Majorityrights Central > Category: Conservatism

Matt Parrott at NPI.

Summary: A two-part critical examination, conducted by Kumiko Oumae, of many areas of Matt Parrott’s Christian traditionalism, from Matt’s faith fundamentals as an Orthodox Christian traditionalist and nationalist - in that order - to Matt’s views on freemasonry, the relationship of Judaism to Christianity, the pagan past, how religion renews, global baptism, Christian universalism, homosexuality, Africa and the population question, and Syria.

Can I just say, from a personal perspective, that I thought the interview was a success, notwithstanding any hostilities which may have existed prior to it (and since). Kumiko was very well prepped and she did a great job of maintaining a high tempo of relevant and close questioning, to which Matt responded generously.

My thanks to you both.

This is part one: The fundamentals of Matt’s Orthodox Christian traditionalism examined, Freemasonry, Judaism and Christianity, the making of religions.

1 hr 22 mins, 75 MB.

  “There is no such thing as society”

In that act of being mistaken, anyway - let’s leave a way out for people understandably reacting to the Jewish misrepresentation of the terms, “left” and “post modernity”.

Internal Relation and Emergence

You don’t have to take a position which places your people (praxis) as the central gauge. You can go on like a right wing fool for Jews and place a “quest for truth, facts and universal foundations” (and “inequality” even?) above all - even wreck your own people in that “noble quest;” but you’d be an unnecessary fool, a dupe for Jews and Jewish thinking in so doing. You don’t have to put our people at the center - but you can, as factual verification and reality checking are available in an instant if you are not dealing with reality; whereas the principles upholding our people took many centuries to create and are much more precious and difficult to reconstruct, if ever they can be. It isn’t necessary to place facts at the center - people are born of facts and if afforded correct principles, proper agency and accountability, our people will come to continually adjust their interests with the facts. Hence, the right’s whole arbitrary-making quest for facts and episodic verification at the expense of principled interest in our people is the height of folly.

Chasing mere facts and perfect verification away from “faith” in our people will tend to take them into runaway, beyond our people’s systemic interests - as opposed to taking the White post modern turn into its facilitation of the preservation and reconstruction of our people - where the facts are ensconced in the sufficiently deep emergent reality of our people’s systemic history to afford re-framing at their authentic place in relation to our human ecological system.

Right and Altright reactionary fan club - scavenging the wreckage of continued reaction.

The right, “alternative right”, those in their orbit, lay in wait as vultures for things like GW’s latest surprise: as I stepped aside from a discussion of British politics, he applied the theoretical wrecking ball again to “THE left” and “post modernity” at their behest (he isn’t so lame as to have to do it for himself); ill-prepared for the surprise in that context, I put up a threadbare defense against what I’ve come to see as a part of GW’s autobiography - “champion of the right, universal foundational unifier against the left’s class divisiveness.”

GW - working class hero who sees their classification as a critical problem of imposed nationalist division.

If you are coming here, like myself, chances are that you appreciate GW’s ability - you delight as he wields a scalpel on behalf of White/ethno-national sovereignty, more often a wrecking ball to the pretenses of academia and scholarship that are working against it.

We value this, want him to continue, want him to be satisfied with his part and his contributions. 

What follows here is going to show little appreciation for that, which is abundant and shows forth in spontaneity for the surfeit of his intelligence - often yielding indispensable flourishes and insights that I myself cherish. This piece is rather an ungrateful piece in that regard, given that he has stood by me as I set about chartering a new platform for Majorityrights; and I sent scurrying many who had deep appreciation and respect for him as well; but it is neither for myself nor “his own good” that I proceed not feeling particularly guilty about that - nor is the matter of face saving a pressing matter for either of us - the sake is proper theoretical grounds, which is always my central motivation. Still this will appear rather like a hit piece - as it takes aim, focuses on the clumsier props of GW’s worldview, philosophical underpinnings and aspirations - not on better sides and ideas, which will emerge cybernetically in balance of fact.

If you are coming here, you probably appreciate and identify with GW’s rogue path: as a completely disaffected outsider to the academic fray, he early on rejected the nonsense coming out of there, particularly from fields dealing with social issues. And you delight along with him as he continues to apply the wrecking ball to their cherished liberal ruses under cover of “The left”, their wish to open important borders and boundaries, to bring down individual merit, to drag others down into primitive individual and group failure - instinctively, you sense him taking down liberal bullies who are smug enough to insulate themselves from the consequences of the unsupportable concepts of social “justice” that they wield against those native White populations least responsible for others problems, most likely to suffer from liberalism and least likely to gain from the applications known as “The Left” - applications which can recognize just about any collective unionization of interests except one kind - White. Certainly a (((coincidence))).

