Majorityrights News > Category: Russian Politics

CrimeThInc., “The Threat to Rojava” 28 Dec 2019:

An Anarchist in Syria Speaks on the Real Meaning of Trump’s Withdrawal

Analysis Current Events

Following Donald Trump’s surprise announcement that he is withdrawing US troops from Syria, we’ve received the following message from an anarchist in Rojava, spelling out what this means for the region and what the stakes are on a global scale. For background, consult our earlier articles, “Understanding the Kurdish Resistance” and “The Struggle Is not for Martyrdom but for Life.”

I’m writing from Rojava. Full disclosure: I didn’t grow up here and I don’t have access to all the information I would need to tell you what is going to happen next in this part of the world with any certainty. I’m writing because it is urgent that you hear from people in northern Syria about what Trump’s “troop withdrawal” really means for us—and it’s not clear how much time we have left to discuss it. I approach this task with all the humility at my disposal.

I’m not formally integrated into any of the groups here. That makes it possible for me to speak freely, but I should emphasize that my perspective doesn’t represent any institutional position. If nothing else, this should be useful as a historical document indicating how some people here understand the situation at this point in time, in case it becomes impossible to ask us later.

Trump’s decision to withdraw troops from Syria is not an “anti-war” or “anti-imperialist” measure. It will not bring the conflict in Syria to an end. On the contrary, Trump is effectively giving Turkish President Tayyip Erdoğan the go-ahead to invade Rojava and carry out ethnic cleansing against the people who have done much of the fighting and dying to halt the rise of the Islamic State (ISIS). This is a deal between strongmen to exterminate the social experiment in Rojava and consolidate authoritarian nationalist politics from Washington, DC to Istanbul and Kobane. Trump aims to leave Israel the most ostensibly liberal and democratic project in the entire Middle East, foreclosing the possibilities that the revolution in Rojava opened up for this part of the world.

All this will come at a tremendous cost. As bloody and tragic as the Syrian civil war has already been, this could open up not just a new chapter of it, but a sequel.

This is not about where US troops are stationed. The two thousand US soldiers at issue are a drop in the bucket in terms of the number of armed fighters in Syria today. They have not been on the frontlines of the fighting the way that the US military was in Iraq.

The withdrawal of these soldiers is not the important thing here. What matters is that Trump’s announcement is a message to Erdoğan indicating that there will be no consequences if the Turkish state invades Rojava.

There’s a lot of confusion about this, with supposed anti-war and “anti-imperialist” activists like Medea Benjamin endorsing Donald Trump’s decision, blithely putting the stamp of “peace” on an impending bloodbath and telling the victims that they should have known better. It makes no sense to blame people here in Rojava for depending on the United States when neither Medea Benjamin nor anyone like her has done anything to offer them any sort of alternative.

While authoritarians of various stripes seek to cloud the issue, giving a NATO member a green light to invade Syria is what is “pro-war” and “imperialist.” Speaking as an anarchist, my goal is not to talk about what the US military should do. It is to discuss how US military policy impacts people and how we ought to respond. Anarchists aim to bring about the abolition of every state government and the disbanding of every state military in favor of horizontal forms of voluntary organization; but when we organize in solidarity with targeted populations such as those who are on the receiving end of the violence of ISIS and various state actors in this region, we often run into thorny questions like the ones I’ll discuss below.

The worst case scenario now is that the Turkish-backed Free Syrian Army (TFSA), backed by the Turkish military itself, will overrun Rojava and carry out ethnic cleansing on a level you likely cannot imagine. They’ve already done this on a small scale in Afrin. In Rojava, this would take place on a historic scale. It could be something like the Palestinian Nakba or the Armenian genocide. I will try to explain why this is happening, why you should care about it, and what we can do about it together.

To understand what Trump and Erdoğan are doing, you have to understand the geography of the situation. This site is useful for keeping up with geographical shifts in the Syrian civil war.

