Majorityrights News > Category: Far Right

DanielS goes into the enemy camp, continually hesitant, but inserts the time bombs that will bring down their campaign against White sovereignty and systemic homeostasis.

I’ve never seen Luke Ford so stressed (as I did the first time that I hung out with him briefly at the end of a hangout) and I’ve never seen him look so glum (the second time, when he gave me the floor with just him as an interlocutor). Actually, I take no delight in that. I’m sure that he felt pressure given his own position in defense of Jewry and from the Jewish friendly community around him to try to limit my message exposing the “objectivist” anti-“left” marketing campaign. Even so, I was able to say around 80% of what I’d planned - and some ideas will act like time bombs having gotten in there.

This was my first “HANGOUT” and not having opportunity to practice and get feedback as to how I might sound beforehand, I did not realize how persistently hesitant I was and how it was coming across. It was hard even for me to listen to myself the first time around in this uniquely bad delivery of mine. I hesitate constantly, but nevertheless, the content is there and I realized that the second time around listening to it - that it wasn’t all that bad for that reason. I take solace in the fact of knowing that I don’t have to speak that way and don’t usually, in normal conversation. I was in enemy territory, resources at risk, and that is cause for hesitation. But knowing that my position and resources are robust, it was alright to go ahead - I know that my program works now, it can’t be destroyed by the enemy. The best they can hope to do is distract from it, obstruct and try to bury it.

I am honestly not happy to see Luke looking so glum. It’s telling that he adds a link to Cofnas’ critique, like holy water against a goyim assault (I wasn’t impressed by Cofnas’ critique, BTW).

I come on at (2:20:47) and am confronted by Bob, the “bad cop”, the one with one dark eye-glass, lower right.

I had tested the water with him a few days before, on the evening of December 30th, in a Hangout called the “Victory of Social Justice Warriors.”

Seeing the Jewish sponsored meme that’s been promoted since 2008 - you don’t want any of that social justice warring, do you? - I saw it as occasion to join the conversation, which I do, late in the hangout (2:20:47) having just woken up (I’m in a completely different time zone).

(((Kyle))), comes on and tries to intimidate me with a strawman soliloquy

They had a little test or trap (depending upon how you look at it) waiting for me - three antagonistic, young interlocutors. One Jewish kid named (((Kyle))) was supposed to intimidate me with his brilliance. (((Kyle))) is a rather simple fellow, really, even if he can elaborate extensively on his simple cause - advocating his Jewish people (down with their program against “the left”). He interrupted my flow and straw manned me with soliloquys (he acted like I was “confused” - a typical Jewish canard), to clear up my “confusion” about Cochran, making some big deal about how I supposedly didn’t understand Cochran when he knew nothing about what I know, with my having made a few offhand, half joking remarks not intending any elaboration.

Luke Ford flanked by his good cop/bad cop

Then came a little “good cop /bad cop” pair against me. This Bob guy, goy, a Christian of the “irony bro” ilk (Irony Bro means obnoxious trolling with no pretense of trying to understand what the person you are trolling is trying to say, just bury them). Bob is the one with one dark eye glass - a flaming asshole who was attempting to bludgeon me with antagonism from the get go - “here, take this I.Q. test while you are waiting.” Sure Bob, I’ll do that. “Everything you say comes from 4-Chan” - going to show how he knew nothing about me, whipping out a comment perhaps applicable to Andrew Anglin. I have been to 4-chan briefly two or three times and derive literally none of my ideas from it; but that is the kind of immediate accusation this guy was rendering. He went on to say, “I can understand nothing you say” ...I rejoined that maybe his I.Q. isn’t high enough, idiot. (bad cop)

Salty Sage the “good cop” who tries to tell me that he’s on my side - yeah, right.

At the same time they had this other guy, “Salty Sage”, who claimed to be on my side. I don’t know where his two comments are now; but in the hangout and comments, Salty Sage would “kindly”, condescendingly, ‘re-interpret’ me for the others to understand on “friendly terms”. Then he added in the comments, that my “misdirection” (tries to turn the game around on me, as if I am the one giving misdirection, not Jewry; no, Salty Sage, I am the one diagnosing mis-direction), he tries to suggest that I am the one that is giving misdirection and that he sees it “sympathetically” as stemming from necessary contortions of circumstance..

When I called attention to the fact that Gottfried instigated this marketing campaign against “the left”, another “friend”, Ruston, said that I had a thing against Gottfried, thinks he’s great, and that everyone should read him. Then Salty Sage says he’s on my side (good cop). He groans when I say that Christianity is bullshit, then says he’s on my side (good cop Salty Sage is “on my side”, yeah right).

Anyway, that’s the context of my first hangout with Luke:(2:20:47); I make a few points that I don’t make in my subsequent talk, which is mostly me talking and Luke adding a few rejoinders. I didn’t get to say half of what I’d like to say, but the chat encouraged Luke to use the plausible excuse of my bad delivery to prevent me from subverting their position any further. Listen here: DanielS from Majorityrights talks with Luke on the topic of whether Jews are good for Western Civilization (and Europeans generally); you can listen here or Download the MP3: https://soundcloud.com/luke-ford-666431593/are-jews-good-for-western-civilization - Pinned by Luke Ford.

