Majorityrights Central > Category: Social Sciences

   
        Toward a relative social and less sheerly objective view of our peoples
        – i.e., in terms of our interests. 2,450 words

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.

READ MORE...

Jan The White Uniter has initiated a new website and will be talking to MR soon.. 
_______________

READ MORE...

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…

READ MORE...

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.

READ MORE...

With appreciation of Dr. Lister’s recent participation, an abstract distinction re-emerges not only as potentially useful to the struggle in general, but also in explaining what may otherwise be apprehended by Dr. Lister as some of my brute efforts here at MR.

A light-bulb moment in formulating my racial activism occurred when I read a distinction which Hegel made use of, viz., that of “self transcendence vs. self assertion.”

I later came to understand that that distinction goes farther back than Hegel and tracing its history may or may not have bearing. But what does have bearing is its teasing-apart now. By its application I am not so literal minded as to limit transcendence and assertion to the self in individual interests only but rather see it as largely a matter of self assertion of one’s borrowings from the group’s genetic capacities and interests and self transcendence on behalf of, and in payment of, the group’s genetic capacities and interests for its assertion – or, crucially and mistakenly the pragmatic activist would argue, a self transcendence beyond the group’s interests. To an extent that would often be understood correctly as a mistake of European obsequiousness, whether through Nordic individualism, objectivism, Christianity, etc. or, of course, by Jewish coercion. This was one of the first, clarifying applications for me in making sense of my experience. That for whatever reason, European men were too self transcendent and needed more self assertion.

Around the same time I realized that intellectualism should not be a bad term - rather it makes use of the extant body of literature, conceptual structures and our inherited mental abilities, applying them to organize and make sense of our experience.

The frequent charge of the boring, disingenuous and ill-willed (most recently, by TD at Daily Stormer, who tried to say that I was an “intellectual wannabe” and also tried to say that I was against National Socialism – again, missing the point, deliberately in all likelihood, in claiming those terms only apply to Hitler’s regime’s distortions thereof) is “pseudo-intellectualism.”

Kievsky echoed my sentiments exactly when he made the astute observation that our enemies have weaponized the meme of “intellectualism as unmanly” among European men. My father and older brother ate that up and modeled it perfectly for me, i.e, what brute pragmatism was, making it didactic in fact, closing off other routes by their capacity to get on without conveying articulation of much broad, social sense; to where I had no choice but to take the (daunting) intellectual route as far as I could and as its utility would allow in order to extricate myself from the arbitrary confusion that is the upshot of “no-nonsense” - by which they meant, intellectual structures which served a semi-transcendent purpose of orientation, organizing and making coherent sense of self in relation to the world; or any girlish motivation to even broach such a topic. That was “nonsense” or what others would call “pseudo-intellectualism.”

What I would call the more speculative side of the hermeneutic circle.

Because my need for intellectualism was real, not a garish display, I had to keep my eye on its life-line: There is a difference between superfluous display of erudition, an obnoxious critical parsing or an honest effort to get things done - an effort which may in fact, be served by some “intellectual” abstraction or another merged with consensus and utility. I may not be the world’s most confident person and I am certainly not claiming to be among the smartest, but what I will claim in confidence is that I keep an eye on relevance; with that, whatever “intellectualism” I deploy is not for the purpose of impressing people, but for its utility in relevant aims. Anyway, if a man is not dealing with reality, then reality will take care of it, yes?

I decided that I would strive after a good balance and blend to incorporate intellectual structures where useful with assertion of self and White group interests against non-White antagonism and liberal uncaring.

My effort to blend these two things may explain why I might seem contradictory and confusing to people, but I am really not. What I am doing is the hermeneutic circle, an engaged process of critique and inquiry, which moves from more speculative attempts at comprehending group patterns – such as self transcendence and self assertion - and closer readings, such as those of genetic compatibility.

Those of bad-will, will attempt to seize upon the more speculative moments to charge me with pseudo-intellectualism, trying to seem smart, using intellectual terms and concepts for the sake of using them, not for a purpose of defending our people. Of course, that’s not true; but our enemies are our enemies, the assholes among us are assholes (such as TD).

