Category: blogging

Business Not Personal

Stating the obvious.

Some recent Der Movement correspondence leads me to state that my (sometimes harsh) criticism of (White) racial nationalists is business, not personal (*).  And, of course, I’ve already stated, multiple times, the over-the–top rhetoric that accompanies some criticism is tongue-in-cheek and not to be taken purely seriously.  But the serious criticism, which should be taken at face value, is business: a different view of ideology and of the direction that the “movement” needs to move. There is always – even if weak – an underlying attitude of all belonging to “this thing of ours” and therefore at least some minimal “professional courtesy” is in order (again excluding the obviously sardonic mocking of “movement” Nutzi lunacy).

With respect to individuals who are not racial nationalists, my criticism may very well be personal as well as business – Derbyshire is a classic example.  These people are beyond the pale of respectability as defined from a racial nationalist perspective, there is no underlying sense of community, and some of the harsher criticisms are not necessarily tongue-in-cheek.

All of this would seem to be (at least intuitively) obvious, but I suspect it is not.

* Similar as explained in this swarthoid movie.

Random Observations, 12/31/16

Four items.

I encourage the reader to listen to Europa Terra Nostra podcasts.  One thing that struck me while listening to their latest is how different serious European nationalists are from their LARPing American counterparts.  While the Americans bloviate about Kali Yuga, sub-fractional admixture percentages and varied misinterpretations of population genetics and ancestry testing, gnostic esotericism, the cephalic index of Julius Caesar, pussy-pedestalizing “game,” Hitler worship, juvenile trolling, self-interesting happy penguin money-grubbing, moronic feuding with baked alaskas, and other stupidities, the Europeans are engaged in thoughtful political organizing, pan-European cooperation, how current events affect the nationalist cause, and implementing real-world conferences that out-do their American counterparts in seriousness and accomplishment by an order of magnitude. Granted, the Europeans could talk more about long-term objectives (if such is not illegal due to EU “hate laws”) and they need to incorporate into their worldview Salter’s ethnic genetic interests concept (which is serious real-world biopolitics based on kinship, not the EGI talisman of Der Movement); but still, even with those deficiencies, what a world of difference between folks who want to get things done (ETN and APF) and folks who are play-acting (Der Movement).

Next, for new readers, something I have discussed before – my opposition to comments sections on blogs.  Unmoderated comments descend into the sewer, they are full of stupid trolling, typical “movement” obsessions, feuding and flamewars, a form of Gresham’s Law in which the bad comments and commentators drive out the good ones (look at Majority Rights, for example). Moderated comments seem to be better (although that depends on the site owner) but there’s a problem there as well, beyond that of the time and effort wasted doing the moderating. Moderated comments leave the site owner open to suspicions of intellectual dishonesty.  As an example, assume that two commentators, Jim and Mark, are engaged in a debate in a comments thread.  Jim espouses a view favored by the site owner; perhaps Jim is the site owner.  Mark, on the other hand, puts forth an opposing viewpoint. After some back-and-forth, Mark makes a devastating refutation of Jim’s position, effectively disproving the validity of the Jim/site owner viewpoint.  Except that Mark’s comment never makes it online, the site owner censors it through moderation, leaving Jim and Jim’s position to have the last word. Such things can happen (and have happened).  If Mark is serious about his position, he should express his views on his own blog.  Indeed, if someone has many valuable comments to make on someone else’s blog, that material would be better suited as the foundation for their own blog.  In a “movement” with such rigid memetic conformity as Der Movement, the more intellectual diversity, the better.  More blogs expressing more viewpoints is better than an unmoderated sewer, or a moderated censored “discussion” skewed in the direction of the site owner’s preferences and viewpoints.  Create more groupuscules!  Ted Sallis is a groupuscule of one, in opposition to Der Movement; you, dear reader, may be so included to create your own little memetic nexus of self-expression. Blog rather than comment.

Here we see one of the several Asian females who pry their way into pro-White activism taking advantage of the latent (and in some cases, not so latent, eh?) yellow fever extant there:

Chinese Nationalist Maiden

December 30, 2016 – 8:46 am | Permalink

By traditional Chinese standards, anyone who does not respect social relations (mom, dad, grandpa, grandma, ruler) is evil. Clearly the Jews are not respecting Specter’s family relations here, and undoubtedly assume the role of moral villains. Chinese don not respect people who are like this, and Whites should not either lest they be taken advantage of.

