Germans in Slavic Lands, Poles and Other Eastern Europeans in Western Europe
When grappling with the extent and length of entanglement of Jewish interests in European affairs, perhaps one can come to appreciate GW’s fastidious concern to separate what is authentic native/nationalist European - and what is not - through his ontology project.
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, September 24, 2014 at 04:01 AM in Activism, British Politics, European Union, Far Right, History, Immigration, Immigration and Politics, National Socialism, White Nationalism
Adding (August 4th, 2014) a definition of Peace (at bottom).
In response to “Flippityfloppity’s” concern regarding definitions
I may have deserved a barb for being a little hypocritically amenable to Anthony’s proposal that Christianity can serve an important constructive function in organizing a guiding and spiritual light for Whites. I was a bit too agreeable perhaps because I like the rest of what he says well enough. Though his including Buddha and Lao Tze into the mix would indicate that he can reach accord with people like me for whom race serves as the organizing spirit and transcendent, religious factor (our legacy being the hereafter). That is probably why I appeared to flip flop a little to accommodate him.
However, introducing Christianity into the mix, with its propensity for a myriad of definitions, including liberal and universal, non-accountability thereof, is problematic.
Regarding definitions, I do not flip flop. But people, including WN, do, especially between definitions of “Left and Liberal.” Basically because they are following an “official” (i.e., convenient to Jews) definition of “the left”, which fluctuates between being liberal and open to all; or specifically open to unions of non-Whites or unions of people with problems; imposed in special admission, inclusion and integration upon Whites under the guise of equality and undoing exploitation.
The chief reason why people might use The Left defined as such is because that definition has gained wide currency as the Jews have largely defined and promulgated the term through academia and the media – that being a confused definition promoted by Jews precisely because it is confusing and because it altercasts us as rightists (who are not necessarily against imposed liberalism, just against “equality” - great, we are accepting the definition of ourselves as elitist pigs, but open to others if they are “better”). The acceptance of this definition and its flip flop between left and liberal is exemplified by the way that the Political Cesspool (among others accepting the definitions, themselves as right, their opponents as left) will flip flop between saying “the left and liberal” in the same broadcast.
Those who accept the rightist altercast and endeavor its position are to blame as much if not more than Jews for enforcing the idea that leftism and liberalism is all about “equality.” That is even worse theoretically than it is descriptively. For as White Leftists, we would be basing discrimination mostly on an assortment and disbursing of qualitative differences, which would be a symbiotic, largely non conflictual basis; not subject to the false comparison that lends to conflict as the phoney “equality non equality” issue engenders. Equality/non-equality is neither sufficiently descriptive or prescriptive - unless, perhaps, you want to instigate what is likely to turn out to be mutually destructive conflict.
We might stay with the confused definition of The Left - as liberalism, advocacy of non-Whites, their equality and imposition on Whites because it has had currency through Jewish media. Then oppose that for obvious reasons, as has been the strategy of almost all WN. However, staying with that definition, just because it has wide currency - despite the fact that it is a disingenuous and confusing definition promulgated by Jews (for the reason that it is confusing and disingenuous as they want us to be “rightists”, to scare people, our own included) and turn people off, our own included, as such, by reflecting that disingen -uousness and confusion through disorganization and denial of accountability - is neither sufficient reason nor compensation for the price paid. It is like saying we should continue to trade in currency that makes Jews wealthy and destroys us. It is counterfeit currency (definition) aimed to circulate to our confusion and detriment.
It is obvious enough that plutocratic, traitorous and well, elitist pigs of any stripe, will conveniently cite “The left” as the great enemy.
I believe you make a good point, that we probably should nail down some definitions and try to make them stick, as best we can, at least here at MR. One trick will be getting people to do this despite me – so that they will not refuse to do it just to spite yours truly. That can be a problem because I am not always most tactful. I understand this motivation to not be ego bullied (for example, I would not use the prefix “Zio” or “Jewish supremacist” in part because Duke proposes it, in addition to the fact that I don’t like the sound). Nevertheless, I maintain that the aim here is not about ego but theoretical accuracy, viz. theory which serves White interests. I do use the following terms consistently and they continue to make perfect sense – that is why I “stubbornly” continue to do so.
These proposed definitions are holding up, making consistent sense of pro and anti White alike.
We must not be so averse to terms and concepts Jews have abused as to fall into the trap of their being didactic as the Jews may want, for us to rebel against what is good for us. This has happened with social constructionism and hermeneutics for example. To where even the Heideggerian notion of hermeneutics would be looked upon as Jewish and Marxist, such that we would not admit of that part of the non-Cartesian process which provides orientation on scientific focus, to allow for that tad of narrative speculation of the not-at-all-times-observable social classificatory boundary of the European biological system and its history (to allow for Heidegger’s admission of the form of the people as necessary as well, an observation by GW that I had missed).
The White Left as:
A social classification and classifying of a people (specifically native European people), legitimizing unionized discrimination against outsiders; accountability to those within; both in positive return on effort and what is brought historically; and in a negative sense against those would-be facilitators of “scabbing” and those elites who might betray the class. This would be in contrast to leftist classification and advocacy of other groups; and certainly in contrast to our universal obligation to include in (our) vital resources (esp. genetic) just anyone who appears to be down-trodden or desirous of entry, including those outside the socially delimited group. This is discrimination against individuals of classifications based on warranted prejudice of the pattern of which they are a part. The White Left would take the White Class as synonymous with the distinct genus of the native European race and its distinct sub-classifications. It is a social taxonomic classifying necessary to accountability and human ecology.
