Majorityrights Central > Category: That Question Again

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.

Since I am paying more attention to things Asian as a result of Kumiko’s participation here, a couple of videos and a composition of Facebook comments relevant and illustrative of issues that I have been discussing have come to my attention.

Asian illustrations of..

1. Advised social confirmation and elevation: of the value of ordinary routine practices; in this case, participation in social routine.

3. A composition of fake tweets: attributed to Americans apparently mocking the atomic bombing of Japan:
Captioned “stay ‘classy’ America” - the fraud and motive to create a division between Whites and East Asians is traceable to Jewish motives.

Coming to these examples throwing light on racial accountability from Asia, one at a time -

1. Advised celebration of ordinary routine:

Kumiko likes Korean and Japanese pop music videos and she showed me this Japanese one.

Participation in..

..routine social service..

If WN can show bearance upon what might otherwise be construed as an appeal to yellow fever by the presentation of this video, there is actually bearing upon an important point that I made in my article about “the dark side of self actualization” and how to otherwise moderate and optimize actualization.

That is to say, one thing that needs to happen in our re-socialization of actualization is for the value of individual self actualization to become part of a rotating and optimizing process of attention, to where it does not always and statically occupy the top of a hierarchy. That over-emphasis has, of course, destabilized and lent to the rupture of our racial/social systemic homeostasis. The inference I’ve made is that one of the aspects of actualization that needs to be constructed, elevated in importance and encouraged to enjoy is not only a sufficient amount of routine but also routine cooperative social participation in our tried and true practices and procedures. That will not only allow us to learn and develop skills from our forebears, to cultivate them, but it is also necessary to create a platform for elaboration and innovation; i.e., it is prerequisite and socially as important as actualization.

This video shows a song and dance of girls in Japanese postal service uniforms. The point that I am trying to make is that celebrative or otherwise reverential treatment like this, of the ordinary and social routine, might help to emphasize sufficient sufficience, so to speak, in enjoyment of necessary but ordinary social routines, unions, trade guilds, syndicates and with it, an elevation of appreciation of ordinary necessity so that it is not dwarfed nor its vital necessity discouraged by singular social appreciation and veneration of the extraordinary and the sacred.

I hypothesize this elevating celebration of routine (in this case social) practices as one side of the necessary elevation of the social esteem of routine; another side of “routine” elevation would be ceremony and sacral treatment of exemplary practices.

2. Bad parenting advice: The oriental woman in this video was adopted by Swedish parents and brought-up with that idea that she is “simply Swedish, the same as any other Swede”, by proposition.

If she were taught that she was an adopted girl of Korean descent, who was and should be welcomed as counting of a manageable, benign but accountable enclave of Swedish nationals, she would have an efficient enough explanation at her disposal to discharge most conflict on the issue.

By contrast, there is insufficient accountability in insistence upon her parents well meaning but bad advice - simply asserting that she is Swedish just like all other Swedes.

She sets herself up for abuse

Adopted by Swedish parents and growing up in Sweden, she responds to the question from a Swedish man, “where are you from?” that she is “from Sweden.” The man responds in turn, “no, where are you really from?”

She takes this as an example of “racism” and tries to correct the man in the motive she perceives of his question, answering that she is “Swedish just like every other Swedish national” - as her parents taught her.

However, I’d guess that the man’s question was not “racist” in a negative sense. Yes, it was racial in the sense that he was trying to get an accurate sense of how to classify her, but why? Because he thought negatively of her and of her being in Sweden? Probably not.

He was quite possibly asking her for one or all of the following three reasons:

a) He found her attractive and wanted to know where her sort was from for future and general reference.

b) He found her attractive and saw the question as an opportunity for an ice breaker.

c) If she answered, “Korea”, chances are that he would enjoy showing his good-will toward her, by confirming her honest account and her people as really OK, and that as a part of a reasonable and accountable number of her kind of immigration, take occasion to show support for her participation with Sweden.

That is to say, what the man was doing was “racism” by definition in the sense that he was attempting to classify people genetically (not doing the mere liberal thing of pretending to be blind to racial classifications but judging people instead by propositions), but it was, in all likelihood, a benign kind of classifying, motivated by respect and a wish for accountability.

Because she treated it as “racism”, i.e., classification for negative motives, she attempted to denounce it and hide behind the well meaning but fundamentally dishonest advice of her parents that as a propositional Swede she was the same as an evolutionary Swede.

As such she denies the possibility of honest accountability that would serve to limit negative treatment of her in Sweden and gain her support from those who have an honest concern for the management of native Swedes.

Instead, for denying accountability and denouncing the account requested as “racist” she sets herself up for abuse from at least two kinds in particular.

