Majorityrights Central > Category: European Nationalism

We will continue on moral high ground of our position, advocating all peoples of native European descent, the maintenance of our discreet national and sub-national kinds.

We are separatists, seeking the sovereignty of our peoples, not supremacists seeking to impose-upon, the exploitation or the destruction of others.

​We will continue our course of being unfettered by traditional religions and their ill-fit to European interests.

We will continue to hold the position that Jews are not European and are not a part of our interest group.

We will continue with our quest for homeostasis in European peoples, moving from the more comprehensive social systemic and historical view of our peoples to the deep and close readings that GW gives.

We will be unfettered by Nutzism and any absurd claim that it had the best interests of all Europeans at heart. It can only be dangerously divisive and it is not too much intellectual work to utilize similar ideas as theirs for whatever good they might have been doing while rejecting the obviously destructive ones.

We will be having more interviews and podcasts. In fact, we have three or four on the near horizon:

One featuring GW and Jez Turner promises to be fascinating - two men with long and intimate understanding of the nationalist struggle in Britain.

James Bowery will be having a discussion with Frosty Wooldridge - that will not only be interesting, but important.

Greg Johnson will be talking to us about Heidegger, maybe more. I certainly look forward to that; every nationalist should.

Paul Weston will be talking to us again prior to the elections. GW hopes to support his efforts and we look forward to all going well as Paul has the potential to be an outstanding spokesman for our cause - natives of European nations; and in his case, of course, native Britain in particular.

Those are just a few of the exciting interviews and podcasts on the horizon.

We will be looking to add a few new writers to our staff.

We will also be looking to cooperate with a DNA lab to begin the efforts of “curating” our peoples so to speak. We look for suggestions, which geneticists to use and more.

Let us know how Majority Rights can serve your interests as a person of indigenous European descent. If your suggestion is in good faith and fits within our rather broad parameters we would love to hear from you. It is an honor to serve this cause.​

On the radio page now, Paul Weston, the man who managed to get himself arrested for reading from Winston Churchill’s The River War, talks to GW and DanielS about himself, his party, nationalism and the political climate, the nature of UKIP, blogging on the DT, that adventure in Winchester, and (even) the JQ.  He’s a good guy.  You should listen.

Upon Winchester Guildhall, Paul Weston quoted the following passage from Churchill’s “The River War”:

‘How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries!,’ wrote Churchill.

‘Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy.

‘The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

‘A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.

‘The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

‘Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.

‘No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith.’

Paul Weston’s “I am a racist”

READ MORE...

                                        Anti-immigration protests in Rome

People of Tor Sapienza interviewed by Italian TV networks say that they are forced to go out in the morning carrying a knife for fear of assaults, and that in the area every 100 metres there is an apartment building of squatters while “our own people have no home.”

They say that men and women are unemployed. A girl says that she’s about to lose her job and her mother and brother are jobless, so she’s going to ask for the hospitality of the immigrant centre: 30 euros a day, accommodation, food, and cigarette voucher— not a bad deal.

            - Enza Ferreri on anti-immigration protests

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…

Remember This when you hear an official story from the kosher Media:

We are the Media .. I call it Wedia .. their media is the enemy…

Sooo…. we do our own research and we are not graduates of Brandeis, Harvard, U.C Berkeley, London School of Economics, or University of Chicago.

We have street experience , common sense , and advocate for our own people.. the people referred to as goy , gringo , honky , white boy , and shiksa.

If you disagree with us you are anti white.. and we walk away.. no arguments from our side .. we do not debate we agitate for our folk..

We are now the wandering Eury.. we are all over the world now .. we are growing powerful and we will prosper..

We created the internet .. that is our infrastructure.. no matter where we are .. yes they have made us revolutionaries for our folk..

Northern.. Southern.. Eastern.. Western European ..We are family.. We are strong..

We will create new institutions.. large families.. sustainable habitats ..

We will disconnect from Talmud Vision.. we will stay home away from college and professional sports.. we will stay out of casinos ( unless it is to encourage blacks , browns , and reds to get drunk and play poker )

We white men will stop watching sports, spend time with our families, and have more time and money to have large families. { no more fantasy football.. btw what a disgusting term}

We will create beautiful music again with inspiring lyrics.. such as this song..

Sons of Somerled.. only 4 seconds of an ad….... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G61AmCqtzN4

White Lives Matter ..Will Not Remain Silent

Love each other and no white on white violence..