It focuses on qualitative and symbiotic differences while keeping to a minimum false, quantitative comparisons (as opposed to equality/non equality it focuses more on qualitative sameness or difference).
It is decidedly not against private property (may in fact work with the land tax / exemption scheme laid-out by Bowery)
It does not aspire to equal wealth (there can be some people who are significantly more wealthy than others), but does strive after some balance, a middle class and shared leverage on some basic necessities. The point is that the boundaries are maintained. More or less socialism or free enterprise can be flexible according to the particular state.
As a rule, it applies the silver rule to out-groups as opposed to the golden rule.
Thus, it is in contrast to liberalism as applied to non-Whites, which is what racialists normally mean when they say, “the left.”
Beliefs and practices which intimate and can ultimately deviate and rupture reconstruction of the systemic biological pattern, accountable social classifications.
Designating, classifying a social group as a race (a species of people distinctly evolved to circumstances and practices in history, who have discernibly more genetic similarity to themselves than to other human groups) and discriminating accordingly. It is a motivation to separatism, not elitism, exploitation and persecution. This separatist discriminatory motive is more than generally advisable, it is necessary for accountability, human ecology and biodiversity.
The coercive prohibition against classifying people (could be even non-racial classifications) and discrimination accordingly. The coercive imposition of one people upon another, the denial of their freedom of and from association.
As they are defined here, they even make sense of how other people bungle these terms.
This issue probably is worth this main post, as trade in the currency of these terms defined in this way would help a great deal to achieve clarity and direction. These definitions make consistent sense of organizing our people, their requirements and problems.
In my next post, I will attempt to show how modernity, as a pejorative term, does not contradict but contributes to the articulation of what Bowery sees as negative in his definition of “civilization.”
In connection with that, both Migchels and Bowery seem to have a concern to maintain individual integrity as an authentic and distinguishing characteristic among Europeans. GW’s close readings have some similarity there as well.
In that regard I would point them to Harré‘s suggestion that there are two vital aspects to self, and thus to authentic self and individuality, which are 1, the corporeal, embodied, genetic self, having biological requirements, potentials and limits (which you three are concerned to approximate in description of its authentic functioning as closely as possible, un-borrowed from non-native influence) and 2, a narrative self, which is crucial for the matter of coherence, orientation, connection with the systemic whole and history. Now, that narrative self can deviate, even terribly, from the authentic biological interests of the self and system. It is obviously better if it accords well with our biological interests and historical form. I believe the Jewish abuse of hermeneutics is why GW has been a bit averse, and surprisingly, as it is one necessary side of a would-be Heideggerian, hermeneutic process; but then, even MacDonald was averse, apparently for the same reason of Jews having made it didactic.
It is important to note that this hermeneutic view not only permits of individuality, integrity of self, I would argue that hermeneutics is absolutely necessary for it - a coherent, agentive and warranted self. What it does deny is that there is no social relatedness and indebtedness to its make-up, its construction and its constitution; or that one has no accountability for its direction other than “the countenance of Jesus” or some other unverifiable source.
Adding a definition of Peace
I will probably turn this into a post later, but I will propose this definition/ working hypothesis of “peace” in comment here.
Later, I will invite others to contribute to a working hypothesis of peace and correlate it to prior definitions proposed.
Peoples as they correspond with nations, states, regions, localities, mutually respecting and recognizing sovereignty of genetic accountability, prerogative to discriminate and prohibit association accordingly; while those who wish to leave may go to a consenting receiving nation, their return to the people they departed from may be prohibited; their offspring, if any, may be prohibited as well.
Negotiative, persuasive, non-lethal tests are sought as the normal recourse in conflict resolution (lest there be any misunderstanding, miscegenation is not a normal problem requiring negotiation - that is prohibited; expulsion being a softer variant in resolving the problem).
This would include the capacity for a people to maintain its genetic kind and the reasonable capacity for individuals to find an appropriate mate; with that, to have the means to provide for a family that does not require a detrimental number of hours away from family and leisure, is grounds of peace.
Those who overpopulate, burden the world’s ecosystem and create spill over effect - let alone deliberate exploitation or usurpation of other nations’ land - are seen as in violation of the peace.
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, June 22, 2014 at 06:26 AM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Awakenings, Christianity, Conservatism, Crusade against Discrimination in Britain, European Nationalism, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, History, Immigration, Immigration and Politics, Liberalism & the Left, Linguistics, White Nationalism
Texas Arcane: Kwanstainia, UKandia, Kanookistan, and the OZealands
By Robert Reis
I was led to Texas Arcane by a link at http://hawaiianlibertarian.blogspot.com/ .
What follows are excerpts from Texas Arcane’s ruminations at his http://vault-co.blogspot.com/ since 2007.
He has enlightened me and caused me to think about the world in new ways.
Extensive quotations are place between parallel lines, e.g. ===.
