Majorityrights News > Category: White Nationalism

Couple of fun stories from the DT.

Those good old boys in JD Hogg’s county done gone an’ painted Portland.

Protests by rival far-right and left-wing groups in Portland descended into violence on Sunday, as the opposing sides engaged in clashes and at least one man was arrested for firing a gun at demonstrators.

Nobody was hurt in an exchange of gunfire - and by Sunday evening there was no word on any injuries in numerous other skirmishes that saw opposing sides brawling, dousing each other in what appeared to be bear spray and breaking car windows of rivals.

Police Chief Chuck Lovell said during a briefing on Friday that officers would not necessarily intervene to break up fights between the groups.

...  while among the effete and guilt-ridden of Cambridge (not the one in MA):

The exciting, go-ahead Classics Department is responding to an earlier call from the Chair of the Classics Faculty Board for “public acknowledgement of the problems of racism within Classics and the need for active anti-racist work within our discipline.”

Cambridge University’s archaeology museum is to add signs to explain the “whiteness” of sculpture plaster casts, as part of the Classics Faculty’s new anti-racist strategy.

Plaster casts of Roman and Greek sculptures that are on display at Cambridge University’s Museum of Classical Archeology, as well as around lecture rooms, give a “misleading impression” of the whiteness and “absence of diversity” of the ancient world.

... The new information panels about the “whiteness” of plaster cast sculptures are due to go on display later this year, according to the faculty.

How much harm could it do for the department’s dons to be maced and getting shot at in Portland, and the Proud Boys to be running Classics at Cambridge?
I mean, really ...

A Classics prof teaches one of his Rhodes students:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/world-news/2021/08/23/TELEMMGLPICT000268790934_trans_NvBQzQNjv4Bqr9mCRwwDbt1nwdZ9X8c_6f4Xpit_DMGvdp2n7FDd82k.jpeg?imwidth=680

By Grégoire Canlorbe, American Renaissance, October 30, 2020:

       

Frank Kemp Salter is an Australian academic and researcher. Most of his career was at the Max Planck Research Centre for Human Ethology, in Andechs, Germany. He is best known for writings on ethnicity and ethnic interests. He studies political phenomena using conventional methods and the theories of behavioral biology. He has written about hierarchy (Emotions in Command, 1995), indoctrination (Ethnic Conflict and Indoctrination, 1998, edited with I. Eibl-Eibesfeldt), ethnic altruism and conflict (Welfare, Ethnicity and Altruism, 2002, Risky Transactions: Trust, Kinship and Ethnicity, 2004), and genetic interests (On Genetic Interests, 2003). In a review, Jared Taylor called On Genetic Interests “a vitally important contribution to our understanding of the significance of race and ethnicity in human affairs.” Dr. Salter has also been an adviser to Australia’s populist One Nation Party.

Grégoire Canlorbe: You write about the biological underpinnings of the obedience to one’s superiors in a hierarchy, especially in a bureaucracy. Please tell us more about this.

Frank Salter: In writing Emotions in Command, I observed command-giving in many organizations, from the military, to courts and parliaments, to nightclub doormen and theatrical rehearsals. The methods and observational categories were very much in the ethological tradition of Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt, whom I later joined as a colleague at his Max Planck Research Centre.

I expected to find dominance, and did, but I also found friendly behavior. Effective leaders take care to soften commands and bind subordinates to them through generosity and fairness. In doing this, they are helped by what I called the “dominance infrastructure,” this being the organization’s set of rules backed by inducements and punishments. My observations confirmed part of Max Weber’s theory of bureaucracy: that it is a rule-governed hierarchy. Being rule governed, with obedience largely ensured by the dominance infrastructure, administrative positions can be filled by a wide range of personalities. Domineering behavior or brilliant leadership have negative and positive effects respectively, but are not required for the organization to function.

       

It was the discovery of the affiliative component of hierarchy that led me to search for an “affiliative infrastructure.” That search led me to study ethnic ties, which can bind large populations. I wanted to know if there such a thing as an “ethnic infrastructure”?

Grégoire Canlorbe: A popular claim by J. Philippe Rushton is that there are racial differences in ethnocentrism, with the least genetically heterogeneous ethnic groups being the most ethnocentric. Do you agree?