First of All: About the Experiment in Rojava

The system in Rojava is not perfect. This is not the right place to air dirty laundry, but there are lots of problems. I’m not having the kind of experience here that Paul Z. Simons had some years ago, when his visit to Rojava made him feel that everything is possible. Years and years of war and militarization have taken their toll on the most exciting aspects of the revolution here. Still, these people are in incredible danger right now and the society they have built is worth defending.

What is happening in Rojava is not anarchy. All the same, women play a major role in society; there is basic freedom of religion and language; an ethnically, religiously, and linguistically diverse population lives side by side without any major acts of ethnic cleansing or conflict; it’s heavily militarized, but it’s not a police state; the communities are relatively safe and stable; there’s not famine or mass food insecurity; the armed forces are not committing mass atrocities. Every faction in this war has blood on its hands, but the People’s Protection Units (YPG/YPJ) have conducted themselves far more responsibly than any other side. They’ve saved countless lives—not just Kurds—in Sinjar and many other places. Considering the impossible conditions and the tremendous amount of violence that people here have been subjected to from all sides, that is an incredible feat. All this stands in stark contrast to what will happen if the Turkish state invades, considering that Trump has given Erdoğan the go-ahead in return for closing a massive missile sale.

It should go without saying that I don’t want to perpetuate an open-ended Bush-style “war on terror,” much less to participate in the sort of “clash of civilizations” between Islam and the West that bigots and fundamentalists of both stripes have been fantasizing about. On the contrary, that is precisely what we’re trying to prevent here. Most of the people Daesh [ISIS] have killed have been Muslim; most of the people who have died fighting Daesh have been Muslim. In Hajin, where I was stationed and where the last ISIS stronghold is, one of the internationals who has been fighting Daesh longest is an observant Muslim—not to speak of all the predominantly Arab fighters from Deir Ezzor there, most of whom are almost certainly Muslim as well.

The Factions

For the sake of brevity, I’ll oversimplify and say that today, there are roughly five sides in the Syrian civil war: loyalist, Turkish, jihadi, Kurdish, and rebel.

At the conclusion of this text, an appendix explores the narratives that characterize each of these sides.

Each of these sides stands in different relation to the others. I’ll list the relations of each group to the others, starting with the other group that they are most closely affiliated with and ending with the groups they are most opposed to:

Loyalist: Kurdish, Turkish, jihadi, rebel

Rebel: Turkish, jihadi, Kurdish, loyalist

Turkish: rebel, jihadi, loyalist, Kurdish

Kurdish: loyalist, rebel, Turkish, jihadi

Jihadi: rebel, Turkish, Kurdish and loyalist

This may be helpful in visualizing which groups could be capable of compromising and which are irreversibly at odds. Again, remember, I am generalizing a lot.

I want to be clear that each of these groups is motivated by a narrative that contains at least some kernel of truth. For example, in regards to the question of who is to blame for the rise of ISIS, it is true that the US “ploughed the field” for ISIS with the invasion and occupation of Iraq and its disastrous fallout (loyalist narrative); but it is also true that the Turkish state has tacitly and sometimes blatantly colluded with ISIS because ISIS was fighting against the primary adversary of the Turkish state (Kurdish narrative) and that Assad’s brutal reaction to the Arab Spring contributed to a spiral of escalating violence that culminated in the rise of Daesh (rebel narrative). And although I’m least sympathetic to the jihadi and Turkish state perspectives, it is certain that unless the well-being of Sunni Arabs in Iraq and Syria is factored into a political settlement, the jihadis will go on fighting, and that unless there is some kind of political settlement between the Turkish state and the PKK, Turkey will go on seeking to wipe out Kurdish political formations, without hesitating to commit genocide.

