Category: Marxism & Culture War
Am I really seeing this?
We have touched upon this to some extent, but not as a focused topic: specifically, turning points where media pushed the envelope of liberalism. Bill cited the British program, “That Was The Week That Was”. I acknowledged his indignation with media pushing liberalism in that era by citing segments from The Beatles, “A Hard Day’s Night.”
There are other obvious examples from that time, notably -
And in the late 80’s, the dam bursting with
..which, btw, was shown continuously in Eastern Europe prior to the fall of communism.
However, there are examples of liberal envelope-pushing that are promoted not so much to cross the line (though they do) but to put it across as Taken For Granted.
Where these tactics are effective indeed, Whites can feel all the more alienated and foreign in their sense of righteous indignation, as no shared social, let alone institutionalized, response is forthcoming.
This is perhaps more of a pre-Internet phenomenon, when non-interaction with media provided little recourse to discuss the shock of this kind of assault on White interests.
Yet, as we have had these experiences, of seeing galling things in media or in day to day interaction, it may help to know that you are not crazy: yes, you saw this and it is outrageous to an extreme. With that, these experiences acknowledged, it may be possible to redress not only these episodic instantiations, not only patterns, but lynchpins behind their occurrence.
Contributing to the feeling of “did I really see that?” is having these shocking experiences shrugged-off by others (Whites), either simultaneous to the occurrence or in the attempted report of it as an outrage.
I would like encourage commentors to list a few of these experiences of “did I really see that? Could this be true?”.. (typically to only have others act as if it is nothing).
Posted by DanielS on Friday, August 1, 2014 at 03:29 AM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Awakenings, Crusade against Discrimination in Britain, Marxism & Culture War, Media, Popular Culture, Psychology
The Pejorative Side of Modernity or Civilization, Competing Theories or Allied? Part 2
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, July 6, 2014 at 03:17 PM in Activism, Anthropology, Awakenings, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, Eugenics, Far Right, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, Globalisation, Marxism & Culture War, The American right, The Proposition Nation, White Nationalism
I am one who tends to think that concern regarding homosexuality is exaggerated beyond its true importance in WN circles.
Perhaps because I was at one time confronted directly and from a complexity of different angles with the implication to myself, but having no doubt that I wasn’t, and wanting to be unburdened of any accusation’s tedium, I was forced to make efficient intellectual work of putting aside any such accusation, to master the ways in which the issue could be deftly set aside as it is - largely irrelevant.
Posted by DanielS on Monday, June 16, 2014 at 03:09 AM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Art & Design, Awakenings, Conservatism, Feminism, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, Health, Liberalism & the Left, Marxism & Culture War, Social liberalism
Universities in the great state of Washington seem to be particularly big on mandated white race-replacement as well, of course, as straightforward anti-white racism. In the sick world of the white liberal academic it’s fine and dandy to bounce around racistically - indeed marxistically - “criticizing” and re-educating students of their own race. If they are white.
How otherwise intelligent people arrive at such a moral and intellectual station I can scarcely imagine. But they do it, obviously, without realising that their exciting new Jewish “critique” of supposed white herd behaviour is actually herd behaviour itself, and neither they nor any else is made free by it. They do not notice that they have been turned into vile, humourless, identikit ideologues ... interchangeable cyphers propagandising for the very race-hate they think they are consigning to history.
But there is one man in the American North-West who has their best interests at heart, and who is striving single-handedly to save them from themselves. Along with their students, of course. That man is the indefatigable, not to say incorrigible and all round indomitable Jimmy Marr.
Jimmy’s latest gesture towards racial enlightenment occurred on Monday this week, at the WWU “Diversity Is ...” rally:
That Hitler and the Nazis were not White/European nationalists, nor can they represent the interests of White/European peoples.
I would like to clear the way further for Majority Rights as a place of sanity for White interests.
Indeed, if a former head of state where I am from had the attitude toward Germans and Germany that Hitler had, for example, toward Slavs and Eastern Europe, frankly, I would not boast of this man, but would be eager to leave him in the past as an embarrassing expression of overcompensation. I am frankly surprised that this is not the default position of every self-identifying White nationalist.
