From NFL films seduction of slow motion display against compelling music, to… mass sports fan cuckoldry – mesmerized in adulation of dramatic episodic display, riveted to momentary action, fast twitching muscle fibers and brute strength …at the expense of our profound genetic patterns, the social capital which has indeed, been built of our sublimation beyond momentary and episodic display.

  • Post author:
  • Post category:Central
Exhilaration of the adrenaline rush is triggered through the moments of Alexander's punt return.

Kermit Alexander’s punt return for nearly a touchdown suddenly crystallized several factors of my burgeoning masculine identity (I was only 9) and bonded it strongly with the Los Angeles Rams in a moment on Monday Night, October 26th 1970.

I was not completely oblivious to the fact that he was black nor even entirely without trepidation for the long term implications of siding with blacks – just a few years before it was Malcolm X who said that blacks were going to rule me, which of course I did not want – there were the black riots which burned Newark and killed some dozens in 1967; and there were the “chocolate nurses”, whom I naturally did not identify with, and did not like, but surrounded me in the hospital when I was admitted for my tonsillectomy.

Oh, perhaps I exaggerate the exhilaration, elation and importance of this moment of Monday Night Football, under the spotlights which gleamed off the Rams and Vikings cool, streaking helmets, but I think not – even though it was but one moment and episode among a mass of factors which would misguide me for a few teenage years into mis-identification. I was devastated that the Rams were stopped in that episode on the goal line against the Vikings – The Vikings, who had been to the prior Super Bowl. But I was now hopeful and determined that “we” could play with them – and furious that my parents made me go to bed; miserable to wake up to find the Rams lost.

The goal-line stand episode begin with the Rams in huddle, after Kermit Alexander's punt return to just shy of the Vikings goal-line.
Episode is contexted with a shot of girls in the crowd, looking as if sent by mom to attend church.
I wasn’t paying attention to his race in that moment, he was on my side, my team.
Rams about to thwarted at the goal line.
Stopped
Indeed, I wasn't aware this pattern commenced the year before, 1969, with the Rams establishing winning ways in regular season play - 11 and 3 - only to get beaten by the Vikings in the playoffs.

The Vietnam war, where men were expected to die, feminism, that blamed men for everything, my family’s communicologial craziness and what was already society’s (((the media and academia’s))) anti-White prohibition against White identity, its crowning of blacks as what we now call the “untouchables” and Jews as taboo to even privately wonder critically about, let alone openly criticize.. some context and it was quite difficult for a boy hard programmed to like girls: yeah, I was starting to like girls, but of course not wanting to be deterministically beholden, at this point, to this situation – with all this context going against my identity and the need by contrast to identify with people who were on my side and who’d fight hard; given the hostility of my family and society, I needed some socially sanctioned identity, on my side, with those who’d fight.

This was the only clear expression – in fact, a dramatic expression of masculine aggression and identity and a way to demonstrate the fact that I was not a homo. 

It is something of a challenge to provide alternatives to young White boys to the visual appeal and action of sports like football which blacks can do well (similar as the challenge of black musical ability and audio appeal, of a kind, more broadly, it even has some addictive properties).

NFL Films were a significant part of constructing a riveting identity, i.e., my entrancement into undue sports rooting in my teenage years.

This Week in The NFL game review of a Rams vs Niners game in 1973 features some compelling Sam Spence tunes that I could not find as independent pieces on Youtube. 

I would remain fiercely loyal to my side and could not tolerate losing, even though the Vikings always got the best of them in the playoffs – and in excruciating manner.

In the 1974 playoffs, not only did White Rams fans suffer the indignation of having their team headed by one of the first black quarterbacks (And I didn’t like it. Quarterback, the helm leader, was always a firmly White position), but they snatched defeat from the jaws of victory against the Vikings, again thwarted at the goal line.

After starting hemmed at their own goal line, the Rams went the full length of the field to the Vikings goal line, where Harris threw an interception and the Vikings reversed fortune.

The Rams had a first down on the Vikings’ one-yard line at the time. The penalty made it second and six, but quarterback James Harris threw an interception into the end zone on the next play and the Vikings eventually won, 14-10.

The Rams had gone 99 yards and produced no points! We lose by 4 points.

The Viking curse.

James Harris, one of the first black N.F.L. quarterbacks, helps the Rams to lose again to the Vikings in the 1974 playoffs.

In 1976 the Rams got thwarted on the goal-line in the playoffs against the Vikings once again.

In the 1976 playoffs, the Rams returned to the dreaded frozen north for another NFC title game. The temperature at kickoff was nine degrees.

The cold didn’t seem to bother the Rams, who drove smartly down to the one-yard line, but then their luck—and maybe their confidence—froze. Knox sent wide receiver Ron Jessie on an end-around to the right, where Jessie was met at the goal line by a pack of purple defenders.

“He scored on the play,” McCutcheon said. “I saw the ball over the (goal) line, in the end zone. They spotted the ball like on the one-inch line.”

The Rams had cause to feel an ominous chill at that moment.

“We still had a couple of more plays to get the ball in,” McCutcheon said. “I think he (Knox) called a quarterback sneak with (Pat) Haden and some other play I can’t remember. …That was really disappointing because we were one inch from the goal line, and that was the year we were running the ball so well—25-Lead, 44-Lead. I thought at that time we would certainly want to get the ball to one of our backs—preferably myself.

“I couldn’t believe the quarterback sneak. So (on fourth down) we decided to go for the field goal, and they block it and take it back 99 yards.”

Actually, it was only 90, but old Rams still have nightmares of Viking Bobby Bryant scooping up Tom Dempsey’s aborted field goal attempt and racing toward the other end of the field. Jack Youngblood was so heartsick after the game that he couldn’t talk—literally couldn’t talk—for 15 minutes.

After being thwarted on the goal line once again, the Rams tried to settle for a field goal, only to have it blocked and then...
The Vikings Bobby Bryant seizes the ball.
...and streaks down field..
Defensive back Bobby Bryant of the Minnesota Vikings runs down field for a touchdown having scooped up the ball after the Vikings blocked a Los Angeles Rams field goal attempt in the first quarter of the NFC Championship game in Bloomington, Minn. on Sunday, Dec. 26, 1976.

While in 1976 the Rams had to contend with the meteorological frustration  of Minnesota’s bitter cold, surprisingly, on the home turf in 1977…

The “Mudbowl”  of 1977 stuck the erstwhile viable Rams in mud and loss to the Vikings yet again.

In culmination of the 1979 season, the Rams finally made it to the Super Bowl and might have upset the Steelers to be champions… 

Vince Ferragamo

…to be champions if Vince Ferragamo spotted wide open wide receiver, Billy Waddy, for a go-ahead touchdown pass. Instead, he focused on the other side of the field and threw into a crowd and was intercepted by the Steelers Jack Lambert.

Despite the “heartbreaking” loss on the precipice again, I moved past disappointment in minutes, having by this time matured enough and gain in personal identity through college matriculation.

Although this Rams Superbowl team of the 1979 season was still exactly half White and there would remain enough White players on the team through the 80’s for the absurdity of this pseudo-identity to not pique my consciousness, by the late 80’s incidents of black athletes taking White women, including choice ones, was enough to make me swear off attendance to football in any manner. It had sunk in. I didn’t want to be part of the meme that we didn’t have yet, cuckoldry.

Compare the sportsfanship in the Goal Line Stand Episode above, where the girls look like they were sent by mom to church choir practice. …and see how the Relationships and Patterns of White objectivism unfolded, especially in (((context)))…

The thrill of victory
...and the dindo of defeat.

The legacy of sportsfanship (the costumed fan images come from this site): 

Cucks from Val-Hella
Viking cheerleader: babes remain babes; visual appeal not dependent upon sports.
Rams fan, 'on a meta-relational level now' - i.e., cucked.
Proud patriot of the Patriots
The Cowboys are not just "America's Team" to him, but The World.
Bears fan, fattened-up enough to remain in hibernation, in denial of his cuck reality.
Sporting cheese-head in furtive, if not defiant identity with Wisconsin's famous product.
A Giant excuse to express their submission to cuckoldry with transvestitism.
..whose Saints forgive the sins of their world.

Darren Sharper: Typical black behavior

How did our people get to the level of sports cuckoldry where we are now, with N.F.L. teams being mostly black and stands packed with fans in attendance almost all White?

Although I had sense enough to get off early enough, returning to my own adolescent captivation by the train before I disembarked probably gives some clues…

So lets continue with the topic of sportsfanship, how we might illustrate and redirect the illusionary escape of illusionary observational objectivity and diversionary identity. It’s an important matter, leading to a cuckold identity if, as a habit, not broken (thankfully, I did).

NFL Films were a significant part of constructing a riveting identity, i.e., my entrancement into undue sports rooting in my teenage years.

Furthermore, by examining the romanticizing and compelling role that NFL Films play in identity creation, we might be able to take a few of its ideas for the building of our own identity creation.

So let’s examine the films a little more to see what could lure one into sports enthusiasm during teen years and beyond. It can parlay into a fanaticism that we could rather use to fight on behalf of our own peoples.

N.F.L. Film’s style captured attention with Yoshi Kishi’s editing, John Facenda’s narration and Sam Spence’s music.

Film Editor Yoshi Kishi was the one who set the style for N.F.L. Films, revolutionizing their film structure and how they organize shots …and he knew nothing about football.

Yoshi was already a legend of editing, however.

In fact, the documentary discusses inception and crystallization of N.F.L Films dramatization..

But while NFL Films served to seduce, corrupt and divert my identity for some time from better pursuits, it is also worth talking about how we might perhaps use some of its techniques to deploy to our cause.

At least it was something that people were paying attention to. It was not merely the moment when Kermit Alexander’s fast twitching muscle fibers sprinted toward the end zone ..it was that and much more..

Kishi also edited "raging bull"

Click here for classic editing scene.

Note also the irony that the brunette actress who plays Joe Pesci’s wife was brutally stabbed by a stalker in real life a few years later.

Narrator John Facenda with his deep, earnest, manly voice, was a known TV reporter..

Samuel Lloyd Spence (Mar 29, 1927 – Feb 6, 2016) was an American soundtrack composer best known for his work with NFL Films. His work has also been on the EA Sports Madden NFL football videogames and many football-related commercials.

Biography

A former University of Southern California music instructor living and working in Munich, Spence was hired in 1966 to score the mini-documentaries that conveyed National Football League highlights and personalities to fans in the network-television era. Spence’s music cues combined with the baritone voice of John Facenda to remarkable artistic effect, creating the now trademark style of sports highlights videos of the NFL. Spence, together with Steve Sabol and the NFL Films crew, can arguably be credited with a significant role in making American football the most popular professional sport in the U.S.

Initially, Mahlon Merrick was asked to provide scores for NFL Films. A friend of Spence, Merrick asked Spence to help in the recording sessions. “Mahlon had written marches,” said Spence. “Toward the end of that recording session, I stuck in a couple of different pieces –my own orchestral compositions with strings and woodwinds, more like a Hollywood film score. It turned out they were Sabol’s favorites and he offered me a three-year contract to write, conduct, and produce NFL Films’ music.”

In Germany, Spence wrote several TV soundtracks with Hani Chamseddine, e.g., for the Francis Durbridge thriller “Wie ein Blitz”. After his retirement in 1990, he returned to Munich. He achieved unexpected fame in 1998 with the success of a CD compilation entitled The Power and the Glory: The Original Music & Voices Of NFL Films. Spence died at a Lewisville, Texas nursing center on February 6, 2016, at the age of 88.[2]

Sam Spence was a music teacher at The University of Southern California before moving to Munich, where he composed all of his scores for N.F.L. Films
Sam and his wife Friedl in Munich, Germany

N.F.L. Films style made football America’s game, first by capturing the attention with Yoshi Kishi who contributed his innovative editing technique, then adding John Facenda’s deep voiced, stern narration and culminated by Sam Spence’s riveting music: With slow motion, fast motion, varied shots, bustling action and music, music of burley combat, “Sunday With Soul” – that music so compelling to the emotions of a kid who wants his identity ultimately dramatized, with march to battle, ranging from bawdy to the toughest, most earnest, manly American quest, epoch exhilaration, to dark, grim, wide ranging venture, and heartbreaking sympathy, “The game that got away” – while husky voiced narrators, John Facenda and Pat Summerall embellished the seriousness of it all. The music here, during minute 1:12 – 2:20, as background to a Redskins – Eagles game, is particularly intriguing: here it is by itself – “Undercover Man” – one of my favorite among these Sam Spence and William Loose tunes. “The Horse” was not included among N.F.L. Films songs, but was/is a marching band staple along the sidelines of high school games that achieves much of the same sentimental effect. And there was that Monday Night Football intro music…another compelling tune to add to the collection – second 017.

As I became a fan: There sprinting for a touchdown in N.F.L. Films, a wide receiver as White as Jack Snow, manning a position which would nowadays be as special an occurrence as said flake.
The Coliseum, ready for mass attendance to bread and circus... wouldn't want to be the only one left out of the spectacle, would you?
The coaches, adults, were all business and made this seem like serious business

The coaches, adults, enter the the Coliseum accompanied by music invoking grim determination to underscore the deadly seriousness of the contest.

In wonderland escape of sunny southern California, by the floodlights of fabled Hollywood, manly battle took place in cool uniforms..

Appreciation like we don't receive in real life.
Or in the cold elements, blizzards of the north, manhood would be on display and venerated.
The officials made it official

The timing had something to do with it, sure. As I’ve said elsewhere, the early 1970’s were a time when the Vietnam war was ending, the relaxed communal sense of Being being extended to White men was giving way to feminism – could be rabid, White man hating, feminism. My older sister was a cold feminist, when not a searing hot feminist, when not a disconcertingly light, breezy and trivializing feminist; my mother, when not having some sort of catharsis for herself through a breakdown and drinking, was usually hostile; if you knew my father, you could have some sense of why she was that way. I’m over that, and its not my point to complain, but to state the fact of why I needed some vicarious identity – which could neither so easily be had with my family nor with my (((diverse, multicultural society and its programs of forced integration.)))

OK, so, I was ripe for some escapism and masculine aggressive identification – a quasi serious thing, treated seriously by adults.

At the same time, through programs of school “integration”, by the school year of 1970 my homeroom teacher was black, and there were plenty of blacks in the integrated class of my local elementary school. But in 1971-72, the integration program bused me to Nishuane, a mostly black school – and a nightmare.

Again, this wasn’t long after Malcolm X declared that “the Honorable Elijah Muhammad said that the black man would rule” and not long after the black race riots in 1967 burned the nearby town where I was born, Newark; while it was taboo to take an identitarian stance against even saying anything about that, even then.

Though I hadn’t liked baseball to that point, found it boring, when turning the TV channels in an idle moment after coming home from that black school in September 1971, I stopped on a Yankees game just long enough to repeat what I heard a fan from the crowd shout – “hit a home run, Bobby!” Surprisingly enough Bobby Murcer and I had the same kind of adrenaline rush as I did with the Kermit Alexander punt return… this rush leading me into the pseudo objectivity and the soothing reliability of baseball statistics; but still there was something even more immediately mainlining into the older parts of the brain via the sports thing of NFL films.

I’m sure this kind of thing hooked many a kid, not just me.

In this I got a program, maybe what we’d now call a site, to identify with the venting of my spleen, my rage, will to action, to run, to identify with a tribe, to bask in the glory and to identify with, well, actually, White guys…..and we could share in widespread appreciation that was not forthcoming, personally, i.e., whereas we might otherwise not be given much support in identity (((to say the least))). In this quasi-identity, with our masculine strength alone and mere uniforms distinguishing teams [the players did not even come from the towns that “they played for!”] we could at least assimilate fighting for an identity together, not against our own – quite unlike my family, my (((American society))) and my Europe.

“The fearsome foursome”, Deacon Jones, Merlin Olsen …the cool uniforms, winning ways, Roman Gabriel, exotic Los Angeles. I could identify fiercely with them. On Monday night, October 24 1970, my parents let me stay up late….almost..I got to see Kermit Alexander’s exhilarating punt return….the Rams were stopped on the goal line just before halftime. I was broken hearted, but optimistic that they could play the Vikings, they could win. I didn’t want to be torn away from the TV but my parents would not let me stay up..

I wasn’t paying attention to Kermit Alexander's race in the brisk of that moment, he was on my side - my team

That moment set off an adrenaline rush as lights gleamed off streaking helmets, followed by the frustration of losing to the Vikings, a threatening team in uniforms just as cool as the Rams. From the cold north, men in Viking helmets came to play men in Ram helmets. Fascination set in.

It is a challenge to provide alternatives to young White boys to the visual appeal and action of sports like football  … visual mediums which blacks can accelerate in, culminating in their end-zone dances (a similar challenge as presented by the allure of black musical ability, and probably with similar properties as audio tropism, it can have  addictive properties).

Still there is that older part of the brain. I did not like “the chocolate nurses” when I had my tonsillectomy at age 7. I didn’t like it when black rioters burned the city of my birth, Newark, where my grandmother lived; or when Malcolm X said just a few years before, that “blacks would rule.”

…and with the to the onset of my enmeshment in this pseudo identity in 1970, I had wanted to be a magnanimous American and identify with black Deacon Jones, was glad when he was a member of the “fearsome foursome” (cool nickname given to he four Rams defensive linemen, of which Deacon Jones was one) and his play was on our side, but I couldn’t quite

– I thought that he looked weird. 

Deacon Jones
A "legend" for Christ's sake? ...for playing football?
And look at the wife that he'd wind up with one day. It's absurd.

I wasn’t inclined to identify with Deacon Jones and Kermit Alexander: rather, I wanted rather to identify with Jim Bertelsen, Jack Youngblood, Fred Dryer, Roman Gabriel and Jack Snow.

Kermit Alexander and his Christian wife, in service of Haiti.

Kermit and his obsequious, White, fundamentalist Christian wife, Tammy Alexander…

 adopt 5 Haitians: Good work Christianity. Haitians, who have a 60 i.q., who practice voodoo in this day and age, while their forebears slaughtered, exterminated the French colonialists, men, women and chilren not once, but twice – the second time after they begged the French to return and help them rebuild the island.

I plead innocent Xer, overwhelmed by Boomer and Greatest Generation funk; a few years before, confronted by the chocolate nurses in the hospital for a tonsillectomy, I had fantastic temper-tantrums in resistance to them, did not like them, wouldn’t permit this in my realm if I were king.

Besides – how was I to know who Kermit Alexander was and what he could come to mean to us… why should I believe that adults would let this happen, when what was happening by way of blacks was so obviously bad in terms of their hyper-assertiveness.

Who’d want to live with these people who burned Newark, made things so ugly, but nevertheless had the nerve to say that they’d rule us?

Unbeknownst to me, this was the football season following the Super Bowl (IV) played by the first majority black team – The Kansas City Chiefs. That is to say nothing, of course, of my nine year old awareness (lack thereof) of the (((egregious forces and purposes))) behind the 1964 Civil Rights Act, The 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act, the 1968 Rumsford Fair Housing Act…

This process of imposing black integration upon Whites through sports ball goes back a long way before I was born, as I noted in the article, “Our football coaches were not Marxists imposing integration with blacks.

Rather, they were objectivists imposing integration with blacks.”

In fact, the first two Superbowl championships were won by The Green Bay Packers, coached by Vince Lombardi:

A committed objectivist, the Super Bowl Trophy is named after him, "The Lombardi Trophy."

Vince Lombardi’s Unprejudiced Nature

From Wikipedia:

In 1960, on at least one team, a color barrier still existed in the NFL. But Jack Vainisi, the Scouting Director for the Packers, and Lombardi were determined “to ignore the prejudices then prevalent in most NFL front offices in their search for the most talented players.” Lombardi explained his views by saying that he “… viewed his players as neither black nor white, but Packer green”. Among professional football head coaches, Lombardi’s view on discrimination was not de rigueur in the midst of the American civil rights movement.

  An interracial relationship between one of the Packer rookies and a young woman was brought to the attention of Lombardi by Packer veterans in his first training camp in Green Bay. The next day at training camp, Lombardi, who had a zero tolerance policy towards racism, responded by warning his team that if any player exhibited prejudice, in any manner, then that player would be thrown off the team. Lombardi, who was vehemently opposed to Jim Crow discrimination, let it be known to all Green Bay establishments that if they did not accommodate his black players equally as well as his white players, then that business would be off-limits to the entire team. Before the start of the 1960 season, he instituted a policy that the Packers would only lodge in places that accepted all of his players.

At a time when it was not yet accepted, sill illegal in some states, Lombardi gave defiant support to his player, Lionel Aldridge, in marriage to ...

Caveat: Although Vince Lombardi was not a Marxist, his objectivist purity spiral was at least partly backed by his strong Christian conviction; i.e. the Jewish influence to blend away Gentile capacity for relative group organization and resistance to subjugation is still there.

My father told me that the Chiefs would “three-point-them (the Vikings)-to-death.” Place-kicker Jan Stenarud (3) and quarterback/holder Len Dawson (16) were a few of the minority of Whites on the Super Bowl winning Kansas City Chiefs - already, in 1970, a majority black N.F.L. football team, albeit the first one.

Whites playing the objectivist game gamely, but upended by first majority black team, Kansas City Chiefs, in Super Bowl III, January 1970.

Even so, by 1972 the war was ending and feminism, no longer constrained by the double standard of the (male only) draft and with it, the background need to grant some leeway to male protest for Being, came unhinged. I needed vicarious male identity more than ever.

Action against the San Francisco 49ers
Prothro, with grim adult discipline and sacrifice of hours in training before the glory of fans arrive.
Fans
Cheerleaders and marching bands...

There were massive stadiums packed with fans, pageantry, marching bands, cheerleaders…

Concern
Paul Brown, the mature display of serious business when the masses of fans did arrive.

Here they were, the L.A. Rams – an opportunity for the requisite, more objective identity for me: they were from far away Los Angeles, with a team that was coming out of the 1960’s with great records and an awesome manly reputation. My older brother told me that they had the “The Fearsome Foursome” – their defensive line featuring Deacon Jones, Merlin Olsen ..later Fred Dryer and Jack Youngblood ..with their cool names, add quarterback Roman Gabriel to that regard. They had the coolest uniforms too.

Helmet

I wanted to identify with Roman Gabriel, Jack Youngblood, Fred Dryer, Jim Bertelsen, Jack Snow…

Roman Gabriel
Roman Gabriel, a very cool name for the quarterback playing for the Rams in The L.A. Coliseum.
Jack Youngblood about to lower the boom.
Fred Dryer
Fred Dryer making a sack with Jack Youngblood in hot pursuit.
Jim Bertelsen was my favorite on offense.
Bertelsen came to the Rams from college champion Texas.

Again, my consciousness of PC’s antagonism had not been thoroughly piqued through the 80’s, and I still watched the games, but teams started becoming ridiculously black and football being a vehicle for race mixing (which was NOT very noticeable among middle class White girls until the late 80s) delivered a coupe de grace to my interest by the late 80’s….but even the embers of my identification were hosed as the Rams moved to Saint Louis in 1995. Los Angeles was a part of the tenuous identification that I had achieved and Saint Louis doesn’t have the same glamour as L.A.

By January 30, 2000 I had long since stopped paying attention except for one brief moment, when the now Saint Louis Rams led by (White) Cinderella story, Kurt Warner, defeated the Tennessee Titans to finally win a Superbowl.

Cinderella story Kurt Warner finally takes the Rams to Super Bowl victory.

Warner and the fact of having nothing else to do while I attended my dying father gave me an excuse after not having watched football for many years. I watched that one game on 30 January 2000; I told my father that the Rams had won as he sat in a hospital bed with tubes in him and an oxygen mask, looking like an alien elephant… barely conscious, but he heard that..and smiled: he had got me attending to football on TV in the winter of ‘69-‘70, he had witnessed the many tearful temper tantrums of mine as the Rams always lost along the way. He died the next morning.

They stopped the Titans at the goal line as time ran out.

The Tennessee Titans quarterback for that Super Bowl was Steve McNair (left) who went on to be murdered by his “lover” (right) in 2009.

Giants 2012 Superbowl champions ring.

After victory in the 2012 Superbowl, Greg Jones proposes to his girlfriend, Mandy Piechowski.

Notice that the black booty to the left is not getting any Superbowl marriage proposal.
Miscegenation ring.
He don't want no ghetto booty

Background issues become foreground issues to White/European interests: not just fans, cheerleaders, bands, coaches, cameramen and security guards such as the ignored black booty to the left of the screen, but also the discourse of news reporters:

Listen to what the White cuck news reporter had to say about it –

“What a night for the Giants and for former Michigan State linebacker, Greg Jones. First he won a Super Bowl ring. Then after the game, on the field he asks his girlfriend, Mandy Piechowski, to marry him  …she’s crying her eyes-out. He pulls-out an engagement ring and slips it on her finger. She played basket ball at Michigan State, is now a model, obviously she said “yes” ..what a terrific thing this is …congratulations to Greg and Mandy. That is one heck-uva night for that young man.”

Female co-reporter: “Well how sweet. Do you think that if they had lost that he would have still done that?”

Second White male cuck reporter: “I’m not even going to go there because I know that someone would yell at me.”

Cuck reporter number one: “I’m sure it would have quite the same effect.”

Cameraman
Also having remained in the background of this race replacement is black on White crime:

She went to Michigan State as well.

She was found in a state of rigor mortis – naked, with her legs fixed unnaturally on both sides of her chest. ..in the position that she was when she was raped to death.

* Thanks to Craig Cobb for the astute White reporting on that disgusting, erstwhile unreported fact.

More Cuck Reporting After The Fact:

According to right-wingers, it’s nobody’s fault but ours or nobody’s fault but the Jews – we should not think critically, in socially interactive, agentive terms: we should simply know what “is” and adjust to it.

Investigative reporting from the perspective of White interests would never be satisfied to report on this surface level; it would be coupled with true intellectual quest to delve into causes and implications of the issues suggested here, to analyze issues kept in the background, including the influence of NFL Films, how they have served to glorify, normalize and institutionalize this beastiality – this destruction of 35,000 years of sublime co-evolution.

Superbowl commercials are notoriously expensive advertising space. Half time in this Superbowl featured a General Motors commercial narrated by Clint Eastwood, barking that it was “half time in America”..  you haven’t seen anything yet, “you’re going to hear our (America’s) engines roar!”

To wit, Matt Parrott wrote a clever article titled:

THE GAME IS OVER. THE PATRIOTS LOST. Though I cannot recommend Matt Parrott for his foolish and unwarranted misdirection  away from and against the platform here, he is clever enough to turn a good phrase, as in this article, where the issue isn’t too deep for him. However, for one thing, he needs to understand that the Christards are playing a suckers game in line with propositional nationalism, and being beaten badly for it as well. In fact, one of my disagreements with him had to do with his suggestion in regard to miscegenators that you should just give them a bath an forget about it… in fact, it seems nowadays he’s back in collaboration with Matt Heimbach after having watched him fuck his wife…what a cuck.

The game is over, the Patriots lost.

Not far removed from mainstream cuck reporting, self proclaimed Al-Right novelist, Andy Nowicki, maintains that we shouldn’t care…he likes to watch sports …we should be ok with that.. He contends that when we complain about miscegenators that we make their day, only make them happy. To me, this is like the old school yard joke: Jenny is on the top stairs of the slide about to go down and several boys are on the ladder beneath, lookin up her skirt. “Jenny, the boys will see your underwear!” …and Jenny says, “I fooled them, I’m not wearing any!”

Just because Andy is homely and can’t have a beautiful woman doesn’t mean he should recommend his resignation to others.

“The stoic acceptance was an attempt to transubstantiate even the repugnant aspects of existence, the excremental, into the essentially divine” - Kenneth Burke.
Giants Linebacker, Lawrence Taylor, idolized as the greatest at his position, went through his big money on cocaine. Part of his prep for Sunday games was to buy prostitutes for opposing players the night before to exhaust them.
Mike, "I don't want White history month for me, I'm Jewish," Wallace ... gives a shockingly sympathetic interview to Lawrence Taylor.

Mike Wallace Interview with Lawrence Taylor: Taylor confesses to snorting hundreds of thousands in cocaine, soliciting prostitutes to wear-out opponents the night before games; then after “coming clean” with his confessions to a shockingly sympathetic Mike Wallace (who apparently pronounces him kosher clean, while dabbing the mini black Caligula’s tears with a handkerchief)…. ..Taylor goes on to be arrested for soliciting underage prostitutes for himself.

Giants running-back, Tiki Barber, and girlfriend.
Giants defensive end, Michael Strahan, and x-wife.

Dave Megget is another sordid Giants player.

I also recall a story of black player, think he was also a Giant, alleged to have more than 30 illegitimate children. I will try to find the story, but it might be difficult, Google being what it is.

Moving to the Super Bowl for the 2013 season and beyond…

Russel Wilson, Quarterback of Seattle Seahawks for their 2013 Super Bowl Championship year.
Russel Wilson and girlfriend.

And WHAT would we do without “The Super Bowl”?

By 2016 all teams were mostly black and the Superbowl half time show featured a homage to the Black Panthers and Malcolm X.

Super Bowl 2016, halftime show features homage to Black Panthers and Malcolm X

Perfectly fitting entertainment that it is for a stadium full of White sheeple and a world wide audience of White sheeple – in attendance to one team of fast twitching blacks in ultra-actualized competition against another team of fast twitching blacks  …speaking of the dark side of self actualization and its destabilizing effect on healthy social systems…

TMZ, Beyonce Pays Homage to Black Panthers During Super Bowl Performance, 8 Feb 2016:

Beyonce made a stirring political statement during the Super Bowl halftime show, in what appears to be a tribute to the Black Panthers, a ‘60s group that advocated violence to correct racial injustice.

The singer was flanked by backup dancers who wore berets, similar to the berets worn by the group. They also raised their fists, symbolic of the Black Power movement.

At one point the dancers posed with a sign that read “Justice 4 Mario Woods,” the man shot and killed by San Francisco cops.

“The Honorable Elijah Muhammad said that the black man will rule.”

Ibid: The dancers on the field also formed an “X” on the field, which seemed symbolic of civil rights militant Malcolm X. Beyonce also had a strap on her chest in the form of an “X”.

Ibid:Tina Knowles posed with the dancers, fists raised high.

It’s not only a symbol of the Panthers, it’s also a gesture used by Tommie Smith and John Carlos during the ‘68 Olympics.

Smith and Carlos giving their black power salute at the '68 Olympics.
Dig the photo of Khalid Muhammad behind New Black Panther leaders' "King Shamir Shabazz."

King Shamir Shabazz, Chairman of the Philadelphia New Black Panther Party: “I hate White people. All of them! Every last iota of a cracker I hate him…. You want freedom? You going to have to kill some crackers (White people). You gonna have to kill some of their babies”…

“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 say, goddammit! we kill ‘em all! (applause)

You say why kill them all?

Why kill the women?

First, why kill the babies?

They’re just little innocent blue-eyed babies!

Because, goddammit, one day they’re going to grow-up to rule your babies.

Kill ‘em now!

Why kill the women in South Africa?

I say kill the women because the women are the military manufacturing center; and 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 older crackers? The old, decrepit crackers in South Africa. How the hell you think they got old? – they got old oppressing and killing black people. I say kill (strange glossolalia), kill ‘em all! Kill the faggot, kill the lesbian!

And after you kill them all!

I said that day about Mandela to say what he really knows about me. He don’t know a damn thing! I said then you go to the goddamn grave and dig them up!

And kill them a goddamn-gain, because they didn’t die hard enough! (applause)

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!

…and by NFL season 2017..

NFL protests: US propositional liberalism needs overturning, but blacks are not revolutionaries

The Kaepernickan Revolution Not

As ethno-nationalists, we may bear accord with those who who maintain that the U.S. flag represents propositional liberalism and ever represents as such, adversary to ethno-nationalism

While it is theoretically valid for black football players to protest the history of slavery that is taken for granted in the anthem, it was not just any Whites who brought them to the Americas, it was right wing hubris that brought them to the Americas.

