Majorityrights Central > Category: Crusade against Discrimination in Britain

While distinguishing characteristics of Europeans may be the relative independence of mature individuals, sovereignty, self sufficience, autonomy and agency, can anybody really doubt that we are socially created and dependent upon cooperation to some extent and somewhere along the line? Lets not be absurd and value individualism so much as to lose its source.

As European peoples, the connections of our social systemic interdependence are protracted and delicate but as such, allow for their creative organization, coordination and the negotiation of win-win scenarios.

If both individual and our whole people are to be valued then in our separatist concern, let us finally share a narrative that honors those who harmonize our people while demonstrating effectiveness in removing interlopers and imposers upon our E.G.I.

For our tenuous but necessary social connectedness is also what allows these patterns of connection to be disrupted by hostile outsiders and the selfish, short-sighted and exploitative of our own -  whether less than ordinary folks or elite.

READ MORE...

With appreciation of Dr. Lister’s recent participation, an abstract distinction re-emerges not only as potentially useful to the struggle in general, but also in explaining what may otherwise be apprehended by Dr. Lister as some of my brute efforts here at MR.

A light-bulb moment in formulating my racial activism occurred when I read a distinction which Hegel made use of, viz., that of “self transcendence vs. self assertion.”

I later came to understand that that distinction goes farther back than Hegel and tracing its history may or may not have bearing. But what does have bearing is its teasing-apart now. By its application I am not so literal minded as to limit transcendence and assertion to the self in individual interests only but rather see it as largely a matter of self assertion of one’s borrowings from the group’s genetic capacities and interests and self transcendence on behalf of, and in payment of, the group’s genetic capacities and interests for its assertion – or, crucially and mistakenly the pragmatic activist would argue, a self transcendence beyond the group’s interests. To an extent that would often be understood correctly as a mistake of European obsequiousness, whether through Nordic individualism, objectivism, Christianity, etc. or, of course, by Jewish coercion. This was one of the first, clarifying applications for me in making sense of my experience. That for whatever reason, European men were too self transcendent and needed more self assertion.

Around the same time I realized that intellectualism should not be a bad term - rather it makes use of the extant body of literature, conceptual structures and our inherited mental abilities, applying them to organize and make sense of our experience.

The frequent charge of the boring, disingenuous and ill-willed (most recently, by TD at Daily Stormer, who tried to say that I was an “intellectual wannabe” and also tried to say that I was against National Socialism – again, missing the point, deliberately in all likelihood, in claiming those terms only apply to Hitler’s regime’s distortions thereof) is “pseudo-intellectualism.”

Kievsky echoed my sentiments exactly when he made the astute observation that our enemies have weaponized the meme of “intellectualism as unmanly” among European men. My father and older brother ate that up and modeled it perfectly for me, i.e, what brute pragmatism was, making it didactic in fact, closing off other routes by their capacity to get on without conveying articulation of much broad, social sense; to where I had no choice but to take the (daunting) intellectual route as far as I could and as its utility would allow in order to extricate myself from the arbitrary confusion that is the upshot of “no-nonsense” - by which they meant, intellectual structures which served a semi-transcendent purpose of orientation, organizing and making coherent sense of self in relation to the world; or any girlish motivation to even broach such a topic. That was “nonsense” or what others would call “pseudo-intellectualism.”

What I would call the more speculative side of the hermeneutic circle.

Because my need for intellectualism was real, not a garish display, I had to keep my eye on its life-line: There is a difference between superfluous display of erudition, an obnoxious critical parsing or an honest effort to get things done - an effort which may in fact, be served by some “intellectual” abstraction or another merged with consensus and utility. I may not be the world’s most confident person and I am certainly not claiming to be among the smartest, but what I will claim in confidence is that I keep an eye on relevance; with that, whatever “intellectualism” I deploy is not for the purpose of impressing people, but for its utility in relevant aims. Anyway, if a man is not dealing with reality, then reality will take care of it, yes?

I decided that I would strive after a good balance and blend to incorporate intellectual structures where useful with assertion of self and White group interests against non-White antagonism and liberal uncaring.

My effort to blend these two things may explain why I might seem contradictory and confusing to people, but I am really not. What I am doing is the hermeneutic circle, an engaged process of critique and inquiry, which moves from more speculative attempts at comprehending group patterns – such as self transcendence and self assertion - and closer readings, such as those of genetic compatibility.

