Majorityrights Central > Category: Cultural Marxism

Far from the purview of European / American men were two conceptual weapons which could be alternated arbitrarily, wielded in an instant by feminists (or wielded similarly and unwittingly by neo-traditional women, for that matter), as equipped with the cynicism of these memes to dismiss, in either case, recourse to two profoundly important European moral orderings.

Most significantly, one weapon was to deride Europe’s natural Aristotlean morality, its observation of optimality and relationships as central to human nature, and another to destroy the propositions and principles initiated by the likes of Kant to gird, e.g., against arbitrary vicissitudes of empirical philosophy being taken too far – but in either case, the weapons distinguish females (including White females, of course) as having a separate moral order not beholden to White men and thus not beholden to Europeans as a system with shared social, moral capital and human ecology of millennia.

Deep within the wallowing abyss of de Beauvoir’s “The Second Sex”, its talk of “sacred ministry of betrayal” feeding extant dissatisfactions in females, lurked these weapons - far out of the casual purview of White men to apprehend from whence came what hit them and what it was about.

Betty Friedan (1963), with the modernist, “she’s just like one of the boys and, if liberated to participate, may do-so as an equal” approach to feminism, was the preeminent figure in the second wave of feminism; she took as her point of departure this line from Simone de Beauvoir, 1948, page 672: “This utility of the housekeeper’s heaven is the reason why she (speaking of traditional women) adopts the Aristotlean morality of the golden mean, that is, of mediocrity.”

My hunch that was her source inspiration is borne-out through multiple connections.

Carol Gilligan (1982), with the neo-traditional angle focusing on qualitative differences of females, but still within the feminist framework, also took a line from de Beauvoir as her point of departure - 1948, Page 681: “ but she knows that he himself has chosen the premises on which his rigorous deductions depend.. but she refuses to play the game.. she knows that male morality as it concerns her, is a vast hoax.”

My observation that this was the source for Gilligan was confirmed by Helen Haste, a colleague of Gilligan’s at Harvard.

While there are other significant non-Jewish feminists, forebears besides de Beauvoir, it is true that de Beauvoir’s feminist philosophy has roots in Marx’s notion that marriage and patriarchy are veritable slavery - women’s “liberation requires that these institutions be overturned, a revolutionary act corresponding to liberation of all.”

The situation was made ripe for exploitation and runaway by the logical extension of modernity, well-meaning at first as a liberation from mere, but harmful traditions and superstitions, it ran rough-shod and ruptured accountable social classification – their utility naivly or disingenuously pushed-aside in favor of the objectivist scientism of Lockeatine civil rights, objectivist neo-liberal capitalism, and seized upon in distortion by “neo-cons”, but not before these wielded “objectivist” rights were fundamentally weaponized and reversed in form against Whites, by Jews, Marxists re-deploying these ideas in the form of “anti-racism” and “civil rights” - discrimination against Whites and the prohibition of discrimination by White men.

Underpinning susceptibility to this all along was their saboteurs ticking time-bomb - liberal affectation planted into European culture and becoming more deeply embedded over 2,000 years; viz., in contrast to the exclusivity of Jews, (as GW notes) Judeo-Christianity’s propositional altercast as undifferentiated gentiles in the eyes of god, to include any race in its moral order, and the disordering effect of modernity to traditional European moral orders was virtually a necessary consequence.

With racial bounds broken but classification still necessary to human perceptual organ- ization, the least ignorable categories emerged in de facto high relief and resonance – gender being one of them. Within the disorder the female one-up position in partner selection (don’t think so? she’ll call upon the goon squad to show you who is boss) emerged with increased significance, whereupon they are pandered-to from males of every direction and most importantly, cynically and cunningly, by Jews, of course, to betray their co-evolutionary males. With White men vilified thus and White females pandered-to constantly, even puerile White females become articulate, over- confident, correspondingly under-empathetic, sometimes brazen with self righteous entitlement and prerogative.

