Majorityrights News > Category: History

Fun little reportage in todays Daily Express:

‘Ought to be ashamed of yourself!’ Fury at insensitive and ‘disrespectful’ Dunkirk claim

SOCIAL MEDIA users have lashed out after the former executive director of Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) posted a “disrespectful” and insensitive tweet about the Dunkirk landings.

Former Labour MP George Galloway tweeted: “Hope you told her that’s a pretty disrespectful take…”

Another Twitter user said: “My great-grandad fought the rearguard at Dunkirk with the Cameron Highlanders… only 60 out of 600 made it back to the UK.

“You and your daughter ought to probably pay those guys a little more respect…”

Someone else said: “My father was at Dunkirk.

“Yes, he was a white boy waiting for a boat.

“And he was a scared white boy because he was being shelled and strafed as his mates lay dying on the blood-soaked sand.

“You belittle his experience for likes on Twitter.

“You ought to be ashamed of yourself.”

Another added: “What an absolutely detestable thing to say!

“My grandad was evacuated from that beach while his friends were dying all about him, fighting against fascism if you didn’t realise it!

“You are truly contemptible.”

Others lashed out at the Twitter user claiming she only posted it for likes on social media ...

INTERVIEW

Ruuben Kaalep: “The Intermarium has to be a voluntary alliance, not like the EU”

Visigrad Post, NOVEMBER 16, 2020

Reading Time: 11 minutes

Interview with Ruuben Kaalep, member of the Estonian Parliament and member of EKRE, the Conservative People’s Party of Estonia: “We need to be able to play on the global stage, and for that we need to put our forces together and support each other. But the Intermarium has to be a voluntary alliance, not like the EU.”

At the end of summer, Ruuben Kaalep came to Hungary at the invitation of the Hungarian nationalist party Mi Hazánk (Our Homeland). Ruuben Kaalep is one of the main advocates for the Intermarium project, a political and geostrategic plan aiming to regroup the Baltic countries, the Visegrád 4, Ukraine, Croatia, Slovenia, Belarus, Moldova, and Romania, forming a kind of a triangle between the Baltic Sea, the Black Sea, and the Adriatic Sea.

Although this list changes from time to time, sometimes including other Balkan countries, the Scandinavian countries, or even Austria, the Intermarium’s aim stays the same: to coordinate cooperation among the countries of Central and Eastern Europe — with the notable exception of Russia — in order to protect the interests of the region.

For its supporters, the project is the best way to preserve the way of life, security, and independence of the CEE countries, by “freeing them from Western domination and protecting them from Russian imperialism.”

The Intermarium project is not a new idea, although its revival gained visibility after the Maïdan revolution and the conflict between Ukraine and Russia, which the advocates of the Intermarium perceived as new Russian aggression necessitating regional cooperation to avoid such a thing in the future.

One hundred years ago, the post-WW1 reborn Polish state was dreaming of rebuilding the great Polish empire connecting the Baltic and the Black Seas, known as the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, able to contain Russia. This Międzymorze — “between-seas” — project of the Polish elites also included countries such as Hungary, Yugoslavia, Finland, Czechoslovakia, and Romania, making it the first modern project to bring together the CEE countries. Placed between Russia and the West, cutting off the Balkans from the rest of Europe, this geopolitical project always had many critics in both Russia and the West. Nowadays, if the Intermarium is mostly a little-known, pan-nationalist project, advocated mainly by Ukrainian, Balt, Croatian, and Polish political groups, the Three Seas Initiative can be seen as an implementation of Intermarium’s basic idea.

Intermarium has bigger ambitions than the announced goals of the Three Seas Initiative (gathering Baltic countries, the V4, Austria, Slovenia, Croatia, Romania, and Bulgaria) which is built on an energy and transportation cooperation scheme aiming to guarantee energy independence of the CEE countries from Russia while being financed by the USA. For the advocates of the Intermarium project, the future of the region should lie on the rejection of three main enemies: Russia, NATO, and communism.

