Majorityrights News > Category: White Nationalism

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.

Nation Revisited # 155, September 2019

Published by Bill Bailie, Saturday, 31 Aug 2019:

Digging up The Past

       

Rumour has if that veteran nationalist Eddy Morrison (pictured) is about to launch an online version of ‘‘Action”. I am unashamedly nostalgic but I think that Mosley’s journal should be left in peace.

“Action” was a newspaper that was sold at meetings and regular pitches. The proposed online version would have none of the feel, and smell of newsprint. The Internet is a priceless asset but it cannot recapture the past.

Seth Tyrssen, the American assistant editor of Eddy’s blog “White Voice,” produces “The New Thunderbolt” in homage to the old National States’ Rights Party. There’s not much difference in ideology between “The New Thunderbolt” and the old “Thunderbolt.” But a new “Action” produced by Eddy Morrison would be a contradiction. Oswald Mosley supported Imperialism pre-war and ‘Europe a Nation’ post-war, but he was never a parochial nationalist.
  . 
Jeffrey Wallder, also known as Gordon Beckwell, is revising the Friends of Mosley 18 B detainees list as more information becomes available. But most of his fellow “Action” writers are dead; Oswald Mosley, Jeffrey Hamm, Robert Rowe, and John Warburton have all passed away, and I don’t feel too good myself.

I pinched that line from the entertainer Vic Oliver, Winston Churchill’s son-in-law, who said: “all the great musicians are dead; Mozart’s dead, Beethoven’s dead, and I don’t feel too good myself.” He once asked Winston Churchill who was the greatest war leader. Churchill replied: “Mussolini, because he had the courage to have his son-in-law shot.”

Many of Union Movement’s policies have been overtaken by history. We wanted to send home immigrants with their fares paid, That would gave been possible in those days but today there are far too many of them. We also supported white rule in South Africa and Rhodesia but both countries have been taken over by the blacks.

And then there us the matter of copyright. “Action” and all other Union Movement and Action Society titles are the property of Sanctuary Press.

What is to be Done - Eddy Morrison.

In 1978 when I was a National Front organiser I firmly believed that we would have our first members of parliament by 1980. We didn’t and the period known as the ‘horrible 80s’ was upon us. Split after split with eventually a by-election where one schism of the National Front stood a candidate at the same time as another schism of that splintered wreck of a once mighty movement.

The 1990s got a bit more interesting and we achieved the election of a BNP candidate in London. Things were slow in the BNP but it was, under John Tyndall, going in the right direction. As BNP Yorkshire Organiser I was gladdened to see many old comrades returning to the BNP. Then in 1999 the British National equivalent of the Twin Towers occurred - Nick Griffin became the leader of the BNP.

He spent the next ten years building it up. BNP councillors were everywhere and two MEPs were elected. Then came the second calamity! Griffin’s appearance on a major national TV show. Griffin acted like a buffoon. He even sidled up to the Black ‘celebrity’ who was sat next to him. Be bungled his way through a barrage of outrageous Lefty opposition and made no attempt to either push himself into prominence in a public forum watched live by millions nor to say anything cohesive. He acted like the local village idiot. Was it an Act?

Now we find ourselves in the 2010s. A large number of nationalist grouplets vying for members from an ever dwindling pool of recruits. With the break up of the EDL and the BNP, one would have expected a huge rush to join an existing nationalist party. It never happened. The British Democratic Party seems to be totally static and the National Front is a shadow of its former self. The less said about ‘Britain First’ and the lunatic New British Union, the better!

Unity talks abound. Unity with who and why unity at all? It’s like putting all the hospital patients with transmittable diseases in a ward of basically healthy people. Unity serves one purpose - it gives a platform for people who like to talk about nationalist unity who can go on home and do little more than look forward to the next unity meeting ad infinitum.

It’s never going to happen folks - believe me! We need, as we did in the 1960s, a fresh start. We need a White Nationalist movement that is no holds barred. We need one that rejects the inevitable compromises that come with unity. We need a movement that rejects both internal and external democracy and runs on the meritocratic principle.

You join, you work hard and you get the benefits. You join, you gripe about provocative tactics and you should for the good of all rush off and join Ukip (if it’s still there of course).

A new movement (I can feel the shuddering from here) it must be. And for the first few years of its life it should avoid elections like the plague. It shouldn’t even be registered with the ZOG control apparatus called ‘The Electoral Commission.” Give them your membership numbers; state of finances; sign forms that bind you to a Liberal Stalinist state and for what? To get seven votes in a council election (Nick Walsh - Hull 2016).

A new movement must be uncompromising in its White Nationalist principles and uncompromising in its drive for power. What we need comrades is a movement of disciplined fanatics!

International Finance

I am a 59 year old Englishman who understands the racket that is our money creation system. Fiat money heralds the destruction of any country that is silly enough to allow it in.

The US Federal Reserve is not federal and holds no reserves. President Wilson himself said he felt he had sold his country to International Finance. What did they have on him for him to sell his country out?

I have friends who have spent 9 years in studying for professional banking examinations and still don’t understand fiat money; so cleverly is the course designed.

