Americans do not pay into Social Security beyond yearly earnings of $127,500
Posted by DanielS on Friday, 28 April 2017 01:33.
Group of blacks savagely beat 2 fleeing White men in East London “no-go zone”
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, 27 April 2017 05:33.
Alt-Right cannot be trusted to represent Whites, ethnonationalists on crucial matters
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, 26 April 2017 14:18.
Remembering The Life of ‘Mandy’
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, 26 April 2017 10:44.
Imperialist Israeli Air Force Bombs Anti-ISIS Forces in Syria
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, 26 April 2017 09:33.
See Caracas Then Die
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 25 April 2017 09:43.
Minister: Russia hacked Danish defence for two years
Posted by DanielS on Monday, 24 April 2017 12:46.
Fresno Shooting Highlights America’s Anti-White Murder Plague
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 23 April 2017 13:28.
GW’s Best Friend, Arthur Scargill (well, not really his best friend at all).
Posted by DanielS on Friday, 21 April 2017 18:11.
In search of a nationalist majority
Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, 21 April 2017 07:19.
No more than 12 migrants for Czechia
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, 20 April 2017 14:34.
Hardly The Battle of Cable Street: What Berkeley Doesn’t Mean
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, 19 April 2017 12:16.
After the Referendum it’s the Brexit General Election, or perhaps not
Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 18 April 2017 06:26.
Thread Wars: Armed Reconnaissance Edition, versus EGI Notes and AWPN.
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Monday, 17 April 2017 20:19.
Silk Road News: Qui Non Bono?
Posted by DanielS on Monday, 17 April 2017 02:33.
That’s it, who’s a good goy now?
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, 15 April 2017 15:23.
Italy: 2,074 Seaborne African Invaders Land in One Day
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, 15 April 2017 00:10.
Trump no longer appears sympathetic to student debtors
Posted by DanielS on Friday, 14 April 2017 02:29.
WHY JOHNNY ROTTEN CAN GO F*** HIMSELF - corrected for the Jewish red cape and misdirection of terms
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, 13 April 2017 02:29.
The Paleocon agenda behind the Alt-Right & Trump becomes explicit with Trump’s attack on Syria
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, 12 April 2017 14:58.
When a scientist (at the Annenberg School of Communications) asks the wrong question…
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 11 April 2017 13:55.
Silk Road News: First demonstration cargo train departs London for Yiwu, China.
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Tuesday, 11 April 2017 09:23.
NASA invests in 22 visionary exploration concepts, including asteroid mining
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 09 April 2017 15:30.
The Coalburner’s Daddy: Inter-Ethnic Family Implodes
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, 08 April 2017 13:44.
Donald Trump authorises reckless airstrikes against the legitimate government of Syria.
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Friday, 07 April 2017 12:25.
Stockholm terror attack: Four reported dead as hijacked truck ploughs into pedestrians
Posted by DanielS on Friday, 07 April 2017 11:15.
Bashar Al-Assad, a proper Left Nationalist, a socially conscientious man.
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, 06 April 2017 10:15.
Sexual Psy-Ops through the gaze of Helen Mirren(off): from Caligula to Prime Suspect and Worse
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 04 April 2017 18:06.
London Attack on Kurd: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know; and another they were reluctant to tell you
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 04 April 2017 00:04.
Trump administration ‘will be having restless nights over Flynn testimony offer’
Posted by DanielS on Monday, 03 April 2017 17:15.
The Visegrád Group Will Not Yield to Blackmail, and Hungary Strengthens Anti-Immigration Policy
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 02 April 2017 04:20.
Why Trump’s ties to Russia would be way worse than Watergate
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, 01 April 2017 08:31.
It’s time to put an end to classical liberalism.
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Friday, 31 March 2017 11:47.
Majorityrights Central > Category: Immigration and Politics
Yeeeehaaah! Sooweeeee! Get em ....Leroy and Schlomo
“The United States Should Seriously Consider Peaceful Partition”, so says Vincent Law at AltRight on 24 April 2017.
How convenient that Vincent Law, a Ukrainian American (?) living in St. Peterberg, Russia, would proffer how balkanization of The US might go.
The right wing and Jewish perspective from which he comes is not to be trusted on either side of this issue. They created these conflicts, they created these immigration problems and now they want to create hackneyed “solutions.” They may bemuse and distract larpers, but in the end they will serve a Jewish and complicit right wing perspective. This will create disaster and conflict for others while these weasels A) escape to gated communities or B) escape the country entirely if need be (with their money, of course); finally, e.g., leaving remaining Whites to get raped by blacks (who are “really not so bad”, or perhaps “your problem”, when in fact, it was their perspective that long ago imposed them on normal Whites et al.).
Meanwhile right wingers from other races will be trying to swing deals established by Jews and right wingers as well. Saying that the kind of Jews and right wing huxters posing as “ethno nationalists” on this thread at Alt-Right represent White people and their ethnonationalism. They don’t. And they will create conflicts with people that White ethno nationalists should ally (not integrate or fight) with: Asian and Amerindian ethno nationalists.
