Majorityrights News > Category: Political Philosophy

A relatively new site called The Old Continent: Your Eye on Europe might be of some limited utility to ethnonationalism, but requires significant caveat.

Its four listed “authors”, Timon Dias, Vincent van den Born, Frank Kasteel and Benjamin de Wolf all seem to be coming from some sort of military / policing background - and thus given to a platform that aspires to an objective presentation of criminality and its sources antagonistic to, where not outrightly designated the enemy of European civic union.

The site is performing a service in reporting on migrant rape crimes, a type of crime very very important to us and under-reported by the media to date; however, their purported objectivity fails to conceal a pandering to a prejudicial social classification that nevertheless remains salient despite the objectivist prejudice against discriminatory social classification - i.e. the classification female remains, irrespective of the prejudice against social classifications - in fact, emerges to impose itself as a category undeniably. And through the disingenuous objectivist premise, males, any males who are most “objectively” manly, are suitable to look after the interests of European union females:

Case in point - of the posts that Timon Dias has recently put up at the time of this writing, two of them are lauding the virtue and strength of black boxing champions, here and here, one post is some voodoo about a cloud that formed in the sky “miraculously” in the shape of Great Britain - “forming a sign from God for Brexit,” and finally he put up a story about a police car having been burned in Amsterdam by migrants. So, we may guess that Dias is black, part black, perhaps otherwise colored, but at least “philo-black”, i.e., not having European people’s subjective and relative interests as empirically grounded systemic wholes, close to heart.

The other writers seem to be more coherently focused on reporting migrant crime in Europe, particularly as it comes by way of Islam. In pursuing these crime stories as an objective matter, emphasizing previously under-reported incidents of migrant rape, they can supply facts that counter the heretofore mainstream media’s liberal prejudices against ethno-nationalism. Though “Old Continent” is the same as the legacy media in that it purports to be objective, it differs in its undeclared bias in this way of having a prejudicial eye on immigrant crime and particularly Islamic sourcing of that criminal behavior. Whereas the heretofore mainstream media has had a prejudicial eye against conservative reaction to liberal causes, such as problems perpetrated through immigration and Muslim people. This liberal prejudice and de-emphasis on the crimes aided and abetted by liberalism has left us acutely susceptible.

Thus, the site can be helpful to us for this “objective” angle in a few different ways. Firstly by directly providing us with factual events to help supply and support our own arguments and secondly their “objectivity” can help us indirectly to put together our arguments for ethnonationalism as a means of systemic accountability and protection - indirectly, for example, through their “objective” reporting on sources of “anti-Semitism” they can inadvertently call attention to Jewish culpability as Muslim “anti-Semitism” is “objectively” aired. That helps us, of course, because Jewish prejudice and culpability has been something that you cannot talk about in mainstream media as it has been under their sway, but the facts get out through a back door of “objectivity”, despite that, albeit indirectly.

Nevertheless, while the site is helpful to us in providing factual episodes to supply argument against liberal and Jewish media bias, it remains incumbent upon the wise, upon the ethnonationalist, to put together an assessment of patterns from these factual reports, to overcome the pseudo-objectivity that Jews, right-wingers and liberals have enforced upon us, and to warrant necessary prejudicial, discriminatory social classification, to marshal these patterns in our relative interests by contrast to show the way to our salvation - warrant that ethno-national activists can take up in the cause of its implementation.

Thus, where I have not published information from enemy sources or sites with platforms markedly different form ours for the fact that they didactically reveal their prejudices, then I have done so because they are presenting information that is basically factual enough such that much spin cannot be applied to mislead our audience. This would be the case, for example, when I publish material, e.g., from NPR, Haaretz, the Jerusalem Post   ..and where I reluctantly publish material from Russian Active Measures organs, RT and Sputnik.

