|
|
|
Distinguishing Majorityrights Proposing A Pan White/European National Separatist Platform Along with other distinctions of Majority Rights
Proposing A Pan White/European National Separatist Platform Along with other distinctions of Majorityrights 1,996 words MR is distinguished in its cooperative concern for all White/Native European Nationalists, as they seek to maintain their particular native health and distinctions from one another and even more strongly from non-Europeans. The perspective of Great Britain is, or ought to be, the priority National focus (of course, I cannot represent this fact as GW, Graham or say a Colin Liddell might, and thus it may not seem that way when I speak; however, I am functioning somewhat as a correspondent of issues not British specific, even if related to native British concerns). Nevertheless, the site is reasonable enough in appraisal to recognize that issues of The U.S. and the continent cannot be ignored. As the site has an orientation from the perspective of British interests, it may naturally express closer affinity with the nations more proximately aligned in sourcing their genetic make-up; but it recognizes that the health and maintenance of other European national indigeneity - along with would-be White Nations - is symbiotic and in all likelihood, necessary in cooperation toward the health and well being of Britain and the North. I do not flinch when British say they do not want their country inundated, say with Poles or any other European kind, but rather agree that it should not be. That sentiment is consonant with this platform. Besides respect for the concerns of all White/European Nationalists there are other important distinctions of MR, for which we can be greatly relieved. It is not a Christian site. While it will deal with issues in and surrounding Christianity as they bear upon Western concerns, when the topic is addressed, it is facilitated in being “disrespectful” to the extent necessary to sort out any detriment to European interests, and the entire religion as it is unnecessary, for those who do not want to play with its ambiguities - one need not pretend to hold the faith just to be nice. Nor is MR sending delegates to harass Christian sites. Of its own accord, MR facilitates conversation and need not pretend to believe in nonsense, though we may abstract from and retool some functional purposes deployed in Christianity. Reverence here is rather for the profound ways that serve European peoples and their kinds in the broadest sense necessary (thus, it may be somewhat speculative) to capture authentic Europeanness and its distinct kinds at once. Hence, MR is not merely pragmatic. It appreciates quests of hard thought and deployment of scholarship - as they are relevant it will not sweep aside such matters as “all nonsense” in some knee-jerk machismo. By the same token, unlike other sites exercising intellectual prerogative, MR retains a man’s disposition which will assert itself. This combination of respect for intellectual rigor and imagination along with authentic masculine expression at once is marked. That is to say that while MR is not merely pragmatic, neither will it suffer the foolishness of neutered European masculinity which does not deal with practical reality. Nor will it abide stupidly simplistic reconstructions of traditional gender relations. Nevertheless, some of the practical reality we are presently confronted with is the yoking of our would-be masculine assertion, in constraint by improper mandates of the legal system. For example, if I were not constrained by European law, I would condone judicial use of the N word, provisionally at least, until such time at least as these people were restrained, away from ours, not rendered worthy and did not feel entitled to intermarriage - i.e., for quite the opposite reasons proposed on The White Voice. Which maintains that they would only use it for instances of the most mean and vicious expressions of blacks. Rather, if one is defenseless and amongst that element, or having to deal with them in a negotiative sense for any reason (including having to navigate draconian European law, or an additional tax of ten years jail for American “hate” law - a fact made clear on public advertisements on U.S. public buses), obviously these would be cases where one would be better-off Not using the N word. However, in leisure from direct confrontation, the N word (or “sand-N” word) has a practical, masculine assertion, of prejudice against a whole group, a whole pattern and important utility as such for the foreseeable future: it captures patterns and the utility of not acquiescing to the exceptions, where liberal and PC mandate have been particularly backwards. It is rather liberal and PC focus on “the nice ones” and the exceptional which facilitates them as gate-openers to the pejorative pattern and it is that gate we must close with masculine assertion - if that appears a bit hard, so be it. That is to say, Majority Rights DOES classify people according to pattern and as such, brooks a pejorative association of “racism”, not