Computer Nerd Tanstaafl, STEM-X Conduit of Right Wing Boomer Cancer, the Boomers who Beget it, the Millennials and Beyond Whose Internet Bubbles and False Currency are Sourced Through this Conduit.
…so, while I had reason to believe and hope that Tanstaafl had come to his senses and would take our side, i.e., those who seek to coordinate the ethnonationalisms of European peoples, who recognize that Hitler/Nazi redemptionism is counter productive to that end; and appreciate the White Post Modern explanation that I have made to clarify the reasoning for this position, that’s not what happened.
One day, not long after the podcast with Guessedworker and I at Majorityrights, when listening to a TANSTAAFL podcast, I hear him begin his podcast with the same hushed tones that I have started my podcasts with (I would begin with hushed tones to focus on the gravity of the statement – declaring that ant-racism is Cartesian, it is not innocent, it is hurting and it is killing people), the difference being that Tanstaafl begins his podcast by saying in hushed tones, “Anti-racism is a Jewish construct.”
Clearly he’s trying to go one up on me, suggesting that I am not assessing the problem keenly enough, if not trying to distract from it altogether in a similar manner as people he likes to expose as acting in Jewish interests deliberately or unwittingly.
While it is almost understandable, because advocacy at at all aligned with White interests has been fraught with those naive to the J.Q. Such as Jared Taylor or “conservatives” such as (Jewish convert to Catholicism and fellow “race realist” along with Taylor) Lawrence Auster trying to distract from Jewish power and influence’s destruction to Whites, it became apparent that Tanstaafl was a bit unhealthily myopic and a tinge paranoid even, when I found him taking issue with my platform, which maintains that we have to look after ourselves systemically, not with his singular focus of ‘lets get people to on board with a singular purpose of getting rid of the Jews and our other problems and concerns will be easy to take care of.’
Though I am not a linealist and so the order of concerns to check upon is not always the same, it is the case that typically number one or a quick second thing to check for in the concern of our problems will be Jewish power and influence; if not that first, then it will be a quick second after I look at our own right wingers and liberals for their pseudo warrant and license to betray us or leave us vulnerable for their “objective” indifference.
Anyone who has looked at my efforts over the past decade and more can see that Tanstaafl’s suggestion that I do not take Jewish power and influence seriously enough is absurd.
But not taking Jewish power and influence seriously enough is indeed the accusation that Tanstaafl would make of me, stating by contrast the he saw Jewish power and influence as a mortal threat and treated them accordingly, appropriately.
It is necessary to go into the context of this argument, address it along with some additional arguments against me that Tanstaafl rendered soon after: and I need to add some suggestions as to the broader historical context and Tanstaafl’s personal history in order to gain some understanding as to why Tanstaafl would take an adversarial position to me, as if I am working against White interests.
I was quick to respond at Majorityrights that I did not disagree with his statement that anti racism is a Jewish construct; and equally quick to note that is not mutually exclusive to the broader, deeper and ultimately more keen philosophical idea that anti-racism is Cartesian; i.e., it is a detachment from natural and social reality that is veritably impossible for humans; and it is eminently impractical, destructive in fact, to have this absurd prohibition of social classification (and accountable means of discrimination thereupon) foisted upon us.
Further, that while it is fine and true as far as I’m concerned to note this Jewish weaponization of modernity – Trotsky apparently coined the term racism and Jewish interests are obviously its major proponents – it hardly makes redundant the fact that ant-racism is Cartesian and destructive as such. In fact, not only does this have a deeper and broader cross contextual application, but it comports tact and measure that is necessary for the broader public in times and places, addressing Jewish machination both more obliquely, thus incurring less risk of retaliation as it is not assigning blame to an outside group; and also more deeply, as it subverts what has been their largest philosophical weapon against us.
Now Cartesian estrangement from our relative interests and its weaponization by instigating this Cartesian anxiety in reaction to red capes of the socially organizing and advocating schemes of “the left” is such a relevant issue that you’d have to be a philosophically illiterate shithead of Guessedworker’s magnitude to be threatened so as to try to minimize its significance and discourage this concept from being addressed.
In a lifetime of observing patterns of behavior, and specifically, Jewish behavior, I agree with MacDonald where he concludes that a fundamental strategy of Jewish interest in maintaining their power and influence is to subvert White organization and the challenge to their power that might pose to them.
