Majorityrights Central > Category: Military Matters

Matt Parrott at NPI.

Summary: A two-part critical examination, conducted by Kumiko Oumae, of many areas of Matt Parrott’s Christian traditionalism, from Matt’s faith fundamentals as an Orthodox Christian traditionalist and nationalist - in that order - to Matt’s views on freemasonry, the relationship of Judaism to Christianity, the pagan past, how religion renews, global baptism, Christian universalism, homosexuality, Africa and the population question, and Syria.

Can I just say, from a personal perspective, that I thought the interview was a success, notwithstanding any hostilities which may have existed prior to it (and since). Kumiko was very well prepped and she did a great job of maintaining a high tempo of relevant and close questioning, to which Matt responded generously.

My thanks to you both.

This is part one: The fundamentals of Matt’s Orthodox Christian traditionalism examined, Freemasonry, Judaism and Christianity, the making of religions.

1 hr 22 mins, 75 MB.

Abraham Anon

Kumiko was telling me about her disgust with Hillary and the YKW’s wars, citing an egregious collateral damage to schools and education: this will obstruct solutions to the root of social problems and exacerbate social problems from the root as the schools and formative educational years of vast demographics are being destroyed. She is enraged by the damage this will do to personal and social skills. She asks what can be done?

I suggest a new variant of the 12 step meetings. Why? Because when people have been that damaged and obstructed by an interpersonal problem - such as Islamic abuse - it will be primarily these people who have sufficient understanding; they will have sufficient concern; it will be a necessity for them to take the time and show patience; to articulate the difficulties in full significance of the impact to them and society; and to search for solutions.

People who have not gone through this will generally not have sufficient understanding of the difficulties of getting through it, even if they did have inclination and take time from their faster track to a good life to put up with the wild and frustrating expressions that result from traumatic experiences and pervasive abuse.

The “victims” themselves will carry most of the load - by “sharing their hope, strength and inspiration” indispensable coping skills will find their way among them. But that doesn’t mean that people coming from a background undergirded by normal philosophy and interpersonal relations shouldn’t interact with them; in fact, that is one of the first differences I would make from the 12 Step programs - to have intermittent interaction from people from healthy backgrounds so that they can model normalcy for them and share normal skills. To make sure that bad thinking doesn’t keep circulating and gets directed out before long.

So, there could be Visitors Meetings and Skilled Workshop Meetings to go along with the usual kinds of 12 Step meetings -

Speaker Meetings, in which one person tells the story of their struggle with the problem.

Step Meetings, in which one of the Steps is focused-on, with each person in the group having a chance to discuss their take and experience with that step.

The next change that I would propose is putting into question whether 12 should be the number of steps; of course it has pagan origin and has been hijacked by Abrahamism, but perhaps another number should be proposed to make the break more clear.

Of course the content of the steps should be significantly different as well. I will only sketch-in what they might look like. Suggestions from others are more than welcome.

One of the excellent features of the 12 step program idea is that one is not excluded for lacking skills or for not contributing dues. All that is required is a belief that you have a problem with the stated issue of the meeting group and that you comply with a few of its basic guidelines. There are no leaders. You agree to not expose the identity of those who go to meetings and to not gossip about them to people outside the group. You agree enough with the 12 steps (rather, we’ll go with 14 steps, why not?) to allow them to provide coherence; and, except for speaker meetings, you allow a chance for each person who wants to talk.

Ok. There are probably some things that I’m forgetting but that’s enough to start. Let me have a stab at how the steps might read:

The 14 Steps of Abraham-Anon

1. Came to understand that I had a problem with Abrahamism and that I could not handle it alone.

2. Came to identify positive attributes of my distinct race and my share in these positive attributes. Affirmed these daily to provide faith in mine and my people’s worth as opposed to the Abrahamic god.

3. Conducted a fearless and searching personal inventory in order to purge its memes which may harm myself, my people, and in order to make amends to anyone who I have harmed in the name of Abrahamism or because I was inappropriately directing my response to it.

