Majorityrights Central > Category: Political Philosophy

   
        Toward a relative social and less sheerly objective view of our peoples
        – i.e., in terms of our interests. 2,450 words

For those intelligent minds inquiring without the better of academia’s time tested structures in the humanities, but only proceeding of their will to make their way through erudition from their standpoint, their penchant in Western advocacy would have us return to modernity (were it possible) and objectivism.

To the academically inexperienced and untrained advocate of Western interests there are two grand disadvantages.

First, he is not appraised of the sublime workings and analyses of these scholarly apparati as they might be applied in our interests; and secondly, what he does know and hear about them tends to be vast perversions of the notions as passed through Jewish academia and media.

The well meaning Westerner thus sets about to cure us of all this hogwash, and would unbeknownst return us to obsolete tenets of modernity and objectivism - precursors to the very afflictions to our homeostasis that he seeks to cure, such as liberalism.

To him, “objectivism” is good. “Relativism” is bad.

He does not sufficiently appreciate that the analytic framework of objectivism, relativism and subjectivism is not inherently antagonistic to Western interests. The same would apply to a myriad of terms and concepts that have been misapplied against European interests and rather stupidly taken by White Nationalists as such - inherently bad or wrong. It is a temptation and an easy mistake, but a bad mistake – as these are deliberate traps set against European interests unbeknownst to those without a privileged vantage on the working of Jewish academics over these scholarly apparati.

Let me address just objectivism and relativism briefly.

Critique of objectivism ranges from what would correctly be seen as the most brazen and vulgar Jewish sophistry to the most sublime calculations of Heisenberg or Gödel.

However, when I critique objectivism it will tend to be heard by those outside of the academic humanities as if I am disposing of the framework which has yielded such fantastic scientific advances in its entirety, as if I am a Jew looking to make rhetorical tropes the king.

The truth is that there are limits and very real problems for us as a people in the pursuit of mere objectivism. It is among the central elements of our problems.

Plato being granted some permission by Christianity, thus having gravity in our traditions, will incline many to see in this argument a stupid straw man that all is relative. That I am promoting sheer sophistry and relativism. Not. In fact, hyper-relativism is an upshot of objectivism.

On the other hand, there is an aspect of rhetoric called casuistry which has also gotten a bad name from Jewish misuse. However, casuistry proper would take into account the sublime limitation of objectivism, taking the facts yielded by its experience and inquiry indeed BUT then making the best argument that it can on the basis of those facts in conjunction with one’s interests inherently social as they are. There is no denial of facts but a prioritizing of them as they accord to human concern. That is right.

READ MORE...

While defending our ghetto square and the merits of strengthening our grass roots community by preaching there to its choir, deepening our understanding and resolve, it seems that at this point Majority Rights could also do well with forays to visit those down some side streets - to pursue interviews not only with those who are most aligned with our views, but also to follow a path of those who might be slightly off - i.e. slightly antagonistic to our views in a somewhat liberal direction, at least explicitly, while having some implicit sympathy through connection to our square, our cause; such that MR’s platform might bring-out that connection with their underlying fairness in concern for our people and our kinds. The more public, known or respectable the person, perhaps the better. They might come to us with an intent to criticize us or save face in cover inasmuch – fine. Perhaps we can stand corrected. That’s not so much the problem as coming-up with good candidates for this kind of discussion/debate, those who may be lurking in what are the shadowy side-streets for us. Therefore the reason for this post is to ask for suggestions as to fairly prominent/respectable liberals, etc. Those fairly askance of our views, but not so antagonistic as to be futile to hope to engage. Rather to pursue those who might be ripe to debate GW or another MR representative, to at least hear-us-out. We might see where the dimly lit path takes us…

READ MORE...

While distinguishing characteristics of Europeans may be the relative independence of mature individuals, sovereignty, self sufficience, autonomy and agency, can anybody really doubt that we are socially created and dependent upon cooperation to some extent and somewhere along the line? Lets not be absurd and value individualism so much as to lose its source.

As European peoples, the connections of our social systemic interdependence are protracted and delicate but as such, allow for their creative organization, coordination and the negotiation of win-win scenarios.

If both individual and our whole people are to be valued then in our separatist concern, let us finally share a narrative that honors those who harmonize our people while demonstrating effectiveness in removing interlopers and imposers upon our E.G.I.

For our tenuous but necessary social connectedness is also what allows these patterns of connection to be disrupted by hostile outsiders and the selfish, short-sighted and exploitative of our own -  whether less than ordinary folks or elite.

READ MORE...

                                         
Ayn Rand compared what she said were the “Sex, Drugs and Rock n’ Roll values - ‘the hippie motives’ on display at Woodstock” to

The Apollo 11 project, which had legions of well behaved admirers who descended upon Cape Canaveral to observe its event.

