Majorityrights News > Category: Social Conservatism

READ MORE...

Photo Credits: Bråvalla festival

Voice of Europe, “Sweden’s largest music festival cancelled over ‘migrant sex attacks”, 22 June 2018:

The Bråvalla festival is Sweden’s largest music festival. Organisers have just announced that the event will come to an end after being cancelled this year due to sex attacks, local newspaper Norrköpings Tidningar reports.

Last year’s festival saw at least 11 sex attacks, three which led to arrests and the year before nearly 40 young girls complained of being sexually harassed and abused by men most often described as “foreign”.

Alexandra Larsson, a 17-year-old victim, described her attackers saying: “They were probably immigrants. I hate to say it. But it is the truth.”

The organisations public relations person, Kajsa Apelqvist, said: “It’s a very disappointing decision to take, but the overall picture we have is that we can not develop the festival in the way we want to be relevant to our visitors in the future.”

They have tried to help ensure visitor safety, encouraging people to talk and report criminal offences; they’re proud of that; however, they don’t see possibility for the festival to continue in the future while still ensuring safety of festival goers.

Sweden has a serious problem with sex attacks on its festivals. We’ve earlier reported that the incidents started already in the year 2000 and were taking place at other festivals at least since 2006.

New Observer, “Italy: Political Deadlock Broken as Lega Leader Salvini becomes Interior Minister”, 1 June 2018:

A new cabinet deal designed to circumvent the Italian president’s political deadlock has been hammered out and today a coalition between the Five Star Movement (M5s) and the Lega Party became that country’s new government—with the all-important post of Minister of the Interior going to Lega leader Matteo Salvini, who has promised to expel the African invaders from Italy.

The new government—appointed 88 days after the election which saw the M5s and the Lega party emerge as the two largest parties—means that Italy will now not be subjected to a new election, as the liberal Italian president Sergio Mattarella had hoped.

The first attempt at forming a government failed when the liberal President used his constitutional powers to refuse to appoint a euro-sceptic finance minister proposed by the M5s and Lega parties.

That crisis led to the coalition prime minster candidate, Giuseppe Conte, stepping down, and the president nominating an establishment figure to form a government.

However, that attempt to circumvent democracy also collapsed when it became clear that the replacement government would never survive a motion of confidence in the Italian parliament.

After renewed negotiations between the coalition partners and the president’s office, a compromise was reached over a new finance minister, and the Mattarella today swore in the new MS5-Lega coalition government.

As before, neither the Lega leader Salvini, or the M5s leader Luigi Di Maio, will be prime minister (known in Italy as the “President of the Council of Ministers,” and instead both hold Vice President positions.

Conte, an independent aligned to the M5s, will be President, while the Lega member Giancarlo Giorgetti will be his immediate deputy, or “Undersecretary to the Presidency of the Council and Secretary of the Council.”

Di Maio will be Vice President and Minister of Labor, while Salvini will be Vice President and Minister of the Interior.

The new Economics and Finance minister will be the independent Giovanni Tria, and the rest of the portfolios will be divided up between the Lega and the M5s.

Italian media reported that the lineup will face a vote of confidence on Monday or Tuesday in both houses of parliament, which it is almost certain to win thanks to Five Star and the League’s combined majority in parliament.

Salvini previously announced that he was going to “stop the business” of illegal immigration, crack down on the smuggling networks and speed up the expulsions of illegals.

The interior ministry includes the departments responsible for national security and public order, a fact which will allow him to easily implement his election promises, one of which—to deport half a million African invaders within a year—has now become official coalition policy.

Salvini is also on record as saying that he opposes homo marriage, and famously once posed next to a bulldozer on a Twitter entry, with the message “We’re working for you,” a reference to an earlier promise to bulldoze all Gypsy camps in Italy, which are nests of crime and vice.

Trump took over Republican party on behalf of the Jewish Right in tandem with disingenuous, deracinating, oligarchic, objectivist, propositional Right…through its kosher, paleocon safety net/valve, false opposition, (((the Alt-Right))).

After Trump committed what was to Republican insiders the great sin of saying “there were good and bad on all sides” at the Unite the Right rally…

(((Corey Lewandowski))): “He has to fight back. So when you accuse him of being a racist he doesn’t want to back up, he wants to double down to prove to you that that’s not true, and that’s what the President is.”

Trump: “What about the ‘Alt-Left?” Not to be confused with what we define as White Left, nor the Jewy, fraud “Alt-Left” that also goes by that name; Trump was certainly not addressing that anyway, but rather a trendy way of addressing the motley “left” as it is commonly known - the pivotal move - to redirect attention and blame to “the Left”  - in orchestration of the White Right through the “Unite the Right” rally.