4. Came to understand the truth of how harmful Abrahamism is.

5. Came to understand Abrahamism is not a necessary evil nor a relative cultural preference; there are other “gods” and better ways.

6. Came to understand that its practice and promotion must be rejected by our people.

7. Came to understand that its perpetrators can and must be punished - ranging from denunciation, to social ostracism, to denationalization, to severe personal punishment in some cases.

8. Came to believe in the priceless gift of serenity to be found in the faith that my race, my place within it, and our interests are being looked after by the best and greater part of my people; by myself included.

9. Came to believe not only in the reality of distinct kinds of people, but also their right to preserve their differences.

10. Came to believe in the DNA Nation and international ethno-nationalism (genetic and territorial bounds); as the means to such maintenance of distinct peoples; their quantities and qualities of genetic inventory; their habitats through national territorial delimitations; qualitative and quantitative foreign enclave delimitations.

11. Came to believe that the Abrahamic religion and the Abrahamic man is already an imperialist hybrid and therefore his fate and place is the subject of our discretion.

12. Came to believe that Abrahamism can and should be destroyed once and for all.

13. Came to believe facilitating that destruction to be our prerogative as the people who are willing and capable of respecting racial differences, their right to be preserved in ethno-states, among the DNA Nation; and knowing that there is no avoiding the issue of morals - that every society will have some things that are legitimate, some things prohibited and some things obligated - will seek moral orders based on the Silver Rule as opposed to The Golden Rule.

14. Came to understand that the homeostasis of our ethnostates are contingent upon having the decency and wisdom to respect an option for sacred and devotional enclaves for those preferring strict monogamy (e.g., they want to choose carefully enough, devote themselves to that important choice; and/or concentrate on their endeavors otherwise, not chasing around for partners); and that those wanting to protect more liberal personal prerogatives must assent to that sacrosanct option and to strict national borders of citizenship -  paradigmatic conservatism.

The Joint Inquiry Into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of 11 September 2001 has now had the 28 pages relating to Saudi Arabia declassified.

This means that an area of this document that used to be completely covered in black bars, now is almost completely visible. The Saudis were strongly opposed to having this section declassified and made available, as was the executive branch of the US. However, contradictions between different factions in the US Congress has led to a situation where it has been declassified.

Predictably, the framing that the western media has given it, is to try to portray it as though there is nothing interesting in the document. Nothing could be further from the truth. Every paragraph is actually interesting.

Here is a small selection of what is inside, with highlights placed on it by me:

That is just a narrow selection of what is inside the document. I leave it to our readers to decide whether it looks interesting or not.

We should never forget that the attacks of 11 September 2001 were not just an attack against the United States, but rather an attack against the whole world. The centre of world finance, albeit flawed, had not exhausted its progressive potential, but it was attacked by the most regressive and most backward social forces. It is incumbent on us all to acknowledge where that attack came from and who supplied the ideological and logistical support which made it possible.

It should be clear that when the next memorial for the 11 September 2001 attacks is held, it should not be a time to make an oath of peace. Rather it should be a time to renew our intentions and recommit ourselves to permanent and neverending global war against all those who threaten to pull us asunder.

[Download PDF]

In the environment of Brexit as it presently exists, there are very few things which can be said as a certainty. Any real analysis of events really is going to begin after markets open on Monday morning, once political actors find themselves at work trying to figure out how to guide the UK’s ship of state forward.

One thing which can already be seen however, is the budding counter-narrative which those who are in favour of continuing the EU’s mass migration trend inside of the remaining 27 member states of Europe, are going to make up.

But before I present the counter-narrative which they are going to make up, I should first present what the actual reality is.

The presently existing and frankly obvious reality is that Brexit was largely a consequence of:

• The pro-migration decisions made by the European Commission and the Council of the European Union, along with specific leaders such as Angela Merkel and Stefan Löfven.


• The stances of the US State Department and the UK FCO during the 2011 - 2013 period which created the perfect storm of conflict which opened up routes for a whole wave of rapid migration from the Middle East and North Africa to enter the European Union.


