Majorityrights Central > Category: Globalisation

It would be charitable to conclude that the 45th and 47th president of the United States of America is a regular if inordinately successful guy and a great and fearless patriot with an instinct for the wants and interests of the common man.  OK, he’s not a very subtle person.  He can deliver himself of some quite surprising, not to say shocking, public statements.  His dedication to the security of Israel is fawning and slavish if politically necessary, probably.  But he’s the first US president in decades to speak the language of ordinary Americans.  So in the vernacular, cut the guy some slack while he blows away the whole friggin’ mess that is Dems in federal government, right?

But with Trump we are not just talking about pulling down the progressive order in federal government.  He is seeking a new order internationally as well as domestically.  It turns out that his new international order has nothing to do with “peace”, and is not directly concerned with Ukraine at all.  It turns out that his vaunted economic nationalism, always assumed to be just a domestic, blue-collar cause, is also economic imperialism.  It is, from a Russian imperialist perspective, also an opportunity to throw Trump a hydro-carbon or two to bind him to his and Xi’s grand strategy, and not the other way round.  Which would make this less Nixon and Mao than Molotov and Ribbentrop, with Putin playing the role of Ribbentrop.  As of today Beijing is plainly betting on that, because it has given its support to the “negotiations”.

The big reveal

From Day 1 of his second term the reborn Donald Trump has been pursuing a politics for the world which, it seems, none outside his own circle in the Republican Party saw coming, and very few if any have fully grasped even now.  This politics has three broad goals:

i) To put a stop to the decades of progressive marxisation and malaise in American life, especially economically, and thereby to ring in a new dawn of American power, prestige, and prosperity.

ii) To force the European states to address their post-Berlin Wall political, moral, and fiscal decadence and weakness, so that they may shift from that same destructive trajectory of mass immigration and marxisation to one of political self-rediscovery and self-preservation (crucially, the “self” here being the state, not the natives of the state).

Thus freeing Washington to pivot towards ...

iii) Ending China’s long march towards global military, economic, and political hegemony, principally by confronting it in the Indo-Pacific Ocean.

The start-point for the Trump administration is Ukraine.  Hence the unwelcome energy with which it has distanced itself from the expectations of the European democracies and NATO, while showering Putin with outrageous largesse under the rubric of peace negotiations.  It was the big reveal.  The deceit and childishness which has characterised the campaigns of Trump and Musk against the Ukrainians is pure theatre, but in the scheme of things they’re nothing more important than positioning.  Ukraine itself is not important except as a bargaining chip, its sacrifice a clear signal to Putin that he could even create his fourth Russian empire in the West if he can defeat the Europeans and keep the American military quiet.  BUT ... he can’t have his new world order with himself and Beijing at the apex.  America will remain the hegemon in a force-based Glazyevian system of empires.  The post-war rules-based order is dead.  Starmer’s love object of international law is without a point.  Democracy is no longer the international standard for good and just government.  A force-based system doesn’t have to care about good or justice.  It’s just the wrong metric.  NATO, meanwhile, will be left without the American guarantee, which effectively guts it and leaves Europe militarily defenceless.  Vance’s speech at the Munich Security Conference now makes perfect sense, warning the European political elites that their three decades of spending the so-called peace dividend on weak and sickly liberal-universalist causes has to change, and change now.  Virtue signalling elitism is done for.  Universalism has drained European politics of all moral authority.  The old values will have to be rediscovered if self-defence is to mean anything or to have any hope of success on a future battlefield.

Likewise, Trump’s alarming expansionist talk about annexing Canada and Greenland, and sending the military to take control of the Panama Canal, also now makes sense.  The global order of an empire of empires isn’t a fanciful confection of a few Russian dreamers like Glazyev.  It is the alternative order to the west’s model, and as the once and future hegemon America, too, must have its empire, albeit principally an empire of corporate expansion.  Nixon’s week in China also had a pay-off for corporate America (if at a terrible cost to the American working man).  Eventually it led via neoliberalism to the Davosian technocracy we encounter today.  The Trump administration, mindful that it is weaker than the people and must maintain the institutions of democracy, will hope that Americans actually benefit this time.  But any such good will be incidental.  The politics are fatally vested in the maintenance of American corporate and hegemonic power, not in Americans per se.  Trump is not a real nationalist.  The Republican Party cannot encompass real nationalism because the liberal project which is America is wholly antithetical to it.

Further, the eastern imperial model is oligarchic and elitist, intending state dictate and socialism for the masses of the world.  It is also worth emphasising that it does not at all preclude the Davos corporate and financial elites from its Great Game.  The dissenting right, in its lumpen way, has assumed that Davos is western, and its globalism with it.  No, it is only the politicians who are western.  The rest is worldwide because the Money Power behind it is worldwide.  With the one exception of Israel, it will adapt itself to any polity provided racial universalism obtains or could obtain therein.

