Majorityrights Central > Category: That Question Again

Can a European people, or the greater part of it, find the Truth of itself today ... its living, unchanging ethnic person, its relational wholeness, its belonging to the land and to past, present and future? Even at this hour, filled with error and confusion and rampant wickedness as it is, can such an awakening … some might call it a rebirth … be achieved?  Or sufficiently achieved to, at a minimum, preserve our existence?  Those are the questions with which Part 1 of this series concluded.  A century ago Germans faced another ethnic crisis – not the same as ours or so acute, but very urgent in its way.  So the precedent exists.  What can it teach us?

THE WAGES OF CONFECTION AND IMITATION

Once upon a time in a land far away (or these days about 1 hr 40 min from London by passenger jet) the great mass of a defeated and despairing people gave their love and their allegiance to a messianic little man with a toothbrush moustache.  They believed in him and in his power to lift the heavy moral and economic burden on them, give them inspiration, bring them light.  They believed as no other European people believed before or since.  But it was not an irrational belief.  There were reasons for it.  Among other things, he had a plan to Macht Deutschland wieder groß, and he made good on it.  He spoke to the people as his people, his blood.  He spoke of belonging and uniqueness, and of honour, heroism and destiny.  He did it with a near religious fervour, and in an oddly histrionic but mesmerising way which gripped all who saw and heard him.  It was easy to believe in the messianic image which he had himself carefully engineered over many years.  Everything from his table talks to his set-piece public appearances and pronouncements was calculated and theatrical, nothing more so than those at the stupendous and dramatic parade ground that his party had built in Nuremberg.

An image not lost: the Cathedral of Light at one of NSDAP’S Nuremberg rallies.

On top of all that he had a highly competent Reichsministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda.  And his Reichsminister had a sophisticated understanding of how to sway and inspirit the Volk.  The inspiriting part still hold a general truth for racially European peoples today, much-abused as we all are.  But too much of what was said and done in the NSDAP years was not true at all.

For example, the little man with the toothbrush moustache opined that:

The efficiency of a truly national leader consists primarily in preventing the division of the attention of a people, and always in concentrating it on a single enemy.

Just by that choice of words we can infer that he identified attention as the means to ethnic self-awareness, and grasped at least something of its polarities and dynamics.  Of course, he did so not as an ethnic nationalist and identitarian but as an “Aryan supremacist”, German imperialist and hammer of the Jews, each of which array negatively against someone somewhere.  But, with the possible exception of Jews, a group identity which reifies and defines itself against an Other, even in part, will always be distorted by some or other non-essential element.  Indeed, in general sameness is a stronger reference and rallying point than difference – ask any identical twin.  More specific to race and ethnicity, what is shared is stronger than what is unshared, and that is true whether we are speaking of peoplehood, genes, land or any other shared natural interest, the defence of which is always more necessitous than is the attack upon the being and interests of an Other.  In other words, defensive or life-preserving interests possess a greater import and urgency than expansive or resource-acquisitional interests.

READ MORE...

17th century English coins, from an entry on coin-clipping at Collectors Universe forum

We nationalists have a lot to say about many things.  But the freedom of the individual is not generally one of them.  We do, of course, necessarily reject the liberal philosophy as the ruling Idea of our age.  Famously “beyond left and right”, nationalism exists in a state of permanent and total hostility to it, which posture is fully reciprocated by the liberal Establishment.  In consequence, our focus is only really group-based.  That natural and inevitable individuality which so characterises our race becomes altogether too much identified with the liberal pursuit of individual-ism, and all possibility of a fitting identitarian paradigm is lost.  One can’t help but wonder whether, in consequence, our politics is fatally weakened and incomplete.

That said, let us agree that human freedom is a lodestar of the mind, and a primary value of the European mind and thus the European sociobiology.  Obviously, there is no denying the uplifting and inspiring effect of its clarion call.  Of course, there are clarion calls and clarion calls.  At the ethnic and/or national level, the principles of independence (ie, a negative freedom) and autonomy (positive) are valid even when, at an intermediate, constitutional level, principles such as pluralism (negative) and democracy (positive) are absent.  At both levels (ie, national and constitutional), the various principles are valid even when, at the level of the individual man or woman, personal liberties are absent.  A captive or slave society might, therefore, still be ethnically and/or nationally independent and autonomous.  Equally it might be, to a greater or lesser extent, pluralist and democratic.  Even while Stalin’s Terror was in full flood, elections were held to the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union.

