Majorityrights Central > Category: Anti-racism

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.

              Benjamin Netanyahu: “9/11 was good for Israel.”

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.

  The War on Terror has cost American taxpayers trillions of dollars to date. 9/11 was used to justify military actions that have killed and maimed millions of people in the Middle East. Some of these people were Christians, but the majority were Muslims. Their descendants and friends, the one who survived the initial carnage, have been radicalized as a result. They now have every reason to seek revenge against their aggressors — the ones who perpetrated 9/11 and then used it as an excuse to plunder Islamic lands.

                                                            §

READ MORE...

Far from the purview of European / American men were two conceptual weapons which could be alternated arbitrarily, wielded in an instant by feminists (or wielded similarly and unwittingly by neo-traditional women, for that matter), as equipped with the cynicism of these memes to dismiss, in either case, recourse to two profoundly important European moral orderings.

Most significantly, one weapon was to deride Europe’s natural Aristotlean morality, its observation of optimality and relationships as central to human nature, and another to destroy the propositions and principles initiated by the likes of Kant to gird, e.g., against arbitrary vicissitudes of empirical philosophy being taken too far – but in either case, the weapons distinguish females (including White females, of course) as having a separate moral order not beholden to White men and thus not beholden to Europeans as a system with shared social, moral capital and human ecology of millennia.

Deep within the wallowing abyss of de Beauvoir’s “The Second Sex”, its talk of “sacred ministry of betrayal” feeding extant dissatisfactions in females, lurked these weapons - far out of the casual purview of White men to apprehend from whence came what hit them and what it was about.

Betty Friedan (1963), with the modernist, “she’s just like one of the boys and, if liberated to participate, may do-so as an equal” approach to feminism, was the preeminent figure in the second wave of feminism; she took as her point of departure this line from Simone de Beauvoir, 1948, page 672: “This utility of the housekeeper’s heaven is the reason why she (speaking of traditional women) adopts the Aristotlean morality of the golden mean, that is, of mediocrity.”

My hunch that was her source inspiration is borne-out through multiple connections.

Carol Gilligan (1982), with the neo-traditional angle focusing on qualitative differences of females, but still within the feminist framework, also took a line from de Beauvoir as her point of departure - 1948, Page 681: “ but she knows that he himself has chosen the premises on which his rigorous deductions depend.. but she refuses to play the game.. she knows that male morality as it concerns her, is a vast hoax.”

My observation that this was the source for Gilligan was confirmed by Helen Haste, a colleague of Gilligan’s at Harvard.

While there are other significant non-Jewish feminists, forebears besides de Beauvoir, it is true that de Beauvoir’s feminist philosophy has roots in Marx’s notion that marriage and patriarchy are veritable slavery - women’s “liberation requires that these institutions be overturned, a revolutionary act corresponding to liberation of all.”

The situation was made ripe for exploitation and runaway by the logical extension of modernity, well-meaning at first as a liberation from mere, but harmful traditions and superstitions, it ran rough-shod and ruptured accountable social classification – their utility naivly or disingenuously pushed-aside in favor of the objectivist scientism of Lockeatine civil rights, objectivist neo-liberal capitalism, and seized upon in distortion by “neo-cons”, but not before these wielded “objectivist” rights were fundamentally weaponized and reversed in form against Whites, by Jews, Marxists re-deploying these ideas in the form of “anti-racism” and “civil rights” - discrimination against Whites and the prohibition of discrimination by White men.

Underpinning susceptibility to this all along was their saboteurs ticking time-bomb - liberal affectation planted into European culture and becoming more deeply embedded over 2,000 years; viz., in contrast to the exclusivity of Jews, (as GW notes) Judeo-Christianity’s propositional altercast as undifferentiated gentiles in the eyes of god, to include any race in its moral order, and the disordering effect of modernity to traditional European moral orders was virtually a necessary consequence.