In addition to Mnuchin using “Unite The Right” to offend Gary Cohn through it and Trump’s neutral response, to get Cohn out of the way, there were key Republican insiders that needed ingratiation for the Jewish Right to be able to take-over and join forces with the (deracinating) American right through front man Trump.

Following Trump’s first political victory on their behalf, the passing of the tax-cut bill:

Paul Ryan heaps saccharine, about face praise of Trump for making the rich, richer…

As Mitch McConnell has been kissing black ass since the days of “civil rights” when he marched with M.L. King, Trump had to be sure to burnish his pro-black credentials for him (note Uncle Tom/ Satchmo Step n’ Fetch-it type to Trump’s right).

Mitch McConnell: “You’ve made the case for the tax-bill (so that the rich could get richer and the poor, poorer - typical Repugs). We’ve cemented the Supreme Court to the right of center for a generation (pro-black women having babies). You’ve ended the over regulation of the American economy (pro-pollution). Thank you Mr. President, for all you’re doing.”

(((Corey Lewandowski))): “In essence this became Trump’s Republican party.

The testimony that people gave there is hard to take back”

- Oren Hatch, for example: “You’re one heck of a leader…and we’re going to make this the greatest Presidency that we’ve seen, not only in generations, but maybe ever.”

(((Corey Lewandowski))): “What the Republican establishment now know, is that Donald Trump is unequivocally the leader of the Republican party” (The Jewish Right-wing has taken over from Jewish liberals).

“He’ is the one who sets the tone of what takes place in Washington. He is the leader of our country - both politically and from a legislative side of things. I think they’ve learned that over the last year.”

Related Story: Unite the Right Charlottesville: successful neocon/liberal operation forces wedge against paleo-Cohn

In his defense of group evolutionary strategy, KM has done better in articulating the biological aspect of out-marriage as part of the group systemic strategy - both in infiltrating and weakening other group’s cohesion. Jewish group evolutionary strategy uses both top down directives and (prescriptive) rule structures, and bottom up biological patterns and (descriptive) rule structures.

The Jewish group evolutionary system/strategy is characteristically that Cohen’s give Zionist and/or ultra loyalist directives and Ashkenazi (especially Ashkenazi) are more free and prone to out-breed, infiltrate, liberalize, weaken opposing groups in their evangelizing as “light unto the gentiles.”

According to Jewish convert, Luke Ford, Cofnas has presented the first serious challenge against Kevin MacDonald’s work, “so effective as to call its validity into question entirely.”

One does not have to have but a passing acquaintance with MacDonald’s work and his concern to know that to call its validity into question entirely or even in large part, simply is not possible. Nor do they have to look beyond the absurdity of Ford’s claim that Cofnas does such “irreparable damage” to MacDonald’s efforts to see immediately that Ford’s pro-Jewish bias is over-the-top; and examples cited of Nathan Cofnas’s supposedly detached analysis, indicate rather clearly a heavy pro-Jewish bias, motivated and prone to crude straw manning of MacDonald’s work.

Anyway, this is the first public defense by MacDonald of this “first serious academic critique of ‘The Culture of Critique.”

Me ne frego - episode 22, with Kevin MacDonald

Professor Kevin MacDonald joins the show to discuss Nathan Cofnas’s recent paper, ‘Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy: A Critical Analysis of Kevin MacDonald’s Theory’, which is the first ever academic attempt to refute Professor MacDonald’s theory as presented in his 1998 book, The Culture of Critique. The first 45 minutes are in English; after the music break we wrap it up in Swedish.

READ MORE...

It is significant that Trump has declared his campaign against the opioid issue a worldwide problem.

It is a reflection of dishonesty and supremacism as opposed to a move toward ethnonational coordination.

A preliminary matter of suspicion has to do with resources being devoted to criminal enforcement rather than public health.

In particular, resources as such are not necessarily being devoted even for the public health management of the poor White communities impacted. But rather toward a covert means to deal with blacks and browns though criminalization; while resources will be devoted to foreign browns and yellows to a lesser extent through criminalization, but to a greater extent through politicization - their being seen as engaging in a covert war of drug trafficking - a depiction which could then mutate into broader, more explicit wars, markedly in Asia.

This comes back to dishonesty and supremacism as opposed to White Nationalism, which is supposed to represent ethnonationalism for European peoples.

As ethnonationals, we should be working on rule structures which lead to our separatism and sovereignty for ourselves, blacks, browns and yellows. We do not want to be a part of the same governance; and in fact, we need to be of a separate governance.

It is supremacist to detain migrants, drug users and petty dealers for any significant length of time in prisons - private jails in particular have been cited as being used for the literal supramacist purpose of slave labor.

Ethno-nationals would either repatriate them or work on the means of separatism, physically and legally; i.e., they would honestly admit that in seeing themselves as significantly different from these people, that they want to be separate; and need to separate, as opposed to generating an atmosphere of exploitation and revenge; or the liberal supremacism of integrationist genocide. That only separatism, not heirarchical control within the same governance will allow us to manage our peoples in good faith coordination with others.