Hitler’s was a position which could only have led to inter-European fighting and diversion from our proper organization.
On the other hand, the Germans I meet in my travels, by sharp contrast, are very fine people; I am eager to help them, as I might, to ensure the flourishing of their particular native European form and ways; as well as to unburden them of undue guilt and foreign impositions. This generation had nothing to do with World War II, for better or worse. I am sure that there are sufficient many of them who see fit to participate in our mutual and discreet survivals as European nations and peoples.
I was ready to dive right-in with this frame of mind years, in fact decades, ago. One of the crucial issues obstructing this has been, and is, the absurd position of some self-proclaimed White Nationalists that we somehow need Hitler or to redeem Hitler. We need nothing of the kind. We need Europeans deeper and wiser. Let there be no mistake, those who insist upon Hitler and Nazism are Not White Nationalists.
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, April 20, 2014 at 01:37 AM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, European Nationalism, Far Right, Liberalism & the Left, Marxism & Culture War, National Socialism
Anti-Racism is not innocent, far from innocent, it is prejudiced, it is hurting and it is killing people. It is an impossible, pure Cartesian ideal, prohibiting necessary social perceptual grouping and accountable discrimination accordingly.
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, February 27, 2014 at 03:02 AM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, Linguistics, Marxism & Culture War, Social Conservatism
True Belarusian nationalism and its history have been opaque to westerners. The process of its true nationalism becoming opaque along with its struggle for revival may be instructive - and particularly if successful, useful for purposes of WN cooperation.
Still, “Western values” may creep-in through lack of bounds South and East as well..
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, December 10, 2013 at 08:07 AM in European Nationalism, Immigration and Politics, Marxism & Culture War, Political analysis, Political Philosophy, White Nationalism
Working hypotheses will be advanced
as to why these logical fallacies are being adopted despite their apparent obviousness;
how they are mistaken;
and remedies will be proposed in cooperative nationalism.
Statements will be set out as hypotheses to allow for efficient positioning of historical viewpoints as they emerge practical in argumentative service of cooperative European nationalism. In addition to the practical efficiency of hypotheses for unburdening detail, the modesty of unfinished claims is meant to facilitate participation from the commentariat to elaborate, correct and amend the hypotheses - i.e., to make optimal use of Majority Rights discussion format.
* Note: in comment number 2, I erred in grammatical present tense when discussing Brelsau (Wroclaw). Which, according to the Treaty of Versailles and through World War II, remained German. There would have been no good argument to that point in time for its not being German.
Posted by DanielS on Friday, October 25, 2013 at 05:22 AM in Demographics, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, European Nationalism, History, Marxism & Culture War, National Socialism, Political Philosophy, That Question Again, The American right, White Nationalism
1. Crude commentary on the London Olympics opening ceremony, but it hits the bull’s eye. The games ought to be called Oy-lympics. You know who it is gloating over and showcasing what they’ve done to England.
2. Not even a month has passed and the prothink network is again being given the boot; Delaney explains it, ZCF comments and JP chimes in. Previously godaddy was made to have them leave. Under Bob Parsons, godaddy respected freedom of speech, but it was bought by venture capitalist firms KKR & Co. L.P. (Kohlberg Kravis Roberts) and Silver Lake Partners, undoubtedly motivated in part to do something about the free speech problem. The prothink network switched to 1&1 hosting, a branch of a publicly-traded corporation, which by its nature is controlled by financial corporations, and the second booting happened following this bad choice.
If they’re into game, prothink folks should switch to companies that host one of several prominent websites that are clear or suspected phony opposition, spreading out their websites over these companies instead of bringing them all under the same company. This is a win-win situation, gaming better than the oylimpics on Talmud-Vision. If they get booted while the fake opposition remains, the suspicions are confirmed. If they’re allowed to remain to protect the fake opposition, they get to keep swelling the ranks of the awakened while the owners or overseers of the web-hosting companies grumble in private.
