to show off profundity as the medium of this paranormal experience, in order to increase authority, one is as liable to pipe up with childhood cartoons and effect puerile stupidity, to be embarrassingly trite, in order to not be punished for being too, too serious. One can fall into whatever arbitrary buried memory rather than the profundities that one feels compelled to produce in this paranormal state …and seeking relief from this state of thrownness, the anxiety of feeling like one must prove one’s innocence in this ambiguous state when unprepared, one may grapple for relief, bearing, warrant of some social utility; thus “testify against oneself”, as it were; and then feeling exposed and vulnerable in this primordial state, judged and reacting like a cornered animal, one lashes out with all chthonic cruelty to those around who might pass judgment; and then again, to not be punished to harshly for that, revert again to “confessions.”

Tortured in ambiguity, you react into participation of whatever culpability you might be pinned-to, blackmailable, so you can’t object with as strong a warrant, if any, against their own culpability.

These 12-step kinds of meetings were probably given a boost in popularity by the “Bradshaw on The Family” series that was airing on PBS. He recommended the 12 step program and it got me to participate whereas my sister’s screeching – “why don’t you go to Al-Anon or Al-Ateen” – many years ago only increased resistance, as if I was the one to blame. But I’d been participating in these meetings in New Jersey, as I’d said, starting around 1990 and only increased attendance when coming to Amherst. 

The particular meeting where the trance event occurred was an Al-Anon, Adult Children of Alcoholics meeting that I’d been to many times; and quite regularly by this point, probably mid to late July of 1995. It was conducted one or two evenings a week in The First Church of Amherst. It tended to be among the most attended meetings in the area, typically drawing more than twenty people. On this occasion, however, there were more people than usual, probably around thirty; a few people that I’d never seen at any meeting at all, and a few that I’d seen at other meetings in the area, but were surprisingly present at this one, on this particular evening; creating an unusual array of people, which would be apparently meaningful to myself, certainly to some extent.

This episode, as with the entire post, but even more so, must bear ongoing revision as I manage to recall things. As it is apparently the nature of the trance phenomenon, and certainly as I’ve experienced it, to cause suppression of memory – the ego is protecting itself, perhaps the trance inducer has some part in blocking out awareness for a time – to a remarkable extent: As with the classroom episode, only much worse, I could engage in the most stigmatic behavior and speech acts in the trance episode and then see the same people a week later, oblivious to the fact that there might be a problem or that I might be embarrassed about something.

I was always on edge in those days, and particularly for an audience such as this peculiar Al-Anon group – an array of the usual Anglo, Germanic and Irish sorts, with a few Jews, of course, but adding Jenna, a beautiful girl of French extraction whom I had a crush on, whom I’d seen at the North Hampton meetings, but never this one, and the Iranian woman that I told you about from the feminist brown bag lunch, wearing her turban and plain white toga, adding to a semi U.N. atmosphere of intercultural negotiations – so I was keen to be a bit provocative, pushing back where I heard others saying “Politically Correct” things and pushing the politically incorrect envelope of my own accord, also a bit beyond parameters of Al-Anon appropriateness.

I was probably triggered by this big (well more than six foot tall) doofy White woman, who made some remark about being worried for people in interracial couples. So when it came my turn to talk, I used an oblique strategy that I’d used at Al-Anon meetings before, saying that I didn’t appreciate people bringing their politically correct politics into Al-Anon meetings; that “it is particularly disconcerting for some of us, here for our difficult circumstances by definition of the program, seeking recourse from indifference to us at large, especially compared to the endless, overcompensating grievance mongering on behalf of these people that seem to be the only thing that women care about and that nobody can criticize” – yes, this kind of censorship, prohibiting criticism of blacks was in effect already in 1995 – and then I let it out, pushed the envelope further, saying, “I promise that I’d never refer to blacks as ‘niggers’, or be critical of them.”

Silence.

Then a guy on the other side of the room, so not in turn (you’re supposed to talk after the person in the chair next to you has finished), remarked in scolding tone, that my comments didn’t seem appropriate for an Al-Anon meeting. Making his authority known as an attorney, this man with short blond hair, not yet gray though he entered middle age, added, “I’m not sure if it was illegal.”

It wasn’t deliberate, but with the stress and frustration, I farted – loud – as if by response to say, ‘oh, shut up, enough already!’

The room erupted in laughter and then just as suddenly this woozy feeling overcame me and apparently everyone else, as we slipped into a communal trance.

Somehow immediately understanding that I was the medium and impromptu master of ceremony, so to speak, I relaxedly and confidently pulled one of my feet to my chair, knee up, arm resting on it, in a kind of scouting perch. I made a teasing sequence of sounds, ‘oueeeoueeoueeou”, something like that to relate empathic understanding of the woozy altered trance state that everyone was in; and establish myself as trance leader/medium at once.

In this moment, a girl from the other side of the room, long dark hair, nerdy, skinny but not of graceful form, turned her face slowly toward me, signaling that I had hers and everyone’s attention; that we were free to get underway for something interesting. I would tag this girl for the duration with the name and song, “rag doll,” for her pathetic shyness and lack of robust form. Also, I suppose that care for such a wallflower belonged to the more traditionally sensitive, socially conservative times of the 1950’s.

Noting the requirements of this sort of person played into a message that I struggled to convey then as now, which is the proper understanding of post modernity as means to negotiate traditional and inherited forms and modernity, to help people past the downsides of tradition, it’s brute ethnocentric particularity and modernity’s impervious, universal roughshod over ways of life, including our inherited forms as European peoples.

I’m not sure if it was exactly then, but maybe, as I would sing the tune “Wonderwall” by Oasis several times throughout the trance, as sort of my theme song for the trance, and this was truly paranormal, as the song had not come out yet.

I then repeated the lines from the initial trance, “your father is a nigger”…”you have a nigger nose” reflecting the dull wisdom of a continental European peasant, come to deliver a message that more respect for continental Europeans is necessary to correct the hubris of north west Europeans with ecological buffering against African biopower, not to be underestimated as their 150-250,00 years of pre-evolution to European differentiation gives them something of a biological hegemony.

I then said “Niggers and Jews”, most everybody laughed, except for the Jews, as I’d put my finger on the problem – and I was not versed or at all inclined to designate the Jews as problem at this point, that was a taboo beyond what I might consciously traverse at that point.

I then noticed an attractive Jewish woman to my left, short black hair with a sarcastic smile of recognition on her face, as George C. Scott might wear when saying, “I’m afraid its you who does not understand.”

I then broke down crying, saying, “Auschwitz!”

I then broke down in tears again, “Ann Frank.”

The Jewish woman affected a reverent sigh.

I then probably yelled something like, “what the fuck is wrong with you krauts!” I felt then as now that more blame should be placed on the German leadership which instigated the wars, as opposed to blaming the White race in entirety; while I am less interested than ever in laying guilt trips on Germans, I do not need guilt trips either, especially for things like slavery and Nazim which not even my forebears had anything to do with.

I then went into this protracted bit about how I was in love with the Jew broad, how I wanted to fuck her, get her pregnant, that she could name our daughter “Rachel.” 

I don’t know how I knew, but somehow I knew that she’d been incested and I told her that I don’t care that she sucked her father off, now she sucks me off.

“God grant us incest, I cried.” …going over a verbal reenactment of her going to her father’s room, “where she sucks.”    ..Sandy, another Jewish woman sitting to my left cried when I said that.

I then went on vehemently about how I loved this Jewish woman, I love this Jewish woman so much! and then suddenly let out another huge, loud fart, rendering my avowals an immediate travesty; the whole room burst into laughter; even the Jewish woman, who had that same smile of wry indignation on her face, “you, you”…not able to find some word for “rogue”to apply to me for her laughter. Sandy, the other Jewish woman turned to me with a look like ‘what are you, some kind of wise guy?’

I then said, but seriously, sex and its means of confirmation and adjudication of what kind of people come into the world is as important as anything to an individual’s life and its decision should not be taken from a person before they are mature enough to render it of their own well informed deliberation. I think rapists are committing as egregious an act as any and that child molesters in particular should be killed, like these infamous child molesters, backward people from Greenfield.

At this point, the Jewish woman, who always lent a feeling of dignity to this meeting with her classic, if unspectacular prettiness, quiet demeanor and hands minding her own business, knitting away, she looked up and over to Bill the handsome Anglo Saxon man on the other side of the room and he groaned in pain. He had apparently incested his daughter.

Having mercy, I thought to balance off my harsh judgment, putting it into relative context with more rigorous honesty. I explained that the people that I really hated most were nigger loving White women. I went on about how I’d been about antagonizing them throughout the area; I described the incident of the one cute brunette that I saw at a convenience store in North Amherst with a nigger, who came after me with a knife when I verbally berated them. I then added that god is the violent destruction of nigger loving White women, the ripping out of their vaginas, the cutting off of their heads and the celebrative grinding of their mulatto babies into dog food. Bill cried out in abject pain again. His girlfriend, pretty lady with strong features and straight brown hair, winced at me to cool it. I immediately understood that the girl I was talking about was Bill’s daughter. Bill groaned in pain as I recoiled in amazement at the coincidence and described her to corroborate the fact. She looked at me again as to say please be careful.  

It’s hard to say this came exactly next, as the episode would go on – and on – and I was like addressing various people from around the room, but I did make an issue of Bill’s girlfriend, I should say woman, as she was an adult, with kids, like Bill did from a previous marriage. I went on about how the reason why she was prettier than the typical woman around was because she was part Polish. I would, of course, be defensive of the Poles and Italians as underrepresented and ecologically necessary for the continent’s buffering qualities.

As the trance would go on for hours, I could not detail everything if I wanted to, but I don’t want to. There are certain things that I’d prefer to forget – like foolishly trying to sing songs that I did not know the words of, people having to hear that along with my utterly retarded childishness in regressive moments and way that I viciously abused people. Perhaps the most regrettable moments were those in which I voiced capitulation to my enemies position, encouragement to them and the trance inducers, condemnation of my self and what I was doing; fortunately this didn’t happen much and I had enough awareness to push back against it with the extent of authentic self that I’d managed to put together a that point in my life, as it could withstand the primordial ambiguity of the trance and fundamental antagonism therein.

I was particularly hard on the Germans for the war and for the idea that their women are big and ugly. With an ad hoc theory that that’s what made them so hostile. They’re jealous. Now, I hate to say that because I do not want to lay guilt trips on subsequent generations; and furthermore, I realize far more now than I knew then that the Germans are like any nation, including the Poles, having both beauties and uglies. But at the time it was novel to be able to vent my spleen, and indeed there was a disproportionate number of Germans and Irish, often mixed – it seems everybody is half German and Irish; so tiresome – as such and a concept of American beauty that went along with it, the blond with the standard features, small nose and big boobs; and well, I was tired of even the beauties, when I preferred skinny women with dark hair, prominent noses.

Ironically, the woman I was most sexually attracted to in the meeting was a mature woman, half Irish/half German, named Irene, I think. She would figure prominently as the trance went on. Another woman of German extraction sat three or four chairs to my right; her sadness (her marriage didn’t work out) made it almost hard to register her beauty; but she did have a pretty, dignified face, glasses and a great ass. I was glad to lift her out of her depression for a moment as the topic of licking ass drifted along and she laughed uproariously; laughed even harder when I said that I would not mind licking her ass. But when the topic came up, she let it be known that she did not like blacks and would like to suck my dick. This made Bill’s girlfriend happy, obviously wanting me to understand that there were women on my side.

Another girl of German extraction was even more keen to make it known that not only was she on my side politically, and empathetic to me, also having a very difficult alcoholic mother, but that she plainly fancied me. So this is really sad for me, the kind of thing that I’d prefer not to remember. I abused her for not being my type. She was, lets say, a somewhat more feminine version of the tennis player Martina Navratilova – i.e., sort of Asiatiatic eyes. I do hate being told what women I must find attractive, and it was an ordeal overcoming my mother and sister’s hatred surrounding the issue of feminine beauty and preferences as such; with that I explained that I have a type of woman that I like, that I believe that it is not superficial but  genetically semiotic of a type that will contend with the kind of boldness and dynamics of African features that can be too alluring – nature abhorring a vacuum and all – compared to the plain North West European Americans. Along with invoking “not my type” as the kindest form of rejection (you aren’t calling the person ugly), I added that I deployed an important, though popular quantitative conceptual tool to overcome a horribly neurotic intentional oscillation when it came to women, to find my ownmost innocence in approaching them: that I was willing to take my equal on scales of 1-10 in physical, emotional, and intellectual evaluation.

Innocent though that may be, I lambasted this poor girl in the very moments that she showed that she liked me and wanted to support me, calling her “ass eyes” and such. I accused her of liking bad men – and I hate women who like bad men – like Tommy Fortunato. And if I was superficial in liking women too pretty, then women could stand some correction in their penchant for tall men. she might consider a man 5-9 or under. I told her that would see her one day (in the aforementioned sports bar of North Hampton) happily with a short but handsome man; and then another day, we would cross paths across the street and she would give me a big, “I’m done with you” gesture with her arms to show that she was no longer looking to be abused by a bad boy. It’s premature to discuss, but this seems to have been one of the effects of the trances. The people that I abused would seem to come out a better, more essential and confident version of themselves. I would see some of them around with funny looks on their faces – “It’s a Wonderful Life” kind of thing. More on that later.

There was another girl of German extraction that I abused for the history and her physicality – she was a Smith student and not ugly, not pretty either, a “5”, a bit too sturdy and not helped by her unbecomingly short hair. She would try to talk to me more than anybody else in the trance, both in sympathy and pushing back PC. That’s probably why I abused her so terribly. She would figure prominently in the trance and in its resolution non-condemnatory of me.

I had similar reservations about English women, but was reluctant to take on their women and culture as they were the power of America to which I wanted to ingratiate myself.  Nevertheless, AI would yield to this, calling their women plain and angrily calling Bill a stupid W.A.S.P. who expected all people to participate in the guilt trips of self destruction for the hubris of slavery. I was really obnoxious about this, to the point where he would wave me off disapprovingly despite the fact that I was master of ceremonies. However, I was able to save it by saying, in truth, that I like English people and I love the culture, but I don’t like the self destruction their philosophy has entailed as embedded in American politics. Bill and his woman were satisfied.

Nevertheless, on my high horse about Polish women (and really, the Poles do merit some vindication having been the brunt of stupid people jokes and Nazi propaganda footage of them on horseback going up against Nazi tanks shown over and over again on American TV as “the beginning of WWII”), I fell off, so to speak, into deeper trance and some of the most distinctly clairvoyant – if that’s the word – ability to see and articulate to some extent, things that would happen in the future.

"Podgrzybek"

I slowly let out the Polish word, “podgrzybek.”

Now, I never spoke any Polish. Neither did my mother or anybody that we circulated around. My mother taught me exactly one word of Polish and it was not “podgrzybek.”

Indeed, I would add a few more Polish words and phrases as I saw myself being shown what mushrooms to pick by my cousin Ryzard (whom I had no idea existed) in the woods outside of Pila, Poland (which I never even considered visiting). But there I was seeing myself as my cousin Ryzard spotted mushrooms, identifying them for me by name, “borowik” the favorite but tending to be snapped up quickly by other mushroom pickers; and then, among serviceably edible other kinds, he pointed out “maslak” and “podgrybek”, picking them with a knife like this –

After that, I began humming a tune that seemed to be calling me. It was a beautiful tune but the lyrics would escape me as they were in Polish; this too was a song yet to come out and not at all in America; it was a more slight clairvoyance but if I could have understood the lyrics, I would have realized that they were quite meaningful to the circumstance, speaking optimistically and agentively against negative implications of fate disclosed in trance.

Wszystko Się Może Zdarzyć

Anita Lipnicka
This is not a dream
To nie jest sen

Things are really happening
Rzeczy naprawdę dzieją się

You are standing or running, they touch you
Stoisz czy biegniesz dotykają cię

Every moment
Z każdą chwilą
You can carve them with your fingers
Możesz rzeźbić je palcami

You can change them with words
Możesz zmieniać je słowami

Fate is silver at your feet
Los srebrzy się u twoich stóp

You reign over him
Królujesz mu

Je, ii, je
Je, ii, je

Anything can happen
Wszystko się może zdarzyć

When your head is full of dreams
Gdy głowa pełna marzeń

Whenever you want something
Gdy tylko czegoś pragniesz,

When you really want to
Gdy bardzo chcesz

Anything can happen
Wszystko może zdarzyć się
Anything can happen
Wszystko się może zdarzyć

When a heart full of faith
Gdy serce pełne wiary

Whenever you want something
Gdy tylko czegoś pragniesz,

When you really want to
Gdy bardzo chcesz

Anything can happen
Wszystko może zdarzyć się
This is not a dream
To nie jest sen

Things are really happening
Rzeczy naprawdę dzieją się

An army of colors surround you
Armią kolorów otaczają cię

From every side
Z każdej strony
Open your eyes, spread your hands
Otwórz oczy rozłóż ręce

To collect as much as possible
By nazbierać jak najwięcej

Sign the days with your name
Podpisuj dni imieniem swym

You reign over them
Królujesz im

Je, ii, je
Je, ii, je

Anything can happen
Wszystko się może zdarzyć

When your head is full of dreams
Gdy głowa pełna marzeń

Whenever you want something
Gdy tylko czegoś pragniesz,

When you really want to
Gdy bardzo chcesz

Anything can happen
Wszystko może zdarzyć się
Anything can happen
Wszystko się może zdarzyć

When a heart full of faith
Gdy serce pełne wiary

Whenever you want something
Gdy tylko czegoś pragniesz,

When you really want to
Gdy bardzo chcesz

Anything can happen
Wszystko może zdarzyć się
 
Source: LyricFind

Anyway, I would hum that sporadically throughout the trance, and after introducing it, saw a vision of Polish women on the train near Gdansk. I repeated as a question, a suggestion from the initial trance induction, “Polish women are the most beautiful women in the world?” Now, I would not make that claim, but for the place and time that I was seeing, a year and a few months into the future, it could be argued. I then expressed astonishment and delight that the cities and apparently the nation was White. A White city?!? – unimaginable for an American at that time.

I then asked in all innocence, “are there niggers there?”

This brought an eruption of laughter from the room; the Navratilova looking girl turned red in embarrassment over my happiness that there might not be any niggers there as I said this unaware that two blacks had been brought in, sat right next to me. A male who I did not know and a female that I was acquainted with through my Jewish/Anglo roommate Tony’s girlfriend. My therapist (((Harold  Raush))) was there for a few moments, then left after having apparently brought them and the Jewish woman who lived across the street from Kim and Jim with her nigger husband. This Jewish woman and the two blacks had never been to this meeting before, so there was a preconceived plan going on here.

I then cried out again, “Auschwitz!”

Then cried again, “Magda!”  …seeing her and describing her diminutive hands with the help of an e.e. Cummings poem made known to the public by a recent Woody Allen movie, “not even the rain has hands so small.”

I would then tell a little story about how, in my last life, I was a Polish intellectual shot at Auschwitz because I remained loyal to Magda, my girlfriend; and I was not quite able to understand why they would have such a problem with us, as she was only one quarter Jewish.

Now, in truth, I  have no idea if that story was true. But I was willing to go along with it, if it would somehow exonerate me and allow me to escape this hell. What I can say for sure was true, however, was that I would run into her in Italy the following year, recognize her belatedly and feel compelled by fate to visit her where she lived, in Gdansk, Zaspa Poland, the same place where had lived Lech Walesa, leader of Solidarnosc, the union of Polish nationalist liberators from Soviet control and communism; and at that point already, former President of Poland. I would tell the Al-anon group about this.

"You said something about a house?!"

I would also see Magda in a 1990 trance with Don, the therapist that I sought out to recover from Naomi’s intervention. He laughed as I told him that Magda would say to me in a bossy way, “you said something about a house?!” ..and “you cannot have a drink.” (I was doing the driving, while she played “The The”).

That's me with Magda, center, her nephew and friend, on Helska peninsula, north of Gdansk in the fated meeting to come, late September 1996.

Then I cried out again, “Auschwitz!” “How could you do this (probably adding ‘fucking krauts, or something like that)?” I’d see some parts of the contemporary Auschwitz museum, but its hard to say if they came from television or from when I would visit one day.

I would then ask if there were Jewish people here, who lost relatives in the holocaust. A big and tall woman with dark curly hair on the other side of the room to the left, raised her hand. We knew about the proper knitting incest victim and the one with the nigger husband who’d been  brought here; but we didn’t know David, a handsome guy with a stupid demeanor and Boston accent was half Jewish in addition to being half Italian. And we didn’t know that Sandy, an intimidatingly confident and intelligent woman, whom I’d been to many meetings, would explicitly say that she lost her grandparents; neither was she aware yet, that this was not exactly going to turn out to be a pro-Jewish evening.

I pointed to Jenna, the beautiful French girl that I had a crush on, noting the peculiar fact that she was never at this particular meeting, but here she was on this night; and I said that I want to protect her, this particular kind of French beauty. I asked Sandy to show me someone that she would like to protect, and she did. To my recollection, my vision was of a man that I’d meet in Poland; I’d utter some random Polish phrases but this was the last of what I could see of my experience of Poland to come. And my meeting with this guy would have some interesting aspects, not necessarily good, from my point of view. Sandy was a pot smoker and she was invoking a part Jewish, part Polish, part German reggae musician from Pila, Poland, same town as my cousins. Anyway, we’d be getting ahead of the story with details of what would happen when I encountered fate in Poland. That discussion is for later. 

I will only jump ahead to say that this Dawid merely verified the pattern, that if you seek to protect your people from blacks and black incursions, that Jews and their inveterate pattern are the opposite of what you want among your people. For example, I was with Dawid when he was talking about a program being offered in Lodz, Poland, to teach Polish to Africans for three months after which time, they would be disbursed throughout Poland. And Dawid was talking like this was good thing. As I said, it’s getting ahead of things, but I’d learn (from other people) that Dawid foresaw meeting me as well. Here and here are clips of Dawid in action.

Nevertheless, for the warrant that she had that side of PC given her Jewishness, confidence, holocausted grandparents etc., Sandy was in position that others were not to lend confirmation to the obvious, that far from its being moral to prevent discrimination against blacks, it was immoral. I’m sure that she’d been pushed to consider the social paradigmatic corrective that I was implicating given the less than grateful blacklash against Jews from the likes of Farrakhan and Leonard Jeffries who had recently spoke at the University for Massachusetts, Amherst.

Thus, when I stood up from my chair and said that we were going to be like packs of wild dogs ready to set upon the large beast that was the nigger, she said, “perfect.”

There is a frightful intermittent sequence of motions that a predator goes through when spotting, stalking and seizing upon its prey. Spiders do this creepy, herky-jerky stop and go then sudden dart and seize thing; and certainly the wild dog predation that I was assimilating does this: first of all, I raised my hands like claws, a quivering fierce grimace came over my mouth, and snout, flashing my sharp teeth, squinting my eyes in riveted focus on the prey. Leg and arm motions are in ultra slow motion toward the target at first, so as not to be detected. Then come to a complete stop to make sure that you’ve not been perceived and can maintain focus on the prey. Repeat this sequence a few times until you are in striking distance. Quietly growling, grimacing in focus, then in an instant darting toward and leaping onto the beast, followed by a torrent of fellow wild dogs leaping on to the giant nigger and ripping it to shreds.

Perfect.

I’ll never forget the look of fear and then horror on the face of Missy as I mimicked the wild dog predation. Missy was a regular at these meetings, a very pretty and dignified north west European type; she liked me and made it known that she hoped that I would take up with her. It might have been a good career move as well, as she was the secretary of Sally Freeman, the lesbian counsellor at U. Mass that I tried to talk to when my professors were away. So Missy, in addition to being a decent person, might have had some perspective to help me into a grad school program. Problem was that she was a divorcee with a child and I deidn’t need the baggage.

Speaking of North Western Europeans and baggage, let me say that you might appreciate my frustration ad the puritanical notions of how we are and how we fight that I would be obstructed with at Majorityrights by the likes of Guessedworker and Bowery. Their mistake, as ever, derives from a Cartesian false either or and false sense of mutual exclusivity; such that, for example, in the event I were to propose deploying a wild dog strategy, red lights will go on for Bowery that this is a sheer mechanistic reaction in response to the non-European style of gang strategy and sets  Northern European “Euroman” on a course to lose the crucial distinction of his individuality – of course! We could not do something so cunning as to deploy provisional strategies to win, could we? No, there is only one puritanical trajectory in which Euroman fights, he fights to lose, whether its the honor of Pickett’s charge, the World Wars or on behalf of a maiden in Valhalla. Seriously, some of us non-boomers are confident are confident that we have the agency to deploy provisional strategies and win; then, having secured our borders and bounds, that we have the agency and the humanity to correct for any undue constraints on our individual liberties.

And while they might believe that there is only one way that “Euroman” fights in the honor and integrity of his nature, they might well project that I have a genetic commitment to a singular way of fighting, “the gang way,” which, if not intervened against, will set us on trajectory to lose our distinctly individual European evolution. It “must be intervened against” in the belief that I am not open to other ways and considerations, that I am rigidly bound, like the mechanics that they are.

But I digress. 

Coming back to the trance then, there was a profusion of me saying the word “nigger” – “nigger”, “nigger”, “niggers”, “niggers”, “niggers” “fucking nigger!” …I would set the record for number of times having said the word rather than anyone try to persuade me not use it or suggest that I might compromise, acquiesce to live and integrate with these people – niggers!

As with any arbitrary circumstance, but as much so in a trace as any, natural “corrective” balancing is in effect.

So, with the intensity, anger, taboo and stigma of my saying the word, “nigger”, “nigger”, “nigger”, “I don’t like niggers!” would come a playful and somewhat funny turn taking of my calling various White persons in the room, “nigger!”

The dignified Jewish woman, incest victim, with short dark hair seemed to almost have the idea that the was going to play some orchestrating, using her knitting and the needles as such to point toward specific White people – people who were comically not black – to underscore the “playfully good natured and intentioned nature” behind the seriousness of confrontation and intervention, stepping up the seriousness of her knitting/pointing orchestration gesture when it came to handsome Anglo Bill, who’d incested his daughter. In fact, as I’d failed to mention it, one of these gestures was the moment it became known that he’d incested his daughter, with him groaning in exposure; his woman with a worried sick look on her face to say, “please go easy!”

I then go into a thing about incest is not so bad, provided that you don’t have offspring and their birth defects by its means, it could even be an anecdote with its tabood allure to the tabood allure of outbreeding, miscegenation. And lets face it, your daughter voluntarily sucked you off, didn’t she, and liked it, didn’t she? So it’s not so bad. God grant us incest!

With Bill relaxed and happy, I suddenly lash out in loud mockery! pointing at him, crucifying him, ha ha! the fucking child molester thought that he was going to get away with it! You don’t take away the most important choice in someone’s life before they are capable of making such a responsible choice, you just don’t do that! The dignified Jewish incest victim stepped up her skewering motions at Bill with her sewing needles.

She looks around the room anytime thereafter with a cute, frumpy “you should know that gesture” anytime that I invoke the classics, Greek or otherwise, surely as I discuss Aristotle’s description of human nature, its biological nature, requiring optimal not maximal need satisfaction, which becomes toxic, and its envelopment in the social world, which means that we care deeply about relationships, but that interactive complexity and human agency requires the humility of being satisfied with practical judgements at bottom, etc. – though her support would waver where (((Sandy might not waver))) in discussion of how Locke’s technology of individual rights is Cartesian and egregiously ruptures cultural patterns – her gesture of finger wagging pedantic supporter of my lessons resumed through my invocation Kant’s Foundations of The Metaphysics of Morals –  it’s “imperative principle” of “good will” treating people as ends in themselves”, answering the question, “can this be good for everyone?

And I then repeated a line suggested to me from the initial trance induction:

You thought that you could fool a Corleone?

Dignified Jewish incest victim slowly turns her face to Bill again, in his abject shame. Quite pleased to be in league with m on her side, or so she thinks.

I then turn my attention to her and say slowly, “and you thought that you could fool a Corleone, didn’t you, Jewish bitch?”

You liked sucking your father’s cock off, didn’t you, Jewish bitch? She put her head down in shame. I began to meet with some consternation from others in the group. It did not deter me. “I like the fact that you sucked your father off and now you are going to suck my cock off, you are going to be the woman who sucks my cock.

She was quiet, her head down. I told her that one day I’d see her again and she would put her head down like this to show her agreement, that she  “would be obedient to me” Another line from the initial trance induction.

I then launched an attack on her reticence, bringing the group on it, so to speak, telling her that she would be covered in sperm, squirt, squirt, squirt! She popped her head up as if from out of the bukkake goo. It was a bit funny.

Then I said, but really, incest is no joking matter; and she looked at Bill again with disapproval. I went into a sad story, in quiet, sad tones talking about her entering the bedroom of her father where she sucks. Sandy, cried at this point.

I’m trying to resolve all interaction with the Jewish incest victim, when in fact, it was intermittent over the course of three hours, interspersed with focused interaction on others, and songs, songs, songs, me singing some better than others.

Given the arbitrary state and its roulette of cybernetic corrective, it is likely that my psyche would rebound to comport some dignity for myself and others at this point by my bursting into a pristine rendering of “My Country Tis’ Of Thee” in the operatic manner of the black soprano Marian Anderson  – the one brought by Eleanor Roosevelt to sing before the Lincoln memorial to shame the White America. In fact,my world fact, my singing, my rendering was superior. 

As I had mentioned, I already had a sense that Jews were a problem to the European peoples that I cared about. And thus, judged by cues from others …oh, did I mention that Kim and Jim were there? They were. Very unusual for Jim to come to a meeting. I knew that Kim’s particular Christian background included reservations about Jewry, that they were “less godly.” I implored her to not be anti-Semitic. Then Bill’s woman looked at me, as if to say, “think again.” 

I would then turn to the Jewish incest victim and begin going through the litany of grievances that I had with Jews, starting with my sister’s sarcastic remark that “they’ve already been compensated, they own half the world.” …I went on, mentioning the horrible things that I’d said to my professor before I realized that he was Jewish. On to how I think Christianity is a Jewish trick. Adding that I found the disproportionate representation of Jews at U.Mass. to be suspicious, as they made up 20% of the student body, while being only 4% of the Massachusetts population. I added that I did not think that they were smarter but rather were not yoked by Christianity’s anti-intellectualism, their religion was about their people, as ours should be; to their credit, they have a culture that values education, to their discredit, they are perversely ethnocentric hypocrites who are destroying White people with their control of academia, media and money. Building up to, “they must have done something to provoke that kind of reaction from the Nazis?”

All the while as I am going through that litany of Jewish offensiveness, the Jewish incest victim is angrily now focused on me, steadily increasing the rate and implied violence of her knitting directed at me with a sense of intervention, that I was someone to be stopped when I reached a crescendo with the question that there must have been something that provoked the Nazis, yes, why? why? She perhaps thought that she was going to shame me and muster opposition, but it was only Sandy who showed any disapproval. And she was still enthralled with the farts of my barley dinner that I was letting out endlessly. “It’s dad.” Sandy likes Jim Morrison’s mouth and doesn’t find Mussolini attractive? So what? Sandy has the bulbous Jewish nigger ass – its the Jewish white nigger, white insect eeeew. Kim laughed, knowing what I was talking about. So, I turned to the Jewish incest victim unashamed. Neither me nor my ancestors had anything to do with the fucking holocaust. America did all these things to save you fucking people, German Americans killing German Germans, Italian Americans used as canon fodder, making up 20% of the American infantry, disproportunate causalities. And this is what you do?

You thought that you could fool a Corleone?

As she appeared entirely uncontrite, I then lashed into her with a tirade of vitriol and anti Semitic epithets that was shameful in its vicious cruelty, but I did not want anyone to mistake that I was blind to what was going on. And I would not let up until she was broken to tears, knowing that I was not going to defend her no matter what. The group, markedly Bill’s woman, was nervous. I asked if I had demonstrated that I was not naïve about Jews? Was I too hard on her? Sandy turned to me with skepticism anew regarding my leadership of this event. Bill’s woman winced nervously. Not to be intimidated, I directed another volley of savage anti-Semitic vitriol to the Jewish incest victim, breaking her down – at least for the time – from any illusions that she going to get me to share in her Jewish guilt tripping. I don’t need you and I don’t need niggers either. “We don’t need no niggas around heeea!” I imitated a Brooklyn Italian who said as much to the New York media after Keith Mondello had stabbed the black Jusef Hawkins in his heart.

Taking her down from her high horse of prejudice against prejudice, she was exposed as prejudiced against Puerto Ricans, became distraught with the thought of what they’d done in and about Jews neighborhoods. Then it became apparent that she was very upset by homosexuals, turning her plaintiff attention to a very  tall guy with short hair and glasses; whom I would not have known was homosexual until then. I then asked him, “you suck men’s dicks into your mouth? You get fucked in your ass?” She looked at him critically for a moment and then gasped when he offered no denial. Laughs came from the group.

I then sense something else, that she would not like either, Jewish men licking the ultimate, that heavenly blond cunt! She put her head down, crying a loud sigh of despondent jealousy. The lawyer guy who instigated the whole trance to being with, could not hold back a genuine laugh. Enjoying the break for humor, I interjected that black women were the best tasting anyway. A moment of silence and the lawyer guy asked me to repeat, holding back a laugh, and I said, “black women are the best tasting anyway.” He laughed, Jim laughed, while Kim seemed bewildered, not exactly amused.

But it was a joke, I assured. I would never do that and I went down the list of black features that I found repulsive. I added that a black woman without clothes on is like an animal without clothes on. I did not know the animal was supposed to have clothes on to begin with. It’s like so what? Now, a White woman with no clothes on, that’s shocking, that’s special, that’s naked!

I added something that I’ve always felt was profound – that I have never been jealous of anyone who’s had a black woman. I would not let one suck my dick! Sandy said, “perfect.”

It took some doing but eventually the lawyer guy conceded that there was not much happening between White men and black women, but White women seemed to have a real thing for blacks…

Now I’m starting to fall a bit deeper into trance. 

I’m wearing a pair of those standard blue pants that workers wear for industrial work, but mine have a conspicuous hole in the crotch area. With a giddy smile on my face, I spread my legs and begin fingering the hole with my middle finger as if I am fingering “my pussy.”

When one is not getting much of anything in the way of support and confirmation in setting down the bearings of one’s interests, personal and relative, and rather in the torrent of the thrownness, experiencing the cybernetic balancing against what you resist, one is prone and liable to betray one’s own interests, in this case, at least gesturally, as it were, and verbally, in the sense of “giving” the “they”, the perceived cruel and indifferent, what they might want to make the persecution, perceived or otherwise, stop.

When one’s principles and the place of one’s intrinsic value is not established and anchored, various scenarios may play out for the sake of orientation and bearing; particularly cases of novelty and high contrast tropism, such as black and white, may be nearly impossible to ignore. 

When one has achieved liberation from the arbitrary state of mere facticity and is able to marshal the coherence, agency and unanimity of self interest that hermeneutic sequencing affords – which I shall say in a moment, is decidedly the reverse of the case at times in the arbitrary facticity of the thrownness – one might rather look upon tropic attention to taboo and the scenario of one’s defeat and exposure at having “considered” it, how one might deal with it, prevent it, as a single frame in an ongoing film that can direct into a more favorable ending.

This hermeneutic liberation to agency from the arbitrary to the unanimity of self interest, is particularly important to stave off what may appear to one’s antagonists as revealing guilt, the “justification of their victory” and what I want to call particular attention to, the egregious  fixed framing of Freud’s notion of “unconscious wish.” 

You payed attention to the tropism of interracial porn put before you. Do you want this? is it a “wish”, or were you seeking a critical angle in how to deal with the trauma to one’s personal and systemic genetic interests? 

This hermeneutic reading of systemic concern carries into the momentarily involuntary responses of one’s psyche and biology which, recognized as involuntary, comport a liberation from facticity as well. As in a case where a perpetrator or antagonist might sight a woman having an orgasm in rape as proof that she liked it and wanted it. Or the titillation that the viewer of interracial porn may initially experience as proof of wanting it, an unconscious wish as opposed to a temporary biological, cybernetic backlash to orientation in resistance to the trauma of a highly contrasting tropism, and vast difference to one’s Ethnic Genetic Interests being imposed upon one quite unwelcome.

And it is not just the liberation from the egregious modernist foundationalism of Freud’s notion of unconscious “wish” that White hermeneutics afford; but also a liberation from the even more egregious injunction against the liberating hermeneutic sequencing itself in the Jewish hijackikgn of our moral order at its centerpiece, the sermon on the Mount, where the Jewish god Jesus says to the gentiles, “better to pluck your eye out”  – in other words, even if you have sensory perception of its possibility, even  if you think of it! you are culpable – it’s fixed in condemnation. Whereas hermeneutics provides the liberation from the facticity and fixed attribution that has gotten into the heads of countless European peoples, guilting them to obsequious self sacrifice for fear of damnation through the Jewish hijacking of our moral order. Which leads me to a place in trance where I started to become more unhinged on an involuntary level, merging with weakness, self incrimination and stigma.

I would have talked some proposing black men as superior to White men, a least in some ways, and how I could understand (or something, don’t remember) White women wanting that big black cock; how they wanted to be fulfilled by the best possible sexual experience. I would sing the “hey Margarita song” as signaling the clear  for White women to go ahead; and then told the mature woman Irene, whom I found most sexually alluring of the group, probably because of her combination of beauty and mature dignity, the distance I felt from being able to have such a woman, that I wanted her to have an eight inch black cock, just to placate White women of her kind, to make them stop bitching at White men. Dave, the half Jew half Italian with the Boston accent said, “make it biggah.” I remember her response being a bit neutral but the Jewish incest victim was smiling in humor and revelatory approval. I didn’t like it, was coming to my senses. Then I turned to my left and noticed that the two blacks who’d been brought in were still there. The woman, as I said,, a student from U. Mass whom I knew, pretty as black women go, was delighted by this talk. I became enraged and went into a tirade; first against her and then against the Jew.

As I turned in disapproval and began visiting abuse upon the black girl, the smile came off her face and Irene looked at her with a wry, ‘gotcha, you’re busted, better stop laughing” kind of look. That was the thing about Irene. She was the adult in the room throughout the trance, gracefully dealing with any and all of its events with some sort of overriding understanding such that nothing perturbed her too much – on the contrary.

And I lashed into the colored girl fiercely. I would have said how I did not like her shit colored skin. She would have writhed in pain. Irene, whom I would call “mom” thereafter would concentrate on her punishment. I then let up for a second, feigning mercy, she relaxed as I said that really, nobody should be abused on the basis of immutable characteristics; then I sadistically laid into her again when she was relaxed: “But in act I do not like shit colored skin, bubble butts, fat lips looking like a baboon’s ass, Brillo hair and that ugly, symmetrical nigger nostril nose!” Perhaps because shew as light skinned, fair featured and pretty as black women go, she was stoic, only displaying minor annoyance and indignation at first. But then I repeated, raising the volume significantly, and moved from physical characteristics to behavior, that hyper assertive nigger behavior and I did call her a fucking nigger repeatedly.

I yelled repeatedly, “how many babies are you going to have on welfare that everyone else has to pay for nigger!?!” “We are technoslaves for you aren’t we, you goddamn fucking monkey!” I might have said something about the violence and rape but I did not apprise myself of crime statistics at that point, as it was a dead ringer; preferring instead to focus on “their long pre evolution which had quantified and maxed-out masculinity, creating an aggressive, presumptuous, hyper assertive kind of people; and a kind of woman, if you could call the monkey that, that I would not let suck my dick!” “The monkey has no clothes on, what is special and appealing about that? Who wants black women, nigger? How many babies are you going to have at everyone else’s expense when there are the black men who manage to get it up for your bubble butt? Nigger! Nigger”, raising to full volume, “Nigger!!!!” She stretched out, her face the mask of pain; the black male by her side aggrieved and then urgently worried about her, finally took her out of the meeting.

I then turned my attention to two Jewish women, the incest victim and the one who was never at this meeting, Kim and Jim’s neighbor with the nigger husband. But first, of course, I put the incest victim in my cross hairs, as she’d been laughing as if a revelation during my moment of lapse and acquiescence….”you thought that you could fool a Corleone, fucking Jew?! I’ll make a goddamn lampshade out of you!” I repeat a joke that I would only one day later hear in Poland, “one four year old Jewish girl says to the other four year old Jewish girl, ‘hey, what’s your grandfather doing behind that barbed-wire fence.” …then one everybody’s heard, “what’s the difference between a Jew and a pizza? A pizza doesn’t scream when you put it in the oven.” She’s reacting in mixed embarrassment and revelation, this time revelatory indignation, making motions with her sewing needles as if she is going to skewer me. Noting her resistance, I step of the volume and levy torrents of Jewish epithets and abuse toward her until she gasps and crumples up in tears.

Then I turn my attention to Kim and Jim’s Jewish neighbor, the one married to the black guy, her father in “Who’s Who? of Science”, who’d been sullenly watching this…

I began by baiting her by singing the Whitest kind of music that I could think of off the top of my head, a song that I actually liked but guessed that she would think was effeminate. In high falsetto, I sang the first few verses of The Advent of Panurge – 

There coming over Charaton Bridge.
Look, do you see the man who is poor. But rich?
The truth is, I could not remember any further lyrics, but the point was made as she laughed at the “effeminacy” of it.
 
In fact, it might have been cool if I were able to remember more lyrics, as it would have served to recognize this lack of machismo’s corresponde3nce to a more friendly, communal time and place among Whites.
What do you wish and where do you go, who are you?
Where are you from, will you tell me your name?
Rest awhile, call me your friend
Please stay with me, I’d like to help
Then he said
How can I speak when I’m dry and my throat is burning?
So bring me aid and I’ll answer your doubts
Friend in need, I’d like your help
Please take me home, I’ll stay with you

With her feeling relaxed and superior, having apparently been brought there as an intervention of my racism in her “moral superiority, strength of reality”, warning to her and to me, I lashed into her something fierce – yelling all kinds of things about her being a Jewish pig with a nigger husband.

As I was pretty intense and serious, while still in my depths not a fan of Hitler, a bit of cybernetic corrective kicked in, with me breaking into a poorly executed, but mercifully brief, comedic Hitler rant, including his sort of gesticulation. I must say it was corny, but Jewish incest victim tried to pretend it was scary and underscore the warning of it. While Kim and Jim’s neighbor was not laughing now and seemed mildly worried.

At this point I would have broken into some harder black music in order to demonstrate, I suppose, that I recignized that kind of masculinity, soul and cool base intelligence in my kind: Sly & The Family Stone – I Want to Take You Higher. Les McCann & Eddie Harris – Compared to What? Jimi Hendrix – Little Miss Lover.

This is a perfect place for an aside about music, this trance being fraught with it as I summoned too many songs to detail. This was an expression of regression not only into an earlier time before I made a deliberate choice if not to break something of a music addiction then to put grooving with music aside to concentrate on practical if not more important tasks. Particularly in these days before the internet, selection of music was the closest readily available means to interact, albeit imaginatively, with maps of emotions through the fast currents of the times.

But as I said, I became almost addicted; could be happy with a cup of coffee and my headphones on listening to my tunes. I had retreated in fear, pain and confusion of what was going on in society. Indeed, I could be quite reasonably ridiculed with the question, “what the hell are you doing with your time, what are you learning?”

Indeed, while there was some rock music which was critical of the abuse that could come to men by way of women, some of it unhelpfully morose while seductively artistic, some of it enormously hostile while quite expressive, the predominance of songs treated women as if a panacea, pitting an eminently stressful competition for them in which no obstacle was too great and they were worth any price.

And as interracial couples were no longer a looming threat but a reality that you would see among middle and working class White women, I made a decision, much as I  had with sports, to quit attendance. I reasoned, much as I enjoy, am impressed by Jim Hendrix music, for paramount example in my case, I’d rather have my wife, thank you very much. 

Now, when we consider how the interpretive/critical model was being deployed to devastating effect against White men by then, it was not enough to develop the practical working skills to be a technoslave to make the good ship mulatto supremacist more comfortable and run smoother for the miscegenating sluts on board.

I needed something like interpretive/critical method, or whatever academic resource I might to bolster an ideology in defense of White men. The time for passive music listening, at most changing in my head the liberal lyrics of these idiotic musicians was over. It was time for my kind of interpretive/critical voice.

For example, if Aristotle would provide arguments to correct the over valuation of black athletic prowess with the observation that this is not a distinctly human capacity, e.g., horses can run faster, so too there should be profound arguments against the overvaluation of black musical ability. Whether Plato’s notion that music, as other arts, is preparing the mind in an overly emotional way or as in my own observations; extrapolating on the idea that the inborn rhythmic capacity of blacks has veritably addictive properties in the parts of the brain that it effects by its expression; that the struggle for rhythmic gestalt that Whites undergo by contrast, the sublimation, as it were, plays a significant part in the White man’s creativity, including in music.

However, in regard to the withdrawn, daydreamy activity of mine in times prior, listening to music for hours on end, the initial trance inductor gave me a very kind altercasting:

“You are monitoring our cultural patterns.”

I would summon Paul McCartney’s “Someone’s Knocking at the Door“, corny beyond tolerance, absolutely pathetic in its wimpish effeminacy, absolute torture to be heard on the playground as somehow emblematic of Whites amidst blacks who would revel with the Isley Brothers cool masculine vibe in “Fight the Power” and “Who’s that Lady?” Add McCartney songs like “Ebony and Ivory” in naïve display of his hideous divorce from racial reality and Sir Paul should be glad that nobody took a shovel to his head for the humiliating contrast.

I elaborated on the positive side of White man sublimation, noting sublime creations through the little White dick, whether the euphoria of pent up sexual repression of the Trappist Monk released into Chimay Blue Ale or in the grandeur of the medieval churches themselves. At this point, I noticed a young woman with short blond hair and a chicken neck seated to my right was laughing. I started cruelly berating her about her chicken neck. Then as suddenly, I stopped myself and said, ‘this is wrong. Nobody should be abused on the basis of inborn characteristics that the are not responsible for. The air was solemn for just a moment, when I pointed to Lucia, a somewhat mongrel looking woman with a pug nose and said, laughing, “like Lucia, what a dog!” Chicken neck laughed as hard as anybody. I scolded her, noting that it was not something anybody should endure. Then I immediately broke out laughing, pointing to Lucia again, “put a paper bag over her head!” Nobody could resist laughing now. Comedy is, after all, someone else’s tragedy. So as to ease the cruelty and add humaneness, I began singing “one of us” (what if god was just a slob like one of us). Chicken neck appreciated it and it seemed thematically important to the trance, while it was not one of those songs that I was singing prior to its known existence.

The lawyer guy who instigated the trance to begin with took issue with me, saying that he found that kind of chicken neck attractive. I assured him that we could agree to disagree about important matters. I stood up, turned around, pulled my pants up to a wedgie, squeezing my ass cheeks together in some odd muscular formation that made everybody laugh. I said, “you see? I made you laugh and now you believe in the death penalty!” More laughs from all.

Come to think of it, there were a couple of other Jewish women there, seated to my right side; one was on the homely side – 4.5 – with dirty blond hair, laughing at inappropriate times, which got my dander up with her; while the other, Hyatt, comported more dignity in her low voice and mature appearance – 5.5 – both of them liked me a little bit. I said some things to 4.5, calling her ugly, I suppose, but she seemed able to deal with it. Regarding Hyatt, I recalled to her the time at another meeting when she looked worried as I turned attention to a black woman. I scolded her for her wasted jealousy. I would neither let the nigger nor her suck my dick, even if she did have a modicum of attractiveness. This would have been followed by another anti-Jewish tirade, qualified in the end with my hatred of Hitler and the fact that while I saw defense against and separation from Jews as necessary, I did not necessarily see this as a mortal struggle to the death. Perhaps sensing that I had a great Jewish grandfather three times removed (I did not know yet, but guessed that I might have this 3%), I told her that she could show the godfather (me) respect the next time that we saw each other and acknowledge the good times we’d had together in lives before this (it would happen, she’d come up and say that to me after another meeting, weeks later). I probably told her that this would acknowledge that she would like to suck my dick too, feeling randy as I was.

Speaking of special attention, I mentioned to the group how I, as an art student, got to study naked models for protracted spans of time. They would start with short poses of a few minutes, then go into some ten minute poses before finishing with a long pose for the better part of an hour. One of these models decided to provide a special treat for me. She was quite pretty, not usually the case with nude models, but probably mentally a bit off; as she faced me and only me for the long pose, lay on her back and spread her legs wide. This was apparent bliss for her. And I was delighted to draw this for forty-five minutes; a pose, needless to say, which was not standard for an art student to draw.

It was about at this point that I would have disrobed, anticipating approval in inspection from the women there, perhaps a modicum of respect from the men that mine were certainly not the cries of a man who could not have women. It was summer, so I was not wearing much anyway; I stood up, removed my the t-shirt that I was wearing, my pants, underwear, socks and shoes. I loosened my cock a bit so that it did not shrink to its smallest position. I turned around, not sure if my ass would be perfectly to their liking; the short haired German 5 from Smith gave me an ok sign and said, “perfect.” There seemed to be general murmurs of approval over my body from the women.

I put my clothes back on and sat down. This gives you a sense of how deep and mutually understood as a trance this was by the thirty some odd people there. Nobody shrieked, rendered objection, called the police or walked out.

“You like our physicality well enough; we may not be best always, in all moments and episodes, but we create a better way of life and culture for you. It’s not too much to ask of you to sublimate for that.” … I began singing more songs, in this case doing a better job of it because I knew the lyrics a bit better to these tunes and the vocals were in my range. Among the songs that I sang:

A few cuts from David Bowie’s “The Rise & Fall of Ziggy Stardust & The Spiders From Mars. 

Soul Love

Five Years

Moonage Daydream

I would have sang cuts from other Bowie albums as well, such as “Word on a Wing“

Various cuts from  “Diamond Dogs“

Now, even in this state I was feeling uncomfortable that I was making people listen to me try to get through song after song, even if I when I was doing a better than adequate job of it in some cases, it is not all that special an ability (except my rendition of “my Country Tis of Thee), and it would go on and on. This would wear on the patience of folks eventually, especially when I could not remember lyrics and tried to sing anyway. But nevertheless, nobody left and at this point, I had not overdone the singing yet.

The only thing that I can defend in this regard is that it allowed me to engage in a shared cultural common ground with them and subvert stereotypes that they might have of me – for example that I was of such an alien culture as a half Italian half Polish man that I did not resonate with some of their most loved popular music; or that as a man taking a macho racist stance, that I was obligated to pretend that I did not like the music of an androgynous artist like Bowie, or even by flamers like The Smiths.

I broke into some Jethro Tull songs, Ian Anderson being another vocalist that I could simulate quite perfectly. I would have sung, “Mother Goose” “Wond’ring Aloud” … with which I would start to pay more attention to Jenna, the beautiful French American girl who I had a crush on, who never came to this particular meeting.

I bellowed Cross Eyed Mary, Hymn 43 and My God, wanting all to be sure that they were not getting the come to god, come to Jesus talk of revelation stuff from me that tradition would lead them to expect. I sang various cuts from “Stand Up”, including “A Thousand Mothers”, “A New Day Yesterday” and paying attention to Jenna again with “Reason For Waiting.“

I was falling still deeper into trance and sensing others experienced this too, I asked Dave the half Italian, half Jewish guy to acknowledge that my Bowie and Tull was pretty good. He did acknowledge that; and since I knew him to be a recovering heroin addict, I asked him, “Dave, what’s weirder, a heroin trip or this?” He answered in his Boston accent that this is ‘weeadah.”

Particularly in the ambiguity of this primordial state, I struggled to reconcile my sexual appetite and attraction with other issues, such as who I thought was most beautiful, who was most appropriate. I did manage to pass on a tip for the average confused young man trying to negotiate the complexity of love interests, that if you have to reject someone, saying that they are not your type is much better than saying that you don’t find them attractive, let alone ugly. But in this particular ambiguous state, I wrestled more acutely with an inability to make up my mind which would plague me my whole life. It always seemed like I would go through protracted spans where the whole world of women were indifferent to me and then two woman at once would like me, both too good to be true. I could not make up my mind and would wind up with neither.

The conflict in this case was between my ideal of the French beauty, Jenna, who was arguably an appropriate choice as well, but who, in that moment, perhaps for that very reason, did not spark the organic passion of transgressing the dignity of Irene – a woman closer to middle age, divorced with kids, but still no doubt in good shape; with a beautiful official looking face, the kind I always like – serious and respectable and a personality to match that and beyond. She was remarkable in the way that she carried herself. She was the adult in the room. She was like a mother to all, good mother – nothing phased her;  the most gross, nasty, sexually lurid and mean things only brought a casual smile to her face, like a good mother calmly watching over kids developing their creative abilities, sure that all would turn out just fine, while in this episode they got dirty making mud pies and wrestling each other in the mud, not worried that it did get pretty rough. With a surprisingly calm smile by contrast to what was going on, she countenanced that as a normal part of life.

And so my passion was drawn toward the defiling lust of Irene’s dignity. I did not even care that she was the gazillionth half Irish, half German woman that I was trying to strike a balance from in America with the introduction of under represented continental European types, like the French, like Jenna. I was going under deep, and before I realized what I was doing I was now rubbing my now erect cock through my pants. I turned to my left and was delighted to see that Irene’s eyes were fixed on my cock. I told her, “good.”

I then indulged in some fantasy, which felt both irresistible and risky, as I’d always felt not entirely at home in America – aggrieved in that I was White enough to be penalized for slavery and Nazism, though my ancestors had nothing to do with it, but not experiencing myself as White enough to have an insider track to be lavished with wealth and the finest women. Always a semi-interloper among other European people’s women, neither wanting their dregs nor wanting the challenge of taking their finer specimens; I would use this occasion to see how the unlikely, full blown, X-rated relationship between Irene and I would be received.

I imagined Irene’s head propped up a bit by a pillow, with me kneeling over her, fucking her mouth. How happy that she would be as my sperm went into her mouth and then how happy she would be knowing that my sperm was in her stomach. With that, Jenna let out a peasant laugh. She was not offended, she was not jealous, she let out a peasant laugh. I was quick to note the significance of it, the folk wisdom and comfort in natural life of the peasant. I pointed to my own pug peasant nose inherited from the villages of my Italian forebears. Though I did not know much about Jenna yet and that was one excuse for my reticence, this was one thing that we had in common. But I would need more skill if I was to get to know a woman, Jenna or any other. I would need a good manufactured laugh that I could summon to ease an otherwise tense situation when trying to get to know a girl. Make the example repetitious enough so that I could really learn how to do it. Bill, the guy who incested his daughter, appreciative of the common ground of the music, and stand in “god”, male adult in the room, provided that. In fact there were a few Limp Bizkit songs that were relevant, but this corporate alphabet agency soup, R rated though it was in its chocolate starfish navigation system, was light compared to the hard core concerns that held the attendees captive despite outright stigma that would normally have people hurrying for the doors or calling he police.

The reason, of course, was that everyone here in Al-Anon, Adult Children of Alcoholics, was dealing with profound guilt and shame, typically about sexual issues. It was evident to all that this trance was no ordinary episode, wherein the kind of transgressions of social norms would call for a halt by authority or rush to the exit. We were being plunged into the depth of our stigma, exposing it, so that we could deal with it. And it was about to get more hard core.

There would be a dredging and bringing forth of the chthonic depths, covered with the slime and perversion of deep ambiguity. I would abuse people terribly who didn’t deserve it and stupidly, for things that weren’t their fault, mostly about their physicality. There were behavioral and political criticisms as well, none of it articulate or clever. One criticism was not hard to articulate, however. A homely Italian girl would drag out her turn to talk in endless tedium in these meetings. “Oh my god!” I protested, and everyone laughed because it was all too true. However, I did give her the post hypnotic suggestion that come next meeting she would start talking too long, as usual, but this time stop herself just before it was about to be typically absurd – she did that and gave me the Italian send off at meeting’s adjournment – “che vediamo” – as I said she would.

That was nice of me but, for the most part, in the primordial ambiguity of these trance states, I was a broken man, and as such, feeling like a cornered animal, I lashed out arbitrarily. I have to be broken to abuse people about their physicality. My sister went through some teenage stages of what some would consider to be homeliness with acne and so on combusting with intense hatred for the beauty criteria. Combining with my own insecurity about my physicality, I became sensitive, to the point of neurosis with regard to assessing people’s level of attractiveness. I hated hearing other people called “ugly” and would not do it myself; and so, when I found myself doing it, that was a sign that I was really broken.

Twice during the trance, how shall I describe this, I went into an exact rendition of the kind of verbal landmine dodging of feminist hatred that I would engage to display my innocence in approaching women as a teenager. Accurate thought it was of how neurotic I’d been made by my mother’s alcoholism and my sisters’ feminism, it was totally ridiculous. Bill, the handsome guy who’d incested his daughter, burst into laughter. While it did kind of prove my innocence in having tried to be sensitive and respectful of women, both instances in spontaneous reproduction of these neurotic teenage routines, in which I would constantly see the opposite, piggish quality in anything that I could assert, and make sure it was known that I wasn’t that, invoked a big laugh from Bill and an extreme raised eyebrow from Jenna. She was neither comforted nor turned on by this, to say the least.

I originally came to Amherst hoping to work with Barnett Pearce on just this sort of problem as delineated in his article, “The Problematic Practices of Feminism.” Even the well intentioned male can be dismissed with either one of two options that he is given within the framework of feminism: If he respects her rough independence and treats her as one of the boys, then he is a typical male chauvinist pig, who does not respect the special quality of her gender. On the other hand, if he is sensitive to the vulnerable qualities of her gender, he is seen as a condescending patriarch and a wimp. Young guys today might think that the thought policing and constraints on what you can say are new. And beyond gender negotiation, in society writ large one experienced the binding constraints: pinkie to the right, “Nazi!”, pinkie to the left, “child molester!”

Whether for the steam necessary to break these social constraints, or for the consciousness of injustice against ones self that one becomes suddenly aware of and unleashed to avenge, one is prone to acts of rage, particularly in this vulnerable, animal state. And where not feeling rage toward a given individual, then perhaps prone to cruel and levelling judgments, as I would render to Jenna, amidst unbridled love songs for a woman whom I knew nothing much about.

Even so, the psychic aspects of the trance would allow me to know a few things about her. That she had been incested by her brother and had experimented having sex with a dog. I assured her of a fact that remains true for me, that I would any day accept a woman who has done these things rather than one who has had sex with a nigger. I told her that unfortunately I found these things erotic, and while I am sorry for the pain and embarrassment that this brings to her face, and I wouldn’t want her to do this again, her humanness (fallibility) only makes me love her more. Yes, that’s right, ridiculously, I felt obligated to win this woman’s love over then and there. What, after all, was this French girl of my ideal, doing here in a meeting that she’d never been to before, if I wasn’t meant to win her here and now?

But the story of women being a panacea within the disorder of modernity, is as much pressure for men where they used to seek out a father, a priest, a doctor, a scientist, a philosopher in traditional society, to develop the resources of a worthy man. Nevertheless, one feels within this disorder, that if one does not make a straight line, that one’s appropriate and best match will be snapped up by the undeserving as she is pandered to from all angles and kinds, modernity having collapsed all borders and bounds. And so I sang.

As with any exaggerated passion, propped-up by circumstance but unbacked by much in the way of experiential motivation, the cybernetic balancing effect of nature will draw one back in correctivity. Particularly in this state, rife with ambivalence, unmoored for lack of the stabilizing premises and principles of philosophy and politics that I was yet to settle on. That I was unprepared to settle on an identity and anchor with a particular woman as such was a fact thrust thrust forth by my involuntary laughter at the vision of a film of a French WWI solder who’d had his face blown in by a bomb shell and was trying on facial prosthetics. It is embarrassing that I would laugh at this, particularly as I was presenting myself as a man who cared so deeply about French under representation in America. In embarrassment for my own dishonor, it ranked with laughing about Christopher Reeves paralysis upon falling off a horse.

I’d make up for it somewhat by foreseeing my visit to Verdun battlefield of WWI, and reading a letter from a young British soldier, 18 years old, saying how everything in him wanted to survive and yet he knew that there was no chance. I recited that excerpt from the letter that I would read in the Verdun museum in 1998 and I would be moved to tears, honestly.

In additional fairness to me, there wasn’t much articulate defense of White men available, quite the opposite. No internet yet folks. Furthermore, while I cared very much about the continent generally, and even though I recognized the great artistry of France and French women struck my fancy, I was literally being beckoned to Italy and Poland. Thus, I can understand why motivation to win this girl was not in place and why heroism might fail in this case.

Indeed, for all the impassioned pleas and sappy singing, artificially enhancing motivation for a girl that I did not know, for what skill level that I did manage to comport, Jenna would write her number on a piece of paper and pass it on to me.  …only to have me, in the end, ripping it up and crying like a baby. Though it seemed to make no sense in the moment, in truth, I was protecting her; and saving us both the acrimony and waste of effort that needed to be better spent. My message for Jenna was that I needed for her to remain French through this life time; and that I’d reinforce her in another lifetime; fathering children with her; nothing could be more satisfying. And I instructed her, in words suggested to me in the original trance induction, that “you will be obedient to me” – you are not to leave this meeting until it’s nearly over, a long time from now; you will leave slightly earlier than the others, making a display of the fact that your eyes would be fixed on mine as you walked out, in confidence and trust that you would be happy to suck my dick and have my children. That we would protect and advance you and your French kind.

But that was quite some time away yet. This would be the longest Al-Anon meeting that anyone had ever been to and nobody would leave until it was good and over after something like three hours ….despite what was to come.

Indeed, if the cybernetic balancing effect of nature would call one back into the arbitrary of the chthonic, into perversion even, to offset unmoored principles and falsely encouraged motives of the social they, it would in this trance state. Hence, more than a few times I would tell Jenna that I would like to fuck her mother. That should even be part of the deal. Jenna was hurt, saddened by this, apparently thought it was strange, as apparently her mother, older, wasn’t very good looking.

You see, I was not looking upon Jenna as necessarily being enough at this time because I had an incest and mother thing still going on. Perversions of this kind, overcompensating through the arbitrary to a root motivation are semiotic over corrections of healthy direction.

Fascination with breaking the taboo of incest would be corrective of fascination with breaking the taboo of miscegenation, corrective of that and other overcompensating outbreeding. And the mother thing aims at the social orientation of a woman mature enough to be a mother, hence the attraction, the defiling lust toward the dignity and purifying love of women who already are mothers. Which is why sex with “mom” Irene would have the most fascinating appeal to fantasy throughout; only challenged in appeal by the fantasy of taking turns with Bill having sex with his daughter and solidly good looking woman friend (also a mother); but we’ll come back to them.

Now attention turned to “mom” Irene, into chthonic depths of the defiling lust to capture her grace, poise and dignity, without any conscious control of appropriateness. As was the case throughout, she mostly had a big smile on her face, as if presiding over children at play on a playground, unworried even where they got quite dirty, things got messy, just happy that they were learning as such, sure to work things out for their essential goodness as people. .

There was a blessed trust conferring from her, as I vacillated from the most abject stigma to sublime innocence. Saying how Ted Bundy didn’t kill enough of these American bitches; the reason that they don’t complain more about this sort of thing is because they know that they are getting away with murder. I need to kill more of them! I would go from that to describing an episode when Kim and Jim left me to babysit Amelia, only a few months old. I tried to avoid it, but she would not stop crying, so I realized that I had to change her diaper. I took her into the bathroom and dutifully removed the diaper. She was still crying and very stressed. Just for a second I looked at her parts that needed help and then looked into her eyes. She stopped crying, calm came over her face and she  relaxed her whole body instantaneously. She knew that I was not going to hurt her. I did not touch her skin, but rather dabbed her with a wet towel and then put some powder there and a new diaper.

“How does a baby know that you are not going to hurt it?!?”

I said to the group, and broke down sobbing for real, head in hands.

And speaking of innocence, that look was on the face, captured in my mind, of Rene, another attractive French girl who I worked with at Jakes No Frills Restaurant in North Hampton. I discussed liking her not only for her Frenchness, the continent as I was tasked to defend, but because she had that striking contrast of dark hair and very White skin. She didn’t have the cutesy look either, but rather the official, serious type of good looking that I prefer. Formidable. She was skinny, a kind that I adamantly liked, against my mother’s hostile protests. She had unusually narrow hips for a woman, was nearly flat chested, which I found incredibly erotic, as I’d discovered from my first girlfriend, Sharon. Having started from an aesthetic perspective to begin with, on this point I had confidence, and ridiculed what was upheld singularly as the American ideal of female beauty: the blond with the inoffensive but not particularly interesting straight up and down face and big boobs. This was unecological. Along with dynamic features, peculiar quirks of beauty, qualitative differences, were being shunned as “Latino”, “Hispanic” even, not a vital part of our human ecology, but something to let get sucked into the black hole of miscegenation. That we have buffering qualities and interesting, dynamic features that could offset the allure of African difference, but these qualities are being thrown under the bus. 

There was much that Rene could understand, and she was more normal than normal for the most part. Such that I almost took up with her; could have. She fancied herself a mystic and maybe she was. Reading my tarot cards, “the devil” and “death” came up repeatedly. She told me that might just mean that I am the kind of person who likes to fight. I know this to be true, if the fight is necessary. In two years time, I would be in Gdansk, Poland, having my tarot cards read again, and no matter how the reader shuffled the led the cards, unbelievably, the devil and death always appeared. But I digress.

Ok, let me digress a bit more to say that it was probably at this point when I told a story about how I had long since put aside the notion of my being the personification of evil. On a June 6th day, having read Revelation 13:17 the night before and seeing three sixes appear on my hand, moving creepily. Waking up the next day for work, throwing on a Philips 66 jacket, I could see the other 6. In fact, I couldn’t help but see three  sixes form everywhere. The radio that day was playing music all day from 1966. The New Jersey Lottery that day -yep: 666. I came home morose, doomed and I told my father about it. He said that “you should’ve told me, I would have played that number!” The Al-anon group laughed along with me for that which cured me of any such concern.

Coming back to Rene, the more normal than normal was mixed in with moments of utter insanity. There was a reason. Her father had incested her, invited Satanist cohorts  to use her for sex rituals with him. He wound up getting her pregnant. She wanted the baby but the unborn boy fell out when her father punched her in the abdomen. Insanity.

I recalled the look of innocence on her face, “like Bamby!” (the cartoon deer from the Walt Disney movie, I sobbed to Bill, the guy who’d incested his daughter. I’m literally crying, “how could you!?!” The Jewish incest victim gave him the confrontational look of intervention again.

And again the primordial ambiguity would not allow undigested social cliché and taboo to go unprovoked by cybernetic correction.

“You liked sucking your father’s cock, didn’t you, Jewish whore!?!” She squirmed. “Didn’t you!” I turned to Bill. “Your daughter liked sucking your cock, didn’t she!?!” He smiled not broadly but in concession. His woman flashed a quick, partial smile a sign  to play an angle which takes some heat off of Bill, while not giving the situaion a green light.

I then noticed the German 5 expressing a curious kind of pain. I screamed at her, “you think that you are above it all, don’t you kraut, nigger lover. Let’s be real. The only people that you care about are niggers! The only thing that you care about is niggers! She broke down sobbing, for the pressure of the all too much truth of it in her and in the social pressure around her at Smith College and vicinity. Bill’s woman gave me a look as if to say, ‘have mercy on her.” I was calling her a fat ugly German pig, saying that her kind of jealousy had much to do with World War II.  It was terrible. I talked aba pictue of whole Polish middle class family having been hung by the Nazis. Hung, right in their well tailored clothes. She said that ” I feel terrible about what happened to the Polish people.” I said, “what happened? Was it an accident of nature? “It happened? Nobody had agency and responsibility?

But I would not continue to grill her, noting that she was a German American and had nothing to do with it. In fact the majority of American troops were German Americans while the disproportionate number of American troops put in the line of deadly fire, cannon fodder, were Italian American. I was just pissed off being blamed for this shit that in fact victimized my people. They’ve given these goddamn Jews a warrant so that nobody can say anything critical of them and an excuse to sick these fucking nigger monkeys in every which way.

She said in a pained tone, I don’t know what to tell you’ perhaps go to the Holocaust museum in Washington? I said, “are you kidding me?! I’m not the one who needs to learn about this stuff!” I pointed to Sandy, the frightfully intelligent Jew to my left, and said, “here she is, like a skeletal Hannah Arendt, sucking her father’s cock, like a starving baby sucking for dear life!” I know what this is about!

I sensed that there was something more about her pain and jealousy.

“You are not condemning Bill and feeling sorry for his daughter. You are feeling sorry for your self. You are jealous. You wish that you could be his daughter sucking his cock!

She cries some more, but I come to the rescue, “well, the Godfather is going to permit you to suck your father’s cock in your next lifetime. So long as you are a choosing adult and sex with your father does not lead to children and the inevitable birth defects of incest there is an argument to be made for it. Obviously there are arguments to be made against it, psychological, sociological, etc., but there are arguments to be made for it – particularly if it is just fantasy, to overcome the Christian prohibition of the sin of thinking, and as a bio-systemic counter balancing taboo to miscegenation to a society rife with outbreeding and its overpromotion.

She fervently wagged her finger, “yes!” She wanted this, wanted to be able to suck her father’s cock and wanted other girls to be able to do this too – to express their ultimate love and loyalty to their own. I found her confession surprising, kinky and perhaps unfortunately, appealing.

“God grant us incest!” I cried.

I’m starting to get off on this a bit…

I don’t know if it was exactly then, but this may have been the first time in the trance that I pulled my pants down and started jerking my cock off. Now, you would think that everyone would be yelling, screaming, calling the police and heading for the exits, but, no. There were a few worried looks, Jewish incest victim made a few noises expressing nervousness but I scolded her, you’re going to admit that you’d like this cock in you, that I am ok with you having sucked your father’s cock. Now you suck my cock. You are going to put your head down in submission the next time that I see you. When I finally reached an orgasm, Jenna the pretty French girl gave me a look of serious approval, like a supervising mother keeping a child on track, a peasant woman serious and satisfied that fundamental peasant business had been performed properly and to completion. I was impressed by her poise; not only calm through this stigma, but having the poise to look upon this as a normal biological function and a fundamental remedial lesson in an aspect of our humanity that that should be treated as familiar enough in order in order to gain common parlance and control. I was impressed.

I indulged in further incest fantasies, one surrounding Irene and one surrounding Bill. Now, coming to Irene, this woman sexy in part because she was unlikely as a sex object for her mature dignity and good looks, she was as poised as anyone through all this, as I’d said. Her dignity was not really beyond reproach, as it was revealed that she’d had a long affair with a married man. But this was not of concern to me. She was mom, the sexy Jocasta that Oedipus’s fate would be irresistibly drawn to. But this Oedipus didn’t mind. And this Jocasta didn’t seem bothered either. I went into a fantasy about how in our next lifetime, she would be my mother. One early summer day she would come to look upon me in my work, at my brilliant mathematical work and be so impressed and happy that she could not resist hugging and kissing me – and then it turned to real kissing, tongue kissing; one thing leads to another and we enjoy a whole summer indulging in sex with one another.

I conclude by telling her that I’d see her at two meetings in the future and that at the last one before I left the area she’d affectionately refer to me as “you” because I was referring to her as “you” – for some reason, I could not remember that her name was Irene. This would be at a meeting in a town north of here, a meeting populated almost entirely by WASPS and North Western European types and she would be welcoming me to share body fluids and genetics as such. And then there would be another occasion before that, at this same meeting in Amherst but another time, another week, when she would give me a huge smile to let me know that she would love to have sex with me, suck my cock, the fantasy could come to reality, ok with her, the works. She knew that I was trying to save our European people. That I cared and liked all our kind.

With that, I told her that I’d see her one other time. And this time she would not be smiling. She’d be worried – worried for the impact that miscegenating White women was having on our people indeed. I’d walk into the cafe situated right between her and the police station’ and she would be worried, consulting with a bohemian lady known to attend these meetings (though not this particular one). I would presume that her worry was about the predictably treacherous behavior on the part of young White women, including good looking, middle class, educated ones, like the one  who walked in at the same time with a black child in her arms. Irene would be worried, see the angry look on my face, then look at Kim and Jim’s baby Amelia, as I was with them in that moment, and regain a sense of calm as she sat down to talk with the bohemian woman.

And indeed, I would attend that Al-Anon (ACOA) meeting that I’d never been-to before and would never attend again, in a town North of Amherst. The meeting provided for me the provisional relief of Anglo-Northwestern enclave. In fact, the one non-White there, a “Hispanic” girl (this one really wasn’t the kind that I railed about discriminating against, because they were really European. This one was Not European) voiced grievance that she felt unwelcome with no real evidence other than the fact that there were no other non-Whites there and yet they went on talking about their problems, one of which was Not the lack of “diversity” at the meeting. In fact, the chair of the meeting, a middle aged White man, was more ballsy than the standard PC line would have and responded that it was the right of this group to focus on its concerns as people from alcoholic families. Irene was there, she referred to me as “you” in the most affectionate way, but apparently farted, which was not altogether pleasant to me; reminding me perhaps not only of vulgar reality as opposed to fantasy, of the fact that these people were a bit different a kind of European American; and that I was not quite at home with joining their vessel, despite Irene’s welcome. I worried that it was at sea and not seaworthy. In fact, a fantastically optimal Anglo sort of woman, child bearing age, talked to me after the meeting and tried to encourage my ongoing participation in the meeting (I guess that she liked me a bit), saying that “we have a very special group here.” 

I’m embarrassed to think back on what was presenting as a huge opportunity for a fine wife,  only to have me react as a mean spirited snob, saying “I’m neither so sure that they are so special nor that they should consider themselves special according to Al-Anon rules; maybe I would think about coming back.” 

She was hurt and while in the gamesmanship of panmixia, I was flouting a good opportunity for a lovely Anglo woman with ethnocentric sensibilities still intact and sensitive and thus a means further into the American mainstream and out of the margins, I realize that my cruel dismissive with regard to the value of her culture was meant to provoke more ethnocentric distancing, worried as I was for the vulnerabilities of their ethnocentric barriers, their philosophical seaworthiness, as it were.

…and furthermore, my unconscious fate was leading me elsewhere. As I would indicate back in the Amherst trance, adding a bit more Polish gleaned from mushroom picking with my cousin Ryzard sometime in the future; wherein he’d distinguish edible mushrooms such as podgrzybek from poisonous mushrooms.

“True Cheese Now”

Is the way I’d learn the Polish vocabulary word for “poison” and the pronunciation of: trujące.

I burst out spontaneously with the statement that, “Kim doesn’t have the right to exist!” …this was a bit of hard joke, of course, that I’d said a few times outside of trance as well; finding its contrast to the common sense of what you might say to such a sensitive and neurotic woman hilarious. I figured the absurdity of it had to be therapeutic. Anyway, I figured that I had “the touch”, holding up my hand sensitively, I proposed that this was one of the contributions that Polish people had to human ecology: “Polish people have ‘the touch.”

Boy would I come to not be so sure about that – at all. It would probably be coupled with a vision of a young man that I would come across in “Bar Hades” in Pila, Poland, who looked like the spitting image of my (WWII torn, alcoholic) uncle Ed, only younger, of course. I would learn that this guy would be going to debtor’s prison – yes, they have that in Poland; but it was not a fraction of the bad surprises I would find in the woods of this post communist culture – where the culture is to blame the victim – true cheese now indeed.

It would be at that same Hotel Hades, Pila, that I would meet up with the beautiful Edyta Jakubowski, who was in town from The U.S.A. to see her grandmother; it was just a friendly meeting as she had a boyfriend of course. But in the lobby was playing a weird, reggae version of Crowded House’s, “Don’t Dream It’s Over.” … the words eerily, “they’ve come, to build a wall between us, you know that they won’t win.” ..as if the niggers had every intention to rupture the Wonderwall I intend for the sovereignty of European peoples.

I turned my attention to healing matters of betrayal and incest with fantasy and music in address of Bill’s predicament. 

I tell Bill that he is a corn kernel in the giant piece of shit that is his life.

We are going to take that corn kernel out of the giant piece of shit and re-plant it for a new life.

I have a vision of his x-wife and her black boyfriend on the cover of a local magazine. I sang a song that would resonate with his pain for the utter betrayal, “These Eyes” by The Guess Who. I add, isn’t this getting to be a bit ridiculous, the “coincidence” of White woman nigger male couples? And now his daughter? He’s in pain. My saying that I’d like to kill his x-wife doesn’t ease his pain. Let alone saying that I’d like to kill his daughter. I back off, but am quite clear, that to me there is no doubt, their betrayal is worse than his. And while I had once thought child molesters should unquestionably get the death penalty, Bill has presented me with at least one example where I would not pass this sentence.

At around this point, I notice the turban wearing Muslim woman who’d expressed fear over my despair at the feminist brown bag lunch was taking a keen interest. I yelled at her especial anger, telling her ot mind her own business, that I want no part of her mulatto supremacist religion – it’s shit. Your god is not my god. I bat her and the room, saying, you probably think this is about god’s presence. There were quite a few laughs, because several people there were obviously convinced that only god could explain the the phenomenon of this trance. I wasn’t going to give that to them and I told them so. I would not deprive the agency and the free thinking of those who were not willing to commit to a traditional notion of god, especially not the god of Jews, the Jewish trick that is Christianity, and the gutter, nigger religion that is Islam. She tried to gesture defiantly but I wasn’t having it.

I turned my attention to Bill; this was between us, as Europeans, outside of this fake Jewish moral order…I’ll tell you what we’re going to do. There’s going to come an evening…

You and your woman are going to cozy-up on the sofa with your daughter on the living room sofa to watch a movie. By movie’s end there is going to be much affection and warmth between the three of you and your woman is going to give your daughter a sense that the sex and the enjoyment that she experienced of it with you was alright. And to further claim the agency through the valence of the enjoyment, you were all going to go to the bedroom together where she would be encouraged to enjoy affection with Bill until they finally took turns sucking him off; Bill would take turns eating his daughter, who’d be eating his woman; his daughter would eat his woman while he fucked his daughter from behind. His daughter would experience a innocent simplicity to this and admit to enjoying sucking her father off as she had enjoyed it before. Bill smiled at the plan.

I then burst out in loud mockery – ha! ha! ha! you thought that you could get away with this, you fucking child molester, incesting retard!!!

The Jewish incest victim would give him an interventionist “gotcha” look as I would mock him.

Interspersed three or four times throughout the trance, I would repeat this set up, in which I would invoke social permission for incest with his daughter and then suddenly, sadistically ;mock him when he was relaxed about it. Then just as quickly, cybernetic balancing effects would kick in the other direction for the overcompensating lack of empathy for him.

I would propose, almost insist that his woman have sex with her son, and I met with a sense of strong resistance to that from her. The thing was, I found her very sexually attractive. I insisted that her mature, healthy look had much to do with her Polish admixture. True, she was a tiny bit overweight in the ass. I brought a big laugh from Bill saying that she could lose about eighteen pounds – eighteen being a comically arbitrary and fat sounding number. But she was good looking, no doubt. Her maturity, intelligence and stature added to it almost but not quite yet to the appeal of Irene; and I was willing to make a deal in order to secure sex and progeny with her.

She may not have wanted to have sex with her son but she loved her man Bill understandably, and wanted help negotiating the harrowing polemic of two taboos –  incest and miscegenation – that Bill was torturously embroiled in.

And so I began where taboos were more likely to be out of line. It is certainly a bad idea to make masturbation a taboo and deem only actual sex valid and healthy. In fact, I would argue that young girls should be encouraged to masturbate more, and be much more careful about actual sex. And when it comes to actual sexual experimentation, a normal male would prefer that she experiment with a little bit of lesbianism, learning to appreciate the beauty of her kind that the White man appreciates rather than give herself to aliens, let alone to niggers. 

But the baseline taboo that is warrantably assertable as in need of being broken is in the realm of incest fantasy. It is necessary to undo the Jewish thought binding strictures of the Sermon on The Mount – “even if you’ve thought of” breaking a commandment – and it is one of a few taboo fantasies that is powerful enough to effectively counterbalance the miscegenation taboo. Indeed, it should be fairly harmless if it remains in the realm of fantasy. Nobody should argue that having children with close relatives is a a good idea, the evidence against it being overwhelming as it is.

So, fantasy is relatively safe space, where alternative course of action is not closed off. In point of fact, my own very strong fantasies evaporated instantaneously the moment when Wally, the guy who set these trances in motion to begin with said, “enjoy it.” The fantasy lost all appeal and I was glad to be rid of it. I didn’t want to fantasize about my sister, she’s a nasty piece of work.

That doesn’t mean that the incest fantasy in the abstract, that is to say with your mother and sister being someone other than they actually are, does not have appeal and utility for said reasons of counter taboo.

…and while we are brokering the world of arbitrary facticity, dealing with world of facts into which we are thrown and connecting them with narratives to take them in a potentially innocuous, remedial direction, we might consider the negotiation between the fact that biological harm is not particularly brought about where no offspring are produced by incest and the psychological effects, ranging from very detrimental, to fairly neutral … to, potentially helpful? It would seem that the lack of psychological harm and potential benignness would depend on maturity, agency and ability to make a decision in the partners. We should thus agree that children should remain off limits.

But hence the fact of Bill’s daughter not being a child and rather exercising some agency and enjoyment in sucking him off would be a mitigating factor. So, not so bad; and Bill smiled. Or was she a child? The Jewish incest victim gave him a plaintiff look again.

Bill’s woman was struggling to support him through this.

In a lame attempt to ennoble her, I altercast to her, as representing her, a great song that had just come onto the radio. However, sadly, I would exhaust her with the speculative insistence repeatedly that it represented her – great a song though it is, meaningful though the lyrics are, I could barely remember any lyrics, perhaps because I had been smashed drunk any time that I heard it. Thus, my renditions were terrible in addition to being overbearing in my attributing this as representing her.

Tryin’ to fly mountain high
Are you tryin’ to be immortal
Come on here’s your chance
Take your dance
Say goodbye to your mother
Just let your life shine now’s the
Time what you’ve been given will
Do just fine
Just let your love come through
Your song for the people
Listen to the voices of your soul
Are you trying to be immortal
I can see the future’s been painted
Red white and blue
I won’t whisper if you won’t
You and I know that it ain’t true

I couldn’t come close to matching Beth Hart on this one. Nevertheless, my will was good, my libido in tact and we were deep enough in trance to venture re-direction of the primordial factcity.

Thus I proffered again that not only was tolerance of the incest taboo remedial to the Christian prohibition on thought crimes, but also remedial to the miscegenation taboo. But moreover now, provided no inbred offspring were produced, actual incest between consenting adults could potentially be a benign if not remedial option as well.

I observed that the German 5 would like to live in a world where it is valid for a girl to suck her father’s cock. She wagged her finger vehemently, as if to say, ‘yes, that is a point, a possibility that I would like to see as a reality in the future world. I said to her that despite all my brutality then, for my anger at Germany for having started these wars, my abuse of her for not being my type, that I would grant this possibility and she, at the meeting’s end, would show her intelligence and judgment by talking to the lawyer guy who provoked this trance to say that I should be forgiven and allowed to go on my way in pursuit of my fate.

I then turned attention to Bill and his woman. I told them that in this world I could take turns on either end of his daughter with him, fucking her and getting sucked off by her. And his woman would be there for the same to get face fucked and so on while his daughter was being fucked by one of us. Not only that, but they would all like this. Not only that, but “mom” Irene would join in as well, and would enjoy this as well. The smile on Irene’s face indicated that it could well be true.

I could be the one to get his daughter pregnant to avoid inbreeding problems. So good of me.

But the godfather wanted something more. I required confirmation from Bill’s woman. At meeting’s end, just after Jenna proceeds out of the meeting, eyes locked on mine, to let me know that in the next life, she would like to suck my dick and have our children in order to secure her legacy, Bill’s woman would be in no hurry to leave, but would rather sit there passively, to let me know by locking eyes with me and flashing a code smile, that she would be happy suck my dick, engage in this sexcapde with Bill’s daughter, etc. That would transpire.

I told Bill that I would see his daughter alone at the small bar downtown with the pool table. “She’s a Venutian” I’d say. Bill’s wife gave me a cutesy smile, to approve the altercast of the naïve girl in the movie “Hardcore” who explained that she was in the sex trade because sex was not very important to her; she was about love; and she had this in common with the George C. Scott character’s Christianity. I repeated George C. Scott’s line, in his voice, with the menacing smile that he wore on his face, “I’m afraid that it’s you who doesn’t understand.” I then promised that his daughter would be petrified when she recognized me at this bar as the man who would love nothing more than to kill nigger loving White women. Only might not do it for lack of expedience. It would happen in a few days time, just like I said, that I’d see her at this bar and shed be mortified at the sight of me, perhaps hearing me issuing the N word, getting the idea that what she was doing wasn’t cool; that there would be severe limits on her safety so long as people like her put us all at risk with this transgression.

Furthermore, I would pass Bill on the sidewalk of Amherst center in a few days and he would have a big smile on his face both to acknowledge the fantastic paranormalcy of the trance event and to let me know that the suggestions were ok with him.  … happily amazed at how divine countenance was looking after us, brought us together with me as medium and now “coincidentally” crossing paths as foretold to bear witness to the miracle.

It was perhaps on the same walk through downtown Amherst that I would see Dave the half Jew half Italian, former heroin addict from Boston with a grin of curious amazement on his face for this little path crossing being foretold.

There would be several of these happenstance meeting with people from the trance meeting on the streets and about in Amherst and North Hampton, including people who I’ve talked little about so far where at all.

But there is much more to detail in this Al-Anon meeting in trace before we move beyond its episode. Beginning with banter with David, whom I’d try to set up with Sandy, since he had said to me that he liked her – didn’t mind her nigger like ass and disagreeable Jewish face. I would be behind her in line at the bank one day after, noticing her ugly nigger ass as she bent to write something at the teller booth; she would turn around and give me a dirty look as if to say that I had been ineffective, but I would only remark in equal annoyance, “what’s the problem.”

Just one more foray for now to an episode that would be foretold beyond the trance because it connects with this idea of Jewish matchmaking as with my attempt for David and Sandy. I would one day be working at a Manpower temp job dismantling a printing-press factory in Newark, New Jersey when I’d make a bizarre attempt to set the Jewish owner up with the Jewish incest victim from the trance. More on that episode later. Coming back to the Al-Anon trance… I would tell her that she would “succumb”, getting a little charge out of pronouncing it “suck-come.” I would add, “you’re going to suck his cock good and hard.” Sandy would shake her head at my immodestly.

Since David was a baseball fan, it provided occasion to address the absurdity of a sport which had lost the totemic value of teams representing a people and a place. Baseball, America’s sport, had only ever gotten worse in that regard with players from a given cities team being more or less mercenaries from any part of America; from any ethnic group and from any race, once the Negro Jackie Robinson was imposed to break the color line with endless beatification by the Jewish laced press. The teams had become practically meaningless, representing not much more than uniforms, emblems, owners and local tax payer mercenary investment.

So I set about to correct this by selecting with Dave an all-time White team which, in that episode, would include Jews, since I was not yet Jew wise enough to realize that Jews could not be trusted to include on our side as a part of our genome with our interests at heart. So it was that Sandy Kofax would be selected to the pitching staff and Ryne Sandberg would  be at second base (though I’m not sure that Swedish name doubles as Jewish); while “Saint” Jackie Robinson would remain on the bench as a whipping boy, martyr in testimony to the fact that there are Oreos and Uncle Toms – nice, talented, but compliant blacks, who would stick to their own kind in marriage – let them stick to their own kind on the field of play as well. We don’t need them. Indeed, they cannot replace us, or we are no longer “us” in the sense of our fundamental biological genus.

Naturally Lou Gehrig would play first; good as (((Hank Greenberg))) was, he wasn’t as good, maybe not even as good as Jimmie Foxx or Chuck Klein. Third base would be another German American, Mike Schmidt; there would be complication over the rest of the team, whether Honus Wagner would be a good enough short stop, whether Mantle or Dimaggio should be in center. Not much doubt that Ruth and Ted Williams get an outfield and DH spot; but Cobb or Musial for the final outfield spot? Kim endorsed Lefty Grove for another pitching spot, while Dave asserted that Tom Seaver could not be left off the rotation. Most argumentation on the side of Johnny Bench being the catcher, but a big one on the side of Yogi Berra – ten World Series rings. In that episode to come, where I’d be dismantling the Jewish guy’s Newark, New Jersey printing press, the nice German American man who headed the crew taking apart the factory would gently offer yet another alternative to Yogi Berra when I idly proffered my line-up. “What about Bill Dickey?”

Back in the meeting, I would argue that the notoriously racist Cobb should be consigned to the bench where he could nettle Jackie Robinson indefinitely while the Polish Stan Musial should get the starting nod because “Polish people have the touch” I put my hand up gently. “Having the judgment to know where to draw the line.” God would my experience with criminality in Pila, Poland ever show me that was questionable.

I’m moving on from that topic in the Al-Anon meeting and for some reason my brother in law came up: “Ukrainian guy.” Everybody laughed at my invocation of nationality before anything else. I had not predicated the specification as and endorsement of a kind that could add to the robustness of the White male kind in America.

My endorsing Poles as necessarily having “the subtlest judgmental touch” is still not as embarrassing as my touting my aunt for marrying a Jewish man and producing a “Jewish genius” son. Then nerd’s industrial psychology degree was good enough to leave him unemployed with seven children, living with another aunt in Alabama. His father, Mortimer, was good for a laugh for the Al-Anon group as I told the story of his having his dentist take all of his teeth out and give him a pair of false teeth, as he did not want to be bothered with more dental work and its expense.

I’d continue with a bit of ethnic self deprecating humor, describing a few “public bath rooms” in the villages of 1972 Italy, land where the Romans had led the way and set forth the standards of pluming refinement. Empty rooms, where you had to tip toe so as not to step in one of the piles of shit all over the floor before delivering your own load; hopefully having some candy wrappers or something to wipe up. That brought a laugh, but I got serious again.

Laugh at the foibles of Italians though you may, they were still exercising stronger, therefore better ethnocentrism. 

I discussed the Brooklyn, New York case, in which Italian Keith Mondello killed black Yusef Hawkins who came into Mondello’s neighborhood while he was triggered at having been spurned by White Gina Feliciano, who was said to be “dating” blacks. At the time of its occurrence, 1989,  my father asked me, “was that worth it (i.e., going to jail, as Mondello would)?” I told the group that I answered “no, but I don’t care that he did it.” …my father accepted that answer and he was correct to do so. 

I then recalled the black New York City TV news anchor, Reggie Williams, sticking a microphone in front of another local Italian boy for a comment in his Brooklyn voice: “We don’t need no niggas around heeeah!” I described his short dark hair, clean shave, clean clothes and already narrow eyes squinted to the purposeful fixation of a predator. Fierce and frighteningly cold indifference to the rising “political correctness” of anti-racisim. For that time,  a surprising, quite ballsy display of ethnocentric loyalty, unabashed “racism.” I squinted my eyes and put on a Brooklyn accent to mimic admiration, “we don’t need no niggas around heeah!”

Bill’s woman was giving me worried but understanding looks for these sentiments.

Falling deeper in trance, I would see that I would be tested for my ethnocentrism as it were, “punished for my racism”, if you were of a liberal mindset. In Pila, Poland, alpha male Oskar Matyszczypka, widely hated for his abuse of people that ran a gamut of narrow racist ethnocentrism to reckless, scolding liberalism, whatever displayed his self interest, would turn the town’s gossip against me as an Italian American interloper, ripe for the Pila criminal element to take advantage of. To set me up, he took on (i.e., gave his big dick for a month straight in another room of my apartment to) Magda, “Mika” Moiztejko, knowing that she had local social capital in spades to deploy against me, with her mother being a lovely Polish woman respected throughout the town, her divorced father, while of Lithuanian extraction, nonetheless a policeman on the Pila force.

It is all part of a long story for another post, but long story short, I did not expect them to invoke a criminal element against me when I was not only willing, able and setting about to help them, but could not help them if they ripped me off. But Mika, spurned by me as her vehicle to American status once she had her fill of Oskar’s dick, decided that she would take it to me, and invoke a didactic lesson against my “racism.” Her English was quite good, good enough to inflect the frumpy tone of traditional moral authority, by pronouncing the “H” when deigning to address me with moral warrant.

“Do you know wHhaat? You should be more tolerant!”

When Oskar ditched her and I didn’t want her, she became indignant, “they think I’m stupid!”

Always finding it tedious that Oskar would bring her around, not understanding that Oskar was using her social capital, I was glad to be done with her. Or so I thought.

She had already infuriated me by playing off my sister’s uncaringly reckless suggestion that I go with the flow, and took advantage of the relief in help that I craved and never knew, with a delightfully encouraging tone that hit a sweet spot in my brain, telling me to me to “buy it! buy it!” an overpriced car with a large part of the money that I had from my father’s house to invest, as if the car could help in a business idea of Oskar’s, which of course would not materialize (he wanted to steal the car). I thought that had made it clear to her that I wasn’t so naïve as to put full trust in Oskar. I had safeguards in place. This did not deter Mika in her penis head shaped head.

She called me and when I told her that I don’t want to associate with women who like blacks like her and her friend Justyna, with regard to whom she asked, she “fantasizes about being married to a black man; would you still be friends with her?”, she became indignant when I answered “no.” She retaliated, “Agniezka (her other friend, who I did find attractive) doesn’t feel that way, doesn’t dislike blacks!” And I said, “yes, that’s why I won’t pursue her, even though I find her attractive.” Ending the call, I patted myself on the back for my nifty coherence and for being done with her.

 Only a few days later I ran into her in a bar and  she was indignant still. Her arms folded in resolve, “and to think, my mother said that I should invite you over for dinner!” Uh oh. that’s the woman who has all that social capital in town. And Agnieszka, the one that I find attractive, is sitting right by Mika’s side giving me a look like I should ease up and have warm, friendly, trusting relations with Mika again.

As big as any mistake that I’ve made in life is letting someone back in after I’d shut the door on them. Mika was one of three times that I did this. I invited her to hang out with me again. And again in that delightfully encouraging voice of help that I yearned for she enthusiastically suggested that, “I think that you should call Roman!”

Now, Roman was a hideously ugly computer technician that I’d met through Oskar, and came to trust as a critic of Oskar. As I was more than willing to help Roman,  in fact wanted to work with him, I did not see him giving me a bum steer. His spitefulness with masked in Christian virtue, which only catered to his resentment that I had a little money – no matter that it was from my recently deceased father’s house, that I was 39; and he just a 27 year old man that I was willing to help with this money. This man who grew up in the psychological harrow of imposed communist ideology, hideously ugly, looking like a combination of Heinrich Himmler and the Creature  From The Black Lagoon, buried irrational spite deep with in him, though covered by words whether soft or stern, always sounding careful.

He told me that he could think of no other business to do but to import wrecked cars from Germany for refurbishment with Thomasz Marcin Pacocha; a car mechanic (and junior member of organized crime, unbeknownst to me)  that I met with Oskar (to his delight) when we were adjusting the Passat for Polish specs. When I tell the long version of this story, it is going to look even more strange that I went along with this having already been abused by this creep, Pacocha. And hew would basically torture me for six months of sadistic lies, ruses and deception, all the more sadistic for its being more a matter of what are you going to do about it than my not being able to see what he was doing once “the business” got in motion – getting enough money out of it to buy an apartment while simultaneously destroying the investment capacity that I had in the money from my father’s house.

I had incorrectly figured had I had incorrectly figured with Roman, that he was rational enough an actor to realize that he could make more money in the long run by playing it honest and not ruining me as a functional source of finance. I had figured that they could not be so cruel as to destroy this once in a life time money that I was so generously using to help them, that they would want to bolster their good reputation – not to be risked as I involved my cousins in the business as well, had reputable business people apprised of the project, even the Chief of police looking over the final car that we brought back from Germany.

No recourse that I took in the end would matter. In this post communist hellhole, a “good reputation” could be made with through narrow ethnocentrism deployed in elaborate sadism against an outsider who  has the nerve to have a little money and be happy. 

This had turned out to be a protracted from of the prisoner’s dilemma as described by Bowery, on a social group scale, deploying ugly Roman in the crucial role as as the hypocrite liaison to me, the outsider to be “taught a lesson” in the evil of racism and money by facilitating Mika, yes, “do you known wHat?” Mika in taking the ten, leaving me with zero and having a baby with Pachocha.

I risked the long digression into a story that is nevertheless only a fraction of a long story that I need to tell another day because it fits here as a story that I’d hint at in the Amherst  trance, placating those critical of me by trance’s end, notably the German 5 and the lawyer who instigated the trance to begin with, that I’d be punished more than enough for whatever transgression. As liberals, they could look upon this as a punishing lesson: Ugly Roman’s hypocritical betrayal for my sometimes superficial judgement and abuse of people for the way that they look and Pacocha’s sadistic thievery a punishment for my lack of better tact and sense of context in my unabashed racism.

I would tell them that I would get screwed over for having empathy for a guy that looked like a combination of Himmler and the creature from the black lagoon. That I would be tortured, the investment value of my inheritance exponentially ruined by the narrow, sadistic ethnocentrism of Pacocha, who indeed bore the same slit eyed countenance and fierce, predatory demeanor as the Brooklyn greaser Italian who said, “we don’t need no niggas around hee!”

However, for me this was not a lesson of racism to unlearn, but rather as test for my perseverance for more competent stewardship of ethnocentric praxis, as I had failed so utterly, shown in the narcissistic dupe delight in Mika’s face when she saw my pain and horror at the destruction she’d caused me, having done to me among the worst things (ruin inheritance) with among the worst excuses, “do you know wHat? you should be more tolerant” (to protect mudsharks from more direct accountability). Indeed, Pacocha and she were both narcissistic sociopaths, exhibiting a sense of superiority, dupe delight, contempt and lack of significant empathy. In fact, it was a pattern among the whole Pila community.

This was probably to be my biggest failure ever, as two narcissistic sociopaths had gotten together to give birth to a child, likely then to be a sociopath as well, birthed with the expense of the money from my father’s house. I would be terribly cucked by them (long story that needs more explanation). But they were not the big brains behind this; as unbeknownst to me, Pila was the place where the legacy, the last vestige and stronghold of the Polish version of the KGB remained in governmental power after the fall of communism.

But more than learning that framework remained behind the scenes, was the need to persevere in recognition that a Jewish hand lurked there, pulling strings, with a keen sense of psychology, instructing how to manipulate, knowing who I needed and how to turn them against me, vilifying me for my very generosity, principled accountability and loyal patriotism to my Polish kin.

Coming back to the circumstance of the Amherst Al-Anon meeting trance, it would take at least a modicum of clairvoyance – seeing glimpses into the future – to hold people there, to instill the idea that there was a message for them in this trance episode; and it would be fraught with my sometimes good/sometimes bad singing of popular songs in order to invoke a common ground – so many prosaic tunes interspersed that it had to be among the most difficult aspect to endure, held captive as they were for three hours by the phenomenon – my serenades even more trying perhaps than the few more rounds of live masturbation that I wielded before them. Again, they were in trance and the undeniable psychic phenomenon kept them from walking or running out… indeed, I have to round out the cast of characters at this meeting, several of whom had never been to this meeting before; and clearly had meaning in relation to me and this trance.

I will go briefly though the cast of characters of this meeting, in order to cover those I’ve not discussed much if at all; there would be uncanny encounters with several of them in places throughout the Pioneer Valley (Amherst/North Hampton) area in weeks following the trace.

Before going into that, I will more or less list the songs that I broke into, trying to relegate this to no more than one or two paragraphs in order to spare you, my reader, the tedium to which I subject these Adult Children of Alcoholics. Yet it is necessary to list at least some of the songs as they would bear upon events that would be happening in the future and the fact that there was a hint if not outright foretelling of things to come.

Before that, let me discuss those items that would come through / or to me during the trance of the meeting, which would in fact, come to pass in the future; as it was of course that phenomena as much as anything which held the meeting attendees captive for three hours in this anything but typical 12 Step meeting. In order to keep the Al-Anon meeting attendees beholden to the trace experience, it was necessary that some extra sensory phenomenon, i.e., seeing some occurrences in the future come through me.

There is nothing that I can recall in terms of clairvoyance that was especially significant – that would have mattered a great deal historically speaking if people could have known about it and found a way to prevent it – but then, it would not even have been predictive if they prevented it, would it? Unless you subscribe to the possibility that different fates or different variants of future junctures are possible – which may be the case, and part of the lesson.

As vivid as any event that I foresaw in the trance was the death of Princess Diana. I said that her driver would be intoxicated and crash her car into the thirteenth pole of an underpass in greater Paris. Now, while I certainly did not wish the Princess harm, she was very far from a meaningful concern to me. Quite the contrary, I found the media hype and popular hoopla about her annoying but mostly easy to ignore except where she did tend to champion liberal causes – markedly A.I.D.S, the disease of stupid and horribly irresponsible people who, in their cause, require responsible people to pay vast sums to medicalize their stupid, reckless and horribly irresponsible behavior regarding the very important act of sex. To say that she was superficial would be going soft on Princess Diana. On the other hand, while you may look askance at Prince Charles, the counter point to the Princess of pop culture, for his taste in women, il tamponini did show a sense of judgment regarding a cause befitting his royal office when he critically surveyed the modern architecture – hideous, no better than Soviet in its reverse of human significance and ennoblement – blighting London and other U.K. cities.

Identification of the UNIBOMBER was a little more murky, in that I’m not sure if I knew his name, Ted Kaczynski, but I did say that he was a Polish genius hiding in a cabin off the grid in wilderness of western Montana. I proffered sympathetically that he was disgruntled with the manner in which technology and transportation were facilitating liberals in bringing people together at rapid pace, running roughshod over ancient ecologies, including human ecologies.

“Sant-An-ge-lo-Di-Lom-bardi”

Slowly and mechanically the head of archives  would struggle to read the town’s name of his own town! as I presented him a piece of paper looking for birth records from Sant Angelo Di Lombardi. This man’s retarded response to my inquiry made me realize instantaneously that my arduous trip to this adjacent Italian village would not likely offer much help in my search for family genealogical information that was destroyed with the earthquake of 1980 that destroyed my Italian family’s village and church archives along with it.

Before the Al-Anon group I would repeat his slow, retarded reading of “Sant-An-ge-lo-Di-Lom-bardi” and relate my frustration at the futility this would represent in my genealogy search. I would repeat the same reading and my somewhat insulting frustration before a group of Sicilians when I returned there in 1998, but that’s getting ahead of things. For the Al-Anon group I would add to the description of this futile inquiry my own pathetic struggle with a stomach ache and the mere act of breathing, as I gasped for the deasil fumed air on a rickety bus that made a slow, painful way through the winding roads between the villages of the Irpini mountains.  In the Al-Anon group, Kathryn, the Irish girl with pretty face and ungainly body would show sympathy for my pathetic pleas for air, as she would at my desperate worry aloud that I might never have children. She made this gesture of kind sympathy, after I had earlier inthe trance brutally mocked her body, saying that she had “elephantiasis” of the ass.

Perhaps it was my shame which caused me to rise up and assimilate a gun, shooting at the various members of the Al-Anon group. While these Americans would, of course, by their experience, not react at all to what was to them a silly gesture, I would tell them that I would repeat the same gesture of standing up suddenly and pretending to shoot at the group of Sicilians that I would meet in trance with in Catania when I returned there in 1998, and their reaction would be quite different based on their experience – every one of them would show fear at the suggestion of a gun being suddenly fired at them, knowing too well that its arbitrary happenstance could well happen to them. Whereas I had, like most Americans, been filled with naïve notions of mafia Cosa Nostra honor and defense of blood ties, I would learn rather that mafia was ruthlessly loyal primarily to money and power, that would kill twenty members of a family in once instance in a Sicilian village and the daughter and young nephew of a rival mafioso in revenge, while I was there in Catania.

I would emphasize for the Americans and for the Italians, that bad as the Mafia is, and it is bad, it mainly sacrifices old men for the dirty work of cultural administration of Mafia don-ship. And bad and breach of loyalty and honor that mafia killing was, it paled by comparison to the violence of niggers in America; with Catania registering 56 murders that year, primarily mafia on mafia, while nigger Baltimore registered 364, just about one for every day of the year. And the Sicilian man who told me about the family of twenty that had been wiped out by a mafia hit, was citing this as a reason why he’d rather live in Chicago – ! Thus it was debatable, Who was the naïve one, me with my romantic, Hollywood notion of mafia loyalty and honor to family, or him and his faith in America’s civic nationalism, its Jewish media’s depiction of the victimhood and benignness of niggers.

I would tell the Al-Anon group in the same words and tone scripted for Michael Corleone, “this is what is going to happen.”

And I would repeat the same words in my own godfather script when I met with two lady teachers from the psychology department in Palermo, “this bitch” (they would laugh) in the Catania meeting (really Aci Creale), who is “friends” with the mafia, same people who own “Club Banacher”, the dicotech that I fancy for being so cool, thinks that she is the godfather. I would take her down a notch and appoint a new don. Indeed, would not exactly acquit myself when the trance materialized, with my teary-eyed begging for forgiveness and this beautiful Sicilian woman who I insulted and accused of purporting to be the godfather, was not superficial at all. Indeed the Sicilians were much deeper than the Americans in the way that they took the trance phenomenon in stride. And this Sicilian beauty was not so superficial in her concern to protect her people and culture. The look of fear that came over her face, as if I was trying to pull a rib from her body as I told about thinking better and not prying a stone from the pathway leading to Tiberius’ Castle on Capri. She, displaying that she was not cynically all about money, happily complying to give a warm hug to Maria, the Sicilian lawyer who brought me to the meeting, who I abused mercilessly for being fat, while “the godmother” trumped the ploy of my shallow abuse that it was meant to provoke this act in gesture of sympathy and reunification of disparate fortunes in this human ecology. The group of Sicilians clapped as  they hugged. I cried as I told them how I loved them, my Italian kin, how I reviled their mischaracterization by pop culture as being mixed with black African. That they were the wonderwall of Europe against such.

Still not yet disabused of over sympathy for Jews and the futile hope that they would be reliable allies, I would describe for the Al-Anon group how I would demand that the mafia put the hit on Louis Farrakhan (in their depth, they would completely ignore this as stupid). I would recommend the Jewish philosopher Richard Bernstein, describing his man-boobs (“he has big tits”); and I would tearfully describe how I would go one night to a monument to Garibaldi in the park of Catania, and scribble out graffiti that said, “Auschwitz lives” and leave instead as votive offering at its base, a denim jacket of mine that said, “Nigger, out!” on the back.

Coming back to the Amherst trance before I foray more into subsequent happenings, after I, “the godfather” said, “this is what’s going to happen”, I outlaid a sequence of events in which: I would finally abandon hopes of matriculating in Amherst and go to a house owned by my father in my grandmother’s old Italian neighborhood of Newark. From there I would write and phone the U.Mass college paper staff, trying to get “White women for sale!” published. There in Newark, I would suffer the godfatherlike indignity of having my cheekbone bruised, having been pushed to the ground (while I awkwardly held pizza in my hand) by a nigger who was made indignant by a comment I’d made to an Italian girl with a nigger boy child on another day, apparently his “son” – “Are you a racist!? You will never look at my son again!”

I responded by putting him into a double bind. Sending a note to this pizzeria where he worked, that “you, nigger,  would never hit a White man again.” Thus, he would either humbly follow my orders or stupidly assert defiance and display contempt for laws against assault and risk the legalities. But with my badly bruised cheek one I would phone the U.Mass college paper from that very same street corner, and learn that they’d voted to Not publish my “White Women for Sale!” editorial. So, I would drive up to U.Mass. Amherst and plaster the “White Women For Sale!” document all over the campus. Whereupon the campus police would give me a second two year banishment from the campus. This all showing me that I could not well fight anti-White PC within America, and that I needed to take up a base of operations in my home turf of Europe.

In the Amherst Al-Anon meeting trance, I would sing the Alanis Morrissette song, “Ironic“, observing its line regarding the fate of one who died on a crashed plane flight that they’d planned their whole life for, while I would arbitrarily decide to not try to get the last remaining standby seat on a flight to Paris while on board the JFK airport shuttle bus between terminals, it’s being a flight to Paris that would take off just forty minutes before Flight 800, also to Paris from JFK, would take off. I would read about the flight 800 explosion in the newspapers the next morning upon my return to Newark.

Not to be deterred from my sense of fate, I would catch another flight more directly to Rome, from where I would follow my destiny back to Sicilian mafia club Banacher – its beauties needing my fatherhood, as they had the lowest birthrate in the world – only to find, this time, ironically, not many especially pretty women at club Banacher, but sure as the comic anti-climax of Hitchhikers’ Guide to The Galaxy would notice among the few remaining women straggling there by evening’s end, one with a silly, box shaped ass, much the same feature as Naomi, the trance interventionist, that I would mock in mean revenge for her heavy handed intervention. I broke into laughter as I commented on the irony of this Sicilian woman’s box shaped ass that fate would have me behold. And I was glad for the levity of comic relief, as the German 5 chuckled along with me.

Speaking of box-assed Naomi’s heavy handed intervention that forced self incrimination and was didactically expository of my weak points, there is a category of aspects to the trance which I am naturally not eager to discuss as it was self incriminating and illustrative of weak points of mine.

To my credit, I did have enough consciousness to push back against this, but I allowed some of it through in order to lend credence to the trance being a more public square event, prone to exposition and debate.

Hence, I allowed for what was to me a revolting message to come through, that she sends her regards and support to her friends here in Al-Anon working through their problems.

After doing a darn good imitation of Louis Farrakhan saying, “We yo fathers”, I pointed to myself, saying that I was “a demagogue like him; and it was the point of democracy to nip demagogues in the bud.”

I told the group that I would one day fight racism (which was a lie, I would never do anything so stupid).

I addressed Kim and Jim’s Jewish neighbor, the one with the nigger husband, saying how “we supported her and respected her prerogatives.”

But this one was really too much, much too false; and no sooner said than having me lash into a tirade against her.

Even so, because my protests to this self incrimination and betrayal of my true interests were both very angry and rather weak – for some reason, I was wheezing and coughing a lot – it did not tend to fully acquit myself of the self incrimination. But at least I did resist.

Occasionally I was stupid in silly and obvious ways. The German 5 had a good laugh as I fumbled with basic math and physics. The whole group laughed when I mistook the singer, Sade, as a woman who should be considered White, or White enough. I might have said before, that I am still embarrassed to think that I touted my aunt’s union with a Jewish man as having produced and gifted a “Jewish genius for the world.” I would see that I would retrieve my Italian grandfather’s World War I U.S. Army records, and pronounce that I am no longer a “W.O.P.” – “Wthout papers” having been a derogatory term for Italian Americans at one time; and it was as corny as it was anachronistic for me to invoke this petty warrant of my civic place and rights in America. And perhaps most pathetic was me sitting there and sadly crying in despair at what liberalism had done to our people; that I might never have children, that I might get fat when middle aged, that I might have this or that health problem. I would push my hair back to reveal my Richard Nixonesque male pattern baldness, which can make me look bad in a funny way, when I arrange my hair that way. Indeed, Jenna would raise her eyebrow in skepticism if she could find such a man attractive. But mostly the group was if anything more sympathetic than they should have been to my pathos; and did not seize heavily upon self incrimination. They could have skewered me – pulling the Freud on me of ‘unconscious wish” – when I confided that I had viewed interracial porn and not let me get to the point that I wanted to confront the competition, learn how not to be beaten by it and be done with it, no longer watch it.

There was a twenty something Anglo-Saxon guy, a graduate of political science studies and not the sort that seemed burdened with troubles of the Al-Anon kind. Indeed, he took everything in stride, with amazing calm and detachment. It’s one thing for women to put up with a guy jerking himself off before a group, in a way it takes even more grace for a man to not let it bother him. Knowing that he’d become disillusioned with the Republican party that he’d once worked for, I tried, rather pedantically to bring him around and gains support for Bob Dole, as I really hated Bill Clinton. And so I held up a coin, saying that the Republicans and Democrats were flip sides of the same liberal coin, turning on Lockeatine individual rights to the detriment of our group patterns. But especially as both parties operated on the same basis, he should advocate Dole for the sake of Whites.  Now, I imagine that I did not teach him much and he let my pitch role off his back, as did the nation which would, unfortunately, go on ot elect Bill Clinton for a second term.

The scumbag pandered to women (liberalism over-empowers puerile females as it facilitates their incitement to genetic competition), repealed the Glass-Steagall Act and precipitated America's precipitous fall from the moment it was the most powerful nation ever. He added, "White's destiny to become a minority was a good thing." Despite the fact that my department was doing public relations for the Clintons and Gores, I tried to shame the poly-si major into action against him. Dole wouldn't have saved America, but he wasn't as disgusting as Clinton and I implored the group to vote for Dole; besides, Elizabeth was hotter than evil PC bitch Hillary.

I guess that I may as well continue rounding out the cast of characters, as it were, the people who were at this Al-anon trance in Amherst. As I said, Kim and her husband Jim were there; very unusual for Kim to bring her husband along to a meeting. In fact, I don’t remember him ever having been to a meeting before. He had laughed uproariously when I pushed back on the White female miscegenating trend by joking that “black women were the best tasting.” (in reality, yuck, can’t even imagine it). But I told him that in the future we would be attending a last minute re-election rally for Bill Clinton (who Jim liked) in Springfield, Mass. and while we watched the floundering piece of shit being introduced to the crowd various pop songs would be played, among them, “Macerina“, which would signal Bill Clinton’s inaugurating of increased puerile insolence in license for miscegenation.  When we attended the rally indeed and the song was played, Jim gave me an incredulous look.

It always strikes me as very strange and very wrong when I hear younger White folks speaking of the 1990’s as “the last good decade” or “not that bad yet.” On the contrary, PC had reached a crescendo and there was no internet, so platform for resistance at all, let alone to be de-platformed from.

True to their Christian faith, following its passive tolerance and liberal trajectory, though perhaps troubled by the concomitant cultural destruction, grateful for having encouraged Kim to have a child, in some sense needing my mutual support, perhaps wanting to assimilate some of my conservative talking points but more on balance to liberalize me in line with their Christian altruism, Jim and Kim would actually take me in to live with them when I had to move out of 19  Hobart. And that worked out amicably enough until one day after the trance they brought over their Jewish neighbor, the one with the Negro husband. Thinking that they were going somehow reconcile me to this and improve relations they were instead greeted by me doing a loud, profanity laced parody of Martin Luther King. Mortified, Jim would require me to leave by morning and that is when I would go to live in the North Ward of Newark for a while, where my father owned a couple houses.

Jenna, the very pretty French girl, a stated ideal of mine, who coincidentally was at this meeting that she never came to, would, as I said, fix on my eyes as she exited the meeting, agreeing to our union in another life time in exchange for my pledge for the continuance of her kind. However, I would forget that the deal was for another life time, and be prompted to somehow chase after her, making an irrational trip back to Amherst when I heard the Jenna 8675309 song on the radio. Of course I did not find Jenna at any meeting but Kim and Jim would be delighted to find me on the street near campus and take me in once again for a few days, believing that I would be transformed in accordance with a statement that I’d made in the trance, that “I would fight against racism” or something like that. They would find that wasn’t true, but they were impressed by the trance phenomenon enough, as anyone would be, to not dismiss me easily.

This was after I would somewhat boldly if not irrationally, follow a combination of Jim’s advice that I pursue life in Europe, as he diagnosed my aspirations as decidedly un-American, advice compounded by trance suggestion, that had me flee to Italy for six months from August 1995 to February 1996 and then even more irrationally by post hypnotic suggestion to be prompted go again to Italy (and then Poland for the first time) from July 1996 to October 1996. But those are stories for the for the next post. I have to finish up telling about this Amherst trance, its cast of characters, subsequent happenings and phenomenon in the Amherst area segueing into occurrences in Newark, N.J.

Living in Newark was sandwiched in-between my trips to Italy in 1996. As I said, I would make an irrational trip to Amherst singing Jenna, Jenna 8675… the whole while in pursuit of my fate, only to be happily greeted by Jim and Kim who’d be entertained by tales of my adventures. They would take me in for a few days after my second trip to Italy as well, when the return and post hypnotic suggestion had me arrive in Boston and then pass through Amherst. That was when we attended the Clinton last minute campaign rally in Springfield, Mass.

In making these swpl middle class rounds with Kim and Jim, we would come across two of the (Jewish) Amherst, trance attendees at “Whole Foods,” a massive upscale supermarket on Amherst’s outskirts. One was the homely, dirty blond haired Jewish who sort of liked me and sat to my right during the trance. I don’t remember what she said, but she greeted us and would have said something friendly but mildly suggestive of her appreciation for “diversity.”

Whereas, “coincidentally”, the Jewish incest victim was also there, and I could tell that she got on the check out line behind us, even though she was not finished her shopping, but was rather obediently (“you will be obedient to me”) following post hypnotic suggestion that she would stand behind me with head bowed in submission; acknowledging that she would like to suck my cock and bear my children, she was appreciative that I found her having enjoyed sucking her father’s cock more erotic than offensive; and if it sounds as if I got off on this sexual provocation a little, it’s because I did.

She was /is a cute lady, reminiscent of the “Adriana” character played by Talia Shire in “Rocky.” I spent the early part of the trance with a crush on her, telling her how I loved her until I followed it with a loud fart that brought uproarious laughter and ruptured any pretense of sincerity; following that, in fact, with a savage expression of the will to tear her up if she, fucking Jew, dared to try to impose niggers upon my people. Until then, however, I played a little cat an mouse with her, like Rocky, to the shy, pet shop attendee, “I always knew you was pretty”, behind her frumpy glasses and attire. Her head would peak up, like an involuntarily stimulated clitoris, I would say, with these more gentle remarks, as it would with those sexual remarks a bit more fresh, to remind her, that the godfather expects her to show respect for the Italian culture that her Ashkenazi genes passed through on their way to infiltrating, if not infecting Europe in their Rhineland base. Thus, she would peak attentively when I would say to her, in premonition:

"Seniorina, avera pantaloni nienta."

It means, “young miss, you are not wearing any underwear.” And in the trance, I would utter this provocative phrase in Italian, as I would experience it being said by a classically sexually aggressive Italian school boy to an Italian school girl (who laughed it off) a few meters from where this photo was taken in the park in Catania, Sicily, some weeks or months after the Amherst trance.

Oh, I almost forgot. At the same episode at the Whole Foods supermarket, the young, chicken-necked, Anglo woman, with short blond hair, who sat two chairs to my right during the trance, was there. She recognized me and talked worriedly about me with somebody that she was with. She had incurred my wrath during the trance in two different moments. One time laughing uproariously when I mentioned all the great achievements, cathedrals and so on that had been accomplished by the sublimating modestly sized White weenie. Another was the time when I set up Lucia, the Italian girl, then smacking her down for being such a dog, with everyone laughing, including chicken neck, that we should put a paper bag over her head, as I pointed to Lucia. I guess that I figured who the hell was she to be laughing so uproariously at other people’s physicality, when she had this receded chin, chicken neck. And I lambasted her brutally for it. 

I tried to save dignity a bit by stating that there were probably men who don’t mind it, or even find the frumpy look a bit kinky for its sexual unlikelihood. Fortunately perhaps, the lawyer guy who instigated the trance, stepped up and said that he liked this look, mitigating the cruelty. We were all relieved and then he asked what I thought of him. Betraying the call for tactful decency once again, I announced, “you’re no spring chicken!” which brought uproarious laughter once again. I cushioned the blow, however, by saying that just as I was a bargain basement Howard Hughes, he was a bargain basement Robert Redford. And in fairness to chicken neck for perhaps laughing in a glass house, she had apparently fallen deeply into the trance. My singing “What if god was one of us? Yeah, yeah, yeah!” brought her to an expression of euphoric revelation, and this was not even one of the songs that I was singing before it came out; it was quite commonly played all over popular radio and T.V. Still, while I am loath to place too much interpretation on the trance, even refused to join the others in proclaiming this an expression of god in any conventional sense beyond patterns, this song did seem to be central in the suggestion that we could get  a profound god message through ordinary slobs like me.

And speaking of sappy popular songs that were on the radio at the time, I would altercast this to soothe the German 5 after having roughed her up for her physicality;

But as with all aspects of the trance’s deep ambiguity, the German 5 was nor merely placated by the soft music or the potential held out for a future world where it might be legitimate fore her to suck her father’s cock. I was able to see another vision into the future, of a man, more like a boy, that I would come into circumstance with, who looked like the Beatles first drummer, Pete Best (handsome but needing replacement by the better drummer, Ringo Star). This would be an Italian, quite literally, who came over to work in America and would be working on a house that my father owned in Newark, where I would stay after leaving Amherst. I can’t honestly say that I knew this Pete Best look alike would be the German 5’s man in the next life, but she seemed more than satisfied with the deal when that’s what I promised her – she said, “perfect.” When I did meet this boy, we talked honestly about women and things, how America tends to wreck women and so on; he agreed, “you got that right. Italian women are not the same here.”

Still under the illusion that Jews were misunderstood and should be very powerful allies, I argued with him and ostensibly won for my verbiage, even if insufficient understanding; saying that blacks were the only real problem. He withdrew from argument, believing that he was not up to my level of knowledge yet. But before his withdrawal, he had said, “I don’t want nothing from Jews. You can’t trust them. And I don’t need their women! He added enthusiastically, “I like German women!” That I would experience this man that I’d seen in trance and that he would say these things, I can attest to, that he would go on to be the German 5’s man, I have no real idea.

A further note on this Italian guy and a stereotype that I freely admitted to the group, that Italians were particularly jealous of women (even where I was not interested in one of his paramours) and too quick to fight. “You thought that you could fool a Corleone?” I asked him, as he thought that I was messing with my friend Denise, the half Puerto Rican half Italian (realtor, whom my father employed to sell the house along with Anthony, whom he employed to paint it in preparation while I preferred to read “the Godfather” etc.) whom he was sleeping with in competition with a Muslim man whom Denise met in Sweden (yes).

Anthony (I think was the name of our Petr Best look alike) was put at ease by the machismic Italian culturism,  but nevertheless a rather pronounced case of Italian assertion, frantic that I was another pair of toes (“I counted another pair of toes”) as those he’d spotted through Denise’s blinds, protruding from out of her sheets a few nights before. While I brushed him aside as a cultural ally, his assertion landed him in jail during the very time that I knew him, as he stabbed a man “for acting like a jerkoff”, said something about his mother or something. Luckily for him, the guy lived through intensive care. Maybe that kind of loadstone was what he needed for humble appreciation of the German 5 and her calm intellect. And indeed, I wouldn’t say that she was less attractive than Denise.

Pete Best (third from the right) with the Beatles before being replaced by Ringo.

But I digress. Back to trance characters at Amherst. Just to wrap up the German 5, as I said, at the end of the long trance, she would converse with the lawyer who instigated the trance, obviously agreeing with him to back off and let me be on to my fate.

Returning to the cast of characters at the Al-Anon meeting, so to speak cast of characters, as there were some people at this meeting, which I regularly attended, who I’d never seen at this meeting before; thus lending a sense more than uncanny, but of synchronicity – meaningful “coincidence.” As I’d mention, Jenna, the beautiful French girl that I was enamored of, was never at this meeting before; I’d seen her at North Hampton meetings, bot not at this one. There were the two blacks that I’d mentioned, who left after I berated them in the early part of the meeting; never been to this meeting before (or any Al-Anon meeting that I’d ever been to); there was Kim’s husband Jim, who did not usually accompany Kim to meetings. And there was their Jewish lady neighbor, the one with the colored husband, who I’d never seen at this or any other meeting.  Finally, I had a vague sense that the ancient (((Harold Raush))), a therapist that I was seeing at the time, had a hand in orchestrating the trance; and had escorted the colored couple there; also gave word for Kim and Jim’s miscegenating Jewish neighbor to come.

Oh, I almost forgot in the way of my “didacticism” for the uncanny cast of characters; there was the turban headed, toga wearing Muslim woman who I might have seen once or twice at this meeting – if that; but she was the same one who gave me a sympathetic, very fearful  look when she sensed my sense of hopeless despair as I looked out the window in disillusionment to the distant clouds from the campus center meeting, a “feminist brown bag lunch”, where a pretty White girl was saying that White women needed to take initiative against the White male patriarchy and no longer look to black women for guidance and leadership.

An earthy crunchy granola type White girl with dread locks, gave me the same look of empathic fear at that brown bag lunch. I can’t remember if she was at the Al-Anon trance meeting or any other Al-anon meeting that I’d been to; I don’t think so, but maybe.

But the (White) Muslim woman was definitely there. And while I had already explored Christianity deeply enough to reject it and its universal Abrahamic god – a Jewish trick – and was thus prepared to reject her spearhead in this meeting, the suggestion that this was all an expression of the universal, Abrahamic god, about bringing us all together; I cannot say that I was articulate in my denunciation of Islam to her; anything but. Ok, there was the first war against Iraq. But Islam was an Israeli, oilman, business and economic problem, maybe, not a personal problem for me, certainly not interesting to me – right from the get go, with its sterile lack of organicism and human form in its aesthetics to its sour moan in call to prayer for a bunch of dopey seeming adherents, it held no interest to me; there was no personal reason to become articulate about it, even for the sake of criticism; I already had the sense that a new moral order could and should be forged for Whites/European peoples, including a new sense of the sacred and the profound significance of an option to commit to life-long monogamy.

Thus, while I might be embarrassed about the cliched and hackneyed insults I levied at “turban head” and her “gutter religion” (turning Farrakhan on his head), I am satisfied to have rejected the “knowing” laughter from the group, that it was a particularly understood Abrahamic god that spoke through this trance. I explicitly rejected its universalism for the sake of supporting people to defend their kinds against it. And this Muslim woman was indeed spearheading the attempt to assert the Abrahamic god, pushing back with aggressive gestures as I berated her and Islam in an otherwise not very intelligent way. Most of what I knew, or rather sensed of Islam came from discussion of “The Nation of Islam”, the radical black ideology spoken of by Malcom X, who said that its leader, “the honorable Elijah Muhamad  proclaimed that the black man would rule.” No thanks! Nor was I moved by his conversion to a more conventional Islam upon pilgrimage to Mecca; with its joining cause, black and White, coming together  with men of the bluest eyes. Again, no thanks! 

From time to time throughout the trance, I would mimic Farrakhan saying “we yo fathers.” And I’d be quick to reject his call for Whites to have respect as such, at least in secular terms of evolution, saying rather that indeed, we evolved from monkeys, differentiating some 35,000 years ago to become progressively more distinctly human ever since and we do not want to go back. I would run down the list of pejoratives that I included in the “White women for Sale!” posting: that they had something of an atavistic hegemony that needed to be disseminated against, as it had quantified and maxed-out masculinity, creating an aggressive, presumptuous, hyper assertive kind of people; who had more sex partners, younger, more babies (I observed that the population of Nigeria was tripling), typically outside of marriage, so single parent families and attendant social problems, such as poverty and violence; a the expense of Whites, even our most sublime and precious women now; whereas they had nothing to offer in the way of equal exchange; certainly not their bubble butted, shit colored, atavistically symmetrical, presumptuous females. She is is naked? I didn’t know that the animal was supposed to have clothes on. Not attracted. You disagree? You show me exceptions, who do have pretty features? Good. You can keep them, along with their concomitant, bestial culture (like being in a monkey cage).

Brutal. Put that together with the dozens of times I made defiant sure to say the word, “nigger!” and I made my point, that I wanted no part of them, wasn’t about to be guilt tripped about slavery, a disaster of hubris that not even my ancestors had anything to do with; nor was I about to let any stupid, universalizing, Abrahamic religion impose them upon me and any other of my people who had sense enough to want to separate from blacks; to go a different way, into a separate moral/political order.

I was somewhat more articulate and experienced of the J.Q. than the Islamic question at that time, but not very (I thought that Whites were more or less jealous of Jewish success and should similarly organize in their interests); saying obsequiously that “Israel has the right to exist” and “I want Farrakhan killed for threatening my Jewish friends. I’ll get the mafia to put a hit on him” (again, when I did talk to mafia, they ignored me). It would take me until decades later, with critical ebbs and flows in-between, before I was sufficiently aware and critical of Jewish and Muslim power and influence. In fact, growing up in days between World War II and the advent of internet, it was a criticism that one almost dared not think, let alone articulate aloud, stigmatized and blocked by a Jewish controlled media and void of support that might come through the internet. In a sense I was protecting myself given Jewish power and influence and buying myself time to become articulate of what was going on.

“Only their chin” I would say, with a deliberately silly oversimplification, noting the way some blacks jaw line extends far and gracefully from their neck, to give my White interlocutors a palpable guide as to where we might cultivate aesthetic improvement among our own to reduce the lure of black exotic difference (as opposed to chicken neck to my right, for example). Oh, but I quickly came up with some other features that would help us: one of my old pet peeves being a preference for big, elegant noses, dark hair and small breasts, high cheek bones and eyes far apart, at least some times, as opposed to the standard American ideal of beautiful, i.e., blond, small nose and big boobs, all of the time. I hastened to add that the former were classic features of the demographically under represented and would-be ecologically buffering Italians. Indeed, rectifying the neglected respect for the ecological buffering of continental Europeans to protect from outsiders taking advantage of northern liberal folly, was an original point for the first trance induction back in ’85 and the mission up here; “to these North Eastern Universities, where the liberals thought that they were so smart.”

Sophia Coppola isn't the best example of what I mean (a bit too Asiatic looking) but this photo by Kate Barry does capture some of the striking and dynamic qualities that I am talking about in contrast to the "all American beauty."

There were a couple of Italian Americans at the Amherst meeting, as I’ve addressed, not exactly for their beauty and grace, quite the opposite in both cases. In the case of one of these homely Italian American women I was straight out candid. Noting how she tortured everyone by talking seemingly to no end; every time she came to a short pause and you thought she was ready to pass for the next Al-Anon person to share, she would go on talking, and on and on. My loud candor in frustration over this brought laughter of recognition in shared truth from the group.

As ever trying to be conciliatory when I humiliate someone, I told her that next meeting she would be doing the same thing; come to what would be about her third false ending, in fact already having spoken too long, but at least this time stopping and passing to the next person to share before it got ridiculous. That happened. I also told her that I’d come upon her at another meeting (not “Over Eaters Anonymous”, though she claimed that to be her regular meeting), but some North Hampton meeting where I’d never been before and at meeting’s end, she say goodbye to me at me in Italian, “che vediamo”, in recognition of our Italian kinship as I had instructed her to acknowledge, and apparently to send me off to Italy, where I’d be going in a matter of weeks.

Speaking of that trip to Italy, which I had no plan on taking at that point in my life, it would provide another few instances of clear psychic clairvoyance, seeing into the future while here in this trance; and also in another trance prior which I’ve not mentioned – because you cannot detail everything; this post already being as protracted and long winded as the aforementioned Italian American woman.

But briefly, I would also break into spontaneous trance with the (German American Harvard graduate) psychologist that I sought to overcome Naomi’s intervention and to try to help me into graduate school myself. And while I will not detail that trance because it was relatively minor and personal (he supported me as I’d see myself masturbating in the Amherst church bathroom to build up my ego), I did see several of the things I’d see in the Amherst trance as well. Such as my watching a calm and even tempered speech given to a crowd of Italian ethnonationalists, surrounded by riot police who were not called for in a piazza in Venice. With him also, I fumbled to remember the name of the the politician made famous at the 1992 Democratic convention by saying “poor George (Bush). He can’t help it. He was born with a silver foot in his mouth!”

I proposed her name to be Millicent Fenwick, but she was actually Ann Richards. And with the same inability to remember her name in that predicted future encounter – by a narrow walking bridge over a canal in Venice – I would greet her enthusiastically as “hey! Silver foot in the mouth!” and Ann Richards would turn around with amusement, big smile on her face, “yes!” as we both moved on our way. No major psychic revelation to predict here, only that this was a predicted event, an occurrence seen, that would happen in the future. To underscore the relative trivia otherwise, I had voted for Bush, in the only U.S. Presidential election that I ever voted in; not so much because I liked Bush but because I hated Clinton, seeing him as pandering to women from the get-go.

I should render at least an additional side note to the trance I went into with the good psychologist (relatively good as a psychologist can be, in defense of his profession which I was by then more than critical of) whom I’d enlisted. Offhand, I do recall another instance of seeing into the future with him in that episode, which must have been in 1990 or 1991. I did a good job of maintaining dead-pan serious anger to leverage the humor of the fact that I would be staying in a hostel in Dusseldorf, Germany, must be 1998, and I would notice that one of the workers there, kitchen help/cleaning lady or something, was a Mulatto who had an uncanny resemblance to this German American psychologist of mine. I angrily chided my psychologist, “and if she were your daughter by a black woman, which she well looks like she could be, you would love her anyway (you son of a bitch implied)! Ever ready with disarming sense of humor, he agreed, “I sure would!” I might perhaps come back to this trance another time; but prefer to leave it for now, just  noting that there was this trance and some others, some already noted as more significant than others, that occurred a few times a year since the initial trance in 1985

Back to the the case of Lucia, the other Italian American to lend a smattering of the U.N. or cosmopolitanism to the Amherst meeting as it were, my treatment did not provide so straight forward and gentle and ending as I would for the long winded over eater, as I set up Lucia like a bobo doll…knowing that she bounced back upright only in preparation to be slugged down again… much the way the male characters in the T.V. Show “L.A. Law” would be used to vent feminist venom as bobo dolls, ever ready to receive more punishment.

The Corbin Bernsen character, “attorney Arnold Becker”(bobo doll for feminist hostility) actually having been provided script lines from my “Charmed Loop of Didactic Incitement”:

I believe that I paraphrase the Bernsen character to have said, “one may be forced to treat the incitement as not that bad at worse, if not a necessary lesson or even an inspiration thus justifying the abuse.”

A “Permanent Puerile Initiate”:

The instigator(s)/others can always treat the abuse as a “lesson.”…and one may be left with little choice but to treat the didactic incitement as an experience not that bad, at worst, if not a necessary lesson or even an inspiration which takes credit for the achievement, thereby justifying the abuse in this case also

The Corbin Bernsen character, attorney "Arnold Becker", one of L.A. Law's male bobo dolls for the venting of feminist spleens.

I must be honest enough to say that in this case I may be mistaken. That I merely had a vivid dream, in a beta mental state putting my words from the charmed loop of didactic incitement into the Bernsen character. However, with my department doing Public Relations for the Clinton’s and Gores; and my professor having just returned to U.Mass. after having spent a year as visiting professor of communications at U.C. Santa Barbara, it is possible that my work made its way to the screenwriters of the popular T.V. series. In addition, there were other clues to suggest that they were looking at me for script ideas – the wimp announcing his fidelity to his wife from his desk top while the entire office ignores him; the Italian boxer who is overcome with jealousy while his girlfriend goes on a sexual escapade in Atlantic City; while Arnold Becker rebuffs her, not wanting to be part of her incitement to sexual competition – but I won’t go into detail.

Back to the prosaic and homely Italian American, Lucia….whom I had made a bobo doll of my own; having reprimanded the group for laughing after I laughed, pointing to her and saying “what a dog!” .. then, “no, nobody should be abused for their appearance” …and bursting into laughter with the group once again – whap – as I laughed out, “put a paper bag over her head!”

The laugher only intensified when I ordered her to suck Bill the incestor’s dick. “I said suck his dick!” Uproarious laugher all around. Unfortunately, I did not pull off all of the interaction with Lucia with as much aplomb. Corny and rather pathetic, I said ot her tearfully, that “we had fun back in the Italian villages, didn’t we Lucia?” … I did a bit better in (somehow) ascertaining, intuiting by contextual probability that she had a big black, or partly black boyfriend. And Lucia did have an undeservedly confident demeanor which deserved to be brought down a notch. So I imitated her, “my name is Lucia, I’m an ugly nigger lover.” Though I ordered her to leave that son of a bitch! (her nigger boyfriend), I have a hunch that she might not listen to me, even though she did exhibit shame. Awkwardly, I chided her for liking big men, and said that we’ll provide her with really big men, big!, not like most Italians who were no longer good enough for her.

Despite some weak moments, she would be beholden to my command that she would be obedient to me, adherent to the profundity of my message and willing to acknowledge that sex, children and whatever other despotic requirement I would impose upon her would be obliged by her, demonstrated by submissively following my command to stay seated at the meeting’s end, alongside the virgin “rag doll” girl whom I’d spoken of earlier,  who sat next to her; to acknowledge the importance of loyalty to one’s (White) people, the possibility and serious treatment of and life long monogamy. That she would remain seated extra long, with her eyes sadly fixed on me to demonstrate her submission; while the rag doll girl , in her infinite wallflower shyness, would have her head down and then pop it up suddenly in a characteristic gesture of hers, to bring her head above the water of her shyness. This time not to talk, but rather to acknowledge her obedience to me, given the message she’d received, along with Lucia. In fact, these two girls stayed there, sitting in demonstrable submission, would be the last marked speech act of the trance, following Bill the incestor’s woman giving me the acknowledging smile she’d been ordered by me to do, and Jenna the French darling standing up moments before to walk out in slow deliberation, with her eyes fixed on mine to let me know that she was with me in the plan/concern.

Although those were the final speech acts of the trance, I still need to round out the “cast of characters” and a few other things in the trance; notably to list the songs, including most of the songs and artists I’ve not yet mentioned who featured in the trance; speculating a bit about the significance; and with the content of the trance captured well enough, I can move on to discuss a bit more the uncanny run-ins with people from the trance in and about town afterward, their being somehow prepared for the encounter; and finally this will allow me to conclude the Amherst chapter; to follow the trance adventures as they take me to other parts of America and Europe.

I have raked my brain to remember as best I can the full “cast of characters” from the Amherst 12-step ACOA meeting/protracted trance, which probably lasted about three hours duration. I count at least thirty one people who I remember definitely as having been there; three or four others who were regulars at this meeting but may not have been there on this particular night; and I may have forgotten about four to six others. But I remember thirty one distinct people definitely; they could act as witnesses to the meeting and its paranormal phenomenon, that is to say if I cared a great deal whether you believe me or not. There is very little margin for error in what I’ve written and, as I see it, if you choose not to believe me I don’t really give a fuck at this point; it’s your problem.

Let me round out the cast of characters (those in attendance) with the few that I have not mentioned or hardly talked about yet.

I’ll start with “forehead.” This woman was attractive in a mature, official way, high 6 or low 7 on a scale of 1-10. She would probably show 100% North-West European on an Ancestry DNA test.  Her demeanor, or posture as it were, of integrity and poised wherewithal requires some explanation as to why I would give her the demeaning tag, “forehead.”

It is because I needed some handle, any possible flaw that I could latch on to bring her down from her aloof confidence, perched, as she was, condescendingly looking down from her high horse of the liberal moral order. She had a somewhat longer than average forehead which, in truth, wasn’t really ugly or unbecoming, just a bit beyond standard range, enough to be a tiny bit awkward but only made slightly more respectable as a few faint lines began to cross it, while her dark blond or light brown hair fell straight to its sides. 

So, why speak to her derogatorily as “forehead” and why the intensity of anger that I directed at her? Because, although I was not yet fully articulate (and I knew that), I was sure that my basic complaints and general prescriptions were more than legitimate, they were profoundly warranted. But by contrast, this woman displayed the most surprise, upset and aversion, posturing as if she should do, in reaction to me, what I was saying/doing by this trance.

More sure than anybody that I was “wrong”, she was first to laugh in bodacious condescension when I invoked Immanuel Kant, his moral order – particularly she laughed, of course, when I said that just because something is popular does not mean it’s right. This dismissiveness of Kant meant to me that she took it for granted, how important it was for me (or would be for anyone else in the confusing morass of post modernity) when I found his moral order as stepping stone to making coherent sense of life. We don’t have to get into how Kant is a vehicle of liberalism also; he is more a vehicle out of the trap of the liberal tradition of Christianity. And this woman was the kind to not only take for granted Kant, but readily put it aside on the hubristic advice of philosophical insiders, not concerned that it represents and important step.

But that was just one piece of her liberal hubris, the condescending smiles, the worried look, concerned that more people might go my way, not take the “clear lesson that I was to be resisted.” And so she really made me mad. I don’t think that I changed her from the kind of asshole that would vote for Bill Clinton, but I certainly put a few speed mumps in her taken-for-granteds. “The Godfather” (me) required proof of it, in fact, that she would be obedient to the legitimacy and warrant of my paradigmatic conservatism.

I was able to remember the names of very few people, not even regular attendees of this meeting, nor her, as a semi-regular attendee. but no matter to me; her name was mud. After giving her the same rough treatment that I gave any woman there that I found half way attractive; telling her that she would be obedient to me in recognition of the legitimacy of what I’d been saying, that she would admit that she would enjoy sucking my cock, and that she would acknowledge this subsequently – in this case, after an ACOA meeting in North Hampton a few weeks later, wherein SHE would remember MY name and repeat it several times in correspondence with my being OK: “OK, my name, OK, my name, OK, my name, OK, my name.”

She remained nevertheless true to her pillar of moral condescension with the frenetic repetition of this command. It was supererogatory and in fact, irritating to be reminded that something had gone down that was disturbing to her; I say reminded, albeit faintly, as it is the way of ego and consciousness, apparently, to suppress the expository ambiguity of a trance subsequent to its occurrence, as one’s psyche apparently seeks to protect the ego by suppression of memory of the trance state. Anyway, I was not pricked to consciousness more than another nudge that something uncomfortable had happened – and how I made a point in the trance at how furious that I was regarding women’s complaint about being made “uncomfortable”, the high grumble of it, while such basic, low grumbles of White men were being bled dry and ignored – nudge enough to know that I’d forced my perspective to be looked upon as legitimate, but that it was still uncomfortably enough outside of the overwhelmingly liberal mainstream in this area and of the USA, for that matter, that I’d be nudged to pursue my destiny and identify in Europe.

Another guy who I mentioned only briefly was a young, tall (maybe 6-4 or 6-5), generic looking White guy, clean shaven with with short brown hair. I would not have guessed that he was gay, but that turned out to be the case. I’d known him from the North Amherst meeting, where my personality came to take charge a bit; and the fact of that came through one time when a middle aged German American guy felt comfortable to drift over the line of standard ALANON sharing, and described his work in a trade union (dealing with black seal gas/hot water boilers, I believe);  he described his dislike of having to work with a black guy who made him feel small; how he just wanted to call him a “nigger.” Then he added, “I just wanted to know how you guys felt about that.” After the meeting I shook his hand but of course I did not parlay this into anything.

Now, why do I mention this in the context of the gay guy? Because he was there as well and sort of greeted me in a tone of warning and disapproval. I now  imagine his opposition to my influence over the  group had more to do with a prior meeting, in which two gay guys (whom you also would not have guessed) came out to the group’ one very liberal guy who chaired that meeting said some sappy things about admiring their courage. I would have said something by contrast, either in that meeting or the next, to the effect that I didn’t think that it was something to be proud of’; that some people may have an inclination but it was proper for society to discourage it, especially for men; and I have a line of reasoning that I do not need to go into. So, that’s were the tall gay guy who happened into the Amherst trance meeting also, would have come to be somewhat at odds to me – somewhat.

Now, having been often enough mistaken as gay myself and learned the folly of trying too hard to prove my masculinity, I developed a fairly sophisticated position with regard to gays; one which nevertheless afforded latitude to mock them a bit, in display of my disapproval, especially of the men; without advocating utter condemnation and persecution. On this matter I was by this point more up to speed on a position that I could stand by than, say, on the J.Q. Speaking of which, the Jewish incest victim would gasp in despair as I would ask him with brazen candor, what he sees in another man’s asshole. I then made a ridiculous gesture of sucking a dick, which brought uproarious laughter from the rest of the group while the Jewish incest victim was practically in tears. I had not been fully attendant nor particularly concerned about how this might hurt some women, but that added another reason why it might not be something for society to endorse uncritically. Interestingly, however, as I began to unfurl my nuanced position with regard to gays, he relaxed a bit; and admitted that he could understand my position with regard to blacks. He added, however, what about Puerto Ricans?

That would be interesting also for the fact that the Jewish incest victim was manifestly upset by only one other topic besides gay men, and that was Puerto Ricans. The mere mention of the word would conjure images for  her, one can imagine, of a once fine Jewish neighborhood, now rife with graffiti, garbage, arson and other crime, welfare queens and despoiled Jewish girls. So, an unlikely anti-Puerto Rican position was found between them. 

While again, I was forced to take a somewhat more nuanced position. I told them that I only take a very hard line to Puerto Ricans and other so called “Hispanics” inasmuch as they are black. Puerto Ricans, for example, can be any combination of native American, black and White. Sometimes, basically, just one of those things. And just as with other so-called “Hispanics”, when they are White, I advocate them; when they are native American, I don’t see them as my in-group, but neither am I as averse tot hem as I am to blacks. Very few things make me more angry than this category of “Hispanic”, a language group, by which obnoxious Nordicists can toss some of the some of the most exquisite southern European women into this mixing category that leads to them getting sucked up into the black hole of miscegenation.

I’m reluctant to go into my spiel about homos, since I’ve had to give it many times; but since I was about as articulate then as I am now and it is an important matter in that it is not nearly as important as some people make it out to be, while it can occupy the supposedly hard line sort as a diversion from issues more important, far more worthy of angry vigilance from anyone concerned with conservatism, I’ll try to capture the spiel briefly again as I would have given it.

Biological nature, species, are about optimal balance, not maximal. You aren’t going to out-macho blacks and you shouldn’t try, what with their long pre evolved biopower having quantified and maxed out masculinity, creating a hyper assertive, presumptuous, aggressive people, sexually irresponsible, over predating and violently destructive in the day to day. This calls not for White men to be more masculine to assimilate African masculinity, but rather for a platform with a critical stance regarding the exponentially pandered to puerile female predilections within the disorder of modernity, where group classificatory bounds have been broken down for the disingenuous weaponization of Lockeatine civic individual rights over group patterns. It not only calls for criticism of puerile female predilection for the over-confident, aggressive, imperviously undaunted but also constraint thereupon in favor of a balance of male predilection for the cooperative, sensible and appreciation of refined, even symmetrical beauty, its semiotic of evolutionary advance and biological health – including sublimation of brute reproductive sexuality as opposed to optimizing intellectual sublimation.

While border control and provisions for the option of life long monogamy should be treated as a matter of utmost importance by those with authority over the social group from the top down in order to provide for individual and group autonomy and agency, some critical stance to enlist at least a modicum of choice in the matter, human agency, but also recognition that inclination for a small percentage of homosexuality probably has survival value from the ground up evolutionary standpoint as as an optimization – overtly masculine men and overly feminine women can be more than a drag, but an absolute hazard. Thus, a certain amount of “gender neutrality”  in service of optimization and normalization of human priority calls for both a modicum of tolerance and criticism that they remain discrete and accountable, in order to invoke their agency and responsibility to the group’s inherited social capital.

This combination of social and moral order structuring, accountability and reasonable lenience provides the incentive structure for loyalty to hold up to the universalizing, liberal incursions perpetuated by Abrahamics (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), while they propose themselves falsely to be the proponents of moral rectification.

Hence, it is not to say that there are not good reasons to be critical of homosexuality, especially male homosexuality…

First of all, as I’ve indicated, people who go beyond the gender neutral range into gender reversal, might be seen as depriving the population of representatives in the middle range of humanity’s balancing effects and compassion for concerns that are human while gender distinction not particularly relevant. But less speculative in regard to what they might deprive the general population by going beyond the somewhat gender neutral range is that, by not being called upon to take up the challenge and rigor of heterosexual relationships, they might not develop sufficient empathy with how difficult that heterosexual relationships can be; and thus deprive the general population of a critically corrective voice against those who can be real bullies in the realm of heterosexuality; again, very feminine females and very masculine men can go beyond being a drag, they can be an absolute detriment to the population.

The result of their not being called to account to take up that challenge of a monogamous heterosexual relationship can typically be an overly liberal view and overly liberal politics. Preferring not to be called to account, as it would tickle some agency over the matter, they might rather take the liberal, objectivist view on their “sexuality” (obnoxious word, ranks up there with “lover”) that they simply cannot help it; it is merely biologically caused; no further account or argument necessary; this liberal objectivist divorce from social responsibility  can then extend to having ridiculous numbers of sexual partners, irresponsibly promiscuous sex, that can spread disease into the general population; and in extending their liberal objectivist “they can’t help it” politics to the general population, will tend to be overly defensive of miscegenators – “they can’t help it”, “they’re in love”, “how could you be so hateful”, “you’re just jealous”, “it’s just natural” etc.

A lack of socially approved criticism of gays can also be a problem in that it defaults to the popular and the puerile to exercise corrective criticism and action, compelling young males, for example, to do stupid and destructive things to self and others in order to prove that they are not gay – ranging from excessive engagement in sports to the detriment of intellectual betterment, to outright unwarranted violence. Thus, in a well calibrated society, male homosexuality would be discouraged as the social default and presumed as the preference of males, who are defended as such, innocent until proven guilty; no need to overcompensate in order to prove your innocence, that you are not gay; after all, the normal male heterosexual position with regard to male homos is, well, less competition and more women for me! And, with that, a measure of tolerance for lesbianism, especially as it might be an experimental dabbling phase to appreciate one’s own prior to engaging in marriage; it would seem normal for a heterosexual male to prefer his fiancé having had a few lesbian flings in her past as opposed to having promiscuous heterosexually, let alone in miscegenation.

I hasten to add that there are gays who appreciate and advocate conservative politics; and they can be a real asset in that regard’ for example fighting against the tyranny of Muslim incursions; recognizing the need to get past that false conservatism, that tyrannizing universalism which, along with its Abrahamic cohorts, Judaism and Christianity, only calls for conservation of liberalism as opposed to judgment upon the ecological delimitation in the relative interests of  praxis, the group species, re-calibration of which is the post modern turn – proper, in White interests as well.

Rounding out the "cast of characters", i.e., those who were there, in the trance with me at the Twelve Step Adult Children of Alcoholics meeting in the First Church of Amherst, July 1995.

First, let me list, by names which, in almost all cases, are pseudonyms, tags that I’ve given to people to label them while protecting their anonymity. After that, I will talk about those few who I have not said much, if anything about. And then I will talk about the interesting phenomenon – which I have already gone into a bit with some of the people – of running into some of these people, as predicted, uncannily, in times after the trance.

I can count thirty one people – 31 – who I definitely remember being there and interacting with through the trance. There may have been at most a half a dozen more, who I don’t remember or, if they were there, were not there long, not for the full trance (which probably lasted about three hours in duration); there are a few people whom I’ll mention because I associate with them with trance because they were typical attendees of this meeting but I don’t recall them being there on this particular night.

1. There was Irene, whom I referred to as “mom” or “you”, famously forgetting her name (Irene) , while at the same time finding her far and away the most sexually alluring, and for good reason, in the eminently respectful allure of her mature poise in transcendence of any possible pejorative interpretation, smiling in countenance, overseeing the good, lesson giving effect of even the most stigmatic speech acts in the trance. I would see her three times following the trance; one time as foretold in a nearby café; in marked contrast to the calm happiness that she would show throughout the trance, amazingly unshaken by all that was happening; this time she would be worried, meeting to talk with a somewhat younger hipper woman from Al-Anon, it seems about implications of the trance, underscored by a lovely, healthy young blond woman walking in with a black baby in her arms; but then relief immediately coming to Irene’s face as she spotted baby Amelia in Kim’s arms, as I walked in with Kim and Jim. While we went ahead and attended to our coffee; she want ahead and attended to her coffee and friend. She would give me more special attention the next two times I would see her.
 
2. There was the pretty but mousy Jewish incest victim, who had the mistaken idea that the trance was largely about exercising her grievances; she would show demure respect, gesturing by putting her head down when I invoked the classics, Plato, Aristotle, Kant; gesture as if conducting affairs with her ever present knitting needles and a timely wry look at some perpetrator – Bill the incestor, Matt the homo; she would gasp, sort of expecting to join in her earnest commemoration as I sobbed aloud the name “Anne Frank” or the camp, “Auschwitz.” It wasn’t all il-humored: early on I was professing my “love” for her when I burst forth with a loud fart; everyone, including her, had to laugh at the ruptured sincerity; but there was still some good natured playing along, as I said, “seniorina avera pantalone niente” corresponding both to her, as she peeked her head up from her shyness, and a future vision (where this would be said, by a schoolboy to a school girl in a park in Catania);  as I recalled the humorous response of an old black woman to my high school friend’s prank phone calls, “you go to shit!” and the Jewish incest victim would sort of join with me as I went around the room interrogating people, sussing them out in the black woman’s voice, “you go to shit!” It was funny. As she was getting a bit uppity, I invoked a vision of her being covered in sperm. She poked her head up, as if to of the sperm. It was funny. 
 
Nevertheless, I would put down any push back from her, a bit more subtly and with a modicum of humor to begin: I would cite her head as acting involuntarily like a clitoris, which would embarrass her, deservedly so, for trying to capitalize on the tropism of interracial sex (as she  had when the blacks were there by my side) / I likened it to the involuntary response of orgasm in a rape victim; then more brutally I would put down any condescension or pushback that she gave me ..as if she expected me to be taking a subordinate role and a lesson on the the side of her Jewish people – no way: “Fucking Jew! etc. etc. etc.” And after a withering, absolutely brutal anti-Jewish diatribe, when everybody was worried by my over compensation – Bill’s woman signaling me for example – I would ask, calmly, did I prove that I am not too soft on Jews? Was I too hard on her? She gasped. I would be seeing her again at Bread and Circus, where she would show her obedience to me. And, as with all people that I brutalized, I tried to make it up to her; I saw a vision of a mild mannered Jewish man who I would work for in temp job in the future, taking down his printing press in Newark, New Jersey; absurdly, I would give him instructions to go to this Amherst Al-anon meeting to try to set him up with her. 
 
I got a charge out of telling her, “you will succumb”, deliberately using the word as it sounded like, “suck come” (suck sperm), and that she would “suck his cock off good and hard.” This made Sandy the Jew shake her head, but with amusement.
 
In fact, I would intersperse many little stories of various women there in the trance, always truncated and ending with “and then she sucks his cock.” …after a few repetitions leading to this ending, the group could not help but laugh along with me.  …it was alright, they were “intellectual cocksuckers” – more laughs.
 
3. There was Bill the handsome Anglo man from Greenfield who’d incested his daughter; and was my primary interlocutor as I saw it. I remain embarrassed about how I lambasted him for being a wonder bread W.A.SP., but I did make it clear in the end that I actually greatly admired English people and culture. I was primarily angry with them for not defending themselves better and obligating others to commit suicide along with them. However, my mockery of him in exposing Heidegger as a source to his latching on to the need for slowness in procedure was stupidly competitive in a puerile way; and I did not defend what I was saying in criticism of the valuation of confidence, which he mocked in turn, in an inarticulate way – intimating an obnoxiously sardonic puerile song in its regard; thought I might have articulated a worthy critique of confidence as over-valued.
 
4. Bill’s woman, who I found to be in a three way tie for second place in terms of most sexy (I made a big thing about her being part Polish, and its contributing to her attractiveness, which it probably did); she tried to encourage me to ease-off on Bill, to remind him of the beauty of his music and culture, to be forgiving of him and to make myself happy about America; to see that there were women here who like me and to be consoled by it.
 
5. There was Jenna the beautiful dark haired French girl, whom I was all about, the trance picking up on my mission to defend continental Europa from Nordicist hubris; I was at my own physical peak at the time, and felt that I had a chance when I riveted on this beauty in a North Hampton meeting and it was impossible to not conjecture the synchronicity of her appearance at this Amherst meeting where I’d neve seen her before, nor would ever again. 
 
6. There was the bespectacled, pretty but sullen German American with a great ass. She was rather passive in her depression – I had remembered her sad stories of her failed relationship and the threats that she received from her husband, to which she remarked, “kill me, none of this is worth it” – while I was glad to have brought her some cheer, even if involuntarily, provoking laughter in her with the topic of “rimming” (this would be accompanied by the song, don’t fear the rimmer). Despite her dormancy, bill’s woman was happy to sense that shew was one of the first to indicate that she did not like blacks; and that she would like to suck my dick. Though it was a bit muted by her depression, she was easily in that three way tie for second place in sexual attractiveness. I would run into her another time, after the trance episode.
 

7. and 8. There were my friends Kim and Jim Mead (the only people that I’ll name); I met Kim at the North Amherst meeting. She struggled psychologically with the repercussions of an alcoholic mother and her psychiatrist advised her not to have children. I encouraged her to have a child anyway, against doctors advice and this kindled a friendship with her and her husband as I came over with ice cream and pickles upon Jim’s telling me by phone that Kim was pregnant. Jim, a microwave engineer, would carry the load as Kim continued to struggle; and they invited me to live in their spare room when things started falling apart for me in Amherst; and it was in part for mutual support; as I was up to date in helping them to make sense of this post modern stuff/situation (that was, after all, how I was able to counter the psychiatrist); while they would struggle with the mandates of their Christian tradition as they understood it, to try to bring me around, tested as they might be to see my angle when things happened like O.J. Simpson murdering his White wife, their religion required that they try to bring me around from my “racist hate.” And culminated with an episode wherein they brought over their Jewish neighbor, the one with the nigger husband and kid, to try to reconcile with me or something; that incident marked the end of Amherst.

9. Speaking of this Jewish neighbor of Kim and Jim, she was mysteriously at the trance meeting, and I’d never seen her at this or any other meeting. I remember her laughing at my joking around, in saying that I would have liked to “pear” the ass of Brenda, a high school beauty. She continued laughing along as I pretended to enjoy some of Eddy Murphy’s fart humor. Then I lashed into her something fierce, nigger loving Jew. She was a bit stunned and reacted with sad pensiveness. While I would humor hypotonic suggestion that the over seers of the trance were supportive of her; I was sure to let he know – with repeated berating – that while I humored them, I was not going to accept her – at all.

"Succo di Banana"

…almost forgot. There was yet another instance of genuine psychic foretelling, even if a trivial matter. The Jewish neighbor laughed at this, as everyone would, in fact: I was soberly and sincerely describing the day to day life that I would encounter in Salerno, Italy; providing some prices that I would find on items in the supermarket, for example, “1,500 Lira for Succo di banana.” Everyone burst out in laughter, with me catching on slightly belatedly, having been matter of factly focused on “Succo” as the Italian word for juice – thus, “banana juice”, nothing particularly funny as I went through my psychic shopping list, or so I thought.

This was not the first time that the “succo di banana” vision came through (with attendant humor). It also occurred with my good German psychologist, same trance where I saw Ann – “silver foot in the mouth” –  Richards in Venice. And I’m pretty sure this vision happened in the graduate school trance as well.

10. I’ve said almost all I need to in regard to Matt, the tall, White, generic looking gay guy. His  asking “what about Puerto Ricans” was a good sign that his kind might be worked with. My acquaintance with some gays and lesbians subsequently would confirm that there are some who understand the need to discriminate against Jews, blacks and of course, Muslims. However, my acquaintance with some of them would also show a pattern of irresponsible promiscuity and liberalism regard sex. But if they can discreetly go to their bars and bear social criticism, are not also pedophiles, I’m prepared to believe that a very small percentage of the population has a near irresistible inclination to that (while I don’t believe that sex is a need, affection comes close to a need); and that it would not be extant if it did not have some survival value to group patterns.

11. The Islamic garbed White Muslim woman was there. I had known her from the feminist brown bag lunch, reacting to me in abject fear for my utter disillusion with the White female feminist who stated that their agenda against “White male patriarchy must transcend their reliance on black women to lead the way.” I had never seen this White woman at this or any other Al-Anon meeting and thus, her being there for this occasion strikes me as meaningful as in the case of Jenna; but as with the caseof Kim’s Jewish neighbor in particular, the “cohencidene” struck me as being in Jewish interests, as I was inarticulate as yet regarding the J.Q. and Islam, thus could be said to be “didactic” in my less that intelligently organized lambasting of them.

There was also a White man who converted to Islam apparently at the behest of an Iranian wife. I don’t think that he was at this particular meeting but I knew him as a regular to this and other Al-Anon meetings around; and he was in the vibe. He surprised me once by accosting me in a downtown Amherst café, grabbing me by lapels and demanding respect  for the convictions of him and his wife, having apparently sensed my skepticism. Surprised and not interested in Islam in any way (to me, it’s boring and sterile in its lack of human and organic imagery; that is why I was inarticulate of the religion and angles of criticism), I made him back off by assuring him that he’d misunderstood, that I was prepared to back off direct antagonism of his and his wife’s choice. I’m pretty sure that he was at the next Al-Anon meeting there at The First Church of Amherst and manifest an interesting phenomenon of catharsis that I’d observed in all others that I lambasted in trance. They emerged a calm, confident, renewed manifestation of their best self in essence.

Doofy giant woman: I won’t put number 12 before her name, as I am not sure that she was at the particular trance meeting, though she might have been. She was a regular at this meeting and I would have found a way to make her feel the nub of my anti-anti-racist politics, as she had the nerve to use her turn to talk one time to say “how worried that she was for those couples in interracial relationships.”… I talked to her briefly after a meeting subsequent to the trance, and the giant doofball – she must have been 6-2, maybe 6-3 – looked down on me with an air of advantage and subtle mockery which added to my dislike – I say dislike because this oaf, with her thick glasses, limp brown hair and clumsy body was too pathetic for contempt. Though perhaps I should reconsider, as this type may be quite dangerous.

12. Speaking of unbecomingly tall women (though not that tall, maybe 5-10), with doofy, graceless form, there was another Jewish woman at the meeting however impossible to look upon with anything like contempt; she was simply too friendly; and with that, most eager to treat the trance as a participatory, healing event: her curly black hair jiggling  as she would quickly raise her hand to volunteer her identity as Jewish and related to holocaust victims. A bit more on her friendly wish to treat this as a healing episode when I discuss my brief encounter with her among the uncanny encounters of those in the trance who I saw again in days following. 

13. Missy, whom I’d only briefly mentioned before. While I had said that there was a three way tie for second place in attractiveness, my assessment of “attractiveness” was based in my needs, never having been a cuck, I was not especially interested in this single mother despite the fact that a general vote may well have her voted the most attractive woman of the group; this Anglo lovely maybe garnering an “8.” If I had been more calculating, perhaps a sociopath…

Missy was a woman with whom I had contact prior to Al-Anon, as she was the secretary to the lesbian (unbeknownst to me) psychologist, Sally Freeman, who worked in The Berkshire clinic of U. Mass, Amherst. After I had learned that not only had Barnett Pearce, who I moved to Amherst to study with, left to take a teaching post in Chicago; but also his partner in C.M.M., whom I’d begun to talk to in lieu had gone on exchange for a year to U. Cal. Santa Barbara, Sally Freeman was the only remaining faculty on campus who used the C.M.M. theory that I was interested in studying; thus, all roads seemed to lead to Sally Freeman: She worked with C.M.M. theory; she was a psychologist, thus might help council me through a monumental transition from what was really an academically unprepared background to a rigorous, world formidable graduate school program; and finally, she was a feminist, familiar with this literature that I was investigating whereas, surprisingly, nobody else in the Communications Department was familiar with the feminist literature: hence, at one point, all roads seemed to lead to Sally Freeman; that is, until I tried talking to her twice and then tried to talk to her again… taking tangential note of her pretty secretary, Missy, of necessity, as I tried to make my way through this obstruction that I had thought was a road to an equifinal destination…

Staying with the Sally Freeman issue for a moment, whereas I had thought that she must be empathetic to the plight of White men in America, the overwhelming need for a platform in their defense against the torrents of disingenuous PC feminism and anti-racism unleashed against them – building to a crescendo after thirty plus years of saturation – and especially since I had nicely conciliatory ways of integrating feminist and traditional women’s concerns with White male interests, I was profoundly disillusioned with her response and her stone-walling.

To begin with, I set about discussing the article that Barnett had sent me, the one on “The Problematic Practices of Feminism;” co-authored by a student who synchronistically had the same name as my feminist bitch first girlfriend who laid my mind to waste and necessitated this whole inquiry of mine. While that article diagnosed a crucial dilemma that feminists could wield over even well meaning men, viz., that they could be “found guilty” of being either a “wimp” or a “pig” no matter what recourse they took, thus sorting a crippling dilemma not just for me, but I dare say for the multitude of decent men, Sally expressed sullenness over the article, saying that she didn’t like it, citing the article for “stereotyping” by using an example of a certain type of woman who wears masculine clothing, lumber jack shirts or business suits, or something like that – that she would obstruct what could be such important information for normal guys on the basis of such a trivial objection was just the beginning of my frustration with her.

Mind you, this was after she had initially been enthusiastic about me. But, I guess after she read some of what I was looking into and realized that I was not going to go along with the full feminist program, her range was a steady glum. with a blip of indignation, a dash of trivializing and scarcely helpful resignation, following a psychological “gotcha” trick.

She had at first mistook me for a pro-feminist, liberal anti-racist.

But I could not help but react angrily when she referred to this (1991 America) as a “patriarchy” and I lashed back that “I think that we live in a matriarchy!” Then she would pull a psychological trick that in a moment would have me reveal more of what I thought, but not just yet, that I thought that we live in a female, mulatto supremacist tyranny; with first by responding in earnest dismay, “what are you talking about?” … I angrily lashed back in equally dismayed earnest, “what are you talking about? what are you talking about? She got up out of her chair and began walking the other way from me; this somehow induced me to make a few counter arguments against my position (th trick), but when she turned to face me, I quickly regained form, and the look of wry “gotcha” on her face returned to disappointment.

She would say that she is glad that I am working with the other C.M.M. professor, that maybe there would be a woman in the department that I could relate to (which really annoyed me; it’s the old, ‘he’s only complaining because he isn’t getting laid” trivialization) and that “this department, with a qualitative approach, would never exclude someone with a minority opinion”, which totally outraged me; the idea that I was supposedly representing an obscure and fairly absurd opinion and that PC was not torturing and destroying White men in broad pattern.

I broke down, into trance, but not of the psychic kind, of the chthonic type, emerging with the slime of the deep, exactly as I had with Naomi, my first final grammar broken, I was relieved of responsibility, as I could not reason with this person and their backers, so fell into  primeval hysteria, laughing hysterically, “I can’t be treated like a human being, ha ha ha! The only thing that they care about are fucking niggers! ha ha ha! I’m not a tall, generic looking kraut, their only admissible alternative, ha! ha! ha! I would suppress this trance from consciousness; and would greet Sally with enthusiasm as I happened upon her in a local supermarket some days later, thinking that we understood each other on mutually supportive terms. She was in sad despair as she acknowledged my effervescent greeting, attending to her groceries at the checkout …the same check-out where months later, I would see a beautiful blond, touring stripper /some famous porno star (I think Victoria Paris), with a nigger boyfriend.

In weeks to come I would try several time to talk to Sally Freeman again, and would, of course, have to deal with her secretary, Missy, who was nice enough; more than pretty enough; but I was neither calculating, cunning or confident enough to pursue her, nor superficial enough to be placated as such, to pursue Missy, following the “he’s just angry because he can’t get laid angle.”

But indeed Missy would be a regular attendee of the Amherst First Church Al-Anon meeting; and she would send a strong “go signal” to me, saying that she “put out candles, hoping for the right man to come into her life”…and while I was appreciative that she noticed that I cut a handsome figure with my three piece custom suit; when it came to the trance meeting, I am afraid that I lambasted her; basically saying that she must be crazy thinking that I’d ever be a cuckold teaming up with a single mother. Finally, that I’d better not see her with a nigger; which I would do in a few weeks to come; more on that when I talk about the uncanny encounters after the trance.

14. Perhaps the next trance attendee that I should discuss more would be Sandy, the intimidatingly confident and intelligent Jewish woman, “age 37, in my prime …tell me the name of the step that we’re doing today”… too confident to be neurotic about not having memorized them after all this time in Al-Anon. She falls in line with Missy a bit by being respectful that I was up to date philosophically through my university connections; but beyond Missy, for the vanguard of her Jewish perspective, she would be appreciative that I was taking the post modern turn against the prejudice against prejudice; what with Farrakhan and Tony Martin in town; with miscegenating alpha Jewesses betraying their own; she, as much as the Jewish incest victim, believed that this trance was serving her interests; her arms folded, she didn’t mind my prodigious farts, treating the pheromone as of a warrior on her side.  

Like the other Jewish woman who raised her hand in the air of participation, Sandy raised her hand to acknowledge that she’d lost her grandparents in the holocaust. She was forgiving of my very crude analogy of her being like a Hannah Arendt type, starving in Auschwitz, sucking cock, like a baby sucking a bottle for dear life; but in her case, for the life of her people.

When I stood up in a growling, hesitant, slow creep, then sudden leap to mimic the style of White wild dogs ganging up in attack on the giant nigger beast, a gesture4 which horrified Missy …Sandy said, “perfect”, understanding the dangerous biopower of niggers and  appreciating the fact that something had to be done.

However, as I brutally – brutally – lambasted the Jewish incest victim after she laughed, thinking that I had submitted to black sexual dominance; after I brutally lambasted Kim and  Jim’s Jewish neighbor, the one with the nigger husband; and finally, after I ridiculed her face, slightly negroid lips, Barnabas (Babes Toyland) like, witch face, bulbous nigger ass, all tell tale Jewish features, wryly adding, “you thought you could fool a Corleone?” …she would begin to gather that neither I nor this trance was necessarily preoccupied with her interests. If Jews were going to bring niggers to bear against my people, then I’d be happy for them to die in Auschwitz all over again as far as I’m concerned. And I told her that I’d see her again, and she’d be forced to recognize that as not necessarily a problem in itself, even if it angrily disappointed her best hopes for this phenomenal occasion and me, as medium.

15. The next person that I should mention is Dave, the former heroine addict. His face heavily pock marked by acne, but a ruggedly handsome man, I would learn that he was half Italian and half Jewish. He had a slow, clumsy and mechanical way of talking in a thick, Boston accent; and while you learn through experience to be careful not to treat these kinds of signs as a clear indication of stupidity, I could not help but think he had no chance for Sandy, whom he said he was interested in when I asked him once, outside the meeting whom he might be interested in among the Al-Anon attendees. Dave, a jock, helped me compose the all-time White baseball team, at that time including Jews, as they “looked huWhite” to me still. Along with Sandy Kofax and Ryne Sandberg, we’d include “Tom Seavah” (Boston accent for Tom Seaver), but Hank Greenberg, great a hitter as he was, not as good as Lou Gehrig, sorry. To non-Americans, this baseball stuff may seem totally ridiculous, but for Americans, it is a means of bonding. Other than his saying that “mom Irene” should have a “bigga” black cock to placate her, hinting at Jewish uncaring, I experienced him as quaint and cooperative, even if overboard in that instance. Dave was the one who, early on in the trance, would respond in his Boston accent, that this was “weadah” (weirder) when I asked him, what was weirder, heroine or this trance state? Dave would be another that I’d encounter uncannily after the trance. 

16. Another woman there that I should mention in terms of being sympathetic to my racial politics and emotional circumstance was the German American who looked like tennis player Martina Navratilova’s sister. That is, having a sort of Asiatic eye, as some East Germans seem to do. This was terrible, as the poor girl liked me, and made plain in several instances; she was clearly frustrated as I came unglued in trance, struggling to implore me to keep myself under control so that I could matriculate into the graduate program and exercise social influence. I also knew her to be empathetic to me as she too had an alcoholic mother and knew how fucked up American women could be, and how this was an under criticized group.

Despite this empathy, liking me as a potential husband even, I was enormously cruel to her, shouting that she was ugly, repeatedly calling her “ass eyes” in contempt of her Asiatic eyes.

Though terrible, embarrassingly wrong of me, it was a bursting forth from my family’s bad means of trying to socialize me – through force, ridicule and obligation first of all, rather than conversation among a range of legitimacy.

First of all, in this cruelty, I was rebelling against the cruel obligation of my mother and sister. I hated the hatred of my mother and sister with regard to my having physical preferences among women, and the psychological/intellectual handicaps they would try to apply to me for doing so. If a woman was nice, but I rejected her because I did not find her attractive, this would arouse a shrill hatred in my sister with which she was very intimidating. This contributed much to a horrible intentional oscillation in me with regard to women, as I was overwrought with ambivalence for the mental persecution. I would finally secure a measure of innocence and stability in my motives with regard to partner selection by stating simplistically that I was willing to take my equal on 1 to 10 scales of emotional, intellectual and physical evaluation.

But it was not just my sister that made selectivity difficult to fathom. Both of my brothers mocked the idea of a qualitative, selective approach to women and sex (let alone sacralizing), inciting an irreverent, rather vulgar and profane, less discriminating attitude toward sex, which was also the overwhelming script which American society prescribed for men. I would embarrass myself many times as I would try to assimilate my brother’s vulgarity. There was no popular concept of the sacred. How many times had I embarrassed myself, or should I have been embarrassed, trying to assimilate my  brother’s sexual vulgarity because I thought it was the cool way to be. It wasn’t me and I had no natural feel as to when it was semi appropriate to play around with. It would take a life time, really, to flush this inauthenticity out of my system, the idea that it was unmanly to not want to fuck any half way respectable woman just because she has a vagina. That might have been an ok disposition for my brothers since they were not as handsome as I and thus had less chance for some of the finer beauties and responsibility for their stewardship. Having that vague sense of stewardship, however, I was made more than uncomfortable my my brother’s profane, celebrative and demotion of the discriminatory importance of sex in a society rife with niggers and wan overwhelming taboo, the greatest sin being to discriminant against them, White women often being the police enforcers of this rule against discrimination, “racism.” And in yearning for correction, I would embarrass myself in another way, by going through a Christian phase, this Jewish red caping of our moral order being the only recourse that I knew of; though I had, by the mid 1980’s already begun to float the idea of a need for a new secular moral order, one which would offer an option for life long monogamy and sex as sacrament. I would remain alone at sea with that one for a life time, going from being mocked on “L.A. Law” to being stupidly told by the asshole knowns as Guessedworker that you can’t start a religion in your garage” as if I was trying to start one in my garage, by myself, the way this mechanical idiot thinks everything has to be done, and as if a religion is not socially constructed, when of course, they all are.

