Majorityrights Central > Category: White Nationalism

Anti-Racism is a Jewish Construct.

Anti-Racism is Cartesian.
It is Not innocent.
It is prejudiced,
It is hurting and
It is killing people.

These are both sound aphorisms: either could be a “mantra”, with a caveat regarding mantras - that for best effect they will have to be used with discretion, changed sometimes and crafted on account of context and audience. Such is the judgement and deft rhetoric required of Praxis as opposed to the plodding imperviousness of scientism.

The two aphorisms can go well together:

Anti-racism is Cartesian, it is Not innocent, it is prejudice, it is hurting and it is killing people. Anti-racism is a Jewish construct.

The essential abstract of “race” is taxonomic classification of peoples. Locke’s Cartesian notion of civil individual rights took issue with discrimination based on social classifications. For their ethnocentric reasons, Jews weaponized this anti-classification and anti-discrimination by Whites on the basis of social classifications as “anti-racism.” 

That is what it is in essence. It is true that the Jews have associated “racism” with supremacism, exploitation and genocide; but even taking away those elements, the common denominator of prohibition of discrimination based on social classifications, however benign, remains - as “racism.” Thus, David Duke is wrong (theory is not his strong suit) to campaign against “racism.” While that will gain popularity with the disingenuous and puerile, in so doing, he is reconstructing the liberal hegemony and its stigmatization of social classification for genetically conservative and discriminatory purposes. Moreover, classifications will happen whether they are acknowledged, deliberate or not, but we are much better-off rendering them consciously - as these classifications are essential to accountability and human ecological management.

Other Mantras - -

Fat boy’s mantra is good too:
“If we had our own country this would not be happening.”
Optional - “If White people had their own country this would not be happening.”

Whitaker’s, “Anti-racism” is a code-word for anti-White” will be effective in many instances, but in other cases will run into complications: in some cases, it will come across as a dead-ringer for subjective concern; a request for a definition of “White” can ruin the effect; it has also been criticized for having liberal underpinnings in its long form, which is true. Still, a good one if it takes into account context and audience.

Sometimes it is best to avoid the consternation of the J.Q. but rather undermine (as Cartesian disingenuousness) the underlying coup de grâce of “racism” and “anti-racism” by itself. At times, this will be even more problematic for Jews to contend with (why do you think I am so unpopular?).

Tanstaafl’s proposition of naming it a Jewish construct is important too and good to do where the audience is only slightly less primed. Because active anti-racism, as opposed to the mere “prejudice against prejudice” is, indeed, a Jewish construct. No argument.

Here are two more aphorisms/mantras that I have found to work well over the years:

You wouldn’t want to cut-down a rain forest would you? Then why would you want to cut-down ancient peoples of Europe?

This next one is somewhat harder to sell, but it has been a relief to me as a personal mantra and probably would be for other men as well:

To men, miscegenating women are as rapists are to women. They should be ostracized as a minimum punishment and in no way should their mixed offspring be able to participate in the resources of European men - as it makes our men servants to the worst betrayers of our 41,000 years of genetic evolution.

Adding:

Anti-Racism is Genocide of Whites

...that’s a good one too.

On the Radio page now Prof. MacDonald discusses four topics with GW and Daniel: the individualism of the European, implicit whiteness, the psychology of Jews, and the problem of nationalism dwelling in the past.  In addition, certain technical questions raised by Graham Lister are put to Prof MacDonald for his comment.

The interview is quite a long one by our standards, but I believe it is entertaining and informative throughout.
...... 
                                   
Well, you could ask him how inclusive fitness theory predictions change under increased competition (the scale of competition) - siblicide and other related phenomena (parent-offspring conflict) are very real (Google sibling rivalry in nature) and are examples of intra genomic conflict as predicted by Hamilton’s work.

Given that no-one seems to conceptually acknowledge the dark side (so to speak) of inclusive fitness theory it perhaps undermines the creditability of those that wish to make broad political points using inclusive fitness theory as to (1) do they actually fully understand the theory and (2) do they understand how excess competition effectively removes relatedness from the picture (siblings killing siblings is perfectly optimal within many animal species from the point of view of the victorious Sib).