Most people who’ve come here, myself included, have also experienced mystification over GW’s not being satisfied with that. You have been at least temporarily mystified as he evades into the arbitrary recesses ever available by the empirical philosophy that underpins modernity; and as he continually applies its wrecking ball, secure in the faith that it will leave in its wake only that which is fine and good; a wrecking ball summarily dismissing scholarship, conceptual tools and principles that others set forth to guide social action.

I have been stunned as he sends the wrecking ball my way as well, summarily dismissing even carefully culled and profoundly warranted philosophical ideas, eminently useful conceptual tools and important rhetorical positions that I have geared to his same White ethno-nationalist interests; while his modernist philosophy willy-nilly casts me into the role of the “lefty academic” foil in key moments.

I am no longer mystified by this.

A reactionary position is mostly retreating (evading) and attacking - whatever looks like an enemy or Trojan horse - but for its instability, it is susceptible to chase after the red cape.

An early contentious streak in the autobiography over-reinforced by circumstance, ability and admirers.

GW is wonderful, we love GW, but like the rest of us, he is not perfect. There is a residual strain of contentiousness in his autobiography that stems from his early disaffection and precocious disregard of liberal prescriptions coming from academia. It’s a part of his autobiography that he takes a great deal of pride-in. It is also socially confirmed enough so that he continues to chase its red cape known as “THE left;” and keeps applying the modernist wrecking ball to any concepts the tiniest bit speculative in circumscribing social interests; or adopting any terms also used by liberal “left” academics - even if used in different ways, he will understand it in THE left way that he is familiar with - and summarily dismiss it as such or apply the wrecking ball.

Unlike most people disaffected of liberal academia, he is not of the working class sort content to shake his fist at academic pomposity, to find solace in a beer and the pragmatism of his working class buddies, allowing the union misrepresentatives to negotiate his interest with their fellow liberals of academic background; nor is he content to join in with the White collar and middle class who typically denounce the worst of academic socialists as unrealistic, while they go along with the liberal anti racism of the academe, signaling their one-upness to the lower classes by denouncing as backward superstition whatever defensively racist discrimination they might even require.

He does share a few things in common with the typical middle class perspective however. Naturally, he has a bias toward viewing his success in positivist terms, as having come about from his gray matter and personal initiative, not because he derived any benefit from artificially imposed social bounds against competition and to circumscribe cooperation. 

Though he can relate to the working class “xenophobia”, he maintains that their maintenance of who they are among a collective “we” (i.e., particular native European nationals) and their choice of whom to intermarry with (same particular native European national) is something that should and can emerge naturally from their genetics - an identity that will emerge naturally, provided they do not have liberal, Fabian and Marxist ideas imposed upon them; the last thing GW wants is to impose another artifice upon them, one which he believes could divide them against their upwardly mobile English brethren, and in turn, divide the middle class even more against them. I.e., the “left” and “right” is normally taken as an economic divider and unifier of class, not a racial nationalist one as I am proposing. The middle class, as much as any, might be reluctant to ‘get it’ and not identify with a “White left,” in which case we would be back to the divisive issue, not the uniting issue that both GW and I seek - we may not agree on terminology but we do agree on native nationalism.

Thatcherite obectivism a means for personal advancement and foundational unification of nationalism.

In fact, GW is a native nationalist, deeply offended by the class system which has long hampered English unity. Thus, he is not content to disavow the worst of liberal and Marxist academics, writing-them-off as the idiots that they are, while leaving the working class to the fate that liberalism will bring to them, and, if left unabated, to all of us eventually. Like a few, more ambitious among us, he set about to get things right, to open a platform for White nationalists, even before it was quite the immanent practical necessity that it is now.

He aspires to identify the ontological connection between all English classes which, if unfettered by artificial constructs, would have them acting as native nationalists in loyal unanimity to their interests.

In that regard, Margaret Thatcher represented to him a liberating moment from the incredibly burdensome artifices of liberal, Fabian and Marxist Left union delimitations and by contrast an opportunity to unite as nationalists on natural positivist grounds.

Normal first reaction that doesn’t take Post Modern turn as it fails to see liberalism flying under left colors.

Indeed, most anybody of this ambition, myself included, who cares about our race and its ethnonational species, starts out in reaction to the absurd, contradictory and destructive liberal rhetoric coming out of academia and reaches to grab hold white knuckle to foundational truths, particularly scientific fact, which cannot be bamboozled by the rhetoric of liberal sophistry (which we later come to recognize as more often than not, Jewish in original motive). And we do grab hold white knuckle - that is to say, scientistically, in rigid over and misapplication of hardish science to the social realm, as we cannot trust the social realm, its rhetorical caprice if not deception - its ongoing disordering effects that apparently threaten to rupture social order anew with every agentive individual. Coming from a non-Jewish, Christian cultural perspective, where our bias starts, if not Jesus, we first liken ourselves to Plato and then modern scientists seeking to gird and found our place and our people’s place, whereas “they” are Pharisees and sophists, wielding the sheer rhetoric that we are going to debunk with our pure, native ability and motives. In a word, we are going to do science against their dishonest bias against us - they are indeed being deceptive and biased on behalf of unfair people; we see it as our objective to establish universal foundational truth that will be unassailable to this sophistry.

