Majorityrights News > Category: Russian Politics

Putin: Israel is a ‘Russian-speaking country’

“Russians and Israelis have ties of family and friendship. Our nations are united by common and often tragic pages in history,” Russian President Vladimir Putin said at Keren Hayesod’s annual conference in Moscow.

JNS, 20 Sept 2019: Russian President Vladimir Putin called Israel a Russian-speaking country and talking about ties between the two countries on Tuesday.

“We consider Israel a Russian-speaking country,” he said at the Keren Hayesod foundation’s annual conference held in Moscow. “Russians and Israelis have ties of family and friendship. Our nations are united by common and often tragic pages in history.”

He noted that Russia invited Israeli leaders to Moscow next year to attend celebrations marking the 75th anniversary of the end of World War II.

Putin also discussed the importance of teaching future generations about the war, according to The Moscow Times.

He explained, “The positions of Russia and Israel, the peoples of our countries, coincide. We consider any attempt to revise the outcome of the war, to distort the truth and justify fascism and its lapdogs, completely unacceptable.”

Israel is home to the world’s largest population of Russian Jewry, with about 17 percent of the country’s population is Russian-speaking, according to research.

And while Putin acknowledges that Jews are at home in both Israel and Russia, encouraging the deepening of that interplay, he invites those Jewish diaspora who might be uncomfortable with their liberalism’s intersectionality in Europe to come to Russia…

Zionist Report 4, 26 Sept 2019
2.62K subscribers

“Russian President Vladimir Putin invited Jews to come to Russia after listening to the President of the European Jewish Congress Vyacheslav Kantor complain about attacks against Jews in Europe, during a meeting with the European Jewish Congress in Moscow, Tuesday.”

Link to original video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V188E

Reflecting on his decision to go public with classified information, Snowden says, “The likeliest outcome for me, hands down, was that I’d spend the rest of my life in an orange jumpsuit, but that was a risk that I had to take.” Courtesy of Edward Snowden

Edward Snowden Speaks Out: ‘I Haven’t And I Won’t’ Cooperate With Russia

19 Sept 2019, Dave Davies interviews Edward Snowden for Fresh Air (Audio)

In 2013, Snowden was an IT systems expert working under contract for the National Security Agency when he traveled to Hong Kong to provide three journalists with thousands of top-secret documents about U.S. intelligence agencies’ surveillance of American citizens.

To Snowden, the classified information he shared with the journalists exposed privacy abuses by government intelligence agencies. He saw himself as a whistleblower. But the U.S. government considered him a traitor in violation of the Espionage Act.

After meeting with the journalists, Snowden intended to leave Hong Kong and travel — via Russia — to Ecuador, where he would seek asylum. But when his plane landed at Moscow’s Sheremetyevo International Airport, things didn’t go according to plan.

“What I wasn’t expecting was that the United States government itself ... would cancel my passport,” he says.

Archived Author Interview

Edward Snowden Tells NPR: The Executive Branch ‘Sort Of Hacked The Constitution’

Snowden was directed to a room where Russian intelligence agents offered to assist him — in return for access to any secrets he harbored. Snowden says he refused.

“I didn’t cooperate with the Russian intelligence services. I haven’t and I won’t,” he says. “I destroyed my access to the archive. I had no material with me before I left Hong Kong, because I knew I was going to have to go through this complex multi-jurisdictional route.”

Snowden spent 40 days in the Moscow airport, trying to negotiate asylum in various countries. After being denied asylum by 27 nations, he settled in Russia, where he remains today.

“People look at me now and they think I’m this crazy guy, I’m this extremist or whatever. Some people have a misconception that I set out to burn down the NSA,” he says. “But that’s not what this was about. In many ways, 2013 wasn’t about surveillance at all. What it was about was a violation of the Constitution.”

NATIONAL SECURITY

Justice Department Sues Edward Snowden, Seeking Profits From His Book

Snowden’s 2013 revelations led to changes in the laws and standards governing American intelligence agencies and the practices of U.S. technology companies, which now encrypt much of their Web traffic for security. He reflects on his life and his experience in the intelligence community in the memoir Permanent Record.