- Stanistan (Stan Hess)

               
Die Linke’s parliamentary leader Gregor Gysi. Photo: DPA

Its egregious intentions betray its egregious misnomer as “The Left” by the YKW media. Whereas a White Left would be a union of the entire nation of native peoples and thus organized in entirety against immigrant imposition - these workers and beneficiaries being the theoretical equivalent of scabs - and the consequences of elite betrayal. Accordingly, a true European Nationalist Left would not be of just one class, say the workers, let alone be in representation of scabs (foreigners) - as the latter in particular would be defined properly not as The Left but rather as a Neo-Liberal concern imposed on the classification of native national interests. The reason for the misnomer is plain, the YKW and the sell-outs, particularly of the international corporatist order, do not want us to be clear in the organizational concern of that union, which is a merging, in fact an overlap, of the class with native nationalism. Instead they want it associated with what is most repugnant to our interests.

The YKW and corporate elite sell-outs are aligned in this perversion of class interests - you can be even more afraid now as they obligingly ask:

“What does the Left Party want for Europe?”

The “Left Party” (wink), read “neo-liberal” and ask rather, what union of your interests do they represent - i.e., how are they a leftist union for you as a native European? Particularly when they advocate (hyerpbolic) neo-liberal policies as such?

“Die Linke is now the third biggest group in the German parliament, but what do their politicians want for Europe?”

Gysi pretends the leftist, denouncing the The EU for “pursuing ‘neo-liberal’ policy:”

“Die Linke overtook rivals the Greens ... to become the country’s third biggest parliamentary group – and has since made waves in foreign policy by its outspoken condemnation of US spying and conciliatory attitude to Russia’s actions in Ukraine.

Their charismatic parliamentary leader Gregor Gysi added to his party’s critical stance towards the EU system in an interview with Die Zeit newspaper. ‘It is pursuing a neo-liberal economic policy and stands for the opposite of socialism,’ he said.”

But then his party pursues this policy on immigration -

“Mobility and Immigration

Die Linke’s policy on immigration stands out from major parties by appearing dramatically in favour of making Europe more refugee-friendly.

They claim to promote the ‘unconditional right to stay and proper accommodation, social protection and equal rights for all refugees.’

And according to their manifesto, they also support refugees’ free choice of which country they wish to seek asylum in, as well as demanding the dissolution of EU border agency Frontex.”

You can’t get much more neo-liberal than that.

What does that have to do with the unionized representation of native European national interests?

We hear nothing representing the unionized interests of native European nationals in YKW media. Our interests are ignored and obfuscated beginning with the very terms, with the deliberately confusing mis-designation of neo-liberal policy - immigration and non-native imposition in particular - as “The Left.” By contrast, designating the proper representation of native European national interests as The White Left is to distinguish it from the liberal and Jewish affectations imposed on native European nationalist interests by The Red Left.

http://www.thelocal.de/20140514/what-do-die-linke-want-for-europe

                                 
                                      Gysi in his Soviet permutation
——————————————————————————
More past wind across the German border from “The Left”:

“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!”

A few weeks ago Daniel sent a request to Frank Salter, author of On Genetic Interests, to consent to be interviewed for MR Radio.  He was then in the process of a double-session interview with Red Ice.  We hope he might be interested in a more intellectually demanding approach to his thesis in OGI and his hopes for European peoples in the West.  He was unavailable.

In anticipation of a positive reply from Dr Salter I had scribbled down some questions – heads of discussion, really - which I hoped to put before him.  It is unlikely that they will be asked in that form now.  I thought they might be of interest to readers all the same, duly embroidered with some of my own understandings which would have emerged in the discussion.

1. Academics, science and politics

Dr Salter, you describe your profession as that of a political scientist and ethologist engaged in studying the motivational and organisational aspects – the laws that are at work, if you like -  in human group dynamics.  In the process you have afforded us all some unique insights into normative human behaviour, most particularly in the central thrust of On Genetic Interests.  Purely for myself, I would like to thank you for that; and I’m sure very many others with our politics would feel the same.

(a) Can I begin by asking how you see yourself and your work?  Is an ethologist like you, with his basis of work with empirical data, fundamentally of the humanities or the sciences?  How do your politics, which are clearly quite nationalist, influence your selection and formulation of research projects?  Do you have to make additional efforts to function as a disinterested researcher, while your peers down the corridor in the politics and sociology faculties are quite free to operate as de facto campaigners for progressive causes?

(b) More than a decade since the death of Stephen J Gould, and with the Sociobiology Study Group a forgotten entity, what is your assessment generally of the state of truth-speaking in the biological sciences, in particular about human difference?  Would you say that the era of strict censorship has passed, and academic freedom now obtains?  Or has the focus merely moved from a rigid control on what can be studied to a more subtle but no less widespread control of how studies can be framed, how results can be presented, and so forth?

(c) What kind of reception have your conclusions had among your academic peers?  For example, has EGI, as a concept, been discussed by, or even incorporated in the thinking of, other political scientists with your ethological focus, or that of evolutionary biologists and psychologists, or even sociologists?

2. Politics and the public discourse

READ MORE...