That is the normal first reaction of a White person who cares about themself and our people - it was mine and it was GW’s - a nascent White nationalist in response not only to the anti-White discourse coming out of the university, but in response to the very frame of the discourse - that is to say, taking on the frame [Jewish and liberal social stuff and lies versus White science and truth] - against accusations of privilege, racism and exploitation, we sought pure innocence in truth beyond social tumult and disingenuous rhetorical re framing. We (understandably) acted with absolute revulsion to anything like social concern and accountability - why should we be accountable to ever more alien imposition? - itself neither offering nor asking for an account sufficient to maintain our EGI - and where our people are eerily unconcerned or antagonistic to our people as well, we are only more compelled to take on the task ourselves - to pursue pure warrant. Our first reaction to the liberal chimera called “THE left” is: “I” noble servant of postulates - theorems - axioms - upon universal foundational truth.”

Beyond our people’s relative social interests even, we must save ourselves from the lies of “The left” (never minding that their first lie is that they represent our left) and found our moral/ontological basis where Jews, other tribalists and our selfish liberals, who only care about themselves, can never again manipulate it. We hold white knuckle, rigidly, in reaction to Jewish sophistry.

History will show that our people who pursued and secured sovereignty, health and well being found a philosophy advanced of that - competent and able to secure their social interests. They’d taken the White Post Modern turn from this reactionary position.

For reasons unfolding here, including reasons of his personal autobiography, GW has yet to appreciate and take the post modern turn.

Personal ability and interpersonal circumstances have facilitated his carrying-on in a typical first philosophical position of an amateur outsider in regard to academia - the epistemological blunder of “they are just sophists who provide nothing but nonsense while ‘I’ and my pure thoughts in relation to ‘theory’ am going to set the world aright” - an epistemological error in the relation of knower to known that is born in reaction and puerile hubris, carried on by being strong, smart enough to persist long after most people would shrink back from the signs of its limitations; going further uncorrected as it has been endorsed by “no enemies to the right” (a dubious principle, if there ever was one); it has grown into a surprisingly big and audacious ego wielded as a wrecking ball against “post modern philosophy.” We are supposed to rest assured on his faith that in the aftermath of wreckage, that the emergent qualities of his mind are all that is required besides the occasional foil to play off of in order to clarify and carry the modernist program forward to unshakeable, universal, foundational truth - unassailable to any social reconstruction. Never mind that we are already willing to agree upon most of the fundamental rules that he would seek - our agency is not necessary if it is going to suggest anything like planned social construction of systemic defense. No, that’s all impure stuff to be cast aside; and by contrast of true Platonic form, if you are freed from that ignorance and come to know the good he will secure, you will do that good.

He is not satisfied to simply negotiate, reason-things-out and reach an understanding among his people, he is not even particularly concerned that it won’t be a damn bit of good if people can’t understand his philosophical yield - he wants to secure that good on ontological foundations beyond praxis - beyond the capacity for manipulation. Most sophomores abandon this, their freshmen objective, as not only obsolete philosophy, but in fact, come to recognize it as destructive philosophy - a destruction which GW continues, with tremendous faith, without need of Aristotelian compass, that tremendous confidence to persevere where Wittgenstein failed.

The boomer generation - libertarianism and egocentrism.

The likes of Bowery and GW will be slower, if ever, to make the turn in direction, not because they are stupid, of course, quite to the contrary, but because they have the mental horsepower necessary to keep patching and operating the antiquated and obsolete technology that is modernity; and stem predilection both motivates them and enables them to do that; they are more self sufficient, less immediately reliant on the social (why carry others weight?); more confirmed by females by being reliable as such (concentrating on how to do things, not stepping on the toes of females by asking questions of social control - as long as you are at one end of the competition you are OK - liberal or the right wing end); confirmed by non academic workers in their more pragmatic concerns; and confirmed by right wingers in their penchant for anti-social theory beyond social manipulation - exactly, they are also slow to take the turn, of course, because they have an understandable lack of trust in liberal-social narratives; this unwillingness to suspend disbelief may be increased inasmuch as they have benefited as baby boomers, less harried for their identity in the parts of their life-span experienced prior to the culture of critique and in their personal initiatives after its reprieve - in Bowery’s case, with aspects of the objectivism behind Ron Paul’s libertarian “revolution”; and in GW’s case, during the Thatcher years (Thatcher’s initial backers having discovered her reading Wittgenstein’s cousin, Hayek, who obliviously carried forward upon the Tractatus) - years of brief, partial liberation from liberal-left union fetters - “there is no such thing as society” - in either case, a false friend facilitated as false opposition - viz., an expression of steered objectivism derived of Austrian schools beginning with Wittgenstein.