deferring to individual exceptions to the pattern. Another distinguishing characteristic of MR is that it considers alternative economic models as they may serve European Nationals with parameters of accountability and sundry authenticity. That is, it looks at some economic theory and practice as averse to our defense as distinct European nationals; it will not merely accept them as a force of nature and turn a blind eye to better alternatives for our people. With that, Majority Rights recognizes that there are ongoing mistakes set forth by our European philosophical predecessors which contribute significantly to our plight; not only the adoption of an alien, universalizing religion and other no longer fit practices and traditions, but also in runaway Enlightenment liberation narrative, in its universalizing objectivism and scientism. But in availing ourselves of the second liberation, of the post modern, hermeneutic turn, we advance science, while not allowing it to go unchecked and unaccountable to our broad, time-tested practices and biological systems. Thus, MR recognizes that much of our plight is due to our elites, opportunistically served by pseudo or disingenuous objectivism and its corresponding modernist, universal and liberal prescriptions. Even so, Majority Rights is not so naive as to believe our problems are all our fault. It is abundantly clear that European interests have antagonists. Another distinguishing characteristic of MR is that it will use its hermeneutic prerogative to rotate attention to those different antagonists where necessary, whether Islamic, black, Mestizo, Indian, Oriental, other non-Whites along with White traitors/interlopers, philosophical blunderers. Nevertheless, and of course, it recognizes Jewish power and influence to be salient among our antagonists. Thus, MR is vigilant to observe that Jews are not White, not European and as a highly predictable rule, callous aiders and abettors, if not instigators of problems for Whites/Europeans. It is vigilant to observe that as Jewish interests are not merely antagonistic but in their organization they are, and have been, especially significant in intent and effect to the destruction of European interests. Salient attention is warranted thus, as MR is well aware that Jewish elite and bio-cultural patterns occupy key choke-points from whence they exercise undue control and negative influence: Economic, Academic, Political, Media, Religion, Legal, Business/Military-Industrial. However, MR does not fixate on Jews as a single cause, rather it centers on our own concerns and problems as they emerge relevant: attending to concerns positive to our organization and implementation; or negative matters of fighting our own traitors, high and low, the swarming Islamic incursions, or blacks, or Mestizos, whatever non-Whites - i.e., we do not let the hermeneutic circle stop and distract our attention fixedly on a particular frame indefinitely; nor do we lose site of the fact that Jewish patterns are not concerned for our interests either (even though they may look White and speak eloquently, sometimes paraphrasing our behalf). They may in fact be using divide and conquer, they may be trying to mix their adversaries into submission, or as some argue, they may not be able to help their destructive tendencies - they may proceed biologically, with evident irrationality, ultimately destroying the resource of their own interests while destroying others. Whatever the case, the fundamental point is that they are not sufficiently a part of our interests to be classified as benignly at one and a part of Whites/Europeans. Now we come to what is an evidently important, but not yet fully developed, distinguishing characteristic of MR: despite being wise to the J.Q., it is not beholden to any sort of reverence for Hitler or the Third Reich. MR has enough perspective to look at them less partially. They had some things right, but they were not right enough to look upon them uncritically, let alone with reverent adherence. Thus, we might discuss them, where they may have been right or wrong, where they may have had justifiable grievance or not, but it is obvious that we can think for ourselves, and had better. My next essay is going to set-out propositions and analysis as to why White advocates are over-represented by over-sympathy with Hitler and the Nazis; and why that is wrong and unnecessary. Thus, MR will represent not only a break from sheer pragmatism, scientism or flighty speculation on the other hand, a relief from Christianity, a relief from having to be Jew friendly, but also from ethnocentrism of a singular, supremacist, European National perspective, to the point where it is imperialistic over others - in particular, it will represent a break from the Hitler/Nazi cult, for those who do not agree with its parameters, who would just as soon do without it, who do not see bearing its stigma as necessary to White/European Nationalism at all. Following the Pan European Nationalist/Separatist Alliance sketched here, MR would become the seed or the largest root of a proper B.B.C.
