Majorityrights News > Category: Christianity

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.

Amon Göth’s daughter, a tragic figure.

Sometimes they cling to the right wing elements that allow for backdoor vulnerabilities through straightforward identification as rightist, at other times they don’t admit their right wing foolishness explicitly by saying “neither right nor left”, “national socialist” but lately there has been a gathering among the “dissident” right around the idea of “Third Positionism” ...which does allow for the admittance of Jewish influence by means of Christianity and where not directly, then by maneuvering of reactionary scientistic rigidity, like Uncle Adolf….serving reactionary elitism as such, it has young boys clambering for the leader in “truth, nature, god and foundation”, has the puerile girls getting all right-wing and wet as incitement of will to power in genetic competition will instigate the next round of genocide and leave a new breed of sociopaths on top for them to breed with, no matter whether they are Jewish, black or Mulatto, no matter if most and maybe nearly all of our European people get destroyed in the “inevitable, objective” process….

Greg Johnson discusses Carl Schmitt and The Concept of The Political...

The right wing being what it is, holding such rules as “no punching to the right”, is ripe for catastrophic exploitation in its non-corrective rigidity.

Among the reactionary positions that its proponents have been maneuvered into - duped - into taking, is that “sociology is Jewish.”  ...not that it is a neutral instrument that has been abused and weaponized against Whites by Jewish academics; no, right wingers take the position that sociology is Jewish and thus its unit of analysis - the group - is to be dismissed as so much skulduggery rather than what the group unit of analysis is - the most relevant to our cause.

You see, we European peoples, all of us, are being attacked as a group - a race is a group, and anti-racism is primarily aimed at the disorganization and destruction of the group that is European peoples along with our subgroups.

But the right wing position and its rational blindness to social accountability serves the elitism, secrecy and snobbery of some would-be leaders….

As their rationally blinded snobbery and elitism discriminates vertically instead of horizontally and fundamentally on the basis of qualitative niches, they also become naive, easily duped into entryism and maneuvering by our enemies.

Greg Johnson is only now saying what I have been saying explicitly for over a decade, that Jewry is organizing groups against us in anti-White coalitions, that we are under attack as a group and thus have to defend ourselves as a group.

Not that I am going to be given credit or even a hat-tip by these right-wingers for purveying that among an array of significant ideas that go into making it happen.. but as they are trying to spuriously bolt better grounded thoughts to their elitist positioning, let me point out that they are still clinging to their right wing, elitist positioning -

As I have observed before, Greg Johnson’s snobbery, that is, his vertical as opposed to horizontal discrimination leaves him with a bias that has him discriminating against some who are loyal and sincere while perhaps without pedigree, while favoring at times some who are clever, accredited but dubious in their will for our people (in the most relevant example, Greg banned me from Counter-Currents when I expressed suspicion in regard to Mark Dyal, whom Greg sought to curry favor with).

But here again, Greg’s elitism is served by Carl Schmitt’s concept of the political, though its “friend and enemy” distinction wound-up being drawn on catastrophic lines as it dovetailed with Schmitt’s dubious concept of “the exception” [exception to social accountability and regard for national boundaries] in his endorsement of the Nazi regime and the person of Hitler…and, well, what could go wrong?

Granddaughter, daughter and Amon Göth

Given all that we now know and see, the mass brainwashing and cultural appropriation by Zionism of English patriotism through one of the most rousing, inspiring and ostensibly patriotic English hymns, “Jerusalem”, looms horrifying - as a hymn to a false religion misdirecting English interests to our enemy, captivating the nation from its Royalty, in holy matrimony, to the commoners singing in overflow outside Westminster Abbey.

Even if the significance of what I have brought to bear has thus far been misunderstood by GW, the significance of his radically native English loyalty is not lost on me (and his resistance to my efforts perhaps partly explained); appreciated all the more as an occasion like this, the mass singing of the hymn “Jerusalem” at the Royal Wedding reveals the kind of appropriation and the daunting, egregious misdirection that it is up against.

The Royal Wedding - Jerusalem (29 April 2011)

Harry and the undifferentiating of the gentiles

We’ve discussed this before, and while I basically agreed with GW, of the song I was still captured somewhat for its beauty and inspiration, its fascinating interplay of paganism, Christianity and patriotism… such that I did not fully appreciate in this case the significance of GW’s stance against Christianity’s historically enmeshed, nefarious influence - de-ethnonationalizing, universalizing, blending away the gentile into undifferentiated mass, powerless to organize against the “chosen ones”, etc.

Commenting on GW’s post: The shaping of European altruism in left political form, part 1

Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 25 Jun 2012 16:39 | # 2

OK, back for literally a minute. Reading about the sickness of PC, here as elsewhere, why do you, GW, never weigh in on my White Zion argument (ie, that WNs of all persuasions - conservative, Christian, nationalist, pagan, NSM - will never be a majority of any sovereign polity, and thus our race is doomed unless there is some kind of emigration-ingathering so that we might attain a sovereign majority somewhere)?

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 25 Jun 2012 16:57 | # 3

I’m English, Leon.  England is Zion to me, not that I like or need Jewish symbols.