The title is a projection of objectivism. Subtitle: look who else is reading it.

What is confirmed to me - in a roundabout way, when GW dons his powdered wig, grabs a quill pen, does his best John Locke or whatever voice serves, and says oh, “that’s just Aristotle and his rhetoric,” “all of the good ideas are coming from the right”, “based in nature, none of this praxis stuff”, says that he “never loses an argument against academics”, etc., then continually re-applies radical skepticism of the empiricists and their forerunners - is that he is showing an ego driven and confirmed desire to carry-on the “pure” modernist project; viz., in his ontology project and his destruction of everything in its path, even treating Aristotle and William James as utter morons, GW is revealing a vain desire to do something all alone, like a combination of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico Philosphicus and Heidegger’s Being & Time: “The world is everything that is the case” meets “the worldhood of the world” - without the post modern implications of the latter. All that is required is the emergent qualities of his mind to set the world’s ontology aright - it will be “unassailable” by liberal, social, “left” rhetoric.

His reaction, confirmation and penchant for empirical verification against Jewish rhetoric has apparently caused him to disregard the post modern turn that was occuring also in Heidegger’s philosphy, albeit in Heidegger’s case, in that somewhat rigid, German way (which I find endearing).

GW appreciates Heidegger, so why does he not move forward from 1927 and why does he retreat to 1921 and the Tractatus? That he consders “OF being” the better starting point than Heidegger’s “There Being” provides a clue to ego centrism and Cartesian anxiiety - he not only proposes the reconstruction of the Cartesian starting point, “Of being”, but proposes it as an exclusive position, not even taking hermeneutc turns with Heidegger’s non-Cartesan starting point, “There being.”

“Unassailably” proclaiming that “The world is everything that is the case”

Whereas Wittgenstein himself was forced to yield-to, if not recognize the necessity of, the post modern turn - so much so that he was embarrassed by his effort at a complete ontology in The Tractatus Logico Philosophicus - having proclaimed its logic “unassailable” at once upon completion, he later repudiated it, even took to referring to its author as if a different person.

The Motivation for Post Modernity

Part of the craze for “post modernity” is that people (correctly) sense that modernity is destroying their differences, their traditions, their ways of life, their people and their very lives. And yet they frequently found traditional societies destructive as well. Therefore they were happy to have not only backing of cross cultural studies, vouching that different ways of life are valid, but also some confirmation from the very foundational math and science which modernity pursued to an apex that finally turned back on itself.

Kurt Gödel had demonstrated that a theory of any complexity could not be both complete and unambiguous.

Neils Bohr had priorly announced that there is no instrument fine enough to resolve the wave/particle distinction.

Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle elaborating from that was subtler still - that the observer is engaged in interaction and has reflexive effects upon that which he observes.

Confirmation of Aritstotle’s Praxis and suggestion that it should be the radical basis of assessment, not pure objective facts.

These findings confirmed Aristotle’s premises as set forth in Nichomachean Ethics - on the nature of Praxis - people are in reflexive relation, mostly requiring a degree of practical judgement as they are less predictable than the theoretical causality which the hard sciences pursue. It also would suggest placing praxis more in the center than theory - i.e., a socially based perspective where people are the arbiter, as opposed to “I think therefore I am” in relation to mere, indisputable facts and non-interactive third person behavioral units; a pursuit even outstripping the subject ultimately in favor of fixed theoretical facts - the Cartesian relation (pursued non-relation, as it were) of knower to known.

Vico was first to take the hermeneutic turn against Descartes, to bring ideas into historical context, the relation of knower to known into the social world of praxis

A relation knower to known other than the Cartesian model is required by modernity’s recognized failures and impervious destruction.

Those who care about people, who see the destruction of Descarte’s “relation” of knower to known, understand the wisdom of Aristotle, and realize that Vico -  Descartes’ first major critic - was in fact, proposing the taking of theoria into praxis: i.e., correctly placing people and praxis at the center of his world view. He was setting forth the historical, hermeneutic world view, the post modern world view. And, in turn, those who understand Heidegger will see that he was following in that same direction, which may be called “existential” and which is centered in praxis - the social world.

