1. MajorityRights.com (main blog) http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/index/ We discuss issues related to the preservation of Western culture and the ethnic genetic interests of people of European ancestry. en EE Design http://www.eedesign.org/logo.jpg http://www.eedesign.org 144 31 jabowery@laboratoryofthestates.com Copyright 2009 2009-07-04T05:10:00+00:00 Secession from Slavery to Free Scientific Society http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/secession_from_slavery_to_free_scientific_society/ by James Bowery INTRODUCTION Secession is necessary to free society.  Free society starts with mutual consent.  Mutual consent implies the option not to consent. “Freedom From” compliments “Freedom To”. Secession is necessary to true social science:  We can best discover causal laws by testing theories with controlled experiments.  This is true of all science.  Controlled experiments require separate experimental groups, treated according to different theories and comparing the measured results with predictions.  In practice, human ecologies can form separate experimental groups only by upholding geographic boundaries that prevent cross-contamination between treatments – cross-contamination with its resulting confusion and confounding of results.  We can argue how best to achieve this in practice, but the principle of giving experimental evidence priority over any amount of argument, debate, deliberation, peer review or judicial proceeding stands as more self-evident than anything in the Declaration of Independence. In a free scientific society, an individual is subject to treatment only after giving informed consent. These two pillars of social good—truth and freedom—stand upon the foundation of secession.  Tyranny of the majority, limited only by a vague laundry list of selectively enforced human rights—the sine qua non of “liberal democracy”—must submit to the right to secede or it violates truth and freedom, hence all social good.
SLAVERY

Getting right to the point that people need addressed whenever “secession” is uttered:

Abolition of slavery is support of individual secession.

Slaves want to secede from their “owners” just as others want to—and do—secede from societies they find objectionable.  The difference between slavery and others turns solely on whether the individual’s right to secede is realized.  All who are denied secession are slaves: their consent is violated.

If men from Maine choose to support the right of secession of slaves by marching on South Carolina to kill unrepentant slave owners—every last one of them—those men from Maine in no way lose their own rights.  Men retaining their humanity may differ over whether it is wisest to intervene in such a way – or to intervene at all.  For example, should a government which is capable of raising taxes do so for the waging of war against slavery or, better for the purchase of slaves to be freed from their dependent owners?  Eminent domain “taking” arguments aside, just men may, as well, differ over whether it is wisest to put down a rabid animal, or to treat it.  The compromise upon which the United States was founded was flawed, perhaps fatally, by its incorporation of slave states.

Likewise, this in no way supports the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution or The Union.  It supports only the 13th Amendment.  Despite Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964’s pretenses to the contrary, it is still a “badge of slavery” to be forced into association with others.  Likewise the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 compounded this badge of slavery born of the so-called “Civil Rights Movement”. 

“Freedom From” compliments “Freedom To”.  Just as a person’s right to vote with his feet takes precedence over a State’s powers, so a body politic may leave a Federation that has overstepped its bounds.

The Federal government is a creature of its constituent States and the State is a creature of its constituent People. 

The Creature is subordinate to the Creator. 

Lucifer and his slavery be damned.


FREEDOM

There is no true freedom without a domain upon which men may live as they choose.  The key to practical freedom is that men may choose to live among others that share their ecological beliefs.  Ecological beliefs include beliefs in cause and effect on human ecologies.  Note, this is more profound than merely sharing territory with those “of like mind”.  Beliefs about ecological cause and effect are, by definition, at the foundation of all mutually consensual human ecologies.  Indeed, such beliefs are the most general definition of religion as they inform one’s practice of life in society with others.  It seems, then, that theocracy, in this general sense, is inescapably at the foundation of freedom as the consensual domain over which men exercise their beliefs.

And here we find the proper difference between State and Federal powers:

The States provide the diverse domains upon which free men may make a statement with their very lives – voluntarily sacrificing themselves to their strongly held convictions.  Each State protects from contamination – free from ecological sin – a domain upon which free men exercise of their free moral agency.  “Racism is sin.” “Miscegenation is sin.” “Pornography is sin.” “Hate speech is sin.” “Adultery is sin.” “Gay marriage is sin.” “Homophobia is sin.” “Alcohol is sin.” “Tobacco is sin.” “Marijuana is sin.” “Littering is sin.” “Spanking children is sin.” Such Statements define the State.  The Federation’s sole legitimate job is to ensure the practicality of secession of individuals and joining together of mutually consenting individuals on their own ecological domains. 

It is only in this proper relationship between the State and the Federation that man can find both peace and freedom:

Peace through nonviolent reallocation of State boundaries as well as supporting the assortative migration of peoples, and,

Freedom through globally maximized exercise of free moral agency.

It is only in making practical this sense of “secession” that a Federation may legitimately oppose, as slave-making, the so-called “secession” of territory that denies the right of its people to secede.

The horror that some people have of territorial exclusion is not only horror of true diversity and horror of learning the truth: it is horror of “freedom from” hence horror of freedom itself.  It may preen one’s moral vanity to publicly display one’s emotional commitment to the dogmas of the current theocratic supremacy – State posing as Federation – but it is only with practical secession as an escape from non-consensual theocracy, that there can be true freedom.


SCIENTIFIC SOCIETY

Freedom stands in parallel with truth to uphold the ultimate social good of free scientific society:  Social sciences founded on controlled experimentation conducted with informed mutual consent.

The 20th century was plagued by intellectual corruption in the social sciences – corruption universalized by making its way into liberal democratic theocracies posing as Federations.  Economics, social psychology, sociology, anthropology – all of the social sciences suffer from the same intellectual handicap of all theocracies:  Absence of controlled experimentation to discover causation.

It is no accident that the Protestant Reformation coincided with the emergence of the scientific method.  But due to the practical difficulties of redistricting and assortative migration in the Old World, the closest the Protestant Reformation came to establishing a scientific society was the so-called “Laboratory of the States” in the frontier territories of the New World.  Moreover, it is no accident that the founders of that Laboratory of the States were as much men of science as men of society.  That they did not completely formalize the Laboratory of the States in terms of mutually consenting social experiments with strict border controls is a monumental loss of a historic potential that may, in part, be assigned to ignorance and, in part, to the institution of slavery.

Our present condition is very different.  With the increasing world-wide understanding of the scientific method and its value in technology and engineering, we are no longer in the state of ignorance from which founders of the Laboratory of the States suffered.  Moreover, with the abolition of slavery during the 1800s, the excesses of the Civil Rights movement and liberal democracy’s violation of popular consent with liberalized immigration laws in the 1900s, it is more apparent than ever that abolition of slavery and secession are united by “freedom from”.

Science, as a public activity involving publication and independent replication of results, increasingly recognizes the unity of informed consent and formal statements.  Informed consent cannot exist without clear understanding of what is communicated – nor can science.  If people subject themselves to social experiments with informed consent, there must be a formal Statement with which they are adequately informed.  This Statement corresponds to the State into which they are entering, by mutual consent, with the current members of that State.  In the pre-scientific society, the Statement may be thought of as the consensual theocracy’s scripture.  In the scientific society, the Statement may be thought of as the experimental treatment to which the State’s citizens mutually, and revocably (revocation entailing emigration), consent.

As with any laboratory, cost is an important practical matter.  In the present instance we must compare the cost of such a laboratory – redistricting and assortative migrations—not only to the existing cost of nearly 100 million people each decade migrating within the United States in a forlorn flight from government imposed “diversity”, but the risk of civil wars as well as the hijacking of central government by special interests.  Even ignoring the fundamental violations of truth and freedom entailed by liberal democracy, the costs of rational redistricting of territory to minimize futile migrations, to minimize public sector rent seeking and to minimize lawless conflict, are small by comparison.

Beyond such gross reductions in cost, there are nuances that must be addressed which take us into the realm of value.  What is of scientific value?  The answer to this cannot be divorced from the question of human values.  Nor can there be a better approximation of “scientific value” than the experiments in which people are willing to invest their lives.  Can we assign equal value to all human lives in the optimization of our social laboratory?  If we are to achieve a universally accepted principle in support of secession, it would seem so.  Upon this definition of “equality” we can found a universal value for truth in which people may live and die according to their beliefs – and in which just war may be waged for freedom.  This is the only way out of the Malthusian Trap.  There is the possibility that by equally valuing life, unbridled reproductive success among some groups will threaten us with the Malthusian Trap anyway.  But if we fail in this, there is more than the possibility or probability, but the near certainty of billions of deaths in universal chaos if not war.

There are the remaining practical questions of natural ecology upon which the boundaries of human ecologies must be founded.  There are large questions such as atmospheric and water pollution, which can encircle the biosphere violating all ecologies – questions that cannot be left to the Laboratory of the States.  Here epic hypocrisies abound:  Those who profess the greatest concern about, say, artificial global warming, most impose, on unwilling nations, global panmixia, while those who profess the greatest conservatism toward central powers are most liberal in their interpretation of the global warming data.  No current “leaders” are sufficiently conservative toward artificial global change in the sphere of human relations let alone the biosphere.  Science tells us as much about what we don’t know as it does about what we know.



