Category: Political Philosophy
It is clear that Jewish planners take concepts and terms that would be helpful to our group organization and well being, then reverse, distort beyond reason or confuse the meaning that the terms would signify in appliication to Whites.
I’ve discussed this before but how their deception functions on two levels to our detriment bears farther differentiation.
The two levels of deception are well captured in the analogy that misrepresentative terms are like “red capes” to the charging bull.
They have right-wing White Nationalists charging after the false represenation on the level of the misrepresentative term.
At the same time WN become turned-off or hostile to the underlying idea which would be good for them/us.
1. “The” Left misrepresented as universal liberalism applied to Whites is the most fundamental “red cape.”
The underlyig idea of the left is social unionization. There are people in the union and people out of the union, therefore it cannot be universal or liberal. On the contrary. In fact, Jewish interests do not apply it as universal except to Whites.
This causes WN to chase this “red cape” of “The” Left which is really imposed liberalism upon them.
At the same time, because of the perversion of the term and abuses of Whites that go on under this false rubric, Whites become repulsed and in fact fight against what is the most important underlying social organizing concept [for group defense, accountability, agency, warrant, our human ecology]: the unionization of our peoples. It would keep an eye on the most dangerous traitors, elite ones, while keeping rank and file Whites accountable and incentivized to participate.
All of the usual Marxist and other Jewish distortins such as abolition of private property, communal child rearing, race and gender blurring, no free enterprise that would create weath for the industrious and innovative, etc. would be set aside as Not representing the “White” left.
There would not be an imposed economic class diivision in a White Left, but rather the nation of people would be the class.
In subjecting us to the red cape of “The Left” misrepresented as universal liberalism as applied to Whites and altercasting us as “the right”, we develop Cartesian anxiety for our Augustinian nature, and desperately adopt objectivism to the extenet of reaching for unassailable warrant. This has the effect of taking us beyond accountability to our relative, social group interests. It makes us look and act less humanely. It scares our own people; and makes us easy to defeat as we are disorganized in obsolete philosophy.
2. Equality: Chasing this red cape really makes WN look bad, as they argue for inequality. It casts discourse in elitist and conflictual terms straight-away; more, it is not accurately descriptive as it relies on false comparisons.
The underlying concepts that YKW are trying to divert WN from grasping is the disposition to look first for qualitative sameness and difference. Within and between social paradigms there can be logics incommensurate to comparison but nevertheless amenable to symbiotic, non-conflictual functions, particularly if those respectful terms are invoked.
3. Social Constructionism and Hermeneutics: These concepts devised to counteract Cartesion runaway and facilitate systemic homeostatis instead have been misrepresented by Jewish interests with the red cape distortion that people and groups can just be whatever they imagine they might construct of themselves. The lie persists that these concepts are anti-empirical and anti-science. On the contrary, these ideas are meant to enhance and make more accurately descriptive the conduct of science and reality testing. With that, they serve to correct bad science (the kind that anti-racists would espouse as well), i.e., “scientism”, and myopic focus on narrow units of analysis only, such as the individual strictly, moment or episode, to the detriment of the broad view on systemic homeostasis.
Their red cape over these terms is a reversal of the whole anti-Cartesian program that these concepts are meant to correct. Indeed, anti-racism is Cartesian.
However, for the massive perversion and misrepresentation of these concepts they have turned-off Whites and in fact have them arguing against the valuable underlying concepts which in no way deny physical and social constraints to free choice but nevertheless would facilitate coherence, accountability, agency and the warrant of our race to exist: That is what we seek in rigor - warranted assertability.
Social constructionism and hermeneutics proper facilitate that. Jewish interests with their red cape distortions do not want you to have that.
As is the case with “Pragmatist” philosophy, you can tell if you are chasing the red cape if you have to put the word “mere” before what those presenting the concept are saying: viz., it is a “mere” social construct or it is “mere” pragmatism.
4. Post Modernity: Jewish interests know that modernity by itself is viciously self perpetuating, paradoxic, impervious and destructive to healthy traditions and forms; whereas post modernitiy properly understood allows us to take the best of modernity and time tested forms and ways.
The red cape misrepresentation is a “dada” definition (or non-definition, as it were) of post modernity as opposed to a deliberate and thoughtful management of modernity and traditional forms and ways.
5. Multiculturalism and diversity: Jewish academics have reversed these terms to where outside groups are introduced to one another in order to blend away and subvert healthy, managed differences within and between groups. Then again, to chase the red cape and argue against the terms is to argue for integration with outsiders, e.g., non-Whites.
6. “Marginals” is a concept that goes along with hemeneutics and group maintenance; Jews have set up a red cape of presenting “marginals” as those outside the group with the intention of their being agents of change in overthrowing group homeostasis.
Chasing this red cape has WN arguing against humanitarian outreach to those within the group but most at risk to non-Whites; our marginals potentially have the greatest incentive to see to it that the White ecological system is maintained; they can lend perspective, feedback and accountability. It is important to note that one can be marginalized for being exceptionally talented and intelligent as well.
7. Hippies and the Sixties: These terms have been misrepresented as synonymous for White men being responsible for the Jewish radicalism of sexual revolution and black civil “rights”, viz. prerogative over Whites.
Chasing this red cape is a diversion from the call for a reasigment of White men as having intrinsic value - Being - as opposed to being expendible in wars not of the bounded interests of our people; as opposed to chasing the red cape of universal traditional manhood in service of a universalizaing religoius ideal, international corporations, oligarchs and the YKW; and in charging this red cape, the intrinsic value of White people overall, as the unit to be defended, is argued against - WN are arguing against our own deepest interests again, against the warrant to exist. The very thing we need most is prohibited by a Jewish language game in which they form coalitions with black power, feminism AND misinformed traditional women, to deny our being, our reality, value and warrant to exist in midtdasein - the non-Caresian being there* amidst our people.
* or “being of”, as GW prefers.
8. Social justice warriors - of course those doing the Jews’ bidding are not pursuing true social justice, but to argue against the term, “social justice warrior”, is to fall for the masters of dscourse’s red cape once again.
Unlike right-wing of WN, I’m not chasing the red cape of Jewish twisted terms, I’ve gored the sucker through the mouth.
