Majorityrights Central > Category: Popular Culture

Far from the purview of European / American men were two conceptual weapons which could be alternated arbitrarily, wielded in an instant by feminists (or wielded similarly and unwittingly by neo-traditional women, for that matter), as equipped with the cynicism of these memes to dismiss, in either case, recourse to two profoundly important European moral orderings.

Most significantly, one weapon was to deride Europe’s natural Aristotlean morality, its observation of optimality and relationships as central to human nature, and another to destroy the propositions and principles initiated by the likes of Kant to gird, e.g., against arbitrary vicissitudes of empirical philosophy being taken too far – but in either case, the weapons distinguish females (including White females, of course) as having a separate moral order not beholden to White men and thus not beholden to Europeans as a system with shared social, moral capital and human ecology of millennia.

Deep within the wallowing abyss of de Beauvoir’s “The Second Sex”, its talk of “sacred ministry of betrayal” feeding extant dissatisfactions in females, lurked these weapons - far out of the casual purview of White men to apprehend from whence came what hit them and what it was about.

Betty Friedan (1963), with the modernist, “she’s just like one of the boys and, if liberated to participate, may do-so as an equal” approach to feminism, was the preeminent figure in the second wave of feminism; she took as her point of departure this line from Simone de Beauvoir, 1948, page 672: “This utility of the housekeeper’s heaven is the reason why she (speaking of traditional women) adopts the Aristotlean morality of the golden mean, that is, of mediocrity.”

My hunch that was her source inspiration is borne-out through multiple connections.

Carol Gilligan (1982), with the neo-traditional angle focusing on qualitative differences of females, but still within the feminist framework, also took a line from de Beauvoir as her point of departure - 1948, Page 681: “ but she knows that he himself has chosen the premises on which his rigorous deductions depend.. but she refuses to play the game.. she knows that male morality as it concerns her, is a vast hoax.”

My observation that this was the source for Gilligan was confirmed by Helen Haste, a colleague of Gilligan’s at Harvard.

While there are other significant non-Jewish feminists, forebears besides de Beauvoir, it is true that de Beauvoir’s feminist philosophy has roots in Marx’s notion that marriage and patriarchy are veritable slavery - women’s “liberation requires that these institutions be overturned, a revolutionary act corresponding to liberation of all.”

The situation was made ripe for exploitation and runaway by the logical extension of modernity, well-meaning at first as a liberation from mere, but harmful traditions and superstitions, it ran rough-shod and ruptured accountable social classification – their utility naivly or disingenuously pushed-aside in favor of the objectivist scientism of Lockeatine civil rights, objectivist neo-liberal capitalism, and seized upon in distortion by “neo-cons”, but not before these wielded “objectivist” rights were fundamentally weaponized and reversed in form against Whites, by Jews, Marxists re-deploying these ideas in the form of “anti-racism” and “civil rights” - discrimination against Whites and the prohibition of discrimination by White men.

Underpinning susceptibility to this all along was their saboteurs ticking time-bomb - liberal affectation planted into European culture and becoming more deeply embedded over 2,000 years; viz., in contrast to the exclusivity of Jews, (as GW notes) Judeo-Christianity’s propositional altercast as undifferentiated gentiles in the eyes of god, to include any race in its moral order, and the disordering effect of modernity to traditional European moral orders was virtually a necessary consequence.

With racial bounds broken but classification still necessary to human perceptual organ- ization, the least ignorable categories emerged in de facto high relief and resonance – gender being one of them. Within the disorder the female one-up position in partner selection (don’t think so? she’ll call upon the goon squad to show you who is boss) emerged with increased significance, whereupon they are pandered-to from males of every direction and most importantly, cynically and cunningly, by Jews, of course, to betray their co-evolutionary males. With White men vilified thus and White females pandered-to constantly, even puerile White females become articulate, over- confident, correspondingly under-empathetic, sometimes brazen with self righteous entitlement and prerogative.

Jewish interests can take advantage of this; demoralize their adversaries by pandering to their co-evolutionary females in this position and the atavistic denominator of the disorder; for marked example, by promoting the high contrast tropism of White/black mixing –blacks being the other category hardest to ignore despite prohibition on class- ifications –while the prohibition of discrimination leaves the more protracted rate of maturity of White men susceptible to the more episodic, atavistic assertion of blacks.