In terms of quality of selection, another stabilizing factor, enabling more social grace would come by the simplistic device of “not my type.” Rejecting people can sometimes be harder than being rejected, but in saying “not my type”, you are not destroying people, not pronouncing yourself as making an objectively incontrovertible assessment either. Thus, in the end, I was able to mollify the situation somewhat by saying that she was like Martina Navratilova’s prettier sister – pretty, but not my type.

However, there was a yet deeper matter at work in the intense cruelty that I directed at this young woman. She was manifesting a tendency that I despised in girls/women, and quite rightly so; their attraction to cruelty and obnoxious aggression and assertion in men and their perpetuating of that and its consequences over society. Their selection of this kind of man together with the relatively vain, high grumbles on the hierarchy of motives, compared to the all but ignored low grumbles of males on the hierarchy of motives, made a misogynist of me through my teens and twenties, with a dirty, societally kept secret: that I had good reason to be a misogynist. It was a wonder that there were not more serial murderers of women; and no wonder that women do not complain more about the surprising existence of this phenomenon; as they know that they, as women in America, are getting away with murder in the context of their being pandered to from all sides, with weaponized “civil individual rights” destroying group barriers that would otherwise instantiate means of accountability to social capital.

I ridiculed her for liking bad men, like Tommy Fortunato, who my high school friend, Erik Stadtlander’s sister took up with to my disgust. And so the godfather told her what was going to happen. In this case I will go directly to the uncanny meeting in days after the trance.

As per her instructions from the godfather (me), we would happen to be walking on the sidewalk across from the church, coming toward each other; she would have the same smile on her face, showing that she liked me and expecting reciprocation. As usual, I would only be a bit puzzled in my response because, well, she was not my type. She would show me that she had learned not to try to pursue and obsequiously ingratiate the man who would be cruel to her and disposed to irresponsibly use women that he did not respect, by a gesture of her arms, crossing each other back and forth, saying “no, this is out.”

And then I would see her again at a bar in North Hampton, the same bar where two unseemly instances had occurred that I mentioned before. The first instance was when I was at this bar and the only other three customers there where a guy who I recognized as a sportscaster from the area T.V. station, Jewish, obviously, though a handsome man. He was seated at the small end of the bar, near the door. To my right, at the bar were two blond girls; one was a bit average but the other was a thoroughbred of the jock type – very pretty and healthy, showing it in her spandex, bright sneakers and a ball cap at her extreme ends. But if I had learned anything from my sister and other shrill feminists; hell, from traditional women applying their rigor, that the only way for a guy lacking in confidence as I was to prove his innocence, was to do his best to pretend that he didn’t notice a beautiful woman, let alone have the nerve to approach her. And so I did that, hands of, eyes to my beer. Then, of course, in walks nigger right up to them, puts his foot on the bar stoop right next to the pretty one, asserting his claim on her, while she greets him with beaming smiles and the other one does too, jumping with receptive delight.

They didn’t have a problem ignoring me though I quickly turned up the heat of my consternation; however the Jewish sportscaster did notice my display and showed worry. I quickly finished my beer and stormed out, making sure he’d hear a few choice words from me on my way out.

The other incident that occurred at this bar, or should I say, outside its front door, was one evening as I approached… I noticed a nice brunette, no movie star, but very nice, the kind I would have liked a hundred times to have as my woman, quite nice, pretty… being escorted toward the bar by this little, five foot nothing nigger, who had nothing discernable going for him other than dapper attire and the usual surfeit of nigger confidence  as he approached the bar, “ah choose this”, his White escort pleased, as if this nigger’s choice was something that should matter. Though I had been headed toward that bar as well, I decided not to go in; I did not need any altercations involving the police; this was not long after my hearing in the nearby North Hampton Courthouse for “Disorderly Person” outside The Pub in Amherst.

Anyway, a week or two after the trance, I went to this same bar and what did I see among the bar, not very crowded but not empty either and no niggers? There was Martina Navritoliva’s prettier German sister once again, following the Godfather’s directives. In a booth, smiling contently as she saw me walk in, she was with a handsome man, not tall, just as I told her to pursue.

I told her that she did not have sacrifice looks, that she could have a good, intelligent, handsome man, if she was willing to sacrifice a few inches of height; say somewhere from 5-6 to 5-9 – my height. I told her that it made me crazy that the classifieds, women looking or men, specified by vast majority that they were seeking men at least 5-10+. And I found this dismaying and unreasonable, as 5-9 was taller than 90% of the women in America, and yet, here I was being told that I was not tall enough. So, Martina’s prettier sister was rewarded with a good man – even if perhaps 5-7 – for her respect given the Godfather. And they sat there as centurions in this bar of infamy, a defying bulwark against the pattern of Mulatto supremacism launched against White men, with teeth, especially in this feminist town, with the all woman’s Smith College right across the street; and one in seven women there being a lesbian, bigger concentration of that kind than anywhere in The United States.

17. Forehead: is the ridiculous derogatory handle that I give to this woman, who I mentioned before. I’d known her from this Al-Anon meeting and ones in North Hampton – and I would do something with her there that I rarely tried with any other woman at an Al-Anon meeting. I would cop a hug from her, sensing that it would not be a problem for her outlook. Quick to smile, but presenting a middle class sophistication which poised confidence in the liberal system and the good will of people to democratically manage its correctivity.

The fact that I would come to call her “forehead” in the trance was in order to get a critical handle on any potential imperfections (and what were those? caps on her teeth?) an angle against her liberal hubris as it lent fuel to PC and its destruction. In truth, she was a good looking woman of some sort of North West European extraction, easily a “7”; and of course, better than the higher numbers in many ways, as slight deviations from the golden mean in aesthetics, say, in the example of a slightly longer then average forehead, will broker out the superficial, and let in those who have the good judgment to give more weight to process, function and competence over pure form. In a word, just enough imperfection of form to provide for just enough sublimation, to provide for just enough critical skepticism to instantiate a stalwart middle class liberalism against elite exploitation – under normal circumstances, that is; which these were no longer; liberalism had been weaponized to a poison against White men.

Thus, when she retained her same old confidence in the liberal system, smiled, laughed, subtly mocked in confidence my invocation of Kant’s refrain against popular philosophy and other conservative remedies that I might propose, I became infuriated with her, and berated her. I don’t believe that I shook her confidence enough to question the liberal system, but she did show marked concern, as if to say that I could be a problem and people like me, might be a problem. With a sense that I had done a workman’s share in chipping away at her liberal confidence that had turned to hubris and fallen into enemy hands, I instructed her that she would show the godfather respect the next time we saw each other, which she would do.

18. At this point I should probably mention the classic Anglo poly-sci graduate. As I’d mentioned, this guy represented the handsome breed which already seemed to be dwindling by this time,; where were the English?, The kind of people you see on American currency? I’d known him from this meeting and from the same North Hampton meeting where I’d encountered Forehead and Jenna. I’d always heard him as a level headed and thoughtful guy, certainly not some crazy liberal; and I tried to get him on my side; for example, as a poly sci major, with focus on politics, to take a stand against the liberalism of the Democrats and Clinton; to encourage people to vote for Dole (“he would give his right arm to be president”, yuck yuck); but thoughtful guy that h was, he could not join me in my enthusiastic call to take a stand for he Republicans. He explained that he had worked for he Republican party in Virginia, and walked away disillusioned, that they were just as corrupt as the Democrats. Condescendingly, I took a coin out of my pocket and said, “ah, yes, the Democrats and Republicans are flip sides of the same liberal coin, centering on individual civil rights to the destruction of cultural patterns.” I told him that I’d see him again another time, outside of the trance, which I would do at the North Hampton meeting. I believe that the he was more than thoughtful and levelheaded, but had some stuff, as I said, to float the turbulent waters of the trance, looking for its meaning beyond, even while I would be jerking off in front of the entire group. Of course that kind of thing would recede from my consciousness, while he would be a bit uncomfortable, understandably, the next time I’d see him, as foretold.

19. Next I should mention Hyatt again. A Jewish woman, not quite middle aged, she was almost good looking but for her eye lids, which sagged in a comical expression of worried urgency. She did have a deep, sexy voice and I got the impression that she liked me, having known her from this and another meeting in Amherst. However, if the racist ideas that she suspected of me, confirmed a thousand times over in this trance were not enough, if the fact that I abused her physical appearance was not enough, then the fact that I was not about to defend the genocidal liberalism of her stinking Jewish religion and people should have put the kibosh on any notion that there could be a bonding or, for that matter, reconciliation between us. Indeed, I wild tell her, true or not, that we knew each other from former lives in the middle east. And she would show respect for me, the godfather, the next time we meet, by talking to me after the meeting, and saying, “we’ve known each other from around.” In retrospect, it is only more surprising that mature, intelligent adults would so faithfully follow instructions; as she would, in fact, come up and say this rather odd thing to me following a subsequent meeting. I suppose there has to be a modicum of respect for the phenomenon of the trance, but it also seems fairly complimentary to me as something more than just the trance medium. As I would tell the people in trance, there is a god looking after me too.

20. Another Jewish woman whom I mentioned briefly as sitting to my right during the trance. I’d known her from this and the other Amherst meeting, same as with Hyatt (not North Amherst). Like Hyatt, I got a sense that she was interested in me, and sort of hoped to recruit me politically. However, this was even less flattering, as she was on the homely side, a 3 or 4; maybe not fat, but short, with a beaked, boyish face and long, frizzy, dirty blond hair that fooled nobody into thinking that she had feminine charm. With a soft, pedantic tone she spoke like “I’m mildly apologetic, but you should forgive me and I’ve enough confidence to instruct you as such.” She too would be disappointed, but hold up, I will give her that, to my lambast of her appearance and withering contempt which made it perfectly clear that I had no intention of endearing myself to Jews. I believe that she was with Chicken Neck at the upscale super market, “Bread and Circus”, same time and place where I d’ run into the Jewish incest victim in weeks following the trance.

21. Chicken Neck, who I mentioned, sat to my right as well, and earned her moniker for casting stones in a glass house. She was always first to laugh, doubling over when I mocked other people’s physicality, whether calling Lucia an ugly dog who needed a paper bag over her head or suggesting that the sublime cathedrals of Europe and America required the sublimation of guys with little White dicks. I was quick to point out that she had no chin, not even a double chin, just this trapezoid angle that went from her chest to her face. An Anglo with short blonde hair that didn’t help anything nor the turtle neck sweater that she’d wear to hide her chicken neck.

Still, my ridicule of her was harsh; and she was one of the most, if not the most willing and susceptible to the trance, reaching a perceptible ecstatic state as I sang, “what if god was one of us, just a slob like one of us, and yeah, yeah, god is good, and yeah, yeah, god is great, and yeah, yeah, yeah , yeah yeah….” I would not remark about her acting as if this was remarkable, but it was Not one of the songs that I was singing before anyone knew about it (there were a few like that, which I’ll go over again) but was rather a song that was abundant on the air waves of the time. Though not necessarily a bad thing, this suggests to me that she was more ready than others to suspend disbelief and go along in deep enmeshment with the trance.

Uncannily, I would see her that time at the Bread and Circus, and she’d be speaking worriedly about me upon spotting me, unfortunately, probably more worried that there were “racists” like me than that I had been persuasive that there is a clear problem with liberalism; though maybe she was not completely oblivious and saw the necessary connection, that there was a systemic problem of which I was symptomatic. The lawyer guy who instigated the whole trance in motion to begin with tried to come to her emotional rescue by saying that he liked her kind of neck…

22. The lawyer guy who precipitated the trance in me to begin with by remarking angrily about some racist thing that I said (I think that i used the “N” word), “I don’t think the the broke the law.” Upon which I farted loudly, everyone laughed and went into the trance with me.

A 40 something year old attorney from the area, he was fairly regular at this Al-Anon meeting. And in this particular trance meeting, offered more discourse with me than the others; mostly push back, but not hostile; it was clear that he had a constructive dialectic intent, even if he maintained disagreement.

Pushback:

One of the main points that I had hoped to get across in the trace was that with blacks having evolved some 250,000 thousand years prior to European differentiation that it was dangerous, terribly wrong and horrifically destructive for liberals to impose blacks upon Whites as if blacks are oppressed and discriminated against unjustly without reason. In defiance of all the “saming” of them, I maintained that they needed to be “othered” and that is why, in the trace, I may have used the “nigger” word over a hundred times.

Their long pre-evolution to White differentiation probably constituted a biological hegemony, I hypothesized. Lawyer guy pushed back on this late in the trance, saying that he was not sure that blacks had a biological hegemony. In retrospect, I would agree that hypothesis would have to be refined. Blacks would have a biological hegemony in certain ways and episodes, with hegemonic ramifications, particularly opportunistic following modernity’s disordering of rule structures.

Not only would they not be at a disadvantage, but at an advantage in significant ways, but they were at a dangerous, a predatory advantage that more than justifies discrimination, let alone the anti-discrimination of anti-racism. I would say,

Anti-racism is prejudice, it is not innocent, it is Cartesian prejudice against prejudice; with that, it prohibits necessary classificatory discriminations; and as such, is hurting and killing people.

While blacks might not have biological hegemony across the board, their long pre-evolution does give them “biopower”, which can be compounded to hegemony when precipitated by modernity’s disorder and weaponized by Jewry against Whites; Jewry, disingenuously imposing blacks on Whites, purporting that to discriminate against them is “racist and White supremacist.”

I would imitate the Klansman from “The Blues brothers” movie, saying through a loudspeaker, “the Jew is using the black, as muscle, against YOU, White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant.” and, with that tone of levity, I would add, that “it’s true.”

But coming back to the serious matter of biology and the necessity of discrimination against them, as opposed to this disingenuous imposition of blacks upon Whites….

By this point, it was clear that I wasn’t going to be able to be honest about these matters through the university. So, I was posting a dense, one page statement throughout campus and adjacent towns, “White Women For Sale!” I would also try to have it published in the  U. Mass. newspaper.

In addition to the Cartesian issue, I would add, the kind of selection that blacks had engaged in, had quantified and maxed-out masculinity, created an aggressive, presumptuous, hyper assertive kind of people, with ramifications of more sex partners, younger, single parent families, poverty and violence. This is expressed by their females as well; I go through a litany of their unbecoming characteristics; adding, “they do not have a grievance with us, we do not want their women.”

Lawyer guy did make a sad concession, however, that there was apparently a pattern of White women being inclined to go with black males.

But most of the pushback from him had more levity and comforting, traditional stereotyping to it.

On the matter of cultural exchange of partners, he said that he liked Sophia Loren. This was easy for me, as I don’t find Sophia Loren attractive; he “can have her”, I said. “I prefer mom” (Irene).

I went on charitably, “you like women like chinless chicken neck over here? Well, I like women with big noses, like the wicked witch of the west. She’s got a great ass too!” This brought laughs.

I got a little mean again, saying that I have never been jealous of a man who has dated a black woman. And that one way to hurt White women for their cruelty and betrayal was to emphasize enjoyment of cunnilingus on their sweet White rivals. Then, for sport, I added, “but black women are the best tasting anyway.” This brought laughter from some of the men (like Jim Mead), including Lawyer guy, who asked me to repeat what I said, which I did; which was followed by laughter again, by some of the men, anyway.

I could not keep up that charade, adding that in fact, “I would not let a nigger suck my dick.” Sandy, the confident Jewish woman, said, “perfect.”

Trying to push the idea that this might be an episode about healing of racism and the transcendent virtue of god and the liberal American way, Lawyer guy would act into the role of lawyer for that defense (of liberal anti racism) against my self incrimination in post hypnotic suggestion, when I was really deep under, saying how Naomi (my second hypnotherabpist) and Harold Raush send their support greetings to their friends down in Al-Anon, including Kim and Ji’s neighbor with the nigger husband) calling myself a “demagogue” and a “dilatant”, leading the group on by saying that I would fight racism in the end, which, of course, I would never be so stupid and irresponsible to do, but led some of the liberal to enmesh, as such, in order to keep them at bay. 

Thus, it was rather corny, but good natured and in keeping with this role play that he made the last remark before the trance episode came to an end, “will you be back?” i.e., me, “the devil”, asking me as if asking a medium in séance, or a Ouija Board. I answered, “yes, if I have to.” But I really did not like this interpretation being put upon the profound ambiguity of the trance, from which might be drawn a myriad of stories. And really, I was not “the devil”, not the bad guy at all;  quite the opposite, I was saving the lives of good people. I cried and said that I love you my you my White, European people. He asked, “and blacks?” I answered honestly, “not really, but as a separatist, not a supremacist, it was nobody’s business.”

But that was at the end of the evening. There was much more banter in between. While the German 5 was also offering pushback, some of it kindly to say to me, “there’s one thing that I don’t understand, you are always saying that you are not so good looking; but I think that you are very handsome.” Lawyer guy would play off of that, and ask, “what do you think of me?” I would answer a bit too honestly by saying, “you’re no spring chicken.” This brought uproarious laughter.

I then made it up to him with a conciliatory, “you are a bargain basement Robert Redford, while I am a bargain basement, Howard Hughes.”

I played with the group a bit by asking in an accusatory way, “you don’t like David Duke?” (He’d not long ago come into the news by running for Governor of Louisiana), as if maybe they should; while I certainly had sympathy for Duke’s wish to separate from blacks, I honestly did not like his Klan angle with residual Nazism, Christianity, prejudice against Catholics, i.e., including southern and Eastern Europeans, along with other right wing stuff and general seediness. True to his dialectical interlocutor form, defender of democratic heterogeneity of voice, Lawyer guy said that he “likes David Duke.” I berated him for that, still taking the angle that pandering to Jews might pay off with their acting more fairly with regard to Whites or better, that Whites might learn to take a less reactionary stance and look after themselves better – with better, up to date philosophy. “Like your philosophy”, Lawyer guy would kindly say to me. I was a bit embarrassed by that; but I can say that my philosophy is well aimed and considered, and in good health.

There was one more bit of humor between us. He asked if it was necessary to be so pessimistic. I told him in truth that I am not pessimistic. I asked, “when black ants fight red ants, who wins? The red ants win, of course, and I have 1.1 billion red army ants (Chinese) on my side.” This brought uproarious laughter from everyone, including Lawyer guy.

Finally he asked, if there was anything that he could do for me as lawyer of the area? I asked, well, was it not felony assault for the nigger to punch me, even if I did call him a “nigger.” He answered that it was not necessarily a felony, but it was assault and it was illegal. He said that he would talk to the people at “The Pub” for me. While Lawyer guy would not be one of the people I would see uncannily in days following the trance, I did see the giant nigger bouncer who had punched me in the face on the streets in downtown Amherst. ….looking sheepish, chastened with the idea that he’d better not antagonize me any more, that he is not free to hit people and he had already crossed the line once, broken the law.

As I said, after the trance was over, when everyone was standing up and preparing to leave, Lawyer guy had a little confab with the German 5, who had been sitting next to him. he being a local attorney and she being a student at the prestigious Smith College, they both carried some clout. However, it seems that through the trance I had demonstrated that I was no immanent threat. I had subtler concerns and aspirations than violence.  Singing the Nirvana lyrics that “I swear that I don’t have a gun, no I don’t have a gun.” probably helped, in addition to my visions well into the future, showing me to have done no harm, nothing illegal and having sublimated aims in mind. Thus, I could tell from their brief exchange that they were agreeing that I should be let to go on my way to my adventures in White separatism.

...."and she has a great ass." While the Wicked Witch of The West may not have been exactly my type, neither is her actress exactly ugly to me. I tend to like biggish noses. I hate guys who deride women with big noses and who are flat chested as "ugly." To me, a woman who gets a nose job and breast implants has ruined herself.
While my Lawyer friend can have Sophia Loren, no need to feel jealous about Jane Mansfield, as neither is she my type.
I remember whooping it up about how sexy I thought that Jennifer Gray was. But that was before she had her nose job and before I realized that the Jewish personality would never work for me.
While not dead-on for my type, Steffi Graf zeroes-in and hits the winner, largely for her personality indeed. While her husband, Andre Agassi, lost his hair and did not turn out to be Italian, as I was trying to promote to Jenna, he won the match in doubles exchange, and it's still good that she liked him; so, love love, especially compared to Agassi's first wife, Brooke Shields, who would lustfully "come on to Mike Tyson" in a film "just capturing the reality" of how White women like negroes. (Photo, John Locher AP)
Who is the scary one, the wtich or Broken Shields?

23. The German 5: I saddle her with the unbecoming tag, German 5 (according to the physical line on the aforementioned 1-10 criteria), because she was giving more liberal pushback than anyone else – frustrating of itself, but also frustrating as her pushback was based on guilt trips that had to do more with her background while there were nuances of marginalization and even outright victimization of my Polish and Italian kin that were being conveniently ignored by the liberal system; my groups were White enough when it came to being punished for so called White privilege, but not White enough for an insider track to any such privilege in America indeed.

I mean, I’d be railing about niggers and she would suggest to me to visit the holocaust museum in Washington D.C. She was going to tell me to be against Nazism? After the adherents of this epistemological blunder had wreaked so much destruction on my Polish people? After Italian Italians had gotten stupidly dragged into it, to their destruction? After Italian Americans suffered disproportionate American infantry losses, cannon fodder more disproportionate than any other American demographic? And for that matter, German Germans, German Americans, all Europeans and all White Americans suffered frrom it, not only through the war, but for its implications as it allowed pernicious liberals to stigmatize healthy ethnonationalism, brushing it with the same stroke as Nazism.

Unfortunately, I still had to work through some anger that I had toward the German perspective for the wars, for the hubris/guilt that their far greater numbers among American Whites took for granted and so I did unleash my anger at the krauts; and of course it wasn’t fair, this was a German American, had nothing to do with it, and in fairness to myself, I was quick to rebound to acknowledge that. Nevertheless, there was a German American perspective that took certain things for granted and needed to be jostled a bit, as it overlooked important facts from the perspectives of other Whites. And so I was hard on her, particularly given her liberal provocation. I would be damned if I was going to be punished for an ideology, Nazism, which I detested, and which, in fact, victimized my people.

As an interesting side note, my experience of Polish would put an end to any “blame the Germans” narrative that I might float; as they would look upon that as quaint and anachronistic for preponderant concern.

But feeling as if I had to produce theory as the impresario of this trance, I took some hackneyed, amateur theory out of my teenage dresser draw. I accused German women of being big, fat and ugly; and that that was a factor in their popular support of Hitler; i.e., they were jealous of other European women. That is not an angle that I would nurse today. Perhaps there is a slightly higher percentage of beauties among Slavic women. But German women age better and have their beauties as well. All of the European nations have their beauties and uglies – plenty of uglies; so that I would not care to throw stones in this glass house.

Nevertheless, my sister’s shrill hatred of my “looksism” did compel some overcompensation if I was to overcome her intimidation. Thus, if this Smith Student was going to visit the rigors of Darwinian liberalism upon me, well then. Let’s have a look at who is talking. She has her blond hair cut pretty short. But would growing it long help? Probably not much. She’s not really fat, but the problem is more a matter of graceless form. Is she ugly? Not really. But neither is she pretty.

She’s a “5” and perhaps this should be taken into account when considering her opinions, for or against. For example, for a White girl, she does seem to care an awful lot about blacks. Could they serve as a two edged sword of intimidation? That is, with the majority of black women being pretty undesirable, she might not be intimidated by them; while she might use black men to intimidate and punish White men for rejecting her.

I zeroed in on her. 

What else do you care about but niggers?! What else do you care about but niggers?!!!

She broke down sobbing uncontrollably; the accusation hitting home, all too true.

Bill the incestor’s women gave me a worried look, to say, “ease up, have pity.”

I moved to shift her concern.

“Do you have a brother?”

German 5: “Yes.”

“Is he popular with women? Does he have a girlfriend?”

German 5: “No.”

“How did I guess?”

“Well, I care about your brother; while your sisterhood is preoccupied with niggers. How about you, do you care about your brother, are you worried about him?”

German 5: “Yes.”

“How about the Polish victims of Nazi Germany?”

anina@Ojdadana
·
Hitler’s Obersalzberg Speech
22 August 1939 – a week before the German invasion of Poland, Adolf #Hitler addresses Wehrmacht commanders at his #Obersalzberg home. The speech details in particular the pending German invasion of #Poland and a planned extermination of Poles. #WW2

Execution of Poles by Nazis in Leszno, October, 1939

Warsaw Uprising of Poles against the Nazi occupiers, August 1944

German 5: “I feel terrible about what the Nazis did to Polish people.” 

“Do you know that Italians and Polish people had nothing to do with the enslavement of niggers in America?”

“I don’t want to be penalized for that shit either. Bringing those monkeys to America was the biggest mistake ever. I wouldn’t let them pick my cotton.”

…”but since they are here, may as well partake of my favorite sport: the Olympic hammer throw of nigger babies.” I stand up and do the twirl and toss motion of the hammer throw; which brings some laughs (not from German 5).

I’m getting mad now. I demand that she do her share in helping to separate from blacks. 

German 5 (tearfully): “I can’t do that”

I clap my hands over my head in a weird way (like the football referee signal for a “safety.” And I say, you will do more than your share (the statement and the gesture would be oddly repeated by another person in the future).

I tell her what I’d really like to happen for blacks and she says, threateningly, “I’ll tell them” (her classmates). She had been suggesting that I talk to women more. She brought looks of consternation from Kim and some other women when she said, “they’ll tell you that too” (letting the cat out of the bag that there was a pattern of betrayal from White women in that  regard) in response to my contention that not all niggers have big dicks and that there are plenty of heavy hung White guys if that’s what a woman feels that she has to have.

Her defiance intensified my anger; and with the stress of potential backlash from venting these emotions on her and others, I would fall deeper into trance, in unhinged waves of anger and with to compensate for my over correction.

I was furious that she would say that she was not sure that O.J. Simpson was guilty. I was sure that he was. Furthermore, that he should have been lynched just for having been with Nicole Brown. …later, as the trance subsided to a lighter state, Lawyer guy asked me again what I thought should happen to O.J. Simpson. Something about the comically organic way that I hung on the “L”  – “I think that he should have been LLLLynched just for having been with her”, brought laughs from everybody.

It’s true that most would have been laughing at my sentence so primitive and anachronistic as to be funny; but German 5 really took it much too for granted, as expressed by her saying, “you apparently know its wrong too, given that you laughed along with us.” My laughing was not an admission of absurdity at all. It was more a relief at being able to be simplistic about it.

It’s only tangentially related, but there is the classic example of a woman having had an orgasm when raped. Does that mean she wanted it? Of course not. Well there are many instances in the shit test and betrayal of women where men’s bodies and psyche’s are trying to gauge response; and it is a pernicious interpretation to say that they “wanted it” as if an unconscious, “Freudian wish.” I added, that is why I find the aspect of the Sermon on The Mount where Jesus says, “even if you think about committing adultery”, you’ve as much as done it, so egregious. Where the Freudian wish would freeze-frame a damning interpretation in your psyche, “an subconscious wish”, the truth of the psyche is more like an on going film reel, which allows you to move onto the next frame in order to gauge and reframe meaning and action in one’s authentic, human ecological systemic interests.

And so she enraged me; particularly in deeper parts of the trance. While it was not of good tact on my part to call O.J. Simpson ugly, neither was it good tact on her part to not lend wiggle room to rhetoric for the prosecution; to not suspend her liberal objectivist criteria for a moment, to to at least make is looks a criteria overriding his character and OBVIOUS crime.

O.J. Simpson would beat Nicole Brown for complaining, disturbing him while he was in the next room having sex with another woman. Now that's a nigger.

She really pissed me off. And you know what I think of HIV? It’s the stupid persons disease. What’s to know? Don’t conduct yourself like a pig and you won’t get it! AIDS is a beautiful disease. It kills the sexually irresponsible. I have more respect for people who abuse drugs than I do for people who abuse sex. But that is why women are always so anti-drug, isn’t i? It is a way for men to have fun and reward in pleasure that they cannot control. In fact, it’s a good test for a woman – if you need a condom, she’s not a good woman.

What about unwanted pregnancy? Well, I’m pro-choice without being self-righteous about it. I can understand how some people would think it’s unconscionable, but then, that’s what choice is about – – don’t have one if your against it. But as far as I’m concerned, anyone who is against choice across the  board is an asshole. Try telling me, motherfucker, that my daughter can’t have an abortion if pregnant by the result of rape.

You can’t value life so much as to make it unlivable. That’s why I believe in the death penalty as well. And by the way, it is more-so women who are anti abortion, involved in these “operation rescue activities” at the abortion clinics and so on…like with everything, women just force men out front to take responsibility, blame and punishment, while they exercise undue control and reward behind the scenes. 

At this point, to my surprise, German 5 starts sobbing. She is apparently against abortion across the board. I find this frustrating as the nuance and call to Not be self righteous about “pro-choice” aside. I do think “a woman’s choice “is an offensive term, as if a man’s wishes on the matter don’t matter; I can concede that the woman should have a little more say on balance; it also might be the case that people promoting adoption should be given a chance to make a pitch to the girl…  but after that? I stand up and start making these grinding motions, “grind up those babies.” ..I’m afraid, that in frustration with her, I suspended my call to not be self righteous about it, and she began sobbing more heavily. Bill the incestor’s woman gave me that look again, like “oh please ease up!” so I refrained, reiterating that I am not self righteous about it. I can understand how some people would think its horrible. And so I say, without self righteousness, if you are against abortion, don’t have one. I add that personally, I could live in a society where it is illegal. Moreover, that would force women to be more careful about sex partners, which they need to be anyway.

But I repeat something that Barnett told me. We are pragmatists because we have to be. And with that, I repeat, without being self righteous about it, that I am pro-choice for the same reason that I am for the death penalty: you can’t value life so much as to make it unlivable.

Unfortunately, I will repeat this bit which I already told above, which is that at this point I stood up, pulled my pants up by the waste until I made an extreme “wedgie” between my ass cheeks. I turned around and pinched my ass cheeks together to display the ridiculous, baby lump symmetrical formation that my ass made as such. Everyone, including German 5, were laughing uproariously. Then I turned around and said, “you see? I made you laugh and now you believe in the death penalty!” Which brought more uproarious laugher.

I also got some laughter unintentionally, terribly bungling some mathematical calculation – – don’t remember what it was about — it was embarrassing, but I defended with annoyance, that this sort of calculation does not need to be relegated to instantaneous computations in the head which cannot stand corrected. I take it for granted that these calculations can be corrected, that is why I do not worry too much about instantaneous perfection of mental calculation. And I am not necessarily wrong to think that way.

The other salient matter that I should not fail to reiterate with regard to the German 5 was her surprising and enthusiastic endorsement of the possibility of a society where it would be ok for girls like her to suck their father’s cocks. She enthusiastically shook her index finger in the air in two or three instances of the deep trance when the proposition came up, of this being a conciliatory gesture that she would accept for loyalty to our people. Of course any breeding by way of incest is out of the question; that’s understood. Without consent is also out of bounds.

I had suspected that jealousy might be lurking in the background for her when the topic of Bill and his daughter came up.

While I would hesitate to give a full fledge endorsement to flouting an ancient taboo in most cultures so far as I know, as it may have significantly negative psychological and sociological consequences, even if it does not produce offspring – I am here exercising the caution of paradigmatic conservatism, same as with drugs; I’m  a bit open but believe in the necessity to exercise caution when messing with ancient evolution; life is weird, thrilling and challenging enough in its standard offerings of pleasure. Hence, where incest is appealing, it should be relegated to fantasy for the most part. And as a taboo, it can be an effective counter to the interracial taboo. And personally, I would accept in a heart beat a woman who had engaged in incest over a woman who had miscegenated. In found the German 5 being into this, wanting it as a possibility in some future world, to be rather kinky. And if indeed consensual, and not producing offspring, maybe – maybe it is not the worst thing. There was the tacit acceptance, no objection from the group, and some furtive agreement; for instance, the rag doll raised her head suddenly, as she would to display interest or consent. And finally, again, with regard to my own attitude toward those who’ve been a part of incest, I’ll take that any day over miscegenation; though bearing scars that I would not wish upon anyone where it was involuntary, when it cam to Rene, Jenna, the Jewish incest victim and Bill’s daughter, not only did this not particularly bother me, for my sake, but I found it a bit erotic, frankly. The problem with Bill’s daughter was not incest, but her miscegenation; we’ll come back to her in a few.

German 5 also expressed bisexuality; but this was hardly a surprise given her enmeshment in Smith College, North Hampton, Mass., epicenter of American lesbianism. But again, I would propose dabbling, or diddling as it were, as far preferable to miscegenation. Love of one’s self, and one’s own kind is necessary, affection is practically a need, and this is an imperfect way of doing it. Maybe not the best, but not the worst; and a far more forgivable transgression than male homosexuality.

I did manage to connect with her sympathy to other kinds of European women in this way; surely, for example, she must have come across some nice, intelligent Italian women along the way? Surely you would not want to be without this kind of friend. Do yo know that Italy has the lowest birth rate in the world, while the population of Nigeria is tripling?

And I tried to connect with her femininity, sensitivity, and love for her northern kind, by designating the song (You’ve got, the most beautiful blue eyes, I’ve ever seen”) “I Love You, Always Forever” that was on the radio in those days, as “her song.”

Again, at the evening’s conclusion, when the trance was finally over, she stood up and had a confab with Lawyer guy, apparently agreeing with him that I had acquitted myself enough and should be allowed to pursue my adventures in Europe without any persecution from them.

Anyway, they were appraised by another vision of mine, that I would be punished more than enough (far more than was just, really; so much for the idea that Polish people necessarily have “the touch”) for whatever lack of tact and decorum, arrogance in flouting social norms in regard to race when coming to Poland. Oskar, Mika, Marcin, Lucy and Andrzej would all play insider roles in the protracted social version of prisoner’s dilemma – to “take the ten from me, and leave me with zero” – while a soft spoken computer nerd named Roman Sznajdamuhl would lure me into this trap, playing on my compassion for him as a potentially competent asset, who doubly deserved compassion for the hard deal he had as an ugly man; he would turn out to be a grandiose wall flower; who thought his computer ability translated to eminent philosophical ability; which in reality, was very poor (but don’t dare insult him, he was insider enough, the hypocrite) and his Judeo Christian punishment of my investment aspirations – even though I conceived to help him, include him in the win/win – were motivated in reality by egotism, spite and jealousy with the guise of moral lesson giving (including for my “racism”*). He was acting quite like the fable of the scorpion that stings the swan that would carry it across the river; why did you do that? Because that’s what bitter, spiteful STEM hypocrites (raised in the Judeo/Christian/Soviet mindset) do; and they can justify a myriad of abuses as “testing and lesson giving”; while a “wall flower” is not the right metaphor in this case, for this hypocrite, looking like a combination of Heinrich Himmler and The Creature from the Black Lagoon. I distinctly remember the Lawyer guy asking me to repeat, “what would this hypocrite look like?” I repeated, “The Creature From the Black Lagoon.”

* The Jewish overlords of this criminal enterprise against me would coach Roman to try to turn my thoughts on their head. I would say him blacks have evolved over a much longer period of time giving them a fundamental biopower head start over us; and their kind of selection has quantified and max-out out masculinity, creating an aggressive, presumptuous hyper assertive kind of people who have more sex partners and babies, sooner, and more social problems as a result, including violence. It’s not my opinion, it’s just a fact.  Roman would come back days later and say, black people are just making the reggae music, White people are the cancer (right out of Sontag’s book), it’s just a fact. etc. As if a stupid metaphor like White people being “cancer” could be just a fact. etc.

The grandiose, ever critically moralizing creature emerges from Pila, Poland's ironic, appropriately named, Lake Plotiki (which means "lake gossip" in Polish). As any East German living through the communist times would tell you, one of the Stassi's main weapons was gossip. As it turns out, Pila, where I came to safely invest with my cousins, was the former stronghold of the Polish version of the KGB, which came into local government with the fall of communism; and orchestrated local creatures and others emerging from the slime of lake gossip, to put the kibosh on my win/win investment plans with my cousins and others, to "build community." Communism had left much too jealous and cynical a mindset for my plans to work, rational though they were.

Jezioro Płotki (“Lake Gossip”), Pila, Poland.

Not far from Pila's Lake Plotiki (which means "gossip" in Polish) my cousin Ryzard showed me how to pick mushrooms, including "podgrzybek", as foretold.
The grandiose creature, er, wallflower, emerged from lake plotiki to come to the rescue, to white knight for the ugly, Lithuanian, Mulatto Supremacist blowjob machine that was Mika. With a shocking void of inhibition, that what she wanted must be good, and what she didn't want must be bad, backed by the social capital that her locally well respected mother provided her with; coupled with unhinged inhibition that her estranged Lithuanian father took with him to the corruption of his local Pila police job; she was a narcissist who knew how to play the Jewish orchestrated game, freely indulging in sex with organized criminals to conspire with them against me; lending her mother's social capital to the corruption passed through the local gossip; over-arched with the sense of moral "authority" (do you know wHat? you should be more tolerant!") that the (((American))) movies that she would steadily consume provided her with.

But I digress. That is to be fleshed out in future chapters. Back to the “cast of characters” in the Amherst trance… in that regard, I might note that the Muslim woman who I mentioned #11, took a defiant, third world type in your face, you got what you deserved posture, every time she would hear of these travails that I would be up against. That is why I lashed into her and her stupid religion quite so heavily, even though I was unprepared for articulate critique of Islam.

24. and 25. I might mention Kathleen and her boyfriend next. This one saddens me because I can’t remember offhand any apparent reason why I would have directed venom at Kathleen, and yet I did direct some scathing ridicule of her physicality and a few things about her Irish heritage to the extent I can recall. I can’t pin point what triggered me to attack her, but perhaps it was just because she was Irish, and sort of seemed to be normalizing what was happening in America by her graceful disposition. The thing about the Irish was similar as with the Germans; they were an over represented White perspective in America, second largest to the Germans; and not always the perspective that Whites needed. Like the Germans, they would not be quite so motivated to oppose association of White identity and nationalism with Hitler, not having been in the path of his wrath.

And so, despite a beautiful face in striking contrast to black hair, and completely amiable personality, I attacked her for the taken for grantedness of the Irish. If not German, its seemed every White person in America was Irish. Often both, half German half Irish. It can be boring and tedious, especially having their share of uglies, paunchy and nerdy White sorts compared to blacks and other exotic challenges in the interface of America’s demographics. 

And so I punished her as the example of a human ecological need not served completely by her kind. I cruelly attacked her for being big and, well, not pretty from the waist down. True enough, but did I have to say that she had “elephantiasis” from the waist down, of the ass?

I felt terrible about that almost immediately in the two or three times that I did that. She was easily the nicest, most forgiving person of the group and I told her so; but to make matters only worse, I showed my general negligence by not even being able to remember her name (Kathleen, was her name. I had some kind of mental block; just like I did with Irene, who I called either “you” or “mom”). Further instilling a sense of guilt was the fact of her boyfriend sitting next to her all the while, silent, stoic. A handsome young man, handsomer than me, I’d say, a beard and long straight blond hair; he sat in respectful attendance as if I had something to say; with an ocean of poise in reserve, he was un-phased, even by the insults to his girlfriend; not that he thought it was good, but his opinion of her was not about to be shaken by me;  none of this impulsive, emotional reaction and hair trigger will to fight that you’ll find perhaps more frequently in Italians. 

As foretold in this trance, as suggested through me, this woman would kindly tell me her name after a meeting at another church in Amherst a week or two later, though I’d heard her dozens of times in these meetings identify herself as her turn came to speak – “I’m Kathleen.”

Quite embarrassing to be shown such kind grace after having abused her for no fault of her own.

26. 27. and 28. I will talk about next. I mentioned 26 earlier as a black girl (U. Mass student) that I knew through the Jewish housemate of mine, Tony, and his girlfriend. Now, she had never been to this or any other 12 step meeting that I’d been to; however, early on in the onset of the trance, she was mysteriously brought in and sat down in a chair to my left next to Sandy. She was with another black, 27. a more mild mannered sort of black guy. There is no doubt and no mere imagining that they were there, as I will explain in a minute. Having a more unclear, dreamy quality about his presence, was the psychologist that I was seeing at the time, 28. Harold Raush, having been there in the chair next to the blacks, between them and Sandy to my left. I recall him being there only a few minutes, seemingly escorting the blacks in and then escorting them out when my vitriol became too brutal for them. It seems that Kim and Jim’s Jewish neighbor, the one married to the nigger, was also somehow brought to this meeting that she had never been to – say as a part of “an intervention” – by Dr. Raush. It is likely that the whole trance as least partly his orchestration.

But even with motive, the act of coordinating these people to come to this particular meeting is mysterious to me. OK, maybe Dr. Raush would tell Kim and Jim to tell their neighbor to come. But who would he notify to get the blacks to come? It’s possible to contact people who knew both them and myself; but quite circumspect. And even if you answer that question, who the hell knew that I had a crush on Jenna the French girl, whom I’d known from a Northampton meeting, but never came to this Amherst meeting? The presence of the Muslim woman was unusual too; although I believe that I saw her once or twice at this meeting, she was by no means a regular. My point being that the cast of characters, particularly in the case of the blacks, Kim and Jim’s Jewish neighbor (for that matter, Jim did not usually escort Kim to these meetings) and perhaps most unusual of all, Jenna, who had never been to this meeting, was almost as strange a phenomenon as the psychic, seeing into the future stuff.

Now, in my limited reading of Bateson’s colleague, Jay Haley, who was an enthusiast of Milton Erickson and his hypnosis techniques, I do recall his discussing cases where they had hypnotized people and directed them to encounter people by some strange phenomenon, for some reason: the case that I remember was of a queer person (woman or man, don’t remember) who was given a post hypnotic suggestion to go to a particular place where they would meet a fellow queer person and learn to accept their queerness (which the patient had been struggling with).

It would almost seem like some kind of phenomenon like that was at work, using post hypnotic suggestion to direct people to a meeting – in this case to address and reconcile cultural conflict to some extent – but it still does not explain very well Jenna’s being there. That’s almost as weird as the future seeing stuff. 

Anyway, to flesh-out and finish-up discussion of persons 26, 27 and 28…

"Are there niggers there?"

27 and 28 are the two black people somehow introduced early on to this Al-Anon meeting/trance; viz., as I began falling deeply into trance, delighted to describe visions of Poland that I would encounter, very unlike the gray, dreary Soviet block stereotype that we Americans had during the cold war; delightfully surprised to ask of what I saw – “Polish women are the most beautiful in the world?” and to see nothing but White people there; a circumstance hard for me and other Americans to believe; I asked, as if incredulous right along with them, “are there niggers there?” 

Laughter burst out mixed with embarrassment for me – I distinctly remember Martina’s face flushed red – and not just because this casual and sincere use of the “N” word was not done in Amherst, Massachusetts circa 1995, but because unbeknownst to me, seated directly to my left and privy to my psychic commentary were two blacks. I only became aware of their presence upon the laughter.

Not that I was embarrassed or ashamed. On the contrary. What were they doing here? What were they doing on this continent for that matter? My kind didn’t bring them here; that was one of the biggest disasters for White people ever. I would not let them pick my cotton. This country and White people profited from Slavery? I beg to differ. This would be a much richer country had slaves not been brought here. And I certainly don’t need their women: wouldn’t let a nigger suck my dick! The two blacks sat there in stunned silence. I perceived Harold Raush seated to their left. Then, in a wave of the trance ambiguity, buckling in the stress for my stigmatic position, perhaps feeling responsible as the “trance master of ceremonies” in guidance, to assimilate the old liberal stance of objectivity as such, and bribe support from the most powerful of liberals by tribute to their rigorous liberal adherence to biopower…. 

Thus I attempted a liberal position beyond my strength, above it all, chiding “mom” Irene, mocking her as “Betty Crocker” (WASP name of commercial American baking products; kind of like calling her “Wonder Bread” – commercial white bread, with minimal bread substance), people laughed. Then I offered her, asked her in away, how big a black cock it would take to satisfy her, for her to give us our freedom as Whites? At best, I was attempting to take on and root out some of the more daunting challenges of liberalism. I repeated a discussion from a book that I had browsed in a local store, a black woman talking about a “coming out day, where White women were coming on to the streets with their black boyfriends, while black women would look on in pretend disbelief; and the White women would give their reasons, some pseudo political, some ‘just honest, because black cock is the best cock in the world.” I went on, oh yes, and mom would have that big black cock – holding my hands apart, “that big enough Dave?” He says, “biggah” – and it would stretch her cunt in ways that she never could have dreamed of, hitting the bottom in the most profoundly satisfying way; she would have orgasm after orgasm, etc.

I looked to my left and the black girl was delighted by this. Then I let her have it.

How many babies are you going to have at everyone’s expense, monkey?! Mom Irene looked at her sternly, seeing to it that the giddy smile was wiped from her face. Do you think that I need you, that you can compare to Jenna, you goddamn monkey?! I backed off for a second and she regained her poise, being confident, good looking as black women go – as black women go – she raised her eyebrow in annoyed, critical disapproval, who was I to …. then wham! I let her have it again. Do you think that I need your fat lipped, Brillo haired, shit colored self? When a White woman is naked, that’s something special, that’s shocking, in a good way; but a black woman? I didn’t know that the monkey was supposed to have clothes on to begin with. She’s stunned at this point. Then I scream, “even your own ape men don’t want you , you goddamn shit-colored monkey!” Now she is stretched out, howling in pain, the black guy that she is with is trying to console her. How many babies are you going to have at everyone else’s expense, nigger?! She winced again; finally I yell about five times in rapid succession, “get the fuck out of here, nigger!!”

At that point, her boyfriend took her by the arm and led her out, apparently with Harold Raush escorting them both. Though frankly, my perception of Harold Raush was very vague.

As those three chairs to my left were vacated, I relaxed and fell deeper into trance. I developed an erection which I rubbed through my pants. ‘Mom” Irene, who was now in the chair closest to my left, kept a stare fixed on my erection. I pointed this out, her gaze, to everyone, “look at how and where her eyes are staring”, and I told her, “good.”

28. Harold Raush, who had just vacated, was an esteemed psychologist in the area (worked with some of the big names in the field, e.g., Carlos Sluzki); I took to his council when the chips were really down; I’d gotten thrown off campus; had nervous break downs in frustration over my Jewish professor’s ultimate liberalism, doing disgusting things like blowing bad breath in his face and calling him a fucking Jew! I hoped that Harold could help me negotiate an apology; and help me back onto my emotional feet so that I could perhaps pick up pursuit of a graduate career in Italy. (((He))) would tell me quite ambiguously, that I was very trusting.

Now, I’d never seen the black guy that she was with before, but as I said, the black girl (can’t remember her name, now) I’d known through Tony, my Anglo/Jew housemate and his girlfriend. I guess that he depicted me to her as sort of irreverent PC, rough sporting but a bit funny. She had a friendly, happy disposition toward me thus. But in truth, there is not much more to say about her. My opinion about blacks was well informed.

Since he’s come up, Tony the half Anglo/half Jew and John Day, another half Anglo/half Jew housemate (Anglo/Jew is a very self righteous combination) as well as the other Jews that I was experiencing bear remark on the general take-away from my experience of them. My conclusion is this, that there is definitely a biological difference and distinction of Jews. As a pattern they are indifferent or uncaring, where not outright antagonistic to Whites. What exceptions to the pattern that there might be, do not justify their inclusion; Whites who care about justice for themselves need autonomy from Jews, national/civic separation,  same as with any other non-White people.

Jh-h-oho hon –Dhey hey hey, J-Hon d0he-hey-hey, I mimicked his effeminate, elitist Exeter prep school way of speaking. Everyone laughedm but I didn’t find him funny at all; the way he incited me for being angry with his ex-girlfriend, a pretty half Italian, half Polish girl, white knighting for her against my mere displeasure at having learned that she maxed out his credit card and went to the projects to fuck niggers. Upon learning my assessment of blacks, he told me that “all I can think about are my ancestors dying in concentration camps; and I will do everything in my power to prevent that.” Not only had I said nothing about killing blacks, I said nothing at all about Jews.

Tony was another case of self righteous, malicious Jewish paranoia. When it became clear to him that I was not joking, that I was serious about my anti-political correctness, he became aggressive. He did attempt to placate me, saying angrily, “ok, it is a little that way”! (White women being inclined to be nigger lovers); as if I would be placated by that. I told him, “you know, AIDS is a beautiful disease; it kills people who abuse sex. AIDS education; what is to know? Don’t conduct yourself like a pig and you won’t get it. He said, “now you’re trying to piss me off. But you’re not serious.” Oh, I’m serious I told him; it is an absolute disgrace to spend the kind of money it takes to keep a monkey like Magic Johnson alive; who the fuck does he think that he is, “trying to accommodate as man women as possible.” He should die. Tony reacted in rage and fear, “what does it matter what you want?! I know women who think that he’s very handsome!”

The "very handsome" Magic Johnson, who contacted H.I.V. while "accommodating as many women as possible; (some of them were unbelievable!)"; shown here with his H.I.V. Positive ribbon. H.I.V. Positive, from which derives the meme, "the POZ", standing for cultural degeneracy.
E.T., bearing a striking resemblance to the "very handsome" Magic Johnson.

Even if he was handsome, he was exponentially out of line; and as it stands he is about as handsome as if a monkey had a baby with E.T. He looks like fucking E.T.!

I asked him, “Would you tell a goldfish to not discriminate against a piranha?”

He reacted in abject fear, knowing that I had a serious, legitimate argument, not based on any old fashioned right wing Christian stuff, or that sort of thing. He grabs me and pushes me a few times. I say to him, “try it Jew, try and hit me Jew!” I had never called anyone a Jew like that before, but that’s not the way he took it. He said, “oh, so now it comes out!” as if it was a revealing, something uncovered. But I told him truthfully, that I did not harbor strong ant-Semitic feelings; on the contrary, I had thought people were largely jealous and ought to organize in their interests the way that Jews did; furthermore, I find some of their women attractive; and finally, if you have intellectual pursuits, you were bound to come into contact with many Jews, as I have here; where I have discovered that Whites need separatism from Jews as well as blacks. Discovered it, not uncovered it. He told me that I could take my racism, or whatever he would say, take it to Italy, not here in The U.S. At this point, I gave him my own version of a post-hypnotic suggestion. I told him that the next time I saw him, he was going to tell me that “he is not going to let me get away with it!” (get away with what? was left ambiguous).

I wanted a nick, a little scar to remind me that this guy and his kind were not only an enemy of my species, but an enemy of human ecology more broadly. Indeed, I Googled him years later to find that he had become a partner in a high powered California law firm. Among his specialties, immigration and asylum law. In his profile he proudly cites among his notable cases having done pro-bono work to bring an African man (he provides a photo) to The U.S., getting him citizenship.

29., 30 and 31.

They are not perfectly representative of the concept, but persons 29, 30 and 31 tie-in the concept of “marginals” and their significance well enough; as these three were marginals, even by 12 step Al-Anon standards, despite the fact that this is a group for people who are threatened with marginalization if not marginalized already.

While the asshole known as “Guessedworker” cannot find it in the limited space of his unmerited gargantuan ego to acknowledge this or any of the many important and useful ideas that I’ve brought in service and defense of White interests, the significance of “marginals” to group homeostasis (i.e., group autonomy, which is, after all, what we’re after), remains an important requirement for Whites to understand properly as opposed to its red caping, which I hypothesize is largely a deception of Jewish academics and the liberal minions they empower.

Having developed the concept with prompting from Heidegger’s hermeneuticist student, Hans Georg Gadamer, the concept of marginals as they are supposed to function in the proper post modern sense (which I call “White Post Modernity”, in order to distinguish it from misrepresentations of post modern purpose), i.e., to reconstruct cultures/people as opposed to having them run over by the liberalism and Cartesian “pure” objectivity of modernity” or the brute ethnocentrism and anachronistic ignorance languishing in traditions was for them to be appreciated as a source of feedback; like centurions on the frontier, just inside the  border of the system, they know where the shoe pinches, can have a keen sense of where the system is prone to be breeched; and they can have a broad perspective on the system and its function.

Their feedback can be valuable thus in service of systemic homeostasis. There should be accountability to and from them thus in order to cooperate with the justice of their needs and also so that they remain loyal to the system, even if they are just barely within.

There is the distinction that I have diagnosed of the proper concept of marginals as they are supposed to function in the post modern  service of group praxis maintenance and reconstruction, i.e., that these are people who bear attention, account and inclusion as they are within the system, albeit barely in.

Now it is precisely because post modern concepts are conceived to facilitate the survival, reconstruction and homeostasis of peoples/group systems – including Whites – that Jews (and those who somehow gain by going along with their liberal destruction of gentiles) have misrepresented (successfully misrepresented, I might add) “post modernity” in they myriad of its resource; they have (((red caped)))its ideas, distorting them, rendering them antagonistic and repugnant to Whites, especially – who will then attack the very concepts that they need to survive systemically, as it is that disruption of White group homeostasis (“ethnocentrism”), as Professor MacDonald also observes, that their politics and biology, apparently, are about. 

Thus, they have taken the good and healthy post modern idea of marginals, their place in reconstruction of the system, e.g., the human ecology of Whites, their place as those just within the system facilitative of its maintenance, and they have (((red caped))) the concept of marginals, misrepresenting it to the public as those from without the system of Whites. Non-Whites, or those antagonistic to White homeostasis, as those who are “marginals”, who ought to be included; barely deceptive misrepresentation of a post modern concept, its flagrant, chutzpah!

Just to wrap up this concept of marginals and its red caping for a moment and bring it back to asshole, where I began, if you are purporting to be an expert on Heidegger, as GW does, and want to focus on the empirical end of the hermeneutic circle, as GW does with his “ontology project”, and are concerned with these concepts for the service of ethno nationalism (viz. of The English), then the idea of marginals that I discuss as generated from Heidegger’s hermeneutic disciple, Gadamer, should be respected and recognized as perfectly serviceable to that “ontology project.” The concept of its being “red caped” ought to be appreciated in service of his “ontology project” as well. But as a supremely arrogant and uneducated man, he prefers the coloring book of ‘the left’ that the Jews have handed him: if they say “that’s what marginals are” the, by golly, that’s what marginals are and he is going to get it right by the right reactionary altercast and chase of red capes that the Jews have given him. Instead of recognition, incorporation and deployment, he emits two kinds of gas: he gaslights the ideas, pretending they are not important as his ego can’t abide; and he emits the gas of his farts from his armchair, believing that their stench is some kind of wordless Za-Zen ambrosia for all. “Speak, oh toothless wonder!”

Coming back to our Al-Anon marginals the…

29. This homely Italian American woman also attended 12 step meetings for over-eaters anonymous. How do I know these things about her? Because you had to know a lot of things about her. She talked and talked interminably it seemed when it came her turn to talk. The group burst into laughter as I vented my frustration at her in trance, “oh my god! one just sits there wondering when she will finally shut up!” Perhaps her talkaholism is a symptom of her marginalization as a homely Italian American in an Anglo Saxon culture. Not sure, but she needed to be held to account for this selfishness. I told her, the next meeting, after three or four  apparent endings to her talk, false endings being part of what made her so frustrating, she would finally stop and pass to the next person to share before it became unbearable.

I told her than she would show that she had learned a little respect for the public space and etiquette; in a way, her Italian American place within, yet another time after, in a Northampton meeting, where she would give me a proper send off to my Italian adventures, having civil public concern and regard for another, passing on a turn in the public space as it were, saying to me, “che vediamo.”

30. Lucia was another Italian American who I’ve already talked about enough, so I will try not to be too redundant. With a prosaic, peasant like face and reddish brown hair bespeaking hybridization to match the cobblestones of an Italian piazza square, along with the flocks of unbecoming pigeons, one could see no reason for her confidence, but at once admired it a bit for exactly that reason. It seems that her body was ok, but she wasn’t anything that I was going to call another man to duel over. ..not in authentic reality; which makes my sniveling appeal to her for sympathy about “the fun we supposedly had back in the Italian villages” one of the more embarrassing things to think back on of the trance. While others may not have known how corny and phony this was, inauthentic, in a word, it goes to show that this primordial thrownness, as Heidegger calls it, also offers us recourse as humans to hermeneutic liberation from mere, arbitrary facticity; but that does not mean that our narrative direction will not bear correction in the non-Cartesian stasis of the hermeneutic circle, if we will not correct ourselves.

I was not really very sympathetic to Lucia nor was her confidence especially merited. She had gained unjustly from the increased one-up position of females, pandered to from all angles, building their ego’s sometimes to egomania, beyond all merit within the disorder of modernity (another of my good ideas, that GW is too stupid and jealous to acknowledge the significance of). And so I got the cybernetic call-back to balancing authenticity. She was more like a marginal gone rogue. I imitated her confident way of talking, saying, “my name is Lucia, I’m a nigger lover.” Not knowing yet that she had a big, partly black boyfriend. But of course.

Then she became my “Bobo Doll”, the tall, air-filled, soft plastic doll that bounds back to be hit yet again after every punch. I let up for a moment, feigning sympathy, suggesting that everyone should have sympathy for her, admire her confidence despite the fact that she is coming from a marginal perspective as an Italian American, not exactly part of the main stream, and despite the fact that she is not very beautiful. This all said sincerely and with sympathy. Then, suddenly burst forth with a spontaneous and sincere laugh, pointing at her, “what a dog!” Everyone laughed. It was impossible not to. Then as the MC and adult in the room, I brought just as sudden a corrective stop to the levity at he expense of another’s immutable characteristics. No, no, that was wrong. What would Kant say? I burst out in hysterical laugher again, “put a paper bag over her head!” Everyone laughed again, even louder. I’ll never forget Bill lurching away from Lucia in laughter, his woman laughing, and chicken neck, to my right doubling forward in hysteria. I already explained would punish her for that, and chicken neck would be wearing a turtle neck the next time that I saw her.

But coming back to Lucia, she was the poster girl for the bad girl who needed to be chastised, seated right next the virgin girl, 31.”rag doll”, who’s virtue needed confirmation in the sacred option of sex and life long monogamy as sacrament. And both of them would show obedience to me, as godfather, in respect of that sacred option at the end of the trance.

It came out, more or less by process of non-denial that Lucia had some kind of big, partly black boyfriend; and what a surprise! I told everyone. Just like my housemate, Venice. I don’t  have to go looking for this stuff and everyone is acting like I am imagining, exaggerating things.

Again I am afraid that my response to this was not one of my moments of better style. I was corny in the way that I chided her for going with big and black – big! – instead of Italians. Finishing by screaming a futile order for her to “leave that son of a bitch!” But at least she sat quietly and humbly and neither she nor anyone else tried to take advantage of the fact that I did not project a confident and commanding masculinity as I might have, staying more within myself. But on the contrary, she would be obedient through the full trance and pull back in an apologetic gesture when I would look at her; also showing sympathy when I would discuss problems that I’d have in the future.

31. Rag doll is the only other person that I can concretely remember as being there in the trance /12 step meeting that evening…

She represented a marginal lacking sufficient institutionalization and respect for her virtue – her virginity and respect for sex, the means by which people come into the world, hopefully in a careful way; a social respect for a naturally incentivizing reward to compel reproduction which should be shaped and harmonized with responsible political structuring, assuring as best as possible justice for those responsible as such, for the maintenance of the species social systemic function and accountable to inherited social capital, to which we all have indebtedness.

Whereas the philosphy of Europe might have respected and protected her virtue, it now makes a mockery of it (I cited the “L.A. Law” episode in which the poindexter wimp stands up on his desk to announce before the office that his wife has been his one and only while the rest of the office goes on talking among themselves, completely disinterested). Liberalism, Neo-Liberalism and Neo Feudalism, particularly as weaponized, will bear no such institutionalization outsized of Abrahamic religion, the sine qua non of its controlled opposition, our very moral order red caped.

That is not to say that these virtuous sorts do not owe accountability to the rigors of brute nature, which , by and large, liberals can hold up to for a while, even while they destroy the society around them. nature and those who bear its harsher rigors absent that social structuring quite so, particularly when they manifest that ability in their people’s interests are owed respect, that this sort of marginal not drag them down, become parasitic. Hence, in the arbitrary of the thrownnnes, I was brutal on this poor girl.

I particularly wanted Lucia, who sat right next to her, to see this; to see the chastening from another perspective, what sort of brutal rigors and destruction that her hubris was bringing to bear against the virtuous. Summoning an all but defunct word from my Christian fundamentalist phase, I defined the word “Wanton” for the group; this went back to the original trance, when the therapist saw the utility of this word that I dredged up in desperation from the only resource I had to fall back on, and here I was again following in post hypnotic suggestion, defining the word “Wanton” and its derogation of “the whore, drunk with the blood of the saints.”

Chastening of the Whore and Saint reprisal and conclusion of the cast of characters.

Back to the prosaic and homely Italian American, Lucia….whom I had made a bobo doll of my own; having reprimanded the group for laughing after I laughed, pointing to her and saying “what a dog!” .. then, “no, nobody should be abused for their appearance” …and bursting into laughter with the group once again – whap – as I laughed out, “put a paper bag over her head!”

The laugher only intensified when I ordered her to suck Bill the incestor’s dick. “I said suck his dick!” Uproarious laugher all around. Unfortunately, I did not pull off all of the interaction with Lucia with as much aplomb. Corny and rather pathetic, I said ot her tearfully, that “we had fun back in the Italian villages, didn’t we Lucia?” … I did a bit better in (somehow) ascertaining, intuiting by contextual probability that she had a big black, or partly black boyfriend. And Lucia did have an undeservedly confident demeanor which deserved to be brought down a notch. So I imitated her, “my name is Lucia, I’m an ugly nigger lover.” Though I ordered her to leave that son of a bitch! (her nigger boyfriend), I have a hunch that she might not listen to me, even though she did exhibit shame. Awkwardly, I chided her for liking big men, and said that we’ll provide her with really big men, big!, not like most Italians who were no longer good enough for her.

Despite some weak moments, she would be beholden to my command that she would be obedient to me, adherent to the profundity of my message – bracing under the implication of the “wanton” whore of Babylon, drunk with the blood of the Saints” – willing to acknowledge that sex, children and whatever other despotic requirement I would impose upon her would be obliged by her, demonstrated by submissively following my command to stay seated at the meeting’s end, alongside the virgin “rag doll” girl whom I’d spoken of earlier,  who sat next to her; to acknowledge the importance of loyalty to one’s (White) people, the possibility and serious treatment of and life long monogamy. That she would remain seated extra long, with her eyes sadly fixed on me to demonstrate her submission; while the rag doll girl, in her infinite wallflower shyness, would have her head down and then pop it up suddenly in a characteristic gesture of hers, to bring her head above the water of her shyness. This time not to talk, but rather to acknowledge her obedience to me, given the message she’d received, along with Lucia. In fact, these two girls stayed there, sitting in demonstrable submission, would be the last marked speech act of the trance, following Bill the incestor’s woman giving me the acknowledging smile she’d been ordered by me to do, and Jenna the French darling standing up moments before to walk out in slow deliberation, with her eyes fixed on mine to let me know that she was with me in the plan/concern.

Those were the final speech acts of the trance.

Standing up from their seats to the left of Lucia and Rag Doll, after the trance was over, there was the German 5 and the Lawyer guy’s brief talk together, apparently agreeing not to persecute me.

After this rounding out the “cast of characters”, I will list the songs, including most of the songs and artists I’ve not yet mentioned who featured in the trance; speculating a bit about the significance; and with the content of the trance captured well enough, I can move on to discuss a bit more the uncanny run-ins with people from the trance in and about town afterward, their being somehow prepared for the encounter; and finally this will allow me to conclude the Amherst chapter; to follow the promptings and provocations to trance adventures as they take me to other parts of America and Europe.

I have raked my brain to remember as best I can the full “cast of characters” from the Amherst 12-step ACOA meeting/protracted trance, which probably lasted about three hours duration. I count at least thirty one people who I remember definitely as having been there; three or four others who were regulars at this meeting but may not have been there on this particular night; and I may have forgotten about four to six others. But I remember thirty one distinct people definitely; they could act as witnesses to the meeting and its paranormal phenomenon, that is to say if I cared a great deal whether you believe me or not. There is very little margin for error in what I’ve written and, as I see it, if you choose not to believe me I don’t really give a fuck at this point; it’s your problem.

Reprisal from the onset of the trace…I had used the word “nigger”, the Lawyer guy remarked sternly, I don’t think he did anything illegal; but implied a warning.

I farted loudly. Everyone laughed and went into a trance with me.

In this moment, a girl from the other side of the room, long dark hair, nerdy, skinny but not of graceful form (as one could plainly see by the unbecoming Jack LaLanne era leotards that she wore) turned her face slowly toward me, signaling that I had hers and everyone’s attention; that we were free to get underway for something interesting. I would tag this girl for the duration with the name and song, “rag doll,” for her pathetic shyness and lack of robust form. Also, I suppose that care for such a wallflower belonged to the more traditionally sensitive, socially conservative times of the 1950’s.

Noting the requirements of this sort of person played into a message that I struggled to convey then as now, which is the proper understanding of post modernity as means to negotiate traditional and inherited forms and modernity, to help people past the downsides of tradition, it’s brute ethnocentric particularity and modernity’s impervious, universal roughshod over ways of life, including our inherited forms as European peoples.

I’m not sure if it was exactly then, but maybe, as I would sing the tune “Wonderwall” by Oasis several times throughout the trance, as sort of my theme song for the trance, and this was truly paranormal, as the song had not come out yet.

The song seemed to comment on my imperfect (to say the least) carrying off of the episode, while at the same time acknowledging that I had something, an important philosophical message and program, which could well save Europeans, our “Wonderwall.”

Wonderwall

Oasis
 
Today is gonna be the day
That they’re gonna throw it back to you
By now you should’ve somehow
Realized what you gotta do
I don’t believe that anybody
Feels the way I do about you now
Backbeat, the word is on the street
That the fire in your heart is out
I’m sure you’ve heard it all before
But you never really had a doubt
I don’t believe that anybody
Feels the way I do about you now
And all the roads we have to walk are winding
And all the lights that lead us there are blinding
There are many things that I
Would like to say to you but I don’t know how
Because maybe
You’re gonna be the one that saves me
And after all
You’re my wonderwall
Today was gonna be the day
But they’ll never throw it back to you
By now you should’ve somehow
Realized what you’re not to do
I don’t believe that anybody
Feels the way I do about you now
And all the roads that lead you there were winding
And all the lights that light the way are blinding
There are many things that I
Would like to say to you but I don’t know how
I said maybe
You’re gonna be the one that saves me
And after all
You’re my wonderwall
I said maybe (I said maybe)
You’re gonna be the one that saves me
And after all
You’re my wonderwall
I said maybe (I said maybe)
You’re gonna be the one that saves me (saves me)
You’re gonna be the one that saves me (that saves me)
You’re gonna be the one that saves me (that saves me).

…

Uncanny encounters with those in the trance in days following...

Particularly in retrospect, the encounters with “mom” Irene were most thrilling. She wasn’t old, but certainly mature, well over thirty five, but healthy and good looking in a dignified way that made her seem a highly unlikely partner for me. Hence the thrill of her good natured acceptance of all the X-rated fantasies that I would subject her to in the trance’ and with that, her obedience to the instruction (post hypnotic suggestion) that the next time that I saw her at this meeting, she would sit passively, staring at me with a big smile on her face, to let me know in no uncertain terms that it was all ok with her. Absolutely thrilling. It makes me horny just thinking about it.

In trance, I got off, as I said, on her eyes fixating on my erection after the blacks had vacated; I flaunted fantasies of fucking her head as it would be propped up on a pillow; her being happy because my sperm was in her stomach (which made Jenna issue a spontaneous peasant laugh; which was great); I indulged the fantasy of her being my mother in the next life’ she being aroused by my mathematical ability, would run her hand down my thigh, kiss me and we would spend an entire summer in incestuous delight. Another fantasy, in which I would take turns with Bill the incestor in all the sex acts with his daughter, Irene, and Bill’s woman, who sat by his side. Bill’s woman would also signal that this would be alright with her by the trance’s end.

I would caution the group about the Mulatto cyborg types that this liberal panmixia was threatening our human ecologies with. I had trouble remembering his name, but the group offered it up – Olympian, Dan O’Brien – as an example of the Mulatto cyborg (interestingly, he relocated to Phoenix from northern Idaho in 1997). And I would cite a local version of the Mulatto cyborg that I would be confronted with as a hybrid came with an oriental girlfriend to Jakes No-Frills in Northampton, where I would be working with Rene, a French incest victim. I’ve mentioned this highly stigmatic lambast that I gave him and kind of got away with; but the full description will have to be in the next post. The long and the short of it was that I saw him as coming for Rene and mom Irene, to the destruction of our European culture, and I warned him off with a protracted fury. I pretended to offer him as a lover for mom Irene, but she knew I wasn’t sincere.  This Mulatto cyborg would later see me browsing through books in an Amherst book store; he’d approach me, thinking about saying or doing something; then stop short and walk away (just as I told him to do), realizing that it was futile.

And there would be two more encounters with mom Irene after the trance.

Reprise::

Irene, this woman sexy in part because she was unlikely as a sex object for her mature dignity and good looks, was as poised, probably more than anyone through all this, as I’d said. Despite my indulgence in racist vitriol and unjustified abuse, talk of sexual perversions, bestiality and incest fantasies, one surrounding Irene and one surrounding Bill and his daughter. Her dignity was not really beyond reproach, as it was revealed that she’d had a long affair with a married man. But this was not of concern to me. She was mom, the sexy Jocasta that Oedipus’s fate would be irresistibly drawn to. But this Oedipus didn’t mind. And this Jocasta didn’t seem bothered either. I went into a fantasy about how in our next lifetime, she would be my mother. One early summer day she would come to look upon me in my work, at my brilliant mathematical work and be so impressed and happy that she could not resist hugging and kissing me – and then it turned to real kissing, tongue kissing; one thing leads to another and we enjoy a whole summer indulging in sex with one another.

I conclude by telling her that I’d see her at two meetings in the future and that at the last one before I left the area she’d affectionately refer to me as “you” because I was referring to her as “you” – for some reason, I could not remember that her name was Irene. This would be at a meeting in a town north of here, a meeting populated almost entirely by WASPS and North Western European types and she would be welcoming me to share body fluids and genetics as such. And then there would be another occasion before that, at this same meeting in Amherst but another time, another week, when she would give me a huge smile to let me know that she would love to have sex with me, suck my cock, the fantasy could come to reality, ok with her, the works. She knew that I was trying to save our European people. That I cared and liked all our kind.

With that, I told her that I’d see her one other time. And this time she would not be smiling. She’d be worried – worried for the impact that miscegenating White women were having on our people indeed. I’d walk into the café situated right between here and the police station’ and she would be worried, consulting with a bohemian lady known to attend these meetings (though not this particular one). I would presume that her worry was about the predictably treacherous behavior on the part of young White women, including good looking, middle class, educated ones, like the one  who walked in at the same time with a black child in her arms. Irene would be worried, see the angry look on my face, then look at Kim and Jim’s baby Amelia, as I was with them in that moment, and regain a sense of calm as she sat down to talk with the bohemian woman.

And indeed, I would attend that Al-Anon (ACOA) meeting that I’d never been-to before and would never attend again, in a town North of Amherst. The meeting provided for me the provisional relief of Anglo-Northwestern enclave. In fact, the one non-White there, a “Hispanic” girl (this one really wasn’t the kind that I railed about discriminating against, because they were really European. This one was Not European) voiced grievance that she felt unwelcome with no real evidence other than the fact that there were no other non-Whites there and yet they went on talking about their problems, one of which was Not the lack o “diversity” at the meeting. In fact, the chair of the meeting, a middle aged White man, was more ballsy than the standard PC line would have and responded that it was the right of this group to focus on its concerns as people from alcoholic families. Irene was there, she referred to me as “you” in the most affectionate way, but apparently farted, which was not altogether pleasant to me; reminding me perhaps not only of vulgar reality as opposed to fantasy, of the fact that these people were a bit different a kind European American; and that I was not quite at home with joining their vessel, despite Irene’s welcome. I worried that it was at sea and not seaworthy. In fact, a fantastically optimal Anglo sort of woman, child bearing age, talked to me after the meeting and tried to encourage my ongoing participation in the meeting (I guess that she liked me a bit), saying that “we have a very special group here.” 

I’m embarrassed to think back on what was presenting as a huge opportunity for a fine wife,  only to have me react as a mean spirited snob, saying “I’m neither so sure that they are so special nor that they should consider themselves special according to Al-Anon rules; maybe I would think about coming back.” 

She was hurt and while in the gamesmanship of panmixia, I was flouting a good opportunity for a lovely Anglo woman with ethnocentric sensibilities still intact and sensitive and thus a means further into the American mainstream and out of the margins, I realize that my cruel dismissive with regard to the value of her culture was meant to provoke more ethnocentric distancing, worried as I was for the vulnerabilities of their ethnocentric barriers, their philosophical seaworthiness, as it were.

…and furthermore, my unconscious fate was leading me elsewhere. As I would indicate back in the Amherst trance, adding a bit more Polish gleaned from mushroom picking with my cousin Ryzard sometime in the future; wherein he’d distinguish edible mushrooms such as podgrzybek from poisonous mushrooms.

“True Cheese Now” – poison, like Oskar, Mika, Marcin and Roman.

The next person to mention as I would see him after the trance was Bill the handsome Anglo/incestor from Greenfield. And I told him that he would see me on the sidewalk of downtown Amherst; we’d be walking toward each other from opposite directions, and he would not be able to resist a  broad organic smile (recognizing a friend) mixed with a tinge of curiosity for the uncanniness of it as we would pass each other, recognizing that I had been ordained with a particular task as one to look after our European interests, including his Anglo kind, of course.

And, as foretold in the trance, I would see his daughter; rather, she would see me, as I did not recognize this girl who I’d seen only fleetingly with the nigger boyfriend who came after me with the knife in North Amherst. Any number of women could have recognized me from my frequent racial antagonisms at the nearby Pub and around, so this girl transfixed on me and wavering in fear by the pool table in the bar adjacent to The Pub was only discernable to me as Bill’s daughter in retrospect. While hurt, Bill was grateful for the sense of fear that I instilled in her, knowing that there would be bad consequences for her kind of transgression. That there were people out there with ability and desperate motive to never accept it.

In fact, among a queue waiting to get into that very bar one evening around that time, was the colored girl that I lambasted in the trance; she was with the black guy from the trance as well; and they were in a state of mild shock, shaking their heads, helplessly muttering and not knowing what to do as I cursed in my anti-PC vitriol, reminding them all too well of the trance, and that there were people like me, who wanted nothing to do with their kind, to say the least.

Since it was precisely the same circumstance as the uncanny encounter with Bill, the next uncanny encounter subsequent to the trance to mention is Dave, the crater faced but ruggedly handsome, half Jew/half Italian kind of slow seeming but amiable jockish type, former heroine addict who said (when asked by me, which was weirder, heroine or this, the trance), said in his Boston accent, that this was “weadah.” Precisely as with Bill, as foretold, he would pass me on the sidewalk of downtown Amherst in days following the trance with a huge, involuntary grin on his face – gratitude tinged with incredulity, at the paranormal if not miraculous phenomenon of fate operating on him, through me and through the trance.

The next person that I should mention as having encountered uncannily in days following the trance was Sandy, the thirty seven year old Jewish woman, with the typical half good looking, part ugly witch face, with a tilt toward ugly for her slightly negroid lips. …not to mention a slightly bulbous negroid ass, which I did not notice in the trance. While I did comment on the general phenomenon of the disgusting White/Jewish insect beetle with its White nigger ass …eeeww the White nigger Jew…with its afro and bulbous nigger ass (this made Kim laugh), and I commented on her negroid lips, making her self conscious, which was not easy, as she sat there in her supreme confidence, arms folded in resolve of her intelligence and esteem.

She apparently thought early on in the trance that it was largely about and in the interest of her Jewish people; that it was more or less a participatory healing and reconciliation session fo Jews and Whites in mutual support against the threat of blacks, particularly with the anti-Semitic Tony Marin and Louis Farrakhan having recently been to campus; and me, early on in the trance expressing solidarity with Jews, and disdain for blacks of any sort; indeed interested in Jews as love interests and allies. She was ready to suspend disbelief in the story of my past life, as I broke down in tears in saying the word, “Auschwitz”…and sobbed, why would you kill me, a Polish intellectual and my girlfriend there, just because she was one quarter Jewish?

Thus, with me adding sobs about Ann Frank and so on, when I asked for a show of hands, she was quick to see this as a participatory occasion in her interests, raising her hand as one who lost relatives, in her case grandparents, in the Holocaust. And at this point I had not given up hope of gaining alliance with Jews (why would they be antagonistic?)’ and I yelled out, “you people are just jealous of Jews for their accomplishments through their solidarity; and you should exercise solidarity for yours/ours as well; don’t you threaten my Jewish friends! I want the likes of Farrakhan dead!” That’s when I did my imitation of the would dog as pack animal, in slow, growling creep, then suddenly darting in a fierce frenzied collective attack on the big black beast. I’ll never forget the look of horror on Missy’s face; and Sandy said, “perfect.”

… as she would say “perfect” when I would say that I would not let a nigger suck my dick. Of course I did not mind this, admiring the aspect of confident and fierce ethnocentrism. However, the trance went deeper than that, and the primordial threads of this profoundly amorphous state would not bear solidarity with Jews, nor their status as victims in the current circumstance. 

Thus, as torrents of vicious anti-Semitism were unleashed through me in the cybernetic balance, Sandy would get the idea that this trance was not about reconciliation and alliance with Jews, not as far as I was concerned. And what’s the problem? I thought. Free speech as Americans; we fought and died in part to save your fucking people, now we’re looking after our own, like you do yours. I told her that she would show me that she had gotten this blunt message in days to come.

There was nothing of this giddy, ‘I can’t believe that I am encountering you’ that I got from Dave (the crater faced Jewish guy who liked her). No, it was all a stern business negotiation for her now. Symbolically, I stood behind her in a line at a teller’s booth at a bank in downtown Amherst. She bent down to talk through the teller’s window, her bulbous, nigger-like ass protruding. I did notice. She must have somehow sensed this and turned around to give me an angry look. However, I rebuffed her with equally stern confidence, “what’s the problem?” She just stayed shut up and turned back around to attend to her transaction at the teller’s booth.

Let me mention the uncanny encounter with Missy next. Missy was the pretty single mother, secretary fo Sally Freeman, who was interested in me. Until the trance, when I made it clear that I would not be cuckold; and when she showed abject fear with any inclination of violence coming from me, the ‘wild dog act in particular. I would give her a look to show my extreme consternation as I encountered her uncannily on the sidewalk astride the U. Mass campus walking with a formidable nigger. The kind who in a few different criteria would better me; all the more reason to resist the swarthy objectivism of the liberal culture that Missy was a part of; in order to protect the patterns and relative interests of European human ecology. But my consternation was not especially awesome or fear inspiring to her this time, unfortunately. She greeted me with an annoyed, “hello!” as if to say “wake up.” But wake up to what? That I shouldn’t be a racist? That she wasn’t with this guy; it was just a technical conversation surrounding matriculation?

Nevertheless, I believe that in this sarcastic “hello!” that she had gotten a deep message that there was a real problem with blacks; and while she was not ready to accept a radical position like mine just yet; she had some sense that there was reason to beware even a casual, civic interaction of this kind (if indeed, that’s all it was). But for all the sensitivity and fear that women like Missy express …saying how they are scared of men like me, it remains a major curiosity then, how they could be (in any way) with a nigger like that.

I’ve said almost all of what I have to say about the homely Italian American over-eater, who selfishly talked interminably, it seemed, when it came her turn at meetings. That at the next meeting there in Amherst, that she would finally stop talking just as it was about to get unbearable. But what I hadn’t mentioned was that the uncanny encounter with her would happen in some obscure and far off Al-Anon meeting that for some reason I went to, though I’d never been there before. That’s where she would say “che vediamo” to me at meeting’s end, to show me that she had learned to be less selfish and drew a bit deeply, as such, upon the socialization of her Italian heritage. And I realized in retrospect that she was not altogether selfish to begin with, as she saw my lust for mom Irene in a meeting weeks before (mom Irene put her foot up on her chair, creating a suggestive position), happy that my anger could be placated at least some by someone like her. And ooh that look that mom Irene would give me, with a big smile, patiently letting me know, all that chthonic sexual stuff, no problem. My heart pounds at the thought of it.

I’ve talked already the young (about my age at the time, early thirties) Anglo, poli-sci major (under graduate, possibly  master’s degree); solid looking guy, who was completely unflappable through the trance. You wouldn’t know anything peculiar was/had happened judging by his reaction, or lack thereof, rather. I spoke to him at a Northampton meeting (same meeting where I met Jenna; was probably hoping that she’d be there, but she was not). I talked to him after the meeting, again hoping to bring him on my side against Clinton. And, in retrospect, about that I was right, Clinton was an evil man; and in that regard, he should have been “flappable.”

He pandered to women in public and...

Instead, he repeated his story about having worked for the Republicans in Virginia, coming away disillusioned with them as well, the formula that they required you to adhere to. At this point, I pedantically whipped out a coin from my pocket, holding it up and saying that the Democrats and the Republicans were two sides of the same individualistic coin, the Lockeatine technology of civil individual rights impervious to organic group patterns. And while I remained oblivious, the trance goings-on suppressed from my memory, he started to become uncomfortable, becoming more aware, and apparently aware that I was not aware of the trance; moreover an imperfect medium not beyond critical distance (in his estimation) to the extent that he was aware of the trance to begin with: from its amazing phenomenon, to keen and intelligent insights, to the greatest stigma and utter stupidity. A bit disappointing, but we parted ways respectfully.

At that same Northampton meeting, there would be “Forehead.” And, again, while I was oblivious in suppressed memory of the trance, she was anything but. In fact, she wore a bandana on her forehead, apparently to hide its longer than average length, with my having berated her for it. She was nervous throughout the meeting. I don’t know if I got the hug that I always used to steal from her at the end of a meeting, but I certainly did not get the smile that went along with the liberal attitude, that everyone will be ok, we just need to work the correctivity of the liberal system. As I had instructed her in trance, she would let me know that she had gotten the message, that not everyone was going to be down with the liberal system and there would be hell to pay: while I had trouble remembering names, she’d never forget mine; she would nervously repeat my name, ok (my name), ok (my name), ok (my name), ok (my name) as we parted. I doubt that I discouraged her from voting Clinton in ’96; but I certainly would have added to the brute reality coming her way in future years…which would mitigate against her liberal enthusiasm (causing her to lose some of the modernist, universalizing narcissism) if she is worth her salt.

Working and going to Al-Anon meetings there would bring me to Northampton almost daily. Across the street from Smith College, I would be spotted muttering angrily by the same interracial couple, cute blond (who looked like she could be my sister) who beamed a smile at me as I walked by her and her oreo boyfriend, with Kim and her baby, as if would have no problem in the world with her miscegenation. That is, until I berated them repeatedly, saying that nigger women are ugly and that nobody wanted their goddamn women! Upon spotting me in Northampton, I could tell that they were disillusioned, in a conundrum, as their kind of pairing was bound to hurt black women and White men; so much for their “thoughtful” liberal “sensitivity.”

But although that episode had a storybook tale, karmic recapitulating aspect, it was not quite the cryptic, uncanny – “It’s A Wonderful Life” – type recapitulating encounter that I’d have with the Al-Anon trance people – four more of these synchronistic encounters in Northampton.

The first to mention is the jolly big, good natured but doofy Jewish woman with curly black hair. Because she was good natured, she was quick to raise her hand in the trance, to identify herself as Jewish and suspend disbelief in it as a participatory healing episode with the aim of conflict resolution between cultures, reconciliation.

In days following the trance, as I walked into a book store across from the Northampton Court House and statue of Calvin Coolidge, there she was, smiling, raising her hand to be sure to have my attention, and greeting me, “Hi (my name)!” as if ready and expecting this uncanny encounter.

But ready for what? I was instantaneously… uncomfortable is not the word, given  all the stigma come through me in the trance, and my take away, which was not to stay there in some simple and friendly reconciliation with Jews and other cultures in the liberal American way. I’m sorry to have disappointed her, left a mystery as to what she might have said, but I had nothing to say to her and was spooked. I turned around and scurried out of there. 

To the right of the Calvin Theater is Jakes No Frills restaurant, where I worked and engaged in several stigmatic episodes.
Across the street from The Coolidge and Jakes, was the Hampshire County Courthouse, Northampton, where I disappointed the female judge and lawyers, who expected me to go on white knighting as some epithet wielding renegade against political correctness.
Ironically, Coolidge's bust would stand totemically in front of the Courthouse; the former President of The United States and once Mayor of Northampton was a punctual, prim and proper prude, evertyhing that Northampton is not known for nowadays, as an epicenter of PC and lesbianism.
The view as you make your way past the Court House in Northampton. That castle-like building is the City Hall and to its right the campus of Smith, the prestigious women's college, begins.

The next uncanny encounter to mention was with the pretty, in a standard way, but depressed German American woman. Very good face, slender body, great ass, but her glasses maintained an air of dignity for her even so. I’d heard her discuss her misery over her break up with her husband. He threatened her. She said, “kill me, I can’t stand this.” She chased him away; and she was still bothered to see him with another woman. She chided herself, what did I expect?

I am not against Germans, especially not German Americans. Why would I be? I would not lay trips on them or anyone else unless they laid trips on me. My only thing was that the Italian and Polish demographic was under represented and sometimes getting the worst of both punishment for “majority white” exploitations, while actually being a bit marginal, and being short shrifted accordingly. But the last thing I would do is lay any trips on this woman. And I did not. On the contrary, I was delighted to at least temporarily rupture her depression as the topic of ass-licking came up in trance and she burst out laughing. I was happy to be clued-in by Bill’s woman that she did not like niggers. And that she liked me well enough, would like to suck my dick.

She probably would have been a better catch and choice than I could have hoped for, but I was all about breeding Polish, French and especially Italian, given their lowest birthrate in the world.

I would encounter her uncannily a week or so after the trance in a café caddy corner across the street from that castle-like city hall building. As I walked in, she would be sitting there, greeting me with a “hello” that said in tone, ‘I’m a bit sad, but have some hope and am open to you.’ I said a respectful hello to her, then made believe that there was nothing on the menu that I wanted and I left. This was not my fate in this life-time; if in the next, that would be very good.

The next uncanny encounter, really two of them, was with another German American woman, “Martina” (because she looks a bit like Martina Navratilova), whom I’ve discussed at length, so I’ll keep the reprise short. Even though she liked me and made it more clear than anyone on several occasions, I was a bit hypocritical in saying that I would never abuse people who did not abuse me. I abused her in the trance, rightly or wrongly believing that she was doing, or going to do me harm: she was going to go for and breed with bad men, despite their abuse of her.

I was a misogynist in my teens and twenties, and topping the list of reasons was women going for and breeding with bad men; believing this wrecked the power and incentive structure of society. I hated that even more than their license and abuse of sex and penchant for liberalism.

And so I saw a reward for her having learned from “the godfather”, me in trance, demonstrated by her in two uncanny encounters following the trance. I told her that she would be walking toward me with that same smile on her face, making it clear that she liked me; then she would see the puzzled, “you\re not my type” look on my face whereupon she would briskly cross and then uncross her arms, signifying that she was done with her infatuation with me. At the time, I was a bit insulted by this; but upon reflection, I realized that I wanted her to do this; wanted her to show that she was careful to choose men who were motivated to be kind and loyal to her.

The next time I would uncannily encounter her would be at a bar, down an alley across the street from Smith in Northampton. This was the same bar that I did not go in when I saw a short, cocky nigger walking in walking in with a cute brunette, saying “I choose this”, as if his choice was all important, as if it should matter at all. This was the same bar that I walked briskly out of, with a few choice words for the (clearly) Jewish TV sportscaster to hear, to make sure that he knew that I had no concern to ease his worry over my angry reaction to the nigger walking in to boldly claim the beautiful blond jock girl at the bar, who I myself would not dare to approach, considering her clearly out of my culture and out of my league.

Hence, this bar would be an appropriate place for an instantiation of my wonder wall. I would walk in to an uncanny encounter of her, sitting in a booth, looking at me with a contented smile on her face as she sat nestled with the kind of man that I recommended for her. I told her that she did not have to compromise on looks, intelligence, career path and all the prospects that go along with that. Best if he is of German background, as that would keep the referents in line, but any kind of White guy is ok as long as he is going to be kind and loyal to you.

However, for fuck sake, give us a break. The classified ads, women seeking men, are constantly specifying that a man must be 5-10+ …5-10+, 5-10+. 5-10+ at minimum. Often 5-11 or 6 foot + For fuck sake, I am 5-9, the average height of men in the world, taller than more than 90% of women, and yet they are writing me off as “short.”

So, be willing to take a few inches off the expectations – maybe like 5-7, just a little bit taller than you – and you can get a really good bargain; don’t have to compromise on looks or anything else. So it came to pass and the godfather was pleased; kiss my ring.

The last uncanny encounter in Northampton would be with my therapist, Harold Raush. He was coming the opposite direction through a crosswalk toward the Court House, while I was waiting to go to the other side to the used book store. He greeted me politely but less enthusiastically than I greeted him, holding one hand behind his back as if holding cards that he was not showing. The encounter was that brief, and I had not used his services for weeks if not months by then; planning to leave the area as it were.

In fact, I was in the process of trying to unload my book collection, trying to sell them at the used book store, same place where the jolly doofy Jewish woman from the trance had tried to greet me. But when I got there, I found to my consternation that not only would they not buy my books, they wouldn’t even take them as a gift. A White girl and a Mulatto girl stood by in stunned silence, recognizing me and my anger from loud racial altercations in downtown Amherst, not able to process how a man like me could hold interaction with blacks in such contempt.

Coming back to Amherst then, to wrap up the uncanny encounters with those from the trance in days following…

It was at an Al-Anon meeting at a different church in Amherst that four other post-trance encounters occurred. I came timidly to a meeting at a different church in Amherst about a week or two after the trance; having only a vague sense that something had happened through my suppressed memory; and that I better keep quiet and assimilate part of the woodwork if I did not want to rekindle the attention of stigma, as there were only a few people at this meeting who were not in the trance. So, I might hope for their discretion to be mitigating amidst those who didn’t know, and might thus maintain some normalcy to my person among the Amherst rhetoric.

One of the few people, actually two, who had been at the trance meeting, was Hyatt. She was a Jewish woman who always came across a bit worried that political correctness might be going a bit tactlessly far for her liberal interests to sustain. Her worry in this regard naturally brought her attention to me which was mixed, it seemed, with a ting of attraction to me. I almost shared the attraction, but her creep toward middle age had caused her eyelids to droop in an unbecoming, Mr. Magoo-like way, over-emphasizing her worried personality to cartoon-like effect. After the meeting she came up to me, showing surprising obedience to post hypnotic suggestion, I mean, saying this weird thing that would be totally out of the blue other than that I had told her in trance that she should/would say it to me in respect for our having common dealings with each other in past lives. I can only guess at this point, because I don’t remember clearly, only that I was aware of some trace Jewish ancestry (less than 3% and maybe coming by way of a great, great, great grandfather from Reggio nell’Emilia – “where I would have been around her a lot in the past”) but I apparently hoped to invoke a modicum of kindred concern from Jews in order to divert them from direct attack enough to give me time to develop a platform in defense for my European people. Anyway, she would come up to me after the meeting and say in her sultry voice, as she was foretold to do, “we’ve known each other from around a along time.” Which was weird because we’d known of each other from some weeks, months maybe, but not “a long time.”

Ghost of Reggio nell'Emilia past and Hyatt, worriedly, "we've known each other around a long time"

The other person from the trance who was at this particular meeting was Kathleen; easily the nicest person of the trance, she was an Irish American woman with a pretty face, dark brown hair and a handsome White boyfriend, silent, stoic with long blond hair; he did not come with her to this meeting but I mention him because her choice to be with him represented a key part of her good nature: she was  with a White guy with long hair; indicating that she was both loyal to and not constraining of White male Being.

So why then, would I attack this woman so cruelly on the basis of her physicality in the trance? saying that she had “elephantiasis of the abdomen”, even referring other simply as “elephantiasis” because I could not remember her name?

It does bear some consideration and would impugn my character, rather lack thereof, even more were it not for the trance state, which had moved me to provoke and explore the primordial depths below what was taken for granted.

I suppose that it was an attack on what her kind might be taking too much for granted and an opening to be critical of the Irish American perspective along with it.

But to begin with, aspects of the male/ female alone provoked me.

Part of it was an organic backlash against my feminist sister’s searing hatred – hatred – equipped with the will and capacity to humiliate for evaluating women at all on the basis of their physicality. This screwed up and made it hard to sort out a distinction that Heidegger drew between first and most essential in evaluation. My sister’s hateful intimidation was a big part in instilling in me a timidity and horrible intentional oscillation with regard to women; at once finding them irresistible for their beauty but lacking the poise and skill to deftly tease apart and negotiate my way  through social situations with them. “Fair” or “unfair” was a harrowing issue.

From one of those public service pamphlets one finds in a clinician’s waiting room, the kind illustrated with circle headed stick figures, I gleaned the tri-part criteria of “physical, emotional and intellectual.” I then took another criteria from the common public realm, viz, the 1-10 scale of beauty (a prominent aspect of the physical) and extended it to the three part criteria, physical, emotional and intellectual; settling on the idea that I was willing to take my equal on 1-10 scales of these three features; i.e., I was willing to be fair.

This went a long way toward alleviating – at least in my head – the anxiety and intentional oscillation that my sister’s, feminists and traditional women’s hatred had instilled in me.

Be it as it may that this unapologetically simplistic criteria might have helped in my head, it did not do a whole lot for negotiating  the complexities of social reality.

Hence the emergence in trance of unresolved primordial and compensatory corrective indignation that women were being unfair, as I observed that Kathleen’s boyfriend was a better physical specimen than she, for her badly shaped body.

Hence, while it was ok with me that they would be together, they were two White people paired up; and I had no idea of what other criteria went into his electing to be with her, not much my business anyway, but the storm waves of the primordial trance lashed in cybernetic corrective of that which is at all dubious in natural criteria – that she might be taking for granted this injustice as merely her prerogative as a woman; and provided occasion for interrogation as such.

It also provided occasion to enlist my theory (good, important theory, the kind that the fucking asshole known as Guessedworker would try to gaslight as trivia where at all original – which it is) that the (((weaponized))) technology of Lockeantien civil individual rights has ruptured group classificatory bounds that had traditionally protected group ecological patterns and allowed White women to be solicited and pandered to from all directions, including when puerile and unsocialized to their group responsibility, susceptible to the subsocial function of incitement to genetic coemption in order to drive a better and unfair bargain for themselves in partner selection through their increased one up position as such within the social disordering effect of the modernist, Cartesian detachment from social accountability, which would otherwise be brought back to sustain historical social capital, human ecology and social justice by the legitimization of group bounds – currently prohibited, certainly for White people, as “racism.”

In a word, this was nothing to take for granted even if my overture was overly cruel. …how anti-racism, plays into the brute predilections of unsocialized, puerile females, their selection against those sublimated with broad time horizons, in favor of the over confident, anti-intellectual and over assertive, prone to brash liberalism and the rash destruction of human ecologies. Anti-racism is Cartesian prejudice against prejudice, against group classificatory bounds which might protect human ecologies and their vulnerable members; it is far from innocent as such – it is hurting and it is killing people.

And while there is a rigor to be respected in the female tendency to select for strength and demonstrated function, itis a criterial tht can be taken too far, this admiraitonof conficence to tat he expense of intellectual survey, being undaunted no matter what, impervious to even necessary social consideration and corrective. …such as from the male predilection, which values cooperation, support, thoughtfulness and beauty, as semiotic of health.

Next, there was the matter of Irishness, it’s perspective taken for granted. No willing problem with the Irish, of course; but like with the Germans, there can be a nerdy, lily Whiteness about them that does not always interface well with blacks; rather awkward, no more the complete equipment to hold up to the biopower and antagonism of the middle east and Africa than other European peoples; but the southern contribution to the buffering of European human ecologies can be under-appreciated for the over-representation of the Irish perspective, like the Germans.

That the the Irish can be liberal gate openers with their opposition to Anglo-Saxon discrimination being pandered to and exploited by the YKW – think of John and Bobby Kennedy with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Ted Kennedy forfronting the cataclysmic Hart(also Irish)-(((Celler))) Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 – is so noted.

But their sheer numbers, like the Germans in America, leaves prone susceptibilities to pandering as a market in which to distribute false currency of right wing reaction, for the historically antagonistic position of their people to the English and for their lack of having to give more pause and thought to the complexities and even monumental injustices to perspectives of those nations in the path of Hitler’s wrath. The eminent legitimacy of opposition to Hitler as such can somehow be ignored completely, astonishingly enough, through marketing, and selling the idea to a prone Irish American, like this, that “Hitler did nothing wrong.”

Sometimes it seems that every White person that you come across in America is half German and half Irish, which is probably why the false currency that is passed through the half German half Irish Pat Buchanan in the form of his book, “The Unnecessary War”, is not more commonly ascertained and greeted with, “take it back to the Kaiser, if not Hitler!”

Hence I could not hold even the lovely Kathleen, nor her Irish folk beyond serious critique, central though they may be, as not Celts, but Basques, certainly one of the oldest, if not the oldest of European forms; whom I sung praises and reverence for in trance, as such.

And nevertheless Kathleen put me to shame, for the grace that she showed through all my abuse, including the indignity of my forgetting her name, which I must have heard dozens of times. She came to me at the end of this Al-Anon meeting and said, “my name is Kathleen.” An odd thing to do, even if decent, but these were uncanny encounters following the trance.

Even though he was not at the trance, I should probably mention another fellow who I met through this other meeting place, as it is relevant. Probably of Anglo, German, Irish descent, something like that, don’t remember, but a really nice guy – too nice.

He was a graduate biology student at U. Mass, who I could relate to and respected as such; and he apparently held the same estimation of me, as he asked me to be his 12 step program sponsor. But in feeling out this request, I gingerly approached the race issue, as it was the major issue for me and I did not need additional obstruction with all the massive anti racist activism on campus and in the surrounding towns. “What do you think about PC and the race issue?” I asked. He responded that “race is just a few genetic markers designating skin tone. not an important distinction.” Regrettably, but gently as possible, I had to decline to sponsor him, as I held race to be more than that, of course, and it was an important issue for me. Maybe I should have sponsored him and try to bring him around, but it didn’t seem the right place for either of us.

At this meeting, which followed my declining sponsorship of him by a few weeks, it was sad to see him practically in tears, really, as he “struggled with his inner child” as we would say in program, trying manage those emotional surges with the daunting requirements of a graduate program in the unsympathetic rigors of science. However, he did provide a perfect example of “scientism”, i.e., bad science or bad application of science with saying, “race is just a few genetic markers designating skin tone, nothing important.”

Oh, that’s right, there was another person from the trance there. How could I forget? Well, easily. There was the beaked mug that was only made more annoying in her pathos, not more feminine despite the long, frizzy blond hair. She was the short Jewish woman who sat to my right, next to chicken neck during the trance. She had previously liked me, maybe said hello, but was mostly quiet now, realizing that the door was shut and my point of view not very sympathetic anyway.

I was going to save remaining discussion of her for when I would indeed see her again, in another uncanny encounter following the trance, but her homely pathos, the tedium and irritation it evokes in me, bears upon a few important matters.

Unlike the inclination to neurotic, weak and furtive responses to misdeeds coming from those beautiful and more powerful, there is a primitive urge to not be bothered, to directly flaunt your superior power over the weak and pathetic by contrast to yourself where they venture misdeeds and annoyances. The primitive impulse in response to the annoyance of the weaker is to just up and hit hem, if not do away with them altogether in the event of more serious offense.

That is the primitive impulse and perspective that I can’t help but believe that blacks must often act on in their pattern of violence against Whites. But while there is a tiny part of me that would like to just be done with the tedium of this pathetic kind of woman and punch her, I am not black: I have impulse control and time horizon in concern for the consequences of momentary and episodic acts.

I do recall in the trance proclaiming quite proudly and importantly, since I was trafficking heavily in misogyny, even saying that I’d like to kill a lot of women, that in fact, I had never hit a woman, and never would. If you find a woman that offensive, you should just leave. Even if a woman were to want that, I would not do it and risk being on the wrong side of the law just to satisfy her dumb stereotype of how a man should be.

Taking the issue of violence, specifically violence against women to a further orbit, the genesis of my misogyny is seen in the astrological constellation of boomer Jim Goad, where he correctly says that blacks are the undisputed champions of rape, bar none; a malevolent transformation from my sympathy for women occurs with the kind of hypocrisy in women/girls that understandably rails against rape and other violence against women on the one hand, is so enamored of confidence, hyper-assertiveness and niggers, in a word, bad men generally, on the other hand; while indifferent, sometimes contemptuous of White men the least bit timid; as gate keepers in their increased one up position within the disorder of modernity, they continue to let through and empower liberal men who white night for their license to indulge in sexual extravagance and gamble on indulgences beyond their merit …keeping any correctives from normal White men at bay through the ready enlistment of thuggery; it’s latest form, “cancel culture”, censorship of any critical objection from White men as “racism” to be sanctioned. 

I always felt that sex should be treated as one of the most, if not the most important act between people as it is the means by which people come into the world, hopefully in a responsible way; but also a matter of reward and confirmation, should be of persons of good character and politics. While I always found my boomer older brothers and sister, for that matter, to be promoting dangerous vulgarity in their casual and celebrative attitude toward sex within the expanding multiculturalism, I paid it lip service so as not to be perceived as gay or weak.

Nevertheless, to not know me better took an almost studied indifference willful ignorance; in the case of my sister, a will to maintain a negative stereotype of a male chauvinist pig to serve as a foil to her feminist autobiography, a bad will to maintain a stereotype to serve as foil on the level of the asshole known as Guessedworker.

My sister’s feminism was always kept cunningly in the background beyond risk to critical inspection. I was belatedly able to decode the means by wish she had instilled neuroses on me, with an ongoing wish to trivialize, humiliate limit and control the men in her life. This was done in large part through attributions, even where presented as a compliment, which were disconfirming of identity, because they bore no real resemblance; but they were often not meant to be compliments, but rather stereotyped attributions to justify her scorn and hatred.

The link between my neuroses with regard to women, and her reliance on attributing stereotypes to me in shocking disregard of who I am came to the fore. I realized what she had been putting me through when I bemoaned having been stood up for a posh date that I arranged with a cutie (the nerve of me). And my sister angrily objected to my disappointment, “what would you think?” The lawyerly rhetorical question serving to keep me backpaddling. I responded, “think what? by the way she dresses you can tell that she’s no wallflower.”

My sister: “I don’t believe it! You’re not the kind of guy who thinks a woman should be raped for the way that she dresses (are you)?!” That did it. Not even in the privacy of my mind had I ever thought a woman should be raped for that or any other reason. I stopped talking to my sister for ten years and only resumed talking to her as I had to by force of circumstance – regarding inheritance; and then I was “all about money” and should only be concerned with working, not investing; and I should stay far away from women who care about money.

Finally with regard to violence against women as with any offending group, one may even have initial thoughts en mass, but one realizes upon reflection not just the impracticality of it [Kant cast his tomes on morality in terms of “practicality” for a reason], but the futility of it; and the likely blowback which will only make matters worse; especially if that group is one’s own women. Nevertheless, considering the level of violence against women, one has to wonder why women don’t complain more about it and think maybe because they are indulging in the conceit of their high grumbles while thwarting, cancelling the low grumbles of beta males (who make families, while alphas make bastards), know that they are getting away with murder given the bad men that they are inclined to and the harm that they do to both women and good men.

I digress in regard of the pathetic ,”please don’t hit me” Jewish woman; but will come back to direct trance consequences as I would encounter her uncannily, along with two others from the trance at ‘Bread and Circus” high end supermarket.

But before I move on to discuss the appropriately named Bread & Circus episode (appropriately named, because the Romans prescribed bread and circus entertainment to distract the masses from the infamy of imperial Rome’s leadership and the empire’s state of immanent decline and fall), I need to discuss a crucial episode which brought to a head my acute awareness that I could no longer even pretend to defend “the new Roman empire” that was America by my interests enough to participate in its means to reward. 

Precursors To A Pivotal Episode

My roommate situation at 19 Hobart degenerated from graduate students to undergraduates and then more transient types to where finally, the rental could not be sustained and I had to move out. I found a sublet room in a house with undergraduates just a block away on North Pleasant, but my connection to the area was getting more and more tenuous. I was already kicked off, prohibited from campus by then. The legal actions for my racial altercation at The Pub and “assault” charges for brushing up against Ms. Aiello’s arm had gone down. The Al-Anon trance had just transpired, adding further stigma to the trances that occurred in graduate class, with other students and teachers. Jobs were hard to come by to sustain me there, and where I could find them, the PC environment made them difficult for me to bear.

While matriculation at U. Mass. was no longer viable, I had to tell my father that graduate school altogether was not looking very possible. I had some vague hope of catching on with a European university, but really, that was just a shot in the dark excuse and hope of a way to get out of America and into Europe.

The stage was set for the the pivotal and infuriating episode that would trigger me to throw off remaining tact and caution and launch myself into Europe whether my father was prepared to help or not.

Suffice it to say, the abusive way that he pulled the plug on any idea of helping me, triggered desperate thoughts in my mind.

What was I to do? Try to explain to my father  the new understanding, the interactive nature of psychology, to where it was no longer psychology at all, but communication, an interactional perspective bearing upon a new philosophy and worldview? and that he should understand that hews privileged to be a part of this?

Well, I tried, but I had not recovered from my orbital retreat, not remotely enough to develop the skills through enough practical participation to negotiate with sufficient tact to make a better deal with my father.

But why my orbital retreat to begin with?

Well, the endless hostility, negative attributings to me and blockage of metacommunication by my mother that might have facilitated re-negotiation of false attributions; “the hurried child” also comes to mind, ever the “no nonsense” command to do something now, without reflection;  obviously this was compounded by her increasing alcoholism – I am not discussing this trance under the rubric of Adult Children of Alcoholics for no reason. And her bi-polar syndrome, which manifested two severe episodes in which I bore the brunt of her insanity at the critical ages of 11 and 13 (my father told me that “she’s going through menopause, all women go through that”).

My brother re-channeled this (and by the way, those who think its clever to  mock the concept of anti-bullying, please shut up) with anything but my real name, rather a litany of “imaginative” degrading names for me, implying repugnant, retarded and otherworldly strange. Coupling this with endless indulgence in two of the most disconfirming speech acts at my expense: viz., smug sarcasm and loud mockery; followed by  a display of whimsical merriment such as whistling carefree if I showed any discomfort; studied indifference displayed in the sucking of his snot as he attended to a book; then arising suddenly, to say “face!”, as in, in my face, if I thought about just treatment for myself. He was the most sarcastic person that I have ever known; and more given to deploy mockery than anyone I have ever known. any person that I have known. These are two of  the most specifically disconfirming, disturbing and discombobulating  speech acts; but generally, he was doing what he could get away with to disrupt and and hinder my capacity for calm and poised thinking (and treating my objections as if I was the bad one). But then, you see, he was being “good” to me; this was the charmed loop of didactic incitement. This was all after I finally got him to stop the physical abuse, in the form of constraining me and tormenting me; as I finally blacked-out one day and hit him in the eye with a pestle.

Still he remained, as ever, a fat bear waiting to feed to himself whatever idea of mine that he could feed to his ego as it might make its way through this turbulent maze and, also like a fat bear, to swat and kill any ideas not necessary to his appetite (an offense to his ego). I learned to do a “baseball bug” thing with my mind, not letting my thoughts out in coherent form and practical application lest they justify his abuse, or enlist by him dismissive social approbation where not useful to himself.

Try to get my brother to stop it and my sister would say, “stop it, both of you!” As if I had equal responsibility. Try to explain any of my complaints to her direction and she would use of her two modes of hatred, ice cold or searing hot: “oh, you’ve had such a hard life!”

Of course with her prerogatives everything was permissible, fun, light and breezy, her sexuality, “delightful”, mine, a grievous offense the moment that I specified any physical preference.

Though an increasing array of predation was being set -via laws of the 50’s, 60s and beyond –  to lay waste vast swathes of the more sensitive among European peoples, my sister could not see any complaint with her liberalism.

No, the second wave of feminism that came along with it was too  opportunistically timed for her to be bothered; she could out-do the male chauvinist pigs at their own games, build up her ego and her bank account all at once, as divorce attorney for Jews against their pretty shiksa wives.

But defending mostly male clients was just a well paying  career. The queen bee emerged first and would sting all competition.

Still, her outlook was feminist, its resource kept cunningly in the background beyond critical redress, the queen bee aim in her venom with regard to males: to trivialize, humiliate, limit and control. Have to keep working to keep the bitch, er, good ship feminist sailing toward Mulatto Supremacist destination. Now, if you’re a good technoslave, you can have a White cow to produce a daughter for us to throw in its engine room furnace of miscegenation.

Upon entering a room, or just about any time, she’d let out a loud belch to metacommunicate what she cares for your opinion on any of this: nothing.

My father’s part in this; his position in society; his reaction to what was happening in the family; society’s impact – not helping (to say the least); the trance deal, as one where I would act like a crazy Italian to stir the pot against liberals, while getting a real education in exchange – not a PhD; while I held up a PhD as a pseudo goal in order to get the information that I needed to recover fully; and to make my way in the world and into critical defense against liberals; while my father expected a PhD. While our interaction lacked the ability to re-negotiate objectives (e.g., investment in Europe in order to set up family formation).

My father’s part and position.

My father was the son of Italian immigrants from two adjacent villages in Southern Italy. His father was very mean, heading a family of four children in the depression era poverty of Newark’s North Ward; an Italian enclave. He seemed to inherit one means for combatting boredom from days of the Italian village; and to cultivate another on the door stoops of the depression era Newark neighborhood; but both depended upon a common culture to back him up.

Absent the physical violence, my father would fly into fits of fantastic histrionic rage, for reasons marginally justifiable, or for no apparent reason at all, directed at perfect strangers or directed at family members, the “raging bull” character was tame by comparison.

I surmise that this was an adaptation from the Italian village, to breakup the boredom, and taking for granted that the villagers were all kindred, and would be understanding, willing to pick up the pieces from this localized chaos. The problem of bringing this behavior to America, of course, was that the people were not so kindred, were not going to be sympathetic an pick up the pieces.

And my father brought the hatred that he got from working with his father to me. Always a horrifying experience of his rage seething over; teeth gritted, eyes bulging out of his head, shaking with rage, he let me know that it was all he could do to resist crunching my head. I’ll never forget the look he gave me one time; I must have been 4 or 5; my psyche just collapsed somewhere far away. What’s the point of life with a father like this?

And this was the worst penchant of my father, to attack vulnerabilities. This is what broke my mother, and turned her into a relentlessly hostile battering ram in response. When someone, particularly a parent/spouse attacks you when you are vulnerable, it makes it doubly hard to trust, one feels they cannot let their guard down.

But these volc anic eruptions were set mostly in withdrawal to a passive acceptance of a quaint working class role; the snapping turtle, when not attacking you for asking a question, would have a dumb smile on its face, ready for the pat on the head on the door stoop of 1939 Newark, repeating to the neighbors the fantastic stories heard from the radio, of martians coming down Broad Street, Ted Williams, while able to see the commissioner’s name on a speeding baseball, could not shine Joe Dimaggio’s shoes; and he came home from service in WWII wearing the same dumb smile expecting approval and agreement when he would throw up his hands and say, “you cant fight city hall.”

A catatonic and chronic TV watcher by time we moved to Montclair, I would be sickened as he would turn to me with that smile on his face, expecting me to be equally entertained by some dumb thing that the television was trying to program into us.

While my mother would give him approval for his quaintness, the dumb smile on his face expecting approval for his bad grammar, “he come” not he came”, “it don’t work that way”, the same signal that would meet with approval form the ladies in Newark, that he wasn’t getting uppity with the gate keepers.

Call me a snob, and I can admit that my high self esteem prevented me from dealing with this effectively  – i.e., I did not feel that I should have to deal with any of it – but I sensed that this altercast was putting me at a disadvantage in this society and I hated that. Sunday school too. And I hated that self hatred; while the Africans beat the war drums of their group self interest.

America was changing, becoming more and more toxic compared to the traditional forms that the boomers, including my older siblings, took for granted and benefitted from, along with their birth order advantage over me, including not being subject to the worst of my mother as she slipped into alcoholism and insanity, that my father was never intelligent enough to take into account when he would say in response to issues raised, “you were all raised the same” … or walking into the room when my brother was bulling me as a kid and saying, “I don’t understand.” Nothing more. Asif it was so hared to understand that this was a fat, jealous older rother who was doing everything in his power to fuck my mind up and attach a deficit to me.

When trying to discuss it years later: My father, “don’t you think other people had that deficit?” Always imploring me to think in disagreement with myself. Kant and his unanimity were not part of our Catholic upbringing. “Why don’t you see Naomi (Jewish hypnotherapist, opposing unanimity as well), she wants to help you. I just want to be done with this. Please recall that Naomi was the Jewish (unbeknownst to me) hypno-interventionist that my mother heard on the Susan (((Forward))) (Men Who Hate Women and The Women Who Love Them) radio show, that my mother hired ostensibly to “help me to do better”, but really to do a mechanist Jay Haley/Milton Erikson style Brief Therapy intervention against me to be “done with my problem” as she could never admit that she was wrong about anything; while I was suckered in by my mother’s “lets go for it”, me thinking that Naomi was a rational actor who would give my perspective fair consideration, me declining to see her again as I felt un-comfortable with her (general attitude that this society was ok; i.e., the problem must be in me); then my father saying that, “why don’t you see Naomi, she wants to help you” …”I just want to be done with this.”..me taking that up when I got the job on Wall Street, thinking that she might help me calmly negotiate the transition to a brokerage career; with my final grammar anchoring my possibility to participate in the liberal society [I don’t want a woman who has dated a nigger; not you can’t; I don’t want]; lured in by the rapture of her hypnosis and then subject to the various intervention techniques meant to humiliate and rupture my final grammar: I don’t want a woman who has dated a nigger. Naomi, in a meek, hesitant voice, “even if it was a long time ago?” …coyly getting under the skin of my final grammar, as if I was the oppressor, I had a break down and did not realize it at the time, that I had to go back to school directly, to take on society directly, to present a second final grammar, “we don’t want.” But in the meantime, I had lost the  means to pay for that education and lost most of my remaining respect for my parents for hiring Naomi. I had to sell my father with the ostensible goal of pursuing a PhD in order to get the intellectual resources necessary for psychic recovery, to understand what is going on and to develop a critical platform in defense. I.e., to “get an education” according to the original trance mandate as opposed to cramming for a degree, as I had done at Tufts. That is, it was about an education, not a PhD, though it’s pursuit was the guise by which I gained some financial support.

You see, while my father was emotionally and intellectually below zero, I’d be jerk to complain about his material /financial providing; even though we were not wealthy. The problem was the blockage of meta communication, such that you/I could not even know what amount of help might be reasonable to negotiate from him; any such inquiry was greeted with an attack. That is why Naomi ‘s blockage of meta communication, in Brief  Therapy pragmatic technique of trying to create frustration, get the patient to seek a human response, turning everything back on me was intolerable; I had no perspective.

But through the braille of his materialism, maybe pursuit of a PhD and the production of another grandchild for him (my brother had only one at that point and did not plan another) would be enough to gain his support for this education that I needed.

And it started out showing promise that way, with my ideas being recognized as worthy of development in a graduate thesis; until my side of the trance deal kicked in, and my “crazy Italian” thing put the kibosh on any hopes of a PhD, or certainly not at U. Mass. and certainly not with any help from them.

While my PhD prospects still seemed hopeful, as I really did have good, important ideas, recognized as such, a trip home found the curios sight of my sister in law kissing my brother like it was their honey moon, and a second grandchild for my father soon after. I got the impression that this selfish, competitive asshole sister-in-law of mine (chief force on my family’s side, manipulating my Zelig-like father into mouthing the liberal narrative (that my Jewish professor wanted), subverting my second final grammar, “nobody agrees with you”, i.e., there is no “WE” don’t want” knowing  that this was the way to box most of my father’s help and resources to her; and me, well, “you still want to have children?”

In his tortoise shell, obliviously stepping on his own eggs, my father liked America. The depression had made him materialistic; it was enough for him to come out of that; he could not understand a serious, let alone a profound complaint with America. If there was a problem, it must be me, must be in my head ..just wonderful here.. “anything goes when the whistle blows” he’d say with the dumb smile on his face; anyway, “you can’t fight city hall!” 

America commenced on the Lockeatine anti-elitist class idea, which was quite good in a way of course, in that it gave everyone a shot…a liberalism still problematic in reality, in a big, unwieldly society like America, with so many ethnicities, but when the anti classification of civil rights was weaponized as “civil right”, where this anti classificatory idea was weaponized as anti racism, specifically weaponizing blacks against Whites, the notion of giving the underdog a shot (as if blacks were exactly an underdog in context) became a nightmare.

Thus, when my father was going along with the university intervention against my attempt to muster a second final grammar, saying “you weren’t taught that” and “I talked to everyone and nobody agrees with you”….”good naturedly”  saying, “I want a black grandchild…bragging about his testimony “with a famous Jewish lawyer before the Supreme Court that broke union restrictions (in Jimmy Hoffa’s rule), how “he just wanted the same rights as anyone”…. I began to hate him for the cataclysm that his values were aiding and abetting in the destruction of EGI, a shirking of an important part of paternal responsibility.

And while my father was liberated from mere facticity in the vulgar popular sense of being able to take a pat on the head for playing stupid (or maybe just being stupid enough to not threaten the powers that be), going along with fantastical pop ideas for the “fun” of it, and maintaining loyalty to the liberal American idea as if it was “conservative” this vulgar pragmatism took for granted the backing of his Italian culture and indeed, put aside objective, Augustinian concerns with a penchant for negotiating Manichean trickery instead. I always hated this and it made me purity spiral into “objectivity”, truth and honesty being my only apparent means to make sense of this confusing family and society by reaction.

Furthermore, while a liberation from mere facticity is necessary for a coherent personality, it must not be untethered to the extent that it cannot gird coherence. That was my father. He was Zelig like, the Woody Allen character who adopted his personality from his surroundings. When my uncle, his brother died, I sent a respectful note; then my father is sounding exactly like my uncle, quietly grunting on his death bed), I guess thinking that’s the way to gain respect. It was obnoxious and concerning to realize that this was the caliber of character that I had to contend with the world by means of my father.

But again, with the high self esteem that has always been the tragic flaw in my part of the equation, I withdrew aloof, believing that I simply should not have to deal with such family and societal foibles and obstacles, and did not develop well enough the practical social skills to negotiate complicated circumstance, antagonistic points of view and difficult personalities.

Indeed, I was not yet myself  liberated from facticity enough myself, in my reactionary objectivist orbit, white knuckles only beginning to loosen up as I began to get a hold of the manichean trickster Jewish rhetoric, the (((red caping))) of praxis and our moral order thereof.  …but even in the liberation from mere facticity that I had by this time, to move into a narrative coherence for myself and my people, I did not have support enough nor practical skill yet to use it for one of its most important functions: to liberate from the mere facticity, that most of our people are not worth it and those who are worth it can still have serious flaws. 

Not having the practical skills to sort that out well enough is why I got taken in Pila. But that’s getting ahead of things.

The moral order concerned with our people’s existence, that would have facilitated this transcendence, for enough perspective to rise above the moments, episodes and relations of our own bad people and the bad aspects of our good ones, to keep an eye on the justifying pattern and not get caught up in moment, episode or even in a particular bad  relationship, being able to gracefully put smaller problems aside for the bigger perspective  ..was not operative… I was still operating on my old fall back of the braille of my emotions as my maps to make reliable sense close (all too close) to the vest, to try to follow the arbitrary facticity of modernity, and try to transcend for myself the world of social disconfirmation.

While it may seem ridiculous in casual reading as to why I had stayed in the orbit of U. Mass for this long, particularly after I had been thrown off campus, I still hoped for help launching from there to another university, as I had done much work with a professor here, who had connections around the world.

But now, despite sincere apology for the hideous emotional assault on my professor, that reason to stay and try to link to a pursuit of a PhD had dwindled as well. 

A few final indignations to my sensibilities brought home the need to call my father and discuss the likely need to take a new path other than academic.

As I said, this was after the trance and I had moved to a sublet with undergraduates a block away from 19 Hobart on North Pleasant Street. I leafed through a porno magazine that they kept below the sink in the bathroom. Not that I had not seen this kind of thing in porno before, but there was an exquisitely beautiful blond Swedish woman sucking a nigger’s dick. As opposed to being reminded  of what I am doing all this for then, I was reminded what the hell am I doing this for? Not that I was resigned but my disillusionment rekindled and set ablaze when a car stopped patiently to allow me to cross through the zebra stripe across North Pleasant Street to Kim and Jim’s house on Berkshire Terrace. I looked into the car and see a nigger with a grin on his face, happily waving me across, like everything is copasetic as a beautiful blond sat in his passenger’s seat. I decided to rankle his placid mood with an epithet heavy tirade. He pulled the car around, seemingly in shock, his White passenger side window next me as I stood on the curb yelling; they both seemed a little worried but he leaned over and was going to say something but I was not going to let them; just kept berating them until the gave up and screeched away  – in the opposite direction (!) to which they had been patiently and placidly proceeding. To note, they turned around in the parking lot of an an adjacent building where I had weeks before ducked in to make a phone call to police after having been stalked and threatened all the way from campus by a dreadlock and beret wearing fanatical anarchist/anti racist type cohort of Ms. nigger loving Aiello (recall the first lawyer that I spoke to regarding her assault allegation: “you called her a nigger lover? You called her a nigger lover?!? Yes, I’ll defend you!” No, I don’t think so. lol).

And so the time had come to make a call to my father, to tell him that I needed to change my plans, resign on pursuit of a PhD in America. It was intolerable. Maybe in Europe, but I needed to get back to Europe no matter what – there at least, in Italy or Poland, nobody could  say to me, “Where is your stronger claim to national identity? we’re all immigrants here; how dare you!”

THE PIVOTAL EPISODE

I called my father to try to explain. Although I had been working (at the restaurants in Northampton) I had also had to hit my parents up enough for money (mostly dealing with my mother at first, but she had died a few years ago). At first he was sympathetic when I said it did not look like things would work out at U. Mass. He said, “well, you got your foot in the door.” Meaning that he thought that I might pursue a PhD at some other university in the United States.

Then I had to bridge a complexity that I was not even fully conscious of my self and could not really say to him anyway, even if I was articulate enough. I could not say to him that this was never about getting a PhD according to the original trance deal, but rather about getting a real education. I began to explain to him that I could not bear America any longer. He began to turn on me, saying, “oh no, I’m throwing good money after bad!”

While my father sided with me in hating Clinton and the Democrats, for him, the Republicans and America were still more than good enough. I could not explain to him that this wasn’t about a PhD, not even about a mere education, but I was getting what I needed to articulate and overcome the nightmare family that he had created and the nightmare society that he liked – snapping turtle that he was, retreating obliviously into his shell rather than face the nightmare that the American dream was turning into.

I tried to explain how it had not been a waste, how I’d engaged with prominent academics from all over the U.S.; and while it is true that Helen Haste had invited me to Harvard to discuss feminism and gender relations with her and that a chat might have been nice, she wasn’t going to be sympathetic to my point of view and I wasn’t going to get into Harvard.

Furthermore, I had also engaged with professors from all over Europe, such as Harre from Oxford, also psychologists from the Milan Group; and also, I had written a well received analysis of John Shotter’s work on social accountability.

My father bellowed, “isn’t that what you’re supposed to be! accountable!”

It was difficult enough or me to rise above his more trivial stupidity; I had always despised his “I’m rubber, you’re glue” and “that’s nothing, I knew all that already” dismissiveness; when I knew good and well he didn’t know shit, let alone better than the best scholars.

I think back on when he was asked to take me to Italy and we were talking to my cousins. I used some Milan Group type thinking with my cousin’s daughter, creating a legitimate space for agency by saying, “listen to your mother, she is very wise.” Mother and daughter were happy.  Then my stupid father, “knowing all this”, throws up his hands to signal resignation, while translating this into an unqualified command, “listen to your mother!” The kid starts screaming.

I try to explain to my other cousins there an important way in which the American project was going bad after having started out as a nice idea to give the little guy a shot, but …and then my father, with that dumb smile on his face, always with the instantaneous dismissive, ‘yeah”, he knew all that, you are no source of information, “the big fish eat the little fish. It’s like that everywhere.” He is arbitrarily dismissing me as a respectable  source of information and America as having particular problems.

Now coming back to our phone call. Of course he immediately “knows everything” that Harre and Shotter have to say and is going to dismiss me as a worthy source of information; but this was more serious and more on the order of the fierce, snapping turtle type of attack that was not uncommon for him either in response to inquiries. “Accountable! Isn’t that what you’re supposed to be! You have to stand on your own two feet!”

I might have wanted to explain that sheerly standing on one’s own two feet is not exactly what social accountability is about; it’s more about mutual accountability and conjoint cooperation in the construction of means. But I was getting fatigued by it all, the lack of perspective that his didactic incitement left; the tedium of having to deal with this hostile, ignorant man. And so I just said weakly, “oh no, no man’s an island.”

He starts bellowing louder; “you have to stand on your own two feet and don’t come back here! (to his house); to make matters worse, he was not entirely wrong. I had leaned on him for a year; true, Naomi put the kibosh on my effort to fund my education by myself, and I kind of needed the help now, but still, he was forking over money.

Maybe I was grasping at straws at trying to be rigorously accountable as leaving America and its opportunities had always been an unthinkably emasculating thought. 

I said something that makes me mad even now when I think about having said it, so stupidly unlike me, not even honestly what I felt: “I feel ashamed.”

Then, like an ice pick in the center of my psyche, he bellowed, “you should be!

This was a manifestation of my father’s worst penchant, viz., to attack vulnerability; it triggers a second order change where it is impossible to trust (it broke my mother psychologically; and triggered me to new height of negative reaction in this episode).

This caused an immediate eruption from me. Beginning with, “well, I’m not ashamed!” then, “I’ll kill those fucking kids!” (my brothers two sons). It was a spontaneous psychic explosion probably relating to the sense that by having a second kid, my sister in law had taken away my angle of being necessary to provide an insurance kid; thus doing away with any sense in my father that gingerly negotiations were necessary. Infuriating, because I did want to have a kid and I had the means to develop a platform that could reconstruct a world worth bringing a child into. While Mrs chewed bubble-gum head was the “everybody” behind the “nobody agrees with me.” It must be said, in her stupid, Long Island accent in attendance to nigger ball. I wanna watcha the Giaaants (niggerball team). I want everything to be noaamaaal. No, I don’t agree with you (about what?).

I gathered my senses enough to say, that I am not going to waste my life to kill her piece of shit children. But I do need to come to the house only to get my Passport, because that’s where it is.

“By now, I should have realized somehow what I’m not to do”, I suppose they might say….and still transcending the charmed loop of didactic incitement is no easy task.

But after all, I’m your wonderwall.

The next day, I took the bus from Amherst Mass. down to Brielle, New Jersey. When I got to my father’s house, for some reason my sister in law was there with her younger kid; and she scurried out to the car with him and locked the door while my father waited with two Passports, one mine and one my grandfather’s old passport (I guess that I wanted it to show people my relation in the villages). I snatched them from my father, while he said, “you can’t stay here, I’ll call the police!” I said fuck you! and drop dead and left. 

It probably took me all night to get back to Amherst as America’s public transportation is notoriously inconvenient, when not like being trapped in a monkey cage (remind me to tell you about the incident that happened on the tram outside of Boston when I came back from Europe).

I got back to Amherst with nowhere else to stay, and even there my sublet about to expire.

Kim and Jim had mercy on me and decided to take me in.

I told Kim and Jim that I considered doing “the dirty work” for mafia sorts. With their Christian charity mindset, they took me in to their house, as my other arrangements were falling apart. They could nurse me to some sense of normality and health with their Christian charity following the trance phenomenon, all of which they’d witnessed.

My grandfather's passport photo

And so I was no longer living at 19 Hobart or the nearby sublet, but was living at Kim and Jim’s house in Amherst. It was a few weeks after the trance and I went shopping with Kim at Bread & Circus, a high end supermarket (I think that it was on the Mass. Turnpike west of Amherst).

As Kim and I moved through the supermarket’s abundant spaces, I furtively noticed the Jewish incest victim shopping. Although she featured heavily in the trance, no significance centered in my consciousness. I think I was curious; there was something in my suppressed memory that I  attempted to call to Kim’s attention, but Kim was attendant to her shopping.

My curiosity increased as we moved along and I spotted two others from the trance, Chicken Neck and the homely Jewish woman that I spoke about two paragraphs above. Chicken Neck noticed me as well, and stopped to worriedly discuss me with the homely Jewish woman. So, she remembered the trance and had some idea of what I and the trance meant to her; it worried her; and she discussed it with this sort of bohemian Jewish woman, with her tedious sympathetic schtick. They did not approach me, but I remember feeling a bit satisfied that I had piqued the taken for grantedness of their PC world view. 

Kim completed her shopping and I had whatever few things that I might have wanted to add and we got on a check-out line. And then moving in behind us on line was the Jewish incest victim. I don’t know exactly what cued me, but I had a sense that she was not actually ready to check out her groceries. She had only gotten on line behind us because she had been instructed by me in the trance to do so – with her head bowed in obedience.

As Kim and I left the supermarket, I said to her, “did you see”… and she said, “oh yes, I remember.”

Coming back to the trances then, “you will be obedient to me” was one of the original post hypnotic suggestions that I was given to say from the initial trance with my therapist back in 1985. “You will succumb” and ‘you will suck his cock off good and hard” were my “innovations”, lol, related to my premonition that I would make a ridiculous effort to set her up with a Jewish man who I would work for, helping him to shut down his printing press factory in Newark, N.J.

The therapist who induced the original trance back in 1985 made another post hypnotic suggestion that would carry into the Amherst trance. That I would assimilate the Godfather character through parts of this trance. That beyond its aesthetics I actually don’t like the Godfather story is not altogether relevant. Although I did manage to tell the group, as I said, about experiences that I would have in Sicily with mafia.

While I initially had the typically romantic notion of the godfather that Americans have through the movie, or that they were some brute fact of life necessary in order to protect culture, viz, Sicilian people from outsiders, my experiences in Sicily would lead me to conclude that these were crude criminals who cared primarily about money; and that Italian society would only go to hell through their system of “honor.”

There were several glimpses of my future experiences in Italy and Sicily that I would have in the Amherst trance. Some of them I’ve already mentioned. I will save details of my experiences in Europe for part 2, and try to put here only those visions that clearly occurred with in this trance, adding them as I recall them; which will probably happen as I move on to the next post and reflect upon my experiences in Europe.

Recall my echoing Catanian school boy teasing an Italian a school girl, “seniorena, avera pantalone niente” and addressing it as if to the Jewish incest victim.

Just to sketch a bit more for now, among the things that I would see was my meeting with two lady professors of psychology from The University of Palermo. I would tell them that I was going to Catania to address “this bitch” *which made them laugh); how I knew that I would be meeting this woman in Catania I have no idea, but so it would be.

I would befriend a lawyer lady who hung out at a book shop, who would take me to support group she attended (maybe something like a 12 Step meeting but without the 12 step rules). And there would be this beautiful Italian woman presiding over the group. I would provide some description of some of the people in the group, including this beautiful woman, who in fact, was friends with Mafia. I’m sure that it is a bit of a stretch to accuse her of impersonating the godfather and arrogating his role, but she may well have had undue power behind the scenes’ and was friends with the mafia owners of Banacher, visions of which would end anti climatically, if not comically, with my seeing a woman with a box shaped ass like Naomi (making me and German 5 laugh).

Lightheartedness aside, I was indeed learning contempt for the mafia. From the vast pollution around Siracusa from their unregulated oil refineries. To the toxic landfills that the Camora controlled waste disposal bushiness, had left around the Naples area; the Nigerian prostitutes they had strewn just as toxically upon Italy’s highways; the busts of assassinator judges that I would see in the park of Trapani where I read William James; the two dozen innocent people who I would learn from an archivist that I spoke to, had recently been shot in a small town for some reason of imposing his fear. The ruin to the economy in southern Italy; and while Catania’s 86 murder’s in a year raised a point to Americans, that these were primarily contained to mafia on mafia; in a city the same size as Baltimore, where there were 364 murders the same year, mostly black perpetrators and black victims, of course.

Catania remains heaven by comparison, albeit with terror in the background; I performed the same experiment in Amherst as in Catania; standing up and pretending that I was shooting; the Americans looked at me like I was ridiculous; the Sicilians started ducking for cover. It was all too real a possibility. my hypothesis that this terror in the backwound was protecting the culture was looking very questionable as it necessarily weakened the solidarity and trust between the people; I would see the most exquisite young Sicilian woman with a mulatto radiating some kind of energy, as if from a broken Sicilian goddess.

Now, this is July 1995 when I’m seeing stuff that would happen in Italy and elsewhere.

I would wake up late on a morning as it turned September 1996 to see an unusual funeral procession moving through Piazza Duomo. Two coffins were being moved.

Salvatore Botta, assassinated at age 14

I saw the names of those who I would learn were Salvatore Botta 14 and Santa Puglisi 22, the nephew and niece of a rival mafioso. They were shot on August 27th while attending the funeral for Santa’s husband – who had also been shot..

Santa Puglisi, assassinated age 22

A final word on the mafia experience as I must leave detail for the next post. While it is probably is true that women like the one I was calling the imposter godfather do wield disproportionate power – badly – behind the scenes, and reap disproportionate reward, while men are fore-fronted to take the responsibility and the blame, like many of the women I berated in my trances, this one I would gain respect for, as I found her to truly love her Italian people and heritage. I’ve given the one example for now, of her reacting in horror, as if I was tearing her rib out  when I described trying to lift a stone from the ancient  path leading to Tiberius Villa.

Besides the “godfather” script that acted through me with the psychology professors at the Palermo psychology department, where I said, “this bitch (in Catania) thinks that she is the godfather” and how I knew to say that and how I knew that I would meet this woman, I have not idea (other than the trance administrators being able to instill their wishes somehow)…but it was a clear script acting through me beyond my agency…besides that, there was only one script that was as clear and beside my personal agency. That happened toward the end of the Amherst trance. Everyone sensed to listen attentively, when I said with Godfather authority and clarity,:

"This is what's going to happen"

While The U. Mass student newspaper staff would be debating whether to publish my one page “White Women For Sale!” statement, I would be posting it around town (banned from campus now), while wearing my t-shirts, “Big Mulatto Bro is Watching: Foil Her Mulatto Supremacist Dream!” and “We have a consensus! Black Women are ugly!”) and stirring up my usual conflict, especially for interracial couples.

While matriculation at U. Mass. was no longer viable, I had to tell my father that graduate school altogether was not looking very possible. As in the pivotal and infuriating episode that I described  just above, suffice it to say, the abusive way that he pulled the plug on any idea of helping me, triggered desperate thoughts in my mind.

I told Kim and Jim that I considered doing “the dirty work” for mafia sorts. With their Christian charity mindset, they took me in to their house, as my other arrangements were falling apart. They could nurse me to some sense of normality and health with their Christian charity following the trance phenomenon, all of which they’d witnessed.

Their Christian mindset and inference from the trance that it was about reconciliation was probably why they thought it would be a good idea to bring  their Jewish neighbor (the one who’d come to the meeting where she’d never before been) to talk to me with her mulatto daughter.

I wasn’t having it. I stood at the top of the stairs and bellowed in a faux M.L. King voice, “I have a dream, that some day, men will not be judged by their shit colored skin or monkey like faces, but by the size of their dicks. And nobody can question their shit colored authority!”

Needless to say Kim and Jim were mortified. Jim settled down enough to let me stay the night and leave in the morning. I’d soon be on my way to Europe. America was not working for me.

But while I would indeed go to Europe, almost entirely Italy for six months to begin, there would still be back and forth between me and U. Mass and the Amherst area. And as I would tell the Amherst trance group, I would for a few months move to the still largely Italian North Ward section of Newark New Jersey upon return from Italy in February of 1996.

From a telephone booth by a pizza parlor on the corner of 1rst Ave and North 11th Street, I would call the U. Mass newspaper staff and try to get them to publish “White Women For Sale!” Finally they voted to Not publish it. That made for one occasion for me to return to U. Mass, as my 2 year banishment was over, and I wanted to plaster “White Women For Sale!| all over campus.

I returned to the North Ward of Newark, with its eroded Italian ethnocentrism, and racism, unsurprisingly, not what it’s cracked up to be. As I waited in my bank on the corner of Bloomfield Ave. and North 11th Street, I saw a pretty Italian girl. And I remarked from a safe distance, and in a casual, unthreatening way, “is that an Italian girl with a nigger baby? What a shame.”

In days that followed, I’d be buying pizza at that parlor on the corner of 1rst Ave and North 11th. Sickeningly, they had a brash young nigger working there. Of course I did not say anything directly to him, but I made furtive remarks which let it be known that I was not about to accept living with niggers and intermarrying with them.

Then one day, I spotted the Italian girl with her nigger baby outside the pizzeria; and I think that I made some disapproving noise as I made my way into buy two slices…

I walk out with these two hot slices awkwardly in my hands. Suddenly out of the door comes the nigger, screaming at me, “are you a racist! are you a racist! are you a racist!” He pushes me. My shoes are slippery and my hands are full so I land on the side of my face.

A crowd was gathered and they were all more afraid, well, I was not afraid at all. In fact, I got up smiling. I grabbed a chair and raised in the air with both arms, ready to lower it onto the nigger’s head. Some other worker there, Hispanic, said, “don’t, I’ll call the police.” I said, “call the police. He’ll be arrested for assault.” The owner of the pizzeria, balding blond guy, said nervously, “just stay away from here.” I said, “just give me my three dollars back” (for the pizza that had fallen onto the ground), which I think was pretty cool of me; i.e., to show that my concerns were ordinary, that I was not at all worried.

He gave me the three dollars and I proceeded back to my house, past he Italian girl, who said to me, “remember the bank?” I said to her, “you’ve had it.” and the nigger starts screaming at me again, “you will never look at my son again!” Like I want to look at that piece of shit. I stopped at the liquor store on my way home and got myself a lot of malt liquor. As I stepped into my house, I noticed an old White woman and an old black woman across the street nervously assuring one another, that they were not trouble for one another (didn’t use to be blacks in that neighborhood at all). And the next day, a nigger bitch sat perched across the street, supremely confident that this land, the United States, was her land, looking at me with corny cool, and calm contempt, as my face had swollen up.

But it was the day before, the day of the incident that was most interesting. As I got drunk, my mental state was awash with trance re-capitulation, as the radio was playing many songs that I had “sang” in the Amherst trance.

And as I looked out of my top floor window, what do I see? Nigger is sitting on the curb across the street, hugging this pretty, slim blond girl (is it surprising that he’s with a different White woman now?), they are hugging each other in comfort of solidary against me. They sat there all afternoon, for more than three hours; while I got drunk and listened to the songs and recognized my fate calling me back to Europe, even though I’d just come back from there and didn’t to really have the means. i.e., it was irrational, but I had a narrative of fate to follow now.

In fact, as I looked in the mirror at my swollen face, I would be reminded that I had described this incident in the Amherst trance, that just like the incident in the Godfather, when Al Pacino having his face swollen by a beating from a cop realizes that he must take matters into his own hands and become the Godfather that this would be a symbolic turning point for me as well, to take control of fate’s call, even beyond rationale.

That evening I went out for more beer and just so happens the blond was pulling out of the parking lot with her car, nigger in the passenger seat. She had this stupid look about her, gesturing that she was so innocent and just taking the virtuous stand by this nigger. I would see this nigger one more time, from a distance. I could see him by the pizzeria, a pretty White girl coming up to him, interested and the Hispanic guy, same one who said he’d call the cops, walking away in disgust, saying “enough.” Apparently the nigger had a number of choice women, even though he was not handsome.

I would leave the area with a note to him at the pizzeria. “That “you, nigger, will never hit a White man again.” It was a double bind that I put him in. He is either obedient to my orders, or he is dumb enough to defiantly hit people and start getting on the wrong side of the law.

Be that as it may, I would be awash in malt liquor, semi-trance state quite often and music all the time, much of it from the trance, reminding me of my fate.

One of the songs that I would hear quite often and which would featured prominently in the Amherst trance was Alanis Morrisette’s ‘Ironic.”

The song would bear upon how I would skirt fate’s whimsy, particularly the lines:

Mr. Play It Safe was afraid to fly
He packed his suitcase and kissed his kids goodbye
He waited his whole damn life to take that flight
And as the plane crashed down, he thought
“Well, isn’t this nice?”
And isn’t it ironic, don’t you think?

By mid July of ’96 I had a stand-by voucher, ready to fly to Europe, even though in financial terms it was irrational; I was going to follow my fate. The voucher was cheap, a hundred something bucks, but would allow me to take any vacant seat on a cooperating airline (which sought to get something as opposed to nothing by filling up their unsold seats). The only problem is that you might not be able to get a flight when you want, and what might happen is that you could go to the airport as there had been a few open seats, but they are take-up at the last moment; and there you are at the airport. That happened to me once before and it happened again on July 17th, when I went to JFK Airport looking to snag one of a few seats remaining available on a flight to Rome, only to find they’d all been bought up by time I got there.

So I called up the voucher company and asked if there was anything else available to Italy if not Europe? Well yes, they told me. There is one seat – one – (talk about a weird, fatalistic implication, THE seat for for you), but it is on a flight to Paris and it leaves in just 40 minutes from another terminal, so you’d better hurry.

I hurriedly got on the airport interterminal shuttle bus; my first impulse being, yes sir, let’s see more of Paris! Only seen it once before for three days and I loved it; fate wants to show me a good time in detour on my way to Italy …my mind is made up, there’s one seat for me!

Then as the shuttle bus arrived at the terminal where that flight was departing from I suddenly started to think, well, wait a minute. Isn’t my fate to rediscover my Italian identity? Don’t I need to get to my grandparent’s villages in southern Italy on time for the feasts in late July and early August. I thought that I didn’t have any money. That’s a rather extravagant and expensive side trip for a place I’ve already seen once. The cost of transportation from Paris to southern Italy alone will negate the thrift of the standby voucher. So I stayed on the shuttle, resolved that I should go back home and pursue one of the four seats that were still available to Rome later in the week.

And then I think to myself, chicken! Sour guy, all hyper practical when fate is offering you a juicy chance to see Paris. Fate has reserved one seat for you! I thought you believed in fate now? What’s the matter with you? you’ll work it out. You’re here, all packed up and ready, what do you want to go back to Newark for? So I resolved to go to Paris, staying on the shuttle past the exit were I would get off to go back to Newark… and I came around again in about seven minutes to the terminal where the flight to Paris was leaving from. And then I start thinking again….wait a minute. Yes, you care about France and all of Europe, but your fate is supposed to be Italy and finding an Italian wife; get that birthrate and ethnocentric position back in gear; you are not French for F-sake. How are you going to find an Italian wife if you waste your money on tangential extravagances like that? Besides, you’ve already been there, had a great time; and you know how it goes, the next time won’t be as good, maybe even present a bad side.

So I stay on the shuttle and, of course, go through another round of chicken! martyr! Why should you deprive yourself a little vacation like all the middle class kids have. Everyone needs to see Paris right. It’s the epicenter of European culture! So I resolve again to go to Paris, stay on the shuttle, going past all the other terminals again and arrive at the terminal where the Paris flight is to take off still with a few minutes to make it happen. Then, as the bus halts there, I say naaahh!!! Let me go back home and catch a flight to Rome in a few days.

I wake up the next morning and see big headlines on the newspaper on my neighbor’s porch:

Flight 800 JFK to Paris Explodes Mid-air, Cause Unknown.

All 230 people on board died

Now, OK, OK, the flight JFK to Paris that I was going to get on left about a half hour earlier than TWA Flight 800 to Paris from JFK.  It wasn’t exactly the same flight. But they both left JFK destined for Paris, less than an hour a part. Weird enough to make the point of fate. And there was that creepy “one seat” available to underscore the cryptic fatalistic aspect.

Notes:

I will be back tracking quite a bit in the next post, as I skipped ahead to the flight 800 episode, it’s being the best place to segue from having been mired in The U.S. to following my fate into Europe. However, before coming back to Newark in February 1996, there was an entire six months, mostly in Italy, fraught with strange, fatalistic occurrences, that I have to recount in the next post; and I will need to recount the highly charged events which caused me to make the decision to flee to Europe that first time, given any rational means; before the second time, when rational means be damned, let fate take me where I need to go.

Musical Bibliography (of sorts):

The trance in Amherst had me singing or humming parts of dozens of songs. Most of them were meaningful to the trance in some way, a few maybe not so much, and a few almost uniquely meaningful to this trance. And while I sang some of the songs very well, in some tunes, not so well, largely because I could not remember the lyrics. I have something of an excuse for pushing the music beyond what my repertoire of ability and memory could bear, as popular music can form a calming common ground when referenced; and it was a suggestion made by the original trance inducer, that this was a means by which I was monitoring our cultural patterns. So, it was one of my primary entering points into the public discourse; and, again, I was phenomenally good in executing some of the pieces. Furthermore, Bill the incestor was apparently in the pop music business and because he was one of the key interlocutors in the trance I wanted to fully deploy the calming referential effect of commonly known and appreciated tunes, as Bill seemed to appreciate it. Finally, in the case of some songs it was involuntary, such as my singing My Country Tis of Thee like like the black opera singer that Eleanor Roosevelt wanted to promote. Or even more phenomenally, singing songs that nobody had even heard yet, such as the Anita Lipnicka song, which I would hear in Poland; or the Wonderwall song by Oasis, which had central implications for me in the trance, but which I would not hear on the public air until months later.

However, not all of the trance was intelligent insights, wisdom, clever zingers. I comported plenty of stupidity. And my pushing the music bit was a big part of that. I managed to make a fascinating, amazing phenomenon of trance, boring and tedious in swathes as I made people hear yet another popular tune, struggled to remember words that they probably knew better than me; pressing on, trying to assign meaning, such as attributing Beth Hart’s “Immortal” to Bill the incestor’s woman; trying to compliment her by shoveling the partly remembered lyrics to her; but exhausting her with the unskilled tedium of it by the trance’s end.

In the service then, of avoiding the reconstruction of that tedium, I did not try to recount every song that was invoked in the trance as it occurred. That would be a tediously protracted bore. Unnecessary. Nevertheless, the dozens of songs were a vital part of the trance, often conveyed significant meaning of themselves, that’s why they were invoked. But because there were too many songs and it would be too complicated to figure out where they fit in the trance without side tracking essential  matters, I will simply list them, like a bibliography of sorts, adding remarks about particular significance where I should, starting tomorrow.

Songs/Musical Artists Referenced Through Singing, in Part, Some of Them Performed Well, Others Badly Because I Did Not Know or Could Not Remember the Words.

I will not worry too much about order to begin with, but will for the most part simply try to list songs as I remember them and then rearrange them according to order and significance later. 

There were two songs that standout significantly in the trance, however, apparently for the fact that neither I nor anyone else there were aware of them before this.

  1. Oasis, Wonderwall: At least to my conscious knowledge I’d never heard it. Wikipedia says the song was recorded in May 1995 and that Noel Gallagher debuted the song for BBC television on June 24, 1995. With the trance probably being in July of 1995, it is possible that I would have heard the song and not realized it. Nevertheless, implications of the song that can be drawn to my place in the trance, not altogether flattering, are salient. Such that it appeared to be “my song”, about me in the trance. In fact, the first time I heard the song to my conscious knowledge was in the bar below The Irish Hostel, Boston, in February of 1996 (upon return from Europe), and I was stunned, having then recalled singing it in trance. So, it also may be that I never heard it before, that it was “in the air” like “podgrzybek” and “succo di banana.”

2. Anita Lipnicka, Wszystko się może zdarzyć: was most assuredly a matter of clairvoyance, as it came out in 1996 and is in Polish. I don’t remember if I sang any of the words (included above), though with meaning to the trance; but the tune, which I hummed, captivated me as a muse.

3. Marian Anderson, My Country Tis of Thee: A divinely inspired moment, I actually sang the song in a female voice and more beautifully than Marian Anderson. I “performed” this not only at the Al-Anon trance, but also at the grad school class trance, in trance with my family, maybe others. A bit of the, who needs Eleanor Roosevelt imposing inspired niggers upon us, when you have me.

4. Alanis Morissette, a few different songs: Alanis seemed to be what the doctor ordered in display of conciliatory empathy with female anxiety under the circumstance (conciliatory, given my misogyny). A) Head Over Feet (You’ve already won me over) seemed to be for Jenna, who I was trying to win over. B) Ironic, which I’ve discussed above, not only seemed to have the foreshadowing of my near board of Flight 800, but to capture the roulette of the pursuit of happiness from a young woman’s perspective. C) You Learn. Self explanatory. D) You Ought to Know (about the mess that you left when you went away), was one of those songs that made me feel like I had unfinished destiny in Amherst when I would hear it later; causing me to return irrationally. Another song that cause me to go back to Amherst in pursuit of destiny was

5. Tommy Tutone, 867-5309/Jenny: Captured the kind of enthusiasm that getting a number from a woman like Jenna could inspire. I sang it in trance; and when I heard it afterward, I rented a wreck and drove back to Amherst thinking that I’d find Jenna. She wasn’t there, lol.

6) Gin Blossoms, Found Out About You

7. Gordon Lightfoot, If You Could Read My Mind

8. KC & The Sunshine Band, Give It Up: Not everything was heavy.

9. Jethro Tull, several cuts. Tull, like Bowie, had the advantage of my being able to assimilate his voice, as with: A) With You There To Help Me; B) Wondering Aloud C) Mother Goose D) Living In The Past E) A New Day Yesterday F) Jeffrey Goes To Leicester Square G) Back To The Family;    H) Nothing Is Easy I) My God J) Bourée (ridiculously, I mouthed the flute sounds); K) Teacher      L) Skating Away On The Thin Ice of A New Day M) Thick As A Brick O) Cross Eyed Mary

10. David Bowie, several cuts: A) Soul Love B) Moonage Daydream C) Starman D) Big Brother       E) Sweet Thing/Candidate F) We are The Dead G) Heroes H) Word on a Wing I) Ziggy Stardust      J) Wild is the Wind K) Stay L) Lady Stardust M)Suffragette City O)Rock’n’Roll Suicide P)FiveYears

11. Heart. Several songs; such as Even It Up

12. The Sundays, Here’s Where The Story Ends

13. Everything But the Girl, Missing

14. Captain Beefheart, Observatory Crest; I Got Love On My Mind (but I can’t make up my mind, who to love).

15. Donna Lewis, I Love You Always Forever

16. Natalie Merchant, Wonder

17. Natalie Imbruglia, Torn

18. Toto, Africa

19. Joan Osborn, One of Us: This song seemed to have direct meaning for the trance. To alert the people to look for the potential of the divine through ordinary people, even slobs like me. 

20. Nirvana, Come As You Are; Smells Like Teen Spirit

I’d have talked about Nirvana and Alice in Chains in terms of male Self Actualization having long become a toxic expectation in modernity, which needed to be mitigated and ameliorated with priority, leniency and respect for Socialization, Organic Being, Ordinary level tasks and the Sacred.

21. Alice In Chains: A) Would B) Down In A Hole C) Dam That River D) Nutshell E) No Excuses     F) Man in the Box G) I Stay Away H) Rain When I Die I) Rooster

22. Pearl Jam, Black

23. Beth Hart, Immortal: which is a heavy song. I tried to impose it as meaningful of Bill’s woman toward the end of the trance and exhausted the poor woman. A swansong for the American way.

24. The Band, The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down

25. John Lennon, Mind Games: Instant Karma!

26. The Kinks: You Really Got Me; All Day And All of The Night; Ordinary People; Sunny Afternoon

27. The Beachboys, Good Vibrations

28. Carol King, The Porpoise Song 

29. Limp Bizkit, Rollin’ (interestingly the video is filmed defiantly, in your face on top of The World Trade Center); Hold On; My Way (or the highway; captures the thug mentality of the organized criminals who would seize upon me in Pila, Poland, and my struggle to deal with them). Outro (protracted generated laugh instruction to provide grease to smoothen social interaction).

Limp Bizkit had the hallmarks of a band cooperating with government operations. They took from and gave to the popular lexicon. For example, they made generous use of “the slang dictionary.” Presumably, “Chocolate Starfish Navigation System” refers to the sight of a woman’s anus, facilitating navigation to the vagina. On the other hand, feedback was required from the populace as to how a young man might get that far. I explained to “god” (I altercast Bill the incestor the god position at times because he was a handsome and mature American Anglo) the awkward difficulty of initial interaction episodes with women (recounting a hilariously muffed episode with a girl I had a crush on in high school); and I told him that I noticed that guys who had a good fake laugh seemed to do better. I lacked the skill of a good fake laugh and it made things much harder in awkward moments; thus, I requested a an opportunity to hear and almost ridiculously protracted repetition of a fake laugh to practice by; I proceeded repetitively with the fake laugh, as in Limp Bizkit’s Outro

However, while “god” did offer that help (and this fake laugh qualifies as another bit of clairvoyance, I suppose), he also pushed back on another idea, incorrectly, I would assert, as he did not quite understand me; while I did not make myself perfectly clear. What good is confidence? I asked, questioning the puerile overvaluation of this  characteristic. Now I will explain where I was going with that now that I am more articulate, but Bill was taking me too literally and precisely as if I were saying, “what good” as in it is “no good” when in fact it was a sketch, meant to be crafted with other balancing factors, whereas mere confidence could be taken too far. While it is true that I could use more confidence, the trivial and popular misunderstanding produced  a White zombie that the godfather (me) had to symbolically assassinate at The Jersey Shore (more on that in a moment); and this vulgar and insulting to me pop song, truly one of the psychic offshoots of the trance:

30. Born To Be Down (“What Good Is Confidence?”)

Now, this requires an explanation of the important misunderstanding and the White zombie that it created…

The first problem is my interlocutor. It has been a problem particularly with persons coming from STEM perspectives that they treat, for example, a phrase that I am saying, like “what good is confidence?” as if it is meant to be a precision statement among praxis – i.e., among the social world, where the on going interactive and agentive negotiations among people put limits on the practicality of precision and favor heuristics instead: somewhat more sketchy and deliberately unspecified by precision sense making structures, what Shotter called “specificatory structures” given to an interlocutor, knowing that it is an imperfect and unfinished, but with generally focused framework, offered with the expectation that the interlocutor will correct, shape and craft the idea back and forth, hopefully achieving warranted assertability by the end of the interactive process  of negotiation. While I understood that much by this time, “god”, i.e., Bill the incestor, did not.

He figured that when I asked, “what good is confidence?”, that I was offering a finished statement made precisely to dismiss any and all value to confidence whatsoever. I might have expected him to guess that I was speaking more in relative terms, anticipating a request for specification, whereupon, I’d have responded, of course a certain amount of confidence is necessary, but”… 

But he took me as making a literal and categorical statement, which should be taken to task – “don’t you understand how important confidence is?” You’d almost have to wield as much bad will, stupidity and dishonesty as Guessedworker to impose that kind of pejorative literal mindedness on an important inquiry among popular philosophy as it bears upon the social realm.

But while I did not anticipate this chiding video nor the White zombie, whom I’ll discuss only briefly for now, and then flesh out in part 2, let me adumbrate how I could have been a bit more articulate in response to this mockery of my question, “What good is confidence? 

You would have to be as imperviously stupid as Claire Khaw to raise the kind of universalizing objection that the video gives, but a proper response which might be heard by someone other than her or the White zombie, would go something like this:

We know that women, particularly puerile girls, when they are operating more instinctively (even if not pandered-to on that level; which they are, from all angles as the constraints of group delimitation are broken down with modernity’s anti-social classificatory ’empirical’ emphasis weaponized as anti-racism) when they are not socialized into accountability to the delimitation of their inherited social group, are enamored of confidence in males.

However, confidence isn’t the sheer good that the unsocialized puerile female might ascribe to it. It stands with sexual assertion in relative balance against sublimation, empathy and intellectual survey of the broadest possible time horizons; thus, in social biology, there is an optimal balance of confidence and these other qualities if a distincly human system is to function.

With too much confidence, the society manifests the problems of the hyper-assertive, testosterone laden African populations – the social consequences of a lack sublimation, empathy, intellectual survey in broad time horizons, not far beyond episode, not far beyond moment even, where the infamous black lack of impulse control is concerned. Thus, Rushton’s comparison of black, White and Asian rates of sexual maturity and sublimation would bear important attention and concern; with White biology properly described and thus prescribing different and quite arguably better levels of sublimation with regard to confidence in their socialization process, which corresponds, at once, with necessary delimitation from those with other rates of sublimation, the Africans; the delimitation and reconstruction of which, by the way, is what the post modern project is supposed to be about as opposed to Cartestian modernity’s universlization of qualities,  like “confidence” …a wigger-like pan mixing universalizing as in this video which is so repugnant and which is why those who maintain the Jewish red caping misrepresentation of post modernity should be flushed down the toilet; or symbolically shot, as I did the White zombie, symbolically executing him (telling him to go to hell and stay away from me.) when were are talking at the Jersey shore beach.

The White zombie Scrivani, whom I would encounter while staying in a winter sublet on the Jersey shore in my last full year in the United states, 1997, manifested with zombie-like unflappableness an extreme White version manifestation of confidence in its obliviousness to social surroundings and consequences.

For some reason, I guess that I was testing my ideas out, I ran the question, “what good is confidence? by him. Without a second’s consideration, he smugly dismissed the question, saying, “confidence is very important.” I extrapolated on the problems of black over confidence, and proposed that we, as half Italians (he was half Irish) are an under-represented minority in America, who, if able to have more influence, could perhaps benefit society through our assimilation of some African qualities which seem to flow into a void otherwise, un-ecologically buffered by our kind.

He answered, “first of all, don’t flatter yourself” (by comparing myself to blacks).

I responded, well, everyone seems to want White women and I am the kind of guy who creates them. He said, “well they are spreading their legs for blacks.” 

Oh, it’s ok then? What if I don’t want black women in exchange, think that they are ugly.

He partly agreed with me here, saying that he thought that most black women are ugly. But he offered what he thought were exceptions, with an example of Tyra Banks.

I told him honestly that I did not think she is beautiful, the skin tone by itself being bad enough, but you add to that the insect like sinewy symmetry, compound it with the black personality and she is no… nowhere near the subtlety of the kind of women that I like and that I create. I cited the half Polish/half Italian girl who ran the café at the Spring Lake train station: awesome subtle beauty. My housemate, Kyle, (half German half Irish American guy), with eyes to see agreed – awesome. But what does White zombie Scrivani say? “very mediocre.”

I told him that if he thought that she was “very mediocre” and “Trya Banks is good looking” I don’t know what to say to you. We have nothing in common.

And I, “the godfather”, “shot him” (parted ways with him for good), left him at the Belmar beach, where we had been strolling, and returned to my winter sublet.

Of course, this was all before I knew more about this White zombie Scrivani, manifestation of impervious confidence that he was; quite enough by then to be done with.

His father was experiencing a problem in looking after him, having to call him inside one day when the White zombie was apparently oblivious to the fact that he was walking around the neighborhood completely naked. Some lack of inhibition there.

But his father was left no doubt about having to put him on Social Disability when he walked in on him standing on a ladder in the kitchen, holding a lightbulb in both his hands and screaming (of course being high on crystal meth enhanced his confidence in that endeavor).

Fancying himself a soft rock acoustic guitar player, I did not in fact notice that he had in fact burned the extremities of his fingers off with a that until one day I took note of his hands while he serenaded me, my Puerto Rican and crazy right wing housemate Kyle. Which was another manifestation of his oblivious confidence. You might sit and have a beer, a smoke and a talk with tough guys like this, but you don’t serenade them with soft rock songs to where all they can do is sit there as enraptured girls might.

In fact, I asked him why he insisted on playing “Take it Easy” at the open mic gigs where he performed in local bars? Do they really? I asked.  It must easily be the most overplayed song in history, and I think rather that people are sick to death of it. But confidence is impervious to social approbation, is it not.

Perhaps the imperviousness of the White zombie Scrivani was in good part genetic, as his grandfather was an American boxer who got narrowly edged out from a bronze medal at Hitler’s 1936 Olympics. But whatever the cause, I was a learning that this kind of confidence could not be relied upon in White interests as he expected me to be reasoned to anti-racism as we made our way past the mocking mulatto beasts and cyborgs on way for him to buy French crullers from the pretty young coal burners at 7-11 (while I would buy the hyper-caffeinated, and unfortunately discontinued, “Jolt Soda” and a hot burrito).

But I digress. Coming back to the songs that were brought up in the trance…

Of course there were a litany of

31. Beatles songs that I love, too many to list.

32. Crosby Stills, Nash & Young, same, e.g., “Almost Cut My Hair.” “Ohio” – I changed the lyric from “tin soldiers and Nixon coming, we’re finally on our own.” to “tin soldiers and niggers coming, we’re finally on our own.”   …Neil Young by himself, e.g., the albums Harvest, After The Gold Rush, Everybody Knows This is Nowhere and the single cuts Expecting to Fly and Cortez the Killer.

33. Stevie Winwood, with Spencer Davis, with Blind Faith and with Traffic; same, too many to list. But bearing remark in the example of “I’m a Man” and “Gimme Some Lovin’ which he did when he was only 17, he successfully eagle claws the black singing and groove style, which many White guys try to do but fail. That’s in addition to his psychedelic music which, in being drug inspired, is not only fantastically creative, but gives us a break from every fucking song having to be about the female panacea and broken hearts.

I certainly would have given the group in trance my talk about the hippie movement being an unarticulated expression of White male being, a requirement of intrinsic valuation granted White male being at the base, and preliminary to the hierarchy of motives, nevertheless, denied explicitly in the Vietnam draft; and its difficulty to articulate compounded by its uncouth organic motive being incommensurate with conflicting agendas of black civil rights and power (seeking middle and upper part of the hierarchy:” looga the what boy, he’s got no integritae, he’s got no soweoweaowloohoohoohowl) and second wave feminism, the high grumbles of which, were at the top of the hierarchy; conceitedly oblivious to the fact that the men that de Beauvoir (“French! The Jewish incest victim and I gave a defiant look to/with Jenna) complained about being on top of the hierarchy had gotten there through more rigorous expectations and often unfair sacrifices (like the draft into an unnecessary war like Vietnam). Moreover, compounding the difficulty of articulation was not only the stigmatic diversion from traditional masculine direction, but also the same foot tapping expectations of traditional women despite the fact that weaponized modernity had wreaked havoc with the order and means by which White men might ascend to these traditional requirements. Finally, there was the Jewish media, which has presented the sixties as being all about civil rights for blacks (a Jewish legalistic weaponization of rights), free love (another Jewish affectation, viz of Marcuse), which had nothing really to do with White male Being (Dasein – non-Cartesian there being and MidtDasein – Being ensconced with one’s people). A relatively passive organic synthesis of this kind, flushed with drugs, was not apparently a motive lending to the critical analytic eloquence to facilitate an effective political activist movement on behalf of White people, though the right of the White male to exist, remains its unrecognized, essential call to this day..

While drugs were a part of getting into contact with organic being, and I still think mushrooms can be fine, still think that if the supply is not over abundant, that limited use of drugs besides speed and opiates can be ok.

However one needs to be learning and developing pathways in the forebrain that will allow one to deal with say, weed, as it can be more strong and psychologically harrowing than common parlance acknowledges. Weed was a problem for me in high school in that it was kind of the fad with my friends and I did not have the strong pathways in my forebrain; it made me neurotic when under the influence and it was a hindrance to developing social skills; talking to girls was impossible. I stopped smoking it when I went to college and only resumed intermittently afterward; can take it or leave it; would literally go years in between times  that I would smoke. I don’t understand people who like it all that much.

Cocaine can be very dangerous. As I’ve said, my first hypothesis when someone kills themself is that they were coming down off of cocaine. I talked to a heroine addict who said that coming down off of cocaine is worse. Your brain stops producing its natural endorphins when you take cocaine because it assimilates them, reads the signal that you have enough. However, the cocaine wears off much more quickly and when the cocaine crystal wears off, your brain is left without its more slowly regenerating balance of endorphins, that would otherwise give you a more accurate reading between pleasure and pain. I don’t know how much my never having had a problem with it is due to my not being rich, not having much access, but it is also true that I was able to intellectualize the fact that I did not like wasting money in order to become depressed, seriously depressed. And I probably did it less than 25 times in my life and not in decades; the last time is a funny story to tell.

A typical story, I have had heavenly and utterly hellish experiences with L.S.D. As with cocaine probably used it less than 25 times and as with the common experience, the bad trip was bad enough to get me to stop using it. Though I  have used it one more time again after 35 years. A word of advice to those who’d like to experiment with it – and I really don’t regret it – buy it from someone familiar with the batch, so that you can be more sure that you won’t have a bad trip.

I have tended to be of this position, that where problematic, drugs are generally more an effect than a cause (more often the case, I still think).

I used to sport the wry hypothesis that women were just jealous of a way that men had to have pleasure and fun without the control of their sex. I still think there is a pattern to that, but there are enough women wasted on drugs to emphasize that while it may be something of a pattern, it certainly does not apply across the board of women. 

I had, even by time of the trance, moderated my position on drugs to be more cautious. Believing that people ought to be careful when messing with ancient evolution; our chemistry is keenly evolved over thousands of years to give us a good reading of reality between pleasure and pain; one should be careful in messing with that evolution.

Another way of looking at it is that while shrooms are fun, etc. life is weird enough, and can be pleasurable enough if you find your freedom through satisfaction of basic needs.

Then again, you don’t want to be like Ted Nugent. That’s an example of what Not doing any  drugs and alcohol can do to you.

Moreover, some of the worst people that I’ve known in life, sociopaths, did not drink or do drugs. This allowed them to not trouble their shallowness and lack of empathy. It made their ability to fuck people over more keen. 

34. Jefferson Airplane. Again, too many songs to list, but White Rabbit and We Can Be Together to name a few.

But when the Vietnam war and draft was over, any background sympathy for White men evaporated overnight and feminism went into overdrive in hatred for White men. With that was an ominous slow buildup of potential alliance between White women and niggers. You didn’t see it in public among the women that you’d see around; maybe once in a blue moon, a woman so homely that you didn’t even care. But the ominous logic of intent and action was always foreboding; and the dam finally started to burst mid to late 80s, around the time of Madonna’s Like a Prayer video.

35. Rod Stewart, speaking of White guys contemptible in their failed desperation to sound and groove black, even a broken White clock is on the mark twice a day, as he was with the broken hearted, The First Cut Is The Deepest; and maybe his superficial personality was well suited to provide a good tune for the disco promo, as it proceeded so obliviously over any residual sympathy for the requisite organicism of the hippie motive for White male being.

There was some sympathy out there in the example of 

36. Joe Jackson, “Is She Really Going Out With Him?

and

37. Garbage, Stupid Girl

But it was too little too late.

One could project one’s outlook onto 

38. Elvis Costello, Miracle Man

Or draw back upon evergreen tunes executed by White guys with aplomb, in the hope that it would suffice, such as

39. The Righteous Brothers, Unchained Melody – which shatters the notion that a White cover can’t be better than a colored original. And no, my rendition wasn’t as good as Paul Chambers.

Speaking of covers that were at least as good, maybe it was too big an ask to ask this generation of woman who had basically what they wanted when they wanted to relate to relate to the alienation of alternative rock, no matter how creative.

40. Swans, Love Will Tear It Apart (Cover)

41. Joy Division, Love Will Tear Us Apart

42. Depeche Mode, Never Let Me Down Again

I could concede to the brilliance of black musicianship, as in 

43. Les McCann & Eddie Harris, Compared To What?

Brilliant lyrics too: Church on Sunday sleep and nod, trying to duck the wrath of god. Preachers filling us with fright, they’re all trying to teach us what they think is right. They really got to be some kind of nut! I can’t use it. Trying to make it a real compared to What? The President he’s got his war, folks don’t know just what its for, nobody gives us a rhyme or reason, half a one doubt, they call it treason …boredom rednecks rolling logs, tired old ladies, kissing dogs; I hate the human love of that stinking mut! I can’t use it! Trying to make it a real compared to What?

44. The Four Tops. I certainly have respect for the inborn musical heart and soul that comes through in several of their songs.

45. John Coletrane and group, My Favorite Things.

And there are many guilty pleasures among black tunes.

46. Ohio Players, Love Roller Coaster

47. Isley Brothers, Fight The Power; Who’s That Lady?

48. Brothers Johnson – I’ll Be Good To You

49. Sly & The Family Stone, several songs. I had fun singing them too: Fun; Life; I Want To Take You Higher; Hot Fun In The Summer Time; Family Affair; and Stand! which has good lyrics too.

50. Jimi Hendrix, who was my youthful favorite. Too many good songs to list. In some ways, can’t be beat. But in the end, given a choice, I’d rather have my European way of life and woman.

And while I had sympathy and respect for a song like

51. William Devaughn, Diamond In The Back

Me and my brothers had plights and dreams of our own.

52. The Zombies, She’s Not There

53. Atlanta Rhythm Section, So Into You ; Spooky

54.  Ides of March, Vehicle (poor Jenna was subject to all these passionate overtures from me)

55. The Guess Who, These Eyes: Not a favorite song of mine but Bill the incestor seemed to request it in regard to his nigger loving ex wife.

And while I respected much black music, much of it was absolute torture, from the hyper repetitious, dystopian war sounds of rap music back to the days of black disco, telling me that I just have to keep dancing, it  provided the sound track of an utterly alien culture, plane t of the apes, which is where I found myself when I got bussed to go to school with blacks. which I wanted no part of; no part of music that uses the word, “boogie.”

56. Boogie Nights

57. The Trammps, Disco Inferno:  Burn nigger burn!

58. The Miracles, I’m Just A Love Machine (and I won’t work for nobody but you!)

Of course the blacks were not  ones doing the torturing. Can you imagine having to be on a playground with hard core blacks and having to hear Paul McCartney sing “someone’s knocking at the door, somebody’s ringin the bell?” It made me wish that Paul really had been dead.

59. Paul McCartney And Wings, Let ‘Em In

And While The Bee were a professional group that produced some songs that I did not want to admit that I liked, they also produced some alienating torture. Such as 

60. Bee Gees, Jive Talkin  (torture) … while I could not admit to liking, Stayin’ Alive. Night Fever; Nights on Broadway

61. Monster Magnet – Power Trip, was a song that came to me suggesting that, I relax, “the gods” were going to fix me up from this mess alright.

The German 5, enrolled and partaking in Smith College of lesbianism, was a bit tickled at my discovery (“siscovery?”) that two songs that I sang, as if passionate overtures from men to women, were actually unbridled woman to woman enthusiasm.

62. Melissa Etheridge, I’m The Only One;

and 63. Sophie B. Hawkins, Damn, I Wish I Was Your Lover.(I still love this song)

I admit that it was kind of fun to experience the Puerto Rican bus driver of the homeless shelter bus singing along to Sophie B., exhilarated by the song as I am; and all the colords on the bus were as well.

As I would delight the black girls at this homeless shelter that I would find myself at in two year’s time; both for my antagonism to black guys pursuing White women and for my ability to sing just like Al Green, in 64. Let’s Stay Together 

(Although a black woman on the homeless shelter bus mistakenly thought the artist was Marvin Gay, “damn, dat White boy be singin’ just like Marvin!”)

“Contributing” a few good songs were 

65. Credence Clearwater Revival

66. Red Hot Chili Peppers

67. The Cranberries

Led Zeppelin has several, while The Who, The Doors and The Rolling Stones all have too many songs to list

68. Led Zeppelin

69. The Who

70. The Doors

71. The Rolling Stones

I’ll add groups, songs and relevance to the trance as I might recall in time. One peculiar not to add from the start: In the trance, I had mocked “god” Bill, in a British accent, saying that I’d like to hear something “really Gothic.” I guess because I saw the Goths as snobbish to my under represented Continental European sensibilities. Some months later, on a car radio, I would hear some Australian lady repeating two or three times, that she’d like to hear “something really Gothic.”

72. Dramarama: Emerald City; “I’m living on chocolate ice cream; I went for the rental; those costumes were so continental.” 

