Majorityrights Central > Category: Political analysis

I recall that the last time that the issue of a Euro-Asian alliance came up on Majorityrights, there was a contingent of commentators who did not believe that the direction that was taken at Majorityrights about this issue was reality-based.

I would ask such persons to look at this article which appeared today in the EU Observer, which is now working in cooperation with the Mission of China to the European Union.

It’s so comprehensive that there’s scarcely anything that I would add to it:

EU Observer / Emanuele Scimia, ‘China, Russia and the EU’s intermarium block’, 14 Mar 2016:

China’s geopolitics of trade passageways, expected to revive the ancient Silk Road arteries across the Eurasian continent, is producing the first collateral effect.

The potential integration of Beijing’s “Belt and Road” initiative with a regional infrastructure scheme in Central and Eastern Europe is contributing to altering the balance of power in Euro-Russian dynamics.

Emergence of China as independent player in region marks pivotal change from 1920s and 1930s (Photo: Bernd Thaller)

Beijing maintains that the Eurasian landmass exists as an “integral whole” and that Central and Eastern Europe play an important role in its strategy to link the Chinese eastern coast and Western Europe through land and sea-based passages.

In line with this vision, on 23 February, during a meeting in Zagreb with Croatian prime minister Tihomir Oreskovic, representatives of the Chinese National Development and Reform Commission stressed that China was interested in connecting the “Adriatic-Baltic-Black Sea Initiative” and the Belt and Road project.

The Adriatic-Baltic-Black Sea Initiative was first laid out by Croatian president Kolinda Grabar-Kitarovic in September 2015. In her view, it should work as a framework for enhanced cooperation in the political, economic and security realms among 12 European Union countries of Central and Eastern Europe.

In particular, this Croatian-sponsored plan of regional integration aims to promote concrete projects on infrastructure development, so as to improve trade connection and energy independence on the eastern flank of both the EU and Nato.

When in October last year Chinese president Xi Jinping held talks with Kitarovic in Beijing, he welcomed the Adriatic-Baltic-Black Sea Initiative, underlining that the development of a north-south corridor in Europe, based on the ports of Adriatic and Baltic nations, was complementary to China’s Silk Road strategy.

Intermarium

Beijing could in fact exploit the favorable position of Adriatic, Baltic and Black Sea ports to link the Silk Road Economic Belt and the 21st-Century Maritime Silk Road - the overland and sea-going sections of the Belt and Road, respectively - through a longitudinal and intermodal corridor in the heart of Europe.

Kitarovic keeps repeating that its project is not directed against Russia.

Yet, it is doubtful that the Kremlin buys the Croatian president’s reassurances. And it cannot be otherwise, if Moscow looks at Europe’s map.

The Adriatic-Baltic-Black Sea Initiative has in fact startling similarities with the Intermarium (or “the land between the seas”), an alliance of states from the Baltics to the Black Sea - and potentially down to the Balkans - that in the 1920s and 1930s Polish leader Jozef Pilsudski tried in vain to create to prevent German and Russian expansionism.

Today, Polish president Andrzej Duda has resumed Pilsudski’s geopolitical thinking, overtly endorsing the formation of a modern Intermarium, which in large part coincides with the bloc of states included in the Adriatic-Baltic-Black Sea Initiative.

Russia will inevitably oppose any move that leads to increasing cooperation among the states of Central and Eastern Europe, viewing it as an effort to separate the Russian territory from Western Europe. But, the problem for the Kremlin is that now, unlike in the interwar period, there is China that acts as an independent variable in the eventual creation of an Intermarium grouping.

China’s cooperation with Central and Eastern Europe countries (the so-called China+16) has been underpinned by both its recent accession to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and its push to build synergies between the Belt and Road scheme and the EU $393 billion investment plan.

Particularly, Beijing and Brussels are focusing on improving their infrastructure links through the establishment of a Sino-European connectivity platform.

Baltic region

Ultimately, China and the EU are working to set up corridors between the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T), Brussels’ plan to upgrade Europe’s transport system, and the Belt and Road. The Adriatic-Baltic-Black Sea Initiative should fit into this China-Europe infrastructure mechanism.

On a visit to Latvia on 19 February, Chinese National Development and Reform Commission vice chairman Ning Jizhe voiced his government’s interest in boosting the container train traffic from China to the Baltic region and Northern Europe and investing in both the Rail Baltica project and the port of Latvian capital city Riga.

Rail Baltica is a high speed rail project, under the TEN-T initiative, that will link Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, with an extension into Germany; Riga seaport is instead at the northern end of the proposed Baltic-Adriatic Corridor, yet another TENT-T artery.

Thus, China is betting big on the Baltic ports, as also proved by China Merchants Group’s intention to expand the existing Klaipeda seaport, in Lithuania, and turns it into a new transport and logistics center within the Belt and Road scheme.

Chinese plans to reboot Klaipeda seaport should be viewed in combination with Beijing’s interest in building up the Croatian port of Rijeka, the southernmost tip of the Adriatic-Baltic-Black Sea Initiative, and, more importantly, with the potential connection between the new iron Silk Road and the Baltic coast.

The iron Silk Road is a China-Europe land-sea express line connecting Ukraine’s Black Sea port of Illichivsk with Western China via Georgia, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan.

This Euro-Asian transport passageway has been operational since January and has a considerable strategic relevance, given that it circumvents the Russian territory.

Weakening Russia

Ukraine is currently in talks with Lithuania and Belarus for linking the iron Silk Road and the port of Klaipeda. If the three countries succeed in carrying out their project, Russia will definitely lose its position as a transit space for the Sino-European trade.

China’s drive to integrate the Central and Eastern Europe countries into its Silk Road strategy has the potential to further weaken the grip of Russia on its western neighbourhood.