Those of bad-will, will attempt to seize upon the more speculative moments to charge me with pseudo-intellectualism, trying to seem smart, using intellectual terms and concepts for the sake of using them, not for a purpose of defending our people. Of course, that’s not true; but our enemies are our enemies, the assholes among us are assholes (such as TD).

On the other hand, I, we, go to the assertive side of the hermeneutic circle for its sundry utility: testing the speculative side’s truthfulness against the concrete moment, deploying it for the sake of getting something done (e.g., posting a guy with a sign to make it clear that Europeans with sense should agree that “with Jews we lose” - and if that does not inspire the confidence and conviction of confirming what one already knows, should cause them to verify the assertion); in short, the hermeneutic process is to manage the orientative process in relation to reality. But it is a process which requires the speculative, broader temporal and historical comprehension of the pattern as well, particularly to maintain systemic group coherence and accountability.

That is probably why our enemies are so keen for us to not have the “pseudo-intellectualism” to maintain our group orientation.

Ok, Dr. Lister may appreciate that. And for sure, I would like to have an “adult” conversation with mature and scholarly individuals such as him contributing to MR.

But when the word “adult” is used in this context, my antenna goes up that we may get fixed on one end of what should be a corrective back and forth process. The end that I am talking about not wanting to get stuck on, of course, is the self transcendent end, the one that does not test itself and assert itself against reality quite enough if it does not circle back to self assertion.

It is also a matter of assertion of the empirical end, testing and verification, so it is not, as GW might fear, a call to mere practical action.

But again, my initial critical perspective on European peoples, that they/we were having these problems (I am going back to an observation from the mid 80’s now), held that is because they/we were too self transcendent. They needed to incorporate more self assertion in terms of their group interests in particular. Now, that is not a contradiction if you recognize that the self is composed of historical/social inheritance – to be marshaled in a new and novel way, displaying agency and difference hopefully, but nevertheless.

A stark contrast illustrating this was that of blacks in their hyper-assertiveness of self and group interests as opposed to Whites in their exasperating self transcendence – imagine a White guy with a high voice saying to a nigger, “kill as many Whites as you want, take my woman and our girls for sex slaves and fuck me in the ass too!”

White men of normal instinct will not “intellectualize” and try to explain White obsequiousness away. A solid intellectual will not view this predicament as an intelligent response from Whites. But a lot of White guys will try to seem smart, tough, “above it” by “explaining” it away, and gain approval from a lot of White females for doing that.

In fact, one of the benefits of intellectualism by contrast is that one can say upon erudition that, “I am being an over-intellectualizing bag of books.”

One can do that in an instant whereas one cannot read and digest a hundred good books in an instant. Moreover, as Aristotle so correctly stated, “it takes courage to study.” To put out of mind all else that one might attend to in order to cultivate rigorous and long-term views. In line with favoring rigor against arbitrary sensibility, Kant observed that it is easier to return to one’s senses than to restore a principle.

Even so, the nagging callings back, mockery from beautiful but tattood women whose pimps make fools of us in their own way, is a call to courage as well, to practical intelligence, not just imaginative, to implement, to apply our theories in reality.

People who have been ensconced among their fellow Europeans and not forced to interact with blacks en mass, for example, may not understand the importance of asserting the word “nigger.”

If you cannot assert the word nigger you can barely think it, you can barely defend yourself with the strong assertion of the pattern of blacks to be discriminated against for the testosterone and hyper-assertiveness of a people who can assert themselves in an episode – even having our women cooing despite their marked violence - to the detriment of course, of the broader pattern of Whites, where White men shine. But if we are too timid to assert the word and think its wrong to classify them pejoratively, what might our co-evolutionary young women think?

This is why I take a step back when Dr. Lister calls for an adult conversation. I worry that we are being called into the “universal maturity” which does not take into account our more protracted rate of sexual maturity and the black’s more direct route – and the fact that they and other non-Whites obey their own relative maturity, not universal maturity. Young White men in particular need this word “nigger” to signal that they know the pattern, that they know how to counter it, that they know how the Jews are deploying them against us, and that they don’t buy it for a moment. No intellectual noodling, no logical contortions* to excuse them for imposing upon us – they are niggers. Moreover, this is a warning to White women as well. There will be no excuses. If that is what you want, you will go and live with them and the consequences of their ways. We are not going to pay for your lack of judgment, your mulatto children, the abuse of our men, their sacrificial sublimation and ancient legacy. With that comes the liberating assertion (for White male being) that miscegenation is equivalent to rape.

