Theory of White Separatism

March 30, 2011

Praxis: Getting the Ship of White Separatism on Course

By Daniel Sienkiewicz

Note: The following are the program notes of the second The Sunic Journal interview of Daniel Sienkiewicz.


  • Background
  • Pervasive Ecology
  • Useful Metaphors
  • Race as Classification
  • Objectivism and the Prejudice against Prejudice
  • Modernity, disorder, de facto Classifications emerge
  • Outlook on this
  • Hermeneutic Turn – a liberation from mere objectivism
  • Paradigms and Incommensurability vs. non-equality
  • The Post Modern turn for Whites
  • A Moral Order for Whites
  • Pushing White allies away with Objectivism and false either/ors.


I grew up in New Jersey, not too far from New York – the Newark, New Jersey race riots of the late sixties and my being bussed to go to school with Blacks not long after forming the background of my racial awareness. My family were of Polish and Italian extraction, so it was not a perfectly clear, coherent identity to go up against the confusion of America and its hostility to Whites: kind of a gray area, White enough to be disingenuously classified along with guilt for Aristocratic privilege, Nazism and Slavery where convenient, yet not fully an insider track to the club of American elites. While I would not complain too much, and my family were good providers, including help with education, they were a bit antagonistic to intellectualism; which was frustrating, as I needed all the tools that I could get given the complexity of being this kind of White marginal. Yes, there are ivory towers and pseudo intellectuals, there are Jewish Marxist etc who are abusing intellectualism against Whites, but…

Self Assertion vs. Self Transcendence

But even though intellectualism was not considered cool in my circles, in the end, you have to do what you have to do to save yourself. Everything that I cared about most was being destroyed – so I had to try to make sense of these problems. One clue that I got early on was a distinction that I read in Hegel, between self transcendence and self assertion – it occurred to me that just about all White men who were attempting any sort of intellectual problem solving were doing self transcendence – and it was not working. Thus, if I was going to do any intellectualism, it was not going to be martyring objectivism, ostentatious showing off of varied erudition, it was going to be for practical purposes and to assert the interests of Whites.

Pervasive Ecology

Pervasive Ecology I have found, provides a good background to racial issues in its broadest scope – it is one exception as an idea that can serve as a benign universal truth largely because it does not require an ongoing quest for foundational truth – it cannot, in fact, be foundationalized, because it is non-Cartesian, that is to say, recognizing that all is some part of nature – because of that, it is always valid and potentially important to ask if something is ecological – but this concern does not seek to transcend nature in some fixed form or in any other way; rather, it is an engaged and interactive negotiation of optimal balance in relation to resources – being interactively engaged, we are then also dependent upon practical human judgment to assert balance and utility; nevertheless, valid judges, co-evolved as a part of nature as such to be – hence, we can rest content, to some extent, with our practical, human judgments.

It is rather the quest for universal foundational truths which is necessarily impervious to optimal, human needs, which runs rough-shod over the interests of our White race – Thus, it is important to distinguish universal from foundational. Because with the foundational quest you are getting away from the interactivity of our evolution, our concern for our White survival, our relative and optimal needs. Rather with a foundational quest you are going into the objectivity, or pseudo objectivity, of foundational and quantifiable statements like “that is just the way it is” – as such, you are radically cutting off accountability and agency

– that radical abridging which is corollary to the Cartesianism from which anti-racism and the prejudice against prejudice derive.

To say that racism in the form of discrimination is illegitimate, that all people have the same foundational requirements and therefore we should not discriminate, is far from innocent; to not discriminate is in fact impossible – it is prejudice against vital human qualities, systemic human relations. Anti-racism is not innocent. It is hurting people; it is not too far fetched to say that it is killing people

The upshot of anti racism is not multiculturalism and diversity – it is monoculturalism, a radical abridgment and subsuming of biodiversity.

On the other hand, it is operationally verifiable that the White race is a part of the world’s biodiversity, ecosystems and resources; that non-White populations are encroaching upon White populations and habitats. Perhaps in accordance to some universal truths we do not have to save it; but in accordance with pervasive ecology the importance of preserving and fostering the White race is a universally assertable warrant.

Unlike the Darwinian unit of analysis, which took organism plus group as its unit of survival, pervasive ecology takes organism + group + environment as its unit of survival – it does that because, naturally, the organism which destroys its environment destroys itself – that is part of what makes Blacks, corporations and Jews so dubious – they have demonstrably, verifiably, overgrazed. With pervasive ecology, we are using a powerful warrant to counteract that over grazing.