I believe that if the people were actually educated as to how it works their outrage would be deafening. Naturally, as the same people who own the banks own the media, reaching the people to educate them will be difficult. Remember, any mention of who these people might be may bring you up on antisemitism charges. They really have the bases covered.

Education is the way forward but it will be an uphill struggle.

Nation Revisited replies to A.L.

You appear to believe in the Jewish conspiracy theory. This was endorsed by AK Chesterton in his 1965 book “The New Unhappy Lords.” Unfortunately, he offers no evidence. In his foreword he explains:

“The strength and the weakness of this book is that it is not annotated. The weakness is that the author, having checked his facts to the best of his ability, does not cite his authorities, partly because some of the information has come to him under confidential cover from highly placed persons in different parts of the world who would face ruin if their identities were divulged, and partly because, the facts have not been filed and listed. Its strength, on the other hand, is that the reader is presented with a continuous narrative which enables him to follow the workings of the conspiracy without having his attention distracted by the abundance of foot-notes which otherwise would have been necessary.”

Jews dominate the media and they are over-represented in financial circles but they are not all powerful. There are no Jews on the boards of the Bank of China or the Bank of Japan. And they were not able to save Lehman Brothers or Northern Rock. Why didn’t they just create some more money?

An Uncertain Future

We are due to leave the European Union on October 31st - with or without a trade agreement. The Brexiteers are predicting a rosy future but most economists are pessimistic. The massive disruption to our economy resulting from Brexit coincides with America’s trade war with China and a global decline in car sales. It seems that a recession is inevitable.

To manage this chaos we have a broken party system serving a divided and discontented population. Boris Johnson (pictured), our larger-than-life prime minister, leads a right- wing Tory Party propped up by the sectarian Democratic Unionist Party of Northern Ireland.  He is spending money like a drunken sailor; two billion here, two billion there, 20,000 more policemen, and 10,000 new prison places. After years of penny-pinching the Tories are being forced to spend our money on public services.

One of the main factors in the Brexit debate was immigration. Boris Johnson frightened the electorate with predictions of millions of Turks coming to the UK if we stayed in Europe. But he called for an amnesty for 500.000 undocumented migrants when he was Mayor of London, and he has promised to make immigration easier to attract the skilled workers that we need.

During the referendum campaign we heard much from the Brexiteers about ‘sovereignty’ but Boris Johnson has now made himself a dictator by suspending Parliament.

The Old Gang have left us short of doctors, nurses, policemen, scientists and engineers.. All of these workers can be recruited but they will have to be trained and provided with affordable housing. The police will also need somewhere to work as they have sold off so many police stations.

A start has been made on building affordable houses but young couples cannot get mortgages. We need social housing and New York style housing courts to control rents and prevent exploitation.

The tit-for-tat tanker war with Iran has shown that we. We don’t have enough destroyers and frigates to defend British-flagged ships in the Persian Gulf. We could send HMS Queen Elizabeth, our gigantic aircraft carrier, but “Big Lizzie” with her 14 operational F35B aircraft is hardly suitable to counter Iranian inflatables, it would be like using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut.
.
We are also short of soldiers but that doesn’t stop our government from warning the Chinese over Hong Kong. Our 81,500 regulars are ready to take on the People’s Liberation Army of two million men. But don’t worry, we always punch above our weight, and the Chinese don’t like it up ‘em.

We urgently need a Government of National Unity, not just to sort out Brexit but to realistically appraise our situation and put country before party. In the meantime we face an uncertain future.

Violent Crime

Stabbings and shootings have reached epidemic proportions in our major cities. The victims are young men, mostly black, that are involved drug running. The police are calling for drugs to be legalised but, fortunately, our laws are made by Parliament, not by the police. It would make their job easier but that is not what law and order is all about.

Boris Johnson is electioneering by promising more policemen, longer prison sentences, and extra prison places. These measures would certainly help but the real answer is better parenting and education. Many of these kids have never experienced discipline and they do not recognise authority. The liberal experiment in education has failed and we will not see an improvement in juvenile behavior until we return to traditional teaching methods.

Tony Blair made a monumental mistake when he sent British troops to invade Iraq. But he was right when he said “education, education, education.” It really is the answer to most of our problems.

Fortunately, we still have some dedicated teachers who can exert authority. Schools have been throwing out disruptive pupils rather thn deal with them but exclusion is not the answer. The art of raising children to be productive citizens has not been lost, but teachers need the backing of parents and their employers.

When I was working at the Shell building in Waterloo, some years ago,  parties of schoolboys used the company’s swimming pool. Some of them were rowdy but one particular school was very well behaved. It was a private school and the pupils were all black. It’s all a matter leadership. Kids from all backgrounds can succeed in life if they are given the chance. Letting them ‘do their own thing’ is not the answer.

Theresa May’s ban on ‘stop and search’ when she was Home Secretary was misguided. She was frightened of upsetting race relations but the police need all the help they can get. They have been undermined by manpower cuts and the privatisation of the probation service.  Drug-related crimes are committed by young men of all races but the majority are black. When the police stop and search them they are not being racist, they are protecting the public

We have tried ignoring the problem but it won’t go away Parents must be held responsible for their children, and teachers, magistrates, judges, social workers, probation officers, and policemen must enforce the law.

