Analysis: Shotter’s “Social Accountability and the Social Construction of ‘You”

  • Post author:
  • Post category:Central

Negotiating Problems of Conventional and Non-Standard Grammar of European Identity

The most fundamental questions of who we are and how we might organize in our defense has a cogent, preliminary answer outlined by the Euro-DNA Nation.

We organize our identity as advocates of our people, who are of indigenous European descent, for the maintenance of our distinct genus on the whole and in the maintenance of our distinct species as well.

The very act of participating in the Euro-DNA Nation establishes a degree of merit to individuals as worthy members from the onset: This person is willing to undertake a minimal act in essential distinction of themselves and their group in flight or fight for the defense of European types.

There are additional qualities that need to be drawn-out by means of criteria other than close focus on genetics, of course. These particular qualitative concerns are provided for in the Euro-DNA Nation as well.

We may hypothesize and verify that we do have a definition of White/European Nationalisms which can move easily in consensus, neither yielding to slobs or snobs.

Although there is some confusion over what constitutes White/European Nationalism by way of slobs and snobs, there is a de facto consensus that all people of indigenous European parentage, including Russians, are valid members. With that, there is a normal provision that the various kinds of Europeans ought to be able to maintain their distinct demographics and not have them blended away, not even with other European types. This normal provision protects against the slobs, those who cannot see the depth and importance of European differences from one another and in some of their slovenly cases, not even seeing difference from non-Europeans. It also protects against snobbish definitions of White, which would deny the overwhelming Europeanness or the value of some European kinds; in this case again, they are not seeing or acknowledging a difference that makes a difference from non-Europeans. Their concerns that some patterns among those others which are unlike theirs and not distinctly European might damage their kind if integrated, are alleviated by the human ecological accountability of the particular national and subnational bounds.

Thus, by maintaining national, regional and communal differences and values we may handle concerns of the snobs and the slobs. The snobs, those who do not really care for certain native Europeans, not recognizing them as a part of “us”, may be placated by the fact that borders with these groups that they do not particularly care for are maintained. They have the means to stem limitless blending away. They do not need to throw these people overboard along with the non-Europeans. On the other hand, the slobs, people who have a tendency to be lax in recognizing the differences between Europeans or even worse, from non-Europeans, are, by the means of these national, regional and communal accountabilities, also prevented from going too far.

This framework allows for more and less pure alike, it maintains both genus and species of Europeans and thus provides a crucial basis that in theory might serve organizational grounds for our identity, its defense and expanse, even, into new territories.

We have answered the fundamental question of who we are as an identity. We have even answered to an extent the question of how that might be achieved. We have not answered how we might get people to act on this quite benign level of participation – although the pragmatic neutrality of unionization appears a clear ground and means for organizational incentive.

In any case, I am satisfied that fair premises have been set-forth on the fundamental question of who we are, that is, who we are advocating: people of native European descent and our discreet categories, including Russians.

For those who might harbor hatred against European neighbors for atrocities past, to where they even resent their legacy, I may offer this consideration – that the manifestation of their genetic legacy will probably reveal eventually any moral inferiority if that has in fact been carried forth on ill-gotten gains, and they will come to account for their injustice.

While we have resolved important theoretical complications and obstructions (see Leftism as a Code Word, my discussion of incommensurability and more), one obstruction remains intransigent to organization – those who wish to embrace Hitler and the Nazis, believing that they can be conducive to unification.

In theory, it seems clear that whatever good ideas they might have had can be approximately reconstituted (better, we can think these matters through anew), while we may drop whatever horrific mistakes, the epistemological blunder of theirs. Moreover, as Dr. Lister notes, we may drop its radioactive brand name. I share his disgust with those who cannot plainly see that necessity. I do not think Cobb was providing a service in promoting “White nationalism” by hoisting the swastika; on the contrary, that undoubtedly caused aversion to many worthwhile people. Defenders of this maneuver are the same sorts who say we should not offend Christians by being honest about what we think of this religion, that we should not use epithets and so on. But Hitler and the swastika, who could be offended? Ridiculous.

Despite the self delusions of his advocates, one of the reasons why many of us have been angry with Hitler and Nazism from the start is because they have given racial classification and protective discrimination on its basis – which are in fact a fundamentally necessary means of human ecology and accountability – a very suspicious and frightening image. And no, it is not all the fault of Jewish propaganda.

Make no mistake, the epistemic blunders of Hitler and the Nazis are clear enough, seized upon by Jewish propaganda obviously, but nevertheless, tactless and unwise enough so that racial classification has been stigmatized, successfully prohibited even, as “racist” and “white supremacist” in large part due to their lack of judgment.

This has long been a part of my disgust with the Nazis.

Their narrow, headlong, scientistic approach having stigmatized the very important capacity to protect patterns in protracted, developmental stages. I went through a phase where I had a chip on my shoulder with Germans about that – and the neo-Nazi Germans and Neo-Nazi German American types in particular, do tend to be weird in that you cannot be cool enough with them – no amount of honest claim that you advocate them and their nationality the same as other Europeans, that you are not interested in guilt tripping them, that you recognize failings in other Europeans as well, is enough. But even so, these weirdos can be transcended and put aside. Interesting to note, it was Polish people who encouraged me to divest myself of that angle of starting out critical of Germans.

Even so, I don’t believe that I should have to be apologetic for being against Hitler and Nazism. I am not against Germans, German nationalism nor even some ideas that the Nazis used. However, the Nazis were, to say the least, against some other Europeans and the war (which they claim to have had no choice in) was vastly destructive to European interests. They had some pointedly wrong ideas. Nevertheless, I can easily include Germans and their best attributes while the Hitler/Nazi brand cannot be symbiotic of European concordance. You can blame people for being against Germans, but you cannot really blame them for being against Hitler and the Nazis. Whatever the case, it is history and where the history created European destruction, it would be foolish to resurrect its lines and associations.

Clear though it may be, I do not trust myself to use the right psychology to get this simple message across, to disabuse Hitler fans that it is not all Jewish spin that is working against them (they are so dumb that my having a Polish American mother is enough to indict me in the eyes of Hitler enthusiasts); I can rather see creating intransigent identification as such. Enough of that for now. I can in fact, dismiss it as stupidity.

The aversion to Nazism is not only an image problem created by Jews on Madison Avenue. Part of it is rather because of the right’s tendency, probably in a quest for transcendent foundation, to reify matters, to take them out of systemic process and relation. And in a word, people are rightfully scared and/or repulsed by its lack of the wisdom of process, negotiative symbiosis and human ecology, agency and social accountability – “that’s just the way it is; tough luck sucker.”

As touched on in discussion between Asshole and I, the right’s light exists for a moment, shining on the provisional responsibility of stewarding and governing that whole social process, not to truncate it to where it is at odds with what might in fact be crucial systemic constituents, supportive, buffering, instructive, circumspect, formative or otherwise elements of itself.

The problem remains, now that we do have a brand, including Germans and excluding Nazis, a product which should be viable, popular, but is not, why is not popular yet? I suppose that there are marketing issues that should be gotten into, but that is for another time and place. For now, we might need to go deeper than marketing still, into the nuts and bolts of communication itself.

Professor of Communications, John Shotter

Shotter is a communications professor, a social constructionist and a communitarian. I am not endorsing all prescriptions of Shotter nor of this piece written years ago, but I believe the issues discussed are worth looking at. While my brief experience with trying to practice communitarianism soured me on the notion. I found a gossipy hell fostering demented egos beyond any decency – you find out how weird people can be in small town life; and I much prefer the less direct loyalty and anonymity of nationhood fostered by the anonymity of city life along with the functional, pragmatic loyalty of unionization – in my experience I’ll take that over “community” and heavy psychological, emotional ties. I would still like to hear Dr. Lister expound on the matter for my better appreciation (though he might not be willing).

Aversion to my effort to make the Euro-DNA Nation popular may well be due to my personality and my nonstandard grammar. Therefore, I intend to do something about that: I will begin rather to provide some analytical tools for examining the grammar that may obstruct our organization of White/European identity; and more non-standard grammar which may prompt ideas as to how our identity might gain vivification, guiding way to organize our authentic and popular strength.

Fortunately, Majority Rights DNANations is the right place to analyze such minutia of identity. This paper of mine from a graduate class is looking at the “enemy camp” of the ontology project. It is in fact, in the realm of deontology. Even so, that is not to say that it cannot be instructive and informative to an ontology project to examine the resources of “enemy practitioners.”

One idea of this school has been to avoid “why” questions as they tend to generate causally lineal answers while asking “how” questions by contrast, has the positive effect of tending to generate theory. However, this piece provides some clues as to why that question – how? –  is not working to galvanize White/European advocacy. The question is indeed, why?

Analysis: John Shotter’s “Social Accountability and the Social Construction of ‘You”- Part 1

Introduction: Whether used for special investigation or simply as used through ordinary language, “ways of making sense of the world”, or “language games,” are characterized by grammars. Different language games entail different grammars; these grammars are logics of meaning and action – grammars (re) constructing a) “discursive structures” –  i.e., resources manifest clearly enough to suggest social rules that afford and constrain how endeavors should proceed, and b) “deontological necessities” – prohibitions and obligations: as opposed to transcendent or foundational ontological morality, de-ontological necessities are non-transcendent moral rules which, despite affordance and constraint of action by discursive structures, remain mutable and multi-interactive as are the discursive structures that they reconstruct.

That is not to say that the practitioner within a discursive structure will assent to the notion of deontological as opposed to ontological necessity. For prime example, in the language game of scientific endeavor, two grammatical ontico-polarities emerge. In the first case, of behaviorism, investigation is conducted with a third person passive emphasis – the observer, being part of a deterministic universe, “merely observes and records atomistically causal necessity.” As self-reflexivity is negated, so to is deontological accountability. The second stance is that of a typical cognitive school; it conducts research from the grammar of first person possessive. As social indebtedness is negated, again, so to is deontological accountability. Both of these polemic emphases are byproducts of Enlightenment “texts” – that is, a detached first person “I” (think therefore I am) acting toward a third person observational field.

Of more incisive interest, these Cartesian grammars impose not merely through the more culpable objectivist scientific endeavors and the non-reflexive overviews in social constructivist {1} work, but are remnant even within the specifications of scholarships more capable and deeply imbued with the temporal. In “Social Accountability and the Social Construction of You”, Shotter seeks in particular to attenuate this grammar’s scientistic effluence in the texts and practice of identity. By taking an ironic stance toward his own discursive rules (viz. a disabuse of the rigorous “how”), he is able to maneuver the notion of individuality into a more thorough social constructionist direction. This does (or can) rectify residual behaviorist tradition hankering within the constructivist work. However, Shotter takes as his primary foil the more intellectually idolized objectivism of the the first {2} Cognitive school, though not directly. Rather, he differerances from the grammar of motives of that school’s most formidable opponent –  Rom Harré

Rom Harre

Shotter asks, why not create a proviso to act “through differently structured means” than the conventional Cartesian starting place so that individuals might discover, as put forward in the Theatetus, “different aspects of [their] surroundings in relation to [themselves]?”; you might say that in order to rectify the Enlightenment’s legacy of brutal relativism, he leaves the constructionist fray momentarily for some Platonic “why-ning.”

THESIS: The thesis is two part. First, in this article Shotter seeks to deconstruct The Story Told through the (“the”) Enlightenment text(s) by distinguishing its grammatical starting point, the first person possessive: and in lieu of this grammatical emphasis he proffers an amelioratively overcompensating counter-text toward The Story Lived in second person address.

The second thesis is a metatext: As serious consideration of the possessive and detached relational grammar of The Story Told falls outside of JS’s language game, he opts to emphasize difference not so much from the Cartesian text, but tacitly against Rom Harre’s “Personal Being.”

Exemplary of most counter-Enlightenment texts it has begun with the same grammatical starting point, changing only the relational emphasis from a possessive to a more active voice; according to Shotter, this is insufficient emancipation from The Story Told of uninvolved individuality. But interestingly, as passivity is rejected in Social Constructionism, the apparent alternative text of the second person passive also falls outside of JS’s language game. Thus, his proffered counter text of The Story Lived in alternative relationality, not having recourse to passivity, must negotiate novel grammar.

Key Terms:

Not having recourse to a “middle voice” (as did ancient Greek) JS introduces the novel grammatical implication of active and “acting into” voice to describe discourse between first and second persons. He also describes the discursve activities between voices in terms of “addressivity”, which pertains to the necessity of pronominal address in our identity creation. “Specificatory structures” are the partly finished logics of meaning and action that we are offered in address, to afford and constrain, shape and craft clearer sense making. And terms of “conjoint or joint action” deal with a non-lineal, but socially participatory notion of coherent identity. “Stories Lived” approximate the distinction, blurry and interrelated as it actually is, between rules of conjoint enactment and hermeneutic rules less bound to physical reality. Stories Lived through conjoint creation I contrast with Enlightenment “Stories Told” of artificially possessive and detached individualism.

Again, “discursive structures” are resources manifest clearly enough to suggest social rules that afford and constrain how endeavors should proceed. “Deontological necessities” are prohibitions and obligations; as opposed to transcendent ontological morality, de-ontological necessities are non-transcendent moral rules which, despite affordance and constraint of action in discursive structures, remain mutable and multi-interactive as are the discursive structures they reconstruct

Other frequent usages are {3}: a) making common: playing on the etymology of communication, it deals with the purpose of communication, viz. to achieve common understanding b) deontics: non-transcendent, interactive moral rules. c) enmesment: necessary participation in rules d) praxis: reflexive, agentive and socially negotiated reality e) rules: a different and potentially more agentive way of looking at necessity than standard physics models f) tfg’s: what is taken for granted, frequently a cause of intransigent conflict g) logical force: the degree of compellingness of a rule h) reflexivity (of effect or need): interactional or agentive response of observed, as opposed to lineal and passive results in forces and impacts. I introduce the term i) “corprisocial” to indicate the physical entering point to discursive structures.

Because Harré and Shotter’s common deontic language game, viz., discursive structure, bears as a melding and differencing point between their usages, I use the term of discursive structure as common ground, and finally contrast that to the terms which Harré uses concomitantly, “appropriation, position and order”:

Appropriation is how he sees identity is garnered, position describes varying capacity and responsibility to the order, which is a moral field of relation (Shotter uses the latter two terms, position and order, as well) with Shotter’s differences – specifically, Derrida’s “Differance” {4}. (yes, I despise Derrida now as I did when I wrote this).

I use the thematic metaphor of Appropriation versus Differance to underscore the central objective of my article. “Appropriation”, a mechanistic metaphor, has crept into the masterful constructionist work of Harré; inasmuch, it symbolizes indebtedness to prior ways of talking (prior discursive structures). The Appropriated discursive structure of Social Constructionism (Shotter and Harré are among “charter members of its constitution”) provides background in which Differances of this article are embedded. And “Differance” is Derrida’s deconstructionist metaphor for a contrast internally related to its context; Shotter is not abandoning internal dependence on the Social Constructionist context, but differing with some habits in order to deconstruct pejorative habitual influences.

Partition: To complicate matters further, I too am tracing Shotter’s position from within this overlapping framework, and with the same social constructionist take. This article uses the same pentadic arrangement as does Shotter. He describes 1. a notion of coherence 2. a relationship of knower to known 3. a purpose 4. what counts as data – a unit of observation and a unit of analysis and 5. how those data count. With great attention Shotter moves the analytical frame from paragraph to paragraph, from sentence to sentence, and sometimes from word to word (!) in a continuous hermeneutic circle establishing his differances to a social constructionist notion of identity. In overstating the relationship of knower and known, he does create a qualitative difference in the rules of this frame. Nevertheless, intentionality and perspective remain similar enough to render for this critique a challenging task of “elaboration and transformation.” As Shotter makes clear, there must be differences, changes and contrast from a given account (if not “creative misunderstandings”) if there is to be any way to judge its meaning, and thus for there to be any understanding at all. If I am to differ while using the same pentad, it is imperative to elaborate his tight analysis and highly regulative scheme against the transformative background of a more protracted form of the structure (i.e., a wider frame and “interior” information which does not circle from sentence to sentence). Therefore, though Shotter’s pentad circles against myriad sources, including those which go into making Harre’s positions, I organize Shotters Differances of the pentad more simply against Harre’s Appropriations thus:

First, against Harre’s notion of person positions in relation to one another, each making themselves coherent through reflexive reflection as prospective first persons by means of appropriations from third person constructions, voices in conversation, Shotter moves individuality into the more rigorously actional and practical involvement of joint shaping and crafting of coherence through second to first person address.

Second, JS takes Harre’s notion of relationship of pre-nominal person positions acting toward, and appropriating voice from third person conversation, and largely reverses it to where the provisional relation of second person voice directs specificatory structures toward pre-nominal persons in conjoint negotiation of relation.

Third, from Harre’s quest for the “how to” practicality of individual agency, JS differances by asking “why.” Arguing that asking “how”only leads back to the Story Told of detached individuality, he endeavors to shake its intransigence by proffering an overcompensating counter-text toward the Story Lived in relation to others in second person to first person interface

Fourth, appropriating Harre’s observational field constituted, in his analysis, with empirical person positions, JS differs by using smaller, more active units of observation – momentary situations –  and analysis – Voice and Person of the verb as unintelligible apart from what they do.

George addressed with a socially ideal but responsible Altercast contrary to his individualist plans…

Fifth, against Harre’s notion of accountability as possible through the creation of coherent individuality, wherein data count as one is able to conceive of oneself as an individual, JS contends that individuality is, and can only be, constructed through accountability to the data of pronominal positions.

George is addressed with a consideration of acting-into an altercast position in conflict with his less than socially ideal plans.

As opposed to a libertarian, prioratizing dreams of individual adventure and world travel, George contemplates acting-into, shaping and crafting the specificatory structure altercast by Mary, who addresses him as a man of ideals, which of necessity compel adjustment of those priorities to practical duty: to a position rather as husband and community builder, upheld against capitalist destruction thereof.

…

Analysis: John Shotter’s Social Accountability and the Social Construction of “You” - Part 2

In pursuit of this analysis, we may usefully trace background to Shotter and Harre’s negotiated concerns here:  “The Verum Factum Principle”

From Wikipedia:

“Giambattista Vico is best known for his verum factum principle, first formulated in 1710 as part of his De antiquissima Italorum sapientia, ex linguae latinae originibus eruenda (1710) (“On the most ancient wisdom of the Italians, unearthed from the origins of the Latin language”).[7] The principle states that truth is verified through creation or invention and not, as per Descartes, through observation: “The criterion and rule of the true is to have made it. Accordingly, our clear and distinct idea of the mind cannot be a criterion of the mind itself, still less of other truths. For while the mind perceives itself, it does not make itself.” This criterion for truth would later shape the history of civilization in Vico’s opus, the Scienza Nuova (The New Science, 1725), because he would argue that civil life – like mathematics – is wholly constructed.”

Giambattista Vico

Analysis: John Shotter’s Social Accountability and the Social Construction of “You” – Part 2

I. Coherence of conjointly constructed individuality Differanced to Coherence of individuality acted into through the address of deontical positions of Voice by those of actively involved Person.

From Social Constructionist Coherence as conjoint creation of persons in relation to one another, a notion of coherence is set out with the deontical positions of Voice and Person of the verb; viz., JS focuses on activities of the second Person addressive Voice in construction of coherence.

Appropriating Harre’s use of social constructionist coherence wherein the conversation of everyday moral orders (read “order” to connote “third person”) corporeal Persons in relation to one another (read as “first persons”) make their individual Voices coherent through reflexive reflection on the obtainment and possession (possessive) of conjointly constructed discourse (passive), Shotter Differances from the vestigial cognitivism by taking Voice and Person into the rigorous maxim that any enunciated continuity of social life must speak toward its continual activity and thus, practical involvement. In Shotter’s notion of coherence, i.e., grammars of address, activities of discourse enable personal continuity as individual coherence is created through constraints and affordances of address. Voices of address altercast persons specificatory, or partly structured deontic operators which “you’s” act into – and through which they craft and shape the coherent, yet developmentally susceptible stories of their history and identity – to become “I’s”. Embeddedness within second person coherence, in lieu the third and first person narratives of enlightenment texts, emphasizes wherein addressive voice to you in temporality is a-priori necessary to any unified, agentive I. JS proceeds to engender this non-Cartesian text of conjointly constructed individual coherence by evincing its preliminary indebtedness to 1) internal relation and 2) its permanence through accountability.

Appropriating Harre’s use of social constructionist coherence wherein the conversation of everyday moral orders (read “order” to connote “third person”) corporeal Persons in relation to one another (read as “first persons”) make their individual Voices coherent through reflexive reflection on the obtainment and possession (possessive) of conjointly constructed discourse (passive), Shotter Differances from the vestigial cognitivism by taking Voice and Person into the rigorous maxim that any enunciated continuity of social life must speak toward its continual activity and thus, practical involvement. In Shotter’s notion of coherence, i.e., grammars of address, activities of discourse enable personal continuity as individual coherence is created through constraints and affordances of address. Voices of address altercast persons specificatory, or partly structured deontic operators which “you’s” act into – and through which they craft and shape the coherent, yet developmentally susceptible stories of their history and identity – to become “I’s”. Embeddedness within second person coherence, in lieu the third and first person narratives of enlightenment texts, emphasizes wherein addressive voice to you in temporality is a-priori necessary to any unified, agentive I. JS proceeds to engender this non-Cartesian text of conjointly constructed individual coherence by evincing its preliminary indebtedness to 1) internal relation and 2) its permanence through accountability.

Permanence of Accountability – Person [Coherence depends on permanent relatedness to Persons]. In the verities of relatedness and continual activity, individual continuity is dependent upon the directive person of the verb; in rejecting an objective starting point, i.e., individuality being achieved through equally viable possessive positions, it is rather as second persons that accountable means, speech genres of coherent rights, privileges, and obligations are (at least originally) made available. Presence of the individual “other” provides antecedent and essential directives by which to complete intentionality; thus, continuity of a person’s point of view is permanently indebted to second persons for whatever first person possessive agency or third person autonomy accounted. Further, as people are beings created, nurtured, and informed by other beings, especially predecessors, they are permanently related and developmentally susceptible to directive structures into which they might account, reconstruct, or rebel against in establishment of any coherent voice of autobiography. So Differancing from “extra-discursive theory”, J.S. Takes the putative remnant (possessive pure agency) directly “into” continual deontical accountability to Second Person You

You being in continual relation and commotion of the social, sometimes messy process

Summary: Given the inexorable commotion of continual relatedness, the first person active voice in connection with a transcendent theory, and concomitant third person passive voice assuming a scientistic detached stance as the receptor of sensory input from a fixed social order, are impractical. Any constancy, uniqueness, or autonomous agency of individuality must be internally related to others, thus subject to permanent accountability in actional criteria. Hence, the Appropriated Social Constructionist notion of coherence, wherein first Persons appropriate and reflexively reflect upon the coherence of their Voices from a third person panorama, is Differanced to preliminary and permanent indebtedness: 1. The Enlightenment context remnant third person view of persons in detached relation to one another is deconstructed by favoring individuality making sense through Internal Relation to public display as second Persons accounted valid by other individuals. 2. The Enlightenment context remnant of unified agency which issues out from the voices of equally viable possessive positions is deconstructed by favoring the Permanent Indebtedness as accountable Voices in relation to second persons for any achievements of autonomous narrative. This coherence of individuality through internal relation and permanent indebtedness elaborates a reversal in the traditional relation of individual knower to what is known of one’s self.

II. The Relationship of Knower to Known which is Corporeal Persons Acting Toward conversational voice is Differanced to Knower Knowing Individuality Through the actable into Addressivity of Conversational Voice toward their active person

As the critical turn takes a stance of research through participatory involvement rather than contemplative withdrawal, self knowing is constructed with other persons; but since Social Constructionist texts have typically begun from the Cartesian first person starting point in relation of knower to known individuality, Shotter deconstructs this text by taking a second person starting point in relating knower to known.

JS Appropriates Harre’s use of this relationship, in which pre-nominal first person positions act toward and appropriate voices from a third person conversational field, and Differances by reversing it to where the provisional relation of the conversational voices is viewed as being directed to pre-nominal second person positions.

What am I, chopped liver?

Specifically regarding the relation of knower to their known individuality, Shotter takes his point of departure from Harre’s (1983, p. 168) thesis for the social construction of the pronoun “I”; viz., “the necessary condition for acquiring the use of ‘I’ is the capacity to use ‘you’, ‘he’, ‘we’, ‘Mary’, ‘John’, etc.” Shotter then advances this point to where Harre’s notion of relationship [suggested more in stylism than in perfect understanding of his intent] – i.e., person (pt of view) acting-out toward conversation (pt of action – obtuse active voice of address) is reversed to its being through conversation (acute passive voice of address – pt of action) that I’s act-into conjointly create their person (pt of view).

Persons toward conversation: “No resolution of the antithesis between referential and non-referential uses of “I” that has emerged is subsuming the other. In each case the making of counter-arguments can be treated merely as demonstrations of the need to admit the viability of the other concept in our and psycholinguistic practices” (Harré 1983, p 79). With that Harré argues that a corporeal person must conceive of themselves as a conscious unitary agent, a theoretical self capable of reflexive self consciousness if they are to be singularly accountable and socially intelligible. Thus, he leaves the question of why this referential non-referential distinction is made in favor of asking how a person can accomplish individuality within this “Bohr-like complementarity”. Within full social constructionist matrix, he endeavors to establish a model to rescue the personal agency and unified autonomy of individuality over and against causal systems by means of defiant, but by no means naïve use of traditional dichotomy. In lieu of inner-outer, he proposes a hierarchically organized relationship of knower to known individuality which distinguishes an empirical public collective (referential “I”) indexically marshaling from public conversation an open-ended transcendent theory of private/individual (non-referential “I”); for “the long history of Cartesian distinctions must reflect some important aspects of the psychological functioning of human beings. It can hardly have convinced so many if it were wholly without some empirical foundation (ibid. p 44).” 2,764

Conversation toward persons: Shotter contends that the reason this kind of talk holds sway is not because it has some “empirical foundation” – “There ain’t no such things as I’s and You’s”, not for more than a moment anyway.” Like James and Beneventine, he believes little can be said of involvement through a first person possessive starting point beyond its being “a pencil” – and even that is preceded by directive relations to others. Perhaps the Enlightenment frame starting with agentive “I’s” acting toward the passive conversation of second person yous or third person theys might simply as well be set aside for a new way of talking about individuality – though a frame beginning with the conversation of second person address jointly acted-into by persons, the hierarchical relationship of knower to transcendently known individuality might be farther deconstructed in differance to a knower immanently related to other known individuals. But Shotter argues that if this remnant Cartesianism is to be disabused, we must first answer why “we feel so strongly that there must be a unitary and total way to refer to what we are.” Advancing Harre’s hypothesis viz. Acquistion of pronominal address is requisite to abstracting “self concept” from the public domain, Shotter “describes” a coevolution of found and sought individuality: While derived “horizontally” in constitutive rules of deployment deeply enmeshed in hierarchical social orders, pronominal positions also serve as regulative rules of accountability, characterizing the conversation toward our person with requiremental clues to the kind of knowable individuality sought.

Summary: Thus, the reason we feel (we are regulated to act) that there must be a unitary and total way to refer to what we are is due to the fact that we are deeply enmeshed in (accountable to constitutive rules) already established ways of speaking. This allows us to account to them in a seemingly natural way, as all texts must be partly taken for granted. Therefore, in a seemingly natural way we ask “how” do we establish individuality? However, the enactment of the occidental text’s first and third person relationship of knower to known has the effect of removing us from corprisocial indebtedness. In taking the individual knower back to a relation of contemplative withdrawal, it removes them from the sources of their individuality which is constructed through participatory involvement with others. Therefore, if we are to establish individuality, we must elaborate and specify “why” we feel so strongly accountable to this notion of relationship.

III.Rhetorical hermeneutic’s Purpose of the “how to” practicality of individuality is Differanced by asking “why” it recreates The Story Told of detached individualism, and by proffering a counter-text of The Story Lived in active relation to others.

Social Construction of individuality is concerned with the means by which the personal is constructed, the praxia activity of how people interact in the creation of rhetorical, hermeneutic (“textual”) accounts of themselves: To handle the relation between knower and known in the co-evolution of these accounts, a critical interpretive approach is taken which uses circular attention to context and particulars of how stories/practices reflexively reconstruct both interpreter and interpreted. Finding that this leads back to the purposes of Enlightenment texts Shotter counter-textualizes individualism lived through accounts in addressivity as yous.

Asking “Why?” tends to lead to teleological and lineally causal explanations.

Appropriating Harre’s Pupose for the “how to” practicality of individual agency, JS Differances in the manner of 1. Platonic “why-ning”: Since “how to” reconstructs the Cartesian Story Told of detached individuality, he has asked “why” and endeavors to Deconstruct the intransigence of that story by Taking The Hermeneutic Turn to a Didactic extent, creating   2.“Buzzwords” of an amelioratively overcompensating counter-text toward the Story Lived though activities relating to immediate others.

Deconstructing the traditional textual Story Told and proffering a counter-text of the Story Lived.

1. Platonic “why-ning” – differing from the critical-interpretive emphasis on “how to”: In present milieu, the quest of how reverts to persons taking the anachronistic concept of detached individualism. Thus, of necessity JS deconstructs the traditional Story Told by asking “why” occidents are so inclined to this appropriative way of talking – he finds it is in part a) custom, due to their accountability to these texts, and b) part inherent invisibility to/of the language game’s reflexive effects of non-accountability – a bi-produced “pure” agentive self, “acting-out” of a “possessed (ha!) location”, i.e., “rational blindness.”

To exorcise the possessed self

Rational blindness to relational enmeshment: In everyday practices persons are accountable for correctly (re) constructing (regulative use of) the resources (obligations, prohibitions, and legitimacies) constituting the taken for granted depth grammar rules of their culture. In the case of occidental texts of individuality, accountability to cultural grammar means that one is responsible for the mastery and correct enmeshment of the particularized requirements of its pronominal forms. Specifically, one is obligated to the agentive voice and the first person possessive “I” in relation to passive second persons yous and third passive person theys – this is a very powerful reflexive need: to fail in the situated usages of these rules is to risk prohibition from the very resources by which one’s being human is constituted. Paradoxically, this individualistic obligation reflexively effects disengagement of people from corprisocial, deonitc and hermeneutic abilities from which to construct and practice their individuality; and on a deeper level this narrative “rationally blinds” enmeshed individuals from recognizing the Story Told as being a text – persons feel so strongly that they must talk in the manner of possessive agency due to their accountability to a text which enjoins its own interpretation as a text through prohibition of recourse to hermeneutically interpreted relatedness and by obligating the notion of perceptive immediacy (and the unassailable equality thereof).

Mary (Donna Reed) acts-into the immediate opportunity of the moment…

…and begs to Differance from the detached way…

Shotter Denies that there is much content to self assertions, be they in the inward proprioceptive direction or toward the outward end of a trans-social character. Perhaps one can merely open their eyes to a mirror and perceive aspects of a person in the Lockeatine sense, but this perceptual immediacy is not an unassailable truth nor does it mean as much, i.e, it has nothing to do with the way ordinary folks talk about individuality until one has plagiarized socially accountable and mutable sequences of words through which to enact perception of it (Harré declared emphatically, no wonder David Hume could not empirically perceive a self!). Along with the explanation of this (guilt ridden?) half blindness to the process of “unconsciously” appropriating one’s grammars of individuality Shotter wants to explain why third and first person personages of the verb create dubious moral orders. As the appropriated from occidental text transforms recognition from social indebtedness, it elaborates the objectivist/ subjectivist – relativist notions of mechanistic coherence (artificial possession – “that’s just their/my prerogative”) and causal individual necessity – (the “truth of that’s just the way it is”), ideas which do not entail a personal moral responsibility to other individuals (see sections 4 and 5). In hopes of establishing ways of talking which readily acknowledge indebtedness to others, he proffers a new grammatical starting point emphasizing the relational nature constituting selves or identities – that is, he differances from the rhetorical stance with a counter-text toward the reflexively needed Story Lived.

Appraised of the objectivist Voice’s lack of responsibility…

2.Buzzwords – Shotter takes the hermeneutic turn to a didactic extent: If accountability is to make sense, a counter-text must be available to Make Common acknowledgement of corprisocial, hermeneutic and deontic indebtedness to other individuals for providing the means of personal identity. To do this he disabuses the occidental Story Told of its traditional grammatical starting point which acts-out toward a concomitant detached stance – and proffers an ameliorative overcompensation toward the Story Lived in continual commotion of everyday social life as it entails normative involvement with the “Addressivity” of “Other Voices” to “Second Person ‘You’s” – in this counter text, overstating the internal relationship of “known to knower”, (my quote) beyond mere symbiosis, the rhetorical directives and hermeneutic interpretation of other voice “addressivity” is depicted as precursive for the active involvement in which situated discourses of individuality are imbued. If this text were made common (buzzwords) it may reflexively effect “differently structured means through which to act”, and (hopefully) recursively reconstructed normative attention to “different aspects of one’s surroundings in relation to one’s self” – that is, this way of talking would readily legitimize or obligate accountability to the grammar of second persons – as yous are imperative to provide the “Specificatory Structures Into” which pre-nominal persons may act and craft their individuality – their “I”. This text would prohibit the notorious imperviousness of traditional individual coherence; and it might begin to rectify the brutal relativism of the formal legacy by constituting accountability to actual persons in concrete situations as they are made through the continual activity of conjoint construction.

Summary: Social Constructionism’s “how to” purpose is more elegantly stated the praxia activity that goes into creating rhetorical hermeneutics. In order to handle the internal relation of questioner to questioned, a critical interpretive account normally uses circular attention first to context and then to the particulars of how stories/practices reflexively reconstruct both interpreter and interpreted. In this piece that takes two major forms 1. Platonic “why-ning”: JS differs from emphasis on “how to”, arguing that in lieu of an alternative, this quest leads back to the traditional Story Told of individuality; his purpose instead is to ask why and why not create “differently structured means” than the favorite Cartesian starting place so that individuals might discover, as put forward by Plato in the Theatetus, “different aspects of [their] surroundings.” Therefore, he disabuses the Cartesian “pure” agentive starting point, underscoring deconstruction of its possessive text by asking “why” occidents are inclined to talk that way – he finds it is due to their being accountable to this text which enjoins its own interpretation as a text through prohibition of recourse to socially interpreted relatedness and obligation of “perceptual immediacy.” 2.“Buzzwords”: JS takes the critical/interpretive turn to a didactic extent: if individuality is to make sense against the insensibility of the traditional Story Told, a counter-text must be available to “make common” recognition of corprisocial, hermeneutic and deontical indebtedness to other precursive voices for the active involvement in which situated discourses of individuality are imbued. Therefore, he proffers an ameliorative overcompensation toward the Story Lived; it is an overcompensation, because there is no acknowledgement of purposiveness with regard to physical criteria and consensus; in overstating the internal relation of “known to knower” beyond mere symbiosis, it is not just that the first person cannot stand unrelated to second persons and their textual interpretations, first persons are thoroughly dependent on second persons for providing rhetorical directive and hermeneutic interpretive means (the means of accountable structures) of personal identity.

…George embraces the specificatory altercasting, a difference that makes a Differance

End of Part 2

You and I in Identity and Agency Creation

For those who might be put-off, initially or even ultimately, by the subject matter discussed here, I would refer to that old adage, that “if all you know well is one thing, then you really don’t even know that very well.”


Part 3 of the analysis of

John Shotter’s “Social Accountability and the Social Construction of ‘You” - Part 3

IV.  The Unit of Observation viewing persons in relation to one another is Differanced to Observation of Situated Usage; and the Antatylitic unit that is the (first and third) Person and Voice is Differanced to Analysis of Second Persons and Voice

From Social Constructionism’s Observational field constituted of persons in discursive relation relation to one another Observation is moved to the continual activities constituting identity in situations of ordinary language; and against the analytic background of this panorama, the unit of Analysis is changed to examine situated usages of Person and Voice of the verb.

From this stance of Harre’s, i.e., toward the discursive field of everyday moral orders constituted of empirical person positions analyzed as locations in conversation to one another and themselves, JS differs to smaller, more active Units of Observation 1.Continual Commotion – in situations of ordinary language use within the continual commotion of everyday activity, utterances make available pronominal positions on a moment to moment basis. And Analysis 2. Data is as Data Does – Differing from formally analyzed third person panorama of individuality, JS treats data of individuality as nothing outside of the differences of activity. In the momentary transience of these situations of ordinary grammatical use he analyzes what Voice (active or acting into) and Person (1rst, 2nd or 3rd) of the verb are doing.

1.Continual Commotion – Shotter continues the de-reification by using a smaller, more active unit of observation: in situations of ordinary language use within the continual commotion of everyday activity, utterances make available pronominal positions on a moment to moment basis, i.e., make available practically applicable texts of identity. Being as malleable as it is in Social Constructionism, Data are difficult to talk about – data is what data does, and the only certain data is within a language game (L.W.). Deriving Hegel, Pierce, James, Dewey, and post WWII “Ordinary Language Philosophy”, Shotter holds the notion that data of individuality is not something “objective” like empirical geneticism, nor is it subjective experience, it is rather shared ordinary linguistic experience conducted within community standards. In contrast to those who might take a larger frame of analysis, say of the episode, as their preferred unit of observation, examined in terms of “obligation, legitimacy and prohibition”, Shotter uses a smaller unit of time, the moment, and less precise deontic standards – usually how data afford and constrain activity within those moments. Shotter is trying to distinguish an extremely practical, though not especially concrete application of texts of identity within situations of ordinary language use – it is not even so static as Deweyan “intersubjectivity.” More on the order of the Hegelian notion of self and objects emerging together, the self is only as determinate as its objects are – in these relations are a variety of types of consciousness, each of which reflects a different version of reality (Wittgenstein makes a similar point in On Certainty #65) – but away from the Hegelian notion of mediation and its implication of a distance between self and objects and self to itself in an effort to attain complete self knowledge – any sort of individuality is to be characterized as shared and corrigible linguistic activity conducted according to “continually susceptible” (i.e. accountable) personal and cultural history.

In this highly practical focus, he pays particular attention to what goes on between people as first and second persons as they continually coordinate the available resources within the social orders into which they have been socialized. Differing from his previous focus on conjoint creation, he attends here to second person address, how their utterances within given situations constantly articulate the character of the relationship and function to afford and constrain activity in ways appropriate to their momentary positionings. These discursive activities are like mobile regions of occurrence – and since this is not at all like a cognitive or propriotoral, causal, centralistic way of talking, however practical, according to Shotter, this new manner of speech is awkward as it lacks social “currency.” Unlike empiricism, one can neither observe nor do away with these data of involvements, but only authenticate what they do on a moment by moment basis.

2.Data is as Data Does – Rather than the appropriation of a formally analyzed language game of individuality, Shotter differentiates, in the momentary transience of these situations of ordinary language use, the functioning of Voice, whether active or acting-into (passive and possessive forms have little to do with the Story Lived) and Person, whether 1rst, 2nd, or 3rd of the verb. Unlike the static pictures of cognitivism’s first person possessive voice and behaviorism’s third person passive voice, “in situations of ordinary language use, at least, to address a person grammatically is straight-away to say something about what you take their status to be – to address them wrongly has serious practical consequences.” Therefore, we proceed directly to the final consideration –

V. Appropriating Data of individuality as Counting toward accountability and Differancing to accountability as Counting in the Data of individuality

The Social Constructionist data of individuality as praxis in moral orders socially constructed by persons, is differanced to consider data of individuality as they continually reconstruct the deontical grammar of changeable moral rules.

Harré takes this praxis wherein individuality is constructed through rules within relatively stable moral orders arrayed with persons and pronominal positions, and argues for 1. Accountability through individuality – to be accountable, one must be able to conceive of themselves as an agentive individual 2. JS takes a contradictory stance. Individuality is constructed through accountability – individuality is continually reconstructed through deontical grammar of vicissitudinous pronominal positions.

Individuality Through Accountability versus Accountability Through Individuality

Shotter elaborates the view that pronouns function moment to moment to create “intra-linguistically reconstructed positional fields”, giving individuals both structure and means of structure (Benvenistine); they “indicate not only who (1rst, 2nd, 3rd person of the verb) but what (agent or addressee voice) one is at the same time.” The vicissitudinous nature of discursive structuring is resolved by “these mobile signs” which each speaker can “relate to their person…such a knowledge shows itself in the ability to use all pronouns appropriately, as none have sense except in relation to one another – the uses of the I do not in any unitary way refer to what we are.” But their use is far from arbitrary or trivial – second, third, and first persons are assigned different affordances and constraints.

For the most crucial example, the relationship of detached third person passive and voice of behaviorism and positivism fails to acknowledge moral relations among those studied (inasmuch, mischaracterizes the social life that is supposed to be so unaffectedly represented). “They” might not even be considered pain feeling creatures, but an “it.” Further, self reflexive accountability is outside its rules, and outside the rules of the observer. To make up for this culpable social scientistic position, most recent attention has been paid to the agency of personified “I”‘s, “a subject doing something to someone else.” Harré, for example, wants to disabuse the third person stance of empiricism, avowing that “personal identity is symbolic of social practices, not of empirical experiences. It has the status of a theory.”


Accountability through individuality: As Harré (1983) describes events, behaviorism as an attempted positivistic reduction failed and led to cognitivism; this school has held fastly to the positivist dream of an ideal literal minded grammar; as its subpersonal modules lack social criteria, they fail to provide the unified synthesis of individuality – whereas social constructivism moves in the behavioral direction of positivism, leading it unwittingly back into mechanistic coherence and causal necessity. The byproductive ramification in either case is non-accountability. Thus, to render accountability meaningful to corporeal persons, they must be able to conceive of themselves as unitary self reflexive agents. This may be accomplished through possession of a unified theory based on a Gödel-like transcendent notion – an open ended heirarchy of taken for granted grammars.

According to Harré, from the social linguistic realm, corporeal persons – self referential “I’s” (I # 1) – may appropriate and possess an open ended transcendental theory unifying one as a source of linguistic formulations – part of the theory cannot be in conscious attendance, viz., the non- referential I #2, but it can be acted out from and applied according to rights of display; e.g., having their “definienda are referents to concepts of a very high order of sophistication” – the linguistic implication being in accordance to rules of third person relations – “which are properly ‘applied’ only in the dyad or other group created by the symbiotic relationship (p. 106).” This is not meant to besmirch Harre’s opus – I would be an idiot – briefly stated, what Harré accomplishes with the metaphor of “position” is to counteract the non-qualitiative, non-ecological, equalitarian view that all persons perceptual capacities are equally valid. In place of that, Harré brings to the forefront the notion that persons occupy different “positions” in public discursive orders; thus, different positions create moral orders entailing different rights, privileges and obligations. But this metaphor of “public positions” does display a tendency of inquiry which Shotter is trying to redress – Harre’s transformation of the Cartesian dichotomy to a distinction between “public and private” elaborates a pronominal duality – a manner of speaking which tends back to first person possessive mechanism –  e.g., “appropriation” from the third person detached observational stance, “theoria”, which he seeks to disavow (as with critique of Harre’s I #1 and I #2). In this effort to wrest individuality from the third person passive of behaviorism, “that’s just the way it is”, what Harre’s unit of analysis, the vestigial first person possessive, is doing is reconstructing its subjective relativism with cognitivism’s artificial remnant of “that’s just my/their preference” (I to I). Therefore, in order to deconstruct the subjectivist relativism of what the I #1 accounting to a sovereign relation to I #2 constructed through the data of individuality appropriated from a detached third person public realm is doing, Shotter takes the data of individuality to be “done”, i.e. constructed in direct and intimate accountability you and I. …in the internally related, Heisenbergian reflexivity of jointly negotiated, you and I.

                                         
Individuality through accountability – Shotter takes the data of individuality to count as they continually reconstruct the deontical grammar of pronominal positions. Rather than calling the “I” an open ended theory, he portrays it as a lexically empty concept which blinds individuals to a notion of direct accountability; thus, little is to be said of possessive individuality before it is accountable to the addressivity of specificatory structures which constrain and afford negotiation, shaping and crafting within the continual activity of reconstructing internally related, immanently taken for granted (as opposed to transcendent) depth grammatical rules. That is, individuality is constructed through accountability.

Nevertheless, as the use of language creates and sustains dominant social orders (Mills), we feel of necessity that we must reproduce a scientistic and individual way of talking and thus fail to register our involvement and moral obligations with others; as a result, current conceptions, though supposedly objective, are, in fact, imbued with relativistic subjectivism. Therefore, Shotter moves from Harre’s notion of Appropriation in favor of Differances embedded in communicative activity. As W “makes clear, the retrieval metaphor lacks accountability since we have to assure people and ourselves that our claims are justified, that we can institute checks as to their fittedness to the circumstances in question. Not only is such a process unnecessary, in many instances it is impossible (W 1965:3)” Thus, Shotter does not so much inflect subtle moral orders as he does the fact that we must talk within the requirements of deontical speech genres, the medium of cultural resources within which we live. The dominant speech genre is not to be replaced by appropriating public knowledge to a self theory utilized in accordance with the private subjectivity of the individual – but in the practical social processes going on “between” people – our difference as second persons. In the Story Lived (if lived responsibly) “it does not matter how ‘I” can use language that matters so much as the way in which I must take “you” into account in my use of it; by acting into accepted grammars of specificatory formings within mediums of communication – primarily vague and only partially structured events and states of affairs in the world can be specified further. Such devices or procedures, although of course structured (at least partly), are used not primarily as pictures, as copies, or representations of one’s surroundings. The primary function of language is formative or theoretical, and only secondly and in a derived way referential and representational. It works by people materially moving one another by its use to behave in certain ways.”

Summary: With the notion that data count as praxia of socially constructed rules within relatively stable moral orders, which, in the case of individuality, are arrayed with persons and pronominal positions, Harré (1983) argues for 1. Accountability through individuality – that for accountability to make sense, one must be able to conceive of themselves as an agentive individual – this is accomplished through possession of a unified theory based on a Gödel-like transcendent notion of taken for granted grammar. 2. JS takes a contrary stance: Data count as they continually reconstruct the deontical grammar of pronominal positions. Individuality and agency are constructed through accountability; for this to happen persons must be accountable to act-into the internal relation of Heisenbergian reflexivity, in mutable, immanently taken for granted depth grammars.

Thus, Shotter addresses the relativism inherent in Harre’s appropriation of the enlightenment’s first to third personage accountability of the verb. As the appropriated from occidental text’s first person possessive voice acting toward third person passive voice (behaviorism and cognitivism can be constructed from either grammar) has reconstructed dubious moral orders by transforming recognition from social indebtedness into the objectivist/ subjective – relativist notions of mechanistic coherence [specifically, the relativism of artificial possession (that’s just their/my prerogative”, “god given ability” etc.) and the pseudo objectivity, really, just more relativism, of causal individual necessity – (the “truth of that’s just the way it is”, “natural ability” etc.)] Shotter differences in this article by taking the necessity of how data count away from a picture of the world and into direct putative accountability as second person yous.

CONCLUSION

In this article Shotter has sought to deconstruct The Story Told through the (“the”) Enlightenment text(s) by disabusing its grammatical starting point, the first person possessive. Because accountability to this text reverts practitioners to its inherent blindness to factual and moral indebtedness, to its own textuality, Shotter differances from the rigorous social constructionist emphasis on asking “how” to ask instead “why” not create differently structured means so that individuals might discover different aspects of [their] surroundings in relation to [themselves]? In order to rectify the Enlightenment’s legacy of brutal relativism, he leaves the constructionist fray momentarily for some Platonic “why-ning.” Thus, in lieu of this grammatical emphasis of agency acted out of the first person possessive, he proffers an amelioratively overcompensating counter text toward identity and agency creation in The Story Lived through second person address.

However, as serious consideration of the possessive and detached relational grammar of The Story Told falls outside of JS’s language game, he differences not so much from the Cartesian context, but tacitly makes his actual point of departure from Rom Harre’s thesis of the necessary condition for social construction of the pronoun “I.” That is, the acquisition of capacity for pronominal address. As in most attempts at deconstruction of the traditional text’s grammatical coherence, that is first person possessive “I”, and its detached notion of relation, that is to the third person passive “they”, it has begun with the same first person starting point and has thereby only changed the relational (really non-relational) emphasis from a possessive to a more active voice – a grammatically insufficient emancipation from non-accountable individuality through the Story Told of a-temporality.


Harré and Shotter both seek to rescue individuality and accountability from the inherent ramifications of mechanistic and or automatically causal, behaviorist or cognitive models. The difference in their analysis should be characterized with heuristic sequentiality; each has focused on a different phase in a synthetic process. Harre’s frame is to answer how individuality can be possible – for accountability to make sense, persons must be able to conceive of themselves as conscious, unified agents. By contrast, in this article, Shotter argues that for individuality to make sense, we must first answer why we feel so strongly that there must be a “unitary and total way to refer to what we are.” He argues that it has to do with our accountability to the cultural text we are enmeshed in. Rather than trying to fit an obsolete notion of individuality into The Story Lived, we might do better to change The Story Told. However, since subjective passivity (just as much as mechanical objectivity) is rejected in social constructionism, it falls outside of Shotter’s language game of coherence; for him that grammatical position is taken up in the manner of precursive “addressivity of specificatory structures.” These are discursive logics presented by second persons which, when acted into, provide pre-nominal persons with the means of identifying themselves as first persons. The usage of something like the second person passive voice in his counter text then, is an “acting into” voice. His observations, not having recourse to passivity, thus function mostly beyond his basic purpose of deconstructing the first person points of relationality in terms of the active and acting into discourse between first and second persons. In the performance of this article that takes the form of his “crafting the specificatory structures” of Harre’s “addressive” text, “Personal Being”, shaping away some traditional stylisms and crafting some of his hypotheses of necessary relatedness.

This has been primarily a descriptive piece. Shotter maintains the coherent theme of activity, the awkward logic of second person involvement, etc. All technical aspects are exquisite, and Shotter’s purpose remedial – if it were not primarily so, I would be concerned to assert that a life lived rigorously through texts of second person accountability might be a neurotic affair of the most strangely labyrinthic entanglements. I would agree that indeed physical being’s significance must be learned within the pre-eminent social context; but while I may offer assent that Shotter’s language game does not move so rapidly to the radical extreme that Gergen (1991, p. 156) has taken of dissolving the “I” into a collective “Us”, the momentary unit of individuality does, nevertheless, head toward behaviorism by not sufficiently unifying and marshaling longer-term individual language intentionality (Although in fairness to Shotter, it must be said that in his pentadic survey, he is careful to note accountability to historical, familial and genetic predecessors). While addressivity (like the notion of altercasting) does represent a narrative improvement over the Lockeatinism of Cissna and Sieberg’s confirmation research, it does not address the kinds of stability and complexity of various, simultaneously functioning narratives, its theoria outlook neglecting terms of the multi-interactive qualities of poesis and phronesis in contextings. But beyond the question that in moving toward the end of fully relational selves – do I’s risk trivializing a critical non-idealist aspect of corporeality (?) – the sensibility of depending upon altercasting, still worse, confirmation, to allay venal constraint compares dubiously to the assertion of even a fairly gleaned language of propriotorial significance and a unified language game of intentionality. Shotter depicts circumstances necessitating an imaginary “you”, but it is the “I” in these situations which marshals the important task of coherence. Taking that fact to the practicality of the more pervasive conventions within a given life form, not all “yous” will be addressed with esteemed or even useful specifications, if barely at all. Similarly, while ordinary language has had and will continue to have many emancipating uses, it also runs the risk of heading discourse toward a Lockeatine type realism (“don’t use fancy words with me, I just want the straight facts”). In another theoretical framework, the matter might be subsumed within a new overview – grammars of the Cartesian paradigm itself treated as one natural facet, internally related (albeit unwittingly) to alternative moralities – wherever a possible criteria for evaluating these orders, there must be a unified grammar, which, at least by analogy, can coordinate talk among them. That is to say, we might subsume the difference between Shotter’s stronger concern for the consequences of Cognitive style self reflexivity and Harre’s stronger concern for the ramifications of Behaviorist enmeshment within a new language game – and like Harré, approximate flow between polarities.

Sources:

1. Harré, R. (1983) Personal Being: A Theory for Individual Psychology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
2. Shotter, J. and Gergen K.J. (1989) Texts of Identity – Inquiries in Social Constructionism Series, v 2 Sage Publications Ltd. London.

Martin Buber’s “I and Thou”  apparently played a part in this discourse; though I had not not read it until after this was written.

Footnotes:

{1} Constructionism – like Constructivism insist the social world is made, but Constructionism goes farther to insist that the social world is made real, not just made-up in those activities – by focusing on the process by which social worlds are made as opposed to focusing on institutions, that is the products of those practices (which is the focus even, of most social constructionst approaches). Moreover, the emphasis on the significance of rules is one of the points which removes it from the behaviorism of the constructivist approach.

{2} Harré, in a 1993 address (wherein he quipped that “the mind is a four letter word and it shouldn’t be used”) marked a distinction between the first and second cognitive school. The first cognitive school, as elaborated in institutions such as M.I.T., has sought to establish an objective map of the human mind and its functions. Harré argued that this amounts to a formal language game about a language game (they are drawing maps of maps) and not a model of the “mind.” In what he designated the second cognitive school, a discursive approach prevails – cognitive activity would be of the private, intrapersonal use of publicly acquired interpersonal discourse. Shotter may have a point that there is still too much residual of the first cognitivism in Harre’s argument.

{3} Frequent usages are (see as listed in Part 1)

{4} For more news of “difference”Harré (1993) states that one cannot know molecules (the only a-priori extant besides people in discourse) outside of what they are doing.”

{5} In order to facilitate the English middle class participation in equal education to the Aristocracy, Locke did away with the notion of “class” in favor of an empirical notion of “individual rights”; there was no “class.” That was not sensibly empirical. There was nothing besides sensory perceptions which got “stamped” onto the brain and formed into “associations” by the “individual.” One person’s sense impressions, being of equal source, were just as valid as another’s. Therefore, they should have equal individual “rights” (Hannah Arendt held this enlightenment text to be “far from innocent.”). It would seem to me that this kind of “positivism” would have a prejudicial bias very much favoring the quantification of those individuals not so disposed to recognizing need for others – the powerful, the demoralized, sociopaths, etc.

Social Constructionism contends that there is no such thing as an individual apart from interactivity with others in situated circumstances as mediated through language. Further, as opposed to the neutrality of “perceptions”, persons will be in different “positions” in moral discursive orders, giving them unequal skill and knowledge. As mentioned in this article, maintaining the fallacy of individual sovereignty calls for rational blindness to factual and deontical indebtedness to others. Accountability to this text constructs the moral void of subjective relativism (that’s just my, or their, preference – its moral ramifications of artificial possession, paranoia and the revenge of deprivation or great loss) and pseudo objectivism (that’s just the way it is – as the elements of behavior are detached from social creation there is no responsibility for their ramifications). In either case, whether empirical or transcendent, activity is treated as being beyond the negotiated social construction of rules.

In my initial writing of this article, I neglected to articulate the critical reason why Harré uses the position metaphor – i.e., to counteract the Lockeatine notion of personal immediacy, its empirical skepticism of differing abilities, that the judgments of some will be better than others due to their position.

Comments:

1

 Posted by DanielS on Sun, 05 Jan 2014 01:17 | #

…
I was inspired to post this in response to Keith Preston’s latest effort to obfuscate the nifty organizational structure of White identity that is provided by a new definition of the left and understanding of why Jews would not want us to be aware of that, but rather remain disorganized by saying we are “neither right nor left” or by letting them manoeuvre us into the old, destructive definition of us as rightists.

Perhaps I am too suspicious, but it seems organiztional efforts are being muddied by those who want Hitler to re-take the helm. This suspicion was increased by Stark’s interview with Anthony Migchels, it seems the latest enlisted to play this role of reconstructing the Jewish definitions of right and left, i.e. not allowing for a proper re-definition of the White left and its organizational power, but rather stalling for time to mollify the portrayal Hitler as a moderate, “no worse than other historical leaders.”

2

 Posted by DanielS on Sun, 05 Jan 2014 02:18 | #

From wikipedia

“Ethogenics is an interdisciplinary social scientific approach that attempts to understand the systems of belief or means through which individuals attach significance to their actions and form their identities by linking these to the larger structure of rules (norms) and cultural resources in society. For Rom Harré, the founder of ethogenics, it represents a radical innovation in traditional psychology, even a completely “new psychology” that should take its place. (Harré et al., 1985: 129).

Ethogenic Theories

Ethogenicists argue that the unified self (or ‘I’) emerges through everyday discourse and is enabled through metaphors. Rom Harré states:

All that is personal in our mental and emotional lives is individually appropriated from the conversation going on around us and perhaps idiosyncratically transformed. The structure of our thinking and our feeling will reflect, in various ways, the form and content of that conversation. The main thesis of this work is that mind is no sort of entity, but a system of beliefs structured by a cluster of grammatical models. The science of psychology must be reformed accordingly (1983: 20).

Methodologically, ethogenics starts with the social formation as the primary human reality and then shows how the human self exists within it via personally modified ‘templates.’(Harré 1983: 64-65). While Harré makes a distinction between personal and social being, he does not claim that personal being is prior to social being.

By contrast, John Shotter’s approach to ethogenics analyzes social action with others (as opposed to individual rule-following and performances), which is said to give individuals ‘social powers.’ There is no cognitive structure of the social self independent of social context (Shotter 1983: 33). Therefore, Shotter emphasizes the practical necessities which bring individuals together in moral configurations, which it is necessary to hermeneutically approach. Shotter believes this is a better way to understand the “accounting practices” (and resulting consciousness) of individuals than Harré‘s methods.”

The Specificatory Structure as Opposed to The Car Engine

Posted by DanielS on Thursday, 13 September 2018 15:27.


Specificatory Structures (are topoi to be shaped and crafted as collaborative, working hypotheses in praxis, finally leading to operational verifiabilty) as opposed to a universal model of “the mind” proposed to function like a car engine (talk about a “clunky idea” or not).

I was about to put up a video by The Golden One in which he expresses gratitude to the Dalai Lama for voicing his authoritative support of European ethnonationalims – “Europe belongs to the European peoples and immigrants should return and rebuild their countries.”

But then I hear him saying that “the Dalai Lama is a spiritual man and is not beholden to ‘social rules” which our elite try to brow beat us with….I realize they’re at it again, that I cannot just suck it up in sympathy for the bad Swedish election; as I did in posting his last video, in which The Golden One calls the enemies “leftists.” There are still retarded people playing opposite day with me behind the scenes –  encouraging misconceptions like “social rules” are Not somehow also a neutral analytic device (which of course they are) but singularly a tool of coercion for our enemies; whereas a rigorous adherence to “nature” without all that “sociology, communicolgical, White post modern stuff” will inevitably ensure our “rights” and “ethnonationalism.”

This is completely retarded and backwards. Nature doesn’t give us our rights, nature doesn’t give a shit about our rights and our ehtnonationalisms. We have rights because we are part of a community of people with relative group interests – in best unit, a union of discrete European ethnonations, in which we create and negotiate rights by consensus, not foolishly believing that we discover them in objective detachment.

As I have said before, The White Post Modern Project is a necessity in response to the ravages of Modernity and the inflexibility of Reactionary Traditionalism. …and it (White Post Modernity) is particularly a necessity to hold up to the destruction of ethnonationalism that post modern conception is supposed to defend against, but rather destroys in YKW misrepresentation of the notions they’ve promoted as “post modernity.”

The project, including Heidegger’s, is not to make humans and society function like automatons, like a car engine, on an engineering and physics model – not in that model of “theoria” as Aristotle calls it, but to take our concerns even for the hard sciences, but especially for the social sciences into the realm of praxis – again, as Aristotle calls it – the social realm of people, where they have some agency, and are therefore not totally predictable; where we are biological creatures and mammals, evolved to care about important relationships to our survival and in optimal, not maximal levels of need satisfaction; where we are biological creatures and our actions have reflexive effects that cause changes in course in ourselves and others; where, as second order cybernetic creatures we can learn to learn. The project, including Heidegger’s (where on target and not too individualistic in his focus), The White Post Modern Project, is to take our thinking into praxis to correct the Cartesian detached and lineal, non-interactive notion of necessity – imperviously abetting, as it does, the phony and crooked disease of quantification to the point of false comparison, toxicity and runaway; typically by means of the Charmed Loop of Didactic Incitement.

To correct the Cartesian error of modernity, we need Not a “model of the mind” as tightly connected as a Porsche car engine to the exclusion of all else (to defend ourselves against all that Jewish social stuff) …no, what we need is a better understanding of the utility and integrity of Specificatory Structures to negotiate the participatory reality of Praxis. Specificatory Structures are basically partly or nearly finished working hypotheses as it were, that allow interlocutors to engage, shape, craft, correct and refine these hypotheses.

Remember, the ultimate aim of pragmatic philosophy is the rigor of operational verifiability. So, those with a penchant for engineering and scientific rigor should be satisfied; while being helped to Not promote the scientism and epistemic blunder of applying physics models (theoria) to creatura and social group concerns (praxis).

Nor does social constructionism (proper) and hermeneutics deny science, biological realty or race; it enhances and complements scientific inquiry, it does not discourage science: it may criticize bad science (“we are all Africans under the skin”) and bad applications of science – physics and brute animal models to humans and our world of praxis (“its all about competition, survival of the fittest, might makes right and nothing more”) – but it is not anti-science.

