Majorityrights Central > Category: New Right
Stop giving up your personal information to these people.
Angela Merkel and her government full of rabid liberals, have decided that they’d like to raise the pitch and tempo of their agenda of increasing mass migration, to the next level. Now they want to actively data-mine Facebook so that they can track you down if you disagree with the mass migration plan.
Germany is probably one of the worst places in Europe to live, if you care about ethnic genetic interests in any sense of the term.
Merkel has found a perfect partner in crime in Zuckerberg, since Zuckerberg’s politics are almost exactly identical to Merkel’s.
Quite seriously. And it shouldn’t be surprising.
There is an amicable relationship between Facebook and German liberalism.
This is not unprecedented, given that Facebook has always had a very disdainful view of its users.
Recall from back in 2010:
I don’t know how many times I’ve had to tell people this, but if you give your personal information to Facebook, you are basically out of your mind. If you give your personal information to Facebook while making posts on Facebook that German liberals do not like, then you are even more out of your mind.
People need to stop giving personally indentifiable information to Facebook. Just stop giving it to them.
I present this article for the purpose of driving that point home to anyone who is still having doubts about this. Just stop giving it to them.
There was a trading dhow on this flag for a good reason.
Christians and liberals neither understand the threat environment nor do they have the inner motive energies that can be harnessed for the war against Islamism. A new type of European consciousness that completely rejects and opposes the semitic god, will have to manifest if Europeans are going to be able to continue to contribute meaningfully to the defence of global trade routes on which they and their partners depend in order that their societies can flourish, and for the defence of the European peoples in their homelands. Wealth is not an end in itself, wealth is a means to an end, in the same sense that a person driving a car needs to fill up at the service station before attempting their journey.
That sounds about right to me.
Once upon a Time in Eurasia
It is said among traders and among contractors that we won’t laugh unless we’re profiting, and that we won’t cry until we’re completely bankrupt. It’s a good saying. Of course, this is only a rationalisation of a feeling that is completely natural in every way, one which in earlier times in human history would not have needed to be enunciated by anyone. These kinds of sentiments are taking people back to the past, even though they are very modern-sounding expressions. If you think about it you’ll realise that this is a motivational logic that applies in almost every honest expression of the relations of production.
There are some modern phrases that lack the appropriate level of nuance, though. For example, when speaking of time scales growing longer or shorter, people will say that time is money. Money of course being an indication of a promise to do productive work.
In agrarian times long past, the phrase ‘time is money’, would have had a slightly different meaning. Rather than speaking of how fast a task is completed, it instead would have been a reference to the appropriateness of the timing of the actions. It wasn’t about ‘punctuality’. It was about instinctively knowing when to act, being able to skip some of the rationalisation process through an intuition that is hardwired into one’s alleles. The people sensed when it would be most appropriate to take an action, and they did it. If it required leadership, then the leader sensed when to harness the motive energies of the people and then did so. The sense of ‘time’ was entirely different from the sense of ‘time’ that presently exists. Time was seen as a cycle that spiralled upwards on each of its turns. When a person would participate in seasonal festivals, re-enacting the same stages over and over as the wheel of the seasons turned, re-enacting the deeds of the past, that person would no longer be in ‘profane time’, but would instead be immediately and—literally—magically taken back to the ‘sacred time’, the foundational and primordial story around which that society ontologically is founded.
And then came the Abrahamic monotheists to disrupt everything. They set human beings against their own senses and against their own intuition by emphasising a false distinction between mind and body. They created a separation between the people and the land that they evolved on. They were not the only ones to attempt this, but particularly in Europe and the Near East, it is impossible to talk about this issue without actually pointing out that Abrahamic religion is a central factor to the process of the alienation of people from themselves and their dispossession from their own land.
The Christian church twisted the minds of the European peoples, turning the mechanisms of their own survival instincts against themselves. Islam also did the same from without, it attacked people for the sake of accomplishing the same purposes, and these are essentially the same phenomenon, all branching from Judaism. All the expressions of Middle Eastern monotheism spring up in the physical world from the after-effects of a desertification event that occurred in the Middle East and North Africa about 4000 years ago, an event which a priestly class seized upon so as to cement their control. Those population groups then tried by every means possible, to impose their warped social institutions and practices onto the neighbouring populations.
Europeans struggled, for centuries, to succeed at living fulfilling lives not because of Christianity, but rather, despite Christianity. But at long last, the European continent has begun to shed the vestiges of Christianity. Since about the early 1970s, Christianity has been on a steady decline in Europe, less and less people are finding it to be convincing than ever. And for a moment, perhaps it appeared that this would be the end of the story. But it is not the end. It could not be allowed to end so easily, it seems. Instead, what has happened is that Islam has inflicted itself onto the continent as yet another wave of semitic religious assault. It is as though there is a malicious force out there which does not want you to be free, it’s as if there is something out there which wants to enslave you all.
