Majorityrights Central > Category: Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests

                                            - By Dr. Graham Lister

Look, I don’t have the time or inclination to point-out the half-baked thinking of MR’s commentators or interviewed guests (if I think them to be in error). Kevin MacDonald can defend himself can he not? After all, if his ideas are completely robust how can he be subject to a ‘humiliation’? All ideas, political, philosophical and scientific, have to be stress-tested in order to investigate their validity. Why anyone is so much of a ‘special snowflake’ that they get an apriori exemption from this process is beyond me.

Now, no-one that’s sane thinks the individual per se can or should be ‘abolished’, but people have very odd and damaging ideas about what ‘the individual’ is and what it represents - such that over the longer term the ideology of ‘individualism’ has extremely deleterious effects as its model of reality is not in alignment with the true social ontology. Human beings, including Europeans, evolved in small, highly social/group orientated bands. It’s really not rocket science to understand that variation in fitness is partitioned into a group element and an individual element (whilst obviously selecting for or against specific alleles and associated phenotypic traits). In fact, such an observation mathematically and logically flows from basic population genetics, which Hamilton went on to describe as ‘inclusive fitness’ and the importance of relatedness to the evolution of behaviour and life history traits (like female biased sex-ratios in the Hymenoptera etc). Price simplified inclusive fitness theory with his work. And it’s developed since. Steven Frank’s book on social evolution is still the best starting point for anyone seriously interested in the topic.

Returning to the politics and philosophy parts of the discussion, Aristotle is my favourite thinker in these areas. First of all, he would suggest that a proper balance between the ‘parts’ and the ‘whole’ (individuals and the group) is necessary for both to fully flourish. There is a mutual interdependence and reciprocity between the two levels of social reality. Secondly, Aristotle would suggest that there may be many ways to live (like being a Lockean liberal perhaps), but many ways to live are ultimately sub- optimal with the goal of full and genuine human flourishing. And this is true at both the individual level and the group level. And yes the interests of a given individual and a given group can be conflict (again this flows from very basic evolutionary biology and the game-theoretic issue of ‘free-riders’). Thus there must be mechanisms for maintaining the health of both individuals and the collective. It starts by the recognition of the fact that the individual is social and utterly dependent upon the collective in numerous ways that liberal ‘individualistic’ ideology willfully ignores.

Ultimately, I reject liberalism as a set of false ideas about the human world - it has the ontology of humans both as individuals and as communities wrong. Bad ideas eventually result in bad consequences and one hopes vice versa. Thus, I am broadly an Aristotelian communitarian. And I think that must incorporate the realities of human nature (groupishness) and our bio-cultural differential status regarding different groups of human beings. Note, it’s a political axis of differences (bio-cultural) that ultimately ends up in the Schmittian friend-enemy distinction, not some bullshit about equality vs inequalities except that I very naturally value my own well being and life more highly than a random stranger’s and I also value the life of my extended community both today and tomorrow (the idea of an intergenerational ‘moral economy’).

Being a non-liberal, I am against cheap all-encompassing forms of universalism or the moral plateau as philosophers call it. Rather I believe in a nested hierarchy of moral responsibility. I have much more moral duties to my own children than my next door neighbour’s kids, let alone some family in China (that of course does not imply I, by default, hate people in China or wish them harm just that I feel I have minimal moral responsibilities towards them). But I do have some properly warranted moral responsibilities to my neighbourhood and my community. Moral responsibility varies with proximity (properly understood).

Roger Scruton writes about a hierarchy of moral responsibility often. Here he speaks about in the context of the absurd (and liberal) idea of ‘animal rights.’

OK, I have previously attempted on many occasions to write about and explain my thoughts on topics such as societal homogeneity and social capital etc. I will not endlessly repeat myself.

As for the idiotic, paranoid reaction by some to my reappearance, it was simply a function of me taking a quick look at MR in a quite moment and seeing folks speculation about my death! And I posted some chucks from an essay I had been reading. I am starting to get to grips with using a tablet and MR as a site isn’t the easiest to use; so out of laziness I didn’t put the comments in quotation marks. Only when someone posted them to the front page as my own did I feel duty-bound to privately point out that fact. But they’re still good points that I agree with about 90%

No coordination with Danny or GW etc. Seeing a conspiracy at every turn is how Jews think - they project onto others their own deeply ingrained mindset. It’s both pathetic and undignified to follow that way of thinking quite so slavishly.