All this implies judgment and taste, of course. One does not go around just using this word, but will use it where necessary and effective. For the sake of practicality, one does not treat White women who betray our legacy in the way that Sharia law might, but does take measures to separate from their influence and make them pay (by banishment and cutting them off from shared resources) for the consequences of their bad judgment. We do not pay the price, they do, but they deserve respect of a fair warning, and here it is – that’s a nigger and that’s what niggers do as a very predictable pattern. Nobody is worth putting-up with it.

Along with self transcendence seems to come a secondary sex characteristic of displaying excessive logical capacity. One way of expressing excessive logical capacity AND independence that may appeal to females as display of dominance and advanced ability is the logical excusing away of non-White affliction on Whites. Moreover, the dishonesty and disingenuousness in regard to one’s group interests by self transcendent liberalism, the willingness to put other Whites below and allow them to be extinguished by non-Whites will serve the short term interests of young females. They can identify who is “strong” and “logical” in being that treacherous and independent of group cooperation. More, liberalism, as I have often noted, increases the disorder by breaking group accountability and ecology in favor of individualism, which strengthens the one up position of young females in partner selection. Male and female becomes the chief conceptual organization as opposed to race. As it gives them short term benefits,  young females will encourage liberalism and be pandered to by non-Whites (Jews especially, of course) to allow liberal males through their gate-keeping.

By none of this do I mean to be cynical of intellectualism, adult conversations or the professional contributions of Dr. Lister. On the contrary, my hope is to explain my reasoning so that he and people he might value as professional colleagues can find a way to participate. I’m willing to forgo the spitballs and the high hard ones underneath the chin (e.g., we don’t need to say “nigger” here) in exchange for a modicum of understanding – I see true intellectualism as a process embracing self assertion of group interests as well as the maturity of self transcendence on behalf of group interests.

READ MORE...

Judging by his vigilant stream of Ebola updates, it is clear that James considers the threat of Ebola to be under-reported in terms of its significance.

Ebola remiss an alarm for border control as even most objective standards of human ecology ignored by authorities:

The handling of the Ebola threat by institutional bodies such as the Centers for Disease Control, supposedly responsible for safeguarding public health, provide a glaring example of how we cannot rely on them to serve our needs, not even as a by-product of the most ostensibly objective concerns of human ecology.

Furthermore, as the remiss demonstrates that these bureaucracies cannot be entrusted to look-after the interests of our relative human ecologies it should create awareness that now is the time to step-up participation in border re-establishment.

As James explains, the mishandling of the threat of pandemic disease, as in the case of Ebola, has been made evident not only through border crossing, but in a pattern of decades, extending to misreadings of the H.I.V. epidemic by these same responsible institutional bodies - such as the CDC, with its authoritative media organ, “Nature” magazine, taken to be definitive of science journalism and featuring assessments by experts such as Princeton’s R.M. Anderson - experts and their fact-checkers who are all too capable of committing fundamental errors in epidemic prediction.

Specifically, Anderson’s initial indication for Nature magazine suggested that an increased number of sex partners was not a particularly significant factor in H.I.V. transmission. This took for granted its operating on a relatively homogenous population, with steadier patterns and where outlier behavior is more compartmentalized into niches. Promiscuous heterosexuals in this sort of population were not particularly at risk as their partnering was in linear alignment and separate from the infected homosexual population. However, with the increasing introduction of diverse populations, not only are more promiscuous sorts added to the ranks of the population, but also those more capable of transmitting the disease, those still more recklessly transgressing niches and even those with malicious intent to deliberately transmit the disease.

“Strength in diversity indeed - for pandemic disease!”

The take-away is that European peoples must take initiative in border control to protect the interests of our human ecologies - for our very survival. Institutional bodies entrusted to be competent and concerned cannot be relied upon for even the basics of public health management - they are not even taking into account such basic factors as the mass introduction of alien biology and behavioral patterns on stable human ecologies; the direct introduction of virulence from primeval breeding grounds and bio-power, e.g., of Sub-Saharan Africa - which your European biology may not withstand. In fact, these bureaucrats in their faux-objectivism, whether the result of pandering or being pandered-to, malicious intent, indifference or incompetence at best, are subjecting European populations to experiments that your European biology should not have to hold up-to, as conducted upon you and the ancient human ecology of our European peoples unwillingly, unbeknownst, without consent.