Now, if we couldn’t expect hippies, not even John Lennon, to be articulate of what was important about the hippie motive how can we expect Don Black and right wing cohorts to be articulate of their motives?

Don says Timothy Leary was the poster hippie boy with the emblematic phrase, “tune in turn on and drop out.” Not exactly.

And his colleague, “Don Advo,” preferred Ayn Rand’s take on hippies in “Apollo and Dionysus,” disparaging hippies by contrast to achieving technocrats, viz. contrasting the Apollo astronauts and witnesses to the Dionysian Woodstock performers and crowd.

But whereas Any Rand’s individualist objectivism was motivated to rupture the communality and other organization of European peoples by contrasting it with “heroic” but disingenuous individualism, the hippies did have a very important motive which is continually skirted-over by those who ignore the background of The Vietnam War Draft.

In rebellion against the draft, hippies were there at Woodstock, singing..

“Well, come on all of you, big strong men, Uncle Sam needs your help again. Yeah, he’s got himself in a terrible jam way down yonder in Vietnam. So put down your books and pick up a gun, gonna have a whole lotta fun.. and its one, two, three…

What are we fighting for? Don’t ask me I don’t give a damn, next stop is Vietnam”..

“Ain’t no time to wonder why (Being, midtdasein, nah!) whoopee! we’re all gonna die!

Plenty good money to be made by supplying the army with the tools of its trade”

..and wondering like, how about V2 rockets re-directed for a peaceful mission? 

In all seriousness…

                    Buzz was there!

No, the hippies were not protesting The Apollo 11 moon landing!

Their fundamental project was very significant in the advance of European peoples -  a quest for midt-dasein - communal being amidst the class of one’s people for White males - as opposed to having those basic levels on the hierarchy of needs sacrificed by males in deprivation and privation; where a few males might make it through the stress to the higher reaches (often transformed into sociopaths for the effort), to the higher aims on the hierarchy of needs - e.g., exploring the moon. To where in fact, these traditional trade-offs in gender differentiation were exploited and exaggerated beyond reason.

Sacrificial White males on the way, as in Vietnam, no matter how needless, be damned.

The point is, these motives/needs should not and ultimately, in fact, cannot be mutually exclusive, but must be balanced in optimality. The hippies were not protesting the Apollo landing. They reasonably sought organicism and being in balance to technology. However, they might upset a Jew like Ayn Rand because they were insisting that the intrinsic value of White men - White male midt-dasein - be recognized, in fact its institution was/is a necessary priority.

But the hippies were inarticulate of that motive. Moreover, requisite to their motive of midtdasein was “racism” * - i.e., social classification and necessary discrimination thereof, duty when mature to guard the boundaries thereof - there is no being in one’s group without discriminating against its antagonists - ironically prohibited with the newly mis-coined “civil rights” making such requisite discrimination into a veritable taboo and largely illegal in fact. Needless to say that was hard to articulate at the time as it is still now. Midtdasein’s articulation was made yet harder by the fact that it could easily be emasculated against the traditional role/motive for males to quest after the top of the hierarchy and man-up in sacrificing the basic needs of the hierarchy. Furthermore, turning back from actualizing the top of the hierarchy apparently belied the whole American project as the “land of opportunity.” Indeed, White males would not necessarily want to sacrifice the possibility for the top of the hierarchy either. Nor would they want to sacrifice the middle - relationships with co-evolutionary women:

Sharon

..finally, they absolutely needed the basics on the hierarchy of needs if anything was to be possible for them. Indeed, how dare the powers-that-be try to end this beauty?

“Walking in Space”, Hair

Doors locked (doors locked)
Blinds pulled (blinds pulled)
Lights low (lights low)
Flames high (flames high)

My body (my body)
My body

My body (my body)
My body

My body
Is walking in space
My soul is in orbit
With God face to face

Floating, flipping
Flying, tripping

Tripping from Pottsville to Mainline
Tripping from Mainline to Moonville

(Tripping from “Pot"sville to Starlight
Tripping from Starlight to Moonville)

On a rocket to
The Fourth Dimension
Total self awareness
The intention

My mind is as clear as country air
I feel my flesh, all colors mesh

Red black
Blue brown
Yellow crimson
Green orange
Purple pink
Violet white
White white
White white
White white

All the clouds are cumuloft
Walking in space
Oh my God your skin is soft
I love your face

How dare they try to end this beauty?
How dare they try to end this beauty?

To keep us under foot
They bury us in soot
Pretending it’s a chore
To ship us off to war

In this dive
We rediscover sensation
In this dive
We rediscover sensation

Walking in space
We find the purpose of peace
The beauty of life
You can no longer hide

Our eyes are open
Our eyes are open
Our eyes are open
Our eyes are open
Wide wide wide!

“That is ‘my conviction..”

