The hardest thing for me is to try and keep up some sort of balanced picture, retain sort of equanimity, in the face of all this utter, overwhelming evil.

have to I keep reminding myself of the general principle of NAXALT, which is surely correct. I have to keep reminding myself of the Jews I’ve known who have been lovely, sparky people. I have to keep reminding myself of the righteous Jews who bravely speak out against the shenanigans (and I don’t even begrudge them the motivation of trying to prevent disaster from befalling their fellows), the Jews who obviously genuinely believe in, and consistently espouse the nice universalist principles that are weapons of destruction in other hands.

I have to keep reminding myself that in the big picture it’s all just a natural conflict of interest – and a tragedy in the true sense; or a great game on a historical scale, in which both sides often give as good as they get. (For example, Zionism being a perfectly natural reaction of many strongly identified Jews to the assimilationist power of my peoples’ culture in the 19th century.)

And I search for a way to peg the entire phenomenon in a way that doesn’t “blame all Jews”, that targets specifically, while at the same time maintaining awareness of group/ethnic dimension of the phenomenon. For example, “It’s the Jews!” is too broad; variations of “It’s some specific Jews!” is true but clunky and misses the ethnic dimension; “It’s the Jew”, “It’s organized Jewry”, etc., etc. – all these capture some part of it, but none of them are really adequate.

But it’s hard not to be angry, not to hate. It’s hard work.

“Lord, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” And in a sense, that’s probably the best overview. One is horrified at the cuckoo nudging the eggs out of the nest, one sympathises with the poor, clueless mother bird who’s had her genetic legacy stolen from her – surely the worst kind of evil in nature. But one reflects that it’s all automatic – and after all, the cuckoo itself is just as clueless. Similarly, much deleterious Jewish activity is evolutionarily-driven automatism, sphexishness, and for many Jews (bar the few who know exactly what they’re doing) they’d probably be just as horrified if the awfulness of what they’re doing were brought home to them. (I’m reminded of Stefan Molyneux’s interview with a Jew in which he highlighted the hypocrisy of “multiculturalism for thee but not for me”- the guy was obviously genuinely perplexed, the cold, hard reality of the situation had never occurred to him even once in his life.)

“For ethics, equality and tolerance to prevail, we need a profound study of the human spirit not lame discussions of dialectical materialism.”

Well that’s the thing isn’t it? From the point of view of the Right proper (paleo-, old-, Alt-, Dissident), the human spirit is all about inequality (natural hierarchy), ethics depends on that, and tolerance has limits. The major fault-line within the Right is whether to ground natural hierarchy in religion or in science (evolutionary science).

I think for the Left to recover, it has to go back too – go back to its earlier phase of classical liberalism, in terms of which equality means something spiritual (created equal, divine sparks, etc.) on the one hand, and procedural (impartial justice) on the other. (That too, could be grounded either in religion or in science.)

On the one hand, evolutionary biology is a thing, genetics is a thing, race realism is a thing, people have different talents and capabilities, some people and/or groups are better at some things than others. Some people have musical talent, some don’t; some are suited to leading and inspiring, some aren’t; some are smart, some aren’t; some are good at killing people and breaking things, some aren’t. And so on and so forth.

On the other hand, everybody hurts, most people have some sense of empathy, and natural hierarchy fades in importance when you get to the 40,000 ft. view in which we’re all bugs on the windshield of a tremendous natural disaster, or a great war. The eyes have it.

I rather like the Qabalistic idea. The Qabalistic Tree of Life (at least in its Christianized version, as used in Western occultism) is basically just an expansion, a more detailed explication, of the same idea that’s expressed in its essential sense, in Chinese culture, as Yin/Yang. Half way up/down the Tree, the highest levels of concern in the material realm are represented by the polarity of Justice (or Severity) and Mercy. Mercy (the Left) tempers Justice (the Right), and Justice prevents an overweening Mercy from causing things to get flabby and fall apart.

Despite all the numerous attempts to add dimensions to the Left/Right divide, everyone (or rather, anyone who’s intelligent) knows instinctively that the distinction, at the deepest level, represents a continuum between two absolutely necessary poles of human experience, and that any chosen point along the continuum in relation to any given topic represents the sweet spot of a trade-off in relation to that topic.

“Jewish culture when it comes to power has done many horrible things. This is just one example. These examples are hidden from us. We are learning about what Jewish culture in power is doing to the US, the west and Israel in our time. It is all over the place. The top leaders of Jewish culture needs a reformation to learn empathy and respect for non- Jews.”

Yeah, this is the thing. Many of us on the “anti-Semitic” side of things see that the real problem with “the Jews” is Jewish elites, from the Levites on down.