We are the White justice warriors and I invite you to join me in some bull-steak now that we’ve sorted away the bullshit…
Posted by DanielS on Monday, June 29, 2015 at 10:49 AM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Crusade against Discrimination in Britain, European Nationalism, Far Right, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, Journalism, Liberalism & the Left, Linguistics, Marxism & Culture War, Political Philosophy, Popular Culture, Psychology, Social Sciences, That Question Again, The American right, White Genocide Project, White Nationalism
No, not a commitment to the14 Words, but evergreen news of dedication to Israel:
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, June 14, 2015 at 04:32 AM in Activism, Jewish Diaspora, Military Matters, New Right, Political Philosophy, U.S. Politics, War on Terror, White Nationalism, World Affairs
This clip (courtesy of Stan Hess) emerges most pertinent in light of Jewish crypsis; along with their twisting and corruption of terms by which we might otherwise organize and understand our people’s interests - as opposed to Jewish influence:
This is a crucial distinction to hold-up against the games they will continue to play with our terminology - and an example of those manichean language games comes with the latest Stark broadcast: http://www.starktruthradio.com/?p=1319
With Jewish “Haywire”
Rather, The Lies Will Try to Live ...by infiltrating our interests.
These two try to pawn themselves-off as ‘Alternative Right, right-wingers”...with upstart they say that “THE Left is the establishment.”
(the White Left is the establishment? don’t think so):
Jews do not want us to be a White Left. The reason that they do not want that is because it is our best outlook - an orientation which, together with sufficient anarchy, allows for our coordination and strategic evasion of their infiltration. This capacity to evade their infiltration is facilitated by coordination not merely by place but by language - that is why the terms are so important. Shared terminology serves to coordinate our people wherever they might be while at the same time allowing for sufficient anarchy to evade infiltration, counter our enemies and counter corruption - especially tactical in the clear terminological position of a White Left, its eye on elite betrayal and “scabbing” - i.e., any attempted entry into our “union” by non-Whites.
Sure, these Jews are “the Right ..like reading Spengler and Evola”…just so wild and crazy…“but we’re appealing to the ‘New Generation”...Haywire says, “we’re so ‘in touch’ with the new cultural zeitgest of THE RIGHT.”...er, Mulatto Supremacism
“The Left is the establishment”...Jews are just such rebellious trend setters..
“I was at a conference with Richard Spencer and Paul Gottfried..
...I’m really not interested in race…
I want to create a ‘new species” - read, Mulatto Cyborg...
Haywire continues: “I’m not really into the race thing, ‘race’ is a mental thing…
On to the matter of looking at us:
Where Lies Don’t Try to Live by crypsis, controlling the narrative, twisting our organizational language games, by infiltrating and misdirecting interests, they might just as well be served by provoking misdirection of our own, to where we are fighting our own. Rather than fighting non-Whites, in a manner perhaps such as this:
As opposed to other right-wingers with whom he may associate and even endorse, just why Ransdell is unoffensive by comparison is beginning to crystallize..
First, contrasting his Rockwell influence..
Rockwell frequently talked about the black issue and the black plague of race-mixing without fretting the rigid paranoia that this was “distracting from the J.Q.”
And who was Malcolm The Tenth anyway? - he would be introduced to American audiences by The Hate that Hating Whites Produced - narrated by Mike Wallace, it was a seminal Jewish documentary instigating blacks to riot and violence against Whites.
An artist / pr man is better suited for a view and treatment of Praxis - negotiating the fluid, reflexive, social interactive world with practical judgement as opposed to rigid scientific instrumentation; and laws - “Our purpose is the Creator’s purpose” ?
Of course “our purpose” should be serving the interests of our race. I’m sure Pierce would have believed that, but he may have wanted to base it more absolutely on scientific law than it could be.
Scientists are indispensable of course, for supplying rigorous information on specifics and broad generalities beyond casual purview, providing critical tools for rhetorical support for what is in fact the appropriate, “human-sized” (scaled) social perspective by which the social artist may dramatize and complete a vision.
But as one might say of Renegade and Daily Stormer, it is not enough to be an artist, one must be a good artist, reflecting good judgment - not always the case in WN.
Typically of the right, Andrew Anglin was one to range from being soft on blacks to showing outright affinity for them until he calculated that normal White men don’t like blacks and despise miscegenation. But this was only a calculation by Anglin, not the feeling the comes from trustworthy interest and concern for Europeans broadly, judging from important difference.
While we need some posture and people who display the power of not being perturbed by these matters, to where they can easily mock them, I will speak for myself, confident that other White men also despise people who try to sell the attitude of studied detachment as the one for our race in general - soft-selling blacks and race-mixing, saying that talking about these issues is a waste of time or a distraction from
If the word “monocausal” regarding the JQ is going to provoke a paranoid response then how about, irresponsibly “single-issued” and correspondingly inauthentic by way of an irresponsibly narrow platform of response. “With Jews we lose” isn’t the same as saying “only Uncle Adolf and nobody should be critical of him; he’s perfect, didn’t do nothin” or “Only NW Europeans, all others be subordinate, be damned and go to Africa.”
Even if he was done-in by a Greek and it bespeaks a little less social aplomb than I may see in him, one nevertheless gets a sense of general goodwill from Rockwell toward his fellow Europeans - I get a sense that his initial inclination toward all of them was friendly, whereas Pierce was rigid.
Coming from Rockwell’s context, even the swastika isn’t offensive. One gets an underlying sense of irony, humor, playfulness of his social artistry and theatrics - that the swastika is not the literal issue, underneath that is the real issue - defense of European peoples. Rockwell almost certainly could have been persuaded that Eastern Europeans and Southern Europeans were European as well, satisfied by an agreement to maintain distinctions where one could potentially mix away the other to its demise.
On the other hand, even though HE DID NOT wave the swastika around, one gets the sense from Pierce that that was literally the thing.
In the influence of Rockwell as opposed to Pierce, we have a clue as to why Ransdell bespeaks practical judgment (phronesis) and good will to all concerned Whites, while those beholden to Pierce’s worldview cling rigidly to Hitler’s conflicted, quarter Jew perspective, determined singularly to defend his mother against Jewish assault, with little, or only condescending empathy for Europeans beyond Germanics.
Perhaps I’m being a bit naiive about Rockwell. He was probably a bit rigid too, just not as much as Pierce. The fact that Rockwell was killed by a Greek does say something (perhaps a bit too willing to throw other Europeans under the hate bus?, I don’t know the situation well enough to say).
Perhaps Ransdell will turn out to be one, like Kyle Hunt, who cares and sympathizes only for Hitler’s view and issues in the end.