Traditional Chinese standards = rigid social conformity.  Sorry, Whites are different, and do not need Chinatrics (or Japotrices for that matter) pontificating to us.  Who is “Specter” by the way?  Can you even get Rich’s surname right?  And, yes, Whites shouldn’t be taken advantage of, including by Asiatrices peddling, in one form or another, Silk Road White nationalism. I’m not surprised though that this creature finds a congenial home at TOO. To HBDers, China is The Land of the Gods, after all.  Although I doubt any of these pontificating Asiatrices actually live in their ethnoracial homelands. Isn’t ruining White EGI by their presence an example of Asians taking advantage of Whites?

So, here we see two more candidates for leadership positions in Captain Chaos’ upper Midwest ethnostate of Cuckmerica.  In addition to Romney as dictator, Lindsey Graham can be in charge of immigration and homeland security, and McCain can be Secretary of State. Lulz.

Against Silver, 7/3/16

Spencer beware, don’t let Radix become another Majority Rights.

Silver on Radix comments on me thus: 

I’ve never known to him merely heartily disagree with someone. He permits people an inch of disagreement and no more. If they step an inch farther beyond their allotted bounds he denounces them as furiously as if they’d stepped a mile farther.

He’s mentally unstable/ill is my guess. What other conclusion can you really draw about someone who’d say:
Durocher, the enemy of the White race. Durocher: the lowest form of filthy scum imaginable. Durocher: an embarrassment to the great French people. Durocher: the human turd. A prime objective of any White ethnostate will be hunting down scum like Durocher for trial, with the ultimate penalty as the outcome.
Admittedly, he was particularly unhinged in that self-contained passage, but his site is peppered throughout with sophomoric claptrap like “dedicated anti-white activist Durocher”, “Play the piano, Durocher, play it well” [ie we’ll string you up with piano wire], “Any sane White ethnostate would put Durocher on trial and execute him.”
Truth be told, I didn’t realize how bad he was until I ctrl-f’d his site for those statements just now. He’s never had anything nice to say about me either, but in my case it’s somewhat justifiable (not that I like it, but in the sense that our values diverge so much and I’ve irritated him enough that it’s unsurprising). But there’s minimal daylight between his own position and Durocher’s, when you get down to the brass tacks. You really have to be quite sick in the head to savage someone on your own side like that.
I think the fact that he established himself early on as an EGI maven is the only things that keeps him ’employed’ (so to speak) in the minds of Alt Righters and WNs (like Greg Johnson)

Right…hey, I thought I was only writing about “testing?” Now, it’s EGI. Interesting that Johnson for example would publish my work on a wide variety of topics, including comic books, but I guess that’s only because we’re really interested in the ethnic genetic interests of Galactus vs. the Red Skull. My work, my output over the years speaks for itself. 
Readers unaware of Silver should study this, and particularly this, as well as this, and especially this.
Of course, Silver neglects to quote from his own unhinged ravings, such as: 

Who cares what that shiteating asshole thinks? Are you that goddam thick, Dave Johns, that you can’t understand what a pure, unadulterated asshole that vermin is? Are you that damn thick that you can’t realize the only reason he can’t fairly characterize my position is that I mock his absurd attempts to whiten himself with his “tests”? That the whole reason he’s such a grouch is that he feels vulnerable about his whiteness and feels compelled to savage and ridicule anyone and everyone even a smidgeon less white than what his exacting standards require, even though doing so is not remotely required for advancing a pro-white agenda (*), and is, in fact, counterproductive? Are you that damn thick? Sadly, I think the answer is yes, you are that damn thick. Try this, Davey boy: think for yourself. If you can pinpoint anything I say (now, not one year ago—which is the only thing shiteater has to go on) which you think compromises white interests, let’s have you bring it up. Otherwise, pay attention to what I actually say; not to what self-interested shiteaters claim I say.

