Trump Picks Former Goldman Partner And Soros Employee As Finance Chairman
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, 05 May 2016 23:26.
Demonstrating its perversity, The EU may fine countries for rejecting refugees
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, 05 May 2016 06:15.
YKW, Universities & The Big Business of Selling Talk
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, 04 May 2016 19:14.
Trump: We Are Going to Love Eachother
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, 04 May 2016 07:24.
Sounds Like black Privilege: Blackout on WN Concerns, Comments - Majorityrights Forum Responds
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 03 May 2016 22:36.
Muslim Set to Win London Mayor
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 03 May 2016 07:15.
To hell with making America great by unifying civic nationalism, hope is in racial strife, division
Posted by DanielS on Monday, 02 May 2016 15:23.
Half of Western European men descended from one Bronze Age “king”
Posted by DanielS on Monday, 02 May 2016 05:27.
European Union: A Complete Waste of Time?
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sunday, 01 May 2016 11:55.
Invasion and the Wrecking of Libya
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 01 May 2016 10:20.
Andrew Jackson: Nemesis of Fed, Cherokee & British, Erased by Symbol of Reversed Enslavement
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, 28 April 2016 00:18.
Hillary Clinton political critic and leading environmental activist murdered in Honduras
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 26 April 2016 19:51.
GPS based study locates origin of Yiddish and Ashkenazim in Eastern Turkey
Posted by DanielS on Monday, 25 April 2016 05:14.
A little to cheer
Posted by Guessedworker on Sunday, 24 April 2016 23:09.
Can Cosa Nostra Re-Organize on its Racial Roots in True Honor to Defend Italy and Europe?
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 24 April 2016 10:11.
Swedes Will Fight to The Last Drop of Blood to Keep this Project From Being Realized
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, 20 April 2016 22:37.
“Driving While Black” & failure of objectivist rebut: analysis of YKW discourse
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, 20 April 2016 20:12.
Scott Roberts with a bullhorn and a message to gatherings of implicit Whites (starting 45:15)
Posted by DanielS on Monday, 18 April 2016 11:49.
Lazar calls upon Medvedev to silence Vikhorev: “Jews took over under Yeltsin”
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 17 April 2016 21:09.
Germany Introduces Forced Integration
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 17 April 2016 11:06.
“Refugees” riot in Paris
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 17 April 2016 10:51.
Spain: “Legal Immigrants” and ISIS
Posted by DanielS on Friday, 15 April 2016 16:25.
Russian Federation Deployment Strategy
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, 14 April 2016 05:00.
Two From Terrible Tommy Metzger: Advice For Skins & White Separatists
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, 13 April 2016 11:38.
The Ignored Atrocity: Katyn
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, 13 April 2016 05:01.
Now Iceland Imports Rape & Race Replacement
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 12 April 2016 11:31.
How Obama Order Opened Border
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 12 April 2016 07:37.
Garrison Infrastructure Emerging Along European-Asian Alliance As Chinese Participate in Djbouti
Posted by DanielS on Monday, 11 April 2016 20:50.
Weev: Master Tactition, Semi-Tactful Infiltrator or Tactless Fool?
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 10 April 2016 19:12.
Poland’s PiS Party Endorses Draconian Anti-Abortion Law
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, 09 April 2016 09:21.
“Welcome to Leith” - A Review
Posted by DanielS on Friday, 08 April 2016 11:46.
Israel’s Hypocrisy: strict determination to maintain its EGI while opposing that of others
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, 07 April 2016 08:37.
What The Cuck? 74,340 In Attendance
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, 06 April 2016 22:52.
Majorityrights Central > Category: New Zealand Politics
Guess which one of these is applicable to Colin Liddell.
It is said that one does not always have the luxury of being able to choose where one is sent to fight. What first started out as a criticism carried out by Colin Liddell at the Alternative-Right against Andrew Anglin’s Daily Stormer, has morphed into something completely different, because of one line—one truly breathtaking sentence fragment—that Liddell tried to slide past the readers:
Amazing. Apparently, Colin Liddell is okay with allowing the Jews to form the intellectual equivalent of a forward operating base which would of course be geared entirely toward sabotage, behind the lines of ethno-nationalist movements.
It’s one of the most breathtaking things I’ve ever seen from a European ethno-nationalist, ever.
Now, Majorityrights contributors don’t like the Daily Stormer, and our platform differs significantly. I am not defending the Daily Stormer, I have no interest in that, since I disagree with them on almost everything. However, for Colin Liddell to say that there are Jews out there who want to identify as whites and ‘help’, that is a truly stunning statement. In reality, there are no Jewish groups that have any interest in helping European ethno-nationalists. That is a phenomenon which absolutely does not exist anywhere.