Still, one can’t help but see better prospects in reasoning with the Rockwell / Ransdell trajectory than the Pierce / Hunt trajectory. For the latter, it is apparently about redeeming Nazi Germany and its scientistic “naturalism”. For the former it is apparently more about our race.
We do hate race-mixing
It’s hard to take Rockwell’s antics too seriously. These were largely publicity stunts; the map was not the territory; it is evident that he could see more than one side. “You want integration? OK, lets have integration!” He proceeds to have his Nazi-clad men make themselves comfortable in a synagogue (LOL). On the other hand, one does not get a sense of humor, irony and underlying good will from Pierce. That is not to say that Rockwell was not seriously committed to some mistaken ideas, but one got a sense of a character more amenable to negotiative correction for having a better feel of Praxis.
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, June 2, 2015 at 02:12 AM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Free Speech, Global Elitism, Humour, Jewish Diaspora, Marxism & Culture War, New Right, Political Philosophy, Popular Culture, Race realism, That Question Again, The American right, White Nationalism
26 May 2015 at 10:32 am
It isn’t my bugbear. I advocate all Europeans and recognize the obvious fact that he cannot be a unifying figure, but will be divisive and unnecessarily so - those people who think we need him are tediously oblivious to the obvious (you call my irritation with their idiocy my “bugbear”). It is rather their teddy bear, their security blanket, their pacifier and surrogate daddy. It is not too much to expect White advocates to have the respect to recognize him as having made bad us/them distinctions, to relegate him to history as pejorative on balance as such, not to be held up in sought-for redemption.
Daniel Antinora, as he would, agrees with Tan’s psychologizing and slips in a plug for Jesus:“yep, Too bad he ruined Majority Rights over that and Christian metaphysics instead of starting his own website.”
To which I say, Daniel A, Bullshit. It is an infinitely better site without Jesus freaks and those who insist upon trying to redeem Hitler.
Good riddance to you.
He quotes me: the problem is that Hitler also made Slavs of nations to his east into enemies. He wasn’t an advocate of all Whites in defense against Jews, simple as that.
Then Tan says:
You may think that you can read my mind but I have forgotten nothing of the kind. You are far from a mind reader.
Further, you say, “You think Hitler was bad for the Slavs. Again, that’s not how I see it?” Was he being good to Slavs? Sure. He was being good to the Greeks too. So good for everybody he turned-out to be.
No it doesn’t. Perhaps you aren’t as smart or as honest as I had thought. “All the rest stems from”...do you see his computer training as it causes him to try to trace a single cause…to a thing, by the way, which I never said - “judeo-boshevism came before Hitler.” - let alone maintain over and against seeing Jews as an antagonistic group, not in part, but on the whole.
I’m over it man. Associate with all the right-wing asses that you want; just wanted to say my bit as you are a part of a struggle that pretends to advocate all Europeans, and you cannot in that way.
Now calm your psychoanalytic babbling Tan, and read what I say:
Not that computer training is the only thing playing into monocausality or even that there is anything wrong with focusing on the Jews; but that you are taking too myopic a perspective and that (computer training) might be one factor..
For example, lets say KM wants to connect with Jarod Taylor (something I would not bother to do, but that’s not the point), let’s say KM wants to see if he can bring Taylor along to achieve more alignment and coordination, shares empathically in Taylor’s way of talking, says “yes, it’s suicidal to do this..” (all the while KM has already argued conclusively for himself that what is going on is genocide not suicide).
I’ve experienced the hair-trigger reaction by computer nerds to a social meandering too many times now, sudden conclusive reactions to innocent zig-zags and the merest theoretical ambiguity, even if a part of a process wholly intended to be corrected in fairly short order to alignment with what the nerd might wish as a result; but he will treat it (the slight zig-zag meander) rather as unbearably pernicious because it does not fit into the false either/or of his theoretical mindset misapplied to praxis: the social world, requiring negotiation, correction and adjustment by and for its interactive reflexivity and complex human agency; a complexity negotiated by means of phronesis - viz., practical judgement requiring of its kind of necessity therefore, a negotiated surveying process.
In this I am not saying Tan is crazy or applying psychoanalysis to him, I am suggesting, as per Aristotle, that he is over- or mis-applying lineal, either/or theory (which Aristotle designated “Theoria”) to the more ambiguous, interactive social world, which Aristotle called “Praxis;” which Tan and Katana might, in turn, want to call “jargon”..
or Daniel A might smear as “rationalism” bereft the salvation of Jesus “metaphysics.”
* What I mean by organization, specifically and generally, is in regard to an understanding of group and national boundaries of our people which is shared enough to be accounted-for and acted-upon.
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 01:32 AM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Far Right, Political Philosophy, Popular Culture, Psychology, That Question Again, The American right, The Proposition Nation, White Nationalism
Anti-Racism is a Jewish Construct.
Anti-Racism is Cartesian.
These are both sound aphorisms: either could be a “mantra”, with a caveat regarding mantras - that for best effect they will have to be used with discretion, changed sometimes and crafted on account of context and audience. Such is the judgement and deft rhetoric required of Praxis as opposed to the plodding imperviousness of scientism.
The two aphorisms can go well together:
Anti-racism is Cartesian, it is Not innocent, it is prejudice, it is hurting and it is killing people. Anti-racism is a Jewish construct.
The essential abstract of “race” is taxonomic classification of peoples. Locke’s Cartesian notion of civil individual rights took issue with discrimination based on social classifications. For their ethnocentric reasons, Jews weaponized this anti-classification and anti-discrimination by Whites on the basis of social classifications as “anti-racism.”
That is what it is in essence. It is true that the Jews have associated “racism” with supremacism, exploitation and genocide; but even taking away those elements, the common denominator of prohibition of discrimination based on social classifications, however benign, remains - as “racism.” Thus, David Duke is wrong (theory is not his strong suit) to campaign against “racism.” While that will gain popularity with the disingenuous and puerile, in so doing, he is reconstructing the liberal hegemony and its stigmatization of social classification for genetically conservative and discriminatory purposes. Moreover, classifications will happen whether they are acknowledged, deliberate or not, but we are much better-off rendering them consciously - as these classifications are essential to accountability and human ecological management.