That is only intended to be a very loose description of what has been happening, consider it like a loose narrative which will be expanded on at a different time. It should however be enough—for now—to give a general idea of what viewpoint I’m taking here.
Shaking the Kaleidoscope
Being able to conceive of this as a fight that has been going on for thousands of years is something that is crucial to being able to understand the most recent assault wave that is taking place.
The European Union is presently in a situation where the breakdown of law and order in Libya and the failure to re-establish the rule of law in that territory has led to a 70% increase in the number of Islamic fundamentalist groups operating in that area. Furthermore, the inability of the European Union to impose border controls from the Libyan side of the border, and the complete disintegration of the system of border controls that Libya used to use to stem the flow of migrants from East and Central Africa across trafficking routes into Southern Europe, has led to a massive increase in migration heading toward the European Union. At the same time, various governments have enacted laws that act as financial incentives for economic migrants to try to risk their lives to enter the European Union illegally, and has in turn facilitated the expansion of already-existing trafficking networks who are able to make exorbitant profits from the trade in human beings. This has in turn enabled the traffickers to expand their operations and become more sophisticated.
Migrants are also flowing from Syria and Iraq, along multiple routes that lead into Europe. Some of those people are fleeing persecution at the hands of ISIL because the leaders of the North Atlantic have not yet shown the political courage to commit themselves to ground war in Mesopotamia to undo the damage that has been done by the rise of ISIL.
At the centre of all of this, is now ISIL, which intends to graduate into being able to carry out strikes inside Europe by sending its operatives to form terrorist cells, which would be included among the economic migrants and asylum seekers, and who would be able to acquire their weapons through weapons smuggling networks which have existed in Central Asia and the Balkans since at least the late 1980s and are still intact.
As is clearly obvious, the threat involved for Europe is extremely severe. This is warfare against a foreign enemy that fights in new and inventive ways to harm the interests of peoples of around the world by attacking targets both foreign and domestic. As the line between foreign and domestic targets is blurred—after all, what is the functional difference between a trading house being attacked domestically, and a shipping port or an oil services office being attacked overseas—so too the line between foreign policy and domestic policy is blurred as a result of this, and as a consequence the line between policing and warfare becomes very thin. And furthermore, in a highly integrated set of national economies, intelligence collected by one country might be more useful to a partner country than it is to the country that actually collected it, meaning that policing and intelligence have increasingly become just as supranational as warfare has become under the NATO framework.
Unfortunately, the domestic appearance of the conflict has led to many misunderstandings about what the fundamental nature of this conflict really is. Many people who are skeptical of the severity of the threat, like to argue that terrorism is ‘a tactic and not an enemy’, and that somehow this means that all of these could be handled as a police matter within individual member states of the European Union. They do this because they took the term ‘War on Terror’ literally, rather than as a piece of political rhetoric, and didn’t remember that what it actually is called is ‘Overseas Contingency Operations’. We are not actually ‘fighting terror’ in the sense that it is commonly understood. We’re protecting lines of supply and hard assets from interference by hostile Islamic state or Islamic non-state actors which happen to frequently employ terrorism as a tactic. The ‘War on Terror’ is an umbrella, it’s a toolbox which is tailored for dealing with the challenges of the post-Cold War environment and for tying off loose ends that were left untied. It’s a toolbox full of tools that can be used to manage disorder and keep it at bay.
We are not at war with every single group in the world that happens to use terrorism as a tactic. We’re at war with those which threaten the interests of the North Atlantic and those of its global defence and trade partners.
There are three things that make the war against Al-Qaeda and Al-Qaeda-inspired groups, as well as ISIL in particular, different from criminal investigations into organised crime or measures taken by police to tackle domestic social problems. Firstly, the Islamists are not seeking purely to accrue gains for a syndicate. They have explicitly geopolitical objectives, namely, that they would like the states of the North Atlantic and their partners to abandon all of their enterprises in the Middle East. Their purpose is not solely to make money for a narrow clique of individuals, but rather, to in fact stymie the development of productive forces by accruing the power to deny us access to natural resources or to otherwise interfere with shipping. Secondly, these people have shown that they are willing and able to create events that are both violent and spectacular, and cause massive property damage to hard assets to such an extent that it cannot be categorised as crime but in fact is plainly visible to all as an act of war. This is something that they themselves are willing to acknowledge and even boast of. Thirdly, the Islamists are a completely foreign ideology which finds its safe havens outside the North Atlantic, and is a culturally foreign threat in the sense that Islam is not European, and Islamists consider themselves to be at war against European society on the most fundamental level.
Still others have made criticisms talking about how it is ‘un-European’ to detain people for effectively indefinite periods in clandestine detention facilities, and even that having intelligence services being patched into the processing of asylum seekers, is ‘un-European’. We’ve also seen recently that many politicians seem happy to hang up signs marked “All Refugees Welcome”, as though anyone seeking to cross borders in the middle of a 14-year long war is supposed to be regarded as completely non-suspicious.
