If you are not clear about the meaning of the term “natural duel”, first read and re-read “The Tale of Lin Tse” (with codification at Seven Points of Agreement Between Individuals (revised).)  As a warning to the majority, (the majority of Majority Rights’ commentariate being only one sampling): when you scoff at the culture—the socially honored routes to women giving birth and men giving death—that created to you, you scoff at your very being. 

As the fundamental conflict between expanding technological civilization and Earth continues unabated, I will, from time to time, continue to present some of the facets of that conflict toward what I see as an ultimate resolution bifurcating humanity into a eusocial species departing from the biosphere, and fully individuated man, no longer ”...stuck in between” to use E. O. Wilson’s words that unintentionally recall those of Nietzsche.

Read on…

READ MORE...

On March 11th, just a few days after Marine Le Pen finally reaches her target for mayoral signatures, allowing her candidacy for the Presidency to go forward, a psychopath begins a killing spree in Montauban.  He shoots the first of three non-white paratroopers, and makes his getaway on a black Yamaha TMAX, a 530cc scooter much prized by robbers.  A week later the same man, it is thought, but riding a white TMAX, attacks a Jewish school in Toulouse, coldly killing one adult and three children and wounding a number of others.  The authorities announce they are investigating neo-Nazi connections, but that line of investigation is soon dropped.

The area, meanwhile, has been flooded with security personnel.  There are over 7,000 hours of CCTV to check but, seemingly, few clues about the identity of the shooter - just that he understands guns, and he knows how to kill coldly and efficiently.  He may be filming his actions using a Go-Pro chest camera of the type sometimes used by skydivers.

Francois Molins, the public prosecutor in Paris, has declared the offences terrorism and seems to believe that the best chance of catching the killer is if he tries his hand again. 

France waits.  The presidential election campaign is on hold.  Sarkozy’s pitch for the NF vote - his talk about “too many foreigners” - has been dropped like a very hot brick.  The question everybody wants to know: do these killings hold any special horrors for Marine and her party, and for the patriotic French?

In recent days there have been around a dozen opinion pieces at the Telegraph site addressing the Catholic Church’s defence of marriage from the trespasses of “gay rights” activism.  I’ve participated in a few of the threads (plus one at the Indy which had to be taken down, so shocking is it to the fastidious liberal to encounter opposition).

My usual argument was that the female demand for male fidelity (monogamy) is a European sociobiological trait, so the protection and preservation of marriage as the most efficacious form of monogamy (for raising well-adjusted offspring able to make adaptive life-choices) is a highly important interest for our people.  The effect of its homosexualisation would be to reduce it to the status of a mere lifestyle choice – even more than it is already.  Young women, in particular, would no longer find in it that idealisation of love, sex and family which has drawn them up the church aisle, on their father’s arm, for centuries.

Plainly, homosexual activists are not open to conservative or religious argument.  Even the two most reasonable who did briefly acknowledge that there are more important things to society than homosexual equality never followed that line of reasoning through to its natural conclusion.  The rest of them - and there was an impressive number of homosexuals and leftists commenting on these threads - were hermetically sealed away from all reason.  They denied outright that the homosexualisation of marriage will have the slightest impact on its status.  But the quality of their advocacy generally – it’s arrogance and smugness, its frequent recourse to insult, its hatred of the Church and the Vatican, its refusal to acknowledge any merit in opposing arguments (some of which were unanswerable) – leaves one with precisely the impression that these people will sully and wreck whatever they touch.  The repute of marriage, already in decay, will never recover while they use it to prove their normality to themselves - which is all they are interested in.

It was my intention to go through some of the threads and pick out their more interesting arguments.  I have tried.  This is the result, and it’s not much because there isn’t much that can be used:

from being the minority though I may be in my sexual orientation I am part of a growing MAJORITY of Brits who have no problem at all with homosexuality. There is literally no way marriage equality isn’t going to pass, and when it does you people can all be quiet again.

Just skimmed your verbal diarrhoeal rant.  I’ve checked up, and you have indeed been on these forums for years, and pretty much everyone hates you.  You’ve been written about on blogs, and at all times people always have a problem with you.  You’ve been called a bigot, a homophobe, and intolerant - to just highlight a few terms.