The White Post Modern turn is, of course, the best and most moral perspective for advocating people - Whites especially - Jews don’t want that and so they fool the uneducated masses and most of the educated masses as well by reinterpreting the terms by which people - viz., White people, might understand this - and they get them to react against didactic misrepresentation. That is, they are getting them to react in aversion to what is good and healthy in racial advocacy by having made it didactic in misrepresentation - e.g., the highly sensible Post Modern is presented as “dada” (whereas I have secured its sensible form in White Post Modernity).

Bowery and GW were impelled on, for the didacticism of the (((liberal-left - contradiction of terms))) and for the (((misrepresentation))) that was this false opposition and its false promise to liberate us from The left, among other reasons. Objectivism, the neoliberalism and libertarianism of the Austrian school of economics, Thatcherism, is merely a false opposition that (((they))) set up against “(((The Left))).” It is a product of late modernity, derived of the Vienna School of Logical Positivism, which in turn was derived of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico Philosophicus.

Again, that was Wittgenstein’s attempt to set-out a comprehensive and “unassailable” ontology - “The world is everything that is the case.” He would later say that the Tractatus was “not a very good book”, lest he be mistaken for one not recognizing that those who had taken the post modern turn had left this philosophical quest behind. Nevertheless, the Austrian school of logical positivism founded upon the Tractatus lived on through his cousin Hayek (who Thatcher was discovered dutifully reading); it was then taken up by von Mises et. al, who would conveniently and explicitly adopt this no-account modernist program against any one of subsequent generations who was the least bit reflective, who had any social complaints about how they and their people had been left without social capital after this generation of egocentric locusts devoured all social capital in their path. Waiting generations of right wing reactionaries, ensconced in their well protected Internet bubbles, were ready to look up to these libertarians for their lack of social concern, conveniently blaming the socially conscientious of prior generations for the problems - “The Left”, where not “hippies”, were the ones asleep at the wheel and leading us over a cliff, “but not the objectivists” and not (((The YKW))).

One-up intransigence of boomers meets generation Internet bubble for a right-wing cocktail, silencing socially conscientious voices between.

Because of GW’s unwillingness to trust anybody but himself, he takes recourse in the one aspect of the post modern turn where his first person account of all the world’s foundations might be claimed - emergentism. He has a problem, however, when I say that the world still interacts.  He has to take recourse to the absurdly arbitrary claim that “life doesn’t interact.”

Emergentism, in fact, is one of the key contributing factors to the post modern turn - it challenges the reductionism and fixedness of the modernist ontology project in an important sense - the emergent whole being greater than the sum of its parts means that significant referents are changeable in complex systems, thus qualifying Bowery’s criticism - “there is either a referent or there is not” - as this charge must yield to the fact that facts can be re-framed as they emerge physically, as they are designated by individuals and as they emerge in social consensus. And yes, what emerges still interacts in a myriad of ways.

Gen Xer’s were a bit late for the ride

“There is no such thing as society”

Their lack of faith in the social narratives as they are applied by YKW is understandable, the faith they show in the guiding principle of modernity to leave only what is fine and true in the wake of their wrecking ball is not. There comes a time to suspend disbelief. To draw a hypothetical boundary around our people is as good a time and place as any. “Wise men see lines and they draw them” - William Blake. And its not so hypothetical.

Perhaps because their boomer generation was early in line and they were intelligent enough to position themselves by means of objectivism for a deck chair on the higher end of a sinking Titanic, they can take some solace in writing-off those who might be going under first, if it does go down, as hazards of nature, having not acted “naturally” in EGI - Bowery in particular, being motivated by an affinity for the individuality of northern Europeans, abandoned ship (MR, anyway) when Dr. Lister and I began raising criticisms of “individualism über alles” and raising social concerns against that.

In fact, for this reason, Bowery issued an ultimatum (“either him or Lister”) which defaulted to Graham’s more social side, upon which Bowery expressed his “revulsion” for Majorityrights.

READ MORE...

Abraham Anon

Kumiko was telling me about her disgust with Hillary and the YKW’s wars, citing an egregious collateral damage to schools and education: this will obstruct solutions to the root of social problems and exacerbate social problems from the root as the schools and formative educational years of vast demographics are being destroyed. She is enraged by the damage this will do to personal and social skills. She asks what can be done?

I suggest a new variant of the 12 step meetings. Why? Because when people have been that damaged and obstructed by an interpersonal problem - such as Islamic abuse - it will be primarily these people who have sufficient understanding; they will have sufficient concern; it will be a necessity for them to take the time and show patience; to articulate the difficulties in full significance of the impact to them and society; and to search for solutions.

People who have not gone through this will generally not have sufficient understanding of the difficulties of getting through it, even if they did have inclination and take time from their faster track to a good life to put up with the wild and frustrating expressions that result from traumatic experiences and pervasive abuse.

