Majorityrights News > Category: Far Right

Here is the video that was taken down from Youtube, on Bitchute:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/hoQhXh_Q0AU/

Another Misunderstander Of Islam strikes

4 Oct., by Irish Savant

Where’s Inspector Clouseau when you need him? Because the famous bumbling French detective could hardly do worse than the Paris police investigating the recent mass killing at their HQ. They’re totally baffled as to the killer’s motive.

INVESTIGATORS ARE COMBING an IT staffer’s computer today for clues as to why he stabbed four colleagues to death at police headquarters in Paris. The 45-year-old man killed three men and a woman in a frenzied 30-minute attack that ended when he was shot in the head. A search of the couple’s house found no evidence that the man, who converted to Islam about 18 months ago, had been driven to his criminal deed by radical religious ideology. Shortly after the killings, Paris prosecutor Remy Heitz said anti-terror investigators were not involved in the murder probe. All possible motives were being examined, sources have said, including the scenario of a personal conflict at work.

Which probably means that the sleuths failed to find a statement from the killer (a black immigrant from Martinique) explicitly stating ‘in the Name of the all-merciful Allah I will go in to work in the morning and and stab everyone I can find’. Therefore nothing to do with the Religion Of Peace. Just another Misunderstander Of Islam. He must have thought that when the Koran enjoined him to ‘Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them’ (Qur’an 2:191) the ‘sacred’ text meant, well, kill the unbelievers wherever you find them. And like most misunderstanders he seemed, apart from the mass murdering bit, to have been a swell guy. According to a fellow worshipper “he was a very quiet person. I used to see him going to the mosque but he practised (his religion) in a normal way” . Well he sure did, didn’t he? And remember Jihadi John, the notorious ‘English’ head-chopper for ISIS? He’d been described by his imam as ‘a gentle, spiritual boy’. Indeed.

So what’s to be done? Well I believe I have a solution. Reinterpret the sacred texts in the light of latest thinking and research. You know the way Pope Francis reinterpreted the Bible to mean that homosexuality and all kinds of degeneracy are fully in accord with that book’s teachings. I’ve been working hard and this is the result to date. I seriously believe that when complete it has the potential to eliminate mass murders stemming from misunderstanding the Religion Of Peace.

My initial attempt.

Quotation: “Make war on the infidels living in your neighborhood.” Qur’an 9:123

Scholastic reinterpretation: “Make friends with your infidel neighbours”.

Quotation: “Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam” Qur’an 5:33

Scholastic reinterpretation: “All discussion on religion should be open and tolerant.”

Quotation: “Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water;melt their skin and bellies.” Qur’an22:19

Scholastic reinterpretation: We’re working on that one. But meanwhile lads lay off the hooks and rods and melting bellies and all that stuff.

So gentle reader, do you think it’ll work?

John Bolton Is Gone. The Threat of War Is Not.

BY JOHN FEFFER for Jacobin, 21 Sept 2019:

John Bolton has exited the Trump White House. But his bellicose, bloodthirsty worldview is still the basic operating system of the Trump administration — and still threatens to lead us into war.

John Bolton tried his best.

The national security advisor entered the Trump administration as a predictable warmonger with an unslakable thirst for power. He streamlined the national security apparatus to maximize his access to the president. At least at first, he played the role of loyal adjutant to Trump. As in his days as an arms control official in the George W. Bush administration, Bolton quietly planted IEDs on the inside rather than throw bombs from the outside.

But ultimately, like the scorpion that stings the frog halfway across the river, Bolton couldn’t betray his own nature. In his eagerness to start wars with Venezuela, North Korea, and Iran, Bolton spoke out of turn, publicly clashed with his boss, and probably leaked information to the press. By August his position had become untenable, and he suffered the fate of so many Trump collaborators: expulsion by tweet.

Looked at another way, however, Bolton accomplished what he set out to do. He scuttled the negotiations with North Korea by referring to the Libyan example of denuclearization (Pyongyang knew full well what happened to Muammar Gaddafi’s regime). He made sure that US troops remain in Syria and in Afghanistan as well. He put the fear of a coup in the heart of Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela. And he ratcheted up the pressure on Iran to the point of near-conflict.

