Majorityrights Central > Category: Political Philosophy

The polity is shaped towards our race-replacement by its own deep history of ideas but also, of course, by the history of events which are inextricably linked to those ideas.  The sum of them all constitutes an enormous bulwark against change, pressing us, as people interested in change, to the inevitable conclusion that any serious assault on the citadel of Western elitism and political power must mean a revolution on no mean scale.  A simple change to national politics alone will, in the longer term, be constrained and, finally, erased by the continuing effect of these foundational forces.  Many, and quite possibly all of them, would have to be swept away, too.

I’ve made some rather slipshod efforts in the past to draw up a chart supplying some relational context to these forces.  This time, as part of the working up of a new article for PA’s site, I’ve tried to get everything in, including the elements aiming at control of the future of all humanity.  Doubtless, it’s always possible to keep expanding the range of entities, and I might have missed something important.  Anyway, if there is improvement to be made, do please say where.

Any novel and genuine politics of change must possess a set of interlocking core principles derived from a theory of Man’s reduced condition and a countering and inspiring vision of what he properly is.  That latter must be reflected in the ultimate value advanced by these politics, and the whole must be eminently communicable, indeed politically virulent; and for that people have to know that it is true.  One shortfall in any of these respects and historical purchase will not be possible, even when the prevailing system is grown stale and unproductive, and the people yearn for a relevant and fresh, hopeful way forward.

So poorly mapped out is ethnic nationalism, so poorly has it been served by thinking nationalists, and so unsympathetically, oftimes deceitfully, by liberal academics, that all three of these necessities - structure, ultimate value, and truth - are scarcely addressed at all in any formal sense.  Properly resolved they would advance our nationalism considerably towards becoming the holistic and original philosophy we desire it to be. 

But they are not the only unresolved issues.  The problem of becoming, or human purpose, and the problem of the individual and his freedom also cast a long shadow, as does the problem of the sheer scale of the revolutionary endeavour.  With all that in mind, then, we will now try to make some progress, or at least some useful observations, commencing in this essay with the problems of structure and of becoming.  Value, truth, and the individual must await a part four, and even five.

The problem of structure

As explained previously in this series, we routinely profess ourselves to be ethnic nationalists, espousers of a communicable philosophy.  Really, though, the most that can be said of us is that we are nativists.  Nativism at least has a structure to it.  It is defensive and survivalist.  It is the politics of the place of arising ... home, the source of the people, the parent of their distinctiveness.  It is important.  But it can never rise to the station of a positive, organising system for living ... never get beyond defence of the people’s life and land.

Descriptively, a nationalism of ethnicity must be holistic, naturalistic, existential, authenticising, universal (in the sense of true of all peoples), defensive before it is expansive, and preserving before it is conserving.  As the political expression of the native principle, it is the politics of ethnic genesis on the soil and so of the natural right ... the native right ... to defend kind and home.  It is, then, the active politics of genetic interests, of the kin relation.  As the politics of all settled peoples it is the politics of peace and the complete antidote to liberalism’s post-Christian and anti-European universalism.  It is the politics of consciousness of being.  It is the politics of the authentic in us individually and, therefore, collectively, because consciousness in a people, like natural wisdom in a crowd, is accreting. 

But what are the principles underpinning all this?  How do they articulate socially?  The following (tentatively proposed) structural scheme may take things forward:

It exhibits a rather extensive collection of base principles and, in the upper range, a row of states leading to triads of active processes.  All are arrayed across three distinct but interlocking dynamics, shown here as rising columns.

READ MORE...

Native Man, Pragmatic Man, Nietzschean Man ... but Revolution Man?

On 22nd June 1948 a vessel owned by the Board of Trade but leased to the New Zealand Shipping Company quietly docked at Tilbury.  It disgorged 494 fare-paying black Jamaican passengers: migrants who, at the invitation of the ship-operators, had taken it upon themselves to turn up in our country to improve their lot in life.  This small and novel event precipitated what would quickly become a permanent revolt of the political class against the sovereign people of this land, which itself set off a chain of race/ethnicity-based political, legal, social, and economic actions and reactions.  Inconceivable seven decades ago, these have reached down into every corner of British national life, and have proved absolutely cataclysmic for our people.  They have been conjoined with other immoralities, other political betrayals, each heralding other disasters, such that, in these days, the gravest darkness and uncertainty hangs over even our immediate future.

Any man or woman who finds even some of this troubling and begins to question it already has one foot placed on the long road of understanding that leads to some form of nationalism.  It may take months or even years before the seeker detaches from the old, safe hostilities of left and right, and formulates the notion that the entirety of politics, culture and economics is made horribly, equally destructive by some inhering force or combination of forces.  It will likely take longer still before said seeker also asks what we, as a people, must do to remain not just free or democratic or Christian, or whatever, but who we are.  But then he or she has turned a significant corner.  The people and the people’s everlasting home have been reclaimed from the estrangements of the old ways of thinking, and will not be lost to sightlessness and uncaring again.  With that understanding comes a critique of many other things in this world, such that the whole constitutes an awakening from a deep but general slumber, and a liberation into a new sensing of truth and an intense sensing of identity … of our ethnic person ... of belonging and, most of all, of an existential care.

