Category: Political analysis
In the last part of Eugène Montsalvat‘s review of de Benoist, he is shown to give organizational advice, including moving beyond left and right with observations as to where they both went wrong.
I don’t agree with how he is describing the left, and it is a good occasion to sort that out.
However, I am in significant agreement with the tenor - that capitalism is among our major problems.
With that, he confirms a suggestion from Kumiko to me, that I’ve already accepted. I would take to heart that in promoting the White Left platform that I have not emphasized enough the fact that there would be unions amidst the union that is the racial/national union. I have done that but not enough.
Because I have been so focused on the re-legitimization of racial classification and the unification of people as one class, Kumiko alerts me to the fact that I would be accused of disingenuously wallpapering over bona fide working class concerns for not recognizing their distinct situation.
She advises talking more in terms of syndicalism, and I can see where her advice in that regard, and as it turns out, also de Benoist’s advice in that regard is correct.
My way of handling these differences could use that boost, though I have not exactly been remiss in that. In criticizing the insufficiently descriptive and ultimately dangerous paradigm of “equality / inequality”, I have consistently spoken in terms of qualitative differences within the White Class (and in relation to non-White groups). As opposed to “equality/inequality” and its false comparisons, I have tended to focus on niches, their paradigmatic incommensurability, qualitative symbiosis and the management of differences in respect of difference as opposed to inequality. Nevertheless, forms of syndicalism should correspond with systemic regulation of these differences.
As I have said in many places, and I am no less convinced than ever, that it is a mistake to relinquish the self designation as a left, a White Left. The Jews do not want us to adopt its powerfully organizing world view for that reason, because it does line things up correctly time and again.
Not a left as properly defined in White interests.
I do not idealize the working classes nor would a White Left.
Benoist is correct and very articulate in citing the Enlightenment, its optimism (wow, never thought of that angle, but true) and the liberalism that came of it, but these are not elements of what we are calling the White Left.
The White Left designates these products of the Enlightenmet and categorizes them as “objectivism”, one of the two great adversaries to White/Left/Class/National/Union/Racial (all the same) solidarity.
The two great adversaries to the White Class/Left are Jewish interests and Objectivists/objectivism.
de Benoist needs to recognize where adoption of Enlightenment ideas among ordinary and working class folks is coming from.
Where it isn’t being promoted by Jewish interests it is being promoted by White elitist traitors disingenuously posing as “objectivists” (innocently great and not accountable) and naively accepted by the “lower classes” as “objectivism”, viz., the way it is.
But it is Not leftism, definitely not White leftism as it does not recognize the union’s right to discriminate and hold people accountable to the union’s interests.
Hence, we have not moved beyond right and left, we have merely not caught up to how Jews and White traitors have manipulated these terms to their interests, including not wanting us to have a “White Left” as its organizational capacities are dangerously powerful against them.
de Benoist is correct about that. No argument.
Here I disagree with de Benoist, not in the sense that issues like these can’t be used to distract from objectivist treachery and problems of their exploiting “lower classes”, but in the sense that he is going to the other extreme, and in ignoring race and religious organization of groups antagonistic to race, that he is buying into the same right wing Enlightenment objectivism (and perhaps Jewish manipulation) that he claims to be wise-to.
He goes on to say..
That can be said to be a product of Red (Marxist) Left skullduggery; that is to say, how Jews would apply all peoples in unionized alliance against White capitalists (While Jews themselves maintain their union and the facile unions of those who oppose their enemies).
It is surely wrong to accept the Jewish definition and calibration of the terms.
A union, a White Union, cannot be universal by definition. One is in the union or one is not.
Jews do not want us to have this because it would organize our people in a humane way which is accountable to excellence and differences at the same time.
It can err in this direction but only gets out of hand because the Jews exaggerate these possibilities in order to pander to their paying students. That is, Jewish academics are largely in the big business of selling talk to White female undergraduates: “possibilities” to create college courses and talk talk talk, criticize, criticize, criticize.
Again, exaggeration and distortion of these capacities are the result of Jewish academics who have mixed in and preyed upon enlightenment distortions in order to both misrepresent the left and turn White people off to their organizational capacity in a Left while actually using the victim groups they do marshal as an attack force against Whites.
