Majorityrights Central > Category: Conservatism

Monoculturalism meets Rockefeller (and eats him)

READ MORE...

A-Symmetry as Semiotic of European Evolutionary Advance

Morphology is a branch of biology dealing with the study of the form and structure of organisms and their specific structural features.

While becoming the first geneticist to popularize Mendelism, William Bateson observed puzzlement in his colleagues over a strange morphological phenomenon in crustaceans.

His colleagues noted that some species of crabs have asymmetrical appendages, one being larger than the other, but when one of the pair was lost, another grew back in mirror image to the other. To this they were disposed to ask, how did the crab gain symmetry?

Through the extended analysis, Bateson hypothesized that his colleagues had been asking the wrong question. They should rather have been asking, “how did the crab lose asymmetry?”

It was in fact, in the course of this very investigation into the biological laws of symmetry that William Bateson first coined the term “genetics.”

…....

And from this inquiry he established “Bateson’s rule”, which asserts that when an asymmetrical appendage is regrown after loss, the resulting limb will be symmetrical, in mirror image with the other limb.

The rule by itself is not of particular relevance to our concerns for European ontology and nationalism. However, steps taken in ecological and cybernetic analysis and arrival at Bateson’s rule of morphology do have significant implications, suggesting hypotheses for semiotics of ecological (and ontological) correction -  including of human ecology.

READ MORE...

I thought I should replace Graham’s somewhat florid reflections upon the passing today of Baroness Thatcher with something more considered.  There will, of course, be hundreds of thousands of words written and spoken about her in the media over the next few days.  Much of it will reflect the divisive impact upon British and international politics that this extraordinary woman had.  I am not going to tell the story of her life, but I will offer some personal reflections upon the person and period - she was Prime Minister for eleven tumultuous years from 1979 to 1990.

She had four characteristics that set her apart from the politicians about her.  She was restlessly energetic, dominant, courageous, and ideological (which she called principled).  All the really important moments of her career in Downing Street were expressions of one or more of these.  She galvanized millions of us to admire or to hate her for it.

Personally, I couldn’t bear her public mannerisms and speech because it was all so plainly produced and inauthentic.  But I found her enemies to be deeply repellant, and therefore took her side in most of the battles she fought - and there were many, for she was nothing if not an agent of change.  Few people had no opinion of her, and those who hated her the most, by and large, were the revolutionary socialist left and the Europhile right who expected their agendas to be followed by government without serious challenge.  In her, however, they found an implacable foe, and this tendency to stand up and fight for a different, non-authorised vision in a world as cravenly pragmatic as British politics is what most ordinary folk will probably remember her for.

There are several moments of her career that, while not particularly important in themselves, have stayed with me.  In particular, I remember her visit to Poland in 1988 as “the Iron Lady” and an icon of the freedom of the West.  She was invited to the church of St.Stanislaw Kostka in the north of Warsaw.  It had been the church of a priest who inveighed against state repression from his pulpit until, in 1984, the Security Services abducted and murdered him.  Hundreds of people, including the parents of the murdered priest, packed the church and the street outside to thank her for coming.  When they broke into a spontaneous rendition of a Polish hymn she was unable to hold back the tears.

This image of a leader moved by the sincerity and heart of the people is a near perfect figure for a true nationalist politician.  Margaret Thatcher came to the door of No.10 in 1979 wittering away about harmony and St Francis of Assisi.  But she was too much the courageous warrior leader and the ideologue caught up in the battle with the Labour Party, with union power, with the machinery of European integration, with the Soviets, with the Argentines, with the miners and, finally, with her own scheming ministers to understand that such unity and faith is even possible.  She was no intellectual and no visionary.  She used ideas that roughly fitted into her political rubric, the foremost of them the Friedmanite and Hayekian nostrums that were introduced to her by Keith Joseph in the years immediately after her accession to the leadership of the Conservative Party in 1975.  She never understood that the petty freedoms she gave people were insufficient for a truly rich lived life, for she never saw people in their social context, only as putative “individuals” awaiting release from an overbearing, over-socialist state.

