Majorityrights Central > Category: European Nationalism

Senscreen: “What are your thoughts regarding nationalists today [...] groups like National Action, even London Forum’s Jez Turner? They seem quite fixated on the Jews to an extent that, it seems to be harming our efforts, I think.”  Nick Griffin: “Yes, I think it does.”

Particularly as I was the instigator of the original phase of skepticism with regard to “Giacomo Vallone”, with critical remarks in regard to the positions he espoused in an interview with “Dana Antiochus” at Renegade Broadcasting, it is relevant to weigh-in on this matter. While that exchange quickly exposed him in a lowly and amateurish sock-puppetting effort at dividing Europeans against each other, the combination of that amateurishness and the obvious anti-racial nature of his position caused me to not take him, or his associated “European Knights Project”, too seriously. Still, his motives were of the worst kind. It has more serious implications as that project has germinated into controversial engagement with prominent ranks of White advocacy.

Is he the same person as Jack Sen? Well, both Sen and Vallone are associated with the European Knights Project. That’s enough for me to dismiss them both. That is why I will only belatedly confirm together with you as to whether or not it is indeed the case that they are one and the same; though a cursory comparison of Sen and Vallone discussions seem to indicate one identity, we know enough about both of them already to dismiss them.

My run-in with Giacomo Vallone wasn’t the first time that I had to take serious issue with a guest at another network - I took issue with Mark Dyal at Counter-Currents, and I still believe that I was right to do that as well: The thanks I got for that was being banned from Counter-Currents (oh well). Mark Dyal showed up as a guest of Dana Antiochus with the same kind of bullshit and I had another run-in with him there: Renegade should have appreciated that bit of critique also. However, I’ve also had reservations about Dana Antiochus - though I might be unfair to him. While I tried to be friends with Renegade, as you’ll see, they turned out to be too right-wing in the end.

I tell you this - that Metzger is right about right-wingers.

They are disingenuous and/or naive and their tentosphere is always ripe for infiltration.

Anyway, the scandal in the tentosphere now is not only to see Giacomo Vallone as a fraud who has made his way into conversation with White Nationalism, but that he’s actually the same person as Jack Sen - also having made his way into conversation with WN.

I was repulsed by Giacomo Vallone for a number of reasons from the onset, but he and his “European Knights Project” not only managed to get interviews with Renegade et al., but notably with Professor MacDonald. MacDonald is a bit too open to those with advanced academic pedigrees (Vallone claims to have graduated Princeton) and demeanor and a bit too closed to those without that. But that’s another matter and not a major point here; MacDonald is a wonderful scholar despite sometimes not being the best judge of character.

In general, it is right-wingishness and desperation for social prosthesis to compensate for their anti-social positions that creates this vulnerability; a tentosphere trap that Jews maintain - a key objective being to keep us as right-wingers and “THE Left” as the enemy.

Now then, I was a bit skeptical (and couldn’t be bothered since he is out of the ballpark) about the possibility that Vallone was the same person as Sen. Nevertheless, I already had sufficient evidence that Vallone and The European Knights Project are bad news: promoting civic nationalism, promoting black and mixed race people (e.g., “part black people are OK”) and for some reason, inciting strident hatred between Germans and Poles; and apparently anybody and Poles; not only that, but using sock-puppets to instigate that divisiveness.

There was no reason to doubt that his dealings with White Nationalism were disingenuous and it was disappointing that MacDonald, et al., would entertain him. Mike Delaney also spoke with Vallone not long ago - an interview posted by Anglin - but these latter two are middle brow right-wingers, so their rubbing elbows with Vallone did not pique my attention in the sense that one of “ours” was being infiltrated. I would be quite happy for the Daily Stormer to crash and burn. It deserves to.

Then Jack Sen came onto the radar screen of WN, appearing at Jez Turner’s London Forum and on Kevin MacDonald’s site. These are people that I like, even if their right-wingishness causes them problems. I even posted the talk Sen gave to London Forum here at Majorityrights - it was about UKIP being controlled opposition, infiltrated by Jewish interests and so on. That didn’t raise red flags for me - if he, KM and Jez suddenly liked each other, it seemed that he might indeed be a guy coming to his senses. What was curious, however, was his association with The European Knights Project, and Vallone, as I already knew that they were colossal bullshit.