Now, with Trump declaring that the United States is “locked and loaded” in the wake of the attacks on Saudi Arabia’s oil supplies, Bolton is no doubt pleased at the prospect of his wildest dream fulfilled: a war with Iran. He nearly pushed the president into military action against Tehran back in June when Trump self-reportedly stopped the strike ten minutes before it was scheduled to take place.

This time, thanks in part to the work of the not-so-dearly-departed Bolton, the president might go over the edge this time.

Or perhaps Trump will stick to his pattern of making outlandish threats and then turning around to negotiate. The administration has more recently been dialing back its rhetoric. Maybe Bolton the scorpion has managed only to sting himself.

The Latest Incident

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has accused Iran of attacking the Aramco oil facilities in Khurais and Abqaiq in the heart of Saudi Arabia. Saudi and US investigators have reportedly determined that the September 14 attacks came from an Iranian base near the border with Iraq. But the force that has claimed responsibility for the attacks are the Houthis, who have been battling a Saudi-led coalition in Yemen for more than four years.

On the face of it, the obvious culprit would be the Houthis. Over the last month, they have repeatedly launched aerial attacks on Saudi facilities: a drone attack on the Shaybah oil field on August 16, a missile attack against Jizan airport on August 26, a drone attack against Riyadh on August 27, and a failed drone attack on September 3.

Also, as Kate Kizer of Win Without War points out, the Saudis and the Houthis have been engaged in a tit-for-tat game of aerial bombardment. The latest attacks on Saudi oil facilities could very well be a response to the Saudi air strike on Dhamar prison, which killed one hundred people two weeks ago.

Tit-for-tat doesn’t, however, mean that it’s been an equal contest. The Saudi campaign has killed thousands and thousands of Yemenis. Houthi attacks have resulted mostly in material damage and four civilian casualties.

Those who point the finger at Iran argue that this latest attack was far from the border with Yemen. But the Khurais oil field (the most recent target) and Shaybah oil field (hit in mid-August) are both about the same distance from the Yemen border.

The latest attacks were also remarkably successful. The pinpoint strikes forced the suspension of more than half of Saudi oil production. But the Houthis have steadily increased their offensive capabilities, attacking Saudi airports at Jizan and Abha in May and June a total of seventeen times. They’ve received some weaponry from Iran but also have some Soviet-era missiles as well as some from North Korea. They are now operating air defense systems as well.

Meanwhile, it’s rather difficult to imagine the Iranian government launching such an attack just after Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had talked of Trump possibly meeting Iranian president Hassan Rouhani at the UN General Assembly in New York this week. Even if the Iranian authorities are reluctant to sit down with Trump, for understandable reasons, attacking Saudi Arabia on the eve of the UN meeting doesn’t make much strategic sense.

READ MORE...

John Mearsheimer, The Roots of Liberal Hegemony, Yale University speech, published 22 Nov 2017.

       

(17:54): I just want to be clear, that if we’re going to [be talking about] liberalism, we’re talking about at home, not liberalism abroad; and with regard to nationalism, I’m not making the argument that nationalism is this wonderful force all the time.

Okay. Roots of liberal hegemony - the talk tonight. As I said, you’ve got to start with human nature, that was my chapter two. And when you talk about human nature, really what you’re asking is, ‘what are those common traits that all individuals have in common?’

And by the way, this is something that the founding fathers of liberalism paid enormous attention-to.

I believe that if you’re going to think about liberalism and nationalism, you have to wrestle with these questions.

And there are two big questions:

1) The first question is, ‘are men and women social beings above all else or does it make more sense to emphasize their individuality? In other words, are humans fundamentally social animals, who strive hard to carve out room for their individuality, or are they individuals who form social contracts?

That’s question number one.

2) Question number two, second, have our critical faculties developed to the point where we can reach universal consensus, on what defines the good life - can we agree on first principles?

Can we use reason? Are we able to reason our way through collectively and come to meaningful agreement on the big questions about life?

Those are sort of the two big issues on the table when you think about human nature.