If GW or somebody comes up with specs, which generally track “the transit” of English and European (natural) social systems, well and good. What hermeneutics proper would do is not deny it, but refer back to it as need be in the course of operational verification.

What I am saying is true, of radical and deep priority for our European interests; but “opposite day” is still being played with me.

I will speculate as to why:

First is obvious – YKW know what I am saying is true, want to discourage it and direct Whites to join them as right wing reactionaries.

The second is right wingers – people who are lucky enough to be in position to take care of themselves, don’t feel need to care about the group as a whole – they sell our groups out.

There is a third and fourth category at work, also right wing reactionary. The Jesus freak contingent I’ve said enough about – if people can’t see the plain fact that Christianity is a Jewish trick, then how much time are you supposed to waste on them? Rather you have to defend against the worm they’d insist upon introducing. But among right wing reactionaries that are a problem for me are STEM people who are not penetrating enough philosophically to get beyond their STEM predilections – which, again, would have them perpetrate the epistemic blunder of applying theoria to praxis – which, rather, requires phronesis (practical judgement of the kind that the topoi of specificatory structures would guide). By contrast, the whole “Dark Enlightenment” crap is a psy-op set up by our (((enemies))) and advanced by operatives like Brett Stevens in order to misdirect and (((boondoggle))) STEM types.

These types are not only prone to this type of epistemic blunder, but have some enhanced confirmation bias as the harder matters that they’ve tended to look into are more stable and veifiable than the social world where Jewish rhetoric has wreaked havoc. Thus, their Cartesian anxiety is calmed somewhat by their concrete successes in engineering and business in boom times; say, during the Reagan/Thatcher objectivist sell-out years, in their reactionary quest for “foundations” in nature beyond human tampering.

Moreover, these sorts have had a big leg up in advancing the epistemic blunder in their predilection when coming into the Internet age – for obvious reasons – computer technology is a STEM field mostly about the tight, non-human, electric/mechanical connections of theoria. While those more sympathetic to a White take on social, communicological, post modern, hermeneutic resource have been late bringing it to the table.

All the while the YKW have been doing their number, taking the best ideas for social advocacy for themselves then distorting them, abusing them and weaponizing them against Whites – to where Whites react and play opposite day with me, as if I am the bad guy simply for using our words, terms and concepts properly in our interests; Whites have such heavy reactions to the negative, red cape associations they feel from these words that they react against the abused words and concepts; and in so doing rebel against their own interests, in what one cannot help but believe is a (((deliberate strategy.)))

“We can’t defend ‘racism’, people wouldn’t understand (that the term is fundamentally about social classification and ethnocentrism), so we have to argue against it (and weaken the call of social classification and ethnocentrism).” “We must be against Multiculturalism (and for global monoculturalism)”  ….“we must be against the Diversity industry (and for racial integration through Abrahamic/Noahide law, or ‘universal natural law’).”

“I only trust my own mind” …“we need a science of the mind” …well go ahead… maybe that is a good perspective for holding fast to inquiries into emergentism. I’m not stopping you, but we also need, need even more inquiries from the communications perspective – taking interaction as the unit of analysis, claiming the same turf as other disciplines when taking-on investigations: whether the group (sociology – most relevant, because races are groups); philosophy (inquiries into how to live and think about life); or biology and interacting ecosystems …and alas, even psychology.

And so we’ve had a problem, as manifest acutely on Majorityrights, where the STEM people clamored here early. The site’s discourse model has been strictly Modernist – a free speech free-for-all with the errant notion that if you just keep allowing issues to be buffeted from all angles, eventually the foundational truth would be born again hard from this torturous alchemy.

Of course, that’s not what happens. Modernity is an insatiable charmed loop that has run rough shod over even our most precious resources, putting them at needless risk in the sheer objectivism of scentistic experimentalism; if something is not “new” it no longer merits reverence for the modernist thinker.

…and in come the trolls, the Jews, and Jew tools, like Haller and Thorn, whose backers know this and took advantage to sew misdirection in MR’s threads under the guise of “free speech” and inquiry into discovery of “the truth.”

The obnoxous “Uh”, who also displayed affinity, argued for the inclusion of the YKW and clearly does not take these matters of White advocacy most seriously, but wants a place to vent his spleen against those who had the nerve to go to college, so he can show how ‘smart’ he is… the fetish of MR in the modernist times has been ‘the one line zinger”, as Uh was so fond of…  Soren et. al are other STEM people into that as well…

Sublime engineering is the model…there is just that one little precise thing, said in perfect rigor which will either bring the whole edifice down or make it hum like the best car engine ever …the streak of incisive brilliance like a sheen, gleaming like a “classic sparkle.”

… claims I ruined all this fun for him ….

But it stems rather from a misunderstanding of the Specificatory Structure and its aim – its aim is to provide social topoi for people to participate, shape, craft and refine …indeed, in rigor, as required in the post modern circumstance, to reach Operational Verifiability – that is the end point of the process of pragmatic inquiry – so the STEM-heads should not object and are only displaying just how reactionary (or dishonest) they are when they object to the terms and concepts that I set out.

Brilliant though he is, indispensable ideas though he’s contributed, even Bowery was bewilderingly reactionary in this regard, acting like I was attacking science when I criticized the bad science and misapplication of science that is scientism. …or that I was besmirching science when I set out the place and general errors of the empirical philosophers, Locke, Berkeley and Hume (I presumed that everyone knows that you are talking about them when criticizing “empirical philosophy”) in historical context of epochal bias. I knew we were in trouble when Bowery simply ignored what I said, angrily tried to prohibit me from criticizing Modernity, Cartesianism (the quest to separate mind from interaction, viz. interactive stasis, outer systemic homeostasis) and proposed to “reboot the enlightenment.”

But the fact is that we have to move beyond modernity to White Post Modernity if we are to save ourselves and not be a part of human ecological destruction.

It is for this reason that I will introduce an update – not removing the present “About” information for Majorityrights – but add the Post Modern fact that “Hello’, we have the Internet now,” you can interact and help to shape and craft our necessary knowledge. We are no longer beholden to the transmissions model of communication, in which we sat in front of televisions, or teachers, or preachers and were to receive the information as pure, sacrosanct, passive, no need for our input and correction….

What you are presented with at Majorityrights are specificatory structures – hypotheses well enough considered, with a likely trajectory to protect our interests as discreet European peoples; but we can always use help from honest people of good will, to shape, craft and verify our inquiries where not proposing inquiries anew.

Articles are not put up as if by Moses presenting the ten commandments; nor presented as if the author thinks, in hubris, that these are immutable, always perfect ideas and objects; as if we think this is something like a sublime car engine, when it really isn’t, and what is necessary is for you to humble us, mock, in ad hominum attack. No. These are specificatory structures presented with a good deal more humility and social respect – your interaction, your help in participating in the generation of knowledge production is most appreciated.

There is also a fifth unfortunate fact that we are up against a huge Irish/German demographic in America which, for reasons I’ve described, are prone to take the disposition that Hitler was simply right and needs to be redeemed – and there are White advocates of bad character, like David Duke, who will pander to that.

Because we are White Post Modern now, certain inquires are recognized as a distraction at best and all too often pernicious misdirection: Jewish participation; Christianity; Nazi redemption; obviously nutty conspiracy theories; and when we have time to explain with subtlety, scientism and other errors held over from the modernist apex.

And if someone doesn’t like it – “wha! wha! I want ‘my’ Majoritrights back! – I want Jesus! I want Hitler! I want to kiss the ass of rigid Nordicism as opposed to ethnonationalism (which, among other European kinds, defends Nordics as such)! I want to trade ‘clever’ one line zingers with Uh!” – he can go grease up and get another tattoo on his neck.

Comments:


1

 Posted by DanielS on Fri, 14 Sep 2018 16:15 | #

On today’s “Stormfront” podcast, Don Black reiterates the David Duke line on how to respond to the term, “racism.”

Black says that “racism” is a made-up Jewish term (Trotsky) and we shouldn’t use their terminology; that he (like Duke) used to say “it depends upon how you define racism?”…..

But now Black just prefers to say, ‘oh, you’re just saying that because you are anti-White.’

This is a strawman argument that Black and Duke are using, because I am not asking, “it depends upon how you define racism?”

I am observing that there is ALWAYS inherent in the term, the function of social classification.

….whether one merely discriminates on its basis or whether one wants to lord over other social classifications as a supremacist.

Nevertheless, social classification is a necessary function of making sense of the world and of accountability. Thus the charge is illegitimate (Cartesian, etc.). To say that you are not a racist is to cede to the YKW the prohibition of social classification.

Social classification, the negotiation of which, is central to our cause of racial defense.

As I’ve said, Duke is theoretically inept.

Duke says, “you don’t change the conditioning of what people understand of the term.” …you don’t exchange it easily, as there is commonly accepted currency and wisdom in ordinary language – beneath the term racism, social classification is pervasive in ordinary language. And the prohibition needs to be drawn out for the absurdity that it is.

To use Whitaker’s line that ‘you’re just saying that because you are anti-White’ will be fine sometimes. But it is just another way of problematizing the delegitimization of social classification, which needs to be done more explicitly and deftly in common parlance.

I like to say “anti-racisim is anti-social classification; it is Cartesian. It is not innocent, it is prejudice, it is hurting and it is killing people.”


2

 Posted by stasis correction on Sat, 15 Sep 2018 03:51 | #

I should probably add when criticizing things as “Cartesian”, that Cartesianism expresses an anxiety to quest beyond interaction but more pertinently, beyond the interaction of stasis correction and homeostasis correction (homeostasis regarding the external system) DanielS


3

 Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 17 Sep 2018 10:45 | #

Daniel: If GW or somebody comes up with specs, which generally track “the transit” of English and European (natural) social systems, well and good …

I have said that I am not now interested in political practise, as you are.  I am interested in foundation, which you aren’t.  However …

Having addressed the fundamentals in Division One of Being and Time, Martin Heidegger commences upon practical interpretation in Division Two.  At the outset of Chapter 2 he writes (of The problem of How an Authentic Existentiell Possibility is Attested):

The question of the “who” of Dasein has been answered with the expression ‘Self’.  Dasein’s Selfhood has been defined formally as a way of existing, and therefore not as an entity present-at-hand.  For the most part I myself am not the “who” of Dasein; the “theyself” is its who.  Authentic Being-one’s-Self takes the definite form of an existentiell modification of the “they”; and this modification must be defined existentially.  What does this modification imply, and what are the ontological conditions for its possibility.

So here Heidegger is setting out the the basics of the transit, recognising the socialised entity which does not belong to Dasein, and stating that a certain change in and around it must be effected for authenticity in the lived life to become possible.  This already accepts that, as thrown beings, we cannot ordinarily be other than lost to our own truth … that this is an existential condition and other conditions for existence attend the possibility of “modification” – modification, mind, not the inflation of a mystical liberation or enlightenment.  This is not an argument for a common life of saints and seers and mystics.  This is an argument for a small but, obviously, seminal change to the general conditions of existence which ushers in (or in my scheme of the transit, turns us towards) the possibility of the authentic as a response to lostness – which conditions must then be conserved in the lived-life thereafter.

In that sense, then, Heidegger goes on to address the sequence as “modification” then conserving “rules”.  He is saying that without modification “the they” will unfailingly account for rule-making.  He is placing thinking like yours beyond the matter immediately at hand, thus:

With Dasein’s lostness in the “they”, that factical potentiality-for-Being which is closest to it (the tasks, rules, and standards, the urgency and extent, of concernful and solicitous Being-in-the-world) has already been decided upon.  The “they” has always kept Dasein from taking hold of these possibilities of Being.  The “they” even hides the manner in which it has tacitly relieved Dasein of the burden of explicitly choosing these possibilities.  It remains indefinite who has ‘really’ done the choosing.  So Dasein makes no choices, gets carried along by the nobody, and thus ensnares itself in inauthenticity.  This process can be reversed only if Dasein specifically brings itself back to itself from its lostness in the “they”.

So that ties matters together, and provides for a place of work for both of us.


4

 Posted by DanielS on Mon, 17 Sep 2018 15:44 | #

Note that when I talk about Aristotle’s philosophy and Heidegger’s work on the project, I do not call it “politics”, but refer to it rather as philosophy.

…and when you say that I am ‘not interested’ in foundations, it is more the case that (better) philosophy is concerned to move us into categories of process, engagement and relevance of implementation.

Thus, what you call “foundations”, I would still call specificatory structures (or check points). 

The matter of ‘how things count’ for us still holds relevance even regarding the periodic chart of the elements.

Call what you are pursuing “foundations” if you insist, but please refrain from calling philosophy, proper philosophy, “politics”, as if mere politics.

Some right-wingers, like those over there at Strormfront may never learn. I turned on the show for three minutes …“oh, ho ho ho, they say race is just a social construct, that there is no biological basis….that there are 57 genders”….

Still reacting against the didactic Jewish abuse of concepts and red-caping.


5

 Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 17 Sep 2018 16:34 | #

In the very broadest of terms, there is a philosophy of existence, and there is a philosophy of change.  The first is not, and cannot be, political, but is perennial and resolute, and affords a certain rooted and a-historical understanding to the second.  In turn, that second is given over in its entirety to the historical process.  Its destiny is to make human history.  It can, of course, be political, and indeed it flows readily into politics in consequence of its vast multiplicity of teleological and perspectival potentials, and because it is anyway very nearly a philosophy of human agency and diurnal power.  You should not baulk at my description of it as politics.  I am making the distinction between it and the foundational nature of what necessarily precedes it.

How (not whether) the preceding philosophy meshes with it is really the point at issue between us.  There is a baton to be passed out from the realm of the existent … something emergent and life-affirming, and causal.  The political cannot go back and make that act of passing to itself, which I feel is what you want to do.  It is proper that the political has its eyes fixed firmly ahead.


6

 Posted by DanielS on Mon, 17 Sep 2018 16:53 | #

The political cannot go back and make that act of passing to itself, which I feel is what you want to do.  It is proper that the political has its eyes fixed firmly ahead.

I do not want to change our nature. That is a right-wing stereotype of “what ‘leftists’ do.”

Rather, I am staving off the misguiding, confused and tangled rules and re-directing the way to reconstruction of our systemics, in homeostasis.

The baton is passed back and forth from broader perspective and imagination to rigor and closer readings and from closer readings to broader perspectives.

My concerns are not born ex-nihilo, free of biological and natural concern.

I do not object to closer readings. Calibration to feedback for another metaphor. I already take the baton of our haplogroups, which are close readings. …this does not make redundant the careful description of ontology and its transit process that you wish to bring forth. 

 


7

 Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 17 Sep 2018 18:58 | #

Nothing goes back and forth.  Hermeneutics is an intellectual conceit.  The power which connects the existential with the political is attention.


8

 Posted by DanielS on Mon, 17 Sep 2018 20:35 | #


Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 17 Sep 2018 19:58 | #

Nothing goes back and forth. Hermeneutics is an intellectual conceit.  The power which connects the existential with the political is attention.


Wrong again. Tacking back and forth is as natural as it gets. A pulse. Breathing. Heart-beating. Any sort of survey. Looking both ways before crossing the street. Calibration and feedback. From the broad hypothesis to focus on particular detail….from imagination to rigor…

The balancing of systems as they move into a space…

You are trying to take advantage of the fact that it can go back and forth by suggesting that it, hermenetuics must, in an arbitrary and mechanical way, go back and forth in its survey. Rather it can facilitate, weave and integrate coherent attention in a way that the mere presentation of empirical data cannot, moving back and picking up historical data, as need be, as is comfortable, into the historical, into heretofore hidden parts of the system, into various perspectives and biographies, etc., once gain precisely because it is ensconced in the social realm, long after an initial episode of individual attention has lapsed.

Remember what Graham said about hermeneutics – that the best scientists are hermeneuticists: undoubtedly true.

Hermeneutics is not an intellectual conceit. Its a perfectly natural and eminently sufficient means of survey and inquiry. It provides orientation and helps to guide focus. It provides for coherence, accountability, agency and warrant – not only to individuals, but to our group systemic homeostasis.

Still up to your old tricks. If something is very important to our systemic requirements, if its very good, you will be in the way trying to destroy it. It goes to your resentment that good ideas could have passed through academia and that all that is necessary is NOT in your armchair. The true conceit is pursuit of universal foundations that are supposed to make everything else, including one of Heidegger’s most important contributions – hermeneutics – unimportant.


9

 Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 17 Sep 2018 21:12 | #

I am not wrong.  You simply lack understanding of the process at hand, and so you make a category error conflating a practical re-turn … a journey of the consciousness of a people … with the pointless academic babbling of hermeneutics.


10

 Posted by DanielS on Mon, 17 Sep 2018 23:37 | #

9
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 17 Sep 2018 22:12 | #

I am not wrong.  You simply lack understanding of the process at hand, and so you make a category error conflating a practical re-turn … a journey of the consciousness of a people … with the pointless academic babbling of hermeneutics.

Yes, you are wrong. I make no category error. It’s called a co-evolutionary process. “The consciousness of a people” is but one story (psychobabble if there ever was), while hermeneutics in total is crucial for our peoples to manage their coherence, accountability, agency and warrant.


11

 Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 18 Sep 2018 02:38 | #

Daniel, does it make you buttsore to know that most people think your sperging is a retarded joke?


12

 Posted by DanielS on Tue, 18 Sep 2018 04:40 | #

You don’t know most people. You circulate among (((Alt-Right))) people and those fixated on Hitler redemption (so, of course they are going to be taking a pejorative view of my offerings). “Sperging” is one among the tired and limited (((Alt-Right))) repertoire of terms that you don’t seem to have imagination enough to exchange. Ask experts on philosophy and on Heidegger in particular and they agree with me, that hermeneutics is essential and pivotal to his/the anti-Cartesian, post modern turn.

Their confirmation counts more than alt-righty folks, the ‘original thinker’ Carolyn Yeager (lol) and so on. So, no, I’m not “butthurt.”


13

 Posted by danielj on Thu, 20 Sep 2018 03:13 | #

Hey y’all.

I’d really appreciate it if you took this down and removed my name and photographs.  Please change the name to danielj at the very least.

Regards,
d


14

 Posted by danielj on Thu, 20 Sep 2018 03:15 | #

took this down *or* removed my name and photographs


15

 Posted by DanielS on Thu, 20 Sep 2018 04:40 | #

Done


16

 Posted by danielj on Thu, 20 Sep 2018 05:06 | #

Thank you. Appreciated.


17

 Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 04 Oct 2018 15:19 | #

“Coherence, accountability, agency and warrant”

All this comes with the generalisation of that process which nationalists term “awakening” (not a hermeneutic process, btw), and I would include under the rubric of emergence.  For example, in the ancient racial hearth of Europe, at least, “coherence” requires no managing.  Its real name is kinship, and in that name it speaks quite naturally and of its own accord, perhaps even concord.  Likewise “accountability” becomes coherent through kin-recognition and the completely natural, conscious loyalty which travels in its folds.  “Agency” … the power to do … is a characteristic and strict outcome of the appropriated life.  I don’t use the word myself (preferring singularity), but it is easy to see that unity is the optimum condition under which the capacity to do is found, and disunity the worst.  Lastly, “warrant” has no truer or higher assenting authority than the natural and sovereign identity of the kin-group.  I do believe, were I to ask you whose authority you are seeking, you would struggle to find an answer at all, even a wrong one.

This is not to say that the emergent requires no collaborative or organisational structure for its politics, law, and so on.  But, as I have commented just recently, emergence itself is necessarily a penetration into the prior general life.  Nothing from that life goes back to inform or engender it.  Not even reaction to a daily injustice has that power.  A creative philosophy alone has it.


18

 Posted by DanielS on Thu, 04 Oct 2018 19:53 | #

Consolidating prior responses into one comment:

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 04 Oct 2018 10:19 | #

“Coherence, accountability, agency and warrant”

All this comes with the generalisation of that process which nationalists term “awakening” (not a hermeneutic process, btw), and I would include under the rubric of emergence

Of course it (awakening) comes with hermeneutics, it is part and parcel of consciousness of these things – part and parcel of emergence even. Be true to emergence dictum of non-reductionism!

For example, in the ancient racial hearth of Europe, at least, “coherence” requires no managing.

If you wanted to maintain distinct European tribes, it did.


And if you wanted to maintain coherence against the Muslim invasions, it did.

Its real name is kinship, and in that name it speaks quite naturally and of its own accord, perhaps even concord.  Likewise “accountability” becomes coherent through kin-recognition and the completely natural, conscious loyalty which travels in its folds.

I didn’t say that it is not natural, and that accountability, like everything else, isn’t a part of nature, but emergent qualities are not to be reduced as you would like, in what you call your “ontologic philosophy,” which is primarily a vain effort to try to render me and what I say as unimportant, as the academic nemesis of your autobiographical conceit.

Accountability for differentiation among differentiated Europeans is no less a matter of sheer nature any more than it is for a teenager to speak our European language if he’s been kept isolated and never learned to speak a language as child. It is not simply emergent in his nature – rather the emergent includes the extended genotype.

“Agency” … the power to do … is a characteristic and strict outcome of the appropriated life.

Not necessarily, there is appropriation but there is also acting-into.

I don’t use the word myself (preferring singularity), but it is easy to see that unity is the optimum condition under which the capacity to do is found, and disunity the worst.

Your motive is understandable. It would be roughly the opposite of Bowery’s. While he would want to promote the freedom to extricate himself from alien populations surrounding him in The US, you would want to speak in language that emphaisizes a lack of agency to depart from your people, that “there can be no other,” in order to underscore loyalty to people and land.

The problem for you there, is that that is not exactly true for people that “they can do no other”. Although the bigger problem is once again that you unnecessarily see mutual exclusivity. Agency is not necessarily the enemy of loyalty, fidelity and authentic emergence, especially not when coupled with consideration of accountability, coherence and warrant. You may as well make the best of unavoidable facts, and put agency on your side.

I don’t think it was a coincidence that Shotter, an Englishman, was concerned to examine these matters by contrast to an alternative of “anything goes.”

Lastly, “warrant” has no truer or higher assenting authority than the natural and sovereign identity of the kin-group.

I do believe, were I to ask you whose authority you are seeking, you would struggle to find an answer at all, even a wrong one.

Not really. I would usually say something quite similar as in your first sentence (although “no truer”, I would not say – I’d say it would tend to provide sound working hypotheses in their ordinary language) although warrant can be established by means of the additional confirmation of other groups; or persons of distinguished authority – for example those skilled in verification by scientific proof.

So much for your doubt.

This is not to say that the emergent requires no collaborative or organisational structure for its politics, law, and so on.

As I have said, these things would even be a part of emergence.

But, as I have commented just recently, emergence itself is necessarily a penetration into the prior general life.

You can look into pre-linguistic structures, and try to identify where they might tend to align with ethnonatioanalist trajectory.

But one mistake you continually make when you pretend that you are doing a favor – “clearing away” – the language that I use, is that you are not clearing away authenticity at all, you are relying on strawmen – invariably, which is obfuscation.

Nothing from that life goes back to inform or engender it.

 

It is a circular process indeed where encouraged properly, as opposed to the diarrhea that you propose as revelation.

Not even reaction to a daily injustice has that power.  A creative philosophy alone has it.

Well, that’s why it’s good that we have me here, so that there is at least one creative philosophy as opposed to your jealous denial and obfuscating bullshit.


19

 Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 04 Oct 2018 20:47 | #

GW has had a gas chamber built in the basement of his house.  The next step is to lure Daniel over there.


20

 Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 05 Oct 2018 16:28 | #

As a method of interpretation, hermeneutics is a discipline of active intellectual reflection … a species of the directed process of “thinking-about” in the abstract.  It belongs solely to the intellectual function of Mind.  Academics invariably and uncritically assume that (a) intellect is the sovereign principle, and (b) logical structure yields an objective verity that the inchoate functions of Mind are constitutionally incapable of delivering.  Although Heidegger is also at fault in this, as his hermeneutical fixation attests, he makes amends by theorising essential thinking (but still only as “thinking”, of course).

Well, remember the large, hungry brown bear circling while the intellectual, out for his morning constitutional in the woods, dryly adumbrates.  Beside him the gamekeeper, an unkempt emotionalist, knows only an urgent must, and clicks off the safety on his shotgun.  We could say that in terms of participating mind-function the essential is properly an holistic and combinative operation of two or more of the brains perceptual systems.  Compared to its opposite … calculative thinking … it is nearer by orders of magnitude to that clarity and spontaneity which is optimal for there-being as the site or act or state of the witness to Being’s disclosure.  That very nearness is human presence.  This is what you are describing as reductive.

Mind you, that makes a change from “Cartesian”.  Or “epistemological error”.


21

 Posted by DanielS on Fri, 05 Oct 2018 19:40 | #

20
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 05 Oct 2018 11:28 | #

As a method of interpretation, hermeneutics is a discipline of active intellectual reflection … a species of the directed process of “thinking-about” in the abstract.  It belongs solely to the intellectual function of Mind.

No. It is an engaged process that does have some interpretation at one end but has engagement, acting into, and verification at the other end.

Typically, you completely misunderstand.

Academics invariably and uncritically assume that (a) intellect is the sovereign principle, and (b) logical structure yields an objective verity that the inchoate functions of Mind are constitutionally incapable of delivering.

 

You haven’t been paying attention to what I’m saying and you are remaining in your retarded war against academia that causes you to misrepresent everything with straw men. You are not “clearing away” and “preparing the ground” with your straw men, but rather are obfuscating it.

Although Heidegger is also at fault in this, as his hermeneutical fixation attests, he makes amends by theorising essential thinking (but still only as “thinking”, of course).

He is not at fault in picking up hermeneutics from his forebears, he is taking a necessary method for managing coherence against the propositional Cartesian divide.

Well, remember the large, hungry brown bear circling while the intellectual, out for his morning constitutional in the woods, dryly adumbrates.

I’ve addressed this dozens of times, even in comments within the past few days (your runaway train example).

From the endowment that we have – which can be looked upon as a social construct of our parents and forebears – we have some innate responses to the bear. We are even better equipped if we have the social construct of a high power rifle, bear spray, training in animal behavior… and good story telling capacity to entertain people with afterward in tales about the event.

Beside him the gamekeeper, an unkempt emotionalist, knows only an urgent must, and clicks off the safety on his shotgun.

 

The shotgun is surely purely natural ..or should we clear it away for your pure ontology?

We could say that in terms of participating mind-function the essential is properly an holistic and combinative operation of two or more of the brains perceptual systems.  Compared to its opposite … calculative thinking … it is nearer by orders of magnitude to that clarity and spontaneity which is optimal for there-being as the site or act or state of the witness to Being’s disclosure.  That very nearness is human presence.  This is what you are describing as reductive.

No, I am not reductive. But you are. What we are experiencing now is your pathological contentiousness – a wish to render all perceived academic contributions trivial and useless by comparison to the shit that you spew.

Mind you, that makes a change from “Cartesian”.  Or “epistemological error”

The engaged process of reaction to the bear is not a Cartesian or empistemologial error; your understanding of it is.

Finally, GW: don’t you think it’s a bit arbitrary that all you ever do is try to find some way to disagree with something that I say?

Quite the opposite of what I should be able to expect.


22

 Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 05 Oct 2018 21:34 | #

Typically, you completely misunderstand.

It happens as thought.  Only thought.  Therefore you are wrong.

From the endowment that we have – which can be looked upon as a social construct of our parents and forebears – we have some innate responses to the bear.

You are effectively retailing Marxist nonsense.  Adaptive traits are not socially constructed.

You are old enough now to let go of your academic nurse.  The things you learned at college are not nationalism, and as far as I can see they are not useful tools.  They lead you into error, from which everybody tries to pull you, and you, in your stubborness, refuse to be pulled.


23

 Posted by DanielS on Fri, 05 Oct 2018 22:48 | #

‘Typically, you misundersdand’

Actually, typically, you misrepresent.

And no, I am not wrong.

I am not retailing Marxist nonsense; adaptive traits may be looked upon and treated in various ways, despite the fact that your British bitches want us to believe they have no choice, and especially, the foreign women, have no choice but to mud shark – and that you are their hero.

You have been old enough to grow up, and not pander to women who encourage right wing reaction, instigating luckier women to ykw and less lucky women to blacks and muslims.

You don’t know everyone, and your tilt against perceived academia is your personal ego trip which you engage at the expense of the time of all people of good will.


24

 Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 06 Oct 2018 00:00 | #

Daniel’s “Cartesian” and “hermeneutics” are the equivalent of Bowery’s “eusocial” and “individual.”  One represents evil and the other represents good.  Both of their obsessive souls are forever condemned to spergatory, wrestling between darkness and light.


25

 Posted by DanielS on Sat, 06 Oct 2018 03:33 | #

Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 05 Oct 2018 19:00 | #

Daniel’s “Cartesian” and “hermeneutics” are the equivalent of Bowery’s “eusocial” and “individual.”  One represents evil and the other represents good.  Both of their obsessive souls are forever condemned to spergatory, wrestling between darkness and light.

I am sure that that’s not true for my part (regarding Cartesianism and hermeneutics).

Furthermore, you got anything against spergatory?


26

 Posted by Epistemic blunder on Sat, 06 Oct 2018 10:44 | #

Adaptive traits certainly are socially constructed, if only for how they come to count for us.


It is an epistemologial blunder, of course, to try to founationalize our cause in “nature.”

First of all, because that would not follow in terms of describing what our nature does.

We seek to assimilate natural health and natural ways which are conducive to the well being of our people, but we do not simply let nature dictate the terms of our interests – for an obvious example, we do not simply let a virus destroy our people, but we develop means to deal with it, from vaccines, to quarantine, improved practices, sanitation and so on.

What that is describing even, is the fact that we are founded in our people’s interests first – not firstly in nature, the ‘interests’ of its viruses and so on. We look at nature as a guide and check points to health and non-health.

But to foundationalize our cause in nature is an epistemologial blunder.

The proper foundation is in Social Constructionism. In our people. That is the position of Praxis, following Aristotle’s corrective program. And then, very much in line with Aristotle again, we look to nature as guide-line check points of a healthy social system – e.g. placing value on optimality as opposed to maximization as a guide to homeostasis (racial autonomy).

Next, we deploy the hermeneutic turn when this positive view is cramping our breadth of perspective, individualism and imagination – we use it to gain more historical perspective, or novel ideas, or we become a bit more Platonic, say, in order to get a broader formal perspective on our systems, and develop working hypotheses. But the Hermeneutic turn is always duty bound to its circulation of inquiry, against Cartesian runaway, it will return to empirical verification wherever necessary or desired.

                    DanielS


27

 Posted by Julian Bigelow on Tue, 12 Feb 2019 21:55 | #

Julian Bigelow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Julian Bigelow (March 19, 1913 – February 17, 2003) was a pioneering American computer engineer.

Julian Bigelow at The Princeton Institute for Advanced Study (Left to right: Julian Bigelow, Herman Goldstine, J. Robert Oppenheimer, and John von Neumann).

Contents
1 Life
2 References
3 Further reading
4 External links

Life

Bigelow was born in 1913 in Nutley, New Jersey.[1] He obtained a master’s degree at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, studying electrical engineering and mathematics. During World War II, he assisted Norbert Wiener in his research on automated fire control for anti-aircraft guns, leading to the development of the so-called Wiener filter.

Bigelow coauthored (with Wiener and Arturo Rosenblueth) one of the founding papers on cybernetics and modern teleology, titled “Behavior, Purpose and Teleology.” This paper mulled over the way mechanical, biological, and electronic systems could communicate and interact. This paper instigated the formation of the Teleological Society and later the Macy conferences. Bigelow was an active member of both organizations. He was a visiting scholar for many years at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton.[2]

When John von Neumann sought to build one of the very first digital computers at the Institute for Advanced Study, he hired Bigelow in 1946 as his “engineer,” on Wiener’s recommendation. The computer Bigelow built following von Neumann’s design is called the IAS machine, although it was also called the MANIAC, a name that was later transferred to the successful clone of this machine at Los Alamos. Because von Neumann did not patent the IAS and wrote about it freely, 15 clones of the IAS were soon built. Nearly all general-purpose computers subsequently built are recognizable as influenced by the IAS machine’s design.

Bigelow died on February 17, 2003 in Princeton, New Jersey.[3]

References


28

 Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 12 Feb 2019 23:37 | #

Adaptive traits certainly are socially constructed, if only for how they come to count for us

The inflation (and I stress inflation) of certain evolutionarily adaptive traits can be expressed behaviourally.  A woman in high heels or with rouged lips … a man displaying his personal status via symbols of power and wealth … these are obvious enough examples of socially-bound and deliberately, crudely-executed communication.  But there are hundreds of subtle and marginal signs of fitness which completely elude the gross socialised behavioural modes of communication, and operate at a sublimely unconscious, neurological level, many of which do not even contribute to and reach the level of an awareness of a romantic idealization of the opposite sex.

Further, because socially communicative modes exist, that does not imply that social construction is involved in their expression.  The impulses at work in a sincere and unguarded moment of sexual selection are far too quicksilver to be captured by the lumbering associative machinery of construction.

It is an epistemologial blunder, of course, to try to founationalize our cause in “nature.”

There is no other foundation for the organism which is Man, unless you do violence to the concept of foundation itself.  The social environment is too contingent upon hazard and mechanicity to be identified as, or in any way conflated with, foundation.  I cannot believe that you have reflected sufficiently on what foundation, contingency, hazard, and mechanicity imply in this respect.  I think you have simply presumed these things, and the other signs of the lived life which I have written about at MR, to be inferior to your old university lecturer’s teachings as a matter of inevitability.  You have made a mistake.


29

 Posted by DanielS on Wed, 13 Feb 2019 04:41 | #

I have made no mistake but to have over estimated your wish to have the best in conceptual outlook and to underestimate the extent to which your jealousy of academia will have you chasing endlessly after the red capes of deliberately misrepresented and thereby misleading concepts.

It has been and apparently remains a very unfortunate bummer to deal with your reaction, but I will, in a moment.


30

 Posted by DanielS on Wed, 13 Feb 2019 05:44 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 12 Feb 2019 18:37 | #

DanielS: Adaptive traits certainly are socially constructed, if only for how they come to count for us.

Yes. and your taking issue with this statement, which should distinguish not only that there are limits but ultimate validity to social constructionism, goes to show that you are just a reactionary trying to show that you are smarter than “academics” by chasing after their and their students abuses and misuses of the idea.

It is possible for people to go Jim Jones and say that racial differences don’t matter, that we should all mix and ultimately kill ourselves because the world and life are so evil that people just don’t get it – take the Kook Aide, some 900 of you.

American society, its adherence to paleocon values, some fusion of Enlightenment and Judeo Christianity marshaled by Jewish academia has given the Kool Aide to people like yourself very nicely – to help obstruct social accountability in reaction.

GW: The inflation (and I stress inflation) of certain evolutionarily adaptive traits can be expressed behaviourally.  A woman in high heels or with rouged lips … a man displaying his personal status via symbols of power and wealth … these are obvious enough examples of socially-bound and deliberately, crudely-executed communication.

I should not have posted the Julian Bigelow thing. It caught my eye because he is from the town (Nutley, New Jersey) next to mine and went on to work with a bunch of luminaries, like Wiener in cybernetics and John von Neumann (games theory etc.).

I did want to indicate that “my project” was not adverse to this sort of rigorous and scientific inquiry.

But no particular endorsement was implied, nor was it meant to imply confirmation of my own efforts as you apparently took it to mean by focusing on behavior as if you were going to ‘disprove me’ somehow by doing that.

Your commitment, as ever, is to try to trivialize me and my efforts and make yourself seem like the one and only with deep thoughts.

In so doing, you entirely miss the point, time and again.

So does Bowery (I see that a minion of his is hornily lurking in modernity, seeing that “nothing new” has been presented when I set out a bit of history), by suggesting that I am, or should be trying to do with Social Constructionism what social constructIVISM does, i.e., focus on the products of processes as opposed to the process itself.

GW: But there are hundreds of subtle and marginal signs of fitness which completely elude the gross socialised behavioural modes of communication, and operate at a sublimely unconscious, neurological level, many of which do not even contribute to and reach the level of an awareness of a romantic idealization of the opposite sex.

This goes only to demonstrate your narrow, retarded notion of communication (still in the transmissions model) and the social realm – especially when talking about how things come to count, post hoc.

GW: Further, because socially communicative modes exist, that does not imply that social construction is involved in their expression.

So, chasing the red cape of misused and misrepresented social constructionism is indeed, your thing.

It is a shame. You have stood in the way for seven years for nothing but your puerile reaction and lack of sufficient education.

GW: The impulses at work in a sincere and unguarded moment of sexual selection are far too quicksilver to be captured by the lumbering associative machinery of construction.

In post hoc attribution they are not too quick silver; and not if you want to protect your English women a whole lot better than you and your anti social society are currently doing.

GW: It is an epistemologial blunder, of course, to try to founationalize our cause in “nature.”

Yes – Nature divorced of praxis, that is (human nature).

GW: There is no other foundation for the organism which is Man,

Oh now YOU are going to teach ME about Praxis?

GW: unless you do violence to the concept of foundation itself.

Look, if you want to proclaim some general things as universally foundational I’m ok with that as a post hoc attribution – discreet nations for just about all the ethnicities, this kind of DNA counts as this kind of people, etc. ..but if these things ever exist outside of the possibility of conversation they may as well not exist at all – and that is profound, because it doesn’t only go to how facts count for us. It gives us the agency that our enemies want to take away from us – and have, starting perhaps with Christianity.

GW: The social environment is too contingent upon hazard and mechanicity to be identified as, or in any way conflated with, foundation

It is a bummer that you maintain such a crude misunderstanding.

I look back at what I have brought to bear these past seven years and I find with the recent relief from your puerile antagonism, that I have brought to bear good and important concepts and reasoning. And your angle and childish adherence to an antagonistic view, chasing after red capes, has been a misfortune, misleading others along with your having been misled – I see that the poor guy ecce lux is going around and labeling just anyone and anything he doesn’t like “social constructionist.”

Our Jewish adversaries would have it no other way.

GW: I cannot believe that you have reflected sufficiently on what foundation, contingency, hazard, and mechanicity imply in this respect.

Unlike you, I focus on the most essential and important things – which includes what You might call foundation (but I elect not to belabor that word), contingency, hazard and mechanicity –

I do not ignore them in a vain attempt to cast the other (me) as shallow and yourself as “deep.”

You are trying to render me trivial and if you can, wholly redundant. That’s yours and Bowery’s techno nerd thing – operationalize the circuit – beat it down until the weak link appears then remove it and replace it….

with YOUR intellectual conceit.

Meanwhile, you are not only ignoring that I am not trying to compete with you and render your more scientific quests redundant, but I cooperate and complement them with things that are actually quite often very important.

GW: I think you have simply presumed these things, and the other signs of the lived life which I have written about at MR, to be inferior to your old university lecturer’s teachings as a matter of inevitability.  You have made a mistake.

Read what I said in the last sentence. I came here to cooperate with, not to overturn science.

All you are doing is expressing the puerile jealousy and antagonism to academia – in exaggerated form – that has become so central to your identity. You can’t even see the difference between what I am saying and what the “academics” you don’t like are saying through the stereotypes and misrepesentations that you depend upon as the foil for your ego trip. I have made no mistake but to over estimate your dedication to a collaborative effort to arrive at and deploy the best theory to the cause of European peoples.

The Jews thank you for all your reactive obstruction.

Anyway, in a few days, I am going to put up a new post. I’ve been delayed by a few things but its coming along nicely…


31

 Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 13 Feb 2019 05:54 | #

Is “muh dik” socially constructed?


32

 Posted by DanielS on Wed, 13 Feb 2019 05:57 | #

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 13 Feb 2019 06:54 | #

Is “muh dik” socially constructed?

Yes.


33

 Posted by DanielS on Wed, 13 Feb 2019 07:40 | #

Correction

if these things exist outside of the possibility of conversation they may as well not exist – i.e., if we no longer exist to talk about them and decide at least how they count.


34

 Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 13 Feb 2019 20:21 | #

GW sounds like a blank-slatist the way he talks about the alleged plasticity of the human personality.  As far as I am aware the balance of psychological research on the subject indicates the majority of variability in personality traits is accounted for by heredity.

Also, he seems content to leave what IS actually socially constructed for the crows.

Continue Reading Analysis: Shotter’s “Social Accountability and the Social Construction of ‘You”

Who Runs Hollywood?

  • Post author:
  • Post category:Central

C'mon

How deeply Jewish is Hollywood? … 

As a proud Jew, I want America to know about our accomplishment. Yes, we control Hollywood…

So I’ve taken it upon myself to re-convince America that Jews run Hollywood by launching a public relations campaign, because that’s what we do best. I’m weighing several slogans, including: “Hollywood: More Jewish than ever!”; “Hollywood: From the people who brought you the Bible”; and “Hollywood: If you enjoy TV and movies, then you probably like Jews after all.”

I called ADL Chairman Abe Foxman, who was in Santiago, Chile, where, he told me to my dismay, he was not hunting Nazis. He dismissed my whole proposition, saying that the number of people who think Jews run Hollywood is still too high. The ADL poll, he pointed out, showed that 59% of Americans think Hollywood execs “do not share the religious and moral values of most Americans,” and 43% think the entertainment industry is waging an organized campaign to “weaken the influence of religious values in this country.”

That’s a sinister canard, Foxman said…

[…]

I appreciate Foxman’s concerns. And maybe my life spent in a New Jersey-New York/Bay Area-L.A. pro-Semitic cocoon has left me naive. But I don’t care if Americans think we’re running the news media, Hollywood, Wall Street or the government. I just care that we get to keep running them.

A friend of mine asked me if I wanted to see a movie that had just come out; he'd already seen it, called "Pulp Fiction", but he offered to go again with me. I declined, no thanks, because it is a Hollywood move and as such, it will be encouraging/making excuses for White women to go with blacks. He looked at me, puzzled, wondering 'how I kind of anticipated this culminating scene' ... ... Quentin Tarantino, teaching us what it means to be virtuous in the modern world.
Continue Reading Who Runs Hollywood?

YKW key in opening Europe’s borders, including to Islam? Key to Imperialism?

  • Post author:
  • Post category:Central

We’ve presented substantial arguments for the role that Jewry has played in opening America’s borders to the third world in prior posts; and in the last post, we presented an argument for the incremental destruction of Islamic introduction; we’d be in remiss if we did not venture onto arguments as to the role that Jewry plays in opening the borders of Europe, including to Islam – which is ostensibly an enemy of world Jewry, but nevertheless has practical affinities.

Let’s start with this article on the matter presented by Morgoth, and a comment on the article by Kumiko. Her opinion may not be unassailable, but its a good one, well informed. I take her liking this article this much, to be a good sign of its veracity.

Kumiko Oumae • 5 years ago

You’re absolutely amazing Morgoth, this is a great piece you’ve arranged here. Seriously, it is a comprehensive takedown.

Yes, Breitbart, The Jews Did Open The Gates

Morgoth’s Review, 12 Nov 2015

Once again Breitbart London has led the cattle to water but refuses to let them drink. A piece on a viral You Tube video highlighting the Third World invasion of Europe seems to be the News site pushing the boundaries of what can be said in a relatively mainstream outlet.

[The video referred-to by Morgoth is not readily available presently. I’ll add it later if I find it.]

 However, this isn’t really Breitbart highlighting the video because they have the best interests of Europeans at heart, even if they do go further than other MSM outlets in addressing the issue. Their real problem is that this video mentions the Jewish influence in the invasion and impending dispossession of Europeans on their own soil. Breitbart’s objective here is to say ”Ok, it’s awful and you (readership) are probably going to see this video, just remember not to take notice of the parts which mention Jews’‘

According to Breitbart:

 ”Although the main thrust of the film is to goad native Europeans against mass migration and the negative effects of multiculturalism, the film also paradoxically takes a swipe at one European minority group who stand to lose almost the most from mass Muslim immigration. It also includes a short clip of discredited, anti-Semitic politician Nick Griffin, former Member of the European Parliament and leader of the British National Party.
The inclusion of Mr. Griffin, an unpopular figure even in Britain’s nationalist right and the rapid success of the film in the Netherlands suggests the film may not have been edited by a British citizen.
Breitbart London has reported at length on the rising tide of anti-Semitism in Europe which has arrived with mass migration. From Jews being specifically targeted for degrading house-invasion rape-thefts to Jews being excluded from Holocaust commemorations because of Muslim attendees hijacking events, migrant-Europe is now hostile towards Jews at a level not seen in decades.”

In actual fact Jews are openly proud of their contribution to what they, and Liberal Gentiles, refer to as ”Our Humanistic Values;” in a 2013 Conference in Israel(!) called ”The Jewish Contribution to the European Integration Project”, the section entitled ‘Between Assimilation and Distinctiveness’‘ explained:

In other words Jews wrote the draft legislation and the moral framework under which Europeans would live, the entire purpose was to banish European ethnic interests and replace them with a civic code which could be adopted by anyone on earth. And now everyone on earth is coming to Europe and when Europeans disagree The European Jewish Congress is on hand to agitate for more Hate Speech Legislation. And this is helped along gleefully by people such as Federica Mogherini, the Foreign Secretary of the European Union Commission who thinks:

 “If we do not realise this, our whole message risks to sound empty. We need to pass our cultural message, to lay the basis for our political message : any attempt to divide the peoples of Europe into ‘Us’ and ‘Them’ brings us in the wrong direction. The migrants and us. The Muslims and us. The Jews and us, as anti-Semitism has not been defeated at all. The ‘Other’ and us. We learn’t from our history that we are all someone else’s ‘Other’. The fear of the ‘Other’ can only lead us to new conflicts. I hope we can work together to increase our self confidence. When we say we are European, we should also remember what is the root of our European culture. Our diversity. That is our strength and we should learn to be proud of it”

Indeed, Breitbart have themselves reported on the Jew George Soros’s attempts to smash European Nation states:

SOROS ADMITS INVOLVEMENT IN MIGRANT CRISIS: ‘NATIONAL BORDERS ARE THE OBSTACLE’
The OSF website explains: “We believe that migration and asylum policy should be grounded in economic and demographic realities, not driven by temporary political considerations or popular misconceptions.

But what Breitbart specializes in is a ”Save The Women and Jews First” narrative wherein the Jews are the primary victims of ”The Left” or Islam or whatever mysterious forces are facilitating the Third World, and yes, Islamic, invasion of Europe. The onus should not be on us, ethnic Europeans, to automatically think the Jews are our staunchest allies or, because of history, a group which we should feel morally impelled to be protective over. The Jewish support for the invasion and the morality of self guilt that psychologically hamstrings Europeans is so obvious, so ubiquitous that a counter argument is simply not feasible. The line taken by Breitbart and other Neocon Lite outlets is to point out that Jews are now under threat from Islam, but this doesn’t negate or change the fact that Jews have been pivotal in the present woes of Europe, it merely begs the question of why they support policies detrimental to some Jews. And besides, it isn’t as if there is no historical precedent for Jews cooperating with Islam against Europeans…

The following passage comes from a website dedicated to ensuring common ground and respect between Muslims and Jews, it’s called ”Judaism Islam: Discovering similarities between Islam and Judaism”

In the spring of 711, a Muslim army invaded Iberia led by Tariq ibn Ziyad, serving the Arab governor Musa ibn Nusayr, at Guadalete they swiftly defeated Roderick (Luthariq) the Visigoth King and then marched northward to the Visigoth capital of Toledo. Both Latin and Arabic chroniclers record that the Jews of the city “opened the gates of Toledo” to Tariq, who conquered the city. With more cities to take Tariq left Toledo and entrusted its protection to a garrison of Jewish soldiers, whom had rose up against the Catholic Visigoths and opened the gates.
When Tariq’s master, Musa ibn Nusayr, arrived in Iberia with a large Arab force he seized Seville and like Tariq before him, he entrusted the city to its Jewish inhabitants until his return.
Had the Jews of Iberia not been the victims of such continuous barbarity from their Christian neighbours it is unlikely they’d have turned on them, but with the Muslim invasion this oppressed people tasted a freedom they hadn’t for centuries. There is no greater example of Jewish and Muslim coexistence than al-Andalus, the Jews not only fought side by side with their Muslim cousins, but under the caliphates born out of the conquests the Jews lived as a free and protected people who were able reach the highest of positions in this new society.

And the following passage comes from a Jewish site tracing the history of the Jewish people called ”Sephardic Studies”

 Two years later in 711 C.E., Moorish soldiers (a mixed Arab and Berber army) crossed over from Africa to the Iberian Peninsula. They were led by General Tariq ibn Ziyad, Governor of Tangiers (Sachar 3).   He advanced his army of near ten thousand men across the strait, and landed at a location, which from that day since has sustained his name–Jabal Tarik (Mount Tarik), or Gibraltar.
The Moors engaged in battle with Visigothic soldiers, eventually killing their monarch, King Roderick.  The Muslim invasion, and subsequent administration of Iberia, freed the major Spanish population of Jews from Visigothic oppression.  It was said that immediately after the invasion, the Jewish population of Toledo “opened the gates” of the city, welcoming the North African Muslims (Wexler 218).  Though ruthless fighters, the Moors were very just. They gave the Goth Spaniards an opportunity to surrender each of their provinces, to which most capitulated. 

It goes on…

Later, after advancing to Cordoba, the Muslims found that the Goth nobles of the kingdom had fled over the Pyrenees Mountains, all but abandoning their land to them (Lane-Poole 27).
The occupation of the Moors set the stage for beginning the work of building an Islamic empire similar to the one flourishing in Damascus.  Within a century of their activity, the Moors, with assistance of the Jews, had developed a civilization based in Cordoba that surpassed that of any in Europe; it was known as Al-Andalus.  At the end of the eighth century, Al-Andalus was the most populous, cultured, and industrious land of all Europe, remaining so for centuries.  During this prosperous period, trade with the outside world was unrivaled.
 It was during this time of economic expansion, the Jews, who had been virtually eliminated from the peninsula in the seventh century by the Christians, grew once more in numbers and flourished
The occupation of Iberia by the Moors was a welcome occurrence for a well pummeled and remaining Jewish population.  Of course the Muslims were not completely tolerant, but they were more tolerant than the rulers of the previous administration. Under the ruling Caliph (the descendant of Mohammed–the prophet of G-d on earth), the Jews were able to preserve their rites and traditions.
From the second half of the eighth century to the end of the eleventh century Jewish life flourished while contributing greatly to scholarship.  A translating program was established in Toledo, using Jews as interpreters.  There they translated the Arabic books into romance languages, as well as Greek and Hebrew texts into Arabic.  This included many major works of Greek science and philosophy.  Jews studied and contributed to mathematics, medicine, botany, geography, poetry, and philosophy.   It was at this time that the study of Medicine expanded to produce a large number of exceptional Jewish physicians.  Islam had its sway over Jewish cultural life too.  In literature, and the arts, the Muslim influence on the Jews is enormous.  Though written in non-Islamic language and script, medieval Hebrew poetry, and much of the prose literature, belong to the same cultural world as Arabic and other literatures of Islam (Lewis 81).  In the Caliphate of Cordoba [the geographical zenith of Islamic life in Al-Andalus], the Jewish element became increasingly important, reaching its peak in the tenth century  (Diaz-Mas 3).  
Jews lived among themselves in a walled area known as the aljama (Jewish quarter). There they lived among their own administration, and managed their own communal affairs (Epstein 1).   There the Jewish community had their own legal court known as the Beit Din.  This court, with Rabbis as Judges, would render both religious and civil legal opinions pertaining to Jewish affairs inside the aljama.  In the Beit Din the Jews were allowed to settle their own disputes.  This of course was positive for the them;  but it was also positive for the Muslims to, as it decreased the work load of the Islamic courts.

The Jewish elevation of the Muslim colonisation of Spain as a fantastic golden age for Europe while painting European colonisation of countries as unmitigated evil and the Crusades as a vicious attack by wicked Christians on innocent Muslims is typical. Francis Carr Begbie writes about how organised Jewry gifted “British” Muslims their own “Holocaust” with Srebrenica.

One reason is that British Muslims need to have a “holocaust” of their own, and this one fits the bill perfectly. Despite the unlikelihood of most British/ Pakistani Muslims being able to find Bosnia on a map, it will help them burnish their victimhood credentials.

Of course there are no shortage of massacres of Muslims in the world but they are usually carried out by other Muslims or Israelis and therefore not fit for purpose. This one was carried out by Whites and is much more useful.
To ram this message home, live BBC programmes have been broadcasting local commemorative events across Britain with special emphasis on towns with large Islamic populations such as Oldham, Burnley, Blackburn, Northamptonm,  Rochdale which, curiously enough, are also among the towns plagued by the worst cases of Muslim child sex abuse rings.
In London the Wiener Library for the Study of Genocide and Holocaust will be the venue for the “multi-faith” launch of new charity, Remembering Srebrenica which will be spending £1 million of taxpayers money sending hundreds of British kids to Bosnia every year to remember the occasion. The charity is off to a good start with the BBC devoting a prime time television documentary to its activities.
For Dr Alexander Korb, director of the University of Leicester’s Stanley Burton Centre for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Srebrenica had a special resonance. “What seems to be like a distant shadow of the horrors of the Holocaust, happened just 20 years ago on our doorstep, in the middle of Europe, during the Bosnian wars. 
Prominent Jewish Holocaust survivors have beaten a path to Bosnia. They include the Academy Award winning producer of the Steven Spielberg film “Schindler’s List” and a Judge at the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia.
Much effort has gone into shackling the two “holocausts” together. Groups such as the American Jewish Committee and Jewish Council for Public Affairs have led the pursuit of alleged (Serbian) war criminals. Bosnia is one of the few places that host Jewish-Muslim multi faith conferences.

I would say to read the article in full for more sniveling Jew quotes including wanting to criminalise denial of Srebrenica’s status as a genocide despite the fact only 2,000 bodies were found, that everyone except the neocons say both sides were as bad and that the UN has cast serious doubt on any of the neocon narrative. Can there be any doubt that organised Jewry despise us and that Muslims are their allies in their goal to destroy every European on the planet? 

It’s very common these days to see Israeli Jews commenting below the line on American and Israeli articles about how Europe is sinking under the weight of the Muslim invaders with comments relishing our demise along the lines of “Well Europeans threw out the Jews and welcomed Muslims. If they love Muslims so much they can reap the consequences”. This completely ignores the fact that a majority of people in every European country are against third world immigration and the fact that the biggest cheerleaders for our invasion are…………… Jewish.

http://www.supportrefugees.org.uk/about

One of the questions most commonly asked about the Jewish question is why Jews would want to flood Europe with Muslims who have shown to be far more vocal and proactive in their anti-Semitism than anything comparable from Europeans in recent decades.

Lawrence Auster, a Jewish conservative who converted to Christianity as an adult wrote an instructive piece for FrontPage Magazine on this topic entitled Why Jews Welcome Muslims

“First of all, as crazy as it may sound, there is something that many American Jews fear in their heart of hearts even more than they fear Moslem anti-Semitism, and that is white Christian anti-Semitism. Steinlight himself pointed to this phenomenon at a recent panel discussion hosted by the Center for Immigration Studies:

“Every high profile Jewish institution, whether it’s a national organization or a major synagogue, is surrounded by concrete barriers to prevent car bombs exploding too close to the buildings. If you go through the lobbies into those buildings you have to pass metal detectors and double-doors of bulletproof glass. You are then frisked by security guards, mostly retired New York City police or Israeli agents, and then are scanned again with metal detectors.

“What is truly comic about this—were it not an instance in the theatre of the absurd, and were it not so appalling an indication of the kind of mass denial that is still governing major American Jewish organizations, including the one I used to work for that’s currently meeting across the street—is that the staffs of these organizations pass the car bomb barriers, go through the double bulletproof glass lobbies, get frisked, then go upstairs into their offices and spend their days talking about the threats posed by evangelical Christians….”

Jews’ risible obsession with non-existent evangelical Protestant anti-Semites, combined with their obliviousness to actual mass murdering Islamist anti-Semites (whom, moreover, the Jews’ favored immigration policies have allowed into this country) is an amazing phenomenon that we should not dismiss as simply a bizarre ethnic idiosyncrasy. It expresses, rather, a central preoccupation of a significant number of Jews, namely their corrosive apprehension of what they think the goyim might one day do to them—a fear they entertain despite the fact that, apart from some social exclusions and other ethnic prejudices that existed up to the end of World War II, Jews have never faced serious anti-Semitism from the white Christian majority in this country”

Indeed notice that Jews present anti-Semitic attacks by Muslims not as a consequence of huge mass immigration from the Islamic world but as a part of European opposition to mass immigration and historic European hostility towards Jews. – The Times of Israel writes:

BRUSSELS — A senior European Union official has warned of rising anti-Semitism in Europe as attacks and threats against Jews continue in EU member countries.
European Commission Vice President Frans Timmermans said Thursday that “in the last couple of years you’ve seen this age-old monster come again in Europe.”
Speaking before a conference on religious intolerance, he said, “This is unacceptable. I thought we knew better. I wouldn’t have thought it would be possible… but it’s happening again.”
Timmermans said that “it’s a vital question for the future of Europe that our Jewish community feels at ease and completely at home.”
Europe’s top human rights watchdog also voiced concern Thursday at mounting racism and anti-Semitism in Germany, citing a wave of far-right, anti-Islam demonstrations at odds with the more recent image of a country ready to open its doors to hundreds of thousands of refugees.
“There have been worrying developments as regards public manifestations of racism and xenophobia,” the Council of Europe’s committee on national minorities said in a statement.
“Manifestations of anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant sentiments are… reported to be rising, as well as attacks against asylum seekers,” it said in a report.
Meanwhile, attacks throughout Europe have caused many Jews to contemplate leaving the continent.
French Jews in particular have moved to Israel in record numbers recently amid an uptick in anti-Semitic incidents, including an attack in a kosher supermarket by an Islamist gunman that left four shoppers dead. In 2014, nearly 7,000 French Jews left for Israel – more than three times the number in 2011.

In a hysterical article entitled “Is it time for the Jews to leave Europe“, Jeffrey Goldberg at least has the grace to acknowledge that most of the anti-Semitism comes from Muslims but then blows it by managing to somehow blame this on Europeans for not giving them more gibsmedat or not somehow magically bestowing upon them the same IQs and personality traits as Europeans.

That the chief propagators of contemporary European anti-Semitism may be found in the Continent’s large and disenfranchised Muslim immigrant communities—communities that are themselves harassed and assaulted by hooligans associated with Europe’s surging right—is flummoxing to, among others, Europe’s elites. Muslims in Europe are in many ways a powerless minority. The failure of Europe to integrate Muslim immigrants has contributed to their exploitation by anti-Semitic propagandists and by recruiters for such radical projects as the Islamic State, or ISIS.

Above is an image made by someone on /pol/ reacting to the Council of Tolerance and Reconciliation’s proposed hate speech laws that they have been more forcefully trying to push Europe-wide year on year. The legislation, which would ban criticism of immigration, criticism of LGBTQI+ goings on, criticism of feminism and criticism of Islam, also stipulates that broadcasters and the media at large must dedicate a set % of their airtime etc on “promoting diversity and tolerance“. People constantly say that Muslims are a danger to free speech but this document, written up by Jewish lawyers and headed by Moshe Kantor, head of the European Council of Jews, is far more terrifying and while Muslims have the establishment on their side over native Europeans, they are not the establishment – Jews are. Even the name, the “Council of Tolerance and Reconciliation” is a window into the mindset of organised Jewry – Europe (and diaspora Europeans in the USA, Australia etc) must be engaged in “reconciliation” towards Jews for the expulsions and the Holocaust mythos forever, until we as a people cease to exist.


Lapin and the M-Rev commentators contributed to this article.

28 Mar 2021; Morgoth on Hope Not Hate as anti-social, NeoLiberal elite enforcement of disenfranchized consumers

Morgoth on “Hope Not Hate” which, analogously to anti-fa anarchists, BLM and the like, are effective foot soldiers for the NeoLiberal establishment’s anti-social program of atomization, to maintain people as disenfranchised consumer units.

…

Germany Introduces Forced Integration

TNO, “Germany Introduces Forced Integration” 16 April 2016:

The German government is to give nonwhite invaders preference in the job market and will legally force residential mixing in terms of a new “integration law.”

The law will artificially create 100,000 jobs which will exclusively be allocated to “refugees”—even though there are currently 1.81 million Germans who are unemployed.

To enable this preferential treatment, a currently-existing law which requires employers to give preference to German job applicants will be suspended for three years—in other words, unemployed Germans will be pushed to the back of the seeking-work queue in favor of the nonwhite invaders.

Nazi genocide, German shame … Chancellor Merkel in Chagall Hall, before she addressed Israel’s parliament on the 60th anniversary of the founding of the nation. Photo: Reuters

The seasonally adjusted harmonized jobless rate in Germany was, according to Trading Economics, recorded at 4.3 percent in February of 2016, unchanged from the January rate. This means that 1.81 million Germans are out of work.

The proposed law, announced this week by the Angela Merkel government, is being packaged as a measure designed to make “refugees integrate into society in return for being allowed to live and work in the country.”

Under the conservative-socialist coalition government’s measures, the “asylum seekers” will face cuts to their welfare payments if they refuse to attend language classes or “lessons in German laws or cultural basics.”

It has not been said what these “cultural basics” will entail, but, given their behavior in Germany up to this time, they will probably include exhortations not to rape, rob, commit crime, how to use toilets, etc.

The new law will also “punish” the nonwhites if they move away from the white German towns where they have been placed—because the law says the forming of “ghettos” must be prevented.

At the same time, Israel practices racial separatism, seeing no reason to take-on immigrants, let alone assimilate them with integration. On the contrary, the Jews protect their E.G.I. as sacrosanct while compelling others to blend-away theirs with each other.