Still, I’m not regularly following the goings-on of every right-winger as I already have their perfidy conceptually circumscribed. I might look at what they are up to, as they are engaged on the same turf, consider what is useful and reject what is not; but I’m not letting them dictate my terms, any more than I’d let Jews do it. So, if they want to rub elbows with Giacomo Vallone and the European Knights Project, it’s their ship that’s going down. I advise White advocates not to be right-wingers, but that’s all I can do. KM, Greg Johnson and the rest of those among what I’ve taken to calling the tentosphere have tended to double-down in their position that “The Left” is the enemy.

Matt Heimbach is also cooperating with Sen and The European Knights Project - it seems as if there might be a corollary there, probably unbeknownst to Heimbach, to his being banned from The U.K. Sen was so disappointed about the ban?

Coming back to the show that has taken center ring for now, it is clear that “Giacomo Vallone” is bad news, but is he also the same person as Jack Sen? That really would be something as we will see in a moment by some of the implications.

But even if they are not the same person, the very fact that Sen would be associated with Vallone and the The European Knights Project is damning enough.

Lets set out the thread beneath the 2013 interview of Giacomo Vallone by Dana Antiochus at Renegade.

If it’s Jack Sen doing this sock puppetry then that really would be something. We’ll come to what Jack Sen might be up to after I set out this thread where I started the fight which initiated the awareness that Giacomo Vallone might be something more negative than just an ignorant newby. I begin with the first comment and before long, you’ll see what will be shown to be Vallone using sock puppets to instigate German-Polish animus.

Renegade, Dana Antiochus interviews Giacomo Vallone, 14 Oct 2013

Comments

DanielS
2 years 5 months ago

Giacomo Vallone’s remarks are not only tactless to the cause of mutual cooperation of European nationalism, but wrong..

READ MORE...

Dugin/Stark interview: Beginning concession to White Post Modernity

Whereas he used to have a completely botched notion of post modernity - mixing-up what should be the antidote to modernity and liberalism with liberalism itself - it now appears that we are improving Dugin’s understanding - viz., that modernity is the problem and the essence of liberalism.

His ideas in this talk are largely amenable and well considered.

His proposition that the state is a bit too much of an artifice to suffice by itself and that there needs to be a hypothesized realm, as we would say, beyond the physically verified moment, which girds and orients a people, is also well considered.

However, now that we are getting him to a better understanding of “post moderntiy”, viz. White post modernity, we need to get him to a better understanding of biological reality and “racism.”

Anti-racism is the quintessential modernist liberal notion; it is a Cartesian farce: It has been proposed as innocent but it is not -

Anti-racism is prejudiced, it is not innocent, it is hurting and it is killing people.

For “racism” is a necessary concept in a benign form, which is not supremacism nor a singular conclusion to aggrandizement and annihilation of an opposing people (as YKW propose and liberals might accept as a definition). It is in fact, a practical concept that is practiced by ordinary people everyday of necessity, as a non-Cartesian requirement of the human condition, of being in the world - one must discriminate in human-sized categories, including social classification - of one’s own people and of other peoples - to form a coherent basis of ones own and to form a basis of human ecologies for our systemic coherence, social accountability, warrant and agency.

These classifications are “hermeneutic”, that is to say that they are not absolutely empirically based in every moment, as the taken-for-granted and the state of partial knowledge - faith, if you will - must subsist behind the working hypothesis.

Call it a working hypothesis, call it faith, call it rules, call it narrative, call it taken for granted, call it the partly unknown, call it a mystery, a quest, an adventure, some of that as you must, some of it you might, as it has practical function to ensconce the under-determining facts of the empirical; but I have believed and continue to believe that a sacred overlay, in orientation and guidance of a people is a good idea.

I believe that it is a hermeneutic notion nevertheless, which is itself accountable to deal concretely with biology, sex and genetics, mediating toward fairness and justice in regards to this social capital - otherwise, without this empirical accountability, this “spiritual” realm will be the realm of evil charlatans.

“Third Worlders”, “Non-Whites”,  “Asians”... There are DIFFERENCES THAT MAKE A DIFFERENCE

                      “Third World immigration is the real culprit” - TNO

               
                tari-huli images from this site.

               
               
                Photo: Dabiq/Corbis

  Observe the DIFFERENCES, they are NOT TOO COMPLICATED TO DISCERN
               
                   

60 Minutes News Crew Attacked

Police decline to go into the Somali area with reporters.

Who are then greeted by assault

READ MORE...