CONCLUSION

This essay has primarily addressed the ideology of secession and secondarily its practicality.  The practice of secession as foundation of social good must be left as an exercise to the reader knowing this: 

Once the ideology of secession is accepted by moral men – men with the humanity to recognize and uphold to the maximum degree practical, the free moral agency of other men – practice will follow.  Not even nuclear proliferation yielding a devolution to self-defended microstates can be as powerful as a Federation of moral men who show love to their enemies, indeed the love of the sinner, by helping them find mutually consenting others with which to freely live and thereby demonstrate the consequences of their beliefs, with minimum harm to others. 

In this, commitment to free moral agency and truth, is the secession from slavery to free scientific society.

]]> 2009-07-04T05:10:00+00:00 Italy challenges the EU Commission on migration http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/italy_challenges_the_eu_commission_on_migration/ A fissure appears to be opening between the views of some national governments in Europe struggling with recession and those of the more detached and strategically-inclined EU Commission.  Among others, Greece, France, Spain and now Italy have adopted some strict measures to discourage immigration.  But Italy’s populist center-right coalition, which includes the Northern Leagues, has gone a good deal further than the others, even criminalising those who house illegals.  On Thursday the senate, Italy’s upper parliamentary chamber, endorsed a vote in May by the lower house.  Unmoved by the left’s inevitable comparison with Mussolini’s racial purity laws, and by criticism from human rights groups and the Vatican, the senate voted 157 in favour and 124 against to bring the package of measures into force. They include: 1. Illegal immigration becomes a criminal offence punishable by a fine of between 5,000 and 10,000 euros and immediate expulsion. 2. Anyone caught housing an illegal immigrant could face jail. 3. Unarmed citizens patrols will assist the police by mounting patrols on the lookout for public order offences. 4. Parents will have to prove their legal status by presenting their passport or residency permit when they declare the birth of a child. The European Commission, meanwhile, is looking for ways to strike at least some of these provisions down.  It has announced that it will examine the new law to determine whether it complies with EU norms.  “Automatic expulsion rules for entire categories are not acceptable,” it says.  The Commission is probably miffed because it has only recently opened the first of several African migration offices, this one in Bamoko, the capital of Mali.  The plan is to bring in 50,000,000 + Africans over the next few decades to counter the ageing European demographic. If national governments will only now address the ageing issue, the Commission’s race-replacement scheme could be in terminal difficulty. Immigration 2009-07-03T23:46:00+00:00 The English Defence League march in Birmingham, 4th July 2009 http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/the_english_defence_league_march_in_birmingham_4th_july_2009/ This is an outgrowth of the Luton anti-Islamist protest from two months back - itself a result of the al Muhajiroun protest in Luton during the homecoming parade of the Royal Anglian Regiment in March. More details of the Birmingham protest here. By way of some background on the general immigrant situation in Birmingham, the Ken Livingstone supporter and pudgy-faced Guardian blogger Simon Fletcher put up an anti-BNP piece today about the party’s claims of anti-white bias in the provision of council (or social) housing.  One commenter named zacsmith had the drop on him, however.  This was his comment: Activism

ZacSmith
30 Jun 09, 4:20pm

As ever with these articles there is a complete dearth of evidence to back up what it says. After the last of the genre, by Salma Yaqoob, I wanted to see whether what she said was true of not. So I submitted an FOI request. Below is a list of new tenancies for the year ended 31 March 09 for social housing by Birmingham City Council, broken down by ethnicity. Thanks to Birmingham City Council for their open and prompt response. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to share it. Make of it what you will.

Afghani 25
Albanian / Kosovan 8
Any Other Asian Background 27
Any Other Black Background 46
Any Other Ethnic Background 67
Any Other Mixed Background 19
Any Other White Background 110
Arab 2
Asian Kashmiri 24
Bangladeshi 62
Black African 316
Black Caribbean 426
Black Somalian 184
Bosnian 1
Chinese 17
Gypsy / Roma 1
Indian 58
Information Not Yet Obtained 367
Iranian 30
Iraqi 26
Irish 84
Kurdish 55
Mixed Asian and Black 9
Mixed White and Asian 22
Mixed White and Black African 20
Mixed White and Black Caribbean 163
Other Eastern European 4
Other Western European 1
Pakistani 370
Refused 22
Traveller of Irish Heritage 1
Vietnamese 5
White British 2637
Yemeni 6
Total 5215

Assuming that the balance of native and non-native is reflected across the two categories where no racial origin has been ascribed ("Information Not Yet Obtained” and “Refused"), the allottment of council housing in Birmingham to non-natives is running at 45%.  Probably less than half of those are Moslems.

]]> 2009-07-01T15:37:00+00:00 Rapidly Changing Human Evolution. http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/rapidly_changing_human_evolution/ Henry Harpending and Gregory Cochran’s recent book, The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution, puts to rest the Left’s anecdotal assertions that genes don’t matter and that evolution ceased prior to humans leaving Africa 50~100 thousand years ago. In addition, they expound on Kevin MacDonald’s work on the history of Jewish culture and traditions that created the eugenic program of the Ashkenazi Jews in the Diaspora. They also explain the correlation between the recessive genes that contribute to modern Ashkenazi Jews’ high intelligence and genetic disease—genes that were beneficial in the highly literate niche that Jews dominated for hundreds of years. They assert, “Stephen Jay Gould’s position that 50,000 or 100,000 years is an ‘eye blink,’ far too short a time to see ‘anything in the way of evolutionary difference,’ is simply incorrect. We are surrounded by cases in which selection has caused big changes over shorter time spans, often far shorter; everything from the dog at your feet to corn on the cob is the product of recent evolution.” And, there is no difference between natural and artificial selection—they both change gene frequencies within populations under varying ecological conditions. The mechanisms are identical whether breeding dogs, humans, or urban rats. They point out that “evolution has taken a different course in different populations. Over time, we have become more and more unlike one another as differences among populations have accumulated.” Humans have increasingly differentiated themselves into specialized ecological niches—from new cults to occupational specialization to radical differences in exposure to technology versus exposure to deprivation. Humans both within nations and between nations are exposed to ever increasing differences in how they go about conducting their lives, with genetic changes following closely behind. IQ and Heredity For example, “Dog breeds vary greatly in learning speed and capacity. The number of repetitions required to learn a new command can vary by factors of ten or more from one breed to another. The typical Border collie can learn a new command after 5 repetitions and respond correctly 95 percent of the time, whereas a basset hound takes 80-100 repetitions to achieve a 25 percent accuracy rate.” And the same is true of human racial differences. Humans, those who understand the consequences, can now make decisions about how evolutionary changes will impact their offspring’s ability to compete in the global rat race. Genetic interests can be directed with more precision towards racial dominance—White privilege means little if we cannot expand on it and secure it for our future generations.

They address one of the most overused canards against racial differences: “It turns out that although the distribution of genetic variation is as Lewontin said, his interpretation was incorrect. Information about the distribution of genetic variation tells you essentially nothing about the size or significance of trait differences. The actual differences we observe in height, weight, strength, speed, skin color, and so on are real: It is not possible to argue them away. Genetic statistics do not tell you what sort of differences in size, strength, life span, or disposition you can expect to see between populations.” Population genetics studies racial differences, these are real, and it is irrelevant if other genetic differences also exist within racial groups—racial differences between groups are still the driving force of conflict between the races.

They conclude that, “Recent studies have shown that many genes are currently being replaced by new variants, most strongly in Eurasians—and that those genes favored by recent selection are for the most part different in different populations. The obvious between-population differences that we knew of a few years ago were only the tip of the iceberg.” And as the genetic basis for high intelligence or conscientiousness are located, genetic testing can help drive selection for these advantageous traits—those who embrace winning rather than compassionate capitulation to the “others,” will derive increased gene frequencies for success in future generations.

So how do they know that the rate of genetic change is increasing? Genetic studies are uncovering numerous tools to determine genetic changes. “Recent studies have found hundreds of cases of long haplotypes indicating recent selection: Some have almost reached 100 percent frequency, more have intermediate frequencies, and most are regional…. The rate of change over the past few thousand years is far greater than this long-term rate over the past few million years, on the order of 100 times greater. If humans had always been evolving this rapidly, the genetic difference between us and chimpanzees would be far larger than it actually is.”

Innovation/creativity—unleashed in Europeans 30~40 thousand years ago—opened up the gateway towards increased rapid changes in genes. New genetic enhancements were pushing Europeans into an internal arms race that altered both culture and intelligence. “With the advent of modern humans in Europe, innovation was bustin’ out all over.” Harpending and Cochran also speculate that Europeans may have acquired Neanderthal genes, which may have allowed for larger brains. Though this highly speculative contributing factor is unnecessary to explain European innovation, it does suggest the possibility of Europeans eventually acquiring the select Ashkenazi Jewish genes for high intelligence (see below).

Culture today is increasingly fragmenting as people select their location, associates, marriage partners, worldviews, occupations, etc. from an ever increasing cornucopia of lifestyles. In addition, the sheer number of humans allows an ever increasing number of mutations to occur, and these can either spread randomly or be sequestered by genetically aware groups interested in genetic enhancement—so that favorable genes will be increased in frequency and possibly protected from spreading to competing groups.