All that said, there are points of potential push-back against the Trump agenda. Ukrainian fighters for one (the Ukrainian media is already relaying intelligence reports that Putin plans to announce his victory over NATO on the 24th February anniversary of his invasion).  American voters for another.  Resistance in the established order for another, and from anyone else who does not relish a political betrayal which benefits the murderers of Moscow.  Perhaps the Russophile civic nationalists in Germany and elsewhere will not be able to show their faces once Moscow’s gaze falls on Ukraine’s fellow Europeans to the north and west; and we might get some real nationalism in Europe.

The full complexity of east-west relations according to Western reactionary opinion

There are times when the absence of an ethnic nationalist worldview in those who proclaim themselves nationalist (but not specifically, say, National Socialist, or traditionalist, or fascist) really limits communication.  What, after all, is our common frame of reference?  David Lane’s minimalist Fourteen Words accurately summarise the existential essence of all nationalism.  But the formulation is reductive, and can in no way function as an holistic ideology functions, ie, it cannot situate us in a pre-existing, broad-scale system of life-affirming truth by which a people may orient itself in Time and Space.  It is because of the systemic nature of an (actually very rare) epochal philosophy that it can, first, unify a political constituency and, second, energise a mass re-organisation.

But we do not possess that philosophy today.  We are, in consequence, caught in a pre-revolutionary cycle that cannot complete.  We have no unifying ideological standard around which to rally.  Along comes a large but perfectly uncomplicated political question, and we lack the framework to determine where justice lies.

Today such a question is: Do the people of Ukraine have a right to fight the violent imposition of Russian empire, and to struggle for national autonomy?  No ethnic nationalist should have a moment’s difficulty answering that.  But, instead, a substantial majority have lost their heads completely in contemplation of a second question: How dare America and the West challenge Russia’s security needs?  Of course it is a false question.  A need for expansion is not a need for security.  The theft of natural resources, farming produce, and even children is not a requirement for the creation of buffer zones.  It speaks of ancient tribute.  But Muscovy is an empire with an origin in its own payment of tribute to the Asiatic aggressor, and thus even into our time it has remained an empire with an historical culture of entitlement to further empire, and the wealth thereof.  That, not security, is the well-spring of Russian foreign policy.

Explaining this to the holders of “right-wing opinions” is a challenge.  Indeed, it feels like I’ve been challenging the dominant and reactionary pro-Russian sentiment and anti-American prejudice of on-line nationalists and trad-cons since the very first jolt forward of the first T72 in Vladimir Putin’s fateful full-scale invasion of 24th February 2022.  They don’t like it.  They don’t listen.  Their judgement is overwhelmed by anger at the globalist machinations of the Western hierarchy, and they don’t look any further.

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.

Continuing the Morgoth theme, this video builds on an article written here, advancing it by the addition of Morgoth’s unsurpassed cultural-historical critique.  It even mentions the Craig series of James Bond films!

As every thinking nationalist should know, the dominant modus of thought informing selfhood in the West is liberalism.  But one could be forgiven for thinking that its time as the epochal Idea, the organising system of the European life, is past.  Certainly, the will of the eponymous “individual” of Enlightenment philosophy, by name the Common Man, is no longer unfettering.  The Third Worldisation of the urban space, the marginalisation of European masculinity and the africanisation of the European genome, the homosexualisation of marriage, the trans-sexualisation of what it is to be a woman, the toxification of white skin, the forced mass vaccinations of the Covid era, the utterly shameless electoral fraud in “the greatest democracy on earth”, and shortly, we are to believe, the enslaving Great Re-Set ... all of this is happening only because the common will has been assiduously suppressed and the common opinion traduced and demonised.

No, the great arc of liberal thought has come to rest in the neoliberalism and the weaponised neo-Marxism of the Western political class and the corporate elites they represent.  These things never belonged to Europe’s peoples.  They only ever belonged to elites.  The only will unfettered by them is theirs.

Historically, these elites have by no means been monolithic in form or singular in their interests.  They are human beings, after all.  They shift generationally and, because they are opportunists and hustlers, always with the flow of political possibility.  There is a natural tension between worldviews, not least those of Jews, always mindful of their ethnic struggle for Olam Ha-ba, and WASPs totally unmindful of that or, of course, of their own peoplehood, and simply, mechanically given to modernity and a narcissistic, even sociopathic individualism extending no further than their own epidermis.