In other words, what is most fit, why Whites are as they are, has not as much to do with what is most fit as to how we fit the social and natural environment, over and against the lack of Jewish and corporate concern for our well being.

Anti racism is Cartesian – an impossible attempt to transcend nature and process – it is not innocent, it is hurting and it is not too far fetched to say that it is killing people.

European Ecology

Now, just a theory, but one that I’d like to believe, that all of Europe too, its native people, to which I include White Russians, is to some extent a whole ecological system, not only in conflict but to some extent interactive, symbiotic and buffering each other from non-Europeans. America, on the other hand, perhaps as a carryover from fights between European nations has not registered the same balance – and perhaps there is a lack of proportionate representation of continental Europeans, except for Germans, in America; this might make for some human ecological imbalance, as some of the buffering features that Southern and Eastern Europeans might otherwise bring to bear against Africans and Asians may be lacking in the US – leaving a somewhat awkward interface between those groups and Nordics.

I think the difference between Europeans is relatively trivial when compared to the difference from non Europeans, but that is more theoretical than of immediate importance. The more pressing needs are negative ecological metaphors which can capture the disaster we are up against and metaphors that will allow our European people to survive over all and as discreet nations.

Useful Metaphors

Our story tellers need some Negative Ecological Metaphors which capture, with sufficient magnitude, what we are up against

Some negative ecological metaphors that I propose – and to capture the situation they have to be really bad to be accurate – to itemize a few that have worked fairly well: the science fiction nightmare, the mulatto cyborg, planet of the, well… mulatto supremacism is a good one because it accurately captures one of the worst upshots of what anti-racists are doing without putting either Blacks or Jews on direct defensive, as neither are being impugned directly; and it can use the leverage of their own potential indignation as to the matter.

Metaphors providing for an ecology of overall unity and discreet parts:

The compartmentalized ship: Metzger has a good one here – the compartmentalized ship. I like it because it is a metaphor that allows for the ecology and accountability of each nation, while recognizing an accurate degree of interdependence. With each compartment being relatively air tight, it is protected if another compartment gets flooded with non-Whites; and would hopefully be in a position to help them to conduct their deportation needs. This metaphor would also force us to ask, how many compartments can go down before the whole ship goes down? I believe that we cannot allow France, Holland, The UK and Sweden to go down.

The body and its parts: Another metaphor – one that I have thought up, is to liken The European nations and people to a body and its parts. It is wrong to try to quantify the value of one because they are serving fairly discreet, qualitative functions. If Germany is like the cerebral cortex, then it is relatively trivial without Belarus, which is functioning like the liver or France, which is like the gastrointestinal tract and so on. Mix and match this metaphor as you wish, it does not mean that there is not mind through the whole system, it is just to suggest that the nations may function as fairly discreet but symbiotically functioning organs.

Another good, ecological metaphor, is State Micro-Cultures: Those who are advocating secession and independent states to allow for different ways of White life are, of course, providing for another good, ecological way.

Race as Classification

When talking about race the central matter, the crucial matter that I have found, is the issue of Classification –

I’ve come to the conclusion that races are classifications, and that that is far from trivial – just a touch arbitrary, but very real and very important.

What got me to thinking about classification as a central matter when it comes to race were discussions of its problematic aspects – from there I went on to consider positive aspects of classification.

The first clue where classifications were being treated as a problem, was in an article called something like, “The paradoxic practices of racism, sexism and other isms” by Pearce and Wood. In that article they describe a paradox that even well meaning liberals are up against when dealing with the issue of discrimination against minorities: If, on the one hand, they say that they do not discriminate, that they judge everyone on their individual merit, then they can be charged with being disingenuous, ignoring the historical discrimination against that person’s group; on the other hand, if they take the line that people of a certain group should be given special help to overcome historical discrimination against them, then they are classifying them and racists, sexists or other ists by definition.

The second view that I learned of which looked upon classification as problematic, was that of the empirical philosopher John Locke.

Locke resented the superior educational opportunities of the English Aristocratic class. Thus, he was motivated to use an empirical view against it – with that he maintained that everybody had the same sense impressions and therefore classes were a fiction of the mind – they were not empirical, they had no physically reality – since everyone had the same sense impressions, everyone was, according to him, an equally valid judge of experience, and should be accorded equal rights.

Thomas Jefferson imbued The U.S. Constitution with this empirical notion of individual rights along with its antipathy to classification.

