You bear the chains from centuries of Europeans questing after objective and universal foundations, equality lending itself as one of the most convenient abstractions in service of universal criteria. The chain breaks at the weakest link and non-equality is taken as the apparent response in correction of this conceptual error, its crisis.
Of course, quite the opposite of modern day Scrooge’s our chain has not been forged of niggardliness – quite the opposite, it was born in a spirit of charity and liberation, universal brotherhood of man, causing us to lose sight of patterns, of our own particularly.
“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.” – G.B.
Non-equality is not merely an insufficient emancipation from our chains. In fact, it reconstructs the very framework, the paradigm, “the rubric under which we meet.”
. . . . .
“Paradigm” emerges as yet another example of terms that have been abused. We have discussed the abuse and misuse of other terms, such as “leftism”, which is really open-borders, obsequious liberalism that is promoted to Whites by Jewish academics and political planners. “Social constructionism” is another example, promoted as idealist by Jewish academics, as opposed to its being the realist notion that it is meant to be – race is not a “mere” social construct; it is a real social construct. Vico, one of the fist proponents of social constructionism, was realist. In fact, he was also one of the first opponents of Cartesianism. As a similar result of abused terms, those who balk at the word “paradigm” perhaps need to be reminded that Jewish academia latches onto good concepts, obfuscates, abuses and deploys them to their ends.
Taking a social constructionist premise that a paradigm does not begin with an object of inquiry, but rather with a group of practitioners (“if a tree falls in the woods and there are no White people left to hear it”…), a paradigm is a pattern, a logic of meaning and action shared by a group of people. When the logic of meaning and action of one paradigm does not compare and mesh well with another, i.e., when the means and ends do not jibe between two paradigms, they are said to be incommensurate.
Though it is not the first time that I have known of the illustration of checkers and chess, the VoR’s Peter Schaenk used the analogy of Jews playing chess while Whites are playing checkers. Whites continually get routed as a result, as the chess player plans farther in advance. This is an example of incommensurate paradigms, incommensurate logics of meaning and action: Jews playing chess while Whites play checkers.
In reality, the matter is extremely serious and it is of urgent importance that we begin to understand and instantiate paradigmatic differences, differences that make a difference.
Thesis: The notion of non-equality entails false comparison, elitism, unnecessary conflict and destruction of our people. It is rectified by concern with paradigmatic differences, classifications (of race) which make a difference as they focus attention on qualitatively different processes that provide means of systemic cooperation among and between classifications.
Examples of detrimental blending of incommensurate paradigms are abundant, but the results are predictable – unnecessary destruction to vital class members and unnecessary conflict with other groups. On the other hand, by ongoing attention to maintenance of the qualitative difference of the White class, we are flexible to deal with various antagonists as need be while disputes over which is enemy is worst are kept to a minimum.
By way of examples, I have already engaged in discussion of how traditional and modern gender agendas are incommensurate; traditional women seek to maintain the base of the hierarchy of motives for themselves while traditional males tend to pursue the top. Reversing modernist males will seek the base of the hierarchy, existence and being, while overcompensating modernists, like Clinton, will pursue achievement, extending themselves beyond the interests of the class. Reversing modernist women will seek the top of the hierarchy, while overcompensating modernist women will perhaps undermine the class as some sort of radical Marxist type.
As mentioned last time, with the addition of some poor grammar, the Black Power movement, where it asserts that the Black man will rule, is seeking after the top of the hierarchy while a good portion of White men are seeking to warrant their existence, the base of the hierarchy.
Near the beginning of the incommensurate gender agendas article, I cite Philip Rushton’s analysis demonstrating different rates of sexual maturity between different peoples, such as Blacks, Whites and East Asians. This provides another example of incommensurate paradigms. Specifically, I use the example of the White girl who may in fact be a marginal within an earlier stage of her development and snapped-up by the earlier maturing and sexually aggressive Black, as a result, even though she is not defective, rather she would be something more like the ”cream of the class”, the paragon of White womanhood, in fully developed maturity. Her appropriately matching White partner would be left out of the equation because of his later sexual maturity, and with that, his greater sublimation, the attendant circumspection which might have so many corrective effects. This catastrophic meshing of incommensurate paradigms, disrupting and altering the co-evolution of millennia, is often perpetrated by other White men, on their high horse, out to show the little ladies how objective and “morally superior” that they are overcoming White male defense. But notice the loss of the girl who has become a mud-shark and the boy who is relegated to the beta male 86 list is not necessarily characterized by better or worse, but of ignored qualitative differences and processes. In truth these differences are profound, a tremendous loss suffered as a result of the attempted integration of incommensurate logics of sexual maturity.
Whites are taking more steps toward reproduction, learning more, cultivating resource and amenity along the way but often losing out to Blacks who are going right at it, while the Jews are playing chess, are given to be up-in-the-head wind-bags, continually misframing issues to the detriment of Whites. IF we can get the Jewish rule structure off of our backs, Blacks are a weekend operation (TT). In the meantime and nevertheless, Blacks are not so easy in all respects. Black musical ability, athletic ability, street smarts and sexual patterns as compared to the abilities that distinguish Whites provide still another example, ridiculous perhaps, of imposed incommensurability.
Human Biodiversity is not really right wing, but so long as others understand that the White Class claims the same turf, we may wish them well in promoting the idea. In fact, human biodiversity comports exactly with the notion of incommensurability as well. Otherwise, when variables, such as I.Q., are isolated, many important, evolutionary contingencies of the pattern are perhaps being removed. Cooperative functions of their level of development or niche would be ignored by false comparisons as “non-equal” instead of their being regarded as different qualitative functions from others within the class. Thus, isolating one sort of skill ought to be considered carefully so as not to be detrimental to the ecology of the class as a whole. Who is going to emerge to save the White class in a given instant can be a surprise, but it stands to reason that they may not emerge from the ranks of the most comfortable. As Cobb has pointed out, it could be somebody quite ordinary (or worse) who makes the difference, not necessarily the best chess player. It is possible to be too compassionate, but while recruiting to the ranks of White defense, for an indefinite time, in fact, focus need be on those who will fight; giving encouragement to a broad range of Whites to lend their agency with the notion that they may be of help, whatever their skills, so long as the end game is commensurate with the 14 words. My position is, who it is that will fight will sort out who is worthy.
Objectivity, as we have discussed, is another incommensurate logic to the relative interests of the White Class. In fact, objectivism is one of the chief culprits in leveling paradigms into universal criteria.
There are many examples of incommensurability bearing upon the class that may be explored farther, perhaps pursued in operational verification.
Now then, from the individual scale to White nations and states, the principle of qualitative difference holds true as well.
European from non-European is the more important, paradigmatic difference. Nevertheless, the nations, states and regions within the European peoples, which I am calling the White Class, are important as well, and need the freedom to be fully distinct and of their own population.
The key is to distinguish indigenous native Europeans and non-native Europeans (especially elite) along with elite, White traitors. This is to distinguish a trivial difference from profound difference, and to avoid unnecessary ecological blunder: In maintaining a view toward the ecology of qualitative processes, of paradigmatic differences and the buffering of the European nations our White Class paradigm may be analogized to symbiotically functioning organs of a body; or take TT’s idea that the European nations and states might be looked upon as compartments of a ship. The Class ensconces relatively trivial differences from profound differences; those evolved in Europe over tens of thousands of years are within the class. Nevertheless, recognizing the profundity and potential acrimony of attempts to blend the European states, let us call them incommensurate paradigms, their distinctions needing to be maintained. We do not want to hear that Germany’s loans failed, about the Euro, about the E.U. Poles should not be inundating Britain – all broaching of paradigms. Nevertheless, with state sovereignties established, whether by analogy of the compartmentalized ship or the body and its parts, when speaking of the class, we include all native Europeans. No, they should not be imposing upon each other. But, in defending against non-Europeans, we have our most important common ground as the White Class, here in Europe, in the White States of America and elsewhere.
While understanding that the disastrous treaties that led one European country after another into WWI calls for significant caution, a basis of voluntary assistance as opposed to mandatory alliance can prevent that sort of overall disaster. Toward the end of avoiding inter-European war, Dr. Lowell’s focus on regions probably has merit as well.
So long as the focus continually comes back on the White Class and its needs there need be no inconsistency among the various challenges that we face. While I am persuaded that our two greatest enemies are elite Jews and elite traitorous Whites, that may appear absurd to Western Europeans faced with massive Muslim immigration. It may seem absurd to the American Southerner faced with masses of Blacks, with their long pre-evolution lending bio-power to pejorative characteristics, menacing characteristics thereof faced by South Africa as well. In fact their population growth, the fastest in world, combined with the negative aspects of their bio-power, are arguably among the greatest threats of all. In the U.S. South-West, it is the Mestizos invasion and population that emerges most urgent. Still others will rightfully claim that Chinese overpopulation, capacity for technology, economic hegemony, combined with an unsympathetic attitude are what’s most alarming. India’s population and economy can be the worry for others. Still others will see low ranking traitors to be the relevant concern. Pierce was not above critiques of popular culture. The truth is that they are all problems for us, and they all merit defense in an ongoing course of vigilance and tact. While some may wish to defend their particular state only; it is the White Class in full that can provide the numbers, skills and the territory to win the war; and thus should be our full organizational outlook. Secondly, we ought to be able to agree that it is the policy makers who impose immigration and integration upon us who are to be prioritized as enemies – they are apparently Jewish elites and elite White traitors. Whatever the case, whatever the contingency or the immediate enemy, we maintain coherence through the Class. With an ongoing focus on the White Class, its enemies will emerge and be implicated appropriately.
Jews do not always make sense to us. Why would they destroy America? Yet, they are largely responsible for doing so. While Muslims in Europe will hurt rank-and-file Jews, the Muslim presence suggests European alliance with Jewish elites. We should not have a good deal of faith in how that alliance will work out for Europeans.
. . . . .
All the more urgent it becomes to get to this matter of paradigmatic difference, “differences that make a difference” as opposed to throwing our hands in the air and saying that “nothing is equal.”
Corporations, the military industrial complex and Zionist elites would probably just as soon go with that, too.
I emphasize non-sameness as opposed to non-equality, while understanding the paranoia of those who do not want to take their eyes off the power, and who think that they are trying to divide and conquer by lowly racial conflict. Nevertheless, If we do not recognize broad paradigmatic differences of class (race), the back-and-forth in run-away effect is going to stay in pejorative homeostasis: after classificatory bounds are broken by those who do not care about our classification, “objective men”, perhaps resting on a notion of non-equality, are empowered to farther clear away White men of racial/class consciousness – that is, if paradigmatic difference is swept aside in favor of “non-equalitariansm”, and no critique is made of disingenuous positions and paradigmatic differences.
