Majorityrights Central > Category: Political Philosophy

An interesting debate has sprung up on the BNP election thread, And the winner is ....  I’ve moved the relavent comments here at the request of one of our esteemed commenters.

The debate was/is a response to the notion that the existential threat all European peoples face in the West today is completely new in historical terms, and calls forth new restorative ideas.  In an intellectually free and creative age ... an age not labouring under the weight of the 20th century ... radical thinkers would respond with towering expositions of the European life.  The existential threat would be countered with a flood of vivifying ideologies tailored to the times, and the best and most inspiring of them to all times.

The 20th century fascist ideologies would be properly understood as vigorous but really quite narrow responses to the threats of their time, enlivened in the case of the German model by some rough and ready social darwinism.  They would not be seen as a solution for all times, or for ours.  For now, the revolutionary wave which fascism resisted has washed over us, and the sickly decadence which National Socialism bled out of German society has penetrated us.  Those lines have been breached, and the battle has been carried forward to the final redoubt of our very existence.  A few decades from now we shall be on the Westwall and in Berlin.  We shall be on Senlac Field, and in Stalingrad ... everywhere that men have known their very being is on the line.

It is the clarification of that first verb “to be” which matters now.  Our people must know what it means to be “us” - as a part of subsistent Nature, as men and as Europeans.  They must know what is and is not true of us and in us, and they must know we have the right “to be” ... the right to live sovereign and free, and the right to live with ourselves and with no others, if that is what we choose.

That is my prescription.  It has, so far as I am aware, not been expounded in the past, probably because no man ever thought that we Europeans would ever find ourselves where we are today.  But here we are, nonetheless, and we have no time - none at all - to waste on philosophical distractions which answer the wrong question.

Below the fold are the comments from the “winner” thread.  I hope I’ve not left out any substantive ones.

READ MORE...

HC,

In my own mind I’ve been turning over this problem of European survival for three decades or thereabouts.  Fred has talked of his emergence into the light beginning with an encounter with Steve Sailer’s writings.  I can’t really say for sure how or when I began.  I know how I proceed.  It is a journey that is osmotic in method, like a salmon smelling one molecule from the stream of its birth amid the billions of tonnes of seawater around it, one then another then another.

The molecules, however, are not the stream.  I have never found any source of knowledge that wholly satisfies me or about which I could say, yes, that is the solution that we must all place our shoulder behind.  I have only found signposts.  And, of course, that’s the point.  That’s the tragedy of the European situation.  Even at this perillous moment, there are still only signposts.

The ground is thick with them, in fact.  There’s Alain de Benoist, but he despises analytic materialism and so, naturally enough, finds himself mounting only a cultural defence.  Which is no bloody use.

There’s Alex Linder who visited us one time to press the case for the Single Jewish Cause, castigated me for being “in philosophy” not politics, and then let it be known that he is a libertarian.  More or less.

There’s the popular nationalist movements on the edges of European politics.  Actually, most, like the BNP, are broad churches of nativism - not really nationalist at all.  But image is everything, and you can’t blame them for thinking they are nationalists.  How many, though, could really define the word?

And then there’s Kevin MacDonald.  Let’s look at his prescription in greater detail.

READ MORE...

by Happy Cracker

One thing that I really regret about the philosophical discussions on this website is that they are never distilled into bullet-point form that can be appropriated by the masses. The highest level discussions in any arena always looks like a mess: scattered manuscripts, little ‘chits’ with scribblings on them, and red marker. Yet, at the end of the day, you are supposed to always hand the simple-minded man an index card with the main points underlined. Except we never seem to get around to doing that around here.

Imagine MR were to end tonight. What has the average Englishman profited from its existence? What new memes have we brought him, what aides in his ideological struggle? That is the question you must always be asking yourself if you want to avoid being lead astray by corrupting influences.

Its not philosophical endeavor itself that frustrates me - its the fact that we can’t even really explain what we are talking about to each other. I have contributed many articles to this website, yet when the main writer GW addresses me, I understand only vaguely what he is actually talking about. This makes me quite mad, because it looks as though all this has been in vain. I am supposedly a part of the inner circle and I don’t even get what is being discussed.

READ MORE...

by Happy Cracker

I was pondering what memetic support we can provide which might concretely help in the establishment of a government that adheres to our philosophy. At some point I came to the consideration of founding documents, and asked myself: what sort of a founding document would we produce to articulate our political philosophy?

What I came up with will be easy to criticize on the grounds that it is obvious, and that it is ultimately just another statement.  But I hope you’ll give the following example a fair hearing.

“Charter of the Existence of the English Nation”.

This would be a document which establishes, in a persuasive and accessible style:

1. The existence of the English nation,

2. What constitutes membership of that nation,

3. The value that the English nation has for its members,

4. The fact that the nation can die, and thus needs to be preserved,

5. The existential threat posed by loss of territory, esp. via mass immigration

6. Calls for the death of the English nation (cite: Steyn, Darby, Derbyshire, others),

7. The right of the English nation to exist into futurity,

8. The right of members of this nation to puts its preservation as foremost priority.

9. Further reading: reference MacDonald’s works and others.

I can imagine a very embellished version, possibly even giving specific genetic data to delineate the boundaries of the nation.

At the very least, a stripped-down and simplified version could be written for distribution to schoolchildren; it might take the form of a pamphlet.

Its my opinion that nationalists and those raised in right-leaning households will view many of these memes as being self-obvious and barely worthy of being stated. I disagree, which is why I wrote this and will proceed to write the document. I think that there is a benefit to be had from stating these things explicitly and on paper.

