Majorityrights Central > Category: Jewish Diaspora

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.

The horror won’t end

It must be really difficult for Alt-Right ‘Big Tent’ proponents these days, especially since they declared war against reality and reality is systematically thrashing them.

Increasingly miserable Donald Trump supporters in the Alt-Right Big Tent may have been wondering whether Trump was going to take Fox News up on their idea for another debate that was supposed to happen next week between himself, John Kasich, and Ted Cruz.

Donald Trump believes that this would clash with his busy schedule:

The Hill, ‘Insider: Trump to skip GOP debate for pro-Israel conference’, 15 Mar 2016 (emphasis added):

Donald Trump will miss the final Republican presidential debate to address a major pro-Israel lobbying organization instead, according to an insider.

“Hearing that Trump secured a Monday night speaking slot at AIPAC conf. in D.C,” tweeted Noah Pollak, executive director of the Emergency Committee for Israel, referencing the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

“Also happening that night: [the] Republican debate in Salt Lake City,” he added, alluding to the 13th GOP presidential contest on March 21.

[...]

That Republican debate in Salt Lake City? Apparently it’s not happening after all:

The Hill, ‘Fox News cancels GOP debate after Trump backs out’, 16 Mar 2016 (emphasis added):

Fox News is canceling next week’s Republican presidential debate in Salt Lake City, Utah, after front-runner Donald Trump publicly backed out early Wednesday, followed by John Kasich.

“Ted Cruz has expressed a willingness to debate Trump or Kasich – or both. But obviously, there needs to be more than one participant,” Fox executive vice president Michael Clemente said in a statement.

Trump announced early Wednesday that he would not show up for the debate, saying there have been “enough” debates and noting he’d be speaking at a pro-Jewish rally on Monday.

Instead of appearing at the debate, Trump said he would be making a “major speech” at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference, he announced Wednesday on “Fox and Friends.”

[...]

So basically, Fox News called for a television debate, and asked Donald Trump if he’d like to attend it. Trump declined, because he has what he perceives as better things to do already on his schedule, things such as kissing the backsides of the mendacious Jews at AIPAC.

No doubt, all television cameras will follow Donald Trump to AIPAC, because that’s where the ratings are, and then all of the people who have been enthusiastically promoting Donald Trump will get to see how many cringe-worthy pro-Israeli and pro-Jewish statements he can rattle off within the time that he has there.

Option one: Speaking bitterness

When Donald Trump first started his incoherent campaign, he created a space for ‘politically incorrect’ discussions in the public space.

The appearance of that space could have potentially been harnessed by American ethno-nationalist advocates and channelled away from Trump and toward ethno-nationalist causes. This could have been accomplished through sending people to Trump rallies to look for people who could be converted and drawn into ethno-nationalist activism, distributing flyers, speaking bitterness or consciousness raising, and so on. To accomplish that, ethno-nationalists in the United States would have needed to draw a hard line between themselves and Trump’s campaign, and would have needed to walk parallel to his campaign while simulataneously criticising it.

The opportunity to do this was completely squandered by them.

Option two: Being an idiot

Instead of doing that, Alt-Right players in actual reality chose to simply attach themselves to the Donald Trump campaign, make tweets on his behalf, act as an independent public relations arm for him, all while not challenging him on any of the big problems of his campaign.

They also chose to tell themselves nice stories about how everything that is wrong with Donald Trump is all part of some kind of 57-dimensional chess game. Trump’s daughter literally married to a Jew and incubating heirs for the Jew? Ivanka Trump’s womb is engaged in 57-dimensional chess, apparently, if Big Tenters are to be believed. Her womb is really complex and dynamic. Trump flip-flopping on the second amendment? It was ‘a different time’ back when he supported the so-called ‘Assault’ Weapons Ban, so that too is portrayed as 57-dimensional chess. Promises to support Israel stronger and harder than any candidate in the GOP? Chess again, supposedly. Literally has Jews as his advisers and lawyers? Allegedly it’s chess again. Insipidly idiotic protectionist anti-trade policies and tariffs? More excuses about how it’s about ‘fair’ trade, whatever that even means. Also, ‘chess’.

