Majorityrights Central > Category: That Question Again

Susan Lindauer, peace activist, 9/11 activist, former CIA asset, and true American patriot, talks to DanielS and GW about power, politics and corruption, immigration, and the future of America and the West. You cannot fail to learn something new from an hour’s conservation with this remarkable woman..
       

               
Die Linke’s parliamentary leader Gregor Gysi. Photo: DPA

Its egregious intentions betray its egregious misnomer as “The Left” by the YKW media. Whereas a White Left would be a union of the entire nation of native peoples and thus organized in entirety against immigrant imposition - these workers and beneficiaries being the theoretical equivalent of scabs - and the consequences of elite betrayal. Accordingly, a true European Nationalist Left would not be of just one class, say the workers, let alone be in representation of scabs (foreigners) - as the latter in particular would be defined properly not as The Left but rather as a Neo-Liberal concern imposed on the classification of native national interests. The reason for the misnomer is plain, the YKW and the sell-outs, particularly of the international corporatist order, do not want us to be clear in the organizational concern of that union, which is a merging, in fact an overlap, of the class with native nationalism. Instead they want it associated with what is most repugnant to our interests.

The YKW and corporate elite sell-outs are aligned in this perversion of class interests - you can be even more afraid now as they obligingly ask:

“What does the Left Party want for Europe?”

The “Left Party” (wink), read “neo-liberal” and ask rather, what union of your interests do they represent - i.e., how are they a leftist union for you as a native European? Particularly when they advocate (hyerpbolic) neo-liberal policies as such?

“Die Linke is now the third biggest group in the German parliament, but what do their politicians want for Europe?”

Gysi pretends the leftist, denouncing the The EU for “pursuing ‘neo-liberal’ policy:”

“Die Linke overtook rivals the Greens ... to become the country’s third biggest parliamentary group – and has since made waves in foreign policy by its outspoken condemnation of US spying and conciliatory attitude to Russia’s actions in Ukraine.

Their charismatic parliamentary leader Gregor Gysi added to his party’s critical stance towards the EU system in an interview with Die Zeit newspaper. ‘It is pursuing a neo-liberal economic policy and stands for the opposite of socialism,’ he said.”

But then his party pursues this policy on immigration -

“Mobility and Immigration

Die Linke’s policy on immigration stands out from major parties by appearing dramatically in favour of making Europe more refugee-friendly.

They claim to promote the ‘unconditional right to stay and proper accommodation, social protection and equal rights for all refugees.’

And according to their manifesto, they also support refugees’ free choice of which country they wish to seek asylum in, as well as demanding the dissolution of EU border agency Frontex.”

You can’t get much more neo-liberal than that.

What does that have to do with the unionized representation of native European national interests?

We hear nothing representing the unionized interests of native European nationals in YKW media. Our interests are ignored and obfuscated beginning with the very terms, with the deliberately confusing mis-designation of neo-liberal policy - immigration and non-native imposition in particular - as “The Left.” By contrast, designating the proper representation of native European national interests as The White Left is to distinguish it from the liberal and Jewish affectations imposed on native European nationalist interests by The Red Left.

http://www.thelocal.de/20140514/what-do-die-linke-want-for-europe

                                 
                                      Gysi in his Soviet permutation
——————————————————————————
More past wind across the German border from “The Left”:

“The greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another. The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes, natives and immigrants, Christians and Muslims and Jews, cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down!”

           
Anti-racism is prejudice. It is not innocent. It is hurting and it is killing people.

After a delay, the administration’s final “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” regulation is now expected to be announced in December. Originally scheduled for finalization in October, the new Housing and Urban Development Department rules will force all cities and suburbs to accept subsidized housing in the name of racial diversity, superceding all local zoning ordinances.

The Orwellian-sounding regulation would force some 1,200 municipalities to redraw zoning maps to racially diversify suburban neighborhoods.
While temporarily punting away politically fraught issues may be smart politics, it’s cowardly leadership.

Under the scheme, HUD plans to map every US neighborhood by race and publish “geospatial data” pinpointing racial imbalances. Areas deemed overly segregated will be forced to change their zoning laws to allow construction of subsidized and other affordable housing to bring more low-income minorities into “white suburbs.” HUD’s maps will be used to select affordable housing sites.

It’s part of the administration’s ambitious agenda to eliminate “racial segregation,” ZIP code by ZIP code, block by block, through the systematic dismantling of allegedly “exclusionary” building ordinances. In effect, federal bureaucrats will have the power to rezone your neighborhood.

Of course, Obama and Democrats are loath to inject this decidedly radical issue into the elections, so they’ll keep it out of the headlines until after voters go to the polls.

While temporarily punting away politically fraught issues may be smart politics, it’s cowardly leadership.

If the president’s policies are so popular, why does he have to try to hide them from voters? And who can trust Democrats now distancing themselves from him and his ideas when they voted with him 99% of the time previously?

Paul Sperry, Hoover Institution media fellow and author of “The Great American Bank Robbery,” which exposes the racial politics behind the mortgage crisis - government attempt to increase minority home-ownership instigated the sub-prime housing crisis.

http://nypost.com/2014/10/26/obamas-plans-for-a-secret-radical-agenda-after-the-elections/

                   
http://whiterabbitradio.net/white-genocide-white-suburbs-soon-legally-forced-to-accept-racial-diversity

READ MORE...

Robert Ransdell

I’m waiting to hear or read what’s not to like about this guy. Though I reserve the right to change my mind, and admit that I am not disposed and have not been looking far and wide for what not to like about him, from what I have heard (some interviews and some text), so far he seems alright.

Greg Johnson criticizes him for wasting his time, but I don’t see where Ransdell has said that standard political channels were the only means that he would ever seek - and it is clearly only a strategy to get heard. Moreover, he is also explicit in not recommending or insisting upon this strategy for everyone and all places.

Ok, he is associated with VNN and Stormfront, inspired by Rockwell and to a lesser extent by Pierce; there may be (probably is) some guilt by association with them and other opinions on those discussion forums; but so far, from what I have heard, he himself has not said anything that I find objectionable. It would be interesting to hear what MR readers think.

Ransdell’s site: http://www.thewhiteguard.com/

by Alexander Baron

There is a missing dimension to the Israel/Palestine question, not the elephant in the room, ie something nobody will mention for fear of ostracism - Jewish power for example – but one no one mentions because they literally do not see it. Here, that dimension can be summed up in one word: race.

In the UK, all mention of race except on liberal/socialist terms has long been taboo due both to the stranglehold our enemies have over the media and other institutions, and to their none-too-subtle but extremely successful brainwashing campaign that involved associating all opposition to non-white immigration and then to forced race-mixing with a particularly bizarre form of sex shop Nazism.

On the other hand, the liberal/socialist hate campaign against South Africa never did try to evoke that spectre, and with good reason, the South African government never had any sympathy with Nazism, nor indeed with “racism” as it is usually understood. This may sound a curious claim to make, but anyone who has studied the contemporaneous South African press will realise that was indeed the case. White newspapers regularly featured stories about blacks, who even appeared in advertisements. Ordinary white South Africans did not regard themselves as “racists”, and had no time for people who tried to stir animosity between the races; they believed simply that the two races should develop separately, as the short-lived South African National Front discovered when its two leading lights Jack Noble and Ray Hill attempted some stirring.

READ MORE...