Majorityrights Central > Category: Psychology
“At your feet or at your throat” ?
Is it the case that:
Germans are an enormously logical people, who are capable of wonderful math, science, engineering and technology.
However, that top heavy focus on logic causes them to have weak planks in judgment, such that they will keep on following a logic to its runaway (and/or over-correction/overcompensation), even when it is clearly socially destructive?
We’re not even emphasizing the Nazi example now, we’re talking about how, in the salient example of Frau Merkel, they are treating Greece by comparison to the migration crisis.
Nevertheless, “a rule is a rule”: just as reaction to Jews implied the compensatory rule quite exactly, the Nazis mirrored the Jews in significant, literal ways. Hitler, e.g., maintained: “an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth” (never mind that one might engage the fact that Leviticus 24 is didactic, and showing people how Not to be, by comparison to the compassion of every other chapter of Leviticus)...
Now, Frau Merkel’s regime expects Europeans to appreciate the logical conclusion of her Jewish guilt reaction, a byproduct of Jew thinking, as it were:
To the Greeks -
First principle: unanimity: “pay us back our predatory, usurious loans”, no room for social praxis and concern for ancient European human ecology and social capital.
The universal principle: good will and the Christian golden rule: ”“The right to political asylum has no limits on the number of asylum seekers” - it’s an altruism and compassion, a logic of meaning and action that must continue to no end.
Though I am not well placed as a critic of German character, one does have to wonder..as I have observed before, in regard to those who say that Germans are/or should be our “leaders.”
Are a people so top-heavy on logic that they would follow it through to its logical conclusion despite what should be the obvious judgment regarding the logic’s vast social destruction to be entrusted with leadership?
It is, rather, apparent that sheer and top heavy logic is good for following rules and orders, not for leadership.
Leadership should be logical but top-heavy in judgment.
However, I am told that 30% of Germans still do Not believe that merely speaking German makes one German, so of course I do not want to exclude Germans across the board from a place at the table of leadership: just that they may not be well placed at the head of the table and certainly not as sole occupants of the table of leadership of Europe at this stage in history.
Not only is the hyperbolic liberalism of German leadership an expression of guilt riddenness, but it is a guilt riddenness for their prior (Nazi) regime’s lack of social judgment for optimal social unanimity and relations (of Europeans and others) - which has made stigmatization of sufficient racism all too easy for liberals - and worse now, a guilt ridden liberal self destruction which the rest of Europe is supposed to share in because of the Nazi lack of social judgment (which in particular cases worked deliberately against us - ! - * and generally speaking worked against us all in result) and because they are so fucking logical - as to carry an absurd lack of judgment and self destruction to its extreme!
* European countries which were targeted for elimination or demotion in sovereignty and influence are supposed to feel guilty and take part in the demise as well.
I am not well placed to critique German character as I will be criticized as being prejudiced against them, but I am for them, not against them - it is their liberals whom I dislike, as I dislike all liberals, imperialists and anti-nationalists; and I like and advocate the 30 percent of normal ones, the normal nationalists along with the ones who can be persuaded to come around.
But I feel obligated under the circumstances - am prompted by Kumiko, who is particularly angered: Not only is Germany’s leadership inviting terrorist cells, it is inviting bizarre and primitive third world practices - such as teaching boys that women are a man’s property; that it is fine to kill those who insult the pedophilic prophet…
Judgment catching up with logic but a bit late:
And of course, I hasten to add, that with this “logic” it is apparently fine to destroy the ancient EGI of Europe, our human ecologies and all that goes with it…
...and wouldn’t that logic come in handy to figure its way around and rationalize all sorts of liberal contradictions and sensible affronts to itself and its neighbors - to make good logical sense of their destruction and ours?
We do not share in their guilt, we do not want to burden them with guilt and we can share with them our free, unburdened ethnonationalist conscience.
Kumiko noted a very interesting additional aspect to this German propensity to be top heavy in logic, that they do not seem to manage ambiguity and contradiction as well as other populations.
Inasmuch as that is true, and it seems that it might be as a pattern (again, not across the board), it would be a problem for dealings in Praxis (the social world) as Aristotle noted, where a certain amount of ambiguity and uncertainty is necessary for its inherent interactive, agentive and reflexive nature - thus, Phronesis (literally, practical judgment) is required and the acceptance of a certain amount of ambiguity necessary to manage social ecologies.