From this we may ascertain that, notwithstanding all the noise that national liberation struggles create, and the noise about “liberal democracy”, secret ballots, and so forth, freedoms at the collective levels have a clear universality to them that goes beyond the specifics of the liberal philosophy.  Among other races with other evolutionary strategies and, perhaps, more naturalistic political systems, those freedoms may even be sufficient unto the day.  The individual’s needs may be met in the main elsewhere, by non-political culture and religion.  But the European evolutionary strategy of individuality injects a different energy at the level of the individual.  It accentuates the value of the individual life, and imbues our truths and meanings.  It cannot be contained, but bursts forth as the political.  It is no small part of what we are.  Its action in us is responsible for the whole of the liberal analytic since its mid-17th century inception.

READ MORE...

I have been thinking about Iain Davis’s magisterial essay series on multipolarity – the prospective global power dispensation proposed by the WEF, the UN, and all the other internationalist bodies, and advanced via the BRICS nations in opposition to America’s current monopolarity.  Unless a fifth appears, it is a four part series:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

I heartily recommend the series to one and all.  Davis is a libertarian.  So not every position he adopts is agreeable from our standpoint, or wholly free of the conventional liberal dictates and blindspots.  He has no holistic identitarian or ethnological reading of our race and kind.  He does not fully comprehend the Western elites’ long campaign against our life.  He has no critique of the Jewish paradigm.  There is no evidence that he even has an understanding of it.  His is, therefore, a view of a single, completely political project conceived by past generations of Western elites, and adapting to various challenges along the way (such as the fall of the Soviet Union).  But that simplification aside, to my mind his Multipolarity series is still a signal achievement in the dissenting analysis of power in this world, and unequivocally presents to us the Chinese, or Russo-Chinese, piece in the jigsaw.

Accordingly, it explains the respective, perfectly consonant Chinese and Russian power strategies we witness today.  These strategies are not solely the products of Russian or Chinese agency.  To all intents and purposes, they are facilitated by a Western elite which has, for four decades or more, been pursuing the replacement of Western power - and thus the basis of the elites’ own power - with a radically general distribution of economic and geopolitical power.  In the modern language of internationalism that means transitioning from leadership by America and the other G7 economies of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom to leadership by the G20 economies, ie, adding to those seven the five BRICS countries of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa and the other developing G20 economies of Argentina, Australia, Indonesia, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, and Turkey.  To a greater or lesser extent all of these last seven are there to make up the numbers and provide a semblance of global action.  The real revolutionary change is being wrought by China and Russia, but ... only because the Western elites licenced it.

This, then, is the background against which Donald Trump’s parochial and unfulfilled campaign to Make America Great Again figured as a grand heresy in the minds of the entire Western political, governmental, academic, cultural, corporate and banking class.  It is the background against which Brexit has never been effectively pursued (beyond a formal, only partial separation) by any British government since the momentous vote of 23rd June 2016.  Both of these developments stood as a popular rebuke to the ruling classes for the manner in which they had narrowed party and thus national politics to exclude the life-interests of the mass of white Americans and native British respectively.  Supporters in both polities rightfully expected change, including to the elites’ migration agenda.  I don’t need to detail the actual outcome, only the fact that the elites regard themselves as absolute rulers of our world, and no wants and desires but their own will ever be actioned even if what was a social contract in Rousseau’s time has to become a social dictate in ours, or what was the legitimacy of government in Locke’s time has to become a lie.

READ MORE...

Canterbury, the old surviving English cathedral

James Bowery has raised a question about the cognitive verities of our being-in-the-world, characterising it as a point on a faith continuum.  In a comment on “The final question” thread he writes:

Every decision is an act if not leap of faith.  All our decisions are informed by our limited knowledge and limited intelligence to act on that knowledge.  While we may remain true to ourselves in our phenomenal perceptions, we are on shaky ground the moment we begin to interpret them - yet interpret them we do without so much as a prayer that we may “bracket” them to attain the elusive transcendental attitude.

So we are creatures of faith.