The equalitarian/non-equalitarian universalistic paradigm runs roughshod over our paradigmatic difference, our incommensurate logics of meaning and action. The narcissism of false comparison is apt to breed vain elitism, obnoxious, unnecessary competition and strife not only within the class, the race, the paradigm, but also between the classes. Hence, misusing and wasting people within and without the class, it breeds contempt. While I can agree that there is a such thing as too much compassion with and without the group, we must first adopt this answer of who we are and then determine how most effectively to deal with our own varying qualities, our traitors and our enemies. It would seem a maximum of cooperation and most efficient antagonisms would be achieved by recognizing paradigmatic difference.
Non-equality is not merely over-simplistic in not sufficiently characterizing the qualities of our White patterns in their varied, ecologically disbursed niches; by merely saying that we are quantifiably “better”, it engages competitions that we should not, as they are a misuse of particular qualities - not acknowledging relatedness, indebtedness, shared interests while instigating reciprocally escalating diatribe within the class.
Moreover, non-equality is not merely an insufficient emancipation from our chains. In fact, it reconstructs the very framework, “the rubric under which we meet,” the paradigm of universal criteria. Inasmuch, the argument of ‘non-equality’ sets in motion logics of competition, unnecessary competition, not only within the White Class but also with other groups – logically entailing the hubris, the narcissism of false comparison from which ensues unnecessary, poorly conceived dispute, reciprocally escalating diatribe, and ultimately, fairly arbitrary war.
Thus, the notion of paradigm becomes crucial in delineating the class as well. The paradigm characterizes its qualitative form and its logics of meaning and action – in this case, the cultural pattern, the class. It delimits our primary accountability and ecology from recognition of other classes in pervasive ecology. The logics of meaning and action of one pattern will match well enough, that is, be commensurate, while another will not, its logics being incommensurate.
To say that all are equal or none are equal, or to say that all races are equal or no races are equal, is overly simplistic and misleading in assuming that all peoples are working in accordance with the same fundamental logics of meaning and action: A logical consequence of this modernistic, universalistic narcissism and its not being true, is misunderstanding, vain comparisons and dispute, even where some parties were not intending to compete.
Equality and non-equality is contrasted with not being the same, sameness and difference as opposed to equality and inequality. Talk of sameness, difference and incommensurability creates patterns of cooperation and complementarity in sensitizing us to look for these qualitative differences that make a difference, incommensurate logics, rather than to ignore them with the didactic elitism, exploitation, power plays and the conflict of falsely compared criteria. This fosters more of an ecological outlook, toward cooperation within the class (race) and negotiation between classes (races).
. . . . .
Instigated to compete on an equalitarian basis, a fool would take the Black up on his dare to call him a nigger to his face. Though some Whites will be able to beat him, this sort of competition is incommensurate with our abilities – we can easily take recourse in various strategies, have sundry technology at our disposal, can easily build coalitions to offset his bio-power and defend our way of life –
As for the matter of I.Q. within the class; intelligence perhaps does not only function in the relative linearity of I.Q. but also in patterned ecological disbursement: one brother has a genius level I.Q., a sister passes her NY and NJ Bar exams upon first attempt, another brother contracts lucrative restoration projects of The Amex Building and NYC Post office, while still another has an artistic bent while being vigilant of racial issues.
Trauma of various kinds, both literal and as a matter of pervasive disconfirmation may also explain how assessment of intelligence can be trivial and not take into account re-routing in accordance with various deep, evolutionary pathways.
I have known people with high I.Q.’s who struck me as stupid in important ways – was unimpressed by the theories of the man said to have the world’s highest I.Q. I have seen very high I.Q. people losing track of important matters. Nevertheless, I do not want to take this issue too far, as I am happy for very high I.Q. people to do their thing providing that they do not destroy the ecology of the class
More, low I.Q. Whites, who may have significant qualities and abilities to contribute, may lose out with the argument that I.Q. is our singularly distinguishing attribute as opposed to our full, qualitative distinctions as a White Class.
Blacks are not so easy in all respects. Black musical ability, athletic ability, street smarts and sexual patterns as compared to the abilities that distinguish Whites provide still another example of incommensurability. These abilities are compelling to many and often cited as that which forgives a multitude of sins. Agreed, it is absurd, after all, would we rather have jazz and basketball as opposed to a lovely White woman, reasonable men and an amenable society? Nevertheless, this tendency suggests that one ought not to over-indulge the Blacks-are-so-stupid argument, particularly for the sake of the un-initiated; as there are different kinds of intelligence that are apt to make the argument look bad if unqualified. More, in the context of America, they know the ropes, having been there a long time. Thus, using the argument that they are stupid, you will find yourself saying of the mud-sharks, “she’s stupid, she’s stupid, she’s stupid”, and you will barely stop. Rather than proffering snobbery, probably better to add focus on Black violence, rape and societal decay in particular, in contrast to the safe and amenable White way of life. The broader pattern of White sublimation, its strength and intelligence in a protracted sense is incommensurate and as yet opaque, unarticulated to many.
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.
They are obfuscating the agency of Jewish machinations, such as perversion of the terms.
People within the class, contributing diverse skills could make it stronger – “diversity” might be “strength” in that way.
Biodiversity in terms of assuring genetic flexibility and the likelihood of survival through various contingencies is certainly advisable, including our separate difference and differences as Whites.
But the merit of biodiversity among our people and biodiversity from other groups within the world is transformed into a term “diversity”, which of course [?], means integration.
“Multi-cultural”, a term that would seem to appeal to the sovereign maintenance of different cultures in the world is perverted into a term meaning integration into a mono-cultural world.
Marginals within the class could have more perspective on our systemic needs (knowing where the shoe pinches), and more of a vested interest in ecological, systemic maintenance of the class; but those outside or inasmuch induced to be antagonistic to the class are called, “marginals.”
Puerile female incitement to genetic competition might create friendly competition within the class, but is pandered to without the class and called White men’s incitement of racial hatred.
We would rather not be diverse from Asians, Arabs, Mestizos and Africans? Of course we would. We want to encourage them to integrate with us, become Westernized and envelop us? Of course Not. Nevertheless, Jewish academics and political planners have blurred the lines of diversity and marginals, particularly those outside the class – entailing their deleterious, non-ecological integration with us – putting the world on its present course of systemic runaway headed for catastrophe. Thus, the White Class serves the world as well as itself in performing the duty of maintaining the separate distinction of itself from other classes (i.e., races) in systemic corrective to Jewish machinations.
Though we cannot merely do as we will to non-Whites toward that end, we should work toward ways of their humane deportation and separation, as we are indeed, warranted to defend the relative interests of our class against population explosion and its incursion upon our people, our habitats. Nevertheless, while Jewish elitists are pandering, instigating and preventing us from taking up the relative interests of our classification; so too are pseudo objectivists.
When the Right talks in terms of quantities not accountable to qualitative differences, paradigmatic differences, ecological niches, relative interests of the class, it is culpable as well.
Taking our hermeneutic circle back to this second problem and making its distinction further -
In distinction from Rightist objectivism, The White Class.
So long as it serves the relative, relational interests of our class, rightist type preoccupation with disciplines pursuing objective abstractions beyond or within biological nature is valid, often yielding important “objective” scientific results. But as we’ve pointed out, in truth, it never fully exists for us; in particular as people are mammals, caring about relationships. But moreover, objectivity always needs to be gauged against the Left’s human sized classification as we must beware that the quantifying metaphors of physics not breach the optimal requirements of biology. As A and B observed: people are biological creatures, requiring optimal, not maximal levels of need satisfaction, quantifiable excesses and deficiencies becoming toxic. Biological nature rarely works within lethal variables; we do not eat because we are starving, we eat as we are hungry.
We do not even necessarily fight for the fact that extinction is forecast and because our race is subject to statistically more violence. As Habermas observed, we do not tend to learn and be motivated unless we can see our subjective interests involved. Our subjective interest, seeing what good it is for us to pursue the relative interests of the White Class, needs to connect. That is one reason why the 14 words is effective, it advocates White survival and subjective interests at the same time. We might rather, fight because our women, our co-evolutionary women, land and property are being taken by apes; because we would receive just reward by partaking in and fighting on behalf of our relative class.
Classification could provide the context for those subjective real life processes, ecology and accountability. However, while both Jews and disingenuous Rightists exploit and pervert objectivist values against our classification; Whites who demonize the Left, per se, are complicit, albeit perhaps unwittingly, with its obstruction as well. Thus, clarifying this central need of class falls in line with Dr. Sunic’s semantic disentangling project: since the necessary classification of our overall process, discrimination on its basis and acting accordingly is being blocked, stigmatized as ‘leftist’, critically analyzed as ‘ethnocentric’ and criminalized as ‘racist.’
Upon “de-obfuscating” these attributions it becomes clear
While striving after White homelands (plural), we need to re-establish classification of Whites and assert our relative, relational interests in revolutionary contrast to our centuries long customs: pseudo objectivism, universalism, Christianity, scientism capitalism, liberalism, sheer individualism. These pursuits being void of context, void of class, broach accountability and ecology. They have us treating non-Whites as being the same as us, with interests that we value equally if not more to our own because we are supposedly innocent and objectively motivated, as opposed to relative, relational and particularly accountable to the White Class.
Unless we want to deny the out of Africa theory we are marking a distinguishing classification to some extent. However, it is not necessary to deny, as it is no compliment to them and no insult to us. We might just as well say that we have them in our past, their traits resurfacing where necessary and we do not want to go back (e.g., to their short sighted aggression and irresponsible breeding). Classifying in spite of the fact that we can, unfortunately, breed with other races, is not wrong to do, on the contrary, it is more than valid – that is our solution: the manageable means of accountability and ecology. It is not a mere construct – it is real - warrantably assertable and operationally verifiable.
Neither can we avoid classifying whether deliberately or de facto. In modernity’s disordering prohibition of classification that often devolves simply to male/female (subject next time). But unlike that rightist objectivism, in which classifications are an upshot caused by mere forces of nature, deliberate classification rather sets in motion the course of agency – the means to construct ourselves as a people: in classifying ourselves, we establish accountability, coherence, agency and warrant.
Nor is it arbitrary and superficial. Defining who we are, who our class is, is not difficult, especially if the national and regional boundaries are respected: We are persons evolved in the context of Europe (and Russia) over the course of 40,000 years, with a bit of Neanderthal, out of Africa for a longer time. In defining who ‘we’ and ‘they’ are, Giles made the good suggestion that we ought to call ourselves Europeans (meaning differentiated indigenously in the context of Europe), them Africans, Israelis, and various Asians. There was also a suggestion for a biological constitution. I concur. We may declare our DNA our nation and connect it to various points of land eventually, even if not contiguous, as Alaska is apart from the continental U.S. – in fact, that would be tactically better, safer. Better still, this biological nation should be based on an updated Articles of Confederation (TT). However small to begin, it is possible. We can easily get enough people to join, and it does not require relinquishing current citizenship, national or regional distinctions. Before long, our thinkers will find a way to ratify our nation before the world – we will become powerful and agile, managing a hermeneutic process between momentary observations of our DNA and its protracted expressions organized of The Class.
