Category: Political analysis
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
As has happened with every such event in the past, I experienced a deep disquiet when the news of the Washington Navy Yard shootings hit the wires on September 16th. Yes, a large military base close to the seat of American government seemed just as likely a target for the usual Moslem suspects as the Boston Marathon, and in the event it was a politically irrelevant black psycho. But what if it had been a white man with a private arsenal and the regulation “links to white supremacist groups”? What if some disturbed half-wit had hit out for the cause at the cost of a dozen completely innocent lives?
Obviously, the implications for WN would have been serious and harmful. Yet more moral obstacles to its appointment with history would have been piled up. Yet more scrutiny from the security state would be brought to bear. Yet more certain would be the path of dispossession and marginalisation which our people are treading.
But what if we turn the “what if” question around? What if strikes against the Establishment were systematic and serial. What if they were embedded in the context of a violent revolutionary or “urban guerilla” struggle, and did not generate the same revulsion and alienation in the popular mind, or a least a significant part of it?
In essence, what are the conditions under which extra-legal action in the people’s cause engenders enough popular moral, financial, and logistical support to maintain the prosecution of military objectives over a period of decades, if necessary?
Putting aside the problem of how such action could be organised and executed in the modern security state when nationalism is so controlled and weak, which others have addressed, I think it is interesting to look at some of the structural constraints which operate in European and North American societies.
This post is a response to a multi-part question posted by Ex-ProWhiteActivist on the after Eastliegh thread. I am only setting out the four possible paths that UKIP can go, or be driven, down. In the conclusion I will also reply to another multi-part question asked on the same thread by Leon Haller.
The path to marginalisation
... is the Conservative Party’s preferred outcome for UKIP. Conservative MPs and party managers seem to believe that it is in the gift of the party to engineer it (which it isn’t if the UKIP phenomenon is fundamentally a rage against the political class). Conservatives must, of course, believe in the marginalisation thesis or they have to relinquish all hope of a 2015 election victory.
In reality, though, there is little hope. First, quite without the UKIP problem, the Conservative Party is in terminal decline electorally. Eddie George has turned out to be right when he said in 2010, prior to the General Election, that the party which entered government would be picking up a poisoned chalice, given the unpopular decisions that would have to be taken to pay-down sovereign debt. He may have signalled some small change in that last week, with the BoE’s forecast of growth. But the damage is done. The coalition government has served only to confirm the public in its contempt for the political class. Even prior to the UKIP explosion, Opinion polls have shown support for the Conservatives only hovering around 30%. The first ICM survey after the local authority elections had them at 28% as UKIP surged to a new high of 18%, since when a (possibly rogue) Survation poll has put them at 24% and UKIP at 22%. The Conservatives will not recover popularity now and the Prime Minister will not suddenly become liked or respected (though he may be replaced by someone who is).
Second, this bleak picture masks a bleaker crisis in the Conservative election machine itself. Local association membership has halved in a decade, and it is the younger and more energetic members who are deserting fastest. Conservative activism is grey-haired and suffers joint pain in many areas of the country. It is also outrageously abused by the leader’s inner circle as well, of course, as utterly confused by their liberal metropolitan appetites. Yet, to be in any position to form a government in 2015, the party must fight an aggressive campaign on the ground and win votes off the other parties. Lose their own core constituency to UKIP and that’s it. They can’t get back from that.
Given the ‘ecological turn’ recently in this corner of cyberspace I recalled a thought that I had some time ago on using ecological concepts heuristically in connection to political analysis.
How could a nationalist government, operating more or less within the moral standards of Western democracies, persuade the millions of the immigrant populations to return to their own lands? Here are a few possible policy initiatives, in the UK context.
1. Leave EU, ending right of abode of EU citizens.
2. End immigration completely.
3. Enforce existing law on illegal immigrants.
4. Repeal all race legislation. Restore full freedom of speech and association.
5. Give work permits to some immigrants in reserved occupations.
6. ID register all ethnic minority respondees to the 2011 Census. Those found to be non-respondees to the Census to be declared illegal.