In trying to counteract this, however, the struggle, it seems, has been focused on the wrong unit of analysis, treating all as if they were working within the same paradigm – namely, by treating non-equality as the big deal. While it is true that nothing is equal, it is so abstract – like trying to apply what one sees under a microscope, or through a telescope to everyday reality – as to be almost meaningless, not altogether instructive, but destructive, even.

I got a clue from a linguist here, sorry about that, Lackoff, who wrote a book called “Women, Fire and Other Dangerous Things.” That clued me onto the idea that people needed to categorize things in order to make sense. However, people do not do so in over particulars or in over generals, but in “human sized” categories – they do not say that there is a mammal on the porch, they do not say that there is an Irish Setter on the porch, they say that there is a dog on the porch. In other words the problem with regard to classification here is confusion and disorganization that results if you do not classify – people have to organize their experiences in optimal categories in order make sense.

So, I am getting the idea that people need to classify, even though classifying is prohibited by The Constitution’s notion of Individual Rights.

The last problem that got me to thinking of classification as pivotal was Russel and Whitehead’s Theory of Logical Types: which was meant to solve the classic paradox, “I am a Cretan, all Cretans are liars”: They asserted that the class cannot be a member of itself – thus the class was on a higher logical type than the individual – that can have practical and positive utility for our classifying when we say, for example, I have not been prejudiced but have rather sampled enough individuals of this non-White class to know that I neither want nor need to sample any more of their individuals; I can see their historical pattern as antagonistic, thus I place them under the higher logical type of a class and I discriminate against them as a class. Conversely, I give members of my White Class the benefit of the doubt. In fact, Whitehead said, one cannot continually investigate everything, but must be able to rest content taking some things for granted and proceed from a given state of partial knowledge; he called that a working hypothesis; I call it a functional classification.

So, here, with this notion of enough of a sample, I am beginning to shift in thinking to the positive purposes that might be served by classifying. Thereupon I could see another important purpose with classifying one’s own – it serves to transcend jealousy – once I classify a people as my family or on my side, then I am inclined to be glad for my brothers and sisters if they are doing well, providing that they are not otherwise terrible.

And with classification we become more able to assess relative merits or demerits of our people. When we subsume, give the benefit of the doubt to our people, they have more latitude under the rubric of the class to correct their behavior; and we have more complete information of them within the Class, its system, accountability thereof, making us better judges of the relative bad and more lenient on the relatively good amongst us – that as opposed to hyper criticism, trying to find tiny objective points, the arbitrary lashing out, the disorganization that inevitably results from the pseudo objectivism, of this de-contextualization, this de-classification. By subsuming within the class, we are better able to judge the relative good from the relatively bad person.

Ultimately, with classification, there is a means of accountability and ecology for our 40,000 years of native European evolution.

Conversely, the notion of empirical rights ruptures our White people from the very systemic class of resources that might otherwise go into their making.

By contrast, within the class we are more protected in the ecological disbursement of our niches as we qualitatively meander through different expressions, manifestations of the systemic whole; there are probably vital contributions to the system by many persons who are not at the top, cannot and should not be at the top of the game at this particular point in time; thus, when the leftists ask sarcastically, who’s rights are being protected? they have a point; as the interests of some are not particularly well served by individual rights; but can and should be included within the class: a child, a young mother; if I don’t have the same143 i.q. as my brother, I am not going to be eliminated because it will be understood that we are closely related, carrying similar genetic payloads, to be placed under the same White Class though moving into patterned disbursement, different ecological niches in its service. Classification, being a protracted frame of analysis, unlike rights, can include all stages of the developmental process of our White evolution both within a life span and in the history of our DNA.

Ok, so taking a step back – where is all this stuff coming from? Locke, empirical rights, and non-classification. Well, Tom is right, Christianity is one source in beginning to break down the importance of classifications. I look back to The Epicureans as another source; they were dead set against superstition; they tried to trace everything to physical causes – and they were forerunners of Locke’s empiricism. Their distrust of superstition would seem to be a precursor to a skepticism of racial classifications and the prejudice against prejudice.

Objectivism and The Prejudice against Prejudice

Now, that is where the prejudice against prejudice began to take popular form.

However, the prejudice against prejudice reached its apex in Carstesianism, whereby Rene Descartes tried to find unassailable, foundational truths outside and transcendent of nature. Still, there was another side of the Cartesian duality, which was the empirical end, in line with the Epicureans, trying to find foundational truths within nature. That is where the Empiricist, Locke, became a major exponent, and brought to bear his radical skepticism of classifications.

