Majorityrights News > Category: European Nationalism

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.

New Observer, “EU’s “Relocation” of Fake Refugees and Invaders by Country and Number”, 28 Sept 2018:

       

According to statistics kept by the United Nation’s International Organization for Migration (IOM), a total of 34,694 invaders—22,005 from Greece, and 12,689 from Italy—have been “relocated” to 24 other European states since the program began. This does not include the 11,000 who have been sent to the UK.

According to the IOM figures, as of April 30, 2018, the following nations had “received” invaders as follows:

Austria: From Greece 0; From Italy 43; Total 43.

Belgium: From Greece 700; From Italy 471; Total 1,171.

Bulgaria: From Greece 50; From Italy 10; Total 60.

Croatia: From Greece 60; From Italy 22; Total 82.

Cyprus: From Greece 96; From Italy 47; Total 143.

Czech Republic: From Greece 12; From Italy 0; Total 12.

Estonia: From Greece 141; From Italy 6; Total 147.

Finland: From Greece 1,202; From Italy 778; Total 1,980.

France: From Greece 4,400; From Italy 635; Total 5,035.

Germany: From Greece 5,391; From Italy 5,434; Total 10,825.

Ireland: From Greece 1,022; From Italy 0; Total 1,022.

Latvia: From Greece 294; From Italy 34; Total 328.

Liechtenstein From Greece 10; From Italy 0; Total 10.

Lithuania From Greece 355; From Italy 29; Total 384.

Luxembourg From Greece 300; From Italy 249; Total 549.

Malta From Greece 101; From Italy 67; Total 168.

Netherlands From Greece 1,755; From Italy 1,020; Total 2,775.

Norway From Greece 693; From Italy 815; Total 1,508.

Portugal From Greece 1,192; From Italy 356; Total 1,548.

Romania From Greece 683; From Italy 45; Total 728.

Slovenia From Greece 172; From Italy 81; Total 253.

Slovakia From Greece 16; From Italy 0; Total 16.

Spain From Greece 1,124; From Italy 235; Total 1,359.

Sweden From Greece 1,656; From Italy 1,392; Total 3,048.

Switzerland From Greece 580; From Italy 920; Total 1,500.

Britain is notably absent from these IOM figures, for reasons unknown. However, this does not mean that the UK has not participated in the scheme. So far, according to official figures, at least 11,000 fake refugees have been taken in by that country since the “relocations” began

The “relocation” program was adopted in September 2015 “to relocate asylum seekers from Italy and Greece, to assist them in dealing with the pressures of the refugee crisis.”

Under the scheme, up to 106,000 invaders “with a high chance of having their applications successfully processed (EU average recognition rate of over 75%) were to be relocated from Greece and Italy, where they had arrived, to other Member States where they would have their asylum applications processed.”

A majority of them were male (63 percent), adults (68 percent), and of Syrian (52 percent), Eritrean (35 percent) and Iraqi (11 percent) nationality. The scheme also included 585 “unaccompanied minors.”

It is this scheme to which the Hungarian and Polish governments have objected, and in which they have refused to participate, arguing that none of these so-called “refugees” are in fact fleeing for their lives, and that all have safe haven either in their country of origin or in states much closer to their homes.

Joakim Lamotte - Image: Facebook

Voice of Europe, “Swedish journalist who writes about migrant violence threatened with his life – Police refuse to help”, 7 Oct 2018:

In a video blog, the freelance journalist Joakim Lamotte, who is best known for his videos about different rape cases and the increased violence against women in Sweden, explains why recently he hasn’t been as active on Facebook as usual.

The reason is that he has been subjected to systematic threats with the purpose to silence him and stop his journalistic activities.

Lamotte says that people call him and tell him that he should be slaughtered, that his wife should be slaughtered, that they are going to f*ck his entire family etc. Only this past weekend, he received over 40 calls of that kind.

A few days ago, he also received a bomb threat. A person announced that explosives had been placed on the family’s two cars. Lamotte says that he has reported all threats to the police, including the bomb threat. A police patrol was sent out to search the family’s home and investigate whether any bombs were placed as claimed. However, nothing was found.

