Majorityrights News > Category: DNA Nations

Why Is ‘Group Selection’ Taboo? Indisputable Proof of the Reality of Group Selection

Another Good one from Prof. Edward Dutton: The Jolly Heretic, 15 Sept 2020.

The problem of attractive Jewish women/mischlings and other attractive non-White/European women.

I suspect that denying the fact that there are attractive Jewish women does more harm than good, as it puts into question one’s very sensibilities as ground of judgment. It can also cast a shadow of radical subjectivism over one’s taste. Indeed, even if you don’t like this type, do you not like that one, or should everyone suspend disbelief in your proposal of “unattractiveness”?

One route of Jewish infiltration into European populations, viz. Ashkenazi, was through Italy, and being half Italian, that perhaps partly explains why it is that I can find this type (physically) attractive.

But even if you don’t like this type, what about that?

What can you say? That she is Jewish from her father’s side, therefore because she is not considered Jewish by some Jewish laws that makes her not Jewish? Or that the Aryan in her washes the Jewishness away? Genetic and cultural allegiance speak otherwise.

Or this?

Or this?

Dealing with the issue honestly might help some young guys from falling into a situation where they perpetuate infiltration and subversion of European peoples by means of direct spousal influence and the creation of mischlings.

Indeed, some Jewish beauty and I.Q. may be a result of gene hijacking, so to speak…

Hedy Lamarr: in her spare time experimented with radar technology, which included contributions to military radar jamming devices and “bluetooth” technology.

But what to say to young guys? I know that for me, I personally DID find some Jewish women very attractive (and that was part of my initial aversion to anti-Semitism). However, where they did not reject me out of snobbery or whatever, then before it was too late, I invariably found their strident liberalism and disrespect for European peoples and culture intolerable.

Nevertheless, it would be dishonest to say that none of them are attractive…

What do you think? What would you say to your son or daughter to warn them off?

My best argument probably boils down to patterns and their intermittent nature which provide for “exceptions” and entryism for liberal argumentation and nefarious influence.

Oakland Mayor, supports BLM, warns hundreds of illegal immigrants of ICE round-up.

Ghislaine Maxwell

Then there is the crucial matter of crypsis and the nefarious influence it may mask.

I’ll be posting other examples as time goes on and we’ll look at some attractive women from other non-White races as well.

(((Peggy Lipton))) and her daughter Rashida Jones, from her marriage to Quincy Jones.

READ MORE...

We have to start killing White people. Version on Bitchute

“If we really want a change in this world, we have to kill White people. We have to start killing them. Otherwise there will be no change, at all. They will continue to do what they do and they will be entitled about it and spoiled.

We have to kill them. I can’t stress that enough. Like, we need to start interbreeding with their women, fucking their women; having as many children as possible so that we can interbreed with their families; and get our race going. You know, they can’t be racist to a black person if they have a half black kid. You know what I mean? It’s a little more hard to be racists when you got children that are half black. You know?

       

And Mitch McConnell, we have to get him out of the fuckin’ Senate. He is the epitome of White people. Same with Trump. They lie, they use their hypocrisy and they’re terrible fuckin’ people. I mean, you just read, then look up any data or um, information and you can look it up for yourself; but people are too fuckin’ dumb to do that shit. Um.

I just, I’m, I’m really, at this point with White people like I just, we really need to fuckin’ get rid of them. You know? They don’t want to be here, they don’t want to be on our team, they don’t want to help, they don’t want to do anything with us, so lets fucking get them out of our fuckin country.
               

They’re not even fucking from here to fuckin begin with. They fucking from some other fucking place and then they come here and try to act like it’s theirs, like. This is why we need to kill them.

Like and if anybody’s serious about this shit, like I think I’m going to start a group on um, like on having talks about you know how they’re privileged and how they get away with everything…

You know, and when I say “White privilege”, I don’t mean like oh, you get something or you get money or something like that, like no. 

You don’t have to deal with the shit that we got to deal with. Let me see if you’ve ever dealt with any of this. This is what I consider White privilege:

1) Have you ever been arrested for a crime that you didn’t commit?

2) Have you ever been accused of a crime that you didn’t commit.