The “victims” themselves will carry most of the load - by “sharing their hope, strength and inspiration” indispensable coping skills will find their way among them. But that doesn’t mean that people coming from a background undergirded by normal philosophy and interpersonal relations shouldn’t interact with them; in fact, that is one of the first differences I would make from the 12 Step programs - to have intermittent interaction from people from healthy backgrounds so that they can model normalcy for them and share normal skills. To make sure that bad thinking doesn’t keep circulating and gets directed out before long.

So, there could be Visitors Meetings and Skilled Workshop Meetings to go along with the usual kinds of 12 Step meetings -

Speaker Meetings, in which one person tells the story of their struggle with the problem.

Step Meetings, in which one of the Steps is focused-on, with each person in the group having a chance to discuss their take and experience with that step.

The next change that I would propose is putting into question whether 12 should be the number of steps; of course it has pagan origin and has been hijacked by Abrahamism, but perhaps another number should be proposed to make the break more clear.

Of course the content of the steps should be significantly different as well. I will only sketch-in what they might look like. Suggestions from others are more than welcome.

One of the excellent features of the 12 step program idea is that one is not excluded for lacking skills or for not contributing dues. All that is required is a belief that you have a problem with the stated issue of the meeting group and that you comply with a few of its basic guidelines. There are no leaders. You agree to not expose the identity of those who go to meetings and to not gossip about them to people outside the group. You agree enough with the 12 steps (rather, we’ll go with 14 steps, why not?) to allow them to provide coherence; and, except for speaker meetings, you allow a chance for each person who wants to talk.

Ok. There are probably some things that I’m forgetting but that’s enough to start. Let me have a stab at how the steps might read:

The 14 Steps of Abraham-Anon

1. Came to understand that I had a problem with Abrahamism and that I could not handle it alone.

2. Came to identify positive attributes of my distinct race and my share in these positive attributes. Affirmed these daily to provide faith in mine and my people’s worth as opposed to the Abrahamic god.

3. Conducted a fearless and searching personal inventory in order to purge its memes which may harm myself, my people, and in order to make amends to anyone who I have harmed in the name of Abrahamism or because I was inappropriately directing my response to it.

4. Came to understand the truth of how harmful Abrahamism is.

5. Came to understand Abrahamism is not a necessary evil nor a relative cultural preference; there are other “gods” and better ways.

6. Came to understand that its practice and promotion must be rejected by our people.

7. Came to understand that its perpetrators can and must be punished - ranging from denunciation, to social ostracism, to denationalization, to severe personal punishment in some cases.

8. Came to believe in the priceless gift of serenity to be found in the faith that my race, my place within it, and our interests are being looked after by the best and greater part of my people; by myself included.

9. Came to believe not only in the reality of distinct kinds of people, but also their right to preserve their differences.

10. Came to believe in the DNA Nation and international ethno-nationalism (genetic and territorial bounds); as the means to such maintenance of distinct peoples; their quantities and qualities of genetic inventory; their habitats through national territorial delimitations; qualitative and quantitative foreign enclave delimitations.

11. Came to believe that the Abrahamic religion and the Abrahamic man is already an imperialist hybrid and therefore his fate and place is the subject of our discretion.

12. Came to believe that Abrahamism can and should be destroyed once and for all.

13. Came to believe facilitating that destruction to be our prerogative as the people who are willing and capable of respecting racial differences, their right to be preserved in ethno-states, among the DNA Nation; and knowing that there is no avoiding the issue of morals - that every society will have some things that are legitimate, some things prohibited and some things obligated - will seek moral orders based on the Silver Rule as opposed to The Golden Rule.

14. Came to understand that the homeostasis of our ethnostates are contingent upon having the decency and wisdom to respect an option for sacred and devotional enclaves for those preferring strict monogamy (e.g., they want to choose carefully enough, devote themselves to that important choice; and/or concentrate on their endeavors otherwise, not chasing around for partners); and that those wanting to protect more liberal personal prerogatives must assent to that sacrosanct option and to strict national borders of citizenship -  paradigmatic conservatism.

Summary: Part three of a roundtable between Guessedworker, DanielS, and Kumiko Oumae, about Brexit and the leadership contest which is emerging in the aftermath of the decision.

The curtailment of the leadership contest within the Conservative Party, is discussed.

Recorded on 11 Jul 2016.

  “The Iran deal is one of the worst deals ever”

In regard to foreign affairs, it has looked to me like Trump has been empowered politically by a commitment to the neo-con agenda of undoing the Iran deal. Kumiko sees the domestic motivation of a second tier of Jewish money - concerned for their U.S. real estate holdings - and backing Trump accordingly; even while he “radically defies” the highest rungs of Jewish money.

