Majorityrights Central > Category: White Nationalism

As has happened with every such event in the past, I experienced a deep disquiet when the news of the Washington Navy Yard shootings hit the wires on September 16th.  Yes, a large military base close to the seat of American government seemed just as likely a target for the usual Moslem suspects as the Boston Marathon, and in the event it was a politically irrelevant black psycho.  But what if it had been a white man with a private arsenal and the regulation “links to white supremacist groups”?  What if some disturbed half-wit had hit out for the cause at the cost of a dozen completely innocent lives?

Obviously, the implications for WN would have been serious and harmful.  Yet more moral obstacles to its appointment with history would have been piled up.  Yet more scrutiny from the security state would be brought to bear.  Yet more certain would be the path of dispossession and marginalisation which our people are treading.

But what if we turn the “what if” question around?  What if strikes against the Establishment were systematic and serial.  What if they were embedded in the context of a violent revolutionary or “urban guerilla” struggle, and did not generate the same revulsion and alienation in the popular mind, or a least a significant part of it?

In essence, what are the conditions under which extra-legal action in the people’s cause engenders enough popular moral, financial, and logistical support to maintain the prosecution of military objectives over a period of decades, if necessary?

Putting aside the problem of how such action could be organised and executed in the modern security state when nationalism is so controlled and weak, which others have addressed, I think it is interesting to look at some of the structural constraints which operate in European and North American societies.

READ MORE...

This interview was conducted midst an SPLC-triggered media frenzy. Immediately after completing this interview, the New York Times reporters showed up at the Leith, North Dakota residence of Craig Cobb -- declared one of the most dangerous men in the US by the SPLC's "Hate Watch". Listen for the true story behind the frenzied article that will soon appear in the New York Times, and get an idea of Craig Cobb, the man -- not the mythic monster.

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...

Some men may like a nice, tight, 9 year-old girl now and then. What’s your problem?

 

 

Summary

Part 3, takes as a point of departure the idea of “authentic range” as established at the bottom of part 2. Here is a 411-word summary of part 3, from that point:

It is important to understand that Jewish academics take, abuse and pervert otherwise good, functional, socially organizing ideas:

In this part, 3, I focus on the abuse of the concept of marginals and how the correct application of it and hermeneutic means to foster marginal participation is necessary not only to establish the authentic boarders of our system of people but also toward its maintenance.

That is particularly important as we are an open system, therefore subject to corruption and dissolution. White males, naively and disingenuously brought to bear against other groups in universal maturity, have their optimal rate, its normal, protracted, authentic unfolding and nature seized upon opportunistically by non-Europeans.

As our system is open and not merely self corrective, is subject to additional changes as we are reflexive, adaptive creatures, its management requires the use of hermeneutic method - its positive use is made possible by the very open endedness but also internal relation of the system; that to designate and reconstruct the pattern by establishing and maintaining rules through the method’s affordance of socially established as opposed to scientistic (inauthentic) rules.

Given our open system and availing ourselves of its opportunities, I discuss: how incentives and disincentives for participation are necessary and may be established through these rules; how rites of European manhood ought to be revised to suit our authentic nature under the circumstances; how our moral order ought to provide for a sacralization of routine but also of sex, in order to act as a homeostatic corrective to hyper competitive models of the west; how symbiosis might be achieved within our group and between out-groups.

Please beware that I am still correcting the style, refining details, that the ordering might deviate a little as well from this summary. This may represent a revisable draft even of this summary. However, this is the basic form and content. Also beware that I take a reader though a sometimes meandering and digressing tale of the benefits of adopting the proposed suggestions and the consequences of not doing so. Finally, at times I may torture the reader with bad English sentences and paragraphs, particularly as I make my way through these ideas in the first place. However, I will be working to make the English style less painful to the reader; along with installing more organizational cues in the essay. That will be my next chore – be warned that organizational cues/rubrics may not be done to the reader’s satisfaction yet.

 

Key word:
Hermeneutics is a response to the failure of the Vienna school to create a positivist language and other failed Cartesian efforts as revealed particularly by Gödel and Heisenberg. Hermeneutics is a method opting instead for a socially engaged, ongoing process of applying broader historical and temporal orientation and then closer “readings” of data as need be. There is a recognized connection between knower and known.

With hermeneutics epistemology is subsumed into praxis (into practical, interactive, social concern)

Concern is a better term to use than utility. We would not want people to think that it would be a good idea to use up say, the national parks and rain forests, etc. That is, non-use has its practicality - that is a large and important difference from Dewey’s instrumentalist emphasis.

Epistemology taken into praxis, into social concern then, is not mere Deweyan instrumentalism.

It respects the ecological flexibility of unused potentiality for change.

 

 

 

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...

Leon Haller has asked a question on Graham’s latest thread which perfectly expresses the plaint of the mournful right-liberal white American.  He asks: why can’t we have again what we once had: political orders which secure individual rights to life, liberty and property, but recognize that the liberal order must be racially bounded?

