Category: 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.
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 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 - viz., the social, interactive, negotiated world corrected through human interactive agency).
Note that in this I’m not saying Tan’s crazy or applying psychoanalysis to him, I’m suggesting, as per Aristotle, that he’s over- or mis-applying lineal, either/or theory (what Aristotle designated “Theoria”) to the more ambiguous, interactive social world, which Aristotle called “Praxis” and 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 group and national boundaries of our people.
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
It’s a shame that Tan would say that I’m “not using my brain”.. “don’t have my thoughts organized clearly” and then take an idea that I have clearly organized and advanced for some time, and promote it on the Hitler worshiping “Renegade Network”, saying that he has this idea that our objectivity has given us advantages but also susceptibilities.
On the topic of genocide vs suicide he has an informative discussion but it is a false either/or in that MacDonald is not taking his eye off of Jewish power and influence and arguing “suicide” by examining our own susceptibilities (nor am I arguing White suicide).
Tanstaafl argues for genocide of Whites as opposed to White suicide
Tan quotes (from a post that KM put on TOO!):
“That’s not suicide”
For a curious example of White passivity of my own recent experience, I was at a fare yesterday, thousands of people, 99 percent White, probably a few Jews, a few middle easterners and one interracial couple - lovely, elegant blonde with a special kind of blue eyes and a Negro in no way handsome or manifestly impressive.
I used a strategy of walking near them while not looking at them directly, saying loudly, “very good! 41,000 years of evolution destroyed, given it to an ape!”
The important point I want to make is that nobody of this White crowd even noticed or was the least perturbed by this sickening interracial spectacle.
It is legitimate to ask why a visceral response isn’t forthcoming. It would be paranoid to suggest that KM and I are trying to deny or distract from the Jewish influence. He has insisted, and so do I insist, that Whites can be brainwashed by the Jews media and academia.... lets add religion, law, politics, business procedures and financing.
Nevertheless, I hear Tan referring to other causes, some of our own making, for example my idea that our inclination to objectivism leaves us susceptible.
Objectivism, as I have been saying, has appeal by yielding some spectacular practical results and insights, powerful moral warrant and innocence from subjective concern, but leaves our people susceptible to be non-discriminatory - perhaps especially of the obvious - as one can readily demonstrate if not “prove” their objectivity by not noticing and making judgments upon even such obvious differences.
That’s called “rational blindness” and this relative blindness to our subjective position and interests is a requirement in quest of pure objectivism.
Rational blindness can blind us to our involvement, indebtedness and accountability to our people’s interests and other people’s impositions. Scientists can famously be dupes to Manichean trickery for the habit of this Augustinian mindset. * I remember a former MR regular who, rather than request an explanation which I would have readily provided, tried to suggest that I was being pompous and deliberately obscure with these terms: Manichean - human challenges which can change when solved in order to trick an adversary; Augustinian - natural challenges which do not change when solved just to trick you again (how does Kol Nidre versus science grab you?).
This isn’t making excuses for Jews or letting them off the hook in any way or form.
Or has KM fallen into disfavor because he does not think AH and revisionism are the royal road to White salvation?
I haven’t heard MacDonald talk of “suicide”, I know that I do not talk of suicide.
I do know that Tanstaafl has overreacted when I, and others, cited liberalism as a problem, as if we were trying to distract from the J.Q. when discussing liberalism or other causes for peoples being under threat (as if we are not aware of the shenanigans of Lawrence Auster, et.al).
In this podcast I hear Tan accurately criticizing the Jews for transforming World War II into “the Holocaust” and elevating themselves as the special victims. All true and foul.
But he doesn’t see how the Nazis, and his over-sympathy for them, have him mirror the Jews, to where Nazis are the special and only important victims, didn’t do anything (it’s all a “hoax”), their victimization is pure, removed from cause and interactive conflict.
Evidently, right-wing WN interest to make the Jews the “only problem”, to where they would even denounce MacDonald for looking at our role in the interaction, is a motivation of those who want desperately to redeem Uncle Adolf and completely disprove the holocaust, blind and oblivious to the fact that those tasks are unnecessary and largely counter-productive to pursue.