We will analyze this excellent speech of Victor Orban. It will show why The White Left is the necessary way - it is the way of agency for European peoples - whereas the Right, including the Alternative Right, is the way of retardation, the non-agency, no account resignation to deterministic causality that will render us into the hands of our enemies; that is the reason that our enemies want to designate us as “the right” - while fools and infiltrators adopt that moniker - with the “fate” and its acceptance that Orban correctly denounces.

The right will always be retarded by its myopic abstractions beyond the human scale, feedback and accountability of our people as a social group and social groups. It is and will be thrown into hyper-relativism as a result of its lack of context for its desperate and futile quests beyond social reality - finally, in desperate recourse it will be thrown back by default of practical necessity to its only recourse, to that reality of the White Left - of Praxis, that is social group unionization, accountability and its agency.

READ MORE...

It’s all worse, more organized and more them than even you think.

I don’t know why some people have found it so difficult to understand that it’s a bad idea, but I keep seeing people trying to promote Christianity as a solution to European problems over and over again, so I’ve decided to make a quick Q&A style article which should serve to explain why it is a really bad idea. This article covers some of the most commonly asked questions, and may expand later if I notice other questions trending.

So without further ado, let’s get to it.

Q: Europeans need Christianity as a cultural glue to hold them together, don’t they?

A: Can anyone name any Christian institution in the present day, that is actually against inviting those Arabs and Africans into Europe at the slightest excuse, if they were labelled as ‘refugees’?

There literally are none. 100% of mainstream Christian institutions in Europe right now are in favour of ‘refugees welcome’, and are actively lobbying in favour of open door policies while collecting grant money to provide services to ‘refugees’ and ‘economic migrants’ alike.

Q: Tricky Neo-Marxists have taken over the churches, it’s not the fault of the churches!

A: If the village church is controlled by the ideological enemy, then the thing which you absolutely should not do is encourage young people to join that same institution. Especially if they weren’t much involved in it in the first place. Instead, you should conduct non-stop Information Operations against those institutions, right up to and including black propaganda and grey propaganda.

You should not funnel people toward organisations that are completely controlled by the enemy.

Any attempt to funnel young Europeans into church institutions is:

• a.) A lot of ridiculously hard work, which would hilariously help our enemies, given that the enemy controls those institutions, and
• b.) Demoralising for everyone, because it is literally manufacturing a division where it did not need to exist, and allowing the enemy to have preferential access to the ears of the people we are trying to talk to. Why on earth should anyone want to willingly afford the church clergy the opportunity to compete with us for the ears of young people? No one should want to ever afford them that opportunity.

You should instead attack them and discredit them whenever and wherever you can. There are no pretty political words that can make it anything other than what it is. Church institutions are enemy institutions which must be opposed.

Also, the fact that Christianity is demonstrably a massive pack of lies, makes the task of opposing Christian institutions really easy. It’s pretty easy to do.

Q: I heard that the Russian Orthodox Church was okay with racial advocacy, isn’t that good?

A: The Russian Orthodox Church is a church which:

• a.) has a doctrine of ‘anti-phyletism’, which is basically anti-racism, and
• b.) is an ideological state apparatus (ISA) of the Russian Federation, a state which is openly hostile to Western Europe.

So, no, they are not okay with racial advocacy, they are just like all the others.

Q: Surely all the churches are not like this?

A: They certainly are.

Adrean Arlott wrote an article back in May 2013 in which he touched on this issue:

Compulsory Diversity News / Adrean Arlott, ‘Save us Jebus!’, 18 May 2013:

I have been debating Christianity’s lack of virtues today. I ask you this: Does Christianity do more to help or hurt White people? If we consider anti-racist to be code word for anti-White, then I vote it hurts White people.

Orthodox Church: (Source)
...we reject phyletism, that is racial discrimination and nationalistic contention, enmities and discord in the Church of Christ as being contrary to the teaching of the Gospel and the sacred canons of our holy Fathers, who support the holy Church and adorn the whole of the Christian life, leading to divine Godliness.

Catholic Church: (Source)
We begin with three facts. First, racism exists here; it is part of the American landscape. Second, racism is completely contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Third, all baptized Catholics have a moral obligation to work toward the elimination of racism.

Episcopal Church: (Source)
Racism is totally inconsistent with the Gospel, therefore, must be confronted and eradicated. Basing its message on the baptismal covenant, the Bishops invited all baptized Christians to enter into a new covenant to fight racism and, “proclaim the vision of God’s new creation in which the dignity of every human being is honored.”

