Majorityrights Central > Category: Social liberalism

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...

Tom Sunic talks to GW and Daniel about the state of political nationalism in Europe and the problem of negative identity, and about the progress of thinking nationalism. 1hr 4min; 59.0 MB.

 

- 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..

           
Anti-racism is prejudice. It is not innocent. It is hurting and it is killing people.

After a delay, the administration’s final “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” regulation is now expected to be announced in December. Originally scheduled for finalization in October, the new Housing and Urban Development Department rules will force all cities and suburbs to accept subsidized housing in the name of racial diversity, superceding all local zoning ordinances.

The Orwellian-sounding regulation would force some 1,200 municipalities to redraw zoning maps to racially diversify suburban neighborhoods.
While temporarily punting away politically fraught issues may be smart politics, it’s cowardly leadership.

Under the scheme, HUD plans to map every US neighborhood by race and publish “geospatial data” pinpointing racial imbalances. Areas deemed overly segregated will be forced to change their zoning laws to allow construction of subsidized and other affordable housing to bring more low-income minorities into “white suburbs.” HUD’s maps will be used to select affordable housing sites.

It’s part of the administration’s ambitious agenda to eliminate “racial segregation,” ZIP code by ZIP code, block by block, through the systematic dismantling of allegedly “exclusionary” building ordinances. In effect, federal bureaucrats will have the power to rezone your neighborhood.

Of course, Obama and Democrats are loath to inject this decidedly radical issue into the elections, so they’ll keep it out of the headlines until after voters go to the polls.

While temporarily punting away politically fraught issues may be smart politics, it’s cowardly leadership.

If the president’s policies are so popular, why does he have to try to hide them from voters? And who can trust Democrats now distancing themselves from him and his ideas when they voted with him 99% of the time previously?

Paul Sperry, Hoover Institution media fellow and author of “The Great American Bank Robbery,” which exposes the racial politics behind the mortgage crisis - government attempt to increase minority home-ownership instigated the sub-prime housing crisis.

http://nypost.com/2014/10/26/obamas-plans-for-a-secret-radical-agenda-after-the-elections/

                   
http://whiterabbitradio.net/white-genocide-white-suburbs-soon-legally-forced-to-accept-racial-diversity

 

READ MORE...

                                     

While defending our ghetto square and the merits of strengthening our grass roots community by preaching there to its choir, deepening our understanding and resolve, it seems that at this point Majority Rights could also do well with forays to visit those down some side streets - to pursue interviews not only with those who are most aligned with our views, but also to follow a path of those who might be slightly off - i.e. slightly antagonistic to our views in a somewhat liberal direction, at least explicitly, while having some implicit sympathy through connection to our square, our cause; such that MR’s platform might bring-out that connection with their underlying fairness in concern for our people and our kinds. The more public, known or respectable the person, perhaps the better. They might come to us with an intent to criticize us or save face in cover inasmuch – fine. Perhaps we can stand corrected. That’s not so much the problem as coming-up with good candidates for this kind of discussion/debate, those who may be lurking in what are the shadowy side-streets for us. Therefore the reason for this post is to ask for suggestions as to fairly prominent/respectable liberals, etc. Those fairly askance of our views, but not so antagonistic as to be futile to hope to engage. Rather to pursue those who might be ripe to debate GW or another MR representative, to at least hear-us-out. We might see where the dimly lit path takes us…

READ MORE...

While distinguishing characteristics of Europeans may be the relative independence of mature individuals, sovereignty, self sufficience, autonomy and agency, can anybody really doubt that we are socially created and dependent upon cooperation to some extent and somewhere along the line? Lets not be absurd and value individualism so much as to lose its source.

As European peoples, the connections of our social systemic interdependence are protracted and delicate but as such, allow for their creative organization, coordination and the negotiation of win-win scenarios.

If both individual and our whole people are to be valued then in our separatist concern, let us finally share a narrative that honors those who harmonize our people while demonstrating effectiveness in removing interlopers and imposers upon our E.G.I.

For our tenuous but necessary social connectedness is also what allows these patterns of connection to be disrupted by hostile outsiders and the selfish, short-sighted and exploitative of our own -  whether less than ordinary folks or elite.

READ MORE...