What is the usual rationale that is taken toward detention of wartime combatants? The obvious purpose of wartime detention, has historically been to prevent the detained individual from returning to the battlefield to take up arms against us again. Normally, detainees are released after the formal cessation of hostilities. Therefore, given that this is a war, those who were detained at some point over the past 14 years, should be able to be detained for the entire duration of the ‘War on Terror’, which is to say, so long as Overseas Contingency Operations are being carried out against Islamic groups. Since it is difficult to determine when that time might actually come, it makes sense to me that an enemy combatant picked up on the battlefield in the ‘War on Terror’ can indeed rationally be held for what is effectively ‘indefinitely’, but that would only be because the enemy refuses to surrender, not because anyone in the North Atlantic necessarily has any explicit desire to detain someone without trial ‘forever’. The so-called ‘indefinite detention’ was just inherent to the logic of events which unfolded.
One of the most unfortunate things is how people have not processed or understood the idea that making all of these things illegal would also reduce flexibility and make the North Atlantic entirely too predictable in its behaviour. Having some ambiguity can actually be a good thing sometimes.
Failure to Understand the Threat Environment
Now we see liberals doing this:
It’s clear that liberals are not capable of selecting policy preferences that are suitable to the threat environment that Europe faces, nor are they able to understand that this is fourth generation warfare and that security needs to be everywhere because the fighting is asymmetrical and the force composition of the enemy includes ‘civilians’. The enemy organises in Mesopotamia and seeks to control cells within Europe’s borders, and they also seek to radicalise 2nd and 3rd generation Muslim immigrants inside Europe through the internet. In the present social media environment, it is extremely difficult to monitor, much less control, the sheer volume of material that is out there for them to interact with or consume.
There are three emergent phenomena among young jihadists in Europe that are becoming more prevalent since the start of the so-called ‘Arab Spring’.
The first phenomenon is that there is an increase in training and sophistication. Jihadists have been able to organise explosives training for European Muslims, they’ve been able to gain combat experience in the wars in Syria and Libya and Iraq, and have absorbed some of the best practices for urban combat as a result of having operated in that kind of environment. Many of them would by now have more hours of experience fighting gun battles than the police in many states in the North Atlantic tend to have.
The second phenomenon is that there is shift to recruitment from the deprived areas of Europe which would usually be characterised by ghettoes and inner city gangs. For many of the recruits, their movement into the ranks of ISIL is just like graduating from one form of ‘gang activity’ to another, but of course only in the limited sense that they are already used to breaking the law and already have a disrespect for the societies that they are living in, and so can be quite amenable to carrying out violent acts toward police officers and civilians in European countries. The pre-Arab Spring pattern was one characterised by Islamists who had become radicalised. This recent phenomenon now adds to that criminals who have become Islamised and graduate into becoming enemy combatants. Their initial revolt against society would have been characterised as anti-social behaviour, but they have now become Islamised and seek to direct that behaviour toward a ‘larger purpose’.
The third phenomenon is the broadening of prison gang recruitment outreach by Islamist groups. Given that many of the demographics that are emblematic of Islamic migration into Europe have a higher rate of criminal offending than the native population, it is only natural that prisons would become jihadist recruitment grounds. The narrative that they are being given is a combination of a guilt narrative and a victim narrative paired together. The recruiters would sympathise with the plight of the prisoner by telling them that they are members of a downtrodden group and that in order to survive they had been ‘forced’ to the margins of society to become criminals. At the same time, the recruiters would also impress on the prisoner that being a criminal is still ‘a sin’ because the Qu’ran and the Hadiths admonish Muslims to obey the law of the land that they are living in unless they happen to be engaged in jihad against that land. They are then offered ‘redemption’ on the condition that they would leverage the skillsets and contacts that they made in the criminal world to serve the ‘larger purpose’ of waging jihad.
With all of those things in mind, the fact that someone would want to massively increase migration into Europe from the very same zones in the south where all of this is based, is truly breathtaking to consider. Angela Merkel and the rest of the liberal political class in continental Europe seem to have no problems whatsoever with taking over 800,000 new people all at once over an extremely short period of time, and they probably don’t intend to stop there.
See for example:
Counter-terrorism is a very tricky thing. It’s not really possible to always be able to find and break up terrorist cells just because you know that they are out there. Even being able to watch all of the signals all of the time, does not mean that the state can address all possible threats simultaneously. Being able to keep track of the relationships between people, and to decide who should be placed under total surveillance and when, is partly based on patterns, partly based on the experience of the case officers, partly based on luck, and the rest is fate. Think of this: To place someone under a wiretap requires a court order and that takes time to get. If you know who the attackers might be, you then have to prioritise who you’d want to place under 24/7 surveillance. Just to watch about five suspects, would require assigning several officers in several cars to that job. To make sure that everyone is properly alert and lively, a person might run these in four shifts over a 24 hour period. And then for all of those people, they would need support back in the operations centre to coordinate their actions, review intelligence and manage the wiretaps. And so you realise that you’ve actually got about a hundred people tasked to five suspects who you think might be planning an imminent attack.