7. Favour indigenous applicants in all public sector employment and in university selection.
1. Ban polygymy.
2. Ban animal slaughter without stunning.
3. Ban genital mutilation.
4. Ban mosque development.
5. End public funding and charitable status of all non-Christian faith schools and minority groups.
6. Retrospectively declare all post-war asylum cases illegitimate.
7. End welfare payments to UK accounts of minority claimants.
1. Offer re-settlement grants scaled according to length of time in the UK, with a validity of three years but with the sum declining by one third each year.
2. Offer short-term welfare paid in the country of destination.
3. Offer training and business development grants, again paid in the country of destination.
4. Tie overseas aid wholly to acceptance of returnees by the destination countries, where required.
On 22 July, 2011, Israel commemorated the 65th anniversary of the King David Hotel’s bombing in Palestine, by exploding bombs in Oslo, killing 8, and shooting dead 69 on Utøya Island. Israelis picked Norway for the celebrations because she had increasingly become sympathetic toward Muslims and in favor of a Palestinian State. Professor Ola Tunander concurred that only a State-level entity equivalent has the capability of pulling off such an operation, and this wouldn’t be the Norwegian administration slaughtering relatives on Utøya Island. Tunander knows Israel did it, but to avoid the heat, hinted at it, saying that some have suggested it was Israel’s handiwork. Given Tunander’s academic credentials, the mainstream media decided to keep Tunander’s analysis and the Israeli condemnation of it out of the Anglosphere.
At first it wasn’t clear whether the mysterious individual blamed for the attacks, Anders Behring Breivik, was a scapegoat or patsy. But the cues were there though overlooked by many. One clue was Anders Breivik’s amazing beard, capable of changing within seconds.
Posted by R-news on Sunday, July 22, 2012 at 01:35 PM in European Nationalism, Far Right, Global Elitism, Liberalism & the Left, Marxism & Culture War, Media, New Right, Political analysis, Popular Culture, Psychology, Social liberalism, That Question Again, White Nationalism, World Affairs
Another atrocity that didn’t take place in Syria, but in Burma, being passed off as the work of the Assad regime. The page, featured at an Egyptian website, had a million likes. You know who’s behind this.
Much more on the warmongers and their lies:
ZionCrimeFactory, one of the people behind the prothink network I recently promoted, has taken issue with the claim that international bankers funded Hitler and the NSDAP into power. He said:
Let’s look at the matter.
Posted by R-news on Wednesday, July 11, 2012 at 11:10 PM in Economics & Finance, Marxism & Culture War, National Socialism, Political analysis, Revisionism, That Question Again, World Affairs
Muad’Dib has released an updated version of his movie 7/7 RIPPLE EFFECT, to commemorate the 7th anniversary of the July 7, 2005, London bus and tube bombings. The first version of 7/7 Ripple Effect made a clear case for people with inside access perpetrating 7/7, not Muslims. Muad’Dib sent copies of this video to the courthouse trying to prosecute innocent Muslims over the 7/7 bombings. The police arrested him for “perverting the course of justice.” Muad’Dib sought refuge in Ireland and spent over a year and a half fighting extradition to England.
Some of this ended up in the news. They exposed his identity as John Hill, and tried to trash him because of his unusual religious beliefs, never addressing any of the arguments in his video.
Muad’Dib lost his legal battles in Ireland and was taken to England, in shackles, by anti-terrorist police. No record was made that he was imprisoned, and only clamor by his supporters got him registered as an inmate, but only briefly, and he was granted bail after 4 months in jail, after the prison service kept making “mistakes” or “forgetting” to bring Muad’Dib to his own court hearings. Muad’Dib learned that many people had mailed his video to the courthouse, to prevent innocent Muslims from being scapegoated, but none of these were arrested because they were just mailers; Muad’Dib was the one who produced the video.
Muad’Dib attempted to challenge the court’s/British legal system’s lack of jurisdiction, but this was brushed aside. Muad’Dib’s trial has to be one of the most absurd instances of prosecutorial misconduct. Even the Judge summarized the case against Muad’Dib with gross distortions, redefining words, disallowing evidence by the defense and assigning statements to Muad’Dib that he never made. But the case was such a farce that the jury returned a not guilty verdict. See summary of Muad’Dib’s ordeal.
Muad’Dib was using the domain jforjustice.co.uk, but this domain is apparently in the process of being seized.