Cartesianism/ Empiricism are two sides of the objectivist criteria of these times called “The Enlightenment”

Besides the corporations, Jewish interests, religions, I suppose this sort of objectivism and other habits of the enlightenment are among the greatest obstacles of White men. Remember how I started out discussing self assertion and self transcendence – well, objectivism is a kind of self transcendence. Though its appeal is obvious: to be objectively warranted in our claims in pure and powerful innocence. The problem is, that it abrogates accountability – as if to say, that is just the way it is, no farther argument need apply. You are not taking responsibility. Not only that, but the reflexive effect of objectivism is extreme relativism which makes criteria of accountability difficult to find, even if you sought them.

Modernity, Disorder, De Facto Classifications Emerge

Now, Modernity was the characteristic, epochal direction that stemmed from the Enlightenment. Its radical skepticism of superstition, tradition, religion, custom, habit, its prejudice against prejudice and belief in empirical foundational truths, translated into lineal pursuit of – and the notion that change inevitably lead to progress to – foundational truths – moreover, it gained momentum as great progress, especially in regard to technology, was being made indeed.

However, these notions commenced what would ultimately run rough shod over everything in its path, including in the end, White people. Change led to progress, therefore it was always good, and any wreckage left in its wake was a necessary hazard. Besides, we are objective, just uncovering the truth, so we bear no responsibility for these consequences.

After a couple hundred years, it began to dawn on more and more people that the kinds of progress and changes that resulted were not necessarily what they might like.


These ideas of objectivism, the prejudice against prejudice, the prohibition of classification that spawned Modernity, its ensuing, epochal value of change and progress to foundational truths, whatever in the way be damned, was leaving America and the West profoundly disordered.

De facto classifications emerge – One upshot of this disorder, I propose, is that the one up position, classification, of females re-emerged with increased significance; a second is that Blacks become salient as a class as well.

Amidst modernity’s disordering effect on America, its prohibition of classifications, the naturally one up position of young females (you are so wonderful, may I have a date?) re-emerged with increased significance as they are being competed for from all sides, and even pandered to, absent class boundaries. Thus, she becomes more articulate and confident as people talk to and appeal more directly to her; whereas they used to talk to a priest, a scientists, a philosopher, she becomes authoritative even, often beyond merit.

Moreover, people, as we said, still having the need to classify despite its prohibition, will tend to fall back on de facto classifications too obvious to ignore. One being women another being Blacks. At the same time and above that, the Jewish as MacDonald notes, will classify themselves while maintaining the prohibition of classification for Whites.

In the case of Blacks, their difference, their classification, being too obvious too ignore is not the only feedback loop to their position and its clear and coherent identity as a class. Nor is it only their victim status as conferred by the civil wrongs movement, by Jewish activists with its supposed right to violate White freedom of association; nor only the high contrast tropism of Black and White, as highly contrasting sights and sounds are harder to ignore. But Africans will also be able to operate more normally within this kind of profound disorder as they had evolved in such primeval disorder.

Blacks have evolved some 250,000 years prior to European differentiation; as such were likely to have developed some biological hegemonies – not only that, but it is not too far fetched to say that their kind of selection has quantified and maxed-out masculinity, creating: an aggressive, presumptuous, hyper assertive kind of people, less sublimated, their most serious expressions being that they will have more sex partners, younger, single parent families, exponential population growth, disease, poverty, violence, arrogation and destruction of resources.

Nevertheless, and back to this disordered situation, in which these two de facto classifications are so one up – being manipulated and pandered to by Jewish interests, no doubt – with females being so one up, it exacerbates the natural tendency of theirs which sociobiologist E.O. Wilson points out – to incite genetic competition in order to judge the stronger males. Hence you are no longer surprised by the sickening litmus from females in initial interaction episodes, “what do you think of racism, of Blacks?”. Say that you don’t like them and you are typically ostracized – young girls probably sense that this maintains a certain power of their position as gate-keepers.

In this situation you have an over representation of female selective preferences. That, in exaggerated form, is not necessarily good: what does a woman tend to look for but what is strong, impervious, undaunted no matter what? Confident even while everything around, race, civilization, environment even, is being destroyed; whereas a man’s perspective might otherwise look toward beauty, sensitivity and cooperation – a perspective that has been flouted by the likes of Nietzsche. Not that we want men to be effeminate, but we should not wish for them to emulate the stupid, hyper masculinity of Blacks either.