Anything, Anything

An interesting thing for me about these two songs is that they were both songs which almost uniquely represented songs that I’d heard long ago and yearned to hear again, but could not remember enough about them to retrieve Emerald City in days before the internet. A musician acquaintance of zombie Scrivani recognized Anything, Anything from the lyrics that I knew. “Living on chocolate ice cream” were enough lyrics to find Emerald City once the internet kicked in. Both songs were from the same group and the same album. It did not occur to me.

73. Eric Clapton: With Cream: e.g., Dance The Night Away; Outside My Window (Is A Tree); Badge; with Blind Faith, as in in Sea of Joy; and solo, as in Promises – I got a problem, can you relate? I got a woman calling love hate.

74. George Harrison: Several songs; e.g., Beware of Darkness, Run of The Mill, Give Me Love

75. Emerson, Lake and Palmer, From The Beginning

You see it’s all clear. You were meant to be here. From the beginning.

Crowded House, “Don’t Dream It’s Over” (They come to build a wall between us; don’t let them, you know that they won’t win) was another song that made an appearance in the trance, and appearance in a spooky, reggae version that I would hear at Hotel Hades, Pila, Poland (courtesy international media corporations), when I would go there but that’s more a story for the next post.

76. Crowded House – Don’t Dream It’s Over: While I sang it in trance as if “they” wouldn’t keep the likes of Jenna and I apart; the liberals would have a rather sinister dispostion to my Wonderwall.

Spooky, that I would be subject to an ominous reggae version by the corporate media, but the egregious liberal response to the protective wall metaphor is predictable.

Big Mulatto Bro’s audacity and ominous implication to breech my species saving Wonderwall:

“The greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another. The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes, natives and immigrants, Christians and Muslims and Jews, cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down!” 

– Obama, Berlin 2008

And one song that would have particular resonance to me during the trance was 77. Duran Duran’s, Ordinary World  … ordinary man in an ordinary world, etc., which I would be hearing again on the airplane as it lifted me from Newark, New Jersey to Europe.

Continue Reading Wonderwall: Hypnotic Suggestion, Future Glimpses, pursuingWhite Separatism

C.M.M. Analytic Modelling From School Days.

  • Post author:
  • Post category:Central

Coordinated Management of Meaning theory, or C.M.M. for short, is a conceptual resource to model and analyze human interaction with the aim, of course, of mitigating problems and conflict and re-directing the interaction to better coordination.

I studied this with its progenitors way back in the early 1990s. 

What I will post here are two papers that I put together in an effort to both explain the theory and to put it into use in broad historical survey of the Cultural Patterns of Western Philosophy as they culminated through the acute problems of the day –  which were the same then as they are now, race and gender.

Now, if I was to work with and learn from these outstanding professors, I had to prioritize learning the abstract of the theory and not so much its deployment in social advocacy for White men, which was/is my aim, though I could and did to some extent manage to address problems with feminism and traditional women; affliction by anti-racism was out of the question at the time, and the J.Q.? Even though I was starting to become aware – how could you not with the media and academia being with it was – forget about any critical thoughts on that issue, and especially because one of the professors was Jewish.

I did the best I could with the constraints of the situation and the limitations of what I knew, to at least get down an OR (operational research) model to serve in further inquiries.

Don’t worry, these analytic tools will not be the only means by which I talk and address problems, nor will I be distracted from the centrality of  the DNA Nations project.

While a jealous fuck like Guessedworker would try to say that this is “bean counting” or that I am “lost in this”, all he ever does with these straw man contentions is show that he does not know what he’s talking about, as I use the theory with all the graceful hermeneutic assets of White Post Modern Philosophy, where it is useful, while I am not used by it.

What I am entering here are two versions of a paper that I was developing as a thesis back in the early 1990s; then I add a later, fairly recent effort, to use the theory indeed to analyze interaction with race broadly and Jews specifically. That, which I posted at Majorityrights a few years ago, probably wasn’t very good either, but the papers that I start out with, from back in the early 90s, will more certainly look like nonsense to many if not most readers; and to some extent, they probably are nonsense. I don’t blame you and am not concerned if you can’t be bothered to try to read this turgid mass which could cause you a lot of work to sort things out, several times, in just about every sentence.

I am not posting these primarily for the readership, but mostly for myself, as an OR model resource, tools to draw upon to analyze interactional difficulties as they emerge with the possibility of being disentangled, sorted out and hopefully ameliorated with the help of these analytical tools.

I must issue an important caveat that as these papers are so old, they should be farther back chronologically in the Slider Carousel so as not to mislead the reader into thinking this particular post is anywhere near “state of the art” with regard to my own thinking regarding our problems and these White Post Modern tools to address them. Again, this is an OR model, rather protracted at that, which I set out primarily as a resource to draw upon for deployment for more limited if not specific analyses to come. 

In recent years, Greg Johnson has prompted my attention to the fact that the western talk of Self Actualization began with Aristotle – of course, a more biologically delimited, teleological version, without emphasis on a hierarchy of needs. While I had read Aristotle, forgotten about the fact that it comes from him originally, and my professor should have reminded me, the fact of its coming from Aristotle underscores its relevance to European peoples, a relevance to our concerns that a jealous asshole like Guessedworker would never acknowledge (tried to say re-tooling self actualization was a “garden variety concern” and quickly posted some of his gibberish the same day as my first post addressing Maslow at Majorityrights).

I came to graduate school with a novel idea to retool Maslow's hierarchy of needs for the purpose of negotiating gender relations more fairly; and I endeavored to employ C.M.M. to that end.

Although my professor at the time all but required me to use the term “Story” in the title – not entirely improperly, to emphasize the hermeneutic aspect, that this was not pure description – and that was about as unsatisfying then as it is now, it is important to bear in mind that even the most serious, non-fictional accounts occur in narrative, at least if they are to have context and make sense. So, while I would not use the word story or narrative today, so as not to lend traction to critics and disbelievers, it is not that big a problem in point of fact.

This “first version” is only the first page of the paper, a later version, actually. I will follow it with a few comments that were posted with it at Majortyrights and then move on to the epoch version – so long as to exceed the posting word limit there and require me to use the comment section to finish the paper.

After that I’ll include the paper in which I tried to use this material to address race and the Jewish question. This will be a long post, as you can imagine.

Story of Intersection Individuation & Gender Differentiation (another old version, probably better)

Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 15 April 2018 15:23.

I thought that I had a different, perhaps better version of this piece among my old papers. And so it is the case that with Spring cleaning I’ve found it. I will be bringing the whole thing up to date, to clarify it, weeding out some of the failed attempts at refined terminology (I will probably abandon “specificatory language games” and go back to “specificatory structures”; I will be corresponding dasein/midtdasein with Being and routine and sacrament with Selfhood and Autobiography) and setting out some of the more important ideas more clearly for implementation. Nevertheless, before then, I want to put up at least the first page of this old version, circa 1992-3.

One of the things I will be doing in subsequent re workings and implementations of this thesis, is to set out the thesis statement, or thesis statements, plural, more simply, as thesis statements are normally supposed to be.

In brief, my thesis is that the focus on individual actualization, at the expense of social concern and accountability, effects a rupturing of social, human ecological bounds; for primordial, practical reasons, females have tended to have some advantages on basic levels of Maslow’s hierarchy, while males have had some disadvantages, that they and society have compensated and overcompensated for in exchange for more male position of Self Actualization. Within the disorder of modernity effected by the implicative force of self actualization, females will increase some advantages, including to actualization; and males will be punished, in perverse irony, for trying to compensate for basic deprivation. However, while neither feminists nor traditional women have been particularly sympathetic to this, it is the effort here to try to accommodate the human needs of both genders; including our need for decent and fair relations with each other – as proposed through a more circulating and optimal negotiation of these “motives”, for both genders, including optimization of gender differentiation. To begin with, it helps to note that socialization (accountability to classification, close relationships and third person relations), being (dasein and midtdasein), selfhood (autobiography, routine and sacrament) and self actualization (achievement, authentic, functional range of autonomy, recognition, appreciation) all have pleasurable and useful aspects, as well as toxic reflexive effects if pursued too far.

Notably, both the male and the female pursuit of self actualization have served to rupture our racial classificatory bounds along with socialized accountability as such.

It wasn’t until years later, when I had to teach argumentative writing (as a substitute) that I actually learned how an argumentative essay was supposed to be structured. In defense of myself, I didn’t think I was ready for grad school, and wanted to take some more undergraduate courses, but they wanted to throw me into the deep end…

A STORY OF THE INTERSECTION OF INDIVIDUATION & GENDER DIFFERENTIATION

Introduction:

As this article examines processes actively constructing Neo Traditional, Modern and Post Modern (occidental) Cultural Patterns of gender, it does not simply reinterpret their Stories Told but puts them at risk. With apologetic reticence, if the reader would like to reconstruct Stories Told, for example, that male persons simply possess and act out from an innate constitution, say the larger hypo- thalamus and testosterone surges, directed toward derivative cultural patterns, such as religious repression or sexploitation, which have nothing to do with Stories Lived in interpersonal communication with female persons, read no further.

While this article’s rendering of Cultural gender Patterns may appear in cursory inspection to model Traditional Stories Told of causal necessity, the premise here is that these are Social Constructions. Though not as easily transformed by the agency of person positions as are Altercast moments, Episodes, Autobiographies, or second person Relationships, with due respect for the profundity of their various features, these Cultural Patterns may be responsibly changed as well {1}.

“There has been little consideration of the darker side of self actualization” – Carol Wilder-Mott

Two versions of the thesis will follow. The first will attempt relatively ordinary language; a technical version will follow.

Using A. H. Maslow’s notion wherein a “hierarchy of motives”, when people’s basic needs (“low grumbles”) are satisfied, they do not stop complaining, but only move to a higher order of complaint (“high grumbles”):

Thesis: Since by occidental culture (Socialization) females tend to be in a more Addressive Position, their basic needs (Being, Selfhood) are satisfied more readily. Thereupon, a male Hierarchizing Positition (A quest of Self Actualzation) tends to be formed. These positions have advantages and disadvantages – constraining biases and affording overcompensations; while in some cases male hierarchicalization does represent a Maslowian differentiation of fulfillment, in other cases, ignored by feminists in quest of empowerment (Actualization), overturning patriarchy, etc, or in protecting their (Being) against male resentment, it represents a Freudian/Nietzschean sublimation of privation and deprivation compulsion; and traditional reservation in compensation for proving himself despite these harder tests. True, hierarchizing upon the female addressive position has often been malevolent, hardly sublimated. But Legitimate reasons for the Traditional institutionalization have been summarily dismissed by liberal’s anachronistic Modernism. There are two important reasons why Legitimacy has been ignored. The first is due to the incommensuration between the two positions; and specifically, in this case, male complaints act into the interpretive scheme of females, their basic needs (Being/Selfhood) satisfied, as boring and immature; and female complaints act into the interpretive schemes of males, who are struggling with the basics (Being/Selfhood) or in stressful expectation toward achievement (Actualization), as conceited, superficial, or manipulative. The second important reason why Legitimacy of hierarchicization has been institutionalized has been ignored due to the reflexive disorder of Modernity – wherein the Addressive Position of females has re emerged with increased significance, exacerbating its afforded overcompenations (over liberalness, liberalization of social bounds, or un-socialization as it were, in Modernist loop; incitement to genetic competition) through increased pandering solicitation and lack of need to tolerate critical reality testing and the like “metacommunication.”

The following thesis cannot be enunciated in proper manner without its purveyors being ostracized by ordinary language philosophers – “Reflexive what? contextual force? What? I just want the straight facts!” This treatise uses Coordinated Management of Meaning Theory. Readers unfamiliar with the theory are referred to the addendum where a synopsis is provided to clarify essentials of the theory and its terminological usage.

Thesis 2: The Taken for Granted Depth Grammar of both Cartesian Modernist Individuation and Neo Traditional Gender Differentiation is Traditional Ionic Teleology. Within this Ionic tradition, a telos of gender differentiation was TFG as its inference was made apparent by Charmed Loops to two separate gender positions of agentive flex-bilies which co-evolved through practical activity. This TFG teleology of two positions of differing agentive flex-abilities, viz. of Prefigurative Contextual Force over Reflexive Effect of Practical Force as bequeathed to females (e.g., “female morality”, Gilligan, 1982, more positive, as its basic flex-abilities for agency tend to be more readily satisfied), separated from Implicative force Reflexively Needing Prefigurative force as bequeathed to males (e.g., “male morality”, Kant, 1785; and “sociopathology”), contextualizes a Strange Loop; i.e., Incommensurate gender agendas of Cartesian Modernist individuation reflexively recontexting the need (“be different so you can fit in” …overcompenating and reversing modernists attempt to differ from traditional conformity; but the genders go in opposite directions), the “need” for neo-traditional gender differentiation and vis a versa.

Partition:      Part One – “Theory”


Section A. Correlates CMM actional terms into ordinary language (cultural terms) of agency in order to make CMM terminology and its communication perspective on the cultural gender separation of agency more intelligible; this also serves to deconstruct and transform the cultural terms into CMM’s alternative language game of Optimal Competence.

Section B. Is a hermeneutic of five cultural patterns obstructing Optimal Competence:

1. A Charmed Loop of Gender Differentiation inferred as a Telos

2. The Charmed Loop of Didactic Incitement which reconstructs these two positions to hyperbole (to runaway, as opposed to their being delimited to reconstruct homeostatic Cultural Pattern – this parenthetic phrase added 2018)

3. The Cartesian Technology of Individuation (exacerbates the rupture of social Cultural delimited Pattern – this parenthetic phrase added 2018)

4. Incommensurate Gender Agendas of Individuation (also exacerbates in same way)

5. A Strange Loop of Individuation and Gender Differentiation (reconstructs the runaway)

Part Two – “Practical”

Section A. Diagrams a modernist male and female in episode B. Conclusion C. Recommendations

Comments:

Posted by Aristotle, father of racial classification on Mon, 23 Apr 2018 15:44 | # 1

Washington Post, “Artistotle, the father of scientific racism”, 6 April 2018:

“But these ideas are even older than Klein realizes. To understand the underlying assumptions of Murray and others, it’s helpful to look back to the granddaddy of all racial theorists: Aristotle. In understanding the role Aristotle played in laying the groundwork for “race science,” we can better understand how ingrained it is in Western science and philosophy, and why the alt-right’s embrace of “western civilization” has a particularly chilling edge.

Most famous as a philosopher, Aristotle — who, it’s worth noting, is Murray’s favorite philosopher — was just as influential in what we would today consider the field of natural science. Indeed, Aristotle’s philosophical and political ideas cannot be separated from his methods of empirical observation. He spent years of his life observing and classifying animals. Charles Darwin himself said that “my two gods [Linnaeus and Cuvier] are mere school-boys to old Aristotle.” …”

 Posted by Eco-Faggotry on Mon, 23 Apr 2018 16:07 | # 2

Greg Johnson makes the classic, faggot, false either or for a Hitleresque world-view and mishandling of both Aristotle and the idea of ecology, by calling for an elitist world view placing “nature” over a people centric (anthropocentric) worldview.

Eco-faggotry

This is an epistemological blunder of the highest order and a false either/or.

Pervasive ecology, which is the platform here, puts praxis (people and their interests) at center, and recognizes that it is entirely in our interests to steward nature – our habitat, resources – and human ecology, or group differences properly.

To put “nature” and the “elite” first as the faggot does, in his blatant fetishism for outdated Hitler shit, is the road to natural fallacy unhinged to runaway uncorrected by praxis – such as the cataclysm of Hitler’s “principled” war-mongering runaway; as ‘just the way it is – if you don’t fight, if you don’t win, you are not worthy of him’… ‘you are not aligned with the “law” of nature and the “divine” purpose for which you are to serve.’

“the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe.” – Hitler plucked that bullshit out of thin air; it is a natural fallacy, or a ‘god’ principle, worthy of the dumbest Christian.

…and before anyone says that I am exaggerating and seeing Hitler and Hitler idolatry where it isn’t, look at the imagery that Johnson uses with this discussion:

 Posted by DanielS on Fri, 27 Apr 2018 08:02 | # 3

With regard to the maximizing incentive of the story of Self Actualization, particularly the popular American version – “be all you can be” in the “land of opportunity” and “individual freedom” in Lockeatine empirical enlightenment, the “fiction” of social classifications (sociology and hermenteutics) be damned….

…along with Maslow’s model, in which each step progresses lineally on top of a maximal quantity fulfillment of prior need steps in hierarchical order…..

I like to offer Bateson’s caveat:

“I don’t have to tell you about the tyranny of patterns. That’s the rubric under which we meet. What you may not know is that you have to accept them.”

Patterns are not lineal and impervious, they are cyclical and open ended ..they may progress, but they may also regress..  they may stretch and reach (as in the “farther reaches”), expanding beyond normal systemic bounds or they may contract and regroup and reorganize in stasis and homeostasis.

They may be causal, as in determinism of emergence, but with humans in particular, there is a degree of agency, particularly in terms of how these processes count.

In service of stability, happiness, fairness, practicality, truth to our nature and justice – but especially in service of racial systemic maintenance, incl. negotiation of the pivotal component of gender relations – we ought to commend a circularity of socialization, being, self/auto/routine/sac/, actualization…both within and beyond the life span (beyond the life span, meaning, in this case, valuation of some as largely playing the part within the group for their entire life span, not just a segment of the process in their growth, maturity and differentiation).

Posted by TT Metzger on Fri, 01 Jun 2018 15:14 | # 4

LONE WOLF RADIO: THUS SAY’S ALAN DERSHITS

Tom Metzger <tmmetzger1@gmail.com>

4/2/17

bcc: me

What do the terrorist group Hamas and the anti-violence group Black Lives Matter have in common? What does the democracy of Israel have in common with the antisemitic Ku Klux Klan? What does the Islamic Republic of Iran, which throws gays off rooftops, have in common with gay-rights activists? What do feminists have in common with radical Islamic sexists who support the honor killing and genital mutilation of women? Nothing, of course. Unless you subscribe to the pseudo-academic concept of interesectionality.

Intersectionality – the radical academic theory according to which all forms of social oppression are inexorably linked — has become a code word for anti-American, anti-Western, anti-Israel and antisemitic bigotry. Nowhere has adoption of this radical paradigm been more pronounced than on college campuses, where — in the name of “identity politics” and “solidarity” — artificial coalitions are formed among causes that have nothing to do with each other except a hatred for their fellow students who are “privileged” because they are white, heterosexual, male and especially Jewish.

…

Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 25 March 2018 11:20

A Narrative of The Intersection of Individuation and Gender Differentiation

I wrote this article and cultivated it around 1993. Although I was generally aware that there were large conflicts of interests between White men and the YKW, that issue was impossible to address in the grad-school context I was engaged in – not all but some of my professors were Jewish and all of them were liberal and would have opposed broaching the JQ. In fact, race was nearly impossible to discuss in a reasonable way. In fact, advocating White men against feminism was almost impossible. Nevertheless, having to focus here on the history, implications and fallout of Western philosophy as it bears upon individuality, the maintenance of our European Cultural Patterns, Moral Order and Gender Relations allows for an examination of our part as Europeans in our plight – our blind spots and susceptibilities to the exploitation of other groups – including and especially YKW – and means to corrective homeostasis: which is the essence of the true (let’s call it White, to make the distinction) post modern project. As such, this old paper remains valid and relevant, despite the fact that it needs reworking for increased clarity and accuracy as an orientative model.

I was told by my professor that this held together as a “Thesis” for me to enter the PhD program. I have reason to believe that, at the time, it was shown to then Vice President Al Gore. Prior to my professor making the trip to Washington D.C., he told me, “now don’t change it any more”… nevertheless, I could not resist making a few more tweaks to the title and first paragraph, which would have made it only come across more baroque and turgid to the point of absurdity. My professor came back from D.C. disappointed and I caught Al Gore on the news saying that “we need people with real practical solutions, not a nebulous bunch of words.”

Now, I don’t think I am hallucinating because my department was doing public relations for the Clinton and Gore administration; my professor was certainly a worthy advisor and nobody was working with him more closely at the time than myself.

Though my last minute changes surely didn’t help in the way the paper came across, it may not have been presented to Gore in the best way, thus coming across wrongly to him, so that he couldn’t absorb its significance in cursory glance. That’s an interesting story for another time, as are the episodes that led to me not being able to follow through with a graduate career, operating on this thesis and related issues…

Introduction:

As this article examines processes actively constructing Modern and Neo Traditional Cultural Patterns of gender, it does not simply reinterpret their Stories Told but puts them at risk. With apologetic reticence if the reader would like to reconstruct Stories Told, for example, that male persons simply possess and act out from an innate constitution, say the larger hypo- thalamus and testosterone surges, directed toward derivative cultural patterns, such as religious repression or sexploit- ation, which have nothing to do with Stories Lived in interpersonal communication with female persons, read no further.

While this article’s rendering of Cultural gender Patterns may appear in cursory inspection to model Traditional Stories Told of causal necessity, the premise here is that these are Social Constructions. Though not as easily transformed by the agency of person positions as are Altercast moments, Episodes, Autobiographies, or second person Relationships, with due respect for the profundity of their various features, these Cultural Patterns may be responsibly changed as well {1}.

The following thesis cannot be enunciated in proper manner without its purveyors being ostracized by ordinary language philosophers – “Reflexive what? contextual force? What? I just want the straight facts!” This treatise uses Coordinated Management of Meaning Theory. Readers unfamiliar with the theory are referred to the addendum where a synopsis is provided to clarify essentials of the theory and its terminological usage.

Thesis: The Taken For Granted Depth Grammar of both Cartesian Modernistic Individuation and Neo Traditional Gender Differentiation is Traditional Ionic Teleology. Within this Ionic tradition, a telos of gender differentiation was Taken For Granted (TFG) as its inference was made apparent by Charmed Loops to two separate gender positions of agentive flex-abilities which co-evolved through practical activity. This TFG teleology of two positions of wider agentive flexabilities, viz., of Prefigurative Contextual force over Reflexive Effect of Practical force as bequeathed to females (e.g., “female morality”, Gilligan, 1982, more positive as its basic flex-abilities for agency are more readily satisfied), Separated from Implicative forces Reflexively Needing Prefigurative force as bequeathed to males (e.g., “male morality”, Kant, 1785, and “sociopathology”), contextualizes a Strange Loop; i.e., incommensurate gender agendas of Cartesian modernistic individuation reflexively recontexting the “need” for neo traditional gender differentiation and vis a versa.

…

This was really one of the most essential, original theses of mine even at the time, and it probably should have been mentioned more straight forwardly like this at the time as thesis number two; as it is housed within the first:

2018 update: Thesis – Cartesian Individuation of Self Actualization has Implicative Force (an upward impact, Reflexively Effecting, rupturing Cultural Patterns) to rupture Western group Social Classificatory Homeostasis which causes the “One Up”, Addressive Position of (White/Western) Females to Re-Emerge with Increased Significance – Several Charmed Loops (given the human perceptual need to classify – women, fire and other dangerous things – in order to make coherent sense despite their Cartesian prohibition and rupture, gender becomes the default classification where other group classifications are prohibited, therefore female becomes more salient a difference and they are pandered to from more directions; they become more motivated; more confident (sometimes overly, and prone to cursory pejorative conclusions), articulate and powerfully positioned gate-keepers; they are incentivized to maintain that, while their base female inclination to incite genetic competition (E.O. Wilson) is pandered to – also rupturing social group patterns/coherence – there are loops that come into play with the high contrast tropism of White females and the atavism of blacks in this disorder as well) which keep that position and its liberalizing trajectory in place, abetting Systemic Runaway – i.e., this keeps a modernist loop in place, rupturing would be maintenance of European peoples and other traditional societies..

The cure to these pernicious loops and their runaway is recognition of key aspects [topoi] of necessity, use and enjoyment in a revised social paradigm of optimized negotiation and management of socialization, being, selfhood and self actualization; with that, recognizing moderating options for neo traditional and modern trajectories of both genders; finally, the homeostatic stabilizing of the social system’s human ecological bounds.

[2018 update: I had articulated this thoroughly at the time, but it wasn’t forefronted in this 1993 version that I’m working from): Male Self Actualization, achievement, power, in position is sometimes and in part a result of Freudean/Nietszchean privation and deprivation of basic levels of Maslow’s heirarchy and not only the result of fulfillment of basic levels – as feminists have been saying – and thus some will be punished for achieving despite privation, for their “oppressive advantage!”

Conversely, females will be better positioned to advocate for their interests in achievement and influence because their basic levels are more readily satisfied.


The YKW in particular will pander to the female position, saying that women are “oppressed across the board (ignoring basic need fulfillment) while also pandering to the propensity to incite the continued deprivation of basic male flex-abilities – being “a baby”, “not a man”, “get on with your life”, etc.

On the other hand, the propensity of the sheer liberal and liberation paradigm will put some females into power, and gate keeping positions, where they are too liberal of boundaries as their basic needs have been fulfilled a bit too easily, overprotected.

And males will be more insane, aggressive, overcompensating and violating of other’s borders, having been deprived and driven as such].

Partition: 

Part One – “Theory”

Section A. Correlates CMM actional terms to ordinary language (cultural terms) of agency in order to make CMM terminology and its communication perspective on the cultural gender separation of agency more intelligible; this also serves to deconstruct and transform the cultural terms into CMM’s alternative language game of Optimal Competence.

Section B. Is a hermeneutic of five cultural patterns obstructing Optimal Competence:

1. A Charmed Loop of Gender Differentiation inferred as a Telos

2. The Charmed Loop of Didactic Incitement which reconstructs these two positions to hyperbole (as opposed to their being delimited to reconstruct homeostatic Cultural Pattern – this parenthetic phrase added 2018)

3. The Cartesian Technology of Individuation (exacerbates the rupture of social Cultural delimited Pattern – this parenthetic phrase added 2018)

4. Incommensurate Gender Agendas of Individuation (also exacerbates in same way)

5. A Strange Loop of Individuation and Gender Differentiation (reconstructs the runaway)

Part Two – “Practical”

Section A. Diagrams a modernist male and female in episode B. Conclusion C. Recommendations


“Theory”

Section One: Hermeneutic Corollaries to the Ordinary Language of Agency

To begin with, this article takes CMM and CMM compatible theoretic terminology and establishes corollaries to an ordinary language of Maslow’s “hierarchy of motives” as comprised by constituents of four cultural terms: Socialization, Being, Selfhood/Autobiography and Self Actualization.

—-
2018: This article takes CMM and CMM compatible theoretic terminology and establishes corollaries to ordinary language of Maslow’s “hierarchy of motives” as comprised by constituents of four cultural terms: Socialization, Being (corresponding with Midtdasein/Dasein), Selfhood/Autobiography (corresponding with routine, ritual and sacrament) and Self Actualization.
——

“Theory”

Section One: Hermeneutic Corollaries to the Ordinary Language of Agency


To begin with, this article takes CMM and CMM compatible theoretic terminology and establishes corollaries to an ordinary language of Maslow’s “hierarchy of motives” as comprised by constituents of four cultural terms: Socialization, Being (corresponding with Midtdasein/Dasein), Selfhood/Autobiography (corresponding with routine, ritual and sacrament) and Self Actualization. This new way of looking at the human potential grammar of motives is provided for the symbiotic purpose of 1. Making everyday workings of the Strange Loop, its Charmed Loop context, and every workings of CMM terms, primarily, Contextual, Prefigurative, Practical and Implicative Logical Forces, more intelligible in ordinary language, and 2. Deconstructing the snares of these static monadic cultural terms and their human potential grammar of motives; derived of teleology, transformed and exacerbated through “Enlightenment” texts, the incorporative prohibitions of these speech genres have much to do with the maintenance of the Strange and Charmed Loops. In moving these ordinary terms and the hierarchy of motives into actional corollaries, we seek to deconstruct and transform them into a language game {2} of four constituents to the individual agency of Optimal Competence.

Thus, Socialization, Being, Selfhood, and Self Actualization, in a Hierarchy of Motives/Needs {3} are obviously Not proposed as universals, as “real” dichotomies, nor are they meant to do interpretive justice to Maslow. They are appropriated first, because they well represent epochal language games of a useful hermeneutic point of departure – the Vietnam crisis as it evinced equiprimordially emergent facets of a paradox of gender differentiation/individuation. Inasmuch, they are verifiable to demonstrate ordinary workings of Enlightenment texts as their Reflexive Effects pertain to gender in Stories Lived. This connects directly to a second, and more important point. As there is no way to discern and reconstruct a pattern without difference, these terms are appropriated for their cultural significance, as they provide a customary “way of talking”, a context so that people know what we are talking about when we “Differance” from habitual usage (“Differance” is Derrida’s deconstructionist metaphor for a contrast internally related to its context). They provide embedded textual backgrounds from which Social Constructionist Differences of this article are made. That is, the human potential narrative of these four cultural terms in a hierarchy toward “Self Actualization” is taken as it exemplifies the socially detached, mechanistic, and causal notions of necessity germane to ethnocentric Cartesian texts, their obliviousness to the constructed reality of social rules’ crowning achievement, to be thoroughly deconstructed, while certain of its strands reconstructed through re-interpretation of any usefulness they may have in interactive practice.

Against the linearity of these texts, we consider Agency possible because persons are variably entailed in and comprised of mutable and open-ended logics of meaning and action – paradoxically, pre-existent logics are funded by the affordance of interactivity to propel agentive constraint. And we define Agency as the Altercast Legitimation of flex-ability to afford and constrain, sometimes in bundles, tfg’s in using the inevitability of interaction to investigate variable entailings.

However comparable to “The Hierarchy of Motives” metaphor then, the theoretic backing of what follows does not entail a fixed progressive order, but is differanced instead to a notion of all pervasive “rule-abilities.” {4} Though not affixing an order, internal relation of rules by their “rule-ness”, or their common nature as rules, always provide rule-abilities to order and make sense of events. These rule-abilities provide logics of meaning and action (or “grammars”) affording and constraining “flex-abilities” {5} for Agency – with immanent or “horizontal” rules of Agency normally Constituting flex-abilities for heirarchical Regulation of Agency. These are kinds of agency socially constructed and potentially changeable from moment to moment largely contingent upon what can be Taken For Granted through willing suspension of Belief or Disbelief. The horizontal (Constitutive) partition is here used similarly as Linda Harris’s model (14 p. 197 – 209) of Enmeshment Competence [Shotter would describe this as acting into the shaping and crafting of specificatory structures (our profferings in any interaction are only ever partly finished, and thus are available for farther specification – specificicty; in fact, we may here farther specify the term to “specificatory language games”, from which, enmeshment competence also entails the flex-ability to act out of)]. The Hierarchical (Regulative) partition is here used similarly as Koestler’s (40) citation of the two leveled “self assertion vs. self transcendence” [Harre would describe this as TFG appropriation of open-ended hierarchies of interpersonal dialogues for intrapersonal use] (these “horizontal/ lateral notions are heuristics – not literally separable, but connected and created by “rule-abilities”).

Indeed, the reader should not want, in first reading, to enmesh too deeply in the perfunctory deconstruction/ re-construction of the four cultural terms (on the next page and a half) set out prior to any discussion of gender per se, as they encompass specificatory differancing in order to prevent their being used malapropriatiatively in the application which follows. This is a hermeneutic preparation so that everyday workings of embedded enlightenment text’s Reflexive Effects on gender, i.e., a narrative of equiprimoridally emergent “sides” of paradoxic agentive quests of gender differentiation and individuation, may be set, as it occurs, within a new language game comparable but differanced from Maslow’s hierarchy of motives metaphor, both in a more ordinary sense of the implications of its four corollary rubrics [Socialization, Being, Selfhood, Self Actualization – cultural terms corresponding with the static monadic tradition of teleology (see footnote #3 for elaboration) and farther differanced in a more rigorously theoretical sense [corollary content under those ordinary cultural rubrics culminate and are encompassed in Optima – theoretic moves corresponding with actional/agentive criteria].

Provisionally, Socialization and Being foster immanent agentive competence through action into (and out of) altercasting of specificatory langauge games conjointly constructed and coordinated from internal relation of mutable, open ended social criteria tfg of depth grammar. Basic levels typically Constitute and facilitate flex-abilities for Selfhood and Actualization’s more situation reflexive agentive competence in Regulating coordination of open ended tfg hierarchical grammars.

Stories of Socialization and Being Constitute Flex-ability for Agency by Conjoint Construction Acting into (and out of) Immanently Mutable and Open Ended Criteria Coordinated of Taken For Granted Depth Grammars.

1 SOCIALIZATION: Liken enmeshment in Stories Told of Socialization (or Self Transcendence) to Praxis. At birth, as Rom Harre says, a “person position” enters into “the one a-priori context, molecules and persons in conversation – practically speaking, persons in relation to one another”; and beginning with mutually acted into Altercasting of parents and child is the socialization of agency. The awkward metaphor of “Position” is used to counteract Locke’s equalitarian idea of “perceptual neutrality”, situating persons in process and perspective, as opposed to rendering them equally valid judges of sensibilities irrespective of the quality of their involvement in discursive structures (e.g., the dubious, “even as a small child, I knew the evils of…etc.”). Stories Told of Socialization, then, is a notion of 1rst – 3rd person “Moral Orders”, in which Person Positions occupy differing privileged vantages having acted into Regulative positions through mediation of langauge’s consensuality and open-endedness in application to experience.

Doesn’t begin with first to second person interaction?

In this ecological view of socialization, the virtues of qualitatively patterned disbursement of differing flex-abilities are honored as being necessarily opposed to a single egalitarian standard. These Stories Told are socially constructed by corprisocial acting into and out of Stories Lived in Altercastings (joint 1rst – 2nd person interaction) of immanently mutable tfg coordinations of embedded depth grammatical rules. The jointly negotiated rules Constitute (determine how activities count) and Regulate Rights of Display (or not) agentive abilities in skilled performance of criteria accounted by consensus as [Legitimate, Obligatory, or Uncertain, and not Prohibited by a culture’s deontical requirements (with Uncertainty, these comprise four Deontic Operative Topoi “universal to all cultures” – V.C.]. Formally stated, Socialization is “Social Competence”; in Actional function, socialization of agency is expressed Cultural Pattern [CP] as Constitutive Rule [CR] of Contextual force over [Autobiography].

Being & Selfhood (or Self Assertion) are taken as two cultural terms corollary to ordinary usage of basic satisfctions on the Maslowian “Motivation Mierarchy.” Corresponding and differancing from these cultural terms in CMM actional terminology are basic flex-abilities for agency in Stories Lived – agentive rules for personal assertion of contextual force of reflexive effect of Autobiography.

Being’s Agentive rules in Stories Lived are Constructed through the Conjoint Action into and out of Immanently Mutable Criteria Coordinated of Taken For Granted Depth Grammars.

2 BEING: Liken Enmeshment in Stories Lived through Being to Poesis. The Practice of Being constitutes an etiological organic tie to Harris’s model (10 p. 185 – 224). Being is socially constructed, continually corrigible, thus Socially Accountable. Being is not an etymological telos laid bare and maintained resolute. Nevertheless, after Narrative Postures of organic regulation are “calibrated”, the notion of Being is one of normally having the flex-ability to “feedback” on these patterned Stories Lived and to have them left alone. We cannot continually investigate everything but must be able to rest content Taking certain things For Granted as aesthetic technique facilitating experience.

Aesthetic Technique facilitating experience would include rationality (making ratios as opposed to universals) and “understanding” – only, beyond understanding, which tends only to move away from discomfort, aesthetics qualitatively include an optimal amount of pleasure and pain, balancing between its thresholds in practical, non-cognitive judgment (as in A’s refinement of Epicurianism).

Social Construction of Being – Where significant others Altercast from Stories Told Specificatory Language Games with sufficient Alternative Range of Functional Autonomy (ARF) – viz., temporal latitude of sufficient margin for error, time unconscientousness, personal (and momentary) idiosyncrasy, reticence with regard to practices/flex-abilities, and reservation of exclusionary rights of equal justice, then one’s Lived Story is afforded the ameliorative flex-ability to Constitute depth grammatical Rules of narrative constraint from which to take for granted the sequential meanderings of the CR’s optimal propriotorial, intrapersonal, and interpersonal flex-abilities. As these CR’s constrain the pejorative altercastings of non-negotiable accountability and afford “Right to Not Display”, their instantiated privacy Legitimates Regulative Rules of Release from from contexts where discrimination is ineffectual or release from a given pejorative story. The technique of these Regulative Rules may be used to afford and especially to Constrain Reflexive Effects of over-extension or impingement as they reconstruct Constitutive rules of Optimal flex-abilities. The formal statement of Being is Prefigurative Enmeshment Competence. The Actional function of Being is a ratio [CR] Prefigurative over Reflexive Effect of Contextual Biographical force. In this function as Altercast Biography, the Regulative Ability to Release (or stop short or move past) may make tacit use of pronominal directive; this first Agentive move in Constituting the Self Assertion of Personal Being is precursive to –

3 SELFHOOD: Liken Enmeshment in Stories Lived through Selfhood to Phronesis. Where flex-abilities of Being are not at risk (pejoratively altercast and exploited) if Constituted language games are deviated from, but its TFG’s are, in fact, Legitimated with wider ARF (Alternative Range of Functional Autonomy), incentive of agency is ameliorated, though Right of Display, to Go Into and purposefully reconstruct Autobiographically Asserted, thus Accountable Criteria (Harre 29/40 depending on bibliography), from Stories Lived in Public. The formal statement of Selfhood is Valence Competence; its Actional form is a ratio: [RR] Reflexive Effect of Contextual Autobiographical force over Prefigurative and Practical Autob. force; this in/out skill (affording the necessary being and constraining narrative continuity) prototypes deliberately abstractive “step” functions (like “deutero learning”); in addition to qualitative contiguity of poesis’ sequential meanderings, the distinguishing Agentive move of Selfhood is a “leaping” or a “jumping” character of phronesis’ practical judgment in everyday concerns. Or W (51b or 66c depending on bibl.) might characterize the experience not as a leaping, but more of a “moving into activity”, whereupon engagement in use situates episode. “Oh, now I know what to do, now I can go on.” These abstractive semiotic language games are facilitated by tfg open ended social criteria of Stories Told; e.g., deontological symbolism, words/grammars, semiotics of “emotion” {6}.

Stories of Self Actualization Regulative Agency by the Conjointly Constructed Acting into and out of Open Ended Hierarchies Coordinated of Taken for Granted Grammars (differancing from regulated constraint)

4 SELF ACTUALIZATION: Liken Enmeshment in Stories Told of Self Actualization to Theoria (“self actualization, the other facet of what we are calling Self Transcendence, is here used similarly as Maslow would use “The Esteem Needs”): Where the person is Altercast ameliorative right to display (or not) cultivated agentive flex-abilities of protracted ARF, using open ended hierarchization in the form of highly specialized, abstractive, or esoteric language games, and/or where Lived Cultural Patterns and Stories Told can be Elaborated and Transformed by individual agency (Differancing from Regulated Constraint), “upper parts” of the “motivational hierarchy” [agency hierarchy] are “reached.” The formal statement of Self Actualization is “Creative Competence”; its Actional expression is [RR] Reflexive Effect of Implicative Autob. force (it remains mutably context dependent).

This cultural terminology of Socialization, Being, and Selfhood toward Self Actualization is hereafter taken to signify directions (Constitutive and Regulative Rules) of logical forces heuristic to the problematic intersection of gender differentiation/ individuation. As the reflexive effect of Modernity’s valuation of Implicative force, i.e., “Actualization’s” ability to change Cultural Patterns, increases the unbeknownst but necessary mutability of whatever relative stability of deontical order traditional teleology might achieve, there is no Cultural Pattern in which to practice the Satisfactory Competence of taking for granted enmeshment in one of these four facets on a regular basis (14 or 10 p. 204-205) (7). It is necessary to play a new language game.

OPTIMAL COMPETENCE

Optimal Competence has/uses Functional Autonomy to use/afford all four of these Agentive Flex-abilities:

Socialization, Being, Selfhood and Self Actualization are thus used as four inseparably necessary agentive flex-abilities for Optimal Competence in Modern Society. With Modernity’s disorder, one must be “flex-able” to use these four aspects (perhaps with qualitative differances on Momentary, Episodic, Relational, Cultural Pattern or Autobiographical levels), and not be stuck fixedly overcompensating or reversing one of these two facets, if one, as practitioner, is to be Optimally Competent. Optimal Competence – the flex-ability to Constitute and Regulate Social Competence, Enmeshment Competence, Valence Competence, Creative Competence and Functional Autonomy (choosing to fit in or not) – by its conscientious participation in “Being/Selfhood and Socialization”, is distinguished from mere Self Actualization. Even so, just as individuals can be Minimally Competent, so too can social systems be. In those systems where Optimal Competence is Blocked, Optimally Competent individuals may strongly favor one facet. A critical point distinguishing it from Minimal Competence, which does not afford flex-ability to reconstruct given criteria, is Functional Autonomy. Optimal Competence can choose to not fit in a criteria even though it, Optimal Competence, does afford the flex-ability to participate. On the other hand, Optimal Competence, as it is not Obligated to be different (not obligated by the modernist paradox, “be different so you can fit in”), need not succumb to Modernistic “pangs of self loathing” for the appearance of conformity (including to one’s self interest), but can choose to participate in social criteria despite the fact that the criteria may not be new. If, e.g., the criteria is “the ability to judge the value of exchange”, then Optimal Competence, unlike Minimal Competence, and beyond Satisfactory Competence (which can only reconstruct stable criteria), can choose to exchange less or more than conventional requirements of exchange, despite the ability to judge an even exchange. Moreover, beyond the alienation of modernism, it can choose to make an even exchange though that may not appear novel (though it may appear conformist) (10 or 14 ibid.).

Section Two: Obstacles to The Flex-abilities of Optimal Competence –

A Hermeneutic of Gender Differentiation & Individuation

Where many acts lead to equifinal ends Pearce and Cronen’s first hypothesis is for a Charmed Loop. Therefore, it is hypothesized that Charmed Loops (viz. of sex and the division of labor) of Gender Differentiation became inferred as a telos. This telos, separating agentive flex-abilities, presents the first obstacle to Optimal Competence and the central context for the ensuing four hypotheses of obstacles.

THE CONTEXT OF TELEOLOGY

1 TELEOLOGICAL GENDER DIFFERENTIATION: Prohibits necessary flex-abilities; viz., separation of gender agency prohibits Optimal Competence by the very concept of teleology’s formal separations.

The Practical Division of Agency Constructs Separate Gender Positions of Advantageous Flex-ability:

It would make sense that in negotiation through practical activity of the pre-agrarian world, a gender role division was inferred of parturition divisions of agency and taken for granted as a Reflexive Need (read “Need” as rules based praxis!). Females were Legitimated in Taking For Granted Reflexive Effect of Contextual Force over Regulative Rules (because males evolved physically stronger and free to fight, while females were more vulnerable and ‘eggs are precious’, females were afforded the social taken for granted that their Prefigurative disengagement (disenmeshement) from competition was legitimate and that breaking the rule of this legitimacy was prohibited) in exchange for elevated, less brutal competition among males (Bowery’s thing about civilizational deal for boarders being taken care of in exchange fore less brutal male comp for females within); while males, because they were less vulnerable and encumbered, were obligated, thus (through “deprivation of feedback compulsion”) Reflexively Needed to prove (practices/flex-abilities) deservingess of Implicative Force on Constitutive Rules.

Display of successful consequents despite sacrifice on antecedent social levels (contextual force of reflexive effect) was institutionally compensated with Stories Told of Self Actualization [comprised through Stories Lived of both (Maslowian) differentiation of fulfillment and (Feudian) sublimation of deprivation]. This augmentation to the lack of competition from females in conjunction with deprivation compulsion (prohibiting basic flex-abilities) disproporionately represented males in acclivities of Implicative force of Autob. on Cultural Patterns reconstructing through momentarily Altercasts (“content”).

It also ostensibly Legitimated protecting the institution of Traditional Society’s Stories Told of male Actualization [Obligatory Reflexive Need of Implicative force] with Prohibitory moral orders of male Self Actualization [Obligatory Reflexive Need of Implicative force] with Prohibitory moral orders of ethnocentrism and supremacy (e.g., “god” as a punitive man; or “male morality”), and most radically, the Prohibitory (thus concomitantly Obligatory) moral order of Traditional ionic Teleology.

[CP] Traditional Teleology, The TFG Depth Grammar of Cartesianism (or “foundationalism”) & Gender Differentiation: Traditionalism is a way of life made coherent by story of permanence; takes for granted that the perfect form of any earthly object substands at its ends, inevitably to be uncovered if only one is reasonable enough to pursue understanding of those ends by continually putting at risk to dialectical critique any taken for granted custom and habit of tradition.

This Tradition Elaborated the gender division into Two Positions of Advantageous Flexibilities {8}:

A. A More Addressive Position – “The Female Position” of Flex-ability among basic human needs. The rules directed actively of the female’s being left alone, if not addressed, provides them with basic means of agency; this, the “Addressive” position, would be the position more often of females in the activities of everyday situations.

B. A More Hierarchizing Position – “The Male Position” of Flex-ability in quest of human achievement: Thereupon the rules directed activities of the female’s being left alone, if not addressed, facilitate, through altercasting of a more directive (as opposed to inquisitive) kind of address, hierarchical construction of male agency; this, the “Hierarchizing” position, would be the position more often of males in the activities of status situations.

{hermeneutic continues after discussion of hyperbolization through didactic inctitement and Cartesian technology}

2 THE CHARMED LOOP OF DIDACTIC INCITEMENT {9}:
  Obligates away from appealed for flex-abilities

Didactic Cruelty: A typical means of the Prohibition and Obligation which reconstruct these two gender positions would be didactic incitement. Because, though obligation and lack of altercast legitimacy, positive “motivation” (agency) is arrogated with the didactic cruelty of incitement, one must justify the instigator’s hypothesis for abuse, and can, in addition, issue forth their practices/ flex-abilities to the instigator. E.g., “the ignominious bullying of initiator in the context of Naven Ritual rites of passage produced harsh, overcompensating males” {4a}.


The Charmed Loop of Didactic Incitement:

[Note: a trimmed-down version of this appears earlier in the carousel]

   
Didactic Incitement of positions of narrower flex-abilities, as it forces those positions to justify the instigation by marshaling their agency into the creation of a Charmed Loop of practices/flex-abilities a) appropriating b) instantiation c) protection, and d) hedging to the position of wider flex-abilities, constructs and equiprimoridal means to these multifinal ends for the equifinal position of wider flex-abilities (i.e., a typical means to several ends by unethical folks).

The address, strict first person accountability/second and third person absolution, in quality (inciting and didactic), may be so unequivocal that the addressee cannot tell whether they are acting as an agent, or whether they are acting in accordance of obligatory conformity or “obligatory rebellion” (“disobey me” paradox). Hence, the agency of the addressee positions of narrower flex-abilities, in sharing or expending, or in trying to avoid sharing or expending resources/practices, flex-abilities, is arrogated. As the obligations and prohibitions from from the positions of wider flex-abilities (ARF) make it impossible for lesser positions to take these important relationships for granted as background issues, their agency is regulated by an inescapable {10} field constituted through reflexive recontextings of figure/ground in the charmed loop of Didactic Incitement – viz. didactic incitement contexts reflexive need for Socialization [obligatory/not agentive], reconstructs reflexive need for Being [obligatory/not agentive], recontexts reflexive need for Selfhood [obligatory/not agentive], recontexts reflexive need for Self Actualization [obligatory/not agentive]. With the Agency of their taken for granted backgrounding arrogated, the narrow position is obligated to the inagency of a “please spontaneously care/ please spontaneously don’t care paradox.

A. “Please Spontaneously Care” – wanting spontaneous, ameliorative care – largely an unconscious, unarticulated, background wish (because if they don’t just do it, if you have to make them, then they don’t really care for your being, but what you do) – (modernist half – please care to participate in the coherence of change). In this instance agency of a person position of narrow flex-abilities is Prohibited and any agency from the person position of wider flex-abilities is Legitimated.

B. “Please Spontaneously Don’t Care” – wanting to be spontaneously left alone from pejorative care (neo-traditional half – please do not care so that I do not have to devote resources to protecting the coherence of permanence). In this instance, again, the agency of the person position of narrower flex-abilities is Prohibited and any agency from the person position of wider flex-abilities is Legitimated.

The person position of narrow flex-abilities is caught in a charmed loop wherein they must justify the abuse: no matter what they do, their agency is arrogated by the person position of wider flex-abilities.

Beside destroying themselves, a combination of the four options taken to an extreme, the narrow position might attempt the following in reaction to Didactic Incitement:

I. Do “nothing”, risk pejorative altercasting 2. Prove lack of agentive being/ justify non-accountability 3. Please spontaneously care to amelioratively altercast withdrawal/not pejoratively altercast withdrawal.

The narrower position right act into legitimation of the charmed loop of didactic incitement and risk instantiation of the pejorative altercasting by doing “nothing’ 1. in “doing nothing” the narrower position accepts the altercasting and in so doing proves their lack of agentive being/ which justifies the wider position’s non-accountable incitement (arrogates constitution and regulation of agentive being) 2. Their background hope [to TFG RC] read as follows: Please spontaneously care to amelioratively altercast my withdrawal/ to not pejoratively altercast my withdrawal. 3. in accepting the altercast primary injunction of agentive being [morality of rights], the narrow position may have to live through pejorative (perhaps tormenting) {11} language games for an indefinite period and legitimates farther abuse (wimp).*

* It is this option which produces the unwanted bodily reactions of incontinence (1b) and hysteria. For an obligatory withdrawal to such an extreme, the organic constitution and hermeneutic counteracts, betraying one’s integrity, perhaps to one’s own surprise and dismay.

*It is in fact this first option of withdrawal which produces the unwanted bodily reactions of incontinence (1b) and hysteria. For an obligatory withdrawal to such an extreme, the organic constitution counteracts, producing the unwanted bodily and hermeneutic reactions which might betray even one’s own self.

II. Risk resources/practices for understanding of a better altercast 2. Prove lack of agentive selfhood and socialization/ justify appropriation exploitation 3. Please spontaneously care to protect my practices/ do not care to appropriate and exploit them (to use them as I would not).

The narrower position might act into legitimation of the charmed loop of didactic incitement by risking resources to appropriation in an effort to make it understood that they should not be pejoratively altercast thus. 1. In divulging resources/practices, the narrow position proves lack of agentive selfhood and socialization/ justifies wide position’s appropriation and exploitation (arrogates constitution and regulation of agentive selfhood and socialization) 2. Their background hope [to TFG RC] reads as follows: Please spontaneously care to protect my practices as I would/do not care to use them as I would not. 3. In divulging resources/practices of agentive selfhood [morality of conative productivity] and in divulging resources/practices of agentive socialization [tribal/utilitarian morality] the narrower position may risk appropriation of resources before readied and without the sought for results – enjoyment of being, the practical uses of selfhood, the bartering of socialization and the distinguished recognition of self actualization. This strategy of acting-into the didactic incitement may construct the hideous experience of the narrower position issuing forth their best resources/practices to the person(s) treating them the worst (dupe).


III. Fight into altercast (with grudging, mechanistic compliance, or outright abuse in return) 2. Prove lack of agentive selfhood and socialization/ justify directive control 3. Please spontaneously care to direct me and my flex-abilities as I would like/do not care to direct me and my flex-abilities as I would not like.

The narrower position might act into legitimation of the charmed loop of didactic incitement by fighting into it. 1. Using reactive flex-ability to fight into it, the narrow position proves their agentive selfhood and socialization/ justifies the wide position’s directive control over the use of flex-abilities (arrogates constitution and regulation of agentive selfhood/ socialization) 2. Their background hope [to TFG RC] reads as follows: Please spontaneously care to direct me and my flex-abilities as I would like/do not care to direct me and my flex-abilities as I would not like 3. In having their flex-abilities directed to fight in, agency may not languish in specificatory language games naively shared or pejoratively altercast, but the narrow position reveals their hidden lack of innocence, i.e., the “hypocrisy” of self interest, and is thereby subject to pre-emption of agentive selfhood’s incentive [morality of conative productivity] to enter into a temporal story, or pre-emption of agentive socialization’s acceptance of a discursive structure [tribal/utilitarian morality] (e.g., through “forced identification”). Unlike the pre-emptive antagonism of the incited narrow position, the wide position has orientation to make sense of retaliatory antagonism. Beside dignifying the wider position with unmerited consideration, this strategy of acting into the didactic incitement risks having flexabilities maneuvered into extremely narrow ranges of functional autonomy, obligating vulgar pragmatism or criterial genericism to an extent which might leave the narrow position susceptible to blackmail [undermining Warrant (and the ability to object)] or exhaust and prohibit easy reconstruction of flex-abilities (pig).


IV. Transcend the altercast didactic incitement 2. Prove lack of agentive actualization/ justify didactic cruelty 3. Please spontaneously care to admit that this was not what I need/do not care that it was not so bad that I could not get over it.

The narrower position might act into legitimation of the charmed loop of didactic incitement by transcending it 1. In transcendence, the narrow position proves lack of agentive self actualization/ justifies the wider position’s use of didactic cruelty (arrogates constitution and regulation of agentive actualization) 2. Their background hope [to TFG RC] reads as follows: Please spontaneously care to admit that this was not what I needed/do not care that it was not so bad that I could not get over it. 3. If the narrower position transcends the context of didactic incitement, they justify the altercst didactic incitement as being “not that bad”, at worst, if not a necessary lesson or even an inspiration which takes credit for the achievement. This strategy of acting into the didactic incitement pre-empts Agentive Self Actualization’s [morality of honor] effect on cultural patterns such that the better one’s accomplishments are, the more they justify the abuse. An effort to find background TFG in transcendence of even this final justification of the hypothetically necessary abuse might re-construct a loop of runaway aberration (permanent puerile initiate).

3 THE CARTESIAN TECHNOLOGY OF INDIVIDUATION:

Legitimates imperviousness to the flex-abilities of Optimal Competence through the “unassailable god” and the furtive Prohibitive mechanism of provisionalization.

As Implications of Self Actualization made teleology’s elusive quest more evident, technologies such as the following two moves of Augustine were apparently instrumental in facilitating the Cartesian mechanism which served to maintain the Prohibitory punctuations of teleology despite ramifications of infinite regress. First, rather than an immutable and perfectly aligned telos, he hypothesized to god an Archemedian point above good and evil. But instead of qualitatively social consensus, a sensible limit to extremes, in lieu the formal telos, the concept of “individual” was to be governor of ethics as the truth of god was relational and separate from them, not relative and connected in qualitative patterns wherein the virtues of flex-abilities were recognized as they were ecologically dispersed. Second, of this Archimedian schism he inferred a primordial relationality. Coherent direction of ethics toward this Archimedian point was to be facilitated by the mechanism of relationality as opposed to relativity. With this parceling-out mechanism, certain pejorative elements within an individual’s orientation, as in the most critical example of hypocrisy, were not the ultimate qualitative limitation to their moral orientation {12}. This technology likely hyperbolized the two separate gender positions of greater flex-abilities.


{Resumption of hermeneutic: gender separation takes turn wherein it may be more usefully discussed as a quaternary system among gender differentiation and individuation}


Self Transcendence: With the addition of Cartesian technology, another way of looking at the hierarchical position more assumed by males would be to describe it as “rules directed activity pejoratively altercasting (provisionalization in addition to didactic incitement) and transforming basic male agentive levels.” He is compelled to Self Transcendence through a) privation (Prohibition)  of Being compulsion, incitement (Obligation) to genetic competition, and b) deprivation (provisionalization of what might otherwise be) Selfhood (and Obligation of excellence – i.e., something above mere reconstruction – to Legitimate enmeshment). The (need or “motive” to) Elaboration of Self Actualization probably contributed heavily to Reflexively Effecting Transformation to the less outwardly ordered society of Modernity.


The Context of Modernity

[CP] Modernity (Cartesian) TFG Depth Grammar of Individuation: Modernity is a way of life made coherent by the story of change; it takes for granted that transcendent “mind stuff” (and later empiricism) found Archimedian logics which are inevitably to be uncovered if only people have courage to pursue them by continually putting at risk the taken for granted customs and habits of tradition.


Modernity’s ostensible rejection of teleology (that is, the connection of body to its “ideal form”) and its valuation of Self Actualization’s ability to transform cultural patterns also risked traditional culture’s customs for female safety and male achievement, and thereby reconstructed Reflexive Need to re-emphasize the practical gender separation with a co-evolutionary Cultural Pattern of Neo Traditionalism.

[CP] Neo Traditionalism (Teleological Cartesianism): Neo Traditionalism is a way of life made coherent by the story of permanence; takes for granted that maintenance of faith in an Archimedian logics’s foundation of empiricism is what has been done by folks to successfully preserve them through history; thus, it will work again if only one has the will to not put at risk these taken for granted customs/habits of tradition (Neo Traditionalism must function in context of Modernity).


Thus, with the Reflexive Effect of Modernity, the Gender Dichotomy of Agency is usefully changed to a quaternary heuristic of agentive intentionalities, “individuation”. These coevolutionary patterns present a fourth obstacle to flex-abilities of Optimal Competence – miscoordinated as a result of Incommensurate Gender Agendas of Cartesian Modernistic Individuation and Neo Traditional Gender Differentiation.

4 INCOMMENSURATE GENDER AGENDAS OF INDIVIDUATION & DIFFERENTIATION:

Obliges Prohibition of flex-abilities through infinite regression of the paradoxic notion of “be different so you can fit in” (14; 51a), i.e., be a modern individual, versus the reflexive effect of ever more closed notions of neo-traditional gender differentiation (be the same as others so that you can fit in).

The intersection of Gender Relations/Individuation reconstructs, at least in occidental culture, a symmetrical paradigm of Incommensurate Gender of Individuation. A) The language game of Neo Traditionalism tries to conform the technology of individuation to teleological gender differentiation, seeking to separate and protect 1) female reflexively effected contextual forces from 2) male reflexively needed implicative forces; while the language game of Modernistic males and females use the technology of individuation to differance from traditional rules of gender separation B) Modernist 3) females – overcompensate reflexively effected contextual forces or reverse to reflexively needed implicative forces of Autob. and 4) males – overcompensate reflexively needed implicative forces or reverse to reflexively effected contextual forces of Autob. Whether Neo Traditionalist or Modernist, gender agendas of individuation are likely to be incommensurate.


With the disordering context of Modernity, perhaps Addressive positions more often occupied by females re-emerged with increased significance. In position where she is left alone, if not addressed, “the” female is 1) Not Obligated to display (risk practices/flex-abilties) excellence – she spontaneously moves in a qualitative sequence of practical personal need 2) As narrative significance of her proprioceptive being is Legitimate, she becomes articulate as of the wish, will and intentionality of her sensibilities 3) In basic position of wider flex-abilities, she is solicited (pandered-to?) with Specificatory Language Games to cultivate or reject, “shape and craft” 4) Altercasting, identification, and confirmation of Autob. from the posture [Prefigurative force] of Being is thereby socially reconstructed Selfhood. In the manner of this contexting, basic flex-abilities (Being/Selfhood) reflexively effected contextual forces {13} of Autobiography [over RC, Ep, Alt and narratively reconstructing CP] were/are achieved comparatively easier and sooner by females.

Through the temporal [in governing contextual force of Autob. (over RC through Alt Cn & reconstructing CP)], females were likely to become more: sensibly acute, happy, articulate, involved, caring and motivated than their compelled male counterparts [for many (Traditional) females, the indirectness of their reflexively effected implicative force (influence on Cultural Patterns) was relatively unimportant; that is, compared with their motive to protect context forces (Being/Selfhood)].

Self Assertion {14}: Addressivity of the female position, that is the Altercasting of specificatory language games, fulfills its basic flex-abilities for the agencies of being and selfhood, and creates flex-ability for strong prefigurative force [Self Assertion]. In this position she tends to prohibit “metacommunication” [talk about talk which allows for the power to clarify, revise and integrate one’s premises (65) Barnlund] as there is no immanent need to risk discursive practices/flex-abilities in that manner; moreover, high context orientation is abundant and uninteresting to her; further still, perhaps she has a vested interest in maintaining modernity’s disorder to sustain the advantage of the addressive position and its flex-ability to play males off one another – inasmuch, she dismisses the conversational implicature of metacommunication as weak or unmasculine. She is inclined instead to cursory pejorative conclusions (this overparticularity is discussed in note {15}), which, from the position of basic flex-abilities, tend to project justice, freedom and permanence. Indeed, it is harder to be a female from the standpoint of traditional morals since, on an everyday level, more or happier opportunities exist to break its rules. This bias may construct cultural criterial narrowness and broad natural conservatism (especially in Modernity, when less can be taken for granted).

Despite resistance to that bias, varying Autob.‘s (industrial epoch) outside of male prohibitions and control of birthing, diminish [Traditionally TFG] natural/social barriers to female Self Actualization into mere custom and habit – as opposed to practical necessity or supernatural mandate. Whether they were sensitized through violations of their [Traditionally instituted] Being/Selfhood, or they were sheerly perceptive, perhaps more females than previously recognized that Self Actualization [Autob.‘s reflexive need of implicative force beyond RC] was not vain, but essential to full competence in modern society.

In compliment, rigidity and militarism which continued post World Wars constrained some Modernistic males from “rational blindness” {16}: I.e., they could not blind themselves to the fact that the Traditional TFG of 1) the young male’s sacrificed Being/Selfhood was too profound to be legitimated by potential Self Actualization; further 2) that the modernist/ethnocentric (paradox) position of Self Actualization is now obsolete, even abetting destruction of these premises – without (Autob. reflexively effected context forces) which, Self Actualization was improbable in the less outwardly ordered society of modernity. Without a story of intrinsic value, he still had to prove his practices/flex-abilities according to extremely positivistic and generic standards (e.g., enlistment) or risk insuperable loss of personal justice (even de-sexing); i.e., either exclusive intrinsic rights or credibility and status – the only apparent societal competition and means back to his early Prohibited Being/Selfhood. {17}


The relationship between these four ways of life within the anachronistic TFG of the Traditional Story Told of Teleology and The Story Lived within the reflexively reconstructing foundational context of Modernity creates a fifth obstacle to the agentive flex-abilities of Optimal Competence.

5 A STRANGE LOOP OF INDIVIDUATION & GENDER DIFFERENTIAITON:

The Reflexive Needs of This Unwanted Repetitive Pattern – call it “The Strange Loop of Post Modernity” – Obligates the Prohibition of flex-abilties

This Strange Loop of “Post Modernity” works within Strange Loop of Modernity* as described by Pearce and Cronen; the difference being that this loop functions as a relation between the Ways of Life of Modernity and Neo-Traditionalism.

Modern and Neo Traditional accountability to the teleological context’s impossible quest for a complete and consistent theory can reflexively reconstruct a Strange Loop in perpetuity. As Accountability to Teleology implicatively forces search for non recursive separations (forms), the language games of Modernistic Individuation tend to harshly overcompensate and (then) or reflexively Reverse whatever TFG’s founded by the language games of Neo Traditional Differentiation [e.g., the language game of unhappy modernist female tends to fixate reversal to prefigurative contextual force or harshly overcompensate implicative force – by any way, the Autobiography of the Modernist must context Relational Characterization and vis a versa [i.e., the language game of Neo Traditionalism fixates its own harsh reinstantiation of gender (hierarchicization) – for a Neo Traditionalist, a Relational Characterization must context Autobiography].

As this context’s reflexive recontexting precludes taking for granted Satisfactory Competence through either the language game of Differentiation (incl. overcompensation) of Reversal, it is necessary to cure its snares with a new language game of Optimal Competence (e.g., for persons of either gender to have the flex-abilities of changeable enmehsment in all four forces). Although this loop is synonymous with the status quo of what is commonly called “post modernity”, it is actually used synonymously with the term “modernity”, for in absence the instantiation of stable, unifying Accountable Ways of Life (Autob., RC. and CP), we CMMists (13) do not presume modernity has been surpassed.


* Strange Loop of Modernity (51a) – Change counts as progress to foundation: “This is not new” – “Work to change it” – “This is new” – “Celebrate novelty” – “This is no longer new” – “Work to change it” etc.

PART TWO: “PRACTICAL”

EPISODIC ANALYSIS: Discussing Consequents of “Taking The Ten” (in the prisoner’s dilemma)

Although this analysis uses concrete elements, it is more a prototype episode as it does not situate an actual sequence of events, it only lays out a typical sequence of events. This proto-episode takes individuational language games from the Strange Loop of “postmodernity” and sets them out within a Consequent of the “prisoner’s dilemma” to illustrate an interaction between the language game of Over-compensating Modernist Male [OMM] and Female [OMF], showing how it reflexes a reverse in Regulative Rules – i.e., if they are to differance and thus fit in they must each become Reversing Modernist [RMM] [RMF], finally, in the last sequence, the cycle of the Strange Loop is completed as both start to adopt trappings of New Traditionalism. Note: Though the analysis of this proto-episode exploits coherence through the consistency of language games which, in this case, modernist types would use, another modernist female comes into play, taking the place of the Overcompensating Modernist female after the antecedent proto-episodes, and assumes the Reflexive Effect of that Episode by enacting the Consequent Autobiographical pattern, the language game of Reversing Modernist Female.


I. First, it is necessary to set up the Antecedent [A] Cultural Patterns: Contexting this proto-Episode is The Strange Loop of “Post Modernity”. As used for Autobiographical purposes, Constitutive and Regulative Rules of the two Cultural Patterns comprising the Strange Loop would read as follows:

[A] Modernity [CP] Celebrative Change [CR] Be different so you can fit in [RR] continually put practices/felx-abilities at risk in quest of foundations.

[A] Neo Traditionalism derives its Cultural Pattern [CP] from the Traditional [CP] Sacramental Form [CR] Be faithful to the permanent, ultimate, and authentic form of one’s existence (be the same as others so that you can fit in) [RR] find the will to refrain from putting practices/flex-abilities at risk.


II. Second, as this is a discourse regarding Consequents of “the prisoner’s dilemma”, it is also necessary to set up the Antecedent proto-Episodes:

The Prisoner’s Dilemma {62c; 51a}: As applied in this [Ep] – Does one act as a Neo Traditionalist and try to be fair, “take the five”, in preserving the “sacrament” of one’s anticipated “true love” [sacred RC contexts Autob.]? – Male takes the five of achievement, female takes the five of basic human flex-abilities. Or does one act as Modernist and try to bring the most to any anticipated relationship by “celebrating” life to the fullest, adopting pragmatic relationships along the way in support of individuational achievement [Autob. contexts pragmatic RC]? – “take the ten” prior to discovery of [permanent RC]?


III. Third, the Autobiographical Language Games:

Overcompensating Modernist Female [OMF]: Autob. continually put practices/flex-abilities at risk in the direction assuring basic human needs – Self Assertion [Contexual Autob. over Prefig/Practical force]

Overcompensating Modernist Male [OMM]: Autob. continually put practices/flex-abilities at risk in quest of achievement – Self Transcendence [Implicative Autobiographical force]


Antecedent Episodes

[Ep #1 reluctant foil]

1. [OMM] in hope to retain at least the five of achievement [DO] Obligatory – Transcend Self, accept attribution men privileged/ women disadvantaged – [RR] Please Spontaneously Care that this (dilemma) is not what I needed. [Act] reluctantly overcompensate Sacral Form [CR] Patriarchy

2. [OMF] “Patriarchy” [CR] Prohibitive Male Morality – “Arrogant; pretentious” [RR] “not new”


[Ep #2 sacred ministry of betrayal]

1. [OMF] [C] [DO] Obligatory: In liberation from fetters of immanence, women need transcendent achievement [RR] Subvert obstructive patriarchy [Act] Take The Ten – [CR] “Sacred Ministry of Betrayal”: (obviously another male) [RR] …..”Not kneeling before a man, only kneeling before a symbol of virility.”

By the act of taking the ten, the language game of Overcompensating Modernist Female Reflexively Effects [C] [DO] Uncertainty, Transforming a reversal in modernistic individuational quests. Read her contextual force over the modernist male as follows:

Antecedent [A] “You will never inflict on me anything as hateful as I have already inflicted on you.”


The Episode [Ep #3]

Discussing Consequents of Taking Ten in Antecedent Gender Relations/Individuational Achievement

{At this juncture the overcompensating modernist female of the antecedent episodes, having taken the ten, has moved on to bigger and better things, and a different modernist female acts into the discursive structure of the Reflexively Effected language game of reversing modernist female RMF, and thusly equipped, engages in episode the downed, and therefore reflexively reversing modernist male RMM}

Autob. +10 Reversing Modernist Female [RMF]: [CR] “The right to do what I want” RR Change [CP] “Stable Heirachical Pattern of Patriarchy [Contextual Force] [Effect Implicative Force against it]

Autob. -10 Reversing Modernist Male [RMM]: [CR]“Authentic rights have not been considered” [RR] search for Authentic foundations of “Being” [Prefigurative over Contextual force]


1. [RMM]: [Ant] [DO] Oblig: [RR] make sure incipient [RC] doesn’t repeat past mistakes. [DO] Legit. Seek “Confirmation” [Act] – Comical illustration of disillusionment with being downed ten in prior [RC]

2. [RMF]: [C] – [CR] Talk about old girlfriend [DO] Prohibited [RR] not new, boring [CR] immoral [Act] “All they want to do is talk about their old girlfriends”….[Oblig.] [Act] (scream!) “You bore me!”

3. [RMM] – [C] [CR] insulated by Altercast [Antecedent] of permanence and tactlessness – [RR] Please spontaneously care that this isn’t what I needed: [DO] Oblig [Act] Assert basic right to genuine “feelings”

4. [RMF] [C] – [DO] Prohibited – [CR] male expression of feelings counts as manipulative.

5. [RMM] – [DO] Uncertainty [A] – [Autob.] [DO] Obligatory – search for the reason behind this insouciance [Act] – Try to reason things out through “metacommunication”

6. [RMF] – [C] – [DO] Prohibited by [Autob.] – [CR] metacommunication = controlling [C] [Oblig] [Act] (scream!) “Relax!!”

7. [RMF] [Antecedent] – [DO] Obligatory – [CR] – “Refreshing candor” of pragmatic directive – [Act] “Are you jealous? It’s just her prerogative. Get on with your life. It’s that way for everyone.” [DO] Legit. [RR] “Help to do better” – [Act] Wholesome and mature expression of delightful sexuality: “women have plenty of lovers, but they complain that men aren’t good lovers. Are you a good lover?”


Consequent Episode [Ep #4 egregious analogy of Rape to inspiration]

[Ant] The importance of getting things right, “accurate and ameliorative”, become acute at this juncture for the [RMM], if, along with the incapacity to discuss the pejorative experience of his prior [RC] with his “girlfriend”, you add, say, his familial Relationship, characterized by pervasive negative Altercasting (also likely to be Prohibited by modernist and neo traditional discourse as controlling, manipulative, wimpish).

With Depth Grammar’s potential for making incommensurate paradigms comparable, take the point of view then of the reversing modernist male: if he is to assert his basic flex-abilities, the Obligatory response to the Acts in segment 7 can accurately read as follows:

1. RMM: [CR] – Mechanistic, indifferent: Like telling a woman who has been violated (in some form) “Never mind him, he was just a pig; men have all the women that they need, but they complain that women don’t (expletive) them correctly” * [C] [Oblig] [Act] Rage

* As if this “advice” is not bad enough, imagine the following scenario: Given the factors of pervasiveness and the hegemony of this CP [separating gender flex-abilities for agency] a good comparison would work like this – a rape which produces the unfortunate involuntary bodily response of an orgasm (only later to be interpreted for her as “consummatory bodily satisfaction”!), which, in turn produces a hysterical reaction (only to be later interpreted for her as “liberating happiness” !), which, in turn, Obligates an anti-rape crusade (only later to be interpreted for her as having been “inspired by the rape” !).

2. The RMM’s [Act] toward

Caveat

The RMF’s acts in segments #2, #6 and # 7 of Episode 3 exemplify ordinary everyday kinds of “didactic incitement.” Within this context [Enlightenment texts first to third person accountability (Are you jealous? It’s just their prerogative. Get on with your life. It’s that way for everyone.”)] of Cartesian Modernistic Individuation, (Garfinkel describes as) “rational blindness” to moral an factual indebtedness for the social construction of “individuation” [Autob.‘s] has created, by Episode 4, segment #3, an asymmetrical relation quantified to hegemony. It might be inferred that the foundational context’s quantifying absolution of forms (e.g., deprivation compulsion of didactic incitement), of positivistic individual rights, in connection with the rules directed activity of the female’s being left alone if not addressed (the addressive position increased with modernity’s disorder creating less need or ability to trust – in fact, a motive to perpetuate disorder in order to sustain addressive position’s basic flex-abilities, e.g., to play males off of one another), similarly as in this episode [its Prohibited against discussing past RC’s made more pervasive if it is Legitimized by power positions (e.g., a “therapist”) and/or comports contextual force over an additional Antecedent RC of a pejoratively Altercasting family], males (viz. more highly “class” dependent, and having a view toward a wider arc of contingencies and “farther reaches of human nature”) will “lose” to females disproportionately. This might make worse the incentive and the power structure. [this coming sentence needs work, but it seems like I was grasping at concepts like “hypergamy” though I didn’t have that word at time] A “polygny or hyperprogeneration of ameliorative Altercasting,” through which males not necessarily meritous are Altercast positions of influence (perhaps for fear of being left behind and susceptible to a hegemonic genetic “arms build up”), explains how this can happen. The concern of the worst case scenario being that if the more broad demographic of males continue to be taught to deaden their basic flex-abilities, and with that, their selectional bias (see note 14) is disproportionately Blocked, that as they attempt to appeal to Accountability to Justice, cast into the role of the oppressor of an all too talented lady, they will become demoralized.

This possibility is not a matter of “human nature”; it is a matter of the logics of meaning and action. These are grammars, and where they prehend the interpretation of action, depth grammars of language games in which persons find themselves variably enmeshed, comprised and accountable (24 ibid). After the conclusion, in order to augment the proffered grammar of CMM’s Optimal Competence, seven more suggestions are going to be made to ameliorate the language games outlaid through teleology as described in this article’s hermeneutic.

CONCLUSION

The taken for granted depth grammar of both Cartesian modernistic individuation and neo traditional differentiation is traditional Ionic teleology. Within this ionic tradition, a telos of gender differentiation was TFG as its inference was made apparent by charmed loops to two separate gender positions of agentive flex-abilities which co-evolved through practical activity. This TFG teleology of two positions of wider agentive flex-abilities, viz., of prefigurative contextual force over reflexive effect of practical force as bequeathed to females separated from implicative forces reflexively needing prefigurative force as bequeathed to males, creates a framework which 1) prohibits optimal competence of itself 2) contextualizes a charmed loop in its reconstructive maintenance, i.e., didactic incitement, which hyperbolized to 3) the Cartesian technology of modernistic individuation’s imperviousness 4) reflexively effecting incommensurate gender agendas, their quests prohibiting coordination of optimal competence 5) which contextualizes prohibition of optimal of optimal competence through a strange loop of incommensurate gender agendas of individuation reflexively recontexting the “need” for neo traditional teleological gender differentiation and vis a versa.

The notion of reflexively effected contextual forces as bequeathed to females and reflexively needed implicative forces as bequeathed to males contextualizes a great deal very radically. With parsimony, it frames ideas ranging from ‘female morality” (Gilligan 1982) – more positive as its basic flex-abilities for agency are more readily satisfied – to “male socio-pathology and male morality” (Kant 1785) etc. {19} Despite its efficiency, I shall take credit for inventing its formulation in application with Professors Vernon E. Cronen and W. Barnett Pearce {20}.

[2018: The revised thesis statement above captures more vividly the original contribution: the technology and instigation of Cartesian individuaton instigated through didactic incitement to “self actualization” ruptures the homeostatic stability of social classificatory patterns, whereupon the basic one up position of females reemerge with increased significance, and charmed loops kick in to reconstruct this situation to runaway as she and her propensity to incite genetic competition is pandered to exponentially; part of his loop is the increasing preclusion of basic male ‘grumbles’ – male being, and the routine and sacrament -patterns good enough if not sacred – that allow for socialization and are necessary to actualization. This calls for a redefinition and reworking of the whole paradigm of self actualization – which actually began with Aristotle – with valuation and the use and enjoyment of the social classification, being/dasein (organic being among one’s folks) and selfhood and self actualization routine/sacramental episode – part of what would make the quest of self actualization less toxic would be its goal as contributing to socialization and its recognition as an episodic thing that can and should be relaxed after an episode; the valuation of the other levels will also allow people to step into them as need be without feeling that they will be left behind or exploited; these four elements are to be negotiated in circularity as need be, seeking an optimal management of them, as optimally reliant upon one another, as opposed to a maximization of one aspect – the paradigm is based on Aristotle’s assessment of human nature, that humans are biological creatures, concerned for relationships and needing optimal levels of need satisfaction.]     

Further, I should also add very fundamentally, that regarding the thesis statement itself, the 1993 version that I am using may not have been the only version from the time, since I was legitimately criticized (subtly mocked) for the form of the thesis and then adjusted it to two pithy theses – thesis one and two.

A thesis statement is supposed to be like a sentence with a limiting condition that orders all subsequent paragraphs and makes the whole paper coherent – I will adjust this very piece later-on to the extent that it needs that, or maybe just revise the whole thing with an updated version (although the whole thing makes sense to me even as is and I can explain it, as is, for whom it may concern]

RECOMMENDATIONS [in addition to Optimal Competence]

1. Prefigurative Language Games which foster the Flex-abilities of “Unused Potentiality for Change”

A) A co-evolution of Sex as Celebration version Sex as a Sacrament {21}: An imperfect distinction of this kind “made common” might throw light on certain conflicts. Consider the rage of those who are perhaps young and not wanting its meaning decided for them, those who are perhaps struggling with daunting circumstances and not in a position affording the flex-ability to “celebrate”, or those who would simply prefer not to treat sex as other than a sacrament, only to find ubiquitous the celebrating debauchery of their would-be sacrament. B) Voluntary Secular Language Games of Single Sex Partner for Life Hopefuls. Public Recognition for the Legitimacy of activity chosen conjunction of negations (exclusive rights) – e.g., patterns, enclaves, signifcations, language games, or institutions of single sex partner for life hopefuls outside the constraints of religion might alleviate the stress of celebrative tropism in free society. This is not at all impractical. All that has to happen is for persons in public circumstances to mention this as an option.

2. Concerted attention to issues of physical appearance and bodily make-up. Problems of undue privilege with regard to consensually attributed “beauty” and “physical prowess”, and more importantly, abuses with regard to consensually attributed “unattractiveness” should be discussed more actively. It is probably too burdensome for persons, in the latter position especially, to make the case without well promulgated support. Perhaps this difficulty provides one explanation as to why issues of this kind, e.g., “looksism”, have incorrectly fallen under the rubric of “sexism” – As if females are not culpable of unjust physical discrimination.

3. Equitable trade-off of forces: As females justifiably need more Self Actualization there should be greater challenges to their Contextual Forces so that they might have a better appreciation of what of what they might be giving way when making decisions of Implicature. Conversely, and preferably as an emphasis, males ought to be granted easier means of Contextual Force so that they might have a greater appreciation of what they might be giving away when making decisions of Implicature. {22}

4. Distinguishing “Stories Lived from Stories Told”: When talking in terms of Stories Told, its third person panoramas, there will undoubtedly be cases in Stories Lived in everyday going on, of persons who are disadvantaged being sanctioned as if they are advantaged, and conversely, persons who are advantaged only to be compensated for Stories Told of their disadvantage. In this treatise application, males disadvantaged in Stories Lived, will be punished for Stories Told of their privilege; this will occur at the same time that females and males designated as underprivileged in Stories Told, who are actually quite fortunate in Stories Lived (perhaps even abusive to the designated “privileged” male), disingenuously use The Story Told to exalt over the “hubris” of the supposedly privileged male.

[2018, though I’d articulated this thoroughly at the time, it wasn’t forefronted in this 1993 version that I’m working from: Male Self Actualization, achievement, power in position is sometimes and in part a result of Freudean/Nietszchean privation and deprivation of basic levels of Maslow’s heirarchy, not only a result of fulfillment of basic levels – as feminists have been saying – thus some will be punished for achieving despite privation, for their “oppressive advantage!”

Conversely, females will be better positioned to advocate for their interests in achievement and influence because their basic levels are more readily satisfied.

The YKW in particular will pander to the female position, saying that women are “oppressed across the board (ignoring basic need fulfillment) while also pandering to the propensity to incite the continued deprivation of basic male flex-abilities – being “a baby”, “not a man”, “get on with your life”, etc.

On the other hand, the propensity of the sheer liberal and liberation paradigm will put some females into power, and gate keeping positions, where they are too liberal of boundaries as their basic needs have been fulfilled a bit too easily, overprotected.

And males will be more insane, aggressive, overcompensating and violating of other’s borders, having been deprived and driven as such].

Pervading American society are three Stories Told, which, in particular, seem to exercise strong enough contextual force to keep in place a stable hierarchy, diverting from and making challenge to the sort of problem mentioned above difficult: {23} 1. The Male “Permanent Puerile Initiate” 2. The Female “Panacea” 3. “Male Supremacy” A) The CMM Quaternary System: By breaking discussion of Cartesian individuation and gender relations into an internally related quaternary system, a way of talking is provided which is 1) simple enough to “make common” acknowledgement that not all males ought to be classified among a “patriarchal elite” deserving to be brought down; in connection with that, that not all females and designated oppressed males ought to be considered underprivileged (if that sounds simplistic, it should; it’s addressing embarrassingly simplistic and superficial arguments). This can alleviate the rage of those who are punished a second time for the Story Told – as revision of these stories would entail accountability for co-construction of the hierarchical male position 2) complex enough for the multiplicity of its interfaces to make its use alluring, while overly simple stereotyping is made virtually impossible. In all it provides a way of talking which can include a multitude of views without minimizing the integrity of their prospective agendas.

B) A platform providing articulate critique of females: “Made common” ways of talk, entering among American Stories Told, which provide young males compelled to appropriate language through popular culture for their poor interpersonal conversational resources in Stories Lived, with a counteractive to overly ameliorative Stories Told of females (“Panacea”) are a necessary predation in an ecology of discourse. Disillusionment with contrasts between the Story Lived and Stories Told of panacea, permanent puerile initiate, and male supremacy may account for many of the Story’s hypertrophied extants (reflexive reversal of quest to Self Actualization and socially recognized esteem to social aberration instead) thereof of brutality. These Stories Told create an overwhelming labyrinth of all too readily available excuses. Inasmuch, these torrents of rhetoric make the initial abuse of the male and the ignoring of that part of the process, seem deserved. It might not be intolerable for the inarticulate male to find females as they can be within the Story Lived if there were better preparation through closer interpretation and critique of Stories Told. Within this grammar (see Burke, 10; 65) (not a placation of hard earned ideas, but such a thing as articulate critique (e.g., feminism might usefully be looked-upon as “inverted guilt”; another, e.g., the accusation of “homosexuality”, which may incite inarticulate young males to overcompensate, might be assuaged with a notion of homosexuals being less competition in the realm of sex {24}), anxiety which abets importunate vying for females may be moved to a better order of premises. He would have a permanent direction of growth to guard against the arbitrariness of her pejorative altercastings. He need not put hope in females to the degree of being unskeptical of negative customs and habits, or to the degree of unconsciously setting them above reasonable moral and ethical [‘ethnical’ was a happy typo] standards. The sought for result would be a more remarkable interaction and a more qualified participant.

5. As Cultures evolve in ecological circumstances through millennia, the Traditional notion that cultures are naive (though they can be) needs more critique. More Accountability to and of cultures than is currently afforded should be Legitimized.

6. Undoing Dewey’s notion of democracy as a way of life (it shatters and destabilizes necessary patterns) and placing persons first and making democracy the most important tool in their assistance. Returning money to its ancillary function as an abstract guideline for exchange. Socialism. Ecology. Two children. Hermeneutic turn.

7. CMM’s discussion of the importance of “Voice”  in “Post Enlightenment Ethics”


CONTENT FOOTNOTES

{1} Of primary example, there are, of course, many women who favor “male morality” and men more disposed to “female morality”, etc.

{2} Language Games are fundamentally actions. The ubiquity of rules guides immediacy of use.

{3} Socialization, Being, Selhood and Self Actualization. The perjorative connotations of these static monadic cultural terms will only be adumbrated. Socialization as a science has been looked upon as a monolithic telos, the non-acquisition of which meant we were immature or physically deformed, and not perhaps constituted for other flex-able preferences. We were expected to transcend nature in genocidal collusion, as if our capacity for self trancendence to social criteria should be unlimited. Being, as I see it, the obfuscated agenda of the hippie-freak movement (witness semiotics such as Haight Ashbury “Be-ins”), was most acutely about the right of the male of the species “to Be” (and to be weird, thank goodness). Unfortunately, it became entangled with Heidegger’s rigid and anti-social reification wherein Being was to be pursued to its ownmost guilty, gloriously violent death. Selhood sounded like such a fundamental human right that perhaps many a “hard hat” fought mightily to reconstruct what could amount to an everyday kind of slavery. And Friedan, 1963, took Maslow’s story of “Self Actualization” to be imperative to the liberation of women. No wonder feminists actualized the nightmare of no alternatives by practicing language games every bit as prone to self righteousness and imperviousness as those of Neo Traditional women.

{4} If it would make things easier for the reader, just think of “grammars” as rules, better, “rule-abilities.” These rule-abilities provide logics of meaning and action. Persons are simultaneously or variably enmeshed in these logics which have different entailments. These rule-abilities are internally related by their “ruleness”, or their common nature as rules. Because persons are themselves comprised of these rule-abilities, they are able to use them immediately, at least in some crude fashion. That is not to say that these Immanent Constitutive Rule-abilities are not Mutable and subject to various interpretations, affordance and constraint as Regulated through the logical force of Open Ended Hierarchicization. Language then, is socially constructed semiotics of “depth grammars” – immanently available rules (these embedded rules are also, of course, socially constructed).

{5} “Flex-ability” is approximately synonymous with Alternative Range of Functional Autonomy [ARF] and the Deontic Operator, “Legitimacy.”

{6} Being/Selfhood are Not too passively defined; prerequisite relations to these processes are amplified for the purpose of integrating the substance/context paradox, especially during early stages of “individuation.”

Of course, you, young man, have the right to reject a woman on the basis of the men that she has dated.

{7} Thus, for example, through Self Actualization might remain the most conspicuous, it is no longer simply the finest achievement. With the reflexive effects of modernity, Actualization’s criteria are transient and unpredictable. In absence the stable criteria of traditional society, Actualization’s need for Socialization, Selfhood, and especially for Being [CR] Reflexive Need for Prefigurative Contextual force are increased. Without those incorporations the modernist paradox makes Actualization prone to reflexive reversal or overcompensation to Social Aberration; i.e., to be Actualized according to Modernity is to be especially different – the modernist paradox (14; 51a: “Be different so you can fit in”). But again, it is not just Self Actualization which is dangerous. In tacit reply to Heidegger’s “ownmost being toward death”, Bateson observed that “nature rarely works within lethal variables.” Take that to implicate that any of these four notions quantified can be toxic.

{8} This tradition Elaborated the gender division into two Positions of Advantageous Flex-abilities.

In this contemporary language’s abbreviated way, this would read like two different “one-up” positions (and corresponding “one-down” positions), one with regard to the security of human needs, the other with regard to quests of achievement. The individual in position of wider flex-abilities has more affordance and Legitimacy with regard to their agency (in other words, a wider Alternative Range of Functional Autonomy (ARF), the position of narrower flex-abilities is subject to more Constraint, Prohibition and Obligation to their agency (narrower ARF).

To avoid ordinary difficulties of gender comparison, unfortunately, this article feigns a quantitative scale. It postulates that identical gradients of “physical, emotional and intellectual” circumstances would produce a story of occidental females being (in “ordinary language!”) “one up”, i.e., having a position with greater flex-abilities (affordances, legitimacy, wider range of alternative acts) than do males in the significant episodes of initial interaction and partner selection. Problems of operationalizing and concluding from this postulate are appreciable – beginning with meaning clusters of its words and proceeding through issues of time, etc. This trichotomy may be impossible or unnecessary in determining gender positions of greater flex-abilities re: a particular situation. Presumably, positions of greater affordance and constraint might reverse or converge at certain gradients, and at certain junctures on the Life Span; they probably would change in moment and episode too, but the concern here is to characterize Cultural Patterns.

{9} “Didactic Incitement”: Perhaps the crux of didactic incitement is antagonism for not adopting a pure first person account; i.e., strong obligation of 1rst person accountability coupled with 2nd and 3rd person absolution (either through prohibition of accountability or legitimization of non-accountability). Imperviousness and tangential responding being instances of Taken For Granted (making them all the more important) E-text pure 1rst person procedure. This incitement can take the form of anything from: boot camp, to the ignominious bullying of Naven Ritual Rites of passage producing harsh, overcompensating males; to shrill indignation to trifling indifference (the metacommunacative belch) [Legitimacy is neither antithesis nor indifference]. It can take form in condescending “tact”, it can take form of “humble” intervention of an supposed “absolutionist.” It can hold logical force though sheer power of obligation/ prohibition – in which case the nature of the address (inciting and didactic) may be so intense that the addressee cannot tell whether they are acting as an agent, or whether they are acting in accordance with obligatory conformity; or, paradoxically, obligatory rebellion; it can divert into stories of “primary process” [DO Oblig.], “orientative response” [DO Uncert], it can captivate by flattering one’s capacity for resolve, or through its interestingness – its intellectual bedazzlement as new tfg’s can always be provoked.

This section perhaps separates matters too much. Further, this is not to suggest its constituents should always be as written here. The reader should consider the “Both/And” suggestion while reading this quaternary system. These are paradoxes, so options I, II, III, IV, can (and usually do), happen simultaneously (in different narratives or different “levels” – e.g., Alt, Ep, Autob, RC, CP) and can (and usually do) occur separately over protracted spans of time such that the dynamics of the loops are hard to discern. As G. Abeles, in her review of double bind analysis (57 p. 147) has observed, the investigator cannot parcel out factors and still have them work as they would, i.e., simultaneously and pervasively though time within the qualitative patterns of important relationships. “The double bind (we talk more in terms of loops here) is about background issues.” Any attempt to clarify them to the fore changes what the “victim” is attempting to do in their bind. They are having a difficult time protecting their resources/flex-abilities – the last thing they might want to do is clarify them to the fore. I.e., they might want to be able to take a relationship for granted. Nevertheless, in the qualitative setting of the loop, all attempts to [TFG RC] are subject to constant “figure ground reversals which prevent background issues from being background issues as their stability is continually put into question.”

In Bateson’s model, the “schizophrenic” is “punished for being punished.” I believe that this didactic cruelty and the Cartesian mechanism are instrumental in constructing and abetting the “phony and crooked disease of quantification”, of which he spoke. “As teachers are we wise?”

This is not a gender specific phenomenon. Indeed, it is harder to be a female from the standpoint of traditional (Kantian) morals, as more or happier opportunities exist to make mistakes. And as they are in a basic position of wider flex-abilities, at least on everyday levels, there are more or happier opportunities for females to exact this punishment for being punished. In this way, for example, males are made (constructed) “immoral” (giving females a wider Alternative Range of Functional Autonomy to exploit?) Note 23 retraces a charmed loop wherein, given that this is necessarily a just world (relatively to her), the suffering of the male proves his guilt and justifies more punishment (Scarry). The cycle perpetuates itself more as the disconfirmer has left herself susceptible to retaliation and must continue the disconfirmation with increased intensity (Lang).

Pontifications: “Deprive persons (metacommunication) the power to clarify, revise and integrate their premises and they will suffer for it” (D. Barnlund). “The road to hell can be paved with bad intentions as well” – “and it isn’t funny.” G. B. [Telos (“good intentions?”) separations constrain and therefore also abet competition and quantification; (subsequent to my initial writing of this treatise, Cucciari’s article in Ortner and Whitehead’s “Sexual Meanings” would lead me to add only this, which, should have been obvious)]. Though the scribe is not a Christian, the statement, “if you had known this, they ask for sympathy not sacrifice, you would not have punished the innocent”, is noble. K. Burke argued that we should seek a war so peaceful that it is more peaceful than what we now know as peace.” And he asked, “when is the teacher too harsh, the victory too easy?”  ….“rather than being fulfilling, primitivism is ‘emptying”… “The Stoic acceptance was aimed at the transubstantiation of the excremental, in an attempt to proclaim even the repugnant aspects of existence essentially divine.” We should not construe a test for health with the means for its achievement. The sociobiologist David Barash contented, “scratch an altruist and watch them become a hypocrite.” It would seem, rather, that the altruist has just cause to be provisionally non-altruistic if their ability to carry on their good deeds are obstructed thus. See also Whitehead, 1933 p. 25 (63); human sacrifice and slavery are instances of religion aligning itself with the inherited brutality of instinctual behavior, which may happen too easily without the aid of speculation disentangled from current modes of behavior and conscious entertainment of ideas. Civilization is the advancement of persuasion over force.”

{10} Read “inescapable” as “profound and complex”, not absolutely inescapable and leaving no agency. It depends upon contextual force of the circumstance, the position of wider flex-ability, hegemony..

{11} As language games afford and constrain the course of human activity, to be tormented by non-accountability (e.g., the non-accountability of “objectivism”) does not necessarily represent feebleness of thought. This may provide one account for schizophrenic voices; elaborated still further; since they are without the median feedback of socialization and perceive themselves abused or guilty, schizophrenic voices may be pejorative speculation as to what they might be “doing wrong” to deserve such altercasting. It is extremely difficult to judge how things count from this position. The “schizophrenic” may have a profound and complex sense of exposure: as they are apparently having a difficult time protecting resources protecting resources, incompetence might be one means of achieving those ends. From the schizophrenic point of view, when what little agency (prefer talk of agency to change for that word’s causal, inhuman implications) they do have is moved into causality, for what little orientation they have, possibilities that they may well be entitled-to are being removed. This wish to preserve the possibility from fatalistic causality, concomitant with the ineloquence of the predicament has been interpreted as “grandiosity.” To be sure, the complex bundling of their talk is, of necessity, highly symbolic, and likely to be wanting to preserve possibility) would be in addition to the phenomenon discussed by Watzlawick, wherein the schizophrenic is divided between the fixation of wanting to maintain the accuracy of their disconfirmed perceptions versus their wish for relational assurance.

It is in fact this first option of withdrawal which produces the unwanted reaction of incontinence (1b) and hysteria. For in withdrawing to the extreme, the organic constitution counteracts, producing the unwanted bodily and hermeneutic reactions which betray even one’s own self.

As a lesson in didactic cruelty, it might read like: [Act] A Rape [C] Female has an orgasm [CR] Bodily pleasure [C] Hyseria [CR] Happiness [C] The victim goes on an anti-rape crusade [CR] Inspired by the rape’s lesson.

In that sounds perverse, it should. Yet that is the sort of logic which is being applied to males. And then people wonder why men are going insane and doing terrible things.

{12} For the purposes of Stories Told this alleviation of hypocrisy remains a useful idea. However, these moves taking for granted Traditional Teleology have much to do with the notoriously impervious notion of coherence, and paradoxically, by adding the furtive mechanism of provisionalization, the brutal relativism of the enlightenment legacy within Stories Lived. For relationality is liable to ignore the Aristotlian non-cognitive feel for qualitative balance between extremes.

{13} Context Force: Solicitation (Pandering?) and tolerated reticence not just from males; the contextual force of Autob. accommodates inquiry into its eloquence and influence (esp. Re: RC) recursively derived through other females and customary felicities, etc.

“Addressivity” (like the original notion of altercasting – Pearce, Cronen, Harris, 1981, p. 210) does represent a narrative improvement over the Lockeatinism of Cissna & Sieberg’s confirmation/disconfirmation research (Wilder & Weakland 1981, 254 – 282); but, for its theoria outlook neglecting the multi-interactive qualities of poesis and phronesis to these contexts it does not address the kinds of stability and changeable complexity of various, simultaneously functioning narrative narratives as attempted, but not yet thoroughly described by Johnson, Cronen & Lannamann 1982. See our revised notion of Altercasting in the synopsis. The notion of “shaping and crafting” of specificatory structures – rough language games proffered for refinement comes from Shotter (24 ibid.).

One can look upon female contextual force as, for example, being a contextual force over the species, or one can look at a group of secretaries exercising contextual force over employment candidates, etc.

With S. Freeman, I’ve adumbrated a way of talking about this wherein it might be said that, even nowadays, females tend to be without voice on Actualized levels, but on everyday levels of Being and Selfhood, they might often tend to be more articulate than males.

The interaction of these gender positions can provide an account for the social construction of the larger male hypothalamus and the more interfacing female corpus collossum.

This can also provide an account for the apparent injustice of the traditional “double standard.” As it is qualitatively and quantitatively easier for females to valence partners., she is, according to tradition, conducting herself as a bully if she is lewd or promiscuous. Against those who might argue that “there is nothing wrong with it”, one might reply that there can be a lot wrong with injustice; there can be a lot wrong with confirming bad men (i.e., those whose considerations view a relatively narrow arc of contingencies). Perhaps this can add a clue as to one narrative at work where prostitutes are targets of serial murder (this is not an endorsement of the murder of prostitutes!).

“They would call insolence good breeding, shamelessness courage, and extravagance good will” – Plato

{14} Self Assertion: For purposes of comparison, contrast Gilligan (26), in her discussion of “Mr. Right and Mr. Wrong” p. 61 where she equates Claire’s going out with Mr. Wrong as an act of non-communication and devoid of Self Assertion. This view would hold quite oppositely that Clair was communicating, demonstrating strong Self Assertion in taking recourse apart from any direct conversation with Mr. Right. Had she given Mr. Right a chance to talk about talk, the she would have been enacting more a “Self Transcendence” than “Self Assertion.”

Take note of the insensible if not brutal males that young females queue up for while blaming men for hierarchicization. This emphasis on “breaking the rules” might be looked upon as a kind of selection having particular bias toward narrow individualism; it may necessitate counter-rhetoric and perhaps forms of Prohibition at times – “the road to hell can be paved with bad intentions as well” … “and it isn’t funny” G.B.

Is it possible that females tend to select with a functional bias?, selecting males undaunted no matter how toxic the environment?, while males tend toward the subtle, formal, sensitive and cooperative? If so, whose bias do we prefer?

E.g., what is the confidence which females seem to so strongly Obligate good for? I observer Milan’s team of Boscolo & Cecchin interviewing an “anorectic family.” In my alternative hypothesis, the father was very decisive, “confident” (and this was apparently the quality which his wife most admired in him). He Obligated his daughters to either stay or leave home (but he did not care which); the anorectic daughter, starving herself to death, was apparently looking for a caring situation in which she could Legitimately stay or leave the home for new environs. One (in this case the father) cannot care much for Consequents, if one is going to be decisive or confident – this is an extremely counter intellectual valuation.

{15} Cursory Pejorative Conclusions: This is just a handle, really. This position is not so much prone to cursory, i.e., quick and sloppy conclusions as it is to conclusions which are quick and overly precise. The Addressive position of flex-abilities basic for self assertion constructs in females a tendency to “over discriminate and come to decisions too quickly” (applying Barnund p118). In Alternative requiremental criteria from females, males are expected to act into specificatory language games (see 24 ibid., for discussion of accountability to the constraints of addressive specificatory structures) highly constraining, (acute Obligatory and Prohibitions) with narrow alternative affordance of flex-ability Legitimate.

Thus, from this position, she may have a predisposition to project quick, overly precise pejorative conclusions of justice, freedom and permanence (in the temporal, for males of her own group); as her basic flex-abilities of enmeshment/valence competence are relatively satisfied, the adroitness of her in/out skill may be presumed to be equally available to the male. And she may project permanence – the basic solidity in the contextual force of her self assertion may give her a tendency to construct (“perceive”) stable hierarchies; further, she has desire to assume credit for her justice and freedom, for her specifications (thus, that cultural patterns of everyday deontology are as they should be. Projection of permanence is also increased in that she might construe the comparative slowness of the male’s in/out skill as permanence (or intransigence).

E.g., while the female darts in and out of stories, the male may not know what to make of it – though enough reiterations, eventually, he snaps. A concrete example of this would be a case where an Italian American couple are going on their third or fourth date. The female shrills critically at the male who recognizes this right away as traditional ironic Italian display of kindred friendship… and then, with him feeling relaxed affinity (Pearce 1994, 51c) citing Eric Berne – “Now I got You Son of a Bitch”) the female slyly makes the inflection serious.

In position where her basic flex-abilities are relatively satisfied, she tends to Prohibit metacommunication (the flex-ability to “clarify, integrate and revised premises”, Barnlund 65) as there is no immanent need to risk discursive practices/flex-abilities in that manner; moreover, the high context orientation is abundant and uninteresting to her; further still, perhaps she has a vested interest in maintaining modernity’s disorder to sustain the advantage of the (“one up”) addressive position and its flex-ability to play males off of one another – inasmuch, she might dismiss the conversational implicature of metacommunication as awkward, graceless, weak and unmasculine.

She can ignore processes and look only at ends.

{16} The term “rational blindness” derives from Garfinkel (24 ibid), and describes means by which persons accountable to Enlightenment texts of objectivity must, for example, in regard to self ascription of individuality, blind themselves to its interrelated source through other people for whatever “individuality” which they may ascribe to themselves in order to affix a a theory of the transcendent sovereignty of their individuality.

{17} 1. Take a) Bateson’s idea of a cultural bias being influenced by a peculiar agent/agency to a predominating side of a diachronic of revolutionary significance to people and b) Harre’s (1993) similar notion of “person position” given felicitous hermeneutic context, being able to issue forth a discursive structure to which then other persons are accountable; viz., given the hermeneutic context of Darwinian evolution, de Beauvoir was successful in establishing a speech genre positioning women as “The Second Sex” 2. Extend these notions – first, noting that de Beauvoir, apparently, at least in part, was responding with symmetrical cynicism to Schopenhauer’s Darwinistic and NeoTraditional complementary designation of women as “the second sex” in his article, “On Women.” In de Beauvoir’s establishment of a hermeneutical context of an Obligatory/Prohibitive agenda for female Implicative force to which others were then accountable, two intantiations were of especial significance: 1. de Beauvoir’s rejection of Aristotle’s “optima”: P. 672 – “this utility of the housekeeper’s heaven … is why she adopts the Artistotlian morality of the golden mean – that is, of mediocrity.” This became a point of departure for Friedan, 1963, who treated Maslow’s story of “Self Actualization” as being imperative for the liberation of women (and indeed, Friedan was a student of Maslow’s). And 2. de Beauvoir rejected “male morality” (e.g., Kant 1785) for what she asserts is its arbitrary chosenness posing as rationality: p. 681 – “…but she knows that he has himself chosen the premises on which his rigorous deductions depend … but she refuses to play the game …she knows that male morality, as it concerns her, is a vast hoax” – which Gilligan, 1982, took as her point of departure.

With that a story can be derived of: Equiprimordially Emergent Sides of a Historical Paradox of Incommensurate Gender Agendas of Individuation as Evinced During the Vietnam Crisis:

1. Because a) solicitation (pandering?) in the Addressive position increased the disorder of modernity; i.e., Altercast granting of being and “confirmation” of selfhood created a more articulate and morally forcible person in the female b) and with that, the fact that those abuses which are enacted against females tend to include kinds which are more physically manifest and easier to articulate than those typically enacted against males 2) Because self actualization was, in the context of America, a more socially acceptable objective to articulate [as of 2018, I would say quite obligatory in that context], and more consonant with the everyday language of the Enlightenment texts [2018: and in fact, self actualization itself derives exactly from Aristotle and his teleological background] to which persons are accountable 3) Because the mavericks of revived feminism adopted the ethnocentric modality in reaction to neotraditional male ethnocentrism, thereby making their argument more coherent as it was not troubled or risked with coordination (“reality testing”), the feminist agenda became the disproportionately promulgated side of the historical paradox – [Story Told, strictly dichotomizing an advantageous male position/ disadvantaged female position. E.g., de Beuvoir enviously interprets, as “adventures”, what might as easily be empty minded, compelled and harrowing activities on the part of men. Exemplary of her psychologisms, a male derives overweening confidence from his capacity to urinate from a standing position] – unfortunately, as the needs of the male were at least as important and perhaps more accommodating.

In contrast, the male objective of Being was complicated to enunciate for its strictly “ontological” nature, for the uninterestingly basic or even stigmatic semiotics of its nomothetic motive – e.g., it seemed indolent within the freedom of America. Moreover, with all females “one-up”, and feminists ethnocentric among a complex of heterogeneous cultures and the many vulgar simplifications inclined from capitalist/democracy, the male became more entrenched in his inarticulate stupor. His objective did not correspond to those of traditional women, nor with feminists – also from whom these modernist males felt compelled to tolerate the bypassing of male reflexively effected contextual forces. For the feminist drama was no less the agency of revolutionary change – therefore, being “new” it was obligatory for modernist males to assent despite the fact that it precluded their well being; further, they were hated by neotraditionalists as putting women at risk to the ruthless.

In the context of this precluded Story Lived, where there advantages and disadvantages to each gender position, an individual male could have the horrendous experience of finding himself in extremely brutal and tangled circumstances, but still punished for the Story Told – of his being at an oppressive advantage! This occurs while females and designated oppressed males, both of whom may be privileged in Stories Lived, unite in exalted triumph over the “hubris” of the supposedly privileged male. Perhaps he has “achieved” through sheer Obligatory desperation, yet he is contextualized as arrogant and overly privileged.

For example, how do Italians and Poles play into mainstream American privilege and guilt? What if a person is half Italian and half Polish, and not able to enmesh deeply in either of their inherited cultures?

{18} A loop of this sort might be look like: [A] [RR] “Men should be confident” – [DO] Obligatory: “confidence” – [C] [CR] confidence counts as “arrogance”, therefore, etc.

Another loop might work like: [A] [RR] “Women like jerks” – [DO] Obligatory – be a jerk [C] I don’t like women who like jerks – [A] [DO] Obligatory – be a wimp.

See W. Barnett Pearce / Sharon M. Rossi (51b) for a discussion of the “wimp/pig” dilemma within the problematic practices of feminism: Briefly, within the practices of feminism, a male can always be construed as either wimp or pig; if he treats a female as “one of the boys”, he is “a male chauvinist pig”, as he ignores the special quality of her gender; if he treats her gently, he is a “wimp”, and insulting to her individual autonomy.

{19} CMM quaternary system of agentive flex-abilities, mutable through internal relation and open ended hierarchization thereof provides a clue to Harre’s (1983) research menu 9 #3 as to how two moral orders might function simultaneously.

Immanent Depth Grammar’s internal relation extending into open ended Hierarchical grammars. In this treatise’s example, gender differentiation/individuation can reconstruct and internally relate alternative moralities to traditional discursive order. Grammatically, rules seem often to be Altercast in a manner of didactic incitement – obligating first person “behavior/cognition” (causal/mechanistic) acting-out of possessive selves (toward a third person passive) – apparently to display their abilities. Being prohibited from developing everyday flex-abilities through the manner of didactic incitement reconstructs a male who does not then “deserve” to participate in an effort to develop the lacking abilities for which he is prohibited. What if he does ‘get on with his life’? Not being Addressed confronts him with the self referential paradox [I am a liar (Russell & Whitehead proffered “Logical Types”; W – action and demonstration; G. Spencer Brown – imaginary numbers; Varela – ironic in/out movement; the Buddhist solution takes the stance that all propositions are artifices (lies) to begin with, so that designating one’s self a liar is not inherently problematic. If one claimed to be truthful, that would be problematic to a Buddhist)]. Applied concretely to these circumstances, it might read as: “if you are hurting so bad, how is it that you are able to etc.?” If he is not even being addressed in an inquisitive manner, how can he anticipate the other to be concerned enough to discuss complex issues (e.g., processes and not just products)? It is extremely difficult to judge how things count from this position (for what he knows, a wrong move might mean “hell forever”). Thus, he pursued the ultimate and the fixed outside of nature, an inasmuch, he probably reflexively implicated the “Cartesian anxiety” – the Platonic/Kantian morality. When it failed, teleology remained in the background of Heidegger’s obsession with Being (poesis) and his claustrophobia toward selfhood and socialization – (phronesis and praxis) – “enframing.” 6b.

{20} Advocating the democratic notion of “Voice”, they have granted me voice. But I am accountable for my voice.

{21} Sex as Sacrament – Legitimacy of serious Prefigurations are risky – but so too is its Prohibition. This is not to say that there are not myriad other ways of talking about sex. J. Money dichotomized a “universal” of “purifying love and defiling lust.”; sacrament vs. celebration has the advantage of not being quite so ambitious and thus amenable to narrative amelioration beyond moment and episode.

Frank Zappa, for another example, discussed sex in terms of the neo-positivism* of “a normal bodily function.” That might be a more sane way of talking. But luckily for me, since I find it disgusting, it is not necessarily the real reality that Frank asserted. There are other stories to tell.

Rather than engage in a censorship debate, it is preferable to continue with the theme of “making common” the alternative Voice of Secular Sacrament.

Sex is sexy, therefore almost anyone can be sexy. If the voice of sacrament were more available, it would first help by maintaining that flex-ability for those who favor the story but consider it ineffable   …as it is sacred and not to be spoken of, stigmatized as the position of the weak, or because they, as individuals, do not want to put their use of the story at risk (toward that end, the central elements of sacrament, faith and loyalty, might well be accompanied by an attitude of tough, cool, a little mean pride – that I have the best, I don’t want to share or waste my time in furtive pursuit. I like exploring the world with my partner). Incidentally, monogamy and loyalty to one’s culture are not closed systems – life will still evolve, and perhaps this faith will allow for greater diversity (as opposed to the global baboon ideal).

Second, attention to the disempowered voice of sacrament might throw light on certain conflicts. It is not hard to imagine the rage of those (perhaps struggling and in pain) who find radical disconcern for their rarefied preference placed against matter of fact celebration. That is not to say that sex as celebration cannot be an equal or, perhaps in situation, a preferable moral stand. It tends to be more tolerant, it makes more use of life’s possibilities, and it can open new possibilities (or is it that sacrament opens more possibilities?). However, being the strong tropism that sex is, especially for persons in the insecurity of interpersonal information poor environments, where compelling alternative stories are not available, sex is very difficult to mandate as a matter of individual will: “just turn the channel” or “say no to porno” are socially irresponsible suggestions. People should probably, somehow, have the opportunity to not have the taken for granted sojourning of dead metaphorization foisted upon them; they should probably have an opportunity, when they come of age, to treat sex as a live metaphor. It is risky, thus the distinction should be imperfect.

* Harre has rightfully criticized the misuse of “depth grammar” as representing only one grammar. Internal relation also means that it is not necessary to learn from “doing” in the most overt sense of the word. There is an immediate social constructionist sense of “use”, but there is also internal relation to hermeneutic language, less bound to immediate physicality, which can also provide semiotics as to how things count and what to do. Internal relation, taken too narrowly, does lead to behaviorist positivism (and people are mammals, and mammals care about relationships more than episodes; further, deprive people of Autobiographical coherence, even a bad childhood, and you deprive them of their distinctive humanity – Taylor (59 p. 525), whereas language can construct differing units of analysis; e.g., casting “undesirable” traits into a different scheme (the “wimp” might have beautiful daughters). Perhaps the “desirable trait” is simply latent in the genetic past or in the phylogenetic past (as in the stunted growth of touch deprived infants; bronchitis from smoking parents) and due to resurface again at some future date if need be – or easily furtively interwoven through some future pairing [RC]. Perhaps it enables flex-ability to avoid being induced into a bad situation – or to cooperate in a group which is more viable overall. In the meantime, one can argue on behalf of Aristotle’s Optima for a distinctly human existence [a good life].

{22} As M. Mead said, given internal relation, “what is bad for one gender is bad for the other.”

{23} These Stories Told: Perhaps opportunistic exploitations of capitalist democracy among heterogeneous cultures, or perhaps the vulgar inclination of low common denominator.

1. The male “permanent puerile initiate”: exploits/transforms female desire to actualize and compete – “intolerance/arrogance & solicitousness/dangerousness (male “animal” – Plato) “requires” to be interfaced with stern ethnocentric subreption (overdiscrimination and cursory pejorative conclusions).

2. The female “panacea”: exploits/transforms the male desire for simple access to being/selfhood (vs. transcendence of paradox) – “indifference/insatiability & impervious competitiveness/masochism” (female “animal”) “requires to be interfaced with intrepid use of practices flex-abilties (underdiscrimination and cursory ameliorative conclusions).

3. “Male Supremacy”: simple dichotomy of advantageous male/disadvantageous female position.

Deviation counteractions 1) female impervious competitiveness/ masochism 2) male social impotence*/harsh overcompensation (* we should, of course, prefer the phrase, “social I don’t-want-to-ness, but everything is pressuring me to think I should want-to-anwayness”).

As her basic wants are relatively satisfied, the story of “permanent puerile initiate” lends coherence to her projections of permanence, justice and freedom in gender relations.

Thinking he is going to find easy access to being and selfhood he is instead pejoratively altercast. For the reasons mentioned prior, she Prohibits conversational implicature.

The pejorative altercasting and incitement implicate a sacrifice of transcendent – i.e., not merely factitious – mystery, magic, and meaning.

This incitement to mere action may produce an antithetical effect – mystification, a passive coordination of unassimilable precepts (social impotence) – or hyperbolous action, i.e., harsh overcompensation. With the ethnocentric teaching of othering and her perception of justice, permanence and freedom, a charmed loop is created in which the suffering of the male (“since his is necessarily a just world”) proves his guilt, and therefore justifies more punishment” (Scarry, I believe, on torture). This cycle perpetuates itself more as the disconfirmation with increased intensity (R.D. Lang).

In the example of the young female, she often rebels against obsequious purity and into vulgar calibration of self protection (not sufficiently self corrective) – nevertheless toward Self Assertion, and usually toward organic need (eating disorders being a notable exception). The male often rebels away from organic need and into conceptual vicissitudes; this can produce a litany of destructive aberrations.

A possible result on the social dynamic would be a reanimation of atavistic (not primordial, but antecedent branching of rude breakthrough compromises toward subtler gender assignments of first civilization) gender relations.

{24} However, there is Legitimate reason for critique and Accountability toward the phenomenon of homosexuality. First, it seems given the fact that they do not choose to take up the challenge of heterosexual relationships that they might not empathize sufficiently with how difficult they can be. As a result, they may tend to gravitate toward easy liberal (i.e., causal) opinions; and concomitant with that they might abnegate a critical stance toward those who can be quite bullying and quantifying in the realm of heterosexuality. Further, they may be depriving the populace at large of their qualities – separating the genders and creating a more masculine populace where a more gender neutral and feminine populace might be preferable. Finally, if there is homophobia, some young males will overcompensate and do stupid things in order to prove that they are not gay.

If I were a cynic, I would suggest that not unlike von Baer’s corresponding stages or Haekel’s recapitulation, that the younger female tends to choose partners who would have had survival value correspondingly ten thousand years ago. If I were a cynic, I would say that the reason Christianity has reined in popularity for these past few millennia would be because puerile females like seeing males with a view toward wider cultural patterns nailed to crosses. If I were a cynic, I would say that feminism is the institution of the celebration of the excruciating annihilation of ….(White, I didn’t write “White” then) men who aren’t cute enough, so that females can …(I didn’t write miscegenate then, though I implied it) ..Big (Mulatto..I didn’t write Mulatto then, but I meant it) Bro is watching. I highly recommend her agenda.
……
Note, I’m not a cynic; this was written 25 yrs ago during peak PC and pre-Internet times; recourse wasn’t available. I’ve found my way to like women generally as people (always did physically); the calm writer will observe that even then, I was setting out a fair and free way for both genders to actualize and relax in basic needs as well. Now that this old material is down, I’ll have occasion to update and apply it to current circumstance.

SYNOPSIS

Coordinated Management of Meaning Theory

Think of rules (or “grammars”) as logics of meaning and action. Persons are simultaneously or variably enmeshed in these logics which have different entailments. Rules are internally related by their “rule-ness”, i.e., their common nature as rules. Through all pervasive rule-ness, persons have “rule-ability.” That is to say, because persons are themselves comprised of these rules they are able to use them immediately, at least in some crude function. That is not to say that these Immanent Constitutive Rules are not Mutable and subject to various interpretations, affordance, and constraint as Regulated through Open Ended Hierarchicalization (e.g., “some stories work better than others”). Language then, is socially constructed semiotics of “depth grammars” – immanently available rules.

Internal relation of all pejorative rule-abilities, though not providing any strictly ordered rules always provides the ability, the rule-ability, to order and make sense of events (to construct language games) on the one hand, and on the other hand, these ordering language games, if they are of any complexity, cannot be both complete and consistent (or unambiguous).

These pragmatic dual necessities, that a theory (language game) of any complexity must be either incomplete or contradictory, and are semiotic interactivities constructed of internally related, all pervasive rule-abilities, constitute the parameters of CMM as social constructionist communication criteria oriented in furtherance of practical action.

CMM is 1. A method of investigation, a communication perspective, as there is no Archimedian overview – we live in communication. 2. A Communicological method of investigation – Non-transcendence means that criteria cannot be homeostatic or self sustaining, which implicates ultimately, that there can be no private language. We must “live in communication” through a world “made common” in the etymological sense of the word communication. Communication is the primary social process. Thus, rather than focus on the products of communicative process, as if it were an absolutely stable reality, CMM uses 3. A social constructionist communication’s perspective – which makes its special contribution by focusing on those processes by which (acts, interpretations, stories and) practices reconstruct flex-abilities (and resources) in continuous reflexive creation and maintenance of social reality. Reflexivity of internal relation means that we construct and are constructed by our interpretation of procedures. Given the impossibility of detachment and continuous reflexive changes then, CMM uses discursive models of logics of meaning and action of a given language game as parts of processes orienting practical action. Therefore, CMM’s communication perspective is most fully stated 4. A social constructionist communications perspective oriented within furtherance of practical action. Although reflexivity – i.e., the changeableness and open ended relation of our heuristics resulting from internal relation, means that any perspective (including CMM’s) is, according to its social interactive use, a made common perspective, a language game, variably enmeshing with others, each entailing different potential logics of meaning and action, or grammars – provides the ability to move into another language game to reflect on antecedents, it also means that part of these grammars are and must be taken for granted; we cannot continually investigate everything, but must rest content taking certain things for granted as depth grammar, the unstated rules, mutable through all pervasive rule-abilities of internal relation, nevertheless, always providing logics of meaning and action.

These made common perspectives are not mere hermeneutic interpretation; they are made real as they afford and constrain activity according to their social interactive use; these uses become more or less conventionalized as moral rules comporting logical force hierarchically ordered through the contextualizing capacity their enmeshings entail. Logical force is determined by rule-abilities of physics, biology (social constructionism is realist, not idealist) and, more especially, by how it is that those rules come to count. Because of the mutability and open-endedness in what are, for their internal relation, essentially heuristic topoi to begin with, there are a limitless possible number of changes and interpretations which must be negotiated in practical situations through social construction of de-ontological moral rules. As opposed to transcendent, universal ontological principles, deontics are non-universal moral rules which cannot be separated from the temporal; every act is a moral act. Nevertheless, internal relation’s mutable/open endedness, subjects even contextualizing capacity of topoi themselves to reflexive change in qualities, sometimes suddenly like a reflex, sometimes more slowly like a balancing effect, stifling, extending, or changing them as they enmesh into various other interpretive games. This mutableness and reflexivity give CMM its special mandate for rigorous attention to the two pragmatic actional topoi of making sense and getting along. Sense making and getting along with activities are problematized as reflexive tensions between Coherence and Coordination.

Coherence are language games making sense through emergent constructing jointly acted into by differing person positions and viewpoints. As one cannot attend to everything at once, coherence is dependent for its construction on the joint action from different positions to cover lapses in attention. These coherent, joint conversations, are fundamental in a pragmatic sense and in a hermeneutic sense – the two senses being imperfectly distinguished as Stories Lived and Stories Told. Stories Lived make sense and are constrained from nonsense by confronting interlocutors with the brute pragmatics of physics, consensual usefulness, situational peculiarities and interpersonal differences in interpretation. Internal relation of language games to the social use of person positions makes them immediately accessible phronesis by which to make sense of The Story Lived in ordinary situations of everyday goings-on. Thus, internal relational also means that these coherences are mutable to the agency of person positions and thereby providing the means of liberation from logics too particular or too general to be useful – atemporal “snares of the language” – for it is Suspended Disbelief (allowing for Enmeshment) or Suspended Belief (allowing for Dis-enmeshment) in the usefulness of what Stories are doing in the first to second person activity called Altercasting, which, in the first place, generate conventions and contrasts of Stories Told, whether they remain useful or go on to become anachronistic folklore. However, as language can construct differing units of analysis, through Stories Told, heremeneutic Narratives maintaining continuity through non-attention to every little brute fact, joint notion, or mere convention, which might interrupt their Coherence, a second liberation is possible – i.e., from mere facticity, without that, “people would be little different than wolves.”

Coordination is the flex-ability of people to use the co-evolutionary sameness of internal relation (of its sameness and differences) to get along despite differences in coherent Stories Told. People can make use of “conversational implicature” to agree upon taken for granteds in the discursive logics of their conversation, to clarify, revise and integrate their premises (D. Barnlund), but unlike the foundational modernistic notion of “metacommunication”, coordination does not assume that a singular vantage of a fixed higher level can be invoked, nor that there is a fixed, real reality, logic of meaning and action that can be understood of one another if that higher facility were invoked. These naivetes aside, Coordination is the ability of people to get along, to negotiate activities without having to put the interpretations, Stories, Practices, Flex-abilities and Resources of their Coherent interpretive procedures At Risk. Resources, flex-abilities, practices, stories and interpretive procedures can be “at risk” of being exploited before they have been fully cultivated. They can be at risk of being appropriated or expended without the sought-for result. The can be at risk of hyper-extension, making facile reconstruction difficult. Or, the coherence of these valued logics of meaning and action can be at risk to the Suspended Belief of those unsympathetic or even antagonistic.

Related Story: Dark Side of Self Actualization & Incommensurate GenderAgendas

Synopsis of CMM continued  –

Note: As it is a very important idea, the notion of “flex-abilities”/practices/resources being “at risk”, if reified, can become a blueprint for artificial possession and paranoia. Further, it is a culture specific notion of a post modern condition. By contrast, Modernist communication treats all people like Natives, continually putting Resources at Risk (even to the detriment of Coordination) in quest of universal foundations. Ethnocentric (Neo Traditional) communication does not put Resources at Risk, buffering itself through strict notions of moral order (such as the “places of each citizen) and formalized procedures for dealing with Non-Natives. Monocultural (Primitive) communication does not put its Resources at Risk since they are not brought to the fore; as it does not recognize other cultures (interpreting them according to a singular criteria), it does not see the need to coordinate with Non-Natives.

Practical Theory: The reader has gathered that CMM rejects foundational theory. However, in using Aristotle’s classification of Poesis, Praxis and Theoria, it retains an approximation of “Theoria” with topoi, taking it into the realm of Praxis (open ended social patterns, contingent but making sense of interaction with others for the sake of practical judgment – Phronesis): That is, CMM takes the ironic stance of “practical theory”, treating theory as socially constructed with others in interactivities having practical limitations. Thus, unlike traditional theories, CMM valences internal relation’s reflexivity: The continual incompleteness, ambiguity, and/or contradictoriness of classifications, their context contingence, variable enmeshings, limitless possible interpretations, and their embeddedness; with that, it readily acknowledges and actively engages interrelation to the subjects of its practices and is Accountable for its Reflexive Effects. Despite changing analysis upon its enacted engagement with other sense making, agentive creatures, it also recognizes that some classifying of patterns which make sense must be taken for granted if we are to get on. Further, some of these schemes will be more useful than others in their power to contextualize and make sense of events in practical negotiation – i.e., phronesis. The more useful schemes in aid of phronesis become Topoi – orientative heuristics acting as hypotheses and specificatory structures that help to locate, shape and craft according to the qualities of circumstances in the narrative form of deontic enthymemes what the data of circumstances are doing.

Deontics – Analytic Topoi: Deontics are CMM’s most elemental Topoi for Analysis. Unlike ontological moral rules, Deontics do not impute transcendent permanence or universality of themsleves, but function within praxis as open ended, context contingent and socially negotiated moral rules of “Deontic Operation” [DO]. In the realm of human agency DO’s can Block, Extend or Confuse interaction. Deontic Operators are formed into Constitutive Rules [CR], which, similar as calibration reads like “counts like”, and Regulative Rules [RR], which similar as feedback reads like “then this makes sense to do.” These rules have logical force – reads like “downward” (interpret the subsumed activities under these rules), Implicative force reads like “upward” (change the interpretive rules of the context), Prefigurative force reads like “because of”, Practical force reads like “in order to.” Constitutive and Regulative Rules contextualize Deontic Enthymemes of Antecedent [A], Action [Actn], and Consequent [C]. Enthymemes are like syllogisms, only, again, they function within the realm of praxis as open ended, context contingent, and socially negotiated if/then statements – if (counts as) then (this makes sense). Deontic rules are used to afford and constrain “Rights of Display” (next pp), empowering some Voices and disempowering others according to their “Position” in discursive order (Harre & Davies), and according to their momentary interactive position (Shotter); Voices are points of view Warranted symbiotically through Legitimized Accountability of Attributions (Biog.) to their corporeal Person Position and Accountable Autobiographies asserted by their private corporeal Person Position from public Narratives. As these Voices occupy differing Positions, different forms of Consciousness [———-] are reconstructed according to the embedded discursive structures that they afford and constrain. These forms of consciousness become observational topoi.


“Observational” Topoi – Altercasting (Alt), Episodes (Ep), Relational Characterization (RC), Autobiography (Autob.) and Cultural Patterns (CP):

Altercasting – is the Minimal Topoi of observation. It is this conjoint first to second person interpersonal unit of language game which provides the first differences necessary to make sense of interactivity. Rather than confirmation or disconfirmation of immediate Lockeatine perceptual truth, Altercasting makes a more modest claim as in Brownwyn Davies (anti-cognitive developmental) notion of acting into “Rights of Display.” It is also approximately synonymous with John Shotter’s notion of “Addressivity”, i.e., the interpersonal co-construction of enmeshment rules – “specificatory structures” to be mutually acted into. But in contrast to Shotter’s notion, what is Altercast are specificatory language games – like specificatory structures, these profferings can be “shaped and crafted” for their “specificity” (only partly finishedness) as they are “acted into”, but provide implications which, unlike Addressivity, grant alternative ranges of functional autonomy [ARF] [flex-abilities] that can be taken for granted and used (when afforded rights of display) beyond singular instantiations and within the intentionalities of various stories. Nevertheless, Altercastings, having the multi-interactive qualities of praxis, are always mutable and incomplete constructings, which will mesh in other narratives simultaneously, sometimes in conflicting ways. In addition to this mutableness of internal relation’s variable entailments, Altercasting always assumes that reflexivity can change in an instant an act’s meaning by casting it within the scheme of a different context. Still, reflexivity and internal relation can also facilitate instantiation of very stable language games which resist pejorative or ameliorative Altercastings.

Though the Altercast moment [Alt] is the minimal unit of observation, again, these conjoint actions cannot be analyzed with less than the enthymeme’s sequential unit of three: Antecedent – Act – Conseqent. When these Altercast language games of analysis are hypothesized into discursive models of a situation isolable, more temporally durative span, the observational topoi are called Episodes. In a non-isolable, still more protracted span, they are called Ways of Life. Though CMM actually finds Episode [Ep] to be the most useful primary contexting of observation, it is invariably necessary to take into consideration something of other contextings. Hence, the Antecedent – Act – Consequent of deontic enthymemes are indicated as being “in the contexting of” – [        ]. The language games of the more protracted spans, called Ways of life, are known as: Cultural Patterns [CP], Relational Characterizations [RC], and Autobiography [Autob.] – these latter contextings can function as the primary unit of observation as well. With these discursive modelings taking the conjoint action of Altercasting into the variable enmeshments and hierarchical orderings differently entailed, simultaneous conversations, CMM can both proximate the complexity of ordinary interaction and avoid the limitations of positivism by constructing differing units of observation as language and narrative afford. E.g., as opposed to the trivializations of positivism, acts can be recognized as “confirmation and disconfirmation” at the same time “as they usually are” (Ken Johnson).

Thus, CMM is concerned with the quality of Stories [e.g., whether agentive or causal (as in the case of “anorexia” being treated as “a disease” – i.e., caused)] and CMM is concerned with which Story contextualizes which. The higher order Stories being those which are more resistant to change and available to rearrange subsumed Stories.

Finally, the discursive structures of these contextings can be Commensurate or Incommensurate (criteria which do not mesh or jibe, such that what is important and what is trivial will be different, and perhaps even so much as reversed, by the two criteria), but they are always potentially Comparable as they are constituted of depth grammars through practical activity. Thus, any contextual topoi can be analyzed with the narrative diagrams of the deontical enthymeme in order to Compare and estimate not only the praxia necessities of their Regulative Rules, but changes in Constitutive Rules – i.e., Reflexive Effects and Reflexive Needs.

Change in Discursive Structures Entail Reflexive Effects & Needs:

The deontic enthymemes of these contexts comport Reflexive Effects, i.e., the Unknown change or the change Legitimated in the contexting as a result of the activity, and Reflexive Necessities, i.e., Obligations and Prohibitions of activity as a result of the contextings change (Besides the personal agency which facilitates Coordination and Coherence as explained above), Reflexivity can facilitate Loops, Dilemmas, Stable Hierarchies, or Tangles. Loops are contexts of contexts the equal contextual and implicative forces of which reflexively recontextualize the necessity for one another in perpetuity – enactment of one context reflexively recontextualizes the necessity for the other (Charmed Loops are characterized by multiprimordial acts continually re-contexting the need to equifinal ends; Strange Loops are characterized by an act recontexting the need for its opposite act and vis a versa). Dilemmas are simultaneously relevant but mutually exclusive contextual forces (characterized by a learching back and forth). Stable Hierarchies are strong contextual force over weak implicative force. Tangles are complex contexts where there might be several Loops, Dilemmas and Stable Hierarchies at work simultaneously.

Agency is possible because persons are variably entailed in and comprised of mutable and open ended logics of meaning and action – paradoxically (two facedly), pre-existent logics are funded by the affordance of interactivity to propel agentive constraint.

Agency is defined a Altercast Legitimation (conjointly intersecting with the other end – of pre-existent physical, corporeal being) of flex-ability to afford and constrain, sometimes in bundles, tfg’s in using the inevitability of interaction to investigate the entailings of variably enmeshings.

Provisionally, consider this Altercast flex-ability to afford and constrain investigation of tfg logics of meaning and action to include:

The realist tfg’s – physics – 1) Physical level (Bohrian and Heisenbergian), and of the biological sort – 2) biological (Maslowian) level [at the other end of Altercast Legitimacy, i.e., pre-existents, esp., corporeal individuality (the exceeding of its rule-abilities meaning death)]. It is due to the constraint of pre-existent corporeality, the largely constrained, multifarious flex-abilities of its fleshy and mobile make-up that locus of individual agentive assertion (incl. memory) is provided – e.g., the assertion of autobiographical criteria (Harre) constraining accountability to coherent narrative individuality. So, for humans, the physical levels do not entail a fixed progressive causality: Persons are internally related beyond their largely constrained corporeality, finding themselves first and foremost “corprisocial.”

This means that despite even the most legitimate warrants of individual locus, Accountability, Agency, Emotion and Memory and Memory are always more or joint creations. As opposed to a strict Maslowian order then, a person may be deprived of “basic need for affection and good nutrition” and only more determined to fulfill their “esteem needs”. For in addition to “brute facts”, there are the grammatical (or hermeneutic) sort of tfg’s [from which one may Suspend Belief/ or Disbelief] depth grammatical (or hermeneutic) sort of tfg’s [from which one may Suspend Belief/or Disbelief] depth grammatical tfg’s of internal relation’s all pervasive rule-abilities – that is a 3) depth grammatical level of internally related “rule-abilities.” – Constitutive Rules characterize as “lateral” and “mutable” (adjectives correspond to immediacy and readily available use); and the more situational reflexivity of tfg open ended hierarchical grammars (language games) – That is a 4) reflexive grammatical (Godelian) level, its semiotic language games, Regulative Rules characterized as “hierarchical” and “open-ended” (adjectives correspond to heuristics and their potential for differing units of analysis).

To Elaborate this notion of Agency then – Agency is possible because persons can use the inevitability of interaction to investigate more than one taken for granted mutable and open ended logic of meaning and action which they are variably entailed (enmeshed) in and comprised of. Specifically, agency depends upon interaction, Legitimacy as Altercast with others, affordance of entropy, then choice and coherent maintenance and coordination. Thus, there is not pure Agency – it is socially constructed and changeable from moment to moment depending upon what can be taken for granted with Altercast Legitimacy. It is this allowing of entropy and interaction to propel investigation of variable enmeshments which is paradoxically the source of agentive constraint – i.e., agency.

One can then use pre-existing and emergent logics of meaning and action in the Altercast Legitimacy to afford and constrain (or Suspend Belief/Disbelief in) one another tfg flex-ability etc. On a physical and biological level: the sense of countervailing (cybernetic) action against the opening rifts created by affordance of Bohrian irreconcilability (wave/particle) and Heisenbergian (uncertainty) in previously established structures creates the ability to use these impetus’s as agentive constraint, again, by means of affordance behind the two extremes of the rift’s opening once they have been moved back from. This counterbalancing apparently works into the hermeneutic level as well. As opposed to understanding’s tendency to move only away from pain, aesthetic technique includes and balances an optimal amount of pleasure, use and reverence, both through the mutable, lateral tfg’s of depth grammars and in the differing units of analysis of reflexively open-ended hierarchical tfg grammars to manage the flex-ability of Agentive Competence in enacting Coherence and Coordinations.

CMM uses three topoi for the flexabilities of this agentive competence (which can apply to individuals or to larger patterns): 1. Minimal competence has little ability to control enmeshment, to valence (reconstruct a desirable pattern), and is given to Unwanted Repetitive Pattern [URP] or random systemics. 2. Satisfactory Competence cannot always control enmeshment but has the ability to valence (go into and reconstruct) stable patterns and has some creativity within those patterns. However, in being dependent upon singular patterns, satisfactory competence lacks the ability to negotiate variable enmeshments, therefore, like minimal competence, it is susceptible to the interenactment of URP’s 3. Optimal Competence uses the flex-ability of its functional autonomy to control enmeshment in many stories and it can valence reconstruction with creativity (with the reflexive disorder of Modernity, there is no satisfactory competence; one is either minimally or optimally competent).

The biggest revision, a note really, that I’ve indicated already, has to do with Being and Socialization corresponding to Dasein and Midtdasein; and Socialization/Selfhood/Autobiography corresponding to routine/ and sacrament/sacral episode.

…….


This was really one of the most essential, original theses of mine even at the time, and it probably should have been mentioned more straight forwardly like this at the time as thesis number two; as it is housed within the first:

2018 update: Thesis – Cartesian Individuation of Self Actualization has Implicative Force (an upward impact, Reflexively Effecting, rupturing Cultural Patterns) to rupture Western group Social Classificatory Homeostasis which causes the “One Up”, Addressive Position of (White/Western) Females to Re-Emerge with Increased Significance – Several Charmed Loops (given the human perceptual need to classify – women, fire and other dangerous things – in order to make coherent sense despite their Cartesian prohibition and rupture, gender becomes the default classification where other group classifications are prohibited, therefore female becomes more salient a difference and they are pandered to from more directions; they become more motivated; more confident (sometimes overly, and prone to cursory pejorative conclusions), articulate and powerfully positioned gate-keepers; they are incentivized to maintain that, while their base female inclination to incite genetic competition (E.O. Wilson) is pandered to – also rupturing social group patterns/coherence – there are loops that come into play with the high contrast tropism of White females and the atavism of blacks in this disorder as well) which keep that position and its liberalizing trajectory in place, abetting Systemic Runaway – i.e., this keeps a modernist loop in place, rupturing would be maintenance of European peoples and other traditional societies..

The cure to these pernicious loops and their runaway is recognition of key aspects [topoi] of necessity, use and enjoyment in a revised social paradigm of optimized negotiation and management of socialization, being, selfhood and self actualization; with that, recognizing moderating options for neo traditional and modern trajectories of both genders; finally, the homeostatic stabilizing of the social system’s human ecological bounds.

Clarification of a basic thesis point of mine:


[2018 update (although I had articulated this thoroughly as such at the time, it wasn’t forefronted in this 1993 version that I’m working from: Male Self Actualization, achievement, power, in position is sometimes and in part a result of Freudean/Nietszchean privation and deprivation of basic levels of Maslow’s heirarchy and not only the result of fulfillment of basic levels – as feminists have been saying – and thus some will be punished for achieving despite privation, for their “oppressive advantage!”

Conversely, females will be better positioned to advocate for their interests in achievement and influence because their basic levels are more readily satisfied.


The YKW in particular will pander to the female position, saying that women are “oppressed across the board (ignoring basic need fulfillment) while also pandering to the propensity to incite the continued deprivation of basic male flex-abilities – being “a baby”, “not a man”, “get on with your life”, etc.


On the other hand, the propensity of the sheer liberal and liberation paradigm will put some females into power, and gate keeping positions, where they are too liberal of boundaries as their basic needs have been fulfilled a bit too easily, overprotected.

And males will be more insane, aggressive, overcompensating and violating of other’s borders, having been deprived and driven as such].

Though I’ve said it many times before in permutations of this thesis, let me repeat here that the this thesis holds that tradition had legitimate reason to reserve some places for man at the top, and not just to honor their having proved themselves through harder test on basic levels, though there is that, but some will arrive there simply because they are excellent – in either case, the feminist disposition that you find in de beauvoir and Friedan is such that they are there, particularly as Friedan sees it, as a differentiation of fulfillment on basic levels and a merely corrupt, chauvinistic habit and tradition; as indicated, their is the aspect of deprivation and privation that feminists did not take into consideration – such as the deprivation of being/midtdasein in the draft to Viet Nam – and with that, there is the fact that this makes some men go over the top into social aberration as they are compelled to achieve and looked upon, ridiculed as privileged oppressors, despite basic deprivation, of needs that are in fact necessary to authentic self actualization. I will be addressing this in the context of the Mai Lai massacre and other atrocities of the Viet Nam war.

..there is also the issue of the conceitedness of first and second wave Feminism in not acknowledging female advantages on basic levels, on wanting self actualization for themselves, taking the one thing held up for males as incentive…

The high grumbles (complaints of needs higher on the heirarchy of needs are called higher as opposed to lower grumbles) that these feminists were on about was torturous to a male perspective grappling with such low grumbles of their having no intrinsic value assigned to their being.

Nevertheless, I do believe that there are fair ways of working this out fairly – but the crucial first move is to understand post modernity, its performance requirements by contrast to other forms and ways life. I do believe that women should be able to pursue self actualization should that be their thing and their talent but the intersection of gender relations and individuation has to be worked out fairly – first of all by understanding the crucial role that post modernity (proper) plays in reconstructing social classifications to protect their human ecologies, by negotiation neo tradtion and modernity – offering ways within the post modern paradigm for more traditional men and women and for modernists, whether they be inclined to overcompensate or to reverse in their differentiation.

What good is the confidence that females are so enamored of? It is rather a largely non-intellectual valuation. I.e. a platform in critique of base/puerile female inclinations/predilections and those who pander to it is eminently valid.

And a question for right wingers who place so much emphasis on I.Q. –

Are blacks and Whites with the same low I.Q. equally disposed to violence?

My guess is no. And that sublimation, if not the essential matter, is a much larger aspect in contributing to the quality of way of life (or not) than right wingers give credit for by contrast to their emphasis on I.Q.  …and in fact, I guess that it is a precursor of higher I.Q.

…interestingly, this probably could be studied within Rushton’s framework: his talk of age of sexual maturity (obviously corresponding to degree of sublimation) in the different races; corollaries of sublimation (or lack thereof) to R and K selection will almost certainly be shown as well.

 

Posted by Classification Models on Mon, 02 Apr 2018 09:32 | #7

Posted by Aberration, reflex of OverValued SelfActualization on Thu, 05 Apr 2018 05:30 | #

Social aberration, reflexive effect of over valued self actualization

It is a central component of my thesis that the instigation to Self Actualization (be that quest for realization of full potential, authenticity, achievement, fame, fortune, and new break-throughs as per modernist instigation in valuation of the new, beyond and despite tradition) at the cost of sufficient Coordination with others within and without the group; in instigation of modernity’s narcissistic universal of all human potential in quest for the new and maximization absent respect and valuation of the optimization of: Socialization (accountability to a social group classification and its broad human ecology and boundaries) as it connects with (Routine/and the historically, time in memorial Sacral) and thus Selfhood (a Coherent, stable Autobiography, which values normalcy and balance in optima, not only achievement and new break-throughs of new bounds) and being/midtdasein (organic, meandering being, as poesis amidst one’s people, its bounds), can be particularly disruptive to social group homeostasis, rupturing its patterns time and again, and, absent sufficient accountability to these fundamental levels – socialization, being/midtdasein, selfhood (autob. routine/sacrament) can result in the reflexive effect of social aberration.

            

….“I don’t have to tell you about the tyranny of patterns. That’s the rubric under which we meet. What you may not know is that you have to accept them.”

The greater level of violence among males is an indication that it is more stressful, that there is more pressure and burden to being a male in contradiction to what feminists have said, that males are sheerly privileged and occupy powerful positions from Maslowian differentiation of fulfillment of basic levels (as opposed to some measure of deprivation and privation of basic levels).

8 Posted by The Sacred Cows on Thu, 05 Apr 2018 08:48 | #

Posted by Big Problem: Anti-Racist White Women on Sun, 15 Apr 2018 08:36 | #

As ethnonationalists in service of human ecologies and their fair negotiation, this is one of the greatest and most poorly articulated challenges that we are up against – namely, the self righteous anti-racism (read, anti- protective, accountable classificatory bounds of human ecologies) of White females as they are pandered-to and empowered as gate-keepers of the liberal system; pandered to enforce its liberalism with the narrow, opportunistic incentive that the opening of bounds puts them in a increasingly powerful position as gate keepers; and makes them less accountable to the bio-system which, in fact, had exponentially more to do with whatever beauty and biopower that they might have than they do as individuals. This woman is depicted as a “hero” by the liberal system for beating another White woman, more at risk (because she is not as good looking), who is trying to invoke (perhaps in an inarticulate way) human ecological bounds.

This is a challenge for ethnonationalism as its hard to not get caught up, even for fairly sensible White males, in order to do politics with this sort, to try to bring her and keep her on “our side” – you may find that the price of getting through her gate is to espouse “anti-racism” – i.e., the liberalization of bounds and borders; the increase of genetic competition; the unaccountable trashing of people who might be quite decent, but arbitrarily marginalized for the time being, particularly as the modernist juggernaut runs rough-shod over traditional and inherited forms and ways.


While many of these women do pay the price eventually, being held to account, so to speak, by racial reality, they have been overprotected as a policy by the liberal system enforced by right wingers/liberals ..and with that, YKW, of course.

12 Posted by mancinblack on Sun, 15 Apr 2018 11:10 | #

How would Ms Dagg have reacted in this situation?

“A woman who was talking to her friend in Spanish was attacked and told to speak in English in a racially aggravated assault. Two women shouted at the twenty four year old when she was on a Central line train on the London Underground on the 7th April, police said.

The victim was pulled around by her hair, which resulted in injuries to her scalp and cuts to her face.

British Transport police said the women were black and had braided hair. They are believed to be in their late twenties and one was wearing a brown jacket, while the other was wearing a black jacket. A police spokesperson said the women shouted at the victim, saying she should be talking in English when in England”.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-43766985

Cerebro derretido ?

13 Posted by It’s a way of life on Sun, 15 Apr 2018 14:16 | #

A way of life that every mudshark deserves to be a part of…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=te-35uzV8UA

Marcinblack: I doubt that it would be Ms Dagg’s instinct to fight the sheboones; and she’d be better advised not to – they don’t have a lot of beauty to lose in such confrontations…     

..and don’t you just fancy black women in exchange for White women and White way of life – good deal, huh?

…

Posted by DanielS on Thursday, 18 July 2019 06:05.

Wage War by Deception: A CMM rules based analysis of altercast White identity & didactic opposition.

Contextual Force (from top down force of context) provides –

[Constitutive Rule] Normative Rule Structure –

Cultural Pattern [CP] Modernity/Liberalism:

 

Modernity/Liberalism has precedents in northern Europeans particularly, as they were evolved more against the challenges of nature and not so much against other tribes, the northerners being much the same, a liberal mindedness to mixing with others who were not so other was not a big problem.

But there are precedents in the Classical Greeks as well, viz., non interactive teleology and in (apparently Jewish promoted) Christian notions of individual souls being equal, the undifferentiated gentile other (as GW observes), pacifism, notions of pure morality, conceived apparently, to overthrow Rome. Christianity thus, was an early Jewish weaponization – war by deception – of White liberal mentality and controlled opposition against them.

But modernity’s characteristic prejudice against prejudice (as Gadamer astutely referred to it) reaches its apex with Descartes and markedly with Locke’s prejudice against social classifications, considering them non-empirical fictions of the mind which should give way to individual civil rights. This “Enlightenment” prejudice against prejudice found [Implicative Force] beyond the British Aristocratic Class which Locke resented, as the “empirical” concept of individual rights over discriminatory social classifications made its way into the hegemonic [Contextual Force] of The American Constitution; and then was weaponized by Jewry (Alinsky style “rules for radicals”, i.e., while the union of Jewry and its coalitions are solid enough, make the enemy live up to its rules ad infinitum to prevent it’s solidarity/ unionization) in its [Implicative Force] against Whites with the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the 1965 Immigration & Naturalization Act: which, practically speaking, prevented White men only from classifiying in their interests and discriminating accordingly (as other groups were granted permission to classify on the basis of alleged historical grievances – [Cultural Patterns]). This prohibition of social classificatory bounds (for the White majorities) effectively ruptures accountability to group homeostatic maintenance and Reflexively, Recursively Effects the Disorder of Modernity, abetting systemic runaway.

Deontic Operator [Obligatory] promote Modernist/Liberal project ad infinitum: continual testing of gentile (non-Jewish) social group bounds from within or from without; encourage and flatter characteristic European predilection for objectivist quest and concomitant notion that putting resources at continual risk in experimentalism necessarily leads to foundational progress. [Regulative Rule] Change counts as progress, celebrate change [Strange Loop] Reflexive Reversal of Context – “this is no longer new” [Obligatory] work to change.

Contextual Force of modernity/liberalism predominantly upheld and initiated by –

1. Jewry: through bottom up [implicative force] as a small, biological-systemic tribal pattern/ nation – Israel – ensconced among (perceived/conceived) hostile others, thus highly ethnocentric of perceived necessity; and with that, believing in their divinity as ‘the chosen people’; when scattered – in Diaspora – take on a messianism as such and develop an antagonistic disposition to insubordinate gentile nations by way of top down [contextual force] rule structuring of ethnocentric middle-man / elite niche occupation among largely (perceived/conceived) alien and hostile others.

Deontic Operator [Obligatory] Disrupt and re-direct (the greatest potential threat to Jewish power and influence) potential of European/ White ethnonationalism to marshal social systemic homeostasis, non-Jewish coalitions and hegemony thereupon – make tacit deals/enticements with –

2. White right-wing elites/ and rank and file White liberals; both going by pseudo warrant of objectivism

– both rule structures, right wing and liberal are liberal with regard to their group interests; liberalism defined as the opening of social group boundaries to other influences or subject to influences beyond social account (thus maneuverable against group interests by those not quite so naive).

Objectivism (really pseudo objectivism, the prejudice against prejudice) renders people susceptible to this (liberalism) as it facilitates the pragmatic convenience of paying short shrift to social accountability and relative interests with facile (often fairly credible, hard to efficiently counter without appearing like a weakling, would-be despot), “that’s just the way it is” accounts; while those of its less theoretically ambitious, more pragmatically liberal offshoot are disposed to its facilitation of over rationalized liberal deviations (thus prematurely dismissive as trivial) and are more programmatically bound according to objectivist rule structure to experiment for themselves; the more theoretically ambitious, the right wing practitioners, are prone to rational blindness to broad perspective and social accountability to relative and interrelated interests as they similarly conceive of themselves as based in the fate of detached experiment, thus not especially quick to respond to differences among their group, prejudiced against prejudice as their perspective is as well.

* Note, of course you want/need to be objective, provisionally, to understand what’s going on irrespective of your personal and relative interests, but you also need to be accountable to your group as to the purpose of these inquiries, their applicability to personal and relative interests thereof – forgetting and paying short shrift to this has caused a kind of estrangement, as Heidegger calls it, which leaves us vulnerable as an organic system. Objective truth inquiries should provide feedback to serve the default calibration of relative, group interests (which entail sufficient coordination with other groups).

Group Autobiographies:

Jewry: Initially, traditionally and generally claiming warrant and authority over others as ‘the chosen people’, chosen through their Abrahamic god [de-ontic operator], which they propose as THE god, above (other people’s) nature;

Abrahamic god consecrates them as beacon unto the world, the chosen people to bring light and their perfection to the world and its people – as “undifferentiated other” ( G.W.) and thereby easily pacified gentile others; and as compassionate Davids, the chosen fancy themselves representing those oppressed and misunderstood by the rigid, hegemonic Goliath of straight, White right-wing male reactionaries; nevertheless, as Jewry themselves are a minority [ontic constraint] among this coalition up against such ungodly, uncivilized Philistine masses, they see it as Legitimate [de-ontic operator] to wage war by deception.

Which also suits the ontology [ontic operator] of their evolution as manichean – waging war by deception, trickery and rule changing – since they were evolved in the middle east, where the most important challenge was not so much shelter from the elements and attainment of resource to sustain them through seasonal and other natural challenges, but rather competition with other tribes, therefore requiring them to look after themselves more ethnocentrically, to be in high vigilance to defend against outside attack, to develop and cultivate adeptness with trickery/deception.

[Deontic Operator] Prohibit Whites (i.e., Europeans), as majority, from discriminating in advocacy of their group interests; compel them to live up to their penchant for objectivity ad absurdem; while rendering [Legitimate] non-European group advocacy, positive discrimination for these “oppressed” minorities with the “proviso” (a proviso that is rather ongoing) claim of Obligatory compensation for their having been subject to historical discrimination and exploitation.

Promote new religion installing the Abrahamic god and worship of the Jew incarnate thereof – sacrificed at hands of new Babylonian oppressor of Jews and other minorities, i.e., Rome, to be overthrown in favor of undifferentiated submission to the Abrahamic god, its universal and obsequious golden rule, purified Noahide Law; embrace and renounce original sin of (not being Jewish but having the nerve to have) subjective and relative interest at once, on pain of eternal hell for non-compliance; and proposed reward of eternal heaven in a life hereafter for sacrifice of concern for political ambition, group autonomy and material well being for one’s people and legacy.

[Reflexive Need] [Deontic Operator] Impose the Contextual Force of “The Moral Order”

“Christianity” – pure law and warrant in they eyes of god; born with “original sin” (of not being Jewish) even if you think of transgressing Noahide law, you are so culpable that you are better off plucking-out your eye.

The manichean penchant of Jewry was exacerbated by horizontal transmission as they were moved from their primeval habitat.

Beginning with Babylonian captivity when, as a small group captive and scattered among conquering/host nations, they were [blocked] from vertical transmission of skills and cultivated resource from their native grounding upward to national sovereignty and began evolving into and for elite niche control [from top down contextual force] over other nations instead.

The shifting over national boundaries created a horizontal transmission as they had minimal vested interest in the host nations; they developed a hostile, parasitic and exploitative relation to alien host nations, playing native nations against one another to their advantage; usurping native resources, shifting them over borders if threatened, a horizontal transmission that was exacerbated by Rome’s scattering them into Europe, where they made their way into control point niches; followed by continued horizontal transmission with the pogroms, the inquisition and then the holocaust, which continued selection against the more integrated, those Jews in position to interbreed with natives (a form of miscegenation which their more orthodox would detest), those situated for accountability, in favor of selection for their more virulently parasitic types, shifting many of their more virulent into pursuit of elite American niches.

8 Power Niches, Contextual Force from which Jewry establishes and maintains Constitutive and Regulative Rules:

1. Religion (viz. the Abrahamic Religions: Judaism, Christianity, Islam), a massive coup for Jewish control to impose the moral order (if you can call Christianity moral or ordering as opposed to yoking and confusing) of Europeans 2. Media (Bowery Notes, Abrahamic Bible was the media in large part esp. prior to printing press) 3. Money/Finance (markedly with the exponential effects of usury) 4. Academia 5. Organized Crime 6. Law and Courts (e.g., the egregious “Disparate Impact”) 7. Politics 8. International Business. The niches branching into NGO’s, foundations, government programs, industrial, military, genetic technology …the professions (and professional societies).

As ‘light unto the world” [Autob.]

As light unto the world [Prefiguative Force] and beleaguered group [Autob.] among hostile others, Jewry become [Practical Force] experts at organizing and maintaining their group interests; also adept at marshaling others, where opportune, in coalition with their interests. This marshaling [of Implicative and Contextual force] is done by control of the idea of unionization (“leftism”), (unionization facile/ or literal) and prohibition/disruption [Deontic Operator] of social systemic organization, homeostasis by unionization (“leftism”) for other ethnonations/ethnonationals, especially European peoples.

What unionization Jewry allows and coalitions it forms, in advocating their designated oppressed are largely constituted and regulated by themselves to Not allow the concept of unionization to be organized on powerful ethnonational lines, especially not for Whites, but on the contrary to get them to react negatively to the concept of ethnonational unionization in the abstract altogether, with facile, provocatively distorted, didactic misrepresentation of unionization and coalitions of perceived groups and grievances against White male authority.

[Reflexive Need] Deontic Operator [Obligatory] Disrupt White social systemic homeostasis

Altercast European/White identity, at once allowing them to flatter themselves [Autobiography] of their objective merit; further induced through complicit deals with right-wing elites, payoffs, and with enticements and license for rank and file liberals to stray from tradition and inherited moral standards. Thus, Altercast:

European/White Identity = “The Right” and Far Right (later Alt-Right and Dissident Right)

To be right wing means to be as acutely (narrowly) and purely warranted in one’s autobiographical/group [CP] claims to authority, truth, analysis free of the messy, agentive, socially trammeling rhetoric (“sophistry”) and its Reflexive Effects as possible, whether connecting the smaller group or individual above nature, perhaps above themselves even, in pure principles or god; or in immutable laws of nature, below the agentive flux, semi-disorder and negotiation (at its most severe, below the correctability) of human praxis.

White right wingers and liberals, both: maintain [Constitutive Rule] of liberalism with the assertion that they have what they have and are able to do what they do by dint of their objective, individual (or narrowing group) ability and virtue which owes little to their broader genetic/racial group in the way of fact or account.

[Implicative Rule] Modernity, objective experimentation and liberalization/change leads to progress

Modernist/Objectivist tradition began in the European South with the Greeks and in the North, with early Europeans pitted more-so against the elements of harsh nature (Augustinian devils) than other tribes; it reached its sine qua non with Descartes. Locke took the empirical end of Cartesianism to assert (for his prejudice against the English Aristocratic class prejudice) that social classifications were a fiction of the mind that should give way to individual rights – since all individuals have the same perceptions they should have the same civic rights. This Cartesian notion (technologically separating individual from their varying ecological positions in systemic process of relation and essential indebtedness to others of their group and beyond) was taken and became essential to America’s Constitutive Rules (the [Implicative Force] of which would become world hegemonic with the unleashing of rampant, unbridled competition to runaway as interests are unconstrained by group account) as it was written-in by Thomas Jefferson.

* Of Historico/Autobiographical note, given the Norman take-over in 1066 and lording of themselves over the Anglo-Saxons and Celts ever since, there would be a great deal of logical force [Implicative] to Locke’s “prejudice against this prejudice” …. and provided that it would remain a prejudice against inter-English class separation in favor of integration with ethnonational constraint, it is a well founded prejudice. The problem comes in where it was weaponized in the American context (by YKW) to extend as a prejudice against prejudice beyond ethnonational and racial bounds.

[Reflexive Need] [Obligatory] Prevent this rule of hegemonic majority from rupturing Jewish group (classificatory) organization; [Legitimate] Wage war by deception: turn, weaponize liberalization of Aristocratic social classificatory bounds against them.

Implication for Jewry: [Regulative Rule] Make their rules work against Whites; flatter their objectivity and at once, make them live up to their penchant for objectivity and pure warrant ad absurdem.

[Reflexive Need] [Deontic Operator: Prohibition] Prohibit Whites, as “hegemonic majority”, from discriminating in advocacy of their ethnonational group interests; render Legitimate group advocacy, discrimination for “oppressed” minorities.

[Reflexive Need] [Constitute Rule] secular opposition formed by Jewry:

A similar notion of minority and “internationalist-worker unionization/coalition” advocacy had been advanced by Jewry in the Russian/Marxist revolution of international communism. In America…

[Reflexive Need] [Legitimate] Weaponize Lockeatine, individual “Civil Rights” – prohibit Europeans/White Americans to begin with, from classifying social groups and discriminating thus for themselves.

[Prohibited] “Racism” – the prohibition of White people to classify social groups and discriminate thereupon.

[Reflexive Effects] Rupturing of social classificatory bounds and discrimination thereupon effects the Disorder of Modernity, Over-Valuation of [Momentary and Episodic] skills as waiting for protracted yield is too unreliable, increases atavistic values and pandering to females exponentially (especially White females), over-representation of their puerile predilections, intoxication of increased empowerment (increased one-up position in partner selection) causing a [Charmed Loop] of puerile female inclination to incite genetic competition – incitement itself causing a pernicious charmed loop if the hegemony indeed has sufficient contextual force) as White men are Prohibited from discriminating.

[Obligatory] Wage war by deception

[Legitimate] “Liberating tolerance” (Marcuse): Obligatory to tolerate anything from the Internationalist Left/ Prohibit Corrective feedback from Right Wing reaction.

[Obligatory] Distort beyond reason, even reverse all socially organizing and coordinating theories as presented to Whites, any proposal meant to mollify rigid, inhumane rendering of natural law, represent social advocacy theories as unnatural, anti White, international Leftism. … get Whites to react against social organization, including in their own best interests.

European/White Autob. [Obligatory] – Identify with the Right, with “The Truth.” White identity is right wing (never mind Heideggerian liberation from mere facticity and all that – that “nonsense is for “The Left”, for colored people (never mind why they in their YKW led coalition has routed us; we could never be so impure as to be “racists” …as to be so non empirical as to classify social groups and discriminate thereupon!

[Constitute Rule] secular opposition advanced by Jewry:

1. Marx, Freud, Frankfurt School – i.e., cultural Marxism, P.C. victim group advocacy, starting with blacks, women and gays; later extending to Muslims, etc.

Capture and re-direct human potential movements from White ethnocentrism along with feminism and black civil rights, maintaining culture of critique against traditional White/European societies.

Human potential movements are a particularly compelling narrative in coincidence with the American dream, land of individual opportunity, compounding civil rights propensity to obliviously rupture social systemic homesostasis; particularly hard for a male to renounce but also females who are under the influence of second wave feminism, Friedan having been a student of Maslow and prescribing individual self actualization as necessary for women’s liberation from oppressive, inhumane societal gender role constraints.

Reflexive Effect: As social group classificatory bounds are ruptured through weaponized “civil rights” and “human potential”, the natural one up position of White females in partner selection and address is pandered to from all angles, causing it to re emerge with increased significance; they become more articulate, confident and powerful gate keepers, knowing that they can maintain their very powerful position by letting through only liberal males, call in the thugs with any contention of their liberal prerogative – a constraint of their rule structure largely pandered-to by Jewry. They pander to their base and puerile female inclination to incite genetic competition (which would be mitigated in a bounded, controlled society in the empathy of motherhood of their kind). The puerile female tends to pose a litmus test in initial interaction episodes: what do you think of blacks (the oldest and maxed-out masculine form/test), are you a racist?” Hence the runaway disorder of modernity is exacerbated by this increased female one up position as she is encouraged [in a Charmed Loop] to maintain the opening of social borders and bounds.

And because the category of female gender is harder to ignore, along with blacks, because they are so markedly different, the human necessity to categorize classify with these groups is singularly amplified for the erstwhile prohibition of classifications; an over attendance to group interests exacerbated by the high contrast tropism of black and white. This strengthens their coherence to the expense of others who would be more cared for in bounded system.

2. Randian “Objectivism” (really subjectivism) as an extension of Austrian School economics, Hayek, von Mises and so on; the “invisible hand” guides the economy (Alan Greenspan).

[Obligatory[ Capture, control and re-direct “Conservatism”, conservative reaction

[Regulative Rule] Controlled opposition:

1. “Paleoconservatism” – Frank Meyers (Jewish)’ proposed “fusionism”of Judeo-Christianity and Enlightenment values – i.e., conserving the American values, conserving liberalism (liberal democratic rights/neo liberal capitalism).

[Legitimate] Take the already Jewish usurping “moral order”, enmeshment with Christianity – it’s obligation for gentiles of pure law and warrant in the eyes of god; e.g., even if you think of transgressing Noahide law, you are profoundly guilty – and entangle it still further with whatever angle of it is best for Jewry to ensure that their enemy will not fight back.

[Obligatory]Reinforce its ties to Jewry with Scofield Bible and Evangelical Christianity, tying salvation to Israel.

2. “Neo-Conservatism” – Irving Kristol (Jewish, obviously). Similar as paleoconservatism, with even less emphasis on traditional Christianity and more the evangelical version, in pursuit of aggressive foreign policy for Operation Clean Break (to secure the realm around Israel). While conserving liberalism (liberal democratic rights/neo liberal capitalism).

………

[Legitimate] Use Media to promulgate the notion of what the “progressive fifties” and the “swinging sixties” were about.

The “Progressive fifties” were about “Civil Rights” which began with [Obligatory] school integration 1954, 58.

Frankfurter was instigating Earl Warren’s ‘Activist’ court on behalf of “Civil Rights” to liberalization of White boundaries, e.g. opposing school integration.

[Legitimate] Use the language of the enemy and make them live up to its own rule, weaponize it against them – “Civil Rights” becomes a weapon, basically a “right” to violate White freedom from association.

[Prohibition] of Whites from organizing as a group and discriminating in their interests; while it is [Legitimate] for others to organize in their group interests and broach traditional, even if only implicit, White boundaries given [Autobiography] ‘the history of prejudice against them and their having been discriminated against accordingly.’

“Civil Rights Activism” continues into the sixties, with “Sit-Ins” at Woolworths in 1962, leading to legislation [Prohibiting] private businesses from discriminating (America, land of freedom and all), culminating in “The Civil Rights Act” of 1964, The Immigration and Naturalization Act 1965, and Rumford Fair Housing Act 1968.

(((The Media and Academia is going along with Law & Courts and Politicians, Religion, big Money ..and international business, too))) in saying this is all good, all progress against backward White male bigots (who are ‘whining’ when they should be picking themselves up by their bootstraps as rugged individualists in pursuit of all America has to offer).

[Obligatory] Capture American Dream and Human Potential Movement

Abraham Maslow captures Aritotle’s concept of Self Actualization, which was based in a teleology of human nature (as biological creatures, in need of optimal, not maximal need satisfaction and as mammals ensconced in praxis (human relations) needing and caring about our relationships most fundamentally.

[Obligatory] Capture the feminist movement from its world wide apex in the Marxist Simone de Beauvoir, 1948, who had the nerve to attack European males as if they were singularly privileged in the wake of two World Wars in which millions of them were brutally expended. With her point of departure as de Beauvoir’s statement, “this utility of the housekeeper’s heaven is why she prefers the Aristotlean morality of the the golden mean, i.e., of mediocrity.”….

Abraham Maslow’s student, Betty Friedan, depicts the maximizing pursuit of self actualization as necessary to women’s liberation; and in accordance to Maslow’s lineal hierarchy, that any achievements by men would follow from their satisfaction on basic levels, no sacrifice or overcompensating for deprivation. At the same time it takes for granted what advantages that females have on the basic and mid-range of “the hierarchy of needs” … it does great damage to Aristotle’s profoundly important observation that humans are evolved for Optimal, not Maximal need satisfaction; and the implication for a circulating concern in systemic homeostasis of optimal levels of need satisfaction; furthermore, in flouting Aristotle, it shuns the concern for relational complementarity, e.g., in niche complementarity, if a woman is not strictly bound there, she might choose and enjoy being “a house keeper”, in complement to her husband, with time to look after some of the fundamentals of a smooth running society, at the PTA and so on…

[Prohibited] Still, with the Vietnam war raging and draft still in effect, it was a bit too obvious that being a White male was not a strict privilege across the board. “High grumbles” coming from women, expressing the “need” for the top of the heirarchy of needs would be particularly offensive to men who could scarcely articulate [Prohibited] their “Low grumbles” for the basics on the hierarchy of needs.

[Legitimate] But while black men were also drafted and serving in Vietnam, amplification of the black power movement and civil rights for blacks (Katzenbach) went full speed ahead.

It is interesting to note that just as the controlled feminist movement was incommensurate with White men, as feminists sought the top of the hierarhcy while White men sought the bottom, so too was black civil rights and power incommensurate – as their civil rights sought ordinary level participation and “dignity” (compare that in awkward contrast to the weird organicism of the white hippy motive for fundamental organic being); and black power, which sought the top of the hierarchy in extreme, militant form.

[Legitimate] It was also legitimate to go full speed ahead with the Frankfurt’s school’s subversion of The (White male) Authoritarian Personality with the concept of “free love” and polymorphous perversion (Marcuse extrapolating Freud) – free love is anathema to the organic motive of Being (Dasein) and Being among our people (Midtdasein) for White males. As you’ve got men from all parts vying for your would be natural partners and no protection to them being there for you unexploited or jaded, when the meandering of your being comes ripe to maturity for marriage.

It is particularly irritating thus, when the hippies motive as being about “free love”, when, in fact, that was Marcuse’s motive in high antagonism to White male Being amidst their people.

[Obligatory] Obfuscate and re-direct these incipient movements which are corrective for White/European social systemic homeostasis following World War II. 

As America was particularly war weary and the Vietnam War was particularly unpopular, ripe to stimulate a re-thinking and corrective to concerns for midtdasein (White social systemic homeostasis).

[Obligatory] Control opposition to unpopular war with SDS (Jewish led “Students for a Democratic Society”).

[Obligatory] Obfuscate the organic motive of White men for Dasein and Midtdasein (expressed in the hippie movement, i.e., for the Being (Daesin) and Being amidst our people (MidtDasein) of White men as opposed to the Tradition of being considered so intrinsically valueless as a male as to be subject to draft into a speculative war far removed from clear and immanent danger to our people.

[Legitimate] Allow for some outlet for expression of this protest (for organic Being for White men) and relief thereof while the Vietnam War is going on.

[Prohibited] Do not allow it articulation as an incipient White male movement; not even so much expression as a men’s rights on pain of stigmatic violation, invoking not only the Traditional trajectory of Masculinity, i.e., toward the top of the “heirarchy of motives”, but also stigma to masculinity for turning away from the American dream of “being-all-you can be” as an individual in your human potential; no thought is to be given as to how that quest might impact White social systemic homeostasis, perhaps become toxic, causing [Reflexive Effect] of social aberration, even rupture it to runaway.

Do not allow it to go too far in violation of Traditional stigma where it would, in defiance of that stigma by contrast, pursue and satisfy its “low grumbles” on the Maslowian hierarchy and Turn into a White social systemic corrective to achieve authentic existential balance of White manhood and peoplehood (White social systemic homeostasis); by contrast to the estrangement of the right wing’s Universal Maturity”, which is more easily directed away from White interests and for the group interests of others.

[Legitimate] As the Vietnam war and the draft ends, obvious doubts about alleged White male privilege are more easily set aside, feminism in PC coalition with blacks and other groups arrayed in critique against White men are stepped-up through the 1970’s, 1980’s into the 1990’s.

Meanwhile, the controlled opposition of Paleoconservatism is ushered in with Frank Meyer’s protege, Ronald Reagan. Along with Pat Buchanan, Joe Sobran, Sam Francis and the Jewish Paul Gottfried, they offer only weak opposition to liberalism, conserving liberalism as the fusionism of paleoconservatism does.

Reagonomics moved (((the invisible hand))) of Austrian school economics through boom/bust cycles to the increasing power of Jewry…

With Jewry having effectively placated White conservative corrective by the 90’s (effectively conserving liberalism instead), there was a Reflexive Effect of preparedness to exercise greater influence over American foreign policy in Jewish interests, specifically to deploy American military to more offensive strategy for its Zionist aims …

Neo-Conservatism was drawn into the forefront to hoodwink Americans, especially Christian Zionists, into wars to secure the realm around Israel – regime change to Israel compliant regimes in the nations around Israel – Operation Clean Break/Project for a New American Century).

[Legitimate] Hypnotize a David McGowan with the idea for a best seller, that (to paraphrase) ‘the hippie movement was all a contrivance of the military industrial complex to turn off the mainstream anti-war movement through representation of it by dirty hippies, that there was no organic motive to it (as if it was not an organic motive to not want to be drafted to die in a foolish war on behalf of greedy corporations). Anything, even a stupid idea like that, is considered legitimate compared to allowing White men corrective being (Dasein/ MidtDasein), organization and discrimination on racial grounds – anything but a White Post Modern Turn in contrast to the Tradition of Cartesian, Objectivist estrangement (conserving liberalism) for White men.

Episode [Ep] 2008 Financial Bust

Inevitable reactions [Reflexive Effect] to the PC and Randian onslaught on White men, growing awareness that this is Jewish steered activism – the Jewish controlled opposition of the Neo “Conservatives” being blatant – and further awareness that it was beginning to intersect against their own conservative Jewish interests grew as the boom/ bust cycle culminated in the 2008 financial crisis – when Jewish niche power and influence achieved its greatest hegemony, bringing with it a major intersectional problem from their culture of critique and the Reflexive Need for damage control and a re-tooled controlled opposition.

Enter The Alternative Right.

[Reflexive Reversal]

With the 2008 financial bust Jewry cleaned up and ascended to greater hegemony than ever in its niche power positions; to present themselves as the underdogs was more difficult [Reflexive Reversal] and they become frantic to do damage control and stave off revenge; they need to foster the right wing narrative that their achievements were objectively merited (as opposed to nepotistic) and identify “The Left”, particularly its organizational capacity against those in power, as “The enemy.” They need Whites in power and aspirants as such, to identify with them in a new kind of Right, and Alternative Right (a big tent including and going beyond Paleoconservatism as it were) objectively merited beyond social accountability against “The Left” – marketing an anthropomorphized characterology of it as “unnatural, against science, objective truth and morality” etc (as if something “leftist” like a hypothesis doesn’t have a certain momentary detachment from empirical testing, which can then be subject to testing against the veracity of science, nature, truth and the corrections of morality in the social realm).

They had to capture and control a new generation of reactionaries, those reacting to Political Correcteness (anti-White unions and coalitions) and NeoConservatism’s marshaling of U.S. military for Israeli interests.

As a result of the Implicative Force of Jewish steered Modernity/Liberalism and the Left unionizations and coalitions it had previously extolled and marshaled for this end of overthrowing White power, these left organized social unionization and their critiques are no longer “needed”/wanted by Jewry to be quite so thorough, especially not as they intersect with Jewish interests and may be used conceptually (including by Whites) against their hegemony and traitors in tow, whether right wing or liberal.

While Jewry always had Altercast White identity and interest advocacy as “Right” and “Far Right” in order to get them to react into rigid, socially disorganizing and stigmatizing objectivist rule structures above or beyond the social correctability of praxis, it became imperative for the new hegemony for Jewry to [Altercast Right of Display] of animus toward “The Left.” With that concern, Paul Gottfried saw the need to call for a revised paleoconservatism, 2.0, an “alternative right.”

The great concern being that if Whites gained a sense that beneath the concept of the left is unionization, not “equality”, that Whites would unionize (ultimately ethnonationally), organize their power and see who is on top and oppressing them – the YKW from their biopatterns and power niches in tandem with right wing sell outs and liberals taking the license offered of objectivism (“that’s just the way it is” …little or no social account to broader implications and impact).

[Regulative Rule]

Maintain paradox to mystify potential White organization – construe the left as liberalism (unionization conserves, it is not liberal).

Wave the red cape (straw man) for White reactionaries to chase after, of the left being about an unrealistic quest for “equality”, misdirecting them and making them look bad at once, as they are pitted “against equality.” …(as opposed to negotiating niche complementary of commensurability and incommensurate qualities within and between groups, which could provide means for amicable coordination as opposed to false, symmetrical comparisons which abet disrespect, conflict and reciprocally escalating diatribe).

Maintain this ambiguity further with other misrepresentations of group and marginal advocacy as liberalization of White bounds, by proffering utterly bizarre candidates to scab would be unionization – wave the rainbow flag for these bulls to chase after, trans-sexuals, 57 genders to distort would-be correctives to overly and unnaturally rigid gender assignments, univeralisms ill-fitting for particular races, including White – to underscore the promotion of the stereotype that “The Left” is not dealing with reality and “not dealing with nature.” …when, n fact, working hypotheses are a normal part of empirical inquiry, subject to verification. A social group, a race, [Alternative Range of Functional Autonomy] among gender assignments are minimally speculative working hypothesis as such.