Fat boy’s mantra is good too:
Whitaker’s, “Anti-racism” is a code-word for anti-White” will be effective in many instances, but in other cases will run into complications: in some cases, it will come across as a dead-ringer for subjective concern; a request for a definition of “White” can ruin the effect; it has also been criticized for having liberal underpinnings in its long form, which is true. Still, a good one if it takes into account context and audience.
Sometimes it is best to avoid the consternation of the J.Q. but rather undermine (as Cartesian disingenuousness) the underlying coup de grâce of “racism” and “anti-racism” by itself. At times, this will be even more problematic for Jews to contend with (why do you think I am so unpopular?).
Tanstaafl’s proposition of naming it a Jewish construct is important too and good to do where the audience is only slightly less primed. Because active anti-racism, as opposed to the mere “prejudice against prejudice” is, indeed, a Jewish construct. No argument.
You wouldn’t want to cut-down a rain forest would you? Then why would you want to cut-down ancient peoples of Europe?
This next one is somewhat harder to sell, but it has been a relief to me as a personal mantra and probably would be for other men as well:
To men, miscegenating women are as rapists are to women. They should be ostracized as a minimum punishment and in no way should their mixed offspring be able to participate in the resources of European men - as it makes our men servants to the worst betrayers of our 41,000 years of genetic evolution.
Anti-Racism is Genocide of Whites
...that’s a good one too.
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 04:46 AM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Free Speech, Journalism, Linguistics, Marxism & Culture War, Media, Political Philosophy, Popular Culture, That Question Again, White Nationalism
- By Dr. Graham Lister
Look, I don’t have the time or inclination to point-out the half-baked thinking of MR’s commentators or interviewed guests (if I think them to be in error). Kevin MacDonald can defend himself can he not? After all, if his ideas are completely robust how can he be subject to a ‘humiliation’? All ideas, political, philosophical and scientific, have to be stress-tested in order to investigate their validity. Why anyone is so much of a ‘special snowflake’ that they get an apriori exemption from this process is beyond me.
Now, no-one that’s sane thinks the individual per se can or should be ‘abolished’, but people have very odd and damaging ideas about what ‘the individual’ is and what it represents - such that over the longer term the ideology of ‘individualism’ has extremely deleterious effects as its model of reality is not in alignment with the true social ontology. Human beings, including Europeans, evolved in small, highly social/group orientated bands. It’s really not rocket science to understand that variation in fitness is partitioned into a group element and an individual element (whilst obviously selecting for or against specific alleles and associated phenotypic traits). In fact, such an observation mathematically and logically flows from basic population genetics, which Hamilton went on to describe as ‘inclusive fitness’ and the importance of relatedness to the evolution of behaviour and life history traits (like female biased sex-ratios in the Hymenoptera etc). Price simplified inclusive fitness theory with his work. And it’s developed since. Steven Frank’s book on social evolution is still the best starting point for anyone seriously interested in the topic.
Returning to the politics and philosophy parts of the discussion, Aristotle is my favourite thinker in these areas. First of all, he would suggest that a proper balance between the ‘parts’ and the ‘whole’ (individuals and the group) is necessary for both to fully flourish. There is a mutual interdependence and reciprocity between the two levels of social reality. Secondly, Aristotle would suggest that there may be many ways to live (like being a Lockean liberal perhaps), but many ways to live are ultimately sub- optimal with the goal of full and genuine human flourishing. And this is true at both the individual level and the group level. And yes the interests of a given individual and a given group can be conflict (again this flows from very basic evolutionary biology and the game-theoretic issue of ‘free-riders’). Thus there must be mechanisms for maintaining the health of both individuals and the collective. It starts by the recognition of the fact that the individual is social and utterly dependent upon the collective in numerous ways that liberal ‘individualistic’ ideology willfully ignores.
Ultimately, I reject liberalism as a set of false ideas about the human world - it has the ontology of humans both as individuals and as communities wrong. Bad ideas eventually result in bad consequences and one hopes vice versa. Thus, I am broadly an Aristotelian communitarian. And I think that must incorporate the realities of human nature (groupishness) and our bio-cultural differential status regarding different groups of human beings. Note, it’s a political axis of differences (bio-cultural) that ultimately ends up in the Schmittian friend-enemy distinction, not some bullshit about equality vs inequalities except that I very naturally value my own well being and life more highly than a random stranger’s and I also value the life of my extended community both today and tomorrow (the idea of an intergenerational ‘moral economy’).
Being a non-liberal, I am against cheap all-encompassing forms of universalism or the moral plateau as philosophers call it. Rather I believe in a nested hierarchy of moral responsibility. I have much more moral duties to my own children than my next door neighbour’s kids, let alone some family in China (that of course does not imply I, by default, hate people in China or wish them harm just that I feel I have minimal moral responsibilities towards them). But I do have some properly warranted moral responsibilities to my neighbourhood and my community. Moral responsibility varies with proximity (properly understood).
Roger Scruton writes about a hierarchy of moral responsibility often. Here he speaks about in the context of the absurd (and liberal) idea of ‘animal rights.’
OK, I have previously attempted on many occasions to write about and explain my thoughts on topics such as societal homogeneity and social capital etc. I will not endlessly repeat myself.
As for the idiotic, paranoid reaction by some to my reappearance, it was simply a function of me taking a quick look at MR in a quite moment and seeing folks speculation about my death! And I posted some chucks from an essay I had been reading. I am starting to get to grips with using a tablet and MR as a site isn’t the easiest to use; so out of laziness I didn’t put the comments in quotation marks. Only when someone posted them to the front page as my own did I feel duty-bound to privately point out that fact. But they’re still good points that I agree with about 90%
No coordination with Danny or GW etc. Seeing a conspiracy at every turn is how Jews think - they project onto others their own deeply ingrained mindset. It’s both pathetic and undignified to follow that way of thinking quite so slavishly.
Speaking of slaves, can anyone seriously doubt the USA is a vassal state of Israel? The best superpower money can buy? And yet Americans still persist in their hurbris that they are the model Europeans ‘must’ follow? Look, if KM or indeed anyone else is pushing that as some sort of ‘idea’ they can go fuck themselves. Savvy?
If Mr. Bowery wishes to contribute to MR go for it. Who the fuck cares either way?
Posted by Guest Blogger on Saturday, March 28, 2015 at 07:19 AM in Anthropology, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, Political Philosophy, Social liberalism, That Question Again, The American right, The Ontology Project, The Proposition Nation, U.S. Politics, White Communities & Micro-Economies, White Nationalism
I think this is rather pithy - A Word in the Ear of the Future-Seekers — Modernity is not the bridge; it is the abyss.
