Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Friday, July 10, 2015 at 11:57 PM
Don’t worry, I’m the kind of foreigner that you’ll like. Hopefully.
Majorityrights began with and has long been committed to freedom of speech, no matter how controversial the opinion, as I can clearly see from the archives. It has been published as an internet magazine with considerable bravery given the political environment and the risks that come from being misunderstood, and has had a pretty diverse set of contributors and viewers. On 14 October 2014, it marked its tenth year in operation, and I hope that its eleventh year coming in just a few months will be as illuminating as ever. As a newcomer, and as an East Asian woman, I feel privileged to be invited to submit articles from my perspective and experience.
Here, on what could be described as freedom of speech’s front porch in its tenth year, we have a good place to talk frankly and honestly as neighbours and allies with common interests. What I’m about to provide is what I see as a necessary polemic against some positions that exist in Majorityrights’ archives and an invitation to conversation as such.
It is said in warfare about the ‘turning manoeuvre’, that when you move into an opponent’s rear in order to cut them off from their support base, you are taking the risk of getting yourself cut off from your own.
A similar manoeuvre has been attempted by many ethno-nationalists in Europe since 2001 on a political level with regards to the War on Terror, through their decision to advance negative attitudes toward it and their decision to develop talking points that reinforce those attitudes. They are refusing to endorse the War on Terror under the belief that this non-endorsement is somehow a ‘good’ angle to protest the political establishment from. It is not good. Those ethno-nationalists are getting themselves cut off because what they are doing actually undermines their own ability to address a severe demographic threat and also undermines their ability to address a persistent international security threat. It’s an unfortunate situation, because it is crucial for people to be able to square the thoughts that are going on their heads with the reality on the ground: The reality of the necessity of overseas contingency operations.
To understand how things reached the stage that they have reached, first a person has to remember how things started out. The world was stunned to see the events that were taking place on television on 11 September 2001. Nineteen Arab men had hijacked airliners, and rather than putting the planes down at an airport and demanding a ransom, they chose to put the planes down by sending them into buildings in New York City.
People seem to have struggled to understand how this could happen.
Over time, a self-hating narrative built up in which the citizens of the North Atlantic were largely blaming their own governments for having allegedly ‘fanned the flames of conflict in the Middle East’ by allegedly ‘supporting radical Islamists’, while simultaneously also allegedly ‘fanning the flames of conflict in the Middle East’ by allegedly ‘opposing Islamists and offending Muslims’. Both of these narratives cannot make sense at the same time, and I would argue that neither of those narratives are true. Furthermore, the apparent implication in both of those narratives is that the North Atlantic should refrain from pursuing its interests in the zone to the south.
That is an idea that should be rejected on the basis that it leads only to paralysis in the political sphere, and a loss of initiative in the military sphere. Groups which argue that the North Atlantic should adopt a passive stance and not assert its interests, and those who place blame onto the wrong people, may mean well, but they do not realise that the narratives they are creating can lead to serious crises which may not have actually been intended by those dissenting groups.
Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 01:51 AM
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 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.
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 06:14 PM
MacDonald At Stockholm, Sweden, April 20th 2015
Posted by DanielS on Monday, April 20, 2015 at 07:52 PM
* A caveat to this post: it is not meant to endorse Boardman’s theories and conclusions, as a rejection of Max Hastings positions, nor to imply that GW agrees with Boardman. Where it does not function as informational noise it may have utility in touring some “historical stuff” and geopolitical grounds which might be culled for accurate bits.
Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 11:35 AM
In this third and penultimate part of my essay on the Rotherham Syndrome I am going to expand on the disconnection between philosophy (and philosophically-derived politics) and thinking that comes out of ethnic or racial conflict. In particular, I will focus on the dynamics of absolutism and its ascription of human value.
A petty history
A few years ago I came across the story, I think in a television history, of the last civilian to be hanged in the Third Reich. I don’t remember his name. I cannot find a link to the story on-line, so I hope I have it right. But my memory is that this unfortunate man was a resident of a small south-western German town which lay in the path of the advancing US Army. I suppose it must have been early- to mid-April 1945.
The war was already lost, of course. That knowledge had been building among the people since the defeat at Stalingrad and Goebbel’s Sportspalast Speech of 18 February 1943 (which changed the tone of the propaganda from a war of conquest to one of national survival). The general thrall to a military dictator and the whole mesmerising, deceitful dream of German greatness and glory was dissolving in the acid of the military reality. By April 1945, with the Allies fighting on German soil, the general will of German civilians would have been for the killing and destruction to be brought to an end, and for Germany to find its way into whatever future was available to it. But the Allies were only interested in complete and unconditional surrender. Every last German town would fall, this little one included. This was not going to be where the Allies would first be held and then pushed back.
