Majorityrights Central > Category: Marxism

    Fail: on this one, your erudition yields an F-

In minute 2:18 - 2:21:18 of a discussion with TRS, Greg Johnson proposes to do away with the idea that John Locke’s notion of civil individual rights is a key fundament of U.S. politics and suggests that it is only portrayed as such by Jewish interests.

First and foremost, Greg is ignoring the fact that it is in the group interests of Whites to criticize this notion for basically the same reasons that Jews have - especially for its bias against their capacity for group discrimination.

Johnson argues that Calvinism and Republicanism, in the latter case in particular, by way of reading Montesquieu, were exponentially more important to the founders. Maybe they were, but that doesn’t translate to what became important in the life of ordinary everyday Americans for over 100 years.

Are people concerned with The Republic? Well, of course not very much in any practical sense. You can set aside the bit about Montesquieu being more influential by a factor of a hundred. This is a case of an erudite man pulling rank to the detriment not only of the truth, but of important utility.

The second matter is of Calvinism and its inherent means to exclude Jews. The separation of Church and State is integral to The U.S. Constitution, so any such notion of this being more relevant than Lockeatine rights in the every day lives of Americans - or even for those who set the agendas - is way off the mark. Again, it displays a wish for some of that unused erudition to come in handy in a place where it does not really help.

To look at Locke’s notion of individual rights as set against and problematizing group organization is the best way to critique the foundations of America in terms of what has left racial defense susceptible. This is what makes racial defense extremely difficult, because it de-legitimizes group organization.

Given individual rights as the characteristic and definitive law of the land, when people raise concerns about how borders and boundaries are to be maintained, i.e., when people do try to tarry with these strictures, at best they tend to render crazy propositions (disingenuous or naive) that not only will the markets take care of themselves by the magic hand, but boundaries and borders around groups will be taken care of by the magic hand as well. In a word, Locke’s empirical objectivism is a force of liberalism that is available for easy exploitation - by Jewish interests, liberals and other later day objectivists, be they Austrian School or other form of objectivist.

Nobody around here is saying that Jewish interests would not have taken advantage of The Constitution’s empirical basis. Nobody should be naive enough, however, to believe that just because Jews reject it for its troubling of group organization and discrimination, that we should not problematize it on that basis as well, in order to discriminate on behalf of ourselves.

Greg is being that naive and asking us to be that naive when he tries to pull rank and suggest that Montesquieu is more influential by a factor of a hundred. Well, maybe he was to the founders. But ask Americans, including politicians, what matters to them when push comes to shove - for the past hundred years or so, what matters to them? Montesquieu, Calvin or their Lockeatine rights?

  “There is no such thing as society”

In that act of being mistaken, anyway - let’s leave a way out for people understandably reacting to the Jewish misrepresentation of the terms, “left” and “post modernity”.

Internal Relation and Emergence

You don’t have to take a position which places your people (praxis) as the central gauge. You can go on like a right wing fool for Jews and place a “quest for truth, facts and universal foundations” (and “inequality” even?) above all - even wreck your own people in that “noble quest;” but you’d be an unnecessary fool, a dupe for Jews and Jewish thinking in so doing. You don’t have to put our people at the center - but you can, as factual verification and reality checking are available in an instant if you are not dealing with reality; whereas the principles upholding our people took many centuries to create and are much more precious and difficult to reconstruct, if ever they can be. It isn’t necessary to place facts at the center - people are born of facts and if afforded correct principles, proper agency and accountability, our people will come to continually adjust their interests with the facts. Hence, the right’s whole arbitrary-making quest for facts and episodic verification at the expense of principled interest in our people is the height of folly.

Chasing mere facts and perfect verification away from “faith” in our people will tend to take them into runaway, beyond our people’s systemic interests - as opposed to taking the White post modern turn into its facilitation of the preservation and reconstruction of our people - where the facts are ensconced in the sufficiently deep emergent reality of our people’s systemic history to afford re-framing at their authentic place in relation to our human ecological system.

Right and Altright reactionary fan club - scavenging the wreckage of continued reaction.

The right, “alternative right”, those in their orbit, lay in wait as vultures for things like GW’s latest surprise: as I stepped aside from a discussion of British politics, he applied the theoretical wrecking ball again to “THE left” and “post modernity” at their behest (he isn’t so lame as to have to do it for himself); ill-prepared for the surprise in that context, I put up a threadbare defense against what I’ve come to see as a part of GW’s autobiography - “champion of the right, universal foundational unifier against the left’s class divisiveness.”

GW - working class hero who sees their classification as a critical problem of imposed nationalist division.

If you are coming here, like myself, chances are that you appreciate GW’s ability - you delight as he wields a scalpel on behalf of White/ethno-national sovereignty, more often a wrecking ball to the pretenses of academia and scholarship that are working against it.

We value this, want him to continue, want him to be satisfied with his part and his contributions. 

What follows here is going to show little appreciation for that, which is abundant and shows forth in spontaneity for the surfeit of his intelligence - often yielding indispensable flourishes and insights that I myself cherish. This piece is rather an ungrateful piece in that regard, given that he has stood by me as I set about chartering a new platform for Majorityrights; and I sent scurrying many who had deep appreciation and respect for him as well; but it is neither for myself nor “his own good” that I proceed not feeling particularly guilty about that - nor is the matter of face saving a pressing matter for either of us - the sake is proper theoretical grounds, which is always my central motivation. Still this will appear rather like a hit piece - as it takes aim, focuses on the clumsier props of GW’s worldview, philosophical underpinnings and aspirations - not on better sides and ideas, which will emerge cybernetically in balance of fact.

If you are coming here, you probably appreciate and identify with GW’s rogue path: as a completely disaffected outsider to the academic fray, he early on rejected the nonsense coming out of there, particularly from fields dealing with social issues. And you delight along with him as he continues to apply the wrecking ball to their cherished liberal ruses under cover of “The left”, their wish to open important borders and boundaries, to bring down individual merit, to drag others down into primitive individual and group failure - instinctively, you sense him taking down liberal bullies who are smug enough to insulate themselves from the consequences of the unsupportable concepts of social “justice” that they wield against those native White populations least responsible for others problems, most likely to suffer from liberalism and least likely to gain from the applications known as “The Left” - applications which can recognize just about any collective unionization of interests except one kind - White. Certainly a (((coincidence))).

