Majorityrights News > Category: World Affairs

It is headlined What Ukrainians think about the war, Putin, Russia, NATO, Europe – and Britain. A remarkable poll from Kyiv., and it is revealing.  In the middle of all the pain and chaos of war, the pollster Lord Ashcroft has succeeded in sounding out the thoughts of Kievans.  The results challenge those in the West who don’t much concern themselves with the rights and interests of the folk who actually live under the missiles, shells and bombs, never mind their views.  It is, you seem, just too tempting to attack the neocons and usual suspects in “the West” who, it is said, left Putin no alternative but to launch a full scale war against a peaceful people.

From ConHome’s article:

Ukrainians want to stay and fight

Only 11 per cent of Ukrainians agreed “if I could leave Ukraine safely tomorrow for another country I would.” Nearly seven in 10 (69 per cent) strongly disagreed. Only one in 20 (five per cent) of those aged 65 or over said they would leave if they could.

Indeed, 67 per cent said they would be willing to take up arms to defend the country against Russian troops, with a further seven per cent saying they were already doing so. 85 per cent of men and 63 per cent of women said they had already taken up arms or were willing to do so.

Ninety-three per cent said they were willing to help Ukrainian troops in other ways, such as providing shelter, food or clothing, or were already doing so.

Ninety-two per cent said they had a favourable view of President Zelensky, including 66 per cent whose view was very favourable.

Ukrainians do not expect a long war

More than half (56 per cent) of Ukrainians said they expected the conflict to be over by the end of March, with a further 14 per cent expecting it to last up to three months. Fewer than one in ten (nine per cent) said they thought it would last longer than six months. Women and younger people were more optimistic about an early end to military action.

No part of Ukraine is part of Russia – but Ukrainians don’t see Russians as the enemy.

98 per cent of Ukrainians – including 82 per cent of those of Russian ethnicity – said they did not believe that any part of Ukraine was rightfully part of Russia.

While 97 per cent had an unfavourable view of Vladimir Putin and 94 per cent had an unfavourable view of the Russian military (including only 82 per cent saying “very unfavourable”; 12 per cent generously said their view of Russian forces was only “somewhat unfavourable”), Ukrainians see Russians themselves in a slightly different light.

Only 62 per cent said they had a very unfavourable view of the Russian people, with a further 19 per cent saying it was somewhat unfavourable. Fourteen per cent had a somewhat or very favourable view of the Russian people.

Ukrainians consider their future to be closer to Europe

Nearly 19 in 20 Ukrainians (93 per cent) said they considered their country’s future to be closer to Europe than to Russia. This included 78 per cent of respondents of Russian ethnicity, and 84 per cent of those in the east of the country closest to the Russian border.

Desmond Tutu, Anglican Archbishop of Cape Town, has died aged 90.  A Nobel Peace Prize winner in 1984, never an ANC member and in later years not even an ANC voter, he was much despaired by post-Apartheid South Africa’s violence and political corruption.  But he was an idealist, not a realist.  The term “rainbow nation” was his invention.  He evidently expected his country to develop into some world-exemplar of Christian tolerance and racial justice.

So here is the question which Desmond Tutu could not confront.  One might call it the African Question. It’s a bit long!

As enslaving another people ... any people ... is manifestly wrong, and segregation by law is not tolerated by liberals because its practise inevitably leaves the Africans holding the shitty and humiliating end of the socio-economic stick (and by Jews because it doesn’t produce the deracinated, amorphous gentile of the End Time), and if the only permitted basis on which society may be constructed is panmixia and equality in all things while, at the same time, living with the African sociobiology is simply not tolerable for other races, including Europeans, then how but by complete separation is any people to live a fitting and properly satisfying life?

Unfortunately, Europeans in southern Africa (and in America too) wanted the whole land. The Dutch-Flemish wanted to settle the land while the British wanted control of its economic resources - to which end the Raj model couldn’t be made to work owing to the nature of African tribal life.  The military incapacity of Africans likewise invited a full colonisation approach, and the forcing of them into an effective slave-labour status.  It is easy say with hindsight that this was a short-sighted policy led by ambition and greed, which were just the standards of the time.  But such it was and, inevitably, that required the adoption of sub-optimal control measures which, much later, could not indefinitely withstand the pressure from reformists within and grandstanding political elites without. 