Given that fitness within social evolution can be derived from both the individual level and the group level (note all evolutionary change concerns changes in alleles and their frequencies) as demonstrated by Hamilton and Price’s work (and Steve Frank etc) in hierarchical selection theory how do these insights relate to political economy?

For example, if we take Aristotle seriously than any polis must be a balance between the parts and the whole (individuals and the group) what mechanism can be used to discourage ‘free-riding’ and self-serving perfidy by our own indigenous elites? Accountability to the groups interests seems lacking in contemporary Western life.

If Europeans are so ‘individuated’ - uniquely so? - why is it that only a few centuries ago that Celts, Nordic people etc were so tribal and ultra-communitarian in their cultures. Why the stark difference in pre-modern pagan social ontology compared to the ontology of liberal modernity. Given the relatively short time frame any explanation based upon changes in gene frequency would seem analytically bankrupt. The Greeks also had a more communitarian social-ontology (Sparta anyone?, Aristotle and virtue ethics etc).

Given the social ontology of liberal modernity (massive ideological emphasis on individ- uals and individualism) what type of personalities and psychological traits succeed within such a environment? If all human interactions are viewed through the prism of individual competition is that healthy or wise for the long term sustainability of the group (one could speak here too of free-riding and the slow accumulation of toxic ‘externalities’ cultural, environmental, social etc generated by liberal modernity which in short term benefit certain individuals but at the longer term determent of everyone).

Given that all political societies are ultimately about power and power relationships (see Carl Schmidt), and that power is always open to abuse, a high degree of relatetedness/ homogeneity/ social capital is by itself not enough. What mechanism of elite accountability and social cohesion are possible and necessary?

If denied the siblicide point, then why are civil wars so vicious and nasty (often the worst)? Higher levels of relatedness (on average) didn’t stop Englishmen, or Irishmen from utterly hateful behaviour towards their brothers during civil wars…

Prof Kevin MacDonald talks with GW and DanielS about European individualism, implicit whiteness, the psychology of Jews, and the problem of nationalism dwelling in the past. 1hr 30min; 82.2 MB.

Der Stürmer: allusions to weather, the Deutsch Gothic letters purely coincidental

Misguided Truck: http://renseradioarchives.com/stormfront/ Date: 04-27-15, Hr1:

On the April 27th Stormtrooper radio, Truck Roy discusses his theory with Don Black that the reason why Whites are allowing for, and even promoting, their own dispossession is because they are “moralizing”...

“We are too concerned with morals, of slave morality, etc, when we should care about power and survival.”

What this is about: people, e.g. computer nerds, or Hitler (by de facto Nietzschean) worshipers want to believe or argue that they’re sheerly, objectively superior, not “racists” relatively dependent upon their people and neighboring White people.

They take advice from Horace the Condescender as such.

Now they are arguing “against morality, against ‘moralizing” as they call it.

Why? Because Hitler loses his place as the go-to guy for a false either/or. And they cannot stand the twilight of their god.

So we have Truck Roy saying that the reason why Africans are being helped to invade Europe and why Whites are allowing themselves to be displaced is because they’re “moralizing”, they’re of a slave morality, when they should seek power.

Not coincidentally, Truck goes to church every Sunday to practice his slave morality of obedience to the Jew on a stick.

So why has this happened, the about face?

As I have been explaining, the Right is inherently unstable. “Objectivity” and purity loses its grasp of the relative situation, of social accountability, and they oscillate to another toxically narrow extreme - typically Nietzsche and Hitler.

This false either / or - “morality” or “power and survival” - is one of the reasons why I reject Christianity and the Right’s proposed objectivism.

Truck Roy says the problem is that our people sit around “moralizing” about how right it is to help African boat refugees when they should be saying enough of this moral business, and be asking rather how do we go about survival?

What Horace the Condescender and misguided Truck are failing to recognize is that there is no avoiding morals - we live within them. Proper moral consideration is at one with power and survival. While moral rules are culturally contingent, there will nevertheless always be some things that are prohibited, some things that are obligatory and some things that are optional.

Jews know this and that is why they have cleaned the clocks of dumb-assed right wingers such as those at Stormtrooper radio.

Now, if people, White people especially, are truly thinking about morality, they do not reach the conclusion that they should be displaced by non-Whites.

That is a perversion of morals that the Jewish trick of Christianity is second to none in putting across to the sheeple.