Again, those are Jewish cultural Marxist perversions.
How can a leftist union favor the scabbing of their union by an open borders policy?
They cannot, it is a contradiction of terms.
That is what the Neo cons and other Jewish led interests are getting people to do.
The White Left is guilty of none of these things.
True, a White Class, the White Left.
This is quite well said, and I will probably take de Benoist’s and Kumiko’s advice to incorporate more snydicalist type thinking ..
I am on the radical side, but taking skepticism to quite that level is what led to the radical skepticism of the enlightenment and subsequently to liberal modernity.
The Christians are a bad example unqualified as such.
I would make it a dual entry, Jewish interests and Objectivism (which includes capitalist interests).
I agree that individualism is a large part of our problem, I understand its philosphical difficulties, but I do not want to summarily and uncritically dismiss it; but rather set it aside as a non-priority while we are under mortal threat as a group by groups.
The Jewish and Objectivist led U.S. is certainly a huge problem, but one must understand that it is Objectivism (admittedly written into its Constitution) and Jewish groups that marshal its forces against other group unionization of peoples.
I believe that Kumiko would like a chance to show that there may be a way to ride the tiger of NATO and US forces toward ethno nationalist aims.
If Christians and Muslims are attacking our enemies that is fine but we cannot be so naive as to think that these universalist and race mixing religions are people we can form formally agreed upon alliances with.
Their overall pattern is overwhelmingly against our interests and untrustworthy.
Same with blacks and Jews. There might be times when they fight groups who are harmful to us, but their overall pattern is overwhelmingly against us and untrustworthy.
Castro is anti-racist. So, I cannot agree with de Benoist.
Not true. Very untrue.
“Literally, why did this even become an argument?”
It’s been brought to my attention that we’re being accused of various things by various people as a result of the article that I posted that was titled ‘English genetic heritage is not German’. It appears that some people, including Carolyn Yeager at The Heretics Hour, have chosen for some reason to seize upon people’s remarks in the comments section of that article to build a characterisation of our position which is very incorrect. DanielS has been accused of being ‘anti-German’, and by proxy I have therefore been accused of abetting ‘anti-German’ thought.
Nothing could be further from the facts. DanielS is not ‘anti-German’, and I’m not abetting ‘anti-German’ thought. In good faith, I’ll assume that Carolyn Yeager’s misinterpretation of my intent is not intentional, and so I’ll explain in the most concise way what my outlook on this is, in the hopes that truth and understanding will prevail.
Heritage and slogans
When I put up the article about how ‘English genetic heritage is not German’, it was entirely for the purpose of showing a way of dispelling the usual liberal sloganeering in the UK that begins with the false appeal to the so-called ‘fact’ of English being all ‘mixed German immigrants’, which is then inexorably extended into a claim that ‘since they are already beyond identification, what is wrong with a little more mixing?’ Obviously the most effective way—a way that is also in accordance with reality—to fight against that kind of liberal sloganeering and to empower the British people to fortify themselves in the belief that the ground they stand on is theirs and that they have a justifiable claim to maintain dominance over their own civic space, is to point out that British people are not merely ‘mixed German immigrants’ of no discernible identity, but in fact they all evolved in the location that they are living in for many thousands of years and as such have a justification to really call themselves ‘British’.
Maintaining this view of a really-existent ‘Britishness’, and suggesting that it should be fashioned into a mass line and propagated to the British people, in no way detracts from the identity of German people, or Germanic peoples as a whole. I don’t see why that should be confusing to some people. It also does not suggest that there should be enmity between Britain and Germany. In fact, it remains our position at Majorityrights that all nations in Europe should stand together while respecting each other’s differences: pan-European regionalism. This is the same position that I also take with regards to Asia and pan-Asian regionalism.