Now who were these people with inside access to perpetrate the 7/7 bombings? 7/7 wasn’t masterminded by those racially English. People don’t do something like 7/7 to their own, and England had nothing to gain from 7/7, only things to lose: deaths, injuries, fear, hatred, emotional trauma, legislation to further undermine civil liberties, deeper involvement in foreign wars, debt. The only people who stood to gain from it were the ones who benefited from having English soldiers go around the world fighting and killing Muslims. Only one racial group had the means, the motivation, the solid credentials to pull off false flag operations, and the need for 7/7.
To download the DVD of the movie (follow the first link above to watch online):
Posted by R-news on Saturday, July 7, 2012 at 12:32 AM in Awakenings, Islam & Islamification, Jewish Diaspora, Media, Political analysis, That Question Again, War on Terror, World Affairs
Much has been written on the deterioration of public school education and television programming over the last few decades. These amount to an attempt to dumb down the population.
The MSM would have the public believe that a Head of State was using an ordinary email service provider, based in the U.S. [New York], to discuss personal matters and matters associated with the State. The MSM would also have the public believe that this Head of State used this email service even though he knew that the U.S. administration is hostile to Syria and there’s a nuclear-armed hostile neighbor, Israel, that would love to get its hands on the President’s emails, which the Mossad surprisingly didn’t hack much earlier. The MSM would also like the public to believe that this Head of State, fluent in three languages, highly educated and a promoter of internet services in Syria, did all this in spite of having “a degree of awareness of web security”:
Deleting emails as soon as they arrive shows a degree of awareness of web security. So too did the fact that Assad never attached his name or initials to any of the emails he sent. However, many of the emails that arrived in his inbox are addressed to him as president and contain intimate details of events and discussions that were not known outside of the inner sanctum and would have been very difficult to manipulate. (source)
Only a dumbed-down people could be sold such a tale. The contents of the emails unsurprisingly make the case Israel wants to make.
The President’s wife apparently spent tens of thousands on chandeliers and candlesticks. Now where have we heard this before? Marie Antoinette was accused of “indulgence” when Moses Mendelssohn, Jew, commissioned a London jeweler to create a 250,000-livres diamond necklace, which was delivered to her. This was quickly followed by accusations of adultery. One thing led to another, the masses started disliking the royalty, and the French revolution was on. When France burned, Marie Antoinette was said to have stated that if the people don’t have bread to eat, let them eat cake. Jewish liars are doing the same thing today that they did during 1788-1799 in France: Asma al-Assad is living a high life, oblivious to her country burning around her!
In the leaked emails, Assad is said to have received advice from Hezbollah and the Iranian government, a nexus that Israel has been making the case for. Assad even describes his promised reforms as “rubbish laws of parties, elections, media....”!
One of the emails shows President Assad corresponding with Luna Al-Chebel, a Syrian anchor who resigned from Al-Jazeera, a TV network operating under the auspices of Jews, having had her fill of their lies and not wanting to be a participant in promoting these lies, which she later talked about in public. Luna Al-Chebel used her hotmail account, and President Assad had no issues sending correspondence to a hotmail account! Native Arabic speakers quickly determined that the people who fabricated this correspondence aren’t native Arabic speakers.
And how did the leaks come to light? The Guardian tell us that initially the Syrian opposition had gotten hold of the emails and were monitoring them, but the hacker group Anonymous hacked into the Syrian ministry of public affairs’ website and trawled through more than 80 email addresses stored on the ministry’s server, and “Somehow, someone searching through the ministry’s emails was able to establish that the Sam email belonged to the president.”
The affair is a kosher fabrication, and Anonymous, being the Jewish-funded entity it is, won’t renounce the “credit” where credit isn’t due.
Posted by R-news on Monday, July 2, 2012 at 08:49 PM in Islam & Islamification, Media, Military Matters, Political analysis, That Question Again, War on Terror, World Affairs
On the right is a Syrian “protester” carrying a poster of a dead child, captioned “Bashar Al-Assad’s Reforms.” At left is the source of the picture, a Yemeni news report on Muhammad Abdullah Yousuf Al-Saedi, a child from Yemen murdered in Yemen.
The warmongers must surely wish that they’d achieved regime change in Syria before the internet revolution.
