Category: Islam & Islamification
In the last part of Eugène Montsalvat‘s review of de Benoist, he is shown to give organizational advice, including moving beyond left and right with observations as to where they both went wrong.
I don’t agree with how he is describing the left, and it is a good occasion to sort that out.
However, I am in significant agreement with the tenor - that capitalism is among our major problems.
With that, he confirms a suggestion from Kumiko to me, that I’ve already accepted. I would take to heart that in promoting the White Left platform that I have not emphasized enough the fact that there would be unions amidst the union that is the racial/national union. I have done that but not enough.
Because I have been so focused on the re-legitimization of racial classification and the unification of people as one class, Kumiko alerts me to the fact that I would be accused of disingenuously wallpapering over bona fide working class concerns for not recognizing their distinct situation.
She advises talking more in terms of syndicalism, and I can see where her advice in that regard, and as it turns out, also de Benoist’s advice in that regard is correct.
My way of handling these differences could use that boost, though I have not exactly been remiss in that. In criticizing the insufficiently descriptive and ultimately dangerous paradigm of “equality / inequality”, I have consistently spoken in terms of qualitative differences within the White Class (and in relation to non-White groups). As opposed to “equality/inequality” and its false comparisons, I have tended to focus on niches, their paradigmatic incommensurability, qualitative symbiosis and the management of differences in respect of difference as opposed to inequality. Nevertheless, forms of syndicalism should correspond with systemic regulation of these differences.
As I have said in many places, and I am no less convinced than ever, that it is a mistake to relinquish the self designation as a left, a White Left. The Jews do not want us to adopt its powerfully organizing world view for that reason, because it does line things up correctly time and again.
Not a left as properly defined in White interests.
I do not idealize the working classes nor would a White Left.
Benoist is correct and very articulate in citing the Enlightenment, its optimism (wow, never thought of that angle, but true) and the liberalism that came of it, but these are not elements of what we are calling the White Left.
The White Left designates these products of the Enlightenmet and categorizes them as “objectivism”, one of the two great adversaries to White/Left/Class/National/Union/Racial (all the same) solidarity.
The two great adversaries to the White Class/Left are Jewish interests and Objectivists/objectivism.
de Benoist needs to recognize where adoption of Enlightenment ideas among ordinary and working class folks is coming from.
Where it isn’t being promoted by Jewish interests it is being promoted by White elitist traitors disingenuously posing as “objectivists” (innocently great and not accountable) and naively accepted by the “lower classes” as “objectivism”, viz., the way it is.
But it is Not leftism, definitely not White leftism as it does not recognize the union’s right to discriminate and hold people accountable to the union’s interests.
Hence, we have not moved beyond right and left, we have merely not caught up to how Jews and White traitors have manipulated these terms to their interests, including not wanting us to have a “White Left” as its organizational capacities are dangerously powerful against them.
de Benoist is correct about that. No argument.
Here I disagree with de Benoist, not in the sense that issues like these can’t be used to distract from objectivist treachery and problems of their exploiting “lower classes”, but in the sense that he is going to the other extreme, and in ignoring race and religious organization of groups antagonistic to race, that he is buying into the same right wing Enlightenment objectivism (and perhaps Jewish manipulation) that he claims to be wise-to.
He goes on to say..
That can be said to be a product of Red (Marxist) Left skullduggery; that is to say, how Jews would apply all peoples in unionized alliance against White capitalists (While Jews themselves maintain their union and the facile unions of those who oppose their enemies).
It is surely wrong to accept the Jewish definition and calibration of the terms.
A union, a White Union, cannot be universal by definition. One is in the union or one is not.
Jews do not want us to have this because it would organize our people in a humane way which is accountable to excellence and differences at the same time.
It can err in this direction but only gets out of hand because the Jews exaggerate these possibilities in order to pander to their paying students. That is, Jewish academics are largely in the big business of selling talk to White female undergraduates: “possibilities” to create college courses and talk talk talk, criticize, criticize, criticize.