Most people who’ve come here, myself included, have also experienced mystification over GW’s not being satisfied with that. You have been at least temporarily mystified as he evades into the arbitrary recesses ever available by the empirical philosophy that underpins modernity; and as he continually applies its wrecking ball, secure in the faith that it will leave in its wake only that which is fine and good; a wrecking ball summarily dismissing scholarship, conceptual tools and principles that others set forth to guide social action.

I have been stunned as he sends the wrecking ball my way as well, summarily dismissing even carefully culled and profoundly warranted philosophical ideas, eminently useful conceptual tools and important rhetorical positions that I have geared to his same White ethno-nationalist interests; while his modernist philosophy willy-nilly casts me into the role of the “lefty academic” foil in key moments.

I am no longer mystified by this.

A reactionary position is mostly retreating (evading) and attacking - whatever looks like an enemy or Trojan horse - but for its instability, it is susceptible to chase after the red cape.

An early contentious streak in the autobiography over-reinforced by circumstance, ability and admirers.

GW is wonderful, we love GW, but like the rest of us, he is not perfect. There is a residual strain of contentiousness in his autobiography that stems from his early disaffection and precocious disregard of liberal prescriptions coming from academia. It’s a part of his autobiography that he takes a great deal of pride-in. It is also socially confirmed enough so that he continues to chase its red cape known as “THE left;” and keeps applying the modernist wrecking ball to any concepts the tiniest bit speculative in circumscribing social interests; or adopting any terms also used by liberal “left” academics - even if used in different ways, he will understand it in THE left way that he is familiar with - and summarily dismiss it as such or apply the wrecking ball.

Unlike most people disaffected of liberal academia, he is not of the working class sort content to shake his fist at academic pomposity, to find solace in a beer and the pragmatism of his working class buddies, allowing the union misrepresentatives to negotiate his interest with their fellow liberals of academic background; nor is he content to join in with the White collar and middle class who typically denounce the worst of academic socialists as unrealistic, while they go along with the liberal anti racism of the academe, signaling their one-upness to the lower classes by denouncing as backward superstition whatever defensively racist discrimination they might even require.

He does share a few things in common with the typical middle class perspective however. Naturally, he has a bias toward viewing his success in positivist terms, as having come about from his gray matter and personal initiative, not because he derived any benefit from artificially imposed social bounds against competition and to circumscribe cooperation. 

Though he can relate to the working class “xenophobia”, he maintains that their maintenance of who they are among a collective “we” (i.e., particular native European nationals) and their choice of whom to intermarry with (same particular native European national) is something that should and can emerge naturally from their genetics - an identity that will emerge naturally, provided they do not have liberal, Fabian and Marxist ideas imposed upon them; the last thing GW wants is to impose another artifice upon them, one which he believes could divide them against their upwardly mobile English brethren, and in turn, divide the middle class even more against them. I.e., the “left” and “right” is normally taken as an economic divider and unifier of class, not a racial nationalist one as I am proposing. The middle class, as much as any, might be reluctant to ‘get it’ and not identify with a “White left,” in which case we would be back to the divisive issue, not the uniting issue that both GW and I seek - we may not agree on terminology but we do agree on native nationalism.

Thatcherite obectivism a means for personal advancement and foundational unification of nationalism.

In fact, GW is a native nationalist, deeply offended by the class system which has long hampered English unity. Thus, he is not content to disavow the worst of liberal and Marxist academics, writing-them-off as the idiots that they are, while leaving the working class to the fate that liberalism will bring to them, and, if left unabated, to all of us eventually. Like a few, more ambitious among us, he set about to get things right, to open a platform for White nationalists, even before it was quite the immanent practical necessity that it is now.

He aspires to identify the ontological connection between all English classes which, if unfettered by artificial constructs, would have them acting as native nationalists in loyal unanimity to their interests.

In that regard, Margaret Thatcher represented to him a liberating moment from the incredibly burdensome artifices of liberal, Fabian and Marxist Left union delimitations and by contrast an opportunity to unite as nationalists on natural positivist grounds.

Normal first reaction that doesn’t take Post Modern turn as it fails to see liberalism flying under left colors.

Indeed, most anybody of this ambition, myself included, who cares about our race and its ethnonational species, starts out in reaction to the absurd, contradictory and destructive liberal rhetoric coming out of academia and reaches to grab hold white knuckle to foundational truths, particularly scientific fact, which cannot be bamboozled by the rhetoric of liberal sophistry (which we later come to recognize as more often than not, Jewish in original motive). And we do grab hold white knuckle - that is to say, scientistically, in rigid over and misapplication of hardish science to the social realm, as we cannot trust the social realm, its rhetorical caprice if not deception - its ongoing disordering effects that apparently threaten to rupture social order anew with every agentive individual. Coming from a non-Jewish, Christian cultural perspective, where our bias starts, if not Jesus, we first liken ourselves to Plato and then modern scientists seeking to gird and found our place and our people’s place, whereas “they” are Pharisees and sophists, wielding the sheer rhetoric that we are going to debunk with our pure, native ability and motives. In a word, we are going to do science against their dishonest bias against us - they are indeed being deceptive and biased on behalf of unfair people; we see it as our objective to establish universal foundational truth that will be unassailable to this sophistry.

That is the normal first reaction of a White person who cares about themself and our people - it was mine and it was GW’s - a nascent White nationalist in response not only to the anti-White discourse coming out of the university, but in response to the very frame of the discourse - that is to say, taking on the frame [Jewish and liberal social stuff and lies versus White science and truth] - against accusations of privilege, racism and exploitation, we sought pure innocence in truth beyond social tumult and disingenuous rhetorical re framing. We (understandably) acted with absolute revulsion to anything like social concern and accountability - why should we be accountable to ever more alien imposition? - itself neither offering nor asking for an account sufficient to maintain our EGI - and where our people are eerily unconcerned or antagonistic to our people as well, we are only more compelled to take on the task ourselves - to pursue pure warrant. Our first reaction to the liberal chimera called “THE left” is: “I” noble servant of postulates - theorems - axioms - upon universal foundational truth.”