As for race deniers: “It’s time to address the old chestnut that biological differences among human populations are “superficial,” only skin-deep. It’s not true: We’re seeing genetically caused differences in all kinds of functions, and every such difference was important enough to cause a significant increase in fitness (number of offspring)—otherwise it wouldn’t have reached high frequency in just a few millennia. These were not just superficial changes affecting things like hair color, skin color, and the shape of the nose, although even those apparently superficial differences sometimes had important consequences. Some of these differences were far from being superficial or insignificant and profoundly affected the populations in which they appeared, sometimes in unexpected ways. They had a major influence on history; some continue to shape the course of events today.”

Intelligence remains the most significant psychometric trait for human advancement, and the new genes responsible occur in highly differentiated frequencies among differing races. For example, “Efforts to teach Bushmen to become herders frequently fail when they eat all their goats. People can learn new traditions, but genetic differences must make this kind of self-denial easier for some people than it is for others. It takes a certain type of personality—with traits including patience, self-control, and the ability to look to long-term benefits instead of short-term satisfaction—and natural selection must have gradually made such personalities more common among peoples that farmed for a long time.” Science and innovation simply does not exist in sub-Saharan Africa for this reason—the hunter-gatherer society did not have the environmental conditions needed to drive higher intelligence. This also includes the Islamic world that managed to lose what may have been a more advanced civilization at one time, but was eventually sunk back into a primitive state with increased sub-Saharan African genes from the slave trade (my causal speculation).

Harpending and Cochran then discuss the most politically contentious aspect of their research: the enhanced intelligence of Ashkenazi Jews that came about as a result of eugenics and economic necessity in Eastern Europe for hundreds of years—eventually reaching an average IQ of about 115. “So why are the Ashkenazim especially intelligent? To solve this puzzle, it may be useful to look at what we know about the DNA of the Ashkenazi Jews, because it turns out that they have another interesting characteristic. Namely, they have an unusual set of serious genetic diseases, such as Tay-Sachs disease, Gaucher’s disease, familial dysautonomia, and two different forms of hereditary breast cancer (BRCA1 and BRCA2), and these diseases are up to 100 times more common in Ashkenazi Jews than in other European populations.” For about 1,000 years, the Ashkenazi Jews of Europe were primarily managers and financiers, requiring high intelligence and literacy. In addition, the high IQ of Jews is not like that of other races. They have an exceptional asymmetry, as reported by Kevin MacDonald (as well as Harpending and Cochran), where their performance IQ is normal, but their verbal and mathematical IQ is closer to 125. This was driven by Talmudic studies according to MacDonald, where debate was an important aspect of proving one’s intellect and suitability for marrying a wealthy businessman’s daughter. Harpending and Cochran attribute it to the comparative irrelevance of visuospatial ability for businessmen. However, this Jewish asymmetry in intelligence is mostly ignored: the nature/nurture debate continues to focus primarily on the Black/White IQ gap.

Harpending and Cochran’s explanation of Eastern Europe Jewish eugenics is rather abridged compared to Kevin MacDonald’s account, outlined in A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy, 1994. The eugenic strategies changed over time and encompassed many aspects not covered by Harpending and Cochran. Still, there is no better proof for a genetic basis of intelligence than a link between known genetic markers for intelligence—in this case genetic diseases if not the actual genes—and the professional success of those who have the targeted phenotypic condition.

To sum up this important book on the IQ debate: “Evolutionary stasis requires a static environment, whereas behavioral modernity is all about innovation and change. Stability is exactly what we have not had. This should be obvious, but instead the human sciences have labored under the strange idea that evolution stopped 40,000 years ago.… [H]uman nature [has been] unchanging and thus predictable, and many scientists today believe that human nature stopped changing tens of thousands of years ago. Historians seem to make the same assumption. In so doing, they’re ignoring tremendous opportunities: not just in decoding the past, but in shaping the future as well.”

]]> 2009-06-29T11:36:00+00:00 The Moral high ground? http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/the_moral_high_ground/ by David Hamilton Conservative philosopher Roger Scruton has written that “ an ideology needs an enemy”.  In the West that is us - “whites”.  The chosen method is to dehumanise the enemy so that it can be persecuted or even assassinated without conscience.  They think it will fool the public when they try to outlaw the BNP’s racial admission rules, despite leaving the various black and Asian groups to operate their own racial membership policies. These comments show the Ideological Caste’s dehumanisation of its enemies in language they would otherwise eagerly attribute to Nazis: Trevor Phillips: “The BNP should be treated as less than human”. Nick Bourne - Welsh Tory MP: “The BNP are subhuman” The voice of whites in Britain is the BNP and the whole establishment is conspiring to de-humanise them with a level of incitement that is unprecedented.  If this type of hate campaign was against another ethnic group they would be facing a seven year jail sentence.  The whole Establishment has shown itself to be the same type of hate-filled ideologues that dehumanised Jews in Nazi Germany.  It is an ideology of hate like those in Soviet Russia, Mao’s China and Cambodia against a particular group. British Politics After a recent article I received this observation from an NHS employee.

“It reminds me of anti-aggression training in the NHS.  Things to watch for before you get thumped:

You nurses are all the same! All you nurses are *******s, you go from being an individual person (which it is not okay to hurt), to a group of people, to a non-human that it is okay to hurt. Once you are not human watch for the thump.  It’s coming very soon.  Changenursesto BNP and the swear words to thug, knuckle-dragger, Nazi and racist.”

If a BNPer does something wrong or says something naughty the Caste generalise, and the whole party is blamed.  But the Caste present themselves as individuals when they are exposed for breaking the rules and thieving from the public.

It has been reported that the Met will question some MP’s and Peers about their expenses.  But the newspapers, the Met and the government and most of the public all know it will be whitewashed.  Even so, public opinion will be manipulated to deceive people into thinking our ruling elite are subject to the law.

The Establishment smear campaigns contain some ‘facts’ but are mainly half-truths and downright lies because, as have I said, they can not counter the new arguments. What they use to dehumanise their targets they ignore in their favoured groups.

The Sunday Times of 14th June showed that underneath the veneer of respectability and intellectual competence the Times’ journalists are cheap liars like The Sun and Mirror - Nick Griffin does not have dogs called Anne and Frank; he did not loose an eye during paramilitary manoeuvres, but when a discarded shotgun cartridge hidden in household waste exploded in a fire; MEP Robert Fiore, a friend of Griffin’s, was not implicated in a terrorist bombing in Italy. That is another lie and Fiore has sued several papers for reprinting that lie started by a Communist front organisation.  Both the Sunday Times and Searchlight share a political outlook.

Promoting the same ideology of hate are the less literate gutter press: The Sun and Daily Mail lied that the BNP put out leaflets during the EU elections calling for the Gurkhas to be sent home.  That was done by an anti-Fascist group who illegally put the BNP’s name to it.

But these journalists don’t let honesty stand in the way of good propaganda. They expose Griffin’s past sins against convention but cover up all the much more serious sins of the politicians on their own side.  The Caste accuse Griffin and his party of hating, but their hatred for their own people is perverse and unnatural.  Somewhere deep in their psyches, one suspects, these creatures fear and respect Griffin’s honesty and courage.

We are taken us on countless TV documentary journeys into tribes and tribal cultures around the developing world and shown stomach-churning sights of animal sacrifice and initiation rites, and never do they tell us that to preserve these people is Nazi or racist or thuggish.  Try and say that Europe has ethnic people and traditions that must be preserved too and you will run into a wall of hostility.  Marxists have managed to bully people of the north European cultures into accepting that they have no racial identification and, therefore, do not really exist, and they have no right to even murmur about self-preservation.  To do this would be evil and selfish, and re-connect to all those too awful symbols of European supremacy: slavery and Adolf Hitler.

BBC Wales aired a programme just after the EU elections to expose Arthur Kemp, and it was an excellent example of the genre.  It started with a pre-judgement or prejudice against not just Kemp but those sin-filled people they call “white”.  By selecting evidence on them that ignores all other ethnic groups it proceeds to discriminate against them.  It also left out what is really happening in South Africa like the genocide of white African farmers by blacks to create the impression that the change over was successful.

BBC programme-makers typically wait for months until they get something on their prey, then they present it purely according to their ideology (which, of course, enables them to pose as tolerant and so very morally superior to their “Nazi” prey).  The blatant immorality of this behaviour is never allowed to intrude.  When the BBC acted in concert with the legal system to prosecute Griffin what was over looked was that he did not make the speech to the public.  It was the BBC who broadcast it to the public.

All this takes place within an extreme ideological world view that uses modern multiracial myths like “They seek to divide communities”.  That one depends on the false notion that multiracial communities are melding together.  But the whole thing is shot through with bare-faced lies like that.

One of the subtler tricks is to describe their activists as “anti-racists”, thus sanitising them and by implication demonising the other.  It also hides the fact that these anti-fascist groups are the ones involved in street thuggery.  For the elites are in league with the street thugs and use deceitful photographs that were set up by them.  In one case Searchlight agents flew to Italy to be photographed making Nazi salutes to BNP deputy chairman Simon Darby as he entered a building so that the media could publicise it to put people off voting for them.  Or worse!

