Majorityrights News > Category: White Left Ethno-Nationalist Alliance

Some good insights from Keith Woods, while the terminology that he deploys has to be taken with a grain of salt. Part of the reason that he is gaining right of display is due to his buying into the terminology and perspective that the YKW would prescribe (or discourage) for Whites (though Keith apparently does not realize this). His eye on Neo-Liberalism is well placed, however.

The DNA Nations - 2020 Update: A reading through of this update of a preliminary document of the DNA Nations concept to provide the basic specificatory structure to follow up for those who care for the curation of our diverse kinds of people. While our focus is on European peoples, curation for the preservation of our kinds - genus, species - and potential coordination on the basis of genetics, the concept does not preclude negotiating with mixed kinds, does not prescribe violence, exploitation in any way shape or form and does not preclude non-Europeans from curating their kinds for preservation and working out the means for their coordination with European kinds as well

The DNA Nations - 2020 Update

An implicit union of unions and coalitions thereof based on DNA criteria.

Euro-DNA Nations

James Bowery’s “Laboratory of the States” platform proposes sovereignty through free choice, as people may “vote with their feet” to establish human ecologies through controlled experimentation. The control would be established through freedom from association—that is, the freedom to not associate with others. However, under the current circumstances, efforts to instantiate these deliberately organized “human ecologies” are best conducted in an implicit manner. Indeed, under certain circumstances, they must be largely implicit (for example, regarding laws which prohibit realtors from mentioning race to buyers or sellers). Bowery suggests promoting abstract terms such as “our valuation of freedom of choice”. Later, the communities should be able to enforce explicit freedom of and from association.

This freedom from association is corollary to individual freedom of choice and association. Rather than trying to overthrow the liberal zeitgeist of our epoch, Bowery maintains that we ought to hold liberals to their principles. We will respect and grant their valuation of freedom to go/and or be associated with whom they like and we expect the same freedom of choice to go/ and or associate with whom we like.

As far as European Americans and other European diaspora go, Bowery has, since his initial proposal for the laboratory of the states platform, concluded that rather than state-sized units, county-sized political units are more optimal—the sheriff and county being the most viable and manageable scale of organization in defense against the nation-state apparatus in its death throes.

I would argue that the initial state is rather a step toward unionization – a virtual and rules based association, though not made formal as a political action group to begin, just an informal union of unions based on voluntary DNA groupings.
 
Furthermore, Bowery argues that strong valuation of freedom of choice is a distinctly Western characteristic and therefore precious. I concur. He elaborates farther that it is imperative to maintain the unique human ecologies that evolved with this Western characteristic of individual freedom of choice. I concur as well.

This freely and deliberately chosen state/county human ecology is very different from the deeply situated, naturally evolving human ecologies of Europe and Russia, where our people have evolved over tens of thousands of years in relation to particular habitats. It is surely critical for us to maintain these ecologies as well. We would not want to be without either the freely chosen state/county-sized ecologies of European diaspora derived by choice within a lifespan, nor without the truly deep, historical ecologies of our European and Russian nations. These are both goods that we would want to maintain, and yet they are very different concerns. This focuses WN on the task of coordination.

We wouldn’t really want to give up either, but how to coordinate these two goods? This is where a Euro-DNA-based nation begins to look like a potential means of coordination, allowing for various expressions of our native Europeans while never losing sight of their essence.

There is a third crucial matter to coordinate. If a nation of European descended peoples is to have an economy big enough to fund a space program and other large projects, it is likely to need a size larger than the average state (let alone county) to provide for a sufficient economy; and if, as Conner adds, nations of European peoples are to hold up to the growing power of China, they will need to be large.

Thesis: The Indigenous Euro-DNA Nation would provide a means for coordinating smaller States/Counties, both freely chosen human ecologies and those of deep, historical evolution, while providing the means for pursuing a mutual larger manifestation as well.

Given the anti-White hegemony that European peoples are up against from above, along with the turmoil and throngs of anti-Whites that they are up against on all fronts, an endogenous approach is the most practical for the coordination of European peoples sovereignty.

By endogenous here, we mean from the inside out. That is, in proposing autonomous, sovereign nations of European peoples, we should begin with those who would like to be a part of it first—begin by focusing on what we can do as opposed to what we cannot do. It is endogenous also in that the nation is corporeal, literally of the people—their native European DNA being the prime criterion for inclusion. That would be in contrast, though not in opposition, to other WN nation building efforts using an exogenous (from the outside-in) approach, such as the Northwest Front.