Beyond our people’s relative social interests even, we must save ourselves from the lies of “The left” (never minding that their first lie is that they represent our left) and found our moral/ontological basis where Jews, other tribalists and our selfish liberals, who only care about themselves, can never again manipulate it. We hold white knuckle, rigidly, in reaction to Jewish sophistry.

History will show that our people who pursued and secured sovereignty, health and well being found a philosophy advanced of that - competent and able to secure their social interests. They’d taken the White Post Modern turn from this reactionary position.

For reasons unfolding here, including reasons of his personal autobiography, GW has yet to appreciate and take the post modern turn.

Personal ability and interpersonal circumstances have facilitated his carrying-on in a typical first philosophical position of an amateur outsider in regard to academia - the epistemological blunder of “they are just sophists who provide nothing but nonsense while ‘I’ and my pure thoughts in relation to ‘theory’ am going to set the world aright” - an epistemological error in the relation of knower to known that is born in reaction and puerile hubris, carried on by being strong, smart enough to persist long after most people would shrink back from the signs of its limitations; going further uncorrected as it has been endorsed by “no enemies to the right” (a dubious principle, if there ever was one); it has grown into a surprisingly big and audacious ego wielded as a wrecking ball against “post modern philosophy.” We are supposed to rest assured on his faith that in the aftermath of wreckage, that the emergent qualities of his mind are all that is required besides the occasional foil to play off of in order to clarify and carry the modernist program forward to unshakeable, universal, foundational truth - unassailable to any social reconstruction. Never mind that we are already willing to agree upon most of the fundamental rules that he would seek - our agency is not necessary if it is going to suggest anything like planned social construction of systemic defense. No, that’s all impure stuff to be cast aside; and by contrast of true Platonic form, if you are freed from that ignorance and come to know the good he will secure, you will do that good.

He is not satisfied to simply negotiate, reason-things-out and reach an understanding among his people, he is not even particularly concerned that it won’t be a damn bit of good if people can’t understand his philosophical yield - he wants to secure that good on ontological foundations beyond praxis - beyond the capacity for manipulation. Most sophomores abandon this, their freshmen objective, as not only obsolete philosophy, but in fact, come to recognize it as destructive philosophy - a destruction which GW continues, with tremendous faith, without need of Aristotelian compass, that tremendous confidence to persevere where Wittgenstein failed.

The boomer generation - libertarianism and egocentrism.

The likes of Bowery and GW will be slower, if ever, to make the turn in direction, not because they are stupid, of course, quite to the contrary, but because they have the mental horsepower necessary to keep patching and operating the antiquated and obsolete technology that is modernity; and stem predilection both motivates them and enables them to do that; they are more self sufficient, less immediately reliant on the social (why carry others weight?); more confirmed by females by being reliable as such (concentrating on how to do things, not stepping on the toes of females by asking questions of social control - as long as you are at one end of the competition you are OK - liberal or the right wing end); confirmed by non academic workers in their more pragmatic concerns; and confirmed by right wingers in their penchant for anti-social theory beyond social manipulation - exactly, they are also slow to take the turn, of course, because they have an understandable lack of trust in liberal-social narratives; this unwillingness to suspend disbelief may be increased inasmuch as they have benefited as baby boomers, less harried for their identity in the parts of their life-span experienced prior to the culture of critique and in their personal initiatives after its reprieve - in Bowery’s case, with aspects of the objectivism behind Ron Paul’s libertarian “revolution”; and in GW’s case, during the Thatcher years (Thatcher’s initial backers having discovered her reading Wittgenstein’s cousin, Hayek, who obliviously carried forward upon the Tractatus) - years of brief, partial liberation from liberal-left union fetters - “there is no such thing as society” - in either case, a false friend facilitated as false opposition - viz., an expression of steered objectivism derived of Austrian schools beginning with Wittgenstein.

The title is a projection of objectivism. Subtitle: look who else is reading it.

What is confirmed to me - in a roundabout way, when GW dons his powdered wig, grabs a quill pen, does his best John Locke or whatever voice serves, and says oh, “that’s just Aristotle and his rhetoric,” “all of the good ideas are coming from the right”, “based in nature, none of this praxis stuff”, says that he “never loses an argument against academics”, etc., then continually re-applies radical skepticism of the empiricists and their forerunners - is that he is showing an ego driven and confirmed desire to carry-on the “pure” modernist project; viz., in his ontology project and his destruction of everything in its path, even treating Aristotle and William James as utter morons, GW is revealing a vain desire to do something all alone, like a combination of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico Philosphicus and Heidegger’s Being & Time: “The world is everything that is the case” meets “the worldhood of the world” - without the post modern implications of the latter. All that is required is the emergent qualities of his mind to set the world’s ontology aright - it will be “unassailable” by liberal, social, “left” rhetoric.

His reaction, confirmation and penchant for empirical verification against Jewish rhetoric has apparently caused him to disregard the post modern turn that was occuring also in Heidegger’s philosphy, albeit in Heidegger’s case, in that somewhat rigid, German way (which I find endearing).

GW appreciates Heidegger, so why does he not move forward from 1927 and why does he retreat to 1921 and the Tractatus? That he consders “OF being” the better starting point than Heidegger’s “There Being” provides a clue to ego centrism and Cartesian anxiiety - he not only proposes the reconstruction of the Cartesian starting point, “Of being”, but proposes it as an exclusive position, not even taking hermeneutc turns with Heidegger’s non-Cartesan starting point, “There being.”

“Unassailably” proclaiming that “The world is everything that is the case”

Whereas Wittgenstein himself was forced to yield-to, if not recognize the necessity of, the post modern turn - so much so that he was embarrassed by his effort at a complete ontology in The Tractatus Logico Philosophicus - having proclaimed its logic “unassailable” at once upon completion, he later repudiated it, even took to referring to its author as if a different person.