In the very act of discussing historically problematic issues between White/European nationals there is a risk of reanimating and rekindling dilemmas that had led to conflicts originally, rather than achieving cooperative alliance through mutual understanding. Hence my reluctance. However, among White Nationalist discourse, over-representation of the Nazi point of view has been pushed beyond a point where it may be discreetly ignored to where it is an unfortunate necessity to brook potential conflict. The enunciation here is that just as with all White Nationalisms, German Nationalism is more than valid, it is proper and necessary. However, by contrast, Nazism is not only an overstated premise as it might be proposed to represent an overlapping position of White Nationalisms, it is even an overstated premise as it would be proposed to represent German Nationalism. Moreover, it is often proposed among White Nationalists as an either/or - either Nazism or the international Jew - and this is a significantly false either/or: it is counter-productive and unnecessary to cop to the charge of “neo-Nazi;” let alone to insist upon reverence, to follow its book of rules verbatim and adopt its regalia as emblematic of White/European Nationalisms. I will endeavor to set-out this platform and argumentation for those White/European Nationalists who might see deliberate association with Nazi identification as pejorative and unnecessary as they would, therefore, not mind dropping it in favor of a cooperative alliance between all White/European nationals. Nazism was a thing of the past, it had its historical circumstances, its strong points and reasons, but was an overcompensation not necessary to associate with and embrace now. To me, this is fairly obvious and I am sure it is obvious to others as well. However then, why do many prominent White Nationalists over-sympathize, if not identify quite flamboyantly with Nazism? These are the central questions and problems that I will address and for which I will pursue remedy here. I suppose that in a very real sense that both Jewish elites and faithful Nazis might actually like to believe in the necessity of an either/or and thus overstate their premises - I will endeavor the argument that that is not necessary, identify some of the key reasons why it may be thought to be necessary, while proposing remedy to this overstated premise and false either/or.
Comments:2
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 05 Oct 2013 03:45 | # ..... .................... 3
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 05 Oct 2013 04:00 | # “Peoplehood” corresponding closely with genetics and genetic interests, of course. 4
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 05 Oct 2013 07:34 | # The function of this blog henceforth will be to search for the absent vivifying factor.
If we can show self-interest and subjective advancement to be inextricably linked to concern and participation with concentric rings of genetic interest/family, I suspect we might go far. Habermas’s insight that people do not learn absent subjective interest strikes me as accurate. .... 5
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 05 Oct 2013 08:22 | #
This may be true of those who call themselves ‘conservatives’, perhaps esp the UK variety, but it is not per se true of conservatism itself. Nationalism has historically involved aggressive assertions of national/tribal identity, usually out of injured pride or a particular opinion of economic self-interest. Nationalism has not historically been especially well-theorized philosophically, but only politically in terms of litanies of perceived injustices. Conservatism, too, has been more of a political disposition than programmatic ideology but that does not mean that it does not have a philosophical core, and one moreover that is perfectly compatible with racial nationalism strictly construed (ie, concern for the survival of the race itself, as well as with opposing ‘diversity’ - provided the translation of these concerns into specific legislation does not violate other ‘canons’ of conservative principle). I have always thought of ‘conservatism’ as the defense of the ethnoculturally particular against the aggression and subversions of universalism, provided that such defense stays within the bounds of Christian natural law. Someone like Enoch Powell was a classic, post-l’ancien regime conservative. He believed in God, Christianity, and the value of organized religion as a bulwark of civilized order; supported private property and the free market economy; endorsed both the right of the individual to self-defense, as well as traditional methods and goals of criminal punishment; did not believe that the government had a responsibility to do for the citizen what the citizen could and therefore ought to do for himself; and of course favored a strong military and a government willing to use it to defend legitimate national interests. That is conservatism, and I, too, am a conservative. Most American Republicans unfortunately are not true conservatives, but rather a particular species of intellectually confused classical liberal, or else philosophically homeless Christians at war with a hegemonic secular modernity. Whether conservatism and white nationalism are ultimately compatible depends upon whether nationalism and Christianity are compatible. I think they are, at least wrt moderate versions of WN. 6