That seems to go to the realm of epistemology and judgment.
It is clear that Jewish planners take concepts and terms that would be helpful to our group organization and well being, then reverse, distort beyond reason or confuse the meaning that the terms would signify in application to Whites.
I’ve discussed this before but how their deception functions on two levels to our detriment bears farther differentiation.
The two levels of deception are well captured in the analogy that misrepresentative terms are like “red capes” to the charging bull.
They have right-wing White Nationalists charging after the false representation on the level of the misrepresentative term.
At the same time WN become turned-off or hostile to the underlying idea which would be good for them/us.
1. “The” Left misrepresented as universal liberalism applied to Whites is the most fundamental “red cape.”
The underlying idea of the left is social unionization. There are people in the union and people out of the union, therefore it cannot be universal or liberal. On the contrary. In fact, Jewish interests do not apply it as universal except to Whites.
This causes WN to chase this “red cape” of “The” Left which is really imposed liberalism upon them.
At the same time, because of the perversion of the term and abuses of Whites that go on under this false rubric, Whites become repulsed and in fact fight against what is the most important underlying social organizing concept [for group defense, accountability, agency, warrant, our human ecology]: the unionization of our peoples. It would keep an eye on the most dangerous traitors, elite ones, keeping them accountable as members of the class, while also keeping rank and file Whites accountable and incentivized to participate.
All of the usual Marxist and other Jewish distortions such as abolition of private property, communal child rearing, race and gender blurring, no free enterprise that would create wealth for the industrious and innovative, etc. would be set aside as Not representing the “White” left / native nationalist left.
There would not be an imposed economic class division in a White Left, but rather the nation of people would be the class: class, union, nation and people (in our case Whites and native Whites) would be synonymous.
In subjecting us to the red cape of “The Left” misrepresented as universal liberalism as applied to Whites and altercasting us as “the right”, we develop Cartesian anxiety for our Augustinian nature, and desperately adopt objectivism to the extent of reaching for unassailable warrant. This has the effect of taking us beyond accountability to our subjective and relative social group interests. It makes us look and act less humanely. It scares our own people and it should as we are not only easily made to look like “the bad guys”, but are, in fact, dangerous in being bereft of sufficient accountability; made easy to defeat as the factual necessity of our cooperation is not sufficiently recognized and we remain disorganized in obsolete philosophy.
2. Equality: Chasing this red cape really makes WN look bad, as they argue for inequality. It casts discourse in elitist and conflictual terms straight-away; more, it is not accurately descriptive as it relies on false comparisons.
The underlying concepts that YKW are trying to divert WN from grasping is the disposition to look first for qualitative sameness and difference. Within and between social paradigms there can be logics incommensurate to comparison but nevertheless amenable to symbiotic, non-conflictual functions, particularly if those respectful terms are invoked.
3. Social Constructionism and Hermeneutics: These concepts devised to counteract Cartesian runaway and facilitate systemic homeostasis instead have been misrepresented by Jewish interests with the red cape distortion that people and groups can just be whatever they imagine they might construct of themselves. Thus, the lie persists that these concepts are anti-empirical and anti-science. On the contrary, that would contradict the very anti-Cartesian premises of these ideas; in fact, these ideas are meant to enhance and make more accurately descriptive the conduct of science and reality testing. They are meant to correct the “scientism” which can result from myopic focus on narrow units of analysis only, such as blindered focus on moment or episode, the individual as socially unrelated, or the linear cause and effect of physics models to the detriment of how interactive, agentive, biological creatures can and do act in broad view of systemic homeostasis.
These concepts importantly serve to correct the bad science put forth as evidence for anti-racistm, scientism evident in the statement by Spencer Wells of National Geographic’s Human Genome Project -
“Racism is not only socially divisive, but also scientifically incorrect. We are all descendants of people who lived in Africa recently. We are all Africans under the skin.”
.. by which he means that there are no important differences to justify discrimination.
