Majorityrights Central > Category: Conservatism

Talk at Storm Trooper Radio is that there should be “honor” among White nationalists.

 
              David Duke’s undying commitment to Adolf Hitler

“Honor” is a term that those with numbers and military on their side would try to invoke.

What honor is there really in people who will never denounce Hitler’s policies, no matter how obviously and utterly disrespectful those policies and beliefs may be to European peoples?

There is no honor, and that is why Duke and Anglin are not treated with honor here or anywhere with thoroughgoing intelligence. Do we really need to elaborate? Elaboration may be necessary for those in attendance at Storm Trooper, but not for those with any sense.

Soren is here asking a riddle. I trust that he is not here to distract from human concern - that Weev and he are not giving support to Anglin and, by proxy, to the likes of the cardboard Duke, to those who would fellate Hitler - and so I might ask him…what do you need Hitler for? Is it really so hard to see the utterly stupid, arbitrary destruction and total disregard of real concern for Europeans that these right-wing idiots coddle? That is the riddle, Soren.

             
Hegel claimed that there are different kinds of intelligence

Is it not enough, for you, that we are all for Germans and German nationalism, but are against Hitler, for ridiculously obvious reasons?

You seek to gain allegiance with those who are SO STUPID as to get behind Hitler and Himmler - HIMMLER!?             
                                                                     
              “Alpha male” Heinrich  
 
 
David Duke is endorsing Anglin now as an alpha and a fine representative of White Nationalism.

.......................
                                     
“If I looked like Himmler, I would not talk so much about race” - Albert Forster

Within the disorder of modernity, where puerile females are so one-up and so pandered-to, where their base proclivity to incite genetic competitition is in runaway, uncorrected by the homeostatic control of social group boundaries, it is more than dubious to add another exponent to their poison cynicism.

Andy well articulates a view on the cuckold meme in line with my view thus.

That is, I am not going to jump on that bandwagon. It sucks. It is a meme not without some merit, but largely for a-holes by a-holes too cowardly and self centered to see the radical point. The best angle is not for a-hole males, the kind that screw others, including their own people, when they do not have to, to incite other a-hole males, the ones who let others screw their people all too easily, when they do not have to.

Both of these types represent something outside of authentic European masculinity, its optimal level of sublimation and qualtative expression.

Because it is didcactic incitement, it is prone to play into the hands of our enemies as another way to merely blame White men, to perpetuate and take the heat off of our adversaries - our adversaries who know that these marginal men are interfaced with boundary maintenance and are, therefore, to be disempowered, humiliated, their conservative instinct to be disrupted, to remove their correcive function and doubly punish them despite the fact that they are most likely to be victims rather than responsible party victimizers; but who cares? The true culprits have diverted attention from themselves and will be immune to this additional poisoning of our boundry demarcating marginal peoples - with the more forethinking men incited into oblivion, and the narrow alpha male a-holes left standing, this will play into the hands of those who would Africanize our population, have us more stupid, kindred to blacks and mulattoes, more easily controlled.

No, the far more advisable, more valid critique, one which would in fact entail easier and more reasonable compliance ought to be criticism directed at peurile femalenss, a puerile femaleness that is all too used to being panderd to. They ought to be incited to be more decent, cooperative and fair - in a word, to be worthy of being defended as our co-evolutionary women, mature women, if not ladies.

Until such time, these puerile bitches deserve incitement - Mulatto supremacist BJ machines - whatever you might like to call them, let those who do not deserve that label object and let the ones who do deserve that label try to defend themselves.

It is a puerile femalness that is mean beyond belief in its self righteousness; indeed, in its privilege it is getting away with murder, torture, the destruction of the profoundest evolution for the most idiotic reasons, out of ignorant spite, a puerile femalenss whose acts, while on par with rape, are normalized and institutionalized by the right-wing in foolhearty, naive or disingenuous complicty with Jews, as “natural” acts, or even heroic defiance of the “backward” - which, in incitement, we are supposed to adjust to, as the way it is in “universal maturity.”