Thus, I issue the caveat about this site, The Old Continent: Your Eye on Europe, that I cannot vouch that they are operating fundamentally in ethnonational interests, they seem rather to be operating as civic European unionists at best. At worst, and this is likely, they are of the counter-Jihadist mold. In fact, not only are they not likely to ask the “J.Q.”, their kosherness is evident in their focus on “extreme” Islam, their pro-Geert Wilders articles, e.g., here and here (as opposed to our stance on Wilders); the site’s apparent institutional sympathy, technical and informational backing, along with its verbal i.q. are still more kosher indication.

With that caveat, and given that Majority Rights will run information coming through sites with platforms a bit off, or even from opposing platforms, we might avail ourselves of facts that help our cause, where they supply them. Let’s try this story for starters…

...with one more preliminary remark: note the glib and inappropriate caption to the inappropriate image placed with the article - does that reflect subjective and heartfelt relative concern?

A picture of a blatantly unrelated Swedish police car. But man, aren’t they sweet

The Old Continent, Swedish migrant gang-rape: Court can’t establish which suspect did what. So they all walk free, avoiding deportation”, 15 June 2017:

On October 17, 2015, a woman in the Swedish town of Ludvika was raped outside of a restaurant in the center of town. The two men suspected of the crime were arrested on the 22nd of January 2016, followed a month later by a third man, suspected of aiding and abetting. All three of them were accused in court of rape. One of them confessed he was at the scene with the woman, but claimed that the other two were the ones to rape her.

They, in turn, said they were nowhere near the incident and didn’t even know anything had happened.

The Falu District Court, however, found the woman’s story to be very credible. Besides that, cigaret butts had been found on the site, which, according to the police, indicated hat the men had been present. The court, therefore, concluded that one of the men raped the woman, the other held her down and the third stood watch, or at the very least did nothing to prevent the crime. Consequently, all three of them would be sentenced for conspiring to jointly rape the woman. They received four years in prison, after which they were to be deported. They would also have to pay damages of 166.860 SEK (around €17.000) to the woman.

Prosecutor Sanna Gens chose to appeal the decision, seeking higher sentences. This backfired, when on appeal the defendants were acquitted entirely.

Although Court of Appeal agreed that the woman was forced into “sexual acts comparable to intercourse” and that the three men were on the scene with the woman, it did not follow District Court in concluding that this made them guilty of rape.

The case against the men was based heavily on the testimony of the victim. The Court of Appeal found that some elements of her story “appeared to be unclear and to some extent inconsistent with the other investigation.”

Because it is unclear exactly which suspect did what, reasoned the Court of Appeal, none of the men ought to have been convicted and all three of them “should therefore have been acquitted of all charges” as the Court deliberated. So out went the four-year prison sentences and the deportation order.

One of the men, a 25-year-old living in Ludvika, even received 140.000 SEK (around €14.000) compensation for time spent in prison, while another claimed compensation for his ‘suffering’ at the hands of the Attorney General, as well as loss of earnings to the amount of 37.600 SEK (slightly over €3850). This has been rejected, however, on the grounds that he was evidently present at the crime scene.

                .... and Part 2

Backed by “Indian givers”, playing both sides and shifting the focus..

One take on the British election results -

UKIP / the banker class…

“Gave you Brexit” then dissolved themselves into Labour to take away Theresa May’s power to do anything about it..

..the objectivists told you that their invisible hand would work with you, naturally, to take care of Merkel’s migration assault on native Europeans… then their invisible hand played the other side of populism to leverage withdrawal of motions to exit from the common EU economic market - and with it, to withdraw an effective Brexit - by having voters distracted with a focus on Labour as the “savior of social services”...as if Theresa May was going to take that away.

..it seems that similar as with Trump and the Republicans in the US, that elite cadres are infusing whichever moribund party with angles of populist narratives that they can play in order to manipulate the electorate.