Sometimes mistakes are made
I also get a sense that some of this fury that has been directed toward Majorityrights by the critics, has something to do with the fact that we don’t bow down to Adolf Hitler on every issue, historical and concerning the prosecution of the Second World War. I would say to those people who criticise Majorityrights that it is possible—and this is not a petty-moral statement, it is a statement of cold facts, total administration, and direct geostrategic power concepts—to recognise the structural achievements of the National Socialist movement in Germany and say that it was highly significant in not only raising critical awareness of the influence and threat of Bolshevism, but in fact showing that it was possible to marshal an equally deadly force against them, without having to literally endorse every single ridiculous action and personal preference of Adolf Hitler, every member of the SS, and the general staff of the German Army. Sometimes people do things that are really bad ideas.
It is possible to have a nuanced view, and my view is nuanced.
Obviously, the European war against the Russian Bolshevik regime and its collaborators in Europe, much like the Greater East Asia War against the liberal-capitalist powers, namely, the United States, France, Britain, the Netherlands, and their collaborators, was a crucial moment in history. No alliance in history other than Axis, has been able to unite so many people of diverse ethnic backgrounds against both liberalism and communism at the same time. And no alliance in history has ever come closer to overturning the liberal-capitalist world order in a war of manoeuvre.
These coalitions were to become possible due to the social and economic forces that were activated as a consequence of something like the National Socialist movement of Germany having arisen to power.
Germany rendered assistance to Japan by becoming a viable partner for the duration of the war, and this also engendered a situation where countries like Burma, parts of India, swathes of South East Asia, including Indonesia, Singapore, and others, were able to struggle against their colonial oppressors with the hopes both of independence and of a regional redress of the global systemic inequalities that characterised the liberal-capitalist world order. It also was the case that many Central Asians were enthusiastic about co-operation with Germany as well, particularly some of the Crimean Tatars who must have been relieved to see the 11th German Army under General Erich von Manstein as well as Stay-behind Group D show up in their territory to remove the Russian and Jewish occupiers that had been appearing on their land because of the Soviet incursions into Crimea.
It could be said that in the developing world, the international boundaries and the recognition of ethno-states governed by their own ethnic group’s elites rather than those of another group, is a kind of world that could not have come into existence without the ethno-nationalist consciousness and the live-fire demonstration of the use of deadly force that characterised the Axis approach, particularly in the Pacific.
It wasn’t that any particular person imposed National Socialism onto the German people from above only. It was actually the fact that the liberal-capitalist world view was vying for hegemony over all spheres of human life, and as a result, the ethno-nationalist world view had to fight against it in all spheres of life in order that it could triumph over it. This is the meaning of ‘totalitarianism’ when it is not used as a pejorative by liberals. While being coincident with ‘authoritarianism’, it is not a synonym for it, nor is it a synonym for ‘bad things’. The inauguration of the National Socialist state in Germany, was not the moment that ethno-nationalist world views triumphed. Rather, the inauguration of the National Socialist state was a sign and a consequence of the fact that the ethno-nationalist world view had already triumphed over liberalism among these people, and had in turn given rise to the change in the class character, ethnic composition and loyalties of the persons occupying the big tent known as the state.
This is of course the same logic that applies when talking about Fascist Italy, Right-Socialist Japan, and so on.
I am not necessarily inveighing against that phenomenon.
So with all of that said, where is the argument here? As far as I’m aware, one of the most significant disagreements is largely about the conduct of National Socialist Germany to its East. There are three elements of what happened in that region which are elements of a serious mistake that was made by Germany, a mistake which created excess risk for what—in light of the enormity of what was being fought for by Axis—was relatively little potential gain. Those elements are:
Now, any one of those reasons standing by itself, might cause someone to argue that they might be able to make it so that the benefit accrued to Germany would outweigh the cost, with respect to the larger agenda of war being conducted against the United States and against Russia.
But with all three points taken together as synergistic and inseparable as a complex system—an ecology—it becomes very clear that the conduct of Germany in Central and Eastern Europe was an inadvisable and unacceptable risk. Taking a preference for disrupting the complex systems that were the Central European nations, for the sake of ‘living-space’, rather than collaborating with the systems as they existed, produced an additional and unnecessary drag against European war-fighting capabilities, which heightened the risk of dis-integration of supply chains and thus heightened the risk of being defeated. You’ve heard of Richard III of England’s line “my kingdom for a horse!”, now try “my empire for the next shipment of ball-bearings within the appropriate time scale.”