Recently, Lamotte announced that he would live steam on Facebook. As a result, he received new phone threats. In one of the calls, a person told him that if he broadcasts live and talks about the threats he has received, he will be killed and “blown to pieces”. However, Lamotte decided not to be silenced and went through with broadcast despite the death threat.

“They will not succeed in scaring me into silence,” he says in the broadcast. However, he doesn’t get any support from the police in that decision.

Lamotte holds up a stack of envelopes from the police. They all contain information that the investigations related to the threats have been closed.

In one case, the police sent him confirmation that they had received his complaint, and a notification that the case was closed on the same day. The timestamps on the two documents show that the case had been closed less than one hour after the complaint had been received.

Lamotte doubts that the police have investigated the threats at all, since they had not even received the sound files with recordings of the threats that Lamotte sent them when they decided to close the case.

And he questions the principle of equality before the law. He is convinced that if a mainstream media journalist or a politician had been threatened, then Säpo (the Swedish Security Service) would have taken over the case and used large resources to find the perpetrators. This in contrast to, as now, the cases being closed by return post.

Threats to freedom of speech are not taken seriously in Sweden today, Lamotte says. And that is one of the main reasons why he, despite the threats, decided to go through with the broadcast.

The police’s deprioritisation of these kind of threats frighten many into silence, he says. Few people dare to speak their mind after receiving death threats.

He then states that, in the absence of police assistance, he has taken his own actions to protect himself and his family. Among other things, he has installed surveillance cameras and motion detectors on his site, so nobody can get close to his house or cars without being detected.

At the end of his video message Lamotte speaks directly to the threateners and tells them; “If you ever harm my family you will wish the police find you before I do”.

He then speaks for another minute, but the sound is muted, probably by Säpo who doesn’t care to protect him but finds it important to monitor, control and silence him.

Vico: Contemporary, first major critic of Descartes, and seminal figure of social constructionism.

Adaptive traits certainly are socially constructed, if only for how they come to count for us.

It is an epistemologial blunder, of course, to try to founationalize our cause in “nature.”

First of all, because that would not follow in terms of describing what our nature does.

We seek to assimilate natural health and natural ways which are conducive to the well being of our people, but we do not simply let nature dictate the terms of our interests - for an obvious example, we do not simply let a virus destroy our people, but we develop means to deal with it, from vaccines, to quarantine, improved practices, sanitation and so on.

What that is describing even, is the fact that we are founded in our people’s interests first - not firstly in nature, the ‘interests’ of its viruses and so on. We look at nature as a guide and check points to health and non-health.

But to foundationalize our cause in nature is an epistemologial blunder.

The proper foundation is in Social Constructionism. In our people. That is the position of Praxis, following Aristotle’s corrective program. And then, very much in line with Aristotle again, we look to nature as guide-line check points of a healthy social system - e.g. placing value on optimality as opposed to maximization as a guide to homeostasis (racial autonomy).

A social constructionist perspective sensitizes us to our interactive connection, indebtedness and therefore indebtedness to our people, our forebears, to our corrective social systemic homeostasis at present and our responsibility to our future.

Next, we deploy the Hermeneutic turn when this positive view is cramping our breadth of perspective, individualism and imagination - we use it to gain more historical perspective, or novel ideas, concrete practical insights, or we become a bit more Platonic, say, in order to get a broader formal perspective on our systems, and develop working hypotheses. But the Hermeneutic turn is always duty bound to its circulation of inquiry, against Cartesian runaway, it will return to empirical verification wherever necessary or desired.

                    DanielS

READ MORE...

During the Syrian Civil War, millions of Syrians fled to Europe and other places as refugees. Now it seems that Syria wants them back after a powerful speech by Syria’s Foreign Minister Walid Moualem at the recent UN General Assembly.

Speaking on Saturday (29th September), Moualem, who is also the Deputy Prime Minister, thanked the countries which have taken in the refugees, but said it was time for them to come back home, as the Syrian Civil War is now practically finished.