But I move past MacDonald’s boomer-tard reaction to Jewish red capes, taking the observation further by specifying that they aim to subvert White systemic homeostasis and I add that a key way of doing that is by instigating Cartesian anxiety in reaction to their red caping of “leftist” organization – depicting it in their marketing campaign, speaking of it, “The Left,” and the social organization and advocacy associated with it as being a strictly anti-White means of advocacy; instigating reaction in Whites, who react in quests for pure objective warrant beyond the negotiated world of praxis, beyond the systemically anchoring correctivity and structured accountability of our socially deliberated unionization in what has been identified in depth grammar cross contextually as leftism (in order to stave off the staw men of a boomer-tard like Guessedworker, whose autobiography is committed to chasing Jewish red capes and seeking pure warrant beyond, we must specify that it is White Left Ethnonationalism when deployed in our interests, in order to move past the red cape of internationalist and anti-White Leftism, i.e., liberalism of our borders and bounds) – while they instigate our identification with their altercast for us, with the narrow and “pure” warrants of the Right (in its depth grammar), limited as is it is in social accountability and correctivity for the purport of pure objectivism. This is an excellent way to subvert our homeostasis, for the inherent instability that the purity spiral comports, short on correctability and social accountability as it is.
How does Tanstaafl respond to all of this?
…again, trying to go one up on me, and suggest that he is keener in his assessment, he says that he identifies as neither left nor right wing, but as a “White Winger.”
This is a clever sounding variant of the “neither left nor right” reaction.
If Whites will not identify explicitly as Right wing, then Jewish interests will be satisfied with “neither left nor right” as it mitigates against the grounding and stabilizing correctivity of our systemic homeostasis through the socially accountable structuring of group unionization – a bulwark against liberal infiltration and subversion through ideology beyond the correctivity of Praxis on the one hand, and against the ideology that wangles its way in subversion of Praxis under the rubric of “Third Positionism” on the other hand – which Jewish interests can use to promote low account right wing infiltration and subversion by means of Christianity or Nazism, the second option, which they can promote to stigmatize our organizational cause, turning people off to it, if not instigating the outright divide and conquer of inter-European conflict through Nazism or the like epistemic blunders of natural fallacy (or bizarre esoterica at the other end of Nazism’s ideology beyond praxis).
Tanstaafl is content with the second option comported in Third Positionams, of its providing a way in for Nazism, unconcerned that in its supremacism and imperialism, it cannot function decently and cooperatively with other European ethnonationalisms.
Like most of us, I suppose, I have trepidation about looking at old work, fearing the cringe, but I realize that I sell myself a bit short in this fear, as I look back at the arguments that I had with Tanstaafl, starting in the comments on his talk with Guessedworker in 2014 and then continuing through 2015 and I see that my arguments hold up quite well.
There are only some relatively minor tweaks that I would make to my own articulation while the innaccuracy of Tan’s arguments against me are brought into high relief with this retrospect.
Because they are thorough enough, and should have ended the argument, I thought about re-posting these articles in full within this post, but that would make this post too long; instead I will excerpt where necessary for highlights and to amend with updated insight:
Arguments by Tanstaafl against me would mostly be made at his blog, “Age of Treason” while I would mostly respond at Majorityrights.
Among Tanstaafl’s arguments that I was forced to address, was his false accusation that I am obsessed with Nazism, when in fact he is confusing my irritation with having to discuss this matter and WWII at all, as it shouldn’t be too difficult for all to move beyond and dismiss.
Tanstaafl says, *Hitler is your bugbear, your litmus test. That’s your idea.*
This is false. Nazism is neither my bugbear nor my litmus test, nor my idea (singular concern), as it is among a few different positions that I seek to create a platform in relief from – a few other positions being scientism (of which Nazism is one expression), Christianity and the proposed inclusion of Jews in our advocacy group among others.
Another important fact that Tanstaafl was not recognizing with this accusation is that there were no and still are no places for Whites to go to have their advocacy represented free of these positions and their stupid burden; and by the same token, I do not go to sites advocating Nazism, Christianity or Jewish inclusion to hassle them and try to convert them.
In further evidence of his grievance with me for creating this platform at Majorityrights, when Tanstaafl appeared on Luke Ford’s show he said that he “used to like a site called Majorityrights.”