Posted by R-news on Thursday, June 28, 2012 at 06:06 PM in Islam & Islamification, Media, Military Matters, Political analysis, That Question Again, War on Terror, World Affairs
The usual suspects have been itching to attack Syria and replace the Assad regime with one compliant with their goals. Why is this our problem? Because they’ll use our military apparatus and our people to do the dirty job, for which they’ll make us borrow money to pay for the military equipment and armed forces, and they’ll create this money out of thin air and demand we pay it back with interest, and after war there will be a refugee problem for us, and we’ll be left with fewer allies against these scum who create havoc in our nations and the rest of the globe... it goes on and on.
Because of the seriousness of the matter, it’s high time MR had a series on the phony “evidence” these Godforsaken creatures have been inundating us with to build the case for attacking Syria. Here’s something for starters.
The dailymail.co.uk had this feature on “Syria’s steroid-mad ‘Ghost’ killers who keep Assad in power by slaughtering women and children,” as in the 108 people they allegedly massacred in Houla.
The evidence offered comprises of piss-poor, pathetic, worse-than-amateur attempts at digitally edited/photoshopped images that wouldn’t pass cursory examination by anyone having superficial familiarity with image editing and human anatomy: notice the blurring where the editing has taken place; remarkable development of the biceps brachii without corresponding development of its synergist, the brachialis, and at stark odds with the relatively poor development of the deltoids; the curious instance of steroids bulking the triceps brachii such that professional male bodybuilders are put to shame but having a weak effect on the torso; etc. Unsurprisingly, dailymail.co.uk isn’t accepting comments on the article.
The creature shown is conveniently named Areen Al Assad. These evil liars need to be exposed and driven out of our nations.
Posted by R-news on Tuesday, June 26, 2012 at 10:47 PM in Islam & Islamification, Media, Military Matters, Political analysis, That Question Again, War on Terror, World Affairs
Harold Armstead Covington (born September 14, 1953 in Burlington, North Carolina) is an American white supremacist, political activist, and novelist. He advocates the creation of an “Aryan homeland” in the Pacific Northwest region of the United States.
In 1974, he worked for a construction company in Johannesburg, South Africa for about six months, and then went to Rhodesia and joined the Rhodesian Army. In 1976 he was deported from Rhodesia for his activities with the proto-NS Rhodesia White People’s Party, along with two of his fellow Americans, Eric Thomson and Jeffrey Spencer. He was deported on the personal orders of Ian Smith.
In 2000, Covington came out openly for territorial White separatism in the form of the Northwest Imperative.
The Northwest Imperative is based on the conviction, that the United States of America in its present form is doomed, and that it is necessary to the physical survival of the White race that a Homeland be established.
[submission by Genotype]
Murray’s thesis is higher cognitive abilities lead to greater economic productivity and thus higher salaries. This is merely an update to Ayn Rand‘s update to Horatio Alger’s “rags to riches” legends.
Murray and his jewish employers at AEI have two transparent goals:
1.Describe what anyone with an IQ > 90 can see has happened and continues to happen economically.
2.Gain control of the discourse by eliminating all references to “The Other” from the universe of permitted explanations for #1.
The undergrad degree data don’t support Murray’s proposed explanation for the Great Divide. Undergrad science and engineering majors that might lead to advanced science degrees are grossly underrepresented in the 1% group. They are so underrepresented that this data alone falsifies Murray’s primary explanation.
“Biology” obviously serves as a proxy for “pre-med.” Humanities majors of the kind that comprise “pre-law” curriculums are heavily over-represented. History, “economics,” and political science are obvious pre-law programs. What to make of zoology and physiology, except failure to make the cut for “pre-med”? Note that mathematics and physics are on the bottom. Computer science and mechanical/electrical/civil engineering didn’t make the list.
Posted by R-news on Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 06:59 PM in Blogs & Blogging, Economics & Finance, Education, Global Elitism, Political analysis, Social Sciences, That Question Again
I’ve taken flak for describing Ron Paul as controlled opposition. Here I’ll discuss his stance on money. I was pointed to the following overview of Ron Paul on the money issue to correct my alleged misrepresentation of his stances.
Ron Paul argues against more regulation [on the part of the government] and pitches for a free market economy by saying that the Fed should not be given more power, whereas giving the Fed more power means less regulation by the government as the Federal Reserve banks are fully private; the more power the Fed has, the greater the influence of the “free market.”