The Motivation for Post Modernity

Part of the craze for “post modernity” is that people (correctly) sense that modernity is destroying their differences, their traditions, their ways of life, their people and their very lives. And yet they frequently found traditional societies destructive as well. Therefore they were happy to have not only backing of cross cultural studies, vouching that different ways of life are valid, but also some confirmation from the very foundational math and science which modernity pursued to an apex that finally turned back on itself.

Kurt Gödel had demonstrated that a theory of any complexity could not be both complete and unambiguous.

Neils Bohr had priorly announced that there is no instrument fine enough to resolve the wave/particle distinction.

Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle elaborating from that was subtler still - that the observer is engaged in interaction and has reflexive effects upon that which he observes.

Confirmation of Aritstotle’s Praxis and suggestion that it should be the radical basis of assessment, not pure objective facts.

These findings confirmed Aristotle’s premises as set forth in Nichomachean Ethics - on the nature of Praxis - people are in reflexive relation, mostly requiring a degree of practical judgement as they are less predictable than the theoretical causality which the hard sciences pursue. It also would suggest placing praxis more in the center than theory - i.e., a socially based perspective where people are the arbiter, as opposed to “I think therefore I am” in relation to mere, indisputable facts and non-interactive third person behavioral units; a pursuit even outstripping the subject ultimately in favor of fixed theoretical facts - the Cartesian relation (pursued non-relation, as it were) of knower to known.

Vico was first to take the hermeneutic turn against Descartes, to bring ideas into historical context, the relation of knower to known into the social world of praxis

A relation knower to known other than the Cartesian model is required by modernity’s recognized failures and impervious destruction.

Those who care about people, who see the destruction of Descarte’s “relation” of knower to known, understand the wisdom of Aristotle, and realize that Vico -  Descartes’ first major critic - was in fact, proposing the taking of theoria into praxis: i.e., correctly placing people and praxis at the center of his world view. He was setting forth the historical, hermeneutic world view, the post modern world view. And, in turn, those who understand Heidegger will see that he was following in that same direction, which may be called “existential” and which is centered in praxis - the social world.

The White Post Modern turn is, of course, the best and most moral perspective for advocating people - Whites especially - Jews don’t want that and so they fool the uneducated masses and most of the educated masses as well by reinterpreting the terms by which people - viz., White people, might understand this - and they get them to react against didactic misrepresentation. That is, they are getting them to react in aversion to what is good and healthy in racial advocacy by having made it didactic in misrepresentation - e.g., the highly sensible Post Modern is presented as “dada” (whereas I have secured its sensible form in White Post Modernity).

Bowery and GW were impelled on, for the didacticism of the (((liberal-left - contradiction of terms))) and for the (((misrepresentation))) that was this false opposition and its false promise to liberate us from The left, among other reasons. Objectivism, the neoliberalism and libertarianism of the Austrian school of economics, Thatcherism, is merely a false opposition that (((they))) set up against “(((The Left))).” It is a product of late modernity, derived of the Vienna School of Logical Positivism, which in turn was derived of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico Philosophicus.

Again, that was Wittgenstein’s attempt to set-out a comprehensive and “unassailable” ontology - “The world is everything that is the case.” He would later say that the Tractatus was “not a very good book”, lest he be mistaken for one not recognizing that those who had taken the post modern turn had left this philosophical quest behind. Nevertheless, the Austrian school of logical positivism founded upon the Tractatus lived on through his cousin Hayek (who Thatcher was discovered dutifully reading); it was then taken up by von Mises et. al, who would conveniently and explicitly adopt this no-account modernist program against any one of subsequent generations who was the least bit reflective, who had any social complaints about how they and their people had been left without social capital after this generation of egocentric locusts devoured all social capital in their path. Waiting generations of right wing reactionaries, ensconced in their well protected Internet bubbles, were ready to look up to these libertarians for their lack of social concern, conveniently blaming the socially conscientious of prior generations for the problems - “The Left”, where not “hippies”, were the ones asleep at the wheel and leading us over a cliff, “but not the objectivists” and not (((The YKW))).

One-up intransigence of boomers meets generation Internet bubble for a right-wing cocktail, silencing socially conscientious voices between.

Because of GW’s unwillingness to trust anybody but himself, he takes recourse in the one aspect of the post modern turn where his first person account of all the world’s foundations might be claimed - emergentism. He has a problem, however, when I say that the world still interacts.  He has to take recourse to the absurdly arbitrary claim that “life doesn’t interact.”

Emergentism, in fact, is one of the key contributing factors to the post modern turn - it challenges the reductionism and fixedness of the modernist ontology project in an important sense - the emergent whole being greater than the sum of its parts means that significant referents are changeable in complex systems, thus qualifying Bowery’s criticism - “there is either a referent or there is not” - as this charge must yield to the fact that facts can be re-framed as they emerge physically, as they are designated by individuals and as they emerge in social consensus. And yes, what emerges still interacts in a myriad of ways.

Gen Xer’s were a bit late for the ride

“There is no such thing as society”

Their lack of faith in the social narratives as they are applied by YKW is understandable, the faith they show in the guiding principle of modernity to leave only what is fine and true in the wake of their wrecking ball is not. There comes a time to suspend disbelief. To draw a hypothetical boundary around our people is as good a time and place as any. “Wise men see lines and they draw them” - William Blake. And its not so hypothetical.

Perhaps because their boomer generation was early in line and they were intelligent enough to position themselves by means of objectivism for a deck chair on the higher end of a sinking Titanic, they can take some solace in writing-off those who might be going under first, if it does go down, as hazards of nature, having not acted “naturally” in EGI - Bowery in particular, being motivated by an affinity for the individuality of northern Europeans, abandoned ship (MR, anyway) when Dr. Lister and I began raising criticisms of “individualism über alles” and raising social concerns against that.

In fact, for this reason, Bowery issued an ultimatum (“either him or Lister”) which defaulted to Graham’s more social side, upon which Bowery expressed his “revulsion” for Majorityrights.

READ MORE...

Ten people suffered stab wounds and other injuries on Sunday after members of a white nationalist group that planned to rally outside the California state Capitol building in Sacramento clashed with a larger group of counter protesters, authorities said.

