Majorityrights News > Category: Marxism

THE GAME IS OVER. THE PATRIOTS LOST: Though I cannot recommend Matt Parrott for his foolish and unwarranted misdirection away from and against the platform here, he is clever enough to turn a good phrase, as in this article, where the issue isn’t too deep for him. However, for one thing, he needs to understand that the Christards are playing a suckers game in line with propositional nationalism, and being beaten badly for it as well.

Since the time in the late 80’s when I prioritized racial interests over the entertainment of sports and music, when I do observe race mixed sporting events or statistics, I root for the individual performance of White players and against individual black players.

Over at Amren, Paul Kersey entitles an article, “Root for the Patriots in the Superbowl”

Although there is something to be said for the Patriots success while using White players in positions usually associated with black skills, as rather an expression of White selection and identity, betraying negrophila some along with its taken for granteds, the teams are still mercenary, not particularly representing a place or race. Thus, I can’t agree with his conclusion that Whites should feel ok about rooting for mixed race teams as it perpetuates the idiot cuckoldry of White fandom and support of the race mixing agenda through one of its most seductive means - visually exciting sports, adulation of athletic skills beyond merit, way beyond real world value and just reward, while ensconced in the deceptive, soothing pretext of passive objectivity.

Kersey writes:

The white quarterback, Tom Brady, along with white wide receivers Julian Edelman and Chris Hogan, white tight end Rob Gronkowski, and white running backs Rex Burkhead and James Develin, are an anomaly in the “vibrant” NFL. They have a vast overrepresentation of skilled white players who not only excel, but dominate.

[...]

With all this whooping about diversity, an anomaly does not go unremarked: the whiteness of the New England Patriots during their historic run under Tom Brady. For this year’s Super Bowl in Atlanta, all eyes are on Mr. Brady, the 41-year-old quarterback, who will be playing in his unprecedented ninth championship game in 18 seasons (this will be his third consecutive shot at the Lombardi Trophy, and Mr. Brady holds a 5-3 record in the Super Bowl).

With that, he suggests:

Root for the Patriots in the Superbowl

It’s OK to be white.

On Sunday, more than 110 million Americans will huddle around their television sets and watch the 53rd Super Bowl, a matchup between the Los Angeles Rams and New England Patriots.

After two seasons marred by black NFL players taking a Colin Kaepernick-style knee or raising a ‘Black Power’ fist during the National Anthem, television ratings slightly improved during the 2018 season.

[...]

So even if you are not a fan of the NFL, or don’t like the antics of black players who knelt during the National Anthem, there’s nothing wrong with rooting for the New England Patriots and Tom Brady to win Super Bowl 53. In a league where 72.6 percent of the players are POC, there’s nothing wrong with cheering for a team that looks a little more like you.

It’s the white thing to do.

He supplies one good reason NOT to root for the Patriots or any NFL team, here:

Ibid. That year, largely because of pressure from the owners of NFL’s 32 franchises, the league saw only a handful of black athletes—who account for 69.7 percent of the players—take a knee during the anthem. A recent poll of NFL fans shows only 24 percent of white fans strongly support the anthem protests, while 59 percent of blacks do (47 percent of white fans and 7 percent of black fans strongly oppose them). Though the kneeling stopped, the owners did create an $89 million fund for the players to hand out to “improve social justice and racial equality in our country.

Related at Majorityrights:

Seduction of NFL Films, Appeal of L.A. Rams 60’s, 70’s, dodging legacy of sports-fan cuckoldry

Our football coaches weren’t Marxists imposing black integration

James Watson won the Nobel Prize in 1962 along with Francis Crick for discovering the double helix structure of DNA.

New York Times, 1 Jan 2019:

      “James Watson Won’t Stop Talking About Race”

The Nobel-winning biologist has drawn global criticism with unfounded pronouncements on genetics, race and intelligence. He still thinks he’s right, a new documentary finds.

“Decoding Watson,” a new film about Dr. James D. Watson explores the gulf between his scientific brilliance and his views on race.

It has been more than a decade since James D. Watson, a founder of modern genetics, landed in a kind of professional exile by suggesting that black people are intrinsically less intelligent than whites.