What’s going to happen is this geoffrey1, equal marriage will be here in the next year or two, and nothing some warped and twisted bigoted homophobic intolerant keyboard warrior fanatical fundamentalist like you, .. will have the slightest impact.

Glad we have the Prome Minister and all major political parties on our side though - as well as the majority of the British public.

We’ve grown up in lots of ways.  The fact that society still has a bit of room left for homophobes like you makes me proud that we still tolerant alternative opinions.  But don’t get any ideas that you will be see as anything other than a vile and nasty homophobe and someone the majority doesn’t care to know.  Imagine what a sick world it would be if people like you were in the majority.  I expect you’ll go now and report back to your BNP buddies.

None of these remarks was made to me, incidentally.  I have not selected them because they contain insults.  They are merely representative of the quality of thought that, apparently, goes on in homosexual circles.  Yet these creatures are winning their war for the right to marriage.  Obviously, the reason for that lies elsewhere than in their ability to set out their case, which has no merit whatsoever.

I am writing this very brief post to mark a particularly interesting thread-intervention by Daniel2 - the estimable Daniel Sienkiewicz of VoR - on the seemingly non-serious topic of hippies.

He wrote:

Hippies, as opposed to The Viet Nam War, were about a right below rights for the (White) male of the species to Be - that is, to have the right to exist on the basis of intrinsic, inherited value, as opposed to being allowed to exist merely on the basis of accomplishment, what they do or through proof in overcoming brutal rights of passage up to and including war.

The White male motive to be left alone was different from the Black Male motive which aimed more toward the power of rule.

Moreover, the White male motive was a stance against the military industrial complex - wars had become habit form for generations, and had done the White race no good. It was a movement against inhumane demands made upon White men, and a motive to be, by contrast. With male being is a corollary to the right of the White race to exist on the basis of pre-existent evolution.

I like this kind of historicization of a reactive but ineradicable struggle by white men to be.  It raises the interesting possibility that spontaneous movements such as the levellers, and popular rebellions such as the Peasants Revolt, religious effusions such as the Canterbury pilgrimage, cultural ones such as the opening of the American West, political ones such as the reception of Adolf Hitler by the German people, and so forth, may have had origins and their place in a grand, Manichean struggle between the forces of light and darkness, and of freedom and enslavement.  That the people, or some of them anyway, turned away periodically from the furrow of the plough and the heat of the furnace, from the tyranny of the materialistic and of near concerns, and from harm’s unjust way to seek the conditions necessary for a truly human existence, is a beautiful and encouraging thought.

That living then in a system of such undoubted corruption and emptiness only prompted them onwards to the next cycle of searching, so living now in just such a system will prompt us.  It is only a matter of time and circumstance.  Therein, then, lies a narrative of our liberation - though, of course, reaction is not enough of itself.  A true ontological model of Man must inform and guide the search for it to realise anything useful and permanent.

by Graham Lister

“Nationalism has no special relationship to political justice; but neither does it have a particular relationship to injustice. The most obvious thing about it is, after all, that it exists…and there are no objective criteria of what is a nation – but its subjective power is compelling. A nation, therefore, said Renan, is a great solidarity founded on a consciousness of sacrifice made in the past and on willingness to make further ones in the future”.

Bernard Crick from In Defence of Politics.

Nationalism has a rancid stench. It has been thought pivotal to some of the worse horrors of recent human history, yet it will not go away. If, as a character from Joyce’s Ulysses suggests, “History, Stephen said, is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake” then one of the most persistent phantoms haunting our nightly terrors is nationalism, particularly in the conditions of our freshly constructed ‘global’ village, built primarily through the medium of neoliberalism (the most successful ideology in history).

In the UK thinkers as wildly different as the ‘deep-blue’ conservative Roger Scruton and the Marxian theorist of nationalism (and Scottish nationalist) Tom Nairn both write with perceptive insights into the phenomena of nations and nationalism. Like any other ism, nationalism has its own internal spectrum. And due to its overall plasticity nationalism is hard to place within any conventional political axiality. It can take almost any political form and find support from anywhere in the ideological firmament – witness the radical-chic associated with various decolonization struggles – or indeed the burbling of the blessed Saint Michel (of Foucault) over the exciting new ‘political spirituality’ unleashed by the Iranian revolutionaries. However, some forms of nationalism are generally considered to have been radio-actively toxic.