SMH, “Merkel pledges to stand by Israel, 20 Mar 2008:

IN AN emotional tribute to victims and survivors of the Holocaust, the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, said the Nazi genocide “fills us Germans with shame” and pledged to stand by Israel’s side against any threat, particularly from Iran.

“This historic responsibility is part of my country’s fundamental policy,” Dr Merkel said in a speech delivered in German to a special session of the Israeli parliament. “It means that for me, as a German chancellor, Israel’s security is non-negotiable.

Apparently being chastised by her more fully Jewish master.

Angela Merkel: Prime Signatory of Europe’s Death Warrant

Our research shows that Merkel is likely to be partly Jewish.  Whatever she is and whatever her motivation, her policies lead to genocide of Europeans, especially Germans: EP President Schulz: Germany exists only in order to ensure the existence of the Jewish people.     

Gatestone Inst., “Germany Heading for Four More Years of Pro-EU, Open-Door Migration Policies”, 8 Sept 2017:

The policy positions of Merkel and Schulz on key issues are virtually identical: Both candidates are committed to strengthening the European Union, maintaining open-door immigration policies, pursuing multiculturalism and quashing dissent from the so-called far right.

 Merkel and Schulz both agree that there should be no upper limit on the number of migrants entering Germany.

On the issue of migration, Schulz and Merkel differ on procedure, not principle. During the debate, for example, Schulz accused Merkel of failing to involve the European Union in her 2015 decision to open German borders to more than a million migrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East. Merkel said that although some mistakes had been made, she would take the same decision again.

In fact, Merkel and Schulz both agree that there should be no upper limit on the number of migrants entering Germany: “On the issue of an upper limit, my position is clear,” Merkel told ARD television. “I won’t accept one.”

Schulz has said:

“A numerical cap is not a response to the refugee issue, even if it is agreed upon in a European context. What do we do with the first refugee who comes to the European frontier and has no quota available? Do we send him back to perhaps a sure death? As long as this question is not resolved, such a discussion makes no sense.”

Schulz believes the European Union should have a greater role in migration policymaking:

  “What we need is a European right of immigration and asylum. The refugee crisis shows us clearly that we cannot give a national response to a global phenomenon such as the refugee movements. This is only possible in a European context.”

In the meantime, Gregor Gysi has been working hard in a supporting role to promote the death of Germans: Fellow apparatchik with Merkel in the communist East German GDR government and ever the Jewish henchman, Gregor Gysi has been calling normal Germans “Nazis” for resisting their death through assimilation in waves of imposed immigration; and calls for their elimination (death) as such –  to him, “a very fortunate” prognosis.

Ladies and gentlemen, I hereby prompt you to participate at the protest,“Live better without Nazis – diversity is our future”, on the 6th of June at 10a.m. in Neurupinn. We have to take a stand against the Nazis. Because of our history between 1933 – 1945 we are obliged to treat refugees properly. We also have to save their lives in the Mediterranean. There has to be a legal [unbureaucratic] way to get asylum in Europe. Countries like Poland – very Catholic by the way – have to be willing to accept [more] refugees. Oh, and by the way: Every year more native Germans die than there are born. That is very fortunate. It’s because the Nazis are not very good at having offspring. This decline [of Germans] is why we are so dependent on immigration from foreign countries.  – See you at the protest. Goodbye! Gregor Gysi

Merkel has criticized Hungary for failing to show “solidarity” in aiding refugees. She has also vowed to punish Poland for its refusal to take in more migrants from the Muslim world:

  “As much as I wish for good relations with Poland — they are our neighbor and I will always strive for this given the importance of our ties — we can’t simply keep our mouth shut in order to keep the peace. This goes to the very foundations of our cooperation within the European Union.”

Schulz vowed that, if elected chancellor, he would push for the EU to cut subsidies to countries that do not take in refugees: “With me as chancellor, we won’t accept that solidarity as a principle is questioned.”

Merkel has criticized Hungary for failing to show “solidarity” in aiding refugees. She has also vowed to punish Poland for its refusal to take in more migrants from the Muslim world:

  “As much as I wish for good relations with Poland — they are our neighbor and I will always strive for this given the importance of our ties — we can’t simply keep our mouth shut in order to keep the peace. This goes to the very foundations of our cooperation within the European Union.”

Schulz vowed that, if elected chancellor, he would push for the EU to cut subsidies to countries that do not take in refugees: “With me as chancellor, we won’t accept that solidarity as a principle is questioned.”

This is all very hard for Angela to suffer, but she’s got to do what she’s got to do for her people.

Merkel and Zuckerberg are teaming up to attack you on Facebook

Faceberg “concedes” by increasing ZOG global reach - censuring opponents of its Islamic footsoldiers

Zuckerberg “concedes” by increasing ZOG’s global influence – viz. in Asia – by cracking down on use of social media – viz. Facebook – by opponents of its Abrahamic footsoldiers (Islam) in Myanmar

Reuters, “Facebook’s Zuckerberg vows to work harder to block hate speech in Myanmar”, 11 April 2018:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg said on Tuesday his company would step up efforts to block hate messages in Myanmar as he faced questioning by the U.S. Congress about electoral interference and hate speech on the platform.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified before a joint Senate Judiciary and Commerce Committees hearing regarding the company’s use and protection of user data, on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., April 10, 2018. REUTERS/Aaron P. Bernstein

For all the talk of "voter fraud" in the 2020 election, it seems rather that Zuckerberg's funding ease of registration and voting for inner city blacks was key in the victory of internationalist J-tool, Biden.

Facebook has been accused by human rights advocates of not doing enough to weed out hate messages on its social-media network in Myanmar, where it is a dominant communications system.

“What’s happening in Myanmar is a terrible tragedy, and we need to do more,” Zuckerberg said during a 5-hour joint hearing of the Senate Commerce Committee and Senate Judiciary Committee.

More than 650,000 Rohingya Muslims have fled Myanmar’s Rakhine state into Bangladesh since insurgent attacks sparked a security crackdown last August.

United Nations officials investigating a possible genocide in Myanmar said last month that Facebook had been a source of anti-Rohingya propaganda.

Marzuki Darusman, chairman of the U.N. Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar, said in March that social media had played a “determining role” in Myanmar.

“It has … substantively contributed to the level of acrimony and dissension and conflict … within the public. Hate speech is certainly of course a part of that. As far as the Myanmar situation is concerned, social media is Facebook, and Facebook is social media,” he said.

Zuckerberg said Facebook was hiring dozens more Burmese-language speakers to remove threatening content.

“It’s hard to do it without people who speak the local language, and we need to ramp up our effort there dramatically,” he said, adding that Facebook was also asking civil society groups to help it identify figures who should be banned from the network.

He said a Facebook team would also make undisclosed product changes in Myanmar and other countries where ethnic violence was a problem.

Reporting by Andy Sullivan Edited by Damon Darlin

Our Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Related Stories:

“Hindu women forced to convert to Islam while mass graves of their Hindu men discovered in Rakhine”

“Miss Grand Myanmar”, Shwe Eain Si, stripped of her title for telling truth about crisis in Rakhine”

“Ignore liberal media’s call for compassion: Islam is conquest or lies in pretense of negotiation”

“Islam’s Imposition Upon Malaysia Comes Into Focus Through Conflict With Myanmar, Buddhists”

EP President Schulz: Germany exists only in order to ensure the existence of the Jewish people.

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sunday, 31 January 2016 03:00.

Martin Schulz has been active in European politics for almost thirty years, and so he is a person who does not need an introduction. His position however is not one that is understood very well by normal people, because a lot of people don’t know what the roles of the institutions of the European Union in the post-Lisbon Treaty environment are.

In his role as President of the European Parliament, Schulz would be responsible for the overall direction of international relations, and also is the custodian of the fundamental values of the European Union. The European Parliament is the first institution in the European Union, which prior to the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty had been seen as a mere talking shop, but subsequently developed into becoming one of the most powerful legislatures in the world in terms of both its legislative powers and executive oversight powers.

Of course, informally, the political history which the individual was acculturated with along with that person’s connection to the national political power, means that it can usually be considered advantageous to a member state if one of their citizens is holding such an EU position.

Schulz hails from Germany, but what does Schulz think Germany’s raison d’etre is? A look at his own words in Haaretz as reported by his friend Avraham Burg, reveals something interesting:

Haaretz, ‘Say a big ‘thank you’ to Martin Schulz’, Avraham Burg, 14 Feb 2014 (emphasis added):

[…] Martin Schulz, the president of the European Parliament, is a close friend of mine. On most issues connected to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict we disagree. He is closer to the Israeli mainstream, and his positions resemble those of Labor Party chairman Isaac Herzog. He once told me, during a frank and stern conversation, “For me, the new Germany exists only in order to ensure the existence of the State of Israel and the Jewish people.” […]

Schulz is of course, Jewish.

 Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 31 Jan 2016 11:16 | #

Kumiko, do we know that Martin Shultz is Jewish?  Is there proof in the public domain?  Has he plainly said so?

 Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 03:12 | #

What I would say about Schulz is this: Given that he serves the Jews in such phenomenally overwrought ways, and given that he looks like a Jew, and that the information about his mother is mysteriously nowhere to be found, and also given that all of his policy preferences are about accommodating Jews, the chances of him being a Jew are exceptionally high.

So even if he somehow is not a Jew, he may as well be a Jew.

My stance on it is that Schulz is basically a crypto-Jew, and a barely concealed one at that.

Let there be no mistake.

His comment is not an expression and instance of German instincts gone wrong in response – it was not a well known statement.

Kumiko has exposed this epoch confession of Jewish parasitism on the German host.

As such it is a great occasion for mutual support of our German brothers and to join them in ethno-national spirit.

 Posted by Schulz, “The Kapo” on Sun, 31 Jan 2016 21:02 | #

Flashback – Silvio Berlisconi tells Martin Schulz that he would be perfect for a role in a new Italian production about the holocaust: “You would be perfect in the role of the Kapo.” [Kapo is a concentration-camp inmate appointed as supervisor].

This occurred in European Parliament on 3 July 2003, demonstrating how long the exemplary parasite, Martin Schulz, has been at this.

...return of ‘the kapo’
Jewish Home Chairman and Economy Minister Naftali Bennett and President of the European Parliament Martin Schulz meeting in Brussels, February 19, 2014
Schulz in the Knesset

But if it looks like a Jew and acts in decided Jewish interests then one is beholding a veritable Jew or a Jew thinker at very least – If data isn’t exactly as data does, then its legacy will be, more and more, as a result of what it does and the rules prescribed of its interpretation.

However, saying that “Germany exists only in order to ensure the existence of the Jewish people”would be hyperbolic even by Merkel’s level of insanity, as it lacks the aspect of sheer pathological altruism. Rather, it has all the chutzpah of perfect subjective Jewish unanimity.

Posted by Horrifying discussion before the CFR on Wed, 09 May 2018 06:17 | # Mortifying:

With cheerful taken-for-grantedness of the ‘unassailable’ virtue of their motives, this panel at CFR discusses the prospect of “democratization” of “illiberal democracies” by having them accept non-White migrants and integration; i.e., cheerful acceptance of the destruction of our European genome. Primarily with the targeted “problem” of Eastern European countries Not accepting immigrants.

Published on Apr 23, 2018 by Council on Foreign Relations –

Speakers discuss the growing trend toward populism around the world and the current global state of democracy.

Speakers
Michael Abramowitz

President, Freedom House; Former White House Correspondent, Washington Post
Nicole M. Bibbins Sedaca: Chair, Global Politics and Security Concentration and Professor in the Practice of International Affairs, Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown U; Former Senior Advisor to the Undersecretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs, US Department of State
Timothy Snyder: Richard C. Levin Professor of History, Yale University; Author, The Road to Unfreedom: Russia, Europe, America
Presider Kati I. Marton: Author and Human Rights Activist

Kati I. Marton (15:56): We haven’t yet mentioned one of the most powerful motives for the rise of populism, which is the fear of refugees – migrants.  Most graphically on display in Hungary where you can’t go a block without seeing a billboard showing George Soros’s smiling face, and the headline over that face is, ‘don’t let him have the last laugh.’

Six months ago George Soros was known to a very small handful of Budapest literati. Now he is probably the second best known person in Hungary after Victor Orban. And this manipulation of the fear of migrants, of which by the way, there are virtually none in Hungary and very few in Poland, as opposed to over a million in Germany, where this problem doesn’t exist…is something that uh, that we haven’t really dealt with sufficiently.

We seem to step-by-step, accept that his is the way of the world now. I frequently ask myself what didn’t my Hungarian grandparents, whose lives didn’t end well, what didn’t they do in the 30’s? that we should be doing today? Rather than sleepwalking thought this rather dangerous passage.

So, the migration problem and how it relates to the rise of populism – AdF (eg) is entirely about fear of outsiders.

When an audience member suggests the problem of Eastern European countries having a bad track record with regard to democracy, Snyder draws comparisons –

Snyder: (36:00): When the Supreme Court decides in 2013 that racism is no longer a problem, twenty two states then pass voter suppression laws – that’s not democratization, whatever you think of the legality of it.

…its been very hard for the West European countries to extend democracy over second class citizens (empire/subject relation)…asking about the things that make democracy possible….which for me precisely have to do with integration – the European Union, whatever its chances are, is the hope for democracy.

Kati I. Marton (38:00) …these countries are not destined to be undemocratic, there are a whole bunch of other factors and one of them, frankly, is the luck of leaders (Merkel!)

Tony Blair was good too.

…

Brothers, sons of Abraham

Jews Created Islam: Ideological capture as a response to constraints of Jewish ethnic exclusivism

Diversity Macht Frei, “Hagar: Ideological capture as a response to the constraints of Jewish ethnic exclusivism”, 12 May 2017:

The obsessive ethnocentrism of the Jews has meant that they could never acquire the strength of numbers required for the kind of great undertakings that require a large population, military ventures being the most obvious example. For that reason, Jews have been forced to develop ideologies that recruit other people to their cause, inveigling non-Jews into pursuing a Jewish ethnic agenda through a process of intellectual or emotional capture. The two most destructive examples of this, so far, have been Islam and Communism. *

A few days ago I wrote (link) about the book Hagarism, which describes how the Jews created Islam to recruit an Arab army to aid them in the reconquest of Palestine, having been forced to flee it after a betrayal too far.

In the tradition of Jewish Biblical interpretation, Muslims are identified with the figure of Ishmael in the Book of Genesis. The Islamic tradition, too, recognises Ishmael as the Ur-ancestor of the Arabs. The Genesis episode curiously prefigures exactly the phenomenon I have described above. In the biblical narrative, Abraham’s wife, Sarah, is unable to bear him children. She suggests to Abraham that he impregnate their Egyptian slave/servant girl, whose name is Hagar, instead. This he does, and she gives birth to Ishmael. Later, she is sent away.

Here we see a microcosmic representation of the basic relationship between Jews and Muslims. Just as Abraham cannot (as he then believes) gain a son, Jews cannot gain sufficient numbers on their own. They recruit the prototypical Muslimah, the Egyptian slave, to make up the deficit. And her son, Ishmael, symbolic progenitor of Muslims, shall be “a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him”. The world has been living with the consequences to this day.

Here is the relevant passage (where Judaism gave birth to Islam) from the Book of Genesis.

Ibid: Now Sarai Abram’s wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar.

2And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai.

3And Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.

4And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes.

5And Sarai said unto Abram, My wrong be upon thee: I have given my maid into thy bosom; and when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her eyes: the LORD judge between me and thee.

6But Abram said unto Sarai, Behold, thy maid is in thy hand; do to her as it pleaseth thee. And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled from her face.

7And the angel of the LORD found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur.

8And he said, Hagar, Sarai’s maid, whence camest thou? and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai.

9And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands.

10And the angel of the LORD said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude.

11And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the LORD hath heard thy affliction.

12And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.

13And she called the name of the LORD that spake unto her, Thou God seest me: for she said, Have I also here looked after him that seeth me?

14Wherefore the well was called Beerlahairoi; behold, it is between Kadesh and Bered.

15And Hagar bare Abram a son: and Abram called his son’s name, which Hagar bare, Ishmael.

16And Abram was fourscore and six years old, when Hagar bare Ishmael to Abram.

*“The two most destructive examples of this, so far, have been Islam and Communism.” * Of course, DNANations would quickly add liberalism and Christianity to this list. For their purposes, Jews created Christianity as well.

Christianity along with Islam, Marxism and liberalism are weaponized vehicles for Jewish imperialism. This is true from impositions into the old world of Europe to the New World of the Americas (note interesting percent of Jewish admixture in Latin America) to incursions into Asia.

In fact, Christianity has paved the way for the destruction of European peoples as it assures the enemy that its believers will not fight back. The fighting aspects of the bible require borrowing from the Old Testament and thus align one’s fight thematically with Jewish interests. As such, it has led to the senseless destruction of other non-Abrahamic peoples as well, though they might have been friends and allies otherwise.

J.B. Campbell:

“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.”

Posted by a clue of Islam’s Jewish origins on Mon, 11 Dec 2017 20:59 | #

Diversity Macht Frei, “Early Islamic coins feature menorahs: “There is no God but Judah”, 8 Dec 2017:

        
        There is no God but Allah Judah

Another indication of Islam’s true origins has come to light recently: early Islamic coins have been found, imprinted with menorah symbols.

        

Researchers recently discovered that menorahs prominently adorned Muslim coins and vessels during the early Islamic period 1,300 years ago.

Relics inscribed with the Jewish symbol dating to the Umayyad dynasty during the seventh-eighth centuries were found at various archaeological sites in Israel and are now being exhibited to the public.

Last year, archaeologists Assaf Avraham of Bar-Ilan University, and Peretz Reuven of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem exposed an early Islamic inscription referring to the Dome of the Rock as “Beit al-Maqdis.”

According to scholars, the “Nuba inscription,” as it is called, implies that in the early days of Islam, Muslims perceived the shrine as an Islamic version of the Temple of Solomon.

Now, researchers are exposing further finds in Israel that constitute evidence of Jewish influences in the early days of Islam.

“The Jewish symbol which the Muslims were using was the menorah [the gold seven-branch candelabra from the Temple], which appeared on several coins and other early Islamic artifacts,” said Avraham on Wednesday.

“The menorah coins bear the Shahada Arabic inscription on one side: ‘There is no god but Allah,’ while the menorah appears in the center of the coin. The other side bears the inscription: ‘Muhammad [is the] messenger of God.’”

In addition to the coins, the archeologists are presenting several pottery and lead vessels from the early Islamic period that also utilized the menorah symbol in their design.

“They are dated to the early days of the Islamic caliphate, and were in use by Muslims,” said Avraham, noting the finds are of great importance for understanding the history of Islam. 

“We wish that many Muslims will be exposed to this knowledge, which is part of their own religious and cultural heritage,” he continued.

“We have launched an informational project whose goal is to expose this information to the world and to Muslims in particular. We hope that this exposure will promote an educated dialogue between Jews and Muslims.

Source

Regular visitors know that the connection between Islam and Judaism is the principal theme of this blog. It has been covered in many articles which are linked to at the bottom of the “Jew as Ally of the Muslim” page. In summary, for those who don’t have the patience to go through it all:

Jews had a religion whose absolute focus was the performance of sacrifices in the Jerusalem temple. Yet they were expelled from Jerusalem by the Romans. The Jewish priestly caste, the Kohanim, whose role it was to perform the sacrifices, had thus been rendered redundant. Nonetheless, they dreamed of a return to Jerusalem and schemed to bring it about. The expelled Kohanim settled in distinct settlements of their own in order to avoid genetic contamination from lesser Jews (according to Jewish religious law, the Halacha, priestly bloodlines had to be kept pure). One of these settlements was Medina, a town they came to dominate. This is the milieu in which Islam emerged. Jews needed the Arabs to help them reconquer Jerusalem from the Christians. They invented Islam to fool them into doing it. Of course the Jews had no idea of the long-term catastrophic consequences for the world that would arise from the creation of this monster, Islam. Nonetheless, they have been happy to instrumentalise Muslims against the Christians down to the present day as a low-IQ, easily manipulated zombie army.


6

 Posted by Tom Holland on Tue, 18 Sep 2018 17:32 | #

Diversity Macht Frei, “Jewish influence on the Islamic Hadith Literature”, 16 Sep 2018:

Published by czakal

I’ve written before (here and here) about Jewish influence on the Koran. But the hadith literature, supposedly a record of the sayings and deeds of the “prophet” Muhammad, has probably exerted a greater influence over Islamic culture and law even than the Koran itself, thanks to its greater specificity. Indeed, the hadith are often invoked to clarify ambiguities in the language of the Koran.

The essence of the hadith concept is that the deeds and acts of Muhammad were observed by first-generation eye-witnesses then their testimony passed down through the generations in lines of oral transmission known as isnads.

This idea of a written text whose secret meanings can only be deciphered using special knowledge passed down orally through the generations is found in one other religion: Judaism.

Cohencidentally, or not, the hadith traditions (which form the documentary basis for the body of Islamic law or practices known as Sunna) were elaborated in a city, Kufa, which was exposed to strong Jewish influence (the surviving Jews of Khaybar were said to have been deported there) and located only 30 miles from Sura, the world’s greatest centre of Talmudic learning, where the Babylonian Talmud had been created not long before.

Here is an excerpt from Tom Holland’s book “In the Shadow of the Sword”.

As the extract makes clear, some of the most barbaric elements associated with Islam – such as stoning adulterous women to death – came not from the Koran, but from the Jews.

        

If a Sunna – a body of law capable of taming the extravagances and injustices of the age – were indeed to be fashioned without reference to the Caliph, then its origins would need to be grounded, and very publicly so, in the life and times of the Prophet himself. No other source, no other wellspring, would possibly do. But how to authenticate Muhammad’s sayings? Such was the question, a century on from the death of the Prophet, that confronted the first generation of a whole new class of scholars: legal experts whom Muslims would come to know as the ulama. Fortunately for them, just across the mudflats from Kufa – where the yearning to forge a new understanding of Islam was at its most turbulent and intense – the perfect role models were ready to hand. The rabbis of Sura, after all, had been labouring for many centuries to solve precisely the sort of problem that now confronted the ulama. The secret Torah, so it was recorded in the Talmud, ‘had been received at Sinai by Moses, who communicated it to Joshua, who communicated it to the elders, who communicated it to the prophets’ – who, in turn, had communicated it to a long line of rabbis, right down to the present. Nowhere in the world, in consequence, were there scholars better qualified to trace the chains of transmission that might link a lawyer and the sayings of a prophet than in the yeshivas of Iraq. Was it merely coincidence, then, that the earliest and most influential school of Islamic law should have been founded barely thirty miles from Sura? It was in Kufa, at around the same time as Walid, far distant in Damascus, was building his great mosque, that Muslim scholars first began to explore a momentous proposition: that there existed, alongside the Prophet’s written revelations, other, equally binding revelations that had never before been written down. Initially, in the manner of rabbis citing their own masters, members of the ulama were content to attribute these hitherto unrecorded doctrines to prominent local experts; then, as time went by, they began to link them to the Prophet’s companions; finally, as the ultimate in authorities, they fell to quoting the Prophet himself directly. Always, however, by bringing these previously unrecorded snatches of the past – these hadiths – to light, Muslim scholars were following a trail that had been blazed long before. Islamic though the isnads were, they were also more than a little Jewish.

The rabbis of Sura and Pumpedita, immured within their famous yeshivas, had spoken of their ambition to ‘build a fence around the Torah’. And so they had done – a thoroughly impregnable one. Yet some of them, hearing as a faint roar the tumult of debate and enquiry that was filling the streets of nearby Kufa, might just have felt a touch of claustrophobia – and even envy. The mosques of Iraq were coming to offer what no synagogue, or church, or fire temple had done for centuries: a venue for enquiry into the nature of God where the terms of debate had not already long since been set in stone. More than that – in the teeming warrens of Kufa and Basra, people from various religious backgrounds were free to meet, and collaborate, and merge their perspectives in a way that had never previously been possible. There were the conquerors: the Arab elite, with their language, their venerable traditions and their burnished memories of the age of Muhammad. Then there were the slaves and the descendants of slaves: all impatient to apply to the wrongs of an unjust society the austere and chilling message of the Prophet. Finally, there were ever-increasing numbers of converts. ‘Part of their original religion still remains within them.’ So Rav Yehudai, the rabbi of Sura, had observed of those mowbeds who turned to Islam. But what of those Muslims who had once been rabbis – was the same to be observed of them? If so, that would certainly help to explain why the Sunna – just like the Torah – aimed to regulate every dimension and aspect of human existence; why it should have forged for itself chains of transmission such as rabbis, and only rabbis, had ever previously deployed; and why, in direct contradiction of the Qur’an, it prescribed death as the punishment for adultery rather than whipping. As it had been written in the Torah by Moses himself: ‘They shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has wrought folly in Israel by playing the harlot in her father’s house.’

Source: “In The Shadow Of The Sword: The Battle for Global Empire and the End of the Ancient World” by Tom Holland

Related, JTA 14 Nov 2016:

Building the Abrahamic Coalition – expressions of Islamic and Judaic function in mutual interest.

Examples which shatter the misconception that they are ultimately at odds; and that what is bad for one is bad for the other; and therefore good for Whites.

Yossi Klein Halevi, left, and Abdullah Antepli are co-directors of the Muslim Leadership Initiative. (Netanel Tobias/Shalom Hartman Inst.)

Julius Evola: ‘the British Empire was a creature of Judaism’

 
via Age of Treason
The significance of the bone of contention over jewish rule of Britain first came to my attention in Majority Rights Radio: Guessedworker speaks with Tanstaafl, and especially in the comments at MR afterward. Months later I came across the issue again in Yockey on Culture and Race – Part 8 and Part 9.The “British” Empire is one of those elements of European history which resonates very strongly in the European psyche. Racialists tend to see it as an expression of Anglo-Saxon greatness. The jews have turned it into a cornerstone of their guilt-tripping about colonialism. Neither view accords with reality. The jews puppeteered the empire at the expense of Britons, just as today they puppeteer the colonization of Britain itself.Evola’s assessment, excerpted below, was written in 1940, at which point jewish parasitic infiltration and manipulation of Britain (from the top) was clear enough. Evola’s discussion of the precise who and how provides a welcome contrast to Yockey’s jew-blind account in 1948. Indeed, the false notion that Britons ruled Britain then, and even now, prevails exactly because the jews still rule.Disraeli the Jew and the Empire of the Shopkeepers:We know that, wherever economic interests predominate, the Jew rapidly rises and accedes to the commanding positions. The penetration of Judaism into England is not a thing of recent days alone. It was the English Revolution and Protestantism which threw open England’s doors. The Jews, who had been expelled by Edward I in 1290, were readmitted to England as a result of a Petition accepted by Cromwell and finally approved by Charles II in 1649. From this time forward, the Jews, and above all the Spanish Jews (the Sephardim) began to immigrate en masse to England, bringing with them the riches which they had acquired by more or less dubious means, and it was these riches, as we have just explained, which allowed them to accede to the centres of command within English life, to the aristocracy and to positions very close to the Crown. Less than a century after their re-admission, the Jews were so sure of themselves that they demanded to be naturalised, that is to say, to be granted British citizenship. This had a very interesting result : the Law, or Bill, naturalising the Jews was approved in 1740. Most of its supporters were members of the upper classes or high dignitaries within the Protestant Church, which shows us the extent to which these elements had already become Judaised or corrupted by Jewish gold. The reaction came not from the English upper classes, but from the people. The Law of 1740 provoked such outrage and disorder among the populace that it was abrogated in 1753.
The Jews now resorted to another tactic : they abandoned their synagogues and converted, nominally, to Christianity. Thus the obstacle was circumvented and their work of penetration proceeded at an accelerated pace. What mattered to the Jews was to keep their positions of command and to eliminate the religious arguments on which the opposition of that period principally rested ; everything else was secondary, since the converted Jew remains, in his instincts, his mentality, and his manner of action, entirely Jewish, as is shown by one striking example among many others : the extremely influential Jewish banker Sampson Gideon, despite having converted, continued to support the Jewish community and was buried in a Jewish cemetery. His money bought for his son an enormous property and the title of Baronet.
This was the preferred tactic of the rich Jews of England from the eighteenth century on : they supplanted the English feudal nobility by acquiring their properties and titles, and thus mixing themselves with the aristocracy, by the nature of the British representative system, they came closer and closer to the government, with the natural consequence of a progressive Judaification of the English political mentality.
from the inception of imperialism on the large scale, what was less apparent was that the ‘British Empire’ was a creature of Judaism, which a Jew had given as a present to the British Royal Crown.
This Jew was Benjamin Disraeli, Queen Victoria’s Prime Minister
Only one Jew could have conceived the idea of ‘reforming’ the conception of Empire and making of it something plutocratic and transforming it into imperialistic materialism. This Jew was Disraeli – ‘Dizzy’ as he was known. It was he who made of Queen Victoria an ‘Empress’, a colonial Empress, the Empress of India. This indefatigable proponent of the English ‘Imperial’ idea modelled his conception upon the Jewish Messianic-imperial idea, the idea of a people whose power consists in the riches of others, over which they take power, and which they cynically exploit and control. Disraeli always attacked very violently those who wished to separate England from her overseas territories, within which, as a Jewish historian has pointed out, Jews were the pioneers. Disraeli knew who it was that sustained this England which in turn was to dominate the riches of the world ; it is possible that he was among those initiates who knew that it was more than a simple British-Jewish plutocracy which was pulling the strings. One recalls those often-quoted words of Disraeli : “The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.”
The prudent and noiseless penetration of Jewry into the English upper classes and into the government itself continued. It was Disraeli who performed the coup upon Egypt in 1875 – with whose help? Rothschild. In 1875, the Khedive had financial worries and Disraeli managed to learn that he was willing to sell 177,000 shares of Suez Canal stock. This was a magnificent opportunity to gain certain control of the route to the Indies. The government hesitated. Rothschild did not. Here is the record of the historic conversation between Disraeli and Rothschild (Disraeli had asked him for four million pounds sterling) : “What guarantee can you offer me?” “The British government.” “You shall have five million tomorrow.” The interest on the loan was ‘extremely low’ ; naturally, the real and important interest of the Jewish clique lay on another and less visible plane …
Disraeli did not fail to make more convenient to the Jews of England their ritual observance. A little-known fact is that the ‘English Saturday’ is nothing other than the Jewish Sabbath, the ritual day of rest of the Jews. It was suitably Disraeli who introduced it to England, under an adequate social pretext.
Thus, as the Judaification of old feudal England was accomplished by diverse means, and as the old aristocracy gradually decomposed and underwent inoculation with ideas which would make it an easy prey for the material and spiritual influences of Judaism and Freemasonry, Disraeli did not forget his other task, that of augmenting and reinforcing the power of the new ‘Empire of Shopkeepers’, the new ‘Imperial Venice’, the reborn Israel of the Promise. This he did in a manner which was just as characteristically Jewish. Disraeli was one of the principal instigators of that sad and cynical English foreign policy by means of ‘protected’ third parties and the use of blackmail, which it pushes to the most extreme consequences. The most striking case is that of the Russo-Turkish War.
Disraeli did not hesitate to betray the ancient cause of European solidarity, by placing Turkey under British protection. Turkey, defeated, was saved by Britain ; by use of the well-known ‘English’ method of threats and sanctions, Disraeli was able to paralyse the Slavic advance to the South without a single shot being fired, and a grateful Turkey made him a present of Cyprus. At the Congress of Berlin, the Russian ambassador, Gortshakov, was unable to restrain himself from crying dolorously : “To have sacrificed a hundred thousand soldiers and a hundred million of money, and for nothing!” (*) There is a factor even more serious, from a higher point of view. By virtue of this situation, brought about by Disraeli, Turkey was admitted into the community of the European nations protected by so-called ‘International Justice’. We say ‘so-called’ because, until that time, far from being held to be valid for all the peoples of the world, this justice was held to be valid uniquely among the group of the European nations ; it was a form of recourse and of internal law for Europeans. With the admission of Turkey, a new phase of international law began, and this was truly the phase in which ‘justice’ became a mask and its ‘international’ character became a ruse of ‘democracy’, for it was simply an instrument in the service of Anglo-Jewry, and subsequently of the French also. This development led to the League of Nations, to crisis, and to actual war.

Merkel and Zuckerberg are teaming up to attack you on Facebook

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Wednesday, 16 September 2015 09:49.

Stop giving up your personal information to these people.

Angela Merkel and her government full of rabid liberals, have decided that they’d like to raise the pitch and tempo of their agenda of increasing mass migration, to the next level. Now they want to actively data-mine Facebook so that they can track you down if you disagree with the mass migration plan.

Germany is probably one of the worst places in Europe to live, if you care about ethnic genetic interests in any sense of the term.

Merkel has found a perfect partner in crime in Zuckerberg, since Zuckerberg’s politics are almost exactly identical to Merkel’s.

Quite seriously. And it shouldn’t be surprising.

There is an amicable relationship between Facebook and German liberalism.

See here:

City AM – Business with Personality, ‘EU refugee crisis: Facebook to cooperate with Germany to clamp down on racist and anti-refugee hate speech’, 15 Sep 2015:

Facebook has promised to help the German government tackle a wave of online hate speech in the wake of the ongoing refugee crisis, responding to criticism that it’s failed to do its part.

The social network has come under fire for being too slow in removing xenophobic content from its platform, even when reported, as German justice minister Heiko Maas wrote in a letter to the company:

“Facebook users are, in particular, complaining increasingly that your company is not effectively stopping racist ‘posts’ and comments despite their pointing out concrete examples.”

The company now promises to do better. To that end, it’ll be working together with Germany’s ministry of defence and internet service providers in the country to create a new hate speech task force, according to reports in the Wall Street Journal.

There won’t be any changes in policy on what types of content are forbidden, rather, Facebook simply promises to become better at dealing with illegal content more efficiently, as Heiko Maas said to the newspaper:

“The idea is to better identify content that is against the law and remove it faster from the web.”

Germany expects to see some 800,000 refugees apply for asylum this year, as the country’s asylum system outstrips all other European countries by far. But alongside solidarity movements like #refugeeswelcome, this has also brought on a backlash of xenophobia.

This is not unprecedented, given that Facebook has always had a very disdainful view of its users.

Recall from back in 2010:

Business Insider, ‘Well, These New Zuckerberg IMs Won’t Help Facebook’s Privacy Problems’, 14 May 2010:

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and his company are suddenly facing a big new round of scrutiny and criticism about their cavalier attitude toward user privacy. An early instant messenger exchange Mark had with a college friend won’t help put these concerns to rest.

According to SAI sources, the following exchange is between a 19-year-old Mark Zuckerberg and a friend shortly after Mark launched The Facebook in his dorm room:

Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard

Zuck: Just ask.

Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS

[Redacted Friend’s Name]: What? How’d you manage that one?

Zuck: People just submitted it.

Zuck: I don’t know why.

Zuck: They “trust me”

Zuck: Dumb fucks.

Brutal.

[…]

I don’t know how many times I’ve had to tell people this, but if you give your personal information to Facebook, you are basically out of your mind. If you give your personal information to Facebook while making posts on Facebook that German liberals do not like, then you are even more out of your mind.

People need to stop giving personally indentifiable information to Facebook. Just stop giving it to them.

I present this article for the purpose of driving that point home to anyone who is still having doubts about this. Just stop giving it to them. – Kumiko

 Posted by Legatus on Wed, 16 Sep 2015 10:35 | #

This is who the Germans have hired to monitor comments on German facebook. Anette (((Kahane))) was an agent for Stasi for 8 years. She regularly informed on other German citizens for the communist authority. Now she is a professional “anti-racist” activist, pushing mass immigration from the 3rd world to Europe.

http://www.friatider.se/stasiveteran-ska-sk-ta-censuren-t-facebook

2

 Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:17 | #

Wow.

That is amazing, Legatus, that is absolutely stunning. They really have no limits whatsoever.

 Posted by Lawrence Burns on Fri, 08 Sep 2017 15:54 | #

        Prosecuted for Facebook posts
        
He was also prosecuted for making a racist speech at a memorial demonstration for American white separatist leader David Lane.

Western Spring, “How To Feel Good”, 7 Sept 2017:

Jez Turner writes,

Below are the words of a recent letter from twenty-four year old Lawrence Burns, who is currently serving a four year sentence in an English prison.

For what, you may ask?

He wouldn’t be sentenced to as much as four years if he had committed fraud, robbery, burglary, rape or stabbed someone – or even if he had committed all of these at the same time! But he didn’t do any of those things — he did something worse, far, far worse in the eyes of our enemies — he shared politically incorrect thoughts on his facebook page. He laughed at the regime. Yes, he’s a ‘thought criminal’, and he is one of many.

Liberals pour scorn on the historical period of European culture known as ‘The Middle Ages’ by writing it off as a time when ‘life was nasty, brutish and short’ and saying that the best philosophy it could offer was ‘Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die!’.  And yet, what does liberalism offer?  ‘Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we go to the gulag!’ perhaps? For what have liberalism, Marxism and materialism ever given us of any lasting value?

Those who adhere to such things have never understood the importance of community, of tradition, of culture, of custom, of religion, of chivalry, of nobility and honour, of identity, of belonging and becoming, which is why they are not averse to destroying such things. And yet those Jews who sometimes brag about directing such destruction, understand completely.  And we White Nationalists, call us what you will, also understand, perfectly!

Both sides understand the importance of such things, which is why one side wants to destroy such things, while the other side wants to preserve and enhance them.  The mass of people in the middle do not understand – at least consciously, but the best of them are beginning to.  And when they do they will find the reason to truly live again, not just exist as they do now – shopping and consuming and drinking and watching television – but to live, really live, to be really alive.  For then, they will have a reason to live and a cause to fight for, and if necessary die for!

“Hello Jez,

I thought I’d write to say ‘hello’ to you and all the others, and to say that almost seven months into my sentence, I can still say that taking up the nationalist cnationalist causeause was the best choice of my life!

Being an active nationalist is like living in a different world to the decadent and empty one around us. One has a circle of loyal friends and associates of a diverse range of backgrounds and occupations, yet who share a bond based on their higher values and love of nation.

Being part of this community allows one to live by such noble values as honour, love, duty, loyalty, brotherhood and courage, and through their adherence to these values, to find meaning and a higher purpose in life, which this selfish, individualistic, materialistic, ‘zombified’ modern world cannot provide.

Those of this corrupt world will twist what I’m saying around, and say instead ‘You have been brainwashed’, ‘These extremists are not your friends – they are just using you’, ‘You should be watching TV, getting drunk, spending money and having fun instead’.

How little they know! These people could never grasp the fact that others do not share their enthusiasm for their way of life.  Blinded by the illusions sent by hell, driven by greed, lust and the pursuit of a mirage they have turned their backs on reality.

The idea that there could be anything in the world more important than themselves seems unthinkable to them.  Their mantras of ‘humanity’, ‘equality’ and ‘individual liberty’ only serve to make them feel better and righteous in their lack of culture and values. They can’t even understand love anymore, all that is left if the perverse animal drive, which they have ennobled in its place.

Family to them is an inconvenience, a burden.  Instead of raising a healthy family in the traditions of their people, they spend their time partying, getting drunk, taking drugs, and indulging in perverse, loveless sex, and to excuse themselves they have declared the family ‘an outdated social construct’.  Women should not marry and raise children they say.  They should instead pursue meaningless careers, and enjoy themselves with different men every weekend, and if they get pregnant, they can save themselves the hassle of raising children by having abortions.  Family life is slavery, they will be much happier serving the needs of mass commerce.

They scoff at tradition.  They think they know more than all of their ancestors put together. Fools!  Take away all the technology they inherited and see how long they will last!

They laugh at the thought of a creator of the universe, whose ever-present laws apply to us all. The integrated community, perfect symmetry and innate beauty of the universe and of all creations in it, not to mention consciousness itself, is all an accident of nature, all this just happened to create itself out of a chance mixture of matter, without any intelligent plan or design.  There is no divine plan for mankind, other than to serve the economy and be a slave to their own petty passions.

They denounce Europeans who feel an affinity for their own kind. We are just ‘hate-filled racists’, and ‘race is just a social construct’.  There are no races and different cultures in their world, only rootless individuals and their profitable ignorance and selfishness. To them, it is right and just to pursue riches at the expense of others, but its wrong to care about those with whom we share ethnic and cultural bonds – -if you’re of European descent that is.

They deny us the right to our inheritance and our own homelands.  They impose ‘multiculturalism’ onto our communities, subvert and slander all traditional institutions, and spread, like a disease, their perverse, corrupt way of life, devoid of all that makes life worth living, and they isolate, slander and persecute those of us who still value identity, culture, tradition and community.  And they still believe that their ‘Prevent Strategy’ will persuade ‘the extremists’, i.e. those who believe in something greater than their profane values, to simply give up their healthy values, their identities, and to betray their friends and families and to conform to their meaningless, empty, sick world.

Their efforts are in vain! In their ignorance, they will never understand people like us, or even the very idea that there is much more to life than money and hedonism. They cannot grasp the notion of culture and identity, as they have none, and this is why they will never be able to defeat us.

Their world offers us nothing, for it has negated all that we hold sacred: love, honour, identity, friendship, loyalty, tradition and order. Their world is in chaos, while our world is one of the last bastions of sanity. In our struggle, one will find meaning, purpose, true friendship, support and a world in which he can live by noble values, develop his character and be around other virtuous people, and find fulfilment in life knowing that all he holds sacred will live on long after he is gone.  It is in discovering his roots, and taking up the struggle for his people that one becomes a man.  Expensive clothes, partying, money and social capital gained through conformity to the current fashions do not make a man.  True manhood is measured by fighting for a noble cause with honour and courage, and through one’s capacity and willingness to endure hardship, persecution and public condemnation, while all the time remaining above the decadence of the world.  And what could be a more worthy and righteous cause than the moral regeneration, freedom and prosperity of one’s nation in line with divine law?

Our enemies can never take this away from us.  If they put a man in prison for defending his family, he is not going to regret defending his family and ‘change his ways’. Likewise as I sit writing this from my prison cell, I am not going to cease defending what I hold sacred.  This sounds as ridiculous to their ignorant minds, as their expectation that I might even consider doing otherwise sounds to me.

Doing the right and honourable thing in this corrupt world is worth all the persecution and hardships it brings. The condemnation of traitors and lowlifes does not bother me, for I stand before a higher judge, who has a much different view to theirs. I would not swap this life for anything in the world, for nothing beats it and nothing will beat me either. I would choose a hard life where honour, love, kinship, community and tradition still have meaning, over ‘an easy life’ of conformity to this empty, meaningless, sterile society any day!

They cannot extinguish this most beautiful and holy flame of tradition. Despite all their efforts, it will only endure throughout the ages guiding all generations of our people, and it will burn ever brighter the more they put us to the test.  And this is why, in the end, we will win, even if the world around us goes under, we will remain strong, standing among the ruins, for God is with us and as long as we are with him, our victory is as assured as the sunrise in the morning.”

Lawrence Burns (Preston Prison,  6th July 2017)


Let us read what Lawrence Burns has to say.

It is nominally addressed to me, but through it Lawrence wishes to address you all. – Jez

I’m not certain of the details of Burns case. In cursory inspection, I see that he’s accused of promoting Hitler and announcing genocidal intent – which is not a good idea; not that he should get anything like four years hard time; hopefully he will settle on a different advocacy strategy and be freed of this sentence. DanielS

Posted by Dr. Aleksandr Kogan on Sun, 18 Mar 2018 00:32 | #

Kogan (Russian: Ко́ган) is a Russian version of the Jewish surname Cohen, which denotes the descendants of the high priests of ancient Israel.

Varsity, 17 Mar 2018:

“Who is Dr Aleksandr Kogan, the Cambridge academic accused of misusing Facebook data?”

Everything we know about the neuroscientist who has been banned by the social media giant for passing on millions of users’ data.


A photo of Kogan from the University’s website
University of Cambridge

by Louis Ashworth Follow Louis Ashworth on Twitter & Todd Gillespie Follow Todd Gillespie on Twitter

Dr Aleksandr “Alex” Kogan, a University lecturer at the Department of Psychology, has been thrust into the limelight after he was banned from Facebook for improper use of data.

A multi-organisation investigation lead by revelations from a whistleblower who assisted Kogan at the data-analysis and influence firm Cambridge Analytica has alleged that the Cambridge academic developed tools to analyse and influence the behaviour of Facebook users. The whistleblower, Christopher Wylie, has suggested that Kogan’s tolls may have helped Cambridge Analytica influence the outcome of the 2016 US election.

Kogan was born in Moldova, and moved the United States at the age of seven. He studied at the University of California, Berkeley, and in Hong Kong before joining the University of Cambridge as a lecturer in psychology and psychometrics.

His listed interests are behavioural analysis, cross-sectional and cohort studies, and electrophysiological recording techniques. The most recent publication on his University profile is “The role of positive self-evaluation on cross-cultural differences in well-being”, from 2015.

After getting married in Singapore, Kogan was temporarily known as Aleksandr Spectre, as he is called on an outdated profile on the University’s website.

German periodical Das Magazin reported that, in 2014, Kogan approached another Cambridge academic, Dr Michael Kosinski, who had been developing behavioural models based on users’ social media interests. Kogan allegedly expressed an interest in accessing information from ‘MyPersonality’, an app Kosinski had helped develop.

Kosinski, who is part of the Psychometrics Centre, based at Judge Business School, grew uncomfortable with Kogan’s connection to the firm SLC, which controls Cambridge Analytica, and distanced himself from Kogan. Das Magazin claims the University feared reputational damage through its association to the organisation.

Kogan is also an associate professor at the St Petersburg University – a fact his Cambridge colleagues, aside from the head of the Department of Psychology, were not told, according to The Guardian/Observer. In this position, he received funding from the Russian government to study ‘Stress, health and psychological wellbeing in social networks’.

Kogan’s company, Global Science Research (GSR), was behind the app, ‘thisisyourdigitallife’, which harvested the data of tens of millions of Facebook users which was then passed on to Cambridge Analytica. According to Wylie, hundreds of thousands of Facebook users took personality tests with the app. In doing so, users consented to their data being collected for academic use.

But the app also collected the personal information of test-takers’ Facebook friends, thus racking up data on tens of millions of users, which was accessible to Cambridge Analytica. This contravened the social network’s ‘platform policy’ which banned the collection of friends’ data for any reasons aside from improving user experience.

In May 2014, Kogan set up GSR along with former University of Cambridge postdoctoral researcher, Joseph Chancellor. The pair initially registered the company’s address at Cory House, postgraduate accomodation at Magdalene College, Cambridge.

Alexander Slinger, a graduate of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, was appointed as a director of GSR in August 2014, alongside Kogan and Chancellor. Chancellor resigned from GSR in September 2015, and Slinger in May 2016. The company was formally dissolved on 31 October 2017.

Chancellor now works on Facebook’s User Experience Research team. In 2017, Facebook told the investigative news outlet The Intercept that Chancellor’s work at GSR “has no bearing on the work that he does at Facebook”.

Kogan and Slinger were also both listed as directors of Euler Group Limited, a company which existed from February to October 2016. According to Slinger’s LinkedIn, he now works for finance company Arrow Global.

In early 2015, Kogan spoke at the Cambridge Science Festival, under the title: “What your Facebook says about you”. Video of the event is not available, but in an interview with the festival’s organisers, which has been removed from the University’s website, Kogan answered the question “What does your Facebook say about you?”.

“Trick question!” he said, “It probably doesn’t say much about you personally, but it can shine a great deal of light on human nature and social processes in general. But to find out more, you’ll have to come to the talk”.


14

 Posted by Cambridge Analytica on Tue, 20 Mar 2018 15:58 | #

Best Documentary yet on the Cambridge Analytica scandal:

Cambridge Analytica Uncovered: Secret filming reveals election tricks

So there you have it, democracy, data and dirty tricks: the self proclaimed digital masterminds (Cambridge Analytica) who may have swayed an American election….

Posted by Novice in charge of Faceberg data security on Thu, 22 Mar 2018 00:23 | #


Posted by Facebook users/data still not deleted on Thu, 29 Mar 2018 10:17 | #

 Posted by German cleaning woman fined 4criticizing migrants on Sun, 29 Jul 2018 00:07 | #

Facebook, “German woman receives large fine for criticising refugees on Facebook”,

Heiko Barth / shutterstock.com

A German cleaning lady received a fine of 1,650 euros for criticising refugees and the country’s asylum policy, news outlet Wochenblick reports.

The woman commit her ‘Orwellian thought crime’ on Facebook, as she said this about refugees:

“Sh*t on the state, steal from people, rape, swirling the eggs, demand money from us and sue the state. That’s what they can. They’re more valuable than gold, our super-skilled people.”

The cleaning lady’s plea for help to the German judiciary was not heard. On the contrary, the district court of Dachau fined the cleaning woman because of “sedition” (§ 130 StGB).

She was given a 1,650 euro fine, as the court’s opinion was that her comment against refugees “scared people”.

Germany’s ‘thought police’ uncovered the case after receiving a message from the State Criminal Police Office (LKA) of North Rhine-Westphalia.

Posted by Zuckerberg & 50 million Schmucks on Fri, 05 Oct 2018 11:22 | #

(((Sympathetic profile))) of Zuckerberg

50 million Facebook accounts compromised

        

Posted by (((WhatsApp)))? on Tue, 14 May 2019 17:39 | #

WhatsApp Exposed as Israeli Spyware Platform

New Observer 14 May 2019:

The popular instant messaging system WhatsApp—owned by Facebook—has been revealed as an Israeli spyware platform using malicious code from the Jews-only state’s infamous NSO Group, according to a report in the Financial Times.

According to the FT, the security breach in WhatsApp—which is used by 1.5 billion people worldwide—was discovered in May this year. Hackers install surveillance software on iPhones and Android phones by ringing up targets using the app’s phone call function.

“The malicious code, developed by the secretive Israeli company NSO Group, could be transmitted even if users did not answer their phones, and the calls often disappeared from call logs,” the FT reported.

NSO’s flagship product is Pegasus, a program that can turn on a phone’s microphone and camera, trawl through emails and messages and collect location data. NSO advertises its products to Middle Eastern and western intelligence agencies, and says Pegasus is intended for governments to fight terrorism and crime.

In the past, human rights campaigners in the Middle East have received text messages over WhatsApp that contained links that would download Pegasus to their phones.

WhatsApp said teams of engineers had worked around the clock in San Francisco and London to close the vulnerability. It began rolling out a fix to its servers on Friday last week, WhatsApp said, and issued a patch for customers on Monday.

“This attack has all the hallmarks of a private company known to work with governments to deliver spyware that reportedly takes over the functions of mobile phone operating systems,” the company said.

WhatsApp disclosed the issue to the US Department of Justice last week, the report continued.

Amnesty International, which identified an attempt to hack into the phone of one its researchers, is backing a group of Israeli citizens and civil rights group in a filing in Tel Aviv asking the defence ministry to cancel NSO’s export licence.

“NSO Group sells its products to governments who are known for outrageous human rights abuses, giving them the tools to track activists and critics. The attack on Amnesty International was the final straw,” said Danna Ingleton, deputy director of Amnesty Tech.

[…]

The WhatsApp vulnerability is a buffer overflow weakness, enabling malicious code to be inserted into data packets sent during the process of starting a voice call. When the data is received, WhatsApp’s internal buffer is forced to overflow, overwriting other parts of the app’s memory, and control is given over to the application.


23

 Posted by Facebook maybe more dangerous than WallStreet on Thu, 27 Jun 2019 04:02 | #

Facebook May Pose a Greater Danger Than Wall Street

The Alternative-Right’s big tent, would additionally include the Jews for some unknown reason.

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Friday, 13 November 2015 12:10.

Guess which one of these is applicable to Colin Liddell.

The situation

It is said that one does not always have the luxury of being able to choose where one is sent to fight. What first started out as a criticism carried out by Colin Liddell at the Alternative-Right against Andrew Anglin’s Daily Stormer, has morphed into something completely different, because of one line—one truly breathtaking sentence fragment—that Liddell tried to slide past the readers:

Colin Liddell / Alternative-Right, ‘Joining the Dots on Andrew Anglin’, 08 Nov 2015 (emphasis added):

As for the palatability of Streicher-esque anti-Semitism, it is certainly palatable for many White Nationalists – indeed in-itself it hardly bothers me as history is full of unsavoury characters and I rather like history – but for other Whites, not to mention those Jews who might want to identify as Whites and help our cause (and there are some), it is certainly a different story.

Amazing. Apparently, Colin Liddell is okay with allowing the Jews to form the intellectual equivalent of a forward operating base which would of course be geared entirely toward sabotage, behind the lines of ethno-nationalist movements.

It’s one of the most breathtaking things I’ve ever seen from a European ethno-nationalist, ever.

Now, Majorityrights contributors don’t like the Daily Stormer, and our platform differs significantly. I am not defending the Daily Stormer, I have no interest in that, since I disagree with them on almost everything. However, for Colin Liddell to say that there are Jews out there who want to identify as whites and ‘help’, that is a truly stunning statement. In reality, there are no Jewish groups that have any interest in helping European ethno-nationalists. That is a phenomenon which absolutely does not exist anywhere.

Why should any ethno-nationalist want to give space for Jews to enter a movement that they have been historically hostile toward and are hostile toward even today? It’s impossible to understand it. Everyone has criticisms of the Daily Stormer and negative comments to make about the viability of Andrew Anglin’s approach, but if the criticism is coming from an angle that is beneficial to the Jewish lobby, then that cannot and should not be accepted.

Excuses, excuses

Many people, including Colin Liddell himself apparently believe that Jews in Europe can be courted as allies because of a perception that the Jews would be antagonistic toward the influx of Muslims and the threat of radical Islam that accompanies it. Here at Majorityrights we take the threat of the Islamisation of Europe very seriously and see it as one of the major problems of the era, a generational conflict that will continue.

However, we do not believe that the Jews can be a real ally in that conflict.

Why do we not believe that? It’s because the Jewish position is one where they would like to avoid having terrorists menacing them in their neighbourhoods in Europe, but Jewish civic groups also have no problem whatsoever balancing their concern about that against their other concern which is to avoid having an environment where a single culture predominates in the continent.

See here:

World Jewish Congress, ‘Jewish and Muslim leaders urge European Union heads not to pander to extreme-right’, 30 May 2011 (emphasis added):

In Brussels, leaders of Islamic and Jewish communities from several European countries today presented a joint declaration to the presidents of the three main European Union institutions. Ahead of a meeting of European religious leaders representing all major faiths in Europe, Bosnian Grand Mufti Mustafa Ceric and Brussels Chief Rabbi Albert Guigui handed the document on behalf of the 33 signatories to Commission President José Manuel Barroso, European Parliament President Jerzy Buzek and European Council President Herman Van Rompuy.

The declaration stresses that “Jews and Muslims live side-by-side in every European country and our two communities are important components of Europe’s religious, cultural and social tapestry. Both Muslims and Jews have deep roots and historical experience on this continent.” It raises concern about “increasing manifestations of Islamophobia (anti-Muslim bigotry) and anti-Semitism in countries across Europe.”

The joint declaration goes on to say: “Bigotry against any Jew or any Muslim is an attack on all Muslims and all Jews. We are united in our belief in the dignity of all peoples” and urges “all Europeans of conscience to put a stop to any group that espouses racist or xenophobic ideologies long before they are in a position to gain legislative or other power. We must never allow anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, xenophobia or racism to become respectable in today’s Europe. In that regard, we call upon all political leaders not to pander to these groups by echoing their rhetoric.”

The signatories also declared: “We remember together the horrors that took place on this continent in the 1940s – a campaign of mass murder, unique in history, which resulted in the annihilation of one third of world Jewry in the Holocaust. That atrocity and others, such as the mass killing of Muslim civilians in Bosnia-Herzegovina during the 1990s, resulted from the triumph of racist and xenophobic ideologies that demonized those that they targeted.”

This Europe-wide interfaith initiative – the first of its kind – was set in motion last December with the first Gathering of European Muslim and Jewish Leaders in Brussels. It is modelled on a similar cooperative effort in the United States organized by the Foundation for Ethnic Understanding. Co-sponsors are the European Jewish Congress, the FFEU, the Muslim Jewish Conference the World Council of Muslims for Interfaith Relations and the World Jewish Congress.

What kind of activities might be necessary in order to make sure that Muslims and Jews would both end up on the same page in that regard? They would have to schedule some kind of symposiums in which the Jewish cultural critics would brief their Muslim counterparts on what works against Europeans and what does not work, and the Jews would have to begin some kind of outreach to so-called European Muslims so that an understanding could be reached, right?

Well, here’s an example of that:

International Council of Jewish Women, ‘2nd European Muslim-Jewish Symposium’, 05 Sep 2012 (emphasis added):

[…]

BEST PRACTICES: A EUROPEAN JEWISH MUSLIM DIALOGUE
Jewish as well as Muslim Authorities from Serbia, United Kingdom, France, Germany and Sweden were heard. Several speakers explained the efficiency of their strategies to fight extremism. In Germany where many neo-Nazis groups are violent, the Jews will help the (Turks) Muslims to be heard. They speak out together to defend their rights especially on the important subjects of circumcision, ritual slaughtering, at the government. They want to be sure that their children go through the right path. Their relations as well as their cooperation are excellent and they want to make it official. In United Kingdom, where anti-Muslim bigotry is strong, the extreme right aggravates tensions in promoting hatred and violence in the Muslim districts. Jews will enhance the role of the Muslim righteous who saved Jews during the Holocaust; A conference of British Imams and Rabbis work together productively with the ministries on the field.

The most remarkable step greeted by the participants was the case story of the creation by Rabbi Michel Serfaty of Amitié Judéo Musulmane de France with his partners and his Muslim co-chair Scherazade Zerouala for the Paris district: the bus of Friendship between Jews and Muslims has since 2007 crisscrossed the French towns and suburbs with local press conferences. The most efficient means to fight against discriminations and prejudices are Jews and Muslims involved to speak out together and “SAY NO TO HATRED”. Ignorance, fear and contempt breed violence, and that is the way to face it. This action carried on for 9 years, going on round France 8 times, with 10 people, and 15 sub-branches in the country was a challenge: mostly to build a united front to make a correct presentation of the Jew and the Muslim in our work with children and their mothers.

[…]

Jewish lobby groups are triangulating, they are positioning themselves so that in the case where Muslim groups become the largest share of all ethno-religious minority groups in the European Union, they would be ready for that scenario, and could survive in it.

Jews and Muslims are right now in ‘the season of twinning’, and what a time for them to have chosen to do that! See here:

Foundation for Ethnic Understanding, ‘FFEU’s 8th Annual Global Season of Twinning’, 01 Oct 2015 (emphasis added):

In the face of escalating sectarian violence and increasing expressions of Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry across North America, Europe and around the world, thousands of Muslims and Jews will be coming together in scores of cities around the globe to declare: We Refuse to Be Enemies.

We Refuse to be Enemies is the theme of the 8th Annual Season of Twinning, which every November and December brings together Muslims and Jews – and people of other faiths as well – to hold joint events focused on educating communities about one other, working together on behalf of people in need and standing together against bigotry.

The Season of Twinning officially kicks-off on Sunday, November 1 with an Interfaith rally in Trenton, NJ, to be followed by events in Washington, New York, Detroit, Los Angeles, London, Paris, Brussels, Tel Aviv Rabat, Morocco, and scores of other cities in nearly 20 countries around the world. There have already been several events associated with the Season of Twinning over the past several weeks, including an inspiring Interfaith Peace Walk in Melbourne, Australia and a Surfers for Peace aquatic manifestation by Jewish and Muslim surfers off the beach in Biarritz, France.

The Season of Twinning was initiated in 2008 by the Foundation for Ethnic Understanding (FFEU) – a New York-based nonprofit organization dedicated to building a global movement of Muslims and Jews focused on strengthening ties between our communities.

“In the face of multiple crises now roiling Muslims and Jews in the Middle East and around the world and of increasing efforts by demagogues and extremists to incite our communities against each other, it is more critical than ever that Muslims and Jews come out in public to say ‘We Refuse to Be Enemies,’” said FFEU President Rabbi Marc Schneier. “We can agree to disagree respectfully on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict while resolving to build ties of communication and cooperation for the betterment of both communities and the larger communities in which we live side by side.”

[…]

Quelle surprise! The Jews want to have an amicable relationship with the Muslims. They want to explore the possibility of continuing to undermine the European Union together, while they leave the disagreement about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the Levant.

Anyone who understands the strategies that have been used by Jews when dealing with Muslims in the past, should actually not be surprised by any of this. This kind of political manoeuvring has happened in the past:

Jewish History, ‘710 – 719’ (emphasis added):

711 July 19, TARIK IBN ZIYAD (Spain)
A Moslem general. He defeated King Roderick, the last of the Visigoth kings, at the Battle of Rio Barbate (Guadalete) near Xeres de la Frontera. The Jews backed [Tarik ibn Zayid] in his battles. After each city was conquered (Cordova, Granada, Malaga), Jews were often given positions of safeguarding Moslem interests. One of his generals, Kaula al Yahudi, had many Jews under his command.

712 March, TOLEDO (Spain)
The Jewish inhabitants opened the gates for the Moslem invaders under Tarik ibn Zayid marking the end of Visigothic rule in Spain and the beginning of 150 years of peace. Thus began what was known as the Golden Age of Spain. The Iberian caliphate was independent of Baghdad and encouraged the flowering of Spanish-Jewish culture at the same time that it was being suppressed by the Baghdad caliphate.