Posted by Thorn on Sat, 05 Oct 2013 14:09 | # Good essay DanielS. On a more practical level, maybe WNs should focus in on and hammer home one central theme: racial segregation. In terms of assimilating into Western civ, we are all quite well aware of the fact that Negroids—with very few exceptions—are incapable of assimilating. They are a failed race and the vast majority of whites, at some level, know that—even most White Christians know that. Dovetailing on Rahm Emanuel’s famous quote: “Never let a serious crisis go to waste”, many of us are exploiting to the fullest the recent surge in the ongoing pandemic of black on white crime. In fact that is already happening across the blogosphere and it is resulting in a reawakening, and or the beginning of an awakening, of scores of whites. Of course WN strategy cannot hinge on one issue such as black-on-white-crime, but in my experience, I find it is those kinds of hot button emotion stirring issues that work to sucessfully revivify the beaten down collective white-racial-conscious. 7
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 05 Oct 2013 16:49 | # Thanks Thorn. And I agree that black on White crime has particular force in piquing consciousness. 8
Posted by Mick Lately on Sat, 05 Oct 2013 18:06 | # @Guessedworker,
I always viewed MR as reconciling the normal and the radical. And in becoming both more normal and radical myself I’ve found great value in the site. I was used to the essay-style presentation from VDARE and Gates of Vienna but not to long comment threads. 9
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 08 Oct 2013 06:21 | # While I am critical of “The White Voice” as in the process of being significantly overrated by some, including by themselves to some extent, I would like to observe that they are also doing some things well. This discussion by John King is quite good. His suggestion that European or “European American” is better than the term “White” is a good one, as are the reasons he gives. On another matter, he quotes from a White Nationalist who argues that the notion of “racism” is one that allows its critics to claim that its expression is strictly a matter of culture and upbringing - therefore subject to change; rather than a natural phenomenon - birds of a feather flock together - discrimination being normal and proper. While this does not conflict with my own views, it is coming from a perspective that I do not tend to emphasize as it does not highlight agentive possibility quite as much. However, I thought that I should mention it as it is an emphasis that corresponds a little more closely with MR’s ontology project. 10
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 10 Oct 2013 06:57 | # ..................................... Typically, the article conveniently blames hippies. I go on to comment that this is a way of blaming White men while avoiding attention to the truly culpable of those times. I was very happy to see a Viet Nam veteran agreeing by way of a very articulate response. • 3 days ago DanielS: True, there was another agenda of the times, a Jewish one, which tried to affix itself and its prerogatives - civil rights, “free love” etc, (I never heard ANY hippies complaining that they wanted civil rights for blacks and free love) - and Alt Right does not focus on Jewish issues but that is the real source of the beefs that you should have with that epoch (not that White men did not want to be drafted to go to Viet Nam to die). However, even sites which do focus on Jewish power and influence tend to get snookered into blaming White men (“hippies”) of that epoch, despite their eminently valid motive; and despite egregious and verifiable efforts of Jewish power and influence. What I am saying is, you do some things well, but you are not understanding and sorting out these times well enough. I heard Richard Spencer (who was born in 1978) say in the last Alt Right podcast something close to the effect of, well, hippies can go and listen to reggae music. ? Reggae was scarcely known to the public until after the hippie thing was pretty much over. I remember when my brother brought home the first Bob Marley album in 1974 - aware of them prior to their mass popularity because he knew the guitar player from the group, as he’d gone to high school with him. The hippies popular, vivifying movement was over when the Viet Nam war was over (i.e. over by 1973). It is true that Reggae is more than lame, it is related to the anti-White theology of Rastafarianism. But if you want to talk about a weird and real connection of reggae and wiggers, look at the punks and the anarchists - that is where the strange and real cultural intermingling and engrafting occurred.