Posted by Robert Reis on Wednesday, March 26, 2014 at 01:50 AM in Australian Politics, Awakenings, British Politics, European culture, History, Immigration and Politics, New Zealand Politics, The Proposition Nation, U.S. Politics, White Genocide: America
Let’s start with acknowledged instances of the use of nuclear weapons and some officially unacknowledged ones.
Posted by R-news on Sunday, December 8, 2013 at 03:29 PM in Books, Education, Global Elitism, History, Media, Military Matters, Political analysis, Science & Technology, That Question Again, U.S. Politics, War on Terror, World Affairs
According to Salvador Astucia, the singlemost important reason behind the assassination of JFK was JFK’s attempt to establish détente with the Soviet Union. Let’s see why this was a big issue.
Posted by R-news on Wednesday, November 27, 2013 at 01:54 PM in Books, Economics & Finance, Education, Global Elitism, History, Media, Military Matters, Political analysis, That Question Again, U.S. Politics, World Affairs
J.P. Mroz has written a three-part essay titled Will the Real Wikipedia Please Stand Up?: http://www.ctka.net/2010/wiki.html.
The essay is related to the futility of trying to correct blatant disinformation on Wikipedia pages regarding the JFK assassination. What is the “real Wikipedia” according to Mroz? It’s simply what Wikipedia claims to be: a wiki edited by the general public, and one that maintains a neutral viewpoint. Mroz’s problems at Wikipedia certainly haven’t stemmed from his being in the minority. In the U.S., surveys have shown that two-thirds to three-fourths of the population doesn’t buy the lone assassin/Oswald claim. So how does one explain Wikipedia “neutrality”?
Posted by R-news on Saturday, November 23, 2013 at 03:57 PM in Books, Education, Global Elitism, History, Media, Political analysis, That Question Again, U.S. Politics, World Affairs
The previous parts established that JFK was killed by at least three hitmen: Lucien Sarti and the other two likely François Chiappe and Jean-Paul Angeletti. Hired guns are mercenaries, and have no personal stake in the matter. This part addresses the people who hired these hitmen.
The following factors would’ve motivated the murder of JFK:
Posted by R-news on Friday, November 22, 2013 at 11:28 AM in Books, Education, Global Elitism, History, Media, Political analysis, That Question Again, U.S. Politics, World Affairs
This part addresses the assassins of JFK.
JFK’s would-be assassination was revealed a month before his murder. The revealer was U.S. army cryptographer Eugene B. Dinkin. An early source of this information is Bloody Treason by Noel Twyman, and it’s mentioned in LBJ, the Mastermind of the JFK Assassination by Phillip Nelson. The following excerpts from Nelson’s book are found on pages 360-362:
What happened to Dinkin? From Phillip Nelson we have:
Posted by R-news on Thursday, November 21, 2013 at 02:28 PM in Books, Education, Global Elitism, History, Media, Political analysis, That Question Again, U.S. Politics, World Affairs
The 50th anniversary of JFK’s murder is on Nov. 22, 2013. Some believe that before 9/11, the JFK murder was the greatest game-changing event in the century that has passed. I don’t know whether this assertion is correct, but the event had major significance, and it’s time to take a look at the JFK murder.
Part 1 addresses whether the official story about who killed JFK is correct.
Posted by R-news on Wednesday, November 20, 2013 at 02:01 PM in Books, Education, Global Elitism, History, Media, Political analysis, That Question Again, U.S. Politics, World Affairs
Working hypotheses will be advanced
as to why these logical fallacies are being adopted despite their apparent obviousness;
how they are mistaken;
and remedies will be proposed in cooperative nationalism.
Statements will be set out as hypotheses to allow for efficient positioning of historical viewpoints as they emerge practical in argumentative service of cooperative European nationalism. In addition to the practical efficiency of hypotheses for unburdening detail, the modesty of unfinished claims is meant to facilitate participation from the commentariat to elaborate, correct and amend the hypotheses - i.e., to make optimal use of Majority Rights discussion format.
* Note: in comment number 2, I erred in grammatical present tense when discussing Brelsau (Wroclaw). Which, according to the Treaty of Versailles and through World War II, remained German. There would have been no good argument to that point in time for its not being German.
Posted by DanielS on Friday, October 25, 2013 at 05:22 AM in Demographics, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, European Nationalism, History, Marxism & Culture War, National Socialism, Political Philosophy, That Question Again, The American right, White Nationalism
GW has expressed the constraint:
DanielS has expressed the constraint:
An approach offered by John Harland is to admit the historicity of Jesus in His essential mythic image as descendant of God evidenced in his own over-ruling of texts with direct bodily connection with God as Father, but to deny the historicity of the extant texts—deny them as yet another means by which dastards attempt to interpose themselves between the God-heritage of individuals and their Father, in spirit and flesh.
Ridicule of Harland’s own editing of the texts to suit his view may be conducted only at the sacrifice of the two constraints establishing the context of this presentation. Offer a superior approach if you don’t like Harland’s—either that or declare folly the entire effort to connect with the spiritual force of Christianity.