If readers will recall the foofaraw with Sam Harris, Bill Maher and Ben Affleck, Harris made this point: we can all agree that the majority of Muslims are just ordinary folks going about their business who wish no harm on anyone, but the problem is there’s a worryingly large small hardcore jihadi minority, and as a penumbra around that there’s a worryingly large group of Muslims who aren’t jihadis, but who either sympathize to some extent with the cause, turn a blind eye to jihadis, might not inform on jihadi activity, etc., etc. These worryingly large minorities chip away somewhat at the ok majority.

It’s rather analogous with “the Jews.” Of course we all understand that the majority of Jews are perfectly lovely people who just want to get on with their lives. But there’s a worryingly large small minority, who are part of the Jewish elite, who have vast amounts of wealth and power (regardless of their position on the political spectrum), who wish ill on Gentiles; and around them, there’s a worryingly large penumbra of Jews who turn a blind eye to their elites’ shenanigans, or give it a nod and a wink.

If the “jihadi core” (so to speak) of Jews just stopped messing about with Gentiles’ host cultures, all would be well.

But they just can’t seem to stop themselves. Ethnic supremacy is, for a worryingly large minority of Jews, a kind of sphexishness, an automatism. What’s the solution? Well, the “penumbra,” and the majority, need to wake up to the fact that they’re being ill-led by their elites.

Pretty much like every ethnic group in the world, then 🙂 Funnily enough, class analysis is just as valid applied to Jews as it is to Gentiles. Who knew?

Nothing in this world will be really solved until Jews admit openly that they are the world’s ethnic supremacists par excellence.

And that can’t happen until everyone openly admits that ethnic supremacy is (at least in moderation) actually ok. Everyone roots for the home team, and that’s just fine.

But it’s another case of golem-torpedoes circling around. In order to get one over on Whitey, Jews hacked Whitey’s proclivity to use adherence to abstract ideals (and the policing thereof) as “social glue,” and “made him live up to his own ideals.” So Whitey is now terrified to admit to any sense of thumos. But the same construct makes it impossible for Jews to openly glorify themselves, to glory in their achievements.

It would be much better if everyone just laid their cards on the table and we all dealt with each other in the basis of friendlier kind of rivalry. Higher-level co-operation leading to rule-limited competition is always the best way. But that would be too “sporty” for Jews – no, for them, their sense of ethnic supremacy was given to them by God, a terrible burden to carry, you understand, a serious burden …

Talk about painting yourself into a corner.

“There is indeed a ‘family air’ between Bolshevism, Cultural Marxism and Fascism (and ‘Antifascism’ as well)! You may add ‘greenism’ to the soup.”

The “family resemblance” you’re detecting is what Oakeshott and others have called “Rationalism in politics,” which is the use of politics to impose an idea or ideal on society (as if humanity were a topiary garden). (This is somewhat a mangling of Wittgenstein’s concept, but that to the side … 🙂 )

This contrasts with what politics is by nature, which is: horse-trading between the various “houses” and “classes” in society that have their own power bases; the perpetual seeking of equilibrium and mutual accommodation.

This presence of 18th century “Rationalism” in politics is what gives the erroneous “horseshoe” impression to some people. They say that Left and Right meet around the back – but liberalism and centrism also meet around the back, and have their own extreme forms (manifest now as “globalism”). It all depends on how far one departs from politics as horse-trading (the real “center”) to politics as idea-imposition (all the “extremisms” – which is to say, simply, more thoroughgoing and consistent pursuit of ideas and ideals by political means).

No sorry, the “liberals are the real fascists” meme is a loser. That someone is a Communist ought to be opprobrium enough.

People have been trained into a queer false dichotomy between the Right and Left. Here’s the beef: the real political center is Social Democracy (i.e. taking the “best bits” from the economic Left and economic Right – you have a system that is basically capitalistic, but that doesn’t hold economic efficiency as the highest value, and seeks to balance it with other values, such as the right of Labour to collectively organize as a counterweight to Capital, the idea that we should have some sort of welfare provision for our poor, dysfunctional, sick, etc., etc.). In this view, neither Left nor Right are the enemy, but each has good ideas and bad ideas, and is bad when pursued to extremes (central control of the economy on the one hand, and the commodification of everything on the other hand).

This “center” is the true center, it’s the center that nationalist populism appeals to, and the center that the moderate Left and moderate Right appeal to. People generally desire economic liberty, but they also want to have a fair, kind society that collectively helps its less fortunate members. We are led to believe by some ideologues (on both the Left and Right) that these goals are mutually exclusive. It isn’t so.

