Majorityrights Central > Category: Anti-racism

Perhaps a couple of years ago a gentleman named Michael Reiners conceived the notion of drafting UK parliamentary legislation in advance of the election of a political party to reform the nation.  It was an interesting idea with the potential of attracting good legal minds to the anti-Establishment cause.  Michael determined to launch a constitutionalist site to serve as a beacon and as a discussion point. An editor, Alex Coppen, was hired and in July 2025 The Restorationist was born.

I became aware of it when a very good man, who in his travels had come across my argument for the English people as the constitutional sovereign, emailed me and we started to talk.  He had some ideas about developing the argument and getting it published for a wider audience.  This I encouraged, naturally.  Some time went by and then he got back in touch to say that his submission had been picked up by the editor of The Restorationist.  I will post a link to it in the thread, and another to the follow-up article by Alex Coppen, because both are important and interesting statements.

Shortly after these pieces appeared Alex and Michael had a serious falling out, resulting in Michael leaving to establish Reiners.org, where his legislative work is published along with other interesting right-wing material.  For his part, Alex continued on with The Restorationist, publishing a stream of like high-quality, right-wing essays.  That is, until now when a markedly anti-fascist piece written by one Margaret Forbes suddenly appeared.  Its focus was so out of kilter with what had gone before at the magazine, so Guardian-like, that my very, very close ally John Standing, who readers will know of old and whose writing style, I must admit, is remarkably similar to my own, thought a comment on the thread might be in order.  Here it is:

READ MORE...

The polity is shaped towards our race-replacement by its own deep history of ideas but also, of course, by the history of events which are inextricably linked to those ideas.  The sum of them all constitutes an enormous bulwark against change, pressing us, as people interested in change, to the inevitable conclusion that any serious assault on the citadel of Western elitism and political power must mean a revolution on no mean scale.  A simple change to national politics alone will, in the longer term, be constrained and, finally, erased by the continuing effect of these foundational forces.  Many, and quite possibly all of them, would have to be swept away, too.

I’ve made some rather slipshod efforts in the past to draw up a chart supplying some relational context to these forces.  This time, as part of the working up of a new article for PA’s site, I’ve tried to get everything in, including the elements aiming at control of the future of all humanity.  Doubtless, it’s always possible to keep expanding the range of entities, and I might have missed something important.  Anyway, if there is improvement to be made, do please say where.

Within days I will set up a website to advance the best in White advocacy/nationalism as it is known to be - a place for the resource brought to bear, for its cultivation by those who recognize the crucial value of this resource.

I will endeavor to maintain a presence at Majorityrights in order to correct any misrepresentations of my positions and to challenge any perfidy which might make its way back, hoping for my riddance.

Some may think that I might be disheartened with the marketing campaign and those beholden to it having held sway over me thus far, but it is not the case.

Some will mock me as having spent my time in futility, but I think not; especially as compared to the likes of those who spend $10,000 only to die on the side of Mt. Everest.

I have achieved what I set out to do, which is to summit (what I am satisfied to be) the most vital and necessary in theory for the advocacy of European peoples. Similar as those not understood for having undertaken a quest of Mount Everest, it was my objective. Something that I had to do. But unlike their project, mine was not so personal or futile; rather it was in service to my broad understanding and to our people (and, ok, if I am to be most honest, perhaps as much against antagonists and those who do not care - their practices which are objectionable for the destructive impact they are having upon us), and against those who time and again mislead the theoretical trail; by contrast, I have left clear maps on trail for the sovereignty of European peoples: I know that I have brought the best in truth and in depth; while some may be determined to deny this truth out of custom, habit, tradition, their prejudices or vanity - or in red caped misdirection, as I have particularly shown - all one has to do is take a look honestly at my efforts which I will carry over to the new site to be disabused of pseudo justification for antagonism to the platform which I bring to bear.

Whether the new site achieves popularity or not right away is not an issue; any more than popular approval might not be first in mind for the guy who dies on the side of Mt. Everest, singularly focused in his aim, irrespective of how futile and impractical popular opinion may deem his quest to be; however, by contrast, the objective of the new site is not vain nor impractical, nor destined to be unpopular or out of the mainstream as those who do take a look will see; as the perspicuous overview from this summit has shown what is most relevant; a manifestation of the most necessary resource for our people.

Healing that confusion, the lack of wherewithal that comes from a family with crazy and hostile communicative patterns has a price which one is not particularly aware of when still in the midst or recovering from its throes…

As one heals, regains their natural emergent form, the poise of its perspective, one is suddenly confronted with the myriad of one’s own culpability in not negotiating these family and friend circumstances better; one is somewhat braced for the fact in that one is now essentially healed, but the memories of one’s own interactive failings, i.e., to negotiate relations better for one’s own sake and to make one’s way better with them, are on constant offer to the consciousness, really too many examples and presenting from any given day that one might reflect upon.