On Sept. 17, the U.S. Justice Department filed suit to recover all proceeds from the book, alleging that Snowden violated nondisclosure agreements by not letting the government review the manuscript before publication; Snowden’s attorney, Ben Wizner, said in a statement that the book contains no government secrets that have not been previously published by respected news organizations, and that the government’s prepublication review system is under court challenge.

Interview Highlights

On how researching China’s surveillance capabilities for a CIA presentation got him thinking about the potential for domestic surveillance within the U.S.

I’m invited to give a presentation about how China is hacking the United States intelligence services, defense contractors, anything that we have available in the network, which I know a little bit about but not that much about, because they have the person who is supposed to be giving the presentation drop out. So I go looking ... seeing what exactly is it that China is doing? What are their capabilities? Are they hacking? Are they doing domestic surveillance? Are they doing international surveillance? What is occurring?

And I’m just shocked by the extent of their capabilities. I’m appalled by the aggression with which they use them. But also, in a strange way, surprised by the openness with which they use them. They’re not hiding it. They’re just open and out there, saying, “Yeah, we’re doing this. Yeah, we’re hacking you. What are you going to do about it?”

And I think this is a distinction: I think, yes, the NSA is spying — of course they’re spying — but we’re only spying overseas, we’re not spying on our guys at home. We wouldn’t do that. We have firewalls, we have trip wires for people to hit. But surely these are only affecting terrorists, because we’re not like China. But this plants the first seeds of doubt where I see if the capability is there.

Related at Majorityrights:

Trump and his cyber ‘czar’ Giuliani want to outsource US cybersecurity. Can you guess where-to?

READ MORE...

The attacks were claimed by Yemen’s Houthi group, a rebel group aligned with Iran and currently fighting a war against the Saudi-led coalition which has seen a spate of similar attacks.

Iran warns U.S. after drone attacks on Saudi refineries

By Euronews & Reuters • last updated: 15/09/2019 - 17:31

Smoke is seen following a fire at an Aramco factory in Abqaiq, Saudi Arabia, September 14, 2019 in this picture obtained from social media.

Iran has warned the U.S. that its bases and aircraft carriers are within range of its missiles after Tehran was blamed for drone attacks on two oil refineries in Saudi Arabia.

The attacks on Saturday—which knocked out half of Saudi Arabia’s oil output and caused massive fires—were claimed by Yemen’s Houthis, a rebel group aligned with Iran and currently fighting a war against the Saudi-led coalition which has seen a spate of similar attacks.

But U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo blamed Tehran late on Saturday, arguing that there was “no evidence” that the attacks came from Yemen.

Secretary Pompeo@SecPompeo

Tehran is behind nearly 100 attacks on Saudi Arabia while Rouhani and Zarif pretend to engage in diplomacy. Amid all the calls for de-escalation, Iran has now launched an unprecedented attack on the world’s energy supply.  There is no evidence the attacks came from Yemen.

18.6K
9:59 PM - Sep 14, 2019
15K people are talking about this

A commander in Iran’s revolutionary guard hit back on Sunday, warning that U.S. bases within 2,000 kilometres of the country were “within range of our missiles”. He was also quoted as saying that Iran “has already been ready for a fully-fledged war.”

Later, Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Abbas Mousavi, speaking on state TV, dismissed the U.S. claim as “pointless”.

The attacks, which took place early on Saturday, caused huge fires that were later extinguished by the Saudi authorities, a Saudi interior ministry spokesman said. The attacks also cut about 50% of the company’s crude oil output, the energy minister said in a statement, according to Reuters.

UK foreign secretary Dominic Raab weighed in after speaking with his US counterpart.

He called the attack a “reckless attempt to damage regional security and disrupt global oil supplies.”

“The UK condemns such behaviour unreservedly,” he added.

Dominic Raab@DominicRaab

Just spoke to @SecPompeo about this egregious attack on the security of Saudi Arabia. This was a reckless attempt to damage regional security and disrupt global oil supplies. The UK condemns such behaviour unreservedly.