Professor Pearce (with Rossi) might add that within the paradoxic performance requirements of feminism there is nothing even a well-intentioned male can do if a feminist wishes to put him in the wrong: If he treats her as one of boys, then he may be construed as a male chauvinist pig, who does not respect the special quality of her gender. If he treats her with deference to the special qualities of her gender, he can be construed as a condescending patriarch and/or a wimp who does not respect her agency, autonomy and independence.

The situation is only going to be perpetuated by a paradoxic (really, “quaradoxic”) phenomenon that Whites are prone to be up against, what I call the charmed loop of didactic incitement: This does require that sufficient power is brought to bear against Whites, but it is a likely predicament given social injunctions against discriminatory social classifications rendered by White men and the heavily pandered-to one-up position of females within the disorder of modernity; along with its exponentially more powerfully positioned puerile female inclination to incite genetic competition.
___________

The Dark Side of Self Actualization Intersecting Incommensurate Gender Agendas: Corrective Structures and Systematization -

In this essay I will re-tell the story of how I began to understand and organize gender relations at the intersection of race and individualism in order to diagnose attendant problems and prescribe corrections. I will make refinements with what I have learned since initial instantiations of this hypothesis. I feel compelled to make this case again as there are popular sites in WN which are taking on the issue and I do not trust them to handle it well. For very specific reasons I have long held that there should be a platform for White men/males that both advocates them and is critical of female predilections, inclinations, politics. This will start out with a critical tone, as it is necessary to get to critical parts right away, but there is a happy ending for both genders.

In my first renderings of this hypothesis, I took Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs (which he also referred-to as a hierarchy of motives), as a preliminary framework in need of correction. That remains a particularly useful point of departure for a working hypothesis to address problems: of where and how individualism, peoples’ predica- ment within modernity and incommensurate gender relations may be exacerbated and pandered-to; whether by hostile interests (e.g., YKW) or indifferent interests (e.g. naive or disingenuous objectivist/relativists, neo-liberals); thereby rupturing racial bounds which could otherwise facilitate systemic homeostasis; instead runaway and reflexive reversals is perpetuated -e.g., “the dark side of self actualization.”

“I don’t have to tell you about the tyranny of patterns, that is the rubric under which we meet. What you may not know is that you have to accept them.”  - Bateson

But rather than merely accept them, the proposition here is that we recognize them, take them to heart and work with them instead of against them.

For good reasons, I took Maslow as the preliminary framework against which to propose corrections (will explain momentarily). Neither is it necessary to discard the diagnosis of toxicity in this model of higher needs being founded in hierarchical succession upon maximal fulfillment of more fundamental needs, particularly as it has played-out in - and been an influence of - the pop-culture of European-American relations; nor is it necessary to alter its proposed general correction of taking attendance to needs and motives into a circulating process based on the Aristotlean recommendation of optimal levels of need satisfaction and the centrality of human concern for relations.

Unlike Maslow’s terms for the constituent needs, I have ever (since the early 90s) proposed four terms (the number of four terms are taken for reasons that I will explain) in place of the terms that he uses in this hierarchy –

Socialization, Being, Routine/Reverence and Self Actualization in a circulating management are proposed instead.

“Just a few more words added to his grammar of motives might change a sociopath into a decent man.” - Kenneth Burke
  - thus…

READ MORE...

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...

The Short and The Long of It.
     
                    Marli

                                              Long version
                     

Jez Turner is under no illusions as to the powers-that-be: capitalist-marxist-liberal, they are heads of the same beast and not going to grant us our autonomy without a fight.

However, they are experts, of course, in exploiting our weaknesses, providing diversions, disempowering and demoralizing our people. Consequently, motivating our people to fight as a group, in our group interests, is problematic.

Bearing in mind that what is meant by “fight” in this post is not necessarily literal combat but all aspects of fighting for our interests..

On the topic of organizing the motivation* of our fighters then, we might refer to war historian, Prof., Sir Hew Strachan’s thoughts on the matter.