Still, we hear how hedonistic and bad these people were by people who want to blame White men and associate them with Jewish affectations of the era.

Articulating the motive of White male midtdasein was further complicated by its incommensurability and confusion with Jewish interests and right-wing interests - who sought to associate it with the Jewish radical agenda of Marxism: expressed as imposed liberalism for Whites but by contrast to that relaxation of vigilance, a unionized activism for non-Whites against Whites - the prim “civil rights” and upwardly black power totally incommensurate with White male midtdasein. As was Marcuse’s “free love and “poly- morphous perversion” incommensurate with White male midtdasein, especially as bounds of accountability and human ecology were ruptured as “violation of ‘civil rights”

The second wave of feminism, another thing wrongly correlated with hippies, was also in fact incommensurate, quite literally incommensurate with White male midtdasein.

In fact, it was the thesis of Betty Friedan, leading exponent of that second wave of feminism, that in order to be healthy, full and free, women needed access to the higher levels of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

It is apparent how the “high grumbles” which Maslow called higher needs on the hierarchy, and as feminists who followed Friedan’s thesis would espouse, could cause extreme friction between White women and White men, who had the “low grumbles” of not wanting to be treated as being so intrinsically valueless as to have to be subject to a draft and die in a senseless foreign war of aggression; and rather than being left alone in peace, being amidst the class of their people, were subject in still further violation thereof - violation of their freedom from association with outsiders as imposed by “civil rights”  - violation of freedom from association, violation of midtdasein - taking away the most basic freedom of White men.

                                             
Of course Ayn Rand did not like Hippies, they were motioning to group, communal organization of Whites and care that included White male being as an intrinsic value - god forbid they would heal in organic and communal being, to be anything but sheer individuals who would stand no chance against her tribe’s hegemony and impositions.

* Needless to say, along with hippies, Ayn Rand found “racism” appalling - disCusting!

Sometime back a fellow calling himself Lonejack agreed with my assessment:

Agree.

As a VN vet, I can attest to most of what you say. The effects of the VN-era conscription – that is, having been forced into slave-soldiering in a non-White country’s civil war orchestrated by bankers and corporations, having absolutely nothing to do with the actual defense of a White homeland, and calculatingly prosecuted by LBJ and his Ivy League YKW intelligentsia with absolutely no intent of military victory – reverberate to this day among the White guys who were in our late teens and early twenties during the 60’s, more than 50 thousand of whom died in combat, many of whom were captured and tortured, and hundreds of thousands of whom returned maimed, grossly disfigured, and/or dysfunctional only to be vilified, upon their return, by many elements of the society which sent them.

When I returned from overseas, my drop-out from family and society into the flower-child milieu had little to do with civil rights or free love. BTW I do not begrudge those who emigrated to Canada to avoid the draft. And, for those interested, the works of author Tim O’Brien, who “served” an extended “tour of duty” as an infantryman in SVN, are richly descriptive, compelling, and well written IMO.

Commenters on this site (Alt Right) and in other threads who incessantly demand the boomers to go fuck or shoot themselves, while they themselves consider employment with the Navy, CIA, SS, or some other corrupt, terrorist, anti-White ZOG organ of the NWO agenda – as though such employment would be anything more than a convenient way to escape a tough job market – do, I confess, grate. Why on earth would they willingly collaborate with evil, when alternatives, difficult though they be, are available?

My 2-bit rant.

Thank You Lonejack
       

Robert Ransdell

I’m waiting to hear or read what’s not to like about this guy. Though I reserve the right to change my mind, and admit that I am not disposed and have not been looking far and wide for what not to like about him, from what I have heard (some interviews and some text), so far he seems alright.

Greg Johnson criticizes him for wasting his time, but I don’t see where Ransdell has said that standard political channels were the only means that he would ever seek - and it is clearly only a strategy to get heard. Moreover, he is also explicit in not recommending or insisting upon this strategy for everyone and all places.

Ok, he is associated with VNN and Stormfront, inspired by Rockwell and to a lesser extent by Pierce; there may be (probably is) some guilt by association with them and other opinions on those discussion forums; but so far, from what I have heard, he himself has not said anything that I find objectionable. It would be interesting to hear what MR readers think.

Ransdell’s site: http://www.thewhiteguard.com/

A blog comment by Enza Ferreri prompts some thoughts on Vico. Of course I do not place comfort or credence in all of Vico’s ideas - unlike Johnson, I particularly do not find this comforting: “The idea of history going through the same stages over and over again.” Even so, I do respect Vico as the first prominent anti-Cartesian philosopher; who saw that an anti-modernist, turning and reconstructing process was implied by non-Cartesianism. However, I take a more hopeful view that we are not so determined to repeat unpleasantries - rather, we are free to act, at least having some alternative range of functional autonomy and agency to repeat healthy practices and forms of the past, while moving on and advancing to new ways where we are the better for it.