For the vast majority who accomplish this return it is done alone and osmotically, like a salmon leaving the ocean to return to the place of its arising.  It is a journey of the instinct to an honourable estate, but not a whole nationalist estate.  It is not got from real-world contact with nationalists or any prior ideology of British nationalism.  It is invariably the product of time spent on-line, and had this not been the internet age little of this awakening would ever have been possible.  As it is, the resulting amour propre is nationalism to its possessors, though that singular element of care defines it more exactly as nativism. We might, therefore, justly apply to these good folks the soubriquet “Native Man”.

READ MORE...

I am undertaking to write another paper, this time attempting an answer to the question: what is the political function and potential of ethnic nationalism?  The paper is a gesture in the direction of something I view as not currently existing, and something which must exist very soon as a systemic and, therefore, revolutionary nationalism of our people’s life-cause and identity.  So that means, or should mean, a radically ordering philosophy, existential and naturalistic in mein, cohering, authentising and affirming in effect, and capable of free emergence in the daily life of our racial and ethnic kind.  Let’s see how we go!

Section one: The scale of the challenge

Nationalists of European descent fighting “on the ground” for the cause of our racial and ethnic kind are philosophical orphans today.  They may not understand this uncompromising fact now.  They may have a great emotional investment in ideologies of the nationalist past.  Regardless, it is so - and at a time of unprecedented critical need.  Wherever in this world Europe’s children have their home they are presented with two historically novel and criminal trespasses upon their life, the first of these very specifically against their collective existence, the second against the natural integrity of the human organism as such.

It does not serve the purpose of this essay to devote space and time to a full explanation of either trespass.  They are well enough explained somewhere everyday.  Suffice to say that the first, which has been gathering mass and momentum since the HMT Empire Windrush sailed into British territorial waters on 22nd June 1948, is that process of physical replacement and genetic dissolution which nationalists know so well and have questioned and protested from the beginning.  Influenced by ideological internationalists, vocal Jewish cosmopolitans, Marxist academics, and in service to an insider-elitist mentality, all Western governments and the wider corporate, financial, and liberal Establishment behind them have, for purposes that have never been officially explained, decided to end the essential power of every European people to live freely and securely and alone on its own land, and to generate in its place a new man, a Homo deracinatus sans natural relation, sans belonging, sans history and, signally from our rulers’ perspective, sans common cause.  This substitution has precursors at least as ancient as Second Temple Judaism.  At its core is the supremacist scramble to degrade and, by degrading, defeat for all time a force which is perceived to be - and may indeed be - an historical obstruction, destroying thereby what there is of it which can be destroyed and forcing the rest into servitude.

Only recent in its arrival but with precursors dating back to the industrial revolution, the second trespass arises from the development of information technology, artificial intelligence, neural control interface technology, and genetic engineering.  The socio-political exploitation of these technologies, along with that of the climate agenda and of Covid 19, are already encouraging the current generation of Western political leaders to witter away about re-setting capitalism and “building back better”.  The Western technocrat class, meanwhile, is emboldened by its own self-confidence to instruct us that by 2030 we will own nothing and we will be happy.

But, as those same elites are only too well aware, the combining of these technologies also brings the possibility, perhaps still a generation hence, of a so-called Singularity of networked Homo artifis - cybernetic organisms whose experience of the beauty and nobility and emotional power of human being and human relation will be reduced by the degree to which these creatures experience them as the informational values of 0 and 1.  Truly the postmodern absolute, it would be Michel Foucault’s personal nightmare: the corporate state’s godlike power over the physical body of the individual.  By its sheer radicality and finality it would make the trespass against the European racial and ethnic existence redundant.  With the technological curtailment of the familial, evolved, natural Man, all thinking at the level of particular populations and human difference would lose relevance.  Race and ethnicity would have to find their place in the new order of things, for they could no longer be lead factors.  For us, everything would have to step back to the already compromised redoubt of Nature.