‘150 years of peace’. Also known as ‘150 years Arab Muslims raping and killing the Europeans’.

Why do the Jews seek a situation where one culture cannot dominate? Why do they want to flood your countries with hostile migrants? The answer is less complicated than you might think:

Rabbi Doug Kahn / Jweekly, ‘The wisdom of Earl Raab — at 90’, 26 Mar 2009 (emphasis added):

When Earl Raab served as executive director of the Jewish Community Relations Council, he posted in his office an article citing a study that concluded that cigar smokers have a longer life expectancy than non-smokers.

One might wonder about the credibility of the study — but Earl turns 90 next week. His cigar-smoking days are behind him, and the Underwood Noiseless typewriter, on which he banged out hundreds of articles and uncommon wisdom for this paper, is in mothballs.

But Earl and his fertile mind continue to go strong.

Although he retired more than 20 years ago, his influence endures. A man of great humility, who claimed to be the national ping pong champion of the Galapagos Islands during World War II, Earl shaped the field of Jewish community relations nationally.

His genius was to recognize in San Francisco an extraordinary laboratory for studying and shaping the Jewish community at large — which he wrote about in an October 1950 piece for Commentary magazine. He had come to San Francisco on assignment from his and Kassie’s farm in Maine and decided never to leave.

In the “From the American Scene” column, Earl wrote a piece titled “There’s No City Like San Francisco.” In it, he wrote: “There are 55,000 Jews in San Francisco, and not even the historic traces of a ghetto. There is a Jewish community that has been called, with reason, the wealthiest, per capita, in the country. There is at the same time a startling poverty of ant-Semitic tradition. San Francisco, for cities of its size, is the nation’s ‘white spot’ of anti-Jewish prejudice… So far as the city and its institutions are concerned, the Jew is a first-class citizen. It may well be that he can live in San Francisco with a greater degree of personal dignity than in any other large city in the country.”

Raabisms will long endure at S.F.-based JCRC, among them: “A certain kind of America” (the idea that American Jews and other minorities are most secure when democratic institutions are strong) and “An educable moment” (Earl’s way of explaining why a bad thing happens to a good community and how to turn it into an opportunity).

[…]

In 1993 Earl Raab also wrote:

Earl Raab / San Francisco Jewish Bulletin, 23 Jul 1993:

We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country. We have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make our constitutional constraints against bigotry more practical than ever.

That is a positive feedback loop. As the level of heterogeneity increases, so increases the adherence to constraints against ‘bigotry’ for the sake of civil concordance under liberalism. Those constraints then make it more difficult for anyone to make arguments in favour of taking action against further increases in heterogeneity, which then results in a ‘requirement’ for more constraints against ‘bigotry’, and so on.

The same plan is on the agenda for Europe. It’s crucial for everyone to understand that this is what their intention is. There are no compromises or negotiations that can be had with the Jews. It is what it is.

Only pretending to be retarded

Later on, a torrent of criticism was poured in Liddell’s direction from Daily Stormer and from every other angle, because despite all the differences that may exist between the strands of ethno-nationalist thought in the North Atlantic, most people seem to agree that the Jews are not to be underestimated.

Colin Liddell reacted by effectively claiming that he was only pretending to be retarded, and that they were allegedly trying to troll the Daily Stormer by partially imitating its writing style and extreme rhetoric.

See here:

Colin Liddell / Alternative-Right, ‘White Surviv(irl) or Auschwitz of the Internet?’, 11 Nov 2015 (emphasis added):

First off, let’s deal with my previous article, as it managed to trick most people. It was—in case you hadn’t realized—a deferential tribute to the actual style of The Daily Stormer.

This came off as particularly hollow in the context of the Jewish Question, given that when I asked Colin Liddell about whether he still stood by his earlier statements on alliances with Jews, he said that he still stood by those statements, as you can see from the comments sections.

So it was not a pretence of any sort. It’s more like Liddell’s follow-up post was a form of damage control after he had made a spectacular misstep and didn’t want to back down from it.

Greg Johnson of Counter-Currents however seems to have taken the claim of pretence at face value, without addressing the Jewish Question, and so he responded to Liddell, saying:

Greg Johnson, ‘White Surviv(irl) or Auschwitz of the Internet?’, Disqus comment 2353921213, 11 Nov 2015 18:37:

Well I’m relieved. I took your last article as in earnest and regarded it as a serious lapse by an otherwise sound writer, not as a parody of Anglin himself.

This is really surprising to me. Was he not aware of what Liddell was saying just earlier? The things that Liddell had said, are really 180 degrees contrary to the clearly-articulated and laudable stances that I had come to associate with Johnson. For example, a while ago, Greg Johnson ran this really good article at Counter-Currents:

Greg Johnson / Current-Currents, ‘Reframing the Jewish Question’, 27 Oct 2015 (emphasis added):

[…]

Some nationalists pursue these questions, but others choose to abstain, merely advocating ethnonationalism but not touching the “J.Q.”

I wish to suggest that this framing of the Jewish question is entirely wrong. The Jewish question is not something distinct from ethnonationalism. It is not a separate, higher-order, entirely optional set of questions from which ethnonationalists can recuse themselves. On the contrary, the Jewish question is a simple, straightforward application of the basic principle of ethnonationalism.

If ethnonationalism calls for the replacement of multicultural societies with monocultural ones, then Jews, as a distinct people, belong in their own homeland and not scattered among other nations. Thus if England is to be English, Sweden to be Swedish, Ireland to be Irish, alien populations need to be repatriated to their own homelands, Jews included. That is the ethnonationalist answer to the Jewish question.

[…]

That is exactly the correct stance there.

But that is exactly the opposite of what Colin Liddell was calling for on 08 Nov 2015. Since Colin Liddell thinks that Jews should be part of European ethno-nationalist groups, whereas Greg Johnson clearly visualises a future in which Jews would not be inside the European continent. Quite clearly Johnson does not believe that Jews should be part of European ethno-nationalist groups, or he would not be able to come up with such an opinion.

To repeat, the reason that Greg Johnson is able to conceptualise a future in which Jews are not in Europe, is because he does not see them as part of the European ethno-nationalist advocacy group.

How then can Johnson be okay with Liddell, given that from Johnson’s perspective, Colin Liddell would be doing ethno-nationalism precisely wrong? This looks like a clear contradiction.

In fact, Johnson went so far as to ban the commenter UH from being able to post at Counter-Currents, when UH made arguments that were quite similar to those made by Colin Liddell.

Those arguments that were made by the commenter UH, were rebutted by the commenters Verlis and Theodore, here, here, and here.

The need for consistency

The Alternative-Right has a big tent. Their big tent is completely incoherent, because it contains a whole array of people who don’t agree with each other on core issues and whose outlooks are totally irreconcilable with each other.

Majorityrights has the correct platform for the advocacy of European peoples, and their regional autonomy. It formulated this platform by firstly considering the diverse opinions of ethno-nationalists. Secondly, after a process of argumentation an authentic theory emerged, which is known as left-nationalism or national-syndicalism. Step three is to equip European peoples with these ideas which are necessary to facilitate a transition toward true ethnostates and to enter into sustainable alliances within regional frameworks.

Having an actual platform and consistently communicating that platform, is more important than trying to create the largest possible tent. The events of the past week only throw the truth of that observation into stark relief.

Kumiko Oumae works in the defence and security sector in the UK. Her opinions here are entirely her own.

 

 Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sat, 14 Nov 2015 10:28 | #

Guessedworker on Sat, 14 Nov 2015 00:29 wrote:

There is a way to accept Jews into the movement for European racial survival, which is to direct them to take the argument not to our people but to their own … to argue against the culture of critique, against the dehumanisation of our nationalism, against the immigrant boosting, against the diversity-mongering, etc

Well, we all know that they aren’t going to do that.


3

 Posted by DanielS on Sat, 14 Nov 2015 10:37 | #

..and even if a Jew is halfway helpful, its intergenerational legacy will inevitably become part of the pejorative Jewish pattern antagonistic to White and other ethnonationalism.

 Posted by Ryan on Sat, 14 Nov 2015 17:53 | #

By this policy individuals like Gilad Atzom and Israel Shamir would be barred even though they are helpful and stay at arms length.

http://renegadetribune.com/the-second-week-of-arthur-tophams-hate-speech-trial-in-canadas-supreme-court/
http://reasonradionetwork.com/20120313/the-sunic-journal-interview-with-israel-shamir

If jews want to help but at arms length then I see no issue. The same people who reject them will jump for joy when a jew makes a scathing attack on their own. Willingly giving them positions of power within a political organisation should be viewed on a individual basis.


6

 Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sat, 14 Nov 2015 22:37 | #

They can do whatever they like in Israel, sure. If they want to go there and fight the Arabs night and day, that could be interesting to watch from afar.

However, when it comes to domestic policy in Europe, or geostrategy, I see no reason why anyone should be advocating for any outreach to be done toward the Jews. I think it makes sense to actually reject people like Gilad Atzmon and Israel Shamir, just as any other Jewish person should be rejected.


7

 Posted by DanielS on Sun, 15 Nov 2015 02:00 | #

Ryan, in essence, both Atzmon and Shamir promote liberalism, which is the mindset most destructive to Whites and the mindset that has been called “suicidal” while having been promoted all along by Jews.

They fool the Whites that they do fool by being anti-Israel (anti-Zionist), i.e., by being liberal and against some of the more outrageous examples of Jewish ethnocentrism – e.g., abuse of Palestinians and extortion through holocaustianity.

With their enculturated insights into Jewish use and abuse of texts and ways they can provide clues to the essence of some significant argumentation against Jews, as Atzmon has in his observation of how Jews use the book of Esther to pre-emptively justify genocide of non-Jews.

But these arguments must be retooled if they are to serve our purposes because his aim with his argument is liberalism and liberalism for Whites, only a little more “fair” – i.e., a slower death.

Along with promoting what is worst for us (liberalism) one of the more egregious things that Atzmon does is pander to Nazi advocates, whether holocaust deniers or liberals who will pander to them, such as Dieudonné with his stupid “quenelle” – a dog whistle assimilation of the Nazi salute.

This is supposed to be liberating to Whites? It is not.

It keeps our voice marginal, side-tracked, divided and conquered.

Atzmon and Shamir are still operating in their Jewish interests, just trying not to over-do the Jewish ethno-centrism; but in effect, they fool people like David Duke and get him to promote a liberalism wherein Jews can get lost among the rest of the world’s peoples and start the parasitic cycle again.

If you look behind Paul Gottfried’s motives you will see that he is operating in Jewish interests as well.

He is one of the more clear examples of those who would argue that the problem is “THE Left.”

Like Atzmon and Shamir he knows that Jews have overdone it and is doing his best to control the opposition and mitigate their response with regard to Jews.

You need to read and take to heart the analogy of Eustace Mullins “biological Jew.” It describes by accurate analogy why individual Jews cannot be trusted and absolutely not with power and influence over our peoples. Though there are some Jews who are more virulent and ethnocentric than others, who are disseminating directives from above and compelling compliance, the rank and file Jews are a part of the same biological system. Even where Jews are better camouflaged to appear White in this instantiation, as their biology can be well camouflaged in its infamous crypsis, it will express itself as destructive to Whites, even if only more-so, in a subsequent generation. Being “liberals” and anti-Zionist are some of the guises that rank and file Jews will use to disguise themselves to ease their way and furtively engraft themselves upon the White host.

But there is no excuse to be fooled by their liberalism, as Duke and other right wingers are. When they argue against Jewish ethnocentrism they are arguing against our ethnocentrism and for our liberalism as well. That is probably the worst thing that they can do – it is the opposite of the “worse is better” scenario that we have been discussing.

Jews are not only a rule structure which is top down (though they are that too), they are also a biological system that operates from its genetics outward, functioning inter-generationally.

In that way they could potentially fool people to infiltrate our systems and destroy them.

Ryan, don’t be fooled. Take the biological Jew to heart. Look at them, experience them and watch it confirmed as truth, but they must have no citizenship or legal power among nor over us.

Note that as I write, Brother Nathanael Kapner is talking with James Edwards at “The Political Cesspool” trying to advance the idea that he has been converted from being a biological Jew (“his father and Rabbi told him as a child that he was born a Jew and will die a Jew, but he fell in love with Christianity”), that he has become “one of us” by having become a Christian (he is an Orthodox Christian) and promoting the idea that we should be Christians – i.e., liberals, universal, “undifferentiated gentile others” (as GW says), unlike the Jewish, ethnocentric ways. 


……………….
Regarding where they should be among us, the only question for any White who understands Jews is where the quarter Jews and the one eighth Jews should stand. Even with them, we need to be very careful and that is a policy discussion we need to have.


8

 Posted by melvin polatnick on Fri, 27 Nov 2015 14:34 | #

Bolshevik Jews were not against whites, but were against religion and certain types of Capitalism. Ashkenazim non-believers have no hostility toward whites, but against all religions. It would not make sense for a non-believing white nationalist to kill a non-believing Jew. Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are the enemy.


9

 Posted by DanielS on Fri, 27 Nov 2015 16:54 | #

Nope, we’re about EGI, Melvin.  …Whites and Jews are identifiable and separable by their genetics.

Still, we do not need to kill anybody unless they will not allow for our autonomy in EGI (i.,e., in self defense).

Yes, Whites with ideologies such as Christianity must be offered the provision of being a part of our nation in coordination on the condition that they will be subject to our EGI     ….a rule structure which would ultimately result in the vanquishing of their Christianity or provide for the exit of those who hold it to be more important.

 Posted by Vox Day exemplary imposter on Tue, 23 Jan 2018 08:19 | #

Without a tone of irony, the fraud that is Vox Day insinuates himself as an exemplar of the Alt-Right, ‘the genuine article’ as opposed to those “wrongly named” as representatives of the “Alternative Right” – a “movement”, the contrivance itself which he has either been tasked with or taken it upon himself to obfuscate and promulgate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-Wn0J0eC6I&t=149s

Continue Reading YKW key in opening Europe’s borders, including to Islam? Key to Imperialism?

Islam by percentage. Ripper Locations Then/Now. Juwes are not To be blamed … ..not the men To be blamed for Nothing.

  • Post author:
  • Post category:Central

By percentage Islamization of population: here’s what happens when Islam is allowed into your nation.

Islamic imposition -Jack The Ripper Location: Then and Now

Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat.

Dr. Peter Hammond with foreword by Rev Flip Benham, 8/12/2010

FrontPageMagazine.com ”Can a Good Muslim Be a Good American?”, Monday, April 21, 2008:

What Islam Isn’t!

By: Dr. Peter Hammond
_______________________________

Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life.

Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components.

Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges. When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well.

Here’s how it works:

As long as the Muslim population remains around, or under, 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens.

This is the case in:

United States—Muslim 0.6%
Australia—Muslim 1.5%
Canada—Muslim 1.9%
China—Muslim 1.8%
Italy—Muslim 1.5%
Norway—Muslim 1.8%

At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs.

This is happening in:

Denmark—Muslim 2%
Germany—Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom—Muslim 2.7%
Spain—Muslim 4%
Thailand—Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves—along with threats for failure to comply.

This is occurring in:

France—Muslim 8%
Philippines—5%
Sweden—Muslim 5%
Switzerland—Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands—Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago—Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam,  with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily,  particularly in Muslim sections in:

Guyana—Muslim 10%
India—Muslim 13.4%
Israel—Muslim 16%
Kenya—Muslim 10%
Russia—Muslim 15%

After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:

Ethiopia—Muslim 32.8%

At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:

Bosnia—Muslim 40%
Chad—Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon—Muslim 59.7%

From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:

Albania—Muslim 70%
Malaysia—Muslim 60.4%
Qatar—Muslim 77.5%
Sudan—Muslim 70%

After 80%, expect daily intimidation, violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:

Bangladesh—Muslim 83%
Egypt—Muslim 90%
Gaza—Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia—Muslim 86.1%
Iran—Muslim 98%
Iraq—Muslim 97%
Jordan—Muslim 92%
Morocco—Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan—Muslim 97%
Palestine—Muslim 99%
Syria—Muslim 90%
Tajikistan—Muslim 90%
Turkey—Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates—Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of ‘Dar-es-Salaam’—the Islamic House of Peace. Here there’s supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, the Koran the only word, as in:

Afghanistan—Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia—Muslim 100%
Somalia—Muslim 100%
Yemen—Muslim 100%

Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.

16%  – Islamic tipping point of no return:

Expert warns: The Islamisation of a country can no longer be stopped if
Muslim population reaches 16%

According to a Harvard University study, the Islamisation of a country
cannot be stopped once the Muslim population reaches 16 percent of the total
population. This is what Islam expert, Nikoletta Incze, said on 22 June, on
Hungarian public television.

Incze is a researcher at the Centre for the Study of Political Islam, a
foundation of American Islam critic Bill Warner, which is active in several
countries. The interview with the Islam expert was broadcasted as part of a morning magazine report that focuses on the spread of Islam in Europe and bears the title “Islamic Advance – Already 44 Million Believers in Europe.”

At the beginning of the conversation, Nikoletta Incze points out that many
countries that are Islamic today were originally Christian, for example
Turkey, Egypt and Syria.

In other countries as well, Islam supplanted the previous religion: Pakistan
was Hindu, Afghanistan was Buddhist, Iran was dominated by Zoroastrianism.

Mohamed and his successors subjugated these countries militarily and
Islamised them. Islamisation was a process that took centuries.

The question arises at what point it was decided that Islam would prevail in these
countries. Nikoletta Incze cites a study by Harvard University. According to her, the Islamisation of a country is already inevitable, when the proportion of Muslims of the population is about 16 percent. It will take another 100 to 150 years before the Islamisation is complete.

Currently, Nikoletta Incze sees an Islamisation of Europe. However, there is
a big difference with the Islamic expansion in the Middle Ages: at that time
one would have resisted.

Today, Muslims are treated with tolerance and acceptance instead. Treat
Islam as an equal religion ignoring political ideology

=========

The paper suggests that if migration continues at the same rate but refugee
movement stops, the UK will have the highest overall population of Muslims
in the EU, at 13m, making up 16.7 per cent of the population.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/29/muslim-population-uk-could-triple-13m-following-record-influx/

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/uk.legal/8JXXBNiAn5Y

Ripper Locations Then & Now

Deleted Youtube vid, salvaged from Wayback Machine 20 Nov 2020.

Jack The Ripper Location: Then and Now

Islamic imposition –

At 1:40 you see the site of the Mary Ann Nichols’ murder on what was then Buck’s Row, London; the image fades to the present day where, by moment 2:05, you see a Muslim woman wearing a burka and emerging from the precise spot of the ripper’s crime.

..somehow, it seems about as spooky.

…an Islamic apparition emerging from the shadows of the place of death..

Muslim woman, as if an apparition, emerges from exact place of Mary Ann Nichols grizzly death.

…

“The Juwes are not the men To be blamed for nothing”

…chalked on a Goulston Street wall near the Eddows murder.

…a bloody garment also found nearby is alleged to have DNA links to Kosminski and Eddows.

Chief Inspector Donald Swanson, who led the Ripper investigation, named the man as “Kosminski” in notes handwritten in the margin of his presentation copy of Anderson’s memoirs. He is said to have had no doubt that Kosminski was the Ripper.

A Scotland Yard re-investigation in the 1980s concurred.

A panel of experts gathered for a 1988 production agreed that Kosminski was most likely to have been Jack the Ripper:

The secret identity of Jack the Ripper

And 2014 examination of DNA evidence deepened support for the identity of Jack The Ripper as Aaron Kosminksi:

On 7 September 2014, Dr. Jari Louhelainen, an expert in historic DNA analysis, announced that he had been commissioned by British author Russell Edwards to study a shawl supposedly found with victim Catherine Eddowes and that he had extracted mitochondrial DNA that matches female line descendants of Eddowes, and mitochondrial DNA that matches female line descendants of Kosminski’s sister from the shawl. Louhelainen stated that “The first strand of DNA showed a 99.2 percent match, as the analysis instrument could not determine the sequence of the missing 0.8 percent fragment of DNA. On testing the second strand, we achieved a perfect 100 percent match.”

Bitchute has this segment of a documentary which focuses on Kosminski as the Ripper.

(((Aaron Kosminski's Grave)))

Muslim apparition in Britain…

For several reasons, Britain has long been the “sick man” of European Nationalism. Aside from the British National Party’s string of local and European election victories prior to its spectacular electoral collapse of 2010, the story of British ethno-populism has, even in its earliest incarnations, largely been one of under-performance. Setting aside my own arguments and theories as to why this has been the case, one is astounded and horrified at the transformation that Britain is being subjected to. The Office for National Statistics has documented that between 2001 and 2009 the non-indigenous population of England and Wales increased by 37.4%. The mixed-race population increased in same period by nearly 50%. As of 2014, the non-indigenous population of Britain accounts for 80% of its population growth, with White births accounting for just 16.5% of the total in West Birmingham. White decline in Britain, as in much of the West, is not a putative future event — it is a contemporary crisis, an extinction in progress.

Despite media silence, Britain faces several existential threats. The character of the nation is currently under severe threat from Muslim immigration. The UK Muslim population is increasing rapidly and Britons are concerned. In 2003 a British Social Attitudes (BSA) survey highlighted that 48 per cent of the native British were concerned that an increase in the Muslim population would weaken Britain’s national identity. By 2013 that figure had risen to 62 per cent. Before and since the latest survey, the country has been rocked by the side effects of this population increase — Islamic terror, Muslim grooming gangs that have subjected thousands of indigenous British girls to rape and violence, the ‘Trojan Horse’ phenomenon where Muslim hardliners attempted to take over city schools, and the fact that a 2011 study showed that 21.3% of Muslims living in Britain have never worked. Muslims, together with Britain’s other ethnic minorities consume a disproportionate amount of welfare and tax credits, even relative to their swelling population. – From TOO

Anne Marie Waters ambushed by Antifa in London when about a White Chapel Ripper tour.

Catherine Eddows mutilated body discovered in Mitre square, along with her bloody shawl and cryptic message nearby: "The Juwes are not the men To be blamed for nothing" ...this was the second murder attributed to Jack the Ripper on 30 September 1888, the night of "the double event" - Elizabeth Stride was first and only spared a less grizzly end, as the Ripper was apparently scared away before he could finish his blood lust, which he sated with the Eddows murder and Lusk letter.

From Hell

Letter from Hell

The letter reads:[11]

From hell.

Mr Lusk,
Sor
I send you half the Kidne I took from one women prasarved it for you tother piece I fried and ate it was very nise. I may send you the bloody knif[e] that took it out if you only wate a whil[e] longer
signed

Catch me when you can Mishter Lusk


The original letter and the kidney which accompanied it have been lost, along with other contents that were contained in the Ripper police files. The image shown here is from a photograph.[11]

 

The “From Hell” letter (also known as the “Lusk letter“)[1][2] was a letter sent alongside half of a preserved human kidney to the chairman of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee, George Lusk, in October 1888.[3] The author of this letter claimed to be the unidentified serial killer known as Jack the Ripper, who had murdered and mutilated at least four women in the Whitechapel and Spitalfields districts of London in the two months prior to Lusk receiving this letter, and whose vigilance committee Lusk led in community efforts to assist police in efforts to identify and apprehend the perpetrator.[2]

The letter was postmarked on 15 October 1888 and was received by Lusk the following day.[4] An examination of the kidney revealed the individual from whom the organ originated had suffered from Bright’s disease.[5] The author of this letter claimed to have fried and eaten the other half.[6]

Police, press, and public alike received many letters claiming to be from the Whitechapel Murderer, with investigators at one stage having to deal with an estimated 1,000 letters related to the case. However, the “From Hell” letter is one of the few articles of correspondence that has received serious consideration as to actually being genuine

Elizabeth Stride's shawl

(((Aaron Kosminski)))

A contemporary sketch of Jack/Aaron, from Israel Schwartz’s description, the only eyewitness who got a good look at a man who may have been Jack The Ripper.  When brought to the Seaside Policemen’s Retirement Home(away from the public and observation by the press), Israel immediately identified Aaron as the man he saw with Liz Stride immediately before her murder.

Aaron Kosminski was Jack The Ripper and Scotland Yard Knew it at the time.

 
To quote the two top American FBI profilers, John Douglas and Roy Hazelwood, if it wasn’t Aaron Kosminski, then it was someone exactly like him.   http://www.casebook.org/  

Polly, Mary Anne Nichols, Jack the Ripper’s first victim

The murder happened in Dutfield’s Yard, in the alley under the wagon wheel mounted on a building which housed a Jewish Socialist Social Club, which was quite popular in the neighborhood. In the next building down, the first two-story building, lived tailor Woolf/Wolf Abrahams, his wife Betsy and their children—-and his brother in law Aaron Kosminski.
The scene of Mary Anne "Polly" Nichols Murder, The Board School(1876) looms in the background and is still standing behind the spot of her murder today.
Mary Ann Nichols death photo eath photo is from the morgue.
Backyard of 29 Hanbury Street, Whitechapel, where Annie Chapman was murdered.
47 year old Annie Chapman from a photo taken by the coroner in the Morgue.
Liz Stride (née Gustafsdotter) (27 November 1843 – 30 September 1888) as a young girl in her native Sweden, she was well educated and spoke two languages fluently. She had once run a successful coffeehouse with her English husband John Stride, but then turned to drink.
In death, after meeting Aaron Kosminski, witnessed by Israel Schwartz and identified as the man talking to Liz minutes before her murder. Israel said he saw the man push Liz and moments later heard three cries for help(very common in Whitechapel) from the woman he saw.

Police inundated Whitechapel with officers after the first murders, but Jack struck again, coincidentally at a place that Aaron knew well, within a few feet of the home of his sister, Betsy and her husband Wolf/Woolf Abrahams, a tailor, with whom Aaron lived. It was Wolf who helped commit him in 1888. When ticketed for walking his dog without a leash/muzzle, Aaron gave his name to the officer as Abrahams. Casebook Jack the Ripper:

 http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=7074

The relevant portion of this court docket reported in the paper, the only time Aaron’s name ever appears in the press:
 

Aaron Kosminski was summoned for a similar office/offense. Police Constable Bower said he saw the defendant with an unmuzzled dog and when asked his name gave that of Aaron Kosminski which his brother said was wrong—as his name was Abrahams. Defendant said the dog was not his, and his brother said it was found more convenient  here to go by the name Abrahams, but his name was Kosminski. Sir Polydore de Keyser imposed a fine of 10s(shillings) and costs, which the defendant would not pay as it was the Jewish Sunday(Saturday?), and it was not right to pay money on Sunday. He was given until Monday to pay.

Catherine Eddowes Shawl was found in Mitre Square in the City of London on the night of September 29,1888, after her murder was discovered, according to the family of Sargeant Amos Simpson, badge number 4911(1846-1919). Amos was on duty that night, as were all Metropolitan Police. His normal assignment was Islington.  He indicated that he was assigned to surveillance near an alley in Whitechapel, near Mitre Square. Family folklore indicates that he picked up the shawl after coming to the scene of the crime in response to the police whistle blown by night watchman and former police officer, George Morris, then security guard of Kearly and Tonge’s warehouse on Mitre Square, after being alerted by Police Officer Watkins whose beat included Mitre Square. Supposition is that the shawl was thrown off the body by Jack or dropped by Catherine in the first moments of the attack.

Catherine Eddowes shawl found in Mitre Square contained traces of her blood and semen from Jack the Ripper. DNA matches blood on the shawl to Catherine Eddowes and mitochondrial DNA in the semen to Aaron Kosminski of Whitechapel. Who had once lived less than a hundred yards, at Sion Square, from the scene of the first murder of prostitute Annie Chapman. He’d later live at two other addresses, each address could be tied closely to the location of one of Jack’s murders.

Aaron Kosminski Was Jack the Ripper

Aaron Kosminski's Birth Certificate 1865 from Poland then a part of the Russian Empire

Swanson note establishes Kosminski as the suspect as being Jack the Ripper

Which leads to Aaron Kosminski, who if the recent DNA tests are to be believed, was Jack the Ripper. He was insane, though I dislike Inspector Anderson’s logic that this was due to the solitary vices(masturbation). As the prejudice against gays, led to the suspicion of Quack Francis Tumblety, a prejudice against self-abuse is no reason to suspect Aaron, though his escalating insanity would be.

When he was later determined to be a paranoid schizophrenic in a clinical setting, at the Colney Hatch Insane Asylum, a much better, more justifiable case can be made as to his guilt.  And he apparently caught Syphillis from a prostitute when he was only 15-years-old, which probably caused him to hate prostitutes as a class. The only witness who got a good look at Jack talking to one of his victims, Israel Schwartz would prove pivotal in the final chapter of the real story.

Schwartz’s statement was taken on September 30th, the day of the murder, by Chief Inspector Donald Swanson:

12.45 a.m. 30th. Israel Schwartz of 22 Helen Street, Backchurch Lane, stated that at this hour, on turning into Berner Street from Commercial Street and having got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed, he saw a man stop and speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway. The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round and threw her down on the footway and the woman screamed three times, but not loudly. On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe. The man who threw the woman down called out, apparently to the man on the oppos- ite side of the road, ‘Lipski’, and then Schwartz walked away, but finding that he was followed by the second man, ran so far as the railway arch, but the man didn’t follow so far.

Schwartz cannot say whether the two men were together or known to each other. Upon being taken to the Mortuary Schwartz ident- ified the body as that of the woman he had seen. He thus describes the first man, who threw the woman down:- age, about 30; ht, 5 ft 5 in; comp., fair; hair, dark; small brown moustache, full face, broad shouldered; dress, dark jacket and trousers, black cap with peak, and nothing in his hands.

Second man: age, 35; ht., 5 ft 11in; comp., fresh; hair, light brown; dress, dark overcoat, old black hard felt hat, wide brim; had a clay pipe in his hand.

If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement casts no doubt on it, it follows … the man Schwartz saw and described is more probable of the two to be the murderer.

As reported in Casebook: Jack The Ripper Forum; The Jack the Ripper A-Z, 1996. (pg 385-386)

Israel Schwartz, a Hungarian, apparently of Jewish descent, in 1888 claimed to have witnessed an assault on a London woman that is believed to be tied to the Jack the Ripper slayings.

Schwartz told police that, shortly after midnight on September 30, he was walking down a street when he saw a man stop and speak to a woman who was standing in a gateway. Schwartz stated that the man then threw the woman to the ground. Schwartz crossed the street and began walking away when the attacker saw him. The attacker called out the name “Lipski” — apparently an Anti-Semitic insult related to Israel Lipski’s murder of a woman the year before. Schwartz reported seeing a man smoking a pipe nearby at the time, and the other man started walking towards Schwartz, possibly following him. Schwartz ran away.

Shortly after the time Schwartz reported witnessing this incident, the body of Elizabeth Stride was found in the same location. That same day Schwartz identified Stride’s body as that of the woman he had seen attacked and gave testimony to the police about what he had seen. He was able to give descriptions of both men but was unable to say whether they knew each other or had been working together.

Several years after the crimes, Commissioner Robert Anderson claimed in his autobiography The Lighter Side of My Official Life that the Ripper had been identified by “the only person who ever had a good view of the murderer.” Chief Inspector Donald Swanson, in marginalia found in his personal copy of Anderson’s book, stated that the witness in question was Jewish. Some Ripperologists have concluded that Schwartz was most likely the man being referred to, although a number of other people, primarily Joseph Lawende, have been suggested as well. Some authors dispute Anderson’s claims of there having been a witness identifying the Ripper as being a self-serving distortion of events to try to cover up Scotland Yard’s failure to catch the killer.

Anderson’s assertion that a Jewish witness identified a Jewish suspect can hardly be true. Schwartz was sent on his way with the anti-Semitic insult “Lipski”, which suggests that the man he saw attacking Stride was an anti-Jewish gentile. Lawende, the only other Jewish witness, told Swanson that he doubted if he would again recognize the man he saw with a woman who might have been Catharine Eddowes, ten minutes before her body was found. Swanson (in his “marginalia”) said that Anderson’s suspect was identified in secret at a police convalescent home that he referred to as “the seaside home” and he named him as “Kosminski”, thought to be Aaron Kosminski. He said that Kosminski was taken back to his brother’s home in Whitechapel but kept under surveillance until he was taken to a workhouse infirmary, from which he was quickly sent on to the Colney Hatch asylum. Records of the Mile End Old Town workhouse infirmary showed that Kosminski was taken there and transferred to Colney Hatch in February 1891. That was over two clear years from Lawende’s sighting of the man with Eddowes and if Lawende doubted then that he would recognize that man if he saw him again, he was hardly likely to have “unhesitatingly have identified him the moment he was confronted with him” as Anderson said in his book.

Wikipedia

One private note of my own, the use of a slur, would indicate that the person was betraying a Jew, which would logically justify one Jew referring to another with that epitaph.

As Inspector Swanson and Anderson indicate, Israel Schwartz was taken to the police retirement home, The Seaside Home, where he immediately identified Aaron Kosminski as the man he had seen with Liz Stride. But indicated to them, as a Jew, he could not testify in court in any proceeding to which the death penalty was attached. They had their man, but no proof which could be used in court. From that moment on, Kosminski, though released from Police Custody, was under constant observation, until his family committed him to the insane asylum.

Inspector Anderson and Swanson’s recorded remarks about Aaron Kosminski ring true. Israel Schwartz apparently did identify him as the perpetrator.

I am now convinced that the plethora of suspects mentioned by various police officials, each appearing to have his own favorite, was a deliberate effort to mislead, an act of misinformation. As Sir Charles Warren wiped away the most tantalizing clue, he offered the best logical reason for what happened afterwards. The wave of Jewish immigrants to White Chapel had created a lot of friction with the denizens of neighborhood. What would finding out that Jack the Ripper was a Jew from Poland have done? No telling, but the risk of a pogrom like happened in the Russian Pale was real. No intelligent person could discount it.

So my conclusion is, that Tumblety, Druitt and the others mentioned at the time as suspects were simply to “keep a lid” on the story. Druitt, a totally inappropriate suspect for a variety of reasons(no one can see what happened to Mary Jane Kelly and not know the perpetrator was totally insane) deserves an apology or at least his family does.

But the main thing to come out of all this, is that the Police were much better at this investigation than they have been credited having been. And the useful fiction that they employed, in hindsight is excusable under the circumstances. Hats off, to Sir Charles, Inspectors Anderson, Swanson and Abberline for a Job well done.

Continue Reading Islam by percentage. Ripper Locations Then/Now. Juwes are not To be blamed … ..not the men To be blamed for Nothing.

CommandControl Radar Tracking: Our Systemics, Adversaries, Susceptibilities

  • Post author:
  • Post category:Central

I’ve likened the platform set out here to Airforce Command Control, with Perfect Radar Tracking overview of our Systemic Requirements, Adversaries and Vulnerabilities. 

European peoples, as racial genus and ethnic national species, are human ecological systems, in process of homeostasis, dissolution or potential dissolution. 

That is a reasonable working hypothesis, as it is also a reasonable working hypothesis to hold that the endeavor to sustain our human ecologies is not only a moral service to our forebears, legacy and the pedestrians at hand; but also provides means to negotiate and help manage other human ecologies along with pervasive ecology.

In this world view, tracking the threat to our systemic homeostasis begins first with Abrahamism, i.e., with its source people and religion and people, i.e., Jewry and then moves right away to the vulnerabilities that White Right wingers and liberals create in reaction, both on the minimally accountable basis of the pseudo objectivism that they appeal to as warrant against the corruption of our moral order (Christianity) introduced by the Jews.

Having cunningly staked out a position in their relative interests among praxis (the social world), they have successfully maneuvered Whites into objectivist reaction – objectivism which puts them in trajectory beyond their relative, systemic interests; where whatever identity they associate with their people is associated with pursuit of pure warrant, if not innocence beyond the guilt trips and trickery of Jewry. 

Interestingly, this reactionary basis of pure objectivity below or beyond the relative interests of praxis functions as the base pseudo warrant for both Right Wingers (who may take undue reward on that argument, violating group bounds, despite relative group interests) and Liberals (who may take undo license and licentoiusness on that basis, violating group bounds despite relative group interest) However, this pursuit is low on social accountability, thus low on correctivity, the means of systemic homeostasis and the sovereignty that goes along with it.

A the objectivist reaction seeks warrant beyond (or below) praxis, and is low on accountability and correctivity, it is exceedingly dangerous – markedly in the Christian and Muslim belief in a hereafter, better and more important than this world, which has little to do with concern for this world and biological legacy. Even the liberal objectivists, who may not believe in heaven hereafter narrative, are likely are likely to conduct themselves in a manner demoralizing and disillusioning to enough of the population to be quite dangerous for its lack of accountability and correctivity.

But even where not an immediate threat to the entire planet, these right wingers and liberals are prone, for the rational blindness of their reactionary, objectivist stance to subjective and relative interests to fail to apprehend the Manichean trickery of Jewry (Islam et al); and to naively allow them into the system to “help” provide “solutions” to the problems that they had large part in creating. That is, “solutions” which are actually subversion, faster or slower, of our systemic homeostasis and sovereignty.

If we are to survive and manage ourselves properly, therefore, it is imperative that we understand Post Modernity as White Post Modernity: the project to regain our ethnocentrism enough – i.e., to centralize our praxis as our world view. Not so much, however, as to be unable to appraise other groups correctly and be able to coordinate with them in their differences.

The relative interests of our praxis (group) is the Calibration that we seek to maintain and gauge objectivist facts and truth that is irrespective of our relative interests but none the less necessary Feedback. That we see the Calibration of our people as the sine-qua-non measure and not objective facts irrespective of their utility to us, as the sine-qua-non measure, distinguishes us from the naivete of Modernity.

As opposed to the red caping (which most everybody associates with it) Post Modernity, properly understood, is a project to recentralize and reconstruct our world view through the praxis our group perspective; heremeneutic process and the ideas social constructionism are necessary to facilitate this recentralization and reconstruction – taking back our means of systemic homeostasis from the Modernist, Cartesian estrangement and divide from engagement and joint construction with people.

The concept of unionization, which is the most essential and important concept beneath the idea of the “the left” (not “equality”), is perhaps the most crucial factor that Jewry wants to control and does not want us to have per their red caping of “the left” as somehow, an array of coceptual tools, working hypotheses that cannot be utilized for White Ethnonationalism. Of course these tools can be used as White Left Ethnonationalism, and unlike the utter nonsense of the characterology of the left, marketed by Jewish interests to White Right wing reactionaries, saying its necessarily divorced from truth and reality, we can use the Heideggerian hermeneutic concept in corrective liberation from mere facticity and Cartesian estrangement to maintain our group calibration; and we can sustain it, structure its means of accountability, correctiveity, thus homeostasis and sovereignty with the concept of unionization; no difficult psychology or fancy incentive about it; that all comes along with the practicality of it.

Take note that in this White Post Modern concept of unionization, the union classification is about whole group – holistic – the Whole race as genus, is the White Class, while the ethnonations form whole classes of themselves, not divided by working class and others, as in the Jewish divide and conquer scheme of Marxism.

Rather, differences among and between groups are treated as qualitative niche differences having a position to facilitate systemic homseostasis.

White Post Modernity properly understood thus, is in position, on guard to the ethnocentrism and pseudo objectivism of others that may do harm to our systemic homeostasis; we also manage our own ethnocentrism and objectivism within this calibration and means of coordination.

We are in a position of vigil and comfortable buffer, both; on guard against potential elite betrayal and rank and file betrayal. And, of course, on guard against impositions and destructions of outside groups, whether by means of their elite power, biopower, some ideology, whatever.

Jewish interests, with their penchant for Manichean trickery and will to world dominance, particularly as threatened by Whites, do not want Whites to understand Post Modernity – its purpose, concept and means to systemic homeostasis and sovereignty – and have red caped it to deceive Whites into systemic dissolution. In fact, they have red caped all ideas that would be crucial to White systemic homeostasis, not just Post modernity.

This might not be as important if Jewish biological patterns had not come through a process of selection called horizontal transmission, where their more ordinary, situated and accountable types had been killed off as host populations perceive parasitism, while the most virulent types escape across border, to a new host, if not with the loot, then with additional virulence having been defacto selected for:

Thus, it is a biological pattern, even where not individual cases occupying the most elite positions in this lifespan they are biologically disposed to move into ten or so elite niches over which Jewry now has disproportionate influence if not hegemony: religion, economics, politics, academia, media, law & courts, business (incl. international, foundations, trusts), military and technology, organized crime.

As I like say – because it makes eminent sense – ever since 2008, Jewry has generated a marketing campaign against a characterology of “the left” in order to dissuade Whites from the Leftist idea of unionizing as a people; inasmuch organizing our power, structuring accountability and in position to hold Jewry and traitors to account – indeed our right wingers and liberals who take the bait of this campaign, forced into to the no account reactionary objectivist identity for the flattery of whatever luck they have, are a huge problem; and this is a huge, important difference from the “dissident right” or whatever other kind of right, or neither right nor left or third positionist bullshit, that Jewry wants us to react into. This right wing identify or aspects therefore, create no account rigidity for them to manipulate and maneuver, holes for them to infiltrate, leading to our systemic dissolution directly if not through runaway overcorrection.  

I tried to make this short, but this is the best I can do in summing up this life saving platform.

But just a few more words.

And so from the perspective of our union – union of unions, as it were – the union of unions being the genus of the European race, while the ethnicities of the Europeans and their nations being the species – the perspective of our radar tracking in the systemic homeostasis of our unions and vigilance on antagonists, moves in hermeneutic survey thus:

Although there is no necessary set order…

It typically first surveys Jewish positions, biological patterns and elite niche rule structuring as it is adverse to our interests in systemic homeostasis…

But it might just as well start with the misguided and misguiding notions of our right wingers and liberals for the reasons stated above.

At any rate, for the foreseeable future, these are our two biggest problems, and the first two check points on radar tracking system.

Note that our liberals are people who would open our borders and bounds, thus they may be complicit with the Marixst international anti-national left or Cultural Marxist anti White left, or with other people’s left, but they are Not White Left Ethnonationalal.

After the radar surveys Jewish patterns and elite niches, then White right wingers and liberals, it moves on to whatever other places on our systemic accountability that might be breeched by other interests; certainly Muslims are a likely third candidate for concern; blacks, their biopower and hyper-assertiveness must rank high in priority of concern…while Mulatto supremacism looms constantly on the horizon. The Chinese and other Asians do not exactly hold our well being as their utmost concern; therefore must occupy a constant place on our vigil, etc… and so the hermeneutic survey goes… and I’ll tell you what, this world view makes consistent sense. I have not been confronted with a single argument that has persuaded me against it. This, The White Left Ethnonatioanl Perspective, is the best and most practical to look after our own and coordinate with others.

A reminder underscoring its practicality is its innocence: while we will defend ourselves, imperialism, supremacism and looking to kill people is not our goal. Hence, it has the most likely prospects for maintaining our people and coordinating with others.

Furthermore, this makes the working hypotheses of our check points regarding the various proposed antagonists much more valid as the hypotheses are not only prosed as correctable, but can be corrected as no irreversible conclusion is enacted.

Now, while I have tried but not succeeded altogether in keeping this post short, I will make up for that by adding a feature to the site. To make up for the fact that there are many inordinately long posts, I will put up short posts, or rather, an idea of the day, that plucks out just one shortly stated but important idea to focus on – something like “the idea of the day.” This should encourage readers to move back into the longer posts at their leisure to flesh out the ideas.

Unionization will structure accountability and provide incentive structure as well.

The issue of citizenship is key, its privileges, responsibilities, means of ostracism for violating borders and bounds is sustained against liberal runaway by the unionizing means thus.

Continue Reading CommandControl Radar Tracking: Our Systemics, Adversaries, Susceptibilities

Civil Wrongs, Disparate Impact, (((Frame Games))) and Women Without Class.

  • Post author:
  • Post category:Central

It takes no more than a glance at its statutes. One goes into an American institution and sees a placard looming overhead declaring “discrimination on the basis of race, color, creed, national origin…” to be illegal. Suddenly seeing discrimination rendered pejorative, illegal even, one experiences a vague feeling of dread.

You sense immediately that you are being told not to have so much as eyeballs by way of discriminatory capacity. You are to be utterly defenseless against biological antagonists, to have no present recourse against the destruction of that which is most important.

It was the ultimate YKW perversion of terms — civil rights, freedom and discrimination — culminating in the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Even a cursory glance over its statutes reveals obsolescence, disingenuousness and evil.

Discrimination! Is Prohibited by Order

The Civil Rights Act of 1964

The Civil Rights Act of 1964

I) Barred unequal application of voter registration requirements. II) Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term “private.” III) Prohibited state and municipal governments from denying access to public facilities on grounds of race, color, religion or national origin. IV) Encouraged the desegregation of public schools and authorized the U.S. Attorney General to file suits to enforce said act. V) Expanded the Civil Rights Commission established by the earlier Civil Rights Act. VI) Prevents discrimination by government agencies that receive federal funds. If an agency is found in violation of Title VI, that agency may lose its federal funding. VII) Prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Title VII also prohibits discrimination against an individual because of his or her association with another individual of a particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, such as by an interracial marriage.

  …”such as by an interracial marriage.”

 “Civil Rights” as enacted 1964 was a horror more like civil wrongs – a (((weaponization))) of Modernity’s objectivism written into the U.S. Constitution in the form of the Cartesian, viz., Locketine empirical side, imposed to purity spiral against White group classification – in the manner of making Whites “live up to their rules” Saul Alinsky style (Rules for Radicals) – viz. live up to their pure objectivist ideals, as Whites; to lead the way by self sacrificial example of civil individual rights prevailing against would-be discriminatory classification on their own behalf; thereby overriding and rupturing the organizing and structuring of accountability to group interests of themselves and their posterity.

Feminist (((Gloria Steinam))) talks with Virginia Heffernan, who's shown a disgusting reverse discriminatory worldview in "What to do about the Trumpites next door?" (discussed below).

I assumed in my young age that it would be my prerogative one day, and that sane people would make the same choice. How could I believe that others, women especially, could do other than legitimate separatism after seeing such things?

The origins of America’s Cartesian purity spiral of civil individual rights are with John Locke, the empirical philosopher who went into a purity spiral on the empirical side of the Cartesian divide for his resentment of the privileged educational opportunities of the British Aristocratic class.  

His interests thus dovetailed with a purity spiral on the empirical side of the Cartesian philosophy that he cultivated to assert that all individuals have the same perceptions and therefore social group classifications are a fiction of the mind, a fiction at the disposal of the unjust elite, which should give way to civil individual rights – all individuals granted an equal opportunity as opposed to group classificatory discrimination.

This Cartesian rupture of group pattern differences and qualitative, niche symbiotic positioning of life-spans amongst was bad enough.

But then it was weaponized by the YKW in the spiral of pure individualism imposed upon Whites with a corresponding prohibition of White group discriminatory practice – a prohibition amplified in subsequent decades with an increasingly intense and pervasive campaign against “racism” – which basically means prohibition of White group classification and discrimination thereupon.

While I’ve endeavored to sort out this egregious weaponization of Locke’s Cartesian purity spiral and (((the red caping))) of what would be several aspects of post modern corrective – what I call White Post Modernity – in order to distinguish it from the misleading Jewish and liberal adopted red capes of post modernity, the correctives that I have set forth have not been appreciated yet.

In fact, some largely intelligent advocates and orbiters of White advocacy, such as the Z-man, remain more given to play opposite day with the correctives provided of my platform; and this is indeed the idea of the red caping: to get Whites to either attack or react against concepts (which, if understood as they are supposed to be) are conceived for their own interests.

If you really care about people of European extraction (“White people”), it is necessary to understand not only the YKW weaponization of Modernity and their red caping of Post Modernity in order to mislead Europeans/Whites.

But you must also understand that particularly since 2008, there has been a heavy marketing campaign orchestrated by the YKW against a characterology of “The Left.”

That is because the essential aspect of leftism – activist unionization of mass force against elite hegemony and exploitation – is a concept that could be deployed against what has become the greater elite hegemony than ever of the YKW with the 2008 subprime bail-out.

Hence, they saw the looming intersectional confrontation from a potentially organized White Ethnonationalism as having to be disrupted – and for that, White right wing reactionaries needed to be co-opted into alliance with them against “The Left.” Jews then could join the reactionaries in “the solution” to the problems that they’d had large part in creating.

This hoodwinkng leftist characterology is proposed as the enemy while Whites in reaction are further maneuvered into White identity as ever, right wing, far right, alt-right, dissident right, third position, neither right nor left but pure, corresponding with a white-knuckle grasping after warrant against this sophistry in favor of facts and objectively warranted truth, low account objectivism (or no account objectivity as opposed to relative accountability) in proposed answer to the equality that this leftist character is supposed to advocate; but this right wing identity is over and against the accountability, thus correctivity and homeostasis that would be structured by unionization of their relative group interests; instigating instead the instability and continued disorganization of White interests (just as the YKW would have it).

If rather than becoming prey to this characterology of the left as if that’s the way these concepts have to be deployed, uncorrected, and if instead of chasing after red capes, these leftist and post modern concepts where distinguished as they are supposed to correct for the maintenance of peoples in kind, as opposed to the ravages of Modernity’s universalism or the menace of traditional ethnocentrimss that won’t coordinate, and as opposed to THE international and anti-White Left, but rather a White Left Ehnonatnationalism proper, articulated as it may be, for the reasonable working hypothesis that the group concept grasps hermeneutically, despite its apparent empirical disappearance in a moment and episode; but subject in that hermeneutic unionization to palpable account, to ongoing corrective as it might thus be structured – “lefty style,” with many of its “lefty style” arguments – e.g., “social justice warriors”, but shaped and crafted to White EthnoNationalism and its interests.

However, against this realization the YKW marketing campaign amplifies their imposition of White identity as being with the right, far right and its objectivist quest for pure warrant – with a new emphasis against the sophistry of the left, a characterology of the left in their dirty praxis, concerned only with the bias of their relative and subjective interests, not the truth and facts; infamously divorced as they are from truth and facts in narratives of equality and social justice – and we could never advocate anything like social justice with Jews and right wing sell outs sitting on top the way they are, licentious liberals placated as they are, now could we? How weak, un-Apollonian, non-Nietzschan, un-Schmittian excepted, un-Faustian, un-Promethian, un-manly, un-Richard Thpentherian it would be to call their inure, whether natural or contrived to account.

Articulate though they are, mongers nevertheless, enmeshed in the discourse of their masters.

As I’ve most recently pointed-out in the example of Nick Fuentes, in his case controlled, but even in the case of controlling opposition, they often bear articulate information for our side; must, in fact, if they are to gain credibility as being on our side to gain power of assent to mislead us. 

A Jewish figure hoping to enact controlling opposition goes by the name of “Frame Games.”

He went far in spilling some serious beans (at least it seems to me) in eloquence of our favor. But (((Frame-Games))) was literally playing the frame game set up by his folks to marshal White identity more affirmatively to the right and more distinctly against the characterology of the left as per the marketing campaign. 

I will deal with him later because his false controlling does not need to be teased apart quite so urgently as one presenting himself as a full-fledged insider White; nor was he so directly and intimately playing opposite day with the better direction of my material as some Whites identifying as White, but controlled in opposition thus, are doing; nevertheless, the case he made is highly relevant and he did spill some serious beans.

Nevertheless, because it was pretty obvious that he was a Jew trying to run damage control and because he was tactlessly spilling significant information to White interests in his effort to get ahead of the opposition to help his people control it (even laughably proposing the stages of grief as consolation), he was compelled to take himself out of the picture – out of the (((frame game))) as it were, probably at the recall of his people; as for all his intelligence, his intentions were obvious and he was also tactless in letting out significant information to the true opposition in an effort to ingratiate himself to them in participation of this marketing campaign.

This marketing campaign was promoted heavily through the now defunct brands of Alt-Right and Alt-Lite (more directly bracketed; i.e., Jewish by way of Breitbart and Ezra Levant); but lingers much the same in the paleoconservatism of Fuentes’ America First; the more radical third positionist reactions and other expressions of the so called dissident right; and in apparent level-headed analysis in the likes of “The Z-Man.”

This is not the place to elaborate as I have before and will again on the inveterate weaponization of modernity and the red capes of post modern ideas which would otherwise recentralize and reconstruct our worldview through our people group(s); to be sustained through “leftist” concepts such as unionization and a White Left Ethnonationalism having its structure and content defined by us, in our interests; with that, warding off right wing naivete and perfidy that would make its way in by the likes of Third Positionism, or “neither right nor left” national populism and such.

With “Civil Rights” weaponization being compounded by purported compensatory correction on behalf of historically discriminated against groups, imposed against what would-be White discriminatory classification, even where necessary to survival; and with this weaponization taken to extremes, carried off to an extent that is surprising even to me, having watched this for decades knowing that it was hideous injustice against Whites, I might have a bit of sympathy for those reacting into the Jewish framework, taking their “solution” to this problem. But I don’t; they should be listening to me more carefully.

Not playing opposite day with me.

When I criticize the White use of objectivism, I criticize it when it is naively clung-to in reactionary recourse to Jewish/liberal/anti-White sophistry; to the point of epistemic blunder beyond our biological nature in praxis; beyond our human agency in reflexive interaction; and taken beyond accountability to our relative interests there – taken as “pure objectivity”, good, of itself, not for the value of its use and necessity as feedback to the calibration of our relative interests – not gauged for value as corrective feedback against the calibration of our relative group interests in praxis.

I am not suggesting that people should not engage in inquiries of science, principles, facts, objective truths that are irrespective of our relative and subjective interests; I am saying that these inquiries need to be looked upon as feedback to be gauged against our relative interests, not ends in themselves. And when I talk about liberation from mere facticity and the capacity of hermeneutics, narrative to facilitate the systemic unionization of our people that it encompasses, it is not divorced from reality, correction and the interests of our people either; on the contrary, it structures accountability as such.

But Thus Far....

But thus far, this has not sunk-in. The YKW and their right wing sellouts, along with the opportunistically licentious liberals, have been able to dissuade our spokespeople thus far to play opposite day with my platform where they might be aware of it at all.

While my corrections are on offer, I believe that the Z-Man is aware of it, playing some ill-advised opposite day with me; and I will provide some examples as to why I think I am not merely paranoid and self important in this inference.

Lets try it as a modest hypothesis: The Z-Man is endeavoring to adapt some ideas of mine and take them from the perspective of the platform that I advance (to wrest position of ourselves in systemic autonomy from Jewish exploitation and right wing/liberal complicity) and is bending them into the Jewish prescribed language game, of their marketing against a characterology of THE left.

I’m not suggesting that he is doing this for bad or corrupt motives. Nor would I be so foolish as to suggest that he is stupid. His brain power surveys an array of subject matter and at speeds that I don’t come close to managing – and he yields worthwhile information (if you don’t already know, then you might get the idea from the examples of his work that I provide).

But precisely as he can be worth listening-to, it is important to look at where he might have some important things wrong, aiding and abetting misdirection, even if unwittingly. And it is reasonable to guess that through forms of peer pressure and encouragement, wanting to be a nice guy (and/or not wanting to get clobbered by the YKW), coupled with right wing objectivist blind-spots, that he’s making these basic errors – basic, i.e., epistemic, more fundamental, a more important kind of mistake for its potential deleterious implications.

The Z-Man's opposite-day hermeneutic

I invoke the Z-Man as he provides a good current example. Nevertheless, he is one among several of a pattern; he is not that important of himself, but rather providing one among other salient examples of those getting maneuvered into the Jewish language game counter-posed against a characterology of “The Left.”

I will provide significant details from the “Past Comparisons” podcast and other podcasts of the Z-Man later below; but to begin I want to outline the opposite day game that he is playing against the better considered platform set out here.

After this outline, I will resume and move through the article of mine that I began this post with – originally entitled, “Women Without Class” – it discusses the American “Civil Rights” movement and its pejorative impact for its destruction of group classifcatory distinctions, group boundaries thereof which would be necessarily maintained to structure accountability and protect the unfolding of qualitatively different species of people; but are ruptured, prohibited, particularly for a weaponized purity spiral of America’s Cartesian civil individual rights, which most poignantly also ruptures the classification of gender – women as they would otherwise be naturally classified as a co-evolutionary part of our group and accountable thus; rather than pandered-to as short term incentivized liberal gate-keepers, puerile antagonists, without class (without White Class) in base, universal feminine drive to incite genetic competition against us (White men).

By following from its origins in the pattern blindness of Cartesiansim to “civil individual rights” and then to the pertinent (((weaponization))) thereof, this havoc wreaking with our capacity to enact social classification (markedly of race and gender) and to discriminate in our interests accordingly, provides what I find to be a more instructive starting point in sense making of our plight as European/White peoples; while also implicitly suggesting corrective measures.

After moving through that background article/material, I will come back to illustrations from Z-Man and Frame Games… as I mentioned in the case of Nick Fuentes, controlled and controlling opposition can provide useful content in their effort to gain trust and control of their audience – but providing useful information nevertheless; not too bad if you can keep at bay the overall misdirecting framework of which they are beholden.

Because I want to focus on the relevant and useful content of Z-Man and (((Framegames))) in this post, I will only mention again some of those who are falling into this Jewish marketing campaign, in characterology of “THE Left” as the problem, “the enemy”:

As I’ve said, they are of two different kinds, coming from a more controlling position for from a more controlled position. 

(((Frame Games))) would be more controlling and the Z-man would be more controlled – perhaps he could argue that everyone is controlled to some extent, but to the extent that he falls into line with their game, it’s too much.

The more controlling will generally be Jews. Besides (((Frame Games))), “advocates against PC and ‘the left” include the Weinstein Brothers, their “intellectual dark web” bullshit, Dave Rubin, “the dark enlightenment”, “neo-reactionary” bullshit of Curtis Yarvin… Stephan Molyneux, (((Steve Sailer))), Milo Yiannapoulis, David Cole Stein, John K. Press, Laura Loomer, Lauren Southern (Simonson), Black Pigeon Speaks and Mike Enoch Peinovich (who probably is part Jewish, despite declaring a DNA test otherwise); other Jews, like The Truth Will Live, are a bit more controlled, and finally, of the people I will list Paul Gottfried seems to be among the best controllers partly because it seems he is controlled by unconscious urge to do damage control for his people; thus, he is able to come across a bit more sincerely and have more influence than Frame Games, a Bobby Fischer or a Brother Nathaniel.

Luke Ford provides classic example after classic example of the marketing campaign angle that I’m talking about in controlling opposition, though he is a bit on the controlled side for his obligation as a Jewish convert to overcompensate in their interests.

Ford, a convert to orthodox Judaism, is doing this all the time, continually promoting the angle against the left and group backing and for objectivism and individual responsibility; any misdirection that he can muster against effective White organization in accordance with the plan.

Recently he ran/read a disingenuous angle by Scott Adams, who is trying to pitch a line that “we”, the populace, such as Whites and Asians, who are being discriminated against by institutions like Harvard, should argue not on the grounds of race and racial discrimination, but on the basis of class discrimination – i.e., the elites are discriminating against us on the basis of their class. 

Don’t buy this line of rhetoric, because that’s all that it is. This argument by dint of the same old liberal and right wing objectivism,  where civil individual rights should prevail over any classificatory distinctions, interests and necessary discrimination thereupon. This Locketine empirical fiction uncorrected by White Post Modern Hermeneutics, had falsely maintained that group classifications, including ultimately unionization of White genetic groupings, were an empirical fiction and therefore should be prohibited, giving way to individual civil rights; and where weaponized by Jewry, “Civil Rights” took vindictive measure against White freedom of and from association, and through the vindictive, supra Lockeatine concept of “anti-racism” should allow non-White and anti-White groups to impose their interests on Whites while Whites are prohibited from discrimination on the purported compensatory basis of historical discrimination.

Prominent among the controlled shabbos goy would be Jordan Peterson, of course, who recently engaged Brett Weinstein in his dark web obfuscation.

Most of the Whites, more middle of the road, wanting to be level headed advocates against PC and “the left” are coming the Frank Meyer/Ronald Reagan/Paul Gottfried/Pat Buchanan/James Burnham/Joe Sobran school come Richard Spencer, as controlled through the Alt-Right, was prompted to take things further right….

Z-Man stayed in that camp, concerned to be more populist and moderate, Jew friendly, along with Ramzpaul, Colin Liddell and Affirmative Right.

Others falling into this angle are coming from a scientistic bent, like Jared Taylor and Alternative Hypothesis, Jen Scharf and Gandalf 2.

Others are a bit less Jew friendly but misdirected if not moderated by their Christianity, like E. Michael Jones, Right Ruminations, Ecce Lux, Melchyzedek, Tyler Hamilton, Roosh V. and the array of “Trad Thots” …Praise of Folly (Todd Lewis) is always trying to shoe-horn Christianity into the equation and tends to be Jew friendly while his anarchist cohort, Keith Preston, almost seems as if he has been explicitly commissioned to counter my proposition of White Left Ethnonationalism over the years.

Of a more radical bent, proposing third positionism is Keith Woods, who is more sincere, but young and misguided in this idiocy, Josh Neal and Jefferson Lee similarly; while Joel Davis is a more disingenuous shabbos goy, all too willing to sell out in complicity to Jewish interests.

Most of them are orchestrated while others are more like Gottfried, even if not entirely conscious, are more orchestrating; Enoch Peinovich and his TRS crew are apparently more orchestrating.

Others come from more radical neo-Nazi directions to begin with, or wound up there through the influence of William Pierce, David Duke, Stormfront and the like, falling in line against, “The Left.”