Over-sensitive concerns about race-relations should not be allowed to confuse the issue. The majority of Black people would welcome a return to law and order.

Nation Revisited

This blog seeks reform by legal means. All articles are by Bill Baillie unless otherwise stated. The opinions of guest writers are entirely their own. We are protected by the UN Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19: “We all have the right to make up our own minds, to think what we like, to say what we think, and to share ideas with other people.”

Comments

Use the facility at the end of this blog to leave your comments and read what others have to say.
.
       
Our flag was designed by John Bean in 1957 for his National Labour Party. It is used by Nation Revisited with his blessing.The cross represents our nation and the radiant star represents Socialism

When this tweet speaks of “the socialist party” it is speaking of a party that would not delimit social accountability to native interests first and foremost.

The sane management of pervasive ecology has been dealt yet another serious blow as a central element, the management of human ecology through the accountability that ethnonationalism provides, has been pushed aside - at least temporarily - by liberal internationalist interests.

Matteo Salvini’s crucially necessary nativist, ethnonationalist anti-immigration platform has been sidelined by a coalition of the 5-Star Party, which is in cahoots with foreign interests and the corporate internationalist sell-out, Giuseppe Conte, reinstalling him as Prime Minister; allowing him to continue his border liberalization policies which are destroying Italy, Italians and European peoples broadly.

Italy’s corrupt Five-Star Movement announced Wednesday that it had made a deal with the Liberal Party to form a coalition government — keeping Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte in place while avoiding elections and ousting the ethnonationalist League led by Matteo Salvini.

Conte’s position was strengthened this week when President Trump, who pretends to share a similar vision on immigration to Salvini, tweeted his support of Conte – calling him a “very talented man who will hopefully remain Prime Minister!”

Showing his true colors form the start, Trump shunned a meeting with Salvini, who was prepared to endorse him as Trump campaigned for the Presidency.

While Salvini was able to gain popular support by broadening his party’s platform from Lega Nord, to one that represents all of Italy, he sought to gain elite support along with the 5-Stars and Conte’s party by joining the ass-kissing of the Kremlin, the Knesset and the Trumpstein agenda.

Salvini might have added Trumpstein, Putin and Netanyahu to the list of people not to trust with native European interests.

And with friends like that, highly practiced in the art of treachery, the message is: lay down with dogs and wake up with fleas.

Rather, wake up sidelined by the truly corrupt - corrupt enough to push aside your crucially necessary anti-immigration, nativist position and sell out your people and their ancient birthright.

Dr. Jörg D. Valentin@drjdvalentin

#RT
@EchoPRN: RT
@BasedPoland: It’s official.

The #FiveStarMovement & the [liberal] party have reached an agreement to form government

Ibid: #Salvini will be out of government until 2023 (unless snap elections at some point).

Italians can prepare for a new …

Ergo, maybe you can ‘weenie the Salvini’...

Virginia Roberts was working at Mar-a-Lago when she was recruited by Ghislaine Maxwell to be a masseuse to Palm Beach hedge fund manager Jeffrey Epstein. She says she was groomed for sex with him and his associates, attorney Alan Dershowitz and Prince Andrew

Miami Herald
Published on Nov 30, 2018

A teenage Virginia Roberts and Ghislaine Maxwell

Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, where Roberts was introduced to Epstein and Maxwell

Here’s Fredo, the Aryan overman - or is he the ghost of Armenia, which Hitler suggested as an example of genocides that would be forgotten once a war of annihilation was long completed?

In recent months I’ve had the misfortune to have been confronted by an idiot going by the handle “ovfuckyou.” I did not seek him out. I found myself encountered by him in circumstances where people with overlapping (White Nationalist) concerns thought it might be constructive to “debate” him and his idea that WN should rally under Hitler and his programmatic leadership.

As I have said many times, Majorityrights is a platform that plainly rejects that idea; it rather functions as recourse for people who are able to see the obvious - that the people of today are not responsible for the World Wars, and all reasonable European peoples should be able to rally and coordinate under the rubric of ethnonationalism (while diaspora can be coordinated by the DNA Nations concept), but not all Europeans will be able to rally under Hitler and his program, quite the opposite. Thus, while there was obvious provocation from Jewry (unless we ascribe to the absurd position that Germans were ex-nihilo violent en mass) we reject the program of trying to redeem Hitler on balance and to engage in elaborate attempts to justify or deny his bad judgments and misdeeds.

These are such obvious and easy points to make by means of numerous references that I don’t like to discuss the issues, as I have no desire to lay guilt trips or stir up animosity among present day Europeans, for whatever side of WWII their ancestors were on. Hence, I have endeavored to post reference material to state in as brief and conciliatory a manner as possible, why it is that White Nationalism should Not try to redeem Hitler and Nazism as proponents of White Nationalism; they are rather significantly divisive and stigmatizing influences where adhered to the extent that an idiot like ovfuckyou does.

Sure ov is falling out with former White associates (e.g., people calling themselves “the gas station”). The right is inherently unstable. Typically, he’s talking to Jews now, of course - because they want to maintain the association of Hitler and WN. It’s divide and conquer.

ovfuckyou unabashedly identifies with the swastika.