Speaking of slaves, can anyone seriously doubt the USA is a vassal state of Israel? The best superpower money can buy? And yet Americans still persist in their hurbris that they are the model Europeans ‘must’ follow? Look, if KM or indeed anyone else is pushing that as some sort of ‘idea’ they can go fuck themselves. Savvy?

If Mr. Bowery wishes to contribute to MR go for it. Who the fuck cares either way?

Adventures of a racialist following trance and fate - to Sicily and Poland.

Continuing to expound upon said adventures here and here.

It marked a difference of this group, an Amherst Alanon meeting of thirty or so, as I bluffed in the same way that I would, by standing up and pretending to shoot with my finger – Bang! Bang! Bang! But from this group ensconced at a church literally across the street from Emily Dickinson’s house – nothing. No reaction. They looked calmly upon me as only a harmless fool - A bullfrog on a lily pad. ..I’m nobody, who are you?

I foretold them that the Sicilians would act differently.

More than a year later, it was August of 1996, when at a similarly conciliatory meeting of similarly normal people seated in the same circular formation, I stood up, raised my finger like a gun barrel and shouted Bang! Bang! Bang! aiming at the Sicilians in rapid turn around the room in Aci Creale to their immediate fright and panic. To them, it was quite possible that this would be a real gun.

I woke up late on a morning as it turned September to see an unusual funeral procession moving through Piazza Duomo. Two coffins were being moved.
                                                                                                                                           
I saw the names of those who I would learn were Salvatore Botta 14 and Santa Puglisi 22, the nephew and niece of a rival mafioso. They were shot on August 27th while attending the funeral for Santa’s husband – who had also been shot..

READ MORE...

The Short and The Long of It.
     
                    Marli

                                              Long version
                     

Some Mulatto with a White French mother (and White French girlfriend) intimates a stiff-arm salute and right-wing revisionism and he’s one of us? I think not.

Jews are bad for us. Ok, enough evidence. But from there the right goes on to stretch the inference, to where blacks are ok. ? Some are wise to the J.Q., some are separatists who need guidance to help the rest understand that we only want separation as well, not their exploitation, but to kiss their ass and act like they are in our interest group? Give us a break. To make matters worse, the right not only typically panders to blacks, but condemns Southern and Eastern Europeans as not being in our interest group.

The right has the hallmarks of a lack of courage and a general policy of pandering.

Among that, the right pander to negrophilic inclinations and diversions coming from females (the problem is only the “Muslims” or only the “Jews”) to mask their cowardice of standing up for our European people. They admire Dieudonné.

This perspective is allowed by female gate-keepers to Jewish and corporate power, and their divide and conquer as it augurs to have Europeans fighting one another; pandering to the basest puerile female inclination of incitement to competition - “don’t worry about those pretty mudsharks, or those rabid blacks getting over”, it doesn’t bother some White woman, whose fat-ass is in a powerful control point and can drive a hard bargain as a result.

And they (right-wingers) don’t wonder why Atzmon thinks Dieudonné is wonderful?

                                       

Je ne suis pas Dieudonné

They might be able to get through female gate-keepers some, get on one side of a divide and conquer in their incitement - e.g., as favored by a particular group of European females.

That is a dubious strategy, let alone of merit as a battle plan. The troops, the people in full, as it were, must be grounded in their cause and authentically motivated as they will not be sufficiently, only focused on Jews. When you tell a young man that the tossing aside of what he is born to see as his ultimate treasure is not an important problem, or that some Mulatto with a lovely French wife is OK, simply because he coddles Faurisson’s focus on gas chambers and memes some covert intimation of a stiff-arm salute, how is that supposed to help his morale and address his concrete, fundamental concerns? And how is it supposed to gain her respect? Never mind an appropriate White woman for him. We hate Jews! Now that’s inspiration!

We can see who these self described elite don’t like. Who do they care about? Not White women, obviously, apparently not White men. Perhaps one other guy, one with E1b1b, if not the Jew on a stick ..besides perhaps advancement of their own position.