This Ideological Caste cover up for each right up to the point where someone oversteps the rules of public acceptability.  Even then, the programme will describe, say, the BNP’s attacks on the expenses scandal as a “toxic cocktail”.  Everything is manipulated.  The public is provided with no material that has not been ideologically filtered.

Even before this month’s EU Parliament elections the gutter-press Guardian was working overtime to stop the public voting for the BNP.  When that failed they carried straight on with the attack:

It was on Hitler’s birthday, deliberately chosen, that the National Socialist Movement was formed in Britain in the 1960s. It was the first political organisation of the far right that Andrew Brons, the newly-elected British National party MEP for Yorkshire and Humberside, was to join – but not the last.

On the 10th of June 2009, The Metro and The Sun set up a target for violence or worse.  John Higginson chief political correspondent of The Metro showed his intellectual grasp of political ideas by writing in mindless cliches:

“Far-right leader Griffen is splattered as anti-fascists protest over poll victory.”

What really happened – an organised and fascistic, physical assault on Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons at a press conference they had called - is distorted by the code-words.  Thus, the morally undeserving “far right” Griffin is justly humiliated by (merely) protesting “anti-fascists”.

The Daily Star went further and incited its readers to throw chapattis at Griffin.  This is simply hate-speech and can only serve to inflame the racial situation as chapattis are ethnic food.

Over at arch-Globalist Rupert Murdoch’s The Sun, Graeme Wilson devalued an elected British politician thus:

“Bad egg hit by good egg.”

Then the common language again:

“Griffin- his fascist party’s first MEP.”

A less measured variation on the theme from Weyman Bennett:

“We came here to stand up for the people who have faced the intimidation of violence of racist thugs.”

UAF supporter David Cameron used the same language when he called the BNP “Nazis and thugs.”

The cheap papers have for years told their readers who to vote for now they are actually inciting violence against a legal political party.  The owners of these papers are foreigners, and this is outside intervention in our internal politics.  Never again must foreigners be allowed to own our newspapers.

Both Establishment and apparatchiks use a common language.  The “anti-fascists” commonly describe the BNP as fascists and the apparently respectable opinion-formers have adopted this.  In his interview with Griffin, David Dimbleby used the word fascist.  Dimbleby would not invite SWP leaders like Martin Smith and Weyman Bennett to dinner because they are the wrong class.  But when it comes to defending the elites’ way of life they share the same prejudices.

Like the Guardian, The Daily Telegraph used its “Profile” to besmirch Andrew Brons.  They have to as they have no rational arguments to deploy.  So we get:

Colleagues say he loves his image as a posh-talking professor and certainly his appearance and accent are well-removed from the BNP stereotype.”

Who created the stereotype?

The Caste usually incite violence indirectly so they can keep up the appearance of respectability.  But Peter Hain, who did so much to bring about the genocide of whites in South Africa and has never apologised for it, has now called for violent confrontation with the BNP.  He is trying to do the same thing here - while he makes himself rich by corruptly trousering £130 grand.  The language is the same as with the others:

It is vital that everyone now isolates and confronts the BNP and works with United Against Fascism to defeat them. The gang of UAF thugs attack Nick Griffin everyone can see ...

The Sun are now encouraging more attacks, and this in a country with hundreds of Muslim extremists and terrorists.  They are actually encouraging assassination.  If anything happens again remember that and get the evidence from the newspaper reports of how they lead people on.

An openly illegal incitement to violence against a democratically elected politician was published by London media:

I’m so disappointed with the people that threw eggs at BNP leader Nick Griffin yesterday when he attempted to hold a victory press conference...come on people...we live in a multi cultural democracy...so next time please FOR THE SAKE OF THIS DEMOCRACY can you chuck BRICKS at the racist instead???...much more effective, n’est pas?

Ali Sichilongo, London

So why are such wild and hateful words employed in the media?  Possibly because of something Griffin has in mind for the elites.  He told the BNP conference in Blackpool:

“We all know that they have announced that there will now be another inquiry into the Iraq War.  Of course there should not be an inquiry, but rather a war crimes trial, based on the principles established during the Nuremburg Trial.

“The accused must include the politicians and the propagandists who generated the background to the war.  This will include the newspaper editors and media owners who are just as responsible for the lies which led to that war.

“However, we have enough evidence right now to make a case against Geoff Hoon and Tony Blair for an incident during the Balkans War when a Serbian TV station was bombed.  I will be laying a charge with a central London police station very soon over this matter.”

This is why the corrupt thieves and liars of the caste have to try and silence those who threaten them.  Presumably it’s also why Griffin does not have state security like Geert Wilders in the Netherlands and Salman Rushdie did here.  His protection, then, rests in part, at least, in the public knowing that powerful forces are conspiring against him - and that’s a message we can all do something to try to get out.

]]> 2009-06-27T23:24:01+00:00 REAL NATIONALISM http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/real_nationalism/ REAL NATIONALISM by Constantin von Hoffmeister Part I The human race is a construct. It is not real. Human population groups are too diverse to have any one destiny in common. The white race is a construct. It is not real. White peoples are too diverse to have any one destiny in common. Nations are the soil-based embodiments of ethnically homogeneous peoples. White nationalism is a globalization ideology and thus not real nationalism at all. Fascism and National Socialism were both imperialist ideologies. Real nationalism is the enemy of imperialism and globalization. Real nationalism is separatist and democratic. Real nationalism wants to break up large artificial structures (such as empires) and reestablish natural ethnic entities (such as nations). Part II The Inuit in Greenland do not need aid from the European Union. They do not need Danish overlords and colonizers. The Inuit in Greenland want to be free. Their poverty stems from alien management practices imposed on their traditional way of life. Their indigenous culture had sustained them for thousands of years until the artery of their social organism was clogged by Danish cupcakes and maidens with braided golden hair dancing on flying horses with swords and shields in their hands: HOORAY - Here come the Valkyries! Doom to let Dr. Doom in… He might shake his metal-gloved fist and rage and swear and holler. But all to no avail, the mud is here to stay, everybody will have to drag his weary feet through it. Dr. Doom in his Slavic country (Latveria) will think twice if invading and destroying will give him the bliss he so eagerly seeks. Meanwhile, the Inuit are demonstrating against another Danish dam project. Part III

The race that preceded the race is the race. King David had red hair. He was not a witch. A witch is a witch is a witch. We must watch out or the shoppers will get us before the consumers get us. To consume is to free oneself of the shadow of the past.

On the plane from Berlin to Moscow: Call of the Blood. Folkism versus Nationalism. Folkism = real nationalism. How many are gone? How many roads are broken? Who is chosen? Who can find the gods again? The state is the machine that killed the gods. The folk is the revolutionary subject. Raising the folk consciousness consciously undermines the system the state put into place to subjugate the folk. The Junkers and the lords and the plantation owners are all interested in propagating state nationalism (patriotism) as the salvation to the yearning in the folk’s collective unconscious. But myths are stronger than the elite with money and lust for power and greed for money. Myths speak the truth of the blood. The folk carries the blood in its veins as it toils under the sun of the day that never endeth. The folk’s sweat mingled with its blood produces the aroma of life itself. This is why the leech elite will always try to suck the blood of the folk. Like vampires, the elite needs the blood of the folk to survive and continue the feudal exploitation of those they need to survive. When the folk wakes up to this state of affairs, it will not only protect itself with garlic against vampire attacks but also band together with wooden stakes to finally exterminate the elitist plague off the face of the earth. Patriotism is a demonic concoction straight out of the NECRONOMICON. Folkism is the divine order as different faces of different folks truly represent God’s different ideas. God is the gods. Polytheism does not apply.

A womanizer and a priest on a bench in Central Park. The womanizer knows that his days are numbered as his productive years have already passed him by. The priest had once sheltered a South African dictator, but now realizes that this was a mistake since the South African dictator had killed the priest’s family before the South African dictator went into politics back in his own country. Back in Ecuador, drugs were still freely available in the dirty slums of Quito. Coke for a buck. High for a dime. Hanging in there. Both the womanizer and the priest are feeding on the regret that their disconnectedness from their folk produces. O, how to get back into the bosom the cycle?

Black boots on the pavement signal the coming of the Man With No Morals. He will set things right as he has no moral objection to things others might find distasteful. The Man With No Morals commits genocide for breakfast and burns down cities in order to build new ones. In the afternoon, the Man with No Morals orders the execution of all those who opposed the folk’s right of existence in the past when the world was ruled by Bad Media and the leech elite. The Man With No Morals will do so without batting an eyelid. In the evening, the Man With No Morals might go boozing and hook up with some cool chicks. If he wakes up in the collective mind of the folk, the Man With No Morals has achieved the unity in freedom (sacred and profane!). The Man With No Morals also kills for thrills.

This is how coffee is cooked: buy and put it in machine, then switch on machine. Once gods came out of machines, now machines ARE gods.