Why should any ethno-nationalist want to give space for Jews to enter a movement that they have been historically hostile toward and are hostile toward even today? It’s impossible to understand it. Everyone has criticisms of the Daily Stormer and negative comments to make about the viability of Andrew Anglin’s approach, but if the criticism is coming from an angle that is beneficial to the Jewish lobby, then that cannot and should not be accepted.
Many people, including Colin Liddell himself apparently believe that Jews in Europe can be courted as allies because of a perception that the Jews would be antagonistic toward the influx of Muslims and the threat of radical Islam that accompanies it. Here at Majorityrights we take the threat of the Islamisation of Europe very seriously and see it as one of the major problems of the era, a generational conflict that will continue.
However, we do not believe that the Jews can be a real ally in that conflict.
Why do we not believe that? It’s because the Jewish position is one where they would like to avoid having terrorists menacing them in their neighbourhoods in Europe, but Jewish civic groups also have no problem whatsoever balancing their concern about that against their other concern which is to avoid having an environment where a single culture predominates in the continent.
What kind of activities might be necessary in order to make sure that Muslims and Jews would both end up on the same page in that regard? They would have to schedule some kind of symposiums in which the Jewish cultural critics would brief their Muslim counterparts on what works against Europeans and what does not work, and the Jews would have to begin some kind of outreach to so-called European Muslims so that an understanding could be reached, right?
Well, here’s an example of that:
Jewish lobby groups are triangulating, they are positioning themselves so that in the case where Muslim groups become the largest share of all ethno-religious minority groups in the European Union, they would be ready for that scenario, and could survive in it.
Jews and Muslims are right now in ‘the season of twinning’, and what a time for them to have chosen to do that! See here:
Quelle surprise! The Jews want to have an amicable relationship with the Muslims. They want to explore the possibility of continuing to undermine the European Union together, while they leave the disagreement about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the Levant.
Anyone who understands the strategies that have been used by Jews when dealing with Muslims in the past, should actually not be surprised by any of this. This kind of political manoeuvring has happened in the past:
‘150 years of peace’. Also known as ‘150 years Arab Muslims raping and killing the Europeans’.
Why do the Jews seek a situation where one culture cannot dominate? Why do they want to flood your countries with hostile migrants? The answer is less complicated than you might think:
In 1993 Earl Raab also wrote:
That is a positive feedback loop. As the level of heterogeneity increases, so increases the adherence to constraints against ‘bigotry’ for the sake of civil concordance under liberalism. Those constraints then make it more difficult for anyone to make arguments in favour of taking action against further increases in heterogeneity, which then results in a ‘requirement’ for more constraints against ‘bigotry’, and so on.
The same plan is on the agenda for Europe. It’s crucial for everyone to understand that this is what their intention is. There are no compromises or negotiations that can be had with the Jews. It is what it is.
Only pretending to be retarded
Later on, a torrent of criticism was poured in Liddell’s direction from Daily Stormer and from every other angle, because despite all the differences that may exist between the strands of ethno-nationalist thought in the North Atlantic, most people seem to agree that the Jews are not to be underestimated.
Colin Liddell reacted by effectively claiming that he was only pretending to be retarded, and that they were allegedly trying to troll the Daily Stormer by partially imitating its writing style and extreme rhetoric.
This came off as particularly hollow in the context of the Jewish Question, given that when I asked Colin Liddell about whether he still stood by his earlier statements on alliances with Jews, he said that he still stood by those statements, as you can see from the comments sections.
So it was not a pretence of any sort. It’s more like Liddell’s follow-up post was a form of damage control after he had made a spectacular misstep and didn’t want to back down from it.
Greg Johnson of Counter-Currents however seems to have taken the claim of pretence at face value, without addressing the Jewish Question, and so he responded to Liddell, saying:
This is really surprising to me. Was he not aware of what Liddell was saying just earlier? The things that Liddell had said, are really 180 degrees contrary to the clearly-articulated and laudable stances that I had come to associate with Johnson. For example, a while ago, Greg Johnson ran this really good article at Counter-Currents:
That is exactly the correct stance there.
But that is exactly the opposite of what Colin Liddell was calling for on 08 Nov 2015. Since Colin Liddell thinks that Jews should be part of European ethno-nationalist groups, whereas Greg Johnson clearly visualises a future in which Jews would not be inside the European continent. Quite clearly Johnson does not believe that Jews should be part of European ethno-nationalist groups, or he would not be able to come up with such an opinion.