It is one thing to say, “ok, Hitler and the Nazis had their reasons, and they had some things right”... but if one is to exercise 20/20 hindsight the place to find it is not in Nazi propaganda.

Having gotten myself lured into testing “debate” with ovfuckyou (accompanied by a few other Nazophiles) because he was hanging-out with Norvin, whom I hope to help around into a more stable position (his association with ov is broken, so that’s good, at least for the time being), I endeavored to explain the perspective of the nations between The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, viz. Poland, Belarus, Ukraine, and Czech.

Understanding the perspective of these nations goes far to debunk an argument critical to Nazi apologists, i.e., that “Hitler was acting defensively against a Soviet invasion.”

Further debunking the Nazi position is to show that territorial concessions required of Germany by the Treaty of Versailles and St. Germain were not wholly arbitrary and without justification.

It is apparent why, at this point, ovfuckyuou and friends started to shout over me, talking in mock Jewish voices, saying that I was whining about things (whining? I don’t even like talking about this history ..if anyone is whining it is them and if anyone should be complaining about the war, it is the victims - including the Germans - of Hitler’s hair-brained program).

He’s been making the rounds in what appears to be The Regnery Circus 2.0

While I can kind of understand Norvin and a few other newbies, especially German Americans coming up through American right wing auspices, not being quite ready to be finished with ov’s angle, he’s been propped up, making the circuit on other White advocacy platforms, with people who’s intelligence and audience I have some regard for otherwise, and whose platforms overlap Majorityrights in significant ways - should be entirely; hence, to simply walk away from them is not on order.

After the mishap with the debate proposal by Norvin, which demonstrated that I ought not bother bringing the good-willed Per Nordin let alone the consummate professional, Dr. Christian Lindner, into the mudslinging of Ov, I found myself in a hangout with him, Claire Khaw and Church of Entropy. We were both opposed to Church of Entropy, no need to go into details - but that and other temporary alignments with ov caused me to let my guard down a bit when he found his way onto Eccelux streams.

When people are as apparently intelligent as Eccelux I have difficulty suspending disbelief that they can be blinded to the obvious.

Part of Ecce’s blindness may stem from fairly commercial aspirations. One can say that we need to get our voice out there, but then is it our voice when a litmus test is put in place that we represent ourselves by means of eye rolling right wing perfidy?

There seems to be something like a Regnery circus 2.0 in re-formation. The Regnery perspective was the structural backing of The Alt-Right. Richard Spencer was a central figure and apparently remains. Litmus tests were in order to join the club: an anti social identity - Nazi sympathy, German supremacism, Christianity, scientism, right wing elitism generally - including Jews if sufficiently Germanophilic.

Richard Spencer once said that we have to make sure that people are right on the “PQ”, the Polish question, and if they are not, they need to be ostracized. He added, “there’s not going to be your little Poland.” Well, why not? Why not “little Poland” and “little Germany”?

Apparently because Spencer is not an ethnonationalist, he’s an imperialist surpremacist who wishes for a Molotiv-Ribbentrop Pact 2.

The Rengery perspective is not simply Gemanophilic, though it is that, it is not simply Nazophilic, though it is that. It is tolerant of pagans and other non Christians but it prefers Christians. It’s tolerant of Jews, will even include them in the big tent if they’re against “the left” and more particularly, if they are Germanophilic Jews, added points if they do apologetics for Nazi Germany or Holocaust deniers.

The Regnery Circus platform was The Voice of Reason Broadcasting Network a few years back. Now defunct, the circus functions through a few Youtube channels.

Josh Neal shows all the hallmarks of being a focal point for its rounds, many of the same ironic combination of Nazi apologetics and Jews/those who believe that Jews should be included in orchestrating White advocacy.

Recently, Josh was talking to Brett Stevens - the guy and his site, “Amerika,” are clearly shills for Jewish interests.

Ovfuckyuou is playing the Carolyn Yeager role of pure Nazi.

I know, I know, it’s 4D chess, the Rubix Cube.

Interestingly, in his last talk with Eccelux (and Faustian Spirit), ovfuckyou had the nerve to say that ‘there’s a void resulting from White people being cast into a binary decision between liberalism or Nazism’ when in fact, I’ve been offering a clear alternative to that for ten years now - while ovfuckyou talked and blustered over me when I attempted to articulate this position.

Here are some of the perfidies that ovfuckyou tried to put across as “argument”:

When I said that I wash my hands of coal burners (burn the coal pay the toll), ovfuckyou issued the ridiculous non-sequitur that I was being ‘hypocritical’ in not believing that nationals, e.g., French, defending their nations and people against Nazi Germany should die.

He said that.

Just to test further how absurd he might be, I asked, what would you expect me to say to Polish people regarding Hitler?

Ovfuckyou said that I should say to them that “Hitler was not so bad.” He said that, he really said that. I laughed, genuinely.

On two different occasions he spoke of the good relations between Germans, including Nazi Germany, and Russia.

Do I really need to look beyond the Leningrad and Stalingrad to cite examples of how relations were not necessarily so great between Hitler’s platform and the Russian folk? How about the Russian rapes of German women by war’s end for good Russian/Nazi rapport?