4:11 PM - Sep 15, 2019
109 people are talking about this

Yemeni TV channel al-Masirah said the Houthis had deployed 10 drones against the sites in Abqaiq and Khurais, and the group pledged to widen the range of its attacks on Saudi Arabia.

Abqaiq, 60 km (37 miles) southwest of Dhahran in Saudi Arabia’s Eastern Province contains the world’s largest oil processing plant and Khurais, 190 km further southwest, contains the country’s second-largest oilfield.

MuradمرادAbdo@MuradAbdo22
BREAKING: #Yemen’s #Houthis Spokesman appeared in a televised statement and claimed responsibility for drone attacks against #Saudi’s #Aramco oil facilities - #SaudiArabia #US @UN

10:39 AM - Sep 14, 2019

Tensions high

Tensions are running high in the region after attacks in June and July on oil tankers in Gulf waters that Riyadh and Washington blamed on Iran. Tehran denies the accusations.

Iran-aligned Houthi fighters have also launched attacks over the border, hitting Shaybah oilfield with drones last month and two oil pumping stations in May. Both attacks caused fires but did not disrupt production.

Security forces foiled an al Qaeda attack on Abqaiq in 2006.

US Senator Chris Murphy, a Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, called Pompeo’s tweet an “irresponsible simplification”.

“The Saudis and Houthis are at war. The Saudis attack the Houthis and the Houthis attack back. Iran is backing the Houthis and has been a bad actor, but it’s just not as simple as Houthis=Iran,” Murphy tweeted.

Aramco is preparing to float shares as early as this year as part of efforts to diversify the economy of the world’s top oil exporter away from crude. It has hired nine banks as joint global coordinators to lead the IPO and has been meeting bankers this week in Dubai as it speeds up the listing plans.

The Great Delusion with Professor John Mearsheimer

Mearsheimer at The
TAMUBushSchool
Published on Oct 10, 2018

“I just want to give you a sense for what liberalism is. The United States is a thoroughly liberal country. It is a liberal democracy. Both Republicans, who we sometimes refer to as conservatives, are liberals and Democrats are liberals. I’m using the term liberal in the John Lockean sense of the term.

The Unites States was born as a liberal democracy. The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, The Bill of Rights, these are thoroughly liberal documents.”

We are a liberal people, okay? But what exactly does that mean? It’s very important that you understand it, because you have to understand what liberalism is to understand liberal hegemony and what went wrong. Then, it’s very important to understand what nationalism is.

John’s argument is very simple here.

Nationalism is the most powerful ideology on the planet.

And in a contest between liberalism and nationalism, nationalism wins every time.

And what I want to do is explain to you what liberalism is, what nationalism is, and why nationalism defeats liberalism. Then what I want to do is talk about what liberal hegemony is. What does it mean to say that The Unites States is interested in remaking the world in its own image? So, I’ll describe that. Then I want to talk about why we pursued liberal hegemony.

...of course I tipped you off by telling you that The United States is a thoroughly liberal country, but there’s more to the story.

Then I want to tell you what our track record is. I want to describe our failures ...in the Middle-East, with regard to NATO expansion, and Russia, and with regard to engagement in China. Lets talk about the evidence that we goofed.

Then I want to talk about why liberal hegemony fails, and this, again, is basically as story about nationalism and realism trumping liberalism. And then I want to make the case for restraint, what I think is a wise foreign policy, okay?

Let me start with what is liberalism…

There are two bedrock assumptions that underpin liberalism:

One is, that it is individualistic at its core.

And number two is that there are real limits to what we can do with our critical faculties.

...to reach agreements about first principles or questions about the good life.

And what exactly am I saying?

You have to decide, when you think about politics, whether you think human beings are first and foremost individuals who form social contracts or if you think that human beings are fundamentally social animals, who carve-out room for their individualism.

Right? This is very very important to think about alright?

Liberalism is all about individualism. Liberal theorists are known as social contract theorists because they believe that individuals come together and form social contracts, so the focus is on the individual.

