Generational Astrology: Zodiac Sign of The Boomer Part 5

  • Post author:
  • Post category:Central

Sympathy for the Nazis... well...

The issue with this generational feedback loop from boomers to the millennial generation and beyond is that the right wingers and liberals among these demographics are being played by Jewish interests to keep White identity and motions to systemic self correction, homeostasis and sovereignty, ineffective if not down right destructive.

And some Xer’s, particularly STEM types who have been encouraged in their personal lives by relative success through the tech field, are going to be susceptible to look upon would-be post modern corrective as so much nonsense, particularly as it is red caped, of course. And instead of being part of the corrective to the Boomer cancer, they use their nerd-tech skills to patch up the right wing conduit of modernity from Boomers to the subsequent generations.

By golly, that’s where we want wrong; the boomer right wingers are right, we didn’t do it hard enough! And they patch up (or try to patch) the glaring epistemic contradiction between “left and liberal.” As noted, the first casualties of didactic incitement will be on the the tautological level.

The YKW have been experts in in playing White people, not only ascribing White identity and nationalism as right wing (or far right, alt-right, dissident right, or letting in right wing destabilization by claiming “neither left nor right, “national socialist” or third position – anything but white left ethnonationalist, but in getting them to confuse what really are opposite terms, left and liberal.

They have done this by co-opting the basis of the left, unionization and coalition building, and red caping it as a Marxist internationalist union, workers of the world uniting against nationalism, the nation state which is supposed to wither away on behalf of communist utopia; and where that was slow going, co-opting the left as Cultural Marxist, Politically Correct unions of blacks, women, gays and whomever they might gather in coalition against Whites, with absurd red capes of post modern concepts to wield against “White privilege.”

But the point is, their red caping, whether of the Marxist international unionization of “international proletariat” or the unionization of Cultural Marxist anti-White, supposed victim groups, us founded upon the concept of unionization: which is conservative of that which is within the union. While liberalism opens boundaries and borders. Hence, in attacking White borders and bounds, they are effecting liberalization of White boundaries. That is, it is NOT Leftism for Whites. It is imposed liberalism (though Whites continue to confuse the terms left and liberal, using the terms interchangeably).

In depth grammar, the left unionizes people, facilitates accountability, systemic correctability, thus homeostasis, autonomy and sovereignty, while liberalism opens borders and boundaries.
This holds true cross contextually.

Liberalism opens boundaries and maintains its warrant to license and licentiousness on the claim of objective basis. The internationalist left would be trying encourage this liberalization of our borders and bounds until we are dead, in effect, and it can impose its union rule with finality.

Right wingism is also based on objectivism, a confirmation bias to justify the merit of its position while minimizing indebtedness to its social group; but is a bit more disingenuously calculating or naively unknowing in how it leaves borders susceptible for the rational blindness to social accountability in its purity spirals. And with that, lacking the structure of social accountability and anchoring in social correctivity thereof, it is inherently unstable

With their marketing campaign against “the left” (on the market since 2008), Jewry is doing its usual thing, only hyperbolically so, of trying to disrupt European/White systemic homeostasis.

They are doing this by preventing us from taking on left organizational concepts in White interests (i.e., White Left Ethnonationalism), notably, unionizing against the power of Jewry, their right wing cohorts (who take the pay offs to be freed from group accountability through the proposed “objectivity” of their individual merit) and liberal cohorts (who take the license and licentiousness to be freed from group accountability through the proposed “objectivity” of their individual merit).

And with that marketing campaign bought into by Whites, White identity is not known as, and functioning with that “fictional” structuring of unionization, with its facilitation of social accountability, correctivity and systemic homeostasis; it is not known as being stable and sane, within the bounds of human reason, nor compassionate, recognizing and empathizing with OUR marginalized in fellowship, so as to gain popular adherence; nor gaining thus, the ability to coordinate coalitions as we are not increased in our anthropecentric empathy; our own resource not secured, we are not in better position to coordinate with others.

Xer Semiogogue, having a taste of e-celeb, right wing Xer dummy chasing the red cape of post modernity that he is, doesn’t want any of that recentralization of Praxis, na ah.

Thus when the Xer philosophical mediocrity, Greg Johnson (PhD Philosophy, editor Counter-Currents), says in conversation with Millennial Woes (I don’t suppose that they suck each other off – yet) that when the internationalist left is imposing draconian measures against White free speech that “this is not liberal”, he is not understanding (typical of him not to understand some of the most important philosophical issues) he is wrong; it is liberalism, even though the philosophical mediocrity cannot understand that – it is a late stage, hyperbolic liberalization of our borders and boundaries and holding that liberalization in place – it is a weaponized all-American conserving of liberalism until the end of Whites.

We should not place too much faith in Greg Johnson’s snooty, right wing elitism; he is the same guy who called Hitler “a great statesman” in the Lindtner thread at Majorityrights. Johnson seeks lateral discriminatory means to garner audience from the said American demographic; and pandering to these right wing reactionaries is comfortable for this snob.

And as I’ve said before, his lateral snobbery in elitism as opposed to horizontal discrimination on behalf of niches of the racially loyal and sincere, can get him into troubling company; while this enmeshment with the boomer conduit to generation internet bubble and his philosophical mediocrity keeps him wedded to right wing positioning, it also keeps him off the mark in important White Post Modern philosophical concepts.

And Greggy’s ability, which is considerable, has him circulating the false currency of White identity as right wing and more explicitly, against the left. It suits him and others, like Millennial Woes, who place a bit too much concern for audience and market – thus a little of the money backing right identity, probably, as opposed to the proper grounds of White advocacy. Millennial Woes trades the currency back, “people are just going to have to accept that World War II shouldn’t have happened. I apologize to the Germans. Britain and America were on the wrong side, should not have started the war.” Really? If you are going to moan in 20/20 hindsight, how about “the great statesman Hitler” doesn’t start the war?

STEM Xer conduit of the right wing boomer cancer to subsequent generation internet bubble pipe line.

The issue with right wingers and liberals is that they are being played by Jews.

It is an unfortunate part of this, therefore, that when I am forced to address one right wing expression, such as Nazism, that its proponents, such as Xer Tanstaafl, exacerbated by his STEM tendency to look for “the one thing” that breaks/links the circuit” and false, absolute binary either/ors (unlike the reality of praxis) can double down in playing into the altercast, depicting anti-Nazism as “my big bugger bear”, to use his term applied to myself, like it is my own myopic obsession; and my looking not just at Jews but at holes, vulnerabilities in our philosophical system as my being like Jared (“they look huWhite to me”) Taylor, trying to let Jews into our group system and defense, and naively letting them off the hook.

in fact, I am concerned to shore up our group system and its philosophical advocacy, (which, unlike Jared Taylor’s idea, does not include Jews; and DOES see them as being in profound adversarial position); even if attacking them were the thing to do, how could we be effective in our goals if we are not capable of organizing and defending our system – if its got holes.

And since I like and advocate all European peoples and their national sovereignty; and most importantly from my position, am focused on coordination of our interests, I’d rather not have to deal with Nazism at all (let alone its being my obsessive bugbear, what Tanstaafl is hearing, rather, is annoyance at my having to deal with it at all – I shouldn’t have to), as it is bound to stir up conflict between Europeans, whether by trolls or by true believers – neither of whom I should have to deal with: it should be obvious to anyone who cares about European/White peoples that we are ALL under attack in anti-racism; and that trying to redeem Hitler and Nazism is beyond impractical. It’s cruel, genocidal supremacism, imperialism and excuse making thereof, is not going to allow us to get along, become popular as we show human compassion rather than the iron law of nature, will not facilitate coordination and alliance building among our race, not going to be practical in coordination with other races either

But in my frustration and annoyance with the Nazi trolls and true believers, Tanstaafl is wont to see me on the other side of his false / either or, as if I am fooled or in league with the Jews, like Jarod Taylor, whereas he, and only the Nazi kind, recognize the significance of Jewry as mortal enemy.

That world view would go a long way to alleviating guilt trips that he and people like him may choose to accept (though I don’t know why they would; or reject, which they should) and “justify” Nazi Germany – which they should not try to do; especially not since they are only exercising 20/20 hindsight.

But some people, Xer’s among them, are just smart enough and have the skill set, to keep patching up deeply mistaken philosophy; and they get a lot of confirmation and popular currency through this position, for the largely German and Irish demographic of beleaguered reactionaries, wishing to hear redemptive stories of the Nazis.

Thus intent in the purity spiral, when Tanstaafl tries to pretend that I am obfuscating, that he is a “White winger” (none of this left or right stuff) it may sound clever; but he’s right wing, evidence his standing by Hitler, if nothing else.

Again, it is a problem with the White American boomer demographic, followed by the xers that they have been able to channel as conduits of their right wing message, to the millennials and z’s who await in their internet bubbles buffered from reality and historical testing, is that they are largely of nationalities, German and Irish, susceptible to trade in (what is to them the relief of) the false currency of either/ or “Nazis were the good guys / or you are naively/disingenuously on the side of Jewry” and over sympathy with the Nazis side in their beleaguered reaction to the politically correct onslaught.

Having said that…

Indeed, Dr. Christian Lindtner (debunker of holocaust deniers) asked of me prior to his interview, “you think that Hitler was right about some things, yes?”

I thought it was a fair question to test for a man of reasonable empathy. I answered yes, of course.
In corrective of this regard, we might tip our hat to a truth, at least for most of us, that Boomer James Bowery added by a word of restraint to those who react against this reactionary demographic and facilitate the concordance with Germans and German ethnonatioanlism that we appreciate, as an integral partner in our ethnonatioalist coalition.

“You have to have some sympathy for Nazi Germany and Hitler” (it’s a matter of how much).

Before going whole-assed in absolute non-sympathy for Nazi Germany, let me relate some of my visceral reaction, as I am quite sure that they’d be visceral reactions shared by most any who care about European/White people. Though I’ve said much, I will say more for my visceral reaction against those who try to redeem Hitler. And those who do that, should be aware of the kind of intense hatred that they are generating against them.

While it is true that moaning about the Versailles Treaty’s economic terms as unjust and causative of the WWII is taken for granted, especially among WN; and economic terms aside, I am satisfied that the national lines drawn were not unreasonable, Germans were not the only one’s who suffered population shifts and should be the last people complaining about that (civilian deaths in this process aside, that’s bad) even though I’ve never heard anyone else raise that argument, and the arguments about the source of WWII among WN tend to be so very German biased in terms of Versailles being the problem that I have tended to lose patience, there is an aspect of how enforcement of the Versailles treaty in interwar Germany invokes my empathy, though it is only something that the Treaty allowed for, did not require.

It has to do with the incidence of France bringing-in black soldiers from its colonies to occupy and police the Rhineland. This was the first that blacks would be brought into the nation in any number and the race-mixing would inevitably follow. Adding to the indignity was a reaction to provocations wherein black soldiers went over the border into Germany and shot about twenty Germans.

While from what I understand, Germany was more to blame than other nations for WWI, and I do understand France’s rage over WWI, furthermore, that France was undermanned in their capacity to defend the Rhineland and the rest of France; I do not sympathize with their bringing in blacks to assist in this regard – not at all.

I’m not saying that it was his reasoning, but if I were Hitler, and I saw France bringing in blacks, to take German women, adulterate the population and shoot resisters, I would be ready to invade France, “you think you won that war, hu?” We were just resting. Now we’re going to control you because we have to. Then I suppose I might look east and say, “you think you are going to deploy elite Jews to strategize against German interests, huh?” Now we are going to control you because we have to and because we can.
Of course, I would be mistaken, tactlessly overcompensating where I should, rather, in operating from my new position of strength, cooperate with conservative elements in adjacent nations.

And that is the point of 20/20 hindsight.

I can even understand maybe thinking imperialist supremacism was a cool thing to do at one time, in circumstance. Not now.

Of course the sane perspective of 20/20 hindsight is also, probably first, to look critically upon Germany’s imperialist aspirations in WWI, the brutal results which effected some bad reactions among the French, especially; but with the understanding as to why they, the Belgians et al. would be so angry. Then we can talk about the other side went too far, as in the French bringing blacks into the Rhineland.

The problem is, when it comes to American WN, there is a shocking unanimity of currency. Nazi Germany and Hitler could do no wrong; WWII was everybody else’s fault. Shocking, but that is the line these guys are taking. It’s either that or hey, “why do people criticize Jews?”

I hasten to add that I cannot relate to forced sterilization at all; to me this is the weird, most rogue side of German logic. I can understand de-nationalizing Mulattoes, deporting them, even wanting (i said wanting to, folks) to kill them. But to sterilize them and let them live among you? Weird.

The sane position with regard to Jews, of course, is to see them as a different people from Europeans/Whites (even those with significant European admixture, such as Ashkenazi; and those who see themselves as “White”); a people who are not a part of our group; who have different interests; who generally look after their own interests and have significant power to do so, while they are typically indifferent where not outright antagonistic to our interests – antagonistic which they often are thus,’ the legitimacy for separatism must be the working hypothesis – pursuit of our autonomy and sovereignty from them must be the perspective, not an agenda to murder them: that is neither a practical focus in organizing our sovereignty, which needs to be systemic (an array of concerns not singular focus on Jews, let alone, trying to get people to kill them all), attending to a circle of issues. Nor is tactful in giving Jewry a clear argument that they are legitimized in trying to destroy the threat of White identity and critical separatism from Jewry – the overcompensation of Nazi Germany has already been enough of a weapon against White Nationalism by its association, turning away popular assent to our side.

With a working hypothesis that Jews are another people, with different interests that they can look after for themselves, while we pursue our own autonomy, not an aim to kill them, we may rest comfortably in the court of the gods: even if our hypothesis is a bit off, I.e.. Jews or particular Jews are not that bad, not that responsible for our plight, no irreversible harm done. Thus, we should be more free to pursue our ends in the court of the gods if genocide is not our aim but rather autonomy.

We need to anchor our world view in stabilizing our Praxis system, not expecting everyone to hop-to and start killing Jews.

And between Europeans, It’s not like there is a middle ground between European ethnonationalism and the Nazis. No, the Nazis are out of bounds. You can’t coordinate European peoples with Nazism.

Since we’re exercising 20 20 hindsight, we can see the prudence of coordinating nationalisms as opposed to launching imperialist supremacism…

We can understand how the Nazi regime may have seemed right at the time to Germans in the situation but we have better perspective now. We know that they were not under clear and immanent threat, that other nations were against the Soviets and willing to deport Jews.

Particularly with our demographics susceptible as they are to be overly sympathetic to Nazi Germany, pandered to by both true believers and enemies playing divide and conquer, trading in this false currency, we must be careful and attend to our epistemological premises noting that Wall Street Bob from D.C. had it exactly backwards when he said that Tanstaafl is the “greatest epistemologist.” That is exactly what Tanstaafl is NOT.

Wall Street Bob, a Boomer, is like every WN stuck on the Hitler – they come by way of the very compelling William Luther Pierce (STEM guy, physicist) – who was from the “greatest generation” but nevertheless a guru for boomers who want to redeem Hitler.

The Working Hypothesis of Praxis as Opposed to Scientism.

Bottom line with regard to Jewry: the sane view is to hold that they are a different people with different interests and we must look after ours by means of separatism, pursing our autonomy; the working hypothesis of the need for our pursuit of sovereignty and corresponding need for separatism from Jewry is increased significantly in its legitimacy by the clear statement that our objective is separatism and functional systemic autonomy, not to kill and eliminate Jewry.

We may proceed comfortably with this working hypothesis as it is innocent enough: even if  hypotheses about Jewish antagonism are demonstrated to be a bit off, irreversible damage is far less likely to be done to anybody.

We are also far more likely to gain popular and powerful support in defending ourselves if we are attacked while innocently pursuing our sovereignty.

While we might even understand their rage, certainly the association with Nazism’s overcompensations has been one of the greatest stigmatizing and inhibiting factors in the pursuit of ethnonationalism; association with denial and its redemptionism only tend to make the ethnonationalist cause look worse, egregiously dishonest. Therefore, it is necessary to necessary to counter those who would try to associate Nazism with White Nationalism, to reject it and to demonstrate why it makes perfect sense to do so.

Tansstaafl might feel good taking that angle and it logically “justifies” Nazism and Hitler, relieving him of his guilt trips, but it isn’t just tactless, though it is that, it is to partake of a massive epistemological blunder.

A convulsive, stasis over correction to the parasitic destruction is not what we need, and those who try redeem that are not just bad optics, they are reacting into a fool’s game.

After all, systemic autonomy is what we want, sovereignty. How Jews might interfere is in part a separate issue where we have any agency at all, and we do. On the other hand, we lose much agency when we engage the causative, “that’s just the way it is” arguments of the right, and react over the top, fixing to kill all the Jews. It has been said that war is a Jew harvest and if we’re not careful to be in systemic balance and correctivity, we are likely to get a large percentage of our quality people killed, if not getting our qualitative species basically destroyed while the historical result of this approach has only been to increase their more virulent types in horizontal transmission. Finally, of course, as it is more clear to the public through our stated objectives and practices that our aim is sovereignty from, not genocide over others, we are warranted to defend ourselves and draw upon support in our defense.

