Majorityrights Central > Category: Hermeneutics

Click the image for a video of Bill Clinton presenting his usual stump on behalf of Hillary to a synagogue audience in Illinois.

The “inclusive, inclusive, inclusive” bit was frightening in the 1990s, when he was running for President, because “inclusive” can be a good concept when applied within a legitimate classification; and at the time there was more chance that it could have been honestly mistaken as if that’s what he meant; and not heard as what he actually means, which is the Jewish “inclusive” - a hyper-liberal inclusiveness that would include everybody [and he does emphasize everybody] - people formerly from without of a racial classification and formerly outside of the nation. This paradoxical “inclusiveness” would ultimately dissolve the classification, the nation, the people, the tribe altogether - viz., it would dissolve the very thing to be included-in.

It would dissolved to a vague catch-all category of undifferentiated gentile others; while one tribe would maintain its distinction, of course.

In 2016 it sounds less frightening than totally absurd given the floods of immigration into The U.S. and Europe. This audience in the synagogue reacts only with applause either because they are completely blind to the fact that they are being herded, thinking that they can maintain their Jewish sanctioned activist distinctions indefinitely, or because they are in on the joke.

Their biggest applause are reserved for when Bill says that what he is most proud of is that Hillary distinguishes herself from the other candidates by more fervently denouncing prejudice against Muslim Americans (following the Noachide laws apparently being good enough to qualify people for inclusion as Americans). Bill concludes by rubbing his hands together with the audience over the prospect (given Scalia’s death) of Hillary putting through another “Justice” just as good as the one that he put on the Court -

Bill literally wept before America, so moved as he was when his nominee had ascended to The Supreme Court.

     
(Doug Mills/Associated Press)

Among Chief Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s first statements was to maintain her long standing conviction as a “civil rights” advocate that nobody should be discriminated against on the basis of immutable characteristics.

European peoples, the time for being alarmed or despairing over this has long since passed. The neo-liberal complicity with the Jewish notion of “including ‘marginals” is, as I have said in several places, a paradoxical notion of “inclusion” that they have put together with an inverted notion of “marginals” - a notion of “marginals” by which they mean not marginals, as that would imply those who are just within our boundaries but being pushed to the side and ultimately outside - they mean rather taking in those from without.

With the flooding incursion of migrants and the chutzpah of this inclusion rhetoric absurdly unabated, it is time to see all of this for what it is and to organize as Whites/Native Europeans - maintaining our important distinctions and bounds as they provide accountability and serve our human ecologies, sure; but recognizing that we must coordinate our defense with overall organization as European peoples.

We are under attack for that reason in essence, no matter where or what we might take recourse to in lieu of defending ourselves on that basis. Wherever we are, we are in need of a union, unions and coordination of defense based on our most precious and essential bond - that is our DNA.

Europeans can no longer afford to tarry uncritically with those who would proceed with the modernist bastard child that is universal principles and rights, nor cater to those who would attempt to “save us” with neo-traditional re-organizations under the anachronistic rubric and poison rule structures of “Christendom.”

These aren’t surrogates for our DNA and biology - in lieu of that rather, they are midwives to the birthing of pan-mixia and our genocide.

Picture a cartoon illustration here that I had to take down due to EU law. Its title reads “Jews, Musilims, Christians.” Beneath that title it shows the identical happy self hand clasping merchant three times - their only being dressed differently and having slightly different skin tone - the obvious implication being that there is no important difference. There is a sarcastic sub-title: “know the difference, it could save your nation” and a conclusive line, “Semitic Religion, not even once.” Which is the same as saying, Abrahamic religion, not even once.

The time has also passed to be surprised or despair at how the all too kosher Merkel will act quite similarly with regard to our borders on the European end, and how the Noachide sheep will react to those who would oppose her - marking little difference between Europeans in America or here in Europe, as they continue to operate under the same neo-liberal rule structures and Noachide law. The time is now to wrest and forge our rule structure anew in organization and activism of the White Class.

                Vintage Las Vegas Strip II         -  painting by Robert Stark

There is a significant problem in the theory of White/European advocacy.

Those who gravitate to White advocacy will, in veritable first order of necessity under the circumstances, seek to anchor their defense as right wingers; viz., upon objective grounds beyond relative socio-historical perspective and in unassailable universal warrant - the apparent necessity for that first step being that antagonism generally unbeknownst, namely of the Jews, has obfuscated other options.

A race is a social grouping and a discriminatory basis thereupon. Discriminatory social classifications are necessary for human ecology, coherence and accountability - and race would be one important discriminatory classification for humans.

However, the Jews came up with the concept of anti-racism, which is the effort to prohibit social classification of race and discrimination on its basis; and have applied the concept of prohibiting discrimination on the basis of other social classifications in relative social group interest as well - all weaponized for Jewish interests and primarily against White heterosexual males.

Implicit beneath everyday language, the term “the left” applies in a very distinct pattern to organizational efforts of full social unification and concern for a particular social group - union membership modeling what “the left” does. It is a model that can apply to any scale and purpose of group, including nation and race. Essentially then, “the left”, itself, would be called “racist” for classifying on the basis of race or would be called some other discriminatory “ist”, by Jews, depending upon what social group is organized, if they were not in power beyond criticism, looking after their interests and against White interests. In theoretical consistency, only “right-wingers” are antagonistic to these social classifications on principle. White unionization would be the normal defense for Whites, and it would be “leftist” in terms of ordinary usage. However, through academic, media, economic, religious, business, legal and political take-over, the Jews have been able to have Marxism, Cultural Marxism, its objectives to take-down White power and the ostensibly hallowed humanitarian social concern of their so-called social justice advocacy groups arrayed against it designated as “the left”; while White advocacy designated “the right.”