3) Have you ever spent time in jail for a crime that you didn’t commit?”

In the Sortocracy of the DNA Nations, incarcerated people of color could be freed to go to colored societies; and they would not be subject to White jurisdiction to begin with unless they attempted to transgress our borders without our consent.

I hate to present a note of sarcasm, but the stultification of our people’s understanding as a result of red caping of important philosophical concepts for social organization has been unbelievably thorough.

Social Construction of the DNA Nations: A major problem, obstruction really, that I have had in getting better ideas understood and underway has been the misrepresentation of these better ideas for social organization of European peoples; so much so have ideas of social organization been misrepresented that European peoples have been repulsed by the very ideas that they need most to facilitate their social organization and homeostasis.

Social Constructionism is prominent among the misrepresented ideas made didactically repulsive. Social Constructionism properly understood doesn’t maintain that you can merely make whatever you like of your existence – you can try, but if your ideas are absurd they are going to be thwarted in one way or another (in a word, how is being solipsistic – deciding that you can be whatever you like completely irrespective of what other people think, let alone the laws of biology and physics - how is that “social”? - it isn’t. It’s Cartesian).

Social Constructionism is a correction to Cartesian estrangement, in either of its two extreme directions, either beyond nature or within nature, but on either side, veering toward no account, “that’s just the-way-it-isness”, which is susceptible to leave our people unprotected for the lack of accountability to their relative group systemic interests.

The group system, which Aristotle called praxis, is the middle range between the Cartesian extremes, the social world, provided structure by the concept of unionization – as opposed to Cartesian runway beyond nature or on course of brute nature, unionization structures human, social systemic accountability, thereby correctivity, which corresponds to group homeostasis, which is what we want, our autonomy, our sovereignty, our agency. Our social group, praxis, which should be the default calibration, while truth quests the feedback. Through accountability as such, we may establish coherence, the first task of any individual or specific group in the world, and with accountability as such, we may establish agency and warranted assertability:

The idea of social constructionism rather is to sensitize and centralize our people as the most relevant perspective – viz., our relations and their necessity; and with that accountability and coherence we can call attention to the agency that we have in the construction of our world; always a fact in one of three ways:

More literally, as in the construction of a building.

More metaphorically, as in the “construction” of a child.

Post hoc in relation to brute facts, as in we retain that capacity to negotiate to some extent how those facts come to count.

Why am I bringing this up now?

Social constructionism properly understood is an innocuous idea at worst and at its best, it is honest in the way the world and knowledge construction actually works; facilitating the ongoing social construction and correction of knowledge – knowledge imperative to our survival as a people.

Because our people react to misrepresentations of the idea, they are not taking advantage of this idea which the internet facilitates so well.

The Internet is here! We can interact in the construction of the DNA Nations concept! And yet for these past ten years, people have been acting like they are still sitting in front of the television, movie screen or radio, or going to the media of yesteryear as Bowery notes, of the bible, and that I am in front of the congregation: I have been treated as if I am either Moses on Mount Sinai, who is supposed to deliver the commandments by magic transmission to their brains, or, as they seem to prefer, that I am an impostor that they must debunk, with vicious ad hominum for their gods, be they Moses indeed, Jesus or Hitler or some other icon.

They’ll do anything, it seems, but join me in interaction, the way that social construcionism is supposed to work, in ongoing development and correction of ideas.

You think you are so smart? Fine, lets see how you can help refine and advance these ideas. Think I am mistaken about something? Let me know where I can make a correction..etc.

I have been maintaining all along that I know that I have set out solid, important specificatory structures, now lets shape and craft them in our interests!

So the task now is to wait for/and or find those people who will help me to build the DNA Nations concept - they might care to help develop other ideas that I’ve advanced as well, but - the DNA Nations concept is most important to develop at this point – for obvious reasons now, it is urgent that we get this underway.

For reasons most everyone understands, I have shifted this audio/video to Bitchute.