At the same time and with that, our free speech, even where quite critical, ought to be perceived as less of a threat and less cause to clamp down on our freedoms.

It’s a false either /or to say that the Jews are singularly responsible for our problems (as Tanstaafl veritably maintains) or that our problems are almost singularly our fault (as Jared Taylor maintains); and I am definitely not on Jared Taylor’s side (decidedly not). Nevertheless, part of Tan’s flare up with me came with the idea that I was siding with Jared Taylor’s concept of “pathological altruism” which seeks to put all blame for the plight of Whites in their abnormal psychology… I will not allow myself and my platform to be depicted that way (big hero Tanstaafl) but there are holes and vulnerabilities in our system, its philosophy do have to be corrected.

So let me go there next, my experience of Tanstaafl as an obstruction to this correction.

Continue Reading Generational Astrology: Zodiac Sign of The Boomer Part 5

Paul Weston arrested for reciting Churchill speech about Muslims

  • Post author:
  • Post category:Central

In a marvelous tour de force, Paul Weston exposed the absurdity of Britain’s hate-speech laws by getting himself arrested on the steps of Winchester Abbey, reciting Churchill – specifically, Churchill’s statement about Muslims (The incident occurred in April of 2014).

Paul Weston has been arrested for reciting a speech by Churchill, the one about Muslims.

The quoted Churchill speech regarding Muslims.

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith.”

          – Winston Churchill

 Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 27 Apr 2014 19:13 | #

Paul is a very thoughtful guy, and I don’t doubt that he thought through the Winchester action carefully.

However, the question is: on what grounds was he arrested?  If for breach of the peace, he would have to be saying something that might cause a riot.  Unlikely on a quiet morning in well-to-do Winchester.  If for hate speech in some form, he’s free and clear without any doubt if he was only reading from Churchill’s text.  Unlawful assembly is out because it doesn’t apply, I think.  That leaves local by-laws, since Paul was standing on council-owned property.  But, ordinarily, the police would not arrest someone making a political protest on council property.  So it’s all a bit odd.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 27 Apr 2014 19:22 | #

Morgoth, welcome to the site.  I have admired your work in the thread wars for a long time.  I am very pleased Daniel has opened the doors to you.

Posted by Morgoth on Sun, 27 Apr 2014 21:06 | #

Thanks GW, and Daniel for making this a main post.

Whether or not it is related I can’t say but Paul’s Party recently tried to update their manifesto moving into the upcoming Euro elections, the Electoral Commission rejected the Party’s manifesto. Unfortunately I can’t find the rejection letter but George Whale has published the reply sent back to the Electoral Commission here:

http://libertygb.org.uk/v1/index.php/home/root/news-libertygb/6384-political-censorship-by-the-electoral-commission

The idea that a Party can have it’s policies rejected on the grounds that they are ‘‘offensive’’ has deeper implications for the growing number of dissident parties.

The article on Paul’s arrest has already gained 10x the amount of comments, and presumably reads, than other articles on his Party’s site so once again we see the death spiral of Liberalism in action, this time it’s a real peach, an Englishman arrested for quoting Churchill (!) The system creates dissidents, the system clamps down on the dissidents and thereby creates far more dissidents.

I posted this on the main DT comment piece:

‘’ Yesterday Paul Weston who is a regular commentor here was arrested for reciting a speech by Winston Churchill. This is the ‘‘Tolerant’’ Britain we now have, a country where repeating a speech by the man who was voted ‘‘The Greatest Briton of all time’’ will get you arrested.


And yet on threads like this the totally insane Liberal Left still argue that ‘‘we’’ and not ‘‘they’’ are the problem.’‘

It gained 75 ‘‘recommends’’ within 30 minutes and was then removed and the entire board shut down, needless to say it doesn’t even come close to an infringement of ‘‘house rules’‘.

The system is starting to appear brittle, like cold toffee.

 Posted by Selous Scout on Mon, 28 Apr 2014 01:20 | #

The arms of those cops look awfully thin.

 Posted by tom metzger on Mon, 28 Apr 2014 11:23 | #

Bravo! A Brit with balls!!!!! Terrible Tommy

 Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 28 Apr 2014 16:30 | #

Paul deliberately forgot to mention to the investigating officer that he was quoting verbatim from Winston Churchill’s writings.  He was seeking to provoke an arrest, and to prove that the legal system, corrupted by pee-cee and anti-racism as it is, would blunder into action against the words and meanings of perhaps the greatest hero of the British people.

So this was a challenge to the legal system.  If the system doesn’t like it and tries to take him to trial, he will be able to elect to go before a jury at, presumably, Winchester Crown Court.  There is no way that the Crown Prosecution Service could risk that.  The legal officers involved in doing so would be exposing themselves to some very heavy political fire when the jury finds for Paul – which it certainly would.

Either way, the nett effect is that Paul will be free to repeat the Churchill quote as much as he wants.  The hands of the system will have been tied a little, and all power to him for that.

 Posted by Trainspotter on Mon, 28 Apr 2014 23:39 | #

Guessedworker: “He was seeking to provoke an arrest, and to prove that the legal system, corrupted by pee-cee and anti-racism as it is, would blunder into action against the words and meanings of perhaps the greatest hero of the British people.”

Quite clever, if that’s the case.  Hat’s off to Paul Weston.  I’m only familiar with him through a couple of speeches that I’ve seen on video, but I was impressed.

 Posted by wobbly on Tue, 29 Apr 2014 18:00 | #

Amazingly the police chief told Paul off the record that England is already in an ‘‘unofficial war’‘.

If correct that’s big – not that it’s true, it’s been true for years but that a senior po-leece would say it.

 Posted by Jon on Wed, 30 Apr 2014 19:22 | #

That excerpt from Churchill is one big non causa pro causa fallacy. It’s not unlike blaming “cannabilism” for why Bassongos act like Bassongos. As if if Muslims would only convert to atheism or Christianity, all untoward customs and behaviour would disappear.

 Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 30 Apr 2014 19:51 | #

If a Churchillian criticism of Islam is not to be permitted to be voiced in officially Christian England, that is a big deal.

I don’t know what it will taken to awaken Europeans. I find Europe’s “racial” problems utterly baffling – I mean, the fact that Europeans in their own homelands tolerate crap from nonwhites. America is a completely different situation in every sense, beginning with the presence “on the ground” of nonwhites, which antedated the Founding. One can understand, if not exonerate, white race liberals in the US. However poorly behaved our blacks might be, they do have an ‘excuse’ for being here, which in turn renders the white liberal desire for “racial justice” at least intelligible.

But how can Europeans tolerate nonwhites wrecking their countries, when there is no excuse for a nonwhite presence in Europe? There ought to be 90+% support for terminating immigration, and at least majority support for reclamation-via-repatriation.

Which simply takes us back to the grim empirical diagnosis that there is something racially aberrant about the white race, considered collectively …  

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 30 Apr 2014 20:23 | #

Leon, I take your unremitting contention that the White race is defectively passive to be useless and tantamount to a Jewish trick – first time I saw that argument was from stinking Ilana Mercer.

Ilana Mercer

 Posted by Trainspotter on Thu, 01 May 2014 00:16 | #

Thorn: “As expected, the news blackout WRT white genocide continues.”

Yes, which is why it is important to make the link ourselves, wherever we may post comments.  Paul Weston, opponent of white genocide, was arrested for exercising his free speech rights.

 Posted by Trainspotter on Thu, 01 May 2014 00:39 | #

Leon Haller: “But how can Europeans tolerate nonwhites wrecking their countries, when there is no excuse for a nonwhite presence in Europe?”

Leon, I used to think this way too.  I remember first learning about non-white immigration to Europe when I was a kid back in the 80s.  I distinctly recall thinking, “Are they crazy?” Why would they inflict this misery and stupidity upon themselves?  I understood immediately that America had created its own racial problems, and we therefore had to deal with it, but it simply made no sense whatsoever that Europe would do this to itself. 

Now, of course, I understand that we whites are being subjected to a racial attack at an international scale, and therefore the struggle for our people is inherently an international one.  What I didn’t understand at that time, but do now, is that the anti-white liberal (by this I mean the garden variety types, not those that are at the top and orchestrating all of this) is not a rational being.  Certainly, he is far more akin to a cultist than a rational man.  What he believes doesn’t need to make sense.  He is fundamentally hostile to the continuity of the European peoples, and if he lacks a good reason to justify this, he’ll just make one up.  Any ludicrous reason will do, or none at all.  Arguing with them reveals this bizarre nature. 

Not too long ago, Jesse Jackson visited Sweden, unless my memory fails me.  He told a group of liberal Swedes that Sweden must become a multiracial society, and the justification for this seemed to be that some Swedish ships were supposedly involved in the slave trade.  Even if true, even if a handful of Swedish sailors and merchants were involved, by what utter madness does one conclude that an entire people must be swamped with Africans?  That an entire people must become Africanized hybrids? It’s beyond mad hatter insanity, but the Swedish liberals ate it up.  They grinned and applauded the good reverend.

Really sickening stuff, but also bizarre. Again, madness. 

It’s so insane, so grotesquely evil, that it baffles the mind that any sentient creature could believe such a thing.  But the anti-whites do so believe.  None of it has to make the least bit of sense, which is why Americans who think that they have to argue over Indians or slavery are missing the point.  The anti-white cultist doesn’t actually care about any of that stuff, any more than the anti-whites in Europe do.  The are immune to reason and evidence, they are cultists, and we must separate from them entirely.

 Posted by wobbly on Fri, 02 May 2014 21:20 | #

@Trainspotter

But the anti-whites do so believe.  None of it has to make the least bit of sense, which is why Americans who think that they have to argue over Indians or slavery are missing the point.  The anti-white cultist doesn’t actually care about any of that stuff, any more than the anti-whites in Europe do.  The are immune to reason and evidence, they are cultists

You’re right that sense and logic aren’t relevant. However what is critical to them is that they believe themselves to be moral. That’s their weak spot.

 Posted by Thorn on Thu, 15 May 2014 15:17 | #

This is what we are up against.  Such people cannot process the idea that liberal “compassion” and “empathy” have to go out of the window if our people are to survive.

What we are up against are people whose thinking is overridden by emotion. They comprise the masses. OTOH we are driven by reason and logic. Facts and evidence matter to us. Facts and evidence matter not to liberal do-gooders. They don’t care how disastrous the outcome of their illogical endeavors; the only thing that matters to them is their good intensions. As it stands now, we are vastly outnumbered.

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 15 May 2014 15:47 | #

There’s the Ilana Mercer, “White psychology’s suicidal tendency”, meme again.

Not that Christianity disrupts logical thinking and assertive concern for self interest in this life or anything.

 Posted by wobbly on Thu, 15 May 2014 22:51 | #

Either way, does anyone think the oligarchs are going to give up their wealth and power in exchange for such “trivial matters” as preventing the white race from going extinct?

They always do. They are driven to concentrate wealth – mostly out of evolved paranoia – but an economy can’t function if wealth is too concentrated so round and round it goes in a cycle.

 Posted by wobbly on Fri, 16 May 2014 04:59 | #

Your original point.

does anyone think the oligarchs are going to give up their wealth and power

My answer to that is they always (involuntarily) give up their wealth and power by destroying the basis of their wealth and power. They always cut the branch they’re sitting on.

#

Separate to that is whether or not in the process of losing their wealth and power this time – as they always do – they will have done enough damage to permanently destroy the host population.

I agree that part is different this time.

Although that’s now new historically either: you can follow their progress through history by following the chain of once impressive ex civilizations starting with Saba that became African admixed and stagnant.

 Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Tue, 28 Jul 2015 06:07 | #

Speaking of wedge issues, this is another wedge issue that is coming up just north of where Weston is, and which has been developing for a while now. There is the fact that the ‘gay rights’ issue has evolved to the stage where ‘gay rights’ are now associated with what they call ‘white privilege’, because Muslims don’t like gay people and so rubbing it in their faces is now considered to be a form of oppression directed against what they regard as a marginalised group.

Breitbart, ‘Swedish Nationalists Plan Gay Pride March Through Muslim Area: Left Is Outraged’, 23 Jul 2015: (emphasis)
[…] Organisers said there was no dress code, adding: “You could take the opportunity to tan your belly and legs in the sunny weather.”

However, angry left wing and gay rights activists have taken to Facebook, denouncing the planned pride march as “right wing”, “xenophobic” and “pure racism”.

A counter-demonstration is now planned, with organisers claiming Järva Pride “pits two oppressed groups against one another.”

Taxpayer-funded gay rights group RFSL has distanced itself from the pride march, accusing it of promoting racism and white privilege, while some activists are even calling for the organisers to be arrested for “hate speech”. […]

Of course, it is difficult to understand how Muslims could be an oppressed or marginalised group, considering that they hold institutional power in a whole region of the world called ‘MENA’ (Middle East and North Africa), and have a large population of adherents as well as being one of the world’s largest and most overbearingly oppressive religions. A religion which asserts that all other gods are ‘false’, other than their own.

The fact that there is a situation where the liberal establishment is defending that religion in European lands, shows how far the Overton Window has been dragged.

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 28 Jul 2015 06:34 | #

It’s a good idea to use this as a wedge issue.

Queers are a very small part of our populations and clearly a practical place to make a concession (since their small presence is inevitable) when choosing a side to take in order to exploit a contradiction in liberalism and drive a wedge against Islam.

We can freak-out the Mulims, cause significant consternation in the liberal world view and crucially, wedge against “conservatives” altogether as they are, as you say, conserving liberalism and universalism, e.g., through Christianity.

Bone chilling address of CPAC (Conservative Political Action Committee of America) by Paul Weston, in which he warns America not to look toward Europe as the homeland that will always be there –

“We in England look to Sweden in the way that America should be looking to Britain, because Sweden is literally a lost country …we in England have maybe two decades before everything hits the wall” …

“This denial of what Islam is, is going to be the downfall of Europe.”

“And because I’m English I’m going to have to talk to you very briefly before I wrap-up about what happened with the raping and grooming gangs that we have had for the last twenty years in Great Britain; but only finally made the news last year; and it was broken by a guy called Andrew Norfaulk, who is a Times journalist.

And the reason he knew about it, the police knew about it, the politicians knew about it, but none of them wanted to talk about it because that would cause some sort of ‘community un-cohesion’ ..and community tensions.

Now, I think it is much more likely that you will get community tensions when your local girls and sisters and daughters are being raped and groomed and tortured; and the police won’t talk about it. I think that is much more conducive to community tension than actually telling the truth about it when it could have been stopped way back in 1990.

And I don’t know what you know about the British National Party and Nick Griffin – who has some sins that I can’t forgive him for – but Nick Griffin actually came out and said many years ago, I think in 2004/5, he told the truth about these Muslim grooming gangs.

And the response of the British government was not to investigate, and not to look out for these girls; all of these girls, by-the-way, were in care – they were vulnerable young girls; and they’re not sixteen or eighteen; these girls went from seven to thirteen years of age – and as I’m talking about it now, the police would be called to a hotel, where thirteen Muslim men were in a room with a naked twelve year old girl under the table; and a very irate father outside the front of the hotel. And the police would arrest the father!

This is how bad it is.

I’ve rather gone off track but the Muslim grooming thing, I think, is really the icing on the cake in terms of what they are allowed to get away with; and what our reaction is politically from the politicians, from the police, the media – because they all colluded in covering-it-up – I was talking about Nick Griffin and – the Times journalist when he broke the story in 2014, said the reason they had sat on this story for so many years was because they did not want to give any ammunition to the nasty fascist, right-wing political organizations in Britain.

Which is absolutely disgusting.

I’m rambling, but my point really is that Britain is not yet lost.

We’re not far-off being lost – Sweden’s gone, Sweden is just a matter of five or ten years – Britain can still maybe do something about this.

But I don’t think it will be resolved peacefully.

I think probably we’ll be looking at a civil war scenario, in the same way that Yugoslavia broke-up in the 1990’s.  ..and the civil war in Lebanon in the 1970’s.

I think this is the future of Europe generally speaking.

And I think that when it happens it will not be contained in the way that Yugoslavia was able to be contained.

It’s going to be cataclysmic.

Something that people cannot imagine, really, living in modern, democratic times.

But it’s coming.

And I will finish simply by saying, you all need to look at what’s happening in Britain and Sweden and Europe; and you all need to make sure that you retain your First Amendment Rights because unless we can talk about this, unless we can bring it out in the open, you in America will go the same way.

You need to stand up and look at what we’re doing and say this is never gong to happen here!”

Posted by The Sordid Origin of Hate-Speech Laws on Sun, 03 Feb 2019 18:19 | #

Hoover Institution, 1 Dec 2019:

The Sordid Origin of Hate-Speech Laws

All western european countries have hate-speech laws. In 2008, the eu adopted a framework decision on “Combating Racism and Xenophobia” that obliged all member states to criminalize certain forms of hate speech. On the other side of the Atlantic, the Supreme Court of the United States has gradually increased and consolidated the protection of hate speech under the First Amendment. The European concept of freedom of expression thus prohibits certain content and viewpoints, whereas, with certain exceptions, the American concept is generally concerned solely with direct incitement likely to result in overt acts of lawlessness.