Brits Mark Collett, Morgoth and Nativist Concern of Absolute State of Britain, are quite intelligent (while “Yuro” seems particularly suspect) but not quite educated as to the machinations and have thus fallen under orchestration by way of that sway – falling in by the idiotic argument that “they’re going to call you a Nazi anyway” and “it all boils down to guilt trips about the holocaust, therefore we’ve got to deny it.”

Anglin and (((Weev))) seem to have taken themselves out of the picture with their push of the Overton window out of bounds.

Others orchestrated are third positionist reactionaries, again, like Keith Wood, scientistic fuck heads like Edward Dutton and J.F. Gariepy, and the vainglorious trophy of controlled opposition, Richard Thpenther.

Coming back to the more moderate, Nick Fuentes, Red Elephant’s Vincent James and anybody under the paleocon trajectory of Gottfried and their Frank Meyers “fusionist” bit.

The late Sam Francis and his Burhham thing is another Paleocon offshoot – misdirection of Whites to the right and distracting from the J.Q. and right wing complicity…

…and again, there is also the Weinstein brothers and their bullshit “intellectual dark web” … recently, Brett conducted a talk with Sabbos Jordan Peterson, who quite famously falls in line with the marketing campaign.

But there are many, Jordan Peterson and the Weinstein brothers, their dipshit “dark enlightenment” “intellectual dark web” are full of it, but not the half of it; and pretty well known to people who care about Whites as not representing our interests…

I won’t talk too much about Greggy (Johnson) this time, but he does skirt the Z-Man and I suspect that it may even have been at Greg’s prompting that the Z-Man uses my work as a point of departure. Greg has done it before with Robert Stark (suddenly the hippie “being”, dasein as I suggest,  became more Hitleresque by way of Greg and Robert – Robert Stark being another one in line with the project against, “the left”); and Greg probably suggested to Andy Nowiki (a central man to controlled opposition) that he take my concept of revising Maslow as a point of departure for one of his books.

Just as he twisted some of my ideas with Robert Stark, may have suggested to Andy Nowicky to try revising Malsow’s heirarchy, took off with my idea about immigration and agency, so too fudgy may have suggested to The Z-Man to twist some of my ideas to his right wing perspective.

The first clue that I got that the Z-man might be playing off of my ideas, ripping me off, even, was when he talked about (to paraphrase me) social group classificatory delimitation as being necessary for socialization…

That’s an idea of mine that I have been putting across with the necessity of unionization for its structuring of accountability, correctability and thus, systemic homeostasis – which Asshole (Guessedworker) has been trying to bury.

Greg Johnson turned Hippie Dasein into Hitler Dasein
Greg Johnson turned pervasive ecology into Nazi ecology.
Greg Johnson (probably) suggested to Andy Nowicki that he take my idea of re-tooling Maslow.
Greg Johnson invites David Cole Stein to his writer team.
Greg Johnson probably suggested to the Z-man that he take my White Left Ethnonationalist platform as point of departure to re-align the material with the (((program))) right against "the left."
Greg Johnson's Avatar (and Z-Man complains about the out-of-touch queers of the elite class).

Greg Johnson remains particularly susceptible to infiltration by controlled opposition for his elitist snobbery – as such, he is over emphasizing discrimination vertically, in terms of sheer ability as opposed to horizontally, qualitatively in terms of race, he is vulnerable to let in and defend types such as glow-in-the dark octaroon Mark Dyal (Greg Banned me from Counter-Currents for observing that Dyal was not White, said White people are disgusting, is probably an alphabet agent of some sort); Vox Day, Mike Enoch Peinovich… and it isn’t just glow in the dark types who make their way through Greg’s elite snobbery, but also professional types who aren’t so much motivated by defending Whites as they are writers who have found a market among White Nationalists. Recently Greg was talking to his new hire, boomer-writer-found-audience, Jim Goad, who advised an agreeable fudge Johnson that David Cole Stein (exemplary Jewish misdirection against the Left, par excellence, with White divide and conquer mixed in) would be a good addition to his team. Greg would think so.

Having called attention to all of these people, every one of them going along with the Jewish marketing campaign against a characterology of “the left”, it is probably the sincere but controlled opposition, striking a more moderate, paleocon pose, that we have to look at as most capable of mass misdirection if they are intelligent enough. Z-Man strikes me thus, equipped as “reasonable” by way of Gottfried and Burnham. (((Frame Games))) is capable as coming across as reasonable for his combination of obsequiousness comport of effective intelligence in an effort to engage Whites in this language game of controlled opposition against “the left.”

Therefore, in this post I need to talk about Z-Man and (((Frame Games))) as they are quite relevant of themselves; they are also relevant in the way the stories they cover relate to what I’ve been talking about and how they are following from there. So let me go on to details of the Z-Man and (((Frame Games))).

A synopsis and an outline of the Z-Man’s co-option and re-direction of the platform that I propose, taking it into the (((marketing campaign))).

It may be a bit of a stretch to suggest that Z-Man is doing hermeneutics contra myself, in his “Past Comparisons” podcast, for example; but when I saw the the date of this podcast, a few days after I had posted “Trout Mask Replica”, and I hear him going into a whole thing about how the “elite class” is into being “weird” (29 Jan, 29:31), then I begin to consider that he might be taking my efforts as point of departure; his whole discussion of class in counterpoint to objectivism – I doubt that “objectivism” was a normal part of his vocabulary, though it is central vocabulary to me. He hypothesizes that this “elite class” has become divorced from interaction with the normal people and that is why they have gotten so weird. That also indicates a looking on to the kind of thing that I would discuss in my communications perspective; viz., in criticism of the “transmissions model of communication” where there is Moses in front of the class transmitting information lineally to a passive audience as opposed to the communications perspective with is interactive, negotiative joint construction of knowledge. Finally, my hypothesis of retooling Maslow for a circulating corrective, where not only the top of the hierarchy is valued, but integration with normal levels of relationship and basic levels of function is necessary corrective to the modernist paradigm, is also evident in Z-man’s game of opposite day.

Initial meanderings of basic White male Being (Dasein) might manifest and even insist upon a bit of weird; but this class move is not elitist, nor detached from corrective normalization; on the contrary, it is part of normative socialization, similar as when you learn to ride a bike, over correcting by pressing down on one peddle with one foot and then the other.

Outline of Z-Man’s controlled opposition contra my platform:

A) Group classification and systemics as the way of “lefties” and Burnham’s (facile and vaguely composed) managerial class as opposed to objectivism and whatever “pure” rhetoric Z-man can use against it, proposing that they be described as fascists (in note, I believe, in departure from my aversion to the term, “fascist”) for his ‘described’ behavior of Whites in right wing identity.

B) Observer and thinker(s) detached from interaction and audience, and their being impervious to correction as opposed to what my position holds, that it is the right wing, liberals and Jews who are impervious to correction and accountability; and as opposed to us identifying with the group position also, treating it as impervious to truth and normalized correction.

They become weird hence, in a bad sense, not in the way I look upon weird as an aspect of organic being, the hairy, thing-that-crawled-out-from-under-a-rock quality, that characterizes the basic organic meandering of the most basic level of being, that can be too quickly corrected by tradition, particularly the mere tradition of military requirement of White males; while this basic organic being, which manifests a bit of weird compared to normal levels, needs to be asserted as a necessary instantiation of our intrinsic value – a most essential aspect of White identity, our right to being, to exist; it would be the strawman of assholes to take the observation of weirdness at this level and ignore that I’m saying that this organic process has to then be integrated into socialization, normal levels of function there a well as providing basis for higher actualization.

C) labeling our enemies leftists, of a leftist characterology and suggesting a new label, fascist (12 Feb, 28:32), as opposed to labeling them Jews (of a biological pattern from the ground up and from top down elite niches) weaponizing modernity, red caping post modernity and who, where promotion of Marxist internationalism falls short, promote the anti-White Cultural Marxism and enacting a marketing campaign to flatter, bribe and cohort White right wing and liberal objectivists against a characterology of “the left.”

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. – DanielS, 28 January 2021

Again, the Z-Man has more RPM’s to his brain cycling capacity than I, and moves through concrete issues like a can’t believe, does brilliantly up to a point but still within the kosher box, their circumscribed discourse parameters, masters of discourse that they are.

As such, he is still going along with their marketing campaign of trying to draw a characterology of “the left”, a pathological characterization… and counterpose us right wingers. Bad enough.

But he is apparently trying to bend my (better) meta analysis of this and bend it toward this Jewish prescribed language game.

I would not be surprised if he was tipped off by fudgster Greg Johnson or some other right winger to try to bend my ideas to this right wing foolery.

There are echoes there of his noticing the dark side of self actualization…

..of the need to integrate and circulate to more normal levels

…and there is the probably unwitting obfuscating misdirect of class with Burnham’s vaguely composed managerial class as opposed to my class correction – the class being the genus and the species of Whites in opposition to rogue liberal/right wing elites who see themselves objective and beyond accountability and of course the one truly elite, concretely organized class that orchestrates those right wingers and liberals, i.e., the Jews.

Maybe I’m paranoid, give myself too much credit, but would Z man use the word “objectivist” if he were not in the process of co-opting and redirecting my stuff? …and would he make a big thing about how bad the weirdness of ruling class is three days after my Trout Mask Replica post at dnanations.com, if he were not trying to counter me? as if he should do that in White interests? 

I wonder if this blindness that he talks about is an attempt to turn the concept of rational blindness around on me, like asshole over there at Majorityrighs tried to do.

Aversion to the word “fascism”, concern for the divorce from interaction and joint construction of knowledge, particularly the way that corrective normalization is thwarted in the buffering of information bubbles (which I talk about as internet bubbles), are also big clues that he is trying to re-direct my efforts. Not good, because I have carefully considered these ideas for our interests.

The big thing is that he’s playing their game of making a characterology of the left into the enemy.

And not appreciating the correct White Post Modern paradigm – social group union, calibration, objectivism as feedback, measured and corrected in accountability against this group praxis, so that it is not rationally blinded but in corrective of the working hypothesis of the group; this prevents us from going into crazy land, keeps us from becoming even less tethered despite the necessary liberation from mere facticity; necessary in order to master the concept of the system, coherence accountably, agency and warrant.

I.e, the post 2008 Jews may want, more than ever, for you to join with them in rightist objectivism, contributing argument for their “merit” of elite niche hegemony, where the Marxist internationalist Left works against Zionism and the Cultural Marixist, anti White Left throws light on them as integral to whatever elite exploitation that the left perspective might complain about. They want you to believe that THE Left, that the left must be that way – internationalist, anti-nationalist and/or anti-White, but it isn’t true; and it isn’t the right framework for us to adopt – not at all.

Sorry Z Man, despite the pats on the head from the rightwing/liberal Boomers, Jews and young fogies of the Burhman school of misdirection that you have.

Taking back the Z-Man's co-option and misdirection and re-directing it, properly in White interests.

The Z-Man’s hermeneutic begins with the usual right wing starting point, i.e., the problem begins with the French Revolution…and from there moves through “the 68ers”, Marcuse’s European ‘hippies” who are removed from the Being-Against-Death that American hippies were up against by the Vietnam Draft, hence evincing their profound motive, the profound motive still for White people, the right of the male of White species in particular, to be, to live and requisitely as such, to live amidst his people – organically, in in praxis as opposed to Cartesian estrangement.

I do believe that the French Revolution is highly relevant, of course. Look for my discussion of it in the article about the red caping of Post Modernity.

But I have found rather, that starting with the Cartesianism of Descartes and Locke is the better starting point, as following that through helps to make more sense of what’s going on and what we need as corrective.

I must therefore go into this background [already begun above] before coming back to the illustrations of the Z man and how Frame Games were playing this Jewish inspired angle against a characterology of “the left.”

Without recapitulating or retracing what I’ve said about Locke in a few places here and retracing how his delegitimization of social classification was written into the U.S. Constitution and then weaponized by YKW, lets move forward. Search Locke, if you need to refresh on the start of his story at the top of the page.

Christopher Caldwell has a good idea that The Civil Rights Act inaugurated what is effectively a second Constitution. He doesn’t go as far as I do in calling it what it is, a weaponization by Jewry as such, making Whites live up to their own rules – in fact, veers into the usual Jewish encouraged right wing dodge of pandering to Trad-Women, blaming the 60’s “counter-culture” as the impetus for this “second constitution”, thus providing a way to blame hippies (White men), ignore their true motive and obfuscate the Jewish and liberal role – but in terms of observing it as a paradigm shift, yes, a good thesis.

In detail this Act is more Byzantine than that, and the ramifications of these prohibitions of discrimination are horrendous.

Even freedom of association, as it does not account for full processual development of those within the class, would not be sufficiently deep by itself, were it allowed. But while that objectivist, rational blindness leveraged by the technology of “civil rights” was bad enough, YKW interests perverted its meaning to violate even freedom of association by means of the Civil Rights Act.

Alabama Governor Wallace confronted by school desegregation in the personification of D.A. Nicholas Katzenbach

Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach, working alongside a Kennedy clan willing to sell out and open its country to catastrophic integration in order to gain power, along with a similarly disposed Lyndon Johnson, making a good bid for worst president ever, sundry other YKW and objectivist Whites, oversaw departmental operations (implementing the 1954 Brown vs Board of Education decision) in desegregating the University of Mississippi in September 1962 and the University of Alabama in June 1963 – where he personally moved Governor Wallace aside to open the door for Blacks; also worked with Congress to ensure the passage of the Voting Rights Act, and had significant help from Javitz and Celler (of 1965 Immigration & Naturalization Act infamy), to pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee 1949 to 1973 (except 1953–55 when the Republicans controlled the House), Celler was involved in drafting and passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Civil Rights Act 1968 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Also in 1965, he proposed and steered to passage the Hart-Celler Act, which eliminated national origins as a consideration for immigration.

Discrimination! Is Prohibited by Order

Title VII, Civil Rights Act (1964)

These initiatives also established precedent for California’s Rumford Fair Housing Act of ‘63 which prohibited discrimination regarding whom one rents or sells property; and the ‘68 Fair Housing Act which extended that ruling to a national basis.

We have here a culmination the ultimate in doublespeak terms: “civil rights” equals being told whose babies we must pay for, with whom we must study, whose children we must educate (with precious knowledge tortuously acquired), to whom we must rent, to whom we must sell, whom we must hire, whom we must serve even in private businesses – and this is called “freedom.”

Women Without Class

Waiting at Woolworth’s

The related decision regarding the Woolworth’s Lunch Counter, telling a private business whom they must serve, was always one that caused my mind to glitch, even at a rather young age. M.L. King, with help from YKW overlords organized Blacks and others, including a few no-class White women – such as Joan Trumpauer Mulholland – to “sit-in” at Woolworth’s and force a legal decision regarding desegregation of its lunch counters. The decision never made sense to me from the moment I heard about it – not in terms of anything that you can call freedom, anyway. Telling a private business whom they must serve, how, and whom they must hire – that is called “freedom”? It must be a YKW definition. “Freedom marches, freedom riders, civil rights” – right? Wrong. Rather quite civil wrongs.

Mulholland and MLK
Mulholland participating in the “sit-in” at Woolworth’s
Original Woolworth’s sit-in counter enshrined at The Smithsonian Institute

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 went further by banning racial segregation “by businesses offering food, lodging, gasoline, or entertainment to the public.

Paul Kersey of SBDL talks with Keith Alexander about the reality and implications of the Selma-Montgomery march and the Civil Rights movement altogether, in its actual wake.

It is a civil right and its opposite is called illegal discrimination punishable by law. Do not discriminate; do not see the terror that you are confronted with; do not see that you are in something like a monkey cage, a planet of the apes (I can tell whether one has or has not been around many, depending upon an indignant response to that analogy or not).

This would seem to be a clear violation of civic freedom, but YKW are skilled at promoting the self-destruction of Whites, who have been high on obsequious objectivism, while Blacks are hyper-assertive.

The Honorable Elijah Muhammad said "the black man will rule!"

M.L. King Jr. and Malcolm X were at the U.S. Capitol on March 26, 1964. Both men had come to hear the Senate debate on the bill. This was the only time the two men ever met.

M.L. King Jr. and Malcolm X meet upon debate of the "Civil Rights" Act. ... the night before his assassination King was recorded having sex with (and beating) two White prostitutes. Prior to his conversion to Islam, Malcolm X was a pimp, whose whores included White women.

In the article on Kant’s moral system, I mentioned a kind of anguish bordering on torture that I experienced when I was groping after a moral order: That anguish stemmed from having inherited an obsequious Christian rule structure – the golden rule – by which I was to somehow go up against America’s rule structure, lording as it did competition as noble for all and yet presenting me with still another obsequious and imperative rule in the form of the 64 Civil Rights Act; in confrontation with antagonistic demographics. Having experienced more than enough of them through forced busing to go to school with them, their riots of 1967 and 68 in the town of my birth, I was largely convinced that I did not want anything to do with Blacks. I assumed in my young age that it would be my prerogative one day, and that sane people would make the same choice. How could I believe that others, women especially, could do other than legitimate separatism after seeing such things?

Joan Baez and Susan Sarandon
"Pull the triggers Niggers, we are with you." - Joan Baez
Viola Liuzzo marched with the black civil rights protestors and was shot.

With Blacks rioting in Newark in the summer of 1967, my father’s generation repeating the “greatest generation” mantra that ‘you can’t fight City Hall’, the Vietnam War escalating unintelligibly so that no young person with a penis was immune from the draft, yes, I did have a certain yearning for the San Francisco version of that same summer of ‘67.

July 1967 Newark riots, left and center images. Right, “The Summer of Love” follows the “Be-in” in San Francisco, 1967; George Harrison, Pattie (& the vacuum cleaner faces lol).

Beatle’s guitarist George Harrison did go there – to the Summer of Love Be-In festival in San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park – but came away with a bad impression having dropped a bad batch of L.S.D. He saw these kids around him hideously spotted and vacuum-cleaner faced. From our perspective now, naturally it does not seem like such a bad scene, certainly the better option in the tale of two cities, Newark and San Francisco 1967. No wonder I was reluctant to let that go, particularly enchanting it was to me as a child. I was disappointed when traditional women and men would say that was “all nonsense” or “the source of our problems”; and disconcerted to experience similar antagonism from feminists, particularly when the war had ended.

Before the late 80s interracial couples were rare

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 goes further to say that, “An employer cannot discriminate against a person because of his interracial association with another, such as by an interracial marriage.”

Just Great! (for non native English speakers, note the sarcasm please): You cannot discriminate against people that you do not like, whom you find immoral and dangerous.

While the dam had not burst through the 60s, 70s, or even into the early 80s, it was a period of ominous buildup, the implications of the rule structure and demographic make-up were pervasive and auguring catastrophe…

Once the Vietnam War had ended, traditional women were rearing their ugly head and feminism went into high gear, steam-rolling any agenda for White male needs, though many boys still had need for being, communal being (midtdasein). I had just assumed that everyone would naturally reject forced integration and charges of “racism” but young women did not seem quite as inclined. Why?

Let’s qualify all statements made about young women below to mean, at their worst/most opportune, given defective social structure and pandering. Even without the social classificatory unionization that would structure their proper socialization into account of their historical social capital, it would be clearly wrong to say that there are not plenty of cool White women. (1)


Thesis: Within the disorder resulting from civil individual rights (a feature of Enlightenment/ Modernity) rupturing group classificatory (racial genus and species) bounds, the natural one-up position of young females (“you’re so wonderful, may I have a date?”; i.e., an expression of sperm being cheap, ovaries precious) emerges with increased significance as they are less accountable to their inheritance, more competed for, pandered-to even, from males of other groups.

a) Solicited from many directions, they typically become confirmed, articulate, confident, more coherent by way of female identity and authoritative – let’s say sometimes beyond merit.

b) They have increased incentive to maintain the power of this position, a powerful gatekeeping role – to maintain a situation as disordered as possible, letting the most liberal men into positions of power, while playing men off of one another increases their price and their gain (in the short term, anyway); thus they are encouraged, particularly as puerile and unsocialized to responsibility to their own social capital, to keep men competing against each other as much as possible. Human socialization is over-ridden with that, and their most base natural tendency to incite genetic competition (E.O. Wilson) increases to runaway effect.

c) Jewish pandering to women as part of their Cultural Marxist program (largely blacks, women and gays against White men) in conjunction with objectivist interests – the kind of argument that you want to make when you/your people are doing well and you don’t want the system, you and your people’s part in it, called into question: this would include not only (((weaponized))) objectivist arguments against equality, but is also done by the (((weaponization))) of anti-racism – clash and combine in the disordering effect, with atavistic effect in the de facto need to classify (Women, Fire and Other dangerous Things), strengthening high contrast tropism toward those classifications – females and Blacks – too difficult to ignore.

. . . . . . . . . .

For a White man to challenge this is to impugn his own masculinity straight away, along with his Americanness in that connection – denying his brave individual participation in the unprejudiced land of opportunity. Hence, a Charmed Loop is maintained, which keeps these late Modern circmstances disordered.

And within the disorder resulting from modernity and civil rights rupturing of classificatory (racial) bounds, the natural one-up position of young females (you are so wonderful, may I have a date? sperm is cheap) emerges with increased significance. Thus, puerile female bias and selective preferences (confidence, pragmatic directness and assertion) will be over-valued and not sufficiently corrected by the many ameliorative aspects of the male selective predilections (cooperation, intellectual circumspection and empathy).

This disorder will disfavor the K selection strategy of Whites, evolved for planning and skills revealed in value over long patterns, against the Augustinian (natural) devils of the elements and seasonal deprivation; while modernity’s upshot of atavistic disorder and the one up puerile female, by contrast, will fall to R selectors, those evolved for brute tribal and episodic competition and display of palpable assertion on a base level; on the other hand it can also favor those tribalists, not necessarily R selective, but of a high i.q. type more skilled in Manichean (trickster, rule changing) devils of interpersonal, inter-group competition – those more cunning in the enactment of their group discrimination – YKW.

This will exacerbate an atavistic, Africanizing effect on the mass circumstance as sublimated concern for protracted pattern and preparation gives way in the disorder of modernity to an apparent value of more directly competitive, episodic assertion and selection – atavistic, thus closer to our primitive circumstance and evolution – a circumstance and selective bias liable to have created in Africans the hyper-masculine people that they are by comparison to other races (along with the social destruction of hyper masculinity); yet characteristics favorable once again where the disorder of modernity has ruptured accountability to protracted patterns to the point of atavistic circumstance, where episodic criteria emerge more important again – at least in the eyes of the puerile female gate keeper. 

a) Solicited from many directions.

Absent class bounds the one-up position of young White females re-emerges with increased significance. Occupying a more “addressive” position, they are solicited from many directions, becoming relatively confirmed, oriented, articulate, confident, and authoritative. A young man would make a mistake by trying to clarify the rules through meta-communication (orientative talk about how talk counts) as that is stepping on her toes as gate-keeper. And she can easily take many a brutal recourse should her position be disrespected, weaker sex and all of that. He can barely do anything right if that’s how she wants to see it (he can always be discharged as a wimp or a pig). She can do many things, arbitrarily, and get away with it. This is why one ought to exercise some caution when denouncing anti-racism. She sees this as a motion to limit her recourse and power. Whereas one perhaps used to seek out a priest, a scientist or a philosopher, now because of her increased one up position, one might be tempted to seek out a young woman to talk to directly in order to appeal to her in hopes of salvaging a human ecology and a human world.

b) Gate keeper position and genetic incitement multiplies

Whether civil rights of the objectivist kind, or the perverted Jewish kind of the 1964 Act, with their (((anti-racism))) further compounding its rupturing of class bounds, developmental processes and accountability thereof, the natural tendency of young females to incite genetic competition (E.O. Wilson) increases to runaway effect. Particularly absent class bounds, young females have increased incentive to maintain the power of their position as gatekeepers, irrespective of race, to the detriment of the White Class.

Moreover, they will empower men who prevent discrimination and maintain the disorder in order to maintain the position as gate-keepers to the extent they have it; they will even empower men otherwise disposed to racial consciousness inasmuch as they pooh-pooh the issue of race and the merit of White advocates.

Since miscegenation is among their greatest weapons, the same old yin-yang is going to go into effect as they empower “objective men” to clear away White men of racial/class consciousness.

The yin-yang has been in effect as long as I can remember, with the Democrats representing integrationist, mulatto supremacism, Republicans representing the dolts that women and Jews can control as if trying to say, “We’re so tough; racial consciousness is all nonsense”.

Therefore, sometime within the initial interaction episode, a young man is likely to get a litmus test as she asks what he thinks of Blacks and of racism. If he is honest enough to say that he does not like them, sees good reason for racial discrimination, he is likely to be ostracized. In fact, since miscegenation is one of the biggest threats at her disposal in maintaining the power of her gate-keeping position, she may go to extremes to stigmatize those who challenge it. Naturally, she will be particularly fearful and aggressive to maintain the anti-racist taboo once she has crossed that line. Hence, it is not only Jews and men attempting to be innocent who hazard the White Class.

I understand the paranoia of those who do not want to take their eye off the power, who think that they are trying to divide and conquer by lowly racial conflict; but if the formalities of incommensurate logics of meaning and action, of qualitative, paradigmatic difference are swept aside in favor of the false comparisons of “non-equalitarianism” and no critique is made of disingenuous female positions, the same old cycle is going repeat largely to our detriment.

Okay, men have been inarticulate to their mandate for being – me too, somewhat. Having asserted early on in the gender agendas article that male being was warranted through co-evolution, I later fumbled a bit, speculating that perhaps women would not allow for it – doesn’t matter: White Male Being is warranted through survival and our co-evolution with our women for 40,000 years. Innocent until proven guilty, we co-create these women and children, blacks do not.

But even though women and objectivist men are rupturing classification, Jews are not merely pandering objectively to natural inclination, they are instrumental in preventing corrective action.

[Note: I cultivated the concept of Jewish “red caping” after the first versions of this article; the reader is advised to consult my post on the issue; it would flesh out matters after this point; while this post is primarily addressing their weaponization of modernity; and it is a red caping along with other historical precedents, the red caping strategy is consummate through post modernity].

c) Jewish pandering and objectivist interests combine with de facto need to classify (classification in human sized categories, a need in order to make sense of one’s circumstances).

Pandering to the addressive position of females, while not exclusive to Jews, is of especial significance coming from them. Powerfully organized as a class, historically threatened by Whites, Jews pander to this most crucial interface – and what could be more painful than to have people that you are born to love and protect being against you, criticizing you endlessly, hating you, treating you has privileged even if having succeeded against massive opposition, including by them – in order to weaken and demoralize the White class.

Thus they play upon the objectivist upshot of disorder. Like women, Blacks represent a difference, a tropism too different to ignore within disorder despite prohibition of classifications; yielding a classification that grants them strength in solidarity, easy identity and coherence.

This is farther bolstered by endless Jewish stories pandering to women as victims, reversing the taboo, where are now heroes for miscegenating with Blacks and advocating Blacks in their supposed victim status.

That combines with the fact that Blacks are often emboldened by having less to lose (for one thing, who wants their women?).

And combines with the fact that Blacks are the opposite of being disadvantaged in crucial respects – they’ve been in The US as long as any Whites and they know the ropes; and are well positioned to gain the system, to take advantage of the advantage of Jewish advocacy of them, using them as muscle against White power: economics, political, legal, media/entertainment….

Easy, well paying government jobs (e.g., post office) with good benefits that they over represent are an example that is less talked about compared to other affirmative action and welfare.

They are well positioned and long standing victimizers, exploiters of Whites and likely to have biological hegemonies – particularly in the atavistic circumstance of modernity where short term, episodic abilities appear valuable – they will compete effectively having evolved some 200,000 years prior to the relatively precarious 40,000 years of European differentiation.

Not only that, but having evolved in a primordial disorder, their kind of selection has quantified and maxed-out masculinity –

creating an aggressive, presumptuous, hyper-assertive kind of people with lower time horizon and impulse control –

while puerile white females within the disorder, pandered to (especially by YKW), will be inclined to them; and all the more, especially as the orienting organization of classifications are both prohibited (inciting them to violate taboo in order to try to locate agency) and humanly necessary, the high contrast tropism of Black White as hard to ignore as Male/Female, is thus farther exacerbated; females being pandered to in torrents (by Jews most pertinently) on that interface will keep the class disordered and its morale down.

Therefore, despite obvious, broad destruction to the class, ecology and accountability, and despite would-be corrective action – as most White men naturally and with good reason hate miscegenating White women – the pairing with this aggressive, presumptuous, hyper-assertive people will increase given the present rule structure. White men are prevented from doing anything about it largely due to the agency of Jewish machinations in interface with young females and objectivists within the disordered situation, absent racial classificatory bounds.

While Jews aren’t solely responsible for promoting miscegenation, they’re largely responsible; even more significantly, responsible for preventing White men from doing anything about it.

Civil Rights Act of 1964: “An employer cannot discriminate against a person because of his interracial association with another, such as by an interracial marriage.”

Murphy/Butcher: Murphy has sever children with different women, including two with Butcher.

Civil rights rupture developmental processes and the ecological pattern disbursement that would otherwise be managed and maintained by the class. With equality/non-equality being made central, as opposed to classification and maintenance of paradigmatic differences that make a formal difference, incommensurate logics of meaning and action are improperly meshed to the detriment of marginal Whites, and liable to create the narcissism of false comparison, unnecessary competition, reciprocally escalating diatribe and pervasive ecological destruction.

To repeat: if people keep going around making equality a straw man and non-equality the thing as opposed to paradigmatic difference(s) and race (class) being the matter, this will create false comparisons and unnecessary, counter productive conflict; i.e., not that we should seek to avoid conflict necessarily, but as we do want the chips to fall on our side; we need for the conflict to be less arbitrary. (2)

For bringing to bear Black violence and destruction to the culmination of our 40,000 years of evolution, miscegenators and their instigators are no better, rather they are highly analogous to rapists and pedophiles; they might be considered accordingly. A scientistic view would say miscegenation is a naturally occurring fact. Rape and child molestation may be natural inclinations as well, but we do not accept them; rather we seek social injunction. In this example, the agency of a social constructionist view is superior to the mere causality of a scientistic view.

White men are warranted to Be as the White Class is warranted to Be by dint of our survival and co-evolution over the course of 40,000 years. Innocent until proven guilty, we make White women and children. And males have an underrated selective bias, preferring cooperative, empathic and thoughtful partners (3). Even the asymmetry of White female beauty that White men have co-created is a sign of genetic advance and harmonious niche adaptation to environment.

Normal White men don’t create unnecessary wars, aren’t the ones exploiting others with fortune 500 companies, are not the ones over populating the world. Nevertheless, White men who are in developmental stages, on basic motivational levels seeking being, are going to be out of luck absent the class bounds. Our White class is seeking Being as well. It is struggling to assert the warrant to exist. It is the righteous fight, but fight smart we must, and look toward the power.

* * *

Absent class bounds and subject to the throes of Jewish machination, the large majority of White men are going to get screwed by those after “actualization” – like Malcolm X quoting Elijah Muhammad that the Black Man will rule – we instinctively answer “no thanks.”

"The Honorable Elijah Muhammad said that the black man will rule."
The Dark Side of Self Actualization and Incommensurate Gender Agendas.

The Black Power movement was after actualization of power – a better fit to the U.S. narrative and both feminist and traditional female motive to actualization than the incommensurate White male motive for Being – very difficult to articulate, it requires space and boundaries.

At the same time, Black Civil Rights activists as trained in the Marxist highlander school, were being instructed to adopt dress (thin black ties, horn rimmed glasses)and demeaner (“peaceful resistance” provoking police violence and public outcry for law change in favor of blacks) to occupy the intermediate levels of the social hierarchy – i.e., to affect “dignity”, the dignity of co-gate-keepers of the power.

Horned-rimmed Highlanders, Marxist trained "IN-teg-rit-AE."

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a rupturing of the White Class. After a laugh, cry or puke, settle down to see that it is evil.

Conclusion – Absent class bounds, the female one-up position emerges with increased significance, often beyond merit and sufficient testing to instill appreciation of requisite conservatism (they can always find another thug/white knight to come to their short term rescue). This exacerbated pandering and incitement to genetic competition. We need White women with White class by contrast. Civil rights ruptured developmental processes within otherwise self-corrective patterns – especially as (((weaponized))) and red caped by YKW. Correction and advance requires the legitimacy of classification – The White Class.

* * *

(1) I love women, they are veritably my religion – 14 Words – especially in a racially homogeneous situation – though not as much in mixed one: With things being so foul, and their being so incredulous as to how I could be flustered over a rule structure and demographically mixed situation that was clearly auguring catastrophe, I’ve had to think about it. While there are ways in which females can legitimately share power, many of them, young in particular, do not merit the sort of power that they wield within the disordered context of modernity.

I am not promoting only traditional roles for women. Don’t you want more Virginia Abernethys? I do. It only requires the Class and that they undergo a bit more rigor on basic levels. Conversely, a bit more Being for men in exchange for maintaining the class – and it is warranted. White men’s existence is warranted as is The White Class.

(2) In fact, encouraging the natural animosity that Black women have toward White women taking Black men is a good angle, not only in discouraging such pairings, but also in agitating to bring the Jewish / objectivist system down which is so uncaring, having broached our most sacred and important human concern, our close personal relationships as they bear upon our survival. The beaming smiles of approval that I have received from Black women in those times when I antagonized interracial couples is an irony that stays with me. The “sisters” (Black women) obviously will not care too much about the White women who take their men. On the other hand, White men do not want Black women; we sense that it is going horribly backwards: their ugly symmetry a sign of primitive undifferentiation, imperviousness to environment and social concerns, disposition to thoughtless overgrazing.

Another strategy I find relatively effective is to agree with interracial couples that Black women are indeed, ugly. It tends to confuse them as the insulted party is not there; after all, what is he doing with a White woman if Black women are so great? (obviously, exercise discretion – you may not want to say “ugly”, you might best say nothing in some cases). If they will, let these enraged Black women be allies in taking down the Jewish/objectivist system – which has broached our most sacred, our close personal relationships – its total disregard for that which is most important to us, our co-evolutionary women. Nevertheless, when listening to David Duke interview Patricia McAllister, what struck me was her claim that Blacks ought to have half of America. Do you see what I mean by hyper-assertive? For all the money and treasures they have taken from us, the destruction wrought upon us, they should have half of America?… hmm.

Mulatto Supremacism is another legitimate contention which liberals and YKW can find difficult.

(3) As opposed to the female/Nietszchean perspective which values men big and strength exclusively, impervious and undaunted no matter what, Negroes with good digestive tracts. That may explain why the N word is prohibited by the female gate keeper’s union – the N word is not ok, but Himmler was well reasoned in wanting to genocide Poles – after all, the women are beautiful; we cannot have that when Black women have the humility to be so non-threatening – so often butt ugly.

***

Despite my efforts thus far, the Jewish marketing campaign against a characterology of “the left” remains in effect, deploying its useful idiots like J.F. Gariepy as best it can (Cotto and Gottfried like you J.F., coincidence?). Hold-up in the isolated tundra of Northern Canada, J.F. has escaped the fall out of America’s liberal/right wing civil individual rights, objectivism weaponized by Jewry; and he is stupid enough to go along with their marketing campaign that it is a characterology of “the left” that has done this; not that it was an international/anti national Marxist left and an anti-White Cultural Marxist Left, nor in tandem with White liberals and right wing sell outs; no suggestion of the possibility of a White ethnonational left nor the fact that it can both look after its relative interests (as group calibration/ working hypothesis) and deal with objective reality (as feedback, dealing in brute facts, part of homeostatic correctivity in the union and basis of praxis as opposed to the natural fallacy of mere facticity).

Typically, J.F. Gariepy has been brought on [Cotto/Gottfried 11/3 2021] to say that these things – promotion of completely unrealistic, destructive ideas and censorship of their correction – is what “THE left” is doing to us and this (((the marketing campaign))) is how we should react, rather than seeing the right as temporary objectivism to provide feedback gauged for its value against the relative interests of our people.
 
Pertinently falling in line with the marketing campaign is The Z-man. At least for shows since late January, he has apparently been prompted (perhaps by fudgster Greg Johnson) to take some of my ideas and positions as points of departure, twisting them in the direction of (((the marketing program))) so that White people remain comfortable identifying as right wing, and increasingly confident in seeing the left, i.e., this marketed characterology of the left, as the problem.

How the Z-Man might twist and take this story (if I let him).

Now in the corrective and correct platform that I put forth, the class that is made central as an issue is The White Class. This is a classification of the genus of European peoples and their species, the different ethnicities of European; organized by nations in Europe, in particular.
 
But there is no divisive and permanently conflictual separation between working class and others among the White class; these differences are looked upon as being in niche symbiosis.
 
So when I talk about White people being in “elite” niches, that means that they are in more powerful positions than others in regard to borders and bounds of the system; and the responsibility for maintaining systemic homeostasis.
 
As a unionized class, we hold them to account to maintain the systemic homeostasis; that is different from looking upon them as being in a different class. They are only outside the class, or going beyond our bounds when and where they betray us; and are then subject to ostracism; just as any other class/union member would be ostracized for violating our boundaries.
 
The Ethnonation would be the class, a species of the race, which is the genus.
 
…
 
The Z-man is going to mess around with the idea of class, re-casting it terms that are suitable to Jewish interests, the language game of their marketing scheme, altercasting White identity as right wing and identifying the left as a characterized “left.”
 
In “The Mail Bag” on 26 February this is what he is up to.
 
Like many in line with the paleocons of the Sam Francis school, he interposes James Burnham’s “managerial class” as the primary enemy classification; but in this episode, he clarifies that he sees them as being under a ruling (oligarch) and political class; as opposed to Jews as the primary oppressive class, as Nazi right wingers would see it, or as opposed to the bourgeoise and owner class, as Marxists would do.
 
Whereas I would look upon the Jews as the most importantly organized classification in ethnonationalist terms; whatever elite Whites that they manage to lure into complicity with their interests, are doing so more on civic internationalist lines – liberals taking the license and flattery granted of objectivism and right wingers taking the bribe and the flattery of objectivism, are maneuvered onto civic nationalist grounds (where nominally nationalist), even where they might wish for ethnonationalism; because the narrow warrant and minimal account they seek to justify their advantage is too easily maneuvered (by a marketing campaign such as the one Z-man functions under) against ethnonational unionization and the stabilization that it would afford.
 
For whatever reason, probably not wanting to ruffle too many Jewish feathers, the Z-man takes the concept of the managerial class as the key problem.
 
Classes:
 
The Z-Man is asked by a listener about his interchangeable use of the terms, “managerial class,”, “ruling class”, and “elite class” and in this episode, he endeavors to clarify his use of these terms.
 
36:00
 
Z man is very concrete when it comes to political class; it is a crony class embedded in the political structure, involved in politics on an ongoing basis, shifting its cronies around to different political positions as need be.
 
More arbitrary is his concept of the ruling class.
 
…the ruling class are rich people like Zuckerberg; along with people in security state and the military who are bankrolled by the rich people.
 
Like the political class, they don’t go away either; “think of it as a community.”
 
The next bigger set is
 
The managerial class:
 
Z-man is much more vague about this classification, and that vagueness is interesting to me as sign of its being chimera, a misdirection against Jewish power and interests and how they actually operate, as the most organized elite group, manipulating other groups through their right wingers and liberals.
 
But the Z-Man names “corporate executives, people who run the universites for example, people who run The Media, people who run entertainment, these people constitute that managerial class; it’s a much broader too, it goes down to people who are not political appointees in federal bureaucracies, but you know they’ve been there for a long time, they’re career civil servants, they make a nice living. they know where everything is, they’re well connected. so when these appointees come and go they help them transition…in and out of their positions and all that stuff. of course the same is true in the universities…it’s not an accident that you see politicians go on to be heads of universities.”
 
“The managerial class includes EVERYTHING.”
 
“Its an aristocracy where not everybody is as important as the other in the class.”
 
Z man says “Trump was an outsider to this class, because he didn’t go to the elite schools.”
 
The last I heard, Trump went to the Ivy League, U Penn Wharton school of Economics for F sake; you cannot get more elite than that.
 
“So that’s the managerial class, a super set that includes the political class and the ruling class.”
 
This is Z man’s right wing replacement of Jews as the key antagonistic rulering class [which they are, in fact, as I see it, by top down dint of their place in 7-10 elite niches (religion, economics, academia, politics, media, law & courts, international business, funds, N.G.O’s and foundations, organized crime, military industrial technology) and from the ground up, perennially by dint of their biological patterns.
 
….
 
Extra-Black (19 February 2021)
You get this slobbering praise of blacks for these tiny little accomplishments by black people.   …If you remove white people from the equation entirely all then these activities disappear.. ..Even these trivial accomplishments of blacks are not possible without the work of White people
 
Frankly, it’s ridiculous, this slobbering praise of blacks is not helping the cause, every time anyone sees this a White Nationalist is born (31:50).
I’m not positive that Z-man is flouting the term and the cause of “White Nationalism” here, but it would seem that he may be holding himself above it still. 
…..
 
He does go on to say, true enough, that
 
“blacks are the only ones allowed to be racist and outrageously so.”
 
Z man does a good job of rejecting the patriotards, denouncing the those Whites who defend of the star spangled banner, for the civic nationalism it promotes to White fans in attendance to black idolatry in sports.
 
(49:15): “They want White people to identify as blacks do, in an entirely negative way – not by western civilization or moon landing but defined entirely by these negative new measures.”
 
But that sounds too abstract, as if he’s not seeing race as a comprehensive grouping, including positive accomplishments and of course defined negatively against those races who are not members.
….
Deep Thoughts, 12 Feb 2021 (22:00):
 
Fascism
 
… you know, Paul Gottfried wrote a book called “Fascism, the Career of a Concept” .. I recommend this book all the time.
 
The term capitalism was actually invented by the Marxists….the word fascism really does have magical powers …in the hands of the left of course its a weapon to smote their enemies real and imagined, but it’s something that they fear, they really have a visceral fear of this thing  …and of course they always tend to fear the things that they’re doing or that they are, you know they always accusing their enemies of whatever they’re up to and that’s an important thing to keep in mind as we move forward here; now of course (28:53) the right, they never pick up this thing, they’re so afraid of the topic entirely because they’ve been branded with it so many times that they don’t want any association with it at all, so they’re just allergic to the use of the word “fascism.” (Deep Thoughts, 12 Feb 2021 – 22:00).
 
On 28 January 2021, I posted
 
Part 9 of Generational Astrology: Zodiac Sign of the Boomer.
 
In this part, I said:
 
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.
 
….
 
The Z-Man set up his conclusion to tag the enemies fascists as follows:
 
Z-Man begins by chasing one of the most major (((red capes))) by equating liberal and leftism:
 
…”leftists”  as liberals uniting with corporations like a fascism:
 
I certainly remember the idea of liberals hating corporations and hating big business. And yet here they are uniting. 
“The common factor (in the variants of fascism) was bringing together business labor and government into a corporate body of the  people.”
(Until recently) the idea of liberal groups enlisting the titans of industry was unthinkable.
Everyone is focused on how weird this is…
“leftists’, liberals uniting with corporations like fascism.”
..”the people who have been endlessly railing about how trump is a fascist and an authoritarian are now bragging about staging what amounts to a fascist coup.”
“The reaction to the protests on January 6th kind of aligns with the Reichstag fire used by the Nazis to suspend civil liberties, to eliminate political opposition, force other people to support their seizure of government, to crack down on dissidents, Trump supporters especially, forcing Republicans to make allocutions about their role in the election”… 
 
“Biden has already singed 52 executive orders, more than any other president and he’s only been in office a few weeks …the imperial president that the left is always warning about.”
“The Left’ is using this to crack down further  on free speech civil liberties.” 

Everyone is focused on how weird this is…

..but the common factor in fascism was bringing together business labor and government into a corporate body of the  people.

..the people who have been endlessly railing about how trump is a fascist and an authoritarian are now bragging about staging what amounts to a fascist coup.

When you get past the misdirection of “voter fraud” and concentrate on Zuckerberg’s corporate sponsorship of inner city voter registration, Z-man renders a valid depiction.

But I still don’t choose to go along with him as the Z- man concludes:
“It is kind of like the trillion dollar bill that is laying on the sidewalk.”
 
… “calling these people fascists is something that everyone on our side is afraid to do, but its a pretty effective weapon, the word fascist is their kryptonite, its the thing that scares them because they know in their heart that’s who they are, and we’re seeing it, we’re seeing them play it out, the thing that they’re always accusing others of is the thing that they know down deep is the thing that they’d do if given the opportunity and they’ve had the opportunity….it’s time for us to take the opportunity to call them that, start using this weapon, start calling them what they are, they’re fascists.”.
 
Playing opposite day with my use of terms (in this case, I say I can’t be bothered with the term fascist, so Z-man goes gung -ho with the suggestion that it should be used) is something Greg Johnson, his acolytes and the like have been doing; and this is concerning especially because Johnson’s elitist discrimination as opposed to qualitatively horizontal, racial discrimination, is prone to infiltration and subversion.
 
Greg Johnson once said, “we don’t get to decide what we’re called, right or left.”
 
Why not, Greggy, because identifying as right wing (or third position) suits your prissy, elitist faggotry?
.”One of the things that right wing people have always struggled with is understanding the motivations and mental processes of people on the left. Even people who have journeyed to this side of the great divide have often struggled to make sense; of what motivates a left wing person. I mean, it is quite baffling; and the reason for this though and the reason why we often struggle to understand what they’re up to and why they’re doing these things, and often get it wrong, is because right wing people often tend to be republican objectivists.“
I doubt that Z-Man would be using the word objectivists, if I had not observed its corresponding with right wing identity in a great deal of critique.
 
Z-man goes on:
“Lenin, the communists, Bolsheviks, they are generally considered responsible for giving us the term partisan, partisanship, ideological partisanship…and Lenin talked about this difference between the bourgeoise – they look at public policy, they look at public issues, they look at history, and they say, well, there’s an objective truth here; and that’s important, we need to find out what the truth is; and in the case of public policy say, what’s the best public policy.”
 
“But a partisan, especially a class conscious partisan in the case of Lenin,, they don’t look at that, they look at what’s in the best interest of their class, they look at what’s in the best interest of their side; and so, you’re not worried about the truth or trying to come up with the right solution; you know, you’re worried about what works for you, how it advances your interests. That’s the difference.
 
And in the case of America there’s this civic virtue that’s come into that objective, that objectivism and so we look at social problems and we try to come up with the best solution in the moral framework of republican virtue.”
 
“That’s the way that the republican minded, objectivist mind works.”
 
“Ideological partisans, on the other hand, they’re always thinking about what advances their partisan interests. They look at the homeless problem, and they ask how can we take advantage of this, how can we advance our ideology, how can we use this as a weapon … In the case of bums, they let them out of the asylums, really low security prisons….and that creates a bum problem; so instead of trying to solve the bum problem they were just using this as an ideological weapon to beat over their enemies head – back in the 80s they were constantly saying hat Reagan caused this homeless problem when in fact it was the left that did it. The bums and their problems really are of no interest to the left …they really  just look at it as how can we use it as a weapon… this baffles people on the right…. (((Steve Sailer))) … who I’ve been reading for more than twenty years…  has been trying to come up with rational explanations for the madness he observes on the left…he’s completely baffled by the ideologue ..Tucker Carlson will say the reason they do this is power….no, the reason they do this is because they actually hate you. It has nothing to do with rational explanation. But our side struggles with that, we can’t wrap our minds around it; many on this side of the great divide also suffer from it, even though we’re much more realistic about the human condition. We still are rational people, and we think that people are motivated by rational self interest and so its tough for us to grasp the workings of the partisan mind; it’s simply too alien.”
Well I have an example of this, something that I think is pretty good as an explanation of this:
 
L.A. Times Colum, Virginia Hefferlan “What Can We Do About the Trumpites Next Door?”
 
Now I looked her up and lets just say that it’s unfortunate that the world “heffer” is in her name.”
She has become heavy in her middle age; and “heffer” is a term for a cow, sometimes used to describe a fat woman. Interestingly, it is also a Gaelic word meaning “demon.”
Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 31 Mar 2017: In front of a sold-out audience, Steinem and Heffernan, who is a Senesh parent, discussed the values that influenced Steinem’s campaigns for gender equality and human rights. The talk ranged from Steinem’s suffragist Jewish grandmother, to the Passover Seders she participated in, to her thoughts about religion in general. Steinem also spoke about the relationship between feminism and Judaism, characterizing Judaism as “a religion that continues to want justice on earth and that idea of justice is contagious.”
Z-man goes on reading the article by Heffernan, L.A. Times, 8 Feb 2021:
“Oh, heck no. The Trumpites next door to our pandemic getaway, who seem as devoted to the ex-president as you can get without being Q fans, just plowed our driveway without being asked and did a great job.
 

How am I going to resist demands for unity in the face of this act of aggressive niceness?

Of course, on some level, I realize I owe them thanks — and, man, it really looks like the guy back-dragged the driveway like a pro — but how much thanks?

These neighbors are staunch partisans of blue lives, and there aren’t a lot of anything other than white lives in the neighborhood.

This is also kind of weird. Back in the city, people don’t sweep other people’s walkways for nothing.
 
Maybe it’s like what Eddy Murphy discovered in that old Saturday Night Live sketch, White Like Me, he goes undercover in White makeup … and discovers that when White people are alone they give things to one another for free.”
The reality: Whites can be obsequious for blacks as well. Paige Butcher has two offspring with Eddie Murphy despite his having several others with different non-White women.
Z-man comments on the opening paragraphs of Heffewrnan’s L.A. Times article:
Z-Man continues (48:02): Notice a couple things right away. First of all, this is a woman who, no doubt, is ranting and raving about racists all the time; and yet her get away is to live in an all White neighborhood. The lack of self awareness is a defining feature of the partisan. They can’t see themselves; this woman wants to live in an all white neighborhood and yet at the same time call everyone a racist for wanting to live in an all white neighborhood.
Notice the other thing here. She looks at this small gesture of neighborliness and immediately starts thinking about the politics of it. …the normal person ..thanks the neighbor for the kindness. That’s how normal minds work.
 
The partisan mind assumes everyone is working some angle for their hive for their interest. So they evaluate everything that everyone does through that lens.
 
What are these people up to? How shall I respond in order to advance my ideological interests.
 
I mean that’s what this whole column is about; she’s trying to help her fellow hive mates figure out how to turn other people’s niceness, you know those people outside the hive, turn it to their advantage.
 
Heffernan goes on:
Ibid, L.A. Times, 5 Feb 2021, Heffernan:
 
“Hezbollah, the Shiite Islamist political party in Lebanon also gives away stuff for free; the favors Hezbollah does..like other mafia, Hezbollah attends to its own…. and demand devotion to their brutal us versus them anti Sunni cause, some of us are family, the favor says, the rest are infidels.
 
The same is true of Louis Farrakhan, who currently helms the Nation of Islam. While the Southern Poverty Law Center classifies him as a dangerous anti Semite much of his flock says that he is just a little screwy and unfailingly magnanimous to them. When someone helps you when you are down … it’s almost impossible to regard them as a blight on the world. In fact, you are more likely to be overwhelmed with gratitude and convinced of the person’s inherent goodness.
 
You might end up like the upper middle class family that I stayed with in France as a teenager. They did not attend a city wide celebration for the 100th birthday of Charles DE Gaulle – the war hero who orchestrated the liberation of his country from Nazi Germany. They did have several portraits of Felipe Petain, Nazi collaborator, on their wall. When I screwed up the courage to ask how it was to them during the occupation? the lady of the house replied we were happy because the Nazis were very “polis” .. I was in tears when I found out (that meant) polite.
 
So when I accept generosity from my pandemic neighbors, acknowledging the legitimate kindness with a wave and a plate of cookies am I also sealing us in as fellow travelers who are very polis to each other but not so much to “them.”
Z-man continues (50:56):
 
Now lets look at this for a second. I mean, this woman is comparing her neighbors to Hezbollah, the Nation of Islam or Nazis. That’s pretty monstrous. Imagine being this bleep’s neighbor?
 
Normal are worried about speaking ill of someone when they’re not around.
 
Partisans are incapable of that normal human emotion because the only thing that mattes to them is the people is membership in their hive. It’s all consuming. That’s why she lumps Hezbollah, the Nation of Islam and the Nazis in the same camp as her neighbors, these Trump voters. The partisan just sees the world as good guys and bad guys,  ..it gets back to this lack of self awareness…she can’t see that what she’s describing is herself. ..when she peers over the hive walls, all she sees are the undifferentiated masses that are bad guys. .. this is why she can mix and match, and don’t even think about it… all these names, right winger, Trump supporter, Hezbollah, extremist., Q Anon, Nazis, fascist, all this means is that they are outsiders – them; all that matters to her is that they are outsiders.
 
Note the entirely contrived story about staying with a family of Nazi collaborators during high school ..this woman is 51, which means that her trip was probably in he late 80s …what are the odds of her staying with a family of senior citizens who were Nazi collaborators? I would say just about zero. But in the Partisan mind the truth is not a constraint. 

Notice that the Z-man is chasing after the (((red cape))) of the hermeneutic liberation from mere facticity – a good and necessary Heideggerian idea, properly understood and deployed – which I have been advancing for years despite total resistance from Asshole (Guessedworker).

Z-man continues: This is why they’re so fond of these whoppers they post on social media. …because when all that matters is advancing your ideological interests, the truth is just another tool at your disposal. When the truth is useful use the truth, when a lie will work, use the lie.
Finally, we get this from Heffernan:
Heffernan: So here’s my response to my ploughed driveway for now. Politely but not profusely, I’ll acknowledge the Sassian move with a wave and thanks, a minimal start at building back trust. But I’m not ready to knock on the door with a covered dish yet. I also can’t give my neighbors absolution; it’s not mine to give. Free driveway work, as nice as it is, is just not the same currency as justice and truth. To pretend it is would be a lie and they probably aren’t looking for absolution anyway. But I can offer a standing invitation to make amends. Not with a snow plough but by recognizing the truth about the Trump administration and more important, by working for justice for all those the administration harmed. Only when we work shoulder to shoulder to repair the damage of the last four years, will we even begin to dig out of this storm.
Z-man (54:01): Now this is a woman who said earlier in this post, that she’s not sure about how to go about building unity. Well what she defines as unity is everyone outside the walls, the only way they will ever be part of whatever she’s a part of is that they fully give up, they completely quit. They accept all of her ideological arguments and accept them as truth. This is the hard part for our side. These people lack normal empathy. This is not a normal person. This is a sociopath. This woman is just demented, this is not human. This woman cannot be nice to her generous neighbors until they are broken; until they accept her ideological fantasies as the truth.
 
The detachment from reality is another aspect of the Partisan mind. Because, again, she is not concerned about facts; that’s a right wing thing. Right wing people worry about facts and making logical arguments from those facts; to derive new facts, that’s what right wing people do. because they’re objective. They look at the world and they say that these are the things that are true and these are the things that we can derive from these truths and these are the things that we’re not sure about, they’re opinions. 
 Z-man plays opposite day with me. In fact, detachment from reality is a liberal and right wing thing – Cartesian – i.e., liberal and right wing.
 
Note how he uses the term “objectivism.” Doubtful that he would do that without the prompting to re direct people from my correct/ corrective platform.
 
Right wing people cling and grasp after facts in reaction to Jewish inspired liberal rhetoric against them, but aren’t penetrating in their reaction to ask which facts and for whom? Liberals, egged-on by Marxist and Cultural Marxist to open White borders and bounds, rely on objective facts inasmuch they excuse their license and destruction of White (lets say) partisanship.
 
For the partisan, everything is opinion; Truth is just opinion because there is no truth; it’s just how you use it, it’s how you wield it.
This woman is evil… the neighbor should not have been nice to her, because this woman and all these left wing partisans, they’re evil. Decent moral people can’t understand evil. It’s impossible for us. It’s beyond our capacity. All we can do is oppose it.
The lack of self awareness here…it is amazing just how blind these people are to reality. All that matters to them is this hive mindedness, this fantasy world they live in. In isolation its no big deal but these people have real power. You know, partisans are the bane of civilized society; the only thing we can do is wall ourselves off and isolate them from decent, civilized people. 
Virginia Heffernan, Los Angeles Times OPINION WRITER

And the Z-Man’s “Past Comparisons” is perhaps most telling of his playing a game of opposite day with me – not saying its a major animating motivation of his life and work, but it is there.

The Z-Man may not be riffing on my hermeneutics by way of his “Past Comparisons” but having said that, there are coincidences further indicating a game of “opposite day”; lets move in to this.

“Past Comparisons”, 29 January 2021:

As I mentioned above, I find Locke’s grievance against classification and the part his notion of civil individual rights over and against by contrast, especially as weaponized by Jewry, to be a more instructive starting point than the usual right wing starting point against the French Revolution and its depiction of “the left.” … I do think the French Revolution was important, of course, and I talk about it in the article on red caping. But I find that I am making more sense with my starting point than people who start there.

Well, Z-man starts this episode with that starting point, the French Revolution, and he articulates the scene and its characters very well.

I've found Locke and The American Revolution to make more sense of what is going on than The French Revolution, but anyway...

Z-Man takes the usual right wing historical starting point to follow the program of leftist characterology:

“Arguably, the most important event in western history is The French Revolution…

Z-Man argues for this starting point on the basis of its instructive familiarity – as Joe Sobran pointed out (reference to Joe Sobran providing another clue as to Z-Man’s paleoconservatism).

“The French Revolution is usually depicted as starting with the storming of the Bastille and ending with Napoleon.”

“The seeds of the French Revolution were really in the efforts to reform the finances and the economy of France.”
“The first guy who is interesting is a guy named Anne Robert Jacques Turgot.”
 
Before him were the physiocrats, who were only looking at agricultural output – and this was a very old way of looking at things – not looking at labor, trade, innovation and invention..
Anne Robert Jacques Turgot; French; 10 May 1727 – 18 March 1781), commonly known as Turgot, was a French economist and statesman. Originally considered a physiocrat, he is today best remembered as an early advocate for economic liberalism. He is thought to be the first economist to have recognized the law of diminishing marginal returns in agriculture.
…didn’t calculating these factors into the economic equation.
 
The system was in trouble debt high, taxes not covering, concerns about solvency of crown
 
He was appointed controller general of finances in 1774.
 
And his first Act was to submit to the king a statement of his guiding principles:
 
No bankruptcy, no increase of taxation and no borrowing.
This was very appealing to the Crown, troubled for solvency as it was, because what it was saying in effect is that no hard decisions would have to be made.
 
Though his austerity caused pain to the broader public, he managed class conflicts pretty well – he handled food riots and dealings with the American Revolution well; he was correct about the need for austerity, but the economy was still suffering as a result of medieval tax structure, debt and patronage.
Things were getting better but not enough.
 
To tackle these problems he introduced the six edicts (which got him fired):
One was the suppression of a form of forced labor. Landed aristocrats had been relying on free labor.
 
He also wanted to suppress the guild system, because this was closing off competition and innovation.
 
The people who ran the guild system profited greatly from the fact that they had this choke point for tradesman and so they got rich off of it. 
 
So guess what, those two edicts weren’t very popular.
 
You’re basically telling two very powerful constituencies that they are going to have to give up the thing that made them wealthy and powerful.
 
The king’s ministers agreed and the only question was how they were going to get rid of  Turgot.
 
Really what he ran into was two other things. This was a system that he was trying to reform that had very powerful constituents in that system that saw reform, any kind of reform, as an implicit threat against their position.
 
It wasn’t just about money, it was about their position, there was a psychological component.
 
Essentially he was trying to reform the economy to eliminate these positions and that was never going to fly.
 
Inside the court they were still doing the same old intrigues and politics that they always did before there was a serious crisis; it was like a game for these people.
 
What mattered to the people inside the crown was not this existential crisis that was threatening their very existence, they couldn’t think of that; they could think about petty insider politics. That was the downfall of Turgot.
 
Jacques Necker; 30 September 1732 – 9 April 1804) was a Genevan banker who served as finance minister for Louis XVI and a statesman. Necker played a key role in French history before and during the first period of the French Revolution.
After him was a guy named Jacques Necker, who became the next finance minister from 1777 to 1781. He publicized finances, something that  had never been done and that practice got him fired, though publication wasn’t the problem so he gets hired then fired again (kind of like the Billy Martin of his times) … then there is the storming of the Bastille so he’s brought back again …he figures the crowd has learned finally what they have to do in terms of tax reform, but no…the crowd doesn’t agree and six months later he resigns.
 
The thing that is fascinating about Necker though, is that he is, in a lot of ways like the reformers we see in our modern politics. 
 
Frist of all, he was not a noble, and that’s a big deal.
 
He was never one of them and that made him an outsider. And that put him at a disadvantage; and that seemed to be something that he never fully processed.
 
He was treated like an enemy when he was there to help.
 
He never really grasped that being correct, having the right formula was not as important as figuring out the politics, like Turgot, he saw the problems that France faced but he couldn’t figure out how to implement those structural reforms.
 
…he kept slamming into the politics because it really wasn’t an economic problem, it was a political problem.
 
Having a better solution didn’t matter; he had to win the politics to win the economic problem.
 
He always tried to use the economics to win the politics and it never works that way. It doesn’t work that way today.
 
Still Necker remained a true believer and this is what I’m seeing with the right today; no amount of hypocrisy, no amount of double standards, changing standards, no amount failure seems to shake the faith of the reformers.
The successful reformer has help from the inside while the failed reformer winds up hated by both sides….

Comparisons to the politicians of today and recent history...

A change that has gone largely unremarked is that politicians don’t act anything like they did 25-30 years ago.
They have become insulated in a world not susceptible to town hall tough questions; same with Wall Street people and Hollywood stars, athletes …no personal appearances, they are divorced from interpersonal interaction.
Politicians are like actors now, cut out characters, abstract.
 
