Majorityrights Central > Category: European Nationalism

Abraham Anon

Kumiko was telling me about her disgust with Hillary and the YKW’s wars, citing an egregious collateral damage to schools and education: this will obstruct solutions to the root of social problems and exacerbate social problems from the root as the schools and formative educational years of vast demographics are being destroyed. She is enraged by the damage this will do to personal and social skills. She asks what can be done?

I suggest a new variant of the 12 step meetings. Why? Because when people have been that damaged and obstructed by an interpersonal problem - such as Islamic abuse - it will be primarily these people who have sufficient understanding; they will have sufficient concern; it will be a necessity for them to take the time and show patience; to articulate the difficulties in full significance of the impact to them and society; and to search for solutions.

People who have not gone through this will generally not have sufficient understanding of the difficulties of getting through it, even if they did have inclination and take time from their faster track to a good life to put up with the wild and frustrating expressions that result from traumatic experiences and pervasive abuse.

The “victims” themselves will carry most of the load - by “sharing their hope, strength and inspiration” indispensable coping skills will find their way among them. But that doesn’t mean that people coming from a background undergirded by normal philosophy and interpersonal relations shouldn’t interact with them; in fact, that is one of the first differences I would make from the 12 Step programs - to have intermittent interaction from people from healthy backgrounds so that they can model normalcy for them and share normal skills. To make sure that bad thinking doesn’t keep circulating and gets directed out before long.

So, there could be Visitors Meetings and Skilled Workshop Meetings to go along with the usual kinds of 12 Step meetings -

Speaker Meetings, in which one person tells the story of their struggle with the problem.

Step Meetings, in which one of the Steps is focused-on, with each person in the group having a chance to discuss their take and experience with that step.

The next change that I would propose is putting into question whether 12 should be the number of steps; of course it has pagan origin and has been hijacked by Abrahamism, but perhaps another number should be proposed to make the break more clear.

Of course the content of the steps should be significantly different as well. I will only sketch-in what they might look like. Suggestions from others are more than welcome.

One of the excellent features of the 12 step program idea is that one is not excluded for lacking skills or for not contributing dues. All that is required is a belief that you have a problem with the stated issue of the meeting group and that you comply with a few of its basic guidelines. There are no leaders. You agree to not expose the identity of those who go to meetings and to not gossip about them to people outside the group. You agree enough with the 12 steps (rather, we’ll go with 14 steps, why not?) to allow them to provide coherence; and, except for speaker meetings, you allow a chance for each person who wants to talk.

Ok. There are probably some things that I’m forgetting but that’s enough to start. Let me have a stab at how the steps might read:

The 14 Steps of Abraham-Anon

1. Came to understand that I had a problem with Abrahamism and that I could not handle it alone.

2. Came to identify positive attributes of my distinct race and my share in these positive attributes. Affirmed these daily to provide faith in mine and my people’s worth as opposed to the Abrahamic god.

3. Conducted a fearless and searching personal inventory in order to purge its memes which may harm myself, my people, and in order to make amends to anyone who I have harmed in the name of Abrahamism or because I was inappropriately directing my response to it.

4. Came to understand the truth of how harmful Abrahamism is.

5. Came to understand Abrahamism is not a necessary evil nor a relative cultural preference; there are other “gods” and better ways.

6. Came to understand that its practice and promotion must be rejected by our people.

7. Came to understand that its perpetrators can and must be punished - ranging from denunciation, to social ostracism, to denationalization, to severe personal punishment in some cases.

8. Came to believe in the priceless gift of serenity to be found in the faith that my race, my place within it, and our interests are being looked after by the best and greater part of my people; by myself included.

9. Came to believe not only in the reality of distinct kinds of people, but also their right to preserve their differences.

10. Came to believe in the DNA Nation and international ethno-nationalism (genetic and territorial bounds); as the means to such maintenance of distinct peoples; their quantities and qualities of genetic inventory; their habitats through national territorial delimitations; qualitative and quantitative foreign enclave delimitations.

11. Came to believe that the Abrahamic religion and the Abrahamic man is already an imperialist hybrid and therefore his fate and place is the subject of our discretion.