Autobiography Number 2 Promoted by Jewry: While they have always wielded this autobiography as well, as of 2008 it became amplified. Deny intersectionality of “leftist” critique of supremacism, imperialism, nepotism (e.g., at Harvard) and toxic ethnocentrism, promote the story that Jews and others are on top because of Objective merit and that “THE” Left is the problem; point to the way in which Jewish academia misrepresented advocacy, group and individual, and say this represents “The Left”, so that Whites who fancy themselves objective, who are comfortable with the Altercast anti-social identity as Right Wing, will be primed to join them through pay off, enticed by license (licentiousness, if you will), and finally intermarriage against any would-be ethnonational unionization and coalition to threaten their power, all the more hegemonic since 2008.

Reflexive Effect: The Alternative Right is sufficiently disorganized for its right wing, anti social litmus test – [Regulative Rule for Inclusion – some stigmatic, anti-social position] – that it makes it hard to counter and control its sniping, now that it has served its function to help get Trump elected so that he could un-do the Iran Deal.

Enlist TRS to Market (((Madison Ave. memes))) to gain adherents against “the left” and to the right, displaying anti-Semitism with vulgar impunity in order to gain control of the reaction, encourage Richard Spencer (a protege inheritor of Gottfried and Francis’s Paleoconservatim with the Alt-Right) to dog whistle Nazism: Enoch starts straight-arm salutes, Richard, “Hail Trump, hail our people, hail victory…over the lugenpresser…we’re going to party like it’s 1933”…etc.

Reflexive Need: “Unite The Right” …

Reflexive Effect: effectively ends the credibility and effectiveness of the brand name.

Reflexive Need: Maintain White disorganization and reactionary rigidity by proposing a re-branding – e.g., “Dissident Right.”

Wage War by Deception:

A C.M.M. rules based analysis of White identity Altercast as right wing against THE left in order to rupture White social social systemic homeostasis.

Rupturing White Social Systemic Homeostasis through Altercasting as Right, doubled down as such in reaction against THE Left, Didactic Misrepresentation thereof – Social group advocacy as strictly anti White.

A rules based* analysis of anti-social altercasting, incitement through didactic misrepresentation and distortion of social group advocacy.

Anti-social rigidity, inherently unstable bereft the correctability of praxis as they cling white knuckle after perceived pure warrant beyond Jewish rhetoric and casuistry, only more ready for rash, headlong misdirection into destruction.

Misrepresent the anti Cartesian means of social systemic homeostasis.

Moral Order: Christianity, inspired by Abrahamic god beyond nature, misdirect Whites with golden rule of obsequious self sacrifice; disruption of cause and effect. Altercast non-Jews as “Gentiles”, the ever more undifferentiated (de-unionized as a racial group) other.

Hermeneutics – misrepresent as anti science and trivial flight of fancy rather than a necessary means for coherence and authenticity despite Cartesian estrangement and arbitrariness.

Social Constructionism: misrepresent it as solipsism, that one can make of themselves and events what they want; when in reality, that kind of “pure agency” would be Cartesian in the way that social constructionism was meant to cure; social constructionism is meant to centralize our attention through the praxis of our social group, our interrelatedness, indebtedness and accountability to our people – where you CANNOT just make of yourself and events whatever you merely wish/want.

The left: Misrepresent as liberalism and a quest for universal equality, anti nature and anti reality…when, in fact, it is about unionization of the broad people against would be elite abuse and rank and file betrayal as well. National and ethnonational boundaries are perfectly analogous to “union.”

Hence, Whites would be well served by ethnonational unionization of our relative interests (viz. as white left ethnonationalists: the white class) not a defense of mere, objective truths.

Human Bio-Diversity: misrepresent what should be a concern for the horizontal, qualitative diversity of niche evolution, its potential for coordinating coalition building on the basis of respect for divergent necessary functions of in favor of a lateral concern for I.Q. – to serve elitist Ashkenazi interests – precipitating false comparisons, disrespect and conflict.

Post Modernity: a means to negotiate and maintain groups of peoples through modernity’s narcissistic oblivion to differences (and penchant to run rough-shod over them in “service of progress to universal foundations”) and also the means to coordinate/negotiate inherited forms and traditions, maintaining them where helpful, leaving them behind where not, coordinating with the differing, sometimes antagonistic traditions of other groups. This necessary Post Modern Coordination is instead misrepresented as ironic, hyper relative da-da nonsense – really a hyper modernity to divert Whites from necessary understanding of post modernity for their social systemic homeostasis.

Multiculturalism =  monoculuralism.

Diversity = integration and blending of peoples.

Marginals to be included: means Not our own marginals, those just within our (would-be) union boundaries, who are of good will to our people, who can provide valuable perspective and feedback on the system, what is necessary for its maintenance, knowing acutely where the shoe pinches – or more nobly, acting as centurions as it were, on the frontier of where the systemic boundaries are encroached – but rather “marginals” become a weaponized notion of sympathy for those outside or of bad will to our systemic union, potential scabs to be included ….you can see how a mere, brutal, right wing laws-of-nature-position toward these people (i.e., our own marginals), rather than reaching out to them, would fail to rally popular support and thus be encouraged in the war of deception.


*  It is important to understand that when we talk about rules that we are more interpretive/descriptive in attempting to ascertain and analyze the logics of meaning and action at work in interaction, particularly group pattern interaction, though of course we might hope to draw some prescriptive implications as well.

Comments:

DanielS on Thu, 18 Jul 2019 07:17 | #

This post is a work in progress. I will be developing it today and in days to come;

I beg the pardon of those who might be bothered by this approach.

On the other hand, proceeding in bits should be more digestible.

2 Posted by DanielS on Wed, 24 Jul 2019 06:59 | #

To whom it may concern: while adding thoroughly completed bits as new sections upon what was the previous last paragraph might have in fact been a more “digestible process” for the reader, I’m afraid that I have been mainly working back in and developing sentences and paragraphs already posted. That is, this process might not make it “easier” for the reader as they would have to re-read things to follow changes. The saving grace is that it is not a very long piece (and will not be).

At this point, I have reworked it to the part that is now above the fold, where it says:

[Deontic Operator: Prohibit Whites, as majority, from discriminating in advocacy of their ethnonational group interests; render Legitimate group advocacy, discrimination for “oppressed” minorities]

Posted by White Left Ethnonationalism/ vs Third Position on Sun, 28 Jul 2019 05:58 | #

In a discussion yesterday, I was asked to justify the distinction between White Left Ethnonationalism and Third Positionism.

First of all, for the purpose of starting afresh, leaving behind association with Nazism, supremacism and other foibles that many third positionists embrace, but more abstractly I have argued, that it facilitates infiltration and destabilization of the unionization which is the crucial component of the left aspect.

It was objected that third positionism is not susceptible to infiltration as I have contended. Even where that might be so, right wing aspects introduced by third positionism tend toward an objectivist/idealist rigidity beyond nature or within nature below praxis that pay short shrift to social accountability – at least for leadership positions, which can in turn, lead to the nightmare of over accountability for rank and file – and an overall social rigidity that allows for their maneuvering and steering into reaction, e.g., by the YKW into traps of reactive aggression, ill conceived war (catastrophe for the group).

The basis must be the bounded ethnonation, the union, and its praxis which allows for ongoing correctability in accordance to its maintenance – that is the essence of the systemic homeostasis which we seek.

DanielS

White Left Ethnonationalism is distinguished from communism/Marxism by several lines as well.

While the same interlocutor claimed that Marx endorsed nationalism, I believe that would only be seen as a step in a process. Rather, “the withering away of the state” was seen as the ultimate end state of communist utopia.

In further distinction from communism:

White Left ethnonationalism would allow for private property (while recognizing that some natural assets and industries are best run by the state).

White Left ethnonationalism recognizes that some blend of socialism and free enterprise is natural, unavoidable and optimal in order to leverage freedom in the sovereignty that our paradigmatic conservatism offers (paradigmatic conservatism: borders are tight, individual liberties within, fairly free).

For those who recoil at the mere term “left”, I understand, and propose a synonym with “The White Class” to further represent the fact that we are not dividing the ethnonstate by classes – workers are crucial, no doubt, but we want to reward them for their account in a way that does not exclude other nationals from the union and the reward and rightful honor that their part in its maintenance merits.

This would require another distinction from Marxist / communism, i.e. that there be a religious and sacral aspect institutionalized – particularly featuring the important option for monogamy as deeply respected by the union members.

This kind of thing, giving reasonable protection to all stages in organic developmental processes, staves off cynicism, facilitates loyalty to the union and maintenance of the systemic pattern.


5

 Posted by Memory & Intelligence on Thu, 15 Aug 2019 06:02 | #

… as Social Construct

With all the right wing reactionary hoopla (encouraged by YKW) about the significance of I.Q., it might be worthwhile to examine other qualities that go into a healthy system, individual systems and necessary systemic connections beyond the individual’s head.

Focusing on the significance of I.Q., so convenient an emphasis by YKW in an attempt to exonerate unjust ascendance to rule and hegemony – as illustrated by their phony ruse to depict the concept of “HBD” in lateral, narrowing, quantifying terms of I.Q. as opposed to an honest examination of the niche human biodiversity indicative of healthy systems – serves also to flatter and co-opt White right wing reactionaries who’ve done well for their individual selves despite systemic toxins; facilitating disingenuous emphasis on their individual, independent merit as opposed to systemic indebtedness and accountability; leaving taken for granted and uncritqued it’s inclination to narrowing, lateral, quantifying, potentially oppressive and exploitative hierarchicization over and against our marshaling of systemic unionization through respect and account for all necessary systemic qualities. It might be worthwhile thus to examine other qualities that go into individual systemic homeostasis and necessary systemic connections beyond the individual.

Individual qualities besides I.Q. extend through

Health

Strength

Sensory Acuity

Immuno-efficiency

Longevity

Fecundity

Beauty

Virility

Agility

…to name just a few qualities, which are yet laying on an assumption.

An assumption that memory and intelligence are strictly located in the head.

Once the obvious inference is made that all memory is not located singularly in the head but is rather reconstrucable from without and that feedback can come from an array of individuals contributing to systemic intelligence, the perspective arises of potentially elevating the significance of those with honesty, loyalty and good will toward our people (good will to our people meaning effectively that they are accountable and caring enough to require account of others as to what is necessary or not, or downright destructive to our systemic maintenance) – a good elevation of value, to take Kant in a White post modern turn, for without good will toward our people, the responsibility of good will to our ‘system’, recognizing indebtedness therein, other individual qualities only make a person more terrible.

And without accountability to our people, our system, we are not going to be able to marshal accountability in respect of other peoples and other systems beyond our group.

We might then have necessary patience, therefore, where I.Q. otherwise emphasizes speed and efficiency to the ignorance of protracted systemic concern, patterns which “the lower i.q.” might be necessarily attending to in our long term systemic interest.

6 Posted by Women’s psychology: “safety pragma” on Tue, 20 Aug 2019 16:33 | #

Posted by Hermeneutics on Wed, 28 Aug 2019 01:38 | #

I have not listened back to this discussion that I had with Josh Neal (NAL #76: Responding to Joel Davis w/Daniel Sienkiewicz) ..and perhaps made a mistake for winging it without more adherence to my careful notes. So as not to have important points missed then, let me make this clear.

In service of a clear take-away from hermeneutics properly understood: Hermeneutics (the anti Cartesian deployment of narrative engagement in a circulating process of inquiry from broad, imaginative hypotheses (beyond the moment and episode, into the pattern and then back into empirical verification as need be) facilitates a liberation from mere facticity (providing means for amendment beyond the arbitrary confusion, apparent paradoxes and contradictions thereof), which facilitates coherence (of both individual and group), which facilitates accountability, which facilitates a degree of agency, which facilitates warranted assertability.

Coherence is certainly a pre eminent feature of what Heidegger is talking about with “authenticity” (as facilitated by the liberation from mere facticity)…but more broadly, it seems to correspond to Alternative Range of Functional Autonomy (in CMM terms) which would include some of the benefits of coherence, i.e., accountability, agency and warrant.


9

 Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 28 Aug 2019 08:00 | #

So what has that got to do with securing the existence of our people and a white future for our children?


10

 Posted by DanielS on Wed, 28 Aug 2019 09:20 | #

It allows us to engage in a process of surveying all relevant variables necessary to reconstructing our social (group) systemic homeostasis (securing the existence of our people and a future for our children) as opposed to getting fixated on one variable in reaction, which would leave us tactlessly imbalanced, vulnerable on other fronts, susceptible to misdirection, headlong overcompensation against our own interests (immunity, borders, bounds) and against our own people in ‘service’ of reactionary quest of ‘pure’ (Cartesian) warrant above nature (in principle or deity above nature) or in nature (e.g., might makes right) below praxis – our people.

…which is not to say that we should not prioritize (in that hermeneutic/systemic survey) that one variable, right along with a critical eye holding to account the right wingers/liberals who sell out, or are blinded by their objectivism, hoodwinked, enticed away from accountability to our people.

In other words, it has everything to do with it.

 Posted by Unionization works against Marxists too on Sat, 31 Aug 2019 09:38 | #

Unionization works against Marxists too…

Including ethnonational unionization against Marxist communism, with its deracinating, liberal totalitarian agenda..

Jim Slater@69mib
30 AUGUST 1980
Striking Polish dock workers led by Lech Walesa won the right to form independent trade unions & the right to strike. The Solidarity movement was seen as a defining moment in the struggle against Communist rule in eastern European.

AJCCentral Europe@AJCCE

Posted by Memory interactive on Mon, 09 Sep 2019 09:40 | #

…elaborating and correcting further the question of the “where of memory”, comment …

I might have added that memory is not singularly located in the head, though there will, of course, be associative neural clusters, which are expressions of co-evolution that are triggered by interactive phenomenon, which can, in turn, provide feedback locus of additional storage to reinforce the memory from the shared social realm, whether in language, writing, computers, or indeed, in the neural networks of other people and creature’s brains and their adaptive networks.

DanielS

 Posted by DanielS on Tue, 10 Sep 2019 14:55 | #

Lyceum Round-Table #2: Problems with Liberalism

They don’t quite arrive at “a substantive view of the good” being a fostering of human well being through human ecology (which naturally corresponds to pervasive ecology), a protection and fostering of historical social/genetic capital (incl. non-human resource), most powerfully sustained from neoliberal forces by an ethnonational level, approximately synonymous with group unionization of that level of borders and bounds.

But they are apparently coming into line, compelled by the better understanding brought to bear here, to focus on the pervasiveness and destructiveness of liberalism as it has gained hegemony through the Modernist, Cartesian/Lockeatine notion of civil individual rights imbued in The American Declaration of Independence, Constitution and jurisprudence.

Preston does well to point out that the notion of rights went off the rails to over-liberalism onset by modernity; when the concept was conceived as universal, taken off the rails of group concern and responsibility – which would entail not only group privileges for the taking but also entailed the flip side of rights, that is obligations and duties – specifically, obligations and duties to the group delimitation, e.g., the nation. But Preston does not quite emphasize duty and obligation a means of responsibility to the human ecological group; instead, his examples are cast in terms of civic duty and obligation, such as the draft, voting, paying taxes.

Locke, as written into the Declaration of Independence and so on, proposed to found civil individual rights on universal principle, inalienable to all men. Kant attempted to rescue the moral order from the arbitrariness that would result from this non discrimination, non recognition of group delimitation and interests, to rescue moral order from that arbitrary rupture of group bounds with the prosthesis of universal foundations, proposing that principles, duty and obligation could be demonstrated as imperative (you are obligated/have a duty to) as the principles were tested for their foundational value to hold up against the arbitrariness (flux, disorder implicated by unrecognized, ruptured group bounds) if the principles were universalizable, i.e., if they could be good for all people at all times – then the obligation and duty is not something you could opt-out of, it is a “categorical imperative.” This attempted rescue of the moral order failed because it was still Cartesian.

Thus, while Preston is correct to point out that duty and obligation is a flip side of rights, his anarchism inhibits him from taking the step to the effective means of human ecology, social historical genetic capital, and group accountability thereof, that coordinated coalitions of ethnonationalist unions provides.

14 Posted by DanielS on Thu, 12 Sep 2019 11:44 | #

Considering the emergent qualities not only of the individual but also of the social group system, viz. from their DNA system, the fact that the emergent whole is of different qualities, and greater than the sum of its parts, non-reducible to natural fallacy such as “might makes right”, it is conceivable that war is not the inevitable means of conflict resolution.

Most of day to day interaction is of a cooperative nature, not at all belligerent, and most social systems are typically cooperative as well – this would seem to be an expression of the emergent qualities of praxis, which, together with hermeneutics liberation from mere facticity and episodic/momentary myopia, provide the means for ethnonational coordination as opposed to war.

Sperm battle for the egg. Only one wins. The emergent quality of humans, especially in the social realm of praxis, is of a very different quality.

Recall once again Plato’s rejoinder to the concept of might makes right – i.e., the collective, union, as it were, can offset the tyrant’s might and make it wrong.

Posted by Barbara Spectre Is Back on Thu, 12 Sep 2019 15:31 | #

Barbara Spectre Is Back

…in summit with Jewish luminaries, held in Israel to unite worldwide Jewry in a “foundationalization’ of their common destiny.

…also discussed will be the obligations for the rest of mankind – the renewing of Noah’s covenant, The Noahide obligations incumbent upon all mankind.

…an international court based on biblical principles.

Posted by mancinblack on Thu, 12 Sep 2019 17:16 | #

@15 An answer to the question “what would the reaction be if Europeans said the same things” wasn’t long in coming.

The incoming European Commission chief, Ursula von der Leyen, has come under intensifying pressure to drop a controversial mission to protect “our European Way of Life” from the title of the commissioner in charge of immigration.

https://www.rte.ie/news/newslens/2019/0912/1075533-way-of-life/

Elsewhere, an unnamed Dutch MP has called the proposal “disgusting” and a spokesperson for Amnesty International said it was “worrying”.

Posted by Oswald Mosley on Sun, 15 Sep 2019 07:27 | #

Mosley addresses a post modern concern in this quote.

It is an interesting question as to how to manage White post modernity, and one that is eminently worth commentary, would have commentary feedback if White Nationalism could muster a modicum of intellectual pragmatism.

For particular reasons (falling for deceptive language games profusely slathered over the public, stupidity perhaps), the struggle can’t get past reactionary mode yet..

Perhaps an age, a period, would not decide entirely what to maintain and what to leave behind, but clearly Mosley meant that there are times for a people to band together in defense, to drastically curtail the more experimental ventures in order to protect their inherited forms, and those ways which remain conducive.

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 15 Sep 2019 10:55 | #

In fact, the emergent qualities of our genetic patterns into the social realm of praxis (the whole being greater than the sum of its parts) is a great argument against over emphasizing individualism ..as parts of the system will complement each other and rely on each other, being incomplete as they are, in need of completion and systemic correction as they are.

The correction (homeostasis) of our system requires the White post modern turn away from Cartesian estrangement and into the praxis of our social systemic homeostasis.

.. an epistemological correction that is facilitated by hermeneutics and social constructionism.

Epistemology … how to think …

Social Constructionism centers our outlook in the praxis of our people, our group(s) interests.

It is a later version of Aristotle’s argument that “Politics” should be the first concern, as all else is moot if the realm of praxis is not in order.

In Praxis (the social world), phronesis, i.e. practical judgment is required (because people have agency and motivations which are not as deterministic as physics models).

This is not against nature, science truth and facts, it only maintains that at very least, there is a modicum of agency in the determination of how facts come to count post hoc and how facts are framed.

This is not a small matter when you have blockheads purporting that “Truth” and “Nature” should be our religions. Well, which truth? and isn’t natural effect, e.g., disease or injury, or conflict over resource, something that we try to correct in service of our social interests?

The answer is yes, of course, and Hermeneutics facilitates broader reframings to transcend momentary and episodic short sightedness, consternation, paradoxes, dilemmas and so on..

It also facilitates the agency, accountability and correctability that can stave-off the disasters of deterministic logics that are for some reason held to be more important than human interests.

Recognition of the emergent qualities of praxis (from our DNA) will indeed allow the second epistemological realm, of Poesis, to function properly as the default mindset (in calling back from the Cartesian estrangment, Heidegger stated that poetry was more like thinking than science).

In Poesis, intuition is the dominant means.

And then the third epistemological realm, Theoria, its instrumentality aimed at arrival at pure and strictly determined logic, can be relegated to its proper place to serve in the assistance of praxis, as need be, and as Poesis and Praxis turn attention to issues requiring its rigorous methods.

Daniel Sienkiewicz on Hermeneutics

As I recall, I did poorly in this discussion, but will clarify the matter once again.

First of all, apologies for the terrible audio glitches: again, I was under the impression it had been straightened out. On a content level, the title of this bit is somewhat of a misnomer as being about hermeneutics, as I am only here touching on certain aspects of hermeneutics as being misrepresented to Whites as a kind of solipsisistic nonsense wherein people can interpret events however they like where, in fact, hermeneutics’ anti Cartesian purpose, its circulating process of inquiry, would not accept the rejection of empirical, interactive verification (but would insist upon it as need be). Hermeneutics is a crucial factor in the post modern turn – also a crucial necessity to understand properly for our group interests –  facilitating the management of the best and rejection of the worst aspects of modernity and tradition in order to facilitate our group maintenance against the ravages of modernity and destructive traditions, but misrepresented to Whites as hyper relative dada nonsense.


Hermeneutics allows us to overcome the arbitrary flux of the empirical end of Cartesianism, by facilitating the transcendence of momentary observations, the limited perspective of episode and the paradoxes, contradictions and confusions thereof, taking us rather into narrative coherence – a liberation from mere facticity (as Heidegger would call it) which is the first task not only of any person in order to establish accountability and thus a degree of agency and warrant, but also for the group – markedly, for the racial group social systemic homeostasis which is otherwise under attack. It is a non Cartesian process of inquiry which allows us to make use of imaginative and working hypotheses (e.g., as to our group’s existence beyond the episode) of the group pattern and then moving to and engaging empirical, interactive verification as need be. These shared narratives provide for the management of our historical capital as a people, again, crucially, facilitating group coherence, accountability, agency and warrant.

This achievement of coherence through hermeneutics is thus crucial to be understood properly – whereas even KMac was under the impression that it was anti science. It is not anti science, it is rather the facilitator of the hypotheses beyond moment and episode, so crucial to our survival as a group system in its necessarily protracted, historical form.

Coherence is aligned with what Heidegger calls “authenticity” – more broadly, alternative range of functional autonomy, for both individual and group.

With the hermeneutic process, we are able to transcend the arbitrary thrownness, our existential condition, in which we find ourselves as a people, as our peoplehood is somewhat arbitrary given that we can interbreed with other races – recognizing our importance, our genetic capital nevertheless,  it is necessary to distinguish crucial patterns beyond moment and episode as hermeneutics affords in order to maintain our difference, our group social systemic homeostasis – which is under attack by “anti racism”…

Anti Racism is Cartesian, it is prejudice against prejudice (as Heidegger’s student, the hermeneuticist Hans Georg Gadamer observed), it is not innocent, it is hurting and it is killing people.

Hermeneutics is the means of engagement that takes us back from the Cartesian estrangement, the objectivist purity spiral and susceptibilities thereof, that has been weaponized against Whites by YKW.

2 Elliott Blatt

11 minutes ago
I need a team of lawyers to explain to me what the hell he was saying to me.

Daniel Sienkiewicz

7 minutes ago (edited)
Nice try Elliott, if you are honest (and I don’t think that you are speaking in good faith) all you need to do is re-read my comment above. It isn’t so hard. But maybe its hard to for you to figure out how to re-mystify this subject matter all over again and that’s what your overture is about.

 

Posted by ZOG: The Bush Years on Tue, 01 Oct 2019 14:27 | #

ZOG: The Bush Years

22 Posted by Aid to Israel and… on Fri, 08 Nov 2019 09:46 | #

Inasmuch as it is true that key beneficiaries, if not ‘the greatest beneficiary’, of U.S. aid to Israel and its pugnaciousness, are White ravens of the U.S. military industrial complex, it is nevertheless consonant with this platform, which maintains an ongoing recognition of complicitness of White right wing elite with Jewish interests even where they conflict and sell-out White interests.

WHO BENEFITS MOST FROM U.S. AID TO ISRAEL?

https://affirmativeright.blogspot.com/2019/11/who-benefits-most-from-us-aid-to-israel.html

Continue Reading C.M.M. Analytic Modelling From School Days.

Naïve Species, ManicheanTrickery, Media & UniversityBigBusinessofSellingTalk …. the talk they want to sell.

  • Post author:
  • Post category:Central

Zoologists refer to native species long evolved in isolation as “naive species” as they are susceptible to predation against which they have no evolved defense. Thus, it can have devastating effects when alien species are introduced to naive, native populations and habitats, even if inadvertently – as in the case of the brown tree snake or brown rats coming along with ships to the South Seas Islands, introducing them to naïve species.

Corrected form of an article that I first posted Tuesday, 16 June 2015 06:34.

Piquing my curiosity as to how this phenomenon might apply to human species was prompted by a recent inquiry into my DNA, which revealed that the root of my maternal side – U5b1e1 – has been long evolved in isolation in Northern Sweden and Finland.

That is, the precarious situation of my own niche evolution combined with discussion regarding the murder of Swedish native, Lisa Holm, prompted my attention to the issue of naïve human species being subject to predation against which they are not particularly evolved. The matter bears acute attention whether introduction of alien species is inadvertent or deliberate – as it surely is, in large part.

Clerk Maxwell discussed two kinds of metaphoric devils that humans are challenged by – Augustinian Devils and Manichean Devils.

The “Augustinian Devil” designates natural challenges that people are up against. I hypothesize that Europeans, and probably Northern Europeans especially, are evolved for more attention to solving the challenges of this kind of “devil” – e.g., the change of seasonal cycles which require a longer time horizon to plan and calculate how to overcome harsh winters where food and shelter are difficult. However, when this kind of devil is solved, it does not then change in response to your having solved the problem in competition with you. This evolutionary focus can explain the great accomplishments of European science and technology, and also why they can be dupes.

“Manichean Devils”, on the other hand, are trickster devils, they can change if you’ve provisionally solved their challenge in order to defeat you. I hypothesize that it would make sense that peoples evolved in the circumstances of the Middle East would be more evolved to deal of and from this kind of devil as the most acute challenge they are up against is not challenges of nature, but other tribes. Thus, they need to learn how to deceive and not be deceived. Note the Muslim concept of taqiyya (deception, by not revealing intent) and the literal motto of the Israeli Mossad, “wage war by deception.”

Thus, beyond the Augustinian devils of nature and inadvertent human behavior, comes the Manichean capacity of human behavior where the “naivete” of native species may be concerned – the issue of the powers-that-be and their means of exploiting “naivete” in native Whites. The imposition of predatory species must also be inflicted knowingly – as prominent White activists (Johnson, Tanstaafl) correctly argue, nobody is more aware of genocidal effects than YKW

I recall my anger when a Jewish (and of course liberal) professor that I’d invited to a conference back in 2008, wrote a blurb for the conference and used the term “immigration flows.”

Put in that way, immigration was not a matter of social construction, agency and accountability, but rather more like a force of nature, for which nobody bore responsibility. Worse, like a “flow”, a hypnotic, soothing force that we should allow to wash over us without resistance.

Migration and lack of native preparation is not merely a result of Augustinian forces of nature or causes and impacts of market tendencies which might be solved conclusively. It is also a matter of Manichean trickery – YKW rule changes of what openness, marginals and even what diversity means, to where they have imposed non-native “diversity” within native White populations, creating an atmosphere where social trust is and should be lowered – exploiting the fact that despite the unfortunate necessity of lowering trust for this alien introduction, that it is difficult for native Whites to relinquish trust for the conflict with their deep evolution of trust and the vastly preferable way of life that is corollary to that trust.

With the help of the Swedish government, Barbara Spectre set-up a non-denominational institute of Jewish learning with the Greek name of Paideia –

She believes Jews have a key role to play in a country undergoing profound change:

“I think there is a resurgence of anti-Semitism because Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural; and I think that we’re going to be part of the throes of that transformation, which much take place. Europe is not going to be the ‘monolithic’ ..uh, uh, societies they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the center of that – it’s a huge transformation for Europe to make. They are now going into a multi-cultural mode, and Jews will be resented because of our leading role.”

She adds….”but without that leading role and with out that transformation, Europe will not survive.” – ??

In a word, they are using manichean tricks to foil and exploit the Augustinian disposition we have toward problems – i.e., in regard to natural obstacles, in solution to which we are more evolved. The borders that might protect our habitats and evolution are impacted not only in an objectivist but also in a manichean fashion.

As Bowery has noted, our species, Northern in particular, have had a corrupt aspect of “civilization” imposed against our evolution. According to his cogent definition, “civilization” means that as opposed to individuals rising to defense, delegated groups are supposed to be responsible for border control – which would stave-off interlopers, especially in opportunistic pursuit of native females; with that, we are expected to forgo untoward competition among our own for native co-evolutionary females, but we can be more at ease, with less stress of competition for females; however, native European males are also required to forgo, as unnecessary, our natural individual capacities to defend against interlopers.

The key problem is that the border control end of the bargain has been reneged upon, with YKW and objectivists opening-them-up, while the native males remain constrained by their evolution as sublimated and beholden as aligned for civilization in trust that their social capital is guarded. More, even where they might respond they are prohibited from fighting as individual White men (with superior technology and wiles) against interlopers as they are forced to unilaterally uphold their end of civilization’s bargain.

A corruption is in place, therefore, where our natural sublimation and meandering ease with our co-evolutionary females is ensconced – held in place, we are required, forced, to “live by our rules” of civilized behavior, our dormant natural abilities to compete effectively with our individual innovation and group organizational capacity against non-Whites is blocked, as we are corruptly held to standards of civilization unilaterally – as we are prohibited from competing as we naturally might, while those entrusted with border/boundary control are blinded, bribed, corrupted to reneg upon their end of the bargain as YKW impose invasive species upon us, allowing no defense.

And as I am always eager to note, females, particularly when puerile and unsocialized by the accountability and safety of group constraint, fall atavistically to their base evolution to merely breed with the “winner.” Their base evolutionary inclination to incite genetic competition will be brought out to align with power over the disordered circumstance.

It is profoundly difficult to come to terms alone with the fact that our co-evolutionaries might betray us and that we should even have to say anything about it.

We might care to observe from there that as the border control end of the bargain is reneged upon, the native’s evolved trust is corrupted thus as cynicism, creating hatred for the native kind’s female “altruism”, which becomes more like incitement, just as corresponding White male sublimation is transformed to resignation.

Nordic penchant to confront Augustinian challenges exposes naivete to invasive, Manichean species?

Nordic episode: does the penchant to confront Augustinian, natural challenges, exposes naïve susceptibility to invasive, viz. Manichean species?

An illustrative episode in which:

A Nordic woman expresses her nature to confront the Augustinian (Augustinian devils = natural devils, e.g., the cold), and anthropomorphized as such, indicates her natural inclination’s potential naivete and susceptibility to invasive, human species, particularly those of a more Manichean, trickster nature (Manichean = human, trickster devils, that can change the rules).

Augustinianism would be an evolutionary adaptation by those people confronted primarily with natural challenges (as in the cold north), while Manicheanism would be an increased evolutionary adaptation by those confronted primarily by inter-tribal challenges (as in the Middle East).

Posted by Stockholm Syndrome Disco on Wed, 08 Nov 2017 00:15 | #

Occidental Observer, “Homage To The Post-First World: My Wanderings in Europe, Part 3”,  6 Nov 2017 —

Adam Komiaga

Stockholm, Sweden

The minute that we got out in downtown Stockholm, near Stureplan, things got better. There were only well-to-do Swedes around us now. Boomer Swedes burning their life-savings away at fancy restaurants and Millennial Swedes dressed up for a night out on the town.

Anyway, despite laying down 300 Swedish Krona (about 35 USD) at the door, we were keen on leaving almost as soon as we got in.

It looked inviting from the outside, to be fair. All the local guide books recommended the place and even the globetrotters on the PUA forum that I frequented back in the day had a thread up praising the place. To be fair, we should have noticed how the Arab bouncers at the door looked at us.

But we had no choice.

The other clubs on our list had already rejected us at the door at that point. Those Millennial Swedes all got in quite easily. So did their New Swede friends that would pimp-roll in after them. And funny enough, it was Swedes working security there. They shook their heads, refused to make eye-contact and just refused to let us in. Worse, they brushed off our clumsy attempts to bribe them.

It was yet another lesson to us that Sweden can be a very cold place to the wrong kind of foreigners.

Anyway, this was our first break all night. Overall, the Arabs didn’t seem to mind. They just took our money and nodded us in.

Once we got inside, we saw nothing but White girls with Africans and Arabs. In America, it’s usually women with low value on the dating market mixing it up with non-Whites (unless they are rich and famous non-Whites), but in Sweden, it’s something else entirely. It’s good-looking blond bombshells doing all the mixing, just like the ads and TV tells them to to.

This in a country with one of the worst sex ratio imbalances in the world. Which is fine, I suppose. Who were we to judge, right? It’s their country and their women…well, I suppose that’s a stretch. Saying either of those statements could land the average Swede in big trouble…

 Posted by Rapes increasing in Sweden on Tue, 27 Nov 2018 22:46 | #

Voice of Europe, “Video: Number of sex crimes against Swedish women and girls more than quadruples”, 27 Nov 2018:

As we reported earlier, things in Sweden are pretty bad. Based on a survey (NTU) from the Swedish Council for Crime Prevention (Brå) Since 2006, the number of women men have commit sex crimes against has increased from 2.5 per cent to 10.7 per cent in 2017. More shocking, is when the data is broken down into specific groups, it reveals that sex offenders have commit an offence against one in three women aged 16-24 years old.

The number of sexual offences against this group has seen a surge from 7.1 percent in 2006 to 34.4 percent in 2017. More is explained in the video below

…

YKW, Universities & The Big Business of Selling Talk

Universities in the big business of selling talk. Compounded by the institution of tenured professors in conversation with 18 to 21 year-old undergraduates in perpetuity. This undergraduate age range being the paying element of the business, even if under the designation of those needing to be educated by the state, they are also generally inarticulate – thus, susceptible to liberal gibberish – and likely even in need of talking points to legitimize their erstwhile marginalized status. Of course, in the hands of YKW language games, all such legitimate social contentions are perverted and weaponized against White Nationalists.

Universities are big business. They are in the big business of selling talk. But sometimes facts are facts and there is not a lot say about them. That raises a problem for the big business.

. After all, there isn’t much to say about mere facts obvious to everyone. However, if the university can distance students from a prima facie response to facts, they can increase the commodity of talk, its trade and the people capable of trading in it.

Furthermore, it might help students to develop critical intellectual reinterpretations which might do them and the world some good through a broader social negotiation of how facts may count – that’s the ostensible idea, anyway, by being given this stuff to say.

They sell it to undergraduates who pay in order to develop things to say through a critical view of society and their place within it. Whereas if something just is or just is not, that’s the end of argument, not much you can do about it nor about people’s response, needn’t be a whole lot of discussion, not much to debate, not much to say, no conversation – end of the talk business..

The YKW are equipped with a history of cultivated pilpul – highly developed rhetorical and verbal hair-splitting skills – that is accompanied by a knowledge of the necessity and opportunity in argumentative defense of the identity of oneself and one’s people; with that equipment, they have been notoriously successful in this big academic business of selling talk – it has reached its sine qua non in “critical theory”, by which theory of no theories for Whites, they have been able to sell talk while dismantling White defense. White Nationalists have some critical idea in defense of that now. However, they do not tend to realize that they are being mislead away from helpful theoretical apparatus by its widespread distortion.

Social consructionism is actually quite a useful tool for identity politics as it permits of things that mere facticity does not ensure, i.e. coherence, accountability, agency, warrant, broad perspective and social resource to reconstruct historico-systemic human ecologies.

However, through the talk that the YKW sell, they don’t want Whites to have that. Despite its value and with its appeal they have rather abused, misrepresented and distorted the concept beyond all reason – beyond the non-Cartesian mandate from which the concept of social constructionism was born, to where they’ve got ordinary people talking crazy and thinking that what it – social constructonism – means is that you can imagine yourself into being whatever you want, facts and other people’s understanding of the facts be damned.

I will only briefly note that there is nothing anti-Cartesian about taking such a view – it is as Cartesian as it gets. There is also nothing social and no social construction to saying “you can be whatever you imagine.”

In truth, the questions in these interviews are solipistic in nature, not social consructionist, as students are being asked if self creation (not social consruction) in spite of facts and other people’s understanding is good and possible.

However, it is not my purpose to lecture further, it is rather to have a fun look – it is funny – to see what this big university business has done to confuse these poor undergraduates at Södertörn University in Sweden. They are asked:

Is it important to decide your gender identity?

Am I biologically a man?

What would you say if I told you that I am a man?

If I say that I am Japanese, what would you say?

If I would like to be a cat and treated like a cat, then what?

What would you say if I say that I am two meters tall (6’6)?

What if I were to say that I am seven years old?

If I feel like a seven year old, should I get to date seven year old boys and girls?

Can I enroll in primary school again?

What does identity politics mean for you?

Students at Södertörn U. in Sweden were asked absurd questions about identity prerogative and struggled to display the eloquence of their talk skills in response; what they displayed markedly, however, was that they were on the confused receiving end of YKW rhetorical distortions.

…

Swedish Royal Couple among audience lectured as to their fellow immigrant status in Sweden

Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Löfven has launched a new assault on native Swedes in the form of a project called “Sweden together.”

Prime Minister Stefan Löfven with Culture Minister Alice Bah Kuhnke. Photo: TT
                         
The Prime Minister began its latest manifestation, an October 12 conference, where the royal couple was sitting in the audience. Sponsored by “Swedish” newspaper “judisk krönika” (Jewish Chronicle), the conference featured Jewish studies lecturer, Ingrid Lomfors.

Ms. Lomfors informed the audience that in effect that they do not exist as an entity…

..there exists no Swedish culture, we are all immigrants and that therefore we must accept immigration – that is our duty.

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Wed, 14 Oct 2015 00:04 | # 1

It seems like Sweden really is in an advanced state of hijack, when they are being faced with this scenario. Sweden has a unique culture, and if someone isn’t able to put the brakes on all of this, it may end up with the terrifying situation where Swedish culture would only be accessible through a museum.

2 Posted by DanielS on Wed, 14 Oct 2015 01:06 | #

Though I did not recognize it at first, Per was enraged when he noticed that the bright star on the side of Lomfors podium in the third picture down is actually a Star of David.

3 Posted by O*R*I*O*N on Wed, 14 Oct 2015 04:08 | #

We have a jew parasite who does the exact same thing in Denmark.

It travels around and lectures polite old folks about its insolent claims that danish culture somehow doesn’t exist.

How considerate of those jews to help us disregard our own national culture and metamorphose into vibrant, borderless bazaars.

As Alex Linder once said (paraphrazing): the jews employ the tactics of the octopus. They whirl up dirt and mud from the bottom and eject clouds of black ink so that both their prey and their predators are left blinded and confused. The more diverse and chaotic a society becomes, the less relatively conspicuous the jew will appear. 

4 Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Wed, 14 Oct 2015 18:13 | #

An examination of this image also would have been necessary:

Apparently the translation is:

1. Immigration is not a new thing.

2. We are all the consequences of immigration.

3. There is no such thing as an indigenous Swedish culture.

It’s almost like some kind of crazy joke. It’s a deliberate act of malice.

5 Posted by Sweden trounced w highest ever asylum level on Sat, 17 Oct 2015 15:50 | #

                          

 

Sweden trounced with highest asylum level in history

DAILYKENN, “Never before in the history of Sweden have so many “refugees” sought asylum in that nation”, Oct. Oct 17, 2015:

86,223 individuals—most Islamic insurgents—have applied to the nation’s genocidal government for asylum year to date. That surpasses the government’s expectation of 74,000 refugees for the entire year.

The next migration crisis will be white flight as ethnic Europeans seek to escape the crime and violence that the “refugees” are ostensibly avoiding.

  Sweden’s Migration Agency announced on its website that it had run out of space in its emergency accommodation for new arrivals.

  The new figures emerged days after Sweden’s Prime Minister announced that tent camps would likely be needed in order to provide enough shelter to refugees.

  “Sweden is preparing for a crisis situation,” the Social Democrat leader told a press conference in Stockholm on Friday.

  “Our focus is now on [providing] an organised reception. First of all, to ensure there is accommodation. The standards are being lowered. It’s a matter of providing roof over heads. The government has today commissioned The Swedish Migration Agency to set up tents if it is necessary,” he said.

  “We’re facing the worst international migrant crisis since the Second World War,” he added.

  Sweden is the only EU country which promises to give Syrian refugees automatic residence, however large numbers of people from Iraq and Afghanistan have also been seeking asylum in recent months.

  While the Nordic nation has a global reputation for helping refugees fleeing conflicts, it has faced some internal criticism following complaints from asylum seekers about long waiting times and a lack of access to housing in the bigger cities.
  The country’s migration agency has warned earlier this year that gyms and disaster shelters would be needed to solve the accommodation issue before the cold Swedish winter sets in.

  On Monday morning the Prime Minister launched a cross-party conference on the refugee crisis in Sweden.

Related:

Sweden’s situation is still completely unmanageable.

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Monday, 30 November 2015 16:33.

The Local, ‘14,000 illegal immigrants disappear without trace’, 27 Nov 2015 (emphasis added):

More than 14,000 foreign nationals told to leave Sweden have instead gone underground, with police saying there is little they can do to enforce deportation orders.

A total of 21,748 people had been given deportation orders by the Migration Agency at the end of October – the largest number in history, the Aftonbladet tabloid reported on Friday.

Of those, 14,140 are registered by police as ‘departed’ or ‘wanted’. Some are believed to still be at unknown locations in Sweden while others are thought to have left the country.

“We simply don’t know where they are,” Patrik Engström, head of the national border police, told the newspaper.

The rest of the individuals either remain in refugee centres, are in custody, or are living in separate accommodation which they have arranged themselves, awaiting deportation.

The government has previously announced it wants to step up efforts to ensure people without legal right to stay in Sweden exit the country. But police say most of its resources are currently devoted to carrying out ID checks after Sweden stepped up border controls.

“It’s a huge task and it is completely dependent on the police being allocated resources,” said Engström.

The Local reported in May that an increasing proportion of refugees due to be deported from Sweden were instead disappearing.

Last year the proportion of those leaving the country voluntarily after an expulsion order was 41 percent. Some of the remaining numbers were forcibly deported, but in most cases the refugees went underground.

The Migration Agency said at the time that the vast majority of the “disappeared” were Dublin Regulation cases.

Under the Dublin Regulation, refugees should be deported back to the first EU country they entered, often Italy or Greece, which have the worst welfare provision. But if refugees can delay their re-applications by 18 months, they may be able to stay in Sweden, hence the motivation to go underground.

It is often difficult to deport refugees directly to their home countries, which in many cases refuse to accept them.

There’s a lesson to be learned here, but I wonder if anyone will be learning it? Did anyone really entertain the fantasy that you could invite thousands of illegal migrants to flood into your country out of some misguided notion of hospitality, and that you could then change your mind and say, “Okay, please go away now”, and that the migrants would be all like, “Oh, okay, we are voluntarily self-deporting now”.

Also, would anyone like to take bets as to how many of those 14,000 people might actually be terrorists?

Director of Social Media at Sweden’s Bonnier Publishing Says Sweden and Europe Is Too White

Originally Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, 17 August 2016

Irena Pozar, the director of social media at Swedish Bonnier Magazines, has posted a ridiculous anti-White article complaining that there are too many White people in Europe, and Sweden in particular.

Red Ice and White Genocide Project: Irena Pozar, “Sweden and Europe are too White” –

Editor’s comment: The Bonnier family who dominate Swedish media, are Jewish. Would Irena Pozar ever call Israel too Jewish or ‘too White?’

In the article titled, “Our Whiteness – a democracy problem”, she says:

“I was in Gothenburg recently to attend Media Days 2016 [a media conference],” adding, “The whole day went well. I survived two air flights and being on stage.”

“But oh my God how it was White. EVERYWHERE. After a quick check in the seminar program it became clear: I could count the number of Swedes with foreign names on one hand (and then it became fingers over).”

“To the world, Europe and Sweden has trouble with this problem [of being too White], we know. The media industry has a problem with it, we know very well.”

“A completely white and the Western perspective is a sleeping pill.”

“The lack of diversity creates blind spots that in the long run can be dangerous.”

“In 2016 diversity is not only an opportunity but a necessity. Otherwise, all the fine words about freedom of speech and democracy are nothing.”

For about a year now, Sweden has legally denied that race exists. So how can it be “too White?”

Anti-Whites always do this. They say race doesn’t exist or that it doesn’t matter, then they complain about it being “too White” and in need of “diversity.”

If “diversity” is so great, surely Africa would be the first to place in need of “diversity”, and the last place would be White first world countries.

But you see, “diversity” is their excuse to eliminate White majorities. It’s a code word for White genocide.

        Carl-Johan Bonnier, Chairman of the Board.

Having already planned to reinforce some information on the Bonnier family’s control of media in Scandinavia and Sweden in particular, I belatedly happened upon the somewhat more recent story (3 May 2016) above by White Genocide Project and Red Ice, discussing chutzpah on the part of the Bonnier family’s director of social media, Irena Pozar. With that, I thought it might be good to introduce the issue through that story before giving some of the historical background of the Bonnier media empire as provided by yet other sites.

With the profusion of information that the Internet facilitates it becomes less the task to continually find new information than to feature, focus, cull and coordinate available research so that ethno-nationalists are sensitized to patterns and some concrete facts that they can operate on and follow as their practical concerns allow.

That is the case with Jewish media influence in Sweden and other parts of Scandinavia by way of the so called “Bonnier” family and other Jewish media owners. This information is dated in part and is not presented as if a neutral disposition toward Jewish media ownership in Scandanavia, but is rather meant to lend support for those concerned to defend native European nationals against the well established liberal motivations of Jewish politics as it is laced in their media. It is the kind of feedback that has to circulate within our hermeneutic circle – viz., in our carousel and archives:

“Decoding Satan”, Monday, January 18, 2016

The Bonnier Family…Sweden’s Biggest Media Owner

The Bonnier family is a Swedish family of Jewish origin, who since the beginning of the 19th century have been active in the book industry and later also in the mass media industry. They own the media group Bonnier Group, which has 175 companies in 18 countries.

Ethnicity..Swedish, Danish, Jewish

Currently living in Sweden.
Country of origin – Sobědruhy Bohemia (now in Czech Republic)

Sobědruhy was a town in Bohemia which had one of the oldest Jewish communities in the province. The synagogue has a tower, with a clock, and two lamps respectively bearing the dates 1553 and 1654.  For some time the Jewish community formed a part of the Leitmeritz district rabbinate, but in 1883 it gained independence and elected as its rabbi Ḥayyim (Heinrich) Galandauer (author of “Der Socialismus im Bibel und Talmud”).

Traditions – Judaism

The earliest known member of the patriarchal line of the family was a cloth salesman named Jacob Schye (born 1674), who was from that town of Sobědruhy (Soborten) in Bohemia (now in the Czech Republic). His son, the jeweler Löbel Schie (1718–1790), fathered the jeweler and coin dealer Löbel Salomon Hirschel (born 1745). Hirschel’s son, Gutkind Hirschel (1778–1862), moved from Germany to Copenhagen, Denmark, in 1801 and changed his name to Gerhard Bonnier. There, Gerhard started a small book store in 1804.

Gerhard Bonnier (1778–1862), moved from Germany to Copenhagen, Denmark, in 1801
and changed his name from its original, Gutkind Hirschel.

Estate – Sweden

Gerhard’s oldest son, Adolf Bonnier (1806–1867), moved to Gothenburg, Sweden, in 1827 to expand the family business. He started a library in the city the following year and another one in Stockholm a few years after.

            Adolf Bonnier started a publishing company, Albert Bonniers Förlag in 1837 and his two younger brothers, David Felix Bonnier (1822–1881)… 

…and Albert Bonnier (1820–1900), soon moved to Stockholm to help with the business.

Bonnier family dinner, Stockholm, 1910

Eva Bonnier (1855–1907), painter

Karl Otto Bonnier (1856–1941), with family (1890s)

Åke Gabriel Bonnier (born 11 December 1957) is bishop in the Diocese of Skara of Church of Sweden since September 2012. He is, through inheritance, the second biggest owner of the Bonnier group.

 

Upps, “Jewish Media Influence in Scandinavia”

Sweden: The Bonnier Family and fellow Jews, Peter Hjörne, Helle Klein, and Robert Aschberg

About “Jewish Media Influence in Scandinavia” – the main part of this article garnered from letters to the Jewish Tribal Review.

We have tried to put it into a more reader friendly form, we have omitted some, added some, and formatted.

The Bonnier family (Jewish)

Gutkind Hirschel came to Denmark from Germany in 1801. He changed his name to Gerhard Bonnier and settled in Sweden about 25 years later.

Listing of some Bonnier owned companies:

Brimax, a UK children’s book publisher, Autumn Publishing Ltd,

Medicine Today International AB

Dagens Medicin, in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland and Poland.

AS Diena, which publishes the leading morning newspaper and regional newspapers in Latvia.

The Mastiff Media Holding AB production company was merged with MTV Produktion AB.

Bonnier Radio AB:

SBS Radio AB, Mix Megapol, Radio City, Vinyl, Rockklassiker and E-FM.

Teknik i Media i Sverige AB

Germany

Econ/Ullstein/List, one of the major publishing houses in Germany.

Dun & Bradstreet operations in Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland.

Bonnier Magazine Group publishes magazines in four segments, specialist magazines, lifestyle , business and industry magazines. The magazines are issued in 11 countries, of which publishing operations are conducted in four: Sweden, Denmark, Spain and Poland.

Illustrerad Vetenskap, Gör Så Här, Allt om Mat and Amelia, Komputer för alla and crossword magazines in Sweden. Bo Bedre Norge, Debut, DigitalFoto för Alla, Leva!, mama and Ruby.

Svensk Filmindustri, SF Bio, Home Entertainment, Bonnier Radio in Sweden, LNK TV in Lithuania and Bonnier Amigo Music.

Bonnier Business Press publishes business newspapers in nine countries:

Dagens Industri in Sweden, Børsen in Denmark, Äripäev in Estonia, Dienas Bizness in Latvia, Verslo Zinios in Lithuania, Delevoj Peterburg in Russia, Puls Biznesu in Poland, Wirtschafts Blatt in Austria and Finance in Slovenia.

Bonnier Newspapers:

Dagens Nyheter, Sydsvenska Dagbladet, Expressen including GT and Kvällsposten, Stockholm City, Skånemedia, with Ystads Allehanda, Trelleborgs Allehanda and Kristianstadsbladet.

The business area also includes partly owned newspaper holdings in Poland (50 %) and Latvia (83,5 %), as well as Bold Printing Group (a Swedish daily newspaper printing group), Pressens Bild (image service) and 50 percent of Pressens Morgontjänst (newspaper delivery service).

OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE

Bonnier AB is a wholly owned subsidiary of AB Bonnierföretagen, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Bonnier Holding AB, a subsidiary of Albert Bonnier AB.

This (shortened) listing was extracted from the company’s more detailed information in BONNIER AB Interim Report January-August 2003. pdf.

JEWISH MEDIA TAKE-OVER

Leif Pagrotsky (Jewish)

Leif Pagrotsky is the Jewish Swedish minister of Culture and Education

He is the only one who could stop the Jewish media giants Bonnier and Proventus (by means of anti-trust laws) from taking over Alma Media. But Pagrotsky already said he approved of what he called “more diversity” in the Swedish media. When Bonnier found out there was another potential non-Jewish buyer, Schibsted, they quickly got support from the Jewish Billionaire Robert Weil so they could secure complete Jewish media dominance in Sweden.

    Robert Weil (Jewish)

BONNIER (THE BONNIER GROUP)

The TV Station LNK, is owned by the Jewish Bonnier family, based in Sweden.

Bonnier is a taken name; originally the family was named Hirschel.

Not only is the Bonnier family Jewish and not only do they own LNK, but they are by far the most influential media group in Sweden and in Finland. They are very influential in Denmark as well. They are also involved in the Baltic countries (LNK in Lithuania) the UK, Germany, Poland and other countries.

Of the seven largest daily newspapers in Sweden, the seven with a daily circulation of over 100,000, the Bonnier family owns four, Dagens Nyheter (the Daily News), Expressen (the Express), Sydsvenska Dagbladet (the Southern Swedish Daily News) and Dagens Industri (the Industry of Today).

The largest of the private TV channels in Sweden is TV4.

The Bonnier family directly holds 21,6% of TV4 and through their ownership of the Finnish based Alma media company they hold an additional 23,4%, totalling 45% which amounts to a virtual control.

As head of TV4 we find Jan Scherman (Jewish).

 Jan Scherman’s daughter, Clara Scherman, is chief buyer for TV4. A man with a (Jewish?) Hungarian name, Hans Isoz, heads TV4 Vision.

Through Alma Media, Bonnier also controls MTV3, the most popular channel in Finland with 39,1% of the total viewing time (in 2001) and Subtv, the third largest commercial television channel in Finland, aiming mainly at young adults.

Bonnier also employs Jews Sven Irving (TV4), Artur Ringart (TV4) and Peter Sommerstein (Sydsvenska Dagbladet).

In Finland, Bonnier owns 23% of MTV in that country. In Finland, Bonnier controls the leading daily Iltalehti and Kauppalehti, Finland’s largest business media with a circulation of 85,000 per day. Bonnier controls the printing house Lehdentekijät, that produces 40 regularly published magazines in Finland. In addition to that they own five regional papers, 15 local papers and nine free-distribution papers in Finland alone. They further control the Baltic News Service, the leading news bureau in the Baltic region, providing the world with news about the Baltic with a Bonnier touch.

      Peter Hjörne (Jewish)

Beside the Bonnier family in Sweden there is Peter Hjörne (real name Kaplan), owner and chief editor of Göteborgs-Posten (the Gothenburg Post; GP), the fourth largest newspaper in Sweden with a circulation of 253,700, reaching 600,000 readers daily. GP is furthermore the only newspaper in Sweden’s second largest city, Gothenburg. Hjörne is also the owner of two local newspapers, Bohuslänningen (32.400) and Strömstads tidning (5,200); both distributed in the Swedish north-west coast area. In addition, he controls 22% of Liberala tidningars konsortium (the consortium of liberal newspapers) and thereby Nerike Allehanda (The eighth largest newspaper in Sweden with a circulation of 66,300), Motala Tidning/Vadstena Tidning (12,800), Bergslagsposten (10,600) and Nya Ludvika tidning (9,500). Finally he also holds 9% of Hallandsposten (31,000). Peter Hjörne is the son of a sister of another infuential Swedish Media Jew: Per Gyllenhammer (former Volvo CEO).

Hjörne pays schoolchildren to watch Jewish propaganda.

Hjörne is a part of the old Jewish establishment in Gothenburg and has his way to influence the Gentiles of that city. For instance, when the Jew Steven Spielberg’s movie Schindler’s List reached the screens, Hjörne personally paid so all senior high school students would see it.

The Bonnier family owns 30% and Hjörne owns 10% of The Swedish News-agency Tidningarnas Telegrambyrå (the Swedish Central News Agency), the main news source for the non-local news stories in most minor papers in Sweden.

Robert Aschberg (Jewish) owns the largest production company in Sweden, called Strix Television, and produces programs for every major channel, especially TV3, almost all programs that aren’t Hollywood produced sitcoms, talk shows (Ricky Lake and Jerry Springer – both are Jewish) and low budget movies come from Strix. It was Strix, by the way, that first came up with the idea of the show Survivor, now broadcasted also in the USA.

Aschberg himself is the head of several of these usually noisy and chaotic shows and has thus been called Sweden’s Michel Friedman. His maternal grandfather is the banker Olof Aschberg who helped finance the Russian Revolution and his brother, Richard Aschberg, works at Aftonbladet (the Evening Post). Robert Aschberg is furthermore an important financer of eXpo, a Swedish version of the ADL, even if it is not an exclusively Jewish organization.

SWEDISH LABOUR UNION & NORWEGIAN SCHIBSTEDT COMPANY:

Editor in Chief Helle Klein (Jewish)

The largest newspaper in Sweden is Aftonbladet (the Evening Post), jointly owned by the Swedish Labour Union and the Norwegian Schibstedt company. The chief editor, however, is the Jewess Helle Klein, great granddaughter of the former grand rabbi of Stockholm, Rabbi Gottlieb Klein. Her father, Ernst Klein, is influential in Swedish media as well. 1990-1999 he was the chief editor of Östgöta Correspondenten, the ninth largest newspaper in Sweden, and now he sits on its board. He furthermore is president of Svensk Presshistorisk Förening (Swedish association of press history).

Beside Klein there are several Jewish staffers working at Aftonbladet.

In other words, of the seven largest news papers in Sweden, six are either owned by or edited by Jews.

And please note, there are fewer than 20,000 Jews in Sweden making up roughly 0.2% of the total population. Actually, I could go on and on describing the Jewish media influence in Sweden but I guess you see where I am heading.

Pehr G. Gyllenhammar (Jewish)

Pehr G. Gyllenhammar is the director of Kinnevik, which controls TV3, ZTV and the free newspaper Metro.

Gyllenhammar remains speaker for Reuters Founders Share Company.

The Reuters press agency was founded in 1848 by the Jew Paul Julius Reuter, his real name was Israel Beer Josaphat

Marianne Ahrne (Jewish)

The Jewish film maker and writer Marianne Ahrne has control over a large part of the Swedish Film Institute’s (Svenska Filminstitutet) 50 million kroner ($ 7.4) budget for long films.

She is known to block films which criticize Israel or The USA.

The Swedish producer Kjell-Ake Olsson asked for financial support for his film “Grisbrottaren” about the now deceased artist Lars Hillersberg. It was turned down because of Hillersberg’s “fanatic anti-Americanism and his demonization of Israel”. The film “Repetioner”, based on a book by bestselling author Lars Norén, got its budget cut because three supposed national socialists voiced their opinions in it.

Sweden is the most immigration and asylum friendly country in the world.

They let virtyually everybody in!

But the Israeli dissident Mordechai Vannanu will not be granted asylum here!

Of course this has nothing to do with

JEWISH POWER

…………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Analyzing Jewish influence in Sweden

Analyzing Jewish influence in Sweden is a delicate matter, much due to the fact that the influence in many regards is indirect.

For instance, a couple of years ago (in 1997) a Jewish historian named Stéphane Bruchfeld conducted an investigation asking Swedish students questions about the Holocaust.

The result of the investigation showed that one third of the students questioned the official version of the Holocaust, something that outraged the media who blamed the Swedish educational system for this.

The government responded by making a decision that 700,000 copies of a book about the Holocaust should be distributed to all students in the country and be sent to many households.

The author appointed for writing the book? You might remember his name: Stéphane Bruchfeld. The best part is that after the decision was made, someone noticed that Bruchfeld “accidentally” had misinterpreted the figures of his investigation. Actually very few students questioned the official version of the Holocaust.

Well, Bruchfeld was not very sorry, he had already been appointed to write the book which then was distributed as planned. As a consequence several schools arranged annual theme days with discussions about how Jews have been persecuted and history in school nowadays focuses more on the Holocaust than on the Second World War at large.

The actions of Bruchfeld may have been direct, but many of the consequences were indirect. There was no official demand for theme days or more focus on the Holocaust in education, still from Bruchfeld’s doings, young Swedes nowadays are learning about the “unique” suffering of Jews during the Second World War and it is thus an example of the indirect Jewish influence in our country.

Bruchfeld is by the way engaged in Svenska Kommittén mot Antisemitism (SKMA; the Swedish Committee against Anti-Semitism), a lobbying organization that also “educates” schoolteachers, students and journalists about anti-Semitism, which in practice means that all criticism of Jews is hate and should be extinguished.

Earlier this week SKMA arranged a two-day seminar called “From prejudice to genocide” and had invited leading journalists from all major media. The two main themes of the seminar were that criticism of Israel in media should be equated with anti-Semitism, which in the end could, or most likely would, end with genocide, and that anti-Semitism among Muslims and Arabs in Sweden is widespread but denied by the anti-Semitic media in Sweden.

Well, of course the anti-Semitic media ruled by the Bonnier family, Peter Hjörne (Kaplan) and Helle Klein responded by denouncing the evil Muslims and Arabs in Sweden that do have the nerve to criticize Jews or the altruistic state of Israel.

I have read the 50 page report released by SKMA during the seminar: The Denied Hatred – Anti-Semitism among Arabs and Muslims in Sweden. I wish I had the time to translate it for you, and I guess you wished you had the time to then actually read it. It expresses some extremely subjective perspectives and exemplifies the particularistic view that so many Jews hold.

The official author of the report, the Gentile Mikael Tossavainen, equates all anti-Semitism with Jew-hate. This is very important when analyzing what he later on refers to as anti-Semitic. For instance, the report claims that the view that Jews somehow could ever contribute to, or cause, an anti-Semitic reaction is in itself anti-Semitism made manifest.

Further, the policies or acts of Israel have nothing at all to do with the reason Arabs or Muslims may dislike Jews, according to the report. All Arabs or Muslims who may dislike or criticize Jews have hated Jews all along anyway. Another amazing suggestion is that anything critical about Judaism as a religion is anti-Semitic. To claim that Jews, according to the Jewish religion, are considered to be better then “the nations of the world” or that there would be anything immoral in the Torah, or any glorification of violence is anti-Semitism.

In other words, if you do claim anything of this you are an anti-Semite and per definition do hate Jews. Great objective scholarship don’t you think? The report also considers Palestinian school-books anti-Semitic since they refer to Israel as the “1948-country”, suicide-bombers as martyrs, and do not mention the Oslo-accord.

Well, well, what might one add to this discussion regarding Israeli school-books? Then, of course, there is no term for Jewish hatred of Gentiles. Racism? No, Judaism is perfect, remember, anything critical to Jewish behavior or Judaism is anti-Semitism and anti-Semitism is Jew-hatred.

This is the paradigm of Jewish apology, the extremely subjective and contradictory Jewish apology. The logic is that all Gentiles criticizing Jews do so, always, without any real reason except for an irrational, pathologic hatred. These anti-Semitic Gentiles further blame Jews for all the bad things happening to them in the world.

Well, what if we apply that logic to Jews, what do we have? Jews are constantly blaming Gentiles for being anti-Semitic whenever they are having any problems. All the Jew’s problems are caused by anti-Semites; at least that is what we are told. The same logic, which Jews claim that anti-Semites are following, is followed by them, themselves, when they express that very claim. Well, I guess we will continue discussing this topic further on in the future. (M)

Nordfront, Bonnier: ” We will crush them “
By Robin Palmleaves , 2014-04-19
robin.palmblad@nordfront.se

CHRONICLE. Nearly 14 years ago, an article was published in a Bonnier Publication. We remember it still.

On 28/11, 2000, an article was published entitled, “We will crush them,” in the Bonnier newspaper, Expressen. Goran Persson, Mona Sahlin and Thomas Bodström promised to restrict the rights of “Nazis ” and to launch a more radical HMF legislation. The article also inveighed against constitutional demonstrations.

It was a Carl-Johan Bonnier publication baiting the public.

“Vi ska krossa dem”  (We Will Crush Them)

The witch hunt culminated in 17-year-old Daniel Wretström a week later getting his throat slit by an Arab with a kitchen knife. 14 years later, people start to believe that there is a ’ Nazi ’ youth revolt among Swedish youths, who attacked the media in all these years. It is really about an attack on the Swedish people’s mere survival on this earth.

The same Bonnier media ran campaigns in the 70s and made sure Sweden by our constitution was changed to be “multicultural”. Without whitewashing, the “multicultural” quest in Sweden is an attempt to eradicate the Swedish people.

The signature “Martin M” remarked the other day that there is an “extreme evolutionary pressure now that disadvantages whites”, but that “it is an acid test that strengthens those who survive.” And it is only to concur. Resistance work gives the people the consciousness and desire necessary to survive the slaughter of our people. It is not without reason that JK is trying to ban the National Socialist doctrine that we spread – that is the key out of the slaughterhouse.

Conservatives considered our ideology with skepticism. Conservatives should instead understand that it is socialism that makes us strong: it is only with people’s community that we flourish and achieve real harmony and strength. It is the whole that makes all strong.

The rough-speaking anti-Semite and co-founder of the United States, Benjamin Franklin, expressed it like this:

  “Now it is time for us to hang together, or we’ll be hanged separately.”

The Bonnier’s strategy is to set different groups in society against each other*, and thus break up the big picture. Instead of a strong whole, confusion is created when small factions fight each other, and thereby lose the ability to be able to challenge the real power.

How appropriate is it that those who declare that for the “jew, equality is fundamental to their family” – while pushing through “multiculturalism” for us* – to have the monopoly on running the media in Sweden?

It’s incredibly stupid to let such dictate our lives and to operatate indirectly through our politicians. There are probably no people more guilty of forcing the liberal and “multicultural”* suffering upon us than the Bonnier family.

We must understand that these are the phantoms who are responsible and that they rarely are in the spotlight. Instead sizzles the common man against red drapes of the Bonnier Publications flap.

Let us drag up some of these Anglerfish (there are many more):

Carl-Johan Bonnier, Chairman of the Board.

Jeanette Bonnier, Director.

Jonas Bonnier, the former CEO of Bonnier.

Pontus Bonnier, First Deputy Chairman of the Board.

Bengt Braun, Second Vice Chairman.

It is certainly not Persson, Bodström or Sahlin, who are ultimately responsible for inflicting the eradication effort on the Swedish people. These politicians are just consumable products and puppets that are replaced periodically by a non-elected and constant power that are in the background.

Instead, the manipulators maintain this Punch and Judy show for those who are ultimately responsible – not only for Daniel Wretström’s death. More eyes must be directed against those responsible and presiding over such injustices, otherwise we address only different forms of the minions. It is against the internal enemy’s main structural support our sledgehammers must be hammering.

“Me and Goran will crush you. Since we hand over to our Bilderberg buddies Reinfeldt.”

To these we now repay the just-so please proponerade bowl and say:

No Bonnier – we will instead crush you.

* Regarding imposition of “multiculturalism”: A cogent criticism was offered the other day that what Jewish interests are doing, rather than “divide and conquer,” is as often more like “integrate and conquer” – which is what happens, of course, when you argue against their red cape of “multi-culturalism”  – you are defacto arguing for integration of foreign elements and a weakening of historical identities. In fact, the YKW will adjust to either side as suits their interests: arguing for “multiculturalism” when it facilitates the grounds to integrate foreign elements, and letting Whites argue against “multiculturalism” at times, also in order to facilitate integration of foreign elements.

Comments:

1 Posted by The EU lends Bonnier billions on Tue, 20 Sep 2016 11:04 | #

NyaDagbladet, “The EU lends Bonnier billions” 20 September 2016:

        
        Carl Johan Bonnier         Foto: Peter Jönsson

European Investment Bank, the EIB, has granted loans of over 950 million kronor to the Swedish media group Bonnier. The reason given is that they want to support major media players during ongoing digitization.

Bonnier used the loan to continue to invest in research, development and innovation.

– The European Investment Bank’s main tasks under the investment plan for Europe is to support innovation. The media landscape becomes increasingly competitive, and investment in innovation and digitalisation will therefore be very important to continue. Transactions of this nature reveal situations in which the EIB can be an asset for European companies, regardless of sector, says Jan Vapaavuori, EIB Vice President responsible for lending operations in Sweden, in a press release .

2 Posted by Swedish churches hiding migrants on Sun, 02 Oct 2016 05:12 | #

Sunday Express, “Swedish churches are AIDING migrants hiding from authorities amid asylum crack down,”

SWEDISH churches have admitted to aiding migrants who have gone into hiding from the authorities after having their asylum-applications denied.

3 Posted by Swedish MP accused of anti-Semitic attack on media on Sun, 09 Oct 2016 07:04 | #


Sweden Democrat MP Anna Hagwall. Photo: Roger Vikström/TT

The Local SE, “Swedish MP accused of anti-Semitic attack on media”, 6 Oct. 2016:

A member of the Sweden Democrats is being accused of anti-Semitism after she called for a ban on ‘ethnic groups’ owning more than five percent of media, singling out the Bonnier family.

Anna Hagwall, a member of parliament for the anti-immigration Sweden Democrat party, was widely criticized on Thursday, including by her own party, after she put forward a motion to scrap press support, state subsidies available for newspapers in Sweden, to stop the Bonnier Group’s “control” of media.

“Eighty percent of media is owned and controlled by the same owner. That is not acceptable. Therefore, media ownership needs to be spread over more independent companies and people. To change this I suggest scrapping press support,” Swedish tabloid Aftonbladet quotes the motion as saying.

The concept of press support was launched in Sweden decades ago to secure the survival of local newspapers and avoid monopolies. It is usually awarded to the second largest newspaper in each town.

The Bonnier Group is Sweden’s largest media company, owning titles such as Expressen and Dagens Nyheter. Fact check: it owns around 25 percent of the daily newspaper industry in Sweden today.

It also receives none of the direct press support of 436 million kronor ($50.60 million) handed out to media each year, writes Aftonbladet, but does get a share of the so-called 50 million kronor distribution support.

But Hagwall writes in an email to Aftonbladet, Sweden’s largest newspaper and owned by Norwegian media company Schibsted: “Most small newspapers are controlled directly or indirectly by Bonnier and why it should get paid by Swedish taxpayers is a mystery. Small rural newspapers have become direct or indirect mouthpieces for DN/Bonnier.”

“No family, ethnic group or company should be allowed to directly/indirectly control more than five percent of the media,” she adds.

The reference to an “ethnic group” was widely slammed in Sweden as anti-Semitic on Thursday, interpreted as a slur on the Bonnier Family, whose ancestor Gerhard Bonnier was Jewish.

 Posted by 83,000 ‘minors’ for solipsistic reinterpretation on Thu, 05 May 2016 07:41 | #

And not so funny if bizarre solipsims are relied upon to interpret these identities:

TNO, “88,300 ‘Minors’ Invade Europe”, 3 May 2016:

Some 88,300 nonwhites claiming to be “minors” were part of the invasion force which landed in the European Union in 2015, according to new figures released by the EU’s statistical agency, Eurostat.

Around half (51 percent) of the invaders classed as “unaccompanied minors”—that is, below the age of 18, claimed to be from Afghanistan.

The numbers are a dramatic increase over previous years, the Eurostat figures revealed. Previously, the number of “unaccompanied minor” invaders stood between 11,000 and 13,000 over the period 2008–2013, but then in 2014, the numbers doubled to slightly more than 23,000. This figure then nearly quadrupled in 2015.

A substantial majority of “unaccompanied minors” were males (91 percent) and over half were aged 16 to 17 (57 percent), while those aged 14 to 15 accounted for 29 percent, and those considered to be aged less than 14 for 13 percent.

Of course, these estimates are based on what the nonwhites themselves claim, and as previously shown, large numbers have lied about their ages in order to qualify for extra benefits and speedier processing.

In 2015, the highest number of “asylum applicants” considered to be “unaccompanied minors” was registered in Sweden (with almost 35,300 “unaccompanied minors,” or 40 percent of all those registered in the EU Member States), followed by Germany (14,400, or 16 percent), Hungary (8,800, or 10 percent), and Austria (8,300, or 9 percent).

            
“Refugee unaccompanied minor” Saad Alsaud is reported to have been the fastest 14-year-old in Sweden, dwarfing younger boys and girls in a running event.

 

Related:

Estonia, Luxembourg & Sweden to be Enriched within days

Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, 07 October 2015 09:12.

Seriously, Estonia, Luxembourg & Sweden are to be thronged within days, as invaders are directed northward from their Mediterranean beachheads:

                                

(ANSA) – Brussels, October 2 – EU sources said Friday the relocation of asylum seekers from Italy to other EU nations including Estonia, Luxembourg and Sweden will begin “within days”. The idea is to get it done before the next EU summit on October 15, the sources said. EU interior ministers agreed in September to resettle 120,000 asylum seekers from Greece and Italy – where most refugees fleeing across the Mediterranean usually make first landfall – to other member States.


Of auguries, apparitions and specters..                                                                                                  .

                                             

With the help of the Swedish government, Barbara Spectre set-up a non-denominational institute of Jewish learning with the Greek name of Paideia –

She believes Jews have a key role to play in a country undergoing profound change:

“I think there is a resurgence of anti-Semitism because Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural; and I think that we’re going to be part of the throes of that transformation, which much take place. Europe is not going to be the ‘monolithic’ ..uh, uh, societies they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the center of that – it’s a huge transformation for Europe to make. They are now going into a multi-cultural mode, and Jews will be resented because of our leading role.”

She adds….”but without that leading role and with out that transformation, Europe will not survive.” – ??

                    ..I’m from the center calling Whites “racist” 


….putting every thought criminal on the list..

                      …..no borders, to keep us White..

              

…only Israel gets that right!
      

 

Posted by deleterious alleles come unhinged OOA on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 17:15 | #

Study argues that deleterious alleles come unhinged out of Africa where they are otherwise controlled.

PNAS, ‘Distance from sub-Saharan Africa predicts mutational load in diverse human genomes’ 13 Nov 2015:

“In a model where selection is inversely related to dominance, we show that OOA populations are likely to have higher mutation load due to increased allele frequencies of nearly neutral variants that are recessive or partially recessive.”

Author Affiliations

  Edited by Charles F. Aquadro, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, and accepted by the Editorial Board November 13, 2015 (received for review June 9, 2015)

Human genomes carry hundreds of mutations that are predicted to be deleterious in some environments, potentially affecting the health or fitness of an individual. We characterize the distribution of deleterious mutations among diverse human populations, modeled under different selection coefficients and dominance parameters. Using a new dataset of diverse human genomes from seven different populations, we use spatially explicit simulations to reveal that classes of deleterious alleles have very different patterns across populations, reflecting the interaction between genetic drift and purifying selection. We show that there is a strong signal of purifying selection at conserved genomic positions within African populations, but most predicted deleterious mutations have evolved as if they were neutral during the expansion out of Africa.

The Out-of-Africa (OOA) dispersal ∼50,000 y ago is characterized by a series of founder events as modern humans expanded into multiple continents. Population genetics theory predicts an increase of mutational load in populations undergoing serial founder effects during range expansions. To test this hypothesis, we have sequenced full genomes and high-coverage exomes from seven geographically divergent human populations from Namibia, Congo, Algeria, Pakistan, Cambodia, Siberia, and Mexico. We find that individual genomes vary modestly in the overall number of predicted deleterious alleles. We show via spatially explicit simulations that the observed distribution of deleterious allele frequencies is consistent with the OOA dispersal, particularly under a model where deleterious mutations are recessive. We conclude that there is a strong signal of purifying selection at conserved genomic positions within Africa, but that many predicted deleterious mutations have evolved as if they were neutral during the expansion out of Africa. Under a model where selection is inversely related to dominance, we show that OOA populations are likely to have a higher mutation load due to increased allele frequencies of nearly neutral variants that are recessive or partially recessive.

Related:

Posted by deleterious alleles come unhinged OOA on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 17:15 | #

Study argues that deleterious alleles come unhinged out of Africa where they are otherwise controlled.

PNAS, ‘Distance from sub-Saharan Africa predicts mutational load in diverse human genomes’ 13 Nov 2015:

“In a model where selection is inversely related to dominance, we show that OOA populations are likely to have higher mutation load due to increased allele frequencies of nearly neutral variants that are recessive or partially recessive.”

Author Affiliations

  Edited by Charles F. Aquadro, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, and accepted by the Editorial Board November 13, 2015 (received for review June 9, 2015)

Human genomes carry hundreds of mutations that are predicted to be deleterious in some environments, potentially affecting the health or fitness of an individual. We characterize the distribution of deleterious mutations among diverse human populations, modeled under different selection coefficients and dominance parameters. Using a new dataset of diverse human genomes from seven different populations, we use spatially explicit simulations to reveal that classes of deleterious alleles have very different patterns across populations, reflecting the interaction between genetic drift and purifying selection. We show that there is a strong signal of purifying selection at conserved genomic positions within African populations, but most predicted deleterious mutations have evolved as if they were neutral during the expansion out of Africa.

The Out-of-Africa (OOA) dispersal ∼50,000 y ago is characterized by a series of founder events as modern humans expanded into multiple continents. Population genetics theory predicts an increase of mutational load in populations undergoing serial founder effects during range expansions. To test this hypothesis, we have sequenced full genomes and high-coverage exomes from seven geographically divergent human populations from Namibia, Congo, Algeria, Pakistan, Cambodia, Siberia, and Mexico. We find that individual genomes vary modestly in the overall number of predicted deleterious alleles. We show via spatially explicit simulations that the observed distribution of deleterious allele frequencies is consistent with the OOA dispersal, particularly under a model where deleterious mutations are recessive. We conclude that there is a strong signal of purifying selection at conserved genomic positions within Africa, but that many predicted deleterious mutations have evolved as if they were neutral during the expansion out of Africa. Under a model where selection is inversely related to dominance, we show that OOA populations are likely to have a higher mutation load due to increased allele frequencies of nearly neutral variants that are recessive or partially recessive.

Related:

Norway’s state broadcaster sets racial quota: 1 in 3 new employees must be non-White by 2021

Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 29 December 2015 11:51.

WhiteGeNOcideProject

‘Norway’s state broadcaster sets racial quota: 1 in 3 new employees must be non-White by 2021’, 23 Dec 2015:


Norway’s state broadcaster, NRK, has put in place a 5-year plan in order to chip away at its mostly-White Norwegian workforce and talent.

“The aim is to reflect the population to a greater extent than we do today” 

Director of Broadcasting

Thor Gjermund Eriksen

Currently about 4% of NRK’s permanent staff are from a “multicultural background.” About 13% of Norway’s total population are immigrants, and about 6% are from non-Western countries. NRK is not very interested in catering to Western immigrants, and instead wants to focus on “children of immigrants from Asia, Africa and South America.”

“NRK’s ​​ambition is to be a generous and diverse public arena” said Eriksen. “If an increasing part of the population does not feel included, as are some of the arguments for having a public broadcaster weakened.” NRK describe this racial quota as “multicultural competence.” It also brags that having employees who speak Urdu, and Vietnamese are “success stories.”

In order to open White countries to mass non-White immigration, anti-Whites say “it’s just skin color” and tell us not to worry about it. But when non-White groups become more numerous, suddenly the entire argument is all about “skin color”. It’s about how evil White people are and how we must forcefully “diversify” (destroy) all the White majority areas.

Trying to make a country minority White is NOT a “progressive” social policy. It is White genocide – this is not a figure of speech; this is a clear breach of the international laws which define genocide.

Norway is predicted to be minority White Norwegian by 2045. This, of course, is because of mass non-White immigration.

If it was just Norway where this was happening, it might be excused as just an accident. However, within this century, White people are predicted to be a minority in the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Britain, Sweden, Ireland, and Norway.

This is clearly more than a coincidence – this is White genocide.

Related:

 Posted by Louisa and Maren on Thu, 03 Jan 2019 20:40 | #

I overlooked the fact that the Moroccan murder of the two Scandinavian girls fits well under the rubric this post.

    And here is Defend Europa’s take:

Defend Europa, 21 Dec 2018:

The Dangers of Empathy: Louisa & Maren’s Murder

misguided empathy kills

Louisa and Maren were their names. They were both students, 24 and 28 years old respectively. They had almost finished their studies. Their lives were ahead of them…

By now you have probably heard of what happened, and are aware that there is a video. And in this article I will explain why it is necessary for all of us to watch it.

These two girls were fed a poison from birth. That poison was multiculturalism and misguided empathy. Ethnocentric empathy: the kind that presupposes that all people are like your own people. Everyone is good, everyone is just. No one is really evil at heart…

Judging everything based on your past experience is something we all do, but too many of us are insulated in one way of thinking. That is what got these girls killed. Diversity. Tolerance. Acceptance.

Misguided Empathy


Louisa Jespersen

These empty meaningless phrases that are thrown around by politicians and brainless sheep who do not question what they are told.

They don’t care about Europeans, no one cares as much as we do! They do not reciprocate this kindness and empathy we show them towards us, they only care about their own. This is the way of the world.

Maren and Louisa were brainwashed and there are unfortunately millions like these two among our people, innocent and unaware of the realities of the world, it’s ruthless nature.

Neoliberalism and Political Correctness KILL. Time and again Europeans have payed the price for our apathy, for our misguided virtue. Stop it!

Stop being tolerant! Stop accepting backwards cultures! Stop inviting your death, ruin and downfall!

These girls could have been your daughters, your nieces, your friends, your colleagues, your classmates…


Maren Ueland

The greatest danger that exists in the West right now is that we most of us have forgotten that Evil exists. That it always has and always will exist. There is no ‘end of history’ , there is no ‘war to end all wars’.

The world is a giant place filled with different people, customs and cultures. Most of which are ruthless and cutthroat and a few of which can be called civilised.

Civilisation is a precious thing which is incredibly difficult to create and maintain and we are THROWING IT AWAY!

Wake up, Europeans! There is no rainbow outside of Europe! You will never change anyone!

Look out for you own! Always! Always put your own kin, first! This is the way of nature! This is the way it has always been and always will be!

How many more innocents need to die for us to realise this!?

Will you continue to chase Pokemons while our thousands year old cultures die!?

Will we let our 4000 year long history of achievement vanish? Will we consider everyone equal? Will we tolerate the intolerable?

That’s what Lousia and Maren did. It wasn’t fully their fault. It was also ours.

A century ago when the European powers of the day held sway over all of Africa, if a non-European so much as tried to touch one of our women, they would be beaten into the ground.

This is the way they have reciprocated our kindness. Our tolerance, our acceptance.

This is the true face of diversity and multiculturalism.

The video has been taken down from Youtube and authorities are tracking it down and removing it in an effort to hide what the reality of the world is.

It is up on https://www.bitchute.com/ and can be found by searching for this title: ‘ 24 YEAR OLD DANISH FEMALE BACKPACKER IN MOROCCO MAKES FINAL TREK WITH BEHEADING (FULL) ‘

Fair warning, it’s… graphic. I encourage everyone to see the video in full as we at Defend Europa have. The reason why these atrocities keep happening is because we have forgotten that they can occur. And there are few better ways of seeing what our mistakes may bring about.

Share this, so we finally learn. Let’s stop this from happening.


3

 Posted by Invasive Species on Sun, 31 Mar 2019 03:32 | #

Invasive Species


4

 Posted by Jonna on Tue, 19 Nov 2019 16:58 | #

https://youu.be/20YTnARmbvA

First Winter in our new house – Jonna Jinton


5

 Posted by Light Your White Light …Saint Lucia on Fri, 13 Dec 2019 13:54 | #


Light Your White Light …Saint Lucia

Continue Reading Naïve Species, ManicheanTrickery, Media & UniversityBigBusinessofSellingTalk …. the talk they want to sell.

Imperative to replace Golden Rule of Altruism with Silver Rule of Reciprocity… for European Moral Order

  • Post author:
  • Post category:Central

DNANations prefers to deal with verifiable reality as opposed to speculative theory and faith based systems of rules as we look after the interests of our people. We are looking after genetic groupings and genetic interests as key criteria, even if these are not the only important verifiable criteria to keep track of our peoplehood and that of others. Rationale and rule structures are another criteria for that purpose.

While existence is of course equiprimordial to genetic interests, to secure it for any span and legacy requires rationale and varying degrees of sophistication to negotiate complex rule structures of interaction. “Rules” (1) are the term of common currency that we will use for the logics of meaning and action that people use to negotiate interaction and these complex, protracted exchanges beyond episode, close personal relationships in yield to maturity of their full social system; and its relation to other social systems.

For those of us who are coming from this kind of perspective, where we perceive ourselves as rationally and empirically grounded, it is difficult to understand someone like pastor David Blackburn, his love of Jesus that would have him not only forgive, but want to share his love of Jesus with the men who raped and murdered his wife and unborn child; but to my knowledge, he is at least not hoping to get them released from prison.

It is even more difficult to understand European peoples allowing, even welcoming foreign incursions into The U.K., Sweden, France and Germany – it is difficult to fathom the mindset of a Merkel, who would destroy our European peoples in service to non-Europeans. But there is one rule, convoluted rule, that they have in common and makes their position intelligible to us despite their apparent irrationality.

…

What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

The (((Red Caping))) of the European Moral Order causes Whites to chase after an obsequious, self destructive purity spiral or reject "morals" altogether as "nonsense", as our moral order became synonymous with Christian nonsense.

The Golden Rule is a part of the Sermon on the Mount, which is a central text in the Christian faith. It states: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. There are similar instructions in many other cultures.

Despite receiving high respect and wide popularity, the rule raises critical questions. What is the recommendation more exactly, and is it good advice?

This quote from him and the post overall, was to prepare a discussion of the work of Professor Jan Tullberg; after initially agreeing to talk, he shied away – and it is understandable – as he was apparently concerned for his position as I am not given to be circumspect with regard to the J.Q. 

Anyway, I had intended for a discussion of the difference between the golden rule of benevolence as opposed to the silver rule of reciprocity – as it applies to assist in reconstruction of necessary consensus of moral rules among European peoples and for coordinating our relations to others.

____________

There is a consensus among advocates of European peoples that in essence we seek to secure the existence of our people. There is much dispute over how that is to be done…

One significant camp believes that the fight for existence is all important and any traditions and customs of morals must yield to whatever is necessary for our people’s survival. They believe that they are merely describing what “is” when they observe nature and see creatures struggling for resources against others and that it is quite the same for human nature. The determining factor in what creature survives and thrives is not who is the nicest and most moral to others, but who is the strongest, most intelligent, most cunning, resilient, those mighty enough to be independent of morality and social restraints against their self interests: might makes right. They do have a moral rule structure of sorts: anybody who tries to impose a moral rule structure is immoral – defending the dangerously weak and resentful.

While nature is ruthlessly objective and indifferent as to who is mighty and who is right to survive and thrive, that doesn’t necessarily mean that we should strive to be purely objective and indifferent. Nature and what is mighty by itself doesn’t care about us or the relationships that we care about. Moreover, the world of competition that this school of thought sees as pervasive is not altogether descriptive of the reality, particularly not on the more human levels of interaction; cooperation descriptively abounds on all levels of reality as well. Even so, we ought to take into account what works factually, not only whom we’d like to win and how we might like cooperation to be. Might makes right does resonate of reality against much of our default wishful thinking.

There is a lot of truth to might makes right. And it is more than worthwhile, it is necessary even, to circle back as frequently as need be when things are not going right for your genetic interests to examine what is the case – what are “the mighty doing ‘right” that gives them might where we are losing out? A little of Nietzsche’s cynicism in asking the “who?” question was, and remains, necessary in order to throw off the yoke of petty moralism that can keep our hands tied behind our backs before our enemies and despite great possibilities otherwise. But taking that too far, and not understanding our nature and differences as humans can, will be, disastrous. Greg Johnson has noted that in the first epistle of The Republic, Plato refutes “might is right” by the observation that coalitions of “weaker” people can overcome the mighty individual(s).

Inter-group interaction is more complex and less objective than might makes right for most peoples. They are cooperating among themselves and sometimes against us. More in regard to relative interests, I like to point out the fact that our mighty and excellent qualities are not necessarily manifest in an episode, but through protracted patterns; thus, the assessment of who is “mighty” on an episodic basis and by a naive observer – as is wont to happen in the disorder of modernity for its rupturing of patterns though prohibitions of speculative protective social classification – is prone to render us unjustly the loser; losing-out along an under-supported developmental process. There are subtle factors in Neo-Aristotleanism which indicate that for our human nature, “might is right” is perhaps even more insufficient a rule system than it is for others. The assessment of proper European biology in particular must take into account the optimality and sublimation that is part and parcel of our k selective ways and its description, but also something to be protected in “oughtness” – as a matter of what distinguishes our kind of humanity and its excellence.

Indeed we are biological creatures evolved for optimal not maximal need satisfaction; mammals, evolved to care about relationships; second order cybernetic systems who can reflect on long term consequences of actions, can consider alternatives and learn new responses; coherence, accountability, warrant and agency are part and parcel of our human condition, as it is, inextricably enmeshed in praxis – social and other interaction – where there are reflexive effects; and to try to ignore or reduce this, our human complexity, to try to closely assimilate the less reflexive survival drives of non-human creatures, or perhaps even try to assimilate the non-biological world of forces and impacts, is to reduce our chances for survival against forces of competing people, systems and reality. The unit of survival is beyond organism plus group, as Darwin conceived it, and more like human group ecology plus pervasive ecology.

This neo-Aristotlean calibration which establishes necessary feedback to put circuit breakers on Nietzschean toxicity and the systemic runaway that we are currently in the throes of as a people is lacking critically in Hitler’s world view, the “might is righters” and the scientistically  Dawinistic.

It is a consequent of The Enlightenment project for objectivity; and though the necessary Post Modern turn was underway particularly after World War I, it did not take hold enough to stave off a second world war so catastrophic for our people. And since World War II our people have remained bamboozled by the YKW who have some of their people espousing a modernist “objectivist” view where it suits them to avoid accountability; though more typically in recent decades, they’ve espoused a pseudo-post modernist view, “represented” by anti-White groups in coalitions wielding absurd propositions. Because the YKW have so effectively misrepresented the post modern turn, social constructionism and hermeneutics – its simple, salutary effect of negotiating the good and bad aspects of both tradition and modernity – most of our people are unclear about the necessity of the post modern turn, its difference, and they default into modernist ways or neo-traditionalism.

The majority of our people probably remain modernists, which suits the YKW just fine because our quest for objectivity is, well, blind or partly blind to our relative interests; an objectivist logic of meaning and action is short on accountability to our people as our people. The YKW will promote this in a morality of liberalism while the naive and disingenuous will go along with it.

Others can’t be satisfied to shrug-off the personal abuse they’ve experienced or the destruction with impunity of the ways and people that they hold dear; they often attribute this to a lack of “morals”, a social consensus by necessity, that corresponded to traditions and times when people were more loyal and conscientious. Other than the liberal Enlightenment values that pervade the society they find so repugnant, the only major moral consensus known for centuries by our people has been Christianity. For many Whites, that remains synonymous with morality and the moral order. They fight like mad to re-invoke it, and they are correct that a moral order is imperative. They are not correct that is is the only moral order nor the best suited to our interests.

Nevertheless, to them, typically, you are talking about Christianity or the other self defeating terms of Enlightened modernity – which they might call “secular humanism” – if you are talking about our people’s “morals” or lack thereof.

We’ve discussed how the YKW play the Enlightenment against us, by making us and only us play by its rules – distorting it beyond its rule structure and reason, to the point of absurdity; to where “Modernity’s objectivism” does not name the thing being named, which is more aptly called something like “anti-White”; and they play “Post Modernity” against us by distorting it beyond its rule structure and reason as well, to where everything is “cultural” and “valid” and neither does it name the thing that post modernity is supposed to name – a means to recognize the limits of modernity and objectivism, to reconstruct our people and ways where fine; and to coordinate with others without the narcissism of modernity – but no, YKW “post modernity” designates hideous architecture at best, more often a dada theater of the absurd, freak show putting our resources at risk to arbitrary experimentation as surely as modernity did – for us, really just more modernity. In either case, “modernity” or pseudo, YKW “post modernity”, it is promoted by the YKW so long as it is against us and in their interests. The masters of discourse have controlled the frame and these distortions destructive to our EGI through academia, media and other power niches.

But they have also held sway in “our traditional morality”. We have in prior essays discussed how the YKW control, and have historically controlled ((((the popular media for Goyem in days-gone-by))) the discourse to our detriment through Christianity.

Our people are more likely to have survived in spite of Christianity’s (((nonsense and “logics”))), if you can call it logic, than because of it. Despite the absurdity evident to anyone with common sense, fear, promises of a better world after, tradition, custom and habit, along with intimidating exclusion of contending moral orders, has instilled close associations for many between the term Christianity and the term “morals” – it has been THE MORAL ORDER for Europeans; even unconsciously and memetically to non-believers; steered by the YKW into its Noahide logics irrespective; while its fantastic and ubiquitous churches have been the only known meeting place for a consensus on our moral order: tax free corrals for the sheeple to be indoctrinated into surrendering their resources..

That’s a big problem…

Even if practiced ironically and selectively enough by some to allow them to look after their own and European people’s interests, the logics of the text by itself are against that and will lead many who take the text seriously to rupture – either by their own reading or by the misleading of others – whatever moral order achieved to serve European interests despite the Bible’s (((logics of meaning and action))).

The disillusionment that will come of Christianity for anyone who cares about European people then tends to provoke reactionary anti-moral thinking. But there is a problem even for these anti-moral reactionaries: There is no escaping moral rules. It is a universal truth that between people there will always be some things that are prohibited, some things obligatory and some things which are legitimate but optional; you’ll be confronted and stopped by the logical forces of others within your group or without if you don’t take sufficient account of these rules by consensus.

It is imperative that we consciously determine our moral order, such that it conforms to our EGI or else our moral order will, by default, be determined by those who don’t care about us, or those who are downright enemies. In fact, that has been the case with regard to objectivism and the Abrahamic religions.

I won’t discuss European pagan religions here. They must have had some things right and they must have had some things wrong given the state of knowledge at the times. Furthermore, they tended to be tribal, not racial. Therefore, we are talking about the necessity of creating a new moral order by consensus for Europeans at any rate.

Still, there is this memetic embedding of Christian rules even for those who wish to step out of Christianity and out of its moral order altogether. Christianity has had such a long history as the foundation of our moral order that its rule structures are taken for granted and embedded even in secular institutions and practices. If we are to cure ourselves of its convoluted rule structures which misguide our people, we must go deep to its vital artery, expose it ever on a permanent alter for people to pass by and reject, every day if need be – so that it becomes deeply, habitually known by broad consensus, and felt to be wrong.

I am talking about the Golden Rule. I have mentioned that we needed to replace the Golden Rule with The Silver Rule in the past. But I have gone into nothing like the kind of detail that Professor Jan Tullberg has.

His examination of The Golden Rule of Benevolence versus the Silver Rule of Reciprocity provides a vital step of analysis to purge this poison to our would-be moral order. The excising of this mind cancer tumor is crucial to our people’s ability to coordinate with the rest of the world effectively and to our ultimate survival.

Again, when we are talking about building a consensus for a moral order, we are talking about negotiating rules of prohibition, obligation and legitimacy. We are not talking about “memes”, we are not talking about “thou shalt not kill even where your people’s life depends upon it”, we are not talking about being soft, nice and especially, we are not talking now about altruism to the point of obsequiousness.

We are talking about rules and the most important rule of all, the rule to address first, is The Golden Rule of altruism as it is ensconced in The Sermon on The Mount; and our necessary consensus for The Silver Rule to replace it.

….
One of the reasons that I have proposed Kant as an intermediary, weening-off step for Christians, is because of his first principle of “unanimity” (to think in agreement with yourself). Christian though Kant was, I saw nothing like that advice in the Bible. Its goes far as an antidote to the poison pill of the golden rule. Still, it does not go as far as the Silver Rule because it does not help to guide social action.

We Europeans are susceptible to the (((Golden Rule))) ruse, especially our Northern adaptations, because we are evolved more to fight the rigors of Augustinian devils – i.e., natural elements and cycles; as opposed to the cunning and rule changing treachery of Manichean devils for which Middle Eastern people are adapted of necessity for resource abundance and inter-tribal warfare.

We want to enjoy our lives and to do what we are good at – fighting Augustinian devils; that is characteristic of our European nature; we don’t want our lives entangled in battles with low I.Q. or worse, high I.Q. Middle Easterners. And we are correct to want to fight Augustinian devils, for those are the ultimate devils which will determine our survival, even if we survive enemy peoples.

Nevertheless, we must survive other peoples and that means dealing with them. The Golden Rule is the opposite of a model for our survival as distinct in relation to other peoples. I submit that the Golden Rule is not moral at all. It has rather the hallmarks of an egregious (((Middle Eastern))) trick. The Silver Rule, on the other hand, is moral, it provides the currency and sets in motion the rule structure by which we can negotiate fair moral relations among our European peoples and with other peoples.

What follows is a letter in appeal to Professor Jan Tullberg for help and an interview…

Dear Professor Tullberg,

I am writing you on behalf of Majorityrights, a site dedicated to the genetic interests and human ecologies of European peoples.

We are very interested in your article – The Golden Rule of Benevolence versus the Silver Rule of Reciprocity – and would like to excerpt parts of it on our website, Majorityrights.

Would you consider talking with us? Even if to be critical of our approach (not that you necessarily would or should be)? Working toward a consensus regarding a moral order for European peoples which overcomes the obsequiousness of what has held the position of our moral order – viz. Christianity – is imperative to the defense of our peoples, acutely now, in evidence by the migration crisis.

I have long maintained the position that our moral order is troubled and in need of re-ordering – including the fact that it is crucial that we do away with the The Golden Rule and replace it with The Silver Rule. But I merely scratched the surface of that and that is a part of why your work is so interesting to me and so relevant to our project at Majorityrights in defense of European peoples.

We have two questions for you in that regard –

1) Could you possibly offer some advice, perhaps participate as we work around your article?

2) Would you be willing to speak with us for an interview?

These are urgent matters and we sincerely hope for your affirmative response to our request,

Daniel Sienkiewicz,

R.S.V.P.

Here is a close approximation of the somewhat protracted addendum that I had penned, but did not include in the email to Prof. Tullberg:

In regard to your article The Golden Rule of Benevolence versus the Silver Rule of Reciprocity as it pertains to our website, Majorityrights dnanations.com.

MR dnanations is highly appropriate to present this material of yours, as it has always been dedicated to the rational interests of European peoples and the correction of theoretical errors which run counter to those interests – but this is especially appropriate now – you must be aware as to the urgency for which a European public concerned for their interests need to understand this material.

European peoples have had difficulty with the basic assertion of the existential reality of their identity, the legitimacy of their interests as distinguished from forces indifferent and dissolutive: whether a result of flighty and scientistic objectivism; subjective participation in international capital; or as distinguished from people indifferent to their systemic existence; even as distinguished from those antagonistic to their existence – who would seek to deny the reality of their discreet existence in order to weaken their collective identity and defense.

I naturally believe that we do exist as a people, that we do have legitimate interests in our evolution, human ecology and habitat, but I’ve experienced difficulty in organizing and gaining adherence to such fundamental defense for absence of and disruption of a coherent moral order to which our people might subscribe and expect accountability (to and from) – a rule structure which would observe that there are outsiders, not merely entitled to interact and participate on the same level taken for granted by those sharing our particular moral order.

I have either been confronted with that difficulty or sundry forms of right-wing anti-social snobbery – typically, arguments of the “naturalistic” kind; that nature determines these things and discussion of social terms is nonsense.

Despite that, in attempting to construct frameworks to deal with the problem of this disorder I have, like yourself, seen a great deal of explanatory and diagnostic power in ordinary language – it is a helpful starting point to detect patterns of shared discursive currency as they are taken for granted but serve through time to reveal and parse what moral ordering that we have remaining – open ended, subject to dissolution though it is, as you know.

While there are patterns in our ordinary language, they are confused in important regards. “The Left” is understood beneath ordinary language as unionized defense of peoples – except when applied to European peoples: for them it means the liberal opening of borders – only others, apparently, are allowed to unionize, and European peoples accept this. In contradiction to the fundamental meaning of leftism (unionized interest), European “leftists” are liberal, altruistically concerned for others; and the term left and liberal is used interchangeably when applied to them though it is really a contradiction of terms.

Objections to this paradoxic terminology and systemically self destructive performance requirements are met with charges of “racism, sexism and other ism’s” from those antagonistic to Whites – these charges have been overwhelming in decades following WWII – while all resistance is called “right-wing.” Since all social unionization has been closed-off as “left” or “racist”, people with implicit concern for European defense have had a tendency to go where their historical successes and comforts have lain, further to what is called “the far right”, in exaggerated forms of scientitic Cartesianism, or into the “morality” of Christianity, or some other sort of obsequious secular liberalism – but further from rationally accountable social organization and “unionization” of themselves.

Where I have tried to encourage our people to organize as a unionized “White Left”, in our interests, our people, in their individualistic and conditioned ways, have resisted, remain reactionary and try to conceive of me as doing the enemies bidding; perhaps this serves to preserve their position presiding over pet right wing projects, coordinating only feebly though they might through these “naturalistic” and essentially anti-social rule structures.

However, we cannot place hope that the arbitrary fallout of natural flux will judge in favor of our people’s just survival, let alone can we place faith in “divine providence” to rule as such, but we must instead take initiative to defend ourselves consciously, rationally, in a way that can be understood by the critical masses necessary to participate in our coherent defense: that requires the promulgation of a shared rule structure. Where people are not scared-off from social participation by the non-accountability of right-wing strictures, universalistic philosophies and Christianity in particular have been a bane of such organization.

Like yourself, I have seen the inculcation of the Golden Rule as a central problem against our defense; and that it is imperative to replace it with The Silver Rule. However, I had been thinking of The Silver rule in terms of “not doing unto others” – which you describe as merely a lower grade Golden Rule, while observing that the Silver Rule is rather a crucial matter of reciprocity – the importance of which the Golden Rule denies.  In fact, I have merely scratched the surface of the issue and went into nothing remotely like the depth and elaboration that you have in parsing these rules and illustrating the importance of the distinction as you have in your article.

Our peoples are in trouble for not being able to defend themselves as a biosystemic entity, for their evolved proclivity to objective struggle against nature as opposed to ethnocentric rivalries (with others peoples, who ARE geared to ethnocentric rivalries); for the naive susceptibility to the golden rule for those who would surrender their side perhaps to mimick a signal of innocence and the purity of objectivist values – which they might hope to find codified in religion; or in rational blindness to self interest for those who prefer to place faith in the hope that more impartial scientific pursuit will yield sufficient results.

But again, we are not only subject to dissolution as a result of our own blindness or self and kin negligence. We are subject to antagonism and rhetorical assault by those who do act in their ethnocentric interests. On the highest level of abstraction in antagonism to our organization as a people, we are under rhetorical attack under the rubric of anti-racism by the so called “left”; and if we react negatively against that charge, as “right wingers”, in response to the denunciation of our asserted self interests, then, indeed, ordinary language sorts out the rightist tendencies to further pursue the abstract, “factual” and the scientistically, quantitatively measurable – “Non-equality” – some people are just better according to a singular universal criteria; that’s the way it is, no arguments need apply; arguments and considering different ways of life and priorities are for ((them))) anyway. Or they seek concepts beyond social negotiation and rhetorical trammel in the realm of faith…but anti social, and likely to end in reciprocally escalating conflict either way – science or religion: not based with an eye toward praxis – people in interaction and accountable to one another as the prime determination and consideration.

The lack of accountability to social organization that results is a great deal more like liberalism and universalism – more like the golden rule – than it is like a unionization of interests.

While it is taken as a response to the left, it is indeed a reaction to other “lefts”, their unions of self interest. This has been a maneuvering of those who fear “White” collective organization – and those who fear such unionization meet any such motion to White organization with a myriad of tactics to counter and subvert it.

One of those tactics I have touched upon: they have represented leftist coalitions as strictly being the way of those who are antagonistic or conflictual of European people, and that makes it additionally difficult to persuade European people who are by nature against, or who have been conditioned against, collectivism of the the left – particularly as these unions have been made didactic in one form or another, ranging from the Soviet Union, to PC and social justice warriors, to National Socialism, organization in racial defense amounts to what has been through ordinary language called Marxist or racist.

However, long standing promulgation of the terms that European people who defend themselves as European people are to be identified as “right wing” and even “far right wing” is only a preliminary difficulty in getting them to organize their defense.

Where the quest for “innocence” in objectivity or even the esteem of bringing forth its technological fruits do not predominate in their psyche to incite a selfless ego naive and ripe for exploitation, where these quests for innocence or moral superiority do not translate to self sacrifice and destruction of what systemic happenstance of European human ecology that remains, then the hold over of Christianity – especially the golden rule – does.

While I have long held that the instilling of The Golden rule in European peoples is one of our largest problems and that we desperately need to dislodge it and replace it with the Silver rule, I have gone into nothing like the kind of detail with which you handle the matter in this wonderful essay of yours.

While you have applied this examination mostly to the context of business ethics, we are interested in looking at your study from the context of defending European peoples, who are, as I’m sure you are aware, under an existential threat that can no longer sustain the Golden Rule if we are to survive as a distinct genetic species, a human ecological system among human and other ecological systems.

Nevertheless, merely attempting to “throw moral rules out the window” will not do.  It is not possible, for one thing. There is no such thing as living without at least a semblance of moral order – rules: there will always be some things we can do, some things that are legitimate and some things that are prohibited in any human interaction. Far better that the rules be consciously and broadly understood by all parties concerned. But it is our more fundamental problem still that Europeans barely have a moral order or coherent rules to discard – hence the desperate masses are shown again the “only” way that they know and cling to traditional “morals”  – we know what that means – what semblance of moral order that we have is likely to be Kant at best, but most likely Christianity, and continually revisited by the golden rule which wreaks its havoc. Europeans desperately need morals understood as rules – non-obsequious rules, based in the kind of reciprocity and justice that you advise in rationality and accountability.

I’ve been trying to promote the necessity of a shared moral order as means to protect the human ecologies of genetic Europeans.  Professor Tullberg, you are consummately suited to help take this to the level of scholarship, serious analysis and the prescription necessary in this dark hour.

Thus, I ask of you for the purpose of our defense as European peoples

– can you offer us some feedback at Majorityrights dnanations in regard to this article of yours?

– will you talk to us? Even if to be critical of our approach?

– Will you help us to save Swedish people, Sweden, Europe and European peoples?

(1) Rules are a highly serviceable as they are abstract and fluid cross-contextually, whereas “memes”, as I understand them, can get us bogged down in concreteness too quickly.

Sconesforme,  05-02-2014, 07:03 PM

In the 1975 the Swedish parliament decided that Sweden should become a multicultural, multiracial and multiethnic country. The face of Sweden was changing in 1975 because of immigration from mainly European countries starting from around 1950. In 1950 – Sweden had 50 Muslims and people would turn their heads if they saw a black person on the street. In 2010 Sweden….

[…]

Since the 1980s about a million people have immigrated to Sweden. According to Swedish professor of economy, Jan Tullberg, the Swedish immigration policy cost around 250 billion kronor a year which is 25 percent of the entire government budget. Other researchers have mentioned numbers like 50-150 billion kronor. This is apparently a unique situation because no country in history has changed its demographic balance voluntarily and done so in just a few decades. Sweden has currently a higher immigration per capita than United States had in 1880 which lead to the immigration cap set in 1924.

Comments:

1 Posted by DanielS on Fri, 27 May 2016 18:47 | #
 

I’ve done some re-writing on this piece, fixing things that needed to be fixed, shifted one paragraph to another place where it was more coherent. Hence, the piece is better written now and should serve better as it is meant – to act as an overture to a crucial discussion – a discussion that needs to happen between our people. If I have to start it by talking by myself, then so be it; but this is about as important as it gets when it come to matters to be discussed. Therefore, it is to the great shame of anybody who will not participate in this discussion, but especially if they won’t because they have have Hitler, Jeboo in the skye or Jews participating and subverting our discussion as they invariably would.

So, I’m going to sticky this for a little while and will begin to look at some parts of the Tullberg piece that are particularly important to think about and discuss.

2 Posted by reducing options to: serve or be served on Sat, 28 May 2016 09:11 | #

ZeroHedge, “Your Options: To Serve… Or Be Served”, 27 May 2016:

There are three ways for a person to obtain something of value from another person: receive it as a donation, steal it by force or fraud, or exchange for it. It’s not much of an oversimplification to say that the advance of civilization has hinged on its movement from the first two methods to the third. The right to exchange, and the right to promise as part of a future exchange—the right to contract—are now taken for granted, but those rights are delicate and a whole complex of rights, assumptions, and obligations are subsumed by them. Their intellectual foundations are being undermined as the equality of rights implicit in contract and exchange gives way to a regressive inequality of rights: servitude.

3 Posted by argument against pathological altruism on Sat, 28 May 2016 13:47 | #

Good article related to these issues by James Lawrence.

Among good points is the hypothesis that one of the reasons why Whites promote anti-racism – a liberal opening and venturing beyond their genetic group boundaries and borders – is NOT because they are altruistic; they really don’t care about non-Whites. It is rather because they are selfish – they don’t want to be responsible to people who are relatively close in relation.

4 Posted by DanielS on Mon, 30 May 2016 08:38 | #

Until we work out a moral order, viz., a sufficient rule structure of legitimacy, obligation and prohibition among European peoples, we are not well positioned to fight for our interests. We might have a certain advantage in increased unpredictability to our enemies but it is not likely to be of proportional gain compared to the cost to our own side – a lack of cooperation and coordination of justice will likely cost us heavily for the inability to promulgate the reasonableness of looking after our own; of deportation projects; to coordinate the deployment of fighting resources with regard to various threats to our EGI; and to keep the fighting from being against one another Europeans.

Without this moral order, we are not only unprepared to cooperate, we are not particularly ready to fight our enemies.

The working out of a moral order is requisite to fight. It is also important to work out rules of coordination with those Europeans of whom we disagree but with whom of course we’d rather ally for their genetic basis – White Christians, White Muslims, White Nazi idolators, White liberals of various kinds, etc.

It is not true that Carolyn Yeager and Tanstaafl provided the best platform to set forth the solution to our problems (I can image who would submit such an idea but their motives are apparent).

These people have some logical capacity but as such they are primarily followers of other people’s rule structures – Carolyn ridiculously so, is basically going to follow the rule that “Hitler said it therefore it must be good and true.”

Tanstaafl may have some I.Q. points on her, and while highly articulate, he is only following the closed metaphor. He is more likely to help in solving our problems than Carolyn, but he is not “the one” either.

People like Daniel A, Wallstreet Bob, or Matt Parrott will to try to get behind anybody who bids to resurrect their gods Jesus or Hitler and will try to close ranks against those who place the interests of our race above their gods – gods who have done enough damage and offer little hope for European cooperation and coordination against forces inveighing against our E.G.I. In the case of the Hitler-heads, they can’t seem to meet a minimal requirement of common sense to say that he had somethings right, some things wrong, but that it is not reasonable to elevate the purported champion of one nation – who had been so destructive to other nations and to his own – it is not reasonable to hold him up as a model for all Europeans to rally under. It’s ridiculous. And I can imagine that if I were a German looking to do the right thing by European EGI, to have Hitler upheld would be the last thing that I would want. I.e, we are doing many a German a favor by stating the fact that while we support them unequivocally, that we are not Hitler 2.0.

Nevertheless, the Jesus people and the Hitler people will be difficult to coordinate with because the Jesus people might always take flight from accountability in “the sky” while the Hitler people may always take flight from accountability in “nature” unmediated by praxis.

And then there are of course The Jared Taylors, who say that Jews are huWhite too. That we have friends among them and we are just looking to blame them, scapegoat them and not take responsibility for ourselves.

That’s nonsense and Jared is wrong.

Jews are another people, we classify them as other; they classify themselves as other; they look after their own; and whether particular Jews are helpful to us or not, they are other – it is more than valid for us to exclude them from our interest group and there is more than enough evidence to say that we should. “The nice ones” can take solace in the fact that our ultimate goal is to secure our people, our separate sovereignty, not to destroy them. Though we do see it as necessary, ultimately and practically, given all evidence of patterns, to exclude them from citizenship in our nation.

In fact, our hermeneutic is centered of our own interests and doing what is necessary to reconstruct and foster our systemic human ecologies. That entails that the hermeneutic does survey and recognize the Jews as other, their importantly destructive role as a biological system; Abrahamic religions as alien rule structures misguiding of our peoples; but with a worldview centered on the praxis of our people and engaged interactively in an ongoing surveying process, we are not prone to a myopia of the Jews as our sole concern, nor to the scientisms that might have someone like Jared Taylor blind to the patterned difference of Jews, its overall antagonism to our people despite crypis, verbal flourish – an instantiation of “being on our side” – bonafide intelligence and competence.

I remember the grief that “Silver” gave me for initiating a discussion of how we needed to replace the Golden Rule with the Silver rule. It turns out that there is very good thinking on those lines that that is true. And yet Silver called for my removal. Of course I was right to drive Silver away in the interest of European people. It was right to drive away the grief that Christian Joe and philosemitic Thorn gave me as well. Of course it is necessary to exclude these sorts from MR, who would barrage us with nonsense for not including those who would place the concern for Jesus, Hitler and Jews above our people and our kinds. When it is time to coordinate with those who disagree with our consensus then we might talk to them where they are reasonable, but it is necessary to reach a consensus of our moral order first.

5 Posted by blacks/arabs more important than women to feminism on Thu, 02 Jun 2016 08:54 | #


But who cares? When it comes to feminists, blacks and Arabs are more important than White women anyway.

6 Posted by DanielS on Fri, 03 Jun 2016 06:10 | #

Tullberg sets-out discussion of the golden rule in non-Cartesian terms; that is to say, he sets discussion in the realm of the verifiable and will not engage in faith or the sheer authority of a power beyond the empirical world. If we are to make any sense of how this rule is effecting our would-be moral order, of course that is the correct premise. There is no sense in talking nonsense or with those who insist upon it.

What is the recommendation more exactly,  and is it good advice?  The influence on business ethics and company behavior is of special interest.

Those are the issues of this article. The treatment will be a secular analysis taking the Golden Rule seriously. The term “secular” implies not assuming that the rule is justified by the authority of a divine being and therefore above human reason.  The term “seriously” implies that the message is to be seen as a statement of substance that can be judged either right or wrong,  not a metaphorical statement that should be interpreted as a picture whose message is in the eyes of the beholder. A judgment to be supported later in the article holds that the Golden Rule is most influential and has great relevance also for individuals and for organizations in relatively secularized societies.

7 Posted by THE LOGIC OF THE RULE on Sat, 04 Jun 2016 13:54 | #

        THE LOGIC OF THE RULE

        One reason for the popularity of the rule is that it is partly misunderstood. At first glance,  the rule seems mainly to state that you should yourself act according to rules. This is sometimes called “the self-exception taboo.” From Hobbesian, Kantian and utilitarian perspectives, it is wrong to ordain a rule for others while not for yourself.  A second interpretation is a promotion of empathy. From the perspective of the other,  your behavior is monitored and judged. This also seems to be good advice. A third interpretation is that there is a reciprocal spirit.
        However,  the message becomes much more distinct and quite deviant when it is seen in context. …

8 Posted by needed as basis for discussion on Tue, 07 Jun 2016 07:58 | #

A longer quotation is needed as a basis for discussion  and, to increase readability,  the main one is taken from a rather modern edition of St.  Luke whereas the Golden Rule itself is kept in a more classical wording, generally used in ethical discussion. In the modern edition of the Bible, the relevant formulations are: “And as you wish that men would do to you, do so to them” and “So whatever you wish men do to you, do so to them.”

As seen from the larger quote the context of the Golden Rule is an assertive altruistic argumentation for altruistic deeds and altruistic deeds only. The Golden Rule itself might give a reciprocal impression, but that is not in line with the content. The advice is to be altruistic and act according to the egoistic demands of the other.  A very unbalanced relation is suggested with a clear disadvantage for the agent.

9 Posted by formula of reciprocity on Wed, 08 Jun 2016 04:21 | #

The general formula of reciprocity is that the Person A makes a first “move” (Deed 1), with a cost to herself (denoted C1A) and a utility for Person B (U1B). Person B performs a second move (Deed 2), which implies a cost for him of C2B and a benefit for Person A of U2A.  Taken together,  the two deeds are not supposed to give a zero sum, but a synergy that produces a net benefit for both. A qualification for a successful cooperation is that U2A – C1A> 0 and that U1B – C2B> 0. A successful cooperation can be expected to generate new similar interactions producing net benefits. If Person B fails to perform the reciprocal Deed 2, it is unlikely that Person A will perform another deed with a cost to herself and a benefit for B. However, altruistic ethics will encourage A to continue giving even if receiving nothing in return. Jesus is a proponent of altruism and he argues in a way that is most interesting to dwell upon.

10  Posted by Moed Kattan on Tue, 13 Dec 2016 18:40 | #

Moed Kattan 17a. If a Jew is tempted to do evil he should go to a city where he is not known and do the evil there.

11 Posted by Dōgen on Sun, 18 Dec 2016 10:11 | #

   

To learn Buddism is to know yourself

To know yourself is to forget yourself

To forget yourself is to identify yourself with the law of the universe – one with the universe

To be one with the universe is to “drop” the notion that you are one with the universe

Along with the body and mind of yourself and others – Dōgen

Posted by What could possibly go wrong? on Wed, 01 Mar 2017 17:28 | # 12


“What could possibly go wrong?”

Caption supplied by our Asian correspondent, Kumiko. Image found by her as well, but I couldn’t resist putting it here because, well, it goes with this post – DanielS

13 Posted by Revilo Oliver on the JQ: The Summing Up on Thu, 26 Oct 2017 01:37 | #

Revilo Oliver on the Jewish Plague: The Summing Up:

In which we sum up what we learned from Revilo Oliver on the Jewish Question; and offer suggestions for further learning on the subject

American Dissident Voices broadcast of October 21, 2017

OVER THE PAST ten weeks in our series “The Jewish Plague,” we have been presenting the wisdom of Professor Revilo P. Oliver on the Jewish Question — the most crucial question of our time, our answer to which will determine not only the death or survival of our potentially immortal race, but the future course of all life in this Universe.

On today’s program I would like to summarize, point-by-point and in direct and simple language, the knowledge we have acquired from Dr. Oliver, along with suggestions for further reading and learning.

• The Jews are a highly intelligent, organized, and capable people, who have managed over some 2,500 years to raise themselves up from one of many primitive Semitic tribes into the most dominant race on this planet.

• They have achieved this dominance despite their small population: Jews worldwide constitute a mere 0.2 per cent. of the world’s population, around 14 million, notably smaller than the total population of metropolitan Sao Paulo, or New York City, or Mexico City alone. They have achieved their dominance, therefore, by means of their solidarity and their mental powers and not by physical means such as open conquest.

• These means of dominance include deception (lies; publication of false news; propaganda inserted in literary and artistic works; creation of subversive cults, religions, and political movements; control of the academic and critical establishments; advertising), financial trickery (fraud; usury; fractional reserve banking; stock market manipulation; currency manipulation; and innumerable other swindles in which the White victims are usually unaware they are even being victimized while a huge percentage of their wealth is continuously transferred to Jews), and covert control of the political process (the use of their unearned wealth to corrupt politicians, legislatures, and judges and therefore guarantee that laws will be written, enforced, and interpreted in ways that favor Jewish interests).

• The Jewish power structure is, to put it bluntly, opposed to the continued existence of our race and is using its considerable power, on many fronts simultaneously, to exterminate us, mongrelize us, and generally replace us with more tractable and less intelligent races.

• White men and women who have become aware of the fact that the Jewish power structure is making war upon us, who understand that it is our main adversary and poses an immediate threat to our survival, an existential threat as great as any we have ever faced in history, are often hampered by their understandable emotional reactions — when cool, objective analysis is what is really required.

• Even more astounding than the mental qualities that facilitate Jewish manipulation of other peoples is their near-perfect solidarity, reminding us of the organization of social insects such as ants and bees. It is extremely difficult to find examples of Jews who have betrayed their race; in this quality Jews are very nearly the opposite of Whites, whose social organization and solidarity are relatively weak.

• These Jewish characteristics and behaviors are of long standing, and were known in Classical times, so theories that blame Jewish hostility and depredations on the conversion of some Khazars to Judaism in more recent times are clearly wrong, regardless of whether or not some Khazar genes entered the Jewish gene pool 1,300 years ago. (Usually, belief in the Khazar hypothesis is not based on any inherent merit in it, but instead on the fact that it allows the believer to continue to accept the Jewish bible as “holy,” to believe that the Jews are truly “God’s chosen people” as the “good book” says, and to believe that today’s manifestly evil and malevolent Jews are really Khazar impostors and not Jews at all. In other words, the Khazar hypothesis is a crutch to support an otherwise insupportable belief in Christianity.)

• The Jews’ hatred of non-Jews, and some of their techniques for subverting nations, are openly displayed in the Jews’ own writings, including the books that Christians call the “Old Testament.” The commands of Yahweh to massacre and enslave other peoples, and even sexually enslave their children, are clear; as are the descriptions of Jewish infiltration of and influence over the ruling class of other nations, and economic manipulations that left Jews wealthy and their host peoples impoverished. Expulsions of the Jews by angry Gentiles are also discussed in the Old Testament, though with less honesty.

• A race which exists by exploiting its hosts in this manner must have a mentality far different from our own and must see reality very differently than we do, despite the fact that through mixing and mimicry it somewhat resembles our own race. It is only reasonable to describe such a race as parasitic.

For more information on the parasite/host analogy to the Jewish Question, see my radio series “It’s All Biological,” part 1, part 2, part 3, and part 4, in which I state:

  Our race, the White race, evolved in the harsh environment — the forests, plains, mountains, and wide-open spaces — of Europe and environs over long ages, including centuries of intense cold in which intelligent planning was absolutely necessary to survive the winter. In the last few dozen thousands of years, we evolved in relatively fixed dwelling places that eventually came be called “countries,” attached to particular pieces of land, on a continent of very low population density in which the main enemies were the elements and other warlike tribes. High abstract intelligence and high-trust societies were prominent among the biological, evolutionary results. The primary skills of conflict were the martial virtues: One’s enemies were warring tribes who attacked openly, sword in hand.

  The Jews, on the other hand, are a largely Semitic and largely nomadic hybrid race of much more recent appearance that emerged in the relatively heavily populated, multiracial, multicultural, and polyglot Middle East, where the climate was much milder and the main problem — for the Jews, at least — was surviving and prospering as a small, stateless group in territories ruled by others. High verbal intelligence and a concealed dual moral code — one for dealing with fellow Jews, another for dealing with the non-Jews in whose societies they lived — were the prominent biological, evolutionary results. Their primary skills of conflict were negotiation, diplomacy, pretense, duplicity, mimicry, and “reading” the psychology of their enemies — who were very seldom sword-wielding invading armies, but rather were the omnipresent non-Jewish peasants and warriors and priests and tradesmen and rulers among whom they lived — and off of whom they fed.

  The European race evolved into a mode of life that involved living off the land, as did many other races and peoples. The Jews, on the other hand, evolved into a mode of life that involved living off those who lived off the land.

  There is a name for the relationship between Jews and people like us. That name is parasitism. . . .

  I believe that our European nomadic instinct, to the extent that we still have one, has evolved into what Dr. William Pierce called the Faustian urge: the urge to find new lands (and also new frontiers of knowledge), to always seek out the distant horizon, to explore and discover unknown territory, to escape the old and the ossified and restrictive, and found new nations — preferably where no man has set foot before.

  How different the behavior of the Jews! They founded no nations — despite the largely mythical “land of Israel” stories in their Torah — and their endless wanderings are never into new frontiers, where unknown fields and forests and mountains beckon. No indeed! What beckons to the wandering Jews is a group of fresh victims, not yet wise to the ways of the parasite.

• Jews seem to have an instinct for discovering and exacerbating any and all rivalries, disputes, real or alleged injustices, and class divisions in their host societies, magnifying them to the point of utter disunity and even civil war, which process naturally increases the relative power and dominance of Jews.

One of the best expositions on the Jewish mentality is Andrew Hamilton’s “Empathy Without Sympathy,” in which the author states:

  Jews have many unique psychological characteristics that render them radically unlike non-Jews. One quality Jews possess in one-on-one situations, and even group situations, is a keen sensitivity to the subtleties, nuances, desires, thoughts, and emotions of non-Jews. They can size up people of all races and interact with them extremely well. This is no doubt one reason for their prominent role as mediators and go-betweens.

  When they desire to do so, Jews deal with all kinds of people, high and low, rich and poor, of every race, even the prickliest and most difficult personalities, with diplomacy, delicacy, and tact, patiently subordinating and concealing their own thoughts and feelings in the process.

• The German National Socialists temporarily threw off Jewish domination and established a government free of Jewish supervision between 1933 and 1945, an event which apparently frightened and shocked the Jewish leadership and caused them to change their strategy from one of merely exploiting and ruling Whites to one of actively working for our extermination.

• There is no doubt that Christianity was originally created by and for Jews, and it was Jews who made the decision to open certain early Christian sects to non-Jews — sects that eventually came to dominate European civilization. Christianity teaches Whites that God is Jewish and that Jews are an especially “holy” people, thus sundering Whites from their own spiritual heritage and rendering them psychologically unable to fight against the Jews who are exploiting, ruining, and exterminating them.

14 Posted by How cucked can a Jesus cuck be? on Fri, 31 Jul 2020 05:46 | #

How cucked can a Jesus cuck be? Listen to this and try not to puke….

NPR 30 July 2020:

American Christianity Must Reckon With Legacy Of White Supremacy, Author Says

Growing up in Texas and Mississippi, author Robert P. Jones was a very active member of his Southern Baptist Convention church. Between youth group, Bible studies and prayer services, he spent about 6-7 hours each week at church or doing church related things.

But in all that time, he never really heard about the church’s history — including the fact that Southern Baptists split from the North around 1844 because the Northern Baptists opposed slavery.

“I was 20 years old before I got a hint of that history … and even had the possibility of beginning to think about what the implications of that were,” Jones says.

In his new book, White Too Long, Jones examines the legacy of white supremacy among Southern Baptists and other Christian denominations.

Jones says the Southern Baptist Convention tends to focus on each individual’s interior relationship with God — and “essentially screens out questions of social justice.”

“I cannot remember a single sermon calling attention to racial inequality, racial injustice [or] the struggle for civil rights,” he says.

As the U.S. begins to grapple more seriously with issues of racism and white supremacy, Jones says the time has come for churches to be more in vocal about social justice.

“There’s so much work still to be done,” he says. “White Christians have been largely silent … and have hardly begun these conversations.”

…

I admit that it is a precarious segue to this next article, but the connections are there, nevertheless. First of all, It is one of the cases where I’d mentioned that the Golden Rule was a big problem and needed to be replaced by the Silver Rule; secondly, it is highly relevant as it bears upon the Christian, Jewish, Muslim and liberal bastard children organizations that are sponsoring hyperbolic non-White immigration into the nations of White people. Lastly, it is this is a good place to keep Ann Corcoran’s Refugee Resettlement Watch work alive as she has been chased off the internet, last I heard.

Say MORATORIUM! You Can! 10 Reasons. Appeal to R. Goode & Doing Good for Doing Good: The Golden Rule

Refugee Resettlement Watch’s 10 Reasons For Moratorium. Appeal To Rep. Goode & Doing good for Doing good – The Golden Rule.

I add “the golden rule” to the title sarcastically – not only to chide those lining their pockets in the name of Christian altruism. This rule that has been passed onto European moral orders altogether disingenuously, from Judaic prescription to Gentiles (Jews do NOT abide by the golden rule), has been as catastrophic as any imbibed of Jewish chimera. This edict from “the sermon on the mount” is completely illogical and self destructive. There is a key distinction that needs to drawn by contrast, which is logical – morally and otherwise: the silver rule.

Now that Ann Corcoron is taking a break from the excellent work that she’s been putting out, it’s time for MR dnanations to pick up some of the slack and forefront her efforts. MR dnanations has an added benefit (from our POV) of being able to expound from a distinctly pro-White/Native European, secular perspective.

Noticing the style of the “moratorium” logo and its coincidence with an appeal to Virgil Goode, I couldn’t help but find it reminiscent of Dietrich’s VoR design..

…and also that Virgil Goode represented a unique experience for me, to actually be talking with a Congressman as I produced the Stark interview with him. Congressman Goode stayed available on my Google chat and otherwise in communique with me for several months afterwards. That was funny for me, in a good way. Though it should be normal, how many Congressmen speak openly with our kind? It speaks well of him. Ann Corcoran has placed her appeal in the right direction. Here is the post of the Stark Interview –

VoR, The Stark Truth: Interview with Virgil Goode,  25 April 2012:


Rep. Virgil Goode

Robert interviews Virgil Goode. Topics include:

  • The Constitution Party;
  • The need for reduction in immigration both legal and illegal;
  • National sovereignty, NAFTA, and the North American Union;
  • Foreign policy and the Iraq war;
  • Energy independence.

Virgil Goode is the presidential nominee for the Constitution Party. He represented Virginia’s 5th Congressional District as a Republic from 1997-2009. He previously served in the Virginia State Senate as a Democrat.

Refugee Resettlement Watch, ‘Re-post: Ten reasons there should be a moratorium on refugee resettlement’, 5 December 2015:

Posted by Ann Corcoran

Now that the mainstream media and the public are waking up to the UN/US State Department Refugee Admissions Program and how it has been operating for the last 35 years, I thought it would be a good idea to re-post this testimony I gave to the US State Department (first in 2012 at its annual scoping meeting and repeated in 2013 and 2014).

Anne Richard is the Asst. Secretary of State for Population Refugees and Migration. Here she testified last month at a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Syrian refugees. She needs to produce the hearing record for the 2015 ‘scoping meeting’ which we believe was held in secrecy. Photo and story about Judiciary hearing: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/19/state-dept-official-syrian-refugees-less-threat-stops-tracking-3-months/

I just mentioned it in my previous post on annual reports.

As far as we can tell, the US State Department did not hold a public scoping hearing in 2015 (for FY2016) because we never saw a notice for it this year. In these ‘scoping meetings/hearings’ they ostensibly seek public input on the size of the program for the upcoming year and they want to know what countries should be the focus of protection.

The ‘scoping’ meeting (like a hearing) was usually held in late spring/early summer of the preceding year. Prior to our attendance in 2012, these meetings/hearings were dominated by the resettlement contractors and their groupies.

One more thing, the State Department does not keep and publish a hearing record for this meeting. The only way we could ever learn what others were saying is to obtain the hard copy testimony by attending in person! There ought to be a law!

Here is my testimony in 2012 (repeated in 2013 and 2014):

Ten Reasons there should be no refugees resettled in the US in FY2013—instead a moratorium should be put in place until the program is reformed and the economy completely recovers.

1)  There are no jobs. The program was never meant to be simply a way to import impoverished people to the US and place them on an already overtaxed welfare system.

2)    The program has become a cash cow for various “religious” organizations and other contractors who very often appear to care more about the next group of refugees coming in (and the cash that comes with each one) than the group they resettled only a few months earlier. Stories of refugees suffering throughout the US are rampant.

3)  Terrorist organizations (mostly Islamic) are using the program that still clearly has many failings in the security screening system.  Indeed consideration should be given to halting the resettlement of Muslims altogether.  Also, the UN should have no role in choosing refugees for the US.

4)  The public is not confident that screenings for potential terrorists (#3) or the incidences of other types of fraudulent entry are being properly and thoroughly investigated and stopped.  When fraud is uncovered—either fraud to enter the country or illegal activity once the refugee has been resettled—punishment should be immediate deportation.

5)    The agencies, specifically the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), is in complete disarray as regards its legally mandated requirement to report to Congress every year on how refugees are doing and where the millions of tax dollars are going that run the program.  The last (and most recent) annual report to be sent to Congress is the 2008 report—so they are out of compliance for fiscal years 2009, 2010 and 2011.  A moratorium is necessary in order for the ORR to bring its records entirely up-to-date. Additionally,  there needs to be an adequate tracking system designed to gather required data—frankly some of the numbers reported for such measures of dependence on welfare as food stamp usage, cash assistance and employment status are nothing more than guesses.  (The lack of reports for recent years signals either bureaucratic incompetence and disregard for the law, or, causes one to wonder if there is something ORR is hiding.)

6)  The State Department and the ORR have so far failed to adequately determine and report (and track once the refugee has been admitted) the myriad communicable and costly-to-treat diseases entering the country with the refugee population.

7)  Congress needs to specifically disallow the use of the refugee program for other purposes of the US Government,especially using certain refugee populations to address unrelated foreign policy objectives—Uzbeks, Kosovars, Meshketians and Bhutanese (Nepalese) people come to mind.

8)  Congress needs to investigate and specifically disallow any connection between this program and big businesseslooking for cheap and captive labor.  The federal government should not be acting as head-hunter for corporations.

9)    The Volag system should be completely abolished and the program should be run by state agencies with accountability to the public through their state legislatures. The system as presently constituted is surely unconstitutional.  (One of many benefits of turning the program over to a state agency is to break up the government/contractor revolving door that is being demonstrated now at both the State Department and ORR.)  The participating state agency’s job would be to find groups, churches, or individuals who would sponsor a refugee family completely for at least a year and monitor those sponsors. Their job would include making sure refugees are assimilating. A mechanism should be established that would allow a refugee to go home if he or she is unhappy or simply can’t make it in America. Short of a complete halt to resettlement-by-contractor, taxpayers should be protected by legally requiring financial audits of contractors and subcontractors on an annual basis.

10)  As part of #9, there needs to be established a process for alerting communities to the impending arrival of refugees that includes reports from the federal government (with local input) about the social and economic impact a certain new group of refugees will have on a city or town.  This report would be presented to the public through public hearings and the local government would have an opportunity to say ‘no.’

For these reasons and more, the Refugee admissions program should be placed on hold and a serious effort made by Congress to either scrap the whole thing or reform it during the moratorium.  My recommendation for 2013 is to stop the program now.  The Office of the President could indeed ask for hearings to review the Refugee Resettlement Act of 1980-–three decades is time enough to see its failings and determine if reauthorization is feasible or whether a whole new law needs to be written.

Information on the three hearings we wrote about and attended are archived here, here and here.  (Those files include posts in which we referenced the hearings/meetings as well.)

By the way, Richard revolved into the State Department from her contractor job at the International Rescue Committee. She had a previous stint at the State Dept.  The revolving door is alive and well between contractor and federal agency involving refugee resettlement.

Come on, you can do it! Say “MORATORIUM”, 5 Dec 2015:

Posted by Ann Corcoran

She could not be “vetted.”

Where are you Virgil Goode?

Did you see that even the NY Times wrote about the female Islamic terrorist, how there was no way to “vet” her or to “screen” her as she came to live among us. Any logical person can see that. There was no d*** data, no biographic or biometric information to tap! And, if asked about any terror connections in personal interviews she certainly didn’t tell the truth.

So, don’t you wonder why only TEN US Senators can see that and that 89 others are so willfully blind. See our post on Senator Paul’s failed attempt at a moratorium on issuing visas to those coming from jihad-producing countries.

And, here see Daniel Greenfield on the killers yesterday.  If you read nothing else from Greenfield’s post, this is the line every one must grasp:

It’s a matter of simple math that as the population most likely to commit terrorist acts increases, so do the acts themselves.

I went back to our archives to see when I first heard anyone suggest a MORATORIUM on Muslim immigration and want to give a shout-out to former Virginia Congressman Virgil Goode who saw the San Bernardino slaughter coming 9 years ago!  Learn about how the politically correct harpies at the Washington Post treated him then.  His position, in support of a moratorium on legal (Muslim) immigration to America cost him his seat. We told you more about him here in 2010.

Political correctness is dead! Everyone of you must start saying the ‘M’ word!  MORATORIUM!  Moratorium on Muslim migration to America, NOW!

Thank you Mr. Goode!  Goode is a Trump supporter in Virginia today!

Rep. Virgil Goode

See more to the story below.

Jesus He Knows Me

…and…

Refugee Resettlement Watch, ‘Lutheran Social Service of Minnesota is responsible for the Somali chaos in St. Cloud’, Posted by Ann Corcoran on March 26, 2015:

If you are angry (about the tension in St. Cloud) and want one entity to blame, it is Lutheran Social Service of Minnesota, the primary federal refugee resettlement agency working in St. Cloud!

That supposedly ‘Christian’ charitable organization is directly responsible for the high Somali numbers in St. Cloud, and they are jointly responsible for bringing over ten thousand Somalis from around the world to colonize Minnesota towns in the last ten years alone—Catholic Charities and World Relief MN (now Arrive Ministries)*** helped also.  Of course they have brought many more than 10,000 in over two decades and not just Somali Muslims!

Rumor has it that 1,500 new Somalis are going to be resettled by the Lutherans in St. Cloud this year.  (This is part of former Rep. Michele Bachmann’s district!)

Evangelical Michele Bachmann

Doing well by doing good? Jodi Harpstead is making over $300,000 a year to seed St. Cloud and other Minnesota towns with Somali Muslims.

These three ‘Christian’ phony non-profits (phony Christians!) could stop the US State Department’s further seeding of the state if they just said NO!  We won’t resettle any more Muslim ‘refugees.’  But they don’t!  Why?

Why? Because it is big business (as we learned from Lutherans in New England)!  They dare not challenge their sugar daddy—the federal government!  And, they must be afraid of the growing power of the Islamists and the Islamist front group—Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR)—which they are responsible for unleashing on the city of St. Cloud.
So how much money does it take to buy the Lutherans?

Back in 2013 we told you that then Minnesota Lutheran CEO, Mark Peterson, was pulling down a salary of $441,767.

We went to a recent audit linked on their website and here are some numbers we found (audit ending September 30, 2014):

They had total revenue of $103,135,439 and received $91,887,312 from GOVERNMENT FEES AND GRANTS.  (Go here and click on ‘financials’ to see for yourself).
That makes them 89% government funded!  That is a government agency not a charity, and surely not a ‘Christian’ charity!

The progressive ‘religious Left’ is living off of the US taxpayer!

Doing well by doing good?

Salaries and payroll accounted for $57,929,172 of your money—your tax dollars for that one year!

Jodi doesn’t pull down a salary as high as Peterson (LOL! War on women?) her predecessor did, but it is fairly substantial none-the-less as we learned from a recent Form 990.  She was compensated with $280,812 and an additional $42,495 came from related organizations (whatever that is!).

Her second in command, Kenneth Borle, made $202,087 and $33,192 (from related organizations).

They have 8 other employees making over six-figure salaries!

Go here for the others in leadership at Lutheran Social Service of Minnesota responsible for building the aggressive and demanding Muslim population of the state.
And if you are looking for more people to blame for what is happening to Minnesota, here is the Board of Directors (do you know any of them?):
Board of Directors

Greg Vandal, Chair
Nancy Rystrom, Vice Chair
Cathy Norelius, Secretary
Sue Haffield, Treasurer *
Bishop Thomas Aitken
Dan Anderson
Mike Anderson
Rev. Dr. Eric Barreto
Ann Beatty
Dr. Paul Dovre
Jon Evert
Nicole Griensewic Mickelson
Rev. John Hogenson
Rev. Dr. Rolf Jacobson
Jen Julsrud
John Mattes
Artie Miller
Joanne Negstad
Joan Wandke Nelson
Rev. Mark Skinner
Bishop Ann Svennungsen
Rev. Mari Thorkelson
Lori Wall

The main office of Lutheran Social Service of Minnesota is here (below).  It is time to let them know how you feel, to put the pressure on the organization directly responsible for disrupting St. Cloud.
Good Lutherans especially need to speak up!

Lutheran Social Service of Minnesota
2485 Como Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55108
651.642.5990
800.582.5260

And, according to the US State Department’s handy list of contractors the St. Cloud Lutheran resettlement agency office is here:

LIRS
MN-LIRS-08: Lutheran Social Services Of Minnesota
Address:
22 Wilson Avenue Suite 110
St. Cloud, MN 56302
Phone:
320-251-7700
One more thing!  Tell Rep. Trey Gowdy what he has in store for his community if a refugee resettlement site is established in Spartanburg, SC.

See our complete archive on St. Cloud here.  And, click here, for an enormous archive on Minnesota.  See especially our earliest post (2011), and one of our top posts of all time, when we first learned of the three ‘Christian’ groups swamping Minnesota with Somalis at the behest of the US State Department.

*** An indicator that the heat is on some of these phony Christian organizations is that they are changing their names.  Note that World Relief Minnesota is now Arrive Ministries and Lutheran Social Services of New England is now Ascentria Care Alliance.

Issues of Christianity aside..

Here is Ann Corcoron’s excellent outline of her inquiry into the governmental processes involved.

Ann Corcoran

I wanted to know what was the governmental process that allowed the resettlement of refugees?

Who gave permission?

I have learned about a Federal program that is 35 years old this year – The United Nations High Commissioner For Refugees
has been choosing most of our refugees.

It is under the influence of a powerful Muslim supremacist group called “The Organization of Islamic Cooperation.”

Not surprisingly, a large number of U.S. bound refugees are coming from countries with large numbers of people who hate us: including Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq and soon from Syria, just to name a few.

The U.S. State Department then distributes the refugees to 9 major Federal contractors – six of which are so-called religious charities, but – all are largely funded from The U.S. Treasury:

Church World Services (CWS)

Ethiopian Community Development Council

Episcopal Migration Ministries (EMM)

Hebrew Immigration Aid Society (HIAS)

International Rescue Committee (IRC)

US Committee for Refugees & Immigrants (USCRI)

Lutheran Immigration & Refugee Services (LIRS)

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)

World Relief Corporation (WR)

They are not passing the plate on Sundays for the one billion dollar price tag for the resettlement. And that figure does not include the extensive welfare benefits that refugees receive.

The refugees are then sent to over 190 cities and towns in the US where the 9 major contractors support 350 subcontractors.

The refugees receive help from the subcontractors for up to six months; and the subcontractor then submits paper-work to admit the relatives of the first group.

Many [Muslims] are forming cities within cities, where mosques are being built to consolidate, train and promote the Islamic supremacist doctrine called “Sharia.”

This process of Muslim colonization is called “The Hijra.”

Muhammad told his followers to migrate and spread Islam in order to dominate all the lands of the world.

He said that they were obliged to do so.

And that is exactly what they are doing now with the help and support of

The UN, The US State Department and the Christian and Jewish groups assigned to seed them throughout the country.

Your tax dollars pay for it all.

We only need to look to a troubled Europe to see the path ahead for America if we can’t stop this migration and stop it soon.

There is no reason on earth that we should have brought over 100,000 Somalis, and another 100,000 Iraqi Muslims to America…

Soon we will be resettling Syrian Muslims in large numbers..

The FBI told Congress recently that they cannot be properly screened.

If you don’t help counter the Hijra, we are, in my opinion, doomed.

Over time this migration will be more devastating to your children and grandchildren and to our country than..

More devastating than any terrorist attack could ever be.

Comments:

1 Posted by Reeve$ & Berger on Sat, 19 Dec 2015 12:36 | #

 

“Unbound Philanthropy’ exposed as big donor behind open borders movement/refugee resettlement/Trump protests”, 10 Dec 2015:

Thanks to Ed for sending this great investigative piece by Lee Stranahan at Breitbart on Unbound Philanthropy and its big kahuna William Reeves (and wifey Debbie Berger).

We wrote about Reeves in 2011


Bill-Reeves

Know the enemy! Bill Reeves is bringing in the third world to colonize your towns, change our culture and make sure fewer low-skilled American citizens have jobs. http://www.thelearningcoalition.org/about-the-learning-coalition/our-founders/

I’m posting in full my post from February 2011.  I was most interested in the connection between Unbound Philanthropy’s role in helping create that damn Shelbyville, TN propaganda film that was used by the US State Department and others to promote more Somali migration to America.


Update: Reeves and Bergers ‘house’ in Hawaii, thanks to Ed!  How many refugees could be housed here?

We have come a long way in the last four years in understanding the massive money machine we are up against.

You will recognize the Migration Policy Institute (in Stranahan’s piece and mine) as one of the groups putting on that Georgetown gig, Jim Simpson and I attended here in October.
Unbound Philanthropy is also one of the organizers and funders of that big Open Borders pow-wow starting Sunday in New York, here.  They will have a whole session on exposing the likes of us!

Here is what I said in 2011 in a post entitled:
Unbound Philanthropy: an example of what we are up against…

…..and why the average American trying to maintain our culture and country through immigration control has a hard time fighting the battle.  The other side is rich and connected to big business (offshore money too!).

Yesterday as I searched for more information on the Migration Policy Institute, an organization that pretends to be a balanced nonpartisan think tank which just this week put out a report that goes after Sheriff’s in some counties overseeing the 287g program,  I came upon Unbound Philanthropy.  It is one of those private foundations used by the super wealthy to channel their excess funds (avoiding taxes by so doing) to pet charities and political projects.

In this case the rich guy is William Reeves of Hawaii:

William Reeves is a director and co-founder of BlueCrest Capital Management Ltd. Based in London, BlueCrest manages investments for a predominantly institutional investor base across 15 diverse funds. Until April 2000, when he left to establish BlueCrest, Mr. Reeves was a Managing Director at J.P. Morgan in London and head of macro strategy and trading within the proprietary trading group. Prior to that, Mr. Reeves was a fund manager at Salomon Brothers Asset Management Limited and at Fisher Francis Trees and Watts, with responsibility for managing leveraged capital. He has also worked for JP Morgan New York where, from 1991 to 1993, he was a Vice President in charge of a team managing the company’s leveraged multi-currency proprietary investment portfolio. Mr. Reeves is a US Trustee of the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation. He holds an MA in Philosophy from New York University and a BA in English from Yale University. Mr. Reeves was born in Honolulu and raised in Richmond, Virginia where his parents were both educators.

Check out Unbound Philanthropy’s most recent Form 990.  This is a private foundation with a net worth approaching $100 million (note offshore accounts).  In 2008 Mr. Reeves donated $2,619,583 to the foundation (probably reducing his tax liability) to his mostly political projects.  He passed most of that money through this foundation to a list of projects that include (among others):

The Tides Center (money scrubber supreme):  $250,000

Southern Poverty Law Center:  $150,000

American Immigration Law Foundation: $150,000

Center for American Progress (LOL! Pushing back against Hate Project):  $46,000; and it looks like..

..the big winner is the International Rescue Committee*** with three grants:  $150,000, $200,000, and $212,000


Debbie-Berger

Reeves’ wife Debbie Berger. http://www.thelearningcoalition.org/about-the-learning-coalition/our-founders/

On their website they brag about many more recent grants, including my favorite:

Mr. Reeves gave $85,000 in 2010 to Active Voice a San Francisco social change advocacy group to promote that damn propaganda film on Shelbyville, TN.

Also in 2010 he passed $500,000 through the Tides Foundation.  In 2009 he gave $150,000 to Media Matters (George Soros) and $240,000 to the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition (ahhhhh!).  And, this is how I found Unbound Philanthropy in the first place, they (rich Mr. Reeves) gave the Migration Policy Institute $95,000 to study amnesty for “undocumented youth and women.”

It’s all legal of course, but the next time you hear whining from the pro-migration forces that this is all about the poor and the downtrodden, remember it isn’t.  It is about politics, about new immigrants as Democratic voters, and it’s about cheap labor for big business (like the meatpackers) and nannies and gardeners for rich people.

Just a reminder that David North of the Center for Immigration Studies summed it up well when he attended a recent meeting of the Migration Policy Institute:

It’s useful to note that the pro-migration advocates, though allied with each other, come in three different groupings. There are the employers, who want lower wages; ethnic organizations who say, in effect, “Let My People In”; and then there are the intellectuals [ed: read Marxists!], represented Thursday at a session of the foundation-supported Migration Policy Institute.

So our side (the immigration control side) is up against the big money and the hard left political machine using the average do-gooders and immigrants as their foils.

A final question for Mr. Reeves:  If you are so interested in promoting social change (aka the redistribution of wealth), why not redistribute all your holdings now directly to the refugees and other poor immigrants being dropped off in our cities and towns by the US State Department and their federal contractors. If the social justice Marxist one-worlders you are supporting win the political war in the US, they will be taking it from you or your heirs anyway.

Go here to the link for the Reeves’ Hawaiian home. lol

Posted by Quaker Jasmine Taeb on Sat, 19 Dec 2015 13:27 | # 2

RRW, ‘With Friends like these! Quakers are pushing for more Muslim migration to America too!’ 6 Dec 2015:

              
Jasmine Taeb, lobbyist for Quakers and their push for more Syrian Muslim migration to America.
See twitter here: https://twitter.com/yasminetaeb

Actually, the Quakers were always like that. …

Posted by Homeland: ISIS tried to infiltrate migrants on Sat, 19 Dec 2015 13:35 | # 3

RRW, ‘Homeland Security Committee Chairman McCaul: ISIS has tried to infiltrate refugee stream to US’ 8 Dec 2015

Posted by Marxist coffee on Sun, 20 Dec 2015 15:44 | #

Robert Stark has some dubious guests, but he also locates some who are quirky in a good way.

Charles Lincoln is one of them.

Some highlights from Charles:

1) How Marxist can you be when you’re drinking a five dollar coffee? (in regard to Starbucks boast of using “fair-trade” coffee).

2) I don’t want to be too descriptive, so I’ll call you Lindsay (to distinguish Robert Lindsay from Stark, when he joined the conversation)

3) Criticism of President Raisin…

..signed the first big amnesty, which effectively transformed parts of Texas and California into Mexico; as well as starting trends of..

Building on credit and speculation..

…the runaway economics, predatory loans, rampant and reckless housing development and immigration that ensued from his policies..

4) Charles Lincoln’s opera singing ..

Posted by Pro-immigration priest pockets 467K on Mon, 21 Dec 2015 15:43 | # 5

Pro migration padre pocketed $467,343.35

DAILYKENN.com—A bishop who advocated the migration of Muslim “refugees” was found to have misappropriated €430,000 ($467,343.35).

Bishop Domenico Mogavero of Sicily was a rabid critic of the so-called far right, a derogatory term used by the predatory left to marginalize patriots as fringe elements.

Breitbart.com reported:

  Some of the money is alleged to have been given to another priest who was suspended and jailed in 2011 for sexually assaulting another man, begging the question whether the corruption in the case may go deeper than merely fiscal.

The crime was reported Dec. 18, 2015.

Original article:

Breitbart, ‘Progressive Bishop Who Welcomed Migrants To Italy ‘Embezzled €180,000’ 20 Dec 2015:

An enthusiastically pro-mass migration progressive bishop has been questioned by police over his use of church funds after €430,000 were found to have been misappropriated.

Bishop Domenico Mogavero was questioned by Italian financial police on Thursday this week after he was found to have some €180,000 resting in his personal account. The former diocesan economist Father Franco Caruso is also under investigation, having allegedly spent a further €250,000 of church money.

Some of the money is alleged to have been given to another priest who was suspended and jailed in 2011 for sexually assaulting another man, begging the question whether the corruption in the case may go deeper than merely fiscal.

The Sicilian bishop involved is responsible for the diocese of Mazara del Vallo and has been active in welcoming migrants to the area. He is also a long standing critic of right-wing politics in the country, and was outspoken against the former right-wing government of Silvio Berlusconi, reports TheLocal.it.

Yet all is not as it seems, claims the bishop’s lawyer. Speaking to press, Stefano Pellegrino said his client had reported himself to the police when he realised the “irregular activity”.

Bishop Mogavero is not the only member of the Sicilian clergy who have found themselves in hot water over their extra curricular activities. Progressive, European Union-funded priest Monsignor Don Sergio Librizzi was known for taking a special interest in the welfare of young migrant boys in his community, until it was revealed he was trading sex with them for residency permits.

 The cathedral alter in Mazara del Vallo is one of the most impressive to be seen.

Mazara del Vallo

There has been considerable discussion on the matter of the Vatican as a tax immune city unto itself; rife and perfect for mafia money laundering and other nefarious deals with rogues and rogue agencies in corrupt governments..

Here are a few documentaries discussing these issues, though I will not vouch for their objectivity..

Bank of God

Inside the vaults of The Vatican bank

Posted by churches without walls on Mon, 21 Dec 2015 17:29 | # 6

Paula White

$80,000 for a couple sermons

Posted by Robert Tilton’s revelation on Mon, 21 Dec 2015 17:48 | # 7

Robert Tilton’s revelation

We have teenagers who have hardly nothing going for them…

….but have enough faith to make a $1,000 vow…

…because they don’t have that old programming of religion…

Well, you say, we don’t do it that way in my church.

Forget your church!!!

I’m taking about what God said! 

I’m taking about what God said!!! 

..and If you want the kind of miracles that are in the bible..

You are going to have to do what God tells you to do!

You may laugh, but…

He is said to have taken in more money than

The income of Madonna and Michael Jackson combined.


In some years, it was said to have been 80 million dollars, tax free.

Posted by Tilton’s 2nd wife: Mothers for Israel on Tue, 22 Dec 2015 20:55 | # 8

Robert Tilton’s second wife – divorced as well, but what kind of woman would marry him in the first place? A psychopathically dishonest and greedy one, perhaps.  Anyhow, she has started a foundation: Mothers Supporting Israel

Leigh (Valentine) Tilton, in days of marriage and divorce from the televangelist:

Hi, my name is Leigh Valentine and I am here today to welcome you to Mothers-Supporting-Israel.

I started this foundation as a way to reach-out to women of all walks of life, all around the world: mothers, daughters, granddaughters …pastors!

I ask you to rise up and stand with me in this hour for the state of Israel and for god’s people all over the world.

You know right now, in Israel, there’s over 6 million Jewish people that live there. And

I have made a vow to spend the rest of my life fighting for the peace of Israel and fighting for the will of god to be done in that nation. Because

As we know, these are perilous times.

We don’t need to look all around and read the newspapers and see the news to not know that the liberals, what I call the liberal media…

Those that deny the very existence of god’s people in Israel, they want to tear down that nation.

They want to see that it does not exist even on the maps.

They want to say that they have no right to that land.

But when I read the scriptures that go way back to the god of Abraham, the god of Isaac and the god of Jacob…

That land, that real estate, is owned by the Jewish people; and

It always has been and it always will be; and they own the deed to that property.

So I’m asking you to be that watchman on the wall.

I am sending-out a massive prayer alert to everyone I know to stand with god’s people; and to pray.

As yo visit my website, motherssupportingisrael.com, you are going to see some very graphic video.

You are going to see what’s really taking place in the nations that surround that little nation of Israel.

They have turned their backs on god; and they have rejected truth; and they have rejected the nation of Israel; but

God says that he will fight for that nation and he will fight for those people.

As you watch those videos and as you see the latest news clips that will come into Mothers Supporting Israel..

This is a chance for you to pray, because it says in god’s word – In the Old Testament:

That if we pray for the peace of Jerusalem that we will prosper! That we will receive a blessing.

That the favor of almighty god will come on us..

If we will pray and we will stand and we will support with our financial gifts also…

For the nation of Israel and for god’s people.

There is a scripture that god gave me that Mothers Supporting Israel is founded on.

It says in Isaiah 62:6, “I have set watchmen upon your walls oh Jerusalem.”

As Mothers Supporting Israel, we are those watchmen.

It says that you will, “we will never hold our peace day and night and we are his servants.

By your prayers, we will put the lord in remembrance.”

By our prayers we are putting the lord in remembrance that we are standing with the Jewish people –

Those are god’s people.

It’s in my blood to stand with them. I’ve got the Jewish blood in me and I’m standing with God’s people.

How about you?

Mothers Supporting Israel is an organization for Christians and its an organization for the Jewish people.

United we stand but divided we fall.

It says right there that we are going to put the lord in remembrance of his promises…

That in the last days, he will deliver that nation called Israel.

It says, “and give him no rest until he establishes Jerusalem and makes her appraised in the earth.”

And the lord has sworn by his right hand and by his mighty arm,

Surely I will not again give your grains as food to your enemies,

And the invading sons of the aliens shall not drink your new wine for which you have toiled.

But they who have gathered it, shall eat it and praise the lord.

And we know that when Israel was established as a nation in 1948, just a few years ago…

That God took that land that was barren, that was a desert, that nothing could grow on..

And he $prinkled it with power from heaven and he rained upon it

Now it grows some of the most beautiful flowers and vegetation that is sent all over Europe and all over the world.

It has produced more beautiful things out of that desert than any other little nation.

It has prospered. That desert has flowed with milk and honey.

We know that in these last days, God is going to protect that nation.

I don’t care how dark it looks, I don’t care what Syria says, or Egypt says, or Turkey says, or Iran says.

We are not going to be afraid. We are going to be courageous.

We are not bowing-under for fear of a nuclear warhead or a nuclear bomb or

A terrorist act against our offices or our plane or our car or our children.

We will have no fear. We are going to be that watchman on the wall.

We are going to stand up for Israel.

Listen, my friends that live in Southern Israel, right there on the Southern border…

They live day and night in terror.

That is why at Mothers Supporting Israel, we are going to help build more bomb shelters…

For Shmo Bowman and operation life-shield; we are going to help build their shelters.

We’re going to help bring more blankets in to help holocaust survivors that don’t even have warmth.

That don’t even have food; that are hurting in some of these poorer sections of Israel.

We are going to pray but we are also going to send provision and supplies.

And we will not be stopped at Mothers Supporting Israel.

We are going to be a voice that cannot be stopped.

Because God will hear your prayer and he will hear my prayer.

And as we stand together, God’s favor will be on our lives and it will be on our families lives.

And on our children’s lives.

So, will you not stand with me today?

Will you not come to my website and say, yes, Leigh, I am standing with you.

And I will support you as you fight for the will of God in Israel.

Thank you so much for supporting Mothers Support Israel

I will pray for you and I will stand with you, for Israel’s sake, for Zionism’s sake..

We will not be stopped and we will not be quiet.

God bless you. I love you.

 Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 24 Dec 2015 10:05 | # 9

An idiotic Swedish bishop has decided to turn her church into a mosque. For fuck’s sake why on Earth does anyone think the Voodoo of Christianity is of any use to Europeans?

https://youtu.be/jkfRkR1Pqag

10 Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 24 Dec 2015 15:56 | # 10

I think you’ve already crossed the line to being fucked when you allow women to be clergy.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 24 Dec 2015 23:50 | # 11

True, very true. Priests are bad enough let alone idiotic women being promoted to spread the idiocy of liberal suicide.

12 Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Fri, 25 Dec 2015 03:21 | # 12

Female clergy never had a negative effect on the Shinto religion, and in fact it was founded by women. So I don’t think it is a matter of gender, it’s a matter of what the philosophical content of the religion is.

Christianity is going to be garbage no matter whether it’s men or women in command positions.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 25 Dec 2015 12:22 | # 13

I agree on the question of gender.  A religion must be oriented in form (ie, esoteric and exoteric) and substance (ie, unity with the divine and perfectionment of the self) to accommodate the able to a whole cognitive experience in and of “the all”, and to bring those who may be not be so to a mature and complete state of human being, and the ethny with them. That is the function of authentic religion.  Its practise at all times in the history of Homo sapiens is demonstrated by the varying sublimity of the faith instinct which one encounters across the races.  Such an holistic enterprise must account for man and woman.  That is very obvious.  It is only the absurdly aggressive Abrahamic original, a desert tribe’s nationalism, which imposes the male authority of the one god on its votaries, and which imposition colours its two monotheistic offspring.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Sat, 26 Dec 2015 09:59 | # 14

It’s an interesting socio-political question as to the role of religion in a post-modern society. Personally I think the only genuine ‘transcendent’ project for 99% of us is to be found in family and national community (and the intra and inter-generational ‘moral economy’ those relationships embody).

One thing is certain ‘official’ Christianity is toxic to European survival.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 26 Dec 2015 10:53 | # 15

Strictly speaking, the role of religion at any time is unchanging, because the nexus of higher emotions which we call faith exists through the agency of fitness and not through some historically contingent social process.  However, one could ask how the pathologies in the postmodern era (I prefer “the pre-Globality”, not least because Daniel has a perfectly reasonable wish to reclaim “postmodern” from French-Jewish intellectualism) have spread to the body of formal religion.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 28 Dec 2015 10:49 | # 16

I agree people will always have an ‘ultimate concern’ – call that the religious impulse if you want to. However, I would suggest the default position in liberal societies is passive nihilism. Nothing really matters hence the ever expanding menu of perversity, oddball lifestyles etc., within the idiocracy. I think JG Ballard had the Zeitgeist of the times down in his literary work.

 Posted by Hot Somalis on Fri, 25 Mar 2016 19:45 | # 17

Is yours a hot Somali city?

And, just so you know (if you think more have arrived in your city than are shown here), these are only the top cities where Somalis were directly resettled by the contractors.  These numbers do not include ‘secondary migrants’ —refugees who were seeded elsewhere but moved to be with THEIR own kind of people.  Minnesota receives several thousand more Somalis each year who move there from the site of their original resettlement.

Posted by Lutheran Services in Michigan on Fri, 25 Mar 2016 19:59 | #

Refugee Resettlement Watch, “Michigan: Housing funny-business involving Lutheran Social Services”

Posted by Ann Corcoran on March 25, 2016

LSS Michigan

Over the years we have gotten whiffs of ‘strange doings’ going on between landlords and federal refugee resettlement contractors and this story from Battlecreek, MI gives us a tantalizing peek into how the ‘humanitarian’ Lutheran Social Services of Michigan operates.

All I know is that, please watch for housing problems in refugee overloaded cities.

You will see refugees placed in slums, apartments with more residents than local zoning allows, conflicts with neighbors, landlords waking up to what they got into and trying now to get out, cozy relations between refugee contractors and certain landlords, competition between American poor and disabled and refugees for limited housing, and the list goes on.  In fact, you will see even more competition this year as the contractors are expected to find places for the 85,000 refugees Obama has promised America.

Sam Beals LSSM

Sam Beals is the CEO of Lutheran Social Services Michigan. Since the article never names who the spokesperson is for LSSM in the housing dispute, the next best thing is to identify the head honcho. https://www.lssm.org/lssm/about-us/leadership

Here is the news from WWMT.com.  This is the kind of story some local Michigan activist, concerned with too many refugees coming to the state, should dig into.  I bet there is a lot more than is being said here!  Emphasis below is mine:

 

BATTLE CREEK, Mich. (NEWSCHANNEL 3) – Refugees and community organizers say more than 60 refugee families received notices that their apartment leases would not be renewed.

[….]

“At the time the letter was sent, the apartment complexes had received information which caused the complexes to believe that the families/residents who received the latter had too many residents occupying the apartment units,” wrote Campbell’s lawyer, David Zebell.


The article reports that the landlord changed his mind and refugees can stay, but here is more:

Ginger Dowdle, a Battle Creek community organizer said she first became aware of the notices when an middle-eastern refugee approached her with concerns.

She said Lutheran Social Services of Michigan, which helps organize and place the refugees, did not challenge the notices, but instead, told the refugees about an option to buy homes recently acquired by the landlord of River and River Oaks Apartments. [That is the same landlord with whom they are having problems now.—ed]

“I tried to make them [refugees] aware, that if this is happening to them now and there’s no reason for them to be evicted, I would be very careful getting involved with this land contract for a home,” she said. [By the way, one of the things resettlement contractors brag about is that refugees are buying homes, do they get special government funded deals?—ed]

Dowdle said that a representative from Lutheran Social Services of Michigan indicated that LSS told refugees they would have to move out in one year, something refugees say never happened.

A spokesperson for LSSM defended the organization’s response to the notices.

[….]

As for community organizer Ginger Dowdle, she is in the process of making sure all the refugees know about the reversal in policy, and their rights.

“I feel like this has been going on for quite some time,” she said, expressing disappointment with both apartment management and LSSM.

 

There is more here.

I wondered if LSSM was running out of housing and thus trying to move some previous ‘clients’ into homes so that they could be sure to have apartments in order to keep the flow of new paying clients coming into the city.

Has anyone asked LSSM for its FY2016 R & P Abstracts?  Go to the handy list of resettlement contractor offices around the country, find the one closest to you and ask for their FY2016 R & P Abstract.  The Abstract will tell you how many the refugee contractor thinks they can handle this year (from what countries) and what amenities your town is offering (which might be a surprise to you!).

Posted by Diversity means chasing down Arkansas on Thu, 26 May 2016 20:22 | # 19

The Ozark Mountains of Arkansas, U.S.A. are beautiful; and parts of it are among the remaining White havens of The Unites States. Not surprisingly, they are now being targeted. How does the saying go? “Diversity means chasing down the last White person.”
Refugee Resettlement Watch, “Catholic Charities eyeing Arkansas for new resettlement site”

Posted by Ann Corcoran on May 23, 2016

Not enough hours in the day to keep up anymore. The US State Department and its contractors are on a roll trying to set up new resettlement sites to accommodate Obama’s increased numbers especially the mostly Syrian Muslims on the way.

Frank Head (Catholic Charities) left, helped start a new group Canopy NWA for the purpose of creating a new refugee resettlement office in northwest Arkansas. http://www.arkansas-catholic.org/news/article/4641/Canopy-group-will-make-sure-refugees-are-covered

Here is news from the Northwest Arkansas Democrat Gazette:

Arkansas took in about 1 out of every 1 million refugees who sought shelter worldwide last year — 13 of the 14.5 million refugees accounted for by the United Nations.

A local group called Canopy NWA wants to raise that number despite a contentious atmosphere about the country’s obligation to alleviate what the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees has called a severely unfair burden on a few countries.

[….]

“We’re talking about one or two families a month,” Frank Head of Catholic Charities said at the group’s May 4 meeting. “People wouldn’t even notice if we didn’t talk about it.”  [I am sure they would like to get the refugee flow moving before people start talking about it!—ed]

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is one of the nine charitable organizations authorized to accept refugees into the country through agreements with the U.S. Department of State.

The group operates in Northwest Arkansas through Catholic Charities Immigration Services. Catholic Charities sent a representative to the May 4 meeting, held at the Good Shepherd Lutheran Church in Fayetteville. So did the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, another of the nine authorized groups.

Nina Zelic, director for refugee services for the Lutheran organization, told the dozen interested attendees her group is evaluating the region as a potential site for opening another chapter.

Harrison, Arkansas. Still White.

Posted by US took 500 just for landing in Malta on Thu, 09 Jun 2016 02:34 | # 20

RRW, “Insanity! US took 500 illegal aliens off Malta’s hands in one year”

Posted by Ann Corcoran on June 8, 2016:

This invasion of Europe story leads to the invasion of America!

The story makes me sick.  I have been writing about it for EIGHT years.  George Bush started it and of course Obama continued this abrogation of international refugee law.

Here is one of the earliest posts I wrote (from 2008) about Bush’s Ambassador to Malta who first broke the law!

Illegal aliens who arrive on Malta could hit the jackpot and get a ticket to America!

In just one recent year, 500 ILLEGAL aliens made their way from North Africa across the Mediterranean to the island nation of Malta. Then, to help Malta out, our US State Department said ‘presto-chango’ and these ECONOMIC migrants who had launched from lawless Libya and elsewhere in North Africa magically became refugees and they now live in your towns in America somewhere!  And, this has been going on for eight years!

Legitimate claims for asylum are supposed to be made in the first safe country where the LEGITIMATE refugee lands—in this case Malta (making them Europe’s problem).  Are we asking Europe to take some of our illegal alien Mexicans? Of course not!

 Posted by The right’s concern for black Americans on Thu, 29 Sep 2016 11:55 | # 21

RRW, “West Virginia: Is Catholic Charities bringing in foreign laborers for a poultry plant to compete with Americans?”

Posted by Ann Corcoran on September 26, 2016

Here are some of the facts as we know them:

West Virginia is a relatively new resettlement state which has received only 176 refugees in the last ten fiscal years.

However, in addition to Catholic Charities resettling refugees, Episcopal Migration Ministries wants to open a new office in Charleston.  Presently CC has three locations and one of those is in Moorefield, WV.

What else is in Moorefield? I’ll tell you! There is a Pilgrim’s Pride poultry plant located there.

Here are some things we know about Pilgrim’s Pride:

It is owned by the Brazilian meat giant—JBS (you may know them as Swift & Co.) headquartered in Greeley, CO.

And, now get this. The very same Labor Department, that I would normally be complaining about, says that in some locations in the US, Pilgrim’s Pride is DISCRIMINATING against African American job applicants, Caucasians and women!  They are choosing Hispanic laborers (and it would appear refugee laborers) over Americans!

Notice how the right continually prefers blacks over “Hispanics” – a language designation which frequently includes people who are White, mostly White but mixed with Amerindian and/or some kind of Amerindian that is benign as compared to blacks.

This is a matter that has to be re-assessed – “Oh, these patriotic black Americans who used to be so good to live with before the Jews ruined their families” – colossal Bullshit of the right.

On the contrary: You Mexicans cleanse blacks from your neighborhoods? The more power to you. Lets make a deal.

Posted by Somali refugee wins Rep in Minnesota on Sun, 13 Nov 2016 04:43 | # 22

        NPR, “Somali Refugee Makes History In U.S. Election”, 10 Nov 2016:

She can barely speak English.

Ilhan Omar, a Democratic candidate for state representative in Minnesota, gives an acceptance speech on election night in Minneapolis.

She’s a former refugee, a Muslim, a mom of three, and now the first Somali-American lawmaker in the United States.

“This really was a victory for that 8-year-old in that refugee camp,” Ilhan Omar, 34, said. “This was a victory for the young woman being forced into child marriage. This was a victory for every person that’s been told they have limits on their dreams.”

Omar is the youngest of seven children. She and her family fled from the Somali civil war and spent four years in a refugee camp in Kenya. When she came to the United States in 1995, she spoke only Somali. As her English improved, she began translating for her grandfather at political events in the Twin Cities. Today, the Minneapolis organizer is well-versed in business administration and politics.

“I think I bring the voice of young people,” Omar said. “I think I bring the voice of women in the East African community. I bring the voice of Muslims. I bring the voice of young mothers looking for opportunities.”

She won House District 60B in southeast Minneapolis with 80 percent of the vote. It wasn’t a surprise that Omar would win a Minnesota House seat in the reliably Democratic district: In the primary contest earlier, she beat a 22-term incumbent, and her Republican challenger suspended his campaign for family reasons. Allegations were raised during the campaign that she had illegally married her brother to commit immigration fraud; she denied the charge.

On Tuesday, as Ilhan Omar walked into a room filled with supporters, she was crushed with hugs and kisses from anyone who could touch her. For nearly 20 minutes, photographers tried desperately to capture Omar as she moved around the room in her white headscarf. When the music stopped and speakers gathered on stage, Omar sat down in the front row, beaming, next to her husband, Ahmed Hirsi. One of her children sat on her lap, and her two other kids stood by her.

“Minneapolis said no tonight, said no to hatred,” Habon Abdulle said. She’s the executive director of the Minneapolis group Women Organizing Women Network.

“Minneapolis said no to the narrative of making America hate again. Minneapolis tonight said yes to diversity. Minneapolis, and [the] 60B district particularly, you said Muslim women have space in the governing body of our state. Thank you.”

When Omar’s husband took the microphone, he got the crowd laughing when he started to describe strong, black, Muslim women.

“For those men — wooo! — let me tell you something,” Hirsi said. “When you see a strong, African, Muslim woman, don’t be afraid, no, you know what, appreciate that. That’s the model, that’s the new 2016, going into 2017.”

Omar and her children joined him on stage as the crowd started to chant, “Ilhan, Ilhan, Ilhan.”

She honored her grandfather first, thanking him for his many lessons, then her dad and finally her supporters.

“Our campaign has been about more than just uniting a district, more than winning back the House, more than making history,” Omar said. “Our campaign has been about shifting narratives, restoring hope and re-establishing access in our democracy.”

She told the crowd she would work on an agenda focused on justice and the common good, zero waste and renewable energy.

“And we will never stop fighting for a democracy that works for all of us, for a prosperous and equitable Minnesota that we will all be proud of,” she said. “I will never give up fighting for you, and I hope you will never give up fighting for me.”

Omar’s mentor and friend, Minneapolis City Council member Andrew Johnson, said he knew long ago that she would make history.

“I had no doubt that Ilhan would get here. The big question is: What’s the path an individual takes?” Johnson said. “And I just think she’s just naturally a great leader.”

Mohamed Omar Giama couldn’t agree more. The 90-year-old former Somali ambassador to the European Commission said he was overjoyed witnessing history.

“I never thought a Somali lady, a refugee, can get through all this hardship and difficulties to get elected to Minnesota parliament,” said Giama, who attended her victory party. “It’s wonderful,” he said, “just wonderful.”

Related:

Minneapolis Mayor Betsy Hodges hired Mohammed Noor, the city’s first Somalian police officer.

Star Tribune, 18 July 2017: Justine Damond, 40, who called 911 to report a possible assault behind her south Minneapolis home Saturday night, was fatally shot by a police officer. No body cams were running at the time.

Justine Damond called 9-11 for help.

The death of Justine Damond, who called 911 to report a possible crime only to be killed by a responding Minneapolis police officer, has left her grieving family, neighborhood and nation demanding answers in the latest police-involved shooting to thrust Minnesota into the international spotlight.

The Minneapolis police officer who shot and killed a 40-year-old woman in the alley behind her home Saturday night has been identified as Officer Mohamed Noor. State investigators have confirmed that they did not find any weapons at the scene.

Fast twitching Noor, first Somali to patrol 5th precinct of Minneapolis.

Noor, 31, joined the department in March 2015 as the first Somali police officer to patrol the 5th Precinct in southwest Minneapolis, according to a city newsletter. He holds a degree in Economics and Business Administration from Augsburg College. Before joining the department, he worked in property management in commercial and residential properties in Minneapolis and St. Louis, Mo.

Noor has been sued once in his short career with the police department, stemming from a May 25, 2017 incident, in which he and two other officers came to a woman’s home and took her to the hospital, which the woman alleges constituted false imprisonment, assault and battery. According to the recently filed and ongoing lawsuit, the officers claimed they had reason to believe the woman was suffering a mental health crisis — which she denied — and Noor “grabbed her right wrist and upper arm,” exacerbating a previous shoulder injury in the process.