The fight broke out when about 30 members of the Traditionalist Worker Party gathering to rally around noon Sunday were met by about 400 counter-protesters, California Highway Patrol Officer George Granada said.

Alhough Jewish controlled media is granting the grandiose and misleading left cover of the name, “Traditionalist Worker Party,” and calling them a “white nationalist” organization, they are actually a right-wing group committed to Jesus and Christianity above all causes.

While having a preference to advocate for White faithful and Orthodox Christian Whites in particular, the group does cooperate with non-Christian White nationalists upon tacit agreement with “the alternative right”, viz., its big tent condition to rise above “little disagreements” - markedly about Jesus, Hitler, scientism or Jewish inclusion - i.e., anti-social positions in reaction to the Jewish organized left. And to the extent that “altrighters” accept their Christian agenda - with Matt Parrott and Matt Heimbach of “Tradyouth” being “Altright” insiders - they are a part of a makeshift bureaucratic clique and a big tent (tentosphere) concerned to discourage attention to Majorityrights’ platform.

In the meantime, the YKW will grant coverage to groups and individuals such as Heimbach and Parrott inasmuch as they act into an altercast as right wingers, allowing them to do what right wingers are wont to do - react as useful dupes for Jewish and objectivitst interests, associating White Nationalism with the stigma of anti-social behavior; their search for foundations beyond social accountability being futile and counterproductive to White interests; all the while they tend to mistake and accept definitions of accountability and social justice for the Jewish trammel of language games and anti-White rhetoric.

Although they had a permit to protest last Sunday in front of the Sacramento, California Courthouse, “The Chairman and Vice Chairman” of “The Traditionalist Worker Party” enlisted “The Golden State Skinheads” as security for their rally.

They said that they had planned the Sunday event in conjunction with the Golden State Skinheads “to make a statement about the precarious situation our race is in” after “brutal assaults” at Donald Trump events in California.

       
        Matt Heimbach

“We stood our ground. We will be back,” The L.A. Times reported “Traditionalist Worker Party Chairman” Matthew Heimbach as saying - he added that “in the clash, one of their marchers had been stabbed in an artery and six of the counter-protesters had also been stabbed.”

Vice chairman Matt Parrott, who was not present at the Sacramento rally, blamed “leftist radicals” for instigating the violence. Videos and photos of the rally posted on social media showed the white nationalists vastly outnumbered by protesters from anti-fascist groups.

ABC News also reported that “Videos from the melee posted on social media showed mounted police officers dispersing a group of mostly young people, some with their faces covered, while some throw stones toward a man holding a stick and being shielded by police officers in riot gear.

Of the injured, two were taken to the hospital with critical stab wounds, but they were expected to survive, officials said.

Although it is difficult to get past the YKW media negative conditioning and by contrast to convince White Nationalists of the utility of a White Left Nationalist perspective, its utility remains, rather like a cat landing on its feet every time, lining up enemies, elite traitors and rank and file as well. The White Left Nationalist perspective maintains its stability, normalization, sustainability and thus adherence in social praxis, with key accountability from elites and rank and file.

I gleaned and refined this perspective from Metzger - who is entirely relevant to this discussion as it was he who organized American skinheads after the skinhead movement germinated in England in the 1980’s. Metzger also found out the hard way, as did many, about the inherent instability and perfidy of the right as manifest in provocation, reaction and turncoats upon such tactics. He lost his house and business and had to file for bankruptcy for a prosecution of “vicarious liability” after a skinhead tenuously associated with him killed a black man in another state, hundreds of miles away.

With Metzger’s central experience and racial conviction, I was able to reject the obvious stupidity of right wing associations with racial advocacy and to overcome the normal aversion to the Jewish abused term, “the left”, as a mere diversion from its nifty organizing function, including racial organization.

I can see the pattern of what he and David (14 Words) Lane began to describe as the perfidy of “the right wing.” I can also see the pattern behind and why Jewish interests want to dissuade us from a White left identity.

And once there, one can see more clearly the perfidy of acting into an altercast as right wing.

Heimbach and Parrott might not want to learn from those with more experience, but they should have known better anyway than to be involved with violent street altercations. In fact, even an act such as this - Heimbach shoving a person - can bring about a charge of assault under The U.S. legal system; YKW attorneys will be particularly vigilant for any such opportunity to affix “hate charges” given that the woman he shoved was black….add to that bringing skinheads and weapons into the occasion and you are asking to render yourself unto the legal system, useless to our cause. There will come a time when we can re-write the laws but that time is not now and they should have known better than to react into the altercast.

TT says, “stay out of the right!”

Though going under the grandiose ostensible left cover and misnomer of “The Traditionalist Worker Party”, their right wing organization is committed to Jesus Christ above all. Matt Parrott has told Majorityrights that he will cooperate provisionally with White Nationalists and other ethnonationalists, though ultimately, he advocates for Christian rule to be imposed upon all people. As it is derived from Jewish interests and not grounded in the relativizing and normalizing realm of White praxis, their ideology will be inherently unstable and susceptible to Jewish manipulation. The altrighters seek to protect their pet anti social projects, Jesus, Hitler, Jews, scientism, etc; while attempts to ground White advocacy in accountability to praxis and genetics have been met by the Altright and Parrott, in particular, with bureaucratic imperviousness - Parrott also stating that he believes the Euro DNA Nations to be “wrong at every turn.”

Way down in the profound gears of ship’s engine room, we were given the shaft: YKW misdirection of “left” as our enemy as opposed to potential utility of a White Left - unionization of Whites against liberalism come by any means, Jews or otherwise.

Andrew Joyce demonstrates that as opposed to “the left”, the more descriptive and useful term for what our enemies are prescribing for us - viz. liberalism - can be used with perfect coherence. He even alludes to the profound significance of it by article’s end -  likening the matter of our course as directed by Jewish interests and their liberal minions to an issue way down in the engine-room of the ship - the implicit matter of “liberalism” as the prescription of the enemy as opposed to “leftism” as our key affliction - like a gear being controlled by YKW way down there, on a level normally taken for granted, about which we normally suspend disbelief, but where a very fundamental change in bias needs to occur for the sake of our racial solidarity and defense.