In 2007, Dr. Watson, who shared a 1962 Nobel Prize for describing the double-helix structure of DNA, told a British journalist that he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours, whereas all the testing says, not really.”

Moreover, he added, although he wished everyone were equal, “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true.” Dr. Watson’s comments reverberated around the world, and he was forced to retire from his job as chancellor of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island, although he retains an office there.

He apologized publicly and “unreservedly,’’ and in later interviews he sometimes suggested that he had been playing the provocateur — his trademark role — or had not understood that his comments would be made public.

Ever since, Dr. Watson, 90, has been largely absent from the public eye. His speaking invitations evaporated. In 2014, he became the first living Nobelist to sell his medal, citing a depleted income from having been designated a “nonperson.’’

But his remarks have lingered. They have been invoked to support white supremacist views, and scientists routinely excoriate Dr. Watson when his name surfaces on social media.

Eric Lander, the director of the Broad Institute of M.I.T. and Harvard, elicited an outcry last spring with a toast he made to Dr. Watson’s involvement in the early days of the Human Genome Project. Dr. Lander quickly apologized.

“I reject his views as despicable,” Dr. Lander wrote to Broad scientists. “They have no place in science, which must welcome everyone. I was wrong to toast, and I’m sorry.’’

And yet, offered the chance recently to recast a tarnished legacy, Dr. Watson has chosen to reaffirm it, this time on camera. In a new documentary, “American Masters: Decoding Watson,’’ to be broadcast on P.B.S. on Wednesday night, he is asked whether his views about the relationship between race and intelligence have changed.

“No,’’ Dr. Watson said. “Not at all. I would like for them to have changed, that there be new knowledge that says that your nurture is much more important than nature. But I haven’t seen any knowledge. And there’s a difference on the average between blacks and whites on I.Q. tests. I would say the difference is, it’s genetic.’’

Dr. Watson adds that he takes no pleasure in “the difference between blacks and whites’’ and wishes it didn’t exist. “It’s awful, just like it’s awful for schizophrenics,’’ he says. (His son Rufus was diagnosed in his teens with schizophrenia.) Dr. Watson continues: “If the difference exists, we have to ask ourselves, how can we try and make it better?”

[...]

“There are powerful methods for studying the genetic and environmental origins of individual differences, but not for studying the causes of average differences between groups,” Dr. Plomin he writes in an afterword to be published this spring in the paperback edition of his book, “Blueprint: How DNA Makes Us Who We Are.”

Whether Dr. Watson was aware of any of this science is unclear. In the film, he appears to have grown increasingly isolated. He mentions missing Francis Crick, his collaborator in the race to decipher the structure of DNA.

“We liked each other,’’ Dr. Watson says of Dr. Crick. “I couldn’t get enough of him.’’

As history now knows, the duo was able to solve the puzzle in 1953, with their hallmark models of cardboard and metal only with the help of another scientist, Rosalind Franklin, whose X-ray photograph of the DNA molecule was shown to Dr. Watson without her permission.

The tools of molecular biology unlocked by their discovery have since been used to trace humanity’s prehistory, devise lifesaving therapies, and develop Crispr, a gene-editing technology that was used recently, and unethically, to alter the DNA of twin human embryos.

And Dr. Watson became perhaps the most influential biologist of the second half of the 20th century. His textbook, “Molecular Biology of the Gene,’’ helped define the new field. First in a laboratory at Harvard and then at Cold Spring Harbor, he trained a new generation of molecular biologists and used his star power to champion such projects as the first sequencing of the human genome.

“You knew when you heard him that you were at the start of a revolution in understanding,’’ Nancy Hopkins, a biologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who studied with Dr. Watson in the 1960s, says in “Decoding Watson.’’

“You felt as if you were part of this tiny group of people who had seen the light.’’

Complete story at New York Times

Related at Majorityrights: James Watson Doesn’t Exist.

Stasi-Minded Experiments in human pan-mixia

Voice of Europe, “Is Angela Merkel behind the UN Migration Pact? New document sheds light”,  29 Nov 2018:

Germany’s Deception: Internal documents from Germany’s Federal Foreign Office divulge that Angela Merkel’s government has been the main mastermind behind the controversial UN migrant pact.