]]> 2009-06-25T11:32:00+00:00 False identity http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/false_identity/ A few thoughts about an imaginary problem “Identity” is not a word that need ever pass our lips - not if we have zero respect for the liberal analysis, and wish to be free of its formative power.  For this is a word of the left, and like all words of the left it pressages on us a modern conception of Man which is fatally light and relativistic. How so?  Well, shouldn’t it be a grave and weighty responsibility for a man to define who and what he is?  After all, modernity places the highest possible value on the individual, denying all bonds, all blood their primacy.  To use the Schmittian formulation, “None but the individual shall dispose of the life of the individual.” Surely, then, that life should be sufficiently valued by its owner to imbue the exercise with a high seriousness and a desire for some specificity.  Yet in practice the reverse is the case.  We live in the Age of the Left.  It is an age when realization of the Self, once the preserve of the religious and Chivalric orders, has been democratized and, in democratization, has been relativised.  When the measure of a life is mere personal taste all claims are equal.  There is salience but there is no depth.  There is “progress” but there is no movement.  Something vital, something authentic and original has fallen out of the equation. In the sociological sense what remains is the modern us and the meaning of us.  For well over a century nationalist and traditionalist thinkers have judged that meaning in historical terms and found it wanting.  The ineluctable conclusion is that we are moving away from our truth as men, and putting on the cloth of an increasingly artificial self.  And we are doing this, most of us, because we are ignorant of politics and of ourselves, and we are weak and suggestible. Artificiality in the modern conception of Man (modern in the context of an industrialised and, later, consumerised society) is precisely a sign of lost being.  It seems improbable, somehow, that the men and women of pre-industrial European societies, filled as those societies were with brothers to the ox, with men listed in the Orange and the Blue, and their widows in the pews, and the widows of the sea, would have had any reference point at all to the narcissism of a self-ascribed “identity”.  Geoffrey Chaucer’s pilgrims assuredly did not define themselves according to their fascinations with the Self.  They were fixed by their relation to kin, to the soil and the seasons or the tides and the wind, to the economy as manor, town or village, to Nature and to God.  These were givers of riches aplenty for all but the high elites of the Court and Barony, of the Church, and of learning. Political Philosophy Liberalism arose as a revolt against that order.  By the time of Jane Austen, the first novel-writer and chronicler of the new leisured class, the constituency of the Self was already in evidence.  Modernity can be interpreted as the process of that constituency’s democratization.  It has spread out in our time to encompass even the human tragedy of transsexualism.  That, too, can be an “identity” no less “valid” than any other, and no less worthy of our, of course, always assiduous non-judgementalism.

There are a few liberal adventurers hoping that the democratization process won’t stop there.  Within the EU, for example, a paedophile ramp is clothing its self-advocacy in a call for the reduction of the age of homosexual consent to sixteen.  In the Guardian there have been articles advocating the legal extension of the principle of human rights to all animal life.  But it seems to me that the confused chromosome is the constituency’s limit.  Together with the elites’ distaste for political entanglement with paedophilia and animal rights extremism, it marks the boundary of our self-estrangement and the point where Nature makes its stand.

Now, a moment ago I made the point that traditionalist thinkers have long revolted against modernity and sought to make their stand in the idealised dream-scape of an order of a reborn European spirit overseen by an ascetic, natural aristocracy.  Obviously, if such an order was ever realized that would do for liberalism good and proper.  No more constituency of the Self, no more non-judgementalism.  But I firmly believe that beauty leads only to beauty, and to nothing else.  This beautiful vision would produce more artifice, more reification of “identity”, more hollow “personality”.  None of these things would be quite as harmful as the version we are living as children of liberalism.  But neither would they be as good as a European order of the true!

So, that’s the contribution of Idealist philosophy dealt with, basically.  I can see no active continental European philosophy elsewhere - in de Benoist, for example.  And I confess to puzzlement at Dugin.  So what has American empiricism to say?  Well, here is the leading empiricist in racial consciousness in America, talking to Tom Sunic at Voice of Reason radio last week:

Tom Sunic: This concept of identity, it’s not necessarily racially based.  It can have a mechanical, so to speak, base as well. 

Kevin MacDonald: That’s correct.

Sunic: Post-modernity, now I know folks with different lifestyles … they are sun-worshipers, they are drug-worshipers, they are speed worshipers, and what have you.  So … we are losing our former racial in-group identity.

MacDonald: Yes, the idea of having an identity is psychological - that is, it’s not something that is set in stone.  If you think about historical periods in Europe, say, most people probably did not have a sense that they were white because everybody in their society was white.  It was only after the explorations and we started having contact with other peoples that we saw ourselves as being a race, and having certain differences, and so on.  Before that, our primary source of identity was probably religious.  Then, of course, once you had the rise of Protestantism then people had different religious identities, and those identities were far stronger than any sense of racial identity.  So, it’s a psychological concept and it can change.  As you say, you can have a personal identity as a base ball fan or a sun worshiper or a Buddhist.  It doesn’t matter.  This is all psychological.

But the question is what sorts of identity are useful?  What sorts of identity are adaptive?  And that sort of thing.

Sunic: Are you basically suggesting that anything is interchangeable?  Is it interchangeable, does it shift?  Or is it something already racial and genetically inborn in us?

MacDonald: Well, my view is that, unfortunately perhaps, it’s not genetic.  It is psychological, and it’s something that can be changed and can be something that people have conflict over.  If you look at the media throughout the Western world any sense of white racial identity is not legitimate, and it is something that is morally obtuse ...

Sunic: Reprehensible, yes.

MacDonald: Completely reprehensible.  So, certainly, it’s OK for blacks, Asians, Mexicans in America to have a sense of their ethnic identity, their racial identity.  But for whites it’s not.  So even if whites have some sort of small racial identity they have to keep it hidden.  So it’s much more psychologically acceptable to figure themselves as a professor or a baseball fan or a Christian, which is probably the most common one.

Sunic: In your books and your writings you are referring to implicit and explicit identity.  I just want you to elaborate on this.  What I understand after reading you, implicit identity does mean that every person knows, probably subconsciously, which tribe they belong to.  Every person, let’s say a white person, he may be completely unaware of his racial … he may completely shed the racial consciousness and all this issue involved with it.  But when push comes to shove he may be reminded of his racial conciousness.  He may be reminded of his primeval identity.  Am I reading you correctly?

MacDonald: Yes, that’s exactly right.  I think it’s one of the most important concepts that we have.  Even though very few white people have a sense of themselves as white, as having a racial identity, in fact they tend to socialise with other white people.  If you look at what kind of culture they prefer – country music, classical music - if you look at their friends, at their spouses, if you look at where they live, they tend to want to associate with white people.  And that’s what we call implicit identity.  If you asked them, they’d say, “Well, I moved to this neighbourhood because it’s the schools.” They wouldn’t explicitly say, “I moved to this neighbourhood because it’s a white neighbourhood, and I feel more comfortable there, I feel more, sort of ties, I trust the people more.”

Even though it’s not explicit there is this implicit stance, and that is because we do have an attraction to people like ourselves.

Sunic: Which means that this is a genetic feature.

MacDonald: … people feel more comfortable with people like themselves, and that’s well established psychologically.  And it really goes to some of the very basic psychological mechanisms from our evolutionary past.  We have a tendency to prefer people like ourselves.

MacDonald goes on to argue in this interview that the sense of racial consciousness is rising among America’s whites.  “And it has to,” he says.  That may be the case - Nature is making its stand.  But I, for one, see insufficient agency in this very late development (by dint of insufficient philosophy, of course).  I am also puzzled as to why such an able psychologist doesn’t do more to communicate his model of Man.  Why the confusion over the relationship of our acquired personality and our natural being?  How difficult can it be to elicit understanding of these, even over the radio?

Something like:

“Of course the liberals are right.  All identities are equal.  They are, after all, strictly unreal sets of ideas ... something to do with our suggestibility and our ownership by the times in which we live.  We are not as free as we like to think we are, quite the opposite in fact.

“Being, on the other hand, is eternal and beyond the grasp of the modern world.  And even though we Europeans and European-Americans have collectively turned our back on it for decades now, and possibly even centuries, and in the process internalised so many ideas that do us harm, it is never lost to us.  Just to cease harming ourselves would lead us back to it, and to the life we deserve.”

]]> 2009-06-23T23:54:00+00:00 Thoughts on the preface and introduction of The Triumph of the Therapeutic by Philip Rieff http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/thoughts_on_the_preface_and_introduction_of_the_triumph_of_the_therapeutic_/ by DanielJ From the Preface to this work, Rieff quoting two historians’ summary of his work: “If the dominant character type of the twentieth century is really what Rieff calls ‘psychological man,’ the consequences for western society are quite incalculable.” This is certainly true. If man is a psychological creature than we must use the weapons of psychology to turn him to toward the defensive weaponry of Christianity, ethnic solidarity, epistemology, etc. Simply concentrating on Van Tillian presuppositionalism will do no good when men are no longer motivated by philosophies, but by psychologies. From the Introduction: Literature and sociology have long supplied eloquent and knowing professional mourners at the wake for Christian culture. After Matthew Arnold, much of modern poetry [he quotes Yeats in the very beginning of the Intoduction] constitutes an elegiac farewell ... to the religious culture of the West. After Auguste Comte, much of modern sociology has struggled for diagnostic ideas refined and yet wide enough to encompass the spectacle of a death so great in magnitude and subtlety. Now the dissolution of a unitary system of common belief, accompanied, as it must be, by a certain disorganization of personality, may have run its course. Rieff seems to be stating in this passage that the central crisis of our time - this dissolution of personhood and entropy of personality - is a culture war where the combatants are fighting to “organize” (this has the faint smell of technocratic and bureaucratic totalitarianism parading itself as scientific management with disinterested and rationalized dispassionate concern only for the psychological well being of mankind) the human psyche. He goes on to state that the: ...long period of deconversion, which first broke the surface of political history at the time of the French Revolution, appears all but ended. and that: several systems of belief (are) competing for primacy in the task of organizing personality in the West. Hence, the “culture war.” The “cult” is the cult of personality. Political Philosophy On the preservation of culture:

A culture survives principally, I think, by the power of its institutions to bind and loose men in the conduct of their affairs with reasons which sink so deep into the self that they become commonly and implicitly understood—with that understanding of which explicit belief and precise knowledge of externals would show outwardly like the tip of an iceberg… binding even the ignorants of a culture in a great chain of meaning.