Cuck

It was almost like the Alt-Right Big Tent wanted to become Donald Trump’s girlfriend. And yet Donald Trump was never interested in that, and has never even so much as acknowledged them by name, because he’s too busy cuddling with the Jews. You know, those people who he’s been rubbing shoulders with his whole life because his career was launched in real estate development in New York City.

A key example of this is when someone like David Duke gives his support to Trump, and then Trump reacts by pretending not to know who Duke is, followed by all of the pro-Jewish pandering proceeding ahead full steam as before. Another example would be Kevin MacDonald saying that Donald Trump basically ‘knows exactly what he is doing’ as though some kind of chess game is going on, and then Donald Trump is meanwhile literally allowing Ivanka Trump to marry into Jewish bloodlines.

It’s in moments like that, when one can imagine that Donald Trump leans in close to the ear of people like Duke, or MacDonald, and softly whispers a single word: “Cuck”.

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.

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...

                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.

Role reversal: Perhaps South Asians and East Asians will take pity on Germany. We’re all going to have to collect funds for poor white Germans after they’ve been evicted from their own country.

I’m going to adopt a new format here, where I’m going to cut up the articles and give my responses to the things being said inbetween. It’s just easier this way.

First there needs to be a flashback to November 2015. Andreas Kluth, a writer for the Economist wrote an article in The World In. In that article, it seemed like he was predicting Germany’s next moves, so rather than writing a post about it immediately, I chose to hold on to it to see if the predictions would come true first, which they now have done. The article also contains a lot of information about the mindset of the modern German liberal, a mindset which is every bit as absurd as you might have imagined.

So let’s get underway, we’re on a voyage through a sea of absurdity:

The World In, ‘The New Germans’, Andreas Kluth, 02 Nov 2015:

For centuries the Germans were wont to leave their homeland, emigrating to places such as America, where the Statue of Liberty welcomed them among the “huddled masses yearning to breathe free”. [...]

Off to a bad start in the very first line. The Statue of Liberty represents the lowest and most disgusting values of mankind, the values which call for love and acceptance of everyone no matter how low and wretched they are.

Emma (((Lazarus))) wrote, “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me: I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”

That is nothing to run a country on. It’s more like how to run a trash heap. It’s basically like saying: Send us your human trash from Africa and the Middle East!

But let’s continue:

The World In, ‘The New Germans’, Andreas Kluth, 02 Nov 2015:

[...] For all the Germans remaining at home, however, nationality remained a matter of “blood” (jus sanguinis, in Latin) rather than choice or place of birth. That identity was built into the language itself. The word deutsch, originating in the early Middle Ages, meant “belonging to the people”. And until recently the word for “people”, Volk, had an ethnic rather than a civic connotation. [...]

Germany is not unique in that tendency. To this day, the correctly-used word for ‘the people’ in Japanese is minzoku, which denotes the ethnic group. This is perfectly normal.

So, what’s the ‘problem’ with doing that, I wonder?

The World In, ‘The New Germans’, Andreas Kluth, 02 Nov 2015:

[...] To this day its adjective, völkisch, retains ugly racist associations with the Nazis. [...]

Oh, right. Everyone saw that coming, right? Recognising that the German ethnic group exists, of course leads inexorably to death camps and 6 million Jews, which is ‘evil’, or something like that.

How long will it be until the writer starts to call for the total abolition of the German ethnic group?

The World In, ‘The New Germans’, Andreas Kluth, 02 Nov 2015:

[...]

All that is history and will definitively be buried in 2016. [...]

Wow, immediately!

The World In, ‘The New Germans’, Andreas Kluth, 02 Nov 2015:

[...] Today Germany is second only to America in the number of immigrants it attracts. Most come from within the European Union (EU), but many come from farther afield. Among rich countries Germany also takes by far the most refugees—today’s “huddled masses”. About 1m were expected in 2015 alone, and the numbers in 2016 are sure to be big too.