Fine Persecution — Every society has before it an ideal of the kind of society it ought to be, and every society, in order to uphold that ideal, needs to persecute those within it who are at odds with that ideal. Once again, however, the deep mendacity of liberalistic society manifests itself in that it denies the persecution which it carries out against its hated enemies, namely, those at odds with its ideal. This denial of the persecuted status of its enemies — along with the ridicule of them when they claim it — are additional elements for the intensifying of their persecution.
Specify, or Be Damned — Individualism does not specify itself to be in keeping with any particular society, or even with the existence of society at all, but rather it addresses itself only to an unspecified individuality. Such unspecification about what an individual should be is precisely at the heart of individualism’s boast about its being the friend and not the foe of the individual’s freely seeking to be and to do whatever he chooses. “Do what thou wilt”, it says, whereto it may add the black-box phrase, “so long as it harms none”. Now, given a teaching which says that everyone may do as he pleases, irrespective of all truth, reason, goodness, morality, tradition, authority, obedience, bonds, and so forth, “so long as it harms none”, and which, by its boasted lights, does not specify the kind of society which should be upheld, or even that any should be upheld, how is it that anyone could then come to the belief that it might after all stand as a pillar of any society, let alone a particular one, rather than being, as in truth it is, the rot upon all? One might say that here we are at the brink of sheer madness, inbequeathed through many years of listening to silly tales. But leaving aside an understanding of the teaching itself, which might conceivably have taken any name, the very name which it does carry gives us a clue to its drift, namely, that it seeks to uphold the unspecified individual, not any society, specified or unspecified.
But he who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god: he is no part of a state. 
The liberal concept of man as selfstanding being, free to set his own moral ends, is one of the biggest untruths ever told — and yet folk swallow it whole, whereat we might take it that they are greedy for something.
The conformity that is forged today through the atomized individualism that strips men of their personhood has little to do with the collective identity for which men have always yearned. The conformity today is stopgap and takeover of this natural yearning. The atomised individual is stripped bare of his humanity —which has hitherto been actualised in society —and left adrift with his “freely-formed” and “chosen” opinions, which are in truth nothing of the kind. He cannot think for himself, only of himself, as he is suffering a loss. He rebels against conformity in conformity with everyone else.
As the subversive mind is essentially individualistic and isolationistic, so is it essentially collectivistic and identitarian: on the view inherent in it, the curse of division and of being ‘set against one another’ cannot be surmounted except by a ‘fusion into one’; an actual identification of consciousness, of qualities and of interest. In fact, individualism (tending towards egalitarianism) prefigures collectivism from the outset, and again, collectivism is only individualism raised to the high power of an absolute monism centered in ‘all and every one’. 
Individualism foreshadows mass-collectivism and the herd of ersatz ‘individuals’. With authorities and societies broken down, nothing stands between pressing individual units of alienated humanity, hitherto existing as persons, into mass, each homogenised unit shaped to fit and imprinted with a set of political ideas and economic desires.
1] Aristotle, Politica, Bk.I: 1253a:28-9, tr. B. Jowett, in The Works of Aristotle, Vol.X (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1921).
Posted by Guest Blogger on Sunday, March 22, 2015 at 01:32 AM in Conservatism, Libertarianism, Political Philosophy, Popular Culture, Social liberalism, The American right, U.S. Politics
On the radio page now, Greg Johnson, editor of Counter-Currents Publishing, talks to GW and Daniel about the crisis confronting our race, about liberalism and modernity, and about Martin Heidegger, his revolutionary 1927 opus Being and Time..
For those intelligent minds inquiring without the better of academia’s time tested structures in the humanities, but only proceeding of their will to make their way through erudition from their standpoint, their penchant in Western advocacy would have us return to modernity (were it possible) and objectivism.
To the academically inexperienced and untrained advocate of Western interests there are two grand disadvantages.
First, he is not appraised of the sublime workings and analyses of these scholarly apparati as they might be applied in our interests; and secondly, what he does know and hear about them tends to be vast perversions of the notions as passed through Jewish academia and media.
The well meaning Westerner thus sets about to cure us of all this hogwash, and would unbeknownst return us to obsolete tenets of modernity and objectivism - precursors to the very afflictions to our homeostasis that he seeks to cure, such as liberalism.
To him, “objectivism” is good. “Relativism” is bad.
He does not sufficiently appreciate that the analytic framework of objectivism, relativism and subjectivism is not inherently antagonistic to Western interests. The same would apply to a myriad of terms and concepts that have been misapplied against European interests and rather stupidly taken by White Nationalists as such - inherently bad or wrong. It is a temptation and an easy mistake, but a bad mistake – as these are deliberate traps set against European interests unbeknownst to those without a privileged vantage on the working of Jewish academics over these scholarly apparati.
Let me address just objectivism and relativism briefly.
Critique of objectivism ranges from what would correctly be seen as the most brazen and vulgar Jewish sophistry to the most sublime calculations of Heisenberg or Gödel.
However, when I critique objectivism it will tend to be heard by those outside of the academic humanities as if I am disposing of the framework which has yielded such fantastic scientific advances in its entirety, as if I am a Jew looking to make rhetorical tropes the king.
The truth is that there are limits and very real problems for us as a people in the pursuit of mere objectivism. It is among the central elements of our problems.
Plato being granted some permission by Christianity, thus having gravity in our traditions, will incline many to see in this argument a stupid straw man that all is relative. That I am promoting sheer sophistry and relativism. Not. In fact, hyper-relativism is an upshot of objectivism.
On the other hand, there is an aspect of rhetoric called casuistry which has also gotten a bad name from Jewish misuse. However, casuistry proper would take into account the sublime limitation of objectivism, taking the facts yielded by its experience and inquiry indeed BUT then making the best argument that it can on the basis of those facts in conjunction with one’s interests inherently social as they are. There is no denial of facts but a prioritizing of them as they accord to human concern. That is right.