Ron Paul addresses the housing bubble by saying that Congress and the Fed encouraged the housing industry... finally the bubble burst and “we” [government] try to [pursue stupid policies] such as stimulating the housing market, cash for clunkers.... as a result “we” have no confidence in the market economy.
Reality check: the housing bubble and its busting was caused by the bankers a.k.a. the “free market”:
Boom: generously give out loans, which are funded out of nothing, to earn interest off of nothing...
Laughing all the way to the bank: make money by selling debt that can’t be paid off to investors, make money by selling insurance against the probability of defaults, make money by gambling on the probability of defaults...
Bust: loan less and cause a recession; acquire houses for pennies on the dollar.
Another reality check: The only money created by the government comprises of coins. Stimulating the housing market and cash for clunkers is just the bankers getting the government and hence the people more under debt.
Teasers aside, here’s my review of 2083: A European Declaration of Independence, and more. I’m not posting it below because I intend to revise it.
NO OFF-TOPIC COMMENTS, please, and stick to the facts and fact-based inference.
Posted by J Richards on Monday, September 5, 2011 at 08:18 PM in European Nationalism, Far Right, Islam & Islamification, Marxism & Culture War, Media, Political analysis, That Question Again, White Nationalism, World Affairs
Graham Lister sent me a link today to a YouTube page full of videos of Chris Hedges, the journalist, author and jeremiah of American liberalism, democracy, education ... you name it. Everything but white America - he is definitely not racially conscious. His comprehension of nationalism appears to rest on his understanding, inevitably, of National Socialism and of his personal experiences as a journalist amid the sorrows of the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s.
Nonetheless, Hedges is an interesting case ... a liberal, even a leftist, an AGW supporter, fundamentally a Christian moralist, but a man with an analysis that, once, would have been a hot ticket among the educated young. In the 1960s such anti-Establishmentarianism was in high demand. Now, according to Hedges, elite universities in America are corrupted by corporation money, and exist not only to churn out narrow, unquestioning future managerialists and plutocrats. All across the rest of the system, he says, the humanities are under pressure. Creative thought will not be required in post-industrial, post-white America.
He offers no reprieve. He says the banking and corporate interests have won their war against us. He fears that, from the social chaos and impoverishment which is taking hold only bad will come.
This video is of a lecture he gave to publicise his book, Death of the Liberal Class. At 55mins it’s long, but there is interest throughout.
by Graham Lister
Firstly sorry once again I seem to have been somewhat ranting impolitely in the comments section. And I don’t mean to be snotty to other commentators but sometimes I’m typing before thinking ‘how might this come across’. However, I thought it might be interesting to give a brief outline of the genesis of my views on some pressing issues.
I definitely think that both ontological and normative issues are very important. Any ethical framework that results in voluntary self-destruction cannot be right. My own baseline view is this – I don’t want to live in a society in which my ethnic group is in a minority or anything approaching that status. Even if those replacing my group were ‘better’ I would not care. At the most basic functional level of analysis the worry is that a formally dominate group will be at a permanent structural disadvantage with regard to political power in shaping their ‘former’ society, which would have new and very deep sources of sociological cleavages/conflict/resentment (and a likely undermining in any notions of the common-good). It could be little green men from Mars, the issue is being systematically disadvantaged by another group which is likely to display intra-group loyalty and inter-group rivalry/animosity. Of course it seems a reasonably good working hypothesis, in my view, that generally the more ethnically distal and undeniably ‘different’ competing groups are, then more intense the cleavages are and the worst any inter-group rivalry would be.
I’d call my baseline position something like ‘ethnocentric communitarianism’.
Why that? Well in ethnically homogenous societies one major source of potentially destructive and very negative socio-political cleavage is removed. There is only an ‘in-group’ viz ethnicity as a major axis of socio-political variation/friction doesn’t arise. If high levels of linguistic, religious, cultural homogeneity also exist as well then the likely outcome is a more coherent, communitarian society with high social-capital such as Norway. However, the flip side is that if ‘diversity’ is pushed too far along ethnic lines – especially involving groups that are obviously perceived as different from each other and have little cultural/historical commonality - then a major socio-poltical cleavage is opened up with all the negative consequences in terms of intra-group loyalty versus inter-group rivalry.