Brundlefly

Norvin Hobbs

One of Luke‘s frequent guests, “Brundlefly” (Jewish wife, Jeff Goldblum Avitar) tries his best to put the damper on my position in the comments (which I re-post under the fold) and was probably one of those who got Luke to shut down the discussion more quickly than he normally would (Luke typically allows discussions to go on for a couple hours and I had expected to say all I had planned to say, but wasn’t given the time). Brundedlefly starts-off amicably enough, while giving away the fact that he knows nothing about me, given his surprise that I am familiar with Norvin Hobbs.

Brundlefly, 1 day ago (edited): Lmao at this guy knowing about Norvin Hobbs

After some commentators who agree with me that Jewry is NOT good for Western Civilization, things get more antagonistic and I defend myself. Only two people seem to be directly on my side, “Kat Ruby” and “Jewel Citizen”, who seems almost like Soren Renner, but I’m not sure who it is….

ARE JEWS GOOD FOR WESTERN CIVILIZATION?

Iskandar
23 hours ago
No

Mephistopheles Ghost
22 hours ago
No

The Antagonist
23 hours ago
“Are Jews Good For Western Civilization?”. NO!

Sam Browne
22 hours ago
The answer is no….No they’re not.

United States of Post America
21 hours ago
Whites and Blacks have lived together in the South for 400 years.

United States of Post America
21 hours ago
Majority Rights is hard to listen too.

PersistentPatriot
16 hours ago
Are Termites good for log cabins?

Vegtam Returns
12 hours ago
If.by “good” you mean, enabling the mass invasion of Europe by hostile religious fanatics with low IQs then yes - Jews are very good!

gurugeorge
19 hours ago (edited)
Yes and no.  The question is really: are they a net good?  NAJALT, plus many great contributions to civilization have been made by Jews, so the question is whether the harm that’s been done by Jewish bad apples (as canvassed in, say, Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique ) outweighs the benefits brought by their fellows (e.g. the great academics, entrepreneurs, storytellers, technologists, etc.), or vice-versa.

The situation is rather comparable to the situation re. Muslims: survey after survey has found that while of course NAMALT, a worryingly large minority do wish ill on the host culture, or are at least willing to turn a blind eye.  It’s like that with the Jews: some good people who are very, very good, some troublemakers who are very, very bad, and a worryingly large minority who do wish ill on the host culture; so the question is whether the trade-off is worth it.  At the moment, it’s not looking good. 

All this is why wise people in the past always thought of the Jewish Question as a really, really thorny problem.  If you eject Jews from your culture, you risk losing many benefits and becoming something of a backwater; if you don’t eject them, you risk being subverted and having your culture and civilization destroyed from within.

General Patton
23 hours ago
The question can easily be decided by looking at one single issue; immigration.
Jews are, for the most part, open borders lunatics, hell bent on wrecking western nations with massive third world immigration.

Kat Ruby
19 hours ago
After listening from beginning to end, I get the impression that Luke doesn’t like you, Daniel. He uses PC gotcha, ‘you don’t like Jews’ which sets you up in a political correct world as a bad man. But Luke is civilized enough and his perspective as one of Jew’s step-brethren can be enlightening.

Brundlefly
14 hours ago
Kat Ruby probably because Daniel is so devoid of charisma that he felt like his time was being wasted.

Daniel Sienkiewicz
9 hours ago (edited)
@Brundlefly We’ll see if I am “void of charisma” and especially if the content I’m producing is a “waste of time”

99hoolio
20 hours ago
This guy is the anti-KMG. I don’t think I’ve heard a less fluent speaker.

Daniel Sienkiewicz
19 hours ago (edited)
It;s hard even for me to listen to my constant hesitations. It’s a shame because the content is there; but being aware of the frustrating delivery, I’ll be sure to be more fluid in the future.

rollo clevich
16 hours ago
@Daniel Sienkiewicz I now why you delivered a prepared script when you were on Sunic’s VOR show many years ago.

Brundlefly
14 hours ago
Daniel Sienkiewicz you need to raise your energy level bud. Also the bumping microphone is distracting.

Daniel Sienkiewicz
10 hours ago
Raise my energy level? The bumps and hesitance in my presentation were due mostly to a lack of experience in hangouts. I had (and have) energy enough for much more that I need to say. You sound like Donald Trump in your low energy criticism. Don’t worry, he had enough energy level to complete the raison d’etre of his presidency - to undo the Iran Deal for his people.

Brundlefly
10 hours ago (edited)
Daniel Sienkiewicz you speak in a low monotone. You have the charisma of a paper bag. Go back and read the chat to see how the audience reacted to your presentational style.

I went back and listened a second time, and I found your perspective unique and interesting. However, your presentation is so poor that I doubt you’ll get many opportunities to share it.

Daniel Sienkiewicz
9 hours ago
@Brundlefly I listened a second time as well, and didn’t think it was bad the second time around; and I have much more to say. I think your perspective is overly harsh because it is influenced by the fact of your Jewish wife. It is wishfully negative therefore - “the charisma of a paper bag.” I won’t bother looking at the chat because it is full of HASBRA-like trolls,  Christians, etc. They will take as antagonistic a view of me as possible. I may not get many opportunities here to share my view some more if the likes of you and your Jewish friends can help it, but its your loss. I will go elsewhere and they will be better off for it.