From whence Jewish advocacy has maintained that steady stream of infuriatingly convoluted language games, starting with provocation of absurdly self destructive language games that they set forth with Christianity, to Critical Theory’s incessant rhetorical abuse of White men, the exploitative and lethal implications to White men have been actively unleashed in fact, as sundry anti-White unions - “social justice warriors” who have been set against Whites, ultimately, despite their unwanted imposition, the necessity to force their social integration and to force Whites to share their most precious resources and vital resources with groups having vastly different Ethnic Genetic Interests - to the final incapacitation and elimination of White men going under the banner of “the left” and its objectives.

Not only has being told constantly and pervasively that which tortures you as a White man is “the left” repulsed White men to the ordinary term, but also to the concept of social unionization, full group inclusion and advocacy which lies beneath it. But the normal White response, of objectivity, has been eagle clawed by Jews as well. A system of universal and civil rights and “objective merit” - which started as a White thing, by Locke, to advance objective individual merit over elite class discrimination - was taken by Jews to weaponize Whites own rules against them - so that discrimination on behalf of their classification was held to be illegitimate as well, while this universalizing of rights over classification provided an exception - a special proviso for White men: Because they have enjoyed “historical privilege” as a result of the fruits of discrimination and exploitation, it would be “disingenuous” for White men to say that the same rights and means of judgment upon individual merit should apply to everyone. Hence, people in these minorities need group classification for the purpose of advocacy and advancement in compensation for having been historically discriminated against by White men; whereas White men need no such group advocacy.

Jews have been able to designate these “victim” advocacy groups and their anti-White causes as “The Left”, what it means to be civilly responsible,“socially conscientious” and they have been able to designate and maneuver Whites who object and resist in social defense of their own people as “The right”, and more usually, “The far right” with all of its socially irresponsible and recklessly dangerous implications.

Given the fact that White men, including ones who do not hate themselves, have found themselves in a situation where all kinds of unwanted social groupings have been forced upon them and that social imposition along with all social concern and sharing in resources has been called “the left”, of course their initial response is going to be revulsion to the term and what it designates, through and through - the second “through” is the key, i.e., not only through the groups the Jews designate as valid to advocate, but through the very idea of group advocacy as it has been made didactic by those heretofore successfully using its means.

With the “left” being a matter of social concerns, what sane White man, after all, wants to participate in that socialization? On the contrary, he would quite naturally and more desperately than ever seek objective and pure warrant to defend himself above the conniving rhetoric and impositions of Jews, other non-Whites and insane liberals in the topsy turvey social milieu pan-mixer.

“Group advocacy is not the way of true and real White men; and by golly, I am going to make it my life’s cause to find that pure way.”

While it is the Jews who proposed calling this quest “far right”, at least it is something that you can identify with along with those of kindred reaction. So long as you don’t mind being associated with people that the Jews want you to be associated with, because of the ineptitude, counter-productivity, deserved social stigma and divisiveness to White social organization in their particular reactive quests for purity, you can have a market to try to bring people around to your particular right-wing, supra-social but what amounts to anti-White-social anchoring point - a point above or below the social group that is White/European, but not in White/human social register: that is the organic ground upon which the right, itself, parasitically feeds.

As the Jews have, through the so-called “left” (correctly referred to as “the red left”) levied unbearable impositions and deliberate confusion on any means of maintaining White identity and defense, and because they have eagle clawed the sine qua non of White purity - objectivity, merit and rights - weaponizing it against Whites, Whites who care to defend themselves feel they must try to be more right-wing, pure and extreme than ever - and sometimes feel that they may as well “join the club” at that: after all, “they are going to call you these things”, e.g., “an extreme right-winger anyway,” right? So, you may as well choose one or more of these anti-White social things and get along with the rest: Right-wing elitist, Nazi, imperialist, chauvinist for one nation, Jesus freak, new age pagan kook, conspiracy theorist kook, anarchist, liberal who believes that real men are not bothered by miscegenation nor preoccupied with racial matters and so are going to calm us down from “reacting too much” against PC, masculinist heterosexual who ranks effeminacy and homosexuality the problem, right up there with White genocide, homesexual masculinist, who is going to teach White men what it means to be man, scientitistic Darwinist, polygamist, Arab who teaches PUA methods to go through as many White women as possible and ultimately impose R selective patriarchy upon them, objectivist who believes people should be judged on merit born of a pure vacuum, libertarian free enterpriser, mulatto with pretty French wife who ingratiates himself to Nazis by intimating a stiff arm salute and befriending sociopathic holocaust deniers, or even conservatively or liberally principled, anti-“left” or anti-Zionist Jew. I may have missed an anti-White social category or two, but you may as well identify as one of these, so they say: Take your pick. There may be squabbling as to which are included but that’s accepted as inherent in their paradoxic rule structure -

And there is the significant problem in the theory of White advocacy.