A non-Jewish Left, The White Class, is only an oxymoron according to the definition of the Left that people have been maneuvered into by Jewish academics and political planners. Jews want us to be defined as Rightist – in the speculation of a universal religion, anti-social, pseudo-objective individualists – because it is weak and amoral; they want to portray us on the side of the corporate “individual” of U.S. law, us to seem like the force behind the military industrial complex and not the Zionists. They want us to be Rightists. Not Leftists who organize on the basis of the White Class as a full social group, with relative, relational accountability to and from those on top to those in more fundamental stages of developmental (within the life time) and evolutionary (beyond the lifetime), process.
Nevertheless, White traitors fall outside the class by dint of being traitors and are probably our worst enemy. The Right says I’m better therefore you can die, while the Left says you might be better at one thing, but your life is not mutually exclusive to mine, and I can do something else. The egghead who can invent a mathematical formula that facilitates space travel is providing an account, of sorts, but insufficient if he unnecessarily cuts himself off from the flexibility of a sustaining network and process: parentage, women, young, farmers, technicians, soldiers and environment. More, through evolution, his i.q. may in fact have mutated from the sublimation and corresponding cooperation which is as likely as that to be responsible for the relatively non-violent and amenable day to day White way of life – one of our strongest points.
There is nothing idealistic about it: accountability is entailed straight away in the moment we classify ourselves. Separatism is a first step, separatism is an ultimate aim and separatism is always possible. It is entirely possible to coordinate and it is entirely consistent, in sync with taking on Zog, the corporate plutocracy and the military industrial complex. It would call for manageable sub-classifications, of course: but neither are the nations, states, regions, unions, guilds and lone agents contradictory of White Leftism – on the contrary. More, so long as it does not transcend the well being of the class and its habitats, the White Left is not contradictory to morals or other intangibles, individualism, languages, creativity, achievement. Nor tangibles, such as public and private property, our mutual habitat, free enterprise and industry; a reasonable amount of wealth and a reasonable social safety net mutually. Further, in recognizing paradigmatic, qualitative difference of patterns among and between the classes (races) of people, we have the means of cooperative negotiation as opposed to a narcissistic vision of equality – non-equality that instigates reciprocally escalating diatribe and war. It is not that I personally care for non-Whites and traitors – I don’t; and punishment is indeed, in order – but one does have to pick their fights and there does come a point where fighting is impractical. Note that we are subsuming Darwinism under a broader naturalism of classificatory ecology.
Of our agency, The White Left is for us to define. It is not as much on an economic basis. Rich White people have bad will particularly as they are not accountable to Whites. While that might be almost all of the time, it has more to do with their being traitors than because they have money. The White Left could allow for reasonable wealth – maybe after 5 million, one would be taxed 75% ? We’ll work these matters out. See Bowery, for example, on homestead land tax exemptions; land ownership beyond that amount would be subject to a tax that could fund a space program, even. And we need not necessarily provide a safety net much beyond subsistence, food, shelter and heat; some training, a menial job.
The White Class does not contradict nationalism – excluding Jews from leftism and nationalism is NOT an oxymoron by definition. Can you say “national socialism?” It was leftist until the night of the long knives when they went over the top and became elitist, capitalist empire builders (see Matt Johnson on, “it’s empire building, not nationalism that makes war”); too bad coordinating the expulsion of Jews from Europe and Russia could not have been the extent of their dealings with the rest of Europe. The White Class is commensurate with RamzPaul’s emphasis here that nationalism can, in fact, resolve many issues. Having frequently been irritated myself, by the “northern” European thing, as in, only people above he 40th parallel are European, or “White”, I can agree, emphatically, that we can all be for Sweden being Swedish, southern European nations being discretely their own, etc.
This could also accommodate non-biological diversity as DeBenoist seeks; he apparently wants to preserve his language and the fine variety of his French culture; we can agree to that, but ultimately, we should not accept passive resignation for non-Europeans living within France or anywhere in the European continent. If one cherishes cultural expressions while accepting a situation that facilitates the disgusting pairing of French women with Africans, they are throwing the baby out with the bath water and we must side with French Whites more radical. We are willing to help greatly, but not for allowing that kind of diversity to spread to the rest of Europe. We value French women and men, not mulattos speaking French. At the same time, we need not exploit and destroy other peoples and environs; but may leave them alone providing they do not violate our (mutual) habitat and freedom from association with them. The nations and regions of Europe can have a similar scale and be coordinated with those White states among the freely chosen Laboratory of The States as Bowery proposes for The U.S. However, the European nations need to provide for the slightly different function of accountability to the deep ecology of their indigenous peoples. Irrespective of expanse or obstacles, sovereign White nations, regions, and states may be coordinated among the White Class.
When our advocates go on about “the Left, the Left, the Left”, on the one hand, they are obfuscating the agency of our greatest antagonist, the agency of Jewish machination, whether the agency behind economic Marxism or the cultural Marxism of PC. And on the other hand they are driving us right where Jewish academic and political planners want us to go – into the Right – which is the other source of our destruction – the Rightist quest for objective innocence, whether naive or worse, a pretense of objective innocence in order to avoid accountability. Not being leftists blocks resolution to our problem, a problem that Kant had tried and failed to solve, that of empiricism’s upshot, overly severe relativism – which is rectified by the hermeneutic process, classifying the ongoing process by which we gauge our systemic pattern, delimiting our relative interests, and particular accountability as The White Class.
When we say the White Class, meaning people of native European extraction, not Jews and Mulattos with Passports, there is no mistaking, no ambiguity. We are radicals, connecting the radix of our roots to the extremities of our branches, our farther reaches.
We need a moral order of that – our race, our class, is our religion – it centers on the 14 Words – it is transcendent, forward looking, palpable and practical.
We may declare our nation – This is the end of the one world order and the beginning of White sovereignty. Our DNA is our nation.
* * * * *
Note: When listening to our advocates, you might try, for your own clarity (and sanity) substituting the word “liberal”, in terms of its function, openness and caring for outsiders, when you hear them use the word, “left”, and you’ll find that it works fine conceptually. Liberalism’s actual negative meaning is more correct than leftism in terms of describing our problem – as a liberal, one is either naively subject to integrationism at the behest of an elitist group or subject to the integration of bio-power elitists – note that elite may have a positive connotation for some, but not elitism, elitists. It is true, however, that charging others with Liberalism tends to render one stodgy; backward sounding and worse; it poses the continual ground yielding, reactive logic of old-fashioned conservatism as its response. Thus, in line with Kurtagic’s marketing program of image appeal, another word for its meaning, i.e. reckless openness to other cultures, should be supplied – agreed, but not the Left.
Women without class
Paradigms, Incommensurability an Addendum on Classification
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 articleWomen 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.
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.
In The Sunic Journal of October 18th, on Christian Zionism, Kevin MacDonald expressed frustration over Christianity’s hold on people, particularly being of concern as it tends to be a universalizing religion, not especially concerned for Whites as a group, thusly leaving Whites susceptible to a demographic decline perhaps into extinction even. That vulnerability is in part due to Christianity’s ties to Judaism; by contrast to Christianity’s being potentially about just anyone who might take it up, Judaism is a religion which is concerned basically for the well being of an exclusive nation – Israel, and an exclusive people, Jews – with that, they have undertaken machinations to use the vulnerability of Christianity; they have also been able to overcome what anti-Jewish defenses that exist in the text and tradition of Christianity.
In later weeks I will discuss non-religious facets to an overall quest for innocence – of which Christianity is a part – that leave us vulnerable as a group.
However, since Professor MacDonald is searching for means to encourage Whites to adopt religious ways that will conform to reality and serve their own interests as Whites, I will begin with some of the things that brought me around. You see, I went through the infamous “phase” in my early twenties; while people who are earnestly attempting to practice Christianity will hate to hear it called a phase, some of the things that brought me around were as follows:
I visited a few evangelical and fundamentalists churches and felt a bit foolish. But you know? Some things about life were so horrible to me that I almost had to believe that Christianity was true; some things about life were like some kind of torture. I needed some kind of agreement with people over the things that I cared about – things should be better, clearly. So I pressed on with my personal evangelizing for and of the true Christianity – making a fool of myself; would be more embarrassed: if I did not look back in empathy and realize that I could not simply shrug off 2,000 years of European tradition, all the sacrifice, all the devotion, as if it were nothing; and if I did not know that I was trying to do the right thing – as are you, Christian readership.
In a lecture by Professor Rom Harré from Oxford, he discussed morals with utmost sincerity. I was able to understand that morals are indeed, the most important thing in the world; and he added that people need moral orders – but moral orders, the plurality of the term, was a large clue in my liberation from mere tradition, custom and habit – it meant that there were different moral systems; and one might seek one out that serves those interests which they hope to realize. Ultimately, I would begin to consider a moral order that would circumscribe and serve the interests of Whites, and by that I mean persons of indigenous European descent.
But prior to that was another crucial step in liberating me from the customs and habits of traditional religion – The moral system of the Christian thinker, Immanuel Kant. It provided, in all honesty, a more clear, sensible, fair and intelligible rationale than what I had read in the Christian text; but one that did not in all ways correspond with what was in the Christian text. Since it helped me, I am hopeful that it will help others in taking a step to moral order conducive to their own interests as Whites, while not exactly being guilty to others, either. Now, do not beat me up because Kant was talking in those universalistic terms. First things first; all thinkers have to take Kant into account. I have updated his system with the contemporary philosophical considerations of coherence, accountability, agency and warrant; I will move toward more specifically native European interests in subsequent discussions.
Further interesting notes – When not obsequiously holding the door for the late Kara Kennedy after “Theory of Soviet Foreign Policy” classes at Tufts, I took religion classes as something I might cope with, if nothing else; including a class in critical bible study which I’d taken expecting my earnestness to be reinforced, not contradicted: but the obvious man made-ness of the Bible became apparent – for example, The Revelation had to have had at least four different authors. There are sundry other examples of obvious fabrication – i.e., definitely not the hand of god. One of my religion professors was not especially patient with my “phase”. He asked me flippantly, “Did you read all the Kant?” I answered “No, only the last chapter as you’d assigned, on ‘religious intolerance’ being the greatest ignorance.” He grunted and dismissed me in frustration. But you see, at that point I did not want to hear that my devotion could be considered ignorant, because I was well meaning indeed. Maybe with a little more patience, I’d have come back to it sooner. I cannot say that I did not try though, as some things were shining in that Kant – so, what did I do? I went to the library, looked at it again and realizing that it was something I’d need, in my rash state of mind, I attempted to steal the book. Electronic door security detectors-sensors were new then and the buzzer caught me – how embarrassing! And ironic – it is the one book that will tell you that you should never steal.
It was not until five years later that I picked up the book again and it made the worst of the torture stop. So, if you have not read it already, I can save you some time and anguish, having put it here in updated and capsule form.