These newcomers from Syria, Afghanistan, Africa and elsewhere come into a country where one in five already has a “migration background”, as German bureaucratic jargon calls all those with foreign roots. These include the “guest workers” who came to West Germany—mainly from Turkey, Italy and Greece—in the 1950s and 1960s to provide labour, along with their German-born children and grandchildren. Then there are the former Yugoslavs who came in the 1990s during a previous big refugee crisis, as well as Poles, Romanians and Bulgarians who now enter freely as citizens of the EU, and many others. [...]

Notice how Kluth doesn’t even feel the need to justify this any further. The fact that Hitler existed is all that Kluth seems to feel that he needs to justify the complete erasure of Germany. The logic of race replacement seems to take on an almost Christian redemptive aspect, where the only way to remove the apparent ‘sin’ of the Holocaust, is to get oneself baptised in the sperm of Africans and Arabs.

The World In, ‘The New Germans’, Andreas Kluth, 02 Nov 2015:

[...] Naturally an influx on this scale causes anxiety among some Bio-Deutsche, as Germans of ethnically “pure” stock are today called in ironic slang, with a pun on the German term for organic food. Many worry especially about Muslims: will they accept social norms such as sexual equality, secular values [...]

The answer to that question is “no.” They won’t accept any of that. But that’s not even the whole point. Even if they did accept those things, it’s still racial replacement, so I would think that the ‘Bio-Deutsche’ who are interested in remaining ‘Bio-Deutsche’ should still be worried.

The World In, ‘The New Germans’, Andreas Kluth, 02 Nov 2015:

[...] and Germany’s historic responsibility towards Israel?

Wahahah. If the ‘Bio-Deutsche’ are worried about mass Islamic migration because it might make it more difficult for them to bury their noses into Israel’s backside then they are already lost!

Let’s hope that that is not actually one of the reasons being fielded by German ethno-nationalists, and that it’s just one of Kluth’s own neuroses that he’s projecting onto them.

The World In, ‘The New Germans’, Andreas Kluth, 02 Nov 2015:

The spice of life

The task of integrating so many foreigners will test German politics and society in 2016. Yet Germany’s Willkommenskultur (“welcome culture”) will prevail, as most Germans understand that refugees deserve asylum, and immigrants enrich the country. [...]

Most Germans also happen to be as dim as a 20 Watt incandescent bulb, apparently.

Regarding Kluth’s non-ironic use of the word ‘enrich’, I suppose in a strictly dictionary sense of the word, the gallons of Arab and African semen that was poured in the direction of German women on New Year’s Eve could be described ‘enriching’.

But only in the same sense that having a diseased hobo with Hepatitis B peeing into the punch bowl that you are about to drink from could be described as ‘flavouring’.

The World In, ‘The New Germans’, Andreas Kluth, 02 Nov 2015:

[...] Today’s quintessential German stand-up snack is either a Turkish doner kebab or a Currywurst, which combines the archetypal Germanic sausage with spice from the sub-continent. In high and low culture, Germany has become unimaginable without such “foreign” influences. When Germany won the football World Cup in 1990, all its national players were Bio-Deutsche. When it won the cup again in 2014, two were Polish-born and others had family names such as Özil (Turkish), Khedira (Tunisian), Boateng (Ghanaian) and Mustafi (Albanian). [...]

Okay, so Currywurst exists, therefore Germany is ripe for mass immigration from those who eat curry?

By the same logic, Chicken Tikka Messala exists in Britain, is it time for Britain to be abolished in the same way? Pizza exists in Japan and South Korea, is it time for all of Italy to migrate to the Korean peninsula and the Japanese archipelago?

This is absolutely childish. The fact that any such thing would pass for argumentation in the western media is frankly laughable.

The World In, ‘The New Germans’, Andreas Kluth, 02 Nov 2015:

[...] Corporate bosses and policymakers, too, know that Germany needs immigrants. Bio-Deutsche make too few babies. New Germans who are today being fingerprinted as their asylum claims are processed will tomorrow care for the elderly and pay the taxes that fund a generous welfare state.

Absolutely false. Automation of the economy and mechanisation of the economy have led to the creation of a future overhang of structural unemployment. Germany will need less people in the future, not more. If the overhang is not dealt with, it will actually increase pressure on the welfare state, because a lot of people will be drawing unemployment benefits from the state.