Brundlefly
9 hours ago
Daniel Sienkiewicz Lmao keep making excuses for being terrible radio. You pontificate for 25 minutes, Luke speaks for 5 seconds and you’re already cutting him off.

Daniel Sienkiewicz
9 hours ago (edited)
@Brundlefly I didn’t cut him off, he can speak all he wants*. I’m not making excuses. The content is there and there is more to come. I’m sorry for your predicament with your wife, but it’s not my problem. You can try disinformation on the basis of criticizing me and my style, but the content is there, it is informative “radio”, and there is more to come, probably with better style as well. 

*You’re talking about the moment when I didn’t want to be tarred with the singular idea that Jews “are parasites” In fact, I got derailed from saying that they are generally antagonistic as a pattern - a different matter from parasitism and also reason to separate from them.

AJC B
9 hours ago
Daniel Sienkiewicz Pop a couple of Modafinils two hours before the show. Wash them down with a double espresso or two but don’t forget the L-theanine!

Brundlefly
7 hours ago
Daniel Sienkiewicz I have no criticism of your ideas. I already said I thought they were unique and interesting. I’m offering you the constructive criticism that your presentation is bad and you should work on it if you care about influencing others with your ideas.

Regarding your poor interpersonal skills, you kept interrupting every single time Luke broke in.  Apparently, speaking uninterrupted for tens of minutes at a time in a sloth-like cadence isn’t enough for you.

Daniel Sienkiewicz
7 hours ago (edited)
@Brundlefly Thank you. I’m glad that you like my ideas and there are more to be heard. I have heard many intelligent things from you as well. I already readily acknowledged in my very first comment that it was even hard for me to listen (to me) for all the hesitancy in my speech (maybe because I’d “been out on the town” the night before) but whatever would be my excuse, I have already said that I will concentrate on doing better. Regarding my interpersonal skills, ultimately, Luke spoke, said everything that he intended to say and would speak every time he wanted. And that’s is perfectly fine with me.

ovfuckyou
6 hours ago
@Brundlefly “I think your perspective is overly harsh because it is influenced by the fact of your Jewish wife.” LOL

Daniel Sienkiewicz
6 hours ago
@ovfuckyou Yes, I think that motivated some of his harsh criticisms - charisma of a paper bag, snails pace, shit like that.

Brundlefly
1 hour ago
Daniel Sienkiewicz where’s the lie? You can’t refute my observations so you resort to ad hominem.

Daniel Sienkiewicz
36 minutes ago (edited)
@Brundlefly My very first comment was an acknowledgement that the presentation should have been better. I was unaware of how I was coming across with my continually hesitant speech in this, my first hangout. I said I’d be sure to do better in the future. You agreed that the content was there. ..but produced a flurry of comments under this and other comments - making ad hominum attacks ON ME: You were surprised that I knew who Norvin Hobbs was. Which means that you barely know who I am. But then you went on to draw full conclusions about me from this, my fist hangout - that I “have no charisma” - which you added to Kat Ruby’s comment below,; that I have “the charisma of the paper bag”, that you doubted that I’d get more opportunities to present my ideas because of my poor delivery” - I believe these “observations” are heavily influenced by the fact that my views are a threat to Jewish participation in White advocacy - and perhaps those married into Jewry, as you are. Recognizing the threat, the chat was probably encouraging Luke to truncate my message - I had about twenty percent remaining of what I planned to say - important stuff - would have headed off some of the misdirection that Halsey et al. were trying to put across in the subsequent podcast . But I have lots more more to say and don’t need to say it here; if you are going to insist on blocking me based on conclusions that you try to draw about “my lack of charisma” when, in fact, you know little about me. I was being attacked from the onset in my brief entry to the hangout the other day - so, the people here are not exactly rooting form me - and it is to be expected as I am in Jewish territory replete with trolls and trolling that will seize upon anything that they can to limit my message.

Brundlefly
28 minutes ago
Daniel Sienkiewicz I’m not blocking anyone. If you think this audience is hostile to your message, then you don’t understand the audience.

Daniel Sienkiewicz
1 second ago
@Brundlefly I disagree. I do understand the audience and the context.

Jewel Citizen
15 hours ago
There are two words in your title that do not belong in the same sentence let alone next to each other and I’m not referring to ”Western Civilisation”…

READ MORE...

I’ve cringed at some of the commentary made by Jimmy Marr at Majorityrights; and I’ve taken down the more culpable bits when I’ve spotted them. I imagine that he’s still expressing neural pathways of a more desperate time, when there was no internet and nowhere to easily express and converse in criticism of Jewish power and influence.

It’s disappointing that he can’t back off the Nazi perspective and see a more balanced and measured position with regard to Jewry, even if seeing them as comprehensively other.

Some people, like Jimmy, are otherwise very intelligent, sincere and dedicated in their concern for White interests, despite lacking this judgment (there is other recourse than Hitler and Nazism).

Thus, we try to bring them around. But, the fact is, one can become so focused on Jewry that they can lose sight not only of their own interests, but of White interests and problems more broadly. I think back to when Jimmy made a post at Majorityrights which I had to take down. He called it comprehensively, “Poland” - it was a scathing critique of Poland as an “utterly backward and inept country” ...written by a journalist taking no account of the fact that he was visiting Poland during the depression and after Poland had been wiped-off the political map, plundered and exploited for 123 years….