Yet the origin of hate-speech laws has been largely forgotten. The divergence between the United States and European countries is of comparatively recent origin. In fact, the United States and the vast majority of European (and Western) states were originally opposed to the internationalization of hate-speech laws. European states and the U.S. shared the view that human rights should protect rather than limit freedom of expression.

Rather, the introduction of hate-speech prohibitions into international law was championed in its heyday by the Soviet Union and allies. Their motive was readily apparent.  The communist countries sought to exploit such laws to limit free speech.

[…]

The Soviet proposal would be targeted not just at Nazism but against agitation in favor of capitalism and liberal democracy.

Although Article 19 of the udhr does not contain a specific limitation clause, it is still possible to restrict freedom of expression pursuant to general limitation clauses contained in the udhr. Article 7 ensures equality before the law and protects specifically against incitement to discrimination, while Article 29 includes a general limitation clause according to which the rights in the udhr may be limited, inter alia, for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others.

The drafting of Article 7 started in the Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and the Protection of Minorities. The Soviet Union presented a proposal that included an obligation to prohibit “Any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hostility or of national exclusiveness or hatred and contempt, as well as any action establishing a privilege or a discrimination based on distinctions of race, nationality, or religion constitute a crime and shall be punishable under the law of the state.” The U.S. and Belgian experts vociferously opposed this proposal and sought to prevent a vote upon it. However, France came up with an extensive proposal requiring states to punish infringements of the principle of nondiscrimination. Ultimately Australia and China presented a draft compromise provision that sought to condemn only incitement to violence against minorities, which was adopted with ten votes and one abstention in the Sub-Commission.

Despite the adoption of this compromise, the Soviet delegate continued the fight for limiting freedom of expression in the Working Group of the Human Rights Commission. The Soviet delegate held a speech in which he declared that without a prohibition against hate speech “any Declaration would be useless.” This led to a reiteration of the above-mentioned Soviet proposal on Article 7, which was rejected, though very narrowly this time, with two votes to two, with two abstentions. During the second session of the Human Rights Commission, the Soviet delegate tried once more to submit the proposal, and this time the Belgian representative took it into consideration. He rejected the Soviet proposal but amended the current version of Article 7 with the phrase “and against any incitement to such discrimination,” which was adopted with a great majority.

However, in the third session of the Human Rights Commission, the British and Indian delegates jointly proposed to delete the prohibition against incitement to discrimination since “the United Kingdom, feeling morally bound to carry out the provision of the Declaration, would be obliged to pass laws which experience had shown were neither necessary nor desirable.”

Countries supporting the British/Indian stand included the U.S., while the French representative strongly favored a prohibition against incitement to discrimination. He was joined by, inter alia, the delegation from Yugoslavia, who felt that “incitement to discrimination should be explicitly forbidden.”

The dominant force behind the attempt to adopt an obligation to restrict freedom of expression was the Soviet Union.

Posted by Adrean on Mon, 04 Feb 2019 14:09 | #

Adrean Arlott of Compulsory Diversity News to the Rescue

John Dlugosz: The people will decide what is relevant. The First Selectman has said, “I feel (Anna Zubkova) deceived us by omission and I feel misled. I’m pulling my support and telling my friends and family to do the same. The signs on my lawn are coming up. There’s a lot of good people who made a decision to support her without having all the information they needed.”

I believe ignoring evil–in one’s country, state, town, and certainly under one’s own roof–is unacceptable. Is hatred and fear-mongering and ignorance a family value? Read the content of the blog and it’s very clear Mr Freeman believes the world would be a better place if his beliefs were imposed on us all.

I choose to speak out against hatred and stand up to it, because I’ve suffered too. But I was brought up a Christian, and my family values are love and forgiveness, and having the courage to stand up to hatred and bigotry. Understanding and compassion will always overcome hatred and aggression. That’s a value this country was founded on. To my way of thinking, those who choose to turn a blind eye to evil are either ignorant or disingenuous. Either way, I pity them. The good people of eastern Connecticut will decide what is relevant, and what they value in their leaders.

Peace.

Adrean Arlott: Dlugosz, Anna is running to be a probate judge. I don’t think the ability to sense evil is part of the job description. You say you are a Christian. Tell me, what was it like serving on the Salem Witch Trials? Sensing evil must have been a big part of that job. Was your buckle hat really as itchy as it looked?

Posted by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn on Mon, 04 Feb 2019 15:11 | #

Counter Currents, “Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn: The Rise of a Prophet”, 4 Feb 2019:

by Spencer J. Quinn

It’s striking how cherry-picking can hone the pen of a propagandist and disguise malice behind a veneer of reason. Jewish writer Cathy Young provides excellent examples of this all throughout her December 2018 Quillette article, “Solzhenitsyn: The Fall of a Prophet.” Published shortly after Solzhenitsyn’s 100th birthday, the article’s point, essentially, is to tarnish the reputation of a great man in order to steer discourse away from aspects of his work which the current zeitgeist finds problematic. Her shoddy, dishonest treatment of Solzhenitsyn resembles Soviet-styled political revisionism, and it stinks, frankly, of character assassination.

Continue Reading Paul Weston arrested for reciting Churchill speech about Muslims

Stories of my “Fourteen Words” jacket – who could object?

  • Post author:
  • Post category:Central

…It’s super 14 Man!

Stories of my Fourteen Words jacket…

While proudly wearing my “fourteen words jacket, complete with my personally designed 14 in-the-gap logo, together with David Lane’s phrase, “we must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children”…


Story number 1

A not so anecdotal experience related to this jacket.

It’s some time in 2009. I walked into the grand opening of an ‘Irish bar’ in Poznan, Poland. Proudly wearing this jacket…

I made sure to stand front and center while watching the band so that everyone in attendance could read my jacket.

Thinking nothing of it (why would I, after all? Who could object to the survival of White children?), I went to the bar to procure a drink.

Suddenly, the answer – immediately obvious to me, anyway – came walking-up behind me: Two individuals speaking frantically. And the answer to the aforementioned question was automatic in my mind …when they said/asked me with aggressive disdain, “hey shit-eater, what is that shit on your back?” and added presumptuously, “Go back to your own country!”

Without even having turned around, not turning around in fact – not even having seen them yet – I responded instantaneously, “This is my country, go back to Israel.”

The zen master (lol) knew the answer to the aforementioned question, a nonsensical question really – who could object to White children? There is only one answer.

When I turned around and looked at them it was confirmed indeed that they had dark curly hair, boner noses, etc, indeed fit the bill. They turned and looked at each other in disbelief that I had known instantaneously, without hesitation where they were coming from.

As their aggression had apparently never failed them before, they tried their tried-and-true verbatim once again:

“Shit-eater, what is that shit on your back?”

I responded, what would you like it to be?

They repeated, “go back to your own country!”

And I repeated once again, “this is my country, go back to Israel.”

They looked at each other again in shock, as if to say, “what now?” and they went away.

The bar location failed (Tanner’s moved to another place), but I have a strong suspicion that the property was owned, as many properties are owned in Poland, by the YKW. These YKW were probably a party to YKW who owned the place and were charging an exorbitant rent, not at all concerned if one or another business makes it, or if they break their backs, as they usually do, no matter how well, how qualitative and competently run – provided that business tenants slave away and squander their dreams to pay rents in backwater Poznan that are on par with Paris and New York – “hear that, ‘shit eater.”?

The YKW said that to me, seeing this jacket on behalf of White children. Hear that, “shit eater” ?

Story number 2

I walk into the bar right across from the ratusz in Poznan central square, wearing the jacket….

While waiting to buy a drink at he bar I hear an English speaking guy ask me in curiosity, “what was that on my back?” … he did not pose the question in a particularly hostile way at first, so I figured this was being presented as a liberal student-ish thing…but seeing as the jacket’s statement is rather self explanatory, I called his bluff and asked what he would like it to be? He replied with another question, is it racist? I notice dark, curly hair on this one too, asking that question I figure here we go again and indeed…

He then twice loudly blurts-out “racist, racist!”

I think I told him to fuck off or something, and then he turns to the bar woman as she comes to take my order, and he says to her, “this guy’s a racist!”…

I was pleasantly surprised to find that she simply ignored him, in fact everyone at the bar ignored him, as if he was the asshole, which obviously, he was… and that’s not the half of it…

I see that this guy moves to a group of liberal English guys that I know from the university….a famous gossip mill and famously jerkish guys who pander to women with aggressive liberalism and “anti-racism”…

I decided to calmly finish my drink and go to another bar where I would not have to be in the presence of their obnoxious company.

As I am walking out..the (one can only suppose) YKW guy screams, “racist, racist, racist!”…

At this point those who wield the charge of racism as a weapon are not quite getting the idea that they are the assholes but it remains a weapon even if its local support is minimal in this context…

Anyway, I go to a bar where there is more local clientele so that I can peacefully have a few more …vodkas, scotches – not sure, this was a while ago, also 2009.

But there are lots of places around and sometimes I feel like I should try something different; so after that, I went to a bar a few blocks away that I virtually never go to – had been there briefly, maybe twice in five years, don’t even think I stayed for a drink when I had popped-in…

It’s a basement bar that features karaoke, and I hear the karaoke as I descend the stairs, turn the corner into the bar and immediately lock eyes with (I now know his name is Adam) the same guy! – and he has the karaoke microphone in his hand in amidst the crowded bar! He screams into the microphone, “racist!, racist! racist!”…

I saw the liberal English guys with him and just turned on my heals and marched back up the steps out of there…but you have to realize that the Cohencidence was not small….

This is a city of 500,000 and there are hundreds of bars to choose from, dozens in this area that serve similar demographics… you are not exactly limited in your options…

…..

Anyway, some weeks later, I’m passing through the rynek and there is a corner bar where one of the guys who I happen to get along with a bit better invites me in for a shot after telling me profusely that he doesn’t agree with me but respects my conviction….

I go in and there’s the same crowd of guys, including Adam, this time a bit more sheepish – he’d stay away in the corner the episode; I guess the Englishmen had told him that I’m not quite so insubstantial…

But one of the English guys, “Shanny”, comes forward and says, “do you want me to kick your ass?” … I said “try it”…and then I looked to the crowd, especially Paul N. an ugly ginger who panders to women into liberal hyperbole (Paul was there the night of the first incident in the Irish bar and I heard him talking to friends about me and my jacket, saying “racist as they come”….)

Aggressive liberals like him are among my least favorite people in the world.

And so I looked at this crowd and I said, if you want diversity go back to Birmingham (where Shanny is from), go back to Liverpool (where Adam is from), go to Brighton (where Ed is from) go back to England – (I do not wish “diversity” on you, but don’t you impose it by me), I’m not stopping you from going there to your “diversity”. I came here to be with my family.

A couple of them shook my hand as a peace offering, particularly the one guy from Cornwall, who invited me in, who I get along with a little better… and I went on my way….
……..

When substituting for a semester, at the university five years prior, I was trying to impart to my class the importance of social classification, the necessity of it, even.. and how it (social classification) had been egregiously prohibited by the American Constitution… 

However, the following week from assigning that lesson for consideration, I got stuck in France, having had car accident that wrecked my car… and Paul took my class in which I had intended to follow up on this lesson…

In conversation somewhere after I came back, Paul blurted out to me, “why do you see it as necessary to clAAssify!”

What an asshole. What a thing to impart to my class, my Polish people. Paul, you ignorant, ugly bastard, I hate you.

..

So for the next class I had my class write down a “poem” that I’d written – I put it on the chalk board for the class to copy – it was about Paul and Patrick – Patrick being a teacher there as well, an American guy from North Dakota, jerkish as well, taking ‘racism’ for granted as a great problem and giving his classes assignments in its terms…

My poem:

P and P couldn’t get any P in their Previous Places, so they Pandered to it in Poland, One P (Patrick) Pontificating about Prejudice as Prehistoric Platitude while the other P (Paul) Proffered the Preferability of the Previous President (Clinton), the Penultimate Panderer to P.

What an asshole Paul is; and of course I heard that the female students “all like him” (despite his being an ugly fuck)….and he was hired-on as a permanent at the University…

(not that I wanted to be – didn’t pay very well, gossip mill, liberal pressure, grammar – boring, etc.).

So that’s that; and all these guys, I’m told, don’t like me because, they say, “he’s a racist.”

One’s a journalist named Ed, and he actually wrote a column saying how a Nigerian guy who’d somehow managed to become a member of Polish parliament, while having a Polish wife and four mulatto kids, represented “a good start.”

I wrote to TT Metzger asking for advice as to how to deal with such an idiot.

Metzger publishes an article with a big picture of Ed in his web news section, “Traitor Ed ****** in Poland!”, followed by my statement about what an idiot that Ed is and my question about what to do?…. I was shocked – massive face palm – to see this published so flamboyantly, but figured that it was a fairly obscure publication and it would blow-over in obscurity   …but not quite; turns out that Ed did see it sometime later… oops! Well, Ed, if the truth isn’t a defense, it should be..
………

Coming back to stories of my jacket…..

There is one more negative one to impart

Story number 3)

You are not supposed to use the word “unique” when writing for good reason – because almost nothing is.

But Dragon Bar in Przemek’s Hill has a uniqueness about it that has allowed me to go there once, sometimes twice or three times a week for years – I mean years – without getting tired of it:

It’s a phenomenon really, and I cannot explain how it happens, but it does happen that ….

You can go to this bar a couple times a week for years…there will be dozens, hundreds of people there, depending upon the hour… and you will never see more than maybe a few people that you’ve seen before..

Not only that, but the people are a consistent demographic: middle class, on the bohemian side, but normal enough …and always 95% to 100% White. What’s more, its a comfortable place – you can dress casual and relax in its comfortable rock and jazz atmosphere….

So, I liked the place….

Naturally, I would wear my 14 words jacket there…

I started getting some feedback as I sat on a bar stool… some curiosity around, but one pretty girl stood next to me as if to defend me and say that she would stand by this, more than figuratively.

Then a really cool thing – a fine blond started beaming smiles at me like I’d never seen before… huge smile and beaming eyes! She’d obviously seen things in other parts of Europe that she didn’t like and was very happy for my dissent.

Some time later, a big guy who’d been in that part of the bar gave me a robust two taps on my shoulder in approval as he passed-by.

……

The next time in Dragon with the jacket was not quite so positive, however…

One of the two owners is YKW …the other likes me; not that I had any problems or altercations with the YKW owner, but you know, advocating Whites, I guess that’s enough from his point of view.

So, what happens is that he sends a fellow YKW who is a mutual acquaintance, who tries to give me this lecture about how he loves people from everywhere.. I sort of knew what this was about and, not needing a lecture on “celebrating diversity”, I not too politely asked him to get away from me.

Then these two blond kids came up, very aggressively, into my space (I’m wearing the jacket) and one said to me, “this is Poland, you can’t be a racist here.” … I looked at him like he was the asshole that he is and moved to the courtyard outside. He follows me out and won’t get out of my face…  so I yell at him, “look, if you want to suck ****** **** go ahead! Get away from me!” Some of the women around were mortified… a long time bouncer who’s watching this asks me “where’s your swastika?”  …he asks me that twice and I answer him twice that I don’t have swastika and I’m not a Nazi; I walked out of the bar, knowing that if I don’t stay away for a while, this could ruin my chance to come back to one of my favorite haunts when I like… So, l I did stay away for a while, but would see the other owner and he’d shake my hand as he always has any time he sees me on the street…

…and I go back to Dragon when I like. 

Upon return a Canadian guy with a mulatto daughter looked at me with a little bit of fear when he saw the jacket…

A blond girl who’d lived in England for a while came up to me incredulous, asking, “White children? ….White children”?  – ! – as in, why specifically White?!? She couldn’t believe it! I would have liked to have said, yeah, as in not the same color as ****, but I didn’t want to push my luck; and just said, yeah, White children…

One of the aforementioned English guys implored me to “take that jacket off.” I told him I wouldn’t; that was that. 

……………………

Generally speaking, I have found the jacket to function very well, because it does the speaking for me, without my having to be aggressive or impose myself in any risky sense – after all, who would object to securing White children? (oh, that’s right, We Know Who)

…. but it works nevertheless, very subtly, even for intervening…

For example, a pretty French girl was passing through the rynek with her negro boyfriend and I casually strolled in front of them….

That is, at least it was a way of making a statement… it eats me up when I otherwise can’t say anything…

We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children.

Because the beauty of the White Aryan woman must not perish from the earth.

…last Story, 4)

Right by the beer refrigerator where this picture was taken, a couple of fair Polish guys came up to me and hugged me! ..a perfect stranger! and asked me where I’m from; this ain’t no gay bar either … because the beauty of the White Aryan woman….).

Continue Reading Stories of my “Fourteen Words” jacket – who could object?

Sex as Sacrament, Sex as Celebration, Sex as Natural Fact & Other Stories 1 – 5

  • Post author:
  • Post category:Central

Sex as Sacrament / Sex as Celebration…Sex as Natural Fact and other stories Part 1

“The whore of Babylon is drunk with the blood of the saints.”