With racial bounds broken but classification still necessary to human perceptual organ- ization, the least ignorable categories emerged in de facto high relief and resonance – gender being one of them. Within the disorder the female one-up position in partner selection (don’t think so? she’ll call upon the goon squad to show you who is boss) emerged with increased significance, whereupon they are pandered-to from males of every direction and most importantly, cynically and cunningly, by Jews, of course, to betray their co-evolutionary males. With White men vilified thus and White females pandered-to constantly, even puerile White females become articulate, over- confident, correspondingly under-empathetic, sometimes brazen with self righteous entitlement and prerogative.

Jewish interests can take advantage of this; demoralize their adversaries by pandering to their co-evolutionary females in this position and the atavistic denominator of the disorder; for marked example, by promoting the high contrast tropism of White/black mixing –blacks being the other category hardest to ignore despite prohibition on class- ifications –while the prohibition of discrimination leaves the more protracted rate of maturity of White men susceptible to the more episodic, atavistic assertion of blacks.

Professor Pearce (with Rossi) might add that within the paradoxic performance requirements of feminism there is nothing even a well-intentioned male can do if a feminist wishes to put him in the wrong: If he treats her as one of boys, then he may be construed as a male chauvinist pig, who does not respect the special quality of her gender. If he treats her with deference to the special qualities of her gender, he can be construed as a condescending patriarch and/or a wimp who does not respect her agency, autonomy and independence.

The situation is only going to be perpetuated by a paradoxic (really, “quaradoxic”) phenomenon that Whites are prone to be up against, what I call the charmed loop of didactic incitement: This does require that sufficient power is brought to bear against Whites, but it is a likely predicament given social injunctions against discriminatory social classifications rendered by White men and the heavily pandered-to one-up position of females within the disorder of modernity; along with its exponentially more powerfully positioned puerile female inclination to incite genetic competition.
___________

The Dark Side of Self Actualization Intersecting Incommensurate Gender Agendas: Corrective Structures and Systematization -

In this essay I will re-tell the story of how I began to understand and organize gender relations at the intersection of race and individualism in order to diagnose attendant problems and prescribe corrections. I will make refinements with what I have learned since initial instantiations of this hypothesis. I feel compelled to make this case again as there are popular sites in WN which are taking on the issue and I do not trust them to handle it well. For very specific reasons I have long held that there should be a platform for White men/males that both advocates them and is critical of female predilections, inclinations, politics. This will start out with a critical tone, as it is necessary to get to critical parts right away, but there is a happy ending for both genders.

In my first renderings of this hypothesis, I took Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs (which he also referred-to as a hierarchy of motives), as a preliminary framework in need of correction. That remains a particularly useful point of departure for a working hypothesis to address problems: of where and how individualism, peoples’ predica- ment within modernity and incommensurate gender relations may be exacerbated and pandered-to; whether by hostile interests (e.g., YKW) or indifferent interests (e.g. naive or disingenuous objectivist/relativists, neo-liberals); thereby rupturing racial bounds which could otherwise facilitate systemic homeostasis; instead runaway and reflexive reversals is perpetuated -e.g., “the dark side of self actualization.”

“I don’t have to tell you about the tyranny of patterns, that is the rubric under which we meet. What you may not know is that you have to accept them.”  - Bateson

But rather than merely accept them, the proposition here is that we recognize them, take them to heart and work with them instead of against them.

For good reasons, I took Maslow as the preliminary framework against which to propose corrections (will explain momentarily). Neither is it necessary to discard the diagnosis of toxicity in this model of higher needs being founded in hierarchical succession upon maximal fulfillment of more fundamental needs, particularly as it has played-out in - and been an influence of - the pop-culture of European-American relations; nor is it necessary to alter its proposed general correction of taking attendance to needs and motives into a circulating process based on the Aristotlean recommendation of optimal levels of need satisfaction and the centrality of human concern for relations.

Unlike Maslow’s terms for the constituent needs, I have ever (since the early 90s) proposed four terms (the number of four terms are taken for reasons that I will explain) in place of the terms that he uses in this hierarchy –

Socialization, Being, Routine/Reverence and Self Actualization in a circulating management are proposed instead.

“Just a few more words added to his grammar of motives might change a sociopath into a decent man.” - Kenneth Burke
  - thus…

READ MORE...