There was no bigger error in history than to bring African slaves to the Americas – a classic right wing hubris compounded ultimately in its disingenuous liberal expression of anti-racism that was not only disastrous for the human ecologies of the Americas both native American and White, but an economic short-cut that threw the world’s economy into a perilous imbalance in relation to Asia; an imbalance from which it has not recovered.

It is a hubris for which we, as ethnonatiolists, have little responsibility and deserve no penalty where we fight the right wing system that brought this about –

Nevertheless, the liberal system will continue to try to penalize us, and disingenuously wall paper our difference from these right wingers, will do all it can to associate our liberation with the right. Many Whites will take the bait – our “enemies” are trying to divide us from our “brothers”, the black Americans – so says the idiot, Father Francis.

It was a hubris, typical of the right wing, falsely and vainly comparing Africans to others – of course finding them “wanting and in need of help” – they are just misguided by the YKW, it is not that these right wingers are complicit with destroying the ethnonationalsm that never would have forcibly mixed Africans with Whites and Native Americans – as they did, in the cases of some tribes to virtual extinction.

Their idea of “inequality” is based on false comparison. In a world where Heidegger can only hope to guide Europeans to be at home in their skins, in their land, among their folk, in a world where the African is always at home, always comfortable, never at a loss and always ready to assert as much – there is no more self righteous, hyper-assertive, aggressive, no more alpha a male, than the black.

Madison Avenue knows this, knows that the puerile follow the alpha, that’s why it leads with it in marketing campaigns; the rest of Jewry knows this too, ready in its institutional positions to pander to the puerile, both male and female

Thus, we must beware when blacks are upheld as making a revolutionary protest. We must be aware of black nature. Black nature is of Alpha R selection, and like a male lion, it will do nothing but be brought tribute and breed with supplicant females.

The talented tenth, mostly Mulattoes, who are able to function somewhat as leaders of their community, serve to articulate the narratives of how the system supposedly oppresses blacks: but the system does not oppress blacks, the system reacts to blacks and tries to placate them, pays tribute to them.

Blacks are natural compradors and henchmen of the system.

For this creature, “revolution” means solidifying its being imbued in the American power structure; its nature is right wing – whether it can rule or not, this is what it always aims for: “The honorable Elija Muhammad said the black man will rule” – Malcolm X – a Muslim, of course, not a left nationalist. The wish to “rule over others” or the belief in its destiny is right wing.

Blacks will not be revolutionaries of America – America will adjust to them in its puerile idolatry, enshrinement and institutionalization: not only paying them millions and lavishing them with adulation and women for their sports and entertainment, but making endless excuses to engraft them further in the power structure – as illustrated by sports reporter Bob Costas, saying that Kaepernick’s protest is an expression of true American patriotism; and indeed it is. Blacks, adulation of them, no matter how perverted, no matter how unjust, brutal and violent, no matter how lavished with undue reward as a pattern, they are to be adulated as a part of the American institution. And as the admired alpha R selection breeders that they are, they are free to go through women, including what probably should have been your wife, and leave litters of babies behind – everyone else’s social problem, while you wonder how you might pay for one of your own and give it a decent environment.

The Kaepernickan revolution Not

Their males and the females they impregnate and discard at their convenience are placed on US welfare – to the servitude of everyone else, not to mention that their less athletically capable brothers and sisters are to be set aside government programs, well paying government jobs with solid benefits; also affirmative action and special provisions in corporate America and academia as a result of civil rights court actions (the consent decrees) are to be given them …not because they are revolutionaries, but because they are an integral part and parcel of feudal enforcement.

Wearing Malcolm X hat, is the poor, oppressed Mulatto Colin Kaepernick, whose negro father impregnated Russo, left her (what a surprise) and subsequently his adoptive White cuck parents the responsibility of providing for him.

Negro quarterback Colin Kaepernick, raised by adoptive White parents and given a multi-million dollar contract to play football, refuses to stand for the national anthem; that is to protest the “racism” of America – a nation that spends trillions in welfare, government jobs and benefits to incubate black babies – for those that can’t go on to get million dollar contracts for things like playing football – money that they would never get and could never make in a black country. 

The NFL is majority black / its fans, who pay handsomely for tickets and broadcast access, are in vast majority White.

According to nfl.com:

Colin Kaepernick, San Francisco 49ers – $19,000,000

Six years, $114,000,000 total with $61,000,000 guaranteed-he is the 17th highest paid player in the NFL in 2016.

Don’t you feel so sorry for him.

The KoperniCuck Revolutoin

What revolution is going to come from these people? Their protest is the protest of consummate alpha pigs, whose tribute is not yet 1,0000 percent granted by the obsequious.

They are not motivated to overturn America; they are motivated to imbue themselves, engraft themselves inexorably within this most powerful right wing system in the world.

Colin Kaepernick, the Mulatto, has a (Egyptian-Muslim) girlfriend who was taught by Jewish professors that America was founded by slave holders – and so it was. She pointed out that a part of the National Anthem – verses that nobody ever sings, knows or adheres-to, verses that were written hundreds of yeas ago by right wingers – can be used as a publicity stunt to further engraft themselves into America’s power structure; this, by pretending on the basis of these long ago verses that they are oppressed in their multi-million dollar football contracts.

She tells a story based on the Jewish wall papering of the White Class, that Whites put blacks in jail for the arbitrary racism of it, not to defend themselves from violent criminals.

In truth, and at best, blacks might alert dissent from American patriotism in this protest, and finally disgust White Americans and others enough to disabuse them of their negrophelia.

But would-be ethnonationalists are not likely to suspend disbelief in the black liberation narrative, as the protest is allowed to proceed and is commended by the liberal, the right wing (they merge) powers that be. They know how to play and deepen beholdenness of the puerile to the position of blacks as “leaders” of the so called vanguard. Blacks are the ultimate “Whitey be cool stick” for liberals, for right wingers, for puerile females who wish to retain undue privilege, license.

There should be no enthusiasm from revolutionaries for this protest. Only cold analysis. The danger is to us, that in sympathy and admiration for blacks, as Madison Ave knows, it will only help them to become embedded in “a revolution” of the American system which is no revolution, it is its mere reconstruction, and has them only more privileged in their elite tenth, especially, which will be highly protective and ethnocentric of the rest of black Americans – which will have little concern for the pesky concerns of other’s rank and file.

Madison Ave. knows how stupid Whites can be in their right wing reaction, like those of Stormfront, the unbearably stupid “Father Francis” who says blacks should be grateful for having been brought to America for all the good its done them, and Whites should be proud for having liberated the slaves… how benign blacks are, their nature not really so destructive that Whites cannot live with them, they’re just a bit misguided by the YKW. Yet in truth it was the right wing that brought them upon us and unleashed these hyper assertive primitives upon us. They have done no White people a favor, least of all in the virtue signal of liberation and tolerance of a Father Francis – idiot.

Our admiration for their assertion in valid recognition of an ancient injustice of America must be cut short; for they are not liberators, they have been inflicted upon working class Whites and native Americans by right wingers.

It is an alpha capacity known all too well to Madison ave and the rest of Jewry to create followers among those who would become assimilated to Mulatto supremacism.

Blacks are not revolutionaries because they are the descendants of alpha selection and alphas are not revolutionaries – blacks will only be bulwarks of the status quo.

One has but to watch the Vietnam documentaries to see that America’s liberal propositionalism is a dubious if not disingenuous and totally destructive prospect to support and export – viz., it illustrates why any conscientious person should be a revolutionary with regard to America.

Some Americans find this out when after signing up for wars in patriotic enthusiasm, they come to realize that they are being used in the most abject way:

Ironically, this is the case of Pat Tillman – the NFL player who left a lucrative contract in order to fight in Afghanistan – who President Trump invoked as a true patriot in contrast to the kneeling black footballers. Some have suggested that if Tillman were alive, he’d be kneeling during the national anthem as well  …perhaps not in sympathy for BLM, but he did not have opportunity for such widely publicized protest because he was killed by friendly fire. Tillman was well known to have soured on America’s militarism and to have begun to openly denounce it.

Respect the flag that so many Americans died for.

Yes, the mulatto Kaepernick got a tip that attention may be garnered by the liberal press looking for left cover where the National Anthem reveals America to have been on the wrong side side of ethno-nationalism, the workers, “the hirlings.”

But it is up to White ethnonationalism to take the exposure of those flagrantly dissatisfied with the American flag, even those who in economic terms perhaps should not be dissatisfied, as a point of departure to coordinate matters of ethnic genetic interests, ethnonational liberation with Indios, Amerindians and Asians.

Lyrics

  O say can you see, by the dawn’s early light,
  What so proudly we hailed at the twilight’s last gleaming,
  Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight,
  O’er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
  And the rockets’ red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
  Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there;
  O say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
  O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

  On the shore dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
  Where the foe’s haughty host in dread silence reposes,
  What is that which the breeze, o’er the towering steep,
  As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
  Now it catches the gleam of the morning’s first beam,
  In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:
  ‘Tis the star-spangled banner, O long may it wave
  O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

  And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
  That the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion,
  A home and a country, should leave us no more?
  Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps’ pollution.
  No refuge could save the hireling and slave
  From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
  And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave,
  O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

  O thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
  Between their loved homes and the war’s desolation.
  Blest with vict’ry and peace, may the Heav’n rescued land
  Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation!
  Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
  And this be our motto: ‘In God is our trust.’
  And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
  O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

It is not valid for protests, which would be rightfully directed against right wingers, to be allowed to brush and wall paper all Whites as privileged implementors and beneficiaries across the board (talking about taking genetic interests, quality of life and stress or lack there-of into the equation, not just economic numbers) of that right wing hubris – as ethnonationalists, it is dubious to admire these blacks in their protests. Their assertion is right wing, and to wish to share in their assertiveness is the way of puerile females and right wing pandering to that powerful gate-keeping position in the disorder of modernity. Madison Ave knows this, Jews know this, that they can shepherd the sheep through the alpha….Stormfront and the unbearable “Father Francis” apparently are oblivious to this, the alpha nature of blacks that his techno-nerdom allows him to weasel around, to build psychological fire walls around and do calculative gymnastics to sympathize with the blacks who are being pushed-out by Mexican gangs – rather than saying “go Mexicans!” as we do, they sympathize with these blacks on multi-million dollars of collective welfare, government jobs and programs, multi million dollars in celebrity careers … they protest their “oppression”…. for they are not revolutionaries, they are a part of their same right wing system, and seek only to engraft themselves more fully into its central governance.

New England Patriotards vs Los Angeles Crips

I love the smell of fried chicken and purple soda in the morning. It smells like... victory.

By 2019, the Rams team had moved back to Los Angeles and made it to the superbowl again, this time to face The New England Patriots.

The St. Louis Rams were lured back to L.A. for a 2.66 BILLION dollar stadium.

Since the time in the late 80’s when I prioritized racial interests over the entertainment of sports and music, when I do observe race mixed sporting events or statistics, I root for the individual performance of White players and against individual black players.

Over at Amren, Paul Kersey entitles an article, “Root for the Patriots in the Superbowl”

Although there is something to be said for the Patriots success while using White players in positions usually associated with black skills, as rather an expression of White selection and identity, betraying negrophila some along with its taken for granteds, the teams are still mercenary, not particularly representing a place or race. Thus, I can’t agree with his conclusion that Whites should feel ok about rooting for mixed race teams as it perpetuates the idiot cuckoldry of White fandom and support of the race mixing agenda through one of its most seductive means – visually exciting sports, adulation of athletic skills beyond merit, way beyond real world value and just reward, while ensconced in the deceptive, soothing pretext of passive objectivity. (take into account that Kersey, like Jared Taylor, is expository of black behavior, but Jewish friendly) Kersey writes:

The white quarterback, Tom Brady, along with white wide receivers Julian Edelman and Chris Hogan, white tight end Rob Gronkowski, and white running backs Rex Burkhead and James Develin, are an anomaly in the “vibrant” NFL. They have a vast overrepresentation of skilled white players who not only excel, but dominate.

[…]

With all this whooping about diversity, an anomaly does not go unremarked: the whiteness of the New England Patriots during their historic run under Tom Brady. For this year’s Super Bowl in Atlanta, all eyes are on Mr. Brady, the 41-year-old quarterback, who will be playing in his unprecedented ninth championship game in 18 seasons (this will be his third consecutive shot at the Lombardi Trophy, and Mr. Brady holds a 5-3 record in the Super Bowl).

With that, he suggests:

Root for the Patriots in the Superbowl

It’s OK to be white.

On Sunday, more than 110 million Americans will huddle around their television sets and watch the 53rd Super Bowl, a matchup between the Los Angeles Rams and New England Patriots.

After two seasons marred by black NFL players taking a Colin Kaepernick-style knee or raising a ‘Black Power’ fist during the National Anthem, television ratings slightly improved during the 2018 season.

[…]

So even if you are not a fan of the NFL, or don’t like the antics of black players who knelt during the National Anthem, there’s nothing wrong with rooting for the New England Patriots and Tom Brady to win Super Bowl 53. In a league where 72.6 percent of the players are POC, there’s nothing wrong with cheering for a team that looks a little more like you.

It’s the white thing to do.

He supplies one good reason NOT to root for the Patriots or any NFL team, here:

Ibid. That year, largely because of pressure from the owners of NFL’s 32 franchises, the league saw only a handful of black athletes—who account for 69.7 percent of the players—take a knee during the anthem. A recent poll of NFL fans shows only 24 percent of white fans strongly support the anthem protests, while 59 percent of blacks do (47 percent of white fans and 7 percent of black fans strongly oppose them). Though the kneeling stopped, the owners did create an $89 million fund for the players to hand out to “improve social justice and racial equality in our country.

Colored guy scores only touchdown of the Superbowl, as the Patriotards defeated the Crips 13 - 3
Gronkowski, who has been a star tight end for the Patriots for years, retired after the season. While Tom Brady, who won his first Super Bowl as Patriots quarterback way back on 2001 against the Rams, would lead the Patriots to eight more, winning six of nine, this one included among victories.

Anyway, Patriotard star quarter back, Tom Brady, played well, especially for a 41 year old, White tight end Rob Gronkowski had a decisive catch, while White running back Rex Burkhead had flashes of brilliance to put a nail in the Rams coffin… as the Patriotards beat the Crips to win the Superbowl. However, we would learn that the star “White” Patriotard receiver, who also played well, is not White, he’s Jewish – (((Julian Edelman))).

Should have caught that myself (That’s what I get for taking the Paul Kersey/Jared Taylor camp for granted). Thanks for the heads-up, Captainchaos.

Having led the Patriots to 9 Super Bowls and wining 6 of them, Tom Brady is acclaimed the all time greatest Quarterback. But despite having spent his entire twenty year career with the Patriots, he signed with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers for the 2020 season; and led them to the 2021 Super Bowl!
His teammates are somewhat more complected.
Patrick Mahomes posing with his parents after signing with the Chiefs.

Patrick Mahomes signed a 10 year, $450,000,000 contract with the Kansas City Chiefs, including a $10,000,000 signing bonus, $141,481,905 guaranteed; average annual salary of $45,000,000.

His father, who was a Major League Baseball pitcher, was “only” able to collect $2,658,000 in salary over 11 years, having a bad e.r.a. of 5.47 over the course of his career.

Tom Brady Wins his Seventh Super Bowl.

Brady congratulated by Gronkowksi, who joined him in moving from a several time Patriots champion to continue their ways with the Buccaneers, where Brady won his seventh Super Bowl.

Great Mulatto hope and Chiefs quarterback Mahomes, who had won the Super Bowl the year before, still has his trophy wife.
Of Tampa Bay's 22 starters, 18 are black - all 11 on defense and 7 on offense.

Here’s food for thought to put this matter in perspective:

To paraphrase Aristotle:

‘What is it that makes us distinctly human? Is it strength, quickness, the ability to run fast? There are many creatures which exceed us in these capacities’…

Continue Reading From NFL films seduction of slow motion display against compelling music, to… mass sports fan cuckoldry – mesmerized in adulation of dramatic episodic display, riveted to momentary action, fast twitching muscle fibers and brute strength …at the expense of our profound genetic patterns, the social capital which has indeed, been built of our sublimation beyond momentary and episodic display.

Generational Astrology: Zodiac Sign of the Boomer, Part 11

  • Post author:
  • Post category:Central

Augustinius, Manichius, Cartesius

Big Bro Boomers selfishly over-state fear of collectivism at expense of Little Bro Xers atomization

In truth, I didn’t intend to move over to Majorityrighs, I rather sought to poach Bowery and bring him to The Voice of Reason Broadcasting Network. Noting his talent, disillusionment and insult he experienced of Majorityrights proprietor, Guessedworker; I hoped to bring his talent to VoR.

When Bowery told me that he would come to VoR and set about to “re-boot the Enlightenment”, I face palmed as he was gearing up to fly in the face of the White Post Modern philosophy – a philosophy cultivated largely to overcome the flaws of Enlightenment era philosophy and extend up-to-date conceptual tools to take us where I knew that our people needed to go. Nevertheless, I kept quiet, as he has marked talent, even if not the best philosophically, and I could work around him. However, his coming to VoR as a regular didn’t materialize because, as I said, the network was allowed to go down when Carolyn Yeager and Tanstaafl left to establish their own network.

When I did move over to Majorityrights with the demise of VoR, Bowery remained a somewhat grudging presence, enduring the insult of Guessedworker, but also conflicting bitterly with some of the others there – he would finally give an ultimatum: “It’s me or Graham Lister.” Graham is a rather intelligent man, a geneticist, sometimes commenter and poster at MR, but with an absurd level of disdain for Americans and the attendant foibles that Bowery had – individualism, aversion to any social integration theory as the road to “eusociality” in our people (eusociality in people means their functioning in a non-human way, like a hive group, like bees or ants); and his own special idea to stave off eusociality, an elaborate scheme to administer “pair-wise duels” to preserve “Euroman’s individual nature”, which, he maintained, is under threat by the zeitgeist of specialization that has been evolving since the times when we gathered around campfires; followed by a pernicious development of “civilization” culminating through Rome’s imposition of “civilization” on the feral Northerners of Europe, ruining their true individual and creative nature.

Captainchaos said:

“Computer geeks make for shitty political philosophers.”

Graham Lister replied:

“Very true – narrow technical intelligence doesn’t often translate very well into the much broader field of political thought. Well done CC! There’s hope for you yet!”

Needless to say, Bowery wasn’t pleased with this sort of remark. But to my surprise, he also took a rather hostile stance toward my offerings, not as antagonistic as Guessedworker, however…

Being a social constructionist, I take for granted that there is, at least somewhere along the line, a joint effort in the construction of knowledge. With Majorityrights being a discussion site with active and regular commentators, I figured I could at least eventually show them that this outlook was a natural fit as a means to advance ethnonationalism. If I put up a “specificatory structure”, i.e., a post that could use adjustments, some “shaping and crafting”, I expected it to be treated as an occasion for friendly, minor correction and amendment as such (I say “friendly minor correction” as it is clear that my will is good and the material that I bring to bear is relevant, different and important), not absolute dismissal of everything I say and me along with it – treated as the Trojan horse of an enemy envoy (even though NOBODY, friend or foe, was doing anything like me) to be utterly vanquished as redundant where not the bringer of veritable evil. Although that treatment was even more GW’s sickness, they were both treating me in accordance with the “transmissions” model of communication, as if I presented myself as Moses on Mount Saini delivering with all pomp and pretense, the infallible and perfectly understood truth to the passive audience receiving it below. The modernist assumption and its corresponding refusal to suspend disbelief, maintaining instead a position of endless skepticism and critique, with the assumption that the battering would lead to “foundational” knowledge, would become more and more evident, as would Guessedworker’s disingenuous purpose for this convenient premise.

For “a discussion” site, as Majorityrights purported to be, there was next to nothing in the way of discussion – in fact, that would have been more like a social constructionist/communications perspective. Instead what comments there were, were basically trolling and ridicule which were anything but informative; this trolling based on the old transmissions model, as if I were presenting myself as a Moses on Mount Saini, issuing edicts impervious to feedback, this pompous guy not amenable but who, rather, needed to be taken down.

Snark and aim for the “one thing” that would take down the whole charade was also an artifact of the STEM mindset of this culture at MR, enamored of machine precision. It is a bad mindset to apply to the more messy world of praxis (the social world) – where people have agency and there are reflexive effects; thus, where working hypotheses and specificatory structures are a better means of analysis than a quest for perfect and singular theory to the exclusion of all other ways of considering its issues.

From Bowery I’d get a reaction and a similar position as GW, as if I was waving the same (((red capes))) of the humanities that he was used to reacting-to. And I received some pedantic instruction as to how I might pursue GW’s STEM reaction ontology project.

For a salient example, although I devised the first DNA Nations post to flatter his abilities and encourage his participation in the project, he never really did much participate, but instead talked of implementing his own “sortocracy” project and said, with a tinge of sadistic glee –  “then we wouldn’t need it” (The DNA Nations project). This is the STEM dream, to find an error or redundancy in a scheme and then eliminate it as redundant.

And I got this snark from hims in line with GW’s hyperbolic resentment of scholasticism:

“Augustinius, Manichius, Cartesius”

In fact, lets go right these examples.

“Augustinian” and “Manichean” are Clerk Maxwell’s “conceptual demons” – two different kinds of challenges that humans have to face and are well advised to distinguish.

Augustinian devils are natural challenges, they don’t change when resolved. It is a reasonable and obvious hypothesis that I offer that Europeans, especially northerners, are evolved more to deal with these challenges; this corresponds with scientific achievement and with social naivete – it means that people of this mindset are a bit prone to be dupes. I am not knocking this predilection, it is my own and ultimately, it is the important mindset as it is by successfully taking on Augustinian challenges that humans will survive or not.

Manichean Devils are man made devils; they can be tricksters and change the rules; say, if you’ve solved a problem they can “un-solve” it. It is a reasonable hypothesis that I offer that Middle Easterners are more evolved to deal in terms of this kind of devil, as they are evolved in circumstance where the challenge was more against other tribes than nature itself. This outlook of the Manichean Devil is evident in the Mossad’s motto, “wage war by deception,” and in the Muslim “taqiyya”, which is also an endemic means of deception.

Now. why the fuck would Bowery flout me as pompous, saying that I was coming to Majorityrights in pretentious scholasticism, talking in terms of “Manichius” or “Augustinius”?

Especially with his concerns for Northern “Euroman” and his individual scientific creativity, there should have been no aversion what so ever to these working hypotheses. I might have rather expected steel manning.

I would expect someone like Bowery, who claimed to be “lightyears more intelligent” than me, to do better in terms of seeing the value and working with me to integrate ideas like this and several more that I brought to bear… but instead was treated like a frivolous and pompous fool – ” Augustinius, Manichius   …and Cartesius”…

Yes, Bowery would lambast me in a Skype call, telling me to “stay far away from talking about Descartes. You are demoralizing our people!”…. he would add with a tone of utter disgust, that I should stop criticizing “Modernity” as a problem.

Now, what we’re seeing here is a STEM boomer reaction to the (((red caping))) of post modern concepts. Boomer, as in settled in that perspective, before Modernity “came into question” and assault by the (((red caped))) misrepresentation of “Post Modern” concepts – (((Post Modernity))) as opposed to White Post Modernity. 

He’s acting very defensively of science, as if I am attacking science when I discuss some of the mistakes of the “Empirical Philosophers.” I should be able to take it for granted that when I talk about problems with “the empirical philosophers” that I am talking about Locke, Berkeley and Hume, not criticizing empiricism per se (or even empirical philosophy).

But Bowery either was that sensitive to the potential disparagement of science and/or, like GW, but to a lesser extent, he was looking for a foil to polemicize against. I think in Bowery’s case, it’s more a science sensitivity.

It’s kind of like when I discussed the post modern concept of herremeneutics with Dr. MacDonald and he insisted that hermeneutics is anti-science (when I know that it is not, it is facilitative of science) because all he’s known is the (((red caping of heremeneutics))) as anti-science.

And again, when I talked of “scientism,” Bowery reacted as if I was criticizing science per se. Unlike GW, he was at least placated when I clarified (though it was to repeat, as I was never vague about this), that what is meant by “scientism” is bad science or bad application of science.

You don’t want to defend bad science, do you? He did not say anything but it was clear that he would say no, as he is a frequent critic of bad science.

Let me offer a graphic example of scientism, a very dangerous expression, at that:

It is not hard to to find other examples. The idea that human beings are animals who cannot be monogamous would be another example of scientism. There is no reason to extend examples and elaborate, the point should be clear. This is NOT about being against science, but against bad science, or bad application of science, i.e., scientism. Having made this distinction many times over the years, I still found GW responding to the word scientism as if he’d heard the word “science” and it being criticized, calling for him to rejoin, “well Europeans are a scientific people”… I face palm. Ok, maybe he was trying to invoke sympathy but… sheesh.

Ok, now lets turn to the biggie, the big bugbear for Bowery and Guessedworker: Cartesianism.

In philosophy, including for Guessedworkers fixated German god, Heidegger, Cartesianism is at the crux of Modernity against what would come to be known as the Post Modern, Hermeneutic turn.

From here on out, I might interchangeably refer to Guessedworker as “Asshole” because that’s what he is. Now, Asshole believes that he has removed Heidegger of this critique, having “told me” that Heidegger was not against Cartesianism altogether; in fact, recognized that this Cartesian provision could not always be avoided.

Since Asshole is “telling me this” (“you have been told”), let me tell him right back to his philosophically talentless self, that trying to abolish all utility in Cartesianism is not what philosophers are doing in its critique.

I have made this clear. He has been told. I/we are not going to try to tell microwave engineers to stop using Cartesian coordinates where they find them to work in their inquiries.

What Post Modern philosophy (proper) is doing, commencing with Vico’s critique of Descartes and with that critique picking up steam and resource through Heidegger, is to call our attention back from Cartesian estrangement and detachment from Praxis and instead re-center our world view in its relative social group interests and requirements for conduct (i.e., “phronesis”, the means of practical judgement, not pristine theory) – guiding us yes, in hermeneutic circulation as need be, from holding fast to our emergent qualities enough for guidance against misdirecting social rules to  providing coherence over and against the arbitrary thrownness of our existential circumstance.

This is not to take our hermeneutic liberation from mere facticity so far as to be estranged from our relative social interests in abstractions beyond praxis and authentic human concern – that would be Cartesian – nor getting caught up in the arbitrary flux of our thrown condition below praxis, in brute nature, where force and might is all meaningful as opposed to the human negotiation of praxis; caugth instead in the mere facticity below praxis, its confusingness to our authentic concerns, its contradictions, paradoxes, arbitrariness (we can in fact breed with any race, you can say “we are all Africans under the skin” ..stupidly), as again, that would be a Cartesian problem which may otherwise be ameliorated, liberated by the hermeneutic turn from mere facticity.

Whether in this corrective liberation from mere facticity and its tortuous arbitrariness or in corrective of principles which, if followed ad nauseum, would take us beyond nature to no care for this world, hermeneutics is a process of engaged inquiry which provides a distinctly human capacity to liberate us from this Cartesian estrangement, from non-human causality, to be liberated from mere facticity (beyond momentary and episodic facts and confusions as need be) by the White Post Modern, hermeneutic turn.

Now, it is important to emphasize that hermeneutic inquiry does not deny facts, ignore more objective and scientific inquiry as a part of its survey or reject its findings.

Again, these inquires into facts and truths irrespective of our subjective and relative interests are well placed as invaluable feedback against the calibration of our relative interests.

When we can grasp the non-Cartesian, partly storied, historical narrative, accept the limitations but see the opportunity in the tiny bit of arbitrariness to “the narrative” of our people, as delimited group, not run away to the Cartesian netherworld above or below Praxis, then we may be accountable, coherent, agentive and corrective – i.e., homeostatic of our group systems, establishing autonomy and warrant thereof, sovereignty in a word. We may have “authentic” human existence as a people and with it, the wide range of functional autonomy that our people enjoy as individuals.

This Post Modern, hermeneutic, anti-Cartesian, anti-Modern turn, is thus an extremely important turn for European peoples. No fucking Asshole Guessedworker with his piddling 143 I.Q. and no Bowery will dissuade this. It is too important. My I.Q. will be 200 for the occasion if need be (lol).

There are many examples of the significance of the heremeneutic process of inquiry, its capacity to resolve problems where the rigidity of Cartesianism might fail. But let me call attention to one example that became particularly illustrative between Bowery and I.

Bowery’s got this concept of “Sortocracy” and while its pretty good as a libertarian sourced ideas go, it’s limitation as compared to heremeneutic method is shown in an example that he provided.

I wrote about this in an article – A Hermeneuticist Confronts a Sortocracer With A Provocative Issue – and I’ve commented upon this as well. His concept of Sortocracy is a very empirically based idea, i.e. here and now testing: viz., people are encouraged to vote with their feet to sort and be with whom they like, where they like, in order to test the human ecology that they see fit. Here’s where it got provocative, interesting, my ears perked. He added in passing, that “this would have resolved the Polish corridor /Danzig question right away” rather than its being a precipitating dispute of WWII.

Knowing something of the history of the city, that it has been Germanic, it has been Polish (including in its hay day), it has been neutral, it has been German and was almost entirely German in population at the time preceding WWII, that Sortocracy may have sorted things out as Hitler wanted (but not quite, as it lacked the resistance that supplied the rhetoric of his reasonableness in the face of intransigence that his war mongering rhetoric deployed); but hermeneutic inquiry contained the possibility for a more just adjudication, which was attempted by noting that the city has been in important dispute for centuries between Poland and Germany. And a return to its neutrality might have been its optimal status. Perhaps not, but hermeneutics circulating process of inquiry can look at the history and take it into account to correct for a more just result, if possible, based on historical information; or it can circle back to the situation now and say, well, better make it German. The point is, that it opens up important vistas that a-historical empiricism does not. Similar historical inquiries would be raised in Czech and the Sudetenland under the Treaty of St. Germain.

Now, what the Cartesian anxiety does to Bowery, lacking in hermeneutic liberation from mere facticity as it were, is have him attempt to engage, at the apex of his inquiries, into different kooky ideas, whether its an absurd binary choice between pairwise duels or that we become eusocial creatures like insects… or that we must tear civilization down in order to save our natural selves [I’ve written about this too, “Civilization”, which Bowery sees as a major problem or “Modernity” which I see as a major problem] ..civilization is to be torn down in order to free the Euro man in his commune with god at the end of this Cartesian stretch, whereof he does not, you see, see that he should be curbing his objectivist inquiries; which, though yielding some great ideas along the way, need to be curbed and recognized as feedback to be gauged against the relative interests of our people, and corrected in their systemic virtue in that group systemic calibration – for what, really, does his individuality matter otherwise and where, otherwise, does it really come from. ..to whom is it really indebted?

But on the other hand, this is where I have sympathy for Bowery’s Cartesian anxiety, knowing it well for having been in the situation of America myself. To say the least, Praxis does not present itself as an appealing option. Rather, one is looking for an escape from “socialization” in this imposition of peoples from everywhere and anywhere, from the fall-out of (((weaponized))) Lockeatinism, where classifications are not mere impositions against individualism, but “racism” and cause to force people upon you who are utterly destructive to you. This is the rule of the land, just about everybody takes it for granted as the the American way (the hegemonic, American way)… you experience Cartesian anxiety, acutely, you look for the way out – in Bowery’s case, in terms of libertarianism to begin with and then perhaps to more speculative ideas, to where you’ll even give Doolittle a considered hearing.

GW and especially Graham Lister are not very sympathetic to the hell of Bowery’s circumstance. They take for granted what White Americans cannot in their situation absent the ancient coherent history of the people and their land at bottom; a couple hundred years history Americans have, with no collective identity to enforce it, only individual rights and not much for you, Whitey.

Now, while I am sympathetic to Bowery, I am not overly sympathetic.