The key distinction is not “hierarchy” vs “leveling and equality”, the key distinction is (pseudo) objectivism of The Right and its susceptibility to liberal universalisms which transcend accountability to social group interests vs the unionized and therefore particular and relative social group interests of the Left, as rendered by a White Left.
Posted by DanielS on Monday, May 25, 2015 at 01:45 AM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Crusade against Discrimination in Britain, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, European culture, Far Right, Immigration and Politics, Liberalism & the Left, Libertarianism, Linguistics, No particular place to go, That Question Again, White Genocide: America, White Genocide: Europe, 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.
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
The interview is quite a long one by our standards, but I believe it is entertaining and informative throughout.
Given that no-one seems to conceptually acknowledge the dark side (so to speak) of inclusive fitness theory it perhaps undermines the creditability of those that wish to make broad political points using inclusive fitness theory as to (1) do they actually fully understand the theory and (2) do they understand how excess competition effectively removes relatedness from the picture (siblings killing siblings is perfectly optimal within many animal species from the point of view of the victorious Sib).
Given that fitness within social evolution can be derived from both the individual level and the group level (note all evolutionary change concerns changes in alleles and their frequencies) as demonstrated by Hamilton and Price’s work (and Steve Frank etc) in hierarchical selection theory how do these insights relate to political economy?
For example, if we take Aristotle seriously than any polis must be a balance between the parts and the whole (individuals and the group) what mechanism can be used to discourage ‘free-riding’ and self-serving perfidy by our own indigenous elites? Accountability to the groups interests seems lacking in contemporary Western life.
If Europeans are so ‘individuated’ - uniquely so? - why is it that only a few centuries ago that Celts, Nordic people etc were so tribal and ultra-communitarian in their cultures. Why the stark difference in pre-modern pagan social ontology compared to the ontology of liberal modernity. Given the relatively short time frame any explanation based upon changes in gene frequency would seem analytically bankrupt. The Greeks also had a more communitarian social-ontology (Sparta anyone?, Aristotle and virtue ethics etc).
Given the social ontology of liberal modernity (massive ideological emphasis on individ- uals and individualism) what type of personalities and psychological traits succeed within such a environment? If all human interactions are viewed through the prism of individual competition is that healthy or wise for the long term sustainability of the group (one could speak here too of free-riding and the slow accumulation of toxic ‘externalities’ cultural, environmental, social etc generated by liberal modernity which in short term benefit certain individuals but at the longer term determent of everyone).
Given that all political societies are ultimately about power and power relationships (see Carl Schmidt), and that power is always open to abuse, a high degree of relatetedness/ homogeneity/ social capital is by itself not enough. What mechanism of elite accountability and social cohesion are possible and necessary?
If denied the siblicide point, then why are civil wars so vicious and nasty (often the worst)? Higher levels of relatedness (on average) didn’t stop Englishmen, or Irishmen from utterly hateful behaviour towards their brothers during civil wars…
Misguided Truck: http://renseradioarchives.com/stormfront/ Date: 04-27-15, Hr1:
On the April 27th Stormtrooper radio, Truck Roy discusses his theory with Don Black that the reason why Whites are allowing for, and even promoting, their own dispossession is because they are “moralizing”...
“We are too concerned with morals, of slave morality, etc, when we should care about power and survival.”
What this is about: people, e.g. computer nerds, or Hitler (by de facto Nietzschean) worshipers want to believe or argue that they’re sheerly, objectively superior, not “racists” relatively dependent upon their people and neighboring White people.
They take advice from Horace the Condescender as such.
Now they are arguing “against morality, against ‘moralizing” as they call it.
Why? Because Hitler loses his place as the go-to guy for a false either/or. And they cannot stand the twilight of their god.
So we have Truck Roy saying that the reason why Africans are being helped to invade Europe and why Whites are allowing themselves to be displaced is because they’re “moralizing”, they’re of a slave morality, when they should seek power.
Not coincidentally, Truck goes to church every Sunday to practice his slave morality of obedience to the Jew on a stick.
So why has this happened, the about face?
As I have been explaining, the Right is inherently unstable. “Objectivity” and purity loses its grasp of the relative situation, of social accountability, and they oscillate to another toxically narrow extreme - typically Nietzsche and Hitler.