Baptist Church: (Source)
“We are all saddened when any sin, including the sin of racism, rears its head,” said Southern Baptist Convention spokesman Sing Oldham. “Part of our gospel is that we are being redeemed. We are flawed, failed creatures and redemption is a process.”

Westboro Baptist Church (Source)
...the Scripture doesn’t support racism. God never says “thou shalt not be black.” However, He does say, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” (Leviticus 18:22).

Mormon Church: (Source)
“The church’s position is clear,” LDS Church spokesman Michael Purdy said. “We believe all people are God’s children and are equal in His eyes and in the church. We do not tolerate racism in any form. For a time in the church there was a restriction on the priesthood for male members of African descent,” Purdy said. “It is not known precisely why, how or when this restriction began in the church but what is clear is that it ended decades ago.”

Lutheran Church: (Source)
Racism is one of the most destructive sins in today’s world. It refuses to honor God’s mighty acts in creation, redemption, and sanctification. Racism simply does not trust the gospel. It builds on human pride and prejudice, abusing power for selfish advantage. Racism dishonors God, neighbor, and self. It rejects the meaning in God’s becoming incarnate in Jesus Christ, because in rejecting another person one rejects Jesus Christ.

Presbyterian Church: (Source)
The Dismantling Racism and Privilege Ministry Team assists the presbytery in its commitment to dismantle racism and privilege. Its purpose is to increase awareness and work toward the eradication of intentional and unintentional racism and privilege at critical decision points in the life of the presbytery, and to assist sessions and congregations in dismantling racism and privilege among our church constituency.

Methodist Church: (Source)
At the beginning of the 21st century, the United Methodist Church is focusing on racism and promoting diversity with more vigor than ever. It is actively promoting more inclusiveness and diversity in its institutions and leadership. One of its 14 churchwide agencies, the Commission on Religion and Race, focuses on those issues, and caucuses such as Black Methodists for Church Renewal and Methodists Associated Representing the Cause of Hispanic Americans also keep them in front of the church. Through programs such as Strengthening the Black Church for the 21st Century, the National Plan for Hispanic Ministries, the Council on Korean-American Ministries and the Native American Comprehensive Plan, the denomination is building up racial-ethnic congregations.

Pretty interesting, Adrean Arlott had done a good service to his readers when he pointed that out to them.

The fact that Arlott has drawn attention to this in the past, should provide even more of a context to how well-known and well-understood it is to ethno-nationalists, that Christian churches are not capable of being allies of ethno-nationalists and never will be. Even the most cynical political calculations could not bring anyone to the conclusion that organised Christianity could be utilised in the defence of anyone’s ethnic genetic interests (EGI).

It’s so bad in fact, that the Christian churches promote not only white genocide—not even metaphorically but literally—but also for the rest of the planet they offer nothing other than genocide either.

For example, plenty of church bodies espouse the position of mass mestizaje for Central Americans, thus advocating the continuation of the genocide against the native peoples of the Americas.

Here’s one example of that:

Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, ‘Ethnic Specific and Multicultural Ministries - Latino’: (emphasis added)
We are a community that confesses its origin and identity in the creative, redemptive and sanctifying work of God. The great diversity that characterizes us is a process of continual biological and cultural “mestizaje,” and our unity is in Jesus Christ, who gathers us around word and water, wine and bread.

They are actually serious.

So really, in what world would anyone think that ethnic advocacy from ‘a Christian perspective’ could ever be possible? In what retarded world is ‘cultural Christianity’—which is to say, the idea of a political alliance between Christianity and ethno-nationalism—even a thing that could be worth considering for more than five seconds? It’s just completely ridiculous.

The real and actually-existing physical manifestation of Christianity is one which is intrinsically opposed to the existence of pretty much everyone’s ethnic groups. It’s not that Christianity somehow acquired an ethnicity-destroying agenda after the year 1968. It was already doing that from the start, it’s just that the ‘anti-racist’ cultural phenomenon that manifested in the west after 1968 offered Christianity the ability to express its full ‘anti-racist’ potential while uninhibited by secular interference.

Q: What if we don’t encourage people to join the institutions, but instead propagate the idea that people should just pretend to be a Christian and then never attend church?

A: If you go around plastering images of churches up everywhere and begin praising the supposed ‘2000 year civilisation’ that these institutions created and exhorting people to identify themselves and their prosperity with those ideas, isn’t it only to be expected that people might take it seriously?