Actually, the analogy is not far off from our present situation. In the disordered world, the anti-world, a “Babylon,” where YKW and liberal unconcern for our White class is the rule, sex disconfirms the worthy, destroys the precious and brings into being the vicious, the irresponsible at our expense.

It isn’t funny.

Anti-racism is anti-group classification. It is Cartesian. It is not innocent. It is prejudice. It is hurting and it is killing people.

Anti-racism is anti-group classification, in weaponized form, an Alinsky-like weaponization – using quote, our rules against us – specifically of Cartesianism on the empiricist end, the Lockeatine empiricist end in its prejudice against social classification, alleging them to be non-empirical fiction; thus, a prejudice against prejudice in favor of supposedly pure individual perception and rights thereof, as opposed to discriminatory accountability through posited social classification – a race being a social classification writ large.

Male and female remain the primary de facto classification in necessary pychological function of categorization to make coherent sense where racism, that is to say, where racial classification and discrimination thereupon is prohibited.

The pandering that results from all angles to our co-evolutionary young females and the increased one up position that they find themselves in as gate keepers in this situation disordered of White bounds exacerbates their inclination to incite genetic competition; as they are pandered to ad nauseum from all angles from males previously blocked. Further, the puerile female will be inclined to welcome this liberalism as it increases her power, if only in short term.

How to counter these hate infested Mulatto-supremacists?

To begin we need to correct this violation of our people’s boundaries, the human ecological disaster and even genocide it implicates, practical matters of border and boundary control need to be addressed. We need to counter the stigmatization of ethnonationalism, to counter political rules given to liberalization of our boundaries and moreover, anti-racism which has gone so far as to criminalize our self defense as peoples.

Furthermore, to build our morale and facilitate loyalty to our people against this onslaught against us, provisions would be of great help that facilitate both free and careful assessment of partner selection, but also to know that our systems are responsible enough to ensure the institutionalization of these requirements – to facilitate optimal freedom in partner selection, border control is necessary – in that way, your people are free for a sufficiently natural liberalism with regard to sex with decreased risk, as your partners are fairly similar and accountable from an evolutionary standpoint; you are also free to mix with other races but you are risking your White group membership through such transgression, as you are not free to just impose that degree of liberalization upon the group boundaries; optimal freedom of choice will also be assured by the institutionalized provision, so to speak, for single sex partner for life hopefuls; with the added assistance therein, to help assess appropriateness in partner selection.

After setting about to establish our group(s) homeostasis, that is to say, systemic maintenance as European peoples, ranking perhaps only second in priority, but what will inevitably prove to be integral to border and boundary maintenance, will be a realistic negotiation of the issue of sex – part of which will account not just for its brute factual nature and sufficient freedom of more experimental expression, but that we as individuals and as a group require provision, a respected option for our human capacity of more careful recourse and accountability – viz., to justice to our genetic and human ecological capital not only in the broad scope of our national citizenship; but moreover, in option to treat sex and monogamy as sacred, recognized, institutionalized and normalized by society as a significant option, to provide for an even more careful selective process for those who wish; corresponding with the important transcendence of the episodic and momentary evaluation – that can fall down to superficial evaluative criteria resulting from a boundless, liberal free for all; corresponding typically with a scientistic take on sex, naturalistic fallacy; e.g., that it is nothing more than a normal bodily function; the kind of take on sex that can be liberating from insanely restrictive traditions and taboos; but all too prone to be overdone in the wake of Freud’s, the Frankfurt school, notably Marcuse’s project of unleashing “eros’ in polymorphous perversion”; and finally, within the disorder of modernity, of which the Frankfurt school was instrumental – to transcend a liberalism that would flout and even prohibit our human ecological border and bounds control.

Text, Part 2

That we can also have a more liberal option along with a sacred option – both – has the added benefit of undercutting any appeal of our Abrahamic antagonists – Judaism, Christianity and Islam – undercutting their appeal for their conservative aspects and capitalizing on liberal rejection, rebellion and liberation from any of their draconian restrictiveness; and having both options on our side incentivizes loyalty. While border control will, in turn, incentivize loyalty, as the system demonstrates verifiable responsibility to our genetic capital.

On the other hand, the threat of ostracism for people who mix and bear offspring outside the race will disincentivize their behavior as it will be observed that people who do that will not be able to share in the leverage of our social support for themselves and their children; they will, in fact, be subject to live with consequences of the non-White way of life they’ve chosen. They certainly will not be entitled to impose the support of their Mulatto children upon us, making us defacto slaves in their treachery and forcing remaining White children to be born into a nightmare world – a planet of the apes scenario.

But how to further counter these hate infested Mulatto-supremacists?

How to incentivize group loyalty and the option of monogamy for puerile females in particular; given these powerful forces, both natural and Manichean, that result from the machinations of our antagonists?

Acknowledging that eggs are precious, gestation and child bearing a large burden, we might provide them with some additional advantages to going the monogamous route.

There are already some advantages, of course, to the White female position taking the monogamous option. It accords with our nature as K selectors for her to have a man for high investment parenting, there to help her in all aspects of life; which will be even more appealing to her if the man is both sufficiently fair in his appeal to her if not a hypergamous upgrade – I’m using hypergamous a bit wrongly here, I mean simply a man perhaps of a slightly higher standard – but also sufficiently realistic and appropriate a choice for him to want to remain monogamous and loyal to her.

Thus, part of sacrament, and its episodic testament to the aeons and this relationship beyond the episode and moment, would be a careful process of partner selection, in which they are further incentivized with the option of considering men their equal, say, one increment below or two above, for example, in terms of emotional, intellectual, physical and material standard.

While males, because sperm is cheap, will have the option of sacrament as well, but they will be penalized by having the capacity to consider women only one increment above, their equal or two numbers below.

The options will provide incentive to White males as their naturally more sublimated, K selection maturation process is protected both by the border control and by the institutionalization of monogamous sacrament – the pattern overall will provide them with a more sublime, less atavistic sort of White female partner and way of life.

There should also be increased social support for monogamous, child bearing couples.

Nevertheless, I anticipate that this specificatory model, that is to say, sketch of a measurement scale model – from 1 – 10, or 1 – 100, and using whatever qualities our scientists focus on – intellect, emotion, physical, whatever, will be seized upon by detractors as ‘bean counting’ as if I am quite literal minded about it, but this again is to misunderstand the place of a specificatory structure.

I can speak from experience of the (psychological) utility of this scale as a place holder at very least. That when I endured the humility of tautology, knowing that I was willing to be fair and take my equal on such scales, say 1 – 10, it helped to stop a horrible intentional oscillation caused by shrill and hateful females in my life who chronically and falsely alleged that I was a pig, wanting more or better in a partner or partners than I actually wanted and deserved for the fact that I admired beauty in women. So, the basic structure, for example a 1 – 10 scale, can help resolve feelings of guilt for being so, quote, superficial as to notice women’s beauty (or not), while evaluating her on other quote impure grounds as well.

If people want more options, want to try for better or more, then they can partake of the more free for all in the broader sphere of the ethnostate, what might be referred to as a celebrative disposition toward sex with the rest of our society – within its borders and bounds.

Text, Part 3

In fact, it should be observed that without these options, agency and authentic choice is vastly diminished.

However, the option of moving toward reverence of the pattern beyond moment and episode will increase alternative range of functional autonomy and relieve males of the pressure to assimilate brute alpha behavior…constrained as it were to rape and sexual harassment allegation territory, furthermore, beyond judgment merely on the basis of momentary and episodic competition, or frequency thereof, …and put them instead into a relational mode and stable cultural pattern level – where our best attributes are often revealed.

For our own people, the White class is required to ensconce the freedom of our full systemic, developmental processes and evolution – again, as Rushton has shown, we are distinguished by our age of maturation, sublimation and k selection as opposed to r selection – this needs protection from the quicker maturation and predation of r selectors


Thesis: Seminal and essential to instantiation of the White class, its systemic homeostasis, flexibility of ecological balance and accountability, is freedom of choice as maintained through a voluntary option, institutionalized of single sex partner for life hopefuls. It is ensconced in the notion of sex as sacrament: the sacrosanct reconstruction of an episode uniquely important to the survival of the cultural pattern.

Two key aspects that make sex as sacrament into a viable option are the fact that sex is sexy – that is to say, its mechanism. Another is the dimension of social control.

Let me first address its mechanism – sex is sexy. Its erotic mechanism is of two contrasts.

One contrast is that of human dignity (in patterns of relationship) contrasting with animal drive.

The other is a tension between human dignity as opposed to dominance and submission. (That is, providing that the roles are treated somewhat empathically; and that one role or the other is not taken too seriously).

This mechanism of tension that makes sex sexy in essence bodes for the possibility of sex as sacrament as opposed to a merely naturalistic argument that may dismiss sacrament as nonsense.

Sex as sacrament is naturally practical as it is not so contingent upon one’s being the most skilled or beautiful at all times. It is especially practical if class boundaries are enforced and/or a sacral attitude is socially normalized.

How practical the option of monogamy is in reality is far less important than it being recognized as important, sanctioned as a viable option – available, respected, institutionalized, normalized as vitally important – sex and monogamy as a sacrament.  As opposed to ‘that’s the way it is, we’re all just animals out to screw anything’, the fact of reverence and existence of sacral practice will provide a morale booster, an antidote to cynicism, a pattern to be loyal to and to fight for as it is loyal to us in turn.

It is nonsense to dismiss as puritanical White Americans who are not free-loving and celebratory with their sex amidst Negroes and sundry non-Whites.

If you are not disposed to celebration at this point in time, especially not in the enforced roulette of such a demographically mixed situation, especially not with regard to something as important as sex, it is more than understandable.

Thus, for the purposes of re-establishing the sovereignty of our brute genus as Whites and the species of our nationalism, sex as celebration versus sex as a sacrament serves as a problematizing distinction; it serves particularly to emphasize a willing suspension of belief in the innocence of sex as celebration. As a conceptual foil, it will hopefully serve to illustrate how obnoxious and destructive the celebrations can be. As they are flaunted in the face of those who exercise care, mocking the sacredness of the group’s deep resource, it is our purpose thus to lend credence to sex as sacrament.

Sex is surely not merely a trivial matter of an episode. It concerns confirmation or disconfirmation of persons and their worth as socio-political decision makers. Even more fundamentally, it is the natural means by which people come into and populate the world in a responsible way or not; legacies set forth or not; at an appropriate age, or not; in reasonable numbers as resources, experience and wisdom afford, or not – and much more.

Text, Part 4

If we can care about the preservation of rain forests, the hills of West Virginia, endangered species and the gulf of Mexico, and we certainly do care, very much, then we are assuredly warranted by any credible moral standard, to care for our co-evolutionary people, our co-evolutionary women, children and the world they have no choice over coming into.

A pervasive ecological view, combining as it does the taxonomic system of class (as in the White race), acts as a corrective to Lockeatine empiricism – its Cartesian notion of individual rights being prone to rupture systemic, evolutionary process.

It also acts as a corrective to the toxicity of John Dewey’s instrumental pragmatism. That is of significance as Dewey was particularly resourceful with his instrumentalism, and with that, a large influence in promoting liberal democracy, despite his philosophy having serious flaws.

Despite its resource and influence his pragmatism de-emphasizes the significance of deep genetic and processual relationships. With instrumental, practical force being overstated, the prefigurative facts of historical, co-evolutionary processes in the development of maturation and skill recede from consideration. Being overly practical thus, it promotes a disposition of progressing ever forward, in search of “ever more full and rich experience.” As such, it devalues consideration of biological optimality – biological creatures do not need “more and more”, too much is toxic as is too little. Moreover, being quite so instrumental, it is not sufficiently respectful of natural processes and necessarily corresponding metaphors of reflection, gestation and digestion. It is not sufficiently respectful of ecological systems requirement for the flexibility of empty space and unused potentiality for change.

While the slow meandering of Heidegger’s philosophy makes it better in those regards, the ecological view acts as a corrective to his oversights as well – notably in regard to “own-most being toward death.” This too would be toxic, a good last alternative, but not a proper day-to-day premise for White survival, as nature rarely works within lethal variables. It should be bad enough that miscegenation is possible. Black-on-White murder or the extinction of Whites would not even approach appreciable consideration before compelling action on an ecological basis. Further, owmost being toward death also lends itself too much to promotion an overly individualistic bias, insufficiently socially conscientious, insufficiently accountable to our historical, social systemic capital.

That is why the idea of the voluntary option for sex as sacrament is necessary, along with our boundaries, as a control variable to govern the homeostasis of our social, biological, human ecological systems. ….to move beyond instrumentalism and the episodic concern of consciousness and the moment in owmost being toward death and into the ownmost innocence of our children in the hereafter, in service of delivering them from being born into a nightmare circumstance. We cannot do that to White kids, let them come into a nightmare world of hyper assertive, violent Africans, and Islamic tyranny and Jewish supremacism which disrespects our interests as goyim – the undifferentiated gentile mass, as GW observes, that they would conceive us to be.

Text, Part 5

Sex as Sacrament also corresponds to our Augustinian nature – evolved as we are to deal with Augustinian problems, that is to say natural challenges, to solve more straight forward problems of nature rather than to deal with the Manichean trickery of other, competing tribes and people….

Many of us to not want to play games, use tricks and deception to lure a partner perhaps inappropriate for us; in fact, we want an honest way to assess an appropriate match; and then to investigate the world with our partner in collaborative effort.

While Sacrament and Celebration are useful narratives in regard to sex, the truth is that there are many stories to tell about sex including scientistic ones; but the mechanism at the center does afford sacrament. Narrative reframing of sex will also help Whites to find their ownmost innocence – an antidote opposed to the YKW guilt trip of Jesus sermon on the mount wherein even if you think of something, you’ve done it. By contrast, moment of thought is like one frame in a movie reel, a cybernetic surveying mechanism of orientation on brute genetic competition, and whatever counter taboo you may require in momentary counter balance against, say, the factually hard to ignore high contrast tropism of interracial sex – whatever counter taboo you may need mentally, you didn’t do it and you are not necessarily recommending it. …you are merely thrown into a cybernetic balancing process of sexual mechanism, thrown between human dignity and submission to brute animal requirement, episodic dominance and submission, competition verses sublimation in broader pattern. Even males must have some empathy for submission to the brute requirement and the eroticism for example that a woman can find in submitting.

But apart from dealing with mechanism thus, another aspect of sex that enables the possibility of sacrament is that its practice can be relatively altered by social influence.

A social framework toward sex facilitates even greater rigor for the truth of the matter – again, the broader pattern – over scientistic treatment sheerly on the basis of moment and episode. It gives advantages as well. For example, if a sublime White woman gives herself to a black, we are more attentive with the social framework and the precipitating aspects whereof her decision was not made alone. The circumstance has been arranged for, encouraged, manipulated and allowed for; those who would voice objection that might resonate with her have been silenced by social injunction. This result is not a mere no account matter of science, nature, let alone religion.

By contrast, the scientistic view would hold that sex is a merely natural fact, biologically determined and therefore, socially incorrigible. The episode and moment of sexual union would be very tightly linked with mere biological imperatives. Who, after all, could question that? It is just a scientific fact. That’s just the way it is, natural law; has little to do with the mediation of the quality of life beyond that.

But if it is not merely determined that the women do this, if our behavior is not so determined, but rather to some extent negotiable of interactive patterns, a matter of conjoint social construction of the class, then it is corrigible, agentive and accountable – there is something that can be done about it, which is not to her detriment, especially as the way of life is deemed at least as valuable and important as the episode and the moment.

To paraphrase Basque philosopher Unomuno, we require a vision of perfection to strive for and then the vicissitudes of moment and episode will be like waves crashing harmlessly against the rocks girding our individual path and relational patterns.

Continue Reading Sex as Sacrament, Sex as Celebration, Sex as Natural Fact & Other Stories 1 – 5

Generational Astrology: Zodiac Sign of the Boomer, Part 4

  • Post author:
  • Post category:Central

As I came through my studies to understand how Post Modern philosophy was supposed to work in White interests – i.e., to sustain group systemic homeostasis despite the oblivious rough shod of modernist ideology and hostile or backward tradition (whether of one’s own people or in conflict with the ethnocentrism of other peoples), I just assumed that my correctives of the misrepresentations of Post Modernity would be welcomed by what appeared to be the generally intelligent people of older and younger generations concerned with afflictions against European peoples.

I would figure that the following statement, which I have been making for decades, and publicly for over a decade, would be greeted by floods of White Nationalists of every generation seeking to steel man and confirm it for the monumentally important statement in its significance to our interests that it is:

Anti-Racism is Cartesian; as such, it is not innocent, it is prejudice, it is prejudice against prejudice (it is Cartesian in its prejudice, i.e., against social classification, accountability and discrimination accordingly) and with that, it is hurting and it is killing people.