It’s said that “Kurds are second-class citizens in Syria, third-class citizens in Iran, fourth-class citizens in Iraq, and fifth-class citizens in Turkey.” It’s no accident that when Turkish officials like Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu list the “terror groups” they are most concerned about in the region, they name the YPG before ISIS. Perhaps this can help explain the cautious response of many Kurds to the Syrian revolution: from the Kurdish perspective, regime change in Syria carried out by Turkish-backed jihadis coupled with no regime change in Turkey could be worse than no regime change in Syria at all.

I won’t rehash the whole timeline from the ancient Sumerians to the beginning of the PKK war in Turkey to the 2003 invasion of Iraq to the Arab Spring and the rise of ISIS. Let’s skip forward to Trump’s announcement on December 19: “We have defeated ISIS in Syria, my only reason for being there during the Trump Presidency.”

Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
We have defeated ISIS in Syria, my only reason for being there during the Trump Presidency.

117K
3:29 PM - Dec 19, 2018
Twitter Ads info and privacy
60.8K people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Has ISIS Been Defeated? And by Whom?

Let me be clear: Daesh has not been defeated in Syria. Just a few days ago, they took a shot at our position with a rocket launcher out of a clear blue sky and missed by only a hundred yards.

It is true that their territory is just a fraction of what it once was. At the same time, by any account, they still have thousands of fighters, a lot of heavy weaponry, and probably quite a bit of what remains of their senior leadership down in the Hajin pocket of the Euphrates river valley and the surrounding deserts, between Hajin and the Iraqi border. In addition, ISIS have a lot of experience and a wide array of sophisticated defense strategies—and they are absolutely willing to die to inflict damage on their enemies.

To the extent that their territory has been drastically reduced, Trump is telling a bald-faced lie in trying to take credit for this. The achievement he is claiming as his own is largely the work of precisely the people he is consigning to death at the hands of Turkey.

READ MORE...

Mattis resigns in disagreement with Trump, citing need to maintain unique and comprehensive system of alliances and partnerships.

CNBC, “Defense Secretary James Mattis is quitting because he doesn’t agree with Trump”, 20 December 2018:

- Defense Secretary James Mattis will be stepping down at the end of February, telling President Donald Trump in a letter that he has “a right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours.”

- Mattis served as Trump’s secretary of defense since the start of the Trump administration.

- “General Mattis was a great help to me in getting allies and other countries to pay their share of military obligations,” Trump says.

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary James Mattis will be stepping down at the end of February, telling President Donald Trump in a letter Thursday that he has “a right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours.”

In his extraordinary letter to Trump, Mattis said that a long-held “core belief” of his “is that our strength as a nation is inextricably linked to the strength of our unique and comprehensive system of alliances and partnerships.”

Without maintaining those alliances, he wrote, “we cannot protect our interests or serve” the role of an “indispensable nation in the free world.”

The president has frequently lashed out at America’s allies in France, the United Kingdom, Canada and Germany, while at times appearing to side with U.S. adversaries over his own officials.

“My views on treating allies with respect and also being clear-eyed about both malign actors and strategic competitors,” Mattis said, “are strongly held and informed by over four decades of immersion in these issues.”

Mattis’ resignation letter, which a Pentagon spokeswoman said was hand-delivered to the president Thursday afternoon, comes on the heels of Trump’s controversial plan to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria.

That announcement on Wednesday will reportedly take more than 2,000 U.S. service members out of the country, ending the ground strategy against the Islamic State. Trump said in a tweet Wednesday morning that “we have defeated ISIS in Syria, my only reason for being there during the Trump Presidency.”

The move was met with heated criticism from a number of Trump’s usual allies in Congress. But Russian President Vladimir Putin said that Trump made the “correct” move, because the U.S. troops had no legal right to be in Syria.

On Thursday evening, defense officials told NBC News that the White House has ordered the Pentagon to look into plans for withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, as well.

CNBC, “Read James Mattis’ resignation letter to Trump: ‘We must be resolute’ against Russia and China”, 20 Dec 2018:

In a letter addressed to Trump, Mattis said that “because you have a right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours” on a number of subjects, “I believe it is right for me to step down from my position.”

