Majorityrights News > Category: Activism

30 April 2020:

The unedited version of the presentation I wanted to turn in. Let me know what you think fam. The parts not highlighted I read to my class.

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….

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...

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.

Elites Union-Busting Plan: “Diversity”

Hence their program to characterize (stereotype) and vilify “The left”, misdefined as necessarily being in international Marxist, anti-ethnonational or Cultural Marxist, anti White terms.

Redacted FBI document hints at Israeli efforts to help Trump in 2016 campaign

Times of Israel 29 April 2020:

Affidavit quotes Trump confidant Roger Stone being told by a Jerusalem contact: ‘He is going to be defeated unless we intervene. We have critical intell. The key is in your hands!’

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, right, and US President Donald Trump shake hands at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem, May 23, 2017. (AP/Sebastian Scheiner)

Roger Stone, a longtime confidant of President Donald Trump who was convicted last year in Robert Mueller’s investigation into ties between Russia and the Trump campaign, was in contact with one or more apparently well-connected Israelis at the height of the 2016 US presidential campaign, one of whom warned Stone that Trump was “going to be defeated unless we intervene” and promised “we have critical intell[sic].”

The exchange between Stone and this Jerusalem-based contact appears in FBI documents made public on Tuesday. The documents — FBI affidavits submitted to obtain search warrants in the criminal investigation into Stone — were released following a court case brought by The Associated Press and other media organizations.

A longtime adviser to Trump, Stone officially worked on the 2016 presidential campaign until August 2015, when he said he left and Trump said he was fired. However he continued to communicate with the campaign, according to Mueller’s investigation.

The FBI material, which is heavily redacted, includes one explicit reference to Israel and one to Jerusalem, and a series of references to a minister, a cabinet minister, a “minister without portfolio in the cabinet dealing with issues concerning defense and foreign affairs,” the PM, and the Prime Minister. In all these references the names and countries of the minister and prime minister are redacted.

Section of FBI document with heavily redacted references to a minister, a cabinet minister, a “minister without portfolio in the cabinet dealing with issues concerning defense and foreign affairs,” the PM, and the Prime Minister.

Benjamin Netanyahu was Israel’s prime minister in 2016, and the Israeli government included a minister without portfolio, Tzachi Hanegbi, appointed in May with responsibility for defense and foreign affairs. One reference to the unnamed PM in the material reads as follows: “On or about June 28, 2016, [NAME REDACTED] messaged STONE, “RETURNING TO DC AFTER URGENT CONSULTATIONS WITH PM IN ROME.MUST MEET WITH YOU WED. EVE AND WITH DJ TRUMP THURSDAY IN NYC.” Netanyahu made a state visit to Italy at the end of June 2016.

READ MORE...

Clinton sell-out, Maxwell’s Judeo-supremacism and the hoarding of sexual resource.

Comparing Income & Sex Redistribution

By Robin Hanson · June 26, 2018:

Disclaimer: This post is on sensitive topics of sex and power. I try to make it clear when I make a claim; beware drawing indirect inferences; I rarely value signal.

As promised in my last post, I now return after a civility pause to the topic of comparing sex and income inequality and redistribution. This post will be unusually long, as I’m trying harder to speak carefully.

If a feature of individuals can be compared across individuals, and ranked, then we can say that some people have more of it than others. We can then talk about how equally or unequally this feature is distributed across a population. Some features are seen as good things, where most people like to have more of it, all else equal. And the values that people place on some good things exhibit diminishing marginal utility (DMU). That is, people put a higher value on getting a bit more of it when they don’t have much, relative to when they have more.

For good things, we usually seek policies (including informal social norms and formal programs by government, charities, and other organizations) that can raise its distribution, all else equal, and get more of it to more people. And for good things with DMU, unequal distributions are regrettable, all else equal, as any one unit is worth more to those who have less. Any policy that changes a distribution is by definition said to “redistribute” that thing. (If you doubt me, consult a dictionary.) A policy that reduces inequality more might be said to do “more” redistribution.

Eddie Murphy has how many children with how many different women?

Of course all else is usually not equal. People vary in their ability to produce things, in the value they place on things, and in how much those people are valued by their society. Both the things that people value, and the arrangements that produce them, tend to be complex, multi-dimensional, and context-dependent. “Income” and “sex” are both labels that point to such complex, multi-dimensional and context-dependent good things. Both are usually produced via unique pairings, sex between a man and a woman, and income between an employer and an employee. The value of these pairings vary greatly across possible pairings, and also with a lot of other context.