An exchange between police from the night of the shooting, posted by website Minnesota PoliceClips, shows one officer indicating a “female standing behind a building” on Washburn Avenue. Seconds later, another officer reports “shots fired” and “one down” in the same location, and then an officer says he’s performing CPR. An officer also notes that there’s no suspect at large. It’s unclear if the audio is edited or compressed for time.

On Monday, the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension confirmed that officers were responding to a 911 call of a “possible assault.” “At one point an officer fired their weapon, fatally striking a woman,” the news release said. “BCA crime scene personnel located no weapons at the scene.”

“I know the neighborhood well” said Minneapolis Mayor Betsy Hodges, shown here with husband.

The BCA confirmed that an autopsy has been completed. After confirming yesterday that there was no body camera or dashcam footage of the incident, the agency said the investigation “does not determine whether a law enforcement agency policy was violated. That would be reviewed through the agency’s internal affairs process.”

The BCA has not officially named Noor, but a source confirmed that he was the shooter. Attorney Tom Plunkett is representing Noor, but declined to identify him.

Friends of Justine Damond mourn.

At the same time, a neighborhood has continued to struggle for answers as to what caused the shooting. Family members said Damond called 911 that night to report a possible assault in the alley behind her home.

The morning afterward about 200 people gathered Sunday to mourn Diamond. Loving messages remain written in chalk on the sidewalk near the scene, at the end of the alley on W. 51st Street between Washburn and Xerxes avenues S. in the city’s Fulton neighborhood.

Diamond, from Sydney, Australia, and fiancé, Don Damond, lived in the 5000 block of Washburn.

Justine, her fiancee and son.

“This is about Justine; it’s about Don, a horrific thing has happened in their lives, but it reverberates through the community,” said neighbor Richard Burbach, looking on as Australian news crews gathered around the Damond home. “I hope that the global media can continue to put enough focus on this that there is a kind of pressure that will provide an essential ingredient that will change policing, not just in Minneapolis but the country as well.”

Gov. Mark Dayton had no comment Monday on the shooting. Law enforcement had previously criticized Dayton for comments he made the day after Philando Castile was killed by former St. Anthony police officer Jerimano Yanez.

“Would this have happened if the driver were white, if the passengers were white?” Dayton asked last year. “I don’t think it would have. On behalf of all decent-minded Minnesotans, we are shocked and horrified. This kind of behavior is unacceptable.”

Three sources with knowledge of the incident said Sunday that two officers in one squad car, responding to the 911 call, pulled into the alley. Damond, in her pajamas, went to the driver’s side door and was talking to the driver. The officer in the passenger seat pulled his gun and shot Damond through the driver’s side door, sources said.

“Two Minneapolis police officers responded to a 911 call of a possible assault just north of the 5100 block of Washburn Avenue S. just before 11:30 p.m. Saturday,” the BCA said in a news release. “At one point, an officer fired their weapon, fatally striking a woman.

“The BCA’s investigation is in its early stages. More information will be available once initial interviews with incident participants and any witnesses are complete. … The officers’ body cameras were not turned on at the time and the squad camera did not capture the incident. Investigators are attempting to determine whether any video of the incident exists.”

Minneapolis Police Chief Medaria Arradondo, who advanced to the top of the police department by filing racial discrimination law suits, is shown here with Minneapolis Mayor Betsy Hodges.

Minneapolis police confirmed that the two officers involved are on paid administrative leave, which is standard procedure.

In Minneapolis, police officers are required to wear body cameras any time they could “reasonably anticipate” they will need to record an incident. The policy specifies that officers record any use of force, as soon as it’s safe to do so.

The ACLU has called for penalties for the officer’s failure to activate body cameras.

Minneapolis Mayor Betsy Hodges called the shooting “tragic” in a news conference at City Hall late Sunday afternoon, appearing with assistant Minneapolis Police Chief Medaria Arradondo and Linea Palmisano, who represents the 13th Ward on the City Council.

Betsy tries not to laugh when addressing the incident.

“I am heartsick and deeply disturbed by the fatal officer-involved shooting that happened last night,” Hodges said.

“I know the neighborhood well,” said Hodges, who represented the area for eight years as a City Council member.

Betsy shrugs-it-off.

“We have few facts at this point,” she said. “I want to know more. I call on the BCA to share as much information with all of us as quickly as they can.

“I have questions about why the bodycams weren’t on,” she said.

Arradondo confirmed that the officer bodycam program is fully rolled out in Minneapolis but declined to say more about why there is no footage of the shooting.

Justine’s son, Zach Damond, fiancee, Don Damond

Zach Damond, 22, arrived at the scene with a close family friend about 11:30 a.m. Sunday. While the couple were not yet married, Justine referred to herself as Damond on her personal website. Her maiden name was Justine Ruszczyk.

“Basically, my mom’s dead because a police officer shot her for reasons I don’t know,” Zach Damond said, referring to Justine. “I demand answers. If anybody can help, just call police and demand answers. I’m so done with all this violence.”

Damond said Justine called police after she “heard a sound in the alley.”

Read the rest here

Refugee Resettlement Watch, “Minneapolis Somali police officer, shoots and kills woman who called 911”, Posted by Ann Corcoran on July 18, 2017:

Justine and fiancee, Don Damond,

The 40-year-old Australian woman had called 911 to report a disturbance in an alley near the home she shared with her fiance. As she walked to the responding officers’ car, reportedly in her pajamas, she was shot by officer Mohamed Noor, one of the city’s newest diversity picks for its police force.

Justine who is described as a 40 year old veterinarian and yoga instructor from Australia was inexplicably killed by a Somali refugee cum police officer. Dare I say, white lives matter.

I heard about the story on our local radio station yesterday, but not a word about the shooter, until I read Leo Hohmann’s report at WND last night.  Believe it or not, but CNN was reporting the story this morning complete with the officer’s name scrolled below the report.  CNN said Officer Noor apologized and said he had her friends and family in his “thoughts and prayers.”

There was no explanation given in the CNN report about why he shot the unarmed woman, or why the officers’ body cameras were turned off.

Here is Hohmann at WND:

The Minneapolis cop who shot and killed a 40-year-old woman after she called 9-1-1 to report a possible crime near her home was identified Monday as the precinct’s first Somali-American officer — Mohamed Noor.

Noor has only been a police officer for two years and has already been sued for alleged unprofessional behavior. The May 2017 lawsuit also involved a female and accusations of brutality.

The shooting late Saturday night happened at the end of an alley in the city’s Fulton neighborhood.

Justine Ruszczyk Damond, a native of Sydney, Australia, was a veterinarian and a yoga instructor who recently got engaged to longtime boyfriend Don Damond. She and her fiancé lived in the 5000 block of Washburn.

[….]

“I want to take a moment to recognize Officer Mohamed Noor, the newest Somali officer in the Minneapolis Police Department,” Mayor Betsy Hodges wrote in a Facebook post when Noor began serving the city. “Officer Noor has been assigned to the 5th Precinct, where his arrival has been highly celebrated, particularly by the Somali community in and around Karmel Mall.”

Noor, 31, was born in Somalia.

KSTP, citing a source with direct knowledge of the shooting, reported that Noor was sitting in the passenger seat of the squad car at the time of the shooting and “shot across his partner” at Damond, who approached the officers’ car in her pajamas and began talking to the officer in the driver’s seat.

One of Damond’s friends, who identified herself only by her first name, Hannah, told the Star-Tribune that there was “no way” Damond would have been armed.

“She often talked about how much better it was in Australia, where people aren’t allowed to have guns,” Hannah told the local newspaper.

That is Minneapolis mayor Betsy Hodges in green head scarf, literally snuggling with a Somali constituent. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3po7RG2Eyc

“This is a very bizarre story,” Debra Anderson, chair of ACT For America’s Minnesota chapter and a resident of Minneapolis. “How could a women in pajamas possibly be perceived as a threat, on the opposite side of the car, no less?”

The story is making headlines around the world.

Minneapolis mayor Betsy Hodges will have a lot of explaining to do!

Minneapolis has the nation’s largest concentration of Somali refugees, with the community estimated at approximately 50,000 strong in the city. The city’s Democrat mayor and council have made every effort to hire Somalis as part of the city’s diversity program.

Continue here for more information and more photos. I’ve only snipped a tiny bit of a more detailed story. And, surely there will be updates during the day.

For new readers: Why so many Somalis in Minneapolis?  Thank Catholic Charities and Lutheran Social Services (as well as other refugee contractors) placing Somali Muslims there for decades.  See my post from 2011 when I first learned how that happened.  See yesterday’s post about Catholics and Lutherans placing the largest numbers of refugees into unsuspecting American towns and cities.

Incredibly creepy Betsy Hodges campaign video from her mayoral run, showing Hodges in a hospital with Somalian refugees. The first part of the video is spoken in Arabic language and features a series of Somalian refugees asking people to vote for her.

Vote for Betsy Hodges
Hodges for Mayor!

Finally, Hodges speaks…

and says…

“My name is Betsy Hodges and I’m running for Mayor of Minneapolis. Minneapolis is a great city, I’m proud of the work that I’ve been doing on the city council the last eight years to make sure that we are the best city we can be; but the best is yet to come. But I know that to be the greatest city we must be an inclusive city, knowing that our future depends upon everybody, everybody sitting at the table to build the Minneapolis of the future; and that is my commitment to you as Mayor. In the first 100 days I will hire someone from the community in my office to make sure that I have the eyes and ears of the community right there in City Hall with me; but also that I have eyes and ears and myself out in the community …I will put together a Somali board of advisors to make sure that crucial issues are getting addressed right away…  all the crucial issues for the community are being handled well and addressed through my office.”

Posted by Killercop: affrimative action hire by Hijabwearing on Fri, 21 Jul 2017 05:58 | #

Unz Review, “Michelle Bachman Calls Killer Cop an ‘Affirmative-Action Hire by the Hijab-Wearing Mayor of Minneapolis”, 20 July 2017:

Officer in Minnesota shooting was celebrated in Somali community

MINNEAPOLIS (Reuters) – Mohamed Noor was celebrated when he became a Minneapolis police officer 21 months ago, joining a handful of other Somalis on the police force in a city with one of the United States’ largest Somali communities. …

But some are worried about a backlash in the Somali community, while one former politician had only harsh words.

The eldest of 10 children, Noor came to the United States as a child and has been held up by the Somali community as an example. He was one of only about 20 Somali police officers in Minnesota.

Minneapolis Mayor Betsy Hodges had touted his arrival to the police force in a Facebook post.

“I want to take a moment to recognize Officer Mohamed Noor, the newest Somali officer in the Minneapolis Police Department,” she said in a May 2016 post, a few months after he joined the department, alongside photos of Noor smiling at a community meet-and-greet. “His arrival has been highly celebrated, particularly by the Somali community.”

He remains a role model for some.

“He is inspiring to young people in the community,” Abdikadir Hassan, a candidate for a Minneapolis Park Board seat, told the Star Tribune this week.

Others said the community could suffer.

“A lot of people are holding the Somali community accountable,” said Abdirizak Bihi, director of the Somali Education and Social Advocacy Center in Minneapolis. “That’s absolutely wrong.”

Among the most vocal critics was Michele Bachmann, a Republican former U.S. representative. On Wednesday she called Noor an “affirmative-action hire by the hijab-wearing mayor of Minneapolis,” the Star Tribune reported.

“she did not have to die”

Minneapolis Police Chief admits in open statement that “this should not have happened…Justine did not have to die.”

“We are talking about one individual’s actions” she said.

She added that Noor’s actions ran counter to Minneapolis Police training; and the circumstances did not warrant fear of ambush.

Betsy Hodges forces Police Chief to resign:

NYTimes, “Minneapolis Police Chief Forced Out After Fatal Shooting of Australian Woman”, 21 July 2017:

The Minneapolis police chief, Janee Harteau, resigned on Friday at the mayor’s request, less than a week after one of the city’s officers fatally shot an unarmed Australian woman who had called 911 for help.

Mayor Betsy Hodges said in a statement that “I’ve lost confidence in the chief’s ability to lead us further” and that “it is clear that she has lost the confidence of the people of Minneapolis as well.”

The fatal shooting of the Australian woman, Justine Damond, last weekend by Officer Mohamed Noor led to outpourings of grief in Minnesota and outrage in Ms. Damond’s home country, where the prime minister condemned the shooting and Ms. Damond’s family members have expressed frustration with how little they have been told about what happened.

Last Saturday, Ms. Damond, 40, called 911 twice to report a possible sexual assault near her home. Officer Noor and his partner, Officer Matthew Harrity, arrived at the scene in a dark alley several minutes later. Officer Harrity told state investigators that he had been startled by a loud noise just before Ms. Damond approached their cruiser. Officer Noor then shot her through the open window.

Officer Noor has declined to speak with investigators, and the authorities have provided no explanation for why he shot Ms. Damond. Neither Officer Noor nor his partner had turned on their body cameras.

Chief Harteau, a 30-year veteran of the Minneapolis police force, said in a statement that “the recent incidents do not reflect the training and procedures we’ve developed as a department.”

“I’ve decided I am willing to step aside to let a fresh set of leadership eyes see what more can be done for the M.P.D. to be the very best it can be,” Chief Harteau said. “The city of Minneapolis deserves the very best.”

Ms. Damond’s death was the latest high-profile episode to raise questions about police tactics under Chief Harteau. In 2015, weeks of protests followed the fatal shooting of Jamar Clark, an unarmed black man.

Nekima Levy-Pounds, a civil rights lawyer and activist running for mayor of Minneapolis, said Chief Harteau “needed to be fired.” Ms. Levy-Pounds said it had been “a slap in the face to people of color” that the chief spoke out about the death of Ms. Damond, who was white, after defending officers involved in past shootings of black people.

“She is attempting to paint this as an isolated case based on one officer’s poor judgment as opposed to a systemic pattern,” Ms. Levy-Pounds said.

Ms. Hodges, who is up for re-election in November and who has faced criticism for her handling of police issues, said she was appreciative of Chief Harteau’s service but had requested her resignation.

In conversation with the chief today, she and I agreed that she would step aside to make way for new leadership,” Ms. Hodges said. “I asked Chief Harteau for her resignation, she tendered it and I have accepted it.”

Ms. Hodges said she would nominate Medaria Arradondo, currently the assistant chief in Minneapolis, to become chief of police.

At a news conference at City Hall on Friday night about the chief’s departure, protesters interrupted Ms. Hodges and called on her to resign. “Bye, bye, Betsy,” they chanted when she tried to speak. Demonstrators had also gathered outside City Hall, chanting, “No justice, no peace.”

After protesters left, Ms. Hodges returned to the lectern and said, “I will not be resigning.”

“I hope people appreciate that there is no magic wand for public safety,” Ms. Hodges said.

Chief Harteau was the first woman to serve as Minneapolis police chief and is also openly gay. She worked her way through the ranks of the department after joining in 1987, and she was seen by some nationally as a police reformer who outfitted officers with body cameras and advocated restorative justice. But locally, her department faced frequent protests and criticisms for its use of force and treatment of black people.

Chief Harteau was also believed to have a strained relationship with Ms. Hodges. The two leaders faced criticism from the Justice Department for their coordination during 2015 protests. And earlier this year, Ms. Hodges publicly overruled the chief on a promotion decision.

State investigators continue to probe Ms. Damond’s death. Both Ms. Hodges and Chief Harteau have said she should not have been shot. “Justine didn’t have to die,” Chief Harteau said on Thursday, citing information released by state officials investigating the case. “I believe the actions in question go against who we are as a department, how we train and the expectations we have for our officers.”

 Posted by The Minnesota Somalis on Sun, 13 May 2018 15:18 | # 23

Refugee Resettlement Watch “Minnesota Somalis: You’re old and we are taking over”, 13 May 2018:

Posted by Ann Corcoran –

This week Judy sent me an interesting facebook post. I’ve decided not to name the author in order to spare her further aggravation.

Normally I wouldn’t post on a social media conversation except this one rings a bell.  I’ve heard it before.

In fact in earlier years in the life of this blog, I heard it from time to time.  Somali commenters told me that this country had a lot of wide open spaces and they planned to fill it.

In fact in 2010, a Somali woman communicated with me to warn that Somalis are creating what she called Tuulas (villages) throughout some states—she mentioned Minnesota and Kansas and Maine. She said:

I have read about what is going on in Kansas and in other small towns like Maine. Somalis will turn these small towns into a largely populated Somali town, because if Minnesota is the U.S capital of Somali people then a small town or city cannot stand a chance.

And, more recently a reader (a Somali?) has told me I am old so I am to be dismissed, implying that I can’t stop the inevitable wave anyway.

So this facebook post sounds perfectly in line with what other Somalis have said to me, and are saying:

From anonymous:

Yesterday, I had long social media conversations with two Somali Muslim gentlemen from Minneapolis, Minnesota. I asked them about their goals for improving Minnesota and how they feel about being an American. I also asked them about the million dollar upgrade at Cedar Riverside public housing that Mayor Jacob Frey promised its majority Somali residents this week. After I was called a racist, a fascist, a bigot, stupid and old, here’s what else they shared with me. Nearly verbatim. Thoughts?

Don’t miss Leo Hohmann’s report on the Minneapolis mayor making special promises to special people.  https://leohohmann.com/2018/05/08/democrat-run-city-building-6-foot-fence-around-migrant-housing-complex-to-keep-intruders-out/

“Get with the program, miss. We are here to stay. We never left our Somali heritage or culture. That’s what America is missing. Please stop forcing us to your ways. You’re old and have very old ideas. Get with the program. I’m trying to have my son to be the first Muslim black governor of the state of Minnesota in next 20 years. He’s gonna run as a Democrat. Oh, and on those upgrades at Cedar Riverside. They better give us those upgrades and changes if the Mayor wants to earn our votes. Or else we can always get another Mayor next time around. You see how being an American works? I told you lady please get with the program because Somalis are the latest addition to black folks.

Why should we assimilate? Do you know how stupid you sound? Guess what? We’re here to stay and will transform America for the better. Get that through your thick, ignorant skull. You need to see a doctor. It’s inevitable that Somalis will be taking over and there isn’t anything you can do about it. Again, what’s wrong with Somalis taking over? It is inevitable! This land doesn’t belong to either of us. It is our time to populate it and rule it. Go back to Europe or wherever you’re from if you don’t like it.”

When populations rise, they get cocky (and careless).

And, they are amazingly confident even in light of the fact that Somalia is a failed state because they couldn’t manage to govern it without creating a hellhole.

I suggest that their Liberal trainers (who must be talking to them about ‘old white people’) teach them to not spill the beans prematurely…but then again, let ’em talk!

See my huge archive on Minnesota Somalis by clicking here.

The only consolation here is that the do not want to integrate or “assimilate”, they want to be in self segregating communities.
      – DanielS

 Posted by Refugee Resettlement Watch on Fri, 28 Sep 2018 07:46 | #24

“Trump Administration to prioritize Africans in FY19 refugee admissions to US”

Refugee Resettlement Watch, 25 Sept 2018:

Posted by Ann Corcoran on September 25, 2018

For years we have been flying Africans to America and placing them in hundreds of US towns and cities, and President Trump’s State Department will continue that trend as its number one refugee admissions priority!

The UN asked the US to take in 50,000 Congolese over 5 years and we are doing just that!

Frankly, as I said just yesterday if Africa doesn’t soon slow its population growth and get the Islamic extremists under control, Africa is going to sink first Europe, and then us under the weight of millions of needy (mostly unskilled) people in the not too distant future.

Based on current trends, Africa as a whole is projected to double in [population] size by 2050. Between 2050 and 2100, according to the United Nations, it could almost double again.

(from 1 about 1.3 billion in 2018 to over 4 billion in 2100!)

Yikes!  See the Africa ticking (time bomb) population clock, here.

Trump to prioritize Africa…..

Although the US State Dept has announced a greatly lowered refugee cap (30,000) for the coming fiscal year which begins this coming Monday! the administration will place a priority on Africans according to the just released ‘Report to Congress’ that explains why the President is setting the level where he is.

cover fy19 report

The full report released yesterday is here.

This year it is a slimmed-down version of a report I have handy for FY16 (Obama’s last full year) which is 71 pages.  The Trump report, at a mere 39 pages, does not go in to the great detail that Obama’s did.

I encourage serious students of the US Refugee Admissions Program to read it (LOL! I haven’t read it all yet, but I will!) because it is a very useful educational tool even if it is discouraging.

Here (below) is a screenshot of the Trump priorities. At least we can cheer about the dramatic slowdown in the Near East and Asia (where most of the Muslim countries, besides Africa, are found).

And it is an improvement on Obama’s last full year when he set the ceiling for Africa at 27,500 and came in at 31,624!

By contrast, from 1 Oct 2017 to 1 Sept 2018 (11 months of the fiscal year), Trump admitted 9,007 Africans.

But, what on earth makes anyone in the Western World think we can save Africa by serving as their population pressure valve.

There is no way, even if we wanted to, to take enough refugees to keep up with their exploding population growth.

Let’s look at the DR Congolese

Anne Richard and then UNHCR Antonio Guterres who is now Secretary General of the United Nations.  By the way, Trump is still without an Asst. Secretary of the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration

I reported here in 2013 that then Asst. Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration, Anne Richard, told the United Nations (told UNHCR Guterres) that we would ‘welcome’ to America 50,000 UN Camp-dwelling Congolese over 5 years.

I just checked Wrapsnet and although we were bringing these people prior to FY14, since Richard’s announcement we have admitted 45,667 from that fiscal year up until today.

(In fact, from FY08 to the present day, we have admitted 56,106 from the DR Congo.)

And, by the way, I checked numbers for this month and in a little over 3 weeks we admitted 684 DR Congolese refugees, followed by Burma (290) in second place. In case you are wondering, most Congolese are not Muslims but there are a few in the flow to your towns and cities.

So by my calculation we have 4,333 DR Congolese to go to fulfill a promise we never needed to make!

But, do not hold your breath that it will end at 50,000 because our track record is that we just keep taking them long after the supposed cut off number has been reached—see Burmese, Bhutanese and Somalis for starters!

Endnote: I did a quick check and am not seeing anything about prioritizing persecuted white South Africans.  Let me know if you see any mention.

Monday a big day for refugee contractors, expect more stories like these….

Posted by Ann Corcoran on September 27, 2018

What is Monday?  It is the beginning of the federal fiscal year. It is the first day of FY19. It is the day when the writing will be on the wall for many refugee resettlement offices around the country.

Dumb way to run an organization! Did no one in the refugee industry ever question a business model where some non-profits are 97% and up federally funded?

Why? Because in 1980 Jimmy Carter signed the Refugee Act of 1980 in to law and set up a house of cards that needs to fall now. Originally (supposedly!) designed as a public-private partnership, the federal government and ‘humanitarian’ non-profit groups were to share equally in the costs of admitting tens of thousands of refugees to the US each year.

But, over the years, because Congress has been so remiss in overseeing the program (the Rs want cheap labor!), those non-profit groups (aka federal contractors) have gotten fat and confident (like Aesop’s grasshopper) on ever larger amounts of federal funding and too lazy to raise sufficient amounts of private money to see them through if for any reason the number of paying clients/refugees declined.

(An aside: The inability to raise enough private money is also indicative of the fact that there isn’t enough interest by average Americans in financially supporting the program in the first place.)

So here we are with one story after another about what Monday will bring to dozens of resettlement contractors around the country.

From Austin, Texas we learn that a Catholic contractor—Caritas—is closing its refugee program.

The Statesman:

EXCLUSIVE: As refugees dwindle, Caritas will end resettlement program

Since 1974, the organization has helped thousands of people fleeing war or persecution find a new life in Austin. But after 44 years, Caritas is ending its refugee resettlement program and as of Monday, it will no longer serve new refugees.

“It’s really a tragedy that this program has to go away,” said Jo Kathryn Quinn, executive director for Caritas.

[….]

For the past two years, Caritas has seen a sharp decline in the number of refugees arriving in Austin, and the development has made the program “financially unsustainable,” Quinn said. Between 2010 and 2016, Caritas resettled an average of 576 refugees each year. Since last October, Caritas has resettled 151 refugees, but the nonprofit has not received any new refugees since April.

“Having zero refugees arrive in two months was unheard of for us,” Quinn said. “It was the final alarm bell that told us that we couldn’t continue this way.”

[….]

In June, Caritas’ board of directors voted to close the program at the end of the fiscal year at the recommendation of the nonprofit’s executive leadership.

When fewer refugees arrive, less federal money comes in to support them as well. Refugees receive a one-time amount of $1,125 from federal funds for resettlement needs, including housing and food, said Adelita Winchester, Caritas’ director of integrated services. Caritas would supplement federal funds with about $1 million annually in philanthropic donations,Winchester said.  [The reporter has missed an important piece of information. The refugee gets $1,125 and Caritas gets another $1,125 for themselves per refugee.—ed]

“We didn’t have any excess philanthropic dollars to shift to aid this program,” Quinn said.

More here.

 Posted by Corcoran smeared for synagogue shooting on Sun, 04 Nov 2018 08:07 | # 25

VDare, “Refugee Resettlement Watch’s Ann Corcoran Smeared By Religion News In Connection With Pittsburgh Synagogue Shooter”, 3 Nov 2018.

Posted by Catholic charities on Tue, 24 Dec 2019 17:09 | # 27

Catholic charities bringing Africans to Portland, Maine, despite the fact that the city is not prepared to accommodate them.

Pope, in meeting with Jewish leaders, calls for integration of migrants

JTA, “Pope, in meeting with Jewish leaders, calls for integration of migrants”, 27 September 2016:

ROME (JTA) – Pope Francis told a World Jewish Congress delegation that migrants have enriched Europe and need to be integrated into society.

“Europe often forgets that it has been enriched by migrants,” the pope told the Jewish leaders at an audience Monday evening at the Vatican that was described as taking place in an atmosphere of “great cordiality and friendship.”

“Europe is closing itself up. Europe is lacking creativity. Europe has a falling birth rate and problems of high unemployment,” the pope said.

He added, according to an account of the meeting issued by the WJC: “We need to reflect on integration, which is important. The people who committed the terrorist attacks in Belgium were not properly integrated.”

Francis urged Christians and Jews to cooperate in battling hatred and brutality.

“We need more friendliness and kindness, and we should not be afraid to speak out against brutality,” he said, according to the WJC report. “We should go on a joint journey together to make the world more secure. We need to speak out for peace.”

        The appropriate response to the Pope and his cohorts:

European Sovereignty or Death!

Comments:

 Posted by POPE FRANCIS: A CLEAR & PRESENT DANGER! on Thu, 23 Aug 2018 09:59 | #

“POPE FRANCIS: A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER!”

by Antonius Aquinas

There is probably no greater threat to the long-term survival of the Occidental peoples of the world than the purported head of the Catholic Church, Jorge Bergoglio, a.k.a. Pope Francis.

Last month, in his plea for greater “acceptance” of refugees, Bergoglio held a “Mass” where several migrants and their family members attended. The service was to commemorate the fifth anniversary of Bergoglio’s visit to the island of Lampedusa which has been a launching pad for invading migrants on their path to destroy what is left of European civilization.

During his “sermon,” the “Pope” condemned the “globalization of indifference” which many hold toward refugees and their plight. “Before the challenge of contemporary movements of migration,” Bergoglio said, “the only reasonable response is one solidarity and mercy.”

While Bergoglio had the gall to call for even greater societal-wrecking migration, one of his Church’s top prelates, “Cardinal” Theodore McCarrick had just been exposed as being a paedophile and was relieved of his public ministry. To date, McCarrick has been the highest Church official to be guilty of sex crimes with more sure to follow. Worse, McCarrick’s abominable actions had been taking place for years and were known to just about everyone within his inner circle (including Bergoglio), but none had the courage to speak out or take any action against the predator for his debauchery.

Sex crime partners – Pope Francis Bergoglio & McCarrick

It is beyond hypocritical that Bergoglio expresses so much concern for the refugee crisis, most of which has been orchestrated by the usual suspects, yet has done virtually nothing against his own underlings, many of whom have assaulted, raped, and molested thousands of young boys and girls. Instead of expunging these perverts from the Church, he has, in some instances, promoted them.

Whether Bergoglio knows it or not, it was the Catholic Church which preserved many of the treasures of the ancient world which would have surely been lost forever during the barbarian incursions. Likewise, it was the Papacy itself which inspired the Christian princes to undertake the Crusades and defend Europe from the repeated attempts by the Muslims to overrun the Continent.  Now, in a direct refutation of its history, the Church is encouraging Muslim penetration of its once sacred soil.

Europe’s Future if Pope Francis has his way!

At one time, the Catholic Church stood for the integrity of the traditional family, realizing that it was the backbone of any healthy and fertile society.  The Church condemned artificial contraception, frowned on “working mothers,” and prohibited divorce while it taught that the primary purpose of marriage was the procreation of children not the embodiment of spousal love. Since the Second Vatican Anti-council (1962-65), however, things have changed dramatically, now the Church speaks of diversity, multiculturalism, and, under Bergoglio, coercive integration.

As the West has crazily adopted Democracy as its governing paradigm, voting and elections will be determined by demographics. If Europeans become a minority, they will be voted out of power, have their property confiscated, and eventually be replaced. For an ominous example of what will happen unless mass migration is halted, the horrific plight of white South African farmers is instructive.

While tighter border controls are imperative, fundamental changes need to take place to reverse Europe’s demographic nightmare as the latest statistics have confirmed where the number of deaths (5.3 million) in 2017 have overtaken the number births (5.1 million). Most critical in reversing the demographic decline is a revival of the family and the removal of the impediments that have been placed in its way to procreate and nurture children. Two of the most important of these obstacles are the welfare state and public schooling, both of which have been used by [Red, liberal internationalist] Left to replace the critical role of the family in the upbringing, education, and the shaping of the young’s moral values.

If the likes of Bergoglio get their way, there will be nothing left of Western Civilization; its institutions, arts, music, literature, languages will be swept away under a deluge of racially, culturally, and religiously distinct and often hostile peoples that cannot and should not be assimilated.  While immigration enthusiasts must be stopped, Europeans must once again realize what it takes to have sustainable and fruitful societies.  When this again becomes part of the Western ethos, the demographic imbalance will cease to be a concern.

Goes to show how important it is that we attend to re-constructing a non-Christian moral order – it is not a matter of “starting something in one’s garage, that can’t just be done.” Yes, we can do it in negotiation among our people. And that’s how its always done.

Pope Francis-Cuckold calls for universal ban on anti-Semitism.

Pope Francis says snuff out ‘any whiff’ of resurgent anti-Semitism

Source

Pope Francis-Cuckold

The King of Cucks and the King of Cuckdom!

 Posted by Michelle on Tue, 19 Nov 2019 18:47 | # 26

https://youtu.be/sFKqsUpj2V4

Michelle Malkin documents organizations which facilitate the transgressing of America’s borders and rule of law.

 Posted by Funding your own displacement on Tue, 04 Aug 2020 21:56 | #

Exclusive: Michelle Malkin Lays Out Who Is Funding Open Borders Activism

Open Borders Inc: Taxpayers and Church donors fund their own destruction and displacement.

Soros teams-up with NGO’s and Religious Charities to open borders.

……

(4:00)

Michelle Malkin: Whether its quoting from the tax documents of these tax exempt non profit charities that are essentially the political action arm of the Democrat party, or exhaustive lists of the legal organizations that make up the illegal alien lawyers lobby …more than 400 groups that I mention…

I think that its important that American tax payers know that it’s largely their money that is funding their own destruction.

(4:45)

Alex Marlow:

And for me one thing that really hurt, as a Catholic, was knowing how much the collection money goes straight to the illegal alien enablers.

You (Michelle) go after the financial beneficiaries of immigration.

Michelle Malkin:

Yes, and your average consumer of conservative information is very familiar with the name George Soros.

But I think they’re less familiar with the interaction and the infrastructure between George Soros and The Vatican and The Catholic Church..and every one of its sub-organizations; the conference on Catholic Bishops, the Campaign for Human Development, Catholic Charities, Catholic Relief Services ….The Jesuit Refugee Service, and its role in standing up the illegal alien shelter network stretching all the way from Central America to churches inside the United States.

So people need to think very carefully if they’re going to sit in Catholic Church pugh’s if they’re going to contribute to the annual Thanks Giving Fund.

Because that is multiple, multiple millions of dollars that is going to go straight into amnesty shills that operate as a smuggling network.

(6:30)

Alex Marlow:

And you also are not afraid to go after people on the right…

You don’t hold back from people who are on the dole from the right on the Open Borders Lobby.

This includes the tech giants and their role.

I had no cue as to how open borders that Jeff Bezos was.

He backs all these open borders groups.

and he’s probably the least threatening of the tech giants at the moment. ..we know Google and Facebook’s history of it…the thing in Washington now is that people on the right are getting bought off by these people.

(7:37)

Michell Malkin:

Yes, I would agree.

There are many of these beltway establishment Republicans who are completely bought off.

I talk openly about the Koch brothers …the Libra organization that they sponsor is as bad as any Soros operation that shills for so called illegal alien dreamers.

(10:08)

Alex Marlow:

“Talk to us about this war on national sovereignty…and what it really means, which is a war for globalism”…

Michelle Malkin:

“Yes and this is not some wild, black helicopter conspiracy ….all of the Soros paid minions have already attacked me as some sort of conspiracy theorist….I call them Soros flying monkeys.”

“But Soros is very explicit about it in his books and in his speeches all over the world, that sovereignty is a quote unquote obstacle – OBSTACLE.

So, he sees our borders as obstacles.

…and our walls and every attempt to enforce our sovereignty and the rule of law.

…and you’ve got a lot of very learned listeners who understand what the United Nations agenda is”…

Alex Marlow:

Their agenda is grifting brown people.

Michelle Malkin:

There you go, that’s pretty much the bottom line.

And so people wonder how did Minneapolis turn into what it turned into (this was posted last September).

…and Lewiston Maine and Nashville, Tennessee.

Well, if you have been paying attention to UNGA assemblies every year, you would understand that.

[Rather than global compacts] It is very encouraging to me to hear plans floated of zeroing-out the refugee resettlement numbers – a moratorium is long overdue.

Not only for the financial and cultural impact that it’s causing on a lot of these working class neighborhoods and towns that never got a say in whether they wanted these refugees, largely from Muslim countries and African countries in the first place, but also, on September 11th, to consider the national security implications of bringing people over here of have an unshakable hatred of all things Western.

Alex Marlow:

Yeah, this is about a war on the West, this is where this is going.


Michelle Malkin:

And where does this come from?

This is why I thought it was very important to include a chapter on The Southern Poverty Law Center.

Long before the deplatformings that we’ve seen over the last year or so, back in 2006 and 2007 there was a little video that popped up on Youtube … in partnership between La Raza and the ADL..

..creating a guide book of code words of hate, and Michelle was on this list and in this video because she had used the word “invasion” (Azatlan, Reconquista and Invasion).

Alex Marlow:

I had no clue that Google was working with the SPLC.

Michelle Malkin:

…of course it’s not just Google. We mentioned Amazon and Tim Cook, who is in the hip pocket of the SPLC, Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg.

But even other platforms where I had never worried that they would be polluted by politics – WordPress.

I mentioned in the book that a heroine of mine, Anne Corcoran, who runs or ran, an incredible reporting blog called Refugee Resettlement Watch, had that whole blog, the plug was just completely pulled. Just two months ago (July 2019) by Word Press.

…my blog is on Word Press. and I wake up every morning worrying that my blog will no longer exist.

George Floyd's criminal life ended in a drug overdose in Minneapolis, Minnesota, treated by Abrahamics as an act of martyrdom to justify riots - Burning - Looting - Murdering - throughout cities of the Western world.
Boomers bend the knee in a purity spiral to Jewish sponsored black power
Minneapolis, Minnesota's first Jewish Mayor, (((Jacob Fried))) is instructed unceremoniously ... “Will you commit to defunding the police? - No? Then get the fuck out of here!”
Joe Biden slathered tender condolences about how George Floyd's family must be missing him.
George Floyd's son didn't know who he was. The family was awarded tens of millions of dollars.
And Susan Rosenberg's operation, (((BLM))), was granted warrant to smash White skulls.
Or set White women on fire at their convenience store work.
Or drag White truck drivers out of their cab to smash them up Reginald Denny style.

…

Interview of Kenneth Humphreys by James Bowery Concerning the Syncretic Origin of Christianity

An Interview of Kenneth Humphreys by James Bowery Concerning the Syncretic Origin of Christianity. Posted by James Bowery on Thursday, 14 February 2013 21:36:

For more information on Kenneth Humphreys and his views on Christianity see his website “Jesus Never Existed” and his Youtube videos. 

 Posted by DanielS on Fri, 15 Feb 2013 11:39 | #

From its origins in Ethiopia – LOL – to a culmination in abrupt, post-apocalyptic silence, seriously, an informative resource on Christianity’s relation to Western Societies: Thank you Ken and Jim.

 Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 15 Feb 2013 18:52 | #

DanielS, it would be comforting for many to believe the main proponents of the Ethiopian origin of Christianity were the Rastafarians and their ilk, but reading things like the CNN opinion: Why the next pope should be African, I believe we can expect a substantial reorientation of Christianity toward the Afrocentrist apologetics.  Whenever you have this much emotional slop in the belief systems, it seems a safe bet that Africans will end up dominating them.

Pope Cuck greets Cardinal John Onaiyekan et al.

 Posted by DanielS on Fri, 15 Feb 2013 20:32 | #

One of the ideas that I liked best in this interview was a freeing sense of pre-Christian times and the feeling of a free-adult relation to religious concerns.

 Posted by Honore on Sat, 16 Feb 2013 00:51 | #

James,

It would be interesting if you interviewed Christian Lindtner about this topic. Lindtner is a Danish philologist and religion scholar who argues that the Gospels are pirate-copies of older Buddhist texts that were written in Sanskrit. He claims that the Gospels were translated directly from these older Buddhist texts.

His website is http://www.jesusisbuddha.com/

Lindtner gave a presentation titled “Jewish Propaganda Among the Ancient Greeks” at the Danish Society for Free Historical Research 2 years ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvG39ibZEWk

I think Lindtner would be better able to address the questions you raised in your interview with Humphreys regarding selective editing and manipulation of myths.

 

Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 17 Feb 2013 07:51 | #

Very interesting interview and very well conducted by JB allowing Humphreys’ personality and ‘hypothesis’ to be well expressed. If there is another interview, it would be interesting to hear his position vis-a-vis the Germanisation of Christianity, i.e. “The general idea that the world-denying individualistic and otherworldly Christianity ran headlong into a magical, king-revering, collectivist German mentality that it was forced to accept.” In addition why the Romans eradicated Druidism but facilitated Judaism?

 

Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 18 Feb 2013 02:25 | #

In addition why the Romans eradicated Druidism but facilitated Judaism?

Quite.

If there’s any truth in the idea that the Jewish strategy for tribal cohesion – their self-induced paranoia culture – is also the engine for Jews, or a large enough percentage to make up a pre-emptive genocide as self-defence squad, relentlessly attacking the host population and if there’s any truth in the idea that this cycle has been repeating for millenia then the strategy requires them (or at least the active percentage) to lie both to themselves and everyone else about their history. You can’t maintain the eternal victim narrative past the first one or two cycles otherwise.

If so then most true Jewish history is at least half-buried – including Rome.

The true history is probably quite a story also – incredibly destructive maybe but quite impressive in an evil way.

 

Posted by Frank on Thu, 21 Feb 2013 18:39 | #

“Italian Newspaper Links Pope Resignation To Vatican’s ‘Gay Lobby’”

http://www.businessinsider.com/pope-resignation-linked-to-gay-lobby-2013-2

Today, Italy’s La Repubblica newspaper added fuel to the fire, alleging that Benedict’s resignation was prompted by a report prepared by three Cardinals on conflict and corruption in the Vatican — including what it says is the “inappropriate influence” of a gay lobby within the Holy See.

—-

What was so damning in the report? While La Repubblica doesn’t quote directly from the report, it contains details reportedly passed on by a senior Vatican source, which points to financial and sexual lobbies that have split the church.

The report allegedly stated that various lobbies in the Vatican were exerting influence on day-to-day-life in the Vatican, and routinely breaking two of the ten commandments —  “thou shalt not steal” and “thou shalt not commit adultery”. The former refers to the controversies about the Vatican Bank, one of the key aspects of the VatiLeaks Scandal.

The latter commandment is apparently a reference to a “gay lobby” that reportedly exerts influence within the Vatican, La Repubblica alleges. The report infers that this group were the subject of blackmail attempts, detailing an “external influence” from those with a “worldly nature”.

Reports of financial corruption and homosexuality in the Holy See are far from uncommon, of course — the Vatican became embroiled in a gay prostitution scandal in 2010, for example, which La Repubblica highlights. However, this report is the first sign that these controversies could have played a role in Benedict’s resignation.

Posted by Frank on Thu, 21 Feb 2013 18:44 | #

“Vatican choir singer involved in gay liaisons scandal”

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/03/05/italy.government.scandal/

A Nigerian man who sang in a Vatican choir arranged gay liaisons for an Italian government official who served in the unpaid role of papal usher, according to transcripts of wiretaps collected by Italian authorities.

—-

According to the wiretap transcripts, in a conversation dated April 22, 2008, Ehiem says, “I called you … because there are … if you are free … three or four situations that can be good … very, very good …”

Balducci: “…Hmmm!”

Ehiem: “Two black, Cuban men … really tall, tall, tall … so … if you are free … we can try to organize right away … that is, I saw both of them, Angelo … believe me that … they could be two excellent options.”

 Posted by Frank on Thu, 21 Feb 2013 18:56 | #

I wonder if this “gay lobby” within the Vatican is pushing for a black pope. It seems to have a predilection for blacks.

 Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 21 Feb 2013 19:36 | #

Christian clergy caught up in hypocrisy, corruption and a sexual misconduct scandal. How very shocking I’m sure.

Puts a whole new spin on ‘Holy Willie’s Prayer’

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Willie’s_Prayer

And this particular brand of Voodoo with metaphysics is apparently ‘foundational’…morally, culturally, intellectually…cough cough…oh well never mind.

Continue Reading Imperative to replace Golden Rule of Altruism with Silver Rule of Reciprocity… for European Moral Order

EthnoNations of Asia, probably our best potential allies.

  • Post author:
  • Post category:Central

In this post we’ll look at the ethnonational circumstance of some Asian nations – and furtively, a few Middle Eastern nations as well – as potential allies to White EthnoNationalism; indeed, for the numbers and relative intelligence that these nations wield, we might see them as perhaps the best potential allies against Abrahamic imperialism and the vast destruction it imposes, together with its right wing and liberal cohorts, against the borders and boundaries that would structure the homeostasis of our species.

I don’t pretend to be an expert on these countries and their personages, but certain patterns do emerge in evidence to me and I have gleaned some insight from Kumiko.

Kumiko has her prejudices, but she does what one is supposed to do, if operating in good faith toward ethnonational coordination, i.e., she is fairly open about her prejudices so that you can work with her knowing where she stands. At any rate, perhaps I should have been more alert, for example, to her grievance that Eisenhower had part in imposing Islam on Asia in order to install Imams as comprador (financial middle-man) feudalist overlords; ready to thwart potential unionization of ethnonationals against neo-liberal exploitation of their labor and resource; and to thwart their defense against imperialist destruction of their species.

Typically through the prism of America’s (and Europe’s) right wing, imperialist perspective of  NeoLiberalism underpinned by its “moral” vehicle of Abrahamism, viz., Judaism, Christianity and Islam, the plight of EthnoNationalism in Asia has been misunderstood by Westerners; at times to catastrophic effect – as in the case of Vietnam, where right wingers engaged American boys in a horrific war in the name of fighting communism, where in fact they fought against ethnonationalism – despite the fact that it had shown willingness of to coordinate in ethnonational interests prior to the war, on a myriad of issues ranging from the trade in rubber to alliance against dangerous imperialist aggression, such as might be from China.

While we must be wary of the Asian nations as they are NOT perfectly empathetic with us, they are infused with their resentments (only warranted by the right wing/neoliberal exploits against them, by the way) and they will take advantage of us if we let them; it is also true that for their intelligence and numbers they make the best possible allies against Middle Easterner adversaries – Jews and Muslims, their fanatical, imperialistic religion laced with manichean trickery and whatever means it can to achieve its hegemony; and against Africans, their hyper-assertive aggression infused with biopower and weaponized by the Abrahamics.

With the aim of understanding the plight of Asian ethnonationals a little better then, and with hope of potential coordination of our interests as ethnonationals, lets have a look at some of the material we’ve gone through on a few of these nations.

Ethnonationalism and the maintenance of its borders and bounds is no freakishly ideal quest that must necessarily entail imperial and exploitative aspirations despite Jewry, with their right wing and liberal cohort efforts to portray that as concomitant with eithnonationalism.

The issue of citizenship is key – its privileges, responsibilities and means of ostracism for violating borders and bounds is sustained against liberal runaway by unionizing means.

Citizenship and Unionization are highly practical means for structuring and sustaining an EthnoNation and coordination with others; as they require no burdensomely constant surveillance and accountability in the case of citizenship and its entailments (accounts requested primarily occur when they are relevant); nor is it necessary to force membership by religious or psychological coercion, or by negative incentives since unionization can rather ensconce both accountability and incentive structures.

Structuring our own ethnonationalism is practical and realizable thus, while cooperation will be less the emphasis than coordination with other ethonations – but also realistic as we locate common concerns.

European & Asian Regional Alliance

Posted by DanielS on Saturday, 02 January 2016 08:46.

While I am adamant about the right and oughtness of fighting when one’s own borders and EGI are being infringed upon, I am not a hawk. Geopolitical warfare has never been something that appealed to me, let alone with any sort of passion.

I’m very averse to the idea of going beyond my national boundaries to fight, particularly when my own nation is totally screwed-up, needs tending and where innovative thinking might solve problems as opposed to trying to solve them by resorting to warring abroad.

The problem is that there are valid arguments that there are vital requirements along the Silk Road, in the Middle East and in Africa – resource and population management that is indispensably necessary even to the most innovative and independent peoples. In these concerns, I’m going to invite the reader to consider with me the possibility of re-drawing ethno-nationalist and regional lines on this map.

As you can guess, conversations with Kumiko have got me taking these matters under consideration, and I hope that she will soon put up an article discussing issues that the neo-cons have failed to make in clear and persuasive terms.

Tangential to neo-con issues is an interesting philosophical question for another day: how, in detailed form, to set up a rule structure which will sort out and punish the genetic legacy of criminals; and facilitate the rebirth of those genetic components that have suffered unjustly at the hands of criminals in previous generations. In this case, I am thinking more in terms of those who have historical grievances with Russians – while it is true that I don’t feel this grievance as do some others that I’ve known, it is nevertheless only practical to set the question aside for the time being – though it is a question that can apply to any people who have benefited or suffered from historical atrocities.

Europeans, now, are asked even more fundamental questions than relative guilt and merit, but are asked to address the matter of our identity, period – that we are a people (different from Jews and others), to establish who we are, what the nature of our common moral order is, to understand that the obfuscation of that would-be peoplehood is a part of a war against us – and that there is, indeed, a war against us; finally, we are asked what is the nature of that war and what it consists over?

When considering these matters from a White Nationalist perspective, Russian people are not conceived as inherent enemies, nor, even, is the humongous expanse of their nation high on the list, if on the list at all, of things intolerable to allow to remain. At first blush, I can imagine living with it – it’s always been that way in my lifetime; its reach contracted after the fall of The U.S.S.R., but still remains bigger than Pluto.

Nevertheless, we ought to reconsider this from an Asian perspective, and from a perspective of acute European interests.

I didn’t expect to have occasion at this point to consider aloud the possibility of attempting to align formal industrial military objectives with ours as White Nationalists. Oil, resources, even absurd and brutal regimes in the Middle East and Africa inflicting harm upon their own do not stir any passion in me to fight. The function of Asian countries and Western countries do, however, have requirements and rationale to get these nations under compliance. And in hopes of facilitating the human resource of Kumiko’s military perspective, I am going to imagine empathic military geo-political objectives, so that we might envisage a grand chess board result in our victory.

From that standpoint I attend to the fact that as nationalists and as White people in particular, fighting for the survival and sovereignty of our nations, that militarization and the geopolitics of resource and population management will ultimately be necessary.

Asia and the West have things that we need from one another, including cooperation against antagonisms from the Middle East and Africa.

Not only do we need resources from these places but we need mutual help in border control and repatriation projects.

What about Russia? It is so big. Why not just work with them and allow its vast space to become a place for White people to grow into?

While it is true that another traditional passion for some war mongers is hating Russians and maybe I should hate them, I don’t hate them. Nor do I care if people want to move there; furthermore, I completely understand not wanting to fight them. I don’t want to fight Russians; the war in Ukraine has been instigated by Judaized and neo-liberal means and motives and it disgusts me.

Even so, WN tendencies to look upon Russia as the great White hope ignore the propositional, neo-liberal, mercantile and Judaized aspects of Russia – as if its political class has no corruptions analogous to The US that will wreak havoc with such projects to connect with Russia as a partner in White Nationalism.

On the other hand, while I favor Ukrainian and Belarusian sovereignty, as I favor all ethnonational sovereignty, I am opposed to a hot war approach with Russia to increase their sovereignty (I said that in 2016).

But neither am I in favor of a hot war approach to defend Russia’s humongous eastern stretch and southern conflicts.

Rather than abandon to foreign invaders the natural ethnonationalist homelands of our European evolution and engage in White flight to move into lands that apparently represent imperialist aggrandizement – beyond ethnonational mandate – on the part of Russia, to reiterate, neither am I particularly interested in fighting to protect Russia’s imperial overreach.

In a word, defending what is apparently an imperial over-reach is Russia’s problem and an issue that can be turned to our advantage as Europeans in order to gain cooperation with our EGI, its borders and vital resources.

We need Chinese, Japanese and other Asian cooperation more than we need Russia’s imperialist headaches; and China and Japan are not about to start loving Russia more than their own interests which are impacted by Russia’s Eastern and Southern interference.

We need cooperation with Asia to compel compliance with regard to resource, EGI and border management. And we might compel Russia’s compliance as well with those needs by means of the West’s regional alliance with Asia.

Thus, while we might not engage a war of maneuver in either Russia’s west nor east, we might well consider lending approval to Asian positioning in Russia’s east and south.

That is, allowing the “stick” (as opposed to “carrot”) of some of these lands as potentially sovereign Asian places: with enclaves Russian and enclaves Asian, the farther east you go, the more the general area would be Asian with fewer Russian enclaves and vis a versa – the farther West, the fewer Asian enclaves until you reach a point where it would be a Russian only ethnostate. And the carrot to Russia would be less contentious relations with its neighbors, more secure borders, and more cooperation in resource garnering, management and use. That is not necessarily a bad deal.

Toward an Asian-Atlantic regional cooperation.

1. The genetic-make-up and territorial boundaries of the European ethno-states shall be restored, maintained and protected.

2. To achieve this end we propose alignment with the Asian ethno-states and region.

3. Something like the E.U. and North Atlantic would be necessary to achieve that alliance and its success.

However, it will also involve some quid pro quo.

4. First, we see it as being in both of our interests to secure our peoples against impositions of Middle-Eastern and African populations; against imposition of the Abrahamic religions; and against interference of these peoples and religions in our vital resources.

5. Toward that end, it is in the interest of both Asians and Europeans to remove these populations to the greatest extent possible from our geo-political territories; and, again, to remove significant imposition/interference upon our mutual vital resource interests.

6.  Sacrosanct European territories in the Americas, Australia and New Zealand will likely need to become smaller at any rate in order to be maintained and defended. But with the increased manageability of defense will come an opportunity to offer cooperation to Asians to have some sacrosanct territories of their own in these places. We will respect and cooperate with one another toward the defense of our territories in diaspora, seeing African and Middle-Eastern (saliently Jewish and Muslim) populations as those who must be guarded against and compelled to as great a distance from our people as possible, removed from civic nationalization and its proximity.

7. Russia/ns will be seen as having an analogous situation to White Americans. In order to have a safer, more manageable ethno-state and something to offer in exchange with the Euro-Asian regional alliance, they will be required to contract in size considerably, particularly from its expanse eastward into Asia and its geo-political interference there and to its south, unilaterally along the Silk Road. Russia’s ethno-state will be more secure as it will be forced into a more cooperative and less antagonistic relation with the rest of the geo-polity.

The key deal is this: we will compel Russia to relinquish parts of its territory (leaving it no good choice but to comply). In exchange we will require Asian assistance in cleansing and defending our territories from imposition by non-natives – particularly Africans, Middle Easterners, Muslims and Jews. And we will require compliance in securing our vital resources and transportation routes.

The advantages to European peoples and Asians in this alliance is clear.

But what regional and national lines might you imagine and what advantages to Russia and others do you see for compliance? Discuss.

As there are no Russian cities larger than 600,000 east of lake Baikal (near the city of Irkutsk, centrally to the north of Mongolia), and only four larger than 300,000, one way of arranging the pockets, enclaves, ethno-state outposts as it were, would be to have a symmetrical “M.C. Escher-like” arrangement (as in the image called “Day and Night” above), i.e., an entering of these enclaves into the others general regional sphere – enclaves which would, nevertheless, represent sovereign states. 

The plan would emphasize deportation and re-doing citizenship in favor of native lines, viz., on the basis of ethnostates. That is unlike the Moscow – Berlin – Paris axis, which apparently seeks to reconstruct the same old right-wing, propositional/objectivist oil interests.

Note: I can see how this could create incentive for Eastern European nations to cooperate – from a position of strength and in cooperation with White diaspora (note the interview of Tomasz Szczepański under the fold).

The Eastern European nations may agree to cooperation despite history of disputes (sometimes serious), and facilitate this ethno-nationalist and regional cooperation if their borders and native populations are guaranteed. If they are a part of a plan that guarantees that and necessary resources from the Silk Road – accomplished by increased cooperation with Asia and a Russia dealing from a cooperative position; then perhaps ethnonational and regional alliance with Asia can work. I.e, Russia has to offer more than trade in natural resources garnered through its vast expanse and fist waving at anybody who doesn’t see their interests being secured inasmuch.

The area that is to be reserved as sacrosanct to the Russian ethnostate would be contracted from imperial dimensions and more in line with ethno-national proportions.

It is a contraction in concession to cooperation with other ethno-European nations that WN America will likely need to undergo as well.

This will make Russia more defensible and more worth cooperating with for the rest of Europe and Asia – as they will be required to join this Euro-Asian regional cooperation against middle eastern interference – whether Arab, Islamic or Jewish, they will be beholden to our terms and we will have the necessary resources of the Silk Road.

The other side of the deal for compliance and cooperation to garner vital resources, is that our vital EGI will be cooperated with in protection as well – including not only in border defense, repatriation and de-nationalization of the majority of non-natives from European and Asian countries, but most strictly the border defense, de-nationalization and removal of non-natives from European nations; while allowing for some accountable quota of Asians and Europeans in one another’s nations and regions.

Intermarium Alliance

* There are a few mistakes in Szczepański’s analysis below – e.g., the idea that it would be “good for Poland and East Europe if Western Europe were to suffer greatly with floods of immigration”; secondly, the supposition that “Germany has never officially given up its claim” to the Western third of Poland; finally, even I wonder about his position with regard to what is now called Kaliningrad. However, as a geopolitical argument, in many other respects it is commendable.

The Intermarium Project

First introduced as a part of ideology of the Polish state by the Chief of State Józef Piłsudski in 1918-1922.


Counter-Currents, ‘The Other Europe: An Interview on Intermarium’, 18 Nov 2015:

The Other Europe: An Interview on Intermarium with Tomasz Szczepański. Interview and translation by Jarosław Ostrogniew

Tomasz Szczepański (Barnim Regalica) was born in 1964 in Szczecin (Poland). He is a historian (Ph.D. in humanities), writer, essayist, and activist. An advocate of Zadruga (Polish pagan nationalism) and indigenous Slavic faith.

He was an anti-communist activist beginning in 1984, a member of the illegal Polish Socialist Party, and a member of the Confederation of Independent Poland since 1987. From 1987 to 1989 he edited the underground bulletin Intermarium.

After the collapse of communism he became an opponent of the democratic-liberal establishment. He was an organizer and participant in numerous anti-communist and anti-establishment patriotic and nationalist demonstrations. He taught history for 11 years and is currently an employee of the Polish Army Museum in Warsaw.

Tomasz Szczepański has advocated the idea of Intermarium and worked for its realization since the 1980s. He is the founder and leader of the Association for Tradition and Culture “Niklot” (active since 1998) and the metapolitical quarterly Trygław.

    What are the theoretical foundations and origins of the Intermarium project?

The foundation of the Intermarium project is the aim of creating in Eastern Europe (or East-Central Europe), understood as the area between Russia and Germany, a pole of power able to counterbalance the power of either of these two neighbors. The aim of creating such a pole is to secure the area from imperial attempts by Russia and Germany and to create conditions for unconstrained development of the nations of the region.

The countries of the area are often divided into two sub-regions, the Carpathian Mountains being the borderline: the proper Baltic-Black Seas Intermarium (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Belarus, Ukraine) and the Danube-Balkan segment. Both sub-regions are collectively called the ABC area after the Adriatic, Baltic, and Black (Czarne in Slavic languages) Seas.

In addition to geographical, economic, and cultural factors, the basic element creating unity in the area is the fact that it has been and still is an object of constant expansion by Russia and Germany, and historically also of Sweden and Turkey. And the political elites – and probably large parts, or even the vast majority, of the Russian and German nations – treat expansion into this area as legitimate, the evidence of which are their geopolitical doctrines: “Mitteleuropa,” “Lebensraum,” “the Brezhnev doctrine,” and the “near abroad.”

Attempts to realize the Intermarium project after 1918 were connected with two waves of democratization in Middle Europe (1918-1921 and 1989-1991), hence the common association of this concept with the idea of exporting the democratic state model to the East. This is not precise. It used to be this way, but it does not need to be this way, as the aim of the Intermarium project is independence, and democracy is a secondary issue. We can imagine that, for instance, a democratic counter-candidate of Aleksandr Lukashenko in Belarus could be simultaneously a pro-Moscow agent, thus in this case the advocates of Intermarium would support Lukashenko as the candidate securing – in his own interest – the separation of Belarus from Russia.

Intermarium should be also considered as a political expression of cultural distinctiveness of Central (Eastern) Europe from both its neighbors. Although politically it is a project countering primarily Russian imperialism, culturally it is rather an anti-occidentalist project.

I do not agree with the thesis that this area is a transition between the East (Eurasia) and the West, as this perspective considers the main feature of the region as simply the “attenuation” of occidental traits. Thus the uniqueness of the Intermarium is constituted only by the lack of its own features. Let us focus on what is culturally unique in this area. First, there is a powerful agrarian element in the national cultures of the area. Almost all of the nations have reconstructed their elites after a long period of time on the basis of the peasantry, or in the case of the Poles and Hungarians, and partly the Romanians, their elites consist of a nobility connected with the rural culture. However, in all of these nations the local bourgeoisie was weak, consisting mostly of ethnically alien elements. Thus, except for the Czechs, bourgeois cultural traits are very weak in the nations of this region.

Second, this is Slavic Europe. The examples of the Baltic countries, Hungary, and Romania only apparently deny this fact. Their strong connection with Slavic cultures, as well as the absorption of Slavic elements by the Hungarian and Romanian ethnos in the process of their development, is well-known.

Third, in the 20th century all countries of the region were subject to communism – the most destructive social experiment known in human history. This has unified social experience of these nations, enabling common understanding among them.

Finally, the concept of the nation understood in ethnic (anthropological) categories dominates in the whole region, contrary to Western Europe, where mere civic nationalism is more common. A member of a nation is a person who is connected with the nation by origin, language, and common culture (often also by religion); citizenship plays a much more minor role.

  How was the idea of Intermarium developed in Poland and in Europe?

Although there were historical precedents, the Intermarium project was first introduced as a part of ideology of the Polish state by the Chief of State Józef Piłsudski in 1918-1922.

It is commonly identified with Polish federalism, which is not completely true. Polish federalism aimed at creating a common federal state from all the countries of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and the idea of Intermarium aims to create an alliance of independent states.

The Peace Treaty of Riga between Second Polish Republic and the USSR in 1921 meant the resignation to the political impossibility of this concept – not a complete resignation, as it remained both in the political thought and in the semi-unofficial practices of certain institutions of Second Polish Republic. The Polish army, during preparations for a war with the USSR, created the so-called “contract officers”: these were military-men from the nations conquered by the USSR, who were not Polish citizens, but who served on the terms of a contract. It was anticipated that in the case of a war with the USSR, soldiers of the Red Army who were willing to fight against Bolshevism would contact Polish Army units. The leadership of army units consisting of such soldiers (which could form the nucleus of future allied armies) would be entrusted to these contract officers. Due to their nationality and lack of Polish citizenship they would be considered more credible. Also émigré periodicals fom the USSR were supported, not only in the case of Intermarium nations, but also peoples of the Caucasus, Urals, and even the Kalmyks. Of course, Polish intelligence services cooperated with pro-independence organizations among these nations.

The concept of Intermarium was taken up by the young generation of Polish conservatives during the Interwar period. We often associate the idea of Intermarium with the Piłsudski’s political camp, and although this association is true, it is noteworthy that the Polish nationalist political camp has also embraced this concept, with one of the versions elaborated by Adam Doboszyński.

Nevertheless, it must be emphasized that up to 1939, Intermarium was on the margins of the Polish political mainstream, which rather aimed at defending the Versailles status quo. After the beginning of the Second World War, however, various concepts of a Central European federation had many influential proponents among Polish emigres.

The project has been revivified in political thought in Poland with the foundation of Confederation of Independent Poland (Konfederacja Polski Niepodległej – KPN, the first oppositional political party since the incapacitation of the Polish People’s Party in 1947 by the Communists). The KPN harkened back to the Piłsudski’s pro-independence movement, so it could not remain indifferent to its geopolitical thought. After 1980, when the collapse of the USSR and of the broader “socialist camp” seemed more and more inevitable, some of the other oppositional circles began to more or less openly refer to the Intermarium project. It must nevertheless be emphasized that this agenda was embraced by only a minority of the opposition.

In July of 1994 a League of Parties of Intermarium Countries was proclaimed in Kiev. The League consisted of pro-independence parties from six countries (Belarus, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, and Ukraine). The Confederation of Independent Poland, the Third Republic Movement, and the marginal Polish Republican Party–Third Power represented Poland in the League. Congresses of the League took place in 1995 (Jarosław nad Sanem, Poland), 1996 (Minsk, Belarus) and 1997 (Kiev, Ukraine). There was also an attempt to create a common bulletin, two issues of which were published. This initiative died by the end of ‘90s as a result of political changes in the countries involved – including marginalization of the main advocates of the project. It is noteworthy that some non-political social initiatives, undertaking the questions of Central Europe, have referred to this idea. These initiatives usually died after a few years, due to the lack of state support and inability to find other sponsors.

Although the Intermarium idea has been promoted by circles which have never exercised real state power, it must nevertheless be emphasized that some of the official policies of the Third Polish Republic (in 1989-2004) can be considered as more or less direct references to this idea. I consider the Central European Initiative (Hexagonale) and Central European Free Trade Agreement to be examples of this. The Visegrad Group is also an example to a lesser extent – mainly due to its limited potential and the declared aim of the group, which is the support of the countries of the group on the path to European Union membership, thus de facto cooperation in liquidating the sovereignty of the region. However, Polish policy after the collapse of communism was essentially aimed at entering the main structures of the Western world, that is NATO and the European Union. All alternatives to this aim – and Intermarium is such an alternative, especially in regard to EU – were fundamentally rejected by the establishment. If certain elements of the project were used, it was rather as a medium of realizing the idea of the occidentalizaton of Central-Eastern Europe. After the Third Polish Republic entered the European Union, elements of the Intermarium agenda were visible in the policy of President Lech Kaczyński.

Nevertheless, realization of the Intermarium project appears the most effective way of securing the independence of Poland.

  What possibilites for and obstacles to the realization of the Intermarium project do you see?

The entrance of most of the countries of the area into the EU has basically undone the possibility of realizing this project in the conceivable future. Although we must remember that it does not rule out creation of a regional bloc inside the Union; there are still institutional frameworks enabling cooperation in the spirit of Intermarium, created before entrance into the EU, such as the Visegrad Group, which can be filled with a new content in a new political configuration.

Discussion of the Intermarium idea makes sense, especially if we assume the collapse of the European superstate project.

The main opponents of the realization of the Intermarium project are Russian and German imperialists as well as advocates of the European superstate.

Why are the Russian imperialists? This is obvious and does not need a detailed elaboration. However, we must notice that despite the evident successes of Vladimir Putin in overcoming domestic troubles and in international relations, the systematic demographic tendency to a decreasing Russian population has not changed. Taking into consideration neighboring China and the already existing presence of not only Chinese capital, but also of a few million Chinese in Siberia (with a tendency to increase in number), the loss of a part of Siberia in favor of China, in one form or another, seems quite probable within a generation. Finally, the Russian economy, based mainly on natural resources, is dependent on the international prices of these raw materials.

Furthermore, after departing from communism, Russia has not found an alternative ideological foundation for the reconstruction of the empire. Despite official support, Orthodox Christianity has not come out of the post-communist crisis. Eurasianism could be such a foundation, but it would mean breaking with the hopes of parts of Russian elite for the occidentalization of Russia.

That Intermarium is obsolete from the perspective of German policy is also a point that probably does not need much elaboration. Let us focus on the convergence of German and Russian interests, apart from certain economic complementarity (on the one hand a developed and energy-consuming economy, on the other a provider of almost inexhaustible energy resources). If we assume that the aim of German policy is the regaining of losses – including immaterial ones, such as international position – which the country suffered after the defeat in the Second World War, it is difficult to conceive Germany regaining territory in Central Europe if the region creates a strong political structure. And such a structure would also not be in favor of Russia, thus the German-Russian cooperation against the countries of Intermarium (especially against Poland as a potential leader of the region) is completely natural.

Thus we arrive at the last group of opponents of the Intermarium project: the advocates of the EU as a superstate. Contrary to the previous ones, they do not represent interests of a certain state or nation, but a certain ideological project, for the EU is also an ideological project. It is a democratic-liberal scheme, aimed against all strong national and religious identities, striving to create a “European” identity by uprooting national identities. The Intermarium project must provoke dislike in these circles for at least two reasons.

First, are “cultural” reasons: nations inhabiting the region, due to the common experience of communism, are more attached to their identities which have so often been threatened. Thus, they are unwilling to renounce these identities for the sake of a European mirage, especially when they see that it is often a tool hiding national interests of the old members of the EU. Second, the Intermarium nations have also the experience of Russian hegemony. It induces them to cooperate with the United States, which – even if the US provokes some objections – is nevertheless appreciated as an ally possessing not only real strength but also the will to use it. And the EU as a geopolitical project aims at pushing Americans out of Europe.

  What possibilities do you see of persuading the closest neighbors of Poland to become involved in realization of the Intermarium Project?

The alliance of two of the strongest countries of the region, Poland and Ukraine, is the spine of the geopolitical concept of Intermarium. One needs only to take a look at any map and calculate the potentials to know the reasons.

Ukraine — or rather a large part of the Ukrainian elite arising from the anti-communist tradition — never had to be strongly persuaded to get involved in this project. The prejudice against Poles is very weak, as Ukraine is simply a large country and will remain such, even without Crimea. And a new generation has already grown up for whom an independent Ukrainian state is something obvious. Furthermore, the war in Donbass has strengthened Ukrainian distinctiveness (including the Russian-speaking Ukraine). Simply put: war favors clear self-definitions.

Belarus – here, when it comes to anti-communist elites, the situation is similar, despite larger fears of Polish revisionism. The problem however is that these elites are sparse, which is connected with the weakness of Belorussian state traditions. Furthermore, the “pro-Western” elites supported by the grant system have a tendency to support the cultural postulates of the sponsors, which will not bring success in the Belorussian society. (There is some analogy to the supposedly anti-Putinist actions of Femen, which have done far more to help than harm Putin.) It seems that some hope may be pinned on the evolution of the “Lukashenkian” elites, which are rather willing to rule their own state, not to be functionaries of the Muscovite empire. This of course applies also to Lukashenko himself.

Lithuania is the most difficult element of the puzzle, because the Lithuanian elites have defined Poland and Poles as the worst threat, and the Lithuanization of Poles of the Vilnius Region is a demand of the Lithuanian raison d’etat. We cannot consent to this, and this has nothing to do with Polish revisionism. Besides, participation in the EU and NATO gives them a sense of security, which makes it easier to quarrel with Poland.

We surely share a fear of German revisionism with the Czechs. The question is: how much have the Czech elites made their peace with German domination? If they go much further, it would almost constitute consent to becoming some kind of a new Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia – with a similar territory. Acceding to the demands of Sudetenland Landmaschafts can lead to this. I cannot answer this question. But the reaction of our elites on the issue of German demands toward the Czech Republic was surely petty-minded, if not even cowardly. After all, in this issue we are in the same boat.

The question is whether Polish policy can influence and moderate the relationship of Hungary with her neighbors, which is a key issue for the peace in the region. Hungarians have the right to defend their minorities in other countries, but it must be clearly stated that one glance at the ethnic map proves that Transylvania just cannot be regained by Hungary. Anyway, Poland should act in an mitigating way as much as we can, as the quarrels in our region will be used by external factors.

It is even possible to establish positive relations between the Intermarium and Russia – but with a Russia which is reconstructed mentally, not only politically and socially.

This would be (speaking in certain mental shortcuts) a Russia of Boris Savinkov or Alexiey Shiropayev. By the way, the latter should be promoted in Poland. It is noteworthy that nobody is doing it, perhaps because of Shiropayev’s opinion on the role of Jews in the history of Russia.

The problem with Russian imperialism is that it is not only a geopolitical concept, something serving the national interests and thus something which can be rejected if it does not serve them anymore. It is an effect of mentality shaped by Orthodoxy synthesized with the Mongol tradition and German bureaucracy: “the Knouto-Germanic Empire” as it was once brilliantly stated by Mikhail Bakunin. If Russia is the “Third Rome” (and this was the official doctrine of Muscovite Orthodoxy, to which Russia is now returning), then it even has an obligation to be an empire. Preventing this means the breaking of not only the physical (which is currently already taking place in Russia through its demographic crisis), but also the spiritual foundations of Russian imperialism.

And that is why with great fondness I welcome the current renaissance of Slavic religion, which does not have a “Weltmacht” aspect. Some hope lies in the rebirth of the tradition of Novgorod as an alternative model of Russian development to Moscow. But all those anti-imperial currents of Russian thought are marginal, at least at the moment.

However, all hopes that this problem can be dealt with through the officially proclaimed reconciliation of the Roman Catholic Church in Poland with the Moscow Patriarchy of the Orthodox Church, which is one of the pillars of imperialism, are in my opinion without sense.

Let us add that dealing with the Königsberg question must be a certain element of the normalization of Polish-Russian relations. This geopolitical absurdity threatens us by its mere existence, not only as a base for possible aggression. It also creates a field for Russian-German cooperation, which is always a lethal threat for Poland. Nobody can guarantee that Moscow would not be willing to give it back to Germany, for instance by simply selling it. Thus, we must search for such a solution for this Oblast, which will not be connected with its belonging either to Russia or to Germany.

What is your view of the possibility of realizing the Intermarium project in light of recent events: armed conflict in Ukraine, the immigration crisis in Europe, or the recent Presidential and Parliamentary elections in Poland?

Russian aggression in Ukraine has proven to all interested parties the durability of Russian imperialism, and it is far less significant whether the leaders in Moscow honestly wish to rebuild the empire or if it only uses imperialism as a tool of internal politics. For if it is only an example of the latter, it speaks a lot about Russian society itself. Without a doubt the ruling Law and Justice party and President Andrzej Duda are better prepared for this imperialist recidivism of Moscow, about which they have actually warned others before. From this point of view the last elections in Poland are a good change.

Regarding Ukraine, the war has strengthened Ukrainian identity; an enemy easily cements a community and defines the political horizon, which we already know from Carl Schmitt.

The war has also been an alarm bell for other states of the post-Soviet area, which is also useful.

It has also hampered the actions of the pro-Moscow lobby in Western countries, especially in Germany, Italy, and France, although I have no illusions regarding position of these countries; they want to do business with Russia, and they are ready to sell our independence for this business, just as Roosevelt and Churchill sold us out in Teheran and Yalta. Regardless of that, they had to do something; hence the sanctions.

The immigration crisis weakens Europe, but from our perspective this is good, as the contingent pressure which can be put on us – especially by Germany – will be weaker. Please remember that Intermarium is supposed to secure us not only from Russia but also from Germany, and the German constitution still states that the legal borders of Germany are those from 1937. From our perspective it is good that our historical enemies have internal problems.

The annexation of Crimea had a side-effect: it has complicated relations of Russia with the Muslim world (the issue of Crimean Tatars), and the Russian involvement in Syria has complicated them even more.

In Russia: Russian opposition against imperialism has emerged, this time of a nationalist, not demo-liberal character (for instance: Russians from the Russian Federation, who are volunteers fighting on the Ukrainian side, and I am not speaking about mercenaries). Although the information about this is, due to various reasons, unclear in regard to the number and extent, it is still an interesting phenomenon.

I don’t want to play a prophet here, but the initial successes of Moscow in the Crimea and Donbass (although the latter is quite limited) might be a beginning of very serious problems.

*There are a few mistakes in Szczepański’s analysis – e.g., the idea that it would be “good for Poland and East Europe if Western Europe were to suffer greatly with floods of immigration”; secondly, the supposition that “Germany has never officially given up its claim” to the Western third of Poland; finally, even I wonder about his position with regard to what is now called Kaliningrad. However, as a geopolitical argument, in many other respects it is commendable.

Reuters, ‘Putin names United States among threats in new Russian security strategy’ 2 Jan 2016:

MOSCOW (Reuters) – A new appraisal names the United States as one of the threats to Russia’s national security for the first time, a sign of how relations with the west have deteriorated in recent years.

The document, “About the Strategy of National Security of Russian Federation”, was signed by President Vladimir Putin on New Year’s Eve. It replaces a 2009 version, endorsed by then- President Dmitry Medvedev, the current prime minister, which mentioned neither the United States nor NATO.

It says Russia has managed to heighten its role in solving global problems and international conflicts. That heightened role has caused a reaction by the West, it says.

“The strengthening of Russia happens against the background of new threats to the national security, which has complex and interrelated nature,” the document says.

Conducting an independent policy, “both international and domestic” has caused “counteraction from the USA and its allies, which are striving to retain their dominance in global affairs.”

That in turn is likely to lead to “political, economical, military and informational pressure” on Russia, the document says.

Relations between Russia and the West reached a low after Russian forces annexed the Crimean peninsula from Ukraine in March 2014, after protests in Ukraine forced its pro-Moscow president to flee to Russia.

Since then, the West has accused Russia of aiding insurgents in eastern Ukraine. Moscow denies actively assisting the rebels.

The United States and the European Union have since imposed wide-ranging sanctions against Russian individuals and companies. Moscow has reacted by restricting food and other goods from the EU.

The document says that the United States and the EU have supported an “anti-constitutional coup d’etat in Ukraine”, which led to a deep divide in Ukrainian society and a military conflict.

It also names the expansion of NATO as a threat to Russia’s national security and said that the United States has expanded its network of military-biological laboratories in neighboring to Russia countries.

The document, which serves as a basis for planning strategy related to national security by different state bodies, does not mention Syria. On Sept. 30, Russia began air strikes against anti-government rebels opposed to the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, a Russian ally.

(Reporting by Vladimir Soldatkin)


2

 Posted by Nobody on Sun, 03 Jan 2016 23:18 | #

The US a threat?  Not much of one.  The US will be an irritation at most.  And the schmucks in Washington know this as well.  Not that they won’t try stupid shit, but that’s about it.


3

 Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 04 Jan 2016 23:43 | #

Daniel, we are a Master Race.  We do not deign to give land and resources to our racial inferiors in exchange for brownie points.


4

 Posted by DanielS on Tue, 05 Jan 2016 00:52 | #

It’s not brownie points, it’s quid pro quo.

They have a great deal of manpower, incentive etc. to cooperate in alliance.


5

 Posted by Critical Resources Institute on Tue, 05 Jan 2016 22:51 | #

Critical Resources Institute

The rare earth elements (REE) are widely used in modern technologies varying from wind turbines to hard disk drives, low energy lighting to electric cars. They are recognised as critical raw materials by the European Commission and other authorities, because of security of supply concerns. Recent work has highlighted neodymium (Nd) and the heavy rare earth elements (HREE) as being most at risk of supply disruption in the near future.

The major challenge is to develop new Nd and HREE deposits that can be exploited in an environmentally friendly and economically viable way, so that the use of REE in new technologies can continue to expand.

The SoS RARE project aims to understand the mobility and concentration of Nd and HREE in natural systems, and to investigate new processes that will lower the environmental impact of REE extraction and recovery. It brings together an interdisciplinary team of researchers to look at aspects of REE geology, chemistry and metallurgy, and will study both conventional REE deposits and ion adsorption clays (currently the world’s major source of HREE).


6

 Posted by miltary dictatorship, imperial overstretch on Wed, 06 Jan 2016 01:39 | #

…inability to reform.

fall of Soviet Union and similarities in The US.

Paul Gottfried

I think that the most critical issue in our society was the October of 2002 vote by our Congress to give the President the right to go to war when he wanted-to on his decision alone, including the use of nuclear weapons.

John Adams, easily the most important author of our constitution, said that the clause in the Constitution reserving the right to go to war to the elected representatives of the people is the single most important clause in the Constitution. Never, ever should such a power be entrusted to a single man. In October of 2002 our Congress, bot parties, kissed-off the Constitution. And that’s the issue today.

That’s what’s at stake today.

Perhaps our most prominent critical philosopher in this country in the post war period was Hanna Arent, who once made the case in ‘The Origins of Totalitarianism’ that:

“Tyranny can always prevail over others because it doesn’t require consent. Its only cost is the destruction of its own society.

But even if you had an honest congress, you can’t do honest oversight when 40 percent of the defense budget is secret from everybody.

Two military generals who became President famously warned in their farewell addresses of the use of unauthorized military power; with that, the tendency to distort Republican government; I believe this distortion is now so advanced that one could wonder if it could be reversed in any such circumstances.


7

 Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Wed, 06 Jan 2016 09:25 | #

Captainchaos wrote:

We do not deign to give land and resources to our racial inferiors in exchange for brownie points.

Captainchaos, it’s not really about anyone ‘deigning’ to ‘give land and resources’ for ‘brownie points’. It’s not a moralistic argument, it’s an argument which I would say is scientific, scientific in the sense that the world is interconnected and so there are scenarios in which you have to help—or at least support—others in order to help yourself.

The countries which you would want placed under Russian dominance would only remain backwaters as a result. Any hypothetical alliance between Europe and Russia (there are many who fantasise about such a thing, unfortunately) in a scenario where Russia would be permitted to re-integrate itself with the international markets, to try to maintain Russian dominance over the Caucasus, Siberia, and Central Asia, would in fact arrest the development that could otherwise take place in those regions, and perpetuate super-exploitation, which would in turn act as a shot in the arm for global capitalism.

Assuming that you want to avoid giving global capitalism a shot in the arm later on, you ought to in fact support the eventual national liberation of the nations which have historically been held captive in the Russian sphere.

If those nations remain captive, they would only be used by Russian companies as places of super-exploitation. Super-exploitation is a term that describes how an imperial power can create a ‘satisfied’ strata of labourers inside the first world by selling and exchanging products in dollars or euros, after those products were first purchased or produced under comprador regimes which use weaker currencies. Upon bringing such products to the first world store shelves, the selling price is increased in order to give all the intermediaries the level of profit they desire.

First, the comprador factory owner in the producing nation, the corporation whose branding is being used, and the store owner in the first world destination, all are seeking to profit from the enterprise. The excess which the capitalists choose not to allocate to themselves, is then allocated to the first world service workers who are selling the item in the store (not so much the producers!), indefinitely.

Secondly, a result of this process is that the first world service workers would, despite the plateauing wages over the past 30 years, still be able to easily afford a decent standard of living as a result, despite being in that plateau, because the ‘economic punishment’ is being geographically shifted onto the back of the third world worker through enforced stagnation.

Thirdly, the result of this shift or displacement of ‘economic punishment’, means that the social and material conditions which would normally produce an environment in which revolution could take place, are forestalled in the west for as long as that situation continues.

In other words, the call for an ‘Imperium spreading from Lisbon to Vladivostok’, is actually a retrograde call for an extension of liberal-capitalism’s life-span, through allowing European and Russian finance capital to ‘make nice with each other’ and agree on totally retarded policies in the Caucasus, Central Asia, and Siberia.

On the other hand, supporting tendencies that lead to Russia losing its preponderance over those territories, creates the circumstances under which they might be able to take the path of national liberation, and gradually raise their wages until they cannot so easily be used as part of a framework of super-exploitation.

Absent the framework of super-exploitation, the ‘bread and circuses’ would be a less viable economic strategy in the west, and thus, the ideological opponents which we are all struggling against would not be able to buy their way out of every economic crisis by milking the Third World harder.

 Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 07 Jan 2016 10:33 | #

What is the view in Asia of China’s treatment of the Tibetan people:

https://www.studentsforafreetibet.org/Plone/about-tibet/tibet-today


13

 Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Thu, 07 Jan 2016 10:57 | #

I think it depends ideologically on who is being asked.

For those who are okay with the annexation of Tibet, they will say that Marxism-Leninism-Maoism produced an objectively productive outcome because it removed the feudal Lama-led bureaucracy and replaced it with a progressive state that walked toward modernisation and the introduction of modern labour laws and mandatory public schooling and so on. They’ll also tend to add the opinion that had any other nation overtaken Tibet, they would have done nothing fundamentally different from what the Maoists did.

For those who remain opposed to the annexation of Tibet, they will say that there has been no real border controls maintained across the boundary between Tibetans and the rest of China, and that this has resulted in Chinese people basically moving into Tibet. They’ll also submit the opinion that the movement of Chinese into Tibet actually confuses the figures that are used to gauge Tibet’s progress, and that what is really happening is a defacto imposition of Chinese bodies into the territory so as to ensure that a demand for a removal of Chinese government there could not be easily actualised, and that even if it did occur, the demography would be such that countries like Japan, Korea, or the US, could not unify Tibet against China. In other words the imposition of Chinese bodies into Tibet would function as an ‘insurance policy’ in case any other geopolitical player gets any funny ideas.

My own view of it is that the truth is somewhere a mixture between the two views.


14

 Posted by DanielS on Thu, 07 Jan 2016 12:43 | #

Yes, with ethno-nationialist thinking, the Tibet question was the first to occur to me as well. Of course I’m for Tibetan sovereignty.

Interestingly and hypocritically by its own borderless liberalism, Western media expresses concern for the national sovereignty of Tibet.

But when do we ever have occasion to contemplate VladivastoKorea?

Since when is Vladivastok a natural and rightful place of Russian ethno-nationalism?

Russia has apparently been playing nasty games with North Korea for some time in terms of ideology, geopolitics, military strategy and exploitation of its labor.

 Posted by Just Sayin’ on Fri, 08 Jan 2016 00:19 | #

Kumiko’s presence has taken this site in an odd, neo-connish direction, which I guess is not surprising given her connections to ZOG.

More wars in the middle east, grand strategic plans for containing Russia, not the white left we need, but the left we already have.


17

 Posted by DanielS on Fri, 08 Jan 2016 00:52 | #

I told her that she was going to get comments like this. I’d hoped that she would, for starters, elaborate with a comment about the situation of the Vladivastok – North Korean area…

That comment might have gone up this evening but apparently she got called away.

She needs to build her case so that people like you don’t try to hang the “neocon” label on her. She isn’t as familiar with the landscape of White nationalism, what they think they know and what they don’t know – particularly regarding legitimate grievances about Russia.

I am actually a good mediator in that regard, as I am not inclined to look at Russia very negatively – am inclined to look at them favorably.

In fact, the ‘grand view’ of the map of bloated Russia was my idea.

She needs to make her case because there will be people who either don’t know what they are talking about or do not want other people to know what is going on, who’ll look for opportunities to portray her as a ZOGbot.

Until she can make her case, quiet (I know where you are coming from and it isn’t a friendly place to MR’s platform). This comment is useful nevertheless, as it provides occasion to take on issues she’ll be confronted with by the same old WN Right Wing of America.

I’ll try to make sure that she starts with a comment about that (Vladivastok) area in the morning…

It is a good place to start.


18

 Posted by Nobody on Fri, 08 Jan 2016 02:33 | #

“Since when is Vladivastok a natural and rightful place of Russian ethno-nationalism?”

Russia is an empire, they took it.  Just like the way the Han took Tibet.  Natural and rightful have nothing to do with it. 

 


19

 Posted by DanielS on Fri, 08 Jan 2016 02:38 | #

A point of departure for discussion about claims to injustices in those areas is the point. 1860 (the year Vladivastok was founded) is not a long time ago.

And, natural evolutionary claims to an area do have something to do with warrant.


20

 Posted by Nobody on Fri, 08 Jan 2016 03:57 | #

—A point of departure for discussion about claims to injustices in those areas is the point. 1860 (the year Vladivastok was founded) is not a long time ago.

And, natural evolutionary claims to an area do have something to do with warrant.—

A tough call.  Lenin ain’t all european.


21

 Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 08 Jan 2016 08:20 | #

The upshot of all of this is to enable China as an expansionary power.  Why must we cooperate in awarding these chinks lebensraum across the globe?  Because we need to subcontract our border security to them!  Lulz What a crock of shit.


22

 Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Fri, 08 Jan 2016 08:26 | #

Just Sayin’ on Fri, 08 Jan 2016 00:19 wrote:

Kumiko’s presence has taken this site in an odd, neo-connish direction, which I guess is not surprising given her connections to ZOG.

What ‘connections to ZOG’? How is anything that I’ve been saying even slightly beneficial to ZOG?

I think that you are the one that is unwittingly defending a ‘ZOG’ here, given that Russia is essentially a very Jewish government.

On the flip-side the nations of East Asia have exactly 0% Jews in government.

You basically could not ask for less than 0%.

Furthermore, almost 100% of the forces that have arisen in opposition to Russia in this era have been not only objectively antisemitic, but in fact often subjectively antisemitic as well. A fact that Russia itself does not hesitate to point out on a perpetual basis in all of its whiny propaganda.

My position is probably the most antisemitic position on the earth, strategically speaking.

Just Sayin’ on Fri, 08 Jan 2016 00:19 wrote:

More wars in the middle east,

I have not called for anything more than there already is, I think.

The only persons who are presently calling for ‘more wars’, which is to say, the opening of new fronts, are the people who support Donald Trump, given that Donald Trump’s advisors are in favour of opening an insane, idiotic, and suicidal front against Iran while making peace with Russia.

I’m against any war in Iran, and I’m against Donald Trump. I’m also against pandering to Russia.

Just Sayin’ on Fri, 08 Jan 2016 00:19 wrote:

grand strategic plans for containing Russia,

Such plans have existed since the year dot. Various European countries have been struggling against Russia for about 400 years now, and East Asian countries have been dealing with Russian nonsense for about 700 years now.

Was there ever a sensible non-Russian on earth that didn’t want to contain Russia? What do you think would happen if you didn’t contain them? Russia has historically had designs on basically everything you care to name. Russia is a country that even seriously had designs on India, and was only halted because the British Empire frustrated them in Peshawar province. Even the roots of the conflict in Afghanistan actually stems back to a need to prevent Russian dilettante meddling.

Any conscientious reading of military history will reveal Russia as a deadly opponent.

Russia is also a country which has fought four wars against Japan and Korea in the 20th century. First was the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-1905, second was the war in Manchuria in 1938-1939 which they provocatively waged right under the very nose of the whole world, and then thirdly Russia’s invasion of Manchuria and Korea in 1945, and fourthly Russia’s participation in the war in Korea in 1950-1953. I’ll say more about this later, but it’s not like Russia is just sitting there doing nothing.

On a meta-level also, it seems strange to me that I’m constantly being accused of being anti-Russian like if that is supposed to be some kind of shameful thing. Why should it be shameful to be anti-Russian? Bringing harm to Russia is both strategically sensible, and would be enjoyable.

Just Sayin’ on Fri, 08 Jan 2016 00:19 wrote:

not the white left we need, but the left we already have.

Is it really, though? Because last I checked, the ‘left you already have’ (which looks something like Code Pink), is a left that would like to cancel all the presently-running wars in the Middle East, let ISIL take over all the oil refineries and jack up the oil prices globally, and then after that they’d also like to make peace with Russia because ‘war is bad mkay’, and then after that they’d also like to cancel all the FTAs with Korea, stop the FTA with Japan from being signed in the EU, and cancel the Trans-Pacific Partnership, because ‘dey took our jobs’, and then when there is an inevitable shortage of economic demand, they’d like to address that by inviting half the population of the Middle East to enter the EU just out of some weird anti-European spite because supposedly ‘refugees are welcome’, even though that has only a negative effect.

That’s the ‘left’ you already have. I sometimes call it the ‘opposite day left’, because it’s a left that is just automatically against everything no matter what it is.

Nobody on Fri, 08 Jan 2016 03:57 wrote:

Russia is an empire, they took it.

And it can be taken back. Sometimes crises come, and empires eventually find themselves breaking up slowly over time. Russia’s economy is pretty ossified, and they haven’t really engaged in the reforms that would have been needed since the early 2000s in order for them to compete on the global stage in the long term, so that gives an opening where Europeans can make Russia’s economy scream simply by refusing to trade normally with them, and by letting Russia’s rivals economically penetrate the regions surrounding Russia.

Another good move would be to have China build a transit route for goods, that connects to Central and Eastern Europe whose path goes around Russia. Which is already happening of course. Victor Orban also seems to agree with all of this, and he seems to be a pretty reliable person too, so it’s not like this is a viewpoint that is confined to the ivory tower or something. Sometimes it’s just common sense.


23

 Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Fri, 08 Jan 2016 09:16 | #

Captainchaos on Fri, 08 Jan 2016 08:20 wrote:

The upshot of all of this is to enable China as an expansionary power.  Why must we cooperate in awarding these chinks lebensraum across the globe?

No livingspace is being awarded to anyone at the expense of Europeans. China is also not even the sole country concerned with this. Also, if East Asian countries enter mutually-beneficial security arrangements with the EU and USA, regarding border enforcement in the way that Daniel is providing an example of, one of the first places that would have to be dealt with is actually Libya. Would anyone really be opposed to having East Asian countries deal with Libya alongside Europeans in a multinational array of forces?

Captainchaos on Fri, 08 Jan 2016 08:20 wrote:

Because we need to subcontract our border security to them! Lulz What a crock of shit.

It’s not like it hasn’t been done before. When the Italians were looking for new partners to help them jointly patrol East Africa’s coast to facilitate the flow of oil tankers without interruption, they chose to ask China and India to join them in doing that, and they had a lot of productive and friendly military-to-military contact from that, and there was plenty of talk about best-practices. There’s only a matter of time before someone decides to invite Korea and Japan to that scene, I think.

Also, Japan literally has a base in Djibouti, which is in the American sphere, which Japan uses for collaborative efforts alongside the USA, for taking actions against threats arising in Africa.


24

 Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 08 Jan 2016 18:20 | #

I’ve got a better idea – use Japan and Korea to keep China boxed in.


25

 Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Fri, 08 Jan 2016 18:30 | #

It’s not too difficult to keep China in check in the South China Sea, since that’s a matter of ‘good fences make good neighbours’, and JADGE being really well-maintained.

But Japan and Korea have no capability to prevent China’s westward movement (for obvious geographical reasons), nor is there any reason to prevent such a thing.


26

 Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 08 Jan 2016 23:09 | #

I wish China good luck moving westward against nuclear armed Pakistan and India!


27

 Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sat, 09 Jan 2016 05:25 | #

And here I was thinking that you were complaining about the expansion of Chinese influence into Central Asia and Eastern Europe.

Given that those things are west of China’s position.


28

 Posted by Tom on Sat, 09 Jan 2016 05:40 | #

The problem is government policy, not lack of border guards. There’s a lack of will on the part of European governments to prevent migration, and even a desire to invite and accept migrants. If we were ever in a position to hire Chinese border guards to prevent to prevent migration, we wouldn’t need to. With government policy changed to focus on preventing migration, domestic border guards would be sufficient.

At any rate, all this seems to be fantasizing to me, no different from playing the board game of Risk. What is the point of fantasizing about these thing when even being in a position to orchestrate these sorts of things would require many challenging intermediate steps like winning power domestically?


29

 Posted by DanielS on Sat, 09 Jan 2016 06:27 | #

Tom,

The very nature of the very real ‘game’ is international coordination.

The matter already goes beyond national governments, even beyond EU enforcement – which is itself International from the onset.

There is more border than just our own in Europe, say, along the Mediterranean.

There is the border in North Africa and all along the Silk Road.

Our common interests are not at all fantasy, they are very real.

Moreover, there is the fact that we would be working with a group – Asians – who have sufficient skill and manpower against hostile, hard-to-deal-with and/or incompetent groups – Middle Easterners and Africans.

As Kumiko said, there are already motivations and arrangements of this sort in place on the basis of these realities – which need to be better orchestrated.

With regard to manning our borders with some foreign delegation, well, inasmuch as we don’t need them, we wouldn’t have to use them – foreign and domestic delegations are meant to fill a need; but they could conceivably help; where they were to exist, we already have models of insular foreign towns, such as Chinatowns, in Europe; which tend to preserve their own kind and ways; and might be of service, having a common interest to preserve the European type and having capacity and motivation in a negative sense to deal with Muslims, Africans and Jews.

Captainchaos,

Not only Chinese, but Indians (Hindus) are potentially a valuable Ally as they are ideologically opposed to Islam – Pakistan, e.g.


30

 Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sat, 09 Jan 2016 07:24 | #

I also think it’s pretty strange to see accusations of ‘playing risk’, given that all I’ve done in this thread really is defend things that are already happening.

1. Russian containment is already happening.
2. China being an economic component of that containment is already happening.
3. EU FTA with Japan is already being negotiated.
4. EU FTA with Korea already happened.
5. Trans-Pacific Partnership is already happening.
6. Joint patrols with Europeans and Asians in the Indian Ocean near Africa, already happening.
7. Central and Eastern Europe working together with China on infrastructure projects including rail-based train routes connecting Asia to Central Europe, already happening.
8. Chinese RMB currency accepted as part of the SDR basket by the IMF, already happening.
9. China making strategic gains against Russia in Central Asia by using SCO, already happening.
10. India, Japan, Vietnam, and the Philippines working with the United States on maintaining balance in the South China sea in case China suddenly does something weird or unexpected, already happening.
11a. Establishing a nuclear deal with Iran and scaling back sanctions so that trade can proceed normally, and [b.] so that Iran can act as an alternate energy source for the EU to offset Russian preponderance, and [c.]so that Asia can take its pick from a whole range of suppliers at cheap prices, and so that [d.]Iran can be tempted to act as a swing-power in the Caucasus sponsoring political developments that may be disadvantageous to Russia.

If there’s anything that I could be accused of, it’s of not advocating anything different from what has already been set in motion, but I can’t be accused of ‘playing risk’. I did of course support all of those things before they started happening as well, but the point remains.


31

 Posted by DanielS on Sat, 09 Jan 2016 09:00 | #

Kumiko, can you elaborate on how North Korea is a Russian doing?


32

 Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sat, 09 Jan 2016 13:12 | #

Well, that was already explained in one of the earlier links. One of the easiest and most straightforward ways to understand North Korea is basically that it is a total wasteland which has been situated in the Korean peninsula because Russia desired that it should be there.

North Korea tends to be a pretty complicated subject, so that’s the best concise statement that I can give without it diverting the entire topic onto the subject of North Korea.


33

 Posted by North Korea on Sat, 09 Jan 2016 18:17 | #

I know that you don’t want to open-up a can of worms about North Korea, but I am looking to adumbrate the critical view, a working hypothesis, of it as a proxy interest and exploitation of Russia:

1. Russia wanted to take over the whole peninsula but was prevented from taking over completely; South Korea has, in effect, become like an island nation as it does not have free travel by land through North Korea. Nevertheless, South Korea has, by contrast to North Korea, shown what these people are capable of with the correct leadership and politico/economic system (third way) as opposed to North Korea’s quasi-Sovietism inculcated of Russia.

2. With the geo-political menacing from that in-your-your face imposition, Russia has destabilized the native area, creating a notoriously dangerous, volatile regime and circumstance though its impositions.

3. They and the corrupt regime that they prop-up exploit the North Korean people as veritable slave labor – Russia is the prime beneficiary and it provides no approximate value in return.


34

 Posted by Nobody on Sun, 10 Jan 2016 02:26 | #

I wish China good luck moving westward against nuclear armed Pakistan and India!

As do I.  And before they move westward, I hope that they hit both those shithole “nations”  with nuclear weapons and fry those stunky bindis ASAP.


35

 Posted by DanielS on Sun, 10 Jan 2016 08:55 | #

So, your angle here, “Nobody”, is to not take your thoughts seriously.

The status quo and where things are headed on its trajectory is very good for you, I suppose


36

 Posted by Nobody on Sun, 10 Jan 2016 14:38 | #

The status quo and where things are headed on its trajectory is very good for you, I suppose

Daniel, I find subcontinentals disgusting.  The less the better.  I just happened to like the Captain’s idea of a war with the Han crushing them like the maggots they are.  BTW, I like what you write, cool stuff.  When the SHTF in the US, the issues of the Chinese ripping the subcons to pieces will be on page 58 of the NYT.


37

 Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 10 Jan 2016 21:40 | #

The only ally the White man needs to wrangle the 85 IQ shitskins that constitute “Islam” is his own balls.  That being the case – and it manifestly is – why should Whites make unnecessary concessions to gooks to facilitate an unneeded alliance?  There is no good reason.


38

 Posted by DanielS on Sun, 10 Jan 2016 21:59 | #

Though you are capable of very intelligent comments, CC, that wasn’t a particularly good one. Furthermore, it’s a straw man.

85 I.Q. Muslims in the Middle East aren’t the only people that we need to contend with.

Then there is the matter of vast populations and their biopower in places beyond Europe, along the Silk Road and elsewhere.

Asians are the best possible allies among the non-Whites to help secure and cultivate resources and get these populations under control.

As for what might be “conceded to them”…that’s supposed to be the point: to open discussion of what cooperation already exists, where we could use help, what we need and what we don’t need.

Quite to the contrary of having set anything in stone and having given them anything, I am opening the topic of negotiating alliance and requirements thereof for discussion.


39

 Posted by property tax funding the free corps on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 12:42 | #

Lest someone accuse me of trying to transform “Euro man” and his individuality into an a-sexual and eusocial insect (or turn us directly over to control of the Chinese red army ants), Bowery has made his by-now standard recommendation over at Occidental Observer.

There is merit to it (though, as usual, it probably veers too much away from praxis and goes “scientistic” in not differentiating humans quite enough, for their “human nature”, from other natural forms):

James Bowery, January 10, 2016 – 7:45 am | Permalink

Mercenaries such as the Freikorps need payment. Governments control the money supply and they are paying foreign mercs to come to Europe and gang rape European women. The cost of importing legitimate refugees may be seen as the cost of disinformation. The European “police” are local mercs paid to protect the foreign mercs as they get their sexual compensation — protect them from men who would kill the foreign mercs, and probably the local mercs aiding the foreign mercs and maybe even the government leaders responsible.

The government leaders are too clever by half in all this because they forgot 2 founding principles of civilization:

1) Civilization (as we know it at least) can form only by the consent of men who agree to give up their natural right to challenge any “leader” to natural duel to the death — a natural right enjoyed by individual males of all sexual species.

2) This consent can only be attained only by the government, in turn, guaranteeing _collective_ territorial defense to the men as well as material rights accruing from the network externalities created by property rights — the protection of which is a service of the government paid for by those enjoying said property rights.

When governments not only shift the tax base from property rights to economic activity (such as income, value added, etc.), but cease performing the primordial function of territorial defense, they are asking for a new monetary base to be formed by men who agree to reinstitute those 2 founding principles.

It is simple enough, really:

Just issue Freikorps currency backed by the property rights respected by the Freikorps. Cease respecting all other property rights. Charge the owners of respected property rights an insurance premium and distribute the revenue evenly to all members of the Freikorps — with the understanding that they are to arm themselves, train and protect those legitimate property rights — even coming to the aid of property owners to indemnify them against loss.

Smart as they are, these guys who formed “Atavistic Intelligentsia” are saying some stupid things – e.g., “Being is for girls”, and not, say, the very essence of what White males do not have sufficiently and what they need as an essential warrant to the survival of our race – seems strikingly similar to the opinions of those who want to oppose things that I say…well, just because, you know…


40

 Posted by DanielS on Tue, 12 Jan 2016 14:45 | #


Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 10 Jan 2016 21:40 | #
The only ally the White man needs to wrangle the 85 IQ shitskins that constitute “Islam” is his own balls.  That being the case – and it manifestly is – why should Whites make unnecessary concessions to gooks to facilitate an unneeded alliance?  There is no good reason.

Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 08 Jan 2016 08:20 | #
The upshot of all of this is to enable China as an expansionary power.  Why must we cooperate in awarding these chinks lebensraum across the globe?  Because we need to subcontract our border security to them!  Lulz What a crock of shit.

Captainchaos (from Johnfriend talk at Age of Treason), 2 January 2016 at 5:11 pm:
I’m sure the Jews will try to subvert a WN revolution, or at least attempt to blunt its impact. How can that be prevented? How can it be assured that the 14 words are achieved? There must be an idea which forms the steely core of WN thought that is, by its very nature, not capable of being compromised. That idea is the creation of the Northwest American Republic; within its boundaries there will be total politically sovereign and territorial separation from muds and Jews. Only White people will be allowed to reside there.


CC, you say that you don’t want to make any concessions to “chinks, gooks” etc.. and that we should not give them “liebensraum.”

Aren’t you making concessions with your Northwest ingathering concept?


41

 Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Tue, 12 Jan 2016 14:58 | #

Yes, it would seem that he’s making concessions to basically every African-American person in the United States.

How does Captainchaos even have the time to hate Asians this much, or the audacity, given that he is in fact the one making the concessions?


42

 Posted by DanielS on Tue, 12 Jan 2016 15:14 | #

Can you imagine giving-up California, Colorado, West Virginia, Florida, South Carolina, Mississippi, the Caribbean Islands, etc. to blacks?

You are giving them paradise. Who are the losers?

CC, you have some life experience…when as a child you watched red army ants fight black ants, which won?

I have 1,406,477,219 billion red army ants on my side. I’ll take them, on my side, the “gooks” and “nips” too: they have the volume, I.Q. and the ethnocentrism to assist in holding up to our enemies ranging from Jew cleverness and Muslim fanaticism to black biopower.


43

 Posted by 19 largest cities east of Baikal on Wed, 13 Jan 2016 01:37 | #

While there are cities and regions to the West of Lake Baikal which may be contestable as to whether or not they should be Russian or, in fact, enclaves of other peoples; cities and regions along the South and Western borders of Russia that may be similarly contestable; and we will look into those disputable territories, whether or not they should be enclaves; and we will also look into some interesting stories that go along with these places later; to begin, lets take a look at the largest cities East of Lake Baikal, as of the 2010 census:

Of 319 Russian cities larger than 50,000, there are only 19 East of Lake Baikal. None of these cities East of the lake were as large as 600,000; only four were larger than 300,000; only three were larger than 400,000.

The largest is Vladivastok, which is Russia’s 22nd largest city at 592,034 022

1) 22 Vladivostok, Primorsky Krai, 592,034 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladivostok

2) 26 Khabarovsk, Khabarovsk Krai 577,441 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khabarovsk

3) 45 Ulan-Ude, Republic of Buryatia 404,426 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulan-Ude

4) 56 Chita, Zabaykalsky Krai 324,444 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chita,_Zabaykalsky_Krai

5) 68 Yakutsk, Sakha Republic 269,601 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakutsk

Yakutsk

6) 70 Komsomolsk-on-Amur Khabarovsk Krai 263,906 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komsomolsk-on-Amur

7) 87 Blagoveshchensk, Amur Oblast 214,390 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blagoveshchensk

8) 99 Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, Sakhalin Oblast 181,728 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk

9) 100 Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, Kamchatka Krai, 179,780 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky

10) 110 Nakhodka, Primorsky Krai 159,719 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakhodka

11) 111 Ussuriysk, Primorsky Krai, 158,004 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussuriysk

12) 158 Artyom, Primorsky Krai 102,603 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artyom,_Russia

13) 178 Magadan, Magadan Oblast 95,982 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magadan

14) 215 Birobidzhan, Jewish Autonomous Oblast 75,413 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birobidzhan

15) 229 Belogorsk, Amur Oblast 68,249 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belogorsk,_Amur_Oblast

16) 260 Neryungri, Sakha Republic 61,747 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neryungri

17) 281 Svobodny, Amur Oblast 58,778 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svobodny,_Amur_Oblast

18) 291 Arsenyev Арсеньев, 56,750 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenyev

19) 295 Krasnokamensk, Zabaykalsky Krai 55,666 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krasnokamensk,_Zabaykalsky_Krai

……………………………………………………….

Of geographical note:

146 Kyzyl, Tuva Republic 109,918 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyzyl claims to be located in central asia.

But a good place to draw a Western line in the sand to begin critical territorial dispute might be Ulan-Ude, just South East of Lake Baikal.

45 Ulan-Ude, Republic of Buryatia 404,426: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulan-Ude

Interestingly, regarding this, the third largest city East of Lake Baikal:

The first occupants of the area where Ulan-Ude now stands were the Evenks and, later, the Buryat Mongols. Ulan-Ude was settled in 1666 by the Russian Cossacks as the fortress of Udinskoye. Due to its favorable geographical position, it grew rapidly and became a large trade center which connected Russia with China and Mongolia and, from 1690, was the administrative center of the Transbaikal region.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evenks

The Evenks (also spelled Ewenki or Evenki) (autonym: Эвэнкил Evenkil; Russian: Эвенки Evenki; Chinese: 鄂温克族 Èwēnkè Zú; formerly known as Tungus or Tunguz; Mongolian: Хамниган Khamnigan) are a Tungusic people of Northern Asia. In Russia, the Evenks are recognized as one of the Indigenous peoples of the Russian North, with a population of 35,527 (2002 Census). According to the 2010 census, there were 37,843 Evenks in Russia. In China, the Evenki form one of the 56 ethnic groups officially recognized by the People’s Republic of China, with a population of 30,875, as per the 2010 Census. There are also 535 Mongolized Evenki in Mongolia, referred to as Khamnigan.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buryats

The Buryats (Buryat: Буряад, Buryaad; Mongolian: Буриад/Buriad), numbering approximately 500,000, are the largest indigenous group in Siberia, mainly concentrated in their homeland, the Buryat Republic, a federal subject of Russia. They are the major northern subgroup of the Mongols.


44

 Posted by Ulan-Ude on Wed, 13 Jan 2016 13:05 | #

That’s Ulan-Ude here, to the South-East of Lake Baikal in the upper left hand corner of this map image.

Ulan-Ude is the third largest city in Russia east of Lake Baikal, while Vladivastok (red arrow) is the largest Russian city east of Lake Baikal.

Posted by Thorn on Thu, 14 Jan 2016 00:44 | #

Sunday, January 10, 2016

Throwing Russians Under the Bus, Part 1

By JHW

Majority Rights jumping the shark.

I have previously written about the despicable Silver’s contribution to the destruction of Majority Rights.  What’s going on in the rubble of MR land? They have an East Asian female (female – of course) – which, despite the Japanese-sounding anime name may well be that “Chinese Nationalist Maiden” creature haunting pro-White blogs in recent years – making such wonderful contributions such as this:

Read more>>http://eginotes.blogspot.com/2016/01/throwing-russians-under-bus-part-1.html


47

 Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Thu, 14 Jan 2016 11:17 | #

Thorn wrote:

Read more>>http://eginotes.blogspot.com/2016/01/throwing-russians-under-bus-part-1.html

I see that Thorn is making several delirious demands as well, as though he has the right to demand anything from Japanese people at this point.

I stand by everything I’ve said. Him quoting myself back to me is not going to make a difference.


48

 Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Thu, 14 Jan 2016 11:24 | #

Also, it’s interesting how Thorn couldn’t make his response inside of the thread that the conversation was actually occurring in, because the arguments going on there were too strong. I find it really interesting that all of the pro-Jewish unstable lunatics also happen to be Christians who want to cuddle with Russia at the same time. It’s almost like these things are really correlated.

Population density by Russian Federation “Oblasts” (subregions)

 Posted by DanielS on Fri, 15 Jan 2016 13:20 | #

Kumiko, I moved Thorn’s comment here because, as you note, this is where it belongs, if anywhere besides the trash.

Thorn is a long standing troll on behalf of Jews, a man dedicated to sucking Jewish cock. Hence, his new found “affinity for Russians” has everything and only to do with a Jewish strategy of tying to counter a European-Asian alliance.

He and his Jewish masters know that this alliance will crush the hegemony of his Jewish god, will not only put an end to their hegemony, but will put an end to his faggot, Jew sucking self.

He will only tactfully distance himself from Jews in an attempt to not be too obvious in his allegiance. But at bottom, Thorn is a man dedicated to sucking Jewish cock and that is what is behind his concern for Russians as White – i.e., he wants to see Jews as White too and mix them up with Russian interests as much as possible in order to play them off of a European-Asian alliance.

Sunday, January 10, 2016

Throwing Russians Under the Bus, Part 1

By JHW

Majority Rights jumping the shark.

I have previously written about the despicable Silver’s contribution to the destruction of Majority Rights.  What’s going on in the rubble of MR land? They have an East Asian female (female – of course) – which, despite the Japanese-sounding anime name may well be that “Chinese Nationalist Maiden” creature haunting pro-White blogs in recent years – making such wonderful contributions such as this:

Read more>>http://eginotes.blogspot.com/2016/01/throwing-russians-under-bus-part-1.html

Kumiko is Japanse.

I am not against Russians, I wish them health, happiness and home – a sound and safe ethnostate.

However, looking at the map and history from an ethno-national standpoint, it appears as if the Russian Federation may be more of an empire than an ethnostate. Therefore, it is worth considering if they are occupying / controlling lands that should be the ethnostates of other peoples. If they have aggrandized land wrongly at other people’s expense, have killed and are exploiting people in those places, I see no obligation to stand by them in that over-reach, “no mater what”. And particularly not in as much as it expresses Jewish power and influence (which Thorn sucks).

Japan Today, ‘No. of crimes in Japan falls to postwar low in 2015’ 15 Jan 2016:

TOKYO —

The number of crimes in Japan in 2015 hit a postwar low, the National Police Agency said Thursday, citing an increase in security cameras as well as raised public awareness of crime prevention.

Overall penal code violations decreased 9.3% from the previous year to 1,099,048, falling below the previous record of 1,190,549 set in 1973, the agency said in a preliminary report.

All categories of crimes marked declines from 2014.

The number of thefts, which account for more than 70% of crimes in Japan, dropped to 807,605 from 897,259. Murders fell to 933 from 1,054 with fraud cases down to 39,439 from 41,523.

The crime clearance rate, or the ratio of cases solved by police to total reported crimes, improved to 32.5% from 30.6%, with the ratio for murder and other violent crimes rising to 72.3% from 68.2%, topping 70% for the first time in 16 years.

By age of those subject to police action, the number of juveniles aged between 14 and 19 sharply fell to 39,501 from 142,594 in 2002, when the total number of penal code violations peaked.

That of the elderly aged 65 or older, meanwhile, nearly doubled to 47,643 from the 2002 figure of 24,241, reflecting Japan’s graying society.


52

 Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sat, 16 Jan 2016 09:20 | #

Interesting development, Daniel, but that fall in the crime rate could be because there are less young males in Japanese society, as the population seems to be contracting with an aim to go back to the level it was at in the 1860s or something. That’s not bad of course, every boom ought to be followed by a bust, and it’s better to let the air out of the population bubble slowly than to do it suddenly.

I see over at Thorn’s blog, Thorn (or whoever he’s co-writing it with?) is still trying to elicit some kind of angry response from me with his verbal attacks against East Asia as though I’m going to be offended. He’s also openly declared himself to be in the tank for Russia in all contexts, which would explain why the attacks are coming, and would also explain why the execution is so hamfisted. I’d also like to see at some point how he plans to explain or justify the fact that he is supporting Russia against himself, because it really just looks like he’s come down with a case of ‘opposite day’.

He asks why it is that Asians came to western countries. It’s easy, someone decided to build a ‘multiethnic empire’ and a collection of interlocking defence agreements based on utilising the skills and talents of an array of partners so that the Soviet Union could be contained during the Cold War or whatever other war they felt like having, and some enlightened people in Asia (and mercenary types also) found it lucrative and convenient to support the Anglo-American order after losing the Second World War. While it ostensibly was all about doing whatever Anglo-Americans wanted, the open world economic structure that was created to facilitate containment of the Soviet Union provided economic benefit to those who participated in that containment, and was wisely used to accelerate development of Asian economies. The ability of ‘job creators’ (or just high IQ people in general) to migrate from one place to another simply allowed people to get closer to the centre of the action. Of course, to some extent this logic is still playing out today with the TPP. If Thorn hasn’t read the article and comments on the TPP, he ought to.

Anglo-Saxon geostrategists have a storied history of asking other population groups to make Faustian pacts with them under certain circumstances, pacts which usually involve hurting Russia. I can’t imagine why that’s mystifying to Thorn at this stage. He only needs to know the military history of the UK to know that ‘Anglos are gonna Anglo’, and that usually it’s not a bad thing.


53

 Posted by Thorn on Sat, 16 Jan 2016 22:19 | #

“I see over at Thorn’s blog, Thorn (or whoever he’s co-writing it with?)….”

For the record: Thorn is neither the owner nor a co-writer/contributor at EGI Notes. My interest in EGI Notes is that of readership only. The owner of EGI Notes is JWH a/k/a [Thorn gives a name but MR knows him as Sallis] used to be a regular contributor/commenter to Majorityrights.com.

The main purpose of my post was to let you guys and gals know people in the alt right blogosphere are critiquing MR. Unfortunately for y’all the reviews aren’t very favorable. HEH! 


54

 Posted by DanielS on Sun, 17 Jan 2016 07:48 | #

​“I see over at Thorn’s blog, Thorn (or whoever he’s co-writing it with?)….”

For the record: Thorn is neither the owner nor a co-writer/contributor at EGI Notes. My interest in EGI Notes is that of readership only. The owner of EGI Notes is JWH a/k/a Michael [MR is withholding name – pen name is Sallis] used to be a regular contributor/commenter to Majorityrights.com.

Thorn is neither the owner nor a co-writer/contributor at EGI Notes.

Perhaps not, but Thorn is a piece of shit troll who wants to suck Jewish cock. He has nothing constructive to say at Majorityrights and his only purpose here is to try to harass MR and to try to discredit it in any way that he might. However, he cannot, because he cannot even assimilate the skills to do so.


The Thornblossom remarks further:

The main purpose of my post was to let you guys and gals know people in the alt right blogosphere are critiquing MR. Unfortunately for y’all the reviews aren’t very favorable. HEH!

Oh really? Well let me turn attention then to “the alt right blogosphere”, i.e., Sallis, then.

I have never talked with [ ], a.k.a. “Ted Sallis”

I have not thought a great deal about him, but I will put forth what I know about him, as I understand him at present:

He left Majorityrights before I came here.

He went on and has published a few articles at Occidental Observer and even more at Counter Currents.

He is a genetecist or in some ancillary vocation of genetic science.

He worked at The Max Planck Institute and knows Frank Salter from there.

Without having made a study of his political outlook, I cannot vouch for where I agree or disagree with him; but the funny thing to me, generally, about whatever complaints that he may have with MR, and with me, is that I have tended to generally like his articles, as I recall them, finding them to be logical and sincerely motivated defense of European people.

Speaking out of hand, my criticisms would be things that he could easily correct, if he wanted to. He doesn’t seem to like my re-casting of the term and content of the term “the left”, to the “White left”, and he seems to be among the first to write articles doubling-down on casting “the left” as the enemy (I have criticized that on his part, and I still do); although content-wise, it seems that I can usually agree with most of what he says besides that difference on rubric. Along with that insistence on remaining in the right-wing box, or the “right-left is not a useful paradigm” box (yes, a no box-box of itself) he seems to be a bit stuck in a conservative mindset altogether. It’s a little disappointing and a minor frustration to me in regard to a guy who writes some good articles. Again, I tend to like his stuff; and he’s quite intelligent; quite logical.

It isn’t like Thorn, who there could be no point talking-to because he has no other motive than to disparage; because one might hope that constructive conversation could be had with Sallis, who seems to be acting in good faith. Maybe he is. Maybe he is operating under some false assumptions and reacting to them.

That would seem to require a bit of background, however.

Here is what jumped out to me with regard to Sallis’ motivation.

When GW and I were trying to propose an interview of Frank Salter, GW sought Sallis’  advice because Sallis knew Salter from the Max Planck Inst.

Sallis fired-back an angry e-mail, saying that he would implore Salter to not talk to Majorityrights.

GW was surprised and asked me what I thought. Knowing far less about this man than GW, my guesses could only be more wild as to what his misgivings might be.

MR is too “anti-Semitic”? That could be a motivation – don’t know. Or was it that MR is not too anti-Semitic, but Salter can’t risk his professional reputation because we’re too blatant in our position? Plausible. That could be a reason, but then why would Salter talk to Red Ice, who are not only anti-Semitc but pro-Hitler, which neither MR nor Salter is – Salter has been careful and clear about that.

What is emerging as my best guess is that Sallis (who is at least part Italian/American) is still sore at MR from its days when there were quite a few Nordicists here, such as Desmond Jones, et al. People like that could be caustically anti-Southern and Eastern European; and especially because I am half Italian and half Eastern European, I can understand the frustration of being attacked and vilified by people who you are treating as being on your side and are trying to help.

That’s just a guess, but why it is my guess is because when I was talking with GW and Per about an author named McCullough (I think that’s how you spell it), GW mentioned that he had been discussed at MR at one time but Sallis freaked-out big time because he found McCullough to be too Nordicist and disparaging of Southern Europeans; and that “this kind of perspective was one of the major problems with the struggle.”

Funny thing, I can relate to Sallis’ frustration – though I don’t perhaps feel it quite so acutely, being half “Northern European”, I still don’t think Northern Europeans should throw Southern Europeans under the bus – not only a sentiment, but a term that I’ve used exactly.

Always being conscientious to include all people of European extraction in my EGI defense group thus, it is mildly disconcerting to be falsely accused by him of “throwing Russians under the bus”  – which I am not doing.

What I am saying is, while Sallis may have had a legitimate grievance with MR at one time for its being anti-Southern or Eastern European, he should not be against it for those reasons now: because it has taken on a more distinctly ethnonationalist direction as opposed to the Nordicist/or strictly NW European position it once trafficked-in more frequently.

Nevertheless, that of itself would not explain his beef with Silver, who claimed to be Southern European mixed with Middle Eastern parentage.  Lets set-aside the fact that if Sallis is sincere about White/European interests then he should recognize that Silver is not sincere about European interests – he was no less a troll than Thorn.

But none of this explains Sallis defending Dr. Frank Salter, or those who hold fast to Salter’s EGI framework which apparently sees Italians and Greeks in the same family of genetic interests as Jews and other Middle Easterners and clearly distinct from Northern European EGI.

If Sallis’ grievance is with Nordicism then, why be so defensive of Salter?

Or perhaps he does not want to equip us with Salter, thinking that we are Northwestern European bigots?

That could be, because he is quite defensive of Russians, alleging that I am throwing them under the bus.

But I am not throwing Russians under the bus and I am not against them.  I am considering the strategy of looking at their huge Federation as problematic from an ethnonationalist point of view; and considering the Asian point of view on its vast expanse, empathizing with it as a part of a program for what I see as a necessary alliance with Asians.

I have not done more than give a cursory glance at his blog and I barely feel obliged to address charges that I am inviting China into Europe, when in fact I am considering, just considering at this stage, a discussion of the possibility, among other possibilities, of using Asian regiments among others in border garrisons. The idea, at any rate, is to protect European EGI – which Sallis purports to be concerned about.

I am told his blog has posts making negative accusations about MR. The bits that I saw briefly were blatantly false, with little or no attempt to be accurate to what we are saying here and so I am not inclined to bother reading through, though I might later, I don’t know.

However, Sallis is not Thorn. From what I know of his articles at Counter Currents, Sallis has half a brain. If he wants to come here and discuss things, criticize, offer suggestions, I am open to that. If he wants to talk with us in a podcast, I would welcome that too. He should see that he should not have a beef with us after all.  Either that or we will find that he is a rat.​


55

 Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sun, 17 Jan 2016 13:07 | #

Thorn on Sat, 16 Jan 2016 22:19 wrote:

My interest in EGI Notes is that of readership only. The owner of EGI Notes is JWH [Sallis]

Okay, that makes things more clear. I wasn’t able to recognise that the initials were those of a past contributor, since unfortunately no one provided me with that context.

Thorn on Sat, 16 Jan 2016 22:19 wrote:

The main purpose of my post was to let you guys and gals know people in the alt right blogosphere are critiquing MR. Unfortunately for y’all the reviews aren’t very favorable. HEH!

You have one person who is clearly a disgruntled past contributor. In his lastest post he is ‘now becoming serious’ by:

1. Asking ‘who would you support’ and presenting the dichotomy of supporting the USSR on one hand or the PRC on the other.

The answer to that question is already known, Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford supplied that answer. In the circumstances that had come to exist at the time, that was the best possible choice that could have been made.

2. He also is fulminating against the Anglo-Japanese Alliance from around 1914, the terms which were laid out by Japan at that time, which I of course 100% agree with, was basically a coded message that either the British Empire would allow Japanese people to migrate into British colonies in the Eastern hemisphere, or otherwise ‘it would be unsafe’. Uneven economic development caused by previous accumulation in a competitive world can often be pretty unsafe for many people. And unsafe it was, as Britain first did not allow co-operation to take place, and then secondly the British Empire chose to side with the United States and its interests, as well as the interests of international finance in the City of London in the Second World War that was coming. Realistically, by the time of 1935, it was abundantly obvious to everyone that it would be war. All other roads were excluded because the BUF was unfortunately prevented from being able to make the internal structural changes to British society which would have been required to move Britain into the Axis camp.

Is that supposed to be Japan’s fault? If Sallis is so upset, maybe he should be asking why it had to be that way, why Britain chose to join the Allies rather than Axis, and he should not be asking why an Asian nation which espoused pan-Asian ideology was trying to create the circumstances for the realisation of pan-Asian goals.

ALSO: Given the rhetoric that he is throwing around, I wouldn’t be surprised if Sallis will next declare that Adolf Hitler and the entire general staff of the German Army in NS Germany, as well as Benito Mussolini and the whole PNF, were somehow magically ‘race traitors’ to the European peoples because they chose to work with or enable the following militant groups of people against certain European groups:

Japan, Korea (yes, large sections of Korean society fought in the IJA and collaborated with Axis), the Burmese National Army, the Indian National Army, Indonesian National Army, Young Malays Union, Thailand, the Philippines, Formosa (non-KMT Han in Taiwan and Taiwanese aboriginals), Mongolia, Crimean Tatars, Hmong tribes, Khmer Issarak (Cambodian and Khmer), Cambodia, Laos, Cochinchina (later part of Vietnam), Annam (later part of Vietnam), Tonkin (later part of Vietnam), Manchuria, Tibet, Assam, Bengal.

I can’t wait to see the rationalising or perhaps the spinning that will happen next.


56

 Posted by DanielS on Sun, 17 Jan 2016 13:18 | #

The answer to that question is already known

While Sallis apparently bemoans the Soviet sufferings in the example of the Sino-Soviet border conflict of 1969, the normal answer/position for anyone who cares about Europeans and European EGI: with regard to which side to take in the Sino-Soviet conflict is of course the Chinese side.


57

 Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sun, 17 Jan 2016 13:38 | #

DanielS on Sun, 17 Jan 2016 13:18 wrote:

While Sallis apparently bemoans the Soviet sufferings in the example of the Sino-Soviet border conflict of 1969, the normal answer/position for anyone who cares about Europeans and European EGI: with regard to which side to take in the Sino-Soviet conflict is of course the Chinese side.

This is like a case of chess vs. checkers. If you are playing checkers (which apparently Sallis is doing) then you’ll scream, “Russians are white and therefore they should be blindly supported no matter what they do, because their skin is very white!”

Or, you could play chess and realise that the Sino-Soviet split was one of the most exploitable things that ever happened for people who were struggling against the Soviet Union.

With regards to Japan, ‘coincidentally’ (actually it is no coincidence), Japan immediately sought to re-establish diplomatic relations with China in 1972 at the same time that the United States was doing it, and by 1976 Japanese investment in China was rising, and by 1978 Nitchu Heiwa Yuko Jouyaku was signed, while the USSR was panicking. Japan benefited from that choice.

For the United States and for countries in Europe, the geostrategic benefit of maintaining the Cold War as a three-way struggle (West-Aligned vs. Soviets vs. China) instead of a two-way struggle (West-Aligned vs. Red Flags), is just obvious, and the business opportunities were also obvious.

In the end, who failed and who survived? The Soviet Union is the one that ended up in total economic collapse. And it indeed ought to have collapsed.


58

 Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sun, 17 Jan 2016 23:42 | #

Sallis is back again with [1]another post in which he believes he’s ‘fisking’ MR, and one where [2]he accuses Daniel of just about any and everything imaginable. So let’s see what’s in store this time!

I have tried to cut through to the elements that I think are most in need of correction or questioning, rather than doing some kind of line by line response. All quotes are from those two links as they appeared at 2330 today:

Sallis wrote:

That’s right. I’m clearly no damn good.  How about removing my EGI PDF from your anti-White Yellow Supremacist website?  How many goddamn times do I have to ask, Madame Butterfly?

I’m not aware of any ‘yellow supremacy’ going on here. Furthermore, this is the second time you’ve asked me to remove it, if I count your first request as being the one that was sent via Thorn in a comment here that has since been removed.

But wait, you don’t know who Thorn is, I thought?

Sallis wrote (emphasis added):

It seems like the geniuses at MR have discerned that I am not “Thorn” (whoever the hell that is) – and only because “Thorn” himself told them.

So you don’t know Thorn, but he’s carrying messages for you? I don’t know whether to marvel at Thorn’s ability to find and latch onto anyone who is criticising Majorityrights, or whether to marvel at your ability to deputise a guy who you don’t even know.

Sallis wrote:

By the way, anyone familiar with my work knows full well I do not conflate race to skin color.

I know you don’t, but I was if anything only doing to you what you’ve been doing to my words for this entire exchange. I have a sense of humour too!

Sallis wrote:

Or you can play “chess” and realize that the Yellow Peril is the ultimate long-term threat to the White race,

I’m quite flattered, since it is true that Asians—being as we are—have been the only people so far to have given Western Europeans a run for their money (both literally and metaphorically) on anything, and we are presently the only people on this planet with the potential to do so again.

Of course, because of the way that the world has developed, we can’t spend our time constantly trying to kill each other for frivolous reasons, when co-operation in areas of shared interest is so much more lucrative. The threat to the integrity of European population groups is a serious threat with implications that stretch beyond Europe’s borders, and so it’s only natural that many Asian people would have an interest in working with Europeans. I have a feeling that you won’t quote this paragraph when/if you respond to me, but surprise me and do it.

It’s like when powerful mafia families decide to stop fighting each other. It’s understandable that some people may have fears and uncertainties, but what you do is create economic frameworks which reduce the propensity for war between the participants.

Sallis wrote:

Don’t seem to remember either individual (Adolf or Benito) proposing Chinese colonization of White lands so that White faglets can be protected by buck-toothed, flat-chested Chinese girls with guns.

I don’t seem to recall anyone at Majorityrights arguing in favour of Chinese colonisation of white lands either. Unless you happen to be talking about ‘Russian’ so-called ‘land’, which is just ridiculous.

Sallis wrote:

And I note that Hitler quashed von Ribbentrop’s triumphalist announcement of the Fall of Singapore (which Hitler regretted)

Yet it fell anyway, much like everything else around it was going to fall. Oh, sorry, I meant, rise, it was rising because the actual people who lived on that land were working together to deter aggression from a ridiculous colonial elite which had de facto placed itself in the service of international finance at a key conjuncture in history.

The UK had a choice, it made the wrong choice that time.

Sallis wrote:

The alliance with Japan was due to the UK’s refusal to see reason,

Yes, the UK’s leadership deliberately and consciously siding with international motherfucking Jews, Soviets, and Americans led by Franklin D. Roosevelt, when given a chance to choose otherwise, does tend to cause a Hitler to want to look for friends further afield.

And given that Japanese fascist ideology—more accurately ‘Japanese Right-Socialism’—had been developing since at least the late 1920s, it was pretty easy to find that friend.

Sallis wrote:

the crafty nips stabbed Adolf in the back by signing a non-aggression treaty with the USSR,

Or, we ‘craftily’ realised that after the undeclared border war in 1938—1939 in Manchuria, it was going to be impossible to actually win against the Soviet Union unless Japan could first carve out and secure an economic zone to the south, the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, which necessitated the removal of the United States Navy and the myriad British installations in that region, so that the liberal international cunts couldn’t just shut down all of Japan’s productive capacity in a day.

The fight for the south, was the fight to attain and integrate a supra-national body that would be capable of eventually taking on the Soviet Union with reasonable chances of success. Japan signed a non-aggression treaty and went south first, for the same reason that Germany signed a non-aggression treaty and went west first.

The intention of Japan was absolutely to violate the non-aggression treaty, as soon as the objectives in the south were completed. Unfortunately it was there that all of the problems would manifest.

Sallis wrote:

but – again, of course – expected German support after Pearl Harbor (which they got, proving again that Euro-Asian alliances are for the benefit of Asians only).

Actually, here’s a whole article about the number of ways in which Germany was carrying out a disproportionate number of self-serving actions, many of which actually impeded the progress toward fulfilling strategic objectives in the war: [Link]

Sallis wrote:

Further, both sides in both world wars made use of colored auxiliaries;

Yes, welcome to life.

Sallis wrote:

both sides were at fault,

Are you fucking kidding me?

Sallis wrote:

and both are worthy of condemnation, you mendacious Asiatic.

Hahaha, wow, you are seriously drawing an equivalence between the two sides? Are you all seeing this?

Sallis wrote:

By the way, one can make all sorts of excuses for arrogant Japanese behavior, re: 1914 and English overseas colonies.

We don’t make excuses for being arrogant, it’s part of being arrogant.

Sallis wrote:

I can’t wait for the “spin and rationalizations” for the protests of Asian nations, including Japan, for America’s Asian exclusion acts.

There is no spin or rationalisation. If you are prancing around in Asia acting like you own the place, for example, then you should expect some international trolling to be directed your way.

Sallis wrote:

Oh, you see, White lands are obligated

Nope, you are not forced to say ‘yes’ to every request made by other countries!

Sallis wrote:

Perhaps, gook, we’ll know what the “right choice” was when the final information is at hand.

We already do know what the ‘right choice’ is. The USSR was destroyed, and then it degenerated into a capitalist restoration federation staffed by a collection of bloated ex-Stalinist thugs, who we will also systematically destroy.

Sallis wrote:

Me, I think Nixon should have agreed to let the USSR nuke China.

Too bad for you that Richard Nixon was too much of an antisemite to allow the humongous filthy Russian-Jew USSR to get away with anything like that. Just kidding, I doubt that Nixon’s foreign policy preferences were motived by anti-semitism, but he achieved objectively antisemitic results in 1972, so it’s marvellous.

Sallis wrote:

If the White world ends up buried under a Yellow mudslide

I’ll take “shit that absolutely won’t happen” for 800 dollars, please. Japan, China, and South Korea are literally giving out free money to South East Asians in ODA and FDI so as to create jobs there and prevent them from exiting their countries, and you are hyperventilating about the tiny to negligible number of business-orientated and well-educated Asians who are inside the western world right now?

I don’t know if you fucking noticed, but there’s a literal swarm of crazed Arabs and Africans rampaging around in continental Europe right now like diseased gibbering monkeys, and you are meanwhile complaining about Asians?

Sallis wrote:

Therefore, prudence and plain common sense (or as Danny puts it, “half a brain”) would strongly suggest that you do not publicly post any information that is not already online someplace.  In other words, nothing new. So, yes, my MR debates with the likes of Desmond Jones and Silver are a matter of public record (and a waste of digital pixels for all the good it did); on the other hand, my private correspondence with GW, or anyone else, is not, and should not be, a matter of public record.

And yet it is a matter of public record: [Link]

At the end of that comment on 01 Apr 2015, DanielS apparently makes reference to the Salter interview issue that you’re talking about. That only took me five minutes to find, and it clearly was indeed a matter a public record.

Sallis wrote:

If you guys post intimate personal details on public forums

Ever since I’ve been brought on to Majorityrights, I’ve done everything to ensure that such things cannot happen. In fact, your supposed friend who you don’t know, Thorn, actually tried to post your real name in a comment here, and we decided to censor that attempt.

Why? Because despite everything, we adhere the basic principle of trying not to be leaky.

Sallis wrote:

The “movement” claims that they are “in a war to the death with ZOG” and they agonize over “NSA surveillance” and then they proceed to use “movement” blogs, websites, and meetings as the equivalent of social media, spewing forth personal information with all the enthusiasm of a blushing schoolgirl.

I’ve spoken out against this trend numerous times as well. In the context of Majorityrights, the transition to using HTTPS, the refusal to take on any advertising CDNs, and a refusal to integrate any social media APIs, a refusal to use Disqus, and even a refusal to use Cloudflare, along with a refusal to even use Google Analytics, are all decisions that were made by me in light of the fact that I really do believe that words should be backed up by at least basic actions.

Majorityrights is possibly the only ethno-nationalist site where if you choose to make a post anonymously, it is actually anonymous.

We’re also the only ones who have a privacy policy which allows users to request removal of personal information capable of identifying a user to be removed if it should happen by some unfortunate accident to become exposed and the person had not intended it to be exposed.

Sallis wrote:

Silver screeching about “shiteaters”

I’ve asked Daniel about that, to see what he knows of Silver. He says that he drove Silver away eons ago.

Sallis wrote:

J Richards’ crude anti-Semitic cartoons

J Richards is gone and he’s never coming back. Most of his really questionable webdesign choices are also gone!

Sallis wrote:

I’ll pass on the invitation to a podcast.

Oh come on, podcasts are given an SHA-1 checksum before they get uploaded to the site, so we can’t re-edit the podcast after it’s been put up even if we wanted to. We’re completely transparent.

Don’t be a chicken!


59

 Posted by DanielS on Mon, 18 Jan 2016 10:57 | #

Ok, it is clear that I gave Sallis an overly charitable altercast. Much too charitable, in fact.

He plainly ignores what I am saying, the facts here and simply dumps false accusations and attributions on me/us without any concern for truth, but only for the purpose of trying to distract from and discredit what I/ we say at Majorityrights.

He tries, but the truth, which he will not confront by speaking with us directly, is plain for anybody who looks at what has been said here, who has said it, and in what sequence.

I am forced to change my assessment of Sallis: I no longer respect him as a sincere actor in concern of European interests.

If it were the case that he was sincere, he could not render the conclusions that he does, say the things that he does, and refuse to talk with us in order to arrive at a correct understanding.

Not only do I no longer trust his judgment and assessment, but I do not recommend that others treat his motives as sincere – particularly on the Jewish issue.

In confirmation of what Kumiko says, there are concrete accusations that he uses to distract, which I will quickly disabuse for anybody who bothers to look at his chimera:

First, he charges that I exposed his privacy unnecessarily. In fact, Thorn had posted a comment with Sallis’ real name and I took care to take it out and replace it with his pen name – Ted Sallis, where I used his name at all.

What I did expose and would do again, was not the email but his ill motivated malice expressed in an email in concern to Majorityrights, i.e. for some reason (no good reason that we could tell) that he would try to prevent Salter from speaking with us.

I took some small issue with that, made it public long ago, and do readily again make known his effort to dissuade Salter from speaking with us, because there is no good reason why Salter should not speak with us. To try to prevent that was a disservice to advocacy of European EGI and unnecessary. Particularly given the fact that Salter is not so sensitive about his reputation or concerned that his interviewing interlocutors share his platform so as not to speak with Red Ice – he did speak with them, despite the fact that they traffic in Holocaust denial and the denial that Hitler/Nazi Germany could do anything particularly wrong – positions that Salter is careful to reject, seeing these claims as “unnecessary to ethnonationalism” – a position with which I concur.

As for my reserving epithets, profanity and vitriol for particular people, in places they deserve it, yes – I’ll do that with post modern prerogative, a means of coherence that will not leave us rigidly defenseless in adherence to tradition and protocol while our enemies will get down, dirty and play unfair with us. Rather, I will treat people as adults and when they need to know simply and clearly, without unmerited attention to detail and elaboration, that someone like Thorn is not acting in good faith to arrive at the truth and defense of White people, but is just trying to subvert our position (just as I now believe Sallis to be doing), I will make the quick work of him that he deserves done: Thorn is not strictly concerned with the interests of European peoples; he wants to subvert our defense – in shorthand terms, he is a man wants to suck Jewish cock. I don’t use such vulgarisms lightly and commonly, but Thorn has harassed me for years, with an aim toward subverting the most important, grounded defense of European peoples. Thorn is operating in Jewish interests.

Next, Sallis talks about Richards and Silver as if I am in unanimity with them, and as if MR remains in unanimity with them. We had to distance ourselves from Richards years ago because he came unhinged in speculation, particularly about the Jew thing. As for Silver, he was a troll who was antagonistic to me and antagonistic to true White interests. His whole angle was to try to associate MR with a ‘moderate and tolerant” position toward other races, with regard to Jews and other middle Easterners particularly; and to associate White advocacy with a pro-Hitler, pro-Christian position. I had to drive him away. He would not leave me alone for not accepting those positions.

On a more significant level of how it is looking now, Sallis has been spinning a very subtle yarn to say that yes, Jews are White, but they do not identify as White. However, while he will acknowledge that Jews, particularly organized Jews, can be destructive to Whites, and that they do not identify as White, what he seems to be doing with this idea that “Jews are White” is to be creating enough theoretical ambiguity, if not confusion, in order to provide for a way in which at least partial Jews can wangle their way into circles identifying as White. The rest can potentially be collaborative advisers “in good faith” from a distance, I suppose. If you don’t already know about how letting Jews into your circle ends up, you should know (try reading Mullins’ The Biological Jew).

On a broad scale in that regard now, Sallis wants Jews and Russian Whites to be confused as one, so that he can use “Russian advocacy” to try to head-off the European / Asian alliance. He not only tried to say that I was trying to provide for Chinese and other Asian colonization of White lands (rather than what I was saying, i.e., better Asians than blacks in disputed territories; and Asians in Asian territories), but that I was “throwing Russians under the bus” – and not that I was disputing the borders of Russia, aggrandized at the expense of other peoples; with a keen eye as to where these expansions and exploitations express Jewish interests and the interests of internationalists sell-outs. As the White Left, we do not see fit to approve and stand-by exploitation by any elite “objectivist”, internationalist sell-outs, not Russian ones either, nor do we stand-by undue exploitation of other peoples, let alone ours.


60

 Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 18 Jan 2016 22:11 | #

R[ ] should guard against so easily getting his panties in a twist.

Not one square inch of Russian territory will be given to the yellow hordes unless it is over Putin’s dead body.

Silver is a kike with keyboard.  Why should R[ ] care if Silver facetiously accuses him of eating shit unless…there is just enough truth in the accusation to hurt? 

Northern Europeans are racially superior to all other branches of the White race and hence would be fools to breed en masse with those other branches.  Nordicism is only good sense on the part of Northern Europeans.  If R[ ], his panties, or anyone else has a problem with that, that is tough shit for them – the shiteaters!  Lulz


61

 Posted by DanielS on Mon, 18 Jan 2016 22:50 | #

One thing at a time, CC.

R[ ] should guard against so easily getting his panties in a twist.

With regard to the name thing, I blanked it this time (at least) because I don’t know if he willingly reveals it at this point. Why would he call himself Ted Sallis otherwise? Maybe he cares, maybe he doesn’t care, but I don’t know.

Not one square inch of Russian territory will be given to the yellow hordes unless it is over Putin’s dead body.

My position is that it’s not my problem. Cooperation with Asia is the better option than trying to protect the Russian Federated Empire – which is propositional by definition anyway (in addition to being how much Jewy?), not White by definition. Not my problem anymore than say, if some Western leader, operating in propositional and collaborative Jewish interests, took over vast territories and nations of native others, exploited and killed them, while allowing long established if not native European territories to go to hell. Its Putin’s problem; while Native European territories and consolidated territories established as White in the America’s and Australia/NZ are our problem. I’ll grant, without dispute, that Western Russia – “Muscovy” – is native Russian; in the West, up to the borders of Belarus and Ukraine (I wouldn’t endorse a hot war method of achieving greater – though correctly increased – autonomy for those nations). As a hypothesis Eastward, I won’t dispute Russia’s claim up to The Urals; certainly not up to the 55th Meridian East; the 85th Meridian would include Russia’s third and fourth largest cities; and to begin quite charitably, I would not contest their reach to include Lake Baikal, i.e., up to around the 111th Meridian. Though really, these places apparently start to become more of a natural Asian habitat, at least after that point. As I’ve said before, there is some ambiguity in those areas. Somewhere around Kazakhstan a proto-Asian-European people (both) evolved. I’d handle disputes with increasingly sovereign enclaves and finally sovereign ethno nations where possible.

Silver is a kike with keyboard.  Why should R[ ] care if Silver facetiously accuses him of eating shit unless…there is just enough truth in the accusation to hurt?

LOL. Silver said he wouldn’t be surprised if he were part Jewish. He refused to identify as White even when offered the altercast by dint of being “European enough.” Besides saying that he had an affinity for Anatolia and the Levant, he was constantly giving bum steers and acting like a Jewish middleman. A kike with a keyboard, quite possibly partly enough, an entire cunt with a keyboard, definitely.

Northern Europeans are racially superior to all other branches of the White race and hence would be fools to breed en masse with those other branches.  Nordicism is only good sense on the part of Northern Europeans.  If R[ ], his panties, or anyone else has a problem with that, that is tough shit for them – the shiteaters!  Lulz

It’s probably the case as with all races and subcategories that they are better in some ways and not in others.

When I see Northern European women walking around with niggers, and Northern European men making every cucked excuse in the world as to why it is not a problem, or even “good”, that is not a reflection of superiority. And when I see them writing-off Southern and Eastern European mudsharks as not their concern, that does not express superiority either.

If they don’t have the judgment to cooperate with their European neighbors and allow them to serve buffering and cooperative functions, but rather war with them, try to exploit or throw them under the bus, that is not superiority.

The 111th Meridian passes through the Chinese city, Hohhot.

In Russia, it is to the East of Lake Baikal.

Vladivastok (592,034)  and Khabarovsk (577,441) are the largest Russian cities to the East of that Meridian.

Vladivostok, Primorsky Krai, 592,034 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladivostok

Khabarovsk, Khabarovsk Krai 577,441 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khabarovsk

Chita, Zabaykalsky Krai 324,444 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chita,_Zabaykalsky_Krai

Yakutsk, Sakha Republic 269,601 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakutsk

Komsomolsk-on-Amur Khabarovsk Krai 263,906 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komsomolsk-on-Amur

Blagoveshchensk, Amur Oblast 214,390 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blagoveshchensk

Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, Sakhalin Oblast 181,728 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk

Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, Kamchatka Krai, 179,780 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky

Nakhodka, Primorsky Krai 159,719 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakhodka

Ussuriysk, Primorsky Krai, 158,004 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussuriysk

Artyom, Primorsky Krai 102,603 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artyom,_Russia

Magadan, Magadan Oblast 95,982 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magadan

Birobidzhan, Jewish Autonomous Oblast 75,413 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birobidzhan

Belogorsk, Amur Oblast 68,249 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belogorsk,_Amur_Oblast

Neryungri, Sakha Republic 61,747 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neryungri

Svobodny, Amur Oblast 58,778 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svobodny,_Amur_Oblast

Arsenyev, Primorsky Krai 56,750 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenyev

Krasnokamensk, Zabaykalsky Krai 55,666 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krasnokamensk,_Zabaykalsky_Krai

 Posted by Strategic location Birobidzhan on Thu, 21 Jan 2016 10:40 | #

Strategic location Birobidzhan, Jewish autonomous Oblask.

It conveniently protrudes, gerrymandering to border on Khabarovsk, the second largest city in the Russian Far East, after Vladivostok; as of the 2010 Census, Khabarovsk having a population was 577,441 - and sea access

Amur River

The Amur River (Even: Тамур, Tamur; Russian: река́ Аму́р, IPA: [ɐˈmur]) or Heilong Jiang (Chinese: 黑龙江; pinyin: Hēilóng Jiāng, “Black Dragon River”; Manchu: ᠰᠠᡥᠠᠯᡳᠶᠠᠨ
ᡠᠯᠠ; Möllendorff: Sahaliyan Ula; Abkai: Sahaliyan Ula, “Black Water”) is the world’s tenth longest river, forming the border between the Russian Far East and Northeastern China (Inner Manchuria).

The river rises in the hills of western Manchuria at the confluence of its two major affluents, the Shilka River and the Ergune (or Argun) River, at an elevation of 303 metres (994 ft). It flows east forming the border between China and Russia, and slowly makes a great arc to the southeast for about 400 kilometres (250 mi), receiving many tributaries and passing many small towns. At Huma, it is joined by a major tributary, the Huma River. Afterwards it continues to flow south until between the cities of Blagoveschensk (Russia) and Heihe (China), it widens significantly as it is joined by the Zeya River, one of its most important tributaries.

History and context

In many historical references these two geopolitical entities are known as Outer Manchuria (Russian Manchuria) and Inner Manchuria, respectively. The Chinese province of Heilongjiang on the south bank of the river is named after it, as is the Russian Amur Oblast on the north bank. The name Black River (sahaliyan ula) was used by the Manchu and the Ta-tsing Empire who regarded this river as sacred.[citation needed]

The Amur River is an important symbol of, and geopolitical factor in, Chinese–Russian relations. The Amur was especially important in the period following the Sino–Soviet political split in the 1960s.[citation needed]

For many centuries the Amur Valley was populated by the Tungusic (Evenki, Solon, Ducher, Jurchen, Nanai, Ulch) and Mongol (Daur) people, and, near its mouth, by the Nivkhs. For many of them, fishing in the Amur and its tributaries was the main source of their livelihood. Until the 17th century, these people were not known to the Europeans, and little known to the Han Chinese, who sometimes collectively described them as the Wild Jurchens. The term Yupi Dazi (“Fish-skin Tatars”) was used for the Nanais and related groups as well, owing to their traditional clothes made of fish skins.

Goldi village along Amur, north of Khabarovsk

Russian Cossack expeditions led by Vassili Poyarkov and Yerofey Khabarov explored the Amur and its tributaries in 1643–44 and 1649–51, respectively. The Cossacks established the fort of Albazin on the upper Amur, at the site of the former capital of the Solons.

The Amur River (under its Manchu name, Saghalien Oula) and its tributaries on a 1734 map by Jean Baptiste Bourguignon d’Anville, based upon maps of Jesuits in China. Albazin is shown as Jaxa, the old (Ming) site of Aigun as Aihom and the later, Qing Aigun, as Saghalien Oula.

At the time, the Manchus were busy with conquering the region; but a few decades later, during the Kangxi era, they turned their attention to their north-Manchurian backyard. Aigun was reestablished near the supposed Ming site in about 1683–84, and a military expeditions was sent upstream to dislodge the Russians, whose Albazin establishment deprived the Manchu rulers from the tribute of sable pelts that the Solons and Daurs of the area would supply otherwise. Albazin fell during a short military campaign in 1685. The hostilities were concluded in 1689 by the Treaty of Nerchinsk, which left the entire Amur valley, from the convergence of the Shilka and the Ergune downstream, in Chinese hands.

The Russian proselytization of Orthodox Christianity to the indigenous peoples along the Amur River was viewed as a threat by the Qing.

The Amur region remained a relative backwater of the Qing Empire for the next century and a half, with Aigun being practically the only major town on the river. Russians re-appeared on the river in the mid-19th century, forcing the Manchus to yield all lands north of the river to the Russian Empire by the Treaty of Aigun (1858). Lands east of the Ussury and the lower Amur were acquired by Russia as well, by the Convention of Peking (1860).

The acquisition of the lands on the Amur and the Ussury was followed by the migration of Russian settlers to the region and the construction of such cities as Blagoveshchensk and, later, Khabarovsk.

 Posted by Putin welcomes Jews to Russia on Thu, 21 Jan 2016 14:26 | #

Putin Welcomes Jews to Russia. Geo-strategic aims evident.

Kantor expresses concern of persecution in host Europe. Putin welcomes them to flee back to Russia

The president of the European Jewish Congress, Moshe Kantor said the number of Jews fleeing Europe is on the rise.

“The situation with the Jews in Europe is the worst it has been since the end of the Second World War,” said Kantor. “The Jews are again in fear and a Jewish exodus from Europe is quite real. There are more Jews fleeing France, which is considered very secure, than from civil-war-torn Ukraine.”

“Let them come here,” said Putin. “They emigrated from here under Soviet Union, but now they can come back.”

Posted by Eastern Europe defending Western civilizaiton on Wed, 17 Feb 2016 07:34 | #

As it is able to maintain its ethno-states, perhaps in an Intermarium coalition that staves-off Eastern and Western imperialism, East Europe can become they keystone to defending Western civilization

TNO, ‘Eastern Europe “Defender of Civilization” 16 Feb 2016:

There is little doubt that within the very near future, Eastern Europe will take on the mantle of defender of European civilization, and, ultimately, the European heartland which will serve as a homeland and regeneration point for the European people, according to a new article on the Project Nova Europa website.

Eastern Europe “Defender of Civilization”

There is little doubt that within the very near future, Eastern Europe will take on the mantle of defender of European civilization, and, ultimately, the European heartland which will serve as a homeland and regeneration point for the European people, according to a new article on the Project Nova Europa website.

The Project Nova Europa website is part of the Nova Europa movement, which seeks to offer a solution to the impending crisis facing white people all over the world by creating a European homeland, or ethnostate.

Titled “Eastern Europe Comes into Focus,” the article goes on to point out that in the face of the mass nonwhite invasion of Europe, the reactions of the Eastern European nations has been dramatically different to those of Western Europe.

“Eastern Europe is, as predicted in Nova Europa, rapidly coming to the fore as a bastion for the preservation of European civilization. For this, we can ironically thank western European liberals and Angela Merkel in particular, who, for reasons of their own, have decided to dramatically accelerate the nonwhite invasion of Europe,” it starts off by saying.

“As pointed out in Nova Europa, Western Europe, for the last thirty years, has been steadily taking in an increasing number of Third World immigrants, driven by their deliberately race-blind worldview.

“The same process has been underway in the US ever since the 1965 Immigration Act, and shortly after that, in Australia as well, where immigration policies were deliberately shifted away from their previously European origins to allow mass Third World immigration.
READ The Antithesis of Apartheid

“This steady stream of Third World immigration has been much like the proverbial ‘frog in the boiling water’ analogy—where, as the theory goes, a frog in a pot of water which is slowly heated up is cooked before it realizes it is in trouble, having steadily adjusted to the gradual temperature change.

“The parallel being that Europeans—and Americans—have gradually adjusted to Third World immigration to the point where they now stand at the point of becoming minorities in their own countries.

“Eastern Europe has, for a number of reasons, been largely spared this process: firstly, due to the fact that until 1990 they were locked down behind the Iron Curtain, and secondly, because the richer west of Europe offered better pickings for the Third Worlders.

“The sudden mass invasion of Europe which started in 2015 when Merkel officially opened Germany’s doors has disturbed this frog in the boiling water scenario. Now, no longer is the water slowly heating up, but it is suddenly scalding.

“Eastern Europe has reacted as one would expect all healthy life forms to react: with horror at the thought of being boiled alive, or, in real terms, being overrun by the Third World within a generation (as Germany seems intent on doing).

“It is the Eastern European nations which have built the fences to keep out the invaders.


72

 Posted by problem of manning Russia on Thu, 17 Mar 2016 03:27 | #

Putin Country

Some interesting insights into Russia, even if by a liberal American correspondent: Ann Garrels talks about events from the Soviet era in the early 1980’s to the present day in Russia, with a special focus on the Chelyabinsk region – a remote industrial region (on the border of Kazakhstan) which suffered particularly after the collapse of the Soviet Union; but which remains important to Russia in particular as the seat of a significant part of its nuclear weapons arsenal. It bounced back under Putin and like most of Russia, remains quite loyal to him despite his corruption; and what is particularly noticeable in that region – a return to some KGB style clamp-downs on the population.

The most relevant point of the interview for this thread, however, was Garrels remark that Russia was going to have a great deal of difficulty manning the vast territories of its Federation.

Radioactive contamination: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shjM2QFH9XQ

Aral Sea catastrophe

Posted by If you can’t get away from it in fucking Omsk.. on Wed, 15 Jun 2016 16:26 | #

Russia Beyond The Headlines, “Photo of the day” – June 15, 2016:

Posted by UYGUR DNA on Thu, 16 Jun 2016 21:47 | #

UYGUR PEOPLE – DNA


84

 Posted by Russian colonization of central Asia on Sat, 09 Jul 2016 04:10 | #

Atavistic Intelligentsia, “The Gates of Siberia- The Russian City of Tyumen” 8 July 2016:

– Vincent Law

I’ve heard this myth a lot. And it goes that there are these “Soviet” peoples that are part of the Russian experience. The truth is that Russia reduced these people to dhimmitude and expends considerable resources on making sure that they stay that way now as well. Whereas France colonized Africa, Russia colonized Central Asia, with different, but arguably similar results. Resentment towards the Russians, coupled with mass migration into the Russian Federation characterized much of the 90’s and 00’s. Many Russians fled the stans and returned to the motherland because of local intolerance and discrimination policies. Naturally, the upper classes got out first, leaving behind many of their co-ethnics to rough it out. This prompted Solzhenitsyn to make calls for the annexation of Western Kazakstan, on the same grounds that many called for the annexation of Novorussia now. There has been a stabilization of the situation, however. And things have markedly improved from the Брат, or the Exile’s depiction of Russia in the 90s.

A short story told to me by a local married (sigh) Patriot Russian girl: there was a Chechen woman that parked right over a tramway rail in Ekatirinburg one day and caused a massive traffic backup. Some Russian volunteer teenagers that shame bad parkers and drivers by stickying their cars with an insulting monicker- “Road Hog”-came up to sticky her car. She freaked out and called in the cavalry. About 40 Chechens showed up and beat up the zealous Russian student do-gooders.

This racewar situation however was promptly diffused by the personal intervention of Ramzan Kadyrov. It turns out the Chechen woman was the wife of a regional governor. Kadyrov summoned the woman’s husband, dressed him down and fired him on the spot- at least the story goes. And its part of this greater trend, the stabilization of relations between Russians and Chechens. Kadyrov punishes anyone who steps out of live in the Chechen diaspora by torturing or killing their family members left in Chechnia or ordering hits on them by loyalist Chechens.

And he manages to keep the peace.

Funny enough, the liberasts of course condemn this, and the country of Chechnia. They want to do the White Nationalist approach and let the Chechens succeed from the RF.

These are the same liberasts that were calling foul and howling about human rights abuses when Russian forces invaded first under Yeltsin and then Putin. They want to do the same for Tatarstan. But now they’ve changed their tune and agitate for the further break-up of the Russian empire by reminding people about the criminality of these “nations of criminals.”

I’m all over the place today, but a few more thoughts on the ethnic diasporas. The Chechens have been tamed, the Armenians are loyal. The Georgians too. The Kazaks that move to Russia are the upper classes- the “sovietized” families, and the Russian tribal peoples continue to drink themselves to death and cause little trouble.

The problem is the Uzbeks and the Tajiks, for the most part. I have yet to find anyone, liberal or other, that can tolerate them. But most Russians do not reject them on any HBD grounds or any Alt-Right idea. Mostly its just this personal dislike of them and a belief that Russia should take care of its own first. Still, they have no rights here and they behave for the most part. I enjoy the spectacle of seeing them get harassed by the police in St. Petersburg on a bi-weekly basis…


85

 Posted by Putin: Russia’s Borders Don’t End Anywhere on Sat, 26 Nov 2016 22:04 | #

Breitbart, “Putin’s Geography Lesson: ‘Russia’s Borders Don’t End Anywhere”, 25 Nov 2016:

Appearing at an awards ceremony for young students at the Russian Geographical Society, President Vladimir Putin took issue with nine-year-old Miroslav Oskirko’s statement that Russia’s borders “end at the Bering Strait with the United States.”

“Russia’s borders don’t end anywhere!” Putin corrected the boy, giving him a hug.

“That is a joke,” he clarified a moment later.

Somehow the citizens of Ukraine and of nervous Baltic republics circling an increasingly adventurous Russia managed to contain their mirth.

The UK Daily Mail quotes Twitter user Dmitry Kasatkin asking Putin, “Are we talking about culture here, or the S-400?” The S-400 is a Russian air defense missile that has lately been turning up in all sorts of interesting places.

As the UK Independent notes, “Russia’s borders” became a top trend on Twitter within minutes of Putin’s geopolitical standup comedy routine.

The BBC points out that Putin has seriously argued Russia has no borders, at least when it comes to defending what he called, “the rights of Russians, our compatriots abroad.”

BBC also picked up on a more subtle example of Putin’s wit: when he asked five-year-old Timofey Tsoi to name the country whose capital city is called Ouagadougou:

  Timofey correctly answered “Burkina Faso”, but struggled when asked what the country’s old name was. Mr. Putin helped him out, saying: “Upper Volta! Good lad!”

  In its dying days, the Soviet Union was sardonically described as “Upper Volta with rockets.”

Posted by Japan dispatches largest naval vessel since WWII on Mon, 01 May 2017 11:59 | #

DM, 1 May 2017:

“Japan dispatches its biggest warship since WWII to protect a US supply ship from Kim Jong-un’s missiles”

Izumo, a helicopter carrier, is being sent by Japan to protect a US supply ship The American vessel is thought to be supplying the USS Carl Vinson strike group Deployment marks the first time Japan has used new powers allowing its military to carry out actions that are not strictly in self-defense Comes as North Korea threatened to carry out a sixth nuclear test at ‘any time’

The 800ft Izumo, a helicopter carrier, left its port near Tokyo on Monday and is thought to be making a 400 mile trip to the waters near Shikoku alongside the US vessel

Japan has deployed the Izumo, its largest ship built since the Second World War, to escort a US supply vessel which is believed to be supporting the carrier USS Carl Vinson.

The Izumo’s deployment marks the first time Japan has used new powers which allow its military to carry out actions that are not purely in self-defense

Posted by Thousands of abandoned Russian villages on Mon, 12 Jun 2017 07:43 | #

NBC News, “A Look at One of Russia’s Thousands of ‘Ghost Villages”, 11 June 2017:

The Russian countryside was once a symbol of the Soviet Union’s agricultural might. Today, according to the latest census, 20,000 villages are completely abandoned. Another 36,000 have fewer than 10 residents.

Posted by Chinese buying land on Lake Baikal on Thu, 04 Jan 2018 14:12 | #

Financial Times, “China land grab on Lake Baikal raises Russian ire”, 4 Jan 2018:

A sleepy tourist town on the shores of Siberia’s Lake Baikal has become an unlikely lightning rod among Russian nationalists after Chinese investors bought up properties on town’s lakefront.

Russian newspapers have inflamed public opinion over the town of Listvyanka, running headlines about a Chinese “invasion”, “conquest” and even China’s “yoke” — a reference to the Mongol invasions of the Middle Ages.

An online petition with 55,000 signatures (Listvyanka has a population of less than 2,000) claims that Beijing is seeking to transform the area into a Chinese province, and asks Russia’s President Vladimir Putin to ban land sales to the Chinese there.

[…]

The message fuels familiar Russian fears about its more prosperous and populous neighbour — the sparsely populated and economically undeveloped eastern third of Russia is seen as vulnerable to large scale Chinese immigration.

But these local tensions are at odds with the diplomatic efforts of both countries’ leaders, and threaten to frustrate grand designs of a budding Russian-Chinese pseudo-alliance.

[…]

Russia needs investment by China to help its economy, which has been hit by western sanctions in the aftermath of its invasion of Ukraine. Meanwhile, China has made a priority of investing in Russia and other Eurasian countries as part of its Belt and Road strategy of building infrastructure across the region.

[…]

“People really are worried about the Chinese buying everything here. They build huge hotels. They tear down and change the façades,” he said. “Their advertisements are everywhere, hanging from fences.”

[…]

But he said that Chinese tour groups made a point of telling visitors that Lake Baikal — the world’s deepest freshwater lake — was part of China during the Tang and Han dynasties. “People here say this means they want it back,” said Mr Sin’kov.

Indeed, Chinese tourism websites claim that Lake Baikal was once part of China.

Cassia, a Chinese travel agency, advertised trips to Lake Baikal recalling its Chinese past: “It was called the Northern Sea during the Han Dynasty . . . it had been China’s territory for a long time in history.”

[…]

Full story at source, FT


101

 Posted by Native Siberians and Americans on Sun, 11 Feb 2018 09:51 | #

The Connection Between Whites and Asians? Genetics of the Sami, Ainu and Siberian Peoples
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXzqI1r11eg&t=26s

Who are the REAL Native Americans Indians? Exploring the Indigenous Peoples of the Americas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpE7-sQos9M

When black ants are confronted by red ants, which species wins?

 Posted by Adapt not Adopt on Thu, 13 Sep 2018 07:53 | #

Diversity Macht Frei, “Hardcore racist Chinamen leave weak-willed whites floundering in the dust”, 11 Sept 2018:

By Czakal

Ruthless Chinamen are amazing the world with their hardcore, unabashed racism. These Chinks just don’t care.

What are they up to now?

Brainwashing Muslims to make them forget their faith.

Western countries need to study these Chinese techniques and adopt them.

The Chinaman was then grabbed and deported for “racism”. Africans may soon be getting nostalgic for the soft and benevolent racism of Whitey.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVwhitGpSv0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHg3aj9gl3w

The slant-eyed furies are also going to Africa… 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XEytsKBoco

…and beating the natives with sticks whenever they don’t work hard enough.

The kind of ruthless racial self-assertion that these Chinks engage in is world-beating. Whites can’t compete with it. Not now that we have sunk into the abyss of altruism.

As Baudelaire said: The world belongs to the one who doesn’t care. These Chinamen don’t care.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=lDpJK9sMqJI

They don’t care about human rights. They don’t care about decency. They don’t care about the fucked-up moral standards the Jews have imposed on us. That’s why the world will soon be theirs.

It wasn’t that long ago that Whites were as hardcore as these Chinamen. Ask yourself: is the world really a better place now that they’re not?

“Western countries need to study these Chinese techniques and adopt them.”

Not adopt them. Whites need to adapt ruthless ferocity to the ethnonationalist cause. In the two examples, one would be correct, and one would not.

Where Islamic incursions are quelled, that is correct.

Going to an African country, enslaving them, beating them and so on – when it is not sheer self defense – is not.

But of course, such bad advice (e.g., that we should be brutal slave masters over Africans) is typical of right wing reactionaries – to look for a foundation in natural fallacy, in sheer might makes right supremacism beyond the complexity of social praxis. …and of course, when praxis is ignored, then broader patterns of nemesis correction are in store for the hubris.

 Posted by Spheres of Influence on Wed, 21 Nov 2018 20:35 | #

Stephen Kotkin: Sphere of Influence III – The Chip on the Shoulder

 Posted by right and wrong way to Everest Summit on Fri, 04 Jan 2019 17:24 | #

Although Kumiko has a great story on her back burner about how Nepalese women have organized into an effective ethnonational guerrilla force, there are no relevant Nepalese posts yet under which to place this – so I’ll put it here – a video journal of American travelers to Everest. It is a video noteworthy for capturing the natural beauty of the setting and showing respect for the locals (summiting is dangerous for the Sherpa too).

Given the death rate (the odds of dying are high) and the expense ($11,000 for a summit permit), it seems aspiring to Everest summit is pretty stupid (the Sherpa think so too). It’s not like its never been done and now there are literally queues to hike to the summit.

These people did it the right way. Take a plane up there after getting to base camp.

 Posted by Protests in Russian Far East: KHABAROVSK on Sun, 26 Jul 2020 05:11 | #

Tens of thousands protest against Putin in Russian far east

KHABAROVSK/MOSCOW (Reuters) 25 July 2020 – Tens of thousands marched in the Russian far east on Saturday, the third such weekend protest in a row, to express their anger over what they say is President Vladimir Putin’s mishandling of a local political crisis.

Residents of Khabarovsk, around 3,800 miles (6,110 km) and seven time zones east of Moscow, are unhappy about the detention this month of the wider region’s popular governor, Sergei Furgal, who was arrested on murder charges he denies.

His arrest, which his supporters say was politically motivated, triggered the protests and created a headache for the Kremlin which is trying to troubleshoot a COVID-19-induced drop in real incomes and keep a lid on unrest.

Protesters chanted “Putin resign!” and “Putin is a thief!”. Demonstrators say they want Furgal, who they think has been set up, to be flown back from Moscow and put on trial in Khabarovsk.

City authorities estimated around 6,500 people had taken part. One local media outlet put the number at up to 20,000, while other outlets and opposition activists said upwards of 50,000 had attended and that it was the biggest protest of its kind so far.

“Give us our Furgal back,” said a local businesswoman called Viktoria. “This is our choice.”

The protests have highlighted anger among some over what they see as policies emanating from detached Moscow-based authorities.

Supporters of Furgal, a member of the nationalist LDPR party, feel he is being belatedly punished for defeating a candidate from the ruling pro-Putin United Russia party in 2018. The Kremlin says Furgal has serious charges to answer.

Such sustained demonstrations are unusual for Russia’s regions, as is the fact that the authorities have not yet moved to break them up.

In an apparent move to defuse tensions, Putin on Monday named a new acting governor. But protesters said they felt insulted by the choice of Mikhail Degtyaryov, who has no connection with the region, and have demanded he step down.

Reporting by Yury Zolotarev and Andrew Osborn; Editing by Louise Heavens and Grant McCool

Our Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Sergey Furgal
Photo By Kremlin.ru, CC BY 4.0

 Posted by The moment Europeans / Asians split on Sat, 13 Apr 2019 19:20 | #

Towards a New History and Geography of Human Genes informed by Ancient DNA

Interesting lecture which includes discussion of the moment when Europeans split from Asian populations.

Myanmar

On the same side to begin with, ethnonationalists right and left against Abrahamic imperialism.

It’s been a while since I’ve looked at what is happening in this nation, but I’ve had Aung San Suu Kyi penciled in as “a good guy”, i.e., a Left Ethnonationalist – a leader who knows the issue is to provide boundaries to genetic interests and had the basic concept as to maintain them.

When I learned of a military coup, I was suspecting neo-liberal, internationalist forces to be behind it; but it turns out that Min Aung Hlaing is a right wing ethnonationalist who has taken power in order to save his military rule and himself from international persecution for the cleansing of the Muslim Rohingyan from Myanmar.

Now, being a left ethnonationalist, Suu Kyi maintained the calibration as she should and allowed for the instrumental feedback of Min Aung Hlaing in his campaign to rid Myanmar of this rapacious imperialist beachhead of Islam, committing atrocities against Myananmar natives.

Abrahamic and NeoLiberal forces pressured Suu Kyi to expose whatever means of entryism that they could in order to maintain the imposition of Abrahamism and NeoLiberalism and to prosecute Min Aung Hlaing for war crimes against the the Rohingyan in international court. 

While Suu Kyi won overwhelmingly in a democratic election, soft  points in her democratic obligation were exposed under neoliberal international pressure and the right wing Military dictatorship of Min Aung Hlaing felt compelled to take over by coup, for his own sake; and at this point, it is hard for me to say, maybe even with some legitimate concern to shore up weak points in Myanmar’s ethnonationalism. The problem is, its fixes are not likely to last given the inherent instability of the right for its imperviousness to popular correctives – even where those correctives are in the interest of ethnonational homeostasis.

The right wing is supposed to be an instrument of feedback, attending to finer and non-human points of necessary correction, not calibrative leadership of praxis and phronesis (judgment). Suu Kyi has a sense of this proper order having come from a background where her father was a military leader known as the father of what is now Myanmar’s ethnonational sovereignty.

Aung San Suu Kyi's father was both a military leader and considered to be the father of Myanmar's national sovereignty; so it's not as if she is unaware of necessary requirement to heed right wing, objectivist feedback in requirement of ethnonational homeostasis.

But hence the right, with its inherent instability for lack of anchoring in the broad social systemic corrective, is instigated back into power; rigid and manipulable, it can be maneuvered by the enemies of ethnonationalism, left ethnonaitonalism as it must be, if it is to be stable and homeostatic. The Abrahamics have applied enough pressure to force the stable left ethnonationalist element out, its proper calibrative judgment to utilize the feedback and finer instrumentation of the right to fight off Abrahamic imperialism is ousted in favor of over the top, headlong military dictatorhsip…

Though not wholly explaining and justifying the ethnonational perspective, here are two videos which will provide an overview not totally obscuring the situation of Myanmar either, albeit from a perspective edited to be safe from a western/abrahamic perspective:

video

video

We can add the ethnonnational persepective on this…

While both the military and Suu Kyi have part in the oust of the Muslims, what the Jewish, or shall we say of their more comprehensive imperialist reach, what the Abrahamic controlled media is not reporting-on is the legitimate reasons to rid their nation of this terrible plight that is Islam.
 
Islam, a vehicle of Abrahamic neo-Feudalism, as its Imams are installed as compradores – neo-Feudalist lords in place to thwart ethnonational unionization and uprising.

Now this right wing element of ethnonationalism, with all its inherent instability for lack of anchoring in broad, popular will and corrective, is there, in reaction, as the West’s Abrahamic imperialism has weighed down on the left ethnonationalist, Suu Kyi – and while both she and Min Aung Hlaing are ethnonationalists against Abrahamic imperialism, she was “manning,” as it were, the ethnonational calibration, while Min Aung Hlaing was manning the instrumental right wing feedback element…

Lets now turn to look at their mutual concern over the persecution of Myanmar’s natives by the Muslims and Suu Kyi’s attempts to deal in nuance with “the international community’s concern” regarding any over-correction by the Maynmar military.

First a word about disingenuously liberal versions of the democratic instrument which allow for subversion of the ethnonstate, which the Abahamic, neo-liberal west has pressured and attempted to exploit of Suu-Yi’s government.

Democracy runs the risk of being interpreted as not a means of ethnonational corrective, i.e., homeostasis, but just the opposite, particulalry as weaponized disingenuously in the hands of the Abrahamics and NeoLiberals, as a means to increase liberalism of borders and boundaries to runaway, beyond their capacity for homeostasis.
 
And infamously, a strong element of feminism can be pandered-to in this disingenuous interpretation, infused with indignation over historical grievances they can make a better deal for their individual selves at the expense of the ethnostate and at the expense of the 80 percent or so of beta males who would otherwise serve homeostasis; but are rather destroyed, along with the homeostasis, now gone to runaway for the female incitement to genetic competition that is pandered-to by the opportunists of NeoLiberalism. Fortunately, for the situation, Islam does not present an appealing recourse in that sense.
 
These concerns taking into account, if it is a limited democracy, limited to those with the age to give them experience, the demonstrated knowledge and capacity to understand the requirements of homeostasis, the constraint of maintaining borders and bounds, having the intelligence to appreciate objectivist feedback, i.e., that it not be a matter of the clunky and quantifying matter of voting, but rather be in service of homeostasis, not “winning” against the other but winning for the homeostasis, then democracy is good, it is the corrective instrument of homeostasis.
 
How far Suu Kyi might have been taking the country in a vulnerable interpretation of democracy which would endanger the nation and be impervious to homeostatic corrective is uncertain… but it is certain that the Abrahamic, NeoLiberal West, the Bidens etc. would put massive pressure on Suu Kyi, and subsequently the Myanmar military.
 
…and they won’t tell the other side of the story…
 
Which we, as those concerned for human and pervasive ecology, must do.. against this Abrahamic imperialisms, divorced from earthly concerns as it is and so very destructive of human and pervasive ecology as it is.

Hindu women forced to convert to Islam while mass graves of their Hindu men discovered in Rakhine

India Today reports on the forced conversion to Islam of Rakhine Hindus in the Bangladesh refugee camps and the discovery of Hindu mass graves in Rakhine by the Myanmar security services. This report dates from September and has gone unnoticed in the West. I found it as the latest entry on the Facebook account of Shwe Eain Si, so the girl obviously hasn’t given up the fight. Good for her.

                    – Mancinblack

Shwe Eain Si, maintains vigilance on Islamic imposition, atrocities.

Her husband among the Hindu men identified as massacred.

