Majorityrights Central > Category: Linguistics

It’s a shame that Tan would say that I’m “not using my brain”.. “don’t have my thoughts organized clearly” and then take an idea that I have clearly organized and advanced for some time, and promote it on the Hitler worshiping “Renegade Network”, saying that he has this idea that our objectivity has given us advantages but also susceptibilities.

On the topic of genocide vs suicide he has an informative discussion but it is a false either/or in that MacDonald is not taking his eye off of Jewish power and influence and arguing “suicide” by examining our own susceptibilities (nor am I arguing White suicide).

Tanstaafl argues for genocide of Whites as opposed to White suicide

http://blogtalk.vo.llnwd.net/o23/show/7/641/show_7641145_2015_05_25_04_37_05.mp3

Tan quotes (from a post that KM put on TOO!):

Le CRIF and La France LICRAtisée (literally “Licratized France”) are extremely rigorous works and, as well shall see, their conclusions are highly compatible with The Culture of Critique. In short, these Jewish groups have spearheaded efforts to delegitimize French ethnic identity and indeed the French nation itself, to destroy majority self-confidence with references to “racism,” colonialism and the Vichy Regime, to aggres- sively promote Afro-Muslim immigration and “multiculturalism,” to margi- nalize the Front National from any participation in politics, to censor speech found threatening to perceived Jewish interests, and raise the Holocaust as the supreme crime above all crimes that legitimizes their activism by placing Jews as the supreme victims. This activism, plainly, is based on ethnically-motivated hypocrisy and selfishness, evident in the LICRA and CRIF’s simultaneous support for Israel as an explicitly Jewish ethno-state.

“That’s not suicide”

While it is helpful to unfold the matter of genocide vs. suicide, MacDonald is not letting the Jews off the hook while attempting to examine why our people are not responding better to obvious impositions. For example, he has readily discussed such Jewish coercion as incentivizing Whites to sell-out their people.

For a curious example of White passivity of my own recent experience, I was at a fare yesterday, thousands of people, 99 percent White, probably a few Jews, a few middle easterners and one interracial couple - lovely, elegant blonde with a special kind of blue eyes and a Negro in no way handsome or manifestly impressive.

I used a strategy of walking near them while not looking at them directly, saying loudly, “very good! 41,000 years of evolution destroyed, given it to an ape!”

The important point I want to make is that nobody of this White crowd even noticed or was the least perturbed by this sickening interracial spectacle.

It is legitimate to ask why a visceral response isn’t forthcoming. The inquiry into our own responses or lack thereof, WILL NECESSARILY BE connected with the inquiry of those who might suppress and obstruct them - hence it cannot distract from the J.Q. ultimately. Rightfully angered response and resistance to it would provoke inquiry as to who is resisting and promoting our dispossession. Moreover, it would be paranoid to suggest that KM and I are trying to deny or distract from the Jewish influence. He has insisted, and so do I insist, that Whites can be brainwashed by the Jews media and academia.... lets add religion, law, politics, business procedures and financing.

Nevertheless, I hear Tan referring to other causes, some of our own making, for example my idea that our inclination to objectivism leaves us susceptible.

Objectivism, as I have been saying, has appeal by yielding some spectacular practical results and insights, powerful moral warrant and innocence from subjective concern, but leaves our people susceptible to be non-discriminatory - perhaps especially of the obvious - as one can readily demonstrate if not “prove” their objectivity by not noticing and making judgments upon even such obvious differences.

That’s called “rational blindness” and this relative blindness to our subjective position and interests is a requirement in quest of pure objectivism.

Rational blindness can blind us to our involvement, indebtedness and accountability to our people’s interests and other people’s impositions. Scientists can famously be dupes to Manichean trickery for the habit of this Augustinian mindset. * I remember a former MR regular who, rather than request an explanation which I would have readily provided, tried to suggest that I was being pompous and deliberately obscure with these terms: Manichean - human challenges which can change when solved in order to trick an adversary; Augustinian - natural challenges which do not change when solved just to trick you again (how does Kol Nidre versus science grab you?).

As for looking at ourselves…

GW’s ontology project advocates evincing our authentic natural systems such that we may proceed by our own lights, not largely react and mirror the Jews as has been known to happen (in the case of the Nazis).

This isn’t making excuses for Jews or letting them off the hook in any way or form.