Click this link for a pdf document containing part of Harland’s account starting with “The Germans” (in the anthropological sense meaning what many identify as Celtic and Nordic pagans of the pre-Christian era), “The Catholic Church Promotes Judeo-Christianity”, “The First Breaking Apart of the Church Serpent” (regarding Henry VIII and Martin Luther), “A Further Break From the Serpent” (regarding the establishment of America), “The Strange Phenomenon of ‘Money-Mad’ Americans” (regarding the closing of the frontier and replacement of Nature and Nature’s God with money-based “culture”), “The American Dream” (the commodification, by conspirators, of the American spiritual renaissance), “The German Reich” (the parallel processes occurring in what became the nation state known as “Germany” during the 1800s leading up to WW I), “The World Picture After WW I” (the situation leading up to WW II) and the concluding section of this pdf document is “The Second World War”.
The entire book is “Word Controlled Humans” by John Harland, ISBN 0-914752-12-X available from Sovereign Press, 326 Harris Road, Rochester, WA 98579 (with which I have no business or personal relationship).
Posted by James Bowery on Wednesday, March 13, 2013 at 08:37 PM in Anthropology, Archeology, Books, Christianity, Conservatism, European culture, History, National Socialism, Political Philosophy, Psychology, Revisionism, Social Sciences, The Ontology Project, U.S. Politics
Something rather wonderful happened last week in London’s Green Park. The long-awaited monument to the aircrew of Bomber Command was unveiled by the Queen in front of some 800 surviving aircrew. It had been funded by private subscriptions and funds from the National Lottery. It is sixty-seven years late, but it is there at last.
For those who are unaware, the post-war Labour government of Clement Atlee chose to deny the boys who had flown in Bomber Command - the boys in their Hampdens, Whitleys and Wellingtons, Stirling, Halifaxes and Lancasters - the customary campaign medal marking their service to the nation at war. The policy of denial was continued in the thirteen years of Conservative government that followed. The bomber aircrew were alone among all those who fought under British arms to be so denied.
The problem, of course, was that the sudden unfolding at the end of the war of the devastation caused to Germany’s cities and towns by the Area Bombing campaign and the USAAF 8th Air Force’s daylight offensive was a huge shock for the political Establishment, and a gift for many ambitious men. The wartime service values of duty, discipline and self-sacrifice were falling away as the nation struggled to find its feet and move forward. In the battle for the new moral centre there could only be one victor - moral universalism - and the treatment accorded at this time to Arthur Harris was a highly visible function of that.
The political exodus from support for Bomber Command fractured national feeling more or less along the lines that pee-cee and anti-racism fracture it today. During the war, aircrew were treated with great affection and generosity by the public. They understood that in the long years from the Battle of Britain to D-Day the strategic bomber was the only means of carrying the war to Germany. The service performed for them by Bomber Command constituted an act of endurance at arms matched in British military history only by the BEF in 1914-18. They, the public, did not shift their opinion as their rulers and “moral betters” shifted theirs. They did not condemn the aircrew because of the excesses of the campaign, or because of the questions over its strategic value. If its results were very terrible then that, too, represented a victory of sorts over the enemy, for the Germans, who sunk their development efforts into jets and rockets, never produced a bomber with the lifting capacity of the Lancaster, or any bomber at all with four engines. Had they done so, they would have used it on Britain’s cities and towns to the same effect.
For nationalists the subject of the Allies’ destruction of urban Germany comes with two large and extremely sore points attached. First, there is the feeling among many, which I do not share, that “the wrong side” won ... the Jewish side, the side of anti-nationalism, of European national destruction. The people who make this wholly utilitarian argument are very often American WNs of German descent. But if pressed on their politics they turn out equally often to be right-liberals (in the English sense of that word).
Second, there is the belief among older British nationalists - the generation who fought (and lost) on the streets to the anti-racist left in the final decades of the 20th century - that National Socialism and like forms of Judaic fantasia are viable and true philosophies in their own right ... indeed, that they are nationalism. If I thought that I’d give up thinking entirely.
I often wonder what kind of national feeling the boys in those bombers, in all their war-will, would have expressed. That, too, is there somewhere in the new monument to them in Green Park, in the folds of the battle-dress, in the set of the jaw and the line of the eye’s gaze. One day before too long, I hope, I shall go there and ponder that.
Hitler’s Unforgivable Crime
During a recent visit to Les Invalides, I encountered a large government sponsored exhibition about the history of the Second World War. The museum’s title for the exhibition was “The War of German Aggression, 1939 -1945.” Nowhere in the exhibition was it mentioned that it was France and the United Kingdom who had declared war on Germany.
Since it was France and Great Britain who insisted on unleashing the most destructive war in human history, the natural question is: why did they do so?
Ireland Worshipping at the Holocaust Shrine
The Irish Independent newspaper published a report on a speech delivered at a new Holocaust exhibition in Dublin on January 23, 2012 by the Justice Minister Alan Shatter. (State ‘did nothing for Jews in WWII’, By Breda Heffernan, The Irish Independent, Tuesday January 24 2012)
Mr. Shatter accused Ireland of turning its back on the suffering of the Jews during World War Two. He proclaimed that the Irish State had lost its “moral compass” during and after the war. He said, “In the period following Hitler coming to power and preceding the Second World War, the doors of this state were kept firmly closed to German Jewish families trying to escape from persecution and death.”