She will perhaps get some abuse from jealous and racially concerned Swedes, e.g., Swedish women miffed with yellow fever. That would be understandable if Asian immigration were taken too far at any rate, but when there is no accountability it is likely to be more provocative of the racially sensitive Swede for her to say, “I am the same as you”, have the same history, etc. But even at that, it is probable that she did not really receive much of the gaffe from true Swedish women. What abuse that she got and experienced, with truly saddening pain, most likely came from Jewish trolls looking to stir conflict between Whites and Asians.

She gets abused by what probably are some Jewish trolls trying to provoke conflict between Asians and racially aware Whites:

3. What makes me hypothesize Jewish trolling? viz., that Jewish trolls can be trying to provoke her and provoke conflict between Whites and Asians?:

How about this. Kumiko showed me this composition, supposedly of Facebook posts by American people speaking of their own accord, saying that they are happy that Japan sustained nuclear bomb attacks in WWII and would be quite happy for it to happen again.

I grew up in America and for 34 years spent there never encountered an American who would speak remotely like this about Japan or the atomic bombing of Japan. Furthermore, if one reads these comments it is clear by a careful discourse analysis that the writer of all of these comments is one or a few people. If one is more careful still, to take style and motive into account, the Jewish hand is evident.

Though it may seem like obvious trolling to some of us, unfortunately this was apparently taken seriously by some Japanese audiences and even shown on Japanese news as if it were an honest reflection of American sentiments - when in truth, these are not remotely accurate statements of Americans: Stay classy America? No, stay “classy” with your divide and conquer chutzpah Jews - greatest shame is upon you and we are watching you.

Full composition under the fold..

READ MORE...

Martin Schulz and Angela Merkel.

Martin Schulz has been active in European politics for almost thirty years, and so he is a person who does not need an introduction. His position however is not one that is understood very well by normal people, because a lot of people don’t know what the roles of the institutions of the European Union in the post-Lisbon Treaty environment are.

In his role as President of the European Parliament, Schulz would be responsible for the overall direction of international relations, and also is the custodian of the fundamental values of the European Union. The European Parliament is the first institution in the European Union, which prior to the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty had been seen as a mere talking shop, but subsequently developed into becoming one of the most powerful legislatures in the world in terms of both its legislative powers and executive oversight powers.

Of course, informally, the political history which the individual was acculturated with along with that person’s connection to the national political power, means that it can usually be considered advantageous to a member state if one of their citizens is holding such an EU position.

Schulz hails from Germany, but what does Schulz think Germany’s raison d’etre is? A look at his own words in Haaretz as reported by his friend Avraham Burg, reveals something interesting:

Haaretz, ‘Say a big ‘thank you’ to Martin Schulz’, Avraham Burg, 14 Feb 2014 (emphasis added):

[...] Martin Schulz, the president of the European Parliament, is a close friend of mine. On most issues connected to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict we disagree. He is closer to the Israeli mainstream, and his positions resemble those of Labor Party chairman Isaac Herzog. He once told me, during a frank and stern conversation, “For me, the new Germany exists only in order to ensure the existence of the State of Israel and the Jewish people.” [...]

Schulz is of course, Jewish.

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

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

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

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

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

Sex tourism in South East Asia

Ignore and talk past the White Left as defined at MR

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

“Introducing the ‘Alt left”

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

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

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

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

         
Be a crass businessman

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

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

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

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

Puke.

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

Upchuck.

                                                   
Compulsory Diversity News:
       
                He knows you not…

In a story that shows that Jewish-American lobbyists and journalists have very little self-awareness, Adam Entous and Danny Yadron thought that it would be a good idea to publish a story in which they made it appear that the US Government was violating some kind of agreement to not spy on ‘allies’, when the NSA monitored Netanyahu’s activities during the P5+1 negotiations with Iran.

The monitoring activities were carried out with the intention of discovering what Netanyahu’s views on the proposed deal were, and what his response to it going forward might be. This monitoring would have been approved by senior figures in the Obama administration, as well as the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.

Wall Street Journal, ‘U.S. Spy Net on Israel Snares Congress’, Adam Entous and Danny Yadron, 29 Dec 2015:

President Barack Obama announced two years ago he would curtail eavesdropping on friendly heads of state after the world learned the reach of long-secret U.S. surveillance programs.

But behind the scenes, the White House decided to keep certain allies under close watch, current and former US officials said.

[...]

The National Security Agency’s targeting of Israeli leaders and officials also swept up the contents of some of their private conversations with U.S. lawmakers and American-Jewish groups. That raised fears [...] that the executive branch would be accused of spying on Congress.

[...]

Of course, what neither of these persons mention in their article is that monitoring Netanyahu’s communications was both legal and necessary.