This is the way that I look at it, it’s very much an Asian perspective that looks at the ‘big picture’, and it’s a view that I know is at odds with many of the people who criticise Majorityrights. But it is not an irrational view, and I wish that the critics would think about these issues and reflect on the errors where errors exist. I am in no way proposing that this is the sole reason for Axis difficulties in Europe at that time, but I am saying that it is a factor which certainly didn’t help the situation.
A way to the correct line
I would reiterate as well, that this is not a moralising condemnation of Germany, nor is it a moralising condemnation of those who have criticised Majorityrights. I am standing entirely apart from petty-moralist considerations and I am only talking about what I see as a matter of bad risk assessment and bad prioritisation by them when carrying out war of position and war of manoeuvre.
There are no belaboured moral statements or revisionist endorsements here, and so any liberals who are hyperventilating somewhere out there saying “isn’t this too much?”, I’d invite those liberals to take slow, deep breaths, and to not start making noises at me or overreacting.
Most of this post has been about the past, but it also has importance for the future as well, because getting the correct line on this issue of the past, allows people to also get the correct mass line for the future as well and to learn from mistakes. European ethnic-nationalists can be great if they can repair this rift between themselves, with all sides acknowledging errors where errors have occurred. It’s crucially necessary going forward, so that Europe can correctly define its borders and stand as one, as ‘Europe, whole and free’.
I’d like to also add that although the temptation for many to view it this way will be strong, this article should also not be interpreted as a ‘challenge’ issued by me to Carolyn Yeager. There will be no ‘Kumiko Oumae vs. Carolyn Yeager’ catfight-showdown at sunset with knives, so any observers having those thoughts ought to put away the popcorn, at least for now.
This is only an invitation for conversation and perhaps conflict resolution. Something that is characterised less by knives, and more by tea and biscuits. Maybe.
Kumiko Oumae works in the defence and security sector in the UK. Her opinions here are entirely her own.
Alain de Benoist
Below is the interview A. de Benoist gave recently to Boulevard Voltaire.
Q: Despite repeated promises of politicians, both from the right and the left, nothing seems to be stopping the rise in unemployment. Is it something inevitable?
A: Officially, there are 3.5 million unemployed in France, which means that the unemployment rate stands today at 10.3%. This figure, however, varies depending on how it is being computed. The official statistics take into account only the category “A”, i.e. those who are unemployed and who are actively looking for a job, while leaving out the categories “B”, “C”, “D” and “E”, i.e. those looking for a job although having had some reduced work activity as of lately; those who have stopped looking for a job but are still unemployed; those receiving training; those in traineeship; those working under “subsidized contracts”, etc. When adding together all these categories, one reaches the real unemployment rate of 21.1% (more than double the official figure). If we refer to the overall rate of the inactive population of working age, then we arrive at 35.8%. Moreover, if we were to take into account insecure, part-time, or short-term jobs, as well as the number of the “working poor”, etc., then this figure keeps getting higher.
Undoubtedly, changes in unemployment depend on the official policies—but only to some extent. Today’s unemployment is no longer of a cyclical nature, but primarily structural, something many have not fully understood yet. This means that work is becoming a scarce commodity. The jobs that have been lost are less and less being replaced by other job openings. Of course, the expansion of the service sector is real; yet the service sector does not generate capital. Moreover, twenty years down the road almost half of those service sector jobs will be replaced by networked machines. To imagine, therefore, that someday we shall return to full employment is an illusion.
A: What needs to be pointed out is that what we call “work” today has no relationship whatsoever with what used to be productive activity of the past centuries, namely a simple “metabolization” of the nature. Neither is work a synonym of activity, nor of employment. The near universal spreading of wage labor was already a revolution of sorts to which the masses remained hostile for a very long period of time. The reason for that is that they had been accustomed to the consumption of the assets of their own labor only and never viewed labor as means of acquiring the assets of others, or in other words, to work in order to purchase the results of the labor of others.
