By David Yorkshire:
One of the things that has captured my attention recently has been the events in the Ukraine. The reasons why all this has happened are readily evident, of course: the European Union and the USA have joined forces (despite the public facade of mutual animosity) to destabilise the democratically elected Ukrainian government under President Viktor Yanukovych for two main reasons.
The first is to install a puppet government so that the Ukraine’s borders can be further opened up to the globalised system of Leihkapital, which is, in the main, dominated by people of a certain ethnicity. The open borders would see the same flood of third-world immigration Western Europe has seen and the legislation put in place that prevents anyone speaking out against it. This has also been largely at the behest of the aforementioned tribe in question, who, in being a minority group themselves, have benefitted directly from the laws they have shaped, which have put them above all criticism.
The second reason is to isolate Yanukovych’s ally Vladimir Putin, Putin’s politics being the closest possible at the present time, given who is in charge of global and globalist affairs, to White Nationalist governance. Again, one has to ask oneself: which group of people decide America’s foreign policy?
One can easily discern what is going on by the puppet that was put in place as ‘Acting President’: Oleksandr Turchynov. Aside from being involved with the corrupt politician and convicted criminal Yulia Tymoshenko, he has apparently destroyed files documenting Yulia’s involvement with alleged Jewish crime lord Semyon Mogilevich, as well as dossiers on Mogilevich himself.
What was not entirely clear, given all this, was why on earth the groups the mainstream media labelled ‘neo-Nazis’ had gotten themselves involved with the groups of communists, liberals, anarchists and other assorted leftists to bring down an ostensibly right-wing government. I must admit, it was something that left me stumped for a while.
And then the obvious hit me: both Russian and Ukrainian nationalists, no matter how much they have in common, have had a mutual enmity for many years. Russia itself, of course, was formed in the area now known as the Ukraine by a tribe called the ‘Rus’, who gave Russia its name and created a capital in Kiev, now the present-day capital of the Ukraine. In other words, the Ukrainians are more Russian than many Russians, especially when one travels east of the Urals. This explains why the Crimea’s decision to become part of Russia is legitimate. After all, the Crimea was only given over to the Ukraine to administrate in 1954, as a bureaucratic decision when it was part of the Soviet Union.
Yet more recent history divides the same people along cultural lines. The area now known as the Ukraine was oppressed linguistically and culturally during the eighteenth century when under Russian rule. The Ukrainians speak what is effectively a dialect of Russian, which Tsar Peter the Great attempted to stamp out.
Tensions between Russians and Ukrainians were further exacerbated during the Soviet period. The Holomodor is still just within living memory and was largely responsible for many Ukrainians fighting on the German side during the Second World War. Yet the Russians themselves were, in reality, also the victims of the same oppressive regime that was borne of Jewish ideological dogma. Indeed, the two main architects of the Holomodor were not ethnically Russian at all, but a Jew named Lazar Kaganiev and a Georgian who called himself Joseph Stalin.
Just as the Ukrainians and Russians could not see the wood for the trees when they fought each other seventy years ago, so too is that misplaced enmity still evident in the present, with Ukrainian nationalists ever at the throats of Russia and those who display Russian sympathies. It is for this reason that Ukrainian nationalists are misguidedly pro-EU. When the dust clears and the mini-civil war has ended, and the Ukrainian nationalists have served their purpose or been killed off, then the EU legislative machinery will put paid to any talk of nationalism, for it will be made effectively illegal, just as it has here.
Just who brought in this legislative machinery is made perfectly clear in a communiqué dated 17th December 1998 from the Board of Deputies of British Jews:
“The Board has been at the forefront of the development of proposals for race relations legislation in the UK … The Defence Policy and Group Relations Division, which monitors the activities of political extremists and racists, has urged successive governments to enact and strengthen race relations legislation … It has also sought allies and made common cause with other religious and minority groups.
The Board played a fundamental part in urging upon government the first Race Relations Act which was based, in part, on reports prepared for the Board by Professor Geoffrey Bindman and Lord Lester of Herne Hill. Subsequently the Board has provided written and oral evidence to enquiries which preceded the passage of the Public Order Act 1986, the Criminal Justice Act 1994 and the Crime and Disorder Act 1998…
The social climate affecting racism and racial discrimination has also evolved during that period, and many proposals have been put forward for correcting deficiencies or anomalies in the legislation … But there remains some scope for improvement.
We regard the proposals of the CRE (Commission for Racial Equality) for legislative change to be well thought out and substantiated … We are pleased to welcome and endorse the CRE’s published proposals.
In particular we draw attention to proposed 1B, which recommends that the Race Relations Act should apply to all aspects of the activities of Government and all Public Bodies. We would support the extension of the RRA to all government and public bodies. These organisations play a leading role in forming public opinion on social issues …
The Board can also see the case for new legislation to combat discrimination and incitement on religious grounds … We are also shortly to respond to the Government’s request that it might consider introducing specific legislation to outlaw Holocaust Denial …
In addition to changes in the main body of national law, changes are needed in the rules and regulations of many institutions and organisations to decrease or remove discrimination on religious grounds.”
Already, both sides of the media and both sets of politicians are accusing each other of being ‘Nazis’ and the fight for the moral high ground has begun on leftist terms. This kind of historical enmity is not confined to Russia and the Ukraine. On nationalist forums, many South African nationalists can be seen spewing out anti-British venom. Why? Because of the Boer Wars that were fought over a century ago. We have the anti-English pseudo-nationalism of Plaid Cymru and the SNP, based on historical deceits. The parties conveniently neglect to mention that the Welsh Tudors and Scottish Stuarts once sat on the throne of England.
