“Natural rights”, “human rights” or “social classification”, what is the difference that can make a difference for us at this point? I would argue assertion of social classification. John Law is distinguishing our relative difference as a people but places it in the background to a distinction of “natural rights” as an expression overwhelmingly distinct from other peoples and a singular expression of Europeanness - apparently forever lost if we set it aside as a priority at certain times in the life span, in our system and in our history? I would argue that rights are one product of our social expression which will be lost if we do not, as de Benoist would advise, learn to prioritize the social from whence individualism derives. It’s a White Left thing.

..

John Law’s erudition is in evidence in distinguishing “natural rights”  vs “human rights” in European history.

He argues that de Benoist is making a mistake in bundling “human rights” with “natural rights.” That he is throwing out the latter along with the former in his criticism of human rights.

In effect, I would say that de Benoist is arguing that “Human rights” are a Cartesian, universalist derivation of rights which are to be done away with as both destructive to the very grounds of what individualism there is to be had and at the same time done away with as a naively adopted, neo-liberal, universalist imposition aimed to break down market barriers to, and differences from, the rest of the world.

Law’s point is, in effect, that in not distinguishing the universal and Cartesian “human rights” from its forerunner, the telos of “natural rights” as a telos relative only to European cultures, that de Benoist is also discarding the distinct and inherent civic rights as natural rights born of Europeans and meant solely as a means to express and maintain our particular European character, civility and liberty. These civil liberties are an epiphenomenon that are both a unique prerogative in expression of our relative kind and a crucial means to maintain our peoples.

It appears to me that de Benoist’s emphasis in criticizing individualism is more correct at this point. De Benoist may not be so much mistaken at this point in not distinguishing the kind of rights as in not emphasizing relativizing social grounds in firm contrast to other peoples and support as such that dynamic classification of bio-racial systems provide.

Law, on the other hand, is jumping the gun a bit in presuming our relative distinction in the telos of natural rights. I can’t speak for de Benoist but of course I have acknowledged the importance of something like that protection of rights and individual liberties within the relative and bounded classification of European peoples, but I would favor a new way of devising them which would suffice for post modern performance requirements (e.g., warrant, accountability, coherence, agency, obligation, legitimacy, prohibition), since the telos of natural rights are likely to prove a partly obsolete relic of a more “stable” order and perhaps on a slippery slope to the Cartesian universality of human rights that came of them.

In either case, returning to the rights structures of bygone epochs is not our priority. Far from it, and in that respect, de Benoist is not wrong to be strongly critical of individual rights as a key agent in leaving us susceptible to destruction.

Neither again is Law wrong in emphasizing that something like rights are necessary to Europeans.

But until such time as we have overcome the Cartesian de-legitimization of social classification and Jewish exploitation of that de-legitimization, particularly in regard to White peoples’ ability to discriminate for that prohibition, individual rights are better treated as a subset and permutation of positive attributes that the class (whole social groups of European peoples) would birth were it not in jeopardy - rights would be an epiphenomenon and not the sole distinguishing characteristic and means of our salvation - indeed, preoccupation with abstract premises as such can be a hindrance at this point, particularly if belabored where no “rights” grievances are, or indeed, can be raised. Rights treated as a shining beacon of European virtue (even in teleological form) would tend to run stiffly roughshod over the radically social source of our distinct character, our interdependence as a social group, and the performance requirements of our post modern condition, which require the assertion of our classification as relatively distinct from the rest of the world - a crucial social classificatory distinction that makes a difference.

In the last part of Eugène Montsalvat‘s review of de Benoist, he is shown to give organizational advice, including moving beyond left and right with observations as to where they both went wrong.

I don’t agree with how he is describing the left, and it is a good occasion to sort that out.

However, I am in significant agreement with the tenor - that capitalism is among our major problems.

With that, he confirms a suggestion from Kumiko to me, that I’ve already accepted. I would take to heart that in promoting the White Left platform that I have not emphasized enough the fact that there would be unions amidst the union that is the racial/national union. I have done that but not enough.

Because I have been so focused on the re-legitimization of racial classification and the unification of people as one class, Kumiko alerts me to the fact that I would be accused of disingenuously wallpapering over bona fide working class concerns for not recognizing their distinct situation. 

She advises talking more in terms of syndicalism, and I can see where her advice in that regard, and as it turns out, also de Benoist’s advice in that regard is correct.

My way of handling these differences could use that boost, though I have not exactly been remiss in that. In criticizing the insufficiently descriptive and ultimately dangerous paradigm of “equality / inequality”, I have consistently spoken in terms of qualitative differences within the White Class (and in relation to non-White groups). As opposed to “equality/inequality” and its false comparisons, I have tended to focus on niches, their paradigmatic incommensurability, qualitative symbiosis and the management of differences in respect of difference as opposed to inequality. Nevertheless, forms of syndicalism should correspond with systemic regulation of these differences.