Approximately eighty years ago, events occurred, which were obscure at the time, from whose dire consequences the world has not yet totally recovered. The location was Munich, capital of the historic Kingdom of Bavaria and second city of the recently formed all-German Reich. The time was five years after the end of World War I, when this new would-be imperial state had been defeated, and then both punished harshly and utterly humbled by the victors. What was to become the most extreme currency inflation in history had begun. By that autumn the Reichsbank would be issuing 100-trillion-mark notes; it took a pocketful of them to buy a US dollar.

READ MORE...

So now the police, who did nothing about Moslem paedophilia for years, are gearing up to fight “the racism”.

Over this last week the MSM has reported on the trial at :Liverpool Crown Court of the first eleven of forty-seven Moslem Asians, mostly Pakistanis, charges with grooming white girls for prostituting among fellow Moslem men.  The charges against the defendants do not mention racism, and none of the reporting has suggested that a racist motive might be inferred from the identity of the victims.  On the contrary, the reporting has been both sparse and carefully calculated to be as “non-inflammatory” as possible.

It has not worked.

Rochdale violence raises fears over racial tensions in north-west England

Police vehicles damaged and officer injured in disturbances in Heywood, as planned EDL event fuels anxieties

Concerns over racial tensions in the north-west have increased after violence in Rochdale on Thursday night.

The disturbances appear to have been linked to the trial of 11 men of Asian descent accused of grooming vulnerable young girls in Rochdale. The trial is ongoing at Liverpool crown court, where the far right have held protests.

Tensions will be further raised in the region when the far right English Defence League (EDL) holds a demonstration in Hyde, where a white teenager was injured last month by a group of Asian men. Tameside council has expressed grave misgivings that the event could lead to unrest.

Two hundred young people congregated in Heywood, Rochdale on Thursday evening. A car and three police vehicles were damaged and an officer suffered bruising to his arms and legs during the disturbances.

At 10pm, Greater Manchester police effectively issued a curfew when they warned all parents in the area to make sure their children were home. An hour later, riot police had cleared the streets, but a takeaway shop had its windows smashed.

A 35-year-old man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence and police assault and a 14-year-old boy was arrested for causing danger to a public highway.

Of course, the story for the Guardian was always going to be “fears” for the Neo-Marxist Utopian Tomorrow.  But the story is also reported at Yahoo:

A group of around 100 people, including adults and children, congregated in the centre of the Heywood area of Rochdale, Greater Manchester, on Thursday night to raise “concerns”, police said.

Superintendent Chris Hankinson, from Greater Manchester Police, said a small number of people then began to cause trouble. The disorder is linked to a trial at Liverpool Crown Court relating to alleged grooming and sexual exploitation.

Officers were pelted with bricks and other missiles and two arrests were made after windows were damaged at a takeaway. One car belonging to a member of the public and three police vehicles were also damaged. An officer suffered bruising to his legs and arms.

Mr Hankinson, in charge of neighbourhood policing in Rochdale, told a press conference at Rochdale police station: “Those that seek to use what’s going on at the moment in Liverpool to further their racist agenda will be dealt with robustly.

… where the nature of the Liverpool trial is too painful for the politically fastidious to share with the Yahoo reader.  Fortunately, the comment facility has been carelessly left operational and, so far, over 1150 Yahoo readers have explained exactly what Englishmen think of their vibrant new countrymen.  The Guardianistas are right to worry.  Moslem grooming of white girls is thought by nationalists to occur wherever there are large Moslem colonies.  It can only go one way now.

I received a mail this morning from one Friendrick requesting a “position statement” on the argument for the dissolution of white America presented by the science correspondent of Reason Magazine, Ronald Bailey.  Bailey has a pretty impressive CV, and obviously considers himself expert in matters of ethics as well as science.  But he is also a liberal, and the argument he has written is a wholly liberal argument, not an ethical or scientific one.

It is an argument relying on a particular reading of 20th century American immigration history.  Its principal thrust is that the definition of white America already expanded from “Nordic” during the 20th century, and will continue to expand in the 21st to include Hispanics (he means Mestizos).  Obviously, one could respond to this in equally historical terms, standing on the ground of the righteous white American deploring the effects of that expansion.  But that’s not intellectually aggressive enough, I feel.  One has to get at the faux-virtue of liberal principle and undo it by more powerful ethical arguments.