Labor has a dual dimension; it represents both concrete labor (its metabolizing purpose) and abstract labor (energy and time spent). In the capitalist system what counts is abstract labor only, because this kind of labor, being indifferent to its own content, being also equal for all goods for which it provides a basis of comparison, is the sole factor that transforms itself into money, thus acquiring a mediating role in a new form of social interdependence. This means that in a society where commodity is the basic structural category, labor ceases to be socially distributed by traditional power structures. Rather, it performs itself the function of those ancient relationships. In capitalism, labor constitutes itself the dominant form of social relationships. Its by-products (commodity, capital) represent simultaneously concrete labor products and the objectified forms of social mediation. Hence, labor ceases to be a means; it becomes an end in itself.
In capitalism value is made up of the time spent working and represents therefore the dominant form of wealth. Capital accumulation means accumulating the product of the time spent in human labor. This is why the enormous productivity gains generated by the capitalist system have not resulted in any significant decrease in working hours, as one might have expected. On the contrary, based on the trends of unlimited expansion, the system keeps imposing always more work. And it is right there that we can observe its fundamental contradictions. On the one hand capitalism seeks to extend working hours, since it is only by having people work more and more that it can achieve capital accumulation. On the other, productivity gains allow from now on the production of more and more goods with less and less men. This makes the production of material wealth more and more independent from the time spent on working. In this respect the unemployed have already become the superfluous people.
Q: You are known to be a workaholic. Do you ever miss watching the grass grow and fondle some of the cats in your household?
A: I work 80-90 hours a week simply because I like doing what I do. This does not make me an adept of the ideology of work. Quite the contrary. In theGenesis (3: 17-19) work is depicted as a consequence of the original sin. Saint Paul says: “He who does not work, neither shall he eat” (II Thessalonians3:10).This moralistic and punitive view of the work is just as alien to me as the Protestant redemptive work ethic, or for that matter the exaltation of the value of work by totalitarian regimes. Yes, I am aware of the fact that the word “travail” (work) comes from the Latin tripalium, a word which originally used to designate an instrument of torture. Therefore, I try to sacrifice to the requirements of “free time,” which is “free” insofar as it is freed from work.
Alain de Benoist is a journalist and writer who, in 1968 founded the Groupement de recherche et d’études pour la civilisation européenne, an ethnonationalist think-tank.
Jack Sen at The London Forum:
By Lasha Darkmoon, April 18, 2015
It is now only too clear that Americans have lost their country. The Jews are our masters and we are their slaves. What can we do about it?
An abridged adaption by Lasha Darkmoon of a recent article by Video Rebel.
9/11 finally revealed to us the extraordinary chutzpah of our Jewish masters.
That the Israelis did 9/11 with the help of Jewish collaborators in PNAC and AIPAC has become all too apparent to the cognoscenti. The hidden criminality behind this event has been cleverly covered up by our Jewish owned media.
9/11 was a definite declaration of war against America by Israel.
The Israelis wired World Trade Center Towers 1, 2 and 7 for demolition. Tower 7 was never struck by a plane. Yet it fell down in 6.5 seconds.
The BBC was told by the Rothschild-owned Reuters news agency that WTC 7 had collapsed an hour before it did. America was still on Daylight Savings Time but Britain had just left Summer Time, so a confused BBC announced the collapse of WTC 7 fully 24 minutes before it happened in New York.
Knowing that your government can kill the President and blow up buildings with Americans inside, as in Oklahoma City and in New York, helps to restrain hostile criticism of the government. People are nervous and say to themselves, “If they can kill 3000 innocent Americans for Israel and get away with it, what chance do I have?”
9/11 unleashed America’s “War on Terror” against various Muslim countries unable to accept direct invasion and conquest by Israel. This was America doing Israel’s dirty work for it. Israel claims all the land from the Nile to the Euphrates. The War on Terror is simply a process allowing Jews to gain control of non-Jewish lands.
On the radio page now, Paul Weston, the man who managed to get himself arrested for reading from Winston Churchill’s The River War, talks to GW and DanielS about himself, his party, nationalism and the political climate, the nature of UKIP, blogging on the DT, that adventure in Winchester, and (even) the JQ. He’s a good guy. You should listen.