Because I am not overly sympathetic to Germany’s arguments for WWI or WWII, let alone the destruction wrought by their war efforts in both cases, citing examples of destruction that ovfuckyou apparently didn’t want to hear about, he tried to insist that I was anti German.

I repeat, in truth, that I am not anti German. I advocate Germans as I advocate all European peoples; but not only as arbitrary Europeans, I advocate the maintenance of our discreet kinds; in other words, Germany as an ethnostate for Germans and the capacity of German diaspora to maintain their kinds as well, whether coordinated through the DNA Nations or their German clubs and so on… the same rule structure that I advocate for all European peoples.

When it would become clear to him that there were cogent White Nationalist arguments to be made without, even against the Nazi position, ovfuckyou not only tried to talk over, but to shout over; and when I recognized that he’s not going to talk in good faith and rose above his din by raising my own volume, he tried to say that he was triggering me and had won the debate - said that he couldn’t believe that I was Italian because Italians are not so “thin-skinned.”

First of all, I thought that Italians were notoriously temperamental - my family certainly was.

Secondly, why would I be so “thin skinned” as to not want to platform his stupidity, for ‘little issues’ like not wanting to include Hitler redemption in a WN platform, nor wanting to be bothered with holocaust denial - why would I be ‘so thin skinned as to not want to be associated with that?’

OvFredo presses down on his diaphragm for his trademark “well adjusted” fake chuckle that’s supposed to unnerve and disarm.

When it didn’t work, when I did not want to be bothered with this recalcitrant idiot, he proceeded to berate me as a faggot, a Pollock and he said he would kick my ass. Ecce and I were off the air with ovfuckyou when he launched into this little tirade.

Look at him. Who’s ass is he going to kick? Who is he going to unite with this sort of incitement under the banner of Hitler?

This was followed by a series of abusive emails from ovfuckyou - all because I don’t love Hitler.

It’s not enough to be ok with Germans, to want to ally with them, to fight on the same side in coordination of their interests, to advocate their German ethnostate, their diasporic species, not enough to view Jews as other, aliens with interests other than ours, predominantly hostile, requiring separatism - no. If I don’t love Hitler this asshole is going to to try to trash me.

The road to hell can be paved with bad intentions as well.

I’m asking you too, Ecce. Is that too hard a Rubix cube? Is there a sack big enough to accommodate ovfuckyou’s shit?

And yet Ecce is all cool with him, says I’m being over sensitive.

Perhaps the Regnery Circus might be there to rescue and underwrite ovfuckyou. Josh Neal endorses him. Checking all the right boxes.

“Unite the right”, works real good

.................

In sum, for me to take the honest position of advocating all European peoples, and the maintenance of their discreet kinds - I’m an ethnonationalist, so, Germany for Germans - and to extend the DNA Nations to maintain the discreet kinds of Europeans in diaspora as well; and furthermore, to say that I do not want present day Germans to feel guilty about history, nor do I - this was not enough for ovfuckyou. He starts attacking me, trying to belittle me as a “Pollock” and a “faggot”, and ostracize because I won’t genuflect to Hitler.

Watch it kiddo. The road to hell can be paved with bad intentions as well.

I’ve invited ovfuckyou to Europe, including Poland and parts east. You can tell the people for yourself how great Hitler was, how he was “not that bad.”

Ovfuckyou, your stupidity is so destructive that there is no negative consequence that could come to you that would not leave me feeling just fine about it.

Engaged in a bitter dispute with France and Germany over illegal immigration, Italy sides with the Visegrád Group

By Olivier Bault, Visigrad Post, 8 Aug 2019:

This article was originally published on Kurier.plus.

European Union – On July 22, French President Emmanuel Macron announced at a press conference in Paris that an agreement had been reached by 14 countries of the European Union on a temporary and voluntary redistribution mechanism for migrants taken on board European ships in the Mediterranean. Macron then once again threatened those countries that refused to take part in this “voluntary” scheme that France would no longer approve their receipt of EU structural funds. Although no specific country was named,the French media had no doubt that Macron was thinking of the Visegrád Four, and Hungary and Poland in particular. “As far as solidarity is concerned”, the French president said, “Europe is not ‘à la carte’. You cannot have countries saying ‘I don’t want your Europe when it is about sharing the burden, but I want it when it is about receiving structural funds’.”

A new Franco-German redistribution plan with similarities to the old compulsory relocation scheme

According to French sources, the temporary agreement reached in Paris is meant to avoid the endless squabbles over who should take charge of how many migrants each time an NGO ship conducts a new operation near the coast of Libya. It is based on the plan proposed earlier by German foreign minister Heiko Maas when he called for a “coalition of the willing” to replace the failed EU compulsory relocation mechanism. “We must now move forward with those member states that are ready to receive refugees – all others remain invited to participate,”Maas had said. On July 18, at an informal meeting of interior and justice ministers in Helsinki, Maas’s plan was proposed by Germany’s interior minister Horst Seehofer and supported by his French counterpart Christophe Castaner. France then organised the July 22 informal meeting in Paris with foreign and interior ministers from the “coalition of the willing”, as well as officials from the European Commission, the United Nations’ refugee agency and the International Organization for Migration (IOM). Maas’s proposal was by then being presented as a joint Franco-German initiative.