Monitoring what other world leaders are doing so that the United States can have good information from which to make policy decisions is literally the mission statement of the NSA. Furthermore, Israel has chosen to prefer a policy on Iran that is directly at odds with that of the United States, and at odds with that of NATO more broadly. The North Atlantic desired to cultivate Iran as a swing-power which could be peeled away from Russia and utilised for offsetting Russian preponderance over natural gas supplies to Europe, and which would perhaps someday be able to frustrate Russian attempts to consolidate its influence over CIS states that have cultural or historical ties to Iran. Israel has different ideas, because Israel has a different set of priorities.

So what are they complaining about? It’s a nonsensical complaint. The Israelis should have expected that they’d be monitored. This of course did not prevent Israel’s most ardent defenders from writing absolutely ridiculous stories for weeks on end about it.

But there was an element of this story that was not touched on and which was almost conspicuously not touched on. The fact that spying on Netanyahu would become the same thing as ‘spying on the US Congress’ was what really ought to have been the story. If spying on Netanyahu is almost the same thing as spying on the US Congress, then that is an indicator of there being a serious problem in the political system itself.

That problem looks like this:

Wall Street Journal, ‘U.S. Spy Net on Israel Snares Congress’, Adam Entous and Danny Yadron, 29 Dec 2015:

How Mr. Netanyahu and his advisers had leaked details of the U.S.-Iran negotiations—learned through Israeli spying operations—to undermine the talks; coordinated talking points with Jewish-American groups against the deal; and asked undecided lawmakers what it would take to win their votes, according to current and former officials familiar with the intercepts.

And also ambassadors getting themselves involved:

Wall Street Journal, ‘U.S. Spy Net on Israel Snares Congress’, Adam Entous and Danny Yadron, 29 Dec 2015:

Mr. Dermer was described as coaching unnamed U.S. organizations—which officials could tell from the context were Jewish-American groups—on lines of argument to use with lawmakers, and Israeli officials were reported pressing lawmakers to oppose the deal. [...]

Israel’s pitch to undecided lawmakers often included such questions as: “How can we get your vote? What’s it going to take?”

But you see, according to present and former US lawmakers who have enormous mouths and are suddenly very concerned about the somewhat nebulous concept of ‘civil liberties’, discovering when someone is trying to plunge a knife into your back is just the gravest violation of the privacy of those who are trying to do the plunging.

For example, Representative Ted Lieu, (D-California) who “has consistently voted to curb powers of the NSA”, asserted on twitter that:

If this is true, it is outrageous. #NSA should not be spying on Congress without a warrant.  https://t.co/YYfZbvwozt.

— Ted Lieu (@tedlieu) December 30, 2015

That’s the part he objects to.

And there was also none other than Pete Hoekstra (formerly R-Michigan), the former congressman who chaired the House Intelligence Committee from 2004—2007, took to twitter to complain, saying:

WSJ report that NSA spied on Congress and Israel communications very disturbing. Actually outrageous. Maybe unprecedented abuse of power.

— Pete Hoekstra (@petehoekstra) December 30, 2015

Perhaps Hoekstra is really upset because he shares something common with former representative Jane Harman (D-California), who in 2006 was being lined up to seamlessly replace him, and whose Israeli tricks were foiled by the NSA at that time too:

Wall Street Journal, ‘Lawmaker Is Said to Have Agreed to Aid Lobbyists’, Neil A. Lewis and Mark Mazzetti, 20 Apr 2009:

[...] Ms. Harman was inadvertently swept up by N.S.A. eavesdroppers who were listening in on conversations during an investigation, three current or former senior officials said. It is not clear exactly when the wiretaps occurred; they were first reported by Congressional Quarterly on its Web site.

The official with access to the transcripts said someone seeking help for the employees of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a prominent pro-Israel lobbying group, was recorded asking Ms. Harman, a longtime supporter of its efforts, to intervene with the Justice Department. She responded, the official recounted, by saying she would have more influence with a White House official she did not identify.

In return, the caller promised her that a wealthy California donor—the media mogul Haim Saban—would threaten to withhold campaign contributions to Representative Nancy Pelosi, the California Democrat who was expected to become House speaker after the 2006 election, if she did not select Ms. Harman for the intelligence post.

[...]

Much like Hoekstra, Harman also had something to say about supposed ‘abuses of power’ at that time:

Think Progress, ‘Harman: ‘I’m Just Very Disappointed’’, Ali Frick, 21 Apr 2009:

I’m just very disappointed that my country — I’m an American citizen just like you are — could have permitted what I think is a gross abuse of power in recent years.

She’s one of the people who approved the budget and the legal framework that would supply the NSA and others with equipment and a mandate to watch PCS networks and collect the data under ONEROOF, but then she thought that the NSA and FBI were going to magically avoid collecting signals from her because she’s special?

Whenever Jews or their associates find themselves being treated just like everyone else, they suddenly get very tearful and start talking about how they are so, so, so oppressed. A sad tune needs to be played for them, perhaps, on the tinyest of tiny violins.