The document, described by MP Petr Bystron of the populist Alternative for Germany (AfD), reveals that the Federal Foreign Office taking credit for the disastrous UN Migrant Pact, claiming they’ve been working on the agreement since 2016.

The deception runs deep, the Foreign Office having stated that the German government has been behind the Global Compact on Refugees and the Global Compact on Migration, saying that though they are not legally binding, they were both designed to be “politically binding”.

Belgian International Law professor Pierre d’Argent, has explained that the agreement sets up a “legal framework” that can be used by lawyers in interpreting the meaning of the law. “…one can imagine that in some cases before international jurisdictions, lawyers use this pact as a reference tool to try to guide them,” d’Argent said.

Alexander Gauland, Co-leader of Germany’s populist AfD party told Breitbart London:

“It’s becoming glaringly obvious that the German government was trying to deceive the public, and still is. They are trying to retroactively legalise Merkel’s illegal opening of the borders since 2015. If the AfD had not raised the topic of the Global Compact, no one would ever have known about it until it was too late.”

“Now we are discovering that this contract has been in the works for a long time, and on German initiative, no less. However, those responsible never bothered to mention it. For good reason. We will do everything we can to avert this disaster in the making,” he said further.

The US, Austria, Hungary, Poland, Israel, Australia, The Czech Republic, Italy, Slovakia and more have backed out and will not sign the pact.

“We are only responsible to our Austrian population as government officials. Austrian sovereignty has top priority for us, this must be preserved and protected,” Austrian Vice Chancellor Heinz-Christian Strache said about pulling out of the pact.

Related at Majorityrights:

UN MIGRANT COMPACT: THE DEATH OF OUR NATIONS

Germany Introduces Forced Integration

Part 2 Audio, Hitler was NOT White or any kind of ethnonationalist - and text:

Hitler was Not White Nationalist Part 2. Audio now online.

To commence, we will indicate some of the issues, adding to these issues in the series to come where issues emerge relevant beyond mere detail to be fleshed out and given argumentative support. That is to say, we anticipate an ongoing corrective process.

As we must go into the history, the other side, the side which is subject to a right wing political correctness of its own, needs to be addressed - this quote, alternative media, that sees a niche market in the largest by far White demographics of America - German/Irish - and panders to the fact that they are going to be more susceptible to positive spins on Hitler and Nazi Germany. It is to counter this pandering, that it is necessary to take a corrective postion from an ethnonational standpoint, that does not look upon Hitler and the Nazis as innocent and only acting in accordance to what they should be rightfully entitled.

The map drawn by Versailles and the contentions raised by Hitler are central issues to redress thereupon.

Hermeneutic, that is to say, additional historical perspective is necessary to assess the situation and related contentions over the borders set by The Treaty of Versailles and maintained by The Treaty of Saint Germain in the case of the Sudetenland..

And why should the Allies trust the Nazis, why should they sympathize with their claims and why should they not be aggrieved with what happened in WWI? and in prior Prussian / Austrian expansion?

Contra Allied grievances, Hitler’s mindset of Friedrich The Great 2.0 is key.

Ostensibly justifying excuses were used for his imperial aspirations as such, chief among others, an epistemic blunder failing to assess socially corrective human nature in praxis, taking rather a sheer might makes right naturalistic fallacy, that humans are bound sheerly to struggle in nature’s way; a will to power set in motion in this case by false allegations of mass persecution of German civilians and false threat to the German nation to provide pretext for Imperialist and supremacist expansion Eastward.

His defenders frequently lob the straw man that he was being accused of wanting to take over the whole world, when in fact, he did want Europe eastward up to the Urals, which is way more than bad enough considering he was using the guise of his sheer necessity to fight communism; and when, in fact, all nations between Russia and Germany were anti-Soviet.

Of course these nations weren’t perfect either and yes, the Nazis had a number of things correct, in the quote, N/S idea; and it’s nevertheless understandable how people could get wrapped up and go for broke; but it didn’t work and there was much fundamentally wrong about it, it wasn’t just that the Allies were corrupt, that defending Nazi Germany is bad optics for the “normies”, nothing fundamentally wrong other than that the “normies are not ready to quote, “understand” - nevertheless, it’s history now, and we can learn from it.