This false either / or - “morality” or “power and survival” - is one of the reasons why I reject Christianity and the Right’s proposed objectivism.
Truck Roy says the problem is that our people sit around “moralizing” about how right it is to help African boat refugees when they should be saying enough of this moral business, and be asking rather how do we go about survival?
What Horace the Condescender and misguided Truck are failing to recognize is that there is no avoiding morals - we live within them. Proper moral consideration is at one with power and survival. While moral rules are culturally contingent, there will nevertheless always be some things that are prohibited, some things that are obligatory and some things that are optional.
Jews know this and that is why they have cleaned the clocks of dumb-assed right wingers such as those at Stormtrooper radio.
Now, if people, White people especially, are truly thinking about morality, they do not reach the conclusion that they should be displaced by non-Whites.
That is a perversion of morals that the Jewish trick of Christianity is second to none in putting across to the sheeple.
Scientism can do it too.
While some, techno nerds perhaps, wanting to believe in their objective superiority and warrant yet find themselves having been outwitted by the relative interests of Jews, drowning in the instigated multicultural hell of America, will desperately seek recourse, will promote a mindless killing and die-off, even of their own brothers and European neighbors, rather than admit their moral indebtedness to their kindred people as opposed to just an elite few or a Jewish god.
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, April 28, 2015 at 02:52 AM in Activism, Anthropology, Anti-racism and white genocide, Awakenings, Christianity, Demographics, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, European culture, European Nationalism, European Union, Far Right, Global Elitism, Globalisation, Immigration, Jewish Diaspora, Marxism & Culture War, Popular Culture, The American right, White Nationalism
MacDonald At Stockholm, Sweden, April 20th 2015
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 06:14 PM in Anthropology, Anti-racism and white genocide, Demographics, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, European culture, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, History, Immigration and Politics, Race realism, Social Sciences, The Ontology Project, White Nationalism
By Lasha Darkmoon, April 18, 2015
It is now only too clear that Americans have lost their country. The Jews are our masters and we are their slaves. What can we do about it?
An abridged adaption by Lasha Darkmoon of a recent article by Video Rebel.
9/11 finally revealed to us the extraordinary chutzpah of our Jewish masters.
That the Israelis did 9/11 with the help of Jewish collaborators in PNAC and AIPAC has become all too apparent to the cognoscenti. The hidden criminality behind this event has been cleverly covered up by our Jewish owned media.
9/11 was a definite declaration of war against America by Israel.
The Israelis wired World Trade Center Towers 1, 2 and 7 for demolition. Tower 7 was never struck by a plane. Yet it fell down in 6.5 seconds.
The BBC was told by the Rothschild-owned Reuters news agency that WTC 7 had collapsed an hour before it did. America was still on Daylight Savings Time but Britain had just left Summer Time, so a confused BBC announced the collapse of WTC 7 fully 24 minutes before it happened in New York.
Knowing that your government can kill the President and blow up buildings with Americans inside, as in Oklahoma City and in New York, helps to restrain hostile criticism of the government. People are nervous and say to themselves, “If they can kill 3000 innocent Americans for Israel and get away with it, what chance do I have?”
9/11 unleashed America’s “War on Terror” against various Muslim countries unable to accept direct invasion and conquest by Israel. This was America doing Israel’s dirty work for it. Israel claims all the land from the Nile to the Euphrates. The War on Terror is simply a process allowing Jews to gain control of non-Jewish lands.
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, April 18, 2015 at 12:17 PM in 9/11, Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Awakenings, Political analysis, Popular Culture, That Question Again, U.S. Politics, War on Terror, White Nationalism, World Affairs
- 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
Tom returns to MR radio to discuss the state of political nationalism in Europe, deep antagonisms that still exist among Europeans, problems of negative identity arising from that, and the performance of intellectual nationalism at this point in our struggle.