As for the trafficking of opioids, cocaine and other drugs - again, rather than a government engaging in a dishonest, covert means of warfare against a people that Jews and right wingers see as a threat (Hispanics and Asians), White governance needs to acknowledge that drugs have long been, though clandestinely, a huge part of Western economies; and what needs to happen instead is an open and honest acknowledgement of the part these drugs play in the medical and recreational economy and as a public health issue - in the need for mental adventure and a certain amount of pleasure on the one hand; and in the need for escape into being, the need to deal with pain, anxiety, depression, boredom and despair on the other hand - particularly regarding the addictive aspects and the anti-social ramifications of abuse that can ensue. Thus, not only dealing with the punishable aspects of drug abuse, but in the social compassion of looking into and dealing with what might be lacking in these peoples lives that has them not seeing better recourse to drug abuse or illegal trafficking.

This would allow for a better management of our own peoples. In addition, this would allow for a fair, non-Jewish, non-right wing negotiation with Asian and South American peoples, as opposed to more brutal exploitation and catastrophic wars in the dishonest interests of Jews and right wingers.

In Tanstaafl’s latest theoretical fail:

The White Race and its Discontents:

He proffers:

1) “A civilization and its culture are racial constructs – the bottom up, grass-roots instincts of the masses largely modulated and moderated by the elite.”

This is a desperate and lame attempt to ignore the better understanding of social consructionism that I have had to explain time and again, because right wingers cannot adjust to the fact that they are reacting to a misrepresentation of the term.

They refuse to deploy the exercise of trying the word “mere” before “social construct” and observing that if you need that word, then it is Cartesian and not a concept that you would apply to something substantive like race.

The White race as a social construct - not merely, but substantively - already IS from the ground up and that, as a social construct, is a MUCH better way to look at it than the way that Tanstaafl says is THE way to look at the matter, i.e., that “civilization and culture are racial constructs” - that doesn’t even make logical sense (coming from a man who accused me of having poor logic): If he is emphasizing, as he does, the causal and deterministic aspect of our inheritance then why call it a “racial construct”?  ..call it a byproduct, perhaps..

But he won’t go with a proper understanding of social constructionism because he is beholden to his reactionary audience.

It is better to allow for our individual agency and contributions by talking in terms of social construct - it emphasizes our social responsibility, interdependence, degree of independence and most importantly, our people as central outlook and framework, not our subhuman nature.

Tanstaafl does not do this because he continually tries to suck Hitler to life again, desperately trying to make his subhuman ideology relevant again.

Social constructionism, properly understood, not only begins with the proper outlook, from our people, but does so in such a way that already begins with instinct and unconscious doings - we talk in terms of the agentive capacity to attribute how things count when they are on the more causative side of the spectrum. But they are never, mere constructs.

2) To illustrate how it is that Tanstaafl can’t get over his wish to try to redeem Hitler and make him relevant again: in the context of Trump’s speech in Poland, Tan tries the old, “they’re going to call you a Nazi anyway.”

No they aren’t - especially not if you apply agency as a social constructionist. It’s easier as a Pole, perhaps, to say I/we had nothing to do with Nazism; but it is not that hard for subsequent generations of Germans to reject the attribution of Nazism either.

3) In another example of how he wants to apply natural causality and tie our hands to passivity in regard to how the Jews say things count, Tan cites the infamous Susan Sontag quote - “White people are the cancer of the earth”  - in its full context; relishing the opportunity to attack one of my most cherished observations on behalf of our European people - i.e. that the Hippies were about midtdasein, Being amidst our people for White males as opposed to say, the endless war mongering of Hitler or the corporations and their draft into Vietnam - by saying that Sontag was endorsing the “freak-out” in order to promote sheer insubordination to older generations.

Well, that is how (((Sontag))) might try to say the hippies counted, that is NOT how we should say they counted. For us the rebellion of midtdasein against sheer war mongering could not have been a more relevant and authentic motive.

On the Significance of the Neo in Neo-Reaction - when Jewish victimology turns attention to Jews as the victimizers, Jewish exceptionalism is invoked as “Neo” - “As long as I can remember I’ve been a ‘Neo’-Something: A Neo-Marxist, a Neo-Trotskyist, a Neo-Liberal, a Neo-Conservative and in religion, always, Neo-Orthodox, even while I was a Neo-Trotskyist and a Neo-Marxist….I’m going to end up a Neo, just Neo, that’s all.”

Intersectionality: Jewish ordering and exceptionalism in victimology - the “Neo-exceptions” of victimology in the age of treason:

Tanstaafl usually provides incisive insight into Jewish machinations. As he does here in his observation of “intersectionality”, recognizing that to be the point at which Jewish victimology turns attention back to them as the victimizers - which then requires their interests to propose their exceptionalism to the rule - a rule which might be wiggled-out-of as they don themselves “neo” this or that.