These perceived or imagined historical enmities mask the real enemies of the present. It is not a tartan kilt-wearing army who are grooming children for sex in our Northern former mill towns. Neither was it a gang of flat-cap-wearing Yorkshiremen who tortured young Kriss Donald to death. We have also seen what enemy within opened our borders to our enemies without and who took control of our legislation to disarm the indigenous population against their attackers.
Between white nationalists, there are squabbles between East Europeans and West Europeans, between North Europeans and South Europeans, among Christians, Atheists and Pagans, between royalists and republicans. In fact, if nationalists can find any vague difference, they can find a reason to fall out with each other. Then there are the countless accusations that one organisation or another are not real nationalists. This is the real reason our movement fails.
If the European peoples are to survive into the next century in any meaningful way, more bridges have to be built between the nationalists of the various European nations. Also, we must put aside trivial dogmatic differences and work together for the greater good. I do not mean that people in the UK should embrace the legion of Polish workers that have come to undermine the wage structure and take the jobs of British people, for they are no more nationalist than the money-grubbing stock exchange workers that drink champagne with those of other ethnicities antagonistic to ours. What I am talking about is creating bonds with those who share our values and struggle and it was in this spirit that the magazine Mjolnir was created.
By David Yorkshire © 2014
# # # #
Valhalla Valkyrie
- Edit
Nice article. The communique referenced is very useful.
SerpentSlayer
- Edit
The different groups of Ukrainian Nationalists have differing political views but all of them are against the European Union. I feel this is a point often missed by western commentators. The main question is whether Yarosh intends on permanently working with it’s agents or whether he is focusing his forces on maintaining the breadbasket’s borders before seizing it for himself. Yarosh himself either seems unaware of the Jewish problem, an agent of it or an extreme pragmatist (as Farage and Mademoiselle Le Pen may be) while certain other groups such as c14, the SNA and white hammer are plainspoken in their antagonism towards the world eaters. Perhaps cause for future infighting.
It is a difficult situation.
Baz
- Edit
Great article – divisive title!
Shaun
- Edit
Very good article! I don’t think, however, that Vladimir Putin is on the nationalist side! Although he is independent from the NWO, he follows the Eurasian political philosophy that is defined by the Russian government ruling over a multi-ethnic empire. Putin is also not beyond a bit of government-enforced political correctness. You can’t critize you-know-who in Russia — Putin is probably scared of them!
As for a unity between nationalist? Please, that is impossible! Why fight human nature? I think it is possible to be allies (just about) with nationalists in other countries, but the concept of a unified White race is la-la land — just as much as our current crop of traitors in government thinking that their little multiracial utopia is going to succeed.
Max Musson
- Edit
Unity is always a possibility Shaun. Those that say it can never be are generally those who seek to profit from disunity.
Shaun
- Edit
With all due respect, taking into account that you’re older than me, I have to disagree with the concept of White unity! Although, at a political level, we are almost there with the nationalist part of our race! That sounds like a contradiction, sure. I agree.
What I really mean is this: although it is possible to be allies with other White nationalist movements out there (which is just plan common sense), I don’t see us ever having a common, non-confrontational White identity — I used to believe we could as a younger, more idealistic man. I no longer do.
Even the Jews don’t get on across the borders. They are allies, sure, but they don’t stay to their own groups when they arrive in Israel. The Israeli Jews don’t really like the American Jews; but they are prepared to die for each other against a common enemy. Do you see my point?
Perhaps I’m a cynic! If I am, pay no attention to what I’ve just written.
Max Musson
- Edit
Perhaps the mistake is constantly to look to the Jews as a model for comparison?
Shaun
- Edit
The Jews are a tiny minority of the world’s population and they have managed to almost dominate the Western world. This isn’t to our racial benefit; but many parts of their strategies should be learned from. They don’t even fight their own wars for God’s sack — only us dumb Goys do that!
In my opinion, my friend, our people have got two strategies for our long-term survival: one of them is a mass movement that is organized by intelligent, capable, determined people capable abstract thought (unlike the majority of nationalists out there) and the other option is to build a new culture from within and learn how to function as tribal unit.
You are clearly an intelligent man, but we need more of them — fast!
Max Musson
- Edit
We are doing our best to draw as many intelligent people together as possible.
Shaun
- Edit
Sorry .. I have to say one more thing. In a nationalist movement, all the members should submit their will to the core ideology. If you have people who are just causing trouble — get rid of them. They are no good.
MsBridgit
- Edit
“The singular reason ‘Racism’ in the Western World must be destroyed at all
costs has nothing whatsoever to do with the pretext of an absence or lack of
human morality or the non-acceptance of the anthropological differences of ones
fellow man, it is that Racism is the glue that binds a Nation together.
It is the foundation of the purest form of Patriotism and loyalty to one’s race
that can exist, whether Caucasian, Negro or Oriental. It is the bedrock that
cements devotion among African tribal people, Soldiers of Islam or lost tribes
in the Amazon Forest”.
“There is no other single word that perfectly describes the two noble human attributes of Patriotism and Loyalty. Patriotism is the mortal enemy of the New Order; the New Order cannot exist alongside loyalty to one’s kin. Multi-Culturism is the perfect tool which over time can implement a race’s eventual destruction” ……………….
..Albions Nationalist blog.
sam
- Edit
Exactly my point. I can see you have reached a point of higher intellect than your generic racist or nationalist. Subbed.