I believe that his perspective is scientistic in its recoil from the White Post Modern Project. While it is possible for us to evolve in eusocial way and certain means of war, in particular, are a likely way to stimulate that direction of evolution, he is showing a lack of appreciation for the Aristotelian nature of Praxis. In the main, if we have our bearings in praxis, its correctivity, there is no clear an present danger to us turning into eusocial creatures very quickly; and if we see ourselves evolving in that way, we can take measures to correct it – i.e., if we are losing our individuality, masculinity, whatever, we can take measures to correct these trends.

Whereas Bowery has at times acted as if he was saving us from eusociality, he was, in fact, metastasizing Boomer cancer.

Big Brother, the boomer generation, is not watching, is not looking after your interests. He has disingenuously allowed the once more relevant fear of collectivism to be over-extended in his selfish interests at the expense of our group survival – not looking-after, but blocking “Little Brother,” viz., generation Xers corrective concern regarding atomization – the obvious vulnerability and destruction of our group, systemic survival and individuals thereupon.

And now these selfish pigs (not Bowery, but Boomers as a metastesized pattern) are aligning with right-wing Jewish interests – either naively or disingenuously – to bypass the ethnonational left corrective of gen-Xers, to instead mainline the parasite’s directives directly for an advanced stage take-over through generation internet bubble – instant experts, ‘knowing-it-all’ thanks to taking Big Brother’s (((directed vigilance))) against “The Left.” …the YKW don’t want the gentiles to get any grass-roots union organizing ideas now that they have hegemony in all elite niches; they just want right-wingers who disingenuously or naively comply with thwarting those nascent Left Ethnonationalist challenges to them (let alone any coalition building of ethnonationalisms against them).

Little Brother’s Concerns are Not being looked-after.

… that is to say, necessary philosophical corrections of the Gen-Xers are not.

“The attempt to sideline positions such as this as on one side or the other of the “individual vs collective” divide is, itself, a most egregious Cartesian attack.”

The Hermeneuticist doesn’t side track issues by balancing concern for the individual and collective (for example). But rather, in circulating corrective of Cartesian runaway – in this case of the boomer generations’ emphasis, now anachronistic over emphasis on the fear of collectivism’s dehumanizing dangers – it instead recognizes that the emphasis for our people now has to be more directed toward correcting our atomization as a people resulting from the rupture of ethnonationalist unionization (through weaponized modernity, for example: unionization being an “unnatural”, socially collectivizing concept as Asshole might see the red capes of praxis; whereas nationalism should emerge as naturally as his zen farts); we need to assert the warrant of our people’s unionization and accountability thereof; without which the very grounds even of what distinct individualism that the European species affords  is destroyed.

All American highschoolers of the 50s and 60s were assigned (((Kafka’s))) book Metamorphosis, a sci-fi nightmare allegory culmination in eusocial take-over of its subject’s once human body.

They were also assigned Orwell’s 1984 story of the negative utopian horrors of collectivism, to where social accountability, that is to say, accounts requested, had been taken beyond all reason (producing insanity like that of the Stasi, Merkel and much of the PC enforcement of today).

A clip of a parasitic worm that Bowery likes to show, but his generation, its Boomer naivete and reactivity, chasing after red capes, has been complicit.

It is apparent now, that the parasite is encouraging WN in right-wing reaction against the so called left (against the hyperbolic exaggerations of their international, Marxist left and Cultural Marxist, anti-White Left as disingenuously lumped with proper White and non-Jewish left ethnonationalism); into right wing reactions that double down in the reaction against YKW abuse of left conceptualization of the social and group; a reaction encouraged, where not prescribed by them as the parasite merges with the host Whites to drive them over the top and into to ultimate dissolution of those aspects which will not be totally merged and controlled by its Jewish agenda for thorough supremacy over the “gentiles.”

Grade school kids of the Boomer generation were sometimes drilled to scurry beneath their school desks to shelter themselves from atomic attack from The Soviet Union.

Advertisement for "The Be-in' in Golden Gate Park, San Francisco, January, 1967.

I guess its not very important, maybe a standard kind of intellectual hazing ..and maybe he would be annoyed for having had ideas similarly that others were claiming as theirs uniquely, but Bowery would gaslight at times; for example, showing me the wiki page on the “Human Be-in” and acting like he was informing me about the connection between a Heideggerism and the underlying, unarticulated Hippie motive.

For more examples of this older bro hazing, which may be a little obnoxious, not very good, but also not necessarily egregious… testing to see if you are not too intellectually sensitive…

Declaring the "supremacy of Mulattoes"... and then getting slaughtered by blacks proper.

I would say Bowery’s criticism of the Mulatto Supremacist article, one of the first that I put up at MR, was somewhat valid, but I was mainly trying to get the term out there as a pejorative. The Haitian uprising against the French colonialists presented itself as subject matter, but ran counter to Mulatto Supremacism as a threat, since the blacks proper destroyed the Mulatto claim to supremacy; true enough, the Boxer, Jack Johnson, was black proper and therefore somewhat problematic to its coherence as subject of the piece, only tangentially and potentially propagating Mulatto Supremacism by way of any offspring that he might have. That wasn’t quite Bowery’s concern, as he criticized my “analysis” for looking at a boxer; and that criticism is valid except that women are not always attracted to feats of I.Q., but can, reasonably, be a bit more ecologically balanced in their interests, including for aspects of biopower, as in the case of Jack Johnson’s wife exactly, who left an intellectually accomplished White husband for Johnson.

Black biopower can be quite an intellectual challenge to take on, not only a physical challenge, that’s why I looked to take it on… I also wanted to take on an example illustrating how black biopower could be a challenge prior to the time of quite such Jewish hegemony…e.g., there was no Cultural Marxism in Johnson’s hay day.

Big Mulatto Bro is watching: foil HER Mulatto supremacist dream.

Bowery said that women don’t like, in fact, “nobody likes” (I don’t know how he knows everybody but..), nobody likes my take on Sex, in my articles, Sex as Sacrament, Sex as Celebration, Sex as Natural Fact and other Stories, but I am saying that there are different views upon it, so which one does he not like? or do they not like?

And when I discussed Lakoff’s (Women, Fire and Other Dangerous Things) concept of human’s having to classify (Lakoff said categorize, but to classify is the same thing), Bowery said that he was thinking of this back in the day, suggesting therefore again, my redundance, that I was not contributing anything new (modern), therefore nothing important…. or saying that I am “sloppy” as I don’t treat Praxis in a STEM manner, like a car engine, as GW might…. or suggesting that I am a wuss (in hidebound stereotype of masculinity, playing into the modernist notion of universal maturity – he once presented me this image and said, “see that, that’s you”:

Bowery said to me, "see this picture? That's you." lol

So he is a bit stricken by Cartesian anxiety. That is where you get the nutty shit, understandable in its cause though it may be, in the midst Jewish rhetoric and sophistry of praxis, amidst the imposition of throngs of people unaccountable, people you want nothing to do with imposed upon you by the (((weaponized))) modernist notion of “civil rights” … imposing people upon you that you need to get away from. Getting social and getting together with people? That’s the last thing you’d want – if you are taking a mere empirical perspective, without the White Post Modern concept of hermeneutic transcendence and social constructionist engagement, responsibility.

Especially when someone is claiming to be light years more intelligent than I am, I don’t expect to have to argue this much, let along argue against intransigence.

I posted an article “James Watson does not exist” (said sarcastically, of course) in order to illustrate how easily his concerns fit with the White Post Modern view, when he was miffed at Watson’s travails in the PC (((red capes of Post Modernity))).

Through the times at Majorityrights, Bowery didn’t have much to say about social constructionism other than castigating a commentator troll who was using it in the red cape way.

But he seems to be stuck on the anachronistic social constructivism and thought that he was going to correct me by citing  von Glassersfeld as such: von Glassersfeld – people go around perturbing one another, lol.

Social constructivism, however, looks at the products of socialconstruction not the process itself, and it is this interactive process of social constructionism, of its nature in praxis, which apparently neither Bowery’s nor GW’s boomerism has come to terms…..despite its advantages, despite its reality!

Bowery has made individualism – the sovereign euro man – into a veritable religion and has said on at least one occasion that he would go to another people if they were the more likely vehicle to protect individualism. 

In a way, he is at the extreme opposite from GW’s concern. Whereas Bowery is averse to the social interactive perspective because in America all kinds are thronged and forced upon you – which might just make you want to extricate yourself from other people to the extreme as in Bowery’s case; GW is averse to social interactive possibilities because he wants to hold his people together, their taking for granted a social bond and historical homeland; he wants  for them not to be swept up in language games which may liberalize them from their emergent form.

In Cartesian anxiety Bowery goes speculative, off the deep end into pair wise duels, nutty speculation of pure relation to god, realms of shield maidens, sovereign male White knight protectors…Someone said something about “Dungeons and Dragons”… how they were glad that they didn’t get wrapped up in it in their youth..

Now, in segue, I will save for the Guessedworker section the few remarks that I have in defense of using ideas from Vico and Harre; but I have strong reason to believe Bowery was supporting GW in his dismissal of Harre and Vico. This is to really misunderstand how I am using their work and to take issue only as they might.

Addendum regarding an avenue attempted by Bowery in Nordicist Boomer Cartesian Anxiety

Nearly ten years ago at Majorityrights, I  had been making posts deploying Vico and Heidegger’s neo-Aristotelian, existentialist repositioning  of Praxis (our people group classification) as the central world view. I was trolled relentlessly and with utter stupidity by a Christard named Joe, whose main offense was the sheer number and volume of his irrelevant Christian conspiritard posts, gunking up the threads. For whatever stupid reason, Bowery was taking the disposition that it was not supposed to bother me when it was if I was trying to carefully conduct the playing of classical orchestra while Joe was constantly disrupting the sound with loud, obnoxious noise. It was pretty clear that Bowery simply did not have a great deal of respect for what I was saying (or for me to be able to say it) if he simply expected me to accept Joe’s obnoxious disruption.

Then on 14 March 2013, Bowery displayed what I maintain to be a folly of his Nordicist boomer Cartesian anxiety. That is, he made a post arguing how John Harland shows Christianity to have been retooled through Northern European auspices to protect their natural individuality   …and thus supposedly remains worthy as a religion for European people – nordicist snobs, anyway.

Suffice it to say I recognize this expression of Cartesian anxiety, seeking foundation beyond the correctivity of praxis in Jesus or whatever pure principle of individuality, let alone biblical text – ugh! to be part and parcel of the problem for the homeostasis of European genus and species.

In commenting on his post, I made some important points and then the Christard Joe came in with a deluge of bizarre conspiracy theories, comment after comment. Now, one will take note that the Christard/J-friendly misdirection agents, Thorn and Haller, welcomed this absurd commentary from Joe. 

Going back some, as Majorityrights is a fee speech forum, I actually defended Joe as a commenter at first, stating that he presented ideas that others could clarify their disagreements by way of but that was before the deluge of utter absurdity from him.

And there was no real good reason for Bowery to continue to defend Joe; it was a reflection of a bad aspect of James in that for his high I.Q., he wants ‘yes’ men, not respecting the opinion of someone like myself who might say ‘no’ to some of his ideas and thus willing to see commentary obfuscated by the likes of an idiot like Joe.

Why do I say this? First there was Joe’s (along Thorn’s and Haller’s Christard distracting bullshit) interminable trolling attacks in commentary on my posts, which Bowery thought that I should just put up with. And then, after I made some thoughtful comments on Bowery’s post proposing the utility of Harland in redemption of Christianity and Joe came back with a deluge of conspiratorial bullocks, comment after comment, I made  a few wry remarks, Bowery blamed me for encouraging him; but on the contrary, it was Bowery’s explicit tolerance of him that encouraged him. But what was even more insulting was misrepresenting my assessment of Joe as an expression, analogously speaking, of a “virus”, i.e., the Christard virus, and construing it as if I was somehow concerned that his ideas might go “viral” in the idiom of “become popular” misunderstanding rather than being what they were, overbearingly obnoxious distraction.

I will post the relevant comments from that post here, with the only caveat with regard to my position being that I may come across as an atheist in my rebuttal of Joe in some comments where I quote Nietzsche and “Zeitgeist” with George Carlin, but actually, I do believe that Europeans can and should have a new religion which serves our genus and species.

I will start off with the last comment first, made by myself just today. I could see in scrolling through this thread, “Christianity as expression of authentic European culture,” that I was talking of Christianity as “controlled opposition” in April of 2013 (lest anyone think Adam Green is the unique and stellar purveyor of this idea.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 05 Jan 2022 13:06 | #

P.S., Note my use of the term “controlled opposition” for Christianity in this comment of 15 April 2013. That is not, of course, to say that others could not or did not make the same inference, only to assert that I (and probably others) were talking that way long before Adam Green (who said that he traced the idea to some book he’d read; maybe so).

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 15 Apr 2013 13:48 | #

The motive of the shit eating Jew fly calling itself “Joe” is to come here with its flurry of derailing and trivializing conspiracy theories that nettle and attack tender morsels until it can finally lay its Jewish eggs, the controlled opposition of Christianity, into a wound.

There is no true Christianity, it is all a Jewish hoax.

http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/mr_interview_of_kenneth_humphreys_by_james_bowery_concerning_the_syncretic

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 05 Jan 2022 12:57 | #

Bowery was not representing my opinion here in suggesting that I was worried that Joe’s views would go “viral” .. in fact, very insulting to suggest that I would have such concern.  I was rather bothered, and rightfully so, that he was obstructing and disrupting valuable informational traffic with his bullshit. His vast and relentless trolling was degrading the threads and distracting from careful thought.

As one looks back, one can see that I exercised patience and did NOT encourage him. Further, there was no reason what so ever to grant his comments space for people to “contemplate” here, including idiots like Thorn and Haller; who you see, what a “surprise”, welcomed him here.

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 19 Apr 2013 15:24 | #

I don’t exactly agree, DaneilS. I do think that you’re encouraging him by continuing to respond to him.  Anyone who reads what he writes with any degree of perception will see that he is not engaging in intellectually honest discourse.  Others might be “infected” by his “viral” memes (the sense in which I think you mean his posts are “viral”) and go off and start transmitting the same viral memes to others.  However, keep in mind that his perspective on Christianity is rather unique which tends to mitigate against that risk on the face of it.

Have fun with Thorn, your resident retard, Christard.

Christianity As Expression of Authentic European Culture

Posted by James Bowery on Thursday, 14 March 2013 01:37.

GW has expressed the constraint:

“It is a pity that Christianity, as flawed as it is from a European racial perspective, is undeniably part of the unity of north and south.  We are stuck with it, for it has been too close for too long to us – and the faithful must have their faith expressions, after all.”

DanielS has expressed the constraint:

“Adding yet another knot in the tangle is the argument that with the Christian texts already being the terms in which many of our people think, the currency for two thousand years now, there must be some ontological basis beneath, and we may as well find the positive logic to it for our purposes. However, with the texts being what they are, the motivations of the texts being as convoluted, Jewish and ambiguous as they were to begin, all that winds-up happening with the deciphering of our “true” logic behind Christianity is a contribution to the mess.”

Note first of all, that Bowery is going to share Guessedworker’s snobbish concern for Nordics and relative disregard for Southern Europeans when it is an unnecessary false either/or, throwing southerners under the bus where all Europeans can be taken care of in their peculiarities by national boundaries, where the differences of our species are the concern (e.g., protecting the individuality of northern types). Nevertheless, in his Nordic penchant to quest after pure objectivism, Bowery wants to show how Harland can use Christianity to protect the individuality of the nordicists – just what we need, right? more of that bullshit.

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 06:06 | #

I think it is already clear enough that I am inclined to this option:

“or declare folly the entire effort to connect with the spiritual force of Christianity.”


Except that I would not necessarily reject spiritual force. I just don’t believe that it has to, or does necessarily, come with Christianity.


I favor a religious orientation around the 14 words, one to which any person of European extraction may subscribe – innocent until proven guilty.

However, as ecology and historico-systemic accountability are crucial, there is the necessity to negotiate and maintain a balance among and between different kinds of Europeans.

We need to be careful to be neither slobs nor snobs:

The slobs would be those who would recklessly integrate all European peoples on the one hand or perhaps allow for too much non-European influence on the other hand.

The snobs would be those who observe a particular European snob club, permitting of only one particular kind of European, one nation, one region, or one based exclusively on some particular skill; while needlessly excluding and putting at risk Europeans* who, while being loyal Europeans, cannot or will not subscribe to that particular European club.

* Of course, the snobs would be putting themselves at risk in certain circumstances by needlessly shunning potentially helpful allies; or in the worst case scenario by generating new enemies among Europeans.

To me, the most essential requirement, after being genetically European and after loyalty to Europeans is, whether one is willing to fight or flight on behalf of Europeans. I see maintaining the distinctions of Europeans as 1b. It is not the second priority but in the name of not going perilously far in the snob direction, to where we leave ourselves dangerously thin of allies or worse, increase our antagonists, the genus of European ought to occupy the realm of friends.


Perhaps Heidegger’s distinction between first and essential is useful here: Of accountability, first would be your particular nation but essentially would be European.

Or first European and essentially your particular kind of European? …I’m not sure, but somehow there should not be a serious conflict between the parts and the whole of Europeans

2

 Posted by DanielS on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:58 | #

…….
Not only is Christianity not authentically European, by taking it for grated that it is authentically European KMac gives what is (in my opinion) the mistaken advice that it is somehow radically rebellious to resurrect and defend Christianity against Jewish attacks. It is not radical and rebellious. To adopt Christianity is to play right into Jewish hands, their manipulated contrivance.


http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2013/03/lawrence-auster-on-the-role-of-jews-in-disestablishing-white-christian-america/#more-18223


This seems to be an ongoing problem with those confronting the J.Q. They seem to feel doing just the opposite of what the Jews would want for their own interests is necessarily what is good and authentic for us, for our interests.

But that is mere reaction. Moreover, as I have said in many instances, that with the Jews acting in group interests, to merely do the opposite would be to act in a way opposing group interests, most saliently, not in our own group interests simply because we do not want to be like Jews.

Hence: Christianity, Darwinism, Inequality, Individualism, Anti-social constructionism, Nazism, pure theoria of science as opposed to the rhetoric of praxis, ruthlessness as opposed to compassion….

all these things and more are reacted into as necessarily good because they are the didactic opposite of the Jews exaggerated self interest.

3

 Posted by DanielS on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:18 | #

.
* A further note on the snobs. It is not wrong for them to exclude others from their particular club. The problem comes to the extent to which they effectively exclude Europeans from the genus, European, and unnecessarily put them at risk to non-Europeans as such.


Nevertheless, it is true that there should be some purist snob clubs to protect fairly pure genotypes or whatever other valuable difference may exist.

4

 Posted by DanielS on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:44 | #

…objective measures, impartiality…. oh, Blacks are suffering from immigration too (like we should give an F)

 Posted by DanielS on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 20:12 | #

1) What to do with the authentic European spirit that finds expression in Christianity—however distorted?

As many people will continue to be engaged in the Christian narrative, I suppose it is a question of some relevance; however as I see it, there is too much chance of reconstructing the tangles of Judeo-Christianity, and that will be seen as an unnecessary price by the majority of us, who do not find Christianity compelling whatsoever.

Some of us would rather churches be transformed into swimming pools or general discussion halls if not churches of the 14 Words

2) What is authentic European culture?

To begin with, it is rule structures which reconstruct European people by entailing things they are legitimated to do, are prohibited from doing, or are obliged to do.

Europeans have a variety of ways of doing things and their particularization of these rules differ.

You place heavy emphasis on a region of European people, on individualism, duels, a special reading of Christianity. Fine, I suppose that can be one expression of European, but it certainly does not encompass all of what it means to be European.

One thing that does represent a common bound of European is our DNA groupings and our evolution on the continent. There is more, but that is a significant basis which does not allow for that much weasel room, because there is a clear difference from Jewish peoples.


Farther elaborating on European rule structure:

It sets limits and protections on the the systemic pattern of the people at the point where it is being transgressed. Hence, it is culture (artificial selection as you observe), the cultivated turn of culture, in that it recognizes that the European people’s system is an open system; thus its well being and persistence is not entirely self corrective, not entirely homeostatic, but must be cultivated, through rules: obligation, prohibition and legitimacy which protect and afford the living and re-birthing of the people in a variety of benign, enjoyable and (to them) helpful ways.

Regarding the 14 Words, I did not say that it covered all the bases. First things first. However, if it is based in the Euro DNA Nation and its categories, which I propose, it is not adoptable by some other people. Rudimentary though it is, it forms (for me, anyway) a more positive core value than Christianity has to offer: an individual rebels against Jewish collectivism and exploitation? That strikes me as negative, reactive and inherently unstable.

I have the impression that you are too concerned that individualism will be consumed by collective enterprise. First of all, I don’t see why anybody would want to deny individual sufficiency to the extent that it can realistically exist; next, I see it as a part of evolution: population, struggle, variation, selection, survival. The variation part will foster individualism and the reconstruction of individualism where it may have been dulled for a time – viz. it can be reborn from our genetic basis where it may have been a bit dulled (say, by a necessary collective effort for survival).


9

 Posted by DanielS on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 20:30 | #

Hymie, the genetic map of Europe that I provisionally use shows that Europeans are identifiable and distinguished genetically.

There is some overlap with Iranians, yes, but they are still quite different from Europeans

The part that is similar is the fairly large percentage of R1a that they have. They even have some R1b.


Iran

R1a 16.5% 

R1b 6.5%


But Europeans invariably have more of the R haplogroups in sum total; in addition to sporadic Nordic, Dinaric, pre Celto Germanic among their distinctly European groupings.

Joe’s first post comes here: Joe on Fri, 15 Mar 2013

and then here reels-off three more long comments.

 Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 15 Mar 2013 22:11 | #

Joe, you obviously didn’t bother reading the link I provided or you would know that to conflate 20th century US with 18th century US as you did in your response indicates such intellectual slop as virtually eliminate any residual interest your unusual viewpoint might hold.

Amidst 97 protracted comments by Joe,  from March 13 to April 8 Thorn and Haller show their hand with these tidbits: 

 Posted by Thorn on Sun, 17 Mar 2013 15:10 | #

Informative discussion over at The White Network on the topic of Lawrence Auster, the rise of Jewish hegemony, and the resulting white dispossession thereof.

http://thewhitenetwork.com/2013/03/16/macdonald-and-tanstaafl-on-auster-and-jewish-influence/

Notwithstanding Lawrence Auster’s first and foremost underlying motivation: “Is it good for the jews”, I think on balance he and his body of work is a positive for the pro-white preservationist cause.

Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 20 Mar 2013 11:40 | #

Joe,

So you’re another Californian Catholic white patriot, eh? I thought I was alone in upholding that particular ‘slant’ here at MR. Welcome aboard!

……

Now, from March 13 to April 8, Joe made 97 protracted comments, welcomed by Thorn and Haller; and his only prime interlocutor was Bowery, who gave eleven responses to Joe during that time. Who was encouraging him? Certainly not I.

 

Finally, after all of Joe’s crazy shit about me and others being “Daseinists” and other insane bullshit, he posts this and I respond (hardly feeding the troll).

 Posted by Joe on Mon, 08 Apr 2013 20:59 | #

About Jesus ;

Jesus was NOT a Jew ;

Article : ” Jesus Was NOT a Jew” :

http://assemblyoftrueisrael.com/JesuswasNotAJew.htm

Search Term will access more information : 

        ” Jesus Was NOT A Jew”

116

 Posted by DanielS on Mon, 08 Apr 2013 21:05 | #

Nobody gives a shit, asshole

After a deluge more of Joe’s commetns, I added this:

 Posted by DanielS on Mon, 15 Apr 2013 13:48 | #

The motive of the shit eating Jew fly calling itself “Joe” is to come here with its flurry of derailing and trivializing conspiracy theories that nettle and attack tender morsels until it can finally lay its Jewish eggs, the controlled opposition of Christianity, into a wound.

There is no true Christianity, it is all a Jewish hoax.

http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/mr_interview_of_kenneth_humphreys_by_james_bowery_concerning_the_syncretic

And I added this great comment by J.B. Campbell:

 Posted by DanielS on Mon, 15 Apr 2013 20:41 | #

“The problem is Christianity, which is Judaism for gentiles. Christians cannot deal with Jews because they believe that Jews are god’s chosen people.”

“I think it is the problem, the basic problem we have yeah.”


“To become a Christian is to deny yourself the right of survival… It assures the Jew that the enemy will not fight back.”

“Yeah, those whom the Jews destroy they first make Christian.”


“The purpose of this essay is to prepare the reader for a life of struggle against Jewish rule in this country.”


“It is so simple to see what I’m talking about looking at Russia after 1917. What happened to all the Christians in Russia, I don’t even know how many millions. There are wild numbers, at least twenty million Christians were slaughtered by the Jewish Bolsheviks and maybe more than that.”



“To become a Christian is to deny yourself your right of survival in the deadliest struggle on earth. Those whom the Jews destroy they first make Christian, because it assures the Jew that the enemy will not fight back.”

– J.B. Campell

Then I added a few remakrs from Nietzsche, and “Zeitgeist” featuring George Carlin, and that may have made it seem like I am an atheist, which I am not (I favor a new religion for European peoples, genus and species).

Joe made several other comments and I made a few other appeals to drive Joe away; naturally, Thorn came to Joe’s defense, saying his typically retarded things like I  “abhor  successful people” ? and that’s why I don’t like Joe and Christianity, lol.

More deluge from Joe.

I respond:

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 17 Apr 2013 04:17 | #

The authentic religion of Europe will be based on the 14 words or tantamount – as such it will clear away Joe’s false religion of Christianity:

Joe is a an evil virus that will do anything in its power to bury the truth on behalf of its religion that would have you worshiping a Jew in preparation to its universal subjugation and eternal death.

Joe goes on and on, while I troll him a bit until the 19the April when Bowery says this:

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 19 Apr 2013 13:37 | #

Daniel, this is the second time you’ve addressed me in an inappropriate manner about this Joe character.  The first was in a your part 3 where you basically stated that Joe would not be doing what he is doing here at MR if it were not for my encouraging him to do so.

[…]

You will notice, if you are careful, that my “encouragement” of Joe was that he should put his ideas together in a single coherent (yes I know you’ll say this is impossible) post where he can argue with folks who want to argue with him. Clearly I do not as I have not responded to him subsequent to my “encouragement” to write such a main post; which the reasonable man might see as different from encouraging him to spam every main post in MR and may even have been a more effective tactic to get him to stop spamming every main post at MR than continuing to pay attention to him as you have.

 Posted by DanielS on Fri, 19 Apr 2013 13:57 | #

I don’t exactly agree, Jim. I do think that your encouraging him at one time had something (not everything, by any means) to do with his feeling free to attack my posts and spam the threads.

As for the Boston thread, he was bringing a lot of kooky conspiracy theory there too, so I parodied your statement – Why would anyone commit utterly pointless seemingly random acts of terror, evincing pure nihilism, against benign events like ….Dasein? – to take a jab at him, not at you.

Do you see? I was not addressing you (in a manner appropriate or otherwise), l was addressing him.

Nevertheless, I will leave the matter unless it becomes acutely relevant.

….

I then attempted to be more kind than I should have with James effort to redeem Christianity, saying this:

 Posted by DanielS on Fri, 19 Apr 2013 14:20 | #

………..
As to your PS, I can understand your frustration at central points of your post not being addressed in commentary. I can’t think of one post of mine where that has not been the case.

If you want to rewrite Christianity by way of Harland, it sounds like it could be a worthy narrative for the way of life that you and others value most.

It is more the drawbacks of getting confused and intertwined with other interpretations of Christianity that would keep me away from Christianity altogether and start anew with religious fundamentals. I think Christianity is too much a corollary to the received texts; and that they are poison.

I have no doubt, however, that there will be people who like your rendering of Christianity and your making use of those Harland aspects that have served well for northern European peoples.


P.S. I do think that I accidentally addressed Bill a bit too harshly (at the end of the incommensurability post), but I did not mean to: my rancor was really aimed at Auster. I left in an accidental pronoun “you” that would imply Bill, when I meant Auster.

At this point, Jamesmakes the sarcastic and innacurate comment that I was the one who was encouraging Joe:

 Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 19 Apr 2013 15:24 | #

I don’t exactly agree, DaneilS. I do think that you’re encouraging him by continuing to respond to him.  Anyone who reads what he writes with any degree of perception will see that he is not engaging in intellectually honest discourse.  Others might be “infected” by his “viral” memes (the sense in which I think you mean his posts are “viral”) and go off and start transmitting the same viral memes to others.  However, keep in mind that his perspective on Christianity is rather unique which tends to mitigate against that risk on the face of it.

And again most insulting of all, James is suggesting that I am worried that Joe’s ideas will “go viral” as opposed to my seeing him as an expression of the Judeo Christian virus and and a boring distraction as such.

But I didn’t say that at the time, left it the matter there in April of 2013. 

However, seeing some activity on the thread now, I want to update my comments with the clarity that while I am not of an Abrahamic religion, I consider myself as having religious convictions with regard to my European people, genus and species.

Furthermore, I note my calling Christianity false opposition in that thread.

 

 Posted by DanielS on Wed, 05 Jan 2022 12:57 | #

Bowery was not representing my opinion here in suggesting that I was worried that Joe’s views would go “viral” .. in fact, very insulting to suggest that I would have such concern.  I was rather bothered, and rightfully so, that he was obstructing and disrupting valuable informational traffic with his bullshit. His vast and relentless trolling was degrading the threads and distracting from careful thought.

As one looks back, one can see that I exercised patience and did NOT encourage him. Further, there was no reason what so ever to grant his comments space for people to “contemplate” here, including idiots like Thorn and Haller; who you see, what a “surprise”, welcomed him here.

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 19 Apr 2013 15:24 | #

I don’t exactly agree, DaneilS. I do think that you’re encouraging him by continuing to respond to him.  Anyone who reads what he writes with any degree of perception will see that he is not engaging in intellectually honest discourse.  Others might be “infected” by his “viral” memes (the sense in which I think you mean his posts are “viral”) and go off and start transmitting the same viral memes to others.  However, keep in mind that his perspective on Christianity is rather unique which tends to mitigate against that risk on the face of it.

Have fun with Thorn, your resident retard, Christard.

 Posted by DanielS on Wed, 05 Jan 2022 13:06 | #

P.S., Note my use of the term “controlled opposition” for Christianity in this comment of 15 April 2013. That is not, of course, to say that others could not or did not make the same inference, only to assert that I (and probably others) were talking that way long before Adam Green (who said that he traced the idea to some book he’d read; maybe so).

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 15 Apr 2013 13:48 | #

The motive of the shit eating Jew fly calling itself “Joe” is to come here with its flurry of derailing and trivializing conspiracy theories that nettle and attack tender morsels until it can finally lay its Jewish eggs, the controlled opposition of Christianity, into a wound.

There is no true Christianity, it is all a Jewish hoax.

http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/mr_interview_of_kenneth_humphreys_by_james_bowery_concerning_the_syncretic

 

 

Continue Reading Generational Astrology: Zodiac Sign of the Boomer, Part 11

Generational Astrology: Zodiac Sign of the Boomer, Part 10

  • Post author:
  • Post category:Central

Captainchaos said:

“Computer geeks make for shitty political philosophers.”

Graham Lister replied:

“Very true – narrow technical intelligence doesn’t often translate very well into the much broader field of political thought. Well done CC! There’s hope for you yet!”

Tanstaafll is not the first STEM case directly obstructing the path of Xer-Correctivity that I endeavored to articulate.

In late 2012, I moved from The Voice of Reason Broadcasting Network to Majorityrights, taking them up on an offer to publish, thinking that I’d have more appreciation of the White Post Modern perspective that I was cultivating.

The site appealed to me greatly not only for its audacity to breach political correctness, but because its commentariat and its posters were quite intelligent, particularly James Bowery.

What I had not yet quite articulated for myself, but could nevertheless clearly sense, was that the site’s proprietors, featured writers and commentariat, were coming from a STEM perspective and that was fine and good, but could use the complement of the conceptual tools of the humanities perspective that I was crafting for White Ethnonationalist interests in order to round out their perspective. My will in this regard was and is good, and I know what I am talking about, so I fully expected these intelligent people to appreciate my contributions and work with me to integrate them with contributions from their perspective.