Posted by R-news on Saturday, July 28, 2012 at 11:04 PM in Blogs & Blogging, European culture, Marxism & Culture War, Media, Oh Tempora, Oh Mores, Popular Culture, That Question Again, World Affairs
On 22 July, 2011, Israel commemorated the 65th anniversary of the King David Hotel’s bombing in Palestine, by exploding bombs in Oslo, killing 8, and shooting dead 69 on Utøya Island. Israelis picked Norway for the celebrations because she had increasingly become sympathetic toward Muslims and in favor of a Palestinian State. Professor Ola Tunander concurred that only a State-level entity equivalent has the capability of pulling off such an operation, and this wouldn’t be the Norwegian administration slaughtering relatives on Utøya Island. Tunander knows Israel did it, but to avoid the heat, hinted at it, saying that some have suggested it was Israel’s handiwork. Given Tunander’s academic credentials, the mainstream media decided to keep Tunander’s analysis and the Israeli condemnation of it out of the Anglosphere.
At first it wasn’t clear whether the mysterious individual blamed for the attacks, Anders Behring Breivik, was a scapegoat or patsy. But the cues were there though overlooked by many. One clue was Anders Breivik’s amazing beard, capable of changing within seconds.
Posted by R-news on Sunday, July 22, 2012 at 01:35 PM in European Nationalism, Far Right, Global Elitism, Liberalism & the Left, Marxism & Culture War, Media, New Right, Political analysis, Popular Culture, Psychology, Social liberalism, That Question Again, White Nationalism, World Affairs
ZionCrimeFactory, one of the people behind the prothink network I recently promoted, has taken issue with the claim that international bankers funded Hitler and the NSDAP into power. He said:
Let’s look at the matter.
Posted by R-news on Wednesday, July 11, 2012 at 11:10 PM in Economics & Finance, Marxism & Culture War, National Socialism, Political analysis, Revisionism, That Question Again, World Affairs
In response to the steadfast support for homosexual marriage from the Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, a DT thread-jockey named Hugh of Oxford offered the following gut reaction:
As so often with gut reactionaries, good instincts are liable to run out into sketchy assumptions at the slightest test. A homosexual who regularly pops up to debate his special interest on the DT threads responded with “How?”. Hugh did not answer. But any Salterian could have, and one did:
The response to this line of argument was, rather surprisingly, not that genetic interest is voodoo, which was how mention of it was received a few years back, but that the perception among sexually whole people that marriage has been violated and made cheap by its homosexualisation is just conjecture. The GI element may be becoming more workable in political discourse - something we used to say could never happen because of its abstruse nature.
In recent days there have been around a dozen opinion pieces at the Telegraph site addressing the Catholic Church’s defence of marriage from the trespasses of “gay rights” activism. I’ve participated in a few of the threads (plus one at the Indy which had to be taken down, so shocking is it to the fastidious liberal to encounter opposition).
My usual argument was that the female demand for male fidelity (monogamy) is a European sociobiological trait, so the protection and preservation of marriage as the most efficacious form of monogamy (for raising well-adjusted offspring able to make adaptive life-choices) is a highly important interest for our people. The effect of its homosexualisation would be to reduce it to the status of a mere lifestyle choice – even more than it is already. Young women, in particular, would no longer find in it that idealisation of love, sex and family which has drawn them up the church aisle, on their father’s arm, for centuries.
Plainly, homosexual activists are not open to conservative or religious argument. Even the two most reasonable who did briefly acknowledge that there are more important things to society than homosexual equality never followed that line of reasoning through to its natural conclusion. The rest of them - and there was an impressive number of homosexuals and leftists commenting on these threads - were hermetically sealed away from all reason. They denied outright that the homosexualisation of marriage will have the slightest impact on its status. But the quality of their advocacy generally – it’s arrogance and smugness, its frequent recourse to insult, its hatred of the Church and the Vatican, its refusal to acknowledge any merit in opposing arguments (some of which were unanswerable) – leaves one with precisely the impression that these people will sully and wreck whatever they touch. The repute of marriage, already in decay, will never recover while they use it to prove their normality to themselves - which is all they are interested in.