We all know that puerile females can never do anything wrong.

Scientists and Jews say so.

It is for White men to adust to their infinite wisdom.

If men drag their feet, are unwilling to participate in the paradigm that Jews have outlined, then they are “cuckservatives.”

It is another Jewish meme to blame White men, if there ever was one.

Sure, we should adjust to the predilections of puerile females, as pandered to by Jews, Muslims et al, in the cataclysmic destruction of European peoples and our co-evolution.

We should act into the loop, a Jewish loop, engage in such didactic incitement. Rather obviously, we should not. It is far better that the puerile females of Western nations be subject to incitement, to become mature, decent, responsible women. For those who know American females, as they are, and as it stands, know that typically they are egomaniacs.

Worse, they’re typically the vilest tyrants - manifest through ceaseless pandering of Jews to their one-up position in partner selection. This has put an exponent by their worst inclinations - incitement to genetic competition and appeal of the brute, episodic view of masculinity, a hyper-assertive, unsublimated masculinity more characterisic of blacks and mulattoes.

And we all know what a wonderful way of life that they create. So wonderful, that we should emultate them on penalty of being called a “cuckservative.”

Nice try Mr. Jew.

You won’t find me buying into this Jewish meme of “cuckservative.”

You might, however, hear me chiding these puerile female tyrants that you’ve had integral part in creating as “mulatto supremacist B - J machines.” (I would like to use the full-out word, but I guess you get the drift).

Incitement of White males at this point is more characterisitc of right wing pefidy. To think, they accuse the left of being against nature. But what do they know about White nature? They’re so objective, displaying transcendent, univesal masculine strength - they don’t even need anybody else, just their own individual Herculean strength. What it really is, of course, is their own gang of Jewish marshalled punks, piling-on anyone unfortunate enough to be in a vulnerable position, to need their people, their race, to show off in contrast to them for unworthy females and “the objective measurer.”

But I do get it when it comes to conservatives and the need to drive a wedge against their Jewish designated “conservatism”, which is not conservatism at all, but the propensity to conserve liberalism, to conserve the destruction of Whites. That wedge criticism IS central to our program here at MR.

I just don’t trust the cuckservative meme. It’s based in a universalist liberal perspecive. It’s an incitement generally biased in the wrong direction, piling on White men who’ve been incited ad infinitum; and as a meme, being slowly nudged beyond reach of normal men; into toxicity for those who would otherwise be best positioned to see the sense of our cause, to swell and empower our ranks. It’s playing into Jewish, liberal and puerile hands, deflecting from their responsibility.

A further note on these lines of right wing perfidy…

I recently heard that Angelo John Ganucci had been banned from the campus of Boston University.

Well, that’s nothing.

I was banned form campus of The University of Massachusetts at Amerhest no less than four times. I must admit that I got a certain satisfaction in manifesting activism from the other side.

I would walk around campus with a shirt that read:

“Big Mulatto Bro is watching, foil HER Mulatto supremacist dream!”

And sometimes with a shirt which read:

“We have a consensus, black women are ugly!”

That came in handy when encountering interracial couples - because the female was ALWAYS the White one.

I could simply walk in front of them. This was extremely awkward for them and extremely hard for them to respond to.

The black woman, who was being insulted, was not there, the black male was being called-out on the fact that he viewed his own co-evolutionary females as inferior, and the White female, who pretends to be the sensitive social justice warrior, is shown to be the thoughtless pig that she is, e.g., having little or no concern for black women, whose men she is taking away.

Because walking in front of them so that they could read the shirt didn’t involve aggressive and loud verbal confrontation, this did not arouse enough attention from third parties to provide one of the occasions that got me thrown off campus. But it did get a potent message across. It was one of the better strategies that I experimented with.

As I have said in other places, “mulatto supremacism” is a confusing, difficult and all too accurate charge for our enemies to handle; that is why I was prevented from posting an article about it on Wikipedia.