The assumption underpinning liberalism is not that human beings are social animals from the get-go.

That’s the first point. 

The second point is that liberalism assumes that we cannot use our critical faculties - we cannot use reason to come up with truth about first principles (think about issues like abortion, affirmative action - you cannot get universal agreement on those issues, right?). And I’ll talk about this more as we go along.

But the roots of liberalism are traced-back, in my opinion, to the liberal wars of Britain between Catholics and Protestants. And the fact is that you cannot use your critical faculties to determine whether Catholicism is a superior religion to Protestantism or vice a versa, or whether atheism is superior to both of them ..or Judaism or Islam is superior to Catholicism and Protestantism, Who knows? Right? You just can’t reach agreement. You just can’t reach agreement. There are real limits to what we can do with our critical faculties, okay?

So these are the two bedrock assumptions: One, you focus on the individual, and number two, you accept the fact that you can’t reach universal agreement.

Now, central question - how should politics be arranged to deal with this potential for violence?

And you say to yourself, what does he mean, potential for violence?

The fact is that Catholics and Protestants were killing each other in huge numbers, not only in Britain, but all over Europe. People today, Shias and Sunnis, kill each other, because they can’t agree on whether Shi ism or Sunnism is the correct interpretation of Islam ..or communists versus liberals, people can’t agree on first principles. And when they can’t agree on first principles, if they feel really strongly about them, there is potential for violence.

So, when you have all these individuals running around, who, don’t agree, they may agree in some cases but don’t universally agree, there’s tremendous potential for violence.

So, liberalism is basically an ideology that’s based on conflict, and the question is, how do you solve that conflict?

There’s a three part solution:

And this should be dear to all of your hearts.

The first is, you focus on individual rights. Remember, the importance of the individual. You know The Declaration of Independence, “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” - those are natural rights, those are inalienable rights.

This means that every person on the planet has a particular set of rights, sometimes defined as freedoms. This is to say, you, if you want to be a Protestant, have the right to practice that religion, and if I want to be a Catholic, I have the freedom, I have the right to be a Catholic.

The name of the game is to recognize that everybody has these freedoms to choose. This makes perfect sense when you think about Catholics killing Protestants, right? Or Jews killing Muslims or whatever group you want, atheists killing believers, communists killing whatever, right?

The point is, you want to focus on the individual and let the individual choose for him or herself what kind of life they want to lead. You want to let them lead, as much as possible, their version of the good life. And, very important, every person on the planet has that right, and let me get ahead of myself here, just put this seed in your brain.

If you focus on individualism and inalienable rights, you go almost automatically from an individualistic ideology to a universalistic ideology, right? Because again, you’re focusing on the individual, you’re saying every individual has a set of rights, every individual on the planet. And that individualistic ideology becomes a universalistic ideology. But we’re talking about the individual here.

The second is, you purvey the norm of tolerance. We talk about tolerance all the time. Universities are really big on tolerance. We’re supposed to tolerate opinions that we don’t like. You bring in speakers, or you allow speakers to come in who say things that you find reprehensible, right? Tolerance really matters.

But the fact is that tolerance only takes you so far. because you’re dealing with people who sometimes are so committed to their beliefs. Somebody who believes that abortion is murder is willing to murder a doctor who practices abortion, alright?

So, you need a state, that’s the third element of the equation.

You need a state that’s effectively a night watchman. That makes sure that those people over there who want to live as Protestants don’t attack those people who want to live as Catholics and vice versa.

This is the liberal solution.

This is what America is all about.

Individualism - we talk about it all the time. We talk about rights, everybody has rights. My kids, over the years, have always reminded me when I tell them that they have to do X, Y and Z that they have rights and I cannot interfere with their rights, right? It’s the way we’re educated from the get go and of course, we’re a remarkably tolerant people as societies go. Not completely, but that’s, of course, why we have a state, right?

You’ve got to have a police force, you’ve got to have a system of courts, right?