While there is not much Moscow can do to halt Beijing’s engagement in the European post-Soviet space, its only hope is that historical mistrust among potential participants, combined with harsh competition among them for more Chinese funds and investments, may sink the Adriatic-Baltic-Black Sea Initiative, as well as any other prospective Intermarium-style alliance.

Emanuele Scimia is an independent journalist and foreign policy analyst. His articles have appeared in the South China Morning Post, the Jamestown Foundation’s Eurasia Daily Monitor, Deutsche Welle, and The Jerusalem Post, among others.

It was possible to see this coming from a long way off.

For example:

The National Interest / Raffaello Pantucci and Alexandros Petersen, ‘China’s Inadvertent Empire’, 24 Oct 2012:

[...] China also is bolstering cross-border traders who are the economic lifeblood of the old Silk Road. Sitting atop it all is the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which offers an umbrella for China to demonstrate that its regional activities are undertaken with the acquiescence of neighboring powers.

The driver is economics, seen most clearly in China’s heavy purchasing of large mineral and hydrocarbon sites across the region. In Kazakhstan, the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) has gone into partnership with the local, state-owned enterprise (SOE) KazMunaiGaz to secure 4 percent of China’s oil imports from Kazakhstan. Turkmenistan currently accounts for almost a third of China’s imported natural gas—mostly coming through the speedily built China-Central Asia pipeline, which in 2011 brought some 15.5 billion cubic meters (BCM) of gas to China. CNPC aims to send 24.1 BCM this year and eventually get the flow up to 65 BCM. Further, CNPC secured the rights to develop an oil field in Amu Darya in northern Afghanistan, upriver to a project it already is exploiting in Turkmenistan. According to Kabul analysts, this field, a small one for a company as large as CNPC, is a kind of toe in the water for the Chinese SOE to prepare for future contracts in the hydrocarbon-rich area.

It is not only oil and gas that Chinese firms see in Central Asia. State-owned mining firms Jiangxi Copper and the China Metallurgical Group Corporation (MCC) partnered to invest near $4 billion to exploit the Mes Aynak copper mine southeast of Kabul. And while Chinese firms have been less visible on recent mining tenders in Afghanistan, they doubtless noted the U.S. Geological Survey’s estimate of nearly a trillion dollars worth of minerals in the country. Furthermore, Chinese mining firms have won concessions to mine for gold in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.

But while this natural wealth will help feed China’s insatiable demand for resources, it won’t necessarily help develop Xinjiang. That will require the development of infrastructure across Central Asia. Crippled by aging Soviet infrastructure, the region is a blank canvas for outside developers. China is not the only player around. South Korea has a notable presence in Uzbekistan, while Turkish and French firms dominate the Turkmenistan market. But it is notable to see Chinese firms developing roads leading in and out of Xinjiang. The road from Kashgar to Osh in Kyrgyzstan through the Irkeshtam Pass was built by the China Bridge and Road Company. Chinese workers in distinctive green military greatcoats with shiny buttons could be found earlier this year directing trucks of dirt to complete the road’s final stretches. Other roads can be found in Tajikistan with crews of Chinese repairing parts from Dushanbe toward the Afghan border. Dual-language Russian-Chinese signs mark the workers’ presence. More notable in Tajikistan is the only toll road in the country, going north from Dushanbe to Khujand, built by a Chinese firm and broken up by a shoddily designed Iranian tunnel at the Shahriston Pass. This soon will be replaced by a Chinese-built tunnel.

China also has sought to help develop the region’s rail systems. A train line is being built from China through Kyrgyzstan to Uzbekistan. Other train networks are being developed to strengthen links with Kazakhstan, including a high-speed train to be exported there from China. Other infrastructure elements are being spearheaded or supported by Chinese firms, including gas metering in Uzbekistan, telecoms across the region and hydropower developments in Tajikistan.

Various forms of funding have emerged. Primary among them is the use of linked loans or lines of credit provided through China Export-Import Bank. Often granted with provisions guaranteeing that Chinese firms get the contracts, these loans are breeding a growing number of Chinese train carriages in the region as well as Chinese road crews. In addition, Chinese firms often are the winning bidders in projects tendered by the Asian Development Bank (ADB). Regional ADB officials openly praise the Chinese companies and their work. The ADB’s Central Asia Regional Economic Cooperation program dovetails with China’s road-building aim of connecting the underdeveloped region with its wealthier neighbors. But China wants this infrastructure to be oriented in its direction rather than toward Afghanistan, as the ADB would prefer.

The fruits of this road and rail construction are seen in the markets of Kara-Suu in Kyrgyzstan, Barakholka in Kazakhstan or as far as Türkmenabat’s bazaars in Turkmenistan, just across the border from Uzbekistan. Sprawling fields harbor truck trailers with doors cut in them so merchants can peddle goods to local buyers. Traders in Uzbekistan report using Chinese roads and rail links to get goods from Guangzhou and Urumqi to their markets, while in Dushanbe the aptly named Shanghai Market offers a shrunken version of this model focused mostly on home construction. This trade includes such goods as air conditioners, televisions and knickknacks of the kind commonly associated with China. Xinjiang traders and truckers are largely responsible for this back and forth, which is helping expand China’s market presence in Central Asia, opening up Xinjiang’s markets and providing employment in the region.

Taken as a composite, this may appear to be a coherent strategy, but there is little evidence that it was developed consciously as a grand plan in Beijing. Beyond the Xinjiang development program, the other main area of Chinese concentration has been the SCO, a somewhat half-baked organization initially formed to resolve regional border disputes. For Beijing, the ideal would be for the organization to become a vehicle through which it can direct China’s economic investments in the region. Beijing policy makers have advanced notions of creating an SCO development bank and an SCO free-trade zone. At the latest summit in Beijing, China pledged $10 billion in regional support through the organization. But this eagerness is not shared by other SCO members—in particular Russia, which sees China’s rise in Central Asia as a direct threat to its interests. [...]