Because the Right is comprised of people who are holding white knuckle and can’t let go of the pursuit of pure objective warrant, Cartesianism beyond social accountability, whether in science, religion or theory - sub or above human social philosophy - it remains anti-social-reactionary, unstable, divisive and bereft of the socialial normative. To compensate somehow, perhaps through Regnery, a theory of theories has been derived which seeks to compensate for their anti-social alienation with a prosthesis of “the big tent.” This was the VoR model, it was/is the Alternative Right model and it is becoming more the Renegade model.

On the other hand, those whose concern is genuinely for the entire White/European social group from the start and from ground-up, who consider all White/Europeans as innocent until proven guilty (until proven disloyal and divisive) are treated as “trouble makers” and to be ostracized insofar as they do come to see the facile, opportunistic, tangential and obstructive positions coming from those given a pass under the big tent for what they are - as coming from and guilty of defending causes that are irrelevant and divisive of genuine White/European advocacy, ethnonationalism, coherence and coordination thereof.

The people identifying as alternative right and typically those hovering in and around the racial market, have thus a common problem of trying to maintain their anti-White/European social and socially divisive of Whites positions; and to compensate for the maintenance of their initial right-wing, anti-social positions, they have tried to establish a gentleman’s agreement - a big tent under which they might bring to bear their tangential and (actually) obstructive positions to the market of White/European advocacy and ethnonationalism - by (ironically) trying to prohibit as “anti-social” (“non-team players”, etc) those who reject their anti-White/European-social positions. In a word, they want to paradoxically define “socialized White/European” with a rule that would prohibit and ostracize those who would quite reasonably prohibit those who are anti-anti-White/European-social.

To repeat in somewhat simpler form:

All of the people identifying as alternative right, and Renegade (Tanstaafl* goes there agreeing with them that “Hitler was right”....right about what?) as well, have a common problem of trying to compensate for their initial right wing, anti-social positions - compensating for the marginality and obstruction of their positions to White/European advocacy and ethnonationalism - by (ironically) trying to prohibit as “anti-social” (“non-team players”, etc) those who reject their anti-White/European-social positions. In a word, they want to paradoxically define socialization of White/European-social advocacy with a rule that would prohibit and ostracize those who would prohibit those who are anti-anti-White/European-social.

“The alternative left” is a part of the alt right big tent. It is their attempt to provide a false opposition foil and a platform for their more liberal misfits who want to bring their own right wing unaccountable positions to bear on the ethno-nationalist market; while they obfuscate this true White Left platform as it operates in the interests of the White class and does not accept their anti-White positions.

* Finally, “neither right nor left” is another claim that right wingers will make in a last ditch effort to avoid social accountability to Whites in order to maintain their right wing aspect.

Alex Linder interviewed (try not to let the Australian accent of his interviewer bother you).

There is or can be a misunderstanding.

- that I simply want to refrain from going ahead and killing Jews et al. on principle, naivete or for petty moral reasons.

- that I and we could not be content nor ever recognize that we’d be better off if they were gone.

But that is not the case.

It is the case rather that it is generally not a good idea to announce that you want to get them all whether you think it is necessary or not.

It would be hard to implement and worse, might work to our detriment if not conceived and promoted properly.

It is not only a strategic matter but a theoretical matter: for what we want ultimately is separatism (killing is a species thereof).

Separatism can be argued not only by broader and more practical metrics, but if it is achieved, it is more feasible for the purpose of killing - as opposed to taking the stance that even while they remain tangled up in our hair, we might succeed in the complex affair of teaching people to know, psychologically, what to do because Alex says so (bold and intelligent though most of his arguments are)...

As opposed to Alex saying so, if they are to be killed it would be for the broadly intelligible, broadly acceptable (therefore possible to facilitate) and operationally verifiable reason that they will not leave us alone when given the option, but insist on their imposition to our exploitation and long term extinction - a verifiable consequence and reason for their imposition - to eliminate us as a people, therefore a highly assertable warrant to preempt it.

This could be demonstrable even in their refusal to allow our benign and fair act of separating and expelling them from our people.

Given these considerations hence, my motto: separatism is the first step, separatism is the ultimate aim, separatism is always possible.

​
For many years I have argued that Maslow’s hierarchy establishes an excellent point of departure - a paradigm to transform into a new paradigm on our behalf as Whites - as it does represent the apex of the American dream of individual self actualization, it also provides instantiation to look at the problems that can, and quite evidently do, ensue from its rule structure. Hence, a critique of it permits its highly relevant occasion to retool and socialize it to our concern as Whites. To do that we might look back to its classical origins in Aristotle, to its popularization in the feminism and the human potential movements of the 60s, to how we might transform and cast the path of needs and motives in optimal terms for both the individual and group interests of Whites.

However, the right-wing hasn’t yet gotten the significance of my argument. Where they do see merit, they want to put it in their own Cartesian terms. They miss a crucial hermeneutic point in history, that Friedan’s second wave of feminism had women acting through and in accordance of this paradigm - highlighting the vulgarity of its social disregard, self righteously pursuing “self actualization” while ignoring the “privilege” that men alone had of being required at the same time to go to Vietnam to die. But rather than seeing the valid gender aspect of the hippie protest of the draft as a male thing (a quest for midtdasein for males), the right-wing in their desperate, reactionary way, go along with the Jewish story that it was all about “free love”, “civil rights for blacks”, and “universal peace” or they cater to the right-wing story that hippies sought nothing that a real man should pursue - they were part and parcel of the downfall of Whites - our men, by reactionary contrast, have to learn how to be real men: and now the right-wing will be..

