For example, it could transcend Darwinism as it is applied to nigger ball or nigger music, looking at a broader range of human skills as more beneficial and valuable to human well being – and in particular the good that these skills (and their sometimes domination by niggers) are Not doing for White well being, It could take an overview toward Jewish domination in money breeding as a skill that Whites need not accept nor admire.

Rather, it engages a process called the hermeneutic circle, garnering the facts inasmuch as they are useful, orientating topoi, and then moving to wider frames of reference as they serve to orient the broader patterns relevant to us, our White race – our White class. The process, itself, engages the historical and sequential process of lived life, and is therefore unlike the static and impervious Cartesian method, in being a wholly more useful and natural way of pursuing knowledge and orientation – as it engages and interacts with the natural ebb and flow of ours; and the mutual, self corrective systems in which we are involved.

"Scientism" is a word to describe an application of Science that is off the mark, and scientism is why I seek to tease apart the issue of Darwinism as it applies to the White Class. It is important – not intellectual trifling or showmanship.

A Darwinist outlook errs too much in the empirical direction in application to humans and their capacities. It is a scientistic application as such. Hence my insistence on hermeneutics, a process which assimilates the systemic process of White evolution at its best by facilitating expanded perspectives – frames of reference – and the moving back to more rigorous focus on empirical data where it serves our interests, as Whites; then expanding frames of reference again and so on, in continuous process – such is life. After all, we want to serve the best interests of Whites, not mere phenotypic strength – nor even mental acuity. Darwinism is not enough. It does not care which race survives. White advocates do care (we distinguish the 14 Words); hence, Darwinism cannot serve as a wholly satisfying warrant for us...

Darwinism is an 'objectivist' point of view. It looks beyond our interests as Whites. By contrast, our interests are circumscribed by a classification – the White Class. That is, we are concerned about things beyond the White Class, but primarily for how they impact our fundamental concern, the White Class.

Objectivism has been one of the most destructive tendencies of the White race. The appeal to it is obvious: One wants to be "objective", thus innocent and having the greatest power at once, to point to the pure fact of objective superiority and merit in one's findings, doings. One wants to be powerful and innocent, to provide a perfect account, to acquit one's self with no burden of farther explanation.

Tragically, this perspective like some ways of life that stem from it, technology that pollutes unknowingly or corporations which only focus on one variable, profits for their shareholders, is bringing needless destruction – on the White race as well because it is not accountable to the White race, does not take into consideration our relative merits in context and relationships – and I would argue, it can even destroy our very best, as objectivism does not handle subtleties well. Rather, its upshot is a reverse effect, hyper relativism, where the lowest creatures thrive – until they over graze and die of their own stupidity – of course, taking down what is left of the White race with them if we merely allow these things to 'objectively' run their course.

Still, hermeneutics does no good to deny evolution and Darwinism, as objectivism runs over our relationships to one another as Whites – relationships evolved over 40,000 years. It does no good to suppose that we evolved from different sources – the fact is, unfortunately, we can breed with every race on earth. While it does no good to deny that, hermeneutics does not need to, and is effective in paying attention to our distinctive value as Whites; it can easily invoke Aristotle's criteria, what makes us distinctly human? And in that respect, which is somewhat different from the Darwinist criteria of what is best, Whites have an easier argument of being the best – I certainly think so. But most importantly, to be separate, whether we are best or not, who cares? We like ourselves best.

Scientific attention to facts liberated us from religion, superstition, mere tradition, custom and habit. However, attention to factual life quickly becomes arbitrary, incoherent and, as it loses sight of broader patterns, becomes unaccountably destructive. For example, in not caring which race survives. Hermeneutics provides a second liberation, from mere factuality, into narrative coherence and the broader perspectives of historical pattern, viz. our White pattern.

Even Darwin observed that the most sophisticated species do not necessarily survive. We might say, similarly, that the best people do not necessarily survive.

Defining 'Best'

By best here, I mean a subjective/relative relative best – that is contained in the word "necessarily": if we are White separatists, White people are best for us, our species, the 14 words – but just as the scientist Archimedes was killed by a Roman soldier or just as cockroaches may survive where humans do not; or the simple organic form of a disease can survive at the expense of humans, the best form, White humans, will not necessarily survive – necessary is the operative word – it is not a causal (not causal, as in not direct cause and effect) fact that we will prevail over more primitive, "worse" (for us) forms.

On the other hand, if I were a nigger who wanted White women or a White woman who had some inclination to be a nigger lover then Darwinism would provide more opportunity and more excuse to not think twice before acting. In being (pseudo) "objective", Darwinism grants no accountability to White interests. Thus, they could be very happy to hear reverence for mere Darwinism among Whites. We would be giving a needless excuse to our enemies every bit as much as religion does.