The DNA Nations - 2020 Update: A reading through of this update of a preliminary document of the DNA Nations concept to provide the basic specificatory structure to follow up for those who care for the curation of our diverse kinds of people. While our focus is on European peoples, curation for the preservation of our kinds - genus, species - and potential coordination on the basis of genetics, the concept does not preclude negotiating with mixed kinds, does not prescribe violence, exploitation in any way shape or form and does not preclude non-Europeans from curating their kinds for preservation and working out the means for their coordination with European kinds as well

The DNA Nations - 2020 Update

An implicit union of unions and coalitions thereof based on DNA criteria.

Euro-DNA Nations

James Bowery’s “Laboratory of the States” platform proposes sovereignty through free choice, as people may “vote with their feet” to establish human ecologies through controlled experimentation. The control would be established through freedom from association—that is, the freedom to not associate with others. However, under the current circumstances, efforts to instantiate these deliberately organized “human ecologies” are best conducted in an implicit manner. Indeed, under certain circumstances, they must be largely implicit (for example, regarding laws which prohibit realtors from mentioning race to buyers or sellers). Bowery suggests promoting abstract terms such as “our valuation of freedom of choice”. Later, the communities should be able to enforce explicit freedom of and from association.

This freedom from association is corollary to individual freedom of choice and association. Rather than trying to overthrow the liberal zeitgeist of our epoch, Bowery maintains that we ought to hold liberals to their principles. We will respect and grant their valuation of freedom to go/and or be associated with whom they like and we expect the same freedom of choice to go/ and or associate with whom we like.

As far as European Americans and other European diaspora go, Bowery has, since his initial proposal for the laboratory of the states platform, concluded that rather than state-sized units, county-sized political units are more optimal—the sheriff and county being the most viable and manageable scale of organization in defense against the nation-state apparatus in its death throes.

I would argue that the initial state is rather a step toward unionization – a virtual and rules based association, though not made formal as a political action group to begin, just an informal union of unions based on voluntary DNA groupings.
 
Furthermore, Bowery argues that strong valuation of freedom of choice is a distinctly Western characteristic and therefore precious. I concur. He elaborates farther that it is imperative to maintain the unique human ecologies that evolved with this Western characteristic of individual freedom of choice. I concur as well.

This freely and deliberately chosen state/county human ecology is very different from the deeply situated, naturally evolving human ecologies of Europe and Russia, where our people have evolved over tens of thousands of years in relation to particular habitats. It is surely critical for us to maintain these ecologies as well. We would not want to be without either the freely chosen state/county-sized ecologies of European diaspora derived by choice within a lifespan, nor without the truly deep, historical ecologies of our European and Russian nations. These are both goods that we would want to maintain, and yet they are very different concerns. This focuses WN on the task of coordination.

We wouldn’t really want to give up either, but how to coordinate these two goods? This is where a Euro-DNA-based nation begins to look like a potential means of coordination, allowing for various expressions of our native Europeans while never losing sight of their essence.

There is a third crucial matter to coordinate. If a nation of European descended peoples is to have an economy big enough to fund a space program and other large projects, it is likely to need a size larger than the average state (let alone county) to provide for a sufficient economy; and if, as Conner adds, nations of European peoples are to hold up to the growing power of China, they will need to be large.

Thesis: The Indigenous Euro-DNA Nation would provide a means for coordinating smaller States/Counties, both freely chosen human ecologies and those of deep, historical evolution, while providing the means for pursuing a mutual larger manifestation as well.

Given the anti-White hegemony that European peoples are up against from above, along with the turmoil and throngs of anti-Whites that they are up against on all fronts, an endogenous approach is the most practical for the coordination of European peoples sovereignty.

By endogenous here, we mean from the inside out. That is, in proposing autonomous, sovereign nations of European peoples, we should begin with those who would like to be a part of it first—begin by focusing on what we can do as opposed to what we cannot do. It is endogenous also in that the nation is corporeal, literally of the people—their native European DNA being the prime criterion for inclusion. That would be in contrast, though not in opposition, to other WN nation building efforts using an exogenous (from the outside-in) approach, such as the Northwest Front.

There are clear practical advantages of a native Euro-DNA Nation that begins as a formal declaration of a wish as confirmed by voluntary signatories. Firstly, signing-up would only mean that one is expressing a wish to be a part of sovereignty for European peoples. It does not require relinquishing one’s current citizenship.