While defending our ghetto square and the merits of strengthening our grass roots community by preaching there to its choir, deepening our understanding and resolve, it seems that at this point Majority Rights could also do well with forays to visit those down some side streets - to pursue interviews not only with those who are most aligned with our views, but also to follow a path of those who might be slightly off - i.e. slightly antagonistic to our views in a somewhat liberal direction, at least explicitly, while having some implicit sympathy through connection to our square, our cause; such that MR’s platform might bring-out that connection with their underlying fairness in concern for our people and our kinds. The more public, known or respectable the person, perhaps the better. They might come to us with an intent to criticize us or save face in cover inasmuch – fine. Perhaps we can stand corrected. That’s not so much the problem as coming-up with good candidates for this kind of discussion/debate, those who may be lurking in what are the shadowy side-streets for us. Therefore the reason for this post is to ask for suggestions as to fairly prominent/respectable liberals, etc. Those fairly askance of our views, but not so antagonistic as to be futile to hope to engage. Rather to pursue those who might be ripe to debate GW or another MR representative, to at least hear-us-out. We might see where the dimly lit path takes us…
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, November 6, 2014 at 06:10 AM in Activism, Awakenings, British Politics, Conservatism, Education, Feminism, Libertarianism, MR Radio, Political Philosophy, Popular Culture, Race realism, Social liberalism, Social Sciences, White Genocide Project, White Nationalism
While distinguishing characteristics of Europeans may be the relative independence of mature individuals, sovereignty, self sufficience, autonomy and agency, can anybody really doubt that we are socially created and dependent upon cooperation to some extent and somewhere along the line? Lets not be absurd and value individualism so much as to lose its source.
As European peoples, the connections of our social systemic interdependence are protracted and delicate but as such, allow for their creative organization, coordination and the negotiation of win-win scenarios.
If both individual and our whole people are to be valued then in our separatist concern, let us finally share a narrative that honors those who harmonize our people while demonstrating effectiveness in removing interlopers and imposers upon our E.G.I.
For our tenuous but necessary social connectedness is also what allows these patterns of connection to be disrupted by hostile outsiders and the selfish, short-sighted and exploitative of our own - whether less than ordinary folks or elite.
Posted by DanielS on Monday, November 3, 2014 at 05:33 AM in Activism, Anthropology, Crusade against Discrimination in Britain, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, European culture, European Nationalism, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, Political Philosophy, Social Conservatism, Social liberalism, Social Sciences, White Communities & Micro-Economies, White Nationalism
The Apollo 11 project, which had legions of well behaved admirers who descended upon Cape Canaveral to observe its event.
Now, if we couldn’t expect hippies, not even John Lennon, to be articulate of what was important about the hippie motive how can we expect Don Black and right wing cohorts to be articulate of their motives?
Don says Timothy Leary was the poster hippie boy with the emblematic phrase, “tune in turn on and drop out.” Not exactly.
And his colleague, “Don Advo,” preferred Ayn Rand’s take on hippies in “Apollo and Dionysus,” disparaging hippies by contrast to achieving technocrats, viz. contrasting the Apollo astronauts and witnesses to the Dionysian Woodstock performers and crowd.
But whereas Any Rand’s individualist objectivism was motivated to rupture the communality and other organization of European peoples by contrasting it with “heroic” but disingenuous individualism, the hippies did have a very important motive which is continually skirted-over by those who ignore the background of The Vietnam War Draft.
In rebellion against the draft, hippies were there at Woodstock, singing..
“Well, come on all of you, big strong men, Uncle Sam needs your help again. Yeah, he’s got himself in a terrible jam way down yonder in Vietnam. So put down your books and pick up a gun, gonna have a whole lotta fun.. and its one, two, three…
What are we fighting for? Don’t ask me I don’t give a damn, next stop is Vietnam”..
“Ain’t no time to wonder why (Being, midtdasein, nah!) whoopee! we’re all gonna die!
Yeah, come on Wall Street, don’t be slow, why man, this is war au-go-go
Plenty good money to be made by supplying the army with the tools of its trade”
In all seriousness…
Their fundamental project was very significant in the advance of European peoples - a quest for midt-dasein - communal being amidst the class of one’s people for White males - as opposed to having those basic levels on the hierarchy of needs sacrificed by males in deprivation and privation; where a few males might make it through the stress to the higher reaches (often transformed into sociopaths for the effort), to the higher aims on the hierarchy of needs - e.g., exploring the moon. To where in fact, these traditional trade-offs in gender differentiation were exploited and exaggerated beyond reason.
Sacrificial White males on the way, as in Vietnam, no matter how needless, be damned.
The point is, these motives/needs should not and ultimately, in fact, cannot be mutually exclusive, but must be balanced in optimality. The hippies were not protesting the Apollo landing. They reasonably sought organicism and being in balance to technology. However, they might upset a Jew like Ayn Rand because they were insisting that the intrinsic value of White men - White male midt-dasein - be recognized, in fact its institution was/is a necessary priority.
But the hippies were inarticulate of that motive. Moreover, requisite to their motive of midtdasein was “racism” * - i.e., social classification and necessary discrimination thereof, duty when mature to guard the boundaries thereof - there is no being in one’s group without discriminating against its antagonists - ironically prohibited with the newly mis-coined “civil rights” making such requisite discrimination into a veritable taboo and largely illegal in fact. Needless to say that was hard to articulate at the time as it is still now. Midtdasein’s articulation was made yet harder by the fact that it could easily be emasculated against the traditional role/motive for males to quest after the top of the hierarchy and man-up in sacrificing the basic needs of the hierarchy. Furthermore, turning back from actualizing the top of the hierarchy apparently belied the whole American project as the “land of opportunity.” Indeed, White males would not necessarily want to sacrifice the possibility for the top of the hierarchy either. Nor would they want to sacrifice the middle - relationships with co-evolutionary women:
Articulating the motive of White male midtdasein was further complicated by its incommensurability and confusion with Jewish interests and right-wing interests - who sought to associate it with the Jewish radical agenda of Marxism: expressed as imposed liberalism for Whites but by contrast to that relaxation of vigilance, a unionized activism for non-Whites against Whites - the prim “civil rights” and upwardly black power totally incommensurate with White male midtdasein. As was Marcuse’s “free love and “poly- morphous perversion” incommensurate with White male midtdasein, especially as bounds of accountability and human ecology were ruptured as “violation of ‘civil rights”
The second wave of feminism, another thing wrongly correlated with hippies, was also in fact incommensurate, quite literally incommensurate with White male midtdasein.
