Majorityrights Central > Category: Social liberalism

For those who might be put-off, initially or even ultimately, by the subject matter discussed here, I would refer to that old adage, that “if all you know well is one thing, then you really don’t even know that very well.”

Part 3 of the analysis of

John Shotter’s “Social Accountability and the Social Construction of ‘You”

READ MORE...

George is addressed with a consideration of acting-into an altercast position in conflict with his less than socially ideal plans.



As opposed to a libertarian, prioratizing dreams of individual adventure and world travel, George contemplates acting-into, shaping and crafting the specificatory structure altercast by Mary, who addresses him as a man of ideals, which of necessity compel adjustment of those priorities to practical duty: to a position rather as husband and community builder, upheld against capitalist destruction thereof.

..........

Analysis: John Shotter’s Social Accountability and the Social Construction of “You” Part 2

In pursuit of this analysis, we may usefully trace background to Shotter and Harre’s negotiated concerns here:  “The Verum Factum Principle”

From Wikipedia:

“Giambattista Vico is best known for his verum factum principle, first formulated in 1710 as part of his De antiquissima Italorum sapientia, ex linguae latinae originibus eruenda (1710) (“On the most ancient wisdom of the Italians, unearthed from the origins of the Latin language”).[7] The principle states that truth is verified through creation or invention and not, as per Descartes, through observation: “The criterion and rule of the true is to have made it. Accordingly, our clear and distinct idea of the mind cannot be a criterion of the mind itself, still less of other truths. For while the mind perceives itself, it does not make itself.” This criterion for truth would later shape the history of civilization in Vico’s opus, the Scienza Nuova (The New Science, 1725), because he would argue that civil life – like mathematics – is wholly constructed.”

READ MORE...

I did not expect to find it necessary to discuss Hannah Arendt at this point. However, from even a cursory inspection of theoretical and historical issues relevant to White separatism and nationalism, one finds her person and views interjected to influence pivotal turns.

1. She was a student and intimate of Heidegger, highly familiar with his concerns as they would bear upon White nationalism and separatism.

2. She was a prominent and articulate Jewess, providing keen insight into the formulation of views in advocacy of those antagonistic to White nationalism and separatism.

For these two reasons, she is of high relevance theoretically.

3. She also managed to impose herself and her views concretely, at pivotal turns for White Nationalism: from her relationship with Heidegger and commentary on the Nazis to her other high profile commentary; on U.S. racial strife, particularly school desegregation, civil rights and her cause célèbre, anti-miscegenation laws – concrete issues which had the eyes of the world, including Marxist antagonists of American Whites, upon them.

Warning: this is a longish essay, 5,500 words. However, it is usefully read in 2 parts - the first part, dealing with theoretical background as it concerns White separatism, is about 2,600 words. The second part deals primarily with her application to issues of segregation as aroused by the Little Rock crisis; it contains some encouragement for the reader to contribute comments by way of their private taste and opinion: that is why I kept these parts together, because I would like the comments to be as one.

READ MORE...

“I am unhappy that The Supreme Court which gave us Brown has thrown what I believe to be unnecessary roadblocks on speeding up the process of racial integration and finally getting to the color blind society we would (want) but the direction we are moving in is clear, even if the pace is slower than it should be and in final analysis we owe that to the Court which had the courage and unaninimity to decide Brown.” - Nicholas Katzenbach

READ MORE...

This news report - “Fatherless babies in fertility revolution” - is a classic product of liberalism’s dessication.  It ascribes to fatherhood and the nuclear family no significance or worth beyond that of a blind, accidental permutation.  Its social malignity is almost too obvious and too tawdry to have to explain to the liberal mind.  The liberal mind, in any case, is not listening.  The liberal mind has no thought for the health and stability of children.  It is consumed by the pursuit of the unfettered will.

The most relevant parts of the report, from the Telegraph, I reproduce below the fold.

However, in doing so I am not only seeking to critique liberalism and spread the socially conservative gospel.  I want to air the question of whether liberal idealism or Jewish ethnic interest underpins leftward developments of today’s kind.

I don’t doubt that homosexual “rights” had a creative push from Jewish sources because they furthered the classic Jewish interest of weakening the host.  At the same time it is as plain as day to me that the pursuit of the unfettered will, as it is embedded in and expressed by advanced liberalism, provides sufficient explanation for the “fatherless baby”.  Jewish adumbrations on equality are not wholly necessary to today’s outcome, and it can be argued that they are peripheral at most.

The question is important because realism on the JQ is as needy among conventionally-minded Conservatives as breadth of understanding is to the harder edge of Nationalism.  Really, it comes down to a question of modern ideological parentage.

Contributions from the floor, as always, are warmly invited.  My feeling is that the hard men will have all the good songs, but the politically-minded are probably nearer the truth.

The Telegraph report said:-

READ MORE...