Posted by DanielS on Sunday, July 26, 2015 at 03:31 PM
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, July 25, 2015 at 05:58 AM
Alain de Benoist
Below is the interview A. de Benoist gave recently to Boulevard Voltaire.
Q: Despite repeated promises of politicians, both from the right and the left, nothing seems to be stopping the rise in unemployment. Is it something inevitable?
A: Officially, there are 3.5 million unemployed in France, which means that the unemployment rate stands today at 10.3%. This figure, however, varies depending on how it is being computed. The official statistics take into account only the category “A”, i.e. those who are unemployed and who are actively looking for a job, while leaving out the categories “B”, “C”, “D” and “E”, i.e. those looking for a job although having had some reduced work activity as of lately; those who have stopped looking for a job but are still unemployed; those receiving training; those in traineeship; those working under “subsidized contracts”, etc. When adding together all these categories, one reaches the real unemployment rate of 21.1% (more than double the official figure). If we refer to the overall rate of the inactive population of working age, then we arrive at 35.8%. Moreover, if we were to take into account insecure, part-time, or short-term jobs, as well as the number of the “working poor”, etc., then this figure keeps getting higher.
Undoubtedly, changes in unemployment depend on the official policies—but only to some extent. Today’s unemployment is no longer of a cyclical nature, but primarily structural, something many have not fully understood yet. This means that work is becoming a scarce commodity. The jobs that have been lost are less and less being replaced by other job openings. Of course, the expansion of the service sector is real; yet the service sector does not generate capital. Moreover, twenty years down the road almost half of those service sector jobs will be replaced by networked machines. To imagine, therefore, that someday we shall return to full employment is an illusion.
A: What needs to be pointed out is that what we call “work” today has no relationship whatsoever with what used to be productive activity of the past centuries, namely a simple “metabolization” of the nature. Neither is work a synonym of activity, nor of employment. The near universal spreading of wage labor was already a revolution of sorts to which the masses remained hostile for a very long period of time. The reason for that is that they had been accustomed to the consumption of the assets of their own labor only and never viewed labor as means of acquiring the assets of others, or in other words, to work in order to purchase the results of the labor of others.
Labor has a dual dimension; it represents both concrete labor (its metabolizing purpose) and abstract labor (energy and time spent). In the capitalist system what counts is abstract labor only, because this kind of labor, being indifferent to its own content, being also equal for all goods for which it provides a basis of comparison, is the sole factor that transforms itself into money, thus acquiring a mediating role in a new form of social interdependence. This means that in a society where commodity is the basic structural category, labor ceases to be socially distributed by traditional power structures. Rather, it performs itself the function of those ancient relationships. In capitalism, labor constitutes itself the dominant form of social relationships. Its by-products (commodity, capital) represent simultaneously concrete labor products and the objectified forms of social mediation. Hence, labor ceases to be a means; it becomes an end in itself.
In capitalism value is made up of the time spent working and represents therefore the dominant form of wealth. Capital accumulation means accumulating the product of the time spent in human labor. This is why the enormous productivity gains generated by the capitalist system have not resulted in any significant decrease in working hours, as one might have expected. On the contrary, based on the trends of unlimited expansion, the system keeps imposing always more work. And it is right there that we can observe its fundamental contradictions. On the one hand capitalism seeks to extend working hours, since it is only by having people work more and more that it can achieve capital accumulation. On the other, productivity gains allow from now on the production of more and more goods with less and less men. This makes the production of material wealth more and more independent from the time spent on working. In this respect the unemployed have already become the superfluous people.
Q: You are known to be a workaholic. Do you ever miss watching the grass grow and fondle some of the cats in your household?
A: I work 80-90 hours a week simply because I like doing what I do. This does not make me an adept of the ideology of work. Quite the contrary. In theGenesis (3: 17-19) work is depicted as a consequence of the original sin. Saint Paul says: “He who does not work, neither shall he eat” (II Thessalonians3:10).This moralistic and punitive view of the work is just as alien to me as the Protestant redemptive work ethic, or for that matter the exaltation of the value of work by totalitarian regimes. Yes, I am aware of the fact that the word “travail” (work) comes from the Latin tripalium, a word which originally used to designate an instrument of torture. Therefore, I try to sacrifice to the requirements of “free time,” which is “free” insofar as it is freed from work.