“The government continues to rehabilitate the areas destroyed by terrorists, to restore normalcy,” he told the meeting. “All conditions are now present for the voluntary return of Syrian refugees to the country, the country they had to leave because of terrorism and the unilateral economic measures that targeted their daily lives and their livelihoods.

True enough, thousands of Syrian refugees abroad have started their journey back home.

From this podium I would like to stress the following - the return of each and every Syrian refugee is a priority for the Syrian state. All doors are wide open for All Syrians abroad to return voluntarily and safely…

Thanks to the help of Russia, the Syrian government will spare no effort to facilitate the return of refugees and meet their basic needs. Therefore a special committee was recently established to coordinate the return of refugees to their places of origin in Syria, and to help them regain their lives once again.”

Moualem also criticised the uncooperative attitude of some of the Western countries to which the refugees fled, and accused them of trying to prevent the refugees returning to their homelands.

  “We have called upon the international community and humanitarian organisations to facilitate these returns. However, some Western countries, in line with their dishonest behaviour since the start of the war in Syria, continue to prevent the return of refugees. They are spreading irrational fears among refugees. They are politicising what should be a purely humanitarian issue, using refugees as a bargaining ship to serve their political agenda and linking the return of refugees to the political process.”

Source, TradNews

Related at Majorityrights:
Bashar Al-Assad, a proper Left Nationalist, a socially conscientious man.

W. Barnett Pearce

Sexists, racists, and other classes of classifiers: Form and function of “...Ist” accusations

by Julia T. Wood and W. Barnett Pearce

An “. . . ist” accusation indicts an individual as a racist, sexist, or other “. . . ist” whose thoughts and/or acts discriminate on the basis of class membership. The self‐reflexively paradoxical structure of “. . . ist” accusations precludes refutation, but response is possible. Pragmatic and moral implications of alternative responses to “. . . ist” accusations are evaluated.

Quarterly Journal of Speech, Volume 66, 1980 - Issue 3. Brief provided by Taylor & Francis Online

In late 1989, I wrote to W. Barnett Pearce to discuss his work and how it might resolve problems that I was struggling with. Noting my struggles with accusations of ‘racism’ and ‘sexism’ - and having compassion! - he sent me this article, so on target and deft in the manner which it handled my concerns, that it demonstrated unequivocally that his was a discipline that I needed to be apprised of. Indeed, this article provided two of the most important clues for my WN advocacy. The first being that ‘race’ is (in an important regard) a matter of classification - at very least being treated as such by people who mattered, particularly by our foes, but also by our people, where they know what is good and necessary for them. Secondly, as the blurb above hints at, our antagonists can always shift its paradoxical structure to their anti-White agenda:

Viz., if you say, “no, I don’t discriminate based on race, sex, etc. I judge everyone on their individual merit”, then they will charge you with being disingenuous, willfully ignoring “the long history of discrimination, oppression and exploitation of these groups.”

But then, on the other hand, if you take the measure of saying, “ok, lets take that into account and use, say, affirmative action to help these groups into positions in which they are under-represented”, then you are classifying and a racist by definition.

Along with that article, Pearce sent me another one regarding The Problematic Practices of Feminism: An Interpretive Critical Analysis, Communications Quarterly, 1984, with Sharon M. Rossi

- which I found ironic, that being the exact name (same year as well) of the girlfriend of mine who drove me to psychic melt-down.

Anyway, the (very helpful) gist of that article, which I’ve noted several times before, is that within the context of liberal feminism, even a well intentioned man can always be put into the wrong:

You can always be treated as either a wimp or a pig, no matter what you do as a man.

If you try to treat her with deference, gentleness, help and respect, then you can be looked upon as a wimp and a condescending patriarch who does not respect her strength, agency and autonomy.

On the other hand, if you treat her as one of the boys, respecting her toughness and autonomy, then you can be looked upon as a pig, a male chauvinist pig, not respecting the special quality of her gender, but rather a male chauvinist pig, projecting the hegemony of your patriarchical world view over all and everyone.