Tom Sunic talks to GW and Daniel about the state of political nationalism in Europe and the problem of negative identity, and about the progress of thinking nationalism. 1hr 4min; 59.0 MB.

Despite The Guilt Trips of World War II (discussed below on the anniversary of Dresden)

parts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Here is an interview request that I sent to Dr. Christian Lindtner on February 12th

Dear Dr. Lindtner,

As producer for Majorityrights.com, I am writing you to inquire as to the possibility of arranging for an interview.

Majority Rights takes a position (secular) regarding Christianity which very much respects your scholarly critique.

Nevertheless, while I am writing you at this email address, my inquiry actually has more to do with a hope to discuss appropriate response to the fall-out of World War II, facts and mythos.

Your videos discussing holocaust revisionism are the most credible on the topic that I have seen. I do not see it as necessary to go-over that same ground in exhaustive detail. My position is that subsequent generations of Germans and others are innocent and ought not have to continue to pay, irrespective of the facts of Nazi Germany.

I am not anti-German and I am assuming that neither are you, anti-German.

My question is, how do we assert our innocence, along with that of present day Germans, to warrant implementing our defense of our nations as the preserves of our native nationals? - particularly in light of, and despite, the holocaust?

I believe that despite the holocaust that Germany and Europe does not owe the world, Jews, or anybody, its destruction through immigration and assimilation.

This is different from what holocaust deniers, even revisionists, are saying. Committed revisionists and deniers seem to believe everything, all of our defensive warrant, hinges upon debunking the holocaust. It is perhaps easier for me to see that as not necessarily the case as my ancestors even, had even less in the way of historical responsibility. Nevertheless, revisionists seem to have an overwhelming desire to unburden us of guilt trips* for these events, for which no guilt ought to be assigned them - and as a result, it seems to me that they are making the cause for European national sovereignty more resisted and less trustworthy when, in fact, it is a fully legitimate cause and ought to be seen that way irrespective of the holocaust.

What I seek from you in an interview is to help build this case to establish the warrant of European nations to preserve their nations for their native kinds despite The World Wars, whatever the facts.

Please say that you will grant us the interview Dr. Lindtner. It can be very important to inter-European peace and survival.

R.S.V.P.
Daniel Sienkiewicz, Majority Rights.

............................................................................
Dr. Lindtner accepts an interview which should materialize around March 1.

Dear Daniel,

Thanks for your interesting mail.

I shall be happy to grant an interview about the matters mentioned by you.

You can expect me to speak freely of these and related issues.

Looking forward to hear from you!

Best wishes

...............................................................................

For those of you who take exception to my deferential use of the word “holocaust”, understand that by it I mean a name given to mass deaths of Jews in the world war, however they came about, irrespective of any obnoxious elevation of importance of Jewish deaths over European deaths - which Dr. Lindtner recognizes in his characterizing it, holocaustianity, as a religion.

* I understand that holocaust isn’t only an issue of guilt, it is the basis for enormous financial payments as well, but that is among issues that I am hoping for Dr. Lindtner to address - his assistance in building the case to Warrant native European national defense, viz. that we have paid enough for any claimed grievances and are innocent to defend ourselves as sovereign native European nations.

.....................................................................................................................................................................
Continued - viz., “Despite The Guilt Trips of World War II (discussed here on the anniversary of Dresden)”

From Colin Liddell’s Saturday, 14 February 2015 article on the Dresden holocaust - “BOMBING GERMANY, RUSSIA, AND AMERICA IN ONE NIGHT”

At the Yalta conference, just days before the Dresden firebombing..

Churchill was roughly shunted aside as the irrelevant leader of a morally and financially burnt-out husk by the two new superpowers. The clearest sign of this was the fate of Poland. This had been Britain’s declared reason for getting involved in the war, so the fate of Poland was a barometer of Britain’s position. At Yalta it was handed over to Stalin. Not only would the Soviet Union keep the territories seized from Poland in 1939, but the Lublin Government, set up and controlled by Stalin, would be placed in effective control of the country.