It is difficult for them because it does not confronts Jews, blacks, or miscegenators directly, while it calls dramatic, critical attention to the egregious upshot of PC politics.

Don’t worry, I’m the kind of foreigner that you’ll like. Hopefully.

Majorityrights began with and has long been committed to freedom of speech, no matter how controversial the opinion, as I can clearly see from the archives. It has been published as an internet magazine with considerable bravery given the political environment and the risks that come from being misunderstood, and has had a pretty diverse set of contributors and viewers. On 14 October 2014, it marked its tenth year in operation, and I hope that its eleventh year coming in just a few months will be as illuminating as ever. As a newcomer, and as an East Asian woman, I feel privileged to be invited to submit articles from my perspective and experience.

Here, on what could be described as freedom of speech’s front porch in its tenth year, we have a good place to talk frankly and honestly as neighbours and allies with common interests. What I’m about to provide is what I see as a necessary polemic against some positions that exist in Majorityrights’ archives and an invitation to conversation as such.

It is said in warfare about the ‘turning manoeuvre’, that when you move into an opponent’s rear in order to cut them off from their support base, you are taking the risk of getting yourself cut off from your own.

A similar manoeuvre has been attempted by many ethno-nationalists in Europe since 2001 on a political level with regards to the War on Terror, through their decision to advance negative attitudes toward it and their decision to develop talking points that reinforce those attitudes. They are refusing to endorse the War on Terror under the belief that this non-endorsement is somehow a ‘good’ angle to protest the political establishment from. It is not good. Those ethno-nationalists are getting themselves cut off because what they are doing actually undermines their own ability to address a severe demographic threat and also undermines their ability to address a persistent international security threat. It’s an unfortunate situation, because it is crucial for people to be able to square the thoughts that are going on their heads with the reality on the ground: The reality of the necessity of overseas contingency operations.

To understand how things reached the stage that they have reached, first a person has to remember how things started out. The world was stunned to see the events that were taking place on television on 11 September 2001. Nineteen Arab men had hijacked airliners, and rather than putting the planes down at an airport and demanding a ransom, they chose to put the planes down by sending them into buildings in New York City.

People seem to have struggled to understand how this could happen.

Over time, a self-hating narrative built up in which the citizens of the North Atlantic were largely blaming their own governments for having allegedly ‘fanned the flames of conflict in the Middle East’ by allegedly ‘supporting radical Islamists’, while simultaneously also allegedly ‘fanning the flames of conflict in the Middle East’ by allegedly ‘opposing Islamists and offending Muslims’. Both of these narratives cannot make sense at the same time, and I would argue that neither of those narratives are true. Furthermore, the apparent implication in both of those narratives is that the North Atlantic should refrain from pursuing its interests in the zone to the south.

That is an idea that should be rejected on the basis that it leads only to paralysis in the political sphere, and a loss of initiative in the military sphere. Groups which argue that the North Atlantic should adopt a passive stance and not assert its interests, and those who place blame onto the wrong people, may mean well, but they do not realise that the narratives they are creating can lead to serious crises which may not have actually been intended by those dissenting groups.

READ MORE...

Not everyone wants to deviate from authenticity, devote time, money, resource and brain cycles in order to “game” women. Indeed, should we try to live according to the values of puerile female inclinations - fierce and frenzied incitement exacerbated by the exponential pandering to her position with modernist, liberal internationalist disordering and the YKW prohibition of social classification for Whites?

A better sort, the kind who like themselves and their kind, prefer to display power by identifying one who is an acutely appropriate match in reconstructing their type and genetic system, together with whom to explore life. Further, they recognize that playing the field leads to terrible injustice regarding our social capital, demoralizes, undermines trust and moral warrant to defend ourselves as a people.