Now, my views on this subject are that human beings are primarily social animals. We’re born into societies. We’re born into groups; and we are heavily socialized inside those groups, both by the family and the society around us in a really big way before our individuality gets to assert itself.

I think human beings are very tribal, to put it in simplistic terms from the get go - that’s not to say that you can’t have a lot of individualism but we’re primarily social animals.

Secondly, I think it’s near impossible to reach universal consensus about questions about the good life.

I agree with Mearsheimer that socialization is primary, that we are primarily social animals. That is the human condition, should be considered the preliminary outlook and matter of negotiation - failing that sufficiently, the individual and their truth will not even survive - they become, thereby, a moot point, not even there to argue how facts count.

However, I don’t think the tribal designation is good short hand - that may have been the practical social survival unit historically, but eventually it became too small and the national social scale has become the optimal unit of survival for various practical reasons.

But coming back to the second question, of whether common grounds and recognition of the shared good between people can be established, Mearsheimer frames it wrong in the sense of looking for any sort of elaborate, universal agreement between nations.

The goal, rather, should be more modest, namely of coordination, enough recognition of common interests, self and other national interests to be able to function non conflictually.

Coordination is geared toward facilitating groups functioning in their own interests with minimal conflict as opposed to trying to achieve thorough cooperation in details that do not bear on capacity for coordination or interfere with the common good.

I do need to call your attention to the fact that there is a constellation of right wingers out there who will seize upon ANYTHING, often superficial matters, in order to distract from what I have to say (which is a coherent and complete enough platform in advocacy of European peoples; I can defend and explain anything that I say).

These people are usually antagonistic to me and the ideas that I put forth because they are committed to Christianity, to Hitler, or to the inclusion of Jews in our advocacy group..and sometimes it is reactionary scientism and egotism that has them averse to the integration of ideas which are very necessary to understand for the good of our people.

Let me say briefly, that coordination of human and pervasive ecology is a large concept which I table. Conducted according to White Post Modern understanding, it is grounds that people of any thought and decency should be able to agree upon to facilitate the survival and coordination of our distinct peoples.

However, these right wing commitments, part and parcel of modernity, run rough shod over coordination to an extent that even the most ethnocentric of tradition could never be capable of.

The first project then, getting people, Europeans anyway, especially northern Europeans, perhaps, to appreciate our social nature from the onset is somewhat difficult for the reasons that:

A) They/we are evolved somewhat more individualistically as we were more evolved against the challenges of nature rather than the challenges of other groups forcing us to band together.

B) This has been fetishized in our modernist quest for pure objective warrant and the reward of its scientific/technological yields, its grandiose moral claims beyond utility to relative social group interests, either beyond nature or in laws thereof; also tending to be narcissistically extended beyond the boundaries, discrimination and prerogatives of other groups - modernity runs rough shod over coordination for its failure to recognize differences while traditional ethnocentrism at least recognized the concept of non-natives, outsiders.

C) However, this objectivity has been somewhat spurned on by Christianity, itself introduced by YKW while the purity quest was weaponized further against Whites by YKW - exacerbated Alinsky style, viz. White Americans being instigated to live up to the anti-social (anti White social) Cartesian purity of Lockeatine individual civil rights against “racism” - i.e., prejudiced against the relative group interests of Whites, with boundaries and discrimination thereupon for Whites.

Furthermore, the Abrahamic religions tend to run rough shod over coordination as they insist upon one god, and tend to be narcissistic, disregarding the significance of national differences

D) To make matters worse, whatever socially organizing and qualitative niche advocating correctives to this universalism and individualism that were introduced through (((academia))), tended to be made didactic for Whites by being exaggerated or misrepresented so that Whites would react against the very corrective that they needed for organization and defense of their social systemic homeostasis - this is where we are at now with all this railing against “the left” and “its failure to deal with reality” its “social justice warring” and various other straw man characterizations of THE Leftist, “his call for equality”, “fifty eight genders”, trannies reading to children in libraries and in paradox to the profoundly leftist call for unionization mislabled a call for “liberalism.” This “scourge of ‘identity politics’, when we should all be American.”