That’s not what happened.

Hence the cause for this thread, Generational Astrology: Zodiac Sign of the Boomer.

James Bowery would prove particularly illustrative in regard to this resistance and obstruction to the Xer White Post Modern corrective.

James is very much a Boomer and STEMMer. A genius computer technologist, he participated in ground-breaking efforts of computer and internet technology in stages as early as the early 80s.

James himself was keenly aware that Boomers could be problematic, observing the advantage and irresponsibility of the early Boomers to somewhat later Boomers such as himself, born in 1954. The earlier ones having bought up real estate cheap, subjected the later born to rent, thereby obstructing their family formation prospects.

As producer for The Voice of Reason Radio Network, I recognized Bowery’s prodigious talent, and its utility, with his concern having turned to social issues of necessity as it would for anyone who cares about White people. I bumped myself from an interview that Robert Stark wanted to do of me, prioritizing an an invitation to James for an interview, and hopefully participation at VoR; that participation didn’t materialize because the Voice of Reason would be allowed to go down with the Tanstaafl/ Carolyn Yeager abandonment.

I was trying to bring him to VoR noting that he was unhappy with Majorityrights, with him having said that he was insulted by its proprietor, Guessedworker (GW), for GW’s lack of appreciation for his efforts (foreshadowing my own experience of GW’s troubling personality). With the situation materializing in reverse, i.e., with myself migrating to Majorityrights, I expected my obvious good will to him and the ethnonationalist cause, along with my contributions as such, to meet with reasonable support from intelligent people like him and the others there, apparently with the same basic concerns as myself.

Thus, I was surprised and disappointed to find Bowery to be one among an entire culture hostile to me there; with him treating me like a pompous and pretentious academic ass – e.g., chiding me by imputing a Latin form of terms that I was using, “Cartesius”, “Augustinius”, “Manichius”…

But in fact, to begin with, these terms designate conceptual tools that are very important for our people to understand to sort matters out, they do not represent an effort to show off, to decorate superficial knowledge or unnecessarily obfuscate “poor logic with jargon” as Tanstaafl would say.

I explicated these terms as they are of highly relevant, general concern to our people, therefore I was totally surprised to find Bowery accusing me of using them as “insult terms” … shut up terms, almost like a liberal wanting to dismiss someone by calling them a “racist.” 

In a Skype call with me, Bowery would tell me with exasperation to stop making “Modernity” an object of critique; even more emphatically, he would attempt to prohibit me from talking about and criticizing Cartesianism – “stay far away from it! You are demoralizing our people!”

Although I had in no way, shape or form intended these terms and concepts to be personal criticisms, let alone “insult terms” (in fact, I expected them to be appreciated and integrated, as I said), I would come to see why Bowery (and GW) would react in this way, as I would find that they would rather apply as criticisms of their positions.

Though Bowery isn’t the sick fuck that Guessedworker is, stricken with a classic case of narcissistic personality disorder that flares up in interface with anyone who has the nerve to have a good idea that somehow threatens his aggrieved Modernist, Boomer worldview, with his autobiography as THE hero who will foundationally resolve the theoretical divide between Modernity and “ethnic” (has to be different) nationalism – to be resolved virtually by himself, sweeping aside all history of thought except maybe half Heidegger and GW in his armchair, not just the smartest person alive, but the smartest person EVER – literally: “Aristotle simply is not relevant”, William James? One sentence read, nothing more to see – EVERYONE else is redundant and trivial), Bowery, consummate STEM Boomer that he is, overconfident in his Modernist world view as he is, with his STEM skill highly valued, yet insufficiently appreciative of the good fortune his generational position still provided, even though not the earliest Boomer, rather than appreciating the deciphering of red capes of Post Modernity to engage with me in proper application of these ideas, instead joined GW in polemic against me, in false either/oring, unnecessarily treating the conceptual tools and resource that I brought to bear as passively received and repeated, egregious Jewish wholesale, if not shallow nonsense, mutually exclusive to their efforts (a trick at the heart of GW’s gargantuan ego trip) to continue in metastasization  of their Boomer cancer by using his formidable intelligence to continue to “rationalize” and apply patches to the anachronisms, vulnerabilities and failures in Modernist philosophy.

And while Bowery’s ego is large and pointed enough (last time we talked in person, he said that he could feel himself losing IQ points in the very act of talking to me), he offers more in novel insight and utility than does GW along the way of their quest to resolve their Cartesian anxiety.

So before I address the comparatively minor gaslighting/strawmanning of Bowery, let alone the ordeal with Guessedworker, I must discuss in more detail what ideas attracted me to Guessedworker’s Majorityrights in the first place – it was through my interest firstly in yet this other Boomer colleague of his, one also wielding STEM predilection, that being James Bowery. And just as it is incumbent upon me to note Bowery’s outstanding contributions to our ethnonational cause, which drew my interest in connecting with Guessedworker’s Majorityrights in the first place, it will also be incumbent upon me to discuss the excellent contributions of Guessedworker, which drew my efforts to connect with his work as well. That I will do, but first to discuss the dealings that I had with Bowery and his STEM Boomer channeling of concerns.

Regarding James Bowery’s positive contributions, a few of them are very significant:

Bowery’s most significant contribution, and this is huge, is the idea that anyone, any people, who would prohibit FREEDOM FROM association are imposing involuntary contract and as such, they are tantamount to supremacists and would-be slave masters. In the act of attempting to block the subject’s agency, they void their authority as a human agent, and may rather be treated as the force of nature they are conducting themselves as; and as such, defended with all the force and destruction necessary to stop them from this imposition.

Although I said that I would be listing his positive contributions first, I will digress for one criticism here in order to make a significant point. It is a great contribution of Post Modern thought proper, lets call it White Post Modernity, to underscore the fact that an idea does not have to be new in order to be good and important. When I mentioned that to Bowery, he recoiled in disgust, but should not have; and this provides an excellent example of this being an important relief: It does not even matter if this idea is original to Bowery, he articulated it beautifully and its responsible for bringing it, contributing its profound resource to the table.

In additional example of this application, regarding whom we choose to associative with or not, as we see fit, it  says to women of our kind who would choose to go to another race and give precious resource, have children with them: You can do that, but you are not going to impose your choice, that life style, its consequences and the burden of care for you and your mixed children upon us. You must go and live with them and the consequences of their ways. If you try to impose yourself and them upon us, then you are trying to impose involuntary contract and are tantamount to a slave master and as supremacist. In that effort, you lose the distinctly human character of a moral agent and we have the right to look upon you as a dumb force of nature which cannot be dealt with otherwise but to be removed by force.

In addition, we will free criminally incarcerated members of that group heretofore under our jurisdiction to go and live with you and your children as well. They are no longer our responsibility.

If James Bowery added nothing else but this idea, he would have made a major contribution to human dignity, human and pervasive ecology. 

Yet another terrific idea advanced by Bowery would be his version of Henry George’s revenue distribution based on land tax “site value”– i.e., owners of land beyond what is necessary for family formation (by his estimation at the time, 90k) would be taxed on site value (its site value would depend upon where it is, New York City, e.g., being worth more per square meter than Arizona) to provide a citizen’s dividend (a basic income, e.g., of 13K) for the rest of the population (which would not be taxed at all when they have site value below 90k, enough for family formation) while the land holders require their cooperation to not only defend the nation and the land which the excess land owner owns, but also, of course, so as to be placated enough not to attack the land owner in resentment and desperation. If the basic income is not considered to be enough by some people, they would be encouraged to go and live with a sympathetic people, congenial to helping  them out to improve their standard of living. And that is likely to be a people more closely related to them genetically – again, helping to mitigate against imposition on E.G.I.

A third crucial idea advanced by Bowery would be Faucett’s idea of horizontal transmission. According to Faucett’s theory, beginning with the Jews return to Israel from Babylonian captivity, they didn’t just resume their organic relation to the land, but in the horizontal to and fro detachment from stable land relation, had begun to evolve a parasitic, niche relation to those organically related and developing with deeply caring relation to one another, the land and nation.

When the Romans conquered Israel, they scattered these niche people into Europe, exacerbating this horizontal evolution – which being in uncommitted, parasitic relation, became adept with usury, hording and consolidating of the host nation’s wealth, its barter being what they had to negotiate, rather then a vested interest in the natives and their land.

Belated realization among Europeans that Jews are consolidating the wealth of the nation resulted in their reaction too late and in such a way (pogroms, inquisition, holocaust) as to actually select for the more virulent Jews, by allowing (horizontal transmission of) the richer ones, more slippery, greasing the hands of account, to escape across the borders while the poorer, more ordinary, integrated and situated ones are culled, killed off in the course of this belated revenge. And the process of horizontal transmission continues, as the more virulent Jews move into the top niches [religion, money, academia, media, politics, law and courts, international business, organized crime, foundations and NGO’s, medical and military technology] of another nation, consolidating the host nation’s wealth and taking the nation to ruin, as they have with America.

And there is a non-violent, non-genocidal solution to this cycle in Bowery’s estimation: end the cycle of horizontal transmission by compelling Jewry be citizens and live in its own nation and develop organic, vertical transmission there, with their own people.

While there are more good ideas coming from Bowery, let me add just one more for now.

Sustainable Biosphere For Maximal Carrying Capacity At Current US Standard of Living

Sustainable Biosphere is another very neat Bowery thing:

You see in this system, water is cycled by evaporation and precipitation, generating some energy along with photobioreactors which facilitate the accelerated growth of algae on the water’s surface, the algae supplying omega 3 oil and protein of itself and feeding fish, which in turn supply that as well. Furthermore, this process reduces carbon footprint destruction by some massive percentage – 90% or something; I forget exactly what Bowery said.

The socially elaborated “Prisoner’s Dilemma”
 
Another great idea from Bowery that ​I’d almost forgotten to mention is his more elaborated version of the classic, “prisoner’s dilemma.”
 
          In the classic prisoner’s dilemma, two parties are offered a choice to gamble on the good will of the other to divide 10 points evenly with another, such that each get 5 points; but if the other doesn’t also show good will and instead takes the ten when you’ve opted for the five, you lose out – the other gets ten and you get zero. If neither shows good will and both go for the ten, then neither get anything, both get zero.
 
          Bowery develops this idea for a group level, to include insiders, outsiders and hypocrites – the hypocrite aspect is very interesting as it is the person who plays both insider and outsider and who can lure you into the trap of getting skunked with zero while the insiders take the ten from you.
 
        I’ve found this to help make sense of real life circumstances that I’ve had and I have no doubt that others will as well.​

Before moving on to critique of what I might call, to his additional consternation probably, reactions to Cartesian anxiety, these fantastic contributions that he’s come up with along the way must not be swept aside…

Again, If James Bowery added nothing else but these ideas, he would have made major contributions to human dignity, human and pervasive ecology

Oh, I almost forgot. Bowery helped out with Christinsanity as well … I arranged for and interview of Kenneth Humphreys and Bowery conducted the interview wonderfully. MR Interview of Kenneth Humphreys by James Bowery Concerning the Syncretic Origin of Christianity:

 

Another good idea that Bowery passes along, and again, it may not be very original and that doesn’t much matter, is the idea that “civilization” has made a deal with the males of our species, that it will take care of the borders of our land by group enforcement, protecting our women and children; in return individual White men are expected to not fight over women nor, of their own accord, against foreign interlopers. Big problem; the Powers that Be in “civilization” have reneged upon maintaining border control while they maintain the requirement that individual White men not fight, let alone with their natural resourcefulness. Quite the opposite, our hands are tied behind our backs with laws against “racism” and such, while interlopers are fee to have at our co-evolutionary women and children and wreak havoc.

Now, I don’t recall Bowery coming up with a particularly special resolution to this problem, but the articulation of the problem is good.

Continue Reading Generational Astrology: Zodiac Sign of the Boomer, Part 10

Generational Astrology: Zodiac Sign of the Boomer, Part 9

  • Post author:
  • Post category:Central

Computer Nerd Tanstaafl, STEM-X Conduit of Right Wing Boomer Cancer, the Boomers who Beget it, the Millennials and Beyond Whose Internet Bubbles and False Currency are Sourced Through this Conduit.

…so, while I had reason to believe and hope that Tanstaafl had come to his senses and would take our side, i.e., those who seek to coordinate the ethnonationalisms of European peoples, who recognize that Hitler/Nazi redemptionism is counter productive to that end; and appreciate the White Post Modern explanation that I have made to clarify the reasoning for this position, that’s not what happened.

One day, not long after the podcast with Guessedworker and I at Majorityrights, when listening to a TANSTAAFL podcast, I hear him begin his podcast with the same hushed tones that I have started my podcasts with (I would begin with hushed tones to focus on the gravity of the statement – declaring that ant-racism is Cartesian, it is not innocent, it is hurting and it is killing people), the difference being that Tanstaafl begins his podcast by saying in hushed tones, “Anti-racism is a Jewish construct.”

Clearly he’s trying to go one up on me, suggesting that I am not assessing the problem keenly enough, if not trying to distract from it altogether in a similar manner as people he likes to expose as acting in Jewish interests deliberately or unwittingly.

While it is almost understandable, because advocacy at at all aligned with White interests has been fraught with those naive to the J.Q. Such as Jared Taylor or “conservatives” such as (Jewish convert to Catholicism and fellow “race realist” along with Taylor) Lawrence Auster trying to distract from Jewish power and influence’s destruction to Whites, it became apparent that Tanstaafl was a bit unhealthily myopic and a tinge paranoid even, when I found him taking issue with my platform, which maintains that we have to look after ourselves systemically, not with his singular focus of ‘lets get people to on board with a singular purpose of getting rid of the Jews and our other problems and concerns will be easy to take care of.’

Though I am not a linealist and so the order of concerns to check upon is not always the same, it is the case that typically number one or a quick second thing to check for in the concern of our problems will be Jewish power and influence; if not that first, then it will be a quick second after I look at our own right wingers and liberals for their pseudo warrant and license to betray us or leave us vulnerable for their “objective” indifference.

Anyone who has looked at my efforts over the past decade and more can see that Tanstaafl’s suggestion that I do not take Jewish power and influence seriously enough is absurd.

But not taking Jewish power and influence seriously enough is indeed the accusation that Tanstaafl would make of me, stating by contrast the he saw Jewish power and influence as a mortal threat and treated them accordingly, appropriately.

It is necessary to go into the context of this argument, address it along with some additional arguments against me that Tanstaafl rendered soon after: and I need to add some suggestions as to the broader historical context and Tanstaafl’s personal history in order to gain some understanding as to why Tanstaafl would take an adversarial position to me, as if I am working against White interests.

I was quick to respond at Majorityrights that I did not disagree with his statement that anti racism is a Jewish construct; and equally quick to note that is not mutually exclusive to the broader, deeper and ultimately more keen philosophical idea that anti-racism is Cartesian; i.e., it is a detachment from natural and social reality that is veritably impossible for humans; and it is eminently impractical, destructive in fact, to have this absurd prohibition of social classification (and accountable means of discrimination thereupon) foisted upon us.

Further, that while it is fine and true as far as I’m concerned to note this Jewish weaponization of modernity  – Trotsky apparently coined the term racism and Jewish interests are obviously its major proponents – it hardly makes redundant the fact that ant-racism is Cartesian and destructive as such. In fact, not only does this have a deeper and broader cross contextual application, but it comports tact and measure that is necessary for the broader public in times and places, addressing Jewish machination both more obliquely, thus incurring less risk of retaliation as it is not assigning blame to an outside group; and also more deeply, as it subverts what has been their largest philosophical weapon against us.

Now Cartesian estrangement from our relative interests and its weaponization by instigating this Cartesian anxiety in reaction to red capes of the socially organizing and advocating schemes of “the left” is such a relevant issue that you’d have to be a philosophically illiterate shithead of Guessedworker’s magnitude to be threatened so as to try to minimize its significance and discourage this concept from being addressed.

In a lifetime of observing patterns of behavior, and specifically, Jewish behavior, I agree with MacDonald where he concludes that a fundamental strategy of Jewish interest in maintaining their power and influence is to subvert White organization and the challenge to their power that might pose to them.

But I move past MacDonald’s boomer-tard reaction to Jewish red capes, taking the observation further by specifying that they aim to subvert White systemic homeostasis and I add that a key way of doing that is by instigating Cartesian anxiety in reaction to their red caping of “leftist” organization – depicting it in their marketing campaign, speaking of it, “The Left,” and the social organization and advocacy associated with it as being a strictly anti-White means of advocacy; instigating reaction in Whites, who react in quests for pure objective warrant beyond the negotiated world of praxis, beyond the systemically anchoring correctivity and structured accountability of our socially deliberated unionization in what has been identified in depth grammar cross contextually as leftism (in order to stave off the staw men of a boomer-tard like Guessedworker, whose autobiography is committed to chasing Jewish red capes and seeking pure warrant beyond, we must specify that it is White Left Ethnonationalism when deployed in our interests, in order to move past the red cape of internationalist and anti-White Leftism, i.e., liberalism of our borders and bounds) – while they instigate our identification with their altercast for us, with the narrow and “pure” warrants  of the Right (in its depth grammar), limited as is it is in social accountability and correctivity for the purport of pure objectivism. This is an excellent way to subvert our homeostasis, for the inherent instability that the purity spiral comports, short on correctability and social accountability as it is.

How does Tanstaafl respond to all of this?

…again, trying to go one up on me, and suggest that he is keener in his assessment, he says that he identifies as neither left nor right wing, but as a “White Winger.”

This is a clever sounding variant of the “neither left nor right” reaction.

If Whites will not identify explicitly as Right wing, then Jewish interests will be satisfied with “neither left nor right” as it mitigates against the grounding and stabilizing correctivity of our systemic homeostasis through the socially accountable structuring of group unionization – a bulwark against liberal infiltration and subversion through ideology beyond the correctivity of Praxis on the one hand, and against the ideology that wangles its way in subversion of Praxis under the rubric of “Third Positionism” on the other hand – which Jewish interests can use to promote low account right wing infiltration and subversion by means of Christianity or Nazism, the second option, which they can promote to stigmatize our organizational cause, turning people off to it, if not instigating the outright divide and conquer of inter-European conflict through Nazism or the like epistemic blunders of natural fallacy (or bizarre esoterica at the other end of Nazism’s ideology beyond praxis).

Tanstaafl is content with the second option comported in Third Positionams, of its providing a way in for Nazism, unconcerned that in its supremacism and imperialism, it cannot function decently and cooperatively with other European ethnonationalisms.

Like most of us, I suppose, I have trepidation about looking at old work, fearing the cringe, but I realize that I sell myself a bit short in this fear, as I look back at the arguments that I had with Tanstaafl, starting in the comments on his talk with Guessedworker in 2014 and then continuing through 2015 and I see that my arguments hold up quite well.

There are only some relatively minor tweaks that I would make to my own articulation while the innaccuracy of Tan’s arguments against me are brought into high relief with this retrospect.

Because they are thorough enough, and should have ended the argument, I thought about re-posting these articles in full within this post, but that would make this post too long; instead I will excerpt where necessary for highlights and to amend with updated insight:

Suicide, Genocide and Rational Blindness

Posted by DanielS (at Majorityrights.com) on Monday, 25 May 2015 06:43.

and

Computer-Nerd Tanstaafl confusing Praxis w “Jargon,” psychopathologizing

Posted by DanielS on Thursday, 28 May 2015 06:32

Arguments by Tanstaafl against me would mostly be made at his blog, “Age of Treason” while I would mostly respond at Majorityrights.

Among Tanstaafl’s arguments that I was forced to address, was his false accusation that I am obsessed with Nazism, when in fact he is confusing my irritation with having to discuss this matter and WWII at all, as it shouldn’t be too difficult for all to move beyond and dismiss.

Tanstaafl says, *Hitler is your bugbear, your litmus test. That’s your idea.*

This is false. Nazism is neither my bugbear nor my litmus test, nor my idea (singular concern), as it is among a few different positions that I seek to create a platform in relief from – a few other positions being scientism (of which Nazism is one expression), Christianity and the proposed inclusion of Jews in our advocacy group among others.

Another important fact that Tanstaafl was not recognizing with this accusation is that there were no and still are no places for Whites to go to have their advocacy represented free of these positions and their stupid burden; and by the same token, I do not go to sites advocating Nazism, Christianity or Jewish inclusion to hassle them and try to convert them.

In further evidence of his grievance with me for creating this platform at Majorityrights, when Tanstaafl appeared on Luke Ford’s show he said that he “used to like a site called Majorityrights.”

During and for a brief time after that remark was the only time in years that Tanstaafl would put his Skype contact to the green, “available” position for me – but it wasn’t an invitation to talk; it was a signal that he was glad that was heard by me.

This misapprehension on Tan’s part, in complaint that I would provide the recourse of a platform freed of that stuff, is in part due to one of the reasons that I will cite for his taking the position that he does – he is a fairly recent comer to White advocacy and does not appreciate the burden of decades of not having this recourse; that in the world of WN, there was no recourse from either Hitler, and/or Jesus, and/or Jewish inclusion.

While I looked critically at Tanstaafl’s unanimity with Hitler and his singular focus on Jews as the problem, and I defended MacDonald when looking for some of the cause of our problems with our people. I could defend that inquiry in good faith while recognizing that MacDonald was using the wrong unit of analysis, the psychological (as an objectivist boomerist might), discussing thus “pathological altruism” (a notion promoted by Jared Taylor, thus understandably generating suspicion in Tanstaafl) where philosophical, sociological, anthropological and communicological queries would provide more accurate assessment.

And the accurate assessment of Tanstaafl as a little paranoid in suggesting that I was being too soft on Jews, naïve about their power and influence and the focus that it takes to rid ourselves of this problem became apparent when, along with the strawman of my supposed singular, emotional and illogical aversion to Hitler, he added the strawman of “monocausality” as being a big thing for me, a word that I would nefariously use to demonize him.

And he added that this accusation of “monocausality” or “monomania” to coin a term that he said Greg Johnson used, was an accusation displaying influence from Jewish psychopathologization of anyone who focuses critically on Jewish power and influence – “they are bad, crazy, sick.” The charge of monocausality that he said that I simply wrote him off with, was a version of the Jewish, “bad, crazy, sick” psychopathologization.

To begin, his allegation of my being obsessed with sorting out “monocausality” and given to this word are among his arguments that are shown by the elapse of time to be particularly absurd.

It has been so many years since I last used the word (not since these posts, 2015) that I did not remember having used it until re-reading these posts and comments. Some obsession.

Furthermore, I honestly defended at the time that I probably used this term less than ten times in my life. More accurately, I probably used it less than five times (that’s one of the few things that I would tweak to update). In those few instances that I used the term it was in service of defending Macdonald and in particular, in support of Guessedworker to that end – “monocausality” was a Guessedworker word.

But with this Tanstaafl type in antagonism, any sort of ambiguity or imperfectly articulated idea is not treated as a specificatory structure to be shaped and crafted to mutual benefit, but rather as a proof of your misguided aims.

It reminds me of the one time – ONE TIME! – in my life that I used the word ‘fascism” pejoratively in discussion. In fact, it was probably the only time that I used the term, because I avoided the term having been repulsed by it as an American, where the only time you hear it is from ignorant liberals; so I can’t bear to use it in any sense.

But because GW would use the term on occasion and was helping me against Hitler proponents, I used the term – once! – and I was inundated by s neo-nazi with proof! There it was, I was an “anti-fa”, yes, you are anti-fa!” I responded in truth that it was the first time that I’d used the term in any sense, but this guy insisted that wasn’t true, “You are anti-fa! You are anti-fa!” …never again will I use that term, if for no other reason than to avoid the tedium.

So anyway, what I was trying to explain to Tan (and everyone else), and I can now see that I was well advanced in this explanation even then, only inhibited by the disconfirmation of Tanstaafl’s bad will, is the White Post Modern world view that Heidegger, among others, advanced in order to re-center our world view in the praxis of our people, to govern our social systemic homeostasis, our autonomy, our sovereignty. 

This means that to manage our system, we look at our problems, maintenance and advance, where we should, not by reaction and Cartesian myopia, but with the agency of systemic, hermeneutic surveillance of the various matters at hand.

This does not mean that we should not have people, like Tan, who are dedicated almost exclusively to this focus – on the contrary – or that we should not look upon Jewish power and influence as being among our foremost problems – on the contrary – I place it as issue number 1a usually, but sometimes 1b only depending where correction needs to be made, placing the J.Q. at 1b and the systemic hole of liberal/right wing objectivism as problem 1a instead, depending.

The problem, of course, is when he suggests that I am in remiss for not being on board with his singular focus, to where the issue is so singularly important and its only solution is to effectively drop everything else and try to kill them all instead of shoring-up our organization and defense. It’s fairly obvious that an effective challenge to them and good result is not likely without our having that, and with it, the moral high ground of clearly just defending ourselves.

This position is attained first of all by a world view of ourselves as The White Ethnonational Left. This is a unionization concept which encompasses and is responsible for our people as a whole; it is anti-supremacist by definition and comports the ability to coordinate with if not cooperate with other peoples. Our ethnonations are the species class and our race is the genus class (our relative interests the calibration, whereas objective facts and truth are invaluable feedback)  – and from this position of ethnonation as union and race as union of unions, we are accountable for our social capital (without having to rely on emotional arguments or other compulsion, I might add); and from this world view we might hold our elites to account, whether tending right wing or liberal; and we may hold rank and file and marginals to account as well. 

Not only do we hold our people to account, but we also have a bead on outside group antagonism, concern number one of outsiders being Jewry, of course.

Thus, with our systemic interest in central view in the “radar tracking system” that I’ve established with this platform, I set forth two major poles as first check points for problems to be corrected:

At one pole, we have Jewish power and influence, its antagonism to our social systemic homeostasis from top down rule structures disseminated through about 10 elite niches (at the time, I said 7 – it’s one of the other minor tweaks, I’ve alluded to) and from their biological patterns – thus, the necessity to discriminate even against “the good ones”, and set cast them out of our group system, as they are a part of a pattern which will reconstruct itself with interests indifferent or destructive to ours in subsequent generations – I am some guy who doesn’t take Jews seriously enough, right? 

At the other major pole, we look at our own fuck-ups: Right Wingers and Liberals who both see their prerogative to short shrift accountability to our relative, group interests for their “Objective” warrant. And mind you, I basically said this, was speaking in terms of these two established poles even then; I’m only somewhat more articulate and confident in my position.

Beyond merely predictive, this has been a highly effective “radar calibration” in tracking “enemy” moves and where our own people are doing us a disservice.

And with these positions set, knowing that Jewish power and influence is in constant vigilance of our surveillance, along with the the vulnerabilities and exploits that right wingers and liberals provide them for their objectivism, we need not ignore other problems, such as black biopower or Muslim imperialist terrorism; nor for that matter, need we ignore attendance to the positive and enjoyable matters of our systemic reconstruction.

It is important to assert again, that this tracking system is not against the objective and truth seeking inquiries that the right is enamored of, that liberals see as warranting their license and licentiousness, on the contrary, inquiries and verification of matters that are factual and true irrespective of our subjective and relative interests are imperative. Where the correctivity comes into play is by seeing these objective inquiries as feedback, crucial feedback but feedback to to be gauged against the calibration of or relative group interests.

This is to stabilize our world view in the accountability and correctivity, hence the systemic homeostasis of Praxis, as opposed to the the epistemic blunder, the natural fallacy of Hitler.

Furthermore, and quite importantly, as our “radar tracking system” maintains the pragmatic view in Praxis, viz. looking upon our claims in regard to Jewry as working hypotheses, and not comporting a goal to eliminate them, we are working with warranted assertability, as we are not proposing irreversible and uncorrectable theories. Rather, where we might be mistaken to some extent, say, in terms of the extent of Jewish power and influence in a particular niche, and its impact on Whites we are amenable to account and correction.

In the articulation of this point, the taken for granted objective pseudo warrant of right wingers and liberals, the rational blindness to group accountability it comports, that another disconcerting friction with Tanstaafl emerged.

I became miffed when I heard Tanstaafl talking with the neo-Nazi Renegade Broadcasting Network, discussing objectivity as a susceptibility of our people that Jews can exploit, while not giving me any credit for having discussed this matter at length.

It was reasonable for me to assume that he’d read or heard me talking about this since I’d done so at The Voice of Reason Radio Network where we’d both worked.

Tan took exception to this, saying that not only did he owe me concern that I be given credit, but in fact, he’s been on to the idea since 2012, and he cited his source in German scholar that he read at that time.

He added the suggestion that I was trying to control who he talked to, trying to tell him that he should not be talking to those neo-Nazis.

I rejoined firstly by saying that I had offered to talk with Renegade, but they declined. I might ask, would they allow me to speak critically of  Hitler and Nazism? The answer is no. And yet Tan tries to ostracize me for creating a platform in reprieve from this sort.

Next, I conceded that OK, you’re a smart guy, you could have come up with the idea on your own, independently and could have known about it since 2012. By contrast, can you imagine someone like Tanstaafl or Guessedworker conceding that I could have come up with an idea relatively independently?

Furthermore, I’ve been talking about this since 1991; and in addition, I do not see it mitigating against the epistemic blunder of Hitler and Nazism that he is wont to repeat, or generating in him the systemic bearing that I have set forth.

On the contrary, he doubled down, trying to suggest that I was using obfuscating “jargon” when discussing Praxis, its nature, significance and so forth. ..that I “write so much”…and my “logic is poor”… I don’t have the integrity, “should just admit it.”

Alright, it wasn’t hard to see that was all bullshit then and it is even easier to see now, of course.

But that doesn’t mean that he, or more exactly, where he’s coming from, isn’t a problem in its antagonism to this platform proposed for coordinating European ethnonationalisms.

In fact, dealing with this matter is what this thread, Generational Astrology: the Zodiac Sign of the Boomer, is all about. How someone like STEM-Xer Tanstaafl becomes a conduit for this impervious right wing Boomer shit, straight to the protective buffering of Millennial and Zoomer internet bubbles.

And so to address the problem of where Tanstaafl might be coming from, why his intransigence in this position, thereby perhaps leading to suggestions as to how the conflict might be ameliorated (because believe me, a great percentage of Whites are not going to get along with Nazism and should not) let me venture some speculations – actually not very speculative suggestions as to where he’s coming from, why the intransigence of this antagonistic position and how relations might be improved.

….

Let’s begin with the fact that Tanstaafl has a Jewish wife and kids by her (two, I believe).  He married her well before he was “aware of the J.Q.’ but is not prepared to leave her or his kids upon his is awakening. Even so, while he believes they might accept his commentary on Jewry, he does not expect for White nationalism to accept him and his family as part of their ranks. 

He is astute enough in regard to the J.Q. now to realize that even 1/4 biological Jews are hazardous, probably too hazardous to accept into White biosystems. His kids are 1/4 Jewish because his wife is 1/2 Jewish – Jewish from her father’s side, biologically, though he was not religious or very Jewish politically, according to Tan.

With that, we might speculate that he might have an overcompensating sense of duty to get the J.Q. right for the sake of other Whites and leave it at that.

The next place to look in his history as he tells it, is a starting place for many right wingers, looking over the conspiracy theories – 9-11 in particular.  From there, if you are not given to anti-Semitism (and why would he be, with a Jewish wife) you might take a keen interest in the “anti-jihad” (anti-Muslim) sites, which Tan did. He added an insight, that he took some satisfaction in the wars against Iraq because he liked the idea of our people, or some aspect of our nation, anyway, not taking abuse, but rather taking the initiative to doll it out instead.

Nevertheless, if you care about what is happening to our White people in America, and are astute enough, as Tan is, eventually you are forced to seriously consider and discuss Jewish power and influence – Tan is not alone in dragging his feet on this; most of us in these post WWII generations really did not want to broach the topic; this was America, land of opportunity, why broach this ultimate taboo? That would be a sure fire way to keep you out of power and money, not a way to challenge the power and improve the situation.

