Majorityrights Central > Category: British Politics

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...

Two views of the “modern” British Labour Party in all its current fear and confusion, the first from an email sent to me by Graham Lister:

Labour is killing itself - its root in working class solidarity is now just a tiny echo in its ideology/brand. This is the problem with Labourism in the UK in general. The original trade union movement and its nascent party was hijacked by socially left-leaning ‘progressive’ liberals which turned into a flood following the historic death of the old Liberals. Think the whole Fabian tradition. Liberal reformers that wish to ‘reform’ society for ‘the better’’ by the top-down efforts of ‘experts’ on behalf (and in the best interests naturally) of we plebs that sell our labour to make ends meet.

Of course, the genuine working class involvement kept the liberals semi ‘honest’ but the two sociological groups always had an uneasy relationship. The socially conservative but economically radical workers (think Red Clydeside, Durham miners etc) and the economically insipid but socially radical liberals/Fabians was always the mix of Labour.  But now that organic link to the working class is dead (and has been for some time), thus Labour has hollowed itself out to - at best - the Fabian liberals ‘managing’ technocratic reform for the ‘betterment’ of the ignorant masses. Thus, Labour membership is little more than social liberals, worried public sector workers/professionals, upper class careerists/professional politicos (Balls, Miliband et al - mostly privately educated, PPE Oxford graduates and ‘special advisors’) and ethnics on the make.  Interestingly the vast majority of Labour activists are based in London and the SE and from a middle class/upper middle-class background. Look at someone like Bob Crow and the tube workers - they walked away from Labour a number of years ago as they correctly noted it was a waste of their time and effort.

Labour doesn’t believe in very much at the top level other than staying on the gravy train - see here - and what it does believe is little more than the naive proposition that racism is the worse evil in human history and one ‘solves’ it by mixing all people into a grand ‘melting pot’. 1960’s crap. Plus identity politics for ‘worthy victims’ of liberal sympathies - ethnic minorities, gays and other sexual deviants (just google the topic of Harriet Harman’s pedo sympathies let alone Margaret Hodge’s outrageous conduct in charge of Islington council - all tip of the iceberg stuff as Rotherham suggests). Nothing much to do with any serious form of class politics. i.e. basically decent wages for workers.

Clearly for the cause of Scottish nationalism, Labour in Scotland must be politically destroyed - and it’s happening. They don’t like to give the figures for membership of the Labour party in Scotland but, at best, it’s around the 7,000-8,000 mark. The SNP is now approaching 80,000 members. Clearly the Union is a zombie - it’s dead or in its death throws yet still lives on for now.  Obviously, Labour are now becoming toxic in places like Glasgow and Dundee.  Equally obviously, a Scottish MP from a Scottish Westminster seat will increasingly be seen as a liability/unacceptable to English voters in any of the big Westminster cabinet positions (or as a UK wide leader of the Westminster ‘main’ parties). If one was a young and cynical but ambitious, would-be Scottish politician - with the sense to play the ‘long game’ - well such a person could only join the SNP.  The idea of a Labour party dominated and led by Scots (Smith, Blair - technically Scottish by birth and his father’s blood - Brown, Darling et al) and ruling the UK, will be a thing of the past. I cannot see English public opinion tolerating such a state of affairs again.

In England the situation is more complex - ALL three of the smug Westminster parties need, in effect, to be destroyed by an anti-establishment insurgency. Obviously, the liberal elites have all the serious money behind them, the propaganda of the mass media, etc.  But what can be taken away from them is their democratic legitimacy. Now in their hearts, no one at Westminster gives a damn about democracy or the plebs.  But by the rules of the game and ‘in public’ that (and what we think) matters enormously.  UKIP is indeed a crude mechanism but let’s hope for a pincer movement from both UKIP and the SNP in an anti-Westminster uprising.

It’s taken me a long time but I now hate the Labour party even more than I hate the Tory party.  And that’s a lot of hate.

The second offering is mine, and takes the form of a rather sympathetic (well, sort of sympathetic) piece of advice to party members and readers of LabourList, the party’s “biggest independent grassroots e-network”.  So called.  It was posted in the aftermath of the pretty disastrous by-election in Heywood & Middleton, which Labour held on a recount from a fearfully healthy and strong-looking UKIP.

READ MORE...

Germans in Slavic Lands, Poles and Other Eastern Europeans in Western Europe

Nathan Mayer Rothschild

When grappling with the extent and length of entanglement of Jewish interests in European affairs, perhaps one can come to appreciate GW’s fastidious concern to separate what is authentic native/nationalist European - and what is not - through his ontology project.