Until the end of the 20th century, nationalism was a movement not always formulated intellectually with regard for what it is of us that is of Nature.  It was drawn from at least five disparate and sometime unruly strains of thought, only the most recent and minor of which ... American race-realism ... addressed the natural in us, after its evidential fashion.  Of the rest, the most long-lasting dates directly to Hegel but received its fullest and most vigorous account from Nietzsche.  Even today, thinking British nationalists are much cast in the Nietzschean mould.  They critique the nihilism of modernity.  They limn the deathly-shallow individualism and economism of liberal thinking and the massifying ideologies of socialism, universalism, and equalitarianism.  They find therein every reductive effect upon the human estate.  Such analyses demonstrate a necessary understanding of the world, of course.  But even as the thinking fraction gives itself over to them, the politicals are gravitating elsewhere.  They, of course, instinctually and properly react to the Establishment’s demographic agenda as the immediate cause of the existential threat to our people and all peoples of European descent.  So they gesture towards immigration, Islam, and multiculturalism, and the tawdry impact of Jewish influence; and they protest every consequence of these profoundly unwanted and undeserved “goods”.

There is, then, if not a conflict exactly, certainly a misalignment of the head and the body of the movement.  Its thinking fraction’s grand critique of the paucity of human meaning in the modern life does not “go” cleanly to the sturdy nationalist’s defence of his people’s life and land.  One might attempt to bridge the gap by portraying it as the epistemological difference between meaning-in-life and meaning-of-life, but that still stops short.  The eternal philosophical divide between meaning and existence, mind and body, is vested here.  Meanings can be contested.  Meanings can be made relative.  Except, perhaps, for the suicidal, the sheerness of existence eludes qualification.  The moral “should” withdraws before the certitude and uncontestibility of “must”.  In this time of existential imperatives, therefore, one would not be too dogmatic to conclude that it is nationalist intellectualism which must reform and make the world-changing, world-creating case for uncontestability and certitude and the European racial and ethnic life.  But on what basis is that to be done?  The only answer which does not depend on the failed and ill-targeted ideologies of the nationalist past is: on the basis of an holistic philosophy of our lived particular truth.

It is always profitable, when contemplating how far from that truth Europeans have wandered, to remember why.  The guiding light of liberalism is the self-authoring individual, also known as the unfettering will.  This is Man the Self-Creator, at the end of the history of God the Creator, when the freeing spirit of the age decapitated the divine authority of the Crown (little more than a century after the Crown had decapitated the authority of the Roman Church).  It is why liberal radicalisms invariably strive after a New Fangled Man dedicated to engineering his own post-Christian (but by no means post-religious) salvation.  Transhumanism is only the logical and final signifier of his progress.  But, in truth, almost nothing in liberalism’s model of the self-authoring Man and not much more in Christianity’s model of the supplicant soul before it are other than conceits and confections.  What truly belongs to us gains not a gram of substance from either of them.

All that said, liberal thinking did not set out, in the wake of the English Civil Wars, to deracinate away Europe’s peoples or to put Man outside Nature.  But men knew not what journey they were embarking their kind and their distant progeny upon.  By 1789 at latest the artificialising, transformative social dynamic had become the new absolute in Europe and America, and it very much remains such in our time.  Human artifice easily accretes upon human artifice, and in the wake of burgeoning artifice comes an ineffable lightness of being, self-estrangement, and suggestibility.  The journey back to the human norm does not follow automatically, as in some isostatic reaction to retreating ice.  Instinct revolts at the worst of it.  But that is not enough to initiate real change, as we should all now understand.  It is a hard outlook for any people to be thrown by the Fates into such a world of confusion, weakness and corruption, against which the only certain counter is a political philosophy (which has never previously been written down) of who and what we truly are (which from Christianisation onward has never previously been allowed to speak for itself).

If our purpose is not, at a minimum, to write down that philosophy and, by it, to re-found our people’s life on a new and holistic basis, then we are not revolutionaries.  We are recidivists.  No matter how much we react and rail against global capital or radical equalitaranism or, indeed, the subjection and loss of our ethnic person to the foreignising of our home ... no matter how justly and determinedly and eloquently we oppose these things ... no matter, if that reaction is the full extent of our effort it will, over time, subside into the established historical and philosophical totality which underscores and orders everything.  That totality’s fundamental creative assumptions ... the core principles of liberalism, the inevitable progress of techne and modernity ... their sheer ideological mass and tenacity ... will ineluctably re-assert their power over men’s minds, and all will go on just as it was before.  For, liberalism and modernity embed in us and transmit themselves in Time through us; and they do this as a primary landscaper of the mind and enculturator of the personality.  In our philosophical age no racial or ethnic European ever truly and permanently escaped their dominion.  But escape we must.

Our struggle, then, is for liberation into the truly human, which is particular and ethnic.  It is a struggle for everything, a total war of ideas and a war of total ideas.  Difficult for a philosophical orphan, it has to be said.  Now let us advance towards it.

The prevailing liberal system has grown stale in the extreme and, for our people, not just unproductive but destructive.  There are political signs all across the West of a yearning for an alternative.  The timing is ripe for ethnic nationalism.  But then as nationalists we come up against the stops of our marginalisation and downright persecution (which will get a lot worse if the Law Commissioners get in England what the SNP government has wanted for Scotland).