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 25 Jun 2012 17:30 | # 4

GW: I’m English, Leon.  England is Zion to me, not that I like or need Jewish symbols.

That was funny

...“And did those feet in ancient time, Walk upon England’s mountains green?”....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CN11bI1_sZo

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 25 Jun 2012 17:49 | # 5

No they didn’t, Daniel.

Let me now respond to that pithy remark with great respect.

At the time, I responded:

Posted by daniel on Mon, 25 Jun 2012 18:15 | # 6

GW: No they didn’t, Daniel.

That was funny too..

No, I guess not, but a good tune, rather inspirational in its own way…and I like the Blake poem as it goes back and forth from Christianity to paganism from verse to verse - it can be seen, in a sense, as urging Christians/Christianity to conform to English nationalist interests.

...but neither do I recommend that strategy. Enough middle eastern influence to sort out as it is.

You already have quite a temple mount there in the London Square Mile

Somewhat better, I did add:

Posted by daniel on Mon, 25 Jun 2012 21:23 | # 8

While I am seeing the humor in those few quips by GW, I must also say that I am moved by this essay. It is rather not funny - heart wrenching.

As GW values the pithy, precise and natural, let us bend our hermeneutic knee where it is due: “No they didn’t”

The lyrics to Jerusalem:

And did those feet in ancient time,
Walk upon England’s mountains green?
And was the holy lamb of god
On England’s pleasant pastures seen?
And did the countenance divine,
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here
Among these dark satanic mills?
Bring me my bow of burning gold!
Bring me my arrows of desire!
Bring me my spear, oh clouds unfold!
Bring me my chariot of fire!
I will not cease from mental fight,
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand
Til we have built Jerusalem
In England’s green and pleasant land.

  - William Blake

Inspiring a boomer generation with mixed and mxing messages -
Emerson, Lake and Palmer: Jerusalem.

Below the fold is the moving article of GW. And while I respect his patriotic resistance in the daunting face of such grand deception and defrauding of the English people, I must issue the caveat that his fight has been transferred mistakenly against the resource that I bring to bear. Though he does not elaborate on what he maintains to be “the left political form”, we must be assured by now that he does not mean an ethnonationalist left, but an international one.

I always take for grated the maintaining of the genus and species (thus nationalism and native national borders) where I use the term “left” to attune consciousness to our interests. For GW’s penchant for strawmanning (lets be nice for a moment and call it Socratic challenge), it has taken volumes of repetition to assert that I am not talking about Marxism/ and its internationalist, supranational leftism, which is liberal with regard to our national borders.

I should have been able to take it for granted, as I was clear that I never advocated doing away with the borders of our people, be they racial genus or national species. But given the strawmanning of my potion, I have made what I mean by White Left explicit - i.e., White Left EthnoNationalism; and I have been explicit as to why I take that position.

That’s mostly irrelevant in this moment, but for the fact that “the form of left” is mentioned in GW’s title -

READ MORE...

Editor’s note: this is a work in progress.

I will be adding to it here and in comments below as time goes on.

Red cape: misrepresenting what would be a good idea for Whites so they chase it away and pursue its opposite.

While I will be mostly adding condensed raw material, what we may refer to as “specificatory structures” for further shaping and crafting, “Red Caping” is one of the few more ready-to-go memes

Red caping implies a strategy that I am convinced the YKW deploy, of taking a good idea for social group maintenance, and presenting it in such a way so as to make it offensive to Whites, even on an abstract level - a level on which it can and should be deployed in White defense; but presented as a sheer antagonistic concept, Whites chase after it like a bull to the matador’s red cape; fighting against our own interests.

Easy examples would be “multiculturalism” and “diversity”...

These ideals would seem to imply that Whites can and should maintain their distinction and sovereignty along side other distinct groups in the world - nice idea.

However, the YKW have presented it in such a way, and Whites react accordingly, that it is about doing away with any White difference - and indeed that’s true: “diversity” as they mean it, does mean chasing down the last Whites (and forcing them to interbreed with others or die) and “multiculturalism” red capes what is really monoculturalism - except for the YKW, in their agenda.

White Post Modernity: corrects reactionary chase of (((red capes))) fucking up necessary pomo ideas

As Whites chase after the red cape reversal, you’ll hear the naive reacting to Angela Merkel’s statement that “multiculturalism has utterly failed” as if “hey, even she gets it now”, while in effect she is calling for integration; i.e., final stage destruction of our genome.

When Pat Buchanan was running for president back in the 90’s, he referred to “the sewer of multiculturalism”, which he argued should be rejected in favor of every American being required to learn English and encouraged to participate in Christian culture ..again, this is to have chased the YKW red cape into integrationism, our genetic destruction.

As meme’s go, we might picture the Happy Merchant’s head replacing the matador’s head, while on the red cape might be written, say, “multiculturalism.”

On the bull might be written, “White man” saying “it’s a failed idea, what we want is assimilation” ..something like that.

GIF action might work well, revealing integration on the other side of the redcaping.

Now, “Multiculturalism” and “Diversity” aren’t the most ingenious examples of red caping; fairly transparent, though some still seem to be falling for it to an extent (sorry Mark).