Nevertheless, America had istalwarts, those Whites who were insiders to American privilege and keenly witnessed the Jewish antagonism and destruction to their interests. They would make the destructiveness of Jewish power and influence their main focus.

Revilo Oliver, George Lincoln Rockwell, William Luther Pierce, David Duke along with Don Black’s Stormfront and Alex Linder’s VNN would be influences, directly or indirectly in this regard.

While it is obvious to all that their audience is those White Americans who experience themselves as increasingly beleaguered, and are more ready to believe that Jewish power and influence is the prime culprit, the particular White demographic of this audience and its significance has scarcely been taken into account.

Although America’s founding stock and culture is Anglo-Saxon, and that counts for a great deal, by time of the 1990 Census, they were third Among Whites, a few million behind Irish, who had about 38 million, and Germans, who had the most – by far, with about 86 million.

With White Nationalism, particularly as it sees Jewry as its prime adversary, being stigmatized and of limited audience, there is going to be a reconstructing incentive to gain adherents and what limited money that there is to be had by crafting a message for this audience, which will in turn tend to consume the narratives that they want hear.

For those of us who know something about the overall history of Europe, including Eastern European nations, the German bias is clear, and it ranges from obnoxious to outright fictional Nazi propaganda. And those of us who’ve followed White Nationalism for decades would find that this bias is the currency of their discussion. While this currency is passing many false notes, it is nevertheless easy to see how a beleaguered demographic would be taken in.

Particularly susceptible, of course, would be America’s largest White demographic, the Germans. Beleaguered with hyperbolic guilt trips and penalties where they have done no wrong (in fact, their people fought against the Nazis) of course they are going to become exasperated and try to push straight back to throw off the guilt trips – America was on the wrong side of the war, Hitler and the Nazis were absolutely right, did not wrong, everyone who opposed them was wrong. Pandered to with with overbearing currency as such, they would not have quite the perspective, nor be in a mindset to partake of the perspective of other European nations which would allow them to see alignment in concern.

There is a likely motive here: in a word, if the Jews are the EVERY problem, then Hitler, the Nazis, Germany and Germans with them may be entirely exonerated, heroes of the world, even.

So, they’re susceptible to a message that is …lets say, overly sympathetic to Hitler and the Nazis. Passing the currency and not just many a false note with it… in their right wing reaction they are circulating its fundamental epistemological blunder, making White Nationalism not only more difficult to organize for this (rightful) stigma, but more dangerous and destructive (including self destructive) where it might, as it throws them into conflict not only with Jews, but other Whites, who could be their allies. In fact, Nazi redemptionism requires that you vilify other European nations for opposing Hitler. Oh, maybe they’re just brain washed, need to be enlightened about the Balfour Declaration, the Holohoax, Churcill’s complicity with Jewry and all the “peace offers” that Hitler made, etc.

Now, the next largest White demographic, the Irish, would be susceptible to pass this currency as well. Their nation was not in the path of the Nazi wrath, so they have no direct need to understand the legitimacy of the resistance of those nations that were attacked. Furthermore, there is the long history of antipathy between the Irish and English (including American English), which would lessen their sympathy for the English perspective in opposition to Hitler.

Next, you would have those English who feel their German roots and sympathy with Germany a bit more, don’t think that Britain should have gotten into the war at all, and find Britain having lost its Empire to be proof that it was a fool’s errand. Adding to their argument is the fact of Britain’s banking class being inundated by Jewry and Churchill being complicit with them.

The proper rejoinder, of course, is that that Jews betrayed England by way of what good will Churchill lent them – as most of us gave them the benefit of the doubt. But really, this is all 20/20 hindsight and I always like to say, that rather than lamenting America and Britain “being on the wrong side”, why not wish that Hitler had not attacked other European nations but had devoted his industrious efforts to cooperate with other nations for the deportation of Jewry to Israel. Poland already had a plan by 1935 to send 90 percent of its Jews to Palestine. This would be in accord with Churchill’s idea as well, from his famous piece, ZIONISM versus BOLSHEVISM. A STRUGGLE FOR THE SOUL OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE.

And looking honestly at the history, you can see that Hitler’s claim that the borders drawn by Versailles and The Treaty of St. Germain were improper was by no means clear; and that his claim was mere pretext for his goal for lebensraum through Ukraine and up to the Urals. That is to say, Hitler was an imperialist war monger taking after his idol, Frederick “The Great.”

So it wasn’t just about Jews when it came to Hitler. And these aspirations were at the expense of European nations who were anti-Semitic and more than willing to fight against The Soviet Union (Jewish Bolshevism): Belarus, Ukraine and Poland –  which already had defeated a Soviet invasion. It was about an epistemological blunder, a natural fallacy of might is right, war is an integral part of life, borders are not negotiated, but enforced by force.

However, “epistemological blunder”, “natural fallacy”, “praxis”, “accountability and correctability thereby”, these terms are not part of the currency that Tanstaafl had taken up. He said that I was using “jargon” as such, that’s what he wants to believe. 

It’s a little surprising that he’d make such a stupid assessment, so lets look at some other reasons as to perhaps why he is so insistent on this currency, including its utterly false notes.

Tanstaafl’s maternal grandmother is German, and he spent and enjoyable time with her in Germany with her. From a genetic standpoint, male grandchildren and maternal grandmothers have more genetic attachment and more affinity as paternal grandmothers have to female grandchildren. The point being that this bond would increase his susceptibility to an overly German bias.

Tan is also part Sicilian. There’s another group, Italians (though much fewer in America’s 1990 census – 16 million – they’d have some susceptibility to Axis sympathy as well). And I believe that Tan is also part Irish, so there’s that again.

He might pick up Pat Buchanan (half Irish/half German)’s “The Unnecessary War” and not tend to find many faults with it.

He might contentedly listen to David Duke pandering to this demographic, passing the currency, its all about the Jews as the problem, he will never say anything bad about Hitler (“he made all these peace offers”), will never examine the White right wing of which he is a part or liberals to look for problems. 

And as Tanstaafl took up this currency and refined it, he began to gain admirers.

Ironically, he was called by Wolf Wall Street Bob from D.C., “the greatest epistemologist in White Nationalism.”

And it is ironic, because that is exactly what Tanstaafl is NOT. He is an epistemological fuck up.

Terrible Tommy Metzger, who was much smarter than Wolf Wall Street, used to keep WWS’s Nazism under control when he was a side kick. Once they parted ways, WWS would let loose klangers like that.

And, of course, as with anybody in White Nationalism who can’t get over idolizing and trying to redeem Hitler, the first hypothesis should be that they were listening to William Luther Pierce.

Pierce was an extremely intelligent man, but projected his own good will toward Slavs onto Hitler (a good will to Slavs that did not exist in Hitler) and made it easier with his brilliant presentations to believe that Hitler thus, was a lot better for European concordance than he actually was.

Furthermore, unlike his predecessor, George Lincoln Rockwell, who was an artist with some controlled, metaphoric and ironic distance from his subject, Pierce was coming from STEM, a physicist and thereby rather rigid and prone of STEM habit, to get fixated in looking for the one thing that breaks the otherwise perfectly functioning circuit. This can be problematic when addressing matters of praxis, the agentive, reflexive, messy world of human interaction.

When Terrible Tommy Metzger tried to bring some of these “leftist” concerns to Pierce’s attention, Pierce called Metzger a “Bolshevik” and told him that if he keeps this up, he’d be kicked out of the right wing! Metzger responded, “don’t bother, I’m already out of he right wing!” (along with David Lane). Metzger, by the way, unlike the rest of those on the list above, could be quite critical of Hitler, and recognized that he could NOT be a uniting figure for Whites – all of whom Metzger advocated, not just Germans.

Coming back to Tanstaafl’s favorite jargon word, Praxis, and the consternation it causes STEM thinkers, like Tanstaafl, he might take heart with a little from the humanities…in Praxis where we do not expect the lines to be so precise and perfect all the time, are not focused on the one thing all the time but go by working hypotheses…

It is a reasonable working hypothesis to agree with Tanstaafl that 1/4 Jewish is probably too much to include. But what if his kids were to marry White? I can agree that 1/8 is dangerous as well (the murderous Bolshevik Lenin was 1/8th Jewish); however, its 1/8th is also largely White and with the DNA Nations, a system of more strict accountability might be applied to persons of that percentage, so that they and others are made aware of the danger and obliged to marry White or be ostracized); then maybe that could be a way of redemption from his tragic situation.

I could extend that good will to him. What I will not accept is his getting kids into conversations that can land them in jail.

Metzger was a STEM guy too, and he did not successfully divest himself of all the right wing elements that he should have, but he was far more practical than the right wingers of WN, and I believe that as such, he could commend such an idea as incrementally increasing accountability.

STEM does make it hard for people like Tanstaafl, because it tends to be rewarded monetarily, thus, reinforced as a way of thinking, despite its habits that are the wrong epistemology for praxis; and it has been further thrust in advance, despite the fact that it, and the right wing objectivism where it finds affinity is in need of social correctivity, for its head start in the computer world.

This post is about complete; I’ll be making corrections and adding small bits;  check to see the new paragraphs that I’ve added at the end and…

If you put the following – This position is attained – into the search, you will find an important paragraph that I’ve added above. I’ve also added several paragraphs to the end part of this piece.

There is a likely motive here: in a word, if the Jews are the every problem, then Hitler, the Nazis, Germany and Germans with them may be seen as exonerated, heroes of the world, even.

Continue Reading Generational Astrology: Zodiac Sign of the Boomer, Part 9

TroutMaskReplica: Weirdness Distinguishing Organic White Being, Creativity.

  • Post author:
  • Post category:Central

In fact, a smooth and amazingly blended rainbow trout mask replica..

  for Carolyn…

Trout Mask Replica: Weirdness as a distinguishing aspect of Organic White Being and Creativity.

Particularly recommended for your listening pleasure are the cuts: Ella Guru
                              …“here she comes walkin’, lookin’ like a zoo, high YElla Guru”

                          Hair Pie Bake2        Dachau Blues      She can’t go to the beach because her hands are too small.

Neon Meat Dream of a Octafish .. “mucous mules fox trot, tra la, tra la, tra la, tra la”…                                         

…but they are all quite good  

Graham doesn’t want us exporting our American culture 🙁

…drives a cartoon..

    ..fast and bulbous           ..fast and bulbous                       ..and a tin tear drop.

 
      …open t’ the room – eeh – smell cold mixed with bologna.

Safe As Milk

John Lennon apparently liked Beefheart (Safe As Milk in particular – note the decals on the wall behind him)…     

…until he heard the Beatles being mocked in the Beefheart song:

                    “Beatle Bones ‘N’ Smokin’ Stones

….strawberry dog, strawberry caterpillar, etc, strawberry fields forever…

Captain Beefheart – The Man And His Music – band members describe how he got them to do his “method” …funny.

Live in Paris 1980

German TV 1972

Beefheart Documentary

Farther than we’ve gone
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQLLsHQToJY

The party of special things to do

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyITTLeLRR4

I met the ace of love at the party of special things to do..she said here: Here. Take these spots so that my distant cousins can get along with you.

Upon the my oh my
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dq6fCOGyVJg
studio version
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wr2G9j9Lvgc

I got love on my mind, but I can’t make up my mind, who to love…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0pmb3B159s

This is the day that love chose to stay:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KjTQvohG4Y

A preliminary note: While this platform is advising that a certain latitude for weirdness be granted as an organic aspect of White Being, a very basic and synthetic function (as opposed to analytic), it is necessary to round off this latitude with the most fundamental category, that is socialization and add the median levels of routine, ordinary practice and sacrament, to secure any quests of self actualization as grounded in a healthy, species system of our people.

That is, we are not promoting weirdness for weirdness sake unaccountable to our people’s interests …or for the sake of contributing to red caping this idea, like the bizarre trans-sexual cause is doing… but to the contrary, to defiantly counter the red caping of a legitimate defense of organic White being, which in the meanderings of our sublimation, can appear a little weird at times, say, when compared to black rhythms: “looga the huwhite boy, he’s got no integritae”…or those who would expect us to rigidly conform and die in wars like Vietnam for corporations, because that’s what men do – they cannot be, they must engage the rigid tradition of those who do not care for us – though our being is for us and ours – there being, being amidst our people.

We to be on guard against being associated with Jewish red caping of marginality, as representing those outside of White systemics and anti-White, rather than those who are an organic part, temporarily on the margins; but we must guard against puerile female assessment as it is overly empowered in the disorder of modernity,  bereft the White class of systemic socialization: “oooh, your so weird.”

Though not quite the problem it was in pre-Internet days, a time when it came to media and one’s concerns one was a passive subject and victim of the three kosher TV networks and Hollywood, assaulting one’s intellect and emotions with interests counter to yours, there are now ways to interact and re-channel your emotions with the internet, thus other than the fantasy alternative of listening to music (and ignoring or changing the lyrics in your head, if need be – “Tin soldiers and Negroes comin’, we’re finally on our own”…) and attending to musical performances…the over appealingness of music, particularly as it grants mass attendance and influence to people who’s philosophy of life can be as lame and liberal as any is something to bring under critique indeed. Plato seems to have had a point that this raw appeal to the emotions can be a hazard to intellectual development.

But when contrasting White and black music, two hazards become more pronounced, in that the blacks less sublimated, more direct appeal to the opposite sex (we’re talking mostly males appealing to females) steps up the pressure for episodic competition for females within the disorder of modernity – wherein cultural patterns are ruptured for the breakdown of group boundaries by anti-racism; as if the story of “female panacea” – which is destructive to both genders in its over amplification; as if it wasn’t amplified enough by the ignorance of musicians and those seeking to popularize their songs for the sake of a hit. Secondly, in the biopower, biohegemony even of their long pre-evolved rhythmic ability, dispensation of black music can become like a narcotic to those whose patterns have broken down.

While it is hard and in a way futile to deny the appeal of Sly and The Family Stone, or The Four Tops to name a few .. or Jimi Hendrix Axis: as Bold as Love, his Band of Gypsies  performance among others…

..we should ask ourselves, is it worth it? Is it worth your would be wife and daughter, even if indirect casualties of one of the most powerful arguments on behalf of tolerating blacks in you nation – their music.

As good as Jimi Hendrix music was, we must ask ourselves, is it worth it to have him go through sexual indulgence in hundreds of White women? …and the gateway to race-mixing that the prejudicial breakdown of objective musical appeal instigates.. . “after the show, I saw him get into his limousine with two blondes. I thought to myself, they don’t even know him”…
 
As good as Jimi Hendrix music is, to some extent it is a choice, and you must ask, do you want Jimi Hendrix music or do you want your beautiful White wife?
 
Furthermore, his R-selector behavior and corresponding ability does not make for a good role model for White boys.
 
Aristotle asks, “what makes people distinctly human?” “Is it the capacity to run fast?” ..”horses can run faster.” .. we might ask, is it capacity for rhythm and attention? Surely not.
 
We care about relations, including our co-evolutionary women, even if in a Platonic, friendly way so as to preserve them as mating partners to perpetuate our genus in a future generation….
 
Indeed, as musicologists noted, black musical forms such as this, with their their hard driving repetition and rhythm, stimulate older parts of the brain like a narcotic, creating pleasure in a way that can divert from and make it harder to appreciate White forms.  
 
So while there is great black music and its had its influences on White pop and rock music, this threat will be an exercise in Not being objective about it, so as to not be distracted from the the relative good and greatness of our own musical forms and patterns that correspond with our way of life…  

We are forced to improvise in a more far reaching way…

Indeed, part the greatness that comes from Whites is due to our sublimation – that is to say, our lack of inborn rhythmic perfection, our Caucasian awkwardness, as it were, forces us to improvise in a more far reaching way as compared say, to blacks, whose older, evolutionary form is charm looped in such a way to simply allow them to perform basic life functions automatically the right way in an organic, biological sense – more directly and with near biological hegemony. We must struggle a bit more for our lack of such strong inborn rhythm, but this sublimation and the compelled striving, when breaking through to a degree of mastery, corresponds with our spectacular accomplishments.

It also corresponds with the wonderfully creative music that we make, when we do break though to our rhythm – or choose not to, in a word, as in the case of Captain Beefheart; who captured a very important aspect of White Being in this awkward, a-rhythmic side, this WEIRDNESS, which is a distinctly (non-black) White characteristic that was a part of the profundity of the organic Hippy motive for Being (there being amidst our people).. this was/is a particularly significant aspect of White male being to protect against the atavistic low common denominator of modernity (“ooh, you’re so weird”, the puerile girl says; “looga the huWhat boy, he’s got no integritae” …”he’s got no soweaoweaoeul eohoowohuowhul” the black says). a significance, of course, glossed over by traditional and feminist women alike, needless to say the YKW.

PJ Harvey – Good Fortune

Polly was influenced by Beefheart and actually received a call from him – something he almost never did – to express his appreciation of her music.

A rare occasion when a cover is at least as good as a (fantastic) original.

Swans – Love Will Tear Us Apart (Acoustic Version / No Drums)

Robert de Visée

Larry Coryell and Ralph Towner:

Improvisation On Robert De Visee’s Sarabande

Deep Purple-My Woman From Tokyo

Jeff Watson and Allan Holdsworth Play that Funky Music

The origin and history of Unchained Melody 

One of those songs where the cover, viz., by the Righteous Brothers, was actually better.

Yes – Close To The Edge (Full Album)

David Bowie

His two best albums, both are completely good – every song:

Ziggy Stardust is full of upstart pop-rock energy:
Ziggy Stardust

The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders From Mars

Diamond Dogs is thematized by Orwell’s 1984 and captures with genius the alien, dehumanizing mood of said negative utopia:

Diamond Dogs

David Bowie – Diamond Dogs

Also quite good is

Dav̲i̲d B̲o̲wie – S̲ta̲tion to S̲ta̲tion (Full Album) 1976

Robin Trower – Bridge Of Sighs (Full Album)

ELP: Trilogy, including “From the Beginning”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXGtsNCp7rE

ELP: Brain Salad Surgery: 

I Believe in Father Christmas, performed and co-written by the late Greg Lake:

Emerson, Lake & Palmer – I Believe In Father Christmas Lyrics
They said there’ll be snow at christmas
They said there’ll be peace on earth
But instead it just kept on raining
A veil of tears for the virgin’s birth
I remember one christmas morning
A winters light and a distant choir
And the peal of a bell and that christmas tree smell
And their eyes full of tinsel and fire

They sold me a dream of christmas
They sold me a silent night
And they told me a fairy story
‘till I believed in the israelite
And I believed in father christmas
And I looked at the sky with excited eyes
‘till I woke with a yawn in the first light of dawn
And I saw him and through his disguise

I wish you a hopeful christmas
I wish you a brave new year
All anguish pain and sadness
Leave your heart and let your road be clear
They said there’ll be snow at christmas
They said there’ll be peace on earth
Hallelujah noel be it heaven or hell
The christmas you get you deserve

Songwriters: GREG LAKE, PETER JOHN SINFIELD, SERGE PROKOFIEFF
I Believe In Father Christmas lyrics © MUSIC SALES CORPORATION

I Believe in Father Christmas” is a song by English musician Greg Lake with lyrics by Peter Sinfield.

I got a problem, can you relate?
I got a woman callin’ love hate.
We made a vow we’d always be friends.
How could we know that promises end?

Jaco Pastorius: Donna Lee

Deja vu:

The News Behind The News – Carl Klang

  Have you ever stopped to wonder why the world’s in such a mess?

  Why there’s so much mindless mayhem on the T.V. in the press?

  Why so many busy businessmen are snappin’ from the stress?

  And the rest of us are joggin’ from depression?

  Did it ever once occur to you or ever cross your mind?

  That the problems of this nation are created by design?

  That no matter what they tell ya there’s another bottom line?

  Intertwined between the patterns of deception?

  Since our eyes were first open and our ears began to hear

  They’ve been herding us like cattle through our fantasy and fear

  They rule us through illusion and confusion of the mind

  And by changing subtle meanings to the words between the lines

  It’s the news behind the news and the methods you can use

  It’s the blueprint and the plan you can rely on

  And it’s written in the Protocols Of The Learned Elders Of Zion

  Move along now all you little bovine…

  Now they’ll tell ya it’s a forgery they’ll say that it’s a fake

  That some anti-Semite wrote it for the money that he’d make

  It’s been slanderized and demonized and labeled “racist hate”

  By the same who stake a claim to it’s creation

  Now I’m not here to try to argue if it’s fake or if it’s true

  If the author was a commie or the likes of you know who

  What I’m really tryin’ to tell ya and to get across to you

  That it’s the blueprint to the downfall of our nation

  There’s a cause to the chaos that’s occurring in the land

  There’s a road to communism there’s a global master plan

  You’ll never read about it in a book of history

  ‘Cause it’s been hidden from the masses to control their destiny

  It’s the news behind the news and the methods that they use

  It’s the blueprint and the plan they all rely on

  And it’s written in the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion

  Yee haw!

  Now them Protocols of Zion have a crazy history

  Henry Ford gave out a copy free, with every Model “T”

  It’s a crime to even own one if you live in Germany

  Though it’s not an anti-Jewish publication

  So if you ever get a chance to get a copy of your own

  Just remember not to ever leave it lyin’ ’round your home

  ‘Cause ya never know just where their snoopy news reporters roam

  One might even be a friend or close relation

  It’s the cause to the chaos that’s occurring in the land

  It’s the source of communism, it’s the global master plan

  You’ll never read about it in a book of history

  ‘Cause it’s been hidden from the masses to control our destiny

  It’s the news behind the news and the methods that they use

  It’s the blueprint and the plan they all rely on

  And it’s written in the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion

  And it’s written in the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion

  Yee Haw! Go ahead and wail at your wall!

The fact that this is the Rotterdam symphony chorus makes it all the more poignant, i.e., tragic, considering that Rotterdam has become something like the Newark, New Jersey of Europe.

Continue Reading TroutMaskReplica: Weirdness Distinguishing Organic White Being, Creativity.

Generational Astrology: Zodiac Sign of The Boomer, Part 8

  • Post author:
  • Post category:Central

Computer Nerd Tanstaafl, Right Wing Boomer Conduit.

I first became aware of Tanstaafl back in 2011 at the old Voice of Reason Radio Network, a commission of the Regnery Circus: its aim was to run a website with a gamut of podcasts ranging from some which were not particularly pro-White, but critical of political correctness, to some which occupied a fairly responsible position in advocating for White people amidst the anti-White maelstrom, to outright pro-Nazi podcasts, hosting holocaust deniers, the works.

Now, being of the Regnery Circus meant that it was destined to be used in the same manner of the paleoconservatism 2.0 that was the Alternative Right – in fact, it featured many of those now famously associated with the term, with frequent guest appearances from the likes of Richard Spencer and Paul Gottfried – with a mandate to pander to a susceptible American audience; it was to be Germanophilic to the point of Nazophilic in some podcasts, bringing timid audience on board with podcasts from some who were neither particularly pro-White not anti-Semitic nor anti-any other race, such as Andy Nowicki, Robert Stark and Keith Preston, to outright Nazi redemptionist, Carolyn Yeager. …I would learn that their idea was to bring people around to Carolyn Yeager, that was their sine qua non.

While I had been working in prominent White advocacy with those who had sympathized but moved beyond and rejected Nazism, I was paying attention to The Voice of Reason Broadcasting Network, as it featured an array of intelligent if not learned people who were covering the territory that concerned me – i.e. the plight of Whites against anti-racism.

As they were covering matters that concerned me most, I took to arguing …well, arguing with Carolyn Yeager in particular in their chat room. From there, I was given a chance to argue the Polish side of the story in an interview with Tom Sunic. History and Polish politics are not my forte but I had to try as Carolyn and some of her guests were just outrageous.

Sunic was reluctant as he specialized in Germanophilia and specifically playing the violin about the expulsions of Germans from Poland and other parts east after WWII (I have sympathy regarding those who died in that expulsion, not as much for those who lost property and were moved) and he was therefore not eager to be confronted with the other side of of the story. I was effective enough to be brought back for a second interview, but this time I deviated from the proposed topic, which was to be more WWII history, talking instead about matters of which I had more special contribution to make – theory of White separatism.

By the show’s end, both Sunic and site manager Mike Conner liked the script enough to encourage me to publish it on The Voice of Reason Radio Network website.  Moreover, I was enlisted to be a regular columnist and a producer, bringing guests to be interviewed by their regular podcasters. By that time, a very intelligent and articulate man named Tanstaafl was already a repeat guest on its shows and a favorite of Carolyn Yeager, as his intelligence was also combined with nerve to deftly defy the greatest taboo – anti-Nazism.

In fact, Mike Conner allowed the Network to go down when Carolyn Yeager left with Tanstaafl to form a new network, “The White Network”, with Carolyn Yeager, ostensibly so that they would not have to be bothered with the non-Whites that The Voice of Reason Radio Network would engage, Eventually, this network too would be brought down, as Tanstaafl would experience Carolyn’s ornery side.

The White Network” was not an appropriate rubric for Carolyn, as she really did not care very much about all Whites; in fact, she disrespected and held in contempt the opponents of Nazism – the Poles especially – she considered good will toward the non-German nations a “political correctness” of White Nationalism. She really only cared about Germans, while being ok with Germanic peoples and some other European kinds if they were pro Nazi.

Carolyn had another utlra-pro Nazi co-host, Hadding Scott. He hated me from what he knew of me at The Voice of Reason Network, even though I was not focused on anti-Nazism, just would not go along with pro-Nazism and the lies that were rendered in order to promote it. That was enough for Hadding Scott to call me a “Polish chauvinist because of my Polish father” (totally ridiculous accusation, exposed to begin with by the fact that I’d been using my mother’s Polish maiden name and that I’m in no way shape or form, a “Polish chauvinist”; while Hadding tried to turn the fact of his German chauvinism against me). Anyway, Carolyn and Hadding were happily making their way through reading Hitler’s “Table Talk” when they came to the chapter where Hitler described his plan for Ukraine and his attitude toward Ukrainians.

The fertile land of Ukraine was the prime real estate that Hitler sought for lebensraum; where he would establish German viceroys to preside over German farmers, while the Ukrainians would be helots, not to be educated past the 6th grade, as “their nature was only suited to doing just enough to get-by in life.”

Carolyn emphatically approved, saying “that’s right, the Ukrainians are like the N words.”

It was precisely after that that The White Network stopped producing more shows, while Tanstaafl made a statement in contrast to Carolyn’s singular concern for Germans and bigoted contempt for other Europeans, saying that “he feels good about all White people.”

With The White Network collapsing exactly while he came to loggerheads with Carolyn – apparently over that point – excuse me if I thought Tanstaafl had come to his senses – I did think that he had arrived at the reasoned position of being on board with all Europeans in an effort to coordinate our nationalisms – and so I invited him to be interviewed by Guessedworker, at Majorityrights, where I had become ensconced, starting to work there a few years prior.

Ever the absurd, Carolyn tried to say that I had been manipulating Tanstaafl behind the scenes prior in order to subvert The White Network and bring him over to Majorityrighs.

MR Radio: Guessedworker speaks with Tanstaafl

Anyway, we did to the interview as you see, with me introducing Guessedworker and Tanstaafl. The interview went fine, and all seemed amenable enough until comments upon the podcast…then Tanstaafl got a bit interesting…

Comments on this podcast were many, nearly 400 in the end. I’ve excerpted and re-presented what I believe to be the most significant comments here. 

To begin with, let me highlight a comment from Tanstaafl that would come far down the thread, in what would be comment number 349. My response would come in comment number 353…

This would trigger a conflict which would continue and escalate in subsequent Majorityrights Posts and comments:

 Posted by Tanstaafl on Thu, 03 Jul 2014 22:07 | # 349

Daniel, just to make it clear, my problem wasn’t with Hitler or national socialism.

 

 Posted by DanielS on Fri, 04 Jul 2014 00:46 | # … 353 Tan says:

“Daniel, just to make it clear, my problem wasn’t with Hitler or national socialism. My problem was with Carolyn’s hostility toward White nationalism.”

She was only being faithful to Hitler’s version of “National Socialism”, Tan. That logical adherence forced you to recognize that it is at odds with White Nationalism.

You may not have wanted to realize where Hitler and co. were coming from any more than you wanted to realize where Carolyn was coming from, but its true.


“I see NS as a specific form of WN, much like Germans are a specific form of White, she sees these two things as distinct and at odds.”

Of course there is nothing wrong with liking and defending Germans or German nationalism; on the contrary, that is highly appropriate and correct; there is also nothing wrong with aspects of National Socialism; but she is seeing things accurately – that Hitler’s brand of it ARE distinct and at odds with White Nationalism, which, by contrast, generally advocates for nations comprised of native European peoples to get along.

More interesting commens:

 Posted by Tanstaafl on Sun, 01 Jun 2014 19:02 | #

GW:

Obviously, there was an attempted genocide between 1941-45.

There were two or three moments in the interview where I gave Tan a pass rather than engage in conflict.  One of them was this question of how to respond … fundamentally, out of what part of oneself … to the trespasses of Jewry on our race.

Tan expresses a Nietzschean or substantially Nietzschean morality in his own attitude to that.  I have written about it here

I can clarify my position on these points.

Jewish parasitism was flushed out in 1933, when the German people threw off their jewish yoke. Judea, in their rage, responded by declaring open war. By that point the jews’ infiltration, manipulation and exploitation of Europeans had been going on for centuries. It continues now, though more open and greatly accelerated. White genocide is a consequence of jewish parasitism.

My understanding is quite unlike the Nietzschean morality described in what you linked. In my view morality and identity are inextricably connected. It is holistic (as opposed to elitist) and biological (as opposed to philosophical). I think Ben Tillman sums it up well:

Morality exists to further self-interest, specifically the self-interest of groups. It furthers group interests by mediating the conflicting self-interests of group members to allow the group to function as a cooperative unit.

In other words, good and evil are properly understood as subjective and particularist, not objective and universalist. The measure of a people is not in how they treat the jews, or any other Other, but in how they treat themselves.

 Posted by DanielS on Thu, 05 Jun 2014 06:38 | #

RE: Posted by Mike, 95, 96:

Absent Haller and especially Thorn, much of the base rancor would be gone from MR.

It should be clear enough to you and anyone else that their primary reason to be here is to provoke and sow discord. They know the editorial position of the site and yet they insist on attacking it rather than going to another site where their views are conducive.

Mine and the frustration of others with them has created the appearance of a hostile environment and it has undoubtedly chased some good people away. I know that others are as tired of it as I am – it is no secret (he has made it plain in his comments) that Graham does not care for Thorn and Haller’s input.

If you like tanstaafl so much, take note: he has a blog and commentators.

He is very articulate, sometimes vivifying things we have said here, but I have not experienced him as being in the lead of ideas. For the most part, he’s fleshed out ideas (very well) already put forth. Most of his work I like. However, I don’t think much of his definition shows (i.e., on the right/left, liberalism), they have been well off the mark and unhelpful. But the matter with Tan is that he is probably too Hitler and Jesus friendly. Once we get that out of the way here at MR, I do believe productive conversation and ideas should flow better. Tan may be a bit of a Nordicist as well, which has been a part of MR’s zeitgeist, but I think rather, we want to be inclusive of all European nationalisms inasmuch as they do not impinge upon each other.

In the main, I believe most people who are dissatisfied with MR as it currently is in its transitional phase are either Hitler or Jesus freaks – better off without them, even if it means some loss of popularity.

Posted by Tanstaafl on Mon, 02 Jun 2014 06:40 | #

GW,

one must either treat of Jewish ethnic activism directly out of oneself, according to one’s own nature, or in terms either prescribed by it or dictated by resistance to it

Our nature, for most of our history, has been to mistake the jews for us. Whites will solve this problem, or it will solve us.

Now, universalism, as the cognition by us that there are no conflicts or boundaries except the boundary between Jew and gentile, is the former of these.

