Jack Sen at The London Forum:

So it’s all over for another five years.  Perhaps.  David Cameron is the first Conservative leader since Margaret Thatcher in 1983 to increase the number of Conservative MPs sitting at Westminster, and will govern with a thin majority of twelve.  He will, he says, do it for all the country.  He will have a clear ride for the first year of this second term, because the political left that is Labour and the Liberal Democrats is in total disarray, not just electorally and emotionally after a traumatic election night, but ideologically.  Which is much more meaningful and dangerous.

One of the most eye-popping sights in the aftermath has been that of senior Labour people trooping into the TV studios to talk about how the party must not rush into electing a new leader and plough on with the struggle at Westminster.  It must ask where it went wrong … where the trick of appealing to the majority of the electorate was spurned.  Specifically, it must think through who it has been speaking for since 2007, when Gordon Brown took over the top job from Blair.  It must think through how it can respond to nationalist sentiment (in the broad sense), as expressed by the five million who gave their votes not to it and not to the Tories but to the Scottish Nationalists north of the border and UKIP to the south.

READ MORE...

On the Radio page now Prof. MacDonald discusses four topics with GW and Daniel: the individualism of the European, implicit whiteness, the psychology of Jews, and the problem of nationalism dwelling in the past.  In addition, certain technical questions raised by Graham Lister are put to Prof MacDonald for his comment.

The interview is quite a long one by our standards, but I believe it is entertaining and informative throughout.
...... 
                                   
Well, you could ask him how inclusive fitness theory predictions change under increased competition (the scale of competition) - siblicide and other related phenomena (parent-offspring conflict) are very real (Google sibling rivalry in nature) and are examples of intra genomic conflict as predicted by Hamilton’s work.

Given that no-one seems to conceptually acknowledge the dark side (so to speak) of inclusive fitness theory it perhaps undermines the creditability of those that wish to make broad political points using inclusive fitness theory as to (1) do they actually fully understand the theory and (2) do they understand how excess competition effectively removes relatedness from the picture (siblings killing siblings is perfectly optimal within many animal species from the point of view of the victorious Sib).

Given that fitness within social evolution can be derived from both the individual level and the group level (note all evolutionary change concerns changes in alleles and their frequencies) as demonstrated by Hamilton and Price’s work (and Steve Frank etc) in hierarchical selection theory how do these insights relate to political economy?

For example, if we take Aristotle seriously than any polis must be a balance between the parts and the whole (individuals and the group) what mechanism can be used to discourage ‘free-riding’ and self-serving perfidy by our own indigenous elites? Accountability to the groups interests seems lacking in contemporary Western life.

If Europeans are so ‘individuated’ - uniquely so? - why is it that only a few centuries ago that Celts, Nordic people etc were so tribal and ultra-communitarian in their cultures. Why the stark difference in pre-modern pagan social ontology compared to the ontology of liberal modernity. Given the relatively short time frame any explanation based upon changes in gene frequency would seem analytically bankrupt. The Greeks also had a more communitarian social-ontology (Sparta anyone?, Aristotle and virtue ethics etc).

Given the social ontology of liberal modernity (massive ideological emphasis on individ- uals and individualism) what type of personalities and psychological traits succeed within such a environment? If all human interactions are viewed through the prism of individual competition is that healthy or wise for the long term sustainability of the group (one could speak here too of free-riding and the slow accumulation of toxic ‘externalities’ cultural, environmental, social etc generated by liberal modernity which in short term benefit certain individuals but at the longer term determent of everyone).

Given that all political societies are ultimately about power and power relationships (see Carl Schmidt), and that power is always open to abuse, a high degree of relatetedness/ homogeneity/ social capital is by itself not enough. What mechanism of elite accountability and social cohesion are possible and necessary?

If denied the siblicide point, then why are civil wars so vicious and nasty (often the worst)? Higher levels of relatedness (on average) didn’t stop Englishmen, or Irishmen from utterly hateful behaviour towards their brothers during civil wars…

Prof Kevin MacDonald talks with GW and DanielS about European individualism, implicit whiteness, the psychology of Jews, and the problem of nationalism dwelling in the past. 1hr 30min; 82.2 MB.

Der Stürmer: allusions to weather, the Deutsch Gothic letters purely coincidental

Misguided Truck: http://renseradioarchives.com/stormfront/ Date: 04-27-15, Hr1:

On the April 27th Stormtrooper radio, Truck Roy discusses his theory with Don Black that the reason why Whites are allowing for, and even promoting, their own dispossession is because they are “moralizing”...

“We are too concerned with morals, of slave morality, etc, when we should care about power and survival.”

What this is about: people, e.g. computer nerds, or Hitler (by de facto Nietzschean) worshipers want to believe or argue that they’re sheerly, objectively superior, not “racists” relatively dependent upon their people and neighboring White people.

They take advice from Horace the Condescender as such.

Now they are arguing “against morality, against ‘moralizing” as they call it.

Why? Because Hitler loses his place as the go-to guy for a false either/or. And they cannot stand the twilight of their god.

So we have Truck Roy saying that the reason why Africans are being helped to invade Europe and why Whites are allowing themselves to be displaced is because they’re “moralizing”, they’re of a slave morality, when they should seek power.

Not coincidentally, Truck goes to church every Sunday to practice his slave morality of obedience to the Jew on a stick.

