Top

Leftism as a Code Word (Part 1): The White Left

November 6, 2011

By Daniel Sienkiewicz

When our advocates call our enemies the Left, they are making a crucial mistake: obfuscating our two greatest problems and the means of solution at the same time.

In an interview with Dr. Sunic, Professor MacDonald says, “these neocons, their only interest is Israel. [Otherwise] they tend to be on the Left. They still are on the Left when it comes to immigration. All these things are just really leftist.”

Dr. Lowell says that “the Left” has shipped industry and with it, jobs, to China.

In his article Women on the Left, Alex Kurtagic discusses some of the same subject matter that I had dealt with in a previous article, and to which I have given some consideration over the years – among that, sorting out different kinds of feminists in relation to White interests. In concluding that these “leftists” have nothing to offer women, he places feminists in the same category: de Beauvoir, who did indeed fashion herself a leftist of sorts (taking women as her advocacy group, and Marxism as her guide), but was not Jewish; and Friedan, who was Jewish, but more liberal than a leftist.

In an interview for Alternative Right, Kurtagic goes on attacking “the leeeft, the leeeft, the leeeeft,”  and I cringe, not for the reasons that he may think; i.e., he may think that I am lamenting an attack on a centralized economy, or open borders multiculturalism, PC “enrichment”. Maybe he would think that I am waxing nostalgic for the Soviet Union where he and Sunic had the misfortune to grow up, or that I want to take away private property? Maybe he thinks I am cringing because I want to jealously limit his horizons, tell him what kind of art and architecture that he can have. Maybe he thinks I want everybody to be equal or treated equal? No, I am cringing because another perfect Jewish trick is being promoted to the detriment of White people.

These counterproductive ambiguities are circulating among our best advocates – hence the need of clarification and definition emerges salient. It is not about competing with them and showing them up; it is about getting the framework of our advocacy correct.

Naming the Jew can be risky business indeed and that assuredly accounts for why White advocates have used code words: e.g., liberals, non-Christians, leftists, etc. I submit that if one is in a situation where it is too dangerous to name the Jew, then liberal – at least in terms of its fundamental meaning, openness to other groups of people – is the better code word as it also encompasses those problems of ours that are truly not of Jewish making but of our own. And that the Left is the worst code word; that is the subject of this thesis, for reasons that I will elaborate shortly. Agreed, the charge of liberalism is too problematic, as I discuss in footnote (1), it has a decided image problem, stodgy and logically entails ground yielding conservatism in response; thus another term should be supplied – but not the Left.

When one does have to confront the Jewish question more directly, but is in danger, not free to speak in just any way, one of the best strategies for defending against charges of antisemitism should be to distinguish between “virulent” and “relatively benign” Jews in accordance with Faussette and Bowery’s theory regarding the cycle of Jewish virulence. Jews, long a people without a nation (nearly 2,000 years), developed an uncaring, parasitic relation to their host nations, particularly among the elites of their vested interest. After a period of consolidating the wealth of a nation to themselves, the most ‘virulent’ ones escape over the border for a new host country to exploit, while the relatively ‘benign’, situated and accountable ones are subject to the wrath of the host nation’s people who realize belatedly, “’the Jews’ did this to us!” This perpetuates the cycle as the virulent elite bribe their way into a new country, gain farther sympathy, critical absolution and pseudo-justification for their exploits as they point to what ‘they do to us’: the Holocaust, the Inquisition, the pogroms, the Roman occupation.

With this distinction however, we should be able to mitigate the charge of antisemitism, noting that our large grievance is with the virulent elite (as well as with White traitors, especially those in influential positions) not with those Jews normal, situated and accountable to a local culture. Nevertheless, as anybody who has experience will tell you, the pattern of antagonism and indifference to European interests exists not only among Jewish elitists, but in them as a whole. Thus, we need to discriminate, even if some are worse than others and should be looked upon as more criminally liable.

. . .

As most normal White people, liking my people and myself, I spent most of my life saying that I was neither Left nor Right, if those terms emerged as an issue

For good reason: as with all normal White people, I had been repulsed, had a very strong aversion to identifying as a leftist: I saw rabid Jewish advocates of non-Whites along with anti-White Whites and heard them called “THE Left” all my life. Yet, I looked at what was being called “the Right”, and I could not quite do that either – it meant that one would be an ignorant hole by definition. I use this vulgarism deliberately to demonstrate that you can indeed, define terms through the pattern of how people are using a term: Notice that a person will be called a hole when they harm others when they do not have to; or, when they let people harm them when they do not have to. That is characteristic of the Right for a reason – they are not accountable; they wish to believe in their sheer, objective innocence and not accountable to an encompassing, but delimited “we”, as such. With the Wall Street protests and our struggle’s growing recognition of the military industrial complex, the corporate plutocracy’s quest for cheap labor; its transgression of borders; its disregard of our people in more difficult circumstances, middle, working class and more; for our environment; growing recognition that this is not in our interest as Whites – our need to not identify as rightists becomes acute.