There are clear practical advantages of a native Euro-DNA Nation that begins as a formal declaration of a wish as confirmed by voluntary signatories. Firstly, signing-up would only mean that one is expressing a wish to be a part of sovereignty for European peoples. It does not require relinquishing one’s current citizenship.

Nor does it mean antagonizing non-Europeans. We may extend the DNA Nation concept and its freedom of association to them as well. But just as the conscientious are concerned for the preservation of a wide array of genus and species on earth and pervasive ecology, so too is it perfectly legitimate to look after our European kind.

For whom it may concern, the indigenous Euro-DNA Nation focuses from the start on our most precious concern, our DNA, while not encumbering us with present obstacles to land-situated nations. The Euro-DNA Nation would be non-situated in the beginning (and to some extent always).

However, DNA without land, without habitat indefinitely, would be problematic for a number of reasons. Therefore, it must be an objective of the Euro-DNA Nation to establish sacrosanct Euro-DNA Nation “lands” eventually; the plurality of lands is a deliberate usage. In fact, more safety and resources would be provided if these lands are non-contiguous and disbursed throughout the world. Naturally, WN would seek to re-establish our traditional territories as European, particularly those in Europe, but would also seek to secure sovereign territory in North America, South America, Russia, Australia and New Zealand. Nevertheless, in not being strictly contingent on obtaining land, the nation is rendered more flexible and more practical so that it can start with land claims of any size, even small claims.

Once coordinated as such, its ultimate viability may strive to cover the largest land-masses possible. Thinking about these issues first as a means of coordination with Bowery’s “Laboratory of the States” platform, and in line with that, the DNA Nation being freely chosen would allow people to select various native European sub-categories (if they match), some distinct, some perhaps blended in various ways and degrees. Considering the problem secondly in terms of how to coordinate WN of its largest possible size, it also provides a highly practical means to instantiate a goal for protracted expanse, as it is highly flexible in its ability to cover territory.

The DNA Nation is also practical in that it does not require unnecessary risk and engagement on the part of participants. Signing-up does not render one complicit with illegal activity of any kind. It only means an expressed wish for sovereignty from non-native European coercion, and to be with persons of indigenous European extraction.

Separatism is a first step, Separatism is the ultimate aim, and Separatism is always possible.

If you wish to express a desire that you might one day be a part of this union of unions that is the Euro-DNA Nation, you may sign up; and specify particular category/union as you wish. DNA proof will ultimately be required for consideration of membership.

The Native European-DNA Nation sign-up along with its subcategories will be provided.

Note 1: The freedom of and from association promoted by the Laboratory of The States/Counties is conceived by Bowery to be an implicit choice. In his estimation, explicit Whiteness does not work. Taking the example of the draconian legal constraints placed on American realtors regarding the mere mention of race to buyers or sellers provides a salient example of how hazardous explicitness can be. However, the explicitness of the DNA registry does not contradict the implicitness strategy due to its being voluntary and not representing a legal status, but rather an expression of a wish. Discretion is nonetheless advised.

Daniel Sienkiewicz

READ MORE...

Related at Majorityrights:

“Miss Grand Myanmar”, Shwe Eain Si, stripped of her title for telling truth about crisis in Rakhine

Hindu women forced to convert to Islam while mass graves of their Hindu men discovered in Rakhine

...and yes, Aung San Suu Kyi is a Left EthnoNationalist.

Editor’s note: this is a work in progress.

I will be adding to it here and in comments below as time goes on.

Red cape: misrepresenting what would be a good idea for Whites so they chase it away and pursue its opposite.

While I will be mostly adding condensed raw material, what we may refer to as “specificatory structures” for further shaping and crafting, “Red Caping” is one of the few more ready-to-go memes

Red caping implies a strategy that I am convinced the YKW deploy, of taking a good idea for social group maintenance, and presenting it in such a way so as to make it offensive to Whites, even on an abstract level - a level on which it can and should be deployed in White defense; but presented as a sheer antagonistic concept, Whites chase after it like a bull to the matador’s red cape; fighting against our own interests.

