Majorityrights Central > Category: The American right

Lawrence, on November 12: “The test (attributing 14% Sub-Saharan DNA to Craig Cobb) may be bullshit but an independent test would confirm that if it is indeed the case.”

DanielS: It could be, but it isn’t ultimately necessary. There is another aspect to this.

It shows the perils of scientism: being used by scientific concepts rather than using them. With that, how our enemies can use scientism against us.

READ MORE...

Border changes after World War II

It is a particularly important preliminary note that there is virtually nobody here who had anything to do with events of World War II. That fact is most relevant. Under that rubric, let us begin:

Hitler and Nazism as an overstated premise in representation of White/European nationalism; and Hitler and Nazism or the international Jew as false either/or.

Method:

Working hypotheses will be advanced

as to why these logical fallacies are being adopted despite their apparent obviousness;

how they are mistaken;

and remedies will be proposed in cooperative nationalism.

Statements will be set out as hypotheses to allow for efficient positioning of historical viewpoints as they emerge practical in argumentative service of cooperative European nationalism. In addition to the practical efficiency of hypotheses for unburdening detail, the modesty of unfinished claims is meant to facilitate participation from the commentariat to elaborate, correct and amend the hypotheses - i.e., to make optimal use of Majority Rights discussion format.

* Note: in comment number 2, I erred in grammatical present tense when discussing Brelsau (Wroclaw). Which, according to the Treaty of Versailles and through World War II, remained German. There would have been no good argument to that point in time for its not being German.

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...

I coined the term Pervasive Ecology and hypothesized that it provides a context of the broadest utility that one may take in White advocacy because it may be universalized but not foundationalized.

READ MORE...

Does anyone know the history of the 1965 law?  I just can’t figure out why anyone would be in favor of such a law.  Who were the backers for this sort of thing?  Who lobbied for such a bill and why?

A comment on this Amren post, which somehow slipped past Ian Jobling’s eagle eye.

Is there anyone out there who is still so innocent ... even at Amren?  Or is this Alex Linder in playful mood?