The one defence we possess is that the political, media, and liberal Establishments are marginalising and persecuting a political standpoint we, as ethnic nationalists, do not hold.  It is no more correct and appropriate to attack our politics than it is to attack the politics of the Board of Deputies of British Jews.  Advocacy for the existence, natural right, and natural interests of whole peoples cannot be illegitimate, and advocacy for the existence, natural right, and natural interests of the native British people cannot be separated out and treated differently simply because as the natives of this land our interests run counter to those of the non-native populations colonising it. Equality before the law must prevail.  Properly explicated and rid of false associations from the judge and jury which is liberal thinking, ethnic nationalism is morally unimpeachable whichever people it refers to.

Of course, that is a utilitarian argument for theorising the mechanics of ethnic nationalism.  It is a good argument but it is not the whole of the argument, the most serious part of which is the necessity to fashion a philosophy capable of changing history in an epochal sense.  I think we are moving closer to that.  But nothing is yet extant, and in the meantime the narrative of our politics is supplied by so-called “ground-breaking” academics of nationalism.  All working from within the liberal order, they have produced little that we would recognise as our politics.  For example:

Eric Gellner (1925-1995), a Czech-born Jew, theorised nationalism from the starting point of cultural plurality, treating nationalism as a product of modernity and an artificial and strictly political imposition upon the state.  He held that nationalism can only exist in industrial society, by which assertion he could divorce it from the principle of ethnicity (which he did actually hold to be enduring).  In turn, that divorce enabled him to assert that nationalist sentiment is actuated by “the feeling of anger” or “the feeling of satisfaction”, depending on whether “the political and national unit” is “congruent”.  Gellner’s academically influential notions about nationalism are narrow and near-sighted, quite lacking the sense that the fundamental interests of the people must be expressed in their government.

Benedict Anderson (1936-2015), an Anglo-Irishman born in China, also concluded that nationalism was modern, and a response to capitalism.  His famous work Imagined Communities made the classic sceptical plaint that peoplehood requires everyone to have been introduced over the dinner table to everyone else or the people must, to some extent, be a work of the imagination.

This assertion has become a staple of the Marxised left’s stabby little denials.  We could, I suppose, turn to the Mooreian Shift to dispense with it.  But, in fact, that natural acceptance of what is in another because that is also in oneself ... the quiet but utterly solid contentment conferred by being-in-kind, walking among kind ... that suffices.  Were it otherwise ... were a man unable to acknowledge his entire people because he hasn’t met all of them in person, then, in principle, knowledge of the immediate and singular is reified over knowledge of the expansive and plural.  So, for example, a plurality that is a crowd at a football game can only ever possess the meaning of individual football fans as witnessed by each one of them.  When those people leave the stadium they must, by Anderson’s scepticism, remain only and always football fans and not be husbands, fathers, brothers, lovers, workers, shoppers, travellers, holiday-makers, or all that is of the endless round of human experience; because that human fullness would be “imaginary” for everyone at the game.  But we do not hold that other people are incomplete human beings simply on the ground that we do not know them completely.  We know and experience them to be just as we are, even those we have not ourselves met.
 
Anderson, by the way, gave his memoir the title of A Life Beyond Boundaries, which figures.

Anthony D Smith (1936-2015), a Jewish sociologist, argued that ethnic nationalism, as a common ethnic address of power and agency, was a thing of the non-European world.  But in the European world such a nationalism is an invented imposition upon pre-existing ethnicities, histories, myths, and so forth, and properly functions only as an accident of geography and symbolism in the wake, again, of capitalism and modernity.  The organisational rule, meanwhile, is civically nationalist.  It does not even require that its adherents in any given place look alike.

Walker Connor (1926-2016), an American political scientist, was the best of the bunch born before WW2 in that he made no bones about the ethnic foundation of nationalism.  But he approached it through the lens of conflict in the world instead of through the expression of human being, making it too much a negative phenomenon.

Further, he held it to be non-rational and emotional in character while at the same time insisting that it was based on kinship.  Well, you can’t have it both ways.  Either it is of the human instinct for kin or it is non-rational.  The assumption that the first proves the second is wrong.  Ethnic nationalism, as the whole people’s freedom to pursue its interest in survival and continuity, is not at all problematic to explain intellectually, although such explanation is not a pre-requisite - which it cannot be, of course, because instinct precedes thought.  The idea that anything, actually, is entirely constructed of thought is itself a nonsense.

It is the same with Connor’s related belief that because nationalism belongs to the human instinct it is subconscious.  Do men and women have subconscious mutual attraction, or it is fully and gloriously conscious?  Well, just so with ethnic self-preference.  Connor commits the same error of sloppy thinking and terminological inexactitude that he spent his whole life correcting in fellow academics.  His career-long insistence upon exactitude gave us the clumsy appellation ethnonationalism.  We have no reason to avail ourselves of it.