There was/is a call for liberalism within the nation, in the sense of doing away with the strict aristocratic class system that England has had since 1066, but the union of England does not mean giving up its borders, it means a union of the English people, whether they had been so called aristocracy or working class.

Bateson calls this “paradigmatic conservatism” - strong borders of the group, but relative freedom of individuality as facilitated by group security. He felt, as I do, that that’s the way it should be but that the reverse is more and more the case - group borders are being forced open to run wild and individualism is getting pegged, put in a straight jacket.

.....

Mearsheimer argues against trying to impose liberal democracy - a post modern turn away from universalism well advised - as it is necessarily a failed foreign policy against staunch nationalism, but he defends “liberal democracy” as a good way of life for The US.

However, he does not observe that The U.S. has failed democratic principle in important ways - notably in the open border/ opening of group boundaries policies in exploit of the “civic nationalist” concept that his YKW people have perpetrated through power niches in cahoots with liberals/right wingers to overturn democratic will (for closed borders) ..open borders and boundaries, weakening The United States nationhood and putting The U.S. effectively, on a trajectory of non-nationhood.

Note Mearsheimer’s use of the pejorative word “purportedly” when discussing nationalist claims to distinguish their people in ways (e.g., important biological differences) requiring a nation-state to protect their differences; i.e., that they are only “purportedly” different from other people in significant ways which require national boundaries/borders to protect them.

Nevertheless, in places, Mearsheimer makes the point, quite eloquently, that people are social, very profoundly social, from the start; thus making nationalism as it protects their sociality something they care about more deeply than liberal democracy. They will defend more ardently the security, social order and stability that provides for general fairness and just recourse against the secondary priorities, bullying ‘prerogatives’ of individual liberal choice over the security of group interests. Noting our deep social nature (including Europeans) from the start is correct, and is the point of correction that Whites need to understand and prioritize as opposed to right wing reaction (itself a species of liberalism) reaction to Jewish didacticism.

READ MORE...

Barbara Spectre Is Back, in an Israeli summit of Jewish luminaries, including Rothschild, to unite worldwide Jewry and bring gentiles under yoke of Noahide law.

Barbara Spectre Is Back

...in summit with Jewish luminaries, held in Israel to unite worldwide Jewry in a “foundationalization’ of their common destiny.

...also discussed will be the obligations for the rest of mankind - the renewing of Noah’s covenant, The Noahide obligations incumbent upon all mankind.

...an international court based on biblical principles.

The Great Delusion with Professor John Mearsheimer

Mearsheimer at The
TAMUBushSchool
Published on Oct 10, 2018

“I just want to give you a sense for what liberalism is. The United States is a thoroughly liberal country. It is a liberal democracy. Both Republicans, who we sometimes refer to as conservatives, are liberals and Democrats are liberals. I’m using the term liberal in the John Lockean sense of the term.

The Unites States was born as a liberal democracy. The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, The Bill of Rights, these are thoroughly liberal documents.”

We are a liberal people, okay? But what exactly does that mean? It’s very important that you understand it, because you have to understand what liberalism is to understand liberal hegemony and what went wrong. Then, it’s very important to understand what nationalism is.

John’s argument is very simple here.

Nationalism is the most powerful ideology on the planet.

And in a contest between liberalism and nationalism, nationalism wins every time.

And what I want to do is explain to you what liberalism is, what nationalism is, and why nationalism defeats liberalism. Then what I want to do is talk about what liberal hegemony is. What does it mean to say that The Unites States is interested in remaking the world in its own image? So, I’ll describe that. Then I want to talk about why we pursued liberal hegemony.

...of course I tipped you off by telling you that The United States is a thoroughly liberal country, but there’s more to the story.

Then I want to tell you what our track record is. I want to describe our failures ...in the Middle-East, with regard to NATO expansion, and Russia, and with regard to engagement in China. Lets talk about the evidence that we goofed.

Then I want to talk about why liberal hegemony fails, and this, again, is basically as story about nationalism and realism trumping liberalism. And then I want to make the case for restraint, what I think is a wise foreign policy, okay?

Let me start with what is liberalism…

There are two bedrock assumptions that underpin liberalism:

One is, that it is individualistic at its core.