Tan’s incisiveness can, however, cut off important “ambiguities” - “ambiguities” that provide means for learning, creativity and agency in the realm of praxis - Tan accuses me of “jargon” for this word, which outlines the interactivity of the social world and its impossibility to predict 1000% for the human capacity for reflexive agency in responses; e.g., I was surprised by Tan when he wanted me to clearly understand that he had “no problem with Hitler.” I expected him to change that, to observe problems, at least some problems with Hitler’s worldview after a reading on his former network of the chapter in Table-Talk, viz., where Hitler discusses his opinion of Ukrainians, the subservient role he saw for those not killed in resistance to his aspiration for aggrandizement of their land. Tan had, after all, objected to Carolyn’s insulting support of Hitler’s disparagement.

Typically in this post also then, we should look-out for some blind spots in Tan’s analysis for his tacit identification with a right-wing perspective, particularly Nazi apologetics.

The wish to vindicate Hitler can make for an over-focus, even if slightly, on Jews as the problem. If Jews were THAT much of the problem, virtually the only problem, then Hitler is apparently, largely vindicated for his “minor indiscretions”. It is not that there should not be strong focus on on the J.Q. But it becomes an “over-focus” when in that incisive focus it parses-out and does not afford discussion of our part, our agency - where any sort of ambiguity is not allowed-for as it does not follow the “logic” of the J.Q. (us or them) - as was the case where Tan’s logic accused someone like me of trying to distract, minimize or malign those who focus on the J.Q. Whereas I am, in fact, merely calling for the need to also examine the part some of our people play (as if we don’t know that Jews like Alana Mercer try to focus singularly on that side of the equation) in our situation, with Jews and otherwise.

When Tan seeks to vindicate Hitler and unburden guilt and agency among his community of sympathizers - by suggesting rather that I am minimizing the J.Q., the singularly paramount issue, a life and death struggle against Jewish interests, as he expresses it - Tan is pushing Whites in the direction of repeating the same mistake, of headlong and disastrous reaction for wont of sufficiently deep and broad epistemic preparation - a necessary grounding especially in the praxis of European ethno-national coordination (which the motive of Hitler vindication precludes). 

Furthermore, by not allowing for the “ambiguity” of praxis he performs an additional disservice by going along with a Jewish default on left and right - i.e., where they can’t get you to cop to being a right winger or an alt-righter, they want you to say, as Tan does, “left and right is not a useful distinction.” Tan adds cleverly, I am a “White winger.”

While he has criticized Lawrence Auster for making liberalism the problem and not Jews, his overly precise focus has bi-passed the fact that liberalism is the problem in the sense that liberalism unfolds characteristically, in reality, as license against group classificatory interests - a consequent in reality especially given the manicheanism of Jewish interests which exaggerate and instigate that liberal prerogative indeed; though liberalism as it follows consequently of insufficient account to our interests is still the manifest problem, even if Auster complains about it, even if instigated by Auster’s fellow YKW: And particularly if liberalism is hidden beneath titular conservatism, as in neo-conservatism or paleoconservatism, or the mistakenly presumed conservatism of Christianity - as any sort of conservatism that they propose will be under their Noahide control; thus not conservative of our sovereign classificatory interests.

Worse, Tan says that Gottfried wants to blame liberalism as well - and so he does, but even more so does Gottfried want to blame and vilify “The Left” - the unionized accountability to social classification - and to position White identity against it - and has, in the form of the Alternative-Right - everybody is blaming “the left” as a result of the language game Gottfried set in motion. And while it is not always correct to play “opposite day”, in this case, it is - we should be asking why Gottfried et al. want us to do that? What is wrong about a White Right - Alt-Right or otherwise? Even more significantly, what is correct about a White Left perspective such that Gottfried et al. do not want us to identify with it?

I do believe that Tan’s blind spots stem from his starting point in defense of his partial German heritage, partly from his STEM-nerd background as well, which has been overly-reinforced against the helpful ambiguities of praxis by right-wing reactionary communities in The US. Thus, he will gain dubious support, for example by fellow Hitler apologist Wolf Wall Street - who will call Tan “the greatest epistemologist in White Nationalism”. When in fact, epistemology is one of Tanstaafl’s blind spots and weak points.

That doesn’t mean that most of what Tan has to say isn’t good - it is. His amplification of the matter of crypsis is an important contribution. But incisive, good and significant as his citing “anti-racism as a Jewish construct” is, it hardly renders insignificant my observation that “anti-racism is Cartesian, it is prejudice, it is not innocent, it is hurting and killing people.” His statement can be seen as a focus on the major pathogen afflicting European peoples, while my statement focuses on the fundamental element of our systemic immuno-deficiency.