Kant’s Moral System as Coherence, Accountability, Warrant and Agency
It is vogue nowadays to deride Immanuel Kant as the quintessential “universalizer”, now that twentieth century science, mathematics and philosophy have sufficiently disproved what Kant considered to be “the imperative foundation of universal principles, always good for all people and all circumstances.” The disproving of Kant’s quest does not, however, eliminate the usefulness of his system as a practical topoi – or framework in simpler English. Here is a practical update of his framework, using the contemporary philosophical concerns of Coherence, Accountability, Warrant and Agency.
I. Principles versus Sensibilities: Principles are guidelines and ideal rules which persons maintain to give them character and coherence. Coherence is the first task of any individual in the world; it means to make sense of things in a consistent manner. In following up upon principles set forth, one may be Accountable, viz. able to provide explanations of their actions for responsible, defensive reasons; and one may establish Warrant, the credibility for proactive endeavor. E.g., if one’s actions are misunderstood or worse, false and negative accusations are made against them, they can refer back to the principles that they following and be sure of them self. Kant calls this being sure of oneself, ‘freedom‘; as such, one is freed from Arbitrariness: the confusion of natural flux; false and negative accusations; trivialities; and, of especial importance, freed from natural inclinations which may pull them in a negative direction. Finally, in that regard, as has been pointed out since Kant’s time (e.g. by Rom Harré in personal conversation), in referring back to these principles, one establishes their self Agency, proving that they are the causal agents of their own actions. Now, if one gets carried away with principles, Speculation, to the point where they are not dealing with sensible reality, they can always refer back to sensible evidences. However, as it is easier to attend to sensible evidence than it is to abide by principles and to restore credibility in an un-kept principle, it is better to err in the direction of principles.
The most fundamental principle, “unanimity“, means to think in agreement with one’s self; e.g., if one comes to a conflict, one should think first of why one’s actions and words might be correct, not why they might be wrong. Coherence, Accountability and Agency are begun in this principle straight away.
II. A) Common Morals B) Popular Philosophy C) Principled Philosophy
A) Common Morals: As a matter of practical convenience, people usually start out accepting implicitly, “first principles” (e.g., don’t steal, don’t lie, be monogamous), common moral ideas that it is worthwhile to be good, fair and decent. Then myriad and pervasive influences tend to divert them from first principles. That, Kant calls -
B) Popular Philosophy: It is ubiquitous. People will cite many excuses for deviating from common morals: 1. Typical of these excuses is the statement, “everybody does it;” but the mere popularity of a notion, Kant would observe, does not provide an excuse to violate first principles (consensus can be wrong). Beyond mere conformity to popular consensus, however, there are more cynical and even less accountable deviations from first principles 2. Perhaps most venal is the claim of ‘scientific objectivity’, which disingenuously denies accountability for the personal choices of its practitioners and their subjects; e.g., ‘it’s just human nature.’ 3. People will cite religion, even, as in the statement, ‘it’s just god’s will” 4. Or, people may claim that the complex relativity of their existential situation would not allow them to act in accordance with first principles, when, in fact, they could have; 5. Finally, there is the practice of didactically reversing a first principle (as in teaching through reverse psychology) under the rubric of “teaching”, exemplified in the statement, “it was really for your own good”.
In any case, their arguments for breaking with common morals are of two kinds: “that’s just the [objective] way it is” or “that’s just my/their [relative] circumstances.” Inasmuch, for the brevity of their personal accountability (“that’s just”…), they are not well warranted, and typically not, in their assertions.
C) Principled Philosophy: To correct the negative effects of popular consensus, Kant would proffer that we re-establish our first principles on a universal foundation. Accordingly, we must test our principles by asking the universal question of them, ‘can this principle always be good for everyone?’ In practice, that means, treating people as ends in themselves – in contrast to ‘treating people as the mere means through which other things pass, as strict attendance to logics of nature, otherworldly ideas (Tillich, 1961) or technology would have it – Kant calls this, the most important principle, “good will“. Without good will: intelligence, beauty and fortune only make a person more terrible.
Despite this fine reasoning, it is true enough that Kant has been solidly refuted in seeking universal foundations. Nevertheless, as a practical outline, it is brilliant of itself and of practical use as criteria toward being Coherent, Accountable and establishing Warrant (all three necessary to establishing individuality and agency) in the confusing flux of contemporary society.
Part of what Kant tried and failed to do with his a-priori (universal foundations outside of nature) was to save the world from empiricism.
This is still one of our major problems, as Whites; as the empiricism of Kant’s predecessor, John Locke’s prejudice against classifications, his treating them as fictions which should give way to empirically based sensory impressions of individuals, was canonized as Civil Individual Rights in The U.S. Constitution. This sanctified rupturing of group responsibility – for prime example, “the White race” – has left us susceptible to exploitation and manipulation (especially by you know who).
It is to be corrected by hermeneutic tacking back and forth, managing the White Class from observations more closely read (sensible), such as D.N.A. sequences, to broader historical and temporal patterns, encompassed with narrative and other (speculative) conceptualization.
Look for my articles on coming Saturdays. I will be discussing:
“The Left” is a terribly mistaken code word for Jews
Addendum on Classification, Individuation and Gender
Sex as Sacrament vs. Sex as Celebration
Daniel Sienkiewicz is a White separatist expat from the Unite States lurking in Eastern Europe, a VoR writer and a guest of the Sunic Journal. Email him.
Specifically, how it is that anti-racism is not innocent;
Proposing a non-Jewish definition and criterion of leftism – the White Class;
Corporeal Self And Functions of The Autobiographical Self;
Hippies as a movement for Being, an incommensurate gender agenda with feminism’s quest for Actualization during the 1960s;
Relevant historical exemplars of feminism: from the radical de Beavoir to the modern Friedan to the neo-traditional Gilligan;
Transforming Maslow’s hierarchy of motives into an optimal management of Being, Selfhood, Socialization and Self Actualization.
I was actually quite happy with the theoretical discussion from last time – “Praxis: Getting the Ship of White Separatism on Course” – and that, to me, is surprising, unusual for a theoretical discussion – normally for a discussion of that length and complexity regarding theoretical matters, there would be something gnawing at me – that was not the case. There is nothing that I would change, only a few things that could use more clarification; after that, some ideas to expand upon.
Thus, it is not surprising that I was not quite as satisfied with my more recent discussion, on The Incommensurate Intersection of White Individuation and Gender Agendas.
First, to clarify matters of the prior discussion: the most fundamental point that we made is that anti-racism is Cartesian – it is not innocent; it is prejudice; it is hurting and it is killing people.
Specifically, how it is that anti-racism is not innocent
Now, how is that so? Well, in prohibiting the validity of racial classifications and discrimination on the basis of those classifications, systems of accountability and ecology are being abrogated such that those marginalized, for whatever reason, in the systemic process of what would have been, for example, the White class, are vulnerable to exploitation and to being killed off.
Ok, so we’ve asserted that anti racism is Cartesian, that it is not innocent, it is in fact prejudice, hurting and killing people It is prejudice against anybody who is not on top of the process at the moment; anybody who is the least bit reliant on their class. We may add that is operationally verifiable and warrantably assertable.
For a concrete example of its incursion upon the group evolutionary process of Whites; by breaking down The White class boundaries, the way is opened for opportunistic outsiders – as such, they can even take “the cream of the crop.” As happens for example, through Jewish propagandizing of young White girls, in earlier stages of their normal evolutionary process; put into interaction with Blacks, who have a faster sexual maturity as Rushton points out.
Proposing a non-Jewish definition and criterion of leftism – the White Class
This breaking down of class bounds is done largely by a phony notion of leftism promoted by Jews; normal leftism would be about the full white class, including, those marginalized within the class – marginals can be significant in that they have more of a vested interest in the maintenance of the class boundaries as they are somewhat less independent; and they also comprise some of those in earlier stages of development, such as the young White girl who will one day be the cream of the crop; developmental processes are not something handled well by the Cartesian and anti-social notion of civil individual rights – even within a life span, let alone a developmental unit of analysis that might recognize many generations. But Jewish elites, as usual, have perverted what would be the remedial leftist notion, instead defining marginals as those outside of the class, defining outside groups, non-whites, as marginals.
We’ve been blinded by Cartesianism and have thus allowed this hideous exploitation to be carried off, this distortion of individualism, civil rights, and gender relations.
We have asserted that this destruction of White class bounds results from modernity’s scientism leaving us vulnerable – as such a bit naively to the machinations of Jewish and other non-White group interests; as well as to the interests of the plutocrats, corporatists and the military industrial complex
To correct this, we propose the post modern turn to re-invoke the legitimacy of the White Class.
The management of that protracted scope, of the class, requires the analog capacity of metaphors to some extent; last time, I went rather abruptly into a discussion of the importance of metaphors without providing a little background that The Vienna School of Logical Positivism tried and failed to create a language free of metaphor. Just as well, since metaphors are apparently necessary for managing wider frames of analysis, such as patterns of the White Class.
The hermeneutic turn was an embracing of this, seeing that we could not and should not seek to free ourselves of narrative and historical perspective. We’ll show how that can work in moment.
The postmodern, social and hermeneutic notion of coherence is necessary to the management of our White class.
The failure of logical positivism, as it was trying to nail everything to a graspable empirical foundation, brings me to the next matter that would have called for more elaboration from last time – in focusing on the process of interactive engagement with the objects of inquiry, I neglected some the furtive, social aspect of scientific study as premisary – something that our friend Gregor reminded us of with this quote from Thomas Kuhn, underscoring that collegial and social aspect of scientific endeavor as preliminary: quote ‘a paradigm governs, in the first instance, not a subject matter, but rather a group of practitioners.”
The articulation and definition attempted here corresponds well with Sunic’s project to disentangle useful notions – in this case disentangle them from Jewish corruption. For example, Leftism should be for us – since it should represent the interests of our full class, our relative concerns as a socially related group; as opposed to Rightist objectivism beyond accountability and beyond us. One thing that may cause Whites to flee to the right is the false attribution that it is the only harbor of truth and moral order. There has never been anarchy. On the contrary, there is no avoiding truth and moral order; there will always be things we can, might or cannot do; and these concerns are better managed and best consciously so with the class outlook of the left. For prime example, voluntary enclaves of single sex partner for life hopefuls, absolute monogamy, as a sacrament should be institutionalized as viable option for whomever would choose it. Another thing that may cause us to flee in the counter productive direction of the right, and against our full class interests as Whites, is the idea that we could lose our individuality – so important to us as Whites.
Corporeal Self And Functions of The Autobiographical Self
Since our culture maintains the importance of individuality for some good reasons we must tease it apart from right wing attributions that serve Jewish interests – in particular, the portrayal of us as inhumane.
Coherence is the first task of any individual in the world. The postmodern notion of coherence recognizes the contingent, interactive and relational aspects of individualism. This is not coherentism – coherentism would be the lineal, modern, Cartesian and impervious notion of coherence as it pursues a fixed Archimedean point beyond nature.