Jewish interests can take advantage of this; demoralize their adversaries by pandering to their co-evolutionary females in this position and the atavistic denominator of the disorder; for marked example, by promoting the high contrast tropism of White/black mixing –blacks being the other category hardest to ignore despite prohibition on class- ifications –while the prohibition of discrimination leaves the more protracted rate of maturity of White men susceptible to the more episodic, atavistic assertion of blacks.

Professor Pearce (with Rossi) might add that within the paradoxic performance requirements of feminism there is nothing even a well-intentioned male can do if a feminist wishes to put him in the wrong: If he treats her as one of boys, then he may be construed as a male chauvinist pig, who does not respect the special quality of her gender. If he treats her with deference to the special qualities of her gender, he can be construed as a condescending patriarch and/or a wimp who does not respect her agency, autonomy and independence.

The situation is only going to be perpetuated by a paradoxic (really, “quaradoxic”) phenomenon that Whites are prone to be up against, what I call the charmed loop of didactic incitement: This does require that sufficient power is brought to bear against Whites, but it is a likely predicament given social injunctions against discriminatory social classifications rendered by White men and the heavily pandered-to one-up position of females within the disorder of modernity; along with its exponentially more powerfully positioned puerile female inclination to incite genetic competition.
___________

The Dark Side of Self Actualization Intersecting Incommensurate Gender Agendas: Corrective Structures and Systematization -

In this essay I will re-tell the story of how I began to understand and organize gender relations at the intersection of race and individualism in order to diagnose attendant problems and prescribe corrections. I will make refinements with what I have learned since initial instantiations of this hypothesis. I feel compelled to make this case again as there are popular sites in WN which are taking on the issue and I do not trust them to handle it well. For very specific reasons I have long held that there should be a platform for White men/males that both advocates them and is critical of female predilections, inclinations, politics. This will start out with a critical tone, as it is necessary to get to critical parts right away, but there is a happy ending for both genders.

In my first renderings of this hypothesis, I took Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs (which he also referred-to as a hierarchy of motives), as a preliminary framework in need of correction. That remains a particularly useful point of departure for a working hypothesis to address problems: of where and how individualism, peoples’ predica- ment within modernity and incommensurate gender relations may be exacerbated and pandered-to; whether by hostile interests (e.g., YKW) or indifferent interests (e.g. naive or disingenuous objectivist/relativists, neo-liberals); thereby rupturing racial bounds which could otherwise facilitate systemic homeostasis; instead runaway and reflexive reversals is perpetuated -e.g., “the dark side of self actualization.”

“I don’t have to tell you about the tyranny of patterns, that is the rubric under which we meet. What you may not know is that you have to accept them.”  - Bateson

But rather than merely accept them, the proposition here is that we recognize them, take them to heart and work with them instead of against them.

For good reasons, I took Maslow as the preliminary framework against which to propose corrections (will explain momentarily). Neither is it necessary to discard the diagnosis of toxicity in this model of higher needs being founded in hierarchical succession upon maximal fulfillment of more fundamental needs, particularly as it has played-out in - and been an influence of - the pop-culture of European-American relations; nor is it necessary to alter its proposed general correction of taking attendance to needs and motives into a circulating process based on the Aristotlean recommendation of optimal levels of need satisfaction and the centrality of human concern for relations.

Unlike Maslow’s terms for the constituent needs, I have ever (since the early 90s) proposed four terms (the number of four terms are taken for reasons that I will explain) in place of the terms that he uses in this hierarchy –

Socialization, Being, Routine/Reverence and Self Actualization in a circulating management are proposed instead.

“Just a few more words added to his grammar of motives might change a sociopath into a decent man.” - Kenneth Burke
  - thus…

READ MORE...

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 develops a thesis striking at the very foundations of the Christian faith. 1hr 32min; 89 MB.

Tom Sunic talks to GW and Daniel about the state of political nationalism in Europe and the problem of negative identity, and about the progress of thinking nationalism. 1hr 4min; 59.0 MB.

Despite The Guilt Trips of World War II (discussed below on the anniversary of Dresden)

parts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Here is an interview request that I sent to Dr. Christian Lindtner on February 12th

Dear Dr. Lindtner,

As producer for Majorityrights.com, I am writing you to inquire as to the possibility of arranging for an interview.