One thematizes, taking examples, and tries to empathize with oneself as having done the best they could in the circumstance and remember that the person that you view failure with can bear some joint responsibility.

I’m thinking of my father, specifically.

Confusing, could not effectively and respectfully communicate his thoughts; questions about his confusing statements were treated like an affront, volcanic temper like you can’t believe, otherwise largely catatonic TV-watcher - infuriating the way he’d smile along with it…. but might turn away momentarily to literally paraphrase his WWII generation mantras - “you can’t fight city hall” and the liberal, “anything goes when the whistle blows”... he would say this with a smile on his face, like you were supposed to relate.

His worst characteristic, however, was his penchant to attack vulnerability - made it near impossible to trust him. This did-in my mother’s psyche; and having to deal with her broken psyche is another can of worms that we don’t need to talk about. Psychologically, intellectually, bad situation all around.

Materially, I’d be a jerk to complain. Weren’t rich, but had what we needed and a modest bit more…and that does, indeed, spill over into some opportunity to heal the psychological and intellectual deficit.

But as harrowing as my father could be and the fights that he had with my mother were (you could hear them around the block from our house), I eventually gained enough perspective to see how I might have done better as well.

First of all, a working class family without advanced education and four kids.

I could not have done better than my parents ...oh maybe a little better in some ways, but overall, probably worse…

READ MORE...

While I am finishing-up what I think is an important piece on the issue of triangulation against White interests (and I still hope to have it up later today), this material, which was a comment, emerged worthy of shoring-up into a head post.

Although I have been saying this more or less for years, the gas-lighting that I’ve gotten from those reacting to my disabuse of red capes, like children having a tantrum because their kosher coloring book has been taken away, has only forced me to become still more articulate of the matter and to stiffen my resolve. These concepts are simply too important to be swept-aside for whatever motives. There has been no good reason for it; perhaps Nazi idolaters don’t want me to be the purveyor of worthwhile knowledge, Christards don’t want their absurd excuse for a moral order to be shown to be unnecessary or, as I said, the conceptually lame, like children who don’t want to grow up (and out of the provided discourse box), don’t want their characterology of “the left” shown for what it is - a kosher coloring book.

And obviously, Jews don’t want their deceptive games exposed.

While the gas-lighters try to deny accurate inferences that I’ve made independent of academic enforcement, in addition to lived, experiential perspective and various disciplinary perspectives, the disciplinary perspective that I am mainly coming from is a communicologist perspective (interaction unit of analysis); nevertheless, the sociologist unit, the social group concept is more than valid; it does not have to be the only unit of analysis, but when it comes to race and anti-racism, it is central, highly relevant, if not most relevant…and already there in nature, not denying any worthwhile science where it is worthwhile sociology….nobody is saying that we don’t also need biologists looking through microscopes, etc. or “ordinary people” contributing their deep experiential knowledge - in fact, that cannot be replaced. Social constructionism is bolstered by the input of different perspectives and disciplines.

See this response to manciblack:

mancinblack: What is new, is that we are being told sex is more or less a social construct and that for this “the scientific evidence is incontrovertible”.

But mancinblack:

“Social constructionism” is an important concept which has been Red Caped.

It has been red caped as “solipsism” which is the idea that an individual can make of themselves or a group whatever bizarre speculation that they like. And how is that “social”? It isn’t; not for long.

That’s the red cape that the right wing altercast chases, as characteristic of “the left”...57 genders from outer space to choose from, “race is an optical illusion”, etc.

However, to allege that sex differentiation and gender are mere solipsistic choices, a mere social construct, is not socially warranted - it is Cartesian, as it denies the empirical reality of sex differentiation and the practical complementarity of gender roles (a reality which the vast majority of people will subscribe to for the sake of their survival, if nothing else). But as Cartesian it reverses the raison d’etre of social constructionism, which is to deal with the modernist, Cartesian estrangement, detachment that doesn’t deal with our social interactive reality, attentive defense of our groups - e.g., the genders and race - against ravages of modernity, particularly as (((weaponized))), etc. Rather, social constructionism corrects this by engaging the interactive process and lets add, emergence, to include GW’s important non-Cartesian emphasis (though emergentism was never shunned by social constructionism proper).