However, only eight countries were actually named and said to have agreed to “actively” take part in such a voluntary redistribution mechanism. These are France, Germany, Finland, Luxembourg, Portugal, Lithuania, Croatia and Ireland. Macron said that “in principle, 14 member states, at this stage, have expressed their agreement with the Franco-German document”, but the other six countries who are supposed to have expressed their agreement have not been named and were nowhere to be found in subsequent media reports.

One thing is for sure: Italy was not among them. And this is good news for the Visegrád Group, as Macron’s statement about EU structural funds clearly shows that, in the minds of some European leaders, this so-called “coalition of the willing”, when it is further discussed at European level in September as planned by Paris and Berlin, is meant to become a new version of the former compulsory EU relocation scheme.As soon as Germany’s foreign minister made known his proposal for a “coalition of the willing”, it was dismissed by former Austrian chancellor Sebastian Kurz. His centre-right ÖVP party being the front-runner to win the election in September, Kurz will probably soon become chancellor again. “The distribution of migrants in Europe has failed,” Kurz said on July 13, “we are once again discussing ideas from 2015 that have long proved impractical.” And he went on to explain that “the order of the day is rather to remove the business case for unscrupulous smugglers and return people after sea rescues to their home or transit countries, as well as creating initiatives for stability and economic development in Africa”, which is exactly what the Visegrád countries have been advocating since the beginning of the current migrant crisis.

In fact, not only would such a scheme take immigration out of the control of participating member states, but the discussions on the subject are sending a new signal to would-be emigrants in Africa and the Middle-East, and also to people smugglers in North Africa, that Europe’s gates are being opened wide once again, thus reinforcing the pull factor created by lenient policies in many European countries – not least in France and Germany, which allow most immigrants to stay and move freely around the Schengen area even after their requests for asylum have been rejected (see here for the figures as of 2018). At a press conference in Helsinki, French interior minister Christophe Castaner himself had to acknowledge that several EU countries fear the proposed voluntary redistribution mechanism will generate a new massive influx of migrants. This impression created by the likes of Maas, Seehofer, Castaner and Macron is further reinforced by the fact that NGO ships are now back in the Mediterranean, trying to force Salvini to reopen Italy’s ports to illegal immigrants, while France and Germany have also been making repeated calls for Italian ports to open up to boats transporting rescued migrants. The Franco-German mechanism which was agreed on in Paris on July 22 is still based on having rescued migrants disembarked in Italian ports and thereafter redistributed among participating countries. Similarly to the now defunct compulsory relocation scheme, the redistribution of migrants would only concern those asylum seekers who are likely to gain refugee status, and who are in fact a small minority of all illegal immigrants trying to cross the Mediterranean. According to the Franco-German plan, the remaining migrants would have to be kept in Italian centres until they could be deported. From the Italian point of view, there is nothing new in that proposal, and such a scheme will probably only increase the pressure on Libyan shores and increase the number of illegal immigrants making it to Europe, as well as the death toll by drowning in the Central Mediterranean.

       
        Total death toll from January 1 to July 26 each year (Central Mediterranean route only).
        Source: https://missingmigrants.iom.int/region/mediterranean

The Italian–Maltese plan

Italy and Malta came to the summit in Helsinki on July 17–18 with a different proposal. A day after Heiko Maas had first presented his own plan to the German RND media group, namely on July 14, Italy’s foreign minister Esteri Moavero Milanesi described his alternative plan in an interview with Corriere della Sera. What Rome and Valletta proposed was to give people the possibility of applying for refugee status as close as possible to their countries of departure, so that asylum requests could be considered before migrants illegally tried to cross the EU’s external borders. Charter flights would then be organised to safely take to Europe those who really deserved refugee status, thereby weakening the smugglers’ business model and avoiding unnecessary deaths at sea. Since the number of people reaching Europe in such a manner would be smaller and better controlled, a distribution scheme could be more easily agreed among EU member states. For those who nonetheless try to reach Europe illegally by sea, the joint Maltese–Italian plan requires the creation of controlled centres (“hotspots”) in all countries of the EU-28 and common policies to force the countries of departure to take their citizens back. It rejects the idea of having all migrants on the Central Mediterranean route landing in Italy before their relocation to other countries. It also calls for NGO vessels to be kept out of the search & rescue zones of Libya and other third countries.