Has KM fallen into disfavor because he does not think AH and revisionism are the royal road to White salvation?

I haven’t heard MacDonald talk of “suicide”, I know that I do not talk of suicide.

I do know that Tanstaafl has overreacted when I, and others, cited liberalism as a problem, as if we were trying to distract from the J.Q. when discussing liberalism or other causes for peoples being under threat (as if we are not aware of the shenanigans of Lawrence Auster, et.al).

In this podcast I hear Tan accurately criticizing the Jews for transforming World War II into “the Holocaust” and elevating themselves as the special victims. All true and foul.

But he doesn’t see how the Nazis, and his over-sympathy for them, have him mirror the Jews, to where Nazis are the special and only important victims, didn’t do anything (it’s all a “hoax”), their victimization is pure, removed from cause and interactive conflict.

Evidently, right-wing WN interest to make the Jews the “only problem”, to where they would even denounce MacDonald for looking at our role in the interaction, is a motivation of those who want desperately to redeem Uncle Adolf and completely disprove the holocaust, blind and oblivious to the fact that those tasks are unnecessary and largely counter-productive to pursue.
........................

Neither does Tan handle well the distinction between Right and Left; in saying the Right is hierarchical and the Left is about leveling egalitarianism. He is blind to the seeds of serious conflict he is laying with this notion of “necessity.” Whereas a White Left of good will toward fellow Whites would encompass a full nation and nations as “the class;” it is not about leveling, equality or doing away with distinctions and provisional hierarchical arrangements as they are qualitatively appropriate and accountable - but not only accountable to themselves; rather they are looked upon as organically related yet discreet, symbiotic as qualitative niches orchestrated among other niches - recognized as necessary as well; and also within the class. The niches are generally treated as characteristically incommensurate to comparison. That, as opposed to vain and false comparisons which tend to instigate conflict rather than complementarity.

The key distinction is not “hierarchy” vs “leveling and equality”, the key distinction is (pseudo) objectivism of The Right and its susceptibility to liberal universalisms which transcend accountability to social group interests vs the unionized and therefore particular and relative social group interests of the Left, as rendered by a White Left.

READ MORE...

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.

       
          The Sacred and The Estranged

I am not exactly sure how these things go together, or how the estranged might be helped, but rather I am thinking out loud here, liable to tweak these brief paragraphs around some, hoping and welcoming people to think about this with me and GW (though unfortunately, not yet expecting to get any audience to move beyond the transmission model, to a participatory model of knowledge acquisition). Anyway..

GW says:

Interesting that Richard Williamson calls subjectivism what you call objectivism. Pretty much.  Of course, his focus is his own and not yours - he is seeing an atomising, individualising tendency where you see a focus on the object that excludes the self.  Put these together and out pops the self-estranging, individualising relationship of “false Dasein” to the external world we are, as evolving organisms, bound to process.

Something more could be said about that, including the fact that Heidegger’s false Dasien is, of course, a state of witness in Time and Place rather than in Truth (ie, a bit like being socially constructed, but only a bit). So it will operate within negative qualitative parameters, ie, more badly, or maladaptively, at some times than others, and never at the optimum.  Modernism, then, is a grand historical process of turning to the bad.  For you, postmodernism is the process of turning away from the worst of that and towards a more vivifying collective life, while for Williamson sedevacantism and Catholic traditionalism constitute the process of rejecting modernist Rome’s false witness to God and accepting His true church.

There the similarity ends, because you believe that reason, as a trait of the mind, has its place in a true European life, while Williamson insists that only faith and God’s grace can give eternal life.  You are right.

Here is Williamson’s original missive”:

http://stmarcelinitiative.com/email/en-eleison-comments-by-mgr-williamson-issue-cccxc-390.html

Fraser complains similarly against rationalism.

Though he correctly seeks to organize and coordinate “W.A.S.P.” diaspora through a shared rubric (as I propose we do through the DNA Nation) he proposes to do so through reviving the Anglican Church: http://www.radixjournal.com/journal/2015/1/5/the-dispossessed-elite

I believe that we are inclined to believe rather, and it seems MacDonald as well, that there is no putting the toothpaste back in that tube.

However, while DNA is not exactly thin gruel, it could use the vivification of which you speak and the vision of perfection which you and as Santayana note, orientation toward perfection, a girding and bounding like rocks against which the waves of chance crash.