Welfare not only provides money, but frees up the precious resource of time, for people like Desmond Hatchet to have 30 children with 11 different women.

For income, centuries of effort has resulted in several simple accounting methods by which we can define each person’s “income”, though we know that these measures miss a lot of what we care about. For example, regions vary in living expenses, people vary in their health-induced medical expenses, some jobs are easier and more enjoyable than others, some people have more expensive tastes than others, some assets are illiquid and unique, and there’s a key difference between what people own and what they consume. All these issues make it hard to say exactly who has more “income”.

This complexity makes it harder to analyze policies that influence income. Even so, when arguing about policy, people often mention income redistribution advantages or disadvantages of policies, such as regarding taxes, schools, medicine, housing, immigration, and much more. (Such policies usually let either side veto each particular employee-employer pairing.) Reducing income inequality is widely seen as a legitimate policy goal, even if people don’t agree on its priority relative to other goals. Income, and our related informal norms and formal policies, have changed greatly over the last few centuries, though less so over the last half century.

On sex, we might in principle compare individual counts of simple sex acts to get a rough indication of sex inequality, though we know that such a measure would miss a lot that matters. But even though sex is complex, hard to specify, and varied, it is also clearly important to many (both male and female). As is income. People often explicitly mention effects on sex when arguing for and against policies in many areas, such as marriage, prostitution, dating, birth control, nudity, pornography, drugs, child care, housing, and recreation. In the last half century, we’ve seen big changes in both informal norms and formal policies related to sex. People seem to be more sensitive today on the topic of policies related to sex, relative to those related to income, perhaps in part due to recent changes being bigger.

In my April 26 post, I noted that recently some people (self-labelled “incels”) have explicitly and publicly sought less sex inequality, a few via violence, and I wondered why they are so few relative to, and overlap so little with, those seeking less income inequality. I mentioned a few specific possible policies, such as cash transfers conditional on individual sex rates, legalized prostitution, and stronger support for monogamy and marriage. (I did not support or oppose any specific policies.)

But these were just examples; the fact that sex is so complex and integrated into so many social practices implies that a great many policy levers must exist. Who has how much sex with who is influenced by what we count as status and beauty, where people live, where and how they meet, how they talk to each other, what they can learn about each other, and especially by where and when they can talk and meet privately.

I’m far from the first person to consider such policies. Historically, societies have passed laws to discourage premarital and extramarital sex, and to limit how many wives or concubines each man could have. Informal gossip and propaganda has tried to lower the sex appeal of rakes, foreigners, and the promiscuous, and to raise that of soldiers. Policies have limited where and when people might meet in privately, such as segregating student dorms by gender, and prohibiting unmarried couples from renting hotel rooms.

READ MORE...

Joel Davis, Richard Spencer et al. in a recent podcast (not the podcasts referenced in this article).

Or would they prefer to take it up the ass?

We have long followed the Jewish op called “the Alt-Right”, a stewarding of Whites reacting to Political Correctness and its hyperbolic activist groups and coalitions deemed “social justice warriors.” Though these “social justice warriors”, themselves, were an anti White orchestration by Jewish academia, that is a fact glossed-over in this stewarding of Whites by contrast, broadly conducted along the crypo kosher devised platform of paleoconservativsm, but spearheaded pointedly by Paul Gottfried; who saw the need circa 2008, to head off the intersectionality of a necessarily growing consciousness that Jews were not exactly a downtrodden group, but to the contrary, occupying elite niches in society, often unjustly and wielding that power unjustly. Hence the need, from a Jewish perspective, to divert that nascent awareness, the logical counter of White unionization (a leftist thing) and coalition building; and to promote instead a characterology of “The Left” as the enemy, “Social Justice Warriors” its deluded minions. ... we don’t want any of that social justice now that Jews are on top (in more hegemony than ever)  ...along with any scummy Whites who are willing to sell out to Jewish interests, now do we?