Easy examples would be “multiculturalism” and “diversity”...

These ideals would seem to imply that Whites can and should maintain their distinction and sovereignty along side other distinct groups in the world - nice idea.

However, the YKW have presented it in such a way, and Whites react accordingly, that it is about doing away with any White difference - and indeed that’s true: “diversity” as they mean it, does mean chasing down the last Whites (and forcing them to interbreed with others or die) and “multiculturalism” red capes what is really monoculturalism - except for the YKW, in their agenda.

White Post Modernity: corrects reactionary chase of (((red capes))) fucking up necessary pomo ideas

As Whites chase after the red cape reversal, you’ll hear the naive reacting to Angela Merkel’s statement that “multiculturalism has utterly failed” as if “hey, even she gets it now”, while in effect she is calling for integration; i.e., final stage destruction of our genome.

When Pat Buchanan was running for president back in the 90’s, he referred to “the sewer of multiculturalism”, which he argued should be rejected in favor of every American being required to learn English and encouraged to participate in Christian culture ..again, this is to have chased the YKW red cape into integrationism, our genetic destruction.

As meme’s go, we might picture the Happy Merchant’s head replacing the matador’s head, while on the red cape might be written, say, “multiculturalism.”

On the bull might be written, “White man” saying “it’s a failed idea, what we want is assimilation” ..something like that.

GIF action might work well, revealing integration on the other side of the redcaping.

Now, “Multiculturalism” and “Diversity” aren’t the most ingenious examples of red caping; fairly transparent, though some still seem to be falling for it to an extent (sorry Mark).

There are other, trickier and more important red capes, which I have infamously attempted to explicate to White advocates:

“THE Left” is a red cape that would be a bit harder to have understood, but not impossible, nor impossible to meme; and important to explain and get through to our people.

And the red cape of the whole characterology of “THE” Left, is one about associating anti-Whitism and its “Social Justice Warrior” minions, their vast, antagonistic distortions (inculcated by YKW academics) of the process of conceptualization, working hypotheses that should be correctable, but do not deal with reality, nature, facts, etc., in this strict characterology of THE Left; i.e., associating it with ALL left-type concerns - crucially diverting attention from the legitimacy of unionization of the national ethne, as it would structure social accountability and correctability’s underlying natural fit with ethnonationalism. Thereby misrepresenting that which on an abstract level is a necessary part of any process of sense making and inquiry, including scientific.

“Even a false or inadequate working hypothesis is better than no working hypothesis”
- Alfred North Whitehead

In effect, Whites react into an altercast Right Wing purity spiral beyond or below praxis, its accountability and correctivity - against our capacity to maintain ourselves as a group.

They’ve got Whites conceptually fighting against social justice, against a daft concept of equality (which altercasts our people as despotic, elitist assholes) against our conceptualization as a people, organization and unionization, because race is “not a social construct”, it is only about pure facts (not as if we can breed with other races, and therefore a modicum of social construct is unavoidable); making short shrift if any to accountability and its affordance of coherence, agency and warrant.

I’ve discussed the red caping of “post modernity” and how they’ve got our people chasing against their own interests, will see about condensing other ideas from that article.

But red caping is not the only meme on offer and I will be setting out some other material for meming in a few….

Despite his rather assigned position to cover things from an Alternative Right angle - circa 2015 of the article being featured below - and moving from that misdirection-op to an even more kosher “Affirmative Right” position now, for his journalistic rigor Colin Liddell does a fine job of exposing right wing complicity in its dovetail with liberal “progressivism” for a halo of innocence in the project of our destruction.

And while Dissident Rightism, the Affirmative Right, whatever Right, dutifully follows the Alt-Right’s program to co-opt White reaction and direct it with elite Jewish interests, as such going along with a (((Madison Ave.))) characterology of “the left” as the enemy, with all the abuses and distortions of the necessary hypothetical end of inquiry that it can invoke from its pre-intersectional anti-White Marxist and cultural Marxist sophomore coalitions in perpetuating loop with tenured professors, a hypothetical end of inquiry that would otherwise be left to our autonomous group systemic governance to be corrected with rigorous feedback on normal calibration of working hypotheses (praxis/our group), instead the calibration of group interests are misleadingly labeled “THE Left”, its characterized minions called “social justice warriors” ...misleading labels for what is to us, liberalism (anti-our-White-groups/anti-White ethnonational left unionization) or the international, anti-White left and its coalition of anti-White advocacy groups, as if Whites should have a problem with social justice, be repulsed by it, and not unionize in the interests of our justice and a more sustainable justice in relation to others.