This “modernist”, Cartesian notion of coherence lent itself to individualism in the empirical conception of civil rights by Locke, in which individuals are tabula rasa – that is, out of context and process and therefore given an absurd attribution of sameness or equality to everyone; from whom they were otherwise detached – this is corrected with this hermeneutic notion of individualism wherein people do have some shared reference through the internal relation of co-evolution and language (there is no private language); however, everyone does not have the same and equal perceptions, but rather people occupy different positions in process and in situations; are immersed in different narrative reference, frames, history, different logics of meaning and action, stages in developmental process, conversations interacting in ways that can change their meaning, different social conversations attributing vastly different values, levels of importance, and thus can have vastly different evaluations of what they perceive. Though it is not absolutely necessary, if there is to be a successful notion of the individual, since we as White people like to invoke individuality for particular reasons, we go with the notion that there are two important aspects of individuality, the corporeal and the autobiographical. This has got to be managed in a non-Cartesian sense of connecting and managing a back and forth relation of self from the more empirical to the more narrative – thus, replacing a fixed location for the self with a self more like an on-going film reel.
Otherwise, as William James observed, with the Cartesian notion of self, absurdly, one would have to be in two places at once. Harré piled on that the “mind” is a four letter word and it should not be used; taking a page from Nietzsche, said that psychologists think that they are drawing maps of the mind, when in fact they are really only drawing maps of maps – not describing, but making interpretations of interpretations, taking out of context what is being done. By contrast, the autobiographical self is narrative, an ongoing process; not being a static monadic entity, one can negotiate obstacles such as paradoxes and apparent contradictions through various amendments in narrative; coming back to coherence through the tacking back and forth – such as post modern coherence affords in recognizing interaction and contingency.
While recognizing social construction and the class of Whites as preliminary to the individual, that nobody exists outside of interaction, relation and the negotiation of how things count with others – and any honest notion of individuality is accountable as such – there are certain aspects of what we may call individualism that are more than valid. I’ll share with you a few that I have gleaned from Harré, a professor from Oxford.
That is, that there are two kinds of self, a corporeal and an autobiographical.
Our corporeal, embodied selves are profound; Nietzsche might say, bound to be wiser than our conscious selves and intentions, having evolved over tens of thousands of years. This makes me a bit wary of eugenics; it is also why I would recommend that anyone pay attention to the clues that our biology is giving us rather than trying to alter it with chemicals or surgery – rather, one ought to turn critical attention outward to social expectations – who is reasonable, who is not.
But while there are aspects of agency to our corporeal, physical self, in say, a clasping action; deliberated, planned coherence, and the accountability, agency and warrant that go along with it require an autobiographical notion of self.
This second, autobiographical aspect of the self in the post modern is opposed to the modernist notion of self – the static and monadic self of Freudian psychology, unfolding toward its ultimate telos, detached from the social world and doing all sorts of horrible things; having hidden wishes, neuroses, latencies, or whatever one might libel you with.
Coherence is the first task of any individual in the world; by establishing rules and coming back to the said course one can provide accounts against false and negative accusations.
Moreover, it is by interacting with others and receiving requests for accounts, Shotter explains, that one develops a narrative understanding of self – in fact, one depends upon these requests for an account – as there is no private language.
Thus, one is not only curing the maladies of Cartesianism through autobiographical coherence of self – in appropriating from the available conversations one may also establish agency by setting down these rules for one’s self; by referring back to them one has proof that one is following the rule of their own choice – thus, an agent.
Remember, we said that the optimally competent post modern individual can choose to participate in traditional forms, can reconstruct the White class without the pangs of self loathing for appearing as a conformist – appearing traditional or conformist being taboos to modernity – which over values change, innovation, being new and different – nevertheless, the post modern individual can choose to disengage from traditional practices in order to make innovations; while being above the modernist paradox – the paradox – be different so you can fit in.
The autobiographical self facilitates coherence, accountability, agency and warrant through the establishment of rules; more, it enables the self to negotiate contradictions, paradoxes and obstacles because it is not lineal and strictly bound within the physical body. Unlike Africans, for example, who will often assert themselves episodically, momentarily, this autobiographical notion is particularly important to Europeans who are more sublimated and thus are normally, of their corporeality, not going to show their best attributes in an episode but rather over a pattern of behaviors in the protracted span that the class facilitates. Thus, if we are to capture our sublime features, which are not evident within the moment and episode, we especially require an autobiographical notion of self.
Finally, by following up on these rules set forth and yielding proof of positive results, the autobiographical self establishes warrant for proactive endeavor.
Hippies as a movement for Being, an incommensurate gender agenda with feminism’s quest for Actualization during the 1960s
Now then, the idea of a hermeneutic self is at least to some extent following through on Heidegger’s philosophy. For me, a crucial moment of understanding came when I took a bit of Heidegger’s advice and set my life into a historical, narrative perspective.
I set the autobiography of my early formative years against the background of The Viet Nam War, and a tension between hippies and feminists. From there things began to make sense.
Hippies were not a trivial movement in my assessment. They were against going to war out of habit – wars just seemed to be an endless thing taken for granted. By contrast, the hippies were about taking for granted the right of the male of the species to Be. My first clue that Being was a central issue to the Hippie movement was the January 1967 Be-In in San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park – sort of an inauguration to the Hippie movement in popular culture.
Then clues started forming a pattern. Most clarifying that it had to do with the Being of males as the essence of the Hippie movement – in particular, a song from the rock opera, “Hair”, called “My Conviction”, trivial on the surface of it, proposing that it was a legitimate expression for males to rebel against Spartan military terms and take on some of the attributes normally associated with females…long hair, elaborate attire and so on, to symbolize that their DNA had similar intrinsic genetic value to females…other songs from Hair made a similar point – Walking in Space: “pretending it’s a chore to ship us of to war.. ..in this great dive we rediscover sensation, how dare they try to end this beauty” – they weren’t shipping women off to war.
Paul Tillich, in his book “The Courage to Be” just before the onset of the hippie movement, suggested that one must love one’s self enough to accept in one’s self that which is unacceptable – that sounded like Being to me; a lot like Hippie Being. Now, before you say that I am promoting nihilism, irresponsibility and a lack of accountability, you must understand that Tillich’s existential project was to make our involvement in the world sufficiently relative – certainly enough so that we may begin to see that what we were told was unacceptable in no uncertain, objective terms, just may be more relative than we thought – in fact, may finally be relatively acceptable upon deeper thought – as are the interests of our White Class – relative to our class.
This notion of Being would also be related to a respect for the ordinary organic processes of the corporeal self, such as its need for food and sleep – as in Søren Kierkagaard’s statement that “sleeping is the highest genius”
Heidegger’s ongoing philosophical concern for the importance of Being provided for me a farther clue that the Hippies might be about something vital. Now, I take Heidegger’s talk of Being for this context in the more normal, organic sense, to be like a slow meandering, taking poetic forms, poesis, an unfolding that allows for a fully ruminated understanding, a taking to heart what is essential from that and giving thanks.
In Heidegger-like fashion, there was a corollary in being’s etymology; the notion of let me Be – as in, leave me alone; I do not want to go to Viet Nam to die for whatever perceived reasons.
Being is about the very struggle for existence that we as awakened Whites take as the vital cause for our people.
Rollo May described the hippie movement as a call for a right below rights – so we were looking at the most fundamental, radical part of the hierarchy of motives.
This was not trivial. It was a war protest against the background of the Viet Nam war, recognizing intrinsic value in males who were considered so intrinsically valueless as to have to go to Viet Nam and die for yet another in a succession of corporate, military industrial complex affairs, for tire rubber, whatever. Against that background, women were indeed, a bit more obliged than usual to allow White males to Be – understood in a sense related to the corporeal self, of fundamental organic pattern, attributing its intrinsic value to their evolution and DNA.
Now I am decidedly not recommending a return to hippie times; but I do want to cull the valid aspects, to some extent, in a way that I will discuss in moment, for the purpose of negotiating White gender relations.
I have rarely heard positive things said about the Hippies, and especially not by White Separatists. But let me tell you some things – look at Wood Stock, for example.. you can see my brother in one picture; he was there.. you’ll see some Blacks, but not many…and it was my experience as a child and a young adolescent during the later stages of those times, that the essence of the Hippie movement, had nothing to do with Black civil rights – that was peripheral at most. That stuff was imposed and co-opted by Jewish interests. It is yet another case of having to disentangle Jewish co-option from an idea. My friends and I had long hair, we did the Hippie thing, and none of us liked Blacks – some less than others; we saw the violent, destructive race riots, we saw them at school and were forced to recognize them as other people, with another agenda, behaving differently, aggressively, about their dignity or integrity, whatever…
Another thing – I would not say that it was accurate to characterize us as pacifists. Though we were too young to be subject to the draft, I am sure that what we would have been against having to go to these huge, nonsensical, corporate wars. Nevertheless, each of us would have fought and violently so, if necessary, for what was rightfully ours. It was about the Being, the intrinsic value of the White male and what was rightfully ours as established through co-evolution.
Nor was the Hippie movement about fee love. Not as it was a movement for male being, as I submit it was; free love was just neo-traditional incitement. We liked girls, of course; but what does it matter if a male announces he wants “free love”? I don’t think that is going to go over too big coming from many men. Now, if women say that they want free love, of course that can be meaningful. But, again, this was more a Jewish imposition, pandering to women and receiving impetus from Herbert Marcus’s Eros and Civilization, his call for polymorphous perversion; along with some aspects of the women’s liberation movement and so on. So again, we need to disentangle the Jewish influence from the idea of Hippies for those who would try to say it was all about free love and sexual revolution.
Now, the Hippies were guilty of some things – I do not believe that they were sufficiently intellectual or articulate as a group. I think that had to do with their very agenda – Being was not a theoretically ambitious, rigorous endeavor precisely because it was about natural, organic being. Even so prominent a Hippie as John Lennon was inarticulate as to the movement – saying things like, “it was a great way to pick up girls.” But it was not so shallow as a mere technique to do just that. Nevertheless, one can see the precariousness and vulnerability of males trying to assert their right, for lack of a better word, to Be (wimp, lazy bum). But I see hope in its requirement, as Being necessitates borders and action to reconstruct the White class boundaries somewhere along the line, in process – There is no being without that, for anybody.
Had Hippies been sufficiently articulate, they would have established that Being requires a notion of sex as sacrament – voluntary enclaves of those committed to a single sex partner for life – without that option, that unused potentiality for change, choice and freedom of being are enormously reduced
Drug experimentation and use was an aspect of the Hippie thing. And though I tend to agree with those who consider that a public health and not a criminal issue; and that it is more an effect than a cause of problems (specifically, one is searching for Being) I am not so uncritical of drugs as I once was.
It was a part of it though, of Being for males, because it was a way to have fun, elaborate, engage and tap into organic processes that did not the involve the sometimes stringent expectations of females.