Nevertheless and generally speaking, I want to be conciliatory, including for Whites who have not had time for the internet to correct the years of controlled media, to understand that Hitler and the Nazis were not the only European peoples critical enough of Jewry and seriously concerned to stave off the negative aspects of their power and influence.

To cynical liberals and Jewish advocates I say, yes, that’s right - Nazi sympathizers cannot be allowed to believe that they are the only ones who take Jewish power and influence seriously.

While I cringe at some of the utterly tactless statements of Jimmy’s that have been allowed to stand for the sake of being conciliatory in that regard and weening people off of Nazism, I would wish that Jimmy would come around to a more reasoned and balanced position of his own accord - I certainly would not wish him harm like this and I am saddened by it.

I know what it’s like to grow up without a White voice and support network through the internet. To be born into the totally controlled anti-White media (and academia, politics, religion, law and courts, etc) - it is a desperate and enraging nightmare that people who grow up with Internet might not be able to imagine.

A speedy recovery, Jimmy. I could see you going down there and just doing that!

Neo-Nazi remains in hospital | Local | gazettetimes.com
https://www.gazettetimes.com/.../article_46414d59-9f82-5514-8902-65898765cc28.htm...
7 hours ago - Jimmy Marr, the neo-Nazi agitator at the center of a brawl Monday on a downtown Corvallis street, remained hospitalized with a medical ...

Eugene Weekly, “Local Racist Gets Marr’d in Corvallis”, 19 Dec 2018:

“Nazi wannabe Jimmy Marr gets hospitalized after fight, right-wing strikes back online.”

Jimmy Marr was in Corvallis the other night. Apparently, he got in a street fight that I’d like to imagine was a lot like West Side Story — except the Jets this time being portrayed by a wannabe Nazi.

Corvallis Police Department (CPD) said it’s unknown whether Marr was hospitalized due to injuries unrelated to the fight. However, Marr’s supporters have gone on to “dox” (publicly broadcast personal information) those who confronted Marr.

On the other hand, non-racists on Twitter are having a field day with Marr’s medical troubles.

News of the fight and Marr’s hospitalization made headlines across the country from The Oregonian to The Hill. It appears Corvallis alt-weekly The Corvallis Advocate broke the story on social media.

Marr was in Corvallis days after Andrew Oswalt, a graduate student at Oregon State, was sentenced for slapping bumper stickers on members of the activist group Showing Up for Racial Justice. Oswalt was sentenced to serve 40 days at Benton County Jail, three years of supervised probation and a $500 fine. He was found guilty of a felony first-degree intimidation and third-degree criminal mischief.

2:36 AM - Dec 18, 2018
See xanny phantom’s other Tweets
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Marr showed up in Corvallis with his truck — which he usually paints up with white supremacist quotes with swastikas — painted with the statement, “Nazi is just the N-word for white men” along with a partial swastika.

Marr is known for driving the Toyota truck up and down I-5 emblazoned with anything from “Jew lies matter” to “When race loses meaning, family isn’t far behind.” In 2014, Marr stood in front of Springfield High School, playing his bagpipes with woman holding a sign that read, “Diversity is a code word for anti-white” as a parade in honor of Martin Luther King, Jr., marched by.

Then in 2016, Marr tried to interrupt a rally organized by Community Alliance of Lane County (CALC) intended to counter Trumpism and hate. Through loudspeakers from his house, he broadcasted a pro-hate speech that attracted some of the CALC’s supporters to protest in front of his house. Springfield Police Department (SPD) arrived to mediate the situation, which ended with SPD climbing on top of Marr’s house — without a search warrant — to tell him he had to cut the broadcast. Marr was arrested.

So, unsurprisingly, his presence in Corvallis provoked some anger. A CPD crime report said the fight involved multiple people, who have been charged with disorderly conduct. A fundraiser has been organized to pay for their legal fees.

However, it’s uncertain whether Marr was injured from the fight. When police arrived, the report only said officers saw Marr was in need of medical support.

Marr is active on Twitter, where he charmingly goes as @GenocideJimmy. He often Tweets about anti-semitism, white supremacy and bagpipes. While many celebrated his trip to the hospital on Twitter and the Eugene subreddit, Marr’s friends rushed to support the racist.

Describing Marr as a friend, @DoxedMLC doxed those who were detained by CPD, reprimanding them for attacking a “senior citizen.” Combs is best known as the partner of Bethany Sherman, the disgraced owner of OG Analytical who left town after being outed as a racist by Eugene Antifa.

M.L. Combs
@doxedMLC
these #antifa from Corvallis jumped my friend @GenocideJimmy last night and he was hospitalized as a result:https://tinyurl.com/albert-grigorov https://tinyurl.com/ralph-bolger https://tinyurl.com/conor-butler https://tinyurl.com/noah-orduna 

please RT to make them all extra popular

4:54 AM - Dec 19, 2018
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Benton County Jail Inmate Detail
co.benton.or.us
72 people are talking about this

Combs’ Tweet thread went on to launch transphobic statements about those who were detained by CPD.

Although many news outlets ran stories about Marr being hospitalized, a truly fake news website called The Goldwater ran the story supporting Marr’s side.

The site is labeled as an extreme right wing and conspiracy news website according to Media Bias/Fact Check.