On the other hand, I, we, go to the assertive side of the hermeneutic circle for its sundry utility: testing the speculative side’s truthfulness against the concrete moment, deploying it for the sake of getting something done (e.g., posting a guy with a sign to make it clear that Europeans with sense should agree that “with Jews we lose” - and if that does not inspire the confidence and conviction of confirming what one already knows, should cause them to verify the assertion); in short, the hermeneutic process is to manage the orientative process in relation to reality. But it is a process which requires the speculative, broader temporal and historical comprehension of the pattern as well, particularly to maintain systemic group coherence and accountability.

That is probably why our enemies are so keen for us to not have the “pseudo-intellectualism” to maintain our group orientation.

Ok, Dr. Lister may appreciate that. And for sure, I would like to have an “adult” conversation with mature and scholarly individuals such as him contributing to MR.

But when the word “adult” is used in this context, my antenna goes up that we may get fixed on one end of what should be a corrective back and forth process. The end that I am talking about not wanting to get stuck on, of course, is the self transcendent end, the one that does not test itself and assert itself against reality quite enough if it does not circle back to self assertion.

It is also a matter of assertion of the empirical end, testing and verification, so it is not, as GW might fear, a call to mere practical action.

But again, my initial critical perspective on European peoples, that they/we were having these problems (I am going back to an observation from the mid 80’s now), held that is because they/we were too self transcendent. They needed to incorporate more self assertion in terms of their group interests in particular. Now, that is not a contradiction if you recognize that the self is composed of historical/social inheritance – to be marshaled in a new and novel way, displaying agency and difference hopefully, but nevertheless.

A stark contrast illustrating this was that of blacks in their hyper-assertiveness of self and group interests as opposed to Whites in their exasperating self transcendence – imagine a White guy with a high voice saying to a nigger, “kill as many Whites as you want, take my woman and our girls for sex slaves and fuck me in the ass too!”

White men of normal instinct will not “intellectualize” and try to explain White obsequiousness away. A solid intellectual will not view this predicament as an intelligent response from Whites. But a lot of White guys will try to seem smart, tough, “above it” by “explaining” it away, and gain approval from a lot of White females for doing that.

In fact, one of the benefits of intellectualism by contrast is that one can say upon erudition that, “I am being an over-intellectualizing bag of books.”

One can do that in an instant whereas one cannot read and digest a hundred good books in an instant. Moreover, as Aristotle so correctly stated, “it takes courage to study.” To put out of mind all else that one might attend to in order to cultivate rigorous and long-term views. In line with favoring rigor against arbitrary sensibility, Kant observed that it is easier to return to one’s senses than to restore a principle.

Even so, the nagging callings back, mockery from beautiful but tattood women whose pimps make fools of us in their own way, is a call to courage as well, to practical intelligence, not just imaginative, to implement, to apply our theories in reality.

People who have been ensconced among their fellow Europeans and not forced to interact with blacks en mass, for example, may not understand the importance of asserting the word “nigger.”

If you cannot assert the word nigger you can barely think it, you can barely defend yourself with the strong assertion of the pattern of blacks to be discriminated against for the testosterone and hyper-assertiveness of a people who can assert themselves in an episode – even having our women cooing despite their marked violence - to the detriment of course, of the broader pattern of Whites, where White men shine. But if we are too timid to assert the word and think its wrong to classify them pejoratively, what might our co-evolutionary young women think?

This is why I take a step back when Dr. Lister calls for an adult conversation. I worry that we are being called into the “universal maturity” which does not take into account our more protracted rate of sexual maturity and the black’s more direct route – and the fact that they and other non-Whites obey their own relative maturity, not universal maturity. Young White men in particular need this word “nigger” to signal that they know the pattern, that they know how to counter it, that they know how the Jews are deploying them against us, and that they don’t buy it for a moment. No intellectual noodling, no logical contortions* to excuse them for imposing upon us – they are niggers. Moreover, this is a warning to White women as well. There will be no excuses. If that is what you want, you will go and live with them and the consequences of their ways. We are not going to pay for your lack of judgment, your mulatto children, the abuse of our men, their sacrificial sublimation and ancient legacy. With that comes the liberating assertion (for White male being) that miscegenation is equivalent to rape.