12. Came to believe that Abrahamism can and should be destroyed once and for all.

13. Came to believe facilitating that destruction to be our prerogative as the people who are willing and capable of respecting racial differences, their right to be preserved in ethno-states, among the DNA Nation; and knowing that there is no avoiding the issue of morals - that every society will have some things that are legitimate, some things prohibited and some things obligated - will seek moral orders based on the Silver Rule as opposed to The Golden Rule.

14. Came to understand that the homeostasis of our ethnostates are contingent upon having the decency and wisdom to respect an option for sacred and devotional enclaves for those preferring strict monogamy (e.g., they want to choose carefully enough, devote themselves to that important choice; and/or concentrate on their endeavors otherwise, not chasing around for partners); and that those wanting to protect more liberal personal prerogatives must assent to that sacrosanct option and to strict national borders of citizenship -  paradigmatic conservatism.

The Joint Inquiry Into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of 11 September 2001 has now had the 28 pages relating to Saudi Arabia declassified.

This means that an area of this document that used to be completely covered in black bars, now is almost completely visible. The Saudis were strongly opposed to having this section declassified and made available, as was the executive branch of the US. However, contradictions between different factions in the US Congress has led to a situation where it has been declassified.

Predictably, the framing that the western media has given it, is to try to portray it as though there is nothing interesting in the document. Nothing could be further from the truth. Every paragraph is actually interesting.

Here is a small selection of what is inside, with highlights placed on it by me:

That is just a narrow selection of what is inside the document. I leave it to our readers to decide whether it looks interesting or not.

We should never forget that the attacks of 11 September 2001 were not just an attack against the United States, but rather an attack against the whole world. The centre of world finance, albeit flawed, had not exhausted its progressive potential, but it was attacked by the most regressive and most backward social forces. It is incumbent on us all to acknowledge where that attack came from and who supplied the ideological and logistical support which made it possible.

It should be clear that when the next memorial for the 11 September 2001 attacks is held, it should not be a time to make an oath of peace. Rather it should be a time to renew our intentions and recommit ourselves to permanent and neverending global war against all those who threaten to pull us asunder.

[Download PDF]

       
        Portugal’s Euro Cuck representation 2016 ...and France’s offering..

In a disgraceful epitome of displaced masculine nationalist instinct, millions of Europeans cheered-on their cuckoldry as two predominantly African mercenary teams pretended to represent European nations in the ultimately identifying sporting event of Europe.

Or does this, in fact, represent what these nations have become?

True White Nationalists must have a look at their inclination for sheer objectivism and universalism; it is destroying the very idea of nationalism and its representation as mercenaries are drawn from the four corners of the globe with the argument that they are “better.” But even if they are better in some instances, how can you feel good about people so different from you, winning and losing “for you?” What do you even know about yourself in that instance but that you are a cuck! What the cuck, European football fans, European “men”, you are idiots to stand for this!

       
First a trickle then a flood: The French team in 1984 had just the one colored guy (save perhaps Roman Polanski in the upper right).

Though Portugal has long been the European nation with the highest percentage of African admixture, it would be represented by having perhaps one Mulatto on the team and nowhere near a “representation” like this.
           
Tearful Latino lady-boy Ronaldo was out early with a sore knee, but still darker cuckpatriots picked up the slack for “team Portugal” to win The Euro Cuck 2016

READ MORE...

       
        Rather, change its course and throw them overboard.

This article at The Right Stuff uses a metaphor that I have always liked, of Europe and its states as analogous to a ship and its compartments:

TRS, “For Europeans to Live, the EU Must Perish,” 5 July 2016:

      - Tom Paine

Think of the EU as a ship, its 28 member countries as compartments below the waterline, Europeans as passengers, Mohammedans and Africans as the sea around them. When the ship’s hull is breached, its rules (EU Freedom of Movement) require all hatches between compartments to remain open. (It is impossible to exclude anyone with EU papers from moving to another EU member except in extreme cases). Crazy but true.