There was a moment I recall when, early in her premiership, she used the word “flood” in relation to immigration.  I thought she might actually be listening to the sentiments of her own party supporters.  She did, for example, stand up for the white South African government against the diatribes of governments and international agencies everywhere.  But no, the immigration issue was scarcely broached again throughout her remaining years in power, except in the context of protecting national sovereignty from the dictates of the European Commission.  The battle above all others that I wanted Margaret Thatcher to fight she assiduously avoided.  It is a battle which, as things stand, must be fought on the streets one day.  The inevitable, existential conflict of race was something else she did not understand.

Of the battles she did fight, she only lost two: to the Europe integrationists and, eventually, to the grey-suited assassins around her.  We are now witnessing the slow, ineluctable coming apart of the European process and also the arising of an anti-politics which disdains the careerists of the political class.  Margaret Thatcher will be shown to have been on the right side of history on most matters.  She will not, I think, be remembered as the great national heroine or as the vile hate object which she succeeded, by her relentless and divisive political energy, in fashioning herself as.

GW has expressed the constraint:

“It is a pity that Christianity, as flawed as it is from a European racial perspective, is undeniably part of the unity of north and south.  We are stuck with it, for it has been too close for too long to us - and the faithful must have their faith expressions, after all.”

DanielS has expressed the constraint:

“Adding yet another knot in the tangle is the argument that with the Christian texts already being the terms in which many of our people think, the currency for two thousand years now, there must be some ontological basis beneath, and we may as well find the positive logic to it for our purposes. However, with the texts being what they are, the motivations of the texts being as convoluted, Jewish and ambiguous as they were to begin, all that winds-up happening with the deciphering of our “true” logic behind Christianity is a contribution to the mess.”

An approach offered by John Harland is to admit the historicity of Jesus in His essential mythic image as descendant of God evidenced in his own over-ruling of texts with direct bodily connection with God as Father, but to deny the historicity of the extant texts—deny them as yet another means by which dastards attempt to interpose themselves between the God-heritage of individuals and their Father, in spirit and flesh.

Ridicule of Harland’s own editing of the texts to suit his view may be conducted only at the sacrifice of the two constraints establishing the context of this presentation. Offer a superior approach if you don’t like Harland’s—either that or declare folly the entire effort to connect with the spiritual force of Christianity.

Click this link for a pdf document containing part of Harland’s account starting with “The Germans” (in the anthropological sense meaning what many identify as Celtic and Nordic pagans of the pre-Christian era), “The Catholic Church Promotes Judeo-Christianity”, “The First Breaking Apart of the Church Serpent” (regarding Henry VIII and Martin Luther), “A Further Break From the Serpent” (regarding the establishment of America), “The Strange Phenomenon of ‘Money-Mad’ Americans” (regarding the closing of the frontier and replacement of Nature and Nature’s God with money-based “culture”), “The American Dream” (the commodification, by conspirators, of the American spiritual renaissance), “The German Reich” (the parallel processes occurring in what became the nation state known as “Germany” during the 1800s leading up to WW I), “The World Picture After WW I” (the situation leading up to WW II) and the concluding section of this pdf document is “The Second World War”.

The entire book is “Word Controlled Humans” by John Harland, ISBN 0-914752-12-X available from Sovereign Press, 326 Harris Road, Rochester, WA 98579 (with which I have no business or personal relationship).

Yesterday, the United Kingdom Independence Party, a collection of “nutcases, fruitcakes and closet racists”, to quote David Cameron from 2006, ran the Tories into third in the Westminster by-election at Eastleigh.  Today the quality press is resisting offering the usual excuses (ie, it’s mid-term madness ... a mere protest vote, etc).  It is asking a few significant questions about UKIP, in particular.  The most interesting is: how much of its support expresses that exasperation and exhaustion with the professional political class that is now known by the term, anti-politics?