Again, exaggeration and distortion of these capacities are the result of Jewish academics who have mixed in and preyed upon enlightenment distortions in order to both misrepresent the left and turn White people off to their organizational capacity in a Left while actually using the victim groups they do marshal as an attack force against Whites.
Again, those are Jewish cultural Marxist perversions.
How can a leftist union favor the scabbing of their union by an open borders policy?
They cannot, it is a contradiction of terms.
That is what the Neo cons and other Jewish led interests are getting people to do.
The White Left is guilty of none of these things.
True, a White Class, the White Left.
This is quite well said, and I will probably take de Benoist’s and Kumiko’s advice to incorporate more snydicalist type thinking ..
I am on the radical side, but taking skepticism to quite that level is what led to the radical skepticism of the enlightenment and subsequently to liberal modernity.
The Christians are a bad example unqualified as such.
I would make it a dual entry, Jewish interests and Objectivism (which includes capitalist interests).
I agree that individualism is a large part of our problem, I understand its philosphical difficulties, but I do not want to summarily and uncritically dismiss it; but rather set it aside as a non-priority while we are under mortal threat as a group by groups.
The Jewish and Objectivist led U.S. is certainly a huge problem, but one must understand that it is Objectivism (admittedly written into its Constitution) and Jewish groups that marshal its forces against other group unionization of peoples.
I believe that Kumiko would like a chance to show that there may be a way to ride the tiger of NATO and US forces toward ethno nationalist aims.
If Christians and Muslims are attacking our enemies that is fine but we cannot be so naive as to think that these universalist and race mixing religions are people we can form formally agreed upon alliances with.
Their overall pattern is overwhelmingly against our interests and untrustworthy.
Same with blacks and Jews. There might be times when they fight groups who are harmful to us, but their overall pattern is overwhelmingly against us and untrustworthy.
Castro is anti-racist. So, I cannot agree with de Benoist.
Not true. Very untrue.
Rather than having some kind of lengthy preamble to this article, it’s better to just say this directly, and in the clearest possible language.
Much has been said about Christendom, many nationalists of many different stripes have spoken about it, but the fact is that there is no ‘White Christian Civilisation’.
It’s just someone else’s spiritual framework and someone’s else’s jurisdiction. I think it’s time to shed some light on that fact, and so this will be the first of a multi-part series on the subject.
Here’s a premier example of this framework:
Yes, that is a reverend saying that. At the Daily Stormer, they carried this article and there they highlighted the mainstream liberal aspect of the content, but they unfortunately did not mention the root of the matter.
The narrative of your ‘white privilege’ acting as a justification for the expropriation of everything that you have in your own lands is not an aberration or a distortion of Christianity as some Christian ‘nationalists’ would propose. Rather, this is the logical and final trajectory of what Christianity is about and what Christianity does.
It is an inescapable fact that Christian churches have a tendency to preach doctrines advocating your dispossession and extinction. The fact that Dorhauer is a Shalom Award recipient is not an accident or an aberration. Most Christian authorities are openly in collaboration with Jewish lobby groups. Occasionally there are what appears to be exceptions to this rule, such as an occasional bishop or pastor criticising Jewish cultural power. But those are exceptions that only prove the rule.
Christianity is not a European religion, it originated in the Levant and its fundamental ethnic character is one that caters to its original owners. It was Saul of Tarsus, who would later be known as ‘Paul’, who projected Christianity into the Graeco-Roman world. The doctrines that ‘the meek shall inherit the earth’, and that ‘the last shall be first’ are ideas that were comforting to the lower classes in the Roman Empire and which stifled the will of the strong by stamping out diversity of belief and of thought, and stacked up their own funeral pyre for them.
Centuries later, as Rome was becoming crippled under an internal rot caused partly by Christians, the co-opted Roman state then imposed Christianity at spear-point onto all Indo-European peoples that it encountered, and spread from there.
But how precisely does it operate? Let’s tackle that now.