While the ship’s crew could in theory protect passengers by closing hatches to contain flooding to one compartment, in practice the crew devotes its efforts to silencing the passengers’ “hydrophobia” as the sea pours in…

The article focuses too much on law change, however. That is an arduous and vastly insufficient answer to what we need: which is a compelling argument for mass deportation, a call emphatically understood, undertaken with the action of a flood of combined nationalist effort that would simply drag laws and bureaucracies along or bury them underfoot if they will not willingly comply to our will.

#NationalistDeporationists

I.e., rather than abandoning ship we ought change its course and throw them overboard.

Michael Gove faces the cameras.

Summary: Part two of a roundtable between Guessedworker, DanielS, and Kumiko Oumae, about Brexit and the leadership contest which is emerging in the aftermath of the decision.

Thoughts about the situation in Turkey are again explored.

Recorded on 01 Jul 2016.

Left to right: Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, Theresa May.

Summary: A roundtable between Guessedworker, DanielS, and Kumiko Oumae, about Brexit and the leadership contest which is emerging in the aftermath of the decision.

Thoughts about the situation in Turkey are also explored.

Recorded on 30 Jun 2016.

Here’s an interesting development:

BBC News, ‘Austria presidential poll result overturned’, 01 Jul 2016 (emphasis added):

Austria’s highest court has annulled the result of the presidential election narrowly lost by the candidate of the far-right Freedom Party.

The party had challenged the result, saying that postal votes had been illegally and improperly handled.

The Freedom Party candidate, Norbert Hofer, lost the election to the former leader of the Greens, Alexander Van der Bellen, by just 30,863 votes or less than one percentage point.

The election will now be re-run.

Announcing the decision, Gerhard Holzinger, head of the Constitutional Court, said: “The challenge brought by Freedom Party leader Heinz-Christian Strache against the 22 May election… has been upheld.”

He added: “The decision I am announcing today has no winner and no loser, it has only one aim: to strengthen trust in the rule of law and democracy.”

Austria’s politics have been thrown into confusion. One of the most controversial and polarising presidential elections in recent history will have to be re-run.

This is a moral victory for the far-right, anti-immigrant and Eurosceptic Freedom Party, which launched the legal challenge last month after alleging “terrifying” irregularities.

The Freedom Party is hoping that the decision by the court will help its candidate Norbert Hofer win in the new election this autumn.

Hanging over the vote is the shadow of “Brexit” - the UK’s decision to leave the EU.

Will Mr Hofer choose to make Austria’s future membership of the EU a campaign issue?

Some Austrians think the vote by the United Kingdom to leave the EU could boost populist and nationalist sentiment in Austria. Others believe the political turbulence in Britain may make people more cautious about Eurosceptic parties.

Mr Hofer said on Friday he was pleased that the court had taken “a difficult decision”, adding: “I have great trust in the rule of law.”

Mr Van der Bellen said he was “very confident” he would emerge the winner.

“Austria needs to be well represented in Europe and the world. If we can do it once, we can do it again,” he told reporters.

Austrian Chancellor Christian Kern said the court ruling showed that the country’s democracy was strong and he called for “a short campaign, a campaign without emotions”.

‘Rules broken’

In two weeks of hearings, lawyers for the Freedom Party argued that postal ballots were illegally handled in 94 out of 117 districts.

It alleged that thousands of votes were opened earlier than permitted under election rules and some were counted by people unauthorised to do so.

The party also claimed to have evidence that some under-16s and foreigners had been allowed to vote.

In its ruling, the court said election rules had been broken in a way that could have influenced the result.

But it said there was no proof the count had been manipulated.

If elected, Mr Hofer would become the first far-right head of state of an EU country.

His party has based its election campaigns around concern over immigration and falling living standards for the less well-off.

After Britain voted to leave the EU, Mr Hofer said he favoured holding a similar referendum in Austria if the bloc failed to stop centralisation and carry out reforms “within a year”.

Last Sunday, he told the Oesterreich newspaper (in German): “If [the EU] evolves in the wrong direction, then in my opinion the time has come to ask the Austrians if they still want to be part of it.”

