Majorityrights News > Category: Modernity

The moment Charlie finally got everything his way, including “Queen” Camilla.

I have read none of the press articles and studiously avoided all the broadcasts on Charles’ coronation, including the coverage of the event itself.  It is of less interest to me than the birdsong in our garden or the gentle rain that fell for much of the day on its newly cut lawns.  These things gladden.  My wife tells me that, as has become traditional at the coronation of British monarchs, they sang Hubert Parry’s “I was glad” in Westminster Abbey.  But what, to me, is the accession of this self-absorbed man, the very model of the paternalistic liberal and a climate alarmist and diversitoid to boot, to the British throne?  As an institution in Time, hereditary monarchy testifies - or should still testify - to the nation’s dignity and standing, and should function as a focal point for the people’s identity.  Does Charles have any thought whatever for the English people?  The non-whites colonising us obviously pre-occupy him.  The Welsh and Scots perhaps also, in some antique way.  But the English?  I see no sign that he even knows who we are, or wants to know.  Our name is becoming unsayable.

It can at least be said of his mother Elizabeth that she rigorously avoided all public entanglement with politics.  Not for one moment will the new monarch be able to replicate that.  I foresee inevitable damage to the reputation of the monarchy, and a steady if not spectacular detachment of the British Establishment’s messaging about the British nation from our own sense of identity and relation.

Now that would be worth a bit of attention.

America’s FINAL Election

Way of The World 1 September 2020

JF Gariepy provided a decent analysis of this situation, but the Youtube video was taken down. When and if I find it on Bitchute or elsewhere, I’ll put it up. In the meantime, there are several articles - click image for a Yahoo article introducing the story - about Claudia Conway’s puerile rebellion and wish to be emancipated from her parents. Now, regarding Gariepy’s account…

Though Gariepy claims to be thinking independently in his terminological deployment, the discourse parameters he follows are within the altercast box prescribed by Jewish interests and serving them; as ever, a caveat thus in regard to Gariepy’s use of the term “The Left” and its “characterizations;” while this usage and characterology is fairly true when looked upon as a Marxist Internationalist or Cultural Marxist Left, assailing White national, group and personal boundaries, absent the delimiting working hypotheses of the White Ethnonational Left, viz., unionization to structure accountability and gauge correctivity for Whites, Gariepy’s advice is more free floating (and, he admits, nihilistic) than it should be - providing feedback looking toward the more objective facts irrespective of our subjective and relative interests, but lacking the radical orientating context without the centering calibration of White Left Ethnonationalism’s relative, systemic interests.

The U.S. Justice Department on Thursday accused Yale University of illegally discriminating against Asian American and white applicants in its undergraduate admissions process in violation of U.S. civil rights law.

Yale University /VCG:

NewsCGTN 14 Aug 2020:

The U.S. Justice Department on Thursday accused Yale University of illegally discriminating against Asian American and white applicants. /AP

The findings are the result of a two-year investigation in response to a complaint by Asian-American groups concerning Yale’s conduct, the department said in a statement.

The department said it was prepared to file a lawsuit against Yale if the school, in New Haven, Connecticut, did not take “remedial measures.”

A Yale spokeswoman said the university “categorically denies” the allegations but has cooperated fully with the investigation. The Justice Department made its findings before allowing Yale to provide requested documents, Yale said.

“Had the Department fully received and fairly weighed this information, it would have concluded that Yale’s practices absolutely comply with decades of Supreme Court precedent,” the spokeswoman said.

The Justice Department said that although race can lawfully be considered in college admissions in limited circumstances, “Yale’s use of race is anything but limited.” The elite school “uses race at multiple steps of its admissions process resulting in a multiplied effect of race on an applicant’s likelihood of admission,” the Justice Department said.

The Justice Department has previously filed legal briefs in support of a lawsuit, brought by affirmative action opponents, accusing Harvard University of discriminating against Asian Americans.

A federal judge in Boston ruled in favor of Harvard last year, saying the school’s affirmative action program advanced a legitimate interest in having a diverse student body. An appeal of that ruling is pending. The case could eventually reach the Supreme Court.