In his letter, Mattis cited the importance of US alliances, particularly NATO, and said the US must stand ‘resolute and unambiguous’ in the face of authoritarian countries such as China and Russia.

Mattis’ resignation comes on the heels of Trump’s controversial plan to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria.

That announcement on Wednesday will reportedly take more than 2,000 U.S. servicemembers out of the country, ending the ground strategy against the Islamic State. Trump said in a tweet Wednesday morning that “we have defeated ISIS in Syria, my only reason for being there during the Trump Presidency.”

Neither the White House nor The Pentagon immediately responded to CNBC’s requests for comment on the president’s announcement.

Read Mattis’ full letter to the president below:

READ MORE...

Nato Foreign Ministers meet (Photo: Bogdan Danescu/Reuters)

Foreign Brief, “NATO foreign ministers to discuss Russia-Ukraine confrontation over Kerch Strait”,  4 Dec 2018:

Foreign ministers from the member states of NATO will convene in Brussels today to discuss the recent flare in tensions between Russia and Ukraine over access to the Sea of Azov.

Kiev has been invited to participate. It will likely reiterate its request for heightened NATO patrols in the Black Sea and increased naval assistance in the waters surrounding Crimea. While representatives are expected to unanimously condemn Russia’s act of aggression towards Ukrainian vessels, it is unlikely that they will consent to an increased deployment to the region, with heavyweights Germany and France having ruled out a military solution.

The Sea of Azov incident, as well as any potential NATO response, is also likely to undermine efforts to quell rising violence in Eastern Ukraine. Germany has pushed strongly in recent weeks for more frequent contact between the ‘Normandy Four’ group of nations committed to a peaceful solution for Ukraine’s conflict. However, Russia’s involvement is likely to pressure NATO to tread carefully in its response to avoid undermining tentative mediation efforts. NATO is expected to endorse the possibility of further sanctions against Moscow.

Press image above or here for video, Part 4: If we take a historical perspective of ethnonationalists acting in good faith as opposed to that of the empires that were in control of Europe just prior to the World Wars, we can see that it was imperialism, not nationalism, that in fact spawned these wars. If we want to do justice to the homeostatic systemic correction that ethnonationalism affords against runaway liberal internationalism, we need to take advantage of interactive correctability through a more honest historical frame of reference, to locate where ethnonationalism lost homeostatic correctiive reference and became subject to imperial stasis.

That would mean beginning at least at the point where (Germanic) imperialism became a dominant paradigm in and through (central/eastern) Europe, a period issued in by Frederick The Great - when the Polish ethnostate was dissolved, Germanization imposed by the imperial Austro-Hungarian and German/Prussian partitions, while imperial Russia controlled the rest of it.

As far as ethnostatism goes in fact, Germany remained huge following Versailles, retaining a great deal of what is now western Poland, including Breslau (now Wroclaw) and East Prussia, which is now Kaliningrad and parts just south.

We’ll go into the roots of these ethnonational travails, including mistakes on the Polish side, but not focusing there for now, since that’s what you’ve been hearing in the PC of so called WN, in exaggerated form.

Typically disregarded is the Versailles committee’s valid reasoning for areas granted to Poland and of the Sudetenland retained for Czech by the Treaty of St. Germain.

Historical examination will show that Danzig and the Sudetenland (there in green) form a crucial historical frame of ethnonational borders.

Nazi Germany understood this, as Britain’s Daily Telegraph* wrote in 1939:

“Today we realise the truth of Bismarck’s saying that he who possesses the Bohemian chain dominates Europe.

Are we to realise soon the significance of Frederick the Great’s words, “Who rules over the mouth of the Vistula, rules over Poland better than the King of Poland himself”?