It might also be said of some people on the Allied side, that they can learn too - for example, like many of us since those times, we’ve projected our own reasonableness onto the YKW as a group - we thought, as our Allied forebears might have thought, that the YKW would be ok if we were ok to them - they’d be fair and deserved a chance. How many of you grew up aware of the J.Q.? Well, now the YKW have had their chance and we are aware that we need to be in separate governance.

WN has a pretty good feel of that now, but not so much representation of views apart from what is for it, a politically correct Nazi sympathetic perspective and the false either or thereof YKW or Hitler 88.

With that said.  Here are some of the topics we are going to address and more:

As we already mentioned, We will be taking a look at historical events which have been distorted by Nazi propaganda.

Events such as the Bromberg “quote bloody Sunday” incident, the Polish/ Slovak border train station take-over by the Poles, the false so called “peace offers” from Hitler to Britain and Poland and why it was valid for the Allies to reject them.

The claim that Hitler only wanted peace with the neighboring Slavic countries, and only wished to get back lands taken from Germany, where a majority of Germans where then living under non-German governments. And so on.

We will also debunk the claims that Hitler and the Nazis were ok with the Slavic peoples and did not see them as subhumans with less right to life.

We will address the Nazi ideology of imperialism, immoral racism and the concept of “might is right” contra healthy nationalism, ethnopluralistic morality and what we view as the right kind of racism.

(Richard McCullochs racial compact and moral racism: http://www.racialcompact.com/ )

We will address the issue of who has had a worse influence in promoting a false, positive idea of the Nazi regime to Americans after the war - George Lincoln Rockwell or William Luther Pierce?

And a great deal more.

The Independence March in Warsaw is the largest annual patriotic gathering in Europe. Photo: Radio Maryja

Visigrad Post, Poland will soon celebrate the Centenary of her recovered Independence”, 11 Oct 2018:

Poland – In a month, on Sunday, November 11, 2018, Poland will celebrate 100 years of recovery of her independence.

November 11 is a day of celebration and commemoration in Poland. For several weeks, the white and red flags float proudly to celebrate the freedom, so dear to the Polish people and for which they were long deprived. In 1795, the once powerful Poland was disappeared from the map of Europe for the benefit of its neighbors. From 1795 to 1918, the Russian Empire, Prussia and Austria took over the entire Polish territory.

During this long period of 123 years, the country was the subject of a major campaign of depolonization. In addition to the occupation of the territory, the Russian and German invaders also conducted a policy to annihilate the “polonity”. The mere use of Polish in the occupied territories was severely punished in this context of Germanization (in the West) and Russification (in the East). This partly explains the attachment of Poles to their identity (national, cultural, religious, …). It was not until the signing of the Armistice of 11 November 1918 that Poland reappeared on the world map.

It must be kept in mind that Poland is one of the oldest countries in Europe. The foundation of the Polish state dates from the year 966. During the seventeenth century, Poland was one of the largest European powers, with a territory extending over an area (largely) greater than that of the present day France (Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, 815,000 km²).

A war of words that went too far

Every year, an “Independence March” is organized on November 11 in the capital, Warsaw. This grand parade is organized by several patriotic-conservative movements to celebrate the anniversary of this “revival” of the homeland.

The people present are also very diverse. Entire families coming from the provinces are also present. Mothers with their strollers parade alongside groups of young people, themselves surrounded by older people.

The 2017 edition of the Independence March took place in a respectful and serene ambience, without major incident. The many smoke bombs gave the streets of the city center a football stadium atmosphere. Of a total number of citizens between 60,000 (police estimate) and 125,000 (estimate of organizers), a handful of extremists (between 50 and 100) unfortunately made themselves known by brandishing racist or hateful banners. One of them read: “Europe will be white or uninhabited. “

A large part of the foreign press (CNN, BBC, The Washington Post, the New York Times, Der Spiegel, El Pais, Le Monde, Libération, Russia Today, Al Jazeera …) quickly took the opportunity to launch a real campaign of denigration of this popular gathering, of the government which tolerates it and, by extension, of the country which hosts it.

These media painted tens of thousands of people with the same brush as these activists, not worrying in this case about the amalgam that they are so prone to denounce after each terrorist attack. In this case, no nuance: all the participants were treated as extremists.