I would call this jewish particularism, not universalism. Universalism is a morality which treats everyone as us. Individualism is the other extreme, where us means me. As I said in our discussion, jewish influence misguides most Whites into believing that their identity and morality must be either individualist or universalist, because any form of White particularism is “racist” or “judeophobic”, which is to say not just wrong, but stupid, crazy and evil – i.e. the exact opposite of the truth.

it is a commonplace for American WNs, including in the Linderian sector, to not consider the matter of guiding philosophy at all, and in this way a great many remain thoroughly liberalistic in the terms described here so vividly by Graham Lister.  But that doesn’t extend to their response to the Jewish Question.  That’s viewed through the lens of the deadly struggle for supremacy

A people cannot thrive, or even survive, if they treat enemies like friends. Unfortunately, this isn’t a problem which afflicts only Americans.

The master-slave paradigm makes no distinction on whether morality is biological in its arising or not.  The paradigm operates by collapsing the definitional spaces, rather as you did in that quote, and rendering everything monotonal and subservient to itself alone.

You seem stuck on Nietzsche. I say an identity/morality based on an us-them paradigm rooted in biology trumps universalism, individualism, and even other particularisms which aren’t as well defined. This does not imply that either the us or the them must be monotonal, and to better comport with reality they wouldn’t be.

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 02 Jun 2014 16:29 | #

WN’s are doing their utmost to make German descended peoples feel comfortable with themselves and to unburden them of undue guilt (what, after all, does anyone alive have to do with World War Two?); all of us want for Europeans to work in cooperation and yet we remain saddled with a contingent of revisionists looking to turn around and lay guilt trips on Allied descendents, going into all sorts of largely unnecessary argumentation.

World War II is a history regarding which scarcely anyone alive can be said to have responsibility, let alone guilt, whatever the details of the case.

As such, it does not bear high relevance to our existential warrant to survive as a people. In the days of the controlled media, prior to the Internet, it could have been said to legitimately be an issue occupying a burning, central place, in a time when the motives and deaths of Europeans during, prior, and after World War II were not given sufficient voice.

But now focus on details of holocostianity become more often than not an insidious distraction, a tedious issue –  a tedium that was handled and set aside deftly in a keen distinction that GW drew in the interview: the difference between the German motive to redeem the image of their people through World War Two revisionism in general and holocostianity revisionism in particular, versus the existential motive of the fourteen words. The two motives are different and not necessarily symbiotic, although it is argued (wrongly) by revisionists that they are in necessary alignment – when, in fact, holocaustianity revisionism is in conflict and largely counterproductive, particularly where given such a belabored focus. 

Still, those who will not let it be in history do afford an opportunity to attend to how philosophical lines may have been better drawn so that we might avoid fratricide and our ready portrayal as ex-nihlo evil, as Jews would like to smear those of us who recognize them as a group pattern hostile to European interests in our efforts to separate from them

One question asked by Robert in Arabia brings the matter that GW would care to tease apart into high relief.

“Why on earth should anyone give a damn about any bad things that happen to Jews?”

It is a bit like asking why would anyone care about keeping Africans slaves?

It is not necessarily that we are so kind, but ought to take the other into account for our sake, for the sake of mitigating the creation of legitimate resentment and motive for revenge on the part of the other.

The master slave relationship to the other sets in motion resentment and revenge, usually on the basis of hubris and false, non-qualitative comparison – it has a tendency to escalate … and even if Hitler correctly identified Jews as other, he did not anticipate the kind of reaction that he was setting in motion by his treatment of agentive others as slaves.

I have maintained that race, as ecological systemic classification, would occupy a place between Cartesian points of transcendent universalism and the empirical point within the individual, rather mediated in hermeneutic process – this is in large agreement with tanstaafl. One difference is that I would characterize this as relative, not merely relative, but relative in a relational sense of a morality within and between groups – a large correction is due in changing to the silver rule for out-groups, as opposed the golden rule and universalism. It is not subjective as opposed to universal (subjective would be the same Cartesian starting point). Nevertheless, Tan does well to articulate how race and nation occupy the Jewish prohibited middle ground. I would say that nations would be like the necessary compartments of the ecological ship, the class or the necessary qualitative parts of the systemic body of the race, the class.

However, to say that morality has no connection what-so-ever to what lies beyond race would be Cartesian as well, and to address this point seems to me to be one of the services that GW has enlisted Neil Vodavzny to attempt to provide.

………
I don’t appreciate the reverence of Hitler – it is a massive insult to so many –  he had impressive logical skills to be sure, but there were also glaring errors in his judgment and it is obvious that he could not be a figure that all Europeans could rally under –  obvious that he would create conflict. Look, I might be proud that Caesar could have the ability to defeat the Gauls, another one to take part of England, but why would I boast and defend his doing that? And how could I be surprised that this would build the resentment that would one day implode upon Rome? This is not the way to build a stable environment for your people, even in regard to people you want to be separate from.

There is another extreme, that is expressed in examples of taking things too far to the objectivist side, best man for the job (or our women), that perhaps we should talk and negotiate assiduously with jews and blacks and help them carve out homelands. That’s their problem. We owe separatism to ourselves, not to any pleading, commensurate reward, equal treatment or negotiation with blacks and jews, who should not have been allowed to impose upon us and into our environs to begin with.

On the other hand, I do see something in GW’s criticism, that is that while the Nazis might have importantly identified the Jews as other, they were not unique in this recognition and their response was ill conceived. Not only regarding the Jews, but also in relation to other Europeans – not only Slavs, but witness the attitude toward the English here. As if there could be no moral reason to oppose the Nazis, as if the Nazis were not so narrowly circumscribed in their moral outlook that the only moral good was the good for the Nazis.

I have proposed the silver rule as a reasonable way of dealing with the other,  it needs further refinement. I would disagree here with GW’s resolution to boil liberalism down to equality – this is what sets in motion the false comparison of master slave relation..and the bitter competition that ensues of not valuing, qualitative, ecological disbursement and incommensurate motives.

Nevertheless, I agree with GW that the Nazis position toward Jews and other Europeans was not commendable even if somehow understandable. And even as present day Germans should be unburdened of guilt, that the Nazis were not ex nihlo evil, to take the position that they were ex nihlo innocent can only spark rightful suspicion of the judgment of the theoretical progenitor.

I am really sick and tired of hearing that America and England were on the wrong side of the war. The truth is that Hitler drew the lines poorly and his philosophical underpinnings were very poor – catastrophic – predominantly responsible for leading to the ends that it did. By his own admission and in truth, the course of the war was taken through his initiative. The Allies probably should have pursued intervention in other ways but hindsight is 20/20.

The best way for Germans to handle the redemption of their honor is to point to the fact that they are a new, innocent generation, that previous generations had motives, were not acting out of a vacuum, but under great stress and inspiration counter to that stress. Matters may have been handled differently but there were pressures, threats that the Germans were responding to – over reacting you say, well probably, but there has also been an over punishment now, which is carrying on to us in the present generation as responsible for things that happened before we were born. Just or unjust, punishment has been served enough.

Before offering that argument, I would render the caveat: that while it is disingenuous to say that the Nazi regime were ex-nihlo evil, so too is it disingenuous to say that they were ex nihlo innocent, which incredibly, is the way some of their apologists speak – all that can and should do, is breed mistrust of those who attempt such purist arguments.

For those who want to debate the holocaust for the burning desire to redeem the reputation of Germany of that epoch, please forgive those of us who are not especially interested as we do have the pressing existential matter of the fourteen words to attend, and while we do not seek to burden you with guilt trips neither do we need guilt trips from you.


59

 Posted by DanielS on Mon, 02 Jun 2014 16:36 | #

Clearly a number of Jews died, a lot of them in starving condition and many of those who lived were skeletal (yes, we know, “that is all Churchill and Roosevelt’s fault”). But seriously, whether it is called “the holocaust”, “the Shoah”, a genocidal attempt or not, at this point, so what? Legal and other penalties have been more than served and nobody alive is guilty. Even the numbers, when it gets to be over, say, a hundred thousand, to debate them only re-creates the creepy ghoulish stereotype of the bald, hunch-backed German before his harpsichord (Carolyn tried to turn this stereotype around, against me and Poles, but that one didn’t work) fiendishly fixated on inhumane details, and only contributes to the suspicion of a person who could be so detached from nobility as to commit such acts as have been charged.

Whatever the case, the better angle for Germans is to describe how things may have looked from their circumstances, that it was seen as a life and death struggle with the Jews and certainly the war could have turned out better. We have regrets for the results of the war, but it can only go so far when in fact, we had nothing to do with it. All we can do now is attempt to do better and not allow guilt trips to prevent us from defending ourselves as a people – we are perfectly warranted as such, as a people who really had nothing to do with events of WWII whether exaggerated or factual.

[…]

These deeds and motives were not ex-nihlo, quite to the contrary, there were circumstantial motivations.

I believe the term ‘holohoax’ to be tactless and counter-productive rhetoric for reasons similar to the non-nobility to which GW alludes – mocking the dead is not a good idea, generally speaking; nevertheless, “holocostianity” as disingenuous instrumentalization is a viable critique.

[…]

While Tan’s definition of morality corresponds in large measure with my view of it as a biological systemic affair, entailing accountability and ecology – human and otherwise – I believe it is better cast in relative terms – not hyper relative and without accountability though not subjective either ..that probably makes a difference. Lets not burden the Germans and the rest of us by circumscribing this in such Germanic terms nor at the other Cartesian end of ex nihlo good and evil.


If you are looking to create empathy for the Germans of that era or for anyone opposed to Jewish power and influence, the key is to focus on the question of why there is this malice for it, not how this, that or the other thing could not be true.

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 07 Jun 2014 07:25 | #

Leon, you have been saying that you are going to go elsewhere for some time now, and Lurker has advised a place for you as have I many times – Alternative Right.

It wasn’t necessary, but typically malicious that you would re-paste the following comment by malicious pro-Hitler troll:


” Dave Marshall,

  A lot of us here think DanielS is either an idiot (and not merely English-language deficient, which he may or may not be) or some type of troll, as you suspect. This has nothing to do with the debate over Nazi Germany, about which reasonable whites of impeccably pro-white goodwill can disagree.”

 

Reasonable people can get along with those who revere Hitler? Ok, so you will go to a site that believes that, and that it is not you who is the idiot/troll, right?

 Posted by Greg Johnson on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 19:52 | #

Daniel, GW, Tan, this was an excellent interview. Top marks all around. I am looking for interviewees for CC Radio podcasts. Please contact me at editor@counter-currents.com if you would like to carry on the conversation. I have never “gotten” GW or Daniel, and perhaps the best way to sort things out is just to interview them. RE the theme music: nice to know there is another Zappa fan in the WN world.


246

 Posted by DanielS on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 23:24 | #

Greg,

Thank you for the commendations….

the overture is big of you, especially since MR has a distinguished mean streak, which certainly applies to me no less than others. In service of this struggle of ours, your ability to rise above things is significant. It is not typical and your capacity in that regard is no less commendable than your scholarship. Thanks.

Note: regarding the music, it is John McgLaughlin and Mahavishnu Orchestra, “Between Nothingness and Eternity”, Live in Central Park, NYC, 1973. However, I have seen Zappa six times in concert.

 Posted by Tanstaafl on Mon, 30 Jun 2014 23:55 | #

John Derbyshire and The Suicide Thing. “Ethnomasochism” doesn’t fit what’s happening any better than “suicide” does. This is the kind of superficial pap that’s produced by people who are deliberately ignoring the jewish elephant in the room.

“The Jewish Question” – Jared Taylor Vs. Brit – When confronted about jewish hostility Taylor admits there “is no question” of “jewish duplicity on the question of race”. Then he proceeds to undermine the credibility of himself and the superficial race-realism he espouses by saying he thinks one can’t afford to be a “crank” on more than one subject at a time – as if the jews and race are two distinct and unrelated subjects.

 Posted by DanielS on Mon, 30 Jun 2014 02:26 | #

It seems evident that Jews are not only pushing the suicide meme, but they are also trying to de-emphasize their group antagonism, trying to put across the idea of only some Jews being bad (as opposed to their being a pattern we must separate from). These memes are evident as well in Luke Ford (porn industry writer and convert to Orthodox Judaism) and David Cole’s (Jewish holocaust revisionist, like Gottfried and Atzmon, an ass-kisser and stoker of German resentment now that its been bilked for all its worth) take on White Nationalism.

 Posted by Tanstaafl on Thu, 03 Jul 2014 22:07 | #

Daniel, just to make it clear, my problem wasn’t with Hitler or national socialism.My problem was with Carolyn’s hostility toward White nationalism. She knew all along that the only reason I worked with her on “the White network” was because I thought it was about promoting the interests of Whites generally. What I didn’t realize until the end was that whereas I see NS as a specific form of WN, much like Germans are a specific form of White, she sees these two things as distinct and at odds. I still don’t know whether she realized this all along and just hoped to eventually either cow me or elbow me out. Her behavior since – venting her Machiavellian suspicions and bitter complaints that the not-so-smart non-entity didn’t just leave her the keys – certainly does make me wonder.

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 04 Jul 2014 00:46 | #

Tan says:

“Daniel, just to make it clear, my problem wasn’t with Hitler or national socialism. My problem was with Carolyn’s hostility toward White nationalism.”

She was only being faithful to Hitler’s version of “National Socialism”, Tan. That logical adherence forced you to recognize that it is at odds with White Nationalism.

You may not have wanted to realize where Hitler and co. were coming from any more than you wanted to realize where Carolyn was coming from, but its true.


“I see NS as a specific form of WN, much like Germans are a specific form of White, she sees these two things as distinct and at odds.”

 

Of course there is nothing wrong with liking and defending Germans or German nationalism; on the contrary, that is highly appropriate and correct; there is also nothing wrong with aspects of National Socialism; but she is seeing things accurately – that Hitler’s brand of it IS distinct and at odds with White Nationalism, which, by contrast, generally advocates for nations comprised of native European peoples to get along.

Continue Reading Generational Astrology: Zodiac Sign of The Boomer, Part 8

On The Eve of Ethnic Genetic Interest’s Most Important Day.

  • Post author:
  • Post category:Central

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Wed, 28 Oct 2015 16:08 | #

According to the October 24th, 2015 edition of The Moscow Times, Christ-insanity is continuing to wage its age-old war against Traditional Youth.

“The Education Ministry of northwestern Russia’s Arkhangelsk region has banned Halloween celebrations at local schools, citing the holiday’s harmful effect on children, the FlashNord news agency reported Monday.

The ministry’s statement said that Halloween is “incoherent to basic traditional values and causes a negative influence on fragile minds.”

The ban was instituted a week after the Russian Orthodox Church in Siberia’s Krasnoyarsk region called on local authorities to ban Halloween on a similar basis, the Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper reported. Priest Maxim Zolotukhin told local STS-Prima television station that children may get depressed after Halloween because they do not understand the difference between make-believe and reality, and so evil will enter their souls.

Inasmuch as the war against Halloween is a proxy war waged by christians against Traditional Youth, it is little wonder that metaphysical mercenaries would attempt to distort the meaning of that name and use it as spiritual camouflage. Their masters have taught them well.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RC7CpI1UjS0

Jimmy, while defending the pagan sourced holiday of Halloween against the Orthodox Church, we might also take occasion to note that the Christian Church has altogether arrogated what is the most sacred holiday to our ethnic genetic interests, which is the day following day, November 1rst – in Eastern Europe (and elsewhere, e.g., Sweden) it is still a day when European folks commemorate their forebears, visiting the cemetery to pay special respects. It is practiced there in cloaked manner. But reverent respect that should be directed toward our ancestors has been largely diverted by the Church and back into its Judeo-religion; worse still in the west, where the “All Saints Day” (Nov. 1) diversion has been taken so far that our ancestor reverence is but the vaguest remnant, a phantom holiday, somehow indicated on some calendars, but not observed – merely alluded-to very indirectly for those who care to look behind the etymology of the name, “Halloween”, and into its true history.

Upon reviewing the matter of Halloween, I see that I was so focused on the importance of the European day of our ancestor veneration, or what should be the point of celebration on November 1, commemoration of our forebears (typically including a family visit to their graveside), that I lost sight of the fact that the Church was not only distracting from the true significance of the November 1 celebration for us; but also that Halloween itself was not a part of the mere diversion and distraction from the holiday. While many in East Europe see November 1 as an important holiday, Halloween still tends to be perceived by them through the churchly lens as a recent and corrupt affectation imposed from the commercial West, rather than an integral part of the holiday

Ancestor and Forebears Eve: paying respect to the 50 Great Escapists.

My response to Jimmy was correct in the general idea – of the Church burying our most sacred holiday – viz., in reverence of our ancestors – but I had neglected his point in fact of Halloween itself being an integral part of the holiday, not a fluffed-up and commercialized imposition to distract from the real thing:

As the most important, sacred, commemorative holiday practice in reconstruction of our EGI through the initiation of our true Traditional Youth is under assault by The Orthodox Church (in this case), it becomes particularly relevant to highlight against the false Traditional Youth and their Orthodox Christian religion of our debates.

Initiating the children into becoming one with their forebears.

The children are not [considered] real people yet, not until they go through this initiation rite on Halloween…when they enter the realm of death, dressing up as the dead, taking on the identity of a dead person..  in a sense they become this person..  they have the same name, the same honor and the same death as the person they chose to become in this initiation ritual. The dead person, of course, is one of the dead forbears.

You can say that they believed in reincarnation.

Let us note also the ethnic genetic reincarnation.

Ibid:

So, they are returning to the Yule Tide and they are returning in the night. They are lead by the Sorcerer and the deity from farm to farm with these children to bring them back home… the families wished them welcome with some food on the table… to enable them to eat and feel welcome when they come back home.

During the Christian era, those in Church power wanted to destroy this tradition, they wanted to destroy European culture.  So they demonized these children and turned them into grotesque creatures, mocking them for their “superstitious belief in goblins” and so-forth when in reality they didn’t believe in any such things.

But the farmers could no longer put the food on a table inside the home for the children because church authorities might find out; so they had to put it into the barn.

These were not evil spirits, they were merely children returning for their initiation ritual [into the legacy of their forebears].

[Even so] the children were perceived by church people as becoming as twisted goblins [misunderstanding their transit with the dead where they were communing with elves, which were the spirit of the dead].

The children are the reborn dead relatives.

The elves were known to always sing, dance and read poetry because they are trying to preserve their memory..

This illustrates what the Christians have done to our culture. They have taken a beautiful, European, pagan religion, tradition, pagan culture, and twisted it…

..turned it into some grotesque mockery of what it really was.

The grotesque, twisted image of our religion was made by the Christians in an attempt to destroy, to weed-out our roots, to cut our roots so that our culture, our peoples would fall.

What the church could not burn they twisted.

But the European culture was beautiful, rich, advanced and most importantly, it was ours.

An argument by Mick Lately:

Mick Lately in comment 147410 on Wed, 28 Oct 2015 18:01 wrote:

I think Halloween is being turned into perverted paganism and that it is part of the whole “weaponized anthropology” campaign. Not to mention that it’s “cultural appropriation” for non-whites to celebrate Halloween.

I would support the official ban of Halloween as a temporary wartime measure and allow it and Christianity back when the Jews and non-whites have been defeated.

A significant rebuttal to Mick Lately by Kumiko Oumae:

Kumiko Oumae in comment 147414 on Thu, 29 Oct 2015 02:37 wrote:

Weaponised against who, though? The ‘weaponisation’ of anthropology is when research of the culture and history of an ethnic group is used by belligerent groups to facilitate their mission objectives. However, our mission objective as ethno-nationalists and ethno-regionalists is to:

1. Defeat those who try promote mass mestizaje;

In light of Kumiko’s first concern, the defeat of those promoting mass mestizaje (race-mixing)..

Take note of Eric Weinstein’s remark beginning at (50:11):

“The point of being a progressive is progress. ..and this idea that this word and this concept have been co-opted by people who have no concept of the history of progressives; no understanding of all the great things that we’ve accomplished – you know, interracial marriage! …You know, we’ve been behind all sorts of things from the get go. ..and the point is, that those of us who are ‘truly progressive’ are keeping going. I am pro-market where the market works and I’m up for calling the market out where it fails” – Eric Weinstein

"The point of being a progressive is progress. ..and this idea that this word and this concept have been co-opted by people who have no concept of the history of progressives."
"No understanding of all the great things that we've accomplished - you know, interracial marriage! ...You know, we've been behind all sorts of things from the get go."

..and the point is, that those of us who are ‘truly progressive’ are keeping going. I am pro-market where the market works and I’m up for calling the market out where it fails” – Eric Weinstein

Where it fails his agenda, such as the promotion of mass mestizaje.

“The goal is to meet the challenge of racial interbreeding. It’s not a choice, it’s an obligation. It’s imperative. We cannot do otherwise. If this volunteerism does not work for the Republic, then the State will move to still more coercive measures.” – Nicolas Sarkozy

Kumiko adds, after listing  the number 1, the ethnonationalist objective os defeating those who promote mass mestizaje… 

Ibid

2. Promote viewpoints which would enhance people’s willingness to reinforce national and regional borders;
3. Promote regional integration and common security perimeters on the basis of shared ethnic and cultural heritage, as well as shared economic interests.

In order to prevent our enemies from occupying positions of cultural power, it’s necessary to get everyone to quit looking to churches for guidance, because the churches are opposed to everything that we stand for.

There is probably nothing more that the churches would love to do in their own form of ‘weaponised anthropology’, than to re-colonise the minds of the people through some form of renewed culture war, and thus disarm them mentally before anything even gets off the ground.

You can’t just place a temporary ban on culture because [you imagine that] it’s ‘inconvenient’ for you to have to fight on that level. The enemies are not going to suspend their own culture war against you to be ‘fair’ to you in the meantime.

Jews, Christians, Muslims, and the whole liberal media combine that is arrayed against you, are not going to call truce on you if you promise them that you’ll stop celebrating Halloween. They’d just have liberals and Jews hollow it out into a purely commercialised holiday with no content at all, and Christians and Muslims would then bash it and present themselves as a false opposition to such ‘commercialism’ as part of their own recruiting drives.

Retreating from the sociocultural domain has never produced good results, not ever. In the conflict that is going to come later, these kinds of arguments that are occurring in the sociocultural domain are going to form part of the crucial groundwork that will determine the way that conflict will manifest, how it will be fought, and what the outcome of that conflict will be. Dealing with laying that groundwork can’t be put off until later. The content of the conflict and the ideas around which that conflict is fought, determine the nature of the outcome of that conflict in the event of victory.

That is part of why I am never interested in advocating collaboration with Christianity in the pre-conflict environment, not even as a cynical play. That is a losing game, because firstly, Christianity cannot be trusted to maintain a martial posture or to adhere to the ethno-nationalist or ethno-regionalist principles. In the aftermath, if collaboration with Christianity resulted in a Christian-dominated outcome, then it would mean that everything was done for nothing.

The religion issue is not a side-issue, it’s not a mere ‘question’ that is asked and answered in a little policy book somewhere. It’s a core part of the problem in the North Atlantic. Getting rid of Christianity is a necessary pre-condition to the survival of the peoples of the North Atlantic.

….

Addendum:

The 50 Great Escapists At Poznan Cytadela

Buried here, at Poznan Cytadela, are The 50 Great Escapists (48 of them, anyway) whose ingenious feat of stealth engineering allowed them to escape what was designed to be an escape-proof prison camp Stallag Luft III.

48 of the 50 Great Escapists are buried here, at Poznan Cytadela

…their escape from – Stallag Luft III – as immortalized in the movie, “The Great Escape.”

While Americans helped to build the tunnel, there were no Americans involved on the night of the escape as they were moved to another camp before the escape.  Charles Bronson’s  character as a Russian was also fake; there were Poles, but no Russians involved…

Naturally, Steve McQueen’s motorcycle scene was fictitious…

The real story is even more fantastic in terms of the prisoner’s ingenuity – including: a tunnel entranceway through a false floor in a shower drain; support structure to uphold loose sand; fabricated air ducts; documents and civilian clothes..

Scene from the Hollywood movie, when the prisoners discuss strategy, requirements for escape.
Actual photo from Stallag Luft III
Scene from movie: the escapists are pulling each other through their ingeniously engineered tunnel (there were three tunnels, Tom, Dick and Harry. Tom was discovered by the Nazis prior to escape)
Roger J. Bushell, mastermind of The Great Escape, is the second grave focused-on in the video. He was just 33 years old when he was murdered by Hitler’s orders.
Continue Reading On The Eve of Ethnic Genetic Interest’s Most Important Day.

Liberalism’s Kid Glove. Queers Assuming the Position. How to Give a Blowjob

  • Post author:
  • Post category:Central

Liberalism’s Kid Glove: If You Need A Condom, Maybe You Should Get to Know That Person Better.

One of the best litmus tests as to whether or not you are being too liberal, too promiscuous with regard to sex, is whether or not you need to use a condom. If you don’t know someone well enough to be sure that you are not going to get a disease or have an unwanted pregnancy, then maybe you ought to get to know them better before having sex with them. If you really like someone and if they are really worth it, you are not likely to have to use condoms at all. And would you really like to use them?

Subtitle: don’t forget to forget your condom. A.I.D.S. is a most beautiful disease, generally targeting people who deserve to die for their bullying, irresponsible, reckless treatment of sex.

(((Howard Stern)))

Particularly when the bounds of EGI are unguarded, the need to treat sex carefully, as an act which can endorse or undermine our EGI, becomes all the more important. Sex will be used by our enemies in psy-ops, such as the profusion of interracial porn. It will be used by our enemies to promote liberal politics, empower those horribly destructive to our interests and to dis-empower those thoughtful of our interests – those concerned with our people in our broad pattern. It will be used by our antagonists to outbreed our race, including outbreeding some of our most qualitatively differentiated genetic capital. As de facto safeguards of liberalism, they have their go-to “moral arguments” to distract us from the moral re-ordering of our people.

"I tried to accommodate as many women as possible"... ..."Some of them were unbelievable." - Magic Johnson
Magic, er, E.T. says, “Remember to not use a condom. AIDS is a beautiful thing.” It kills those irresponsible and reckless with our EGI.

Of the hundreds, or thousands, of women who made themselves available to Magic Johnson, he said: “I tried to accommodate as many as possible. Some of them were unbelievable.”

This liberalism, this irresponsibility to our EGI, is not what we’re here to defend. With unspeakable irresponsibility and selfish uncaring (to say the least), these R selectors bring into the world behavior and genetics destructive to any reflective people – especially our European people.

Because not all merit our admiration and defense, we need to secure those who do. 14.
Magic Johnson, crying Trojan proponent

“No glove no love”, so the motto of condom proponents goes – a condom being referred to as a “glove”, in their liberal slang.

Of the hundreds, or thousands, of women who made themselves available to Magic Johnson, he said: “I tried to accommodate as many as possible. Some of them were unbelievable.”

This liberalism, this irresponsibility to our EGI, is not what we’re here to defend. With unspeakable irresponsibility and selfish uncaring (to say the least), they bring into the world behavior and genetics destructive to any reflective people – especially our European people.

No thoughtful person makes AIDS prevention a cause.

Africa is one of the only places where AIDS is on the rise. That is good. Their population needs to be drastically reduced and its increase, let alone interbeeding with others, needs to be thwarted.

After marriage, the condom is taken by liberalism as one of its lines of defense. Don’t be fooled, there’s no substitute for the White class and its bounds. This holds the freedom in sacrament and in celebration that gives our people life and health as opposed to destruction.

There can be a time to be Dionysian, promiscuous for some who choose to be – i.e., among our own people – but that time is when the borders of our EGI are secured and members accounted for. Until then, good riddance to those who treat our genetic treasures irresponsibly; it couldn’t happen to worse, more deserving people of a miserable fate.

Don't you feel so sorry for her.
Always remember, er, forget your condom. If you think that you have to use one, you’d better get to know who you are screwing around with a little better - maybe a lot better.

With Charlie Sheen “preferring lambskin condoms”, in particular, an older slogan comes to mind as particularly apt to capture the refrain of those who would contest the facilitation of liberalism – they are treating those who engage in reckless and socially destructive behavior “with kid gloves” – that is to say, they are protecting them too much and therefore enabling bad behavior in the long term.

Along with “No glove no love”, as the motto of condom proponents goes – a condom being referred to as a “glove”, in their liberal slang….

Handle with kid gloves

Meaning

Handle a situation, or a person or an object, delicately and gingerly.

Origin

Kid gloves are, of course, gloves made from the skin of a young goat. I say ‘of course’ but, in fact, when they were first fashioned in the 18th century they were more often made from lambskin, as that was easier to come by. They were clearly not intended for use when you were pruning the hedge and wearing kid gloves was the sartorial equivalent of pale white skin, that is, it indicated that the wearer was rich enough to indulge in a life of genteel indoor idleness. The earliest mentions of kid gloves are from England in the 1730s and the following is a typical report of a wealthy gentleman, laid out in his ‘Sunday best’, from Bagnall’s News, in The Ipswich Journal, December 1734:

The Corpse of Mr. Thorp, A Distiller in Soho, who died a few Days since, said to be worth £10000 was put into his Coffin, quilted within with white Sattin; and after several yards of fine Holland [best-quality linen] were wrapt about his Body… on his Head was a Cap of the same Holland tied with a white Ribbond; he has about his Neck two Yards of Cambrick; a Cambrick Handkerchief between his Hands, on which he had a pair of white Kid Gloves: and in this manner he lay in state some Days and was afterwards buried in Buckinghamshire.

At that time, kid gloves were viewed as rather ostentatious and only suitable for the nouveau riche – much as heavy gold chains might be viewed today.

Daily Beast, ‘Porn World in Panic Over Charlie Sheen’s HIV Diagnosis’, Nov 20, 2015:

‘There is so much fear right now amongst the girls…’

Well-known for his porn star companions, Charlie Sheen’s recent admission to being HIV-positive has sent a ripple of fear through the adult industry. There’s no protocol in place for this. There are no records of who Sheen’s hired, thus no quarantine list for the porn stars he’s been sexually active with.

In the semi-regulated world of adult film, when an HIV scare is made known everyone asks, “Did I perform with the person who tested positive?” Fear turns to panic if it was a close call, relief if it wasn’t. That’s only after a name is released—or patient zero comes forward. Production shuts down, quarantine lists are drawn up for first generation, second, third, and so on. An ideal “who’s performed with whom” list chronicling before and after known exposure is made available. Some call this “the honor system.”

Unfortunately, those outside the business don’t always play by the industry’s self-regulated rules. Needless to say, former Two and a Half Men actor Charlie Sheen plays by his own rules.

“There is so much fear right now amongst the girls…like who have I had sex with that has had sex with them, or have I had sex with a girl who has had sex with Charlie?” says Alana Evans, 2015 AVN Hall of Fame recipient. “Maybe we can get Charlie to put together a list of all the porno girls he’s had sex with so the rest of us can make sure we’re okay? That’d be great.”

In case you missed it, Sheen admitted on the Today Show that he was HIV-positive, and has known of his diagnosis for four years. He also alleged “all sexual partners have known” about his condition with “no exception.”

While some are applauding Sheen for his bravery in coming forward, there’s speculation amongst industry insiders as to why now? Some credit the 27-year-old blonde who spoke anonymously to the Daily Mail with forcing Sheen’s hand. She estimates the A-lister had sex with at least 50 porn stars since his diagnosis and “fears the porn industry could face an ‘HIV epidemic’ as a result.”

‘There is so much fear right now amongst the girls…’

Sheen’s latest role as victim is a bit hard to swallow. He paints a vivid portrait of his suffering at the mercy of his addictions, depression, and multi-million dollar extortions from ex-lovers. Even so, that his two ex-goddesses are contradicting his story raises questions concerning his credibility.

Ex-goddess Bree Olson, who dated and lived with Sheen for seven months in 2011, appeared on The Howard Stern Show to claim she had no idea about her ex’s condition, and claimed she learned about his HIV-positive status “right along with everyone else.”

“He never said anything to me,” Olson added. “I was his girlfriend. I lived with him. We were together. We had sex almost every day for a year—with lambskin condoms.”

