Majorityrights Central > Category: Education

State of the Fart Right: why the bum steers from Jonathan Pohl, STFU James, et. al?

Lately, I have been making the rounds on some of the prominent racialist hangouts and podcasts, trying to get attention to the ethnonationalist platform that would make most sense, be the most viable and with that, to cultivate means for its coordination. As always, I am motivated to take theoretical/epistemic misdirection and help re-direct it to solid theoretical premises for the defense and advocacy of our European peoples.

I have been lured into some hangouts in order to defend myself and this platform against misrepresentations that were happening in real time. That’s what this post is about - to defend this platform as the prominent voices presenting themselves as experts or worthy common sense critics on behalf of European/White interests continue to receive and give terrible misdirection. Recently, I was lured onto a hangout hosted by ‘Babylonian Hebrew’, a young Jewish fellow living in New York but advocating Zionism for Jews and honest, hard criticism of diasporic Jewry.

I joined the hangout in order to correct an egregiuos strawman committed against me/this platform by one of those disingenuous diasporic Jews - Kyle Rowland, an obnoxious kid made infamous in the current racialist conversation by his slathering dissimulations on Luke Ford’s weasil streams - aimed to provide ways out of responsibility for Jews.

Anyway, the world should know by now that I advocate a platform of European/White Left ethnonationalism in order to garner the underlying social organization, accountability and conscientiousness that the concept of unionization provides for, along with other White post modern means to manage our population and stave off infiltration, misdirection into runaway and betrayal - of key importance, the perspective of the union is intent on holding elites to account to our group (union) interests.

Now, Kyle Rowland has been busy peddling the Luke Fraud line that de-emphasizes the hyperbolic ethnocentrism and nepotism of Jewry in its assent to disproportionate if not hegemonic representation in niches of power and influence; at the same time emphasizing argumentation that Jews have achieved this according to objective merit; while Whites have suffered where they have suffered for lack of objective merit.

Predictably, Kyle had tried to strawman me/this platform with stereotypes of this platform being anti-elite so that he could discourage those Whites of powerful resource from taking our side.

I was happy to disabuse the world of this strawman. It is one of the benefits of defining the left for ourselves, viz., a White ethnonational left is not equalitarian, not against private property, relatively free enterprise and people having more according to their merit. It is not against elites, it is about holding all union members, especially including elites, to account - they will not betraý our unionized interests.

Kyle responded that ‘‘your kind always says that’ ...‘you are an anti-social right winger.”

Ah, I rejoined, in truth, that I am not anti-social - you want White advocates to be anti-social and that’s why you want them to identify as right wing, paying short shrift to social accountability in futile quest for pure warrant beyond or within nature, below relative human group interests.

At this point Ecce Lux joined-in against Kyle, wanting him to steel-man his argument that race replacement is immoral. Ecce did well, and I pointed out as well that Kyle was making an egregious buyer beware argument - if White people are hoodwinked into accepting race replacement it’s their fault. But I also pointed out to Ecce that anti race replacement is not the strongest angle in America, because Kyle could just hit you, as he already had, with the displacement of native Americans by Whites.

A better tack is to argue carrying capacity and from there segue into human ecology ... well, we’re sorry about the history but it is history and we’ve got to manage carrying capacity and human ecology now…

This was when Jonathan Pohl’s cohort, STFU James was encouraged by him and other half wits of the fart right to start attacking ...ME…

READ MORE...

Who The English Are: correcting the definition and the warrant by Laura Towler

Quoting Gary Anderson, who wrote to MR: “There are many Jews that hate Zionism. The fact that you fail to report that makes you a racist. You probably are a Zionist because you undermine the antiZionist movement with your racist filth.”

