Majorityrights News > Category: Separatist Alliance

Negotiating Moral Orders, European Post Modernity and DNA Nations

Daniel Sienkiewicz

In this stream, I will indulge in a literal stream of consciousness in order to cover the platform of European peoples advocacy that I have cultivated over the years, not particularly concerned with order of the material, as it is of a complete enough system that cris-crossing it from various angles as they emerge to my consciousness will invariably flesh out its stable reference points to provide understanding for those who can be reasoned with.

A more formal presentation can wait for another time.

I do not want to undertake a formal presentation or a pretext of rigorously ordered priority of discussion at this point as that will delay the unfolding and imparting of ideas that already have verifiable systemic coherence beneath and important messages thereby, especially for persons concerned for the defense and well being of European peoples.

...

Comments:

1) I’ll start to note some things that I’d forgotten to mention, one of them being Heidegger’s attendance to our “emergent qualities” - as individuals (and as a genetic group, by inference); which is also an anti Cartesian notion, but looked at from this angle not so much a concern for taking us out of Cartesian estrangement by directing us into interaction through Dasein (there being) but rather an emphasis on resisting Cartesian estrangement by holding fast to our inborn trajectory and following its teleological path for us rather than getting drawn into the inauthentic calling from our path by “the they” ...it would be a correction thus, to an over emphasis on social concern to the detriment of our inherited biological nature. I must credit Guessedworker for taking me to task and holding me to proper account to Heidegger’s concern for emergentism.

2) The next thing that I believe that I forgot to mention - and when you forget something in a situation like this, it tends to be something that you take for granted because its so obviously important - is the marketing campaign circa 2008 that was the Alt Right and Alt lite, as a Gottfried/Regnery NPI Spencer loosely formed political perspective/ angle / agenda - Spencer being a useful right wing elitist reactionary to front the re-branding of “Paleoconservatism”, a Paleoconservatism 2.0,  to direct not just a big tent but a tent of tents (a tentosphere) of broader based and younger reactionaries against political correctness (Frankfurt School) whose commonality was some kind of anti-social stigma.

The father of Paleoconservatism was Frank Meyer, a Jewish man, originally a Marxist, whose “paleoconservative concept” was “fusionism”, a fusion of ideas that don’t really go together, that is to say enlightenment/modernist objectivism and Judeo/Christianity. Despite the fact that these ideas don’t really go together, it was a tension of conflicting concerns that was familiar to mainstream America from the onset of the United States and was seen as a life raft for those with conservative values. Frank Meyer became the mentor of sorts to President Ronald Reagan, the first prominent paleo-con, who was joined in this ideology by Pat Buchanan, Paul Gottfried, Joe Sobran and Sam Francis.

By the 1990’s this opportunistic controlled opposition that was Paleoconservatism was out maneuvered by the other side of controlled opposition that is the Neoconservates, to make way for Israeli operation clean break to secure the realm around Israel using American military might - to create Israel friendly regimes starting with ousting Saddam Hussein in Iraq. But I digress.

By 2008 when objectivist “invisible hand” economic program by Randian devote and Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan had run the boom bust cycle to the greatest bust (theft) ever with the mortage and securities meltdown, that was when Gottfried, Horowitz et al recognized a dangerous intersectionality with the Cultural Marxism that their tribesman had been promoting through academia: They needed to make sure that European peoples didn’t make proper use of social organizing strategies via properly understood post modern and leftist socially conscientious ideas to organize as a European ethnonational left, to unionize as a bounded discreet people (forming in and out groups, the opposite of the promoted confusion of left/liberalism, and rather to conserve and and hold accountable what is within the “union”) who would then, in holding members to account, look at elites and see who was betraying them by opening their would be union bounds to scabbery (so to speak) and they would see YKW in tandem with right wing sell outs, encouraged to a no account objectivism, socially unconscientious ‘that’s just the way it is-ness’, along with liberals, incentivized in much the same way to take license to betray “union”, conservative interests, on the basis of no account pseudo objectivist, “that’s just the way it isness.”

As YKW had greater hegemony, power and influence than ever with the 2008 melt down/theft, they sought to get European reactionaries to not only identify as right, far right objectivist Cartesian reactionaries as always, but to identify as an Alternative Right, which would specialize in criticizing “THE Left”, and a characterology thereof (a character with unnatural concepts, such as the call for universal equality that it seeks to apply to nature) that is to say, to chase after the red capes of distorted and just out right anti European political correctness as it had been marshaled to this intersection by YKW interests. - Oh, “those social justice warriors” how unrealistic, we don’t want any of that social justice now that the YKW, right wing sell outs and licentious liberals have more unjust and destructive power and influence than ever!