This idea of Rieff’s, in my opinion, eventually germinated and sprouted into his idea that if a man is aware of his repressions, they aren’t. The iceberg itself isn’t cognizant of what is underneath itself under the water; it only sees its own reflection which is, in Rieff’s words the directed and outward projection “toward those communal purposes in which alone the self can be realized and satisfied.”

A reorganization of those dialectical expressions of Yes and No the interplay of which constitutes culture, transforming motive into conduct, is occurring throughout the West, particularly in the United States and England. It is to be expected that some instruments appropriate to our inherited organization of permissions and restraints upon action [monogamy, fidelity, obeying the spirit of the law, etc] will not survive the tension of fundamental reorganization. But, suppose the tension is driven deeper--so deep that all communications of ideals come under permanent and easy suspicion? The question is no longer as Dostoevsky put it: Can civilized men believe?” But rather: Can unbelieving men be civilized?

Rieff goes on to state that restoration of a past faith will inevitably bring on the re-living of the nightmare of the first half of the twentieth century and that the great poets all wished for what those of us know is a radically un-Christian idea of a return to initial, or original innocence, which is a concept that is fundamentally at odds with our espoused Calvinism.

In our recovered innocence, to be entertained would become the highest good and boredom the most common evil.

I’m all for restoring the “sense of play” in acts of creation and invention at the loom, till, craft and trades in the Laschian sense, but Rieff seems to suggest something different here. I can’t quite put my finger on it. Rieff scandalously suggests that this inversion of the doctrines of Total Depravity and Original Sin is the longed for “centre” of Yeats and is capable of holding the self together in these psychologically trying times.

He recklessly, foolishly and Judaically abandons psychology to the express purpose of:

(reconstructing) culture so ... that faith - some compelling symbolic of self-integrating communal purpose - need no longer superintend the organization of personality.

I think perhaps this is at odds with some of his later work and ideas where he expressly calls for the re-imposition of a massive and constrictive super-ego that is essentially Calvinistic in outlook but lacks the Christ. He wants all the benefits of Christianity but none of the Christ!

Rieff takes a bit of a turn toward the fascistic elitism of the neo-Pagans and others here:

Never before has there been such a general shifting of sides as now among intellectuals in the United States and England. Many have gone over to the enemy ... and ... have become spokesmen for what Freud called the instinctual “mass”. Much of modern literature constitutes a symbolic act of going over to the side of the latest, and most original, individualist. This
represents the complete democratization of our culture.

It was in order to combat just such talented hostility to culture that Freud emphasized coercion and the renunciation of instinct as indispensable elements in all culture ... “It is just as impossible,” he writes, “to do without control of the mass by a minority as it is to dispense with coercion in the work of civilization.” ... That such large numbers of the cultivated and intelligent have identified themselves deliberately with those who are supposed to have no love for instinctual renunciation, suggests to me the most elaborate act of suicide that Western intellectuals have ever staged ... I suspect the children of Israel did not spend much time elaborating a doctrine of the golden calf; they naively danced around it, until Moses, their first intellectual, put a stop to the plain fun and insisted on civilizing them, by submerging their individualities within a communal purpose ... Confronted thus with a picture gallery as the new center of self-worship, civilized men must become again anti-art, in the hope of shifting attention toward modalities of worship wholly other than that of self.

He goes on to elaborate on what could be considered a healthy and properly conservative, cultural dynamic here:

Every culture must establish itself as a system of moralizing demands, images that mark the trail of each man’s memory; thus to distinguish right actions from wrong the inner ordinances are set, by which men are guided in their conduct so as to assure a mutual security of contact. Culture is, indeed, the higher learning, But, this higher learning is not acquired at universities; rather, it is assimilated continuously from earliest infancy when human beings first begin to trust in those familiar responses others make to their overtures. In every culture, there stands a censor, governing the opportunity of recognizing and responding to novel stimuli. That governor, inclined always to be censorious about novelty, we may call “faith.” Faith is the compulsive dynamic of culture, channeling obedience to, trust in, and dependence upon authority.

A strong and healthy conservative culture will fight against the injection of novelty into the social landscape instinctively and with great vigor. This is a basic principle articulated most thoroughly and most competently by many, but initially by men like de Maistre and Burke.

This is also a place where Hannah Arendt’s concept of historical “break” comes into play in my opinion. What we have now is an entirely new phenomenon under the sun, it is a group of cultural creators who are indifferent and they express this through the rigorous defense of pluralism, relativism and nihilism. They contradict all faith by contradicting the very idea of faith. Hence, the push to glorify homosexuals, pederasts, and all other forms of psychological and sexual perversion. They are the welcoming hosts of all things exotic and as Rieff stated before, the most eloquent defenders of the teeming mass of the diverse everyman; an everyman who is his own king, prophet, priest and lawyer completely atomized and disconnected from any greater fabric than that of the cloak of his own ego.

Hence the “No person is illegal” slogan. It reveals much more about the psyche of the individuals repeating this platitudinal mantra than they themselves realize since it is a moral judgment and not simply political sloganeering. They’ve internalized the “anti-culture” and are exporting it from the abundance of their hearts.

Rieff begins, at this point, to despair:

The culture to which I was first habituated grows progressively different in its symbolic nature and in its human product; that double difference and how ordained augments our ambivalence as professional mourners. There seems little likelihood of a great rebirth of the old corporate ideals. The “proletariat” was the most recent notable corporate identity, the latest failed god. style="font-weight: bold;">By this time men may have gone too far, beyond the old deception of good and evil, to specialize at last, wittingly, in techniques that are to be called, in the present volume, “therapeutic,” with nothing at stake beyond a manipulatable sense of well-being.

Dwell on that last sentence for a while. That is directly where erudite, Godless, idolatry leads.

Rieff finally lets on as to what the stone masons and architects of our Babylon are really undertaking to build:

What the ignorant have always felt, the knowing now know, after millennial distractions by stratagems that did not heighten [or pan out at all, ever] the more immediate pleasures. The systematic hunting down of all settled convictions represents the anti-cultural predicate upon which modern personality is being reorganized, now not in the West only but, more slowly, in the non-West. The Orient and Africa are thus being acculturated in a dynamism that has already grown substantial enough to torment its progenitors with nightmares of revenge for having so unsettled the world. It is a terrible error to see the West as conservative and the East as revolutionary. We are the true revolutionaries. The East is swiftly learning to act as we do, which is anti-conservative in a way non-Western peoples have only recently begun to fully to realize for themselves.

With what, at first glance, seems like stunning prescience and foresight, Rieff predicts the decade of the 70’s (although from the vantage point of the late 60’s, I’m not that impressed) with particular acumen as a response to hyper-critical elitism:

Each culture is its own order of therapy--a system of moralizing demand, including remissions that ease the pressures of communal purposes. Therapeutic elites before our own were predominately supportive rather than critical of cultures as a moral demand system. Admonitions were the expectable predicates of consolations; that is what is meant, nowadays, by “guilt” culture. Whenever therapeutic elites grow predominately critical then a cultural revolution may be said to be in progress. Ours is such a time. The Occident has long been such a place.

With a little luck, our counter-revolution may be underway, precipitated in our era by the election of Obama combined with rapid demographic transformation and the economic stagnation we are experiencing. People scapegoat. It is a theological necessity, inescapable concept and imperative inherent in the human psyche and soul, placed there as a part of the very image of God that He burned into our souls. We seek absolution through the death and destruction of substitutes. The current crop of hyper-critical elites scapegoat us poor and simple White folk without realizing that it is a two way street and without understanding the great power this process can stimulate in the masses.

I will refrain from making a judgment about the actual level of Jewish culpability for the standard charges against them, but the typical historical European reaction against the Jews - whether completely justified or not - is a fitting and appropriate example of this phenomenon. Expulsion of the other, the placing of them outside the camp to symbolize their guilt.

Really, the process of cultural revolution, in my opinion, is a Christophony of sorts. The revolutionaries transfer their guilt onto their substitutes and are atoned. Once cleansed, they begin to rebuild the torn down temples of the guilty parties. This is why Christ goes alone to His death; we all killed Him and we repeat this “cyclically” in the Spenglerian sense throughout our history.