The site’s story calls Marr “an elderly man” and frames the story as an attack on the elderly. It describes those who confronted Marr as “Antifa” thugs and lists each of their residences, embedding directions via Google Maps.

The story adds that Marr is someone who is attacked by groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) just “for simply noticing too much.” Because of this unnecessary attention, groups like SPLC should share the blame in Marr’s hospitalization, it argues.

Marr’s visit to Corvallis was prefaced with a rather threatening Tweet sent in support of James Fields, who was recently found guilty for driving his car into a crowd of demonstrators, killing Heather Heyer.

Jimmy Marr
@GenocideJimmy
If, like James Fields, you find your car surrounded by a murderous, anti-White mob do not try to escape, try to maximize your body count because as we have seen, the penalty is going to be the same either way.

93
3:02 PM - Dec 8, 2018
Twitter Ads info and privacy
38 people are talking about this

The Twitterverse came back at Marr after the Corvallis incident, mocking him soundly with comments such as “get worse soon motherfucker” and “Give him some weed to ease his pain, oh wait you lost your weed store LMAO. guess he will have to settle for a Hitler cake. I’m gonna go celebrate his “medical event” with a beer, and this koozie. Fuck Jimmy Marr.”

In a case that a normal and just society would probably find for manslaughter, James A. Fields is convicted of first degree murder among nine other charges.

Commentators for Fields defense spoke of the case: That he was apparently attacked by anti-fa all day; having had urine thrown on him amidst a melee where heavy objects were thrown; some others identifying with the right wingers had their eyes maced as police stood down and directed them through a gauntlet of anti-fa; ensuing that, Fields was allegedly attacked in a parking garage as he attempted to flee; culminating in an anti-fa (a teacher who bragged about) pointing a gun at him in a readiness position; after which Fields finally got into his car and drove it onto the one way street; checking his GPS at one point (indicating that he wanted to know the way out, in accordance with other plans he had for coming days, not how to plan a murder); finally, anti-fa smashed Fields car at least twice with heavy sticks, with loud noises that could have sounded like gun shot, causing a temporary “me or them” panic. He then accelerated (although perhaps not to as high a speed as it may appear) toward the jay-walking crowd, perhaps hoping they might scurry as they otherwise blocked his only legal car passage through the street.

The defense goes something like that.

At some points there and undoubtedly along the way, Fields used very bad judgment.

A key bad move was in joining a right-wing rally - “Unite The Right” - which, deliberate or not, was perfect to bring those reacting to liberalism’s destructiveness into a trap.

If “the Alt-Right” had anything particularly right in its overall conception, it was that it was Not so united as to be easily pinned-down and targeted. Then they went and betrayed that one thing they had most correct, with a damn fool thing like uniting under one banner. Typical right-wing perfidy.

Fields did not help his case as he bought-into the right wing prescriptions, professing admiration for Hitler since his school days, while also displaying a volatile emotional state that may have included threats and battery against his mother.

The jury was told about this and shown internet postings by Fields to depict a state of preparedness for such an event such that they might render a verdict of first degree, pre-mediated murder.

Details: Fields’ sentencing hearing will follow on Monday where he could face life in prison. Prosecutors said Fields was enraged when he drove through the crowd, and revealed an Instagram post saying “You have a right to protest, but I’m late for work” that he shared three months before the crash.

The more likely scenario would seem to be “manslaughter” with extenuating circumstances: perhaps diminished personal emotional/intellectual capacity, with impaired judgment as a result. A pervasive social environment of the nation where the genetic interests of Whites are under continual attack - verbally and logistically; while defense of one’s EGI is stigmatized where not outright prohibited; while in the prospect of self defense as a White, especially physically defending against assault from non-Whites, one has to be aware that doing so runs the risk of being charged with a hate crime and minimum of ten years in jail (you can even see postings on public buses: “hate crimes carry mandatory ten year jail sentences”).

Do I believe that Fields is guilty of first degree murder? No. Vehicular manslaughter probably yes. From what I can tell of that situation, even if you have to drive the wrong way down a one way street, you do that in order to escape, but you don’t drive into a crowd.

Those injured didn’t deserve it. Heather Heyer certainly didn’t deserve to die; those right wingers who mock her in death are disgraceful.

This incident is part and parcel of a right wing mindset that seeks to short cut social accountability.

It forms an example of why we should cultivate prescription of left ethnonationalism in defense of European peoples, such that the compassion of social accountability is built in conceptually from the start. Marginals such as Fields and Heyer might be directed back to their authentic, healthy organic patterns; while other marginals, those who think they’re objectively above it all in their right wing reactions, such that they might simply mock Fields and Heyer, might be encouraged to act like normal human beings with a sense of accountability, responsibility, compassion and social justice.

Condolences for Heather Heyer. And for those observing Fields example, don’t double down in unanimity with the right as the marginal Richard Spencer prescribes. On the contrary, get out of the right!

....

Related at Majorityrights: Unite the Right Charlottesville: successful neocon/liberal operation forces wedge against paleo-Cohn

While it is interesting that Loomer calls attention to Muslim (viz. Saudi) influence over Silicon Valley companies such as Twitter, note that she says that “Leftists” are given carte blanche by Twitter.