“Fascists” “xenophobes” “anti-Semites”, “Islamophobes”, “racists”, “homophobes”, … One would have thought they were attending a contest for the most insulting term to designate this human wave of Poles parading peacefully to celebrate the recovered freedom of their homeland and their show of love for it.

The first prize in this defamation exercise undoubtedly goes to former Belgian Prime Minister, Guy Verhofstadt - now, President of the ALDE group in the European Parliament, he declared in the same Parliament that “60,000 Fascists walked on Saturday in Warsaw, neo-Nazis, white supremacists (…) about 300 kilometers from Auschwitz-Birkenau”.

It is hard to believe that such absurd remarks could have been made by an experienced politician. They nevertheless reveal two interesting observations. On the one hand, this statement shows Mr Verhofstadt’s profound ignorance of Poland’s history as well as its past and present geopolitical situation. On the other hand, it confirms the tendency towards the complex of superiority (moral, ideological, cultural, …) of many members of the “western” elite (of which Verhofstadt is one of the front runners) vis-à-vis what is pejoratively attributed “Eastern Countries”. This attitude makes it virtually impossible to discuss coherently the points of disagreement between “old Europe” and the CEECs (Central and Eastern European Countries) that joined the EU later.

A necessary clarification

If Mr Verhofstadt had even a minimum of good faith and / or basic knowledge of history, he would know that the Poles constitute the first European nation to have resisted Adolf Hitler’s National Socialist regime, at least as early as 1939, and consequently paid a heavy price. He would also know that the Germans looted and razed Warsaw in 1944 and that tens of thousands of civilians were killed by Wehrmacht soldiers throughout the Second World War.

To speak of “Polish neo-Nazis” is therefore at least intellectually dishonest and insulting, especially regarding the families of the victims who died under the “fascism” that Verhostadt claims to denounce.

The height of the perfidy of these remarks can be illustrated by the presence at this Independence March of veterans of the Second World War who themselves fought the real Nazis! A surrealism worthy of George Orwell’s “1984” universe.

By Sébastien Meuwissen, Belgo-Polish student in journalism at IHECS.

Diversity Macht Frei, “Hardcore racist Chinamen leave weak-willed whites floundering in the dust”, 11 Sept 2018:

By Czakal

Ruthless Chinamen are amazing the world with their hardcore, unabashed racism. These Chinks just don’t care.

What are they up to now?

Brainwashing Muslims to make them forget their faith.

Western countries need to study these Chinese techniques and adopt them.

The Chinaman was then grabbed and deported for “racism”. Africans may soon be getting nostalgic for the soft and benevolent racism of Whitey.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVwhitGpSv0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHg3aj9gl3w

The slant-eyed furies are also going to Africa… 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XEytsKBoco

...and beating the natives with sticks whenever they don’t work hard enough.

The kind of ruthless racial self-assertion that these Chinks engage in is world-beating. Whites can’t compete with it. Not now that we have sunk into the abyss of altruism.

As Baudelaire said: The world belongs to the one who doesn’t care. These Chinamen don’t care.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=lDpJK9sMqJI

They don’t care about human rights. They don’t care about decency. They don’t care about the fucked-up moral standards the Jews have imposed on us. That’s why the world will soon be theirs.

It wasn’t that long ago that Whites were as hardcore as these Chinamen. Ask yourself: is the world really a better place now that they’re not?

“Western countries need to study these Chinese techniques and adopt them.”

Not adopt them. Whites need to adapt ruthless ferocity to the ethnonationalist cause. In the two examples, one would be correct, and one would not.

Where Islamic incursions are quelled, that is correct.

Going to an African country, enslaving them, beating them and so on - when it is not sheer self defense - is not.

But of course, such bad advice (e.g., that we should be brutal slave masters over Africans) is typical of right wing reactionaries - to look for a foundation in natural fallacy, in sheer might makes right supremacism beyond the complexity of social praxis. ...and, of course, when praxis is ignored, then broader patterns of nemesis correction are in store for the hubris.

Related at Majorityrights:

Imperative to replace Golden Rule of Altruism w Silver Rule of Reciprocity for European Moral Order