Counter-currents Publishing, ‘Alain de Benoist’s On the Brink of the Abyss’, Eugène Montsalvat wrote:
Against this increasingly dismal situation Alain de Benoist writes of the possibility of a resistance, that will usher in a transformation of the system. He endorses the idea of moving beyond Right and Left.

As I have said in many places, and I am no less convinced than ever, that it is a mistake to relinquish the self designation as a left, a White Left. The Jews do not want us to adopt its powerfully organizing world view for that reason, because it does line things up correctly time and again.

ibid wrote:
while reminding the Right and the Left of their failures, which have resulted in the modern predicament

Not a left as properly defined in White interests.

ibid wrote:
He warns of idealizing the working classes as naturally good, of repeating the naive Enlightenment optimism that liberalism arose from.

I do not idealize the working classes nor would a White Left.

Benoist is correct and very articulate in citing the Enlightenment, its optimism (wow, never thought of that angle, but true) and the liberalism that came of it, but these are not elements of what we are calling the White Left.

The White Left designates these products of the Enlightenmet and categorizes them as “objectivism”, one of the two great adversaries to White/Left/Class/National/Union/Racial (all the same) solidarity.

The two great adversaries to the White Class/Left are Jewish interests and Objectivists/objectivism.

de Benoist needs to recognize where adoption of Enlightenment ideas among ordinary and working class folks is coming from.

Where it isn’t being promoted by Jewish interests it is being promoted by White elitist traitors disingenuously posing as “objectivists” (innocently great and not accountable) and naively accepted by the “lower classes” as “objectivism”, viz., the way it is.

But it is Not leftism, definitely not White leftism as it does not recognize the union’s right to discriminate and hold people accountable to the union’s interests.

Hence, we have not moved beyond right and left, we have merely not caught up to how Jews and White traitors have manipulated these terms to their interests, including not wanting us to have a “White Left” as its organizational capacities are dangerously powerful against them.

ibid wrote:
On the Right, figures such as Sorel and Péguy have been forgotten, and the fight against communism fooled the Right into aligning with capitalism.

de Benoist is correct about that. No argument.

ibid wrote:
Rather than attacking capitalism as the root of the loss of national borders and the cause of mass immigration, they fall into petty xenophobia, Islamophobia, and buy into the “Clash of Civilizations” that distracts from social conflicts at home.

Here I disagree with de Benoist, not in the sense that issues like these can’t be used to distract from objectivist treachery and problems of their exploiting “lower classes”, but in the sense that he is going to the other extreme, and in ignoring race and religious organization of groups antagonistic to race, that he is buying into the same right wing Enlightenment objectivism (and perhaps Jewish manipulation) that he claims to be wise-to.

He goes on to say..

ibid wrote:
On the Left, four main flaws are identified

First..

ibid wrote:
political universalism

That can be said to be a product of Red (Marxist) Left skullduggery; that is to say, how Jews would apply all peoples in unionized alliance against White capitalists (While Jews themselves maintain their union and the facile unions of those who oppose their enemies).

It is surely wrong to accept the Jewish definition and calibration of the terms.

A union, a White Union, cannot be universal by definition. One is in the union or one is not.

Jews do not want us to have this because it would organize our people in a humane way which is accountable to excellence and differences at the same time.

Second:

ibid wrote:
the absence of a concrete anthropology leading to unrealistic assumptions about human nature,

It can err in this direction but only gets out of hand because the Jews exaggerate these possibilities in order to pander to their paying students. That is, Jewish academics are largely in the big business of selling talk to White female undergraduates: “possibilities” to create college courses and talk talk talk, criticize, criticize, criticize.

Third:

ibid wrote:
a belief in progress, and a moralism focused on the complaints and grievances of victim groups.

Again, exaggeration and distortion of these capacities are the result of Jewish academics who have mixed in and preyed upon enlightenment distortions in order to both misrepresent the left and turn White people off to their organizational capacity in a Left while actually using the victim groups they do marshal as an attack force against Whites.

Fourth:

ibid wrote:
Therefore, the Left disregards things such as national borders, ignores the value of pre-capitalist modes of production, and has fallen into the trap of fighting for various identity politics groups.

Again, those are Jewish cultural Marxist perversions.

How can a leftist union favor the scabbing of their union by an open borders policy?

They cannot, it is a contradiction of terms.

ibid wrote:
at the expense of class struggle. Instead of attacking capitalism, the Left now focuses on “anti-racism” or “sexual liberation,” which only serve to break down the barriers impeding the flow of capital and lead to further individualism in the social sphere.

That is what the Neo cons and other Jewish led interests are getting people to do.

The White Left is guilty of none of these things.

ibid wrote:
To challenge the capitalist system, a new class consciousness must reappear, against individualism a “collective will” must be formed.

True, a White Class, the White Left.

ibid wrote:
This will must come from the bottom up, being built locally, against the global hyperclass. It must be intransigently revolutionary. Benoist repeats the advice of Sorel to the revolutionary syndicalists.

This is quite well said, and I will probably take de Benoist’s and Kumiko’s advice to incorporate more snydicalist type thinking ..

ibid wrote:
“to take the early Christians as their example: those who absolutely rejected the world they were fighting against.”

