Majorityrights Central > Category: That Question Again

Audio Version

....We have now reached a moment at which we can begin to know something of the process of this phony and crooked disease in the pathway we are following. At present, I don’t think there are very many of us. A few thousand maybe. But this is a very extraordinary epoch in which this knowledge is now becoming a part of the thinking of quite a lot of people. Thank god.

    - Gregory Bateson, “Paradigmatic Conservatism.”

I developed this hypothesis, which I call The Charmed Loop of Didactic Incitement, as an elaboration of Bateson’s Double-Bind hypothesis. I believe that it is at least a component or aspect of what he was talking about in that statement, specifically where he says, “We are beginning to know something of the process of this phony and crooked disease in the pathway we are following” .. he is alluding to a mechanistic process wherein abuse and exploitation under a phony rubric of “teaching” or “lesson giving” facilitate quantification of interests accruing to perpetrators, overcoming the borders and boundaries of the victims while the qualitative, niche ecological differences of victims are ground down, any recourse they might take apparently justifying the abuse.

Bateson culminates his epoch studies with a question, “As teachers, are we wise?”

Didactic Incitement is a predictable strategy of liberal internationalists, taking for granted the legitimacy of their incitement to a phony universal maturity. So long as the contextual force is strong enough to hold in place their interests over the victims, they can apply this for a steady increase and maximization of their interests at the expense of the victims, like stepping on a lever, a mechanism as it were, that continually overcomes their pattern boundaries, has them continually “pay up”, so to speak, their resources and warrant, as it continually reconstructs resource to their position at the continued exploitation, abuse and diminishment of the unfortunately positioned victims who desperately try to protect and conserve their sovereignty and native resource from this abuse.

Bateson added, “the road to hell can be paved with bad intentions as well.”

I propose The Charmed Loop of Didactic Incitement as a useful elaboration on Bateson’s Double Bind Theory.

The Double Bind proposed by Bateson in “Toward a Theory of Schizophrenia” entails:

1. A preliminary paradoxic injunction such as

“I am a liar”

“Disobey me”

“Be spontaneous!”

2. A prohibition of metacommunication - prohibiting talk about talk that might clarify the confusion, particularly to clarify good will or lack thereof on the relational level of perpetrator and victim.

3. A tertiary re-framing which prevents escape from the circumstance - for example, a child as dependent upon their parents cannot easily escape the field, and is therefore confronted with an intolerable choice between protecting their capacity for sensible judgement or the relationship - as mammals, relationships are profoundly important. And they begin to manifest communological pathologies (in a futile attempt to protect the necessary resource of their faculties, as one cannot not communicate)

There is no apparent way out, as one proves that the cruelty of didactic incitement is justified no matter what recourse is taken…

Didactic Incitement, that is to say abuse under the rubric of teaching, and making one tough, particularly if it is overdone and there is enough contextual force over the victim to keep them from escaping the field, can create a reflexively recursive phenomenon of a pernicious Charmed Loop.

No matter what avenue of escape the victim chooses, they will lose and only add to the warrant of the perpetrator’s recursively accruing interests.

READ MORE...

From the hubris of objectivism to the implicative force of Mulatto Supremacism

READ MORE...

by Daniel Sienkiewicz

When our advocates call our enemies the Left, they are making a crucial mistake: obfuscating our two greatest problems and the means of solution at the same time.

In an interview with Dr. Sunic, Professor MacDonald says, “these neocons, their only interest is Israel. [Otherwise] they tend to be on the Left [?]. They still are on the Left [?] when it comes to immigration. All these things are just really leftist.” [?]

Dr. Lowell says that “the Left” [?] has shipped industry and with it, jobs, to China.

In his article Women on the Left, Alex Kurtagic discusses some of the same subject matter that I had dealt with in a previous article, and to which I have given some consideration over the years – among that, sorting out different kinds of feminists in relation to White interests. In concluding that these “leftists” [?] have nothing to offer women, he places feminists in the same category: de Beauvoir, who did indeed fashion herself a leftist of sorts (taking women as her advocacy group, and Marxism as her guide), but was not Jewish; and Friedan, who was Jewish, but more liberal than a leftist.

In an interview for Alternative Right, Kurtagic goes on attacking “the leeeft, the leeeft, the leeeeft,” and I cringe, not for the reasons that he may think; ie, he may think that I am lamenting an attack on a centralized economy, or open borders multiculturalism, PC “enrichment”. Maybe he would think that I am waxing nostalgic for the Soviet Union where he and Sunic had the misfortune to grow up, or that I want to take away private property? Maybe he thinks I am cringing because I want to jealously limit his horizons, tell him what kind of art and architecture that he can have? Maybe he thinks I want everybody to be equal or treated equal? No, I am cringing because another perfect Jewish trick is being promoted to the detriment of White people.

These counterproductive ambiguities are circulating among our best advocates – hence the need of clarification and definition emerges salient. It is not about competing with them and showing them up; it is about getting the framework of our advocacy correct.

READ MORE...

Last November Daniel Sienkiewicz published an article at VoR criticising the tendency, prevalent in much WN intellectualism, to target “the left” rather than Jewish activism.  We agreed that I would reproduce the article with some minor revisions at MR and I would offer a commentary on it.  Daniel’s article will be published separately on our page immediately after this first part of my essay.  Here, I am going to put forward my own, no doubt idiosyncratic and shamelessly provocative view of the central problem here, which is the foundation of Jewish thought in the Western religious and secular intellectual canon, and the open doorway that offers Jewish ethnocentric activism.