• The policies adopted by the ECB which exacerbated the 2008 crisis, prolonging it in the South of Europe and left much of South Eastern Europe in a state of underdevelopment, making the European Union one of the worst economic performers in the world in the post-2008 environment.


• David Cameron’s attempt to renegotiate the terms of UK membership of the European Union so as to placate the concerns of the British public and dis-incentivise a ‘Leave’ result, were handled incompetently by the Commission and the Council, because they seemed to think that Cameron was trying to troll them, when in fact what Cameron was trying to do was help the Commission to help itself. Statements from Jean-Claude Juncker and Angela Merkel hotly asserting that the agreement made with David Cameron was ‘non-binding’ in front of the whole world, were a classic case of the Commission’s incompetence as a political player, and Merkel’s actual stupidity.

The pro-European faction of the British bourgeoisie could not contain the populist response to these developments, and so incapable were they of containing it that one rival faction of the British bourgeoisie began to believe that charting a course outside of the EU was better for their own interests as well as the country as a whole. That rival faction correctly surmised that harnessing the populist response could take them to that place. This is what led to the creation of a ‘Leave campaign’, led by a collection of prominent Tories implicitly in alignment with a small segment of the Labour Party (Labour Leave), and UKIP. This faction of the British bourgeoisie expertly and valiantly exploited the situation as it was unfolding, to guide the British people toward a Leave vote, which enabled that faction to claim a mandate to de-pool the UK’s sovereignty out of the EU and exit the bloc entirely.

The above observations—also known as ‘the facts of reality’—are unacceptable to the European establishment on the continent, because the implications of this mean that they would see increased calls for them to stop doing what they are presently doing or else risk the total dissolution of the European Union as the same pattern could potentially emerge in other member states.

The European Union’s leaders really don’t want to sacrifice their mass migration agenda or their austerity agenda in order to save the union itself. They want to have their cake and eat it, and the only way they can do that is to try to convince the broad mass of the European population that the root problem is somehow actually the opposite of what it really is.

So instead, everyone will be told that somehow the reason for Brexit is because the EU itself somehow stoked ‘Islamophobic tendencies’ by implicitly approving of them—astonishingly—because it somehow didn’t prostrate itself to the needs and concerns of Turks as well as Arabs and North Africans quite enough for their liking, and that by not prostrating itself it somehow gave the signal that it was okay to not prostrate oneself, which somehow led to Brexit.

Sounds impossible? Oh, it’s possible. Indeed, they would have to have some real gall to try to flip the script at this stage in the game, yet they are going to try it, and Erdogan is leading the way as the first one to attempt it this absurdity:

Daily Sabah, ‘Erdogan: EU’s reluctance to accept Turkey has Islamophobic motives’, 24 Jun 2016 (emphasis added):

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said the European Union is reluctant to accept Turkey as a full member due to its Islamophobic motives.

Speaking at an iftar dinner in Istanbul on Friday, Erdogan said “The EU’s double standard policy towards Turkey has become an undeniable fact,”

Touching upon the referendum held on June 23 in the United Kingdom to decide whether or not to stay in the EU, he said that the Britons’ decision to leave the union will mark a new era for the EU.

Erdogan further added that the EU is likely to face more exits in short term if it “continues on the same path.”

U.K. voters opted to leave the EU in a historic referendum on Thursday, sparking worries across European capitals over the political future of the bloc.

Almost 52 percent of voters rejected their country’s 43-year EU membership.

Erdogan stressed that Turkey has always given its due importance to the acceleration of Turkey’s EU membership bid but the bloc has always been delaying the process.

“Double standards are no longer hidden. They have put more obstacles on Turkey’s path. They have been keeping Turkey waiting at their door for 53 years.”

During his speech, Erdogan also criticized EU’s asylum procedures.

“The EU bloc’s bad humanitarian and immoral approach to immigrants has led to a serious debate about the trustworthiness of the European Union,” he said.

The EU and Turkey signed a refugee deal on March 18, which aimed to discourage irregular migration through the Aegean Sea by taking stricter measures against human traffickers and improving the conditions of nearly 3 million Syrian refugees in Turkey.