Upon Winchester Guildhall, Paul Weston quoted the following passage from Churchill’s “The River War”:
As European(White) Nationalists, we all know that the wake of the World Wars has not birthed favorable circumstances for our people. Thus, we are decidedly less satisfied than Max Hastings that a marked separatism from Jewish power and influence was not achieved, its necessity not even understood; and along with that that a pervasive liberalism should have won-out as consequence, potentially auguring the final chapter for Europeans in entirety.
Was it “hubris” for Poland to want its nation back? I rather think not. It’s called ethno-nationalism and it is that which we should support as opposed to internationalism. Germany was still huge after Versailles. On the Polish border, all it had lost were Posen, Bromberg and Thorn. Danzig became neutral. The Max Hastings account introduces yet more discussion of Versailles to make it more understandable as an effort at justice, as it always appeared when looking at the territorial divisions. However, there have been a couple of parties who want me to run strong anti-Polish propaganda.
The large problem with that is that for those of us who view White Nationalist media as our veritable news source now (finding other, anti-White media wholly intolerable), a hypotrophied unanimity with Nazism and its antecedent regime’s military campaigns is what we get: for whatever reasons, but probably because America is so German- American that a “by-golly, Hitler was absolutely right!” perspective is all too convenient (and the most popular and economically supported of any WN perspective) in the wake of Jewish and Neo-liberal destruction; and all the more motivated with guilt trips of World War II being most pressing upon them; their having least perspective on anything but a direct desire to throw guilt trips off as entire fabrication: nuances of perspective and history are cast aside, and ultimately, the unfortunate difficulty they have in seeing our family relations and the more relative and complex justice of the circumstance seeds potential inter-European conflict, if not war. Seeds sown oblivious to the fact that we do not care to lay guilt trips upon them, certainly not subsequent generations, they go ahead and try to lay guilt trips upon us for events before our fathers lives even. Just as they want it understood that they and their forefathers were not ex-nihilo evil, but had reasons for their wars, so too those of “Allied” descent wish to claim the same.
Yes, there were corrupt forces manipulating the circumstances, but there were also justly reasoned motives. The circumstances were a great deal more complicated and justified from an Allied perspective than The Hitler contingent of WN will ever admit. That’s a problem if you want to treat WN as your media. Because Nazi Germany and Kaiser Germany were not pure and sheer victims, as the salient contingent of WN wish to claim. But so long as their childish and Jewish style of argumentation is what is being served in WN discourse, I am left no choice but to balance things off in the service of truth. There are several sites out there for those who want to take a “Hitler only good everyone else bad” perspective. You will not hear that the German regimes did have choices: Polish, Belarusian, Ukrainian and other Nationalisms, even the British, of course, could have been aligned, willing and able to fight Soviet incursions (had done so already in some instances).
Until there are other, or more, WN sites which care for the truth and represent events in the context of their nuance and balance, I must continue to highlight discussions such as that from Max Hastings. In fact, there is much there that one would never hear and learn about if the now standard WN position on several sites - “Germany’s war efforts only good, their people only victims” - were the only perspective heard; and there is a great deal of intimidation that it be the only perspective heard in WN, to the point where the opposite of PC is in effect, to where it is a veritable taboo to say anything negative about Nazi Germany and its predecessors and anything good about the Allies and their predecessors. In truth, of course, there are many things for Germans to be proud of, and some things to not be so proud of. For some reason, that is too complex a fact for some to cope with. Those of us who are sick of that childish unanimity might find Max Hastings discussion refreshing and informative.
There are thoughts on responsibility in World War I which echo very much that of WWII. Thoughts on Versailles foreign to WN discourse. And of course the great taboo in WN, to suggest that a German military could have done anything worth resisting. It was of course noble to burn the library of Leuven (they just had to do that, didn’t they?); to do whatever I am not allowed to speak about to Belgian civilians there, in Dinant and elsewhere, to French and other civilians; in Kalisz as well. No, Germany was always a perfect nation, nobody can say otherwise; if you want to blame anybody, conveniently blame Poland as Hitler and Goebbels suggested, or as Friedrich the Great might have proposed of his then vanquished neighbor.
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:
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?
Gysi pretends the leftist, denouncing the The EU for “pursuing ‘neo-liberal’ policy:”
But then his party pursues this policy on immigration -
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.