He observes that some motivations of fighters are not recognized because they are out of fashion and not cool to tell the public.

Of course a state sanctioned excuse for exercising blood-lust and revenge among the particularly violent is just a mask and direction of already existing motivation - which requires to be directed appropriately therefore. To gain cooperation from a balance of the population requires a normalizing if not ennobling of incentive/motivation.

Humanitarian concern - higher national ideals - booty.

Humanitarian concern is considered a legitimate public reason nowadays. And it can be one reason why fighters are legitimately motivated.

Higher national ideals can be and have been traditionally a reason why people fight - they still are, but it is not so cool to state as a motivation nowadays (largely as a result of vast over-compensations in that regard in the World Wars).

Booty is even more stigmatic nowadays to cite as your motivation. Yet, Strachan observes, this has been the primary reason for most fighting though the ages. He notes that this motivation initially became problematic and remains problematic as wars have emerged more often a liability than a profit - hence, no profit to be shared.

But particularly when the matter is taking back resources that are our co-evolutionary birthright, there might be reward to motivate and allocate to our peoples for fighting. Humanitarian concern would work there as well, as there are clear matters of inhumaneness to our peoples, injustice - justice to be had. While we work on the meta-national** narratives that GW advises as necessary inspiration..

The question becomes the formulation, the proportion and the content:

Humanitarianism, Nationalist Ideals and Booty

* Kant would call these “incentives” as they are appeals to external reward as opposed to “motives”, which are internally driven.

** GW would probably not approve of the word “meta” in this context but I used it deliberately, to make a point that meta-communication is neither wholly nor necessarily disconnected from the essential.
—————————
Paul Craig Roberts on the Wolfowitz Doctrine, Glass-Steagall repeal and other neo-con implications for America’s future.
—————————

READ MORE...

READ MORE...

Remember This when you hear an official story from the kosher Media:

We are the Media .. I call it Wedia .. their media is the enemy…

Sooo…. we do our own research and we are not graduates of Brandeis, Harvard, U.C Berkeley, London School of Economics, or University of Chicago.

We have street experience , common sense , and advocate for our own people.. the people referred to as goy , gringo , honky , white boy , and shiksa.

If you disagree with us you are anti white.. and we walk away.. no arguments from our side .. we do not debate we agitate for our folk..

We are now the wandering Eury.. we are all over the world now .. we are growing powerful and we will prosper..

We created the internet .. that is our infrastructure.. no matter where we are .. yes they have made us revolutionaries for our folk..

Northern.. Southern.. Eastern.. Western European ..We are family.. We are strong..

We will create new institutions.. large families.. sustainable habitats ..

We will disconnect from Talmud Vision.. we will stay home away from college and professional sports.. we will stay out of casinos ( unless it is to encourage blacks , browns , and reds to get drunk and play poker )

We white men will stop watching sports, spend time with our families, and have more time and money to have large families. { no more fantasy football.. btw what a disgusting term}

We will create beautiful music again with inspiring lyrics.. such as this song..

Sons of Somerled.. only 4 seconds of an ad….... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G61AmCqtzN4

White Lives Matter ..Will Not Remain Silent

Love each other and no white on white violence..

- Stanistan (Stan Hess)

Revealed here (below, press Continued) by this whining rant, Dutchsinse, and those like him, are beginning to get their own ‘just deserts’ for past weak-kneed acceptance of liberal k***j*w equalitarian multi-culturalism. Others fought it for decades, too often to be confronted by such a**holes as this, who now too late ‘see the light’.

                    - Bob in D.C.

READ MORE...

- saw this one at a time when my mood was a bit down and it caught me just right, picked up my attitude on the fairer sex entirely.

- OK, the film is encouraging some liberalism (and some conservatism too), dating outside the ethnicity, but at least not outside the race entirely..and that’s somehow not the point anyway

- heard some unflattering criticism of Margi Clark since, but only hearsay for what I know

- some interesting things about the screenwriters as well…

- but anyway, I liked it ...and it seems to be a film that works for both men and women.

....a little humor here, don’t start accusing me of being a communist or a Soviet, please… I saw Brezhnev’s face in the newspaper once, thought it was funny and painted this cartoon of him..