                                         
Ayn Rand compared what she said were the “Sex, Drugs and Rock n’ Roll values - ‘the hippie motives’ on display at Woodstock” to

The Apollo 11 project, which had legions of well behaved admirers who descended upon Cape Canaveral to observe its event.

Now, if we couldn’t expect hippies, not even John Lennon, to be articulate of what was important about the hippie motive how can we expect Don Black and right wing cohorts to be articulate of their motives?

Don says Timothy Leary was the poster hippie boy with the emblematic phrase, “tune in turn on and drop out.” Not exactly.

And his colleague, “Don Advo,” preferred Ayn Rand’s take on hippies in “Apollo and Dionysus,” disparaging hippies by contrast to achieving technocrats, viz. contrasting the Apollo astronauts and witnesses to the Dionysian Woodstock performers and crowd.

But whereas Any Rand’s individualist objectivism was motivated to rupture the communality and other organization of European peoples by contrasting it with “heroic” but disingenuous individualism, the hippies did have a very important motive which is continually skirted-over by those who ignore the background of The Vietnam War Draft.

In rebellion against the draft, hippies were there at Woodstock, singing..

“Well, come on all of you, big strong men, Uncle Sam needs your help again. Yeah, he’s got himself in a terrible jam way down yonder in Vietnam. So put down your books and pick up a gun, gonna have a whole lotta fun.. and its one, two, three…

What are we fighting for? Don’t ask me I don’t give a damn, next stop is Vietnam”..

                 

“Ain’t no time to wonder why (Being, midtdasein, nah!) whoopee! we’re all gonna die!

Yeah, come on Wall Street, don’t be slow, why man, this is war au-go-go

Plenty good money to be made by supplying the army with the tools of its trade”

..and wondering like, how about V2 rockets re-directed for a peaceful mission? 

In all seriousness…

                    Buzz was there!

No, the hippies were not protesting The Apollo 11 moon landing!

Their fundamental project was very significant in the advance of European peoples -  a quest for midt-dasein - communal being amidst the class of one’s people for White males - as opposed to having those basic levels on the hierarchy of needs sacrificed by males in deprivation and privation; where a few males might make it through the stress to the higher reaches (often transformed into sociopaths for the effort), to the higher aims on the hierarchy of needs - e.g., exploring the moon. To where in fact, these traditional trade-offs in gender differentiation were exploited and exaggerated beyond reason.

Sacrificial White males on the way, as in Vietnam, no matter how needless, be damned.

The point is, these motives/needs should not and ultimately, in fact, cannot be mutually exclusive, but must be balanced in optimality. The hippies were not protesting the Apollo landing. They reasonably sought organicism and being in balance to technology. However, they might upset a Jew like Ayn Rand because they were insisting that the intrinsic value of White men - White male midt-dasein - be recognized, in fact its institution was/is a necessary priority.

                                   

But the hippies were inarticulate of that motive. Moreover, requisite to their motive of midtdasein was “racism” * - i.e., social classification and necessary discrimination thereof, duty when mature to guard the boundaries thereof - there is no being in one’s group without discriminating against its antagonists - ironically prohibited with the newly mis-coined “civil rights” making such requisite discrimination into a veritable taboo and largely illegal in fact. Needless to say that was hard to articulate at the time as it is still now. Midtdasein’s articulation was made yet harder by the fact that it could easily be emasculated against the traditional role/motive for males to quest after the top of the hierarchy and man-up in sacrificing the basic needs of the hierarchy. Furthermore, turning back from actualizing the top of the hierarchy apparently belied the whole American project as the “land of opportunity.” Indeed, White males would not necessarily want to sacrifice the possibility for the top of the hierarchy either. Nor would they want to sacrifice the middle - relationships with co-evolutionary women:

Sharon

..finally, they absolutely needed the basics on the hierarchy of needs if anything was to be possible for them. Indeed, how dare the powers-that-be try to end this beauty?