In his latest radio show - 6 July 2016 - Metzger sees another motivation behind Trump.

TT has never advocated Trump, nor Hillary, of course, in any positive sense, maintaining that he will not vote. Though he had previously been relatively partial to Trump, seeing him as provoking a certain amount of chaos for Whites to take advantage of, he now holds that a vote for Trump is a vote for the system - in particular, that Trump is being used to secure the Republican base (implicit Whites) and as such to save the Republican party - which should not be saved since it has long been gaining and using White working class voters by means of dog whistles to minor cultural issues, while ultimately betraying them for international corporatist and Jewish interests.

Though I’d hate to see that evil woman Hillary become President because her opposition did not have enough support, I hate even more to endorse the system, its false choice and false opposition.

It is looking more and more as if initial hunches about Trump are true - that Republican insiders were merely pretending to hate him as a harbinger of great crisis to the Republican party - a crisis dramatized in this kind of ShowTime presentation - in order to reinvigorate the Republican base (i.e., implicit Whites) - exciting them with the idea that they are being rebellious and Trump is rebelliously standing up to the system…

      In fact, it is just the same old Democrat - Republican yin yang.

The “bleeding heart liberal” Democrats open borders and boundaries to muck-up any possibility for organized opposition - particularly an organized White middle, working or any White class, for that matter - and then after the mix has been unleashed upon the population to a sufficiently toxic extent, the Republicans are called-in to assert this mix as normal; they act into their role of asserting what it is to be a real American man, i.e., a strong, patriotic American civic nationalist - viz., one who sees any concern about being mixed-in with blacks and other races as betraying a sign of weak, effeminate nonsense, being ungrateful for the opportunity of the American dream, not an individually competent man who holds up to the competition; and of an un-American bent for old world or third world factionalism.

READ MORE...

       
Supreme Court until Scalia (bottom row, second from the left) died and left one vacancy. Note that there are three of (((them: Breyer, Ginsburg and Kagan))) on this court and no W.A.S.P.s.

       
(((Brandeis))) was (((first))) - (1916 - 1939). He met with resistance but made his way in with Jeffersonian objectivism, not actively invoking race, but focusing rather on economic injustice.

       
        (((Benjamin Cardozo was the second on the Court (1932 - 1938)))

       
(((Frankfurter))) was the third on the Court (1939 - 1962))). He was interested in more active advocacy of non-Whites, but needed a shabbos goy to act as the “activist” maverick: hence he birthed the strategy and the term, “activist court,” by contrast to “restrained court.” Frankfurter would pose as “restrained;” and then incite the gentiles to “heroic activism” through an “activist” Court - spearheaded by Earl Warren, who Frankfurter called “the dumb Swede”, concerned that Warren would take the bait too eagerly and cause reaction to his headlong activist court. Earl Warren did take the bait headlong but there was no successful reaction - most of the really significant anti-White laws were passed under his activist court: 54 Brown, 64 Civil Rights, 65 Immigration, 68 Housing Act.

       
        (((Arthur Goldberg (1962 - 1965)))

       
        (((Abe Fortas (1965 - 1969)))

The three sitting members are:

       
(((Ginsburg (1993 - ))). How many Jews are enough? A tearful Bill Clinton nominated her - first Jewish woman on the Court. Her first statement was in regard to her ((Brandeis-like objectivism))) - “nobody should be discriminated against on the basis of immutable characteristics.”

       
        (((Breyer (1994 - )))

       
        The Supremely unqualified (((Kagan (2010 - ))) got there by way of (((nepotism))).

......

The President nominates Supreme Court candidates - when confirmed, they occupy one of the most powerful positions in the world.

Scalia’s passing has left one Supreme Court vacancy of the 9 seats. At least two other, but perhaps three more Justices, are likely to change during the next Presidential term.

These facts give the next President a great deal of influence to determine the direction of 9 of the most powerful people in the world - it can swing the court to a more thoroughly liberal direction not known since the Warren court; or it can take a more “conservative tone” - although really, The Constitution binds the court to liberalism in the form of civil individual rights as opposed to group rights. (((The media))) and neo-liberals frame the discourse of Supreme Court Justice selection as representing an important choice between liberalism and “conservatism.”

However, there are still some significant decisions even though the overall discourse is liberal.

       
Obama nominee, (((Merrick Garland))) - Garland’s family were persecuted for ‘no good reason’ what-so-ever, so they fled to The U.S.

At (((NPR))), (((Jeffrey Rosen))) discusses the (((first Jewish Supreme Court Justice))), (((Brandeis))), and the importance of the coming Presidential election on the make-up of the Supreme Court - as many as 4 of the 9 seats can change in the next Presidential term.

http://www.npr.org/2016/06/07/481076322/revisiting-the-tenure-of-supreme-court-justice-louis-brandeis-the-jewish-jeffers

It’s impossible to underestimate the importance of this election on the Supreme Court - vote for the candidate whose vision of Constitution most coincides with your own.