During and for a brief time after that remark was the only time in years that Tanstaafl would put his Skype contact to the green, “available” position for me – but it wasn’t an invitation to talk; it was a signal that he was glad that was heard by me.
This misapprehension on Tan’s part, in complaint that I would provide the recourse of a platform freed of that stuff, is in part due to one of the reasons that I will cite for his taking the position that he does – he is a fairly recent comer to White advocacy and does not appreciate the burden of decades of not having this recourse; that in the world of WN, there was no recourse from either Hitler, and/or Jesus, and/or Jewish inclusion.
While I looked critically at Tanstaafl’s unanimity with Hitler and his singular focus on Jews as the problem, and I defended MacDonald when looking for some of the cause of our problems with our people. I could defend that inquiry in good faith while recognizing that MacDonald was using the wrong unit of analysis, the psychological (as an objectivist boomerist might), discussing thus “pathological altruism” (a notion promoted by Jared Taylor, thus understandably generating suspicion in Tanstaafl) where philosophical, sociological, anthropological and communicological queries would provide more accurate assessment.
And the accurate assessment of Tanstaafl as a little paranoid in suggesting that I was being too soft on Jews, naïve about their power and influence and the focus that it takes to rid ourselves of this problem became apparent when, along with the strawman of my supposed singular, emotional and illogical aversion to Hitler, he added the strawman of “monocausality” as being a big thing for me, a word that I would nefariously use to demonize him.
And he added that this accusation of “monocausality” or “monomania” to coin a term that he said Greg Johnson used, was an accusation displaying influence from Jewish psychopathologization of anyone who focuses critically on Jewish power and influence – “they are bad, crazy, sick.” The charge of monocausality that he said that I simply wrote him off with, was a version of the Jewish, “bad, crazy, sick” psychopathologization.
To begin, his allegation of my being obsessed with sorting out “monocausality” and given to this word are among his arguments that are shown by the elapse of time to be particularly absurd.
It has been so many years since I last used the word (not since these posts, 2015) that I did not remember having used it until re-reading these posts and comments. Some obsession.
Furthermore, I honestly defended at the time that I probably used this term less than ten times in my life. More accurately, I probably used it less than five times (that’s one of the few things that I would tweak to update). In those few instances that I used the term it was in service of defending Macdonald and in particular, in support of Guessedworker to that end – “monocausality” was a Guessedworker word.
But with this Tanstaafl type in antagonism, any sort of ambiguity or imperfectly articulated idea is not treated as a specificatory structure to be shaped and crafted to mutual benefit, but rather as a proof of your misguided aims.
It reminds me of the one time – ONE TIME! – in my life that I used the word ‘fascism” pejoratively in discussion. In fact, it was probably the only time that I used the term, because I avoided the term having been repulsed by it as an American, where the only time you hear it is from ignorant liberals; so I can’t bear to use it in any sense.
But because GW would use the term on occasion and was helping me against Hitler proponents, I used the term – once! – and I was inundated by s neo-nazi with proof! There it was, I was an “anti-fa”, yes, you are anti-fa!” I responded in truth that it was the first time that I’d used the term in any sense, but this guy insisted that wasn’t true, “You are anti-fa! You are anti-fa!” …never again will I use that term, if for no other reason than to avoid the tedium.
So anyway, what I was trying to explain to Tan (and everyone else), and I can now see that I was well advanced in this explanation even then, only inhibited by the disconfirmation of Tanstaafl’s bad will, is the White Post Modern world view that Heidegger, among others, advanced in order to re-center our world view in the praxis of our people, to govern our social systemic homeostasis, our autonomy, our sovereignty.
This means that to manage our system, we look at our problems, maintenance and advance, where we should, not by reaction and Cartesian myopia, but with the agency of systemic, hermeneutic surveillance of the various matters at hand.
This does not mean that we should not have people, like Tan, who are dedicated almost exclusively to this focus – on the contrary – or that we should not look upon Jewish power and influence as being among our foremost problems – on the contrary – I place it as issue number 1a usually, but sometimes 1b only depending where correction needs to be made, placing the J.Q. at 1b and the systemic hole of liberal/right wing objectivism as problem 1a instead, depending.