Importantly, there has, too, always been a tension between banker and producer ... between money-as-debt which, by its nature, seeks to extend its suzerainty over the loanee, to enslave and own him, and the principle of progress and techne, which seeks to free its own creative hand from such blind and selfish constraint.  This latter (which, in modern parlance, has been an ideological “thing” since the time of the Russian Revolution) has turned out to hold the winning historical ticket.  If only for the sake of clarity then, let us attempt to delineate it from the old money-based power of the Jewish banking families and the old Anglo-American Establishment, which may or may not have an attachment to tauroctony and masonic symbology, and which is in serious and seemingly final retreat.  Of course, we can do so most succinctly by defining it as a power centred (now) on Davos and grounding itself in the interests and potentials of science-led industries, the American social media platforms, hedge funds, asset managers and, increasingly, FinTech.

Asset-holding, it turns out, is this new elite’s means of eradicating the bankers’ web of debt.  Accordingly, there is an on-going tectonic shift of personnel and institutions towards Davos as it becomes ever clearer that the fiat system, as a guarantor of value and a bestower upon global elites of wealth and agency, will founder on the hard reality of asset-value.

We could say that banking parasitism is giving way to predatory corporatism.  Perhaps another way to look at it would be through the lens of personalities, so the Rothschilds and the European royal houses versus the Rockefellers and the US political Establishment.  Another would be methodological, so supra-nationalism and immigrationism versus the smart mega-city and inclusiveness (both pairs being destroyers of the natural human fundamentals as they express in nation, kind, home, love).  Yet another would be Marxism versus scientism; and another the New World Order versus Sustainable Development.  We might even identify one more in the priest-class of Judaism’s Olam Ha-ba versus Homo davosian, the wired transhuman of the fourth industrial revolution.  Or we could lighten up a bit, and contrast and compare the doomed Merkel and her sad little, pyramid hand signs with the business-like photocalls of the mischling technocrat Schwab.

While we are in a lighter mood, and following the heavy hint of the stage design, the Bregenz sequence from Quantum of Solace, written some time after 2006, contains elements quite specific to what would later become the Davos stratagem:

A conspiracy hidden in plain sight, the corporate language, the manipulation of Washington, the participation of the Deep State, the ownership and control of strategic assets- indeed, in this case “the world’s most precious resource” (and so wholly fitting to the real-world contest with fiat money).  It’s not a bad attempt at making an ageing spy movie franchise relevant to the modern age.  A little further into the movie we learn that to advance its criminal cause Quantum hawks a fake environmentalism, complete with talk of global deforestation and soil depletion.  It deplores corruption in government while corrupting government; and we see how “acting out of necessity” drives the other governments into an alignment of interests with it.

Well, something changed Boris Johnson from a breezily triumphant, newly re-elected prime minister in December 2019 confidently telling Downing Street staff he would not have them going off to Davos the following month “to drink champagne with billionaires” into a catatonic, serial witterer about the Great Re-Set, saying only a few days ago at the G7 conflab amid the delights of Cornwall that “We must build back better with a global economic recovery based on greener and fairer foundations.”

This is politician-speak for total submission to the Davos agenda, which is the UN 2021/2030 agenda, and which amounts to a bare-faced lie told to the weak by the powerful not just so the powerful can rule over them - even in perpetuity - but so that they can make the whole Earth and the future of everything their own.  They’re doing it, too.

Today the DT’s lead journalist on economics Ambrose Evans Pritchard posted a piece on the mounting nervousness of the world’s billionaires as they contemplate possible future neckties.  The article itself isn’t exactly incendiary.  It begins:

Davos Man is trembling. The cosmopolitan superclass is scrambling for ways to share a little of its income stream – as a prudent insurance policy – before the bottom half of western democracy takes matters into its own hands.

The new doctrine is enshrined in the Davos Manifesto, the digital billionaires’ answer to the Communist Manifesto of 1848. The cardinal code is ‘stakeholder capitalism’, otherwise known as looking after your workers, and agreeing not to trash society, or the local water system, or the planet.
There has been something grotesque about a lockdown crisis that has ravaged small firms and the manual self-employed even as the well-to-do accumulate trillions of excess savings. The Nasdaq 100 index is 40pc higher than before the pandemic. Listed global equities have risen in value by $24 trillion since March. The owners of wealth have made out like bandits.
.
“We’re on the brink of a terrible civil war. The US is at a tipping point in which it could go from manageable internal tension to revolution,” says Ray Dalio, founder of the world’s biggest hedge fund, Bridgewater Associates. Words no longer suffice. The pie will have to be divided.

Davos men and women know in their hearts that the economic dispensation of the last 20 years has been gamed by their caste, adorned in the ideological bunting of globalist virtue.

They know that staggering inequalities have festered, to the point where the average chief executive of an S&P 500 company earns 357 times as much as the average non-supervisory worker. The ratio was around 20 in the mid-1960s. It was still 28 at the end of Ronald Reagan’s term, which is an amazing thought.

Which is all fine and dandy.  But it doesn’t actually deal with the issue at hand, which is the keen desire among perfectly unexceptional British Tories to see “the bandits” brought low, as witnessed by the following not at all unusual comments from the subsequent thread:

READ MORE...

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...