When it comes to competing with Blacks, hermeneutics, not being stupidly bound by a singular criteria, can reject the whole criteria of engagement where possible – basketball being a good example – who needs it? Recall Aristotle's criteria of what makes people distinctly human – jumping high or running fast is not what importantly distinguishes us. A competition supposes that we are fighting over the same thing, that they have something that we want. Basically, we do not want nigger women. We do not want their societal contributions (whatever they may be). There is no reason to engage in competition with them. They do not have anything that we need. Others have said the same thing about Jews and other non-Whites. And to this, I can agree.

Nevertheless, we must be aware of the largely factual tendency of females to incite genetic competition (as noted by our socio-biologist, E.O. Wilson), sometimes didactically so (they do this, sometimes before being sufficiently educated, as a way to test the genetic health of their would be partners). And this is where staying attuned to the Darwinist mechanism as TT has, is of especial merit; and why I respect his opinion across the board.

This article can make a big difference; can change a lot. I am, without exaggeration, eternally grateful to Tom for the courage, the necessary strength and intelligence creating the platform of Insurgent – for allowing me the free speech that I have had no where else. I want to be clear, on the vast majority of important issues I am no match for his strength, courage and knowledge – economics, politics, news, technology, communication with White advocates and enemies on an on...civics, strategy – crucially, in knowing what works. Though Insurgent has not had perfect deployment of hermeneutics yet, what White sites have?

This goes straight to the point, that the success that I, we, are talking about is not really abstract, it is White survival – progeny and a flourishing of the 14 Words.

That is why I have tried to conceive of an orientation on the White race in my discussion of classification – on a human scale between overly abstract (for example, those who think that "we are one race the human race") and overly particular – only intellectual Eggbert, the great White scientist, isolating an atom under a microscope, has merit – as opposed to that kind of micro focus and an abstract inference of nothing being equal, which would arbitrarily allow just any criteria of measurement to be invoked, I suggest rather a difference of patterns, qualitative difference of Whites as an entire class as the difference which makes a difference – not only a pointed few – be the gauge; their various contributions can be taken into account amongst the class, not equal but valuable, the strong man truck driver and the marksman respected as well, as they contribute to the various stages of the process of the White pattern, as they aim and fight for White survival – we do not compare them on equal criteria to other races, we are an incommensurate criteria, The White Class.

Where am I able to say these things if Metzger is not a tough, very smart, very experienced son of a gun?

What is best then, would be defined relative to and having optimal function concretely within the White class, in concrete relation to environment and other races, not on mere Darwinian abstraction nor on measurement models. It is rather between ultra objective and ultra relative. It is concrete fit.

I would not passively leave this – the issue of who should survive – to mere Darwinist function any more than to the determination of a 14 year old girl, a Nigger or a Jew. White survival is at least partly dependent upon our fight for that survival – and personally, I enjoy the fight.

On the front of the struggle, the watch that I occupy, so to speak, I am always vigilant of how females, including White female, 'gate-keepers', may be operating. And, I am always suspicious that they may be empowering voices which provide a convenient way "out", make excuses for Nigger lovers – even if tacitly, by taking the angle that it is 'just nature', let's merely let the chips fall where they may and the strong survive; I think my recent dissuasion with a Russian woman, my advice to her against niggers is valid, has merit (on more subtle level perhaps) of survival strategies – I am not satisfied to just say oh well, let women go and merely find out about niggers by themselves, without argument. If she gets raped by the nigger, good for the nigger and good for her – weed her out of the gene pool – now that, let her get raped and killed, is one way to look at it, and it is the way that I choose to look at it IF the woman already is a nigger lover, but it is not satisfactory to take that angle prior the act. Therefore, I tease apart the matter of Darwinism and take theoretical satisfaction in placing the 14 Words above Darwinism as a concern. Darwinism will take care of itself.

As I see it, TT uses the font of Darwinism's energy to give the ship sufficient propulsion – and that is good.

"It is a cosmic watcher."

But that it is a cosmic watcher also depends some on one's cosmology. Yes, it is a physical and biological process that goes on irrespective, attending to survival of the fittest. But I look to myself and to other Insurgent wolves to attend to survival of The White Race. It is Darwinism that will take care of itself.

While the Darwinism concept exists outside our hopes and desires, White advocates do care – we distinguish the 14 Words – hence, Darwinism cannot serve as a wholly satisfying warrant for us.