The last time I was in Paris, I had planned to stay five days but could only manage two. I was so absolutely disgusted, outraged to see the kind of women whom I might dream of, only to see them with blacks. I had to get out, retreat to save my sanity.

Some right-wingers are saying we have to drop everything, basically adopt blacks and others as a part of our interest group and focus only on Jews. Blacks are OK, mudsharks are just genetically defective. Talk about someone whose balls have shriveled-up.

This is a woman of German descent, I care that she not do this and believe that she is not genetically defective – don’t you believe she has been corrupted?

Until fairly recently, I wondered to myself what were the genetic components among European women that made them most resistant to out-breeding. It was an intriguing question to me. It still is, to a limited extent. To my surprise, I found myself changing - upon a more complete survey of what is going on. I do believe that corruption of the culture and rule structure is the deeper concern. There are just too many Europeans who were perfectly good for centuries who are suddenly doing this, rupturing their ancient lines – it cannot all be written-off as genetic defects. It is a second black plague, but coming from different rats and using cultural auspices as its vector. This is not time for the medieval medicine of Christianity nor of scientism for that matter.

While being against the Jew is absolutely necessary and a primary concern, an antagonist of ours second to none, that is not a full culture, not even a grounding of an army to fight. The hermeneutic perspective implied by Majority Rights would be, as it premises our outlook on the full genus and species of our European peoples, the reconstruction of the ecologies of our cultures and people, addresses problems of our own making and ranks, problems and antagonists in due course.

The two world views that the right puts forth are Christianity and Hitler.

Some may foolishly wish to ignore the Trojan horse that is Christianity. Most people cannot play with its obvious absurdity, do not like the games that charlatans play “to make sense of” and dupe us with those tarot cards; others readily see the Trojan horse for what it is, implications of its texts and what it leads to being all too obvious.

Matt Parrott says that he has “given up on the generation 68ers,” but that appears to be just more of his bureaucratic straw-manning for the right –  brushing aside competition with false attributions of people who might know better and not let people put one over on younger folks. Perhaps he has a wish to see everyone who opposes Hitler and Jesus as “sixty eighters” whereas the hip kids “get it.” “ We are generation Identitaire!” - it is not the fault of the Jews or the right-wing White elitists and plutocratic traitors, it is the fault of older White people - older than Matt, anyway. It appears to be just an attempt to push-aside competition for the position of spokesman who might maintain that position by blowing smoke up the ass of the young and naive with Jesus stuff or pander to women with Hitler shit.

The well motivated idea is not to abandon “teaching” 68er’s, as his straw man suggests, but to allow the experience and abilities among those whom it may concern, though a bit older than Matt, to contribute to European interests where they might. And if they do not believe in Hitler and Jesus that does not mean that they need to be shamed, but rather that their experience has them honestly looking at these darlings of the right for their inadequacies and that they are prepared to forge a new, more authentic European way of life, unlike the young fogies made incredibly self righteous by the mixed fortune of growing up with the Internet.

Andrew Anglin says his eyes watered when he saw the clip of Nazi girls doing exercises in unison, he gushes over the rallies for Hitler, expresses admiration for the assimilation of the lock-step eusocial behavior of animal species such as birds, ants and bees. I find this sort of thing and the rallies, a whole nation beholden to one ranting inter-European war-monger, Hitler, repugnant; and I do not think that I am alone of any generation. Nor am I a baby boomer or a generation 68er, but an Xer – I will cop to that; I recognize a great deal of selfish destruction among the baby boomers (like a swarm of locusts); more, that the world war 2 generation were bamboozled by the context of the war into accepting radically anti-White changes, much commenced in The 1950’s. But to blame hippies, i.e. White men, is a convenient diversion for the Right to pander to feminist bitches and take the Jewish and corporate deflect at once.

No, I will not accept blame for things that happened before I was born or when I was a small child. I will not see myself as a failure because my attempts to do something about it were not facilitated by the Internet.

As I have mentioned previously, I can tell you from that perspective that the Internet provides huge advantages. Life is so much easier, everything from word processing to information acquisition, confirmation and comraderie is possible in a way that was impossible before. There is not much good to be said for years of isolation. However, it did not allow one to easily bypass lived experience and plug into what is mistakenly, sometimes badly mistakenly, presented as a fully considered system such as Hitler’s. One was forced to live through and see plainly the fact of its philosophical failures (along with the failures of liberalism).