If you stand on a stage and play the violin jauntily, do you not expect that the people will either: (a.) dance or (b.) leave the dance floor?

If you put out non-stop praise for Christianity, do you not expect that new people might either: (a.) join Christian institutions or (b.) depart from the scene?

Neither of those two responses would be conducive to our interests, so why should anyone put out that kind of messaging?

We should be promoting ethno-nationalism, not promoting Christianity, because Christianity is an ideology of the enemy, and on top of that it is an ideology held by very few of the target audience which are Europeans aged 16 to 35.

There is no reason why anyone should point new people in the direction of an ideology which is opposed to everything we stand for, and whose institutions are controlled by our enemies. It’s unreasonable to expect that if you are successful at getting people to accept Christian ideology, that they wouldn’t end up attending Christian churches and looking for Christian teachings from contemporary Christian teachers. That’s what religious converts do.

Q: But the evidence of 2000 years of civilisation and architecture is all around, how can people just ignore it? What are they supposed to have pride in? How else can a community be built? Christianity is a noble lie, and Europeans need to be lied to, don’t they?

A: Nobody cares. That narrative is basically devised as an attempt to get people to increase their respect for an ideology which pushes (a) operationally useless ideas, and also (b) ideas that blatantly contradict our agenda, all so that the people will support Christians in defending an abstract historiography about the supposed ‘pride’ of ‘2000 years’, a historiography which most young people don’t identify with or care about. The whole ‘pride of 2000 years’ narrative has no real connection with the people’s short-term concerns.

The best propaganda is that which is based on truth and which addresses the immediate concerns of the people. But the ‘noble’ liars are calling for pro-Christianity propaganda to be put out all over the place, even though they at the same time openly acknowledge in that same propaganda that they believe the core of that pro-Christianity propaganda to be based on total lies, because they acknowledge that Christianity is a lie. And it is indeed a lie.

So how does this even work? The ‘noble’ liars expect the target audience to believe propaganda which they themselves are openly admitting has no truth in it? They expect the average random person in the street to have the sophistication and capacity for psychological self-distancing to identify outwardly with Christian revival memes while cynically and consciously repudiating all of the content of Christian doctrine, and shunning all its institutions and authorities? They expect the flower girl at the florist’s shop to do something mentally sophisticated like that? They expect the cashier in the newsagents shop to do that? They expect someone who works the production line at a factory to wrap their heads around that?

That is completely impractical. If the noble ‘liars’ were to ever attempt some real activism they’d realise immediately how ridiculous it would be to go out and say:

‘Cultural Christians’ may as well be saying:

“I want you to convert to Christianity in order to save the European peoples by fostering a sense of ‘community’ on this basis, but I want you to also remember that it is all a lie which could be severely damaging to European peoples if you were to start actually believing it. We’re asking you to play 57-dimensional chess, where you will spend your whole life outwardly professing to believe something that we all know is a lie, while you are contradicting that supposed belief with every policy preference, and you also need to pass this subtle game onto your children, making sure that they fall neither into belief, nor into renunciation. We also need to make sure that no one ever points out that this is all a lie, even though we all know it is a lie. Also, don’t ever go to Church, just pretend to go. Can you do all that?”

Imagine the look on someone’s face if you asked them to do that, and portrayed it as a pre-requisite for ‘saving Europe’. It’s a really ridiculous idea which has no mass appeal whatsoever, and is completely infeasible. It’s not even edgy. It’s just ridiculous.

Q: You anti-Christians are really divisive! Aren’t you just complaining and causing division among ethno-nationalists?

A: No. Using the United Kingdom as an example, the anti-Christian narrative appeals to the fastest growing element of the landscape, people whose religion is listed as “None”, and this section comprises a majority of the people under the age of 54.

The pro-Christians on the other hand are appealing to a shrinking demography of people who will be dead within the next decade and a half. And then they get upset when they are told that what they are doing is mentally retarded. People who are placing all of their bets on the red section of the religious affiliation by age group table depicted above, are people who simply do not understand politics.

Q: People shouldn’t just lazily follow trends, you should stand athwart history and yell “Stop!”, shouldn’t you?

A: There is no good reason for why any ethno-nationalist should want to reverse the trend depicted in the tables shown in the previous section. Christianity is a liability, and Christianity’s fall into irrelevance is just one less liability that you’ll have to deal with. Well, it would be one less liability if you would just let it go.