So, that’s what liberalism is all about, right? Liberalism focuses on the individual, purveys the norm of tolerance and accepts the fact that you need a nightwatchman state.

Now, let’s talk about nationalism. Different animal…

Nationalism is based on the assumption that human beings are social animals.

We are born and heavily socialized into tribes.

We are not born in the state of nature.

We are not individuals, born and left alone in the woods.

We are born into groups. We are very tribal.

So, you see in terms of starting assumptions, or bedrock assumptions, what underpins nationalism, what underpins liberalism, very very different.

And individualism takes a back seat to group loyalty, right?

Somebody around the world kills an American, ISIS kills an American, it’s fundamentally different than killing a Saudi, or killing a Brit, because you’re killing one of us. This is the tribe, right? You’re an American. Americans look out for other Americans.

We are social animals from the get-go.

And aside from the family, the most important group, remember I said that you are born into and heavily socialized into particular groups ...tutting aside the family, the most important group in today’s world, is the nation (I’ll say more about that in a second).

What’s nationalism?

Here’s my simple definition:

It’s a set of political beliefs which holds that a nation, a nation, a body of individuals with characteristics that purportedly distinguish them from other groups, should have their own state. Think of the word nation-state.

Nation-state. Nation-state embodies what nationalism is all about. It says the world is divided up into all these tribes called nations and each each one of them wants its own state.

If you think about the world today, just look at a map of the world today, it is completely covered with nation-states. Nothing but nation-states.

If you went back to 1450 and looked at a map of Europe, there isn’t even a single state on that map. Over time, the growth of the state, and then the growth of the nation-state, you move to a world that is filled with nothing but nation-states. Look at the Palestinians and Israelis. The Jews who believe in Zionism, what is Zionism all about? It’s all about having your own Jewish state. Theodore Herzel, who is the father of Zionism, his most famous book is called, The Jewish State, Jewish nation-state.

What do the Palestinians want? Two state solution? Palestinians want their own state. Palestinians as a nation, want their own state.

The planet is filled with nations, many of which have their own state, almost all of which want their own state, nation-state, right?

That’s what nationalism is all about.

Take it a step further. Nations place a enormous importance on sovereignty, or self-determination, which is why they want their own state.

The Palestinians don’t want the Israelis deciding what their politics should look like. Palestinians want their own state. Jews want their own state.

Germans want their own state.

Americans want their own state.

..because they believe in sovereignty.

[...]

Liberal hegemony is based on intolerance. It says that everybody has to be liberal…

[...]

Mearsheimer argues against trying to impose liberal democracy, as it is necessarily a failed foreign policy against staunch nationalism, but he defends “liberal democracy” as a good way of life for The US.

Nevertheless, in places, Mearsheimer makes the point, quite eloquently, that people are social, very profoundly social, from the start; thus making nationalism as it protects their sociality something they care about more deeply than liberal democracy. They will defend more ardently the security, social order and stability that provides for general fairness and just recourse against the secondary priorities, bullying ‘prerogatives’ of individual liberal choice over the security of group interests. Noting our deep social nature (including Europeans) from the start is correct, and is the point of correction that Whites need to understand and prioritize as opposed to right wing reaction (itself a species of liberalism) reaction to Jewish didacticism.

YaleUniversity
Published on Youtube, Nov 22, 2017

The rise and fall of the liberal international order - by John J. Mearsheimer

Published by CISAus on Youtube, Aug 7, 2019

When this tweet speaks of “the socialist party” it is speaking of a party that would not delimit social accountability to native interests first and foremost.

The sane management of pervasive ecology has been dealt yet another serious blow as a central element, the management of human ecology through the accountability that ethnonationalism provides, has been pushed aside - at least temporarily - by liberal internationalist interests.

Matteo Salvini’s crucially necessary nativist, ethnonationalist anti-immigration platform has been sidelined by a coalition of the 5-Star Party, which is in cahoots with foreign interests and the corporate internationalist sell-out, Giuseppe Conte, reinstalling him as Prime Minister; allowing him to continue his border liberalization policies which are destroying Italy, Italians and European peoples broadly.