                                   

And this comment on the article..

com contrarian
“Let’s face it the period from about 1936-1945 was full of cock-ups on both sides, and only Franco came out of it with any credibility. Hitler shouldn’t have invaded the Soviet Union and shouldn’t have declared war on the US. Stalin shouldn’t have left his country so open to invasion. Mussolini should have stayed out altogether (Italy had half its merchant marine impounded before it even had the chance to fire a shot). Britain shouldn’t have tried to save Poland (when it had no power to do so) and shouldn’t have sent weapons to Greek communists.

From a particularist/nationalist perspective it’s best to write it off as a painful learning experience and get on with nationalism 2.0.”

Provoked this response from me:

I keep hearing these retarded arguments that the Nazis shouldn’t have invaded Russia and that Britain should’ve let Nazi Germany do as it liked with Poland. If 20/20 hindsight is exercised, then it should be said that Hitler shouldn’t have invaded Poland.

The next argument, also retardedly Buchananesque, is that Poland was betrayed to the umpteenth degree anyway and therefore Germany invading was of no matter.

But even under Soviet control, Poland retained a semblance of national boundaries, more importantly from its point of view, its language and more importantly still, its native genetic homogeneity. Horrible as Soviet control was, neither Poland’s boundaries, language nor genetics were in Hitler’s plans.

The holocaust of the peoples of Dresden is horrible. It is an unspeakable loss of European genetic treasure. As were all the European deaths of World War II - a war unnecessarily fought as a 1) conventional military war and unnecessarily 2) inter-European as it largely was, pitting R1b against R1a - both frames, conventional militarism and anti-Polinism/anti-Slav, were Hitler’s/Friedrich The Great’s.

If you want to use 20/20 hindsight to re-frame World War II and what should not have been done, take it to herr E1B1B1 Hitler.

Don’t kid yourself.

Look at how sick and enraged that Europeans were of ANOTHER World War, which Hitler and his worldview had some small part in initiating, a worldview that had the thin pretense of warrant to take lands and displace peoples up to the Urals on the basis of three and a half small cites being given to Poland by Versailles, a world view that had the design of removing your nation newly established after a bitter ordeal and fight of 123 years, and the realization of his plans of smashing it, taking it away again, killing your father, wife, your daughter, your brother, and you too, charged with an imperson- al mission of bombing a precious German city, might just allow yourself to do that.

A habit, custom, and world view following the line of Friedrich the Great, based on inter-European militarism and a friend enemy distinction of Germanics/Slavs is what should be rejected with 20/20 hindsight - not that Roosevelt and Churchill shouldn’t have gotten into the war, but that Hitler shouldn’t have ordered it in that way.

And don’t kid yourself either - if you know that a European nation like his has plans to take your nation and eliminate you (that was basically known) and some Jew points a gun at that European guy looking to kill you, what are you going to say? No, Mr. Jew, don’t shoot at this guy looking to kill me?

If you want to exercise 20/20 hindsight, for all the European deaths, where it should not have started, the epistemological blunder was with herr E1B1B1 Hitler’s world view and actions thereupon. And if you want to keep Europeans hating and fighting each other, just keep promoting the “innocence” of his worldview and the “supreme and singular guilt” of the Allied leaders.

...............................................................................................

The Short and The Long of It.
     
                    Marli

                                              Long version
                     

Jez Turner, organiser of the London New Right Forum, speaks to GW and Daniel about the forum, of course, plus the liberal hypocrisy that runs through the Charlie Hebdo issue, awakening our people, and the state of movement. 1hr 7min. 64 MB.

Jez Turner is under no illusions as to the powers-that-be: capitalist-marxist-liberal, they are heads of the same beast and not going to grant us our autonomy without a fight.

However, they are experts, of course, in exploiting our weaknesses, providing diversions, disempowering and demoralizing our people. Consequently, motivating our people to fight as a group, in our group interests, is problematic.

Bearing in mind that what is meant by “fight” in this post is not necessarily literal combat but all aspects of fighting for our interests..

On the topic of organizing the motivation* of our fighters then, we might refer to war historian, Prof., Sir Hew Strachan’s thoughts on the matter.

He observes that some motivations of fighters are not recognized because they are out of fashion and not cool to tell the public.