Shatter told his audience that records unearthed by the Minister from the Department of Foreign Affairs while he was researching the period many years ago show that the then Irish Ambassador to Germany, Charles Bewley, recommended the Government refuse visa requests from Jews to protect Ireland from “contamination”.
Shatter was referring to Charles Bewley.
Der Struwwelpeter is one of the most famous German children’s books. Written in 1844 by Heinrich Hoffmann, it consists of 10 illustrated rhyming stories, most of which depict children being subjected to fantastic punishment for misbehaviour. One such story is “Die Geschichte von den schwarzen Buben” (The Story of the Black Boys). In it, 3 boys are punished by St. Nicholas for teasing a negro kid passing the city gates. What follows is my translation of the German. It might sound a bit awkward, but I wanted to keep as much of the original meaning as possible (the English translation changes the story somewhat).
by The Narrator
We often (very often) hear the jingoism “take America back” by all and sundry on both sides of the political/social divide. Particularly on the conservative side we see the notion put forward that The America is somehow far adrift from her foundational roots, as laid down by the Founding Fathers. But is this really the case? Is modern Americanism fundamentally different from 18th century revolutionary Americanism? What would the Founding Fathers think of The America today?
In addressing that, we must first consider what The America is and what The America is not. What The America is not, is a nation. What The America is, essentially, is a religion/empire, with much akin to a Marxist state. And one of the “gifts” which both Marxism and Americanism have bequeathed to the world is the ability to re-define words and even reality itself.
One example of that is the definition of nation. Since the advent of Americanism/Marxism the definition has been completely re-written to the point that it now actually means the complete opposite of what it meant for thousands of years.
As stated, The America is not a nation, which makes such linguistic concoctions as “a nation of immigrants” one of the more profound examples of an oxymoron and generally reflects the intellectual apathy found amongst the populace.
At a time when Capitalism and Marxism were still yet ‘converging’ to form the present day ideology of cheap labor/institutionalized division known as ‘Multi-Culturalism, a terrible event would take place in the US state of Colorado which would seem to encompass all the ingredients of that unfortunate modern ideology.
Large corporations were promoting ‘immigration’ so as to suppress wages and to create a Tower of Babel so that people could not organize themselves.
As part of their campaign to break or prevent strikes, the coal companies had lured immigrants, mainly from southern and Eastern Europe and Mexico. CF&I’s management purposely mixed immigrants of different nationalities in the mines to discourage communication that might lead to organization…
...Most miners also lived in “company towns,” where homes, schools, doctors, clergy, and law enforcement were provided by the company, as well as stores offering a full range of goods that could be paid for in company currency, scrip. However, this became an oppressive environment in which law focused on enforcement of increasing prohibitions on speech or assembly by the miners to discourage union-building activity.
There is a presumed history of things that is taught to most, that even the less powerful from amongst the elites believe…and then there is another history of these events, that only a relative few and powerful know. It is important for those wishing to see not only the preservation of their own people, but the other various peoples of the world as well that make up humanity, to have an excellent grasp of the past so as to see clearly as to what to do in the present. Hence entries here such as this…
The Revolutions of 1848 are suppressed across Europe and many of the revolutionary leaders and those that took part flee their countries. Thousands from Germany that took part in the 1848 revolution there are granted refuge in the United States, amongst them one by the name of Theodore Poesche (1824-1899), a student revolutionary from the University at Halle. Poesche, in cooperation with a person of German ancestry in the US by the name of Charles Goepp, would write a book in 1852 and entitle it The New Rome; or, the United States of the World, which is free and on-line at the linked title, and it would be published in 1853 (seven years before the election of Abraham Lincoln
The book emphasizes five primary points which are as follows and in this order…
1) The separation of the United States and the British Empire is intended to be but ‘temporary’ so as to allow the order of things being established in the New World time to experience its ‘realization’...ie the United States needs time to gain strength. In the future the United States and the British empire will re-unite. (bottom of pg.87 and top of page 88)
2) At the time that the US and UK re-unite, thus forming ‘the Anglo-Saxon Empire’, the center of power of the British Empire will move from England to the United States, ‘its real center’, and the US will ‘take the lead’. (bottom of pg 87 and top of pg 88)
3) The US and UK (‘the Anglo-Saxon empire’), ‘having received its legitimate organization’, will co-jointly conquer and gain control of Germany, and lay hold an ‘unyielding grasp upon the countries of the Germanic confederation’. (bottom of pg 95 and bottom of pg105)
4) Immediately following the conquest of Germany by the US and UK, a struggle will ensue centered upon Europe (in time encompassing the entire globe) between specifically the United States and Russia. The United States will prevail in this struggle with Russia. (pgs 105, 107, & 109)
5) The United States will ultimately acquire ‘the empire of the world’ economically by way of Capitalism. (the entire book)
There is a presumed history of things that is taught to most, that even the less powerful from amongst the elites believe…and then there is another history of these events, that only a relative few and powerful know. It is important for those wishing to see not only the preservation of their own people, but the other various peoples of the world as well that make up humanity, to have an excellent grasp of the past so as to see clearly as to what to do in the present. Hence entries here such as this…
Starting in France, in February of 1848, revolutions would sweep much of Europe. These Revolutions of 1848 would be a major milestone in the construction of the continental super-state then called the United States of Europe and today called the European Union…yet in some places this event is known of well before it takes place. In London, over a year prior, all eyes are upon British Foreign Secretary Lord Palmerston, a person of very high rank in a certain international organization, in regards to shocking pronouncements he has made about the near term future of Europe as a whole as published below in the November 26, 1846 edition of The London Spectator, and republished in the United States on January 2, 1847 in Littell’s Living Age. Even earlier, and reflecting a dysfunctional relationship between the Jewish and a European people, Benjamin Disraeli in his 1844 book Coningsby also seems to speak of these 1848 revolutions.