Ferenc Almássy met with Ruuben Kaalep while he was in Hungary in order to discuss his advocacy of the Intermarium project.

In red, a version of the Intermarium, gathering Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Belorussia, Ukraine, Moldova, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, Croatia and Slovenia.

Ferenc Almássy: You are member of the Estonian Parliament, but you are, can we say, a nationalist? Can you accept this epithet?

Ruuben Kaalep: Absolutely. A nationalist is what I am. It’s the main thing for me.

Ferenc Almássy: So how is it possible that in Estonia, nationalists are part of a governmental coalition?

READ MORE...

The New Culture Forum Channel 16 Aug 2020: On this week’s #NCFCounterCulture, the founding members of “Save Our Statues (S.O.S.)”, an organisation established in response to this summer’s attacks on historic statues, discuss the wider agenda motivating many of the leading forces behind the recent protests (from BLM to the Socialist Workers Party).

Joining Peter Whittle (founder & Chairman of S.O.S.) are:

* Richard Bingley, General Secretary
* Richard Poll, Social Media director
* Emma Webb, Political Outreach coordinator
* Rafe Heydel-Mankoo, Committee Member
* Tom Stranack, a student who organised a successful petition to retain the statue of Lord (Robert) Baden-Powell in Poole

If you are interested in joining the fight for Britain’s heritage & history, please do visit the Save Our Statues website to donate or become a member: https://www.SaveOurStatues.org.uk

Warning: Third Positionism and its vulnerability with a backdoor for entryism and manipulation for its no-account foolishness.

Interventions: GOP, The Enemy of the People

DanielS:

Thamster engaged in terrible strawman misrepresentations of what is being done with pragmatism, describing it as “mere” pragmatism, and the “post modern” mere choice of identity: viz the original practicality of moral concerns is not mutually exclusive to depth of concerns nor even their idealization, sacralization and inspiration, inbornness and non-negotiableness. ....while Christianity has had great practical utility from its onset: for our enemies as a red caping of our moral order.

Thamster WitNat
Highlighted reply
Thamster WitNat

44 minutes ago (edited)
lol strawman, hardly. You are the one misrepresenting here.

I was referring to a tendency for many in the “dissident right” (if we want to go with that as a broad term) to engage in the question of religion by stating we need to either find one or create one more conducive to our politics. Packaged with that is the idea that religion serves as a survival mechanism where you pick and choose aspects of them suited to that end. The reason for this view of religion? A pragmatic concern with constructing one more in line with our politics. In other words, reducing religious truth to our own political interests. That is hardly a genuine answer to the problem but its a common one I see in these circles. Pragmatic because the question of truth is decided on by its practical implications over its absolute commitments. I am not talking about PRAGMATISM as a philosphy, I am talking about the pragmatic aim of this view in a general sense. Obviously stating that religion can have practical concerns as well as sacralization and ideaization that is non-negotiable is completely beside the point.

I also never said the postmodern “mere” choice of identity” I said this view of religion plays (broadly) within the framework of postmodernism that fascists are seemingly opposed to. Of course, for that to make sense, you would have to agree with me that the bulk of postmodernism is a continuation of modernism even if it began as a critique of it. I have expounded this view elsewhere.

Daniel Sienkiewicz
Daniel Sienkiewicz
14 minutes ago (edited)

​@Thamster WitNat

“lol strawman, hardly. You are the one misrepresenting here.

I was referring to a tendency for many in the “dissident right” (if we want to go with that as a broad term) to engage in the question of religion by stating we need to either find one or create one more conducive to our politics.”

While those on the dissident right may have a superficial idea as to the process of religion, I’m gathering that I did not misrepresent your argument, as I am satisfied that a religion, as any moral ordering, has practical matters negotiated between people at its origin.

The difference between an authentic religiosity as opposed to an affectation adopted or imposed (as in the case of Christianity) is that it emerges out of the concern to connect and hold to account a group’s systemic relations (you know the etymology re-ligia). Whereas Christianity tethers us to Noahide law, an affectation of kosher imposition, jurisdiction and expropriation.