Money is going out the door to finance that effort. And you’ve chosen to watch those particular people rather than dedicating those resources to any other cluster of people who might be the cell that you are looking for. Or perhaps even the cell you didn’t know you were looking for until something began to look suspicious. Other intelligence collection requests are being postponed or missed while that is occurring. Now imagine how much more difficult that becomes in a scenario with mass migration from a place where ISIL is operating. The threat would be extremely severe, more severe than it ever has been. Yet liberal politicians are making this scenario play out before everyone’s eyes.
Putting the Car into Gear
Europe is—whether it likes it or not—in the midst of military operations against an enemy that is determined to strike anywhere and at any time. Conduct of military operations must be guided by a set of established guidelines, referred to as doctrine. Often, doctrine is shaped significantly by factors other than the lessons learned during operations because the doctrine is also partly shaped by the political environment in which it manifested. Doctrine has increasingly been more a reflection of the influence of individuals with ideological biases and guilt complexes, budget constraints, and flagrant electioneering, rather than critical analysis, exercises, training, study or experience in the application of force.
I would say that at least four things need to be established and/or strengthened in order to begin addressing the problem:
Regarding the refugees that are fleeing from Iraq and Syria in the face of ISIL aggression, it is obvious that having the whole of Mesopotamia fleeing into Europe to get away from ISIL is simply an international absurdity. If ISIL were to be defeated in Iraq and Syria within a reasonable time frame, that would do a lot to stem the flow of migrants into Europe, because that would be effectively tackling it from the demand side. There would be less of a demand for entry into Europe, if stable governance were restored in Mesopotamia.
Strategic bombing against ISIL, while useful, does not actually restore stable governance and thus does not give people the confidence to remain in their homes and stop migrating out. Also, the compromise measure of embedding special forces into Iraq is not sufficient either, because you cannot just throw special forces into a country without any of the support and services that usually would accompany doing such a thing. And if someone is going to do that, then they might as well just resign themselves to the fact that they will end up with combat brigades in there eventually. So why not just plan for putting combat brigades back into Iraq from the start?
The purpose in such a case, should not be to try to ‘put Iraq back together again’ in the way that it was arranged before ISIL arose. Iraq will never be the same again, but re-establishing some new kind of borders would probably help to stabilise the situation. Continuing to support the existence of Iraqi Kurdistan would also be helpful. Also meriting attention would be people like the Assyrians who would like to have their own homeland be recognised in the Nineveh plains. There are also energy interests involved, as Exxon-Mobil has been in negotiations with individuals in the area. Furthermore, should these groups be given faithful support by NATO countries, they would be very grateful. Additionally, the governments of those hypothetically independent states or autonomous provinces might be able to act as satraps that are far more reliable and amenable to European interests than the consistently duplicitous satrap called Israel ever will be.
There are a lot of interests and angles of approach that can be summed together for a support of more North Atlantic involvement in ground combat against ISIL, and it would be nice if European people could impress upon the politicians that it is okay for them to show some political courage and support such measures. And that if they do not support such measures, they should be questioned as to why they refuse to support tough action against ISIL.
There has also been a dearth of enthusiasm for intervention among European ethno-nationalists, when in fact intervention is quite clearly something that European ethno-nationalists ought to be championing. It’s not enough to just be against mass migration, to be completely parsimonious and coherent, you have to support the measures necessary to disintegrate and destroy the problem at its source.
All of what I’ve said above would be completely useless if a person doesn’t have the historical understanding and most importantly the motive energy to carry through the war to its objective. After all, it’s one thing to show a person their material interests, and to exhort them to support war, but it’s another thing entirely to have a person who has that will to fight and act on those interests. After all, a person could always say “I’ll accept a loss here and withdraw, it’s not worth it to me”.
Christians lack the motive energy for this war, and these examples are typical of that lack of motive energy:
That weak and pathetic behaviour from Christians should not be surprising. Christianity is less motivated to fight, because for them, the disagreement with Islam is not fundamental. They don’t fundamentally disagree with the premise of Islam because for them it merely is an argument about the specifics of the tyrannical Abrahamic god’s requirements. Christians are never going to have any lasting and enduring will to fight against Islam, because they are actually servants of the same god in the first place.