Arguments can be made against supremacist, exploitative and genocidal deployment of classification, but in the Jewish weaponized modernist form, to where any classification (at least as rendered by Whites) is to be prohibited as egregiously racist, it is a Cartesian absurdity. Telling people to not discriminate on the basis of group classification is almost like saying, “don’t have eyeballs” to see that wild animal… the horror of seeing that 1964 Civil Rights placard over entranceways in American public institutions… “discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion” etc. is prohibited.

But it is worse than that, of course, as it is primarily weaponized against White people, Alinsky style, making us live up to ‘our; Cartesian rules.

In Ant- Racism, we are under attack as a group, effectively as the classification, “White people”, and we must defend ourselves as a group; they are going to treat us as a White group, attacking all of our members, not drawing distinctions between our nations, though some would try to say their European differences are overwhelmingly important and other Europeans are of underwhelming concern.

Thus, regarding classification, I must note that I use the term White to represent the genus classification European peoples, and I do this particularly as it is awkward to refer to diaspora as “European” since they are in other continents, citizens there, not in Europe. And I take this genus classification “White” as a necessary unit of defense, as anti-racism is a targeting of the full genus classification of Europeans, not only in Europe.

A warm reception and steel manning from White advocates was not what I’d get for this, and especially not for the explanations of Post Modern correctives to this Cartesian estrangement – notably, modalities of group (leftist) advocacy, including social constructionism and hermeneutic process in order to sustain group systemic homeostasis against Cartesian estrangement and the systemic runaway that it was thus susceptible to.

It seems no amount of explanation of how Post Modern philosophy proper is supposed to work in our interests – lets call it White post modernity to distinguish it form the hyper relative, ironic deconstructionist da da red-caping that they’ve grown accustomed to and want to believe is “post modernity” – no amount of corrective explanation could bring them around.

Now, the essence of the post modern project for European concerns is to re-centralize our world view through praxis – that is, to re-calibrate our world view through the relative interests of our group classification as opposed to objective Cartesian estrangement – which has been a byproduct of modernity, intoxicated overvaluation of its perspective for its success in the fields of science and technology.  And there have also been these negative consequences of its (((weaponization))) in purity spirals and the misrepresentation (((red caping))) of post modern corrective so that people think that hermeneutics, social constructionism and so on is against science, truth, nature, etc. That is not true.

As I have expressed the case, objective science and truth inquiries are invaluable and should serve as feedback to be gauged against the calibration of our relative subjective and group interests (i.e., in accordance with the post modern corrective project); while scientism, i.e. bad science and bad application of science should obviously be subject to critique, gauged against our relative interests – what we Care most about.

Again, the philosophical critique of Cartesianism, its place in modernity’s scientistic abuse, is not to say that Cartesianism has no valid application; it does, as in the example of microwave engineering, which uses Cartesian coordinates. The philosophical concern, however, is to not get stuck there, overwrought with anxiety in Cartesian pursuit of some pure warrant and position while losing sight of relative concerns in Praxis. We want to use theory not be used by it.

I recently heard the ‘great genius’, Ecce Lux (complicit with Boomer right wingism, because he thinks he’s too smart, knows how to patch up that bullshit), in conversation with Jonathan Pohl (fat x-er Gemanophile with mixed Asian kids; but satisfied to trade in false currency popular with the U.S.’s predominant demographics), commending ‘our one glorious period.” He was referring to the Nazi epoch; displaying the fact that he did not see the great hazard of trying to warrant what should be your people’s cause instead in pure nature, natural fallacy, below the anchoring and correctivity of their Praxis.

He said (in a poor attempt to take a page from my book), “I’m always thinking about how we should align with nature.”…

Well, we should try to align and harmonize with nature, but not be so stupid as Semiogogue and try to make it the central world view as opposed to the anthropocentrism of praxis.

To be without the relative gauge, anchoring concern and centralizing correctivity of praxis, to use an absurd example, is like saying lets align ourselves with a meteor hurtling to earth like the one that killed the dinosaurs.

And just as Hitler was very appealing to puerile females, so too will this right wing bullshit be appealing to a number of puerile females in the fall-out of modernity, making it all the more dangerous; being pandered to in their base propensity to incite genetic competition; for whether right wing expression emerges in them as opposed to their liberal expression, they are still based on objectivism; and within the disorder, they are powerfully positioned to be gate keepers over the mode of correction; incentivized to let through liberal objectivsits (where things haven’t gotten bad enough for them personally)/or  right wing objectivists (where things have gotten bad enough for them personally); but the same objective basis taken for granted in their gate keeping, whether liberal or right wing, to let into power liberals who will open boundaries or right wingers, who will attack them imperialistically; and as they come unhinged in the right wing side of the purity spiral of their natural fallacy, they will be happy to see the “dead wood” (i.e., “unnecessary” males to these sated females) cleared-out; they are not really on your side when unsocialized; they just know, rather, that they are going to breed with the winner.

Ecce lux is smart enough then, to function as an Xer who (tries to) patch up the defects in the conduit of right wing Boomer reaction and back again from the internet bubble that they’ve fed into among Millennial Nazi fans “Will2wr” and “Ovfuckyou”, who literally encouraged him to sympathizers with their Nazi fan position in antagonism to my platform which seeks to coordinate all European peoples.

It has been a long standing curiosity of mine, how people who can be so intelligent on one level (Ecce claims to be able to rapidly solve a Rubiks cube) can be so stupid on the most important levels. Ecce is also a Christian. This would be the other side of the Cartesian divide, beyond nature, Praxis and accountability thereof. Talk about taking accountability beyond Praxis – the Sermon on the Mount and your accountability is to Jesus. I suppose you can make arguments that when he says, “even if you think of” sinning, you’ve done it.. therefore you can’t keep the ten commandments in purity and so you have to make judgments in Praxis, but that’s awfully convoluted; that golden rule and sermon on the mount remains an awfully confusing “guide” for conduct in the reality of Praxis…

The Cartesian anxiety is certainly due in part to this Christian purity spiral to avoid the guilt trips laid on them by the sophists in Praxis.

Christianity is not just a Jewish trick. Though it is that, it is not just that. It is a profound hijacking of our moral order, the structuring of our most sacred concerns by which to govern ourselves. The red caping tends to either have us submit through fear – that has been, after all, “our moral order;” or it has us chasing the red cape, rejecting morals altogether as an invalid concern, believing in natural fallacy instead, whether Hitler, some Cartesian purity spiral beyond the relative concerns of our people, or whatever, instead of doing the work to wrest a suitable moral order for ourselves (as there is no rising above moral concern: there will always be some things you can do, some things you cannot do and some things that are optional). 

Hard to imagine a more egregious imposition on a people than the red caping of our moral order.

But I digress..

As much as those who object to what is called “post modernity” are dismayed by “relativism”, what they are not appreciating is that the upshot  of the objectivism of Cartesianism is hyper-relativism. That is because in the anxiety to establish pure warrant, the “that’s just the way it is, no need for further human account” than the principles within nature, below praxis (group interaction of relative interests) or the principles beyond nature and praxis, they are abrogating social accountability and the group systemic anchoring that it would otherwise establish.

The Cartesian anxiety, that would take this divide to one extreme or another, above or beyond nature, is largely a reaction to sophistry, abuses within praxis, which would abuse our relative and most cherished relational concerns; hence the preoccupation for pure warrant that will not be assailed by any rhetoric.

However, as the Cartesian reaction typically latches white knuckle to the empirical end, looking for things palpable to latch onto, viz., if the purpose is to establish the distinctness of individual and group identity and their warrant to maintain themselves as such, they are confronted with the arbitrariness of the empirical end, thrown back on what Heidegger calls the existential “thrownness.” In the case of human group identity, the empirical fact is that we can interbreed with any people on earth and therefore, there is at least a modicum of arbitrariness to the distinction of our personal and group identity.

It is true that they YKW exploit this fact to no end, and it does not have to be a great problem – i.e., the differences are still real, even if patterned – but it cannot and should not be denied, as there are problems with denying the truth of the matter and there are advantages in acknowledging it – coherence, accountability, agency, correctivity and warrant.

It will be noted that heremeneutics not only facilitates coherence, accountability, agency, warrant, group and pervasive ecology, but it also facilitates overcoming paradoxes, dilemmas, pernicious charmed and strange loops, confusing ambiguities, tangled relationships and more. It is absolutely imperative to a successful individual and group life and mind boggling that any of our people, let alone leading exponents would object (although there are apparent reasons, due to the misapprehension (red caping, which I will get to) by tenured liberal professors in conversation with undergraduates from 18 – 24 in perpetuity.

Hermeneutics is the distinctly human capacity, a non Cartesian capacity for language, narrative to open up time and history, space and systemic expanse, liberating us from the arbitrary facticity, flux and tangles of the moment and episode.

In fact, it was Heidegger’s student, Hans Georg Gadamer, author of “philosophical hermeneutics” who turned the brilliant post modern phrase against Modernity and its “Enlightenment”, calling it “the prejudice against prejudice.”

..without prejudice, in pure objectivity, of course we are subject to the arbitrary flux of the moment and episode; the pattern is unaccounted for.

From this (with honorable mention to another student of Heidegger, i.e., Arendt), I derive, “anti-racism is Cartesian, it is prejudice, it is not innocent, it is hurting and it is killing people.

And if one is looking for empirical grounds where they might find post modern classificatory bounds, Gadamer has an excellent suggestion of at least one check point in the case of “marginals” – they know where the shoe pinches, can be a kind of centurion, noting where systemic bounds might be breeched and have perspective to provide valuable feedback on the system, necessary accountability and correctivity thereof.

You want an empirical basis for group bounds? Marginals, i.e., those just within our system but pushed toward the edge, are a great place to look. Furthermore, everyone is a marginal from time, if only because they are “better” than others…

But what has happened with our tenured liberal professors pandering to 18 to 24 year old undergraduates in perpetuity?

In their Cultural Marxism, they have red caped the concept, to were “marginals” are presented not as those precariously just within the system, but rather those from without, who should liberally be let into the classification to no end (or rather to end White people).

The concept has been red caped. But with its proper understanding, this engagement of inquiry as process, will allow us to deal with our problems, gracefully move from vast imagination, the suspension of disbelief necessary to manage a working hypothesis, to the most critical and rigorous verification, down to operational verifiability and warranted assertability.

It is is a small price to pay for the agency that we wrest by acknowledging the modicum of arbitrariness of our interactive relation; and to keep our people, especially our people (with our penchant for objectivism and individual detachment to lose sight of our social relations and indebtedness), to be sensitized to the post modern significance of centralizing our world view through our relative group interests (praxis); we are thus advised to engage in the social constructionist program proper, and that’s understood as a necessary corrective, right? For in its proper form, like hermeneutics, it has an anti Cartesian mandate which facilitates coherence, accountability, agency and warrant.

At least a modicum of agency is always recognized through social constructionism by one of four means:

While Social Constructionism’s red caped misrepresentation is taken for granted by right wingers, “race is just an optical illusion” and “I can make of myself whatever new gender that I like”…

This ANTI-SOCIAL, solipsistic misrepresentation of social constructionism obfuscates its true purpose, which is to foster social accountability, correctivity and agency:

Social constructionism proper, maintains that there are four aspects of social construction, always entailing at least a modicum of agency:

1. The more literal: as in constructing a building together.

2. The metaphoric: as in parents “constructing” a child, with the help of some sort of input from any number of people around them at present and historically…

3. The hermeneutic: to manage the non-Cartesian process of inquiry between rigor and imagination as need be to facilitate systemic maintenance (individual and group). Hermeneutics is necessary for the liberation from modernity’s mere facticity and the arbitrary moment and episode into coherence and accountability for both individual and group to follow the historical expanse and temporal systemic breadth of our people.

4. The post hoc attribution as to how facts count:
That guy may think he’s a woman, but he has a weenie and a Y chromosome, that’s a fact and for us as sane people, that means that he cannot use the ladies room.

…….
Trumpets, Red Carpet, Nobel Prize, a Million Dollars, White Nationalists cheering in legion, right? Wrong.

To begin in a word, you can call “anti-racism”, the prohibition of classification and discrimination accordingly, (((weaponized))) modernity. While concepts of Post Modern correction have been (((weaponized))) to misdirect Whites against systemic homeostasis.

I will thus need to venture further elaboration of reasons as to why even White advocates have been kept in positions of antagonism to these ideas, in order to overcome this misdirection.

Continue Reading Generational Astrology: Zodiac Sign of the Boomer, Part 4

Our football coaches weren’t Marxists imposing black integration.

  • Post author:
  • Post category:Central

Our football coaches were not Marxists imposing integration with blacks.
Rather, they were objectivists imposing integration with blacks.

Vince Lombardi, no Marxist.

Consider “the great football coach”, Vince Lombardi, and his indignation with regard to “racism.”

Vince Lombardi was neither regular Marxist nor a “cultural Marxist.”

Vince Lombardi’s Unprejudiced nature

From Wikipedia:

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

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

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

Forward 1986:

“Hall of famer,” James Lofton

.. woman claims Lofton forced her into the stairwell next to the elevator at ground level and forced her to perform a sex act – L.A. Times

The same objectivist paradigm that flouts “equality” may insist on integration of “the best” on objective grounds.

Perhaps because I was never immersed in Marxist/Leftist literature, but rather was repulsed by radicals, their advocacy of non-Whites in particular, repulsed enough to be averse to embracing even their better critiques, I never saw “equality” as an issue one way or another.

But even though it may have had something to do with not circulating among Marxists or immersing in their literature, I never really heard many “leftists” or anybody, for that matter, talking about wanting “equality.”

It has been rightists who have been overusing opposition of this term, adopting this paradigm and its blueprint for disaster – setting matters into false comparison and necessary conflict/dominance-subordination, whereas our concern for separatism is to be negotiated* in qualitative terms of differences that make a difference (qualitative non-sameness, paradigmatic incommensurability as opposed to inequality).

*“Negotiation” more in the sense of ‘negotiating an obstacle’ than in trying to reason with people, though we will do that too where our interests are yet to be violated.

Coming back to “the point of the day”, objectivism and its most pointed corollary of turning issues into quantitative comparisons – equality/inequality – is what our football coaches were going by – not cultural Marxism – when they considered it unthinkable that blacks should be kept off the football team and eventually, that the cheerleaders should not cheer them on…and couple with them:

Interracial marriage proposal flaunted at 2012 Super Bowl half-time

Runaway objectivism, its “rational” blindness flouting “equality,” is a load of race mixing poison that our right wing brings to the equation. This part of the blame derives disproportionately from a susceptibility of our ranks, not only or even mostly from Jews, though they have exploited it from the days of Christianity through the Enlightenment’s prejudice against prejudice, to “civil rights” and anti-racism.

….

What inspired this post was a realization that came about from a cursory glance at my high school football team’s history.

I might have supposed that Montclair Highschool’s “legendary coaches” Clary Anderson and Butch Fortunato…

Clary Anderson and Butch Fortunato

…were merely rolling with the tides of civil rights and cultural Marxism. This was, after all, mere high school football. What precedence could it have over the Jewish media’s hallowed black sports figures who smashed open borders? Saint Jackie Robinson only entered into professional baseball in 1947. More broadly, Jewish Marxism’s gate opening legislation over public issues of so called “Civil Rights” (1964) and non-White immigration (1965) did not occur until a little after I was born – but on time to blame “the sixties” and consumers of rock music for opening the flood gates and unleashing a tidal wave of savage brown masses on Whites.

Those tough prior generations were from such innocent, straight shooting times, times of real men like Clary and Butch, who’d never take crap from blacks or marginal freaks.

Clary Anderson surely presided over pure White teams, his unbeaten Montclair aggregates (of 1946, ‘47) had integrity, unsullied by the fawning enlistment of fast twitching muscle fiber – Negroes who did not know their place was to twitch elsewhere.

Indeed, Buzz Aldrin, second man on the moon, was our center in 1946. That’s wholesome White American spirit and quest.

Buzz Aldrin, Montclair class of ‘47, Apollo 11, first moon landing, second man on moon.

Buzz on the moon
Buzz, in front of the Montclair house that he grew up in, on Princeton Place.
Whereas the Montclair house that I grew up in was on Harvard Street.

But of 11 starters integral to the Montclair football team in that fall of 1946 campaign there were already four or five blacks – looking every bit as confident and menacing among them as the blacks on our class of ‘79 squad – by when the team was half black.

So what is going on here? I thought all the problems started with me?

I looked back to the teams of the very early 60’s, just before I was born and they already had a large percentage of the supremely confident ones. Even going into the 50’s…

Mythical Clary Anderson and a couple of the brothers in 1957

On Clary’s early 50’s (viz., ‘50 – ‘52) squads there was “the great” Aubrey Lewis, named in 1999, “New Jersey’s offensive player of the century” by the Newark Star Ledger (in addition, he went on to be one of the first blacks recruited into the F.B.I.).

Aubrey Lewis.

My eyes glazing-over when I heard coaches and others describe him as “great.” (I’ll skip the tawdry story of his son who had “dated” my friend’s first girlfriend prior to him).