MYTHS AND MENDACITIES: THE ANCIENTS AND THE MODERNS - TOMISLAV SUNIC (The Occidental Quarterly, vol. 14, no. 4, Winter 2014–2015), run in addition to the podcast:
When discussing the myths of ancient Greece one must first define their meaning and locate their historical settings. The word “myth” has a specific meaning when one reads the ancient Greek tragedies or when one studies the theogony or cosmogony of the early Greeks. By contrast, fashionable expressions today such as “political mythology” is often laden with value judgments and derisory interpretations. Thus, a verbal construct such as “the myth of modernity” may be interpreted as an insult by proponents of modern liberalism. To a modern, self-proclaimed supporter of liberal democracy, enamored with his own system-supporting myths of permanent economic progress and the like, phrases like, “the myth of economic progress” or “the myth of democracy,” may appear as egregious political insults.
For many contemporaries, democracy is not just a doctrine that could be discussed; it is not a “fact” that experience could contradict; it is truth of faith beyond dispute.(1)
It marked a difference of this group, an Amherst Alanon meeting of thirty or so, as I bluffed in the same way that I would, by standing up and pretending to shoot with my finger – Bang! Bang! Bang! But from this group ensconced at a church literally across the street from Emily Dickinson’s house – nothing. No reaction. They looked calmly upon me as only a harmless fool - A bullfrog on a lily pad. ..I’m nobody, who are you?
I foretold them the Sicilians would act differently.
More than a year later, it was August of 1996, when at a similarly conciliatory meeting of similarly normal people seated in the same circular formation, I stood up, raised my finger like a gun barrel and shouted Bang! Bang! Bang! aiming at the Sicilians in rapid turn around the room in Aci Creale to their immediate fright and panic. To them, it was quite possible that this would be a real gun.
I woke up late on a morning as it turned September to see an unusual funeral procession moving through Piazza Duomo. Two coffins were being moved.
Posted by DanielS on Friday, February 20, 2015 at 01:05 PM in Archeology, Awakenings, Demographics, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, European culture, European Nationalism, History, White Nationalism
Despite The Guilt Trips of World War II (discussed below on the anniversary of Dresden)
Here is an interview request that I sent to Dr. Christian Lindtner on February 12th
Dear Dr. Lindtner,
As producer for Majorityrights.com, I am writing you to inquire as to the possibility of arranging for an interview.
Majority Rights takes a position (secular) regarding Christianity which very much respects your scholarly critique.
Nevertheless, while I am writing you at this email address, my inquiry actually has more to do with a hope to discuss appropriate response to the fall-out of World War II, facts and mythos.
Your videos discussing holocaust revisionism are the most credible on the topic that I have seen. I do not see it as necessary to go-over that same ground in exhaustive detail. My position is that subsequent generations of Germans and others are innocent and ought not have to continue to pay, irrespective of the facts of Nazi Germany.
I am not anti-German and I am assuming that neither are you, anti-German.
My question is, how do we assert our innocence, along with that of present day Germans, to warrant implementing our defense of our nations as the preserves of our native nationals? - particularly in light of, and despite, the holocaust?
I believe that despite the holocaust that Germany and Europe does not owe the world, Jews, or anybody, its destruction through immigration and assimilation.
This is different from what holocaust deniers, even revisionists, are saying. Committed revisionists and deniers seem to believe everything, all of our defensive warrant, hinges upon debunking the holocaust. It is perhaps easier for me to see that as not necessarily the case as my ancestors even, had even less in the way of historical responsibility. Nevertheless, revisionists seem to have an overwhelming desire to unburden us of guilt trips* for these events, for which no guilt ought to be assigned them - and as a result, it seems to me that they are making the cause for European national sovereignty more resisted and less trustworthy when, in fact, it is a fully legitimate cause and ought to be seen that way irrespective of the holocaust.
What I seek from you in an interview is to help build this case to establish the warrant of European nations to preserve their nations for their native kinds despite The World Wars, whatever the facts.
Please say that you will grant us the interview Dr. Lindtner. It can be very important to inter-European peace and survival.
For those of you who take exception to my deferential use of the word “holocaust”, understand that by it I mean a name given to mass deaths of Jews in the world war, however they came about, irrespective of any obnoxious elevation of importance of Jewish deaths over European deaths - which Dr. Lindtner recognizes in his characterizing it, holocaustianity, as a religion.