Bill Ballie on the Imperial Mindset and Obscured Roots of Racialism and Early British Socialism in UK Nationalism

Nation Revisited # 144 October 2018

       
        The Imperial Mindset.

When nostalgic Brexiteers look back to the ‘good old days’, the summers were warmer, the food was tastier, and the dogs and people were friendlier. They have convinced themselves that it was a Golden Age before we joined the old Common Market in 1973. They have forgotten about the strikes and confrontations, the poor productivity, and the years of stagnation.

Some of them believe that the British Empire was destroyed by conspiracies but history tells a different story. When the Japanese won their war with Russia in 1905 they showed that the European powers were vulnerable, and when they took Singapore from Britain in 1942 they proved their point to the subject peoples of Asia and Africa. We fought colonial wars in Malaya, Kenya, Aden, and Cyprus but there was no stopping “The Wind of Change.” Within thirty years of WW2, all that was left of the Empire was a few outposts like Gibraltar and the Falklands.

Those of us born in the last days of the British Empire are proud of our achievements. We built roads, railways and bridges all over the world and bequeathing a civil service, a judiciary, and a parliamentary system to our colonial subjects. The British Empire was a force for civilisation and progress, but it was also the source of cheap food that damaged our agriculture, the producer of cheap cotton goods that destroyed our textiles industry, and the supplier of immigrants that undercut our wages and conditions. We discovered the hard way that commerce overrules sovereignty and that people follow goods across borders. In the days of Empire we recruited workers from the West Indies; as members of the EU we signed up to its rules and conditions, and if we are swallowed up by the United States we will import contaminated food and commit our troops to ‘perpetual war’.

Capitalism has been global since the days of the East India Company. We fought the Chinese to force them to buy our opium; we fought the Afrikaners for their gold and diamonds, and we fought the Turks to steal the Arabian oilfields. But the days of trade enforced by bayonets are over. We belong to NATO and our armed forces are under the command of General Curtiss Scaparroti, Supreme Allied Commander Europe. We are members of the United Nations and subject to the International Court of Human Rights. We belong to the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank. If we leave the EU we will operate under the World Trade Organisation. And the majority of our immigrants come from outside the EU, mainly from Africa and Asia.

We pro-Europeans believe in beneficial access to markets, incoming investment, and peace in Northern Ireland. And, realising that the Empire has gone, we see our future in terms of European co-operation. We also know that wages are far too low and that immigration can only be controlled by international agreement.

These arguments have been thoroughly debated but the decision to leave the EU was largely emotional. Abstract ideas of ‘sovereignty’ were more important than economics. In fact, some on the Brexiters are happy to accept a lower standard of living for the illusion of sovereignty.

As for immigration, the Brexiteers don’t regard West Indians, Africans and Asians as foreigners, after all, they play cricket and most of them speak English. They are happy to admit our former colonial subjects but they are determined to stop the Poles.

Neither side has a monopoly on patriotism but some people are fond of shouting “traitor” at the opposition. That’s unfair because we all want the best for our country. People are not traitors because they have a different opinion, and shouting abuse at foreigners does not make one a patriot. We are entering uncharted waters and time alone will tell who is right and who is wrong.

The BBC

 
John Reith 1889-1971 photo credit BBC.

The British Broadcasting Corporation is a state-owned media empire that was founded by the brilliant Scottish engineer and radio pioneer John Reith in 1922. His original intention was for the service to be educational as well as entertaining. Left-wingers accuse it of being right-wing and right-wingers accuse it of being left- wing. The truth is that it supports the establishment, not necessarily the government of the day but the overriding liberal-capitalists consensus.

[MR editorial note: Nationalists being against corrupt establishment is indicative of what we are calling “Left Nationalism”]

The Corporation is funded by an annual ‘licence fee’ of £147.00. If you watch TV in the UK you must pay the licence fee, even if you are watching a foreign station. This unfair levy is the main source of the BBC’s massive income of nearly five billion pounds. It wastes this money on presenters like Chris Evans who earned £2.2 million last year, Gary Lineker who earned £1,7 million, and Graham Norton who got £850,000. The BBC also has legions of journalists, researchers, and photographers who fly around the world gathering news stories. And it spends a fortune on legal fees and settlements.