Posted by DanielS on Friday, February 20, 2015 at 01:05 PM
It marked a difference of this group, an Amherst Alanon meeting of thirty or so, as I bluffed in the same way that I would, by standing up and pretending to shoot with my finger – Bang! Bang! Bang! But from this group ensconced at a church literally across the street from Emily Dickinson’s house – nothing. No reaction. They looked calmly upon me as only a harmless fool - A bullfrog on a lily pad. ..I’m nobody, who are you?
I foretold them the Sicilians would act differently.
More than a year later, it was August of 1996, when at a similarly conciliatory meeting of similarly normal people seated in the same circular formation, I stood up, raised my finger like a gun barrel and shouted Bang! Bang! Bang! aiming at the Sicilians in rapid turn around the room in Aci Creale to their immediate fright and panic. To them, it was quite possible that this would be a real gun.
I woke up late on a morning as it turned September to see an unusual funeral procession moving through Piazza Duomo. Two coffins were being moved.
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, February 15, 2015 at 12:38 AM
Despite The Guilt Trips of World War II (discussed below on the anniversary of Dresden)
Here is an interview request that I sent to Dr. Christian Lindtner on February 12th
Dear Dr. Lindtner,
As producer for Majorityrights.com, I am writing you to inquire as to the possibility of arranging for an interview.
Majority Rights takes a position (secular) regarding Christianity which very much respects your scholarly critique.
Nevertheless, while I am writing you at this email address, my inquiry actually has more to do with a hope to discuss appropriate response to the fall-out of World War II, facts and mythos.
Your videos discussing holocaust revisionism are the most credible on the topic that I have seen. I do not see it as necessary to go-over that same ground in exhaustive detail. My position is that subsequent generations of Germans and others are innocent and ought not have to continue to pay, irrespective of the facts of Nazi Germany.
I am not anti-German and I am assuming that neither are you, anti-German.
My question is, how do we assert our innocence, along with that of present day Germans, to warrant implementing our defense of our nations as the preserves of our native nationals? - particularly in light of, and despite, the holocaust?
I believe that despite the holocaust that Germany and Europe does not owe the world, Jews, or anybody, its destruction through immigration and assimilation.
This is different from what holocaust deniers, even revisionists, are saying. Committed revisionists and deniers seem to believe everything, all of our defensive warrant, hinges upon debunking the holocaust. It is perhaps easier for me to see that as not necessarily the case as my ancestors even, had even less in the way of historical responsibility. Nevertheless, revisionists seem to have an overwhelming desire to unburden us of guilt trips* for these events, for which no guilt ought to be assigned them - and as a result, it seems to me that they are making the cause for European national sovereignty more resisted and less trustworthy when, in fact, it is a fully legitimate cause and ought to be seen that way irrespective of the holocaust.
What I seek from you in an interview is to help build this case to establish the warrant of European nations to preserve their nations for their native kinds despite The World Wars, whatever the facts.
Please say that you will grant us the interview Dr. Lindtner. It can be very important to inter-European peace and survival.
For those of you who take exception to my deferential use of the word “holocaust”, understand that by it I mean a name given to mass deaths of Jews in the world war, however they came about, irrespective of any obnoxious elevation of importance of Jewish deaths over European deaths - which Dr. Lindtner recognizes in his characterizing it, holocaustianity, as a religion.
At the Yalta conference, just days before the Dresden firebombing..
And this comment on the article..
From a particularist/nationalist perspective it’s best to write it off as a painful learning experience and get on with nationalism 2.0.”
I keep hearing these retarded arguments that the Nazis shouldn’t have invaded Russia and that Britain should’ve let Nazi Germany do as it liked with Poland. If 20/20 hindsight is exercised, then it should be said that Hitler shouldn’t have invaded Poland.
The next argument, also retardedly Buchananesque, is that Poland was betrayed to the umpteenth degree anyway and therefore Germany invading was of no matter.
But even under Soviet control, Poland retained a semblance of national boundaries, more importantly from its point of view, its language and more importantly still, its native genetic homogeneity. Horrible as Soviet control was, neither Poland’s boundaries, language nor genetics were in Hitler’s plans.