There are other, trickier and more important red capes, which I have infamously attempted to explicate to White advocates:

“THE Left” is a red cape that would be a bit harder to have understood, but not impossible, nor impossible to meme; and important to explain and get through to our people.

And the red cape of the whole characterology of “THE” Left, is one about associating anti-Whitism and its “Social Justice Warrior” minions, their vast, antagonistic distortions (inculcated by YKW academics) of the process of conceptualization, working hypotheses that should be correctable, but do not deal with reality, nature, facts, etc., in this strict characterology of THE Left; i.e., associating it with ALL left-type concerns - crucially diverting attention from the legitimacy of unionization of the national ethne, as it would structure social accountability and correctability’s underlying natural fit with ethnonationalism. Thereby misrepresenting that which on an abstract level is a necessary part of any process of sense making and inquiry, including scientific.

“Even a false or inadequate working hypothesis is better than no working hypothesis”
- Alfred North Whitehead

In effect, Whites react into an altercast Right Wing purity spiral beyond or below praxis, its accountability and correctivity - against our capacity to maintain ourselves as a group.

They’ve got Whites conceptually fighting against social justice, against a daft concept of equality (which altercasts our people as despotic, elitist assholes) against our conceptualization as a people, organization and unionization, because race is “not a social construct”, it is only about pure facts (not as if we can breed with other races, and therefore a modicum of social construct is unavoidable); making short shrift if any to accountability and its affordance of coherence, agency and warrant.

I’ve discussed the red caping of “post modernity” and how they’ve got our people chasing against their own interests, will see about condensing other ideas from that article.

But red caping is not the only meme on offer and I will be setting out some other material for meming in a few….

Heimbach “coming to the light”: another example illustrating the inherent instability of the right, including as a result of introducing its elements by means of third positionism.

Light Upon Light Shape Shifters - Matthew Heimbach, a Former White Nationalist. To struggle against hate we need…

Related at Majorityrights:

Heimbach & Parrott’s Jesus group acts into right wing altercast of YKW

Derek Black: “How a rising star of White Nationalism broke free.”

Donald Trump touts ‘beautiful timeline’ to lift coronavirus restrictions by Easter and have ‘packed churches’

MSNBC, 6 hours ago:

Donald Trump said he wants his nation “opened up and raring to go by Easter” as he spoke about an end to coronavirus lockdown measures across the United States.

The US President spoke about his desire to loosen guidelines, touting the prospect of “packed churches” for the holiday.

“I would love to have the country opened up and just raring to go by Easter”, he said in a virtual town hall held by Fox News.

In a later interview on Fox News he said “Wouldn’t it be great to have all the churches full?”

“You’ll have packed churches all over the country. I think it would be a beautiful time. And it’s just about the timeline I think is right”.

Not content with being “the new Cyrus” it appears Trump also wants to be the new James I and own the title of “the wisest fool in Christendom”. - mancinblack

Italian Virologist Says Concerns Over “Racism” Crippled Response

Texags.com 20 Mar 2020

An Italian virologist says that the country’s attempt not to appear “racist” in the early says of the coronavirus outbreak crippled the ability to properly respond to the pandemic.

Professor of Virology and Microbiology at the University of Padova Dr. Giorgio Pal told CNN that measures imposing travel restrictions and border controls were taken too late due to fears over political correctness.

“There was a proposal to isolate people coming from the epicenter, coming from China,” Pal told CNN. “Then it became seen as racist, but they were people coming from the outbreak.”

Italy is now the hardest hit country in the world in terms of coronavirus deaths, with 3,405 people losing their lives.

The need to minimize potential “racism” and “stigmatization” in response to the coronavirus was a policy endorsed by the World Health Organization itself on numerous occasions and adopted by the left-wing Italian government.

As we previously highlighted, the Mayor of Florence launched a nationwide campaign at the start of February encouraging Italians to hug Chinese people on the street to “stem the hatred.”

Footage of the stunt even shows Italians physically removing a Chinese man’s face mask while closely embracing him.

The Mayor even released a Twitter video of himself hugging an awkward-looking Chinese person to promote the campaign, which was launched to “express solidarity with the Chinese community.”

Italians hug Chinese in Italy to encourage them in Coronavirus fight.

Mayor of Florence Dario Nardella has suggested residents hug Chinese people to encourage them in the fight against the novel coronavirus. Meanwhile, a member of Associazione Unione Giovani Italo Cinesi, a Chinese society in Italy aimed at promoting friendship between people in the two countries, called for respect for novel coronavirus patients during a street demonstration. “I’m not a virus. I’m a human. Eradicate the prejudice.”

The video was uploaded February 4th

It’s sad to me, really, because in concrete terms, I’d like for there to be good relations between Europeans and Orientals. It is the abstract concept of anti-racism and anti prejudice and its consequences that is the problem.

That video was uploaded February 4th. Three weeks later, Italy had recorded its third death. On March 20th alone, 627 deaths were recorded, bringing the total to over 4,000, with a frightening new trend introducing critical patients in their 40s and 30s.