We had previously observed Tobias Langdon (at TOO) making this transformation and now Joyce is doing it too - a very good move.

TOO, “On Recent Violence in Yorkshire and Orlando, and the Liberal “Suspension of Disbelief,” 21 June 2016:

“The blindness of the masses, their readiness to surrender to that resounding but empty eloquence that fills the public squares, make them an easy prey. … We will have no difficulty in finding as much eloquence among our people for the expression of false sentiments as Christians find in their sincerity and enthusiasm.”

‘The Rabbi’s Speech’ Hermann Goedsche, Biarritz (1868)

I’ve never really enjoyed horror movies. I don’t mind the gore, the violence, or even the bad acting. What I can’t forgive is the mind-numbing predictability that typifies the genre. While many of its fans might preach about the fun to be had with the ‘suspension of disbelief,’ I’ve often been the annoying fellow in the movie theatre asking “Why don’t they just turn on the light/leave the house/stay out of the basement?” Being frightened or shocked requires a lowered level of anticipation, and a lowered level of anticipation requires the viewer to ignore surrounding patterns, cues and clues and, above all, to ‘suspend disbelief.’ To partake in the horror experience, we need to set aside not only our tendency to perceive an unfolding formula, but also the fact that we may have seen such a formula many times previously. And although we are aware that what we are observing is a complete fiction, we must undertake efforts on a subconscious or conscious level to convince ourselves that it is, or could be, true.

As a very rational thinker with an eye for patterns, I find it difficult to partake in the horror experience. It takes a lot to shock me and, for much the same reason, I was left largely untroubled by the recent events in Orlando and Yorkshire. I certainly didn’t feel any sense of surprise at either instance of violence. Like every horror franchise that runs for too long, acts of Muslim terror on our soil started losing their shock value around a decade ago (or at least they should have). And England has been undergoing such a level of dispossession, murder and child rape that a violent response, even from the fringes of White society, was an unfortunate inevitability. Since our movement is greatly concerned with monitoring the facts and the reality of our unfolding racial horror, we anticipated these ‘scares’ with no less certainty than we anticipated the rising of the sun. We knew the likely places from which these events would emanate, and we know that more will follow.

[...]

Barack Obama described shocked communities “grasping for answers with broken hearts.” Meanwhile, in an astonishing piece of emotional projection by liberals, NBC reported that Afghan-Americans (an absurd label) are “grappling with shock, shame and the taboo topics of homophobia and religious intolerance in their community.”

[...]

...shocked liberals of the NBC variety are comforting themselves with the delusion that Muslims are just as shocked and horrified as they are.

Self-deceiving liberals have achieved one of their greatest tricks of journalistic magic by ensuring the disappearance of religion and ethnicity from their commentary on Islamic violence.

[....]

Liberal sociologist, and self-styled expert on ‘guns and gender,’ Jennifer Carlson has written in the Washington Post that

  Actor, activist and author George Takei has described the fight for gun control as “the next chapter of LGBT history.”

[...]

By offering their support for mass immigration, and thus the introduction of such a social problem into our nations, liberals have played a key role in making our societies more violent, less trusting, and economically weaker — all while under the delusion that they were making “the world” a better place.

[...]

In much the same way, our modern liberals exist in a world in which they have suspended disbelief in the ideological fantasies they have been indoctrinated with. Their ideology thus becomes immune to reality. The young creatives in our movement have actually popularized a very intelligent meme ridiculing this pernicious liberal trait: “No-one could have predicted that…” One could then complete the sentence with something like “…Black African migrants would do poorly in school and be highly prone to crime,” or “…Arab migrants would rape European women” The meme highlights that these behaviors are actually very predictable while also pouring scathing sarcasm on the real or feigned shock of liberals when such events occur.

[...]

Liberals have neglected to fully interrogate their own arguments because their entire ideology is built on the suspension of disbelief. They are capable of persisting in their delusion only because they ignore the patterns around them, sacrificing an understanding of ‘the plot’ for an emotionally exciting journey on the edge of their seats. The left-liberal existence is lived out on the ‘fun’ of pro-immigration rallies, the thrill of being morally righteous, and the equally emotionally heightened atmosphere of the candle-lit vigils that accompany the ‘shocks’ and ‘scares’ of the dreadful world they have helped to create. Much like that of a young child, theirs is an emotive world where adrenaline, novelty and stimulation are the most significant landmarks. It is a world where Antifa placards mingle with crocodile tears, in which ‘love’ can overcome physical realities and genetic limitations, in which pop concerts can reverse famines, and in which the only enemy is that amorphous but ever-present ideological bogeyman — ‘hate.’

The husband of Jo Cox has apparently urged everyone “to fight against the hate that killed her.” As far as soundbites go, few could be more attuned to the irrational spirit of modern liberalism. Liberalism, wallowing in the conceit that it is the last bastion of rationality, paradoxically imbues ‘hate’ with the same supernatural aura once reserved for poltergeists and demons. Mr Cox and his fellow liberals would do well to remember that ‘hate’ did not kill Jo Cox any more than it killed anyone at the Pulse nightclub. Men undertook these grim endeavors — human beings with social and ethnic connections and identities, grievances, agendas and interests. However, like a horror bogeyman, ‘hate’ is significantly less intellectually demanding and thus more appealing to ‘the scriptwriters’ who believe it is best not to have the audience think too much. Faced with ‘hate’ rather than three-dimensional individuals and ethnic groups, the childish liberal need not attempt to understand its history, its motivations, or even what it wants. It suffices to simply scream when it pops up.

[...]

We certainly weren’t informed by our liberal moral superiors that our failure to provide financial benefits as well as living space to these settlers would result in destruction, violence, and murder on our streets. Instead, chattering liberals claimed ‘shock’ that the new houses didn’t build themselves, that an incoherent thug represented a poor option for employment in an industrial nation, and that their beloved refugees brought with them vice, crime, disease and more than enough of their own home-grown prejudices.