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.
Well, the politicians’ faces are different. Al Qaeda has been substantially replaced in the chamber of Moslem horrors by Islamic State. Public opinion is better informed, public patience shorter in supply. But none of the rest - the terrorist violence, the stubbornly bien pensant political language, the lies in the press, the Establishment’s oily submissiveness towards Islam:
... and its endless devotion to multiculturalism - has changed from ten years ago today, when the London bombings scarred British national life.
In memory of that event, I thought I might reproduce the article I wrote just four days after it. I wonder if, in another ten years, the same alignment of forces will obtain, or whether something new and powerful and surprising will have entered the picture.
A train journey through the geopolitics of Al Qaeda. Or make that liberalism.
I don’t often travel to London these days. I can’t feel the same for the place as I did in my childhood. But it happened that last Thursday I was required to catch the 8.20 from Lewes to Victoria. The previous evening a Portugeuse client had flown in to London to meet with me next day at 10.00am in a Bayswater hotel. These guys pay the piper. So a trip to town could not be avoided.
Actually, it was a pleasant enough journey - quiet carriage, no twenty stone slab of lard sitting next to me. The rush hour was mostly past. The train didn’t fill until it reached multicultural East Croydon. It got in to Victoria shortly before 9.30am.
The next two hours of my life were spent going nowhere very fast and being dragged to the inevitable conclusion that my Portugeuse client would have to lunch alone. I learned from the station tannoy that the Underground was closed due to “incidents”. Other travellers, no less frustrated than I, had come into possession of the knowledge that somewhere a bus had been bombed. Then the tannoy confirmed it. Bus services were also suspended. Outside the station, London’s amazingly ubiquitous black cabs had become as rare as hens’ teeth. My mobile phone did not function. I assumed that weight of call traffic was the cause (only later did I learn that the system was switched off for fear of remote detonation of terrorist bombs).
It was time to get out of town.
The other day I received an email from a reader who expressed the same vexing disbelief felt by all of us, I would say, about the role of “the Establishment” in this vast and viscerally offensive phenomenon that has become known euphemistically as Moslem Grooming.
Steve S, I shall call him, asked how, “given the length of time, the quantity of the victims, and narrow demographics of the perpetrators and the horrific nature of the crime” there could have been literally no Establishment response, beyond an implacable will to look away.
Well, Steve, the time period over which the crime has been around is well over 25 years. Back in 1988 there had been an uproar among Sikhs in Birmingham when girls from their community were targeted by Moslem men. Then, when news of the first Rochdale trial finally broke into the press (that is, when the press was forced to report it), a retired police officer came forward to report that as long ago as the early 90s he personally was ordered not to investigate victims’ complaints. Because of the “grooming” nature of the offence, involving supposed boyfriends, drugs, alcohol, and other forms of bribing the girls, it is likely to have been initiated by Mirpuris of the second or later generations. It could have been going on thirty or even forty years ago. However, it is not limited to Mirpuri or even Pakistani Moslems today. The BNP has reported that in Wrexham, for example, the offenders are Iraqi.
Given the uncertainty of the time-scale, the quantity of victims is, of course, impossible to assess with any degree of certainty. The latest assessment for Rotherham is that there have been around 2,000 victims there alone. But Rotherham, it has been said, is dwarfed by events in Manchester and Sheffield. There has been talk of “the tip of the iceberg”. There have been over fifty cases brought to court so far – few of them reported nationally. The other day I saw someone use an estimate of 130,000 victims from day one – whenever that might have been - and that could be the right sort of scale. We just don’t know.
“Unlike its predecessor Hara Kiri, Charlie Hebdo, the liberal-libertarian newspaper, has become one of the organs of the dominant ideology. They can recognize their own.”
They recognize their own..
As such, Tanstaafl’s account is even more descriptively accurate of those behind the policies of Charlie Hebdo - they’re an organ of “neoconservatism” (a Jewish platform):
And they recognize their own under attack..
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”:
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