It was my intention to go through some of the threads and pick out their more interesting arguments. I have tried. This is the result, and it’s not much because there isn’t much that can be used:
None of these remarks was made to me, incidentally. I have not selected them because they contain insults. They are merely representative of the quality of thought that, apparently, goes on in homosexual circles. Yet these creatures are winning their war for the right to marriage. Obviously, the reason for that lies elsewhere than in their ability to set out their case, which has no merit whatsoever.
by Graham Lister
If there was no difference between essence and appearance, there would be no need for science. - Karl Marx.
- from “Karl Marx’s Theory of History – A Defence” by G.A. Cohen.
Let the discussion on ‘top-down versus bottom-up’ processes in the world of ideas and ideology begin.
Note- the act of quotation does not imply approval or agreement.
Teasers aside, here’s my review of 2083: A European Declaration of Independence, and more. I’m not posting it below because I intend to revise it.
NO OFF-TOPIC COMMENTS, please, and stick to the facts and fact-based inference.
Posted by J Richards on Monday, September 5, 2011 at 08:18 PM in European Nationalism, Far Right, Islam & Islamification, Marxism & Culture War, Media, Political analysis, That Question Again, White Nationalism, World Affairs
Two days ago the Times Literary Supplement carried the response of Starkey’s academic peers, or at least one hundred and three peerless advocates of progressive thinking. Their letter takes the view that, as a “historian of elites” but not “race and class”, Starkey was the wrong man for the job of debating negro life:
What they don’t like (but non-elitist folks do) is Starkey’s implication that a “particular sort of violent, destructive, nihilistic gangster culture” is just blacks being black, while the chavs’ immersion in that is whites being black. Which sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
I estimate that between 30 to 40% of the signatories are not of native British descent. Some are only post-grads. The prime movers appear to be Alun Munslow , who has no immediate connection to London’s black or white underclass that I can see, and Paul Gilroy, who is at least black (though a product of Stuart Hall’s Birmingham School).
The letter concludes in suitably repressive style:
Starkey will probably stay silent and rise above this challenge to his well-paid notoriety. But I suspect that in private his response might go something along the lines of:
That, too, would be all too true.
by Alexander Baron
On October 26, 2010, the headline on page 31 of the London Evening Standard read Anti-gay bullies are taught a lesson or two. This propaganda piece is about a secondary school in North London that is said to have almost eradicated “homophobic bullying” after indoctrinating its pupils with “gay” history lessons. The catalyst for this cynical piece of political correctness gone mad is revealed as the discovery by music teacher Elly Barnes that some of her charges were using the word “gay” as a derogatory term. Perish the thought. So Miss Barnes, sorry, Ms Barnes, set about instigating a scheme to “educate and celebrate” being “gay”, and of course, who better to include in this unsubtle brainwashing exercise than Oscar Wilde, who is of course pictured in the article?
The standard homo line on this degenerate and sexual predator is that he was a victim of Victorian hypocrisy who was driven to ruin by the vengeful father of his “lover”, Lord Alfred Douglas. The slightest critical examination of the undisputed facts of this sordid affair expose this for utter cant, and reveal clearly that Wilde was the author of his own misfortune.
Why anyone should consider Wilde to be any sort of icon remains to be seen, least of all a “gay” one, because in spite of his penchant for both the company and debasement of younger men, he was not strictly speaking homosexual.
From Forbes 9/27/2010. The entire article is available online.
Critiques have consequences. Right now the greatest superpower on Earth, the United States, is faced with fundamental questions about its existence that it just can’t answer. What are we? Who are we? What should our strategic goals be? What are the fundamentals of our culture? All of these questions in my opinion are iterations of the first one: what are we? No satisfactory answer is forthcoming or can be agreed upon.
It is possible to intuit how an entity subject to such mass confusion cannot possibly continue to exist, but rather appears to simply be waiting on a series of transformations which will alter it beyond recognition. This is because an entity that doesn’t understand what it is, cannot maintain itself against the forces of entropy which, necessarily, will pull and push and work on it. Our predecessors in the 60s, 70s and 80s laid the cultural foundation for this dissolution of nationhood. In the late 70s, 80s, and 90s the resulting anomie began to have obvious consequences for the structural aspects of national existence - of which I would mention Ponzi economics and the dumbing down of school curricula and pop culture. Today the only thing that is sure is that the knock-on effects and unintended consequences of these mass movements are likely to carry us past several consecutive points-of-no-return, into a reality unmapped, unplanned, and given what little we can foresee of it, likely very dangerous.