To repeat, the reason that Greg Johnson is able to conceptualise a future in which Jews are not in Europe, is because he does not see them as part of the European ethno-nationalist advocacy group.
How then can Johnson be okay with Liddell, given that from Johnson’s perspective, Colin Liddell would be doing ethno-nationalism precisely wrong? This looks like a clear contradiction.
In fact, Johnson went so far as to ban the commenter UH from being able to post at Counter-Currents, when UH made arguments that were quite similar to those made by Colin Liddell.
The need for consistency
The Alternative-Right has a big tent. Their big tent is completely incoherent, because it contains a whole array of people who don’t agree with each other on core issues and whose outlooks are totally irreconcilable with each other.
Majorityrights has the correct platform for the advocacy of European peoples, and their regional autonomy. It formulated this platform by firstly considering the diverse opinions of ethno-nationalists. Secondly, after a process of argumentation an authentic theory emerged, which is known as left-nationalism or national-syndicalism. Step three is to equip European peoples with these ideas which are necessary to facilitate a transition toward true ethnostates and to enter into sustainable alliances within regional frameworks.
Having an actual platform and consistently communicating that platform, is more important than trying to create the largest possible tent. The events of the past week only throw the truth of that observation into stark relief.
Kumiko Oumae works in the defence and security sector in the UK. Her opinions here are entirely her own.
Gaels were expropriated from the land between 1800 and 1830.
What is going on?
Much has been said in recent weeks about a man named Peter Sutherland. Sutherland is the United Nations Special Representative on migration, and he is an international businessman and former Attorney General of Ireland who has served in a variety of business and political roles. He was appointed to the European Commission in 1985 and had responsibility for competition policy. He was the Chairman of AIB (Allied Irish Banks) from 1989 until 1993. He was non-executive Chairman of Goldman Sachs International until June 2015. In 2010, he was appointed co-chair of an Experts Group, to report on the priority actions to be taken to stave off protectionism and to boost global trade.
Sutherland is also keenly pro-European, which doesn’t sound like a bad thing until you realise what he means by that. A person would think that it’s pretty simple, after all, when talking about the ‘European Union’, the word ‘European’ is literally in the name. But no, Sutherland is pro-European, or ‘a Europhile’, in the sense that he supports the institutions of the European Union, but he does not support the ethnic genetic interests of those who live under those institutions.
Sutherland is a person who believes that the Arab Spring should have been considered as a chance to begin ‘weaving together’ Europe with North Africa and the Middle East, population-wise. What he of course means in practice is not—not ever—a colonisation of North Africa and the Middle East by Europeans, but rather, an invitation for literally unlimited migration from North Africa and the Middle East into the European Union to displace Europeans.
Objectively speaking, that is the expropriation of European peoples from their own lands, it is a displacement. Sutherland however entreats Europeans to think of it from a humanitarian and empathetic point of view. For example, it was Peter Sutherland who described the makeshift refugee camps in Calais, as ‘an indictment on society’, and asked the British and French governments to do more to assist the Middle Eastern and North African migrants.
For the Sutherland family name, there is a long history of humanitarian and empathetic points of view being expressed by its members, when behind the hand-wringing and the appeals to a universal morality, behind the cloak of respectability and quasi-aristocratic pretensions, lurks the dagger of the most vicious blood-treason and abject profiteering which can only be expected from business-people of their calibre—a tendency which is by no means diminished but rather is reinforced by their Christian identity.
It was in January 1853, that the Stafford House Assembly of Ladies issued its call to their counterparts in North America, to ask them to consider the plight of black people in the Southern states of the United States, who had been enslaved for so long and were, in their view, in need of sympathy. They were consciousness-raising, making a call to action, and so on. That was a declaration that took place when Stafford House was under the presidency of the Duchess of Sutherland, who—much as it was in fashion then as it is in fashion now—was giving an object lesson on how easy it always is for liberals to show concern for people thousands of miles away, while ignoring the suffering of their own people close by—particularly when that suffering is caused by their own ‘humanitarian’ hand.
The whole history of the primitive accumulation that has led to the appearance of the wealth and prestige of the name Sutherland, and of other names of that type from Scotland and Ireland, is really in fact a history of the expropriation of the Gael people from their own lands, and their destruction at the hands of blood-traitors.