Herr Hitler received a birthday gift of the freedom of Danzig. It remains to be seen whether this will involve Danzig’s receiving the “freedom” of Herr Hitler”

Though historically disputed and shifting in demographics, Danzig was occupied by Germans at that time.

In fact, Danzig is ground zero both in the framrwork of World War II and historically, of German / Polish conflict, and international intervention. It is there we need to begin overcoming shallow and mistaken Hitler apologist talk that he just wanted Danzig back -as if it was simply German and rightfully theirs, given to those stubborn Poles, when if fact Poland was merely given a stake in a Danzig made neutral by Versailles for historical and logistical reasons.

Of course these were mere pesky contentions to Hitler, which would one day be made historically incidental when his Plan East was effectively concluded. For the time being, propaganda was necessary to justify this plan and get it underway.

Thus, with regard to allegations made by the Nazis of Polish abuse of German civilians within the the corridor, we absolutely cannot assume the veracity. Even cursory glance at footage of interwar Danzig does not indicate a beleaguered German population under anything like abject duress - on the contrary, it shows as remarkably comfortable and thriving population, commercial well being despite this being during the throes of world wide economic depression.

Whatever cruelties that did in fact come of Polish nationalism toward Germans did not come in a vacuum, as they were responses to having their people and nation subject to cruel repression under the Teutonic Order and Frederick the Great’s Prussia - anti Polinism and programs of Germanification.

Again, its important to note in the abstract, that for whatever grievances the Germans may have had in regard to the response of Polish nationalists in their newly reformed nation upon Versailles, Hitler and Nazism more than made up for it, through policies such as killing 10 times the number of Poles for any German killed by Polish partitions; and retaliations far worse in the overview of their war policy and practice against Poles and Poland - such as the murdering of Polish civilians in the Warsaw ghetto uprising - in far greater number than civilians were killed in the Dresden fire bombing a year later, speaking of more than making up for grievances.

But before we re-animate a German - Polish conflict, as we are ethnonationalists of good will - before adopting the appearance of being motivated to attribute retroactive guilt then - let us reinvoke principle once again.

One of the main reasons why we are confronted with having to deal with this issue of Nazism, so divisive and stigmatic of Whites, is because of PC guilt-tripping of Whites… and a direct backlash against that guilt tripping ...particularly by those among groups not of a perspective where Nazi Germany was directly antagonistic…

And again, there has been much pandering to counter that guilt tripping in order to gain audience and backing among American Whites in particular.

It is key therefore to invoke this antidote to guilt tripping to underscore first of all, that it is history, nobody alive should be made to suffer and pay with their lives and nationhood.

__________________________

* Correction, I had accidentally said, “Daily Mirror.” This quote is actually from a Daily Telegraph article, 5 May 1939.

Audio of Part 3

Hitler and Nazism were Not White Nationalism, Part 3

Thus we have established a first principle of this discourse, a positive tautology that the World Wars are history, the people of today are not to blame and should not be subject to the collective punishment of losing their peoplehood and corresponding nations.

There is a second principle that we will invoke at this point, one which the internet has provided for in spades, but which White Nationalists have not utilized to anything like its full potential.

That is correctability, the correctability of ideas and understanding through interactive participation, whether through comments or speaking directly to people and engaging correction.

To date, what has been imposed as if correction, has largely been World War II revisionism - which tends to be dishonest excuses and apologetics for Nazi imperialism where not outright recitation of Nazi propaganda that could be falsified rather easily if they cared to do it.

Misrepresentation and omissions of important facts can remain if would-be interlocutors are not of good faith, don’t really want to pursue the truth, though Nazi apologetics usually claim the truth as their mission.

On the other hand, taking interactive correctability for granted and expecting the voices of correction to chime-in has left me susceptible to allow oversights to linger, because many would-be WN, who’ve accepted the rightist identity and its own political correctness will not say “boo” and alert me to oversights, especially when calling attention to these matters will call negative attention and shoot holes in their pro-Hitler/Nazi position.