How might Russia try to frustrate these developments? The Russians know that the resources under Siberia are the key to realising their aspiration of being a great power in Asia, but it is the case that China is also the main foreign investor in Siberia now.

China has been testing the willingness of people to defend boundaries in all regions that it is adjacent to, namely, those of the United States, the Indian Ocean, the South China Sea, Central Asia, the Northern Korean peninsula, and the Northern Sea route in the Arctic Zone. Yet the only areas where China has managed to make a long-lasting strategic breakthrough are those areas in which it is detrimental to Russia. Russia has been the single biggest loser in this equation.

How should this be appraised in the broadest sense? The lesson is simple. The development of productive forces, the economic sphere, is what ultimately drives history. Things which appear to be accidents of history, are revealed as non-accidents once a long enough time scale is considered. On a long enough time scale, the course of history will tend to run parallel with the course of economic development.

Given that China became ‘a workshop of the world’, which is to say, a key element of the supply chain for every manufacturing power in East Asia, Western Europe, and the Americas, it was almost a certainty that this would create a scenario where there could potentially be strategic gains for China to pursue. Whichever boundary in the region was controlled by the weakest economic player, would become the ‘path of least resistance’ for Chinese economic expansion.

We’ve heard about the so-called ‘strength’ of Russia’s ‘Eurasianism’, which is espoused by Vladimir Putin and Kremlin advisers such as Aleksandr Dugin. The idea that Russia’s ‘Eurasianism’—a ‘Eurasianism’ which has nothing to do with Asia and everything to do with providing rhetorical cover for Gazprombank’s interests and the retrograde rent-seeking interests of (((Russian oligarchs))), ex-Stalinist gangsters, landlords, and clergy—would somehow be sufficient to improve Russia’s fortunes. We’ve also heard that the social reproduction of this supposed ‘strength’ would be presided over by the furrowed brows of Russian Orthodox priests and their thunderous moral injunctions.

And in the eyes of some, it seemed almost to be true. But was that the end of the story? No. Strong words must be backed by productive force if they are to be effective, and ultimately, a higher form of production will tend to triumph over a lower form.

It is for that reason which Russia now finds itself being increasingly denied the preponderance over the post-Soviet space that it so craved. The development of productive forces in East Asia is overcoming the force of Vladimir Putin’s fanciful speeches about ‘Eurasianism’, and it will also overcome all Abrahamic clerical-landlordist tendencies.

Click the image for a video of Bill Clinton presenting his usual stump on behalf of Hillary to a synagogue audience in Illinois.

The “inclusive, inclusive, inclusive” bit was frightening in the 1990s, when he was running for President, because “inclusive” can be a good concept when applied within a legitimate classification; and at the time there was more chance that it could have been honestly mistaken as if that’s what he meant; and not heard as what he actually means, which is the Jewish “inclusive” - a hyper-liberal inclusiveness that would include everybody [and he does emphasize everybody] - people formerly from without of a racial classification and formerly outside of the nation. This paradoxical “inclusiveness” would ultimately dissolve the classification, the nation, the people, the tribe altogether - viz., it would dissolve the very thing to be included-in.

It would dissolved to a vague catch-all category of undifferentiated gentile others; while one tribe would maintain its distinction, of course.

In 2016 it sounds less frightening than totally absurd given the floods of immigration into The U.S. and Europe. This audience in the synagogue reacts only with applause either because they are completely blind to the fact that they are being herded, thinking that they can maintain their Jewish sanctioned activist distinctions indefinitely, or because they are in on the joke.

Their biggest applause are reserved for when Bill says that what he is most proud of is that Hillary distinguishes herself from the other candidates by more fervently denouncing prejudice against Muslim Americans (following the Noachide laws apparently being good enough to qualify people for inclusion as Americans). Bill concludes by rubbing his hands together with the audience over the prospect (given Scalia’s death) of Hillary putting through another “Justice” just as good as the one that he put on the Court -

Bill literally wept before America, so moved as he was when his nominee had ascended to The Supreme Court.

     
(Doug Mills/Associated Press)

Among Chief Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s first statements was to maintain her long standing conviction as a “civil rights” advocate that nobody should be discriminated against on the basis of immutable characteristics.

European peoples, the time for being alarmed or despairing over this has long since passed. The neo-liberal complicity with the Jewish notion of “including ‘marginals” is, as I have said in several places, a paradoxical notion of “inclusion” that they have put together with an inverted notion of “marginals” - a notion of “marginals” by which they mean not marginals, as that would imply those who are just within our boundaries but being pushed to the side and ultimately outside - they mean rather taking in those from without.

With the flooding incursion of migrants and the chutzpah of this inclusion rhetoric absurdly unabated, it is time to see all of this for what it is and to organize as Whites/Native Europeans - maintaining our important distinctions and bounds as they provide accountability and serve our human ecologies, sure; but recognizing that we must coordinate our defense with overall organization as European peoples.

We are under attack for that reason in essence, no matter where or what we might take recourse to in lieu of defending ourselves on that basis. Wherever we are, we are in need of a union, unions and coordination of defense based on our most precious and essential bond - that is our DNA.

Europeans can no longer afford to tarry uncritically with those who would proceed with the modernist bastard child that is universal principles and rights, nor cater to those who would attempt to “save us” with neo-traditional re-organizations under the anachronistic rubric and poison rule structures of “Christendom.”

These aren’t surrogates for our DNA and biology - in lieu of that rather, they are midwives to the birthing of pan-mixia and our genocide.