Meanwhile, James has posed the question of America’s historical meaning - or, at least, Iowa’s.  But I thought I would venture elsewhere to throw a light on Leon’s question, and raise the possibility (going on probability) of differentials in the populations of North America and Europe, both in the sense of deep, formative cultural influence and trait selection.  For it seems to me that it might not be so easy to speak of America and Americans in terms of Europe and Europeans.  It is akin to a question which, as a descendent of groups who, almost in their entirety, left their own soil along the north German sea coast and sailed for the east coast of Britain, I have often pondered: what does a mass migration mean for the ones who undertake and survive it, and how does such an absolute human statement colour the generations which follow?  In the English and lowland Scottish case, of course, the question is unanswerable.  Almost all the parent Germanic populations of the north German coast migrated as their lands became uninhabitable, and once in Britain interbred with the native British.  But in the case of white America we can get closer to some sort of conclusion.

The first peopling of the New World drew the full measure of the personal and collective resources of the English Dissenters who gave themselves to it.  As an act of religious nonconformism it was staggering in its commitment.  As an act of the human spirit it was one of luminous beauty and courage.  By my reading - a psychological reading - the heart of white American exceptionalism in the European context, usually considered to be the political goods of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, still lies there, inviolate in its purity.

READ MORE...

Four years ago Barack Hussein Obama II was elected to the office of President of the United States of America.  It was something new, and while everybody in White Nationalism saw the “hope” nonsense and the “change” nonsense for what it was, by no means every White Nationalist was unhappy about Obama’s victory.  Some even voted for him.

There was, of course, another, darker, grittier hope of change, born in the belief that, inevitably, white Americans would be pushed closer to, and perhaps even beyond, what they can bear.  The hand of federal government control would grow heavy.  The economy would slump.  The taxes would increase.  The racial injustice would mount.  Everything in the white American life would become worse, and not by a little but a lot.  Anger, frustration and cynicism would take hold.  A search for alternatives beyond the GOP, beyond the prescribed news of the media, would take hold too, and WN’s long hoped-for change in the somnolence of white America would come closer.

Well, we got the Tea Party and Arizona SB 1070, I suppose.  But tomorrow the incumbent is expected by most onlookers to secure his second term.  So what do WNs expect “worse-wise” from that, and how do they assess the viability of the “worse is better” scenario?  Are we seeing any movement at all in the white American thrall to the mainstream?  What, after all, would it look like?  How long would it take to become obvious?  And what, if anything, can be expected to develop in the next four years?

There cannot be many of us who do not owe a debt of gratitude to Phil Rushton, both for his theoretical brilliance, allied to an unswerving devotion in most difficult professional circumstances to the cause of unpopular scientific truths, and for his steadfast, loyal European heart.  How much poorer would we all have been had Rushton not possessed these qualities ... had he merely shied away from the race question and lived an ordinary academic’s life, a quiet life, the life of an unquestioning product of his political times.

I did not discover Rushton until early in 2003.  It was at that time when I had decided to contribute something to the cause of white survival.  There was a particular question which troubled me, and which I saw as holding a key to changing the fortunes of white advocacy.  To answer it I needed a crucible, and to get that ... to construct something people would feel worthwhile writing for and reading ... I had to generate some kind of internet presence.

Cue Race, Evolution, and Behaviour.  When I came across it at Rushton’s own Darwin site, it had already been published eight years, and Rushton himself had said that he had run out of opponents to debate.  I certainly hadn’t, though.  I had found what I needed, and promptly devoured it in one sitting, reading in bed until the small hours.  For the next fourteen or fifteen months I blasted around the political blogosphere provoking every liberal, every racial egalitarian, every race-denier, every anti-racist I could into a hopeless battle about human differences and hereditarianism (hopeless courtesy of Rushton’s superb analysis), psychometrics, and gene issues generally.

A surprising number of my opponents knew of Rushton, and had a ready put-down - second- or third-hand of course.  I do not believe that a single one of them escaped the shredder.  REB’s central theory of r/K and child development was just too perfect in its internal fit.  Most of the liberal rif-raff, of course, didn’t know about this “controversial” (meaning courageous) Anglo-Canadian psychology professor, born on the Dorset-Hampshire border a couple of miles from my own birthplace and eight years distant in time.  They would, in any case, have considered their political truths inviolable to attack by one supposed racist using the theories of another.  They never had a chance.  There was metaphorical blood everywhere.

Thanks to the carnage I had something to gesture towards when the moment came, in the summer of 2004, to put together a slate of writers for a website to be titled majorityrights.com.  I never knew Rushton, and only corresponded with him very briefly.  I wish now I had had the opportunity to explain how much I extracted from his thesis and to what purpose I had put it.  He would probably have wanted to know, like most scientists, if I had correctly and faithfully represented his thought.  The answer was that REB was so beautifully and clearly written, that was an easy task.

There is not another Phil Rushton in this world.  White Nationalism has lost a true champion.  He did not live nearly long enough - gone at just 68.  But for his life and his talents and his work we equally loyal-hearted sons and daughters of old Europe can be extraordinarily grateful.  I know I am.