Outlook on this

The difference ought to be plain enough to see and I suppose that more White women are becoming aware of the hazards – rape, violence, poverty – but not enough – what is happening to White boys and men – who are forced to deal with the brunt of this mess not of their choosing – and White children – who have no choice of the world they come into – to have to come into this hell; this planet of the apes scenario – I mean – that’s what it is – if you want to capture how bad it is you’ve got to use a science fiction nightmare analogy – Women who do this, who give away themselves as the crown of creation, the culmination of 40,000 years of White evolution and civilization, women who do this are to men what rapists are to women. The analogy is very appropriate, if you think about it – with how spitefulness and thoughtlessness is wreaking havoc upon 40,000 years of evolutionary choice and direction – and the people who promote this, who instigate and defend this, are of course, equally destructive accomplices, worse than drug pushers.

We create these women – having co-evolved with them over 40,000 years of evolution – Let it not be said that it is none of our business.

White children have no choice as to the kind of world that they come into and we cannot let them come into the hell, the science fiction nightmare come true – let it not be said that it is none of our business.

We are not denying evolution but asking, rather, how we would like to evolve. It would be quite stupid if we only used scientific tools that tell us, well, that is just the way it is, life changes, nothing agentive we can do to reverse it, women are inclined to Blacks, just like some men like to rape women from time to time because they do not want to hear no, figured the that she deserved it. No.


We’ve evolved from Blacks, and do not want to go back. We are a more sublimated, circumspect, far reaching people – interaction with them is not favorable to us. We do not need to go back. We have them in our past; their traits resurfacing where necessary. We do not need them for anything.No need to imitate them; we have White Class.

While the modernist idea of the prejudice against prejudice may have appeared innocent – the truth is that it was far from innocent – it is well short on accountability, ecology and agency, leaving us susceptible to exploitation of the self interested – at the expense of that which is most important to us – our close personal relationships, our co-evolutionaries of 40,000 years.

Anti-racism Cartesian, it is prejudice – it is not innocent, it is hurting and it is killing people.

The Hermeneutic Turn – a liberation from mere objectivism

While the Enlightenment and ensuing Modernity did provide for a liberation from superstition, mere tradition, religion, custom and habit, a second liberation has become necessary, the liberation from the mere facticity of the empirical view or the fixed speculations of the Cartesian quest to transcend nature. By taking the hermeneutic turn, turning back to a closer reading of facts where transcendence becomes overly speculative, or taking opportunity for occasional transcendent orientation, utilizing where necessary the narrative expanse of horizontal and historical frames of reference we gain coherence, accountability, agency and warrant.

So we are provided a liberation from the mere facts that while nature has certain properties and propensities, that non-Whites have certain abilities, can at times impose upon us, even interbreed with us, we need not be beholden to these mere, arbitrary facts or even inclinations.

For us, of course, that liberating coherence takes form in the hermeneutic classification of the 14 Words. Nevertheless, hermeneutics does not deny science. It is just not fixated on a singular hypothesis – rather, it frees its practitioners to consciously interact with the objects of investigation, to transcend to broader frames of reference, to view them within broader historical narratives where they provide useful orientation; then, as it is not a Cartesian quest, is free to go back, to concrete and scientific particulars when and where those broader frames become overly speculative; where particulars provide better orientation for the White Class. This anti-Cartesian notion, against its fixities, engaging us in process with the objects of our investigation, as Heisenberg’s uncertainty theorem suggest we must – will save us from the scientism of pseudo objectivity, its lack of accountability; and also from the unaccountable farse of non-White religions.

As Paul Tillich noted so well, nature and ideals are alike in that they treat the individual, lets say our White race too, as the mere space through which other things pass – in hermeneutics, we have the method to liberate, elevate and maintain our White Class at the highest status of concern among nature and ideals.

While recognizing our necessary engagement in historical process, as individuals and as a class, we must assert The White class, the 14 Words.

Paradigms and Incommensurability vs. non-equality

The idea of paradigms and incommensurability also contributed to my thinking about classification – for example, the notion of paradigmatic conservatism, which would treat the borders of a people and nations very conservatively, but allow for relatively free individual liberties within. Bateson added that what is happening is the reverse – that our borders are allowed to run wild while individualism is pegged. By contrast there should be pretty conservative borders, can be some exchange between European peoples, but not too much; and individuals within borders should be fairly free to be who they are and say what they like.