This feedback loop has been broken; they move through the controlled interaction of the internet.
 
This is January 29th, two days after I posted Trout Mask Replica
Trout Mask Replica: Weirdness Distinguishing White Being, Creativity.
(21:50): These politicians, into the 90s would go out and meet their constituents and they’d get feedback. They’d find out; and this went on almost into the Obama years, really through the Bush years, the Town Halls, people coming back, you know getting out of Congress for recess, they’d come back and they’d have Town Halls and people would show up and say things. And then it stopped. That’s gone now and of course, with the Covid stuff it’s completely gone. 
You know, at first they went to doing conference calls. They didn’t like people showing up and asking unscripted questions, then they moved to this conference-call model.
 
And that became a popular thing, particularly for Democrats.
 
Democrats started walling themselves off from their constituents and of course the Republicans followed soon after.
 
Now it’s all zoom-sessions. 
 
I get e-mails every once in a while, and you just can’t log-in and start asking them questions. First of all, you have to send them a copy of your I.D., then they allow you to log-in, and then you ask a question and it goes in the queue and someone asks it, you can’t just ask this person what you want to ask; you’re just a prop, it’s just a show that’s put on, it has no meaning what-so-ever.
 
And if you try to get on, and look, I have, I’ve tried to get on some of these to ask some tough questions, there’s no way in the world you’re going to get through to ask that tough question.
And we see this of course in our politics, in our elections. 
In Hillary Clinton’s campaign in 2016, all the people in the Town Halls that she was holding, they were just staffers playing make-believe. They were just hiring people as actors to ask questions that they knew in advance. 
 
Biden didn’t even bother. He just stayed in a basement for a year. He didn’t even go outside. It’s a strange thing. We no longer have any connection to these guys.
And this has happened in parallel with other areas of our society that have become insular.
 
Wall Street for example. That is a self contained universe. If you work in Wall Street, you have no connection with normal people. You work in these firms, you socialize in these firms, you party in these firms, everything’s inside that world. You don’t go outside that world. You’re whole reality is now inside of it. ..the same is true of Hollywood.
You know, it used to be Hollywood people, actors / actresses, made a lot of personal appearances. You don’t see that anymore. That hardly ever happens.
Athletes, they still do some. But it used to be quite common. I remember when I was a little kid in the back water where I grew up, it wasn’t unusual for a sports ball guy to come through at least once a year, in some event that we were having, some big thing, someone would figure out a way to get this guy, whatever he did, baseball or football or something like that, maybe a retired guy, or just recently retired and then he would show up and sign autographs.
 
This was a thing that happened all the time.
 
Again, athletes still do some amount of it, or a fair amount of it. But it’s greatly reduced. Hollywood people do none of that anymore. They’ve got bodyguards to beat the hell out of anyone that gets too close to them.
 
You can take this even further.
 
The mass media.
 
When I was a young guy, there were newspaper people, most of them lived in normal neighborhoods, they lived around everyone else. Some of the richer ones, the ones who’d been around a long time, no, they didn’t, they moved into some pricier digs; but you know, your typical reporter, you know, he was a middle class guy. You go back further, it was a working class job. Those guys were working class people, they lived in working class neighborhoods. Today, they all live in middle class or upper middle class compounds. They’re not around us.
 
And it really is kind of a weird thing, you know… it you watch, say, a TV show, you know, a Cable chat show and this person’s being interviewed, you know, the person on the Cable chat show is making a quarter million dollars a year, half a million dollars a year maybe, maybe more – like in Tucker Carlson’s case, ten million dollars a year. He lives in a mansion. Sean Hannity, lives in a mansion.  And so, he has no connection with the rest of us. Interviewing someone who doesn’t live anywhere near us doesn’t interact with us anymore.
 
It’s a strange sort of play that’s put on in front of us by people that we don’t know and they don’t know us. They don’t know anything about us; they don’t know anything about our lives. 
 
And so this normal feedback loop has been broken.
 
And its getting worse, because the children of these people now, who are adults, the second generation, they had no exposure. They grew up in a completely isolated world. They went to private schools, they lived in nice neighborhoods, that are upper middle class – in the case of say, Washington (D.C.),, toney neighborhoods around the Capitol. Or if they’re Wall Street people, toney neighborhoods in Connecticut. You know, you get the idea; and they haven’t had any interaction with the rest of us. This is why, I think, our ruling class is becoming increasingly weird to the rest of us.
 
(26:20): It’s strange what we’re seeing. I guess I’ve reached a point where I’m not outraged. I’m baffled, really. You know, for example, why in the world would Joe Biden appoint a tranny to Health and Human Services or whatever the heck she’s gonna do? It’s gonna do, or he’s gonna do, or whatever it’s called? Why would anyone do that?
 
Frankly, the number of men walking around, believing that their penis is imaginary and that they’re a woman, is tiny. It rounds to zero.
 
In my life, and I’ve been around a lot. I’ve seen a lot of things. I’ve seen things that most people will never see. I have actually seen in person, three trannies. Three, in my whole life. Three trannies, and one of them was outside in Key West when my friends and I were walking around; we drove down, were on a drinking trip in Key West and there was some sort of club there, like I said it was a tranny club. There was one or two of them standing outside. Maybe I saw four, I don’t know. But that’s it, I mean there’s just not that many in this world. I mean the number of trans people is less than one percent, like .3%. So where does the constituency put this?
 
Most people, 99% of people, probably 95 percent of people at least, think that this is very weird, this is strange and if they found themselves in the presence of some man in a dress, they’re gonna make sure that their kids are not going to be exposed to this. They’re going to try and get themselves away from this person. That’s just the way it is.
 
So who the hell is he appealing-to here?
 
Who is the audience for this?
 
It’s the same thing, you know, one of his big, bold moves is that he’s now going to let trannies into the military. You know, Trump had put a ban on that; and you know, if you’re a man in the army, or you’re in the military, and there’s some dude walking around dressed as a woman, I mean think of how absurd that is. Just the ridiculousness of it. How could you take yourself seriously, how could you have pride in your uniform – pride in the thing that your doing, pride in your service…when there’s some pervert in a dress walking around. You know, who makes all the same claims to honor and duty and service as you make. 
 
It’s crazy.
 
Again, whose the audience for this? Who is he appealing to?
 
Well, the audience is all those other people in the bubble, the bubble that he lives in. It’s the bubble that all his advisors live in; because they all know each other, they all talk to each other. 
 
They don’t know anything outside of their bubble.
 
They actually think that this is a popular thing. They’re convinced that the great mass of people were offended by Trump not allowing trannies in the military. 
 
It’s crazy, but they do believe it because guess what? In their world, that’s true.
 
In their world, a man in a dress is brave and bold and so forth.
 
It’s the same thing with the pronoun business.
 
Think about this, how nutty that is, I don’t care how young you are…even if you’re in your twenties.
 
Most of your life, pronouns were a pretty straight forward thing, you mastered those somewhere, second grade, third grade maybe, I don’t know…(29:14) ..it’s been a long time, don’t remember.
….
A quick note on the red cape of the pronoun issue; and I find it hard to believe that right wingers get caught up on this red capign of a minor issue (like leaving the tiny percentage of gays alone) the pronoun issue has a valid point beneath the red caping for reactionaries: Referring to god as a “he” seems a bit much, if you don’t know the gender of the subject the pronoun “they” would seem to make more sense than “he.” My opinion.
…..
But you know, you had a pretty good handle on them (pronouns) before you even got to school. You understood what pronouns were: boys were “he”, “him”, girls were “her”, “she”, wasn’t that hard.
And now all of a sudden, in that world, it’s considered important, you know, you have to list your pronouns. I have gotten e-mails from people in that sphere, they’ll have their job title, and then they’ll have their pronouns under it. In and e-mail. I mean, think of how warped that is.
 
And when you talk to these people, it’s pretty clear that there’s this weird invisible barrier – in my case, between them and me. 
 
They have a sense of reality that’s not the same as mine.
 
And particularly when you bump up in the sort of practical matters, which is often what I’m dealing with.. I think, how is it that everything doesn’t just catch on fire and burn down? they don’t operate by the same rules that govern my universe.
 
They’re operating by a different set of rules.
 
They think the most ridiculous and silly things are important.
 
They’ll invest a tremendous amount of time in some weird ceremonial thing. ..or ritual thing about like pronouns or something like that. They think that’s important.
 
And I think its this insularity; that these people, once they go into the system, lets say He’s a normal person and THEY run for Congress and THEY get into politics, quickly that door slams behind them.
 
They stop dealing with normal people every day.
…
This would speak to my integrative idea, retooling Maslow’s heirarchy
….
And before long they’re dealing with nothing but people inside the tent.
 
It goes back to this Solzhenitsyn story back from the pre-Revolution days in Russia. Everyone in this intellectual class, this pseudo intellectual class that was forming up in Russia, the most important thing to them was that they all agreed with each other.
 
They all held the same opinions and that’s what mattered.
 
And if the opinions were weird or strange or contradictory, it didn’t matter. What mattered is that they held those opinions; because that was important inside. 
 
What was going on outside didn’t matter.
 
And that’s what we’ve really had going on here.
 
Our political class, to which I would include the media, to some degree the academy, ah, certainly the financial sector, big corporations…
 
They’ve become untethered from the rest of us, they’ve become divorced from the rest of us. And that’s why they’re acting so strange and weird.
 
To them, everything is normal. That’s why they’re not responding to public outrage.
 
They’re not responding to the normal feedback because they’re cut off from that feedback.
 
And living in a very isolated world, at some point, it seems to me at some point this is going to become a bigger problem than just guys walking around in dresses and telling us what their pronouns are.
 
[boom noise; end of segment]
To us, these people are completely crazy, they may as well be speaking in tongues, their own political Esperanto. 
To shed some light on this, I want to read a little of this Breitbart piece: “Trump’s impeachment would bring unity to our country.”
Senator Romney argued that it would bring national unity.
“The incitation toward the insurrection that led to the attack on the capital… the citation to insurrection; this is very serious, an attack on on the very foundation of our democracy.”
 
This is insane, crazy talk.
Romney is one of the most repugnant figures that I’ve ever seen in politics..
 
Thumbing your nose at half the country who put up with five years of media campaigning against Trump and his election, how’s that going to bring unity?
 
What attack on the foundation of democracy?
…
In another story, anti Trumpist Eric Swalwell is compromised by a Chinese honey pot; is not contrite but elevated in the party. This guy is at the top of the security apparatus and remains there.
….
In another section I mentioned that the French Revolution offered up good comparisons. The thing that seemed to move the revolution along was that old regime didn’t seem to be aware, to consider how people outside the regime were seeing things, they were only seeing things inside their world.
 
You know, that’s what you see here; Mit Romney spends all his time around people in Washington, he doesn’t talk to normal people; so this gobbledygook that he spills out just sounds perfectly normal to him…
 
They look at the unity thing as important.
 
They look at Trump as having divided them, they don’t care about anything else, that’s why they want unity.
 
That’s why they want to throw all these Trump people in jail.
 
We’re now ruled by people who are so different from the rest of us that they may as well be foreigners, they may as well be aliens.
 
These people look increasingly foreign and weird to us because they are foreign and weird. – we do feel, because we are ruled by foreigners.
 
[boom noise ending segment]
 
This ruling class is so different – incommensurate such that they may as well be aliens, speaking a different language, using a different moral code …we’re ruled by foreigners.
 
…..

…

Among these episodes of the Z-man (I have to re-locate the particular show and time stamp) he relates an episode of how he was “a Pat Buchanan” fan, when he was running for president; and he came on the TV…(Z-man) thought great these people in the bar would be glad to talk to me about him but they didn’t like him…
 
Now, Z-man’s like of Pat Buchanan say a couple things (bad) about him: being a Pat Buchanan affirms his (((paleoconservatism))). Pat Buchanan was a wooden Indian or bobo doll (choose your metaphor) of controlled opposition. He was easy to point to for liberals and so holed up in the media as the conservative opponent, “the ethnoncentric communicator”… whose Christianity bound him to universalism and American principles constrained him to civic nationalism.
 
I’ll never forget the way Buchanan fell for the red cape of “multi-culturalism”, calling it a “sewer” …thus, we should all be Christians, speak English and integrate as Americans (rather than have multicultural diversity). The man’s a fool. Neo Nazi’s like him as he makes stupid arguments about how World War II was unnecessary; failing to lay the blame where it belongs, with Hitler – especially if you want to exercise 20/20 hindsight; and not write it off as history anyway.
 
Lastly for now, Z-man shores up his (((Paleocon))) come (((Dissident Right))) discredentials by the books that he recommends (and one that he doesn’t recommend) to beginners to White advocacy (12 Mar 2021):
 
He recommends Paul Gottfried, naturally. Pat Buchanan, of course. 
 
Peter Brimelow and Jared Taylor, no harm to Jews.
 
Yuri Slezkine on the Jewish Century.
 
He also recommends reading (((Yoram Hazony))) (who is explicitly against the idea of DNA Nations) in connection with Greg Johnson.
 
He does not recommend Kevin MacDonald for starters (“makes people crazy”).
Gloria Steinem (left) was the inaugural speaker at the Hannah Senesh Community Day School’s new series Conversations@Senesh. She was interviewed by journalist Virginia Heffernan (right). Photo by Drew Geraci

Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 31 Mar 2017

Hannah Senesh Community Day School is a progressive, independent K-8 Jewish day school located at 342 Smith St. in Carroll Gardens. Its students are drawn from a diversity of Jewish backgrounds.

In front of a sold-out audience, Steinem and Heffernan, who is a Senesh parent, discussed the values that influenced Steinem’s campaigns for gender equality and human rights.

The talk ranged from Steinem’s suffragist Jewish grandmother, to the Passover Seders she participated in, to her thoughts about religion in general.

Steinem also spoke about the relationship between feminism and Judaism, characterizing Judaism as “a religion that continues to want justice on earth and that idea of justice is contagious.”

On being Christian. Then Jewish. Then Christian again.

Fit Yourself Club, 20 Nov 2016

Virginia Heffernan, 47, the author of Magic and Loss: The Internet as Art, converted to Judaism when she got married. When the relationship ended, the New Yorker converted back.

“Disparate Impact”, an evil legal doctrine in US jurisprudence.

It’s clear that (((Frame Games))), an (((interloper))) on White advocacy, is playing a (((frame game))) in which he is trying to say that Jewish abuse of “social sciences” (viz., against Whites) is an inherent problem of these disciplines (and the answer is right wing scientism against this social “left”) when in fact the problem is not inherent in these disciplines, the problem is inherent in the Jewish abuse of these disciplines.

This disingenuous angle that he is taking in order to encourage right wing reaction and identity among Whites follows my hypothesis of what the YKW are trying to do – make “the left”, i.e. a proper sense of social unionization/organization of non Jewish groups, particularly Whites, against them, into “the problem”, replacing it with a misdirecting characterology of  “The Left” as the “enemy” – now that they have hegemony in the 7 – 10 power niches:

1) Money 2) Religion 3) Politics, 4) Law and Courts 5) Academia 6) Media (mutating into control of internet choke points and additional tech interactive control) 7) Business/international business [add Foundations, NGO’s],  8) Military tech and cyberwarfare, 9) Organized Crime.

That is, they don’t want you to do any of that lefty social organizing and unionizing now that they are on top; they don’t want you to realize that that lefty organizing of their group interests was largely how they attained hegemonic power – they want you to believe that lefty organizing is your problem; that they got to where they are through objective right wing merit, through pure objective scientifically warranted facts – lol.

Anti-Racism is anti-social classification (unionization being one form thereof, ethno-nationalism another, and these forms can overlap). This prohibition is Cartesian, it is not innocent, it is hurting and it is killing people.

It blocks accountability to social historical capital and social systemic patterns of human ecology.

Right wingers are usually reacting to a system – and people – that they don’t want to be a part of; often quite rightly so.

In the case of Jews, however, their right wing advocacy is motivated by not wanting You goyim to be a part of a coherent, autonomously unionized social system.

Nevertheless, Frame Games is assimilating some of the better talking points and concerns of White advocacy; and in his attempt to ingratiate himself to White right wing reaction, he is providing some insights that we can use; such as this horror:

Frame Games: (In the Jewish academic world he came into) “I was encouraged to put the threatening line of inquiry, my love of science and biology aside and to study law instead.

But one of the things that first shocked me on my red pill journey was a class in Constitutional Law. I thought I’d left biology behind…

Then we got to the section on the 1964 Civil Rights Act…

And how THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE has been re-interpreted away from equal to where any White over representation is considered prima facie evidence of racial discrimination.

A lot of people think of affirmative action being the exception to the equal protection clause…. if you only knew how deep it goes…

Are you guys familiar with “disparate impact”? …..a legal doctrine

“Disparate Impact is probably the most evil and disgusting piece of distoriionary nuclear fall-out in American jurisprudence.

What it says is that:

If there are racially neutral laws on the books or racially neutral practices at any corporation or government agency, if they have the effect of creating disparate impact on different groups – that is, if there are racial differences that emerge even where they are racially neutral by law, by practice, by custom, then it is presumed as prima facie evidence of racial discrimination and allows anybody to launch a civil rights law-suit against you with TREBLE –

A law suit against you with Treble damages – that means three times damages from whatever you suffered. So, Disparate Impact means that no matter what you do, if you are a company, you are a solo practitioner, if you are a government agency, no matter what you do, if racial differences emerge you are liable unless you can prove, that is, the burden of proof is on you to show that you are PROACTIVELY DISCRIMINATING (for blacks/browns and against Whites, against Asians too, really, as they have to score 400 points higher than blacks on SAT’s to get the same university slots).

This is a common law doctrine.”

 Posted by “Disparate Impact” on Mon, 21 May 2018 10:02 | #

Frame Games: (By this Jewish academic world) “I was encouraged to put the threatening line of inquiry, my love of science and biology aside and to study law instead.

But one of the things that first shocked me on my red pill journey was a class in Constitutional Law. I thought I’d left biology behind…

Then we got to the section on the 1964 Civil Rights Act…

And how THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE has been re-interpreted away from equal to where any White over representation is considered prima facie evidence of racial discrimination.

A lot of people think of affirmative action being the exception to the equal protection clause…. if you only knew how deep it goes…

Are you guys familiar with “disparate impact”? …..a legal doctrine

“Disparate Impact is probably the most evil and disgusting piece of distoriionary nuclear fall-out in American jurisprudence.

What it says is that:

If there are racially neutral laws on the books or racially neutral practices at any corporation or government agency, if they have the effect of creating disparate impact on different groups – that is, if there are racial differences that emerge even where they are racially neutral by law, by practice, by custom, then it is presumed as prima facie evidence of racial discrimination and allows anybody to launch a civil rights law-suit against you with TREBLE –

A law suit against you with Treble damages – that means three times damages from whatever you suffered.

So, Disparate Impact means that no matter what you do, if you are a company, you are a solo practitioner, if you are a government agency, no matter what you do, if racial differences emerge you are liable unless you can prove, that is, the burden of proof is on you to show that you are PROACTIVELY DISCRIMINATING (for blacks/browns and against Whites, against Asians too, really, as they have to score 400 points higher than blacks on SAT’s to get the same university slots).

This is a common law doctrine.”

 

 Posted by DanielS on Mon, 21 May 2018 19:16 | #

It’s pretty clear that (((Frame Game))) is playing a (((frame game))) in which he is trying to say that Jewish abuse of “social sciences” (viz., against Whites) is an inherent problem of these disciplines (and the answer is right wing scientism against this social “left”) when in fact the problem is not inherent in these disciplines, it’s inherent in the Jewish abuse of these disciplines.

(((Frame Games))) on ethnic component of 2008 crisis & why you need to care about identity politics

Representing the largest part of the economy, real estate is followed by government and then the financial industry proper.


(((Frame Games))) narrates a history culminating in the 2008 financial crisis/real estate melt-down: beginning with the riots of the 1960’s by which blacks effectively extorted property owners; followed by the 1968 Rumford Fair Housing Act which prohibited discrimination with regard to whom one rents or sells …to a bomb being set with ‘The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977”; then Clinton’s lighting the fuse on these race based programs, which forced banks to make risky loans to blacks (a capacity compounded by taking down the Glass-Steagall Act); to objectivist Greenspan’s instigation of the housing bubble, including with “creative investment mediums”; and finally the 2008 melt down – the biggest theft in American and possibly all known history.

Youtubevidprobablydown

 Posted by illegal to be race nuetral/to not be race neutral on Fri, 20 Jul 2018 17:21 | #

It is illegal to be race neutral, it is illegal to not be race neutral.

Characteristic Talmudic law, entirely contingent upon interpretation – in this case, of the judge.

Posted by From Small (((Obama ACORNS grow big financial crisis))) on Tue, 24 Jul 2018 05:32 | #

From (((The Clinton Administration))) to Obama ACORNS grow big subprime mortgage meltdown in 2008: and a bail-out of the YKW and right wing sell-outs, who then cleaned up on the bust cycle.

(((Frame Games))) aims to defuse White Left Ethnonationalism and its coalition building with other left nationals in response to the YKW-right wing-black-extortionist-Muslim-comprador alliance and its cataclysm for White, Asian, Amerindian human and pervasive ecology.

(((Frame Games))) tries to divert as much blame as possible to White right wing sell outs (who do, in fact, deserve at least half the blame) and away from the YKW (who do, in fact, deserve at least half of the blame).

Jewish Community Relationship Council

Posted by My Religiously Polite Mom Always Buys Courtley… on Mon, 28 May 2018 14:45 | #

There is an acrynomal sentence which allows one to easily remember the nine planets:

My (Mercury)
Very (Venus)
Elegant (Earth)
Mother (Mars)
Just (Jupiter)
Served (Saturn)
Us (Uranus)
Nine (Neptune)
Pizzas (Pluto)

Another acrynomal sentence might be proposed to facilitate quick recall of the seven choke points of YKW power:

My Religiously Polite Mother Always Buys Courtley Assistance to Negotiate Ostentatious Coalitions

My (actually their Media – which has extended from times of Judeo-Christian bible to Internet choke points and advanced interactive and mobile technology – e.g., to be used in cyber warfare).

Religiously (Religion – The Abrahamic religions beginning with the monotheistic Judaism and “evangelizing” its monotheistic, imperialistic Noahide law through Christianity and Islam).

Polite (Politics, usually backing both/all “legitimate”, “opposing sides” in a political system, so that they can play them off one another to their favor generally, but not lose in serving their interests, either way).

Mother (Money: finance, perhaps the mother of all capacity to buy people off in a desperate, neo-liberal, no account ant-ethnonationalist union system – whether buying off right wingers and having them oppose White unions and other anti-Jewish supremacist unions in coalitions, or funding anti-White coalitions straight out; financing unprofitable but psychologically destructive anti-racist/race mixing media; or to fund law careers and coerce political careers to change the laws, as in the case of “disparate impact”) …etc. anywhere where there are poor, desperate people, perhaps threatened with loss of livelihood, property, freedom and life, they might easily be bought off as opposed to taking the side of their own whose patterned merits are jaded, dubious – made basely selfish and unsympathetic for the decades, and centuries even, of liberal and right wing destruction, for absence a true moral order in service of their homeostatic systemic interests, their accountable, participatory place therein).

In finance, the boom-bust cycle they’ve marshaled with “democratic socialist outreach” – like Fannie Mae (low interest, risky loans required to be given to blacks)/ “objectivist austerity” through Reagan, Thatcher and following the 2008 bail-out (among the biggest thefts ever in history), getting behind coalitions with right wing, recently “alt-right” propaganda against “the left” – which might otherwise ensconce consciousness to see them in their power niches, and provide for activism against it to marshal social organizational power to do something about it.

Related Story: Orthodox Jewish boys go secular, reap compound fortune in another Jewish tradition – loan sharking.

Always (Academics: as (((Frame Games))) has acknowledged and my experience bears-out, the YKW are always determined to have hegemony in academics, since that’s where top-down power and influence is established; as demonstrated through their nepotistic, unmerited hegemony at Harvard and other Ivy league colleges. The Ivy league are the gate way to the professions, political and public influence. It is the way to connect empathically with the anxieties of youth and direct them by selling them on talk that serves YKW interests, creating phony “movements” and ‘rebellions” that they can be a part of…

Buys (Business, international and domestic – in this part of the cycle, securing US real estate with Russian (((mafia))) money bailing out Trump’s domestic assets and helping him to advance to the presidency. US domestic (((business))) has emerged as a “concern” to bolster (((neoconservative))) backing of Trump in order to garner bible belt, evangelical sympathy for the Zionist agenda and its operation clean break implementation in Iran) … Plenty of other shady (((business))), ranging from H1b Visas, cheap business loans for Indians to buy-up convenience stores and motels, in order to gain Indian connection and cooperation …then there is the off-shore money laundering schemes through shell companies revealed in the Panama Papers…

Related story: 3 of Them Defraud London Olympics Investors of £80 million.

Courtly Assistance (Courts and Attorneys – to influence law and its implementation, as in the example of “Brown vs.Board of Education”, “Disparate Impact”, the “Civil Rights Act”, the “Rumford Fair Housing Act”)


…so where to NGO’s – like Jewish Community Relationship Council – and Unions (make shift “unions”/ and coalitions thereof) – fit in? hmmm….

..going to have to add that in; should have long ago:

Negotiating (NG0’s)

Organized Crime

Coalitions (of social group organizations – coalitions of liberal social groups, liberal in the sense of denying and scabbing White social unionization. These are social communitarian groups primarily devised by Jewish interests in coalition building of anti-White organizations).

 

Posted by I feel offended. on Sat, 02 Jun 2018 10:39 | #

Gov. UK, “A Definition of Antisemitism”, 30 March 2016:

Authored article.

A definition of antisemitism

The problem of antisemitism continues to be a serious one. One issue is the absence of an agreed international definition of antisemitism.

As attacks across Europe and more broadly demonstrate, the problem of antisemitism continues to be a serious one. The UK works closely with our international partners to tackle antisemitism, and for this reason, the Government has recently supported the publication of a British Best Practice Guide to tackling antisemitism, available online here.

Antisemitism continues to affect communities around the UK. The most recent Community Security Trust report recorded 924 individual incidents during the course of 2015. The Government is committed to ensuring that British people of all faiths and ethnicities can live without fear of abuse or attack.

One issue identified by international partners, is the absence of an agreed international definition of antisemitism.

In the UK we use this definition of hate crime in general:

“Hate crimes and incidents are taken to mean any crime or incident where the perpetrator’s hostility or prejudice against an identifiable group of people is a factor in determining who is victimised.”

The UK Government’s overall policy is that it is up to the victim to determine whether a crime against them was motivated by any particular characteristics. This builds trust in the police among minority communities, and allows flexibility in our response.

However, for those seeking a definition of antisemitism, the UK’s College of Policing does include a working definition of antisemitism in their guidance to police forces in the UK. The full guidance is available from their website here and the definition is reproduced in full here:

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

In addition, such manifestations could also target the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.

Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.

Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust). Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.

Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:

Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
     
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries).

Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property – such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries – are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews.

Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries.

Published 30 March 2016


4

 Posted by The NGO shake down. on Tue, 19 Jun 2018 02:49 | #

NGO shake down as illustrated by the Philadelphia Starbucks case.

(((Frame Games))) discussing how (((left organizations))) shake down (((Starbucks))).


5

 Posted by “Civil Rights” groups shake-down of corporations on Tue, 26 Jun 2018 03:58 | #

…and businesses.

“Civil Rights” groups hyperbolic shake-down of corporations, part 2.


6

 Posted by Industrialized, mass pay-offs to blacks on Wed, 11 Jul 2018 05:22 | #

Part III of the industrialization of massive pay-offs to blacks: examples range from American inner cities to Brazil’s massive affirmative action campaigns.


7

 Posted by Congress is 3x more Jewish than US on Thu, 01 Aug 2019 17:03 | #

Congress is now 3 times more Jewish than the United States as a whole

JTA, 3 Jan 2019

No orange ones, Huckabee or dogs allowed: private property, freedom of association or “civil rights”

Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 26 June 2018 08:12.

Of course WN should go with the angle that it was the prerogative of the restaurateur to discriminate and throw her out as a matter of private business/property and freedom of association. This can begin to challenge the (((64 Civil Rights Act))) which violates the capacity (of Whites, anyway) to discriminate on behalf of their private property, business and prerogative of association.

Telegraph, “Restaurant owner who asked Sarah Sanders to leave says she was taking moral stand against Donald Trump”, 24 June 2018:

Sarah Sanders, the White House press secretary, was refused service at a restaurant on Friday, sparking angry accusations that Donald Trump’s aides are the target of liberal “bigotry”.

Mrs Sanders said she had been asked to leave by the owner of the Red Hen, about three hours drive outside Washington.

The story was confirmed by the restaurant’s owner who said she felt she had to take a stand against for “honesty” and “compassion”.

Mrs Sanders wrote on Twitter: “I was told by the owner of Red Hen in Lexington, Virginia to leave because I work for the president and I politely left.

        

“Her (the owner’s) actions say far more about her than about me. I always do my best to treat people, including those I disagree with, respectfully and will continue to do so.”

        

The confrontation comes at a particularly tense time in American politics, with protests growing over the Trump administration’s zero-tolerance border policy that has separated children from parents. It follows months and years of growing polarisation in American politics – the cause and effect of Mr Trump’s rise to power.

Republicans lost no time in accusing liberals of policing restaurants.

Mrs Sanders’ father Mike Huckabee, the former Republican presidential candidate, said: “Bigotry. On the menu at Red Hen Restaurant in Lexington, Virginia. Or you can ask for the ‘Hate Plate’. And appetisers are ‘small plates for small minds’.”

Earlier in the week, Mr Trump’s homeland security secretary, Kirstjen Nielsen, cut short a dinner at a Mexican restaurant after protesters shouted “Shame!” until she left.


The Red Hen Credit: Daniel Lin

Mrs Sanders’ treatment at the restaurant created a social media commotion with people on both sides weighing in.

On Yelp, a reviewer of the restaurant wrote: “Don’t eat here if you’re a Republican, wearing a MAGA hat or a patriot.”

But other reviewers supported the restaurant owner’s actions.


Both sides of the debate have been leaving comments on the restaurant’s social media sites Credit: Daniel Lin/AP

One said: “12/10 would recommend. Bonus: this place is run by management who stuck up for their beliefs and who are true Americans.” The restaurant was in the town of Lexington, population 7,000, which voted heavily against Mr Trump.

Stephanie Wilkinson, co-owner of the tiny 26-seat eaterie, said she was at home when staff called to tell her Mrs Sanders was dining and she went to see.

She told the Washington Post: “I’m not a huge fan of confrontation. I have a business, and I want the business to thrive.

“But this feels like the moment in our democracy when people have to make uncomfortable actions and decisions to uphold their morals.”

When she got there Mrs Sanders, her husband and several others had cheese boards in front of them.

Ms Wilkinson consulted her staff who had all seen Mrs Sander defending the separation of illegal immigrant families at the border. The staff said they wanted Mrs Sanders to leave.

Ms Wilkinson said she went to Mrs Sanders, told her she was the owner, and asked her on to the patio “for a word”.

She said: “I was babbling a little, but I got my point across in a polite and direct fashion. I explained that the restaurant has certain standards that I feel it has to uphold, such as honesty, and compassion, and cooperation. I said ‘I’d like to ask you to leave’.”

Mrs Sanders was polite and said simply: “That’s fine. I’ll go.”

Her party followed her out, offering to pay, but were told they did not need to.

Someone claiming to be a member of the waiting staff posted details of the incident on social media, including a memo about Mrs Sanders being 86ed – slang for ejecting someone.

        

The details were forwarded in a tweet by Brennan Gilmore, the executive director of environmental group Clean Virginia.

Related at Majorityrights: “Women Without Class”

Posted by Red Hens on Tue, 14 May 2019 18:43 | #

Newsweek, 14 May 2019:

RESTAURANT THAT ASKED SARAH SANDERS TO LEAVE IS DOING ‘BETTER THAN GOOD,’ OWNER SAYS 11 MONTHS AFTER BACKLASH

n owner of the Red Hen restaurant in Lexington, Virginia, who last June asked White House press secretary Sarah Sanders to leave, said her business is doing “better than good” after weathering a barrage of criticism including from President Donald Trump.

“After nearly a year, I’m happy to say that business is still good. Better than good, actually,” co-owner Stephanie Wilkinson wrote in an op-ed published Tuesday in The Washington Post. “Besides the boost to our area charities, our town’s hospitality and sales revenue have gone up, too.”

Wilkinson recounted the incident, which she wrote came about at the height of press scrutiny on the Trump administration’s “heinous practice” of separating migrant children from their parents, a “horror” felt at her restaurant.

“I took Ms. Sanders aside and politely suggested she leave. She agreed, equally politely,” Wilkinson wrote. “She may or may not have expected this day would come, but she never showed any sign of outrage or even much surprise. We’d drawn a line; she’d accepted it.”

Wilkinson’s refusal to serve Sanders, which led to the press secretary and her family leaving the restaurant, drew tremendous backlash from conservatives. Some alleged that liberals do not face the same level of public scrutiny in everyday life for their political beliefs.

Crypsis deployed for Starbucks property vulture (((Harold Schultz))) in launch of political campaign

Posted by DanielS on Saturday, 02 February 2019 15:44.

(((Schultz/Starbucks vulture capitalism – governmental collusion with NGO’s & tribal interests)))
 

I haven’t visited Morgoth’s for several months, and not for more than a moment in over a year… but having taken a peek today, a fine comment jumped out…

Augur Mayson rendered a fine comment in response to the question of why people hate journalists.

In regard to his example that the (((media))) conveniently promulgated Harold Schultz’ crypsis, referring to him as “a white man”, Augur might have added discussion of which (((Frame Games))) spilled the beans – it is still on line: [url=The Perplexing Case of Starbucks The Perplexing Case of Starbucks) about the scheme that Starbucks is involved in, making deals with black NGO leaders in order to buy-up inner city property on the cheap and then gentrifying it to turn huge profits in sales and rent. …while these blacks were moved in as block busters to begin with by tribal elders who benefited by driving out Whites, taking advantage of driving down property values and welfare slum lording.

A Starbucks in your neighborhood means this racket is coming to your city.

One wonders, given Starbucks property vulturism, if Trump and his cronies don’t figure into the Schultz deal – as Kumiko surmised, they are mostly about a second tier of wealth, based on real estate investment, particularly U.S., and their concerns as such.

* I took the liberty to correct the malapopriative term, “left”, for him and replaced it with what it should be – “liberal”

Augur Mayson • 6 days ago

Because journalists enhance Jewish racial crypsis, is my current reason. They’re statists posing as rebels. The major media outlets either through commingling with the state or via self-interested owners of a certain ((( race ))) typically parrot whatever ridiculous claims are coming out of the government, either about domestic social issues or correctness of foreign policy. They are not some unelected but real check against government abuses. They are attack dogs. They are megaphones for the rich and the state. They are overwhelmingly leftists liberals* and disproportionately Jewish.

For example, in America now the presidential election in 2020 is shaping up as follows: Trump for the Republicans, because it’s unprecedented for a party to not run an incumbent, unknown candidate for the Democrats, maybe Mrs. Clinton, maybe Joe Biden, maybe someone else, they have a young gay guy they’re trying to talk up now. And the only big independent as yet talked about in the media is former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, who’s a Jew, who has used Starbucks to push progressive social policies. For example a few Blacks got thrown out of a Starbucks for presumed loitering; media uproar ensued, Schultz declared to do the exact opposite in future, now they have beggars out front, heroin needles in one bathroom and people giving birth in the other.

So this article in the Judenpresse in America talks up Schultz and says point blank he’s a White man.

“And at 65, he’d have to do that as an older white man who’s never run for office before and has zero national name recognition.” https://www.theatlantic.com…

False, as a CEO of a major corporation he had major exposure and name recognition only second to say Hollywood stars and politicians and media. So the journalist paints Schultz as an unknown (read: underdog, as in, a fetching backstory) and says he’s White when he’s really a Jew.

This is why I hate journalists. Plus if you have a Jewish war you’d like to wage in the desert for no good reason you can always count on the likes of CNN or the BBC to carry the load of b.s. you’re pushing.

NEW YORK: Starbucks Chairman Howard Schultz, credited with taking the company from small beginnings to an international behemoth, is stepping down as CEO to focus on new high-end coffee shops, handing the reins to Chief Operating Officer Kevin Johnson.

Schultz, 63, will continue to serve as chairman of the Board and will be appointed executive chairman effective April next year. He handpicked 56-year-old Johnson, the company’s president, chief operating officer and a 7-year member of the Starbucks Board of Directors, to serve as the new CEO.

The Seattle-based company said in his new role, Schultz will focus on the “next wave of retail innovation”, design and development of Starbucks Reserve Roasteries around the world, expansion of the Starbucks Reserve retail store format and the company’s social impact initiatives.

“I will remain Starbucks executive chairman, focusing full-time on the incredible growth opportunities we have in expanding Roasteries and building out our portfolio of Reserve stores and on Starbucks social impact agenda which will be a significant part of the focus going forward,” Schultz said in an investor and media conference call yesterday.

Schultz, who was named by Fortune magazine this month in its list of Businessperson of Year is credited with doubling the company’s revenues since he returned for his second stint in 2008, surpassing USD 20 billion for the first time over the past 12 months

Read more at:
//economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/55746311.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

Related at Majorityrights:

(((Frame Games))) Hardens-Up and Greg Johnson Presents His Right-Wing Rear For Entryism (as does JF)

(((Frame Games))) on ethnic component of 2008 crisis & why you need to care about identity politics

Test Your Capacity To See Through Jewish Crypsis: Which ones are Jewish?

Related:

The Perplexing Case of Starbucks: Frame Games discusses Starbucks with Gariepy

 

Comments:

1

 Posted by mancinblack on Mon, 04 Feb 2019 19:17 | #

“Augur Mayson” is an arsehole but you know what is said of the one eyed man.

2

 Posted by I believe it on Mon, 04 Feb 2019 21:07 | #

I believe you. But all kinds of people, including people listing right, get some things right sometimes…. so, we take what we might like and leave the rest.

3

 Posted by Billy and Norvin on Tue, 05 Feb 2019 09:18 | #

Speaking of taking what you like and no endorsement of the individual or his views implied: Billy Roper has some interesting ideas – in the context of a discussion of Balkanization, he mentions that WN will not find a reliable ally in either YKW diaspora or Zionism because any separatist project, whether national sovereignty or balkanization, will threaten the power they derive of parasitism – in the case of Israel, the tens of millions a day and other resources it would lose by balkanization of the US, in addition to the break down of the political, cultural and military might that it exploits.

4

 Posted by Verbo Tempestas on Wed, 06 Feb 2019 06:09 | #

Verbo Tempestas with Patrick Little

Little is a sharp dude, has keen insights, but his laser focus causes him to go soft on other groups to the point of proposing friendship with groups who are NOT friends of White interests. …a classic myopia.

5

 Posted by Duel Citizens in Public Trust on Wed, 06 Feb 2019 07:29 | #

The idea of throwing duel citizens out of positions of public trust is particularly well warranted.

However, when Little speaks of the “phony divide and conquer distinction of right vs left” he is speaking like a typical right wing dupe.

Left ethnonationalism divides, yes – people loyal to the group and its bounds are divided from those who are not loyal to the group and its bounds, but to pseudo objectivity, transcendent “purity”, or exclusively to themselves and perhaps a narrow few others who are of no account to the people from whom they came.

6

 Posted by (((Howard Schultz))) on Thu, 14 Feb 2019 09:22 | #

Zero Hedge, 13 Feb 2019:

Howard Schultz Rips “Unrealistic” , “Immoral” Green New Deal

Potential 2020 presidential candidate Howard Schultz slammed Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’ “Green New Deal,” which he called “unrealistic” and “immoral.”

Speaking at a CNN town hall, Schultz – the billionaire Starbucks Chairman Emeritus suggested that Democrats be “truthful” about their environmental goals instead of just throwing ideas “against the wall because it’s a good slogan.”

“I read that by 2030 they’re suggesting that every building in America becomes clean energy, conforms to clean energy, just to put that in perspective, because it’s not realistic, that would mean that between 2,000 and 3,000 buildings a day would have to be reconstructed to conform to what they’re saying,” Schultz said. “So let’s be sensible about what we’re suggesting.”

– wouldn’t want to hurt his real estate racket.

Ibid:

Schultz, a spoiler candidate who pledged to drop out if it becomes clear he wouldn’t be able to win the 2020 election, also knocked grandiose job guarantees in the Green New Deal.

“I don’t understand how you’re going to give a job for everybody, how you’re going to give free college to everybody, how you’re going to create clean energy throughout the country in every building of the land,” he said. “I think it’s immoral to suggest that we can tally up $20, $30, $40, $50 trillion of debt to solve a problem that could be solved in a different way.

On Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) had some fun – rushing the “Green New Deal” resolution up for a vote in the Senate, forcing some Democrats to take a position on the controversial legislation.

Schultz also told the CNN town hall audience that he doesn’t see color.

“As somebody who grew up in a very diverse background as a young boy in the projects, I didn’t see color as a young boy and I honestly don’t see color now,” said the billionaire, responding to an audience question about an April 2018 racial profiling incident which took place in a Philadelphia Starbucks store after the manager called police on two black men who were waiting for a friend.

“Injustice in America of any kind—especially racial injustice, which continues—is not something that we should be proud of and we need to resolve,” said Schultz, when asked if he thought the incident would be an issue for voters, adding that the Philadelphia incident was “something that we learned a great deal from,” adding “We realized that we had a problem. And it’s a problem that I think exists widely in this country, and it’s something that I would characterize as unconscious bias that many of us have based on our own life experiences.”

“We have to be able to have uncomfortable conversations. We have to talk to people who are different than ourselves,” said Schultz. “We have to embrace the diversity of the nation.”

Related (counter argument):

This Radical Plan to Fund the ‘Green New Deal’ Just Might Work

7

 Posted by (((Starbucks))) spread in Europe on Sat, 11 May 2019 15:33 | #

Simon Kuestenmacher
@simongerman600
19h19 hours ago
More
Map shows the number of Starbucks stores in Europe as of 2019. I am very sad that Italy now has three Starbucks. I loved the fact that they were a Starbucks-free zone for so long. Source: https://buff.ly/2WwQlDc

Starbucks is a part of a (((property vulturism scheme))) and its presence a sign that the brackets are moving in, not just to install one franchise, but to take control of an area.

8

 Posted by I smell a rat: Perplexing case of Starbucks on Tue, 18 Aug 2020 20:53 | #

(((Frame Games))) Hardens-Up and Greg Johnson Presents His Right-Wing Rear For Entryism (as does JF)

Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 20 May 2018 11:58.

 
Greg Johnson’s Avatar
 

We begin with the formula for infiltration – gaining entryism into the Alt Right/and the like White-Right – with a sympathetic voice of the YKW to join-in to tell their ‘red-pill’ story, their journey into race realism.” *

…and Frame Games begins:

“I was just a regular guy”… “I’ve been on this journey” ..(let him tell you what he’s discovered, fellow travelers of the Alt Right).

…because Jews are sufficiently taken as White by Whites and non White alike, he’d like to promote the crypsis by emphasizing “a new way forward”, promoting the asking of the question: “Is it good for White people” (as opposed to criticizing others).

Mark Dyal, “White people are disgusting.”
Mark Dyal
 

Naivete is nothing new for his interlocutor in this podcast, Greg Johnson – this is the man who seriously entertains Vox Day, who ardently defended Mike Enoch despite all evidence of his dishonesty, who banned me from Counter-Currents for criticizing Mark Dyal’s interloping upon White advocacy.

Greg indeed provides for (((entryism))) – a viral poz opening:

” We have to have a certain openness to the enemy camp.”

Greg’s snobbery, his elitism ensconced with right wing “objectivism”, blinds him to the susceptibility to entryism by people who can impress him intellectually and with accomplishments and money, thus allowing them to influence, if not guide the narrative that he is supposed to be “stewarding”, of the lesser folks of the White pattern he would purport to steward in paternalistic elitism.

Frame Game 28:50:

“Is it good for Whites?” (Knowing that crypsis is going to fool people, non-Whites especially …hence in entryism, he wants to ingratiate himself with the question).

Now, in this discussion, none of my hypotheses about the right/altright/new right whatever right are disconfirmed. They are prone, as reactionaries into “objectivism” to blindness in their strained quest for pure factual, foundational warrant.

Nevertheless, in that quest they can be useful, indeed coming-up with and providing facts that are useful to our advocacy and, in their rigid focus, sometimes directing focus on matters that need critical attention – even the YKW seeking entryism can be useful, provided that you know that they are seeking to direct the narrative…

In his case, they are just doing what I’ve been saying right along, trying to maintain a controlled opposition to “the social justice warriors” (i.e., undergraduates they’ve trained, who might intersect to see just how unjust the YKW are in their hegemonic 7 niche perch) …. of the “righteously real, truthful, scientific right against the left and its ‘aversion to facts, science and reality’  ..it’s penchant for the bunk and hokum of psycho analysis and sociology ..which are all the real source of the problem” …along with people from lower ranks seeking money from law suits against wealthy Jews for their discrimination… ….not like us right wingers, us race realists, who love objective truth, science, and unequal merticocracy, as it were, now that the YKW are on top of the 7 niches….

Vox Day, of team Milo
 

With that, Frame Games plays the red capes: against “multiculturalism” preparing you by default to argue for integration in paleo conservatism, viz as Christians under the Jewish control of Noahide law ….as “huWhite people along with Jews in Western civilization …the Jewish diaspora in which Frame Games admits he is motivated to remain ensconced with his people … other people may spill blood to fight Islam (whom his people inflicted upon us – talk about “problem – reaction – solution”) and “Hispanics”, who right wingers have othered, mixed – sometimes only conceptually – sometimes in deliberate evil – but who they want to be the main enemy because they are not susceptible to pity the YKW, nor do they cooperate with their pet henchmen, the blacks.

36:10: To shine his pedigree, Johnson goes along with the reactionary right wing altercast, as he always has:

“Multiculturalism, it’s implicit imperialism…creates a situation where everyone’s homeless, nobody feels comfortable.”

[Of course, rather, it is integration with foreigners, not multiculturalism that does this.

Later Frame Game will make a big thing against another YKW red cape, “diversity” …similarly as multiculturualism, diverse and marginal input from within a system would strengthen it, lend perspective and stability, while the YKW have perverted the terms to where what is diverse and marginal comes from without the system and destroys it in the name of “diversity is our strength”…but the Frame Game will have you arguing against “the diversity business’ … he doesn’t so much want to allow for qualitative inputs from within the system but rather to argue for unequal quantification of the Jewish/White hybrid.]

Westward Thought

Host, “Westward thought” chimes in …yes, women don’t feel comfortable as they are preyed upon by Muslims.”

Frame Game (38:00):

“My journey….I agree with the perils of multiculturalism – and value one dominant, normative White western civilization …within America too and in Europe (he’s talking about paleocon Judeo Christian, John K. Press “culturalism” of western civilization):

 
(((John K. Press / Robert Stark)))
 

Viktor Orban has declared a Christian nation (((how good is that for Noahide culturalism?))).

…problems are solved by declaring normative, dominant culture.” (((full J.K. Press culturalism)))

Here he identifies with our reaction for solid warrant against the rhetoric of Jewish group advocacies… “I wanted to be an evolutionary psychologist, I wanted to be a scientist, was always interested in psychology of the mind (scientific objectivism plus Christianity is (((Frank Meyer’s))) Paleocon agenda)))…

…“they said I took evolutionary psychology too seriously (I’m such a rebel, like my fellow traveler KM)…This was before the replication crisis in psychology, cultural anthropology, sociology and all of those bankrupt fields…but…

David Buss’s Evolutionary Psychology (The New Science of The Mind) changed my life.

When we finally have a framework for understanding the human mind…

This is a way out of racial conflict, just understand that there is human biodiversity”

[this, HBD, is another concept and term that has been perverted into a red cape by the YKW – viz., horizontal, qualitative diversity has been perverted into I.Q. quantification and hierarchization

…take relativism and put it into the objectivist perversion of “HBD”]

…here comes the half-hearted, paleocon endorsement of nationalism …on behalf of the Zionists and diaspora – 46:30.

“I was an outstanding student, but then I had the nerve to talk science!

It’s the money! the money which has people blackballed for talking about human intelligence”…

(Thus), E.O. Wilson (was not able to overcome) Adorno, Marcuse…it’s because of the money (not Jewish ethnocentrism and sometimes costly bribing of right wing reactionaries and unprofitable propagandizing against them).

…note that there is lots of bundling “Hispanics” along with blacks as the enemy… keeps tucking that in…

There is a seat for Greg, both at the Zionist and the elite YKW diaspora table.
 

Johnson jumps on the band wagon: “you Hispanics will simply re create the places that you come from – like Honduras”

..but Johnson does not ask how might a qualitative proportion of “Hispanics” interacting with Whites effect a collective society and their I.Q.?  …are some of them good in non verbal I.Q.? – many are not that far removed from Japanese – could maybe contribute to a society for the better if managed properly?

….but Johnson concludes “their conditions (from which they came) are not independent variables from I.Q.” 

Here Johnson gets snookered into the YKW Frame Game that they are trying to orchestrate to weasel entyrism into White right alliance and out of their internationalist left cross hairs, in which they were the sole union, the sole pure nepotists that they would stand for:

Johnson advocates a pure meritocracy to counteract the massive over representation of Jews in academia, including places like Harvard, where they can be as much as 40% of the student body, well beyond their objectively measured merit.

Of course Jews will go along with that for now as a stall-tactic to allow time them to re-gear..

…and for their gene hijacking and eugenics, they can still be over represented by a-racial “objectivism” beyond relative group interests of Whites et al. 

Frame Game:

“If you understood just how much of the Jewish psyche is ingrained in higher education, what it is to the Jewish psyche…if their position was put into jeopardy, everyone with the name Green or Berg would be having a Russian revolution for the existential threat to their hegemonic control of universities.”

Johnson says that he is taking notes [by pandering to Johnson’s snobbish elite pedigreeist cronyism, they are getting him to swallow the idea that the objectivism that the Jews propose is the antidote, not a part of marshaling their false opposition].
……

Back to Frame Game’s story that’s supposed to ingratiate him to the Goyim –

And there IS some definite good to right wingers, even YKW ones who hope to gain entyism by ingratiation through truth, facts, etc, in that they can indeed provide facts and sharp focus where it is needed (just don’t let them take you where they want to go):

Frame Games: (By this Jewish academic world) “I was encouraged to put this threatening line of inquiry, my love of science and biology aside and to study law instead.

But one of the things that first shocked me on my red pill journey was a class in Constitutional Law. I thought I’d left biology behind…

Then we got to the section on the 1964 Civil Rights Act…

And how THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE has been re-interpreted away from equal to where any White over representation is considered prima facie evidence of racial discrimination.

A lot of people think of affirmative action being the exception to the equal protection clause…. if you only knew how deep it goes…

(in a slight American Southern – “Y’all know what I’m sayin’,  i.e., that again” – accent):

Are you guys familiar with “disparate impact”? …..a legal doctrine

“Disparate Impact is probably the most evil and disgusting piece of distoriionary nuclear fall-out in American jurisprudence.

What it says is that:

If there are racially neutral laws on the books or racially neutral practices at any corporation or government agency, if they have the effect of creating disparate impact on different groups – that is, if there are racial differences that emerge even where they are racially neutral by law, by practice, by custom, then it is presumed as prima facie evidence of racial discrimination and allows anybody to launch a civil rights law-suit against you with TREBLE – A law suit against you with Treble damages – that means three times damages from whatever you suffered.

So, Disparate Impact means that no matter what you do, if you are a company, you are a solo practitioner, if you are a government agency, no matter what you do, if racial differences emerge you are liable unless you can prove, that is, the burden of proof is on you to show that you are PROACTIVELY DISCRIMINATING (for blacks/browns and against Whites, against Asians too, really, as they have to score 400 points higher than blacks on SAT’s to get the same university slots). This is a common law doctrine.”
….

Then Greggy fucks in -“the basic assumption is of “racial equality”

That’s not the basic assumption, the basic assumption is White guilt (as warrant for expropriation), presumed privilege and penchant for exploitation and genocide (of Jews especially) …the abstract presumption is more like people are to be treated as being in classificatory Noahide sameness, but with some having been unfairly discriminated against as Noahide family members, thus requiring to be compensatorily included – otherwise, paradoxically you are disingenuous/or classifcatory, a racist by definition.

With that Frame Game whisks the multiculturalism and diversity red cape..

Calling “diversity” simply a big money racket (not a Jewish mis-frame game)  that has brought corporations to their knees, US governments as well … law suits have been a boon to lawyers, for those who must be hired as well, those who’ve been “discriminated against” and those people/firms who aid in the hiring, etc.

Greg Johnson: going with the “left = anti-science” narrative that the YKW are promulgating ….

Kanye West
 

“If Candace Owens and Kanye West are ‘on our side’ (with free market “conservatism” – right wing /objectivist/ race neutral, anti group interested liberalism) we should commend them without adjusting to them. Greg’s right-wing snobbery has a penchant for US Constitutional objectivism – as in the Mark Dyal/Nietzschean, anti bourgeoisie ruse.

  …and so Frame Games has told his story, his “fair minded and objective” story…    …like von Gold Farb, Reactionary Jew…

  …like all entryists attempting to join cause with the White right…against “the left”….to unite in paleoconservatism..  …a darling of JF too, Frame Games is in this regard….

Again, like all right wingers, they can indeed provide important information and focus, which we should eagerly snap up, as in Frame Game’s discussion of “Disparate Impact”…

Peinovich is all in for Trump and all against “the left”
 
* von Gold Farb, also ready to be “real” and tell his red pill story.
 

However, we should use that for our interests, not follow him/them into race neutral objectivism – against “the left’s” social advocacy – a right wing position that he is encouraging/bribing elitist snob Greg Johnson with   ….only conceding the crypsis group advocacy of asking, “is it good for huWhites?” (((i.e, blending Jewish crypsis and their Zionist and diaspora interests with Whites, in unifying (((culturalism))), that is (((paleoconservatism))) against “the left”…

        …against the White left, the White Class, White ethnonationalists.

Comments:

1

 Posted by “Disparate Impact” on Mon, 21 May 2018 10:02 | #

Frame Games: (By this Jewish academic world) “I was encouraged to put the threatening line of inquiry, my love of science and biology aside and to study law instead.

But one of the things that first shocked me on my red pill journey was a class in Constitutional Law. I thought I’d left biology behind…

Then we got to the section on the 1964 Civil Rights Act…

And how THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE has been re-interpreted away from equal to where any White over representation is considered prima facie evidence of racial discrimination.

A lot of people think of affirmative action being the exception to the equal protection clause…. if you only knew how deep it goes…

Are you guys familiar with “disparate impact”? …..a legal doctrine

“Disparate Impact is probably the most evil and disgusting piece of distoriionary nuclear fall-out in American jurisprudence.

What it says is that:

If there are racially neutral laws on the books or racially neutral practices at any corporation or government agency, if they have the effect of creating disparate impact on different groups – that is, if there are racial differences that emerge even where they are racially neutral by law, by practice, by custom, then it is presumed as prima facie evidence of racial discrimination and allows anybody to launch a civil rights law-suit against you with TREBLE –

A law suit against you with Treble damages – that means three times damages from whatever you suffered.

So, Disparate Impact means that no matter what you do, if you are a company, you are a solo practitioner, if you are a government agency, no matter what you do, if racial differences emerge you are liable unless you can prove, that is, the burden of proof is on you to show that you are PROACTIVELY DISCRIMINATING (for blacks/browns and against Whites, against Asians too, really, as they have to score 400 points higher than blacks on SAT’s to get the same university slots).

This is a common law doctrine.”

2

 Posted by DanielS on Mon, 21 May 2018 19:16 | #

It’s pretty clear that (((Frame Game))) is playing a (((frame game))) in which he is trying to say that Jewish abuse of “social sciences” (viz., against Whites) is an inherent problem of these disciplines (and the answer is right wing scientism against this social “left”) when in fact the problem is not inherent in these disciplines, the problem is inherent in the Jewish abuse of these disciplines.

3

 Posted by Not Elton on Wed, 23 May 2018 22:42 | #

Elton’s comment was taken down upon request, but it’s a shame as I (DanielS) see it, because I rather thought he had some insightful things to say regarding (((Framegames))) participation in White advocacy.

4

 Posted by (((Controlled Media Structure))) on Tue, 05 Jun 2018 14:56 | #

A report by Frame Game on the state of the mainstream media industry in the US.

I’ll be adding some commentary later. Watch for the usual blaming of “social justice warriors” and “THE left.”

In a recent podcast, Luke Ford played video of a Maslowian psychologist misdrecting audience away from the social basis corrective and into a meager satisfaction with “relationships.”

In the same podcast, Luke Ford is playing audio of this other guy trying to corrupt the class angle, saying that we should not be arguing on racial grounds against the elites, but charging them with “class discrimination” when they keep Whites and Asians out of elite academia and so on… but his is really just playing the same old Cartesian/ objectivist individualist civil rights game against classificatory bounds.

This was from a Luke Ford Podcast in the first half of March 2021. I have to find the show and I will enter the names of the Maslowian and the guy pretending to argue on Class grounds when I find them.

Brett Stevens: Not just a Government Issue Patriotard, but Full-Blown ZOG Disinformation Agent.

Funny, this is a very old comment of mine that came stuck along with the material for this new post that I am re-assembling…

If people are going to keep going around making equality a straw man and non-equality the thing as opposed to paradigmatic difference(s) and race (class) being the matter, we’re going to create false comparisons and unnecessary, counter productive conflict; i.e., not that we should seek to avoid all conflict necessarily, but we do want the chips to fall on our side. (2)

You can see from this critical remark linking to a Brett Stevens discussion (with Robert Stark), that I was his already exposing his bullshit back in 2011.

Wouldn’t you know, Glow-The-Dark, Jewish hire, Brett Stevens, is back at it, promoting the (((marketing campaign))) over there at Affirmative Right (of course); talking about the characterology of “The Left”, how they do not deal with reality, how they are just jealous of accomplished people, trying to bring them down.

Why is Leftism so Popular?

by Brett Stevens

My Religiously Polite Mom Always Buys Courtley Assistance to NegotiateGoodOrganized Union Coalition & Crime

Always quick to maintain the balance between our part as Whites, our fault as it were, in aiding or abetting the destruction of our borders and bounds, which I attribute to a general pattern of our penchant for anti-social, anti-relativist, right wing reaction to Jewish union and anti-White coalitions in hyperbolic abuse and misrepresentation of left concepts against us – i.e., which for us means hyperbolic liberalization of our social bounds – to which we react into kinds of objectivism and liberalism to seek “pure warrant” against this jaded sophist rhetoric against us …and as I am always vigilant and diligent to maintain that heuristic as one of two poles to the blight against the human ecology of our ethnonational, White/European, group systemic homeo/stasis – the other pole being those most adept at taking advantage – of the attendant susceptibility, disingenuousness among those treacherous among our kind, who’d take the pay-off or seek to advance themselves under the airs of “objectivity’ and liberalism; “openness” to others (who somehow pay); or, those who naively see that “objectivism” as the voice of purity and the road to redemption for original sin or whatever kind of guilt they think they need to be freed-from that their relative interests might otherwise call to consciousness – including a consciousness of the threat to their interests by that group who’ve made a religion of placing the ethnocentric management of their group systemic homeostasis, placing it above all others on earth …so practiced are they that they would resort, and have, to all manner of war – as their Mossad says, by deception – Manichean trickery in order to thwart upstart adversarial groups; they have practiced these strategies for ages – the YKW being responsible for the Christianity that would disarm us as a group (all non-Jews, finally, into the “undifferentiated Gentile other” as GW observes), to have us not recognize ourselves a group, to have us believe that we all are the same in the eyes of the poor, sacrificed, literally Jewish god that we are supposed to worship; laying down our arms even against the Muslims, whose Abrahamic religion they’ve also spawned, setting it to war against us where we might not yield to Abrahamism; setting up its imams as compradors in Asia as well, where the Asians may also see through their monotheistic, Abrahamic hoax; and want instead a religion of their people, serving their relative ethnonational interests.

I’m talking of course about the YKW – and here I want to go beyond my normal hypothesis that they are one of two major poles to the plight against our social systemic group maintenance as White/European peoples…. I want to identify, albeit in abstract form, the nine power and influence niches that they’ve come to wield hegemony within, with particular culmination following the 2008 subprime crisis and bail-out – among the largest ever thefts known to man.

This was the grand sweep of the boom/bust cycle. That is when they made “the left” as the enemy into a constant in their media and controlled opposition; that is when they devised the concept and got behind a re-branded right wing coalition centered on (((paleoconservatism))) called the “Alt-Right” and Zionist Trump with their clean break agenda …and they are trying assiduously to ingratiate themselves with the White right now – can you imagine that (((Frame Games))) is proposing to JF the “White pill” (silver lining) that White right wingers can join in with Jews to take advantage of the bust cycle and gentrify places like Detroit with them – we can live with blacks again! stir up their resentment, jealousy and hostility, put ourselves amidst their violence and sexual imposition on our treasure – What a White pill (for Jews like Frame Game, I guess)!

In this episode of JF Gariepy’s “Public Space”, called “What is to come”, Gariepy’s talk with (((Frame Games))) goes through a solemn tour of how White dispossession plays out in five examples, including, Detroit, Washington D.C., Rhodesia, Haiti and of course, Iran!