It is worth a look thus, even though it is not that time of year again, since right wing and liberal complicity with YKW antagonism remains a perennial concern:

NOBEL SAVAGES

by Colin Liddell, Affirmative Right, originally published 11 Oct 2015:

It’s that time of year again, when a few forgotten scientists, a largely unread writer, and some organization or individual that may or may not have done something for World Peace are given Nobel prizes. The actual awards ceremony usually comes in December, but just so the winners have enough time to book a flight to Stockholm and rent a tux, the announcements are made round about this time. But is the Nobel Prize what it seems, or is it the manifestation of something a lot more sinister?

Most people take it at face value, seeing it as a fitting conclusion to some presumably worthy scientific (or other) career – although most remain oblivious as to why this or that individual should win it over their peers. Most also remain decidedly foggy on how the prize winners are actually selected, both officially and with regard to the behind-the-scene string pulling and other factors that no doubt tip the scales this way or that.

But to see the Nobel Prize merely as an innocent award is to take it on its own terms, and thus to have your perceptions framed and shaped by it. This means you accept its projected image: as a fair and objective expression of “the progressive spirit of mankind” (a nebulous concept with admixtures of other nebulous concepts: ‘science,’ ‘peace,’ ‘excellence,’ ‘univeralism,’ etc.), and you also accept the implied association of this “positive” image with Scandinavia in general and Sweden in particular, without giving it too much thought. In short, the Nobel Prize is subtle, under-the-radar, positive brainwashing for Sweden.

The positive associations of Sweden (and Norway, which bestows the peace prize) are delicately dripped into the heads of the masses year-after-year with the same gentle pulse of propaganda in the weeks leading up to Xmas. They are subtly reminded that, yes, there is a place somewhere where progress is king, dedicated to the never-ending improvements of humanity and the bright, brilliant future that awaits us all some day.

READ MORE...

German intelligence exposes Muslim Brotherhood’s plan to undermine Germany

By RAMI DABBAS for Voice of Europe 14 May 2020:

An internal intelligence report from the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) in state of Bavaria has warned of the growing security threat posed by Muslim Brotherhood.

The report states that Muslim Brotherhood in Germany seeks to establish a comprehensive system of government which does not guarantee the sovereignty of the people, the principles of freedom, or equality.

Transforming German society

In its report, the BfV added that “the Brotherhood’s primary goal is to form a system of government and many of the Muslim Brotherhood’s principles are hostile to the German Constitution, especially the principles of democracy, the rule of law and a political system based on human dignity.”

The report emphasizes that the essence of the Brotherhood’s anti-constitution principles and goals are stipulated in the “general system of the Muslim Brotherhood,” the general rules of the Muslim Brotherhood which were put forward by first generation of the founding fathers and Hassan al-Banna (the founder of the group in Egypt in the 1920s).

The report also notes that “the Islamic Community Organization is the basic organizational structure of the Muslim Brotherhood in Germany, and this organization is a member of the Federation of Islamic Organizations in Europe, which is the mother organization of the Muslim Brotherhood in Europe, and is based in Brussels.”

“Samir Falah, the former president of the German Islamic Society, was elected president of the Federation of Islamic Organizations in Europe in 2018,” reflecting the strength of the Muslim Brotherhood branch in Germany.

Organizations affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood are dangerous

The intelligence report warns of another umbrella organization in Europe, the European council for fatwa and research, which was established in 1997 in Dublin, Ireland, and aims to control the fatwa for Muslims residing in Europe. Yusuf al-Qaradawi is considered the spiritual leader of the group.

READ MORE...

Elites Union-Busting Plan: “Diversity”

Hence their program to characterize (stereotype) and vilify “The left”, misdefined as necessarily being in international Marxist, anti-ethnonational or Cultural Marxist, anti White terms.

Clinton sell-out, Maxwell’s Judeo-supremacism and the hoarding of sexual resource.

Comparing Income & Sex Redistribution

By Robin Hanson · June 26, 2018:

Disclaimer: This post is on sensitive topics of sex and power. I try to make it clear when I make a claim; beware drawing indirect inferences; I rarely value signal.