At the Yalta conference, just days before the Dresden firebombing..
And this comment on the article..
From a particularist/nationalist perspective it’s best to write it off as a painful learning experience and get on with nationalism 2.0.”
I keep hearing these retarded arguments that the Nazis shouldn’t have invaded Russia and that Britain should’ve let Nazi Germany do as it liked with Poland. If 20/20 hindsight is exercised, then it should be said that Hitler shouldn’t have invaded Poland.
The next argument, also retardedly Buchananesque, is that Poland was betrayed to the umpteenth degree anyway and therefore Germany invading was of no matter.
But even under Soviet control, Poland retained a semblance of national boundaries, more importantly from its point of view, its language and more importantly still, its native genetic homogeneity. Horrible as Soviet control was, neither Poland’s boundaries, language nor genetics were in Hitler’s plans.
The holocaust of the peoples of Dresden is horrible. It is an unspeakable loss of European genetic treasure. As were all the European deaths of World War II - a war unnecessarily fought as a 1) conventional military war and unnecessarily 2) inter-European as it largely was, pitting R1b against R1a - both frames, conventional militarism and anti-Polinism/anti-Slav, were Hitler’s/Friedrich The Great’s.
If you want to use 20/20 hindsight to re-frame World War II and what should not have been done, take it to herr E1B1B1 Hitler.
Don’t kid yourself.
Look at how sick and enraged that Europeans were of ANOTHER World War, which Hitler and his worldview had some small part in initiating, a worldview that had the thin pretense of warrant to take lands and displace peoples up to the Urals on the basis of three and a half small cites being given to Poland by Versailles, a world view that had the design of removing your nation newly established after a bitter ordeal and fight of 123 years, and the realization of his plans of smashing it, taking it away again, killing your father, wife, your daughter, your brother, and you too, charged with an imperson- al mission of bombing a precious German city, might just allow yourself to do that.
A habit, custom, and world view following the line of Friedrich the Great, based on inter-European militarism and a friend enemy distinction of Germanics/Slavs is what should be rejected with 20/20 hindsight - not that Roosevelt and Churchill shouldn’t have gotten into the war, but that Hitler shouldn’t have ordered it in that way.
And don’t kid yourself either - if you know that a European nation like his has plans to take your nation and eliminate you (that was basically known) and some Jew points a gun at that European guy looking to kill you, what are you going to say? No, Mr. Jew, don’t shoot at this guy looking to kill me?
If you want to exercise 20/20 hindsight, for all the European deaths, where it should not have started, the epistemological blunder was with herr E1B1B1 Hitler’s world view and actions thereupon. And if you want to keep Europeans hating and fighting each other, just keep promoting the “innocence” of his worldview and the “supreme and singular guilt” of the Allied leaders.
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, February 15, 2015 at 12:38 AM in Anti-racism and white genocide, Far Right, History, Marxism & Culture War, National Socialism, Revisionism, That Question Again, White Nationalism
Posted by DanielS on Friday, January 30, 2015 at 12:59 AM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Awakenings, British Politics, Crusade against Discrimination in Britain, Demographics, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, Immigration, Immigration and Politics, No particular place to go, Popular Culture, White Genocide Project, White Genocide: Africa, White Genocide: America, White Genocide: Europe, White Nationalism, World Affairs
Jez Turner is under no illusions as to the powers-that-be: capitalist-marxist-liberal, they are heads of the same beast and not going to grant us our autonomy without a fight.
However, they are experts, of course, in exploiting our weaknesses, providing diversions, disempowering and demoralizing our people. Consequently, motivating our people to fight as a group, in our group interests, is problematic.
Bearing in mind that what is meant by “fight” in this post is not necessarily literal combat but all aspects of fighting for our interests..
On the topic of organizing the motivation* of our fighters then, we might refer to war historian, Prof., Sir Hew Strachan’s thoughts on the matter.
He observes that some motivations of fighters are not recognized because they are out of fashion and not cool to tell the public.
Of course a state sanctioned excuse for exercising blood-lust and revenge among the particularly violent is just a mask and direction of already existing motivation - which requires to be directed appropriately therefore. To gain cooperation from a balance of the population requires a normalizing if not ennobling of incentive/motivation.