The most striking occurrence of the week is not an event, but some writing, highly Palmerstonian in its savor. According to this characteristic effusion, all Europe is about to be in commotion. A dark intrigue is seen in every region…You would think there was going to be instant war - in Italy, in Schleswig, in Switzerland, in Poland - everywhere.
In the midst of these revolutions, in March of 1848, The London Times would publish an editorial exhorting Europe to follow the model of the United States as quoted below, italics in original. Editorials in that paper are significant as they have long been seen as a mouthpiece of official British government thought regarding policy, much as the New York Times is in the US regarding the US government…
by David Hamilton
We are led to believe that mass immigration is a blessing to us and that only Enoch Powell and a few narrow-minded and prejudiced people have ever seen danger in it. All decent folk of good will, we are told, have embraced this break in our national continuity as a sign of enlightenment, with people progressing to a higher state of civilisation - that of a one-world utopia made up of coffee-coloured persons.
It has also been presented as an ideological battle between left and right. But, actually, it is between people of common sense and utopian idealists.
Most ordinary people relate to the world by common sense. We who wish to preserve our traditional way of life know how human nature works from our experience of how peoples treat with one another and what they are capable of. We have learned from history how different ethnic groups vie with one another for power and territory. Looking at the world around us, we see that in practice immigration is not assimilation, but the colonisation of our territory.
So the impracticable dream of a multiracial utopia has had to be socially-engineered, which required totalitarian methods. The Utopians see immigrants as essentially good, and if we are nice to them they will be nice to us. But this utopianism does not do away with human nature, and we perceive foreigners being brought in as cheap labour, with idealism just as a smokescreen. If the high-minded ones are so benevolent and moral, why have their plans been underhand, we ask. And why the public infamy for those who foresaw danger in just letting it happen?
Almost 70 years ago, thick storm clouds were gathering over Europe. Clouds which were not only Wehrmacht grey, however. French negotiators were trying to convince Poland to allow the Soviet army to march through for an attack on Germany. ‘World War II was the inevitable result of Versailles’ is a fairly widespread meme that the tenders of the Multicult have allowed to survive. Another common meme is that Germany, without justification, invaded Poland in 1939, forcing the Good War upon the Western (and eventually, Bolshevik) powers. These memes would seem to contradict one another. How could it be without justification and yet have been inevitable? Is it because Germans are just that nasty and vengeful? Of course, there are all sorts of other memes to help reconcile the absurdity of such otherwise necessary assumptions.
One of the few advantages of being demonized and marginalized is that it forces one to produce high quality work in order to gain whatever measure of respectability is still possible. This is particularly true in the highly charged anti-Nazi atmosphere poisoning the German biosphere, where every Gutmensch has his Mjöllnir ready to fire with righteous lightning on anyone who says the wrong thing about National Socialism and the events of World War II (details or otherwise). One such producer of high quality work is General Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof. His book ‘Der Krieg, der viele Väter hatte’ (The War With Many Father) has sold (as of 2007) over 30,000 copies and is in its 6th edition. Much of the information contained in his book is also available on his website (unfortunately, only in German). In the run-up to the 70th anniversary of the start of the war, he has been writing a series of essays in Junge Freiheit, a ‘New Right’ weekly paper in Germany. Although I suspect much of what he says is well known by many here, I thought it would be interesting and worthwhile to provide a translation of these articles for those who are not as familiar with the background to the war. It might be a better conversation starter at the family BBQ than other aspects of the war which are often discussed in these circles. There are also historical lessons on the dangers of forcing different peoples into shared living space.
World War II is not conceivable without the Allies’ negotiations after 1919
The Treaty of Versailles produced, along with many other difficulties, three results that would strain the relationship between Germany and Poland. Firstly, Danzig was separated from Germany and declared a partly sovereign state (the Free City of Danzig), despite the fact that 97% of the population was German-speaking [Rhonhof does not always think in racial/ethnic terms, but I would imagine that these were also ethnically German]. The mortgage, written by the victors into the founding document of the city, was that Poland was to be given custom, postal, rail, and trade privileges in Danzig, as well as being the international representative for the city. Apart from that, the city was to be the protectorate of the League of Nations, i.e. the victors themselves. The construction of a small state with tripartite sovereignty in itself was creating a powder keg.
By the first half of the 18th century it is fully realized by several European powers that North America, with its vast resources and geographical position, is ideally situated for the projection of global power. With Spanish influence in the Americas on the wane, and French defeat looming at the hands of the English in the French and Indian War of 1754-63, plans are made for strategic purposes to move the center of power of the British Empire from England to North America. A twenty mile wide channel is nice for defense and protection, an ocean thousands of miles wide on one’s either flank is much, much, better. However, the 1776 North American Revolution would seem to have precluded these plans…or did it?