Graudenz, Kulm, Thorn and Bromberg, a would-be occlusive salient. To the south of those cities, Poznan and Gniezno are the cradle of Polish nationhood.

There is a third and ancillary tautology to be invoked which is that for whatever grievances that either side had of the times, they were more than made up for.

We will apply this as a third tautological principle then, after ‘it’s history and nobody had anything to do with it’, and after correctability, that is, the tautology that for whatever complaints of the time, “they more than made up for it in retaliation.”

We will take a critical perspective on grievances and injustices alleged by the Nazi apologists, such as allegations made against Polish nationals and partisans, since those allegations have tended to go uncorrected within the philoNazistic PC of so called White Nationalism.

But we need to circle back to our second principle at this point, which is interactive correctability and the fact that so called WN has not been acting in good faith to call matters to attention, especially when they would reflect badly on Nazi Germany.

In previous discussions of Hitler’s complaints over where Versailles borders were drawn, I have made the claim that there were really only three cities of significance lost by Germany - Poznan, Bromberg and Thorn and one made neutral, Danzig (made neutral, not Polish, as in something the Poles could unilaterally return to Germany as misinformed Hitler apologists often claim they should have); and there were some village areas in the corridor and near the Versailles established border where Germans were caught in Polish territory, and we must add that there were Poles caught in German territory. But though Danzig was at the time occupied by Germans, it was a historically disputed city and a strategic city for all concerned, thus justifiably deemed neutral by Versailles. Cities to the south of the corridor, such as Poznan, Gniezno and Leszno, should not have been considered anything remotely but Polish.

While it is true that in previous discussions of this issue I had neglected to mention two cities of significance in the Polish corridor which were inhabited by Germans, Graudenz and Kulm , known in Polish as Grudziądz and Chelmno, it does not change the thesis.

First of all, circling to principle three (mis-spoke; it is “principle two”, correctability that is invoked here) again, that the comment section has been open and feedback of good will is expected to correct oversights such as that.

More fundamentally, these cities being under German political jurisdiction would only extend the salient that would be formed by Bromberg and Torun to obstruct and potentially occlude crucial strategic and economic sea access for Poland.

In addition, Graudenz and Klum were formed of brutal Teutonic and Prussian imperialism on cities that were originally Polish.

Finally, it is a history that only provides more examples of the enormous toll that the Nazis took against impositions of Polish patriotism in these areas; invoking principle three, that they more than made up for it.

Thus, it is no wonder that the Hitler redemptionists didn’t particularly care to take me up on my open offer to correct whatever prior oversights of mine…

No, the Hitler redemptionists, in their claim to be after the truth of history, tend to begin history at or about World War I. And of course, Germany was a sheer victim of the rest of the world, from the Schiff’s backing of the Trotskies, to the Balfour Declaration to the Treaty of Versailles.  But really, to do enthnonationalism justice, we need to go further back in history…

Dinant

The Necessary War

With correction of prior failure to discuss Graudenz and Kulm - now added to surrounding discussion…

As European(White) Nationalists, we all know that the wake of the World Wars has not birthed favorable circumstances for our people. Thus, we are decidedly less satisfied than Max Hastings that a marked separatism from Jewish power and influence was not achieved, its necessity not even understood; and along with that that a pervasive liberalism should have won-out as consequence, potentially auguring the final chapter for Europeans in entirety.

But was it “hubris” for Poland to want its nation back? I rather think not. It’s called ethno-nationalism and it is that which we should support as opposed to internationalism. Germany was still huge after Versailles. On the Polish border, it had lost Posen, Bromberg and Thorn and I need to add Graudenz and Kulm *, while Danzig became neutral. The Max Hastings account introduces yet more discussion of Versailles to make it more understandable as an effort at justice, as it always appeared when looking at the territorial divisions. However, there have been a couple of parties who want me to run strong anti-Polish propaganda.