Humanitarian concern - higher national ideals - booty.
Humanitarian concern is considered a legitimate public reason nowadays. And it can be one reason why fighters are legitimately motivated.
Higher national ideals can be and have been traditionally a reason why people fight - they still are, but it is not so cool to state as a motivation nowadays (largely as a result of vast over-compensations in that regard in the World Wars).
Booty is even more stigmatic nowadays to cite as your motivation. Yet, Strachan observes, this has been the primary reason for most fighting though the ages. He notes that this motivation initially became problematic and remains problematic as wars have emerged more often a liability than a profit - hence, no profit to be shared.
But particularly when the matter is taking back resources that are our co-evolutionary birthright, there might be reward to motivate and allocate to our peoples for fighting. Humanitarian concern would work there as well, as there are clear matters of inhumaneness to our peoples, injustice - justice to be had. While we work on the meta-national** narratives that GW advises as necessary inspiration..
The question becomes the formulation, the proportion and the content:
Humanitarianism, Nationalist Ideals and Booty
** GW would probably not approve of the word “meta” in this context but I used it deliberately, to make a point that meta-communication is neither wholly nor necessarily disconnected from the essential.
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 12:51 AM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, British Politics, Demographics, European culture, European Nationalism, Immigration and Politics, Military Matters, Popular Culture, Psychology, White Nationalism
“Unlike its predecessor Hara Kiri, Charlie Hebdo, the liberal-libertarian newspaper, has become one of the organs of the dominant ideology. They can recognize their own.”
They recognize their own..
As such, Tanstaafl’s account is even more descriptively accurate of those behind the policies of Charlie Hebdo - they’re an organ of “neoconservatism” (a Jewish platform):
And they recognize their own under attack..
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, January 7, 2015 at 10:25 PM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Awakenings, European Nationalism, Free Speech, Immigration, Immigration and Politics, Islam & Islamification, Journalism, Law & Order, Media, Military Matters, White Nationalism
We are separatists, seeking the sovereignty of our peoples, not supremacists seeking to impose-upon, the exploitation or the destruction of others.
We will continue our course of being unfettered by traditional religions and their ill-fit to European interests.
We will continue to hold the position that Jews are not European and are not a part of our interest group.
We will continue with our quest for homeostasis in European peoples, moving from the more comprehensive social systemic and historical view of our peoples to the deep and close readings that GW gives.
We will be unfettered by Nutzism and any absurd claim that it had the best interests of all Europeans at heart. It can only be dangerously divisive and it is not too much intellectual work to utilize similar ideas as theirs for whatever good they might have been doing while rejecting the obviously destructive ones.
We will be having more interviews and podcasts. In fact, we have three or four on the near horizon:
One featuring GW and Jez Turner promises to be fascinating - two men with long and intimate understanding of the nationalist struggle in Britain.
James Bowery will be having a discussion with Frosty Wooldridge - that will not only be interesting, but important.
Greg Johnson will be talking to us about Heidegger, maybe more. I certainly look forward to that; every nationalist should.
Paul Weston will be talking to us again prior to the elections. GW hopes to support his efforts and we look forward to all going well as Paul has the potential to be an outstanding spokesman for our cause - natives of European nations; and in his case, of course, native Britain in particular.
Those are just a few of the exciting interviews and podcasts on the horizon.
We will be looking to add a few new writers to our staff.
We will also be looking to cooperate with a DNA lab to begin the efforts of “curating” our peoples so to speak. We look for suggestions, which geneticists to use and more.
Let us know how Majority Rights can serve your interests as a person of indigenous European descent. If your suggestion is in good faith and fits within our rather broad parameters we would love to hear from you. It is an honor to serve this cause.
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, December 31, 2014 at 07:19 AM in Activism, Awakenings, Business & Industry, Economics & Finance, Education, European culture, Homeschooling & Adult Education, Psychology, Science & Technology, Social Sciences, White Nationalism
As European(White) Nationalists, we all know that the wake of the World Wars has not birthed favorable circumstances for our people. Thus, we are decidedly less satisfied than Max Hastings that a marked separatism from Jewish power and influence was not achieved, its necessity not even understood; and along with that that a pervasive liberalism should have won-out as consequence, potentially auguring the final chapter for Europeans in entirety.