Defining real White men for you… with a lisp..
     

Puerto Ricans in attendance to karate movies and White boys imitating gay pride parades

A return of what? A morning and evening call to prayer, perhaps.

Sex tourism in South East Asia

Ignore and talk past the White Left as defined at MR

Pretend there’s this “new thing” called “alt-left” and its anything but a foil for the Regnery circus’ Alt-right.

“Introducing the ‘Alt left”

Ignore our many discussions as to the drawbacks of black hyper-masculinity in comparison to terms of optimal White/European masculinity - which need to be confirmed and which only MR has confirmed…

Instead toss the idea with a gay friend..
   
Who casts black hyper-masculinity in contrast to homosexuality.

Even though you have no special concern for Whites and consider mixing with blacks to be no big deal..

Even though you have no special concern for Whites, latch onto the alt-right big tent to compensate for your floundering market and source of ideas - such as the idea of re-tooling, transforming, viz., socializing, optimizing and normalizing Maslow’s hierarchy in White/European interests (which can be safely ignored as having been discussed at MR for years).

         
Be a crass businessman

   
Kiss the ass [Welcome back!] of Jews and their proxies; and on their behalf..

Appropriate Asian lands and resources, allow Jews and neo-liberals to parasitically trade on that..
           
Aggrandizement as middle men at others expense instead of developing a Russian ethnostate.

...learn, in fact, how to act like a Jew and without honor so that you can get-over over there.

     
Atavistic intelligentsia - an apt term for themselves. And they “Hail ‘The’ Donald”

Puke.

       
        “Become who we are”: Teaching us how to be real White men

Upchuck.

                                                   
Compulsory Diversity News:
       
                He knows you not…

I love pointing-out to people, right-wingers, who want to blame youth culture of the 60s as the onset and crux of our demise (not you, GW), that Jewish power and influence combined with Modernist naivete were the forces that were the major culprits - and they were well in force already in the 50s and early 60s, well before kids grew their hair long, listened to rock n’ roll and resisted the Vietnam draft.

Take note of Michael O’Meara’s discussion of how The Soviets and other Marxists/communists used black “civil rights” as a weapon against America; also note my reinforcement that Jewish interests, via Katzenbach, prominently, were only too happy to facilitate what was then more straightforwardly referred-to as “integration.”

Kennedy had been ignoring Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson’s advice, to “look Southerners in the eye and tell them that integration was a moral and Christian issue.”

Governor Wallace, posturing as if to stand in the way of integration, is confronted by Katzenbach

Watching Wallace’s posturing, President Kennedy decided for the first time in his career to risk his political standing in the South by taking the side of integration. President Kennedy decides to go on national television that night and give a speech calling for a civil rights act to end discrimination in the South.

“We are confronted primarily with a moral issue. It is as old as the scriptures and as clear as The American Constitution. The heart of the question is, whether all Americans are to be afforded equal rights and equal opportunities (He ‘finally’ calls for Federal law ending segregation). Next week I shall ask the Congress of The United States to act, to make a commitment that has not been fully made in this century to the proposition that race has no place in American life or law.”

This, GW, is why not only the Arahamic universalism of The Right, but its wedding to Enlightenment style objectivism (and universalism) must be overcome as well - and it is the post modern project, proper, which has undertaken to do that.

Kennedy is also the one who got us into the Vietnam debacle with a strategy of showing strength against communism with “small wars.”

The documentary concludes..

‘Kennedy set so much in motion in such a short period of time”...

Perhaps the most reliably good outcome of Kennedy biographies are the endings.

While I am adamant about the right and oughtness of fighting when one’s own borders and EGI are being infringed upon, I am not a hawk. Geopolitical warfare has never been something that appealed to me, let alone with any sort of passion.

I’m very averse to the idea of going beyond my national boundaries to fight, particularly when my own nation is totally screwed-up, needs tending and where innovative thinking might solve problems as opposed to trying to solve them by resorting to warring abroad.

The problem is that there are valid arguments that there are vital requirements along the Silk Road, in the Middle East and in Africa - resource and population management that is indispensably necessary even to the most innovative and independent peoples. In these concerns, I’m going to invite the reader to consider with me the possibility of re-drawing ethno-nationalist and regional lines on this map.

As you can guess, conversations with Kumiko have got me taking these matters under consideration, and I hope that she will soon put up an article discussing issues that the neo-cons have failed to make in clear and persuasive terms.

Tangential to neo-con issues is an interesting philosophical question for another day: how, in detailed form, to set up a rule structure which will sort out and punish the genetic legacy of criminals; and facilitate the rebirth of those genetic components that have suffered unjustly at the hands of criminals in previous generations. In this case, I am thinking more in terms of those who have historical grievances with Russians - while it is true that I don’t feel this grievance as do some others that I’ve known, it is nevertheless only practical to set the question aside for the time being - though it is a question that can apply to any people who have benefited or suffered from historical atrocities.

Europeans, now, are asked even more fundamental questions than relative guilt and merit, but are asked to address the matter of our identity, period - that we are a people (different from Jews and others), to establish who we are, what the nature of our common moral order is, to understand that the obfuscation of that would-be peoplehood is a part of a war against us - and that there is, indeed, a war against us; finally, we are asked what is the nature of that war and what it consists over?