The problem, of course, is when he suggests that I am in remiss for not being on board with his singular focus, to where the issue is so singularly important and its only solution is to effectively drop everything else and try to kill them all instead of shoring-up our organization and defense. It’s fairly obvious that an effective challenge to them and good result is not likely without our having that, and with it, the moral high ground of clearly just defending ourselves.
This position is attained first of all by a world view of ourselves as The White Ethnonational Left. This is a unionization concept which encompasses and is responsible for our people as a whole; it is anti-supremacist by definition and comports the ability to coordinate with if not cooperate with other peoples. Our ethnonations are the species class and our race is the genus class (our relative interests the calibration, whereas objective facts and truth are invaluable feedback) – and from this position of ethnonation as union and race as union of unions, we are accountable for our social capital (without having to rely on emotional arguments or other compulsion, I might add); and from this world view we might hold our elites to account, whether tending right wing or liberal; and we may hold rank and file and marginals to account as well.
Not only do we hold our people to account, but we also have a bead on outside group antagonism, concern number one of outsiders being Jewry, of course.
Thus, with our systemic interest in central view in the “radar tracking system” that I’ve established with this platform, I set forth two major poles as first check points for problems to be corrected:
At one pole, we have Jewish power and influence, its antagonism to our social systemic homeostasis from top down rule structures disseminated through about 10 elite niches (at the time, I said 7 – it’s one of the other minor tweaks, I’ve alluded to) and from their biological patterns – thus, the necessity to discriminate even against “the good ones”, and set cast them out of our group system, as they are a part of a pattern which will reconstruct itself with interests indifferent or destructive to ours in subsequent generations – I am some guy who doesn’t take Jews seriously enough, right?
At the other major pole, we look at our own fuck-ups: Right Wingers and Liberals who both see their prerogative to short shrift accountability to our relative, group interests for their “Objective” warrant. And mind you, I basically said this, was speaking in terms of these two established poles even then; I’m only somewhat more articulate and confident in my position.
Beyond merely predictive, this has been a highly effective “radar calibration” in tracking “enemy” moves and where our own people are doing us a disservice.
And with these positions set, knowing that Jewish power and influence is in constant vigilance of our surveillance, along with the the vulnerabilities and exploits that right wingers and liberals provide them for their objectivism, we need not ignore other problems, such as black biopower or Muslim imperialist terrorism; nor for that matter, need we ignore attendance to the positive and enjoyable matters of our systemic reconstruction.
It is important to assert again, that this tracking system is not against the objective and truth seeking inquiries that the right is enamored of, that liberals see as warranting their license and licentiousness, on the contrary, inquiries and verification of matters that are factual and true irrespective of our subjective and relative interests are imperative. Where the correctivity comes into play is by seeing these objective inquiries as feedback, crucial feedback but feedback to to be gauged against the calibration of or relative group interests.
This is to stabilize our world view in the accountability and correctivity, hence the systemic homeostasis of Praxis, as opposed to the the epistemic blunder, the natural fallacy of Hitler.
Furthermore, and quite importantly, as our “radar tracking system” maintains the pragmatic view in Praxis, viz. looking upon our claims in regard to Jewry as working hypotheses, and not comporting a goal to eliminate them, we are working with warranted assertability, as we are not proposing irreversible and uncorrectable theories. Rather, where we might be mistaken to some extent, say, in terms of the extent of Jewish power and influence in a particular niche, and its impact on Whites we are amenable to account and correction.
In the articulation of this point, the taken for granted objective pseudo warrant of right wingers and liberals, the rational blindness to group accountability it comports, that another disconcerting friction with Tanstaafl emerged.
I became miffed when I heard Tanstaafl talking with the neo-Nazi Renegade Broadcasting Network, discussing objectivity as a susceptibility of our people that Jews can exploit, while not giving me any credit for having discussed this matter at length.
It was reasonable for me to assume that he’d read or heard me talking about this since I’d done so at The Voice of Reason Radio Network where we’d both worked.
Tan took exception to this, saying that not only did he owe me concern that I be given credit, but in fact, he’s been on to the idea since 2012, and he cited his source in German scholar that he read at that time.
He added the suggestion that I was trying to control who he talked to, trying to tell him that he should not be talking to those neo-Nazis.
I rejoined firstly by saying that I had offered to talk with Renegade, but they declined. I might ask, would they allow me to speak critically of Hitler and Nazism? The answer is no. And yet Tan tries to ostracize me for creating a platform in reprieve from this sort.