Now, you may wish to interject a qualitative distinction between the kind of faith it takes to, say, interpret a collection of sensations as an object of our world, vs faith it takes to believe in a big hairy thunderer who intervenes in our affairs based on what rituals we engage in, but I would assert that these are on a spectrum of faith.

Well, I do wish to “interject” some qualitative distinctions; or at least to set forth the meaning and relation of things as I understand them.  So, to that end ...

I will not spend too much time on the first, which is the human brain’s rendering of a representative reality from the raw data of the world beyond the organism.  Obviously, the brain stands at the apogee of three and half billion years of evolution, from the first simple cells which sensed light in darkness and succeeded in transmitting that capacity to other cells.  Figuratively speaking, God was light.  Non-figuratively, the whole, limitless noumenal truth is le soleil absolu, but the form in which we limited beings re-cognise it is strictly shackled to planet earth.  My favoured guide Martin Heidegger accepted the Cartesian subject-object duality but placed human being in the “there-then”, which is a human-scale objectification of that whole truth.  But the whole question of how we are evolved to “sense light” therein, how we autogenetically construct from the input of our five senses a sublime simulacrum limited to our own cortex, and how we then filter it through the great external-facing, associative systems, remains; and it is, of course, that most important and ancient mystery which is the Mind-Body problem.

There are many theoretical solutions, the most populous among academics being species of physicalism and emergentism.  With so much post-Christian, blue planet, Gaia thinking prevalent in the West it is perhaps not a surprise that pan-psychism is making a bit of a comeback.  Beyond formal academia, in the badlands, Chris Langan’s CTMU appears to be both pan-psychist and a mathematical proof.  Even by the standards for pan-psychism, it is not taken seriously by academics outside his own immediate high-IQ cohort.  It is at least complete, or claimed to be.  Not one of the other theories are claimed by anyone as adequate at this stage.  All are problematic.  All are contested.  No one has anything even close to a definite and provable account of brain function. 

This is true even of accounts of how the sleeping brain conjures into existence its dream-world.  We know in our waking hours that dreams are brilliant, strange fictions.  But however improbable or fractured a dream may be, once the brain chemistry flows we are totally immersed and certain of the dream’s material reality. One would think that this contradiction might help in the formal search for a solution, but it hasn’t yet.  Anyway, in my distinctly informal estimation, certainty speaks of an evolutionary attention to survival and continuity which is so needful that all that is Mind derives from it and serves it, and so constant that no moment of human experience escapes it, not even what we dream.  The mechanics of it are absolute.

READ MORE...

The polity is shaped towards our race-replacement by its own deep history of ideas but also, of course, by the history of events which are inextricably linked to those ideas.  The sum of them all constitutes an enormous bulwark against change, pressing us, as people interested in change, to the inevitable conclusion that any serious assault on the citadel of Western elitism and political power must mean a revolution on no mean scale.  A simple change to national politics alone will, in the longer term, be constrained and, finally, erased by the continuing effect of these foundational forces.  Many, and quite possibly all of them, would have to be swept away, too.

I’ve made some rather slipshod efforts in the past to draw up a chart supplying some relational context to these forces.  This time, as part of the working up of a new article for PA’s site, I’ve tried to get everything in, including the elements aiming at control of the future of all humanity.  Doubtless, it’s always possible to keep expanding the range of entities, and I might have missed something important.  Anyway, if there is improvement to be made, do please say where.

I checked the site mailbox yesterday - something I have done less frequently since it was moved by the ISP to webmail, which I find to be a problematic platform.  Anyway, I managed to access it and I’m glad I did because there were a couple of mails of real interest.  One of them was a source of sadness, and confirmed the death of a past friend of MR and a man whom many more than just myself held in high respect.

Wintermute - WM, for short - arrived at MR early in its history, at the same time as the also redoubtable ben tillman.  Indeed, they operated on occasion rather like a tag team, and woe betide anyone who incurred their disfavour.

WM’s mission was to convert the world to his version of the Single Jewish Cause.  For some reason he had ventured away from his usual stamping ground at The Phora and selected MR as a suitable case for treatment.  This was not actually what I needed at that time.  Of course there was no reason that WM should hold back.  He did not know that MR was an experiment on a highly unstable material, or that he was lighting a naked flame every time he came here.  He did not stop to examine the cast of actors in this tragi-comedy.  To him, conservatives and libertarians from Oz, paleos from the US, trad cons from the UK and Belgium and proto-nationalists from all over were all people equally in need of grasping the one thing guaranteed to blow the place sky-high.  I attempted to keep my experiment running.  He attempted to make it in his image.  I avoided confrontation.  He sought it.  That was the way of things.