Italy’s corrupt Five-Star Movement announced Wednesday that it had made a deal with the Liberal Party to form a coalition government — keeping Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte in place while avoiding elections and ousting the ethnonationalist League led by Matteo Salvini.

Conte’s position was strengthened this week when President Trump, who pretends to share a similar vision on immigration to Salvini, tweeted his support of Conte – calling him a “very talented man who will hopefully remain Prime Minister!”

Showing his true colors form the start, Trump shunned a meeting with Salvini, who was prepared to endorse him as Trump campaigned for the Presidency.

While Salvini was able to gain popular support by broadening his party’s platform from Lega Nord, to one that represents all of Italy, he sought to gain elite support along with the 5-Stars and Conte’s party by joining the ass-kissing of the Kremlin, the Knesset and the Trumpstein agenda.

Salvini might have added Trumpstein, Putin and Netanyahu to the list of people not to trust with native European interests.

And with friends like that, highly practiced in the art of treachery, the message is: lay down with dogs and wake up with fleas.

Rather, wake up sidelined by the truly corrupt - corrupt enough to push aside your crucially necessary anti-immigration, nativist position and sell out your people and their ancient birthright.

Dr. Jörg D. Valentin@drjdvalentin

#RT
@EchoPRN: RT
@BasedPoland: It’s official.

The #FiveStarMovement & the [liberal] party have reached an agreement to form government

Ibid: #Salvini will be out of government until 2023 (unless snap elections at some point).

Italians can prepare for a new …

Ergo, maybe you can ‘weenie the Salvini’...

Here’s Fredo, the Aryan overman - or is he the ghost of Armenia, which Hitler suggested as an example of genocides that would be forgotten once a war of annihilation was long completed?

In recent months I’ve had the misfortune to have been confronted by an idiot going by the handle “ovfuckyou.” I did not seek him out. I found myself encountered by him in circumstances where people with overlapping (White Nationalist) concerns thought it might be constructive to “debate” him and his idea that WN should rally under Hitler and his programmatic leadership.

As I have said many times, Majorityrights is a platform that plainly rejects that idea; it rather functions as recourse for people who are able to see the obvious - that the people of today are not responsible for the World Wars, and all reasonable European peoples should be able to rally and coordinate under the rubric of ethnonationalism (while diaspora can be coordinated by the DNA Nations concept), but not all Europeans will be able to rally under Hitler and his program, quite the opposite. Thus, while there was obvious provocation from Jewry (unless we ascribe to the absurd position that Germans were ex-nihilo violent en mass) we reject the program of trying to redeem Hitler on balance and to engage in elaborate attempts to justify or deny his bad judgments and misdeeds.

These are such obvious and easy points to make by means of numerous references that I don’t like to discuss the issues, as I have no desire to lay guilt trips or stir up animosity among present day Europeans, for whatever side of WWII their ancestors were on. Hence, I have endeavored to post reference material to state in as brief and conciliatory a manner as possible, why it is that White Nationalism should Not try to redeem Hitler and Nazism as proponents of White Nationalism; they are rather significantly divisive and stigmatizing influences where adhered to the extent that an idiot like ovfuckyou does.

Sure ov is falling out with former White associates (e.g., people calling themselves “the gas station”). The right is inherently unstable. Typically, he’s talking to Jews now, of course - because they want to maintain the association of Hitler and WN. It’s divide and conquer.

ovfuckyou unabashedly identifies with the swastika.

It is one thing to say, “ok, Hitler and the Nazis had their reasons, and they had some things right”... but if one is to exercise 20/20 hindsight the place to find it is not in Nazi propaganda.

Having gotten myself lured into testing “debate” with ovfuckyou (accompanied by a few other Nazophiles) because he was hanging-out with Norvin, whom I hope to help around into a more stable position (his association with ov is broken, so that’s good, at least for the time being), I endeavored to explain the perspective of the nations between The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, viz. Poland, Belarus, Ukraine, and Czech.