READ MORE...

by Neil Vodavzny

Scotland is the home of the Scottish Enlightenment, which is known as the home of humanism. But that was then. Today, humanism is synonymous with destruction of tradition and anything and everything that belongs to a distinct, self-confident people. So, for example, the latest pronouncement of AC Grayling of the New College of the Humanities . Whether or not you’re a believer, there is something appealing in collective worship - as opposed to individual brainwashing. But not for Grayling, who has suggested RE in schools be replaced by philosophy lessons (run by him).

This same manipulative focus on impressionable youth was taken up by the Scottish Nationalists in their referendum campaign (even if the final results were not quite as expected). Salmond’s shallow mockery of the established way of doing thing, albeit probably a permanent aspect of his twinkly personality, was yet more evidence of humanist thinking. Salmond may be smarter than most, but it was easy to second-guess his intention of adding “a few more percentage points” to finally emerge a with a mandate for a free, independent Scottish State (with hints of Shylock to boot).

Nowhere is naturalism to be seen, and yet this is the real glory of Scotland. Man must mingle with nature, and nowhere is this more evident than in that most Scottish of creations, Royal & Ancient:

READ MORE...

 
Frank Salter: Accept that the State is no longer ours, that we may rebuild radically anew, embedding our national interests of our people.

In the West people are not mobilized in their own defense and why is that? Our Majorities are faced with a fundamental structural problem.

That is historically based….. when the nation states of Europe were formed (such as) England initially, there were a dozen Kingdoms….the consolidation of those small principalities came about through an implicit promise ..the promise was that the new centralized government would adopt the functions of the small tribal governments: so it would defend the people, on the same principle, it would defend externally and maintain internal peace.. it would not betray the basic interests of the society….there was an implicit understanding or assumption that the elite is invested emotionally in the people, that it is tied to the people, that it comes from the people….the people expected their elites to not be alien, not to hate them, not be hostile towards them, but to be drawn from them, and to actually feel one with them…so there was an assumption of identity defense…of concern about continuity and so on…

That is all broken down now. The elite do not identify with the people anymore - those normal aspirations for identity continuity. The fact is that the nation/state model (two separate terms there) - Nation, the bond of the heart, and State, the apparatus of government - have become separated; they don’t have the same relationship one to the other that they did even a hundred years ago. But still the assumption is there, that those functions are being performed; when the opposite functions are being performed! These States are actually overseeing replacement, a demographic revolution that’s taking place.

So, I argue that in this light what needs to happen is that the Majorities actually, in a way, need to accept their defeat. Sort of a radical thing, some people object to this. But I think we need to accept, acknowledge the profundity of our defeat and accept that the government is no longer ours. The State no longer belongs to the people. Once one has faced that harsh truth, then one can start thinking what we can do to survive in the future as a people.

We need to starve these governments of resources; and rather we must build-up alternate national organizations that are well embedded in the people.

We are on a healthy trajectory right now with some fight-back in Europe. But for me the real sign of health will be when Tony Blair finds himself in court charged with treason. That would be a clear sign that something healthy is happening.

You know that the Blair government deliberately set-about to flood Britain with third-world immigrants as a way of breaking the spirit of conservatives…so that they would give up the fight to try to retain their country. I view that as least arguably criminal and if laws don’t exist - and I suspect laws don’t exist for prosecuting people like Blair - the law should be created.

READ MORE...

So Glasgow is in.  It’s a good win for Yes.  But the tide for No running across the rest of the country is unstoppable.  The British political Establishment has won, and Scottish independence is off the agenda - if the “vow” to devolve maximum powers to Holyrood can be sneaked through the Westminster Parliament.

There are signs already of a substantial rebellion among MPs - perhaps over 100 Tories.  But that won’t be enough to stop it.  The question is: will it be enough to force a resolution to the constitutional element of the English Question - England, vastly the most populous, wealthy, and economically powerful part of the Union has no voice of its own.  Not only that, Scottish MPs vote on English matters at Westminster while English MPs have no say over Scottish matters decided at Holyrood.  Ditto Welsh matters decided in Cardiff.

Granting the Scots Devo-Max, allied to the preservation of the Barnett Formula (a subsidy from England to the Scottish taxpayer), will probably necessitate the minimum offer to the English of restricting voting on English matters to MPs representing English constituencies.  That will have dire consequences for a future Labour government which, if it could not command a majority in such a congregation, could not put through any legislative programme disagreeable to the Tories.

Regardless, an English congregation at Westminster is not at all the same constitutional animal as an English parliament, which is the only truly equitable arrangement, and the only one likely to satisfy the English electorate.  Of course, the Westminster parties cannot countenance a (likely hostile) English assembly.  Yesterday’s vote in Scotland has opened the proverbial can of constitutional worms.  There are still opportunities here for those of us interested in expanding the self-awareness and self-assertion of the English people - not on the scale of those that would have followed from a vote for Scottish independence, and the break-up of the Union, but a scrap of stale constitutional bread is a hearty meal to a starving man.