To think, it may one day all end in nuclear war.
(If you have quibbles with the articulation of the preamble, I ask you to holster them, on the grounds that I wish to discuss something besides The General State of Things And How We Got Here)
Probably the most important causal strain underlying this cultural transformation was an act of intellectual warfare summarized in Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique. The perpetrators of these acts answer to the names of Cultural Marxism, Critical Theory, the Frankfurt School, and Boasian Anthropology.
Its quite remarkable to experience how these understandings, having trickled-down into knee-jerk reactions of even the intellectual proletariat, infuse every discussion. As Jonathan Bowden put it, they “permeate the ether”. The conclusions and tactics of these critiques have become some of the only common threads of our intellectual discourse, and an unconscious intelligenzia has busily spun itself a whole new cultural tapestry using them as a basis. The more people borrow their thoughts from the hive-mind, the more this ideational lattice-work appears to be independently rediscovered as an underlying facet of reality itself. Of course the observer is pointing to a reality that he himself has unconsciously structured and is calling it “World!”, as is par for the course with us, but it demonstrates that the battle which we lost was, first of all, an intellectual one.
Finally, I have found a picture of I Bismuth, and he looks like this. I can also reveal that when he gets some time away from the department, he works for that fine body, the Institute of Race Replations, vibrantly led and staffed as it is. No cause for righteous complaint there.
In any case, the IRR has surpassed itself today by releasing its latest exposé of dark and unacceptable doings in the sheep- and cow-plagued, too unBrixton-like and too too green English countryside:
On its tatty little website there is a page about the history of the IRR. Cogniscenti of anti-white institutional funding will recognise the names there. I would like to think that Osborne’s budgetary constraints could put an end to this repulsive little hate-fest. But the IRR has been sponging off Money since 1952, so I doubt it will disappear now. Bismuth is hard to kill.
A commenter by the philosophically respectable if possible unsuitable name of Zarathustra asked a question on my Black Cab II thread which, whilst it is undoubtedly tawdry and boring, does deserve some elucidation. And not only from me. It seems to be addressed to everyone who reads this and is not already really, really convinced that negrifying the European genepool and filling up our living spaces with total aliens is not a Wholly Good Thing.
Here it is:
One is bound to ask who, in 2009, still doesn’t know that “diversity” “enriches” no one? Who doesn’t know that blacks fail educationally a little too often, or that the danger of violence is always heightened amid black populations? Who doesn’t know that Jews are powerful and extremely self-interested?
Well, officially everybody. And after all, the official version is the only version that counts.
Officially, we live, all of us, in the land of the blind. The great prepronderance of those around us accept that they are supposed to be blind, and fight off awkward enquiries with a mortified urgency. But such willingness to put out one’s own eyes is based in fear, of course. The most fearful are also the most sincerely convinced. There are those who take as their own the descriptions of the world given them by others. They believe truth to be lies, and the blindingly obvious to be immoral. They are not free to think, for they do not begin thinking from the right, but from anything but the right.
Today, The Independent produced a hate-scribble titled “Racist rants of elected BNP man, Andrew Brons, revealed”.
These are the “hugely controversial positions” that Mr Brons and the NF advocated.
1. The NF rejects the whole concept of multiracialism. The NF believes the gradual dismantlement of the apartheid system since the passing of the Race Relations Act in 1976 to be retrograde. The alternative to apartheid, multiracialism, envisages an extinction of the White man.
2. The NF recognises inherent racial differences in Man. The races of Man are profoundly unequal in their characteristics, potential and abilities. Europeans have a greater cognitive ability than non-whites.
3. The UK has been swamped by racially incompatible Afro-Asians.
4. Black muggings of White people, especially elderly ladies, occurs regularly.
6. One ethnic, national and religious group whose power and influence has undoubtedly increased has been the Jews.
7. A number of predominantly Zionist organisations control government.
8. It can be no mere coincidence that the number of people of Jewish ethnic origin to be found in internationalist and multiracialist schools of thought and organisations of action is out of all proportion to their numbers in the population.