More, for their very nature as fixed places, James likens nation states to immobilized patients in a clinic, and therefore draws the possibility of their susceptibility to pandemic, such as Spanish flue, which spread rapidly through immobilized patient concentrations in Red Cross hospitals after World War I. Immobile as the nations states are then, it is imperative to secure their borders against mobilized virulence.

Ebola having reached The U.S. highlights this fact. Thriving at length, transmissible even from a corpse, passively, potentially mutating airborne transmissability, Ebola can be far more destructive than the H.I.V. epidemic which the CDC blundered about..

James details the analogy in the misreading of H.I.V. and Ebola epidemiology:

READ MORE...

..and movements. Proscriptions of European organization and defense, promulgated under a guise of moral acceptability, that have European peoples arguing against their own interests and organization thereof.

                                                       
                                                  promulgating the perversion of terms…

Conservatism

Racist/Racism

Leftism

Equality

Diversity

Multiculturalism

Post Modernity

Social Constructionism

Hermeneutics

Marginals

Tolerance

Civil Rights

Hippies/Feminists

Sexual conservatism as pathological

Christianity

READ MORE...

 
Frank Salter: Accept that the State is no longer ours, that we may rebuild radically anew, embedding our national interests of our people.

In the West people are not mobilized in their own defense and why is that? Our Majorities are faced with a fundamental structural problem.

That is historically based….. when the nation states of Europe were formed (such as) England initially, there were a dozen Kingdoms….the consolidation of those small principalities came about through an implicit promise ..the promise was that the new centralized government would adopt the functions of the small tribal governments: so it would defend the people, on the same principle, it would defend externally and maintain internal peace.. it would not betray the basic interests of the society….there was an implicit understanding or assumption that the elite is invested emotionally in the people, that it is tied to the people, that it comes from the people….the people expected their elites to not be alien, not to hate them, not be hostile towards them, but to be drawn from them, and to actually feel one with them…so there was an assumption of identity defense…of concern about continuity and so on…

That is all broken down now. The elite do not identify with the people anymore - those normal aspirations for identity continuity. The fact is that the nation/state model (two separate terms there) - Nation, the bond of the heart, and State, the apparatus of government - have become separated; they don’t have the same relationship one to the other that they did even a hundred years ago. But still the assumption is there, that those functions are being performed; when the opposite functions are being performed! These States are actually overseeing replacement, a demographic revolution that’s taking place.

So, I argue that in this light what needs to happen is that the Majorities actually, in a way, need to accept their defeat. Sort of a radical thing, some people object to this. But I think we need to accept, acknowledge the profundity of our defeat and accept that the government is no longer ours. The State no longer belongs to the people. Once one has faced that harsh truth, then one can start thinking what we can do to survive in the future as a people.

We need to starve these governments of resources; and rather we must build-up alternate national organizations that are well embedded in the people.

We are on a healthy trajectory right now with some fight-back in Europe. But for me the real sign of health will be when Tony Blair finds himself in court charged with treason. That would be a clear sign that something healthy is happening.

You know that the Blair government deliberately set-about to flood Britain with third-world immigrants as a way of breaking the spirit of conservatives…so that they would give up the fight to try to retain their country. I view that as least arguably criminal and if laws don’t exist - and I suspect laws don’t exist for prosecuting people like Blair - the law should be created.

READ MORE...

                                   
                “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...

                                   
Veteran Conservative MP has claimed that Enoch Powell was right to warn against immigration in his controversial ‘rivers of blood’ speech.

“It is time for England to ‘fight back’ against political correctness’ and he added:
‘If you don’t like it, go live somewhere else.’

Sir Gerald Howarth said that he stood by the letter and said his views had been reinforced by the child sex abuse scandal in Rotherham, where gangs of Asian men groomed and abused children.

‘For 40 years we have been subjected to a left wing political correctness which has stopped the British people from expressing perfectly legitimate and reasonable views. More than 1,400 children in Rochdale have paid the price for decades of political correctness, now people are speaking up.’

He said that it is time for England to ‘fight back’ against political correctness, adding:
‘If you don’t like it, go live somewhere else.’

Mr Powell delivered his ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech in Birmingham in April 1968, calling for the “repatriation” of non-white immigrants and claiming that the increased diversity would lead to riots…

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11060168/Tory-MP-claims-Enoch-Powells-Rivers-of-Blood-speech-was-right.html

READ MORE...