She is placing Islam in the camp of “The Left”

Islam doesn’t even allow for unions (it is an ideal feudalistic comprador vehicle).

You know that the YKW are really getting desperate to make “the left” into the enemy when they try to depict Islam as “Leftist.”

Innocent until proven guilty we are.

Nobody alive should be presumed guilty and made to suffer and pay with their lives and ethnonationhood, even if it is true that forebears may have over corrected, even vastly. Where people manifest traits of prior generations so as to act criminally, as homicidal imperial supremacists, that’s another matter.

Until then, it is a general UN agreement that collective punishment is not valid….let alone for the historical misdeeds of regimes from prior generations.

Nevertheless, the vast wounds, the gaping chasms of genetic capital that many may vaguely perceive as family and loved ones lost, yearn over, if not feel acutely - these losses in our genetic capital will likely well up through our unconscious and conscious systemically and must be recognized.

That caveat having been issued, having absolved present generations, we will move on to correct the record of imperialist misdeeds of prior generations and attempted cover-ups by a more recent generation.

We will be addressing the notion that Hitler and the Nazis were acting in sheer defense and that they were making bonafide peace offerings, that the Allies were the true aggressors.

To get a more accurate and fair understanding of the sources of the conflict, we need to be fairly comprehensive about the history - will begin with the more recent history and work back into historical origins… reversing the usual Nazi sympathetic order of historical survey, from Versailles to the present, as if history started there.

Press image above or here for video, Part 4: If we take a historical perspective of ethnonationalists acting in good faith as opposed to that of the empires that were in control of Europe just prior to the World Wars, we can see that it was imperialism, not nationalism, that in fact spawned these wars. If we want to do justice to the homeostatic systemic correction that ethnonationalism affords against runaway liberal internationalism, we need to take advantage of interactive correctability through a more honest historical frame of reference, to locate where ethnonationalism lost homeostatic correctiive reference and became subject to imperial stasis.

That would mean beginning at least at the point where (Germanic) imperialism became a dominant paradigm in and through (central/eastern) Europe, a period issued in by Frederick The Great - when the Polish ethnostate was dissolved, Germanization imposed by the imperial Austro-Hungarian and German/Prussian partitions, while imperial Russia controlled the rest of it.

As far as ethnostatism goes in fact, Germany remained huge following Versailles, retaining a great deal of what is now western Poland, including Breslau (now Wroclaw) and East Prussia, which is now Kaliningrad and parts just south.

We’ll go into the roots of these ethnonational travails, including mistakes on the Polish side, but not focusing there for now, since that’s what you’ve been hearing in the PC of so called WN, in exaggerated form.

Typically disregarded is the Versailles committee’s valid reasoning for areas granted to Poland and of the Sudetenland retained for Czech by the Treaty of St. Germain.

Historical examination will show that Danzig and the Sudetenland (there in green) form a crucial historical frame of ethnonational borders.

Nazi Germany understood this, as Britain’s Daily Telegraph* wrote in 1939:

“Today we realise the truth of Bismarck’s saying that he who possesses the Bohemian chain dominates Europe.

Are we to realise soon the significance of Frederick the Great’s words, “Who rules over the mouth of the Vistula, rules over Poland better than the King of Poland himself”?

Herr Hitler received a birthday gift of the freedom of Danzig. It remains to be seen whether this will involve Danzig’s receiving the “freedom” of Herr Hitler”

Though historically disputed and shifting in demographics, Danzig was occupied by Germans at that time.

In fact, Danzig is ground zero both in the framrwork of World War II and historically, of German / Polish conflict, and international intervention. It is there we need to begin overcoming shallow and mistaken Hitler apologist talk that he just wanted Danzig back -as if it was simply German and rightfully theirs, given to those stubborn Poles, when if fact Poland was merely given a stake in a Danzig made neutral by Versailles for historical and logistical reasons.

Of course these were mere pesky contentions to Hitler, which would one day be made historically incidental when his Plan East was effectively concluded. For the time being, propaganda was necessary to justify this plan and get it underway.

Thus, with regard to allegations made by the Nazis of Polish abuse of German civilians within the the corridor, we absolutely cannot assume the veracity. Even cursory glance at footage of interwar Danzig does not indicate a beleaguered German population under anything like abject duress - on the contrary, it shows as remarkably comfortable and thriving population, commercial well being despite this being during the throes of world wide economic depression.

Whatever cruelties that did in fact come of Polish nationalism toward Germans did not come in a vacuum, as they were responses to having their people and nation subject to cruel repression under the Teutonic Order and Frederick the Great’s Prussia - anti Polinism and programs of Germanification.

Again, its important to note in the abstract, that for whatever grievances the Germans may have had in regard to the response of Polish nationalists in their newly reformed nation upon Versailles, Hitler and Nazism more than made up for it, through policies such as killing 10 times the number of Poles for any German killed by Polish partitions; and retaliations far worse in the overview of their war policy and practice against Poles and Poland - such as the murdering of Polish civilians in the Warsaw ghetto uprising - in far greater number than civilians were killed in the Dresden fire bombing a year later, speaking of more than making up for grievances.

But before we re-animate a German - Polish conflict, as we are ethnonationalists of good will - before adopting the appearance of being motivated to attribute retroactive guilt then - let us reinvoke principle once again.