However, the preference of those who would rather not “game” needs to be institutionalized so that their choice does not get diverted into gaming where they rather search for an appropriate partner; as opposed to (another) one they tricked, a woman who could be another man’s appropriate wife, taken through the instigated anxiety of going out of character and into the “fair game” of boundless competition.

As opposed to gaming what would be someone’s singularly important mate or gaming whorey left-overs or leaving whorey left-overs…

Thus, an endorsement for the option of sex and monogamy as sacrament and voluntary enclaves in that recognition.

Look what has happened .... to White men.

Not to mention this huge collage of White women murdered by Negro boyfriends, what about the White men who have lost their appropriate mating partners to universal maturity? And how many have committed suicide in one way or another? Who cares?

I think this is rather pithy - A Word in the Ear of the Future-Seekers — Modernity is not the bridge; it is the abyss.

Fine Persecution — Every society has before it an ideal of the kind of society it ought to be, and every society, in order to uphold that ideal, needs to persecute those within it who are at odds with that ideal. Once again, however, the deep mendacity of liberalistic society manifests itself in that it denies the persecution which it carries out against its hated enemies, namely, those at odds with its ideal. This denial of the persecuted status of its enemies — along with the ridicule of them when they claim it — are additional elements for the intensifying of their persecution.

Specify, or Be Damned — Individualism does not specify itself to be in keeping with any particular society, or even with the existence of society at all, but rather it addresses itself only to an unspecified individuality. Such unspecification about what an individual should be is precisely at the heart of individualism’s boast about its being the friend and not the foe of the individual’s freely seeking to be and to do whatever he chooses. “Do what thou wilt”, it says, whereto it may add the black-box phrase, “so long as it harms none”. Now, given a teaching which says that everyone may do as he pleases, irrespective of all truth, reason, goodness, morality, tradition, authority, obedience, bonds, and so forth, “so long as it harms none”, and which, by its boasted lights, does not specify the kind of society which should be upheld, or even that any should be upheld, how is it that anyone could then come to the belief that it might after all stand as a pillar of any society, let alone a particular one, rather than being, as in truth it is, the rot upon all? One might say that here we are at the brink of sheer madness, inbequeathed through many years of listening to silly tales. But leaving aside an understanding of the teaching itself, which might conceivably have taken any name, the very name which it does carry gives us a clue to its drift, namely, that it seeks to uphold the unspecified individual, not any society, specified or unspecified.
 
There are no ends specific to man as man, rather than to what he shares with mere beasts, which can be reached outside of his fellowship with his kind. No speech nor reasoning, let alone higher arts and sciences, would arise if all men stood from the first outside of fellowship. Every man began as a helpless baby and would have died were it not for the society of his kith and kin. Every man was without speech, and would have remained speechless were it not for the same. Every man was without schooling, and would have stayed unschooled. And so on. No man was ever born into a so-called state of nature, as first imagined by Thomas Hobbes, even if this be helpful as a conceptual threshold for the understanding that the closer a society comes in breaking down towards that threshold, the more brutish it becomes. It is nevertheless a figment which has led to misunderstanding and mischief, and it is from it that individualism has grown. Man’s state of nature is the state of society. Man has never been in the so- called state of nature; for he is by nature a social animal and always in fellowship. Individualists, having thoughtlessly taken all social things for granted, and having for the most part imbibed unawares some old spirit of seventeenth-century philosophy, often speak as though they rose out of the ground and shaped themselves in isolation, wherein we glimpse also the drunken idea of self-creation born of Romanticism.

But he who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god: he is no part of a state. [1]

The liberal concept of man as selfstanding being, free to set his own moral ends, is one of the biggest untruths ever told — and yet folk swallow it whole, whereat we might take it that they are greedy for something.
 
Individualism is an emptiness which blights the field of personhood, turning men, if they can still be called such, into mere units of the mass to be gathered up in the total state. Man is a social animal; society is required to actualise a man’s potential as a person. There are no pre-social individual persons. In the light of this, we may see individualism as some deeply primitive recrudescence, the tendency of which is to destroy the very conditions by which one can become a human person. A man cannot be a person without the fellowship, community, or society that made him. Un- socialised, man’s potencies are not activated, and he stays at a level close to a beast, bereft of speech and reason, let alone partaking of the higher arts and sciences.
 