Avatar Agree. As a VN vet, I can attest to most of what you say. The effects of the VN-era conscription - that is, having been forced into slave-soldiering in a non-White country’s civil war orchestrated by bankers and corporations, having absolutely nothing to do with the actual defense of a White homeland, and calculatingly prosecuted by LBJ and his Ivy League YKW intelligentsia with absolutely no intent of military victory - reverberate to this day among the White guys who were in our late teens and early twenties during the 60’s, more than 50 thousand of whom died in combat, many of whom were captured and tortured, and hundreds of thousands of whom returned maimed, grossly disfigured, and/or dysfunctional only to be vilified, upon their return, by many elements of the society which sent them. When I returned from overseas, my drop-out from family and society into the flower-child milieu had little to do with civil rights or free love. BTW I do not begrudge those who emigrated to Canada to avoid the draft. And, for those interested, the works of author Tim O’Brien, who “served” an extended “tour of duty” as an infantryman in SVN, are richly descriptive, compelling, and well written IMO. People like “Nazi Officer” and other commenters on this site in other threads who incessantly demand the boomers to go fuck or shoot themselves, while they themselves consider employment with the Navy, CIA, SS, or some other corrupt, terrorist, anti-White ZOG organ of the NWO agenda - as though such employment would be nothing more than a convenient way to escape a tough job market - do, I confess, grate. Why on earth would they willingly collaborate with evil, when alternatives, difficult though they be, are available? My 2-bit rant.
11
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 10 Oct 2013 20:43 | # Lech Walesa says Wehrmacht come back…all is forgiven. 12
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 11 Oct 2013 03:34 | # Many people in the west, especially the US, are not aware of how very unpopular that Walesa was as a President of Poland. His low Polish language may have been appropriate for him as a union leader (and he was appreciated as such), but bespoke his lack of sophistication as a President. While it is good that he wants Poland and Germany to be on good terms, and for the most part, they are, doing away with borders is naiive, a breach of accountability and ecology that would lead to problems for both countries. Perhaps it is just a senile manifestation of his old negotiative self, looking for an angle against Russia. After having so stubbornly fought its way out of the oppression of the Soviet - Walesa being the exemplar of that struggle - it is very difficult to get people of that struggle, of the Post Soviet Eastern European countries, to appreciate the profound problems of the west; they have been too pro West, so caught up in anti-Soviet trajectory that their momentum carries them into some positions that they were fighting against for centuries - such as doing away with their borders on behalf of superstates. One Polish politician famously railed against what was the then coming European Union, proclaiming that it would do what two world wars could not do. It brings the matter of national boundaries to attention. Most people say, quite normally, that they like going to France and discovering the different and varying aspects of French culture, the same goes with Holland and Italy and so on. Why should there be boundaries around Germany? The aesthetic appreciation of the differing nations corresponds, I believe, with the motives of accountability and ecology - i.e., it is non-trivial.