… into the 40’s, as we’d mention with Aldrin’s class, but other classes from the 40’s as well…well into the 30’s, in 1930 in fact, there were blacks on the team. You pretty much have to go back to the 1920’s, when Clary himself was playing, to see consistently all-White teams (though even on the ‘28 and ‘29 teams there were one or two).

Clary, in his playing days.

This is an important realization among other reasons, because the generations which set these changes in motion had a better sense of why this was happening. Again, it was not Marxism in any direct way that influenced who Clary Anderson took onto the team. Subsequent generations were simply overwhelmed.

…and Montclair is a mostly middle class White town, with some extremely affluent neighborhoods, featuring lavish estates:

Harrowing black throngs from adjacent East Orange and Newark seep into Montclair’s mainstream..have been, well before the 1960’s and Frankfurt school hegemony.

...Montclair High School graduation 2014
Here is the 2014 Montclair team - State Champions! Oh boy!

In a word, the cooperative and anti-war sentiments of those Whites who grew up in the sixties are too heavily blamed in WN discussions. The pugnaciousness and win-at-any-cost objectivism of prior White generations deserve far more blame than they get.

…

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

Continue Reading Our football coaches weren’t Marxists imposing black integration.

Generational Astrology: Zodiac Sign of The Boomer Part 3

  • Post author:
  • Post category:Central

YKW bump-up in hegemony circa 2008 and intersectionality necessitates a marketing campaign characterizing “THE LEFT.”

Millennials may not be aware of this because they believe that they’ve been witnessing a breakthrough in their interests, and the right wing Boomers have their casual take on the red caping of left wing social organization confirmed, making them feel like experts as they color in the coloring book handed them by a YKW marketing campaign to help to create instant “experts” among the Millennials.

However, as reaction to (((Neo-Con))) wars for Israel (“Operation Clean Break” sought to use American military to effect regime change in the nations around Israel to make them Israel friendly – removing Iraq’s Saddam Hussein was Israel’s first concern) began to gather logical force along with reaction to reactions to the absurdity of Political Correctness, particularly where it intersected with the interests of the PTB, i.e.., in large part the YKW, damage control and a resurrection of the (((Paleocon))) end of controlled opposition became necessary for the YKW.

Former Left-Wing radical, David Horowitz, had his personal reasons along with the general intersectionality against his people, to do damage control and turned-in an excellent expose to William Lind, describing “Cultural Marxism”, the origin of PC in the Frankfurt School, which, observing that the White American working and middle class were too comfortable to wage Marxist class revolution, changed the advocacy of revolutionaries from working class to non-White or anti-White groups and coalitions thereof against Whites as a classification.

But particularly with the 2008 subprime mortgage meltdown the greater than ever YKW hegemony in 7-9 niches came exposed to intersectional criticism and Paul Gottfried in particular, realized that damage control needed to be done and the other controlled opposition, (((Paleoconservatism))), needed to be resurrected and sexed-up for a younger generation.

The reason for the deceit…

It is commonly understood that Neo Conservatism is a Jewish movement in origin, espousing international aggression for the sake of Israeli interests; it came to heights of opportunity for its wars for Israel after the fall of the Soviet Union. Its originators were Trotskyists, Leo-Strauss and Irving Kristol; its economic and popular roots in The Vienna School of Logical Positivism, which tried to faithfully realize Wittgenstein’s attempt at a foundational ontology in the Tractatus Logico Philosophicus; in turn, giving berth to the Vienna School of economics with Hayek and von Mises, the so-called objectivist (really subjectivist) philosophy of Ayn Rand and the magic hand economics being advanced by Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, through the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act to the point of the mortgage bust of 2008.  

In the meantime,  egregious YKW anti-racist programs such as “Disparate Impact” had been weaponized Lockeatine prohibition of White Classification to its sine qua non – i.e., rupturing any capacity for White classification and discrimination thereupon, even if in sheer defense.-

In the face of intersectionality with their more than ever hegemony and its evident culpability in destruction of society and White interests in particular, Paul Gottfried went to work on damage control by sounding the need for a re-vamped Paleo Conservatism, an “Alternative Right.”

Paleoconservatism is a Jewish controlled opposition concept that begins with Frank Meyer. It prescribes a “fusionism” of Judeo-Christianity, The American Constitution and its Enlightenment values – i.e., a fusionism of elements that don’t fuse very well, but Americans being used to these ingredients, they could be sold on it; the premier example being Ronald Reagan, a protégé of Frank Meyer. Besides its chief proponent, Paul Gottfried, prominent non Jews Patrick Buchanan, Joe Sobran and Sam Francis came along with this program. However, by the mid 90s, William F. Buckley and the National Review’s philo-Semitism had beaten any corrective measures and resistance to Jewish over-compensation that existed in Paleoconservatism and it gave way to the Neo Con program in the 1990s and (Operation Clean Break: using American Military to effect Israel friendly regime change in the nations surrounding Israel_ through the Bush jr. administration in the 2000s and into the Obama regime with the assassination of Gaddafi.

But with the subprime mortgage crisis of 2008, in particular, it was already high time and the likes of Paul Gottfried were getting antsy to get a new controlled opposition operation in order.

The YKW needed to keep White identity identified with The Right, in fact where they would be in alignment with Jewish interests on the right, especially now that Jewish niche hegemony is in greater power and influence than ever.

Otherwise, the intersectionality of matters together with growing awareness of where the problems of White societal destruction were coming from would lead to some form of White Left Ethnonationalism, the kind proposed here:

Which would propose effective unions of White people (really, unions of our people, not of trades in particular) and coalitions thereof, which would then begin to have the power and leverage to hold to account those who were screwing them over; in fact they would be able to vocalize and take action against those who were fucking them over:

Number one, of course, would be Jewish power and influence as exercised through 7 – 10 elite niches (money; religion; politics, media; academia; law/courts; international business; crime; NGO’s, foundations and trusts; military/industrial/medical technology), along with their bio-pattern; the YKW encourage complicitness with right wingers  – problem 1a observed from the perspective of White Left Ethnonationalism are our traitors – the YKW encouraging them to emphasize their “objective merit” for their success and non-accountability to their group, as such – primed and paid off by the YKW for betraying White group interests; and pretty much the same thing with liberals – they are encouraged with the same objectivist argument, that they are free to do as they please, to rupture group bounds and accountability thereof on pseudo natural, objective grounds, and given this enhanced license and licentiousness by the YKW’s cultural Marxism and the weaponized liberalism of Lockeatine civil rights.

The Marketing Campaign

With the possibility of Whites marshalling the intersectionality of awareness and opposition to the greater than ever hegemony of Jewish power and influence with the 2008 subprime meltdown, Paul Gottfried called upon his fellow Paleocons to come up with an “Alternative Right” for people, particularly White people, to identify with against afflictions of political correctness and the left. As the prior leader of the Paleocon’s “National Policy Institute”, Sam Francis, had passed away,  fresh leadership was sought; after a brief interim of another head, Richard Spencer was tapped and mentored to some extent by Gottfried (and Bowden and Regnery) on stewarding a new generation of reactionaries into right-wing identity against, “the left.”
 
With Richard Spencer, Paul Gottfried’s call for an “Alternative Right” took a loose form in cooperation with Regnery publishing and its preferred political angles. Their revised Paleoconservative Alt-right entailed something like a “tentosphere”, that is, a tent of tents, each tent featuring, in fact, veritably requiring some salient, right wing anti-social feature that members of that tent adhered-to despite social stigma. Thus, you would have the standard Paleocon crown with their affinity for the contradiction of the US Constitution, its Enlightenment values along with their Christianity – socially stigmatic because it makes absolutely no sense, is obsequious to the point of self and group destruction. Then there was a new addition, the right wing Jewish tent. This was called “The Alt Lite”, stigmatic because you had Jews circulating among dedicated anti-Semites and ostensibly working against the conventional liberalism of their Jewish brethren., However, they were strategically places among the other tents, including nutty conspiracy theorists, the scientistic reactionary who could not get over modernity and were determined to chase after red cape misrepresentations of post modernity and finally, of course, the Nazis, with their epistemological blunder of natural fallacy.

With America’s PC beleaguered White demographic being overwhelmingly German and second most Irish, they are a market disposed to literature overly sympathetic to the Nazi perspective in their reactionary state. Their obvious social stigma also provided a ready circuit breaker if White identity was getting too far in response to Jewish power and influence.

By the end of Obama’s second term, the primary concern of Israeli and diaspora interests was getting out of the Iran Deal. Thus, the Jewish tent, :”the Alt Lite” was assiduously at work to put Donald Trump into the White house for that explicit purpose – to undo the Iran Deal.

They needed to overcome the decades old article of faith among radical White Nationalists, that there was not a dime’s worth of difference between the Republican or Democratic Party when it comes to White interests. And indeed, while it has shaken out that Whites were not as bad off with a Trump presidency – it bought us some time and Supreme Court Justices maybe not as bad) and we would have been better off with his re-election (what could be worse than Hillary or Biden/Kamala – no brainer) my own focus has been the meta-game (heads they win/tales you lose that the YKW were playing. They would have been ok with either Hillary or Donald, but much preferred Donald (yes, Brutus, Donald was part of the YKW plan) because he would undo the Iran Deal whereas Hillary was part of the administration that implemented it. 

Without being 1,000 percent sure, the likes of Mike Enoch and his TRS network has the hallmarks of having been handed a mandate and a portfolio from a marketing campaign to take the Gottfried-Regnery-Spencer concern of revamp Paleoconservatism to an Alternative-Right. Enoch was apparently told to spare no outrage in order to get ahead of those susceptible to be overly Nazi sympathetic – be as outrageous as you need, with Holocaust denial, gas-chamber jokes, you name it – we have all kinds of memes for you: if people object to your swastika’s and stiff arm salutes, call them  “optics cucks” because we (wink) understand (nod) that Hitler and Nazi Germany were really right and good, but (next meme) “normies” will never understand that, so play it cool with the “optics.”

Bad optics is a meme that can also be deployed by more traditional paleocons to discuss bad representation of the “underlying truth” of Christianity and America first (i.e., paleoconservative “fusionism”).

Let’s talk Matrix to the normies to bring them around – more memes against the characterology of “The Left”, these “Social Justice Warriors” (how horrible that anyone would want social justice now that Jews are on top of everything) who have uphold impossibly anti-natural concepts and invariable seek the equally impossible “equality” of peoples.

Ingratiate yourselves to the reactionaries, steer them away from any socially responsible, accountable, leftist type organization and advocacy and persuade these people (especially this vast German/Irish demographic) to vote for Trump so that the Iran Deal can be undone. With that accomplished we can invoke the circuit breaker, Mike Enoch initiating a few stiff arm salutes to Richard Spencer, as he “hails” Trump’s victory. After that, we can implode the whole Alt-Right project with “Unite the Right” Charlottesville (idiotic: the thing that the alt right had going for it was that it could not be easily pin pointed). Trump’s sympathy for both sides will allow us to get rid of FED Chair Aspirant Gary Cohn, who can’t tolerate the least bit of sympathy for Nazism while his policies would have served the U.S. and its Mid West industry as opposed to the designs of his internationalist  YKW brethren (hence why they were happy to repulse him into resignation – “good people on both sides”).

That’s not to say that the Gottfried inspired marketing campaign would be discontinued. Millennials in particular would never realize how abnormal it was for everyone in the world to be placing all our problems with a characterology of “THE Left.”

And with the Alt-Right and its Nazi tent having served its detonating purpose, shift in focus back to standard Paleoconservatim could be presented as a sane alternative, with Nick Fuentes promoting the Abrahamic yoke of Christianity, and Paul Gottfried pretending that this is so “rebellious”, that your Christianity, that is something that “The Left” just can’t tolerate.

Now, what is it really, that Gottfried is trying to fuck with?

In a word, he is trying to prevent an accurate understanding of Post Modern correctives, as they would serve White systemic interests, our homeostasis and thus, autonomy and sovereignty. Jewish interests have red caped the best ideas of social organization and advocacy and weaponized them against Whites; and these red capes, this internationalist Marxist and anti-White Cultural Marxist left, is red caped as “THE Left” to Whites, with an oxymoronic connotation, as their red capes are wont to have, of “The Left as liberalism.”

Hence Gottfried is wielding two of the most fundamental red capes against White interests, The Left and Christianity

One must suspect that it is not a coincidence that Gottfried was a student of the infamous Cultural Marxist, Herbert Marcuse. And that Gottfried is manifesting damage control and camouflage/crypsis over another end of the parasitic YKW system, seeing Marcus’s destruction to Judeo/Christian values, Gottfried re-proposes the yoking red cape moral order of Christianity as a “solution” to that destruction. Not incidentally, to the superficial observer, “free love” was a central aspect of the hippie movement; but in fact, this was an affectation largely introduced by the likes of Marcuse in order to subvert the true essence of the hippie motives – organic there being – particularly for males – amidst one’s people (midtdasein); now, if by contrast, males from just any which where are free to have at the sex, no holds barred, of your group’s females, that is not Being for males. And yet, that its the kind of popular mis-attribution (free love) associated with the hippie motive by YKW media; and it is very important to clear away these misrepresentations.

But both for the abundance of red cape misrepresentations of post modern thought – thought which is otherwise and at its good purpose meant to re-direct the world view into praxis and social accountability thereby – and for the good fortune of their Boomer situation, which would not want to view their good fortune as such , i.e., due in significant part to the luck of their generational situation –  The Boomers, particularly the STEM types, have been more than susceptible to chase the YKW red cape misrepresentations of “post modernity”, they have been intransigently hostile to correctives thereof.

Continue Reading Generational Astrology: Zodiac Sign of The Boomer Part 3

The problem of attractive Jewish women/mischlings

  • Post author:
  • Post category:Central

I suspect that denying the fact that there are attractive Jewish women does more harm than good, as it puts into question one’s very sensibilities as ground of judgment. It can also cast a shadow of radical subjectivism over one’s taste. Indeed, even if you don’t like this type, do you not like that one, or should everyone suspend disbelief in your proposal of “unattractiveness”?

One route of Jewish infiltration into European populations, viz. Ashkenazi, was through Italy, and being half Italian perhaps partly explains why it is that I can find this type (physically) attractive.

Jennifer Gray

But even if you don’t like this type, what about that?

Julia Ioffe

…or this

Jane Seymore

What can you say? That she is Jewish from her father’s side, therefore because she is not considered Jewish by some Jewish laws that makes her not Jewish? Or that the Aryan in her washes the Jewishness away? Genetic and cultural allegiance speak otherwise.

Or this?

Susanna Hoffs

Or this?

Scarlett Johansson

Dealing with the issue honestly might help some young guys from falling into a situation where they perpetuate infiltration and subversion of European peoples by means of direct spousal influence and the creation of mischlings.

Indeed, some Jewish beauty and I.Q. may be a result of gene hijacking, so to speak…

Hedy Lamarr: in her spare time experimented with radar technology, which included contributions to military radar jamming devices and “bluetooth” technology.

But what to say to young guys? I know that for me, I personally DID find some Jewish women very attractive (and that was part of my initial aversion to anti-Semitism). However, where they did not reject me out of snobbery or whatever, then before it was too late, I invariably found their strident liberalism and disrespect for European peoples and culture intolerable.

Nevertheless, it would be dishonest to say that none of them are attractive…

What do you think? What would you say to your son or daughter to warn them off?

My best argument probably boils down to patterns and their intermittent nature which provide for “exceptions” and entryism for liberal argumentation and nefarious influence.

Oakland Mayor, supports BLM, warns hundreds of illegal immigrants of ICE round-up.

Ghislaine Maxwell

Then there is the crucial matter of crypsis and the nefarious influence it may mask.

I’ll be posting other examples as time goes on and we’ll look at some attractive women from other non-White races as well.

(((Peggy Lipton))) and her daughter Rashida Jones, from her marriage to Quincy Jones.

Rashida Jones looks surprisingly bad without makeup (or should I say less makeup and hair straightener), as does Fran Drescher look bad without makeup (Jewish, in a bad way).

Richard Spencer is said to have fucked her.

………………………………………

Jewish girl prank calls her parents

 …get her Jewish parents involved. That will make them stick to their own kind.

Continue Reading The problem of attractive Jewish women/mischlings

>>Generational Astrology: Zodiac Sign of the Boomer Part 2

  • Post author:
  • Post category:Central

The Dark Side of Self Actualization

Unlike my older siblings, I got bussed to a school on the other side of town at age 10 (1971) to  a nightmarishly black school for a program of “school integration.” And after the Vietnam Draft was over in 1972, any communal enchantment and ease of Being that had been granted compensatingly to White men was revoked (the hippie stuff was over, over night) and a feminist program of overwhelming hatred for White men (in subtextual alliance with black power) was unleashed in torrents against White men.

Welcome to my teenage years as an Xer, the women you are born to love and are told are worth any sacrifice, the people (blacks) who are supposedly oppressed, underprivileged and under-represented.

After having my head torn off and scattered to the winds by a few of these lovely creatures who I attempted to have as girlfriends in the mid 80s, I was forced to consider my existential crisis.

And so it was upon Heidegger’s advice of setting my autobiography in historical circumstance and perspective, that I began to gain understanding and philosophical orientation.