Of course, the morons who command the German economy could just deliberately make themselves less efficient in order to keep their growing population employed, by perhaps digging ditches with lots of people holding spoons rather than with machines, and making widgets by hand rather than with robotics.

But then all their companies will be destroyed on the global market by Asian companies which are not having to do that kind of nonsense, and which would always be able offer the same product at lower prices as a result.

The World In, ‘The New Germans’, Andreas Kluth, 02 Nov 2015:

[...]

There is really only one last hurdle to Germany officially becoming a land of immigrants, and it is politics. The centre-right Christian Democratic Union, led by Angela Merkel, and its conservative Bavarian sister party, the Christian Social Union, insist on the fiction that Germany does not have permanent “immigrants” (Einwanderer) but rather temporary “in-comers” (Zuwanderer), such as guest workers, who will one day leave.

This is a travesty of reality and deserves the ridicule that the centre-left parties are meting out. In 2014 a law was tweaked that makes it easier for most children born in Germany to foreign parents to keep both citizenships indefinitely. But beyond this mini-liberalisation, Germany remains unusual among rich countries in having a patchwork of rules for special situations (spouses of Germans, say), but no coherent immigration law at all. [...]

The lack of a coherent immigration law is precisely how the German government has been able to do everything that it has done so far. The amorphous and sometimes contradictory nature of the laws has allowed them to carry through this plan without facing any significant formal legal challenge so far.

The World In, ‘The New Germans’, Andreas Kluth, 02 Nov 2015:

[...]

In 2016 Germany will pass such a law, because even the Christian Democrats will admit what is already obvious: Germany has become an immigrant country—a land of hope and opportunity to many who, in turn, simply by coming, keep Germany’s ageing society vibrant. The notion of identity by blood died long ago. In 2016 Germans will formally lay it to rest, and will take great pride in doing so.

Oh, yeah? Well, it’s only February, so perhaps it’s too early for anyone to know whether that prediction is going to come true or not. After all, Angela Merkel did promise from her mouth that the migrants ‘will go home’ once the conflict is over. She did say that, right? Right?

Now:

Zeit.de, ‘CDU will Schulpflicht für erwachsene Flüchtlinge’, 13 Feb 2016 (German to English, emphasis added):

With an extended compulsory education, exemption from the minimum wage laws and higher hurdles for a permanent residence permit, the CDU wants to accelerate the integration of refugees. The package of measures will be decided on Monday by the Federal Executive of the party, say sources in party circles.

The draft resolution of the CDU Board provides incentives, but also sanctions. Bild am Sonntag quoted some details from the paper that have been confirmed by persons from CDU party circles. The compulsory age for refugees leaving school without qualifications will be lifted from 18 years up to 25 years old. To facilitate their integration into working life, refugees are to be excluded from the minimum wage laws and are to be treated in the way that long-term unemployed are treated - they would thus in the first six months of employment not be entitled to the minimum wage of 8.50 euros per hour.

An amendment is to grant the indefinite right of permanent residence. Recognised refugees and asylum admissions are to receive that grant only when they can prove that they speak sufficient German, have knowledge of the local legal and social order, have committed no crimes and have the means to secure their livelihood. To date, the permanent residence permit has been issued after three years - regardless of whether someone has demonstrated language skills and ability to work.

Oh. That was fast.

But there’s more! See here:

The Jerusalem Post, ‘Report: Germany expects 500,000 refugees this year ‘, 15 Feb 2016 (emphasis added):

BERLIN - The German government expects 500,000 refugees to come to Germany this year, German newspaper Rheinische Post cited sources from the Federal Labour Office as saying.

German Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere told Frank-Juergen Weise, head of both the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) and the Federal Labour Office, to prepare for an influx of that size this year, the newspaper said in an advance copy of a report due to be published on Tuesday.

The German Interior Ministry was not immediately available to comment on the report.

I wonder how many times that number will be revised upward over the course of this year? I wonder how much more the security situation will be destabilised?

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.