As promised in my last post, I now return after a civility pause to the topic of comparing sex and income inequality and redistribution. This post will be unusually long, as I’m trying harder to speak carefully.

If a feature of individuals can be compared across individuals, and ranked, then we can say that some people have more of it than others. We can then talk about how equally or unequally this feature is distributed across a population. Some features are seen as good things, where most people like to have more of it, all else equal. And the values that people place on some good things exhibit diminishing marginal utility (DMU). That is, people put a higher value on getting a bit more of it when they don’t have much, relative to when they have more.

For good things, we usually seek policies (including informal social norms and formal programs by government, charities, and other organizations) that can raise its distribution, all else equal, and get more of it to more people. And for good things with DMU, unequal distributions are regrettable, all else equal, as any one unit is worth more to those who have less. Any policy that changes a distribution is by definition said to “redistribute” that thing. (If you doubt me, consult a dictionary.) A policy that reduces inequality more might be said to do “more” redistribution.

Eddie Murphy has how many children with how many different women?

Of course all else is usually not equal. People vary in their ability to produce things, in the value they place on things, and in how much those people are valued by their society. Both the things that people value, and the arrangements that produce them, tend to be complex, multi-dimensional, and context-dependent. “Income” and “sex” are both labels that point to such complex, multi-dimensional and context-dependent good things. Both are usually produced via unique pairings, sex between a man and a woman, and income between an employer and an employee. The value of these pairings vary greatly across possible pairings, and also with a lot of other context.

Welfare not only provides money, but frees up the precious resource of time, for people like Desmond Hatchet to have 30 children with 11 different women.

For income, centuries of effort has resulted in several simple accounting methods by which we can define each person’s “income”, though we know that these measures miss a lot of what we care about. For example, regions vary in living expenses, people vary in their health-induced medical expenses, some jobs are easier and more enjoyable than others, some people have more expensive tastes than others, some assets are illiquid and unique, and there’s a key difference between what people own and what they consume. All these issues make it hard to say exactly who has more “income”.

This complexity makes it harder to analyze policies that influence income. Even so, when arguing about policy, people often mention income redistribution advantages or disadvantages of policies, such as regarding taxes, schools, medicine, housing, immigration, and much more. (Such policies usually let either side veto each particular employee-employer pairing.) Reducing income inequality is widely seen as a legitimate policy goal, even if people don’t agree on its priority relative to other goals. Income, and our related informal norms and formal policies, have changed greatly over the last few centuries, though less so over the last half century.

On sex, we might in principle compare individual counts of simple sex acts to get a rough indication of sex inequality, though we know that such a measure would miss a lot that matters. But even though sex is complex, hard to specify, and varied, it is also clearly important to many (both male and female). As is income. People often explicitly mention effects on sex when arguing for and against policies in many areas, such as marriage, prostitution, dating, birth control, nudity, pornography, drugs, child care, housing, and recreation. In the last half century, we’ve seen big changes in both informal norms and formal policies related to sex. People seem to be more sensitive today on the topic of policies related to sex, relative to those related to income, perhaps in part due to recent changes being bigger.

In my April 26 post, I noted that recently some people (self-labelled “incels”) have explicitly and publicly sought less sex inequality, a few via violence, and I wondered why they are so few relative to, and overlap so little with, those seeking less income inequality. I mentioned a few specific possible policies, such as cash transfers conditional on individual sex rates, legalized prostitution, and stronger support for monogamy and marriage. (I did not support or oppose any specific policies.)

But these were just examples; the fact that sex is so complex and integrated into so many social practices implies that a great many policy levers must exist. Who has how much sex with who is influenced by what we count as status and beauty, where people live, where and how they meet, how they talk to each other, what they can learn about each other, and especially by where and when they can talk and meet privately.

I’m far from the first person to consider such policies. Historically, societies have passed laws to discourage premarital and extramarital sex, and to limit how many wives or concubines each man could have. Informal gossip and propaganda has tried to lower the sex appeal of rakes, foreigners, and the promiscuous, and to raise that of soldiers. Policies have limited where and when people might meet in privately, such as segregating student dorms by gender, and prohibiting unmarried couples from renting hotel rooms.

READ MORE...