Alain de Benoist is a journalist and writer who, in 1968 founded the Groupement de recherche et d’études pour la civilisation européenne, an ethnonationalist think-tank.
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 10:31 AM
And head-off the risk of ambiguity, old and new, becoming a tool of liberal contention.
A few days ago Kumiko and I were contesting how this man - Zakirzhan Niyazov - should be designated.
She felt that he should be considered “Asian” whereas he appears to me, on balance, to be more of a Caucasoid prototype - that is, he seems to me to be slightly more kindred of The Caucuses and Europe. He probably could fool me as kind of sort of Bulgarian or something like that, but he is actually of the direct genetic lineage which, after coming out of Africa, has been in an area around southern Kazakhstan and its Kyrgyzstan border for 40,000 years.
That Spencer Wells (Niyazov’s genetic discoverer) would say that his people are closely related to Europeans does not help much in disambiguation - Wells also considers Europeans to be very closely related to Africans: “Racism is not only socially divisive, but also scientifically incorrect. We are all descendants of people who lived in Africa recently. We are all Africans under the skin.”
Nevertheless, we might proceed as if he provides operational verifiability enough in his genetic evidence to say that Niyazov’s is a proto-population of both Europeans and East Asians. If one hopes to investigate with rigorous disamiguation just who is European and who is not, Niyazov’s people are: a tight knot, gnarly lot, a gordian knot, or an important “white box” - an area where the details necessary to sort and name elements are unknown to us - choose your metaphor for the challenge.
Wells found that following a first wave out of Africa which went down the western coast of India, another wave - specifically, Niyazov’s forebears - came out about 40,000 years ago and went not to Europe through Turkey, or even through the Caucuses, but went straight east, to central Asia where they evolved alone in situ (apparently southern Kazakhsan near Kryzykstan) for about 10,000 years - incubating a primeval population from which sprang Europeans, East Asians and some of India.
Coming back to the contention over the ambiguity of this white box then, Kumiko argues that his people and nation belong clearly in “the Asian sphere of influence.”
Russians, a White, viz. European people, play insufficient part of this man’s people’s history to assert their designation, how they should “count” as a nation and people.
On the other hand, I look at him prima facie and see a tilt toward European. Especially when I look at his father, I see someone who at first blush looks like someone that I would guess to be “Russian.”
I would guess that his grandfather was from somewhere around the Caucuses, South Russia or Ukraine (one of the guys in the old Dannon Yogurt commercials about Ukrainian men who live to be well over 100, supposedly because they eat yogurt):
Granted that there is a slight epicanthic fold in Niyasov, his father and grandfather, but many Europeans have that degree of an epicanthic fold, including Germans, English and in fact, some people of most all European nations.
Europeans seem less perturbed and more familiar with these ambiguites than White Americans, but I digress. How do we handle these ambiguties?
When confronted with ambiguities of Europeans mixed with other Europens and living in other European nations my first instinct is to look for means of damage control to native populations; conflict resolution to stave off overcompensation and destructive, incorrect puritanism in how they look at ambiguous Europeans. Therefore, in order to reduce anxiety as such, I seek to have their difference honestly recognized while recommending their right to abode being limited to safe, minimal numbers in porportion to the purer native stock.
In native populations that have been more mixed for a while, I would imagine that is their “native type.” It would be a matter of arriving at a more complex formula of what range and ratios comprise the natives. Naturally, those populations which were ambiguous from the start, in the sense of being a “primordial stew”, phylogenetic forebears to different kinds, they too would have native status to their nation.
My instinct thus, is to resolve matters of racial ambiguity by national designations and assignment. For those of us more serious minded, however, this is far from an arbitrary matter or flight of imagination. While these ambiguities do require at least a modicum of social constructing, real lives, ancient human and natural ecologies are at stake.
If Niyazov’s people are a primeval type which has both European and Asian elements and particularly as they are evolved in that area then that is a very powerful warrant as to their sovereign nation in consradistinction to regional imperialism, whether European or Asian.
Sorting out Niyazov’s people may not easily solve problems of the geopopolitical chessboard, but it should help greatly in clarifying just what and who is in dispute.