I am English.  My beautiful, brave, precious people are, today, suffering a vast and shocking physical colonisation by, to my northern eyes, unbeautiful and utterly alien peoples.  These peoples are unadmired, unwanted and unloved by the overwhelming majority of us.  Our will in the matter is clear and is known, and is, on all historical evidential bases, perfectly justified.  But because the power of choice in the matter has been taken from us, and our dissent delegitimised, we can do absolutely nothing in our own defence.  As things stand, the colonisers will minoritise us within the normal lifespan of anyone in his or her early forties today, and beyond that tipping point lies only one foreseeable outcome for us: an increasingly dark and vertiginous descent to the hell of a despised and threatened rump minority.  My child will see the first, my unborn grandchildren the second.

By any reckoning, and notwithstanding the extended temporality of the process, this is a genocide event.  But it is a genocide that nobody is interested in talking about, which is odd because we are given to believe that the decent, educated liberal abhors genocide above all crimes, and strives mightily to eradicate it from the life of Man.  As a creature much given to moral crusades, to non-aggression and opposition to colonisations, to sniffing out any injustice, to empathising with victims, to human rights, and to peace in perpetuity you might think he would have some sympathy for the English, and for all Europe’s children who face this same terrible and final existential disaster.  But he cannot.  He just can’t do it.  Prior considerations exercise too much, in fact, vastly too much control over him.

READ MORE...

I know, a boring and predictable post.  But no matter how often I encounter the sheer brazen audacity of these repellent, racist creatures who, time and again, interfere against the interests our people, I still experience one of those lost-for-words, head-shaking moments.  Of course ... a Jew.  It has to be a Jew.

For the uninitiated, in England there is a practise among mainly Irish travellers (or gypsies) of buying up a few acres of agricultural land and invading it very quickly and en masse, laying concrete, putting in drainage and power, and occupying the site without planning consent.

Naturally enough, this causes much anguish among the local community, as they find their way of life infected by theft, filth and hostility from the newcomers.  It becomes impossible to move home.  It becomes unbearable to remain.  The local authority, having embarked upon the battle to evict the gypsies and reclaim the site, finds itself confronted by a cynical, human rights-savvy opponent accessing public funds to fight the public interest.  Years sometimes pass this way.  At Dale Farm, it’s been ten!  And now, Dr Jonathan Oppenheim - “one of the worlds leading physicists” - is doing his very best to prolong the agony for the real victims of the Dale Farm affair.

... his greatest contribution has been at the High Court where he has been pouring over planning law books and papers to help advise on the case. Yesterday the travellers successfully extended an injunction which prevents them from being evicted until next week.

“The eviction of Dale Farm is becoming increasingly untenable,” he said. “We are proving that the residents had a reasonable expectation that they would get planning permission because everybody around them was getting it.

“We say that the prime reason they are not being allowed to stay is because of fear against them.”

Of course, the “unfounded” and “irrational” European “fear” of the “other”.  Every Jew who has used that stratagem is projecting.  They can’t help it.  They must trespass against the host.  It’s their sociobiology.  As it’s ours, eventually, to see the pattern and call a halt to it.

by Alexander Baron

Imagine the following scenario; your nineteen year old daughter, the apple of your eye, announces with great fanfare that she has met the man of her dreams, and she’d like to bring him home to meet you and your good lady wife. You’re a bit surprised, because she has been a slow starter, but at the same time you are pleased. Yes, of course, you say, when? You arrange for her to bring home her first real boyfriend that weekend, and resist the temptation to ask her anything about him, like how old is he, what does he do for a living, etc. You trust in your daughter, she’s been raised correctly rather than politically correctly, and you know she doesn’t hang around with glue sniffers, junkies, binge drinkers or other undesirables.

The day comes, and you are sitting in the living room, laptop on knee, catching up with some paperwork, when the door opens, and your wife walks in. She is deathly pale. “John”, she says, “Susan is here with…him”.

You hadn’t heard the doorbell, but she has a key, and you were so engrossed in what you were doing that probably you wouldn’t have heard it ring in any case. Now though you are suddenly alert; there is something in your wife’s demeanour that warns you all is not well in the State of Denmark, and that very soon you are going to find out what.

You put aside the laptop, and as you stand up your daughter enters the room holding hands with…him.

You are confused, what day is it? June 1st, not April 1st.

“Daddy,” she beams, “this is Angus, and guess what, we’re engaged.”

This cannot be, you look at the guy, he’s white, but so is his hair. In fact he is not a day under eighty years old. You look at your wife, and smile uneasily. She shakes her head indicating that this is indeed not some sort of joke; your pride and joy really has brought home this old codger, and that what she says is true, they are indeed engaged.

How would you react? How would any parent react? You can’t be serious, my sweet. But she is. But he’s ... old. So are you, Daddy. But he’s older than me. Jesus Christ, he’s older than my father.
Can this be age-ism? Are you really so narrow-minded and bigotted? No.

What has age-ism to do with this sad state of affairs? Do you hate old people? Do you hate you own father? Do people usually hate their own grandparents, or anyone’s grandparents just because they are old?

READ MORE...

Continuing my present passage of discourse war at the Telegraph, I am pleased to say a debate about the Holocaust has finally come about.  Some Jews are unhappy with me.  Would you credit it?

It is in the thread to a piece by some old soldier who bears the distinction of having broken into Auschwitz III.  He observes that:

The Jewish workers from Auschwitz III camp, sometimes called Monowitz, were expected to die on the job.

... which I think is right.  He talks about the “sweet, ghastly smell” from the crematoria of Auschwitz II, but only mentions gas chambers in terms of rumours. “I was disappointed with what I had learned from one trip,” he says at the end.

We are still waiting to learn.