See, for example, South Africa and its societal trajectory now that different groups have functionally inverted much of the the previous power arrangements and are proactively engaged in battles over economic resources/politics and so on. The result is a dramatic decline of social-capital with the release of those pent-up inter-group antagonisms (crime off the scale – with a particular quasi-systematic and extraordinarily viscous aggression directed towards Boer farmers) and even declining white solidarity (private security etc., for the with enough money but with increasing number of white have-nots thrown to the wolves) also to be matched by a steady ratcheting up of intra-black tribal antagonisms. And that does not even factor in the open question as to Black competency in managing a modern successful society.
by Last Celt
Multiculturalism is pronounced dead! However, notice the call for integration; it’s too early to celebrate.
Similarly, last Saturday the British Prime Minister David Cameron declared the multicult a failure. But look at this comment of Cameron’s:
by Christian Miller
The American political arena and mainstream media is rigged against White American solidarity. Almost every single race or ethnicity has a political organization to serve its specific racial or ethnic interests. The glaring exception is a mainstream-credited or nationally-recognized political group dedicated to White American interests. There are groups dedicated to White advocacy, but they are invariably plagued by accusations of “extremism” or “hate” or “bigotry.”
The Preamble to the United States Constitution lists one of its purposes as to “secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” Perhaps this explicit dedication to the interests of the White founding stock means that no White advocacy groups are needed. Maybe the explicit mandate of the Constitution demands the protection of liberty for the posterity of the White race, so White advocacy groups are superfluous. Until the middle of the twentieth century, this view might hold water. In light of the onslaught of anti-White propaganda, legislation, indoctrination, and social policy that has since followed, this explanation is a recipe for White political suicide.
Under oppressive legislation, a hostile media, and an anti-White educational system, the interests of White people have been subverted in favor of a cacophony of minority voices, all of which are alien to the original aims of the Founding Fathers. White Americans can no longer rest assured that the Constitution means what it says, or that the United States exists to preserve the interests of its White founding stock and their progeny. Instead, White Americans must organize specifically and purposefully on racial grounds, realizing that all other groups are slowly destroying each liberty and privilege that White Americans used to take for granted.
What we REQUIRE is a sea change in leadership – from a self-serving “universalist” kleptocracy to an altruistic and philosophically-rooted particularist aristocracy; an aristocracy that will place the interests of the nation before the personal interests of the individuals who are a part it. Apropos we must address two related questions: how do we bring about such a change within the extant political framework, and what will prevent an ultra-nationalist European aristocracy from sliding inexorably back into the oblivion of plutocracy?
We will “fix” the plutocratic system by instituting policies that invert the relationship between political and economic power. For a man to attain political power he will be forced to make economic sacrifices commensurate with the rank to which he aspires. Similarly, the rich man will lose political rights based on the degree to which he has amassed personal wealth. Such an inverted relationship between economic and political power lends itself naturally to James Bowery’s idea of the net asset tax, but in this instance, the tax incurs political as well as economic costs.
Intellectuals, who rarely amass great fortunes, would then emerge as one of the most promising pools of political potential. Contrariwise, individuals from the moneyed class would be eligible for office if, and only if, they relinquish their personal fortunes; by doing so, the rich man demonstrates his altruism in a tangible manner and shows the public to whom his political beneficence will be directed (does the rich man donate his money to a Guatemalan orphanage, to his sons, or to the local school system?). Notice that this encourages philanthropy, the disentangling of national and business interests, and the socialization of wealth, but also results in a certain degree transparency.
We would be wise to heed Blake’s familiar and pessimistic warning, “The iron hand crush’d the tyrant’s head, And became a tyrant in his stead,” by taking note of the forces that a tyrant do make. The rich have proven themselves time and again wholly unfit to rule. The Marxist critique of the bourgeois class is (in part) valid; however Marxists are too dishonest to accurately assess the stupidity of the dictatorship of the proletariat (in any of its theoretical permutations). Perhaps it is time to adopt the Marxist critique, but add to it an aristocratic response. Perhaps ... this is how we will prevent the Enemy from taking advantage of his next golden opportunity.
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