Freedom for Tibet! er, Kyrgyzstan, er Southern Kazakhstan, er proto- Europeans, er proto-Asians… Asians… East Asians..
..there you have it, a problem for the would-be nationalist solution seems to arise within the framework of geopolitics. Our case in point, regarding the European sphere of influence, viz. what is a nation of European people and therefore under its allied interests as opposed to an Asian nation and arguably thus, under its allied interests, closer concern and protection.
I confess to not being attuned to the need to fight on these lines of “Asian vs European” spheres of interest, but then I am not preoccupied with the relation of populations, their requirements and resource scarcity. Still, it is a practical concern and we are all pragmatists to some exent - because we have to be.
Thus, despite mine and GW’s more idealistic view, interested as we are in populations in relation to territory and habitats, human ecology and warrant, trying to sort out nations on genetic lines that are ambigously tangled can still give rise to contention and thus the requirement for negotiation on radical pragmatic grounds of “how things count” - as in the case of Niyazov, which requires the negotiation and social construction of our alliances as native nationalists.
The matter of negotiation that is contested here again: Kumiko sees Niyazov, his father and grandfather as “Asian” and a clear line between them and Europeans. Whereas I see them as in an ambiguous continuum with Europeans. While such ambiguites don’t really surprise me, I was a little surprised (because I was not looking for it) to see him looking (to me) slightly more Europeans than oriental (Chinese, Japanese, Mongolian). But whatever is most characteristic of Niyazov’s type, I have a gut reaction to preserve him and his, with national sovereignty, the way that a zoologist would seek to preserve a precious species. I also believe that there is a kindredness in my visceral response - I sense Europeanness in this man that should be protected by necessary means, including national sovereignty.
It seems that Kumiko has a similar kindredness and wish for nationalism as a means to protect native populations, including his; but perhaps we both have a confimation bias - hers moving through the pragmatics of geopolitics and Asian regionalism while mine is filtered through a Eurocentric perspective.
From her perspective, because he has traditionaly been considered “Asian” means that his nation belongs in closer alliance with China, Japan, Korea, India etc.
In the first clues of the genetic evidence, I am inclined to say, “not so fast”.... there may be more connection to Europe in Asia than is being given its due by the traditional designation of “Asia” bereft of genetic data.
Not that a people’s co-evolution in a particular land is a thousand percent incontestable warrant, but it is strong.
Even so, if ideally proposing the sovereignty of ambiguous nations to harbor primordial types, questions and contentions can arise to their hazard, questions conveniently at the disposal of regionalist, internationalist and neoliberal forces. These poltical contentions seem to me to require more, not less attention to sorting out issues of genetic, racial ambiguity and native national alliances in order to establish warranted assertabilty.
Let us attend to sorting out and negotiating with peoples how it is that they count.
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 08:53 AM
...Are Nothing New - Alain DeBenoist
Translated from the French by Tom Sunic
A: The new law allows the installation of “black boxes” on internet networks and servers which operate with the technologies of “deep packet inspection” and which enable the monitoring of private conversations on the internet, as well as the interception and scanning of all communications the goal of which is to detect, by means of secretly kept algorithms, all “suspicious” words and every “unusual” behavior. This law also allows, without any need to seek court approval, the wiring up of homes, computer hacking in order to siphon off their contents, the use of portable “IMSI-catchers” (false antenna relays intercepting telephone calls in a specific perimeter), the “key loggers” (software for reading in real time what a person types on his keyboard), vehicle tagging, geolocation of people and objects, etc.
The “black boxes” also allow the analyses of all the “metadata “, that is to say, to keep track of all traces left behind by a person using the phone or the internet. Any data value, being proportional to the square of the data number to which it is connected, the growing collection of the “metadata” thus enables not only how to predict the behavior of a group of individuals with their specific characteristics, but also to prod into every aspect of citizens’ lives: their relationship, their mail, their social networking habits, their banking transactions, their travels, purchases, subscriptions, lifestyle, age, political views, etc.