But this is also Fascism or National Socialism. From the point of view of economics, Fascism is also a “Third Position” that tries to take the “best bits” from the Right and the Left. From the point of view of economics, there isn’t a hair’s breadth of difference between Social Democracy (or good, old-fashioned American liberalism) and Fascism/National Socialism. Both view economic efficiency as a tremendously important value, but not the only value worth collectively pursuing, and both seek to balance economic efficiency against other social values.

The differences between Fascism and Social Democracy are outside the economic sphere. The differences are that a) Fascism believes in natural hierarchy, whereas Social Democracy believes in Egalitarianism, and b) Fascism is realistic about race, where Social Democracy denies that race has any importance at all.

This means that Fascism and National Socialism think of government’s legitimacy as derived from its being the collectively organized defense of a people’s breeding grounds, and the collective provision of whatever public goods and commons may be necessary to that group’s flourishing, whereas Social Democracy thinks government derives its legitimacy from a social contract, and from its adherence to abstract ideals (egalitarianism, individualism, etc.).

The economic Left/Right choice is therefore a fake choice, it’s a chew toy to distract people from the real choice, which is between the legitimacy of the state being based on the reality of a people as an extended family, or the legitimacy of the state being based on social contract and abstract ideals.

Eh, it’s never been about skin colour, the idea that racialists are racialist because they have some bugaboo about skin colour is a silly canard, it’s Hollywood tier bs.

Racial differences are thoroughgoing – physiological, psychological, social. It is indeed the behaviour of group B that group A doesn’t want to live with. But that behaviour is of a piece with other traits, and with skin colour – it’s a package deal.

A racial stereotype represents the perceived average of a whole host of traits in a group. It may be the case that no single individual in the stereotyped group has just that selection of traits in those amounts, but as a summation of the average, it can be accurate enough as a rule of thumb about the group. Sure, there are always outliers, and some people in the stereotyped group may be perfectly lovely, and of course one has to await manifest behaviour before judging someone – but that’s irrelevant. Racialism, race realism, is about the groups, and reflects on policies relating to group vs. group interaction.

“The shift in our human landscape has created a desperate need for a new ethos: a fresh stand point that will reinstate the Western Athenian ethical and universal roots and produce a new canon that aspires for truth and truthfulness as opposed to the current cancerous tyranny of correctness.”

Ah Gilad, you are a great-souled man, a righteous man, very brave, a clean thinker. But there’s still a little bit of bad faith hiding away in your analysis. You are so close – yet so far.

You won’t rest from your wandering until you accept that human beings are largely what their genes make them, and that peoples are largely what their genes make them. Culture (including everything that arises from the discourse around class) is downstream from biology, we are first of all biological beings who only secondarily weave around ourselves cultural shells that suit us.

You hanker for a certain ethos, but you can’t have that ethos, it’s not even going to be there available to dip into, unless the people who created that ethos have the power to create it, and that power has been taken away from them because they’ve been hacked by your people’s ruling class, who are now the world’s ruling class.

All human beings are rough and ready to some extent, but relatively speaking, Europeans and European-derived peoples are among the gentlest, most curious, most open, most empathic, and most prone to glue themselves together socially by forming moral communities. But our tendency to altruistic punishment has been turned against us. You have made us hate ourselves, and for that, once the depth of the horror of what you’ve done to us has been revealed, I don’t think you’ll ever really be forgiven – at least not for a long, long time.

In the long perspective, it’s all been a glorious struggle between two powerful peoples with two entirely different modes of being – predatory and parasitic. We almost had you in the 19th century, you were almost assimilated into our liberal Borg, but your Zionists prevented put a stop to it, and in their ascendancy they’ve virtually jewed the whole world; but now the tables are starting to turn again.

There is definitely a way we can all get along – but the principle has to be respected (which the early Zionists saw correctly, in their own way) that the broad genetic clusters and sub-species that form humanity need their respective homes, where they can develop in their own way. NAXALT goes without saying, but on the whole you are bad for us, and we aren’t good for you either. Best to agree to disagree and live at a respectful distance, exchanging but never mixing, ever again.

If there’s ever an alien invasion, that Other will call forth unity between us, and between all our sub-species; but until then – 110 and never again.

His writing was interesting at the time as a stepping stone away from libertarianism for some (me included), but in retrospect, ultimately it looks like he was “inb4”-ing the coming tide of Noticing (“Hey look over here, it’s not the Jews, it’s those goshdarn Protestants, don’t you know!”)

Which shows that he’s quite smart. But his schtick of “precisely because it is x, it’s not x” is getting tiresome now.