The deal also allows for the acceleration of Turkey’s EU membership bid and visa-free travel for Turkish nationals within the Schengen area, on the condition that Ankara meets 72 requirements set by the EU.

Although Turkey fulfilled most of the criteria last month, differences between Brussels and Ankara on anti-terror legislation have forestalled the visa-liberalization deal.

Turkey began its EU accession talks in 2005. In 1963, Turkey and the European Economic Community (the EU’s former name) signed an association agreement.

Welcome to topsy-turvy land. In coming weeks I can almost guarantee that the political figures in Europe will begin partially echoing Erdogan’s sentiments, and Europeans will be told that the only way to avoid future ‘exits’ is for people like Merkel and Löfven to show even more ‘leadership by example’, so that ‘love can triumph over hatred’.

Achieving Frexit, Nexit, Czechxit, Polexit, and every other kind of exit, becomes increasingly more likely as the European leadership increasingly proves itself to be mentally retarded. Now that Brexit has actually succeeded, I’m perfectly happy to nihilistically contribute to propagating the narrative that ends the whole EU and gives space for something stronger and better to rise in its wake.

The strong shall live and the weak shall die. This applies to people, but also to institutions. The first word in the term ‘European Union’ is ‘European’, and if the European Union can no longer coherently act as the economic arm of Europe’s defence in complement to NATO, then the European Union shouldn’t exist. It’s obvious. If the EU leadership couldn’t handle a simple problem like the migration crisis and its political fallout, and if it couldn’t even see off challenges from diverse opportunists like Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, Gisela Stuart, Nigel Farage, Priti Patel, Liam Fox, Andrea Leadsom, Iain Duncan Smith and Lord Ashcroft, then frankly the EU does not deserve to exist as a structure.

The flag of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the symbol of the strongest political power in Europe, and those who want strength gather around it.

Vote Leave on 23 June.

Summary: This interview was hosted by Henrik Palmgren at Red Ice Radio, and the roundtable discussion was about Brexit and its significance for Europe and the world.

The first hour is freely available for all to download, the second hour is available with a subscription to Red Ice Radio.

The participants on the roundtable were:

• Henrik Palmgren: Henrik Palmgren was born in Götaland, Sweden, the land of the Goths. He is the founder and Editor-and-Chief of Red Ice. Henrik is best known as the host of Red Ice Radio and TV, producing most of its content. He is primarily concerned with European heritage, culture and counteracting global internationalists.


• Guessedworker (GW): An English nationalist in favour of international nationalism. Having lived in 1950s era Britain, he has since seen his nation undermined by neo-liberalism and Jewish-inspired leftism. He created Majorityrights.com in 2004 as a forum to find solutions for the myriad of problems facing not only the British people, but all European peoples as well.


• Kumiko Oumae: The Eurasian affairs contributor for Majorityrights.com. She believes that in order for Europe to control its own destiny – and for it to be a good trade and global development partner for Asian countries – there must be a serious dialogue on Europe’s historical role in the world and the justification of that role, as well as how the European states can resolve the crisis of legitimacy that their governments are presently facing. Kumiko also works in the security and defence sector in the United Kingdom.


• Daniel Sienkiewicz: An ex-pat American of European descent, living in Europe. He has been troubled by the implications of “anti-racism” and has been testing various means to advocate for European peoples for as long as he can remember. Daniel rejects many common approaches, including all characteristically Cartesian attempts, such as scientism, as ineffective means to solve the problems that currently threaten ethnic Europeans.

We were honoured to have the opportunity to link up with Red Ice Radio in this way, they have our thanks.

Red Ice Radio, ‘Brexit: Time for the UK to Leave the EU’, 17 Jun 2016:

We begin by discussing Brexit and its significance in the ongoing struggle between nationalism and internationalism. Kumiko argues that, in many ways, the current economic paradigm in the West isn’t quite internationalism proper, but rather the United States being allowed to dominate due to passivity on behalf of the European Union. Despite a few minor disagreements, all three guests adamantly support withdrawal from the European Union. We then discuss the original vision of the European Union – that of a unified, more prosperous Europe – and how the elites therein have sabotaged that vision by allowing in millions of non-European immigrants. Later, we talk about the unfortunate lack of patriotism within certain European countries. We conclude this episode with a discussion on the manner in which the mainstream media has used the murder of Jo Cox as an excuse to those in favor of Brexit.