Hence, this is no longer a matter of targeting someone; rather, it means crisscrossing the entire landscape. Despite the soothing assurances by the authorities, what we are witnessing is a massive surveillance of citizens, even though, the vast majority of them cannot be suspected of being linked with any offense. The emergency rule becomes the rule. Private life no longer exist and civil liberties are under threat of the law which set itself the objective to find out whether each of us knows people who know some people, who know some other people who are not “clean .” As the “republican” tradition demands we are now back at the Law of Suspects of 1793. With good reason citizens keep complaining about not being heard. Well, short of not being heard, they are now being listened to.
Q: We’ve known for a long time that citizens are always ready to give up freedom in exchange for a semblance of security. Hence the birth of the US Patriot Act. French Prime Minister Manuel Valls, in fact, uses the same argument: “it is the fight against terrorism.” Last year, Benoît Hamon, added to it: “if you have nothing to hide there is no problem with being listened to.”
A: A historical reminder. On December 8, 1893, in order to avenge Ravachol [a “bomb-throwing anarchist”], who had been guillotined the previous year, the anarchist Auguste Vaillant detonated a bomb in the Chamber of Deputies, causing no casualties. A few days later, the deputies passed the anti-terrorism laws, soon to be known as the “villainous laws” (“lois scélérates”) “stipulating the suppression of the freedom of the press and prohibiting any anarchist gathering, even if held at a private place. The banker and the future French President Casimir Perier stated on that occasion that “freedom of speech does not apply to the enemies of civilization.” Sounds familiar? “Terrorism,” “civilization”, restriction of freedom, all of this can be found there. The “fight against terrorism” is only a pretext — albeit a very old one). None of the measures that were taken pursuant to these new laws would have prevented the attacks from occurring over the recent months. By the way, one does not need to set out a trawl to catch a handful of sardines.
As to those who say it does not bother them because “they have nothing to hide”, they certainly deserve the “GPNC” (the Grand Prize of Citizens Naivety). These are the same idiots who watch televised games or who purchase lottery scratch cards at the tobacco store hoping to strike it rich. When uttering these words they give up, of their own volition, their freedom, without realizing that the reasons stipulated by this law (from “collective violence prevention” to that of “the reconstruction or maintenance of banned groups”) are extremely vague. Hence, under given circumstances these legal provisions can enable to place under police surveillance any joint action aimed at changing political, social and economic structure of the country, every social protest movement, all those having dissenting views, or those who took the liberty of challenging, one way or another, the established order, be they the Sivensdemonstrators, or the Notre-Dame-des-Landes protesters, or those taking part in the “Demonstration for All” (“Manif pour tous “).
Q: Our rulers are eager to listen to everyone; yet it is themselves who are also being listened to, particularly by the Americans. How should have the Presidential palace reacted to the recent revelations made by Julian Assange about it?
A: President François Hollande could have demanded that Washington immediately recall Jane D. Hartley, the US Ambassador to France. He could have granted asylum to Julian Assange and even to Edward Snowden. He could have announced that France would withdraw from all talks on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). He did nothing. He is the vassal of the USA on which he depends now in order to conduct operations in which the French Armed Forces are engaged. Ever since it joined NATO again, having lost all of it independence, France stripped itself of any autonomous decision-making.
Alain de Benoist is a journalist and writer who, in 1968 founded the Groupement de recherche et d’études pour la civilisation européenne, an ethnonationalist think-tank.
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Friday, July 10, 2015 at 11:57 PM
Don’t worry, I’m the kind of foreigner that you’ll like. Hopefully.
Majorityrights began with and has long been committed to freedom of speech, no matter how controversial the opinion, as I can clearly see from the archives. It has been published as an internet magazine with considerable bravery given the political environment and the risks that come from being misunderstood, and has had a pretty diverse set of contributors and viewers. On 14 October 2014, it marked its tenth year in operation, and I hope that its eleventh year coming in just a few months will be as illuminating as ever. As a newcomer, and as an East Asian woman, I feel privileged to be invited to submit articles from my perspective and experience.
Here, on what could be described as freedom of speech’s front porch in its tenth year, we have a good place to talk frankly and honestly as neighbours and allies with common interests. What I’m about to provide is what I see as a necessary polemic against some positions that exist in Majorityrights’ archives and an invitation to conversation as such.