While maintenance of the social group must admit to at least a tad of relativism and subjectivity in its interests, this admission is also an “admission” of a modicum of agency and choice; which thus lends itself by this admission to the stabilizing gauge of group criteria and the answerable, corrective means of its social accountability. This is stable in a way that attempts of pure objectivism are not - as its lack of social accountability tends to have the reflexive effect of hyper-relatvism. Spencer Well’s objectivism has the reflexive effect of being susceptible to having him espouse a destructive hyper-relativism in line with that espoused by pedestrian liberals or Marxist Jews.
Social constructionism and hermeneutics proper could correct this by adding dimensions of subjective and relative social accountability; thus coherence in historical process through accountability to historical social capital, manifest and situated delimitations, agency in racial re-construction and warrant in manifest and situated group evolution; but the Jewish red capes over these terms reverse the whole anti-Cartesian program that these concepts are meant to correct. Indeed, anti-racism is Cartesian.
However, for the massive perversion and misrepresentation of these concepts they have turned-off Whites and in fact have them arguing against the valuable underlying concepts which in no way deny physical and social constraints to free choice but nevertheless would facilitate coherence, accountability, agency and the warrant of our race to exist: That is what we seek in rigour - warranted assertability.
Social constructionism and hermeneutics proper facilitate that. Jewish interests with their red cape distortions do not want you to have that.
As is the case with “Pragmatist” philosophy, you can tell if you are chasing the red cape if you have to put the word “mere” before what those presenting the concept are saying in order to make sense of their argument: if they are suggesting something is a ‘mere’ social construct”, then there is no physical, interactive and interpersonal accountability and it is Cartesian.
4. Post Modernity: Jewish interests know that modernity by itself is viciously self perpetuating, paradoxic, impervious and destructive to healthy traditions and forms; whereas post modernity properly understood allows us to take the best of modernity and time tested forms and ways.
The red cape misrepresentation is a “dada” definition (or non-definition, as it were) of post modernity as opposed to a deliberate and thoughtful management of modernity and traditional forms and ways.
5. Multiculturalism and diversity: Jewish academics have reversed these terms to where outside groups are introduced to one another in order to blend away and subvert healthy, managed differences within and between groups. Then again, to chase the red cape and argue against the terms is to argue for integration with outsiders, e.g., non-Whites.
6. “Marginals” is a concept that goes along with hermeneutics and group maintenance; Jews have set up a red cape of presenting “marginals” as those outside the group with the intention of their being agents of change in overthrowing group homeostasis.
Chasing this red cape has WN arguing against humanitarian outreach to those within the group but most at risk to non-Whites; our marginals potentially have the greatest incentive to see to it that the White ecological system is maintained; they can lend perspective, feedback and accountability. It is important to note that one can be marginalized for being exceptionally talented and intelligent as well.
7. Hippies and the Sixties: These terms have been misrepresented as synonymous for White men being responsible for the Jewish radicalism of sexual revolution and black civil “rights”, viz. prerogative over Whites.
Chasing this red cape is a diversion from the call for a reasigment of White men as having intrinsic value - Being - as opposed to being expendable in wars not of the bounded interests of our people; as opposed to chasing the red cape of universal traditional manhood in service of a universalizaing religious ideal, international corporations, oligarchs and the YKW; while in charging this red cape, the intrinsic value of White people overall, as the unit to be defended, is argued against - WN are arguing against our own deepest interests again, against the warrant to exist. The very thing we need most is prohibited by a Jewish language game in which they form coalitions with black power, feminism AND misinformed traditional women, to deny our being, our reality, value and warrant to exist in midtdasein - the non-Cartesian being there* amidst our people.
* or “being of”, as GW prefers.
8. Social justice warriors - of course those doing the Jews’ bidding are not pursuing true social justice, but to argue against the term, “social justice warrior”, is to fall for the masters of discourse’s red cape once again.
9. The Jewish affectation of Christianity posed as “the moral order” for Europeans. The necessary good of a European moral order is dismissed right along with the red cape of Christianity or some “false” version of Christianity.
We are the White justice warriors and I invite you to join me in some bull-steak now that we’ve sorted away the bullshit…
She is the one in the Cheerios commercial. Andrew Hamilton gives background on Saatchi and Saatchi, the advertising firm behind the Cheerios ad:
In her crypsis as a White role model, she specializes in teaching betrayal, insolence and negrophilia to White girls and a message of “resistance is futile” for White men.
