Posted by Alexander Baron on Sun, 17 Aug 2014 23:41 | #

Gotta luv this guy. I think he should tone down his rhetoric a bit though.

Posted by Leon on Mon, 18 Aug 2014 09:44 | #

Now that MR has become wholly owned by DanielS, with precisely the effects many predicted, perhaps MR’s sole writer might wish to take note that there is a serious racial problem happening in Missouri at this very moment that is crying out for WN commentary.

Posted by Mick Lately on Mon, 18 Aug 2014 10:26 | #

I too was hoping to find some reference to the Ferguson, Missouri, ah… “situation”, here on MR.

But, it’s heartening to see that Sweden’s assisted suicide (pace Kevin B. MacDonald) is being hastened by the Jewish Neocon policy of “Eternal War” in the Middle East:

http://m.thelocal.se//20140816/reinfeldt-calls-for-tolerance-to-refugees

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 18 Aug 2014 10:54 | #

Mick,

Commentators are encouraged to discuss Ferguson or whatever item they feel is not given sufficient attention. This is supposed to be a participatory site, not one which looks upon me as a one man Associated Press. I will happily render comments into leading posts where they emerge discussion-worthy as such.

Leon,

1) There are no results yet - our direction, which was meant to be freed from predilections such as yours, is not yet settled (witness your re-appearance). With that..

2) You had assured us that this site was not your concern and you would not comment here.

3) While Majority Rights will examine relevant news stories, we are not necessarily a news service per se, determined to cover all ephemeral items, rather we are concerned more for evergreen issues.

4) While commentators (other than you and Thorn, thank you) may be encouraged to call attention to events such as the riots in Ferguson, we might note that it is TNB (typical = evergreen behavior) and black riots have been discussed here before (e.g., Newark 1967) without much comment. Even if I did post a story about it, there would not likely be much discussion - something negative would be said of my posting about it, if anything is said at all - in part, apparently in protest against me for my editorial position to ban Hitler, Jesus and Jewish advocacy. That strike will likely remain in effect indefinitely for some prior commentors, keeping commentary down perhaps until the site starts running more pieces and interviews of others besides myself (i.e., further demonstrating that there are an enormous number of important things to discuss here) and becomes more familiar to those who are interested in advocacy of European peoples minus those accompanying advocacies from which we seek to unburden ourselves.

5. Lastly, several other sites have discussed the riots in Missouri.

Here, we might elect to focus on those who would tear down the walls, as we have in this post, rather than the behavior of the masses of blacks they unleash and incite upon us.

Note the all White audience applauding Obama in his Berlin speech. We have deeper problems than the Missouri riots.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhMFU7IdtrY

Note that there is no comment on “The reality of”
http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/the_reality_of

Posted by Graham_Lister on Fri, 22 Aug 2014 00:38 | #

Sorry all of my spare time and energy are elsewhere.

On the 18th of September, what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches towards London to be born?

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 22 Aug 2014 05:49 | #

Posted by Graham_Lister on August 21, 2014, 07:38 PM | #

Sorry all of my spare time and energy are elsewhere.

On the 18th of September, what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches towards London to be born?

Graham, when you can find the time, garnering your thoughts on this matter were a large part of the idea:

http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/fratrcidal_tendency

Fratricidal tendency, boding against race as a practical organizational concept, issues one of the most significant challenges to advocates of people of native European descent.

Subtitle: Graham’s shirked paternal responsibility in that regard.

To intervene and ameliorate fraternal relations, perhaps, or to argue more thoroughly as to why race is not the proper group membership concern.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Fri, 22 Aug 2014 09:51 | #

There are many books about social evolution and game theory etc.  W.D. Hamilton is a good place to start and the forms of genetic conflict he indentified - but I’m not doing your homework for you.

I have NO interest whatsoever in the tropes, themes and various ideological cul de sacs of low-level American WN (there isn’t any really high-brow stuff let’s be honest). Why?  Well I do normally have, on most days, an IQ above room temperature.

It’s a shame but MR is dominated by such a miasma of those tropes that it’s positively stygian.

Why is ‘being white’ - as in American WN ‘thought’ - not enough?  Very simply put it’s far too thin an indentity politically, sociologically, psychologically and emotionally to sustain anything of lasting value.

I had this out with Bowery if you recall.  If one simply thinks of ‘being white’ in terms of some voluntary contract, some mere contract based on a view grounded in liberal, legalistically imagined, ‘individualistic’ terms then it’s just one or more superficial lifestyle option that individuals consumers can buy (if they so please) and change with consumate ease too.  But that’s all it is - another possible fashion trend. In the USA you the individual can be ‘anything’ you want. So yes being an antinomian Neo-nazi is another pre-packaged lifestyle for the ersatz ‘individual’. Signifying nothing of any importance.