That’s right, not only does (((Frame Games))) propose that despite the catastrophic results in places of White dispossession such as Detroit, that there remains “a white pill” (cause for optimism), that is the possibility for Whites and Jews to take advantage of lowered property value to gentrify these places – of course, Whites and Jews can “gentrify” Iran too …. Donald Trump can put a Trump tower hotel there lol – The Trump Taj Mahal-Tehran!

He can have Madonna, (((Barbara Streisand))), Kanye West and (((Roseanne Barr))) as opening night entertainment….

As you should have heard me say many many times by now – but as the darlings of White advocacy continue to refuse to hear – the decades of anti White social coalition advocacy followed by the YKW cashing-in on the 2008 boom/bust, has created a situation with the YKW being on top of seven nine niches – whereof they want to cultivate an alliance with reactionary Whites into a rightist elitist alliance – paleocons permutated into an “alt right” to divert them into conceiving of the enemy as “the left” and its social unionization, its “social justice warriors” as the enemy, diverting attention to the stereotypes of the undergraduate students and teachers that they trained and backed in anti-White activism with misrepresentation of social philosophy through their long march through the academic institution to hegemony there.

Why, after all, would they want to encourage social group organization and unionization with an aim toward “social justice”, especially for people that they’ve screwed so horribly in order to get on top of these nine niches; and why would they want to call attention and have them raise consciousness of Jewish nepotism, exploitation, abuse and genocide even, from these perches in tandem with right wing/liberal traitors? They wouldn’t want-to; and now that the useful idiots of their “left coalitions” have hit upon the intersection where it calls attention to the nine power and influence niches wielded by Jewish interests to vast destruction of others, consciousness of which might threaten them with social unionization and coalition building, with social justice warriors indeed, arrayed against them to bring them down, to righteously secure reparation for some measure of compensation for their vast crime …that is when they want to promote the right, anti-social, objective “facts” for their “merit’ in coming into these power and influence niches; but if selling the Whites on that materialistic objectivism doesn’t work, their paleoconservatism prescribes cultural fellowship with them through Abrahamic worship of the King of the Jews.

They need to maintain the falsehoods that they’ve promulgated, distortions and misrepresentations of post modernity, incommensurate cultures, social constructionism, left unionization, hermeneutics, diversity, multiculturalism, marginals etc., all represent “the left” – a cooler sounding “synonym” for “liberalism” as something to be against ….diverting from the fact that a White left would be a union, and thus by definition the antithesis of liberalism, i.e., NOT open to non-Whites and those who’d facilitate scabbing of them, that the concept is perfectly conducive to ethno-nationalism and the national scale; and with that, most of all, it is conducive to accountability to the full groups of White/ ethnonationals, including to disincentive those marginals who would be inclined to facilitate scabbery, incentivizing rather, their loyalty; but especially it is conducive to a vigilance on accountability of our elites, or, our would-be elites, those in position to do the most damage by betraying our group interests; also a vigilance on those elites of non-White groups who are most capable of preying upon susceptibilities of those among us who would betray us; further, a vigilance against those non-Whites with the biopower to impose scabbing on us, the “lowly” kind of non-White that we are not supposed to be concerned about compared to the real “problem” – “leftism”. But “the” left that they and their right wing lackeys dutifully talk about, nerd themselves away from, is a universalized coalition of any facile groups that will ultimately serve only one union, YKW against the goyim firstly, viz., ordinary White people and their would-be White left union(s).

No, no, this is anti-nature, they say. (((Hayek))) told Margarete Thatcher to say that there is “no such thing as society”…. and some boomers cleaned-up, made good money in the disarray. With confirmation bias, these boomer types are the types to go along with and train those in the millennial internet bubbles that “the left is the problem, that objectivism, scientism and Hitler are the answer.”

They didn’t tell Margaret that it is not only a problem that the unions have a propensity to be all too powerful, and they need accountability of themselves, at their parameters with the rest of society’s interests, but that the problem was that these unions were not a union of the people, the White people, but rather in protection of obsolete businesses and business practices.

It is not that unions are wrong, leftism is “anti-nature” and that pure objectivism (whether its naive White variant or is disingenuous YKW prescription) and the invisible hand is correct, but rather that social organization is something that needs to be conducted with the true sophistication, but not overly complicated understanding, of White post modern philosophy.

Toward a promotion of that sophistication and understanding of what we are up against, lets take a more specific, though still abstract enlisting of the power and influence niches that the YKW have hegemony in – from whence they lord themselves over and confuse the ordinary goyim; and wield as a power source to bribe the disingenuous un-conscientious White of middling intelligence, or to flatter others, a JF Gariepy, or what-have-you.

For the sake of White left activism and union organization for social justice warring against the nine niches of elite YKW hegemony; to hold accountable those right wingers complicit with them, taking the deracinating pay-off in whatever form, usually objectivism or Christianity, and for our coalition partners, certain non-White unions we may ally with, it would be helpful to have an acronym ready-to-hand for easy recall to guide attention to the power centers we need to position ourselves against and eventually maneuver against.

By analogy, there is an acrynomal sentence which allows one to easily remember the nine planets:

My (Mercury)
Very (Venus)
Elegant (Earth)
Mother (Mars)
Just (Jupiter)
Served (Saturn)
Us (Uranus)
Nine (Neptune)
Pizzas (Pluto)

Another acrynomal sentence might be proposed to facilitate quick recall of the seven nine choke points of YKW power:

My Religiously Polite Mother Always Buys Courtley Assistance to Negotiate Good Organized Union Coalitions & Crime

Media

My (Media – which has extended from times of Judeo-Christian bible (as Bowery observed) to Internet choke points and advanced interactive and mobile technology – a branch of imperialism , e.g., to be used in cyber warfare).

Religion

Religiously (Religion – The Abrahamic religions beginning with the monotheistic Judaism and “evangelizing” its monothestic, imperialistic Noahide law through Christianity and Islam).

Religion and Politics
politics

Polite (Politics, usually backing both/all “legitimate”, “opposing sides” in a political system, so that they can play them off one another to their favor generally, but not lose in serving their interests, either way – irrespective of who wins an election, e.g., Trump or Clinton).

Money

In finance, the boom-bust cycle they’ve marshaled with “democratic socialist outreach” – like Fannie Mae (low interest, risky loans required to be given to blacks; while investment mediums of “guaranteed insurance of these loans” were sold on top of them!)/ followed by “objectivist austerity” through Reagan, Thatcher and following through the 2008 bail-out (the biggest theft in history), getting behind coalitions with right wing, recently “alt-right” propaganda against “the left” – which might otherwise ensconce consciousness to see them in their power niches, and provide for activism against them, to marshal social organizational power to do something about their niche occupation and its abuse.

Related Story: Orthodox Jewish boys go secular, reap compound fortune in another Jewish tradition – loan sharking.

Academics

Always (Academics: as (((Frame Games))) has acknowledged and my experience bears-out, the YKW are always determined to have hegemony in academics, since that’s where top-down power and influence is established; as demonstrated through their nepotistic, unmerited hegemony at Harvard and other Ivy league colleges. The Ivy league colleges are the gate way to the professions, political and public influence. The big academic business of selling talk to undergraduates is a way to connect empathically with youthful anxieties and aspirations, to direct them by selling them on talk that serves YKW interests, creating phony “movements” and ‘rebellions”, “social justice activism” (if only against Whites) that they can be a part of…

Business

Buys (Business, international and domestic – in this part of the cycle, securing US real estate with Russian (((mafia))) money bailing out Trump’s domestic assets and helping him to advance to the presidency. US domestic (((business))) has emerged as a “concern” to bolster (((conservative))) backing of Trump in order to garner bible belt, evangelical sympathy for the Zionist agenda and its operation clean break implementation in Iran) … Plenty of other shady (((business))), ranging from H1b Visas, cheap business loans for Indians to buy-up convenience stores and motels, in order to gain Indian connection and cooperation …then there is the off-shore money laundering schemes through shell companies revealed in the Panama Papers, etc.

Related Story: The Sackler Family, Pushers of Opioids, profiteers on created addiction in vulnerable peoples.

Related story: 3 of Them Defraud London Olympics Investors of £80 million.

Courtley
Attorneys
Law & Courts

Courtly Assistance (Courts and Attorneys – to influence law and its implementation, as in the example of “Brown vs.Board of Education”, “Disparate Impact”, the “Civil Rights Act”, the “Rumford Fair Housing Act”). Even Trump had his kosher legal mentorship and advocacy against “the” left, in the person of attorney Roy Cohn.

So where do NGO’s – like The Jewish Community Relationship Council – and Unions (including make shift “unions”/ and coalitions thereof) – fit in? hmmm …we’re going to have to add that in; should have long ago:

NGO's

Negotiate Good Organized (NG0’s)

Coalitions anti-White: King and Levison, N.A.A.C.P.

Union Coalitions (Social group organizations – literal or make shift unions and coalitions thereof – liberal social groups, liberal in the sense of denying and scabbing White social unionization. These are social communitarian groups primarily devised by Jewish interests in coalition building of anti-White organization).

Unions

Unions, especially of the internationalist labor kind…

..but also organized crime.

Organized Crime
Organized Crime

In this episode of JF Gariepy’s “Public Space”, referenced in the main post, he talks with (((Frame Games))) who goes through a solemn tour of how White dispossession plays out in five examples, including, Detroit, Washington D.C., Rhodesia, Haiti and of course, Iran!

Now then, as adumbrated above, (((Frame Games))) proposes that despite these catastrophic results to the areas of White dispossession, there remains “a white pill” (cause for optimism), that is the possibility for Whites and Jews can take advantage of lowered property value to gentrify these places – of course, Whites and Jews can “gentrify” Iran too …. Donald Trump can put a Trump tower hotel there lol – The Trump Taj Mahal-Tehran!

He can have Madonna, (((Barbara Streisand))), Kanye West and (((Roseanne Barr))) as opening night entertainment….

AIPAC 101 — What Every American Should Know

It is becoming clear that the acrynomal phrase of niche power points occupied by YKW has to be extended, or somehow understood to extend “Media” into IT, Internet and Military Technology; and “Money” and “Business” into not only “NGOs” and “Unions” but also Corporations (and their relation to politics) in a web with the Military Industrial Complex.

…

IHRA definition of anti-Semitism

(((Frame Games))) disclosing: IHRA’s efforts to impose a universal definition of anti-Semitism

Strategy for imposing a universally criminalizing definition of anti-Semitism:

 Posted by Law & Courts on Wed, 17 Oct 2018 08:53 | #

Toronto Superior Court throws-out Faith Goldy Campaign law-suit


10

 Posted by 5 of 10 wealthiest Americans are YKW on Wed, 17 Oct 2018 17:37 | #

Realist Report, “5 of the 10 Wealthiest Americans Are Jewish”, 6 Oct 2018:

According to the organized Jewish community and professional Jewish ethnic activists, anyone claiming that Jews are over-represented in key aspects of American political, cultural, and economic life are “irrational, paranoid, hateful, anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists.”

Making basic, factual, and easily verifiable statements about the reality of Jewish power and influence in America – pointing out their domination and control of the mainstream mass news media, Hollywood and entertainment industry, for example, or their influence in the Federal Reserve banking system, Wall Street, and corporate America – is considered “anti-Semitic” and “hateful,” according to Jews, despite how obvious it all is.

Here we have even more proof of the total Jewish domination of our society: according to a recent report published by The Times of Israel, 5 of the top 10 wealthiest individuals in America are Jewish.

That means that 50% of the richest people in the United States are ethnically Jewish, despite Jews representing less than 5% of the total U.S. population.

Think about that for a moment. And think about why we are prevented from openly and honestly discussing these basic facts, despite them being reported in mainstream publications, including explicitly Jewish publications like The Times of Israel.

Jews Wealthiest Americans

Forbes published its 2018 roster of America’s wealthiest this week, and five members of the tribe made the top 10 list.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg leads the Jewish pack at number 4, with a net worth of $61 billion. He is followed by software giant Oracle’s Larry Ellison at #5 with $58.4b and Google co-founder Larry Page at #6 with $53.8b.

Fellow co-founder Sergey Brin falls a bit behind with $52.4b, leaving him at #9. Finally, former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg closes out the top 10 with a respectable $51.8b. […]

The simple fact of the matter is that Jews do in fact largely run our country.

They own and control the mass media, allowing them to essentially control the narrative, especially on key issues that are central to their insidious international agenda to subvert and destroy traditional Western civilization. They own and control our banking system and much of corporate America. They own and control some of the top internet giants, including top social media companies like Facebook. They play a huge role in American politics, and essentially control the U.S. Congress and executive branch, and thus American foreign and domestic policy.

And it’s easy to demonstrate all of this. It’s not some crazy “conspiracy theory” – it’s openly reported and documented, often by explicitly Jewish media outlets. We’re just not allowed to honestly discuss this reality and what it means for our nation and world – that would be “anti-Semitic,” after all.


11

 Posted by mancinblack on Wed, 17 Oct 2018 18:41 | #

No shit Sherlock moments like “5 Jews make Forbes list” are the reason why I read the Jewish and in particular, the Israeli press. For example, Times of Israel reporters did a great job in exposing a derivative scam operating out of Israel, which had cost European investors billions and didn’t stop hammering home the immorality of the financiers after the practice was banned in Israel. They kept the pressure on until those responsible were shut down completely. With that in mind, here’s the American Jewish take on affirmative action, particularly when it comes to university admissions…

https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/267470/the-american-jewish-affirmative-action-about-face

Not being American, I can’t comment on it but it may be of interest to those who are.

Continue Reading Civil Wrongs, Disparate Impact, (((Frame Games))) and Women Without Class.

Generational Astrology: Zodiac Sign of the Boomer, Part 12

  • Post author:
  • Post category:Central
Kumiko and I designed the Majorityrights banner and site layout. Landing viewers on "Central", i.e., evergreen issues, and having the News & Views section run in the background in the carousel along with Central posts was my idea (the carousel isn't captured in this screen shot). Having comments function as yet more ephemeral News and Views is my concept as well. We will be assimilating this arrangement here at dnanations, running Central evergreen posts in the foreground; while News & Views will occasionally be forefronted, News & Views will mainly run from less ephemeral in menu pages to more ephemeral News & Views in side-bar comments.

In this section, I will be dealing with the proprietor of Majorityrighs.com, a boomer going by the nom de plume of “Guessedworker.”

Like everyone, he is a combination of what would be thought to be “good” and “bad”, and “intelligent” and not so much.

To his credit, his line in critique of Christianity, for its negative impact on European peoples, is penetrating and deep.

His commitment to nationalism, what most of us would call “ethnonationalism” but what he would call “ethnic nationalism” in order to emphasize and maintain the differences among European peoples as well, is the morally correct, ecological position.

His willingness to brave the tabood subjects of political correctness, notably, the YKW question, in order to maintain this position, is admirable.

GW helps with an articulate stance against Nazism; it is mitigated by leniency to its over-sympathizers for his outreach; in futile effort to win them over, for a Germanophilia that he has, apparently for more than the usual share of German in his English DNA. But he’s not a Nazi.

And finally, his holding fast to “emergentism’ is no small matter.

I have learned from this, that some of the mistakes that I’ve made in life would have been corrected sooner and better or avoided in the first place had I had a better sense of emergentism and the importance of holding fast to inborn evolution rather than looking for answers in the social interactive realm as readily as I did.

I must hasten to add that I was never averse to this idea – it fits right into my platform, works perfectly well with the hermeneutic circularity of inquiry as I recognize it to work, with what would be that end’s empirical rigor and the “holding-fast” that was already on tap in this other anti-Cartesian aspect of Heidegger’s post modern project; whereas, I already engaged with Dasein, there being, as being a prompt back to interactivity with our relative interests, taking us back from Cartesian estrangement and into MidtDasein – there-being amidst our people and our relative interests; otherwise known as Praxis (the social world of our delimited people group).

However, while I would readily acknowledge, work with and integrate these few good ideas that Guessedworker brought to bear, he would not extend willing suspension of disbelief to the value of the post modern resource that I brought to bear, crucially refined for European interests though it was, against the machinations of our antagonists and our own blindness and ineptitude which leave modern and pre-modern variants of our philosophy susceptible to exploitation.

Emergentism is an eminently useful guide to hold us on course from Cartesian estrangement, but it is not infallible and hermeneutic’s liberation from mere facticity and social constructionism proper are necessary post modern resource for correctivity where we might be led astray of our people’s interests.

I have brought the array of post modern philosophical resource to bear as it is supposed to be crafted in our interests as European people; to be distinguished thus as “White Post Modernity” so as not to be confused with the da-da, hyper-relative, shallow “pastiche” irony, the misrepresentation of what Post modernity is supposed to do for peoples, including ours, as opposed to liberalism. A misrepresentation that I have called “Red Caped Post Modernity”, showing how it works to deceive, as corruption and misdirection of many ideas that would otherwise be not only good, but necessary to our group accountability, thus coherence, agency, thus correctivity and warrant in group systemic homeostasis, autonomy and sovereignty.

With an utterly conceited notion of his superior depth and intelligence, Guessedworker rejected important ideas, or attempted to mitigate the importance with a self serving but terrible purport of order, priority, relevance and non-adjustableness of unit of analysis; preferring instead to remain reacting to, chasing and attacking the red-capes of post modernity.

The reasons for his antagonism of good ideas are not good, as of course they could not be.

Even if he were to like the term “meta-modernity”, it still should be worked in as the positive side of modernity which is encompassed by post modernity; not mutually exclusive, but worked into to the more comprehensive resource of White Post Modernity, including its important epochal distinction from Modernity; to validate the reconstruction of the positive sides of tradition, and most crucially, of inherited forms.

As I said, the reasons for Guessedworker’s antagonism to ideas crucial to our people’s interests are not good, as they could not be, with a particularly virulent form of boomerism coursing through him, he could not find it in himself to acknowledge ideas that are good, deep, important to our people while not something that he could conceive as well honed by him in his arm chair, ultimately to be represented as his offering, not of the smartest living man, but apparently the smartest man EVER. William James? one sentence, dismissed. Aristotle? “Simply not relevant” … all you need is Guessedworker.

And then he would say that “the only right that people have is the right to fight for their survival.”

He’s said that repeatedly. 

Is that the utterance of a superior intellect? Absolutely Not.

Even so, in Guessedworker, you find a man whose good sides are unfortunately overbalanced by an unmerited, gargantuan ego; which, when confronted with ideas better than what he’s come up with, at least inasmuch as they threaten his autobiography, cannot be honest – he does manifest something like the classic narcissistic personality disorder which flares-up in interface with good ideas that are not his and which he cannot assimilate into his autobiography – he would thus gaslight and strawman these ideas, sacrificing our people’s crucial interests for the sake of his ego and the autobiography which serves it.

I would not have believed his intransigence in this regard. His gasligthing and strawmanning was an incredibly obnoxious experience that I put up with for eight years, largely because he put me in editorial charge of Majorityrights and I saw it as a valuable site and audience for me to provide the best resource that I had available; while the strange curiosity of his objections were almost invariably so stupid that they only served to underscore the value of the resource that I brought to bear, the platform that I set-out.

Nevertheless, as this illustrative gas-lighting and straw-manning occurred over the course of eight years, I cannot just whip out a complete essay like that and capture why it is that I’d like to take a blunt measure to his head for my sake and yours. I will even move on to post new essays here at dnanations, while in due course, I will take my time and unfold various examples of Guessedworker’s virulent boomer gaslighting and straw-manning: “justified” with a self serving, utterly stupid notion of necessary order, priority, mutual exclusivity, unit of analysis, either/or and a compounding of fixity that he attributes to his straw-manning (as opposed to hermeneutic process of inquiry) – and You will then understand how I could be so angry with him.

Check in periodically if you are interested. The discussion of his worldview and autobiography, its problems, the correctives that he rejects by way of his gaslighting and straw-manning, will be informative and relevant to our interests.

…..

Let me begin by qualifying the reasons for this post. 

If my reason was merely to counter the personal insult to me that GW rendered in his years of gaslighting me, straw-manning me, sprinkled with ad hominem attack, that would be petty. 

James Bowery similarly distanced himself from Majorityrights also for Guessedworker’s insult, not only to his person, but for lack of appreciation for significant contribution; and I do recognize that, in Bowery’s case, GW was not granting the magnitude of certain components contributed by Bowery to our homeostasis; however, I believe that the case of Guessedworker’s gaslighting and strawmanning of the philosophical world view and theoretical broad strokes that I brought to bear is even more obstructive, if not destructive (if I let him get away with it) to the interests of European peoples – thus, important to correct for our well being, not merely for my own sanity and satisfaction.

While it is to some extent his provocation of myself that causes me to dredge up these issues with GW, it is mainly for his obstruction of important ideas and thus in service of ideas that I mainly seek to take issue.
 
Both the personal affront and the obstruction of ideas have roots prior to my reacting in a way that would give him an excuse to be abusive to me personally.
 
But even with that excuse of abusing me, I do not excuse the abuse of important ideas, nor his motivation for doing so.
 
Having rendered this qualification, I do not expect these details to rivet the concern of everyone. I do need to render them for my own sake. The length and level of GW’s gaslighting and stawmanning was rough and disgusting. Endeavors to set the record straight on such a protracted affair can nevertheless seem petty, spiteful and obsessively focused on the bad side – and personal vindication is truly not my motive – therefore, I will largely keep my counters to GW’s gaslighting and strawmanning in this thread, venting with a new example as my recollections are perturbed, prompting me as such. Even so, contained here as reference which may be informative, illustrative as to what obstructionists might do, but here to be moved on from in a click, without the obstruction of Guessedworker’s personality and burdensome autobiography.

…

Although I will be rendering some analysis along the way, my main concern at this point is to itemize Gussedworker’s contentions, so that I can draw upon, as need be, significant examples and patterns of what invariably amounted to straw-manning and a pattern of gaslighting as such, in order to deal with his evident will to misconstrue the concepts that I brought to bear and my own motives – and knowing the concepts that I brought to bear and my own motives accurately as opposed to his willful misconceptions and ad hominem attributions to me, will allow me to correct for proper understanding of concepts and provide an anchoring to understand his (shoddy) motives.

A good place to begin is probably his invitation to me to join him at “GAB”, as it is a clear indication of a deliberate strategy to treat me as a foil and to misrepresent me and the concepts which I bring to bear before a largely new audience on that platform.

Asshole might get a leg up and perhaps even be able to claim credit for deployment of some good ideas which he may fear could be used against him.

In typical novice, reactionary form, Guessedworker clings to a psychological perspective as his recourse. It was true of myself that under the harrowing assault of political correctness, I moved to recourse in psychology after I had begun with art and then moved to religion, only to find these worldviews insufficient to deal with the assailing of my concerns.

However, Guessedworker was not intelligent and educated enough to see the limits of the psychological perspective and his own psychology indeed has kept him at least partly (more like largely) stuck there, with its limitations; though it should be clear when looking at the issue of anti-racism, an attack on our people as a group which is the essence of what we are up against – not especially a matter of individual psychology, not even well characterized as a matter of group psychology. But as he remains partly stuck there, clinging in white knuckle reaction to the hope that he can control and establish an empirical foundation with that perspective, that his personal input as such is uniquely important; one weapon that he apparently feels that he can reliably draw upon with over confidence from the psychological bag of tricks is the notion of “projection.”

A person might be susceptible to project their own motives and liabilities onto another indeed, where they do not understand their own motives, concepts, are not especially conscious and articulate; where in fact they seek to attack someone personally, and are motivated as such.

But since I do understand my concepts and motives, which are not to compete with and destroy Guessedworker, but to address and correct matters of theoretical concern to European peoples which are in error, Guessedworker’s attempts to construe my offerings as “projections” come into high relief as bogus – strawmen and gaslighting; showing the bad will to be clearly from his side.

I tried once to find the few posts that Guessedworker made over there at GAB and my few responses, but I did not find them. If I do find them, I’ll enter them here. However, he was obnoxious enough so that I can easily remember the “projections” that he tried to attribute to me.

Based on my email, there is nothing to do with GAB prior to late 2016, so it must have been around then that GW invited me to “join him” and “the friends at GAB.”

It was not altogether a surprise that he was luring me into a trap, but this little ambush was even more obnoxious than GW’s usual efforts to seek and exploit anything that he could to turn me into his foil, to go one-up on me in incisive “triumph”, and that’s saying something when it comes to GW. But as I said, his conscious strategy and shoddy motives come into high relief as such, before what he takes to be a new audience, where he might hope to get a leg up.

But while GW’s antics discouraged me from participating at GAB, from what I gather, that is not an audience whom I choose to serve anyway. It’s proprietor, Andrew Torba, is apparently a Jesus freak who caters to Jesus freaks and other right wing reactionaries without sufficient social skill and thus seeking haven from mainstream media political correctness for their anti-social positions; gathering there in effect are social retards – neo-Nazis and Christians, not the audience that I serve anyway; quite the opposite. Christians are drawing on and prescribing a map that was conceived by the enemies of Whites to direct our people to self destruction as a people; and Nazis are, by definition, commending deadly antagonism toward most non-German peoples – serving to stigmatize our cause by association, instigating or instigated as it were, to the divide and conquer purposes of our enemies at very least; while pointedly, taking a position of lethal disregard for those Europeans conceived as being in the way of their hair-brained rule. So, let GW swim in that sewer. These are among the most significant adversaries of White people’s interests, enemies of European peoples as such.

Again, if I find the exact post, I will copy it here. But while I do not remember the exact phrasing, I do remember the exact catalogue of false accusations that asshole (Guessedworker) rendered against me to “welcome” me to GAB.

I don’t quite remember how he tried to introduce this barrage, but usually he tries to pretend that he’s trying to help me, only rendering an honest critique as such; in truth, it is nothing of the kind.

Reactionary: Asshole tried to project his reactionary politics and “philosophy” on to me, accusing me of being “reactionary.” In fact this is particularly UNTRUE of me, as I am always advocating systemic homeostasis, i.e., our people as a self corrective system, thus autonomous and sovereign – this is the opposite of being a “reactionary.”

Reification: One accusation that he made of me was being stuck in “reification.” – reification means to turn something into a stuck thing.

Part of why GW’s accusations, strawmen, are infuriating is because they are so remarkably untrue. It’s hard to get anything out of his baseless critique other than that you are not dealing with an honest man.

In addition to being untrue, I can add that the heremeneutics process of inquiry that I engage and endorse, is anti-reification by definition. 

I may have suggested (correctly) that fixation on his ontology project ran the risk of reification.

He apparently tried to play this as a projection, again, inaccurate because he fails to realize that I am not like him, not competing against him personally; my efforts in correction are geared rather at theory, not his person; which I only deal with when he gets in the way of theoretical correction.

I don’t remember if he tried to misrepresent my concept of White Left Ethnonationalism as being in accordance with the red caped YKW marketing campaign as he has dozens of times and if he also tried to construe me as beholden to sociology and in the Jewish red cape of it, as he has dozens of times; but if he didn’t here, he has plenty of other times, forced me to shovel his horseshit strawmanning from what I am actually saying and its signifcance.

Only trying to win: In fact, one of the (true) criticisms that I made of him with regard to his stupid criticism, was that he was obviously not very concerned with truth and theoretical satisfaction but rather concerned primarily to win, to see himself as the winner against me.

In this welcome to GAB he tried to turn around and (falsely) claim projection, saying that I was only concerned with winning. The man is an idiot.

A quanta of intelligence beyond me: Next, GW would claim to have a “quanta” of intelligence beyond me…  now that GW has defined himself as an asshole (again, who is competing to win against the other here, rather than attending to theoretical concern?), we might ask, what kind of intelligence? and we get a clue from his next claim.

How unsuited you are for abstract thinking: What an asshole. For now, I will ignore all he’s ignored in saying this, and add my (accurate) rejoinder of the time –

How unsuited you, Guessedworker, are to philosophy.

You are blinded by your concepts: this attempt at claiming projection was particularly obnoxious because I’d always been keen on advancing the idea of “rational blindness” for theoretical reasons, and it is important as such; I don’t recall having accused GW of rational blindness  – though his objectivist aspirations would leave him prone to that and I suppose he was trying to accuse me before he could be accused. But in addition to not being true (I’m not blinded by my concepts and the projection thing doesn’t work because it’s an idea aimed in theory not at him) he is in a sense, co-opting an idea that he has neither the intelligence to conjure, the judgment to recognize the significance of, nor the decency to credit.

Now I gleaned this concept from John Shotter’s work. There is, of course, nothing wrong with my deploying good ideas for our interests. 

But from the sick autobiography of GW, it is not possible that I exercise agency, judgement and discretion in how I use the work of academics, or anybody, for that matter,  making my person thus, the vehicle, crediting what I use, qualifying and leaving aside problems with those whose work I use, as need be.

GW’s puerile autobiography in jealous and resentful antipathy to academics and academic humanities is committed beyond anyone else you’ll ever see. The man is utterly absurd. He is going to do everything in his power to make you (as in me, in this case) fit into the foil of his autobiography as hero against academic pretense. Thus, it is the case with Shotter, as any academic that I reference, historical or contemporary, that I have no agency, I am the passive receptacle, merely repeating what these “Marxist Leftist” academics have told me.

The man is a jealous idiot. 

Any sentence, any paragraph that you look at coming from me will make it clear that his accusations of disservice to our people are not true; it is obvious to even those with the most mediocre skills of apprehension.

Instead of seeing that I am exercising discretion, agency and originality in deployment on our behalf, he calls me a “Shotterist” and accuses me of “Shotterism.” What a fucking idiot.

In fact, the first time I exploded in anger with GW was in a Skype call; I’ve discussed this episode before, but anyway:

I had just put up an article wherein my main concern was to introduce the idea of an analogy of European peoples (particularly northerners) to naïve species prone to invasive species.

I jumped around, deliberately, introducing other concepts as well, wanting the post to be a bit provocative and unconventional; GW, of course, missed the point, focusing on my style instead, saying that “people would stop reading” rather than seizing upon the idea of naïve and invasive species for elaboration in comment (Morgoth would develop the idea in one podcast of his).

Being the stupid boomer that GW is, locked in his effort to justify his egocentric world view, he tried to suggest that I was not serving the individualistic personality of European peoples. I rejoined that in fact, I discuss the very means of individuality by way of Harre’s work, in not only one respect but two: the corporeal and the autobiographical. I discuss the means of individuality by way of Shotters work and more, as well.

But Asshole tries to tell me that I should look only at the corporeal, be a mechanic in his service.

I try to explain to him that the autobiographical self is necessary to coherence, accountability (lets now add correctability), agency and warrant.

But according to him, I was supposed to only examine our problems from a sublime physicalist position. The idiot tried to tell me in that discussion that I’d studied the wrong thing; I guess that according to asshole, I was not supposed to look at group interactive concerns, but rather after brain mechanics (as if anti-racism is not a group interactive concern).

The man is an idiot.

In fact, this egocentric worldview, in holdover from modernity, is the pivotal criticism of the boomers launched by the initial literature describing the difference of Generation X – forsaken in the funk and wake of the boomer stampede, or swarm as it were, like a swarm of locusts that devoured everything of value in their path, leaving Xers in the funk.

Boomers don’t typically want to cop to this, their dumb luck and their part in the disaster for their unwillingness to acknowledge that their fortune is not all their personal doing and that their anti-social (anti-White social) position is a large part in the disaster befallen; they want to believe that their modernist, egomoniacal thing wasn’t done hard enough.

In fact, Guessedworker’s case of modernist boomerism is so bad, that he believes that the entire history of Western philosophy and academia needs to be “swept aside” – he has literally said this – in order to make way for the foundationalism of his “ontology project” – and what you are supposed to do is get high on his Zen farts wafting up from his armchair. 

Asshole then makes the insane suggestion that I should elaborate a theory of accountability (apparently from a myopic physicalist perspective that does not threaten his autobiography and subserves his “ontology project” – he thinks that the self, particularly his egomaniac self and its “interiority”, is a foundational, prior concern) – this is after I’d posted an analysis of John Shotter’s work – whose life’s work was dedicated to this issue and had analyzed social accountability in a continual hermeneutic circle moving with remarkable rigor from chapter to chapter, paragraph to paragraph, sentence to sentence, word to word! And he wants me to get more anal than that, rather than attending to other matters? He’s crazy ignorant.

Ok, but since shoveling through eight years of GW’s horseshit is going to take time and require breaks, let me move on to post that analysis of Shotter indeed. I don’t mind putting it up before I put up my own philosophical overview, since GW cannot comment here, gunk up and derail matters; I will just flow from there at my leisure to set forth the theoretical / philosophical platform advanced here without the nuisance of his obfuscation; and come back from time to time to shovel aside GW’s horseshit.

Let me launch on to that with this piece of colossal assholery form GW:

​All you have to do to set aside your ethno-nationalist party of one is to adapt your Shotterism to the existential.  That will require you also to un-distance your nationalism from the people so, for example, the bloodless and unloving dictum of “white post-modernity” becomes a minor comment on history rather than an all-important destination.  Ours is a politics of blood and love and Nature.  Connect to it.  That’s already your personal redemption.

In GW’s mind, I am having an “ethnonationalist party of one” and I need his advice.

“Shotterism” would be his neologism that he tries to apply to me as having an ideology in Shotter.

The man is an idiot – for trying to trivialize what is to be gotten from this work and for trying to belittle my having utilized his work (already have), selecting from it, and shaping and crafting that not ideologically, but pragmatically,  for our cause.

My nationalism is not distanced from “the people”… but the accusation is GW’s way of saying that his autobiography is threatened, as he sees himself as the champion of the people against academic pretense and misdirection; not concerned, ever, that I do not pretend and misdirect.

He uses the word “bloodless” (in other places “blood and soil”) in order to stay in character as quaint, of the people, not so pretentious as to invoke the concept of DNA Nations here.

Asshole believes that when he makes these proclamations like “bloodless” and “unloving dictum” that it must be true.

“Unloving dictum” ?

What kind asshole is this? And what does this narcissistic personality disorder case know about being “loving”? Look at the way he talks, the spiteful dishonesty.

As ever, attacking any good and important idea. Because it is worse to him that it threatens to lessen any significance of his person and contributions by contrast, and so he must therefore trivialize what he cannot eliminate:

Thus, “White Post-Modernity” should become a minor comment on history rather than an exceptionally important destination.

GW, in his autobiography, is a champion of politics of blood and love and Nature (capital N) and I am Not these things (in the story of his autobiography). 

The man is no small asshole. 

He is a huge asshole.

He concludes, 

“That’s already your personal redemption.”

He has the nerve to act like I need redemption and advice from him about how to achieve redemption.

He placed this as a comment under a personal story about my relation to my father and the rest of my family – a story which obviously I know well enough to know that I don’t need redemption. My story, “666 and the Final Grammar” was already kindly and redemptive in regard to me and my father, whose insane, explosive emotional cruelty I chose not to elaborate in its instances of delivery and impact, but chose rather to highlight the good side of this man who (like GW) was uneducated and dismissive of academic concerns of the humanities sort.

So, in this instance, where GW reads this as if I’m seeking or should be seeking redemption, I think, as I often do about bludgeoning his head, how satisfying that could be after eight years of this asshole placing his ego before concepts necessary to the interests of European peoples, obstructing as much as he could, invariably straw-manning and gaslighting for his ego project. 

No, I am not the one who is in need of redemption here.

The reader may not fully understand my rancor at GW yet, but if you care to, you probably will in due course.

Time for a break before the “Shotterist” posts the “Shotterism” …oh what an asshole GW.

Ok, back. Before I go into that somewhat more protracted break in order to post the Shotter piece, let me note Guessedworker’s take when he’d finally succeeded in being obnoxious enough for me to start this site of my own; i.e., why he suggests that I had supposedly failed.

“The market has spoken.”

Classic modernist boomer wants to believe that “the market” is a sheer, objectively critical force, beyond social critique. Worse is the fact that the market had not spoken nearly so much as Jewish marketing had spoken – and I told him this; viz. the Jewish marketing campaign altercasting White identity to the right and more specifically than ever against a characterology of “the left” had spoken, and Guessedworker, dumb boomer that he is, self serving to him as this marketing campaign is, obliged.

For in GW’s puerile, reactionary autobiography, naïve/disingenuous world view, it is not only the market which must sort things out properly by invisible hand, but nationalism and European interests sheerly as well. Social accountability, correctivity and the unionization that would facilitate it are anathema to his gargantuan, unmerited ego project.

…..

This accusation of “activism” is a newer form that he tried many times, i.e., of his calling me and the resources that I brought to bear, “political,” as in, merely political – the suggestion being that he and his concerns are of a deeper, much more important philosophical nature by comparison. You can’t make this asshole up.

…..

This is a combination of arrogance, stupidity and error in judgment beyond belief on the part of Asshole:

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 27 Jun 2018 12:12 | #

Daniel, I don’t know if you can break free from your island of gauche certainties.  There is no “epistemological blunder”.  There is only you trying to justify your own worldview by whatever means comes to mind.

And talk about projection…

As I said, wherever there is a good and important idea, in this case, eminently important idea (the epistemic blunder of Nazism), asshole will attack it and try to destroy it on behalf of his gargantuan, unmerited ego; and also, probably, his scientistic Germano/Nazophilic eggers-on.

Addendum January 2022: Against GW, I defend the concept of incommensurability as particularly useful in tagging qualitative, ecological niche differences which should not be looked upon as readily comparable, but rather incommensurable; and respected as such, avoid the false and disrespectful comparisons that can instigate reciprocally escalating conflict as opposed to a means for coordination in and between qualitative, niche evolutionary differences in an between groups.

While I have put off updates in address of the idiotic contentiousness of the narcissistic personality disorder case which is Guessedworker (as it could go almost indefinitely, spanning more than eight years as it has), another round has been necessary this late January 2022, as GW is up to his old thing – i.e., attacking any and every good and important idea, as it threatens his autobiography and unmerited, gargantuan ego:

 Posted by DanielS on Mon, 17 Jan 2022 06:42 | #

Go on to pursuit of more rigorous grounds for social sciences as you will, but please do not make the kind of mistake that Guessedworker is prone to, in trying to assert that I am anything like beholden to an entire program, let alone its distortions and abuses for political purposes, when I recognize significant value in a few ideas, viz. paradigms, comparability and incommensurability, for application in responsible handling (phronesis = practical judgment) necessary in the more messy, more changeable, less perfectly causal world of social interaction (as opposed to the hard sciences); especially as it is to be negotiated by us ordinary non-scientists.

That is to say, it may be possible to undertake an elaborate equation where people from a third world culture are comparable for their abilities or lack thereof, but for practical sake, the notion of “incommensurability” provides a useful, if not valuable heuristic; as in, “these people are evolved for a different niche, and have skills for entirely different purposes” (a different “paradigm”) which would not only be impractical, but destructive, unnecessarily disrespectful (provocative) and even dangerous to ignore – niche differences the sight of which may be lost, as might happen with comparisons pushed to an extreme, if not false comparisons made.

Think of the White nerd who behaves as if his higher I.Q. puts him on superior and safe ground across the board as opposed to the street black. The White nerd can be caught off guard for false comparison, not respecting incommensurable difference; which in the case of blacks is speaking a long pre-evolution to European differentiation; as you also know, comporting more testosterone, (comparatively hyper) assertion, less sublimation – short time horizon – and lack of compunction in impulse control that causes the White guy to come up short for the complacency of his nerd I.Q. and its logical rationalizations (“they are not so bad/dangerous to me”). Yes, these are scientific comparisons, but where the comparisons veer toward incommensurability is in the hubris of thinking that the niche evolutionary requirements for our circumstance apply across the board and render the other lesser in all significant ways.

Whereas this hubris which got the nerd caught off guard may have been staved-off by a bit of tribute to incommensurability and the necessity for paradigmatic separation. The sensitivity to niche differences that is proposed with the practical option of “incommensurability” provides the means for respect and coordination, not only between groups, but within, I might add.


2

 Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 17 Jan 2022 14:01 | #

There is a marked tendency for Jewish intellectuals, because (to borrow from Kuhn) they operate within the historical paradigm not as interpreters and descriptors but as re-interpreters and inflectors, and because the historical paradigm anyway is not the same as the history of the practise of truth (“normal science”, to Kuhn), to expose their true ardour, which is for the controlling and directing power of the word.  Obviously, in themselves words … the kind of words employed in science and most branches of genuine intellectual enquiry … have a certain state of philological innocence.  “Paradigm” is, after all, a perfectly useful term.  It does not carry the sign of a lower intent.  That only enters with its artful and strategic incision into the living if not organic matter of our intellectual expositions and mores.

Another of Kuhn’s artful words was “incommensurability”, the effect of which was to undermine the structural integrity of realist descriptions of the world, and all it contains, by appealing to perspectivism.  When he was challenged on the basis that his ideas led to relativism … something that should not surprise us in the slightest … he defended himself noisily and by turning to the individual scientist’s subjectivism and values overriding his vaunted and dispassionate attachment to truth.  It’s pretty thin stuff, really.  An accusation, nothing more; and a pessimistic judgement on Scientific Man, excising his better nature, his professional discipline, his stated purpose.  But the eponymous culture warrior must do these things to escape the dread finger of suspicion.

Anyway, in the process he had to attack the role of “internal and external consistency” in the scientific method. What is there without the adequacy of consistency?  The anti-relativists were completely right.  James is totally right.  The question – as always there is a question – is: where do we go from here?


3

 Posted by DanielS on Mon, 17 Jan 2022 14:45 | #

Incommensurability is not a merely artful term, but can be practically useful; a more clear example would be in the evaluation of the differences between the genders; in a word, it prompts that attention is best paid to a qualitative (paradigmatic) difference.

Go ahead and try to make social sciences like a hard science as you might, James is not completely right inasmuch as he (and you) would over extend application of science where philosophical judgment is called for; as ever, you have set up a false either/or. Glad to leave you behind.


4

 Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 17 Jan 2022 16:08 | #

Actually, the term “incommensurability” came into the sociology lexicon from two Jews – Fleck and Kuhn – working thirty years apart, and the paedophile postmodernist Foucault.  Its meaning concerns not sociobiology but sociological nomenclature.  You, Daniel, are filching it off them, presumably from your uni days, and forcing it into an ill-fitted sociobiological service.

Foucault was right in one respect.  What we are really talking about here is the problem of episteme … the problem of truth.  One would hope that, rather than take lessons from the denizens of sociology departments either of the last century or this, thinking nationalists might attack the problem independently, without relying on correspondence or coherentism.  Relationality in the forms of accretion and consonance might have some role to play.


5

 Posted by Thorn on Mon, 17 Jan 2022 16:29 | #

Don’t leave, DanielS.

Putting your differences with GW aside, the substance of your comment @1 is very spot-on and important. If only white ppl understood and acted on the info you presented, we wouldn’t be in the shape we’re in. Instead, whites are conditioned to think the differences between the races are negligible; small differences that integration and education can erase. Most whites simply refuse to acknowledge sub-Saharan negroes evolved to adapt to their enviornment in Africa … which is much different to how whites evolved in Europe—of course those evolutionary differences include emotional, intellectual and physical differences. It’s all built into the DNA. But the majority of whites are so thoroughly brainwashed/conditioned that they police their own thoughts; in doing so they discard any factual information that does not comport with or support their egalitarian/anti-racist mindset.


6

 Posted by DanielS on Mon, 17 Jan 2022 17:32 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 17 Jan 2022 16:08 | #

Actually, the term “incommensurability” came into the sociology lexicon from two Jews – Fleck and Kuhn – working thirty years apart, and the paedophile postmodernist Foucault.

Incommensurability is one of the few ideas that I’ve gleaned from a Jewish source; and I’ve applied it as it can serve the interests of White/European systemic homeostasis; in fact, so useful to our purposes (e.g., as opposed to looking at things as equal or unequal – and therefore tactlessly chasing the red cape “against equality”) that when a prominent Jewish academic gave a lecture criticizing the idea, it “confirmed” for me my mistaken belief that Khun must be non-Jewish. If a Jew is arguing against the idea, it only goes to show that there is something there.

I retain the value of the idea – as I apply it – not because I’m beholden to what professors told me, despite the fact that your puerile autobiography insists on that.

Its meaning concerns not sociobiology but sociological nomenclature.

As sociological “nomenclature” it can be a good, useful idea; and like any and every good idea, you will attack it because it threatens your autobiography and unmerited, gargantuan ego.

You, Daniel, are filching it off them, presumably from your uni days, and forcing it into an ill-fitted sociobiological service.

“Filching”? I never denied where I got the idea, and no normal person will presume, as you do, that if something was gotten during university days, that it must be bad; like anything that I’ve gleaned, I’ve fashioned it for service of our people.

Foucault was right in one respect.

In your idiotic remarks before, you ignored the distinctions that I make in post modern thought, in that regard, and pander to reactionary idiots (or go along with instigating enemies) who want to maintain associations that I have no use for – Derrida. And now you invoke Foucault, which I have little use for … though “biopower” is useful notion; perhaps “the use of pleasure” and a few other things, but not an important figure.

I am not trying to ill fittingly put incommensurability into sociobiological service, but recognize, rather, its utility as prompt to be careful about quantitative comparisons; particularly as deployed by the general population.

And like any good idea, you will attack it.

What we are really talking about here is the problem of episteme … the problem of truth.

 

Are you really?

One would hope that, rather than take lessons from the denizens of sociology departments either of the last century or this, thinking nationalists might attack the problem independently, without relying on correspondence or coherentism.

Relationality in the forms of accretion and consonance might have some role to play.

 

You can’t get over (stop reacting to) this red caping of sociology. Don’t care that I never took a sociology course in my life – your anti sociology club requires you to keep depicting me as a sociology student beholden to presiding Jewish charlatans. It’s your problem; I gave you the benefit of the doubt in thinking that there might be something positive behind your attacks on good ideas. There is no good reason, and you will never admit it; its just what you do because you are an asshole.


7

 Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 17 Jan 2022 17:51 | #

Understand that I quite deliberately limited my discourse to “data-driven scientific discovery” knowing full well that there are other paths to truth.  The reason for this limitation is the modern pretense that all is machine—the past determines the future through the present including our behavior as seekers of truth. 

We expend enormous resources engaging in discourse over cause and effect, as though cause and effect are real—as though the flow of time is unidirectional.  So long as we remain in this relation to our world, may we at least economize those resources?


8

 Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 17 Jan 2022 18:07 | #

On commensurability/incommensurability, the concept simply does not mean what you want it mean, Daniel.  It does not refer to the vulgar difference between entities (or paradigms) per se but between the unitary measure of their structure or unitary theory of same.  That’s what makes it philosophy of (hard) science and not simple sociology.

Now, a saving grace, for which you will not be in the slightest grateful, is that the two philosophers of science who are in question here had an entirely predictable agenda which is not interested in science at all but in the negation of Truth.  They really are only interested in refuting the possibility of knowing kind and Other, or they wouldn’t be doing this stuff at all.  So it turns out that you have a point, as do all nationalists.  But you are still using the wrong technical term.  What you are looking for, even if you don’t know it, is something that goes to realism and naturalism.


9

 Posted by DanielS on Mon, 17 Jan 2022 18:25 | #

GW, you are a fucking idiot; as ever (you’ve done this countless times), making these proclamations, thinking like a queen that if you proclaim it, that “incommensurability/ commensurability simply does not mean what I say”. Shut up; and don’t tell me what I’m looking for as in accordant subject to your retarded rule.

I’ve explained this to the [expletive] countless times now (it won’t penetrate), that his being against sociology is like being against the telescope and saying only microscopes are good instruments. Ridiculous. It depends upon your unit of analysis. And, in fact, the sociological unit of analysis – the group – is most relevant as we are under attack as a group – i.e., a race, under attack by anti-racism (anti white group-ism). Sure, other units of analysis can be investigated, sometimes fruitfully, but I am not the one who is treating the other means of inquiry as mutually exclusive to anything worthwhile.

 Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 17 Jan 2022 20:04 | #

Daniel, “the unit of measure” isn’t “the unit of analysis”.  That latter is the object measured in some respect.  If that respect is, say, general intelligence then the unit of measure can, for example, be the Intelligence Quotient.  But someone like Howard Gardiner may construct a protest on grounds of incommensurability with other bases for measurement which he perceives to be as important as general intelligence.

Get it now?


14

 Posted by DanielS on Mon, 17 Jan 2022 21:53 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 17 Jan 2022 20:04 | #

Daniel, “the unit of measure” isn’t “the unit of analysis”.

Asshole, that’s a strawman. I always understood that you are trying to compare and measure things. I did not say that things could not be compared and made somehow commensurable.


Get it now?


15

 Posted by DanielS on Mon, 17 Jan 2022 21:55 | #

I.e., there is a difference between “incommensurable and incomparable” – I didn’t suggest the later could not be done.


16

 Posted by DanielS on Mon, 17 Jan 2022 22:02 | #

..and I began by saying that this idea could abused, e.g., red caped, and I suggested that James neither chase the abuse as you invariably would nor insist that I was (or should) follow Khun’s entire program because I see one idea as useful (and use it in a benign, if not helpful way, a fact which you will invariably ignore).

 Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 17 Jan 2022 22:24 | #

“Incomparability” means something else again (from set theory, I think) and is not what Kuhn was talking about.  And “straw man” indicates a weak argument advanced so it may then be knocked down.  OK, knock down my argument @ 13.  Or, alternatively, cut your losses and retire gracefully.


18

 Posted by DanielS on Mon, 17 Jan 2022 22:57 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 17 Jan 2022 22:24 | #

“Incomparability” means something else again (from set theory, I think) and is not what Kuhn was talking about.  And “straw man” indicates a weak argument advanced so it may then be knocked down.  OK, knock down my argument @ 13.  Or, alternatively, cut your losses and retire gracefully.

Fuck you douchebag. Did I say that I was using the term exactly the way that Khun did or did I warn Bowery that you would try to keep me beholden to his entire program verbatim because I glean and idea from him and craft it for ethnonational purpose?

“A straw man” is also an argument that the interlocuter is NOT making, set up to avoid his real argument and you do this constantly.

Along with your proclamations, which you presume makes them true; the only saving grace being that they are so stupid as to be easily set aside. Classic GW proclamation: “Aristotle simply is not relevant.”

Time for you to retire GW. You’ve been enough of an obstruction.

 


19

 Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 18 Jan 2022 00:45 | #

So, Daniel, you are not, in fact, going to knock down the argument that you have labelled a straw man.  Because it isn’t a straw man, is it?  You only said it was because you are flailing away with anything that comes to mind, and flailing is more important to you right now than precision.  I could ask why and in what way vulgar argument is more important than intellectual discipline.  But I won’t get an honest answer, will I?

Anyway, let’s return to the practicalities.  Whatever you think you meant by your use of the word “incommensurability”, the truth of it is that “these people” who “are evolved for a different niche, and have skills for entirely different purposes” can be compared to Europeans on the basis of shared traits which can be measured.  There is nothing incommensurable there, even using the term, as you say, heuristically.

Our point, then, is that Kuhn is dishonest and wrong, just as Boas was fifty years before him and Gould thirty years after.  But for some reason known only to yourself, you dragged in his dishonest and wrong if typical example of Jewish artfulness and plonked it down in the middle of your ideology.  As a result you find yourself excuse-making on the basis that an heuristic utility justifies a given usage even when it is demonstrably wrong in substance.  Now that usage has become untenable, maybe even incommensurable in some mysterious, not to say, heuristic way.  Don’t defend it.  Change it.


20

 Posted by DanielS on Tue, 18 Jan 2022 04:26 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 18 Jan 2022 00:45 | #

So, Daniel, you are not, in fact, going to knock down the argument that you have labelled a straw man. Because it isn’t a straw man, is it?

I have observed your argument as a strawman and it was a strawman.

You only said it was because you are flailing away with anything that comes to mind,

I have not “flailed away”, I have knocked away your strawman by being consistent with what my meaning has always been.

and flailing is more important to you right now than precision.

“Flailing” is a projection of what you do in chasing red capes and attacking your straw men.

“Flailing” is what you call practical judgment, a working hypothesis as opposed to your retarded, reactionary desperation to over-apply and misapply your STEM over-valuation of precision to the social world.

I could ask why and in what way vulgar argument is more important than intellectual discipline.  But I won’t get an honest answer, will I?

I’ve given you an answer (and have, many times, but you are impervious) – phronesis (practical judgment) / working hypotheses (I can add, specificatory structures) – which are not vulgar argument and comport the intellectual disciplinary end of accountability, correctivity, operational verifiability and warranted assertability.

Anyway, let’s return to the practicalities.  Whatever you think you meant by your use of the word “incommensurability”

Yes, lets return to that, asshole. Not that anything ever gets through your narcissistic personality disorder.

What I mean by “incommensurability” as I have indeed explained, is a tag that is well applied to an issue to be investigated, and the tag says “warning”, important qualitative differences between two paradigms (niche evolutionary functional schemes) that you are about to compare. You can compare them, maybe even make them commmensurable in some aspects, but may take on / give misdirection regarding the fuller (holistic, to use a word that you would claim for yourself, as if myself and others are guilty of not thinking as such) paradigmatic configuration as they function ecologically in importantly different, qualitative niche differences. Incommensurability thus, would be a practical tag for professional and ordinary, non scientific people alike in line with emergentism’s non-Cartesian emphasis against reductionism as it might otherwise send one into one after the other impractical inquiry, likely with the pejorative result of narcissism, i.e., the modernists universalizing tendency to impute sameness and run roughshod over important qualitative, paradigmatic, niche differences.

the truth of it is that “these people” who “are evolved for a different niche, and have skills for entirely different purposes” can be compared to Europeans on the basis of shared traits which can be measured.

 

Yes, you can do that, and its main utility in that regard is to overturn stupid Marxist arguments about how, say, Whites have only achieved by exploitation of the third world, nepotism and systemic discrimination (“racism”) on behalf of our own.

But it is limited and can be over applied; we are defending our people, including, for example, our high I.Q. component; but we are not I.Q. nationalists, we are ethnonationalists; at least, I am, defending a systemic ecology which has other important aspects and niches to value besides.  …and perhaps other capabilities to be aware of in other groups.

There is nothing incommensurable there, even using the term, as you say, heuristically.

So, its another one of your proclamations which (typically) glosses over the important point, as it is indeed, a practical heuristic.

Our point, then, is that Kuhn is dishonest and wrong, just as Boas was fifty years before him and Gould thirty years after.

Boas and Gould were certainly dishonest and wrong (just as you are) and Khun probably is – didn’t finish The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (boring), having anything I needed from it in those few words, paradigm, incommensurability and perhaps took for granted the difference from comparability as a term imported to parse that discussion.

But for some reason known only to yourself, you dragged in his dishonest and wrong if typical example of Jewish artfulness and plonked it down in the middle of your ideology.

You are truly an asshole GW, the way you talk about my discussions, using terms like “ideology” and “hagiography”, so on, as you have done for years to serve your narcissistic personality disorder, providing perfect explanation as to why I speak to you with such contempt in return; you are not only a stupid man but a bad man, who places your ego above an honest and truthful assessment of our peoples needs.

  As a result you find yourself excuse-making on the basis that an heuristic utility justifies a given usage even when it is demonstrably wrong in substance.

I have demonstrated that it has practical utility and is not wrong in substance (as I deploy the term).

Now that usage has become untenable, maybe even incommensurable in some mysterious, not to say, heuristic way.  Don’t defend it.  Change it.

It is you that needs changing, asshole, needed it a long time ago. Your boomer shit is old and in the way; it may have served your selfish ends, and you obviously don’t want to own up to the effects of your kind of ignorance (which is magnified through your personality disorder), would rather blame the red capes (that would be corrected, if the underlying concepts were understood properly, as opposed to the red capes) that you flail at, and insist upon maintaining as part of you straw man repertoire, but we will happily leave you behind.


21

 Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 18 Jan 2022 07:56 | #

The practical application of DanielS’s tortuous intellectual prestidigitation remains unveiled.

What now ?


22

 Posted by DanielS on Tue, 18 Jan 2022 08:12 | #

It’s not true, Al. There are many practical applications to my platform, beginning with its central most relevance. As for “what now”, here at MR, I might suggest that Bowery try to explain to GW that his fundamental error is false and unnecessary either/or-ing between my concern for the broad, social group perspective and his being enamored of precision and the more rigorous, empirical side of inquiry – which is included, and valued in my platform, though not acknowledged as such by his penchant for false either/or-ing and false mutual exclusivity. However, I must add to Bowery in the endeavor to persuade GW against this false either/or-ing and false mutual exclusivity, good luck.

[quote]As BIC is to the Oxford modellers, so incommensurability is to Danny.[/quote]

Nice try asshole. There is a huge difference. Incommensurability as I deploy the term designates/marks (as I have said, but will not penetrate your thick skull) the suggestion of qualitative niche evolutionary differences, thus cautions against facile comparisons – doesn’t say you can’t make comparisons, but that those comparisons are likely to parse out variables which don’t do justice to the totality of the difference in some cases. So, it is a practical heuristic, not rigid and fixed, whereas the Oxford Modellers are apparently rigidly wedded to a particular model.

DanielS in response to Guessedworker 

I will cut to the quick and go to positive sense first to state that establishing criteria of human and pervasive ecology could be commensurable and a worthwhile project, in that human ecologies could be established and recognized as corrective systems in relation to habitat, other human ecologies and overall environs. However, I have long ago (years ago) proposed that as one of the most, if not the most, basic platforms (you said it was weak – dismissive, as you would be in response to all good ideas; treating them as a threat to your unmerited, gargantuan ego) because it is universalizable, always relevant and yet not perfectly foundational (what is ecological in this situation?), which has advantages that I have cited, one of which is not compelling one to get caught up in search of a perfect solution at all times (the pragmatists major contribution – fallibility does not mean that skepticism is necessary)

As far as examples where the heuristic tag “incommensurable” would serve the general population (especially) in order to avoid false, quantitative comparisons where important qualitative niche differences are bundled: the differences between the sexes/genders would be a salient example; and again, another would be the differences between African and European peoples – the reason to put the warning tag is so that skills which may be inborn of the African (long pre evolution to Europeans probably should be respected) and may in fact be dominant in atavistic circumstance of modernity’s disorder [for the modernist/enlightenment’s oblivion to “non-empirical” boundaries, running rough shod over boundaries and borders, and the (((weaponization))) of  that purity spiral – “civil rights and anti racism”], its roughshod over socialization [adding this important idea that the Z-man tried to steal from me; that socialization requires the somewhat “unnatural” (to GW’s chagrin, because it requires philosophical judgment as opposed the Cartesian anxiety of his reaction, which has him push aside even important ideas, white knuckle clinging to foundational quest) establishment of group boundaries/borders, which otherwise becomes diffused and more prone to a base, animal common denominator] that would otherwise respect the sublimation of Europeans (and Asians), are not necessarily overcome, say, by I.Q. alone; and therefore, the protection of the human ecology requires paradigmatic distinction out of respect for the overall incommensurabilty in service of maintaining the human ecologies (which are being destroyed by habits of modernity, especially as they are weaponized by YKW); though again, criteria of human and pervasive ecology being something that is worthy of rigorous investigation; which never was mutually exclusive to anything that I’ve said.

42
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 20 Jan 2022 06:13 | #

… and as I have said, the respect that this (tag of incommensurabilty as opposed to Modernist over application of universalizability*) allows, would probably go a long way to avoiding conflict and reciprocally escalating diatribe. It provides a practical and respectful way out of these tangles.

* One of the more egregious (((red capes))) is (((Steve Sailer’s))) taking the concept of human biodiversity and misrepresenting it as a matter of I.Q., thereby taking a good concept to sensitize attention to qualitative, horizontal niche evolutionary differences and putting them on a lateral, horizontal scale, obviously for the sake of the Ashkenazi, to bolster justification for their disproportionate, if not hegemony in 7- 10 positions of niche power and influence.

44
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 20 Jan 2022 07:12 | #

And since you asked for three examples where the heuristic of incommensurability would serve, let me add that between Europeans and North East Asians. Their comparatively high median i.q. having them pour out of the doors of M.I.T. in legion, while the more creative Europeans are left out, with their greater degrees of autism, and more moderate sublimation, which is apparently part of our creativity and its reward.

Continue Reading Generational Astrology: Zodiac Sign of the Boomer, Part 12

White Geriatric Army & The White Air Force

  • Post author:
  • Post category:Central

With a concept of White geriatric army and White air-force, we my turn disadvantages of our aging demographic and seize upon qualities in our demographic despite our being outnumbered.

A low White birth rate in combination with aging demographic is of obvious concern for the prospects of defending our kind of people against antagonists.

However, there is a potential upside to our aging demographic in this regard, particularly if incentivized as such.

If older Whites can be made more aware and more conscientious of the nightmare and destruction, the hell that subsequent generations of White children will be born into; and thus instilled with a sense of duty, incentivized with reward for themselves and their posterity if they take upon greater risks, then we have a great advantage in this aging demographic. 

They literally have less to lose having already lived most of their lives.

They have less to lose by assuming more risks to their life and freedom.

This is not an advocacy of terrorism. On the contrary, it is a call to responsible duty in defense of what should be their concern, their people’s interests and lives – under qualitative destruction and genocidal siege as we have been under the rubric of anti-racism and anti-Semitism.

It is not a matter of terrorism. It is not even a matter of violence except if it is in literal defense against violence being committed against our people; or augured as such by defiance of explicitly designated borders and bounds by an transgressor unresponsive to requests for account and otherwise equipped to do harm.

In fact, it is more a call upon older Whites to take more risks in activism and vocalization of the cause for our separatism, our autonomy and sovereignty as Whites.