Understanding the perspective of these nations goes far to debunk an argument critical to Nazi apologists, i.e., that “Hitler was acting defensively against a Soviet invasion.”

Further debunking the Nazi position is to show that territorial concessions required of Germany by the Treaty of Versailles and St. Germain were not wholly arbitrary and without justification.

It is apparent why, at this point, ovfuckyuou and friends started to shout over me, talking in mock Jewish voices, saying that I was whining about things (whining? I don’t even like talking about this history ..if anyone is whining it is them and if anyone should be complaining about the war, it is the victims - including the Germans - of Hitler’s hair-brained program).

He’s been making the rounds in what appears to be The Regnery Circus 2.0

While I can kind of understand Norvin and a few other newbies, especially German Americans coming up through American right wing auspices, not being quite ready to be finished with ov’s angle, he’s been propped up, making the circuit on other White advocacy platforms, with people who’s intelligence and audience I have some regard for otherwise, and whose platforms overlap Majorityrights in significant ways - should be entirely; hence, to simply walk away from them is not on order.

After the mishap with the debate proposal by Norvin, which demonstrated that I ought not bother bringing the good-willed Per Nordin let alone the consummate professional, Dr. Christian Lindner, into the mudslinging of Ov, I found myself in a hangout with him, Claire Khaw and Church of Entropy. We were both opposed to Church of Entropy, no need to go into details - but that and other temporary alignments with ov caused me to let my guard down a bit when he found his way onto Eccelux streams.

When people are as apparently intelligent as Eccelux I have difficulty suspending disbelief that they can be blinded to the obvious.

Part of Ecce’s blindness may stem from fairly commercial aspirations. One can say that we need to get our voice out there, but then is it our voice when a litmus test is put in place that we represent ourselves by means of eye rolling right wing perfidy?

There seems to be something like a Regnery circus 2.0 in re-formation. The Regnery perspective was the structural backing of The Alt-Right. Richard Spencer was a central figure and apparently remains. Litmus tests were in order to join the club: an anti social identity - Nazi sympathy, German supremacism, Christianity, scientism, right wing elitism generally - including Jews if sufficiently Germanophilic.

Richard Spencer once said that we have to make sure that people are right on the “PQ”, the Polish question, and if they are not, they need to be ostracized. He added, “there’s not going to be your little Poland.” Well, why not? Why not “little Poland” and “little Germany”?

Apparently because Spencer is not an ethnonationalist, he’s an imperialist surpremacist who wishes for a Molotiv-Ribbentrop Pact 2.

The Rengery perspective is not simply Gemanophilic, though it is that, it is not simply Nazophilic, though it is that. It is tolerant of pagans and other non Christians but it prefers Christians. It’s tolerant of Jews, will even include them in the big tent if they’re against “the left” and more particularly, if they are Germanophilic Jews, added points if they do apologetics for Nazi Germany or Holocaust deniers.

The Regnery Circus platform was The Voice of Reason Broadcasting Network a few years back. Now defunct, the circus functions through a few Youtube channels.

Josh Neal shows all the hallmarks of being a focal point for its rounds, many of the same ironic combination of Nazi apologetics and Jews/those who believe that Jews should be included in orchestrating White advocacy.

Recently, Josh was talking to Brett Stevens - the guy and his site, “Amerika,” are clearly shills for Jewish interests.

Ovfuckyuou is playing the Carolyn Yeager role of pure Nazi.

I know, I know, it’s 4D chess, the Rubix Cube.

Interestingly, in his last talk with Eccelux (and Faustian Spirit), ovfuckyou had the nerve to say that ‘there’s a void resulting from White people being cast into a binary decision between liberalism or Nazism’ when in fact, I’ve been offering a clear alternative to that for ten years now - while ovfuckyou talked and blustered over me when I attempted to articulate this position.

Here are some of the perfidies that ovfuckyou tried to put across as “argument”:

When I said that I wash my hands of coal burners (burn the coal pay the toll), ovfuckyou issued the ridiculous non-sequitur that I was being ‘hypocritical’ in not believing that nationals, e.g., French, defending their nations and people against Nazi Germany should die.