When considering these matters from a White Nationalist perspective, Russian people are not conceived as inherent enemies, nor, even, is the humongous expanse of their nation high on the list, if on the list at all, of things intolerable to allow to remain. At first blush, I can imagine living with it - it’s always been that way in my lifetime; its reach contracted after the fall of The U.S.S.R., but still remains bigger than Pluto.

Nevertheless, we ought to reconsider this from an Asian perspective, and from a perspective of acute European interests.

I didn’t expect to have occasion at this point to consider aloud the possibility of attempting to align formal industrial military objectives with ours as White Nationalists. Oil, resources, even absurd and brutal regimes in the Middle East and Africa inflicting harm upon their own do not stir any passion in me to fight. The function of Asian countries and Western countries do, however, have requirements and rationale to get these nations under compliance. And in hopes of facilitating the human resource of Kumiko’s military perspective, I am going to imagine empathic military geo-political objectives, so that we might envisage a grand chess board result in our victory.

From that standpoint I attend to the fact that as nationalists and as White people in particular, fighting for the survival and sovereignty of our nations, that militarization and the geopolitics of resource and population management will ultimately be necessary.

Asia and the West have things that we need from one another, including cooperation against antagonisms from the Middle East and Africa.

Not only do we need resources from these places but we need mutual help in border control and repatriation projects.

What about Russia? It is so big. Why not just work with them and allow its vast space to become a place for White people to grow into?

While it is true that another traditional passion for some war mongers is hating Russians and maybe I should hate them, I don’t hate them. Nor do I care if people want to move there; furthermore, I completely understand not wanting to fight them. I don’t want to fight Russians; the war in Ukraine has been instigated by Judaized and neo-liberal means and motives and it disgusts me.

Even so, WN tendencies to look upon Russia as the great White hope ignore the propositional, neo-liberal, mercantile and Judaized aspects of Russia - as if its political class has no corruptions analogous to The US that will wreak havoc with such projects to connect with Russia as a partner in White Nationalism.

On the other hand, while I favor Ukrainian and Belarusian sovereignty, as I favor all ethnonational sovereignty, I am opposed to a hot war approach with Russia to increase their sovereignty.

But neither am I in favor of a hot war approach to defending Russia’s humongous eastern stretch and southern conflicts.

Rather than abandon to foreign invaders the natural ethnonationalist homelands of our European evolution and engage in White flight to move into lands that apparently represent imperialist aggrandizement - beyond ethnonational mandate - on the part of Russia, to reiterate, neither am I particularly interested in fighting to protect Russia’s imperial overreach.

In a word, defending what is apparently an imperial over-reach is Russia’s problem and an issue that can be turned to our advantage as Europeans in order to gain cooperation with our EGI, its borders and vital resources.

We need Chinese, Japanese and other Asian cooperation more than we need Russia’s imperialist headaches; and China and Japan are not about to start loving Russia more than their own interests which are impacted by Russia’s Eastern and Southern interference.

We need cooperation with Asia to compel compliance with regard to resource, EGI and border management. And we might compel Russia’s compliance as well with those needs by means of the West’s regional alliance with Asia.

Thus, while we might not engage a war of maneuver in either Russia’s west nor east, we might well consider lending approval to Asian positioning in Russia’s east and south.

That is, allowing the “stick” (as opposed to “carrot”) of some of these lands as potentially sovereign Asian places: with enclaves Russian and enclaves Asian, the farther east you go, the more the general area would be Asian with fewer Russian enclaves and vis a versa - the farther West, the fewer Asian enclaves until you reach a point where it would be a Russian only ethnostate. And the carrot to Russia would be less contentious relations with its neighbors, more secure borders, and more cooperation in resource garnering, management and use. That is not necessarily a bad deal.

Toward an Asian-Atlantic regional cooperation.

1. The genetic-make-up and territorial boundaries of the European ethno-states shall be restored, maintained and protected.

2. To achieve this end we propose alignment with the Asian ethno-states and region.

3. Something like the E.U. and North Atlantic would be necessary to achieve that alliance and its success.

However, it will also involve some quid pro quo.

4. First, we see it as being in both of our interests to secure our peoples against impositions of Middle-Eastern and African populations; against imposition of the Abrahamic religions; and against interference of these peoples and religions in our vital resources.

5. Toward that end, it is in the interest of both Asians and Europeans to remove these populations to the greatest extent possible from our geo-political territories; and, again, to remove significant imposition/interference upon our mutual vital resource interests.

6.  Sacrosanct European territories in the Americas, Australia and New Zealand will likely need to become smaller at any rate in order to be maintained and defended. But with the increased manageability of defense will come an opportunity to offer cooperation to Asians to have some sacrosanct territories of their own in these places. We will respect and cooperate with one another toward the defense of our territories in diaspora, seeing African and Middle-Eastern (saliently Jewish and Muslim) populations as those who must be guarded against and compelled to as great a distance from our people as possible, removed from civic nationalization and its proximity.

7. Russia/ns will be seen as having an analogous situation to White Americans. In order to have a safer, more manageable ethno-state and something to offer in exchange with the Euro-Asian regional alliance, they will be required to contract in size considerably, particularly from its expanse eastward into Asia and its geo-political interference there and to its south, unilaterally along the Silk Road. Russia’s ethno-state will be more secure as it will be forced into a more cooperative and less antagonistic relation with the rest of the geo-polity.