Just as viewers of horror movies can be kept on the edge of their seats, so can they also be deeply misled. Although they may still be spooked along the way, viewers can possess a smug satisfaction that they have the plot figured out entirely, ignorant of the final twist that ultimately looms on the horizon. In the same way, and in marked contrast to responses to events in Orlando, liberals have adopted a smug and self-satisfied approach to the assassination of Jo Cox in Yorkshire.

[...]

I await the advent of a single piece of journalism suggesting that the violence of Thomas Mair was linked to economic deprivation, social isolation, or any other excuses that would have been tenderly laid at his feet had he possessed a little more melanin.

READ MORE...

Vote Leave on 23 June.

Summary: This interview was hosted by Henrik Palmgren at Red Ice Radio, and the roundtable discussion was about Brexit and its significance for Europe and the world.

The first hour is freely available for all to download, the second hour is available with a subscription to Red Ice Radio.

The participants on the roundtable were:

• Henrik Palmgren: Henrik Palmgren was born in Götaland, Sweden, the land of the Goths. He is the founder and Editor-and-Chief of Red Ice. Henrik is best known as the host of Red Ice Radio and TV, producing most of its content. He is primarily concerned with European heritage, culture and counteracting global internationalists.


• Guessedworker (GW): An English nationalist in favour of international nationalism. Having lived in 1950s era Britain, he has since seen his nation undermined by neo-liberalism and Jewish-inspired leftism. He created Majorityrights.com in 2004 as a forum to find solutions for the myriad of problems facing not only the British people, but all European peoples as well.


• Kumiko Oumae: The Eurasian affairs contributor for Majorityrights.com. She believes that in order for Europe to control its own destiny – and for it to be a good trade and global development partner for Asian countries – there must be a serious dialogue on Europe’s historical role in the world and the justification of that role, as well as how the European states can resolve the crisis of legitimacy that their governments are presently facing. Kumiko also works in the security and defence sector in the United Kingdom.


• Daniel Sienkiewicz: An ex-pat American of European descent, living in Europe. He has been troubled by the implications of “anti-racism” and has been testing various means to advocate for European peoples for as long as he can remember. Daniel rejects many common approaches, including all characteristically Cartesian attempts, such as scientism, as ineffective means to solve the problems that currently threaten ethnic Europeans.

We were honoured to have the opportunity to link up with Red Ice Radio in this way, they have our thanks.

Red Ice Radio, ‘Brexit: Time for the UK to Leave the EU’, 17 Jun 2016:

We begin by discussing Brexit and its significance in the ongoing struggle between nationalism and internationalism. Kumiko argues that, in many ways, the current economic paradigm in the West isn’t quite internationalism proper, but rather the United States being allowed to dominate due to passivity on behalf of the European Union. Despite a few minor disagreements, all three guests adamantly support withdrawal from the European Union. We then discuss the original vision of the European Union – that of a unified, more prosperous Europe – and how the elites therein have sabotaged that vision by allowing in millions of non-European immigrants. Later, we talk about the unfortunate lack of patriotism within certain European countries. We conclude this episode with a discussion on the manner in which the mainstream media has used the murder of Jo Cox as an excuse to those in favor of Brexit.

Links:

• Majorityrights.com - The politics and metapolitics of 24th June 2016
• Majorityrights on Twitter
• Red Ice Radio
• Red Ice Radio on Twitter

       
Supreme Court until Scalia (bottom row, second from the left) died and left one vacancy. Note that there are three of (((them: Breyer, Ginsburg and Kagan))) on this court and no W.A.S.P.s.

       
(((Brandeis))) was (((first))) - (1916 - 1939). He met with resistance but made his way in with Jeffersonian objectivism, not actively invoking race, but focusing rather on economic injustice.

       
        (((Benjamin Cardozo was the second on the Court (1932 - 1938)))

       
(((Frankfurter))) was the third on the Court (1939 - 1962))). He was interested in more active advocacy of non-Whites, but needed a shabbos goy to act as the “activist” maverick: hence he birthed the strategy and the term, “activist court,” by contrast to “restrained court.” Frankfurter would pose as “restrained;” and then incite the gentiles to “heroic activism” through an “activist” Court - spearheaded by Earl Warren, who Frankfurter called “the dumb Swede”, concerned that Warren would take the bait too eagerly and cause reaction to his headlong activist court. Earl Warren did take the bait headlong but there was no successful reaction - most of the really significant anti-White laws were passed under his activist court: 54 Brown, 64 Civil Rights, 65 Immigration, 68 Housing Act.

       
        (((Arthur Goldberg (1962 - 1965)))

       
        (((Abe Fortas (1965 - 1969)))

The three sitting members are:

       
(((Ginsburg (1993 - ))). How many Jews are enough? A tearful Bill Clinton nominated her - first Jewish woman on the Court. Her first statement was in regard to her ((Brandeis-like objectivism))) - “nobody should be discriminated against on the basis of immutable characteristics.”

       
        (((Breyer (1994 - )))

       
        The Supremely unqualified (((Kagan (2010 - ))) got there by way of (((nepotism))).

......

The President nominates Supreme Court candidates - when confirmed, they occupy one of the most powerful positions in the world.

Scalia’s passing has left one Supreme Court vacancy of the 9 seats. At least two other, but perhaps three more Justices, are likely to change during the next Presidential term.

These facts give the next President a great deal of influence to determine the direction of 9 of the most powerful people in the world - it can swing the court to a more thoroughly liberal direction not known since the Warren court; or it can take a more “conservative tone” - although really, The Constitution binds the court to liberalism in the form of civil individual rights as opposed to group rights. (((The media))) and neo-liberals frame the discourse of Supreme Court Justice selection as representing an important choice between liberalism and “conservatism.”

However, there are still some significant decisions even though the overall discourse is liberal.

       
Obama nominee, (((Merrick Garland))) - Garland’s family were persecuted for ‘no good reason’ what-so-ever, so they fled to The U.S.

At (((NPR))), (((Jeffrey Rosen))) discusses the (((first Jewish Supreme Court Justice))), (((Brandeis))), and the importance of the coming Presidential election on the make-up of the Supreme Court - as many as 4 of the 9 seats can change in the next Presidential term.

http://www.npr.org/2016/06/07/481076322/revisiting-the-tenure-of-supreme-court-justice-louis-brandeis-the-jewish-jeffers

It’s impossible to underestimate the importance of this election on the Supreme Court - vote for the candidate whose vision of Constitution most coincides with your own.