His opponent, Mr Van der Bellen, is strongly pro-EU and has spoken of his dream for a border-free “United States of Europe”.

The two men went forward to a run-off when, for the first time since World War Two, both the main centrist parties were knocked out in the first round of voting.

Following the court’s order to re-run the vote, President Heinz Fischer will be replaced on a temporary basis by three parliamentary officials, including Mr Hofer.

The new election is expected to be held in September or October.

What powers does the Austrian president have?

It is a mostly ceremonial post. But the president does have the power to dissolve the National Council - the more powerful lower house of parliament. That triggers a general election.

The president can only do that once for a particular reason - he cannot use the same grounds to dissolve it again.

It is the chancellor’s job to appoint government ministers. And the chancellor has the power to dismiss the government. But ministers have to be formally sworn in by the president.

Welcome, welcome to the theatre of ‘I told you so’!

In my previous post on Brexit, I said:

Majorityrights / Kumiko Oumae, ‘The coming battle over the meaning of Brexit.’, 26 Jun 2016 (emphasis added):

The European Union’s leaders really don’t want to sacrifice their mass migration agenda or their austerity agenda in order to save the union itself. They want to have their cake and eat it, and the only way they can do that is to try to convince the broad mass of the European population that the root problem is somehow actually the opposite of what it really is.

So instead, everyone will be told that somehow the reason for Brexit is because the EU itself somehow stoked ‘Islamophobic tendencies’ by implicitly approving of [those tendencies]—astonishingly—because it somehow didn’t prostrate itself to the needs and concerns of Turks as well as Arabs and North Africans quite enough for their liking, and that by not prostrating itself it somehow gave the signal that it was okay to not prostrate oneself, which somehow led to Brexit.

Sounds impossible? Oh, it’s possible. [...]

Today:

Sky News, ‘Turkey And EU Begin Brussels Accession Talks’, 30 Jun 2016 (emphasis added):

A senior Turkish politician has said right-wing extremism is threatening “European civilisation” and that following Brexit, the EU needs a “fresh start with a fresh vision”, which must include Turkey.

Omer Celik, Turkey’s chief negotiator in the process of the country’s proposed accession to the EU, also condemned the “anti-Turkish sentiments” expressed during the recent referendum campaign.

He was speaking at a media conference in Brussels following a meeting between EU officials and a delegation from Turkey that also included the country’s foreign, finance and justice ministers.

The substance of the meeting was the opening of the latest phase of convergence reforms, known as ‘chapters’, that a state must fulfil before accession to the EU.

So far, of the 35 chapters that must be completed and ratified, 16 have been opened but only one - on science research - has been closed.

During the media conference, the Turkish delegation exchanged polite, but pointed barbs with EU officials.

Dutch foreign minister Bert Koenders and EU commissioner Johannes Hahn both called on Turkey to address concerns over “short-comings” on human rights, the rule of law, freedom of expression and the independence of the judiciary, indicating these were major sticking points to progress.

Mr Celik responded by saying it was Europe - not just Turkey - that needed to change.

“Without sorting out its problems it cannot give hope to its members or its neighbours… it needs a fresh start with a fresh vision. Such a start will have to include Turkey,” he said.

“There are extreme right wing movements, there is anti-semitism and racism. These are the main threats against European civilisation,” Mr Celik added.

Turkey joining the EU became a major topic of debate in the UK referendum, with the Leave campaign regularly voicing their alarm about the prospect of visa-free travel for “79 million” Turkish citizens - a point dismissed by David Cameron and Remain campaigners, who insisted that Turkey was “decades” away from joining.

Mr Celik condemned the tone of the debate in the UK, saying anti-Turkish rhetoric masked deeper problems across Europe.

“The extreme right are expressing themselves with anti-Turkish sentiment but these are all products of the same mentality,” he said.

“The mainstream politics should stand up to this, not be weakened in the face of the extremist movements.

“When mainstream parties use these arguments against Turkey, they are making a mistake, they have to take responsibility, they have to stop this tendency.”

No. We won’t stop saying unkind things about Turkey. Not ever.