Trilateral Center of the New World Order
“The United States is the Trilateral Center—both for the Americas, and for the world’s other continents. It was designed to be the Trilateral Center for the rest of the world’s nations. And there’s a geographical reason for that: The Americas are situated in the middle of the globe between the world’s other strategic continents. Thus, potentially the United States can reach out either of its arms—the Western arm, toward Asia, or the Eastern arm, toward Europe, to aid and influence foreign affairs.
In Spring 2001, and again in Spring 2002, the United States took steps closer to the goal of achieving what can be called “Camerica”—a zone of closer cooperation between Canada, the United States of America, Mexico, Central America, and South America. The Monterey, Mexico summit in March 2002 further encouraged Mexico, Central, and South America to develop democratic principles in accordance with those advocated by the international community that is the New World Order….
A next, further step in the emergence of the Camerica region—the expanded Trilateral Center—was explored in 2001-2002, also: the cooperation of a large interAmerican, intercontinental free trade zone stretching all the way from Canada to Mexico (and potentially to South America), with the United States of America anchoring the center and occupying the middle position between the upper North American and Central-South American regions. Eventually, this may lead at some point in the future to a possible political alliance or confederation between the nations of the American continents (collectively, Camerica: Canada + the rest of North America, Central America, and South America). In the economic, political, ideological, and military regard, the United States would then serve as the Trilateral Center for the Americas—as it has already fulfilled the goal of being the Trilateral Center for the world through the exportation of its democratic ideology, its trade, its political/legal advisers, and, in the post-World War II era, its military advisers and peacekeeping troops. The United States of America serves as the command center and headquarters of the New World Order; it is the Trilateral Center. And its new American empire secured its beginnings through a war involving a clash of two empires: the Great War for Empire that was fought in the mid-eighteenth century…”
Some time back I came across this curious site. While many amongst the sites article’s are rather mundane and not particularly interesting, a hand-full stuck out like the proverbial sore thumb and seemed quite incongruous with the rest, having some very unusual terms in the titles such as ‘Camerica’, ‘trilateral center’ and that much overused one ‘new world order’. Seeing those terms at the time I smiled a bit, as probably about 95% (or more, though not all) of such writings are off the wall, over the top, mistaken, or faulty in some manner. However, upon looking a bit closer, I found that the person who operates the site and had these articles written (if he did not write them himself) was not denouncing these subjects, as is usual, but rather clearly was an advocate. He did not condemn these things, but lauded instead. And some unusual subject matter it is. He takes an in depth look at the history of British North America and its relationship with the British Empire in the decades just prior to the 1776 Revolution from angles rarely (if ever) seen. He also writes of the nature of the Revolution and of the nature of the United States itself. In much of the writing there seems to be almost an undercurrent of boasting, as if someone from a family once quite powerful, but now much reduced in its station and circumstances, was ‘showing off’ by way of revealing secrets long held. The operator of the site has his reasons for this pride, for he is a member of the Jonathan Belcher family, historically one of the most powerful of British North America of the 18th and 19th centuries. Below is a brief biography of the family patriarch, Jonathan Belcher, and a brief description of the Belcher family as a whole.
Here and there at this site, in the near future, I’ll be posting excerpts from some of these articles accompanied with a brief summary of what the author seems to be trying to say and a link to the original source. I will call these ‘the Belcher papers.’ They provide much food for thought, and the reader can make of them what he will. It has to be said, though, were someone to have a great knowledge about these things, it would be someone from a family such as the Belchers.
As a bit of an aside, the Belcher family descendant which operates the site, makes the claim that the shield (the Escutcheon) of the United States which appears in front of the eagle on the Great Seal is almost certainly modeled upon the Belcher coat of arms in honor of his family. At the center bottom of the portrait of Jonathan Belcher above, commissioned and completed decades before the founding of the US, the Belcher coat of arms is visible, and it does indeed have quite a similarity with the US shield.
*Timber from one of the British explorer’s ships, the HMS Resolute, would be used to manufacture a massive oaken desk which was then presented to US President Rutherford B. Hayes as a gift by Queen Victoria in 1877. Called “the Resolute Desk”, most US Presidents (including the present one) have used it as their Oval Office desk ever since.
**A quick search of the phrase ‘Jonathan Belcher, the first native-born American’ will tell you what that organization was.
In the course of centuries it is sometimes forgotten that the American Revolution of 1776 was fully intended to be spread worldwide. It was a revolution of a radically new understanding of the self (ie man the individual and his place in relationship to the universe) which was intended to wholly replace the understanding of old. An economic philosophy, based largely upon Adam Smith’s book The Wealth of Nations (published in 1776) eventually having the name Capitalism, would in time be a part of this Revolution as well. The US Constitution, as the idea of this worldwide revolution evolved, was to be the foundation document for a constellation of Republics that was to span the globe and incorporate all peoples. The means to spread this Revolution, besides thru the publication of media, was primarily by the direct annexation of lands that had been purchased, ceded, or conquered, to the United States. Examples of this were the attempts to annex/conquer Canada in 1775 (the invasion of Canada) and in 1782 (peace negotiations with Britain and the idea proposed then to cede Canada to the US) and in the War of 1812 (invasion of Canada), the Louisiana Purchase from France (1803), the ceding of Florida by Spain (1819), the ceding of the Oregon Territory by Great Britain (1844), the annexation of Texas (1845), the conquest/purchase/annexation of the North American far west from Mexico (1845-48), the Gadsen Purchase from Mexico (1853), the purchase of the Alaskan Territory from Russia (1867), various quasi-private ventures (with strongly suspected US government support) to invade Central America and Cuba thru-out the 1800’s and culminating in the US invasion (and what amounted to economic annexation) of Cuba, and the conquest/purchase/ceding/ annexation of the Phillipines, Puerto-Rico, and Guam from Spain in the Spanish-American War (1898), and lastly Hawaii’s annexation (1898).