They complain of how ‘destructive’ the war is and how they ‘distrust’ people who sell weapons, but the whole world is constantly changing. Creation and destruction are both forms of change. Destruction is behind us and in front of us, so why shouldn’t we welcome death in the same way that we welcome life? The war against Islamism is not just killing without a goal, it is killing that has a goal of preserving those lives that we value.
The development of productive forces—which requires that energy supplies be maintained and goods to flow unimpeded by adversaries—leads to societies in which more people are able to ascend Maslow’s hierarchy. When people move up the hierarchy they have more time and inclination to examine the life that they are living critically, to plan for the future, and to engage in more in-depth personal development. We’re in a pivotal era in human history right now, where, since 2001, the forces of retrogression have found themselves locked in combat against the forces of progress, and it is a fight that will have lasting global implications for human evolution.
If some Arabs want to be regressive and stand in the way of human development, and if some Arabs want to act as a spearhead to break down ethnic genetic communities so that these blocks of political experience—political experience of the ages being one of the great intellectual treasures of nation-states—are eroded and destroyed, then it is absolutely right that people should kill any Arabs who behave in that way. Any group that feels that its destiny is to stand with ISIL, should be targeted, hunted down, and killed in the spacial battlefield. That would be progress.
Fundamentally, one of the most important things that people must be encouraged to do is reject the god of the monotheists. Its fraudulent claims that it ‘created everything’, must be rejected. The opinion that it is ‘a belief worthy of respect and toleration’ also must be rejected. Once you can make those in Europe who are trapped in delusion aware that the god of the monotheists is a liar and a fraud, and that nature is not something that could have been consciously made by anyone, then you will be laying the groundwork through which people can support war coherently.
Why is that so important? The reason is this: If people can be brought to understand the war in the realm of ideas, to understand that we are actually fighting against the power of the monotheistic god, to understand that this should be done deliberately and consciously, it has a real effect. It can cause transformations in people’s thinking that would lead to the complete inversion and thus destruction of Judeo-Christian society and morals, a destruction which needs to happen, along with the destruction of Islamic society and its prestige at the same time.
Those who were ‘losers’ in the past 2000 years will be ‘winners’ in the new and inverted world that is to come. Human beings will cast off the chains that are interwoven with dead flowers so that they can seek the true flower, because they’d be casting off the conditions and the ideas which had made the monotheistic lying possible in the first place, through participating in actions—as a society—that are understood to be antagonistic against the semitic god.
People should also be encouraged to show the viability and vitality of a new Europe, through their support for parallel civic organisations that strengthen national bonds of blood and proximity. These social organisations would be like a great constellation of stars shining like a thousand points of light over the continent, engaged in world service. By doing so, it would show that it is possible to run Europe without Christianity, without Islam, and without Judaism.
Through that kind of approach, we would be fighting the war domestically, fighting the war overseas, and also fighting the war in the world we cannot see. If we are successful at creating that environment—and we will be—I think there will be a definite chance for a new Europe to emerge.
Kumiko Oumae works in the defence and security sector in the UK. Her opinions here are entirely her own.
Talk at Storm Trooper Radio is that there should be “honor” among White nationalists.
“Honor” is a term that those with numbers and military on their side would try to invoke.
What honor is there really in people who will never denounce Hitler’s policies, no matter how obviously and utterly disrespectful those policies and beliefs may be to European peoples?
There is no honor, and that is why Duke and Anglin are not treated with honor here or anywhere with thoroughgoing intelligence. Do we really need to elaborate? Elaboration may be necessary for those in attendance at Storm Trooper, but not for those with any sense.
Soren is here asking a riddle. I trust that he is not here to distract from human concern - that Weev and he are not giving support to Anglin and, by proxy, to the likes of the cardboard Duke, to those who would fellate Hitler - and so I might ask him…what do you need Hitler for? Is it really so hard to see the utterly stupid, arbitrary destruction and total disregard of real concern for Europeans that these right-wing idiots coddle? That is the riddle, Soren.
Is it not enough, for you, that we are all for Germans and German nationalism, but are against Hitler, for ridiculously obvious reasons?
You seek to gain allegiance with those who are SO STUPID as to get behind Hitler and Himmler - HIMMLER!?
“Literally, why did this even become an argument?”
It’s been brought to my attention that we’re being accused of various things by various people as a result of the article that I posted that was titled ‘English genetic heritage is not German’. It appears that some people, including Carolyn Yeager at The Heretics Hour, have chosen for some reason to seize upon people’s remarks in the comments section of that article to build a characterisation of our position which is very incorrect. DanielS has been accused of being ‘anti-German’, and by proxy I have therefore been accused of abetting ‘anti-German’ thought.
Nothing could be further from the facts. DanielS is not ‘anti-German’, and I’m not abetting ‘anti-German’ thought. In good faith, I’ll assume that Carolyn Yeager’s misinterpretation of my intent is not intentional, and so I’ll explain in the most concise way what my outlook on this is, in the hopes that truth and understanding will prevail.