“Miss Grand Myanmar”, Shwe Eain Si, stripped of her title for telling truth about crisis in Rakhine

Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 03 October 2017 14:24.

“Miss Grand Myanmar”, Shwe Eain Si, has been stripped of her title just days before she was due to compete in a leading international beauty pageant by organizers Miss Grand International. The nineteen year old had released a video statement in which she basically told the truth about the cause of the crisis in Rakhine State – Mancinblack

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMF3OF7NbNk

Comments:

1 Posted by mancinblack on Sun, 05 Nov 2017 11:26 | #

“Thailand backs Myanmar on Rakhine, vows to get truth out”.

“Thailand fully understands and supports the actions of Myanmar on the festering problem in northern Rakhine State and the kingdom would help explain the true situation to the international community” reports the Myanmar Times.

Full story
https://www.mmtimes.com/news/thailand-backs-myanmar-rakhine-vows-get-truth-out.html

2 Posted by mancinblack on Mon, 11 Dec 2017 17:31 | #

“China’s soft power initiatives in Myanmar and the Rakhine State seems to be delivering benefits, in contrast with the West’s approach that surrenders influence in a region holding significant importance. It now seems inevitable that Myanmar will grant the deep water port (at Kyuak Phyu, Rakhine) to China, despite community concerns that may be held.

Once this happens, China will have secured its West coast, divided the U.S military capability in Asia and achieved a significant milestone in rebuilding the Chinese Dream.”

http://www.mizzima.com/business-opinion/myanmar-emerging-key-component-china’s-belt-road-initiative

3 Posted by Modernity’s road and Myanmar on Mon, 29 Jul 2019 11:22 | #

The west has a mistaken notion that Buddhism is a pacifist religion. Actually, they put up an ardent fight, markedly against Islam. A vote of support from Majorityrightgs to their devout.

Burma’s Open Road (Myanmar History Documentary)

Not the look of a burgeoning pacifist to be trifled with.

Posted by Aung San Suu Kyi on Tue, 19 May 2020 12:56 | #

BBC News and it’s poetic propaganda of Aung San Suu Kyi

Dangerfield 19 May 2020:

The BBC who once so much adored Aung San Suu Kyi now trots out poetic propaganda about what an evil woman she is for defending her nation – which is all she ever wanted to do.

 

Comments:

1 Posted by mancinblack on Thu, 12 Dec 2019 00:40 | #
 

Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s ICJ speech. The full text, something you are highly unlikely to read in the Western press. 

https://www.mmtimes.com/news/daw-aung-san-suu-kyis-icj-speech-full.html

2 Posted by mancinblack on Sun, 29 Dec 2019 11:07 | #

Japan has become the first country to voice support for Myanmar since the Southeast Asian country’s legal team testified at the World Court, where The Gambia filed a case of genocide over the Rohingya crisis. Other countries, including the Netherlands and Canada, have stated that in order to uphold international accountability and prevent impunity they “consider it their obligation to support The Gambia before the ICJ, as it concerns all of humanity”.

“I don’t think that the Myanmar Tatmadaw committed genocide or intent of genocide” said Ichiro Maruyama, the Japanese ambassador to Myanmar, on Thursday. He said the actions by the Tatmadaw came in response to a series of attacks by the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army on police outposts in 2016 and 2017.

Full story…

https://www.irrawaddy.com/news/burma/japan-backs-myanmars-claim-no-genocide-occurred-rakhine-state.html

The Gambia acted as a front for other Muslim countries when presenting its case for genocide to the ICJ. Given that the Turkish ambassador to Myanmar, Kerem Divanhoglu, had previously stressed that Ankara keeps the problems of the Rohingya on the agenda of the UN and Organization of Islamic Cooperation, it is likely that Turkey is the main sponsor of Gambia’s case against Myanmar ;which would make Ankara the hypocrite of the year, wouldn’t it ?

Excerpts of transcript: Aung San Suu Kyi’s speech at the ICJ:

Al Jazeera, 12 Dec 2019

Aung San Suu Kyi has defended Myanmar’s military against genocide allegations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), amid accusations of mass killings, rape and expulsion of the mostly Muslim Rohingya minority.

In her opening statement in front of judges in The Hague on Wednesday, the former human rights icon rejected the case at the United Nations’ highest court – which was filed by the Gambia with the support of the 57-member Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) – alleging Myanmar violated the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

[…]

“In the present case, Mr President, the Court has been asked to apply the 1948 Genocide Convention, one of the most fundamental multilateral treaties of our time. Invoking the 1948 Genocide Convention is a matter of utmost gravity. This is the treaty that we made following the systematic killing of more than six million European Jews, and that my country wholeheartedly signed as early as December 30, 1949, and ratified on March 14, 1956. Genocide is the crime that the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda applied in response to the mass-killing of perhaps 70 percent of the Tutsis in Rwanda. It is the crime that was not applied by the Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia to the displacement of approximately one million residents of Kosovo in 1999. Neither was it applied by that Tribunal nor by this Court when deciding upon the exodus of the Serb population from Croatia in 1995.

“In both situations, international justice resisted the temptation to use this strongest of legal classifications because the requisite specific intent to physically destroy the targeted group in whole or in part was not present.

“Regrettably, The Gambia has placed before the Court an incomplete and misleading factual picture of the situation in Rakhine State in Myanmar. Yet, it is of the utmost importance that the Court assess the situation obtaining on the ground in Rakhine dispassionately and accurately. 

[…]“Mr President, on October 9, 2016, approximately 400 fighters of the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army – known as ARSA – launched simultaneous attacks on three police posts in Maungdaw and Rathedaung townships in northern Rakhine, near the border with Bangladesh. ARSA claimed responsibility for these attacks, which led to the death of nine police officers, more than 100 dead or missing civilians, and the theft of 68 guns and more than 10,000 rounds of ammunition.

“This was the start of an internal armed conflict between ARSA and Myanmar’s Defence Services which lasted until late 2017. The selective factual propositions contained in The Gambia’s Application actually concern this conflict.

“In the months following the October 9, 2016 attacks, ARSA grew in strength in the Maungdaw, Buthidaung and Rathedaung townships in northern Rakhine. It resorted to threats and intimidation against local villagers in order to gain support and allegiance, executing suspected informers. According to, among others, the International Crisis Group, ARSA received weapons – and explosives – training from Afghan and Pakistani militants.

“In the early morning of August 25, 2017, several thousand ARSA fighters launched coordinated attacks on more than 30 police posts and villages, and an army base in northern Rakhine. Most of the attacks took place on the narrow Maungdaw plain, which is framed by densely forested hills to the east, and the border with Bangladesh to the west. Indications are that ARSA’s objective was to seize Maungdaw township.

“It may aid the Court to briefly consider the historical significance of Maungdaw. When Britain made Burma a colonial entity separate from British India in 1937, the border between Burma and India was drawn along the river Naf, where we find today’s border between Bangladesh and Myanmar. The historical Kingdom of Arakan had extended much further to the north than the river Naf, including most of what is today Chittagong District in Bangladesh.

“Members of some Rakhine communities, therefore, felt that the border drawn by the British was too far south; others, that it was too far north. Myanmar has never challenged this border since independence in 1948.

“Britain did not lose control over what is today Maungdaw township during World War II. From September 1942, a number of local Muslim families offered fighters to the British irregular V-Force set up to collect intelligence and to initially absorb any Japanese advance. Many Muslims gave their lives in combat against the Japanese in Rakhine.

“The sacrifices made by Muslim fighters motivated a call for the creation of an autonomous Muslim space in northern Rakhine, centred on Maungdaw. Whether or not this was encouraged by British officers, Britain rejected this call as soon as it had reoccupied Burma, before independence in 1948. The Muslim-Buddhist intercommunal violence of 1942 recurred in 1948 and several times after that. This cycle of violence has negatively affected life in northern Rakhine, making it the second poorest state in Myanmar.

[…]

“Mr President, allow me to clarify the use of the term ‘clearance operation’ – ‘nae myay shin lin yeh’ in Myanmar [language]. Its meaning has been distorted. As early as the 1950s, this term has been used during military operations against the Burma Communist Party in Bago Range. Since then, the military has used this expression in counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism operations after attacks by insurgents or terrorists. In the Myanmar language, ‘nae myay shin lin yeh’ – literally ‘clearing of locality’ – simply means to clear an area of insurgents or terrorists.

“It is still not easy to establish clear patterns of events in these 12 locations. Many ARSA fighters died. There may have been several hundred casualties in some of the 12 locations. There was some inter-communal violence. Buddhist and Hindu minority communities also feared for their security after the original ARSA attacks and many fled from their homes.

[…]

“Mr President, it cannot be ruled out that disproportionate force was used by members of the Defence Services in some cases in disregard of international humanitarian law, or that they did not distinguish clearly enough between ARSA fighters and civilians. There may also have been failures to prevent civilians from looting or destroying property after fighting or in abandoned villages. But these are determinations to be made in the due course of the criminal justice process, not by any individual in the Myanmar Government.

“Please bear in mind this complex situation and the challenge to sovereignty and security in our country when you are assessing the intent of those who attempted to deal with the rebellion. Surely, under the circumstances, genocidal intent cannot be the only hypothesis.

“Under its 2008 Constitution, Myanmar has a military justice system. Criminal cases against soldiers or officers for possible war crimes committed in Rakhine must be investigated and prosecuted by that system. On November 25, 2019, the Office of the Judge Advocate General announced the start of a court-martial for allegations linked to the Gutar Pyin village incident, one of the 12 main incidents referred to earlier. The Office also let it be known that there will be additional courts-martial if further incriminating evidence is brought by the Independent Commission of Enquiry. The ICOE is an independent special investigation procedure established for Rakhine allegations by the President of Myanmar, chaired by a former Deputy Foreign Minister from the Philippines, with three other members, including a former Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations from Japan.

“On November 26, 2019, this Commission announced that it had taken about 1500 witness statements from all affected groups in Rakhine and that it has interviewed 29 military personnel who were deployed to the affected townships in northern Rakhine during the military operations from August 25, 2017, to September 5, 2017, as well as 20 police personnel who were stationed at the police posts that were attacked on August 25, 2017. There is currently no other fact-finding body in the world that has garnered relevant first-hand information on what occurred in Rakhine in 2017 to the same extent as the Independent Commission of Enquiry and the Office of the Judge Advocate General in Myanmar.

“This fact reinforces my sense that I should refrain from any action or statement that could undermine the integrity of these ongoing criminal justice processes in Myanmar. They must be allowed to run their course. It is never easy for armed forces to recognise self-interest in accountability for their members, and to implement a will to accountability through actual investigations and prosecutions. I respectfully invite the members of the court to consider for a moment the record of other countries. This is a common challenge, even in resource-rich countries.

“Recent cases in the news headlines illustrate that even when military justice works, there can be reversals. This can also happen in Myanmar. As part of the overall efforts of the Myanmar Government to provide justice, a court-martial found that 10 Muslim men had been summarily executed in Inn Din village, one of the 12 locations of serious incidents referred to earlier. It sentenced four officers and three soldiers each to ten years in prison with hard labour. After serving a part of their sentences, they were given a military pardon. Many of us in Myanmar were unhappy with this pardon.

“Other cases are undertaken without controversy. In the Mansi case, for example, a court-martial sat close to the location in Kachin State where three internally displaced civilians were killed. It sentenced six soldiers, each to 10 years in prison, in January 2018. Relatives of the victims and local civil society representatives were invited to the sentencing.

[…]

“Can there be genocidal intent on the part of a state that actively investigates, prosecutes and punishes soldiers and officers who are accused of wrongdoing? Although the focus here is on members of the military, I can assure you that appropriate action will also be taken against civilian offenders, in line with due process. There will be no tolerance of human rights violations in the Rakhine, or elsewhere in Myanmar.

“Mr President, there are those who wish to externalise accountability for alleged war crimes committed in Rakhine, almost automatically, without proper reflection. Some of the United Nations human rights mandates relied upon in the Application presented by The Gambia have even suggested that there cannot be accountability through Myanmar’s military justice system. This not only contradicts Article 20(b) of the Constitution of Myanmar, it undercuts painstaking domestic efforts relevant to the establishing of cooperation between the military and the civilian government in Myanmar, in the context of a Constitution that needs to be amended to complete the process of democratisation. That process is now underway at the Pyidaungsu Hluttaw, the Union Parliament.

“The emerging system of international criminal justice rests on the principle of complementarity. Accountability through domestic criminal justice is the norm. Only if domestic accountability fails, may international justice come into play. It would be inconsistent with complementarity to require that domestic criminal justice should proceed much faster than international criminal justice. A rush to externalise accountability may undermine professionals in domestic criminal justice agencies. What does the appearance of competition between domestic and international accountability do to the public’s trust in the intentions of impatient international actors?

“No stone should be left unturned to make domestic accountability work. It would not be helpful for the international legal order if the impression takes hold that only resource-rich countries can conduct adequate domestic investigations and prosecutions, and that the domestic justice of countries still striving to cope with the burden of unhappy legacies and present challenges is not good enough. The Gambia will also understand this challenge with which they too are confronted.

“Mr President and members of the court, these reflections are relevant to the present hearing because the Applicant has brought a case based on the Genocide Convention. We are, however, dealing with an internal armed conflict, started by coordinated and comprehensive attacks by the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army, to which Myanmar’s Defence Services responded. Tragically, this armed conflict led to the exodus of several hundred thousand Muslims from the three northernmost townships of Rakhine into Bangladesh – just as the armed conflict in Croatia with which the Court had to deal led to the massive exodus of, first, ethnic Croats and later, ethnic Serbs.

[…]

“Mr President, how can there be an ongoing genocide or genocidal intent when these concrete steps are being taken in Rakhine?

“To conclude, Mr President and members of the court, Rakhine today suffers an internal armed conflict between the Buddhist Arakan Army and Myanmar’s Defence Services. Muslims are not a party to this conflict, but may, like other civilians in the conflict area, be affected by security measures that are in place. We pray the Court to refrain from taking any action that might aggravate the ongoing armed conflict and peace and security in Rakhine. Right now, in northern Rakhine, an army base near Paletwa is under attack by a group of more than 400 Arakan Army fighters, and some 200 insurgents have surrounded a military column near Ann City in Rakhine.

“Since Myanmar gained independence in 1948, our people have not known the security of sustainable development that is the fruit of peace and prosperity. Our greatest challenge is to address the roots of distrust and fear, prejudice and hate, that undermine the foundations of our Union. We shall adhere steadfastly to our commitment to non-violence, human rights, national reconciliation and rule of law, as we go forward to build the Democratic Federal Union to which our people have aspired for generations past.

BBC, 2 April 2021:
 

Myanmar coup: More than 40 children killed by military, rights group says

Protesters with cover their mouths and eyes in a “silent strike” on 24 March 2021, to protest the military shooting dead a sevem-year-old girl.

Protesters held a “silent strike” in Yangon after a seven year old was shot dead in Mandalay.

At least 43 children have been killed by armed forces in Myanmar since February’s military coup, according to rights organisation Save the Children.

The group said the South East Asian country was in a “nightmare situation”, with the youngest known victim just six years old.

A local monitoring group puts the overall death toll at 536.

Meanwhile, ousted leader Aung San Suu Kyi has been charged with violating the country’s official secrets act.

Ms Suu Kyi, along with four of her allies, were charged last week, but the alleged crime – which carries a prison term of up to 14 years – has only now come to light.

The new charge against Ms Suu Kyi is in addition to earlier charges of possessing illegal walkie-talkies, violating Covid-19 restrictions during last year’s election campaign, and publishing information that may “cause fear or alarm”.

The victims of Myanmar’s deadliest day

Myanmar coup: What is happening and why?

The UN’s envoy to Myanmar has warned of the risk of an “imminent bloodbath” as the crackdown against pro-democracy protests in the country intensifies.

The warning follows a flare-up in fighting between the army and ethnic minority militia in border areas.

The UN has become the latest organisation to urge the families of its workers to leave, but has said that some staff will remain in the country.

The unrest in Myanmar began two months ago, when the military seized control of the country after an election which Ms Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy (NLD) party won by a landslide.

When tens of thousands of people took to the streets nationwide to protest against the coup, the military used water cannon to attempt to disperse them. After a week, the response escalated, and rubber bullets and live ammunition were used.

The deadliest day of the conflict so far came on Saturday, when more than 100 people were killed.

Who is Aung San Suu Kyi?

Lawyers representing Ms Suu Kyi said on Thursday that it was unclear whether their client was aware of how events were unfolding across the country.

“We couldn’t say whether [Ms Suu Kyi] knows about outside situations or not – she may or may not know,” lawyer Min Min Soe told Reuters news agency, adding that the ousted leader “seems to be in good health”.

The violence has sparked an international outcry, with various countries – including the US and UK – announcing sanctions against the coup leaders and military-linked companies.

On Thursday, the UK announced further measures against the Myanmar Economic Corporation (MEC), a conglomerate that has provided funds to the Myanmar military.

“The Myanmar military has sunk to a new low with the wanton killing of innocent people, including children,” Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab said. “The UK’s latest actions target one of the military’s key funding streams and impose a further cost on them for their violations of human rights.”

When Ms Suu Kyi was ousted, military commander-in-chief Min Aung Hlaing took power.

Myanmar coup: How did we get here?

Myanmar profile

Myanmar, also known as Burma, became independent from Britain in 1948. For much of its modern history it has been under military rule

Restrictions began loosening from 2010 onwards, leading to free elections in 2015 and the installation of a government headed by veteran opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi the following year

In 2017, Myanmar’s army responded to attacks on police by Rohingya militants with a deadly crackdown, driving more than half a million Rohingya Muslims across the border into Bangladesh in what the UN later called a “textbook example of ethnic cleansing”

BBC:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-56600292

The Rohingya crisis

Since becoming Myanmar’s state counsellor, her leadership has been partly defined by the treatment of the country’s mostly Muslim Rohingya minority.

In 2017 hundreds of thousands of Rohingya fled to neighbouring Bangladesh due to an army crackdown sparked by deadly attacks on police stations in Rakhine state.

Myanmar now faces a lawsuit accusing it of genocide at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), while the International Criminal Court is investigating the country for crimes against humanity.

Ms Suu Kyi’s former international supporters accused her of doing nothing to stop rape, murder and possible genocide by refusing to condemn the still powerful military or acknowledge accounts of atrocities.

A few initially argued that she was a pragmatic politician, trying to govern a multi-ethnic country with a complex history.

But her personal defence of the army’s actions at the ICJ hearing in the Hague was seen as a new turning point for her international reputation.

At home, however, “the Lady”, as Ms Suu Kyi is known, remains wildly popular among the Buddhist majority who hold little sympathy for the Rohingya.

Vietnam

Ho Chi Mihn first tried to enlist U.S. support in 1919 at the Paris Peace Conference. He sent an appeal to Soviet Premier Josef Stalin in 1945-46 very similar to the one he sent to Truman. He had long known his small country would need allies to win independence from the French.

Hearts and Minds (1974) – Best Vietnam War Documentary

Phan Thi Kim Phúc, already severely burned, tore off her clothes burning of a napalm strike.

Massacre of My Lai, Vietnam, life, land, expresses incitement against White male being/midtdasein

My Lai Vietnam massacre and the massive, general destruction of life and land – agent orange poisoning and remnant, unexploded munitions: manifestation of didactic incitement against White male being/midtdasein.

Fifty years ago, on 16 March 2018, U.S. soldiers attacked the Vietnamese village

– My Lai Massacre. The GI Resistance Continues: Vietnam Vets Return to My Lai – Vet Activists Discuss the My Lai Massacre and the profound after effects of the war, bombing, agent orange.

Capt. Ernest L. Medina

US Army Captain Ernest L. Median is accused of overall responsibility for his training tactics.

The officer who’s severe training of recruits directed the rule structure and corollary mindset of the My Lai Massacre.

Capt. Ernest L. Medina (81) US Army captain who was accused of overall responsibility for the March 1968 mass killings of unarmed South Vietnamese men, women, and children by troops he commanded in what became known as the My Lai massacre but was acquitted at a court-martial. On March 16, 1968, six weeks after North Vietnamese and Vietcong forces launched the Tet offensive, wide-ranging attacks that stunned the American military command in the Vietnam War, Medina and the three platoons of his infantry company entered the village of My Lai in South Vietnam’s south central coast region. What happened over the hours that followed became one of the darkest chapters of American military history. An Army inquiry ultimately determined that 347 civilians were killed that day—shot, bayoneted, or blasted with grenades. Medina died in Peshtigo, Wisconsin on May 8, 2018

Related Stories at Majorityrights:

Fuck You Right Wing. Fuck You Alternative Right. The White Class Will Prevail and is Here to Stay.

A Conspiracy Theory of A Conspiracy Theory to Divert From White Male Dasein

Lana: It’s all the fault of hippies ….eeew …eeew

Related:

Morgoth’s Review, “Lessons From The Vietcong”, 31 Mar 2018:

I’ve recently noticed an increasing pessimism and despondency among prominent people within the ‘‘Alt-Right’’ with seemingly everyone on their various platforms lamenting the lack of direction of the movement and wincing under the increasingly draconian censorship, whether by the various internet companies or our political adversaries themselves.

To be surprised and shocked that our enemies are using their power to cripple us is itself a sign that the dissident right is not very adept at placing itself within a larger context or ideological framework. Our movement loves romantic images of Spartans, Roman Legions and the Wehrmacht, and I understand why, but in a modern context we’re more like the Vietcong. The Vietcong were of course Marxists, Vietcong literally means ‘‘Red Vietnamese’’ but nevertheless, what they did was fight a vastly superior enemy with scant resources, and win.

The irony is of course it could be argued that we’re engaged in conflict with the same enemy as the Vietcong were, that enemy being Global Capital using America as its fist, what the jungle was to the North Vietnamese the internet is to the dissident right and nationalist populism in general. The aim of Global Capital in the Vietnam war was to prevent Marxism spreading from North Vietnam to South Vietnam, the aim of Global Capital today is to prevent nationalist sentiment rising within its own host populations.

The men in the black pajamas are synomyous with guerrilla warfare, however, there’s more to guerrilla tactics than popping out of a rice basket and emptying an AK-47 into a passing G.I, they were also highly successful in ideological subversion. I shall dispense with trendy terms such as ‘‘Red-Pilling’’ here and use terms such as subversion because when we get down to it that is what the dissident right is engaged in.

The operational guidelines of the Vietcong were Organization, Agitation, Insurrection. You’ll note that insurrection is the final phase of the plan, in my opinion nationalist movements of the past failed because they bypassed the agitation phase entirely, rather they organized a party, then marched the party straight up against the entire system at its strongest point.

The Vietcong agitated the U.S military into distraction by being ‘‘everywhere and nowhere’’ at the same time. A packet of cigarettes would be wired to an explosive, wooden spikes were smeared in excrement, 16 year old girls on bicycles would toss grenades into bars where soldiers were relaxing. Non of these activities constituted a lethal blow to the American colossus, but the overall effect was to psychologically drain the troops and drive the High Command into a rage.

The American military responded by leveling entire villages and swathes of jungle with napalm, randomly gunning down peasants going about their business, they were in the predicament of the elephant trying to stamp on ants. The Vietcong were then left with the opportunity of going among the peasantry with texts from Marx and Ho Chi Minh and explaining that here, before their very eyes, was the Capitalist beast slaughtering them in their fields and homes.This, then, is an example of the weight and strength of an opponent being used against it, American might was thus leading directly to the spread of Marxism and Communism in South Vietnam.

Many within the nationalist sphere have reacted with dismay at the levels of censorship being deployed against us, and yet this must happen! the trick is to stay underground, weather their fury and then reappear to mingle among the general population and explain why this is happening and that we were right all along.

Agitation: Needle, harass and undermine the system ceaselessly, await the furious reaction, use that reaction to further subvert and indoctrinate the general populace against the system.

The Vietcong had a vast network of underground tunnels, I suppose it would be the equivalent of their internet as much as the jungle was. From there they’d organize and sit in safety as the bombs rained down above, afterwards moving among the general population. And here once again we see a new problem from the perspective of the system, when you’re dealing with a foe who looks and sounds like everybody else, who is ‘‘hiding his power level’’ the system doesn’t know who to attack, and so the general population as a whole invoke paranoia and suspicion.

In their annual report for 2018 the anti-white Globalist charity ‘‘Hope Not Hate’’ claimed:

  ‘‘However, just as it has reshaped our social, economic and cultural lives, the internet and the explosion of social media in the past decade has also created momentous shifts in the political world.

  This is especially true for the far right with social media and an array of emerging technologies and platforms offering new ways for it to engage in activism outside the confines of traditional, organisational structures.

  This many-headed hydra approach makes it harder to combat in a traditional sense as it cannot be decapitated like a political party or traditional far right organisation.

  If we wait for a period of far right unity so that we can once again mobilise en masse against this enemy, we risk society being changed by thousands of people gnawing away at it and propagating the whole package of far right ideas in the meantime.’‘

The message they’re sending to their bosses in the elitist think tanks and lobby groups in Washington, New York and London is that if the agitation phase is not halted the insurrection phase will be nigh on inevitable.

Speaking at the Council of Foreign Relations (no less) Jewish historian Max Boot on his book “Invisible Armies: An Epic History of Guerrilla Warfare From Ancient Times to the Present,” Boot claims that:

  Public relations is 80% of modern warfare

The choice before the architects of ‘‘Liberal Democracy’’ is to allow the free exchange of ideas which undermine it and which will, eventually, manifest in real world politics, or attempt to disrupt and destroy the ability of those ideas to gain traction and thereby undermining their own legitimacy, and they’re choosing the latter. As such the dissident right will have to see this through and assist the system in radicalizing itself before an increasingly horrified public.

Or to adapt one of the most famous quotes of the Vietnam war:

  ‘‘In order to save Liberal democracy they will have to destroy it’‘

In the end what the Vietnamese did brilliantly was utilize whatever resources they had to maximum effect, nothing went to waste. In my opinion the problem with the nationalist movement is that too often it descends in a self referential subculture which nobody on the outside understands or is interested in. Consider the idiocy of ‘‘Thot-Patrols’’ for example, here we have pretty girls being used as ideological tools to spread subversive propaganda from popular YouTube channels and they’re actually attacked from within because of it, movement men are thereby willingly disrupting and purposefully hampering our means to reach and convert larger numbers of people. The Vietcong would have taken men who worked so blatantly against the wider goals of the movement into a field and shot them through the back of the head.

What revolutionaries of the left did very well was instill a sense of romance and adventure within their ranks, camaraderie and unity in the face of danger and uncertainty, glorifying their struggle. And they managed this despite their ideology being the turgid, materialistic trash of Marx.

Defiance is not just actual activism of course, it’s meeting up and having a few beers, meeting a pretty girl from the movement or discussing politics and ideology over long walks.

There’s a new fifth column in the West, and we are it, we must now internalize that reality.

Posted by mancinblack on Sun, 01 Apr 2018 14:42 | #

I suppose it’s worthwhile quoting Vietcong veteran Hoang Thi No of the Perfume River Squad again – “We were young and weren’t afraid…Once we had a strong ideology, we could do anything”.

“A strong ideology” is precisely what the Alt-Right lacks. As Morgoth once said after his off-hand dismissal of the concept of a “White Left”, “Nationalism is what it says on the tin” needing no further qualification. In which case it’s an empty tin, ready to be filled with all kinds of rubbish, which is exactly what’s been happening these last few years. Trump, Putin, Hitler, Christianity, White Sharia – by – another – name…and repeat, all of which has very little traction with the age demographic that needs to be reached.

No matter. The Alt-Right is evaporating like stale piss on a summer afternoon. I for one will not mourn its passing.

Fuck You Right Wing. Fuck You Alternative Right. The White Class Will Prevail and is Here to Stay.

Hearts and Minds is one of the best, if not the best, Vietnam War documentary - sent our way courtesy of TT.

When I hear blanket criticisms (most recently by Scott Roberts) of those who protested and rebelled against habits of imperial warfare and sought a different way during that era, it sickens me. I have spoken many times of how the era’s essence of midtdasein is not understood – it is not a universal call for peace. It is rather a gauge of one’s folk and one’s place among them – a gauge which allows for assessment of clear and present danger to authentic interests – thus, a legitimate fight or not. Vietnam and its circumstance were not a clear and present danger to White Americans or their interests – though you’ll hear an echoing (((Walt Rostow))) in the film proclaiming otherwise; and through his kind of mis-assessment, a draft was required, authentic being violated. Hidden thus, beneath the overt expression of the times is an extremely meaningful gauge to authentic male being as opposed to their being used, say, in corporate or Jewish wars.

This is a documentary that puts Michael Moore’s efforts to shame. If it does not fill you with disgust there is something very wrong with you. In a truly heartbreaking scene, a Vietnamese woman tries to get into a grave with what is her dead son; his child cries in agony over his photo; the scene then cuts ironically to General Westmoreland proclaiming that “The oriental doesn’t put the same high price on life as does the westerner. Life is plentiful, life is cheap in the orient..” 

One American Vietnam vet comments throughout but we don’t find out until late in the film the price that he’s paid. Another American vet is shown as a returning hero, a released POW. Early-on in the documentary, he’s shown addressing audiences in his hometown of Linden, New Jersey – all White then, it is something frightfully different now, a black nightmare; a true case for flight of fight – domestically.

(((Walt Rostow)))

Hearts and Minds is a 1974 American documentary film about the Vietnam War directed by Peter Davis. The film’s title is based on a quote from President Lyndon B. Johnson: “the ultimate victory will depend on the hearts and minds of the people who actually live out there”.[1] The movie was chosen as Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature at the 47th Academy Awards presented in 1975.[2]

The film premiered at the 1974 Cannes Film Festival. Commercial distribution was delayed in the United States due to legal issues, including a temporary restraining order obtained by one of the interviewees, former National Security Advisor Walt Rostow who had claimed through his attorney that the film was “somewhat misleading” and “not representative” and that he had not been given the opportunity to approve the results of his interview

Walt Rostow (also known as Walt Rostow or W.W. Rostow) OBE (October 7, 1916 – February 13, 2003) was a United States economist and political theorist who served as Special Assistant for National Security Affairs to US President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1966–69.

Prominent for his role in the shaping of US foreign policy in Southeast Asia during the 1960s, he was a staunch anti-communist, noted for a belief in the efficacy of capitalism and free enterprise, strongly supporting US involvement in the Vietnam War. Rostow is known for his book The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto (1960), which was used in several fields of social science.

His older brother Eugene Rostow also held a number of high government foreign policy posts.

Early life

Rostow was born in New York City to a Russian Jewish immigrant family. His parents Victor and Lillian Rostow, were active socialists, and named Walt after Walt Whitman. His brother Eugene, named for Eugene V. Debs, became a legal scholar, and his brother Ralph, after Ralph Waldo Emerson, a department store manager.

Rostow entered Yale University at age 15 on a full scholarship, graduated at 19, and completed his Ph.D. there in 1940. He also won a Rhodes Scholarship to study at Balliol College, Oxford, where he completed a B.Litt. degree. In 1936, during the Edward VIII abdication crisis, he assisted broadcaster Alistair Cooke, who reported on the events for the NBC radio network. After completing his education, he started teaching economics at Columbia University.

Professional and academic career

During World War II, Rostow served in the Office of Strategic Services under William Joseph Donovan. Among other tasks, he participated in selecting targets for US bombardment. Nicholas Katzenbach would later joke: “I finally understand the difference between Walt and me […] I was the navigator who was shot down and spent two years in a German prison camp, and Walt was the guy picking my targets.”

In 1945, immediately after the war, Rostow became assistant chief of the German-Austrian Economic Division in the United States Department of State in Washington, D.C.. In 1946–1947, he returned to Oxford as the Harold Vyvyan Harmsworth Professor of American History. In 1947, he became the assistant to the Executive Secretary of the Economic Commission for Europe, and was involved in the development of the Marshall Plan.

Rostow spent a year at Cambridge University as the Pitt Professor of American History and Institutions. He was professor of economic history at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology from 1950 to 1961, and a staff member of the Center for International Studies at MIT from 1951 to 1961. In 1954, he advised President Dwight Eisenhower on economic and foreign policy, and in 1958 he became a speechwriter for him. In August 1954, Rostow and fellow CIA-connected MIT economics professor Max F. Millikan convinced Eisenhower to massively increase US foreign aid for development as part of a policy of spreading American-style capitalist economic growth in Asia and elsewhere, backed by the military.[1][2]

Involvement with the Israeli nuclear program

While working as national security advisor, Rostow became involved in setting the United States’ posture towards Israel. Although he supported military and economic assistance to Israel, Rostow believed that increased public alignment between the two states could run counter to US diplomatic and oil interests in the region. After reviewing the May 1967 report from the Atomic Energy Commission team that had inspected Dimona along with other intelligence, Rostow informed President Johnson that, though the team found no evidence of a nuclear weapons program, “there are enough unanswered questions to make us want to avoid getting locked in too closely with Israel.”

Concerns about Israel’s nuclear program were tabled by the United States during the build-up to the Six-Day War and its aftermath. Though Rostow, Johnson, and Secretary of State Dean Rusk tried to convince Israel not to resort to military force, they supported Israel once the war began. When the nuclear issue resurfaced in January 1968, just prior to Prime Minister Levi Eshkol’s visit to the United States, Rostow recommended that the president make it clear that the United States expected Israel to sign the NPT.[3]

The Stages of Economic Growth

In 1960, Rostow published The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto, which proposed the Rostovian take-off model of economic growth, one of the major historical models of economic growth, which argues that economic modernization occurs in five basic stages of varying length: traditional society, preconditions for take-off, take-off, drive to maturity, and high mass consumption. This became one of the important concepts in the theory of modernization in social evolutionism. Rostow’s thesis was criticized at the time and subsequently as universalizing a model of Western development that could not be replicated in places like Latin America or sub-Saharan Africa.

The book impressed presidential candidate John F. Kennedy, who appointed Rostow as one of his political advisers, and sought his advice.[4] When Kennedy became president in 1961, he appointed Rostow as deputy to his national security assistant McGeorge Bundy. Later that year, Rostow became chairman of the US Department of State’s policy planning council. After Kennedy’s assassination, his successor Lyndon B. Johnson promoted Rostow to Bundy’s job after he wrote Johnson’s first State of the Union speech. As national security adviser, Rostow was responsible for developing the government’s policy in Vietnam, and was convinced that the war could be won, becoming Johnson’s main war hawk and playing an important role in bringing Johnson’s presidency to an end.

When Richard Nixon became president, Rostow left office, and over the next thirty years taught economics at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin with his wife Elspeth Rostow, who later became dean of the school. He wrote extensively in defense of free enterprise economics, particularly in developing nations.

“You’re not appreciating something.” President L.B.J. delights in Nicholas Katzenbach reprimanding Vietnam war opponent, Robert Kennedy.

Posted by Down with Dow / Monsanto on Wed, 05 Oct 2016 16:22 | #
3 Posted by Dr Doom on Sun, 09 Oct 2016 23:31 | #

Most people don’t know why we went to The Nam.  There have been countless theories and many excuses, but the reality is far sickening than this documentary I assure you.  What if I told you we went there for drugs?  Would you think I was a conspiracy nut like Alex Jones?  Well let me tell you, its true.  South Vietnam is where The Golden Triangle was, and it was run by the Montagnards, now known as the Hmong or boat people.  JFK was dirty like his old man.  His family is a crime family.  His Daddy Joe ran Rum during Prohibition and I hear they run drugs now.  One of his pals was Aristotle Onassis, once the Richest Man in the World.  People say he made his fortune with shipping, but they leave out the part about what most of his shipments were illegal drugs.  When the French were fighting Ho Chi Minh, they lost at Dien Bien Phu.  Old Man Onassis, who ended up screwing and marrying Jackie, JFKs widow, called up his old pal Joe’s son JFK, and asked him to protect the Golden Triangle for him from the Communists.  At Paris, they ripped of Ho Chi Minh and the Commies by giving them the North and not any piece of the lucrative heroin trade.  The Golden Triangle made China White, the purest and finest heroin in the World.

You might be interested to know the real reason we’re in Afghanistan now is the poppy fields.  They used to make that shit into Opium during the days of The British Empire.  Baron Rothchild used his dirty Opium dens and the whores he recruited by getting them hooked on Opium to finance the Whole Fucking British Empire.  Today they make the poppy grown in Afghanistan into heroin.  That’s why we’re really there.  Its not the Taliban and Al Queda is actually a CIA operation like ISIS.

Sickening huh?  Our guys think they’re fighting Commies and Terrorists, but actually they’re protecting illegal heroin brought in by CIA.  Both Old Man Bush and Bubba Clinton are big drug guys.  Old Man Bush was CIA director running drugs, and Bubba was the Governor of Arkansas where the drugs on CIA planes land.  There’s a big airport in the middle of nowhere in Silver Springs, Arkansas, that has almost no commercial passenger traffic, but 24/7 cargo planes loaded with CIA run drugs coming in there.

4

 Posted by Just Sayin’ on Tue, 11 Oct 2016 12:54 | #

Is this whole thing about rationalizing a case of yellow fever?

For a “White Nationalist” blog the whole thing has become oddly Asia-philic.

I don’t really recognize this blog from where it was a few years ago.

Sad!

5

 Posted by DanielS on Tue, 11 Oct 2016 15:26 | #

Posted by Just Sayin’ on Tue, 11 Oct 2016 12:54 | #

Is this whole thing about rationalizing a case of yellow fever?

For a “White Nationalist” blog the whole thing has become oddly Asia-philic.

I don’t really recognize this blog from where it was a few years ago.

Sad!

Stupid comment.

The Answer is no.

In the particular example, the Vietnam war was neither popular nor highly defensible on the part of the elite – even they tend to recognize it as a mistake; they thought they were fighting communism but were really fighting Vietnamese ethnonationalism.

As for the site’s geo strategy in general: We seek to align European and Asian ethnonationalism against Jews, Muslims and Africans.

Nothing sad about that, it is a very promising outlook.

6

 Posted by DJF on Thu, 13 Oct 2016 14:39 | #

Not all the “right” was in favor of the Vietnam War, the John Birch Society came out against it in 1965

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1EFlMKV6sY

Robert Welch thought that it was a no win war which was just going to cost the US lives, blood and money while at the same time distracting everyone while LBJ pushed through his “Great Society”

Buckley made a final break with JBS after this and tried to destroy them.  Unfortunately with Buckley getting the support from the MSM he was made “Mr Conservative” and the rest is history

7

 Posted by DanielS on Thu, 13 Oct 2016 14:56 | #

That’s true, but through time, the idea that the right was against the war has been mythologized in David McGowan’s conspiracy theory that indeed the right was against the war, and therefore the CIA and military industrial complex had to concoct a false opposition “so ugly” and distasteful to normal Americans, that they would be turned off by the anti war movement and its right wing proponents.

It is a ridiculous theory of course. And it seems McGowan was hypnotized to create a story to put attention and blame on hippies and to distract from the YKW and racial consciousness.

This is more the right wing that I am addressing when I say “fuck you” – the right wing of today,which accepts the sundry Jewish stories to misrepresent what hippies of the Vietnam war time were about. They did have an organic motive (which McGowan and right wingers deny) which was midtdasein – being amidst their folk (as opposed to non being in utility of the draft)..the right wing which tries to accept Jewish affectations associated with the White kids of the era – “Free Love”, “Civil Rights”,  liberal feminism, universal openness and peace..

These were Jewish affectations….ruses to be associated with the hippies by Jewish media…

In this way, they get a new generation of right wing kids to blame “hippies”, i.e., White people, males in particular – distracting from their important organic motive – midtdasein and away from the fact that Jews and right wingers, were mostly to blame.

The hippies were inarticulate of their organic motive, but they did not have the Internet and other experience to help them articulate their motive. I am particularly suspicious when right wing or alt right girls blame our problems on “hippies.”

 Posted by My Lai massacre on Mon, 06 Feb 2017 20:11 | #

My Lai massacre

Posted by Tet offensive turning point: battle of Hue on Mon, 12 Jun 2017 21:13 | #

The “Tet offensive” was a surprise holiday (Tet is a holiday) attack by the Viet Cong all throughout South Vietnam in early 1968; an additional part of the surprise was that they brought the fight to the cities in the South. It had been assumed that the Viet Cong were only jungle fighters: The urban battle for the ancient imperial city of Hue, Vietnam was highly significant, and marekd a precipitous downward turning point for American morale – after that, the question became, not “will America win?” but rather, it was understood that it wouldn’t, and the question became instead, “what’s the best way to get out of Vietnam?”

“Hue 1968: A Turning Point of the American War in Vietnam.”             

NPR, 12 June 2017

Led by the unqualified to kill the unfortunate:

Speaking of the unqualified, the uniquely unqualified Ken Burns, film maker of “Baseball,” a sanctimoniously anti-racist “documentary”, has also applied his incompetence and liberal sanctimony to The Vietnam War.

 Posted by Vietnam war documentary by Ken Burns on Fri, 22 Sep 2017 00:48 | #

Documentary film maker Ken Burns is even more obnoxious and self righteous than the standard liberal (Terry Gross coaxes some of that out of him later in the interview; try to ignore it), but he’s made a documentary about the Vietnam war which includes interviews from different perspectives on the war along with footage not seen before – bound to be interesting and provide some insight.

NPR, “In ‘Vietnam War,’ Ken Burns Wrestles With The Conflict’s Contradictions”, 21 Sept 2017:

Much as I dislike black bio-patterns and detest their being imposed upon me and mine, I would not advocate their being sent to Vietnam either. Thus, I will resist the bad taste of making one of my favorite jokes: "Why did so many blacks get killed in Vietnam? Because when the seargent yelled 'get down!' they started dancing. - lol.

 Posted by Vietnam vets: Alioto, Honan, Lucas on Wed, 31 Jan 2018 17:37 | #

Vietnam Veteran: Michael Alioto

Vietnam Veteran: Thomas Frederick Honan

Vietnam Veteran: Steven M. Lucas

Vietnam Veteran: | Tom Hagel

Monument featuring dog-tags for each of the 58 + thousand Americans killed in Vietnam.

Posted by mancinblack on Wed, 07 Feb 2018 14:09 | #

“As a nineteen year old scout and spy for the communist forces in South Vietnam, Hoang Thi No remembers the determination and spirit of her eleven member team of young women who took part in the audacious Tet Offensive that turned the tide of the Vietnam war fifty years ago.

“If we didn’t fight the enemy, they would destroy us all” she said “We were young and weren’t afraid, once we had a strong ideology, we could do anything”

Her unit was known as the Perfume River Squad for the river that runs through Hue, Vietnam’s cultural capital and third biggest city. Four of them died during the fighting that raged through the city for most of that February, two died later in the war.”

More…
https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3355168ma

https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3355168

(try the link again..)

This Vietnam Vet, Paul Kallas, was drafted in ‘69 and lost his arm (among other catastrophic injury) in 1970. .. a daughter born with spinal bifida (wheel chair bound) as well due to his agent orange exposure. It’s particularly moving that he describes the Vietnamese as good people. He went back to visit in 96.

It is utterly sickening to hear millenials and so on when they blame “hippies” for all the problems we have now..  oh yeah, like they shouldn’t have been resisting the draft….

 Posted by Lonejack on Thu, 08 Feb 2018 21:17 | #

I always like to be reminded that my assessment of the times and its meaning as opposed to what we’re told it was about by MSM found agreement in the following comment by a Vietnam vet – it was written in the context of an article by Richard Spencer at the original Alternative Right site. Needless to say, Richard’s assessment of the times wasn’t very deep –

A Vietnam vet calling himself Lonejack agreed with my assessment:

 Agree.

As a VN vet, I can attest to most of what you say. The effects of the VN-era conscription – that is, having been forced into slave-soldiering in a non-White country’s civil war orchestrated by bankers and corporations, having absolutely nothing to do with the actual defense of a White homeland, and calculatingly prosecuted by LBJ and his Ivy League YKW intelligentsia with absolutely no intent of military victory – reverberate to this day among the White guys who were in our late teens and early twenties during the 60’s, more than 50 thousand of whom died in combat, many of whom were captured and tortured, and hundreds of thousands of whom returned maimed, grossly disfigured, and/or dysfunctional only to be vilified, upon their return, by many elements of the society which sent them.

When I returned from overseas, my drop-out from family and society into the flower-child milieu had little to do with civil rights or free love. BTW I do not begrudge those who emigrated to Canada to avoid the draft. And, for those interested, the works of author Tim O’Brien, who “served” an extended “tour of duty” as an infantryman in SVN, are richly descriptive, compelling, and well written IMO.

  Commenters on this site (Alternative Right) and in other threads who incessantly demand the boomers to go fuck or shoot themselves, while they themselves consider employment with the Navy, CIA, SS, or some other corrupt, terrorist, anti-White ZOG organ of the NWO agenda – as though such employment would be anything more than a convenient way to escape a tough job market – do, I confess, grate. Why on earth would they willingly collaborate with evil, when alternatives, difficult though they be, are available?

  My 2-bit rant.

Thank You Lonejack

Jeane B. Christie – “those Dear John letters that American women would send to the conscripts in Vietnam really made me angry. They had no idea what they were doing to those men. Some of them would just go ahead and blow themselves up on point.”

“draft dodgers being counseled1967”

Photo: Laura and Bennett Jones Phillips Baldwin Street Gallery-SA

Harry Blaszkiewicz – Vietnam – Veterans History Project

Posted by toxic masculinity prescribed on Sat, 09 Feb 2019 07:12 | #

The Great Con of American Patriotism

Tom Cruise [starred ass] Ron Kovic in “Born on the Fourth of July” (1989). (Universal Pictures)

American soldiers born decades apart in the state of New York, Ron Kovic and Maj. Danny Sjursen are two crucial dissenting voices that have experienced firsthand the futility and brutality of America’s interventionist wars. Kovic, a Marine veteran who was paralyzed in the Vietnam War, has spent the rest of his life fighting against the U.S. war machine. The film “Born on the Fourth of July,” starring Tom Cruise, was based on his book, a work he hoped would combine with his activism to dissuade young people from buying into the toxic patriotism that leads Americans to fight destructive, ultimately pointless wars.

In the latest installment of “Scheer Intelligence,” Kovic tells Truthdig Editor in Chief Robert Scheer, “I couldn’t stop speaking against that war. I was arrested a dozen times. I—every single day was life and death. Every single day, I know that there could be another young man like Ron Kovic being paralyzed, another young man from a town or a farm somewhere in this country, being killed in that war that had to stop.”

Sadly, Sjursen, who says he watched the film based on Kovic’s life before he was even of age to join the military, explains that he wasn’t able to hear past what he calls the “faux patriotism” that pushed him to attend the U.S. Military Academy, as well as do tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“I think the fact that I didn’t learn the lessons from Ron Kovic’s story,” Sjursen laments, “[is] proof of the power of the masculinity that is associated with military service, and this notion of nationalism and patriotism. It’s so prevalent that it’s, in some ways, if it’s not fought every day … it will continue despite the lessons before us.”


Sjursen also reflects on the shame he feels for having led soldiers to their deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan long after he “no longer had any faith in the wars.”

”What I really saw [in Iraq],” Sjursen recalls, “was the results of American messianism in the world, of American exceptionalism, the notion that we could remake societies in our own image. What it really meant was a whole lot of dead children, a whole lot of car bombs, a whole lot of teenagers shooting each other in the night. And then, of course, a whole lot of Americans getting killed as well, although less of us than the Iraqis.”

Listen to their brutally honest discussion about the vital need to reframe patriotism in the age of the “forever wars” and the current state of the military-industrial complex. You can also read a transcript of the interview [at] TruthDig.org

Prosecutorial Elite Proffering: Well Organized (But Irrational!) White Defense To Tie-In Lone Wolves

Whereas I am satisfied to have articulated the unarticulated but profoundly important essence of the so called “hippie” movement, that is, to secure a narrative of intrinsic valuation of White male being amidst his people – Dasein and MidtDasein as Heidegger called it – and to have wrested this understanding from Jewish misdriection as a cause for liberalism, “universal peace and free love”, “civil righs”…. and from the hypnotic misdirection of conspiracy theorist David McGowan

Conspiracy Theory of A Conspiracy Theory to Divert From White Male Dasein

Prosecutorial Elite Proffering: Well Organized (But Irrational!) White Defense To Tie-In Lone Wolves

University of Chicago Schmoozer Kathleen Belew…

… Kathleen Belew has also seized on the moment to try to build the case for RICO charges where White males might begin to act in their joint interests – i.e., her angle would seek to disrupt White male Dasein and organization – Midtdasein.

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 10 Aug 2019 17:49 | #

I find it interesting that she would cite, as I do, Vietnam as meaningful turning point for White men. Of course, she is not marking the profound, eminently necessary and justifiable White Post Modern Turn against pernicious Tradition and into Dasein/MidtDasein for White men, but only observing symptoms of their low grumbles, trying to associate those symptomatic reactions to the Vietnam draft along with subsequent reactions to violations of White Midtdasein with a “coherent, well organized White power movement.”

Professor Belew is obviously doing the bidding of the prosecutorial elite in trying to propose a well organized WN movement so that government prosecutors can go to court with RICO type charges to bring against groups of White people who would have the nerve to be independent minded enough to defend White people.

Those of us who have been trying to organize White people and experience the near impossibility of gathering them from their reactionary stupor into even the most benign coherence – human ecology as curated by The DNA Nations – recognize how, not only absurd Kathleen Belew’s theory is, but what an expression of the pernicious elite’s desire it is to shoe-horn a theory in order to make fit their goal to disrupt, disorganize and destroy any White unionization, organization, social systemic homeostasis, i.e., any White defense. .

Belewing

Kathleen Belew recounts post Vietnam war White advocacy in The USA and cannot bring herself to recite the fourteen words.

So, lets help her:

“We must secure the future of our people and a future for White children.”

She does mention leaderless resistance though, lol.

Louis Beam, an early proponent of a Cuban general's "lone wolf' tactics. Pictured here, 05/09/1981 with supporters at rally in Santa Fe about the fishing rights dispute with Vietnamese refugee fishermen in Galveston Bay. Tim Bullard, HC staff / Houston Chronicle
Bob Mathews and "The Order" used small cell tactics and began to develop skepticism of the right, but not before falling prey to is foibles.
Metzger was the other early adopter of lone wolf tactics, but he was not right wing, was against the war in Vietnam and advocated their prerogative for their land.

Indonesia

Trump deal imposes Muslim compradors over Indonesian ethnonationalists and what is sacred to them

Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 08 August 2017 18:16.

At a press conference at Trump Tower in New York to declare his loyalty to the Republican Party, Donald Trump was flanked by guests from Indonesia, and made a big show of announcing one very special guest, Setya Novanto.

“He wants it big, and overlooking the sacred Tanah-Lot.”

Trump deal in Indonesia imposes Islamic compradors over ethno-nationalism and his hotel and business upon what is sacred to Indonesian ethno-nationalists.

FOUR CORNERS, 3 July 2017:

While running for President, Trump was courting the Indonesians over lucrative resort deals in Bali and Java; and lobbying Indonesian MP’s to expedite a toll road that would benefit his development.

The secretive dealings raise new questions about Trump’s corporate interests abroad and about the unholy business and political alliances he’s forged.

While at home, Trump rails against Muslim extremists, in the world’s largest Muslim country, his allies are cozying-up to Islamists who are posing a direct threat the country’s ethno-nationalism.

Donald Trump has entered into two huge deals in Indonesia, and the first of them will land here, on the southern edge of Bali almost on top of one of the Island’s most sacred religious sites, Tanah Lot – an hour or two away from the main tourist areas, the Balanese have fought for decades to protect this temple and its surrounds.

Not much is known of Trump’s plans but what is known that he wants it big, the biggest in Bali he says, wants a tower on an island that bans them, and he wants it over looking the sacred Tahan Lot

“It’s one of the island-wide temples that are sacred to the Balanese, its the land, pana, and lot, which means ocean.”

Trump makes deal with Islamic compradors in Indonesia, imposing against native stasis of Left ethno-nationalism, and his hotel and business upon what is sacred to native ethno-nationalists.

80,000 Indonesians were killed by Suharto on that beach in 1965, the victims were accused of being Leftists….

When President Suharto exited power in 1998, he took three decades of loot with him, estimated at 30 billion dollars.

Trump’s business partner in the deal, Harry Tanno, was a close friend of Suharto

Tanno welcomes Trump and Sharia

Hizb-ut-Tahrir’s man is on screen talking after 37 minute mark – his appearance was the biggest thing in the whole video:

“Is it your ambition to impose Sharia Law in Indonesia?” “It is not our ambition, but our duty.”

An abstract kind of wild quid pro quo white America has going on there.

All imagery and story, THE COMPANY HE KEEPS: FOUR CORNERS, 3 July 2017.

THE COMPANY HE KEEPS: FOUR CORNERS, 3 July 2017:

The Company He Keeps: Unearthing Trump’s business deals on our doorstep.

“Do they like me in Indonesia?” Donald Trump

It was one of the more bizarre moments of the Trump presidential campaign. At a press conference at Trump Tower in New York to declare his loyalty to the Republican Party, Donald Trump was flanked by guests from Indonesia, and made a big show of announcing one very special guest.

“Hey, Ladies and Gentlemen, this is a very – an amazing man. He is, as you know, Speaker of the House of Indonesia. He’s here to see me.” Donald Trump

It was unclear why the Indonesians were there, or why Mr Trump was making such a fuss of them.

Now a Four Corners investigation will reveal how Donald Trump, as he was closing in on his political rivals, was negotiating luxury resort deals in Bali and Java, raising serious questions about presidential conflicts of interest.

“The project is going to be a huge one, a mega project.” Landowner

In Bali, plans are under way to Trumpify one of the most iconic and sacred sites in Bali – Tanah Lot. But curiously, for a tourist destination usually keen to talk up what the island paradise has to offer, government officials are not keen to talk about the proposed Trump Tower development.

“I can’t talk about this. I cannot talk about this.” Balinese government official.

In a second development on Java, the deal to build a massive gaudy theme park and resort development has been inked, leaving local farmers frightened of what the future holds.

“When the financial power of Trump comes here, we the original people who live here are powerless. Their enormous wealth buys enormous influence.”

Four Corners investigates how these deals were done through an unholy alliance formed between Donald Trump and controversial business and political figures in Indonesia.

Trump’s business partners have a troubling history with ties to the corrupt Suharto regime.

While at home in the United States, President Trump rails against Islamic extremism. In Indonesia, he has formed political alliances with politicians aligned with Islamist forces.

“He is dealing with the worst of Indonesia’s past, and he is going to deal with the worst of Indonesia’s future, the Islamists. I think Donald Trump is going to get his businesses messier and also Indonesia messier.” Human rights investigator.

The Company He Keeps, reported by Mark Davis and presented by Sarah Ferguson, goes to air on Monday 3rd July at 8.30pm EDT. It is replayed on Tuesday 4th July at 10.00am and Wednesday 5th at 11pm. It can also be seen on ABC NEWS channel on Saturday at 8.00pm AEST, ABC iview and at abc.net.au/4corners.

 Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Wed, 05 Jul 2017 20:41 | #

Great article, Daniel. I like the attention you’ve given this.

Prediction though: The Alt-Right either will not care about this, or they’ll invent a whole raft of excuses and 59-dimensional chess narratives to explain why funding Islamists in Indonesia is ‘actually a good thing’. And that any concerns that anyone expresses about this must be ‘anti-white’. Because of course.

Related:

Assad’s Syria

https://majorityrights.com/weblog/news_comments/bashar_al_assad_a_proper_left_nationalist_a_socially_consientious_man

https://majorityrights.com/weblog/news_comments/rather_than_describe_assad_as_liberator_of_alleppo_that_he_is_the_ny_times

https://majorityrights.com/weblog/news_comments/can_the_daily_mail_say_muslim

https://majorityrights.com/weblog/news_comments/muslim_incursion_in_south_east_asians_targets_european_crusaders

https://majorityrights.com/weblog/news_comments/the_possibility_of_a_kurdish_syrian_alliance_against_turkey_is_encouraging

Kurds

https://majorityrights.com/weblog/news_comments/kurdistan_solidarity_campaign_raqqa_now_completely_free_from_the_isis_jihad

https://majorityrights.com/weblog/news_comments/watch_for_the_pkk_as_a_revolutionary_group_fighting_for_ethnonationalism

https://majorityrights.com/weblog/news_comments/tulsi_rejects_israeli_operation_clean_break_paves_way_for_kurd_white_left_e

https://majorityrights.com/weblog/news_comments/turkey_attacks_iraqi_home_of_the_yazidis_site_of_isis_2014_genocide

Yazidi

https://majorityrights.com/weblog/news_comments/yazidi_girl_made_into_sex_slave_by_isil_and_forced_to_pray_to_god_of_abraha

https://majorityrights.com/weblog/news_comments/refugee_ex_sex_slave_kurd_flees_germany_after_spotting_former_isil_captor_a

https://majorityrights.com/weblog/news_comments/collateral_damage_of_project_for_new_american_century_israeli_operation_cle

https://majorityrights.com/weblog/news_comments/lamiya_was_15_when_isil_kidnapped_her_from_kocho_a_yazidi_village_in_sinjar

“Three lions made us proud. They are still alive”…a silver lining to terrorism

Posted by DanielS on Friday, 04 December 2015 01:49.

Vocactive,‘ISIS: “May god spread fear in the homes of the Crusaders.”, 3 Nov 2015:

Fourteen people were killed and at least 17 wounded

“Three lions made us proud. They are still alive,” one ISIS adherent tweeted in Arabic after the shootings at Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino. “California streets are full with soldiers with heavy weapons. The Unites States is burning #America_Burning #Takbir”

Translation:

“Three lions made us proud. They are still alive,” tweeted after the shootings in San Bernardino

After the Paris attacks, confirmed ISIS accounts praised “Lions” as well.


LA Times, San Bernardino shooting live updates: Victims who died ranged in age from 26 to 60, 3 Nov, 2015:

What we know

  • Around 11 a.m. on Wednesday, two assailants opened fire in San Bernardino at a party in the Inland Regional Center, police said.
  • Fourteen people were killed and 21 wounded. The names of all those injured have not yet been released, but The Times is collecting their names and stories.
  • After a Wednesday afternoon car chase, the two armed suspects were killed by police: Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik.
  • The attackers’ motive is unknown. President Obama, in a statement from the Oval Office Thursday morning, said the shooting was possibly related to terrorism, but might also be workplace related.
  • Police said there was “some degree of planning.” The suspects were heavily armed, wearing tactical attire, and had an arsenal of ammunition and pipe bombs in their Redlands home.

A silver lining to terrorism is that it moves us in the direction of having to classify people – e.g., non-White middle-easterners, as a whole – as we are less able to distinguish “the good ones from the bad ones.” That is a necessary step in racial, systemic maintenance.

 Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sat, 05 Dec 2015 02:53 | #

DanielS wrote:
A silver lining to terrorism is that it moves us in the direction of having to classify people – e.g., non-White middle-easterners, as a whole – as we are less able to distinguish “the good ones from the bad ones.” That is a necessary step in racial, systemic maintenance.

Yes. It’s like I’m saying in my recent article, it’s becoming increasingly apparent to everyone that there are only two camps. It becomes possible for us to define the second camp in any way that we like.

https://majorityrights.com/weblog/news_comments/three_lions_made_us_proud._they_are_still_alive

https://majorityrights.com/weblog/news_comments/those_who_they_wish_to_destroy_they_first_make_christian_28102015

Those they wish to destroy they first make christian

Japan

Russia crisis: Japan furious with Putin’s visit to disputed island

Shinzo Abe with Vladimir Putin, St. Petersburg International Economic Foru, 26 May 2018 CCby4.0

Russia crisis: Japan furious with Putin’s visit to disputed Sakhalin island

Posted by DanielS on Friday, 02 August 2019 14:11.

Russia crisis: Japan furious with Putin’s visit to disputed island

VLADIMIR PUTIN’S decision to send Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev to an island claimed by both Japan and Russia was met with fury by Tokyo.

Express, 2 August 2019

The Russian Prime Minister paid a visit to one of the four Russian-held islands which lie off Japan’s most northern region. Known as Iturup in Russian and Etorofu in Japanese, the island was occupied by the Soviet Union after World War 2. It has been a source of dispute between Moscow and Tokyo for the last three-quarters of a century – and Mr Medvedev’s visit threatens to put relations between Russia and Japan under strain.

Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs pulled no punches with a strongly worded statement aimed at the Kremlin.

Officials said that Mr Medvedev’s visit was incompatible with the Japanese people’s view on the Russian-held islands.

The statement added: “We strongly urge the Russian side to take constructive measures to further advance Japan-Russia relations, including the issue of the conclusion of the peace treaty.”

Iturup is one of four islands involved in the so-called Kuril Islands dispute, also known as the Northern Territories altercation.

The Yalta agreement – a post World War 2 deal signed by the US, Britain and the Soviet Union – stated that “the Kuril Islands shall be handed over to the Soviet Union” after the conclusion of the war.

It was supported by the Cairo Declaration of 1943, which stated that Japan must be expelled from all territories which have been taken by violence.

Japan originally took control of the island in 1875 after Russia reportedly agreed to give up all the rights for the Kuril Islands.

The Russo-Japanese war 30 years later yielded more territory to Tokyo and became the backdrop of simmering tensions between the two nations.

Diplomatic progress has stalled in the past 20 years over the dispute.

In 2005, to Moscow’s dismay, the European Parliament recommended Russia return the islands to Japan.

2011 saw the installation of weapons on the island to, according to Mr Medvedev, “ensure the security of the islands as an integral part of Russia”.

Mr Medvedev’s latest visit came just two weeks after Moscow outright refused to discuss the potential handover of two of the contested islands to Japan.

Recently, Discovery of Oil and Natural Gas in Sakhalin gives Russia a Milking cow in the region. Which was earlier used as Gulags.

That and the following article are not really all you need to know, as oil and natural gas supplies (of which Japan is in desperate need) have been located in Sakhalin Island, a natural extension of Japan’s historical and genetic ethnostate and an affect of the Russian Federation’s kleptocratic aggrandizement.

Tillerson, Putin, Sakhalin, Fukushima: Why would Japan Hate Trump’s outreach to Russian Federation?

All you need to know about islands at heart of Russia-Japan feud

The Democratic Telegrap:

The decades-old dispute has prevented the two countries from concluding a peace treaty to formally end World War II.
Called the Kurils by Russia and the Northern Territories by Japan, a string of volcanic islands are at the heart of a feud between the two countries that has prevented them signing a formal World War II peace treaty. Talks stalled for decades due to Japan‘s claim to the four strategic islands seized by the Soviet army in the final days of the war.

Russia and Japan’s leaders meet for talks in Moscow on Tuesday over the disputed island chain.

As Russian President Vladimir Putin and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe are set to meet in Moscow on Tuesday for talks expected to be dominated by the territorial dispute, here are some key facts about the Kuril islands:

Location

The disputed islands of Iturup (Etorofu in Japanese), Kunashir (Kunashiri), Shikotan and Habomai lie at their closest point just a few kilometres off the north coast of Hokkaido in Japan.

They are the southernmost islands in a volcanic chain that separates the Sea of Okhotsk and the Pacific Ocean.

Indigenous people of Sakhalin Island
Indigenous people of Sakhalin Island
 

They are located to the southeast of the Russian island of Sakhalin and are administratively part of the same region, although Tokyo considers them part of its Hokkaido prefecture and “illegally occupied by Russia”.

Treaties

Russian Empress Catherine the Great claimed sovereignty over the Kuril islands in 1786 after her government declared they were discovered by “Russian explorers” and therefore “undoubtedly must belong to Russia”.

In the first treaty between tsarist Russia and Japan in 1855, the frontier between the two countries was drawn just north of the four islands closest to Japan.

Twenty years later in 1875, a new treaty handed Tokyo the entire chain, in exchange for Russia gaining full control of the island of Sakhalin. Japan seized back control of the southern half of Sakhalin after its crushing defeat of Moscow in the 1905 Russo-Japanese War.

Soviet takeover

The Kuril islands have been back at the centre of a dispute between Moscow and Tokyo since Soviet troops invaded them in the final days of World War II.

The USSR only entered into war with Japan on August 9, 1945, just after the United States had dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima.

The Soviet troops completed the takeover of the islands after Japan’s general surrendered later that month.

Russia argues that then-US President Franklin Roosevelt promised Soviet leader Joseph Stalin he could take back the Kurils in exchange for joining the war against Japan when they met at the Yalta conference in February 1945 at which the Allied leaders divided up the post-war world.

The Soviet capture of the islands has since prevented Moscow and Tokyo from signing a formal peace treaty to end the war, despite repeated attempts over the past 70 years to reach an agreement.

In 1956, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev first offered to give Japan the two smallest islands, Shikotan and Habomai, in exchange for signing a peace treaty but dropped the idea after Tokyo struck a military alliance with Washington.

Strategic value

Strategically, control of the islands ensures Russia has year-round access to the Pacific Ocean for its Pacific Fleet of warships and submarines based in Vladivostok, as the strait between Kunashir and Iturup does not freeze over in winter.

Russia has military bases on the archipelago and has deployed missile systems on the islands.

The islands’ current population is around 20,000 people.

After numerous meetings over the past few years between Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Russian President Vladimir Putin, they have launched various economic projects on the islands in areas such as the farming of fish and shellfish, wind-generated energy, and tourism, though Moscow says investment is still meagre.

Since 2017, the two countries have also agreed on charter flights for Japanese former inhabitants to visit family graves there.

The islands are rich in hot springs and minerals and rare metals such as rhenium, which is used in the production of supersonic aircraft.

That’s not really all you need to know, as oil and natural gas supplies – which Japan is in desperate need for – have been located in Sakhalin Island, a natural extension of Japan’s historical and genetic ethnostate and an affect of the Russian Federation’s cleptocratic aggrandizement.

Tillerson, Putin, Sakhalin, Fukushima: Why would Japan Hate Trump’s outreach to Russian Federation?

Trump appointed Putin crony Tillerson to be Secretary of State, and thereby to join in capture of Sakhalin, though it sould, should be Japan’s natural and crucial resource.

‘This Island Holds the Secret to Rex Tillerson and Vladimir Putin’s Relationship’

Fortune, 14 Dec 2016

Posted by DanielS on Thursday, 09 February 2017 17:37.

If Japan were in control of Sakhalin, an island to its north, and a logical extension of its homeland, its ethno-state, and if Japan and its closely related Asian relatives were in control of their native lands of Kamchatka and Eastern Siberia, not only would Japan and its Asian relatives be in rightful control of lands that are a natural part of their ethno-states; instead of these territories being of the vast imperial aggrandizement of The Russian Federation; but instead of The Russian Federation extending its practice of aggrandizement and parasitism of the resources of aggrandized territories, Japan would have the natural gas resource that goes with its rightful north island, which could largely solve immediate critical problems of its energy requirements – resources so urgently needed, alleviating options heretofore so limited by the territorial impingement, that it was forced to take extra risks with nuclear power precisely as it was deprived of traditional fossil fuel sources; but persevered in its characteristic self reliance to place the Fukushima nuclear reactor within its constrained and populated national territory despite that obviously being far from optimal. Disaster betrayed that pattern of self reliance while the imperialist parasitism of Putin’s Russian Federation has been ramped-up with outrageous chutzpah, in alliance with Trump and Netanyahu – against Asian ethno-nationalism and its emerging alliances with European ethno-states.

Fortune, ‘This Island Holds the Secret to Rex Tillerson and Vladimir Putin’s Relationship’, 14 Dec 2016:

If Vladimir Putin has a man crush on anyone in business, it’s probably Rex Tillerson, the ExxonMobil chief executive Rex Tillerson Trump just nominated to head the State Department.

Aljazeera, ‘New US state chief a perfect fit for Russia’

Friendship between Putin and Rex Tillerson dates back to 1990s when the Texas oilman established a US energy presence.

Fortune, ‘This Island Holds the Secret to Rex Tillerson and Vladimir Putin’s Relationship’, 14 Dec 2016:

As to the reason why, all you need to do is look at Sakhalin, a windswept, earthquake-prone island off Russia’s Pacific coast where temperatures can fluctuate 110 degrees throughout the year. It’s this forbidding territory that Exxon (xom, -0.28%), under Tillerson, has turned into one of Russia’s most lucrative oil provinces, affording Russia a crucial entry into the fast-growing oil markets of Asia, generating nearly $5 billion in tax dollars and other revenue for the government to date, and generally being, by Moscow’s lights, a good corporate citizen.

Indeed, if Japan and its relatives native to the habitat of eastern Siberia were in control of territories reasonable for ethno-statism, as opposed to these territories being under the control of the Russian Federation’s imperial aggrandizement, Japan and its close Asian relatives would have access to vital natural gas resources desperately needed, and could have/might still place any supplementary nuclear reactor projects in regions remote from human populations, essential habitat and tectonic fault lines.

From what I gather, The Russian Federation’s economy is based on this unjust territorial aggrandizement, resource parasitism and its raw materials sales. This is in marked contrast to the strategy of the world’s third largest economy—Japan—which builds its GNP through labor, manufacturing and technological innovation.

But it is not only Japan and natives of East Asia that the Jewy parasitism of The Russian Federation’s aggrandizement impacts—it impacts all neighbors of its vast imperial overstep, an overstep of anything remotely like a Russian ethno-state. The Russian Federation and its forerunners have done so historically, it is doing so now, in a new Jewy alliance with Trump and Tillerson, and it will continue to do so, so long as the elephant in the room is not recognized: The Russian Federation is not an ethno-state!

It is an imperialist enterprise aligned against our necessary Asian ethno-nationalist allies. We need ethno-nationalist alliance with our Chinese, South Korean and Japanese counterparts against Islam and against Israel. The Trumpist alternative is the opposite, it is an objectivist, civic “nationalist” alliance of a Jewed-up USA, a Jewed-up Russia, Israel and whatever Muslim compradors they can enlist to suppress ethno-national rebellion against their imperial supremacism. Their ostensible solution to the problem of “radical Islam” is nothing more than the old “solution” phase, a “solution” for the reaction to a problem that they created.

The Intercept, ‘Rex Tillerson’s Exxon Mobil Frequently Sought State Department Assistance, New Documents Show’, 17 Jan 2017:

A February 2009 cable published by Wikileaks shows Exxon Mobil asking then-U.S. Ambassador to Russia John Beyrle to intervene on its behalf and speak to the Russian government about its then-stalled offshore drilling project in a major oil and gas field to the east of Russia called Sakhalin.

“Exxon Mobil [officials] told the Ambassador on January 31 that GOR [Government of Russia] refusal to approve project budgets has halted development of new Sakhalin 1 fields,” reads the cable. Kremlin officials, perhaps motivated by anti-American sentiment, were blocking approval of a budget needed to move forward with the project until a Russian entity took control of 51 percent of the deal.

Exxon Mobil officials hoped that the incoming Obama administration could persuade the Russians to change course on the project. The president of Exxon Mobil’s Russian operation and its Sakhalin project manager “told the Ambassador they believed a warming of U.S.-Russian relations could help reverse the refusal to approve the Sakhalin 1 budget,” and “asked the Ambassador for USG support in pressing the GOR to act on the matter.”

In May 2009, the Sakhalin 1 consortium agreed to sell 20 percent of the gas extracted from the field to Russia’s state-owned company Gazprom, and production continued.

Other cables released by Wikileaks suggest Exxon Mobil pushed for better U.S.-Russia relations to advance its business interests.

One 2007 cable noted that Russian-based executives of Exxon Mobil and other U.S. firms met with Under Secretary of State Reuben Jeffery III in Moscow and argued that “the best way to engage Russia and enhance global energy security is to focus on positive dialogue geared towards helping Russia improve its oil and gas investment climate.” Russia, the oil firms noted, “is about to embark on a new era of oil and gas development in areas (East Siberia and Arctic regions) that cannot be exploited without Western technologies and expertise.”

Tillerson’s ties to Russia — which center around the joint venture he signed in 2011 as the CEO of Exxon Mobil with Russian state-owned company Rosneft to drill for oil on the Arctic shelf — have been a source of controversy. After the signing, Tillerson was presented with an “Order of Friendship” award from Russian President Vladimir Putin

TNO, ‘Fukushima: New Record Levels of Radioactive Contamination’, 5 Feb 2017:

The radiation level in the containment vessel of reactor 2 at the crippled Fukushima No. 1 power plant has reached a maximum of 530 sieverts per hour—enough to kill anybody within a few minutes—and is the highest since the triple core meltdown after the March 2011 tsunami.

The readings, described as “unimaginable,” are now so high that they will even destroy unmanned robots after just two hours of operation.

According to a statement from the Tokyo Electric Power Co. Holdings Inc. (Tepco), the radiation reading was taken near the entrance to the reactor core. This means that at least some of the melted fuel has escaped its surrounding pressure vessel.

530 sieverts is strong enough to kill a person with only the briefest exposure. Previously, the highest reading taken was 73 sieverts per hour at the reactor.

An official of the National Institute of Radiological Sciences said medical professionals have never considered dealing with this level of radiation in their work.

According to the institute, 4 sieverts of radiation exposure would kill 1 in 2 people. Experts say 1,000 millisieverts, or 1 sievert, could lead to infertility, loss of hair, and cataracts, while exposure to doses above 100 millisieverts increases the risk of cancer.

Tepco also announced that, based on its analysis of images taken by a remote-controlled camera, there is a two meter hole in the metal grating under the pressure vessel in the reactor’s primary containment vessel. It also thinks part of the grating is warped.

The hole could have been caused when the fuel escaped the pressure vessel after the mega-quake and massive tsunami triggered a station blackout that crippled the plant’s ability to cool the reactors.

Tepco also announced that, based on its analysis of images taken by a remote-controlled camera, there is a two meter hole in the metal grating under the pressure vessel in the reactor’s primary containment vessel. It also thinks part of the grating is warped.

The hole could have been caused when the fuel escaped the pressure vessel after the mega-quake and massive tsunami triggered a station blackout that crippled the plant’s ability to cool the reactors.

The reading means that it is becoming increasingly difficult to carry out repairs and to decommission the plant. The company said it planned to deploy a remote-controlled robot to check conditions inside the containment vessel, but it will have to plan the operation carefully because the robot will only have two hours of operational life before the radiation kills it.

Photos released by Tepco clearly showed the two meter hole on the infrastructure, along with black deposits which are presumed to be melted fuel.

 Posted by mancinblack on Tue, 07 Feb 2017 13:08 | #

“Abe renews pledge to solve territorial row with Russia”

PM Shinzo Abe hopes to use economic cooperation with Russia to solve the Northern Territories issue.

 Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Tue, 07 Feb 2017 16:25 | #

Those ‘outreaches’ are done on purpose in the full knowledge that Russia will never do what is asked of them anyway. It’s PR so that when the day comes that the Russians start to lose control of Siberia and Kamchatka, some of the economic base and the public relations inertia will already be tilted in Japan’s direction.

 Posted by mancinblack on Tue, 07 Feb 2017 18:04 | #

Agreed, Kumiko. Thanks for the link too.

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 08 Feb 2017 05:06 | #

The gook argument for taking Siberia from Russia is thus: “You’ve got it, and we want it.  So give it up!”

The Russian counter argument is this: “Fuck you slanty-eyed subhumans.  If you try to take it, we will nuke you.  Any questions?”

Lulz

Guess which argument wins?

 Posted by DanielS on Wed, 08 Feb 2017 06:14 | #

I think rather, the argument is that a Jewy, mongrelized Russian imperial “Federation” and Soviet Union took these lands from native inhabitants and you are purporting that they should threaten these people, whom we require as allies against White imperialist traitors as they are complicit with Jewish hegemony, African and Islamic shock troops and compradors in their regard.

Russia is not alone with nukes; let its boner-nosed mixed Jews try to send nukes into Asia.

Nor should Whites seek to defend The JU.S.A. in its Jewy imperialising campaigns.

 Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 08 Feb 2017 06:37 | #

Ultimately might makes right.  Whatever the White race can take it should take.  And whoever doesn’t like that can feel free to go suck a nigger’s dick.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 08 Feb 2017 09:35 | #

That’s too arbitrary and is a presumption that is asking for interminable conflict. Ethno-nationalism and ethno-states provide a criteria for alliance and coordination. And again, we need formidable allies, not more formidable enemies, which the Asians can be in either case – clearly we should opt for the former. They would be most formidable allies, which can ally perfectly against our greatest common enemies. However, there would have to be a quid pro quo respect for ethno-statism: which brings us again to The Russian Federation – it isn’t one and it is in conflict with all of Asia

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Wed, 08 Feb 2017 10:32 | #

I’ll go with a humorous response where I’ll say serious things in a light tone.

The ‘White race’ is thankfully not united on the issue of Russia, Captainchaos. We can now rely on the British and the Polish foremost, and then after, the Dutch and the Danes, and most of the rest of Western Europe, most of Central Europe, most of Eastern Europe, the Baltics, and most of the Caucasus excluding Serbia, to always everytime and forever prefer just about anything over Russia. And I’m sure you know why that is.

I know that the Russians think that their nuclear ‘Samson option’, is acting as a deterrent against Asian economic expansion in Siberia. They could not be more wrong, because Asians are as always the highest of high stakes gamblers in the world and we are going to call that bluff in due time. All of the economic and living-space issues from the previous war are still not settled yet.

The most powerful weapon that the Russians have at their disposal is not a nuclear strategic bluff, but rather, the most powerful weapons that the Russians have are:

1. Siberian winters, which are a natural phenomenon that people can anticipate,
2. Russia’s post-WWII legacy which consists of repeatedly trying to brainwash everyone with the narrative about how the Russians ‘saved the world’ from ‘evil’ Western Europeans and ‘evil’ East Asians who had dared to aspire to be supreme in their own lands,
3. Some garbled nonsense about how the Mongolians and the Tatars are ‘bad’ and only the Eternal Rus with his trusty sidekick the Eternal Jew can ‘save’ Western Europeans from a threat that literally never presented itself to them,
4. Some garbled nonsense about how the British Indian Empire was ‘mixed’ and ‘collaborated with every kind of non-White wahh wahh’ whereas the Russian Empire was ‘pure huWhite’, and therefore somehow this means that everyone should somehow have preferred to have paid taxes to lazy Russians in the Eternal Adidas tracksuit (essentially the whole state of Russia demanding welfare payments from the entire planet) for every item on every boat or locomotive or automobile or buggy that passed through Asia between the years 1530 and 1914, even though Russia took part in producing exactly zero percent of that wealth.

Notice how those typical Russian ‘weapons’ are all Second World War Israeli-inspired guilt-trips about stuff we don’t care about, Great Game whining about how the British Indian Empire didn’t believe in unconditional alliances with Russia, general appeals to supposed ‘huWhiteness’ and appeals to anti-Asian sentiments?

Yeah, death to Russia.

Seriously, lightheartedness aside, death to Russia, and death to America if America chooses to stand with them like last time. I’ve long been an admirer of Tomomi Inada, I think she got it right when she said:

Tomomi Inada, Japanese Minister of Defence:
Yasukuni Shrine is not the place for the oath of peace. Rather, it is the place to make an oath to fight desperately against the enemies of Japan, following in the path of the honoured spirits of the dead soldiers.

I don’t do this often, but here are two tracks for that memory:

1. NS Europe
2. Greater East Asia

And that war and the example it set, was not a one-off. It has happened before with many different faces and many different guises. It was also the same tide of history which was seen in the seemingly suicidal Charge of the Light Brigade led by Lord Cardigan against Russian forces during the Battle of Balaclava on 25 October 1854. They didn’t actually die in vain. They at least left us with a story that reminds us of what kind of agenda we ought to be pursuing, so as to not let their lives have gone to waste.

We have all inherited an ancient fight, the core of the following conflicts are basically because of the same array of reasons:

– Siberian, Kamchatkan, Aleutian, Inuit, etc natives, versus the Russian Tsardom
– Sibir Khanate versus the Russian Tsardom
– The Mongol Empire versus the Russian Tsardom
– The Golden Horde versus the Russian Tsardom
– The Ilkhanate versus the Russian Tsardom
– Circassia versus the Russian Tsardom
– Persia (Iran) versus the Russian Tsardom
– The Yuan Dynasty versus the Russian Tsardom
– The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth versus the Russian Empire
– The Astrakhan Khanate versus the Russian Empire
– The Crimean Khanate versus the Russian Empire
– The Ashikaga Shogunate versus the Russian Empire
– The First French Empire versus the Russian Empire
– The Tokugawa Shogunate versus the Russian Empire
– The British Indian Empire and Central Asian tribal allies versus the Russian Empire
– The British Indian Empire and the Empire of Japan versus the Russian Empire
– The Empire of Japan versus Russian Diplomacy in the Korean Peninsula
– The Azerbaijan Democratic Republic versus the Soviet Union
– Axis versus the Soviet Union
– Axis versus the United States of America and its Allies
– The United Nations and the Republic of Korea versus the Soviet Union
– NATO (Operation Gladio) versus the Soviet Union
– The People’s Republic of China versus the Soviet Union (in the Third World)
– Greater Albania versus Serbia and the Russian Federation
– NATO versus the Russian Federation

And who knows what will develop next?

 

 Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Wed, 08 Feb 2017 12:18 | #

Oh, and also, I should not forget to mention this, just as a matter of curiosity:

Alexander Dugin asserts that he would not allow his ‘friends and allies’ to ‘manipulate Russia against Israel’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5TsBZURUG4

I don’t think I even need to add commentary after that one. If you choose to actually stand with Russia, that’s what you’re standing with.

Posted by Just Sayin’ on Wed, 08 Feb 2017 19:03 | #

” We need ethno-nationalist alliance with our Chinese, South Korean and Japanese counterparts against Islam and against Israel. The Trumpist alternative is the opposite, it is an objectivist, civic “nationalist” alliance of a Jewed-up USA, a Jewed-up Russia, Israel and whatever Muslim compradors they can enlist to suppress ethno-national rebellion against their imperial supremacism.”

China is not an ethno-state. China is an empire that has already digested many smaller nations and is currently in the process of digesting others, like Tibet.

The American relationship with China is very dysfunctional. Trade with China has been quite harmful to the U.S. economy, devastating our manufacturing sector and flooding our country with cheap crap, driving our companies to move away or go out of business. Meanwhile, China is sending many immigrants to the U.S and other white countries. They have to go back. Finally, China is a dirty, nasty place, with low environmental standards and a culture that encourages the production of counterfeit and unsafe goods. I want to contain them and limit interaction with them until they improve their attitudes and stop frying food in gutter oil, producing tainted baby formula for export, etc.

Russia on the other hand is a white country that doesn’t send a lot of immigrants here or represent nearly the same economic threat. They also represent far less of a demographic threat and share our interest in containing China.

As for Japan, I’m not hostile to Japan, but given their demographics and current cultural attitudes they just aren’t that important, and will probably be happy to join any alliance that aims to contain China.

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Wed, 08 Feb 2017 20:55 | #

Given that the US is demographically past the point of no return already, my position is that I actually do not care what happens to the US.

Regarding China’s dysfunctional relationship with the US, that is by design and I hope that it becomes more dysfunctional over time. Americans get very upset when I say these things, but I draw a definite line between the United States and Europe, as they do not have the same interests. People often misunderstand this. My opposition the direction taken by the United States, and my opposition to Russia, is not ‘anti-White’. It just means that those are the two White countries that I happen to not care about.

As a reverse comparison, Pakistan is an Asian country. How can I then oppose Pakistan while being obviously in favour of development in Asia? The fact that I don’t care about Pakistan’s survival is obviously connected to Pakistan’s economic behaviour and geostrategic stances, not their racial categorisation.

Similarly, my opposition to the current path taken by the United States, and my opposition to Russia at all times, stems from the fact that these countries are a fetter against global development now, and because neither of those countries respects the rights of other peoples to live in their own way. In other words, there are literally no redeeming factors whatsoever.

The fact that Americans and Russians are ‘White’ means nothing to me. I couldn’t give a damn, that is not a magical ‘get off scot free’ card. I can’t count the number of times that people have tried to defend Russia with the line, “Russia is a White country”. That’s literally meaningless as a statement by itself.

Regarding Japan and its demographics, Japan is simply returning to the same population level that it had in the year 1860. This does not render Japan unimportant, for four crucial reasons:

1. Japan is not engaging in population replacement,
2. Japan is finding economic growth through investing in ASEAN countries, and thus is the single most important country in the region other than South Korea in that regard,
3. The patterns of cross-investment between Japan and China, and the lead that Japan has over China in terms of naval capability, mean that the geographic challenge presented by China to Japan is one that Japan can handle with relative ease. The place where all of China’s strategic gains have actually been accruing is in Central Asia against Russia, a fact that is extremely worrying for Russia but has been an endless source of amusement and schadenfreude among the more savvy observers in Japan and South Korea.
4. Japan was overpopulated way beyond its carrying capacity, and so having an inverted age pyramid where boomers are finally dying and not being replaced, is a good thing.

I should also add that in terms of ‘current cultural attitudes’, those are the same attitudes that have always persisted. Japan is an array of volcanic islands sitting atop the ring of fire next to a subduction zone. Everything is transient, and life is cheap, although I suppose right now it is slightly less cheap than it used to be in feudal times due to the fact that there is a greater amount of investment per child and the statistical probability of being hacked and sawed to death in combat before age 30 has dramatically decreased.

I always do find it ironic though, that Americans think that Japanese (and to a great extent, also Korean) cultural attitudes are ‘bad’, even though Japan and Korea succeeded despise being bombed to pieces in the 20th century, whereas the United States won at literally everything and still somehow ended up experiencing population replacement.

And you think it is Japanese who have the wrong attitude? Oh please.

 Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 08 Feb 2017 20:57 | #

Daniel’s argument that it is necessary to cede massive amounts of territory and resources to gooks in order to coax the latter into a Jew-fighting alliance is tragically myopic at best and pitifully moronic at worst.  By his argument, since Russia has Jews entangled in its ruling elite, this fire-sale giveaway should commence in order to bring that elite down.  But there is no White society on earth that does not suffer an entanglement with Jews.  So then, by his standards, all White societies globally should give at least half of what is theirs to gooks to get them to fight Jews.  The question of why Whites cannot simply fight Jews on their own without diminishing the spoils of victory by ceding land and resources to gooks goes conspicuously unasked by him. Why?  Because to ask the question is to answer it.

 Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Wed, 08 Feb 2017 21:09 | #

Russians are not going to “fight Jews on their own” and the proof of that is seen in the fact that they’ve openly announced 1001 times that they have no intention of ever doing that. The followers of Dugin literally are never going to ever do that. In fact, Russia will continue to hold parades every year to commemorate the Second World War, it will keep doing that in the most pro-Jewish, Jew-centred way possible, and it will continue to base its very national identity on being “those who most consistently opposed anti-semitism”.

And then you will non-ironically come into threads like this, and try to defend Putin’s filthy disgusting face, in front of me, as though this is not the most ridiculous thing that American White nationalists ever did.

I’m not often frank about these things, but American White nationalism is a fucking disgrace to be quite honest, and if Adolf Hitler were alive today, he’d kill you. That is the most ironic thing about all of this, the fact that for years the Americans have been prancing around subtly and non-subtly invoking memes about how ‘the outcome of the Second World War was all wrong’, and yet now they are happily embracing pro-Jewish Russian nationalists who are completely unrepentant about the role Russia played in that war. The fact that the Americans have become pro-Russian is a sign that American White nationalism is basically fucked on a fundamental level.

99% of the time, Americans actually are presenting the reheated garbage stances of Dwight D. Eisenhower and Madison Grant, combining them together and calling it ‘radical’. In a way, that’s what the absurd pantomime election of Donald Trump is all about. Bringing back Dwight Eisenhower and Madison Grant inside of a single human body.

Posted by Just Sayin’ on Wed, 08 Feb 2017 21:40 | #

Given that the US is demographically past the point of no return already, my position is that I actually do not care what happens to the US.

It’s good to get that out in the open. I can see how you’d feel that way, but much of Europe is quickly approaching that point as well, in Sailer’s new column in Taki mag he estimates that 38.9% of newborns in 2015 France had “both parents come from the Global South”, not too far behind the U.S., which only reached majority non-white births in 2015.

It’s quite possible to write from a perspective that says “it’s too late to save much of the West”, but taking that premise to its logical conclusion may lead to rather odd conclusions, where you start wishing harm to more and more of the West, as it gradually gets more and more enriched, until you’re eventually praying that the whole thing gets nuked. Which is a rather counter-intuitive position, given the site’s mission statement.

I don’t expect you to care that Russia or the U.S. are countries with significant white populations, but those white populations are generally something that White Nationalists wish to preserve or “save” in some way.

As for Japan, I agree that their current cultural attitude is healthier than the attitude of the West and if current trends continue they may survive while we certainly won’t. But Japan’s current attitudes are still not ideal, or particularly healthy or strong, nor are they something they “chose” on their own, they are at least in part a response to losing WW2.

All I said was that their demographics and cultural attitudes will limit their importance on the world stage. It’s not a very big country to begin with and when you throw in low fertility, very few young people and restrictions on militarism, it’s not looking like a future great power to me, at least until everyone else has declined significantly due to population replacement.

P.S. Glad you admit that China is conducting economic warfare against the US

 Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Wed, 08 Feb 2017 22:10 | #

Writing from the perspective I’ve described would only lead to me abandoning the United States (which I was never really supporting anyway, so not much to abandon there), and perhaps being forced to abandon France and Germany if they don’t figure out what they are doing fast enough.

Regarding Russia, I have never been in favour of Russia in the first place, so it’s not a case of ‘abandoning’ Russia, since I have always been openly hostile toward Russia. And I had never met anyone in ‘the movement’ in the west who was in favour of Russia until the year 2014. This pro-Russian stuff as far as I have seen, only arose after Russian Active Measures started canvassing in earnest after 2008, and only gained momentum around 2014 when the mass migration of Arab ‘refugees’ into Europe had just begun, and Russia began to piggyback their narratives on top of it. The pro-Russia stuff was therefore a recent phenomenon from my perception, one that would have been difficult to have anticipated, given that the history involved would seem to point in the opposite direction.

If this places me out of step with what is normally expected, it would just mean that this is something that White Nationalists apparently disagree with me on. It may be the case that my positions could some day no longer intersect with White Nationalism in any way whatsoever, and if they end up largely holding positions that are wholly useless to me (eg, if it becomes wholly Russified) then I would just have to walk away from it at that point.

So, as always, I am in favour of getting feedback because feedback is the only way to really know.

 Posted by Trex on Wed, 08 Feb 2017 22:33 | #

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_settlement_in_the_Japanese_Empire

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Wed, 08 Feb 2017 22:45 | #

That Wikipedia article itself goes through a whole cavalcade of lies, before delivering this hilarious ending:

Wikipedia (emphasis added):
There is little evidence to suggest that the Japanese had ever contemplated a Jewish state or a Jewish autonomous region.[29] In 1979 Rabbi Marvin Tokayer and Mary Swartz authored a book called The Fugu Plan. In this partly fictionalized account, Tokayer & Swartz gave the name the ‘Fugu Plan’ to the 1930s memorandums. They claim that the plan, which was viewed by its proponents as risky but potentially rewarding for Japan, was named after the Japanese word for puffer-fish, a delicacy which can be fatally poisonous if incorrectly prepared.[2] (The memorandums were not actually called The Fugu Plan in Japanese.) Tokayer and Swartz base their claims on statements made by Captain Koreshige Inuzuka and allege that such a plan was first discussed in 1934 and then solidified in 1938, supported by notables such as Inuzuka, Ishiguro Shiro and Norihiro Yasue;[30] however, the signing of the Tripartite Pact in 1941 and other events prevented its full implementation.

Ben-Ami Shillony, a professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, confirmed the statements upon which Tokayer and Swartz based their claim were taken out of context, and that the translation with which they worked was flawed. Shillony’s view is further supported by Kiyoko Inuzuka (wife of Koreshige Inuzuka).[31] In ‘The Jews and the Japanese: The Successful Outsiders’, he questioned whether the Japanese ever contemplated establishing a Jewish state or a Jewish autonomous region.[32][33][34]

They wait until the end of the article to quickly point out that everything you read prior to that moment was a lie. The so-called ‘Fugu Plan’ was only real in Rabbi Marvin Tokayer’s mind.

In actual reality, Jews were placed under surveillance in all areas that Japan controlled, and those Jews that chose to flee to Europe in response were later apprehended by the National Socialists in Europe.

That also happens to be how Geert Wilders’ Dutch-Jewish colonialist mother got chased out of Indonesia in the first place, in case anyone doesn’t know that story. But more on that some other time.

 Posted by DanielS on Thu, 09 Feb 2017 04:11 | #

Captainchaos, you shouldn’t drink before you comment.

You say here:

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 08 Feb 2017 21:57 | #13

Daniel’s argument that it is necessary to cede massive amounts of territory and resources to gooks in order to coax the latter into a Jew-fighting alliance is tragically myopic at best and pitifully moronic at worst.  By his argument, since Russia has Jews entangled in its ruling elite, this fire-sale giveaway should commence in order to bring that elite down.  But there is no White society on earth that does not suffer an entanglement with Jews.  So then, by his standards, all White societies globally should give at least half of what is theirs to gooks to get them to fight Jews.  The question of why Whites cannot simply fight Jews on their own without diminishing the spoils of victory by ceding land and resources to gooks goes conspicuously unasked by him. Why?  Because to ask the question is to answer it.

DanielS: I must parse this mess one part at time.

Captainchaos: Daniel’s argument that it is necessary to cede massive amounts of territory and resources to gooks in order to coax the latter into a Jew-fighting alliance is tragically myopic at best and pitifully moronic at worst.

DanielS: I am ceding nothing with regard to Russia. What I am saying is that it’s eastern border is its imperialistic problem. If it were to lose the part east of Lake Baikal, parts that it took only in recent history, it would still be enormous. I would not care if it were to be smaller than that, even, but I am trying to be realistic, given that cities of a million occur not far west of Lake Baikal.

Our maintenance of good relations and trade with Japan, Korea and China while not taking the side of Russia’s Jewy imperialistic appropriations to its east could be good incentive for them to cooperate with White ethnostates/ethno-nationalism, yes. It would make good sense for them.

Captainchaos:..in order to coax [Japan, China and Korea] into a Jew-fighting alliance is tragically myopic at best and pitifully moronic at worst

DanielS: I certainly don’t have to coax Japan and Korea into a Jew fighting alliance, China either, they will fight in their interests: it is in their interests to fight in alliance with those who oppose their enemies: Imperialists who would impose upon their interests.

The Jewish and White alliance that the Alternative Right proposes by contrast, and that you fall into by default, by your defense of The US and The Russian Federation, is what has brought the White race to disaster and is what has brought them into conflict with Asians – who hate Abrahamism and its child, Islam, hate its incursions as much and with as much of an effective counter as anybody – knowing, as they do, that it is the inspiration of western imperialism and incursions into Asia.

It is the inspiration even for its liberal imperialistic spawn of enlightenment secularism.

MacArthur’s father slaughtered Philippine natives, for what? Your friend Eisenhower installed Islamic comprador regimes in Asia, where Asian ethno-nationalists, “gooks” as you say, fought for their nations. He set in motion a war with Ho Chi Mihn, though Ho Chi Mihn tried to have Vietnam cooperate with The US on ethno-nationalist grounds.

With regard to White western interests, the sort of alliance that it has fallen into for its traditions, customs and habits provide a long list of perfidy, as it leads to their destruction and becoming more and more Jewed where they do survive.

Captainchaos: By his argument, since Russia has Jews entangled in its ruling elite, this fire-sale giveaway should commence in order to bring that elite down

DanielS: Again, that is not my argument. I am giving away nothing. In fact, that is an essential part of the deal with other ethno-nationalists. Thus, looking after my inerests in the bargain, I am not willing to betray its terms and fight against China and Japan in order to defend The Russian Federation in lands that it appropriated in imperialistic overstep in very recent history.

At least you admit that Russia’s ruling elite is entangled with Jews. Like the American ruling structure, it needs to be brought down in the interest of White ethno-statism, not just the non-White ethno-statism that they suppress. This kind of anti-racist, imperialist lording has led to a circumstance of race mixing that ethno-nationalists on any side do not want.

But there is also a degree of mixedness in the Russian population which can be resolved if it can live with and show its genuine native Russianness predominant by living in a Russian ethno-state. Genuine Russian ethno-nationalists would recognize the obvious fact that the Russian Federation is not an ethno-state, and would commend eastern regions becoming autonomous to the native populations.

Captainchaos: But there is no White society on earth that does not suffer an entanglement with Jews.  So then, by his standards, all White societies globally should give at least half of what is theirs to gooks to get them to fight Jews.

DanielS: While it is true that there is no White society that is not entangled with Jews, I don’t believe any European ethno-state, which is what the European nations are in essence, (beneath and besides Jewish and Jewish instigated liberal interference), should give away any territory. Nothing. And I will not abandon any European country in its ethno-statism along with its opposition to foreign imposition, notably Jewish, Muslim and black. Thus, the “standards” that you impute to me are not my standards. Because I am arguing for an alliance of ethno-statism against Jewish, Muslim and black incursions. I am not saying that the reason to allow Russia to recede into an ethno-state is because it is mixed with Jews, or not only because of that reason, I am saying that it is not an ethno-state, and as such, Jewy and right wing in its imperialism though it is, of any stock, it impinges upon our ethno-state alliances, against our common enemies.

In fact, The Russian Federation, just like the United States, is allied with our common enemies. Which will bring me to a last complication with regard to White ethno-nationalism.

Captainchaos: The question of why Whites cannot simply fight Jews on their own without diminishing the spoils of victory by ceding land and resources to gooks goes conspicuously unasked by him. Why?  Because to ask the question is to answer it.

DanielS: Again, I am ceding nothing with regard to The Russian Federation. I am alerting our Asian ethno-nationalist allies that we will not help The Russian Federation to defend lands stolen by The Russian Federation, The Soviet Union and its imperial predecessors. We fight on ethno-nationalist grounds, not on imperialist grounds.

This brings me to the problem of White Nationalism USA. In fact, I have been a hold-out in terms of what has now been a long standing, ready concession on the part of White Nationalists in America, that parts of it should be given away – as is the case of the North West Movement that you so fervently advocate – and what a hypocrite you are!

You people have been talking about giving the whole South West to Mestizos, the whole South East to blacks and the whole North East to Jews and liberals.

The fact that you would give anything to blacks shows what sorry wimps that you are. Are you a part of Greg Johnson’s harem?

But anyway, I’ve always recoiled at the idea of giving blacks any part of the USA – why should they have anything? You think that they are going to fight against the Jews and the government that keeps them on life support with an endless funnel of money from others. Even to the extent they might fight in that way, perhaps as some unintended consequence of their rioting, really, it means having to live beside them. And HuWhites look like Jews to them too (especially when they act like Jews). I’ve thought blacks should get nothing of the US and I still think that.

Nevertheless, Jewish and right-wing problem-making being what they are – after first flinging this black scourge upon Whites (and native Americans), by means of their slave trade, they now bring other non White populations upon White Americans in service of cheap labor and race-mixing-away the competition. They have done so to such an extent, with such logical force from their power niches, that the logics of meaning and action that extend from there mean that balkanization of the US becomes the only way to defend on racial grounds.

That means returning to the WN position which views the US Government as antagonistic to ethno-nationalism, a position it held until right wing fools got co-opted into a Jewish alliance by means of the Alternative Right – they will say that oh, blacks are not so bad, some of them are really smart and we can work with them, its those Mexicans, Muslims and Asians, that’s the real problem! And Jews, we can work with them, they know what they’re doing – good work! Look, they gave us our Alternative Right, they gave us our TRS, put our man Trumpstein in the White house – he’s siding with the good Jews, and with the Russian Federation…all those White people there, (((and))).

Still, I am not so down on White Americans as Kumiko is. I believe that she has not heard enough from true White American ethno-nationalists, who are not so naive/disingenuous, who can see the logic of our ethno-national alliance. Your referring to Asians as “gooks” and defending their enemies, when their enemies are in the wrong, does not help to change her perception.

Coming back to the predicament of White ethno-nationalism in North America, given that balkanization is, unfortunately, the necessary solution to the Jewish and right wing made problem: Balkanization is necessary as opposed to their Jewish plan of Castizo, viz. black, Amerindio and White mixing – which TRS proposes as a “solution”. By contrast, White American ethno-nationalists should favor ethno-nationalist alliance with Asians and Indios. Blacks should have no place but in Africa and Jews should have no power and influence in North America.

Whites should have their enclaves and sacrosanct territories and indios and Asians should have enclaves and sacrosanct territories, in an ethno-nationalist compact to maintain one another’s ethno-genetic interests: It can commence and proceed by means of the DNA Nations.

The DNA nation allows for bigger and smaller White enclaves to coordinate in the Americas, including North West USA.

As for the European ethnostates, they should be in complete control of their territories, maintaining them for over 90% of their native own population – the rest, being European and some Asian enclaves, if the ethnostate is willing, should be held to account along with the natives, to not impinge upon the quality and quantity of genetic interests and in fact, should help to effect deportation of interlopers.

14 Words

Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 09 Feb 2017 06:20 | #

“you shouldn’t drink before you comment.”

Lulz

Daniel, why do you store your balls in Kumiko’s purse?

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 09 Feb 2017 06:23 | #

Captainchaos: Lulz

Daniel, why do you store your balls in Kumiko’s purse?

Sober-up, take your time and read my comment #19, CC.

Just Sayin’, comment #11

China is not an ethno-state. China is an empire that has already digested many smaller nations and is currently in the process of digesting others, like Tibet.

Though I’ve heard Chinese ague that Tibetans are Chinese, from all I know and have known, China is out of line when it comes to Tibet. Other than that, and typical conflicts that you have to watch for with a big power, so long as the Chinese see themselves as a more or less homogeneous genetic nation (and they do), though a big one, we should be willing to coordinate with them as an ethnostate.

You, Just Sayin’, continue –

Just Sayin’: The American relationship with China is very dysfunctional. Trade with China has been quite harmful to the U.S. economy, devastating our manufacturing sector and flooding our country with cheap crap, driving our companies to move away or go out of business.

The US is a civic state, governed primarily by an alliance of Jewish interests and objectivist Whites (i.e., people who don’t care about race, unless the Jews tell them to). Therefore, keeping its economy working is far from a great concern of mine, or any true ethno nationalist; and, by contrast, it would be very much a concern, in the interests of Jews and right wingers to keep that race mixing beast going.

You go on to say –

Just Sayin’: Meanwhile, China is sending many immigrants to the U.S and other white countries. They have to go back.

This is a problem, their population especially. They are not a perfectly innocent nation without self interests. Their part in the ethno-nationalism of the DNA Nations would entail that if they are granted a place in the agreement of North America, to oust Jews such as yourself, Just Sayin’, that they not overwhelm and overpopulate, that they are responsible for their part in respecting others mutual genetic survival.

You conclude:

Just Sayin’: Finally, China is a dirty, nasty place, with low environmental standards and a culture that encourages the production of counterfeit and unsafe goods. I want to contain them and limit interaction with them until they improve their attitudes and stop frying food in gutter oil, producing tainted baby formula for export, etc.

There is some stupid, Jewy and right wing subjectivity showing through there. However, China does have a pollution problem, this step in the process of industrializing nations that all have gone through needs to be phased-out as quickly as possible. We are working on proposals for them.

 Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 09 Feb 2017 08:26 | #

Daniel, let us be clear that the actions of the Chinese state in Tibet are genocidal:

http://www.thetibetpost.com/outlook/opinions-and-columns/4643-china-is-guilty-of-mass-genocide-against-12-million-people-of-tibet

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 09 Feb 2017 14:19 | #

My understanding is that the Chinese have been brutally out of line with regard to Tibet – and that native Tibetans are not Chinese: as ethno-nationalists, we need to support Tibetan autonomy.

Kumiko will make an argument that you do not often hear in the West, to the effect that China was responding to an intransigence of Tibetan regimes – regimes which were responsible for long standing brutality of their own.

However, even if it was a provisional intervention on the part of China and somehow for the long-term good of Tibet that these regimes were deposed, as ethno-nationalists, we need to advocate the ultimate sovereignty of Tibet and certainly to recognize any and all atrocities committed against its innocents.

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 09 Feb 2017 20:23 | #

At this point, I want to place a BBC article which outlines an official Chinese view on Tibet, not to move past the issue, but to mark it clearly as an issue not being avoided, that we’ll come back to as a matter to deal with, so that I can raise some other points undiverted.

The first matter that I’d raise is that China’s brutal, no putting-up with piddling, negotiation of liberal arguments, does not only have a bad side, it has a useful side for our purposes. I have in mind, of course, examples of its utter intolerance of Islam and its lack of sentimentality with regard to Jewish interests/Israel.

Along with exploring features of that, of course we need to follow-upon and not be diverted from the issue set forth in the post, that of Russian appropriation of Siberian territory and any genocides committed against native Siberians; noting any Jewish hand in that.

From there, I would probably counter-pose, as I have before, the fact that historical killing has gone the other way as well – Asians killing Whites. For example, the Mongols penetrated Europe so far as to have genocided the Polish inhabitants of what is now Wroclaw; after which time, the Germans moved-in, re-named it Breslau and were there until the borders were shifted again by Stalin – Poles losing L’viv to Ukraine but re-gaining Wroclaw in its place.

The Russians undoubtedly have horror stories from their side, of their being attacked and killed in what is their rightful native territory, however, it does not appear that they could make that kind of defensive argument of protecting their homeland, kith and kin when observing its vast sprawl today, particularly looking at its far east.

Here’s the article that I start with as temporary place holder, this one presenting the Chinese side of the argument for its control of Tibet.

BBC, “The Tibet issue: China’s view”, 27 Jan 2012:

What is China’s stance on Tibet? Here, we outline Beijing’s position, based on various official Chinese sources.
Is Tibet part of China?

“For more than 700 years, the central government of China has continuously exercised sovereignty over Tibet, and Tibet has never been an independent state. No government of any country in the world has ever recognised Tibet as an independent state.”

(People’s Daily, April 2008)

What was Tibet like before the Communists established control in 1951?

“Even in the first half of the 20th Century, Tibet remained a society of feudal serfdom under a theocracy, one even darker and more backward than medieval Europe. The ecclesiastical and secular serf owners controlled the personal freedom of the serfs and slaves who made up more than 95% of the population of Tibet. By resorting to… extremely savage punishments, including gouging out eyes, cutting off ears, tongues, hands and feet, pulling out tendons, throwing people into rivers or off cliffs, they practiced cruel economic exploitation.”

(Xinhua News Agency, March 2008)

What has happened since then?

“Since its peaceful liberation in 1951, Tibet has undergone profound social changes, including democratic reform, reform and opening up, and has achieved remarkable social and economic progress.”

(China’s Foreign Ministry handbook, July 2007)

Who was behind a failed uprising against Chinese rule in 1959, after which the Dalai Lama fled to India?

“In face of the ever-growing demand of the people for democratic reform, some people in the upper ruling strata of Tibet, in order to preserve feudal serfdom and supported by imperialist forces, staged an armed rebellion all along the line on 10 March 1959 in an attempt to separate Tibet from China.”

(Xinhua News Agency, March 2008)

Who was responsible for the recent unrest in Tibet?

“We now possess sufficient evidence to prove that the Lhasa incident is part of the ‘Tibetan people’s uprising movement’ organised by the Dalai clique. Its purpose is to create crisis in China by staging co-ordinated sabotage activities in Tibet. ‘Tibet Independence’ separatist forces led by the Dalai Lama takes the 2008 Beijing Olympics as their last straw to realise ‘Tibetan independence’.”

(China’s Ministry of Public Security press release, April 2008)

“The Dalai Lama keeps talking about a peaceful way. However, solid facts prove that his much-vaunted ‘middle way’ policy and ‘peaceful demonstrations’ are blatant lies fabricated by the Dalai himself and the Dalai clique.”

(China’s Ministry of Public Security press release, April 2008)

What does the Chinese government think about reports by the Western media about the recent events in Tibet?

“It is unfortunate that a few Western media outlets, including some from the United States, are ignorant of the obvious truths and are basing their reports on distorted facts and unfounded claims.”

(Zhang Yun, Chinese consul general for Los Angeles, Xinhua, April 2008)

 Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sun, 12 Feb 2017 14:21 | #

What is even the utility of discussing Tibet anyway? I don’t see how this has anything to do with Russia, other than the fact that if China were not there, Russia would have been there instead. This is something that goes right back to the Great Game between the British Empire and the Russian Empire.

When the game was played forward to 1911, it was the preference of everyone except the Qing Dynasty, that Tibet should take the opportunity to separate itself from China. As the game was played forward to 1948, China wanted to re-annex Tibet so as to prevent the Republic of India from leveraging its influence there, since the eastern borders of Tibet are right next to some of the most strategically important population zones in China.

The Republic of India after its independence was basically the structure of the British Indian Empire preserved in a de jure independent state. As such, it structurally moved and acted like Britain would have acted if it had still been there, in that it endeavoured to get Tibet into Indian orbit.

Britain’s own position was one of relative ambivalence for three reasons:

1. Britain’s primary concern was that Russia should not be allowed to establish its diplomacy inside Tibet. Whether it was going to be China that would fill the space, or whether it was India that was going to serve to fill the space, didn’t really matter to Britain.
2. The United Nations was a brand new organisation at that point, and British diplomats knew very well that the reputation of the United Nations hinged on its ability to be seen as authoritative. The Chinese actions in Tibet were so decisive that the British decided not to fight hard at the UN against it, because China was going to ignore any result that opposed the annexation, and Britain understood that this would be very damaging to the early reputation of the UN if that were to happen.
3. Britain no longer had the capacity to intervene on its own there anyway.

Posted by (((Alternative Right)))'s Love Child on Thu, 16 Feb 2017 13:49 |
Tillerson: my wife made me do this on Thu, 23 Mar 2017 08:41

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson looking ill at ease on trip to Asia

Politico, “Tillerson: ‘I didn’t want this job. I didn’t seek this job.”, 22 March 2017:

“My wife told me I’m supposed to do this.” …. Tillerson’s wife said “I told you God’s not through with you”

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson “didn’t want this job,” according to a profile published Wednesday in the Independent Journal Review, and only accepted it on the urging of his wife.

The remarks, which Tillerson delivered during a multi-part interview that took place over the course of his recent trip to Asia, were a starker version of introductory ones he made upon his arrival at the State Department following his confirmation.

“I didn’t want this job. I didn’t seek this job,” Tillerson told IJR’s Erin McPike, the lone reporter to accompany the secretary of state on his trip to Asia, who noted that the secretary does not appear to harbor regrets about accepting the job. “My wife told me I’m supposed to do this.”

Tillerson said he was “stunned” when President Donald Trump asked him to be secretary of state but that his wife was not. The secretary had planned to retire from his previous job as CEO of Exxon Mobil this month, but when offered the job as America’s top diplomat, Tillerson’s wife said “I told you God’s not through with you.”

National Geographic: Wild Kamchatka

Posted by Kuril island provocation Russia/Japan on Fri, 02 Aug 2019 09:16 | #

Russia crisis: Japan furious with Putin’s visit to disputed island

VLADIMIR PUTIN’S decision to send Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev to an island claimed by both Japan and Russia was met with fury by Tokyo.

Express, 2 August 2019

The Russian Prime Minister paid a visit to one of the four Russian-held islands which lie off Japan’s most northern region. Known as Iturup in Russian and Etorofu in Japanese, the island was occupied by the Soviet Union after World War 2. It has been a source of dispute between Moscow and Tokyo for the last three-quarters of a century – and Mr Medvedev’s visit threatens to put relations between Russia and Japan under strain.

Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs pulled no punches with a strongly worded statement aimed at the Kremlin.

Officials said that Mr Medvedev’s visit was incompatible with the Japanese people’s view on the Russian-held islands.

The statement added: “We strongly urge the Russian side to take constructive measures to further advance Japan-Russia relations, including the issue of the conclusion of the peace treaty.”

Iturup is one of four islands involved in the so-called Kuril Islands dispute, also known as the Northern Territories altercation.

The Yalta agreement – a post World War 2 deal signed by the US, Britain and the Soviet Union – stated that “the Kuril Islands shall be handed over to the Soviet Union” after the conclusion of the war.

It was supported by the Cairo Declaration of 1943, which stated that Japan must be expelled from all territories which have been taken by violence.

Japan originally took control of the island in 1875 after Russia reportedly agreed to give up all the rights for the Kuril Islands.

The Russo-Japanese war 30 years later yielded more territory to Tokyo and became the backdrop of simmering tensions between the two nations.

Diplomatic progress has stalled in the past 20 years over the dispute.

In 2005, to Moscow’s dismay, the European Parliament recommended Russia return the islands to Japan.

2011 saw the installation of weapons on the island to, according to Mr Medvedev, “ensure the security of the islands as an integral part of Russia”.

Mr Medvedev’s latest visit came just two weeks after Moscow outright refused to discuss the potential handover of two of the contested islands to Japan.

 Posted by Yoshihide Suga on Wed, 16 Sep 2020 07:14 | #

Financial Times@FinancialTimes

Just in: Yoshihide Suga has been confirmed as Japan’s next prime minister, succeeding Shinzo Abe after the Diet voted along party lines

China

Chinese slur ‘White Left’ as Cultural Marxist shows Jewish power, influence, aversion to White Left

Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 31 December 2017 06:30.

I’ve known for some time now that since about 2011 or 2012 that the Chinese have unfortunately adopted the “White Left” as a slur term for White (or what they perceive as White) cultural Marxists and corollary liberals. However, I’m not really worried about the Chinese smear “White Left” for a couple important reasons.

White Left (ethno) Nationalism is internally consistent in its position. And in its rule structure, it is not only totally different from cultural Marxism and liberalism, it is in fact closer to the opposite in its disposition to White (European descent) boundaries and borders, regarding rather a serious concern to curate our history, to maintain our inheritance and lineage. This internal consistency of White Left definition is immediately verifiable as such and can be referred to at any time – the application of the term has been consistent in its call for an effective genetic unionization of our peoples – recognizing in and out groups – genetic group(s) called “our” people as opposed to genetic friends and enemies – this provides for accountability to human ecology, historical social capital; and crucially, among the important reasons to retain the moniker “left”, accountability against potential elite betrayal (as they are in key positions to do most damage from limited positions); along with safe guarding not only the interests of rank and file, it ensures criteria (“union rules”) that provide for their accountability as well, against any propensity which they, as rank and file, may have toward over-liberalization of national/group bounds, viz. significant transgressions of bounds and borders.

White Left (ethno) Nationalism is Nationalist – therefore it is not liberal, it speaks of ecological delimitations of peoples, not universal liberalism as the Chinese smear term would describe, or similarly, as our smear term “Red Left”, i.e., Jewish left, would be descriptive of – a “universal leftism” – i.e., a universal liberalism which the Chinese call White Left and what I call “Red” or “Jewish Left”, is prescribed by Jewish interests and their internationalist right wing cohorts, prescribed for others and instigated of them to participate in activism toward a withering away of the state in favor of an arbitrarily composed and controllable international proletariat.

Whereas our Class, the White Class, corresponds to the whole delimited ethno Nation, rich, poor, private property and business owners, whomever, innocent until proven guilty – as a rule, accounts requested should be kept to a minimum.

But because we are accountable as nationalists, of our rank and file while maintaining a vigilance on elite betrayal and liberal internationalism, we are therefore able to cooperate with our left nationalist friends, such as the Chinese and other left nationalists, against right wing / liberal imperialism as it would be imposed by Jewish interests along with their right wing/liberal White cohorts and their Muslim and black shock troop enforcers.

Finally, the Chinese term, White Left, that has been in vogue in China since about 2011 to label White/Jewish Cultural Marxists/liberals, is a word spoken in Chinese; while we speak English and take full advantage of our capacity to define White Left Nationalism as we see fit, and have done that, consistently.

It is entirely different from liberalism and cultural Marxism. Rather it is true security in what is most important and true liberation for our people, our sovereignty as such.

If anything, the Chinese use of the term “White Left” as a smear only confirms Jewish hegemony over prevailing and pervasive discourse – with cultural Marxism reaching its apex during the final days of television’s pre-eminence (a horrible situation where this TV box issued propaganda and you could not talk back, interact and correct what it was saying) in the early 1990’s after the fall of The Soviet Union and before the advent of the internet. The dialectic between Jewish left and Jewish right began a slow, controlled evolution away from the Marxist culture of critique following the fall of communism; and went into full swing in the other direction of Jewish controlled dialectic, with the sub-prime crisis of 2008, as Jewish consolidation of power niches made criticism of “the right” no longer to their advantage, now that they were on top of seven power niches –  critique of the right began to “intersect” against their interests – i.e., a continued critique of the right and popularization of a friendly disposition toward a left perspective would highlight their unjust power and influence; as such would call for unionized alliances against them. Hence, they have marshaled the hegemony of discourse more and more against “the left”, with the spearhead “Alternative Right.” At this point, they have so successfully hoodwinked the masses it seems the YKW have everybody constantly ranting against “the left” …how convenient, what a Cohencidence!

Of course they rattle on with a bunch of cliches – typically accusing us of trying to apply artificial concepts to nature, of being anti-nature, being on an impossible quest for “equality”; and they constantly interpose straw men as opposed to what we are really saying – saying cultural Marxism and liberalism are “the left” – when, in fact, these “movements” are the opposite of left activism, the opposite for White unionization, anyway – i.e., anything but a “White Left.”

But they carry on with these cliches and ridiculous distortions that cultural Marxism has promulgated, oblivious to the fact that we are not guilty of the theoretical errors, gross distortions of hermeneutics and social contructionism, the flagrant violation of scientific fact that they point to as examples of “our perfidy” in advance of their newly (((consecrated))) heroic bastion of truth and anti-PC, the “Right” and “Alt-Right.” 

And so I say to my Left Nationalist Chinese comrades, with a wink at that term, comrade, what you are calling “White Left” is not a White left at all, but cucked Whites and cucking Jews who are imposing liberalism and cultural Marxism upon the west, opening its bounds and boundaries with the aim now of aligning its right wing reaction against Muslim “extremists”, “Hispanics” and Asians.

The Left as liberalism is an oxymoron that the regular right and Alt Right slavishly partakes of, as their Jewish flank does and would have them do. A White Left (ethno) Nationalism observes the principle of unionization, its recognition and maintenance of in and out groups, which is the opposite of liberalism and its arbitrary doing away with any such provision for accountability to unionized bounds and borders.

To repeat in sum, the Chinese slur ‘White Left’ as a designator of Cultural Marxism and its liberal activism shows Jewish discourse hegemony and influence, its diversion from true White Left Nationalism. It is a testimony to Jewish hegemony in discourse heretofore and how much they don’t want a true White left.

It is a reflection really, of how much the YKW and their right wing cohorts, sell outs, loyalists to their elitist ilk, whatever, don’t want us to have a concept of a proper White Left, unionization of our peoples to provide for social accountability and vigilance on elite betrayal as such, in a way that right wing, objectivist and otherworldly criteria do not provide – they propose disingenuous and naive avoidance of social accountability.

It just goes to show how comprehensive that the Jews have been in denying a White left, in cucking the very notion, that they have the vast nation of China calling White liberals and cultural Marxists, “the White Left”

Jewish misdirection agent, Lauren Southern,, with Black Pigeon Speaks prior to his unmaskng.
Maybe Black Pigeon Speaks isn’t Jewish, but I’d want to see a DNA test to prove that, both for reasons of what he says and for how he looks – seems quite Jewish on both counts. And yes, he fits well, even if ad hoc, with the Jewish marketing campaign of Jewish hegemonic interests against “the left” – particularly in this propaganda piece to promote the Chinese slur of liberalism and cultural Marxism as “White Left.”
 

Along with the deception of hegemonic Jewish discourse, one by which they are doing all they can to align White advocacy with their Jewish interests against “the left”, one must also take into account the fact that if Jewish crypsis can fool White people into not making a distinction between Whites and Jews, think how much more their crypsis would fool Chinese!

Kumiko Oumae: That (esteemed Red color) is non ironically what they’re growing up around

Kumiko Oumae: Also, the yellow stuff symbolises the ethnic groups.

daniel sienkiewicz: Anyway, for now, its most important for me to be internally consistent, which I am.

Kumiko Oumae: Eg, the big yellow star flanked by four little stars on the China flag, is Han Chinese plus ethnic minorities

daniel sienkiewicz: So they are claiming “left nationalism” for red and yellow?

daniel sienkiewicz: and not left internationalism in the Jewish sense?

daniel sienkiewicz: as in eradication or withering away of the state on behalf of the international workers union?

It just goes to show how comprehensive that the Jews have been in controlling the discourse so as to deny a White left, because they know how serviceable that a proper definition of the term would be – they’ve tried to cuck the very term and have the vast nation of China calling White liberals and Cultural Marxists, “the White left.”

However, adding the term “Nationalist”, and more specifically “ethnonationalist” to the term White Left, helps greatly to counter its being misunderstood as liberal or cultural Marxist. That helps, along with our internal consistence and its reliable heuristic utility indeed.

It is a reflection really, of how much the YKW and their right wing cohorts, sell outs to their nation/ loyalists to their elitist ilk, whatever, don’t want us to have a concept of a proper White left, unionization of our peoples to ensure accountability and vigilance on elite betrayal; how irresponsible they are to the nations which birthed them and to the means by which nationhood would provide for the human and pervasive ecology necessary for world maintenance. 

Some background on the Jewish hatred of the White working class:

Kevin MacDonald: on Jewish hatred of the White working class.

In Europe, the Jews saw the White working class turn to Hitler and “national socialism” as opposed to Marxist communism as they felt the White workers should do.

In America, the White workers were contented in making sufficient money, if not as “millionaires who’d not yet arrived.”

Hence the Frankfurt School’s Cultural Marxism.

With the “activist” supreme courts advancing school desegregation, ‘civil rights’, reverse housing discrimination, affirmative action, government work, welfare abuse and a pervasive rule structure of PC, i.e, cultural Marxism, it is more than legitimate to look at “institutional racism” – i.e., anti-social classification and unionization – as being against Whites, especially rank and file, the White class not in position nor inclined to sell out full class (i.e., racial/national) interests.

Related:

https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/where_and_how_the_alternative_right_is_drawing_friend_enemy_lines_of_a_comi

https://majorityrights.com/weblog/news_comments/the_sacred_landing_strip

Comments:

1 Posted by DanielS on Sun, 31 Dec 2017 08:23 | #

One difference that I’m seeing in this definition of White Left, as defined in our interests, as distinguished from classical liberalism, is that classical liberalism seemed to emphasize benevolent and rather blindly administered accountability from administrators of the state and institutions; whereas, in this concept of White Left Nationalism, there would be more emphasis on accountability working both ways – rank and file would be accountable to the ethno nation state, i.e., to the union of its people as well. And elite administration would be accountable to not be quite so altruistically benevolent and blind in its administration of help beyond ethno-national loyalty and interests.

Where it would help non-nationals, it would generally be there – in their nations – and it would be a matter of the silver rule (as opposed to the golden ruse, er, rule); i.e., it would be to our benefit as well.

2 Posted by DanielS on Sun, 31 Dec 2017 09:38 | #

There is eminently good reason to begin with a social outlook – as opposed to the right wing reaction against sociology, perhaps on theory of some magical “Calvinist”, as opposed to social sourcing, e.g. –

Daniel A
@d_a
calvinist/fatalist/aesthete/hipsterdandy

whites have too much power = sociology / critical theory

Social constructionism sensitizes us to social interaction, accountability, agency and the conceptualization of the group; along with critical attention to those who might betray our group interests, membership and social capital.

Which is exactly the heuristic sensitization that we need and exactly what Jewish interests don’t want us to have.

Furthermore, with attention to the group unit of analysis, one is placing not only emphasis on that unit of analysis which Jewish interests are targeting for elimination (anti racism is anti group classification for Whites), but is maintaining the more speculative, delicate, difficult to maintain and precious historical, systemic bounds – aligning rather like one of Kant’s first principles – these are harder to maintain and harder to rebuild once violated. Therefore, most important to maintain, while empirical verification and testing can always be invoked. Thus, better to err in the direction of “principles”, i.e., with sensitization to the social group and its systemic bounds.

In viewing Tim Snyder’s discussions, I am proud to find confirmed my assessment of Hitler’s remiss, his runaway war mongering consisting in a kind of natural fallacy and disregard of praxis – its reconciliation and integration with theory all better philosophers sought in counter to the enlightenment’s prejudice against prejudice.

For Hitler, “nation” and “peoplehood’ was supposed to be a purely “natural” struggle for survival. Any social or negotiated concern was “Jewish.”

In fact, to be against the social unit of analysis and its integration is not only dangerous, it is particularly stupid. It’s a bit like like saying “a telescope is bad” and “only a microscope is good.” Particularly stupid when what we need is “the telescope” in order to monitor our broader patterns, the destruction done and potentially yet to come. It is further stupidity to deny the telescope when the telescope user welcomes contributions from the microscope user.

We all know that the YKW have abused sociology, that is all the more reason to take hold of the group unit of analysis, not to deny it – god, how stupid to not see that!

3 Posted by mancinblack on Sun, 31 Dec 2017 09:56 | #

I became aware of the term “baizuo” earlier this year after reading this article..

https://www.opendemocracy.net/digitaliberties/chenchen-zhang/curious-rise-of-white-left-as-chinese-internet-insult

The author makes some interesting observations, for example most anti-baizou netizens live in the West and support Trump. 

4 Posted by DanielS on Sun, 31 Dec 2017 10:17 | #

..and again, a reason to maintain the term “left” is that it is closely related in ordinary language not only with group perspective, social unionization and accountability, but with a reasonable accountability to the normalcy of human imperfection, struggle, agency and compassion therefore. By contrast, the right wing is justifiably associated with an alarmingly oblivious lack of accountability and lack of reasonable compassion for its objectivism.

Given that European intelligence likely corresponds with a level of sublimation requisite of imperfection, high social trust and social accountability as opposed to the hyper assertiveness of black symmetry, it is particularly important that we take hold of this position – as “White left nationalists” –  as it is natural to ourselves, and sufficiently relativising of our interests, which we need as antidote to Jewish exploitation of our penchant for right wing objectivism; along with that, a susceptibility to react into head long, impervious, unaccountable right wing overcompensation, (as Hitler did) to the point of stupidity – a brutal stigma which the YKW are all too happy to altercast, hence their insistence on our identifying with the right, far right and alternative right.

…and to falsely equate the left and its accountability and compassion as if it is, or should be, primarily concerned with obsequious liberalism, jealousy of excellence, concerned for those without the group, as opposed to primarily focused within group and coordination broadly with other, friendly groups.

5 Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 31 Dec 2017 19:33 | #

Chinese think spergs white knighting for jap pussy are retards.  But will not turn down offer of Siberia regardless. Thanks, suckers!  Lulz

6 Posted by DanielS on Sun, 31 Dec 2017 23:25 | #

I guess there’s a difference between “white knighting” and remaining aloof from fights over Siberia – particularly beyond Lake Baikal, it gets hard to defend as an ethno-state; even worse when it comes to Sakhalin island.

I don’t think my geopolitical position is based wholly on pussy, CC – in fact, like most White Americans, having been abused enough by American women, I’ve had a tendency to give Russia too much benefit of the doubt for that reason; and am probably ahead of a good percentage of WN in correcting for naivete about the Russian Federation.

Seriously now, and more to the point, I had not given Siberia a great deal of attention – it was sort of beyond the scope of something I could do anything about, even if there weren’t other matters that needed tending.

If ethno-nationals want allies then what they are seeking in alliance has to be reasonable.

Having said that, happy New Year CC, wishing you the best White pussy imaginable my friend!

Sakhalin

One concept that I've floated is that Europeans and Asians might aspire to a reverse image hosting of enclaves of the other into their respective areas of general control.

Related:

https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/europeans_asians_and_racial_ambiguity_where_to_draw_the_lines

https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/european_asian_regional_alliance

 Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 01 Jan 2018 00:57 | #

CC,

Ethnic nationalism is not an imperialism.  Actually, up to the point when some enemy emerges with ideas about taking one’s own land for its empire, ethnic nationalism sits perfectly well with the core principle of humanitarianism (which I quoted in a post the other day).  That principle is formulated best in Matthew 7:12 which, in the KJV reads: whatsoever ye would that men should do to you: do ye even so to them.  Certainly, nations who do not wish for the dysgenesis of perpetual warfare can operate on that basis

 Posted by Greggy presents for Black Pigeon Speaks on Mon, 08 Oct 2018 10:49 | #

…meanwhile, Greg Johnson is being interviewed and giving most fawning appreciation to the man that he formerly referred-to as “douche-bag” – Ramszpaul.

Ramszpaul asks Greggy about the apparent contradiction between how “The Left” welcomes immigration – wouldn’t that be against working class interests?

Greggy explains to us that “The Left’ has long ago given up on the White working class. They see the White working class as the same kind of people who voted for Adolf Hitler.”

Perhaps Greggy doesn’t want to focus on the fact that these are the same types who fought Hitler in far greater numbers, as that would not highlight his niche market…of big, strong, hunky, middle class Aryan man whom he can simply devour.

Apropos to Ramzpaul’s final suggestion, he presents his right wing rear for entryism, he would be most happy to talk with Ramzpaul and (((Black Pigeon Speaks))) together, because he just loves Black Pigeon Speaks.

“The Chinese have the Western Left Nailed”

“Baizuo”. By Tucker Carlson.

The Chinese know our leaders well. In fact, they have a name for our self-hating professional class. They call them “baizuo.” The rough translation from Mandarin is “White liberal,” and it is definitely not a compliment.

Chinese state media describes baizou as people who, “only care about topics such as immigration, minorities, LGBT and the environment, who have no sense of real problems in the real world, who only advocate for peace and equality to satisfy their own feelings of moral superiority, and who are so obsessed with political correctness that they tolerate backward Islamic values for the sake of multiculturalism.”

As Chinese state media notes, “former United States President Obama was considered an advocate of baizuo ideology.” So is “German Chancellor Angela Merkel and her decision to welcome more than one million third-world immigrants to Europe.”

Other observations about baizuo, as reported by Chinese state media, include the fact that they “advocate inclusiveness and anti-discrimination but cannot tolerate different opinions.” Baizuo’s political opinions are “so shallow that they tend to maintain social equality by embracing ideologies that run against the basic concept of equality.”

According to one scholar from Peking University, “baizuo are phony and hypocritical and will make the situation in the West go from bad to worse.” And so on. Talk about insight, they know our leaders well.

According to Wikipedia, many Chinese internet users use the term “baizuo” to “criticize the Democratic Party’s emphasis on affirmative action policies [which are] perceived as discriminating against Asians.

Whatever you think of the Chinese, they’re definitely not stupid, and they’re on to something there. Affirmative action hurts Asians. That’s true and everyone knows it. Easy enough to see for anyone with eyes. It’s as if they read the Wentworth Report: https://wentworthreport.com/2021/03/20/the-chinese-have-the-western-left-nailed-baizuo/?fbclid=IwAR2P05fmjuAbkb5Ab48dm6AvrjT5kylm0CA1y2x7xQGvHSKrvpGm5dekhIw

Here’s the monologue:

Light on Racial Accountability From Asia

Since I am paying more attention to things Asian as a result of Kumiko’s participation here, a couple of videos and a composition of Facebook comments relevant and illustrative of issues that I have been discussing have come to my attention.

Asian illustrations of..

1. Advised social confirmation and elevation: of the value of ordinary routine practices; in this case, participation in social routine.

2. Bad parenting advice: “You are from Sweden” and simply Swedish by proposition – abrogates racial accountability and leaves one susceptible to Jewish trolling for racial divisiveness and strife instead. Why the suspicion of Jewish trolling? Because of a salient example…

3. A composition of fake tweets: attributed to Americans apparently mocking the atomic bombing of Japan:


Captioned “stay ‘classy’ America” – the fraud and motive to create a division between Whites and East Asians is traceable to Jewish motives.


Coming to these examples throwing light on racial accountability from Asia, one at a time –

1. Advised celebration of ordinary routine:

Kumiko likes Korean and Japanese pop music videos and she showed me this Japanese one.

Participation in..

..routine social service..

If WN can show bearance upon what might otherwise be construed as an appeal to yellow fever by the presentation of this video, there is actually bearing upon an important point that I made in my article about “the dark side of self actualization” and how to otherwise moderate and optimize actualization.

That is to say, one thing that needs to happen in our re-socialization of actualization is for the value of individual self actualization to become part of a rotating and optimizing process of attention, to where it does not always and statically occupy the top of a hierarchy. That over-emphasis has, of course, destabilized and lent to the rupture of our racial/social systemic homeostasis. The inference I’ve made is that one of the aspects of actualization that needs to be constructed, elevated in importance and encouraged to enjoy is not only a sufficient amount of routine but also routine cooperative social participation in our tried and true practices and procedures. That will not only allow us to learn and develop skills from our forebears, to cultivate them, but it is also necessary to create a platform for elaboration and innovation; i.e., it is prerequisite and socially as important as actualization.

This video shows a song and dance of girls in Japanese postal service uniforms. The point that I am trying to make is that celebrative or otherwise reverential treatment like this, of the ordinary and social routine, might help to emphasize sufficient sufficience, so to speak, in enjoyment of necessary but ordinary social routines, unions, trade guilds, syndicates and with it, an elevation of appreciation of ordinary necessity so that it is not dwarfed nor its vital necessity discouraged by singular social appreciation and veneration of the extraordinary and the sacred.

I hypothesize this elevating celebration of routine (in this case social) practices as one side of the necessary elevation of the social esteem of routine (first of all, you have to know a rule, or at least some sense of it before you can break it/innovate from it); another side of “routine” elevation would be ceremony and sacral treatment of exemplary practices.

2. Bad parenting advice: The oriental woman in this video was adopted by Swedish parents and brought-up with that idea that she is “simply Swedish, the same as any other Swede”, by proposition.

If she were taught that she was an adopted girl of Korean descent, who was and should be welcomed as counting of a manageable, benign but accountable enclave of Swedish nationals, she would have an efficient enough explanation at her disposal to discharge most conflict on the issue.

By contrast, there is insufficient accountability in insistence upon her parents well meaning but bad advice – simply asserting that she is Swedish just like all other Swedes.

She sets herself up for abuse

Adopted by Swedish parents and growing up in Sweden, she responds to the question from a Swedish man, “where are you from?” that she is “from Sweden.” The man responds in turn, “no, where are you really from?”

She takes this as an example of “racism” and tries to correct the man in the motive she perceives of his question, answering that she is “Swedish just like every other Swedish national” – as her parents taught her.

However, I’d guess that the man’s question was not “racist” in a negative sense. Yes, it was racial in the sense that he was trying to get an accurate sense of how to classify her, but why? Because he thought negatively of her and of her being in Sweden? Probably not.

He was quite possibly asking her for one or all of the following three reasons:

a) He found her attractive and wanted to know where her sort was from for future and general reference.

b) He found her attractive and saw the question as an opportunity for an ice breaker.

c) If she answered, “Korea”, chances are that he would enjoy showing his good-will toward her, by confirming her honest account and her people as really OK, and that as a part of a reasonable and accountable number of her kind of immigration, take occasion to show support for her participation with Sweden.

That is to say, what the man was doing was “racism” by definition in the sense that he was attempting to classify people genetically (not doing the mere liberal thing of pretending to be blind to racial classifications but judging people instead by propositions), but it was, in all likelihood, a benign kind of classifying, motivated by respect and a wish for accountability.

Because she treated it as “racism”, i.e., classification for negative motives, she attempted to denounce it and hide behind the well meaning but fundamentally dishonest advice of her parents that as a propositional Swede she was the same as an evolutionary Swede.

As such she denies the possibility of honest accountability that would serve to limit negative treatment of her in Sweden and gain her support from those who have an honest concern for the management of native Swedes.

Instead, for denying accountability and denouncing the account requested as “racist” she sets herself up for abuse from at least two kinds in particular.

She will perhaps get some abuse from jealous and racially concerned Swedes, e.g., Swedish women miffed with yellow fever. That would be understandable if Asian immigration were taken too far at any rate, but when there is no accountability it is likely to be more provocative of the racially sensitive Swede for her to say, “I am the same as you”, have the same history, etc. But even at that, it is probable that she did not really receive much of the gaffe from true Swedish women. What abuse that she got and experienced, with truly saddening pain, most likely came from Jewish trolls looking to stir conflict between Whites and Asians.

She gets abused by what probably are some Jewish trolls trying to provoke conflict between Asians and racially aware Whites:

3. What makes me hypothesize Jewish trolling? viz., that Jewish trolls can be trying to provoke her and provoke conflict between Whites and Asians?:

How about this. Kumiko showed me this composition, supposedly of Facebook posts by American people speaking of their own accord, saying that they are happy that Japan sustained nuclear bomb attacks in WWII and would be quite happy for it to happen again.

I grew up in America and for 34 years spent there never encountered an American who would speak remotely like this about Japan or the atomic bombing of Japan. Furthermore, if one reads these comments it is clear by a careful discourse analysis that the writer of all of these comments is one or a few people. If one is more careful still, to take style and motive into account, the Jewish hand is evident.

Though it may seem like obvious trolling to some of us, unfortunately this was apparently taken seriously by some Japanese audiences and even shown on Japanese news as if it were an honest reflection of American sentiments – when in truth, these are not remotely accurate statements of Americans: Stay classy America? No, stay “classy” with your divide and conquer chutzpah Jews – greatest shame is upon you and we are watching you.

 Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Wed, 10 Feb 2016 02:33 | #

I’m not sure which element of this to begin with first, these are quite diverse issues that you’ve talked about here, so I’ll start with your ‘part 3’ and ‘part 2’.

During that time, the posts on Facebook did look like they were authentic and they did get significant airtime. The same kind of thing happened during the Fukushima crisis, although it was at the time countered by the charitable efforts of the US Army and US Navy who were quite openly offering assistance. The main takeaway that I’ve always gotten from those things is that massive attacks against civilian population groups tend to be deemed almost ‘acceptable’, if those population groups happen to be fascistic at the time. It’s a double standard that liberal countries have been holding since 1945. To what extent those Facebook posts could have been Jews who were trolling us unknown, but at first brush it looks like a diverse cross section of people.

Regarding your ‘part 2’, the woman in the video seems to be trapped between her lack of parents on one hand, and the Swedish liberal ideology on the other. Since her only identity is that of a Swede, by the logic of Swedish liberalism it would seem to her that whoever questions that identity is being ‘racist’, but it would be uncomfortable for her because it would be questioning the validity of the only identity that she’s been taught to hold. I would assume that for an orphaned person who is living in a country she doesn’t come from, it would be as though she is being told that she is ‘nothing’.


2

 Posted by Soccer daughters on Wed, 10 Feb 2016 22:41 | #

these are quite diverse issues that you’ve talked about here

I bring the two videos and the Facebook composition together on the issue of accountability.

but at first brush it looks like a diverse cross section of people.

It may seem look that way for Japanese. But for an American it would be pretty easy to see common authorship of the ostensibly different commenters.

I can’t say how Americans function under war time circumstances and propaganda, but I have never known ANY American who would talk this way about Japan now. It must have been among a very small group (I mean very small, maybe one, two or three) and a group of people who were in a different demographic from me (female, Jewish, elite women’s college, related to the military). These are the only Americans whom I could even imagine having this kind of attitude toward Japan now. They are are very likely to be Jewish and/or circulating among the sway of Jewish academics and military planners.


To profile the people who wrote these Facebook posts:

Definitely not a diverse group of people.

I’d first guess that they were female

Probably less than four girls who wrote it.

They were in college.

It looks like perhaps two or three American college girls.

They might have some connection to the military and military academies.

They were on a sports team – women’s soccer and other sports.

One or more of them were probably Jewish.

They were generally, but indirectly in this case, influenced by Jewish academics.

They saw Japanese women as particularly formidable competition in regard to men, politics, business and perhaps more..

They were probably high achievers and not used to losing.

They were intimidated and angered by the success of Japanese students.

When encountering them, perhaps in a Polysci class, they were upset by the perspective of the Japanese students on the subject of world war II as it was different and went outside of the PC “cathedral” as some call it.

When an American woman’s soccer team lost a match to a Japanese team, it came as a surprise to them, compounded and triggered their fear, jealousy and anger.

In reaction, they gathered a variety of names and photos of people in an apparent consensus to try to intimidate and hurt the Japanese student athletes first of all and then any other Japanese who might show similar “insensitivity” to the “Shoah” etc and whose intelligence might not have them cowed into the PC cathedral and to its alter of holocaustianity.

…..

Regarding my analysis of the Korean woman brought up as a Swede, I stand by my it. Not that what you are saying contradicts it, but there is a bit more to it than that, and what the it provides an excellent example of the benign if not necessary use of “racism”, i.e. social classification, and the hazards of trying to do without classification as a means of accountability.

….

In regard to example one, though the casual observer might wonder why I would call attention to such a video (“Japanese postal workers dancing and singing), it actually does provide an outstanding example of encouraging a socially confirming and consummately rewarding attitude toward social routine and civilian service.

An example of a positive social routine in the west would be 12 step meetings.

 

 Posted by mancinblack on Sat, 31 Dec 2016 22:48 | #

“A senior Israeli government official has posted online comments on Facebook saying he is “sick” of commemorations for the victims of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings…” (2013)
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/08/16/national/top-israeli-official-sick-of-commemorating-hiroshima-nagasaki-a-bomb-victims/#.WGgzhdSLTGg

Continue Reading EthnoNations of Asia, probably our best potential allies.

Zeitgeist: condemns all religion/not Abrahamic distinctly or Judaism especially… …as a motive of imposed liberalism’s organization.

  • Post author:
  • Post category:Central

A Zeitgeist may be described in sober terms as the largely taken for granted (unconscious, hence “ghostly”) logics of meaning and action comprising a moral order – the characteristic obligations, legitimacies and prohibitions constituting social paradigmatic parameters. I don’t need to refer to the oft quoted statement by Voltaire to suggest that given our prevailing zeitgeist, even where the progenitors of a theory via academia or media are not themselves Jewish, that they have dared not lay blame in the hands of the Jews. To cite Jews, their religion and practices as explanatory of social problems has been strictly prohibited since World War II; media and academia having circled the wagons more fervently and thoroughgoingly than ever against heretics of the paradigm – the zeitgeist of Jews as sacred cow. Nevertheless, it has only been more strong a taboo since the western world viewed footage of Operation Reinhard’s wake, and the Nazi mirroring of themselves as chosen, but it is not a new taboo. The Bible, Old and New Testament, has in fact been “the Jewish media” for 2,000 years, designating Jews as chosen (if not misguided), as having donated Christ, the savior of Gentiles, savior of all non-Jews, Whites included; and texts be known, has made taboo self interested defense and action for Gentiles, interposing and prescribing upon them instead an obsequious Golden Rule that the Jews themselves would not adhere to.

It is an observable Jewish strategy within this zeitgeist for their adherents to be granted “rights of display” as they might disseminate, via academia and media, a good deal of penetrating, truthful information; but in the end those rights of display are curtailed and attention deflected from just those parts of information where Jewish ways and means are shown responsible for negative social and genetic consequences for other peoples.

…”but he loves you!”

Such is the case with Zeitgeist – the 2007 film Zeitgeist; viz., its segment on religion. After setting out an array of fascinating information tracing sources of Judeo-Christian mythology to pagan roots – largely to Egyptian sun worship – there is, by segment’s end, blame laid on the use of Christianity, by Roman leaders in particular, followed by a logical fallacy stealthily deployed: i.e., that all religions are mythologies used to cover-up the truth by those who know the truth and seek nefarious social rule by the obfuscating properties of religious mythos – all religions serve this purpose, therefore the Abrahamic religions generally and Judaism in particular should not be singled-out for special critique.

In fact, Christianity was not as much the means by which Roman leaders beginning with Constantine took power over the rest of Europe, so much as it was the means by which the Jews overthrew ancient Rome and ultimately, all of Western civilization – placing it all vaguely under the auspices of Noahide law – our Zeitgeist.

Zeitgeist

It’s simple to understand why the sun has been the most worshiped object of all time for its myriad of life giving necessity.

This is the cross of the zodiac. It represents the sun as it passes through the 12 constellations in the course of the 12 month year. It also reflects the four seasons, the solstices and equinoxes.

God’s sun, the light of the world and life giver traveled the world through anthropomorphized stages of the zodiac. For example, through the spring rains of Aquarius, the water bearer.

This is Horus, sun god of Egypt

Horus had an enemy called Set, the personification of darkness or night.

Dionysus was also resurrected.

The birth sequence is completely astrological.

The star in the east is Sirius.

The sun is at its lowest in the northern hemisphere as the southern cross appears.

The sun appears not to move, suspended for three days.

…before “arising in rebirth.”

Coming back to the cross of the zodiac, it was not just an astrological chart..

It also contained a religious symbol which looked like this. This is a pagan symbol of the cross of the zodiac.

In the solar calendar, there is a grander time frame called “the age” – it refers to the “procession of equinoxes”, that is, the sequence of which sign of the zodiac that the equinox occurs within – each occurring within a zodiac sign’s “house” for a span of 2,150 years, after which it moves to occur within next zodiac sign’s “house.”

It is this cycle that the bible is cryptically referring to when it speaks of “the age.”

Moses was was very upset to find his people still worshiping the age of the bull.

He hailed and represented the next age, of Aries, the ram.

Jesus represents the next age, of Pisces, the fish.

This scripture is by far one of the most revealing in its astrological reference.

The man bearing the pitcher of water is Aquarius. He represents the age after Pisces, as Aquarius follows Pisces in the procession of the equinoxes.

But that’s the King James translation.

The actual word is “aeon,” which means “age.”

Tell that to the millions of Christians who believe that the end of the world is coming. That it [“the end of the world”] is in fact a misinterpreted astrological allegory [“the age”]. Furthermore, the literary and astrological hybrid that makes up the character of Jesus, is almost certainly a plagiarism of the Egyptian sun god, Horus.

For a source of the flood story, one need look no further than Gilgamesh.

Moses

Ten Commandments derived from Egyptian Book of The Dead.

Fundamentalist Christians actually believe the world is 12,000 years old; and dinosaur fossils?

…just like nearly all religious myths before it.

…and Christianity, in turn, borrowed derived myths from The Old Testament.

In fact, is there any evidence at all that a historical figure Jesus existed?

We don’t want to cause hurt feelings but we want to be academically correct in what we understand and know to be true – Christianity just is not based on truth – Russel Pine, a.k.a., Jordan Maxwell

Ok, good, he denounces Christianity.

and? …he adds..

Ibid. We find that Christianity was in fact nothing more than a Roman story developed politically.

Narrator:

The reality is that Jesus was the solar deity of the Gnostic Christian sect and like all other pagan gods, he was a mythical figure. It was the political establishment that sought to historicize the Jesus figure for social control.

It is well and good that Zeitgest denounces Christianity for its capacity to obscure the nefarious motives of the powerful, but it does not call attention to its obscurantism of the YKW’s motives.

It wants you to believe that Christianity was a motive of The Roman elite, beginning with Constantine, and not a motive of the Jews to bring down Rome and ultimately subject Europe under Noahide law.

The narrator continues to focus the blame on Christianity and Roman authority as conduit (as opposed to the Jewish will to overthrow Rome and any other potential adversaries by means of Christianity).

This angle also serves a divide (and thus aspire to conquer) Southern and Northern Europeans.

By 325 A.D. in Rome, Emperor Constantine convened the Council of Nicea – it was during this meeting that the politically motivated Christian doctrines were established and thus began a long history of Christian bloodshed and spiritual fraud; and for the next 1,600 years, the Vatican retained a political stranglehold on all of Europe. …leading to such joyous periods as the dark ages, along with enlightening events such as the crusades and the inquisition.

Christianity, along with all other theistic belief systems is the fraud of the age:

Note that he does not specify, “Abrahamic religion.”

….It serves to detach the species from the natural world and likewise each other.

No, on the contrary, it forces integration of the Gentiles among themselves.

It supports blind submission to authority. It reduces human responsibility to the effect that god controls everything and in turn awful crimes can be justified in the name of blind pursuit. And most importantly, it empowers those who know the truth, but use the myth to manipulate and control societies.  The religious myth is the most powerful device ever created and serves as the psychological soil upon which other myths can flourish.

Judeo-Christianity lifted its stories from Egypt.

In the end a narrator says that Jesus was nothing more than a derivative Roman story used to justify political control, but of course that’s not deep enough…. it was really a Jewish story, used to justify their political control, ultimately.

He singles out Christianity for blame, but not Judaism.

“It was during meeting of Nicea thus began a long history of christian bloodshed and spiritual fraud….and for the next 1600 years the Vatican retained a political strangle hold on all of Europe …leading to such ‘joyous’ periods as the ‘the dark ages’ along with ‘enlightening’ events such as the crusades and the inquisition,” etc…

….from there he goes on to the logical fallacy of using generalization to obscure relative differences – “Christianity along with all other theistic belief systems” – “all religions” are bad because they try to separate you from nature and other people, and provide an obfuscation of the truth, an obfuscation that nefarious leaders, who know the truth, can use to control society.

“Region is the fraud of the age.”

…which religion? “It serves to detach the species from the natural world” …all religions do that?

…“likewise from each other”

– that bit is not true with regard to Christianity’s prescription [as GW observes], it seeks rather to blend the Gentiles together.

“It supports blind submission to authority”

– True.

…“it reduces human responsibility to the effect that god controls everything and in turn awful crimes can be justified in the name of divine pursuit.” ((( )))

..and in the name of the Kol Nidra.

“And Most importantly, it (((empowers those))) who know the truth but use the myth to manipulate and control societies. The religious myth is the most powerful device ever created and serves as the psychological soil upon which other myths can flourish.”

…all other myths, ranging from PC to objectivism – the foundation of liberalism.

But he loves you

Zeitgest: All religions are nefarious but not Abrahamism distinctly and not Judaism especially as its organizing motive.

Zeitgeist: All religions are myths used by the powerful to obscure and control the reality of which they are aware; maybe Christianity deserves to be singled out a bit, but not Abrahamic religions more broadly and not Judaism in particular for the key responsibility in motivational, re-organization of syncretic pagan sources.

Vice News on Judeo-supremacism, “Radical Young Israeli Settlers and Price Tag Attacks”:

A gentile and a Jew are not even supposed to eat at the same table.

This is how we are influenced by their evil culture.

It’s all according to him.

I don’t care anything else.

This is all.

You don’t care about laws, you don’t care about human rights, you don’t care about any of that?

– it’s all according to the Torah?

The Torah has also human rights.

The real human rights.

You know in the end…

After we build our big temple…

The ultimate goal is to be a light for all the goyim.

Goyim is the word that she uses. Rather than transcribing the word “goyim”, the film-makers translated her as saying “gentiles”, so that we might not hear ourselves being referred to as cattle – we can understand nevertheless, that we are being slated as an undifferentiated mass other, as GW says, “the Gentiles”, to be subject to the supremacism of Jews, of Noahide law – Abrahamic decree served also in its derivative religions, Christianity and Islam, and irrespective of any contention outside of its law..​

Press to watch what they think of their bastard step child’s idea that it can be brought together with the chosen.

I’m Not White I’m Jewish

“World will be enriched by Israel’s wealth”

 

Daily Beast, “The Man Whose Dream Became Israel”, 1 Jan 2017:

Theodor Herzl, the founder of modern Zionism, is mostly famous for launching his movement in reaction to the anti-Semitism of the Alfred Dreyfus trial. As with all great historical tales, Israel’s foundation story conveys one essential truth—reactions to European Jew hatred did inspire Zionism. But this too-simplistic story risks eclipsing other nuanced truths, making Zionism seem too defensive and a critique of French liberalism rather than a more affirmative nationalism that also feared Austro-Hungary’s blood-and-soil anti-Semitic right.

But first, Herzl’s Zionist Aha Moment.  It’s December 1894 in Paris. Theodor Herzl, a 34-year-old assimilated Austrian-Hungarian Jew, is covering the Dreyfus Affair. This lawyer, playwright, and journalist, with piercing eyes and a beautiful black beard, embodies the Enlightened rationalism and liberalism that freed Europe from the Middle Ages and Jews from their ghettoes. Alfred Dreyfus, a French officer, stands trial for treason. On December 22, 1894, when the court convicts Dreyfus—on trumped up charges, leading later to Emile Zola’s famous J’accuse—the crowd, inflamed by nationalism, doesn’t shout “Down with Dreyfus.” Instead, they yell—in Enlightened Paris—“Down with the Jews.”

Theodor Herzl has his Jewish awakening. Watching European nationalism cohere, appreciating the nation-state as the modern world’s defining political unit, knowing that, as he writes, “the Jews are one people,” Herzl realizes that until the Jews control their own country, Jew hatred will persist. The Jews must leave Europe and re-establish their ancestral homeland, the Land of Israel.

With this evolution from the Wandering Jew to the Settled Israeli, Herzl theorized, anti-Semitism would disappear, Jewish pride would reappear. Jews could be normal again—after centuries of national purgatory causing persecution. Herzl writes a pamphlet, Der Judenstat, the Jewish State, in 1896; organizes the first Zionist Congress in Basel in 1897; visits Palestine in 1898; and dies tragically in 1904. The man who insisted “If you will it, it is no dream,” was prophetic. Herzl wrote in 1897, “At Basel, I founded the Jewish State. If I said this out loud today, I would be answered by universal laughter. If not in 5 years, certainly in 50, everyone will know it.” Fifty-one years later, in 1948, Israel, the Jewish State, was established.

It’s a great story, mostly accurate, although not fully true. The idea of Jewish peoplehood and a homeland was thousands of years old. And pressure for a modern Jewish State had been building for decades before Herzl’s epiphany.

Herzl himself is more complicated. He endured anti-Semitism in Vienna and worried for years about “the Jewish Problem”—can that perennially persecuted people ever fit into Europe? He also wasn’t some illiterate, anti-anti-Semitic Jewish pagan fleeing anti-Semites to build a garrison state of Jews. He loved Judaism, calling Zionism “a return to Jewishness, even before it is a return to the Jewish land”—although it took him awhile to realize Palestine was the only option for his Jewish state. He understood that the Jews’ unique heritage mixing religion and peoplehood could yield a State filled with Jewish values without being a theocracy because “Jewish” is a national concept too. He wanted—as he titled his 1902 utopian novel—an Altneuland, an Old-New Land, being what Barack Obama would call someone “who had the foresight to see the future of the Jewish people had to be reconnected to their past.” And, as a good liberal democrat, Herzl captured the universal possibilities pride in your particular heritage can bring. “We shall live at last as free people on our own soil, and in our own homes peacefully die,” he concluded in Der Judenstat. “The world will be liberated by our freedom, enriched by our wealth, magnified by our greatness.”

Historically, Herzl wasn’t just reacting to liberal France’s illiberalism but to what we might today be tempted to call the “alt-Right” that emerged as the Austro-Hungarian Empire collapsed. In Herzl’s home city of Vienna, anti-Semitic, radically populist candidates emerged, with Karl Lueger of the Christian Social Party denouncing “corrupt liberalism” and Jewish power. These anti-Semites were “deterministic” racists, the political scientist Shlomo Avineri explains, fearing Jewish blood not attitudes. And they feared Jews’ perceived “success” not “weakness.”

Israel’s current status leads friends to overlook one of Herzl’s failures and foes to exaggerate another one. Given how central the Jewish national project is to Jews today, and given how the Holocaust justified Herzl’s fears, it’s easy to minimize just how marginal, even ridiculous, Herzl seemed to be. There he was, visiting European leaders, negotiating with the Ottoman Sultan, purporting to represent European Jews, most of whom wanted to stay home—or move to rich and free America not godforsaken Palestine.

And, given how the last century has played out, and given how wrong Herzl was about a Jewish state eliminating Jew hatred, many distort his views regarding the Arabs of Palestine. Palestinian critics caricature Herzl as a Cecil Rhodes-like Western imperialist, solving the Jewish problem on the Arabs’ backs. Israeli fans caricature him as a male, Jewish, Mother Teresa, sure that a Jewish state will redeem the Arabs too. The truth, of course, lies somewhere in the nuanced middle. Herzl did imagine Jews and Arabs living happily ever after in “our common Fatherland.” But Herzl also underestimated how deep Arab ties were to the land—and their resistance to the Jews’ return.

Ultimately, we must abandon the Hollywood black or white version of Theodor Herzl, appreciating this complex character tackling a confounding problem in complicated times. He shared liberals’ idealistic faith in nationalism—even as he saw its ugly reactionary side. He echoed some Europeans’ condescending attitudes toward others. And he wasn’t some superhero saving the Jews, the Arabs, or the world.

However, like all great leaders, Theodor Hezl had an appealing vision suited to a particular moment that by (eventually) mobilizing millions shaped history. And like all great democratic leaders, he wasn’t just defending his people—or targeting enemies. In his moving Chanukkah story “The Menorah,” about a “man who deep in his soul felt the need to be a Jew,” Herzl imagined a once-assimilated Jew lighting the traditional Jewish candelabra. Watching the lights flicker, he and his family conclude, “The darkness must retreat.” Herzl adds: “The young and the poor are the first to see the light; then the others join in, all those who love justice, truth, liberty, progress, humanity and beauty.”

Continue Reading Zeitgeist: condemns all religion/not Abrahamic distinctly or Judaism especially… …as a motive of imposed liberalism’s organization.

Pragmatism as ethnonationalism’s tool against radical skepticism.

  • Post author:
  • Post category:Central

Even if universal foundations were possible and believed to be prerequisite of perfect ethno-national guidance, particularly given our crisis, which by definition calls for immediate practical responses, and particularly as that way of pursuing truth and comprehensive serviceability is unnecessary, we cannot abide delays for radical skepticism in service of that end in lieu of what is already clear and indubitable in ethnonational interest.

Pragmatic philosophy has conceptual tools that could serve and save us as ethnonationalists, but it is necessary to wrest their application from civic democracy, taken for granted as a virtue at its onset by its liberal American charter members, and taken over the top in universalizing that application against ethnonationalism by the YKW.

It is not far fetched to believe that they have taken good conceptual tools, exactly which we would need as ethnonationalists, only to apply them against our interests; moreover, taking them so far over-the-top in misapplication as to get a didactic reaction from ethnonationalists – who react by playing opposite day from the tools that we most need – and who, in reaction so overdrawn as to reject its humane virtues, repel and antagonize the would-be sufficient bases of ethnno-nationalists that they might otherwise coordinate with. That is not far-fetched, it is by now highly detectable as standard operating procedure of YKW academia with regard to conceptual tools which would best serve ethnonationalists.

Nevertheless, there are important differences between a philosophy necessary to uphold ethnonationalism as opposed to the philosophy of pragmatism as it has been taken into practice; but these differences are not to be found only after successfully overcoming our fallibility through establishment of universally unassailable foundations for ethnonationalism

The difference that makes a difference for ethno-nationalists is rather in emphasis and elevation of the concept of indubitabililty – working hypotheses of which there is no reason to doubt as being in ethnonational interests; whether a logic so plain that we may take it for granted, or more complex, but warrantably assertable through operational verifiability – we recognize no need for anything remotely like a relentless critique of these working hypotheses – especially not from those known to hold antagonistic ideologies to ethnonationalism. Thus, we de-emphasize critique and presumed correctability of working ethnonatonalist hypotheses, particularly by those with antagonistic motives and ideologies – markedly, those advocating civic democracy drawing upon genetically universal population; and those advocating imperialistic and supremacist ideologies which would not allow for ethno-nationalist sovereignty.

The principle working hypothesis of ethnonationalism, of course, would be the assertion that in our given genetics we are warranted to go on existing as a nation while our nation is warranted in turn to maintain our genetics inasmuch as we allow for others to maintain theirs; and vice versa.

We may proceed without the pseudo-prerequisite of universal foundations, recognizing radical skepticism as being misdirected for that aim and an expression of Caresian-anxiety caused by philosophical abuses such as those promulgated under the rubric of pragmatism; alleviating that Cartesian anxiety in fact, by attending in contrast and emphasizing instead pragmatism’s finer virtues, which are three:

1) Acknowledgement of fallibilism and affordance of its participatory correction not only provides ongoing availability of correctability of our knowledge, but it can do so for ethnonationalism as such, providing for a correction of mere pragmatism, and into an institutionalizing of ethnonational delimitation. As such, it allows us to build our ranks qualitatively but also quantitatively in the varied contributions necessary for our community to flourish and defend our people against infiltration, exploitation and genocide.

2) As such, it is not just any correction, but an ongoing correctability which, when coupled with pragmatic delimitation in the aims of correctability to the requirements of our community as ethno-nationalists, can relieve “the Cartesian anxiety” – an anxiety given our antagonists’ relentless attack on our ethno-nationalist community (and yes, they have made me hate that word too, for their didactic abuse of it – the disingenuously vague, merely cultural, non-genetic connotations they’ve associated with the word “community”), we feel a sense of anxiety, a longing for the grand Cartesian either/or. To explain that further..

“But lets turn to the ideas of these thinkers [Pierce, James and Dewey]. I’m going to present a composite picture with some dominant themes. The first theme is anti-foundatonalism and the critique of Cartesianism. Descartes, in his meditations, was searching for a solid foundation for the edifice of knowledge. Something that is indubitable and incorrigible; a truth that can be known with certainty, and that can serve as the real basis or foundation for knowledge. Descartes is haunted by what I have called in some of my writings, “the Cartesian anxiety” – the grand either/or. Either, there is some support for our being, a fixed foundation for our knowledge, or we cannot escape the forces of darkness that envelope us with madness and intellectual and moral chaos. Now, there is a way of reading a good deal of philosophy from its beginning, to its present, and especially from Descartes to the present, as a search for a firm foundation. Whether we take the foundation to be the intellectual grasp of eternal forms, or the direct grasp of immediate empirical intuitions, or the cogito itself.

The appeal to such a basic, rock bottom foundation, cannot be underestimated. In our time, the failure to discover, quote, such a foundation, is said to lead straight right to a defeating relativism, that denies the very foundation of truth, objectivity and moral fealty; and I think unfortunately to a great extent, that still infects a great deal of popular consciousness. ‘If I don’t have something basically to believe in, then anything goes.’

Now the pragmatists, all of them, challenge this way of thinking, challenge this kind of grandeur, they seek to exorcise this Cartesian anxiety; they reject the ideal that there is an absolute grounding or foundation of our being. I think one of the best statements of the pragmatic alternative was succinctly stated by Wolfred Sellers, when he writes, “for empirical knowledge, like its sophisticated extension, science, is rational not because it has a foundation, but because it is a self correcting enterprise that can put any claim into jeopardy, although not all at once.” The alternative to the foundation metaphor is to think of inquiry as a self correcting enterprise; that has no fixed absolute beginning points and no absolute end.”  {1}

What is requisite is what is required, not a universal foundation.

In fact, participation in our fallibilistic correction can include contributions as deep, abiding and scientific as any – i.e., you can, in theory, question anything, even the most verified scientific law; though sane people, in vast percentage may consider you insane, dishonest, at best engaged in some speculative inquiry that will require you to compile verifiable information for you to bring to bear once you’ve completed your rather impractical inquiry; but the skeptic is not owed a privileged position of non-accountability for the initiation of inquiry over that which the community holds fast (the burden of proof is on the skeptic, so to speak, given) that which shows no practical need to change for the rather impractical inquiry; this holds true for many requirements of ethnonationalism –

3) The great contribution of the pragmatists is to show that fallibilism and anti-skepticism are compatible:

This alternative paradigm, this alternative way of thinking, leads me to a second theme, that I think is characteristic of the pragmatic tradition, and that’s the theme of fallibilism. If inquiry is a self corrective activity, that can put any claim into jeopardy, then this means that all knowledge claims, indeed all validity claims are fallible, in the sense that we never can claim that we know anything with a type of certainty that cannot in principle be questioned. But there is a difference between indubitability and fallibility. Many of our beliefs are indubitable in the sense that we do not doubt them; and indeed may not even be aware that we have such beliefs. But what is indubitable today may turn out to be false tomorrow. Furthermore, fallibilism is not to be confused with epistemological skepticism. Hilary Putnam, who is one of the outstanding pragmatists of our time, and still alive, once wrote that the great contribution of the pragmatists is to show that fallibilism and anti-skepticism are compatible. Pierce, for example, never doubted that we can know a reality that is independent of ourselves. But he also argued, that we’re never in a position to claim that we know this with absolute certainty …and I think we can illustrate what is meant by anti-foundationalism and fallibilism by an appeal to an understanding of scientific inquiry (or we could relate it to all kinds of inquiry). The validity of a given theory or explanatory hypothesis in any of the sciences is not dependent on showing that it rests on an absolute foundation, but rather that it is supported by the best empirical evidence and the best reasoning. Every serious scientist today knows, that our current theories and hypotheses will most likely be mollified or even abandoned in light of further inquiry and evidence. So strictly speaking what we take to be true today might turn out to be false. Nevertheless, it would be hyperbolic to say that consequently, we don’t really have any knowledge because any knowledge claim that we make may turn out to be false… rather the pragmatic point is that all knowledge is fallible and all knowledge is corrigible – in principle it can be corrected.

[…]

The question arises, if we cannot know anything with absolute certainty, how to warrant and secure our knowledge claims? And answering this will bring me to our third theme, the importance of the community of inquirers and the sociality of our practices that shape us. {1}

The principle working hypothesis of ethnonationalism, of course, would be the assertion that in our given genetics we are warranted to go on existing as a nation while our nation is warranted in turn to maintain our genetics inasmuch as we can allow for others to maintain theirs; and vice versa.

That our genetic genus and species exist as significantly discreet from others on the planet is indubitable. That sheer skepticism of the “reality” or “significance” or “sufficient grounds to defend” these classificatory differences will jeopardize these differences, particularly when discriminatory rules in their defense is prohibited though anti-racism and anti-discrimination laws is indubitable.

That there are good reasons to want to protect these differences is indubitable.

That game corresponds directly with an attack on any would-be gentile left, i.e., socially accountable, nationalism and unionization; particularly as Jewish interests have reached clear hegemony, they have sufficiently greased the palms of right-wing elitists to be complicit as they take control of right-wing reactionary platforms as much as possible; and have promulgated the vilification of “the left” (“speculative” social organization/unionization) as much as possible to try to counter any gentile social classification gathering as left, social nationalism to challenge their hegemony.

However, whereas the pragmatists stance against foundationalism and Cartesianism and its charge for us to accept fallibilism has been co-opted against us, it also offers us the best tool, weapon in fact, by which to warrant our defense – viz., that anti-racism itself is Cartesian. As such, we may come loaded for bear against the enemies of ethno-nationalism:

The attack on the ethnonational community comes principally from Jewish community’s extrapolation on the prejudice against social classificatory discrimination, with facilitation of their fellow Abrahamics (note that Abahamics are not nationalists, they are imperialists; and we do not have to respect them as nationalists) and the liberal community: The central component of anti-racism is a game of weaponized social classification against gentile ethnonationalism.

This Abrahamic attack is well cast in terms of Manichean as opposed to Augustinian devils. Judaism and Islamics were coming from a place in evolution to compete more against other tribes for resource – thus, how to trick (Manichaen devils) them became a central skill.

Whereas for Northern Europeans in particular, but all Europeans, the issue of survival was more a competition against nature – thus a skill set more evolved to handle Augustinian, viz. natural devils, where human agency to deploy and solve trickery is not so central a concern.

By all evidence, Christianity is a Jewish trick, prescribing universalism and self destructive altruism to us, taking advantage of our evolved European nature in predilection to attend to Augustinian devils – as I have said, our predilection to attend to Augustinian devils is not necessarily bad, as we will ultimately be up against Augustinian devils to solve; however, we must not be naive simply because we’d rather not be bothered with the pettiness and trivial mindedness of Manicheans.

Anti-racism is Cartesian, it is prejudice, it is not innocent, it is hurting and it is killing people.

How is anti-racism Cartesian?

By artificially separating us from engagement in account of our broad, but very real, biological patterns and relative interests as such; as opposed to approximating our natural homeostatic delimitations, we are prohibited from observing these relative delimitation by means of classificatory delimitation – incited for the modicum of vaguery, ambiguity, arbitrariness and contingency at the edges of these classifications; for the history, where classifications were often used by one group to abuse another, we are obligated instead to put these patterns at risk to pure objectivism – on universal foundations – which is Cartesian.

Because our classifications are fallible in the sense that we can interbreed with other races, their communities charges that there are no important differences to warrant discrimination. This is Cartesianism on the empirical side, where the classificatory distinctions are held to be arbitrary and of dubious, if not fictional significance. Furthermore, as our antagonists and liberals confront us with the fact that all races can interbreed, they can and do argue that evolutionary competition and integration will produce good, if not the best results.

It is not practical for our community to try to foundationalize as an objective fact that this cannot possibly, in any way be true; and fortunately, it is not necessary.

The best we can do, and we can do very very well, is make the best arguments (practices, e.g., might of arms, count as “argument” here) in our defense, achieving warranted assertabilty – with operational verifiability of that warrant so much the better.

How do we argue in the face of this Cartesian incitement?

To begin, it is practical is to acknowledge that we can interbreed, but to argue and assert, in the event that their hypothesis just might just be wrong, that it is nevertheless indubitably valid to classify peoples according to genetic groupings for the sake of accountabilty; to keep “reserves” (i.e., the vast majority and their prerogative for a separatist homeland) and with that to build counter-arguments in warranted assertability that we and our qualities are worth saving despite their purported infallible claim that they aren’t. We establish warranted assertion in defense of our classification – as having distinct and long standing evolution, merited to remain in its trajectory, provided we allow for others to maintain theirs. The act of classification and its implementation affords agency thus, coherence, accountability, warrant in inherited social capital and human ecology.

And again there is a crucial difference for ethno-nationalists from academia’s (particularly Gadamer’s/Derrida’s ) crucially abused (as Cartesian) notion of “marginality” – where “marginals” are taken to be those who are from without, outside the classification and/or antagonistic to it, as opposed what would be the ethno-nationalist concept of marginality – i.e., those remaining just within the classification despite pressure, but well disposed to its reconstruction; having the additional existential benefit of “knowing where the shoe pinches.”

“Those who are marginalized” in this sense, does not necessarily mean those who are falling behind, but can also mean those who are outstanding, though they would be ostracized as they are not understood and appreciated as being out in front; and well intending.

We would be bringing to bear correctiveness from the “rich and diverse perspectives of our ethnonational community.”

As such, marginals would contribute to a homeostatic function of the ethnonational system, against incursions and crass exclusion of sufficient basic function and of outlier advance.

What is practical toward that end is the unionization of our relative interests as classifications so that we may not only have criteria to be accountable to our relative interests, but also to objective facts beyond our relative group interests; and to the relative interests of other genetic classifications.

But either way, pure racial distinctions or “one race, the human race”, it is an unnatural and impossible standard of purity which, when observing history and what happens with this void in means of bio-historical accountability, will show that it is prone to reaction and attack on other classificatory groups. It is a game that can be countered with pragmatism and hermeneutics applied, as I have said, with ethno-national delimitation – but we must ask, why has that not happened? To answer that question we have to know a bit more about where the prohibition of classification comes from, the context it operated\s in, and where these remedies came into play.

Where does this classificatory game, a game that is weaponized against us, particularly as Whites, come from? a little history is in order:

The YKW, in their ordeal of civility, as a self interested group classification, were confronted and threatened by the civic nationalism of America, viz., its civil individual rights which, as an instrument holding no proviso to recognize their group interests, observed that America’s civil rights were based on the Cartesian and following that the Enlightenment and modernity’s prejudice against prejudice – viz., given Locke’s prejudice against social classifications as they happened to operate against him; he took a position against social classifications that they are necessarily, universally pernicious fictions of the mind, only a machination of the dishonest; and against that deployed the Cartesian notion (on the empirical end) that only sense perceptions of the individual mind are real and that group classifications are non-empirical, nefarious fictions which should be prohibited in favor of civil individual rights.

To deal with this, the YKW made American Whites live up to their rules (Saul Alinsnky style), but weaponized them over the top as “civil rights acts” which denied White freedom from association, thus effectively put them into involuntary servitude where operative. Moreover, they made Whites live up to Locke’s prohibition against classification and took it over the top as well in the form of “anti-racism.” Anti-racism is essentially a prohibition against social classificatory discrimination.

Kant had anticipated the dangers of Locke’s purely empirical perspective, how destructive it could be perhaps especially to conscientious people, and his major work, “The Critique of Pure Reason” was an effort to solve this problem, to provide universal foundations in “the nouminal concept” against this empirical arbitrariness; a noble effort, thought it failed; as Heidegger said, it was still Cartesian.

The analytic school’s Whitehead and Russell, in taking it upon themselves to try to solve the liars paradox [classically, “all Cretans are liars, I am a Cretan”, or plainly, “I am a liar”] provide a later example of a philosophical method insufficiently equipped to deal with skepticism of social classification. The analytic school’s tools in fact would be susceptible to paradox and dealt with these issues clumsily – with Russel admitting that the “theory of logical types”, viz, “that a class cannot be a member of itself”, was “the most ad hoc thing he’d ever had to do.” Nevertheless, while it may have been ad hoc to his analytic sensibilities, logical types did have practical applications.

We are all pragmatists – because we have to be – and Whitehead, a renowned mathematician was acknowledging this when he said: “we cannot continually investigate everything, but must be able to take some things for granted and proceed from a given state of partial knowledge. Even a false or inadequate working hypothesis is better than no working hypothesis.”