For the thinking European nationalist one’s very sense of self is inescapably bound to a specific history, land and people. It’s a feeling deep within the gut and the heart. But as I said I don’t have the energy to expand or explain my views more fully - as the effort does seem rather wasted.  Primal indentity is emphatically not a contract you opt into or opt out of - it’s a deep sense (often incohate) of a morally binding intra and inter-generational community shaped ultimately by our responsibilities to each other (the past, present and future as our own distinctive community) and not our ‘individual rights’.  To betray that moral community is to betray yourself.

You could read MacIntrye on virtue ethics and the moral failure of liberal modernity, or Charles Taylor on the sources of the self, or Simon Critchley on how ethical subjectivities are formed etc.  But again I’m not going to do your homework for you.

What in reality would be different about the contemporary USA if say another 10 million Koreans pitched up and became citizens?  The truth is very little.  Why should thinking European patriots have to pay lip service to the ‘ideas’ of such a dismal and dangerous culture such as the USA?  Again read, for yourself, Heidegger and Schmitt on the threat to European man from the ideology of Americanism. Their instincts are broadly correct on this issue.

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 22 Aug 2014 12:34 | #

Of course I was not asking for you to defend America or Americans, nor for the book length opinions of other scholars, whether European or those you consider to be pseudo-scholars from “WN” (again, all I mean by “White” is “of native European extraction”), but rather Your opinion Dr. Lister, on those born of native European stock as a race, a system, a classification - whether that is worthy of defense (in Europe or anywhere) - and I would think it clearly is, that these are ancient systems, certainly having as much merit as the peoples and systems that threaten to take them over; and that if some European nations are thrown under the bus to be taken over by non-Europeans, a spill over or domino effect is implicated.

Forget about America for a moment, and your hatred of it/ them (I recently heard the apt characterization of The US government as a joint international corporate/Israeli hit squad). But Europe, as a racial or group classification, is it worthy of identification and defense? Clearly there are subdivisions which are profound of themselves, but can they hold up by themselves? If not, how to coordinate with others in European defense? What makes them fight one another, does it have to be that way, what can keep them from fighting?

But centrally on point, it was You and E.O. Wilson who raised the question that those closely related can be quite prone to fighting, even to lethal extent - which raises some questions about E.G.I. I’m calling that “fratricidal tendency” for the sake of a discussion point, viz. what to do about it? Case in point, those Americans who are 100 percent of Scottish ancestry can, rather should, as far as you are concerned, drop dead; they are of no more concern to you than Koreans. And yet you are closely related in a genetic sense.

Ok, so maybe you care about Scots in Scotland. Nevertheless, perhaps you realize that if England is overwhelmed by foreigners, that would not be such a good thing for Scotland and you are willing to lend a “brotherly” hand to them; the Irish, the Welsh, The Danish, the Swedes, perhaps more.

What makes it difficult for them to coordinate in their mutual defense and, on the contrary, prone to fight or to throw other nations under the bus - e.g., “oh, the French, they can go to hell, to the Africans and Middle Easterners.”

It is hoped here that you’ll serve your interests, Scots and native European interests to the extent that you care - to intervene with fratricidal tendencies and propose what you think are necessary measures to mollify intra and inter European relations.

If your discussion accidentally does some Americans some good that is a shame, as clearly all Americans should shrivel-up and die. But I am not concerned about your hatred for them, I am interested in your hatred for other Scotsman or their hatred for you and other Scotsmen; and what to do about it.

I realize that MR is not a gainful activity but I am not expecting that credit should not be given where credit is due. The reason I work for free is because I treat this as an 11th hour issue. I am not hoping to profit from what I do, but rather to save us, to save those qualitative people of us who are being threatened to be crassly thrown away, and to enlist the help of others who might be interested in saving themselves, part and parcel of theirs, as you say.

Perhaps including a barb over a proposed African minimum wage was not the best tact in hoping to gain your help, perhaps even the motive to help your own people cannot overcome that insult (the depth of this problem of fratricidal negligence!). Nevertheless, looking at the birthrates of Africa and experience of those living with them (which should count as “homework” as well) I could not help but be skeptical of the proposition for a minimum living wage for Africans as a workable solution. Pardon if I saw in that the potential of some scientific naivete. Though helping to create a more tolerable situation for them so that they would not be so inclined to leave and come to Europe may be one worthy consideration, we surely have matters of intra and inter European animus born of injustice (not jealousy) which are in dire need of address.