                       
                                Kevin MacDonald               and                 James Bowery

First on CNN: Russian officials bragged they could use Flynn to influence Trump, sources say,” 20 May 2017:

Washington (CNN)Russian officials bragged in conversations during the presidential campaign that they had cultivated a strong relationship with former Trump adviser retired Gen. Michael Flynn and believed they could use him to influence Donald Trump and his team, sources told CNN.

The conversations deeply concerned US intelligence officials, some of whom acted on their own to limit how much sensitive information they shared with Flynn, who was tapped to become Trump’s national security adviser, current and former governments officials said.

“This was a five-alarm fire from early on,” one former Obama administration official said, “the way the Russians were talking about him.” Another former administration official said Flynn was viewed as a potential national security problem.

The conversations picked up by US intelligence officials indicated the Russians regarded Flynn as an ally, sources said. That relationship developed throughout 2016, months before Flynn was caught on an intercepted call in December speaking with Russia’s ambassador in Washington, Sergey Kislyak. That call, and Flynn’s changing story about it, ultimately led to his firing as Trump’s first national security adviser.

Officials cautioned, however, that the Russians might have exaggerated their sway with Trump’s team during those conversations.

Flynn’s lawyer declined to comment.

“We are confident that when these inquiries are complete there will be no evidence to support any collusion between the campaign and Russia,” a White House official said in a statement. “... This matter is not going to distract the President or this administration from its work to bring back jobs and keep America safe.”

Flynn has emerged as a central figure—and Trump’s biggest liability—in the intensifying investigations into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. His financial ties to Turkish government interests, which paid him $530,000 in a lobbying deal that he failed to disclose during the campaign, are also under scrutiny by federal investigators.

One major concern for Obama administration officials was the subject of conversations between Flynn and Kislyak that took place shortly after President Barack Obama slapped new sanctions on Russia for meddling in the election. Sources tell CNN that Flynn told Kislyak that the Trump administration would look favorably on a decision by Russia to hold off on retaliating with its own sanctions. The next day, Putin said he wouldn’t retaliate.

Sources say Flynn also told Kislyak that the incoming Trump administration would revisit US sanctions on Russia once in office. The US has applied sanctions on Russia since 2014 for its actions in Ukraine.

Flynn’s calls with Kislyak in December have received the most attention, but his relationship with the Russian ambassador goes back four years.

He first met Kislyak in June 2013 during an official trip to Russia, according to The Washington Post. He led the Defense Intelligence Agency at the time and met his counterparts at the Russian military intelligence agency known as the GRU.

READ MORE...

The poster’s punchline reads “FPÖ—otherwise nothing will ever change.” The FPÖ will also produce material mapping out the numerous false promises made by the SPÖ and ÖVP, and will concentrate on mapping its own major policies which include “zero tolerance of Islamism,” the protection of women’s rights, fighting welfare abuse, protectionism for Austrian workers, and the immediate “deportation of asylum seekers and criminal immigrants.”

New Observer, “October Elections in Austria as Coalition Implodes”, 17 May 2017:

The collapse of the ruling conservative-socialist Austrian coalition government has meant that Austria will have a snap general election on October 15—possibly opening the door to power for the anti-invasion Freedom Party (FPÖ).

The ruling coalition, made up of Chancellor Christian Kern’s Social Democratic Party of Austria (SPÖ) and the Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) was supposed to govern until its term ran out in 2018.

However, the growth of the FPÖ—and the collapse of the SPÖ and ÖVP votes in last year’s presidential elections, combined with internal fighting over leadership and policy toward the mass nonwhite fake refugee invasion, has finally caused the coalition to break apart.

The sudden resignation of ÖVP leader—and deputy chancellor—Reinhold Mitterlehner, from all his posts, brought the crisis to a head.

Mitterlehner complained that he was unable to continue because of infighting within his party, and therefore had no choice but to lay down his leadership and his deputy chancellorship.

The ÖVP moved quickly to replace him with the current foreign minister, the 30-year-old Sebastian Kurz, widely punted by the controlled media as a “dynamic” leader who could restore that party’s fortunes.