Individualistic societies are decomposing social bodies in which kinship-ties are loosened and even cut, and which can be held together only by an all-pervasive and socially-alien bureau-technocratic power — the “coldest of all cold monsters”. In defence of these societies, and, by extension, willing or not, of this bureau-technocratic power, liberals, who sometimes call themselves libertarians, claim the greater freedom of these societies, where the largely unexamined and fuzzily-held concept “freedom” is a multivariate reference, unspecified of what, for what, and to what. In individualistic societies there is more freedom in the direction of baser and thrilling appetites, non-specific to mankind, hence the appeal of this freedom to the mass of baser men; and it is these appetites which dissolve kinship and personhood, bringing even greater demands for individualism, which brings greater freedom in the direction of baser and thrilling appetites, and so on, in downward spiral. In individual- istic societies freedom in personhood is much lowered, whilst freedom in beasthood is heightened; and the bonds of kinship are cut whereby men would be men.
 
Liberals and libertarians, being the fiercest enemies of the freedom of personhood, and the strongest friends of the freedom of beasthood, that is to say, of the liberal haze-ideal of the “individual” whatever that individual may be, must be defeated if the freedom of the person as person is to be upheld. Liberalism, or rather its essential individualism, has a gut-feeling and a canny nose for the breaking-up of everything, even of the person, and it knows nothing of creation. The ideal of individualism can only belittle persons and bring to the fore a bulk of fittingly-blank individuals of the mass — fittingly blank for bearing the stamp of the bureau-technocratic regime.
 
                     

The conformity that is forged today through the atomized individualism that strips men of their personhood has little to do with the collective identity for which men have always yearned. The conformity today is stopgap and takeover of this natural yearning. The atomised individual is stripped bare of his humanity —which has hitherto been actualised in society —and left adrift with his “freely-formed” and “chosen” opinions, which are in truth nothing of the kind. He cannot think for himself, only of himself, as he is suffering a loss. He rebels against conformity in conformity with everyone else.                         

As the subversive mind is essentially individualistic and isolationistic, so is it essentially collectivistic and identitarian: on the view inherent in it, the curse of division and of being ‘set against one another’ cannot be surmounted except by a ‘fusion into one’; an actual identification of consciousness, of qualities and of interest. In fact, individualism (tending towards egalitarianism) prefigures collectivism from the outset, and again, collectivism is only individualism raised to the high power of an absolute monism centered in ‘all and every one’. [2]

Individualism foreshadows mass-collectivism and the herd of ersatz ‘individuals’. With authorities and societies broken down, nothing stands between pressing individual units of alienated humanity, hitherto existing as persons, into mass, each homogenised unit shaped to fit and imprinted with a set of political ideas and economic desires.
 
The pluralism which accompanies individualism is a social dysfunction built on subject- ivistic-irrationalistic ethics. It denies that mankind has a nature and thereby a natural end to be fulfilled. Only by that denial does it make sense to say that everyone has a right to pursue any goals and practice any values which he pleases so long as he does not seek to foist them upon others. And how is that disorder to be managed? Why, by the totalitarian bureau-technocratic state of liberaldom! But of course it isn’t true that under liberaldom one can believe whatever one likes, nor especially what’s ratio- nal to believe. In liberaldom one can believe anything so long as it makes no odds against liberaldom; one’s unliberal beliefs, if they can still bear the name, are to be mild quirks of self, slight hues in otherwise grey smears of bureaucratic massification.
                     