And there are different ways in which a White Geriatric Army might be conceptualized to serve these ends.

I like the idea of two two years terms of service for Whites to defend White borders and bounds.

One term would be at say, Whites ages 20-22. The other term of would be, say, from 65 to 66.

Each demographic would assume more active or more supportive roles depending upon the task.

The younger conscripts would be doing things that the older people cannot physically do; and besides that they would be experiencing camaraderie developing skills and learning, especially from the older White demographic, now in place to provide this teaching.

The older conscripts (or volunteers, as it were, depending upon how the system is conceived) would gain appreciation for their value and be given the added incentive of an increased pension if they do survive these two years; perhaps added rewards for taking on riskier detail; and a sum to extend to their White biological legacy or those Whites they’d like to be rewarded if they have no children and grandchildren that they’d like to facilitate as such.

…..

Now, regarding White Air Force, I merely want to focus on the fact that despite the demographic outnumbering of our people, we are a people of technical and engineering talent of the kind that can manufacture, maintain and fly state of the art air craft in air force. Obviously that tends to have a neutralizing effect against numerical disadvantage.

…….

99IronDuke makes a good, basic point It makes clear sense that while the capability in Air Force is an advantage for White/European demographics [genus European] [species, various European ethnonations, including English]…

..and that is why I emphasize it as hopeful recourse, infantry ground force, is nevertheless necessary to hold borders.
Continue Reading White Geriatric Army & The White Air Force

>>>>>>>>>>>>“To ensure that Wikipedia is Zionist in nature”

  • Post author:
  • Post category:Central
A Palestinian woman whose house has been occupied by Jewish settlers argued with Israelis who came to celebrate Jerusalem Day in the mainly Arab neighborhood of Sheikh, Jarrah, Jerusalem.

“To ensure that Wikipedia is Zionist in nature”

Against the anti-White saturation campaign of anti-“racism” featuring the accusation of White-supremacism, I came up with a counter of “Mulatto Supremacism”, which I deemed to be a true motivation out there and egregiously un-ecological in its motivation. As a concept, it has the distinct rhetorical advantage of confronting neither Jews nor blacks directly (thus bypassing their easy response of anti-Semitism or racism or a pro-supremacist position of any kind), while confronting one of the most egregious upshots of their pervasive campaign against “racism” and (usually false) attribution of White supremacism. While Mulatto supremacism has much truth value as a concept and bears serious concern, I was blocked from starting a Wikipedia article on the topic.

I was blocked from submitting an article on the obvious phenomenon of “mulatto supremacism”  – which even has notable historical precedent in Haiti’s mulatto supremacist genocide of Whites on the island. – DanielS

Wikipedia is censored to protect Jewish interests.

Proof of their influence on Wikipedia is to be found in videos which reveal Israeli boiler rooms – groups of people put up to spin wiki articles in a Jewish way.

JamesUK:
I don’t now what Wikipedia’s policy is on creating entries on its site so I can’t comment on that it.

I heard of Jewish commentators on YouTube like to Israel but not Wikipedia.

Where are the videos?

DanielS:

Here you are –

Yesha Council in conjunction with “My Israel” has arranged instruction day for wiki editors. The goal is to teach people how to edit in Wiki- pedia, which is the number one source of information in the world. As way of example, if someone searches “the Gaza Flotilla” we want to be there, we want to be the guys who influence what is written there, how its written; to ensure that its ‘balanced’ and Zionist in nature.

It is so basically factual to anyone who has had dealings with Wikipedia and White activism that I don’t even feel obligated to make the case as a public service; I will leave you to further secretarial detail rather than getting caught up in your game of arguing over the obvious. Instead, I will provide just this one video example which you act as if difficult to find – a ready example of Jewish manipulation of Wikipedia.

With all the money that they have, whether through their own ways and machinations, including foreign aid, Jewish interests have plenty to fund activists on their behalf to patrol and control not just wikipedia, but to police and troll all over the internet. The ADL and SPLC are well known in this regard. Their Hasbra Fellowship is a little less well known for this. Though formally about Israeli interests, this would not be mutually exclusive to concern for Jewish diaspora as well.

HASBRA FELLOWSHIP

Hasbra Fellowship:

OUR MISSION

We are here to empower our community of students to advocate for Israel. Through our unique Israel Training Program, we offer exclusive, accessible, and interactive practical advocacy tools to empower students to lead on campus.

 

Hasbara Fellowships is a leading pro-Israel campus activism organization working with over 95 universities across North America. Hasbara Fellowships brings hundreds of students to Israel every summer and winter, giving them the information and tools to return to their campuses as educators about Israel. So far, Hasbara Fellowships has educated over 3,000 students on over 250 campuses.

Upon returning from the program, the Hasbara Fellows receive support from our staff, as well as access to various campaigns, programs, speakers, and other materials and tools. Hasbara Fellowships focuses on college campuses, but the information and tools offered are applicable for other forums as well.

OUR VISION

We envision North American college campuses to be a place where Zionists feel empowered to openly celebrate the Jewish State without fear or exclusion, where universities can define and fight Antisemitism in all its forms, where all Jewish students have the sophisticated education coupled with the confidence to speak up, and where the entire campus community welcomes and appreciates all students and ideas in support of Israel. We are shaping the next generation of North American leaders.

OUR WORK

Hasbara Fellowships is a leading pro-Israel campus activism organization working with over 95 universities across North America. Hasbara Fellowships brings hundreds of students to Israel every summer and winter, giving them the information and tools to return to their campuses as educators about Israel. So far, Hasbara Fellowships has educated over 3,000 students on over 250 campuses. Upon returning from the program, the Hasbara Fellows receive support from our staff, as well as access to various campaigns, programs, speakers, and other materials and tools. Hasbara Fellowships focuses on college campuses, but the information and tools offered are applicable for other forums as well.

…

Mulatto Supremacism

Some historical ingredients for a would-be Wikipedia article.

André Rigaud,1761-1811, Haitian mulatto general.

André Rigaud, 1761-1811, Haitian mulatto general… he believed in ‘the superiority of mulattoes.

– Columbia Encyclopedia.

ChickenBones: A Journal for Literary & Artistic African-American Themes – Toussaint Chronology: “In 1799 the mulatto general André Rigaud enlisted the aid of Alexandre Pétion and Jean Pierre Boyer, asserted mulatto supremacy, and launched a revolt against Toussaint.”…the genocide of the Whites that followed on what is now Haiti is a well known event.

Toussaint Louverture, 1743 - 1803, "Father of Haiti", defeats the Mulattoes.
W.E.B. Dubois

W.E.B. Du Bois and the Dandy as Diasporic Race Man; in Miller, Monica L.; Callaloo – Vol. 26, Number 3, Summer 2003, pp. 738-765; The Johns Hopkins University Press: “W.E.B. Du Bois and the Dandy as Diasporic Race Man” argues that Du Bois’s concern with black male leadership style began before the writing of Souls and continues well after it, in his less well-known writing. While still a young scholar, Du Bois wrote about an African American “feminine man” who, in joining with the more “masculine” Teutonic would produce a common human/American civilization by a racial division of labor.”

Meta-Wikipedia tact

Raising the charge of Mulatto Supremacism is both valid regarding one of the worst effects of what Jews and Blacks are doing to the White race while confronting neither group directly so as to initiate direct response; nor failing to use the leverage of their own potential grievance as to the matter.

Continue Reading >>>>>>>>>>>>“To ensure that Wikipedia is Zionist in nature”

Nimrod: morality in departure from Hislop’s, “The Two Babylons”

  • Post author:
  • Post category:Central
With the overall contexting, the group structuring bounds destroyed by modernity’s universalism, particularly as it has been (((weaponized))) and people completely (((misled))) about the correctives that post modernity is meant to entail, how it is supposed to function to protect and reconstruct our distinct peoples against these ravages, then the patterned qualities that would otherwise afford a comfortable unfolding in display of the European man’s excellence, or kinds of excellence, as it were, marked by a fine way of life, cultural patterns replete with creativity and important scientific accomplishment, may be precluded.
 
Other kinds of men may seem better in this context for momentary and episodic superiority resultant of their R-selection evolution; and will move in opportunistically to take advantage of the disorder of modernity’s wake, including taking qualitatively significant European women – women naturally co-evolved as our partners are taken away from us, aided and abetted as such by (((weaponized))) modernity’s taboo against “racism” along with regular modernity’s ridicule of traditional ways and inherited forms – if it isn’t “new” it isn’t good – adding to the provocation of “eros” (nature abhorring a vacuum and all).
 
In this betrayal lingers another tactic handed down from modernity to navigate the life span against traditional prohibitions: the ability to mark one’s agency and to distinguish one’s individuality by violating (“differancing” as (((Derrida would say))), differencing from the traditional taboo against miscegenation (I suppose that in his corruption of post modernity, he would add that racism is undergoing “erasure” as such.
 
Amplifying that is the lure of high contrast tropism; compounded by the two groups – females and blacks – still afforded classification and the coherence it entails and you’ve got the makings of a hegemonic modernist position; the greatest taboo, i.e., to object to White female miscegenators.
 
Their rebellion and violation of traditional taboo is underpinned by modernity’s experimentalism in the faith that change necessarily leads to progress and universally valid foundations.
 
Given the disorder of late modernity, particularly its weaponization, rupture of group bounds and exponential solicitation to their one up position in partner selection that entails, it is indeed harder for females to abide traditional moral standards; with traditional boundaries having been ruptured, more or happier opportunities exist for them to make this kind of mistake.
 
She is pandered wildly, and egregiously by YKW  – especially under the marketing campaign in convenience to them, against “the left” and the social accountability that the social unionization would facilitate – instead ordered by the impervious indifference of sheer objective facts.
 
So indeed these female traitors have some excuse; but even more fundamentally, as they must negotiate the universalist context and solicitation from everywhere, the atavistic base will resurface,, evolved as they are to breed with the “winner” whomever that is; it will appear at an atavistically low level of sublimation, including outright incitement of racial/ genetic completion,  particularly as they are pandered to absent the boundaries of the most fundamental socialization process that White Post modernity would provide.
 
They are naturally going to be less concerned with racial group preservation than males; racial discrimination can to lock them into a bad deal, if not exploitation; many can make a better deal, at least in the short run; they can bargain for more than their real value with group bounds broken down as they are through liberalization of traditional borders and boundaries. As they are solicited from everywhere, their market value goes up. Racial liberalism, anti-racism, can provide better deals for them, at least ostensibly and in the short run.
 
it is also the case that they are not forced as much as males to sublimate any resentment that they may have toward the opposite sex of their own kind. Solicitation and confirmation accrue to their confidence and ability to acquit themselves in so many words and prompts – never mind anyway when push comes to shove: call in whatever male force that will serve their liberalism (ready in wait, having passed through their gate-keeping) against whomever might dare object.
 
While this may seem like a protracted digression, what I am suggesting is the need to unleash a counter taboo violation for some psychological aid until such time as we can get our boys to appreciate how White Post Modernity is supposed to work for them and the beauty of the unionizing concept, which requires no psychological transformation, only letting go of weaponized modernity’s intimidation, its imposition of the idea of universal maturity, which does not respect the European male’s optimal balance between confidence (an over valuation of puerile females, exacerbated in this late modern circumstance) and intellectual survey and creativity; as if what it means to be a man is universal and to be purely objective, to test ourselves to no limit, and to allow our people to be tested, experimented with, to no end, without so much as a basic control variable if they were to proceed by standard scientific method. 
 
White boys need some immediate psychological help against this onslaught and betrayal by those that they were born to love; what could be more painful an affliction than this betrayal?
I suppose that if I were ever to develop this screenplay into a worthy moral tale, the lesson would be largely this: To overcome the egregious Christian idea of Jesus statement that you are culpable “even if you merely THINK of committing sin”, …
 
A poison seed for the hideous Modern/Cartesian purity spiral and self sacrifice beyond Praxis:.
 

In the King James Version of the Bible the text reads:

27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of
old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh
on a woman to lust after her hath committed
adultery with her already in his heart.

The World English Bible translates the passage as:

27 “You have heard that it was said,
‘You shall not commit adultery;’
28 but I tell you that everyone who gazes at a
woman to lust after her has committed
adultery with her already in his heart.

In the King James Version of the Bible the text reads:

And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out,
and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for
thee that one of thy members should perish, and
not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

The World English Bible translates the passage as:

If your right eye causes you to stumble, pluck it
out and throw it away from you. For it is more
profitable for you that one of your members should
perish, than for your whole body to be cast into Gehenna.
Indeed, there are echoes of Oedipus Rex in the bit about plucking out of one’s own eye if you’ve done wrong.
 
Specifically, the self condemnation that may come by not understanding one’s own psychological necessity to gauge the physiological response to potential miscegenation (breeding with outgroups of significant genetic distance), compelling by the tropism that highly contrasting differences have, irrespective of more deliberate construct, particularly as nature abhors a vacuum, should be alleviated as a potential passing thought in service of orientation, like a few frames in an ongoing film reel, not a fixed psychological desire, “latent wish” to be condemned.
 
And more to our point here, to help overcome this momentary gravity, the allure of taboo to the puerile who may be all too capable of avoiding sublimation of the will or capable of remaining indifferent to hurting their own kind – especially as it is heavily promoted by YKW politics, where they’ve been flattered by them as objectively superior compared to the relative, patterned interests of the rest of their forebears and relatives (Luke 14:26: “If any man come to Me and hate not his father and mother, and wife and children, and brethren and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple); taking the moment and episode to profound gravity over relational and group cultural patterns, as facts of nature and god’s will to which we should acquiesce … it is a good idea to unbridle the legitimacy of a counter-taboo – in the realm of thought, or fantasy as it were,  of “sin” contrary to Judeo-Christian prohibition.
 
The suggestion is that the fantasy of incest can be a rebellious counter-taboo to miscegenation. 
 
Of course I am not suggesting the reality, or even that you might fantasize about actual family members (to which many of us would loudly proclaim, “yuck!”). And this is especially not recommending the reality of miscegenation for the genetic defects that it entails if it leads to offspring. Nor even non-reproductive incest for the negative psychological effects that it almost certainly has. Weird. But as a fantasy, an “over-loyalist” fantasy, if that’s what is necessary to help you cope through this age of mass miscegenating betrayal? Yes, it might be a helpful idea as fantasy to combat intrusive thoughts and the Christian prohibition, “even if you think of it, you’ve basically done it/are guilty of it.”, in order to free our minds to combat Jewish manicheanism against us, and to begin to attend to our practical needs beginning with unionization for the sake of facilitating our systemic homeostasis – our functional autonomy and sovereignty as a people.
 
Thus, while a screenplay might start off showing a boy go up stares almost hypnotically, irresistibly by urge and by fate to have sex with his sister (maybe other incest combinations through the plot, who knows), by story’s end, it would be known to have been a fantasy, no harm done in fact – remedial as such, but only as such.
 
In the anomalous cases of real world incest, whether voluntary or imposed, provided no offspring come about, it might be relegated a queer status; discouraged, especially for males, not healthy for the vast percentage of the population, but a forgivable mistake by those few who fell into it voluntarily; and obviously forgivable for those who have been victimized, not something that should leave them overwhelmed with guilt, feeling stigmatized for the rest of their lives.

“The Mystery of Ishtar and Tammuz provides a key for understanding the world-redemptive destiny of the North Atlantic.” — K. H

Nimrod – Toward a Screenplay by DanielS

Atmosphere music: King Crimson, The Sheltering Skye (studio version is appropriate, but only this live version is currently available on Youtube). Here, a recording of the studio version has been put on line.

What is the antithetical taboo to miscegenation? Of course it is incest.

What is the greatest horror? It is unavoidable negative fate and its eternal recurrence.

These themes are captured in the most classic, and primordial even, of Western narratives – in the story of Oedipus Rex and his mother/wife Jocasta, going back further historically, in the Egyptian story of Osiris and his half sister/wife Isis, back further still, to Ishtar and Tammuz, and finally to Nimrod, the first great man on earth, Genesis 10:10, and his mother/wife, Semiramis.

Infiltration of the Babylonian Mystery Religion, Mother of all Wanton Harlots, 666, etc.

Now the reason is understood as to why Abraham was against this mystery religion – because it sacralized re-breeding to the point of inbreeding even, where necessary, while Abraham in the case of Babylon wanted to promote out breeding among its gentiles and later, wanted to do that to Rome, in order to bring down these adversaries of Israel and the Jews.

Hence the true evil mystery religions, universal Abrahamism, was imposed upon the world. Monotheistic of god’s “chosen people”, it was mongrelizing for all people except the Jews.

And the antidote taboo-breaking of incest, its sacralization (as a ritualistic gesture), was confounded as the greatest evil – and indeed it must be mostly symbolic as such unions are obviously going to result in the likes of King Tut’s massive health problems (himself a product of incest) or even Charles – il Tamponini – and Harry’s odd taste in women, as sort of a convulsive, balancing reaction (a little levity there, for those who share my distaste for their taste).

Thus, we want to avoid its reality beyond sacred ritual – and not just for physical maladies, but because we want to be careful about psychological effects as well on the formation of minds. At any rate, it is not commendable to take away the relatively agentive, mature and well informed choice of sexual partner. Sex is not only an important matter in determining the population of a human ecology, but a matter of confirmation and disconfirmation of personalities, virtues (or not), politics and more.

“Enjoy the fantasy” may break the over alluringness of the incest taboo for those prone.

So that’s some background to let the audience know that I’m not playing loosely with a justifiable taboo: If it is to be thematized as a counter taboo and aspect of sacralization toward a narrative to run counter to the Abrahamic cult of out-breeding, it must be done with sufficient accountability – even its narrative form must be discussed with caution and look toward matters of scientific verificaton; e.g., regarding what amount of inbreeding is alright, beneficial or detrimental; physically as well as psychologically and sociologically.

Having issued that caveat….

I conceived of writing this screenplay many years ago (early 80s),  still stuck in the Abrahamic way, I thought to render its story along the conventional Abrahamic lines, of the pervasive infiltration of the evil mystery religion – into Western traditions and “false” practices of Christianity, most symbolically with Christmas – to deceive the peoples of earth against the “true” Christianity.

Now I see it the other way around – that Abrahamism holds the true horror, is the evil mystery religion which has (more literally) infiltrated pervasive world practice.. e.g., in purity spiral to “pure objective warrant” against relative group interests, we worship a virgin birth and self sacrifice instead of a product, to some extent, of tribal and royal line in-group breeding… symbolizing the cultivated turn, deliberation rather than sheer liberalism; i.e., not quite severe inbreeding, but recreating the genetic pattern of our human ecologies.

With Abrahamism, rather, our fate is re-designated, or de-designated, as it were, “gentiles” – re-designated beyond our control, the fate of our people, beyond our management. Our hope is not our future with our peoples. Our only hope for salvation is through selflessness and altruism – one with the Jewish god against our people; our reward held up not for this life, but in our death.

The only foreseeable way out once having been intimidated by its book of Revelation, with eternal hell, 666, having to “hate one’s family”, where one is evil for even having a thought, etc., is to identify, to conceive of oneself, one’s people and to make oneself and people as-one-with the Jews as possible; for example:

“The peoples of the United States, the British Commonwealth nations, and the nations of northwestern Europe are, in fact, the peoples of the Ten Tribes of the House of Israel. The Jewish People are the House of Judah.”

Christian Identity is a culmination of the true infiltration of the evil mystery religion – i.e., Abrahamism, Abrahamic imperialism upon Western peoples and ultimately the whole world.

It compels full culturalist merging as well, through false opposition, Noahide law and the paleoconservatism of the Dissident Right.

To be continued, that is, I will be cultivating this screenplay on line…

The Counter Taboo…

Opening scene: Music, The Sheltering Skye by King Crimson. Characters: mother, father with two children, a boy and a girl. The mother and father are decorating the Christmas tree with their son…he goes up stairs…

Why broach this taboo? Well, I am not unique, but rather connecting with the most classic of classic European Dramatists, Sophocles:

Stewardship of our people’s interests is told through a cautionary tale of the incest taboo having been violated in ignorance, despite its having been foretold, the horror of inevitable fate.

Having plucked his eyes out, purity spiraled as a recommendation by Jesus for a lustful gaze, even.
Amphitheater in Siracusa, Italia, where Sophocles attended and Oedipus Rex would be performed.

Sophocles’ Oedipus and Jocasta drew upon but steered a different course from the reverence of Nimrod and Semiramus and like permutations through other near eastern religions, such as Osiris and Isis.

Sophocles added the horror of eternal recurrence, unavoidable fate and discovery thereof. A cautionary tale against avoidance of management of group genetic interests in optimality, avoiding too much (incest) and too little (miscegenation).

“I don’t have to tell you about the tyranny of patterns, what you might not know is that you have to accept them.” – Gregory Bateson.

Isis fellates her brother.

In addition to my not believing it, the idea of eternal recurrence or ubercyclicality as found in Nietzsche, Spengler, kind of  in Hegel too et.al, it is also just plain repugnant to me (I like mine and my people’s agency, thank you very much), and I believe determinism, eternally recurring cycles and inevitable fate is repugnant for most other people as well; that is why it works well as a plot vehicle for horror movies.

Pardon the quick leap from the ancients, the profound and ultra Classic to the contemporary and the kitsch, but this is where the contemporary theme follows in best illustration.

That is, three contemporary horror movies come to mind and gave me inspiration to use this plot device of unavoidable fate: Crohaven Farm, The Sentinel and The Omen.

Thus I might propose salvation through counter taboo from the horror of this unavoidable fate, eternal cycles and eternal recurrence, by a managed cyclicality, rather, systemic homeostasis.

Crowhaven Farm, 1970

She starts to become aware of her fated reincarnation at Crowhaven Farm.

In the made for TV movie, Crohaven Farm, 1970, it is a woman’s inevitable fate, as a reincarnated Puritan, to be brought back to the farm where she had taken the man she desired by accusing his wife of being a witch; in this life cycle, she would be the one pressed to death if she did not yield her wedding ring to the woman she betrayed, come to life as a seductive underage girl (instead of a family member) to tempt her reincarnated husband and get revenge on him also, having his eternal loyalty back by ending his faillible, mortal life on this earth.

…

The Omen, 1976

The Omen is another tale of inevitable fate; adding the cryptic horror of the mark of the beast 666 and the fear of eternal damnation that Christianity’s book of revelation holds over the heads of all “gentiles” non-compliant with Abrahamic law; and rather in line with the enemies of the Jews, the Babylonians and the Romans.

Fake biblical verse cited by the damned Father Brennan to Ambassador Thorn (Gregory Peck):

“When the Jews return to Zion and a comet fills the sky, and the Holy Roman Empire rises; then you and I must die. From the eternal sea he rises, creating armies on either shore, turning man against his brother, ’til man exists no more.”

Omen Music (accompanied by some good clips from the 1976 film)

…

The Sentinel, 1977

The Sentinel 1977 is a film that suffers from silly ghoul makeup and special effects among other  aspects that could have used more work; but it does have a few scary scenes, and a very scary aspect of inevitable fate – captured especially in the penultimate scene (1:26:00 to the end, where the still below is captured from). The Gill Melle score in this final scene skews from the usual horror music in a way that makes its accompaniment to her fate ultra creepy.

Ava Gardner plays a realtor who shows the way to barren fate.

One can imagine that given the profound biological imperative for females to have children, that being steered into a barren fate of a zombie nun Sentinel consigned to vigilance at the gates of hell for eternity would be rather disconcerting. There were also her cynical lesbian neighbors downstairs, who weren’t having any of this natalist stuff either.

…

Papal Worship As Babylonian Mystery: The Worship of Nimrod and His Mother/Wife

In this fascinating narrative advanced by the Scottish Theologian Alexander Hislop, all supra-scriptural practices instituted by Roman Catholicism (naturally) are attributed to insidious expression of the evil Babylonian Mystery Religion:

Christmas, which should accurately take place in the Spring if scripture is to be faithfully demarcated, is thus a deceptive adherence to the Winter Solstice and Nimrod’s re-birthday – hence, an enactment of the Babylonian Mystery Religion. “True” Christians are being fooled in countless ways such as this, thinking that they are loyally engaged in a pure Christian tradition, when in fact they are really engaged in worship of the mystery religion as revealed by Hislop.

The way to counteract this evil infiltration and misrepresentation is to be found in true understanding of the texts.

One of the things preventing me from rendering this into a screenplay is that many on our side would see it as “a Jewish attack on Christmas and Christianity” wouldn’t they? That is among the double binds we are caught in and that keep us held with the Christian narrative, even where we do not consciously believe ourselves bound to the religion. We would supposedly be doing our people a disservice, while the devil’s bidding.

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.

Hence, while I had originally meant for my next discussion to be directed toward the ontology project, I see now that it is necessary first to attend to pushing aside muck from the narrative side of our racial conceptualization, attending to where our narratives may speculatively overshoot and distract from adequate conceptualization.

The Hislop narrative is a story so fascinating that it holds sway over hundreds of millions of people. It forms the basis of The Jehovah’s Witnesses and The World Wide Church of God. It is a branch of Christianity that stems from a conviction in true exegesis, direct apprehension of the texts without the intermediary of the Catholic Church, from the same root that forms the basis of Christian Zionism and its tens of millions of adherents.

It is not exclusively legions of low I.Q. folks who are held captive. Even World Chess Champion Bobby Fischer found it captivating. Perhaps being a biological Jew, he unconsciously promoted The World Wide Church of God as it served the interests of Jews and Israel. Whatever his true motives, a man alleged to have a 187 I.Q. found The World Wide Church of God compelling enough to contribute significant money over several years.

Of course, getting to the “truth” beneath Christianity is a logical move to begin with, especially when you consider just how patently absurd it is at first glance while having held so many adherents for two millennia in spite of that.

Of marked significance for European history is this notion of direct apprehension and rendering of the truth of the texts – the reform of the Protestants. It may be hypothesized that this was based somewhat on reasonable prejudice (the need to maintain European distinctions) unreasonably expressed.

That is, for example, Germans wanting to be Germans or English wanting to be English and thus expressing this nonsense in a different way than before.

However, “truth” versus the evil mystery religion remains a compelling narrative despite being unreasonable; and the more it is beyond rationalization and account, perhaps the better it is a rally to thwart one’s adversaries and maintain a people’s distinctions.

Whether it serves our people’s interests or not, it is not easy to escape Christianity.

Not only is a moral order necessary, this one contains many double-binds, including one with regard to our mortal enemies: reject Christianity and you are as much as a Jew by Europe’s definition for two millennia: for we were Christendom. On the other hand, practice Christianity and you basically adopt the Jewish perspective: Rome and other impure Christians (other Europeans) are the greatest enemy and not just another European city and other European people. The Jews however are granted special status as a people who have not gotten it quite right just yet. Not to mention, ehem, look at who you are worshiping as god incarnate.

Jim has apparently found the story of uncovering the evil mystery behind Southern Europeans somewhat useful. Perhaps there is utility in cultivating this interpretation given the numbers of Northern European Christians in the Midwest of the U.S. or perhaps it is a remnant meme of the anti-Catholicism of endemic Christian-Zionism.

In this meme, anything but individual relation to the text and god is evil corruption. Perhaps it is a coincidence that individualists in relation to Jesus are not much challenge to Jewish Zionist authority.

Of course even people who believe themselves fully secular and freed from Zionism still experience Judeo-Christian influence in everything from habits, law, leisure and science – in particular, its relation of knower to known.

This Christian individualist relation to god was famously reinforced by the Enlightenment; in all likelihood only extended farther by the Cold War vilification of Marxist communist collectivization and furthered still by the Jewish interest of preventing Europeans from unionizing.

The double binds and toxicity of Christianity naturally become so poison after a while that they compel a convulsive, biological reaction, sometimes into collective defense such as Nazism, despite Christianity’s prescriptions. Nazism was in a sense, a purer form of Christianity yet, in another way still doing the Jews’ bidding, only culling the Jews, while attacking the “false worship” of European others; attacking White unionization in favor of a notion of supra-purity.

While a transcendent realm, beyond simple attack may even be necessary for defense of European peoples, one would hope that the prejudices between Europeans, which should exist to the extent necessary to maintain their distinctions, would not be beyond reason and beyond kindred, familial, brotherly or cousinly cooperation.

It is too bad that Hislop could not have just forthrightly proclaimed and found a way to maintain the Scottish distinction without doing the Jews bidding by rendering Southern and other Catholic Europeans the personification of Evil.

That isn’t to say there are not good reasons to maintain lines between European peoples, but when you are being equated with the Anti-Christ and Beast 666 (1) before tens of millions of idiots backed by The US/Israeli military industrial complex, that is a drag indeed.

We needn’t begrudge Northerners defending themselves, can even see their invocation of transcendent terms in order to do so, what is objectionable is this tradition of demonizing Southern Europeans, putting potential allies and buffering nations in jeopardy by vilifying them.

In Nordicist Christian theology, we should not be surprised but disappointed to find traces of Alexander Hislop’s motivational gobbledygook; i.e. a similar, convenient motivation to equate Rome and the South with evil.

If only Hislop could have said, we love being Scottish and wish to maintain all Northern European distinction. What European could, with any moral authority, reject that? None. No European could. There is an ontological difference that makes a difference between a Southern European and a Jew: The Jews could deny this, of course, they would say that we can do without the European differences. So too, could those under the Jewish spell and double binds of Christianity dispose of those differences; but it is the Jewish aspects of the narrative that compel that painful compliance. Christianity is a Jewish vexation and double bind to us all, not just Northerners – and it was not merely aimed to destroy Northerners, but primarily in fact, aimed at Rome. Thus, when Hislop and the Northerners tweak the Christian Narratives with their fascinating “exegesis” what they are doing is piling on the Southerners, destroying what remaining buffering capacity and natural defense they have against predators.

Haven’t we really had enough of this flight of fancy? Are we still to be blamed for the campaigns of Caesar and Nero? Do we still want to bicker about the historical impositions of Catholicism as opposed to the wonderful liberation of the Protestant Churches? Jesus, you guys want to drop the guilt trips about the Nazis. Fine – how about forgetting about Caesar and the Medieval Catholic Church already?

What is more sickening than a Northerner who says that he despises Southern Europeans so much that they can just drop dead but that Africans are OK?

Blacks are OK because we Northerners are so objective…we are not like those hot-tempered, prejudiced and collectivist Southerners who would be racists. No, our discrimination is based on the “purity of our interpretation.”

For Southerners are the people of the mystery religion, the Papal worship, of Nimrod and his mother wife.

A fascinating story and one that might be compelling to Northerners who don’t much care for Southerners.

..

Whatever you believe, for your own good, don’t believe those who state, in hubris, that Blacks are fairly benign but misguided. Is criticism of Blacks really a diversion from Jews or is it a confrontation and correction of the Jewish misrepresentation of Black reality? Blacks are not natural allies against Jewish power when Jews are giving Blacks everything that they could never achieve on their own, including our women. One suspects that there is a measure of convenient pandering in the outlook: The “lower” Europeans are so uncouth but Africans are unproblematic, just misguided. Insulated in a technical niche, purblind up-in-their-heads or just disingenuous snobs, they would let the lower Europeans deal with the brunt and take the casualties from Blacks. Nevertheless, what insulation they have is temporary and precarious, especially without allies among Europeans..
………..

Inevitable Fate and The Hitchhiker's Guide to Syracuse, Sicily.

It was 1993 and the political correctness of the campus was becoming toxic for me. If there was any hope of my continuing on to be matriculated into the graduate program, my father himself was called upon to make a father and son trip to Italy with me to try to calm me down and bring me around. I played along, wanting the trip to Italy to be sure, but seeing it as a scouting trip upon a place I might have to go to escape from the insanity of America’s multi-cult.

At the airport, my sister had a confidential chat with my father, the kind she does when she approaches the bench in court; this time to quietly tell my father to tell me that “nobody agrees with you” – viz. with your racialist positions. Now, at that time, prior to the Internet, MacDonald and WN support, to hear that nobody agreed with me was toxic to the point of being poison. I was fighting this battle very much alone. At the very moment my sister quietly passed this advice on to my father, in the seating area nearby, an exquisite Italian girl was kissing her Negro boyfriend. Of course my father and sister were oblivious to this, a woman whom I would be happy to say was my wife, at least based on her looks to be sure. I seethed with the flagrant reminder that I needed to get out of America, to get to cultural backing and the genetic grounding that I did not have in America.

For it was already this statement, “nobody agrees with you”, that had produced one of my largest trances, one taking place in graduate class. It provoked a trance rage in me that had me lashing out at my professor and the class.

It was a level of pathology that my professor could not ignore. That must have been around the time that he called upon my father to have a conciliatory father – son vacation to Italy.

Prior to leaving, my professor wanted to relate an additional conciliatory anecdote, lest I be disappointed by the experience, he would let me down gentler still.

He told me about a book he’d read, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to The Universe. It is the story of a wanderer who travels all around and finally even to the planets. My professor asked me, “What do you think he came across when he arrived at a planet?”

He smiled when I guessed correctly, “a souvenir stand.”

Anyway, I did go on the trip to Italy with my father and I found his arguments of how I should not be a racist especially repugnant in light of all that I was up against and how obviously important our cause should be to a father: this was the opposite of conciliatory – infuriating, extremely insulting to the hard battle and academic work that I was doing to counter these popular sentiments so destructive to our people.

Obliviously, my father had related stories of how he testified before the Supreme Court that he “just wanted the same right of union access as anyone.” Jimmy Hoffa came looking for him after that; the FBI was stationed in front of our house for weeks to come. He told me that “there was a lot of fraternizing when Italy invaded the Somali land.” He told me “you weren’t raised to think like this.” Finally he said what for me were the magic, poison words, “nobody agrees with you.”

That was enough to have me fly-off the handle at him – enough so that he would all but cut me off from my inheritance; thanks to a chain of command: my sister and sister in law’s rank, their Jewish overlords pandering, of course. That episode set in motion right then, what would wind-up being an all too costly fight for my life a few years later.

To have some peace from one another, my father let me take the car and he stayed behind in our grandparent’s villages. I had a hankering to go to Sicily, Syracuse in particular – the antiquity and the thought of slinky, raven-haired beauties drove me on.

When I got there in the evening, I went to club Banacher, a mafia disco-tech with palm trees, outdoor swimming pools and elegant women who looked as if they’d walked out of the ancient gallery. The following night I caught a street-fair in Catania, where I saw some of the subtlest White beauties of my life. They were like so many wild flowers: their skin was White and their eyes were so beautiful, so subtle. I never was able to recapture a moment where a school of this type of women were so abundant; but I was grateful to have it confirmed for myself, just how beautiful these women could be.

The next day, I drove down to Syracuse and found a complex where three important historical artifacts exist adjacently.

There is a Greek Amphitheater where Aeschaelus, Sophocles and Plato had hung-out. 

Greek Amphitheater in Syracuse, Sicily
"The Ear of Dionysus"

The Ear of Dionysus, a cave where slaves were granted hope of freedom only by fighting as gladiators in the nearby Roman Coliseum. (I would only learn that part in my next trip there).

Forum Romana, Siracusa

This time, first time, I came upon the Roman Coliseum and what did I see? Of course – a souvenir stand.

I walked in without cynicism and sat down alone in this, surprisingly small coliseum. I looked around. There was a lot of grass overgrowth and the edges of the rocks had been worn, rounded by the ages.

I saw the crenellations near the top, something diminutive about their spacing, the scale…something profound and important in the human scale had been rushed-by by America. I began to cry, then to sob. It was like nothing I’d experienced before. It was only partly grief, partly catharsis, partly the joy of revelation. It was as if my whole body was having an orgasm.

To think, my professor had prepared me for a let down.

…when I walked out past the old ladies at the souvenir stand, they were very upset, visibly shaken, not understanding why I had been crying so hard…

I can only interpret beyond the profound feeling that something important of scale was being tragically left behind, run over rough shod.

………………..

Archimedes, a Siracusan, had lived nearby. His talents were brought to an end by an independently acting Centurion, one homicide that perhaps set European math and science back thousands of years.  In the ear of Dionysus, one could remain as a slave to the death or fight to the death as a gladiator in the improbable hope of gaining freedom. Our natural means of defending ourselves have been interrupted by the call to blind and dumb courage. Christianity is alleged to have been crucial in ending this wasteful practice. Though a highly flawed solution, I will argue that it was largely in good will that the Southerners attempted to bring it to the North – in order to put an end to the wasteful carnage of our people.

Among the gladiators, the fratricidal battles, the likes of Caesar contra the Gauls, Pickett’s charge and The Battle of The Somme will be looked upon the greatest evil. Among the corpses of these catastrophic avalanches burying our evolution, those surviving will resurrect and rebuild our authentic ontology.

Nay to any matriarchal thumbs down to our being: It is time to begin on the true ontological course of our co-evolutionary warrant in European Being.

In the undoing of these narrative Christian obfuscations, we are slowly making our way back to the possibility of ontological grounding.

We are getting ready to move our hermeneutic to a closer ontological reading:

What can we say of Europeans in their exemplars, their pursuit of truth, clarity to the point of empiricism even – about Epicurus in fact? an Archimedes? a da Vinci, a Galileo, a Newton, a Darwin, a Tesla, a Gödel, a Heisenberg?

Europeans as such are distinguished by their preference to attend to Augustinian Devils as opposed to Manichean Devils.

By “Manichaeism” I mean something very specific: changing the rules and deception in order to fool others; specifically Jewish trickery. Manichean Devils are a matter of trickery, deception and lies to defeat opponents. As opposed to Augustinian Devils, which are natural afflictions and challenges that, when solved, do not change once again in order to fool us. Augustinian Devils are matters of science, technology, truth, honesty, honor and tragedy.

In this Augustinian spirit was born the school of Epicureanism: the predecessor to empiricism which shunned superstition and sought to trace all to physical grounds.

It is characteristic of all Europeans not just Northerners, to prefer attention to Augustinian Devils as opposed to Manichean Devils. Augustinian Devils are a characteristically Southern European preference as well, the kind that was buried with the death of Archimedes, the Christian burial of the Epicureans, and the advance of the Jewish Manichean.

Jewish and Southern European aims are hardly one and the same. In fact, Jewish Manichaeism had successfully depicted Rome, their enemy, as the greatest evil, The Mother of all Whores, Wife of Nimrod, The Babylonian Mystery. (1)

However, Northern Europeans, especially, are by nature cooperative, non-tricksters. Confronted with the harsh elements, empirical and analytic questions were challenge enough. They could not have survived otherwise. The RESULT was that they became more individually strong, scientific and technological. Individualism was not the cause it was the effect of less competitive relations among them.

When we admire Northern Europeans, we admire them because they are decent and honest. We observe that decency and cooperation DOES NOT INTERFERE with the manifestation of our best exemplars – on the contrary, it allows for them and fosters them. And part of why it allows for them is that it does not compete with and destroy those who would buffer and support their existence.

Hence, their individuality and independence is afforded

…through a base of decency, cooperation, a respect for the processes and qualitative niches of their people.

For Northerners, seeking to render of themselves the heroes of the true Christian text, it is a “logical” step to see the Papacy as an expression of false religion. In fact, the Papacy is a folly of being entangled in the double bind of Jewish Christianity.

In respect of Rome versus the Jews Nietzsche was right – they won. However, other versions of Christianity offer little recourse from Jewish Manichaeism: rather they “offer” the divide and conquer of Europeans fighting among themselves, they “offer” our weakening by promoting individualist pursuit of the pure understanding and relation to the Jew in the sky, or to look upon the Jews as a specially chosen people. So long as the goal of a “pure” understanding of the texts does nothing to change the texts, reinterpretation of Christian texts offers no escape as they are inextricably tangled with Jewish interests and with our relative dis-empowerment.

Neither is the assessment of pernicious motive to the Southerner Europeans for extending Christianity to the North particularly accurate. The Jewish motivation, its Manichaeism that entangled Christianity to the point of making it toxic from its onset, despite any interpretation, does need to be separated from the Southern European motive. In attempting to extend Christianity, it was at least part of the Southerners’ motivation to seek relief from the military campaigns, the aforementioned routine carnage, the violent hostilities with “uncivilized” out-groups. Any people who were not Christians were seen as liable to re-enact the brutality. To some extent, hence, they sought a radical way back to their own cooperative ways – cooperative ways which must have existed in large part to begin with – and to find common moral order with Northerners. In fact, they sought to connect with something that the Northerners already had in spades and depended upon – decency and cooperation in the polity.

While the Jews purposes for advancing Christianity were deceptive, I doubt the Southerners’ motives for extending Christianity were egregious on balance.

It is time to tell a trivial difference from a profound difference.

It is the spirit of cooperation under-girding Europeans, the Europeans of the South and Northern kinds that will return us to our authentic ontology.

Our ontology, we’ll turn attention there next.

In summation:

Alexander Hislop’s story of the infiltration of the evil Babylonian Mystery Religion into expressions of Catholicism is a fascinating tale that holds sway over hundreds of millions world wide. It provided the groundwork for The Jehovah’s Witnesses, The World Wide Church of God and similar denominations. It is an offshoot of the Protestant conviction for the true exegesis, direct apprehension of the texts without the intermediary of the Catholic Church; this pursuit of the truth in highly ambiguous, Jewish motivated texts, forms the susceptible basis of Christian Zionism and its tens of millions of adherents.

It is not exclusively legions of the low I.Q. who are held captive. The likes of Bobby Fischer, 187 I.Q. and all, could be persuaded to contribute significant money over several years.

Getting to the “truth” beneath Christianity is a logical move when you consider just how absurd the texts are in the first place; then go on to wonder what are in fact, the logics behind which have held so many good-hearted people in adherence for so long.

However, of marked significance for European history is this notion of direct apprehension and rendering of the truth of the texts – the reform of the Protestants. It may be hypothesized that this was based somewhat on reasonable prejudice (the need to maintain European distinctions) unreasonably expressed.

(1) Apparently Nero was beast 666. Because the Jews could not speak in open terms to build resistance to overthrow Rome, they used a symbolic, codified manner of speaking in “The Revelation.”

Cryptically, the traditional, ancient enemies of the Jews, The Babylonians and Nimrod, were symbolically superimposed upon the later enemy of the Jews, The Roman Empire.

“Whether or not conceived as having ultimately repented, Nimrod remained in Jewish and Islamic tradition an emblematic evil person, an archetype of an idolater and a tyrannical king. In rabbinical writings up to the present, he is almost invariably referred to as “Nimrod the Evil” (Hebrew: נמרוד הרשע‎)”

Comments:

 Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 10 Mar 2013 01:09 | #

Thank you very much for that, Daniel, which I enjoyed very much.

I don’t know what I can add to it.  Perhaps that divisiveness, north-south or otherwise, is a condition of humanity.  It isn’t just about actual difference or even a difference of opinion.  It is to do with a constructed tribalism … with being something and not just nothing – certainly at the more local level.  Division gives form to false identity, which is better than no identity. It is, in the end, a sign of emptiness and of fear of emptiness.

In authentic unities there is no necessity for it, and we know an authentic unity by its shared truths.  To find the unity of north and south in Europe will take some “closer ontological reading”, that’s for sure.  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.

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 10 Mar 2013 01:36 | #

My ontology does allow for “Christianity” as opposed to “JudeoChristianity” but since I find so few self-proclaimed “Christians” who will accept the true superiority of European culture, which was preserved the longest in northern Europe against the dragons, vipers, snakes, serpents, worms, giants and dwarves from north Africa and the Levant—for obvious reasons of geography and climate—I find little use for the term “Christian”.  They’re all JudeoChristian as far as I’m concerned and they are damned to the Hell they create.

The two-sided coin of Judeo-Christianity was deftly flipped from side to side during the destruction of European culture—the Christ side being the “protein coat” with which the parasite got past the immune system by identifying with the individual standing in direct relation to Nature and Nature’s God as descendant against the theocratic corruption that demands obeisance to the “spirit of the age” of the body politic rather than the Holy spirit of the body descended from the Father.  The Vikings, true to that spirit within, held out the longest and understandably viewed with utter contempt JudeoChristianity as well as “kings” such as Olaf the Lawbreaker who roamed the countryside with a group of armed men—a dragon of JudeoChristianity in a land where dragons were outlawed.

It is unfortunate that as much as Brits identify with George the Dragon Slayer, they have swallowed, hook, line and sinker, the JudeoChristian mutilation of his deeds.

There is a practical side to ontology:

Using animal imagery allows access to deep brain structures forging coherence between our waking consciousness and our unconscious strength as animals.  It is best not to even perceive “people” like Tim Wise, Barack Obama, etc. The dragon exists as a whole agency and its parts do not possess anything our subconscious should recognize an identity apart.

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 10 Mar 2013 12:09 | #

Thanks GW and Jim, appreciate your comments.

I have been trying not to comment too much while discussion of native British politics is going-on.

John Lee Barnes made some interesting comments. The Weston video and his new party seem to commend attention as well.

 Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 10 Mar 2013 21:41 | #

Sharing DanielS’s expressed concern, I made the discussion of native British politics the top story on MR’s home page in recognition of its relative urgency despite comments in other threads.

Perhaps Southerners would be wise to reflect on the Roman law broken by Julius Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon.

The analogous northern European law was to kill all dragons—regardless of origin—roaming their lands.  Indeed, given that there was nothing, in northern Europe, akin to the Roman class system resulting in the corruption of the Patricians that provided the military with motive to follow Julius Caesar’s order to cross the Rubicon, the hostility toward the likes of Olaf the Lawbreaker’s dragon (not to mention invading dragons from foreign lands) is most understandable.

Moreover, the final days of Mark Antony saw him attempt to appeal to the Old Law of single combat which evidences the true heritage of European culture was still held in at least enough esteem to be used as a political ploy, even in Rome at that late date—albeit degraded from the Natural Duel embodied in the notion of isolation implied by “go to the island”.  That the Italian city states continued to honor the degraded form of the Natural Duel well into the JudeoChristian era, at least among the nobility, is further evidence the spiritual oppression of Europe did not entirely destroy all vestiges of its authentic culture.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 11 Mar 2013 03:49 | #

Others argue that the insidious nature of the civilized people vis-a-vis the barbarians was less about Christianity (at least the Germanic syncretic version) and more about the “moral menace of Roman law”…

But nineteenth-century scholars also developed other, less-familiar arguments about the consequences of Roman “property absolutism”—arguments that focused not on the socioeconomic impact of changes in property law, but on the moral impact, on the impact of changes in property law upon the prevailing sense of one’s moral duties to others. Beginning in 1828,(20) legal historians began to argue that the spread of Roman law had resulted, not merely in a redistribution of resources, but in changes in fundamental attitudes about trust and social duty. As one leading 1853 book put it, Roman and “Germanic” property law were informed by fundamentally different “basic intuitions [Grundanschauungen] about rights, freedom, and honor,” and the tale of the spread of Roman law was the tale of how Roman intuitions had penetrated Germanic “legal consciousness.”(21) Scholars who worked along these lines generally argued that because Roman property rights were not limited by obligations of trust or duty, the spread of Roman law encouraged an exploitative, antisocial, and “unbrotherly” attitude toward the world. The most famous technical version of this claim came from Otto von Gierke, who maintained that the psychic basis of Roman property law lay in the exercise of unfettered “will,” whereas the psychic basis of Germanic law lay in the “morally bound will.” Because Germanic law approached the social world in this “morally bound” way, Germanic law was “communal” where Roman law was “individualistic” and capitalistic.(22) The same line of argument also had a formative influence on some of the classic thinkers of early sociology—in particular on Ferdinand Tonnies, who built a powerful theoretical apparatus around the idea that commercial “society” was founded on a different form of “will,” and different attitudes toward property, from those of precommercial “community”:

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+moral+menace+of+Roman+law+and+the+making+of+commerce:+some+Dutch…-a018373247

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 11 Mar 2013 05:49 | #

DanielS writes: “At any rate, I hardly feel guilty about Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon.”

I don’t understand the motivation for this comment at all.

Please elaborate.

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 11 Mar 2013 05:55 | #

DaneilS writes: “Not many people consider Ancient Greece and Rome non-European peoples. Nor do I.”

Its clear from the equisitely carved busts their phenotypes are European genotypes.

When I talk about European culture, I am talking about the artificial selective pressure based on transmissible values and norms that evolved the European genotype.

As I will never tire of pointing out:  Unless you are very specific about your artificial selective criteria you are not fully human in that you are not taking responsibility for your role in evolution thence creation.

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 11 Mar 2013 10:26 | #

Desmond Number 9. Good post. If the Germanic tribes’ way of handling property had better results, i.e. if it was more responsible and moral, then it would be worth moving future treatment of property in that direction.


Posted by James Bowery on March 11, 2013, 12:49 AM | #

DanielS writes: “At any rate, I hardly feel guilty about Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon.”

I don’t understand the motivation for this comment at all.

Please elaborate.


The motivation, hmm. Well, I think it has to do with a strong emphasis in discussions of north and south Europe, efforts to arrive at a true meaning of European and, a strong inclination to draw absolute lines on the pejorative impositions of the south, particularly Roman civilization. I get the sense that the campaigns and impositions of Rome should confer such guilt upon southern Europeans that even now they are beyond moral computation in the consideration of Euroman.

Rather, I agree with you – I’d rather Rome not have engaged these campaigns. I don’t take pride in their having gone around killing other Europeans and destroying their cultural differences.

Just the opposite. Rather, I am all ears and open to ideas about more favorable ways of doing things in our defense – which always includes maintaining our differences, of course.

I become concerned when this distinction , north and south European, is put in symbolic terms beyond reason and with that, when the southerners are lumped with Jews and Africans.

It seems to me a begging of the question: that these symbolic terms and emphasized demonizing of Roman influence may be an influence of Jewish motivations making their way through the Jewish/Christian text. Their demonizing of Rome as the greatest evil, their new Babylonian captors. That is, a bit more of a habit and received tradition than a fresh hypothesis. It is the Jewish influence especially, their wish to demonize Rome, which is most relevant to my skepticism of the hard line against the south. By making the Pope into the dragon or rather, Nimrod, Talmudic aims of divide and conquer are being served.

That is why I am especially wary of anti-Roman emphasis, to not be made to feel guilty.

Whether Caesar crossed the Rubicon, ruined the Gauls, was humiliated by Armenius in ancient history, I see important contemporary reasons for emphasizing the antagonistic differences between Southern Europeans, Jews and other non-Europeans; and emphasizing the rationale for cooperation between North and South: much as I do understand and appreciate your wish to protect Northern European differences, the Southerners should feel much the same in wanting to maintain European distinctions.



Posted by James Bowery on March 11, 2013, 12:55 AM | #

DaneilS writes: “Not many people consider Ancient Greece and Rome non-European peoples. Nor do I.”

Its clear from the equisitely carved busts their phenotypes are European genotypes.

When I talk about European culture, I am talking about the artificial selective pressure based on transmissible values and norms that evolved the European genotype.

As I will never tire of pointing out:  Unless you are very specific about your artificial selective criteria you are not fully human in that you are not taking responsibility for your role in evolution thence creation.


Well, Ok. We’re getting to that. Next post we’ll have another go at it.

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 11 Mar 2013 18:01 | #

DaneilS, I understand how, particularly in the context of your view that I am a “Nordicist”, you would impute the meaning to “Crossing the Rubicon” that you do.  However, that is not how I meant it.  I used it in its historically accurate meaning of the idiom.  Please read that link and go back to reinterpret the words involving my first reference to the idiom in this thread.

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 11 Mar 2013 18:38 | #

Ok, I got your point. Though I had thought I understood the cliche, “crossing the Rubicon”, I did not.

I had thought it meant merely going onto new campaigns, to new endeavors, in that case, Northward.

What it actually means in in literal terms, and what you meant by it, was to go against State permission and initiate Civil War.

Apologies for the misunderstanding.

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 11 Mar 2013 18:49 | #

I don’t know if it helps a whole lot, but it does occur to me that the place in this post where I was critical of you was a bit too mean.

I’ve tried to soften it by rewriting it like this:

“Jim himself, apparently has found the story of uncovering the evil mystery behind Southern Europeans somewhat useful. Perhaps there is utility in cultivating this interpretation given the numbers of German Christians in the Midwest of the U.S. or perhaps it is a remnant meme of the anti-Catholicism of endemic Christian-Zionism.”


It is still not particularly nice, but I think it represents the provocation for the whole post.

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 11 Mar 2013 19:08 | #

Finally I replaced “German Christians”

with “Northern European Christians”

I really hate when I feel compelled to defend European differences. I want to be defending all Europeans.

Though I do agree the national and regional distinctions are very important.

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 11 Mar 2013 20:06 | #

DanielS writes: “What it actually means in in literal terms, and what you meant by it, was to go against State permission and initiate Civil War.”

More to the point, there was a Roman conception of “peace” that involved the Greek idea (perhaps somewhat mutilated in the adoption) of a “Republic”, and that there was no place for Kings anywhere near the homeland—not foreign kings nor domestic kings.  This Greek ideal of the Republic, degraded as it might have been in pre-Caesar Rome, had a good deal of the authentic European about it, and it is why I consider the US Constitution to have been somewhat of a recovery of the authentic European culture.  However, in the case of the Greeks as with others in close contact with the Levant and north Africa, there was a continual corrosive action from an opposing culture of groups as the target of selective pressure.  Over time this breeds for a different type of human—a human that is not properly thought of as an organism but as an organ.

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 11 Mar 2013 20:34 | #

…
You seem to be looking only at the possibility of assimilation by proximity.

It seems to me that anti-bodies and buffering qualities would also evolve in proximity to the Levant and Africa.

…also an increased acuity and vigilance to these differences.

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 11 Mar 2013 21:08 | #

Of course, as I myself have have often repeated in my “attacks” on southern Europeans—as well as on Germans (in the modern nation state sense of that word) relative to, say, Norwegians during WW II.  This applies to Jews relative to others in the middle East and is the basis for my predictions of “pan-Western Fascism” during the 1990s leading up to my prediction of a Reichstag-fire type fabrication around the turn of the millennium.

The problem with such immune responses are two fold:

1) They tend to take the form of group selectionism.

2) To the extent that they don’t take the form of group selectionism, they must be consciously conspiratorial if not outright militaristic—both of which are subject to moral censure by the “civilized”.

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 11 Mar 2013 22:02 | #

….

The problem with such immune responses are two fold:

1) They tend to take the form of group selectionism.

That would make a certain amount of sense. And I was eager to point out the likelihood that Northern individualism was a product growing out of a cooperative basis – they were more up against the elements than against collectivist groups and therefore develop in a good way as individuals. But it is also possible to exaggerate the extent of Southern collectivism; also to exaggerate the extent to which it is bad and the extent to which northern individualism is good.

2) To the extent that they don’t take the form of group selectionism, they must be consciously conspiratorial if not outright militaristic—both of which are subject to moral censure by the “civilized”.

There may also be a evolutionary psychological aspect to this immunity – just something that you are disposed to do as an organism. A healthy revulsion that say, the northerner might not understand so intuitively: “how could you be so racist?”

While I don’t think it necessarily has to express itself as conspiratorial or militaristic, I do think it is an excellent uncovering and focus of yours that these qualities of defending ourselves, our women and land as individuals – which I firmly believe exist in the Southerners as well, totally natural – have been prohibited by conspiracy, by Jewish conspiracy, and that’s the crucial problem – very good point.

But I believe blame lies far more there, with Jews, than with civilization. While civilization may want you to stop short of duels to the death, it should not be averse to doing what it takes to discourage foreigners from settling and making unjust claims on our resources and genetic stock.

I do admit though, that the rigor of your thinking points to something there: that which is sufficient to be discouraging has not generally been known as a part of European civilization. I believe, however, that it can and should be introduced as customary practice.

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 11 Mar 2013 22:23 | #

I use the phrase “consciously conspiratorial” to contrast it against the “instinctively conspiratorial” which is the symptom of group selection—of organisms functioning as organic, rather than conscious, organs.  These organic organs comprising a group organism are not subject to moral censure because of their “plausible deniability” in pretending to be organisms—individuals.  These pseudo-individuals can then morally censure real individuals who must consciously act to defend themselves against the group organisms.

The big lie of civilization is that it is “natural selection” and so long as you place your definition of culture after other priorities, you are joining with them in your denial of responsibility for your part in Creation—responsibility that comes with Man’s authentic Being.

It is a mistake to castigate me for attacking “southerners” and defending “northerners” when what I am actually doing is defending the culture that produced both and is in eternal and mortal conflict with its ancient enemy that, at present, has the upper hand by pretending to hold the moral high ground in our minds.  We cannot dispel the pretense to moral superiority by adopting or even mixing the enemy culture.  We must never confuse the morality of joining forces to create a temporary group force with the “morality” of group selectionism lest we end up sacrificing our value.

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 11 Mar 2013 23:48 | #

Posted by James Bowery on March 11, 2013, 05:23 PM | #

I use the phrase “consciously conspiratorial” to contrast it against the “instinctively conspiratorial” which is the symptom of group selection—of organisms functioning as organic, rather than conscious, organs. 

OK

These organic organs comprising a group organism are not subject to moral censure because of their “plausible deniability” in pretending to be organisms—individuals. 

That makes good descriptive sense of Jews. They believe their own BS.

These pseudo-individuals can then morally censure real individuals who must consciously act to defend themselves against the group organisms.

Because their immorality is largely or partly opaque to themselves…OK.

That makes sense of what I see in them, listening to a Paul Wolfowitz, for example.


The big lie of civilization is that it is “natural selection”

Well, you are going by EO Wilson’s campfire definition of civilization whereas I am going on something like a social rules model which is more flexible and adoptable through internal relation: preferring persuasion to force as per Plato’s definition.


and so long as you place your definition of culture after other priorities, you are joining with them in your denial of responsibility for your part in Creation—responsibility that comes with Man’s authentic Being.

I don’t think that I am denying responsibility for creation, on the contrary. I will demonstrate this.


It is a mistake to castigate me for attacking “southerners” and defending “northerners” when what I am actually doing is defending the culture that produced both

OK, well, I’ll try not to be castigating, but I am aiming to get all of European allied in this effort. I’m not advancing assimilation. I do imagine there is a possibility say, on your laboratory of the states model, to allow for some people to experiment with more “civilized” ways and some to have more tribal, aboriginal European ways. It would be my ideal to allow for both. The choice may be almost paradoxically necessary, in fact.

and is in eternal and mortal conflict with its ancient enemy that, at present, has the upper hand by pretending to hold the moral high ground in our minds.

I believe there is this enemy. However, I’m not sure that proto Europeans were not a little more cooperative nor that they were valueless if they were. Even if they were more cooperative, their way of life is defensible in a non conflictual way along with more individualistic cultures.

We cannot dispel the pretense to moral superiority by adopting or even mixing the enemy culture.

Ok. That is what had me suggest that proto European tribes (as opposed to Aryans) may have been largely cooperative with one another; more, that the instinct to defend women and territory is not necessarily some sort of evil group metabolism but a normal response to a very different kind presuming to impose himself.


  We must never confuse the morality of joining forces to create a temporary group force with the “morality” of group selectionism lest we end up sacrificing our value.

Ok, I’ll buy that. It is a subtle enough point however, that will probably require both redundancy and recontexting in other narrative in order for it to resonate a little more.

You’ve got me a bit confused. I don’t think I am acting on behalf of the group, as a group conduit in particular, when I want to dissuade a negro for example. While imposition deeply offends my sense of what is good and just, I experience quite acutely that I am having to act against social pressure.

However, if the social rules were different and recognized a moral order serving our interests that could make a huge difference. Hence, I believe your thrust is doing important good in consciousness raising, pointing to this prohibition on individual male initiative and the evil, phony moral superiority on which this prohibition rests.

CBNNews:

ISIS reportedly destroyed some of the world’s greatest historical treasures in the Iraqi city of Nimrod.

The jihadist group posted an online video that shows them taking sledgehammers and jackhammers to artifacts and even using explosives to destroy items dating back to the 13th century B.C.

The items are from the Assyrian rule that began 2,500 years ago and stretched from the Mediterranean Sea to what is now Iran.

The Assyrians left behind dozens of palaces and temples that included such items as alabaster reliefs depicting kings conquering other lands and fighting lions. The artifacts also included images of Assyrian gods.

ISIS terrorists have been destroying ancient relics they say promote idolatry that violate their fundamentalist interpretation of Islamic law. Their destruction includes the ancient Iraqi city of Hatra, a UNESCO World Heritage site.

Isis destroys Nimrud remains:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimrud

Archeologists believe that the city was given the name Nimrud in modern times after the Biblical Nimrod, a legendary hunting hero.[5][6] The city was identified as the Biblical city of Calah (Kalhu, Kalakh; in Hebrew כלח and in Greek χαλαχ), first referred to alongside Nimrod in Genesis 10, by Henry Rawlinson in 1850 on the basis of a possible interpretation of the city’s cuneiform proper name as “Levekh”.[7][8][note 1]

In 2015, the militant organization Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) announced its intention to destroy the site because of its “un-Islamic” nature. In March 2015, the Iraqi government reported that ISIL had used bulldozers to destroy excavated remains of the city. A video released in the same month showed a lamassu statue in the city being attacked with a sledgehammer. Another video posted online by the group in April 2015 showed the site being destroyed by bulldozers and explosives.[9]

King of Cucks

Posted by How are a black man and a Christmas tree alike? on Wed, 25 Dec 2019 12:30 | #

They both have colored balls.

Posted by mancinblack on Mon, 01 Mar 2021 12:26 | #

Magnet, with “Willow’s Song” from the soundtrack to “The Wicker Man”….

The singer is Leslie Mackie, who played Daisy in the film.

Continue Reading Nimrod: morality in departure from Hislop’s, “The Two Babylons”