The Right Wing/Alternative Right cannot be trusted with this issue any more than anything else - i.e., not at all. They are the ones who put Trump and his Jewish entourage into power. And that is just for starters in terms of their screw-ups. There are some basic issues that need to sorted out yet - not interminable matters, but too important to go right ahead and start bargaining on the bases and within the parameters that Jews and right wingers establish. They cannot even be trusted to say what is White or not.
DanielS: Silver is an (admitted) non-White (who “wouldn’t be surprised if he is part Jewish”, but at any rate, “has an affinity for Anatolia and the Levant”), who agitates to deliberately stir-up strife among Whites and tries to create enemies for them among non-Whites. In this case, with Asians. I drove him away from Majorityrights long ago for these reasons. He is in no way to be taken seriously, as a representative of Whites; nor as a negotiator of ethnonationalism in good or bad faith.
While I draw attention to Alt-Righters, trolls and the experience that I have of them misrepresenting White interests, Kumiko calls some interesting facts to my attention about Alt-Right.com. - they allow for slurs against Asians in their comments, but if you use the word “Jew” the comment will be blocked.
She also noted that she was the only one who gave an up-vote to Bowery’s comment:
Bowery’s idea of Sortocracy is among the most fair and intelligent on the thread, but the drawback of Sortocracy is for his/its empirical bias, as it lacks the historical element that hermeneutics corrects for. If that were to be incorporated, and it could be, it could be a very good vehicle.
..since we have an international audience, and sarcasm doesn’t travel well, I am compelled to say immediately that Arthur Scargill is not GW’s best friend, in fact, more like the opposite.
This article will be a work in process in regard to a hypothesis that I have of Scargill, that his successful fight against Edward Heath’s conservative government fits in with a broader hypothesis of mine - namely that Jewish interests take the best, most serviceable ideas in terms of social function and organization - specifically in this case, I am talking about the left social concept of unions, guilds, syndicates - and they make them didactic, i.e., Scargill’s union activism became didactic for the rubric and concept of the left, by having Soviet, Marxist and ultimately Jewish backing against ethnocentric, native nationalist interests; which forced right wing reaction. It is a reaction also manipulable, of which they will indeed make use in their interests. That is, where they fail to gain compliance with their international leftism - a “leftism” which spells liberalism against native ethnonationalism and tends only to allow for one nativist national union in the end - YKW.
A union is a social concept of members and non members; that is, in and out groups, non-membership, membership, legitimated discrimination and accountability on its basis. This concept can be applied to the level of ethno-nation. It is that level of unionized application especially which Jewish interests oppose - under the rubric of Marxism or the international workers Left, while deftly protecting their own Jewish unionization and nationalism (Jewish ethnocentrism and Zionism). But right wing interests, typically flying under color of objectivism, also tend to oppose this level of national unionization; and tend to conveniently go with their narrow interests as luck affords them or to be bought off by neo-liberal international interests and Jewish interests in opposition to the organization of native nationalism.
Thesis: It is standard operating procedure for Jews that they take good and compelling Left ideas for social organization, such as social unionization, and make them didactic (go over the top in misrepresentation with it to the point of reversal); compelling right wing reaction in their enemies as they are both more manipulable among enemies in that reaction and tending as such to frighten-off would-be popular supporters for the lack of empathic social perspective; its having been made didactic.
By associating himself early-on with Soviet Marxism, and successfully contributing to the overthrow of Heath’s conservative government, Scargill was didactically facilitating the concept of international leftism which in the end would leave room for only one unionized nation - Zionism being the only native nationalist union to be allowed; thus it was that Scargill’s unions movement was backed by proponents of international leftism and deployed as liberalism against the native national concept of Britain, imperviously forcing a reaction - Thatcher, whose Jewish objectivism acted further as a blunt instrument against the native nationalist union.
Where younger generations don’t stay on page with the memo of the one unionized native nation to remain of international leftism, but maintain absolute liberalism against all native nationalisms - as the participants of a Workers’ Youth League (AUF) summer camp on the island of Utøya did in their protest against Zionism - then a Zionist Breivik may be coddled to act through the available valves of ethnocentrically sanctioned aggression, that which is allowed by Jewish controlled discourse - coddled as such in his LARP to murder 77 kids in a misguided right wing reaction of nativist nationalism - Jewish interests want White nationalists to be didactic right wing reactionaries and to not be White Left Ethno-Nationalists.
Scargill more recently, still wears the red tie, but…
Coming back to the issue of Scargill, however, I thought he was going to more easily fit into the mold of a liberal, anti-racist, anti-native nationalist rat, masquerading as one concerned with unions and workers. Indeed, from what I know, admittedly not much, as I have not followed this history of British unions and their conflicts through the post World War II years, he perhaps still belongs in that category. There is evidence that he does, that he genuinely could have been a significant threat to the national interests, native and otherwise, of Britain and other European nations:
It is suggested and with likelihood that his strikes, such as those on the coal mines during Thatcher years, could have been used by the Soviets and could have had disastrous consequences for national security had they not been countered by British security who were aware of underlying Soviet design.