The large problem with that is that for those of us who view White Nationalist media as our veritable news source now (finding other, anti-White media wholly intolerable), a hypotrophied unanimity with Nazism and its antecedent regime’s military campaigns is what we get: for whatever reasons, but probably because America is so German- American that a “by-golly, Hitler was absolutely right!” perspective is all too convenient (and the most popular and economically supported of any WN perspective) in the wake of Jewish and Neo-liberal destruction; and all the more motivated with guilt trips of World War II being most pressing upon them; their having least perspective on anything but a direct desire to throw guilt trips off as entire fabrication: nuances of perspective and history are cast aside, and ultimately, the unfortunate difficulty they have in seeing our family relations and the more relative and complex justice of the circumstance seeds potential inter-European conflict, if not war. Seeds sown oblivious to the fact that we do not care to lay guilt trips upon them, certainly not subsequent generations, though they go ahead and try to lay guilt trips upon us for events before our fathers lives even. Just as they want it understood that they and their forefathers were not ex-nihilo evil, but had reasons for their wars, so too those of “Allied” descent wish to claim the same.

Yes, there were corrupt forces manipulating the circumstances, but there were also justly reasoned motives. The circumstances were a great deal more complicated and justified from an Allied perspective than The Hitler contingent of WN will ever admit. That’s a problem if you want to treat WN as your media. Because Nazi Germany and Kaiser Germany were not pure and sheer victims, as the salient contingent of WN wish to claim. But so long as their childish and Jewish style of argumentation is what is being served in WN discourse, I am left no choice but to balance things off in the service of truth. There are several sites out there for those who want to take a “Hitler only good everyone else bad” perspective. You will not hear that the German regimes did have choices: Polish, Belarusian, Ukrainian and other Nationalisms, even the British, of course, could have been aligned, willing and able to fight Soviet incursions (had done so already in some instances).

Until there are other, or more, WN sites which care for the truth and represent events in the context of their nuance and balance, I must continue to highlight discussions such as that from Max Hastings. In fact, there is much there that one would never hear and learn about if the now standard WN position on several sites - “Germany’s war efforts only good, their people only victims” -  were the only perspective heard; and there is a great deal of intimidation that it be the only perspective heard in WN, to the point where the opposite of PC is in effect, to where it is a veritable taboo to say anything negative about Nazi Germany and its predecessors and anything good about the Allies and their predecessors. In truth, of course, there are many things for Germans to be proud of, and some things to not be so proud of. For some reason, that is too complex a fact for some to cope with. Those of us who are sick of that childish unanimity might find Max Hastings discussion refreshing and informative.

There are thoughts on responsibility in World War I which echo very much that of WWII. Thoughts on Versailles foreign to WN discourse. And of course the great taboo in WN, to suggest that a German military could have done anything worth resisting. It was of course noble to burn the library of Leuven (they just had to do that, didn’t they?); to do whatever I am not allowed to speak about to Belgian civilians there, in Dinant and elsewhere, to French and other civilians; in Kalisz as well. No, Germany was always a perfect nation, nobody can say otherwise; if you want to blame anybody, conveniently blame Poland as Hitler and Goebbels suggested, or as Frederick the Great might have proposed of his then vanquished neighbor.

A remiss to not mention Graudenz and Kulm not only for my part but also conveniently “uncorrected” by the Hitler redemptionists in commentary here; probably as it would open a can of worms surrounding these two cities that they’d rather not to go into - though I will go into it in parts three and four of the audio, “Hitler was Not WN.” A remiss for my part to not go into these cities as yet, but not changing the fundamental thesis of The Treaty of Versailles’ reasoning. On the contrary.

The “father of Polish Nationalism” and staunch anti-Semite, Dmowski felt Piłsudski’s pragmatism was naive. They became rivals, but prior to that Dmowski had good things to say about Piłsudski: “He was always the brave boy, son of mother patriotism, dreamer of the liberation of his homeland (...) (...) p. Pilsudski, the intelligent and noble man, and above all a very good Pole” said Roman Dmowski about Piłsudski in 1903.