Affirmative action programs in higher education were meant to address racial discrimination. The Supreme Court has ruled universities may use affirmative action with the aim of helping minority applicants get into college.

U.S. conservatives have said that in helping Black and Latino applicants, affirmative action can hurt white people and Asian Americans.

Source(s): Reuters

Related at Majorityrights: Hyperbolic over-representation of YKW (under-rep. of Whites) in Ivy League not remotely merit based

Warning: Third Positionism and its vulnerability with a backdoor for entryism and manipulation for its no-account foolishness.

Interventions: GOP, The Enemy of the People

DanielS:

Thamster engaged in terrible strawman misrepresentations of what is being done with pragmatism, describing it as “mere” pragmatism, and the “post modern” mere choice of identity: viz the original practicality of moral concerns is not mutually exclusive to depth of concerns nor even their idealization, sacralization and inspiration, inbornness and non-negotiableness. ....while Christianity has had great practical utility from its onset: for our enemies as a red caping of our moral order.

Thamster WitNat
Highlighted reply
Thamster WitNat

44 minutes ago (edited)
lol strawman, hardly. You are the one misrepresenting here.

I was referring to a tendency for many in the “dissident right” (if we want to go with that as a broad term) to engage in the question of religion by stating we need to either find one or create one more conducive to our politics. Packaged with that is the idea that religion serves as a survival mechanism where you pick and choose aspects of them suited to that end. The reason for this view of religion? A pragmatic concern with constructing one more in line with our politics. In other words, reducing religious truth to our own political interests. That is hardly a genuine answer to the problem but its a common one I see in these circles. Pragmatic because the question of truth is decided on by its practical implications over its absolute commitments. I am not talking about PRAGMATISM as a philosphy, I am talking about the pragmatic aim of this view in a general sense. Obviously stating that religion can have practical concerns as well as sacralization and ideaization that is non-negotiable is completely beside the point.

I also never said the postmodern “mere” choice of identity” I said this view of religion plays (broadly) within the framework of postmodernism that fascists are seemingly opposed to. Of course, for that to make sense, you would have to agree with me that the bulk of postmodernism is a continuation of modernism even if it began as a critique of it. I have expounded this view elsewhere.

Daniel Sienkiewicz
Daniel Sienkiewicz
14 minutes ago (edited)

​@Thamster WitNat

“lol strawman, hardly. You are the one misrepresenting here.

I was referring to a tendency for many in the “dissident right” (if we want to go with that as a broad term) to engage in the question of religion by stating we need to either find one or create one more conducive to our politics.”

While those on the dissident right may have a superficial idea as to the process of religion, I’m gathering that I did not misrepresent your argument, as I am satisfied that a religion, as any moral ordering, has practical matters negotiated between people at its origin.

The difference between an authentic religiosity as opposed to an affectation adopted or imposed (as in the case of Christianity) is that it emerges out of the concern to connect and hold to account a group’s systemic relations (you know the etymology re-ligia). Whereas Christianity tethers us to Noahide law, an affectation of kosher imposition, jurisdiction and expropriation.

“Packaged with that is the idea that religion serves as a survival mechanism where you pick and choose aspects of them suited to that end.”

You don’t pick and choose what has survival value to your people, but you do sacralize what is crucial and make taboo what is harmful.

“The reason for this view of religion? A pragmatic concern with constructing one more in line with our politics. In other words, reducing religious truth to our own political interests.”

In this argument you are relying too much on the word “mere”, which is the strawman element….“mere” pragmatism, “mere” politics, “mere” construction.

“That is hardly a genuine answer to the problem but its a common one I see in these circles.”

Obviously I am not going to defend people in the “dissident right” and your point is well taken regarding the adoption of Orthodox Christianity and probably in regard to some of their larpish attempts to represent pagan religions.

But the recognition of the need for a religion, to facilitate our group pattern on a semi transcendent level, beyond the unworthiness of some of our people and the imperfection of the rest of us, is necessary for many reasons, not least of which is to carry us beyond cynicism for the fact of our imperfection (to say the least).

