Majorityrights Central > Category: Education

Dinant

The Necessary War

With correction of prior failure to discuss Graudenz and Kulm - now added to surrounding discussion…

As European(White) Nationalists, we all know that the wake of the World Wars has not birthed favorable circumstances for our people. Thus, we are decidedly less satisfied than Max Hastings that a marked separatism from Jewish power and influence was not achieved, its necessity not even understood; and along with that that a pervasive liberalism should have won-out as consequence, potentially auguring the final chapter for Europeans in entirety.

But was it “hubris” for Poland to want its nation back? I rather think not. It’s called ethno-nationalism and it is that which we should support as opposed to internationalism. Germany was still huge after Versailles. On the Polish border, it had lost Posen, Bromberg and Thorn and I need to add Graudenz and Kulm *, while Danzig became neutral. The Max Hastings account introduces yet more discussion of Versailles to make it more understandable as an effort at justice, as it always appeared when looking at the territorial divisions. However, there have been a couple of parties who want me to run strong anti-Polish propaganda.

The large problem with that is that for those of us who view White Nationalist media as our veritable news source now (finding other, anti-White media wholly intolerable), a hypotrophied unanimity with Nazism and its antecedent regime’s military campaigns is what we get: for whatever reasons, but probably because America is so German- American that a “by-golly, Hitler was absolutely right!” perspective is all too convenient (and the most popular and economically supported of any WN perspective) in the wake of Jewish and Neo-liberal destruction; and all the more motivated with guilt trips of World War II being most pressing upon them; their having least perspective on anything but a direct desire to throw guilt trips off as entire fabrication: nuances of perspective and history are cast aside, and ultimately, the unfortunate difficulty they have in seeing our family relations and the more relative and complex justice of the circumstance seeds potential inter-European conflict, if not war. Seeds sown oblivious to the fact that we do not care to lay guilt trips upon them, certainly not subsequent generations, they go ahead and try to lay guilt trips upon us for events before our fathers lives even. Just as they want it understood that they and their forefathers were not ex-nihilo evil, but had reasons for their wars, so too those of “Allied” descent wish to claim the same.

Yes, there were corrupt forces manipulating the circumstances, but there were also justly reasoned motives. The circumstances were a great deal more complicated and justified from an Allied perspective than The Hitler contingent of WN will ever admit. That’s a problem if you want to treat WN as your media. Because Nazi Germany and Kaiser Germany were not pure and sheer victims, as the salient contingent of WN wish to claim. But so long as their childish and Jewish style of argumentation is what is being served in WN discourse, I am left no choice but to balance things off in the service of truth. There are several sites out there for those who want to take a “Hitler only good everyone else bad” perspective. You will not hear that the German regimes did have choices: Polish, Belarusian, Ukrainian and other Nationalisms, even the British, of course, could have been aligned, willing and able to fight Soviet incursions (had done so already in some instances).

Until there are other, or more, WN sites which care for the truth and represent events in the context of their nuance and balance, I must continue to highlight discussions such as that from Max Hastings. In fact, there is much there that one would never hear and learn about if the now standard WN position on several sites - “Germany’s war efforts only good, their people only victims” -  were the only perspective heard; and there is a great deal of intimidation that it be the only perspective heard in WN, to the point where the opposite of PC is in effect, to where it is a veritable taboo to say anything negative about Nazi Germany and its predecessors and anything good about the Allies and their predecessors. In truth, of course, there are many things for Germans to be proud of, and some things to not be so proud of. For some reason, that is too complex a fact for some to cope with. Those of us who are sick of that childish unanimity might find Max Hastings discussion refreshing and informative.