Links:

• Majorityrights.com - The politics and metapolitics of 24th June 2016
• Majorityrights on Twitter
• Red Ice Radio
• Red Ice Radio on Twitter

UK politics - US politics - liberalism - Obama - Judaism -  Christianity - Islam - Orlando - Cox - Rigby - immigration - EU - Bataclan - Brexit

We know what Merkel, her policies on immigration and Islam are worth. Obama’s support for “remain” is clear, and his immigration policies and stance regarding Islam are coherent with Merkel as well.

Inasmuch as EU membership reflects America’s propositional notion of nationhood, immigration, citizenship and Visa policy, to “remain” is either to allow yourselves as native British to be murdered or to be compelled to a suicide mission at the behest of ruthless elites who have no concern for your genetic inheritance.

US President Obama on the Jo Cox assassination: he condemns the act but not the religions and those who impose immigrants upon European peoples; nor the genocide it entails for the native British. On the contrary, he telephoned Cox’s husband to express condolences and released a statement praising her commitment and service…

For what Obama is worth: Did Obama call the family of Lee Rigby? In that event, did he so much as implicate Islam, the responsibility of migrants and those, including the other Abrahamic religions, which impose migration upon the UK?

Did Obama recognize the necessity for moratorium on immigration, repatriation, criminalization of Islam - an ememy political action group dedicated to sedition and insurrectionist overthrow of non-Muslim governments? Would his backers recognize our need to overcome liberal imposition of non-natives upon Europeans, whether upon us as native nationals or in diaspora? Would he care? Quite the opposite:

“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!” - Barack Obama addresses Berlin in 2008

That was to call for opening the floodgates which would genocide European peoples.

And the walls of Rotherham, the walls between adult Muslims and under aged girls in the UK?

Britain needs to Brexit, and watch out for what the YKW, their objectivist dupes and sell outs will do by means of their proxy, The US, whether with Hillary or Trump in the Presidency; they will try to have us follow the agenda for which Obama acted as just another conduit. For them we can die: through subjection to, or by fighting, the cataclysm they’ve imposed.

The Orlando massacre was just the latest incarnation of an Isis sympathizer who had a little help form his friends.  ... this will be the summer of Isis. Isis has infiltrated our country and infiltrated into much of Europe. They have done this in large part through this Refugee Resettlement program that continues, in this country unabated by a President who appears, from what I can see, to be a Muslim sympathizer… who is more concerned that American citizens might upset the sensibilities of these so called moderate Muslims… I have no idea who these people are, or where they exist. Islam is Islam and in Islam they make no room at all for anybody outside of their faith. I don’t know where these moderate Muslims are that we keep hearing about. I don’t see that any have emerged to condemn these attacks; and it looks to me from my perspective that this country is sitting on a time bomb that was set in motion by our own President Barrack Obama: he has, up until this point in his Presidency issued nearly one million green cards for people from Muslim countries to come and resettle in this country. With this Refugee Resettlement program that’s happening out of Syria right now - just since the attack in Orlando - another 49 Syrians have been placed in the Orlando area.

                                                                                                                                - Sean Bergen, Political Cesspool

UK politics - US politics - liberalism - Obama - Judaism -  Christianity - Islam - Orlando - Cox - Rigby - immigration - EU - Bataclan - Brexit

This is not a call to passivity, but rather to make sure that we are not used by the YKW and objectivist sell-outs for the fact that we are not well sorted and coordinated - for the fact that our enemy list is not complete; and for the fact that our friend and in-group list is not sufficiently organized and coordinated.