Was it “hubris” for Poland to want its nation back? I rather think not. It’s called ethno-nationalism and it is that which we should support as opposed to internationalism. Germany was still huge after Versailles. On the Polish border, all it had lost were Posen, Bromberg and Thorn. Danzig became neutral. The Max Hastings account introduces yet more discussion of Versailles to make it more understandable as an effort at justice, as it always appeared when looking at the territorial divisions. However, there have been a couple of parties who want me to run strong anti-Polish propaganda.
The large problem with that is that for those of us who view White Nationalist media as our veritable news source now (finding other, anti-White media wholly intolerable), a hypotrophied unanimity with Nazism and its antecedent regime’s military campaigns is what we get: for whatever reasons, but probably because America is so German- American that a “by-golly, Hitler was absolutely right!” perspective is all too convenient (and the most popular and economically supported of any WN perspective) in the wake of Jewish and Neo-liberal destruction; and all the more motivated with guilt trips of World War II being most pressing upon them; their having least perspective on anything but a direct desire to throw guilt trips off as entire fabrication: nuances of perspective and history are cast aside, and ultimately, the unfortunate difficulty they have in seeing our family relations and the more relative and complex justice of the circumstance seeds potential inter-European conflict, if not war. Seeds sown oblivious to the fact that we do not care to lay guilt trips upon them, certainly not subsequent generations, they go ahead and try to lay guilt trips upon us for events before our fathers lives even. Just as they want it understood that they and their forefathers were not ex-nihilo evil, but had reasons for their wars, so too those of “Allied” descent wish to claim the same.
Yes, there were corrupt forces manipulating the circumstances, but there were also justly reasoned motives. The circumstances were a great deal more complicated and justified from an Allied perspective than The Hitler contingent of WN will ever admit. That’s a problem if you want to treat WN as your media. Because Nazi Germany and Kaiser Germany were not pure and sheer victims, as the salient contingent of WN wish to claim. But so long as their childish and Jewish style of argumentation is what is being served in WN discourse, I am left no choice but to balance things off in the service of truth. There are several sites out there for those who want to take a “Hitler only good everyone else bad” perspective. You will not hear that the German regimes did have choices: Polish, Belarusian, Ukrainian and other Nationalisms, even the British, of course, could have been aligned, willing and able to fight Soviet incursions (had done so already in some instances).
Until there are other, or more, WN sites which care for the truth and represent events in the context of their nuance and balance, I must continue to highlight discussions such as that from Max Hastings. In fact, there is much there that one would never hear and learn about if the now standard WN position on several sites - “Germany’s war efforts only good, their people only victims” - were the only perspective heard; and there is a great deal of intimidation that it be the only perspective heard in WN, to the point where the opposite of PC is in effect, to where it is a veritable taboo to say anything negative about Nazi Germany and its predecessors and anything good about the Allies and their predecessors. In truth, of course, there are many things for Germans to be proud of, and some things to not be so proud of. For some reason, that is too complex a fact for some to cope with. Those of us who are sick of that childish unanimity might find Max Hastings discussion refreshing and informative.
There are thoughts on responsibility in World War I which echo very much that of WWII. Thoughts on Versailles foreign to WN discourse. And of course the great taboo in WN, to suggest that a German military could have done anything worth resisting. It was of course noble to burn the library of Leuven (they just had to do that, didn’t they?); to do whatever I am not allowed to speak about to Belgian civilians there, in Dinant and elsewhere, to French and other civilians; in Kalisz as well. No, Germany was always a perfect nation, nobody can say otherwise; if you want to blame anybody, conveniently blame Poland as Hitler and Goebbels suggested, or as Friedrich the Great might have proposed of his then vanquished neighbor.
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, December 17, 2014 at 03:57 AM in British Politics, Education, European Nationalism, Political analysis, Revisionism, The American right, The Proposition Nation, U.S. Politics, White Genocide: Europe, White Nationalism
A few weeks ago Daniel sent a request to Frank Salter, author of On Genetic Interests, to consent to be interviewed for MR Radio. He was then in the process of a double-session interview with Red Ice. We hope he might be interested in a more intellectually demanding approach to his thesis in OGI and his hopes for European peoples in the West. He was unavailable.
