Dieckenhorst Farm Cash Cow
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, 22 March 2017 09:54.
The daunting task of policing in Sweden.
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Tuesday, 21 March 2017 16:14.
Erdogan urges Turks in Europe to have 5 children
Posted by DanielS on Monday, 20 March 2017 04:06.
Women Without Class
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 19 March 2017 04:42.
V. Orbán: “Hungary is in a State of Siege”
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, 18 March 2017 22:51.
Suidlanders Reach out to Americans to Stop South African White Genocide
Posted by DanielS on Friday, 17 March 2017 21:38.
Bold and Brash Intelligence: Examining Geert Wilders and the PVV in the Netherlands.
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Thursday, 16 March 2017 09:17.
61,697 Invaders Land in Europe: Jan. 2017
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, 15 March 2017 04:38.
Mass Invasion of Spain Reaches New Height
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 14 March 2017 04:25.
Terror In Europe - a network of those unapprehended despite being on the radar before the acts
Posted by DanielS on Monday, 13 March 2017 04:25.
The coming US–China trade war will present opportunities for Australia in RCEP & FTAAP.
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sunday, 12 March 2017 09:29.
US Government to build American ‘competitiveness’ atop socio-economic retrogression and misery.
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sunday, 12 March 2017 06:52.
Poland: Europe’s Vanguard Nation - accepted just 0.21 asylum-seekers per 1000 citizens last year
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, 11 March 2017 06:56.
Jez Turner being persecuted for saying what Alan Dershowitz says that Jews should be proud of.
Posted by DanielS on Friday, 10 March 2017 16:59.
The ‘Left of Launch’ Strategy: Yet another reason why Iran is not a nuclear threat to America.
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Wednesday, 08 March 2017 23:27.
SA President: “Black Unity” against Whites
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, 08 March 2017 04:07.
Gauguin: More than one disease introduced to natives. One was not his fault but he tried to cure it.
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 07 March 2017 17:46.
A view of Brexit from Asia: Britain as a Pacific trading power in the 21st century.
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Monday, 06 March 2017 02:40.
Coerced Confessions of The Central Park Five
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 05 March 2017 00:30.
Black hyper-assertiveness, lack of impulse control, predatory aggression & liberal natural fallacy
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, 04 March 2017 17:45.
Anti-Semitic bomb threats revealed to be hoaxes.
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Saturday, 04 March 2017 01:39.
Solzhenitsyn’s 200 Years Together: Russia & the Jews - Obstructions Continue
Posted by DanielS on Friday, 03 March 2017 12:56.
Active Measures’ RT pressures London club for enacting policy that protects its business and patrons
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, 02 March 2017 16:07.
Britons murdered in Britain since the death of Stephen Lawrence
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, 01 March 2017 15:45.
What you should be looking for in Donald Trump’s address to the US Congress.
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Tuesday, 28 February 2017 07:47.
It’s in the background, it’s taken for granted, resistance is futile.
Posted by DanielS on Monday, 27 February 2017 17:13.
#Cloudbleed: The rank system perspective.
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sunday, 26 February 2017 21:45.
“Middle Eastern interloper” that drunk Trump voter shot and killed was an Indian IT specialist
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 26 February 2017 04:42.
Brett Stevens: Not just a Government Issue Patriotard, but a Full-Blown ZOG Disinformation Agent
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, 25 February 2017 05:53.
American Experience - Oklahoma City
Posted by DanielS on Friday, 24 February 2017 19:40.
American Experience: Ruby Ridge
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, 23 February 2017 19:40.
Mass Rapes: Islamic Weapon of Conquest and Domination
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, 22 February 2017 07:29.
Petitioning The Release of Rezzas Abdulla Baby Spitter
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 21 February 2017 19:47.
Majorityrights Central > Category: The Ontology Project
Before returning (in Part 3) to the compound structure of Being on which I concluded Part 1, I am going to introduce the beginnings of the identitarian exegesis to an otherwise ethnic nationalist essay.
Broadly, ethnic nationalism belongs to being and, therefore, to an ontological analysis. Its cry of the heart is for “The Being of my people”, and it is therefore a cry for the freedom to subsist. It is already a general organising principle of sorts, a pulse in the background of the life of all peoples. But other than in times of extremis (Heidegger’s “Being towards death”), it is not a straightforward matter to bring it into the foreground as a positive, life-affirming force. That was never more true than in our time, when the material comforts and alienations of our age, together with the gradual, indeed, generational unfolding of extremis, counsel for action another day … always another day … and make ethnic nationalism a less than reliable organising principle.
Add to that the ease with which our people’s many enemies, within and without, can de-legitimise any form of engagement with the race issue which is reactive and, therefore, negative, and the limitations of ethnic nationalist discourse become all too apparent.