With the exception of Frank Salter, the later generation of academics have largely devoted their energies to the political relationship of the ethnic group to the state, or to the political expression of ethnicity in citizenship.  The nativist aspects of ethnic nationalism have been treated positively only in respect to archaic Third World tribes.  The nativism of European peoples is consistently reduced to a negative manifestation towards immigrants and immigration, as if the rest of humanity has absolutely no opinion on the colonisation of its homeland and it own replacement by alien populations.

At present, a lot of noise is being made around the self-promoting Israeli religious scholar Yoram Hazony, whose rise to prominence really got going with his 2018 book The Virtue of Nationalism.  But, of course, while he is for “nationalism” and against globalism as a governing power over nation states (which he characterises as a form of imperialism) he is against “tribalism”, ie, he is for the multiracial nation state (after all, 20% of the population of Israel is Palestinian, and it’s not like the Israeli government is going to flood its Jewish population with Sub-Saharan Africans and North Africans, and the masses of the Turkic world, Arabia and south, central, and east Asia; so that’s alright, then).

The Chatham House “scholar” and globalist pet Matthew Goodwin is the resident go-too British “expert” on all things allegedly right-wing.  He has treated his mainstream political clientelle to studies of the “fascist” BNP, UKIP, populism, the radical right and, with his next tome due in 2021, the whole shabang of nation, identity and belonging.  Goodwin is not a philosopher, of course.  So the strong probablility is that, writing from the liberal mentality as he does, he will have no more comprehension of the real dynamics of ethnic nationalism - its ontology, its philosophical principles and interior workings - than any of the gentlemen above.  I strongly suspect that nationalism as a naturalistic and emergent organising structure or system for the whole life of Man is something neither he nor any of them can penetrate because that cannot be done from the non-emergent, indeed imposed and artificial organising system which is liberalism.  A clumsy new word for this a lá Walker Connor would seem to be needed.  Liberocentricity, perhaps.

At this point we should acknowledge that we, connected though we are to the whole world of nationalism, are little better at formally explicating our own system of thought.  We seem to be content to recline into the comfortable notion that it can’t matter too much because as ethnic nationalists (please let us not employ Connor’s semiotic) it’s all effortlessly instinctive.

Accordingly, we have brought forth vast reams of critical analysis of our deteriorating racial circumstance, such that even those of us who qualify as long-standing nationalists with developed critiques of our own rarely rise in our politics above reaction, be that born of our instincts or from our factual observations and judgements.  To put it bluntly, critique is an unsexed thing.  It can never seed the ideational future.  So it can never serve the historical obligation upon us to re-order the world for the life and good of our kind.  A politics which seeks that has to come out of an holistic and original nexus of thought about the life of Man.  From the moment that modernist thinking appeared as a revolutionary tool of the powerful, nothing less ever had historical agency.

Within days I will set up a website to advance the best in White advocacy/nationalism as it is known to be - a place for the resource brought to bear, for its cultivation by those who recognize the crucial value of this resource.

I will endeavor to maintain a presence at Majorityrights in order to correct any misrepresentations of my positions and to challenge any perfidy which might make its way back, hoping for my riddance.

Some may think that I might be disheartened with the marketing campaign and those beholden to it having held sway over me thus far, but it is not the case.

Some will mock me as having spent my time in futility, but I think not; especially as compared to the likes of those who spend $10,000 only to die on the side of Mt. Everest.

I have achieved what I set out to do, which is to summit (what I am satisfied to be) the most vital and necessary in theory for the advocacy of European peoples. Similar as those not understood for having undertaken a quest of Mount Everest, it was my objective. Something that I had to do. But unlike their project, mine was not so personal or futile; rather it was in service to my broad understanding and to our people (and, ok, if I am to be most honest, perhaps as much against antagonists and those who do not care - their practices which are objectionable for the destructive impact they are having upon us), and against those who time and again mislead the theoretical trail; by contrast, I have left clear maps on trail for the sovereignty of European peoples: I know that I have brought the best in truth and in depth; while some may be determined to deny this truth out of custom, habit, tradition, their prejudices or vanity - or in red caped misdirection, as I have particularly shown - all one has to do is take a look honestly at my efforts which I will carry over to the new site to be disabused of pseudo justification for antagonism to the platform which I bring to bear.

Whether the new site achieves popularity or not right away is not an issue; any more than popular approval might not be first in mind for the guy who dies on the side of Mt. Everest, singularly focused in his aim, irrespective of how futile and impractical popular opinion may deem his quest to be; however, by contrast, the objective of the new site is not vain nor impractical, nor destined to be unpopular or out of the mainstream as those who do take a look will see; as the perspicuous overview from this summit has shown what is most relevant; a manifestation of the most necessary resource for our people.