Picture a cartoon illustration here that I had to take down due to EU law. Its title reads “Jews, Musilims, Christians.” Beneath that title it shows the identical happy self hand clasping merchant three times - their only being dressed differently and having slightly different skin tone - the obvious implication being that there is no important difference. There is a sarcastic sub-title: “know the difference, it could save your nation” and a conclusive line, “Semitic Religion, not even once.” Which is the same as saying, Abrahamic religion, not even once.

The time has also passed to be surprised or despair at how the all too kosher Merkel will act quite similarly with regard to our borders on the European end, and how the Noachide sheep will react to those who would oppose her - marking little difference between Europeans in America or here in Europe, as they continue to operate under the same neo-liberal rule structures and Noachide law. The time is now to wrest and forge our rule structure anew in organization and activism of the White Class.

It ought to be like this, but unfortunately liberals refused to let it be.

The word no longer has a meaning

One of the most remarkable aspects of the migration wave that is presently sweeping over Europe, is how organised liberal-feminism has basically acted as an extension of the government, advocating precisely what the wealthiest male stakeholders in the liberal-capitalist state would like them to advocate. The demography of the migrant flow is 70% male between ages 18 and 35, and the percentage of males rises to 90% when the age range of 16 to 17 years old alone is considered.

With liberal-feminist theorists and commentators in Europe now devoting themselves almost exclusively to the defence of Arab and African men, some people are beginning to ask how it could have ever been possible for things to have reached this point.

If we start with the consideration that incidents of violent crime, homicide, and sexual assault are statistically being committed overwhelmingly by men, and if we consider that feminism has been highlighting and talking about these statistics for as long as it has existed as a movement, why has this been completely forgotten now? Why is it that talking about the violent and anti-social tendencies of men has now been condemned as ‘prejudice’, where it was never condemned as such before?

It stands to reason that if men in general are a hazardous demographic, that the last thing any reasonable feminist would want to do is to set about inviting more men into a region that they are living in. What makes it even more of an absurd trend, is that the particular men who are being invited into Europe subscribe to social views which are magnitudes worse than the views held by European men. If young European men are a problem demographic, and they indeed are, then wait until you see young Arab and African men!

Some have advanced the absolutely bewildering argument that since there are already trouble-causing men in Europe, there should be no problem inviting millions more men into the continent. This makes no sense. Why would anyone want to increase the amount of a problem that already exists?

There seems to be no rationale until you realise that big business, specifically manufacturing, always wants more migration of ‘strong’ workers. And manufacturing essentially controls the German state, which forms the centre of this trend. European feminism has found itself acting as the cheerleaders for the most retrograde liberal economic policy preferences of German manufacturers and their Jewish-German financiers.

Given that feminism is a movement that originated not as a liberal movement, but rather, as a socialistic movement—which is to say, a movement which correctly perceived the liberal state as being a male-dominated capitalist assault vehicle against women and as such was opposed to the liberal state—it is quite a distance that has been travelled since the mid-1970s to get to the destructive pro-liberal capitalist position it is in now. There are important lessons to be learned on why this deformation happened and how to prevent such a deformation from happening again in the future.

READ MORE...

Straight at the target.

Greetings, pick-up artists, liberals, Islamic ragheads, and other ne’er-do-wells! This is your number one enemy, your favourite playmate, Kumiko Oumae at Majorityrights—the little sunbeam whose throat you’d like to cut! Get ready for another vicious assault on your morale, this is yet another article addressing the trials and travails of our friends—I mean, our enemies!—at Return of Kings dot com.

What happened?

For those who have been living under a rock or who have been too busy to keep up with everything that has been happening over the past few weeks, the tantrum over at Return of Kings began with a single flashpoint that occurred on the night of 03 Feb 2016:

Roosh.com, ‘ANNOUNCEMENT: The Meetup On February 6 Is Cancelled’, 03 Feb 2016:

I can no longer guarantee the safety or privacy of the men who want to attend on February 6, especially since most of the meetups can not be made private in time. While I can’t stop men who want to continue meeting in private groups, there will be no official Return Of Kings meetups. The listing page has been scrubbed of all locations. I apologize to all the supporters who are let down by my decision.

This should be forever known as the Night of the Plastic Sporks, because it’s funny, and because no one even needed a knife to bring Roosh’s ridiculous plans grinding to a halt. Whatever the threat was, remains unknown, but the Roosh camp seized on the opportunity to cancel everything and present themselves as the most forlorn and victimised people in the whole world.

The world loves a good victim, and so it was on 03 Feb 2016 that the pick-up artists at Return of Kings began their pathetic ‘lose to win’ strategy in the hopes that they could reconcile themselves to an ethno-nationalist movement that had been growing tired of them and had always despised them behind closed doors. They assumed that if they could find some SJWs and western liberal-feminists, trip dramtically over them, and then throw themselves down on the floor like a footballer who is faking having been foul-tackled, that ethno-nationalists would say, “Look, SJWs are abusing Roosh, let’s defend Roosh!”

No. Instead, we all said, “Good. Let them finally fall there and perish. They deserve each other.”

The cavalry is not coming, and it will never come, because ethno-nationalists are not Roosh’s cavalry. There are structural reasons for why we are all driving our rhetorical knives, or sporks, or whatever into the backs of pick-up artists right now. Many of us were simply waiting for Roosh to stumble so that we could push him right off the stage and be rid of him. I have talked to a number of old hands among European and American ethno-nationalism, and whenever I asked about what people thought of Roosh V, I could find hardly anyone who liked him.

As such, I was absolutely not surprised when the whole of the ethno-nationalist circle on the internet came out to begin condemning Roosh for his pro-rape comments and for his attempts to sneak an Islamic values system into European ethno-nationalism via the back door.