Frank Salter: Philippe Rushton’s theory was not the basis of my research into ethnic kinship. Instead, it was William Hamilton’s theory of inclusive fitness, which is generally accepted in ethology and evolutionary biology. The theory states that kinship bonds promote the reproduction of shared genes. Hamilton extended his theory to ethnic groups. I’m not aware of the finding you describe (that variations in genetic homogeneity and the degree of genetic similarity predict the level of ethnocentrism), though it has a certain plausibility. What I am aware of is that the degree of genetic homogeneity is related to solidarity, a sense of social cohesion; or, to put it differently, conflict increases when society becomes more genetically diverse. That finding, which is compatible with Hamilton’s theory, has been repeated again and again. The work of the late Tatu Vanhanen is an excellent example.

Nonetheless it seems that a more diverse society can actually lead to greater ethnocentrism: not at the level of society taken as whole, but at the level of the different ethnic components of society. As you can see in the case of America especially (and this is a universal trend in the West), white majorities are now increasingly ethnocentric, but it clearly doesn’t compare to the very high ethnocentrism of black or Latino minorities. This is an issue the media and the universities don’t understand, and never talk about.

READ MORE...

INTERVIEW

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

Visigrad Post, NOVEMBER 16, 2020

Reading Time: 11 minutes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

READ MORE...

Nationalism: Understanding Our Struggle by Keith Woods

Who Is Judge Amy Coney Barrett, Trump’s Expected Supreme Court Pick? | WSJ

Could Roe v. Wade be overturned?

Some editorial first impressions of Amy Coney Barrett.

In the disciplined manner that she speaks of ruling, she indicates that overturning Roe v Wade is unlikely. That’s good if she cannot, but I say it without self righteousness. I can understand those who think abortion is barbaric and would never do it themselves. But then, that is what choice in the event is about.

Speaking of choice, as WN, we might hope that White girls be offered counseling, including the option of pre-natal care and adoption by a sponsoring adoptive couple.

And beyond the personal lives of those involved, it is a problem for White men if the consequence of pregnancy and the value of their seed can be terminated so easily; i.e., it certainly contributes to the slutdom and the general lack of caution in partner selection of contemporary girls, increased selection against beta males: while the old adage, beta males make families, alpha males make bastards.

Nevertheless, I am pro-choice for the same reason that I favor the death penalty: You can’t value life so much as to make it unlivable.

Again, if you think abortion is unconscionable then don’t have one. If you want to promote communities which heavily promote monogamy and group fidelity, practices which decrease unwanted pregnancy, counselling programs which offer the option of childcare assistance and adoption in the more rare event by implication, that’s well and good. On the other hand, if I had a daughter and she were impregnated by rape? Are you going to try to tell me that she can’t have an abortion you evil dirt bag?

Incest pregnancies and those which are known prenatally to have birth defects would be other easier cases for the pro choice side.

Finally, from a WN standpoint, with brown and black populations exploding, the ideal of “pro-life” puts White lives on the chopping block and not even all that indirectly.

Therefore, in this regard it is good that Barrett doesn’t seem as if she will be able to overturn Roe v Wade. It is good that Trump as opposed to Biden-Harris has the choice of the Supreme Court Candidate for reasons more broadly across the board, environmental issues being a marked negative against Trump’s picks. But for WN interests, the issue of Supreme Court Nominees has always been the strongest argument on behalf of Trump. And as WN we are not looking toward the continuation of the American project for decades anyway; we are looking to buy us a few more years for preparation.

As it is also true that WN is not prepared for the complete meltdown just yet and the kind of Supreme Court Justices that Biden-Harris would put in there, well, what happens when you think things couldn’t get any worse for Whites?

The problem is, while the Democrats and their politics on behalf of their voter base always do increase the YIN vertigo, the injustice for Whites and sadistic race-mix blender action, the Republicans (at least since I’ve been alive) always step in there for the YANG normalization of the resultant mix; “this is what real men, real Americans, real conservatives are about.” Trump is very much like that…

Amy Coney Barrett is very much of that ilk - conserving liberalism, from her Christian universal values which have her adopting two Haitians (!) when she already has five kids of her own; to her faithfulness to color blind American Constitutionalism. The best that she and the Republicans have to offer is a slower boil that will allow WN more time to organize, which we need. At worst, you know what they say about the slow boil and the frog.

The DNA Nations concept is the best option at this point for those who care about Whites and their means of extrication from this cataclysm to our EGI, as the border, demographic, power and rule structure of America has destiny already pretty much baked in the cake of its standard politics.

Way of The World 2