“Pragmatic because the question of truth is decided on by its practical implications over its absolute commitments. I am not talking about PRAGMATISM as a philosphy, I am talking about the pragmatic aim of this view in a general sense.”

Let me call attention to Kant’s use of the word “practical” when discussing the topic of morality.

I’ll cop to a bit of No-true-Scotsmanning here when I suggest that it is furthermore practical to have ideals and aesthetic inspiration.

The purpose of this exercise is to relocate our agency in the service of our interests; that we can have hope to re-establish a moral order which centers the biological interest of our species. ...not so much to defend pragmatic philosophy, commendable though it is: Hilary Putnam, “the great contribution of the pragmatists is to show that fallibilism and anti-skepticism are compatible.”

“Obviously stating that religion can have practical concerns as well as sacralization and ideaization that is non-negotiable is completely beside the point.”

...well, if your point is to say that people on the dissident right are prone to retain the liberal idea of shopping around, picking and choosing, yes, good point, among the several reasons that you are interesting to listen to…..

But if your point is to criticize post modern philosophy and pragmatism as they should be understood in underpinning White interests, then not besides the point.

“I also never said the postmodern “mere” choice of identity” I said this view of religion plays (broadly) within the framework of postmodernism that fascists are seemingly opposed to.”

Ok, fair enough point - If - if their understanding of postmodernity is the hyper-relative, dada deconstructionist, ironically adopted situational nonsense that its been red caped for Whites as being what “post modernity” truly is. Then agreed.

“Of course, for that to make sense, you would have to agree with me that the bulk of postmodernism is a continuation of modernism even if it began as a critique of it. I have expounded this view elsewhere.”

Not exactly. Post modern philosophy as it is misrepresented is really a continuation of modernity, its late stage fallout - misrepresented as “post modernity” since the antagonists to our interests do not want us to understand the accurate purpose of post modern performance requirements as it would facilitate our systemic survival as opposed to the ravages of modernity, its arbitrary experimentalism in promise that change necessarily leads to progress, and as opposed to maintaining traditions, where they are anachronistic and no longer serviceable..

And conversely, to be able to invoke the best of modern advance and tradition without the pangs of self loathing for the appearance of lacking modern sophistication, but mostly, to be able to protect our inherited forms,  the maintained organization of which requires that post modernity be properly understood: hence why it is that our adversaries have perpetuated the hyper relative misrepresentation: they want to keep us disorganized.

EBL 31: Michel Foucault “The Birth of Biopolitics” (with Alex McNabb)

Thamster WitNat
2.96K subscribers

The EBL crew is joined by special guest Alex McNabb for a discussion of Michel Foucault’s 1978-79 series of lectures titled “The Birth of Biopolitics”. The crew examines facets of neoliberalism in the light of Foucault’s classic treatise

I stopped reading Foucault after the first book of his that I read, The History of Sexuality: The Use of Pleasure.

I was intrigued by the title, which indicated a classical Epicurean inquiry, a worthy avenue it seemed to me. However, except for the provocatively useful, but un-elaborated upon term, “bio-power”, there wasn’t much that i found to be of use in the text. On the contrary, I found him coming back repeatedly to the idea that (some) ancient Greeks (allegedly) considered homosexual pedophilia normal as transparent justification for his own predilection among this contextual relativization of history.

Even so, the term “bio-power” provides a clue as to an angle that can be used in inquiry and warning as to how it is that Africans can be a danger, i.e., not merely antagonistic, but having capacity, dangerous capability ...e.g., as a people some 200,000 years evolved prior to and thus compared to the precarious 41,000 years of European evolution.

There are several advantages to this angle which I will not elaborate on, but only add that it helps to mitigate against the Nazophiles who try to minimize black antagonism, looking upon themselves and their singular concern for the J.Q. as the ultimate in sophistication (and not naivete).

It also goes to show that sometimes a book a thousand pages long can be justified by one term or even the title.