Of course a state sanctioned excuse for exercising blood-lust and revenge among the particularly violent is just a mask and direction of already existing motivation - which requires to be directed appropriately therefore. To gain cooperation from a balance of the population requires a normalizing if not ennobling of incentive/motivation.

Humanitarian concern - higher national ideals - booty.

Humanitarian concern is considered a legitimate public reason nowadays. And it can be one reason why fighters are legitimately motivated.

Higher national ideals can be and have been traditionally a reason why people fight - they still are, but it is not so cool to state as a motivation nowadays (largely as a result of vast over-compensations in that regard in the World Wars).

Booty is even more stigmatic nowadays to cite as your motivation. Yet, Strachan observes, this has been the primary reason for most fighting though the ages. He notes that this motivation initially became problematic and remains problematic as wars have emerged more often a liability than a profit - hence, no profit to be shared.

But particularly when the matter is taking back resources that are our co-evolutionary birthright, there might be reward to motivate and allocate to our peoples for fighting. Humanitarian concern would work there as well, as there are clear matters of inhumaneness to our peoples, injustice - justice to be had. While we work on the meta-national** narratives that GW advises as necessary inspiration..

The question becomes the formulation, the proportion and the content:

Humanitarianism, Nationalist Ideals and Booty

* Kant would call these “incentives” as they are appeals to external reward as opposed to “motives”, which are internally driven.

** GW would probably not approve of the word “meta” in this context but I used it deliberately, to make a point that meta-communication is neither wholly nor necessarily disconnected from the essential.
—————————
Paul Craig Roberts on the Wolfowitz Doctrine, Glass-Steagall repeal and other neo-con implications for America’s future.
—————————

READ MORE...

Some Mulatto with a White French mother (and White French girlfriend) intimates a stiff-arm salute and right-wing revisionism and he’s one of us? I think not.

Jews are bad for us. Ok, enough evidence. But from there the right goes on to stretch the inference, to where blacks are ok. ? Some are wise to the J.Q., some are separatists who need guidance to help the rest understand that we only want separation as well, not their exploitation, but to kiss their ass and act like they are in our interest group? Give us a break. To make matters worse, the right not only typically panders to blacks, but condemns Southern and Eastern Europeans as not being in our interest group.

The right has the hallmarks of a lack of courage and a general policy of pandering.

Among that, the right pander to negrophilic inclinations and diversions coming from females (the problem is only the “Muslims” or only the “Jews”) to mask their cowardice of standing up for our European people. They admire Dieudonné.

This perspective is allowed by female gate-keepers to Jewish and corporate power, and their divide and conquer as it augurs to have Europeans fighting one another; pandering to the basest puerile female inclination of incitement to competition - “don’t worry about those pretty mudsharks, or those rabid blacks getting over”, it doesn’t bother some White woman, whose fat-ass is in a powerful control point and can drive a hard bargain as a result.

And they (right-wingers) don’t wonder why Atzmon thinks Dieudonné is wonderful?

                                       

Je ne suis pas Dieudonné

They might be able to get through female gate-keepers some, get on one side of a divide and conquer in their incitement - e.g., as favored by a particular group of European females.

That is a dubious strategy, let alone of merit as a battle plan. The troops, the people in full, as it were, must be grounded in their cause and authentically motivated as they will not be sufficiently, only focused on Jews. When you tell a young man that the tossing aside of what he is born to see as his ultimate treasure is not an important problem, or that some Mulatto with a lovely French wife is OK, simply because he coddles Faurisson’s focus on gas chambers and memes some covert intimation of a stiff-arm salute, how is that supposed to help his morale and address his concrete, fundamental concerns? And how is it supposed to gain her respect? Never mind an appropriate White woman for him. We hate Jews! Now that’s inspiration!

We can see who these self described elite don’t like. Who do they care about? Not White women, obviously, apparently not White men. Perhaps one other guy, one with E1b1b, if not the Jew on a stick ..besides perhaps advancement of their own position.

The last time I was in Paris, I had planned to stay five days but could only manage two. I was so absolutely disgusted, outraged to see the kind of women whom I might dream of, only to see them with blacks. I had to get out, retreat to save my sanity.