I’m fully aware that there are many Jews who hate Zionism. Israel Shamir and Gilad Atzmon are well known examples among WN circles. I never duck that fact and do not need to. Nor am I a Zionist, as you conjecture. Nevertheless, whether Jews are anti-Zionist or Zionist, I do not consider them a part of our advocacy group, but as a different people from Europeans and more or less antagonistic to us - much more antagonistic for the most part, while the rest are a part of the pattern nevertheless and cannot be trusted. I do not hesitate to categorize them as such for three very fundamental reasons to begin A) They are the most ethnocentric people in the world overall, including non-Zionist members - whose ouliers tend to be liberal at best (not something Europeans need more of). Jews look after themselves while prescribing liberalism to others - Europeans by contrast, are not very ethnocentric, not good at looking after their group interests; and thus need to discriminate against Jews especially; because Jewish identity, negative though Jewish identity is for Whites, is not very clearly distinguishable to Whites, as being different from Whites, but tends rather to be hidden in crypsis - the natural “camouflage”, viz., appearance of being White - Jewish identity thus needs in particular to be distinguished and separated from. This crypsis is a part of their systemic process, wherein their liberal elements serve a function of mixing with (in this case Whites) to weaken any coherence and potential antagonism that might be directed at Jews from White groups. B) Jewish antagonism and destruction of Whites is easily documented; along with its stemming from disproportionate Jewish influence from seven power niches: 1) Religion 2) Money and Finance 3) Academia 4) Media 5) Politics 6) Law and Courts 7) Business, Investment and Industry - and with all of this, US Military (and other military) as well. C) I am a separatist, not a supremacist looking to exploit or kill them. Therefore, even if I achieve my goal of separatism, I have not pronounced a death sentence in naming Jews as an outside group. If I am mistaken about something that I attribute to them, it is not irrevocable and can be corrected.

I am not “racist filth” but there is something very wrong with you that you would try to deny the most elemental function of biological nature, to discriminate for the purpose of survival of one’s self and one’s kind - and to identify and classify kinds not only for defensive purposes, but for the purpose of human ecology, accountability to that and legacy of human capital. By contrast, your prohibition of discrimination and said accountability is a prescription for the exploitation of that human capital and of genocide. That is evil. You are the one prescribing the filthy thing that would destroy people. Shame on you Gary Anderson (Ramirez).

Rom Harré, Philosophy of science and psychology Professor at Oxford and Georgetown. Notable ideas: ethogenics, positioning theory

Contradiction in Lived and Told Narratives

Brownwyn Davies, University of New England, Australia

Rom Harré, University of Oxford

INTRODUCTION

The ubiquity of contradiction in human affairs has long been commonplace. Social contradictions were identified by Marx as the source of social change. Repertoires of mutually contradictory “personas” have been demonstrated to be characteristic of people living in complex societies (Argyle, 1976; De Waele & Harré, 1976). At the same time it is evident that there have also been powerful social norms requiring at least the appearance of consistency in displays of character, in modes of talking and writing and even in patterns of thought.

Research on language and social interaction, vol. 2; 1991/1992: 1-36

Though contradiction is a logical concept that names a relation between propositions, it has a well established use as a general metaphor for incompatibilities of many kinds. It is one of the concepts by which “modernity” has bee defined. So in post-modernity one would expect at least some of the uses of “contradiction” to be called into question, particularly those in which it has a normative role. According to Parker (1989, p. 48), modernity itself, “is contradictory: Its discourse promises scientific truth as the solution to humanity’s problems on the one hand, and on the other attributes responsibility and the power to make meaning to individuals.”

We two, as individual authors, have been both constituted by, and active participants in, the construction of that modern world. We now find ourselves fascinated by the spaces opened up by its deconstruction, particularly in the work of feminist authors (1) such as Weedon (1987), Walkerdine (1981, 1984, 1985), Haug (1987). This paper, then, stands at the interface between the modern and the post modern worlds: While still being caught up, inevitably, in the discursive practices of the modern world we nonetheless wish to make contradiction a topic for examination in light of such feminist post-modern/ post-structuralist writing.

As a person in our contemporary world one has access to many ways of talking about oneself and one’s activities in that world: that is, one has access to multiple forms and styles of discourse. These ways of telling may remain discreet and the contradictions that sometimes exist between them may not become manifest nor present problems for resolution or accommodation. But they may overlap. They may be used as parts of some larger whole. And within that whole they may be profoundly contradictory. Furthermore each discourse may itself be made up of contradictory elements. Billig et al. (1988) give the example of liberal discourse containing ideological commitments to the rights both of the individual and the collective. He also cites educational discourse which espouses as values both equality and authority. In each case there is a discreet discourse containing oppositional and and contradictory imperatives.