I am on the radical side, but taking skepticism to quite that level is what led to the radical skepticism of the enlightenment and subsequently to liberal modernity.

The Christians are a bad example unqualified as such.

ibid wrote:
Finally, he identifies the target of this new struggle, “The principal enemy is at once the most harmful and, above all, the most powerful. Today it is capitalism and the market society on the economic level, liberalism on the political level

I would make it a dual entry, Jewish interests and Objectivism (which includes capitalist interests).

ibid wrote:
individualism on the philosophical level

I agree that individualism is a large part of our problem, I understand its philosphical difficulties, but I do not want to summarily and uncritically dismiss it; but rather set it aside as a non-priority while we are under mortal threat as a group by groups.

ibid wrote:
and the United States on the geopolitical level.”

The Jewish and Objectivist led U.S. is certainly a huge problem, but one must understand that it is Objectivism (admittedly written into its Constitution) and Jewish groups that marshal its forces against other group unionization of peoples.

I believe that Kumiko would like a chance to show that there may be a way to ride the tiger of NATO and US forces toward ethno nationalist aims.

ibid wrote:
He calls for an alliance from forces as disparate as Castroism and Christianity to challenge these enemies: “The enemies of my enemies are not necessarily my friends, but they are necessarily allies.

If Christians and Muslims are attacking our enemies that is fine but we cannot be so naive as to think that these universalist and race mixing religions are people we can form formally agreed upon alliances with.

Their overall pattern is overwhelmingly against our interests and untrustworthy.

Same with blacks and Jews. There might be times when they fight groups who are harmful to us, but their overall pattern is overwhelmingly against us and untrustworthy.

ibid wrote:
am notoriously not a Castroist, but I will always support Castro in his fight against American imperialism.

Castro is anti-racist. So, I cannot agree with de Benoist.

ibid wrote:
I am notoriously not a Christian, but I will always support Christians every time they struggle against the power of money. Those who reason otherwise do not have a sense of the priorities or the stakes. They are quite simply accomplices.”

Not true. Very untrue.

READ MORE...

“Literally, why did this even become an argument?”

It’s been brought to my attention that we’re being accused of various things by various people as a result of the article that I posted that was titled ‘English genetic heritage is not German’. It appears that some people, including Carolyn Yeager at The Heretics Hour, have chosen for some reason to seize upon people’s remarks in the comments section of that article to build a characterisation of our position which is very incorrect. DanielS has been accused of being ‘anti-German’, and by proxy I have therefore been accused of abetting ‘anti-German’ thought.

Nothing could be further from the facts. DanielS is not ‘anti-German’, and I’m not abetting ‘anti-German’ thought. In good faith, I’ll assume that Carolyn Yeager’s misinterpretation of my intent is not intentional, and so I’ll explain in the most concise way what my outlook on this is, in the hopes that truth and understanding will prevail.

Heritage and slogans

When I put up the article about how ‘English genetic heritage is not German’, it was entirely for the purpose of showing a way of dispelling the usual liberal sloganeering in the UK that begins with the false appeal to the so-called ‘fact’ of English being all ‘mixed German immigrants’, which is then inexorably extended into a claim that ‘since they are already beyond identification, what is wrong with a little more mixing?’ Obviously the most effective way—a way that is also in accordance with reality—to fight against that kind of liberal sloganeering and to empower the British people to fortify themselves in the belief that the ground they stand on is theirs and that they have a justifiable claim to maintain dominance over their own civic space, is to point out that British people are not merely ‘mixed German immigrants’ of no discernible identity, but in fact they all evolved in the location that they are living in for many thousands of years and as such have a justification to really call themselves ‘British’.

Maintaining this view of a really-existent ‘Britishness’, and suggesting that it should be fashioned into a mass line and propagated to the British people, in no way detracts from the identity of German people, or Germanic peoples as a whole. I don’t see why that should be confusing to some people. It also does not suggest that there should be enmity between Britain and Germany. In fact, it remains our position at Majorityrights that all nations in Europe should stand together while respecting each other’s differences: pan-European regionalism. This is the same position that I also take with regards to Asia and pan-Asian regionalism.

Sometimes mistakes are made

I also get a sense that some of this fury that has been directed toward Majorityrights by the critics, has something to do with the fact that we don’t bow down to Adolf Hitler on every issue, historical and concerning the prosecution of the Second World War. I would say to those people who criticise Majorityrights that it is possible—and this is not a petty-moral statement, it is a statement of cold facts, total administration, and direct geostrategic power concepts—to recognise the structural achievements of the National Socialist movement in Germany and say that it was highly significant in not only raising critical awareness of the influence and threat of Bolshevism, but in fact showing that it was possible to marshal an equally deadly force against them, without having to literally endorse every single ridiculous action and personal preference of Adolf Hitler, every member of the SS, and the general staff of the German Army. Sometimes people do things that are really bad ideas.

It is possible to have a nuanced view, and my view is nuanced.