Social constructionism proper, maintains that there are four aspects of social construction, always entailing at least a modicum of agency:

1. The more literal: as in constructing a building together.

2. The metaphoric: as in parents “constructing” a child, with the help of some sort of input from any number of people around them at present and historically…

3. The hermeneutic: to manage the non-Cartesian process of inquiry between rigor and imagination as need be to facilitate systemic maintenance (individual and group). Hermeneutics is necessary for the liberation from modernity’s mere facticity and the arbitrary episode into coherence and accountability for both individual and to follow the historical expanse and temporal systemic breadth of our people.

4. The post hoc attribution as to how facts count:

That guy may think he’s a woman, but he has a weenie and a Y chromosome, that’s a fact and for us as sane people, that means that he cannot use the ladies room.

Of course the bizarre gender stuff is a red cape to make the concept of social constructionism didactically repulsive to Whites, to dissuade our people from it.

It’s what “the left does” “those social people” “from their sociology classes” ...“those social justice warriors”...

But to overshoot, to overreact to the red cape, to react to the deterministic extreme of scientism reduces our agency, keeps us rigid, rationally blinded, susceptible to infiltration, low on social accountability and correctability and thus manipulable…

..extreme reaction also serves our enemies by frightening away normal people as its anti social lack of balanced, real world judgement (phronesis), humaneness and accountability threatens them (‘that’s just the way it is’) .. scientistic reaction can, in fact, become a living nightmare as it can become an impervious/unaccountable founding principle in the case of dictatorships and misdirected war.

......

This White post modern concept properly understood is meant to provide some agency, but it comes at the price of social accountability (meaning you cannot simply make of yourself or a group of people just anything, not having any empirical lines of distinction - indeed, how is that social?); with that properly managed, it entails coherence through a hermeneutic liberation from the mere arbitrary facticity rife of modernity, providing instead coherence, correctabilty (homeostasis is self corrective systems) agency and warrant ...including to negotiate niche ecology…

It is important for both individuals and groups to have this concept in order to maintain what capacity for systemic homeostasis (self correction/governance) that we do have - even an authentic (as opposed to arbitrary reaction to moment, episode, relationships) holding fast to emergence, being’s authenticity is facilitated.

It is an especially necessary concept for White people to understand given our susceptibility to social group dissolution for our propensities for individualism and to take on natural, scientific challenges rather than social group challenges (e.g., trickery).

It is necessary to fight off deterministic concepts thrown at us by our enemies (the opposite of social constructionism, our adversaries will also use determinism against us), such as “migration flows” which happen like a “force of nature” that must be accepted as a mere fact about which nothing can be done but acceptance. ..or, “(((we)))re vastly over-represented at Harvard because of our I.Q.”, “HBD” (not because of group nepotism).

It is also necessary to fight off the allegation that our freedom is being threatened as such: “they’re trying to take away our individuality”, when our individuality will be destroyed without a group structure to facilitate it somewhere along the line.

Our enemies have red caped social constructionism so that right wing reactionaries chase after the misrepresentation and miss its facilitation of social interactive agency and the vital social organizing function. The YKW are always looking to disrupt functioning organizational homeostasis. They keep right wingers chasing after the misrepresentation and right wingers might even feel clever: “see, scientists can look at a skeleton and determine what race and sex it is immediately” as if they’ve disproved social constructionism… what they’ve done is disproved the red cape and helped the YKW to obfuscate the important concept, which would not deny that factually, there are empirical differences between the races and the sexes.

In a recent podcast, Dangerfield ran clips from an English village in the 1970’s celebrating The Queen’s Jubilee.

Dangerfield remarks among his derision of “Post Modernity” read (((post modernity))) as opposed to White Post Modernity, and “The Leftists”, read international, red leftists as opposed to White ethnonational left, that these “Leftists” will denounce the celebration of “The Queen’s Jubilee as right-wing reactionary nostalgia.”

This is not really quibbling on my part. Rather, it provides a good example of why it is important to understand Post Modernity correctly, viz. White Post Modernity as opposed to its (((red caped))) misrepresentation along with other language currency counterfeiting the depth grammar of left and right.

Dangerfield says, “these leftists want to say that these English villagers celebrating the queen’s jubilee” is an expression of right wing reaction.”

However, Post Modernity proper, viz. White Post Modernity/left ethnonationalism, would say, on the contrary, that it can be fine and good for these English villagers to celebrate the Queen’s Jubilee. Unlike the rule structure of Modernity, a practice (and a people) does not have to be different and new in order to be good; and should not be put at risk to uncontrolled experimentation.

If it is a healthy tradition, one can feel free to participate and reconstruct the practice/people without the pangs of self loathing for the appearance of conformity (as opposed to modernity’s paradoxic mandate to the individual: “be different so that you can fit it”); one invokes a willing suspension of disbelief in the hermeneutic (liberated from Modernity’s mere facticity) and one does so understanding when it is healthy for one’s people (while one is free to Not participate and can give way to Modernization when a tradition is not healthy for one’s people).