In any event, as he was the first major challenge to Cartesianism, and frequently cited as a forefather of social constructionism proper, I have long treated Vico as pivotal to sound philosophical underpinning of White/European nationalism - this article to note:

Yes, The White Race Is A Social Construct (Contrary to Jewish and Right Wing Denial).

WN may be finally catching-on to these correctives of typical right-wing errors.

Greg Johnson gave a speech on Vico at the recent London Forum. In anticipation, I have already invited him to speak with G.W. or James about this in an M.R. podcast, should any party be willing. As for Enza, she can come visit my town anytime she likes..

Excerpt of Enza Ferreri’s comment regarding Greg Johnson’s speech on Vico

Vico is a 17th-18th century philosopher from Naples. Most Italians know of him and his theory of the “corsi e ricorsi storici”, or the cyclical nature of history. But he’s little known in the Anglo-Saxon world, despite having had some influence, especially on James Joyce’s books. Vico’s Scienza nuova (“New Science”) is the basis for Finnegans Wake.

The idea of history going through the same stages over and over again is very far from the contemporary view of history as progress. Vico, according to Johnson, was exceptional, in that he was the first anti-Enlightenment thinker and the only one of his time, despite being himself an Enlightenment thinker in some ways.

Vico postulated a fundamental law of historical development, that follows the same pattern by evolving through three phases: the age of gods, “during which gentile [meaning “pagan”] men believed that they were living under divine rule”; the age of heroes, when aristocratic republics were established; and the age of men, or what we may call “democracy”, “when all were recognised as equal in human nature”. Here Vico is a son of his “Enlightened” times, when he talks of the necessity to respect “natural reason” and of “the human rights dictated by human reason when fully explored”.

At that point man’s increased powers of reasoning result in a state of anarchy, when everybody considers himself his own ruler and only looks after his own pleasure and short-term interest. Sounds familiar? It must do, because it’s a fairly accurate description of what we are going through now, a description which will become even more faithful as decades, nay years, nay months go by.

Then men get tired of that anarchy and “turn again to the primitive simplicity of the early world of peoples”, and to religion. Thus the cycle starts again.

The beauty of it all, said Johnson, is that Vico’s view of history enables us to stop trying to mend the present state of affairs, which is beyond repair, and instead look forward to - even accelerate - its end, which will usher a new era.

Or I would put it as “the darkest hour is just before the dawn”.

Johnson concluded his speech by saying that, whereas Giorgio Almirante, the leader of the Right-wing Italian party Movemento Sociale Italiano, said, “Julius Evola is our Marcuse, only better”, we can say that Vico is our Karl Marx, only better.

Greg Johnson on Vico:

http://cdn.counter-currents.com/radio/Johnson%20on%20Vico.mp3

A chat with Jimmy Marr following his interview by Circus Maximus reveals..

daniel sienkiewicz: nice show.

Jimmy Marr: Thanks. I knew you were listening, so I didn’t worship Hitler even once.

daniel sienkiewicz: wise guy

daniel sienkiewicz: the Irish guy was cool too

Jimmy Marr: Yeah. We kept talking for nearly an hour after the show was officially over. There were actually two Irish guys on there. Was that part audible to you?

daniel sienkiewicz: yes…and I was very pleased with what you did with Nietzsche..

... that you were taking-on scientism

daniel sienkiewicz: that it will be left to us to create what is important to value

Jimmy Marr: Oh great. I’m glad someone was out there to appreciate that. I felt like maybe I was getting too abstract.

daniel sienkiewicz: But you know Jimmy that is, in essence, social constructionism

daniel sienkiewicz: and that is not wrong.

daniel sienkiewicz: it is right.

Jimmy Marr: Yes.

daniel sienkiewicz: v good.

daniel sienkiewicz: lots of subtle ideas..I was impressed..I look forward to listening to the show a second time.

....it also clarified some of the things with “the bugs people”..fascinating..

you acquited yourself quite well, I thought.

Jimmy Marr: Great. Thank you. It was tough.

daniel sienkiewicz: you’re welcome..these things are tough…when people whose best interests you have at heart are tangled-up with antagonistic forces.

READ MORE...

While we are (in 299 words) addressing David Duke and his single greatest cause issue - Jewish power and influence - with his admonition against their strategy of divide-and-conquer, we should ask..

Is it not possible that our traitorous White plutocrats would be happy to have us fight a war against that which is also their greatest enemy - Jewish power and biocultural patterns -  and use us as cannon fodder?

What, after all, have they done for us?

What have they done to merit our loyalty?

What have they done to fight Jewish power and influence? mass non-White immigration into European peoples’ habitats? the destruction of European cultures and people?

READ MORE...