“Packaged with that is the idea that religion serves as a survival mechanism where you pick and choose aspects of them suited to that end.”

You don’t pick and choose what has survival value to your people, but you do sacralize what is crucial and make taboo what is harmful.

“The reason for this view of religion? A pragmatic concern with constructing one more in line with our politics. In other words, reducing religious truth to our own political interests.”

In this argument you are relying too much on the word “mere”, which is the strawman element….“mere” pragmatism, “mere” politics, “mere” construction.

“That is hardly a genuine answer to the problem but its a common one I see in these circles.”

Obviously I am not going to defend people in the “dissident right” and your point is well taken regarding the adoption of Orthodox Christianity and probably in regard to some of their larpish attempts to represent pagan religions.

But the recognition of the need for a religion, to facilitate our group pattern on a semi transcendent level, beyond the unworthiness of some of our people and the imperfection of the rest of us, is necessary for many reasons, not least of which is to carry us beyond cynicism for the fact of our imperfection (to say the least).

“Pragmatic because the question of truth is decided on by its practical implications over its absolute commitments. I am not talking about PRAGMATISM as a philosphy, I am talking about the pragmatic aim of this view in a general sense.”

Let me call attention to Kant’s use of the word “practical” when discussing the topic of morality.

I’ll cop to a bit of No-true-Scotsmanning here when I suggest that it is furthermore practical to have ideals and aesthetic inspiration.

The purpose of this exercise is to relocate our agency in the service of our interests; that we can have hope to re-establish a moral order which centers the biological interest of our species. ...not so much to defend pragmatic philosophy, commendable though it is: Hilary Putnam, “the great contribution of the pragmatists is to show that fallibilism and anti-skepticism are compatible.”

“Obviously stating that religion can have practical concerns as well as sacralization and ideaization that is non-negotiable is completely beside the point.”

...well, if your point is to say that people on the dissident right are prone to retain the liberal idea of shopping around, picking and choosing, yes, good point, among the several reasons that you are interesting to listen to…..

But if your point is to criticize post modern philosophy and pragmatism as they should be understood in underpinning White interests, then not besides the point.

“I also never said the postmodern “mere” choice of identity” I said this view of religion plays (broadly) within the framework of postmodernism that fascists are seemingly opposed to.”

Ok, fair enough point - If - if their understanding of postmodernity is the hyper-relative, dada deconstructionist, ironically adopted situational nonsense that its been red caped for Whites as being what “post modernity” truly is. Then agreed.

“Of course, for that to make sense, you would have to agree with me that the bulk of postmodernism is a continuation of modernism even if it began as a critique of it. I have expounded this view elsewhere.”

Not exactly. Post modern philosophy as it is misrepresented is really a continuation of modernity, its late stage fallout - misrepresented as “post modernity” since the antagonists to our interests do not want us to understand the accurate purpose of post modern performance requirements as it would facilitate our systemic survival as opposed to the ravages of modernity, its arbitrary experimentalism in promise that change necessarily leads to progress, and as opposed to maintaining traditions, where they are anachronistic and no longer serviceable..

And conversely, to be able to invoke the best of modern advance and tradition without the pangs of self loathing for the appearance of lacking modern sophistication, but mostly, to be able to protect our inherited forms,  the maintained organization of which requires that post modernity be properly understood: hence why it is that our adversaries have perpetuated the hyper relative misrepresentation: they want to keep us disorganized.

Nativist Concern: One of the more talented of the somewhat recent arrivals to the J.Q.

Not highly original but pretty solid in his understanding of the J.Q. His third positionism does, unfortunately, provide backdoors for right wing elements to be used against nativist, ethnonational concerns.* It would be good to talk to him.

* For a classic example of his formulaic (and latently disastrous) worldview (106:34):

He exercises 2020 hindsight to suggest that World War II shouldn’t have been fought, but fails to consider that perhaps it was Hitler who should not have been attacking other nations. There are a host of right wing reactions vulnerable to misdirection with his presumption.

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...