However, before it sounds like I am the drug advocate: I would just say, alcohol, marijuana and mushrooms maybesometimes if you’ve developed yourself enough, your forebrain and a philosophical understanding of yourself enough – maybe, so long as that it does not make you neurotic, arbitrarily destructive, whatever – even so, be careful. Even with weed, you are still putting smoke in your lungs and they have bred it so that it is very strong nowadays. I’ve heard of people having bad experiences with mushrooms – though it was almost always the case that they took a massive over dose. Cocaine, I think is very dangerous; you’ve never felt better for 15 minutes and then you’ve never felt worse.. ..because your brain stopped producing all the endorphins that it took the cocaine crystal to be.. you lose all balance of pleasure….life is just utterly sad and miserable..so much so that when someone has committed suicide, it is my first hypothesis that they were coming down off of cocaine. I imagine other synthetic drugs are similar…crystal meth and so on..don’t know from experience; but, I want to go back to the corporeal and its profound evolution. when you mess with substances you are messing with profound evolution. which we should tend to believe is normally correct, not in need of alteration. However, I must say that people who have never used any mind alteration often turn out weird, superficial and inhumane. Nevertheless, by and large, better to err in the direction of dealing with your emotions and developing your intellect; rather be critical of the social realm, to look for problems there than in solution from drugs – intellectualism, which the hippies were short on, is better. Even so, despite drug use, that was not the essential issue of the Hippies – it was about Being, especially for the male of the species.
Pardon the digression – but the issue of Hippies was Being for White males. It was not trivial – in fact it is necessary and an issue that has not been resolved to this day – its incommensuration with the agendas of feminist and neo-traditional women.
Relevant historical exemplars of feminism: from the radical de Beavoir to the modern Friedan to the neo-traditional Gilligan
Getting back to the hermeneutic context of my narrative history…in the 60’s. While the Hippies were about the right of the White male of the species to Be the distinguishing aspect coming from feminists was in the opposite direction. Not about the base of the hierarchy, organic being, but about achievement.
In moving to the discussion of gender relations, to feminism, I want to begin by acknowledging that I think that Peter Schaenk has established a good starting point – citing Karl Marx’s statement that marriage is institutionalized slavery of women and therefore liberation of women is necessary to the liberation of human kind. That would characterize the agenda of radical feminists; their liberation would supposedly necessitate the destruction of the White Class. It is not that monogamy and marriage are not important, they are – our moral order requires the institutionalization of absolute monogamy (for life) and marriage as sacred – and must necessarily be defended against this – but the boundary of the class is even more fundamental. Otherwise, marriage is just a berth on a sinking ship. This was an attack on the White Class, its central, most vital alliance, between women and men; farther assaulted, of course, by the Authoritarian Personality, Adorno et al.
That is why it is so necessary to use the post modern turn, the decidedly non-Cartesian notion of our co-evolution as White men and Women, to reassert the validity of the White Class and its boundaries.
There are no White women or White children without White men – that is where the validity of White male Being, existence, gains more respect; but only if the troubling tautology on this level is over come – hard to acknowledge for its base simplicity: no White women and children without White men; I don’t like you because you do not like me; she rejects me and so, liking myself, I reject her and have freedom to seek another.
We are born to love women. What could be more painful and destructive than to have our co-evolutionary women pitted against us? We are mammals, despite the Jewish Matrix flouting of that notion, and as mammals we are deeply caring about relationships.
We can work out an all around fair and satisfying management of White gender relations if those bounds that recognize our mutual interests are made clear.
Back to the radical feminists attacking the White class. The first prominent exponent of feminism relevant to us as White separatists would be Simone de Beauvoir, 1948. She followed Marx’s line. As Sandrine Dauphin wrote:
[De Beauvoir] became more radical in the sense that the means of liberation became specific to women, they deal with individual experience: “I am for the abolition of the family. It is through the intermediary of the family that the patriarchal world exploits women.” She excludes feminism from institutional politics yet integrates it in revolutionary politics, which socially, economically and culturally overturns society. She made feminism into the avant-garde of the socialist revolution, recognizing that the suppression of the family and familial structures would upset capitalism. Since women constitute the primary oppressed group, their liberation, in a domino effect, would spur the liberation of other oppressed groups.
By eliminating the family, feminism would thus transform the structure of society. Simone de Beauvoir turns feminism into much more than the demand for equality between men and women. It has a political function, by proposing an alternative management of society. In this way, she remained quite socialist and refined her reflection to the point of giving feminism the magnitude of a true political movement. Socialism is a body of thought, and feminism as such, according to Simone de Beauvoir, is an integral part of socialism.
We might note first of all of de Beauvoir that her analysis of men focuses on male elites only, such as Leo Tolstoy. She pays no attention to ordinary men, let alone the ones really down on their luck. She has nothing to say here of the millions who have been considered so intrinsically valueless as to be required to die in war. Nevertheless, there is enough scholarly background in her work to have provided inspiration and apparatus for succeeding generations of feminists.
Exactly. Interestingly, I traced the two next important feminists each as having their inspirational source in a single line from de Beauvoir: Betty Friedan, Jewish, 1963, who took feminism in a modernist direction in the Feminine Mystique; and Carol Gilligan, 1983, from Harvard, who also took as her point of departure another line in de Beauvoir.
Don’t worry, we’re not getting off track, we’re going to show how this bears upon the post modern turn for Whites in their effort to reconstruct and advance the White class.
de Beauvoir was primarily paying attention to elite White men; and Friedan followed that lead, focusing on the top as well. Before discussing Friedan, the exemplar and probably most influential of the American feminists, I’d like to make some honorable mentions.
Helen Gurley Brown, Jewish – founding editor of the highly popular Cosmopolitan magazine: I could see that her book “Sex and the Single Girl” was based on Søren Kierkegaard’s “Either/Or” – her gist being that a girl either remains ‘as virginal as a Sunkist orange’ or she goes ahead and has sex outside of marriage; she is going to suffer either way, so may as well have the enjoyment of sex – makes quick work of accountability; and any treatment of sex as being important, let alone an option to treat it as sacral; an option I would recommend as essential to freedom in allowing for choice; and toward the survival of Whites through a fair management of the White pattern.
An honorable mention also goes to Gloria Steinham – Jewish. Interestingly, 1973 was the only year that her magazine, Ms., made money. Another honorable mention to Elizabeth Holtzman, Jewish, whose popularity came at the same time, when she shockingly unseated the long term incumbent, the infamous Emmanuel Cellar – his already having achieved his dirty work destroying America’s White Class bounds as the architect of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, pushed through in of 1965 – which, MacDonald pointed out, transformed America’s demographic make up toward non-White – Holtzman ousting Cellar by running on an Equal Rights for Women Amendment. This also suspiciously marks an important time in our hermeneutic regarding the Hippies – As The Viet Nam War was just ending, the Hippie movement lost impetus almost over night. Suddenly the impetus behind male Being was completely gone; not having to shoulder the guilt of their clear expendability in the war, White male Being was eclipsed by the prerogatives of Jewish feminism.
Popular and radical feminism’s ascent was held in place by a paradox; by radical leftists gaining tenure at universities; set into systemic runaway by modernist feminists such as Friedan; and only slightly balanced later by neo-traditionalist feminists.
Feminism’s overtaking male being was strengthened through an important paradox – a problematic practice as noted by Pearce and Rossi in the early 80’s: Even well meaning males can always be put in the wrong within the problematic practices of feminism – Specifically, if he tries to treat her as an equal, just like one of the boys in accordance with modernist feminism, then he can be taken for a “male chauvinist pig” who sees the world only in male terms, not respecting the special qualities of her gender; on the other hand, if he attempts to treat her gingerly, with traditionalist deference and respect for the special qualities of her gender, then he can be construed as a ‘wimp’ and a condescending patriarch who does not respect her autonomy, choice and agency. Thus, a male can always be construed as “wimp” or a “pig”, no matter what he does.
Furthering this systemic runaway in gender relations was the Marxists long march through the institutions – with anti-White leftists gaining tenured professorships in the universities the runaway effect of gender estrangement gained velocity; these tenured professors pandering and being pandered to by 18-24 year olds, reconstructing the same anti-White world view in perpetuity. This was farther exacerbated by the fact that the university, being a big business, is largely in the big business of selling talk.
This, by itself, creates a need for abnormal talk – viz. something to say other than ordinary, stable White life – something “interesting”, exceptions to discuss as liberals (liberals leftists, those who do not have a problem with broaching White class bounds) like to do – perhaps they do not want to be bored – too low on the hierarchy; or perhaps the ordinary is not novel and entertaining enough to collect tuition dollars.
Backing up a bit, in order to further trace sources of this runaway effect and hopefully gain some control: despite its awkward match with men getting sent to Viet Nam to die, feminism was very prominent in the context of America beginning in the 60’s – with Helen Gurley Brown’s popular Sex and The Single Girl, 1962, and Betty Friedan’s academically backed “The Feminine Mystique”, 1963.
I noticed something interesting in Friedan – that not only was she as student of Abraham Maslow’s but she was actually using his Hierarchy of Motives, in proposing that women were being made neurotic by having their higher individual potentials denied by traditional gender roles – this was to my theoretical delight as I was already thinking in terms of setting gender relations into Maslow’s hierarchy in order to understand them and try to work them out fairly in a theoretical sense. Maslow’s hierarchy of motives proposed that people sought fulfillment on higher levels successively, as basic levels of need were satisfied – from survival and safety, the most basic, and ultimately to the quote, farther reaches, self-actualization as highest. With that, Friedan proposed that women needed individual actualization in order to be liberated from the limitations of their traditionally imposed gender role, which she called The Feminine Mystique; as it was causing misery and neuroses – something that was being foisted upon women by Madison Avenue image makers in order to sell them products as housewives, to keep them limited and out of the work force now that they were no longer necessary as workers with men having come back from World War II.
This is a distinctly modernist notion of individualism that she maintained – and of gender relations as well, with individual women having the same needs as men, culture irrespective.
I traced Friedan’s seminal influence to a single 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.” Thus, in the Feminine Mystique, she is doing something important in a negative sense, by going along with this rejection of Aristotle’s sage advice that human’s, being biological, are evolved for optimal, not maximal levels of need satisfaction; she is advocating for the toxicity of quantification and runaway. This clued me farther to take a critical view toward reworking this modernist paradigm of Maslow’s, in favor of a framework providing for an optimal management of needs rather than a hierachical maximization and quantification of needs.
A typically American thing is self actualization and self maximization – .a be all you can be mentality that has undoubtedly contributed to America’s runaway. Nevertheless, I do not think it would be wise, like Marxists, to try to thwart human achievement; however, it should be taken back into the context of an optimal management; indeed, those moments of accomplishment and recognition prompting one to turn away from the toxicities of additional maximization; rather to turn attention to the fostering grounds, the processes of Being, Selfhood, and most especially, of Socialization to be as respected as Actualization. In fact, for us, as Whites now, the greatest measure of Self Actualization will be those who are able to effect Socialization of the White Class; its boundaries in securing the existence of our people and a future for White Children.