Obviously, the European war against the Russian Bolshevik regime and its collaborators in Europe, much like the Greater East Asia War against the liberal-capitalist powers, namely, the United States, France, Britain, the Netherlands, and their collaborators, was a crucial moment in history. No alliance in history other than Axis, has been able to unite so many people of diverse ethnic backgrounds against both liberalism and communism at the same time. And no alliance in history has ever come closer to overturning the liberal-capitalist world order in a war of manoeuvre.

These coalitions were to become possible due to the social and economic forces that were activated as a consequence of something like the National Socialist movement of Germany having arisen to power.

Germany rendered assistance to Japan by becoming a viable partner for the duration of the war, and this also engendered a situation where countries like Burma, parts of India, swathes of South East Asia, including Indonesia, Singapore, and others, were able to struggle against their colonial oppressors with the hopes both of independence and of a regional redress of the global systemic inequalities that characterised the liberal-capitalist world order. It also was the case that many Central Asians were enthusiastic about co-operation with Germany as well, particularly some of the Crimean Tatars who must have been relieved to see the 11th German Army under General Erich von Manstein as well as Stay-behind Group D show up in their territory to remove the Russian and Jewish occupiers that had been appearing on their land because of the Soviet incursions into Crimea.

It could be said that in the developing world, the international boundaries and the recognition of ethno-states governed by their own ethnic group’s elites rather than those of another group, is a kind of world that could not have come into existence without the ethno-nationalist consciousness and the live-fire demonstration of the use of deadly force that characterised the Axis approach, particularly in the Pacific.

It wasn’t that any particular person imposed National Socialism onto the German people from above only. It was actually the fact that the liberal-capitalist world view was vying for hegemony over all spheres of human life, and as a result, the ethno-nationalist world view had to fight against it in all spheres of life in order that it could triumph over it. This is the meaning of ‘totalitarianism’ when it is not used as a pejorative by liberals. While being coincident with ‘authoritarianism’, it is not a synonym for it, nor is it a synonym for ‘bad things’. The inauguration of the National Socialist state in Germany, was not the moment that ethno-nationalist world views triumphed. Rather, the inauguration of the National Socialist state was a sign and a consequence of the fact that the ethno-nationalist world view had already triumphed over liberalism among these people, and had in turn given rise to the change in the class character, ethnic composition and loyalties of the persons occupying the big tent known as the state.

This is of course the same logic that applies when talking about Fascist Italy, Right-Socialist Japan, and so on.

I am not necessarily inveighing against that phenomenon.

So with all of that said, where is the argument here? As far as I’m aware, one of the most significant disagreements is largely about the conduct of National Socialist Germany to its East. There are three elements of what happened in that region which are elements of a serious mistake that was made by Germany, a mistake which created excess risk for what—in light of the enormity of what was being fought for by Axis—was relatively little potential gain. Those elements are:

• 1. The maintenance of Adolf Hitler’s historically romanticised view of getting ‘living-space’ in places where it was not strictly necessary to attack, meant that Germany would be creating a fight against potential Central European allies, in order to occupy the land with pregnant German women and frontiersmen, who would then reap the gestational ‘rewards’ of that action 25 years in the future. Is that really a good sense of prioritisation in the opening moves of a war like that one? No. It looks immediately like it is a product of obnoxious hyper-masculine behaviour, which was not properly integrated with any real strategy.


• 2. The United States had the starting advantage of having almost an entirely geographically self-contained, defensible, and integrated system of industrial production within the North American continent, and a food supply contained within the Mississippi basin which was also defensible. Europe’s system at the time was by far less integrated, more difficult to defend, and less advanced. Europe already had a difficult task on its hands, and with Germany destroying large swathes of Central European infrastructure, removing social institutions, and dis-integrating supply chains, this was only making it more difficult to carry out efficient military-industrial production within the time scale that would have been required so as to stand a better chance against the United States. Surely it would have been easier to collaborate with Central European governments and businessmen, rather than tearing them all down to the ground and then having to re-build it all while simultaneously fighting war. It was relatively less developed to begin with due to those being fledgeling networks of production, some of which were less than twenty years in existence. Tearing it all down only made it even less developed—in many cases in fact completely destroying all production—and multiplied industrial difficulties.


• 3. Apparent doctrinal contradictions serving as a de-motivator and de-moraliser for populations in crucial locations. Keep in mind that Central Europeans had not passed into opposition. The generalised views espoused by National Socialists were in great part present within the Central European countries. When Germany began officially denying the existence of nations like Poland, Belarus, Ukraine, and Czechoslovakia, this created a needless divisiveness, and it would be very difficult to explain the German behaviour toward them while simultaneously vouching for the idea of ethno-nationalism. In the absence of (a) an explanation for why government-to-government and military-to-military consultation and collaboration was excluded, and in the absence of (b) even a theoretically consistent justification for ongoing occupation, and in the absence of (c) at least a promise of any future independence, the situation would cause many who were otherwise well-disposed toward the cause to pass into opposition if only to defend the existence of their own ethnic groups in the face of what was a direct assault from Germany.