Paradigms, as inspired by Thomas Khun, is another way of talking about classifications, and in a qualitative way – in that the rule structure of different paradigms may or may not match. Rule structures of a paradigm matching to another or not was what he called commensurability or incommensurability. Commensurability and incommensurability of our people’s logics of meaning and action as compared to others’ is crucial for us to understand. It is a particularly crucial theoretical, interpretive advantage over the notion of non-equality – non-equality assumes that the overall criteria of measurement, the aims of the races are the same and not qualitatively different – it assumes commensurability where it should not be assumed; it is far more articulate when you are comparing, for example, Blacks and Whites and Jews – to note that our rule structures, the aims of the logics of meaning and action that we follow are incommensurate to theirs – note that they do not match well at all rather than to say that we are not equal – we are not the same, we are radically different.

Being not the same is far more the matter than not being equal. To talk in terms of non-equality is to invite comparison by the same criteria; to invite openings for competition and enmeshments that should be avoided altogether; more, to focus on the quantitative measurement is to rigidly parcel out feedback and interactive sources; those that support, create and balance, our normalcy, our excellence.

Thus the crucial issue is not non-equality, a quantitative comparison, but non-sameness, a qualitative difference that makes a difference; commensurate and incommensurate logics.

Here again, unlike foundational scientism, which is susceptible to holding us all to a universal and singular criteria, hermeneutics liberates us to set forth rules for ourselves and then refer back to them in narrative coherence, accountability, agency and warrant of our difference.

Social Constructionism is Realist not Idealist

Toward these ends, we also need to talk about social constructionism.

One of the mistakes that the struggle is making is to continually chide that race is not a social construct like the social Marxists want to say.

Indeed, if we say that race is a mere social construct that is wrong; but if we say that race is a real social construct, that is accurate – mere, is the operative word.

Social constructionism, properly understood, and following the non-Cartesian premises set forth by one of its original progenitors, Vico, is realist, not idealist.

Social constructionism takes the very reasonable premise that nothing exists outside of interaction and that how facts count must be negotiated between people.

Social constructionism is like taking the classic philosophical question, if a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a noise?” and saying, for all it matters to us, if there are no White people left to hear it, it may as well not make a noise. And if you think about it, that is the correct philosophical position for us to take. :

The reason why people in the struggle have been reluctant to adopt this view is the same reason that I was reluctant to adopt this view – I wanted the absolute and unassailable warrant of scientific objectivity, especially with regard to something so important as our race and our co-evolutionary women.

However, when we make what turns out to be fairly meager concessions that cannot be denied anyway, that we are a part of interaction and, for example, unfortunately, we can breed with any race on the earth – by dealing with a few mere facts of interaction we gain the tremendous benefits of being able to assert how these things count for us; in addition, by adopting social constructionist engagement and hermeneutic process, we gain coherence, accountability, agency and warrant. We are not completely beholden to objective facts of Darwinism, but we are able to turn more attention to the relative way of how we want these facts of evolution to count for us, how we want to evolve? We can say for example that yes, we can integrate with other races, but we can do better by going another way. We can invoke our agency against physics metaphors disingenuously applied to the biology of our class – for example, immigration “flows” – Immigration does not flow, like a soothing, calming river. Immigration is a hazard facilitated by human agency and it can be reversed by our human agency.

None of this abandons science; but merely acknowledges Heisenberg’s uncertainty theorem, that even science is interactive, reflexive and mutable to some extent.

Theoria, Praxis and Poesis are Aristotle, not Jewish. Taking not only social matters, but even hard science as Vico and Heisenberg did, into praxis, suggests taking everything into the scrutiny of how it serves our interests as Whites. Theoria was the Cartesian, foundational way of doing sciences that social constructionism looks to get away from, courtesy the hints of Heisenberg, Godel, Vico et al. – it proposes taking all into the practical judgment – into the social realm, what Aristotle called Praxis, to serve our interests, as Whites.

Race is a social construct, but it is not a mere social construct; ours is a real social construction over 40,000 years and it is the most important thing in the world for us.

Now, there are Jewish academics and liberal/leftists who try to push the envelope of social constructionism to where race is a mere construct, yes, but they are doing something Cartesian again – not doing social constructionism proper, but rather a disingenuous misuse of the notion. It is a common mistake among White advocates to be so put off of by Jewish casuistry, abuse of certain ideas and platforms, as to lose sight that these ideas were most often drawn from those of ours to begin with. Not understanding our place within praxis is the mistake White advocates make when they reject whole important disciplines such as social constructionism, hermeneutics, sociology or rhetoric as “Jewish” – to be rejected in favor of “hard science”

However, the ultimate reflexive effect of the scientific quest for objectivity is no accountability – a hyper relativism– given the reality, that everything exists in interaction and reflexive effects, that how facts count must be negotiated between us, the radical implication is that everything must ultimately be assessed within praxis, that is, its practicality for us – thus, it would be very foolish for us to reject the tools of hermeneutics, rhetoric, so on, to preclude the means of agency, accountability, coherence and warrant that they afford.