Rieff goes on to quote Max Scheler in describing what I think is a Scriptural definition of the underlying purpose for the Christian drive to denounce sin and repent:

Christian asceticism--at least so far as it was not influenced by decadent Hellenistic philosophy--had as its purpose not the suppression or even extirpation of natural drives, but rather their control and complete spiritualization. It is positive, not negative, asceticism--aimed fundamentally at a liberation of the highest powers of personality from blockage by the automatism of the lower drives.

The real and ugly head of atheistic existentialism has finally reared itself violently upward, defiant and unwavering in its mission to be unruled and unorganized. Rieff again:

Our cultural revolution does not aim, like its predecessors, at victory for some rival commitment, but rather at a way of using all commitments, which amounts to loyalty toward none. By psychologizing about themselves interminably, Western men are learning to use their internality against the primacy of any particular organization of
personality.

Indeed, Western men are learning how to use their internality to do battle against all. Bellum unus contra omnes!

This is the egalitarian fantasy unmasked.

It is every man woman and child for themselves in social warfare of epic proportions with no safe port, harbor, trench or fort. The home, the marriage, the school and the church have become a war zone.  Rieff states that if this final cultural transformation takes root, if this

restructuring of the Western imagination succeeds in establishing itself, complete with institutional regimens, then human autonomy from the compulsions of culture may follow the freedoms already won from the compulsions of nature. With such a victory, culture, as previously understood, need suffer no further defeats. It is conceivable that millennial distinctions between inner and outer experience, private and public life, will become trivial. The individual heart need have no reasons of its own that the corporate head cannot understand and exploit for some augmentation of the individual’s sense of well-being. Thinking need not produce nausea or despair as its final answer to the assessment of communal purpose because men well have ceased to seek any salvation other than amplitude in living itself.

Rieff predicts the astonishingly brisk rise of reality television, social networking (i.e. Facebook, Myspace) and the internet persona:

There will be more theater, not less, and no Puritan will denounce the stage and draw its curtains. On the contrary, I expect that modern society will mount psychodramas far more frequently than its ancestors mounted miracle plays, with patient-analysts acting out their inner lives, after which they could extemporize the final act as interpretation. We shall even institutionalize the hospital-theater the Verfremdungseffekt, with the therapeutic triumphantly enacting his own discovered will.

Interestingly, LaVey believed that emotionally evocative psychodrama had a place within Satanism.

Finally, Rieff concludes the introduction thusly:

The wisdom of the next social order ... would not reside in right doctrine, administered by the right men, who must be found, but rather in doctrines amounting to permission for each man to live an experimental life. Thus, once again culture will give back what it has taken away. All governments will be just, so long as they secure that consoling plenitude of option in which modern satisfaction really consists. In this way the emergent culture could drive the value problem clean out of the social system and, limiting it to a form of philosophical entertainment in lieu of edifying preachment, could successfully conclude the exercise for which politics is the name. Problems of democracy need no longer prove so difficult as they have been. Psychological man is likely to be indifferent to the ancient question of legitimate authority, of sharing in government, so long as the powers that be preserve social order and manage an economy of abundance. The danger of politics lies more in the ancient straining to create those symbols or support those institutions that narrow the range of virtues or too narrowly define the sense of well-being; for the latter seems to be the real beatitude toward which men have always strained. Psychological man, in his independence from all gods, can feel free to use all god-terms; I imagine he will be a hedger against his own bets, a user of any faith that lends itself to therapeutic use.

Culture as therapy becomes realizable in part because of the increasing automaticity of the productive system ... The rules of health indicate activity; psychologocial man can exploit older cultural precepts, ritual struggle no less than play therapy, in order to maintain the dynamism of his culture. Of course, the newest Adam cannot be expected to limit himself to the use of old constraints. If “immoral” materials, rejected under earlier cultural criteria, are therapeutically effective, enhancing somebody’s sense of well-being, then they are useful. The “end” or “goal” is to keep going. Americans, as F. Scott Fitzgerald concluded, believe in the green light.

I am aware that these speculations may be thought to contain some parodies of an apocalypse. But what apocalypse has ever been so kindly? What culture has ever attempted to see to it that no ego is hurt? Perhaps the elimination of the tragic sense--which is tantamount to the elimination of irreconcilable moral principles--is no tragedy. Civilization could be, for the first time in history, the expression of human contents rather than the consolatory control of discontents.  Then and only then would the religious question receive a markedly different answer from those dominant until recently in our cultural history.

]]> 2009-06-20T21:32:00+00:00 Mutiny on the Bounty http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/mutiny_on_the_bounty/ by The Narrator There are various ways of describing and understanding the unfortunate turn many in Western Civilization have taken over the past century. Comparing events to “revolutions” and the course of specific nations to the Titanic striking the iceberg are common (engaged in by this writer as well). But every now and then a new perspective may help better see the possible causations as well as the potential remedies/outcomes to our plight. “History repeats itself” we are told and sure enough that seems to most often be the case. More than that, specific historical incidents seem to foreshadow events on a greater scale and era. Such an event is the Mutiny On The Bounty.  (I should state that I’m no expert on the subject and that my casual interest in it was sparked by viewing the 1984 film ’The Bounty’.) That mutiny, wherein a group of men from a civilized Western nation, having temporarily grown accustomed to a leisurely life of hedonistic nihilism on a tropic Island, rebel against their commander when faced with returning to a orderly and disciplined, (Western) way of life, has a general theme which can be applied to our current situation. Though it is common today to lay part of the blame for our slide into ruin on the influence of outside groups who, through media and finance, encourage activities that harm us, it is not quite telling the whole story, nor is it reflective of the less glamorous parts of Western history.  That that influence is there is undeniable. However when we look at the way Western Men, born and raised in a strong and potent Western nation at the height of its power, behaved on their own, far away from outside influence, over two hundred years ago, in an era that openly recognized racial and class differences, we see men who acted not much different than some men do today. History The Bounty was to travel to Tahiti to obtain bread fruit plants which were to be taken to the West Indies to be used as a cheap source of food for the slave population. When The Bounty arrived the plants were not fully grown and so the crew had to wait for around five months for them to mature enough to be gathered. During this time the officers and crew were treated to a world of friendly natives, easy living, no responsibilities, no (immediate) consequences, free sex and plenty of free time. It was the antithesis to their own civilization of law, order and civility and they (or rather, some of them), apparently, embraced it cordially.

Naturally problems arose on the return trip when it was time to return to Western standards of behavior, self-discipline and morality. By that time around half of the men had “gone native”, including Master’s Mate and Acting Lieutenant Fletcher Christian, who had fallen for a Tahitian woman named Maimiti.  Eventually, these men yearned so much for a return to the depraved (and ultimately destructive) life they had known on Tahiti, that they cast off all consciousness of law, honor, loyalty and discipline and mutinied on their leader, Lt. Bligh, abandoning him, and seventeen of the twenty one loyal to him, in a 23ft open launch with meager supplies and only a sextant and watch to guide him.

The mutineers sailed the Bounty back to Tahiti where they took supplies and natives (men and women) with them to seek a place to hide from the British Navy and justice, and live out a life of racial and cultural miscegenation.  This hedonistic utopia was, ironically, founded by people of low character and no qualms about disloyalty and lack of honor or restraint.  It’s not difficult to imagine how well that worked out.

Bligh addressed the temptations to which they had yielded in his published account of the mutiny in 1790, writing:

“It will very naturally be asked, what could be the reason for such a revolt? in answer to which, I can only conjecture that the mutineers had assured themselves of a more happy life among the Otaheiteans, than they could possibly have in England; which, joined to some female connections, have most probably been the principal cause of the whole transaction.

The women at Otaheite are handsome, mild and chearful in their manners and conversation, possessed of great sensibility, and have sufficient delicacy to make them admired and beloved. The chiefs were so much attached to our people, that they rather encouraged their stay among them than otherwise, and even made them promises of large possessions. Under these, and many other attendant circumstances, equally desirable, it is now perhaps not so much to be wondered at, though scarcely possible to have been foreseen, that a set of sailors, most of them void of connections, should be led away; especially when, in addition to such powerful inducements, they imagined it in their power to fix themselves in the midst of plenty, on the finest island in the world, where they need not labour, and where the allurements of dissipation are beyond any thing that can be conceived.”

image image
left, William Bligh; right, Fletcher Christian.

The mutineers chose Pitcairn Island as the local of their multi-cultural utopia. Once there, they burned their ship. An act that can be seen as done not only to hide their presence there, but, arguably, as symbolically destroying their one remaining tie to their own civilization.

The general story is thus.

image image
left, Pitcairn Island; right, Bounty Bay where the mutineers burned The Bounty.

As to be expected the experiment ended with some of the Polynesian men murdering some of the Englishmen and the Polynesian women murdering several of the Polynesian men in revenge. Drunkenness, more murder, sickness and insanity ensued, leaving - eventually - a Mr. John Adams as the sole surviving mutineer (after less than a decade of settlement on the island) and leader of the remaining population of about nine women and several mixed race children (the leader of the mutiny, Fletcher Christian, is said to have been either murdered by a Polynesian or grown depressed, eventually committing suicide).