Brexit and in-gathering of European peoples is a necessary first step to proper sorting. Clearly we have to do it for ourselves. We cannot rely on the US, a propositional nation, to facilitate our sorting requirements - even if Trump is the lesser of evils and supports Brexit, is he really capable of deviating sufficiently from Jewish interests? Let him help if he will, but don’t trust him to do it for us - certainly not when it comes to drawing the lines of us - them - friends and enemies.

               
Our enemies such as Schulz and Merkel obligate us to accept immigration and servitude to foreigners and to them unto our death. EP President Schulz: Germany exists only in order to ensure the existence of the Jewish people.

Our enemies, such as former French President, Sarkozy, in 2008, and Merkel in 2016, obligate the native Europeans to breed themselves out of existence with non-Whites.

While the minions of EU welcome its people’s death…

In Israel, our enemies are quite intent to see that immigration is controlled at their border.:

READ MORE...

Times of Israel, ‘Ties with Israel have never been closer, says Russian chief rabbi’, 08 Jun 2016 (emphasis added):

Russian President Vladimir Putin speaks with Russia’s Chief Rabbi Berel Lazar in the Jewish Museum in Moscow, Thursday, June 13, 2013. (AP Photo/Alexander Zemlianichenko)

MOSCOW – Israeli-Russian relations are reaching unprecedented heights, Russia’s chief rabbi said Tuesday, positing that the countries are rapidly improving ties because they are each “snubbed” by the international community.

“There’s never been a time when the ties were so close,” Rabbi Berel Lazar told The Times of Israel. “There’s no question that if you think back 40, 50 years — even 25 years ago when the relations started, it was still very cold. Israel was taboo. I remember those days when we dreamed of the Russian president visiting Israel; it was something nobody thought would be possible.”

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited Moscow this week for his fourth meeting with President Vladimir Putin in less than 12 months. The Israeli leader was received with many official honors, a welcome he called “exceptional.”

Lazar, who was born in Italy, received his rabbinic ordination in the US and has been serving as Russia’s chief rabbi since 2000, is scheduled to meet Netanyahu Wednesday morning together with other senior leaders of the local Jewish community.

The improving ties between Moscow and Jerusalem can, in part, be attributed to the common experience of terrorism but also to shared cultural and economic goals, Lazar said.

“It’s also because today Russia is being snubbed by others, and Israel is more or less in same situation, they found each other,” he said. “Some countries in the world like to feel they’re the policemen of the world. They’re the ones to tell Russia and Israel what they should do. I think the time has come for world leaders to sit around the table and understand we’re all equal. There shouldn’t be different standards for different countries. You can’t expect from Israel more than from any other country.”

Said to be close to Putin, Lazar — who belongs to the Chabad Lubavitch Hasidic movement — is sometimes criticized as too uncritical of the Kremlin’s policies.

While Moscow does not seek to replace the United States’ as Jerusalem’s most important ally, Netanyahu is taking a “risk” by getting closer to Putin, the chief rabbi surmised.

“Israel has a simple message: we don’t put all our eggs in one basket. We don’t rely only on America. There are a lot of other countries in the world, Russia is one of them, and we’re going to build a relationship with as many countries as possible,” he said.

“In past years, Israel was much closer to the US than to Russia, but that was when America listened to Israel more. And today when America is not listening to Israel and is not realistic about the problems Israel is facing, I think that Israel has all the right to turn to other countries, find more friends and supporters, including Russia.” he added.

“In past years, Israel was much closer to the US than to Russia, but that was when America listened to Israel more. And today when America is not listening to Israel and is not realistic about the problems Israel is facing, I think that Israel has all the right to turn to other countries, find more friends and supporters, including Russia.” he added.

Some countries will not be thrilled about Israel getting closer to Russia and therefore Netanyahu “is taking a risk by coming here” so regularly, he said, adding that he has only been in Washington once in the last year.

The last time an Israeli leader was received in the Russian capital with such honors is over a decade ago, Lazar said.

“It’s really showing the world how much Israel is viewed in a positive way in Russia today. Look at the press in Europe; look at the press in Russia. Look at anti-Semitism in Europe; look at anti-Semitism in Russia. Look at how the president [Putin] is really involved in what’s going on in the Jewish community and how in other places in the world, [the leaders] don’t care about the Jews.”