He said that.

Just to test further how absurd he might be, I asked, what would you expect me to say to Polish people regarding Hitler?

Ovfuckyou said that I should say to them that “Hitler was not so bad.” He said that, he really said that. I laughed, genuinely.

On two different occasions he spoke of the good relations between Germans, including Nazi Germany, and Russia.

Do I really need to look beyond the Leningrad and Stalingrad to cite examples of how relations were not necessarily so great between Hitler’s platform and the Russian folk? How about the Russian rapes of German women by war’s end for good Russian/Nazi rapport?

Because I am not overly sympathetic to Germany’s arguments for WWI or WWII, let alone the destruction wrought by their war efforts in both cases, citing examples of destruction that ovfuckyou apparently didn’t want to hear about, he tried to insist that I was anti German.

I repeat, in truth, that I am not anti German. I advocate Germans as I advocate all European peoples; but not only as arbitrary Europeans, I advocate the maintenance of our discreet kinds; in other words, Germany as an ethnostate for Germans and the capacity of German diaspora to maintain their kinds as well, whether coordinated through the DNA Nations or their German clubs and so on… the same rule structure that I advocate for all European peoples.

When it would become clear to him that there were cogent White Nationalist arguments to be made without, even against the Nazi position, ovfuckyou not only tried to talk over, but to shout over; and when I recognized that he’s not going to talk in good faith and rose above his din by raising my own volume, he tried to say that he was triggering me and had won the debate - said that he couldn’t believe that I was Italian because Italians are not so “thin-skinned.”

First of all, I thought that Italians were notoriously temperamental - my family certainly was.

Secondly, why would I be so “thin skinned” as to not want to platform his stupidity, for ‘little issues’ like not wanting to include Hitler redemption in a WN platform, nor wanting to be bothered with holocaust denial - why would I be ‘so thin skinned as to not want to be associated with that?’

OvFredo presses down on his diaphragm for his trademark “well adjusted” fake chuckle that’s supposed to unnerve and disarm.

When it didn’t work, when I did not want to be bothered with this recalcitrant idiot, he proceeded to berate me as a faggot, a Pollock and he said he would kick my ass. Ecce and I were off the air with ovfuckyou when he launched into this little tirade.

Look at him. Who’s ass is he going to kick? Who is he going to unite with this sort of incitement under the banner of Hitler?

This was followed by a series of abusive emails from ovfuckyou - all because I don’t love Hitler.

It’s not enough to be ok with Germans, to want to ally with them, to fight on the same side in coordination of their interests, to advocate their German ethnostate, their diasporic species, not enough to view Jews as other, aliens with interests other than ours, predominantly hostile, requiring separatism - no. If I don’t love Hitler this asshole is going to to try to trash me.

The road to hell can be paved with bad intentions as well.

I’m asking you too, Ecce. Is that too hard a Rubix cube? Is there a sack big enough to accommodate ovfuckyou’s shit?

And yet Ecce is all cool with him, says I’m being over sensitive.

Perhaps the Regnery Circus might be there to rescue and underwrite ovfuckyou. Josh Neal endorses him. Checking all the right boxes.

“Unite the right”, works real good

.................

In sum, for me to take the honest position of advocating all European peoples, and the maintenance of their discreet kinds - I’m an ethnonationalist, so, Germany for Germans - and to extend the DNA Nations to maintain the discreet kinds of Europeans in diaspora as well; and furthermore, to say that I do not want present day Germans to feel guilty about history, nor do I - this was not enough for ovfuckyou. He starts attacking me, trying to belittle me as a “Pollock” and a “faggot”, and ostracize because I won’t genuflect to Hitler.

Watch it kiddo. The road to hell can be paved with bad intentions as well.

I’ve invited ovfuckyou to Europe, including Poland and parts east. You can tell the people for yourself how great Hitler was, how he was “not that bad.”

Ovfuckyou, your stupidity is so destructive that there is no negative consequence that could come to you that would not leave me feeling just fine about it.