Rather than try and carry on with the increasingly impossible coalition, Kurz however immediately called time on the coalition and announced that he would be withdrawing his party’s support from the government.

The FPÖ is currently the single largest party with over 30 percent of the vote, but the presidential elections of last year saw its vote climb to 49 percent.

The chances are therefore extremely good that the FPÖ will emerge as the single largest party—and given recent developments, it may well consider a coalition government with the ÖVP.

[...]

The FPÖ campaign will start in Vienna on May 18, by which time 500,000 copies of the initial material will have been printed.

Please advertise this book if you can - Jez

75 Proud Years:  Pioneers and Progress of Rhodesia

As someone with an interest in Rhodesia, we thought you might like to know that we now have a reprint of this 1965 Rhodesian Government publication :

With an introduction by Ian Smith , the book covers the history of Rhodesia from 1890 to 1965 in some detail and surveys the enormous progress made in agriculture, commerce, industry and social development of benefit to both white and black Rhodesians.

With 124 pages, this A4-size softcover book is a facsimile copy of the original with contemporary advertisements and would be an invaluable addition to any collection of Rhodesiana .

The book costs £12.50 and p&p is £2.90 (with a 10% discount to former customers) .

To order a copy please contact us at :

.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) for payment details and other information .

Classical liberals make a two-paragraph declaration of obsolescence

No one ever thought that classical liberals would ever get around to actually acknowledging that they are fine with getting you and your family killed by roving bands of Islamic ‘migrants’ who are permanently conducting hijra for the past 1400 years and are always looking for a new location to park their reactionary socio-economic caravan of rampant misogyny, homophobia, mestizaje and genocide, but here it is:

Charles Johnson / FEE.org, ‘Why Free Immigration is a Right’, 30 Mar 2017:

Well good God, of course it is morally wrong for nations to pursue their “self-interest” in anything, and especially in border control policies. People have self-interests that matter, morally; nations do not. Nations are toxic hellholes of false identity and purveyors of monstrous political violence.

Nations are not rational people; they are not free associations or contractual agreements; they are unchosen, coercively assembled collectives, whose interests are typically an abortion of, if not an outright war against, the moral interests of individual people which actually deserve to be cultivated, practiced and respected. For anyone committed to individual liberty, a nations’ “interests” deserve no notice at all except to trample them underfoot.

So, there is that. That happened. A classical liberal man actually wrote those paragraphs, and he was not intoxicated when he wrote them.

That excerpt really is basically a two-paragraph declaration of ideological obsolescence on the part of classical liberalism.

Apparently if you pre-emptively use force so as to prevent your enemies from pillaging your lands and killing your family, that makes you ‘a bad person’ or something. Crucially though, it also happens to make you a winner, which I think is the most important thing.

Separately, Charles Johnson is indeed correct when he says that nations are ‘coercively assembled collectives’ which wage ‘outright war’ against ‘the moral interests of individual people’. The process of state formation is indeed an inherently violent array of actions from which all other actions of the state cannot be extricated, and the law itself is essentially an opinion with guns and detention facilities behind it. That is completely true.

With that said, though. Does anyone actually care?

Literally nobody even cares, so whatever

When asked to choose between the ‘liberty’ to have some individuals make moral choices in complete chaos and uncertainty, versus the ‘monstrous political violence’ of the state which creates stability and guarantees the safe existence of the people from which actual prosperity flows, the people should always choose the state.

Liberty has to be properly understood as not ‘freedom from’, but rather ‘freedom to’. The task of the state is to steer a course that allows for the flourishing of prosperity without undermining the social-economic position of the dominant class which creates and reproduces state power, and without significantly undermining the ethnic composition of the people within the jurisdiction of the state’s territory, as genes are a productive force and as such are a factor in the creation of the prosperity atop which the state subsists.

