Donald and Hillary have a go at humor at Al Smith Dinner, NYC (Trump takes a serious turn)
Posted by DanielS on Friday, 21 October 2016 08:14.
New Bill Clinton Sexual Assault Accuser Urges Other Victims To Go Public
Posted by DanielS on Friday, 21 October 2016 02:16.
“A new template against anti-Semitism”
Posted by DanielS on Friday, 21 October 2016 01:12.
German State Media Silent After Teenager Murdered by Immigrant
Posted by DanielS on Friday, 21 October 2016 00:11.
Will Anyone Remember Jodie Wilkinson?
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, 20 October 2016 05:33.
Italy: Migrants Turn Central Milan Into Outpost of Africa
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, 20 October 2016 05:22.
Third Presidential Debate Between Donald and Hillary
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, 20 October 2016 05:02.
Orbán plans to double the Hungarian army and rise patriotism among children
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, 19 October 2016 06:42.
What Everyone is Missing About the Wikileaks Podesta Emails
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 18 October 2016 19:39.
“Asian Sex Gang” - Can the Daily Mail say “Muslim” ?
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 18 October 2016 10:30.
Hillary Leaks: Pick Your Outrage
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 18 October 2016 05:10.
Obama and Eric “My People” Holder Launch PAC for ‘Fairer’ Redistricting
Posted by DanielS on Monday, 17 October 2016 16:06.
The Dark Side of Self Actualization: Derek Black’s Reflexive Reversal on WN
Posted by DanielS on Monday, 17 October 2016 14:57.
“Euro founder Otmar Issing has predicted that the currency will collapse.”
Posted by DanielS on Monday, 17 October 2016 12:44.
European Border and Coast Guard Agency launches - incorporates “Frontex”
Posted by DanielS on Monday, 17 October 2016 10:08.
Who fears the wolf of globalisation?
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 16 October 2016 20:01.
MidtDasein: First is not the same as most essential - interests (inter esse)
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 16 October 2016 18:21.
All South African Universities Shut
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 16 October 2016 07:17.
Poland stepping-up efforts for Intermarium sovereignty
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, 15 October 2016 06:06.
The War for Germany
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, 15 October 2016 05:02.
Trump’s “anti-global elite”, pro-American proposition nation speech - sandwiching belabored beef
Posted by DanielS on Friday, 14 October 2016 09:44.
Hi-low on Catholic Church: Soros tools subversive direction/ Ghanan plunders 4 churches
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, 13 October 2016 05:01.
Michaloliakos to Italian TV: Golden Dawn will sturdily fight those who aspire to sell our Homeland!
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, 12 October 2016 16:24.
China’s Government Cracks Down on Jewish Organizations
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, 12 October 2016 05:15.
Deadliest Birthrates to Humanity (part IV): 3rd World Population Overload on Western Civilization
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, 12 October 2016 00:17.
50% of donations to Clinton campaign come from Jews
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 11 October 2016 20:32.
Treason: Clinton Knows Saudis Fund ISIS
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 11 October 2016 20:10.
Fact-Check: Yes, Hillary Clinton Did Laugh After Successfully Defending a Child Rapist
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 11 October 2016 19:07.
Nearly Half The Adults In Britain And Europe Hold “Extremist Views”
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 11 October 2016 07:17.
Remark by Hillary’s top aide infuriates Jewish people
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 11 October 2016 06:20.
Second Presidential Debate Between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump
Posted by DanielS on Monday, 10 October 2016 07:23.
African Invasion: 11,000 in 48 hrs
Posted by DanielS on Monday, 10 October 2016 07:06.
Trump Camp In Israel: We Support Him Despite Lewd Comments; He’s Not Running For Chief Rabbi
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 09 October 2016 15:04.
Majorityrights Central > Category: The Ontology Project
The application of what are called human rights by what, these days, is adjudged to be the human rights industry is roundly and rightly deprecated by nationalists. This isn’t news. But it is not only us. It’s fair to say that the white man in the street tends to much the same view. By natural instinct alone he understands that none of the silvered words of the great panjandrums, those politico-corporate whores and criminals who wallow in their own faux-virtue at the UN and all the international conferences, and in the TV studios … none of their gracious, corrupt schtick is meant to benefit him. He is not one of their designated victims. He knows elitism when he sees it, and it isn’t deference he feels toward it. Ask him about the Human Rights Act (or, if you like, dress it up as the European Convention on Human Rights) and he will tell you about some Pakistani hate preacher or African multiple rapist who says and does what he wants but, somehow, never gets deported. Ask him about the human rights lawyers who work the courts and win these verdicts, and he’ll narrow his eyes and tell you he’d like to ship the lot of them off to Somalia for a little life-education. It is the stubborn, abiding dissent of the sturdy yeoman, and it comes straight out of who he is, defiant and unabashed.