While I had always meant to read Foucault’s most important books, Discipline and Punish and Birth of the Clinic for the provocative angles that Foucault takes on social problems, I never got around to it having been turned off enough by Foucault’s pedophilia apologetics and having read enough people quoting the texts to get the idea…

Josh Neal, Alex McNabb, Jefferson Lee and Thampster have a discussion in and about Foucault having apparently been provoked by the same term - bio-poltics/bio-power - and finding the same thing, the Foucault does not elaborate.

However, they have a decent discussion in and about what Foucault’s lecture on bio-politics does talk about - neo-liberalism…

....“the market (and its infamous ‘magic hand’) becomes the space of truth.”

....while the panel ventures some into Birth of The Clinic and Discipline and Punish.

Again, I’m not endorsing Foucault but he does provide provocative angles, prompting ways to think about power relations and their historical context in the determination of how social problems come to count.

Despite his rather assigned position to cover things from an Alternative Right angle - circa 2015 of the article being featured below - and moving from that misdirection-op to an even more kosher “Affirmative Right” position now, for his journalistic rigor Colin Liddell does a fine job of exposing right wing complicity in its dovetail with liberal “progressivism” for a halo of innocence in the project of our destruction.

And while Dissident Rightism, the Affirmative Right, whatever Right, dutifully follows the Alt-Right’s program to co-opt White reaction and direct it with elite Jewish interests, as such going along with a (((Madison Ave.))) characterology of “the left” as the enemy, with all the abuses and distortions of the necessary hypothetical end of inquiry that it can invoke from its pre-intersectional anti-White Marxist and cultural Marxist sophomore coalitions in perpetuating loop with tenured professors, a hypothetical end of inquiry that would otherwise be left to our autonomous group systemic governance to be corrected with rigorous feedback on normal calibration of working hypotheses (praxis/our group), instead the calibration of group interests are misleadingly labeled “THE Left”, its characterized minions called “social justice warriors” ...misleading labels for what is to us, liberalism (anti-our-White-groups/anti-White ethnonational left unionization) or the international, anti-White left and its coalition of anti-White advocacy groups, as if Whites should have a problem with social justice, be repulsed by it, and not unionize in the interests of our justice and a more sustainable justice in relation to others.

It is worth a look thus, even though it is not that time of year again, since right wing and liberal complicity with YKW antagonism remains a perennial concern:

NOBEL SAVAGES

by Colin Liddell, Affirmative Right, originally published 11 Oct 2015:

It’s that time of year again, when a few forgotten scientists, a largely unread writer, and some organization or individual that may or may not have done something for World Peace are given Nobel prizes. The actual awards ceremony usually comes in December, but just so the winners have enough time to book a flight to Stockholm and rent a tux, the announcements are made round about this time. But is the Nobel Prize what it seems, or is it the manifestation of something a lot more sinister?

Most people take it at face value, seeing it as a fitting conclusion to some presumably worthy scientific (or other) career – although most remain oblivious as to why this or that individual should win it over their peers. Most also remain decidedly foggy on how the prize winners are actually selected, both officially and with regard to the behind-the-scene string pulling and other factors that no doubt tip the scales this way or that.

But to see the Nobel Prize merely as an innocent award is to take it on its own terms, and thus to have your perceptions framed and shaped by it. This means you accept its projected image: as a fair and objective expression of “the progressive spirit of mankind” (a nebulous concept with admixtures of other nebulous concepts: ‘science,’ ‘peace,’ ‘excellence,’ ‘univeralism,’ etc.), and you also accept the implied association of this “positive” image with Scandinavia in general and Sweden in particular, without giving it too much thought. In short, the Nobel Prize is subtle, under-the-radar, positive brainwashing for Sweden.

The positive associations of Sweden (and Norway, which bestows the peace prize) are delicately dripped into the heads of the masses year-after-year with the same gentle pulse of propaganda in the weeks leading up to Xmas. They are subtly reminded that, yes, there is a place somewhere where progress is king, dedicated to the never-ending improvements of humanity and the bright, brilliant future that awaits us all some day.

READ MORE...