By the time of the Mexican-American War of 1845-48 this process described would have acquired a name…“Manifest Destiny”...which was the belief that in time all of North America would be a part of the United States. Sometimes, quite a bit less often, Manifest Destiny would refer to the idea of annexing the states of South America in addition to North America, and much less oftener still the term would refer to the annexation by the US of the Far East (ie Japan, China, Phillipines, etc.), in addition to that of the Americas.
A term that also began appearing in the 1840’s and that went beyond “Manifest Destiny” in describing the wholeness of the world-wide revolution being promoted was “The United States of the World” of which are some examples below which appeared, amongst others, in the media of the nineteenth century…
From a history book regarding the state of Deleware published in 1870…
“But even should its stormy waves in the lapse of eventful time totally destroy our State; wash away both hill and plain and leave not a vestige of its territory, save what was covered by its waters, Deleware would still live in history and the minds of men; from the glorious deeds of her sons in the Revolution, and from her being the first to adopt the constitution of what will be the greatest and mightiest nation the world has ever seen, which now known as the United States of America, may hereafter be the United States of the world. The mortal body of our State may be destroyed, but its soul will live, “till time is old, and hath forgot itself….”
“This consolidation of territory also enabled us to show a united front to Great Britain, when we threw off her yoke, declared our independence, and formed the mighty Republic of the United States of North America, which who shall say hereafter may not be the United States of the World.
From a book describing British visiters to the United States and their commentary published in 1864. This is an excerpt from the book and an accompanying reference it makes, both of which are insightful…
“What is more befitting for us Englishmen, than to watch with intense study and deepest sympathy the momentous strivings of this noble people? It is the same fight we are fighting - the true and absolute supremacy of Right. Surely nothing can more beseem two great and kindred nations, than to aid and comfort one another in that career of self-ennoblement, which is the end of all national as well as individual existence.”*
*“The stupendous greatness of England is factitious, and will only become natural when that empire shall have found its real centre: that centre is the United States.” The New Rome; or, The United States of the World (New York, 1843).
A remarkably bold and comprehehensive theory of American progress, unity, and empire, by Theodore Porsche and Charles Goepp - one an Americanized German, the other a Teutonic philosopher. In this little treatise [ed. The New Rome] the geography, politics, races, and social organization of the United States are analyzed, and shown to be “at work upon the fusion of all nations - not of this continent alone, but of all continents - into one people.”
An excerpt from an article published in May 1898 which sought “An Anglo-American Understanding”...
“Let us suppose, then, that Great Britain and the United States were to enter into an alliance involving these three elements: first, absolute reciprocity of trade; second, a tribunal to which should be referred for settlement, as a matter of course, all question arising between the two nations, as now all question arising between the various States of this Union are referred to the Supreme Court of the United States; third, a mutual pledge that an assault on one should be regarded as an assault on both, so that as towards other nations these two would be united as the various States of this Union stand united toward all other States. Such an alliance would include not only our own country and the British Isles, but all the colonies and dependencies of Great Britain - Canada, Australasia, and in time such provinces in Asia and Africa as are under British domination and administration. It would unite in the furtherance of a Christian civilization all the Anglo-Saxon people, and all the peoples acting under the guidance and controlling influence of Anglo-Saxon leaders. It would gradually draw into itself other people of like minds though of foreign race, such as, in the Far East, the people of Japan. It would create a new confederation based on principles and ideas not on tradition, and bounded by the possibilities of human development, not by geographical lines. It would give a new significance to the motto E Pluribus Unum, and would create a new United States of the World of which the United States would be a component part.”
Lastly, a quote from a journal published in 1859 advocating the “acquisition” of Cuba. Though this quote does not use the term it does quite accurately define what the idea of “The United States of the World” was intended to be.
“The nation owes to the Democratic party its greatness, progress, and prosperity, and through its irresistable power will yet be planted upon every quarter of this vast continent, and ultimately, throughout the globe, the American theory of local and independent sovereignty of States, with dissimilar social organizations, existing and prospering in political union and brotherhood, each moving harmoniously in its own sphere, and all revolving with unerring precision within the orb of our Magna Charta - the Constitution of the United States.”
However, before the new revolutionary government in North America had even started building its capital city Washington DC (1791) an event would take place across the Atlantic that would greatly complicate the planned for worldwide revolution of the self…
White Genocide Project
Also see trash folder.
Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.
Endorsement not implied.
Nationalist Political Parties
Whites in Africa