As a discipline hermeneutics treats life as a historical process that does not necessarily lead to any particular end – as Cartesiansism (absolute, foundational truth) supposes to exist; rather than seeing results as necessarily beyond our determination, it seeks, as a discipline, to organize and direct our aims – as it is used in our case for the survival and advance of the White class.

We would not need to concern ourselves with White survival if it were just a matter of forces and impacts, or the mere biological mechanism of Darwinist determination. Why fight if it is a mere objective determination and wholly beyond our relative concerns? It is true that it partly just is a matter of that, but fortunately, we need not be wholly beholden as it is not a mechanism entirely beyond our determination and recognition – particularly good news since the Jews and corporate weasels will be glad to use objectivist non-accountability against us so long as we let them. It is time to use the benefits of relative concern – that is concern being contexted relative to our survival. Like the Jews ask of themselves, we ought to be asking, is it good for the White race? Not that we should necessarily be so oblivious to other criteria and people as the Jews are (if for no other reason than that they will not just roll over and die for us). Still, none of this denies evolution or natural selection – it only elevates our concern for the White race as not entirely beholden to what is quote "better" or more "fit" by criteria that may not be necessary to us at all.

Natural selection will always be true on one level. For examples, we might be grateful that our best sperm won the ovary, we might be grateful that our strongest ancestors survived disease because of their physical strength, might also be grateful that others did not passively accept a disease, such as small pox, but found a cure for it – Pasteur may not win a basketball game, but it is a different level of strength – just as cunning and tactics might be a relative strength over brute force. By best, I mean the White race – that we are defining what is best, not others – that is the point – if our daughters, or sons, for that matter, could not win a boxing match against a nigger, we do not then deem the nigger better and more fit – we recognize that the criteria for best is not relevant to us as boxing skills are not most relevant in a world where people think on wide arcs of contingency.

Darwinism will be on a certain level and it will take care of itself – I see it is my business, anyway, to fight for the survival of the White race. –

With a sheer Darwinist concern for life, I believe that many of the best Whites would be killed, stupidly.

Again, it is not objective, and that is an important point – Darwinism is objectivist – oblivious to our concerns as a species. We, as White advocates, are subjectivist/relativists – I believe that Michael Meyers is better than Seale or OJ Simpson, etc and yet, they have procreated with Whites. I believe that Eustace Mullins is better than a parasite, and yet parasites are here and he is gone – without progeny. Best is subjective/relative – not objective.

Let the chips of what is best (most fit, strongest, mightiest) fall where they may.

Not only would this outlook play into the hands of crass, disingenuous women; but also unnecessarily, the women co-evolved of Whites, a more sublimated people, would continue to accrue as great, unjust benefit to Niggers; who, being a more primitive, less sublimated and basically strong kind, would suffer less from this more primitive philosophy from its onset. Thus, not only would Niggers suffer less, but they would also reap great, unmerited reward. Jews too. While there is merit in acknowledging the rigor of evolution and natural selection (and I respect Metzger's attendance to that rigor), what is stronger and better is considerably more complicated for people – especially sophisticated people such as Whites – who can think, think about thinking and use expanded frames of reference – e.g. language – as opposed to other animals.

We are fighting, after all, because we are not certain of our survival. We have Jewish power to contend with now, we have modernist notions, which have become like a new religion, including Darwinism, unaccountable, not talking responsibility, being "objective" and do not consider our full human capacity as thinking, adjusting, language framing creatures. We have another religion, PC, to contend with; which will adopt Darwinism as it suits the interest of Niggers and Jews; but will reject Darwinism's ultimate authority where it does not. Darwinism is not a transcendent issue for Jews and Niggers, neither should our interests as Whites try to transcend Whites. And on the non-empirical end, as Metzger and Wallstreet point out so brilliantly (unlike most of the other sites) we have traditional religion, same as always, to contend with. Moreover, as TT and Wall Street Wolf also point out, we have corporate capitalism to contend with – great piece on Lockheed Martin the other night: how their inferior planes won out, were awarded a government contract for production, through corruptly arranged contracts with government powers (corporate-political Darwinism): Robert Gross's criteria of Darwinism, (corporate business) won out over the better engineers; the Darwinism of (engineering) – so, we've got to be vigilant about the quality of Whites; the criteria which suits us best. That was an instance of a more primitive form, the corporate capitalist, Gross, surviving over the good engineer – Dennis Mahon.

"Without white restraint there would be no blacks. All it takes is for something to trigger white man's innate vicious nature. Study the history of serial killers as an example."