At the same time, with the population explosion threatening to overwhelm our demographic and our environment, it is also of acute importance not to identify with the phony “Left”, which is really just more catastrophic liberalism, if you look at it. That understood, I have come to the realization that saying one is neither Left nor Right is an inarticulate halfway point to extricating oneself from promulgated Jewish definition of the terms. That once one sorts out Jewish perversion and corruption of the terms, that the Left is the best way for us to identify as White advocates.

When our advocates call our enemies “the Left” they are making a crucial mistake: obfuscating our two greatest problems and the means of solution at the same time.

Our advocates are obfuscating the agency of Jewish machinations – hiding behind a twisted definition of “the Left.” The Left has the moral high ground and the label, Left, has the appearance of that moral high ground because it is supposed to be socially accountable, even if it is a misnomer: which it is, in Jewish application of the term – leftist classification indeed, for Jews, non-Whites, and anti-White Whites, but prescribing obsequious, cataclysmic liberalism for Whites. With that, they are obfuscating the motive of Jews to define us as Rightists and their motivation to drive us there.

At the same time, our advocates are obfuscating our other large problem – our wish for the “innocence” of objectivism or the appearance thereof, the pretense of such objectivism in order to avoid accountability – that is Rightism.

While Jews will use this argument too, that they are simply better, meritorious, when it serves their interests, Jewish political planners and academics generally want to maneuver us into a rightist position because it leaves us naive, organizationally weak, amoral, and unaccountable to our own as a relational class of people. White traitors also want us to be rightists so that they can avoid accountability.

Finally, in calling “the Left” our enemy, our advocates also obfuscate the means of solution by creating an aversion to what we need – a social classification of ourselves as a people, a full class of people. The Left is always about social classification if you sort out abuse of the term.

When we refer to ourselves as a people, we are classifying. The Left is a function of systemic classification, designating a group of people the interests of whom are to be looked after as a class – protecting against outsiders, e.g. “scab” union busters and plutocratic exploitation of labor. Sound familiar? We classify ourselves as Whites for highly analogous reasons: to protect ourselves from opportunistic outsiders and from elitist exploitation and indifference.

If our philosophy is correct, as White advocates, we are leftists. Why? Because we are advocating a people, not objective facts, not simply describing facts, independent of interactive involvement and consequences. We are, if we are good White advocates, saying, “if a tree falls in the woods and there are no White people left to hear it, to talk about it, at least, it may make a noise, but may as well not for all it matters.” We are taking a people-centric perspective and a White-people-centric position, specifically. We are acknowledging that nothing exists outside of interaction and how facts count must be negotiated between people. And being mammals, caring about closer personal relationships, as we do, preferably by White people.

In fact, the moment we refer to ourselves as Whites, or indigenous Europeans, we are parceling a relative classification of ourselves socially and that is the reality. Whereas the Right, inasmuch as it pursues objectivity independent of interaction, social interaction, and a negotiation of how things count, is always something of an illusion.

If Kevin MacDonald looks at two DNA strands and says, this one is Jewish and this one is White, he must address at least one colleague with this information, in seeking agreement. In some cases, data will be agreed upon by nearly 100% of people and that will generally be called, “objective.” A few may disagree, but they will be considered crazy. Nevertheless, the data, the observation and how it counts, occurs in social interaction (or it may as well not occur at all).

Moreover, to identify who we are as a full social class would give us the moral high ground and powerful organizational function at once. The White Class: viz., persons of native European descent, with interests relative to our class as such, would entail two-way accountability to our class straight away, from those on top and from those in developmental, marginalized stages; i.e., our relative, relational interests, irrespective of whether White traitors and non-Whites, those outside The White Class, are more or less “objectively” capable. Non-Whites might be allies, but they are not in the class. White traitors are traitors, their abilities only making them more offensive. The White Class, The Indigenous European Class (with its subcategories, yes), would define who we are and to whom we are largely accountable

On the other hand, when we are made averse to Leftism, we are blocked from classifying ourselves as a people – a classification that takes into account processes, all stages of development (within the lifetime) and evolution (beyond the lifetime); a classification that makes an important difference as it takes into account and respects our paradigmatic difference, a differences that make a difference from  other groups, our qualitative form and function, systemic pattern, its ecological disbursement, niche differences, logics of meaning and action that can make us more cooperative among ourselves and less conflicting with non-Whites when practicality is the better part of valor.

Coming back to our first big problem in calling “them” the “Left.”

When our advocates attribute Leftism to our enemies, they are not addressing the agentive Jewish machinations against our people, but rather attributing the problem to an ideology or less, a devil word, the “Left.” This obfuscates the fact that Jews are classifying themselves and looking after their own interests, hiding their own agency in promoting hyperbolic liberal ideas and antagonism to Whites – promoting those outside or antagonistic to the White Class as “marginals” come to “enrich” us. Jewish agency is hidden behind the attribution of “the Left”whether the agency behind economic Marxism or the cultural Marxism of PC

Our second big problem obfuscated by calling our enemies, ‘the Left.’