Now, any one of those reasons standing by itself, might cause someone to argue that they might be able to make it so that the benefit accrued to Germany would outweigh the cost, with respect to the larger agenda of war being conducted against the United States and against Russia.

But with all three points taken together as synergistic and inseparable as a complex system—an ecology—it becomes very clear that the conduct of Germany in Central and Eastern Europe was an inadvisable and unacceptable risk. Taking a preference for disrupting the complex systems that were the Central European nations, for the sake of ‘living-space’, rather than collaborating with the systems as they existed, produced an additional and unnecessary drag against European war-fighting capabilities, which heightened the risk of dis-integration of supply chains and thus heightened the risk of being defeated. You’ve heard of Richard III of England’s line “my kingdom for a horse!”, now try “my empire for the next shipment of ball-bearings within the appropriate time scale.”

This is the way that I look at it, it’s very much an Asian perspective that looks at the ‘big picture’, and it’s a view that I know is at odds with many of the people who criticise Majorityrights. But it is not an irrational view, and I wish that the critics would think about these issues and reflect on the errors where errors exist. I am in no way proposing that this is the sole reason for Axis difficulties in Europe at that time, but I am saying that it is a factor which certainly didn’t help the situation.

A way to the correct line

I would reiterate as well, that this is not a moralising condemnation of Germany, nor is it a moralising condemnation of those who have criticised Majorityrights. I am standing entirely apart from petty-moralist considerations and I am only talking about what I see as a matter of bad risk assessment and bad prioritisation by them when carrying out war of position and war of manoeuvre.

There are no belaboured moral statements or revisionist endorsements here, and so any liberals who are hyperventilating somewhere out there saying “isn’t this too much?”, I’d invite those liberals to take slow, deep breaths, and to not start making noises at me or overreacting.

Most of this post has been about the past, but it also has importance for the future as well, because getting the correct line on this issue of the past, allows people to also get the correct mass line for the future as well and to learn from mistakes. European ethnic-nationalists can be great if they can repair this rift between themselves, with all sides acknowledging errors where errors have occurred. It’s crucially necessary going forward, so that Europe can correctly define its borders and stand as one, as ‘Europe, whole and free’.

I’d like to also add that although the temptation for many to view it this way will be strong, this article should also not be interpreted as a ‘challenge’ issued by me to Carolyn Yeager. There will be no ‘Kumiko Oumae vs. Carolyn Yeager’ catfight-showdown at sunset with knives, so any observers having those thoughts ought to put away the popcorn, at least for now.

This is only an invitation for conversation and perhaps conflict resolution. Something that is characterised less by knives, and more by tea and biscuits. Maybe.

Bill Cosby, serial rapist (of White women), narrates the documentary film, Black History Lost, Stolen, or Strayed, 1968.

...it opens with Cosby talking in an integrated classroom setting.

My 5th grade class (10 year olds) was shown this black power film in our own integrated public school classroom. Rather than react in guilt, however, I felt anger at the attempt to impose guilt trips and black interests upon me as a White kid, as I felt no historical debt to them whatsoever and I knew that I wanted nothing to do with blacks (i.e., especially for having experienced them).

In one part of this attempted indoctrination film, Cosby, of all people, criticizes and summarily dismisses D.W. Griffith’s “Birth of the Nation” as a movie made among other reasons to present justification for protecting White women from Negro men.

       
White woman jumps off cliff to get away from Negro in “Birth of a Nation”

After The Birth of A Nation era, an intermediate stage of media stereotypes for blacks is cited by Cosby - the minstrel characters such as the cowardly and obsequious “Step and Fetch It”...

       
Step and Fetch it, a false stereotype sold to lull complacency in conservatives.

...and the “Sambo.” For those familiar with blacks, these Jewish promoted stereotypes of blacks, as silly and benign, were the opposite of comforting. They were recognizable as misleading in regard to the danger of blacks. How many people had violence done to them, lost their daughters or even lost their lives for treating blacks as if they were “funny” and not street-wise predators?

The very popular “Our Gang Comedy”” featured a Sambo character, “Buckwheat” (later parodied by Eddie Murphy). While the rumor that Cosby bought up the rights to Our Gang Comedy to keep the racial stereotype off television may not be true, there can be little doubt from the documentary that the little Sambo character did not appeal to his sensibilities.

Our Gang Comedy was also a Jewish production, which had no qualms in making Whites look tactlessly condescending to blacks.
     

       
“They stole it from me and therefore..
       
...I take what I should have”

Note the obvious Jewish narrative and suggestions that Cosby is imparting…

Cosby:

“The black people in this country got a bum deal for a long while and it won’t hurt much if we see a little of this (a positive stereotype of blacks… presented as upright and entitled to White women on principle). Stanley Kramer (Jewish) has (been so kind as to) let us use some scenes from ‘Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner?.’ You look at these and remember Birth of a Nation.”

Those words could have been scripted exactly under the production and direction of Stanley Kramer…

Cosby:

“Katherine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy are the girl’s parents.”

                 
       
Scripted anti-White propaganda..