3) Another red cape (straw man misrepresentation of a good, social organization idea for us to chase after antagonistically, against our own organizational, homeostatic interests) that I’d forgotten to mention in this discussion, is false polemic against the concept of social justice and equality with a disingenuous rebut in the form of a misrepresentative concept of “human bio diversity”, misrepresented as a lateral matter of I.Q. (how convenient for elite betrayal, just the way it is) as opposed to human bio diversity being a horizontal matter of qualitative niche evolutionary differences that ought to be respected as ecologically fitting circumstances and systems, accountable as such, and not subject to false comparisons - rather, by contrast, utilizing the concept of commensurate and incommensurate paradigms, niches that are to be respected within a paradigm as integral part of the system, not to be disparaged as unequal by false comparison on an identical functional criteria. The refrain of “incommensurabilty” would also apply between peoples/paradigms in order to show respect for niche evolutionary differences of peoples, avoiding hubris and antagonism of false comparisons.

4) Yin Yang Scorpion

Sorry I fell asleep during the last part of the stream. It was 3:30 am where I am. Very interesting stream.

Reply from Daniel Sienkiewicz

No Problem Yin Yang )  Glad you found it interesting.

5) Another paradoxic rule of modernity’s performance requirement to value the new: “be different so that you can fit in.”

6) I also should have done a better job of answering Citizen Reporter’s request to clarify what is meant by hermeneutics. It is not merely narrative form, but an interactively engaged process of inquiry which allows participants to move back and forth from broad, more imaginative, historical and systemic perspectives - not only to generate enjoyable, useful and meaningful narrative, but also to generate hypotheses which may then be moved by the circulating process of hermeneutics to more rigorous and focused verification as need be. ..but as a process of inquiry, it allows one to re engage dasein from the Cartesian estrangement.

With all the hallmarks of Israeli Operation Clean Break, the Christian Zionist, U.S. Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, is threatening Lebanon, demanding that they must marshal an uprising against Hezbollah or Lebanon will pay the price of a U.S. supported military attack.

Marwa Osman, for Al-Ahed, 26 Nov 2019:

Beirut – On March 22, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was in Beirut threatening the Lebanese by giving them two options: either confront Hezbollah or pay the price. What Pompeo said eight months ago was repeated by former US ambassador to Lebanon, Jeffrey Feltman, before Congress. What he meant was that the Lebanese had two options: either to adhere to Washington’s policies, or to collapse. Washington’s policies also mean standing up to Hezbollah [in his testimony, Feltman repeated the word Hezbollah’s 49 times], weakening his allies in any future elections, and forming a technocratic government.

Jeffrey Felmann presented his vision of the situation in Lebanon. “What happens is related to American interests,” he said. The mobility in Congress seemed remarkable, as the Subcommittee on the Middle East, North Africa and International Terrorism [a branch of the House Foreign Affairs Committee] met in a session entitled: “What is next for Lebanon?

The demonstrations, that the US is so interested in, has been taking place in Lebanon since October 17, are according to Feltman “not about the United States”. Feltman cautioned that it is necessary for his country to avoid turning the focal point of the protests against the US, because the outcome of what is happening will affect Washington’s interests, whether positive or negative, “in what could be a pivotal moment in the history of Lebanon.”

Over the years, many have been surprised by Lebanon’s amazing ability to stay afloat. Remaining intact politically and economically, amid circumstances suggesting an imminent collapse. Feltman pointed out that predictions of Lebanon’s fate often proved wrong. This time, however, it seems different. Lebanon’s internal and external debt management is not only increasingly complex in a stagnated economy, but the public is exhausted and angry at the sectarian rhetoric and lame excuses used by political leaders to advance their narrow political and financial interests. As a result, the Lebanese political system as a whole is subject to hostile public scrutiny, and Hezbollah, according to Feltman, is only the target of such scrutiny.

Feltman’s preposterous propaganda was not surprising, given Pompeo concluded his visit last March by seemingly encouraging an uprising against Hezbollah when he said, “It will take courage for the nation of Lebanon to stand up to Hezbollah’s criminality, terror, and threats.” Pompeo’s threat was clear: If Lebanon fails to limit Hezbollah’s political and military power, it would risk not just losing US aid but also a more severe response, possibly in the form of debilitating national sanctions.

Pompeo attacked the Lebanese Resistance for carrying out “Iran’s agenda” in the region at the expense of Lebanon’s domestic order and “the prosperity of future generations.” However, what the secretary of state fails to comprehend is that if the United States follows through on this plan to inflict collective punishment on Lebanon over Hezbollah, the results are likely to be the opposite of what administration officials intend.