13
Posted by Weaver on Wed, 23 Oct 2013 11:04 | # GW writes: “to search for the absent vivifying factor” We don’t have that? I don’t want to spam you with ideas you’ve seen before, but: http://turnabout.ath.cx:8000/node/1737
And life did not begin with WWII. There were nationalists prior, and the world does not revolve around Germany. GK Chesterton’s “Patriotic Idea” is beautiful. Was Chesterton a Nazi? Finnish nationalism is fun to read about, so many national distinctions (when born all Finns receive a box of goodies, Salmiak is a national candy (not tasty imo), Saunas are popular, Kalevala (which inspired Tolkien), some musical composer). The Finns are clearly part-Asian, are they Nazis? They have low-immigration. I suppose the Japanese allied with the Germans, but their nationalism is fascinating. The Koreans certainly are not “Nazis”, yet they’re nationalists (“cleanest race”). I don’t understand what a conservative is if not a nationalist. I’d thought conservatives simply added a cultural component to the genetic, were wary of changes not only to the racial tradition. In the US, Southern-Americans became trapped by Communism vs. Capitalism and by GOP vs. Dem. But we’re still fairly conservative. And despite being recently colonised by the rest of America, we’re still Southern and more traditional American (and more British) than the rest of the US. I say that because it’s what I know about, and something similar might be part (one cause of many) of why Britain is left-wing. JR Bell argues in a book we’ve all probably read that Brits around the world can form societies where they intermarry, produce children, recruit other Brits, and pursue British interests. I might not qualify since I’m small part (not recent) French, but the idea could be applied to any identity existing in Diaspora. When the Amish have a disagreement, they split, form a new branch. Likewise, you could have multiple branches existing, working together sometimes, perhaps one day conflicting, sure, but hopefully not much. Alain de Benoist was translated recently in TOQ saying nigh exactly what I used to argue about progress vs. identity. It wasn’t a pro-Christian article, pointing out that Christianity believes we originate from one source. I can find it if curious. I’ve no idea what would be found interesting here. The left-right divide is as Captain Chaos once noted: life vs. death. In pursuing survival, worship of the sacred (a term open to wide interpretation), and… happiness: One might sacrifice some tradition for power. And also as Captain Chaos once noted: A major criticism of Christianity is it’s use of fear. We’re to do the right thing out of fear, not because it’s right. If y’all want to attempt some alternate path, that’s a good attack. There is a rebuttal, that loving Christ leads one to want to do what’s right. But it’s appeals to damnation, not dishonour, that are used. I was impressed by CC’s attack anyway. 14
Posted by Weaver on Wed, 23 Oct 2013 11:33 | # I’m in a hurry, and I risk forgetting to post later if I don’t post now: but I’d like to add that nationalism is normal. We exist in an abnormal time. When we think of how a model Brit would have acted pre-WWII, we think of a conservative nationalist… Do we not? Likely there’s no need for me to argue this here, but reading GW’s post sets off an alarm that maybe I could do some good pointing out that he’s normal, exceptional even. We live in abnormal times, in a society gone mad! A non-nationalist conservative is over-educated (brainwashed), likely pedantic, thoughtless, likely status-obsessed (cowardly), vain, with the redeeming quality of thinking it’s good that people who work hard or otherwise serve the economy be rewarded correspondingly. And a nationalist who isn’t a conservative is likely little better than an uneducated barbarian with good instincts, or who has experienced race close-up but hasn’t managed to break free from his “education” (brain-washing) which of course wouldn’t have been recognised as education by past Brits. GW is basically saying he woke up realising he’s the last healthy Englishman alive in the world. The most beautiful criticism of the English I’ve read is from Inazo Nitobe’s Bushido:
15
Posted by hermeneutics and Tan's J.Q. on Wed, 18 Feb 2015 23:57 | # The ostensible problem that tanstaalf might be said to have here (at least with MR) stems from a false either/or of Cartesian origin. Because we do not see a single cause to our problem does not mean that Jews do not feature most prominently as a problem along with our elite traitors and that which makes them susceptible to treachery. While we agree that they are second to none for the foreseeable future, lets say problem 1a along with problem 1b (our elite traitors) there is presumption (undoubtedly wrong) among some WN (e.g., those who want to redeem the Nazis) that Jews are the only organism competing against Whites and the only hazard. As we focus exclusively and chase after the Jews exclusively, we run the risk of losing our authentically grounded motivation and becoming, like Nazis, a weird mirror image of Jews. Focusing on Jews only is not a worldview. They are other. A healthy system does not only react to them. Objectivism, among others, is certainly a cause of our problems as well. While science is indispensable to articulating aspects of Jews and our own nature, it is also susceptible to false either/or and myopia for loss of broad systemic and historical view. Without neglecting proportionate attention to the J.Q., the hermeneutic process which we endorse here is the remedy that corrects this myopia and gauges our motives in ongoing process. We can lose our nature and most important treasure of kindly relations among ourselves otherwise.
Tan says:
16
Posted by Hermeneutics and Tan's J.Q. on Thu, 19 Feb 2015 00:05 | # Tan’s argument continued:
17
Posted by hermeneutics and Tan's J.Q. on Thu, 19 Feb 2015 00:12 | # Tan continued..