Still, it was never a European land.  Africa is not a European continent.  Today, we hold this to be true of our continent, which is for us natives and our children alone, so we must be consistent and say the same of every other native people.  Only total separation on the land can deliver a sustaining settlement.

As for Bishop Desmond, he did right by his people, which we, as nationalists, cannot criticise.

Israel Blamed! Iran Vows to Avenge Assassination of Nuclear Scientist

Zionist Report 28 Nov 2020:

“Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani on Saturday accused arch-foe Israel of acting as a “mercenary” for the US, blaming it for the assassination of prominent nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh.”

       

Related at Majorityrights:

Trump Administration Raison D’être Realized - Trump Withdraws US from Iran Deal and Renews Sanctions

UPDATE: Abby Martin’s Lawsuit Over Israel Loyalty Oath Mandate in US

Big Tech and Color Revolutions with Allum Bokhari and Darren Beattie

Note, in their discussion of the color revolutions theory, they are emphatic to stress their belief that the “left / right ” divide is obsolete, but they are failing to recognize that the Marxist, international, anti-national left merges with right wing elitism and liberalism license as pitted against the unionization of ethnonationalism.

Furthermore, as neo-liberal sources (a step in the process toward the Marxist international, as far as those types see it) are behind the color revolutions, it is problematic indeed, as a Russian puppet dictatorship such as Lukashenko’s should be replaced, not with neo-liberalism, but with a Belarusian, ethnonational leadership.

Same issue in this next discussion - Michael Anton | The BLM Movement and Civil Rights | Constitution Day Panel - an otherwise brilliant analysis, but hopefully people will begin to see, along with me, that if the Powers That Be can’t get you to argue against their marketed characterology of the Left (in order to distract you from the fact that you should be adopting a left ethonationalist concept) then they will try to put across the notion that the “left / right ” distinction is an obsolete concept (in order to distract you from the fact that you should be adopting a left ethonationalist concept):

Michael Anton | The BLM Movement and Civil Rights | Constitution Day Panel

Lots of talk of “the left” - by which, as we know, if we are to be generous to them, they mean the internationalist, anti-White Left - which they explain has a heck of a shake-down racket going on, with the BLM the shock troops on the ground, invoking massive funding from the corporations…

Meet Norm Eisen: Legal Hatchet Man and Central Operative in the “Color Revolution” Against President Trump.

Revolver News 9 Sept 2020

In our report on Never Trump State Department official George Kent, Revolver News first drew attention to the ominous similarities between the strategies and tactics the United States government employs in so-called “Color Revolutions” and the coordinated efforts of government bureaucrats, NGOs, and the media to oust President Trump.

Our recent follow-up to this initial report focused specifically on a shadowy, George Soros linked group called the Transition Integrity Project (TIP), which convened “war games” exercises suggesting the likelihood of a “contested election scenario,” and of ensuing chaos should President Trump refuse to leave office. We further showed how these “contested election” scenarios we are hearing so much about play perfectly into the Color Revolution framework sketched out Revolver News’ first installment in the Color Revolution series.

This third installment of Revolver News‘ series exposing the Color Revolution against Trump will focus on one quiet and indeed mostly overlooked participant in the Transition Integrity Project’s biased election “war games” exercise—a man by the name of Norm Eisen.

Norm Eisen

As the man who implemented the David Brock blueprint for suing the President into paralysis and his allies into bankruptcy, who helped mainstream and amplify the Russia Hoax, who drafted 10 articles of impeachment for the Democrats a full month before President Trump ever called the Ukraine President in 2018, who personally served as special counsel litigating the Ukraine impeachment, who created a template for Internet censorship of world leaders and a handbook for mass mobilizing racial justice protesters to overturn democratic election results, there is perhaps no man alive with a more decorated resume for plots against President Trump.