Identitarianism, on the other hand, belongs to consciousness and, therefore, to a psychological analysis. Its cry of the heart is or should be “This people is mine”, and it is a cry of a much more open kind, leading easily to the positive demand that, as “mine”, the people must freely and jointly destine. Identitarianism, as they say, has legs in a way that ethnic nationalism does not. Of course, we need both, to which end we shouldn’t be defeated by the idea that Being and Mind are contrary and exclusive ... or, indeed, that, notwithstanding Heidegger’s rejection of Descartes and Kant, ontology and psychology are such. There is a coherence and compatibility, even if there is no perfect synthesis; and one of my basic aims in all these scribblings is to try to bring this out in a methodical way.
The following is less another of my interminable epigonic offerings for the purpose of advancing the Ontology Project than it is an attempt to resolve the unsatisfactory state of intellectual affairs which exists between myself and Daniel on the relevance and utility of sociology. As such, it proposes a more politically vital form of the promising but, as of now, still new and hardly intellectualised, general concept of “Being of” (which is itself a response to, and development of, Martin Heidegger’s “Being with”). My intention in doing so is to explicate the unique and holistic, radically revolutionary nature of ethnic nationalism, as I apprehend the meaning of that term.
The essay is long - for which I apologise here and now – so it will be presented in three parts. Some readers may find it too technical at times or too intellectually unruly, and to both sets of critics I would plead for a visit to my third and final part, when it is posted.
So, to begin ...
There is a general agreement that liberalism’s highly conflicted ideological axes present as left ↔ right and something along the lines of “Get your fucking hands off me” ↔ “That’s enough, you little squirt - we know what is best for you”. It is a good thing to have some idea, at least, of the general form and substance of the system in whose mighty span all the current political possibilities of the world are contained, and in whose rangy vistas one’s own little intellectual horizons are folded. At least, if one is a liberal. Or a Marxist, or a standard issue conservative.
But we are not liberals or Marxists or conservatives. We are nationalists. Our politics do not map anywhere on the liberal axes. The tension which exists between genuine nationalism and any aspect of liberal politics clearly attests to that fact. One has only to look at how left and right, ordinarily enemies in a permanent, often vicious trench war, throw over all disagreements to vote for the surviving non-nationalist candidate whenever nationalism threatens to achieve an electoral advance.
But what, exactly, is the form and substance of this outright opponent of the liberal Weltanschauung? You would think that, as its ardent advocates, we would all know the answer to this very obvious question. You would think that the salient extremes of a politics of natural interests, and so of life itself, must be screamingly obvious. Not so. Most of us probably don’t think of nationalism as a self-contained system of thought at all. Most of us probably suppose, in a received-wisdom sort of way, that it arises from within the liberal canon as an historical corrective or digression. Opinions to be found in the British mainstream media comment threads certainly support that thesis. I lost patience long ago with the endless supply of mortally embarrassed nationalist thread-folk who, confronted with the too too awful accusation that Hitler was “right-wing”, fly at their accusers with the information that oh no, he was “left-wing”. The clue is in the word “socialist”, you see. Oh no it isn’t. Oh yes it is. Oh no … oh yes … oh no.
A few weeks ago I posted a piece here about the limits of incremental change. Its goal was to explore how far political reaction not guided by nationalists … the kind of political reaction which is emerging all across the West … can really go before it encounters the immoveable object of Establishment interests, Money Power interests, Jewish interests; at which point only an authentic nationalism can push on. This article today will also address the problem of limits. But this time those will be the limits in commonplace nationalist advocacy which do not necessarily preference “pushing on”.
This short article will also serve as a response to Daniel’s reliance, stated over his most recent posts, on social critique.
Readers may be familiar with my criticism of American White Nationalism as a reactionary but non-revolutionary ideology greatly compromised by the unacknowledged, vestigial liberalism of its advocates. I touched upon the radical nature of what it is NOT … systemic nationalism … at the opening of Part 3 of the What it means to be human series:
And so on.
The point is that the mass of WNs, along with a probable majority of self-described European nationalists, are not willing to think through the consequences of such radicalism. They may claim to be 100% AltRight or National Socialist or even white left (a contested term, it seems). But as reactionaries they have a conservative civilisational vision. In most cases it has little more ambition than for a return to where we were, ethnically speaking, two or three generations ago. Minus the Jews and blacks, of course, and the bad political choices, the bad life-style choices (especially the “mudsharking”). Bolt on a few useful ancillaries like race-realism, no more brother-wars, and maybe some bits of honour code, and that’s rebirth, right … that’s whites living and working and voting for and by their own collective interests, governed by men and women who understand that and are faithful to it. Isn’t this all that white America really needs? Oh, and the personal liberty, of course. Got a constitutional right to that. What free man wants government pushing him around? Oh, and there’s Christianity. Believers are always gonna believe. Can’t stop that. Shouldn’t even try. And then there’s guns. Didn’t the guy behind the bar just say that a well-armed populace is the best defence against tyranny? Of course, the tyranny has tanks and aircraft. And electronic warfare. And the FEMA camps. And your address. But, hey, if you think your 9mm mail order popgun will help, we’re cool with that. Just kindly point it somewhere else.
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?