Now lambskin condoms—incredibly thin condoms are billed as providing the closest thing to not using condoms at all—only guard against pregnancy and do not prevent the transmission of HIV. Olson told Stern that while she wanted to use standard Trojan condoms, lambskin was Sheen’s condom of choice.

While Olson tested negative for HIV, in Sheen’s home state of California it’s a felony punishable by up to eight years in prison for a person with HIV to have unprotected sex with the intent to infect someone who’s unaware of their status. Though that is incredibly hard to prove in criminal court, California also has a misdemeanor charge carrying up to six months in prison for willfully exposing others to HIV.

….

Same Dr Fauci whose HIVprogressivism diverted untold$ from the responsible to sexually irresponsible

Who is Dr. Fauci?

Since January 2020, Dr. Anthony Fauci has been one of the lead members of the Trump Administration’s White House Coronavirus Task Force addressing the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in the United States.

Dr. Fauci is a physician and immunologist, who gained notoriety as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) beginning 1984 when he was looked upon as the leading expert on HIV AIDS. He was persuaded to merge the treatment of AIDS with “progressive” political activism, to treat HIV as everybody’s problem.

And how much money has been spent??? keeping alive people whose AIDS education could be summed up in a few short words?

Don’t conduct yourself like a pig and you won’t get the disease.

Maybe you should know who you are having sex with?

There has been much discussion, and with good reason, about the balancing the cost of keeping low risk groups at home, shutting down businesses, etc. for the COVID-19 crisis.

What has been the cost of keeping alive people who irresponsibly abuse what is to conscientious people such an important act as sex?

It is an untold tragedy, the good that the money spent on AIDS could have done to people who conduct their lives responsibly with regard to sex.

An utter slap in the face to humanity.

It only became everybody’s problem when they penalized responsible humanity by making them pay for destructive behavior.

Clinton (with sex slave, Chauntae Davies), and Ghislaine Maxwell
…as he takes off on Epstein’s Lolita express to bring relief to Africa.

Queers Assuming The Position

I am one who tends to think that concern regarding homosexuality is exaggerated beyond its true importance in WN circles.

Perhaps because I was at one time confronted directly and from a complexity of different angles with the implication to myself, but having no doubt that I wasn’t, and wanting to be unburdened of any accusation’s tedium, I was forced to make efficient intellectual work of putting aside any such accusation, to master the ways in which the issue could be deftly set aside as it is – largely irrelevant.


4,308 words

I have an ambiguous continental European look that in some lights has me looking tough and menacing. But by strange contrast, in other lights, I appear impish – I have “that look.” It hasn’t happened all that much, but from time to time people have thought I was a queer or said that I look like one.

Though I have not been the most popular man among women, some women seem to like me, including some very pretty ones, and that is good enough for me to be ok with how I look. Women were always beautiful to me, unbelievably beautiful.

Thus the accusation was more annoying than deeply troubling in thinking back on it, as my core identity is so based in appreciation, and well, lust for women, that I simply cannot relate to a man wanting to engage in a homosexual act what-so-ever. It is bizarre.

I liked and felt this male identity, its privilege to stand up and fight for what is right. Early on I felt it corresponding with a rule, that in some important respects, a man is not fundamentally acquiescent. The first I was aware of any phenomenon of homosexuality I had an unequivocal aversion to it as a violation of that male integrity – to that a man does not acquiesce, a female, maybe.

The he-man-woman hater phase of childhood was a matter of protecting myself from humiliating defeats by girls, including my feminist older sister. Once puberty hit, I liked women a bit too much – physically, anyway, to where their character in context of America’s liberalism and anti-racism was not always, but too often disappointing.

The torrents of anti-White male hatred exploded after the Viet Nam war was over, when there was no longer a need to be deferential to men for that ultimate sacrifice based on the denial of their intrinsic human value as it were.

Right at the critical age of 13, MS Magazine experienced its only year of black ink, women were hostile to EVERYTHING it seemed. What could be more horrible than having the people (women) you are born to love being trained to hate you and actually acting on it. It was near impossible to do anything about it. There was the wimp/pig oxymoronic performance requirement as previously noted, demanded by feminists, whereby you could always be cast as one of those two categories and put in the “wrong”, no matter how you tried to express your appreciation of women. It was overwhelming, pervasive through media, a media at the time to which there was no talking back – it was an ominous buildup 24/7 of being told how terrible you were as a White man, and legitimizing the most hideous betrayal in alliance with black power. Though the dam had not burst, the signs were clear and pointing toward the worst nightmare. Worst of all, women often seemed to be indifferent, if not all for it.

For me, unfortunately, my family offered no recourse from this social maelstrom but was if anything, more harrowing. My mother, always high-strung, became more and more hostile until she was unremittingly hostile, accusing me of a bewildering cacophony of bad motives and characteristics. I was 13 for god’s sake but she prohibited me from defending myself and “meta-communicating” to clarify and revise her pejorative attributions of me. Her hostility culminated in her having a second nervous breakdown (her first was when I was 11). It was neurologically related, as evidenced by her pupils becoming tiny. In one instance she spread Christmas cards throughout the house “to make it like Disney Land for the starving children of the world” and peed on the floor so that they could have a drink. Apprised the acute difficulty, my sister came back from college and was the only one there with me for that episode – angry with me for having been there. I understood that my mother was sick and was only relieved for undeniable evidence of her illness, as her hostility to me was unbearable. My sister’s person was no less a challenge as she went between icy cold displays that she was stronger than any man; to an emotional extreme of blood curdling protests if I observed that a woman was pretty, had a nice ass, whatever. Nevertheless, her feminism, though it was real and versed in the literature, was kept cunningly in the background and protected from critical revision. I later figured that she adopted the following rules toward men, to do to them what she felt they had done to women throughout history. I was the easiest mark to test her stance: to trivialize, to humiliate, to limit and to control men. Her usual greeting when entering a room was a very loud belch. Occasionally, presenting her masticated food would add display to her confidence and lack of self consciousness.

When she accused me of thinking it is legitimate to rape a woman for dressing provocatively – something I had never even thought, let alone maintained – I stopped talking to her for ten years, realizing vividly that she was simply geared to find in me examples of the stereotypical male chauvinist that she wanted to persecute.

She did build a successful career for herself as a divorce lawyer – bought herself a beautiful home in Short Hills and goes scuba diving around the world several times a year. For my strong dissatisfaction with his vulgar pragmatism, my father, for a last bit of spite from the grave, put her in charge of his estate. And she ruined many an opportunity for me with her antagonism and indifference, as she would. Steering clear of the worst level of bad, but not many levels above. It is, after all, about trivializing, limiting, humiliating and controlling, not about dignifying a man with an outright attempt to finish him.

I am digressing, but to make a point. Women’s reactions to the confused roles of modernity, their “wails” and this ominous feminist build up of anti-White man rule structure that White women participated in all too often during the 70’s and 80’s, made it ironically difficult to not be a misogynist for me, caring about what our co-evolutionary women should-be in essence, as I did.

In fact, I did become a misogynist for a number of years until I got out of America and was able to experience White women in a homogeneous White country, calm, loving and loyal to their men. Not perfect, but their version of egomania limited in the complexity and extent of its impact compared to what it is for women and their capacity for treachery in the American context. It is very nice to be able to like women again (as people, always liked them physically), while retaining the lesson that one should not respect them so much as to put their proclivities beyond criticism.

My father and brother were no help and boxed-out the “macho” route such that discussion to solve problems was “all bullshit.” My father was rather proud of his ungrammatical way of speaking, “No, it don’t work that way. He come from the North Ward of Newark”, etc. My mother seemed to think it was cute, encouraged it. In fact my father viciously attacked innocent questions while humiliating anything like intellectual inquiry with his native strength. Both parents typically humiliated as nonsense what really would be my only recourse – the intellectual route. But this steepest of routes had another formidable obstacle which was my older brother’s jealousy.  Like a bear waiting upstream to swipe to death any fish that he did not take to eat, he was determined that I not be able to think clearly, calmly and with confidence. A constant array of insults and perturbations. I saw women choosing this kind of male and I was repulsed. They seemed to be blaming the men they chose and choosing men they could blame.

However, before making my way out of misogyny, the maze held some further twists for me. There was nobody to talk to and so I was an inarticulate mess going into my late teens and twenties. I could barely talk then (that’s why I take it with a grain of salt when people criticize my writing; I look at where I started). Compounding the confusing antagonism of my family, the rule structure of America made operations of logic for the most part superficial as was the development of ordinary labor skills only a means to participate in and advance a system that augured nothing but destruction of everything that I deeply cared about. I did not want to know how to make this thing work. I wanted to know who cared about going a different way and how to share in influence with them. I could cope with no major, academically, but art, though it was a way to get into a good school.

Still, it didn’t look good for a man to be taking-up so impractical a path in America as being an artist. Add to that the aforementioned impish look that I had in some lights, the appearance of “sensitivity” coming out of my situation as it were, an ambivalence toward women leaning heavily toward misogyny, even though experientially based..

…with rooms difficult to find for students in college towns, fate began looking only more eerie. My first room was in an Oakland, California house owned by a queer guy. Whatever. He left me alone and I was busy with school. The next year I transferred to Boston. I got a room in a big house, turns out owned by a queer guy. There were lots of people living there, not all of them queer in this big, lively atmosphere. So again, whatever. But that was only a sublet, and I had to find another place mid-semester when I did not have a lot of time for a search. I took a room in a house owned by a homely middle aged queer associate of theirs, assured that he would not bother me, knowing that I was straight. And he did not bother me but this was not the lively atmosphere of many but rather a few months of just me and this guy living in his sad, dingy house. Eventually another queer guy rented another room. Young guy, personable, normal in a lot of ways besides being a queer. The first time that I ever saw men kiss one another was when he invited his boyfriend over and french kissed him (yech!). A bit nerdish, but kind of a normal looking guy – really disgusting to see them do this. The world was starting to get a bit too weird for me, but school was hard and that is where my attentions needed to be. Jim, his name was, thought that I was an ok guy (I guess because I am) and he proposed that we get out of this gloomy situation by taking an apartment with a straight friend of his for the next year. He’d found a nice apartment on Mission Hill. I did not want to live with queers anymore so I looked around for an affordable apartment but found it near impossible, especially from a distance in New Jersey over the summer. So, with the idea that the other guy there would be straight as well and its being a nice and affordable apartment, I decided to go for it so that I could move through another year of studies with my living circumstances pre-arranged.

Well.

A couple months on the “straight guy” comes out of the closet and I am now living with two queers. To make matters worse, they start having these queer parties, all sorts of flamers but also some guys you’d never suspect. Some overtures were made to me but not as much as you might think, with its never really being a question to me, they understood that they were going to get a no thanks with the firmness or stirnness of whatever necessity called for.

Nevertheless, these circumstances were mounting up on my psyche and I still had too much ambivalence toward women to be confident and successful with them. I’m getting creeped-out, the queers were giving me the willies as ever, but throwing implications my way. Even so, if god was trying to tell me something I was answering back no! a thousand times no! You want to know what I think? I see a woman’s ass and that is what I want! It may not be nice, but that is where it begins. Still, there were these eerie circumstances and not having other resources, I fell back on religion. I was so scared. I started reading the bible every day! I kept that up the whole time that I was there. That’s when I went through that religious phase that I spoke of.

Butt, I digress. All this forced me to think about and make efficient work of the queer issue, because it really was not an issue for me personally, but having to think about it for the matter of social perception and impact, here are the conclusions that I reached.

That while there is a proclivity to homosexuality among some small percentage of the population and probably always will be, perhaps as a kind of cybernetic balancing for more practical, gender neutral people against the exaggerated and impractical extremes of very masculine males and very feminine females, it is precisely because heterosexual union is not a hundred percent determined that people should be able to be critical of homosexuality in order to discourage it and minimize its negative impact.

Nevertheless, there is another extreme of over-differentiation of the genders. Exaggerated gender roles, whether the sheer, decorative female or the brute macho man are a drag – impractical on an individual level (Bowery might suggest overly practical on a group level, auguring eusociality, even). The opposite of the confidence which decorative, puerile females so admire is empathy; too much confidence as displayed in hyper-masculinity is also counter to sufficient intellectual breadth in authentic European expression.

It probably is true that homosexuals often have mothers who cater to their every wish (and fairly weak fathers), and so do not see women as a challenge. As you can see, I did not have that problem, but it seemed typical of the queers that I knew.

One of the reasons why queers never bothered me too much is because I looked upon them as less competition – hey, more potential choices among women for me. Regarding female homosexuals, if I am honest (and I could be wrong in this sentiment) as well, if they are bisexual, I would rather have a woman who has had other women than other men in her past. And it is certainly better than having miscegenation in her past.

While this strikes me as what should be the normal first instinct with regard to homosexuality, the least maturity should not be satisfied with that. When hearing enough women, you come to find that a lot of them are very hurt by it. And it becomes clear that the very example of “more women for us” is a fair analogy of the liberal women who shrugs her shoulders and does not have a problem with pretty White women going to Negroes, probably with a similar motivation in many instances, that it is less competition. Not good.

There are other problems with queers, of course. I am sorry to report it, but the number of sex partners that some of these guys apparently went through was horrific, like nothing I’ve seen among White hetero populations.

It is not nice of me perhaps, but I might come out of my closet as a secret fan of the A.I.D.S. Virus. If there was ever a disease that targeted the right people: those dealing indiscriminately with such an important matter as sex deserve its death penalty as far as I am concerned. I really resented all the money devoted to its cure and the facilitation of the lifestyle that went into its genesis.

Then there is the problem with homosexuality being encouraged that I alluded to above. There are certain people who should be a little more gender neutral as many if not most activities in life are not so dependent on masculinity and femininity; thus, these kinds would provide a necessary balance to brute and anti-social pragmatism of ultra macho men being taken to an impractical extreme where they cannot see circumspection of the pattern in its myriad expression and requirements; or to the extreme of the decorative female who, being uselessly feminine, can see nothing of life’s problems that should not be taken care of by a sock on the jaw from the said man. In not taking-up the challenge of heterosexuality, queers may not be sufficiently empathetic to just how painful and difficult (and truly unfair) the realm of heterosexuality can be and therefore only lend weight to the oppressors of the fair. Whereas in being heterosexual, these more gender neutral types might be of great assistance in bringing critical attention to exaggerations in gender differentiation which can lead to less distinctly human conduct – e.g., terrible bullying and piggish, if not horrifically unjust conduct in sexuality and other respects of our genetic pattern and legacy. Perhaps the encouragement of homosexuality depletes more balanced types and sends gender differentiation into exaggerated and unhealthy gender specializations, as opposed to people being whole un-to-themsleves, with some dignified favoring of their born gender role’s normal requirements.

I hate to say it, but there sort of is such a phenomenon as “homophobia.” You know what I mean, a kind of over tendency to see homosexuality in things. The problem that I have with that is how it effects younger men, who may be over-stressed as a result of this incitement – combining with the complexity of ambivalence toward women in a situation where our profound genetic legacy is put so much at risk, a risk to exploitation from antagonistic and distant racial groups which is often bewilderingly taken for granted as “OK” by women in this liberal context – such that the young man, feeling overly compelled to prove that he is a real man by a low common denominator of masculinity, can do stupid things. Me playing high school football for example – it was a complete waste of time that should have been devoted to developing academic and social skills. There are worse examples of course, guys getting into violent altercations and having various destructive consequences in their lives as a result.

Hence, the general bias toward the small percentage of queers that there are probably should be a questioning attitude of, really? You think fudge-packers are ok?  What sort of account do you offer for that? This account requested begins to take away the argument that it is strictly biologically determined in the cases where it is not so very determined.

Accounts may reveal that they were molested by a male as a child (as in the case of my “straight room mate” who came out of the closet). I am not aware of the science, but if there is a corollary between homosexuality and pedophilia, that is a serious matter.

That brings us to another problem with homosexuality and why people should be able to be critical of it, particularly why White Nationalists should be able to be critical of it.

Because homos can have a strong need to not be blamed for their homosexuality, they may gravitate toward biological determinist arguments. These correspond with overly liberal politics all around – “people can’t help their sexuality and their practices, therefore we must adjust.” By extension you cannot blame mudsharks as they cannot help but do what they are doing, etc. There are many other examples where liberal politics, and the “that’s just the way it isness” of biological determinism, and mere adjustment to it, would suit the needs of guilt relief. Their liberal politics deterministically justified would tend to be at odds with the interests of WN.

Having said and been through all of that, I still think that WN tends too often to get carried away in addressing this problem. It doesn’t make a great deal of sense to me for it to occupy such a frequent and emphatic topic. Perhaps my equanimity regarding the issue has to do not only with the fact of having been forced to be thorough enough in my criticism of it to be done with it as something theoretically challenging. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that I have been fortunate enough such that, barring the college roommate situation, I have not been confronted by it in any in-your-face way. I wasn’t molested as a child. There are no “gay pride” parades in the streets where I live. I have seen a few girls walking hand in hand and kissing to my surprise, but not often. As I’ve said before, there are some queer bars known in town. I do Not go there. Nobody could make me go there. They don’t solicit me or bother me in anyway. I could be just lucky, not living in a town where there are these revolting parades; not having a child who is thinking about going that way, having been influenced by the obvious Jewish campaign to promote homosexuality as one of its PC contingents against White men and family.

These circumstances different than mine acknowledged, I have also known homosexuals who are otherwise not liberal. I have known homosexuals who are racial. It makes sense for White homosexuals to be averse to other races, blacks in particular, with their hyper-masculine evolution; and Muslims with their religion, can be very brutal with queers. Thus, there is a motivated anti-anti-racist force among them that I believe we may as well allow to help us provided they are accountable to not be in other ways very bad. There will probably be circumstances when they are effective agents to our cause, undercover and otherwise.

However, we should be able to remain critical. One of the problems that I have observed with Counter-Currents, for example, is this concept that they have of an elite cadre of males, perhaps invoking the classical Greeks, which conveniently includes a special, if not necessary place for homosexuality. It has a predilection for some racially unhealthy frameworks such as its Nietzsche cult. I have always found Nietzsche suspect in his singular perspective and valuation of big, strong men. Its like a homosexual perspective and his over valuation of masculinity is part of his toxicity. I rarely read him admiring the cooperative, sensitive qualities that a normal man admires and values in his gaze toward women. But rather predominantly the hyper-competitive will to power, the master slave relation of a self overcoming man impervious to social and environmental constraint. Something a puerile female could admire along with bull-dykes and floating fairies.

For its predilections, Counter-Currents can have a susceptibility to these anti-White racial influences. Such as that of Mark Dyal, who I believe was deliberately trying to promote an anti-White agenda through his “transcendent” Nietzscheanism. He was literally saying that most White men are disgusting. He was promoting an a-racial cult of masculinity, as racial advocacy of Whites was so bourgeoisie; it is so transparent a group proxy in lieu the individual power we are bereft of; racial advocacy is coming from the disgusting White weaklings we are compared to the big-strong-hunky-over-men he so admires. We need to be culled, to be made hard – sure we do, to become like the Negro who Nietzsche so admires, the one who, unlike White men, has a good digestive tract and is so quickly done with problems, not bemoaning them in “resentment.” We are to become mulatto supremacists (and by the way, get over this anti-Americanism, for it is the test of the strong).

Yes, puerile females love Nietzsche, as do fags, because he shares their admiration for the same thing – primitive men with a capacity to wield arbitrary power like a ni**er. But what their fawning and fixated gaze toward masculinity blinds them to is that this hyper-masculine man, like a ni**er, is without the level of creative sublimation that characterizes the greatness of White men, the worlds they build and the women we co-evolve.


While the frequent charge from White Nationalists that White men are somehow not acting men enough may be well intentioned and certainly contains some truth – we need to be able to act in accordance with our manly instincts, but in accordance with White manly instincts, not like a n***ger, Jew or some sort of hive insect. Moreover, again, with White females being as one-up as they are within the disorder of modernity, pandered to from more directions and more (wrongly) confident in their predilections than ever, it is more the case that articulate critique of their position needs to be rendered and circulated.* It is easier, more practical and appropriate for them to be called upon to act more fairly and with feminine decency than it is to incite White men to act like hyper-assertive Negroes or gaming Jews.


* Adding that it must be taken into account that there tends to be more, or happier, opportunities for females to make mistakes.

Instructions on how to give a blow job, including on how it can be ok for one night stands.

To be as uninhibited as this woman is, giving completely graphic instructions and attitudinal coaching on how it can be perfectly ok, even in one night stands, to give blow jobs (the term ‘fellatio’ falls by the wayside as a fig-leaf of inhibition) provokes a questioning of her position and its power: Coming from a pretty White woman, this lack of inhibition, not especially qualified beyond whether the individuals involved are comfortable and have a sense of reciprocal fairness, provokes the question of whether this is irresponsible bullying of the social realm.

Commenting on Jen Scharf, ‘Church of Entropy’s most recent stream, I heard the interlocutors discussing morality in terms of objectivity, physics, products of ‘the mind’, a nihilism to be grappled with in sheer terms of power…

This is all very great nonsense. I noted that social interaction is the ground of morality – negotiated there as matter of practicality, as much to achieve cooperation for leveraged ease beyond brute struggle and conflict as anything.

Yes, we have to respect the somewhat arbitrary biological imperative behind sexual drives, individual boundaries and prerogatives.

However, taking the example of this woman, we must also observe that her beauty and resource did not come of a vacuum, but were born through the struggles of her parents, forebears, social systems and rule structures which facilitated their survival; evincing the resource and beauty which suggests her health.

That is to say, far more consideration and account should be requested, as she speaks and recommends her lack of inhibitions to the public, as to how she effects our social capital.

Sex is not merely a normal biological function, not merely a means to give pleasure and have fun with people that you think are cute.

While this kind of disinhibition can reveal a liberation of vital forces of certain parts of the system which may have been unduly constrained, it also conceals other ramifications of the sexual act – as it may play into narrow and short sighted confirmation of persons and politics that really don’t deserve it; while disconfirming others, whose virtues, perspective and the products of ther sublimation may deserve more respect.

Elsewhere, I have noted that a large part of what makes sex sexy is the tension between human dignity and the yielding to animal drive; and with that, a tension between human dignity and yielding to the brute interpay of dominance and submission ….a yielding or not, which evokes an integation and empathy of submission and dominance on the part of both genders.

And this tension which makes one ‘sexy’ will depend, at least for better Europeans, on maintaining the dignity of human concerns far sublimated from the sexual act.

Of course the sexual act is closely tied, especially for we Europeans, more evolved for ‘K’ strategy, with a concern that it is the long evolved means by which people, hopefully responsible people, come into the world by responsible consideration.

That is one reason why the more sensitive among us can be disturbed by what is to us the alien lack of inhibition that bespeaks the irresponsible momentary and episodic emphasis of ‘R’ strategy (as opposed to concern for levels of relationship and biological pattern), a conditioning, perhaps, of the pop psychology of Freud and Marcuse, that was born in indifference, if not downright antagonism to our social-biological systems. This lack of social inhibition is putting our systems and social capital at risk.

Make no mistake, so long as our people exist, we are, in an important sense, a part of a social and biological system. And if we are not a part of a system, then we do not exist as a people. Which isn’t true. We do exist. It is Noel Ignatiev who is dead – literally and figuratively.

This woman says that she considers it ok to give blow jobs in one night stands. She does seem to indicate that you should take precautions, but says that she does not use condoms, claims to just kind of know who she is giving blow jobs to. Inasmuch as that is true, her guess would have to be taking a lot of clues from the (social) context.

But does it ever occur to pomiscuous people that they might be taking something that rightfully belongs to a spouse?

J.F. Gariepy goes so far as to say that he has ‘made love’ (disgusting euphemism, if there ever was one) to thousands of women, and that he is doing a favor to their future husbands by getting these women excited about sex. Who is this fucking pig, this joker, kidding?

In the case of misegenators, does it occur to them that they might be taking or giving away something that rightfully belongs to a people – at least in predominant account to our/their pattern? Those who would choose to go with other people are ultimately free to leave (hopefully not having acted before sufficient accounts requested); they are not free to impose this prerogative and its consequences on the broad pattern of a people who are responsible to our/their kind.

I stand by an article that I wrote a few years ago, that one way to know if it is a good and appropriate person that you’re having sex with is whether or not you have to use a condom. You should know them well enough not to need one.

It is eminently reasonable to oppose the social resource of vast funds that have gone to pay for A.I..D.S. – a disease which can inhibit and ‘cure’ socially irresponsible behavior.

Here is your A.I.D.S. education: don’t conduct yourself like a pig and your chances of contracting A.I.D.S. are next to zero.

The basketball player, ‘Magic’ Johnson, contracted A.I.D.S. through unprotected sex in which he ‘tried to accommodate as many women as possible…some of them were unbelievable.’..

Then our social resource (of money) kept this scumbag alive. He should have died and it would be quite fine with me if the woman that he accommodated had died as well.

Going back to the young lady giving blow job advice, including for one night stands, if her episodic practices would have her giving this treasure and reward to the likes of Magic Johnson, it would be quite fine with me if she were to die as well.

Hateful? You bet its valid hate people bestowed with our social treasure, only to use it for our destruction. And if the sexual drive is a strong natural impulse aimed at the survival of our species, so is hatred of those who abuse it.

Continue Reading Liberalism’s Kid Glove. Queers Assuming the Position. How to Give a Blowjob

>>Generational Astrology: Zodiac Sign of The Boomer Part 7

  • Post author:
  • Post category:Central

I had intended for this part to go right away more into problems with Tanstaafl and his assessments, but I realized belatedly in my haste (compounded perhaps by fatigue) in moving past Jared Taylor, that I had done a disservice, not only in failing note the  theoretical errors in his White advocacy, beyond just being too friendly to Jews, wanting to include them in our advocacy group, as there are several important theoretical errors that Taylor makes, errors which I am continually calling attention to and which I’ve noted Taylor, making as well – thus, I’d done a disservice to my own position in saying “he’s about as good a White advocate as one kosher friendly can be.”

Perhaps that is true if being kosher friendly corresponds with other theoretical errors that he’s making, but these mistakes are probably not corrollary. Thus, I was not only doing a disservice to theoretical accuracy, not only a disservice in misrepresenting my own position with regard to Taylor’s (!), but it ran astray of the thread’s coherence, as Taylor is very much of the right wing Boomer perspective that this (Generational Astrology) thread is about correcting.

So, before we move on to Tanstaafl and others, let me set out a few more corrections regarding Jared Tayler’s Boomer cancer…

While one can understand the motive of Jared Taylor to be Jewish friendly, to welcome them among our White advocacy group, as going against them the greatest taboo of the Boomer generation, and dangerous for their power to hurt opponents; that power, by the same token, incentive to try to get them on your side, to see the potential for alignment.

Lets move beyond that wish, as we are talking to an audience who recognizes that the Jews advocate for themselves, that they have different interests which are generally indifferent where not largely antagonistic to ours. Hence, our advocacy should not include them, both for their indifferent/antagonistic patterns from the ground and for their indifferent/antagonistic power from the top down.

The best that can be said for Taylor in this regard, by those sufficiently aware of the J.Q., is that he is providing a stepping stone into White advocacy by not broaching two heresies at once, he can talk about the obvious affront to White interests in the imposition of blacks; while not hitting the third rail of anti-Semitism and either frightening newbies or drawing them into likely risk of being stigmatized, suffering grievous penalties and being taken out of the White advocacy game altogether, along with himself.

In truth, if you are honest enough and care enough to address the issue, “why are we subject to blacks being imposed upon us?” you are going to come to the J.Q. anyway. One might add, perhaps the worst thing that Jews have done to Whites is impose blacks upon them; hence, if they did not do that, they might not be so bad. That’s a naïve stance as the patterns and rule structure of Jewry bear out. However, one can understand Taylor’s wish and move beyond his post WWII Boomer constraint, as Anti-Semitism has been unthinkable.

However, criticism of Jewry is thinkable for some right wing die-hards of the Boomer generation and even more so for subsequent generations; but before we move on to correcting epistemic blunders in their reactionary over focus, and chase after red capes, lets address where Taylor’s own right wing Boomer objectivism runs afoul of proper systemic theory. 

(((The Alternative Right))) didn’t start it, but tried to subvert it… infiltrate-it ...grease-it - “they looked HuWhite to me!” ...weeeeeeeee!

The first matter to note of Jared Taylor’s theoretical misdirection is his suckered, boomer chase of red-caped (misrepresented) social constructionism.

Jared wants to prove that race is real. In fact, after “White advocate” his second most important designation for himself is “race realist.”

“They”, the ever more apparent enemy (according to the Jewish marketing scheme) that is “The Left”, you see, want you to believe that race is just this mere social construct, “a mere optical illusion” as Taylor likes to feel clever for saying in criticism of the red cape.

What Taylor fails to appreciate is that adding the word “mere” or “just” before social construct is a sign that what is being discussed is not social constructionism proper.

If people think that they can make up whatever they merely like about racial existence or not, irrespective of what most sane people can verify to be the patterned facts, that not social, it is solipsistic and flies in the face of social constructionism’s anti-Cartesian raison detre.

Worse, this Boomer denunciation of social constructionism for its (((red cape))) misrepresentations of social constructionism, as if it maintains that race is not important or not real at all, diverts from the crucial reason for its conception, which is to take our people’s attention back into Praxis, our interactive social relations, our indebtedness, accountability and agency in reconstructing our people as a social systemic group.

So, Boomer Jared has cancer, along with his kosher friendliness, he has the cancer of one who is chasing the (((red cape))) misrepresentation of an important (White) Post Modern concept. It is an important concept to get right for our people especially, who, in being so Augustinian, objectivist/Cartesian prone and individualist, need the sensitization, the attention to social connection in Praxis, to call us back to our species, systemic interests from the modernist, Cartesian estrangement.

The next place where Jared’s Boomer cancer manifests is in his I.Q. nationalism.

Jared places great emphasis on I.Q., apparently unaware of its limited utility and that it is counter productive in important ways.

Overall racial I.Q. comparisons can work to raise the esteem of Whites to some extent, particularly if compared to blacks and browns, against bad will and rather stupid arguments proffered from the international liberalism of Marxists and anti-White 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 bad will arguments that will need to be defended against when it comes to populating functions among our ethnostates; these bad will arguments may benefit from an I.Q. rebut; e.g., if someone were to say that you should not be able to discriminate against their retarded son, that they should be allowed to engineer a high-rise building, and the only reason that you are discriminating against them is because of race, or some other prejudice (class eliteism maybe).

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, raising the (((Steve Sailer))) (((red cape))) of “HBD”, human biodiversity, which is supposed to be a horizontal criteria in respect for qualitative niche differences, including among and between races, but red caped into a vertical, singular, quantifying criteria about “I.Q.”

….and how convenient a red cape for Jews, as their Ashkenazi register among the highest in General Intelligence

no nepotism or manichean deception involved in their elite niche hegemony, oh no… its all objective merit.

I.Q. nationalism, unless you believe like Jared, that Jews are huWhite like us, and not all the more capable of destroying us for their high I.Q., actually works to our detriment.

It doesn’t work very well against East Asians either.

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.

Human ecologies generally have qualitative niche components. There are many potentially important qualities that group members may have to contribute besides I.Q. in the overall corrective, balancing systemics, homeostasis of a human ecology.

We are far better off thinking in terms of incommensurabilty and commensurability, that is to say, how someone fits in our group (or not), rather than chasing the red cape of “equality” that the I.Q. argument is supposed to resolve.   

And as I have argued many times, the false comparison of a singular criteria which does not respect niche ecological differences is likely to instigate hubris and reciprocally escalating diatribe as opposed to fostering pervasive ecology by respect for necessary niche contributions in and between peoples.

It is held to be fundamental of Right Wing Boomerism that there is “there is no such thing as equality’ …one should “be against equality”, even.

Are you inspired to join them yet? I didn’t think so.

Not only is there no such thing as equality, you don’t even hear it much from so called leftists.

It is primarily a red cape which makes right wingers look bad when they chase it.

“I’m against equality”… I believe in hierarchy, with me on top in my crass, false comparisons, and you subservient or forever struggling to be on top.