Nor does it mean antagonizing non-Europeans. We may extend the DNA Nation concept and its freedom of association to them as well. But just as the conscientious are concerned for the preservation of a wide array of genus and species on earth and pervasive ecology, so too is it perfectly legitimate to look after our European kind.

For whom it may concern, the indigenous Euro-DNA Nation focuses from the start on our most precious concern, our DNA, while not encumbering us with present obstacles to land-situated nations. The Euro-DNA Nation would be non-situated in the beginning (and to some extent always).

However, DNA without land, without habitat indefinitely, would be problematic for a number of reasons. Therefore, it must be an objective of the Euro-DNA Nation to establish sacrosanct Euro-DNA Nation “lands” eventually; the plurality of lands is a deliberate usage. In fact, more safety and resources would be provided if these lands are non-contiguous and disbursed throughout the world. Naturally, WN would seek to re-establish our traditional territories as European, particularly those in Europe, but would also seek to secure sovereign territory in North America, South America, Russia, Australia and New Zealand. Nevertheless, in not being strictly contingent on obtaining land, the nation is rendered more flexible and more practical so that it can start with land claims of any size, even small claims.

Once coordinated as such, its ultimate viability may strive to cover the largest land-masses possible. Thinking about these issues first as a means of coordination with Bowery’s “Laboratory of the States” platform, and in line with that, the DNA Nation being freely chosen would allow people to select various native European sub-categories (if they match), some distinct, some perhaps blended in various ways and degrees. Considering the problem secondly in terms of how to coordinate WN of its largest possible size, it also provides a highly practical means to instantiate a goal for protracted expanse, as it is highly flexible in its ability to cover territory.

The DNA Nation is also practical in that it does not require unnecessary risk and engagement on the part of participants. Signing-up does not render one complicit with illegal activity of any kind. It only means an expressed wish for sovereignty from non-native European coercion, and to be with persons of indigenous European extraction.

Separatism is a first step, Separatism is the ultimate aim, and Separatism is always possible.

If you wish to express a desire that you might one day be a part of this union of unions that is the Euro-DNA Nation, you may sign up; and specify particular category/union as you wish. DNA proof will ultimately be required for consideration of membership.

The Native European-DNA Nation sign-up along with its subcategories will be provided.

Note 1: The freedom of and from association promoted by the Laboratory of The States/Counties is conceived by Bowery to be an implicit choice. In his estimation, explicit Whiteness does not work. Taking the example of the draconian legal constraints placed on American realtors regarding the mere mention of race to buyers or sellers provides a salient example of how hazardous explicitness can be. However, the explicitness of the DNA registry does not contradict the implicitness strategy due to its being voluntary and not representing a legal status, but rather an expression of a wish. Discretion is nonetheless advised.

Daniel Sienkiewicz

READ MORE...

ON Bitchute: Dr. Frank Salter: ON THE ETHNIC GENETIC INTERESTS OF EUROPEANS

Bitchute Version

VertigoPolitix, 30 Mar 2020:

Dr. Frank Salter’s immensely vital academic contributions to the genetic understanding of European ethnic groups, their health and welfare, and the need to safeguard these in a largely multicultural Western world, are explored in this video essay…

Source: https://www.amren.com/news/2018/05/et

While the video has been removed from Youtube:

Here it is on Bitchute.

European Outlook # 59 May 2020:

Except for the bit about Europe this is a good article. Federation would not destroy our sovereignty it would guarantee it, just as the rights of California or New York are protected by the federal constitution of the USA. - Bill Baillie

What is Real Nationalism? - James Caterill
From the BNP Website - https://bnp.org.uk/

The word ‘nation’ derives from the Latin for ‘to be born’, by which the Romans meant having roots in a common bloodline, rather than merely being born in the same place. The members of a nation invariably also share the same language, history, values and culture - including traditions and popular entertainment. Often they have the same religion or attitude to religion. These shared ancestral roots, experiences (good and bad) and aspirations combine to make the broad mass of people identify with the nation and with fellow members of it.