Shock horror, it’s all here. The drastic effects of immigration on the native British, the issues of black violence and criminality, black IQ, the Israel lobby and the wider Jewish Question ... these are the holy of holies of thought police everywhere. In a free land of free-speakers they should be the litmus test for the health of the polity. But this ain’t a free land, and by finding Brons’ list “hugely controversial” in 1983 when it wasn’t, and when academic political correctness had not yet crossed the pond eastward from America, The Independent demonstrates the completeness of its slavery to the Lie Machine.
Yet despite all this, there is that feeling of fragility to the whole enterprise. The moment when the image of a Marxised life arose in radical opposition to life itself was a long time ago now. No one loves thought control. Nothing so man-made and so damned offensive can last forever. Official discourse is already vitiated and devalued. It has become too embarrassing and too cognitively dissonant for politicians to “celebrate diversity”. It is inevitable that, united in their inability to swallow the customary forms of lying and living in lying, people will rediscover their fearlessness and their freedom.
The only question is when.
This is the pilot episode of a new series of posts where rival Jewish theoreticians go head to head in a blood-and-guts extravaganza like nothing else you’ve ever seen! Its incredible, its shocking - at the end of the fight, only one theoretician will be left standing!!! Are you ready?
In the far corner, weighing in at 190 lbs not including the facial hair, German jewry’s gift to Eastern Europe’s smart fraction: KAAARRLL MAAARX!
In the near corner, the reigning champion, 167 lbs of pure Jewish Freedom: LUDWIG VON MISES!!!
LET’S GET READY TO RUMBLE!!! (cue music)
And they’re off! - Mises starts off with a critique from his essay, Marxism Unmasked (pfd). He describes Marxist theory in outline.
Its categorically impossible for one historical figure to reply to refutations of his theory which come into being a century after his death! Accordingly, Marx is just standing there, as Mises continues to pummel him with critique. This could get gruesome, folks …
By a Finn
I wrote this text originally as a short comment on Social construction, and its structure reflects that. I was asked that this text would be lifted to main-log form. My acceptance and the text’s present position does not in itself refer to agreement or disagreement with any of the opinions or texts on this site.
This text is about a specific part of Social construction theory, that which is most relevant to pro-Europeans. I develop the theme from part to part. My intention in this post is not to claim that all Social constructionists use their theory to it’s limits (although many have done so). My intention is to define Sc’s abilities and moral “boundaries”.
The information refers to those leftist intellectuals who understand their ideology, not to the useful idiots or emotional hang arounds.
¤ Social construction theory (Sc), although it is often dressed in universal altruism, is in reality one of the most efficient method of acquiring selfish political power to those intellectuals who are skillful in it.
¤ In power games truth, scientific knowledge etc. are often unimportant. For example, an emotional, scientifically false theory about “political time” might be more efficient in a power game than scientific truth about “time”. In it’s starting point, Sc gives equal value (partly overlapping) to objective, subjective, natural, artificial, socially-constructed (i.e formed in people’s interactions/thoughts), physical, real, unreal, and imagined information, among others. Any of these could be in some situation useful in gaining power. In reality though, Sc is heavily weighted away from natural, objective, common sense, scientific knowledge. This is because such knowledge is generally fairly static and immutable, and is the knowledge of normal, non-Sc people, and therefore the base of their power. Political power is obtained most efficiently when there is great latitude in the information used, which gives larger possibilities in the political game. It creates dialectical or multi-dimensional contradictions and distances between the existing information of the rulers and it’s Sc opponents. These contradictions and distances can be utilized in countless of ways in obtaining power - whatever is propitious in a given situation. Sc chips away at the rulers’ power constantly in small or bigger ways, and channels that power to itself. If Sc would agree with the information of the rulers, it’s political possibilities would be severely limited.
