Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 07:27 AM
Not everyone wants to deviate from authenticity, devote time, money, resource and brain cycles in order to “game” women. Indeed, should we try to live according to the values of puerile female inclinations - fierce and frenzied incitement exacerbated by the exponential pandering to her position with modernist, liberal internationalist disordering and the YKW prohibition of social classification for Whites?
A better sort, the kind who like themselves and their kind, prefer to display power by identifying one who is an acutely appropriate match in reconstructing their type and genetic system, together with whom to explore life. Further, they recognize that playing the field leads to terrible injustice regarding our social capital, demoralizes, undermines trust and moral warrant to defend ourselves as a people.
However, the preference of those who would rather not “game” needs to be institutionalized so that their choice does not get diverted into gaming where they rather search for an appropriate partner; as opposed to (another) one they tricked, a woman who could be another man’s appropriate wife, taken through the instigated anxiety of going out of character and into the “fair game” of boundless competition.
As opposed to gaming what would be someone’s singularly important mate or gaming whorey left-overs or leaving whorey left-overs…
Thus, an endorsement for the option of sex and monogamy as sacrament and voluntary enclaves in that recognition.
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, June 6, 2015 at 04:16 AM
Not to mention this huge collage of White women murdered by Negro boyfriends, what about the White men who have lost their appropriate mating partners to universal maturity? And how many have committed suicide in one way or another? Who cares?
Posted by Guest Blogger on Sunday, March 22, 2015 at 01:32 AM
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 DanielS on Thursday, November 6, 2014 at 06:10 AM
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 Monday, October 6, 2014 at 04:23 AM
Judging by his vigilant stream of Ebola updates, it is clear that James considers the threat of Ebola to be under-reported in terms of its significance.
Ebola remiss an alarm for border control as even most objective standards of human ecology ignored by authorities:
The handling of the Ebola threat by institutional bodies such as the Centers for Disease Control, supposedly responsible for safeguarding public health, provide a glaring example of how we cannot rely on them to serve our needs, not even as a by-product of the most ostensibly objective concerns of human ecology.
Furthermore, as the remiss demonstrates that these bureaucracies cannot be entrusted to look-after the interests of our relative human ecologies it should create awareness that now is the time to step-up participation in border re-establishment.
As James explains, the mishandling of the threat of pandemic disease, as in the case of Ebola, has been made evident not only through border crossing, but in a pattern of decades, extending to misreadings of the H.I.V. epidemic by these same responsible institutional bodies - such as the CDC, with its authoritative media organ, “Nature” magazine, taken to be definitive of science journalism and featuring assessments by experts such as Princeton’s R.M. Anderson - experts and their fact-checkers who are all too capable of committing fundamental errors in epidemic prediction.
Specifically, Anderson’s initial indication for Nature magazine suggested that an increased number of sex partners was not a particularly significant factor in H.I.V. transmission. This took for granted its operating on a relatively homogenous population, with steadier patterns and where outlier behavior is more compartmentalized into niches. Promiscuous heterosexuals in this sort of population were not particularly at risk as their partnering was in linear alignment and separate from the infected homosexual population. However, with the increasing introduction of diverse populations, not only are more promiscuous sorts added to the ranks of the population, but also those more capable of transmitting the disease, those still more recklessly transgressing niches and even those with malicious intent to deliberately transmit the disease.
“Strength in diversity indeed - for pandemic disease!”
The take-away is that European peoples must take initiative in border control to protect the interests of our human ecologies - for our very survival. Institutional bodies entrusted to be competent and concerned cannot be relied upon for even the basics of public health management - they are not even taking into account such basic factors as the mass introduction of alien biology and behavioral patterns on stable human ecologies; the direct introduction of virulence from primeval breeding grounds and bio-power, e.g., of Sub-Saharan Africa - which your European biology may not withstand. In fact, these bureaucrats in their faux-objectivism, whether the result of pandering or being pandered-to, malicious intent, indifference or incompetence at best, are subjecting European populations to experiments that your European biology should not have to hold up-to, as conducted upon you and the ancient human ecology of our European peoples unwillingly, unbeknownst, without consent.
More, for their very nature as fixed places, James likens nation states to immobilized patients in a clinic, and therefore draws the possibility of their susceptibility to pandemic, such as Spanish flue, which spread rapidly through immobilized patient concentrations in Red Cross hospitals after World War I. Immobile as the nations states are then, it is imperative to secure their borders against mobilized virulence.
Ebola having reached The U.S. highlights this fact. Thriving at length, transmissible even from a corpse, passively, potentially mutating airborne transmissability, Ebola can be far more destructive than the H.I.V. epidemic which the CDC blundered about..
James details the analogy in the misreading of H.I.V. and Ebola epidemiology:
Posted by DanielS on Monday, September 29, 2014 at 11:24 PM
..and movements. Proscriptions of European organization and defense, promulgated under a guise of moral acceptability, that have European peoples arguing against their own interests and organization thereof.
Sexual conservatism as pathological
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, September 21, 2014 at 07:11 AM
Posted by DanielS on Monday, September 1, 2014 at 10:19 PM
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.
Europhobic Media Networks
Nationalist Political Parties
Europeans in Africa