Next, I conceded that OK, you’re a smart guy, you could have come up with the idea on your own, independently and could have known about it since 2012. By contrast, can you imagine someone like Tanstaafl or Guessedworker conceding that I could have come up with an idea relatively independently?
Furthermore, I’ve been talking about this since 1991; and in addition, I do not see it mitigating against the epistemic blunder of Hitler and Nazism that he is wont to repeat, or generating in him the systemic bearing that I have set forth.
On the contrary, he doubled down, trying to suggest that I was using obfuscating “jargon” when discussing Praxis, its nature, significance and so forth. ..that I “write so much”…and my “logic is poor”… I don’t have the integrity, “should just admit it.”
Alright, it wasn’t hard to see that was all bullshit then and it is even easier to see now, of course.
But that doesn’t mean that he, or more exactly, where he’s coming from, isn’t a problem in its antagonism to this platform proposed for coordinating European ethnonationalisms.
In fact, dealing with this matter is what this thread, Generational Astrology: the Zodiac Sign of the Boomer, is all about. How someone like STEM-Xer Tanstaafl becomes a conduit for this impervious right wing Boomer shit, straight to the protective buffering of Millennial and Zoomer internet bubbles.
And so to address the problem of where Tanstaafl might be coming from, why his intransigence in this position, thereby perhaps leading to suggestions as to how the conflict might be ameliorated (because believe me, a great percentage of Whites are not going to get along with Nazism and should not) let me venture some speculations – actually not very speculative suggestions as to where he’s coming from, why the intransigence of this antagonistic position and how relations might be improved.
….
Let’s begin with the fact that Tanstaafl has a Jewish wife and kids by her (two, I believe). He married her well before he was “aware of the J.Q.’ but is not prepared to leave her or his kids upon his is awakening. Even so, while he believes they might accept his commentary on Jewry, he does not expect for White nationalism to accept him and his family as part of their ranks.
He is astute enough in regard to the J.Q. now to realize that even 1/4 biological Jews are hazardous, probably too hazardous to accept into White biosystems. His kids are 1/4 Jewish because his wife is 1/2 Jewish – Jewish from her father’s side, biologically, though he was not religious or very Jewish politically, according to Tan.
With that, we might speculate that he might have an overcompensating sense of duty to get the J.Q. right for the sake of other Whites and leave it at that.
The next place to look in his history as he tells it, is a starting place for many right wingers, looking over the conspiracy theories – 9-11 in particular. From there, if you are not given to anti-Semitism (and why would he be, with a Jewish wife) you might take a keen interest in the “anti-jihad” (anti-Muslim) sites, which Tan did. He added an insight, that he took some satisfaction in the wars against Iraq because he liked the idea of our people, or some aspect of our nation, anyway, not taking abuse, but rather taking the initiative to doll it out instead.
Nevertheless, if you care about what is happening to our White people in America, and are astute enough, as Tan is, eventually you are forced to seriously consider and discuss Jewish power and influence – Tan is not alone in dragging his feet on this; most of us in these post WWII generations really did not want to broach the topic; this was America, land of opportunity, why broach this ultimate taboo? That would be a sure fire way to keep you out of power and money, not a way to challenge the power and improve the situation.
Nevertheless, America had istalwarts, those Whites who were insiders to American privilege and keenly witnessed the Jewish antagonism and destruction to their interests. They would make the destructiveness of Jewish power and influence their main focus.
Revilo Oliver, George Lincoln Rockwell, William Luther Pierce, David Duke along with Don Black’s Stormfront and Alex Linder’s VNN would be influences, directly or indirectly in this regard.
While it is obvious to all that their audience is those White Americans who experience themselves as increasingly beleaguered, and are more ready to believe that Jewish power and influence is the prime culprit, the particular White demographic of this audience and its significance has scarcely been taken into account.
Although America’s founding stock and culture is Anglo-Saxon, and that counts for a great deal, by time of the 1990 Census, they were third Among Whites, a few million behind Irish, who had about 38 million, and Germans, who had the most – by far, with about 86 million.
With White Nationalism, particularly as it sees Jewry as its prime adversary, being stigmatized and of limited audience, there is going to be a reconstructing incentive to gain adherents and what limited money that there is to be had by crafting a message for this audience, which will in turn tend to consume the narratives that they want hear.