In fact, it was the thesis of Betty Friedan, leading exponent of that second wave of feminism, that in order to be healthy, full and free, women needed access to the higher levels of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
It is apparent how the “high grumbles” which Maslow called higher needs on the hierarchy, and as feminists who followed Friedan’s thesis would espouse, could cause extreme friction between White women and White men, who had the “low grumbles” of not wanting to be treated as being so intrinsically valueless as to have to be subject to a draft and die in a senseless foreign war of aggression; and rather than being left alone in peace, being amidst the class of their people, were subject in still further violation thereof - violation of their freedom from association with outsiders as imposed by “civil rights” - violation of freedom from association, violation of midtdasein - taking away the most basic freedom of White men.
* Needless to say, along with hippies, Ayn Rand found “racism” appalling - disCusting!
Sometime back a fellow calling himself Lonejack agreed with my assessment:
Thank You Lonejack
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, October 22, 2014 at 10:41 AM in Activism, Anthropology, Anti-racism and white genocide, Awakenings, No particular place to go, Political Philosophy, Popular Culture, Social liberalism
I’m waiting to hear or read what’s not to like about this guy. Though I reserve the right to change my mind, and admit that I am not disposed and have not been looking far and wide for what not to like about him, from what I have heard (some interviews and some text), so far he seems alright.
Greg Johnson criticizes him for wasting his time, but I don’t see where Ransdell has said that standard political channels were the only means that he would ever seek - and it is clearly only a strategy to get heard. Moreover, he is also explicit in not recommending or insisting upon this strategy for everyone and all places.
Ok, he is associated with VNN and Stormfront, inspired by Rockwell and to a lesser extent by Pierce; there may be (probably is) some guilt by association with them and other opinions on those discussion forums; but so far, from what I have heard, he himself has not said anything that I find objectionable. It would be interesting to hear what MR readers think.
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, October 16, 2014 at 09:38 PM in Activism, Media, Political analysis, Political Philosophy, Popular Culture, Psychology, That Question Again, U.S. Politics, White Nationalism
A blog comment by Enza Ferreri prompts some thoughts on Vico. Of course I do not place comfort or credence in all of Vico’s ideas - unlike Johnson, I particularly do not find this comforting: “The idea of history going through the same stages over and over again.” Even so, I do respect Vico as the first prominent anti-Cartesian philosopher; who saw that an anti-modernist, turning and reconstructing process was implied by non-Cartesianism. However, I take a more hopeful view that we are not so determined to repeat unpleasantries - rather, we are free to act, at least having some alternative range of functional autonomy and agency to repeat healthy practices and forms of the past, while moving on and advancing to new ways where we are the better for it.
In any event, as he was the first major challenge to Cartesianism, and frequently cited as a forefather of social constructionism proper, I have long treated Vico as pivotal to sound philosophical underpinning of White/European nationalism - this article to note:
WN may be finally catching-on to these correctives of typical right-wing errors.
Greg Johnson gave a speech on Vico at the recent London Forum. In anticipation, I have already invited him to speak with G.W. or James about this in an M.R. podcast, should any party be willing. As for Enza, she can come visit my town anytime she likes..
Excerpt of Enza Ferreri’s comment regarding Greg Johnson’s speech on Vico
Greg Johnson on Vico:
A chat with Jimmy Marr following his interview by Circus Maximus reveals..
daniel sienkiewicz: nice show.
Jimmy Marr: Thanks. I knew you were listening, so I didn’t worship Hitler even once.
daniel sienkiewicz: wise guy
daniel sienkiewicz: the Irish guy was cool too
Jimmy Marr: Yeah. We kept talking for nearly an hour after the show was officially over. There were actually two Irish guys on there. Was that part audible to you?
daniel sienkiewicz: yes…and I was very pleased with what you did with Nietzsche..
... that you were taking-on scientism
daniel sienkiewicz: that it will be left to us to create what is important to value
Jimmy Marr: Oh great. I’m glad someone was out there to appreciate that. I felt like maybe I was getting too abstract.
daniel sienkiewicz: But you know Jimmy that is, in essence, social constructionism
daniel sienkiewicz: and that is not wrong.
daniel sienkiewicz: it is right.
Jimmy Marr: Yes.
daniel sienkiewicz: v good.
daniel sienkiewicz: lots of subtle ideas..I was impressed..I look forward to listening to the show a second time.
....it also clarified some of the things with “the bugs people”..fascinating..
you acquited yourself quite well, I thought.
Jimmy Marr: Great. Thank you. It was tough.
daniel sienkiewicz: you’re welcome..these things are tough…when people whose best interests you have at heart are tangled-up with antagonistic forces.
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, September 25, 2014 at 11:15 PM in Anti-racism and white genocide, Awakenings, Irish Politics, Political Philosophy, Social Sciences, White Genocide Project, White Genocide: Africa, White Nationalism
While we are (in 299 words) addressing David Duke and his single greatest cause issue - Jewish power and influence - with his admonition against their strategy of divide-and-conquer, we should ask..
Is it not possible that our traitorous White plutocrats would be happy to have us fight a war against that which is also their greatest enemy - Jewish power and biocultural patterns - and use us as cannon fodder?
What, after all, have they done for us?
What have they done to merit our loyalty?
What have they done to fight Jewish power and influence? mass non-White immigration into European peoples’ habitats? the destruction of European cultures and people?
Posted by DanielS on Friday, August 15, 2014 at 06:04 AM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Awakenings, Business & Industry, Crusade against Discrimination in Britain, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, European Nationalism, European Union, Far Right, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, Global Elitism, Globalisation, Immigration, Immigration and Politics, New Right, No particular place to go, Political Philosophy, The American right, U.S. Politics, White Genocide: Europe, White Nationalism, World Affairs
Fratricidal tendency, boding against race as a practical organizational concept, issues one of the most significant challenges to advocates of people of native European descent.
To intervene and ameliorate fraternal relations, perhaps, or to argue more thoroughly as to why race is not the proper group membership concern.
It is prima facie an acute issue to deal with and one that would require some of our top guns to handle properly - the likes of Dr. Lister and Frank Salter. Their help and more, of course, is needed in addressing this matter which we have all felt too closely to handle rationally by ourselves. What I mean by “fratricidal tendencies” is something quite general - antagonism of those closely related, ranging from irresponsible negligence to literal fratricide and war between our closely kindred people.
As we are so invested and investing in these people, the pursuit of remedy to these conflicts has created our most painful and destructive moments, where we did and gave our best to people who betrayed us - we became enemies to ourselves.