My advice is to treat everything you have learned in higher education exactly as you treat everything you have learned from Christian teaching, excepting only that, knowing of it, one might investigate the damage that it has visited upon the life of our race.  It is useful to analysis.  But do not seek to re-interpret and apply any part of it creatively to the European existential question.  The philosophy of our peoples’ life has not yet been written. - Guessedworker

My learning comes not from what was then called “The Tower Library” when I first came there, renamed the W.E.B. Dubois Library after the Mulatto Marxist, at the demand of liberally protesting students, which included classmates of mine (I rather wound up hoping that the library would tip over and fall onto our department’s Machmer hall which was right near the library to one side below).

In this bit of recent “advice” from GW, I find some exoneration for the vitriol and rebuke that I’ve visited upon him - starting when some tipping point was reached in his dismissiveness. I already had strong reason to believe that politeness and respect would not work to stop him from trying to minimize, misrepresent, dismiss and bury what I’ve brought to bear. But that statement confirms it for me.

And with it, that there are total inaccuracies in his concept of where what I’ve learned comes from. Inaccuracies that suit the stereotyping of his autobiography.

I have called attention to a feature of GW’s autobiography - the non-academic David who is going to singularly slay the entirety of the academic Goliath, preparing the ground for his foundational and comprehensive world view of the requirements of European peoples - an utterly grandiose aspect of his autobiography that was formed in reaction to YKW academic abuses of social organization and advocacy.

As I have explained, I am very sympathetic to this and, in fact, returned to graduate school for the purpose of defending White men in response - my thinking at the time, that it would be from an approach of scientific foundation - the very word “pragmatism” was repulsive to me and it took Pearce’s calm and sympathetic advice that I did not like mere pragmatism, to calm me down. He added, that we are pragmatists because we have to be. If you follow the pragmatist line of reasoning to its conclusion, even our ideals and our pursuit of our depths are pragmatic - though it is not my purpose to defend the pragmatists but rather to illustrate where I was coming from and how I was helped around. I believe Pearce’s teaching would hold that pragmatism, literally, would be short on prefigurative force, if not contextual or implicative force, where perhaps it should not be over emphasizing practical force, practically speaking.

To negotiate the post modern condition, he and his colleagues, along with grad students, would focus on the need to manage coherence, coordination and mystery. Coordination would be the feature that would require a more basic, universal language to negotiate.

GW said that I made the wrong choice to not follow up foundational science. GW is wrong. While it is good and necessary for some of our people to study cognitive science, that is not what our advocacy and its philosophical underpinnings most require at this point - we’re under attack psychologically, yes, but our concerns are deeper than that, we need more of a social perspective to look at the deepest problems, as we are under attack as a species, group system, a race - largely a matter of social classification as Pearce would show:

W. Barnett Pearce

Sexists, racists, and other classes of classifiers: Form and function of “...Ist” accusations

by Julia T. Wood and W. Barnett Pearce

An “. . . ist” accusation indicts an individual as a racist, sexist, or other “. . . ist” whose thoughts and/or acts discriminate on the basis of class membership. The self‐reflexively paradoxical structure of “. . . ist” accusations precludes refutation, but response is possible. Pragmatic and moral implications of alternative responses to “. . . ist” accusations are evaluated.

Quarterly Journal of Speech, Volume 66, 1980 - Issue 3. Brief provided by Taylor & Francis Online

In late 1989, I wrote to W. Barnett Pearce to discuss his work and how it might resolve problems that I was struggling with. Noting my struggles with accusations of ‘racism’ and ‘sexism’ - and having compassion! - he sent me this article, so on target and deft in the manner which it handled my concerns, that it demonstrated unequivocally that his was a discipline that I needed to be apprised of. Indeed, this article provided two of the most important clues for my WN advocacy. The first being that ‘race’ is (in an important regard) a matter of classification - at very least being treated as such by people who mattered, particularly by our foes, but also by our people, where they know what is good and necessary for them. Secondly, as the blurb above hints at, our antagonists can always shift its paradoxical structure to their anti-White agenda:

Viz., if you say, “no, I don’t discriminate based on race, sex, etc., I judge everyone on their individual merit”, then they can charge you with being disingenuous, willfully ignoring “the long history of discrimination, oppression and exploitation of these groups.”  But then, on the other hand, if you take the measure of saying, “ok, lets take that into account and use, say, affirmative action to help these groups into positions in which they are under-represented”, then you are classifying and discriminating thereupon, hence a racist by definition.

Along with that article, Pearce sent me another one regarding The Problematic Practices of Feminism: An Interpretive Critical Analysis, Communications Quarterly, 1984, with Sharon M. Rossi - which I found ironic, that being the exact name (same year as well) of the girlfriend of mine who drove me to psychic melt-down.

Anyway, the (very helpful) gist of that article, which I’ve noted several times before, is that within the context of liberal feminism, even a well intentioned man can always be put into the wrong:

You can always be treated as either a wimp or a pig, no matter what you do as a man.