Ahhh…Silver. First, you unmitigated fraud, much of the bombast on this site (and my other blogs) is a “put-on” and subtly “tongue-in-cheek.” I’ve said as much a number of times (*), but an outright liar such as yourself is either too mendacious or stupid to admit it. The misanthropic style – perfected to an extent that you believe it 100% serious – is mimicked from certain other race bloggers who you have praised in the past (because their obsessions assist in your underlying objectives) – proving that your criticisms of my alleged instability are personally/politically motivated. In my case, you see it as “mental illness” and in the cases of others they are just being “indefatigable,” don’t you know. 
Anyway, Spencer and all other race bloggers should be wise to Silver, who jumps from one racialist blog to another, leaving wreckage behind. The main case study is Majority Rights. Pre-Silver, it was an interesting blog that featured a wide number of bloggers and many, many commentators (some stupid, but some good). Post-Silver, the blog is a disaster: apparently, the only people blogging are the site-owner Guessedworker, Daniel S, and – believe it or not – a person claiming to be an East Asian female. There are maybe half-a-dozen regular commentators there now, and that half-a-dozen includes the aforementioned three regular bloggers (as well as someone – who I take it is Daniel S himself – leaving multiple comments under bizarre descriptive webonyms). 
Is Silver responsible for that? Yes (and GW as well for tolerating all of this). My analogy would be as follows. Imagine a class full of high-energy students, most of them good students, who if held in place by a properly strict teacher can produce solid academic accomplishments. Introduced into this class is a trouble-maker, a mischief-maker, a disruptor, who wants to ruin the teaching environment and turn the students against each other (and against the teacher). If the teacher is too weak and/or naive and lets the trouble-maker take control of the situation, then the classroom environment is ruined, no one learns, other trouble-makers are emboldened, and the serious students say “the hell with it” and transfer elsewhere. That is precisely what happened to Majority Rights. Spencer should go to the blog today, and then look back at the archives pre-Silver (say, 2005 and 2006) and compare. And then, if he’s smart, Spencer will kick Silver the hell off of the Radix commenting boards and never let it return. Don’t be another GW, Richard. 
And consider what Silver said about his one-time benefactor GW and of the wreck that the fraud Silver produced at a once excellent blog: 

Too true. What a damnable fool GW turned out to be. Even as early as 2005 and 2006 some were wondering whether he didn’t have a screw loose, but a great deal of quality material was being turned out in those days so the danger didn’t seem so obvious. The arrival of DanielS on the front page unquestionably signaled the end; I hope there’s a special circle of hell reserved for that lunatic.

Will he one day say the same about Spencer and Radix (after destroying that blog)?
And my hostility to Durocher? Because he’s a fraud (in more ways than one**), a “try hard,” a superficial “analyst” whose productions do more harm than good. In a sense, Durocher is – possibly – a cleverer, more serious, more strategic type of Silverian-style fraud himself. Similar patterns – the varying memes and personas (in more ways than one, eh?) – going from a moderate mainstreamer to a Hitlerian Nutzi, for example, or shifting from pan-European to Nordicist from post to post, making outrageous lies about population genetics. I don’t trust him and with each post my distrust only grows. Do I really think he should be “strung up with piano wire” or should he just be ridiculed? More likely the latter, but don’t tell that to lying scum like Silver. 
* For example, in October 2015, on my RLP blog I wrote: 

Public service announcement: one wonders if the foreign readers understand that the blog is a tongue-in-cheek parody of imbecilic “gamesters,” mendacious HBDers, and moronic American “movement” Nutzis.
Of course, the underlying memes are accurate and serious, but, at some point, all of the aforementioned groups are so tragicomic that ridicule is the best approach for deconstruction.

**That I’m the only one that seems to notice something laughably obvious is a fairly good indication of the absolute stupidity – and here I am 100% serious – of Der Movement.

Devlin on Brandolini on Refutation

Something to consider, emphasis added:

F. Roger Devlin
Posted June 15, 2016 at 9:01 pm | Permalink
It is dispiriting to observe how many people can be taken in by disguising partisanship as neutral expertise. Nearly every so-called expert on “right wing extremism” or “white racism” is an example of this.
Your essay puts me in mind of the famous observation of computer programmer Alberto Brandolini that “The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.” By the time you have produced a cogent refutation such as this piece, Timmy will have come up with five more lies or fallacious arguments.
That is why it is important to emphasize that he is demonstrably dishonest. Once you understand the well is poisoned, there is no need to examine every bucketful drawn from it.