I am not sure that we disagree with this statement. At lease I hope so. Except maybe that 'trigger' is too passive a notion, as is the innate. In contrast to waiting for that, I am not against agitating to bring the system down. I agree that Whites could more or less be more compelled to look after their own subjective/relative interests as Whites in the instance of radical confusion and anarchy. But that something which triggers may be a little less passive for some: consciousness raising and new ways of thinking may work for the more thoughtful, while the more thick may need to have their daughter raped – as TT indicates, who knows exactly what will be the trigger in a particular instance? I was conscious a long time ago. I never understood how people could accept abuse of Whites even back in the 60's, when I was a child; why I had to be bussed to go to school with Blacks – I was mortified and surprised that anyone would Not be a racist, to see everything more or less accepted for decades – things only got worse. But I would say that I was triggered to activism when my wish to assert NO to White women who have been with niggers was questioned and challenged. To me, that was already a bitter concession that it be accepted at all, even provisionally, in the sense that I was not trying to tell women what they could not do. That did it for me, the straw that broke the camel's back.

"It will happen it's only a matter of time. The biggest problem is to neutralize the whites who now control the game. Blacks are a weekend operation after that. Believe me there are white men out there with the Rwandan mindset if you get what I mean. They have discussed it with me before."

Good to know that I have like-minded brothers out there. I like our chances too, if we can get the constraints off. To illustrate the point, a colleague once chided me when I complained about a nigger dancing with a White woman, saying to me, 'go do something about it' – thinking he had gotten the better of me because the nigger was big. However, I thought to myself, and then told him, the only reason that I do not do something is because you would take his side and probably even call the police if I used the necessary tactics to put the nigger in his place.

Still, on a more pessimistic example, I hear some White guys saying West Virginia is so White. I walked into a diner there and was seated in a booth next to the most exquisite White girl and her nigger boyfriend – the nigger said, "getting' some reactin here'...he was not the least bit worried about what he was doing, what he was taking. I had to walk out – my waitress seemed to think it was funny. I walked into a bar that night – beautiful blond with a nigger – White guys sitting around doing nothing, not even noticing. So far, so bad as far as my brothers go.

I do not care if a White guy is small; he might invent a good weapon, give birth to beautiful daughters and be a good neighbor – wasn't Bob Mathews 5-6? Fine with me; he fought! I got the point, that the White guys at the top are blocking us from getting Blacks, Jews and other parasites out of our way. But one of their biggest weapons is their pretense of being objective, and in so doing they are more easily able to shun accountability – that is one of the chief points of this article: that we can have agency as opposed to a more passive version of Darwinist objectivism – which Jews and the Whites at the top may use against us. They might even align with Blacks, creating fair intelligence with a fairly strong biology, against us, because they, as Darwinists, do not care if it is White strength that survives; and obviously some women do not care.

Darwinism does not necessarily distinguish the strengths of the White scientist from the Nigger who kills him and rapes his wife.

OK, good point that the percentages are on our side and we have used our more effective weapons at times – I am not saying that Darwinism is not true, as a mechanism, only that our strengths are not always so obvious and physically evident; and that as a mechanism, Darwinism is not concerned for the White race, we are – our enemies will argue Darwinism where it serves their interests, and we should argue Darwinism where it serves our interests – where it does not, we need not be beholden unquestioningly.

Darwinism does not serve as a complete vigil of our survival, the hermeneutic expanse of the 14 Words can; while it encompasses Darwinism; it does not deny it. This maintenance of an expanded vigilance over our White cultural pattern is a great and important conceptual tool to use against Jews, corporatists et al.

While I recognize the need for TT's insistence that White men ought to act like men, I would focus attention on what he is doing with that: It is not a matter of, well, this man is better so he survives; and he should passively accept living or dying as a physical law of nature – that is the problem with a scientistic (bad use of science, misapplication of science) use of Darwinism – it would be a forces and impacts model of causality, void of agency and accountability. On the contrary, Metzger is calling attention to the process of a fight, for White men to fight for themselves and their women – and rightly so.

White women should be better informed as to why they ought to be more conscientious, intelligent, fair and decent as well.

Darwinism would not necessarily distinguish the strengths of the White scientist from the Nigger who kills him and rapes his wife. The hermeneutic expanse of the 14 Words can, however. This maintenance of this expanded vigilance over our White cultural pattern is a great and important conceptual tool to use against Jews and corporations, et al.

Some examples:

1. A hermeneutic shift in attention to a different frame of reference would be in the example of turning attention away from "nigger ball" – that is, even if Niggers were better athletes, stronger within some Darwinian frame, what intelligent White man would grant that determination over selection?