And number two is that there are real limits to what we can do with our critical faculties.

...to reach agreements about first principles or questions about the good life.

And what exactly am I saying?

You have to decide, when you think about politics, whether you think human beings are first and foremost individuals who form social contracts or if you think that human beings are fundamentally social animals, who carve-out room for their individualism.

Right? This is very very important to think about alright?

Liberalism is all about individualism. Liberal theorists are known as social contract theorists because they believe that individuals come together and form social contracts, so the focus is on the individual.

The assumption underpinning liberalism is not that human beings are social animals from the get-go.

That’s the first point. 

The second point is that liberalism assumes that we cannot use our critical faculties - we cannot use reason to come up with truth about first principles (think about issues like abortion, affirmative action - you cannot get universal agreement on those issues, right?). And I’ll talk about this more as we go along.

But the roots of liberalism are traced-back, in my opinion, to the liberal wars of Britain between Catholics and Protestants. And the fact is that you cannot use your critical faculties to determine whether Catholicism is a superior religion to Protestantism or vice a versa, or whether atheism is superior to both of them ..or Judaism or Islam is superior to Catholicism and Protestantism, Who knows? Right? You just can’t reach agreement. You just can’t reach agreement. There are real limits to what we can do with our critical faculties, okay?

So these are the two bedrock assumptions: One, you focus on the individual, and number two, you accept the fact that you can’t reach universal agreement.

Now, central question - how should politics be arranged to deal with this potential for violence?

And you say to yourself, what does he mean, potential for violence?

The fact is that Catholics and Protestants were killing each other in huge numbers, not only in Britain, but all over Europe. People today, Shias and Sunnis, kill each other, because they can’t agree on whether Shi ism or Sunnism is the correct interpretation of Islam ..or communists versus liberals, people can’t agree on first principles. And when they can’t agree on first principles, if they feel really strongly about them, there is potential for violence.

So, when you have all these individuals running around, who, don’t agree, they may agree in some cases but don’t universally agree, there’s tremendous potential for violence.

So, liberalism is basically an ideology that’s based on conflict, and the question is, how do you solve that conflict?

There’s a three part solution:

And this should be dear to all of your hearts.

The first is, you focus on individual rights. Remember, the importance of the individual. You know The Declaration of Independence, “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” - those are natural rights, those are inalienable rights.

This means that every person on the planet has a particular set of rights, sometimes defined as freedoms. This is to say, you, if you want to be a Protestant, have the right to practice that religion, and if I want to be a Catholic, I have the freedom, I have the right to be a Catholic.

The name of the game is to recognize that everybody has these freedoms to choose. This makes perfect sense when you think about Catholics killing Protestants, right? Or Jews killing Muslims or whatever group you want, atheists killing believers, communists killing whatever, right?

The point is, you want to focus on the individual and let the individual choose for him or herself what kind of life they want to lead. You want to let them lead, as much as possible, their version of the good life. And, very important, every person on the planet has that right, and let me get ahead of myself here, just put this seed in your brain.

If you focus on individualism and inalienable rights, you go almost automatically from an individualistic ideology to a universalistic ideology, right? Because again, you’re focusing on the individual, you’re saying every individual has a set of rights, every individual on the planet. And that individualistic ideology becomes a universalistic ideology. But we’re talking about the individual here.

The second is, you purvey the norm of tolerance. We talk about tolerance all the time. Universities are really big on tolerance. We’re supposed to tolerate opinions that we don’t like. You bring in speakers, or you allow speakers to come in who say things that you find reprehensible, right? Tolerance really matters.

But the fact is that tolerance only takes you so far. because you’re dealing with people who sometimes are so committed to their beliefs. Somebody who believes that abortion is murder is willing to murder a doctor who practices abortion, alright?

So, you need a state, that’s the third element of the equation.

You need a state that’s effectively a night watchman. That makes sure that those people over there who want to live as Protestants don’t attack those people who want to live as Catholics and vice versa.

This is the liberal solution.

This is what America is all about.