Salvini to Macron: “Italy will not be France’s refugee camp”

This plan was rejected at Helsinki, as both Germany and France supported Seehofer’s plan. The League’s leader, Matteo Salvini, confirmed in a statement released on the day after a meeting in Helsinki on July 17 between ministers from France, Germany, Italy and Malta that the Franco-German proposal was unacceptable to Italy, as “simply redistributing refugees will leave hard-to-expel illegal immigrants in the first country of arrival”. And while Malta’s Prime Minister Joseph Muscat announced preparations for a new meeting between interior ministers of all four countries in Malta in September, France’s Christophe Castaner announced that he was inviting ministers from the “coalition of the willing” to Paris on July 22 in order to go ahead with the Franco-German scheme.This infuriated Italy’s Matteo Salvini, who refused to take part in the Paris meeting, choosing instead to send a “technical” delegation to block any new joint declaration. On July 19, Salvini wrote his French counterpart a letter in which he expressed his surprise at the fact that only the Franco-German proposal was to be discussed in Paris,pointing out that the Maltese–Italian proposal had “gathered broad support” among EU countries. In that letter, the League’s leader insisted again on the need to review the rules on search and rescue operations in order to put an end to behaviours which encourage illegal and uncontrolled immigration, and to make NGOs comply with both international and national laws. According to Salvini, many at the Justice and Home Affairs Council held in Helsinki had “positions very close to the one expressed by Italy, in particular as regards a strict commitment to a migration policy based on the protection of the EU’s and the Schengen Area’s external borders”.

After the announcement by President Macron of an agreement reached under his auspices and supported by 14 countries (of which only eight, including France, were named and said to be ready to participate “actively”), Italy’s interior minister published a video on his Facebook profile with his own virulent reaction, mocking French leaders and saying directly to Macron, whom he called by his first name, that if he wanted ports open to migrants he should open France’s own ports in Marseilles, Corsica and elsewhere. He added that Italy would not take orders from France and would not be France’s refugee camp, as it is not a French colony.

Italy under pressure from France and Germany to take back illegal immigrants as per the Dublin Regulation

Salvini’s tone was no surprise to observers, who have been witnessing deteriorating relations between France and Italy since those whom the French president contemptuously calls “populists” and “nationalists” formed a coalition government in Rome over a year ago. Salvini’s mockery and verbal attacks have mostly come in response to Macron’s own highly arrogant and undiplomatic criticism of Italy’s leaders, particularly Matteo Salvini, which resembles some of the language he has used against the leaders of Poland and Hungary, as when he publicly asked last autumn in Bratislava: “What are these leaders doing with these crazy minds and lying to their people?”. Salvini’s anger is further fueled by the fact that, while French leaders call for Italy to open its ports to migrants for humanitarian reasons,the French authorities have been enforcing border controls for years between Ventimiglia and Menton on the Mediterranean coast, and they send back illegal immigrants to Italy, including, according to some media reports, when those immigrants are caught at some distance from the Italian border, in which case such ‘hot returns’ are in breach of European rules. The Italians have also accused Germany of breaking the rules when returning migrants to Italy as per the Dublin Regulation (the so-called “Dubliners”). Apart from being asked by Germany and France to reopen its ports to illegal immigrants, as the first country of arrival Italy is under great pressure from other EU member states to take back some 46,000 immigrants. As a consequence of the mass disembarkation which took place under the auspices of Matteo Renzi’s government, the number of asylum seekers sent back to Italy has tripled in just five years, with most of the 188,000 requests for transfer made since 2013 coming from Germany, Switzerland, France and Austria.

To make things worse, on the eve of the Paris meeting of July 22, SOS Méditerranée, an NGO based in the French city of Marseilles, announced the launch of a new joint search and rescue operation together with the Franco-Swiss NGO Doctors Without Borders (MSF), using a new boat said to be larger and faster than the Aquarius, which has remained blocked at the request of Italian prosecutors. The Ocean Viking left the Polish port of Szczecin flying the Norwegian flag and heading towards Libyan shores. SOS Méditerranée and MSF estimate the cost of this operation at around €14,000 per day. In a press release published on July 12, the city of Paris had announced that it would contribute €100,000 to this expensive operation. The grant made by the French capital was announced at the same time as the award of a medal to Carola Rackete and Pia Klemp, two German NGO vessel captains who are facing serious charges in Italy for allegedly aiding illegal immigration, including – in the case of Klemp – through active collusion with smugglers.

France’s responsibility for the situation in Libya

READ MORE...

Salvini tells Richard Gere to fly the 160 stranded migrants to Hollywood and house them in his villas

Voice of Europe, 12 August 2019:

Hollywood millionaire Richard Gere has called upon the Italian government to assist migrants who have been stranded on a Spanish charity boat in the Mediterranean for more than a week.

The Italian government needed to stop “demonizing people”, the actor said.

Gere boarded the vessel, which has been blocked from entering Italian waters, on Friday.

Italy’s Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini hit back, saying Gere should take the 160 migrants to Hollywood.

Gere, who visited the Open Arms ship in a show of support, also joined a news conference on the Italian island of Lampedusa calling for the migrants to be allowed to dock.

He made comparisons between Salvini, who has made repeated efforts to block migrant ships from docking in Italy, and US President Donald Trump, who has faced widespread criticism for his immigration policies.

“We have our problems with refugees coming from Honduras, Salvador, Nicaragua, Mexico… It’s very similar to what you are going through here”, he said, accusing both politicians of demonizing migrants.

“This has to stop everywhere on this planet now. And it will stop if we say stop”, he added.

It didn’t take Salvini long to respond.