She is the pig in crypsis as a White woman, specializing in demoralizing Whites.
Here are her videos which are supposed to be funny but are so laced with contempt for Whites that the only thing that comes-through is her jealousy for European beauty and ability which would compete with her. She will do anything to drag it down.
...and Mary Poppins
26 May 2015 at 10:32 am
It isn’t my bugbear. I advocate all Europeans and recognize the obvious fact that he cannot be a unifying figure, but will be divisive and unnecessarily so - those people who think we need him are tediously oblivious to the obvious (you call my irritation with their idiocy my “bugbear”). It is rather their teddy bear, their security blanket, their pacifier and surrogate daddy. It is not too much to expect White advocates to have the respect to recognize him as having made bad us/them distinctions, to relegate him to history as pejorative on balance as such, not to be held up in sought-for redemption.
Daniel Antinora, as he would, agrees with Tan’s psychologizing and slips in a plug for Jesus:“yep, Too bad he ruined Majority Rights over that and Christian metaphysics instead of starting his own website.”
To which I say, Daniel A, Bullshit. It is an infinitely better site without Jesus freaks and those who insist upon trying to redeem Hitler.
Good riddance to you.
He quotes me: the problem is that Hitler also made Slavs of nations to his east into enemies. He wasn’t an advocate of all Whites in defense against Jews, simple as that.
Then Tan says:
You may think that you can read my mind but I have forgotten nothing of the kind. You are far from a mind reader.
Further, you say, “You think Hitler was bad for the Slavs. Again, that’s not how I see it?” Was he being good to Slavs? Sure. He was being good to the Greeks too. So good for everybody he turned-out to be.
No it doesn’t. Perhaps you aren’t as smart or as honest as I had thought. “All the rest stems from”...do you see his computer training as it causes him to try to trace a single cause…to a thing, by the way, which I never said - “judeo-boshevism came before Hitler.” - let alone maintain over and against seeing Jews as an antagonistic group, not in part, but on the whole.
I’m over it man. Associate with all the right-wing asses that you want; just wanted to say my bit as you are a part of a struggle and purporting to advocate all Europeans, and you cannot in that way.
Now calm your psychoanalytic babbling Tan, and read what I say:
Not that computer training is the only thing playing into monocausality or even that there is anything wrong with focusing on the Jews; but that you are taking too myopic a perspective and that (computer training) might be one factor..
For example, lets say KM wants to connect with Jarod Taylor (something I would not bother to do, but that’s not the point), let’s say KM wants to see if he can bring Taylor along to achieve more alignment and coordination, shares empathically in Taylor’s way of talking, says “yes, it’s suicidal to do this..” (all the while KM has already argued conclusively for himself that what is going on is genocide not suicide).
I’ve experienced the hair-trigger reaction by computer nerds to a social meandering too many times now, sudden conclusive reactions to innocent zig-zags and the merest theoretical ambiguity, even if a part of a process wholly intended to be corrected in fairly short order to alignment with what the nerd might wish as a result; but he will treat it (the slight zig-zag meander) rather as unbearably pernicious because it does not fit into the false either/or of his theoretical mindset misapplied to praxis: the social world, requiring negotiation, correction and adjustment by and for its interactive reflexivity and complex human agency; a complexity negotiated by means of phronesis - viz., practical judgement requiring of its kind of necessity therefore, a negotiated surveying process.
In this I am not saying Tan is crazy or applying psychoanalysis to him, I am suggesting, as per Aristotle, that he is over- or mis-applying lineal, either/or theory (which Aristotle designated “Theoria”) to the more ambiguous, interactive social world, which Aristotle called “Praxis;” which Tan and Katana might, in turn, want to call “jargon”..
or Daniel A might smear as “rationalism” bereft the salvation of Jesus “metaphysics.”
* What I mean by organization, specifically and generally, is in regard to an understanding of group and national boundaries of our people which is shared enough to be accounted-for and acted-upon.
The interview is quite a long one by our standards, but I believe it is entertaining and informative throughout.