Hepburn (says to Spencer Tracy with stern authority): “She’s twenty three years old and the way she is is just exactly the way we brought her up to be. We answered her questions, she listened to our answers. We told her it was wrong to believe that the White people were somehow essentially superior to the black people… or the brown or the red or the yellow ones for that matter. People who thought that way were wrong to think that way. Sometimes hateful, usually stupid but always, ALWAYS WRONG. That’s what we said.  And when we said IT we did NOT add that don’t ever fall in love with a colored man.

Cosby:

“or where Sidney tells it like it is to his “old man” (ebonics for “father”)

Poitier: YOU AND YOUR WHOLE LOUSY GENERATION BELIEVE THAT THE WAY IT IS IS THE WAY ITS GOT TO BE! And not until your whole generation has lain down and died will the dead weight of you be off our backs! Do you understand you’ve got to get off my back! (softens) Dad, you’re my father, but you think of yourself as a colored man. I think of myself as a man.

       
Hence, we see here a mixture of Kramer’s jewish motives and screenwriter William Rose’s White objectivism combining for a catastrophic propaganda: self righteous, anti-White destruction.

                         
Symbolically, Hollywood’s first interracial kiss (sickening) is in a rear-view mirror, as if taken for granted , as if to say that “we’re all beyond being against that.”

“Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner?” took the Jewish initiative and set the agenda to mainstream miscegenation. With their pseudo innocence pandered to, their disingenuousness encouraged by having their palms greased, objectivists aided, abetted and exacerbated it. Objectivism is exemplified ad nauseam in the scripted arguments of Hepburn and Poitier.

READ MORE...

I would like to take occasion to set out a neglected and important matter for consideration - the hypothesis that “testing” and “lesson giving” are not only underpinnings of liberalism but can be disingenously used and enormously abused as excuses for all manner of trangression. With the false halo of innocence under the rubiric of enlightenment empiricism these ways of looking at the world moved from the laboratories of science to gain vast popularity and practice, not only for the good reasons of solid, verfiable warrant and benign remedies, but also for utility among the populous contra postive traditions and inherited forms - the enlightenment’s prejudice against the superstition of prejudice can serve as powerful and destructive warrant in the wrong hands, giving thoughtless actions, ill-considerd for their ramifications, an ostensible appearance of noble precedent.

For decades now, I have been considering the idea that “lesson giving” could provide a convenient excuse for liberalism, viz. as an excuse for those taking liberties by its means and in regard to the effect on those who are more or less violated by the taking of liberties, which is then written-off as “a lesson.”

I saw that the idea of “testing” could also be disingenuously used along with “lesson giving” to provide excuses for excessive license and liberal behavior. I suspected thus, that “testing” and “lesson giving” were being used all too conveniently to bypass accountability to social capital and human ecologies.

The excess of these ideas, their pervasiveness and popularity are set in motion at the very theoretical underpinnings of liberalism. To begin, these were a liberation from mere tradition, custom, habit, superstition - e.g., from absurd religious requirements. The evangelizing of these values gradually spread through just about all of the world. Liberalism became the water in which we swim - toxic waters for its impervious linearty, promise of limitless progress, pursued as an impervious and deliberately non-discriminatory technology to the destruction of our peoples in their distinct human ecologies. Liberalism which started out as a liberation from tradition became a pervasive tyranny of its own, requiring a second liberation. Nevertheless, to begin, and to some extent always, the empirical project of suspending belief, testing and learning from the results is a positive liberation and compelling for some very good reasons.

Even so, testing and lesson giving become overvalued for their material yield, of course, and as a holdover of the enlightenment’s own customs, habits, positive attributes in culture and peoples. There remains a willful naivete of these notions which is very compelling, seductive as it combines a promise of both innocence and powerful warrant; to get there, however, requires theoretical detachment from human agency, subjectivity, social relevativity and with that, a detachment from accountability - leaving adherents susceptible to the disingenous: the perversion of these notions to the point of hyperbolic liberalism is largely a result of Jewish academia, media and political manipulation; but also provides convenient excuses for objectivists to disingenuously accrue power; while the promotion of objectivism at the same time serves as a means of creating a naivete ripe for exploitation as it finds its way down to an intransigence in pop-culture.

Left unaccountable, unsophisticated by the post modern turn and in the wrong hands (e.g., popular puerile hands and those who would pander to them), these ideas can provide almost boundless excuses for the most destructive liberal behavior. Just about anything can be written-off as “testing” and “lesson-giving.”

Thus, it is an eminently worthy consideration for Majorityrights to engage and focus on these matters which underwrite liberalism. We need to understand where they go too far, what qualitative and quantiative limitations there should perhaps be and by contrast also the proper applications - post modernity does not only evaluate progress but the value of tradition and inherited forms as well.

I would call attention to the detriment of the popular application of the empirical view, in its tendency to focus on momentary and episodic units of analysis, while doing violence to relational and cultural/systemic processes and ecology; with that, rupturing historical evolutionary patterns.