Hezbollah’s allies inside Lebanon are today ever more defensiveness towards the party to a point that it seems US officials have completely misunderstood our internal political system. Pompeo, Feltman and whoever is hoping to damage Hezbollah with these protests, has completely missed the fact that Lebanon’s sectarian political system forbids treating Hezbollah, which has a parliamentary faction legitimately elected into office, as an illegal entity. US officials and their regional and local affiliates seem to have missed that the military power of Hezbollah, with its Iranian weapons and training that no one is denying, is superior to that of the Lebanese Armed Forces. It has successfully branded itself to the Lebanese public as capable of standing up to Israel in ways that the Lebanese army manifestly cannot.

Even Lebanese officials critical of Hezbollah dismissed Pompeo’s calls to directly challenge the group, warning that were they to follow his advice, the country could descend into a second civil war. That assessment may be overly exaggerated. The U.S., however, is undoubtedly risking Lebanon’s basic stability in ways that may ultimately benefit Hezbollah rather than harm it.

The United States, which has already imposed sanctions against Hezbollah leaders and Hezbollah-affiliated businesses, hopes to step up pressure on the Shia community, could now risk facing resistance even from the US’s local allies, who fear that pushing too hard could trigger a backlash and endanger the tiny country’s fragile peace.

President Aoun, Hezbollah’s biggest ally in Lebanon, has repeated on many occasions that the country’s priority is to preserve national unity and peace while affirming especially during his latest TV interview last week that “Hezbollah is a Lebanese party that has a popular base representing one of the main [religious] sects in the country.”

It simply now seems that the American efforts to weaken and isolate Hezbollah might have only succeeded in creating countless practical problems for the party that it can outmaneuver in simple steps but did nothing to accomplish the fundamental United States goal of containing Hezbollah politically and militarily.

Meanwhile, lasting effect of US policy is yet to be seen. However, even when we have the likes of Pompeo and Feltman believing the US should adopt a more nuanced approach towards Hezbollah, it is only normal fathom that the United States has limited power to coerce actions from Lebanese politicians and institutions. The question the Trump administration should be asking is whether sweeping sanctions against the Lebanese government and institutions would weaken Hezbollah or rather strengthen it in the longer run.

My first impression of Richard Houck was negative because he was attempting to make the case that America was on the wrong side of World War II.

This argument is destructive because it reconstructs a misframing of events that misleads susceptible White American demographics into a framework that pits European peoples against one another.

Isn’t that the point of this frame, you may ask? No brothers wars?

Not if you are honest about Hitler’s war mongering imperialism, his disposition to not value the lives of neighbouring nations, and if you honestly understand those nations’ positions.

If you do care about these things and the truth be known, you don’t suggest that America was on the wrong side but that Hitler was largely to blame for initiating an unnecessary war, catastrophic of itself and catastrophic in an ongoing way beyond, in its implications, stigmatizing with ostensible warrant to prohibit European peoples from rightful prejudice, discrimination and thus, racial self defense.

But while Houck and his interviewer in this case, J.F. Gariepy, are not penetrating enough to think outside of the Jewish box - “Nazis or Jews” and “White identity is right wing and purely objective while non and anti White identity is left and concerned with relative social group interests” - in the name of fairness, I must say that Houck does articulate a kind of social compassion for our people which bespeaks a left ethnonationalist position in this talk.

Related at Majority Rights:

Trump Syrian exit not “anti-war”, “anti-imperialist”, it gives Erdoğan go-ahead to attack the Kurds

https://majorityrights.com/weblog/news_comments/trump_syrian_exit_not_anti_war_anti_imperialist_it_gives_erdoan_go_ahead_to

Statue of Bandera in Western Ukraine.

Ukrainian Nationalism and its Demons from the Past

By Sébastien Meuwissen at Visigrad Post

Poland/Ukraine – On January 1st, 2019, several thousands of Ukrainians marched in the streets of Kiev, Lviv and Khmelnytskyï (Western Ukraine) to celebrate the 110th anniversary of the birth of Stepan Bandera. These past years, there were plenty of similar processions in Ukraine, in particular in the Western part. Thousands of young Ukrainians take part in these nationalists marches, where they wave flags picturing Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevych. Even though they contributed to the creation of an independent Ukraine, the two men have been guilty of many war crimes in their collaboration with Nazi Germany during the Second World War. Nowadays Bandera and Shukhevych remain controversial historical figures. For some they are national heroes and for others they are criminals.

A territory coveted by its powerful neighbours

In a matter of territorial size, Ukraine is the third biggest country in Europe (behind Russia and France). The name “Ukraine” (in Ukrainian: Україна [ukrɑˈjinɑ]) was used for the first time in reference to the territory of Kievian Rus in the XIIth century. Throughout its history this huge territory was targeted by many invasions and was annexed by some European powers.

During the XVIIth century almost the entire territory of what is now Ukraine fell under the control of the Kingdom of Poland-Lithuania. Later during the XVIIIth and XIXth centuries, the Austro-Hungarian (at the West) and Russian (in the Center and at the East) empires shared this Eastern European territory. After the First World War, Poland reappeared on European maps and took most of the Western parts while USSR took the rest of the territory under its control.