Scientism can do it too.

While some, techno nerds perhaps, wanting to believe in their objective superiority and warrant yet find themselves having been outwitted by the relative interests of Jews, drowning in the instigated multicultural hell of America, will desperately seek recourse, will promote a mindless killing and die-off, even of their own brothers and European neighbors, rather than admit their moral indebtedness to their kindred people as opposed to just an elite few or a Jewish god.

                             
Right-wingers, such as those over at Stormtrooper radio, simply can’t live without their god, e1b1b1 Adolf (where their other Jewish god, the one on the stick, fails them).

Quote of the day from MR’s archives:

Captainchaos said:

“Computer geeks make for shitty political philosophers.”

Graham Lister replied:

“Very true - narrow technical intelligence doesn’t often translate very well into the much broader field of political thought. Well done CC! There’s hope for you yet!”

 

MacDonald At Stockholm, Sweden, April 20th 2015

By Lasha Darkmoon, April 18, 2015

It is now only too clear that Americans have lost their country. The Jews are our masters and we are their slaves. What can we do about it?

An abridged adaption by Lasha Darkmoon of a recent article by Video Rebel.

              Benjamin Netanyahu: “9/11 was good for Israel.”

9/11 finally revealed to us the extraordinary chutzpah of our Jewish masters.

That the Israelis did 9/11 with the help of Jewish collaborators in PNAC and AIPAC has become all too apparent to the cognoscenti. The hidden criminality behind this event has been cleverly covered up by our Jewish owned media.

9/11 was a definite declaration of war against America by Israel.

The Israelis wired World Trade Center Towers 1, 2 and 7 for demolition. Tower 7 was never struck by a plane. Yet it fell down in 6.5 seconds.

The BBC was told by the Rothschild-owned Reuters news agency that WTC 7 had collapsed an hour before it did. America was still on Daylight Savings Time but Britain had just left Summer Time, so a confused BBC announced the collapse of WTC 7 fully 24 minutes before it happened in New York.

Knowing that your government can kill the President and blow up buildings with Americans inside, as in Oklahoma City and in New York, helps to restrain hostile criticism of the government. People are nervous and say to themselves, “If they can kill 3000 innocent Americans for Israel and get away with it, what chance do I have?”

9/11 unleashed America’s “War on Terror” against various Muslim countries unable to accept direct invasion and conquest by Israel. This was America doing Israel’s dirty work for it. Israel claims all the land from the Nile to the Euphrates. The War on Terror is simply a process allowing Jews to gain control of non-Jewish lands.

  The War on Terror has cost American taxpayers trillions of dollars to date. 9/11 was used to justify military actions that have killed and maimed millions of people in the Middle East. Some of these people were Christians, but the majority were Muslims. Their descendants and friends, the one who survived the initial carnage, have been radicalized as a result. They now have every reason to seek revenge against their aggressors — the ones who perpetrated 9/11 and then used it as an excuse to plunder Islamic lands.

                                                            §

READ MORE...

                                            - 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?

Tom returns to MR radio to discuss the state of political nationalism in Europe, deep antagonisms that still exist among Europeans, problems of negative identity arising from that, and the performance of intellectual nationalism at this point in our struggle.
         
_________________________________________________________________________

MYTHS AND MENDACITIES: THE ANCIENTS AND THE MODERNS - TOMISLAV SUNIC (The Occidental Quarterly, vol. 14, no. 4, Winter 2014–2015), run in addition to the podcast:

When discussing the myths of ancient Greece one must first define their meaning and locate their historical settings. The word “myth” has a specific meaning when one reads the ancient Greek tragedies or when one studies the theogony or cosmogony of the early Greeks. By contrast, fashionable expressions today such as “political mythology” is often laden with value judgments and derisory interpretations. Thus, a verbal construct such as “the myth of modernity” may be interpreted as an insult by proponents of modern liberalism. To a modern, self-proclaimed supporter of liberal democracy, enamored with his own system-supporting myths of permanent economic progress and the like, phrases like, “the myth of economic progress” or “the myth of democracy,” may appear as egregious political insults.

For many contemporaries, democracy is not just a doctrine that could be discussed; it is not a “fact” that experience could contradict; it is truth of faith beyond dispute.(1)

READ MORE...