Looking at this from another perspective, this is why I believe that blog comments (*), particularly unmoderated ones, are worse than useless – actually destructive.  It doesn’t take much effort for idiots, trolls, Nutzis, etc. to spew “bullshit” on a comments section.  After which, you have  a choice. You can either leave those comments unanswered, which third party observers can see as a tacit admission that those comments are correct or that at least you are unable to mount an effective riposte to them, or you can answer them, expending that “order of magnitude” more energy (and time) doing so.  And the time wasted could have been better spent on other things, for example, on new blog posts.  Moderation of comments helps, but also takes time and energy.

This is not a free speech issue; if the trolls, idiots, and Nutzis want to set up their own blogs and spew their “bullshit” then they have that right.  But freedom of association means that no one is obligated to host the “bullshit” on their own forums.  And all the self-described “political soldiers” out there should take their own self-description seriously and consider all of this as memetic warfare, not as a polite debating society.

But, of course, don’t listen to Brandolini – he’s not “one of the boys.” Who cares what that negroid kebab has to say, right?

*But, hey, isn’t Devlin’s comment an example of a useful blog comment? Yes it is, but, putting aside the fact that Counter-Currents has a moderated comments section, we must consider the signal-to-noise ratio.  Looking at the entire “movement” blogosphere, for every useful comment, there is a large number of stupid and destructive ones.  The best option is for a thoughtful commentator like Devlin to have his own blog.

Genetic Structure Redux

Genetic structure, from Western Biopolitics.

Something (slightly edited) from my old Western Biopolitics site about genetic structure, based on this paper, with a few new comments at the end.

Although this is highly preliminary, this is all completely consistent with what I (and James Bowery and Ben Tillman) have been saying for years: simple Fst measurements of genetic distance, while crucially important and necessary, are not sufficient to give the complete picture for EGI. Genetic distance based on structure is likely greater than that estimated from Fst for humans as well as for oak. Further, the genetic structure estimates can be viewed, as I’ve been saying, as an extra, independent measure of genetic distinctiveness superimposed on top of the foundation of Fst distance. Therefore, a complete estimation of EGI must include consideration of genetic structure, and this paper is an initial, preliminary attempt at quantifying that structure. More to come, we hope. This research groups compares analyses of combinations of coinherited alleles compared to the “one-by-one” Fst method. This paper is free online, take a close look at Table 1 – as the level of genetic structural complexity increases, genetic distance between the oak groups also increases. Note in all cases, emphasis added.

…is characterized by special combinations of genes. (To emphasize this aspect, genic integration might be the more appropriate term.) The main motivation for this paper was the realization that impacts of particular forces, selective or not, on population differentiation may not be observable at every level of genetic integration. Measurements of differentiation among populations based on gene frequencies, for example, provide no specific insights into the effects of mating systems nor of epistatic interaction on population differentiation. This is due to the fact that gene frequencies refer to the lowest level of genetic integration, namely its absence. This level, which is commonly addressed as a population’s gene-pool, is conceived to consist of the set of all individual genes present in the population members for a specified set of genetic traits. Genetic studies of population differentiation are almost always based on this “beanbag” (critically reflected by Mayr [2] and defended by Haldane [3]; for concise reasoning of the persistence of the gene-pool concept see e.g. [4] or [5]). Studies of differentiation at multiple loci are no exception, since they commonly report averages over single-locus differentiation indices. Also disregarded in studies of gene-pool differentiation are gene associations that deviate from Hardy-Weinberg proportions (homologous, or intralocus, association) or gametic equilibria (non-homologous, or interlocus, association). 

Considering that forms and degrees of gene association may differ at different levels of genetic integration, it thus appears that previous studies on patterns of population differentiation have provided very little information on levels of genetic integration above the gene-pool. One important reason for the usual focus on gene-pool differentiation is probably the lack of a method for measuring population differentiation consistently at all levels of genetic integration. Consistency means that comparison of the amount of differentiation among a set of populations between levels of integration provides information about the complexity of the gene associations that distinguish them. 

Since gene associations do not decrease as level of integration increase, neither should differentiation. Moreover, the extent of an increase in differentiation between subsequent levels should in some way reflect the degree of complexity of the additional gene associations, with equality as an indication of lack of additional complexity by some standard. Such a differentiation measure must thus be based on a conceptual characterization of the complexity of gene associations. The existence of such a measure would not only facilitate experimental studies… 

It turned out that the large increases in differentiation between levels that were observed in the real data were not producible in numerous simulations of simple selection models, indicating that these models cannot explain the complexity of the real data. 