For those of us who know something about the overall history of Europe, including Eastern European nations, the German bias is clear, and it ranges from obnoxious to outright fictional Nazi propaganda. And those of us who’ve followed White Nationalism for decades would find that this bias is the currency of their discussion. While this currency is passing many false notes, it is nevertheless easy to see how a beleaguered demographic would be taken in.
Particularly susceptible, of course, would be America’s largest White demographic, the Germans. Beleaguered with hyperbolic guilt trips and penalties where they have done no wrong (in fact, their people fought against the Nazis) of course they are going to become exasperated and try to push straight back to throw off the guilt trips – America was on the wrong side of the war, Hitler and the Nazis were absolutely right, did not wrong, everyone who opposed them was wrong. Pandered to with with overbearing currency as such, they would not have quite the perspective, nor be in a mindset to partake of the perspective of other European nations which would allow them to see alignment in concern.
There is a likely motive here: in a word, if the Jews are the EVERY problem, then Hitler, the Nazis, Germany and Germans with them may be entirely exonerated, heroes of the world, even.
So, they’re susceptible to a message that is …lets say, overly sympathetic to Hitler and the Nazis. Passing the currency and not just many a false note with it… in their right wing reaction they are circulating its fundamental epistemological blunder, making White Nationalism not only more difficult to organize for this (rightful) stigma, but more dangerous and destructive (including self destructive) where it might, as it throws them into conflict not only with Jews, but other Whites, who could be their allies. In fact, Nazi redemptionism requires that you vilify other European nations for opposing Hitler. Oh, maybe they’re just brain washed, need to be enlightened about the Balfour Declaration, the Holohoax, Churcill’s complicity with Jewry and all the “peace offers” that Hitler made, etc.
Now, the next largest White demographic, the Irish, would be susceptible to pass this currency as well. Their nation was not in the path of the Nazi wrath, so they have no direct need to understand the legitimacy of the resistance of those nations that were attacked. Furthermore, there is the long history of antipathy between the Irish and English (including American English), which would lessen their sympathy for the English perspective in opposition to Hitler.
Next, you would have those English who feel their German roots and sympathy with Germany a bit more, don’t think that Britain should have gotten into the war at all, and find Britain having lost its Empire to be proof that it was a fool’s errand. Adding to their argument is the fact of Britain’s banking class being inundated by Jewry and Churchill being complicit with them.
The proper rejoinder, of course, is that that Jews betrayed England by way of what good will Churchill lent them – as most of us gave them the benefit of the doubt. But really, this is all 20/20 hindsight and I always like to say, that rather than lamenting America and Britain “being on the wrong side”, why not wish that Hitler had not attacked other European nations but had devoted his industrious efforts to cooperate with other nations for the deportation of Jewry to Israel. Poland already had a plan by 1935 to send 90 percent of its Jews to Palestine. This would be in accord with Churchill’s idea as well, from his famous piece, ZIONISM versus BOLSHEVISM. A STRUGGLE FOR THE SOUL OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE.
And looking honestly at the history, you can see that Hitler’s claim that the borders drawn by Versailles and The Treaty of St. Germain were improper was by no means clear; and that his claim was mere pretext for his goal for lebensraum through Ukraine and up to the Urals. That is to say, Hitler was an imperialist war monger taking after his idol, Frederick “The Great.”
So it wasn’t just about Jews when it came to Hitler. And these aspirations were at the expense of European nations who were anti-Semitic and more than willing to fight against The Soviet Union (Jewish Bolshevism): Belarus, Ukraine and Poland – which already had defeated a Soviet invasion. It was about an epistemological blunder, a natural fallacy of might is right, war is an integral part of life, borders are not negotiated, but enforced by force.
However, “epistemological blunder”, “natural fallacy”, “praxis”, “accountability and correctability thereby”, these terms are not part of the currency that Tanstaafl had taken up. He said that I was using “jargon” as such, that’s what he wants to believe.
It’s a little surprising that he’d make such a stupid assessment, so lets look at some other reasons as to perhaps why he is so insistent on this currency, including its utterly false notes.