“Given this generous millionaire is voicing concern for the fate of the Open Arms migrants, we thank him: he can take back to Hollywood, on his private plane, all the people aboard and support them in his villas. Thank you Richard!”, he said in a statement. Over the course of a career spanning more than 40 years, Gere, 69, has starred in films including Pretty Woman, American Gigolo and An Officer and a Gentleman.

A campaigner for environmental causes and AIDS awareness, he is also a Buddhist who pays regular visits to Dharamshala, the headquarters of the Tibetan government-in-exile.

Richard Gere is worth an estimated £100million according to the website celebritynetworth.com.

Salvini, whose party made sweeping gains in last year’s Italian general election, has pledged to deport 500,000 migrants by 2023. Earlier this week he tabled a motion of no confidence in his own government, in a bid to force through a snap election and take control from his coalition partners Five Star Movement.

Blacks as a biological weapon of the right

Threat, intimidation, shock and awe, extortion:

Just because public money in the form of Welfare, Foodstamps, Medcaid, Social Security, Government Programs, Scholarships and so on, is not considered “private”, i.e., “their per capita income”, does not mean that black woman have a disadvantaged economic basis, one which is in important ways more secure, not exactly at a disadvantage, in crucial life matters such as the capacity to have children - quite the opposite: they do not have to work and can just take their time and headspace to have children at everyone’s expense, who then register as more “blacks” come black women who have “five dollars a year net worth.”

Ridiculous.

There is also a factor of money that might funnel to them through crime - which might be spun by liberals into an expression of victimization. But if they get away with that additional income, it is not as if their only other recourse was welfare.

Blacks have an advantage when it comes to education through school or college of any kind, public or private.

After their educational advantage, educated black women make more money than White women. 

If they do not choose to go to college, or trade school, blacks have a tremendous advantage with government jobs, such as the US Post Office or Public Transit or universities - which offer excellent benefits and retirement plans - if they do care to work. Actually, they have advantage with private business and corporations as well! In a word, what the hell are you talking about when you expect me to feel sorry for these people?

And all many of us White people want to do with them is nothing. We are repulsed from joining these public situations with them knowing that it will lead to straight out lineal extinction, a harrowing nightmare for what White children do survive for a time or Mulatto grandchildren, ultimately.

There is also a factor now of above board wealth among blacks that is not being factored into these statistics parceled out discreetly as ‘black woman poverty’ (which frankly is not my concern anyway).

In addition, there are the intangibles - black solidarity, the taboo and danger of criticizing and discriminating against them - “racism!” - to go along with their warrior gene, high testosterone hyper assertiveness and lack of impulse control that makes them a great weapon of fecundity, disingenuous self righteousness - along with the ever present threat of violence and riot to extort the system - and when you look like many of them do and cannot rise to wealth through protracted intellectual effort, what do you have to lose? - now even seeking reparations for slavery on top of the trillions they’ve already received in a program of White r-p-a-c-m-nt (a word forbidden to be used by us “privileged people”), on behalf of those who would wallpaper over the decency and expense of those offering the coordination of White Left ethnonationalism.

Do you seriously expect me to care about these people who are so destructive to ordinary and working class Whites? These blacks, who Right Wingers brought to bear against us, to the destruction of millions of our loving brothers and sisters, would-be sons and daughters? Whites who are not even allowed to organize in group defense? Not to mention the Caribbean and other Native American Indians. 

Blacks know the ropes of the American system and work it much better than other groups, for example, some White peoples who are often more recently immigrated and not powerfully supported as a group by YKW language games. 

While right wingers and lucky liberals intermarry with the YKW and continue this pig game…

This is how marginalized White men are made into cows along with the rest of the working/labor surplus world, to pay to make these fat asses even fatter (some now hidden beneath a burka) and more fecund to the detriment of all…to supply their feral sons and their feral black fathers with veritable harems as they go on to impregnate naive Hispanic, Indio and White women..and yes, Asian women too, in order to mix away the would-be left ethnonationalist unions/coalition in favor of one ruler, Abrahams’ favorite sons and daughters.

Stop wallpapering Whites, depicting all White men as powerful, privileged elite. Stop characterizing White right wingers, elite traitors that they are, taking the payoff with “fellow Whites” YKW - the truly organized oppressors - as if they represent us - they do not.

Stop using black biopower, its ugly violent element with nothing to lose, against us to destroy our marginals- who would otherwise begin to help manifest the union bounds that could form coalitions to hold right wing perfidy, betrayal and exploitation to account.

Just like Muslims, many blacks are well suited to be biological weapons of the right wing by nature, and those who seek to bring them to bear against other solidarities/unions, in the name of pity and self righteousness are perpetrating atrocity. Those women who bring them to bear and exploit against other peoples, pretending that it is out of sensitivity and compassion ought rather go and live with them in the societies that stem from their nature.

There has been a ramped-up effort since 2008 to identify White activism with “the right” and to join forces, even to the point of amalgam with YKW against “the left”....but if Non-White left ethnonationalists join forces with the Jewish, anti-White program - that Whites are responsible for the world’s problems - all of them! - to the point of wallpapering over White left ethnonationalism, it will be at the loss of one of their greatest potential allies in staving off their becoming a part of an ongoing disaster of Brazilification, for all its human and other ecological disaster - while these people who you rightfully hate get away with it.