You begin to see why it is important to have a clear understanding of Post Modernity, viz., White Post Modernity.

For one clear example, for capacity that it provides for Optimal Competence, as per Aristotle’s description of performance requirements: minimal, satisfactory, optimal.

A minimally competent person could not participate in the Queens Jubilee appropriately, because they would not understand it well enough - thus, not understanding how to reconstruct the practice normally, or adjudge where the practice might be right (despite modernist derision) or where it might be going wrong (despite its having been tradition).

A merely satisfactorily competent person can ONLY participate in a rather verbatim reconstruction of the practice. But given the disorder of Modernity, lacking the stability that once underpinned the practice with assurance (e.g., The Queen has our interests at heart and would never decry those against immigration as “racist”, nor lord accountability to the universalizing Jesus over us, as opposed to accountability to our native people, nor have a grandson married to a Mulatto), there is no such thing as the kind of stable criteria for one to reconstruct; one must have more understanding of the context.

Hence, given the disorder of Modernity, especially (((weaponized))), as it were, there is no stable traditional order to practice satisfactory competence, one is either minimally competent or optimally competent.

* Aristotle’s discussion of minimal, satisfactory and optimal competence uses the example of fairness in exchange and knowing the difference.

Satisfactory competence can only make an equal exchange.

Minimal competence doesn’t understand an equal exchange, might make an equal exchange by accident, or give less than the appropriate value or more than the appropriate value, not really understanding it.

Whereas optimal competence knows the equal value of an exchange but can exchange less without being niggardly in truth or can give more without being ingratiating in truth.

It is not only necessary for English and all European peoples to understand Post Modernity properly, but it is also quite possible, not too hard at all for the vast majority of our people to understand its performance requirements; minimal/optimal. Hence, we must not be deterred by Jewish red-caping of terms and concepts.

Related at Majorityrights:

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

White Post Modernity

Superchat question (52:40): “I wonder at what point we have to choose to either digest these people in our society, as the hippies were in the ‘70’s, or to understand that their culture and mores are indigestible and must be cast out of our society.”

Styx (53:01) “You mean the far leftists? Well, they’re already being…

Ramzpaul (53:38): “And your point about the hippies is good, because, I did a video about this (”Revolution Fatigue”), why you have to catch the momentum…I think the left, these radicals, they think they’re going to have a revolution like its 1917 Russia or its The French Revolution..or they think they’re in Weimar Germany and they’re fighting the Nazis. But see, that type of thing, there’s a lot of differences and you need to really make it happen pretty quick. Whereas I remember, I don’t remember, but I read about the late 60’s, early 70’s, there was like The Weather Underground, they thought they were going to topple the United States and have a revolution. But by the time that I got to university in 1981, they were already considered very dated…people who had that mindset were considered old.

DanielS:

Your understanding of “hippies” is idiotic. The Weather Underground were not hippies. The hippies were not Marxists in their essential motive; in fact, they were notoriously frustrating to Marxist revolutionaries. It matters, because the adversaries of Whites love to blame hippies; it is a way to blame White men as opposed to the culpability of liberal/Marxist programs spearheaded by Jewry; and because they wish to turn White right wing dolts against their own people, while burying an understanding of the profundity of the hippie motive for White men: a fundamental and profoundly important motive on behalf of White male Being / (Dasein/MidtDasein for White men especially) as opposed to their being considered so intrinsically valueless as to have to go to war in Vietnam, exploited for the custom, habit and tradition of their gender role as obligated to war - even in this case, where there was no clear and immanent danger to them and their people; where there could have been other means of dealing with Vietnam rather than conventional war).

A White ethnonational left would not be in “revolutionary” mode where the interests of our union - a union of our people - are being served by those in power. If they are not, i.e., if our interests are not served, then we would seek revolutionary transformation so that the union of our European peoples are secured. This is a big difference between a White ethnonational left and the Marxist, internationalist left. When our ethnonationalist union is secured, we are no longer in revolutionary, transformative mode, but are, rather, elaborative and self corrective.

Note that the hippie epoch lost all impetus once the Vietnam draft was over….

The grievance that caused “the hippie union” “to strike” against the powers and ways that be had been “settled.”

The Beatles, “Revolution” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGLGzRXY5Bw

Ramzpaul and Sytx are weird and annoying in their very insistence upon normalizing Jewish discourse.