Tanstaafl’s maternal grandmother is German, and he spent and enjoyable time with her in Germany with her. From a genetic standpoint, male grandchildren and maternal grandmothers have more genetic attachment and more affinity as paternal grandmothers have to female grandchildren. The point being that this bond would increase his susceptibility to an overly German bias.
Tan is also part Sicilian. There’s another group, Italians (though much fewer in America’s 1990 census – 16 million – they’d have some susceptibility to Axis sympathy as well). And I believe that Tan is also part Irish, so there’s that again.
He might pick up Pat Buchanan (half Irish/half German)’s “The Unnecessary War” and not tend to find many faults with it.
He might contentedly listen to David Duke pandering to this demographic, passing the currency, its all about the Jews as the problem, he will never say anything bad about Hitler (“he made all these peace offers”), will never examine the White right wing of which he is a part or liberals to look for problems.
And as Tanstaafl took up this currency and refined it, he began to gain admirers.
Ironically, he was called by Wolf Wall Street Bob from D.C., “the greatest epistemologist in White Nationalism.”
And it is ironic, because that is exactly what Tanstaafl is NOT. He is an epistemological fuck up.
Terrible Tommy Metzger, who was much smarter than Wolf Wall Street, used to keep WWS’s Nazism under control when he was a side kick. Once they parted ways, WWS would let loose klangers like that.
And, of course, as with anybody in White Nationalism who can’t get over idolizing and trying to redeem Hitler, the first hypothesis should be that they were listening to William Luther Pierce.
Pierce was an extremely intelligent man, but projected his own good will toward Slavs onto Hitler (a good will to Slavs that did not exist in Hitler) and made it easier with his brilliant presentations to believe that Hitler thus, was a lot better for European concordance than he actually was.
Furthermore, unlike his predecessor, George Lincoln Rockwell, who was an artist with some controlled, metaphoric and ironic distance from his subject, Pierce was coming from STEM, a physicist and thereby rather rigid and prone of STEM habit, to get fixated in looking for the one thing that breaks the otherwise perfectly functioning circuit. This can be problematic when addressing matters of praxis, the agentive, reflexive, messy world of human interaction.
When Terrible Tommy Metzger tried to bring some of these “leftist” concerns to Pierce’s attention, Pierce called Metzger a “Bolshevik” and told him that if he keeps this up, he’d be kicked out of the right wing! Metzger responded, “don’t bother, I’m already out of he right wing!” (along with David Lane). Metzger, by the way, unlike the rest of those on the list above, could be quite critical of Hitler, and recognized that he could NOT be a uniting figure for Whites – all of whom Metzger advocated, not just Germans.
Coming back to Tanstaafl’s favorite jargon word, Praxis, and the consternation it causes STEM thinkers, like Tanstaafl, he might take heart with a little from the humanities…in Praxis where we do not expect the lines to be so precise and perfect all the time, are not focused on the one thing all the time but go by working hypotheses…
It is a reasonable working hypothesis to agree with Tanstaafl that 1/4 Jewish is probably too much to include. But what if his kids were to marry White? I can agree that 1/8 is dangerous as well (the murderous Bolshevik Lenin was 1/8th Jewish); however, its 1/8th is also largely White and with the DNA Nations, a system of more strict accountability might be applied to persons of that percentage, so that they and others are made aware of the danger and obliged to marry White or be ostracized); then maybe that could be a way of redemption from his tragic situation.
I could extend that good will to him. What I will not accept is his getting kids into conversations that can land them in jail.
Metzger was a STEM guy too, and he did not successfully divest himself of all the right wing elements that he should have, but he was far more practical than the right wingers of WN, and I believe that as such, he could commend such an idea as incrementally increasing accountability.
STEM does make it hard for people like Tanstaafl, because it tends to be rewarded monetarily, thus, reinforced as a way of thinking, despite its habits that are the wrong epistemology for praxis; and it has been further thrust in advance, despite the fact that it, and the right wing objectivism where it finds affinity is in need of social correctivity, for its head start in the computer world.
This post is about complete; I’ll be making corrections and adding small bits; check to see the new paragraphs that I’ve added at the end and…
If you put the following – This position is attained – into the search, you will find an important paragraph that I’ve added above. I’ve also added several paragraphs to the end part of this piece.
There is a likely motive here: in a word, if the Jews are the every problem, then Hitler, the Nazis, Germany and Germans with them may be seen as exonerated, heroes of the world, even.