One of the most notable websites which sided against Roosh was Counter-Currents, and I’ll quote some portions of Greg Johnson’s article there:

Counter-Currents / Greg Johnson, ‘Roosh Really is a Rape Advocate (& a Rapist, if He’s Telling the Truth)’, 11 Feb 2016:

[...]

Roosh faces a dilemma here, and the reporterette knows it. If he is telling the truth, he raped the girl. (It is rape in Iceland too.) And if “macho sex writing” just means Penthouse Letters-style fiction, then it casts doubt on the veracity of all of his sex travelogues, which function as testimonials to his pickup artistry. In short, Roosh is either a rapist or a fraud.

But even if Roosh is a fraud, he is no mere fraud. He is a fraud with a large audience that regards him as a role model. Even if he never raped anyone, one day one of his followers will. Does anyone seriously doubt that somewhere in the world, a woman has been (or will be) raped because of what some pussy nerd read in a book by Roosh V? I’d bet money on it. And not even Roosh’s most ardent supporters would take that bet. So it is not just feminist hysteria to describe Roosh as a rape advocate.

Roosh also argues that since no woman has accused him of rape, he has never raped anyone. But how do we even know that no charges have been filed against him? How would Roosh even know? Roosh was just a sex-tourist; he was just passing through; he could have used a false name or no name at all. There are probably quite a lot of Middle Eastern-looking John Does in open rape cases all over Europe, and it is only getting worse.

[...]

I cheered Roosh when he asked reporters why they are going after him while covering up mass rapes by Muslims in Europe. All Roosh would have to do is convert to Islam and show up in a track suit, and feminists would shut their mouths and spread their legs.

But the hypocrisy charge cuts both ways: how can White Nationalists decry the mass rape and sexual exploitation of white women by Middle-Eastern men but stand in solidarity with Roosh V?

How can White Nationalists extol Eastern Europe as the most racially and culturally healthy part of the white world and condone the kind of man who treats it as a cheap brothel?

How can we stand in solidarity with Polish nationalists against Middle Eastern rapefugees and defend the author of Bang Poland?

[...]

Greg Johnson should be applauded for this article, he just wins and keeps on winning.

What Greg Johnson has done there is that he has found the fault-line, the glaring fault-line which has been there all along and he’s translated it into the clearest words imaginable.

There is an inherent contradiction between:

• [1]ethno-nationalists advocating for the defence of discrete geographical breeding groups and their dominance over a civic space on the one hand, and
• [2]on the other hand, neo-masculinists calling for a kind of world-wide brotherhood of greasy men who yearn for mass mestizaje and the exploitation of women.

These two things are indeed irreconcilable. Universal solidarity among men without preconditions or limits is impossible for ethno-nationalists who care about the ties of blood and ethnicity for the same exact reason that universal solidarity among women without preconditions or limits is also impossible in an ethno-nationalist context.

There was one line that Greg Johnson included that I thought was pretty funny though:

Counter-Currents / Greg Johnson, ‘Roosh Really is a Rape Advocate (& a Rapist, if He’s Telling the Truth)’, 11 Feb 2016:

[...] The manosphere is part of the larger reactosphere. It performs an important red-pilling function on human biodiversity. And it shares a border with White Nationalism that is as long and porous and the US border with Mexico. [...]

I think he’s being a bit too charitable to Roosh in that instance. At risk of sounding like Donald J. Trump, I have to partially agree in that yes, Return of Kings dot com is like Juarez, Mexico. And yes, the border is porous.

That’s precisely why they have to go. And it’s also precisely why there needs to be a wall. And not just between them and white nationalism, but between them and any kind of ethno-nationalism.

I’m sure that Greg Johnson would agree with me on that, especially in light of how Roosh has chosen to respond to his article.

The Reality is Confirmed

Eventually Roosh was sure to make a response, and that response has come. I’ll cut his respose up into parts and give some commentary of my own along with it. Now, we at Majorityrights are not part of the Alt-Right, but we are ethno-nationalists.

When Roosh refers to ‘Alt-Right’ he seems to actually mean ethno-nationalists as a whole, and not just the Alt-Right, so I will treat his comments as though he is discussing all of ethno-nationalism, and not just that one segment of it:

Return of Kings / Roosh Valizadeh, ‘The Alt Right Is Worse Than Feminism In Attempting To Control Male Sexual Behavior’, 22 Feb 2016:

For a flash of 2015, they offered new ideas that could serve as a counterweight to liberalism and social justice, [...]

Actually, the beast reawakened in the early 1960s. It’s not going away.

Return of Kings / Roosh Valizadeh, 22 Feb 2016:

[...] but unfortunately a large section of it has degenerated into a collection of fearful beta males [...]

Yes, this is the all-consuming question, the question which is also being asked by Roosh’s friend Matt Forney. Matt Forney alleges that the Alternative Right got cucked, and that somehow women are to blame. But who are the beta-cucks in this situation, really? Who are the sad, whimpering little boys who are prepping the bull’s dick and giving the bull money and encouraging the bull to fuck its way across their countries? And who is the bull?

Let’s check with Roosh himself to find out:

Man, it must INFURIATE the alt right that me and my followers are sexing the same white women they're trying to save. ??

— Roosh (@rooshv) January 17, 2016

Roosh and his non-white supporters are actually the bulls who are being prepped. All of Roosh’s white supporters are in fact the very definition of beta-cucks.

Roosh’s white supporters aren’t able to succeed at basic sex-friend relationships with the women that they meet on a Friday night, and so they are compelled to buy Roosh’s books so that he can teach them how to finally get a woman to actually have sex with them or, alternately, how to become a rapist.