Heritage and slogans
When I put up the article about how ‘English genetic heritage is not German’, it was entirely for the purpose of showing a way of dispelling the usual liberal sloganeering in the UK that begins with the false appeal to the so-called ‘fact’ of English being all ‘mixed German immigrants’, which is then inexorably extended into a claim that ‘since they are already beyond identification, what is wrong with a little more mixing?’ Obviously the most effective way—a way that is also in accordance with reality—to fight against that kind of liberal sloganeering and to empower the British people to fortify themselves in the belief that the ground they stand on is theirs and that they have a justifiable claim to maintain dominance over their own civic space, is to point out that British people are not merely ‘mixed German immigrants’ of no discernible identity, but in fact they all evolved in the location that they are living in for many thousands of years and as such have a justification to really call themselves ‘British’.
Maintaining this view of a really-existent ‘Britishness’, and suggesting that it should be fashioned into a mass line and propagated to the British people, in no way detracts from the identity of German people, or Germanic peoples as a whole. I don’t see why that should be confusing to some people. It also does not suggest that there should be enmity between Britain and Germany. In fact, it remains our position at Majorityrights that all nations in Europe should stand together while respecting each other’s differences: pan-European regionalism. This is the same position that I also take with regards to Asia and pan-Asian regionalism.
Sometimes mistakes are made
I also get a sense that some of this fury that has been directed toward Majorityrights by the critics, has something to do with the fact that we don’t bow down to Adolf Hitler on every issue, historical and concerning the prosecution of the Second World War. I would say to those people who criticise Majorityrights that it is possible—and this is not a petty-moral statement, it is a statement of cold facts, total administration, and direct geostrategic power concepts—to recognise the structural achievements of the National Socialist movement in Germany and say that it was highly significant in not only raising critical awareness of the influence and threat of Bolshevism, but in fact showing that it was possible to marshal an equally deadly force against them, without having to literally endorse every single ridiculous action and personal preference of Adolf Hitler, every member of the SS, and the general staff of the German Army. Sometimes people do things that are really bad ideas.
It is possible to have a nuanced view, and my view is nuanced.
Obviously, the European war against the Russian Bolshevik regime and its collaborators in Europe, much like the Greater East Asia War against the liberal-capitalist powers, namely, the United States, France, Britain, the Netherlands, and their collaborators, was a crucial moment in history. No alliance in history other than Axis, has been able to unite so many people of diverse ethnic backgrounds against both liberalism and communism at the same time. And no alliance in history has ever come closer to overturning the liberal-capitalist world order in a war of manoeuvre.
These coalitions were to become possible due to the social and economic forces that were activated as a consequence of something like the National Socialist movement of Germany having arisen to power.
Germany rendered assistance to Japan by becoming a viable partner for the duration of the war, and this also engendered a situation where countries like Burma, parts of India, swathes of South East Asia, including Indonesia, Singapore, and others, were able to struggle against their colonial oppressors with the hopes both of independence and of a regional redress of the global systemic inequalities that characterised the liberal-capitalist world order. It also was the case that many Central Asians were enthusiastic about co-operation with Germany as well, particularly some of the Crimean Tatars who must have been relieved to see the 11th German Army under General Erich von Manstein as well as Stay-behind Group D show up in their territory to remove the Russian and Jewish occupiers that had been appearing on their land because of the Soviet incursions into Crimea.
It could be said that in the developing world, the international boundaries and the recognition of ethno-states governed by their own ethnic group’s elites rather than those of another group, is a kind of world that could not have come into existence without the ethno-nationalist consciousness and the live-fire demonstration of the use of deadly force that characterised the Axis approach, particularly in the Pacific.
It wasn’t that any particular person imposed National Socialism onto the German people from above only. It was actually the fact that the liberal-capitalist world view was vying for hegemony over all spheres of human life, and as a result, the ethno-nationalist world view had to fight against it in all spheres of life in order that it could triumph over it. This is the meaning of ‘totalitarianism’ when it is not used as a pejorative by liberals. While being coincident with ‘authoritarianism’, it is not a synonym for it, nor is it a synonym for ‘bad things’. The inauguration of the National Socialist state in Germany, was not the moment that ethno-nationalist world views triumphed. Rather, the inauguration of the National Socialist state was a sign and a consequence of the fact that the ethno-nationalist world view had already triumphed over liberalism among these people, and had in turn given rise to the change in the class character, ethnic composition and loyalties of the persons occupying the big tent known as the state.
This is of course the same logic that applies when talking about Fascist Italy, Right-Socialist Japan, and so on.
I am not necessarily inveighing against that phenomenon.