‘Inspired to join yet? I didn’t think so.

“That’s just the way it is” – the fantasy warrant of the right, one like Jared Taylor, who wishes to make quick work of accountability like that.

It invokes a damning, inevitable fate, which many will NOT find inspiring indeed.

In fact, this kind of argument will scare them for its disrespect. That is part of why Jared Taylor has so many problems despite being Jew friendly.

Objectivist arguments (ungauged as feedback accountable in the calibration of relative interests in and between groups) in lieu of relative group ecological 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. While they are in greater power than ever; and can buy off right wingers and liberals for their complicity.

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.

And you can see the danger in the I.Q. focus that it is largely serving Jewish interests; while running the hazard of isolating one group or area of Europeans – who would be good breeding material for elite Jews in Jared’s scheme (further removing them from accountability to their indebtedness to our social capital); 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 components of our human ecology, other parts of Europe which may be more a necessary part of our systemic function and survival than one realizes at first blush, in addition to being perhaps more talented than one 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.

Jared’s quest for pure objectivism as such is part and parcel of his Boomer outlook, which reaches back before its Modernist apex to its roots, seeking relief from the guilt trips of a Jewish imposed religion; a passive aggressive relation to Jewry which was compounded by the Nazi epic, compelling many Boomers of Jared’s type to a quest for relief from guilt trips, to pure innocence and warrant, a purity spiral into rational blindness to one’s subjective and relative group interests, unable to see blame in Jewry.

…the problem had to be in us: our “pathological altruism.”

One can almost understand how Tanstaafl would react to this with paranoia enough as to think that anybody who was not on board with Hitler and looked for holes in our systemic outlook, was under the same kind of sway as Jared Taylor, thinking that Jews were off limits when it came to serious blame.

Continue Reading >>Generational Astrology: Zodiac Sign of The Boomer Part 7

Black hyper-assertiveness & puerile White female over-valuation of confidence.

  • Post author:
  • Post category:Central

Black hyper-assertiveness and lack of impulse control …unsocialized, puerile White female over-valuation of confidence.

Blacks have evolved some 150-250 thousand years prior to European differentiation. Taking into account apparent bio-power if not biological hegemony that provides on certain levels of function, it renders our 40 some thousand years of European evolutionary differentiation precarious when confronted with and prohibited from discriminating against blacks in their paradigmatic nature:

Their primordial evolutionary circumstance favored R selection – more children, less paternal care, the reverse of K selector strategy – their faster rate to maturity and lesser sexual sublimation compared to the more sublimated and later sexually maturing Europeans thus, is a first matter of precarious incommensurability between our peoples.

With that, their kind of selection has quantified and maxed-out masculinity; the bio-power sustaining them on base levels is steeped in testosterone (both genders), creating an aggressive, presumptuous, hyper-assertive kind of people compared to Europeans.

Furthermore, their “warrior gene” apparently corresponds with a lack of impulse control and short time horizon.

These factors express cross-contextually an aggressive, presumptuous, hyper-assertive kind of people, who are prone to disrespect for the more sublimated where assertion is shown in response; and with that, the blacks have less capacity to sustain advanced civilization, they have more sex partners, younger, single parent families, poverty, commit more crimes of outright property theft, vandalism and interpersonal violence (including, saliently, rape).

Scenes We'd Like To See

Not being a follower of the daily goings on of celebrity, I had neither taken note of Adele’s political commentary nor of her latest boyfriend.

For all you White guys out there who worry that you might not be handsome enough, look at this generic, same as a zillion other shit-colored monkeys that fetched Adele, a talented and enormously famous White celebrity musical artist.

Yes, you are seeing that, he’s wearing a t-shirt with “Notorious B-I-G”, the gangster rapper assassinated in black gang wars with Tupac, that sort of shit….

And before you condemn yourself for not being mature enough, man enough and socialized enough, consider that maybe it is the likes of Adele who are in need of socialization, to be women, rather than conducting herself like an animal, inciting genetic competition with gang-bangers.

Before moving on to scenes we’d like to see, first lets take a look back at her absurd remarks regarding the George Floyd incident and the ‘pervasive racism’ it bespeaks according to her

Adele says ‘racism is everywhere’ in rare social media post after George Floyd’s death

Adele has urged fans to be “righteously angered but focused” in a rare social media post following the death of George Floyd.

Protests have been raging across the United States in recent days since Floyd, an unarmed black man, died after a white police officer in Minneapolis knelt on his neck.

“George Floyd’s murder has sent shockwaves around the world, there are countless others that haven’t,” wrote Adele alongside a photo of Floyd on Instagram.

“Paris Trout”, the Not true story of a racist Southern White man who does something that basically NEVER happens – i.e., murders a little black girl; indeed, White on black violence is rare in comparison to black on White violence. Just for good measure, “Paris Trout” (played by Dennis Hopper) shoves a coke bottle into his wife, (((Barbara Hershey)))’s vagina for having the nerve to stand up against his hatred – Magda Mika Mozejko would delight in this (((Hollywood license))) to plunder and vastly destroy the investment value of the inheritance of a “racist” White man. Not only would her criminality go unpunished, but she would be given the green light by local police, lawyers and officers of the court. Moreover, she will be hired as HR director (for god sake, how typical that she would be elevated to a PC gate-keeper position) at the local plant of Philips Lighting in recognition of her “virtue.”

You know, for all the justifiable ridicule that Americans take for being ignorant, Europeans and Australians are more than overdue criticism for their self righteous, colossal ignorance. You can carefully explain to them that not even your ancestors had anything to do with slavery and they will come back a week later and tell you that “you brought them there” and then proceed in thorough credulity with a bunch of anti-White, nigadvocating rhetoric produced by (((legacy media))).

The tragedy is that Adele is a role model. A talented woman who can influence who knows how many White girls to visit the destruction of blacks vastly different genetic interests and hyper-assertiveness upon our way of life, our women and men, girls and boys.

A scene that those of us who have meaningful experience of black patterns would like to see would be to have this Phoenix, AZ store clerk, a White woman, change places with Adele, so that Adele could have her head stomped by the nigger.

Phoenix, Az Police: Suspect brutally attacked employee during Phoenix phone store robbery

And While Americans are ridiculed for their ignorance, let me not that Australians frequently take the cake.

As in the case of Australian Paige Butcher, who now has given Eddy Murphy yet more children, after the monkey already fathered several children by other women (black, but maybe not only).

… would love to see these ladies changing places with the Phoenix store clerk. Wouldn’t mind them changing places as O.J. Simpson’s former wife. And ladies, just so you know, lots and lots of black women feel that way about you too.

butcher

For the the proclivities of puerile females to go unsocialized, given to incite genetic competition as it were in the disorder of modernity, wherein classificatory discrimination and social accountability as such is prohibited is a science fiction nightmare on the order of, well…

For Whites to be prohibited from discriminating against blacks is a travesty on the order of – choose your metaphor – caribou being unable to discriminate against wolves, goldfish prohibited from discriminating against piranha – particularly if Whites are prohibited by law from discriminating and using our advanced technological superiority (an expression of our relative sublimation) and intelligence to and to avoid momentary and episodic confrontations that would mitigate against other advantages that our intelligence provides.  

...Back to the Scenes That Unfortunately Actually Are The Case -

TV News Reporter Shot to Death Live On-Air by Disgruntled Former Co-Worker.

Moreover, within the disorder of modernity, an upshot of social classificatory bounds (particularly racial classificatory, discriminatory bounds being prohibited by “anti-racism”), an atavistic circumstance and traits emerge, where the one-up position of females in partner selection re-emerges with increased significance as she is pandered to from what had been outside groups and from all sides (especially by YKW) – even when puerile and unsocialized by accountability to her social classificatory bounds and maternal appreciation of her kind – this base, puerile White female atavism will express the fact that it is a gender more liberal and less concerned for racial bounds on a certain level, as her deep evolution has her in position to breed with “the winner” of the liberal conflict and thus, the prohibition of classificatory discrimination, incitement to genetic competition, even (another base trait, coming out atavistically in circumstance when uninhibited by socialization and accountability thereof – modernity being so objective and all – gender differentiation and the high contrast tropism of black and White being two categories harder to ignore despite weaponized modernity’s prohibition on classification; for the psychological necessity to make sense by classifying thus, increasing the base evolutionary strength, as it is structured and pandered to backing of YKW; and gives them an appealing coherence by contrast to the precariously fragmented White males); she gains power in the short term, becoming more articulate and more confident than she should be in her liberalism as she is pandered to; with YKW pandering, as she grows in power and a little older, she is protected (in their PC coalition of protected classes, along with blacks and gays) as a gate-keeper, letting through into power only those liberalizing of White borders and bounds, who maintain the open borders and boundaries policy for Whites; and she finds it titillating to witness blacks abusing, humiliating and destroying Whites in the momentary and episodic criteria that has been way over valued in the sight of modernity ..where the blacks to their end-zone dances, faster twitching muscle fibers and all.

As previously discussed, the Augustinian nature of White men, our penchant for objectivity for the yields it has served us when racial discrimination was not not so necessary and we were not pitted against the Manichean trickery of Middle Eastern types, has left us vulnerable; but coming to terms with the objective fact that the female of our kind are less concerned with border and boundary maintenance of a people. Problem with thugs? Call in the bigger thugs.

“Take the baby off her, take the baby off her, the baby’s the reason why she’s not getting up”, a black male voice suggests. “Get up! Get up!” the black girl shouts; and when the White mother with child does not comply, the black girl grabs her by the hair, leaves the baby to fall, drags the White mother and starts beating her.

Finally, the selective predilections of the unsocialized, puerile White female, as exacerbated by the modernist disorder, its universal maturity, runs rough shod over the more sublimated nature of White men, the fantastic achievements their more sublimated nature creates; as she over values self assertion and confidence (high in blacks) which are in inverse corollary to the sublimation, empathy and intellectual survey – characteristics which correspond inversely to the male predilection in selection, group loyalty, beauty as an expression of the health of the ecology, sensitivity, cooperativeness – combining to make for a more humane and advanced civilization.

Unsocialized, puerile White female predilection is not merely a description of what IS the case and that it holds too much sway in the disorder of modernity (and as pandered to, as such), but one can also say that it OUGHT to be mitigated against on behalf of White male power, predilection, border and bound control.

Elin Krantz

Note that Mulatto supremacism will not result in fewer blacks proper, but in fewer Whites proper by contrast, their increasingly diminished power.. a life of continual petty indignations, increased suffering and destruction. I, for one, cannot simply let White kids come into a world like that.

Reese Bowman: "The bitch wouldn't stop crying."
Thrown off balcony by a black frustrated by White girls asserting prerogative to reject his advances
She was pregnant

….

As Bowery notes, it was implicitly contractual of White civilization that White men were expected to forego direct fighting over women in exchange for less stressed gender relations while border control and protection of our co-evolutionary females was surrendered by individual White men to collective enforcement. 

In the Modernist circumstances where borders and bounds are not recognized and prohibited even, in its YKW weaponized form (as “racism”), group border control is not only reneged upon, prohibited, but White men fighting with their optimal skills and technological advance (which would facilitate their successful defense) is prohibited, tying their hands to only witness the horrific destruction of themselves, their co-evolutionary women and children.

“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 say, goddammit! we kill ‘em all!

(applause)

You say why kill them all?

Why kill the women?

First, why kill the babies?

They’re just little innocent blue-eyed babies!

Because, goddammit, one day they’re going to grow-up to rule your babies.

Kill ‘em now!

Why kill the women in South Africa?

I say kill the women because the women are the military manufacturing center; and 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 older crackers? The old, decrepit crackers in South Africa. How the hell you think they got old? – they got old oppressing and killing black people. I say kill (strange glossolalia), kill ‘em all!

Kill the faggot, kill the lesbian!

And after you kill them all!

I said that day about Mandela to say what he really knows about me. He don’t know a damn thing!

I said then you go to the goddamn grave and dig them up!

And kill them a goddamn-gain, because they didn’t die hard enough!

(applause)

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!

Spring break bikini brawl, Miami Beach, 19 March 2021.

Update November 2021:

Tragically, with evil disregard, the vast and enormously disproportionate black on White crime is being removed from the internet. 

I didn’t expect this, but when I went to retrieve the U.S. Department of Justice Rape statistics, I could not locate them. I would have posted the statistics which show, for example, in the year 2006 there were over 35,000 black on White rapes (and that is just what was reported) and statistically zero White on black rapes.

….

I searched for another story that moved me… the story of White South African Woman, Jamie Paterson, who was brutally raped while her parents were raped and murdered in the other room of her farm house. All I have at the moment in the way of video is a screenshot that I saved from the video in which she discusses the crime:

Here is a link to a textual account:

Jamie’s story

Date: 17-02-2008

Producer: Diana Lucas
Presenter: Derek Watts
Researcher: Quereshini Naidoo
Genre: Abuse

“I’ve been to the worst place imaginable and I’ve come back.”

Jamie Paterson: ‘I knew the minute the light went on in my bedroom. I could just sense the violence and the aggression with the people. I knew from that minute that we were in big trouble.’

Derek Watts (Carte Blanche presenter): ‘At the end of last year 17-year-old Jamie Paterson, a matric student, seemed to have it all. Academically bright, musically gifted, part of a close and loving family, a great future ahead of her. But what happened on the night of October 2nd was to test every shred of her courage, inner strength and determination.’

Jamie: ‘I don’t remember anything else except this fear and then my mom came into the room with two guys and said, ‘Get out of bed and co-operate’.’

Minutes earlier two armed robbers had managed to manoeuvre themselves through the small cottage pane window, surprising Jamie’s mother, Bronwyn.

Bronwyn Paterson (Jamie’s mother): ‘There was someone standing where you are now – just here … put a gun to my head and the one behind him went like this. And then the two of them grabbed me and marched me here and said, ‘Open the front door’. And I opened the front door and three more came in.’

Jamie: ‘I went out into the passage and one of them had my brother and I took him and snatched him away and pulled him against me. They walked us down the passage and I remember saying to the one guy, ‘Please don’t hurt us. Don’t hurt us’. My father was lying on the floor tied up. And they made us kneel down and I wrapped my arms around my brother and I just held him. And I kept my head down and I said to Angus, ‘Don’t look at their faces’.’

Bronwyn was stabbed in her neck, beaten into a near coma, then thrown onto the floor of the lounge where her husband Alan was lying with a duvet over him. In full sight of nine-year-old Angus

Angus Paterson (Jamie’s brother): ‘And my mother … the overwhelming memory that I will have for the rest of my life is getting up and seeing my mother. Her face was just was just’

Bronwyn: ‘I kept on saying, ‘I’ve given you all I have’ and he said, ‘You’re lying, you’re lying’ and that’s when they really started seriously kicking me. They threw me on the ground and bashed me across the face, pulling me up by my arms tied behind my back, throwing me back on the bed and then hitting me again.’

Jamie: ‘I was lying down and I could hear them undoing the TV and then throwing it across and then something fell on me. I thought it was the TV, but it was my mother. And then I looked up. And then they dragged her away again and the carpet was covered in blood. They kept saying to my father, ‘We are going to kill you, we are going to kill you now’.’

Derek: ‘As the man of the house, you must have felt pretty helpless.’

Alan: ‘That was probably the worst thing of all. I could do nothing. You think to yourself in abstract form I would fight, but you have a man at the other end of the room with a gun, you have your wife behind you held by two other men with guns.’

Jamie: ‘My brother was shaking and would reach this crescendo. You keep thinking maybe it’s over because it builds to a climax and then calms down. Then it started again and the one guy was saying, ‘I love you guys, God loves all of us, so I love everyone. It’s just money. I don’t want to hurt you guys but my friends are going to kill you’. Angus and I were just talking to him. We were trying to get him to relate to us on some level.’

Alan: ‘She was bargaining her flute, she was bargaining her matric badge. She was doing it, almost knowing what was going to happen to her was almost inevitable

Jamie: ‘He said to me ‘I’m HIV positive. But you’re young, I don’t want to ruin your life. So if you could just give me gold. I want gold, money and I want your gun.’ I said to him, ‘We don’t have it.’ He hit me around the head and said, ‘No, you have a gun, don’t lie to me’.’

Bronwyn: ‘They started to fight over her and I knew she was going to be raped.’

Jamie: ‘And then he took me into the bathroom and locked me in and raped me there. Afterwards he climbed out of the window and I sat there in the shower for about 15 minutes. I couldn’t hear my family and I had this horrible feeling I was going to be the only one left.’

Derek: ‘After being raped in the bathroom and climbing out of the window to find her father dazed and in total shock, her mother beaten to a pulp – Jamie knew there was one thing she needed to do, and that was to get her mother to a hospital as soon as possible. She woke up the housekeeper’s boyfriend who had his own car.’

Derek: ‘I’m just amazed you could deal with all this happening.’

Jamie: ‘It’s not easy, but what other choice do you have?’

The Patersons had experienced the worst of humanity. But in the days and months following they were also to see the best: friends and strangers offered not just help but places to stay, to nurse their wounds and for Jamie to study for her Grade 12 examinations.’

Derek: ‘Apart from friends and family, the schools have been tremendous support: The Ridge in the case of Angus, and for Jamie, Roedean has been a wonderful source of inspiration.’

Mary Williams (Headmistress, Roedean School): ‘She has a focus, she has a direction and certainly she has always achieved what she has set out to achieve. Don’t ever be fooled by her very fragile physical appearance.’

It was to Mary Williams, the Headmistress of Roedean, that Jamie spoke about her decision not to hide behind whispers and rumours about the rape.

Mary: ‘She wanted her matric class to know and she wanted the staff to know.’

Derek: ‘There must be pros and cons about being so open and honest about it.’

Mary: ‘You know, I think in each case – and certainly this is not an isolated case – there are many young men and women in schools who are subjected to the devastation of an attack like this. It is a very personal choice.’

Derek: ‘The stance you’ve taken – being open about it – do you think it has helped you through in a way?

Jamie: ‘I think it’s helped me absolutely to be open about it because then you receive everybody’s support. That is where I feel I am lucky because I have got that support system and so many women don’t. I ‘m really glad I did it.’

And the Paterson’s best defence was not to let the barbaric actions of the five thugs destroy them.

Bronwyn: ‘We decided we were going to go on and do what we do best as soon as we can.’

Alan: ‘We sat down together and we actually toasted survival. We had survived.’

Bronwyn: ‘I am not saying it was easy. You have a choice: you either do it or you don’t do it. And what do you do afterwards if you haven’t done it?’

A week later Angus played in his piano exam, Jamie, fighting off the possibility of HIV with a cocktail of nauseating anti-retrovirals, had her music practical, the first of her finals. Nell Williams, Jamie’s music teacher, helped pick up the pieces.

Nell Williams (Music teacher, Roedean School): ‘They do compositions. She had stuff on her computer. Her history project, her music history project … that was lost. Some of her compositions were dirtied. They had blood on them so we had to redo her compositions. Through it all she just put her head down and she did it. I know sitting across from me she was fighting nausea, she was scared and she just carried on and did it.’

Derek: ‘Jamie had worked hard throughout her school career and she was expected to do well in her matric. But after the ordeal, the HIV drugs, her family were more than a little apprehensive and concerned before the results were announced.’

Derek: ‘You have got to say that to get seven distinctions after the night that she went through is just fantastic.’

Nell: ‘The seven distinctions are wonderful. But it actually goes beyond that, to have such courage and the refusal to be a victim and you actually just take charge of what you have to do.’

Mary: ‘Bad things do happen to good people. We know that. But if you give up hope, if you simply just give up, there’s nothing, there’s no future.’

Jamie’s mom’s ear had been torn, two ribs broken, neck stabbed, nose shattered into seven pieces. Her body has healed but internally she’s angry.

Bronwyn: ‘As for our security company I hold them culpable. I am very angry. I feel the way they [the criminals] came in was in full view of the street, through those cottage pane windows. They loaded our cars in the driveway in full view of the street with all our belongings. There was no patrol car in sight. They drove straight out through the booms with all our belongings. They know our comings and goings … we have lived here for 30 years.’

Derek: ‘Coming back home after all those weeks?’

Angus: ‘It was nerve racking but in the daytime I’m fine with it. It’s at night in this place that really I’m jittery. Every single little noise that you hear freaks you out. When your dog barks, even if she’s barking at nothing, you curl up and ask your parents if [they] can just go check that out.’

Derek: ‘Whether we talk about it over dinner parties or brood about it silently, what has happened to the Paterson’s encapsulates just about every one of our thoughts and fears. Is the situation getting better or worse? Is it worth the trade-off of living in this beautiful country despite the dangers? Should we stay or go? And not all of us have the luxury of that decision.’

Alan: ‘We’ve had house breakings. We have had smash and grabs. There’s nothing new. If they had taken things again we would have said ‘Oh God, again!’. This was very different, this was gratuitous, awful violence.’

Jamie: ‘That is what is so sad. I was so full of optimism before and I had planned my future in this country. I’m not going to stay here. I’m not going to stay in a country where I don’t feel safe.’

Jamie and her family are not unique. There are thousands of stories like theirs and worse untold. Jamie hopes that by speaking out, her ordeal will have some meaning.

Jamie: ‘Coming out of all of this, out of this interview will help others. I’ve been to the worst place imaginable and I’ve come back.’

Source:Carte Blanche
http://www.mnet.co.za/Mnet/Shows/carteblanche/story.asp?Id=3456

Department of Justice Statistics

Provided as a public service from “The Good Guys” at VNN

 

  • Blacks “were 7 times more likely than whites to commit homicide in 2005”

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/race.cfm [archived]

  • Blacks are four times more likely than Whites to kill their children

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/children.cfm#kidsrts [archived]

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/tables/kidsratestab.cfm [archived]

  • More than 6 in 10 persons in local jails in 2002 were racial or ethnic minorities, unchanged from 1996.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm [archived]

  • 68.7% of blacks are born out of wedlock

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/pdf/nvsr50_05tb19.pdf [archived]

  • 62% of ALL black births are paid for by the US government

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/datawh/statab/pubd/2319_69.htm [archived]

  • Blacks are responsible for 40.8% of all domestic violence cases, despite being only 12% of the population.

See page 28: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/vi.pdf

  • In 2010, though only 12% of the population, blacks take 31.9% of the total of all welfare payments. Whites are 72% of the population, and take 31.8% of the total.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/resource/character/fy2010/fy2010-chap10-ys-final

  • Though only 12% of the population, blacks take 38% of taxpayer-subsidized housing

http://www.huduser.org/datasets/assthsg/statedata96/descript.htm

  • JOURNAL OF BLACKS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

http://www.jbhe.com/

But income alone does not explain the racial scoring gap. Consider these facts:

Whites from families with incomes of less than $10,000 had a mean SAT score of 980. This is 123 points higher than the national mean for all blacks.

Whites from families with incomes below $10,000 had a mean SAT test score that was 46 points higher than blacks whose families had incomes of between $80,000 and $100,000.

Blacks from families with incomes of more than $100,000 had a mean SAT score that was 142 points below the mean score for whites from families at the same income level.

  • The disparity in interracial murder rates is astounding. For every 100,000 White people, how many do you think kill blacks? And for every 100,000 negroes, how many do think kill Whites? Let’s find out…

Kill ratios Averaged for Five Years
Year    Black on White   White on Black
1994          1306                     469
1995          1110                     454
1996          1077                     417
1997            974                     343
1998            839                     362
—————————————–
Total           5306                  2045
Average 1061.2 409

White Population in *thousands*
1998 – 223,001
1997 – 221,317
1996 – 219,623
1995 – 218,010
1994 – 216,365
——————
Total 1,098,316,000
Average 219,663,200


Black Population in *thousands*
1998 – 34,431
1997 – 33,973
1996 – 33,518
1995 – 33,098
1994 – 32,654
——————
Total 167,674,000
Average 33,534,800

  • Black average of White murders / Black average population per 100,000

1061 / 33,534,800 x 100,000 = 3.16

  • White average of Black murders / White average population per 100,000

409 / 219,663,200 x 100,000 = 0.186

3.16/0.186 = 16.99

  • BLACKS ARE 17 TIMES (1700%) MORE LIKELY TO KILL WHITES THAN WHITES ARE TO KILL BLACKS

So, do you think the ratios are insignificant? What if White people killed blacks at the same rate that blacks killed whites??

Let x = dead negroes killed between 1994-2003

x / 219,663,000 x 100,000 = 3.16

x = (3.16)(219,663,000) / 100,000

x = 6941 per year

6941 x 10 years = 69,410 dead negroes

This is over TEN THOUSAND MORE DEATHS THAN WERE SUFFERED BY AMERICANS DURING THE ENTIRE VIET NAM WAR.

Sources

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/race.cfm

http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/nation/intfile3-1.txt

  • Liberals often try to blame Black violence on poverty. The Census data, however, disproves that hypothesis.

How? In 1995, among the American poor, there were 16.3 million Whites (real ones), 10.0 million Blacks, 8.6 million “Hispanics,” and 1.4 million Asians. Blacks comprised about 27.6% of the American poor.

Those poverty numbers can be verified at:

http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/nation/intfile3-1.txt

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/pov95/povest1.html [archive]

During that year, Blacks committed about 54% of all US murders. Remember that the FBI, from whom the murder information comes, counts “Hispanics” as “Whites,” making the total number of poor persons eligible to be committing murders as “Whites” about 24.8 million. These “Whites” comprised 68.5% of the American poor, but committed – at most – only 46% of 1995 US murders, if we make the doubtful assumption that Asians and Amerindians committed none. The evidence argues against the liberal hypothesis that poverty causes crime.

Blacks commit 19,232 rapes on white women per year, while white-on-black rape is virtually non-existent.

  • source: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus08.pdf pg 55. 16.4% of 117,640 = 19,293,

  • Rape is an economic crime if liberals are willing to admit that women are merchandise or “goods”, and that men are compelled to take them because they’re impoverished, and not criminal scum.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/soo.pdf [archived] (See page 10)

The racial distribution of arrestees for rape is similar to the racial distribution for all violent UCR arrests ? 56% of arrestees for rape in 1995 were white, 42% were black, and 2% were of other races.

The more recent rape statistics taken in May 2011 are even more staggering: (see graphic above)

The population of all races – approx. 275,617,000

White 226,563,000 Black 35,392,000

226,563,000/275,617,000 = 82.2% of Whites in America 35,392,000/275,617,000 = 12.8% of Blacks in America

Child abuse- Sexual All types Sexual Total

Whites 64.8% 54.8% 17,978 139,480 Blacks 19.2% 30.8% 5,399 78,339

Sources:

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/ncands96/table25.htm [archived]

White total child abuse per 100,000: 139,480/2265.63 = 61.6

Black total child abuse per 100,000: 78,339/353.92 = 221.4

Now let’s divide the smaller White rate into the larger black rate to get a comparison: 221.4/61.6 = 3.6

  • *** Blacks are 3.6 times MORE LIKELY to abuse their children than Whites. ***

White sexual child abuse per 100,000 (226,563,000/100,000 = 2265.63): 17,978/2265.63 = 7.94

Black sexual child abuse per 100,000 (35,392,000/100,000 = 353.92): 5399/353.92 = 15.25

Now let’s divide the smaller White rate into the larger black rate to get a comparison: 15.25/7.94 = 1.9

  • *** Blacks are 1.9 times MORE LIKELY to sexually abuse their children than Whites. ***
  • It’s almost impossible to adopt white babies in America.

http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/nation/intfile3-1.txt

Population Figures:

Year – White / Black (in thousands) 1990 – 209,196 / 30,629 1991 – 210,975 / 31,137 1992 – 212,874 / 31,683 1993 – 214,691 / 32,195 1994 – 216,379 / 32,672

avg. 212,823 / 31,663

Now let’s look at the race of children awaiting adoption from that same period.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/vcis/iv19a.htm [archived]

Year – White / Black 1990 – 9,801 / 8,159 1991 – 10,193 / 9,650 1992 – 11,137 / 11,170 1993 – 11,538 / 12,199 1994 – 16,496 / 20,234

Avg 11,833 / 12,282

White Average of Children Awaiting Adoption per 100,000:

11,833/2128.23 = 5.56

Black Average of Children Awaiting Adoption per 100,000:

12,282/316.63 = 38.79

Black Average divided by White Average to get a rate comparison:

38.79/5.56 = 6.98

  • A BLACK CHILD IS SIX TIMES (600%) MORE LIKELY TO BE AWAITING ADOPTION THAN A WHITE CHILD.
  • Africa’s problems

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/771271.stm

Roads: only 16% paved Telephones: 10 per 1000 Electricity: 80% lack access Aids: 35m infected Sanitation: inadequate for 75% of rural population Source: Can Africa Claim the 21st Century

The bank says the total combined income of 48 countries in Africa is little more than that of Belgium.

  • In the last 40 years, average incomes per person in Africa have stagnated while they have grown in most of the rest of the world.
  • Africa now accounts for only 1% of the total world economic output and 2% of world trade.
  • On average, African countries have economies smaller than a town of 60,000 people in a rich country.

With only 10m telephone lines, half of them in South Africa, there is little chance of most Africans gaining access to the internet.

  • Africa has fewer roads than Poland, only 16% of which are paved, and only one in five households has access to electricity.
  • Two-thirds of rural Africans lack adequate water supplies, while three quarters lack adequate sanitation.
  • Blacks 30x more likely to have gonorrhea than whites.

http://www.cdc.gov/std/Trends2000/Trends2000.pdf (See page 13)

  • Blacks 30x more likely to have syphilis than whites.

http://www.cdc.gov/std/Trends2000/Trends2000.pdf (See page 17)

  • Blacks 12% more likely to have Hepatitis B than whites.

http://www.cdc.gov/std/Trends2000/Trends2000.pdf (See page 25)

  • 45-46% of black women have genital herpes!!!

http://www.cdc.gov/std/Trends2000/Trends2000.pdf (See pages 22-23)

http://www.ashastd.org/news/031699.html [archived]

Particularly hard hit in the herpes epidemic are African Americans, with nearly a 46% prevalence.? Clearly, concerted prevention efforts are badly needed.

Fleming, DF, et al. Herpes Simplex Virus Type 2 in the United States, 1976 to 1994.

The New England Journal of Medicine, 1997; 227(16): 1105-1111.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/337/16/1105

Results From 1988 to 1994, the seroprevalence of HSV-2 in persons 12 years of age or older in the United States was 21.9 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 20.2 to 23.6 percent), corresponding to 45 million infected people in the noninstitutionalized civilian population. The seroprevalence was higher among women (25.6 percent) than men (17.8 percent) and higher among blacks (45.9 percent) than whites (17.6 percent).

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_022.pdf (See page 11)

 

  • Black Women Least Likely to Marry

From staff and wire reports

Posted July 25, 2002 — Black women are least likely to marry and most likely to divorce, with more than half splitting within 15 years, according to a new survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. By age 30, 81 percent of White women have been married compared to 52 percent of Black women. The survey of 11,000 women suggests that part of the problem is a lack of men in the “marriageable pool,” with disproportionate numbers of Black men unemployed or incarcerated.

  • The 2004 rate of AIDS diagnoses for blacks was nearly 10 times the rate for whites and three times the rate for Hispanics. The rate of AIDS diagnoses for black women was 23 times the rate for white women. The rate of AIDS diagnoses for black men was eight times the rate for white men (1). The primary mode of HIV transmission for both men and women was sexual contact with men (1).

References:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5504a5.htm

1. CDC. HIV/AIDS surveillance report, 2004. Volume 16. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2005:1–46. Available at
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/2004report/pdf/2004surveillanceReport.pdf.

  • Liberia was founded by freed U.S. slaves 158 years ago. It is a black country in Africa. It has had literally dozens upon dozens of violent government overthrows and upheavals.

The CIA Factbook says the annual per capita income is $900 (nine hundred) dollars. There are 2,000 cell phones in the entire country.

From these facts, we may safely conclude that the lingering effects of slavery and racism last at least 158 years.

Source: CIA Factbook for Liberia

Continue Reading Black hyper-assertiveness & puerile White female over-valuation of confidence.