Meanwhile, Roosh takes their money and uses it to go around advocating mass mestizaje and pick-up artistry, so that sex tourists can take advantage of the women in various European countries. Roosh then gloats about this state of affairs on twitter in the middle of the Rapefugee crisis and Roosh’s cucked followers then angrily demand that everyone should stand with Roosh.

It’s pretty simple, once you take into account what the definition of the term ‘beta-cuck’ is.

Return of Kings / Roosh Valizadeh, 22 Feb 2016:

What went wrong?

Plenty of things went wrong, but opposing Roosh Valizadeh was not one of them.

Return of Kings / Roosh Valizadeh, 22 Feb 2016:

The alt right has begun doing what they wanted to do all along: control the sexual choices of men.

Le gasp. Imagine, a world where societies impose some kind of guidelines or limits on sexual behaviour, limits which actually apply to men as well as to women. What kind of society would want to limit the number of instances of mestizaje where possible, can anyone think of what the word for that society might be? Oh, ethno-nationalist, that’s right.

Return of Kings / Roosh Valizadeh, 22 Feb 2016:

If you’re a white male, you’re forbidden to sleep with a non-white girl, because that is “race mixing” and goes against their race platform, even though the white race was certainly produced as a result of pre-historic race mixing.

Amazing. It’s almost like Roosh got lost on his way to an anti-racism convention.

Return of Kings / Roosh Valizadeh, 22 Feb 2016:

The alt right has gone from a possible political alternative to a frustrated mob that wants to control the sexual choices of all men. With whom have we encountered that before?

Feminism.

We’ve also encountered it with ethno-nationalism. Because, you know, in order for an ethnic group to survive, it has to exalt its own existence and not go around openly promoting mass mestizaje as a meritorious ‘accomplishment’.

Return of Kings / Roosh Valizadeh, 22 Feb 2016:

Johnson was applauded by the alt right for taking such a brave stand against an ex-player, while his adventures in AIDS-causing anal sex are hushed up and ignored in what is supposed to be a traditional movement. It turns out that homosexuals have some sort of perverse immunity in the alt right.

A person doesn’t have to be a traditionalist in order to be an ethno-nationalist, but a person does have to advocate ethno-nationalism in order to be an ethno-nationalist. That’s the key difference between Roosh Valizadeh and Greg Johnson.

Greg Johnson is an ethno-nationalist. Roosh Valizadeh is not.

This controversy was never about ‘traditional values’. Nor should it have been.

Return of Kings / Roosh Valizadeh, 22 Feb 2016:

They’ll go on and on about the Jewish question—and attack you if you don’t—but ignore discussion of the “homosexual question” and its role in wrecking societies. Now you know why.

Roosh asks ‘why?’ Could it be because on one hand Jewish interests are diametrically opposed to the maintenance of all ethnic groups other than their own, whereas homosexuality on the other hand is a side issue of no negative consequence which Roosh is trying to distract people with?

The demagoguery of the centre-right ‘neo-masculinists’ cannot conceal their traitorous countenance. Centre-right liberals have been playing a honky-tonk piano with two well-worn keys labelled ‘homosexuals!’ and ‘abortions!’, for the past three decades in a frantic effort to distract everyone from the central issue of racial advocacy, and when Roosh does this it only further satisfies the heuristics of treachery.

Return of Kings / Roosh Valizadeh, 22 Feb 2016:

I didn’t write a dozen books and hundreds of articles preaching on the sanctity of masculinity to help a movement that attempts to redefine consensual sex along the dystopian standard of the left while crushing the choices that men want to make, especially since race is not even close to being a defining factor for men looking for a suitable partner.

Retarded and wrong. A twitter poll is not even scientific, and Roosh’s poll is based on a small cross-section of his own centre-right mass-mestizaje-promoting followers, who in the absence of a racial preference would of course ‘make up for it’ by becoming interested in more carefully scrutinising the personality of their partner.

Roosh’s followers are not typical of human behaviour as a whole, and they are in fact in the minority.

See here:

J. Philippe Rushton, ‘Ethnic nationalism, evolutionary psychology and Genetic Similarity Theory’, Nations and Nationalism 11 (4), 2005, 489–507: (emphasis added)

Genetic Similarity Theory

In 1984, the current author, along with Robin Russell and Pamela Wells, began to apply the Hamiltonian perspective to human dyads, small groups and even larger national and international entities (Rushton et al. 1984; Rushton 1986, 1989a, 2004; Rushton and Bons 2005). We dubbed our approach ‘Genetic Similarity Theory’ and reasoned that if genes produced effects that allowed bearers to recognise and favour each other, then altruistic behaviour could evolve well beyond ‘kin selection’. By matching across the entire genome, people can maximise their inclusive fitness by marrying others similar to themselves, and like, make friends with and help the most similar of their neighbours, as well as engage in ethnic nepotism. As the English language makes clear, ‘likeness goes with liking’.

Social-assortment studies

Of all the decisions people make that affect their environment, choosing friends and spouses are among the most important. Genetic Similarity Theory was first applied to assortative mating, which kin-selection theory sensu stricto does not readily explain since individuals seldom mate with ‘kin’. Yet, the evidence for assortative mating is pervasive in other animals as well as in
humans. For humans, both spouses and best friends are most similar on socio-demographic variables such as age, ethnicity and educational level (r = 0.60), next most on opinions and attitudes (r = 0.50), then on cognitive ability (r = 0.40), and least, but still significantly, on personality (r = 0.20) and physical traits (r = 0.20).

Even marrying across ethnic lines ‘proves the rule’. In Hawaii, men and women who married cross-ethnically were more similar in personality than those marrying within their group, suggesting that couples ‘make up’ for ethnic dissimilarity by choosing spouses more similar to themselves in other respects (Ahern et al. 1981).