At this very moment I realize that I have been misunderstood previously as not recognizing that science proper is capable of taking patterns into account. Of course it can. Let me correct that here by noting that it is especially in the popular manifestation of empiricism through enculturation of the enlightenment project, in turn instigated for hyperbolic liberal purposes by YKW, that this “empiricism” is conducted with crass and destructive carte blanche.

We call these problems of “modernity” while recognizing that they have been twisted and exaggerated beyond all reason by the YKW.

They (the YKW) have done the same to post modernity, to where it is unrecognizable as the postive correction to modernity that it was meant to be (e.g., a liberation from mere facticity and a capacity to reconstruct traditional and inherited forms where good and benign). That is why I have been so vigilant to articulate the post modern remedy for the public project as it is supposed to be - as a means to manage the best and worst of modernity and tradtional/inherited forms.

I have called attention to the fact that hermeneutics and social constructionism proper provide a post modern remedy - especially for the public -  to help them away from this myopic, scientistic focus and disingenuous bypassing of accountability that filters down from the specialty of the scientist to common, everyday, popular menality and practice.

I have called attention to the fact that reconstructing the validity and warrant of social classification (viz., “race”) is necessary to provide delimitation to calibrate, regulate and govern accountability to systemic historical processes and human ecology.

I have indicated that the idea of sacrament (monogamy, life-long and or partner-wise) must be introduced for people to have the authentic freedom of choice within and between group relations. Particularly as ritualized, this would re-connect the episode (the empirical) to the broader relational and historic pattern - accountability to its ennobling and caring ensconement. It is a connection of accountbility to the historical systemic group pattern. It provides integrity to the whole group - and a control variable, if you want to look at it scientifically.

But these are only the broadest outlines. I have yet to get people to participate in this critique and remedy of modernity and of its Jewish distortions, despite its obvious necessity and importance as it bears upon our experience of runaway liberalism to the detriment of our group’s human ecology.

Hence, I pluck-out and focus on the popular abuse of these two enlightenment memes: “testing and lesson giving.”

Consider with me, if you will, where the use of these memes are valid and where they become abuse.

And what to do in remedial application? How does it work?

How can you know things before you test them thoroughly? How do you know if your partner is, or will be appropriate enough unless you “test” them? Can “testing” be relied upon to provide an accurate assessment? Testing can have an episodic bias and focus to the detriment of the relational and protracted cultural/systemic patterns. A lesson may be too costly.

The problem and the question is to provide practical means for assessment when trying to correct for the potential reckage of an over-emphasis on “testing” (writing-off caution), “lesson giving” (writing off the damage) and its resultant liberalism.

Testing and lesson giving create a problem for accountability. These ideas are all too facile. The “tester” can apparently always justify the test as providing a lesson and postive feedback therefore - even if the consequences were negative in the sense of being destructive to individuals, relationships and the cultural/systemic pattern.

Hermeneutics seeks to amend this relation blindness with the inclusion of broader social systemic historical views.

READ MORE...

On 02 August 2015, Robert Stark interviewed Matt Forney and they had a conversation with each other that went on for some time. One thing which leaped out to me about it in particular, is the questions rhetorically asked by Matt Forney after the 55 minute mark in the audio, which are transcribed here:

FORNEY: I’m not a Christian, but I’m familiar with Christian theology because I was raised as a Catholic—

• 1. Point to the portion of the Bible where it says that you have to slavishly support Israel.


• 2. Point the portion of the Bible where it says that you have to let your country be overrun by foreigners.


• 3. Point to the section of the Bible where it says that you have to endorse the degeneracy of gay rights.


• 4. Claiming that being a Christian is synonymous with sucking up to illegal aliens is completely counter to the idea of being a Christian.

Usually people aren’t expected to answer rhetorical questions, but these ones are too funny to resist. So I’ve inserted some numbers, and I’ll answer each one, so as to show the slavishness and unsuitability of Christianity when it comes to talking about the ethnic genetic interests of Europeans.

• 1. Slavishly support Israel: YES. (John 4:22)


• 2. Let your country be overrun by foreigners: YES. (Hebrews 13:1-2, Romans 15:7, Galations 3:26-28)


• 3. Endorse the apparent ‘degeneracy’ of ‘gay rights’: NO. (Romans 1:18-32)


• 4. Sucking up to illegal aliens: YES. (1 Peter 4:9, Romans 12:13)

Christianity asks that you should show hospitality and support for all immigrants into your countries without complaining, which runs entirely contrary to your ethnic genetic interests. At the same time Christianity does however maintain that gay people are ‘bad’ and apparently advocates persecuting them for what seems to be no reason whatsoever. Of course, how that would help anyone’s ethnic genetic interests, has yet to be determined.

Forney scores one out of four. It’s a pretty bad score, but then most people don’t seem to know what Christianity is really saying, and that’s why they keep making these pro-Christian statements, even though Christianity is complete rubbish.

Not German.

There is a common myth that English people are a mixture between Celts and Germans, and that they are mostly German. This myth is pervasive and opens the door to many misunderstandings. As a service to the Majorityrights’ readership, I will present just a small teaser quote from Stephen Oppenheimer’s 2006 article on this subject which exists at Prospect Magazine.