Majority Rights takes a position (secular) regarding Christianity which very much respects your scholarly critique.

Nevertheless, while I am writing you at this email address, my inquiry actually has more to do with a hope to discuss appropriate response to the fall-out of World War II, facts and mythos.

Your videos discussing holocaust revisionism are the most credible on the topic that I have seen. I do not see it as necessary to go-over that same ground in exhaustive detail. My position is that subsequent generations of Germans and others are innocent and ought not have to continue to pay, irrespective of the facts of Nazi Germany.

I am not anti-German and I am assuming that neither are you, anti-German.

My question is, how do we assert our innocence, along with that of present day Germans, to warrant implementing our defense of our nations as the preserves of our native nationals? - particularly in light of, and despite, the holocaust?

I believe that despite the holocaust that Germany and Europe does not owe the world, Jews, or anybody, its destruction through immigration and assimilation.

This is different from what holocaust deniers, even revisionists, are saying. Committed revisionists and deniers seem to believe everything, all of our defensive warrant, hinges upon debunking the holocaust. It is perhaps easier for me to see that as not necessarily the case as my ancestors even, had even less in the way of historical responsibility. Nevertheless, revisionists seem to have an overwhelming desire to unburden us of guilt trips* for these events, for which no guilt ought to be assigned them - and as a result, it seems to me that they are making the cause for European national sovereignty more resisted and less trustworthy when, in fact, it is a fully legitimate cause and ought to be seen that way irrespective of the holocaust.

What I seek from you in an interview is to help build this case to establish the warrant of European nations to preserve their nations for their native kinds despite The World Wars, whatever the facts.

Please say that you will grant us the interview Dr. Lindtner. It can be very important to inter-European peace and survival.

R.S.V.P.
Daniel Sienkiewicz, Majority Rights.

............................................................................
Dr. Lindtner accepts an interview which should materialize around March 1.

Dear Daniel,

Thanks for your interesting mail.

I shall be happy to grant an interview about the matters mentioned by you.

You can expect me to speak freely of these and related issues.

Looking forward to hear from you!

Best wishes

...............................................................................

For those of you who take exception to my deferential use of the word “holocaust”, understand that by it I mean a name given to mass deaths of Jews in the world war, however they came about, irrespective of any obnoxious elevation of importance of Jewish deaths over European deaths - which Dr. Lindtner recognizes in his characterizing it, holocaustianity, as a religion.

* I understand that holocaust isn’t only an issue of guilt, it is the basis for enormous financial payments as well, but that is among issues that I am hoping for Dr. Lindtner to address - his assistance in building the case to Warrant native European national defense, viz. that we have paid enough for any claimed grievances and are innocent to defend ourselves as sovereign native European nations.

.....................................................................................................................................................................
Continued - viz., “Despite The Guilt Trips of World War II (discussed here on the anniversary of Dresden)”

From Colin Liddell’s Saturday, 14 February 2015 article on the Dresden holocaust - “BOMBING GERMANY, RUSSIA, AND AMERICA IN ONE NIGHT”

At the Yalta conference, just days before the Dresden firebombing..

Churchill was roughly shunted aside as the irrelevant leader of a morally and financially burnt-out husk by the two new superpowers. The clearest sign of this was the fate of Poland. This had been Britain’s declared reason for getting involved in the war, so the fate of Poland was a barometer of Britain’s position. At Yalta it was handed over to Stalin. Not only would the Soviet Union keep the territories seized from Poland in 1939, but the Lublin Government, set up and controlled by Stalin, would be placed in effective control of the country.

                                   

And this comment on the article..

com contrarian
“Let’s face it the period from about 1936-1945 was full of cock-ups on both sides, and only Franco came out of it with any credibility. Hitler shouldn’t have invaded the Soviet Union and shouldn’t have declared war on the US. Stalin shouldn’t have left his country so open to invasion. Mussolini should have stayed out altogether (Italy had half its merchant marine impounded before it even had the chance to fire a shot). Britain shouldn’t have tried to save Poland (when it had no power to do so) and shouldn’t have sent weapons to Greek communists.

From a particularist/nationalist perspective it’s best to write it off as a painful learning experience and get on with nationalism 2.0.”