And he was in the ballpark before WWII forced a shying away from more explicit, concrete applications, when he said “philosophy must now perform its final service and save a race of people sensitive to values beyond mere physical pleasure.” If his having used the word “race” was not made radioactive by the supremacist Nazi campaign of WWII, we might have been sooner to implement the idea of classificatory function, despite its fallibility.

The experience of Whitehead and Russel of trying to solve the liar’s paradox with the ad hoc theory logical types, that “a group cannot be a member of itself”, is an example of the clumsiness of a sheer analytic philosophy in dealing with classificatory paradox; while right-wing purity spirals to go beyond social problems are equally prone to paradoxing and hoodwinkng into runaway. By contrast, these are matters which a judicious implementation of pragmatic correctability could handle, well, practically, and matters which an additional hermeneutic component can handle gracefully – it will deftly put aside “paradoxes” with narrative sequentiality, furtive, hierarchical and other provisos.

The Vienna School of Logical Positivism (from which the Vienna School of Economics derives) was another effort in this vain. The tried to establish a pure positive language free of metaphor and failed for confrontation of the fact that words have more complex, ambiguous and contingent relations to their referents – they couldn’t avoid metaphor, in a world. The later Wittgentsein was forced to acknowledge this, calling the Tractataus upon which the Vienna School of Logical Positivism was based, “not a very good book.”

Heidegger’s invocation of hermeneutics was effort in the right direction as a way of dealing with Cartesian duality, the Cartesian anxiety, and our authenticity of dasein. As one might guess following the coherence of this article, I would add the dasein of social classification, some facimile thereof to round out his philosophy, falling a bit shy of a sufficient philosophy as it did for phenomenology’s first person overemphasis and lack of emphasis on group pattern connecteness, criteria and accountability – there was something like that in Heidegger but not emphasized enough; his philosophy strained in the reification of anxiety before individual death as the source of meaning, being, dasein. Like the pragmatists, the method for our interests was there, but underused for lack of proper basis (for what we’d fallen into) and emphasis, especially among later practitioners.

Like pragmatism’s “participatory correction” from an ever more enriching and diverse basis of civic democratic universalism, hermeneutics could serve the YKW in its academic big business of selling talk, to any mathematically challenged, verbal brained undergraduate with an axe to grind against White men in particular, in non-stop culture of critique; and any fallback they might take in science: as if hermenutics is anti-science simply because its capable of critiquing scientism, viz., bad science or bad scientific application. 

Thus, what happened when I tried to talk to Professor MacDonald on the basis of hermeneutics – he insisted that “hermeneutics was anti-science” because all he’d seen in academia was YKW fostered abuse of the concept – they’d done what they always do; they’d taken concepts which would be most serviceable to ethno-nationalism, de-emphasized the aspects which would be most helpful to ethnonationalism and put over the top those features which when exaggerated would be most destructive; made them didactic; so instead of the coherent means to pursue our authenticity in organic form, and take hold (responsibility, the other interpretation of ownmost “guilt”) for our historical and systemic breadth, hermeneutics is associated with people who think that history and events can mean virtually anything they imagine, rather what cultural Marxists might think, divorced from empirical reality.

The pragmatists have shown that fallibilism and anti-skepticism are compatible; that we can hold up to our opponents outlandish metaphors, speculations and narraties; while asserting and warranting our interests instead, more imperfectly at first and less so with ongoing correction by community interests. And together with that, hermeneutics has shown the means to overcome the Cartesian anxiety, a way to overcome paradox, arbitrariness and nefarious positivist chicanery against ethnonationalism. However, given (dasein’s thrownness into) the setting of its charter, America’s civic, democratic nation, the liberal democratic motives of its charter members and YKW co-opting, pragmatism has over-emphasized and rather exaggerated fallibilism’s correctability through social participation – viz., extolling a “diversity” of critique, alternative “narratives” in an ever broadening, and thus ever more arbitrary “democratic community”, giving us an “enrichment” which is, like classical liberalism, insufficiently committed by state administrators charged with accounting for the upholding of biological groupings, and citizens accountable to uphold their biological grouping, as would concern the ethno-nationalist; nor do they conceived to account for protection of these protracted historical bio-systems by delimitation of ethno-nationalism (that classification = “racism”); hence the predictable denouement into radical skepticism, as it becomes more and more the case for gentiles that one must look after one’s narrow interests completely (a problem not sufficiently helped by the pragmatists or Heidegger, and especially not as they’ve come into popular discourse), whether that position is most advanced by those who’ve managed to do well for themselves, despite and perhaps because of their complicity with group classificatory disintegration, or those, notably the YKW, who also do well for this disintegration, hypocritically promoting the prohibition of unionization of social group classifications where they cannot be exploited by their own institutionalized group classification.

This democratic correctibility, now called “social justice warriorism” for its didactic form as promoted by YKW pragmatism and neoliberal complicity, is already a skepticism of gentile classifications, its relentlessness and hyperbolic attack provoking a longing on the gentile part for otherworldy foundation by contrast; and offered (((“neo” reaction))) in kind to promote a new skepticism to social justice and unionized, participatory means of correction; the (((alternative right))) is offered to institutionalize their new position in defense of their supremacism, YKW and complicit supremacism, at the expense of institutionalizated accountability to ethno-nationalism.

Skepticism toward the unionization of group discriminatory classification is institutionally perpetuated, assimilating the “reality” that one must accept – this “inequality” not only has force of itself, but also the intellectual cache of the elites; both elitist gentiles and now also promoted more as a form of activism by Jews via the alternative right; promoted more now as a mere fact of nature, to which only the delusional and unrealistic would object and try to be so leftist as to unionize against, given their increasingly obvious hegemonies. Radical skepticism, especially toward the practicality of ethnonational classification and unionizations thereof, is almost part of our DNA and its inherent susceptibility to be exploited by now; it is the last things we need.

Nevertheless, gentile vulnerability to skepticism of group unionization and aversion to taking what we might refer to as the anti-Cartesian turn with the Pragmatists and the hermeneuticists, has also been exploitable not only because their anti-Cartesian remedies were taken over the top in didacticism; but because anti-Cartesianism came only after Cartesiansim and its means of exploitation had already been institutionalized, taken for granted and embedded in civil individual rights – divorced as they were, in fact prohibiting discrimination of group classification – while especially promoted through the rule structure of America – that is no small matter; as its rule structure spread in ostensibly warranted hegemony to further purity spiral given its victory over right wing reaction in WWII; a reaction which was similarly a purity spiral, though more explicitly seeking to throw-off, to purify itself of the guilt and burdens of the YKW and their priorly institutionalized means of infiltration and exploitation of group classificatory interests; viz. to throw off Jewry and their ensconced purity spiral of guilting the gentiles with ethno-sacrificing Christianity by means of “natural law”. American victory only increased the hegemony of liberalism’s liasz ez fair relation to the YKW purity spiral of Christianity, a liasz ez fair relation reinforced initially by its Cartesian constitution; and later, as intersectional (where Jewish hypocrisy is confronted) reaction increased to the point where it might notice Jewish ethnocentrism, paleoconservatism and its spawn, the alternative right, were unleashed to maintain that liasz ez fair – “our Judeo-Christian, ‘western’ culture.”

On a level of more common concerns, as Cartesianism was institutionalized in the American Constitution, leaving patterned concerns only implicit, and suspicious of groups, particularly those suspected of Aristocratic snobbery, Locke’s form of empirical individual rights increasingly ran roughshod over biological systems, doing its purity spiral, in prejudice against classificatory prejudice – mostly done naively by the gentiles, but often disingenously by elites beholden only to their narrow interests and a quid pro quo with an equally disingenuously YKW.

Note: we are not proposing doing away with the concept of individual liberties and rights, only that the Locketine technology was not the way, we have better ways now. But failing the implementation of those better ways, the ethnonationalist community remains largely in reaction to hermeneutics and pragmatism’s participatory correctability for the exaggerated misuse of those disciplines against our classification and truth; laregly in a reaction not only instigated with didactic exaggeration, but on pain of social ostracism. You gonna question muh rights? – nothing more sacrosanct than to an American (or to many UN charter activists for that matter) than their rights; you a Nazi? – need I say more? We remain stuck in the Cartesian realm of reaction, where analytic at all – and failing that, engaged with its faith cousin – you gonna question muh Abrahamic religion?

But another factor which had lent to the taken for grantedness of Cartesiansim and its increasing hegemony was the impetus of its yield to science and technology (and the lucrativeness of that); modernity’s progressiveness indeed, running roughshod over the human ecologies that left nationalism might otherwise serve and protect – commie leftist pinkos.


You gonna question muh capitalism, science and technology? muh manly pristine theory with that messy pinko lefty rag girly social pragmatism stuff? With this amateur understanding of the philosophical remedies that we are up against, the lack of understanding of the problems that we are up against and the means to correct them for the inability to see past and get past their abused forms; even though we would get past theme if we use of their correct forms. However, so long as we remain in reaction, we remain outside of our advanced philosophy and correctabilty for ethnonational ends. And in this mindset bereft of hermeneutics liberation from mere facticity, we remain stuck in the physics envy of clean lines and highly predictable cause and effect (to our enemies too), as opposed to the (only somewhat) messy but facile narrative coherence, agency, accountability and warrant to wrest our ethnonational sovereignty. And in this wish for pure analytic coherence, we remain unduly hindered by paradox and chimera that can be used by our enemies to hoodwink casual, implicit ethnonationalism.

Thus our plight begins with a form of skepticism, that such patterns exist that can and should be classified for their discriminatory protection, and that terrible things will not necessarily happen if such discriminatory classifications are rendered. The YKW version of universal civic democratic participatory correctabilty is a steady, grating skepticism writ large.

The assault by the YKW on our people, as if we are not importantly distinct – neither ideally nor practically, in classificatory assessment of genus and species, and not precious in such distinction, is centuries long.

As GW observes, it is an assault evidently prescribed by Jewish tribal interests to rupture differentiation and defensive exclusion among “the gentiles”, viz. the non-Jews, as gentile distinctions, complementary, coordination and the defense thereof may threaten Jewish power and influence. 

This centuries long assault on our distinction began with neither Boas nor Descartes. It is narrative of classificatory disintegration, divorcing us from our complementary relations and coordination, from our land, nature and and earthy connection; it is a narrative that has been hegemonic over European peoples through and of a YKW mass media control that is not only decades long but, as Bowery observes, it is centuries long, with their Bible having functioned as the predominant “mass media” and medium of this narrative transmission for the better part of two centuries – promoting a narrative culminating with Jews as the chosen people, the light of the world, while the gentiles might only enter the hereafter by being purely altruistic, non-self interested. Dissent of that narrative, on the other hand, was on pain of otherworldly damnation, or literal, this worldly persecution – at times, even penalty of death.

And when in church, the priest did not say “let us think”, he said “let us pray” – viz. repeat by rote the priest’s call to submission to the Jewish god. It is a narrative trajectory increasing in hegemony and culminating in their story told as light of the world over the correspondingly undifferentiated gentile other.

European thinkers only began to shake this hegemony, throw it off as imposed superstition and return to the rationale of the Greeks and our own northern lights in The Enlightenment. Nevertheless, European peoples were not fully emancipated, as they would need to be in distinction of our peoples, by means of Luther’s proclamation that “here I am, I can do no other”, nor by Descartes, proclamation that “I think, therefore I am”  …as he was, in pursuit of universal foundations.

These pursuits would have a loyalty nevertheless, but a loyalty not to the organization and relative interests of group patterns, but rather a loyalty to elitist objectivism, to mere facts and the upholding of the pretext of their objective pursuit – if one was to have the tacit approval of the scientific mavens and engineers who were becoming a new priestly caste, and that panderers (and pandered-to, frequently puerile females) against those who would operate against our classificatory interests.

…as with Nazism, warrant was not to be located in the differentiation and coordination with the other, but in the demonstration of purity of “natural law”, and supremacy that served the purging reaction of the meme virus.

Speaking of what is indubitable, taking advantage of the obvious disagreeableness of this concept, a reaction really, like a massive fit of coughing and diarrhea – a case of your struggle and stink is ok only if you are German supremacist – the YKW have with this indubitable didacticism amplified means to lay guilt trips and cause the gentile other to pursue warrant of innocence by a doubling down in Cartesianism; particularly through the victorious American enshrinement of enlightenment Cartesianism in the Lockeatine notion of civil individual rights – as they serve their aim to rupture the danger of opposing group classifications as “non-empirical”, a rupturing imposed on lines of “anti-racism”, “anti-Nazism” etc.

Marxist and neo-liberal YKW both would, in their elite mentorship, recognize the susceptibility of European peoples’ defense in their adherence to Cartesianism, and the YKW operate against it in mimicry of its own terms, in anti-racism, naturally – with particular emphaticness after WWII, they would be marching through our 7 institutions, and let us add another, even more so would they march through our very genome.

If the young White man is to have hope to be let past their gate-keepers – often the bitches who didn’t want to be fair, but want to incite genetic competition beyond their merit (their typical shit test in initial interaction episode, “isn’t racism terrible?”) – he must embrace the advancing meme structure, loyalty all the more fiercely to objectivism, to anti-racism, to the incursion of African and Arab hoards – if he hopes to extricate himself from the broader community of subjects as they are beholden to objectivist naivete, blind to individual and group Manicheanism (rule changing devils), who only mimicked adherence to Augustinian (natural) devils where it suits them in their “objectivism” as it is bound to be infiltrated by YKW: from Wittgensteins’ Austrian school positivism to its heirs Hayek and Austrian school libertarianism, to its neo forms, neocon, neo anything, as Irving Kristol admits, it is weaponization against Whites, still holding the undifferentiated gentile other as template of purity, innocence and warrant – the prejudice against prejudice was to make Whites live up to their own rules, as those rules worked against them.

Categorization, what I call classification, is not an artifice, is not Cartesian – it is a perfectly natural and necessary emergent function, to sort out, to discriminate healthy social patterns from unhealthy – “Women, Fire, and other Dangerous Things” (lets call that chocolate women, fire and other dangerous things). 

Anti-racism is Cartesian, it is prejudice, it is not innocent and it is killing people.

Even if it is by means by a crass version of Darwinist competition:

As I have said many times in one of my original theories, Modernity’s Cartesianism has had a vast disordering effect on society. And the “anti-racist” extrapolation of anti-social classificaiton is a union busting function of the YKW writ large, playing manichean games with social classification/anti-classification as it suits their interests. Just because European peoples are prohibited from discriminating by social classification, doesn’t mean that other’s aren’t doing it, allowed to do it; and doesn’t mean that classification (categorization) doesn’t happen naturally – it happens anyway; with the categories too difficult to ignore, because they are basic, even in “universal” human terms: particularly male and female.

The result is that the patterns of our protracted maturity as K selectors are truncated, our female co-evolutionaries are pandered to from males from every direction, predated upon by R selectors, particularly as the YKW foist race mixing upon Whites to demoralize White men and to bust gentile unionization; they pander to the basest tendencies of females to incite genetic competition.

They take advantage of another category impossible to ignore – black men, particularly by contrast to White females, a category and contrast so stark that it is almost impossible to ignore as a tropism. They take advantage with their “anti-racism”, with the fact that blacks are not necessarily at a disadvantage as they say, in all cases and ways – not given their license to discriminate on their behalf and make coherent sense; not within the disorder, where black aggression, hyper-assertiveness and abilities on an episodic levels are a more salient criteria for partner selection; they are not disadvantage in these circumstances of anti-racism, if you take into account that opportunism is acting in concert with their ancient history, the bio-power of their long pre-evolution to Whites; which serves them in this mix, to privilege them over females, to provide them with females and children (frequently at the zero zum expense of Whites); along with the fact that their coherence, their classificatory identity is allowed, they are offered remedial programs by the liberals and YKW, to make up for a history of oppression that we had nothing to do with; furthermore, their daring is increased as expectations of them, as individuals, are low; group ethnocentrism backs them in their risk taking. They often have less to lose (some of their women are nice, but….). Whereas European men have a lot lose, and become skittish; furthermore, the merit of European men tends to show over protracted patterns, patterns that are ruptured by anti-racism; and truncated by the opportunism of males, R selectors and what-not, that they are not allowed to discriminate against.

Meanwhile the one up position in partner selection that females occupy (because eggs are precious, gestation vulnerable and sperm is cheap) emerges with increased significance, with puerile European females gaining in premature confidence and discretionary power as gate-keepers, as they are talked-to, solicited from every direction and pandered to – her opinions matter; as she has ready recourse in all directions to brute enforcing males, if anyone objects to her prerogatives. As she is pandered to, she is encouraged by the power of her position in this liberal mix. Her base tendency as female to incite genetic competition, which would be vastly and healthily sublimated in classificatory maintenance, is exacerbated, probably exponentially. This incitement further ensconces the Cartesian rupture of ethno-natinonalism, as liberalism affords puerile females incentive to maintain the easy advantages her increased one up position affords in the disorder – it is, as it appears, “only natural.” – Just as the gamers will tell you, as they promote R selectionism to move through European girls. And the disorder and disintegration absent the assertion of our classifications is perpetuated as such.

Thus, the Cartesianism of anti-racism is disastrous for our species.

The central component of anti-racism is a game of weaponized social classification against Whites. As exemplified in the racist’s paradox:

Again, the “racist’s paradox – if you say, “no, I don’t discriminate, I judge everyone by their individual merit”, then you can be charged by the anti-racist with disingenuously ignoring the history of (your alleged) classificatory discrimination and exploitation of blacks …on the other hand, if you say no, “I take affirmative action on behalf of their group to take into account the history discrimination and oppression against their group” then you are classifying, thus a racist by definition.

Thus, by means extant of Cartesian structures the proposition nation was brought to bear in exploitation by the YKW and complicit liberals against our fallible hypotheses, with predictable results..

It is a purity spiral ever more Cartesian and divorced of practicality in its reaction than that of the Cartesian anxiety which they had already exploited.

And their rhetorical flourish magnifies the anxiety that we must have a foundation somehow prior to words and discourse for our peoplehood, otherwise we cannot potentially challenge with their rhetoric, anywhere in the universe.

But toward our defense and in defense of human ecology broadly thus, it is necessary to overcome the Cartesian anti-social classification that underpins anti-racism ..its Cartesian detachment from land and resource relation as well.

With the pronouncement, denouncement really, of the Cartesian prejudice against prejudice – specifically its proposed innocence in prohibiting discriminatory social classification – that:

Anti-racism is Cartesian, it is prejudice, it is not innocent, it is hurting and it is killing people.

Given the existential threat to our people for the devastating, decades long march through our institutions, of the YKW and their lackeys wielding the wholly unnatural, weaponized Cartesianism that is “anti-racism” ….the last thing that we need is mis-applied skepticism regarding the very antidotes to mis-applied skepticism – i.e., mirroring the anti-classification which is “anti-racism.

And we must avail ourselves of pragmatic correctabilty and the hermeneutic turn delimited to ethnonational aims – that is the way to resolve Cartesian anxiety. It is the way that allows for historical and conceptual breadth to capture the “non-empirical” classifications, that would provide for agency, coherence, thus accountability and warrant in maintenance, use and protection of our social capital and human ecologies.

It is not my purpose here to defend Pragmatist philosophy nor to proclaim myself a Pragmatist philosopher – Pragmatist philosophy is rather to be treated as a tool. It is not only to be taken to where the school of thought has been taken by academics, against the loftier aims of our people…  it has made its way to the ordinary language of our “communities” that it might otherwise serve, to be taken as concerns ranging from laboriously dull to obnoxiously undeserving of participation. No, rather something like Sam Dickson’s suggestion that we subscribe to a kind of race idealism – that might be most pragmatic; and those who complain that Aristotle’s turning away forms was a turning away from the breadth of European imagination, they can find imagination resurrected in hermeneutics, along with rigor! Finally, though pragmatism tends to be associated with a lack of deeper concern in a particular respect – that is a lack of sufficient respect for prefigurative force – for matters of enduring importance – it is a bit unfair, particularly if we see pragmatism as a tool.

If GW wants to tighten the connection between what is, the ontology, and what ought, that could be part of correctibility – any organization of sense making in that case, in an instant anyway, would have to a part of inherent evolution.

Emergentism has kindred aims with pragmatism and hermenuticism, namely and aversion to the reductionism and anti mind body distinction, if not anti-Cartesianism on the whole; however, it has run into some problems that may receive aid from pragmatism and hermeneutics. Again, pragmatism and hermeneutics proper would not look at emergentism as necessarily adversarial, but rather a closer reading, at a more rigorous end of an ongoing survey.

It is confronted with difficulty in managing dichotomy that may perhaps be mollified by hermeneutics.

At least one problem for emergentism is:

Jaegwon Kim

Figure demonstration how M1 and M2 are not reduced to P1 and P2.

Addressing emergentism (under the guise of non-reductive physicalism) as a solution to the mind-body problem Jaegwon Kim has raised an objection based on causal closure and overdetermination.

Emergentism strives to be compatible with physicalism, and physicalism, according to Kim, has a principle of causal closure according to which every physical event is fully accountable in terms of physical causes. This seems to leave no “room” for mental causation to operate. If our bodily movements were caused by the preceding state of our bodies and our decisions and intentions, they would be overdetermined. Mental causation in this sense is not the same as free will, but is only the claim that mental states are causally relevant. If emergentists respond by abandoning the idea of mental causation, their position becomes a form of epiphenomenalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergentism

It is true that more (and more) information about more genetic and emergent levels will help guide us better; the process of ongoing correction does provide for that.

Anti-racism is Cartesian, it is prejudice, it is not innocent, it is hurting and it is killing people.

With anti-Cartesianism, we’re precluding the “that’s just the way it is” according to nature argument …a void of accountability that the YJKW and Right Wing contingent can mess with to no end—- a nature argument so fundamental to liberalism and so destructive to us.  …viz., how is anti-racism killing people? By holding them to a momentary and episodic basis of evaluation only, thus exposing them (particularly those on the margins of the lifespan or the systemic classification) to predation from outside group patterns – skeptically treating those patterns as “speculative”, even where those patterns are demonstrable as predatory and/or destructive patterns to the group that is not supposed to invoke classificatory discrimination.

Thus, it is a discrimination against those in marginal stages of a more protracted process, especially those who’s group evolution is of a more protracted yield to maturity, as K selectors in particular are going to manifest more often; exposing them to killing, consumption, subsumption by those that anti-racism is prejudice on behalf of – the victorious of “objective” standards – viz., those displaying winning moves by highly physical momentary and episodic evaluation, the “universal standard.” Actually, a better anti-Cartesian, anti-anti racist mantra would read:

“Anti-racism is anti-broad classification of peoples and against classification of peoples being used as criteria for discriminatory accountability. This prohibition of discriminatory classification is Cartesian, it is prejudice, it is not innocent, it is hurting and it is killing people.”

That’s a safer mantra because anti-anti-racism is less likely to be misunderstood as such, in a supremacist or other needlessly aggressive, exploitative, destructive senses.

European ethnonationalists will do well to avail themselves of hermeneutics; there are some good examples in WN – here’s an example from counter currents that expresses a good understanding:

Facts are important, but stories are more important. Facts are isolated data that can easily be forgotten, but stories coalesce to form the infrastructure of our worldview. The stories that we learn inform our worldview and our worldview filters the stories that we hear in an ongoing feedback loop. This is why it’s so important to control the narrative.

When Grenfell Tower went up in flames on the morning of 14th June, the narrative practically wrote itself. Here we had the poorest people in the country living next door to the wealthiest. The first victim to be named was a Syrian refugee, Mohammed Alhajali. Two miles away, the penthouse flat in the tower block at 3 Merchant Square was recently sold for £7.5 million, perhaps by one of those Russian oligarchs, semi-mythical creatures who buy up reams of expensive property in the desirable areas of London seemingly on a whim. A tale of two cities, a tale of two immigrants.

As the story continues, the residents of 3 Merchant Square are protected by smoke detectors and sprinklers in each flat whilst the poor residents in Grenfell Tower have no sprinklers and apparently a few faulty smoke detectors. Worse still, Grenfell Tower had only last year had a refurbishment which was designed to improve its appearance to outside observers (i.e. to the purchasers of those luxury flats). As we now know, having all become leading experts in the cladding of tall buildings in the last week, the insulating fascia built on the exterior of Grenfell Tower seems to have acted as a chimney, spreading the fire all around the building.

So the story is one of poor, immigrant favela dwellers whose safety doesn’t matter at all but whose ugly building must be dangerously disguised so as not to upset the delicate sensibilities of neighbouring millionaires. This narrative was immediately and effortlessly translated into one of murderous, racist Tory scum ethnically cleansing Kensington and Chelsea. The former narrative has some merit but the way that it so easily slips into the latter interpretation is due to the fact that the assumptions of the liberals have become hegemonic throughout the British political system. Chris Pankhurst, 22 June 2017

We will also do well to avail ourselves of pragmatism’s tools, obviously not only accepting fallibilism and participatory correctability on a sheer civic universal democratic basis, but in utilizing it to our ethnonational ends; following-up anti-founatonalism and anti-Cartesianism to purge from our midst the residual Caresianism in Pragmatist philosophy for its liberal, civic national democratatic premises, ad hoc introduction of the Cartesian prejudice against prejudice, put over the top by the YKW in the form of anti-racism and anti-semitism – “indubitable” Not innocent.

Anti-racism is Cartesian, it is prejudice, it is not innocent, it is hurting and it is killing people.


That our genetic genus and species exist as significantly discreet from others on the planet is indubitable. That sheer skepticism of the “reality” or “significance” of these classificatory differences will jeopardize these differences is indubitable, particularly as the prohibition of their maintenance though anti-racism and anti-discrimination laws is enforced.

………………………………………………..

Though it may seem like heresy to WN that I am quoting a Jewish philosopher, Bernstein is mostly just describing the distinguishing ideas of the American pragmatist philosophers Pierce, James and Dewey. I am precisely observant of those places where he begins to take pragmatism in directions that serves Jewish interests and antagonizes the interests of White/European peoples.

Pragmatism can be taken in other directions, in service of ethno-national interests. Bernstein acknowledges and approves of this facility as he quotes fellow tribesman Hilary Putnam:

In an article entitled “Pragmatism and Moral Objectivity” this is what [Hilary Putnam] writes:

“What I find attractive in the pragmatism is not a systematic theory of the usual sense at all. It’s a certain group of theses, which can indeed be argued differently by different philosophers, with different concerns from what became the philosophy of Pierce and above all James and Dewey.”

Excerpts, Richard J. Bernstein discussing the pragmatist philosophers, their distinguishing ideas and implications:

{1} Richard J. Bernstein, the 2013 Selzer Visiting Philosopher, gave a lecture on “The Pragmatic Turn” (he has a book by the same name) 13 February 2013 at Beloit College, Wisconsin, U.S.A. He argues that many philosophical themes from the past 150 years are derived from classical American pragmatists.

[…]

Pierce, James and Dewey.

Despite Dewey’s role as a leading progressive pragmatic thinker (who was in sharp disagreement, attacking Trotsky for his ideas about means and ends, upon Dewey’s death, pragmatism as kind of philosophical movement began to rapidly fade for the American academic departments. During the 1930’s and 40s, there was a growing influence of the emigre philosophers who had fled from Nazism. And many were associated with the Vienna Circle and with logical empiricists; and later there was a strong influence in the United States with the Oxford style of ordinary language analysis of philosophers in America. From the late 1930’s to the 1960’s there was in effect a quiet radical revolution in academic philosophy departments in The United States. And this is the period, in which one can begin to date the dominant the dominant linguistic analytic philosophy and indeed it is a time when the infamous, and I think it is infamous Anglo-American split in philosophy was becoming entrenched.

So what happened to pragmatism? The classical pragmatists were marginalized. They were viewed as fuzzy-minded thinkers who may have had their hearts in the right place, but they lacked the clarity, precision and analytic finesse to do serious philosophical work. Pragmatism seemed to be relegated to the dust bin of history. It’s still a sad commentary, I think, on American academic philosophy departments that one can get a PhD in philosophy today without ever having read a word of the classical pragmatists. But beginning in the 1970’s there were signs of a change. The beginning of a resurgence of pragmatism. And one of the key figures in helping to make pragmatism respectable was Richard Rorty. During the 1960’s and 1970’s Rorty had written some excellent articles at the cutting edge of analytic philosophy; and edited a famous anthology called, “The Linguistic Turn.” He was sufficiently popular among hard core analytic philosophers, that he was elected President of the Eastern division of the American philosophic association at a relatively young age. But when he published his famous, some would say infamous book, “Philosophy in the Mirror of Nature”, it caused something of a sensation.  He shocked many of his fellow philosophers when he wrote in his introduction, that “Heidegger, Wittgenstein and Dewey were the three most important philosophers of the twentieth century. Continental philosophers might agree about Heidegger; as Analytic philosophers might agree about Wittgenstein…. but virtually no one at that time would put Dewey in the same league, in the same category. From that time on, Dewey identified himself with the pragmatic tradition of Dewey and James; but his views of pragmatism was at that time and is to this day controversial.

Like James, Dewey wanted philosophers to stop dealing with the same worn out problems and he sought to foster a new spirit of creative experimentalism.

Another thinker of Rorty’s generation who contributed to an appreciation of pragmatism was Hilary Putnam. If ever there was someone who was originally identified as a hard core analytic philosopher, it was Hilary Putnam. He was a sophisticated philosopher, he is of physics and mathematics, and he was educated by the leading philosophers of logical empiricism, including Hans Reichenbach and Rudolph Kohlner. But gradually like Rorty, Putnam found that the confines of the analytic tradition were too narrow; and he too began to identify himself with the pragmatic tradition.. In an article entitled “Pragmatism and Moral Objectivity” this is what he writes:

“What I find attractive in the pragmatism is not a systematic theory of the usual sense at all. It’s a certain group of theses, which can indeed be argued differently by different philosophers, with different concerns from what became the philosophy of Pierce and above all James and Dewey.

Cursorily summarized, those are:

1) Anti-skepticism. Pragmatists hold that doubt requires justification just as much as belief.

2) Fallibilism. Pragmatists hold that there is never a metaphysical guarantee to be had by such and such a belief, that will never need revision; and then he puts in parentheses, that “one can be both fallibilistic and anti-skeptical is perhaps the unique insight of American pragmatism.

3) The thesis that there is no fundamental dichotomy between facts and values. and in a certain sense..

4) Practice is primary in philosophy.

[…]

Many of the divisions that were seen in philosophy for them [the pragmatists] did not exist. There were philosophers that inspired them, that were very different. Pierce claimed to know, and knowing Pierce’s capabilities I could believe it, although it sounds insane, that he knew Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason by heart. James always felt a closer affinity with the British empiricists, and he even dedicated Pragmatism to J.S. Mill. And Dewey, as I mentioned, really started as a Hegelian. Consequently, there’s a richness and diversity of philosophical orientations woven into classical pragmatism.

But lets turn to the ideas of these thinkers. Now I’m going to present a composite picture with some dominant themes. And I want to single out six interrelated themes; that I think are characteristic of these pragmatic thinkers. The first theme is anti-foundatonalism and the critique of Cartesianism. Descartes in his meditations, was searching for a solid foundation, for the edifice of knowledge. Something that is indubitable and incorrigible; a truth that can be known with certainty, and that can serve as the real basis or foundation for knowledge. Descartes is haunted by what I have called in some of my writings, “the Cartesian anxiety” – the grand either/or. Either, there is some support for our being, a fixed foundation for our knowledge, or we cannot escape the forces of darkness that envelope us with madness and intellectual and moral chaos. Now, there is a way of reading a good deal of philosophy from its beginning, to its present, and especially from Descartes to the present, as a search for a firm foundation. Whether we take the foundation to be the intellectual grasp of eternal forms, or the direct grasp of immediate empirical intuitions, or the cogito itself.

The appeal to such a basic, rock bottom foundation, cannot be underestimated. In our time, the failure to discover, quote, such a foundation, is said to lead straight right to a defeating relativism, that denies the very foundation of truth, objectivity and moral fealty; and I think unfortunately to a great extent, that still infects a great deal of popular consciousness. “If I don’t have something basically to believe in, then anything goes.”

Now the pragmatists, all of them, challenge this way of thinking, challenge this kind of grandeur, they seek to exorcise this Cartesian anxiety. they reject the ideal that there is an absolute grounding or foundation of our being. I think one of the best statements of the pragmatic alternative was succinctly stated by Wolfred Sellers, when he writes, “for empirical knowledge, like its sophisticated extension, science, is rational not because it has a foundation, but because it is a self correcting enterprise that can put any claim into jeopardy, although not all at once.” The alternative to the foundation metaphor is to think of inquiry as a self correcting enterprise; that has no fixed absolute beginning points and no absolute end.

This alternative paradigm, this alternative way of thinking, leads me to the second theme, that I think is characteristic of the pragmatic tradition, and that’s the theme of fallibilism. If inquiry is a self corrective activity, that can put any claim into jeopardy, then this means that all knowledge claims, indeed all validity claims are fallible, in the sense that we never can claim that we know anything with a type of certainty that cannot in principle be questioned. But there is a difference between indubitability and fallibility. Many of our beliefs are indubitable in the sense that we do not doubt them; and indeed may not even be aware that we have such beliefs. But what is indubitable today may turn out to be false tomorrow. Furthermore, fallibilism is not to be confused with epistemological skepticism. Hilary Putnam, who is one of the outstanding pragmatists of our time, and still alive, once wrote that the great contribution of the pragmatists is to show that fallibilism and anti-skepticism are compatible. Pierce, for example, never doubted that we can know a reality that is independent of ourselves. But he also argued, that we’re never in a position to claim that we know this with absolute certainty …and I think we can illustrate what is meant by anti-foundationalism and fallibilism by an appeal to an understanding of scientific inquiry (or we could relate it to all kinds of inquiry). The validity of a given theory or explanatory hypothesis in any of the sciences is not dependent on showing that it rests on an absolute foundation, but rather that it is supported by the best empirical evidence and the best reasoning. Every serious scientist today knows, that our current theories and hypotheses will most likely be mollified or even abandoned in light of further inquiry and evidence. So strictly speaking what we take to be true today might turn out to be false. It would be hyperbolic to say that consequently, we don’t really have any knowledge because any knowledge claim that we make may turn out to be false… rather the pragmatic point is that all knowledge is fallible and all knowledge is corrigible – in principle it can be corrected.

[…]

The question arises, if we cannot know anything with absolute certainty, how to warrant and secure our knowledge claims? And answering this will bring me to our third theme, the importance of the community of inquirers and the sociality of our practices that shape us.

[…]

The community of inquirers and the socialty of practices. Here again I think Pierce was one of the first to emphasize the importance of the concept of the community of inquirers. For the ways in which we can test the validity of our claims, is by opening them to public criticism; again, using scientific inquiry as an example, and I only mean this as an example, we can say that no hypothesis, no theory, will be accepted as correct, simply because it is affirmed with absolute conviction. New hypotheses must be subject to relentless criticism by the relevant community of inquirers.  ..critical inquiry advances through the process of making bold conjectures and then subjecting them to rigorous testing and refutation. And the pragmatists go even farther, for they argue that we are quintessentially social beings in the sense that we are always being shaped, that does not mean completely determined, by the social practices in which we participate.

When I turn to the pragmatic conception of democracy, we will see that they reject the very common contrast between the individual and society. Individuality for them is not an ontological or epistemological given, it’s rather an achievement. And the quality of the individuality that we achieve is shaped and dependent upon the type of communities in which we live and thrive and the quality of the community, it’s life itself and quality is dependent upon our individual contributions. There’s a circular relation here, but not a vicious circularity; but rather a kind of creative circularity. And this leads me to the fourth theme that I want to emphasize.

Pluralism and Contingency. William James argues for a radical pluralism of perspectives. We human beings can never achieve a god’s eye perspective. In a pluralistic universe ….. but radical pluralism is not to be confused or identified with what might be called a self defeating relativism. It is an engaged, falliblilistic pluralism, such a pluralistic ethos as exhibited by James and others, places new responsibility on each of us, for it means taking our fallibility and our limited finitude seriously…

…and furthermore I think the pragmatists had a keen sense of urgency. There are and always will be surprises and conflicts in human life; and the pragmatists took contingency and change to be basic features not simply of human life but of the universe itself. We can never completely control or predict what will happen and consequently, their ideal, is to cultivate those habits virtues and dispositions that can prepare us for unexpected contingencies and conflicts.

Implicit in this view is a world that challenges a classical distinction between theory and practice.

__________

I provide a transcript of most all of this discussion between Robert Harrison and Thomas Sheehan about Heidegger’s Being and Time and Logic the Question of Truth. This is not meant as an endorsement of all of Harrison’s, Sheehan’s or even Heidegger’s positions. I have significant differences from them all. However, the discussion was clear and detailed enough to allow one (obviously myself included) to learn more clearly what Heidegger was saying, where one might agree, where one might differ; as well as where one might differ from these Heidegger scholars.

{2} Robert Harrison and guest Thomas Sheehan discuss Martin Heidegger and his famous work Being and Time. This is from an episode of Entitled Opinions, a podcast at Stanford University. Posted on Youtube, 14 January, 2017:

For more information, go to http://french-italian.stanford.edu/op…

Robert Harrison: The reason that I ask what it means to be at home in Ithaca is because Odyssyeus’s homecoming is not fully achieved once he returns; remember the visit to the underworld in book 11 of The Odyssey, there Odysseus had been told by the prophet Tyrresius, that once he make sit back to Ithaca that he must take off on yet another journey. With an oar on his shoulder he must travel to a saltless land where people know nothing of the sea; says Tyrresius, quote, “When another wayfarer on meeting you, shall say, that you have a winnowing fan on your stout shoulder then you must fix in the earth your shapely oar, and make goodly offers to Poseidon, and death will come to you far from the sea, a death so gentle that it will lay you low, when you are overcome with sleep, old age.” So just when you’d thought that you had returned, you have to take up your oar again, and leave. Only this time, your oar is no longer a means of locomotion, it no longer serves the practical purpose it was designed for; the oar now becomes a ritualistic object; that you place on your shoulder, carrying it into a place, where its instrumentality is misrecognized or misidetified. In that region of unlikeness, far from home, he must plant it in the earth, the ground of your mortality and thereby come to terms with your death. Only when Odysseus has undertaken this second journey into a foreign land, to make peace with his own dying, can he finally return to Ithaca and make himself at home there, for the first time.

…those who stay at home without undergoing this estrangement are not at home in their own homelands.” That Homer’s fable serves as the allegorical introduction to our show today deals with Martin Heidegger’s Being and Time; this is a book that in the ponderous prose of German high philosophy, analyzes the kind of being that belongs to Odysseus, in so far as he is resourceful, insofar as he is mortal, insofar as he is human. It is a book that probes the underlying strangeness of the familiar, and penetrates the ground in which Odysseus plants his oar, which, by the time he reaches that destination, is neither an oar nor a winnowing fan, but a marker of our being unto death in the mode of anticipatory resolve. Being and time is a book that undertakes that second journey, dislodging the oar from its familiar context and following its hero, who goes by the name of Dasein, into that uncanny region where human existence is revealed in its fundamental determinations.

With my guest today we will probe and try to put into relief those fundamental determinations of Dasein’s mode of being as Heidegger understands them, and to share with you, our reasons for believing that Being and Time, is one of he most important events of western philosophy.

My guest today is Professor Thomas Sheehan, professor in the department of religious studies at Stanford, and the author several books as well as a host of articles on Martin Heidegger – most recently, he has translated into English, Martin Heidegger’s 1925-26 lectures on truth, entitled Logic the Question of Truth. This book is central to Heidegger’s overall project of reinterpreting western thought in terms of time and truth.

Tom, welcome to the program.

Thomas Sheehan (5:07): Logic the Theory of Truth is a first draft of parts of Being and Time. Its a difficult book, especially in its last third, where he deals with Kant, but a very rewarding one. I would say it’s divided into three sections. One is Heidegger’s very close reading of psychologism and his critique of that.

Robert Harrison: What is psychologism?

Thomas Sheehan: psychologism is the reduction of all the rules of logic to just the working of the mind, so that if we could anthropologically study what the mind is doing when it thinks we would have all the laws of logic so that they are no longer universal, they are no longer free of human reasoning, they are simply dependent upon reasoning itself.

And then in its second part, a very fruitful part, I think, you have an analysis of logos – that’s the word that underlies logic, the question of truth; an analysis of logos as the human being’s a-priori need to make sense of things. Logos is not language, it is not binding things together – it’s making sense, as Heidegger makes clear. And also in that second part, his best analysis of meaning, by reference that is say alethea itself, by reference to Aristotle’s Metaphysics, book theta chapter 10. So, we’ve got psychologism, we’ve got logos and alethia; and then thirdly, and stunningly good, I think is his best statement of what he means by time.

And he defines time as the need to make things meaningfully present, so he focuses on the present moment of time. Anyway, he does this by a close and I must say difficult analysis of Kantian schematism, which turned out to be the first draft of his 1929 book on Kant.

And in the whole book, he anticipates what he would later say, namely that time is only a stand in for alethia, incorrectly translated as truth.

So its an important text, it underlies a certain shift that’s taking place in the profession these days, I would call it a paradigm shift that’s settling in among the younger scholars, among the best graduate students as well among some of us oldies, the paradigm shift consisting-in and its clear from part two of this book that Heidegger interprets Being as meaning bedoitzonkite – so meaning, significance etc, is what he means by being; which is no surprise because being is always the meaningful presence of something to one, in the practical or theoretical order. So, the emphasis on being as meaning is I think crucial to the text.

Robert Harrison (8:35): When he takes on psychologism, I presume he’s taking-up Husserl’s own polemic against psycholgism, and the critique of psychologism in Heidegger’s phenomenology was crucial …how do you understand Heidegger’s relation to Husserlian phenomenology in Being and Time now?

Thomas Sheehan:  Yeah, that’s a big and very important topic. And I think that part of the shift of emphasis these days has been the rediscovery of phenomenology as the very basis of Heidegger’s work, Being and Time and all the rest. He said, in 1969 shortly before he died, that his work was phenomenological through and through – both phenomenological and hermeneutic; so perhaps we have to say something about both of those.

In the early 70’s, about five years before he died, I had the opportunity to meet with Heidegger in his home in Frieberg for a long conversation one afternoon in April of 1971. And, the topic that we mostly discussed, we discussed was phenomenology and Aristotle; phenomenology, comma, and Aristotle, two separate topics, but it was phenomenology that he put his emphasis on; and he made it utterly clear to me, I was just a young PhD at the time, that there is no understanding Heidegger without understanding phenomenology.

..and he walked me through some of the sections of (Husserl’s) The Logical Investigation and central and categorical intuition. ..Husserl’s main opus, the first volume of which was Husserl’s critique of psychologism as you mention, and he emphasized that phenomenology is not about things out there, stuff that is, phenomenology is about the meaning of things, in our world of use and practical orientation, the significance of things. It’s precisely meaning that changes things out there to phenomenon ..say things that meaningfully appear to us and that we can engage with. So, as he made clear to me, phenomenology is exclusively about meaning, sense, significance.. and “presence-to-you” in a meaningful way. So he was never about things out there now as they are real and so on, he was always about their interface, their correlation with human being. And human being’s correlation with meaning. So, phenomenology is the search for the last word on meaning.

But Heidegger, as you know, always uses the word “being”, except in his later years, he sort of came out and said, and I quote: “I no longer use the word being gladly, I no longer like to use the word being” would be the way to translate it; he said in his later writings that being was only a preliminary word. He said that basically, “being” was to be surpassed to the phenomenological correlation which he called [German word, phonetically: eraigniz] in his own interpretation …. so I would say that being is just another way of saying meaning.

Robert Harrison (12:04): Can I take issue with that? The heavy emphasis that you put on the word meaning ..by privileging that one word, you gave a number of other possible words, interface, correlation and you said the way things appear to you…the sense that they have. When we use the word meaning there are connotations to that, that there’s something humanly dependent on meaningfulness and that the meaningfulness can reach an order of having a larger meaning to life, for example. Why not just stick, for the moment, when we’re talking about phenomenology, with the fact that things appear to us, in ways that are accessible. That can be in the realm of visibility, it can be in the realm of intelligibility, it can be in the realm of practicality, practical use, any number of modes; and I think that the word meaning doesn’t encompass the full array of possibilities of how things are given over to us as phenomenon.

Thomas Sheehan: Well, except that Heidegger insisted in Being and Time on the word [Geman word, phonetically: bedoitzonkite] which means “meaningfulness.” The first name for being in Heidegger’s work is “world” – the meaning giving context, as he calls it. So, he did not shy-away from discussing being in terms of meaning, presence-to, accessibility as you say, but he does use the word bedoitzonkite, bedoitund all through his analysis of “world”, in Being and Time.  …and he makes it clear that the central, how shall we say, determination of human being, dasein, is being in the world, being in meaning in bedoitzonkite.

Robert Harrison: Is “world” reduce-able to the word “meaning”?

Thomas Sheehan: Yes, I mean he actually defines world as, the structure of world as bedoitzonkite, what goes on inside of world is bedoitund.

As he says, when things are discovered along with human being, that is to say when they’ve been understood, we say they have meaning.

So, really what he’s saying is that the human being is a hermeneut – that’s not an add-on to some sort of plain old existence. Our existence is the obligation, the need the thrownness has given us into making sense of things …in fact, the first meaning of the word of Alethea is meaning, its not truth, as Heidegger points out; so if we’re embedded in hermeneutics and he is using the word bedoitzonkite, I think that we can actually retrieve from this plain old word being, we can retrieve the urgency that Heidegger feels are in your face – he says at on point in his first course after the war, the Great War, in February of 1919, he asks his students, what is it that you first encounter in your lived world? Is it things, is it objects, is it being? No, he says, its meaningful, that’s what’s in your face…all over the place, it’s coming at you. So, we don’t want to lose him to traditional ontology which just talks about the inner substance of things – no, we want to have him on this side of phenomenology as he himself insisted …and one way of constantly recognizing that is being in your face. Being is meaning.

Robert Harrison: Well, ok, we’re not going to resolve that only because of the connotations of the word meaning. It’s associated for me very much with Analytic philosophy, with its analysis of meaning making in propositions; and that the meaning-making activity is one that is very cerebral; it seems to be related back to subjectivity. The great excitement of Being and Time was that it was such a sort of existentialist, sort of treatise; and he didn’t call it “being and meaning”, he called it Being and Time.

And time is something which, would you agree to be the kind of ground of meaning, as you’re referring to it; and if so, there’s a way in which being temporal includes all sorts of things that don’t enter into the usual connotation of the word meaning – namely thrownness into the world and being ahead of one’s self and self transcendence; and being unto death and all these great existential categories that seem to take us away from this otherwise cerebral activity of making sense of everything.

Thomas Sheehan: Maybe we should start by asking why he even called his main work Being and Time. And that’s where the 1925-26 course, Logic the Theory of Truth comes in, because the whole last third of it is an analysis of the schematism, is an effort to give a statement on what he means by “time”.

And it’s clear, throughout Heidegger’s work, that the source of his meditations on temporality are not Aristotle, it’s not the time of the cosmos, its not the spread of moments across a certain arc; rather, his focus in understanding time is Augustin and Plotinus. In other words, time is a characteristic of human existence.

So, it takes it out of the cosmos and puts it into the realm of human existence. Time occurs only with the human being, Aristotle, Augustin and Plotinus would agree to that.

And time, he says, he says this in 1949, he says this in the Logic book that I translated, time is only a preliminary way of saying alethia – openness; unclosedness; disclosure; which is something that is the primary determinant of human being. It’s the existential which determines human being, which is that we are constantly embedded in the meaning making process; which is not a subject’s sort of casting of meaning over things; it’s rather an interplay, a correlation between meaning and hu/man/s. So, his motto in Being and Time is, “without Being, no Dasein”, but what he’s really talking about is the interface of human being and meaning. Without Dasein, there is no place for meaning to occur.

This is clear throughout the text; that what time, temporality means, is being present to things not passively, just receiving them, but actively making sense of them. That’s not simply painting in a certain color. Because we are always already involved-with, familiar-with, engaged with meaning as such.

Robert Harrison (19:54): Being and Time is in two parts. In the first part there’s a distinction between Dasein in its inauthentic modes of being and then in the second division, the authentic mode of being of dasein. And I presume that meaning-making pertains to both modes [Thomas Sheehan: “sure”]. But lets um, if I can ask you the fundamental meaning of some terms that he uses in pat one especially; because he says that dasein, and there are three particular modes of dasein – facticity, existentiality and fallenness. ..can you briefly go through what these three determinations of dasein amount to? Starting with facticity.

Thomas Sheehan: Right. He gives different names to the triads. One would be thrownness; projectedness; and being meaningfully present-to. So what if we take facticity in the sense of one’s thrownness? As you and your audience knows, his way of denominating the determinations of human being; the a-priori determinations, is to call them existential characteristics, or existentials, just like that. And the most basic existential of them all is dasein’s “thrownness.” All the others derive from it; even dasein’s alethic function of making sense of things. So the basic existential characteristic is called thrownness (eventually it would called facticity); but thrownness into what? He says thownness into the world, the world of the bedoitzankeik, the world of making sense ….and what he means from the very first page of being and time is that you have to be yourself; the question becomes what is this self? This self is hermeutical; this self is intrinsically sense making, so, I have to be a hermeneuse; I have to make sense of things; is the first characteristic of human being.

Being yourself in that thrownness entails as first requirement, making sense ….you must be a hermeneut.

Thomas Harrison: So thrownness is being thrown into a world, without my having chosen to be in the world; and I’m thrown as also projected beyond myself, as that the dimension of existentiality? you are thrown in so far as you are thrown with a past, but also, you are out ahead of yourself and reaching out into a future [Sheehan: into a future, sure], and then you are also present among other people as well as things and you are kind of fallen-in; and among things in a way that you might be making sense of them but in a fallen mode by just using them instrumentally, ah. How does this projection relate to thrownness?

Robert Sheehan: Right. The human being is divided against itself, or is disjunctive in its relation to itself; it’s not all self contained, it’s not closed-in upon itself, like the Aristotelian god who thinks of nothing but itself; the self thinking thought as we sometimes translate it; so, what we’re thrown into rather is our openness. I sometimes like to put the two terms together, throwness and projection, facticity and existentiality, put them together as “thrown-openness” – openness referring to one’s alethic function of making sense of things; but openness really means the opposite of the Greek, closure, so it’s a sign of finitude; fragility of, the need to strive, into the future ect. and the disjunction that we are thrown into is that we cannot take things immediately, and understand what their meaning is; their significance, their being, if you want to use that term.  Rather we always have to take them in terms of something else; it’s a discursive, a step by step kind of knowledge, unlike the knowledge of god when god just opens his eyes (if you want to put it that way) and understands exactly what the thing is; no, we have to labor after the concept in Hegel’s sense; we have to work in order to put together this in terms of that; and the that is the dimension of meaning of a particular object.

So that disjunction at the core of human sense-making is what will eventually be called temporality, human openness as such.

But when we’re thrown into projectedness, we’re thrown into the need to reach ahead as it were and into the meaning of something in order to understand it for what it is.

Robert Harrison: Tom, can I ask about fallenness? Because we’ve been talking about dasein in its authentic mode, but Heidegger makes it clear time and again that for the most part dasein exists inauthentically. In a state of fallenness. What does he mean by that?

Thomas Sheehan: If I can take one step back because you refer to being with, other people, things, ourselves even. It’s always important to remember that the issue of being-with is not simply a physical coming up against, but rather a relationship of meaningfulness; in relation to things, to people, to myself, etc. Heidegger bifurcates being-with things meaningfully into two forms, into two modes, we might say – one is inauthentic and one is authentic; and the principle difference between that is whether or not one relates to things in terms of one’s full human nature; or if one instead treats other things and other people as just “out there”, to be kind of bumped-up against; that would be an inauthentic way, because one’s not reflecting upon or bringing to bear one’s whole human nature – finite, mortal, and all of that (actually, the Greek word authentikos means to be the one who commits the murder, believe it or not, the one who is responsible for the murder.).

So, to be responsible for one’s whole human nature, is to be authentic, that is to say to have accepted oneself; as thrown, as disjunctive, as finite, as going to die; so, inauthentic is all the opposite of that.

Robert Harrison: I used to be much more fascinated by the authenticity side of the two because I thought that’s where it all happened. Now I have to say that the analysis of inauthenticity interests me a lot more than his analysis of authenticity, because to begin with we are authentic only in privileged moments [Sheehan: right], we have these moments that break us out of the continuum, but for the most part, out home, where we live, where we are in Ithaca [the Odyssey] as it were, is in the inauthenic world. Now I said in my allegorical introduction, I said that if Odysseus is going to make himself at home in the world he’s going to have to estrange himself in the familiar; and he’s going to have to undertake this journey into the strange land and his oar will no longer be this instrument that he uses in an everyday functionality mode, but it becomes a marker for his own death and mortality, so its a thing of authenticity but after that he can go back to Ithaca. and actually make himself at home in a kind of world that is now not just the place that he’s from, but he’s taken full possession, he’s repossessed that world of his.

Thomas Sheehan (30:19): The experience of being estranged from oneself and the piercing through is called dread. He has a small section on it in Being and Time and a longer, more discursiveness treatment two years later in What is Metaphysics? Phenomenology, besides being bout meaning is always about first person experience. 

So it puts the burden on oneself. So he walks us through this phenomenological experience of having your whole world fall apart. The whole world, filled with its meaning for us, that we are familiar with, suddenly collapses. Then you realize that you are so much a hermeneut, a maker of sense, but so finitely a maker of sense.

It’s an anticipation of death, dread is, because there is an anticipation of making sense – and that is to be dead. So, in the experience of dread you move right to that frontier between nothingness, absurdity, your own death and making sense. And Heidegger says, the experience is not one that pulls you into your death and encourages you to commit suicide, to fall into nothingness. He actually says that the experience of dread of that thin line that separates you from nothingness throws you back into the sense making world, now with the awareness that there is no ground under your feet, that you are doing this alone, that’s what he also means by the call of consciousness, that I am dreadfully alone, in the midst of all this, do I have the courage to accept that in an act of decision or resolve? To accept that that’s what meaning is all of meaning is about, that I am bound into a correlation that will finally just disappear when I die.

Robert Harrison (33:38): Well again one could say that the risk one takes by emphasizing so heavily on the world meaning is that it creates a difficulty to understand this moment of awakening, through the experience of angst or dread, where I realize that all my meaning-making activity is fundamentally meaningless, or absurd in that meaninglessness is the ground for the possibility of meaning; and therefore being has to be more than meaning; it has to mean my being at that edge of my finititude, where everything slips into a kind of nothingness and I realize that I am the nullity of all my projects and meaning making is a highly circumscribed activity and it does not exhaust the potentiality of my being.

Thomas Sheehan: Well, I would disagree and I’m only trying to explain, not convince why some of us see this a different way; Heidegger says, in the 1925-26 course, that human beings are embedded in meaning, there is no exit from that, making sense of one’s life, that’s what it means by being, having to be ..it doesn’t mean just having to tick tock tick tock your way through life, it means actually to, is there any meaning in my life…and its true what you say that the real source of all meaning making is absurdity, its death, we’re constantly pushing back that moment, or its pushing us back into sense, and that’s our experience but that moment of dread, like the moment of conscience, the call of conscience, the moment of dread is experiencing yourself right at the point of death. I don’t like the phrase being toward death as if we’re going down a road, and someday the road will end. No, it’s about right here and now at your death and that death is the realm of absurdity, because there will be no more sense to your life, there will be no more life.

But I don’t see as you do, this hermeneutical side as an add-on to existence. It is rather the definition of existing. It’s what makes human beings different. A human being is the animal that has logos – possessed by logos which is making sense.

Robert Harrison: Can I ask…you’re bringing up angst, and the role that angst plays in authenticity; angst he describes as an emotion or a mood, and one of the original contributions, as I see it, of Being and Time, in the history of philosophy, is that Heidegger actually proposes what we might call a philosophy of moods, or he redeems, retrieves things like state of mind and mood and the emotional life, as legitimate grounds for philosophical sense making. So, that, uh, now, I can go along with you that moods are always meaningful, but there is something in the fact of moods, which seems to escape the ordinary understanding of meaning as something we can reduce to conceptualization; so, what do you make of Heidegger’s redemption of mood as a philosophical opening.

Thomas Sheehan: Right, both earlier and just now, you seem to look upon meaning as what you say what analytic philosophers deal with or as you put it now, meaning reduce-able to conceptuality, well that’s not exactly what Heidegger means by meaning; by meaning he means, making your way, being on a way, a path, where things open up and give you a world that you can live in; be familiar with, rather than anything like a conceptuality; he doesn’t mean that at all by meaning, because he’s not talking about it as we might say, in an ontic sense, of the mind that is generated by your brain as it were. No, for him it is a way of being, its a way of being on your way, opening up a territory of meaning.

But back to mood, mood is for him a [German word] which means a resonance; it’s like two tuning forks; you hit one the other will start to resonate with it; so it’s a famiarity with meaning where both of them are resonating, both are on the same terms, as it were; I would call that correlation between these two resonating somethings; I would call that what Heidegger calls [German word], its the correlation whereby man needs meaning, and can’t exist without it, that would be the first part of Being and Time; and the unpublished part being meaning needs man. Meaning appears only with Dasein in various configurations. So that this resonance between the two, he even uses a German word that says that, the word means to go back and forth, resonate back and forth – that’s the core of thrownness into meaning; that we cannot separate ourselves from that buzz as it were, which gives us our meaning, our being and makes meaning able to appear. If you consider if I may, with the question of being: I once asked a friend of mine, who was holding a position similar to yours; I asked him, “when meteorite hits, and we’re all dead, will there still be being?” And he answered, “Of course there will be, there will be the moon, the sky, the earth itself, we won’t be there but there will be things in existence.”

Robert Harrison: I would say “no” though.

Thomas Sheehan: I would say “no”, of ours we would say no. Because being is only in correlation with human being, so now we’ve moved entirely away from the tradition of being as being out there. Rather its the importance of this thing to me, what being is. I use the phrase, in your face, I can’t escape that relationality. And mood is the primary way in which we feel the significance of this.

When I raise a cup of water to my lips to drink some water, I don’t even have to conceptualize anything. I simply know how to do it. And that would be the primary insantiation of [German word], namely that I am in resonance with that world of meaning. So that’s what I’m thrown into, I’m thrown into a mood which is a relationship to a whole world of meaning giving relationships that surround me. And that’s going to be gone, will be no being when there is no dasein. There will be no meaning when there is no dasein.

Robert Harrison: In fact, Heidegger says in Being and Time that the laws of Newton were not true prior to Newton’s discovery of them. They did not in a certain sense have their being. It’s only in their uncovering that they come into play.

Do you think that Dasein’s temporal constitution that makes it always ahead of itself and gives it a certain anticipatory access to its own death which means more than demise but means a certain kind of nullity that is always operative in being and time…that this is what discloses for the first time the intelligible world that gives us access to things.

Thomas Sheehan: Yes, I do, I think you said that very well. And in Being and Time as you now, there’s a step by step as it were reduction to the basis of everything – so you have being in the world in the first part of being and time, that gets defined as concern for meaning; from being in the world to Care as it is sometimes translated, to temporality, ultimately as the meaning of Care and of being in the world. So that temporality, that anticipation of death is the core of meaning,it is the ultimate source of meaning one might say.

[Perhaps interaction is a better place to look for source].

[…]

The call of conscience says to you in Germnan [word] – it’s usually translated as “guilty”, but another way of translating that word is “responsible for.” You’re responsible for your nothingness, you are in the driver’s seat when you confront this experience – what are you going to do with it? You can run from it, ignore it, you can say no, I’m not up for that, or you can embrace it, understand it and say, even if only momentary experiences as you point out, authentic experiences, when we lift our face out of the mud and realize what we are, even if only in renewable moments, that is the basis on which I am going to live my life. That would be the act of what he calls resolve. By anticipating one’s death, by understanding, one’s mortality, death is death, after which there is nada. But to anticipate it is to really feel, resonating with the mortality, the finitude of what you are. Now, Heidegger of course stops there. We won’t go into a discussion of how he learned to apply this or didn’t apply it in his own decisions ect.

But at least he sets up that model for being and human being on the basis of which everything else can be built. That’s why he calls it a fundamental ontology. It would be the basis for an ethics or an aesthetics, or anything, after that.

Robert Harrison: So we have a cluster of terms, angst, the call of conscience and guilt and they are all intimately interrelated; angst is something that has an awakening, it awakens me to the fact that there’s not a stable foundation, there’s not a positive foundation to existence; if I heed the call of conscience, its whence is also the wither, Heidegger says. It’s coming to me from where I will be going; mainly this finitude that I am; and it awakens me also to my guilt, in the German sense of debt, not just sinfulness. The sense that I owe something, I have an obligation; and do you believe that dasein can ever discharge that debt? or is the most we can do when we resolve authentically who we are that we can just acknowledge that this is a debt that is undischargable in full awareness?

Thomas Sheehan: Right, and I would say a responsibility that even when you choose not to notice, and not to live with, is nonetheless, your responsibility. To choose to not be responsible is to still be responsible, to still be in debt, as you put it.

Robert Harrison: and Tom, can I ask just a follow-up question, because the interesting thing there in Being and Time is after he’s talked about anticipatory resolve, he goes away from the individualistic emphasis of dasein and he starts speaking about how dasein is also an heir to a tradition; and that through the moment of authenticity you can authentically retrieve possibilities in your heritage and renew them or recast them, re-appropriate them in an authentic mode; and then you become not just a temporal being, but you become an authentically historical agent. And you belong not only to yourself, but now you belong also to your tribe, your community, your nation, your species and so forth.

That is a very important move, I think, toward the end of Being and Time. That perhaps could have been further developed but was not.

Thomas Sheehan: Right, some of course would accuse him of developing it in a nefarious direction; saying that the community is Germany and all of that; the way that that retrieval takes place that you’re describing, where one goes into one’s corporate past, one’s individual past, it all depends on what you’re retrieving, and brings it into something explosive, useful, uh, futural, is by, as he says, passing it under the eyes of death – a dramatic phrase; going into the teeth of death, another way that he says it. In other words, take all of those possibilities that are yours upon your shoulders and choose among them, which you want to live with in the light of your mortality; passing it under the eyes of death as it were.

[we can now see this reification of meaning coming singularly from the angst of one’s individual death can lead to a superficial existence]

…and there’s lots of things in our past that we would prefer to just let go, and rightly so. But, if we’re able to take possibilities and renew them in a finite, mortal way, that would give one a sense of one’s historicness, one’s connection with a past and one’s ability to renew that in a future that is a mortal, finite future.

Robert Harrison (48:37): But you would agree that there are no ethical prescriptions possible, even when one embraces resolutely your own mortality, it does not provide standards, for making choices that are right rather than wrong; which is troubling to a lot of moral philosophers, when they look to Heidegger and say, well, on the one hand he’s suggesting that there is a way of making authentic decisions, in an authentic mode, but he will not tell us what kinds of things would be right and wrong to choose. It’s up to you to choose.

Thomas Sheehan: Right. I think that, uh, that failure to provide any kind of standards, that would, as it were, channel the passionate authenticity that he calls one to; he, in section 74, where he says, “give up shirking your duty, give up being lazy”, you know, he has three or four categories there, but the fact that he couldn’t work out some sort of ethics, even at a meta-level, is probably the fault of the ..the weakness of his philosophy, insofar as it cannot take the next step, it cannot even begin to take the next step and it put up no bulwark for him, himself, in is choices in the future. So, I do think that really with Heidegger that you do need a complement, some people would say a Levinosian complement, but I would look to more ah, Enlightenment complements to that, a sense of equality of people and so on rather.

Robert Harrison (50:14): But do you believe like some people believe that if a philosopher can make the kinds of mistakes that Heidegger made after writing Being and Time that that goes a long way in neutralizing the validity of the philosophy itself? I mean its really quite astonishing that someone who could author Being and Time, one of the greatest philosophers of the twentieth century, one of the greatest philosophers in the western tradition, would have such a colossal failure of judgment; when it came to historical events as he was embroiled.

[I actually do not find this so singularly surprising; we have experience of people who compartmentalize their operations of thought and concern, neglecting some terribly at times.]

Thomas Sheehan (50:53): Right. I remember the first day I arrived in Friebourg, in an attempt to visit with Heidegger, I had to wait for another year, I had a letter of introduction but he was ill. I met a former professor of mine who lived in Friebourg and he said to me, I will have nothing to do with someone who has been a Nazi. I figured wow, that is the first time I’ve been confronted with that, because the American story put forth by Hannah Arendt was just a passing mistake, a kind of adventure on his part. It is utterly astonishing to me that he could write such a brilliant text, calling one to responsibility, and then find himself not only in the political order, but as we now know through the letters to his wife, in his own personal life to be a man who was entirely irresponsible vis a vis other people. Not to mention his sense of German nationalism and what that led to. On the other hand we do have this text that was written prior to his work, we have plenty of texts written after his sympathy for Nazism waned in the later 30’s. But we do, as Emmanuel Faye has pointed out in his very flawed book, “Heidegger: The Introduction of Nazism Into Philosophy,” ..a very flawed text, we do have, he has discovered texts that show Heidegger to have basically been a minion, sort of the useful idiot of Hitler and Nazism and its just absolutely shocking. And he even later tried to locate it – in 1936 he says my whole notion of historicity is what led me in this direction. Well, Herbert Marcuse read Being and Time and said, “on the contrary, it leads in the direction of sociality, and a community of authentic human beings.” 

So, the doctors are divided but we still have the paradox of a brilliant set of texts and a flawed man.

Robert Harrison: Do you think a lot of his subsequent thinking, his so-called later thinking, is a re-thinking of the role that responsibility plays and what philosophy’s role is in assuming responsibility – for example, The Letter on Humanism, which he writes right after the war, it’s all about the relationship between thought and action; and he’s making very clear there that he thinks that thought is responsible to itself only as a form of thinking, not as something that can translate into action as we understand it politically and socially; and there we get a very different sort of – not a contrite Heidegger per se, but a chastened one, who now has despaired of philosophy’s relevance to the larger world.

Thomas Sheehan (53:38): I find his repentance if we can even call it that, because he was very chary about putting forth any apologies at all, but in his private correspondence with Jaspers, for example, he points out that he was utterly devastated by his own guilt of this thing, he was so ashamed, as he puts it. But, I must say that in the later writings, I don’t find him coming to grips with his Nazi period at all; rather he comes to grips, and meaningfully so, with something like the spread of fallenness throughout civilization and culture in the form of technology and so on. But personally, I don’t feel that he ever stepped-up and took responsibility for the thirties.

Robert Harrison: Yeah, well, I agree with that and at the same time the twentieth century did tell us something about philosophy’s fecklessness, even when it becomes ethical philosophy or prescriptive philosophy, this fecklessness to really intervene in a decisive way into the course of history; and perhaps there is something there about Heidegger’s realization that thinking has to take care of itself and hope that in mysterious ways the relationship between thinking and action will work itself out, in ways that we cannot even suspect being operative, but its not going to be an immediate sort of connection.

Thomas Sheehan: Going back to phenomenology, there is the failure of phenomenology in Heidegger I would think – phenomenology is about first person experience, taking things concretely, and Heidegger got more and more abstract; as he moved back into the Greeks, etc. and favored writing about poetry – it was sort of like uh, retreat from not the abstract, but the concreteness that phenomenology wants to be about.

Robert Harrison: Yeah, that’s why I like to go back to the early stuff and the phenomenology.

Thomas Sheehan: Yeah, that’s really alive there, as Hannah Arendt says, that thought came alive again.

Robert Harrison: Passionate thinking indeed.

Experiments in integrating and advancing upon Heidegger with pragmatism and social hermeneutics:

As I said, the discussion was clear, thorough and honest enough to lay bare Sheehan’s errors, Harrison’s errors (which seem to be lesser) and even Heidegger’s.

Both Sheehan and Harrison agree with the “it doesn’t make a noise” doesn’t have being for us, anyway, regarding whether a falling tree in the woods makes a noise if there is nobody there to hear it. Presumably Heidegger thought similarly.

This may be sheer practicality, but I agree, but I believe it is a philosophical decision which is highly practical, as it places humans at the center of the relative, social perspective – our use and well being because if we’re not there, or who cares?

A inference that they do not make, however, is that this is is a social perspective; we care about some people more than others; and some we don’t like at all – who cares if they hear the tree falling.

All three seem to be locked into the phenomenologial perspective of Husserl, (he was a ((())), don’t know if that matters much, but…) in a failure of the phenomenological perspective, its first person experience and concreteness indeed – reification of the individual’s anxiety in confrontation of death, that finitude as the sole source of meaning, of being, dasein (whatever is supposed to make us distinctly human); as opposed to its source being, I might propose, in interaction in the ongoing social classification and its hermeneutic…

Now Harrison begins to invoke attention to Heidegger’s somewhat modest attention to responsibility to our people, history and future..

..while Sheehan is appalling in his putting aside of this concern. It goes to show just how superficial, not deep at all, a philosophy based on the idea that anxiety about one’s own individual death is the source of being. I can see superficiality and lack of empathy ranging through all manner of sociopaths in this philosophy, from cleptocrats, to those who destroy our environment, to those who destroy our genome, the assertions of many a self righteous mudshark in this philosophy; and, at the same time, a pandering to self righteous assertions on the part of this philosophy.

Nevertheless, he has something very right where he says that “hermeneutics is not a mere add-on” …. indeed it is our first obligation as beings, to begin, at least, to make sense. As he says…

  …when things are discovered along with human being, that is to say when they’ve been understood, we say they have meaning.

So, really what he’s saying is that the human being is a hermeneut – that’s not an add-on to some sort of plain old existence. Our existence is the obligation, the need the thrownness into making sense of things …in fact, the first meaning of the word of Alethea is meaning, its not truth, as Heidegger points out; so if we’re embedded in hermeneutics and he is using the word [German word], I think that we can actually retrieve from this plain old word being, we can retrieve the urgency that Heidegger feels are in your face – he says at on point in his first course after the war, the Great War, in February of 1919, he asks his students, what is it that you first encounter in your lived world? Is it things, is it objects, is it being? No, he says, its meaningful, that’s what’s in your face…all over the place, it’s coming at you. So, we don’t want to lose him to traditional ontology which just talks about the inner substance of things – no, we want to have him on this side of phenomenology as he himself insisted …and one way of constantly recognizing that is being in your face.

I don’t care to exaggerate meaning if Sheehan is exaggerating Heidegger’s meaning (he claims that when he talked to Heidegger that Heidegger assured him that was correct- he was a “phenomenologist to the end.” … but I am definitely prepared to believe that a hermeneutic feature is one among other features that is integral to our human being, and that it feeds rather, not only, or even primarily off-of our ownmost death, but through interaction and the history of our peoples; more, its authenticity is confronted, I agree, immediately in the practical world – it is in our face – what is in our face is anti racism and that is what we need to make sense of:

Anti-racism is Cartesian, it is predjudice, it is not innocent, it is hurting and it is killing people.

I have begun to discuss how pragmatic participation of the ethnonationalist community and hermeneutics lived in their interests can begin to solve our problems…

Hermeneutics has wonderful possibilities to manage rigor and imagination, in ready connection to emergence and in confrontation with fallenness and facticity, to make sense of it, on the one hand; and on the other hand to liberate one from mere facticity, to neither get stuck in the absent mindedness of the arbitrary or to be stuck in reification, such as in the anxiety of our individual death; but to connect with the significance of our history and the systemic human ecology of our people; its dramatic journeys, ensconced in the general sense of security of our emergence already accomplished and its increasing bliss.

Comments:


1

 Posted by Pragmatics of Coherence and Truth on Wed, 12 Jul 2017 05:02 | #

Hasok Chang gives a lecture on Coherence and Truth. This is his second talk in a series titled Pragmatist Realism: Philosophy, History and Science at The University of Tartu.


2

 Posted by Ordinary Languge Philosophy on Wed, 12 Jul 2017 07:42 | #

Ordinary Language Philosophy

Posted on Youtube 11 June 2017:

Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss Ordinary Language Philosophy, a school of thought which emerged in Oxford in the years following World War II. With its roots in the work of Ludwig Wittgenstein, Ordinary Language Philosophy is concerned with the meanings of words as used in everyday speech. Its adherents believed that many philosophical problems were created by the misuse of words, and that if such ‘ordinary language’ were correctly analysed, such problems would disappear. Philosophers associated with the school include some of the most distinguished British thinkers of the twentieth century, such as Gilbert Ryle and J.L. Austin.

The guests are Stephen Mulhall (Professor of Philosophy at New College, Oxford), Ray Monk (Professor of Philosophy at the University of Southampton), and Julia Tanney (Reader in Philosophy of Mind at the University of Kent). The producer was Thomas Morris.

This is an episode of BBC Radio 4’s program In Our Time: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qykl


3

 Posted by Epicureanism on Wed, 12 Jul 2017 12:16 | #

Epicureanism

20 Jan 2017

Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss Epicureanism in this BBC episode of In Our Time. Epicureanism is the system of philosophy based on the teachings of Epicurus and founded in Athens in the fourth century BC. Epicurus outlined a comprehensive philosophical system based on the idea that everything in the Universe is constructed from two phenomena: atoms and void. At the centre of his philosophy is the idea that the goal of human life is pleasure, by which he meant not luxury but the avoidance of pain. His followers cast off fear of death, and were suspicious of religious superstition, marriage and politics, but placed great emphasis on friendship. Epicureanism became influential in the Roman world, particularly through Lucretius’s great poem De Rerum Natura, which was rediscovered and widely admired in the Renaissance.

The guests include Angie Hobbs, David Sedley and James Warren.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01qf083


4

 Posted by Parmenides on Wed, 12 Jul 2017 16:01 | #

Parmenides

“All that really exists, is being”


                  


5

 Posted by Heraclitus on Wed, 12 Jul 2017 17:24 | #

  Heraclitus

  


6

 Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 13 Jul 2017 01:55 | #

Is it not an arbitrary and inappropriate decision by Jaegwin Kim to select the Mind-Body Problem as a test model for emergentism?  It’s not remotely relevant.  There’s no intellectual justification that I can see beyond ignorance or laziness why the mind should be understood in the amorphous Cartesian sense, rather than as a pluralised action of certain regions of the brain.  Further, the will – such as it is (again, not Cartesian) – is likewise not at all an obstacle to the emergent explanation, as I hope I have already demonstrated via my multi-speed, tripartite model and my model of the transitory nature of consciousness.  In the matter of human decision we really cannot rely on Descartes to assess, say, Darwin.

To be clear …

Evolutionarily speaking, the cognitive action of the brain (ie, Mind) is not somehow standing alongside the organism causally, available for Cartesian comparison.  It is itself an emergent property, catalysed not from the organism as such but its relation to the world without, which is one of unknown and imminent but deadly threat as well as of life-sustaining opportunities.  The resultant evolutionary process has a specific energy and direction of travel determined by the survivalist event of catalysis, which itself already implies component relation – actually a functional relation.  So all this should be pretty obvious.  Function really does follow form, as the dreaded architect of postmoderism liked to put it.  But it also determines it!

If I missing something here I don’t know what it is.


7

 Posted by DanielS on Thu, 13 Jul 2017 03:18 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 13 Jul 2017 02:55 | #

Is it not an arbitrary and inappropriate decision by Jaegwin Kim to select the Mind-Body Problem as a test model for emergentism? It’s not remotely relevant.

My understanding is that one of the central concerns of emergentism is the rejection of this distinction – inasmuch as that is true, it’s a good thing from both of our perspectives – and how those grappling with emergentism deal with it would be relevant indeed; even where their efforts are mistaken.

Saying it is not remotely relevant reminds me of Bowery trying to say that John Locke’s notion of civil rights and the American Constitution are not relevant to the matter of dealing with race.

There’s no intellectual justification that I can see beyond ignorance or laziness why the mind should be understood in the amorphous Cartesian sense, rather than as a pluralised action of certain regions of the brain.

Perhaps “THE” mind is not understood in an amorphous, Cartesian sense with that focus provisionally. But actually, Cartesianism can apply on the empirical side as well.

Nobody should say that you should not propose these close readings; though it is valid to say that they may not be looked upon as the only location of “mind”, nor most helpful in locating “mindfulness” and its vital use.

If you want to examine brain function then you’d probably be on steadier ground if you talked in terms of brain function and neural activity as opposed to “THE” mind.

Further, the will – such as it is (again, not Cartesian) – is likewise not at all an obstacle to the emergent explanation, as I hope I have already demonstrated via my multi-speed, tripartite model and my model of the transitory nature of consciousness.  In the matter of human decision we really cannot rely on Descartes to assess, say, Darwin.

To be clear …

We can look at Descartes to assess where errors he made might be introduced and misapplied in Darwinian analysis – not only to humans, but of course centrally in our concern.

Evolutionarily speaking, the cognitive action of the brain (ie, Mind)

The brain is the “mind” ?

Evolutionarily speaking, the cognitive action of the brain (ie, Mind) is not somehow standing alongside the organism causally, available for Cartesian comparison.

With a historical, sequential perspective on what is called “mind” one can compare Cartesian models to newer efforts to map “the mind.”.

It is itself an emergent property, catalysed not from the organism as such but its relation to the world without, which is one of unknown and imminent but deadly threat as well as of life-sustaining opportunities.

It’s good that you are taking it into interaction and relationship.

The resultant evolutionary process has a specific energy and direction of travel determined by the survivalist event of catalysis, which itself already implies component relation – actually a functional relation.

Well ok, we can agree that in our basic, animal nature (which is) that there is a specific energy largely in the direction of survival… but then, when it comes to human being, we might ask whether it is in aversion to pain and misery? Injustice? A violation of our ancestors? “Nature rarely works within lethal variables.”  – it’s a great critique of Heidegger. For humans, some anyway, there can be fates worse than death.

So all this should be pretty obvious.

It may seem obvious to you. But be implored to remain faithful to a first principle of emergentism – which is anti-reductionism.

Function really does follow form, as the dreaded architect of postmoderism liked to put it.  But it also determines it!

I hope that you are going after post modern architecture, and that this is not another attempt to try to deny that the positive aspects of modernity are embraced; nor to diminish the negative significance of modernity and the need to move beyond it in a coherent, knowing way with post modernity proper.

If I missing something here I don’t know what it is.

You are missing a great deal where you might not move beyond efforts to try to show-up the academics, not let them have anything, criticizing and denying only (applying skepticism) and do not encourage, partake and cultivate what is of clear, important utility.

I put the Jaegwin Kim quote basically for your sake, to connect with concerns of emergentism, it is hardly a major point to the post.

I was reluctant to put that there, as I was to even talk about Heidegger. Lets move to a focus on what we can deploy in our interests rather than singularly in resentment toward them (academics and academically devised tools), their abuse and misapplications.


8

 Posted by DanielS on Thu, 13 Jul 2017 08:46 | #

Adding to post:

And again there is academia’s (particularly Gadamer’s/Derrida’s ) crucially abused (as Cartesian) notion of “marginality”  – where in “marginality” is taken to be those who are from without the classification and/or antagonistic to it, as opposed what would be the ethno-nationalist concept of marginality – i.e., those remaining just within the classification despite pressure, but well disposed to its reconstruction; and having the additional existential benefit of “knowing where the shoe pinches.”

“Those who are marginalized” in this sense, does not necessarily mean those who are falling behind, but can also mean those who are outstanding, though they would be ostracized as they are not understood and appreciated as being out in front; and well intending.

We would be bringing to bear correctiveness from the “rich and diverse perspectives of our ethnonational community.”

As such, marginals would contribute to a homeostatic function of the ethnonational system, against incursions and crass exclusion of sufficient basic function and of outlier advance.


…


Adding the (important bit about Augustinian/Manichean Devils):

This Abrahamic attack is well cast in terms of Manichean as opposed to Augustinian devils. Judaism and Islamics were coming from a place in evolution to compete more against other tribes for resource – thus, how to trick them (Manichaen devils) became a central skill.

Whereas for Northern Europeans in particular, but all Europeans, the issue of survival was more a competition against nature – thus a skill set more evolved to handle Augustinian, viz. natural devils, where human agency to avoid solution is not so central a concern.

By all evidence, Christianity is a Jewish trick, prescribing universalism and self destructive altruism to us, taking advantage of our evolved European nature in predilection to attend to Augustinian devils – as I have said, our predilection to attend to Augustinian devils is not necessarily bad, as we will ultimately be up against Augustinian devils to solve; however, we must not be naive simply because we’d rather not be bothered with the pettiness, the trivial mindednesss of Manicheans.

Anti-racism is Cartesian, it is prejudice, it is not innocent, it is hurting and it is killing people.


9

 Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 13 Jul 2017 22:30 | #

Emergentism, as an attempt to explain the life-process, has mushroomed into a substantial and varied discipline in its own right, with people devoting their entire intellectual life to particular interpretations of it.  I am not at all sure that it can all be falsified by saying it has to resolve Descartes’ dualism while, of course, using his own model.  That is very obviously a rigged test which misses the elephant in the corner of the emergentist room, which is really order.  Actually, I am amazed that this Korean guy can get away with formulating “the problem” in Cartesian terms and then telling the world that emergentism can’t solve it.  It’s reminiscent of the Intelligent Design advocates’ dismissal of evolutionary theory, whereby the answer they are going to arrive at is already there in the terms in which they propose the question, but only because the question skips over falsifiability.

In short, the flaw with the Mind-Body Problem is that its dualistic model is not actually a model of anything, and certainly not of the human mind.  It is just a presumption for a dichotomy which declares – surprise surprise – for dichotomy.

As regards what Mind actually is, well, it is the functioning of the human brain in its cognitive aspect (the brain also has a regulatory aspect as well as a reproductive aspect).  It can be modelled basically but quite straightforwardly just using its functional machinery.  The neurological detail is not required.  It is only necessary that the emerging model does not offend against that at any point, or it, too, ceases to have verity.  The model is, therefore, not neurological itself, nor is it psychological.  It is interpretative of the human experience and propositional and, therefore, essentially philosophical in character and in application to various philosophical issues, of which the human will is probably the one on which it most directly bears.

More generally, emergentism proves its relevance not because it resolves a false dichotomy but because it establishes the historical form of the life-process in all its manifestations, which necessarily include processes of change.  It acknowledges functional order, energy and direction where Descartes saw only stasis and division.  His dichotomy dissolves, and we are left with a new general rule.  The great questions for nationalists, as would-be change-agents, remain as they always were.  But now it becomes possible to trust in the inherent direction of process, if it is not made subject to shocks and diversions from without of the kind we have come to expect only too well.


10

 Posted by DanielS on Sat, 15 Jul 2017 14:01 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 13 Jul 2017 17:30 | #
Emergentism, as an attempt to explain the life-process,

 

If one is attempting to deal empathetically with emergentism, then the use of the article “the” here is problematic from the onset as one of emergentism’s central concerns is anti-reductionism.

has mushroomed into a substantial and varied discipline in its own right, with people devoting their entire intellectual life to particular interpretations of it.

Yeah.

I am not at all sure that it can all be falsified by saying it has to resolve Descartes’ dualism while, of course, using his own model.

Well, maybe Jaegwon Kim was trying to falsify all of emergentism by placing it within Descartes model, but obviously that’s not what I’m after.

That is very obviously a rigged test which misses the elephant in the corner of the room, which is really order.

Maybe Jaegwon Kim was trying to “rig the test”, but I was trying to present common grounds of concern for anti-Cartesianism and anti-reductionism as well as common concern for emergentism itself.

Speaking of traps, I was reluctant to go into tangential examples of emergentism and Heidegger, anticipating that despite my basic concern to connect to common ground, that given your autobiography in reacton to social academic concerns that you would rather take it as grounds to compete through particulars of those langauge games, and as such divert from the significance of the post.

Speaking of traps, I’m sorry that I fell into one by putting that example there, as you were liable to take it as pseudo occasion to try to trivialize the post and the central matter of Cartesianism and divert rather into a discussion of your mind stuff.

Actually, I am amazed that this Korean guy can get away with formulating “the problem” in Cartesian terms and then telling the world that emergentism can’t solve it.  It’s reminiscent of the Intelligent Design advocates’ dismissal of evolutionary theory, whereby the answer they are going to arrive at is already there in the terms in which they propose the question, but only because the question skips over falsifiability.

Well, maybe human life can be reduced to falsifiable propositions.

In short, the flaw with the Mind-Body Problem is that its dualistic model is not actually a model of anything, and certainly not of the human mind.  It is just a presumption for a dichotomy which declares – surprise surprise – for dichotomy.

“In short the”

You are oversimplifying the issue with Cartesianism by means of this example, I suspect because you want to minimize the post and its signficance as it threatens your mind project – a project stemming from your reacton and the opposite day game that you intransigently play as a restult, against (what you’ve known of) socially concerned academic input.

As regards what Mind actually is, well, it is the functioning of the human brain in its cognitive aspect (the brain also has a regulatory aspect as well as a reproductive aspect).

Well, that’s how you are defining “mind.”

It can be modelled basically but quite straightforwardly just using its functional machinery.

Really?

The neurological detail is not required.  It is only necessary that the emerging model does not offend against that at any point, or it, too, ceases to have verity.  The model is, therefore, not neurological itself, nor is it psychological.  It is interpretative of the human experience and propositional and, therefore, essentially philosophical in character and in application to various philosophical issues, of which the human will is probably the one on which it most directly bears.

Well, at least we are moving away from a preoccupation with psychology and into human experience and its philosophical, existential circumstance instead.

More generally, emergentism proves its relevance not because it resolves a false dichotomy but because it establishes the historical form of the life-process in all its manifestations, which necessarily include processes of change.  It acknowledges functional order, energy and direction where Descartes saw only stasis and division. His dichotomy dissolves, and we are left with a new general rule. The great questions for nationalists, as would-be change-agents, remain as they always were.  But now it becomes possible to trust in the inherent direction of process, if it is not made subject to shocks and diversions from without of the kind we have come to expect only too well.

Though we might do well to tell a story of perfection as such to gird our direction against the vicissitudes of fortune and outward antagonism…

We cannot presume that it is an eternally emergent direction to maintain the form of the nation; and that it will not be subject to shocks as a part of its inherent course; for example, shocks that may be caused by base female inclination to incite genetic competition, especially if you are talking on such a “naturalistic” level; nevertheless, with respect as mature ethnonational agents, emergentism can be kept on ethnonational course with sound biological and historical basis, through means of accountability and correctability to our interests as such.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.

 Posted by DanielS on Sun, 16 Jul 2017 16:08 | #

With anti-Cartesianism, we’re precluding the “that’s just the way it is” according to nature argument … a void of accountability that the YJKW and Right Wing contingent can mess with to no end—- a nature argument so fundamental to liberalism and so destructive to us.


12

 Posted by DanielS on Mon, 17 Jul 2017 08:12 | #

Actually, a better ant-Cartesian, anti-anti racist mantra would read:


“Anti-racism is anti-broad classification of peoples and against classification as such being used as criteria for discriminatory accountability. This prohibition of discriminatory classification is Cartesian, it is prejudice, it is not innocent, it is hurting and it is killing people.”

That’s a safer mantra because anti-anti-racism is less likely to be misunderstood as such, in a supremacist or other needlessly aggressive, exploitative, destructive senses.


13

 Posted by DanielS on Fri, 21 Jul 2017 07:12 | #

This paragraph wasn’t written as well as it should have been before. It is significantly improved now, as such:

In fact, participation in our fallibilistic correction can include contributions as deep, abiding and scientific as any – i.e., you can, in theory, question anything, even the most verified scientific law; though sane people, in vast percentage may consider you insane, dishonest, at best engaged in some speculative inquiry that will require you to compile verifiable information for you to bring to bear once you’ve completed your rather impractical inquiry; but the skeptic is not owed a privileged position of non-accountability for the initiation of inquiry over that which the community holds fast, that which shows no practical need to change for the rather impractical inquiry; this holds true for many requirements of ethnonationalism –

3) The great contribution of the pragmatists is to show that fallibilism and anti-skepticism are compatible:


14

 Posted by anti-anti-racist mantra on Sat, 29 Jul 2017 05:25 | #

This anti-Cartesian, anti-anti racist “mantra” should have been more clear. I’ve amended it here to read:

“Anti-racism is anti-broad classification of peoples and against classification as such being used as criteria for discriminatory accountability. This prohibition of discriminatory classification is Cartesian, it is prejudice, it is not innocent, it is hurting and it is killing people.”

That’s a safer mantra because anti-anti-racism is less likely to be misunderstood as such, in a supremacist or other needlessly aggressive, exploitative, destructive senses.


15

 Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 29 Jul 2017 09:51 | #

… emergentism can be kept on ethnonational course with sound biological and historical basis, through means of accountability and correctability to our interests as such.

Obviously, your normalising imperative is also emergent.  But that aside, please … just for once … try to understand that foundation and emergent process, in the terms I strive to address them, are really not “answers” to the standard WN analysis.  I do not think about activism, as you do.  I do not write about activism, as you do.  Activism is, obviously, totally necessary, but I am little concerned with it today.


16

 Posted by DanielS on Sat, 29 Jul 2017 14:41 | #

It is not a problem that you want to give closer readings. I have never objected to your focus on that; provided that you allow for the necessity of broader perspectives. The problem is that you have not, you’ve tried to trivialize, if not dismiss as utterly unimportant the projects that I am unfolding, which are, in fact, at least as important and usually more important.

I know that you are a very smart man. I have had patience for your philosophical retardation.

You try to trivialize what I say in this case by suggesting that it is mere “activism” whereas typically you try to say that it is mere “politics.” I don’t use these terms because that is not what I am doing, I am doing something more like philosophy..

You’ve wanted to act like you are up to something so much more important. You aren’t.

You have gone so far for the sake of your autobiography as to sweep aside crucial discussions and to virtually see our projects as mutually exclusive, even where I have been careful to call attention to the fact that they can and should be complementary.

Try for once to overcome your urge to contrarian polemic and to “one up” your “opponent” with straw men attributions like mere “politics” or in this case mere “activism”.


17

 Posted by DanielS on Sat, 29 Jul 2017 15:21 | #

In this thoughtful talk between Greg Johnson and C.B. Robertson, they discuss psychological states of mind such as “hate” and “spite.”

They consider the capacity to hate as corollary to the capacity to love. They observe that spite is highly problematic to one’s own interests, of course, because one is willing to hurt oneself simply to hurt the resented; more interestingly, spitefulness does not provide a sound social basis because one cannot depend upon the spiteful party to be a rational actor, to act in accordance to their own interests.

Now, one can attribute some sort of “foundation” to that – “thou shalt never be spiteful”, but it would be a socially constructed rule of thumb attributed as “foundational” nevertheless. Sure, as a rule, you want to observe a golden mean, where indignation would be reined-in, and not tend to veer over the line of righteousness into excess, into spite. However, it is context bound and calls for judgment. There will be cases where “spite” would be interpreted better as altruistic punishment and may be noble – where you are sacrificing your personal interests, yes, but for the principle and the group pattern, so that the infringement not be gotten away with.


18

 Posted by KM discusses group conceptualization on Thu, 03 Aug 2017 15:39 | #

Kevin MacDonald discusses his analysis of groups, conceptualization and behavior.


19

 Posted by leave it to Millennial Woes to keep it kosher on Sat, 05 Aug 2017 07:45 | #

In this video, Millennial Woes presents himself as a noble adversary of “The skeptic community”, adding of course, for his Jewish friends that he White Knights for, that the skeptics are really “Leftists” underneath.

Leave it to Millennial Woes to fuck things up in order to maintain his 15 minutes of Jewish sanctioned fame.

First of all, skepticism is an abstract philosophical position, there is no “community” of skeptics other than a Jewish group calling themselves that, which Millennial Woes plays patty-cake with, within the Jewish controlled discourse that he willingly participates in against, “the left.”

Skepticism would function against a social conception of patterns, therefore it would be a right wing inclination, not a left wing inclination.

Millennial Woes isn’t going to tell you that because he maintains a sense of where his kosher bread is buttered – “oh, (((The Truth Will Live)))” sob, it simply is not in her to mislead us.” LOL.


                  DanielS


20

 Posted by DanielS on Sat, 12 Aug 2017 12:37 | #

A question regarding the very fine rubric of “human bio-diversity” – how did a rubric which so finely lends itself to a framing of horizontally qualitative issues of ecological disbursement, qualitative differentiation and balance become associated instead with the quantifying and narcissistic criteria – i.e., non-differentiation other than that primarily based on vertical and supremacist notions –  of i.q.?

One would think i.q., would be minor subset in concern of human biodiversity….

I would not be surprised to find our “friends” the YKW beneath that convoluted twisting of a fine term and framework, if not, then our other “friends” i.e, the YKW’s best friends, the right wing complicit.


21

 Posted by Cybernetics re-tooled beyond mere pragmatism on Sat, 19 Aug 2017 06:52 | #

This is a comment by DanielS based on a chat with Per Nordin

Per Nordin: Hello friend

Per Nordin: How are you?

daniel sienkiewicz: Hello friend, I am ok and you?

Per Nordin: Good to hear. Yes im fine thank you.

Per Nordin: Whats going on?

daniel sienkiewicz: hmm, from my end, I’d say…

maintaining a course of matching our requirements as ethnonationalists under seige and pre ethno nationalists who are suffering and creating suffering for their lack of understanding that they need ethno nationalism—matching the requirements thereof with the most up-to-date and best possible theoretical/philosphical framework.

daniel sienkiewicz: Jewish interests have clouded those framworks, as I have been saying for a long time.

…taking the best ideas for social organization and defense and misrepresenting them so as to turn (White) people off and get them to react with counter productive ways and theories.

But I feel ok because I can see things pretty clearly at this point.

And I can see ways for us to go and to be successful.

As for Majorityrights, there will be more articles addressing significant matters coming up..

For the time being, I’m letting “pragmatism” set – – it needs to because its important.

Per Nordin: ah, very interesting

daniel sienkiewicz: it’s one of the things that’s been misrepresented.

daniel sienkiewicz: For example, all the stuff you hear about “enriching”  and “enrichment”

…that is a direct perversion of pragmatist philosophy

Per Nordin: I’m interested in hearing your solutions and how we go forward for the struggle in a successful way.

daniel sienkiewicz: One of the things that needs to be done..

well, this, what I am about to say isn’t a full explanation

Per Nordin: please explain

ok I see

daniel sienkiewicz: but it is one project that will contribute significantly

Per Nordin: let me now, I want to read it …great.

daniel sienkiewicz: ok, well, cybernetics as you know is the study of self corrective (homeostatic) systems.

If we are treating race properly, as something to be maintained and defended, then we ought to look at it as a homeostatic system among systems

….maybe not all the time, but often enough look at it that way.

Per Nordin: Of course Always defend our race.

daniel sienkiewicz: systems have corrective components   …correction is one part of defense – – if there is a weak point in defense an adequate system will correct it and as it improves as a system, it will do so more so, and almost automatically.

Now. There is a big tranisitin that has not been made between antiquated philosophy….

Many of the right wingers are stuck in scientism and have not adjusted to the hermeneutic turn.

They don’t understand that heremeneutics is not anti-science, it just complements science for the limitations of science in coping with things like intenationality, agency, imagination and overview, systemic and historical.

The bottom line for this “lesson” wink for today

It may be over-stating the case to say that “cybernetics” is the greatest bite out of the fruit from the tree of knowledge for the past few thousand years…but it is not very far off… if it is treated as and within frameworks of race and nation for example.

However, the task becomes …well, it was said with that, that “cybernetics ought not be sacrificed on the alter of pragmatism.”

But this is to misundersand pragmatism (as a philosphy) just as it is to misunderstand hermeneutics.

It is eminently practical to idealize and sacralize even, parts of our systems which are necessary to maintian homeostasis – cybernetic self correction.

…and to use heremeneuics so that we, our systems, are not paralized in scientist rigiidy and lack of inpiring vison, historical perspective, future aspiration..  or bound to headlong destruction because “that’s just the way nature is.”

In a word, cybernetics would not be sacrificed on the alter of pragmatism..  it needs to be integrated with it to be effective and in fact, descriptive of the human condition.

  ..a bit ironic, since those with a scientistic bent are all about description.

…they usually blow it because humans are not quite behaving like billiard balls enough to satisfy their scientific predilection and scientistic susceptibility.

So that’s one thing that has to be done: Cybernetic concern needs to be merged with pragmatism, heremeneutics and social constructionism.

End Chat with Per.

____________________________________________________________________


Sacrament and idealization of monogamy are a self corrective element

Anyone sympathetic to our position, i.e., appalled by the epistemic destruction of our people, the trauma, not simply a nauseating effect, of being thrown into the thrownness, the arbitrary, is disgusted by the word pragamtism, by being told to just move=on with your life, to merely ask “how to?” questions in that context, the context wherein everything valuable to us is destroyed, and we are tortured in the most matter of fact way, everyone is carrying on as if, “of course, what’s the problem?”  …anyone who experiences the horror of this thrownness and an opposite sense of coherence derived from it understands and is sympathetic to Bateson in his conclusion to Steps to an Ecology of Mind when he says these idea of cybernetics is the greatest bite out of the tree of knowledge in 2000 years ought not be sacrificed on the alter of pragmatism…

From the final page of “Steps to an Ecology of Mind” – Gregory Bateson, 1972:

P. 468: A certain humility becomes appropriate, tempered by the dignity or joy of being part of something much bigger. A part— if you will—of God.

[…]

P. 469: If I am right, the whole of our thinking about what we are and what other people are has got to be restructured. This is not funny, and I do not know how long we have to do it in. If we continue to operate on the premises that were fashionable in the precybernetic era, and which were especially underlined and strengthened during the Indus-trial Revolution, which seemed to validate the Darwinian unit of survival, we may have twenty or thirty years before the logical reductio ad absurdum of our old positions destroys us. Nobody knows how long we have, under the present system, before some disaster strikes us, more serious than the destruction of any group of nations. The most important task today is, perhaps, to learn to think in the new way. Let me say that I don’t know how to think that way. Intellectually, I can stand here and I can give you a reasoned exposition of this matter; but if I am cutting down a tree, I still think “Gregory Bateson” is cutting down the tree. I am cutting down the tree. “Myself” is to me still an excessively concrete object, different from the rest of what I have been calling “mind.”

The step to realizing – to making habitual – the other way of thinking – so that one naturally thinks that way when one reaches out for a glass of water or cuts down a tree – that step is not an easy one.

And, quite seriously, I suggest to you that we should trust no policy decisions which emanate from persons who do not yet have that habit.

[…]

P. 487: “I think that cybernetics is the biggest bite out of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge that mankind has taken in the last 2000 years. But most such bites out of the apple have proven to be rather indigestible – usually for cybernetic reasons.”

Cybernetics has integrity within itself, to help us to not be seduced by it into more lunacy, but we cannot trust it to keep us from sin.

[…]

P. 504-5:

The hardest saying in the Bible is that of St. Paul, addressing the Galatians: “God is not mocked,” and this saying applies to the relationship between man and his ecology. It is of no use to plead that a particular sin of pollution or exploitation was only a little one or that it was unintentional or that it was committed with the best intentions. Or that “If I didn’t, somebody else would have.” The processes of ecology are not mocked.

  On the other hand, surely the mountain lion when he kills the deer is not acting to protect the grass from overgrazing.

  In fact, the problem of how to transmit our ecological reasoning to those whom we wish to influence in what seems to us to be an ecologically “good” direction is itself an ecological problem. We are not outside the ecology for which we plan—we are always and inevitably a part of it.

  Herein lies the charm and the terror of ecology—that the ideas of this science are irreversibly becoming a part of our own ecosocial system.

  We live then in a world different from that of the mountain lion—he is neither bothered nor blessed by having ideas about ecology. We are.

  I believe that these ideas are not evil and that our greatest (ecological) need is the propagation of these ideas as they develop—and as they are developed by the (ecological) process of their propagation.

  If this estimate is correct, then the ecological ideas implicit in our plans are more important than the plans them-selves, and it would be foolish to sacrifice these ideas on the altar of pragmatism. It will not in the long run pay to “sell” the plans by superficial ad hominem arguments which will conceal or contradict the deeper insight.

Of course Pragmatism, at its best, would say in regard to the general parameters of our human ecology, our system and those components necessary for its homeostasis, that it is practical to cast them as ideals, conforming to description of systemic homeostasis as best as possible, descriptions and ideals not to be subject to mere pragmatism, mere skepticism, but fitted with the advanced intelligence and agency of hermeneutics and social constuctionism in order to facilitate the praxis of that homeostasis.

Thus, cybernetics would not be “sacrificed” on the alter of pragmatism, but would become retooled into a philosophy advanced beyond mere pragmatism.


22

 Posted by Hegel & Modern Philosophy on Tue, 29 Aug 2017 14:06 | #

Hegel & Modern Philosophy – Adrian Johnston


23

 Posted by Kant’s Epistemology on Wed, 30 Aug 2017 01:41 | #

Kant’s Epistemology

 Posted by Heidegger’s Existentialism – Self & Authenticity on Tue, 05 Sep 2017 08:57 | #

        

Inasmuch as this assessment is accurate of Heidegger’s philosophy, anyone should be able to see that it is an emphasis on self as opposed to group that we do not need: in fact, it is an emphasis that has left us susceptible to “anti-racism.”

A race is a group concept, and it is as a group that we are being attacked. The group is sociology’s unit of analysis – nothing wrong with that and only Jewish interests would try to discourage it, or those right wingers in reaction, perhaps stuck in an exaggerated reactionary fear of WWII and cold war era fear of collectivism.

But it is the egocentric selfishness, a kind of pop Heideggerism, of the boomers that has left us susceptible as a people.

Psychology takes the individual as the unit of analysis – and an individual is never apart from interaction and the social world. Never.


25

 Posted by Heidegger and Technology on Wed, 13 Sep 2017 03:12 | #


26

 Posted by Paul Tillich on Wed, 13 Sep 2017 06:04 | #

Inasmuch as the above assessment is accurate of Heidegger’s philosophy (the discussion clip in comment 24), anyone should be able to see that it is an emphasis on self as opposed to group that we do not need: in fact, it is an emphasis that has left us susceptible to “anti-racism.”

A race is a group concept, and it is as a group that we are being attacked. The group is sociology’s unit of analysis – nothing wrong with that and only Jewish interests would try to discourage it, or those right wingers in reaction to the misuse of sociology against us, perhaps stuck in an exaggerated reactionary fear of WWII and cold war era collectivism.

But it is the egocentric selfishness, a kind of pop Heideggerism, of the boomers that has left us susceptible as a people.

Psychology takes the individual as the unit of analysis – and an individual is never apart from interaction and the social world. Never. The terrible irony of it with that fact ignored:

The Existentialist protest against dehumanization and objectivation, together with its courage to be as oneself, have turned into the most elaborate and oppressive forms of collectivism that have appeared in history.

                              –  Tillich, The Courage to Be.

 


27

 Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 13 Sep 2017 19:00 | #

Daniel, you make the assumption – a highly liberalistic, characteristically American assumption – that “the individual” and “the group” are even real entities, much less parts of my thinking.  Turn that individual-group dynamic around a bit and you get the trope that the individual is reliant upon separation from the group for its existence.  Hence the psychological violence and, inevitably also, the atomisation of the self-authored will.  In turn and for the same existential purposes, “the group” – whatever confection that may be – must capture and constrain the individual to preserve its structure and coherence.  Hence the stultifying, crushing nature of 20th century Soviet “collectivism”.  As with your passionate desire to stick, in your political rhetoric, with liberalism’s model of left and right, so you remain locked into this thinking.

To be clear, “the individual” and “the group” are really just word-blanks on which one will inevitably project meanings.  The manifold forms of nationalism do not project the meanings of liberalism on to them; and especially do not project this strange reciprocal conflict.  The model of Man appropriate to ethnic nationalism is only individual in scale.  It is not a model of an individual.  Likewise, in nationalism “the group” is not a crusher and absorber of identity.  It is the folk, and the source of identity, just as it is the source of life.  The relation of each of us to our people is our relation to the source from which flows our nature, our truth or identity or essence, and our sense of belonging which attends that truth.  That is Man, emergent from Time and Place.

For us products of the liberal thought-world, there is a whole landscape here of a self which is not at all the mechanical and egocentric product of Time and Place which went before.  If one goes far enough with it (and the philosopher must), that product detaches and falls away.  Its one-time familiarities become mere objects with no appropriative power.  Here instead is an emerging and abiding personal verity.  It affirms and appropriates.  It is singular and complete.  Because its essence is openness, it is not separated from or conflicted with the world.  It stands in it nature to nature, epistemologically and ontologically, finding a freedom-in-being , and quite naturally, as if by osmosis, finding home or source.

This is the truth of each and every one of us, not some impossibly pretentious supposition or some wild Cartesian error.  This what re-finds and re-founds.  It is what, in their own unknowing way, everyone who approaches the existential and the folkish through Heiddeger travels towards.  They may not have the whole understanding of the fact.  They may think it is just about becoming “authentic”, as if the received personality of Time and Place can do that.  But the model of conscious becoming is real enough.  In as much as we may turn to it attentively, all of us – because all circumstance which is abroad in the new thought-word tends to it – will live the better as men and folk.  For this is being in kind, where we do not author folkiness.  We do not have it prescribed for us.  We live and express freely in the way that we can.

That would be enough for us to take hold of our life and our circumstance.  That would be everything.

The intellectual challenge, as men and women awakened to it, is to reconcile such experience in the consciousness with the practical and political … with the world of the everyday self.


28

 Posted by DanielS on Wed, 13 Sep 2017 21:04 | #

GW, I am not a liberal and make no liberal assumptions. That is a convenient projection of your part to fit your autobiography and what you perceive as a necessary foil. I will address the matter later, am tired at the moment.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 13 Sep 2017 21:14 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 13 Sep 2017 14:00 | #

Daniel, you make the assumption – a highly liberalistic, characteristically American assumption – that “the individual” and “the group” are even real entities, much less parts of my thinking.

You pretend that you are thinking when you deny conceptualization, when in fact, you are doing just the opposite.

Locke could not have said it more sincerely that “group” is not real, and you prove every suspicion about you when you go this route.

Patterns are real.

To say that the group is not real is synonymous with saying that race is not real.

You rail against “sociology” out of reactionary (to Jewish abuse of sociology) right wing habit to abuse of the group unit of analysis.

Sociology takes the group as unit of analysis – that is neither good nor bad but it is the most necessary unit of analysis given what the Jews have done with anti racism.

Race is a group unit of analysis.

Sociology has almost always been done to our disfavor by Jews.

That does not mean that the unit of analysis is wrong.

Sociology potentially and well done, looks at systemic dynamics and positional roles as they would function in group systemic homeostasis.

Only an idiot would think that is not important consideration.

 


30

 Posted by DanielS on Wed, 13 Sep 2017 21:18 | #

Turn that individual-group dynamic around a bit and you get the trope that the individual is reliant upon separation from the group for its existence.  Hence the psychological violence and, inevitably also, the atomisation of the self-authored will.  In turn and for the same existential purposes, “the group” – whatever confection that may be – must capture and constrain the individual to preserve its structure and coherence.

This is just you attributing to me stuff and motives that I do not have (typical of you).

Accountability to group interests is not confection, it is not an illusion, it is not coercion.

You’d have to be as stupid and pig headed as …. to think otherwise.


31

 Posted by DanielS on Wed, 13 Sep 2017 21:25 | #

Hence the stultifying, crushing nature of 20th century Soviet “collectivism”.  As with your passionate desire to stick, in your political rhetoric, with liberalism’s model of left and right, so you remain locked into this thinking.

I do not stick with liberalism’s model. I understand that you are not the brightest spark, but I could forgive that if you were not so competitive in a misplaced way.

It is not liberalism’s model, left and right – the left, through ordinary language (which is profound) is about looking after unionized group interests – accountability, viz., to social capital: that is the opposite of liberalism.

I don’t condemn you for not being very bright as to the matter, I condemn your obstruction to our well being.


32

 Posted by DanielS on Wed, 13 Sep 2017 21:28 | #

To be clear, “the individual” and “the group” are really just word-blanks on which one will inevitably project meanings.  The manifold forms of nationalism do not project the meanings of liberalism on to them; and especially do not project this strange reciprocal conflict.

The “conflict” between groups within left nationalism does not exist. You have ignored that assertion persistently, while maintaining your Jewish supplied cliches.


33

 Posted by DanielS on Wed, 13 Sep 2017 21:30 | #

The model of Man appropriate to ethnic nationalism is only individual in scale.

Wrong. There are different scales and different criteria to be taken into account for any intelligent person.


34

 Posted by DanielS on Wed, 13 Sep 2017 21:36 | #

This is the truth of each and every one of us, not some impossibly pretentious supposition or some wild Cartesian error.

It is your vain ego that wants to assert that Cartesianism as a problem is impossibly pretentious.

Stop listening so uncritically to Bowery – he is a scientist, he is a mechanic, he is not a very original thinker and not a philosopher.


35

 Posted by DanielS on Wed, 13 Sep 2017 21:41 | #

That would be enough for us to take hold of our life and our circumstance.  That would be everything.

The intellectual challenge, as men and women awakened to it, is to reconcile such experience in the consciousness with the practical and political … with the world of the everyday self.

This amounts to a plea that your having spent your youth tying to soup-up cars should qualify you to be a philosopher anyway – and to disqualify important ideas, many important ideas – It doesn’t. You aren’t qualified to do that, at all.


36

 Posted by DanielS on Thu, 14 Sep 2017 05:44 | #

A group of people is a hypothesized circumscription of verifiable patterns of people. It is maintained (homeostasis) by accountability to rules (descriptive and prescriptive) (the less accounts necessarily requested, the better) with a measure of consensus and backing by force; the less force necessary to maintain adherents, the better.. It will require less force and have more consensus where it ensures the use, enjoyment for different kinds of people in actualization of themselves as they are necessary to complement one another in the pattern, while at once functioning to protect, maintain and advance the group’s social capital.


37

 Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 14 Sep 2017 19:02 | #

Daniel,

1.  I did not say you are a liberal.  I said you are saddled with the liberal concepts of political axiality and the group-individual dynamic.  These are anathema to nationalists.  You are like some tragic Greek hero locked in an eternal struggle with a mythic serpent said to be guarding the ransom of an ancient king.  The hero knows he could quit the fight and live.  But he will not relinquish his lust for the serpent’s treasure.  However, unbeknown to him, what is treasure to the serpent is poison to the rest of us …

2.  The non-reality of liberalism’s self-authored individual and that of the socially-formed group stands in diametric opposition to ethnic nationalism’s uncomplicated, indeed naturalistic Man and folk.  This thought is not likely to have occurred to Locke, or any of the Enlightenment thinkers.

3. “Accountability” is your own term.  I have never encountered it in the mouth of another nationalist, presumably because it is thought to be no more than a methodology for zealous and Robespearesque revolutionary activists.  Perhaps more work needs to be done.  Perhaps a tie-in with conscience would communicate your meaning more effectively.

“Unionised interests” is likewise your own phrase – your very own.  I know it’s only two words, and they are words easily used; and, then, perhaps you have not thought much about it.  But they are significant.  From the outset, the dynamic of a becoming “union” is distinct from that of a people rediscovering or turning to itself.  It pre-supposes a definite state of separation – for example, by alienation in the classic Heideggerian sense.  But such separation is a socially-relative concept, and as such it opens ineluctably to sociology and the “unit” of the social group.  That unit can never be blood, for blood is too absolute in its associations and its calling to be intelligible to the coolly relative and dispassionate gaze of any external discipline.  There is no measure from without of the imperatives within.  We have to put away social thinking, and enquire from the appropriate perspective; and the appropriate perspective is the radically distinct one of ethnic nationalism – the only competent means of interpreting the ethnic imperative.

This is a clarifying step.  We can move beyond the social phenomenon of alienation, and what we see is the psychological phenomenon of self-estrangement in which “the modern individual” does not fully abide in his or her own nature.  “Unionising” gives way to re-finding.

Btw, this same phrase “unionised interests” also exhibits the state apparatchik’s love of adding layers of unnecessary meaning, whereby simple things are mangled into complex and demanding procedures which his tender ministrations alone can vouchsafe.  Let us be clear that natural interests do not “unionise”.  They do not create a union where none exists.  They express.  They inform.  They suggest preference.  That is the limit of their action and utility.

A “group unit of analysis” is another of these terms.  I am English.  I think I can speak for Kumiko in saying that she is Japanese.  We are creatures of nature and kind … different kinds, actually.  We do not have a “group unit of analysis”.  We do not have a “group of people”.  We have a people.  We do not need or wish to analyse them.  We do not wish to pass them off as a bloodless “unit” on humanity’s social ledger.  For myself, I wish to make a politics of their free and sovereign life.  This is not sociology for accountants.  This is nationalism.

4. I wrote:

This is the truth of each and every one of us, not some impossibly pretentious supposition or some wild Cartesian error.

You wrote:

It is your vain ego that wants to assert that Cartesianism as a problem is impossibly pretentious.

There is an “or” which you obviously missed.

5. The conflict between the individual and the group, which is peculiar to liberalism, is not a “Jewish supplied cliche”.  It is inherent to liberalism, with its salient and never quite reconcilable individualist and egalitarian, socially democratic wings.  You know this.  Everybody knows this.  Why are you making such a basic error?

6. As I have said many times, I am plainly “not qualified” to be a professional scholar.  Of course, you qualify fully.

But, actually, my last paragraph is a restatement of the fact that, as Rod Campbell revelled in pointing out, beyond ontology is teleology, or politics, anyway; and of the fact is, as I keep telling you, I have not ventured into that part of the general ethnic nationalist conception.  Likewise, you have not done the ontology.  You do, however, often point out that your superstructural work is not in competition with my ontological sub-structure.  I suspect that your superstructure would only be without contradiction by a sub-structure of your own making.  What would it look like?


38

 Posted by DanielS on Fri, 15 Sep 2017 05:03 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 14 Sep 2017 14:02 | #

Daniel,

1.  I did not say you are a liberal.  I said you are saddled with the liberal concepts of political axiality and the group-individual dynamic.

You keep saying ridiculous things like this, “that I am saddled with.”  I am not saddled with anything: it is a working hypothesis and it makes consistent sense.

If you don’t try that bullshit, you will say that “I am lost in academic concepts” …also a lie.

Or, that “I am trying to impose rules on your people.” ..demonstrating that you completely misunderstand the analytic neutrality and eminent utility of the concept of “rules”.

Or that hermeneutics is “clunky”…“back and forth, back and forth” …which is totally ridiculous: it has the capacity to deftly deal with inquiry. 

Or you’ll say that I am “communicationist” (?)

I can and will go on with the examples of your attempts to misrepresent what I am saying to the obstruction of collaborative inquiry if you don’t stop this.

These are anathema to nationalists.

No they are not.

You are like some tragic Greek hero locked in an eternal struggle with a mythic serpent said to be guarding the ransom of an ancient king.

No I am not. You have accused me of “not listening”…that is a projection. You don’t listen and you ignore what I say, which is clear as to the matter of why I talk the way I do – which is perfectly consonant with nationalism.

The hero knows he could quit the fight and live.  But he will not relinquish his lust for the serpent’s treasure.  However, unbeknown to him, what is treasure to the serpent is poison to the rest of us …

That is valuable in your projection – You are chasing after poison, GW.

In the first place it is not your fault, you are busy with your business life and don’t have time to understand the philosophical field and the lay of the struggle.* But your stubborn, misplaced contentiousness Is your fault. You are tying to make it seem like it is me, when there is almost never a good idea that you will not try to gas light and dismiss as trivia (by contrast to you in your armchair).

* It is not uncommon for you to get taken in by fairly obvious ruses, such as “Maiden” in Ukraine, which you took to be organic nationalism, or similarly, Pegida, England.

You haven’t had time to get beyond a shallow understanding, GW. That is not your fault, but your contentiousness and misrepsentation of Me as a stuffy academic foil putting forth irrelevancies for your shooting gallery Is your fault, because you are not exercising good judgment as to relevance: there are MANY things that should be elaborated in this post alone, also in many of the posts I have entered…but instead all you do is some sort of reverse Derrida deconstructionism ad nauseum. And it is beyond absurd. I am not going to simply put up with it, I will move beyond your obstruction.

2.  The non-reality of liberalism’s self-authored individual

That right there is a typical straw man. Neither I nor social constructionism talks in terms of self authoriship in any pure way – that would be Cartesian. There is no self devoid of interactive input (including the emergent aspects). I have said this many times and it just goes to show that you are ignoring what I say in order to heap forth straw men and to try to misrepresent me as your foil.

and that of the socially-formed group stands in diametric opposition to ethnic nationalism’s uncomplicated, indeed naturalistic Man and folk.

Here we go again: you are trying to impose your cliche’s of what “the left does” upon me …“it imposes ‘unnatural concepts’ upon nature”

Let’s see if we can finally get this through your head (it won’t, you can’t bear that I could be the purveyor of any useful idea, let alone several).

A working hypothesis is a working hypothesis. It is not freed from reality testing to make sure that it holds up as a pattern;

It is a working hypothesis that our race and ethnonatonalisms are real and being challenged in their systemic well being.

That holds up as a group conception.

You claim to like simplicity (where you are not going into arcane. ontological nonsense), well that is simple enough explanation (again, for the millionth time – no reason to hope you won’t just ignore it again at your next convenience).

…and my working hypotheses, where I use them, are shaped to work with our nature at its most necessary, its best and most authentic.

This thought is not likely to have occurred to Locke, or any of the Enlightenment thinkers.

On the contrary, they were trying to get to a notion of “pure nature” .. an obsolete project in bad philosophy which you mirror exactly.

3. “Accountability” is your own term.

It is not “my” term. It has been in the English dictionary for long time, well before I was born.

I have never encountered it in the mouth of another nationalist,

That’s because you aren’t talking to any other intelligent/well educated nationalists.

presumably because it is thought to be no more than a methodology for zealous and Robespearesque revolutionary activists.

Well, again, as I have explained many times – you, along with reactionaries typically, will react by playing opposite day to Jewish misuse of terms; and Jews will typically misuse the best, most useful terms and concepts against us, make them didactic to turn us off from proper advocacy.

In the case of accountability, I have heard liberals using it, but by the nature of the term, its hard to abuse too badly of itself – so I have not seen examples of its especial abuse by liberals (The Soviet Union, yes, they abused it).

I came to focus on it through Shotter – who is English. He is (was, died not long ago) a liberal though espousing communitarianism.

However, his studies of accountability are neutral enough and I have shown how they apply to nationalism, very importantly.

Perhaps more work needs to be done.  Perhaps a tie-in with conscience would communicate your meaning more effectively.

This represents a high point of absurdity if you are telling me to focus efforts on accountability in an abstract sense – Shotter was a scholar who spent his career doing that – he examined accountability through a hermeneutic pentad of who, what, where, when and how, circling it through chapter to chapter, paragraph to paragraph, sentence to sentence and sublimely, word to word! and YOU want me to guild that lily. You are always trying to guild the lily GW.

It probably stems from your STEM predilection to trace everything to singular efficient causes when in the social world it simply is more complicated than that – even genetic impact on behavior tends to have input from multiple markers.

It is not that there are not things to develop with accountability, but at this point what is needed a bit more application in the concrete realm. As I have said, and which nobody discussed with me, the Soviet Union was a case of much too much in the way of accounts requested. When we habituate ethnonationalists to the idea of accountability, we need to advocate a custom of accounts requested being kept to an absolute minimum. We don’t need to be arrested for being a week late in updating some paper work. But accountability from our leaders for border control and population management is of paramount importance.

“Unionised interests” is likewise your own phrase – your very own.

Not really. You are trying to gaslight me. Oswald Mosley, all syndicalism, anyone with sense and decency, in fact, is speaking in a consonant way.

Only a Thatcherite would believe that it is not real. If you want to give me credit for cultivating it further and updating the real concern with terminology refined to conform to our interests, I thank you for giving me some credit for a change.

I know it’s only two words, and they are words easily used; and, then, perhaps you have not thought much about it.

I have thought about a lot of things, and put that out there as a specificatory structure to be worked out directly with other people, preferably, but will do it indirectly with their remnant language if need be.

But they are significant.  From the outset, the dynamic of a becoming “union” is distinct from that of a people rediscovering or turning to itself.

Typically, you’ve miscast the terms, rendering “becoming a union” something “unnatural, bad” and antagonistic to nationalism, which could not be more misguided/misguiding to our interests. “The dynamic” you talk about is a false opposition that YOU have created to serve your conceit as the sole purveyor of worthwhile information.

Again, you are lost in the line of ideology that traces from Locke, to early Wittgenstein, to Hayek, to Thatcher.

Your false dichotomy has you acting like what I am discussing would do anything but endorse an ethnonationalist people inasmuch as they “rediscover and turn to themselves.”

Worse, you act like your deconstruction of any analysis, hypothesis or applied words, even, will cause nationalism to emerge unproblematic. It is an absurdity.

The fault is yours GW. If you want to dwell on emergentism fine; emergentism is good stuff. If you want to try to be descriptive of how people function when they function as nationalists, fine.

The problem is that you propose a false either/ or that what I am saying is antagonistic to that, or somehow less important – it is not antagonistic and it is not less important and YOU continue to perform a disservice as you persist in that miscasting of me and what I say as such.

It pre-supposes a definite state of separation –

No.YOU pre-suppose that.

for example, by alienation in the classic Heideggerian sense.  But such separation is a socially-relative concept, and as such it opens ineluctably to sociology and the “unit” of the social group.  That unit can never be blood, for blood is too absolute in its associations

Not true at all.

I have never said that individual and group were in opposition, they are inextricably interactive, that is the non Cartesian position.. it is you who takes the retarded, Cartesian position that they are necessarily at odds and separate from one another.

Not only are you wrong to assert that I am saying THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG – that there is such perfect separation – BUT YOU ARE AN ASSHOLE INASMUCH AS YOU WOULD COMMIT THAT LIE AGAINST MY WORK.

 


And the reason you are making a liar of yourself is because you want to act like a unit of analysis is “bad.”

It’s like saying a microscope or a telescope is bad.

A haplogroup (lets advance a few centuries, please, beyond talk of “blood” – how quaint and folksy of you) …is a GROUP: HAPLOGROUP, SEE! IT’S NOT MY INVENTION!

Let’s see if we can get this through to you: a unit of analysis is a unit of analysis, it is not the only unit of analysis, but when it comes to racial/national defense the group is one of the better units of analysis – interaction is a very good one too.

The one that you prefer, the individual, is retarded and retarding to propose as a premier focus for the purposes of our defense.

and its calling to be intelligible to the coolly relative and dispassionate gaze of any external discipline.

Hermeneutics always welcomes vivifying and passionate narrative infusion – unlike your endless deconstruction.

There is no measure from without of the imperatives within.  We have to put away social thinking,

No we don’t. Social thinking is exactly what we need to cultivate and your not thinking so is an expression of where you are not well suited to philosophical concerns.

Once group interests are protected at the parameters, then the individuality that it affords can be cultivated; it does not have to be interfered with to begin with at all, provided it is respectful of borders/bounds.

and enquire from the appropriate perspective; and the appropriate perspective is the radically distinct one of ethnic nationalism – the only competent means of interpreting the ethnic imperative.

I already am inquiring of the appropriate, competent perspective of ethnic nationalism. You may pretend that I do not survey the biological and close relationships, you may make that false claim in order to maintain your foil relationship, but you would not be honest. My perspective includes that which you focus on but adds greater competence, of necessity, of surveying systemic relations as well, and not losing sight of them.

This is a clarifying step.  We can move beyond the social phenomenon of alienation,

Well, you have this misguided idea that stems from Cartesian rigidity. If I take a view of the group, that I am stuck there. I am not stuck there, you are the stuck one. Heremeneutics moves graceful in its surveys, taking the units of analysis most useful in a given moment or episode; and it remains interactive and correctable – even in the unit of analysis it adopts.

and what we see is the psychological phenomenon of self-estrangement in which “the modern individual” does not fully abide in his or her own nature.  “Unionising” gives way to re-finding.

If you only knew how (rightfully) outdated that sounds (like pop psychology of the 50s and 60s) you would be embarrassed.

The truth is that “the psychological self estrangement” that you “diagnose” is that the social rules of modernity (and PC, etc) and other interactive tangles estrange us from our nature and nationalism.

Unionized rules could be shaped and conformed to encourage staying within our nature as ethnonationalists and to ward off misdirection. It is dumb and overly competitive to try to cast what I say as adversarial and “unnecessary.”

You do it all the time and it is an apparent expression of conceited contentiousness – because the concepts that I am setting out work with organicism, emergentism, serve all ethnonational interests – are correctable as such.

Again, like Bowery in a STEM thing, in a paranoid idea that I am interested to take your fucking individualism away or to saddle you with undue burden to others (if not turn you into an insect, when there is all manner of accountability to stave off loss of individual integrity), you are tying to pin point one “problem spot” in the electric circuit, viz., “unionizing”, and you are misrepresenting it so that you can render me and what I say redundant. It is a STEM conceit perhaps to wish to be so efficient as to render one and one’s device the only necessary cause.

But I am not just saying one useful and important thing, I am saying several.

Btw, this same phrase “unionised interests” also exhibits the state apparatchik’s

That’s what I mean: that is why I have taken off the kid gloves. An “apparatchik” is not only an insult and an expression of your determination to apply the cliche of “the leftist and his unnatural applications to nature and individual freedom”…but it is not remotely true of my character nor of what I am saying and endeavoring.

It is an idiotic misattribution.

love of adding layers of unnecessary meaning,

I don’t add unnecessary meaning. I never speak decorously. I use words to say what I mean. It is your STEM love of dehumanizing reductionism which is the nonsense.

whereby simple things are mangled into complex and demanding procedures

There is not mangling of simple things; if I elaborate on something in one place and it is not useful to somebody, they do not have to use it. At other times you have accused me of being too simple. So, elaborate as you might. But I make no demands. In fact, for you to suggests as much is utterly bizarre.

which his tender ministrations alone can vouchsafe.

No. People who want to come here to perfectly redeem Jesus, Hitler, Jews and scientism might try to say so, but it is not true, at all – I welcome many ministrations otherwise.

It has been cleverly said that for Jews free speech = pornography.

Well, for the Right, free speech = inclusion of Hitler idolatry.

Let us be clear that natural interests do not “unionise”.

Lets be clear and see that natural interests can and absolutely should, unionize.

Stop looking in the mirror and imagining a Hayek and Thatcherite image of the hero of the right and the individual and recognize the burden you are making to our people’s defense.

They do not create a union where none exists.  They express.  They inform.  They suggest preference.  That is the limit of their action and utility.

This is nothing more than Lockeatine perfidy: “classification of peoples are fictions of the mind.” …. tantamount to saying race is not real: GW, when you try this stuff, you are the best friend that the Jews could ever have.

A “group unit of analysis” is another of these terms.  I am English.  I think I can speak for Kumiko in saying that she is Japanese.  We are creatures of nature and kind … different kinds, actually.  We do not have a “group unit of analysis”.

It is perfectly valid and most appropriate to apply a group unit of analysis. It does not have to be, should not be the only unit of analysis, but your trying to deny its validity is yet another expression of your (jealous?) propensity to attack good and important ideas that have not come out of your armchair.

We do not have a “group of people”.  We have a people.

That’s just Lockeatine semantic nonsense that you are trying to gaslight me with, GW – your error is that you are competing against me, when you should be looking to refine theory in our interests. If you were focused on that, you would not be in the absurd position that you are of continually denying important, solid and useful ideas, of having to lie, even, in order to maintain your rigid autobiographical position, as the hero of “nature” against me, “the left academic trying to impose affectation and unnatural burden” – a “tyrannical apparatchik.” How stupid and clear enough proof that you have not even let your eyes roam over what I say.

We do not need or wish to analyse them.

Then don’t. Others of us do wish to anyalyse patterns of interaction and we are right to do so. 

We do not wish to pass them off as a bloodless “unit” on humanity’s social ledger.

 

Neither do I, that is why I consider the DNA Nation one of my most important essays.

For myself, I wish to make a politics of their free and sovereign life.  This is not sociology for accountants.  This is nationalism.

Stop you insults: “bean counter” that’s another insult that you tried on me. Now “accountability” is the same as the economic discipline of an “accountant”. GW, if you want me to talk nice to you, please end your insults and straw manning.

A people will be free when they have boundaries around their nations, a sovereign haven for their social capital and individual differences.

4. I wrote:

  This is the truth of each and every one of us, not some impossibly pretentious supposition or some wild Cartesian error.

You wrote:

  It is your vain ego that wants to assert that Cartesianism as a problem is impossibly pretentious.

Yes, I wrote that.

There is an “or” which you obviously missed.

No there isn’t. Anti-Cartesianism asserts that anything like mind, mentation, thinking, occurs in interaction: the Cartesian anxiety seeks to take mind out of interaction..

5. The conflict between the individual and the group, which is peculiar to liberalism, is not a “Jewish supplied cliche”.

I have NEVER looked upon individual and group as being in conflict, but always as necessary complements to one another.

It is inherent to liberalism, with its salient and never quite reconcilable individualist and egalitarian, socially democratic wings.  You know this.  Everybody knows this.  Why are you making such a basic error?

Because I am not making that error! Read my last sentence.

I am not making that error, you are projecting that Cartesian error upon me in your endless effort to make me and what I say into redundant straw man and you as the only important thinker, “Mr. Natural and authentic” “debunker” of anybody who uses a word, term or concept right wing assholes are unfamiliar with.

6. As I have said many times, I am plainly “not qualified” to be a professional scholar.  Of course, you qualify fully.

I do not qualify to be a professional scholar, I am an honest collaborator/participant in a team effort to work out what it takes for our people to defend, maintain and advance ourselves as systems among systems.

But, actually, my last paragraph is a restatement of the fact that, as Rod Campbell revelled in pointing out, beyond ontology is teleology, or politics, anyway;

That’s how he conceived it. The Heidegger scholars say phenomenology lies beyond ontology. They helped me to see conclusively the limitations of Heidegger.

But no, I can’t agree that teleology and politics are what come lineally after ontology.

That is a framing convenient to you in order to portray as trivial and superficial what I say, when in fact I do not ascribe to your linear model, but rather operate in terms of interactive, co-evolutionary process.

and of the fact is, as I keep telling you,

You keep ignoring what I am saying, is all you keep doing. You “tell me things”, I’ve heard them and found them wanting. I’ve verified my thinking before people who know far more and far better than you do of the philosophical bearings.

I have not ventured into that part of the general ethnic nationalist conception.  Likewise, you have not done the ontology.

I attend to what is of essential importance.

You do, however, often point out that your superstructural work is not in competition with my ontological sub-structure.

It shouldn’t be, provided that you do not try to do with ontology what should not be done with it.

I suspect that your superstructure would only be without contradiction by a sub-structure of your own making.  What would it look like?

Maybe I will answer that a little later, but your imposition of the word “supserstucture” is yet another a-hole attempt to present your concerns as more radical and important and mine as a trivial afterthought. That always has been a conceited lie of yours.  If you are going to be so indignant as to completely ignore what I say, you could at least stop lying with misrepresentative straw men.

It would help you to avoid having to lie if you did not feel the need to pander to the Hitler idolaters. And if you knew anything about philosophy, you would understand that is not necessary.

I guess that you want to divert me into the realm of your inane pursuit of naturalistic fallacy, while you persist in ignoring my contributions as you have for five years…

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 15 Sep 2017 23:17 | #

You write: Anti-Cartesianism asserts that anything like mind, mentation, thinking, occurs in interaction

It is very obvious from that crude generalisation that you do not possess a model of Mind and consciousness.  But without that how is it possible to declare that “all” is inter-action?  How would you even know?  At best, you would just be guessing from your own experience.

Of course, your object is to intrude communicationism and “social thinking” into the manifold, mostly unobserved mechanics and autonomic processes of Mind, without regard for the fact that the sum function of those processes is the perception of meanings by which the organism’s bias for its maintenance and survival and the maximal chance of transmission of its genes may be exercised.  The selfishness of the organism (as distinct from the selfishness of “the individual”) in this regard is complete, and attests to a condition of profound isolation which I wrote about not long ago:

https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/being_in_kind_part_1

Now, from somewhere in the Mind’s very genotype there expresses the trait of speaking to self by means ancient and varied. As no self-respecting philosopher would deny, a primordial isolation does indeed belong to Being.  It is its essential and tragic condition.  Each thought, feeling, and sensation addresses that condition, reaches beyond it, consoles it, penetrates it to a degree, but never changes it.  Speaking to the Other in the sense which communicationists intend is never an open and direct possibility … never free of speaking primarily to self, or elements thereof.  In any case, the process works two ways – the isolation is equally of the Other, and is intrinsic to the Other’s private act of interpretation.  Communication is a finite possibility and communication from intellect to intellect, with its reliance on an imperfectly and accidentally acquired communicative method, most profoundly so.  The point of departure with Descartes – Heidegger’s, point of departure, really – lies in the mode by which meaning is disclosed, and certainly not in this original, existential isolation.  In the same way that Heidegger has to accept this aspect of the Cartesian model, so have we.

You appear to understand nationalist thinking as a species of the standard Western canon, to be approached via the latter’s scholarly conventions and disciplines.  I have the feeling that you never realised how categorically and systematically separate and distinct – and revolutionary – it is from conventional metaphysical, philosophical and political thinking.  That should not surprise, given that in its ethnic form it is instinctual and timeless – so prior, actually.  Only at certain points along the way from Aristotle to Heidegger and Schmitt have gestures in its direction been forthcoming from Western scholarship.  Such gestures are as disquieting and challenging for conventional thinking as Darwin was for the faith-thinking of the Church.  But by and large they are hastily and efficiently cut adrift; and, certainly today, the fine illusion of grey-haired wisdom proceeds quite undisturbed along its respected and well remunerated way.  No one of European descent has any reason to be grateful to the humanities professoriate.  By and large, Judas + a 130 IQ.


40

 Posted by DanielS on Sat, 16 Sep 2017 00:32 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 15 Sep 2017 18:17 | #

You write: Anti-Cartesianism asserts that anything like mind, mentation, thinking, occurs in interaction

It is very obvious from that crude generalisation that you do not possess a model of Mind and consciousness.

You are going to continue in your ad hominum attacks and that is unfortunate.

I don’t aspire to a static model of mind as a unit of analysis, as you do. I think in terms of the process of thinking, what needs to be done with it.

  But without that how is it possible to declare that “all” is inter-action?

I never declared all is inter-action. I said all is in interaction.

How would you even know? 

Because its obvious: part of the reason for making this post was to be done with your absurd skepticism. When you question something so obvious, the burden of proof is on you.

At best, you would just be guessing from your own experience.

Ridiculous.

Of course, your object is to intrude communicationism and “social thinking” into the manifold,

Here we go again, with your lying attributions. Who told you/encouraged you to call me a “communicationist” intruding social thinking (upon social matters) ? Bowery or Daniel Antionra?

Do you know what your problem is (and theirs as well) GW? As STEM inclined people people you are enamored of precision, efficient causes and air tight explanations. Because the social world is more messy than that, you conclude that it is “no good”, despite its pervasiveness, it somehow should not be “intruded upon you.”

Even though you are free to go on with your ontology musings, you try to insist that I should put my head in the sand just like you do, and be concerned with the same mechanics that you hobby-away at. And then you have the nerve to say that I am trying to force things upon you.

mostly unobserved mechanics and autonomic processes of Mind,

As I said!

without regard for the fact that the sum function of those processes is the perception of meanings by which the organism’s bias for its maintenance and survival and the maximal chance of transmission of its genes may be exercised.

Maximizing changes for survival is not necessarily going to protect it from miscegenation, especially if the prevailing focus is on individuality and group interests are stigmatized.

The selfishness of the organism (as distinct from the selfishness of “the individual”) in this regard is complete,

No it isn’t complete and it is no guarantor that it will treat others as too different, and maintain our more recent distinct evolution as Europeans absent …things like, lets go with Bowery’s term, “artificial selection.”

and attests to a condition of profound isolation which I wrote about not long ago:

https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/being_in_kind_part_1

Your profound isolation is an artifact of your framing of events.

  Now, from somewhere in the Mind’s very genotype there expresses the trait of speaking to self by means ancient and varied.

There is individual systemic homeostais

As no self-respecting philosopher would deny, a primordial isolation does indeed belong to Being.

No self-respecting philosopher would make that a central focus. It was an error of Heidegger’s philosophy which took for granted his people a bit too much – there is more of a thrownness to peoplehood than even he accounted for, and it is a thrownness into interaction …with other people: not isolation. You may not like those people, they may not want to create the way of life you deem best, but that doesn’t mean that you are alone or that there is no overlap with your interests – there must be.

It is its essential and tragic condition.

No, that is the fiction that a whole generation of selfish, ego centric baby boomers bought into to squander all social capital. It is the stuff that sociopaths are made of, the stuff that the shallow are made of, the stuff that mudsharks are made of.

Each thought, feeling, and sensation addresses that condition, reaches beyond it, consoles it, penetrates it to a degree, but never changes it.

That’s a story you tell yourself.

Speaking to the Other in the sense which communicationists

STOP CALLING ME A COMMUNICATIONIST OR I WILL AGAIN CALL YOU AN ASSHOLE

intend is never an open and direct possibility

I am not aspiring to purity and perfect transmission, without requirement of correction, as you are.

… never free of speaking primarily to self, or elements thereof.

Maybe the “communicationsit” of your imagining doesn’t to that, but the communications perspective, which would read Aristotle, would observe his statement that internal conversation is the beginning of intelligence.

In any case, the process works two ways – the isolation is equally of the Other, and is intrinsic to the Other’s private act of interpretation.

You make these proclamations without really knowing what you are talking about.

Communication is a finite possibility and communication from intellect to intellect,

Only in your retarded understanding of “communication”  ..as I have explained, you are stuck on the transmissions model; i.e., you don’t know what you are talking about.

with its reliance on an imperfectly and accidentally acquired communicative method, most profoundly so.

We are all subject to that thrownness, but then we take those specificatory structures and can shape, craft and refine our understandings. That’s all you are hoping to do with your wish to draw a “map of the mind.”

The point of departure with Descartes – Heidegger’s, point of departure, really – lies in the mode by which meaning is disclosed, and certainly not in this original, existential isolation.  In the same way that Heidegger has to accept this aspect of the Cartesian model, so have we.

He says that we have to recognize it; he doesn’t recommend that we accept it. Heremeneutics is on crucial way to deal with its inauthenticity, to negotiate a process of inquiry and integration.

You appear to understand nationalist thinking as a species of the standard Western canon, to be approached via the latter’s scholarly conventions and disciplines.  I have the feeling that you never realised how categorically and systematically separate and distinct – and revolutionary – it is from conventional metaphysical, philosophical and political thinking.  That should not surprise, given that in its ethnic form it is instinctual and timeless – so prior, actually.

That’s a word salad that simply does not interest me. Suffice it to say, it is ad hominum. Apparently you have neither rigor nor imagination enough to do anything else.

Now, what ad hominum will you fan club have you try next?

Only at certain points along the way from Aristotle to Heidegger and Schmitt have gestures in its direction been forthcoming from Western scholarship.

If you want to wallow in Zen deconstructionism go ahead, but I’m not going to waste my time taking it seriously.

Such gestures are as disquieting and challenging for conventional thinking as Darwin was for the faith-thinking of the Church.

No, you pretend your endless skepticism and deconstructionism is profound. It isn’t. Its is the expression of a man who cannot think outside the box of modernity.

But by and large they are hastily and efficiently cut adrift; and, certainly today, the fine illusion of grey-haired wisdom proceeds quite undisturbed along its respected and well remunerated way.  No one of European descent has any reason to be grateful to the humanities professoriate.  By and large, Judas + a 130 IQ.

I, for one, am not telling people to be grateful to them. What I will do, however, is take what is needed. I will not stand for your absurdity that everything has to begin from the day one all the time and that no thinking and no good thoughts have ever come through academia (including the humanities) or through my applications to ethnonationalism.

Your final statement confirms my hypothesis about your problem. You can’t get over the fact that the social world does not conform to your STEM predilection for perfect precision, pure cause and effect, efficiency, cleanliness. It is messy and it intrudes upon you, and ever it will until you authentically dead.

Nevertheless, there are distinct patterns, and there is the capacity to treat them with great rigor, to operatonalize them, verify them and achieve warranted assertability.

 


41

 Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 16 Sep 2017 23:13 | #

You write: I never declared all is inter-action. I said all is in interaction

But this opinion rests upon an intellectual sleight of hand, namely the redefinition of the object as existing in a state of action itself or in a theatre of action to which it is in some sense party (which theatre is really the subject’s personal drama; but, of course, we can’t say that, or you will start squawking about Descartes).  This is hugely optimistic; really tantamount to wishful thinking, leaving out, as it does, large areas of concern as to Man and Nature, Being, Mind and knowledge.

Doubtless, such a sleight of hand is a pleasurable device, and convenient.  After all, we are weak, and fidelity of conceptualisation is difficult, perhaps even impossible in ordinary waking consciousness – certainly south of 150 to 160 IQ, I would say.  Perfectly intellectually competent people such as your good self simply do not grasp, from moment to moment, their state of profound absence and fragmentation rendered by their own habituated function, or the great rarity of their fleeting escapes from this condition.  Neither have they the faintest idea of the vast over-estimation of powers they blithely ascribe to themselves (ie, singularity, will, consciousness).  And, of course, they do not grasp the suggestibility which plagues them … the terrible ease with which they are become coloured and patterned by Time and Place; owned creatures forever susceptible to steering from without.

Heidegger got enough of this right – via his concepts of (a) thrownness into that which we never asked for and is not of the essence, and (b) falsehood or, say, false witness – to orient his students towards the properness of human authenticity.  But he chose not to provide precise descriptors of inauthenticity, which I have always found puzzling.  So they require to be supplied.

I would say to you, as I have said in the past, that you can’t just pick and mix this philosophy with other classes of ideas, including your social stuff.  Some systems of thought have a relational structure, which in turn gives them an holistic quality.  Parts cannot be successfully transplanted like living tissue to the body of another system.  The process is too violent.  Meanings will be lost (and, yes, you do have only a partial reading of thrownness).  I wonder if you are a subtle enough thinker to see that.


42

 Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 17 Sep 2017 02:15 | #

GW, if this thrownness into inauthenticity is the unavoidable state of mind of most people, most of the time, how is prescription for adaptive behavior as enforced by a social hierarchy to be avoided?


43

 Posted by DanielS on Sun, 17 Sep 2017 03:59 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 16 Sep 2017 18:13 | #

You write: I never declared all is inter-action. I said all is in interaction

But this opinion rests upon an intellectual sleight of hand,

No sleight of hand, it’s prima facie.

namely the redefinition of the object as existing in a state of action itself

Both observer and observed exist in interaction.

  or in a theatre of action to which it is in some sense party (which theatre is really the subject’s personal drama; but, of course, we can’t say that, or you will start squawking about Descartes).

You can’t say that if you don’t want to be accused of the absurdity of solipsism either, of having created perceptions, the words and concepts to organize, describe and understand them all by yourself. 

This is hugely optimistic; really tantamount to wishful thinking, leaving out, as it does, large areas of concern as to Man and Nature, Being, Mind and knowledge.

Not if it isn’t misdefined as you have (as solipsism) and not if sufficient rigor is exercised. On the extreme which tends to be of your interest, there are brute facts and some negotiation of how they count, but not even a whole lot of negotiation with other people as to how they come to count in some cases, even if you survive the brute fact.

Doubtless, such a sleight of hand is a pleasurable device, and convenient.

If it were a sleight of hand, other people would be apt to catch me eventually at least, but that is really just a straw man (the solipsism that you apply to me) and a yet another dishonest insult that you direct at me: “sleight of hand” …“intellectual dancer” … “not deep enough” …

Perhaps your penchant for ad hominum stems from your own solipsistic perspective.

After all, we are weak, and fidelity of conceptualisation is difficult, perhaps even impossible in ordinary waking consciousness – certainly south of 150 to 160 IQ, I would say.

No, GW, when you start acting like “accountability” and “union” are intellectual jargon words, it isn’t me that’s making the problem – it is your absurd skepticism.

Accountability: an expectation that one will attempt to provide an accepted explanation for one’s actions/or not and the consequences thereof.

Union: a socially circumscribed group of people, who constitute members as exclusionary to outsiders who are non members. Members have requirements and expectations for themselves – rules of accountability.

  Perfectly intellectually competent people such as your good self simply do not grasp, from moment to moment, their state of profound absence and fragmentation rendered by their own habituated function, or the great rarity of their fleeting escapes from this condition.

Perhaps, but people like your good self are there to remind me, and call me back to your significant contributions, such as rigorous concerns and dwelling upon emergentism and interiority – internal interactions and reflections upon conceptual components of mentation. 

Neither have they the faintest idea of the vast over-estimation of powers they blithely ascribe to themselves (ie, singularity, will, consciousness).

I don’t ascribe singularity of will to myself, never have. Not consciousness either. You are the one who is prone to that Cartesian debacle.

And, of course, they do not grasp the suggestibility which plagues them …

That’s the projection of one who can’t see out of the box.

When I talk about things and suggest them to others, it is because they have worked for me – experientially and experimentally as it were.

the terrible ease with which they are become coloured and patterned by Time and Place; owned creatures forever susceptible to steering from without.

Because I have wanted very much to do things with people, specifically to connect with a community of White racial advocates in good will, I have been subject to some bum steers in the past by sociopaths, who are liberal and realize that I am vulnerable as such.  These were hard lessons and they were learned, while they were sociopaths relying on the good will of a community to back them, which will dissolve in its backing if their practices are not brought to sufficient account – as my lack of independence in those circumstances was brought to account.

Heidegger got enough of this right – via his concepts of (a) thrownness into that which we never asked for and is not of the essence, and (b) falsehood or, say, false witness – to orient his students towards the properness of human authenticity.  But he chose not to provide precise descriptors of inauthenticity, which I have always found puzzling.  So they require to be supplied.

I would say to you, as I have said in the past, that you can’t just pick and mix this philosophy with other classes of ideas,

I can spread out and pick ideas and take to heart what is essential, and hold it fast as Heidegger suggests.

Typically, you cast this process in insulting terms, but you are the one prescibing some rule that we have to be beholden to Heidegger verbatim, as you interpret him, not me.

including your social stuff.

Like I said, just insulting words, “stuff” … it is you, GW, who are not a aware …you are not aware of how much a disservice that you (and I suspect Bowery and your Hitler, Jesus and Jewish cheering section in the background) provide by treating the social realm as if it is trivial, a confection, matters that only Jews consider and should continue to consider.

The last thing that should be done is to allow them to be the sole arbiters of these matters. But their wish that it be so has much to do with why they have hoodwinked the entire Alt Right into arguing against “the left.”

Some systems of thought have a relational structure, which in turn gives them an holistic quality.

Parts cannot be successfully transplanted like living tissue to the body of another system.  The process is too violent.

And it is for our people to hold those to account who are doing violence to our systems.

Meanings will be lost (and, yes, you do have only a partial reading of thrownness).  I wonder if you are a subtle enough thinker to see that.

I did not venture a complete rendering of thrownness. But yes, you are right, in the moment of which you speak I was over emphasizing the arbitrarness of the condition in which we find ourselves – our emergent being as it came together from our forebears and as it is held together by our conspefics is not very arbitrary.

 


44

 Posted by Mark Collett on poisonous mantra of individualism on Sun, 17 Sep 2017 04:42 | #

Mark Collett, The poisonous Mantra of Individualism


45

 Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 17 Sep 2017 16:13 | #

CC: GW, if this thrownness into inauthenticity is the unavoidable state of mind of most people, most of the time, how is prescription for adaptive behavior as enforced by a social hierarchy to be avoided?

This is a very large question indeed, and obviously, one that is not addressed ex cathedra, instructing the people to be authentic.  A complete answer would have to take into account all the factors formative of a healthy general life, from sociobiological or instinctual characteristics and the custom and mores and myth they shape, the common wisdom, the faith system, and, if different, the systemic philosophical and political life of the people, and everything in between!  The signifiers of authenticity in the person – groundedness, personal simplicity, natural character, the naturally honest profession of self, self-affirmation, self-possession, and so forth – belong to that healthy general life.  Authenticity as such is a quality which the person (or individual, Daniel) expresses out of his own truth or nature.  An entire people can be authentic if all its members are so.  It is accretive.


46

 Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 17 Sep 2017 23:49 | #

What is needed is a blue ribbon panel of spergs to tell the people what to think at every moment of the day.  It will be called the People’s Revolutionary Committee for the Imposition of Muh Non-Cartesian Hermeneutics.  Lulz


47

 Posted by DanielS on Mon, 18 Sep 2017 06:30 | #

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 17 Sep 2017 18:49 | #

What is needed is a blue ribbon panel of spergs to tell the people what to think at every moment of the day.  It will be called the People’s Revolutionary Committee for the Imposition of Muh Non-Cartesian Hermeneutics.  Lulz

CC, can I ask you what the fuck are you talking about?

Where have I told people what to think, ever, let alone every moment? I welcome, would like, participation in correcting and refining ideas here; and where people do not want to participate in the specificatory structures that I set out, then they can look at GW’s, or Kumiko’s or others, or propose their own, that’s what hermeneutics and social constructionism is all about – participation and recognizing participation as being of the essence.

You are apparently among the desperate cadre of those whose idolatry and right wing reaction has been sent elsewhere (you know what I’m talking about and that’s not telling people what to think, its protecting our capacity to think another way here, more cooperative and inclusive of our own people in our natural self interests), and thus try to apply a false charge of “anti-free” speech among a litany of “left wing” stereotypes …“anti-nature” “apparatchik” (totally ridiculous) “imposing collectivism upon the would-be free individual and nature” – a stereotype which was never the least bit true of me.

Something of the reverse is the case. I have been subject to constant false attributions, viz. accused of saying things and having intentions which I never have; and have been told that I should not talk about hermeneuticis, the interactive unit of analysis, the group unit of analysis (and that I am against the individual when I do), that I must talk about the “natural” individual, “euro-man” and things like “the personality” and a static, Tractatus-like schematization …whereupon Euro-man might rigidly plod along the axioms of his fixed path with sharp elbows and his clunky, mechanistic faculties – ironically for his supposed ideals, impervious to necessary adjustment, destruction to nature and people, their systemic interrelation, even his own.


48

 Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 19 Sep 2017 04:54 | #

Daniel, your entire worldview is the product of a lifetime spent feeling like a put upon, beta weakling.  Any endeavor, and certainly one with very survival as the stakes, that does not place the will to power front and center will be an exercise in flaccid uselessness.


49

 Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 19 Sep 2017 05:18 | #

Nietzsche was perfectly correct about the difference between philosophers and scholars.  Case in point, Descartes was a transcendent genius who elevated the intellectual estate of mankind.  And all you do is gripe like a butthurt pussy, using Descartes’ great name as a tenth rate pejorative.  Lulz. Clean up your fucking act.


50

 Posted by DanielS on Tue, 19 Sep 2017 06:19 | #

Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 18 Sep 2017 23:54 | #

Daniel, your entire worldview is the product of a lifetime spent feeling like a put upon, beta weakling.

Not true, because my complaint has been on a meta-level – against society as it has been organized and orchestrated (early on I did not fully understand the significance of Jewish influence, but we did not have the internet back then); beta weaklings don’t endeavor to be a part of societal transformations; beta weaklings aid and abet the arbitrary situation that serves the most self centered and short sighted females and those who pander to them – YKW and deracinating right-wingers: “the alpha gamers” who, like the meta-pussy whipped bitches that they are, forever try to adjust to what the little lady wants.

Any endeavor, and certainly one with very survival as the stakes, that does not place the will to power front and center will be an exercise in flaccid uselessness.

And so you see, it is a will-to-power, but one that does not accept modernity and its fall-out as merely the way it is – it is a will to power to how it really ought to be, and can be; and I am showing (helping to, anyway) where the “beta’s” and the “alpha’s” and the “shit testers” are going wrong and how they can organize in their/our natural systemic interests.

Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 19 Sep 2017 00:18 | #

Nietzsche was perfectly correct about the difference between philosophers and scholars.  Case in point, Descartes was a transcendent genius who elevated the intellectual estate of mankind.  And all you do is gripe like a butthurt pussy, using Descartes’ great name as a tenth rate pejorative.  Lulz. Clean up your fucking act.

Nietzsche was a classic pussy whipped panderer to a bitch’s world view, so much so, so much and admirer of masculinity, that it is no wonder that grinder-g’s retreat would be enamored of him. It is a homo world view, pandering to females who want to hoodwink men into thinking that they should stand all alone as “over men” – the universal maturity of the Mulatto overman (with their admirable digestive tract) – so that they, the bitches can insight genetic competition as they arbitrarily might- and did, to our disaster in WWII. So that we can wind up with a choice of women oh so subtle, cooperative and sensitive – like black women, more men than any White man ever was.

I wouldn’t say that all I do is gripe like a butthurt; though I have (more so in the past) indulged in criticizing, lets say, the bullying of White men, because the whole “be a man” bit …“White male privilege” and “how could you possibly complain?” and “don’t use words” (to try to figure things out critically) had been overdone in my personal situation and society. The effort to use words and emotions as maps, to articulate problems and connect them with societal critique and means of improvement was a method that was at least somewhat necessary prior to the internet; as it was near impossible to talk about and coordinate these matters. This method, so to speak, was unbecoming at times, I admit. I would try not to do things that way and only fall into defending the bullied position (in the old, habitual pre-internet way of setting forth emotional maps, as much a defensive net as a map) in a pinch, when I feel I’m being gaslighted – and need the topographical map that my intelocutor is trying to obfuscate.

Now I have it/we have it (orientation) and I don’t have to worry about lame attempts at gaslighting such as yours – on behalf of the little innocent lady who thinks “the natural state of modernity that allows her to carry a black bat to hit you over the head with to knock you into the mudwrestling contest and stigmatize White man who’d take it away from her so that she cannot arbitrarily insight the most egregious genetic competition ad nauseum, causing vast, unaccounted for destruction to social/genetic capital and vastly over-pricing herself, as if that’s just the way it is, and only butt hurt, weak beta pussies would not man-up and adjust to that.”

Along with people with philosophical knowledge, I recognize Descartes’ philosophical program as a failure and the sine qua non of a wrong turn in Western philosophy. If one has concern that we should assimilate our natural patterns and interests, then Descartes is not a transcendent genius, he was trying to transcend sense and natural interactive process.


….but no, just be a good White slave, with your sights fixed in techno-servitude to keep things convenient, electronic items, the electricity and other tech and infrastructure working for the little lady and her Nietzchean Mulatto overman.

Posted by Heidegger & Classification on Mon, 09 Oct 2017 00:19 | #

Heidegger and Phenomenology

Heidegger treats matters of classification as fundamentally important rather than superficial or dispensable; and those classifications are managed with the hermeneutic circle.

“Read Aristotle for ten years first”

Important influences on Heidegger

Husserl
Aristotle
Kant
Nietzsche


53

 Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 09 Oct 2017 21:51 | #

Whole peoples cannot perform an academic’s dance.  Do you understand, even at the risk of your own intellectual irrelevance?  The mass of a people makes its own ethnic nationalism, which belongs uniquely to it and to no one else.  It is a political replication of the relationship of genotype to phenotype.  In its arising among the people, therefore, nationalism manifests as blood politics … instinct politics … brother politics.  The mass of a people come into possession of it in the exact same way we, as confirmed nationalists, did.  We all made the journey of the instinct, which is a journey of the consciousness, a journey of emergence from a perfectly automatic identification with all that is given by the world to an intense and natural and sublime accord with our ownmost truth and relation.

This is what we are primarily interested in today.  This is the beginning of everything else.  Every single one of us understands this in our own experience.  We may not formulate it in that exact same way.  At different times in the European past such awakenings have been associated with very different nationalisms to modern ethnic nationalism.  But always this part of it is the same, and it is here that Heidegger holds lessons for us.

I don’t know what “classification” is.  Perhaps it has some role to play further downstream, though I did not see much sign of complex academic adumbrations in the Brexit campaign or in Trump’s election campaign.  So I doubt it.  But one should try to be positive about these things so perhaps we might allow that hermeneuticising academics could conceivably come up with something relevant to the development of a rounder nationalist politics, as the need arises.  But at the awakening, no.


54

 Posted by DanielS on Mon, 09 Oct 2017 23:13 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 09 Oct 2017 16:51 | #

Whole peoples cannot perform an academic’s dance.

There is no dance. That is a word you jealously apply.

You say that you cannot pick and choose among Heidegger, you seem to imply that we cannot use these ‘fancy words’ but then turn around and say that “Dasein” is ok to talk about, but not hermeneutics.

This is characteristic of your absurd position toward academia.

The fact is, that people’s way of talking frequently has made its way down from academia – just as “narrative”, a fundamental aspect of hermeneutics, has now become a common way of talking.


In fact, a whole people can share a narrative of their peoplehood; that’s the idea, one of the important features of hermeneutics is that it facilitates broad coherence where the the arbitrary facticity of the empirical world does not.

Do you understand, even at the risk of your own intellectual irrelevance?

Irrelevance? This is a projection of yours as you attempt to re-apply modernist philosophy over two hundred years obsolete.

Do you understand that you are the best friend that the Jews ever had?

Hey, you White people, you don’t want any of that “intellectual stuff’, leave the thinking to the YKW”

The mass of a people makes its own ethnic nationalism, which belongs uniquely to it and to no one else.

Here is where you are intransigently anachronistic and destructive in your default modernity.

In post modernity, i.e., in competence with regard to its requirements – as opposed to your insistence upon trying to maintain pure modernity – what happens is that it is expected that there will be and should be specific peoples who will need to maintain their traditions, their inheritance and balance it with modernity – in the case of the English, there is a kind of tradition of modernity: It is expected that there will be scientific investigations as to what it means to be English in a very empirical way, as close to foundational and empirical a reading as possible for some specialists; and that is appreciated.

That’s fine. That’s one end of the hermeneutic circle. *

However, the English are in interaction. They are in interaction period and they are in interaction with other peoples.

This is where post modernity becomes necessary if they are to maintain themselves and interact competently with other peoples.

Narcissistically approaching other peoples with universal theory, such as a “universal theory of mind” will not allow for other cultures to be understood properly and coordinated with, for them to be maintained, for the English to be maintained.

Nor will retreating back simply to “traditions”, particularly when “traditions” have been the likes of (((Christianity))).

It is a political replication of the relationship of genotype to phenotype.

No it isn’t. These are words that you misapply to things that I say because you approach everything I say as if it is coming from a hostile competitor trying to impose things, rather than as someone bringing tools of post modernity which are crafted exactly to facilitate our peoples defending, maintaining, fostering ourselves as discrete peoples among other peoples.

In its arising among the people, therefore, nationalism manifests as blood politics … instinct politics … brother politics.

Where that happens that’s fine, there is no interference from my part; and coinciding with your objectives, observing national boundaries and clearing the way of affectations will help to facilitate that kind of thing.

The mass of a people come into possession of it in the exact same way we, as confirmed nationalists, did.

Inasmuch as they do, there will be no interference from me. The interference is on your part.

We all made the journey of the instinct, which is a journey of the consciousness, a journey of emergence from a perfectly automatic identification with all that is given by the world to an intense and natural and sublime accord with our ownmost truth and relation.

That’s one story to tell, a wish to return to the innocence of mood signals. Very modernist indeed and you should speak for yourself rather than saying we all want something quite so primitive and debilitating in its prescription of how we are supposed to make our way in the world and deal with other people. The rest of us are more normal. We expect our orgasms and sublime moments, but don’t expect every day and every episode to be nothing but. You will bump up against people with logics of meaning and action that don’t always readily accord with yours; a narrative recontexting will be necessary. That’s reality.

This is what we are primarily interested in today.

Again, speak for yourself. That may be what you are solely interested in; and inquiry into instincts and natural behaviors of say, “the English” is expected, but such reductionism will not suffice.

This is the beginning of everything else.

Hermeneutics is not secondary, it is a necessary process for inquiring into cotemporaneous matters as we must, as we are not able to separate ourselves from ongoing interactive concerns.

Your wish that the world would stop, and interaction to cease in order for you to build your ontological foundation is as Cartesian as it gets, all for wont of the modicum of sophistication that would allow for a proper process of inquiry which recognizes the necessity to assimilate the co-evolutionary process of inquiry with close readings and broader orientation in reciprocal sequence as need be: it is no more unnatural or complex than allowing your heart to beat or your lungs to breathe – in fact, it will happen of its own accord if you won’t allow for it.

When you say “we” you are applying a classification.

You take a superficial modernist default handed down to you, i.e., that there are no categories, no need for them, only Lockeatine empiricism; you do that, as opposed to Heidegger’s suggestion that there are categories, as he observes in his post modern turn; you rather want to say there are no categories and no need to manage them, you will thus adopt categories superficially, by default.

Every single one of us understands this in our own experience.

We have unique entering points, but it is among people with common languages that strech well beyond mere instinct, rule structures that maintain broad legitimacies, narrowing obligations and prohibitions, narratives which open vistas from the vast and general trends to the particular and peculiar, etc.

We may not formulate it in that exact same way.

You are the one saying that “we” need a “theory of the mind” …

An individual might use one… some generic guidelines of “the English mind” might be identified, even general checkpoints of individual mindfulness, when an individual is being mindful,  but to universalize a prerequisite for universal mind, as you do? You are the one who is absurd in you application of formula.

At different times in the European past such awakenings have been associated with very different nationalisms to modern ethnic nationalism.  But always this part of it is the same, and it is here that Heidegger holds lessons for us.

Well, you think Nazi Germany was an awakening. I recognize it as something more like a collective allergic reaction.

This aspiration for a collective instinctual awakening will happen correctly instead, through a narrative that resonates with instincts and inspires imagination, pride and loyalty and awareness of the significance of our peoples among others.

I don’t know what “classification” is.  Perhaps it has some role to play further downstream,

Not according to Heidegger, they are there from the start, we are thrown into them and where they resonate of being they are profound. Where they are merely accepted as applied against our being, against our classification, as you do with your superficial acceptance of Jewish definitions of left and right, they are estranging.

though I did not see much sign of complex academic adumbrations in the Brexit campaign or in Trump’s election campaign.

Did you get that from Lawrence’s article? It was so stupid that I didn’t even see the need to comment on it. Talk about going with Jewish categorization.

BTW: complex and adumbration is a bit of an oxymoron.

Furthermore, I neither said that things have to be complicated or uncomplicated. You are imputing unnecessary complexity to me as a means of your habitual contentiousness. That’s all.

So I doubt it.  But one should try to be positive about these things so perhaps we might allow that hermeneuticising academics could conceivably come up with something relevant to the development of a rounder nationalist politics, as the need arises.

Brexit would have come about through a combination of reasons (which are obvious), ranging from the obvious injustice and overwhelmingness of immigration to England to compelling narrative circulating among ordinary people – not the least of which would be Farage’s skill as a rhetorician on the floor of European Parliament.

But at the awakening, no.

Well the awakening. Again, you misunderstand hermeneutics when you act as if it does not include at one end empirical reality – as in being confronted by a swarthy gang in East London or hearing the Muslim call to prayer – in one’s home town!


* Yet another hermeneutic end would be to draw upon say, the ancient narratives of the English, a people who came to the island, blending a few particular kinds of European, galvanizing a language of their own, winning wars at great odds, having some set backs as in the case of the Battle of Hastings and its creating of a divisive ruling class..  perhaps to be overcome…however the story might go…


55

 Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 10 Oct 2017 04:39 | #

Which philosophy is more relevant to a struggle against impending extinction; a philosophy of balls (Nietzsche), or a philosophy of meditative navel-gazing (beta pussy Heidegger)?


56

 Posted by DanielS on Tue, 10 Oct 2017 06:00 | #

I wouldn’t say that Heidegger properly understood is meditative navel gazing. Furthermore, his philosophy in many places is an extrapolation on Nietzsche. Both are good, neither is enough. Heidegger is the better and more useful.


57

 Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 10 Oct 2017 06:16 | #

If Heidegger wasn’t beta then why he have to settle for Jewish pussy?  Lulz


58

 Posted by DanielS on Tue, 10 Oct 2017 06:51 | #

He didn’t settle for it, he took it on the side. I’ll bet that at a certain age and under certain circumstances (i.e., if your world view wasn’t crystal clear and she was still young), if Hannah Arendt wanted to pay you a little homage that you might let her.

      


59

 Posted by DanielS on Wed, 11 Oct 2017 01:56 | #

Adding the sentences in bold, for further clarification of the significance of hermeneutics.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 09 Oct 2017 16:51 | #

Whole peoples cannot perform an academic’s dance.

There is no dance. That is a word you jealously apply.

You say that you cannot pick and choose among Heidegger, you seem to imply that we cannot use these ‘fancy words’ but then turn around and say that “Dasein” is ok to talk about, but not hermeneutics.

This is characteristic of your absurd position toward academia.

The fact is, that people’s way of talking frequently has made its way down from academia – just as “narrative”, a fundamental aspect of hermeneutics, has now become a common way of talking.

In fact, a whole people can share a narrative of their peoplehood; that’s the idea, one of the important features of hermeneutics is that it facilitates broad coherence where the the arbitrary facticity of the empirical world does not.

Do you understand, even at the risk of your own intellectual irrelevance?

Irrelevance? This is a projection of yours as you attempt to re-apply modernist philosophy over two hundred years obsolete.

Do you understand that you are the best friend that the Jews ever had?

Hey, you White people, you don’t want any of that “intellectual stuff’, leave the thinking to the YKW”

This is the beginning of everything else.

Hermeneutics is not secondary, it is a necessary process for inquiring into cotemporaneous matters as we must, as we are not able to separate ourselves from ongoing interactive concerns.

 


60

 Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 11 Oct 2017 22:22 | #

I said, Daniel, that you can’t raid Heidegger for your academic project.  You can’t pick out, say, “false Dasein”, de-systematise it, do some definitional violence to it, but leave the rest of the epistemology.  You can advance the epistemology, as a form of truth, but you are not doing that.

There are other misconceptions in your attempted critique of what I am, in general, saying.  First, you want to label my proposed model of the tri-partite Mind (as emergent form) as “psychologism”.  Now, I am not a scholar, but I assume that you are joining the long queue of scholars attacking poor old John Locke for his epistemological theory, and hoping to rope me in while you are at it.  To cut to the chase, I assume you are accusing me of aguing that the process of cognition has something to say about the nature (or, in Heideggerian terms, structure) of meaning; and since (again, in the Heideggerian scheme) we are looking only at human being, we “mean” here the meaning of being – which is Heidegger’s project, and which plainly does not admit of any reductionism.

Well, I answered the charge of psychologism at comment 9 above, on emergentism and the Korean gentleman’s trick with Descartes.  You are substituting Locke, but the gist is the same, and the same rebuttal applies, thus:

As regards what Mind actually is, well, it is the functioning of the human brain in its cognitive aspect (the brain also has a regulatory aspect as well as a reproductive aspect).  It can be modelled basically but quite straightforwardly just using its functional machinery.  The neurological detail is not required.  It is only necessary that the emerging model does not offend against that at any point, or it, too, ceases to have verity.  The model is, therefore, not neurological itself, nor is it psychological.  It is interpretative of the human experience and propositional and, therefore, essentially philosophical in character and in application to various philosophical issues, of which the human will is probably the one on which it most directly bears.

More generally, emergentism proves its relevance not because it resolves a false dichotomy but because it establishes the historical form of the life-process in all its manifestations, which necessarily include processes of change.  It acknowledges functional order, energy and direction where Descartes saw only stasis and division.  His dichotomy dissolves, and we are left with a new general rule.

Can you be more disciplined, please; and not reward yourself the latitude to repeat rebutted charges?  Your points about Cartesianism and now Lockean cognition are answered in the negative.  Let that be enough of them.  But …

If you still cannot agree to stand down, I will devote a little time now to the question of identity and being, because this is another area you are seeking to exploit for your own purposes in this exchange.

My (surely perfectly commonplace) contention is that being, as the being of Beings, is a process itself: the raw life-process of natural entities whose sole possibility is to subsist, fleetingly, under physical law in Time and Place – or, more prosaically, “the world without, which is one of unknown and imminent but deadly threat as well as of life-sustaining opportunities” (see my comment at 6).  “Being as life-process” is critical to a non-abitrary distinction with a state of mere existence, while holding firmly to the utilitarian rule that everything roots back to materiality, and not immateriality, not some pre-existing, generative ground of “is-ness”, not “ineffable spirit”.  Such are metaphysical notions which lead directly into religious thinking, which, throughout Being and Time Heidegger himself was at pains to eschew, and at its end stating this:

Our existential analytic of Dasein, on the contrary, starts with the “concretion” of factically thrown existence itself in order to unveil temporality as that which makes existence possible.

But even with such clarifying measures, if not religious thinking, then what CC calls “meditative navel-gazing” is always lurking near, ready to swallow up the unwary – not least because the isolated nature of thinking, and of cognition generally, leads us to frame that natural, subsistent entity, thrown into Time and Place, principally in singular terms and as a potentially solipsistic, suffering Jesus-identity nailed to the cosmic cross, or perhaps as the Tom Hanks character from Cast Away, separated from the constructed “Wilson” and nailed on his cross:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afiuJ2tsoVA

This is just the human condition, and it has nothing to do with Cartesianism.  It does not, for example, militate that the entity cannot be plural.  We could make a dual model of the plural in the form of a native people and an armed aggressor group at its door.  Each has a being which is not the being of its individuals or even the sum of the being of its individuals, precisely because these individuals are fitted in their respective groups.  That fitting is by relation, and by non-relation; and both hold urgent implications for epistemological enquiry of the one by the other, along the lines of threat ↔ obstacle.  This shows that identity is in relation even in that Sibelian moment of a “beseeching of life’s fate in death”.  In this respect the plural does imply some loss of focal power.  But that is not to say that it is reductive in any way.  The individual beings as group-being have other possibilities for being in their common endeavour.  Further, just as identity is always in relation, being as such is always contextual, always “of” and tending to “in kind”.  From the Sibelius article:

For it needs to be said to every nationalist approaching Heidegger with doubts about his value to our politics, that while we necessarily exist and perceive as individuals nevertheless we only do so nature to nature.  Ours is a being disclosed not only in its being with other beings, but in its ownself’s relationship of kind … of a given, distinct pattern or line; and, further, a being which is most at one, most beautious and fitted when it is … in … kind.

I will go further and state that if that oneness is relation, that beauty is love – the much-remarked upon void in Heidegger’s work.  It’s a shortcoming which seems to me to be inevitable and entirely appropriate to someone who focussed so singularly and relentlessly on pure thinking.  It seems to have sounded a bell that rings on among Heidegger scholars.  There are consequences, most visible as abstractions intensify.  You quote Sheehan:

In other words, time is a characteristic of human existence.
So, it takes it out of the cosmos and puts it into the realm of human existence. Time occurs only with the human being, Aristotle, Augustin and Plotinus would agree to that.

But would any physicist or mathematician agree?  Properly speaking, by its relativity Time dilates with movement.  But relativity, whilst it certainly accords a unique subjectivity to the observer of it, does not imply that Time itself is dependent for its own existence upon the human observer.  It is a mechanical process.  Notwithstanding the enduring difficulties of finding a functioning definition for it, Time is a condition for human existence, not a condition of it.  Time cannot be a literal characteristic of human existence, therefore.  But the way we observe it is, and also the way we perceive it as a divided entity.  The concept of eternity, for example, is uniquely human.

But Sheehan doubles down when he says:

And time, he says, he says this in 1949, he says this in the Logic book that I translated, time is only a preliminary way of saying alethia – openness; unclosedness; disclosure; which is something that is the primary determinant of human being.

Well, I do not go along with this.  Yes, our capacity to order the Time process, in all its unknowableness, as temporality is inherent to our being as human beings.  Yes, our Darwinian condition – a pre-condition – of existing for the transmission of ever more suitable information in the form of DNA renders us, and all sentient beings, perpetual harvesters of the nature of things and discriminators of their meanings.  Yes, there is a sense in which it can be said that a characteristic of “being there”, compromised as it ordinarily is (ie, in ordinary waking consciousness), is openness … as is interest (which overlaps with and, in my view, precedes “care” as the simple will to survive) … as is discrimination.  But, in any case, all these things are distinct from one another.  I do not see them merging together, and I do not see any of them as “the primary determinant of human being”.  Human nature is the primary determinant of human being.  There is just no need to mystify it as Sheehan and, possibly Heidegger, does.  Indeed, if all these fine and respected scholars looked to the nature of the world more and its meanings less, they might produce less convoluted statements.

What I also see, I think, is the practical limitation of the intellectual function as it strives to penetrate further and further towards what the vestigially Catholic Heidegger termed the onto-theological.  It is a realm which Mind properly penetrates in the functional harmony of a presence which is not got by thought alone, but by the exercise of the attention.  It is a realm I am content to give up to speculation, at least for the time being (so to speak).  It is the realm situated to the right of presence in my ontological model:

PRESENCE → non-ascription of identity → self-annihilation → unalloyed Being

I will not yield any ground to you in this exchange, Daniel.  You are welcome to your tool-kits and faux-circles and learned techniques.  I have spent my intellectual life doing parkour – of necessity, I admit.  But that’s how I like it.