As it stands and amidst the vast destruction of European peoples, the right reacts with renewed conviction in “the tried and true” - really, the tried and failed - Jesus and Hitler, rather than a genuine holistic concern for our peoples, which these views certainly are not. It pretends that we must put all aside in order to focus on the Jew. By ignoring our concern as a people with a complete, authentic set of concerns, they can engraft HItler worship as a pseudo-justification, as the Jew is presented as an all encompassing concern. Thus, taking comfort for their disastrous war plan as put forth by their savior, Hitler; failing that, they might fall back on Jesus as savior, rather than a concern for our people.

If sheer faith in Jesus or natural competition resulted in appropriate genetic pairings and justice then what is happening with miscegenation would not happen. The attitude of “just let it happen, the defective will be weeded out”, is very poorly considered.

Seeing that our people are not the true concern and that White men are not able to hold up to Jews and blacks because they are not organized by these “leading voices”, by anything other than Jesus and Hitler, females will allow for the Jesus guys to beguile people from their hypergamy; and allow for the Hitler guys to prevent the ethnocentric from coming up with a better solution, better cultural guidelines to supersede the horrific injustice and destruction as a result of stupor and exploitation; they will revert to scientism, “nature’s competition, the way it is”, so say our god, Adolf. One of their hopes is to add females to the ranks by pandering to their most puerile inclination to incite competition. “Blacks are ok, they were no problem before the Jews manipulated them.” Talk about weak White men. And how does that hold up to EGI? Do we really need them so badly that we can ennoble them and their White women because they might think they are wise to the J.Q.? Will not people, our own included, respect us more if we do not pretend that we care so much about them, as much as ourselves, even to where their fucking us, literally, is no problem?

Hitler was great, he targeted millions of Slavics for elimination – pretty White women and all. Get rid of that competition. Seems to be a pattern among the right.

Again, some take the tack that we should not worry about these White women going to blacks, they are genetically defective and being weeded-out. That is small consolation and when one views, even by happenstance, the White women that non-Whites are getting it finally becomes apparent that genetics cannot be all of the problem.

There is something to be said for the men who will not try to rationalize it; and a wariness that should be applied to the kind who do rationalize it, as the ones with bad instincts for our people, who contributed to getting us into this mess in the first place. The idea that one who hates miscegenation is being distracted from the J.Q. is nonsense, as I have said all along, as it inexorably leads to the J.Q. through investigation of its various causes.

President Sarkozy, in 2008, obligating the native French to interbreed with non-Whites

While I used to be more curious about what sort of women would be least disposed to this, now I do see the culture and its rules as more fundamental an issue. As humans, we are born very incomplete, and it is incumbent upon those looking after the social rule-structures of our culture to assimilate the proper guidance of our behaviors, even to our own best interests. We could say, like Uncle Adolf, that it is all about competition and struggle at bottom, denying human agency and the corrective guidance of culturally mediating rules, parenting, stewarding and cooperation between European groups. We can allow his e1b1b and all is struggle at bottom perspective to work its wonders, pandering to those who would just as soon see Europeans kill one another for all it really cares about Europeans.

But if we are to be true to ourselves, yes, we must be vigilant against Jews and the Israel Lobby as they operate against European interests from seven choke points and their genetic/cultural pattern; we must be vigilant against their liberal Marxist lackeys - Je ne suis pas Charlie. But neither are we Dieudonné. It is also undoubtedly a part of female nature to get-off on acquiescing to the victorious bully. We must be vigilant against the Right’s pandering - including pandering to the increased one-up position of females within he disorder of modernity, where they are more powerful gate-keepers than ever - with the rupture of social classificatory bounds through anti-racism their base propensity to incite genetic competition more arbitrary than ever, where there will be guys coming from every direction, looking to show how tough they are by pandering to females as to how “objective”, rational, above it and liberal that they are.

But No.

Je ne suis pas Dieudonné

READ MORE...

We will continue on moral high ground of our position, advocating all peoples of native European descent, the maintenance of our discreet national and sub-national kinds.

We are separatists, seeking the sovereignty of our peoples, not supremacists seeking to impose-upon, the exploitation or the destruction of others.

