Majorityrights Central > Category: That Question Again

(Photo: Joshua Roberts—Reuters)

With his address to AIPAC, Trump lost the characteristic equivocalness in his manner of speaking: he brought-out his trump card - unequivocal pandering to Israel ..as we knew he would.

From his talks to “the international press” regarding Jewish concerns prior to his speech and through his speech, he was unequivocal.

1) He was unequivocal in his denunciation of “racism and anti-Semitism.”

2) He was unequivocal in his prioritization for Israel’s security; their borders and identity as a Jewish state for Jewish people.

3) He was unequivocal not only in his denunciation of the Iran deal, but in saying that it must be reversed; and, in asserting that Iran’s nuclear weapon’s program must be stopped, he intimated that he is not averse to Israel’s coveted hawkish solution to dealings with Iran.

4) His unequivocal closer - for those familiar with salesmanship, the closing line of a pitch must “close” (confirm) the deal: Trump proudly asserted that he was “about to become a grandfather of a Jewish child.” Asserting his blood-ties in commitment to Jewish interests.

White Nationalists may be correct that he is the best option in buying them some time. At least he makes noises as if he is going to do something about closing U.S. borders and that he would sympathize with closing the borders of Europe as well.

But toward that end, we are having to take the word of a man who brags about his negotiating skills following these avowals to Israel and Jewish interests.

AIPAC might cooperate to some extent with our domestic issues, including our security, OUR WHITE BORDERS FOR OUR WHITE PEOPLES - U.S., Europe and elsewhere - but only to the extent that coincides with Israeli and Jewish interests more broadly; and to the extent that Trump’s and other regimes would (very incorrectly) treat Jews as if they are White; a specially protected White minority among our lands.

That is a highly suspect deal.

And in exchange for that deal come an array of foreign policies - our side, opponent side distinctions - even more suspect.

About the only consolation to be offered to those who favor Trump in the interest of European peoples is that at least in what she speaks and intends, viz. in her antagonism of Whites, Hillary is even worse. Her rhetoric is even more out of the liberal, P.C., anti-White mold: her disregard for White boundaries more brazen, her commitment to Israel as “rock solid, unwavering, enduring and forever” as ever (as emphatic, in fact), and her war-hawkishness even more flagrant. Every bit as much as Trump shored-up his pro-Israel, pro-Jewish-line..

   
Hillary shored-up her Neo-Con Credentials.

(AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

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.

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”.

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.

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...