A quick sketch of history will be needed in order for things to become clear. In the 1100s, when the Danelaw was encroaching onto Scotland, the resistance came from the ‘Great Man of Sutherland’, a progenitor whose clan had defended him from all enemies, foreign and domestic, Scottish or Danish. After the Glorious Revolution of 1688 which installed the Dutch stadtholder William III of Orange-Nassau as King, due to the economic changes and the shift in political attitudes at the time, the internecine fighting among Gaels become less frequent, and at the same time, the propensity for Anglo-Dutch wars to erupt was reduced to zero. These things may not be the only factors, but they may comprise part of the reasons for why London was able to take the time to better integrate the Gael clans into the British military establishment, to incentivise stability by inducing these ostensibly different forms of social organisation to mutually support each other in Scotland.
The clan system of the Gaels was an array of social relations based around a progenitor and his or her progeny, which is to say, it is a relationship delimited by ties of blood and proximity. The district in which a clan operated was the land from which it gained its livelihood, much like how it was in what Marxists call ‘the Asiatic mode of production’, because it existed in a similar form in China, Japan, Korea, and various parts of South East Asia, in the pre-feudal era. It’s also comparable to the systems in some parts of the Americas before the appearance of Columbus.
It was basically a pre-feudal system of relations.
At the head of the clan was the progenitor’s family, which had a leader. The whole of the clan was like a system of blood-related family circles under them, the system could not be said to be a system of private property, because all the land was held as common land, under the military command of the progenitor. The progenitor could increase or decrease the allotment of land to subordinates as necessary, perhaps on a whim, or perhaps to fit a particular need. Under the family of the progenitor, were soldiers that administered regions, and under them were subalterns who managed towns and hamlets, and under all of them were the peasants who co-operated with the system in exchange for the benefits of a common defence perimeter and which was cemented by ties of blood.
Without an explicit legal system that could describe or allocate private property, it would be impossible to arbitrate land ownership in any way at that time. However, tradition and rank would mean that someone would have the largest influence, and the family of the progenitor, the leader in particular, would be the person who would ultimately have the final say on what would or would not be happening. This may seem benign at first, but when brought into interaction with a system that does have a concept of private property and the concept of a salary or a wage, it can potentially produce a deadly transformation which can lead to the clan’s destruction.
As all services were gradually transformed into contract-based exchanges, the leader of the family of the progenitor began to increasingly take on the role of a landlord toward the soldiers, the soldiers in turn acting like farmers toward the peasants, and the peasants themselves becoming transformed into something like sharecroppers on the land that they used to call their own.
It would be in the early 1800s that the stab in the back was to come, and it came from one of the families of the progenitors in the form of the arbitrary and violent transformation of the clan’s common property into the private property of the leader, who could then dispose of it and its contents in any way that he or she desired, backed by government-sponsored force, which then resulted in armed conflict almost like a civil war.
Karl Marx—yes, seriously—explains with great accuracy what happened after that:
There is nothing that I can add to that.
Nothing is new about what is happening now, compared to what was happening back then. Not only is the same kind of economic structure being used to carry out the destruction as was being used in the 1800s, but furthermore the very name of Sutherland has reappeared, it has reappeared as though to flaunt itself in the face of the people of the British Isles.
A new decision
Last time the great blood-traitors were able to take you down the path that they wanted—a whole ethnic group was effectively destroyed and scattered across the earth.
Now they come again, under the same names to re-invite you down the same path.
My question to all European peoples is this: Will you let them take you again?
Kumiko Oumae works in the defence and security sector in the UK. Her opinions here are entirely her own.
Too bad this guy is at one of the F nutworks. He seems to have the right instincts and some basic matters correct otherwise…seems to take an MR cue on some issues, e.g., against the Right and in advocating all Europeans. Hopefully he’ll see the reasons to drop the F, but this discussion of Celtic tribalism is interesting and irrespective of that.
While acknowledging healthy pre-Christian roots to Halloween and commemorating our persecuted pagan women..
..let us also take occasion with that to acknowledge what is probably the most important pre-Christian holiday - one to commemorate European forebears and still practiced in several European countries: November 1rst, a day to commemorate European ancestors.
Male ancestral heroes to complement the ladies:
Texas Arcane: Kwanstainia, UKandia, Kanookistan, and the OZealands
By Robert Reis
I was led to Texas Arcane by a link at http://hawaiianlibertarian.blogspot.com/ .
What follows are excerpts from Texas Arcane’s ruminations at his http://vault-co.blogspot.com/ since 2007.
He has enlightened me and caused me to think about the world in new ways.
Extensive quotations are place between parallel lines, e.g. ===.
The money people [bankers] aren’t content with just control of money and possession of most wealth in their hands, but they want to take away people’s ability to bypass their system in any way. So they’ve also been attacking the ability of individuals to grow food in one’s yard or land. A good discussion is here:
If the money masters get their way, what will happen? Easier mass starvation deaths, like the Holodomor, in regions with too many troublesome protesters against the system.