Individualism - we talk about it all the time. We talk about rights, everybody has rights. My kids, over the years, have always reminded me when I tell them that they have to do X, Y and Z that they have rights and I cannot interfere with their rights, right? It’s the way we’re educated from the get go and of course, we’re a remarkably tolerant people as societies go. Not completely, but that’s, of course, why we have a state, right?

You’ve got to have a police force, you’ve got to have a system of courts, right?

So, that’s what liberalism is all about, right? Liberalism focuses on the individual, purveys the norm of tolerance and accepts the fact that you need a nightwatchman state.

Now, let’s talk about nationalism. Different animal…

Nationalism is based on the assumption that human beings are social animals.

We are born and heavily socialized into tribes.

We are not born in the state of nature.

We are not individuals, born and left alone in the woods.

We are born into groups. We are very tribal.

So, you see in terms of starting assumptions, or bedrock assumptions, what underpins nationalism, what underpins liberalism, very very different.

And individualism takes a back seat to group loyalty, right?

Somebody around the world kills an American, ISIS kills an American, it’s fundamentally different than killing a Saudi, or killing a Brit, because you’re killing one of us. This is the tribe, right? You’re an American. Americans look out for other Americans.

We are social animals from the get-go.

And aside from the family, the most important group, remember I said that you are born into and heavily socialized into particular groups ...tutting aside the family, the most important group in today’s world, is the nation (I’ll say more about that in a second).

What’s nationalism?

Here’s my simple definition:

It’s a set of political beliefs which holds that a nation, a nation, a body of individuals with characteristics that purportedly distinguish them from other groups, should have their own state. Think of the word nation-state.

Nation-state. Nation-state embodies what nationalism is all about. It says the world is divided up into all these tribes called nations and each each one of them wants its own state.

If you think about the world today, just look at a map of the world today, it is completely covered with nation-states. Nothing but nation-states.

If you went back to 1450 and looked at a map of Europe, there isn’t even a single state on that map. Over time, the growth of the state, and then the growth of the nation-state, you move to a world that is filled with nothing but nation-states. Look at the Palestinians and Israelis. The Jews who believe in Zionism, what is Zionism all about? It’s all about having your own Jewish state. Theodore Herzel, who is the father of Zionism, his most famous book is called, The Jewish State, Jewish nation-state.

What do the Palestinians want? Two state solution? Palestinians want their own state. Palestinians as a nation, want their own state.

The planet is filled with nations, many of which have their own state, almost all of which want their own state, nation-state, right?

That’s what nationalism is all about.

Take it a step further. Nations place a enormous importance on sovereignty, or self-determination, which is why they want their own state.

The Palestinians don’t want the Israelis deciding what their politics should look like. Palestinians want their own state. Jews want their own state.

Germans want their own state.

Americans want their own state.

..because they believe in sovereignty.

[...]

Liberal hegemony is based on intolerance. It says that everybody has to be liberal…

[...]

Mearsheimer argues against trying to impose liberal democracy, as it is necessarily a failed foreign policy against staunch nationalism, but he defends “liberal democracy” as a good way of life for The US.

Nevertheless, in places, Mearsheimer makes the point, quite eloquently, that people are social, very profoundly social, from the start; thus making nationalism as it protects their sociality something they care about more deeply than liberal democracy. They will defend more ardently the security, social order and stability that provides for general fairness and just recourse against the secondary priorities, bullying ‘prerogatives’ of individual liberal choice over the security of group interests. Noting our deep social nature (including Europeans) from the start is correct, and is the point of correction that Whites need to understand and prioritize as opposed to right wing reaction (itself a species of liberalism) reaction to Jewish didacticism.

YaleUniversity
Published on Youtube, Nov 22, 2017

The rise and fall of the liberal international order - by John J. Mearsheimer

Published by CISAus on Youtube, Aug 7, 2019

Related at Majorityrights

Cernovich daggers and shields for the Alt-Right

Cernovich seeds FireMcMaster hashtag propagated by 600 most active Russian Twitter operative handles

TRS asks people for more face to face meetings. Peals of laughter erupt from all quarters, globally.

(((Frame Games))) Hardens-Up and Greg Johnson Presents His Right-Wing Rear For Entryism (as does JF)