This is what has me thinking of the sacred, how it has been trampled by the scientism/liberalism continuum, linearity of modernity, reckless experimentalism in pursuit of endless progress. How by contrast the sacred can ensconce those patterns safely which are beyond empirical purview or too precious for the efficiency of empirical, scientific testing.

Again, the postmodern turn sees the wreckage of modernity and allows for the reconstruction of traditional practices ...and the sacral rite, the episode…all of course revisable and modified by new understandings..we can take the best of both traditional reconstruction and modernist pursuit of innovation…. but we CAN take the best of tradition and sacral rite. ..and history….we are not duty bound by a pledge to be original ex nihilo and to endlessly pursue novelty and new invention, transformation without pause and elaboration.

The sacred..going back to the wisdom of the language that Heidegger and Vico valued.. sa – cred..  ..cred.. crede…sounds like something to go by..something in fact, cyclical, involving time and cycles, which if properly observed correspond with credibility.. the ability to establish historical continuity, coherence in protracted warrant… in a way that empirical myopia, focused on arbitrary presentation of the happenstance episode of circumstances does not afford. ..by contrast, the sacral episode re enacted does begin to build that social capital and with that the sacredness of the realm -sac-re-ment (kingdom minding).. sacral episode of re-ligion (reconnecting the realm, the kingdom).
Looking through Vico, one can see him talking about people beginning in religion; and in the etymological sense of religion you can see that having truth, as you know, religion - re -ligion, a re attachment to practices, to a realm of people, particularly featured in the sacred episode, which ensconces the essence (as opposed to the arbitrary) presented by the cycles of time, reconstructing, reconnecting, re, the king (Ital), the relatives, the realm.

Perhaps the sacral episode facilitates culture, the cultivated turn, turning back to the systemic essence and homeostasis of peoplehood..

Sacrament takes evaluation into a pattern of trust, beyond the episode and moment, beyond the life span and relationship even, connecting to the time immemorial pattern.

READ MORE...

Remember This when you hear an official story from the kosher Media:

We are the Media .. I call it Wedia .. their media is the enemy…

Sooo…. we do our own research and we are not graduates of Brandeis, Harvard, U.C Berkeley, London School of Economics, or University of Chicago.

We have street experience , common sense , and advocate for our own people.. the people referred to as goy , gringo , honky , white boy , and shiksa.

If you disagree with us you are anti white.. and we walk away.. no arguments from our side .. we do not debate we agitate for our folk..

We are now the wandering Eury.. we are all over the world now .. we are growing powerful and we will prosper..

We created the internet .. that is our infrastructure.. no matter where we are .. yes they have made us revolutionaries for our folk..

Northern.. Southern.. Eastern.. Western European ..We are family.. We are strong..

We will create new institutions.. large families.. sustainable habitats ..

We will disconnect from Talmud Vision.. we will stay home away from college and professional sports.. we will stay out of casinos ( unless it is to encourage blacks , browns , and reds to get drunk and play poker )

We white men will stop watching sports, spend time with our families, and have more time and money to have large families. { no more fantasy football.. btw what a disgusting term}

We will create beautiful music again with inspiring lyrics.. such as this song..

Sons of Somerled.. only 4 seconds of an ad….... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G61AmCqtzN4

White Lives Matter ..Will Not Remain Silent

Love each other and no white on white violence..

- Stanistan (Stan Hess)

               
Die Linke’s parliamentary leader Gregor Gysi. Photo: DPA

Its egregious intentions betray its egregious misnomer as “The Left” by the YKW media. Whereas a White Left would be a union of the entire nation of native peoples and thus organized in entirety against immigrant imposition - these workers and beneficiaries being the theoretical equivalent of scabs - and the consequences of elite betrayal. Accordingly, a true European Nationalist Left would not be of just one class, say the workers, let alone be in representation of scabs (foreigners) - as the latter in particular would be defined properly not as The Left but rather as a Neo-Liberal concern imposed on the classification of native national interests. The reason for the misnomer is plain, the YKW and the sell-outs, particularly of the international corporatist order, do not want us to be clear in the organizational concern of that union, which is a merging, in fact an overlap, of the class with native nationalism. Instead they want it associated with what is most repugnant to our interests.