Some right-wingers are saying we have to drop everything, basically adopt blacks and others as a part of our interest group and focus only on Jews. Blacks are OK, mudsharks are just genetically defective. Talk about someone whose balls have shriveled-up.

This is a woman of German descent, I care that she not do this and believe that she is not genetically defective – don’t you believe she has been corrupted?

                                 

Until fairly recently, I wondered to myself what were the genetic components among European women that made them most resistant to out-breeding. It was an intriguing question to me. It still is, to a limited extent. To my surprise, I found myself changing - upon a more complete survey of what is going on. I do believe that corruption of the culture and rule structure is the deeper concern. There are just too many Europeans who were perfectly good for centuries who are suddenly doing this, rupturing their ancient lines – it cannot all be written-off as genetic defects. It is a second black plague, but coming from different rats and using cultural auspices as its vector. This is not time for the medieval medicine of Christianity nor of scientism for that matter.

While being against the Jew is absolutely necessary and a primary concern, an antagonist of ours second to none, that is not a full culture, not even a grounding of an army to fight. The hermeneutic perspective implied by Majority Rights would be, as it premises our outlook on the full genus and species of our European peoples, the reconstruction of the ecologies of our cultures and people, addresses problems of our own making and ranks, problems and antagonists in due course.

The two world views that the right puts forth are Christianity and Hitler.

Some may foolishly wish to ignore the Trojan horse that is Christianity. Most people cannot play with its obvious absurdity, do not like the games that charlatans play “to make sense of” and dupe us with those tarot cards; others readily see the Trojan horse for what it is, implications of its texts and what it leads to being all too obvious.

Matt Parrott says that he has “given up on the generation 68ers,” but that appears to be just more of his bureaucratic straw-manning for the right –  brushing aside competition with false attributions of people who might know better and not let people put one over on younger folks. Perhaps he has a wish to see everyone who opposes Hitler and Jesus as “sixty eighters” whereas the hip kids “get it.” “ We are generation Identitaire!” - it is not the fault of the Jews or the right-wing White elitists and plutocratic traitors, it is the fault of older White people - older than Matt, anyway. It appears to be just an attempt to push-aside competition for the position of spokesman who might maintain that position by blowing smoke up the ass of the young and naive with Jesus stuff or pander to women with Hitler shit.

The well motivated idea is not to abandon “teaching” 68er’s, as his straw man suggests, but to allow the experience and abilities among those whom it may concern, though a bit older than Matt, to contribute to European interests where they might. And if they do not believe in Hitler and Jesus that does not mean that they need to be shamed, but rather that their experience has them honestly looking at these darlings of the right for their inadequacies and that they are prepared to forge a new, more authentic European way of life, unlike the young fogies made incredibly self righteous by the mixed fortune of growing up with the Internet.

Andrew Anglin says his eyes watered when he saw the clip of Nazi girls doing exercises in unison, he gushes over the rallies for Hitler, expresses admiration for the assimilation of the lock-step eusocial behavior of animal species such as birds, ants and bees. I find this sort of thing and the rallies, a whole nation beholden to one ranting inter-European war-monger, Hitler, repugnant; and I do not think that I am alone of any generation. Nor am I a baby boomer or a generation 68er, but an Xer – I will cop to that; I recognize a great deal of selfish destruction among the baby boomers (like a swarm of locusts); more, that the world war 2 generation were bamboozled by the context of the war into accepting radically anti-White changes, much commenced in The 1950’s. But to blame hippies, i.e. White men, is a convenient diversion for the Right to pander to feminist bitches and take the Jewish and corporate deflect at once.

No, I will not accept blame for things that happened before I was born or when I was a small child. I will not see myself as a failure because my attempts to do something about it were not facilitated by the Internet.

As I have mentioned previously, I can tell you from that perspective that the Internet provides huge advantages. Life is so much easier, everything from word processing to information acquisition, confirmation and comraderie is possible in a way that was impossible before. There is not much good to be said for years of isolation. However, it did not allow one to easily bypass lived experience and plug into what is mistakenly, sometimes badly mistakenly, presented as a fully considered system such as Hitler’s. One was forced to live through and see plainly the fact of its philosophical failures (along with the failures of liberalism).