Every barrier I threw up he dutifully dismantled - not always, it must be said, with the most insightful diagnosis of my ideological failings.  Here, for example, he puts my resistance down to “social conservative propriety”:

By raising the spectre of Nazism, you are trying to both inhibit discussion of the Jewish Question, and to minimize the harm done by ignoring it. Would you level the same charge at Belloc?

It is the refusal to discuss the question which results in the radicalism that you decry.

This refusal is very definitely part and parcel of the ‘social conservative’ sense of propriety, though there are also considerations that even more venal: Nixon and Graham are excellent examples.

This remains the only occasion on which anyone has informed me that social conservatism rather than, say, Weimar liberalism, could be a factor in the rise of National Socialism.  Obviously, I had expected WM to be a make-believe National Socialist, like so many German-American WNs I had encountered on the net.  But he wasn’t at all that way inclined.  Probably, he was just too well read. 

Looking back at his commentary I find a WM who, although he couldn’t be clearer about the Jewish impact on our life, was never very clear about his own political antecedents and principles.  MR was a place to which one came to contest those very goods.  It was wholly predicated on the hierarchy of values which has, at its peak, the survival and continuity of European peoples, and on the inevitability that contact with that would inform and renew all who thought otherwise.  But somehow WM floated above all that.

I came close to nailing him down once or twice.  I remember proffering the opinion one time that, had it survived Hitler’s wars of aggression, National Socialism would, over time, have de-radicalised and subsided into a conservative force in its own right.  He agreed, to my surprise, and explained why.  Shortly after, still trying to pigeon-hole the man, I offered the judgement that “You are, I believe, a white nationalist.”  But nope, he confounded me again:

I don’t think of myself in those terms. I think in terms of classical liberty, which more and more seems to me to be an epiphenomena of the populations that are called “White”. That I include considerations of race in my political thinking does not make me a Nazi, a skinhead, or a “white nationalist”. Maybe I’m just a no-modifier “conservative”, who does not share the same preferred set of blinders as his fellows. Had that possibility occurred to you?

Then one day he was gone.  In honour of him I wrote a piece about courage and the unity of men, and that was that.  Or nearly that, because we then began an exchange of private mails in which more of him emerged.  What I found was a man of the spirit, brave in the face of what seemed to be a debilitating illness that he would eventually be unable to beat.  But he was spiritual in that other sense, too.  He was, or had been, a Gurdjieffian; and his natural bent was not at all that of the angry, Jewphobic WN but of a man straining for some permanency and right, and doing it with culture and principle and, always, stylish prose.

I remember saying that if he ever wants to write about his real worldview, minus the Jewish stuff, I would gladly publish it.  But he didn’t want that.  He was a dedicated fighter, a man who had taken a personal decision, a vow perhaps and much against his want and nature, about how he would proceed and why, and nothing could or would change it.  Then he stopped replying, and there was no more contact.

A few months ago Ben came on one of our threads and I asked him if WM was still in touch.  He said he thought he was still down in Texas.  But that turned out not to be true.  The email I opened yesterday was from an old friend and accomplice of WM who, only just the other day, had read the exchange with Ben, and was very kindly writing to tell me that, in fact, WM passed away over two years ago.

One of the lesser harms done to us by the Judaic struggle is that its necessary opposition consumes good men and good minds - sometimes, as in the case of WM, our best.  What he might have achieved, had he not made the decision to plough such a narrow furrow, can never be known.  It is another loss in a great history of losses that is the story of our people’s struggle to live a life fitted to us in peace and in freedom, and perhaps what WM really meant by “classical liberty”.

Those who knew him will remember him well and with gratitude, as do I.

A comment on Judaism, which I made in response to a perfectly decent and honest Orthodox Jew at the Disqus page for a Speccie article on Arab anti-Semitism in London.  The comment pulls together much of my current view on the Jewish Question.