No, this un-kosher intersectionality could be headed off by moving Whites from false Jewish opposition number one - NeoConservatism - and reviving false Jewish opposition number two - Paleoconserativism - updated 2.0, to appeal to a younger (and naive) audience to include a broader variety of reactionaries, not trying to fit all right wing reactionaries under one tent, but rather create a tentosphere, a loose coalition divide and conquer juggling act that could allow for Christians, Jewish right wingers, neo-Nazis and the scientistic generally, along with nutty conspiracy theorists. Membership seemed to require at least one socially stigmatizing attachment - then you could be a minor e-celebrity, arguing against “the left” and “social justice warriors”, equipped directly by Madison Ave marketing firms with memes and narratives to absolve you (and YKW) from responsibility and accountability, narratives provided for the “Alt-Right”, of pure scientific objectivity, facts of nature as the sole reason that you are on top and the sheer natural injustice of the world, the reason that you are not accountable, “the reason that things are not equal, like THE left character always unnaturally insists upon.” 

Richard Spencer is apparently happy to go along with the Jewish misdirection to promote the “SJW’s are the problem” meme ...take the bribe and pay off of this Jewish, Madison Ave marketing campaign, where it originated, focusing on the vastly distorted, hyperbolic anti White “social justice warrior”, really a Jewish academic creation, and talk about it instead, as if it is an organic phenomenon stemming from religious origin, ether, in order to divert Whites from organizing themselves and pursuing their social justice; which would bring into full view Jewish elite niches, their injustice along with right wing/liberal sell outs - seeing them clearly as out-groups:

The Religious Origins of the SJW, NPI Radix 28 April 2020

Is it really necessary, Richard, to go along with memes convenient to (((them))), a meme like this having obviousy been put out by (((their))) Madison Ave. marketing machine? Sure, let’s be against Social Justice now that (((they))) are unjustly on top of everything and right wing sell outs like you, Richard, are perfectly willing to sell out ethnonationalism; contributing to the marketing of this meme, taking (((their))) hyperbolic, anti-White coalitions as being The thing that social justice is about, whereas “reality” and White advocacy can supposedly have no part in social justice. But then, I guess it is convenient to a blue blood like yourself, one with no character. Typical right wing, anti-social bullshit, treacherous, sell out.

And about philosophy student, Joel Davis, with whom you do philosophical hangouts now…

He is the one who necessitated a rebut from me for his conversation with Josh Neal. I believe the discussion between Josh Neal and Joel Davis is off line (I’ll try to find it), but Joel Davis was saying unequivocally that “Israel is our friend.” ...not that it is some kind of supremacist cluster fuck trying to extend its reach over the whole world as “the shining beacon” to the “down trodden masses” - downtrodden because the tribe blends us down and grinds us down.

Joel Davis, who for some interesting reason keeps speaking of Mencius Moldbug (((Curtis Yarvin))) as if he someone authoritative to refer-to, to look up to, when in fact, Yarvin is clearly operating in Jewish interests, misdirecting Whites with his Ops, “Dark Enlightenment” and into “Neo Reaction” etc., ops focusing on co-opting STEM types especially, those who tend to be naive about the machinations as opposed to proper uses of social sciences and the humanities.

Here is Joel Davis in the chat of a Paul Gottfried stream, apparently very interested in getting in with Gottfried:

First, I will give you the excerpts of Joel, followed by the whole chat:

joeldavis
Cotto, where do you think institutional support could possibly come from for a legitimate paradigm shift to occur away from the Neoliberal/Neocon binary?

We’ve already established Right Ruminations inclinations, viewing Gottfried as someone we should be grateful for. Joel is chatting with Right Ruminations here:

Right Ruminations
My point is that you can’t understand to how Catholics deal with this history until you understand the particulars of Catholics doctrine. A term applied to Mary may be historical but that “Star of the Sea” is not doctrine.

Ohm 7
Is Christianity invented by Jewish Elites of Old Time or a development of Old European Religion?

orabell
invention of Paul

joeldavis
According to this analysis, wouldn’t that render Protestantism to be a ‘de-paganization’ of Christianity?

Ultra Testosterone
Protestant is closer but it still depends on gospels

orabell
yes.. it moved them farther away from their pre-Abrahamist , pagan, roots..

joeldavis
Cotto, do you believe Christianity will remain culturally dominant for the forseeable or have we passed the point of no return?

joeldavis
The dissident right’s inability to find coherence seems to be a consequence of a lack of religious convergence as much as anything.

joeldavis
Good call Imperius, as long as we remain alienated (post)protestants we lack the ability to build coherent moral language.