There is a potential for a Court with a liberal make-up not seen since the Warren Court.

Issues at hand:

Affirmative action

Voting rights

Voter i.d. laws

The future of free speech

Privacy

Surveillance drones - warrants required or not?

          The Sermon on The Mount Ensconces The Golden Rule of Altruism

Majorityrights prefers to deal with verifiable reality as opposed to speculative theory and faith based systems of rules as we look after the interests of our people. We are looking after genetic groupings and genetic interests as key criteria, even if these are not the only important verifiable criteria to keep track of our peoplehood and that of others. Rationale and rule structures are another criteria for that purpose.

While existence is of course equiprimordial to genetic interests, to secure it for any span and legacy requires rationale and varying degrees of sophistication to negotiate complex rule structures of interaction. “Rules” (1) are the term of common currency that we will use for the logics of meaning and action that people use to negotiate interaction and these complex, protracted exchanges beyond episode, close personal relationships in yield to maturity of their full social system; and its relation to other social systems.

For those of us who are coming from this kind of perspective, where we perceive ourselves as rationally and empirically grounded, it is difficult to understand someone like pastor David Blackburn, his love of Jesus that would have him not only forgive, but want to share his love of Jesus with the men who raped and murdered his wife and unborn child; but to my knowledge, he is at least not hoping to get them released from prison.

It is even more difficult to understand European peoples allowing, even welcoming foreign incursions into The U.K., Sweden, France and Germany - it is difficult to fathom the mindset of a Merkel, who would destroy our European peoples in service to non-Europeans. But there is one rule, convoluted rule, that they have in common and makes their position intelligible to us despite their apparent irrationality.

The Golden Rule is a part of the Sermon on the Mount, which is a central text in the Christian faith. It states: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. There are similar instructions in many other cultures.

Despite receiving high respect and wide popularity, the rule raises critical questions. What is the recommendation more exactly, and is it good advice?

This post will prepare a discussion of the work of Jan Tullberg - viz., the difference between the golden rule of benevolence as opposed to the silver rule of reciprocity - as it applies to assist in the reconstruction of a necessary consensus of moral rules among European peoples and for coordinating our relations to others.
____________

There is a consensus among advocates of European peoples that in essence we seek to secure the existence of our people. There is much dispute over how that is to be done…

READ MORE...

Yesterday the Polish government dissolved the state council responsible for practising anti-racism in the country.

“The council proved to be rather inefficient,” Rafał Bochenek, spokesperson for the ruling Law and Justice (PiS) party told reporters in Warsaw, AFP reported. He added that there were “more efficient” bodies that would carry on the work.

It was yet another reminder that the nations of the Slav east do not intend to allow the immigration and ethnic dissolution that the political class has, for nearly seven decades, inflicted on the peoples of the west of the continent, or the Jewish-authored and prescribed engines of culture-war which everywhere materialise alongside it.  The governments and peoples of the east clearly wish to live.

But what sort of governments are they?

Sobieski sending message of victory to the Pope after the Battle of Vienna, by Jan Matejko, 1880, National Museum, Kraków

Certainly, they would use the word “conservative”, among others, to describe themselves.  But Brezhnev was conservative.  The ayatollahs of Iran are conservative.  It tells us little.  Of course we can see that these governments are not neoliberal and internationalist, just as they are not socialist or radically equalitarian.  But neither are they definitively nationalist (though they plainly do connect to the true interests of the people).

What, then, are they?

The question is apt, because for us in the west these governments are modelling freedom from the liberal-internationalist paradigm.  They are struggling to co-exist within that paradigm for the advantages it offers them (escape from the bear to the east, modernisation, prosperity) while firmly rejecting the proffered ethnic poison pill.  Now, it may be that this balancing act will prove impossible in even the medium term.  But if it does there can be little doubt that the people’s will to life will hold sway (always assuming, of course, that the power politics of the EU, America, and the Jewish elites does not first succeed in sweeping loyal men out of government and replacing them with neoliberal traitors).

Like a lot of people I am immensely taken with the sight of loyal government.  But I fear that there is no philosophical ground beneath the feet … nothing to sustain and guide, nothing to live by beyond loyalty.  I believe in that necessity.  I believe that our people in the West must replace not just the liberal way of politics but the philosophy which generates it.  We cannot develop a new life while we still ground ourselves in the old liberal one.  Can these governments and these peoples in the east really find a way to life and freedom in perpetuity with the political and intellectual tools they have now, whatever those are?