He’s probably far from alone, too. I imagine that even in these neo-Marxised times there are plenty of perfectly liberal-minded lawyers operating in other, less rarified areas of the legal system who also have some mixed feelings on the subject. They might say of their HR colleagues, “Good luck to them if there’s money in it”. But classically liberal-minded lawyers and judges will care about the integrity and political neutrality of the law. The judiciary, after all, is its custodian and interpreter. Judges, if they have not grown political themselves, should tend to discomfort with any politicisation of the justice system. The overt campaigning fervour for social justice which typifies HR progressives ... indeed, the whole idea of an intrusive hyper-egalitarian, internationalist political bandwagon really ought to offend against their professional principles.
That said, this essay is not one about signs of light in the darkness. This essay is about the fundamentals of the life which our history has vouchsafed us, and which has brought us to the pass in which we now labour. It is about a history of serial anti-identitarian developments, of which human rights and the universalism which underpins them are but a sign and a sadness. My apologies for the length. I hope it will prove interesting and informative.
Rights, but how human?
For our part, we nationalists are bound to ask how, in practise, that seminally Christian ideal of an overriding and overarching love of one’s fellow man, and compassion for his suffering, degenerated into an instrument of global political activism undertaken for the purpose of solidising and advancing a new technocratic elite whose priestly function is to stand over the world and make moral distinctions between “the rich north” and “the poor south”, or “privileged whites” and “oppressed non-whites”, or “narrow-minded, xenophobic racists” and “suffering refugees”, etcetera. The answer, of course, is that love has absolutely nothing to do with it. Indeed, these men and women who affect to love everyone love no one but themselves. Their self-interested political activism is the inevitable precondition for regulating and maintaining a panoply of positive rights which are, without exception, contingent upon other values and sensibilities about what is just and fair. Even the perfectly understandable claim in Article 3 of the 1948 UN Declaration, that “everyone has the right to life”, is not actually natural in kind (something I will come to later). It, like the other twenty-eight articles, is grounded in Western presumptions and preoccupations, and interpretations which are quotidian, fluid and highly susceptible to political fashion. Consider Article 22, which states:
This essay must serve as my reply to Daniel’s recent critique. Down the years I have been attacked for word or deed by a fair few here. Generally I will not respond. We have all observed how pulling apart instead of pulling together seems to be a characteristic, perhaps the defining characteristic, of the renegade kind which, because it alone can withstand the relentless moral attack from every direction, is left to uphold the true interests of our race and peoples today. There is quite enough ideological schism and personal in-fighting in our movement without creating more.
So in this case, rather than respond directly to Daniel’s comments I will respond to some criticism levelled against the Ontology Project by James Bowery four long years ago in an unresolved thread discussion about the mathematician Gian Carlo Rota’s conclusion that, ultimately, all ontological investigation is made folly by the sheer indeterminacy of being. It might not seem a very fair or logical way to respond to the criticisms of my friend Daniel. But dig a little, and the logic might become clearer.
James’s own summation of his argument was stated thus:
Ostensibly, James was demanding that this ineffable slipperiness be dispelled by an unremitting (but, in the event, not bowreyesque) intellectual rigour. It is, of course, disappointing that he did not hurl himself into the creative fray and resolve the matter for us. But I don’t think his interest in it extended beyond criticism. What he was really saying was: In its lack of a properly expressible, qualitatively certain foundation, none of this (ie, the pursuit of an existentialist and identitarian philosophy of Man and nation) has enough solidity to stand in the world.
Let’s take a confident, positive and, I hope and believe, realistic view of the British electorate’s intent towards national independence, and fast-forward (at least in the imagination) fourteen days. As this gentleman already has:
It is the morning of Friday 24th June. The political world is stunned. The Westminster bubble people are trying to come to terms with the sheer enormity of it. Why couldn’t it all be like London? London was fine, London was good. The Celtic fringe. The universities. But really, that was it. Across the rest of the country it was a total disaster. OK, the polls had been discouraging for a while. But nothing like this. Even with the huge turnout, there was no, simply no reprieve for Remain.
The BBC and ITV election coverage rumbles on through the morning as a succession of talking heads, jubilant or shell-shocked, come into the studios to explain the new political universe. Nigel Farage, sleepless and as fresh as a daisy, is in philosophical mood now, having got beyond the initial tidal wave of euphoria. For once, he is spared the hackneyed attack-questions by his interviewers. George Galloway, however - also sleepless but looking as though he has been clubbing with winos for the last month - manages to get into an argument with practicably everybody. He doesn’t seem to care, though; and he wins them all.
In fairness, it isn’t that difficult. Everyone now is chorusing that Britain Stronger in Europe ran a disastrously misconceived campaign. Arrogant, supercilious, patronising, bullying, full of over-blown, unbelievable claims that were miles away from the gut instincts of ordinary voters, far too many far too cunning, counter-productive attempts to queer the pitch, simply unworthy of the electorate’s support ... those are just some of the kinder judgements floating around in the cold light of day.