“Walking in Space”, Hair

Doors locked (doors locked)
Blinds pulled (blinds pulled)
Lights low (lights low)
Flames high (flames high)

My body (my body)
My body

My body (my body)
My body

My body
Is walking in space
My soul is in orbit
With God face to face

Floating, flipping
Flying, tripping

Tripping from Pottsville to Mainline
Tripping from Mainline to Moonville

(Tripping from “Pot"sville to Starlight
Tripping from Starlight to Moonville)

On a rocket to
The Fourth Dimension
Total self awareness
The intention

My mind is as clear as country air
I feel my flesh, all colors mesh

Red black
Blue brown
Yellow crimson
Green orange
Purple pink
Violet white
White white
White white
White white

All the clouds are cumuloft
Walking in space
Oh my God your skin is soft
I love your face

How dare they try to end this beauty?
How dare they try to end this beauty?

To keep us under foot
They bury us in soot
Pretending it’s a chore
To ship us off to war

In this dive
We rediscover sensation
In this dive
We rediscover sensation

Walking in space
We find the purpose of peace
The beauty of life
You can no longer hide

Our eyes are open
Our eyes are open
Our eyes are open
Our eyes are open
Wide wide wide!

“That is ‘my conviction..”

Still, we hear how hedonistic and bad these people were by people who want to blame White men and associate them with Jewish affectations of the era.

Articulating the motive of White male midtdasein was further complicated by its incommensurability and confusion with Jewish interests and right-wing interests - who sought to associate it with the Jewish radical agenda of Marxism: expressed as imposed liberalism for Whites but by contrast to that relaxation of vigilance, a unionized activism for non-Whites against Whites - the prim “civil rights” and upwardly black power totally incommensurate with White male midtdasein. As was Marcuse’s “free love and “poly- morphous perversion” incommensurate with White male midtdasein, especially as bounds of accountability and human ecology were ruptured as “violation of ‘civil rights”

The second wave of feminism, another thing wrongly correlated with hippies, was also in fact incommensurate, quite literally incommensurate with White male midtdasein.

In fact, it was the thesis of Betty Friedan, leading exponent of that second wave of feminism, that in order to be healthy, full and free, women needed access to the higher levels of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

                             

It is apparent how the “high grumbles” which Maslow called higher needs on the hierarchy, and as feminists who followed Friedan’s thesis would espouse, could cause extreme friction between White women and White men, who had the “low grumbles” of not wanting to be treated as being so intrinsically valueless as to have to be subject to a draft and die in a senseless foreign war of aggression; and rather than being left alone in peace, being amidst the class of their people, were subject in still further violation thereof - violation of their freedom from association with outsiders as imposed by “civil rights”  - violation of freedom from association, violation of midtdasein - taking away the most basic freedom of White men.

                                             
Of course Ayn Rand did not like Hippies, they were motioning to group, communal organization of Whites and care that included White male being as an intrinsic value - god forbid they would heal in organic and communal being, to be anything but sheer individuals who would stand no chance against her tribe’s hegemony and impositions.

                             

* Needless to say, along with hippies, Ayn Rand found “racism” appalling - disCusting!

 

Sometime back a fellow calling himself Lonejack agreed with my assessment:

Agree.

As a VN vet, I can attest to most of what you say. The effects of the VN-era conscription – that is, having been forced into slave-soldiering in a non-White country’s civil war orchestrated by bankers and corporations, having absolutely nothing to do with the actual defense of a White homeland, and calculatingly prosecuted by LBJ and his Ivy League YKW intelligentsia with absolutely no intent of military victory – reverberate to this day among the White guys who were in our late teens and early twenties during the 60’s, more than 50 thousand of whom died in combat, many of whom were captured and tortured, and hundreds of thousands of whom returned maimed, grossly disfigured, and/or dysfunctional only to be vilified, upon their return, by many elements of the society which sent them.

When I returned from overseas, my drop-out from family and society into the flower-child milieu had little to do with civil rights or free love. BTW I do not begrudge those who emigrated to Canada to avoid the draft. And, for those interested, the works of author Tim O’Brien, who “served” an extended “tour of duty” as an infantryman in SVN, are richly descriptive, compelling, and well written IMO.

Commenters on this site (Alt Right) and in other threads who incessantly demand the boomers to go fuck or shoot themselves, while they themselves consider employment with the Navy, CIA, SS, or some other corrupt, terrorist, anti-White ZOG organ of the NWO agenda – as though such employment would be anything more than a convenient way to escape a tough job market – do, I confess, grate. Why on earth would they willingly collaborate with evil, when alternatives, difficult though they be, are available?

My 2-bit rant.

Thank You Lonejack