So why has this happened, the about face?

As I have been explaining, the Right is inherently unstable. “Objectivity” and purity loses its grasp of the relative situation, of social accountability, and they oscillate to another toxically narrow extreme - typically Nietzsche and Hitler.

This false either / or - “morality” or “power and survival” - is one of the reasons why I reject Christianity and the Right’s proposed objectivism.

Truck Roy says the problem is that our people sit around “moralizing” about how right it is to help African boat refugees when they should be saying enough of this moral business, and be asking rather how do we go about survival?

What Horace the Condescender and misguided Truck are failing to recognize is that there is no avoiding morals - we live within them. Proper moral consideration is at one with power and survival. While moral rules are culturally contingent, there will nevertheless always be some things that are prohibited, some things that are obligatory and some things that are optional.

Jews know this and that is why they have cleaned the clocks of dumb-assed right wingers such as those at Stormtrooper radio.

Now, if people, White people especially, are truly thinking about morality, they do not reach the conclusion that they should be displaced by non-Whites.

That is a perversion of morals that the Jewish trick of Christianity is second to none in putting across to the sheeple.

Scientism can do it too.

While some, techno nerds perhaps, wanting to believe in their objective superiority and warrant yet find themselves having been outwitted by the relative interests of Jews, drowning in the instigated multicultural hell of America, will desperately seek recourse, will promote a mindless killing and die-off, even of their own brothers and European neighbors, rather than admit their moral indebtedness to their kindred people as opposed to just an elite few or a Jewish god.

                             
Right-wingers, such as those over at Stormtrooper radio, simply can’t live without their god, e1b1b1 Adolf (where their other Jewish god, the one on the stick, fails them).

Quote of the day from MR’s archives:

Captainchaos said:

“Computer geeks make for shitty political philosophers.”

Graham Lister replied:

“Very true - narrow technical intelligence doesn’t often translate very well into the much broader field of political thought. Well done CC! There’s hope for you yet!”

 

                 
            The World’s Most Important Graph: African Population Projections

“The greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another. The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes, natives and immigrants, Christians and Muslims and Jews, cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down!”

                                      He hears his master’s voice

 

READ MORE...

This was to have been the final part of my investigation into The Rotherham Syndrome.  But I have received a further email from my correspondent Steve S, whose original mail precipitated this series, in which he writes:

I guess I will start with the House of Lords and go from there. To me the House of Lords is the Upper House where political oscillations should be modulated so as to protect the British people from bad public policy. In looking at Wikipedia it shows that the current body has 26 Spiritual Peers and many Life Peers and Hereditary Peers. So the Anglican Church leaders and the permanent members are not subject to the whims of the mass media and do not have to worry about re-election. They can act in the long term interests of their districts and the UK

In all parts of the UK these leaders are in touch with their local citizens and their issues and since they are there for life, they themselves, have to live with their decisions. And similar motivations for the Queen and her family. They are the British Nobility. They have resources, they are generally intelligent, well schooled, well travelled, and well connected to academia, business, government, military, etc. And yet something has caused them to throw open the doors to populations that are the most incongruous with the British population, British culture, British civility. Which was the highest in the world in the pre-war days.

… But something has gripped the leadership of the UK and Western Civilization.

I think that’s a pretty valid observation on the mysterious, ubiquitous phenomenon of Establishment treachery.  So in this fourth but no longer final part of my essay, I will investigate how the old Establishment class - the elites of the old courtiers, the new industries, and Empire – lost its political foothold.  It will now be the fifth - and final - part in which I will focus, finally, on today’s controlling class of thousands of men and women who attach no human value, indeed, scarcely any meaning at all to children of our people simply because they are white victims of Asian Moslem sexual criminals.

It is worth noting in passing that although the context here is British, the latter’s monopoly of control, the common purpose, the hermetic networking, the focus on “modernising” everything via a near-religious progressive obsession, the unnatural preoccupation with racism, the total absence of empathy for kind, and the easy resort to race-treachery are common to political and liberal Establishments and the official mind throughout the West.  Rotherham is only an extreme example of how absolute their thinking can be and just how far they are prepared to go to defend their racial proposition.  I hope non-British readers will indulge me, therefore, in the following (brief) history of British elitism.

Today’s Establishment is an historically unique and most recent development.  It finally flowered managerially and ideologically with the election of New Labour to office in 1997.  But let us not forget that for the best part of three centuries the Establishment in Britain was a very different quantity.  Certainly, from Waterloo to 1914, its elites were unassailed anywhere in terms of power, wealth, sheer confidence and security.  They can be profitably presented in a tri-partite form, the oldest element of which was the landed aristocracy, whose power was expressed and maintained largely through the House of Lords but also through the Whig Party.  Then there were the commercial and financial elites of London, including the Jewish banking dynasties.  Their ties to the Tory and Whig/Liberal parties in the Commons and in government (principally the former) provided for the pursuit of their interests.  To a degree, these two groups represented wholly different and conflicting interests: those of the land and tradition, continuity, paternalism and a somewhat self-serving connectedness to the safely uneducated, rustic labourer; and those of the town and modernity, of expansiveness, of the merchant class, of profit, therefore, and of the revolution of the machine.  This was the real division in the politics of the age and, to no small extent, it mirrored the divisions of the American Civil War.

READ MORE...

MacDonald At Stockholm, Sweden, April 20th 2015