Category: MR Radio
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…
Dr Christian Lindtner, renowned Sanskrit scholar and author of standard reference works on Buddhism and comparative religion, talks to Daniel and GW about his acceptance of the Holocaust as an historical event, and about his latest book, Revelation of Bodhicittam, which uncovers the Pythagorean roots of the New Testament Gospels, and finds the story of Jesus Christ to have been transmitted from earlier Buddhist writings.
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)
On the radio page now, Greg Johnson, editor of Counter-Currents Publishing, talks to GW and Daniel about the crisis confronting our race, about liberalism and modernity, and about Martin Heidegger, his revolutionary 1927 opus Being and Time..
Susan Lindauer, peace activist, 9/11 activist, former CIA asset, and true American patriot, talks to DanielS and GW about power, politics and corruption, immigration, and the future of America and the West. You cannot fail to learn something new from an hour’s conservation with this remarkable woman..
Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 07:07 PM in 9/11, Activism, Awakenings, Free Speech, Global Elitism, Immigration and Politics, MR Radio, That Question Again, U.S. Politics, War on Terror
On the radio page, Jez Turner, organiser of the London New Right Forum..
- In Excelsis, verse 15:
‘The leprous spawn of scattered Israel
Spreads its contagion in your English blood;
Teeming corruption rises like a flood
Whose fountain swelters in the womb of hell.
Your Jew-kept politicains buy and sell
In markets redolent of Jewish mud,
And while the ‘’Learned Elders’’ chew the cud
Of liquidation’s fruits, they weave their spell.
To gold and gluttony and sweating lust:
In hidden holds they stew the mandrake mess
That kills the soul and turns the blood to fire,
They weave the spell that turns desire to dust
And postulates the abyss of nothingness.’
On the radio page now, Paul Weston, the man who managed to get himself arrested for reading from Winston Churchill’s The River War, talks to GW and DanielS about himself, his party, nationalism and the political climate, the nature of UKIP, blogging on the DT, that adventure in Winchester, and (even) the JQ. He’s a good guy. You should listen.
Upon Winchester Guildhall, Paul Weston quoted the following passage from Churchill’s “The River War”:
Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, December 22, 2014 at 02:29 PM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, British Politics, Crusade against Discrimination in Britain, Demographics, European Nationalism, European Union, Free Speech, Immigration, Immigration and Politics, Islam & Islamification, Journalism, Law & Order, Media, MR Radio, Political analysis
On the radio page now, the first of our planned conversations with the entertaining, authoritative and hugely passionate author and campaigner on global population, immigration, and quality of life, Frosty Wooldridge. As an inveterate traveller who has observed humanity in all its diversity at first hand, and as a politically-aware white American, Frosty talks as much sense as you will hear from anyone who has made it on to the mainstream radio show circuit.
“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.
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
We expect to talk again to Anthony in a few weeks, this time on a more technical level.
In citing Yockey’s definition of liberalism, I do believe Tanstaafl captures some of the “it’s a bit more than that” to the definition of liberalism that GW advised over and against the one that I was proffering in the interview with Metzger.
Fortunately for me (and for us as a race), it is not really contradictory of the definition which I would venture as most useful. Though it is, I admit, more articulate in some significant ways that GW would/does appreciate.
I would have liberalism be defined primarily as permission of the violation of the classification - which is the parameters of the group systemic organism of race.
Yockey, like GW, focuses even more meticulously on the individual (as well), to where liberalism would be the experimentation with going beyond the normal parameters of our biology as individuals as well.
That would have several “more than that” interesting implications which provide clues as to where GW was going.
One implication would indicate why GW focuses so much on the Ontology of who we authentically are as European group(s) and individuals. We cannot even know what liberalism is, entirely, or what is inauthentic response to liberaism, a reaction, until that is settled…
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, June 11, 2014 at 03:06 AM in Anthropology, Conservatism, Liberalism & the Left, MR Radio, Psychology, Social liberalism, The Ontology Project
A discussion between Tom Metzger and myself, with Daniel and the indefatigable Jimmy Marr for good measure.
Soren’s review, given in an informal conversation with me, of Guillaume’s Faye’s manifesto for the radical right, Why We Fight. Please go to the radio page.
There’s a new radio show. Prepare to be shocked.
A Tea Party Round Table with Matt Parrott and Kievsky is now available at the radio page.
There’s a new show on the radio page.
Jonathan has responded positively to my request for an interview, notwithstanding the warning “racism and hate - please see your librarian” that greeted his attempt to load MR on the monitored monitor he happened to be using at the time. He tells me that, coincidentally, he has just recorded a VoR programme with Tom Sunic. I will find out when that is going to air, but I am not overly bothered about the clash because, of course, VoR does not have the superbly inquisitive commentariat that we have.
So, you asked for him. You have got him. Now what do you want to hear from him?
Talking to people for the radio project isn’t exactly difficult. A bit of research and some thought beforehand, and the rest is, well, normal really. But finding the right people to talk to - people who not only have some salience in our world and something interesting and important to say, but will also attract listeners - is not quite so easy. So I thought it would be useful to throw the floor open to suggestions. Who do you think we should ask to be interviewed?
The candidate must be someone likely to accept, and must speak clear English. Other than that, the field is open.
At the weekend Lee John Barnes and I finally recorded an hour’s worth of sometimes fairly frank discussion, and the result is on the Radio page. Lee, it must be said, has no official remit to speak for the party leadership. But he is as close and as loyal to it as anyone I am likely to interview for the foreseeable future, and puts up a spirited defence - alongside an interesting focus on non-political activism to address the fractured and atomised condition of the white working class under multiculturalism.
See the Radio Page.
My next MR Radio interview subject is Lee John Barnes of the BNP. His contributions to recent threads here have been interesting, to say the least, and this is your opportunity to help frame the questioning he will receive sometime in the next week.
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