The YKW and corporate elite sell-outs are aligned in this perversion of class interests - you can be even more afraid now as they obligingly ask:

“What does the Left Party want for Europe?”

The “Left Party” (wink), read “neo-liberal” and ask rather, what union of your interests do they represent - i.e., how are they a leftist union for you as a native European? Particularly when they advocate (hyerpbolic) neo-liberal policies as such?

“Die Linke is now the third biggest group in the German parliament, but what do their politicians want for Europe?”

Gysi pretends the leftist, denouncing the The EU for “pursuing ‘neo-liberal’ policy:”

“Die Linke overtook rivals the Greens ... to become the country’s third biggest parliamentary group – and has since made waves in foreign policy by its outspoken condemnation of US spying and conciliatory attitude to Russia’s actions in Ukraine.

Their charismatic parliamentary leader Gregor Gysi added to his party’s critical stance towards the EU system in an interview with Die Zeit newspaper. ‘It is pursuing a neo-liberal economic policy and stands for the opposite of socialism,’ he said.”

But then his party pursues this policy on immigration -

“Mobility and Immigration

Die Linke’s policy on immigration stands out from major parties by appearing dramatically in favour of making Europe more refugee-friendly.

They claim to promote the ‘unconditional right to stay and proper accommodation, social protection and equal rights for all refugees.’

And according to their manifesto, they also support refugees’ free choice of which country they wish to seek asylum in, as well as demanding the dissolution of EU border agency Frontex.”

You can’t get much more neo-liberal than that.

What does that have to do with the unionized representation of native European national interests?

We hear nothing representing the unionized interests of native European nationals in YKW media. Our interests are ignored and obfuscated beginning with the very terms, with the deliberately confusing mis-designation of neo-liberal policy - immigration and non-native imposition in particular - as “The Left.” By contrast, designating the proper representation of native European national interests as The White Left is to distinguish it from the liberal and Jewish affectations imposed on native European nationalist interests by The Red Left.

http://www.thelocal.de/20140514/what-do-die-linke-want-for-europe

                                 
                                      Gysi in his Soviet permutation
——————————————————————————
More past wind across the German border from “The Left”:

“The greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another. The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes, natives and immigrants, Christians and Muslims and Jews, cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down!”

                                   
                “Wise men see outlines and therefore they draw them”

  D: Don’t be silly. I can’t draw a conversation. I mean things.

  F: Yes—I was trying to find out just what you meant. Do you mean “Why do we give things outlines when we draw them?” or do you mean that the things have out-lines whether we draw them or not?

  D: I don’t know, Daddy. You tell me. Which do I mean?

  F: I don’t know, my dear. There was a very angry artist once who scribbled all sorts of things down, and after he was dead they looked in his books and in one place they found he’d written “Wise men see outlines and therefore they draw them” but in another place he’d written “Mad men see outlines and therefore they draw them.”

  D: But which does he mean? I don’t understand.

  F: Well, William Blake—that was his name—was a great artist and a very angry man. And sometimes he rolled up his ideas into little spitballs so that he could throw them at people.

  D: But what was he mad about, Daddy?

  F: But what was he mad about? Oh, I see—you mean “angry.” We have to keep those two meanings of “mad” clear if we are going to talk about Blake. Because a lot of people thought he was mad—really mad—crazy. And that was one of the things he was mad-angry about. And then he was mad-angry, too, about some artists who painted pictures as though things didn’t have out-lines. He called them “the slobbering school.”

  D: He wasn’t very tolerant, was he, Daddy?

  F: Tolerant? Oh, God. Yes, I know—that’s what they drum into you at school. No, Blake was not very tolerant. He didn’t even think tolerance was a good thing. It was just more slobbering. He thought it blurred all the outlines and muddled everything—that it made all cats gray. So that nobody would be able to see anything clearly and sharply.

  D: Yes, Daddy.

  F: No, that’s not the answer. I mean “Yes, Daddy” is not the answer. All that says is that you don’t know what your opinion is—and you don’t give a damn what I say or what Blake says and that the school has so befuddled you with talk about tolerance that you can-not tell the difference between anything and anything else.

READ MORE...

Thread Wars 3:

MR taking it to the threads, stepping-it-up and further cultivating strategies, noting successes, charting obstructions to bringing nativist nationalism to public acceptance.

READ MORE...