Talking to the invaders is useless

If someone virtue-signalled to Arabs through enacting lax border policies and then framed it as an act of kindness in the social media domain in the hopes that this would somehow smooth integration (still a stupid idea, of course, as integration is a stupid idea), it would actually be just liberals signalling to other liberals in a de facto echo chamber, because Arabs actually barely find time to read their own Arabic print media much less finding time to read English language in the social media domain. This is a fact that is known among most security consultants and among almost anyone who has ever been involved in Information Operations in Mesopotamia after 2003. ‘The Arab man in the street’ does not read. The Arab guy in the street has a political understanding gleaned from the oral pronouncements of his local Imam, a surface level understanding of current events from Arab language television, and a tangle of mutually contradictory conspiracy theories shared orally or across social media. In the case where social media is used, engagement-rates among Arabs are low, which is to say, they do not actually click links.

Almost 100% of the hearts and minds ‘messaging’ that classical liberal thinktanks who are trying to ‘defend values’ have engaged in, has actually been sent into an echo chamber of Europeans and Americans congratulating each other for crafting increasingly sophisticated narratives which all point toward strategically stupid conclusions which undermine European security.

Meanwhile, the mostly male Arab Muslim migrant wave has been ignoring it all while sitting in an ideological trash dumpster of misogyny and homophobia, as they despise all the progressive gains that have been made in regions of the world other than theirs. They have no respect for any other ethnic group and they believe that it is their mission to demographically infest the whole planet.

Safe beneath the watchful eyes

Without security there can be no real freedom. Most people know this almost instinctively, and that is for example why the United Kingdom’s referendum on membership of the European Union delivered up a ‘Leave’ result.

The British people have displayed a revealed preference for the untrammelled full spectrum dominance of the British security state led by Theresa May and Amber Rudd, rather than a European Union which has fallen under the de facto control of Angela Merkel.

We can conclude from this that the British people enjoy actually winning at counter-terrorism more than they enjoy virtue-signalling to a foaming tide of Arab Muslim ‘migrants’ who can barely find time to read their own Arabic print media much less reading English in the social media domain.

The British people don’t actually believe in classical liberalism. They believe in being real people. And that is a reason for optimism.

Classical liberal ‘freedom’ supposes that individuals can be abstracted from their origins, their environment, the context in which they live and where they exercise their choices, that is to say, abstracted from everything that makes them who they are specifically, and not someone else. It supposes that the individual is always prior to her ends. However, there is nothing that can prove that the individual can apprehend herself as a subject completely free of any allegiance, free of any form of determinism. There is no reason why she would prefer that form of ‘freedom’ over any other social good. Such a conception ignores commitments and attachments to clans or spiritual sects, bonds of blood and soil, long-term economic class interests, and the fact that nations are the deepest and most enduring source of political experience. Classical liberal ‘freedom’ is a purely formal conception, which is completely incapable of capturing the rich tapestry of what a real person is.

The real person seeks ‘love’ and ‘eternity’. ‘Love’ is the wish that someone or something should continue to flourish forever, or at least, that they should ‘get the last word’ in the world before the story of humanity ends. In that sense, love is a desire to pursue victory and create a meaning where there was originally none. When standing alone, the individual is always defeated and approaching death alone is the most final of all defeats. But while death is a threshold which must be crossed and can only be crossed alone, it does not have to be approached alone. If the individual can pool her identity with the group, so that she becomes one with the will of the group as it solves the historical tasks which have been placed before it, then she is all-seeing and all-knowing forever and ever—capable of knowing what she is, and what she can become. She is really free and has attained ‘eternity’. 

Victory becomes attainable. We become the gendarmes who protect the actualisation of eternal love so that others can become part of it. We never die because this empire never dies, as it is constructed not only in the physical domain, but is also fortified in the domain of the mind. As such, we are expected to fight eternally for it. 

We are not afraid of the conflicts that lie ahead and we are not sorry about anything. 

Because love will emerge victorious over terror.