....................................... Initial rebuttal to tan’s argument repeated here:
Because we do not see a single cause to our problem does not mean that Jews do not feature most prominently as a problem along with our elite traitors and that which makes them susceptible to treachery. While we agree that they are second to none for the foreseeable future, lets say problem 1a along with problem 1b (our elite traitors) there is presumption (undoubtedly wrong) among some WN (e.g., those who want to redeem the Nazis) that Jews are the only organism competing against Whites and the only hazard. As we focus exclusively and chase after the Jews exclusively, we run the risk of losing our authentically grounded motivation and becoming, like Nazis, a weird mirror image of Jews. Focusing on Jews only is not a worldview. They are other. A healthy system does not only react to them. Objectivism, among others, is certainly a cause of our problems as well. While science is indispensable to articulating aspects of Jews and our own nature, it is also susceptible to false either/or and myopia for loss of broad systemic and historical view. Without neglecting proportionate attention to the J.Q., the hermeneutic process which we endorse here is the remedy that corrects this myopia and gauges our motives in ongoing process. We can lose our nature and most important treasure of kindly relations among ourselves otherwise. 18
Posted by Lindtner + Humphreys on Thu, 07 May 2015 12:22 | # Lindtner + Humphreys Christian Lindtner and Kenneth Humphreys to appear in international conference: FYI: There will be an important international conference on the New Testament in Roskilde, Denmark on June 21-24, 2015 Gospel Interpretation and Q-Hypothesis. 19
Posted by The J and M questions on Sat, 09 May 2015 10:32 | # The Jewish and Muslim Questions Enza Ferreri, May 8, 2015
20
Posted by Circular versus linear thinking on Tue, 06 Jun 2017 16:28 | # Post a comment:
Next entry: From the English-language website of Golden Dawn
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
.JPG)
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 05 Oct 2013 00:14 | #
Daniel,
Thanks for that heartening piece.
MR was originally conceived as a kind of lab experiment in which conservatives and nationalists would be reconciled. I came out of conservatism, not nationalism; and for most of my life would have regarded myself as a mildly Jew-aware, anti-liberal, and wholly race-loyal conservative, but not a political nationalist. As the race-loyalty was the principal value, however, it was the absence of this on the political right that preoccupied me. Obviously, if my people and my race were to survive there had to be a wide-scale awakening, but it couldn’t be engendered if we did not understand the obstacles to it and how to surmount them.
The blog duly opened in October 2004. One or two conservatives on the slate reacted very early on by racialising at a ferocious pace. I thought I was on to something. But in most cases it was soon apparent that the notion that nationalists were all basically Nazis, or if not Nazis exactly certainly not responsible or respectable, was too compelling to relinquish. I think also, the conservatives’ place in liberal society was too precious to put at risk for mere politics.
In other words, the greater number of thinking conservatives cannot value peoplehood, indeed associate such a value directly with the genocidal, goose-stepping bogeyman. They also lack a sense of mission. There is no appetite to grab the world and shake it. They are prepared to settle for what they are given, and they do not possess the will to interrogate it or themselves. There is no essential question. In our race’s end times, they don’t possess political seriousness.
Even exposed to nationalists and nationalist sentiment here, they could not adjust or adapt. The resultant explosions threatened to wreck the laboratory, and in January 2008, three years and three months in, I pulled the experiment. I had learned, though, something about self-estrangement that had not been apparent to me before.
We are now going through a second re-alignment which I hope will result in more serious work. I do believe very passionately in the inherent virtue, energy and creativity of our kind. Daniel explains in what an open and positive approach to these qualities consists. It is not anything we have seen hitherto. Nationalism has done a good job of understanding the scientific element, the Judaic element, the liberal element. The analysis of where we are and why is adequate. But it is a dead thing philosophically. The function of this blog henceforth will be to search for the absent vivifying factor. I don’t think there is anything more important that thinking people can do at this point in the history of the European race.