There are thoughts on responsibility in World War I which echo very much that of WWII. Thoughts on Versailles foreign to WN discourse. And of course the great taboo in WN, to suggest that a German military could have done anything worth resisting. It was of course noble to burn the library of Leuven (they just had to do that, didn’t they?); to do whatever I am not allowed to speak about to Belgian civilians there, in Dinant and elsewhere, to French and other civilians; in Kalisz as well. No, Germany was always a perfect nation, nobody can say otherwise; if you want to blame anybody, conveniently blame Poland as Hitler and Goebbels suggested, or as Frederick the Great might have proposed of his then vanquished neighbor.

A remiss to not mention Graudenz and Kulm not only for my part but also conveniently “uncorrected” by the Hitler redemptionists in commentary here, probably because it would open the can of worms surrounding these two cities that they don’t want to go into - though I will go into it in parts three and four of the audio, “Hitler was Not WN.” A remiss for my part to not go into these cities as yet, but not changing the fundamental thesis of The Treaty of Versailles reasoning. On the contrary.

The “father of Polish Nationalism” and staunch anti-Semite, Dmowski felt Piłsudski’s pragmatism was naive. They became rivals, but prior to that Dmowski had good things to say about Piłsudski: “He was always the brave boy, son of mother patriotism, dreamer of the liberation of his homeland (...) (...) p. Pilsudski, the intelligent and noble man, and above all a very good Pole” said Roman Dmowski about Piłsudski in 1903.

Polish patriot and military man extraordinaire, with initiatives ranging from the cunning Bezdany train robbery to fund the Polish revolution, to the spectacular victory over the Soviet army at Warsaw to the audacious re-take of Poznan and surroundings from the Germans in the Greater Poland Uprising.

While it is true that in previous discussions of this issue I had neglected to mention these two cities of significance in the Polish corridor - cities that were inhabited by Germans, Graudzen and Kump, known in Polish as Grudiaz and Chelmno, this does not change the thesis.

First of all, the comment section has been open and feedback of good will is expected to correct oversights such as that. And how convenient that Hitler redemptionists would not go into matters surrounding these cities.

Further, these cities being German would only extend the salient that would be formed by Bromberg and Torun to obstruct and potentially occlude crucial strategic and economic sea access for Poland.

In addition, Graudzen and Kulm were formed of brutal Tuetonic and Prussian imperialism upon already extant settlements that were originally Polish.

And finally, investigation into the dispute over these cities only reveals yet more examples of the enormous toll that the Nazis took in retaliation to imposition of Polish patriotism in these areas. It’s no wonder that the Hitler redemptionists were less than ardent, didn’t particularly care to take me up on my open offer to correct whatever oversights of mine…

While defending our ghetto square and the merits of strengthening our grass roots community by preaching there to its choir, deepening our understanding and resolve, it seems that at this point Majority Rights could also do well with forays to visit those down some side streets - to pursue interviews not only with those who are most aligned with our views, but also to follow a path of those who might be slightly off - i.e. slightly antagonistic to our views in a somewhat liberal direction, at least explicitly, while having some implicit sympathy through connection to our square, our cause; such that MR’s platform might bring-out that connection with their underlying fairness in concern for our people and our kinds. The more public, known or respectable the person, perhaps the better. They might come to us with an intent to criticize us or save face in cover inasmuch – fine. Perhaps we can stand corrected. That’s not so much the problem as coming-up with good candidates for this kind of discussion/debate, those who may be lurking in what are the shadowy side-streets for us. Therefore the reason for this post is to ask for suggestions as to fairly prominent/respectable liberals, etc. Those fairly askance of our views, but not so antagonistic as to be futile to hope to engage. Rather to pursue those who might be ripe to debate GW or another MR representative, to at least hear-us-out. We might see where the dimly lit path takes us…

READ MORE...

Challenge or corrective process to Enlightenment puritanism, depending on perspective

[Note: Søren chided me for not proofreading this sufficiently; and he was right. There was a typo in the very title and an uncouth repetition of the word “suggests” in the same sentence in the second paragraph. It’s fixed now]

There is a provocation from the other direction as well. You see, this hermeneuticist naturally wants different nations to have different, sovereign ways, and for there to be a variety of ways among the nations, including individuals who may believe themselves to be descended from god, as they see fit. So, the question, “do you accept the prerogative to exclude you?” is only mildly insulting in that it proposes the necessity to enforce something that I am advocating with all my might, in line with, and by my very natural preferences.