_____________

For the sake of invoking a provocative perspective, I would like to momentarily change the pronoun in the anti-war song, “Walking in Space”, from “how dare THEY try to end this beauty, to how dare SHE try to end this beauty…

How dare she try, to end this beauty…

Right wing women who go along with the Jewish cover-up -

- ignoring the underlying motive of the hippies and wanting to blame them instead for having created “our problems”, suggesting that men should man-up in universal maturity, rather than manning-up to create group boundaries (e.g., by unionization process), or manning-up where our people’s boundaries are violated (as opposed to the other side of the world, in Vietnam, nowhere near our people’s boundaries, or where Jewish/Israeli boundaries are threatened)

- are particularly annoying…

I also interpose the pronoun change to suggest that this valuation of impervious confidence to the sacrifice of intellectual, critical apprehension of the power’s directives is a tendency in female predilection, and that the hippie movement was a (un-articulated intellectual/political) White male motive by balancing contrast to female valuation, e.g. of sheer confidence.

This also suggests a “foundational” reason as to why intrinsic value should be attributed to White males, for their perspective, as its predilections can, if anything, be better than female predilections; but in any event, provide a necessary systemic corrective in balancing the human ecology of European peoples.

Again, this momentary pronoun change is provocative. Of course women aren’t to blame for men getting sent to Vietnam to kill and die. However, traditional gender roles could have destructive consequences for men as well (second wave feminism kicking off in the 60’s as well), when hidebound, “foundationally” inflexible to the natural emergence and interactive development of White masculinity and its requirements (in praxis).

Related at Majorityrights:

A Conspiracy Theory of A Conspiracy Theory to Divert From White Male Dasein.

..the need to coordinate with (as opposed to antagonize) the Genus European and other Species of Native European Nations and diaspora remains…

...it seems that we may have had some positive influence on Brutus and co.

...but his claim that “anti-Christian” is synonymous with being anti English Nationalist is not really true.

...he’s a bit too accepting of warring and supremacism as a natural fact.

...too simplistic in his view on gender relations.

...maybe should add a few more words to his catch-all go-to - “kick the foreigners out”. Maybe

While there are these disagreements with him and his colleagues to be had, in regard to episode -

Banter Nationalism 93 -  I want to deal with a nuance of agreement and disagreement.

As they are English Nationalists, I absolutely agree with them in critiquing “Patriotic” Alternative and other British Nationalists where they might place their cause simply under the rubric of “White” and where they might rally by the 14Words (let alone by German American WN’s Hitler redemptionism 88).

Brutus’ concern to make and emphatically maintain the distinction between English ethnonationalism and White Nationalism is very important, well taken.

However, while Brutus and co. can be forgiven as being in an initial stage, tad over-corrective break-out into appropriate concentration on English ethnonationaism, they do over-correct a bit.

You see, “White” merely represents the genus, European.

The term is not only necessary to avoid confusions as to who is being advocated when speaking of European diaspora, but it is also the case that we are under attack as a race - i.e., All White people, meaning the American sense of the term, “White” - all people of European descent, and therefore we are all in the same boat with a common cause in having to defend ourselves for our race - wherever we are.

Now, White as the genus, European, is not mutually exclusive to the species - e.g. English - defending their national kinds and borders as well.

I agree absolutely with Brutus and co. in emphasizing this distinction of concern, which I will call a distinction between genus and species. Where I disagree with them is in making the concerns mutually exclusive, antagonistic, even.

And regarding the 14 Words, while David Lane made a mistake in playing a role in killing the Jewish radio shock jock and David Lane paid the price for it, the 14 Words are, nevertheless, a beautifully composed, inspiring rallying cry for many.

It does remain true, however, that the 14 Words are not unproblematic when our enemies and doltish true believers (in “88”) try to re-attach them to the “88”. That again, was a mistake by David Lane, i.e., to make that association in the first place. However, the conscientious, such as TT and his admirers, have always been clear to say the 14 Words without the 88. The 14 words remain valid as such.

Even so, it is true that “White” and The 14 Words speak of the genus and do not distinguish the very important species difference - such as the English.

Brutus’ concern to make and emphatically maintain that distinction is importantly well taken.

I hope that they’ll steer clear of some supremacist way of marking the difference - from what I hear of “37 words” I’m not sure if it’s in their personality to manage that…

Obviously we can defend ourselves better if we are not fighting each other - 88 - and have alliance with other European nations/peoples.

The coordination of genus (race) and species (national kinds) of European peoples is not too difficult an intellectual task for Brutus and others to manage.

Perhaps something like English/14

German/14

French/14 and so on…

...to mark the species divisions of the genus.

I will not insist on people using the 14 words, but they work quite well for some, especially diaspora when separated from the 88 - 14/88