Yet one of the predominant features of ways of producing ourselves as persons in the modern world is to present what we do as relatively coherent and non-contradictory, both as we interpret what we do and in the various accounts that we give of what we have done and will do. Numerous strategies exist for dealing with blatant contradictions in those productions. For instance there is the bureaucratic device of “wearing different hats.” Each “hat” represents a different set of constraints, aims and repertoires of proper actions.

The movement from the complex array of lived experience to the relatively coherent stories that we tell about that experience will be a central focus of this paper. Like Haug (1987) we see lived experience as inherently contradictory and the appearance of coherence and and non-contradiction as discursive constructions. As Haug (1987) puts it, “human beings, in the process of their socialization, work at restructuring the given elements of their lives until such time as their existence becomes relatively uncontradictory: In other words until social action becomes possible.” We wish to explore how it is that non- contradiction has become such a fundamental requirement of the production of self and in contrast how the recognition of contradiction has been greeted by feminist post structuralist authors in particular as fundamental to understanding their experience.

Told and Lived Narratives

Told narratives

Told narratives, including both the stories one tells about oneself and other people, and those narrations we call literature and drama, are generally framed within coherent conventions of discourse and tend to show each character as continuous and often, though not always, as predictable. The purpose of told stories in everyday life is often to show how conflicts and contradictions have been, might be, or even should be dealt with (Sabini & Silver 1981). Told stories are usually finite with well marked beginnings and endings. An orderly state of affairs is interrupted by the appearance of a predicament, a course of events unfolds in which the problem is resolved, and a new orderly state of affairs comes into being (Harré,1979). Such stories appear as accounts, told versions of events that are used retrospectively to order the complex array of lived experiences. As Huag (1987, p. 48) says:

We are not assuming that human beings live according to plan, or in continuities, nor even that they are always determined by the same consistent factors…continuities are manufactured retrospectively in the mind.

One focus in this paper is on those discursive practices through which intelligibility and warrantability are created.

Lived Narratives

Told stories are the means of providing the narrative frameworks through which we interpret strips of lived experience as they occur, that is they serve to guide the actions that make up lived narratives. Who one takes oneself to be at any one time and what one takes oneself to be doing form essential parts of the lived narrative. One’s actions are played out with interactive others who provide one with (and whom one provides with) subject positions in the collective flow of talk. These positions may be taken up or refused (however difficult that refusal might be), by any one of the members of the momentary collective. Thus lived narratives inform readings of told narratives and told narratives inform lived narratives (Bruner, 1986; Davies, 1989; Davies & Harré, 1990)...

READ MORE...

    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?

Matt Parrott at NPI.

Summary: A two-part critical examination, conducted by Kumiko Oumae, of many areas of Matt Parrott’s Christian traditionalism, from Matt’s faith fundamentals as an Orthodox Christian traditionalist and nationalist - in that order - to Matt’s views on freemasonry, the relationship of Judaism to Christianity, the pagan past, how religion renews, global baptism, Christian universalism, homosexuality, Africa and the population question, and Syria.

Can I just say, from a personal perspective, that I thought the interview was a success, notwithstanding any hostilities which may have existed prior to it (and since). Kumiko was very well prepped and she did a great job of maintaining a high tempo of relevant and close questioning, to which Matt responded generously.

My thanks to you both.

This is part one: The fundamentals of Matt’s Orthodox Christian traditionalism examined, Freemasonry, Judaism and Christianity, the making of religions.

1 hr 22 mins, 75 MB.

Abraham Anon

Kumiko was telling me about her disgust with Hillary and the YKW’s wars, citing an egregious collateral damage to schools and education: this will obstruct solutions to the root of social problems and exacerbate social problems from the root as the schools and formative educational years of vast demographics are being destroyed. She is enraged by the damage this will do to personal and social skills. She asks what can be done?

I suggest a new variant of the 12 step meetings. Why? Because when people have been that damaged and obstructed by an interpersonal problem - such as Islamic abuse - it will be primarily these people who have sufficient understanding; they will have sufficient concern; it will be a necessity for them to take the time and show patience; to articulate the difficulties in full significance of the impact to them and society; and to search for solutions.