Learn, get wiser and pass it around.
Dr K R Bolton FCIS
This is nearly, not quite, a first for MR. When we started out in life, our categories were worked out to include New Zealand Politics. But only one entry, dated 18th October 2005 and by JJR, has ever been posted. Kerry Bolton, however, is on the spot and can provide some authoritive commentary. This piece, like JJR’s post, concerns the travails of the nationalist, anti-Big Business politician, Winston Peters.
The harassment, persecution and attempted prosecution of Winston Peters for alleged irregularities concerning donations either directly or indirectly to Peters and the NZ First Party have become a red-herring for the major issues facing NZ. But then again the General Elections themselves are re-herrings in regard to dealing with actual issues, and are relegated to banal party promises on tax reductions.
Peters has long been wholeheartedly hated by the usual combination of the Left and Big Business. Peters is the only politician to have taken on Big Business interests and now stands accused of accepting donations from several businessmen, principally Owen Glenn, and Robert Jones, although neither are supporters of the Party.
Glenn is, or rather was, a supporter of the Labour Party and is said to have contributed to a fund for the purposes of helping Peters’ attempt to over-turn the Tauranga election victory of National’s one-term ineffectual and clownish Bob Clarkson who defeated Peters in his own traditional stronghold at the 2004 Election. Glenn is supposed to have made the contribution on the basis that it would serve the interests of a Labour Government, which was obliged to accept NZ First support in Parliament.
Although Prime Minister Helen Clark has doggedly stood by Peters amidst the furore of allegations of financial mismanagement, if not corruption, it should be kept in mind that Labour before the necessity of seeking NZ First support, hated Peters just as much as others of the liberal-Left and Big Business. Clark often damned Peters for what she called “playing the race card”, in wanting to limit Asian immigration and in his opposition to free trade agreements with Asia.
What is also salient about the whole circus is the unconcealed satisfaction, the outright gloating, the universal glee, of the news media in seeing Peters pilloried.
The most damning evidence supposedly has come from Owen Glenn who took time out from Monaco to come back to NZ and testify that he had been asked personally by Peters for a donation, and has apparently provided documents to ‘prove’ this. Glenn states that he came back to defend his ‘reputation’ and was rather indignant that Peters had brought his character into question by the implication that he’s lying.
Glenn is also stating that Labour Party president Mike Williams invited himself aboard Glenn’s yacht for a stay in the hope of getting a job with Glenn’s business empire. Williams was able to counter this with his own documentation showing that Glenn invited him, and that Glenn was interested in being appointed honorary consul to Monaco on the basis that it would give him a diplomatic passport and would be useful for his business operations. Therefore, there is in this instance at least a convincing scenario of Glenn having given misleading statements to the Parliamentary Privileges Committee. Certainly the Williams explanation seems more plausible than that of Glenn’s.
What has been missing from all this, and for some reason Peters has not used the evidence, is the background of Glenn himself. According to several pages in “Absolute Power”, a recently published biography on Prime Minister Helen Clark by investigative journalist Ian Wishart, editor of the independent “Investigate” magazine, Glenn was involved in fraudulent business dealings concerning his shipping company, and paid $1,500,000 to US authorities in an out of court settlement to avoid prosecution. He is also claimed to have been associated with organised crime in the USA. He is also said to have kept a coked-up Black hostess, and is described allegedly by a former US associate as an “arrogant jerk”, descriptions far removed from the way he is being portrayed as the soft spoken and deeply hurt paragon of nobility by the news media. If Wishart’s allegations are not true, they would clearly be libellous and one wonders why Glenn – given his concern for his good reputation – has not sued Wishart or indeed even attempted a denial?
The whole Peters saga stinks of a conspiracy to bring down the only political leader effectively opposing the sell-out of NZ, who has been a thorn in the side of our local plutocrats for many years.
Kerry Bolton is the editor of Restoration Magazine.
AN OUTSPOKEN, anti-immigration populist politician is to be New Zealand’s new Foreign Minister. Winston Peters, who promotes racial profiling of Muslims, will become the public face of New Zealand on the world stage. New Zealand’s wild election ride came to an extraordinary finish last night as Labour Prime Minister Helen Clark cobbled together a bizarre minority Government with Mr Peters as Foreign Minister. Mr Peters, a Maori who is the leader of the New Zealand First party, is the country’s most controversial politician. He has called for immigration to be radically slashed, said the country was being “colonised” by Asians, and proposed that Muslims be racially profiled and generally kept out of New Zealand as a terror threat.