Along with a yearning that there was something vital in the hippie movement for White males – which was not being respected by either feminists or traditional women, nor by society and the media at large – there was enough talk of “Being” and “Be-ins” in those times by stark contrast to the Vietnam draft and war, such that my own instinctual, childhood anger was re-invoked by the comparative conceit of the feminist complaints by contrast; and with Maslow’s story of Self Actualization looming central in America’s prized story of individual civil liberties and human potential, I was gaining a hunch that Maslow’s story of Self Actualization was the setting to re-examine gender relations and other social problems, to potentially re-negotiate them in an effort to make them more fair on balance.

I was looking at what was to me a gender conflict – particularly in motivational direction and requirement – between feminists and hippies, although nobody to my knowledge was looking at the hippies as a movement of particularly male concern, particularly White male concern, at its essence.

Nevertheless, as feminists had launched torrents of anti-White male critique, it seemed to me the place to begin was to look at its most influential literature.

This focused attention on three books: The Second Sex by Simone de Beauvoir, 1948; Sex and The Single Girl, by Helen Gurley Brown, 1962; and The Feminine Mystique, 1963, by Betty Friedan.

– books which I found readily on my boomer feminist older sister’s book shelf.

Now then, non-academic though the Brown book may have been, it provided a popular and highly influential launching pad for Cosmopolitan Magazine. While the de Beauvoir book actually provided the point of departure for Friedan’s book and later, Carol Gilligan’s “In a Different Voice”,  1982, which also needs to be discussed; however, this being just an overview of the transition from the Boomer to the Xer constellation,  I will not detail the significance of the de Beauvoir, Brown and Gilligan books here as elsewhere. 

What I want to mention at this point is jumping out of my skin with exhilaration when discovering that not only did Betty Friedan’s thesis hold that women needed to achieve the top of Maslow’s hierarchy, in order to achieve their liberation, but that she was actually a student of Abraham Maslow. Thus, my hunch was more spot on in relevance than I could possibly have imagined, and in many other ways as well.

Maslow’s construction of Self Actualization through a Hierarchy of Needs would show itself acutely relevant not only through gender relations with Friedan’s second wave feminism in The Feminine Mystique, but also with the issue of America’s promoted story as the land of opportunity, this human potential movement stuff facilitated through the concept of America’s Lockeatine Civil individual rights advanced over biological group patterns; but there is another, still deeper, historical relevance to the story of Self Actualization – it was a relevance that I’d forgotten until recently, and quite remiss as it is absolutely relevant when addressing the concern of instantiating systemic correctives of Western peoples and civilization:  that is, the story of Self Actualization begins with Aristotle’s teleology and thus provides an an ancient gauge as where this tradition may provide traditional corrective to the Maslowian version and American permutation, and where it may need Post Modern corrective along with corrective of the Maslowian/ American variant.

As this American story of Self Actualization plays a crucial role in rupturing group patterns and self righteously disrupting correctives to their social systemic homeostasis – and indeed, invokes stasis correctives of reflexive reversal to social aberration by contrast to these compelled quests of Self Actualization – it is indeed, most relevant, beleaguered as we are as a species, a genus (White people), threatened with qualitative and quantitative destruction through the weaponization of anti-racism.

But relevant though my proposed project of re-tooling the story of Self Actualization is, it is only one important concern of White Post Modern corrective among many that I have brought to bear for the interests of the European species, and which the Boomers that I have been confronted with have either effectively ignored, swept it aside as unimportant or subject it to downright antagonism and disparagement.

It wasn’t just right wing and liberal boomers who had become stupidly accustomed to reactionary scientism, if not literal (yes) outright Nazism in reaction to the red-caping of Post Modern correctives, but also waiting internet bubbles of Millennials who were receptive to this reactionary take. The Boomer cancer metastasized to the Millennials as the Xer’s implementation of Post Modern corrective was effectively thwarted and bypassed.

The Xer corrective was first thwarted by decades of what is called “political correctness.”

This is a red caping of social corrective and social advocacy positions culminating in what has been perfectly described as “cultural Marxism”, i.e., where cultural Marxism and its international class warfare had stalled, it was transformed into anti-White Marxism by the YKW.

Recently, Paul Gottfried has been desperately trying to weaken this very clear and incisive concept of Cultural Marxism. This is worth noting.

Continue Reading >>Generational Astrology: Zodiac Sign of the Boomer Part 2

The Dark Side of Self Actualization and Incommensurate Gender Agendas

  • Post author:
  • Post category:Central

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

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

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

Betty Friedan (1963), with the modernist, “she’s just like one of the boys and, if liberated to participate, may do-so as an equal” approach to feminism, was the preeminent figure in the second wave of feminism; she took as her point of departure this line from Simone de Beauvoir, 1948, page 672: “This utility of the housekeeper’s heaven is the reason why she (speaking of traditional women) adopts the Aristotlean morality of the golden mean, that is, of mediocrity.”

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

Carol Gilligan (1982), with the neo-traditional angle focusing on qualitative differences of females, but still within the feminist framework, also took a line from de Beauvoir as her point of departure – 1948, Page 681: “ but she knows that he himself has chosen the premises on which his rigorous deductions depend.. but she refuses to play the game.. she knows that male morality as it concerns her, is a vast hoax.”

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

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

The situation was made ripe for exploitation and runaway by the logical extension of modernity, well-meaning at first as a liberation from mere, but harmful traditions and superstitions, it ran rough-shod and ruptured accountable social classification – their utility naivly or disingenuously pushed-aside in favor of the objectivist scientism of Lockeatine civil rights, objectivist neo-liberal capitalism, and seized upon in distortion by “neo-cons”, but not before these wielded “objectivist” rights were fundamentally weaponized and reversed in form against Whites, by Jews, Marxists re-deploying these ideas in the form of “anti-racism” and “civil rights” – discrimination against Whites and the prohibition of discrimination by White men.

Underpinning susceptibility to this all along was their saboteurs ticking time-bomb – liberal affectation planted into European culture and becoming more deeply embedded over 2,000 years; viz., in contrast to the exclusivity of Jews, (as GW notes) Judeo-Christianity’s propositional altercast as undifferentiated gentiles in the eyes of god, to include any race in its moral order, and the disordering effect of modernity to traditional European moral orders was virtually a necessary consequence.

With racial bounds broken but classification still necessary to human perceptual organ- ization, the least ignorable categories emerged in de facto high relief and resonance – gender being one of them. Within the disorder the female one-up position in partner selection (don’t think so? she’ll call upon the goon squad to show you who is boss) emerged with increased significance, whereupon they are pandered-to from males of every direction and most importantly, cynically and cunningly, by Jews, of course, to betray their co-evolutionary males. With White men vilified thus and White females pandered-to constantly, even puerile White females become articulate, over- confident, correspondingly under-empathetic, sometimes brazen with self righteous entitlement and prerogative.

Jewish interests can take advantage of this; demoralize their adversaries by pandering to their co-evolutionary females in this position and the atavistic denominator of the disorder; for marked example, by promoting the high contrast tropism of White/black mixing –blacks being the other category hardest to ignore despite prohibition on class- ifications –while the prohibition of discrimination leaves the more protracted rate of maturity of White men susceptible to the more episodic, atavistic assertion of blacks.

Professor Pearce (with Rossi) might add that within the paradoxic performance requirements of feminism there is nothing even a well-intentioned male can do if a feminist wishes to put him in the wrong: If he treats her as one of boys, then he may be construed as a male chauvinist pig, who does not respect the special quality of her gender. If he treats her with deference to the special qualities of her gender, he can be construed as a condescending patriarch and/or a wimp who does not respect her agency, autonomy and independence.

The situation is only going to be perpetuated by a paradoxic (really, “quaradoxic”) phenomenon that Whites are prone to be up against, what I call the charmed loop of didactic incitement: This does require that sufficient power is brought to bear against Whites, but it is a likely predicament given social injunctions against discriminatory social classifications rendered by White men and the heavily pandered-to one-up position of females within the disorder of modernity; along with its exponentially more powerfully positioned puerile female inclination to incite genetic competition.

Furthermore, tautological premises and necessary routine in preparation for more ambitious projects are the first casualties of didactic incitement.
___________

The Dark Side of Self Actualization Intersecting Incommensurate Gender Agendas: Corrective Structures and Systematization –

In this essay I will re-tell the story of how I began to understand and organize gender relations at the intersection of race and individualism in order to diagnose attendant problems and prescribe corrections. I will make refinements with what I have learned since initial instantiations of this hypothesis. I feel compelled to make this case again as there are popular sites in WN which are taking on the issue and I do not trust them to handle it well. For very specific reasons I have long held that there should be a platform for White men/males that both advocates them and is critical of female predilections, inclinations, politics. This will start out with a critical tone, as it is necessary to get to critical parts right away, but there is a happy ending for both genders.

In my first renderings of this hypothesis, I took Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs (which he also referred-to as a hierarchy of motives), as a preliminary framework in need of correction. That remains a particularly useful point of departure for a working hypothesis to address problems: of where and how individualism, peoples’ predica- ment within modernity and incommensurate gender relations may be exacerbated and pandered-to; whether by hostile interests (e.g., YKW) or indifferent interests (e.g. naive or disingenuous objectivist/relativists, neo-liberals); thereby rupturing racial bounds which could otherwise facilitate systemic homeostasis; instead runaway and reflexive reversals is perpetuated -e.g., “the dark side of self actualization.”


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

But rather than merely accept them, the proposition here is that we recognize them, take them to heart and work with them instead of against them.

For good reasons, I took Maslow as the preliminary framework against which to propose corrections (will explain momentarily). Neither is it necessary to discard the diagnosis of toxicity in this model of higher needs being founded in hierarchical succession upon maximal fulfillment of more fundamental needs, particularly as it has played-out in – and been an influence of – the pop-culture of European-American relations; nor is it necessary to alter its proposed general correction of taking attendance to needs and motives into a circulating process based on the Aristotlean recommendation of optimal levels of need satisfaction and the centrality of human concern for relations.

Unlike Maslow’s terms for the constituent needs, I have ever (since the early 90s) proposed four terms (the number of four terms are taken for reasons that I will explain) in place of the terms that he uses in this hierarchy –

Socialization, Being, Routine/Reverence and Self Actualization in a circulating management are proposed instead.


“Just a few more words added to his grammar of motives might change a sociopath into a decent man.” – Kenneth Burke
  – thus…

The number 4 is chosen deliberately as it is both simple, evident and comprehensive enough to be practical, sufficiently verifiable for practical purposes, but too complex in its interfaces to reify and take too far into theoretical science, to scientism beyond its intended function in phronesis – practical judgment for use by ordinary people, where practical judgment is necessary and the best one can do as we are engaged in necessary regard to praxis – the multi-interactive and reflexive flux of our relations in the social world. A quaternary system has other positive qualities, such as having been used by venerable scholars and religions, but that’s enough of that for now.

Most significant of the four terms of need/motivation proposed as an alternative from Maslow’s has always been “Socialization.”

This is to acknowledge that we are inextricably social creatures. There is no way around that, it is the most fundamental need and the most basic fact of the human condition. The moment there is nobody left to discuss the facts is the moment that the facts begin to lose any relevance to us.

Undoing “the prejudice against prejudice”, re-institutionalizing the validity of social classification, discrimination thereupon to facilitate accountability, historical/ systemic human ecology of our social capital is necessary to a socialization of Whites/Europeans.

That forms the most fundamental correction to what has been an important error in a false and toxic prioritization of self actualization in spite of social concern.

Socialization is proposed in relation to three other needs, rather hypothesized topoi of needs, of European character, inclination, predilections and susceptibilities as such, in need of enhancement and correction: Being, Routine/Reverence, Self Actualization.

All four categories more or less correspond with Maslows’ needs, but are taken into a proposition of a circulating process, systematized for optimal balance.

A fundamental change from previous renditions of this hypothesis is that I replace the term Selfhood with what I believe is the more helpful heuristic structure of “Routine/ Reverence” (corresponding some with sacrament and ceremony), as instrumental corrective for homeostasis in the systemic management of Socialization (of European classification), Being and Self Actualization.

Recognizing the value of Routine/Reverence (e.g., over and against the continuous transformations called forth by modernity) will help to stabilize the system, make it more just and sane all around;  helping with its cybernetic governance through its endorsement, respect and practice.

Routine/Reverence will correspond with practice, responsibility and duty to inherited, tried and true structures, knowledge and requirements of social capital.

Routine/Reverence will also correspond to corporeal and autobiographical/narrative aspects of seflhood – in terms of maintenance, respect for inherited corporeal, corprisocial, biological structure and gauging the more speculative autobiographical quests against the true and venerable auto/biography. 

Reverence will be reserved for what bears a more special acknowledgement, sacred for its essential value to the pattern beyond normal episode and perhaps ennobled in ceremony as a special kind of routine.

I believe this is a crucial level, insufficiently articulated and valued by Maslow’s scheme, as it places “Self Actualization above it”, where it recognizes these needs as important at all. Routine/reverence is something that needs to be satisfactory for White males to achieve (whereas White females have been able to take this for granted as “enough” expected of them), but has been hard to engage within the disorder of modernity and expectations of “greatness”, let alone that a male might be allowed “to Be” without stigma and incitement.

Nevertheless, I do recognize and believe that it is inherent in our European character, for some of us, anyway, to have highly ambitious reach, and to need to fulfill inborn potential. That is a part of the quaternary system – the neo-traditional male (and modernist female) option, which may be moved into when the time is right for a given individual. I wouldn’t want to stand in the way and remove this potential but on the contrary; would have our people strive after achievement through better foundation, with and upon sane motivational grounds of practiced routines, reverence, particularly in respect of socialization and midtdasein – being amidst the class – to keep them from malevolent transformations, especially against our own – with the capacity, flexibility of unused potentiality for change, the alternative range of functional autonomy and agency, self actualization may recognize the need to return and deliberately return to Being, Routine/Reverence and the ubiquitous fact of Socialization.

It is rather to acknowledge problems not only for actualization’s realization, but also in the very worthiness of the quest, of its quest becoming toxic – to its seekers, to relations, and in the implication of continuous transformation and upheaval of social structures, even resulting in reflexive reversals, for the unnatural and anti-social cast of its popular apprehension.

Further, when you think about it, the “ordinary” is really pretty incredible and ought to be respected as such, not so ordinary: Here we are these walking blobs of protoplasm, if not European creatures having survived in discreet form for 41,000 years. How dare they end this beauty? How dare they deny us Being?

Thus, recognition of the gilded virtue of routine practices and reverence for venerable patterns of the aeons can oppose liberal modernity and the continual imploring of individual “Actualization”, oppose the feral, puerile female incitement to genetic competition and the pandering to that which ruptures social classification’s systemic delimitation and homeostasis (for Whites).

Obstruction, runaway, over-corrective reflexive reversals –non-correction, non-homeo- stasis – the dark side of self actualization, is mapped for its problems against Maslow’s and similarly pop implications of self actualization –its dark side and its correction on an overlapping but ameliorative model of neo-Aristotlean self actualization.

Correcting it with a neo-Aristotlian notion of Self Actualization has been the objective from the onset of this project. It is “neo” in the sense of placing Socialization to the forefront but thoroughly Aristotlean in emphasizing Optimality as guiding framework. With an additional and embarrassing refinement since my first versions. Namely, that in my focusing on correcting the Maslowian and pop notions of self actualization that I’d forgotten that the idea of self actualization came from Aristotle to begin with (had read it, but years ago) and was only reminded again by Greg Johnson’s discussion of Aristotle and self actualization. Thus, I will try to refine the discussion in light of his talks; though I must say, my fundamental hypothesis remains the same, as it was sound to begin with. Still, its being Aritotlean in origin only underscores the depth of its Europeanness as a concept and the need to get it right – including corrections for error that may have come along through Aristotle.

Returning to the fundamental hypothesis of where Maslow provides a good starting point to illustrate a wrong turn in popular apprehension as it was taken to the mismanagement of gender relations, in runaway of modernity, instigated by its over-emphasis on individualism and individual achievement, in detriment of individual, gender and racial homeostasis. And how, ultimately, a neo-Aristotlean model is the proper model for reconstruction of European group, individual and gender relations.

Importantly, Maslow’s hierarchy helps illustrate incommensurate gender agendas of need fulfillment and to trace exacerbation in the context of ruptured racial systemic bounds – the notion of individual rights having priority over social groups – notably in the Lockeatine individual rights of The U.S. Constitution having warrant over group interests – for Whites, anyway (as Jewish interests have construed “rights”).

Originally, I noticed that there was something non-trival to the hippies. It bothered me as it was swept aside the moment the Viet Nam war was over. With the observation that the first renowned hippie get-together was called “a Be-in” (in Golden Gate Park, near Haight-Ashbury), I had a clue that they sought Being, and obviously that, as opposed to being treated as so intrinsically valueless as to be drafted into a war which presented no clear and immanent danger to our people. The draft being more or less a habitual expectation of males, in utter disrespect for the intrinsic value of their human capital. It was also obvious that it was only males who were not afforded this value of intrinsic Being. Then I noticed that this mapped against Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

Next, I noticed that neither feminists, traditional women or (what I’d now call) ‘right wingers’ gave a damn. When Viet Nam war was over, the time for male Being was over.