So with all of that said, where is the argument here? As far as I’m aware, one of the most significant disagreements is largely about the conduct of National Socialist Germany to its East. There are three elements of what happened in that region which are elements of a serious mistake that was made by Germany, a mistake which created excess risk for what—in light of the enormity of what was being fought for by Axis—was relatively little potential gain. Those elements are:
Now, any one of those reasons standing by itself, might cause someone to argue that they might be able to make it so that the benefit accrued to Germany would outweigh the cost, with respect to the larger agenda of war being conducted against the United States and against Russia.
But with all three points taken together as synergistic and inseparable as a complex system—an ecology—it becomes very clear that the conduct of Germany in Central and Eastern Europe was an inadvisable and unacceptable risk. Taking a preference for disrupting the complex systems that were the Central European nations, for the sake of ‘living-space’, rather than collaborating with the systems as they existed, produced an additional and unnecessary drag against European war-fighting capabilities, which heightened the risk of dis-integration of supply chains and thus heightened the risk of being defeated. You’ve heard of Richard III of England’s line “my kingdom for a horse!”, now try “my empire for the next shipment of ball-bearings within the appropriate time scale.”
This is the way that I look at it, it’s very much an Asian perspective that looks at the ‘big picture’, and it’s a view that I know is at odds with many of the people who criticise Majorityrights. But it is not an irrational view, and I wish that the critics would think about these issues and reflect on the errors where errors exist. I am in no way proposing that this is the sole reason for Axis difficulties in Europe at that time, but I am saying that it is a factor which certainly didn’t help the situation.
A way to the correct line
I would reiterate as well, that this is not a moralising condemnation of Germany, nor is it a moralising condemnation of those who have criticised Majorityrights. I am standing entirely apart from petty-moralist considerations and I am only talking about what I see as a matter of bad risk assessment and bad prioritisation by them when carrying out war of position and war of manoeuvre.
There are no belaboured moral statements or revisionist endorsements here, and so any liberals who are hyperventilating somewhere out there saying “isn’t this too much?”, I’d invite those liberals to take slow, deep breaths, and to not start making noises at me or overreacting.
Most of this post has been about the past, but it also has importance for the future as well, because getting the correct line on this issue of the past, allows people to also get the correct mass line for the future as well and to learn from mistakes. European ethnic-nationalists can be great if they can repair this rift between themselves, with all sides acknowledging errors where errors have occurred. It’s crucially necessary going forward, so that Europe can correctly define its borders and stand as one, as ‘Europe, whole and free’.
I’d like to also add that although the temptation for many to view it this way will be strong, this article should also not be interpreted as a ‘challenge’ issued by me to Carolyn Yeager. There will be no ‘Kumiko Oumae vs. Carolyn Yeager’ catfight-showdown at sunset with knives, so any observers having those thoughts ought to put away the popcorn, at least for now.
This is only an invitation for conversation and perhaps conflict resolution. Something that is characterised less by knives, and more by tea and biscuits. Maybe.
Kumiko Oumae works in the defence and security sector in the UK. Her opinions here are entirely her own.
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.
No, not a commitment to the 14 Words, but evergreen news of dedication to Israel:
This clip (courtesy of Stan Hess) emerges most pertinent in light of Jewish crypsis; along with their twisting and corruption of terms by which we might otherwise organize and understand our people’s interests - as opposed to Jewish influence:
This is a crucial distinction to hold-up against the games they will continue to play with our terminology - and an example of those manichean language games comes with the latest Stark broadcast: http://www.starktruthradio.com/?p=1319
With Jewish “Haywire”
Rather, The Lies Will Try to Live ...by infiltrating our interests.
These two try to pawn themselves-off as ‘Alternative Right, right-wingers”...with upstart they say that “THE Left is the establishment.”
(the White Left is the establishment? don’t think so):
Jews do not want us to be a White Left. The reason that they do not want that is because it is our best outlook - an orientation which, together with sufficient anarchy, allows for our coordination and strategic evasion of their infiltration. This capacity to evade their infiltration is facilitated by coordination not merely by place but by language - that is why the terms are so important. Shared terminology serves to coordinate our people wherever they might be while at the same time allowing for sufficient anarchy to evade infiltration, counter our enemies and counter corruption - especially tactical in the clear terminological position of a White Left, its eye on elite betrayal and “scabbing” - i.e., any attempted entry into our “union” by non-Whites.
Sure, these Jews are “the Right ..like reading Spengler and Evola”…just so wild and crazy…“but we’re appealing to the ‘New Generation”...Haywire says, “we’re so ‘in touch’ with the new cultural zeitgest of THE RIGHT.”...er, Mulatto Supremacism
“The Left is the establishment”...Jews are just such rebellious trend setters..
“I was at a conference with Richard Spencer and Paul Gottfried..
...I’m really not interested in race…
I want to create a ‘new species” - read, Mulatto Cyborg...