The Soviet context and the “Holodomor”

Ukraine suffered tremendously from soviet occupation. The most obvious example of this harsh time is certainly the Soviet caused famine of 1932-1933. The Ukrainian famine named “Holodomor” (in Ukrainian: голодомо́р, extermination by hunger) is seen by many people as a mass murder that can be related to a genocide (even though this event isn’t in a lot of history books).

In a period of just a year and a half, this starvation caused the death of six to eight million people, according to various sources, with two to five millions solely in Ukraine. Even though most of the victims were ethnically Ukrainians, they were not the only ones afflicted by the murderous policy of Stalin (hundreds of thousands of Russians, Tatars and Kazakhs also died).

A coveted multicultural area

During the first half of the XXth century, ethnic, cultural and religious tensions considerably grew in Western Ukraine. According to a population census from 1931 the Ukrainians (mostly Orthodox) constituted the major part of the local population (64%) in the Western region of Volhynia. Other ethnic and religious groups were the Poles (15,6%), the Jews (10%), Germans (2,3%) and other groups less numerous (Czech, Slovaks, Belorussians, …). (1) The already existent tensions between these various groups would considerably grow during the ’30s to evolve into a true hate during the Second World War.

At this time two Ukraines seemed to emerge. On one hand the Western Ukraine that was earlier under Polish and Austrian influence and on the other hand the russified Eastern Ukraine. To the eyes of Ukrainian independentists, Poland and the USSR were hereditary enemies of the Ukrainian nation and should be fought to allow for the creation of an independent Ukrainian state. This was precisely this goal of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (or OUN), created in 1929.

The strategy of the OUN to reach the creation of an independent Ukraine included violence and terrorism against those who were seen as enemies of an independent Ukraine. Among those cited as the “external” enemies of Ukraine – Poland and USSR – and the “internal” enemies, so to say all people who weren’t ethnically Ukrainian or suspected to collaborate with the enemy. The Ukrainian Insurgent Army (or UPA) was a paramilitary nationalist army engaged in a series of conflicts during the Second World War. It was composed by various fighter groups of the OUN. The OUN and the UPA had for leaders, respectively, Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevych.

Collaboration with Nazi Germany

A few years later, the Second World War began. In 1940, many Western Ukrainians saw Nazi Germany like a partner susceptible to help the creation of an independent Ukrainian state. Hitler was considered a symbol of hope in front of the soviet domination. The act of restoration of the Ukrainian state from the 30th of June, 1941, is very clear on this:

“3. The newly formed Ukrainian state will work closely with the National-Socialist Greater Germany, under the leadership of its leader Adolf Hitler which is forming a new order in Europe and the world and is helping the Ukrainian People to free itself from Muscovite occupation.” (2)

On April 28 the division “SS Galizien” was created. It was a military formation mostly made up by Ukrainian volunteers from the region of Galicia (Western Ukraine). Under the initiative of the Wehrmacht, the SS Galizien division slaughtered practically the entirety of the Jewish population of this region.

The massacre of Volhynia

Once the Jewish population were eliminated, the Poles were targeted. It is principally in the Western region of Ukraine that the slaughter of the Polish minority took place. While the Second World War was raging, Ukrainian nationalist leaders commanded their supporters to slaughter the Polish population in the region. Here is a passage of the order given by the OUN on the 2nd of February 1944 to its members:

“Liquidate every inch of Polishness. Destroy the Catholic churches and other Polish cult places (…) Destroy the houses so there is no trace that someone lived there (…) Keep in mind that if something Polish remains, then Poles will come to claim our territories.” (3)

The groups of Ukrainian nationalists went to the towns of Galicia and Volhynia and killed between 40,000 and 60,000 people, mostly women and children. None were spared. On the 11th of July nearly 100 villages were plundered and the population was slaughtered in the most brutal way. Besides murdering the local population, the Banderas tortured with a rare atrocity. Despite the absence of resistance, civilians were killed in their houses, at school, in the churches, or in offices. As practiced later by the Soviet army, rape was largely used as a terror weapon.

The legacy and the demons from the past

The Polish writer Jan Zaleski said: “The Poles living in Volhynia were killed twice. The first time by a weapon and the second time by silence.” With these words he was referring to the way the history of the massacre of Volhynia is often avoided and to the Ukrainian denial of the atrocities that were committed. Besides the numerous crimes committed by the members of the OUN and the UPA, many Ukrainians consider the leaders of these organizations as national heroes. We can see as a proof the various monuments to the glory of Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevych in the Western part of the country, particularly in the city of Lviv where they are regularly maintained.

READ MORE...