The holocaust of the peoples of Dresden is horrible. It is an unspeakable loss of European genetic treasure. As were all the European deaths of World War II - a war unnecessarily fought as a 1) conventional military war and unnecessarily 2) inter-European as it largely was, pitting R1b against R1a - both frames, conventional militarism and anti-Polinism/anti-Slav, were Hitler’s/Friedrich The Great’s.
If you want to use 20/20 hindsight to re-frame World War II and what should not have been done, take it to herr E1B1B1 Hitler.
Don’t kid yourself.
Look at how sick and enraged that Europeans were of ANOTHER World War, which Hitler and his worldview had some small part in initiating, a worldview that had the thin pretense of warrant to take lands and displace peoples up to the Urals on the basis of three and a half small cites being given to Poland by Versailles, a world view that had the design of removing your nation newly established after a bitter ordeal and fight of 123 years, and the realization of his plans of smashing it, taking it away again, killing your father, wife, your daughter, your brother, and you too, charged with an imperson- al mission of bombing a precious German city, might just allow yourself to do that.
A habit, custom, and world view following the line of Friedrich the Great, based on inter-European militarism and a friend enemy distinction of Germanics/Slavs is what should be rejected with 20/20 hindsight - not that Roosevelt and Churchill shouldn’t have gotten into the war, but that Hitler shouldn’t have ordered it in that way.
And don’t kid yourself either - if you know that a European nation like his has plans to take your nation and eliminate you (that was basically known) and some Jew points a gun at that European guy looking to kill you, what are you going to say? No, Mr. Jew, don’t shoot at this guy looking to kill me?
If you want to exercise 20/20 hindsight, for all the European deaths, where it should not have started, the epistemological blunder was with herr E1B1B1 Hitler’s world view and actions thereupon. And if you want to keep Europeans hating and fighting each other, just keep promoting the “innocence” of his worldview and the “supreme and singular guilt” of the Allied leaders.
Posted by DanielS on Friday, December 26, 2014 at 03:42 AM
For those intelligent minds inquiring without the better of academia’s time tested structures in the humanities, but only proceeding of their will to make their way through erudition from their standpoint, their penchant in Western advocacy would have us return to modernity (were it possible) and objectivism.
To the academically inexperienced and untrained advocate of Western interests there are two grand disadvantages.
First, he is not appraised of the sublime workings and analyses of these scholarly apparati as they might be applied in our interests; and secondly, what he does know and hear about them tends to be vast perversions of the notions as passed through Jewish academia and media.
The well meaning Westerner thus sets about to cure us of all this hogwash, and would unbeknownst return us to obsolete tenets of modernity and objectivism - precursors to the very afflictions to our homeostasis that he seeks to cure, such as liberalism.
To him, “objectivism” is good. “Relativism” is bad.
He does not sufficiently appreciate that the analytic framework of objectivism, relativism and subjectivism is not inherently antagonistic to Western interests. The same would apply to a myriad of terms and concepts that have been misapplied against European interests and rather stupidly taken by White Nationalists as such - inherently bad or wrong. It is a temptation and an easy mistake, but a bad mistake – as these are deliberate traps set against European interests unbeknownst to those without a privileged vantage on the working of Jewish academics over these scholarly apparati.
Let me address just objectivism and relativism briefly.
Critique of objectivism ranges from what would correctly be seen as the most brazen and vulgar Jewish sophistry to the most sublime calculations of Heisenberg or Gödel.
However, when I critique objectivism it will tend to be heard by those outside of the academic humanities as if I am disposing of the framework which has yielded such fantastic scientific advances in its entirety, as if I am a Jew looking to make rhetorical tropes the king.
The truth is that there are limits and very real problems for us as a people in the pursuit of mere objectivism. It is among the central elements of our problems.
Plato being granted some permission by Christianity, thus having gravity in our traditions, will incline many to see in this argument a stupid straw man that all is relative. That I am promoting sheer sophistry and relativism. Not. In fact, hyper-relativism is an upshot of objectivism.
On the other hand, there is an aspect of rhetoric called casuistry which has also gotten a bad name from Jewish misuse. However, casuistry proper would take into account the sublime limitation of objectivism, taking the facts yielded by its experience and inquiry indeed BUT then making the best argument that it can on the basis of those facts in conjunction with one’s interests inherently social as they are. There is no denial of facts but a prioritizing of them as they accord to human concern. That is right.