The key deal is this: we will compel Russia to relinquish parts of its territory (leaving it no good choice but to comply). In exchange we will require Asian assistance in cleansing and defending our territories from imposition by non-natives - particularly Africans, Middle Easterners, Muslims and Jews. And we will require compliance in securing our vital resources and transportation routes.

The advantages to European peoples and Asians in this alliance is clear.

But what regional and national lines might you imagine and what advantages to Russia and others do you see for compliance? Discuss.

As there are no Russian cities larger than 600,000 east of lake Baikal (near the city of Irkutsk, centrally to the north of Mongolia), and only four larger than 300,000, one way of arranging the pockets, enclaves, ethno-state outposts as it were, would be to have a symmetrical “M.C. Escher-like” arrangement (as in the image called “Day and Night” above), i.e., an entering of these enclaves into the others general regional sphere - enclaves which would, nevertheless, represent sovereign states. 

The plan would emphasize deportation and re-doing citizenship in favor of native lines, viz., on the basis of ethnostates. That is unlike the Moscow - Berlin - Paris axis, which apparently seeks to reconstruct the same old right-wing, propositional/objectivist oil interests.

Note: I can see how this could create incentive for Eastern European nations to cooperate - from a position of strength and in cooperation with White diaspora (note the interview of Tomasz Szczepański under the fold).

The Eastern European nations may agree to cooperation despite history of disputes (sometimes serious), and facilitate this ethno-nationalist and regional cooperation if their borders and native populations are guaranteed. If they are a part of a plan that guarantees that and necessary resources from the Silk Road - accomplished by increased cooperation with Asia and a Russia dealing from a cooperative position; then perhaps ethnonational and regional alliance with Asia can work. I.e, Russia has to offer more than trade in natural resources garnered through its vast expanse and fist waving at anybody who doesn’t see their interests being secured inasmuch.

The area that is to be reserved as sacrosanct to the Russian ethnostate would be contracted from imperial dimensions and more in line with ethno-national proportions.

It is a contraction in concession to cooperation with other ethno-European nations that WN America will likely need to undergo as well.

This will make Russia more defensible and more worth cooperating with for the rest of Europe and Asia - as they will be required to join this Euro-Asian regional cooperation against middle eastern interference - whether Arab, Islamic or Jewish, they will be beholden to our terms and we will have the necessary resources of the Silk Road.

The other side of the deal for compliance and cooperation to garner vital resources, is that our vital EGI will be cooperated with in protection as well - including not only in border defense, repatriation and de-nationalization of the majority of non-natives from European and Asian countries, but most strictly the border defense, de-nationalization and removal of non-natives from European nations; while allowing for some accountable quota of Asians and Europeans in one another’s nations and regions.

READ MORE...

..give ‘who’ hell? For Jewish academics to play both sides of “PC” is nothing new. While the re-normalization and motion to institutionalize social classification is a positive development - via ‘give-em-hell Trump’ in his campaign talk - the most important issue in the end, is not just normalization, but where the lines of institutionalized discrimination are to be drawn.

Trump is saying some things that we might like to hear, with a candor that purports contempt for “political correctness”, a candor that has not been heard from the last 11 Presidents at least, spanning more than 60 years.

With that, he flouts the avoidance of “racial profiling” for having allowed the San Bernadino attack. It is indeed a positive development to assert the validity of “race” as a criteria.

“There were people who knew bad things were going on [with the family], and they didn’t report it because of racial profiling.”

Moreover, he takes the validity of “profiling”, i.e., classifying people, a bit further to say that there should be a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”

NBC, ‘Trump Calls for ‘Complete Shutdown’ of Muslims Entering the U.S.’, 7 Dec 2015:

Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump on Monday called for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,” the most dramatic response yet to the string of terrorist attacks that have Americans increasingly on edge.

Trump released a statement citing polling data he says shows “there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population.”

Trump Calls for ‘Complete Shutdown’ of All Muslims Entering U.S.

“Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life,” Trump said.

Yes, it is a candor and a disdain for pseudo-intellectual and polite appearance that we have not heard from a President since “give-em-hell Harry Truman.”

Excellent though it is that race and other social classifications, and borders, are being re-invoked by “give-em-hell Trump” and that he is taking steps to re-normalize and re-institutionalize these criteria as a legitimate basis for discrimination…

one might wonder what, say, Japanese, et al., might think about who-for and how the “no-nonsense” lines are being drawn.

Playing “for/against PC” is nothing new for Jewish academia; i.e., one side playing “vanguard” while the other is “hand of restraint.”

Playing “for and against PC” is nothing new for Jewish academia: In this 1990 essay for the New York Times, Richard J. Bernstein is playing the role of “restraint”  -

New York Times, ‘IDEAS & TRENDS; The Rising Hegemony of the Politically Correct”, 28 Oct, 1990:

Central to p.c.-ness, which has roots in 1960’s radicalism, is the view that Western society has for centuries been dominated by what is often called “the white male power structure” or “patriarchal hegemony.” A related belief is that everybody but white heterosexual males has suffered some form of repression and been denied a cultural voice or been prevented from celebrating what is commonly called “otherness.”