Haywire continues: “I’m not really into the race thing, ‘race’ is a mental thing…
On to the matter of looking at us:
Where Lies Don’t Try to Live by crypsis, controlling the narrative, twisting our organizational language games, by infiltrating and misdirecting interests, they might just as well be served by provoking misdirection of our own, to where we are fighting our own. Rather than fighting non-Whites, in a manner perhaps such as this:
As opposed to other right-wingers with whom he may associate and even endorse, just why Ransdell is unoffensive by comparison is beginning to crystallize..
First, contrasting his Rockwell influence..
Rockwell frequently talked about the black issue and the black plague of race-mixing without fretting the rigid paranoia that this was “distracting from the J.Q.”
And who was Malcolm The Tenth anyway? - he would be introduced to American audiences by The Hate that Hating Whites Produced - narrated by Mike Wallace, it was a seminal Jewish documentary instigating blacks to riot and violence against Whites.
An artist / pr man is better suited for a view and treatment of Praxis - negotiating the fluid, reflexive, social interactive world with practical judgement as opposed to rigid scientific instrumentation; and laws - “Our purpose is the Creator’s purpose” ?
Of course “our purpose” should be serving the interests of our race. I’m sure Pierce would have believed that, but he may have wanted to base it more absolutely on scientific law than it could be.
Scientists are indispensable of course, for supplying rigorous information on specifics and broad generalities beyond casual purview, providing critical tools for rhetorical support for what is in fact the appropriate, “human-sized” (scaled) social perspective by which the social artist may dramatize and complete a vision.
But as one might say of Renegade and Daily Stormer, it is not enough to be an artist, one must be a good artist, reflecting good judgment - not always the case in WN.
Typically of the right, Andrew Anglin was one to range from being soft on blacks to showing outright affinity for them until he calculated that normal White men don’t like blacks and despise miscegenation. But this was only a calculation by Anglin, not the feeling the comes from trustworthy interest and concern for Europeans broadly, judging from important difference.
While we need some posture and people who display the power of not being perturbed by these matters, to where they can easily mock them, I will speak for myself, confident that other White men also despise people who try to sell the attitude of studied detachment as the one for our race in general - soft-selling blacks and race-mixing, saying that talking about these issues is a waste of time or a distraction from
If the word “monocausal” regarding the JQ is going to provoke a paranoid response then how about, irresponsibly “single-issued” and correspondingly inauthentic by way of an irresponsibly narrow platform of response. “With Jews we lose” isn’t the same as saying “only Uncle Adolf and nobody should be critical of him; he’s perfect, didn’t do nothin” or “Only NW Europeans, all others be subordinate, be damned and go to Africa.”
Even if he was done-in by a Greek and it bespeaks a little less social aplomb than I may see in him, one nevertheless gets a sense of general goodwill from Rockwell toward his fellow Europeans - I get a sense that his initial inclination toward all of them was friendly, whereas Pierce was rigid.
Coming from Rockwell’s context, even the swastika isn’t offensive. One gets an underlying sense of irony, humor, playfulness of his social artistry and theatrics - that the swastika is not the literal issue, underneath that is the real issue - defense of European peoples. Rockwell almost certainly could have been persuaded that Eastern Europeans and Southern Europeans were European as well, satisfied by an agreement to maintain distinctions where one could potentially mix away the other to its demise.
On the other hand, even though HE DID NOT wave the swastika around, one gets the sense from Pierce that that was literally the thing.
In the influence of Rockwell as opposed to Pierce, we have a clue as to why Ransdell bespeaks practical judgment (phronesis) and good will to all concerned Whites, while those beholden to Pierce’s worldview cling rigidly to Hitler’s conflicted, quarter Jew perspective, determined singularly to defend his mother against Jewish assault, with little, or only condescending empathy for Europeans beyond Germanics.
Perhaps I’m being a bit naiive about Rockwell. He was probably a bit rigid too, just not as much as Pierce. The fact that Rockwell was killed by a Greek does say something (perhaps a bit too willing to throw other Europeans under the hate bus?, I don’t know the situation well enough to say).
Perhaps Ransdell will turn out to be one, like Kyle Hunt, who cares and sympathizes only for Hitler’s view and issues in the end.
Still, one can’t help but see better prospects in reasoning with the Rockwell / Ransdell trajectory than the Pierce / Hunt trajectory. For the latter, it is apparently about redeeming Nazi Germany and its scientistic “naturalism”. For the former it is apparently more about our race.
We do hate race-mixing
It’s hard to take Rockwell’s antics too seriously. These were largely publicity stunts; the map was not the territory; it is evident that he could see more than one side. “You want integration? OK, lets have integration!” He proceeds to have his Nazi-clad men make themselves comfortable in a synagogue (LOL). On the other hand, one does not get a sense of humor, irony and underlying good will from Pierce. That is not to say that Rockwell was not seriously committed to some mistaken ideas, but one got a sense of a character more amenable to negotiative correction for having a better feel of Praxis.