Polish patriot and military man extraordinaire, with initiatives ranging from the cunning Bezdany train robbery to fund the Polish revolution, to the spectacular victory over the Soviet army at Warsaw, to the audacious re-take of Poznan and surroundings from the Germans in the Greater Poland Uprising.

While it is true that in previous discussions of this issue I had neglected to mention these two cities of significance in the Polish corridor - cities that were inhabited by Germans, Graudzen and Kulm, known in Polish as Grudiaz and Chelmno - this does not change the thesis.

First of all, the comment section has been open and feedback of good will is expected to correct oversights such as that. And how convenient that Hitler redemptionists would not go into matters surrounding these cities.

Further, these cities being German would only extend the salient that would be formed by Bromberg and Torun to obstruct and potentially occlude crucial strategic and economic sea access for Poland.

In addition, Graudzen and Kulm were formed of brutal Tuetonic and Prussian imperialism upon already extant settlements that were originally Polish.

And finally, investigation into the dispute over these cities only reveals yet more examples of the enormous toll that the Nazis took in retaliation to imposition of Polish patriotism in these areas. It’s no wonder that the Hitler redemptionists were less than ardent, didn’t particularly care to take me up on my open offer to correct whatever oversights of mine…

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.

Interesting that if one so much as intimates the slightest defense of Poland (e.g., against chauvinism and imperialism) that you will project your mindless German chauvinism (a troll commentor had said that I am a “mindless Polish chauvinist” and that is why MR is unpopular); with a reactionary part of a large demographic under more direct pressure of PC lies, thus going with the pretense that it cares for sheer truth by reaction - it is backed by Jewry as the third default position:

1) Sheer liberalism is their preferred position for Whites (direct betrayal of Whites and White atomization).

2) Christianity as it places Whites mindlessly under the yoke of Abrahamic law (the golden rule is mindless; the gentiles are not ethnicity organized as such).

3) Failing that, they will encourage Nazism - the clear chauvinism - as they know it will repulse most normal people and lead to antagonism among Whites where not otherwise sending us headlong into disaster. ..perhaps take care of some ‘traitorous’ Jews all too intermarried with Germans, Poles, other ‘goyim.’

4) Failing that they will encourage sundry and motley no-account, right wing reactions that help to atomize would-be White organization and coordination:

a) No account scientism and objectivism for the higher I.Q.

b) Conspiracy theories; and ideologies beyond reality and verification for the less intelligent;
or to cover that part of their intelligence that isn’t (lacks judgment).

I am not lonely, but your bubble that appears as camaraderie is based on illusion and lies; along with (((marketing))) of tropes and memes in YKW interest.

Enabling some stupid dude like yourself to absurdly accuse me of “mindless Polish chauvinism”, if I defend ethnonationalism.

Nor am I a chauvinist of any kind. I’m ethnonationalist, defending ethnonationalism of all kinds, but the European kind and its coordination to begin with.

Nazism is the clear imperialist supremacism, programmatic of disaster. And scientism - viz., scientistic reaction - is the mindlessness that lets it be guided headlong to disaster. Get with the reality of praxis instead, get with the ethnonational program.

J.F. Gariepy: “One of the major historians of World War II” Thomas Goodrich: “From what I’ve read..

..from what I’ve read it was a virtual massacre of German residents living in areas under Polish control.”

J.F. Gariepy: “Alright, so that would be quite shocking.”    Thomas Goodrich: “Or maybe”...

The real question is why recycled Nazi propaganda has any sort of currency today and why it should have any credibility beyond your typical Internet lunatic fringe.

For the answer, return to the top of the page and read again (further orienting clue, it’s part and parcel of the YKW’s interest in having Whites identify with right wing reaction).