Proceeding from lower to higher levels of integration, one expects an increase in differentiation among populations simply because of the larger varietal potential inherent in more complex structures. 

Table 1 lists the distance matrix of pairwise distances…between stands and their mean as well as the symmetric population differentiation…SD and its components…j, both based on the elementary genic difference between genetic types, for each of three levels of integration: the gene-pool distance is the average of the six single-locus allelic distances; the single-locus diplophase distance is also the average over the loci; the multilocus diplophase distance. It is seen that for each pair of stands, all pairwise distances…increase considerably with the level of integration. 

Thus it appears that differentiation among populations with respect to their forms of gene association may be a normal occurrence. This insight questions the common practice of restricting the measurement of population differentiation to the allelic level (e.g. FST), thereby ignoring the considerable effects of gene association on population differentiation.

The authors then try to end the paper on a conservative, hedging note, perhaps to please reviewers:

This analysis is the first of its kind. Therefore, we cannot venture a prediction about whether the above findings on covariation between levels of integration constitute a general trend. It is conceivable, for example, that these findings are mainly determined by the conspicuously large polymorphism characteristic of the microsatellite markers used in this study. Other genetic markers may tell different stories.

Actually, there really is no logical reason to suppose that their findings are not generally applicable. It in fact makes perfect sense, as I (and others) have been arguing for years, that the correlation structure inherent in the genome is a general form of heritable genetic information above and beyond Fst, and that, therefore, this structure is an important part of genetic interests. There is no reason it must be limited to microsatellites; it is almost certainly an inherent, “emergent” characteristic of genetic information in all organisms. And, certainly, within and between human populations.

Therefore, it can be expected that genetic differentiation between human populations will be greater when overall structure (e.g., the combinations of coinherited alleles/genetic sequences) is considered, compared to Fst, and, that both Fst and genetic structure constitute genetic interests, both are important and both must be measured.

Genetic interests = Fst + Genetic Structure
And this paper is the initial step in the necessary quantification of genetic structure.
Yet more excerpts:

Conclusions: This new approach to the analysis of genetic differentiation among populations demonstrates that the consideration of gene associations within populations adds a new quality to studies on population differentiation that is overlooked when viewing only gene-pools. 

In general, traits are genetic only if they are inheritable, and the goal of inheritance analysis is to identify genes as the basic units of inheritance. The term genetic integration is used here to designate the combination or arrangement of these elementary objects “gene” into the haplotypes of gametes, into the genotypes at diploid (or polyploid) nuclei of diplophase individuals, or into the cytotypes of mitochondria or plastids, for example. 

At higher levels of genetic integration, where the objects of interest represent compositions of several individual genes together with their gene-types, association among gene-types becomes relevant for differentiation studies.

…neither the gene association within single loci (homologous association nor the gene association among loci (non-homologous association) is of the same form in any two stands, and in particular that association is present. Both the distances and the snail components show a much larger increase between the single-locus diplophase and the multilocus diplophase than between the gene-pool and the single-locus diplophase. 

Hence the non-homologous gene associations make a distinctly greater contribution to the differentiation than the homologous gene associations.

“Non-homologous gene associations” being a predominant component of what I refer to as “genetic structure.”

And consider the implications with respect for both EGI and parental kinship with intermarriage.

Genetic structure…here to stay.

New comments:

One question is whether the increase in genetic interests inherent between population (or individual) comparisons when taking genetic structure into account will be proportionately the same with increasing general genetic distance, or will the genetic structure differences increase proportionately with increasing genetic distance. For example, let’s hypothesize that genetic structure increases the genetic interest a Dane has with another Dane compared to a Greek by 50%, compared to allele-by-allele considerations. Will the increase in genetic interest of Dane vs. Nigerian also be 50%, or greater (it almost certainly could not be less). I hypothesize it would be greater, because the increase in allele-by-allele differences with greater genetic distance would lead to a proportionate increase in the genetic structure combination differences possible. Image ways of shuffling decks of cards where it is possible for the individual cards to differ between decks – the more individual card difference, the greater the number of novel card combinations between decks. This would of course need to be shown with the data (not that population geneticists would touch such a politically incorrect subject – they won’t even do genetic kinship studies). 
On a functional basis, one needs to consider epistasis. Certainly, there are cases where individual genes can influence phenotype; however, in the vast majority of cases, important phenotypic traits (the HBDers vaunted “form and function”) are affected by numbers of genes working together. This by the way is an important riposte to some of Dawkins’ more stupid extensions of his “selfish gene” meme, more properly, that should be plural, as in “selfish genes.” Or, perhaps, the “selfish genome.” In the end, selection acts upon the entire organism that is the product of all its (functional) genes. A given individual gene can of course affect the phenotype and influence that gene’s own selection, but even in that case, it does so in the context of the entire functional genome.
As I’ve written before, one cannot base genetic interests solely on “functional genes.” Putting aside that the distinction between functional and non-functional is becoming increasingly blurred due to findings that show that much of the “non-functional” genome actually does have function, the point is that even truly non-functional genes, if they vary in frequency between peoples, carry information on kinship and, even more to the point, as part of the distinctive genome, constitute a fraction of kinship, and thus have inherent value in this manner. After all, if genetic interests are based on genetic kinship, therefore all genes that constitute that kinship, as well as carry information that helps quantitate that kinship, have value. One can of course argue that functional genes that influence their own selection are of greater value on a “per gene” basis, but one cannot simply dismiss non-functional genes are being irrelevant to genetic interests.

Mothballing RLP Blog

Time to move on.
A while back, I stated running several blogs at the same tine was inefficient and one eventually would have to go.  Therefore, in order to concentrate more on EGI Notes as well as Western Destiny (which hasn’t had much activity), I am “mothballing” Richard Lynn’s Pseudoscience which, while humorous, was not a serious analysis of what’s going on.
If we are in “unprecedented territory” with current events, I should take my own advice and be as serious as I expect the “movement” to be.

A Fascist Theoretical Journal?

Taking an updated look at Stimely’s idea.

The Keith Stimely interview of H. Keith Thompson, with a heavy emphasis on Francis Parker Yockey, is very interesting. Perhaps the most intriguing part is this exchange:

Stimely: One final question. Supposing that a group of young, relatively young, fascists – not conservatives, not [sneeringly] “populists,” not reformers not people who believe in working evolutionarily within the system, not people who believe at all in saving the system (and who may “work evolutionarily” within it only in order to undermine it) — suppose such a group were to get together and decide to publish their own little journal on the “right,” even in the modest form at first of an 8-page newsletter, entitled Thought & Action, which would be a very nearly explicit fascist theoretical journal working toward the explicit goal of a fascist revolution. Such a journal would explore in the realm of theory the contributions that have been made in political/social thought, and that should be taken into account by present-day revolutionaries, by such as Robert Michels, Vilfredo Pareto, Gaetano Mosca, Georges Sorel, even, Lawrence Dennis, Max Nomad, James Burnham, so many more . . . Yockey, Spengler, Carl Schmitt, Harold Lasswell, other prime thinkers on the subjects of power and revolution and social dynamics . . . and to explore all these things on a fairly high intellectual level. My question is: what is your realistic estimate of the number of people who would either understand, or be at all interested in, such a publication? Thompson:One hundred.

Such a journal would be very useful, but today, it would need to expand its focus to include the Salterian empirical view as well as the more political-social-spiritual “continental existentialist” view as emphasized by Stimely.  One could envision that the fusion of those two worldviews (Salter-Yockey) would be a main objective of such a journal.
Some would argue that blogs such as this one as well as Counter-Currents, together with publications such as The Occidental Quarterly (TOQ) fill this role.  While those forums do touch on some of the topics I am talking about, what I’m proposing is something more in line with Stimely; a more focused and specialized journal, for fascist/national socialist “revolutionaries” – combining both metapolitics and politics. Such a journal would be not only explicitly (actually, not just “very nearly”) fascist and national socialist, but also explicitly pan-European, Futurist, science based (both hard science and the best of political and social science), with a solid philosophical and epistemological foundation. This would be something for the “hardcore” – not for the run-of-the-mill “latrine flies.”  It would not be ‘public” in the free online sense, more of a TOQ format, but perhaps even requiring screening of subscribers, to eliminate infiltrators and trolls as much as possible. The typical “movement” dogma would be eschewed; this would be an attempt for a fresh start, based on the aforementioned key principles, perhaps based on the key fundamentals here.