We ought to get rid of the whole criteria. They have nothing to barter with. Our ways of life are incommensurate. Playing sports and competing with them presumes commensurate ways of life, in which we might exchange women with them.

2. Or turning attention away from nigger music, no matter how compelling it may be on primitive levels, because it is not of a conducive pattern to our well being as Whites.

3. By denying mere Darwinism absolute authority, and paying careful attendance to White cultural patterns, we may more easily deny Jews respect for their hegemony – for example, their i.q. – at this moment in history temporarily higher than ours.

Regarding the issue of their i.q., or any i.q., for example, I may take the example of my brother, who has an I.Q. of 143 – not bad, I guess – while I may have a lower I.Q., I do not know, actually. Should he live, while I die because he is "better" than me? Or is it rather, that he is closely related, and that it is the patterns of Whites and their qualitative niche functions in optimal relation to the environment, in buffering to other races and to White furtherance that we should be looking to promote and foster as a whole?

... sometimes we think too much and we must regain the basics of how we feel. Snivalization kills. If I could pray for one thing and do the gods were listening I would pray for oil production to cease entirely tomorrow. We are slaves to oil.

I do not think that I am guilty of over thinking when you understand that I am organized around the parsimony of the 14 Words. And I also make the White race the priority – Not civilization – agreed, absolutely. The point about oil is great. I do not tend to emphasize the economic issues and the Jews because others do that better than I. I listen to TT and Wallstreet. When I hear a show, as the one about Lockheed Martin, I almost feel funny, but do not really, as it is not in conflict with my remarks about Darwinism. I am not saying that you are wrong or that I disagree – on the contrary, I am learning and appreciating. It makes great sense that these sorts of insider deals between corporations and politics would be key, as opposed to getting on the streets and starting to push niggers out. It's a good point – that we ought to be suspect of anyone complaining about niggers who does not first blame corporate interests from forcing them upon us. Point well taken. Every time I hear you guys talking about the corporations and economics, I find myself saying, by golly you are right. (OK, maybe I do not say 'golly').

When it comes to economics, politics, the experience of knowing what works with the struggle, what does not, fighting in a pinch, what it takes to fight, on and on, I must learn from Metzger. I may have studied and learned in some areas, and am glad to contribute where I can.. but it is not a competition, not even a playful one, it is about helping the best ship, Insurgent, to run even better.

One last note – I still do not think there is any need to deny African origin – even if it is not true. One, it provides orientation to understand their biopower, where it is a phenomenon that we must contend with. Just as it is possible to over rate Blacks, it is also possible to under estimate them, especially for those who have not experienced them. Recently, I was able to persuade a Russian girl, who had been open to them, to be on guard. Tens of thousands of White women are being raped by niggers and it is likely that the women, and in some cases the men, are underestimating the niggers in these cases – their drive and aggression, let's say.

As I like to say, niggers are 150,000 to 250,000 years older than European differentiation. That gives them something of a biological hegemony; with that, it is not too far fetched to say that their kind of selection has quantified and maxed-out masculinity (science shows that they have more testosterone) creating a more aggressive, presumptuous, hyper-assertive kind of people – its most serious expressions being that they are a less sublimated people, have more sex partners, younger, single parent families, poverty, disease, violence, exponential population growth, arrogation and destruction of resources. And remember, part of the problem with Jews, why they are so predictably bad, is because they are more niggerish than we.

And secondly, it is not difficult to contend the pseudo-Warrant of African origin. We've evolved from Blacks? So What? That's right! We evolved from monkeys and we do not want to go back! It would be nothing to be ashamed of, nor afraid of – on the contrary; if it is true, it would give us more knowledge and orientation by which to fight. We create the better way of life as the natural course of our biology – though it is not always evident within an episode, it is within the hermeneutic pattern.

We have them in our past, their traits resurfacing where necessary and we do not want to go back simply because some do not have the courage and intelligence to go forward in process and progress of he White race... I emphasize this as some might want to say this circle does not advance in its over all process, while it contracts and expands...

The Jew's viral or parasitic evolution should be viewed similarly, not in episode, but in patterns.

What does all this mean in practice? It means:

Above Darwinism even, assert the 14 Words.

Hermeneutics is the effective tool, with its circle process, in guarding against religion and scientism's destruction of The White Race, The White Class.

Hence, my trying to tease apart the matter and my theoretical satisfaction in placing the 14 Words above Darwinisms as a concern. Darwinism will take care of itself.

"We are all in the same boat. One wants a motor, one wants a sail and one wants oars."

Agreed.