Despite his lavish praise for Putin, Lazar did not deny that Russia often votes against Israel in international forums and sells weapons to Israel’s enemies in the region.

However, he argued that Moscow considers Israel’s security as “of utmost importance.”

“After every meeting they [Putin and Netanyahu] had in the past, Prime Minister Netanyahu walks out and says, ‘I got enough assurances, I have nothing serious to worry about; we feel Russia really understands our issues and cooperates with us,’” said Lazar.

As opposed to the US and Europe, Russia has friendly relations with some Arab states and Iran, the chief rabbi said. “And sometimes because of these relations [the Russians] have leverage that other countries don’t have. They feel it’s important for them to keep a certain kind of balance.”

The implications of this should be fairly obvious to everyone, and needs no long elaboration. All of this captures the essence of what we at Majorityrights have been trying to warn the pro-Russia crowd about all along.

The Jewish lobby doesn’t place all their eggs in one basket, and Russia’s economic and military connections to the Arab world can always be used as leverage to produce outcomes that are favourable to Israel.

One memorable example of this can be found during the earlier stages of the Syrian conflict in 2013, when John Kerry demanded that the government of Syria must come to the table and agree to surrender its chemical weapons and dissolve its chemical weapons battalions, thus ceding all of the strategic gains against Israel that had been secured through the development and enhancement of those weapons.

People were sceptical as to the enforceability of this demand. After all, couldn’t Syria simply go to Russia and ask to be supplied with the S-300 and some Su-30s, and thus severely decrease the ability of the United States to threaten them?

That was not to be, as Vladimir Putin and Sergei Lavrov would ‘rise’ to Kerry’s challenge of ridding Syria of weapons within a week, by turning around and using their leverage over Syria to force them into accepting the challenge, by refusing to supply Syria with the S-300, and then brokering the handover of all Syria’s chemical weapons to the international community.

Absolutely classic.

          The Sermon on The Mount Ensconces The Golden Rule of Altruism

Majorityrights prefers to deal with verifiable reality as opposed to speculative theory and faith based systems of rules as we look after the interests of our people. We are looking after genetic groupings and genetic interests as key criteria, even if these are not the only important verifiable criteria to keep track of our peoplehood and that of others. Rationale and rule structures are another criteria for that purpose.

While existence is of course equiprimordial to genetic interests, to secure it for any span and legacy requires rationale and varying degrees of sophistication to negotiate complex rule structures of interaction. “Rules” (1) are the term of common currency that we will use for the logics of meaning and action that people use to negotiate interaction and these complex, protracted exchanges beyond episode, close personal relationships in yield to maturity of their full social system; and its relation to other social systems.

For those of us who are coming from this kind of perspective, where we perceive ourselves as rationally and empirically grounded, it is difficult to understand someone like pastor David Blackburn, his love of Jesus that would have him not only forgive, but want to share his love of Jesus with the men who raped and murdered his wife and unborn child; but to my knowledge, he is at least not hoping to get them released from prison.

It is even more difficult to understand European peoples allowing, even welcoming foreign incursions into The U.K., Sweden, France and Germany - it is difficult to fathom the mindset of a Merkel, who would destroy our European peoples in service to non-Europeans. But there is one rule, convoluted rule, that they have in common and makes their position intelligible to us despite their apparent irrationality.

The Golden Rule is a part of the Sermon on the Mount, which is a central text in the Christian faith. It states: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. There are similar instructions in many other cultures.

Despite receiving high respect and wide popularity, the rule raises critical questions. What is the recommendation more exactly, and is it good advice?

This post will prepare a discussion of the work of Jan Tullberg - viz., the difference between the golden rule of benevolence as opposed to the silver rule of reciprocity - as it applies to assist in the reconstruction of a necessary consensus of moral rules among European peoples and for coordinating our relations to others.
____________

There is a consensus among advocates of European peoples that in essence we seek to secure the existence of our people. There is much dispute over how that is to be done…

READ MORE...