Anti-politics is a completely normal response on the part of any electorate confronted with a self-referential elite that has forgotten even how to feign representation of the people.  Lower order politicians are only too well aware of this failing. After the Eastleigh result Stewart Jackson, MP for Peterborough, told the London Evening Standard:

“Unless things are demonstrably different in terms of public perception by the early summer he [David Cameron] will have great difficulty in persuading the electorate that we can win a general election.

“He is out of touch with the party. Both gay marriage and EU migration feed into a narrative that too much emphasis is going to the liberal metropolitan elite and not enough to the blue-collar working vote that Margaret Thatcher had the support of.”

So while the speed of UKIP’s rise might surprise some, the rise itself shouldn’t.  The straws were in the wind for both right and left with the early Tea Party movement and, later, the Occupy Movement.  Now we have the rise of, among others, Syriza and Golden Dawn in Greece, the youth identitarian movement in France, the astonishing success of Beppe Grillo’s Five Star Party in Italy ... all non-Establishment or anti-Establishment movements.  Has the grand political project of The Globality reached the stage where it is no longer possible to advance its agenda and affect an interest in the opinions of their supporters?  Are electorates of European descent finally awakening to the nature of modern political elitism and internationalism?

If so, Eastleigh offers little encouragement to British nationalists beyond the unsatisfactory proxy that is UKIP.  The BNP did not stand.  The fatally civicist English Democrats, to which the Butler retinue decamped, did stand.  Its candidate polled just 70 votes in a constituency of 79,004.  The Elvis candidate finished above them.

It looks very like UKIP is our only horse in the race, and must be supported accordingly.  We have to hope that there will be no electoral pact with the Tories in 2015 but, on the contrary, Nigel Farage’s party will literally kill the Tory Party - just as it did in Eastleigh - as the political right’s natural party of power.  Beyond that we must hope that no new alignment of the right in Britain takes place along the lines of that which brought Stephen Harper’s Canadian conservatives into existence in 2003.  Nationalists must find some way to influence a realignment process so that any new party will, first and foremost, be loyal to our people rather than to a set of easily “liberalised” and corrupted, petty principles about self-improvement or personal liberty.

To do that we have to work from within.  We have to join the party if we can (and former BNP members can’t - they are pre-banned), and stay in the party.  I wonder how many nationalists have the requisite degree of focus to pull off something like that.

Brett Stevens

There are two types of politics in this country: mainstream, for saying things that are socially acceptable, and underground, for saying things that if said on television would bring a wave of condemnation from folks trying to prove they’re better than me or you.

In underground politics, people talk about diversity and political correctness as the destructive things they are. No one dares do that in mainstream politics, although they hint at it and will dance around it because it makes their audience momentarily hope.

Not one mainstream conservative has ever identified himself as racialist.

READ MORE...

by David Hamilton

We must understand the difference between a patriotic way of thinking and that of “Progressives” and “Internationalists.” Their ideological view is often based on a book and people are expected to refer to it and divergence from orthodoxy leads to being denounced or given correctional training. This happened in the Soviet Union, Mao’s China, Cambodia under Pol Pot and in the West now under Political Correctness. This is a Marxist strain but it came in with the New Left under the guise of a new Liberalism. Even now well-meaning liberals promote PC without understanding its totalitarian nature.

This debate is contemporary Metaphysics, the branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality. It includes the relationship between mind and matter, essence and attribute and fact and value. Metaphysics is the philosophical study of being and knowing. What is real, what is illusion; what is actually happening and what are political myths.

Progressivism encompasses Liberalism through to Marxism: the “isms” that grew out of the French Enlightenment. They believe in abstract universals, we believe in concrete “particulars.” These type of Universals are abstract terms like humanity whereas a specific people is a particular. Abstract universalist thinking leads to intervention in the internal policies of other sovereign states. We concrete particularists are concerned with our own nation. We do believe in substantial universals which I will come to later.

Progressives erect a set of idealisations – what we are becoming, what we should think and how we should behave. Our human nature is fixed in the sense that we inherit genes, which give us our essence, but how we act it out or think is given form by our cultures and communities which themselves grew out of our collective psyches. We can not step outside what we are and where we belong. We are part of it and it is what makes us social beings.

READ MORE...