And it is not to be capricious or to look for serpentine ways for an inroad into a foreign culture, but rather to point-out a loophole in this Enlightenment model of “sortocracy” - the a-historical linearity of modernity -  which indicates that consideration be given to the possibility that it might indeed, be enhanced by some consideration of the hermeneutic turn. That loophole of a-historicity/historicity and the necessity of narrative coherence may be used in a positive or negative way.

Hermeneutics was, after all, conceived for friendly purposes, to protect our people from the arbitrary ravages of a-historical scientism. And typically, abused by Jewish interests.

READ MORE...

“I don’t have to tell you about the tyranny of patterns - that is the rubric under which we meet. What you may not know is that you have to accept them.”                     
                                              - Gregory Bateson, Paradigmatic Conservatism.

“When you breach a holistic structure, and say, or do without saying, I’m only going to attend to this end of a relationship - I’m going to study the role of the doctor - role - r-o-l-e”..[or in our case, the role of Jews, one other race, or our own people] ..“now a role is a half-assed relationship, you know. It’s one end of a relationship. And you cannot study one end of a relationship and make any sense. What you will make is disaster.”

     

Grantchester, said to have world’s highest concentration of Nobel Prize winners, most of these presumably being current or retired academics from the nearby Cambridge.

“The healthy system, dreamed above, may be compared to an acrobat on a high wire. To maintain the ongoing truth of his basic premise (“I am on the wire”), he must be free to move from one position of instability to another; certain variables such as the position of his arms and the rate of movement of his arms, have great flexibility, which he uses to maintain the stability of other more fundamental and general characteristics. If his arms are fixed or paralyzed (isolated from communication), he must fall.

In this connection it is interesting to consider the ecology of our legal system. For obvious reasons, it is difficult to control by law those ethical and abstract principles upon which the social system depends. Indeed, historically, The United States was founded upon the premise of freedom of religion and freedom of thought - - the separation of Church and State being the classic example.

On the other hand, it is rather easy to write laws which will fix the more episodic and superficial details of human behavior. In other words, as our acrobat is progressively limited in his arm movement but is given free permission to fall off the wire.

Note, in passing, that the analogy of the acrobat can be apropos at a higher level. During the period when the acrobat is learning to move his arms in an appropriate way, it is necessary to have a safety net under him, i.e., precisely to give him freedom to fall off the wire. Freedom and flexibility in regard-to the most basic variables may be necessary during the process of learning and creating a new system by social change:

These parades of order and disorder the ecological analyst must weigh.

It is at least arguable that the trend of social change in the last one hundred years, especially in The USA, has been toward an inappropriate distribution of flexibility among variables of civilization. Those variables which should be flexible have been pegged, while those which should be comparatively steady, changing only slowly, have been cast loose.

Even so, the law is surely not the appropriate method for stabilizing the fundamental variables. This should be done by the process of education and character formation - those parts of our system which are currently and expectably undergoing maximum perturbation.” Steps, p.503

READ MORE...

For those who might be put-off, initially or even ultimately, by the subject matter discussed here, I would refer to that old adage, that “if all you know well is one thing, then you really don’t even know that very well.”

Part 3 of the analysis of

John Shotter’s “Social Accountability and the Social Construction of ‘You”

READ MORE...

The most fundamental questions of who we are and how we might organize in our defense has a cogent, preliminary answer outlined by the Euro-DNA Nation 

We organize our identity as advocates of our people, who are of indigenous European descent, for the maintenance of our distinct genus on the whole and in the maintenance of our distinct species as well.

The very act of participating in the Euro-DNA Nation establishes a degree of merit to individuals as worthy members from the onset: This person is willing to undertake a minimal act in essential distinction of themselves and their group in flight or fight for the defense of European types.