But more than an earnest expression of belief, “politically correct” has become a sarcastic jibe used by those, conservatives and classical liberals alike, to describe what they see as a growing intolerance, a closing of debate, a pressure to conform to a radical program or risk being accused of a commonly reiterated trio of thought crimes: sexism, racism and homophobia.

“It’s a manifestation of what some are calling liberal fascism,” said Roger Kimball, the author of “Tenured Radicals,” a critique of what he calls the politicization of the humanities. “Under the name of pluralism and freedom of speech, it is an attempt to enforce a narrow and ideologically motivated view of both the curriculum and what it means to be an educated person, a responsible citizen.”

The restrained activist vs the activist vanguardist

In a generation before, Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter* played the role of “restraint,” viz., the role of “activist restraint” opposed to “activist vanguard” - a role that shabbos goy Earl Warren was duped to take the lead in, as Chief Justice of an “activist Court.”

We should be on the watch as well, then, for the shabbos goy being fore-fronted as the “vanguard activist”, as:

Earl Warren was for the 1954 de-segregation (integration) decision and 1964 ”civil rights” legislation..

Teddy Kennedy was for the 1965 Immigration & Naturalization Act,

Either Trump or Hillary Clinton can be used for - what? - we might not know exactly what for sure yet, other than that it would be another travesty. Hillary Clinton may well fit the role of shabbos goy “vanguardist” for their next demonstration of “chutzpah.”

* Frankfurter, a Jew, presiding as Chief Justice in the Supreme Court prior, fancied his “a restrained activist Court” - and referred to his successor, Earl Warren, as “the dumb Swede” - worried that he would take the bait in such a headlong way of “activist vanguardism” that he would create an overly strong reaction.

Note: As it bears more attention, this article is duplicated from the MR News section, where it was originally published, 8 December 2015.

DanielS, in comment 147409 on Wed, 28 Oct 2015 wrote:

Jimmy, while defending the enjoyable pagan sourced holiday of Halloween against the Orthodox Church, we might also take occasion to note that the Christian Church has arrogated what is the most sacred holiday to our ethnic genetic interests, which is the day following - November 1rst - in Eastern Europe it is still a day when European folks commemorate their forebears, visiting the cemetery to pay special respects. It is practiced there in cloaked manner. But reverent respect that should be directed toward our ancestors has been largely diverted by the Church and back into its Judeo-religion; worse still in the west, where the “All Saints Day” (Nov. 1) diversion has been taken so far that our ancestor reverence is but the vaguest remnant, a phantom holiday, somehow indicated on some calendars, but not observed - merely alluded-to very indirectly for those who care to look behind the etymology of the name, “Halloween”, and into its true history.

Upon reviewing the matter of Halloween, I see that I was so focused on the importance of the European day of our ancestor veneration - or what should be the point of celebration on November 1 - commemoration of our forebears (typically including a family visit to their graveside), that I lost sight of the fact that the Church was not only distracting from the true significance of the November 1 celebration for us; but also that Halloween itself was not a part of the mere diversion and distraction from the holiday. While many in East Europe see November 1 as an important holiday, Halloween still tends to be perceived by them through the churchly lens as a recent and corrupt affectation imposed from the commercial West, rather than an integral part of the holiday.

My response to Jimmy was correct in the general idea - of the Church burying our most sacred holiday - viz., in reverence of our ancestors - but I had neglected his point in fact of Halloween itself being an integral part of the holiday, not a fluffed-up and commercialized imposition to distract from the real thing:

Initiating the children into becoming one with their forebears.

As the most important, sacred, commemorative holiday practice in reconstruction of our EGI through the initiation of our true Traditional Youth is under assault by The Orthodox Church (in this case), it becomes particularly relevant to highlight against the false Traditional Youth and their Orthodox Christian religion of our debates.

Apologies to Jimmy for the initial misapprehension of his post and his purpose:

Jimmy Marr in comment 147408 on Wed, 28 Oct 2015 16:08 wrote (emphasis added):

In evidence by the October 24th, 2015 edition of The Moscow Times, Christ-insanity is continuing to wage its age-old war against [the true] Traditional Youth.

The Education Ministry of northwestern Russia’s Arkhangelsk region has banned Halloween celebrations at local schools, citing the holiday’s harmful effect on children, the FlashNord news agency reported Monday.

The ministry’s statement said that Halloween is “incoherent to basic traditional values and causes a negative influence on fragile minds.”

The ban was instituted a week after the Russian Orthodox Church in Siberia’s Krasnoyarsk region called on local authorities to ban Halloween on a similar basis, the Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper reported. Priest Maxim Zolotukhin told local STS-Prima television station that children may get depressed after Halloween because they do not understand the difference between make-believe and reality, and so evil will enter their souls.

Russia’s regional authorities have displayed hostility toward Halloween many times over the years.

In February this year, a school director in Siberia’s Khanty-Mansiisk autonomous district was fired for organizing a Halloween party at his school last year, the Snob magazine reported at the time.

And in 2013, the Omsk regional Education Minister Sergei Alexeyev issued a letter against Halloween celebrations in schools. He explained that Halloween includes “death cult propaganda” that can damage student’s psychiatric and “spiritual-ethical health,” local news website NGS Omsk reported.

In 2014, Public Chamber member Georgy Fyodorov wrote a letter to Russia’s Culture Minister Vladimir Medinsky asking him to officially ban Halloween. Fyodorov saw the celebration as an “ideological security threat” to Russia and proposed the promotion of traditional Russian festivals instead, the Izvestia newspaper reported.