[...]

Several twin and adoption studies show that the preference for genetic similarity is heritable, that is, people are genetically inclined to prefer similar partners. In one of these studies, Rowe and Osgood (1984) analysed data on delinquency from several hundred adolescent monozygotic (MZ) twin pairs, who share one hundred per cent of their genes, and dizygotic (DZ) twin pairs, who share fifty per cent of their genes. They found that adolescents genetically inclined to delinquency were also genetically inclined to seek out similar others as friends. Dovetailing with these results, Daniels and Plomin (1985) examined friendships in several hundred pairs of siblings from both adoptive and non-adoptive homes, and found that whereas biological siblings (who share genes as well as environments) had friends who resembled each other, adoptive siblings (who share only their environment) had friends who were not at all similar to each other. These results show that shared genes lead to similar friends.

[...]

Women prefer the bodily scents of men with genes similar to their own more than they do those of men with nearly identical genes or genes totally dissimilar to their own (Jacob et al. 2002). Each woman’s choice was based upon the human leukocyte antigen (HLA) gene sequence – the basis for personal odours and olfactory preferences – inherited from her father but not her mother. Another study found that both men and women rated versions of their own face as the most attractive after they had been computer-morphed into faces of the opposite-sex, even though they did not recognise the photos as images of themselves (Penton-Voak et al. 1999). Similarly, people whose faces were morphed with strange faces trusted others most when they looked like themselves (DeBruine 2002). Familiarity was ruled out by using morphs of celebrities; only self-resemblance mattered.

[...]

Even very young children typically show a clear preference for others of their own ethnic heritage (Aboud 1988). In fact, the process of making racial groupings has been shown to result from a natural tendency to classify people into ‘kinds’. Children quickly begin to sort people into ‘basic kinds’ by sex, age, size and occupation. Experiments show that at an early age children clearly expect race to run in families (Hirschfield 1996). Very early in life, a child knows which race it belongs to, and which ones it doesn’t.

[...]

People can be predicted to adopt ideologies that work in their genetic self-interest. Examples of ideologies that have been shown, on analysis, to increase genetic fitness are religious beliefs that regulate dietary habits, sexual practices, marital customs, infant care and child rearing (Lumsden and Wilson 1981). Amerindian tribes that cooked maize with alkali had higher population densities and more complex social organisations than tribes that did not, partly because alkali releases the most nutritious parts of the cereal, enabling more people to grow to reproductive maturity. The Amerindians did not know the biochemical reasons for the benefits of alkali cooking but their cultural beliefs had evolved for good reason, enabling them to replicate their genes more effectively than would otherwise have been the case.

[...]

The hypothesis presented here is that because fellow ethnics carry copies of the same genes, ethnic consciousness is rooted in the biology of altruism and mutual reciprocity. Thus ethnic nationalism, xenophobia and genocide can become the ‘dark side’ of altruism. Moreover, shared genes can govern the degree to which an ideology is adopted (e.g. Rushton 1986 and 1989a). Some genes will replicate better in some cultures than in others. Religious, political and class conflicts become heated because they affect genetic fitness. Karl Marx did not take his analysis far enough: ideology may be the servant of economic interest, but genes influence both.

As as side-bar, I should mention that Rushton makes only one mistake there. Rushton says that Marxian analysis ‘does not go far enough’ because it overlooks the influence of genes. However, on the contrary, Marxian analysis does not overlook it. Friedrich Engels explained in 1894 how the geographic features of the earth shaped different ethnic groups, and how that shaping has a dialectical relationship with the development of the economic base.

Aside from that one minor mistake, everything else that Rushton has said is correct.

But hey, maybe for some people it’s difficult to decide whether they should believe science and their own naked eyes, or whether they should instead believe the words of Roosh Valizadeh and his followers hammering the ‘personality’ button on a twitter poll.

Return of Kings / Roosh Valizadeh, 22 Feb 2016:

More severely, they’ve allowed scores of attention-whoring women to enter their movement and have a voice in its future.

That statement is more than ironic, given that Roosh is literally the definition of an attention-whoring man.

Return of Kings / Roosh Valizadeh, 22 Feb 2016:

The alt right is becoming so authoritarian [...]

I’ve just got to laugh. Do you hear that, everyone? Roosh thinks it’s really awful how authoritarian all this is getting! It’s not like ethno-nationalism is a political tendency that has always attracted authoritarian personalities or anything! It doesn’t yet work the same way in the West as it does in the East, but it’s a work in progress.

Return of Kings / Roosh Valizadeh, 22 Feb 2016:

The story of what happened to the alt right is the story of every single internet movement in existence: subversion. The initial thought-leaders of the movement got overtaken by outsiders or those whose intentions were at odds with the founding ideals.

Again, irony.

Roosh Valizadeh literally is the embodiment of a subversive tendency. He is the spearhead of a tendency which sought to redirect everyone’s attention away from advocating ethnic genetic interests and constructing the kind of counter-institutions that could develop strategies for maximising those interests, and instead toward trying to transform the conversation into one about love relationships, pick-up artistry, game, and the feely-feelings of jilted men.

Yet now he accuses everyone else of being subversive.

Return of Kings / Roosh Valizadeh, 22 Feb 2016:

I still believe that a form of nationalism is needed to defeat the liberal establishment that is run by sociopathic globalists, but it must be one that doesn’t mimic feminism in controlling male behavior.

In other words, Roosh’s final plea is for everyone to become like the ANC-controlled rape-paradise of South Africa, a place where male behaviour is never controlled, and which is made of both failure and AIDS.

No thanks. Not ever.