As I looked into it more, the source of my anger and this way of looking at the issue as a clarifying heuristic made more and more sense.

Eventually, in the early to mid 80’s, I started to read some Heidegger, who gave a clue that one ought to set one’s life in historical autiobiographical perspective. Further, with Heidegger’s preoccupation with Being, I was drawn once again to the being issue of hippie males; with autobiographical/historical context, an obvious comparison emerged to feminism’s second wave coming around the same time; and how feminism went into vicious overdrive, annihilating the hippie agenda when the war was over – feminism was no longer confronted with an obvious disadvantage to being a male.

Thus, despite distaste for feminism, I read its most essential literature on our historical horizon: Friedan, de Beauvoir, Gurley-Brown; later, added Gilligan to the list.

On the most popular front was Helen Gurley Brown, pandering to puerile females with her book, “Sex and The Single Girl,” 1962 –
                                      
..a corruption of Søren Kierkegaard’s “Either/Or,” Sex and The Single Girl proposed that a girl was going to suffer either way, whether she kept herself as “virginal as a ‘Sunkist Orange” for marriage or went ahead and at least enjoyed the pleasures of premarital sex. Do not be too quick to dismiss Gurly-Brown’s pejorative influence on young girls:

“Today New York City lost a pioneer who reshaped not only the entire media industry, but the nation’s culture. She was a role model for the millions of women whose private thoughts, wonders and dreams she addressed so brilliantly in print.” – NYC Mayor Bloomberg upon her death.

Perhaps she was more cunning than brilliant; but powerfully influential no doubt with the help of her husband‘s connections to powerful publishing money to promote that book and her similarly pandering, and highly popular magazine, “Cosmopolitan.”   

Betty Friedan

Friedan provided a very pleasant surprise for what I had already taken for a hypothetical framework – as she not only worked within the same Maslowian structure in which I sought to place the oh-so-fundamental complaint of hippies – a right-below-rights as Rollo May called it – but she was, in fact, a student of Maslow. Moreover, her very thesis was that women’s liberation required Maslowian “self actualization” for women. That they were oppressed and suffering for this lack.

I also noticed that she paid little regard to injustices to men, nothing about their basic needs not being met or anything like that, nor their expendability in war, but nevertheless implicated their privileged access to “self actualization.”

Her implication with the Maslowian paradigm is clear – that men were disproport- ionately represented on top levels of “Self Actualization” because their basic needs were fulfilled and because patriarchy discriminated unjustly on their behalf.

I scarcely needed to go beyond personal example or that of other males, but the particularly glaring example of hippie male’s protest against draft into a corporate war, their pathetically low grumbles for mere Being, prompted realization that Friedan’s was not a fair assessment.

I was willing to concede that some men may occupy self actualization as a result of fulfilled basic needs and that some were there due to unfair discrimination, but not all – the discrimination had a more fair compensatory basis than feminists were granting and further – some men were achieving not for a Maslowian fulfillment of basic needs, but a Nietzschean/Freudian sublimation of deprivation and privation. While traditional women did not seem particularly concerned and had the same usual expectations despite changing contexts, feminists cared shockingly little where they did not display outright hostility to male concerns – it became apparent that they were attacking men, their own men, often punishing them for achieving despite little support and much adversity on the way up – if they got to the top despite all, punishing them for being at an oppressive advantage! You want to talk about what may create a misogynist, bad gender relations and a dark, reflexive reversal of self actualization into sociopathology?

These gender agendas mapped against Maslow’s hierarchy of needs quite well, feminists having what he called “high grumbles” – a complaint for higher achievement, their basic needs having been met; the hippie agenda mapped well too, but was unarticulated for males, with their “grumbles very low” – for the most basic needs – right to be, exist, midtdasein and not be required, e.g., to die in senseless war.

Particularly for the American man, in the land of opportunity, where anyone was supposed to “be all they could be” and make it of themselves, achievement of the top of actualization was to be a quest that began by pulling himself up by the bootstraps and pursued through rugged individualism, with little empathy for meandering in traditional female expectations let alone help in feminist cynicism.

The male agenda was very difficult to articulate, stigmatic in fact, for what it sought (midtdasein), for lack in feedback for males as they were not in the addressive position that females were, and as it went against tradition for males to need cooperation if not to be left alone in provisional non-productivity – necessary though unused potentiality for change was with modernity having transformed traditional society such that there was no longer stable criteria for satisfactory and reliable reciprocal participation.

When the Vietnam war draft ended, (((the media))) was no longer constrained by the obvious contradiction to the across the board “advantage” of being a male, and feminism went into overdrive in the media; 1973 was the only year that Gloria Steinem's 'Ms' Magazine made a profit.
Elizabeth Holtzman

It was at this time as well, that Elizabeth Holtzman upset long standing congressman Emanuel Celler, running with a proposed “Equal Rights for Women” Amendment.

Emanuel Celler

Celler had apparently served his catastrophic purpose by changing the immigration laws of The United States with the 65 Immigration & Naturalization Act, ending restraints on non-White immigration to destroy America’s 90% White demographic and the capabilities that went along with it.

Holtzman did not get the Equal Rights amendment passed. However, it was not necessary as Sex discrimination is already prohibited in the 1964 Civil Rights Act (which Celler was instrumental in passing as well). Neither would Equal Rights for women meet with support from the Orthodox Jewish community. But there was enough cultural push by feminism to serve the Neo Liberal purpose of lowering wages (and White birthrates) by adding more women to the work force.

Jews used cover of hippies to try to associate their cause with Jewish politics, while right-wingers, feminist or traditional women find it convenient to take these Jewish ruses and blame hippies for the downfall of the White race; but this is idiotic. The authentic motive of hippies, being (accurately, midtdasein), had nothing to do with Marcuse’s pandering affectation of “free love” – a law of the jungle attitude toward sex is farthest from being for males – let alone with imposition of foreign males: black power and “civil rights” as well being Jewish imposed agendas incommensurate with hippies. 2nd wave feminism was also incommensurate to the hippie agenda -in diametric contrast, feminists sought individual autonomy atop the hierarchy in self actualization, while hippies sought fundament in communal being – midtdasein. White women’s particular concerns were not going to be reconciled with White men’s under Jewish auspices of Friedan/ Maslow. Though our gender relations should be reconciled, might be through attendance and correction of this paradigm, the value and purpose of the hippie agenda as part of a homeostatic process has been buried to this day.

Herbert Marcuse was a chief exponent of the Frankfurt School’s Cultural Marxism. He claimed that “Stalin was an incompetent wuss, and that he’d show how to overthrow the West.” Among his main weapons toward that end were “sexual liberation”, “free love”, “polymorphous perversion” even….

Marcuse was potent and destructive enough in associating this affectation to the Hippie agenda in America. It is an affection, as “free love” and men competing from everywhere for what would be your wife and appropriate breeding partner is not Being for males (it is to be tossed into the anxiety of the thrownness) and not native to the important hippie motive of MidtDasein, Being amidst your people.

Thus, Marcuse served mightily to bury the all important, but basically un-articulated Hippie motive. In fact, this according of being – dasein/midtdasein – to White men – recognizing a certain intrinsic value of them to take for granted on the basis of genetics, without having to prove themselves completely, is essential to socialization and a human, as opposed to (“inauthentic”) animal existence.

It was ever easier for Marcuse to slip this affectation of “liberation” – viz, Sexual liberation – this false association as being part of the hippie movement in Europe, as the “68er” European student radical protesters were not confronted with the deeper issue of ownmost being toward death, as were American hippies confronted by the Vietnam draft.

Marcuse and the European 68ers, whom right wingers like to associate with Hippies, as having the same deep, acute and native motive inspiring them.
(((Carol Gilligan))). While not for her appearance perhaps, but for her name crypsis "Gilligan", it is necessary to add the brackets.

Carol Gilligan (1982), co-opted the neo-traditional angle of feminism. The problem wasn’t so much that women were not given an equal chance to to man things, but rather that women things were not given equal representation at the top.

Thus, she focusing on qualitative differences of females, but still within the feminist framework, also taking a line from de Beauvoir as her point of departure – 1948, Page 681: “ but she knows that he himself has chosen the premises on which his rigorous deductions depend.. but she refuses to play the game.. she knows that male morality as it concerns her, is a vast hoax.”

She cited anecdotal studies to confirm the difference between female and male morality, with female morality, being less principled and universal and more caring of relationships; thus, females were more afraid when people were isolated and growing apart; whereas “male morality” was more about rights and principles and males were more afraid when people were being forced together.

Gilligan does not look into the deeper sources of these motivations, and how the might, in fact, reflect a disadvantage to the male position. Thus, corrective aid in gender advocacy, might actually be justly rendered more to the male side when it comes to representation.

So, it seemed that Maslow, hippies and feminists were a good place to start to understand where we went wrong and how we might correct our relations. It has proved to be true and has shown to be better still in terms of utility.

Bear with me, I’m not advocating passive, soft men, or men/women, I’m arguing against stupid, non-European ways, fighting for wrong reasons, in wrong ways or against each other; and am rather for being against the right enemies, viz., those significantly powerful non-Europeans who might impose and impose others upon us, significant traitors to our autonomy from non-Europeans, intransigent non-European interlopers – but against these we should fight with the appropriate, most effective level of assertion; there it is requisite that men fight when the threshold of awareness and understanding among European peoples is sufficient; then coordination is ripe.

Nor are we proposing something oppressive and unfair to women – on the contrary, between re-institution of sacrament and our typically good natured ways toward our co-evolutionary women, we Europeans have significant advantages against adversaries.

Nevertheless: No Boundaries No Being. Being is a verb, pacifism is not an option.

Rites of passage for White males and masculinity thus, ought to be calibrated with an eye toward its optimal service to our European kinds and boundaries, not maximal and universal masculinity and maturity. This would rightfully garner the term, toxic.

Furthermore, European/White masculinity has evolved a fine k-selector optimality about it, which should be valued, not derided, as it is more in sync with group interests, trust and long range interests than R selector episodic competition of other peoples. Hence the need to be concerned for borders and not so much ooga booga momentary and episodic competition. 

This modicum of sublimation is crucial to our creative kind of intellectualism, as reflection, creativity and empathy are in reverse balance to action, assertion and sheer confidence – qualities that puerile females gravitate toward and which can go into runaway with their being  pandered to from all directions and empowered (in the short run) as the gate keepers of liberal hegemony in the open borders and boundaries circumstance of modernity.

If we can manage to shore up our borders and boundaries (through a concept of unionization), we can work out a fair situation, one that is good for both genders. And White men generally like to be that way – we want to be genuinely wanted by our partner and for our co evolutionary women to be fulfilled in their aspirations.

For that to be, however, they must allow for our basic needs a bit more and with that, most fundamentally to shut the borders and boundaries enough – not so much that we are closing their freedom to leave and go to other races if they so wish, when they are adults; but boundaries enough so that if they make that choice to go to another people, that they must stay with them and the consequences of their way of life and not impose them and theirs upon us; in fact, such imposition is involuntary contract, a motion to enslave White men and women who do not want their choice imposed upon them. It is the supremacist imposition of a would be slave master and we have the moral right to defend ourselves against it.

While F. Roger Devlin is correct that marriage is important to correcting for fair gender relations against female hypergamy, this is rather the Kantian, modernist universal answer – answer aspired for anyway  – and I agree, that it is very important, elsewhere arguing for institutionalization of an option for sex and monogamy as sacrament to maintain the system, staving off cynicism, increasing incentive for loyalty and taking away an advantage of the false moral order of the Abrahamic religions – if we do not secure borders and bounds to our genetic people, marriage and monogamy is like having a the best berth on a sinking ship.

Abraham Maslow

Thus, it is not only necessary to correct Maslow’s modernist/liberal misdirection of Self Actualization, with a White Post Modernist recentering of Parixis – group delimited socialization (socialization is scarcely possible without group delimitation, accountability and homeostatic correctivity thereof) as the most fundamental need, it is also necessary for the White post modernity to correct Aristotle’s original, and you can say traditional, European teleological idea of Self Actualization as well, by rendering the interactive social, its delimitations and responsibilities to its indebtedness as the most basic concern.

Otherwise, your self actualization impervious to how it might be rupturing human and pervasive ecology, insufficiently accountable to the correctivity of social systemic homeostasis, is acting into an increasing abyss, increasing the systemic runaway for its myopia, and prone to social aberration (involuntary correction of patterns), the dark side of self actualization.

Note on black incommensurability:

Blacks have a faster rate to maturity, are evolved more as R selectors (quantity offspring, not as much qualitative care in upbringing). This can interact quite unfavorably to White males when the disorder of modernity renders momentary and episodic abilities more valuable than the more sublimated abilities of White males geared toward long term K relationships and cultural patterns

But coming back more specifically to the issue of incommensurability on the hierarchy of motives… blacks, certainly as they were represented by their Marxist training in the Tennessee Highlander school for Civil Rights activism, but quite often of their own free will, were geared toward presenting themselves as normal but dignified American citizens, who wanted to be accorded the same respect as anyone.

This was incommensurate with the hippie agenda for a right BELOW rights, organic being, its messy-ness that could even celebrate being weird for its claim to human being despite rigid, traditional constraints; and even more radically, communal acceptance in this organic Being.

This was incommensurate with the kind of integrity that this black agenda was about, seeking the middle range of Maslow’s hierarchy, not the most basic levels.

And finally, there was another agenda of blacks – black power: which sought the top of Maslow’s hierarchy, even more incommensurate with hippies quest for the most fundamental levels.

And while it is important to point out the Jewish backing of these black movements, their incommensuration also speaks to why we must not allow right wingers to accept the misrepresentation of the Hippie agenda as being about these things (blacks, feminism, free love), when it was, in essence, about what is most important to Whites.

Further Incommensuration

Blacks, of their primordial circumstance, have evolved  a kind of selection that is not merely R selective, but has rather maxed-out masculinity (evidence their testosterone count, and warrior gene as it gives them a shorter time horizon and a  lack of impulse control), creating an aggressive, presumptuous, hyper-assertive kind of people.

Furthermore, as they evolved some 200,000 years prior to European differentiation, this can give them certain biopower and even biological hegemony in certain respects, such that not being able to discriminate against them as a group is extremely dangerous for Whites.

Hence, modernity’s notion of universal maturity must be corrected with White Post Modernity.

It does not matter that the puerile female, particularly as pandered to in her increased one up position in the disorder wrought by weaponized modernity’s rupture of classifcatory bounds, is titillated and finds appealing the black male’s momentary and episodic triumphs over the more sublimated White male in circumstance.

Young White males need to be protected in order to protect the White species; classificatory bounds re established by White Post Modernity in order to protect their more sublimated maturity, that it not be portrayed by popular culture as weak, for its concern for their long term relationships and cultural patterns (as opposed to universal maturity).

Whereas those White females who would insist on the continued rupture of classificatory bounds for their personal, short term gain, must be ostracized to live with the consequences of black behavior; prone as it is in its aggression and hyper assertiveness to have more sex partners (including much, much more rape), younger, and in this R selective evolution, the single parent families, poverty, violence and over grazing if shown the compassion of universal maturity. Furthermore, an increase of Mulattoes does not necessarily entail a decrease of blacks proper and there is a significant lack of evidence that the world gains from this imposition of blacks to the destruction of Whites. And again, they must not be allowed to violate our freedom from association with this, as imposing an alien people upon us is involuntary contract – supremacism and slavery that warrants all manner of resistance.

The evidence of Ethnic Genetic Distance needs to be factored in as well. The precious birthing capacity of a White girl, if given to a black, is equivalent to so many White deaths, more than outbreeding with any other race.

For the sake not only of White males but for White females as well, that they be allowed to reach their natural maturity, the socialization that is afforded by classificatory bounds – accountability and homeostatic correctivity in accordance with our historic and future social capital – through White Post Modernity is crucial.

There are two hazards that we need to be aware of straight away when considering a notion of Self Actualization and a hierarchy of needs which does not see socialization, indebtedness to group classification as the preliminary need: a quest which threatens two reflexive effects; 1) one effect is to rupture the system, threatening to take it to runaway and even meaninglessness with regard to the Self Actualization (for the likelihood that it will not be appreciated as one’s own group has lost the way to place its meaning nor by groups who maintain their ethnocentrism); 2) a second effect to look at is reflexive reversal and social aberration. This is common as people, particularly under the rubric of America, land of individual opportunity, will destroy themselves in pursuit of Self Actualization; in other cases, they will be destructive to others; either way, these are expressions of stasis correction of systemic runaway as opposed to homeostatic systemic correction, in line with Aristotle’s wisdom, suggesting that we should balance our self actualization with an eye toward optimization; and the post modern extension of Aristotle, that that optimization requires that it be anchored in the correctivity of Praxis first and foremost.

Continue Reading The Dark Side of Self Actualization and Incommensurate Gender Agendas