The post modern program is to manage qualitatively formed progress and reconstruction; to manage optimality as opposed to maximization, quantification and lineal progress
The most important thing that I have to do is to assist in the relative devaluing of actualization, and the establishment of Being’s importance along with the elevation of selfhood – that is, take ordinary routines to commensurate value, and first and foremost, of socialization.
Now again, the post modern, hermeneutic turn calls for a tacking back and forth as need be from close readings of physical facts then balanced with a protracted narrative, somewhat metaphoric frames of analysis – and then back again and so on, in a processual management – as opposed to a rigid and false quest for fixed, Archemedian points imagined outside of nature.
I do not aspire to do away with the notion of actualization, but to put it into balance; “I don’t have to tell you about the tyranny of patterns”, Bateson said, “that is the rubric under which we meet, but what you may not know is that you have to accept them.” In striving singularly after actualization and its maximization, there are going to be reflexive reversals and aberration – a calling back to pattern, in other words; as we were called back to our White pattern after being brain washed that we did not have to accept it.
“Patterns”, being a closer reading (but still open ended) of the corporeal side, and “narrative” on the more speculative and metaphoric side, are good ways of talking about the broader frames of reference of the class; in the post modern notion of coherence of the class. I am trying to get the notion of patterns in here as it is important, and think that it fits well as a heuristic on the more physical end of the hermeneutic.
Conservatives and right-wingers have not done patterns well; while Liberals are typically pointing to the exceptions as the important thing. I think of a man who cited the example of a questionnaire of five Russian men. They were asked if they preferred White or Black women. 4 of them said they preferred White. One said he preferred mulatto, even more than White, but did not approve of interracial couples. The man chuckled and said, where did he think mulattoes were supposed to come from? For him, this would seem to be a winning argument – paying attention to the exception and all the while ignoring the four other Russian men who said that they prefer White women. The pattern is more the issue.
Now then, we have modernist, feminist women seeking individuation and Actualization, expressing the “high grumbles”, as Maslow described it, of unfulfilled Self Actualization; at the same time, we have modernist males, Hippies, expressing “low grumbles”, a need for the basics on the Hierarchy of Needs, not to be considered so valueless as to be sent to die in Viet Nam – to Be, as I would call this level – but who knew and who hears to this day about these incommensurate gender agendas? The high grumbles of women look conceited in comparison to the low grumbles of men; perhaps they may have seemed ‘boring’ – even if those needs were more fundamental and more in turn. The conceitedness of having their basic needs called boring by women through their high grumbles must have driven more than a few men over the edge.
To make matters worse, the feminist critique, based on the paradigm of Maslow, was only looking at White men who were on top and was only treating them as if they were there as a result of a Maslowian differentiation of fulfillment of preceding, lower levels. In truth, a number of White men were on top as a result of a Freudian, rather a Nietzschean, sublimation of deprivation on lower levels. Their low grumbles were being dismissed. This made, makes criticizing White males at the top perverse at times, as they may have gotten there precisely as they were compelled by hardship and now they were being ridiculed for succeeding despite that. So, sometimes he is being punished on top of deprivation and sacrifice as if he’d gotten there by dint of oppressive advantage. More, it was often the case that men were on top simply because they were good, having been tested stringently on basic levels. Finally, there was the compensatory gesture of tradition, placing men in that role on top to balance off the sacrifices expected on basic levels, having to go to war and so on.
As we’ve said, de Beauvoir was only looking at and being critical of the lucky men who were at the top; having nothing to say about the legions of men who had just been slaughtered in World Wars one and two.
Nevertheless, you weren’t hearing about that from feminists within the Maslowian paradigm. Perhaps we were to feel more sorry for them for supposedly not making equal pay while men went off to Viet Nam to die. Or because they were subject to double standards on sex (as if the double standard did not have some fairness to balance women’s advantage in that realm off… as a woman can be a real bully in the realm of sex; similar as we have double standards regarding physical force so that men cannot bully women physically); but the focus was their being denied by the glass ceiling, the top of the hierarchy, self actualization. Nothing about the fact that men were denied the bottom and being deprived of the basics on the hierarchy, had been through tradition, with brutal rights of passage…and critically, nothing about how women occupied, were normally granted the basics and middle of the hierarchy, safety and security – and what I will call Selfhood, the acceptance as good enough, one’s engagement in orienting, stabilizing, normal routines – crucial values in life.
Now we know the traditional male agenda, of individual achievement and actualization; and the modernist feminist mirroring of those same goals by Friedan, but the neo traditional female agenda is a bit lesser known as it functions here, in Post Modernity
The neo-traditional female perspective did not aspire to the same things as men, but rather wanted her differences recognized and respected. Carol Gilligan, the next key figure in this four-way system of gender, emerged as the exemplar of the Neo Traditional female perspective with her book, In A Different Voice, 1982. Interestingly, she also took one line from de Beauvoir as her point of departure. I discovered this; and it was confirmed as true by a colleague of hers at Harvard.
de Beauvoir on Page 681 rejects what she calls male morality: de Beauvoir says “ 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.” In In A Different Voice, Gilligan would develop this into a notion of female morality that would bring into full circle the intersection of gender relations and individualism.
Though she set out, and did destroy Lawrence Kohlberg’s rendition of gender differences in morals, more deeply, what is being called male morality would seem to be characterized by Kant, more or less. On the other hand, Gilligan proposed that women have different moral concerns from men. Characteristically, male morality would not steal, was concerned for pure rights and justice. Female morality would steal medicine for a sick baby, etc. Female morality was more characterized by care and webs of relationship. She cited examples of how men and women responded differently to photos: shown a photo of a middle aged White man sitting alone at his desk, women were afraid, men were not; shown and woman and a man about to join hands in mid air of the flying trapeze act – women were not afraid, men were. Men, she submitted, were afraid when people were coming together while women were more afraid by people going apart.
With Gilligan we’ve come to a complete enough heuristic of gender relations: Neo Traditional men and Modernist women after Actualization; Hippies, being reversing Modernist men and Neo Traditional women seeking basic stability on the hierarchy of needs.
One of the beauties of a quaternary system is that it is too complicated in its interfaces to turn into runaway categories yet, simple enough to serve as a useful guideline.
So, we can pretty well understand these incommensurate gender agendas and mange them fairly perhaps if we can re-instantiate the full White class bounds. It would seem that we could afford female individual actualization if they are challenged and tested more on basic levels so that they are not so liberal when they reach positions of actualization, respecting the sacrifices and hardships that have gone into the full White Class and its bounds over the millennia, not giving things away too easily, not taking for granted battle and competition, after which they had to merely give sex to the winner, vanquished be damned, their ass not having been on the line. Conversely, it would seem that men ought to be granted a little more ease of Being, so that they are not so crazy as they strive after actualization – as Bateson described, “the ignominious bullying of Naven Ritual Rights of passage produced harsh, over compensating males.” As for the neo traditionalists, they, as post modernists, may participate in traditional gender roles without the pangs of self loathing for the appearance of conformity as they knowingly and by choice participate in reconstructing these practices and have the ability and choice for the modernist alternative should they wish.
Hence, this four way system in the post modern is a way to accommodate modernist and traditional gender needs both without necessary losses to either.
This is fairly theoretical, and maybe neither feminist nor traditional women will ever be fair and will only want hypergamy, the males on top – but while women in the heterogeneous society of America seem highly inclined to tall men, for example, I have seen women regularly taking men who are not tall in a homogeneous White society – perhaps that is an example that fairness is more possible in a homogeneous society.…in theory, things could be worked out fairly, should be…I think can be..but even if women are not so cooperative in letting men be, it is good for men to know, to have the raised consciousness, so to speak, that that is something that they need, and that it is right, non-trivial, and fair..
What could be more painful than having this Cartesian division from the women we are co evolved with through millennia? We need a new paradigmatic understanding of gender relations since a mess has been made of them – particularly exacerbated with the wreckage of White class bounds
Thus, I would like to propose a post modern alternative to the lineal, maximizing, quantifying, modernist hierarchy of motives to Actualiazation – that is, an optimal management of Being, Selfhood and Socialization are necessary to Actualization, from which men will not back down and to which the Actualized, when they are Actualized, are indebted, if they are honest.
While it may be charged that I am requiring that men be wimps, the answer is no. Fight or tactical flight (or stealthy infiltration) for Whites is the essence of good will. That is what determines intrinsic value, and I juxtapose it to right wing elitism. In line with Kant, if a person has a high i.q., wealth and beauty, but betrays Whites, these qualities only make them worse. If they are used on behalf of Whites, fine, wonderful, nobody should limit their horizons in any significant way. However, it is fight or tactical flight (or stealthy infiltration) on behalf of Whites, a horizontal thing, which establishes good will to the White Class.
Feminism is Cartesian. A disruption of the White Class that is an organic, ecological pattern, a means of accountability. The Genders are co-evolved. Co-evolution is a strictly non-Cartesian notion.
In sage contrast to de Beauvoir and Friedan’s modernist flouting of Aristotle’s recommendation of quest for the optimal, as opposed to the maximal, we need to get back to an optimal management of gender relations and individualism if we are to manage the White class properly, between the over compensating and reversing modernists men and women and neo traditionalist men and women; but first of all, it requires a return to the legitimacy of the White class, so that opportunistic exploitation of outsiders do not truncate the process. Note that it is possible to be an overcompensating modernist, in pursuit of actualization – Bill Clinton was a good example; actualization is not only the province of the a neo traditionalist male; but I don’t want to confuse the matter – overcompensation and reversal is not my idea anyway – but does wonderfully relate to the modernist paradox. It was a modernist requirement to be different – as opposed to being a participatory, conforming traditionalist. And, it resulted in a paradox – be different so you can fit in. The Hippies were very susceptible to this…being different was very important to them, part of the destruction of their movement.
Transforming Maslow’s hierarchy of motives into an optimal management of Being, Selfhood, Socialization and Self Actualization
In order to get some control of the runaway effects of modernity’s and Jewish breaking down of our class bounds, as I noted last time, increasing the one up position of young females and their incitement, making competition toxic as opportunist outsiders truncate the developmental processes within the class; I have proposed looking at the hierarchy of needs in a new way and taking needs and motives out of hierarchy and into optimal management of needs between White individuals and the genders.
Now, I am proposing these four aspects of individualism as guidelines to the essential needs of White folks in optimal management. Being, Selfhood, Socialization, Self Actualization.