In anticipation of a positive reply from Dr Salter I had scribbled down some questions – heads of discussion, really - which I hoped to put before him. It is unlikely that they will be asked in that form now. I thought they might be of interest to readers all the same, duly embroidered with some of my own understandings which would have emerged in the discussion.
1. Academics, science and politics
Dr Salter, you describe your profession as that of a political scientist and ethologist engaged in studying the motivational and organisational aspects – the laws that are at work, if you like - in human group dynamics. In the process you have afforded us all some unique insights into normative human behaviour, most particularly in the central thrust of On Genetic Interests. Purely for myself, I would like to thank you for that; and I’m sure very many others with our politics would feel the same.
(a) Can I begin by asking how you see yourself and your work? Is an ethologist like you, with his basis of work with empirical data, fundamentally of the humanities or the sciences? How do your politics, which are clearly quite nationalist, influence your selection and formulation of research projects? Do you have to make additional efforts to function as a disinterested researcher, while your peers down the corridor in the politics and sociology faculties are quite free to operate as de facto campaigners for progressive causes?
(b) More than a decade since the death of Stephen J Gould, and with the Sociobiology Study Group a forgotten entity, what is your assessment generally of the state of truth-speaking in the biological sciences, in particular about human difference? Would you say that the era of strict censorship has passed, and academic freedom now obtains? Or has the focus merely moved from a rigid control on what can be studied to a more subtle but no less widespread control of how studies can be framed, how results can be presented, and so forth?
(c) What kind of reception have your conclusions had among your academic peers? For example, has EGI, as a concept, been discussed by, or even incorporated in the thinking of, other political scientists with your ethological focus, or that of evolutionary biologists and psychologists, or even sociologists?
2. Politics and the public discourse
Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, December 1, 2014 at 12:17 PM in Anti-racism and white genocide, Australian Politics, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, European Nationalism, Islam & Islamification, Liberalism & the Left, Marxism & Culture War, White Nationalism
“Political power flows from organisation. No organisation, no power”
So says Jan the White Uniter, the director of a new organisation United White, which seeks to generate the unity that is key to any real advance for the white cause. On the Radio page now, Jan talks to DanielS and GW about his background, awakening, intellectual influences, and his motivations and hopes for United White and for European peoples in all their homelands.
Paul Sperry, Hoover Institution media fellow and author of “The Great American Bank Robbery,” which exposes the racial politics behind the mortgage crisis - government attempt to increase minority home-ownership instigated the sub-prime housing crisis.
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, November 15, 2014 at 04:04 AM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Awakenings, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, Globalisation, Immigration and Politics, Marxism & Culture War, No particular place to go, Popular Culture, Social liberalism, That Question Again, The Proposition Nation, U.S. Politics, White Communities & Micro-Economies, White Genocide Project, White Genocide: America, White Nationalism
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
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.
Posted by DanielS on Monday, October 20, 2014 at 01:53 AM in Activism, Anthropology, Anti-racism and white genocide, Awakenings, Crusade against Discrimination in Britain, Feminism, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, Social Sciences, White Genocide Project, White Genocide: Europe, White Nationalism
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, and 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
Black Lies in White Nationalism: Hitler didn’t instigate war, modestly sought appropriated territory
Black Lies are being circulated in White Nationalism -
“He only modestly sought territory ‘wrongly’ appropriated”
Those claims are demonstrably false from the beginning of Mein Kampf:
“People of the same blood should be in the same Reich. The German people will have no right to engage in a colonial policy until they shall have brought all their children together in one state. When the territory of the Reich embraces all the Germans and finds itself unable to assure them a livelihood, only then can the moral right arise from the need of the people to acquire foreign territory. The plow is then the sword and the tears of war shall produce the daily bread for the generations to come.”
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, October 11, 2014 at 08:45 PM in Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, European Nationalism, Far Right, History, National Socialism, Popular Culture, The American right, Thread Wars, White Nationalism
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