Indeed, the story of Norm Eisen – a key architect of nearly every attempt to delegitimize, impeach, censor, sue and remove the democratically elected 45th President of the United States – is a tale that winds through nearly every facet of the color revolution playbook. There is no purer embodiment of Revolver’s thesis that the very same regime change professionals who run Color Revolutions on behalf of the US Government in order to undermine or overthrow alleged “authoritarian” governments overseas, are running the very same playbook to overturn Trump’s 2016 victory and to pre-empt a repeat in 2020. To put it simply, what you see is not just the same Color Revolution playbook run against Trump, but the same people using it against Trump who have employed it in a professional capacity against targets overseas—same people same playbook.

In Norm Eisen’s case, the “same people same playbook” refrain takes an arrestingly literal turn when one realizes that Norm Eisen wrote a classic Color Revolution regime change manual, and conveniently titled it “The Playbook.”

Just what exactly is President Obama’s former White House Ethics Czar (yes, Norm Eisen was Obama’s ethics Czar), his longtime friend since Harvard Law School, who recently partook in war games to simulate overturning a Trump electoral victory, doing writing a detailed playbook on how to use a Color Revolution to overthrow governments? The story of Norm Eisen only gets more fascinating, outrageous, and indispensable to understanding the planned chaos unfolding before our eyes, leading up to what will perhaps be the most chaotic election in our nation’s recent history

.......

I’d Rather Have This Book Than The Atomic Bomb”

Before we can fully appreciate the significance of Norm Eisen’s Color Revolution manual “The Playbook,” we must contextualize this important book in relation to its place in Color Revolution literature.

READ MORE...

Updated for clarity’s sake: Sept 21, 9:13 CET

As I have been preoccupied with the drudgery of having to shovel out the Augean stables of GW’s endless piles of horseshit, I haven’t gotten around to detailing dubious activity coming from Joel Davis and Neo-Asshole acolyte, Keith Woods.

However, in this discussion, there are a few things that should pique the attention of the conscientious in concern of White/European interests…

Firstly, note Davis unabashedly follows the advice of a philosophy professor named Katz.

Second, look for what Davis is doing when he claims that subjectivism is the distinguishing characterisitic of the European world view… while there is some utility to looking at European difficulties through the artifact of that framing, there is also potential for diversion from the important underlying truth in that subjectivism by itself is Cartesian; subjectivism is certainly limited in the case of “I think therefore I am”, and placed in the service of objectivity; furthermore, the kind of self assertion that would correspond with sustained subjectivism, as opposed to self transcendent strives of objectivism, does not ring true as charactaristically and distinctly European as opposed to characteristic of other peoples. Whether or not he turns to our relative, group interests by contrast to Modernity’s Objective/Subjective Cartesianism, that is where we need to be focused in the interests of European peoples.

As Davis has called for Israel to be looked upon as our friend and called upon Paul Gottfried for advice as to where to turn for funding, we may suspect that he is not adverse to putting WN off center; perhaps playing some of its right wing reaction to bolster his own elitism. Note his pandering to Keith Woods’ turd postionism, talking about how appealing that he found Riefenstahl’s “Triumph of The Will’ (whereas, being normal, I find the Hitler rallies repugnant, aesthetically and otherwise, no matter who might film them).

Joel Davis has also explicitly denounced the racial focus and priority of White Nationalism.

A high i.q. and a committed student of philosophy, one can profit from listening to Davis’ as he covers ground (we may have oversighted) for us to convert into the interest of Europeans as opposed to Jewish misdirection - for example, I gleaned from Davis the important but what should have been obvious idea that there is group genetic emergence as well - however, one would be well advised to be on guard and view with suspicion his motives and prescriptions as one with a dubious kosher seal of approval.

There is a big, modernist focus on “creativity” by Joel Davis in this talk, “the sine qua non”....rather, we want creativity to be a feature… otherwise it is just an expressed and impelled obligation of sick modernity, “be different so you can fit in.” ... and something like a kosher diversion of our White Post Modern project to reconstruct the homeostasis of our ethnonational praxis.

Post-Liberalism w. Joel Davis (Continuum Ep. 20)

Related at Majorityrights:

Do Joel Davis and Richard Spencer Want to Suck Jewish Cock?