The Post Modern Turn For Whites

I’ve heard White separatists criticize post modernity as if it is a notion that is detrimental to us, confusing, a motive of anything goes, whatever and never mind anyway.

Post Modernity is actually a very useful and important tool for Whites. In fact, when people complain about confusion, disorder, anything goes, that is not really Post Modernity, that is really just more Modernity – the reflexive effects of its impervious quest of progress and foundational knowledge; its valuing of change, maintaining that it will inevitably lead to progress and those foundational truths out there – let the chips fall where they may in the meantime; its prohibition of classification, to the extreme where it is now not only called “nationalism” but “racism”; the disordering that has resulted has profoundly disrupted systems of accountability and niche, ecological balance. That’s Modernity that is confused, not Post Modernity.

This prohibition of classification as enforced through The Constitution of The United States has left it and us vulnerable to the manipulations of The Israelis.

Post Modernity and a re- assertion of Classification through the hermeneutic turn rather, provide solutions to those disordering effects and non-accountability.

The Post Modern turn puts an end to the insane, insatiable call for change and imperviousness to its wreckage. The Post Modern turn facilitates the agency our people, Whites, in reconstructing our traditional practices, people and habitats as we choose, while advancing where we so choose, as well.

The Post Modernist White becomes Optimally Competent when he can control participation, engaging, reconstructing traditional practices and people without the pangs of self loathing for the appearance of conformity; and, on the other hand, able to disengage from traditions where they are not useful in order to make innovations and advancements on behalf of White interests – in the broadest scope, he is stepping off the progress train of modernism as it heads toward the wreck of our White Class.

This would be opposed to the minimally competent person who cannot control engagement in either tradition or modernity; or the satisfactorily competent person of tradition, who would fall into the ranks of the minimally competent, there being little in the way of sufficiently stable traditional criteria for them to engage.

I have figured that this sort of balancing act works well with gender relations too, managing difficulties between modernist and traditional White men and women.

This is crucial to understand because, for example, it is not only feminists who are a problem within modernity / post modernity – it is not only feminist women who are mud-sharking, but traditional women too.

But before it seems like I am only being hard on women, all this talk of objectivism and its lack of accountability has largely resulted from a typical White man’s way out – the modernist way, as I have said, of self transcendence, for lacking the courage or ability to assert themselves they have taken recourse into the cowardly self transcendence of objectivism.

I do not want to blame White men too much however- given the prohibition of classification – their normal circumspect way has been short-circuited. White men have been desperately trying to compensate, with achievement, without the fostering ground of Being that White class boundaries would afford. They have been trying to compensate for their lack of Being; for the endless criticism of their supposed advantageous place atop; it supposedly having stemmed only from privilege; from a differentiation of fulfillment; when in fact, it has often stemmed from a sublimation of deprivation of that ground of Being that might have been afforded within the class – thus, to be ridiculed for achieving despite deprivation is particularly cruel – it is a wonder more White men have not gone off the deep end. (I talk about this as a misunderstood aspect of the late 1960’s epoch). To correct this, as I see it, White men need to be granted a little more ease of being so that they are not so crazy and over compensating when they reach positions of actualization – objectivism being this kind of insanity too; while women need to be up against a little more critique, test and skepticism on basic levels so that they are not overly liberal when reaching positions of actualization; thinking everything came to them and the White race more easily than it has; thus being prone to give things away too easily.

These incommensurate gender agendas in absence of classification in modernity are something that can be managed to some extent in optimal balance of the post modern turn as well – recognizing that just because something is new and a change does not mean that it is good, does not mean that it will necessarily lead to something better; does not mean that it is inevitable; does not mean that we have no agency and can do nothing about it. With accountability to classification we can manage the traditional direction of men, toward achievement, along with their modernist White male need for Being in the world. We can manage and negotiate that with the traditional female need of comfortable being in the world along with their modernist need to participate in achievement.

This is the coolest, to knowingly reconstruct our most advanced White people and their comfortable way of life.

Most radically, this management requires reassertion of classification. We must assert The White Class, its bounds and accountability.

Ours is not a no account objective concern, like a scientistic use of Darwinism, for example – ours is an accountable, relative concern for our people and our interests, which requires Whites to assert.