One of the main reasons why we are confronted with having to deal with this issue of Nazism, so divisive and stigmatic of Whites, is because of PC guilt-tripping of Whites… and a direct backlash against that guilt tripping ...particularly by those among groups not of a perspective where Nazi Germany was directly antagonistic…

And again, there has been much pandering to counter that guilt tripping in order to gain audience and backing among American Whites in particular.

It is key therefore to invoke this antidote to guilt tripping to underscore first of all, that it is history, nobody alive should be made to suffer and pay with their lives and nationhood.

__________________________

* Correction, I had accidentally said, “Daily Mirror.” This quote is actually from a Daily Telegraph article, 5 May 1939.

Part 2 Audio, Hitler was NOT White or any kind of ethnonationalist - and text:

Hitler was Not White Nationalist Part 2. Audio now online.

To commence, we will indicate some of the issues, adding to these issues in the series to come where issues emerge relevant beyond mere detail to be fleshed out and given argumentative support. That is to say, we anticipate an ongoing corrective process.

As we must go into the history, the other side, the side which is subject to a right wing political correctness of its own, needs to be addressed - this quote, alternative media, that sees a niche market in the largest by far White demographics of America - German/Irish - and panders to the fact that they are going to be more susceptible to positive spins on Hitler and Nazi Germany. It is to counter this pandering, that it is necessary to take a corrective postion from an ethnonational standpoint, that does not look upon Hitler and the Nazis as innocent and only acting in accordance to what they should be rightfully entitled.

The map drawn by Versailles and the contentions raised by Hitler are central issues to redress thereupon.

Hermeneutic, that is to say, additional historical perspective is necessary to assess the situation and related contentions over the borders set by The Treaty of Versailles and maintained by The Treaty of Saint Germain in the case of the Sudetenland..

And why should the Allies trust the Nazis, why should they sympathize with their claims and why should they not be aggrieved with what happened in WWI? and in prior Prussian / Austrian expansion?

Contra Allied grievances, Hitler’s mindset of Friedrich The Great 2.0 is key.

Ostensibly justifying excuses were used for his imperial aspirations as such, chief among others, an epistemic blunder failing to assess socially corrective human nature in praxis, taking rather a sheer might makes right naturalistic fallacy, that humans are bound sheerly to struggle in nature’s way; a will to power set in motion in this case by false allegations of mass persecution of German civilians and false threat to the German nation to provide pretext for Imperialist and supremacist expansion Eastward.

His defenders frequently lob the straw man that he was being accused of wanting to take over the whole world, when in fact, he did want Europe eastward up to the Urals, which is way more than bad enough considering he was using the guise of his sheer necessity to fight communism; and when, in fact, all nations between Russia and Germany were anti-Soviet.

Of course these nations weren’t perfect either and yes, the Nazis had a number of things correct, in the quote, N/S idea; and it’s nevertheless understandable how people could get wrapped up and go for broke; but it didn’t work and there was much fundamentally wrong about it, it wasn’t just that the Allies were corrupt, that defending Nazi Germany is bad optics for the “normies”, nothing fundamentally wrong other than that the “normies are not ready to quote, “understand” - nevertheless, it’s history now, and we can learn from it.

It might also be said of some people on the Allied side, that they can learn too - for example, like many of us since those times, we’ve projected our own reasonableness onto the YKW as a group - we thought, as our Allied forebears might have thought, that the YKW would be ok if we were ok to them - they’d be fair and deserved a chance. How many of you grew up aware of the J.Q.? Well, now the YKW have had their chance and we are aware that we need to be in separate governance.

WN has a pretty good feel of that now, but not so much representation of views apart from what is for it, a politically correct Nazi sympathetic perspective and the false either or thereof YKW or Hitler 88.

With that said.  Here are some of the topics we are going to address and more:

As we already mentioned, We will be taking a look at historical events which have been distorted by Nazi propaganda.

Events such as the Bromberg “quote bloody Sunday” incident, the Polish/ Slovak border train station take-over by the Poles, the false so called “peace offers” from Hitler to Britain and Poland and why it was valid for the Allies to reject them.

The claim that Hitler only wanted peace with the neighboring Slavic countries, and only wished to get back lands taken from Germany, where a majority of Germans where then living under non-German governments. And so on.

We will also debunk the claims that Hitler and the Nazis were ok with the Slavic peoples and did not see them as subhumans with less right to life.

We will address the Nazi ideology of imperialism, immoral racism and the concept of “might is right” contra healthy nationalism, ethnopluralistic morality and what we view as the right kind of racism.

(Richard McCullochs racial compact and moral racism: http://www.racialcompact.com/ )

We will address the issue of who has had a worse influence in promoting a false, positive idea of the Nazi regime to Americans after the war - George Lincoln Rockwell or William Luther Pierce?

And a great deal more.

The Emperor Hitler wears no mustache

Hitler’s Finances and the Myth of Nazi Anti-Usury Activism

- by Anthony Migchels, Realcurrencies

There is the widespread notion that Hitler was fighting the Money Power and that he was a problem for the Bankers because he created a Usury free economy. But there was no Usury free Third Reich economy. The German taxpayer continued to pay interest over the substantial national debt and commercial banking received interest for its fractional reserve banking based loans, which to a large extent financed the war.