There are additional qualities that need to be drawn-out by means of criteria other than genetics, of course. For example, Bowery might seek demonstrations of particular skills to confirm the type that he is looking for in his particular community. Lister would be correct to look for additional criteria beyond genetics and so on. These particular qualitative concerns are provided for in the Euro-DNA Nation as well.

We may hypothesize and verify that we do have a definition of White/European Nationalisms which can move easily in consensus, neither yielding to slobs or snobs.

Although there is some confusion over what constitutes White/European Nationalism by way of slobs and snobs, there is a de facto consensus that all people of indigenous European parentage, including Russians, are valid members. With that, there is a normal provision that the various kinds of Europeans ought to be able to maintain their distinct demographics and not have them blended away, not even with other European types. This normal provision protects against the slobs, those who cannot see the depth and importance of European differences from one another and in some of their slovenly cases, not even seeing difference from non-Europeans. It also protects against snobbish definitions of White, which would deny the overwhelming Europeanness or the value of some European kinds; in this case again, they are not seeing or acknowledging a difference that makes a difference from non-Europeans. Their concerns that some patterns among those others which are unlike theirs and not distinctly European might damage their kind if integrated, are alleviated by the human ecological accountability of the particular national and subnational bounds.

Thus, by maintaining national, regional and communal differences and values we may handle concerns of the snobs and the slobs. The snobs, those who do not really care for certain native Europeans, not recognizing them as a part of “us”, may be placated by the fact that borders with these groups that they do not particularly care for are maintained. They have the means to stem limitless blending away. Therefore, they do not need to throw these people overboard along with the non-Europeans. On the other hand, the slobs, people who have a tendency to be lax in recognizing the differences between Europeans or even worse, from non-Europeans, are, by the means of these national, regional and communal accountabilities, also prevented from going too far.

This framework allows for more and less pure alike, it maintains both genus and species of Europeans and thus provides a crucial basis that in theory might serve organizational grounds for our identity, its defense and expanse, even, into new territories.

READ MORE...

Yesterday I had to drive my daughter the forty miles or so to her university halls in central London.  The journey took me through the southern outskirts of the London I used to know, and where I spent twenty of my first twenty-one years, and on through the dark heart of Africa.  It’s a journey I made in September too - for the same purpose - and, as then, I arrived at the river in a state of deep misgiving, even though I knew in my mind what I would find.

But it’s when one encounters Africa and Asia in person in the places one knew intimately as a child that the term “race-replacement” is revealed in its starkest and most uncompromising reality.  My secondary modern school had over six hundred white-skinned pupils between the ages of twelve and sixteen.  There were a handful of Jews among them, who I did not notice or pay attention to.  But there were no Africans or Asians at any time while I was there.  In six years of representative football, cricket and athletics matches with the other five secondary moderns in the district I came across one black lad.  My old stamping ground looks to be 25 to 30% vibrant now, though it’s much more than that, of course, as one travels northward up the London Road.

There is, though, something very evident that no one in the mainstream speaks about, and that’s the de facto racial segregation that forces itself onto one’s consciousness as the ribbons of shops and shoppers go by.  White couples, white friends, white families walk together.  They do not mix with other races.  Asians do the same.  Blacks do the same.  The In-Betweens who, in South London, are overwhelmingly the products of black male “cross cultural fertilisation”, would seem to disappear into the black groups.

There were vanishingly few multiracial groups visible on both journeys.  I don’t doubt that where social mixing across the races takes place it is negotiated without too much in the way of problems.  But a preference for social mixing, if it is there at all, is manifestly avoided when people go outdoors!  The anti-racist strategy, exercised as it is by the presumption, itself racist, of an original sin of white skin, appears to have failed - if, of course, we accept that its goal was panmixia rather than white suppression.

If it was just designed for suppression, it’s been a startling success:

READ MORE...