Roosh’s crypto-Muslim agenda

Lest anyone forget, Roosh also said this:

Return of Kings / Roosh Valizadeh, ‘Women Must Have Their Behavior And Decisions Controlled By Men’, 04 Nov 2015:

[...] Women would not be able to attend university unless the societal need is urgent where an able-minded man could not be found to fill the specific position. Women would not be able to visit establishments that serve alcohol without a man present to supervise her consumption. Parental control software on electronic devices would be modified for women to control and monitor the information they consume. Credit card and banking accounts must have a male co-signer who can monitor her spending. Curfews for female drivers must be enacted so that women are home by a reasonable hour. Abortion for women of all ages must be signed off by her guardian, in addition to prescriptions for birth control. [...]

Anyone who reads these things and doesn’t realise that these are Islamic values being promoted by Roosh, is frankly delusional. His rhetorical strategy seems to be that when he is asked about what should be done to prevent the exploitation which he is promoting, he responds by promoting Islamic values as a ‘solution’ to a problem that he is helping to exacerbate.

It is alien and pathetic.

To our female readers: A better way

There has been a lot of talk about the ‘proper role’ of women in the struggle. My view, a view which I personally live by, is that any struggle that you do not participate in, is a struggle in which you will be left on the sidelines after it’s done. In order for a movement to really be capable of unifying a population, everyone has to able to participate, and women form 50% of the population.

Young women who are interested in serving ethno-nationalist causes absolutely should not ever spend their time obsessing over petty men and relationships, and should not consider ‘housewife’ to be a fitting role. That’s a waste of valuable time and energy.

We as women should be doing everything to insert ourselves into core industries and services, such as:

• Police: There are a lot of dindus out there, and you’ve got to have the capability to work with a team in order to catch them all and put them into the prison system. Also, buy shares in the companies that run the prison system, so that you can win while you win. Recently the police are getting a lot of military surplus toys to play with, so you can enjoy that too.


• Military: In some countries it’s possible to choose an infantry combat role, but don’t get suckered into that dead end path, the physical requirements are too high. Do not choose an infantry combat role, there are plenty of other great roles which cater far better to the inherent strengths of the female brain, which will still allow you to get used to the complex processes involved in killing people either directly or indirectly.


• Defence manufacturing: Once you have been able to establish yourself, it will be difficult to get off the conveyor belt of increased responsibilities. And you won’t want to get off it, because it’s too fulfilling.


• Oil and Gas sector: Who will liberate the oil and gas from the hands of Arabs who don’t know how to productively use it? Without the oil and gas sector we’d all be lost. Many of these companies are undergoing reorganisation recently because of the plunging oil prices, but once the situation stabilises there will surely be lots of roles available and I hear they like single women with no immediate family commitments. Oh, wait, actually, everyone likes single women with no immediate family commitments.


• Private Military Contractors: Don’t count them out! If things get really bad one day, PMCs might be granted the ability to directly target and loot specific areas of the Middle East. Some people have been talking about the possibility of this becoming the next big phenomenon in warfare, the return of privateering. It could get really interesting.

This list is written in a lighthearted way and it is by no means a complete list, but I’m also 100% serious. It’s intended as a sketch of the mindset that you ought to be in. Aiming for any of those kinds of life roles requires a determination to succeed despite adversity. It also requires that women take advantage of the openness of the school system, a system which has never been more open than it is now, to take STEM subjects and stop doing degrees in “women’s studies” and so on.

You only live once, and your mother did not give birth to you just so that you could become someone’s boring Stepford Wife. I’m not a Stepford Wife, and I never will be.

All women should strive to be the best they can be. I hope that you women out there who don’t yet see the necessity of this struggle will come to see that it is necessary, and I hope that some day you’ll join us in this struggle. We have to do what we can, where we can, to help our nations to safeguard their genetic and cultural heritage, and to ensure that the children of the future live in a world that is better than the one we inhabit today.

                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.

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…

I love pointing-out to people, right-wingers, who want to blame youth culture of the 60s as the onset and crux of our demise (not you, GW), that Jewish power and influence combined with Modernist naivete were the forces that were the major culprits - and they were well in force already in the 50s and early 60s, well before kids grew their hair long, listened to rock n’ roll and resisted the Vietnam draft.

Take note of Michael O’Meara’s discussion of how The Soviets and other Marxists/communists used black “civil rights” as a weapon against America; also note my reinforcement that Jewish interests, via Katzenbach, prominently, were only too happy to facilitate what was then more straightforwardly referred-to as “integration.”

Kennedy had been ignoring Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson’s advice, to “look Southerners in the eye and tell them that integration was a moral and Christian issue.”

Governor Wallace, posturing as if to stand in the way of integration, is confronted by Katzenbach

Watching Wallace’s posturing, President Kennedy decided for the first time in his career to risk his political standing in the South by taking the side of integration. President Kennedy decides to go on national television that night and give a speech calling for a civil rights act to end discrimination in the South.

“We are confronted primarily with a moral issue. It is as old as the scriptures and as clear as The American Constitution. The heart of the question is, whether all Americans are to be afforded equal rights and equal opportunities (He ‘finally’ calls for Federal law ending segregation). Next week I shall ask the Congress of The United States to act, to make a commitment that has not been fully made in this century to the proposition that race has no place in American life or law.”

This, GW, is why not only the Arahamic universalism of The Right, but its wedding to Enlightenment style objectivism (and universalism) must be overcome as well - and it is the post modern project, proper, which has undertaken to do that.

Kennedy is also the one who got us into the Vietnam debacle with a strategy of showing strength against communism with “small wars.”

The documentary concludes..

‘Kennedy set so much in motion in such a short period of time”...

Perhaps the most reliably good outcome of Kennedy biographies are the endings.