As it stands and amidst the vast destruction of European peoples, the right reacts with renewed conviction in “the tried and true” - really, the tried and failed - Jesus and Hitler, rather than a genuine holistic concern for our peoples, which these views certainly are not. It pretends that we must put all aside in order to focus on the Jew. By ignoring our concern as a people with a complete, authentic set of concerns, they can engraft HItler worship as a pseudo-justification, as the Jew is presented as an all encompassing concern. Thus, taking comfort for their disastrous war plan as put forth by their savior, Hitler; failing that, they might fall back on Jesus as savior, rather than a concern for our people.

If sheer faith in Jesus or natural competition resulted in appropriate genetic pairings and justice then what is happening with miscegenation would not happen. The attitude of “just let it happen, the defective will be weeded out”, is very poorly considered.

Seeing that our people are not the true concern and that White men are not able to hold up to Jews and blacks because they are not organized by these “leading voices”, by anything other than Jesus and Hitler, females will allow for the Jesus guys to beguile people from their hypergamy; and allow for the Hitler guys to prevent the ethnocentric from coming up with a better solution, better cultural guidelines to supersede the horrific injustice and destruction as a result of stupor and exploitation; they will revert to scientism, “nature’s competition, the way it is”, so say our god, Adolf. One of their hopes is to add females to the ranks by pandering to their most puerile inclination to incite competition. “Blacks are ok, they were no problem before the Jews manipulated them.” Talk about weak White men. And how does that hold up to EGI? Do we really need them so badly that we can ennoble them and their White women because they might think they are wise to the J.Q.? Will not people, our own included, respect us more if we do not pretend that we care so much about them, as much as ourselves, even to where their fucking us, literally, is no problem?

Hitler was great, he targeted millions of Slavics for elimination – pretty White women and all. Get rid of that competition. Seems to be a pattern among the right.

Again, some take the tack that we should not worry about these White women going to blacks, they are genetically defective and being weeded-out. That is small consolation and when one views, even by happenstance, the White women that non-Whites are getting it finally becomes apparent that genetics cannot be all of the problem.

There is something to be said for the men who will not try to rationalize it; and a wariness that should be applied to the kind who do rationalize it, as the ones with bad instincts for our people, who contributed to getting us into this mess in the first place. The idea that one who hates miscegenation is being distracted from the J.Q. is nonsense, as I have said all along, as it inexorably leads to the J.Q. through investigation of its various causes.

President Sarkozy, in 2008, obligating the native French to interbreed with non-Whites

While I used to be more curious about what sort of women would be least disposed to this, now I do see the culture and its rules as more fundamental an issue. As humans, we are born very incomplete, and it is incumbent upon those looking after the social rule-structures of our culture to assimilate the proper guidance of our behaviors, even to our own best interests. We could say, like Uncle Adolf, that it is all about competition and struggle at bottom, denying human agency and the corrective guidance of culturally mediating rules, parenting, stewarding and cooperation between European groups. We can allow his e1b1b and all is struggle at bottom perspective to work its wonders, pandering to those who would just as soon see Europeans kill one another for all it really cares about Europeans.

But if we are to be true to ourselves, yes, we must be vigilant against Jews and the Israel Lobby as they operate against European interests from seven choke points and their genetic/cultural pattern; we must be vigilant against their liberal Marxist lackeys - Je ne suis pas Charlie. But neither are we Dieudonné. It is also undoubtedly a part of female nature to get-off on acquiescing to the victorious bully. We must be vigilant against the Right’s pandering - including pandering to the increased one-up position of females within he disorder of modernity, where they are more powerful gate-keepers than ever - with the rupture of social classificatory bounds through anti-racism their base propensity to incite genetic competition more arbitrary than ever, where there will be guys coming from every direction, looking to show how tough they are by pandering to females as to how “objective”, rational, above it and liberal that they are.

But No.

Je ne suis pas Dieudonné

READ MORE...