It is said in warfare about the ‘turning manoeuvre’, that when you move into an opponent’s rear in order to cut them off from their support base, you are taking the risk of getting yourself cut off from your own.
A similar manoeuvre has been attempted by many ethno-nationalists in Europe since 2001 on a political level with regards to the War on Terror, through their decision to advance negative attitudes toward it and their decision to develop talking points that reinforce those attitudes. They are refusing to endorse the War on Terror under the belief that this non-endorsement is somehow a ‘good’ angle to protest the political establishment from. It is not good. Those ethno-nationalists are getting themselves cut off because what they are doing actually undermines their own ability to address a severe demographic threat and also undermines their ability to address a persistent international security threat. It’s an unfortunate situation, because it is crucial for people to be able to square the thoughts that are going on their heads with the reality on the ground: The reality of the necessity of overseas contingency operations.
To understand how things reached the stage that they have reached, first a person has to remember how things started out. The world was stunned to see the events that were taking place on television on 11 September 2001. Nineteen Arab men had hijacked airliners, and rather than putting the planes down at an airport and demanding a ransom, they chose to put the planes down by sending them into buildings in New York City.
People seem to have struggled to understand how this could happen.
Over time, a self-hating narrative built up in which the citizens of the North Atlantic were largely blaming their own governments for having allegedly ‘fanned the flames of conflict in the Middle East’ by allegedly ‘supporting radical Islamists’, while simultaneously also allegedly ‘fanning the flames of conflict in the Middle East’ by allegedly ‘opposing Islamists and offending Muslims’. Both of these narratives cannot make sense at the same time, and I would argue that neither of those narratives are true. Furthermore, the apparent implication in both of those narratives is that the North Atlantic should refrain from pursuing its interests in the zone to the south.
That is an idea that should be rejected on the basis that it leads only to paralysis in the political sphere, and a loss of initiative in the military sphere. Groups which argue that the North Atlantic should adopt a passive stance and not assert its interests, and those who place blame onto the wrong people, may mean well, but they do not realise that the narratives they are creating can lead to serious crises which may not have actually been intended by those dissenting groups.
Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 05:04 AM
Well, the politicians’ faces are different. Al Qaeda has been substantially replaced in the chamber of Moslem horrors by Islamic State. Public opinion is better informed, public patience shorter in supply. But none of the rest - the terrorist violence, the stubbornly bien pensant political language, the lies in the press, the Establishment’s oily submissiveness towards Islam:
... and its endless devotion to multiculturalism - has changed from ten years ago today, when the London bombings scarred British national life.
In memory of that event, I thought I might reproduce the article I wrote just four days after it. I wonder if, in another ten years, the same alignment of forces will obtain, or whether something new and powerful and surprising will have entered the picture.
A train journey through the geopolitics of Al Qaeda. Or make that liberalism.
I don’t often travel to London these days. I can’t feel the same for the place as I did in my childhood. But it happened that last Thursday I was required to catch the 8.20 from Lewes to Victoria. The previous evening a Portugeuse client had flown in to London to meet with me next day at 10.00am in a Bayswater hotel. These guys pay the piper. So a trip to town could not be avoided.
Actually, it was a pleasant enough journey - quiet carriage, no twenty stone slab of lard sitting next to me. The rush hour was mostly past. The train didn’t fill until it reached multicultural East Croydon. It got in to Victoria shortly before 9.30am.
The next two hours of my life were spent going nowhere very fast and being dragged to the inevitable conclusion that my Portugeuse client would have to lunch alone. I learned from the station tannoy that the Underground was closed due to “incidents”. Other travellers, no less frustrated than I, had come into possession of the knowledge that somewhere a bus had been bombed. Then the tannoy confirmed it. Bus services were also suspended. Outside the station, London’s amazingly ubiquitous black cabs had become as rare as hens’ teeth. My mobile phone did not function. I assumed that weight of call traffic was the cause (only later did I learn that the system was switched off for fear of remote detonation of terrorist bombs).
It was time to get out of town.
Posted by DanielS on Monday, June 29, 2015 at 10:48 AM
It is clear that Jewish planners take concepts and terms that would be helpful to our group organization and well being, then reverse, distort beyond reason or confuse the meaning that the terms would signify in application to Whites.