There is a potential for a Court with a liberal make-up not seen since the Warren Court.

Issues at hand:

Affirmative action

Voting rights

Voter i.d. laws

The future of free speech

Privacy

Surveillance drones - warrants required or not?

          The Sermon on The Mount Ensconces The Golden Rule of Altruism

Majorityrights prefers to deal with verifiable reality as opposed to speculative theory and faith based systems of rules as we look after the interests of our people. We are looking after genetic groupings and genetic interests as key criteria, even if these are not the only important verifiable criteria to keep track of our peoplehood and that of others. Rationale and rule structures are another criteria for that purpose.

While existence is of course equiprimordial to genetic interests, to secure it for any span and legacy requires rationale and varying degrees of sophistication to negotiate complex rule structures of interaction. “Rules” (1) are the term of common currency that we will use for the logics of meaning and action that people use to negotiate interaction and these complex, protracted exchanges beyond episode, close personal relationships in yield to maturity of their full social system; and its relation to other social systems.

For those of us who are coming from this kind of perspective, where we perceive ourselves as rationally and empirically grounded, it is difficult to understand someone like pastor David Blackburn, his love of Jesus that would have him not only forgive, but want to share his love of Jesus with the men who raped and murdered his wife and unborn child; but to my knowledge, he is at least not hoping to get them released from prison.

It is even more difficult to understand European peoples allowing, even welcoming foreign incursions into The U.K., Sweden, France and Germany - it is difficult to fathom the mindset of a Merkel, who would destroy our European peoples in service to non-Europeans. But there is one rule, convoluted rule, that they have in common and makes their position intelligible to us despite their apparent irrationality.

The Golden Rule is a part of the Sermon on the Mount, which is a central text in the Christian faith. It states: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. There are similar instructions in many other cultures.

Despite receiving high respect and wide popularity, the rule raises critical questions. What is the recommendation more exactly, and is it good advice?

This post will prepare a discussion of the work of Jan Tullberg - viz., the difference between the golden rule of benevolence as opposed to the silver rule of reciprocity - as it applies to assist in the reconstruction of a necessary consensus of moral rules among European peoples and for coordinating our relations to others.
____________

There is a consensus among advocates of European peoples that in essence we seek to secure the existence of our people. There is much dispute over how that is to be done…

READ MORE...

Look in the mirror, White man, and understand that this is all your individual fault. You need to lift some weights, man up - don’t be critical of societal power and influence, assimilate black alpha male behavior, learn PUA and adjust to the R selection strategies to which these girls have become enculturated. Better yet, engage in boundless self flagellation and servitude to Mulatto supremacism. But this most of all son - blame yourself!

Ninety Two Percent

Tiffany N. Calloway, Independent, June 2, 2015

It is prognosticated that by 2050 the majority of the American populace will be biracial.

While this demographic shift in America is great for diversity and the future of racial equality we must also take into account that with the emergent trend of diversity and multiculturalism comes the delicate colloquy about the shift in cultural norms. It is well known that in the African American community fatherlessness is a major problem, 70 % of black children are born out of wedlock in the African American community.

The tendencies for fathers to be absent from their children’s lives has grown into what one can definitely call an African American cultural norm.

Due to the access to stats released by the census among many other sources, there has begun a dialogue about the growth of this paternal absence epidemic in the African American community. But the full extent of this epidemic can be lost on the public due to absence of statistics on involvement of black fathers in the lives of their biracial children as well, and the effects that can have on the biracial children in question. This study takes a more a inclusive look into birth trends, family structure, economic standing, emotional health, and paternal relationships of biracial children with African American fathers

Goals of the Current Research

1. Amassing data on the birth trends, family structure, economic standing,and paternal relationships of biracial children with African American fathers.

a. Currently there is no definitive research that ventures into this topic and for many has left them blind to the stats on this seemingly overlooked but vastly growing demographic within the United States.

2. What effects the family structure, economic standing, and paternal relationships of biracial children with African American fathers have on the children’s
emotional state.

a. Does the absence of the father have any bearing on the behavior of the child?

More specifically does the child exhibiting major behavioral problems like aggressive behavior, angry outbursts, excessive tantrums, run-ins with the law, drug use, alcohol use, excessive fighting, trouble in school, etc.when the father is absent.

Research Methods

The type of research that was used in this study is quantitative research.Quantitative research explains phenomena by collecting numerical data that are analyzed using mathematically based methods. The data was studied through observations in numerical representations and through statistical analysis. Along with questionnaires that were given out to respondents for the statistical representation of the findings in the study, interviews with the respondents were also conducted. The respondents in this study were females spanning the United States, and 3 diverse racial backgrounds that all have children between the ages of 1 - 17 whose paternal parent is African American. Participants were approached through media outlets such as newspapers, internet, and radio, most of the respondents were recruited through internet advertisements.  Participants that answered to the advertisement were asked to produce documentation that was utilized to collect and verify basic screening information regarding each participant’s race thus proving they are in fact Caucasian, Asian, or non-black Hispanic, as well as verifying the paternal parent of their child/children is in fact African American. Participants meeting the eligibility benchmarks were required to provide pertinent locators and tracing info such as cell phone numbers and contact information in order to finalize their enrollment procedures for the study. Accordingly, those who passed the requirements and were proven eligible were administered the survey. The data amassed was broken down into percentages, and the individual percentages were averaged.

Findings

Marital status at time of birth

Table 1. At the time of your child’s birth were you and the father married?

Caucasian 97% NO / 3% YES

Asian 85% NO / 15% YES

Hispanic 95% NO / 5% YES

Table 2. Did you and the father of your child ever eventually marry?

Caucasian 80% NO / 20% YES

Asian 92% NO / 8% YES

Hispanic 99% NO / YES 1%

Testing from the 92% Out of Wedlock population.

So much for statistics that show that black/White interracial marriage is exaggerated. They don’t bother getting married.