Socialization: As a social constructionist – and I hasten to note that nothing I’ve heard causes me the least concern that social constructionism is insufficient, twin studies, Salutrean man, you name it – when discussing a management of individual and gender needs, Socialization is the only real feature of the four aspects I propose. Nothing and no individual exists in isolation, outside of interaction, relations; and how facts count must be negotiated with others. When we are talking about Socialization, we are of course talking about reconstruction of the White Class in ecological relation to our habitats. This is a much more severe and strict a notion of classification than is comported in the ad hoc empirical idea of freedom of association, or even freedom from association. We are assuming that patterns of DNA are deep and complex, their value not always available to casual observation. Hence, we are suspect of eugenics, as being superficial, figuring that is going to happen on some level anyway…Fight or tactical flight (which would include stealthy infiltration) is the measure of good will… As we have said, those less great or impaired for whatever reason, the old, may make better fighters as thy have less to lose. Socialization for us, good will for us, is fight or flight on behalf of Whites – without that, all other attributes, intelligence, wealth, beauty, strength, power, can only make a White person a worse traitor.
The marginals indeed, would often be inclined to maintain the system as they are more dependent upon the class than are the alphas, and more in keeping with environmental variables, perhaps less able to over-graze..of course they can be traitors and over grazers too..as can the narrow minded alphas. But let us understand that in negotiating a balance, there is going to be a moral order, whether we organize it or let it happen wily-nilly – there will always be things that we can, cannot or might do in social relations. There has never been anarchy. Thus, we ought to do it consciously; and balance things consciously rather than merely having nature balance things off through its catastrophe. We are talking about an optimal balance of these four aspects of individualism and gender within the socialization of the White Class
At any rate, socialization, in seeing the systemic interrelatedness, ecology and accountability to the class, allows for the qualitative and full processual development of various members of the class at various stages in the developmental process as they meander and occupy their niche functions; life, especially within the class, is more a matter of cooperation than competition. Humans are mammals, they care about relationships, I don’t care what the movie the Matrix says in its Jewish agenda to make that Aristotlean notion seem backward, evil, nerdy and White. There has never been an anarchy and never will be – there will always be some things you can, cannot or might do. Now to the other levels of White Socialization -
Being is the most fundamental level of the life process, the basic level of the hierarchy, so to speak. Being biological, people are dependent upon optimality, not maximizations; being is a deliberate turning back from the toxicities of quantification that are inherent in the Maslowian paradigm. It is characterized by a valuation of biological processes as in Søren Kierkegaard’s claim that “Sleeping is the highest genius”; as in Bateson’s observation that “Naven Ritual Rights of Passage produced harsh, over compensating males.” As where Burke says, “The Stoic acceptance was an attempt to transubstantiate even the repugnant aspects of existence, the excremental, into the essentially divine.” It is a notion of wanting to be left alone, not exploited…let me be! As Heidegger says, being is a verb, therefore not entirely passive, rather it lends motives to the creation of cultural boundaries.. ..along with the non-Cartesian “there being”, finding one’s self “out there”, it is like poesis, a slow, qualitative meandering, setting out what is before and after optimal rumination, taking to heart what is essential, giving thanks. Kenneth Burke has another good one here – “rather than being fulfilling, primitivism is emptying.” Being also implies that aspect of taking for granted, not being able to investigate everything we must take some things for granted, the borders of being, of our White Class…to be left alone…Again, Being requires a notion of sex as sacrament – institutionalization of voluntary enclaves for those committed to a single sex partner for life – without that option in life, choice and being are greatly reduced. This will provide a sacral aspect of our defense against Islam, Judaism and even Scientism and Christianity. Being as tactical retreat necessary for White recovery and revival.
We want to move toward outer-space, but we need not reach there this instant – we move there deliberately, at an optimal pace. Having done something and lived our lives, it will always be, even if an asteroid hits the earth, even if a super volcano or man made cataclysm destroys everything.
Now, being, selfhood and socialization are proposed as hedges against going crazy, but I want to make a distinction here – fighting on behalf of Whites in an effective way is not crazy – for us, that is a part of socialization
Selfhood is perhaps an even more interesting aspect: it works well with Habermas’s suggestion that unless we are able to see our subjective interests in a project we will not learn. Thus, I must recommend that White advocates find their subjective reward in pursuing not only the fourteen words but in their every day routines and work. I put this as the next level, rather aspect of Actualization, abandoning the hierarchical paradigm in favor of an optimal, processual and reconstructing one…Selfhood would contain those attributes that I’d described in Autobiography – Coherence, Accountability, Agency and Warrant – but not in unusual ways; on the contrary, by practicing reliable and every day routines, chores and work. People need routines to be happy and to make sense, patterns to gauge differences and that which is required next. How are we going to restore the valor and the esteem of this “blue collar” category? I have a suggestion – by imbuing it with a notion of the sacral. It works well with the sacral anyway, because the sacred is that which reconstructs in reverence the most essential episodes of our life and social functions. In this sense, we are placing it beyond, esteeming it beyond elitist values and the misplaced reverence for their potential exploitations [You can extol the virtues of Henry Ford’s assembly line, or you can look at New Jersey, ribboned with dirty highways going everywhere and nowhere because their destined point has been paved over]. The old craftsman’s guilds would seem to be a kind of sacral view of routine practice. This is something of a challenge, however, as Selfhood is not very esteemed in the west (perhaps for the paranoia of there being no White class boundaries). However, the Being of White Class boundaries and Sacralization of routine might go a long way toward curing the modernist pardox of “be different so you can fit in”
It is probably one of the most important tasks here to be critical of Self Actualization. My attention was focused on the hazard as relatively little attention has been paid to the dark side of self actualization. It got me to reflecting, not only on the disappointment and the narrow kind of hedonism that this quest might be prone to…but even worse, to reflexive reversal into aberration through the over stress of feeling obligated and toxically compelled to achievement …that is part of what makes a lot of men and probably women too, go crazy and do crazy things for sure. More, Jews, Black athletes and musicians are not good role models for Whites with their incommensurate ways. A White may betray Whites because he or she wants to be a hero and distinguish them self from the quote, lower levels – upon which actualization must depend anyway, aspects which should be accorded commensurate respect. Again, I am not proposing to do away with actualization, just looking to avert runaway and catastrophic reflexive effect, to place it within optimal systemic management of the temporal.
* If I may add a controversial suggestion: One of the things that I am most proud of from last time is the assertion that miscegenating White women are equivalent to men what rapists are for women. There may be a natural inclination to rape among some men, just as there may be a natural inclination to miscegenation among some women, but we need not accept it as necessary and good within the bounds of a nation. This is one of the advantages to social constructionism – we do not have to accept it as a merely natural cause and effect (as we do not, rape, for example), but can defer some to social evaluation. They are not only destroying 40,000 years of careful evolution, but they are putting us all at risk to degradation of our habitats, exploitation and violence.
The Jews may not be entirely responsible for miscegenation, although they have a large influence for sure – but they are certainly, largely responsible for preventing White men from doing anything about it. Though rape is not necessarily, literally a violent crime, it is treated as such; and it certainly is right to classify it as such, to consider it a very serious offense. The same could be true with miscegenation.
There might be a wish in some men to have women as they would, even 9 year old girls and so on – but it has been mandated against by social decree, by consensus. So it could be with miscegenation – there is no absolute excuse for women to do this.
Anti-racism is Cartesian. It is not innocent. It is prejudice. It is hurting and it is killing people. It is defined as a prohibition of classifying peoples and discriminating against them as such. It is not innocent; it is hurting people through the prohibition of classificatory boundaries of people; disabling the means of protection and accountability for those marginalized within the group systemic process; those, for whatever reason, not on top of the game at a moment within the systemically related pattern of the class – thus abetting their exploitation and destruction by opportunistic outsiders.
The Basque philosopher Unomuno said, in close approximation, that “one must have a vision of perfection”- for us a vision of our White Class perfectly sovereign – “and with that, the vicissitudes of chance and change are as waves crashing harmlessly upon the rocks” – of our White Class.
Separatism is a first step, separatism is the ultimate aim and separatism is always possible.
I would like to note a few things that I took for granted while originally writing this piece – first, I take for granted private property – although there should be plenty of public property too, of course; secondly, I do not appreciate effeminate men; but rather am advising some balance, as over the top masculine men are a real pain, and can be beyond stupid, downright cataclysmic – Blacks, for example, are characteristically too masculine. More, none of what I say is contradictory to nationalism and regionalism. It works fine with coordinated White separatisms – a plurality of White ethnostates.
1. Connection of Being to sex as sacrament – voluntary enclaves of single sex partner for life hopefuls – the idea being that freedom of choice is preserved with that option, no matter how few choose it.
This, along with the 14 Words, can provide a sacral aspect of our defense against Islam, Judaism and even Scientism (viz., bad/misapplied science)
Dr. Sunic graciously allows Daniel to play the lecturer; and present his thesis on the intersection of individuation and gender differentiation. Taking a post modern turn, on individuality, viz. autobiography and gender relations, he traces autobiography in theory and practice in the example of his own history as it intersects with radical, modern and post modern feminism.
Specifically, how it is that anti-racism is not innocent;
Proposing a non-Jewish definition and criterion of leftism – the White Class;
Functions of The Autobiographical Self;
Hippies as a movement for Being, an incommensurate gender agenda with feminism’s quest for Actualization during the 1960s;
Relevant historical exemplars of feminism: from the radical de Beavoir to the modern Friedan to the neo-traditional Gilligan;
Transforming Maslow’s hierarchy of motives into an optimal management of Being, Selfhood, Socialization and Self Actualization.
The full (long!) essay that Daniel wrote based on this interview can be found here.
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 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.
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.
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.
Dr. Sunic & Daniel Sienkiewicz discuss theory of White separatism – Praxis: getting the ship of White separatism on course. For a list of topics and extensive program notes, please see the accompanying post containing program notes.
Dr. Sunic and Daniel Sienkiewicz have a free ranging discussion on Poland – from its ancient history to its present and future prospects – in aid of the struggle for Europe and its native peoples. Topics include:
Ancient Poland, and its disputes with the Teutons and the Prussians;
Sobieski and the Poles’ rescue of Vienna;
The vulnerabilities inherent in Poland’s Enlightenment-based principles and constitution;
Poland’s attempts to regain the nation which finally succeed with Pilsudski;
The Poles’ cracking of the Enigma, Nazi secret coding machine;
Some observations on the post-Communist mentality of Poland.
Daniel Sienkiewicz is a White separatist expat lurking in Eastern Europe. He is of half Polish and half Italian extraction, with a racial awareness born against the Newark, New Jersey race riots of the late 1960s, feminism and forced integration of the 1970s, and the psychological manipulation of the mass media in promotion of miscegenation in the 1980s. He did graduate studies in the USA in the 1990s to cultivate interpretive/critical method in advancement of White interests; while not surprisingly unable to complete that program in the hostile environment of the American university, he has continued this effort independently ever since, writing and discussing his explorations on ways to apply hermeneutics, social constructionism, pervasive ecology, other supposedly Leftist and “Jewish” disciplines, but rather for the interests of Whites. Not liking where America’s rule structure and demographic make-up were headed, and wanting to reconnect with his roots, he moved to Eastern Europe.