While the members of a nation often live under one government, the nation and the state are not the same thing. Nations can be subjected to foreign rule for centuries but still retain their identity and thirst for their freedom. The nation is what really matters, a living thing whose present owes both a debt to its past heroes and sacred duties to its as yet unborn future generations. The state is merely the form of government which the nation chooses, for the time being, as for it and for its future survival. In a healthy society without problems of external domination or an out-of-control elite, the form of government will reflect the traditions and the innate character of the people making the nation. The state and its personnel should serve the nation , not the other way round.

Shared culture is one of the most important building blocks of a strong nation, but it is not the only one. Modern scientific research is now identifying the specific genes for certain kinds of behaviour - conformism and individuality, for example. It shows that the proportion of such genes vary among different human populations. This doesn’t mean that any one group is ‘better’ than another, it does mean that human populations are different. The rebuttal of old Marxist egalitarianism proves that culture springs from the inborn nature of the people.  Put simply, when large numbers of Brits went to India, they didn’t become Indian, either in terms of ethnic identity or culture. And if large numbers of Africans come to Britain, breathing English air or even being born in England can never make them or their descendants English.

Even if a nation is composed of the descendants of immigrants (the USA, for example), why should that mean that it should accept further mass immigration on a scale that brings poverty and social collapse to many of its communities? In any case, it is not true in Britain. Again, the latest DNA science has buried the old liberal lies for good. We know that the vast majority of indigenous Brits can trace their ancestry directly back to the first post-Ice Age hunter gatherer settlers of our lands - 17,000 years ago. Further waves of genetically and culturally closely related tribes arrived in Neolithic times as farmers, and these were ‘topped up’ by further migration from mainland Europe, the Anglo-Saxons and Vikings for example. Tests on 9,000-year-old remains of Cheddar Man found that the local village school-teacher was his direct descendant. By comparison, the Maoris only reached New Zealand 700 years ago, yet no liberal would dare to sneer that they are “mere immigrants”.
Nationalists reject these double standards and insist that the British people are the indigenous, ‘first people’ of our islands and are entitled to recognition and respect as such.

The liberal-left talk a lot about diversity, but the mass immigration policies and One World ‘ideas’ they promote are in fact destroying human diversity. At present there are around 5,000 different national/linguistic/tribal groups in the world. This wonderful diversity is being wiped out so fast that scientists estimate that by the end of this century only 800 will survive. This catastrophic wipe-out of human bio-diversity can only be stopped if the free peoples of the world reject the Marxist propaganda and capitalist greed that together both favour mass migration and the destruction of separate nations through integration. All peoples have the right to control their geographical and cultural borders so as to preserve their identity. And the individuals and regimes running their states must either help this process or lose all legitimacy.

A nation can assimilate a limited number of immigrants. The more different they are and the larger their numbers, the harder this becomes. At a certain point - which can only be recognised if the host population are free to express their concerns openly - immigration stops being about the rights of immigrants and becomes about the colonisation and dispossession of the indigenous community. Even if integration is possible, it is only acceptable if the original inhabitants welcome it without brainwashing or coercion, and it should never be on such a scale as to fundamentally change the identity and core characteristics of the nation in question. Genocide - the destruction of a people - does not have to involve mass murder. Its evil can also be accomplished through propaganda and social conditioning to encourage different populations to mix. Tyrannical regimes have done this for centuries, knowing that rootless and divided populations are easier to control and exploit than proud and homogenous nations.

What’s so special about Britain and the British? First, we have the same rights to our land, and to self-government within it, as every other indigenous people on Earth. Second, the genius of the closely related British family of nations who are indigenous to our islands has made an absolutely unique contribution to the development of human freedom, happiness and material comfort of the whole world. The rule of law, free speech and parliamentary democracy, the Industrial revolution, the computer age, some of the world’s finest literature, so many great sports - these and many other things are our special gift to Mankind. Why should a people who have achieved so much, and who still have so much to achieve, meekly accept their dispossession and destruction by an elite that has no democratic mandate for such drastic change? The free peoples of Britain have never consented either to mass immigration or to the snuffing out of our right to self-determination in a federal Europe. That is why resistance to those evils is not only a matter of right, but of duty to our nation. Our duty - and your duty - not only on behalf of those alive today, but for the British heroes of the past and for those yet to be born.