On balance, I’m in agreement with Koestler about Ashkenazic origin. There is ample evidence in the ancient historical record. But, of course, it cuts across the biblical claim of return; so it must be dismissed out of hand.  But we can let that pass.

The point about Judaism as it developed between the destruction of the Temple and the authorship of the Talmud is that it is a Jewish nationalism in eschatological form.  It is a political project. Moshiach is a political, not spiritual, leader. The anointing of Jews as the priest class speaking directly to G-d and ministering over humanity is accompanied by the most material possible ambitions - basically the ownership of everything.  Meanwhile, the rest of humanity has no function but that of chattels.  One would like to believe that this is only the husk of the fruit.  But if that is all there is, it is an extraordinarily coarse and vulgar vision when compared to the sublime and towering spirituality of, say, Indian mysticism or the compassion of Buddhism.

From the outside, certainly, one observes Judaism’s methodology not by the greater spiritual attainment of Jews (there is, after all, the issue of chosen-ness, which renders such struggle unnecessary, hence the emphasis on intra-tribal respect and law) but by the stripping of specificity and identity from the rest of humankind, and humanity’s impress into the role of the servile gentile at the End Time.  One expects that Jews sincerely believe this estate to be the pre-requisite for a Pax Judaica.  But it’s really something quite different.  No people desires such a violent fate.  All peoples desire to be free, and possess no lesser right than Jews in that regard.

Psychologically, we might explain Judaism’s extraordinary, hyper-competitive teleology as a neurotic over-evaluation of evolutionary group fitness. Given the history of enslavement of the biblical Jews it is not too difficult to understand. Interestingly, when one looks at Germany after Versailles and through the period of hyper-inflation, we can see that some political forms present in Judaism also appeared in National Socialism. We can identify the Fuhrer, the Thousand Year Reich, racial supremacism, the enslavement of neighbouring peoples, all of which mirror the Judaic model in an absurdist style.  The real commonality, though, is the degradation and humiliation of conquest by a foreign people. The great difference is that the absurdist German model was not an evolutionary survival strategy.  Germans still held Germany and still, therefore, had an evolutionary point of reference in the soil. Jews did not have this, and made their evolutionary point of reference their host peoples.  There are many interesting adaptions to the European sociobiological character, of which the high Ashkenazic average intelligence, especially verbal intelligence, is the most marked.

Obviously, Jews are not going to see Olam Ha-ba.  Humanity is being ushered instead into the Fourth Industrial Revolution, and Jews have no special destiny therein.  In the meantime, we Europeans still have to cope with all the sociobiological impulses which inform the Judaic project, which carry on regardless.  It would be better for us both if Jews could lift their heads and survey the real world, as Richard Herrnstein did in co-writing The Bell Curve just before his death in 1994.  He understood the coming elitism.  He tried to warn his own people and ours.  No one listened, and instead he was attacked as a “racist” by the very kin he was trying to help.

Yesterday, after trailing his skirts for several months, Eric Zemmour finally announced his candidature for next April’s French presidential election.  He did so with a brilliantly crafted speech, which I reproduce below.

Nationalists, meanwhile ... real ones ... have likely already discounted the possibility that a Jewish anti-Islamist and culturist would, if elected, deliver a nationalist outcome.  Yes, he says “The Third Worldization of our country and our people impoverishes it as much as it disrupts it, ruins it as much as it torments it.”  But he also says, “So that the French will feel at home again and so that the latest arrivals assimilate to their culture and appropriate their history.”

Then there is much confusion caused by his adoption of Renaud Camus’s grand remplacement terminology (which Marine Le Pen has not taken up).  Does that signify adoption of the theory as such?  Is he at all hostile to non-Muslim foreignisation, if those foreigners integrate culturally?  Yes, he says “we will not allow ourselves to be replaced”.  Yes, he speaks of “the minorities who never stop tyrannizing the majority”, but is he speaking only of Muslims, Islam and jihad?

The one certainty is that his language and his candidacy will push the future of the true French to the centre of the campaign, and force the traitor-parties to speak of the one thing of which they are most afraid.  If, as seems possible, Zemmour beats Le Pen and the other challengers to proceed to the second round against Macron (presumeably), the Great Question of nationalism is very likely to become the great question of French politics, win or lose.  That much this man can do for true nationalists.

Here is his speech:

READ MORE...