Bailey’s guiding principle is tolerance ad infinitum in the face of coercive change, and the “good” that diversity does to expand said tolerance.  It is the job of white America to deracinate to be tolerant.  Bailey writes of “the ever-broadening inclusive tolerance of the American social project” without ever stopping to consider whether peoples and races have the right to life, or the right to express their own interests, or the right of consent, or the right to self-defence, or whether it is intolerant to deny such rights solely in respect to one people and one race.  In the politics of the unfettered will such ethical considerations are assiduously ignored or, if they can’t be ignored, hurriedly buried beneath a flurry of weak and easily rebutted arguments.

I have responded to Friendrick’s invitation by visiting Reason and the thread to Mr Bailey’s article, and posting what is, I hope, a suitable ethical and even scientific argument.  Whether it qualifies as a position statement I don’t know.  But it will be interesting to see if any advocate of endless tolerance can undermine its position.

I doubt it somehow.

My reply is reproduced below the fold.

READ MORE...

by Graham Lister

If there was no difference between essence and appearance, there would be no need for science. - Karl Marx.

“Our discussions of non-purposive elaborations of functional claims suggest ways of filling that lacuna, but it is also necessary to point out that Marxists can be too sensitive to the charge that they perceive conspiracies everywhere. There is more collective design in history than an inflexible rejection of ‘conspiracy theories’ would allow, and richer scope for purposeful elaboration of Marxist functional theses than that posture recognizes. Thus while ideologies are not normally ‘invented’ to to fit the purposes they serve, a fairly deliberate and quite concerned effort to maintain and protect an existing ideology is not unusual. According to Christopher Hill, nobility and gentry in seventeenth-century England doubted they “would still be able to control the state without the help of the church”, and, therefore, “rallied to the defence of the episcopacy in 1641…for explicitly social reasons”. Ruling class persons of no special devotion to an Anglican God frankly professed obedience, and acted on that inspiration. Or, to take another example, when a high state functionary, reflecting on the unequal distribution of information in society, concludes that “this inequality of knowledge has become necessary for the maintenance of all the social inequalities which gave rise to it”, he may be expected to see the persistence of an educational structure which reproduces ignorance in the right places…But sentences beginning “The ruling class have decided…” do not entail the convocation of an assembly. Ruling class persons meet and instruct one another in overlapping milieux of government, recreation, and practical affairs, and a collective policy emerges even when they were never all in one place at one time.

There are, of course, many shades between the cynical handling of ideology just emphasized and an unhypocritical commitment to it, and a division of labour between lucid and engagé defenders of dominant ideas can be quite functional. If awareness of the true nature of the game penetrates too far down the elite, it could leak into the strata beneath them. There is always a mix of manipulation, self-deception, and blind-conviction in adherence to an ideology, the optimal proportions varying with circumstance.

All classes are receptive to whatever ideas are likely to benefit them, and ruling classes are well placed to propagate ideologies particularly congenial to themselves. But before an ideology is received or broadcast it has to be formed. And on that point there are traces in Marx of a Darwinian mechanism, a notion that thought-systems are produced in comparative isolation from social constraint, but persist and gain social life following a filtration process which selects those well-adapted for ideological service…There is a kind of ‘ideological pool’ which yields elements in different configurations as social requirements change.

Yet it is unlikely that ideas fashioned in disconnection from their possible social use will endorse and reject exactly what suits classes receptive to them. Here a Lamarckian element may enter, to make the picture more plausible. In Lamarck’s theory the equipment of the individual organism is somewhat plastic, for it changes under environmental challenge when it is put to novel use. Because of the delicacy of intellectual constructions, sets of ideas enjoy a partly similar plasticity: one change of emphasis, one slurred inference, etc., can alter the import of the whole. Such ‘Lamarckian’ possibilities are intimated in Marx’s review of the numerous uses to which a self-same Christianity is liable, and is it not because ‘Liberalism’ is an ambiguous term that its presumed teaching varies across space and time.”

- from “Karl Marx’s Theory of History – A Defence” by G.A. Cohen.

Let the discussion on ‘top-down versus bottom-up’ processes in the world of ideas and ideology begin.

Note- the act of quotation does not imply approval or agreement.