My reasoning is that, despite the obviousness of this to some, the left has been able to insert so much relativizing logic and uncertainty into discourse, that even while within one’s own four walls nationalism may reign, in the public space, all of these things are regarded as “up in the air”. Basically the left maintains an air of permanent skepticism about all assertions of nationhood. It is perhaps shocking to some that people believe enough in this to actually state it. Put simply: there is value in being explicit.

Suggestions welcome.

by Happy Cracker

Frédéric Bastiat was a Frenchmen who lived from 1801 to 1850, in the last decade of his life producing several treatises on free market economics and political economy. He was an enemy of socialism and wrote several books demonstrating the absurdity of socialist economic premises. His writing is notable for its clarity and conciseness; and readers who value their time will no doubt be grateful for his mercifully paired-down writing style, which lets several of his works be read in an afternoon. In addition to these traits, he has value to us for being a non-Jewish voice in the advocacy of economic liberty and against socialism.

I’m going to publish here a smattering - no, make that two smatterings - of various quotes from his work ‘La Loi’ (The Law), a work primarily aimed against socialism and the laws inherited from the government of Robespierre.

Bastiat is credited with the analogy of the Broken Window (sometimes called the Broken Window Fallacy) which basically refutes the idea, common to certain readings of economics, that the breaking of a window as a consequence of a children’s ball game could be seen as causing economic growth, because the glazier has to be paid to put in a new window, thus generating money. He disproves this by showing that the store proprietor has to pay the cost of the broken window; thus while the broken window does lead to increased “economic activity”, it doesn’t in fact result in net wealth creation. Some important statistics frequently used by modern economists have this fallacy built into them, for example, the national GDP - probably the most commonly cited economic indicator in the economic press - would reflect the action of the glazier to repay the window, and could thus be explained by pundits (or any public figure) as signifying economic growth. [Chip in on the comments thread if you know the other reasons why GDP is less useful than commonly supposed.]

READ MORE...

by Happy Cracker

LindsayWheeler brought up an interesting point yesterday about a return to the Old Order, which he defines as being monarchical rule and Christianity. Permit me to think aloud ...

It seems to me that a fraction of New Right thinkers, who may or may not be represented on this website, desire a return to an even Older Order - i.e. to an order which predates Christianity.

Now we can “return” to an old order, if that order was historically well-documented, simply by imitating the outlines and defining characteristics of that order. In fact, there is no other way we can return except by pretending to uphold the old order and declaring its advent politically. What we are essentially doing is trying to re-enliven a set of past historical circumstances by aping the essential features of those circumstances in our own lives. A fitting analogy would be to say that this is like trying to relive a specific phase of your adolescent past, by gathering together the items you have from those days and doing the activities you did in that phase.

The first thing to understand about this is that this would be a profoundly superficial process. It would necessarily be a matter of recreating the outward symbols and manifestations of the Old Phase, while the context of these actions and the meanings attached to them have been irretrievably altered by intervening experience. One would walk through the forests of one’s youth, dressed in clothes harkening back to those bygone days, all the while listening to music that one listened to at the time: yet the old context cannot be fully retrieved, and what can be retrieved will be viewed through an intervening layer of meta-context which knows this to be a re-enactment of past events. Its strange for human beings to behave in this insincere way.

READ MORE...

by Happy Cracker

Trying to summarize for myself the difference between left and right, here are some ideas I came up with.

The difference between left and right is the question of the right of the struggle for existence to exist. (source: a Soren Renner speech). More precisely, it is a debate of the proper boundaries in which this struggle should be contained.

Both left and right can be broken down into two camps: principled devotees and unprincipled devotees. Either side could be said to have a principle around which it is organized.

The principle of the right is: life is necessarily a struggle to exist.

It follows from that that no intervention is necessary to change that reality. It is the prerogative of the family to ameliorate that struggle - not of the state. The right would merely retain the struggle for existence within it’s ancient boundaries, pre-nation-state. Some exponents of rightist thought would use the state as a means to further pursue the conflicts inherent in this struggle (i.e. the ones the left is seeking to ameliorate).

The principle of the left is: life is either unjustly or unnecessarily a struggle to exist.

It follows from that that intervention is necessary to change that reality. The nearest available mechanism to accomplish that intervention is the modern nation state, and it is the prerogative of the state to ameliorate that struggle - not the prerogative of the family (i.e. citizens and ethny left to themselves). The left seeks to contain the struggle for existence, so that inequality and competition between groups, ethnies and families or classes is contained by the “balancing” (leveling) action of the state.

The Superstate, the Welfare-state, the Command economy, are the result of this principle.

READ MORE...

By exPF

Guessedworker asked what our answer is to the liberal concept of “happiness” which has been so vital to human life post-1787.

The answer is: tragedy. Or, as Dostoevsky described it: “the spiritually regenerative power of suffering.”

Nietzsche once commented that happiness and sadness are twin sisters, they either grow large together, or they grow small together. A life full of happiness has to be equally full of suffering; likewise, a life lacking in suffering has to be equally lacking in happiness.

What this means concretely is that, in order to truly become anything, one needs to go through processes which consist largely of negative experiences. Suffering tends to push one further down the road towards becoming, towards change - simply because when we experience suffering that is serious or profound, we tend to alter our approaches and ourselves in response to these painful stimuli. Having changed, having become something new, we can reap the benefits of our new state of existence, and thus have a higher degree of pleasure than we previously knew.

The lack of suffering, or pleasure, tends to facilitate continued being - i.e. people are lazy and will continue doing something as long as it continues to please them. Like electrons, humans tend to take the path of least resistance.

A person who experiences only pleasure after pleasure, finds little reason to become anything.

READ MORE...