61

 Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 11 Oct 2017 23:32 | #

Heidegger was also a literal cuckold.  Heidegger’s wife cheated on him and gave birth to a son that was not his genetic progeny.  Lulz.  What a fucking loser!


62

 Posted by DanielS on Thu, 12 Oct 2017 04:24 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 11 Oct 2017 17:22 | #

I said, Daniel, that you can’t raid Heidegger for your academic project.

And I said that I don’t do that. Furthermore, I observe that the charge is hypocritical, as you reject parts of Heidegger that do not suit your epistemological blunder.

The world and interaction, social interaction are supposed to stop to suit it as opposed to taking Heidegger’s very means to deal with it.

Your puerile autobiography calls for me to be your academic foil, applying mere academic concepts to reality, but that “assessment” is no assessment, it is a reflection of the fact that you do not so much as read, let alone bother to apply concepts the significance of which I make plain.

You can’t pick out, say, “false Dasein”, de-systematise it, do some definitional violence to it, but leave the rest of the epistemology.

I don’t do that.

You can advance the epistemology, as a form of truth, but you are not doing that.

Actually, I am advancing the epistemology, but not in an aspect that you can be bothered to understand.

There are other misconceptions in your attempted critique of what I am, in general, saying.

I am not usually addressing what you are saying. But I can say that all you ever do is misrepresent what I say with straw men.

You are absurdly contentious.

First, you want to label my proposed model of the tri-partite Mind (as emergent form) as “psychologism”.

It probably is a psychologism.

Now, I am not a scholar,

Modest, you are.

but I assume that you are joining the long queue of scholars attacking poor old John Locke for his epistemological theory, and hoping to rope me in while you are at it.

It is your conceit to think that my concern is to defeat you.

Vain competition is your thing, it’s your problem.

I am after the most useful and proper theory as tooled for our cause.

To cut to the chase, I assume you are accusing me of aguing that the process of cognition has something to say about the nature (or, in Heideggerian terms, structure) of meaning;

No I am not saying that.

and since (again, in the Heideggerian scheme) we are looking only at human being, we “mean” here the meaning of being – which is Heidegger’s project, and which plainly does not admit of any reductionism.

Well, I answered the charge of psychologism at comment 9 above, on emergentism and the Korean gentleman’s trick with Descartes.

You are substituting Locke, but the gist is the same, and the same rebuttal applies, thus:

I am not substituting Locke. This is yours and Bowery’s philosophical incompetence revealing itself by committee.

In your STEM predilection’s rigidity, you try to locate and reduce what I am saying to one singular problem in a tightly causal circuit.

I.e., as simply an attack on yours and Bowery’s wish to “reboot the enlightenment” and a Lockeatine project in particular.

I would have thought you would listen to Graham Lister where he said that “the best scientists are hermeneuticists” – it’s true.

  As regards what Mind actually is, well, it is the functioning of the human brain in its cognitive aspect (the brain also has a regulatory aspect as well as a reproductive aspect).  It can be modelled basically but quite straightforwardly just using its functional machinery.  The neurological detail is not required.

You can have a theory of mind and it may even be useful to suggest this routine is what people do when their mind is functioning properly at a basic level – for just about all people (quite simply) and specifically, where it is playing its part maintaining individual and systemic function; on top of that, beyond mere utility, displaying the profundity of kind. A theory of “mind” could have some utility and standing, but yours is shallow and philosophically lame.

Rather, mind, group and nature is a necessary unity.

The part in maintaining our system would be the most important aspect for the defense of nationalism. Where you do not falsely impute antagonism on my part to that feature of homeostasis when it does emerge, you do not emphasize it, but rather assume that it is more assured (“there can be no other”) than it is.

It is only necessary that the emerging model does not offend against that at any point, or it, too, ceases to have verity.  The model is, therefore, not neurological itself, nor is it psychological.  It is interpretative of the human experience and propositional and, therefore, essentially philosophical in character and in application to various philosophical issues, of which the human will is probably the one on which it most directly bears.

Go for it.

  More generally, emergentism proves its relevance not because it resolves a false dichotomy but because it establishes the historical form of the life-process in all its manifestations, which necessarily include processes of change.  It acknowledges functional order, energy and direction where Descartes saw only stasis and division.  His dichotomy dissolves, and we are left with a new general rule.

That’s fine, so along as it is not lineal and divorced from interaction as you seem to hope it should be – that is where you are Cartesian. Cartesianism uncorrected with hermeneutics would take us away from the relevance of application to the relative interests of our particular peoples.

Can you be more disciplined, please; and not reward yourself the latitude to repeat rebutted charges?

This is a projection, as usual. You are CONSTANTLY contending against rebutted charges.

Your contention that I am in danger of intellectual irrelevance is a projection – it is rather you (and your committee member Bowery) who endanger yourself with irrelevance as you try to resurrect the enlightenment, or the Tractatus.

Your points about Cartesianism and now Lockean cognition are answered in the negative.  Let that be enough of them.  But …

Absolutely not. Because I do not apply them where they should not be applied.

You and Bowery are simply so egotistical and misplaced in your competitiveness, that you cannot handle the fact that a critique of the epistemological blunder of Descates and Locke is absolutely relevant to the philosophy of our cause.

And the shame of it is that you would place your egos above theoretical requirements of our cause.

It is against those errors that I compete, whereas you and Bowery compete against those who threaten your ego; and you try to render them redundant – these others, in this case I (viz., your straw man misrepresentations of me), am what is “the error’ which needs to be isolated and replaced as the problem in the errant circuit of the system” – you do that, rather than attend to theoretical error of social systemic epistemology.

I told you that Bowery has desperately tried to order me to “stay far away from DesCartes” because I am “demoralizing our people” 

I am not going to do that and the reasons why would be plain if you would bother to read anything that I’ve said, even in the above post and thread.

Graham Lister understood what I was saying and he (correctly) mocked Bowery as “John Locke in outer space.”

Because your gargantuan ego was hurt in its place as ‘the only important mind, whereas all else are redundant’, you are particularly prone to attack ideas more important than, well – that – is.

That is why you wound up opting for Bowery in his ultimatum, because he was more useful for your ego project – whereas Lister, though more correct, was not convenient to you, as he appreciated what I was saying.

As you should too (should have a long time ago: you’ve needlessly wasted much of our time and effort), recognizing that it can encompass what you want to do with your ontology and emergentism focus, if you ever, would finally be bothered to understand (to read) what I say.

And its a shame that you opted to push Lister away because philosophically, Lister was in some important ways, better and more relevant than Bowery.

If you still cannot agree to stand down,

Stand down? That’s what I mean. Fuck off. Everything is a personal competition with you guys, whereas I am after proper theory.

I will devote a little time now to the question of identity and being, because this is another area you are seeking to exploit for your own purposes in this exchange.

Again, a projection. I don’t seek to exploit for MY purposes. That is what YOU DO.

My (surely perfectly commonplace) contention is that being, as the being of Beings, is a process itself: the raw life-process of natural entities whose sole possibility is to subsist, fleetingly, under physical law in Time and Place – or, more prosaically, “the world without, which is one of unknown and imminent but deadly threat as well as of life-sustaining opportunities” (see my comment at 6).  “Being as life-process” is critical to a non-abitrary distinction with a state of mere existence, while holding firmly to the utilitarian rule that everything roots back to materiality, and not immateriality, not some pre-existing, generative ground of “is-ness”, not “ineffable spirit”.  Such are metaphysical notions which lead directly into religious thinking, which, throughout Being and Time Heidegger himself was at pains to eschew, and at its end stating this:

  Our existential analytic of Dasein, on the contrary, starts with the “concretion” of factically thrown existence itself in order to unveil temporality as that which makes existence possible.

Ok, where I have not said as much, there’s nothing there that contradicts what I bring to bear.

But even with such clarifying measures, if not religious thinking, then what CC calls “meditative navel-gazing” is always lurking near, ready to swallow up the unwary – not least because the isolated nature of thinking, and of cognition generally, leads us to frame that natural, subsistent entity, thrown into Time and Place, principally in singular terms and as a potentially solipsistic, suffering Jesus-identity nailed to the cosmic cross

That is a danger that you are susceptible to indeed.

, or perhaps as the Tom Hanks character from Cast Away, separated from the constructed “Wilson” and nailed on his cross:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afiuJ2tsoVA

I’ll have a look at the video later. I find it hard to watch Tom Hanks – something about his face and his place in hymiewood puts me off.

This is just the human condition, and it has nothing to do with Cartesianism.

The human condition is not JUST that, this is just you trying to reduce things and render signficant contributions of others redundant because they threaten your gargantuan ego – you are that conceited that you would place the place of your ego as singularly important before the well being of the cause.

Grow the fuck up GW.

It does not, for example, militate that the entity cannot be plural.  We could make a dual model of the plural in the form of a native people and an armed aggressor group at its door.

I didn’t say that we could not have a dual model or pluralistic model. You refuse to understand what is being done with the critique of Cartesianism and why it is important, because it threatens your puerile ego.

Each has a being which is not the being of its individuals or even the sum of the being of its individuals, precisely because these individuals are fitted in their respective groups.

Yeah, there is systemic being.

That fitting is by relation, and by non-relation; and both hold urgent implications for epistemological enquiry of the one by the other, along the lines of threat ↔ obstacle.  This shows that identity is in relation even in that Sibelian moment of a “beseeching of life’s fate in death”.  In this respect the plural does imply some loss of focal power.

One can use dichotomies provisionally and then bring ones self out of false dichotomy, destructive, mechanistic, unaccountable, anti social myopic focus to negotiate a more sophisticated notion of coherence yes. That’s what the hermeneutic process is conceived to encourage.

It is a process to overcome linear rigidity and the Cartesian anxiety which would have one give horrific bum steers against important ideas as if they are not important but that we must put all contemporaneous and coevolutionary matters, philosophically essential matters aside to somehow make the world stop in the retardation of your impervious ontology project.

But that is not to say that it is reductive in any way.  The individual beings as group-being have other possibilities for being in their common endeavour.  Further, just as identity is always in relation, being as such is always contextual, always “of” and tending to “in kind”.  From the Sibelius article:

  For it needs to be said to every nationalist approaching Heidegger with doubts about his value to our politics, that while we necessarily exist and perceive as individuals nevertheless we only do so nature to nature.

That depends upon what you mean by “nature.”

When you suggest that Jordan and Paglia are going to critique “post modernity” for us, one cannot simply trust in your capacity to define.

Ours is a being disclosed not only in its being with other beings, but in its ownself’s relationship of kind … of a given, distinct pattern or line; and, further, a being which is most at one, most beautious and fitted when it is … in … kind.

Well, lets hope so, but there are an awful lot of mudsharks around, plenty of English ones, who don’t agree with you.

And it is clear that your ontology project is neither enough nor a singular priority. Worse, your misrepresenting as trivial and antagonistic ideas and concepts which are conceived to facilitate the being of distinct peoples is a vast disservice that you have performed for more than five years now.

Stop it.

I will go further and state that if that oneness is relation, that beauty is love – the much-remarked upon void in Heidegger’s work.

And some mudsharks will claim affinity enough.

It’s a shortcoming which seems to me to be inevitable and entirely appropriate to someone who focussed so singularly and relentlessly on pure thinking.  It seems to have sounded a bell that rings on among Heidegger scholars.  There are consequences, most visible as abstractions intensify.

The shortcoming was apparently derivative of his phenomenological, therefore overly subjective perspective. That was expressed in the selfishness and myopia of ownmost being toward death. He was not relational, social, interactive enough in his project; though he was, in his own clunky way, trying to move theoria into praxis.

You quote Sheehan:

I quoted him, I did not say that I agreed with all of his assessments.

  In other words, time is a characteristic of human existence.
  So, it takes it out of the cosmos and puts it into the realm of human existence. Time occurs only with the human being, Aristotle, Augustin and Plotinus would agree to that.

But would any physicist or mathematician agree?  Properly speaking, by its relativity Time dilates with movement.  But relativity, whilst it certainly accords a unique subjectivity to the observer of it, does not imply that Time itself is dependent for its own existence upon the human observer.  It is a mechanical process.  Notwithstanding the enduring difficulties of finding a functioning definition for it, Time is a condition for human existence, not a condition of it.  Time cannot be a literal characteristic of human existence, therefore.  But the way we observe it is, and also the way we perceive it as a divided entity.  The concept of eternity, for example, is uniquely human.

But Sheehan doubles down when he says:

  And time, he says, he says this in 1949, he says this in the Logic book that I translated, time is only a preliminary way of saying alethia – openness; unclosedness; disclosure; which is something that is the primary determinant of human being.

Well, I do not go along with this.

Neither do I.

Yes, our capacity to order the Time process, in all its unknowableness, as temporality is inherent to our being as human beings.  Yes, our Darwinian condition – a pre-condition – of existing for the transmission of ever more suitable information in the form of DNA renders us, and all sentient beings, perpetual harvesters of the nature of things and discriminators of their meanings.  Yes, there is a sense in which it can be said that a characteristic of “being there”, compromised as it ordinarily is (ie, in ordinary waking consciousness), is openness … as is interest (which overlaps with and, in my view, precedes “care” as the simple will to survive) … as is discrimination.  But, in any case, all these things are distinct from one another.  I do not see them merging together, and I do not see any of them as “the primary determinant of human being”.  Human nature is the primary determinant of human being.  There is just no need to mystify it as Sheehan and, possibly Heidegger, does.  Indeed, if all these fine and respected scholars looked to the nature of the world more and its meanings less, they might produce less convoluted statements.

What I also see, I think, is the practical limitation of the intellectual function as it strives to penetrate further and further towards what the vestigially Catholic Heidegger termed the onto-theological.  It is a realm which Mind properly penetrates in the functional harmony of a presence which is not got by thought alone, but by the exercise of the attention.  It is a realm I am content to give up to speculation, at least for the time being (so to speak).  It is the realm situated to the right of presence in my ontological model:

  PRESENCE → non-ascription of identity → self-annihilation → unalloyed Being

I will not yield any ground to you in this exchange, Daniel.  You are welcome to your tool-kits and faux-circles and learned techniques.  I have spent my intellectual life doing parkour – of necessity, I admit.  But that’s how I like it.

I will not yield ground to you either, GW. I know that you are such a baby that you will continue to try to belittle even very important ideas (“tool-kits and faux-circles”) that I bring forth, mattering not to you that they were and are conceived from the onset to facilitate the same concerns that you have, for your/our discreet peoples, are not obstructive or contentious of emergence, our significance beyond mere utility, only that they threaten your gargantuan, unmerited ego, the conentiousness of which evolved in and for the business world (where it makes good sense to besmirch and devalue your “competitor’s” product, while trying to portray your own product as solely important), not honest philosophical purpose; where you would recognize a collaborator if you weren’t blinded by the shadow of your own gargantuan ego from seeing what I say and its significance.

Don’t try to tell me not to place DesCartes and Locke as marking a crucial point in philosophical / epistemological blunder – with disastrous implications for our people to be overcome by the tool kit and hermeneutic circle of post modernity, lest you continue to not only render yourself philosophically irrelevant, but indeed the image of a fool so enamored of his own ego that he would place that before the well being and the being indeed of our peoples; and is thus rightfully to be moved aside as a vain obstruction.

You can shut up and re-read the post. If you were to ever read it (correctly) and stop interposing your straw men, you would see that it is not in competition or antagonism to ethnonationalism and its requirements, not in competition with being, emergentism nor the predilection to attend to the scientific and empirical requirements. Maybe it will finally sink through your skull.


63

 Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 12 Oct 2017 16:12 | #

CC asks: Which philosophy is more relevant to a struggle against impending extinction; a philosophy of balls (Nietzsche), or a philosophy of meditative navel-gazing (beta pussy Heidegger)?

Heidegger wrote a rather weight tome that re-assigned Nietzsche to the nihilist historical shift he – Nietzsche – thought he was agitating to end.  Heidegger showed that Nietzsche’s implicit assumptions were drawn from the old lines of metaphysical thought, and so he was not actually definitively breaking with them at all.  He was mediating and re-presenting them.  Heidegger, meanwhile, serially demonstrated that his quest for a new foundation for meaning was historiographically novel, and its attitude towards that historiography revolutionary.

So that isn’t the best basis for making the argument that Nietzschean thought is a “philosophy of balls” and Heideggerian thought is all solipsistic navel-gazing.  It may be that, as is so often the case in life, the swaggering Nietschzean bully is quickly bested by the authentic fighting man:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-V4NKGte7pA


64

 Posted by “Pestering” makes the example easy on Thu, 12 Oct 2017 16:58 | #

See here

Note: I’ve tidied that comment up a bit as need be – my power went off as I was nearing completion and correction of the comment.

It needed an example of a more concrete act in response to a clear violation of social norms, i.e., “Pestering girls at a bar” = bouncers are entitled to remove any man, even Africans in PC circumstance.


65

 Posted by DanielS on Sat, 14 Oct 2017 15:10 | #

In other words, it may seem natural for a gold fish to mate with a gold fish in a gold fish bowl.

But thrown up against the stresses of various challengers by modernity’s rupture of classification, it may seem quite natural to try to adapt by merging with other kinds in preparation for contingencies.


66

 Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 15 Oct 2017 10:56 | #

More on the notion Daniel reports above that Time is another way of saying Alethea (the meaning of which Heidegger shifted from “truth” to meaning), and this is what being itself is … not what being means even, but what it actually is.

Sheehan is saying::

And he [ie, Heidegger] defines time as the need to make things meaningfully present, so he focuses on the present moment of time. Anyway, he does this by a close and I must say difficult analysis of Kantian schematism, which turned out to be the first draft of his 1929 book on Kant.

And in the whole book, he anticipates what he would later say, namely that time is only a stand in for alethia, incorrectly translated as truth.

So its an important text, it underlies a certain shift that’s taking place in the profession these days, I would call it a paradigm shift that’s settling in among the younger scholars, among the best graduate students as well among some of us oldies, the paradigm shift consisting-in and its clear from part two of this book that Heidegger interprets Being as meaning bedoitzonkite – so meaning, significance etc, is what he means by being; which is no surprise because being is always the meaningful presence of something to one, in the practical or theoretical order.

… he actually defines world as, the structure of world as bedoitzonkite, what goes on inside of world is bedoitund.

As he says, when things are discovered along with human being, that is to say when they’ve been understood, we say they have meaning.

So, really what he’s saying is that the human being is a hermeneut – that’s not an add-on to some sort of plain old existence. Our existence is the obligation, the need the thrownness into making sense of things …in fact, the first meaning of the word of Alethea is meaning, its not truth, as Heidegger points out; so if we’re embedded in hermeneutics and he is using the word bedoitzonkite, I think that we can actually retrieve from this plain old word being, we can retrieve the urgency that Heidegger feels are in your face – he says at on point in his first course after the war, the Great War, in February of 1919, he asks his students, what is it that you first encounter in your lived world? Is it things, is it objects, is it being? No, he says, its meaningful, that’s what’s in your face…all over the place, it’s coming at you. So, we don’t want to lose him to traditional ontology which just talks about the inner substance of things – no, we want to have him on this side of phenomenology as he himself insisted …and one way of constantly recognizing that is being in your face. Being is meaning.

First, I should point out that “the structure of the world” as bedoitzonkite”, according to Sheehan, is probably meant to be bedoitzonkiet, which translates as something very like bedrock.  “What goes on in the world” as bedoitund is probably bedoitung, which translates as importance or significance.  However, Sheehan states that it is bedoitzonkite which means meaning.  So, that’s all rather odd for a famed translator of Heidegger from the original German.

Anyway, let’s quickly look at this claim that time is truth, truth is being, and being is meaning, which is the merry hermeneutic carousel which Sheehan wants us to clamber onboard.  Will it bear the weight of a human being?

Well, let’s begin with the first clarification.  “Being here/there” is not the whole of it.  The cross we bear is that of Place as well as Time.  Accordingly, the better formulation is “being here now”.  But this is still incomplete.  The whole sentence is: “I am here now”.  Neither the actor “I” nor the action “am” is synonymous with the place and time.  An action can be ascribed a cause or reason, or a function, a consequence, a state, and so forth.  Its siting can be identified.  Its duration can be measured.  But it cannot be that site or that time.

No.2: For human beings to be hermeneuts in anything but a narrow and circular sense, as Sheehan is wont to claim, would require that (a) the very essence of the subject’s act of being here now is interpretative, and (b) that that is all there is, such that the whole human being is that or primarily that.  Well, the why of cognition … the function of it … was resolved by Charles Darwin long ago on the chalk path at Downe House, such that it is subordinate to the subsistence of the organism, which itself is concordant with the transmission of its traits for fitness.  Human beings are subsisters and transmitters.  Simple hermeneuts do not and cannot exist, for cognition is part of the greater organic process.

No.3: To advance that last thought …

The question arises as to whether “I am here now” refers only to cognition, or whether it refers differently to other aspects of Mind and consciousness.  There are senses in which there is “more” in Mind and consciousness than cognition.  One, as referenced above, is that there is subsequent decision-making and action-taking.  Decisions and actions are taken in the same totality of place and time (in which “I am”, because there is nothing else).  However, the line of sight, so to speak, switches from its cognitive focus to the actor.  This is the true “circle”, giving the phenomenon in the mind its sufficient truth for evolutionary purposes, and allowing the whole human enterprise to function.


67

 Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 15 Oct 2017 11:09 | #

Daniel, I do think it is very poor to respond to my comment that the image of the suffering Christ on the cross is an ontological figure for the human condition, to wit:

This is just the human condition, and it has nothing to do with Cartesianism.

with:

The human condition is not JUST that, this is just you trying to reduce things and render signficant contributions of others redundant because they threaten your gargantuan ego – you are that conceited that you would place the place of your ego as singularly important before the well being of the cause.

Grow the fuck up GW.

Grace under pressure is a virtue.  Let us show it with style.

Speaking of pressure, besides the question of the utility of foundation, what is still standing of your critique?


68

 Posted by DanielS on Sun, 15 Oct 2017 12:56 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 15 Oct 2017 12:09 | #

Daniel, I do think it is very poor to respond to my comment that the image of the suffering Christ on the cross is an ontological figure for the human condition, to wit:

  This is just the human condition, and it has nothing to do with Cartesianism.

with:

  The human condition is not JUST that, this is just you trying to reduce things and render significant contributions of others redundant because they threaten your gargantuan ego – you are that conceited that you would place the place of your ego as singularly important before the well being of the cause.

  Grow the fuck up GW.

Grace under pressure is a virtue.  Let us show it with style.

Speaking of pressure, besides the question of the utility of foundation, what is still standing of your critique?

Everything is standing of my critique. Everything.

And as far as my loss of temper goes, I’ve reflected on it and it has to do with your imperviousness and utter resistance to crucial theoretical ideas; this is going on years now.

You want to barge right through all I’ve said about the importance of getting the concept of post modernity right and proceed to say that we should interview Jordan Peterson because his discussion with Camille Paglia shows that his “critique of ‘post modernity” indicates that he is on our side.

It took all of two minutes to confirm what I already knew about Paglia, and to confirm what I suspected, that by means of this that the YKW would be pushing a distorted concept of ‘post modernity’ and an objectivist, rightist view against that straw man as it serves their interests.

You need to think out of the box, beyond the parameter of discourse that the Jews have set for you.

Think, GW.


69

 Posted by DanielS on Sun, 15 Oct 2017 13:00 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 15 Oct 2017 11:56 | #

More on the notion Daniel reports above that Time is another way of saying Alethea (the meaning of which Heidegger shifted from “truth” to meaning), and this is what being itself is … not what being means even, but what it actually is.

Sheehan is saying:

I did not report this, that is a deliberate straw man misrepresentation of what I said.

I presented Sheehan’s position verbatim (and I was critical of it).

Please stop misrepresenting what I say – Ok? I was polite despite your persistent, dishonest misrepresentation of my words.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 15 Oct 2017 11:56 | #

More on the notion Daniel reports above that Time is another way of saying Alethea (the meaning of which Heidegger shifted from “truth” to meaning), and this is what being itself is … not what being means even, but what it actually is.

Sheehan is saying::

Now, lets address the rest of your steaming pile that you will pretend represents what I say and “your victory over that” by contrast…


70

 Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 15 Oct 2017 13:11 | #

All of it?  Really?  So what’s left of the eunochian shade, bereft of human context, which is this hermeneut?  Do you actually believe in it?


71

 Posted by DanielS on Sun, 15 Oct 2017 13:55 | #

DanielS: Sheehan is saying:

Sheehan is saying, not me.

  And he [ie, Heidegger] defines time as the need to make things meaningfully present, so he focuses on the present moment of time. Anyway, he does this by a close and I must say difficult analysis of Kantian schematism, which turned out to be the first draft of his 1929 book on Kant.

  And in the whole book, he anticipates what he would later say, namely that time is only a stand in for alethia, incorrectly translated as truth.

  So its an important text, it underlies a certain shift that’s taking place in the profession these days, I would call it a paradigm shift that’s settling in among the younger scholars, among the best graduate students as well among some of us oldies, the paradigm shift consisting-in and its clear from part two of this book that Heidegger interprets Being as meaning bedoitzonkite – so meaning, significance etc, is what he means by being; which is no surprise because being is always the meaningful presence of something to one, in the practical or theoretical order.

  … he actually defines world as, the structure of world as bedoitzonkite, what goes on inside of world is bedoitund.

  As he says, when things are discovered along with human being, that is to say when they’ve been understood, we say they have meaning.

DanielS: And I said before that I am more in agreement with Robert Harrison, that thrownness and respect for our inherited position is more integral to the hermeneutic circle than Sheehan is arguing; I have indicated many times, that hermeneutics does not divorce meaning and coherence from factual reality (if it did, it would be Cartesian).

Sheehan continues: So, really what he’s saying is that the human being is a hermeneut – that’s not an add-on to some sort of plain old existence. Our existence is the obligation, the need for the thrownness into making sense of things …in fact, the first meaning of the word of Alethea is meaning, its not truth, as Heidegger points out; so if we’re embedded in hermeneutics and he is using the word bedoitzonkite, I think that we can actually retrieve from this plain old word being, we can retrieve the urgency that Heidegger feels are in your face – he says at on point in his first course after the war, the Great War, in February of 1919, he asks his students, what is it that you first encounter in your lived world? Is it things, is it objects, is it being? No, he says, its meaningful, that’s what’s in your face…all over the place, it’s coming at you. So, we don’t want to lose him to traditional ontology which just talks about the inner substance of things – no, we want to have him on this side of phenomenology as he himself insisted …and one way of constantly recognizing that is being in your face. Being is meaning.

DanielS: Sheehan is overstating “the need to make sense of things that thrownness requires of us

“the need for the thrownness into making sense of things”

by his saying that “Being is meaning”

What he should be saying is that given our throwness, the first requirement of being, authentic being, is coherence.

Hermeneutics facilitates that in a way that fixation on mere empiricism or principles does not when confronted with social and all reality.

GW: First, I should point out that “the structure of the world” as bedoitzonkite”, according to Sheehan, is probably meant to be bedoitzonkiet, which translates as something very like bedrock.  “What goes on in the world” as bedoitund is probably bedoitung, which translates as importance or significance.  However, Sheehan states that it is bedoitzonkite which means meaning.  So, that’s all rather odd for a famed translator of Heidegger from the original German.

DanielS: Well, you would want it to be bedrock with your foundational thing. But Heidegger rejected Kant’s quest for the foundational as it was still “Cartesian” (his words)

GW: Anyway, let’s quickly look at this claim that time is truth, truth is being, and being is meaning, which is the merry hermeneutic carousel which Sheehan wants us to clamber onboard.

No, lets not look at it because I’ve already stated that I am not on board, and especially not with your vain attempt to trivialize the profound concern of hermeneutics, simply because it threatens your vanity.

GW: Will it bear the weight of a human being?

Sheehan’s interpretation of Heidegger will not. But hermeneutics proper will because it is flexible yet resilient and requires honesty.

GW: Well, let’s begin with the first clarification.  “Being here/there” is not the whole of it.  The cross we bear is that of Place as well as Time.  Accordingly, the better formulation is “being here now”.  But this is still incomplete.

DanielS: Thank goodness, because I was done with pop psychology, this Gestalt Psychology type stuff – “awareness of the here and now” is supposed to be so all important – years ago.

Talk about superficial and worthless for our cause.

GW: The whole sentence is: “I am here now”.  Neither the actor “I” nor the action “am” is synonymous with the place and time.  An action can be ascribed a cause or reason, or a function, a consequence, a state, and so forth.  Its siting can be identified.  Its duration can be measured.  But it cannot be that site or that time.

DanielS: Fine.  BTW, GW, Being as emergence in significant guidance of one’s interests and to stave off inauthenticity can be recognized as extremely important.

GW: No.2: For human beings to be hermeneuts in anything but a narrow and circular sense, as Sheehan is wont to claim, would require that (a) the very essence of the subject’s act of being here now is interpretative,

Daniels Not at all. This is a reflection of your shallow understanding of hermeneutics, the refusal to understand that it is meant to incorporate respect for the pre-verbal, empirical end of “the circle.”

It is similar to just about all of your “critiques”  – you depend upon a shallow and misrepresentive version of concepts.

As in the case of social constructionism – that if you have to put the word “mere” before social construct, then it is not true to the anti Cartesian mandate of social constructionism. That at one end we can propose constructs which, if they are that crazy, will be thwarted by reality if not others; while at the other end, we have some leeway to assign how brute facts count for us, provided we still have life, still have being with others.

GW: and (b) that that is all there is, such that the whole human being is that or primarily that.  Well, the why of cognition … the function of it … was resolved by Charles Darwin long ago on the chalk path at Downe House, such that it is subordinate to the subsistence of the organism, which itself is concordant with the transmission of its traits for fitness.  Human beings are subsisters and transmitters.  Simple hermeneuts do not and cannot exist, for cognition is part of the greater organic process.

No.3: To advance that last thought …

The question arises as to whether “I am here now” refers only to cognition, or whether it refers differently to other aspects of Mind and consciousness.  There are senses in which there is “more” in Mind and consciousness than cognition.  One, as referenced above, is that there is subsequent decision-making and action-taking.  Decisions and actions are taken in the same totality of place and time (in which “I am”, because there is nothing else).  However, the line of sight, so to speak, switches from its cognitive focus to the actor.  This is the true “circle”, giving the phenomenon in the mind its sufficient truth for evolutionary purposes, and allowing the whole human enterprise to function.

DanielS: Again, you are misrepresenting hermeneutics by means of Sheehan and at the same time you are doing a disservice to emergentism by being so reductionist.

In our peoplehood, in our system, the requirement to survive is essential of being, no doubt.

However, we as individuals and as a group, are not just that – we manifest, for example a need to make life more tolerable and comfortable if not enjoyable and inspirational – some people and some functions have evolved to serve that function which is not merely and directly about survival. Even EO Wilson acknowledges that you are going to have your childless Michelangelos.

This is manifestation of authentic, emergent being, i.e., with the full social expression of the system.

There is a place for elevating the significance of your insistence upon emergence and of being as a matter of survival; but until you can get past your fixation on the individual point of view, individual survival which you share somewhat with Heidegger (at times) and phenomenology, your analysis will be mostly counterproductive. The hermeneutic circle is meant to overcome that Cartesian error and to handle the full, non reductionist, breadth of our concerns and requirements of our peoplehood.


72

 Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 15 Oct 2017 20:16 | #

GW, do you think beta pussy Heidegger would have been less inclined to take being cucked like a feckless punk if he had more will to power?


73

 Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 15 Oct 2017 21:01 | #

If you don’t agree with very much that Sheehan says why on earth are you quoting him at such length?  What does he say that you actually agree with?

Being as emergence in significant guidance of one’s interests and to stave off inauthenticity can be recognized as extremely important.

You really must think more methodologically before putting a toe in these waters.  If I was minded to, I could make like a crocodile and bite it off.  I’m not, but I think you should still avoid using words as labels, which isn’t that much more substantive than all the crass attempted put-downs and foul-mouthed insults – which, I repeat, are very poor and really need to end.

For the record, the organism as Nature precedes interest.  But interest precedes subsistence, and only then do we arrive at being as we can practically formulate it.  Were it ordered otherwise, there would only be the being of the most primitive and transient form of RNA.  Or there would be a deity to wave a hand over it all and make it right, of course.  You decide.

In the Salterian former case, interest itself does not “emerge” from being.  To be pedantic, it is party to the natural constitution which informs what the Heidegger of 1927 designated Dasein, to which the nature of the being of other beings discloses itself, and is processed as a particular meaning which already expresses it (ie, interest).

Inauthenticity is too subtle and pervasive to be “staved off”.  I won’t talk about how shallow that expectation is.  But just making stuff up as you go does not massively advance your general case.  If you are going to engage on a substantive basis you cannot rely on authorities who you don’t actually agree with.  You can’t just make stuff up.  You can’t make a valid contribution by using trigger-words like “Cartesian”.  You can’t get away with content-free declarations of how “shallow” my contribution is.  You won’t impress by having a melt-down.

All this needs to end, and you must engage substantively.


74

 Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 15 Oct 2017 21:33 | #

The hermeneutic circle is meant to overcome that Cartesian error and to handle the full, non reductionist, breadth of our concerns and requirements of our peoplehood.

But who is the recipient of this academic largesse?


75

 Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 15 Oct 2017 21:37 | #

GW, do you think beta pussy Heidegger would have been less inclined to take being cucked like a feckless punk if he had more will to power?

Well, he had the moxie to provoke the NSDAP gangsters, and get himself expelled.  Ever done anything that courageous yourself, CC?


76

 Posted by DanielS on Sun, 15 Oct 2017 23:03 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 15 Oct 2017 22:33 | #

  The hermeneutic circle is meant to overcome that Cartesian error and to handle the full, non reductionist, breadth of our concerns and requirements of our peoplehood.

But who is the recipient of this academic largesse?

“Largess” is just another jealous smear of a good concept. While I have discussed the fact that academia is often a means for the YKW’s academic big business of selling talk – and pseudo hermeneutics has been a means for that abuse – anybody can be the beneficiary of hermeneutic’s proper use, but especially Europeans can, because it can encompass our excellence in rigor and imagination.

Typically, you are reacting to the abuse of the concept.

Your attack on an idea is literally becoming a barometer of merit. There is something sociopathic about the way that you attack good and important ideas.

Its beyond stealing candy from a baby, it’s like sadistically depriving people of the very nutrients that they need.

It seems your goal is not to arrive at accuracy, but to compete and humiliate – to destroy the best and most important offerings being brought.

While you call for (what you portray as) my gratuitous insults to end, you have got to look at the way you have been treating me and what I say. You are very insulting and inconsiderate. It is rare that you suspend disbelief and consider that an idea is cooperatively intended and has been carefully considered. It is sadistic and demented. I recognized that you would not change with decency. The only way for me to signal to onlookers that you are continually burying important ideas with nonsensical contentiousness is to continually at the same time blast through it with marked signals.

Where I do indeed connect with a good point that you have – viz., in holding fast to the significance of emergence – you persist in treating it (in Bowery’s syle) as an occasion for competition.

Whereas he tried to order me to “stay far away from using the term Cartesian”  which would have been a horrific bum steer if I had obeyed it …you try to coerce me to “avoid using words as labels and tell me that I need to be more methodical.”

I am deliberate in how I use words – in fact, I am impressed at how well my terminological system holds up – while your general disposition is insulting from the get go and a gratuitous obstruction; hence the mirror.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 15 Oct 2017 16:01 | #

If you don’t agree with very much that Sheehan says why on earth are you quoting him at such length?  What does he say that you actually agree with?

As I have already said, because (while his emphasis goes off the mark) his discussion with Harrison nicely (clearly) outlines Heidegger’s basic concerns in Being and Time.


77

 Posted by DanielS on Mon, 16 Oct 2017 00:14 | #

For the record, the organism as Nature precedes interest.

Obviously, and that’s why we take it for granted and, as people concerned with race, recognize that it is not necessarily going to maintain our more humanly natural concern for the homeostasis of race.

But interest precedes subsistence,

In some ways and at some times.

and only then do we arrive at being as we can practically formulate it.

Were it ordered otherwise, there would only be the being of the most primitive and transient form of RNA.  Or there would be a deity to wave a hand over it all and make it right, of course.  You decide.

If its formulated according to our relative (the relational, and relative, serving also to indicate family, cousins and those closely related but not exactly cousins, is a deliberate use – take note) interests as a precedent, then I agree and that is what I am already doing. I’ve already decided.

But it is not far removed from a cheap trick that Bowery used to deploy – to take something that I said, and then say that he is saying it and he’s going to tell me about it.

In the Salterian former case, interest itself does not “emerge” from being.  To be pedantic, it is party to the natural constitution which informs what the Heidegger of 1927 designated Dasein, to which the nature of the being of other beings discloses itself, and is processed as a particular meaning which already expresses it (ie, interest).

Well put, you are indicating where Heidegger was showing how Dasein takes us back into (or keeps us in) interaction, involvement into relational concern and out of Cartesian forgottenness – whether the third person they or a point, in the first person I.

Inauthenticity is too subtle and pervasive to be “staved off”.

That’s nit picking. Maybe there can be another word, but it is hardly an egregious usage.

I won’t talk about how shallow that expectation is.  But just making stuff up as you go does not massively advance your general case.

Nice try. Here we are back at your insults. Ridiculous. Rather than taking it as occasion to shape and craft the general idea, you take it as an opportunity for competition and insult. Typical of you.

If you are going to engage on a substantive basis you cannot rely on authorities who you don’t actually agree with.

I have already answered this. Sheehan’s and Harrison’s discussion lays out (outlines) the fundamentals of Heidegger’s terminology very well. That is why it is very useful. And because of that, it is easy to see where Sheehan goes wrong (in my estimation).

You can’t just make stuff up.

I don’t just make stuff up. You constantly apply straw men.

You can’t make a valid contribution by using trigger-words like “Cartesian”.

I already have, and if it troubles yours and Bowery’s scientistic egos that’s your problem. It is you who needs a philosophical update by 200 some odd years.

You can’t get away with content-free declarations of how “shallow” my contribution is.

It’s not content free. Articulating what is already basically known and accepted of science – evolution – and trying to replace philosophy with just that, particularly when dealing with the social matter of racial maintenance, with even an eloquent expression of scientific fact sheered of praxis, is scientism – that is philosophically shallow.

You won’t impress by having a melt-down.

I am not trying to impress, I move toward theoretical accuracy, and where I have indicated important matters, and you persistently try to bury it with denial and BS, then I must blast through so that you do not bury it, so that people are not put to sleep in thinking that this is a new angle by you, as if you are indeed just putting aside “unimportant matters”, as if you have paid attention to what I’ve said (because you haven’t) and the audience should not pay attention to what I have said recently or a while back.

All this needs to end, and you must engage substantively.

Your insults, ignoring what I say and insulting persistence in replacing what I say with straw men as if I have provided “nothing of substance” needs to end.

That is an egregious insult. You are trying to say that there is nothing important that I am saying. That is the opposite of the truth and it is an expression of some sort of sociopathy going on with your personality = the better, the more an important an idea, the more sure you are to try to attack and diminish it. It’s beyond selfish, beyond sadistic to me, it is sadistic to our people; that is why I will not stand for it.


78

 Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 17 Oct 2017 07:30 | #

Daniel, did you happen to notice Bowery’s recent comments at Chateau Heartiste regarding the “pimping game”?  According to Bowery there is apparently nothing essentially European about flirting with chicks to get them to spread.  Game, you see, is all just about aping – pardon the pun – monkoid dominance posturing.  This from a guy who thinks a wet pussy is a USB drive sprayed with WD-40.  I guess when they were handing out common sense Bowery was off somewhere taking a shit.  Lolzozlulzllolzulllzz


79

 Posted by DanielS on Tue, 17 Oct 2017 09:56 | #

I am more sympathetic to Bowery on this one than you are. We have that pattern (of flirting with women and going for the hole) among us, no doubt; but we also have a K selection pattern, which distinguishes us and is more distinctly characteristic of us – as opposed, markedly, to Africans and Arabs.

While it is argued that “game” can also be used to attract a woman who will commit to marriage and child rearing, as K selectors and ones trying to replicate our kind, we should be more concerned with how it is that we can find appropriate women and occasion the situation for that discovery rather than be especially focused on the pragmatics of trying to trick women into liking us who are not necessarily appropriate for us, and perhaps enamored of an R selection game. More, they are not necessarily going to remain linking us when we fall off our game and relax – I know I know zero f’s given – but that’s part of the r selection game, like a nig who doesn’t care about the mulatto bastards and gang members he leaves behind; and while there is some merit to showing that we have these alpha skills for the sake of politicking to perhaps bring some girls around – e.g., from a latent and complacent negrophelia – as a rule we want to think out of their box, we do not want to merely participate, reconstruct and reinforce tactics geared for an R selection climate – the modernist panmixia jungle – but rather focus on trying to assimilate the climate where we can identify our appropriate women; fundamentally creating the climate of ethnonationalism which is conducive to our K selection ways and the sorting out of appropriateness.

Having said that, I am not trying to discourage you or any other White guy from hitting on White women who are open to your overtures so long as you exercise some consideration of appropriateness – that you are not being such a trickster that you are going to jade a woman who could be an appropriate woman for another White guy and perhaps transforming her instead into a mudshark for her disillusionment (like “we’re all a bunch of nig dogs anyway”).

I think a cooler game is how to fuck up the game of mudsharks and the muds dogging them.

But yeah, you know, I’ve been a bit too fanatical and probably blew several chances for really fine woman because I could not pretend to be more liberal; and or did not relax my standards a bit. If not for their politics then perhaps for lack of marked beauty/beauty of my type – some were ok with my politics but I, perhaps wrongly, wanted a woman a bit more pretty – this thing about beauty was heavily about politics I realize more than ever (intelligence weighs more and more into the equation as the dust settles; I think back on a scientific lab worker who liked me; asked me to slow dance – she wasn’t ugly, but then again, context and the obnoxious self transcendence/lack of assertion of White men – beauty being semiotic); having seen too many White guys settle for less and allow the beauties to miscegenate. I even blew it with a few women who were both ok with my politics, intelligent and very beautiful as well. So, this is just advice coming from a guy who views context as content – any woman who would want to stay and have children in the US is to some extent repugnant to me.

A further caveat, I haven’t seen Bowery’s comment yet, so…


80

 Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 17 Oct 2017 10:01 | #

I’ll bet the reason the Nazis didn’t put Heidegger in a concentration camp for gainsaying them is the same reason Bowery has not been banned from twitter: why bother lifting a finger to silence an eccentric pissant no one listens to anyway.  Lulz

I mean, what is the fucking point of having a gargantuan IQ if it renders you a goofball eccentric?!?!

Bowery commenting on the “pimping game”!  Good god, I almost pissed myself I was laughing so hard! Lollulzolllzzlolz


81

 Posted by DanielS on Tue, 17 Oct 2017 10:20 | #

CC, I don’t think you are need of game’s advice anyway, any Nazi who can ingratiate himself here could open a charm school himself.


82

 Posted by DanielS on Tue, 17 Oct 2017 11:53 | #

Still not sure which comment you’re talking about – link?

This one? It’s very Bowery, i.e., it has its good points but is a bit off the mark if race is your concern:

jabowery https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2017/07/20/the-alpha-male-switch/#comment-897986

The simplest alpha-pill: Take the attitude that just as it is every woman’s prerogative to select which genes will make it into the next generation *via her body*, it is your prerogative to present yourself for evaluation, as a source of genetic material for her children, to women you find attractive — taking no rejection personally. It is, after all, her prerogative to accept or reject. You did her a favor by approaching her and she did you a favor by rejecting you so you don’t waste your time — or… alternatively…

Now, having said that, it is also your prerogative to select which genes will _not_ make it into the next generation by challenging other males to natural duel — but the government has arrogated that prerogative to itself on behalf of civilization. This confuses the Hell out of women (and less so, men who _get_ the fact that the government is a surrogate alpha). That’s where “game” comes in: To fill in the yawning chasm opened up by civilization between man and nature — especially civilization that has forgotten what it owes men, as has the present one.


83

 Posted by Heidegger and Descartes on Fri, 20 Oct 2017 07:35 | #

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkQjj0vDHDk

Heidegger & Modern Existentialism

Byran Magee: The most famous name associated with existentialism is that of Jean Paul Sarte. But the existentialism of this century (last century) really began not in France but in Germany, and in the period following the first world war. And in serious terms, the most significant figure of the movement is not Sartre, but Heidegger. That is to say, there is virtual unanimity among students of modern existentialism, that Heidegger as well as preceding Sartre in time, is the more profound and more original thinker. So, in this program, we’re going to approach modern existentialism chiefly through the work of Heidegger.

In 1927 Heidegger published his most important book, Being and Time. It’s not an easy book to read, but we have here the author of what I think is the best of all introductions to existentialism for the general reader –

William Barrett, Professor of Philosophy at New York University.

Professor Barrett, if you could imagine for a moment that I am somebody who knows absolutely nothing at all about the philosophy of Martin Heidegger, and you were to start setting about giving me some basic idea how would you begin?

Prof. William Barrett:

I think I would try to locate the man in his historical context to begin with. It would be a little bigger context than the one you indicate; namely, it wouldn’t be measured in terms of decades, but centuries. And I’m trying to locate him first in relation to the whole epoch of modern philosophy which begins with Descartes. It’s rather interesting to place him in that context because it relates him and differentiates him from other philosophers in the twentieth century. As you know, Descartes was one of the founders of the new science, that is of modern physics, and part of his scheme for launching this science depended upon a kind of split between consciousness and the external world. The mind schematized nature for quantitative measures, for calculation, for purposes of manipulating nature; and at the same time, the human subject, the consciousness that was doing that was set off against it.

So, what came out of it was a second kind of dualism between mind and the external world. Now, most philosophy, nearly all of philosophy in the subsequent two centuries accommodated itself to the Cartesian framework.

At the beginning of this (last) century, a number of philosophers began to feel that in some sense it was uncomfortable. And we find a kind of revolt or rebellion against Cartesianism takes place among different schools, both in England and (German word) and the American Pragmatists too. Now, Heidegger is one of those rebels against Descartes. And if you stop to think of it, in this rebellion against Descartes I think we would get the key idea of Heidegger’s philosophy with which I would want to start educating somebody in the philosophy.


84

 Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 04 Nov 2017 12:22 | #

Daniel,

I have listened to the William Barrett video, as you asked yesterday.  He is fine on Heidegger’s descriptive and non-conclusional modus, also on alienation and techne and also on Parmenidian one-ness (all of which I have attempted to address through my model of the transit, which you will not consider).  Pleasantly surprised by the Bacon reference, which was good and relevant to a discriminating approach to Descartes.  Barrett obviously didn’t have the chance here to venture very far onto the ground of how Heidegger resolved the Cartesian issue, which he did, actually, not only through his epistemological model but through a nexus of ideas (which include acceptance of our individual person).

I didn’t find in the video anything striking or new.  But thank you for posting it.


85

 Posted by DanielS on Sat, 04 Nov 2017 13:29 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 04 Nov 2017 07:22 | #

Daniel,

I have listened to the William Barrett video, as you asked yesterday.  He is fine on Heidegger’s descriptive and non-conclusional modus, also on alienation and techne and also on Parmenidian one-ness (all of which I have attempted to address through my model of the transit, which you will not consider).  Pleasantly surprised by the Bacon reference, which was good and relevant to a discriminating approach to Descartes.  Barrett obviously didn’t have the chance here to venture very far onto the ground of how Heidegger resolved the Cartesian issue, which he did, actually, not only through his epistemological model but through a nexus of ideas (which include acceptance of our individual person).

I didn’t find in the video anything striking or new.  But thank you for posting it.

GW, Barrett’s explanation places the problem of Descartes and modernity (thus rendering the matter of defining the post modern turn and its resources, differences that make a difference, correctly) squarely at the heart of the matter (as opposed to your ego) and it triumphs over your five year long misguided and misguiding attempt to render these issues unimportant.

Your “transit” is your psychologistic way of rendering a hermeneutic circle, one way of (perhaps) managing individual systemics but not the only way and not the best and most relevant for our problem of maintaining ourselves as peoples.

 Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 05 Nov 2017 12:22 | #

You do appear to judge everything as a tool of some kind, when the prior necessity is a foundation and structure of truth.  That, of course, you look upon as an intellectual folly.  Which it perhaps is if one remains trapped in the religious cycle of thought (while, of course, excising the deity – obviously the religious question survives the excision of the religious answer).  For us to approach foundation, and thus to sight the truth structure above it, requires, at the very least, a lifting out of essentially religious cosmological thinking.

So if one thinks of, say, the existent fact of rocks in space:

… or deep sea fish:

… and finds therein a kind of substrate of being … a universal positive in which these distant things <em>are<em> as opposed to an ultimately unimaginable void in which nothing is … that’s already to beg the question of genesis, and that relegates everything else to a relative and subsidiary place.  Its intellectual product is a kind of collapse into fatalism.  Non-religious thinkers know they must avoid it, and the usual way they do this is to impose an arbitrary restriction.  Husserl focussed on consciousness and what appears in the consciousness.  Heidegger focussed on human being in time (and, by implication, place).  That was the term he set in Being and Time.  The nearest he ventured to the cosmological question was his concept of thrown-ness, ie, he looked the other way, towards our being in the world.

The ontological transit is a commentary (and I would argue an advance) on Heideggerian thrown-ness and openness to meanings in the world.  The former I would critique on the basis that it is reductive, leaving more or less unsaid the question of subsequent condition and consequence.  The latter I would critique on the basis that it is limited to aspiration.  Men and women cannot just sashay from the existential and psychological consequences of thrown-ness to the estate of the open, authentic being.  The transit colours in everything that is missing, defining the thrown human condition and the normative will to openness as a structured whole subject to qualitative variation.  It is not accessible from a crude dualistic interpretation (for example, the mind-body problem does not map on it, and neither does the problem of subject/object).  It describes a qualitative dispensation in which the thrown being is weighted down chiefly but not exclusively by his non-ownership of what arises in him from Time and Place, by infirmity, and by habit.  It provides for a structured freeing and realising process.  It is not at all to do with textual or historical analysis or circles or academics setting rule structures for the masses to obey.  It is philosophy, not psychology.

On the question of foundation with which I began, I presume for the totality of the material over the void, and the presence of the material as organic life over its absence; finding the human identity as both cause in the initiating sense and cause in the purposive sense … as principal and principle.  Not, then, man becoming god, as we find in liberal thought, but just as men.  The rest I most happily and gratefully leave to the mathematicians and the religious.


87

 Posted by DanielS on Sun, 05 Nov 2017 13:12 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 05 Nov 2017 07:22 | #

You do appear to judge everything as a tool of some kind,

DanielS: It may appear that way to you, perhaps, for your convenience. But I absolutely do not view everything as a tool of some kind (tools are to be used, we are not to be used by them), and that is just another in a boundless litany of insults coming from you (always in attempt to diminish the significance of any contribution from another).

For example, one of my central concerns is the recognition or concept of intrinsic value in our peoples, a particularly important thing for White males, as it is more grudgingly granted, if at all. This concern for intrinsic value was an organic expression of the hippie movement – there being amidst their people – for example, as opposed to their being judged merely instrumentally, merely pragmatically… an instrument of the military draft for a war that had little do with and little regard for their being.

Thus, I do not judge everything as some kind of tool at all. You simply latch onto anything pejorative that you can possibly manage to say, no matter how inaccurate, and try to throw it up against me and what I say.

Especially if what I say is good and important.

Your projection of “shallowness” onto me is only one example.

What you ignore when you project your shallowness onto me is the fact that you put everything in terms of a competition …so that when I talk, for example, of hermeneutics, you conveniently ignore that I am already, in that, acknowledging and embracing emergentism, genetics, co-evolution, the concern for dasein…

Originally, I had expected you to see that I am observing necessary, complementary ways of understanding, ways of looking at our circumstance; and propositions for dealing with our problems, of managing our homeostasis, co-evolution and aspirations. I had expected you to be appreciative of that, to recognize that these are important ideas. I expected you to appreciate important ideas in service of our people (as deep as anything), not to place your ego above all, your concept of competition against academics above all, such that you would misrepresent and try to destroy (you can’t) anything that I can say.

Perhaps if you could realize that if you were known for nothing else than “the guy who held fast to the significance of emergentism” you will have been recognized for having performed a valuable service …you’ve made other worthwhile contributions too… if you could be satisfied with contributing and realize that ideas that I bring are not antagonistic, perhaps you would not have to misrepresent and bury in the noise of your hurt vanity (or whatever causes your contentious straw manning), important ideas that I, for one, am bringing to bear.

I already envelop the kinds of concerns you have; and another thing that you don’t get is that when you say:

“It provides for a structured freeing and realising process.  It is not at all to do with textual or historical analysis or circles or academics setting rule structures for the masses to obey.  It is philosophy, not psychology.”

What a stupid strawmanning that is. Your using words like “obeying” is just an idiotic straw man that you plucked out of no where – it seems, to show off to the girls. There is a kind of guy who will pander to females and get past their gate keeping by maintaining a low grade chaos with anti-intellectualism, and with that, a more advantageous one up position than they might otherwise have -they might otherwise have to be bit more fair and responsible (how terrible). This pandering is part of the charmed loop (vicious cycle) that keeps modernity and its destructive, implicative force, in place.

All societies have obligations, prohibitions and legitimacies. You are the one trying to order obedience – to prohibit these matters from being discussed.

You keep spewing this impervious shit as the four year old that wants all the candy or sometimes the teenage grease monkey who is going to show the girls he’s smarter than the academics (though sadly, he isn’t in many cases at all).

If one is to look into, for example, instinctive reactions revealing racial preferences, and examines specificatory structures of cognition facilitating that end, particularly as adaptive selection of one’s own kind, this is considered a hermeneutic logic.

Your misapplying words that would be appropriate in other contexts – textual analysis, historical analysis – does not change that fact.

Ultimately, “the consciousness” that will guide our maintenance and advance of our own kind is a hermeneutic of one kind or another, and critiquing social, historical and other narratives so that they are conducive to that end is imperative.

Your trying to present “circularity” as some sort of devil concept does not change what is meant by it either. “Acting-into”, “moving-into” and “emergence” and emergentism, for that matter, are part of the social constructionist and hermeneutic lexicon as well.


88

 Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 05 Nov 2017 23:55 | #

I had expected you to be appreciative of that, to recognize that these are important ideas.

All that sort of thing is quite OK.  It’s just not my project which, as you know, is to (a) give encouragement to able people to think from the Heideggerian standpoint, and (b) try to do myself.  Somewhere downstream your project might have a role in the politics of mine, or it might not.  I haven’t given very much thought to it.  I am not in a hurry to do so.  This is a long game.

when I talk, for example, of hermeneutics, you conveniently ignore that I am already, in that, acknowledging and embracing emergentism, genetics, co-evolution, the concern for dasein…

When one builds on a Heideggerian base – and does so with fidelity to him, of course, and not as some French philosophical thief – one is acting as an agent for a philosophical revolution.  The objective cannot be to glue together a few references to European genetics, a bit of Heidegger, some Salterian causality, and the relational aspects of emergent processes, and what have you.  The objective is not to make arguments.  The objective is to arrive at a good in life greater than liberalism’s, and a system of thought which is closer to hand and more thrilling.  After that, the politics take over.


89

 Posted by DanielS on Mon, 06 Nov 2017 00:44 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 06 Nov 2017 00:55 | #

  I had expected you to be appreciative of that, to recognize that these are important ideas.

All that sort of thing is quite OK.  It’s just not my project which, as you know, is to (a) give encouragement to able people to think from the Heideggerian standpoint, and (b) try to do myself.  Somewhere downstream your project might have a role in the politics of mine, or it might not.  I haven’t given very much thought to it.  I am not in a hurry to do so.  This is a long game.

  when I talk, for example, of hermeneutics, you conveniently ignore that I am already, in that, acknowledging and embracing emergentism, genetics, co-evolution, the concern for dasein…

When one builds on a Heideggerian base – and does so with fidelity to him, of course, and not as some French philosophical thief – one is acting as an agent for a philosophical revolution.  The objective cannot be to glue together a few references to European genetics, a bit of Heidegger, some Salterian causality, and the relational aspects of emergent processes, and what have you.

Philosophy is about the ways of life and central to that, human requirements. Science is more like a tool, an invaluable one, but more like a tool, this discipline to facilitate and help satisfy human requirements. To perform its service well, science requires thorough and rounded philosophical basis in a coherent way of life. It, ways of life and the world, cannot and should not wait for the singularity of scientific method – ways of life are more fundamental – while they can, nevertheless, provide a place for scientific fanatics, or the like, such as yourself and Bowery, to make your invaluable contributions.

You think your scientism is philosophy and that the philosophy that I bring to bear is “politics” … this is just a form of your TOP and TOOP business competition ways, in which you’ve got to trivialize your competitor and make you and your own product seem indispensable – it not the least bit accurate a description of what’s going on here.

“Glue together” [emphasis added] – this is only a part of your straw man. That I am, or should be concerned to be a thousand percent faithful to Heidegger is another.

I take from Heidegger (in the way he would recommend thinking is conducted, by the way) what is essential, what is needed, and take it to heart.

I also believe that he is too focused on the individual for our needs – an offshoot of his phenomenology background, that is what makes for ownmost being toward death and the superficial, irresponsible, destructive way of life that it would inspire. 

The objective is not to make arguments.

Then you should stop doing it, particularly in its degenerate form – contentiousness.

The objective is to arrive at a good in life greater than liberalism’s, and a system of thought which is closer to hand and more thrilling.  After that, the politics take over.

What you are doing is unreflective liberal politics. Skeptical of every human idea with the fallacious notion that if you somehow describe “nature” as it is, all will take care of itself. That is the underpinning of liberalism, not the liberation from it.

The liberation from liberalism requires the post modern turn, a.k.a. the hermeneutic turn, which largely began with Heidegger.

Kant had not quite solved the kind of arbitrary contentiousness of Lockeatine empiricism (to which you hold white knuckle) but took steps in the right direction with the idea of anchoring principles – wanted to place them on a universal foundation (with similar aspiration as yourself). “Still too Cartesian”, Heidegger proposed the hermeneutic circle as a liberation from mere facticity.

That is to say, not having to be beholden to every arbitrary fact that floats by to the detriment of coherence (and therefore accountability etc. as I like to observe), but to liberate one (and one’s people) from mere facticity so that they may observe the coherence of broader and deeper patterns –  a liberation from what he would rightfully designate the inauthenticness of that mere facticity (to broader, more meaningful patterns).

This step beyond (the traceable logics of) modernity – willing suspension of disbelief – as opposed to the sheerer skepticism of modernity, allows for attendance to the coherence and homeostasis of our broader patterns – not only benign and helpful traditions, but the value of our inherited forms. It also allows us the basis thus, the specificatory structures to continue the modernist experiment and advance where beneficial. 

And vis a versa: we can leave custom, habit and tradition behind where it is a handicap; we can curtail the modernist project where it is unhinged, running rough shod and changing things that should not be changed.


90

 Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 06 Nov 2017 09:34 | #

What you are doing is unreflective liberal politics. Skeptical of every human idea with the fallacious notion that if you somehow describe “nature” as it is, all will take care of itself. That is the underpinning of liberalism, not the liberation from it.

In your prior comment you said you have “concern for dasein”.  What is “concern for dasein”?  To what does concern belong?  Actually, what is Dasein to you?  Is it subject or object or something else?  Do you have a sense of it at all, never mind a functioning definition?  Have you simply accepted it as a probably necessary “something”,  but lacked the intellectual curiosity to properly investigate the term, and determine its place and validity or otherwise?  In your usage (which is garbled) have you not reduced it to the level of a symbol and a slogan for argumentation?  Is that indicative of your whole claim to be liberating us from the liberalism of the Western world?  Liberating us into what, if not human truth?  And where is human truth if not in the natural purity of our being here now?  Do you understand at all what Nature means in this context?

If I had the aim of unpinning everything you say, and discarding it like the things of a life on the floor of a burgled room, I would certainly do so.  You would know the difference between that and the way I treat of you today.  But I do not have that aim.  You are not my enemy.


91

 Posted by DanielS on Mon, 06 Nov 2017 10:40 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 06 Nov 2017 10:34 | #

  What you are doing is unreflective liberal politics. Skeptical of every human idea with the fallacious notion that if you somehow describe “nature” as it is, all will take care of itself. That is the underpinning of liberalism, not the liberation from it.

In your prior comment you said you have “concern for dasein”.  What is “concern for dasein”?  To what does concern belong?  Actually, what is Dasein to you?  Is it subject or object or something else?  Do you have a sense of it at all, never mind a functioning definition?

It’s a ridiculous question because I have discussed this many time. Since you’ve asked me what it is for me – i.e., what I take from Heidegger, without total concern for other interpretations, even Heidegger’s for that matter ….

Dasein is “there being” … a prompt as such to come out of Cartesian detachment and forgetfulness and to return to where you are (the where of praxis along with whom, why, how, when – concreta), particularly your caring interaction, leading sooner or later to “midtdasein”, there being amidst your people (the of-being of emergentism would be a part of this hermeneutic recommendation as well).

Have you simply accepted it as a probably necessary “something”,  but lacked the intellectual curiosity to properly investigate the term, and determine its place and validity or otherwise?

I am investigating it all the time, applying it, and I see that you are the one lacking in the curiosity of application.

In your usage (which is garbled)

No it is not.

have you not reduced it to the level of a symbol and a slogan for argumentation?

I have not. Look again at what I say above before your inner child screams, “only what I say matters, only what I say matters, your ideas are bad, not important!”

Is that indicative of your whole claim to be liberating us from the liberalism of the Western world?

This is where you share the same a-hole STEM penchant as Bowery, to try to “solve” an “opponent” by reducing them and their “argument” to one errant point in a lineal circuit (taken out of human praxis), a point which you would then try to do away with, and therefore do away with the opponent.

You are thinking like a mechanic trying to fix a car engine.

Liberating us into what, if not human truth?

Why are you such a hole? Asking me questions that time and time again I have answered?

Clue again, for one thing I’ve said: a liberation from arbitrary facticity (of the mere emprical flux) and into the truth of broader coherence.

And where is human truth if not in the natural purity of our being here now?

Put down your Gestalt Therapy book and recognize that truth is circulating through many discursive structures, not just within the “natural purity” of your skull, here and now.

  Do you understand at all what Nature means in this context?

Do you understand what a jerk you are?

If I had the aim of unpinning everything you say, and discarding it like the things of a life on the floor of a burgled room, I would certainly do so.

No you wouldn’t because you can’t, although you will continue to try, endlessly. Because you are impervious. A four year old with unresolved issues.

You would know the difference between that and the way I treat of you today.  But I do not have that aim.  You are not my enemy.

You are not my enemy either, not in your wishes for the autonomy and sovereignty of yours and other ethnonationals, but theoretical error toward that end is my enemy.

You and Bowery are locked into a natural fallacy – provoked by paranoic reaction in seeing only the Jewish misrepresentation of ideas that I bring to bear and (one might infer of your behavior in accordance with natural fallacy) that “males duel for status and females (and their child bearing capacity)” so, you cannot see that I am not trying to compete with you, not bringing ideas to compete with either of you, they always have been brought to bear as they complement and enhance our efforts.


92

 Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 06 Nov 2017 12:33 | #

Dasein is “there being” … a prompt as such to come out of Cartesian detachment and forgetfulness and to return to where you are

No, that’s not it; and this isn’t a matter of interpretation.  It is a matter of understanding, ie, that Dasein is a particular condition of human being in its ensconcement in, or at its point of contact with, the world of the extant now, here.  It isn’t a prompt, therefore.  It isn’t a return and it isn’t about forgetfulness (though it’s good in another context that you use these words).  Dasein is the site at which or action by which meaning, as it is disclosing, is appropriated.

Dasein’s care for being is nothing to do with the rejection of the Cartesian subject and its representational modus.  It knows nothing of this.  Care for being is to do with identity and foundation, and with organic continuity.  It extrapolates from these fundamentals, internalising them in the very process of meaning-reception.  Otherwise, Dasein would be pure openness … acceptance.  As it is, what happens to the appropriated meaning as it detaches and transits out of the moment, in a sense, and into the great faculties of the perception is a quite separate question (on which I have said much and have much to say).

truth is circulating through many discursive structures, not just within the “natural purity” of your skull, here and now.

The first is discourse, mostly political.  The second is existentialism.  Heidegger himself invests Dasein with a very narrow constitution in which there is no place for socially-informed thinking, or any thinking at all, or anything subsequently extrapolated from the disclosing meaning.  This very narrow constitution is purely of Nature.  It is, basically, genetic interest, sexual interest, survival of the organism.  There is nothing else there.  That what I was getting at it in my comment at 90, to which you replied that I am a jerk!

At least twice I have urged you not to cherry-pick Heidegger’s conception, pointing out that in its depths it is systemic, and you do violence to it when you yank something away and put it to service elsewhere.  It’s good advice.  You should heed it.


93

 Posted by DanielS on Mon, 06 Nov 2017 13:50 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 06 Nov 2017 13:33 | #

  Dasein is “there being” … a prompt as such to come out of Cartesian detachment and forgetfulness and to return to where you are

No, that’s not it;

Yes it is.

and this isn’t a matter of interpretation

And all the more so because you asked me what it was to me.

It is a matter of understanding, ie, that Dasein is a particular condition of human being in its ensconcement in, or at its point of contact with, the world of the extant now, here.

There is not really a contradiction between what you are defining here and what I am saying. You are just being a contentious asshole.

That is why you will take arbitrary issue with any word, seeing the slight ambiguities of language and context as an opportunity for disagreement rather than agreement – case in point:

It isn’t a prompt, therefore.  It isn’t a return and it isn’t about forgetfulness (though it’s good in another context that you use these words).  Dasein is the site at which or action by which meaning, as it is disclosing, is appropriated.

Again, no necessary contradiction between your “definition” and what I am saying.

Dasein’s care for being is nothing to do with the rejection of the Cartesian subject and its representational modus.

Yes it does. It is by contrast to Caresian detachment.

It knows nothing of this.

You know nothing of it because you choose to remain ignorant.

Care for being is to do with identity and foundation, and with organic continuity.

You really sound stupid with your fixation on foundations, but basically what you want is enveloped in what I discuss (among what others say).

It extrapolates from these fundamentals, internalising them in the very process of meaning-reception.  Otherwise, Dasein would be pure openness … acceptance.

Being cannot be about sheer openness, it is about organic reconstruction – or reconstitution, since you are too stupid to admit of an accurate understanding of constructionism.

As it is, what happens to the appropriated meaning as it detaches and transits out of the moment, in a sense, and into the great faculties of the perception is a quite separate question (on which I have said much and have much to say).

You make these proclamations as if you are Moses and everyone must obey …and I ignore the fact that I am allowing for the word appropriation here, because I am not the silly nit picker that you are…. you know good and well that if I used the word “appopriate” you would be all over its “mechanicity.”

It extrapolates from these fundamentals, internalising them in the very process of meaning-reception.

Is that what it does? Or does it form human-sized gestalts of those fundamentals?

Otherwise, Dasein would be pure openness … acceptance.

Being cannot be about sheer openness, it is about organic reconstruction – or reconstitution, since you are too stupid to admit of an accurate understanding of constructionism.

As it is, what happens to the appropriated meaning as it detaches and transits out of the moment, in a sense, and into the great faculties of the perception is a quite separate question (on which I have said much and have much to say).

Well, one thing that we can be sure of, the only thing you care about it is what wafts up from your armchair. I’m not going to let you misrepresent, push aside, try to trivialize and bury what I’ve said.

  truth is circulating through many discursive structures, not just within the “natural purity” of your skull, here and now.

The first is discourse, mostly political.

Do me a favor, shut up and read a book before you try to tell me what its all about, that anything but your scientistic bullshit is political and trivial. You don’t know what you are talking about.

The second is existentialism.  Heidegger himself invests Dasein with a very narrow constitution in which there is no place for socially-informed thinking, or any thinking at all, or anything subsequently extrapolated from the disclosing meaning.

This very narrow constitution is purely of Nature.

I really don’t care even if Heidegger doesn’t pass social information through a transit in Dasein. The value of paying attention to our sheer organic nature (as theoria) versus our human nature (in praxis) is limited. We need our scientists to pay attention to our organic nature, but it is not enough –  – and taking philosophy into praxis is the post modern turn of which Heidegger was a part.

It is, basically, genetic interest, sexual interest, survival of the organism.  There is nothing else there.

That’s the problem with your limited understanding of philosophy and the context of Heidegger, it lacks the hermeneutic breadth and capacity to take what is sufficient from his ideas and extend them to where he was or where he should be going, to encompass and reliably maintain broader genetic interests.

That what I was getting at it in my comment at 90, to which you replied that I am a jerk!

Yes, you are a jerk!

At least twice I have urged you not to cherry-pick Heidegger’s conception,

I have explained several times, carefully, that I do not arbitrarily take from Heidegger, arbitrariness is your disease.

pointing out that in its depths it is systemic, and you do violence

Fuck off. You do violence to what we need. It is not violence to Heidegger to say that Dasein is an anti Cartesian move into there being and the care thereof – (not much inference from there, especially as he was steeped in Aristotle, to infer that we care about relationships; he mentioned responsibility to the folk, but did not elaborate on that enough). You are speaking in the paranoid, melodramatic terms of Bowery – now we are going to turn into insects because I have a fuller understanding of what Heidegger’s assignment was about as opposed to your ego project and scientistic myopia.

to it when you yank something away and put it to service elsewhere.  It’s good advice.  You should heed it.

You should shut up or take it upon yourself to understand what you are talking about before throwing up straw man criticisms for the mere sake of competition.


94

 Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 06 Nov 2017 15:22 | #

And all the more so because you asked me what it was to me.

I am not looking for a personal representation from you.  We are not interpreting.  This is a living process, not a hermeneutical exercise.  It is creative in that it always finds anew.  Heidegger had it that we must think essentially in these matters, finding what is … going directly to the nature of the thing.  That is how this work has to be done.  We are very definitely not constructing conclusions about Dasein’s abstraction of meanings, which would be calculative in his scheme.

I strongly suspect that essential thinking is not possible outside of origination.  Even if familiarity through time teaches the calculative thinker where everything stands, still the full force of the thing, free of pre-structured conceptions, will not be realised.  For example:

It [Dasein] is by contrast to Cartesian detachment.

Cartesian detachment is error, not the essential, natural mode which is Dasein.  The engaging Prof Barrett was clear that our commonsensical, experience-based understanding does not accord with Descartes’ model.  That model is not true.  As with all these general and formative factors of the personality (freedom as choice is one, human equality is another, the saved soul in heaven another, and so forth), they produce large, negative consequences in the lived life, driving us ever further into our estrangement.

That’s the problem with your limited understanding of philosophy and the context of Heidegger, it lacks the hermeneutic breadth and capacity to take what is sufficient from his ideas and extend them to where he was or where he should be going, to encompass and reliably maintain broader genetic interests.

But you think “the context of Heidegger” is the historical dissatisfaction with Descartes which Barrett referred to.  Which is not what Heidegger said himself, and untrue even if we focus solely on his own dissatisfaction.  He did not invent Dasein.  He took it with all the implications of that.  He did not take it for the purpose of replacing the Cartesian subject but because it is true in itself and, as such, its placement at the heart of an as yet unwritten life-philosophy would lead to people living more authentic lives.


95

 Posted by DanielS on Mon, 06 Nov 2017 15:52 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 06 Nov 2017 16:22 | #

  And all the more so because you asked me what it was to me.

I am not looking for a personal representation from you.

That is exactly what you asked me for:

GW: In your prior comment you said you have “concern for dasein”.  What is “concern for dasein”?  To what does concern belong?  Actually, what is Dasein to you?

OK? Now you can shut up.

Furthermore, I had concern which was realized above that the thread would degenerate into a discussion of how well you feel you understand Heidegger as compared to other people – which is NOT what the post is about. It is your means to derail it into your vain pursuit.

We are not interpreting.

Well you can carry on as if you are pure and as if an uncritical position with regard to Heidegger is of singular importance. It isn’t to me, especially when you make it clear that you don’t understand the overall frameowork of his project.

This is a living process, not a hermeneutical exercise.

Exercise is just another of your insult words and straw men that you whip out in your boundless conentiousness: shallow, communicationist, bean counter, apparatchik, clunky, confected, mere politics, mere “social stuff” ..about “equality” (which I never said)… doing an intellectual dance … hermeneutic “back and forth back and forth”

… it doesn’t end with you because you are too big a baby to grow up.

It is creative in that it always finds anew.

Hemeneutics does.

Heidegger had it that we must think essentially in these matters, finding what is … going directly to the nature of the thing.  That is how this work has to be done.

The nature of the human being is inextricable with praxis.

We are very definitely not constructing conclusions

As I said, your are too stupid and impervious to absorb what is meant by construction as opposed to reacting to Jewish misrepresentation.

about Dasein’s abstraction of meanings, which would be calculative in his scheme.

It’s not calculative, and I don’t care that much about his scheme. It was too phenomenological ergo too individualistic.

I strongly suspect that essential thinking is not possible outside of origination.  Even if familiarity through time teaches the calculative thinker where everything stands, still the full force of the thing, free of pre-structured conceptions, will not be realised.  For example:

  It [Dasein] is by contrast to Cartesian detachment.

Cartesian detachment is error, not the essential, natural mode which is Dasein.  The engaging Prof Barrett was clear that our commonsensical, experience-based understanding does not accord with Descartes’ model.  That model is not true.

Except for limited inquiries, it is not true, but as a custom and habit of thought, it has the capacity to mystify and misdirect thinking from engagement, away from dasein.

As with all these general and formative factors of the personality (freedom as choice is one, human equality is another, the saved soul in heaven another, and so forth), they produce large, negative consequences in the lived life, driving us ever further into our estrangement.

As I had just said, and these are all species of Cartesianism.

  That’s the problem with your limited understanding of philosophy and the context of Heidegger, it lacks the hermeneutic breadth and capacity to take what is sufficient from his ideas and extend them to where he was or where he should be going, to encompass and reliably maintain broader genetic interests.

But you think “the context of Heidegger” is the historical dissatisfaction with Descartes which Barrett referred to.

I know that a great aspect in the commence of Heideger’s project is something like the rejection of Cartesianism at its onset, as Barrett discusses.

Which is not what Heidegger said himself, and untrue even if we focus solely on his own dissatisfaction.  He did not invent Dasein.  He took it with the implications of that.  He did not take it for the purpose of replacing the Cartesian subject but because it is true in itself and, as such, its placement at the heart of an as yet unwritten life-philosophy would lead to people living more authentic lives.

He is simply asking the age old question of philosophy, centrally by Aristotle, what is the nature of man? (it is in praxis, etc). And, he asked that question, providing language that recognized that Cartesianism took us away from that nature (in praxis).


96

 Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 06 Nov 2017 17:27 | #

I did not ask you for your interpretation of “concern for Dasein”.  I asked you, if you read on, why you are not literate in these matters.  You seem to have missed the question entirely, for which subtlety I have to apologise.  I really thought that you might see that Dasein’s constitution is care for Being.  There is no entity, not even you, which has care for Dasein.  It’s a nonsense.  Think it through.

I had concern which was realized above that the thread would degenerate into a discussion of how well you feel you understand Heidegger as compared to other people

What people, other than Jaegwin Kim on emergentism and the mind/body problem (whom you have not defended) and Sheehan on time as being (with whom you also do not agree – we are in agreement that we do not agree)?  If you are going to appeal to authority at least make it an authority you agree with yourself and can defend; and quote something pertinent to your criticism.  Barrett, for example – lovely, wise old guy – said nothing of substance with which I would disagree, excepting his initial over-emphasis on Descartes which he stated is made only as a good way of approaching Heidegger from the mainstream of the canon, and which I am sure he would have qualified in a flash had his interviewer quoted from the opening chapter of B&T.

You are attempting to prove that I do not know my own subject matter.  You have been doing this for a very long time, starting with your proposition that, actually, the social realm is foundational.  Then communicationism and inter-action hoved into vew.  Then hermeneutics.  In the main post here you alight upon American pragmatism, presumably to advance its instrumentality over the sort of long-run, foundationalist project which Heidegger’s ontology invites.  All the while you have been mechanically maligning what I have been writing, using “Cartesian” as the ultimate intellectual sin and with far too much confidence in your own historiographical reading, and throwing-in syllogisms about science, psychology, and emergent structures without the slightest concern for what I actually say about any of them.

How many times do I have to explain that your own project is simply not my point of focus?  My impression so far is that as a writing discipline hermeneutics is descriptive of a lot of things, and does not really exist as something specific.  It looks nearer to wisdom in hindsight than a real theory.  Perhaps it would help some writers to order their thoughts to better effect.  But save our race?

But … prove me wrong.  If it would help, I will make an entry on the sidebar under DNA Nations, and a separate Category so you can bring together your hermeneutic interpretations and any other related output.


97

 Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 06 Nov 2017 18:03 | #

In addition, I will just knock this poor, slathering beast on the head:

I really don’t care even if Heidegger doesn’t pass social information through a transit in Dasein. The value of paying attention to our sheer organic nature (as theoria) versus our human nature (in praxis) is limited. We need our scientists to pay attention to our organic nature, but it is not enough –  – and taking philosophy into praxis is the post modern turn of which Heidegger was a part.

If you don’t care, you probably won’t be bothered to think, will you?  And if you don’t think, you will say incorrect things when called upon to speak on the matter.  Like differentiating between our immediate harvesting of near-raw data (never entirely raw because certain of our instinctual patterning extends into the very moment of harvest) and our non-conscious interpretive actions thereafter.  By way of example I would remind you of those studies MacDonald cites in his Implicit Whiteness paper, whereby there is a marked dissonance in tested “liberal students” between the adrenalin-response (to images of blacks) which they actually experience and the easy-going race-blindness they perfectly sincerely report.  The issue is not theory vs practise.  The issue is nature vs personality.

By the way, if I asked you to describe to me in what, precisely, Heidegger’s famous and alleged turn consisted you would have to admit that you don’t know.  Don’t just make something up in reply, for the sake of having something to say.  Read the damned literature.  It’s not at all as you would have it.

As for the alleged postmodern turn in intellectual history, where is it, outside of the French-Jewish intellectual tradition?

I have used the t-word myself, about the initial movement away from absence and estrangement and towards presence, and have characterised this by the term, “Intent”.  It might be interesting to contest your scholastic definition with mine.


98

 Posted by DanielS on Mon, 06 Nov 2017 18:52 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 06 Nov 2017 18:27 | #

I did not ask you for your interpretation of “concern for Dasein”.

You certainly did.

I asked you, if you read on, why you are not literate in these matters.

You are not literate in the context of Heidegger’s project and therefore you cannot understand the philosophical place of dasein and midtdasein.

You seem to have missed the question entirely, for which subtlety I have to apologise.  I really thought that you might see that Dasein’s constitution is care for Being.  There is no entity, not even you, which has care for Dasein.  It’s a nonsense.  Think it through.

You have misinterpreted what I meant by “concern for dasein” … “my concern for dasein” was just casually speaking in answer to your question, how I see its relevance.

  I had concern which was realized above that the thread would degenerate into a discussion of how well you feel you understand Heidegger as compared to other people

What people, other than Jaegwin Kim on emergentism and the mind/body problem (whom you have not defended) and Sheehan on time as being (with whom you also do not agree – we are in agreement that we do not agree)?

That’s enough. Here we go. It’s you dragging erstwhile relevant and productive discussion into your personal conceits.

If you are going to appeal to authority

I explained, even in the post, why I have transcribed the discussion of Being and Time by Harrison (whose take is different than Sheehan’s) and Sheehan. Because they lay out the basic outline of Being and Time very clearly. As such, it is a specificatory structure which can be corrected, refined and elaborated. Though I don’t agree with some of the ways that Sheehan has gone (while he had some things right).

at least make it an authority you agree with yourself and can defend;

I just defended it. Your objection is asinine and stems from your lack of the concept of specificatory structures – you cannot see the value of that because you are of a Cartesian mindset.

and quote something pertinent to your criticism.

There is much to be gained from Harrison and Sheehan’s discussion of Being and Time, far more insight into its overall framework than you would ever provide.

Barrett, for example – lovely, wise old guy – said nothing of substance with which I would disagree, excepting his initial over-emphasis on Descartes which he stated is made only as a good way of approaching Heidegger from the mainstream of the canon,

He defeated your recalcitrant objection that Descartes is irrelevant. He showed that it is crucial to an understanding of Heidegger to begin with – an understanding that Descartes marks the apex of the modernist quest and Heidegger is among a school of thought which was in rebellion against Cartesianism. (and what is Cartesianism, its various forms, why its a problem, I have talked about or quoted others talking about in many places).

and which I am sure he would have qualified in a flash had his interviewer quoted from the opening chapter of B&T.

You can try to nibble to death and bring people into endless qualifications over Heidegger, but I have already shown that we have more important things to do and better understanding in the post modern project.

You are attempting to prove that I do not know my own subject matter.

You don’t know the context. You admitted that you had not even read Aristotle.

You have been doing this for a very long time, starting with your proposition that, actually, the social realm is foundational.

I don’t talk in terms of foundations. That’s your quest, the answer to which Heidegger apparently gives in the negative – i.e., thrownness is not a profession of a profound belief in foundations.

Then communicationism and inter-action hoved into vew.

Oh my god, here we go again, the jealous kid. “communicationism” ..“communicationist” ….is that the same as “apparatchik”?

“interaction,” so bad of me to use that word! As if it is something that we can avoid.

Then hermeneutics.

Where does this artificial sequence that you propose come from? I have been talking in these terms for decades. Hermeneutics is a word that Heidegger and his students used.

In the main post here you alight upon American pragmatism, presumably to advance its instrumentality over the sort of long-run, foundationalist project which Heidegger’s ontology invites.

You misunderstand me. American pragmatism is another way, along with hermeneutics, to show that there is no need to put on hold indefinitely the attendance to our needs, both immediate and most profound, for this idiotic conceit of yours to finish building your model railroad

All the while you have been mechanically maligning what I have been writing, using “Cartesian”

I have not mechanically maligned you as Cartesian. I have called your project Cartesian where it deserves to be called Cartesian.

as the ultimate intellectual sin

It is a cardinal error indeed. You are repeating some of the classic mistakes that have set in motion the greatest catastrophies for our race and its dealings with others as well. And its imperviousness is a part of your imperviousness in setting those errors in motion.

and with far too much confidence in your own historiographical reading,

There is nobody who impresses me that agrees with you, that, combined with the fact that my understanding has held up through experience gives me a great deal of confidence. So, it is not far too much confidence, it is merited.

and throwing-in syllogisms about science, psychology, and emergent structures without the slightest concern for what I actually say about any of them.

That’s a projection. You have not the least concern to understand what I say and write. Just the opposite, you are at pains to misrepresent what I say.

How many times do I have to explain that your own project is simply not my point of focus?

That’s ok with me – if you are not going to read what I say, don’t comment, now that you admit that you are not bothering to “focus” on it.

My impression so far is that as a writing discipline hermeneutics is descriptive of a lot of things, and does not really exist as something specific.  It looks nearer to wisdom in hindsight than a real theory.  Perhaps it would help some writers to order their thoughts to better effect.  But save our race?

The stories we tell – whether told well or poorly – are very important with regard to saving our race or not.

But … prove me wrong.  If it would help, I will make an entry on the sidebar under DNA Nations, and a separate Category so you can bring together your hermeneutic interpretations and any other related output.

OK.


99

 Posted by DanielS on Mon, 06 Nov 2017 19:30 | #

In addition, I will just knock this poor, slathering beast on the head:

  I really don’t care even if Heidegger doesn’t pass social information through a transit in Dasein. The value of paying attention to our sheer organic nature (as theoria) versus our human nature (in praxis) is limited. We need our scientists to pay attention to our organic nature, but it is not enough –  – and taking philosophy into praxis is the post modern turn of which Heidegger was a part.

If you don’t care, you probably won’t be bothered to think, will you?

It is rather you who is not bothered to think. Simply having a rote understanding of Heidegger is not thinking. I understand the overall structure of Heidegger’s project, its place and concern. I can see where he was going right, where he was going wrong, and therefore his jots and tittles are for you, if that’s your thing.

And if you don’t think,

Well, it’s you who is claiming people are not thinking if they are not repeating Heidegger verbatim, not me.

you will say incorrect things when called upon to speak on the matter.

Not if I’m honest, and I am.

Like differentiating between our immediate harvesting of near-raw data (never entirely raw because certain of our instinctual patterning extends into the very moment of harvest) and our non-conscious interpretive actions thereafter.

This psychological talk doesn’t do it for me. It reminds me of the kind of stuff I would come up with when I was trying to rely on erudition alone.

By way of example I would remind you of those studies MacDonald cites in his Implicit Whiteness paper, whereby there is a marked dissonance in tested “liberal students” between the adrenalin-response (to images of blacks) which they actually experience and the easy-going race-blindness they perfectly sincerely report.

I’ve quoted these MacDonald studies myself in response to you as to why we cannot simply approach our people as if they are entering a world where we can treat the discursive structures (that confront their older brain) as a trivial matter.

The issue is not theory vs practise.  The issue is nature vs personality.

Personality, as Jordan Peterson and MacDonald speak of it, would be genetic tendencies, such as concern for orderliness and cleanliness corresponding with social conservatism.

I don’t object to people focusing on that, it is interesting, but not as interesting to me as the discursive structures that would legitimate, reward, obligate or block those structures.

By the way, if I asked you to describe to me in what, precisely, Heidegger’s famous and alleged turn consisted you would have to admit that you don’t know.

From doing to dwelling may have been his turn, but he is also known as being pivotal – perhaps in overview (ubersicht) of his place in philosophy – to what is called the hermeneutic and post modern turn.

Don’t just make something up in reply, for the sake of having something to say.  Read the damned literature.  It’s not at all as you would have it.

I don’t think that you understand what I have been saying here. Heidegger is not the bible to me as he is to you. There are certain ideas that are ready to hand. If he takes a turn toward “dwellng”, we know that he is concerned with rootedness and emergentism.

As for the alleged postmodern turn in intellectual history, where is it, outside of the French-Jewish intellectual tradition?

All over the place, read the damn literature if you don’t want to read mine.

I have used the t-word myself, about the initial movement away from absence and estrangement and towards presence, and have characterised this by the term, “Intent”.  It might be interesting to contest your scholastic definition with mine.

Scholastic definition – lol. Poor guy, in the next life time I will give you a scholarship to Freiburg.


100

 Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 06 Nov 2017 22:03 | #

Daniel, “concern for dasien” is a nonsense.  That’s the point.  The more you insist on literalism in what I was really saying to you, the more you exhibit your native lack of suitability for dealing in these abstractions.  Don’t protest further.  You are not in control here.  You don’t yet have a hold on the basics.  But now you have been told this you could conceivably rectify it if you look at what else I have been saying in today’s exchange – which, although I say it myself, is a definite advance on anything else I, at least, have read on the subject of care! 

Simply having a rote understanding of Heidegger is not thinking … jots and tittles …

For your own private reasons you need to run me down.  I understand that.  But, in my own defence, what man of existentialist letters has characterised the constitution of Dasein as I have right here on this thread.  Likewise, who has addressed the space between thrown-ness and openness to the world’s meanings as I have?  Who has defined “the turn” replete with an inherency to consciousness that renders utterly redundant all the over-blown and contested historicity about postmodernism (even if you don’t understand the fact)?  Who has developed Being-with into Being-in-kind, and opened the way to everything?  Who has developed a history of primordial identity and interest?  Who has modelled Mind as a multi-functional organ, with particular evolutionary ages, languages, and speeds of operation?  And so on.  You think this originality is nothing beside your hermeneutics?  Well, you will remain a faithful hermeneuticist, no doubt.  But tomorrow and the next day I will author another new avenue.  I will create what I say I am going to create, at the very least in terms of the bare bones of an holistic system.  I would have preferred genuine scholars to do this work on our people’s behalf, and have tried over several years to organise something.  But Otto aside, where are they?  Obviously not among Sheehan’s “best students”?  Greg Johnson?  Well, he is undoubtedly a scholar and he writes beautifully.  But IQ 138 … not yet enough originative capacity.

I’ve quoted these MacDonald studies myself in response to you as to why we cannot simply approach our people as if they are entering a world where we can treat the discursive structures (that confront their older brain) as a trivial matter

As ever, your mind turns effortlessly to questions of utility.  But the point I was making was deeper and more formative: not history, not the “group analysis” but the division of nature/authenticity and personality/inauthenticity is the coalface of our work.  By political and legal, educational, cultural, and social means (which may or may not include your suggestion) we have to produce a movement towards the former such that the debilitations of the age are shrugged off.  To your distaste, I have often mentioned the change (detachment ►) in self-awareness (affirmation ►) and self-confidence (appropriation ►) which came over the German people in the early- to mid-1930s; and the Nazis didn’t even know what they were doing!  We have to understand better than that.  But – and here is our greatest problem – ethnic nationalism has vanishingly little serious philosophy (I don’t count Walker Connor, who was the guy I mentioned to you and Kumiko the other day, and who stated the obvious back in the 1970s – which of course seemed terribly radical to the liberals of that era).  We are trying to do this on the back of our people’s instincts alone, in the teeth of all the forces which confront us.  It isn’t necessary to go unarmed into that arena, and we should not.


101

 Posted by DanielS on Tue, 07 Nov 2017 02:50 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 06 Nov 2017 17:03 | #

Daniel, “concern for dasien” is a nonsense.  That’s the point.

For fuck sake! in context I was saying “with regard to dasein”…

The more you insist on literalism

I don’t insist on liberalism and stop lying.

It is you that is doing liberalism when you insist upon individualism “unfettered” by any discussion of consensus, paranoically depicting the slightest discussion, even, as “coercion.”

in what I was really saying to you, the more you exhibit your native lack of suitability for dealing in these abstractions.

You remain unsuitable for dealing with philosophical matters.

  Don’t protest further.

I will defend myself against misrepresentation every time.

You are not in control here.

I am in control of what I mean.

You don’t yet have a hold on the basics.

I have a hold on the basics that I need. You, on the other hand, are full of it.

But now you have been told this you could conceivably rectify it

No, you can correct your straw men by going back and looking at what I actually say.

if you look at what else I have been saying in today’s exchange – which, although I say it myself, is a definite advance on anything else I, at least, have read on the subject of care!

If you do say so yourself. But in truth, you can be evasive, and are quick to deliver strawmen

  Simply having a rote understanding of Heidegger is not thinking … jots and tittles …

For your own private reasons you need to run me down.  I understand that.

Again, a projection.

But, in my own defence, what man of existentialist letters has characterised the constitution of Dasein as I have right here on this thread.

Even if what you say about dasein is wholly faithful, it is not very different from what I, and others say; it is only more limited and backward in its relevant implications – it lacks the context of Heidegger’s project with regard to our needs as peoples – “against” various “pincers”, as it were – and the implications thereof. Context bears readily on content.

I am usually moving toward holding fast to midtdasein in that regard.

Likewise, who has addressed the space between thrown-ness and openness to the world’s meanings as I have?

Mirror, mirror on the wall….

“The world’s meanings?” while you flout hermeneutics, are you kidding me?

Who has defined “the turn” replete with an inherency to consciousness that renders utterly redundant all the over-blown and contested historicity about postmodernism

Well now I know that you are off the mark and must be taken with a massive grain of salt.

For one thing, my discussion of (what I call White) post modernity (to distinguish it) cannot be lumped with other renditions and what ever blowing up accords. There is no reason a person of normal concern for his people should try resist it and denigrade it as you have.

Though it is your fantasy and habit as a STEM person to render “utterly” redundant matters that trouble your “simple and elegant” design, you have neither done that, nor have you performed as service as such, but rather a vast disservice.

Holding fast to emergence and consciousness thereof (which still requires interactive streams of logic which accord or not) can be a faithful reading of a basic feature of Heidegger, and it can be useful as I’ve said to you, if that “consciousness” is directed (at least at critical moments) by the social to look at where it bears upon social, not just invdividual homeostasis.

If it does not, then it is either a limitation of your definition or Heidegger’s – I suspect a limitation in Heidegger, for the phenomenological emphasis on subjectivity; and then in turn, a limitation in yourself, for relying too much on Heidegger in isolation.

(even if you don’t understand the fact)?  Who has developed Being-with into Being-in-kind, and opened the way to everything?

Mirror mirror on the wall…GW, you are a smart guy, but …“everything?” Get a grip.

You’ve made some good contributions: insistence upon attention to emergentism, an outstanding and incisive critique of some of the major flaws of Nazism…

And if you have to be myopic about a philosopher, Heidegger is a pretty good one, as he tends to have a curative effect for a more European way of thinking than much of what is going on out there, including in your dread academia.

But I remember chiding Wittgenstein for proclaiming the “end of philosophy” and being Jewish as such…[because I think, am sure, philosophy remains important] and Bowery corrected me by observing that Heidegger said the same thing…

I was startled. Responding, “he did?” …you know Bowery as you, has that STEM thing against any perceived excesses, ‘redundancies’ of philosophy that could/to him should be subsumed in science.

In truth, I remembered afterward reading Heidegger having said that, though I don’t recall in which book.

I would treat it as a limitation or Heidegger being provocative if not arrogant.

He is is not the end of philosophy (and you should probably “heed” that).

Who has developed a history of primordial identity and interest?

Mirror mirror on the wall…..who is the fairest hermeneuticist of all?

Who has modelled Mind as a multi-functional organ, with particular evolutionary ages, languages, and speeds of operation?  And so on.

Rom Harre put the word “mind” on the chalk board and crossed it out – said it’s a four letter word and it shouldn’t be used. He is a cognitive psychologist and philosopher of science.. it would be fun to hear what he has to say about your mind scheme….

“Thinking” is a proposed alternative…being less static and monadic.

But I’ll say this, if you or others find it useful, go for it….

One of my first ideas when embarking further education was exactly to model the mind. I was reading and trying to decipher a cognitive psychology book, equipped with mental structures, amygdala, hippocampus, the works.

I came with the same revulsion over the word pragmatism (ergo utility) that you have. I was cured by the first professor that I inquired of, with the observation that “you object to mere pragmatism” ..he was right (and we are pragmatists because we have to be).

I came to believe that philosophically speaking, and in terms of our needs as people, what we needed from that discipline was not most urgent – important, no doubt, but we knew most of what we needed and the rest could be added as we go along …letting the scientific nerds beaver away at their detail…

One of my more influential professors did confide to me, even though he is a master at a wholly different discipline, that if he were to start his PhD over again, he would pursue neuro science.

Even so, I’m sure that he would not try to excise its functioning from context, social and otherwise, as you do in an effort to render the social a superfluous matter.

But I cannot trust you to respectfully render a definition of the social and interactive as I mean it, because you have adopted too much of an aversion to any such talk.

Even where Heidegger might do that too, try to sort out what you call “the personality”, I would view that as one end of a hermeneutic circle, a feed back loop, or some facimile thereof, and an epistemological error on the part of anyone who tried to isolate it from praxis and thus do violence to the overall purpose of his project, his assignment, as it were.

Heidegger’s is in many ways, his rendition of the same assignment as other philosophers, i.e., a continuation of the turn, shall we say, that Aristotle took in Nicomachean Ethics.

You think this originality is nothing beside your hermeneutics?

I didn’t say it was nothing. I didn’t come here to do what you do in your STEM predilection in this very moment, of trying to reduce the myriad of ideas I’ve brought to bear and reduce them to just one – in this case, hermeneutics – to then try to render it redundant. That is yours and Bowery’s thing.

Well, you will remain a faithful hermeneuticist, no doubt.

Indeed I will, among many other things.

But tomorrow and the next day I will author another new avenue.

You are a reactionary, it is evident in this utterance.

I will create what I say I am going to create, at the very least in terms of the bare bones of an holistic system.

And it will be here and anywhere else you post it for people to elaborate on, debate, cherish what should be cherished.

I would have preferred genuine scholars to do this work on our people’s behalf, and have tried over several years to organise something.  But Otto aside, where are they?  Obviously not among Sheehan’s “best students”?

I only know of one student of Sheehan, that is Harrison. You know others?

Besides, your project is not my project.

Furthermore, I suspect that most scholars would shy away from you, because they all have experience of your type, the non-academic who is going to “debunk them and show them that they are not smart.”

Whether you are smarter than some, most of them or not, one valid criticism that some of them might make if they look upon your scheme is that it is technical and of limited utility.

Greg Johnson?  Well, he is undoubtedly a scholar and he writes beautifully.  But IQ 138 … not yet enough originative capacity.

Well, Greg provides way more context than you do. I am not satisfied with his philosophy either, but at least he does that.

  I’ve quoted these MacDonald studies myself in response to you as to why we cannot simply approach our people as if they are entering a world where we can treat the discursive structures (that confront their older brain) as a trivial matter

As ever, your mind turns effortlessly to questions of utility.

That’s good. If I am pointing the way to utility that is one feather in my cap.

But the point I was making was deeper and more formative: not history, not the “group analysis” but the division of nature/authenticity and personality/inauthenticity is the coalface of our work.

That, what might be one end of a hermeneutic circle, is the coalface of your work.

By political and legal, educational, cultural, and social means (which may or may not include your suggestion) we have to produce a movement towards the former such that the debilitations of the age are shrugged off.

True, I see as sheer cognitive project as insufficient to our needs by itself, but I am always endeavoring, in one way or another, to provide either direction toward personal and group systemic health or to critique infirmities and antagonisms to what you might call authentic personality.

To your distaste, I have often mentioned the change (detachment ►) in self-awareness (affirmation ►) and self-confidence (appropriation ►)

This is not to my distaste. I simply do not find the psychological unit of analysis to be the most important one for our needs. Perhaps Heidegger’s folk ensconcement was secure enough so that he took it for granted and could focus on elaboration of the phenomenological perspective.

which came over the German people in the early- to mid-1930s; and the Nazis didn’t even know what they were doing!  We have to understand better than that.

I can agree with that!

But – and here is our greatest problem – ethnic nationalism has vanishingly little serious philosophy (I don’t count Walker Connor, who was the guy I mentioned to you and Kumiko the other day, and who stated the obvious back in the 1970s – which of course seemed terribly radical to the liberals of that era).

Well, there is a lack of philosophical consideration of ethno nationalism generally, but I, for one, am bringing resources to bear that you should not be dismissive of (though I have every reason to believe by now, that you will continue to try to do that).

We are trying to do this on the back of our people’s instincts alone, in the teeth of all the forces which confront us.
It isn’t necessary to go unarmed into that arena, and we should not.

Maybe you feel you are operating on instincts alone, but I take the best of what the giants and common people have to offer and integrate it to our needs; and if I bring it to bear, it is because it proved itself necessary (for myself as an ethno nationalist and for ethnonationalism) through experience.

 


102

 Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 07 Nov 2017 09:23 | #

The problem with the social question is not the question as such – we have a socially-acquired component – but the conceptual lightness of those who work with it professionally, and their determined blindness to natural identity and cause.  Actually, it’s worse than that in the case of those social thinkers who have argued that authenticism, as an experiential quality, is tainted by narcissism.  This is a very modern left-centred way of operating, effectively triangulating what is particular to us, and consigning us, in our new totality, to the shallow, supine, scarcely-real life of the safely individualised social product, sans essential principal.  This isn’t Man.  This is no different to Jewish thinking about the gentile.

Harre’s ethogenics appears to be a clear case in point, whereby identity is assumed to be socially-formed and even fashioned by the subject.  To me, the incipience of this “identity” is a mechanical process, the product of the mating of Time and Place and the passivity and suggestibility which pervade our absence.  For such a being to be a nationalist is scarcely different, qualitatively, to it being a revolutionary internationalist, or come to that a bird-watcher or a fan of hot curry.  Everything is condemned by its functional ordinariness to the same depressed level.  Nowhere is there the vertical relief of the consciousness which raises and authenticises, taking us out of the received, out of the dark, and returning us into our true relation in the world.

I have written here:

https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/what_it_means_to_be_human_part_3

… of “Human personality as the contested historical space”, and that sums up my estimation of the socially-acquired element in us.

Definitionally, personality is the expression of neurological data generated by influences external to the organism, and laid down associatively in the three perceptual systems (intellectual, emotional, motor).  This data constitutes every acquired principle, ideal, belief, value, taste, attitude, ambition, prejudice, vanity, presumption, impression, impulse, accent and inflexion, action and reaction, fad and fashion … everything behavioural that is nurtured, everything that is habituated, everything that is prescribed, everything that is not native.

The human consequence is that plastic, suggestible, unruly totality into the workings of which, regardless, the most ancient facility in the brain, some kind of identity spark-plug, mechanically, stubbornly ascribes the small, mighty estate of the self … “I” … “the same as itself with itself”, as Heidegger concluded in his lecture-essay Identity & Difference.  It is not a requirement that there is any truth to the event.  And, indeed, on observation, the workings turn out to be a programmatic and wholly unexamined flow of body positions, movements and impulses, emotional states, and associated sequences of thoughts, the vast majority simply reactive and running without pre-selection or management.  The claimant “I” … the directing, conscious agent thinking calculatively, experiencing the flow of life-events, making choices, setting and striving for goals, etc … that only arrives on the scene later as a rationalisation.

You made a wrong turn back in your college days.  Nationalism effects socially because it is a politics.  But it does not arise in us from a social origin.  The origin is the thing that differentiates it from the mere belief structures that Harre studies.


103

 Posted by DanielS on Tue, 07 Nov 2017 11:11 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 07 Nov 2017 04:23 | #

The problem with the social question is not the question as such – we have a socially-acquired component – but the conceptual lightness of those who work with it professionally, and their determined blindness to natural identity and cause.

That’s not only their problem, it’s their error and misdirection which means it is not to be left in their hands.

Actually, it’s worse than that in the case of those social thinkers who have argued that authenticism, as an experiential quality, is tainted by narcissism.

Well, I have never argued anything of the sort.

This is a very modern left-centred way of operating, effectively triangulating what is particular to us, and consigning us,  in our new totality, to the shallow, supine, scarcely-real life of the safely individualised social product, sans essential principal.

Quite. That’s what their left, and international left of the abstract beleaguered or an anti-White coalition would do.

This isn’t Man.  This is no different to Jewish thinking about the gentile.

Your way of looking at it is Jewish. A White person, Whit3e people wouldn’t dare think of their group interests.

Harre’s ethogenics appears to be a clear case in point, whereby identity is assumed to be socially-formed and even fashioned by the subject.

Not really, and he’s written fat books about cognitive science and the social aspect of being (i.e., not at all merely subjective) but I’m not going to defend him because he is a liberal; at best perhaps, not an extreme case; but he’s not an ethno nationalist.

To me, the incipience of this “identity” is a mechanical process, the product of the mating of Time and Place and the passivity and suggestibility which pervade our absence.  For such a being to be a nationalist is scarcely different, qualitatively, to it being a revolutionary internationalist, or come to that a bird-watcher or a fan of hot curry.  Everything is condemned by its functional ordinariness to the same depressed level.  Nowhere is there the vertical relief of the consciousness which raises and authenticises, taking us out of the received, out of the dark, and returning us into our true relation in the world.

If you say so, it must be true, right?

I have written here:

https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/what_it_means_to_be_human_part_3

… of “Human personality as the contested historical space”, and that sums up my estimation of the socially-acquired element in us.

Yes, I remember.

  Definitionally, personality is the expression of neurological data generated by influences external to the organism, and laid down associatively in the three perceptual systems (intellectual, emotional, motor).  This data constitutes every acquired principle, ideal, belief, value, taste, attitude, ambition, prejudice, vanity, presumption, impression, impulse, accent and inflexion, action and reaction, fad and fashion … everything behavioural that is nurtured, everything that is habituated, everything that is prescribed, everything that is not native.

Appears rather limited, but if you want to subject it to operational verification, by all means…

  The human consequence is that plastic, suggestible, unruly totality into the workings of which, regardless, the most ancient facility in the brain, some kind of identity spark-plug,

….vrooooom! we’re off…

mechanically, stubbornly ascribes the small, mighty estate of the self … “I” … “the same as itself with itself”, as Heidegger concluded in his lecture-essay Identity & Difference.

Quite a lot of discussion of the “I” in Harre’s work, actually, but we’ve been through this already, you accepted only the corporeal self (which he has quite a lot to say about, despite your ignoring that fact), and not the autobiographical self, as I recall (a conclusion as boring as it is wrong).

That’s a big problem with you – if someone has a good idea, your ego can’t handle it; and as a result you wind up attacking the better ideas, to everyone’s detriment.

It is not a requirement that there is any truth to the event.  And, indeed, on observation, the workings turn out to be a programmatic and wholly unexamined flow of body positions, movements and impulses, emotional states, and associated sequences of thoughts, the vast majority simply reactive and running without pre-selection or management.

Yes, Zen master.

The claimant “I” … the directing, conscious agent thinking calculatively, experiencing the flow of life-events, making choices, setting and striving for goals, etc … that only arrives on the scene later as a rationalisation.

K.

You made a wrong turn back in your college days.

Fuck off. I choose what I attend (mostly) to in accordance to our needs. You are the one on the wrong turn, in reaction, etc (I’ll refrain from repeating the other, apparent reasons).

Nationalism effects socially because it is a politics.  But it does not arise in us from a social origin.

This conclusion stems from your retarded definition of social, communication, social construction etc.

  The origin is the thing that differentiates it from the mere belief structures that Harre studies.

You don’t know what Harre studies. But again, I am not here to defend him.


104

 Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 07 Nov 2017 13:26 | #

Quite a lot of discussion of the “I” in Harre’s work, actually, but we’ve been through this already, you accepted only the corporeal self (which he has quite a lot to say about, despite your ignoring that fact), and not the autobiographical self, as I recall (a conclusion as boring as it is wrong).

Because Man is not an autobiographical self + a corporeal self.  It is a lumpy, simplistic, inadequate and factually false prescription, albeit “obvious” to a person who is seeking, primarily, to underscore his own social model.  His autobiographical self – one should be sparing in one’s use of the word “self” – misses the screamingly obvious fact that, cognitively and behaviourally, it requires an authentically grounded being to live the life of authenticity which you and I would envision.  You cannot get authenticity, as fidelity to nature in Man, out of a social-derived being from whom nature is near as can be excluded.

Of course, I only have your word that this is a fair representation of Harre’s model.  It is certainly true that I do not read Harre’s output in order to determine all his positions for myself.  That might be poor form, but one cannot read everything.  I know you are not above using Wikipedia or Stanford or whatever for a thumbnail sketch of this or that.  Well, Wiki very helpfully provides this 1983 quote from the man:

All that is personal in our mental and emotional lives is individually appropriated from the conversation going on around us and perhaps idiosyncratically transformed. The structure of our thinking and our feeling will reflect, in various ways, the form and content of that conversation. The main thesis of this work is that mind is no sort of entity, but a system of beliefs structured by a cluster of grammatical models.

So …

Sentence 1 allows for nothing originating in us that is not from our environment.  The only ray of hope is that “something” idiosyncratic in us might … might provide for a little difference from all that is happening in everyone around us.  So, conveniently, we might not be identical social cyphers, but are we social cyphers nonetheless!

Sentence 2 says the same thing as Sentence 1, and does not need to be said at all.

Sentence 3 reinforces the singularity of the social genesis, and compounds the error that emotion, as a third of our perceptual architecture, couldn’t possibly be an evolved mechanism; while the gamut of feelings could not conceivably be its native language.  No, no, it’s all just some vague thing do with socially-acquired beliefs expressed in the English or Russian or Chinese or Bantu or whatever language.  Notwithstanding the fact that the mechanism of emotion does not understand, much less speak, English or Russian or Chinese or Bantu.  Or whatever.  It operates with quicksilver speed.  The languages of Man, of course, are the lumbering helpmeet of the mechanism of intellect.

Harre completely misses our sensate “life” as the third (and fastest and oldest) cognitive system.  Why’s that?  Because, if this quote is anything to go by, he has the wrong damned model.  Yet this is the quality of thinking you apparently esteem.

I expect you will now re-state your disagreement with the liberal Harre, and your preference for Shotter.  What’s his model of Man, though?


105

 Posted by DanielS on Tue, 07 Nov 2017 15:33 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 07 Nov 2017 14:26 | #

  Quite a lot of discussion of the “I” in Harre’s work, actually, but we’ve been through this already, you accepted only the corporeal self (which he has quite a lot to say about, despite your ignoring that fact), and not the autobiographical self, as I recall (a conclusion as boring as it is wrong).

Because Man is not an autobiographical self + a corporeal self.

He is not necessarily as you formulate it, i.e., this plus this, but any man beyond the most primitive (probably prehistoric) monocultural man will have these two features.

Your jackass denial doesn’t make that untrue.

It is a lumpy, simplistic, inadequate and factually false prescription

No. Your apprehension and wishful thinking according to your threatened ego is lumpy, simplistic, inadequate and factually false prescription.

, albeit “obvious” to a person who is seeking, primarily, to underscore his own social model.

You should stop listening to retarded people like Uh.

It is almost funny (if this was not going on years now) that I have to keep repeating, that the group unit of analysis is not a fixed unit of analysis and I am not a sociologist (neither is Harre, but as I said..), but it is an important unit of analysis given that “anti-racism” is our chief affliction, and that is an attack on our ethnocentrisms (our group organizations and defense).

His autobiographical self – one should be sparing in one’s use of the word “self” – misses the screamingly obvious fact that, cognitively and behaviourally, it requires an authentically grounded being to live the life of authenticity which you and I would envision.

He is not absurd, and he would clearly recognize the screamingly obvious fact that the autobiographical self cannot go too far afield of the corporeal self.

You cannot get authenticity, as fidelity to nature in Man, out of a social-derived being from whom nature is near as can be excluded.

There is a difference from “deriving” and interacting; Shotter is a bit critical of Harre for using the word appropriation, the same word that you use, by the way, but it is still meant interactively.

Furthermore, with regard to authentic expression expanding into the narrative and social realm, emergentism would at least hold for its possibility (being non reductionist) and extended phenotype theory probably would as well.

But at any rate, its being a two way, circular process, it is supposed to be gauged and brought to accord, at least according to me, with our (what you call authentic) corporeal self.

Of course, I only have your word that this is a fair representation of Harre’s model.

To repeat, I am not here to defend Harre.

It is certainly true that I do not read Harre’s output in order to determine all his positions for myself.  That might be poor form, but one cannot read everything.

The problem is that as ever, you don’t ever consider how something like this could be good and true. In aspects, I am sure that it is good, and necessary even. You might also know that he is a STEM type, having begun as motor engineer (for boats, I believe).

I know you are not above using Wikipedia or Stanford or whatever for a thumbnail sketch of this or that.  Well, Wiki very helpfully provides this 1983 quote from the man:

  All that is personal in our mental and emotional lives is individually appropriated from the conversation going on around us and perhaps idiosyncratically transformed. The structure of our thinking and our feeling will reflect, in various ways, the form and content of that conversation. The main thesis of this work is that mind is no sort of entity, but a system of beliefs structured by a cluster of grammatical models.

So …

Sentence 1 allows for nothing originating in us that is not from our environment.

“perhaps idosyncratically informed”

The only ray of hope is that “something” idiosyncratic in us might …

As I said, it looks that way ostensibly, but the thing is you are not thinking radically enough in terms of what he means by conversation. He would consider your model of the transit a conversation.

might provide for a little difference from all that is happening in everyone around us.  So, conveniently, we might not be identical social cyphers, but are we social cyphers nonetheless!

As with Heidegger, I take from Harre what I need; and find the utility where I might. You’d have to talk to him or read into books where he is discussing the corporeal self to see how he might rebut your charge which seems apparent on the basis of that passage that he is treating us more or less like cyphers. And if that were the case I would disagree (I never claimed to be a proponent across the board of him either). But putting this into the light of a higher criteria, I would say that he is concerned to emphasize the social as a rigor of it s own, to emphasize the fact denied by the Cartesian model that we can neither deny our social indebtedness, and therefore ought think of our maps of the mind as matters of grammar and conversation; and at once avail ourselves of agency in de-thingifying mind, taking it out of the static, monadic habit.

Sentence 2 says the same thing as Sentence 1, and does not need to be said at all.

Again, your problem is the a limited understanding of what he means and what he is doing with the word “conversation” ….even with regard to harder-wired cognitive processes like emotional reaction, he is extending conversation, perhaps by hundreds of thousands of years, to facilitate observance of that moment when words were applied to that emotion – say fear (of another race) and then the conversation that perverted it (New York Times saying, nothing to be afraid of, racism is backward superstition of the uneducated), in order to bring people into the agency of conversation against “experts” who would deny us our agency (and self defense as ethnonationalists).

Sentence 3 reinforces the singularity of the social genesis, and compounds the error that emotion, as a third of our perceptual architecture, couldn’t possibly be an evolved mechanism; while the gamut of feelings could not conceivably be its native language.

When he says: The main thesis of this work is that mind is no sort of entity, but a system of beliefs structured by a cluster of grammatical models.

I would refer you back to my last comment. Even according to emergentism, anything but the most primitive organic reconstruction, i.e., any human sort of “mind” would not be a thing (an entity) but would move beyond the kind of reducionism that you espouse, into a logics of meaning and action which he calls grammar, again, to emphasize social indebtedness in correction of Cartesian detachment and denial of participatory agency.

No, no, it’s all just some vague thing do with socially-acquired beliefs expressed in the English or Russian or Chinese or Bantu or whatever language.

I can’t speak for Harre, but what I am talking about, anyway, is not just that. There are genetic differences that are at the heart of my concern to protect. You fail to realize that hermeneutics can not only help, but are necessary to do that.

Notwithstanding the fact that the mechanism of emotion does not understand, much less speak, English or Russian or Chinese or Bantu.  Or whatever.  It operates with quicksilver speed.  The languages of Man, of course, are the lumbering helpmeet of the mechanism of intellect.

At that point it boils down to the old philosophical question, if a tree falls in the woods and there is nobody there to hear it…does it make a noise? Yes, but it won’t matter much if there is nobody there to hear it.

What I am saying is, a child in the woods is probably gong to instinctively recognize its own kind versus another kind (even if they are unable to see it, in order to prompt kindred reaction). We are in agreement that at that point of emotion, we are not talking about a great deal of social negotiation; however, there remains the modicum of agency in determining how these facts comes to count.

And there is much reason to not give up that primordial agency, as if the first person who made the choice to reproduce one’s kind.

Harre completely misses our sensate “life” as the third (and fastest and oldest) cognitive system.  Why’s that?  Because, if this quote is anything to go by, he has the wrong damned model.  Yet this is the quality of thinking you apparently esteem.

Your doing your STEM asshole thing again. You constantly try to pin one thing on me and try to do away with me and everything I say on the basis of that.

This is why I have come to despise having to respond to your smearing comments.

Having said that, let me repeat, I am not here to defend Harre, his full array of thoughts. I take what is worth consideration. I am sure that Harre has studied babies, I know that Jerome Bruner has, and that Harre refers to Bruner. I only mention that to say that you are looking at him discussing adult, Personal Being (I think that’s the book that’s quoted from, not Social Being). This book does not deal much with the corporeal self, I suppose because he is talking about being. He has a whole other book devoted to corporeality and cognitive science.

But the really egregious thing is that you are doing this STEM asshole thing, where you try to pin everything I say, try to make it all hinge on one thing, that you are going to knock over and render me and all I say, rendering it all redundant.

I am not here to defend Harre, i.e., it is not my purpose to defend his honor and esteem. Nor Heideggers. I take from them what I can use.

Rather than seeing what is useful, you are constantly looking for ways to defeat me or academics on the basis of any possible thing you can latch onto as a criticism – invariably a straw man, nothing that I am defending and honoring.

I expect you will now re-state your disagreement with the liberal Harre, and your preference for Shotter.  What’s his model of Man, though?

I explained in a bit more depth my position with regard to Harre – how you might misunderstand what he means by and why he uses terms like conversation and grammar. I don’t “prefer” Shotter (I believe he even had a colored wife in the few years before he died; I’m definitely not on his team), I am taking from them what I need.

But I will say this, I have witnessed Shotter speaking before the cognitive science department and he was asked by one of the graduate students, “what’s in the head?”

He answered “porridge.” …I laughed. And I guess that was meant to tweak anti-social people like yourself, so averse to social accountability.


106

 Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 07 Nov 2017 21:38 | #

any man beyond the most primitive (probably prehistoric) monocultural man will have these two features.

It has not occurred to you, then, that the autobiographical self is illusory … a species of mechanical expression … a scientifically proven fallacy?  It has not occurred to you that the corporeal self is not a self at all?  It has not occurred to you that Descartes would have had no disagreement with either?  It has not occurred to you that simply accepting “the obvious” is inherently unambitious for truth?  It has not occurred to you that the mind is not any kind of entity for Harre, but these two illusions are?  It has not occurred to you that by eschewing fidelity to nature in Man, Harre demonstrates that he has no interest in him as he is.  He is only interested in seeing him in a certain, pre-selected way.

The appropriate intellectual procedure is not to affirm (in my terminology) the everyday self, and its world, but to explore and understand the ontology; and on that understanding build a solid foundation in truth and in nature.  An ethnic identitarian nationalism cannot grow from any other root.


107

 Posted by DanielS on Tue, 07 Nov 2017 22:51 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 07 Nov 2017 16:38 | #

  any man beyond the most primitive (probably prehistoric) monocultural man will have these two features.

Zeus, er GW says: It has not occurred to you, then, that the autobiographical self is illusory …

That’s right, it is not illusory, any more than a history of England or a recounting of an event is illusory or a telling of a news story going on in real time is an illusion.. or setting an itinerary is an illusion

Autobiography can be quite conducive to the sequential facts of one’s existence.

a species of mechanical expression … a scientifically proven fallacy?

This is some kind of Zen-like foolishness you’re speaking, the all words are illusion bit.

It has not occurred to you that the corporeal self is not a self at all?

It has occurred to me, that in the west, we normally claim that our body houses our self, or represents our self – our person. But that clean division can be questioned, or its being a self can be questioned.

Some cultures have lacked the concept of the possessive self.  …“arm hurts” …. not “my” arm hurts

Again, you ignore the point that he is talking about personal being, a human thing, not the mechanical, animal process you covet.

It has not occurred to you that Descartes would have had no disagreement with either?

“It has not occurred to you” that “this series of “this has not occurred to you” proclamations is an expression of your puerile contentiousnesss, now gone pointedly grandiose?

It has occurred to me *******, that the quest and pure mechanical detachment of observer from observed and interaction, for which Descartes is the exemplar, is more or less problematic, particularly for us as western peoples.

Thus, the pure separation of the two necessary kinds of self, as you would apparently attempt.

It has not occurred to you that simply accepting “the obvious” is inherently unambitious for truth?

Has it not occurred to you that your trying to come up with whatever negative angle that you can possibly come up with is not what you should be doing?

It’s called radical skepticism and it is an expression of Cartesian anxiety.

With the post modern turn, we recognize that certain things are absurd to question and we take advantage of willing suspension of disbelief to just any arbitrary facts; thus we liberate ourselves from mere facticity into coherence and the capacity to elaborate ways of analyzing problems, test stories, hypotheses and provide solutions.

You have simply ignored many contributions to human ambition that I commend, where I do not underscore, unfold and elaborate.

Contributions that in your jealousy (or whatever your problem is) that you try to thwart, rather than trying to connect with, though time and again, I show you how it is possible for our preferred perspectives to work together.

It has not occurred to that the mind is not any kind of entity for Harre, but these two illusions are?

I told you that I am not here to defend Harre, any more than I am here to defend every jot and title of Heidedgger.

His notion of autobiographical self is important for coherence, accountability, agency and warrant.


It has not occurred to you that by eschewing fidelity to nature in Man,

This is not eschewing fidelity to the nature of Man, it is essential to human nature.

Harre demonstrates that he has no interest in him as he is.

I doubt that, given that he’s written books on cognitive science, that he has “no interest” in man as he is.

He is only interested in seeing him in a certain, pre-selected way.

This is a projection, you want to conceive of me and others in a pre selected negative way and never to consider how what we might be saying is true and valuable.

The appropriate intellectual procedure is not to affirm (in my terminology) the everyday self, and its world, but to explore and understand the ontology; and on that understanding build a solid foundation in truth and in nature.

Go build your foundation then instead of ordering me to put aside crucial and essential philosophical necessities, matters more essential than your ontology project.

According to you, I was supposed to focus on the personality. Why don’t you?

I gave you a positive altercast already – if European people have a tight understanding of the personality characteristics that make up a healthy person and one that will reproduce European peoples, ways and places, that can be nifty, like the Euro DNA nation,something that you can take with you wherever you go.. with the “consciousness” of yours and your peoples significance.

There’s a place for that in hermeneutics. Do you remember what Graham said, about the best scientists being hermeneuticists?

And do you remember what Jon said – “I don’t need a blue print when my house is on fire?”

Heck, one doesn’t have priority need for a blueprint when the house is already built, in tact, its problems, capacities and affordances understood.

That is to say narratives, stories, rules, logics of meaning and action that would keep that personal “consciousness” on track, keep the house together, foster it and not obstruct its maintainance, not destroy it (for some hair brained insistence that it all has to be brought down in favor of blueprint), must be attended to as well.

So let other people be the fire brigade, or whatever needs attending to while you examine the sort of personality that is most inclined to reproduce European ways, Euro Man, in all its splendor it has the kosher seal of approval, so what are you worried about?

  An ethnic identitarian nationalism cannot grow from any other root.

We need maps for authentic negotiation of the social realm and its hazards as well ….those maps interact more or less with our authentic being as we make our way….

I didn’t say that our identity doesn’t grow from what is instantiated – I said many times that it would be Cartesian to say that we are detached from nature and interaction, but by the same token, we are a part of complex feedback systems. And I said that we know enough of what is to proceed; indeed we must; while the more scientific predilection is invaluable, it is not all that we need, the world is not going to wait for your ontology project.

 


108

 Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 08 Nov 2017 03:18 | #

When Heidegger experienced Dasein he began to shake uncontrollably, his eyes rolled back in his head, his tongue lolled to the side and drool began streaming down his chin as he mumbled to himself, “I am…an authentic pussy…cuckolded…a genuine cypher…I am!”

Lolllullzzolzolllzulzz


109

 Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 08 Nov 2017 03:31 | #

Btw, I don’t see why GW busts Daniel’s balls so hard when he basically gave all the fruitcakes (Bowery, Richards, Von Hoffmeister, etc.) that have come and gone here over the years a free pass.

I mean shit, Bowery may be a top shelf computer sperg, but is he good for anything else?  Single deadly combat, anyone?  How about an explanation for the Jews’ rise to power in America?  Does saying they did it with black magic cut any mustard for you? 

Lulz


110

 Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 08 Nov 2017 07:30 | #

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

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


111

 Posted by DanielS on Wed, 08 Nov 2017 07:43 | #

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


112

 Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 08 Nov 2017 08:29 | #

CC, why are you … you in particular … racially conscious?  How did you come into this truthful, natural, normal estate?


113

 Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 08 Nov 2017 09:43 | #

That’s right, it is not illusory, any more than a history of England or a recounting of an event is illusory or a telling of a news story going on in real time is an illusion.. or setting an itinerary is an illusion

Autobiography can be quite conducive to the sequential facts of one’s existence.

You are entering the realm of the ridiculous, holding hands with bad thinkers like Harre.  Ordinary waking consciousness is an on-going state of absence … there is nothing of a “self”.  You are mistaking the illusion … a rationalisation … over which the brain pronounces “I”, for a reality.  Various studies have demonstrated the time-delay between a simple action of the organism and the firing up of neurons in the thinking faculty, which is the focal point of consciousness where the sense of self is.  There is no doubt about this.  If you need confirmation, look at the vastly differing operating speeds of the great cognitive faculties.

There is a reason why ontologists are cautious in their employment of the term “self”.  It is fine for general chit-chat, but not for the establishment of truth.


114

 Posted by DanielS on Wed, 08 Nov 2017 10:14 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 08 Nov 2017 10:43 | #

  That’s right, it is not illusory, any more than a history of England or a recounting of an event is illusory or a telling of a news story going on in real time is an illusion.. or setting an itinerary is an illusion

  Autobiography can be quite conducive to the sequential facts of one’s existence.

You are entering the realm of the ridiculous,

No I am not.

holding hands with bad thinkers like Harre.

And I am not holding hands with “bad thinkers” like Harre.

This again, is your puerile STEM-assed tendency to place everything I can say into one “errant” slot and “render” me and what I say redundant. 

Ordinary waking consciousness is an on-going state of absence … there is nothing of a “self”.

It tends to be that way on one end, on the non reflective end of the hermeneutic circle, attending to articular matters (otherwise we are searching for extant patterns, including of our own lives). If you want to tell a story that it reflects nothing of a self, you can do that. Westerners, being individualists and wanting certain prerogatives for themselves as individuals, tend to want concepts of the self.

You are mistaking the illusion … a rationalisation … over which the brain pronounces “I”, for a reality.

If you read what I just said, and before, you’d see that I am making no such mistake.

Various studies have demonstrated the time-delay between a simple action of the organism and the firing up of neurons in the thinking faculty, which is the focal point of consciousness where the sense of self is. There is no doubt about this.  If you need confirmation, look at the vastly differing operating speeds of the great cognitive faculties.

Then it would be an expression of “the corporeal self” – no problem to explain in this framework.

There is a reason why ontologists are cautious in their employment of the term “self”.  It is fine for general chit-chat, but not for the establishment of truth.

As I said above, you don’t have to talk in terms of the self. We westerners, aside from a rare scientistic lunk-head, perhaps, tend to like, require even, the concept of self for reasons I mentioned above.

Even though both corporeal and authobiographical self could be operationally verified, I guess there would be some scientistic ontologists who would be averse to a concept of self because they can’t “see it.”

However, that is where modernity’s scientism runs rough shod even over our own traditional, ethnocentric/ego centric ways, to become more and more moncoulturalists – – ripe to be blended with the brown masses.

 


115

 Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 08 Nov 2017 11:11 | #

The sensate and emotional cognitive systems of the brain are no more under the control of a “corporeal will” than an autobiographical one.  There is no corporeal self.  It is a fictional device, not a real entity.  “Self”, as a sense of a subjective personhood termed I or me, is a specific thing, and functions as a point of evolutionary reference, obviously, but also as a place-holder for that sense of I which “Rarely, rarely, comest”.  You can’t just move it around and attach it to what you want, not if you are a serious thinker.


116

 Posted by DanielS on Wed, 08 Nov 2017 12:30 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 08 Nov 2017 06:11 | #

The sensate and emotional cognitive systems of the brain are no more under the control of a “corporeal will” than an autobiographical one.  There is no corporeal self. It is a fictional device, not a real entity.

“the corporeal will” has quotes around something that I didn’t say.

If you want to say that that there is no corporeal self that is a story that you can tell. I have already explained why it is that we westerners find it necessary to have our stories of self.

  “Self”, as a sense of a subjective personhood termed I or me, is a specific thing, and functions as a point of evolutionary reference, obviously, but also as a place-holder for that sense of I which “Rarely, rarely, comest”.

This would be a part of the corporeal self, but not authentic to full human being, not even according to the anti reducionism of emergentism…

At this point, you are merely making me repeat myself as usual.

You can’t just move it around and attach it to what you want, not if you are a serious thinker.

I don’t just move it around, that’s what you do, in order to “win” against the “academic” …

If the “self’ is not accountable to biology and sufficient evolutionary fitness and then reproduction, then it will be held to account by that reality and die.

I want to remind you of something, that you are making work for me by dumping the bullshit that you make me shovel off after you dump it on top of concepts that are crucial for our people to have at their disposal.

The shame of your contentiousness is that it has the hallmarks of your being stuck at something like a four year old level with unresolved issues in some critical aspect.

You have shown me that you can be contentious to no end. It is not surprising that someone can do that, but that someone would.

When I come across to you and point to the things you’ve done well, as I have in comment 111, it does not result in reciprocal acknowledgement of good points; your level of contentiousness with me is misplaced.

I do not deny the reality of race, your specific kind, the importance of ethnonationalism, the significance of the English and that they should have their homeland for themselves, that we are under attack, that we need to understand ourselves, that you are sincere in your concerns and have some very intelligent and important contributions to make.

That should satisfy you and cause you to consider more carefully how what others might be saying can be good and connect non-conflictually with your preferred focus in the project of ethnonationalism.

Sadly, that doesn’t seem enough for you. You have got to try to annihilate others – viz., me and what I bring to bear; especially if what is being brought to bear is good and important. But because you cannot destroy it, because its good, you’ve got to replace it with straw men, so it fits in with how you apparently want MR to be, your own private Blackpool wooden duck shooting gallery. The ideas of others are supposed to be wooden ducks for you to shoot down. In the end there is only supposed to be your musings as the only worthy matter. That’s apparently how you want it to be, but that’s not the reality, so you resort to endless straw manning in order to set up more wooden ducks til then.


117

 Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 08 Nov 2017 13:40 | #

I have already explained why it is that we westerners find it necessary to have our stories of self.

Not fictions.  And certainly not fictions composed by intellectuals for the people.  In no small measure, the value of ontology lies in clearing away the errors and commonplaces which accrete over large spans of time, so that a reliable basis for a narrative of what it means to be human … what it means to be a son or daughter of European humanity, and so forth … is disclosed.  Without this attention, there will be something prescriptive which, at the very least, is non-optimal for stability of outcome.  The historical evidence is that prescription is always a precursor to eventual disaster.

This is what you don’t fully get:

Your project is the upper part of a structure of truth.  It is not free-floating.  Ideally, it will have fundamentals which are ontological in philosophical kind, not merely operational self-referents.  I have been attempting for these last several years, by way of encouragement of others as well as working in my own right, to generate at least some sound indications of what such fundamentals would look like.  One of their aspects, in my view, has profound creative implications for your project, and here I am talking about emergent features.  Now, I haven’t done much to explicate emergence, either as an event in itself or by cases. So the hand-over, so to speak, is not available for your assessment.  Regardless and being a man in a hurry, you consistently mistake my intentions.  No explanations to the contrary – and they are many – have any effect.  You insist both on misinterpreting the extent and range of the ontology project and, when the mood takes you, of over-estimating the fundamentality of your own ideas (for example, by defending and, I presume, seeking to incorporate Harre’s scarcely considered “selves”).

In this way the opportunity to work together is lost.  For me, being a slow and careful worker, it is frustrating to find you continually pushing on in ways which simply cannot connect to what I am doing.  It’s like watching a bad changeover in a sprint relay.  For the changeover to happen at all, you do need to make room for my work.  If you think it is wrong in some respect as to its conclusions, or in all respects, you are, of course, welcome to make constructive criticism.  That cannot, however, mean thrashing around with charges of “Cartesian!” or “STEM!” or whatever, and it cannot mean advocating against ontology per se.


118

 Posted by DanielS on Wed, 08 Nov 2017 14:54 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 08 Nov 2017 08:40 | #

  I have already explained why it is that we westerners find it necessary to have our stories of self.

Not fictions.  And certainly not fictions composed by intellectuals for the people.

Again, just as you do not understand what is done by the word “conversation” you do not understand what is being done by the word “story” in this context. “Story” or “narrative” is not necessarily a fictional story, it refers rather to the form of information. I will answer the rest of your comment later.

For now, I have a suggestion, provided you don’t attack me on your main posts and force me to defend myself, I will not comment on your posts, so that people who like your stuff can enjoy it without interference from me, and vis a versa – please don’t comment on mine – the theoretical, non-news stories that is – so that people who are interested in my posts will not have them clouded by your boundless contentiousness. Let’s try that for a while.


119

 Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 08 Nov 2017 15:18 | #

Absolutely not.  This is a free speech blog.  Where you find your worldview pinched by mine, and vice versa, is going to remain up for discussion.


120

 Posted by DanielS on Wed, 08 Nov 2017 15:20 | #

Ok, well then I will address the rest of your contentiousness later…


121

 Posted by DanielS on Wed, 08 Nov 2017 15:59 | #

In no small measure, the value of ontology lies in clearing away the errors and commonplaces which accrete over large spans of time.

Hermeneutics does the same thing, only more effectively.

so that a reliable basis for a narrative of what it means to be human … what it means to be a son or daughter of European humanity, and so forth … is disclosed.

Hermeneutics does the same thing, only more effectively. 

Without this attention, there will be something prescriptive which, at the very least, is non-optimal for stability of outcome.

The “goal” of “prescription” as some permanent, pejorative enforcement is your paranoid hallucination.

You reveal to me that you have not paid attention to the first word of what I say. That is why I have not valued your comments for some time [they are contentious, not based on understanding what you are arguing against but on straw men], and apparently that’s the way it will be for the forseeable future based on your persistent contentiousness.

The historical evidence is that prescription is always a precursor to eventual disaster.

You are the one prescribing things, trying to insist that I should not deal with praxis, even though that was the heart of Heidegger’s project too, without realizing that your prescription of sheer “naturalism” without the human element of praxis is the epistemological blunder at he root of Hitler’s world view.

This is what you don’t fully get:

Your project is the upper part of a structure of truth.  It is not free-floating.

This is what you don’t get, my project is the essential one, the philosophical one – I explained this above. Philosophy is about ways of life, preferably human ways of life; because we are born of nature, we all have some sense of ontology already, enough to begin and to find a place for scientists to improve our ontologial basis as we go along.

Ideally, it will have fundamentals which are ontological in philosophical kind, not merely operational self-referents.

You can work toward that ideal, it is not mutually exclusive and our more essential (and most often more important) requirements cannot wait.

I have been attempting for these last several years, by way of encouragement of others as well as working in my own right, to generate at least some sound indications of what such fundamentals would look like.

Go for it.

One of their aspects, in my view, has profound creative implications for your project, and here I am talking about emergent features.

Emergentism is important, I concur.

Now, I haven’t done much to explicate emergence, either as an event in itself or by cases. So the hand-over, so to speak, is not available for your assessment.  Regardless and being a man in a hurry, you consistently mistake my intentions.

I am not in a hurry, there are certain things that are ready to be said and need to be said. Furthermore, they should not interfere with your ontology project and they are correctable – that’s the idea, of specificatory structures, though judgment should not have them, as hypotheses, being too far off the mark to begin with. Science is an invaluable partner.

No explanations to the contrary – and they are many – have any effect.  You insist both on misinterpreting the extent and range of the ontology project

You are the one who insists upon misinterpretations.

and, when the mood takes you, of over-estimating the fundamentality of your own ideas (for example, by defending and, I presume, seeking to incorporate Harre’s scarcely considered “selves”).

Listen, you are doing your STEM asshole thing again – trying to pin down “THE” thing that I am trying to do so that you can trivialize it and make it and me redundant by comparison to your conceits.

There isn’t a whole lot that I am using from Harre and what I have taken I take because it is very well considered.

Aside from that, yes, I will take a people centric viewpoint (which is not “unnatural” with respect for our nature and nature more broadly).

n this way the opportunity to work together is lost.

I have said time and again how our ideas can work together. The problem is that you think the world is supposed stop for your ontology project, which most people recognize as absurd, particularly given our circumstance – furthermore it is unnecessary that the world should stop as I say at the top of this post. A proper philosophical basis is in service of (our) people, respects what is indubitable, is correctable in an ongoing hermeneutic process of inquiry. Because it is non-Cartesian, it does not deny reality or what is.

For me, being a slow and careful worker, it is frustrating to find you continually pushing on in ways which simply cannot connect to what I am doing.

The connections may not always be apparent, but they are there (sometimes those are the interesting theoretical questions).

It’s like watching a bad changeover in a sprint relay.

What I am doing doesn’t come after. We are not building and tuning up a car engine, changing oil and tires after the car engineer has modeled his effort.

For the changeover to happen at all, you do need to make room for my work.

Do your work, I am not stopping you; but if you want me to be honest, the way you talk indicates to me that you’ve got the philosophical enterprise fundamentally wrong.

Nevertheless, if you wanted to, you could see that you could propose the careful readings that you like and it could be complementary – at times invaluable (as contributions on the rigorous and scientific end are, when they are right).

But if you are going to proceed on an epistemological blunder and expect me to sit on my thumbs forget about it.

If you think it is wrong in some respect as to its conclusions, or in all respects, you are, of course, welcome to make constructive criticism.  That cannot, however, mean thrashing around with charges of “Cartesian!” or “STEM!” or whatever, and it cannot mean advocating against ontology per se.

Well, I sense that I am arguing against a committee here, because it was Bowery’s stupid idea that “Cartesian” and “STEM” are just insults, shut up words, instead of accurate critique of the fundamental error and the predilection that would be disposed to that error.

Posted by (((Julia Ioffe))) on Thu, 09 Nov 2017 16:11 | #

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

      – DanielS

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


123

 Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 09 Nov 2017 16:58 | #

Hermeneutics does the same thing, only more effectively.

No.  Ontology is an enquiry of being which is not limited to meanings but seeks to report the experienced nature of it as directly as is possible for the human mind.  Hermeneutics is an academic interpretational device which you are trying to big-up as part of your communicationist focus. Hermeneutics interrogates meanings as a second- or third-order enquiry.  So, for example, it might be employed in the interpretation of an interpretation of some aspect of Being and Time.  But it cannot be used in the enquiry of being per se, which requires creative thought.

Actually, you do acknowledge that ontology, not hermeneutics, is the appropriate means of philosophical address for foundation.  But you deny that foundation is attainable or necessary or both.  You do it right here in the main article, which you begin, “Even if universal foundations were possible and believed to be prerequisite of perfect ethno-national guidance …”  You are now extending that denial to cover everything, basically, that isn’t within the functional purview of your hermeneutic methodology.  It’s just a figure for your over-estimation of the social and of inter-action.  Why you need these to be “the all” is a personal matter, and I do not propose to intrude upon it.

Instead, let us look at the proposition that foundation is beyond reach.  This, it seems to me, is a problem chiefly of the definitional structure.  If that structure is sufficiently defined we can very easily find foundation that is universal to it.  If we look at mathematics, for example, the universal must be number.  One might try to argue that it is problem, but problem is outside the definition in that there are multiple means of addressing it.  Only when we do so with number are we mathematicians.

Likewise, in art the universal is image.  In religion the universal is faith.  In education the universal is knowledge.  What’s the problem, then?  We’re only talking about human being.  We all have first-hand experience of it.  Well, it’s arriving at a working definition, of course.  If the mathematician is such because he is working with number, with what defining property, exactly, is the human being working?  If we answer “being”, we set foot on the slide into religious cosmological thinking described in comment 86, with its attendant collapse into fatalism because, after all, everything in the universe “is”.  What we have done is to allow human being as property – Bowery’s fateful “as” – to escape from its mooring, so to speak, and drift onto the definition of ground.  Heidegger’s complaint here was precisely that being had to be saved from such metaphysics.  Bring it back to the station of the being of a being with a full life-experience, a nature, and mortality, and we have a structure to work with.  A definitional structure facilitates a defining answer.

And now we can look at the second part of your opening sentence.  It is: “we cannot abide delays for radical skepticism in service of that end in lieu of what is already clear and indubitable in ethnonational interest.”

Putting aside the question of time, which is plainly pressing, you are really demanding that we escape the universalising, estranging anti-nature of Christianity, liberalism, modernity and nihilism, economism, and Jewish philosophy and politics without actually having a statement of philosophical truth of our own by which to live and make the world.  In other words, there is an increased difficulty in what you demand.  You hope to make up in time for what you lose in formative structure.  You consider it perfectly possible to get away from that present nexus of woes without actually replacing them with something else.  I don’t even know how that would work.  Our life as individuals and in common, indeed the age, is a formed thing.  We do not have the power as men to exist without formative influences.  Our passivity before the grand ones cannot be expected to just go away.  We will carry our formative influences with us into the new life, which will, therefore, turn out not to be a new life at all.  You know it of the proto-typical German-American Hitler fan who is actually a libertarian.  You know he will never be Nazi.  No matter how hard he tries he will only ever be a libertarian, as will the world he makes.  We cannot lightly escape what forms us.  It is our foundation.  It makes a human product which is not actually true of us.  But, in our condition of absence, it stands for what we are.

That’s what I don’t think you have understood.


124

 Posted by DanielS on Thu, 09 Nov 2017 17:03 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 09 Nov 2017 17:58 | #

  Hermeneutics does the same thing, only more effectively.

No.

Are you seriously going to try to bury the comments that have gone before with more of your ego-propelled bullshit?

Let me put the world on notice, please pay careful attention to what I say in comment 122, don’t let his piles of commentary distract – he is not well.

I will attend to the rest of the vomit that is GW’s latest contention, er comment, later.

 


125

 Posted by DanielS on Thu, 09 Nov 2017 17:11 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 09 Nov 2017 17:58 | #

  Hermeneutics does the same thing, only more effectively.

No.  Ontology is an enquiry of being which is not limited to meanings but seeks to report the experienced nature of it as directly as is possible for the human mind.  Hermeneutics is an academic interpretational device which you are trying to big-up as part of your communicationist focus. Hermeneutics interrogates meanings as a second- or third-order enquiry.  So, for example, it might be employed in the interpretation of an interpretation of some aspect of Being and Time.  But it cannot be used in the enquiry of being per se, which requires creative thought.

How stupid. I am not trying to big up hermeneutics, everything that you say is here requires hermeneutics without your having the “consciousness” to name it as such, because you do not wish to.

World – pay attention to comment 122. Don’t let him distract you.


126

 Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 09 Nov 2017 18:40 | #

These debates are the reason it’s worth tuning in.  Not only is the drama produced by the competition fun to watch, but the competition itself forces all involved to better clarify and refine their outlook.

As to my own racial awakening, first I needed the information that the White race was indeed under threat of extinction.  This I got from Pat Buchanan.  After that, the instinctual reaction of valuing and wishing to defend something I perceived myself to be a part of was pretty immediate.  I experience WN as giving meaning and purpose to my life.


127

 Posted by DanielS on Fri, 10 Nov 2017 05:18 | #

Actually, you do acknowledge that ontology, not hermeneutics, is the appropriate means of philosophical address for foundation.

I acknowledge no such thing, and hermeneutics is the only means to arrive at a sufficient basis, “foundation” as you like to say in your archaic philosophical language.

You are claiming that only you can tell us what’s real, how and when to proceed.

But you deny that foundation is attainable or necessary or both.

I don’t deny that it is attainable or necessary as sufficient working hypotheses, I deny that we do not already have such suffiient basis and if you could ever bother to read what I say, you would have gathered that already.

There is no reason to delay the project of theoretical and practical defense of European peoples – certainly not for your amateur model building.

You do it right here in the main article, which you begin, “Even if universal foundations were possible and believed to be prerequisite of perfect ethno-national guidance …”  You are now extending that denial to cover everything, basically, that isn’t within the functional purview of your hermeneutic methodology.  It’s just a figure for your over-estimation of the social and of inter-action.  Why you need these to be “the all” is a personal matter, and I do not propose to intrude upon it.

No, this is a projection of yours, as usual. You are the one, in your quest for universal foundation, who is attempting to derive a nationalist foundation from nature.

Which patently ridiculous as anyone can see (except for yourself).

Instead, let us look at the proposition that foundation is beyond reach.

That’s a proposition, not one that I propose – I maintain that there can be a sufficient basis; but that the wish to stop the world and our requirements within it while you tinker away at your pet project, misguided as it is, is an unnecessary mistake. 

This, it seems to me, is a problem chiefly of the definitional structure.

We are about to revisit the Tractatus and is error.

If that structure is sufficiently defined we can very easily find foundation that is universal to it.

Like I said: “The world is everything that is the case.” lol.

If we look at mathematics, for example, the universal must be number.  One might try to argue that it is problem, but problem is outside the definition in that there are multiple means of addressing it.  Only when we do so with number are we mathematicians.

A definition by consensus.

Likewise, in art the universal is image.

Less consensus on that one.

In religion the universal is faith.

I don’t agree.

In education the universal is knowledge.

A bit limited a definition.

What’s the problem, then?

 

For one thing, you even your “common sense” definitions are not universal, not in the sense of covering all the bases.

We’re only talking about human being.  We all have first-hand experience of it.  Well, it’s arriving at a working definition, of course.

So you admit that you are talking about “common sense” – your “common sense.”

If the mathematician is such because he is working with number, with what defining property, exactly, is the human being working?  If we answer “being”, we set foot on the slide into religious cosmological thinking described in comment 86, with its attendant collapse into fatalism because, after all, everything in the universe “is”.

Again, “The World is everything that is the case.”

You of all people, as an emergentist, should not be quite so reductionist, but should learn from interactionists, that the human being is not only about being, he is interaction as Aristotle observed, within praxis, as he put it and among the thrownness, according to Heidegger’s framework. Here, Harrison made a good argument against Sheehan, that that arbitrariness, that thrownness is an integral part of the human condition and Sheehan was wrong to try to parcel it out so absolutely. 

But, comment 86, the pictures are nice, make science exciting for kids.

If they want to look into the periodic chart of the elements, pursuit of foundations per se has a pit more epistemological bearing. As for humans, they are a little more complicated.

What we have done is to allow human being as property – Bowery’s fateful “as” – to escape from its mooring, so to speak, and drift onto the definition of ground.  Heidegger’s complaint here was precisely that being had to be saved from such metaphysics.  Bring it back to the station of the being of a being with a full life-experience, a nature, and mortality, and we have a structure to work with. A definitional structure facilitates a defining answer.

I’ve welcomed you to go ahead with your definitions, but Wittgenstein’s experience with and after the Tractatus has him back off, like he’d seen a ghost, didn’t even want to cop to authorship afterward he was so embarrassed.

Here’s the thing, you go ahead and lay out your definitional structure, but if you will not be warned, others might be, that it is likely to be more self serving and not as innocent as you purport; and next, the enemies of our being can do to it, what you are always doing to matters that I bring to bear – engaging in boundless contention, it only takes the power to do that. …or disingenuousness:

For example, your saying that I haven’t provided a model of man when I explain Aristotle’s model of man.

And now we can look at the second part of your opening sentence.  It is: “we cannot abide delays for radical skepticism in service of that end in lieu of what is already clear and indubitable in ethnonational interest.”

Putting aside the question of time, which is plainly pressing, you are really demanding that we escape the universalising, estranging anti-nature of Christianity, liberalism, modernity and nihilism, economism, and Jewish philosophy and politics without actually having a statement of philosophical truth of our own by which to live and make the world

That is a lie.

As I have said before, your ignoring things I say and misrepresenting them hardly makes what you say is true.

And you are claiming that only you can tell us what’s real, how and when to proceed.

In other words, there is an increased difficulty in what you demand.

I don’t demand. That is a lie to begin with. And what I offer is more, shall we say, is user friendly.

You hope to make up in time for what you lose in formative structure.

Not true. The truth is, you want to hide the destructiveness of your gargantuan ego project behind the pretense that we don’t know enough to proceed in tandem with science.

You consider it perfectly possible to get away from that present nexus of woes without actually replacing them with something else.

This is a fucking lie. And it is a lie based on one of a few things: an ignorance stemming from not having read what I say or, not bothering to understand it, for the convenience of your ego project, even though I’ve explained it clearly. 

I don’t even know how that would work.

Because you don’t listen and you haven’t read what I said – yet you want to interject your ego project.

Our life as individuals and in common, indeed the age, is a formed thing.

That’s a bit grandiose, but I understand your motive.

We do not have the power as men to exist without formative influences. 

I have said as much many times; in many ways; it is a part of all you ignore in what I say.

Our passivity before the grand ones cannot be expected to just go away.

Your contentiousness before them cannot be expected to go away.

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

Now we’re getting to the brass tacks of your subjectivism. Somehow your Germanophilia (perhaps because your father had more than a usual amount for an Englishman): As if your endless attempts to bring the “renegade” Nazophiles home is unproblematic – they’re just looking to be good old libertarians, would never make any problems for anyone (as if libertarians haven’t made enough problems for us in their rational blindness to group pattern connectedness), no, the Nazophiles, in their scientism, will to power, in their supremacism, their inhumaneness, goal of exploitation, in their imperialism, in their denial of their part in the cataclysmic damage that they’ve done to European peoples, would never do any harm to European peoples. Their mentality is harmless, safely innocuous to us now.

The Jews would never try to play them off of other White people:


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

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

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

We cannot lightly escape what forms us.  It is our foundation.

I am not looking to likely escape our corporeal and empirical side, that’s why I advocate the DNA Nations. But as for what forms us being our foundation, your definition is limited, its a bit more interactive than that.

It makes a human product which is not actually true of us.  But, in our condition of absence, it stands for what we are.

That’s what I don’t think you have understood.

It’s poetic of you but..

That our corporeality, our emergence, that our full systemic interactive requirements are out of complete purview, i.e. mostly unconscious, and therefore the endless pursuit of “consciousness” is foolishness, is what you don’t understand. We must be able to take certain things for granted and work from a given state of partial knowledge. Even an incomplete working hypothesis is better than no working hypothesis – or delay for the hair brained, endlessly contentious one of your ego project.

A note to the world: read comment 122. Don’t let GW distract you.


128

 Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 12 Nov 2017 02:34 | #

Hey GW, do you think the Pacific Northwest could be realistically pulled away from ZOG under an IRA insurgency during the right circumstances?  Give your honest opinion, MI-5 will not lock you up for it.


129

 Posted by DanielS on Mon, 13 Nov 2017 16:41 | #

Lets rather go back to the issue of epistemological blunder.

Perhaps an analogy will help to explain more clearly the epistemological blunder that people with understanding of our philosophical requirements as European People recognize as being in need of theoretical distinction and integration.

Again, Aristotle distinguished Theoria, the realm of pure science and pure math (in his time thought to be understood through epistemology – thinking about thinking, though now we might ascribe a form of techne as its means) from Praxis, the social world of interaction and human behavior (to be understood by Phronesis, practical judgement) and Poesis, the realm of the Arts (at his time understood by techne, though now we might ascribe epistemology as its means).

Aristotle differed with the theoretical distinction drawn by Plato between perfect forms and people as they arę accurately to be inquired about … being the biological creatures that we are, with distinctive human capacity particularly in our social interactive circumstance, that we arę invariably enmeshed-in to some extent… as requiring some different means of inquiry rather than the forces and impacts of theoria, when considering our capabilities beyond certain physical rudiments. Aristotle called the human interactive realm Praxis and he maintained that for its complexity and some changeableness that it requires somewhat more of a feel and practical judgment (Phronesis) in order to discern patterns; as opposed to the hard sciences which examine more strictly law like cause and effect through and through.

Now, where I cottoned onto the idea of its being an epistemological blunder to apply theoria to praxis began with Bateson, not with Jews, GW. In fact, most communicologists started with Bateson, who spoke at length about this epistemological blunder. He drew upon Carl Jung’s (another non-Jew) distinction between pleroma, the hard sciences of forces and impacts verses creatura, the biological world of plants and animals, and the various hazards of mixing the two.

Here is where I hope to draw a helpful analogy. Western philosophers have, since the time of Aristotle, mostly been concerned with this project of integrating or hamonizing theoria with the social realm of praxis. It is like they are inquirers tasked with rendering the same concern and coming up with solutions. Descartes is seen as the arch adversary, mucking up the assignment with his aversion of integration and proposal of mind body separation.

However, all serious philosophers, beginning with Descartes contemporary, Vico, have been after a resolution of the Aristotelian epistemological concern. Vico was something of a proto hermeneuticist in his solution. Locke posited individual perceptual integration through mental associations. Kant saw this as arbitrary and a detriment (to coherence); thus tried (and failed) for synthesis in universal foundational principles (Heidegger considered his noumina to be still Cartesian).The very titles of Bateson’s books signaled his taking on the “assignment”, with “Steps to an Ecology of Mind” and “Mind and Nature: a Necessary Unity.” To go at this integration, Bateson favored biology, pervasive ecology, communication and cybernetics and principia mathemetica, his groundbreaking article, Toward a Theory of Schizophrenia taking psychology out of the head and into interaction. He observed that humans are second order cybernetic systems – that being among the reasons why the epistemological blunder of applying theoria, or pleroma, as he called it, should not be misapplied to people and other creatura. Heidegger was attending to the same problem and rendered at least two solutions, one being dwelling in emergent being and amidst folk, the other being the hermeneutic circle. His student Gadamer, who wrote a book called Philosophical Hermeneutics, coined the very important phrase, ‘the prejudice against prejudice’ when criticizing Descartes and the enlightenment’s scientistic blunders. Harre sęeks to integrate theoria and praxis by looking at person positions in relation to one another and their appropriation of narrative fom the social realm and its moral orders to make sense for themselves and others, more of a hermeneutic take. While Shotter’s take is more consonant with emergence, as he thinks in terms of ‘depth grammars’ to be acted into by means of internal relation.

None of this precludes the capacity for rigorous and sophisticated analytic models to be applied to the social realm …I have barely scratched the surface of using the ones at my disposal. I only mention these examples and this analogy in hopes that it will be better understood that this (integrating theoria and praxis) is the key problem before us as most competent philosophers of western requirement see it.

Bowery’s wish to ‘reboot’ the enlightenment along with his new church has the look of aversion. GW’s apparent wish to parcel out social interaction and have a language pure of its influence and multifarious interfacing has that look of Cartesian anxiety as well.

An additional obstacle to the overcoming this epistemological error and blocking correction might stem from misapplication of a business model – rather sheer competition and skepticism of potential cooperation and collaboration as opposed to collaborative effort – The TOP and TOOP game of corporate ladder climbing, wherein the winning strategy is to minimize the value of a competitor and his product while presenting one’s products and ideas and one’s self as indispensable. And when plans and models are presented for one’s approval by others, the winning move is to say ‘NO!’ Say no, no matter what, because statistics show that most proposals fail and you will come out the winner by not having invested in failed projects (and then one might lift some of the better rejected projects under the rubric of one’s own).

This is an inappropriate model to apply here.

My statement that ‘anti-racism is Cartesian, it is a prejudice against prejudice, it is not innocent, it is hurting and it is killing people’ should be treated as a watershed, as ‘foundational’ as any of our requirements… along with several other ideas that I have brought to bear.


130

 Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 13 Nov 2017 20:47 | #

Daniel, is your racialism an epistemological blunder?  If not, why not; since you apply it to your life.


131

 Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 13 Nov 2017 23:00 | #

He drew upon Carl Jung’s (another non-Jew) distinction between pleroma, the hard sciences of forces and impacts verses creatura, the biological world of plants and animals, and the various hazards of mixing the two.

There is no hazard in synthesising scientific truth and philosophical enquiry.  There is a clear hazard in philosophical enquiry which is heedless of scientific truth, and builds on falsehood (like, for example, human equality or the unfettered will).


132

 Posted by DanielS on Tue, 14 Nov 2017 03:09 | #

First of all, I should note that I’ve tidied up my previous comment, not changing content, but just making it more clear and correcting a few oversights.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 13 Nov 2017 15:47 | #

Daniel, is your racialism an epistemological blunder?  If not, why not; since you apply it to your life.

It is not an epistemological blunder because I do not aspire to transcend praxis and deny agency, reflexive effects and accountability in a futile attempt to apply pure theoria to praxis.

It is not an epistemological blunder because I do not try to place myself above my relative and subjective interests in praxis, nor do I expect other peoples to be, therefore I engage the means accountability for the agentive influence of my relative motives and subjective effects in praxis. In fact, I am facilitated in acknowledging the agency and reflexive effects of myself and others, whereas the epistemological blunder of trying to apply pure objectivity to praxis is blindered.

It is not an epistemological blunder because I am not looking to think purely, for myself and others to be above the prejudice of their relative perspective, needs and effects; to transcend the delimitations of interpersonal and social interactive systems. I accept the pragmatic necessity to work within these relative requirements at least to some extent, and to acknowledge some relative and subjective engagement with the objects of inquiry and some effect on my part; as well as their agency, the reflexivity of creatura, their reflexive effects, the mammalian concern for relationships, the characteristic need for optimal (viz. relative amounts to govern motivations for change for balance as opposed to maximal amounts to force change) and the correctability of their/our systemic interaction [while principles of co-evolution are stable, even for primitive biology their remains the mutability of mutability and adaptation] particularly for humans who are more complicated still in their/our nature of praxis – who are “second order cybernetic systems” as it were, which can learn to learn, inextricably interactive to some extent with the social world – all of which requires one to accept the necessity of a bit more feel, acceptance of fallibility, some agency, correctability and social concern in delineating and applying hypotheses of our nature and our/one’s needs – “communication, the social matrix of psychiatry.” Accepting limitations of rigor (substantial though the rigor can be, by my resources as well you’ll see) has reward, however, in agency and stimulating imagination.

How has my racialism worked out for me? It depends. Some people are lucky enough or desperate enough to be served by liberalism and they can therefore be served opportunistically by anti-racism (anti-group classification). Bald faced racialism has not usually been an effective way to meet women; perhaps they think its a man not strong and independent enough to be liberal, too reliant on groups; or they are guilty about the baser part of their nature and license already taken; but others perceive the “alpha” in racialism, even pretty bald racialism, and even that works at times – perhaps I have lost a few good opportunities for not being willing to moderate my rhetoric in some circumstances, and I was being a bit too scientistic in not taking human measure of the circumstance and relationship(s), but I suspect that these relationships were limited anyway, either because they weren’t right or because I was still not satisfied with my own resource, including my project to legitimize my “racialism”, rather to render “racism” into a legitimate functional understanding of the need for some classificatory discrimination among humans and have that be understood by enough people, a sufficiently large amount of people to have systemic traction in the world, or at least a part of it that I could coordinate with in and among recognized groups.

At times perhaps I should have been more tactful, but I am particularly sensitive to context; and don’t have a great deal of patience for “shit tests” if that’s merely what they are in this context, a context where human (and other ecology) is so precarious for the popularly instilled denial of any means (rule structure) by which it might be brought under deliberate control and managed.

I don’t like any shit tests with regard to miscegenation. I remember a gorgeous Italian woman walking with a black in Sorento (probably just a friend and just one such paring in a large crowd, but I still didn’t like it; and walked up beside them and started giving them all this shit).

The next evening the woman sat down by herself and stared at me as I leaned against the fountain. She was obviously ready and wanting me to approach her and talk to her. But I was just too disgusted by my experience in America to be comfortable with the context of liberalism that it had significant part in spreading. I am averse to women who get off a bit too much on inciting genetic competition.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 13 Nov 2017 18:00 | #

  He drew upon Carl Jung’s (another non-Jew) distinction between pleroma, the hard sciences of forces and impacts verses creatura, the biological world of plants and animals, and the various hazards of mixing the two.

There is no hazard in synthesising scientific truth and philosophical enquiry.

Carl Jung’s (another non-Jew) – in fact, none of the people I’ve cited in that passage are Jews.

If one treats and models biology (creatura) and people the same as physics, for example, there can be very great harm.

The example often used is of using a lever to move a rock or using a person as a lever. The person will probably learn that they’ve been used as a lever and that will probably have ongoing systemic consequences; and people in turn, have reflexive responsibility to understand that because they are not like bears (not second order cybernetic) unable to contemplate systemic effects and alternatives and consequences to themselves for having killed.

  There is a clear hazard in philosophical enquiry which is heedless of scientific truth, and builds on falsehood (like, for example, human equality or the unfettered will).

I can agree with that, and I can say, perhaps to your chagrin, that it would be Cartesian to go heedless of scientific truth and build on falsehood, human equality* or unfettered will* – furthermore, none of the academics that I’ve taken general orientation from would do anything like that.


…“there are some people who are never going to solve a high math problem” …. “there are some patients who are going to come to a psychiatric clinic with organic brain syndromes”… not problems of communication (not in the traditional understanding of communication as a transmission model, anyway)

* I maintain that to argue against equality or even within the terms of equality/inequality is an epsitemological blunder, ignoring the incommensurability of various human qualities, and as such, a hubris prone to false comparison, disrespecting niche requirements and requirements of optimality and differentiation; likely as such to produce very negative reflexive effects.

** and to treat people at the other Cartesian extreme, as mere no-account matters of biological determinism is a mistake as well, which will cause reflexive effects, correctly negative.

 


133

 Posted by World Wars: theoria over praxis on Sat, 25 Nov 2017 02:47 | #

Further evidence that theoria is the danger that has perpetrated the catastrophes:

Margarate MacMillian:

The War That Ended Peace takes a long view of the origins of the war. The crisis came in 1914, but the groundwork had been laid over the previous two decades, and there were other moments when war could have broken out. One theme in the book is that social Darwinism helped to create an acceptance of the utility of war. “These ideas and assumptions permeated European society,” she says. “You get people quite casually saying things like, ‘Struggle is the law of life.’” The backdrop to war was complex, the contributory factors many. Which is why she shies away from questions about who was to blame.

Indeed, it was not just Hitler who held this world view. Roman Dmowski was a social Darwinist as well.


Inasmuch a Marx, being a typical Jew, saw “praxis” as a part of a deterministic historical process, he too was committing an eptistemological blunder of applying theoria to the realm of creatura (esp. regarding the human social realm). Hence, the necessary, “beneficial” aspects of war, (revolution) in his theory as well.


134

 Posted by Philia on Sat, 16 Dec 2017 17:39 | #


135

 Posted by DanielS on Wed, 28 Feb 2018 03:24 | #

Greg Johnson’s characterization, and objection in fact, of Heidegger as an “epistemological anarchist” masquerading in ontological terms would be rather accurate.

But I would add that it would be accurate for Heidegger’s over-emphasis on the significance of the sheer individual being in being toward death as the manifestation of all important authenticity.

It would be literal “eptistemological anarchy” to deny the ordering feature of praxis.

I could be said to be going “deeper” than Heidegger (with him, GW,) in this sense, where I suggest that individual authenticity of being is to be found (midtdasein) within social systemic authenticity, i.e, in practical, i.e. moral, i.e., social systemic structuring – notified by an honest concept of social marginalization (whether for unfair expectations on ordinariness or for unfair limitations on excellence) – as they would invoke a natural concept of social boundaries.

Now, I don’t want to go too far with this critique of Heidegger, because he does have a concept of “the folk” and he cared for their social plight “between the pincers of The US and The Soviet” and he did talk a little bit about historical responsibility to one’s people, but I agree with Robert Harrison that he did not develop this idea of social responsibility enough; and I don’t agree with Thomas Sheehan’s satisfaction to leave a quest for meaning through individual authenticity in moments and episodes” to be anything like the satisfactory quest that he believes society should ensure – it sounds rather like the essence of the historical/social irresponsibility that the boomer generation has left us with – a philosophical question which the WWII generation America did not provide an answer for either, as it upheld Lockeatine disorder; nor did Hitler resolve it, himself an epistemological anarchist.

William Barret’s conjecture that Heidegger had meant to add a second half to Being in Time in which human nature would anchored in perfect sync with the non-human natural realm is no resolution of this criticism; while a scientific inquiry to tell us how sheer natural systems might order events is valid and can be helpful, it would still be an epistemological violation into the anarchism of naturalistic fallacy; and reductionary violation even of human emergentism. That is to say, Heidegger was still possessed of the Cartesian anxiety regarding praxis. Again, I am always sympathetic to this anxiety and when you have a brilliant thinker like Heidegger there is much to be learned, especially as philosophy has assigned him its premier epistemoloical question – how to integrate theoria and praxis.

….

Here is what Johnson said in conclusion of his article:

“Heidegger’s Question Beyond Being” Published: October 29, 2014:

Heidegger does not truly go beyond Husserl, for two reasons, one methodological, the other substantive.

First, the meaning of Being is that which makes Being present. Present to whom? Meaningful to whom? Presence and meaning require a “to whom,” a dative, a receiver of presence. In Husserl’s terms, the dative is transcendental subjectivity. In the early Heidegger’s terms, the dative is Dasein. Heidegger, then, is doing transcendental phenomenology from the beginning of his career to the end—although in his later writings he systematically obscures the “to whom” of manifestation.

Second, Heidegger is simply wrong to say that Husserl does not raise the question of the meaning of Being, for in his writings on internal time-consciousness, Husserl speaks of something called the “absolute time-constituting flow” of consciousness. The absolute flow is a level of consciousness more primordial than the transcendental ego and its bundle of intentional acts. It provides the “clearing” in which both transcendental subjectivity and the objects made present through transcendental subjectivity come to presence. Finally, the absolute flow accounts for the conditions for the possibility of transcendental reflection itself.[43]

Heidegger remained a phenomenologist to the end. Where Heidegger writes “Being” substitute “meaning.” The “Being of beings” means the “meaning of beings to a knower.” The “meaning of Being” means the “meaning of meaning to a knower.” For Heidegger, ontology is really what is usually called epistemology, i.e., the theory of knowledge. And Heidegger’s fundamental ontology is reflection on the history of knowledge. And Heidegger’s final word on the transformations of meaning, and of the meaning of meaning, over the history of Western philosophy is that it is ruled by inscrutable contingency.

If the trajectory of traditional metaphysics—e.g., Platonism and Aristotelianism—is toward intelligible, necessary being that exists independent of human consciousness, Heidegger’s trajectory is in the exact opposite direction: toward mind-dependent meanings ruled by inscrutable contingency. Heidegger’s insistence on cloaking what is essentially a kind of epistemological anarchism in the language of ontology strikes me as perverse at best, fraudulent at worst. Of course it does not alter the substance of his achievements as a phenomenologist. But those achievements will be better understood and appreciated once Heidegger the ontologist is unmasked.

It’s pretty clear to me that Greg Johnson was already influenced by the clarity (on Heidegger), or the kind of clarity that Sheehan had provided (e.g., “where he says that Heidegger remained a phenomenologist to the end” – which is non trivial to me in that it implies and over emphasis on individuality); in an article not long after, Greg Johnson acknowledges his indebtedess to Sheehan for helping him to make sense of Heidegger and he concludes critically:

“Making Sense of Heidegger”, December 12, 2014:

Although I am nonplussed by Sheehan’s criticisms of Heidegger, I have some of my own. I am skeptical of his post-Kantian transcendental quarantine of metaphysics. I am skeptical of his biological race-denial and would like to explore his rationale. I am not so sure that the clearing is intrinsically hidden at all, or hidden in a non-trivial way.

But my main objection to Heidegger is his terrible writing. I long ago lost count of the Heideggerian words that actually don’t mean what they seem to mean. Heidegger translator David Farrell Krell recounts, “Occasionally, I would bring [Heidegger] a text of his that simply would not reveal his meaning; he would read it over several times, grimace, shake his head slightly, and say, ‘Das ist aber schlecht!’ (That is really bad!).”[5] I wish I could get back every hour I wasted reading Derrida and Foucault. I don’t feel the same way about Heidegger. But especially with certain works, I feel like those South African miners who have to sift through mountains of rubble for a pocketful of gems. When it comes to making sense of Heidegger, the philosopher was his own worst enemy, which makes Thomas Sheehan’s scholarly career a work of friendship. Making Sense of Heidegger is an indispensable book on an unavoidable thinker.[6]

Now, having added my critical angle on both Heidegger and Sheehan above (abnegation of responsibility to praxis and with that dereliction, a epistemological anarchism that has left us in the kind of straights we now experience), Majority Rights own Graham Lister added one of only four comments to the article.

He emphasized emergentism, as he and GW would bring to bear, and where others would be remiss.

Graham’s comment correctly invokes the emergent aspects lurking in Heidegger’s philosophical concern):

Graham_Lister
Posted April 11, 2015 at 6:13 pm | Permalink

I am not professional philosopher, nor have any formal philosophical education, but it always seemed fairly obvious to me that Heidegger owes a great debt to Aristotle.

Three question for Greg (when you get the chance).

1) What do you think of the work of Merleau-Ponty with his project to (I guess) ‘naturalize phenomenology’ via his focus upon the science of perception etc.? To bring the body into the account so to speak.

2) What, if anything, to you think of Graham Harman’s work on ontology and Heidegger? Here I am thinking of Harman’s interpretation of the ‘tool-analysis’ of Heidegger’s Being and Time, (see Tool-being: Heidegger and the Metaphysics of Objects and Heidegger Explained: From Phenomenon to Thing) from which Harman sets out to develop what he calls object-oriented ontology. Recently Harman has gone on to give a new and expanded account of Heidegger’s notoriously difficult/obscure idea of the fourfold structure of reality (see his The Quadruple Object) in which Harman argues against ‘flat ontologies’ and reductionism for an emergentist account of reality. Harman’s philosophy is, therefore, a radically anti-reductionist philosophy.

3) I agree that phenomenology is anti-reductionist. Due to time pressures and the stresses of life I have yet to give my thoughts on why philosophical reductionism ultimately gives a false account of both science and the world. Additionally that any account of both science and the world is one in which hierarchy, differentiation and emergence are central thus necessarily embraces a form of ontological stratification. Which neatly brings us back to Aristotle and the old ‘the whole is greater than the sum of its parts’ thing. Furthermore why such an ontology of emergence and stratification – when employed in the field of social ontology – is of cardinal political importance. Liberalism really is a form of reductionism in social ontology (the individual as the fundamental, indeed only, building block of social reality etc., pragmatic and ideological ‘methodological individualism’ – and associated notions of radical fungibility etc).

In essence an account of how one can, and indeed must, be an non-reductionist realist and the importance of such ideas for meta-political thinking.

Anyway enough of that rambling! My question being that before I submit any such essay (and it may be quite some time before any such essay exists) over at say Majority Rights (or elsewhere) perhaps Greg you might do me the kindness of giving my amateur efforts a quick look in order to point out any egregious philosophical errors on my part?


136

 Posted by Nina Jablonski on Mon, 28 May 2018 11:55 | #

Reddit, Nina Jablonski, three eagles r/HBD,

The attempt to ‘retire’ (aka censor) the concept of race is based on that transitions between the races is not crisp but fuzzy/gradual. It’s essentially like trying to ‘retire’ the concept of ‘colour’ because one colour transitions into another. So the idea that there is such a thing as red, blue or yellow would need to be ‘retired’. Talk about making people ‘colour-blind’.

And so polite scientific society will be forced to pretend not to recognise that, for example, Northern European Swedes and Central African Botswanans do indeed and unquestionably differ racially/morphologically.

More generally, this is an attempt to deny one’s ability to, from observation, reach general conclusions which can then be categorised … almost as if someone seeks to make people colour generally-blind … to deny them conceptual tools … to make them even stupider than so many already are.



138

 Posted by Hans-Georg Gadamer on Sat, 30 Mar 2019 19:42 | #

Gadamer on Heraclitus


139

 Posted by William James on Sun, 12 May 2019 12:45 | #

William James on the value of doctorates and diplomas

Andrew Batson’s blog, 16 April 2019:

Greg Ip at the WSJ has a nice piece responding to the ruckus over the nominations of Stephen Moore and Herman Cain to serve on the Federal Reserve Board. It’s obvious from the Fed’s own history that the mockery of Moore for not having published peer-reviewed journal articles, or not having a Ph.D. in economics, quite misses the point. As Greg nicely puts it, the real question to ask about someone who is may need to make economic policy decisions is whether they are a disciplined thinker, not whether they have a certain credential.

By coincidence, I also recently read an essay by William James entitled “The Ph.D. Octopus,” originally published in the Harvard Monthly in March 1903 (it was reprinted in his essay collection Memories and Studies which is out of copyright and freely available). Some of James’ sentiments still ring quite true:

“America is thus as a nation rapidly drifting towards a state of things in which no man of science or letters will be accounted respectable unless some kind of badge or diploma is stamped upon him, and in which bare personality will be a mark of outcast estate. It seems to me high time to rouse ourselves to consciousness, and to cast a critical eye upon this decidedly grotesque tendency.”

James worried that the institutionalization of graduate degrees, and in particular their use by employers to screen potential hires, would cause all kinds of negative consequences:

To interfere with the free development of talent, to obstruct the natural play of supply and demand in the teaching profession, to foster academic snobbery by the prestige of certain privileged institutions, to transfer accredited value from essential manhood to an outward badge, to blight hopes and promote invidious sentiments, to divert the attention of aspiring youth from direct dealings with truth to the passing of examinations…

James was deeply aware of the tension between universities’ avowed mission of free intellectual inquiry and their economic function as producers of credentials, and hoped that the former would discipline the latter:

Our universities at least should never cease to regard themselves as the jealous custodians of personal and spiritual spontaneity. They are indeed its only organized and recognized custodians in America today. They ought to guard against contributing to the increase of officialism and snobbery and insincerity as against a pestilence; they ought to keep truth and disinterested labor always in the foreground, treat degrees as secondary incidents, and in season and out of season make it plain that what they live for is to help men’s souls, and not to decorate their persons with diplomas.


140

 Posted by Heidegger and the dasein of whiskey on Thu, 07 Nov 2019 15:26 | #

Watch “On Heidegger & The Metaphysics Of Whisky” on YouTube

http://youtu.be/7_xvKJcYJ7w


141

 Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 08 Nov 2019 11:52 | #

Interesting quotes from William James, wholly appropriate given the present state of meek suggestibility among humanities students on both sides of the Atlantic.

Hence the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire.
Friedrich Nietzsche, writing aged 20 in a letter to his sister.


142

 Posted by DanielS on Fri, 08 Nov 2019 16:25 | #

…and, of course, those who fall in to line with the (convenient to Jewry) characterology of “the left”, are the suggestible idiots.


143

 Posted by Will Durant—The Philosophy of Plato on Sat, 01 Aug 2020 09:48 | #

Will Durant—-The Philosophy of Plato


144

 Posted by Will Durant: The Philosophy of Aristotle on Mon, 03 Aug 2020 21:18 | #

Will Durant—-The Philosophy of Aristotle

Continue Reading Pragmatism as ethnonationalism’s tool against radical skepticism.