If you try to treat her with deference, gentleness, help and respect, then you can be looked upon as a wimp and a condescending patriarch who does not respect her strength, agency and autonomy.

On the other hand, if you treat her as one of the boys, respecting her toughness and autonomy, then you can be looked upon as a pig, a male chauvinist pig, not respecting the special quality of her gender, but rather a male chauvinist pig, projecting the hegemony of your patriarchical world view over all and everyone.

* Note: while Pearce had compassion on me for what he might deem as unfair overcompensation on behalf of people of color, neither he nor his colleagues should be construed as “racists” nor endorsing my political activism and philosophical positions across the board - that would absolutely not be true.

And part of the problem of GW’s mis-assessement also stems from a STEM mentality, a predilection that he shares with Bowery, a predilection that essentially wishes that engineering, science and philosophy were practically the same endeavors. Not so much need for the “ought” corrections of the social world, we primarily need to find and describe what is, single out and fix any broken link. Compounding problems of STEM type predilections, is the head start this perspective has had through the internet, a STEM created medium to begin, amplifying this perspective (already amplified, as it tends to pay in the market, while social concern, not necessarily).

But it’s worse than that in terms of any concern for holistic philosophy and advocacy.

GW’s situation both as an ensconced Englishman and boomer who derived some benefit - economic and the satisfaction of free enterprise - from the other side of the controlled opposition from cultural Marxism - viz. some sort of “objectivism” - contributes to a confirmation bias that independent success of individuals and nations is basically a matter of freedom from all that superfluous and unnatural social advocacy stuff - which from his perspective on Jewish laden academia, is seen as possibly serving only liberalism and misdirecting notions of choice, where English emergence is the only legitimate default.

And it is worse still than that in terms of holistic, systemic philosophy in advocacy of our homeostasis, its recovery.

My learning comes not from visiting lecturers to the campus, Cornell West and the S.P.L.C.‘s Morris Dees - who spoke of his case to bankrupt Metzger for “vicarious liability” ..lectures brought on by the university to quell racial tensions being raised by I can’t imagine the likes of whom.

The luxury (compared to American Whites) of being able to say with stronger conviction, “here in my ancient homeland, with my people”, has afforded more confidence to double down on his STEM predilection and patch up a modernist, “natural” reaction (Modernity is also largely STEM in origin) to abuses of post modernism - and, he has received support in this reaction from other groups in reaction, groups that I’ve ousted from this platform and who, therefore, seek to bury the world view that I advance.

This has given GW more confidence than he should have in a modernist philosophy and a wildly inaccurate and disrespectful disposition toward what I bring to bear. Spontaneous reactions were brought out in me - in moments when I finally could not believe that he would stop trying to mute, minimize if not dismiss what I was bringing to bear.

Disconcerting though my spontaneous eruptions may have been to a tipping point in the level of utter disrespect for what I’d brought to bear by the very host of the site, I’ve taken solace in the fact that I was asked to take the site in a direction that I saw fit. I had and still have confidence that is fine for several reasons.

Through experience, I’ve come up with a philosophical framework to form the basis of advocacy for European peoples in coordination with other peoples and natural systems.

A major feature of my platform which gives me confidence is that it holds up and makes sense consistently of what is going on.

Despite that, another aspect that gives me confidence in my position is the fact that the notion of “correctability” - i.e., Praxis takes us into engagement with the input of others, where it is not only welcome - it is a built in requirement (particularly where it mirrors good will toward our group interests). This is “my ownmost innocence”, to turn Heidegger on his head for a moment.

Some people will try to say that because this platform rejects, for the most part, Christianity, Nazism, Jewish input, scientism (a susceptibility not only of modernists, but also neo trad types - incl. women who see beta males everywhere and see them as dead wood who need to be killed off) and wild conspiracy theories, that I am not open to input. That’s not true. These positions are rejected for what should be obvious reasons for those interested in fostering the interests of European peoples. And they have other places to go, whereas a WN platform that rejects these things exists only at Majorityrights.

My learning comes not from W.E.B. Dubois’s mulatto supremacism, which proposed that an African American “feminine man” who, in joining with the more “masculine” Teutonic would produce a common human/American civilization by a racial division of labor.”

But what many of those adhering to these world views have in common and have in common with GW, I believe, is that they are reacting to Jewish abuse - academia being the generating house of misrepresentations, gross distortions in theory of social organization and advocacy, which has become more and more blatantly anti-White social advocacy (it was blatant even thirty years ago).

I have called attention to GW’s autobiography, a significant part of which was formed in reaction to YKW academic abuses of social organization and advocacy.

I understand his reaction, as I have said, I went back to academia with the intent of pursuing a graduate career in defense of White men, not for any mere practical reason, but on the basis of foundational science.