As I said about Abrahamic monotheists, such as the Christians, in September 2015:

Majorityrights.com / Kumiko Oumae, ‘Dear monotheists: We will attack your semitic god. By what method? By all methods.’, 10 Sep 2015:

[...] [Abrahamic monotheists] set human beings against their own senses and against their own intuition by emphasising a false distinction between mind and body. They created a separation between the people and the land that they evolved on. They were not the only ones to attempt this, but particularly in Europe and the Near East, it is impossible to talk about this issue without actually pointing out that Abrahamic religion is a central factor to the process of the alienation of people from themselves and their dispossession from their own land.

The Christian church twisted the minds of the European peoples, turning the mechanisms of their own survival instincts against themselves. Islam also did the same from without, it attacked people for the sake of accomplishing the same purposes, and these are essentially the same phenomenon, all branching from Judaism. All the expressions of Middle Eastern monotheism spring up in the physical world [as a product of] the after-effects of a desertification event that occurred in the Middle East and North Africa about 4000 years ago, an event which a priestly class seized upon so as to cement their control. Those population groups then tried by every means possible, to impose their warped social institutions and practices onto the neighbouring populations.

Europeans struggled, for centuries, to succeed at living fulfilling lives not because of Christianity, but rather, despite Christianity. [...]

What should be done, then?

Well, as I concluded in that same article:

Majorityrights.com / Kumiko Oumae, ‘Dear monotheists: We will attack your semitic god. By what method? By all methods.’, 10 Sep 2015: (emphasis added)

[...]

People should also be encouraged to show the viability and vitality of a new Europe, through their support for parallel civic organisations that strengthen national bonds of blood and proximity. These social organisations would be like a great constellation of stars shining like a thousand points of light over the continent, engaged in world service. By doing so, it would show that it is possible to run Europe without Christianity, without Islam, and without Judaism.

Through that kind of approach, we would be fighting the war domestically, fighting the war overseas, and also fighting the war in the world we cannot see. If we are successful at creating that environment—and we will be—I think there will be a definite chance for a new Europe to emerge.

It ought to be like this, but unfortunately liberals refused to let it be.

The word no longer has a meaning

One of the most remarkable aspects of the migration wave that is presently sweeping over Europe, is how organised liberal-feminism has basically acted as an extension of the government, advocating precisely what the wealthiest male stakeholders in the liberal-capitalist state would like them to advocate. The demography of the migrant flow is 70% male between ages 18 and 35, and the percentage of males rises to 90% when the age range of 16 to 17 years old alone is considered.

With liberal-feminist theorists and commentators in Europe now devoting themselves almost exclusively to the defence of Arab and African men, some people are beginning to ask how it could have ever been possible for things to have reached this point.

If we start with the consideration that incidents of violent crime, homicide, and sexual assault are statistically being committed overwhelmingly by men, and if we consider that feminism has been highlighting and talking about these statistics for as long as it has existed as a movement, why has this been completely forgotten now? Why is it that talking about the violent and anti-social tendencies of men has now been condemned as ‘prejudice’, where it was never condemned as such before?

It stands to reason that if men in general are a hazardous demographic, that the last thing any reasonable feminist would want to do is to set about inviting more men into a region that they are living in. What makes it even more of an absurd trend, is that the particular men who are being invited into Europe subscribe to social views which are magnitudes worse than the views held by European men. If young European men are a problem demographic, and they indeed are, then wait until you see young Arab and African men!

Some have advanced the absolutely bewildering argument that since there are already trouble-causing men in Europe, there should be no problem inviting millions more men into the continent. This makes no sense. Why would anyone want to increase the amount of a problem that already exists?

There seems to be no rationale until you realise that big business, specifically manufacturing, always wants more migration of ‘strong’ workers. And manufacturing essentially controls the German state, which forms the centre of this trend. European feminism has found itself acting as the cheerleaders for the most retrograde liberal economic policy preferences of German manufacturers and their Jewish-German financiers.

Given that feminism is a movement that originated not as a liberal movement, but rather, as a socialistic movement—which is to say, a movement which correctly perceived the liberal state as being a male-dominated capitalist assault vehicle against women and as such was opposed to the liberal state—it is quite a distance that has been travelled since the mid-1970s to get to the destructive pro-liberal capitalist position it is in now. There are important lessons to be learned on why this deformation happened and how to prevent such a deformation from happening again in the future.

READ MORE...