Here:

Prospect, ‘Myths of British ancestry’, Stephen Oppenheimer, Oct 2006, wrote (emphasis):
The fact that the British and the Irish both live on islands gives them a misleading sense of security about their unique historical identities. But do we really know who we are, where we come from and what defines the nature of our genetic and cultural heritage? Who are and were the Scots, the Welsh, the Irish and the English? And did the English really crush a glorious Celtic heritage?

Everyone has heard of Celts, Anglo-Saxons and Vikings. And most of us are familiar with the idea that the English are descended from Anglo-Saxons, who invaded eastern England after the Romans left, while most of the people in the rest of the British Isles derive from indigenous Celtic ancestors with a sprinkling of Viking blood around the fringes.

Yet there is no agreement among historians or archaeologists on the meaning of the words “Celtic” or “Anglo-Saxon.” What is more, new evidence from genetic analysis (see note below) indicates that the Anglo-Saxons and Celts, to the extent that they can be defined genetically, were both small immigrant minorities. Neither group had much more impact on the British Isles gene pool than the Vikings, the Normans or, indeed, immigrants of the past 50 years.

The genetic evidence shows that three quarters of our ancestors came to this corner of Europe as hunter-gatherers, between 15,000 and 7,500 years ago, after the melting of the ice caps but before the land broke away from the mainland and divided into islands. Our subsequent separation from Europe has preserved a genetic time capsule of southwestern Europe during the ice age, which we share most closely with the former ice-age refuge in the Basque country. The first settlers were unlikely to have spoken a Celtic language but possibly a tongue related to the unique Basque language.

Another wave of immigration arrived during the Neolithic period, when farming developed about 6,500 years ago. But the English still derive most of their current gene pool from the same early Basque source as the Irish, Welsh and Scots. These figures are at odds with the modern perceptions of Celtic and Anglo-Saxon ethnicity based on more recent invasions. There were many later invasions, as well as less violent immigrations, and each left a genetic signal, but no individual event contributed much more than 5 per cent to our modern genetic mix.

[...]

You can click the link in the quote and read the full article. These facts should be of great assistance to British readers—particularly the English—because it will allow them to demonstrate that they exist as a native people to the British Isles, and are distinct from continental Europeans such as the Germans who they are most often associated with.

Given that they are native people, and not a proposition nation, their claim to their land is beyond contention.

Rather than having some kind of lengthy preamble to this article, it’s better to just say this directly, and in the clearest possible language.

Much has been said about Christendom, many nationalists of many different stripes have spoken about it, but the fact is that there is no ‘White Christian Civilisation’.

It’s just someone else’s spiritual framework and someone’s else’s jurisdiction. I think it’s time to shed some light on that fact, and so this will be the first of a multi-part series on the subject.

Here’s a premier example of this framework:

Huffington Post, ‘An Open Letter to White Men in America’, 24 Jul 2015, Rev. Dr. John C. Dorhauer wrote:

Rev. Dr. John C. Dorhauer
President of the United Church of Christ, author of two books, Doctorate in White Privilege, Shalom Award recipient for peace commitments.

Dear White Men,

You are persons of privilege.

You didn’t earn it. More than likely aren’t yet prepared to either admit to it or lose it. This letter, written by one of you, is offered to invite you on a journey of insight, honesty, hard truth and just living.

[...]

Yes, that is a reverend saying that. At the Daily Stormer, they carried this article and there they highlighted the mainstream liberal aspect of the content, but they unfortunately did not mention the root of the matter.

The narrative of your ‘white privilege’ acting as a justification for the expropriation of everything that you have in your own lands is not an aberration or a distortion of Christianity as some Christian ‘nationalists’ would propose. Rather, this is the logical and final trajectory of what Christianity is about and what Christianity does.

It is an inescapable fact that Christian churches have a tendency to preach doctrines advocating your dispossession and extinction. The fact that Dorhauer is a Shalom Award recipient is not an accident or an aberration. Most Christian authorities are openly in collaboration with Jewish lobby groups. Occasionally there are what appears to be exceptions to this rule, such as an occasional bishop or pastor criticising Jewish cultural power. But those are exceptions that only prove the rule.

Christianity is not a European religion, it originated in the Levant and its fundamental ethnic character is one that caters to its original owners. It was Saul of Tarsus, who would later be known as ‘Paul’, who projected Christianity into the Graeco-Roman world. The doctrines that ‘the meek shall inherit the earth’, and that ‘the last shall be first’ are ideas that were comforting to the lower classes in the Roman Empire and which stifled the will of the strong by stamping out diversity of belief and of thought, and stacked up their own funeral pyre for them.

Centuries later, as Rome was becoming crippled under an internal rot caused partly by Christians, the co-opted Roman state then imposed Christianity at spear-point onto all Indo-European peoples that it encountered, and spread from there.

But how precisely does it operate? Let’s tackle that now.

READ MORE...