Even if you address these matters of fratricide elsewhere, there is room for cross publication. Once MR readers get a taste of elevated thought, considerations that resonate essential, they may have a meaningful conversation and actional source. Parallel with that erudition, if we are to serve European readers, we need the better informed opinions of those born into the depth of experience here.

In addition, where your efforts are solid, I do not see whereas they would be wasted. I have taken pains to re direct abusive and irrelevant commentors from MR.

I am not advocating American style WN. The contractual and adopted aspect is a strategy necessary and endemic to the US. It is a means for those of European descent who happen to be there to defend themselves, but even so it does not mean they can arbitrarily choose their genetics and genetic community; it must have some relative match genetically if it is to gain support from us. And it must show respect for the boundaries of Europeans, including the ancient Europeans and their boundaries if it is to be recognized as a legitimate political ally.

I believe your understandable disdain for America’s effects on the world is blocking you from seeing legitimate efforts by European peoples to defend themselves there.

I understand how neo liberalism is anathema to ancient European ecologies, such as the Scots. Please don’t be mislead into thinking that a strategy for America of freedom from association means that genetics, habitat and co-evolution are necessarily considered unimportant, even to some of your nemeses.

Regarding your reading assignment. It’s a bit condescending. I trust that the Hamilton is worthwhile, have caught some of him furtively as discussed by E.O. Wilson.

But it is perhaps not too much to ask that you serve an appetizer by cultivating a few of his ideas in application to these problems as you see fit.

I do not assign to you the books that I have read which you have not. I am trying to get things done in our mutual defense and well being - hope for a collaborative effort in that regard, not a competition.

I read Charles Taylor but did not like his work.

As I recall, I began reading MacIntrye but found at the time other scholarship which I found better, more useful

Critchley I am not familiar with.

Heidegger, of course. He’s topical around here.

Schmitt certainly has some brilliant ideas - e.g., the exception.

A final note in regard to your comment, of course it is not only Americans who are susceptible to adopt Neo-Nazism, there are British among WN (following Jordan, Tyndall et al) who take that view (e.g., David Jones and Paul Hickman), Swedish (Red Ice Radio*) and German Germans, such as Marcus, the friend of Kyle Hunt, etc.

* Recently interviewing the film maker of “The Greatest Story Never Told” - a protracted pro Hitler propaganda film series that Red Ice asks us to treat uncritically.

The film maker is filled with straw men (as if anyone is denying that Hitler brought the economy around or suggesting that he wanted to “take over the world”), and convenient, disingenuous editing - such as showing pictures from the Bromberg incident, which happened AFTER but near the start of WWII as if it was a causative action which provoked Nazi response.

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 28 Aug 2014 09:16 | #

Ok, as assigned by Dr. Lister, I have commenced to reading-up on W.D. Hamilton.

I see that it is an embarrassing omission in my library (I had only read Hamilton as discussed by E.O. Wilson and others). Though glaring omissions in our library many of us have - I doubt that Dr. Lister has read William James or John Dewey, while he summarily pronounces Americans to be hopeless idiots.

Nevertheless, many things do come together with Hamilton, including much long standing discussion here at MR.

My hope is to be somewhat conversant on Hamilton, to facilitate worthy discussion, and with that, that it will be understood finally, that it is discussion and joint construction of knowledge that we seek at MR, not the presentation of myself as the expert, disseminating knowledge lineally to a passive third person audience of receptacles.

Regarding discussion by E.O. Wilson in critque of Hamilton, here is where I left off:

I think we should stick to the plan of summarizing EO Wilson’s argument, which is a good one for us - as opposed to Hamilton’s universalizing  theory, Wilson provides for qualitative and incommensurate paradigms, including ways to talk about a White difference that makes a difference (yes, these terms apply to the article under discussion, wherein Wilson, et al critique and differ from Hamilton’s theory with a view of paradigmatic incommensuration).

This is a digression from my “homework” of reading Hamilton proper, but I wanted to touch upon where Wilson referenced Hamilton:

http://courses.washington.edu/ccab/Nowak etal - evolution of eusociality - Nature 2010.pdf

Among other radical criticisms proposed against Hamiton’s theory, the article states:

“Hamilton’s rule almost never holds

Inclusive fitness theory often attempts to derive Hamilton’s rule, but finds it increasingly difficult to do so. In a simplified Prisoner’s Dilemma the interaction between cooperators and defectors is described in terms of cost and benefit. For many models we find that cooperators are favoured over defectors for weak selection, if a condition holds that is of the form ‘something’ c/b

This result is a straightforward consequence of the linearity introduced by weak selection and has nothing to do with inclusive fitness considerations.

Inequality is Hamilton’s rule if ‘something’ turns out to be relatedness”..

With this material, one (e.g., me) might be incorrectly prompted to short shrift Hamilton