In Downing Street a great gaggle of press waits across the road from No.10 for the Prime Minister to appear. The lectern is in position. A synopsis of the speech has been pre-released to the media by the No.10 press office. First, David Cameron will, as he must, commit his government to honouring the momentous decision taken by the British electorate. There can be no question of disingenuous or partial solutions, nothing that does not respect the very clearly stated will of the people. “The United Kingdom will now leave the European Union,” he will say. “A new and prosperous, secure future for the country must now be built, and all the government’s energies and commitment will be poured into that endeavour, both in terms of formulating with the EU and its member states a new and mutually beneficial, friendly and respectful relationship, and in terms of addressing the great number of implications of yesterday’s vote for our democracy and our economy, and our wider society.”
The coronation of Charles VII of France (1429).
I owe Daniel some replies to his recent comments across two treads about his personal preference for particular intellectual adumbrations as a means, I think, of liberation for a cognitive elite who, as far as I can see, then prescribe benign social inter-action for the rest of us. In the process, I will try to probe the underpinnings of the political. However, first I want to raise another question with Kumiko which is at the heart of the exchange with Daniel also, namely her perfectly natural presumption, with which I do not entirely agree, that:
The question goes well beyond the usual conceptions of the social and economic, because these are not the point of arising of the European malaise. Likewise, the call to self-defence, as a means by which to awaken the people, may fall on deaf ears in the absence of other buttresses to identity. How does one defend something one cannot properly perceive? More concretely, how many people perceive civilisation or the civic space, culture or economics where the true cause is racial and ethnic identity?
In my very meagre work on awakening, it is implicit that a person whom we would describe as awake, or existentially self-aware, is not really in some fixed and enduring condition. Our neurological condition happens to be one in which the intellectual, emotional, and motor functions operate not under direction of any kind or even in concert, but simply as mechanisms made of habit. This is our ordinary waking consciousness, and it will always claim us. It is, after all, the River Lethe, the river of unmindfulness, of existential forgetting. We cannot permanently deliver ourselves from it to abide in aletheia. It is rather difficult for the individual person to traverse, even for a few seconds, into self-awareness in any meaningful sense. But how much more difficult is it for an entire people to do so?
All revolutionary movements seek ownership of the future. They are, therefore, interested in the young, who are the demographic which is easiest to enlist and the natural constituency to rebel against and, just possibly, overturn the world of their parents. Serious revolutionary movements have invariably established youth wings, even movements. But there is something killing in the prescriptive nature of the exercise. Not even the völkische movement of 19th century Germany reached the lofty estate of an organically rooted, freely arising, creative culture. In its contest with modernity it, too, stooped to prescription, forcing a romantic nationalist mask on the face of the German national character because, of course, romantic nationalism was all it knew.
Spontaneous (ie, authentic) counter-cultures are great rarities. But in my late teens and early twenties I saw and experienced one of those ... a genuine attempt by a great number of genuinely intelligent young people all across the West and, to a degree, in the satellite states of the Soviet Bloc, to live true to themselves and free of the “system”.
Why genuine? Because it wasn’t artificially generated. Why a culture? Because it wasn’t just a pre-adulthood right of passage, like every earlier or later youth rebellion and fashion. Why “counter”? Because its concern ... its sorge ... was for existence, for the life that is lived in an age when that life ceased to have human meaning and value for the rulers of America (and those of the white world beyond). It was an attempt to make a revolution in that life in such a way that its human worth was reclaimed and re-stated in every living, breathing moment. It had, if not a formal philosophical critique, then certainly a question and, in answer to that, a generalised opinion and a settled will. It had a definite, positive vision, morally and sexually, aesthetically, spiritually. It had, if not a plan of how to go about things, at least a confident expectation that it would, by its actions, change the world and do it in one generation.
Greg Johnson, editor of Counter-Currents Publishing, talk to GW and Daniel about Heidegger and a new politics of identity in a liberal age. 1hr 16min; 69.5MB.
This essay, which is long (sorry about that) and quite detailed, picks up certain themes that were first introduced at MR five years ago. It is, more or less, a summation of my present understanding, as someone pondering the crisis of identity, power, and existence which we Europeans are facing everywhere in the West today. But it is also a contribution to MR’s Ontology Project. As such, it is a modest step towards a firm proposal for a politics for the true European life.
One of the beautiful characteristics of existentialist thought is that an investigation of specific phenomena in the mind or in the lived life can begin with anything, and profitably so. This is because relatedness is inherent to it. All things, even opposites, are related, whereas fracture is the natural estate of non-existential thought. This is a particular theme of this post, in which I am trying to cohere the freedom, unity and Life which should, in my opinion, be the very meaning of nationalism in its 21st century struggle. Let us, then, take as our beginning this idea of struggle, and work from there.
In what struggle are nationalists truly engaged? Well, yes, the struggle for the future of our people: a struggle for survival, a struggle for autonomy, a struggle for homeland, a struggle to live unburdened by the racial Other. That is clear. A process of deliverance, of salvation, then. But also deliverance and salvation from the entire political, social, and economic form of the modern world, meaning from its economism, its egalitarianism, its “liberty” and “progress”, its “tolerance” and universalism … even, for some, its democratism because that, too, is a modernist massifying ideology.
John Shotter’s “Social Accountability and the Social Construction of ‘You”