“Our greatest social task is the abolition of interest slavery. This responsibility to abolish interest slavery towers above all other issues of the day. It is the only solution to the greatest problem of our time. The breaking of interest slavery is the most important moral imperative in social terms, it rises in its general significance far beyond all questions of the day, it is the solution of social questions, it is the only way out of the terrible confusion of the time. The abolition of interest slavery will deliver us from ultra-capitalist domination while avoiding both Communist destruction of the human spirit and Capitalist degradation of labour. The abolition of interest slavery opens the way to a truly social economy, by liberating us from the overwhelming domination of money. It opens the way to a state based on creative work and genuine accomplishment.”

              – Gottfried Feder 1919

Where does Hitler’s reputation for anti-Usury activism come from? It was more Nazi propaganda to get him to power than his actual policies after he did. It was not Hitler, but Gottfried Feder who was the anti-Usury man of the Nazi.

Hitler in Mein Kampf:

” For the first time in my life I heard (through Feder, AM) a discussion which dealt with the principles of stock exchange capital and capital which was used for loan activities. After hearing the first lecture delivered by Feder, the idea immediately came into my head that I had found a way to one of the most essential prerequisites for the founding of a new party.

To my mind, Feder’s merit consisted in the ruthless and trenchant way in which he described the double character of the capital engaged in stock exchange and loan transactions, laying bare the fact that this capital is ever and always dependent on the payment of interest.”

And:

“The struggle against international finance capital and loan capital has become one of the most important points in the program on which the German nation has based its fight for economic freedom and independence.”

Point 11 of the NSDAP 25 point program, a manifesto that officially (but not in practice) expressed Nazi policy:

“Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery.”

Hitler put it this way:

“Our financial principle: Finance shall exist for the benefit of the state; the financial magnates shall not form a state within the state. Hence our aim to break the thralldom of interest.

Relief of the state, and hence of the nation, from its indebtedness to the great financial houses, which lend on interest. Nationalization of the Reichsbank and the issuing houses, which lend on interest.”

But as we shall see, Hitler did not implement any serious monetary reform after he came to power. He did make finance completely subservient to the State and, more specifically, rearmament. But he did not nationalize any banks and the Reichsbank was already nationalized by the Weimar Republic by the time he came to power. He did not end interest payments to ‘the issuing houses’, who must have made an uncanny fortune throughout the war. He did nothing to decouple the Stock Exchange from the economy.

Feder was made Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, but was from day one sabotaged by Reichsbank President Hjalmar Schacht and replaced by him in August 1934. It was Schacht who was to manage the Nazi economy, not Feder.

Schacht’s and Hitler’s policies allowed full control of the economy, which was used to maximize production for the sake of war. But it did absolutely nothing to limit in any way massive war profiteering by the financial and industrial classes that brought him to power.

The Reichsmark

The Reichsmark was created 1924 after its predecessor, the Papiermark, had been inflated into oblivion. 1 Reichsmark was 1 Trillion Papiermark. The Reichsmark lasted until 1948, when it was replaced by the Deutsche Mark. So Hitler simply used the monetary system that he inherited from the Weimar Republic. The Reichsmark, like any other banking unit, was lent into circulation. It was a Gold backed unit until 1931, when the depression forced the Reichsbank (the Central Bank) to implement exchange controls, which effectively took Germany off the Gold Standard. A Gold peg remained in place. There were 1, 2 and 5 Reichsmark silver coins.

Hitler inherited the official Weimar 4,5% maximum interest rate. He ruled by decree, but never changed this. In fact, after the Nazi economy began to boom due to heavy spending on rearmament, it seems interest rates were raised to combat inflation. I’ve been unable to find any data on real interest rates during the Nazi era.

Who was Hjalmar Schacht?

Schacht was born in 1877 as the son of an aristocratic family. He joined Dresdner Bank in 1903 and already in 1905 was meeting people like JP Morgan and Theodore Roosevelt. He studied Hebrew to advance his career. In 1908 he joined Freemasonry. He oversaw the financing of Belgian/German trade during WW1 and used his former employer Dresdner Bank for this. This blatant conflict of interest led to his dismissal, but the revolving door was not invented recently and he was taken back by Dresdner Bank after this.

In 1923 he joined the Reichsbank and played a key role in ending the hyperinflation of the day. A little later he was made President of the Reichsbank and remained in this post until 1930. Since at least 1923 he was actively resisting the war reparations that were destroying the German economy and called for resurrection of German power. In 1926 he became involved with the NSDAP and supported their rise to power, although he never became a member.

He oversaw the formation of I.G. Farben in the twenties.

Schacht was a member of the Keppler Circle, a small group of businessmen that were at the heart of the Nazi movement and which financed Hitler’s rise to power. Wall Street was very influential in this group and contrary to what many Hitler apologists claim, played a heavy role in both financing him and war profiteering.

Shortly after Hitler came to power he was reinstated as President of the Reichsbank and when he replaced Feder as Reichscommissar for the Economy, he basically gained full control over the economy. This lasted until he was fired in 1939, when the German economy was overheating and Schacht wanted to limit spending on rearmament and was accused of ‘mutiny’ by Hitler.

Banking in Nazi Germany before the war

After becoming President of the Reichsbank, Schacht immediately started implementing policies aiming at giving the State full control of financial markets. This was known as ‘the New Plan’:

READ MORE...