The task of liberalism from its beginning, namely, the search for neutral ground whereon the life of all mankind can rest, and whereupon everyone can seek his own ends, can find its end only in a true neutrality and indifference, and that is nowhere to be found in man except in his unpersonhood. Wherefore it is that liberalism’s struggle to settle the life of mankind can find its end only in the death of personhood; and it is for this reason that the struggle against liberalism is the final and most profound one. Liberalism is the greatest evil that mankind has yet faced, and there is almost no-one to withstand it. That lack of withstanding, owed to liberalism’s having swayed almost everyone to its side, is partly why it is the greatest evil.

1] Aristotle, Politica, Bk.I: 1253a:28-9, tr. B. Jowett, in The Works of Aristotle, Vol.X (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1921).
[2] A. Kolnai, “Privilege and Liberty” (1949), in Privilege & Liberty & Other Essays in Political Philosophy, ed.D.J.Mahoney(Lanham, Maryland:Lexington Books,‘99),p.21-2.

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...

Judging by his vigilant stream of Ebola updates, it is clear that James considers the threat of Ebola to be under-reported in terms of its significance.

Ebola remiss an alarm for border control as even most objective standards of human ecology ignored by authorities:

The handling of the Ebola threat by institutional bodies such as the Centers for Disease Control, supposedly responsible for safeguarding public health, provide a glaring example of how we cannot rely on them to serve our needs, not even as a by-product of the most ostensibly objective concerns of human ecology.

Furthermore, as the remiss demonstrates that these bureaucracies cannot be entrusted to look-after the interests of our relative human ecologies it should create awareness that now is the time to step-up participation in border re-establishment.

As James explains, the mishandling of the threat of pandemic disease, as in the case of Ebola, has been made evident not only through border crossing, but in a pattern of decades, extending to misreadings of the H.I.V. epidemic by these same responsible institutional bodies - such as the CDC, with its authoritative media organ, “Nature” magazine, taken to be definitive of science journalism and featuring assessments by experts such as Princeton’s R.M. Anderson - experts and their fact-checkers who are all too capable of committing fundamental errors in epidemic prediction.

Specifically, Anderson’s initial indication for Nature magazine suggested that an increased number of sex partners was not a particularly significant factor in H.I.V. transmission. This took for granted its operating on a relatively homogenous population, with steadier patterns and where outlier behavior is more compartmentalized into niches. Promiscuous heterosexuals in this sort of population were not particularly at risk as their partnering was in linear alignment and separate from the infected homosexual population. However, with the increasing introduction of diverse populations, not only are more promiscuous sorts added to the ranks of the population, but also those more capable of transmitting the disease, those still more recklessly transgressing niches and even those with malicious intent to deliberately transmit the disease.

“Strength in diversity indeed - for pandemic disease!”

The take-away is that European peoples must take initiative in border control to protect the interests of our human ecologies - for our very survival. Institutional bodies entrusted to be competent and concerned cannot be relied upon for even the basics of public health management - they are not even taking into account such basic factors as the mass introduction of alien biology and behavioral patterns on stable human ecologies; the direct introduction of virulence from primeval breeding grounds and bio-power, e.g., of Sub-Saharan Africa - which your European biology may not withstand. In fact, these bureaucrats in their faux-objectivism, whether the result of pandering or being pandered-to, malicious intent, indifference or incompetence at best, are subjecting European populations to experiments that your European biology should not have to hold up-to, as conducted upon you and the ancient human ecology of our European peoples unwillingly, unbeknownst, without consent.

More, for their very nature as fixed places, James likens nation states to immobilized patients in a clinic, and therefore draws the possibility of their susceptibility to pandemic, such as Spanish flue, which spread rapidly through immobilized patient concentrations in Red Cross hospitals after World War I. Immobile as the nations states are then, it is imperative to secure their borders against mobilized virulence.

Ebola having reached The U.S. highlights this fact. Thriving at length, transmissible even from a corpse, passively, potentially mutating airborne transmissability, Ebola can be far more destructive than the H.I.V. epidemic which the CDC blundered about..

James details the analogy in the misreading of H.I.V. and Ebola epidemiology:

READ MORE...