In line with observations based on Aristotle, progress and reconstruction of the White class can and should be managed in accordance with some measure of optimal balance in mind – and if not, nature has corrections in mind anyway.

A Moral Order For Whites

All of this talk of classification, the reconstruction of our White Class, how to deal with it in light of the disorder of modernity, the antagonism of corporate and Jewish interests, requires one last important framework.

When in my early twenties, I did a somewhat typical thing – I tried hard to practice Christianity. Why I tried so hard to practice something that had so little to do with reality became clear to me when I got a clue from an Oxford professor whom I spent an afternoon with some years later. He lectured on people requiring moral orders on top of their factual world. What was salient to me was the plurality of the term, “Moral Orders”. It made clear to me what I was looking for was a moral order and that Christianity was not the only moral order.

I feel bad when I think about the two thousand years and the lives martyred for this moral order of Christianity – the people were and are essentially trying to do the right thing in seeking a moral order. However, Christianity is obsolete. Clearly it is not serving our interests as Whites – is not particularly concerned with our reward in this world – if you doubt it, all you have to do is refer to the text.

We need a moral order, but one that truly serves our interests as Whites – that is to say, would be circumscribed by the fourteen words, having a degree of transcendence, but not Cartesian, managing processual and interactive involvement with the objects of investigation, as the hermeneutics turn allows, modifying but utilizing the best of Kant’s moral system as such, while including elements of pervasive ecology, biology, Aristotle’s optima and so on.

Whites need a moral order – let ours be circumscribed by the White Class, the 14 Words.

Scaring potential White allies away with objectivism and false either/ors.

I think that the right wing is scaring people – and well it should, because it maintains some rather foolish premises and several false either/ors.

Let’s characterize the left as classifying and relativism; and the right as objectivism and individualism that is blinding people to the very means by which their individualism is constructed – the class, the non Cartesian ways, such as Heidegger’s Dasein, there-being toward and with others (Michael O’Meara astutely adds Heidegger’s mit-Dasein, there being amidst our class). Their pretense of objectivity ignores accountability to that fact and responsibility of our interactive construction with others. Thus, when we hear talk of I.Q., the self made man emerging from a point within side his head and eugenics, we are afraid – first because we think it is disingenuous, not acknowledging the social resources that have gone into making these things, even if over the course of a couple generations; but we are also afraid because we think it is an unnecessary warrant for survival – If someone has a high i.q. and contributes great inventions, wonderful! As long as no other Whites interfere with them and they can have children, what is the problem? The authentic expanse and quality life is removed when criteria are narrowed to a quantifiable point of evaluation. When it is said that these things are just scientific facts– well, that’s that, nothing you can do – people are biologically determined – ok, biology does not change over a life time, but these things are ascribed different meanings and do evolve over time – it is scaring people because it takes away the agentive means and accountability by which they might rightfully defend themselves.

If a White person wants to fight for Whites and can live to an advanced age, with this kind of struggle, in a very important way they are good enough – even if not the biggest, brightest, most beautiful, even if they are old – in fact they might have less to lose and be better fighters because of it. Sometimes White talent can come from surprising places.

False either/ors in general are one of the biggest mistakes that the struggle is making – along with several I’ve mentioned, I’ll add a few more to which we need not be beholden:

It is not socialism or free enterprise – it is both. It is that way anyway – but should be based on the interests of the White Class. It is not hard or social sciences it is both. It is not environmentalism vs industry and jobs, it is both – we need to develop environmentally friendly industry and work. Talk about universals, I can’t see anybody thinking pollution is a good thing – oh hooray! Dioxin! Radiation!

It is not diplomatic spokesmen, free of profanity and epithets or enraged pragmatists cursing and spewing vitriol, it is both –

While we need our above ground, calm and rational advocates to show that we have dignity, discipline and sanity, appeals to peaceful, diplomatic, fair and persuasive means it is not all that we need. We need to show that we have sense too. This is an emergency. Losing White women is like having rain forests cut down – much worse, of course – we want to exist every bit and more – this calls for immediate confirmation of that rage among those sensible enough to be enraged – rising above the din, mystifying torrents of Jewish denial, antagonism and abuse of our people. We need our special operations, underground too, we need the occasional surprising rogue that the right would find uncouth – we need our self assertive underground responding in significant measure, not calmly looking at our destruction with detached, pseudo objectivism; pacifism is not enough, we need force and doing whatever it takes, agitating to bring down the system which oppresses us until they will finally relinquish White separatism – our freedom from association with non-Whites and our freedom of association with Whites.