Posted by DanielS on Friday, August 8, 2014 at 03:51 AM in Activism, Anthropology, Australian Politics, Demographics, Economics & Finance, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, European Nationalism, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, Global Elitism, Globalisation, Immigration, Immigration and Politics, Marxism & Culture War, Political Philosophy, Race realism, That Question Again, White Genocide Project, White Nationalism
Calabritto, where Samnites holed-up after pilfering the Roman legions, the valley below where Spartacus led his uprising of slave forces against Rome.
As such, Post Modernity puts a halt to the impervious linearity of Modernity, which has a propensity to run rough-shod and rupture our biological systems, ways and boundaries; but as Post Modernity prompts the employment of judgment in the hermeneutic turn - with engaged, circular process of inquiry from larger to smaller units of analysis - it can use that judgment to reconstruct traditional European forms and ways; and it can also make use of the positive aspects of Modernity’s logics of meaning and action (also characteristically European), as well.
Modernity having good and bad properties for the reconstruction and growth of a people and Post Modernity as a way of managing its two sides are thus important conceptual tools for us to maintain. Nevertheless, and although Modernity has a good and a bad side, it is the bad side that is especially important for us to maintain sight-of, for its propensities to wreck us in impervious liberalization and unaccountably obliterate our “borders” - the concept of Modernity unchecked in that regard is one of our greatest concerns.
Modernity is a quest and world view stemming from western traditions of objectivity and pursuit of universal, foundational truths. It has been the most determinedly evangelical and far reaching world view that the world has ever known. While continually putting ethnic resources at risk, its pursuit has nevertheless gained consensus by yielding fantastic results of technology, scientific insight and more; translating politically in the unburdening, simplifying belief that freedom, liberalism and universal rights will progress toward foundational truths; casualties and destruction on the way are cast aside as an experimentally necessary hazard.
Given its pervasive influence and its taken for grantedness by people in general, as facticitous, “the way it is”, it is especially important to understand its logics of meaning and action correctly, including how Jewish interests, and others unconcerned for European interests, would play Modernity’s “objectivity” and other properties (e.g., passivity, as in “the suicide” meme) against us.
It is also important thus to understand how Jewish interests in particular, would distort the concept of Post Modernity, to where most people would apprehend its concern to be some sort of obfuscating Marxist ruse, a shallow “dada” movement for varieties of trivial indulgence, if not hyper-relative, polymorphous decadence.
On the contrary, Post Modernity as a project is one which corresponds with the most serious issues of reconstructing our people, literally, and maintaining them.
Moreover, because Post Modernity can view both sides of Modernity, it can allow us to not only foster but to further our people, using its positive side, where we should, without losing our characteristic forms.
The negotiative logics of Post Modernity, properly understood and managed, can allow peoples to manage and reconstruct traditional practices and time immemorial forms while availing themselves of Modernity where its “change”, “progress”, “innovation” etc., is advisable.
However, it is for its enormous power, its propensity for vast and universal reach, its impervious objectivity, its non-accountability, its obliviousness to boundaries and borders, its destruction as opposed to maintenance and reconstruction of our cultures /peoples, that accurate understanding of the pejorative side inherent in the logics of meaning and action of Modernity is most important to maintain a conceptual bead-on.
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, July 6, 2014 at 02:47 PM in Activism, Awakenings, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, European culture, European Nationalism, Political Philosophy, Social liberalism, The American right, White Nationalism
Is liberalism in my European head?
...or in interaction with social influences such as media?
Posted by Guessedworker on May 05, 2014, 12:18 PM | #
“There is no psychological immune deficiency. MacDonald made a mistake. He is a psychologist, not a philosopher. He looked in the structure of the mind for what exists in its thought. Those who have internalised it and speak from it are not to blame for their suggestibility. But nothing useful can come of a mistaken beginning.”
Posted by Guessedworker on May 06, 2014, 02:27 AM | #
“Incidentally, how does this crazed universalism of the European Mind square with the evidence for implicit racism?”
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, May 7, 2014 at 03:37 AM in Activism, Anthropology, Anti-racism and white genocide, British Politics, Conservatism, European culture, Far Right, Feminism, Political analysis, Political Philosophy, Popular Culture, Psychology, Social Conservatism, Social liberalism, Social Sciences
John Shotter’s “Social Accountability and the Social Construction of ‘You”
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, January 14, 2014 at 09:15 AM in Activism, Awakenings, Education, European culture, European Nationalism, Free Speech, Political Philosophy, Popular Culture, Psychology, Science & Technology, Social Conservatism, Social liberalism, Social Sciences, The Ontology Project, White Nationalism
I do not know the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche well, and have not read a single one of his published works from cover to cover for the best part of forty years. I do know there is a grand vision of human meaning and a narrow one of human freedom, and there is rampant purposivity as well as progressivism, and naturalism but also anti-Darwinism. There is anti-socialism, anti-militarism, anti-democratism, anti-statism in parts. There is much more than the vulgar moral framework of “god-killing” and “aristocratic radicalism”. For example, there is life affirmation. If someone asked me for an interpretation of the above quote, without telling me that it is from The Will to Power, I would say that it is about emotion in human presence and its positive perspective on the lost life that went before. Read in that way, the first and last thoughts, especially, are possessed of the same sublimity and make the same tangential approach to Truth as any metaphysical fragment in Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. It is hard to believe that someone could write in that way without knowing everything. And yet, for most thinking nationalists he might as well have never conceived of more than the “higher man” and the teleology of greatness, the life lived for glory, the life of Homo heroicas.
Here, for example, is Jonathan Bowden enunciating what amounts to the default or, a least, dominant nationalist credo:
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
The Euro-DNA Nation confronts the Wall Street Wolf
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, November 26, 2013 at 04:08 AM in Activism, Demographics, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, European Nationalism, 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
An integral case demonstrating the discourse positioning Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter as the hand of restraint and Chief Justice Earl Warren as the overly daring progressive (but still “reasonable centrist, whose position was amicably settled for by”..)
In Justice for all, Earl Warren and the Nation that He Made
Jim Newton, a revolting hack on behalf of Jewish interests at the Los Angeles Times, portrays former Supreme Court Chief Justice, Earl Warren, the prime “Activist.”
Hence, the masters of discourse have set the parameters of debate.
With that, Newton stealthily sets Frankfurter’s Jewish machinations into the taken for granted norm while representing Warren as a maverick - rather than as a reactionary dupe, steered by Frankfurter’s designs.
White Genocide Project
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