I’ve discussed this before but how their deception functions on two levels to our detriment bears farther differentiation.
The two levels of deception are well captured in the analogy that misrepresentative terms are like “red capes” to the charging bull.
They have right-wing White Nationalists charging after the false representation on the level of the misrepresentative term.
At the same time WN become turned-off or hostile to the underlying idea which would be good for them/us.
1. “The” Left misrepresented as universal liberalism applied to Whites is the most fundamental “red cape.”
The underlying idea of the left is social unionization. There are people in the union and people out of the union, therefore it cannot be universal or liberal. On the contrary. In fact, Jewish interests do not apply it as universal except to Whites.
This causes WN to chase this “red cape” of “The” Left which is really imposed liberalism upon them.
At the same time, because of the perversion of the term and abuses of Whites that go on under this false rubric, Whites become repulsed and in fact fight against what is the most important underlying social organizing concept [for group defense, accountability, agency, warrant, our human ecology]: the unionization of our peoples. It would keep an eye on the most dangerous traitors, elite ones, keeping them accountable as members of the class, while also keeping rank and file Whites accountable and incentivized to participate.
All of the usual Marxist and other Jewish distortions such as abolition of private property, communal child rearing, race and gender blurring, no free enterprise that would create wealth for the industrious and innovative, etc. would be set aside as Not representing the “White” left / native nationalist left.
There would not be an imposed economic class division in a White Left, but rather the nation of people would be the class: class, union, nation and people (in our case Whites and native Whites) would be synonymous.
In subjecting us to the red cape of “The Left” misrepresented as universal liberalism as applied to Whites and altercasting us as “the right”, we develop Cartesian anxiety for our Augustinian nature, and desperately adopt objectivism to the extent of reaching for unassailable warrant. This has the effect of taking us beyond accountability to our subjective and relative social group interests. It makes us look and act less humanely. It scares our own people and it should as we are not only easily made to look like “the bad guys”, but are, in fact, dangerous in being bereft of sufficient accountability; made easy to defeat as the factual necessity of our cooperation is not sufficiently recognized and we remain disorganized in obsolete philosophy.
2. Equality: Chasing this red cape really makes WN look bad, as they argue for inequality. It casts discourse in elitist and conflictual terms straight-away; more, it is not accurately descriptive as it relies on false comparisons.
The underlying concepts that YKW are trying to divert WN from grasping is the disposition to look first for qualitative sameness and difference. Within and between social paradigms there can be logics incommensurate to comparison but nevertheless amenable to symbiotic, non-conflictual functions, particularly if those respectful terms are invoked.
3. Social Constructionism and Hermeneutics: These concepts devised to counteract Cartesian runaway and facilitate systemic homeostasis instead have been misrepresented by Jewish interests with the red cape distortion that people and groups can just be whatever they imagine they might construct of themselves. Thus, the lie persists that these concepts are anti-empirical and anti-science. On the contrary, that would contradict the very anti-Cartesian premises of these ideas; in fact, these ideas are meant to enhance and make more accurately descriptive the conduct of science and reality testing. They are meant to correct the “scientism” which can result from myopic focus on narrow units of analysis only, such as blindered focus on moment or episode, the individual as socially unrelated, or the linear cause and effect of physics models to the detriment of how interactive, agentive, biological creatures can and do act in broad view of systemic homeostasis.
These concepts importantly serve to correct the bad science put forth as evidence for anti-racistm, scientism evident in the statement by Spencer Wells of National Geographic’s Human Genome Project -
“Racism is not only socially divisive, but also scientifically incorrect. We are all descendants of people who lived in Africa recently. We are all Africans under the skin.”
.. by which he means that there are no important differences to justify discrimination.
While maintenance of the social group must admit to at least a tad of relativism and subjectivity in its interests, this admission is also an “admission” of a modicum of agency and choice; which thus lends itself by this admission to the stabilizing gauge of group criteria and the answerable, corrective means of its social accountability. This is stable in a way that attempts of pure objectivism are not - as its lack of social accountability tends to have the reflexive effect of hyper-relatvism. Spencer Well’s objectivism has the reflexive effect of being susceptible to having him espouse a destructive hyper-relativism in line with that espoused by pedestrian liberals or Marxist Jews.