All this implies judgment and taste, of course. One does not go around just using this word, but will use it where necessary and effective. For the sake of practicality, one does not treat White women who betray our legacy in the way that Sharia law might, but does take measures to separate from their influence and make them pay (by banishment and cutting them off from shared resources) for the consequences of their bad judgment. We do not pay the price, they do, but they deserve respect of a fair warning, and here it is – that’s a nigger and that’s what niggers do as a very predictable pattern. Nobody is worth putting-up with it.

Along with self transcendence seems to come a secondary sex characteristic of displaying excessive logical capacity. One way of expressing excessive logical capacity AND independence that may appeal to females as display of dominance and advanced ability is the logical excusing away of non-White affliction on Whites. Moreover, the dishonesty and disingenuousness in regard to one’s group interests by self transcendent liberalism, the willingness to put other Whites below and allow them to be extinguished by non-Whites will serve the short term interests of young females. They can identify who is “strong” and “logical” in being that treacherous and independent of group cooperation. More, liberalism, as I have often noted, increases the disorder by breaking group accountability and ecology in favor of individualism, which strengthens the one up position of young females in partner selection. Male and female becomes the chief conceptual organization as opposed to race. As it gives them short term benefits,  young females will encourage liberalism and be pandered to by non-Whites (Jews especially, of course) to allow liberal males through their gate-keeping.

By none of this do I mean to be cynical of intellectualism, adult conversations or the professional contributions of Dr. Lister. On the contrary, my hope is to explain my reasoning so that he and people he might value as professional colleagues can find a way to participate. I’m willing to forgo the spitballs and the high hard ones underneath the chin (e.g., we don’t need to say “nigger” here) in exchange for a modicum of understanding – I see true intellectualism as a process embracing self assertion of group interests as well as the maturity of self transcendence on behalf of group interests.

READ MORE...

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:

Yes, The White Race Is A Social Construct (Contrary to Jewish and Right Wing Denial).

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

Vico is a 17th-18th century philosopher from Naples. Most Italians know of him and his theory of the “corsi e ricorsi storici”, or the cyclical nature of history. But he’s little known in the Anglo-Saxon world, despite having had some influence, especially on James Joyce’s books. Vico’s Scienza nuova (“New Science”) is the basis for Finnegans Wake.

The idea of history going through the same stages over and over again is very far from the contemporary view of history as progress. Vico, according to Johnson, was exceptional, in that he was the first anti-Enlightenment thinker and the only one of his time, despite being himself an Enlightenment thinker in some ways.

Vico postulated a fundamental law of historical development, that follows the same pattern by evolving through three phases: the age of gods, “during which gentile [meaning “pagan”] men believed that they were living under divine rule”; the age of heroes, when aristocratic republics were established; and the age of men, or what we may call “democracy”, “when all were recognised as equal in human nature”. Here Vico is a son of his “Enlightened” times, when he talks of the necessity to respect “natural reason” and of “the human rights dictated by human reason when fully explored”.

At that point man’s increased powers of reasoning result in a state of anarchy, when everybody considers himself his own ruler and only looks after his own pleasure and short-term interest. Sounds familiar? It must do, because it’s a fairly accurate description of what we are going through now, a description which will become even more faithful as decades, nay years, nay months go by.

Then men get tired of that anarchy and “turn again to the primitive simplicity of the early world of peoples”, and to religion. Thus the cycle starts again.

The beauty of it all, said Johnson, is that Vico’s view of history enables us to stop trying to mend the present state of affairs, which is beyond repair, and instead look forward to - even accelerate - its end, which will usher a new era.

Or I would put it as “the darkest hour is just before the dawn”.

Johnson concluded his speech by saying that, whereas Giorgio Almirante, the leader of the Right-wing Italian party Movemento Sociale Italiano, said, “Julius Evola is our Marcuse, only better”, we can say that Vico is our Karl Marx, only better.

Greg Johnson on Vico:

http://cdn.counter-currents.com/radio/Johnson%20on%20Vico.mp3