GW said that I made the wrong choice to not follow up foundational science, and GW is wrong. While it is good and necessary for some of our people to study cognitive science, that is not what our advocacy and its philosophical underpinnings most require at this point - we are under attack psychologically, yes, but our concerns are deeper than that, we need more of a social perspective to look at the deepest problems, because we are under attack as a species, a group system, a race.

Now let me revisiit GW’s statment:

My advice is to treat everything you have learned in higher education exactly as you treat everything you have learned from Christian teaching, excepting only that, knowing of it, one might investigate the damage that it has visited upon the life of our race.  It is useful to analysis.  But do not seek to re-interpret and apply any part of it creatively to the European existential question. The philosophy of our peoples’ life has not yet been written.

While I can’t presume that his misrepresentation of where my knowledge comes from doesn’t come from the bad will of his business competitor world-view and/or the other antagonistic world views that spur him on, lets give him the benefit of the doubt for a moment and presume it is sheer misunderstanding - I will clear away the inaccuracies in his concept of where what I’ve learned comes from.

I spent the first three decades of my life learning from experience what it was like to be antagonized as a White man, without the backing of a particular group, not Italian, not Polish and certainly not as an English man in England. What I’m saying is that my racial circumstance was even more radical in its existential circumstance and requirement - the absolute need to understand what is requisite.

...

My undergraduate major was Fine Art, so even though my academic requirements at Tufts were comparatively minimal, happily for me, since that’s all that I could cope with, what Jewish influence there would not be heavily enmeshed in by me - again, because I could not process the liberalism that was only gaining in America at that time - given only ostensible reprieve by Reagan’s (((paleoconservatism))) - my response to liberalism and its advocacy in that moment was to take on a semblance of identity politics in Theory of Soviet Foreign Policy with an adviser to President Reagan (viz., with a non-Jewish expert on Soviet / Polish relations; true, the texts were (((Adam Ulam and Dimitri Simes))) but what was I going to do with this information anyway?); I took religion courses for my social requirements, trying to practice pure Christianity, but fortunately these courses planted the seeds that the bible might not exactly be the word of god, but the work of many all too human hands, and it was a phase that I would totally throw off once the stress of university was over.

Christianity had been the basic recourse that my family had shown me in response to liberalism (though it was not discussed, just go to church and Sunday school and shut up).

With the pain of the utter communicological confusion of my family and of that society, art, including the beauty of White women, was my first recourse in terms of sustaining motivation. Then when I realized in my undergraduate career that that was not going to be sufficient for a man trying to cope with the liberal world, I fell back on Christian religion to cope with my undergraduate academic years. I got through while embarrassing myself trying to defend that stupid religion against people with vastly superior resources to me. But to give myself credit, I did learn that it was not THE moral order and I moved on.

A major lesson I learned from academia was what a burden it was to be told what I was required to read. Once I graduated, it was a great moment of liberation - I not only had a key to learning, through erudition, but now I could read what I wanted and needed.

And I would later learn that without the solid guidance that a scholar can provide, that there could be a lot of wasted time reading material that was off the mark of what would be most incisively helpful.

So my field of inquiry and learning moved inefficiently from art, to religion and… the first subject matter that I started reading outside of university on my own was, of course, psychology. Carl Jung was first. Then some Jews, yes, Freud and Gestalt (Fritz Perls), Rollo May, most of it not very helpful but at least suggesting that there could be some empirical anchoring, means to self advocacy and guidance.

Then a truer learning experience as I read along these things at work, my first girlfriend, who would fly off the handle screaming at the suggestion that maybe she didn’t need to scream at me, that I was a nice guy, willing to work things out, despite the fact that I had a family that screamed at me (among other communicological pathologies), so I didn’t need more of it.

This caused me to see a psychologist as Sharon was a bitch (by her own admission and words) who was going to help inspire me by destroying my mind. In fact, when she sensed that I would be quite content to break up with her, she reappeared at my desk with hands clasped in a plea that I not break up with her - so she could really lower the boom and finish my mind off, so I would find.

I needed the psychologist very badly in order to try to keep it together.

During these few years in the mid 80’s, I gleaned a little something from Heidegger and took his advice, as I’d said, to put my perspective into a historical time line and this was when I began my critical revision of the Maslowian Hierarchy, seeing the significance of the hippies in relation to feminism, Maslow’s story of Actualization and its negative implication of modernity and the systemic runaway of the American project - a rupturing of the first and most essentially human perspective, social systemic homeostasis; and how this (((American story))) of ‘being all you could be in individual human potential in the land of opportunity’ was opposed to Aristotelian Actualization and its emphasis on optimality and human nature, to be augmented with a post modern furthering of his emphasis on the difference of praxis (social world) and its requirements in circulating inquiry of phronesis (practical judgment).

I’m getting a little ahead of myself.

READ MORE...