The British government is struggling to find money for the National Health Service, defence, education, and almost everything else. But we allow the bloated BBC to waste billions of pounds on broadcasters and bureaucrats. We should stop this madness by selling it off; the TV and radio stations, the buildings, the news service, the sports franchises, and everything else.

And we should not fall for the myths of impartiality and quality surrounding the Corporation. It’s forever congratulating itself on its high standards, but it’s as biased as any other state-owned propaganda outlet, and most of its TV and radio programs are made by independent production companies.

The licence fee should be abolished and the slimmed-down company should be paid for by adverting revenue, with any profits going to the state. Presenters should be paid an industrial wage and the service should be returned to John Reith’s founding principles. The current BBC is a money-gobbling monster that’s out of control. We should sack the lot of them and start again.

Post-Brexit Policies

When we leave the EU the political parties will no longer be able to blame everything on Europe, they will be forced to address our problems. As I write, they are holding their annual conferences and making their promises for the future.

       

Theresa May is clinging to her Chequers plan despite the fact that it has been rejected by the EU and most of her party. The Tories have abandoned austerity and are promising to build more social housing and increase public spending. They have also promised to reduce corporation tax so an increase in income tax is inevitable. 

Jeremy Corbyn expects to win the next general election and he has promised to renationalise the railways, the Royal Mail, and the water companies. His chancellor, John MacDonald has revived the manifesto of the Italian Social Republic to give shares and seats on the board of companies employing more than 250 workers. When Benito Mussolini introduced this policy it was overtaken by events.

Vince Cable pledged that the Lib Dems would lead the fight against Brexit but our ‘first past the post’ electoral system is rigged against them. They have 12 seats at Westminster but under proportional representation they would have more than 50.

Ukip and the various parties of the far-right will lose most of their reasons for living when we quit Europe. But immigration will still be with us because most of them come from outside of the EU. The latest ONS figures show that in the last year 127,000 EU citizens came to the UK and 179,000 from the rest of the world. In fact, if we sign trade deals with China and India we will probably admit more of them.

All of the parties are promising to increase defence spending, but if our economy shrinks we will have even less money to spend. We may have to stop pretending to be a world power and deploy our armed forces for the defence of the UK, instead of getting involved in Afghanistan and the Middle East. That would mean more frigates and destroyers but we would not need two gigantic aircraft carriers and a fleet of nuclear submarines.

Education also needs sorting out. France and Germany provide free education from nursery to university and so should we. We must gear our educational system to provide the doctors, engineers and scientists that we need instead of relying on immigration.

READ MORE...

Social Const….

Greg Johnson discusses his new book, “The White Nationalist Manifesto” with J.F. Gariepy.

I can recommend it only with caveat.

While he does lay out the case for Whites being genocided and recognizes the necessity for raising the perceived legitimacy and consciousness of the need for White Nationalism, he does not see the contradiction in his using social constructionism as an example of social theory antagonistic to that consciousness and practice.

He calls race being a social construct “an entirely bogus idea.” ...This is an expression of his middling (138) I.Q. He’s only smart enough to talk himself out of the eminent utility and truth of the concept.

Social Constructionism (proper) does not say that race, evolution and biological distinctions are not real. What it does, rather, is sensitize our attention to our social connection, indebtedness - which is true (not bogus) - consciousness of which provides for some agency and accountability (coherence and warrant too), at very least in determining how these things come to count.

You would not want to oppose this sensitization to social conscientiousness, agency and accountability (coherence and warrant) if you are looking to build consciousness and conscientiousness of White Nationalism.

Similarly, you would not want to be arguing against THE Left, as he does, given its general enculturation of union type organization, loyalty and compassion to the full group, including those on the margins, full group advocacy against elite and rank and file betrayal, if you want to raise consciousness and loyal adherents to White Nationalism.

Greg Johnson. Typical Right Winger ...with a lisp and a better than average I.Q., which is good, but maybe not good enough.