People who have not gone through this will generally not have sufficient understanding of the difficulties of getting through it, even if they did have inclination and take time from their faster track to a good life to put up with the wild and frustrating expressions that result from traumatic experiences and pervasive abuse.

The “victims” themselves will carry most of the load - by “sharing their hope, strength and inspiration” indispensable coping skills will find their way among them. But that doesn’t mean that people coming from a background undergirded by normal philosophy and interpersonal relations shouldn’t interact with them; in fact, that is one of the first differences I would make from the 12 Step programs - to have intermittent interaction from people from healthy backgrounds so that they can model normalcy for them and share normal skills. To make sure that bad thinking doesn’t keep circulating and gets directed out before long.

So, there could be Visitors Meetings and Skilled Workshop Meetings to go along with the usual kinds of 12 Step meetings -

Speaker Meetings, in which one person tells the story of their struggle with the problem.

Step Meetings, in which one of the Steps is focused-on, with each person in the group having a chance to discuss their take and experience with that step.

The next change that I would propose is putting into question whether 12 should be the number of steps; of course it has pagan origin and has been hijacked by Abrahamism, but perhaps another number should be proposed to make the break more clear.

Of course the content of the steps should be significantly different as well. I will only sketch-in what they might look like. Suggestions from others are more than welcome.

One of the excellent features of the 12 step program idea is that one is not excluded for lacking skills or for not contributing dues. All that is required is a belief that you have a problem with the stated issue of the meeting group and that you comply with a few of its basic guidelines. There are no leaders. You agree to not expose the identity of those who go to meetings and to not gossip about them to people outside the group. You agree enough with the 12 steps (rather, we’ll go with 14 steps, why not?) to allow them to provide coherence; and, except for speaker meetings, you allow a chance for each person who wants to talk.

Ok. There are probably some things that I’m forgetting but that’s enough to start. Let me have a stab at how the steps might read:

The 14 Steps of Abraham-Anon

1. Came to understand that I had a problem with Abrahamism and that I could not handle it alone.

2. Came to identify positive attributes of my distinct race and my share in these positive attributes. Affirmed these daily to provide faith in mine and my people’s worth as opposed to the Abrahamic god.

3. Conducted a fearless and searching personal inventory in order to purge its memes which may harm myself, my people, and in order to make amends to anyone who I have harmed in the name of Abrahamism or because I was inappropriately directing my response to it.

4. Came to understand the truth of how harmful Abrahamism is.

5. Came to understand Abrahamism is not a necessary evil nor a relative cultural preference; there are other “gods” and better ways.

6. Came to understand that its practice and promotion must be rejected by our people.

7. Came to understand that its perpetrators can and must be punished - ranging from denunciation, to social ostracism, to denationalization, to severe personal punishment in some cases.

8. Came to believe in the priceless gift of serenity to be found in the faith that my race, my place within it, and our interests are being looked after by the best and greater part of my people; by myself included.

9. Came to believe not only in the reality of distinct kinds of people, but also their right to preserve their differences.

10. Came to believe in the DNA Nation and international ethno-nationalism (genetic and territorial bounds); as the means to such maintenance of distinct peoples; their quantities and qualities of genetic inventory; their habitats through national territorial delimitations; qualitative and quantitative foreign enclave delimitations.

11. Came to believe that the Abrahamic religion and the Abrahamic man is already an imperialist hybrid and therefore his fate and place is the subject of our discretion.

12. Came to believe that Abrahamism can and should be destroyed once and for all.

13. Came to believe facilitating that destruction to be our prerogative as the people who are willing and capable of respecting racial differences, their right to be preserved in ethno-states, among the DNA Nation; and knowing that there is no avoiding the issue of morals - that every society will have some things that are legitimate, some things prohibited and some things obligated - will seek moral orders based on the Silver Rule as opposed to The Golden Rule.

14. Came to understand that the homeostasis of our ethnostates are contingent upon having the decency and wisdom to respect an option for sacred and devotional enclaves for those preferring strict monogamy (e.g., they want to choose carefully enough, devote themselves to that important choice; and/or concentrate on their endeavors otherwise, not chasing around for partners); and that those wanting to protect more liberal personal prerogatives must assent to that sacrosanct option and to strict national borders of citizenship -  paradigmatic conservatism.

          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...