In other words the utopia they imagined in their darkened hearts predictably turned into a living hell rather than the heaven they had envisioned. A sort of small scale, predictable, turn of events, the likes of which are now playing out on a grander scale throughout many Western nations.

The descendents of that bunch (about 50 in total) are still on Pitcairn Island today. In fact, they even made the news back in 2004. Just google “Pitcairn“, “2004” and “trial“.

Lt. Bligh, on the other hand, made a remarkable 3,600 nautical mile journey (using only a sextant and watch in a small launch) back to a civilized European port in Timor, along with the men who had remained loyal to him, themselves, their civilization and it’s people.

No, there was no television or MTV or fashion magazines or left-wing newspapers out there on the Bounty in the middle of the ocean in the 18th century. Just White Western Men at a time when White Western Civilization, and pride in it, was at its peak.

Many of them, acting on their own part, chose to debase themselves in treachery, miscegenation and multiculturalism at a time when such acts were openly denounced.
Their motivations and actions were just that, theirs. (An outside hand can offer us a dagger, but it is bound up in the character of each and every Western man as to whether or not to expect it.)

And whereas around half of the men turned their back on their civilization and embraced the very same destructive behaviors we see about us today, it is important to remember that the other half stayed true and loyal. Cast adrift in an unfriendly ocean they demonstrated remarkable skill and courage (dealing with murderous natives and starvation) in their long journey back to Western civilization, back to home.

The Point?

There is no doubt that those outside groups who would wish us harm today have encouraged and cheered on that percentage of us who seek to mutiny against Western Civilization in favor of a multicultural hell. But the fact is it takes a willing participant to be led. And sadly there are not only all-to-willing followers amongst the disloyal, but leaders as well.

In the end we must be careful in our duty of defending the honor or our people, not to deify them or absolve them from the treachery that many of them so willfully engage in.

To be clear, this is not an advocacy of abandoning the resolve to expose the activities of those who might wish us ill, but rather a call for a little more focus on the inward development of the qualities that are needed for the difficult task of preserving and nurturing our people and their civilization back to a safe harbor. We need to once again champion the virtues which established our great societies but which have, of late, fallen out of favor.  And part of those virtues was the belief that every man is to, ultimately, be held accountable for his own actions regardless of circumstance or whatever outside influences might have swayed his behavior or actions.

It is indeed a question of character.  Some men have poor character and give heed to whatever impulse happens to strike them, while others remain true and honorable no matter how enticing the deceptive voice whispering in their ear is.

There has been a mutiny on the HMS West, and those who remained true to their own have been set adrift.  But we must keep hope, for upon reflection of past events we can see the inevitable fate of each group based upon the path they have chosen.

So to all those good men who remained loyal to their blood and now find themselves mutinied against and set adrift on a vast ocean of danger and uncertainty I ask this question, shall we set round the life raft and ponder endlessly the underling motivations and ostensible outside influences upon the mutineers, or shall we hold them ultimately responsible for their own actions, while we, the other half, set ourselves to the arduous task of surviving the storms to make the long journey back to civilization, back to our home?

And should one say, “but our home has been burned by the mutineers!”, then let a chorus rise up in reply, “then we shall rebuild and ever endure!”.

]]> 2009-06-20T16:13:00+00:00 When the doorbell rings http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/when_the_doorbell_rings/ The Telegraph has reported on the demise of a popular and interesting blog, brought about without much principle by its competitor, The Times: In April, an anonymous police blog written by a detective calling himself “NightJack” won the Orwell Prize for online political writing. And it deserved to, wrote one newspaper, “because it took you inside real life in a way you couldn’t go by yourself”. But now you can’t go inside real life with NightJack. Visit the site, and you read: “The authors have deleted this blog. The content is no longer available.” This has been taken down in its entirety because the Lancashire detective lost a court case to stop his identity being revealed by The Times - the very paper that praised him to the skies when he won the Orwell Prize. NightJack is Richard Horton, a detective of Lancashire Constabulary. Yesterday, he revealed how the paper had planned to end his anonymity. “One morning I heard a rumour that they had sent a photographer to my home. Later in the afternoon came the inevitable phone calls, first to me and then to Lancashire Constabulary asking for confirmation that I was the author of the NightJack blog. Horton went to Court this week to try to preserve his right to anonymity.  The judge disagreed, citing the supremacy of public interest.  Precedence has been set, and no blogger in England and Wales is safe in his anonymity. Horton’s blog is lost, but one of his more practical posts has been preserved in various corners of the web.  It is titled “A Survival Guide For Decent Folk”, the survival in question being that of the due process.  Here it is:- Oh Tempora, Oh Mores by nightjack**04/08/08 Moderate Sarcasm Warning **

Paul has posted a number of lengthy replies on the “Modest Proposal” thread. In these days of us increasingly having to deal with law abiding folk who have fallen foul of the “entitled poor” and those who have learned how to use us to score points and exact revenge, I thought it would be a good idea to give out a bit of general guidance for those law abiding types who find themselves under suspicion or under arrest. It works for the bad guys so make it work for you.

Complain First

Always get your complaint in first, even if it is you who started it and you who were in the wrong. If things have gone awry and you suspect the cops are going to be called, get your retaliation in first. Ring the cops right away and allege for all you are worth. If you can work a racist or homophobic slant into it so much the better.

Make a counter allegation

Regardless of the facts, never let the other side be blameless. If they beat you to the phone, ring anyway and make a counter allegation against them. Again racism or homophobia are your friends. If you are not from a visible minority ethnic culture, may I suggest that that the phrase “You gay bastard” or similar is always useful. In extremis allege sexual assault. It gives us something to bargain with when getting the other person to drop their complaint on a quid-pro-quo basis. This is particularly good where there are no independent witnesses. When it boils down to one word against another and nobody is ‘fessing up, CPS run a mile and you, my friend, are definitely on a walk out

Never explain to the Police

If the Police arrive to lock you up, say nothing. You are a decent person and you may think that reasoning with the Police will help. “If I can only explain, they will realise it is all a horrible mistake and go away”. Wrong. We do want to talk to you on tape in an interview room but that comes later. All you are doing by trying to explain is digging yourself further in. We call that stuff a significant statement and we love it. Decent folk can’t help themselves, they think that they can talk their way out. Wrong.

Admit Nothing

To do anything more than lock you up for a few hours we need to prove a case. The easiest route to that is your admission. Without it, our case may be a lot weaker, maybe not enough to charge you with. In any case, it is always worth finding out exactly how damning the evidence is before you fall on your sword. So don’t do the decent and honourable thing and admit what you have done. Don’t even deny it or try to give your side of the story. Just say nothing. No confession and CPS are on the back foot already. They forsee a trial. They fear a trial. They are looking for any excuse to send you home free.

Keep your mouth shut

Say as little as possible to us. At the custody office desk a Sergeant will ask you some questions. It is safe to answer these. For the rest of the time, say nothing.

Claim Suicidal Thoughts

A debatable one this. Claiming to be thinking about topping yourself has several benefits. If you can keep it up, it might just bump up any compensation payable later. On the other hand you may find yourself in a paper suit with someone watching your every

Always always always have a solicitor

Duh. No brainer this one. Unless you know 100% for sure that your mate the solicitor does criminal law and is good at it, ask for the Duty Solicitor. They certainly do criminal law and they are good at it. Then listen to what the solicitor says and do it. Their job is to get you off without the Cops or CPS laying a glove on you if at all possible. It is what they get paid for. They are free to you. There is no down side. Now decent folks think it makes them look like they have something to hide if they ask for a solicitor. Irrelevant. Going into an interview without a solicitor is like taking a walk in Tottenham with a big gold Rolex. Bad things are very likely to happen to you. I wouldn’t do it and I interview people for a living.

Actively complain about every officer and everything they do

Did they cuff you when they brought you in? Were they rude to you? Did they racially or homophobically abuse you? Didn’t get fed? Cell too cold? You are decent folk who don’t want to make a fuss but trust me, it pays to whinge and no matter how trivial and / or poorly founded your complaint there are people who will uncritically listen to you and try and prove the complaint on your behalf. Some of them are even police officers. Nothing like a complaint to muddy the waters and suggest that you are only in court because the vindictive Cops have a grudge against you. Far fetched? Wait until your solicitor spins it in court and you come over as Ghandi.

Show no respect to the legal system or anybody working in it

You think that if you are a difficult, unpleasant, sneering, unco-operative and rude things will go badly for you and you will be in more trouble. No sirree Bob. It seems that in fact the worse you are, the easier things will go for you if, horror of horrors, you do end up convicted. Remember to fake a drink problem if you haven’t developed one as a result of dealing with us already. Magistrates and Judges do seem to like the idea that you are basically good but the naughty alcohol made you do it. They treat you better. Crazy I know but true.

So there you go, basically anything you try and do because you are decent and staightforward hurts you badly. Act like an habitual, professional, lifestyle criminal and chances are you will walk away relatively unscathed. Copy the bad guys, its what they do for a living.

]]> 2009-06-18T23:18:00+00:00