Provoked this response from me:

I keep hearing these retarded arguments that the Nazis shouldn’t have invaded Russia and that Britain should’ve let Nazi Germany do as it liked with Poland. If 20/20 hindsight is exercised, then it should be said that Hitler shouldn’t have invaded Poland.

The next argument, also retardedly Buchananesque, is that Poland was betrayed to the umpteenth degree anyway and therefore Germany invading was of no matter.

But even under Soviet control, Poland retained a semblance of national boundaries, more importantly from its point of view, its language and more importantly still, its native genetic homogeneity. Horrible as Soviet control was, neither Poland’s boundaries, language nor genetics were in Hitler’s plans.

The holocaust of the peoples of Dresden is horrible. It is an unspeakable loss of European genetic treasure. As were all the European deaths of World War II - a war unnecessarily fought as a 1) conventional military war and unnecessarily 2) inter-European as it largely was, pitting R1b against R1a - both frames, conventional militarism and anti-Polinism/anti-Slav, were Hitler’s/Friedrich The Great’s.

If you want to use 20/20 hindsight to re-frame World War II and what should not have been done, take it to herr E1B1B1 Hitler.

Don’t kid yourself.

Look at how sick and enraged that Europeans were of ANOTHER World War, which Hitler and his worldview had some small part in initiating, a worldview that had the thin pretense of warrant to take lands and displace peoples up to the Urals on the basis of three and a half small cites being given to Poland by Versailles, a world view that had the design of removing your nation newly established after a bitter ordeal and fight of 123 years, and the realization of his plans of smashing it, taking it away again, killing your father, wife, your daughter, your brother, and you too, charged with an imperson- al mission of bombing a precious German city, might just allow yourself to do that.

A habit, custom, and world view following the line of Friedrich the Great, based on inter-European militarism and a friend enemy distinction of Germanics/Slavs is what should be rejected with 20/20 hindsight - not that Roosevelt and Churchill shouldn’t have gotten into the war, but that Hitler shouldn’t have ordered it in that way.

And don’t kid yourself either - if you know that a European nation like his has plans to take your nation and eliminate you (that was basically known) and some Jew points a gun at that European guy looking to kill you, what are you going to say? No, Mr. Jew, don’t shoot at this guy looking to kill me?

If you want to exercise 20/20 hindsight, for all the European deaths, where it should not have started, the epistemological blunder was with herr E1B1B1 Hitler’s world view and actions thereupon. And if you want to keep Europeans hating and fighting each other, just keep promoting the “innocence” of his worldview and the “supreme and singular guilt” of the Allied leaders.

...............................................................................................

Greg Johnson, editor of Counter-Currents Publishing, talk to GW and Daniel about Heidegger and a new politics of identity in a liberal age. 1hr 16min; 69.5MB.

Paul Weston, leader of the British political party Liberty GB, and the man who was arrested in May of this year for reading from Winston Churchill's The River War in public, discusses a wide range of political, strategic and ideological matters. 1 hour 6min, 60.1 MB.

               
Die Linke’s parliamentary leader Gregor Gysi. Photo: DPA

Its egregious intentions betray its egregious misnomer as “The Left” by the YKW media. Whereas a White Left would be a union of the entire nation of native peoples and thus organized in entirety against immigrant imposition - these workers and beneficiaries being the theoretical equivalent of scabs - and the consequences of elite betrayal. Accordingly, a true European Nationalist Left would not be of just one class, say the workers, let alone be in representation of scabs (foreigners) - as the latter in particular would be defined properly not as The Left but rather as a Neo-Liberal concern imposed on the classification of native national interests. The reason for the misnomer is plain, the YKW and the sell-outs, particularly of the international corporatist order, do not want us to be clear in the organizational concern of that union, which is a merging, in fact an overlap, of the class with native nationalism. Instead they want it associated with what is most repugnant to our interests.

The YKW and corporate elite sell-outs are aligned in this perversion of class interests - you can be even more afraid now as they obligingly ask:

“What does the Left Party want for Europe?”