​We will continue our course of being unfettered by traditional religions and their ill-fit to European interests.

We will continue to hold the position that Jews are not European and are not a part of our interest group.

We will continue with our quest for homeostasis in European peoples, moving from the more comprehensive social systemic and historical view of our peoples to the deep and close readings that GW gives.

We will be unfettered by Nutzism and any absurd claim that it had the best interests of all Europeans at heart. It can only be dangerously divisive and it is not too much intellectual work to utilize similar ideas as theirs for whatever good they might have been doing while rejecting the obviously destructive ones.

We will be having more interviews and podcasts. In fact, we have three or four on the near horizon:

One featuring GW and Jez Turner promises to be fascinating - two men with long and intimate understanding of the nationalist struggle in Britain.

James Bowery will be having a discussion with Frosty Wooldridge - that will not only be interesting, but important.

Greg Johnson will be talking to us about Heidegger, maybe more. I certainly look forward to that; every nationalist should.

Paul Weston will be talking to us again prior to the elections. GW hopes to support his efforts and we look forward to all going well as Paul has the potential to be an outstanding spokesman for our cause - natives of European nations; and in his case, of course, native Britain in particular.

Those are just a few of the exciting interviews and podcasts on the horizon.

We will be looking to add a few new writers to our staff.

We will also be looking to cooperate with a DNA lab to begin the efforts of “curating” our peoples so to speak. We look for suggestions, which geneticists to use and more.

Let us know how Majority Rights can serve your interests as a person of indigenous European descent. If your suggestion is in good faith and fits within our rather broad parameters we would love to hear from you. It is an honor to serve this cause.​

                                        Anti-immigration protests in Rome

People of Tor Sapienza interviewed by Italian TV networks say that they are forced to go out in the morning carrying a knife for fear of assaults, and that in the area every 100 metres there is an apartment building of squatters while “our own people have no home.”

They say that men and women are unemployed. A girl says that she’s about to lose her job and her mother and brother are jobless, so she’s going to ask for the hospitality of the immigrant centre: 30 euros a day, accommodation, food, and cigarette voucher— not a bad deal.

            - Enza Ferreri on anti-immigration protests

A few weeks ago Daniel sent a request to Frank Salter, author of On Genetic Interests, to consent to be interviewed for MR Radio.  He was then in the process of a double-session interview with Red Ice.  We hope he might be interested in a more intellectually demanding approach to his thesis in OGI and his hopes for European peoples in the West.  He was unavailable.

In anticipation of a positive reply from Dr Salter I had scribbled down some questions – heads of discussion, really - which I hoped to put before him.  It is unlikely that they will be asked in that form now.  I thought they might be of interest to readers all the same, duly embroidered with some of my own understandings which would have emerged in the discussion.

1. Academics, science and politics

Dr Salter, you describe your profession as that of a political scientist and ethologist engaged in studying the motivational and organisational aspects – the laws that are at work, if you like -  in human group dynamics.  In the process you have afforded us all some unique insights into normative human behaviour, most particularly in the central thrust of On Genetic Interests.  Purely for myself, I would like to thank you for that; and I’m sure very many others with our politics would feel the same.

(a) Can I begin by asking how you see yourself and your work?  Is an ethologist like you, with his basis of work with empirical data, fundamentally of the humanities or the sciences?  How do your politics, which are clearly quite nationalist, influence your selection and formulation of research projects?  Do you have to make additional efforts to function as a disinterested researcher, while your peers down the corridor in the politics and sociology faculties are quite free to operate as de facto campaigners for progressive causes?

(b) More than a decade since the death of Stephen J Gould, and with the Sociobiology Study Group a forgotten entity, what is your assessment generally of the state of truth-speaking in the biological sciences, in particular about human difference?  Would you say that the era of strict censorship has passed, and academic freedom now obtains?  Or has the focus merely moved from a rigid control on what can be studied to a more subtle but no less widespread control of how studies can be framed, how results can be presented, and so forth?

(c) What kind of reception have your conclusions had among your academic peers?  For example, has EGI, as a concept, been discussed by, or even incorporated in the thinking of, other political scientists with your ethological focus, or that of evolutionary biologists and psychologists, or even sociologists?

2. Politics and the public discourse

READ MORE...

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...