Given that no-one seems to conceptually acknowledge the dark side (so to speak) of inclusive fitness theory it perhaps undermines the creditability of those that wish to make broad political points using inclusive fitness theory as to (1) do they actually fully understand the theory and (2) do they understand how excess competition effectively removes relatedness from the picture (siblings killing siblings is perfectly optimal within many animal species from the point of view of the victorious Sib).
Given that fitness within social evolution can be derived from both the individual level and the group level (note all evolutionary change concerns changes in alleles and their frequencies) as demonstrated by Hamilton and Price’s work (and Steve Frank etc) in hierarchical selection theory how do these insights relate to political economy?
For example, if we take Aristotle seriously than any polis must be a balance between the parts and the whole (individuals and the group) what mechanism can be used to discourage ‘free-riding’ and self-serving perfidy by our own indigenous elites? Accountability to the groups interests seems lacking in contemporary Western life.
If Europeans are so ‘individuated’ - uniquely so? - why is it that only a few centuries ago that Celts, Nordic people etc were so tribal and ultra-communitarian in their cultures. Why the stark difference in pre-modern pagan social ontology compared to the ontology of liberal modernity. Given the relatively short time frame any explanation based upon changes in gene frequency would seem analytically bankrupt. The Greeks also had a more communitarian social-ontology (Sparta anyone?, Aristotle and virtue ethics etc).
Given the social ontology of liberal modernity (massive ideological emphasis on individ- uals and individualism) what type of personalities and psychological traits succeed within such a environment? If all human interactions are viewed through the prism of individual competition is that healthy or wise for the long term sustainability of the group (one could speak here too of free-riding and the slow accumulation of toxic ‘externalities’ cultural, environmental, social etc generated by liberal modernity which in short term benefit certain individuals but at the longer term determent of everyone).
Given that all political societies are ultimately about power and power relationships (see Carl Schmidt), and that power is always open to abuse, a high degree of relatetedness/ homogeneity/ social capital is by itself not enough. What mechanism of elite accountability and social cohesion are possible and necessary?
If denied the siblicide point, then why are civil wars so vicious and nasty (often the worst)? Higher levels of relatedness (on average) didn’t stop Englishmen, or Irishmen from utterly hateful behaviour towards their brothers during civil wars…
Jez Turner is under no illusions as to the powers-that-be: capitalist-marxist-liberal, they are heads of the same beast and not going to grant us our autonomy without a fight.
However, they are experts, of course, in exploiting our weaknesses, providing diversions, disempowering and demoralizing our people. Consequently, motivating our people to fight as a group, in our group interests, is problematic.
Bearing in mind that what is meant by “fight” in this post is not necessarily literal combat but all aspects of fighting for our interests..
On the topic of organizing the motivation* of our fighters then, we might refer to war historian, Prof., Sir Hew Strachan’s thoughts on the matter.
He observes that some motivations of fighters are not recognized because they are out of fashion and not cool to tell the public.
Of course a state sanctioned excuse for exercising blood-lust and revenge among the particularly violent is just a mask and direction of already existing motivation - which requires to be directed appropriately therefore. To gain cooperation from a balance of the population requires a normalizing if not ennobling of incentive/motivation.
Humanitarian concern - higher national ideals - booty.
Humanitarian concern is considered a legitimate public reason nowadays. And it can be one reason why fighters are legitimately motivated.
Higher national ideals can be and have been traditionally a reason why people fight - they still are, but it is not so cool to state as a motivation nowadays (largely as a result of vast over-compensations in that regard in the World Wars).
Booty is even more stigmatic nowadays to cite as your motivation. Yet, Strachan observes, this has been the primary reason for most fighting though the ages. He notes that this motivation initially became problematic and remains problematic as wars have emerged more often a liability than a profit - hence, no profit to be shared.
But particularly when the matter is taking back resources that are our co-evolutionary birthright, there might be reward to motivate and allocate to our peoples for fighting. Humanitarian concern would work there as well, as there are clear matters of inhumaneness to our peoples, injustice - justice to be had. While we work on the meta-national** narratives that GW advises as necessary inspiration..
The question becomes the formulation, the proportion and the content:
Humanitarianism, Nationalist Ideals and Booty
** GW would probably not approve of the word “meta” in this context but I used it deliberately, to make a point that meta-communication is neither wholly nor necessarily disconnected from the essential.