The “Left Party” (wink), read “neo-liberal” and ask rather, what union of your interests do they represent - i.e., how are they a leftist union for you as a native European? Particularly when they advocate (hyerpbolic) neo-liberal policies as such?

“Die Linke is now the third biggest group in the German parliament, but what do their politicians want for Europe?”

Gysi pretends the leftist, denouncing the The EU for “pursuing ‘neo-liberal’ policy:”

“Die Linke overtook rivals the Greens ... to become the country’s third biggest parliamentary group – and has since made waves in foreign policy by its outspoken condemnation of US spying and conciliatory attitude to Russia’s actions in Ukraine.

Their charismatic parliamentary leader Gregor Gysi added to his party’s critical stance towards the EU system in an interview with Die Zeit newspaper. ‘It is pursuing a neo-liberal economic policy and stands for the opposite of socialism,’ he said.”

But then his party pursues this policy on immigration -

“Mobility and Immigration

Die Linke’s policy on immigration stands out from major parties by appearing dramatically in favour of making Europe more refugee-friendly.

They claim to promote the ‘unconditional right to stay and proper accommodation, social protection and equal rights for all refugees.’

And according to their manifesto, they also support refugees’ free choice of which country they wish to seek asylum in, as well as demanding the dissolution of EU border agency Frontex.”

You can’t get much more neo-liberal than that.

What does that have to do with the unionized representation of native European national interests?

We hear nothing representing the unionized interests of native European nationals in YKW media. Our interests are ignored and obfuscated beginning with the very terms, with the deliberately confusing mis-designation of neo-liberal policy - immigration and non-native imposition in particular - as “The Left.” By contrast, designating the proper representation of native European national interests as The White Left is to distinguish it from the liberal and Jewish affectations imposed on native European nationalist interests by The Red Left.

http://www.thelocal.de/20140514/what-do-die-linke-want-for-europe

                                 
                                      Gysi in his Soviet permutation
——————————————————————————
More past wind across the German border from “The Left”:

“The greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another. The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes, natives and immigrants, Christians and Muslims and Jews, cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down!”

A few weeks ago Daniel sent a request to Frank Salter, author of On Genetic Interests, to consent to be interviewed for MR Radio.  He was then in the process of a double-session interview with Red Ice.  We hope he might be interested in a more intellectually demanding approach to his thesis in OGI and his hopes for European peoples in the West.  He was unavailable.

In anticipation of a positive reply from Dr Salter I had scribbled down some questions – heads of discussion, really - which I hoped to put before him.  It is unlikely that they will be asked in that form now.  I thought they might be of interest to readers all the same, duly embroidered with some of my own understandings which would have emerged in the discussion.

1. Academics, science and politics

Dr Salter, you describe your profession as that of a political scientist and ethologist engaged in studying the motivational and organisational aspects – the laws that are at work, if you like -  in human group dynamics.  In the process you have afforded us all some unique insights into normative human behaviour, most particularly in the central thrust of On Genetic Interests.  Purely for myself, I would like to thank you for that; and I’m sure very many others with our politics would feel the same.

(a) Can I begin by asking how you see yourself and your work?  Is an ethologist like you, with his basis of work with empirical data, fundamentally of the humanities or the sciences?  How do your politics, which are clearly quite nationalist, influence your selection and formulation of research projects?  Do you have to make additional efforts to function as a disinterested researcher, while your peers down the corridor in the politics and sociology faculties are quite free to operate as de facto campaigners for progressive causes?

(b) More than a decade since the death of Stephen J Gould, and with the Sociobiology Study Group a forgotten entity, what is your assessment generally of the state of truth-speaking in the biological sciences, in particular about human difference?  Would you say that the era of strict censorship has passed, and academic freedom now obtains?  Or has the focus merely moved from a rigid control on what can be studied to a more subtle but no less widespread control of how studies can be framed, how results can be presented, and so forth?

(c) What kind of reception have your conclusions had among your academic peers?  For example, has EGI, as a concept, been discussed by, or even incorporated in the thinking of, other political scientists with your ethological focus, or that of evolutionary biologists and psychologists, or even sociologists?

2. Politics and the public discourse

READ MORE...