Oswald Spengler
@joeldavis hey joel loved your chat with keith woods

Ultra Testosterone
Cotto should do stream labs so he gets more of the money

Oswald Spengler
also john david ebert

joeldavis
@Oswald Spengler thanks man, would love to get on this program or have these guys on my channel sometime as well.

Oswald Spengler
that’d be great

joeldavis
I tried emailing Gottfried recently, but no response this far, i’ll keep trying.

Ultra Testosterone
Gottfried is a good guy but he didn’t get some of top tier scholarship jokes

Ultra Testosterone
Cotto is more aware of the jokes

Brando Calrissian
The demographics look pretty good for non-mainline-Protestant churches. Kaufmann’s book, Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth, and the religious anthropology/population studies work of Ed Dutton

Ultra Testosterone
Different generation

Brando Calrissian
suggest that religions with high TFR and high retention will outbreed moderate religions and nones even in the developed west.

joeldavis
i’d love to get their thoughts on building institutional support for the cutting edge ideas spinning out of the dissident right particularly.

Oswald Spengler
@joeldavis you should hook up with justin murphy too

joeldavis
@Oswald Spengler i’ve been on his channel already once before, i’ve been trying to organize an interview with him on my channel recently, hopefully we can organize that soon.

Oswald Spengler
@joeldavis sent you an invite on FB, i’m “joseph ducreux”

Luke Avedon
@Cotto-Gottfried When is @Right Ruminations coming on by the way?

Right Ruminations
@Luke Avedon I am well. A sub of mind just made a new channel - Terminal Philosophy - and had me as his first guest. I think he his channel has promise for the Rumisphere as it were.

Schizo Ric AKA Quantrell Bishop
@joeldavis is the MAN!

Oswald Spengler
@Cotto-Gottfried would it be a good thing for economics as a field to be destroyed by intersectionality?

Schizo Ric AKA Quantrell Bishop
@Cotto-Gottfried get @joeldavis on your channel for an interview

joeldavis
Cheers Schizo, i’d love to.

Curious Cretin
Are Mormons pagan?

Oswald Spengler
lol^

joeldavis
“i’ve never been called a nerd before”

joeldavis
high-T

joeldavis
response

Oswald Spengler
cotto is 6 6

Ultra Testosterone
lol

Ultra Testosterone
Truth

Oswald Spengler
@Cotto-Gottfried thoughts on the now-not-so-new atheists?

Imperius
There’s way more money we can give. I’ve been hard at work setting the infrastructure. Just let me know the channel where you will get more of it, like PayPal.

joeldavis
Cheers Cotto, i’ll try the outlook address.

Luke Avedon
@Cotto-Gottfried Nice! I will check it out.

Ohm 7
Yo I went to take a bath and missed the answer about if Christianity has descended from Jewish Elites of the Hellenic Times or from the Old European Religion?

Imperius
We’re moving into phase two the end of this year, which is why I tried seeking out Gottfried and found that there was even this Cotto guy, lol. Solid guy.

Luke Avedon
@Right Ruminations I like that he has a Blade Runner avatar. My favorite film of all time.

Ultra Testosterone
Trump 2020

Imperius
So many factions aren’t talking to each other as much as they should. It’s left to younger guys to have less hesitation.

Ohm 7
Cotto, I’d highly recommend having Keith Woods on, he’s one of the most interesting Leftists on the internet right now I think, he’s an Irish Nationalist

Imperius
Keith Woods isn’t a leftist.

Imperius
He’s a folk nativist. Most of intellectual history, leftism has been anti-nativist.

Imperius
Yeah, there’s cross-over, but don’t simply call him a leftist.

Right Ruminations
@Luke Avedon I like that he had set a specific atmosphere from the outset. I am afraid that the atmosphere of my channel had been too haphazard.

Finally, Joel Davis shows how he wants to co-opt the ultimate move of left nationalism, which by his idea would include Jews:

joeldavis
Misconceiving a Nationalist as a Leftist is a symptom of the post-Cold War propaganda hangover. The Right should be unapologetic about subordinating Capital to the National interest.

However, Gottfried man Right Ruminations pushes back, not wanting to share the wealth, of course ..

Right Ruminations
@joeldavis The neoliberals support both globalism and heavy intervention in the market. I don’t agree with the implication that nationalism and economic individualism are mutually exclusive

Right Ruminations
Enoch Powell for example.

READ MORE...