¤ Sc creates contradictions mainly in the following categories: space (free, limited, taxed, large, small, publicly produced, privately produced, coded entrance, constricted, wide, polluted, clean, living space [e.g. apartment houses], commercial space, crowded, empty, natural, artificial, etc.), language (words, sentences, texts, political, meaningless, scientific, subjective, objective, economy related, language upholding the power structures, powerless, desperate, poverty related, sexual, heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, dialects, languages of different ethnicities, advertisement and marketing, cultural, movie language, language in everyday situations, etc.) who is the actor (humans, machines, systems, natural laws, economic laws, market place, rulers, subjects, slave owners, slaves, scientists, lay people, producers, service producers, farmers, skilled workers, officials, man, woman, masculine, feminine, majority, minority, intelligent, wise, stupid, ignorant, progressive, reactionary, native, immigrant, virtuous, evil, moral, immoral, new, old, young, elderly, etc.), time. I give a list:
All these and their constituent parts can be analyzed and combined in dialectical or multipart wholes (parts can oppose, strenghten, harmonise, contradict, coordinate, synchronize, interrupt, prevent, accelerate etc. each other) in ways that produce the most efficient political results.
¤ Because according to Sc almost everything is socially constructed this gives it’s proponents a power that supersedes the power of “gods” and high priests. Two examples:
a) The function of the heart is, according to Sc, socially constructed no matter what medicine, evolutionary biology or other sciences say about it. This means that the function of the heart, in addition to pumping blood, could equally be determined to be giving rythm to drums, or to die (John R. Searle, The Construction of Social Reality).
b) Science proves that there are differences between races and ethnicities, but socially constructed political correctness (in everyday language, science, media etc.), affirmative action, redistribution of wealth, socialism, soft totalitarianism, free speech monitoring and suppression, etc. win out over science and reality. Thus is constructed the reality that Sc intellectuals want, and which gives them large political power.
¤ Sc also gives other advantages ... or “advantages”. It is complex and counterintuitive, and this serves to strengthen the Sc intellectuals’ in-group definition, its boundaries and exclusivity, reducing the possibility of free-riding and outside infiltration (e.g. since conservatives regard Sc as non-scientific, not sensible, in fact stupid, this reduces the possibility of infiltratration by them. On the other hand Sc intellectuals infiltrate conservative groups and institutions eagerly and without compunction).
When Sc compels it’s political subjects to declare as “true” things they know to be false, stupid and detrimental to them and their group, this emasculates them psychologically, strenghtens the smothering power of Sc intellectuals and makes their subjects psychological slaves.
Studying and applying Sc includes elements of simpler repeats, so giving it rituals. These move it towards psychologically permanence, exact certain costs and thus reduce free-riding, help to memorise essential “slogans” (thereby giving practical operating instructions), define the in-group/out-group further, etc. Constant repeating of the “racism” trope in different contexts, ways and intensity is one example. The r-word is a political invective, not a definition of something. If somebody foolishly accepts it is as a defining word for himself, he will be forced to explain it away: “I am a racist, but ...” Real definitions don’t require that.
Sc gives a license, moral or practical, to do anything, i.e. to construct almost any reality; lie, cheat, murder, infiltrate, extort, to be immoral, make revolutions, rob, etc. And not only that, it gives the possibility to mass murder and genocide, and regard it as an act of loving kindness towards all humanity. For example, Finnish stalinists (taistolaiset) and many other cultural marxists, beginning in the sixties and seventies, regarded Stalin’s actions as morally good and loving towards all humanity, enlightened, progressive, etc. They said that the Soviet Union’s weapons are “Weapons of peace and progress” (this was also the official policy of their peace movement). They said that communists’ wars (i.e. brutal and selfish wholesale murder, torture, rape and pillage to gain political power) are “Altruistic acts towards the betterment of humanity” and “Romantic and exciting, like a love affair”. On the other hand they said that “Western weapons and wars are brutal reactionary acts of aggression and suppression” and “Selfish capitalists’ wars of exploitation”.
The Sc gives licence to use any need, aspiration, stupidity, knowledge, emotion, group, system, dependence, etc. of the people as a vehicle to power.
In short, the Sc is a secular selfish power religion.
It is necessary to pro-Europeans to study and learn from it and use it, but not, of course, the anti-human elements of it.
Jonathan Bowden speaking to the New Right in London
White Genocide Project
Also see trash folder.
Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.
Endorsement not implied.
Nationalist Political Parties
Whites in Africa