Inasmuch as the war against Halloween is a proxy war waged by christians against [the real] Traditional Youth, it is little wonder that metaphysical mercenaries would attempt to distort the meaning of that name and use it as spiritual camouflage. Their masters have taught them well.

Halloween Ritual for the True Traditional Youth of Europe.

ThuleanPerspective /Youtube Transcript, ‘Paganism, Part II; The Goblin & The Elf, 04 Dec 2014:

The children are not [considered] real people yet, not until they go through this initiation rite on Halloween…when they enter the realm of death, dressing up as the dead, taking on the identity of a dead person..  in a sense they become this person..  they have the same name, the same honor and the same death as the person they chose to become in this initiation ritual. The dead person, of course, is one of the dead forbears.

You can say that they believed in reincarnation.

Let us note also the ethnic genetic reincarnation.

Ibid:

So, they are returning to the Yule Tide and they are returning in the night. They are lead by the Sorcerer and the deity from farm to farm with these children to bring them back home… the families wished them welcome with some food on the table… to enable them to eat and feel welcome when they come back home.

During the Christian era, those in Church power wanted to destroy this tradition, they wanted to destroy European culture.  So they demonized these children and turned them into grotesque creatures, mocking them for their “superstitious belief in goblins” and so-forth when in reality they didn’t believe in any such things.

But the farmers could no longer put the food on a table inside the home for the children because church authorities might find out; so they had to put it into the barn.

These were not evil spirits, they were merely children returning for their initiation ritual [into the legacy of their forebears].

[Even so] the children were perceived by church people as becoming as twisted goblins [misunderstanding their transit with the dead where they were communing with elves, which were the spirit of the dead].

The children are the reborn dead relatives.

The elves were known to always sing, dance and read poetry because they are trying to preserve their memory..

This illustrates what the Christians have done to our culture. They have taken a beautiful, European, pagan religion, tradition, pagan culture, and twisted it…

..turned it into some grotesque mockery of what it really was.

The grotesque, twisted image of our religion was made by the Christians in an attempt to destroy, to weed-out our roots, to cut our roots so that our culture, our peoples would fall.

What the church could not burn they twisted.

But the European culture was beautiful, rich, advanced and most importantly, it was ours.

An argument by Mick Lately:

Mick Lately in comment 147410 on Wed, 28 Oct 2015 18:01 wrote:

I think Halloween is being turned into perverted paganism and that it is part of the whole “weaponized anthropology” campaign. Not to mention that it’s “cultural appropriation” for non-whites to celebrate Halloween.

I would support the official ban of Halloween as a temporary wartime measure and allow it and Christianity back when the Jews and non-whites have been defeated.

A significant rebuttal to Mick Lately by Kumiko Oumae:

Kumiko Oumae in comment 147414 on Thu, 29 Oct 2015 02:37 wrote:

Weaponised against who, though? The ‘weaponisation’ of anthropology is when research of the culture and history of an ethnic group is used by belligerent groups to facilitate their mission objectives. However, our mission objective as ethno-nationalists and ethno-regionalists is to:

1. Defeat those who try promote mass mestizaje;
2. Promote viewpoints which would enhance people’s willingness to reinforce national and regional borders;
3. Promote regional integration and common security perimeters on the basis of shared ethnic and cultural heritage, as well as shared economic interests.

In order to prevent our enemies from occupying positions of cultural power, it’s necessary to get everyone to quit looking to churches for guidance, because the churches are opposed to everything that we stand for.

There is probably nothing more that the churches would love to do in their own form of ‘weaponised anthropology’, than to re-colonise the minds of the people through some form of renewed culture war, and thus disarm them mentally before anything even gets off the ground.

You can’t just place a temporary ban on culture because [you imagine that] it’s ‘inconvenient’ for you to have to fight on that level. The enemies are not going to suspend their own culture war against you to be ‘fair’ to you in the meantime.

Jews, Christians, Muslims, and the whole liberal media combine that is arrayed against you, are not going to call truce on you if you promise them that you’ll stop celebrating Halloween. They’d just have liberals and Jews hollow it out into a purely commercialised holiday with no content at all, and Christians and Muslims would then bash it and present themselves as a false opposition to such ‘commercialism’ as part of their own recruiting drives.

Retreating from the sociocultural domain has never produced good results, not ever. In the conflict that is going to come later, these kinds of arguments that are occurring in the sociocultural domain are going to form part of the crucial groundwork that will determine the way that conflict will manifest, how it will be fought, and what the outcome of that conflict will be. Dealing with laying that groundwork can’t be put off until later. The content of the conflict and the ideas around which that conflict is fought, determine the nature of the outcome of that conflict in the event of victory.

That is part of why I am never interested in advocating collaboration with Christianity in the pre-conflict environment, not even as a cynical play. That is a losing game, because firstly, Christianity cannot be trusted to maintain a martial posture or to adhere to the ethno-nationalist or ethno-regionalist principles. In the aftermath, if collaboration with Christianity resulted in a Christian-dominated outcome, then it would mean that everything was done for nothing.

The religion issue is not a side-issue, it’s not a mere ‘question’ that is asked and answered in a little policy book somewhere. It’s a core part of the problem in the North Atlantic. Getting rid of Christianity is a necessary pre-condition to the survival of the peoples of the North Atlantic.