Our wish for the “innocence” of objectivism or the appearance thereof, the pretense of such objectivism in order to avoid accountability

Whether of religious speculation which seeks to establish its pure innocence, a clique of scientistic elitists who seek to establish the pure objective warrant of their discoveries, or the pure might-makes-right of the quasi-individual and corporate “individual” of U.S. law, the Right is characterizable as a quest for objectivity which would make quick work of accountability – whether through a naïve whish to be innocent through objectivity or worse, through a cynical wish to avoid accountability through a pretense of objectivity.

While a White Leftist perspective would not begrudge persons who do some things better their due, their difference, so long as they are accountable to the relative interests of the class, people tend to want to believe their success is more a result of their sheer independence than it actually is – the Right is pseudo objectivist, faithfully, slavishly leaving nature to its own devices – we are caused, pseudo detached from the social, anti-social, unaccountable and inhumane as such – “that’s just the way it is”, according to nature, or seeking account in the elusive and insensible speculation of religion.

Michael O’Meara does make an excellent point that self-destruction is inherent within the Western ways that Jews are already exploiting – I would say viz., objectivism, scientism, liberalism, Christianity, universalism, capitalism – these things which pose as “innocent” are largely naïve or disingenuous by definition in not calling for accountability to relative and subjective interests as a White class; and narcissistically not recognizing the relative/subjective interests of others (e.g., Muslims, Blacks, Asians) as a class; we would thus be taken advantage of, it would lead to our destruction, Jews or not.

While understandable, the wish to transcend relative and relational interests of the class, into the innocence and power gambit of sheer objectivist pursuit creates a narcissistic, hyper-relativistic upshot. In pursuing innocence of pure criteria, void of relative, relational and subjective interests, we limit accountability, reduce comparisons between people to singular, non-qualitative criteria, comparing, blending what are in fact paradigmatic differences, incommensurate logics of meaning and action between various peoples – typically to disastrous effect.

The Right is enamored of enlightenment objectivism, which reached its height in Descartes’ quest for a fixed logic transcendent of nature; and its depth in the empiricism of Locke, trying to find fixed foundational laws within nature. Locke was motivated by empiricism as an argument against the English Aristocratic class, which he resented for its superior educational opportunities. He asserted thus, that as each individual has the same perceptions that social classifications are a fiction of the mind and should be prohibited in favor of civil individual rights – that prejudice against classification of peoples was written into the U.S. Constitution, rupturing relations and development processes, leaving us weak to collectively organized enemies, such as Jews.

The means of solution

Kant tried and failed to resolve the problems of Cartesianism and Lockeatine empiricism by integrating it on universal foundational principles. It is rectified indeed, however, with the hermeneutic process, an optimizing, tacking back and forth as need be between verification of smaller units of analysis, such as our DNA and its relation to our environment, to the more protracted and patterned facets of our DNA’s expressions, relations encompassed in social classification; the answer in a word, is to re-establish the relative and relational interests of social classification – a people centric perspective: a tree may make a noise when falling in the woods but if there are no (White) people left to hear it, or talk about it, may as well not make a noise for all it matters to us – thus, we re-assert Whites as a Classification in particular, The White Class comprehending those of native European extraction, their sub-nations, regions (and not others) as the means and the solution. At the same time, observing Bateson’s correction of Darwinism, that the organism plus environment is the unit of survival – the organism which destroys its environment, it’s habitat, destroys itself.

For Kant, who had not rid himself of Cartesianism, good will was to treat every individual as an end in them self; for us, rather, the White Class and its environment ought to be treated as the relational, relative end in itself – it is those who fight on behalf of Whites, who tactfully flee on behalf of Whites or who stealthily infiltrate on behalf of Whites; those who respect the quality of differences that make a cooperative difference among the White class and toward other peoples who are of good will; as opposed to narcissistic comparisons of equality which entail unnecessary competition, reciprocally escalating diatribe and war. Succinctly, a White Class would call for more accountability to and from our individual members; and a more general sort of accountability to environment and non-Whites as a class – that we neither exploit them nor abet their over-population and incursion upon us.

Relative, relational separatism is always possible, is a first step, as well as our ultimate aim. If some of our members are better in some ways, and it helps, great! But we do not need that argument for separatism. In essence, we want to be separate, not to lord ourselves over and exploit others. That is a difference between White elitists and White Leftist Separatists, The White Class.

Notes

1) I am indebted to TT Metzger for encouraging a leftist outlook; I had been stuck in the neither left nor right trap until he got me to thinking. He also made the best enhancement to the “ship of praxis” – that its big leading gun ought to be the issue of population as it relates to environment.

Bottom