Social constructionism and hermeneutics proper could correct this by adding dimensions of subjective and relative social accountability; thus coherence in historical process through accountability to historical social capital, manifest and situated delimitations, agency in racial re-construction and warrant in manifest and situated group evolution; but the Jewish red capes over these terms reverse the whole anti-Cartesian program that these concepts are meant to correct. Indeed, anti-racism is Cartesian.
However, for the massive perversion and misrepresentation of these concepts they have turned-off Whites and in fact have them arguing against the valuable underlying concepts which in no way deny physical and social constraints to free choice but nevertheless would facilitate coherence, accountability, agency and the warrant of our race to exist: That is what we seek in rigour - warranted assertability.
Social constructionism and hermeneutics proper facilitate that. Jewish interests with their red cape distortions do not want you to have that.
As is the case with “Pragmatist” philosophy, you can tell if you are chasing the red cape if you have to put the word “mere” before what those presenting the concept are saying in order to make sense of their argument: if they are suggesting something is a ‘mere’ social construct”, then there is no physical, interactive and interpersonal accountability and it is Cartesian.
4. Post Modernity: Jewish interests know that modernity by itself is viciously self perpetuating, paradoxic, impervious and destructive to healthy traditions and forms; whereas post modernity properly understood allows us to take the best of modernity and time tested forms and ways.
The red cape misrepresentation is a “dada” definition (or non-definition, as it were) of post modernity as opposed to a deliberate and thoughtful management of modernity and traditional forms and ways.
5. Multiculturalism and diversity: Jewish academics have reversed these terms to where outside groups are introduced to one another in order to blend away and subvert healthy, managed differences within and between groups. Then again, to chase the red cape and argue against the terms is to argue for integration with outsiders, e.g., non-Whites.
6. “Marginals” is a concept that goes along with hermeneutics and group maintenance; Jews have set up a red cape of presenting “marginals” as those outside the group with the intention of their being agents of change in overthrowing group homeostasis.
Chasing this red cape has WN arguing against humanitarian outreach to those within the group but most at risk to non-Whites; our marginals potentially have the greatest incentive to see to it that the White ecological system is maintained; they can lend perspective, feedback and accountability. It is important to note that one can be marginalized for being exceptionally talented and intelligent as well.
7. Hippies and the Sixties: These terms have been misrepresented as synonymous for White men being responsible for the Jewish radicalism of sexual revolution and black civil “rights”, viz. prerogative over Whites.
Chasing this red cape is a diversion from the call for a reasigment of White men as having intrinsic value - Being - as opposed to being expendable in wars not of the bounded interests of our people; as opposed to chasing the red cape of universal traditional manhood in service of a universalizaing religious ideal, international corporations, oligarchs and the YKW; while in charging this red cape, the intrinsic value of White people overall, as the unit to be defended, is argued against - WN are arguing against our own deepest interests again, against the warrant to exist. The very thing we need most is prohibited by a Jewish language game in which they form coalitions with black power, feminism AND misinformed traditional women, to deny our being, our reality, value and warrant to exist in midtdasein - the non-Cartesian being there* amidst our people.
* or “being of”, as GW prefers.
8. Social justice warriors - of course those doing the Jews’ bidding are not pursuing true social justice, but to argue against the term, “social justice warrior”, is to fall for the masters of discourse’s red cape once again.
9. The Jewish affectation of Christianity posed as “the moral order” for Europeans. The necessary good of a European moral order is dismissed right along with the red cape of Christianity or some “false” version of Christianity.
We are the White justice warriors and I invite you to join me in some bull-steak now that we’ve sorted away the bullshit…
Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, June 22, 2015 at 07:29 PM
On the Radio page now: British journalist Colin Liddell, one of the two editors of Alternative Right, and occasional contributor to Counter-Currents and Occidental Observer, mulls over a range of subjects with GW and Daniel, including Dylann Roof, “black” Rachel Dolazel, Jenner-bending, the interminable, insoluble Greek euro crisis, UKIP and the British political scene, the homosexualisation of marriage, and Jewish influence in globalism.
As mentioned in podcast, clip of Brzezinski discussing his goal for a NWO