Nevertheless, by recent talks of his - here, 1, 2, and 3 in favor of Brexit and against the European Union, its common market, etc, in which by contrast to neo-liberal interests, he goes so far as to argue against those who would depict as “racism” his and other’s objection to immigration, as it is clearly against the interests of native workers, it seems that it is not quite so easy to depict him as running contrary to native nationalism, let alone his means (left unionization) doing that - at least not at first blush. Forgive the newcomers to this issue. While he may well have an outmoded idea of the sort of work and unionization to be protected, his heart appears now to be in the right place and the concept of unionization seems indeed to prevail as the natural recourse for organizing the people against scabs, the traitors and the downright treacherous - yes, including the treacherous by means of imposing immigration against native nationals; i.e., the concept holds up despite the fact that it has been typically misrepresented, including through him, by geopolitical forces trying to put forth Jewish/Zionist internationalism on the one hand and neo-liberalism on the other - both converging at a prescription of liberalism for native European nationalists; and since both sides are controlled by Jews and right wing objectivists, neither side wants anything like the unionization, the syndicalism of left nationalism for native Europeans and White diaspora as it would threaten their interests.
The concern now, of course, is that he is being used again by forces of neo-liberalism to placate naive native workers with promises of a place in obsolete production and protectionism in order to allow the YKW, Zionists and their Russian and American proxies to control the international market and labor - particularly Asia, as its rising interests would have little common ground with Zionist, Jewish and right wing interests as expressed through the Russian Federation and the United States; but may have a great deal to gain by making common cause with Left ethnonationalism among Europe and her diaspora.
More Silk Road News:
But wouldn’t Asians traipsing among Europeans be looked upon as “scabs” in this concept, thus not having common interests and at risk to its adoption? Not if they’re also characterizable as an accountable union, as opposed to the unaccountable ruse of objectivism.
Let’s stand with the legitimate government of Syria
The position of Majorityrights.com is that we have always opposed the Alt-Right and we have always opposed the Presidency of Donald J. Trump. We have been harshly rejecting Donald Trump ever since the moment that he threw his hat into the ring during the GOP primaries, because the Trump phenomenon is a viciously Zionist phenomenon which only serves the apparent interests of the United States, Russia, and Israel.
If you are reading this article, you doubtless are already aware of the events that transpired early this morning. The United States has unilaterally conducted an airstrike against a Syrian airbase. There are even rumours right now of a second airstrike being prepared.
What we know so far:
This article does not intend to offer any information that is not already in the hands of other media organisations. Rather, I intend to start a conversation on what actions need to be explored by activists from a British perspective, in order to undermine American Zionist aggression in Syria.
International armed conflict
The events that we’ve seen transpiring this morning have been deeply disturbing. According to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the situation in Syria now is officially “an international armed conflict”.
“Any military operation by a state on the territory of another without the consent of the other amounts to an international armed conflict,” ICRC spokeswoman Iolanda Jaquemet has told Reuters in Geneva. “So according to available information – the US attack on Syrian military infrastructure – the situation amounts to an international armed conflict.”
“It’s unclear how US air strikes will make civilians safer”, Lord Wood of Anfield, chair of the United Nations Association UK has said.
In a blog post, Wood wrote: “Unilateral action without broad international backing through the UN, without a clear strategy for safeguarding civilians, and through military escalation risks further deepening and exacerbating an already protracted and horrific conflict, leaving civilians at greater, not lesser, risk of atrocities.”
He added that by circumventing the UN “we reduce both legitimacy and effectiveness, as a course of action that does not have the broad support of regional powers and the international community, channelled through UN systems and processes, can have little chance of success in leading to a more stable Syria.”
Whispers in the backchannels
As far as anyone is aware of what backchannel communications have been taking place, the United States warned Russia of the attack before it took place. Additionally, Russia had signalled yesterday evening that it would not be willing to support the government of Syria under all circumstances. In other words, there are some circumstances under which Russia would undermine the interests of the Syrian government. This was an unsurprising admission, given that it was also Russia who opted to send Sergei Lavrov to barter with John Kerry to induce the Syrian government to surrender their chemical weapons deterrent in the first place.
It is interesting that surrendering their chemical weapons deterrent into the hands of Russia, has not made the Syrian government’s position safer. Rather, it has increased the incentive for America to push for opportunistic aggression against Syria, under the pretext of seizing the very weapons which Syria has already ceased to be in possession of.
It is also interesting to note that the ‘good’ relationship between the Trump administration and the Putin administration – which will probably broadly continue despite all the sternly enunciated words that are issuing forth from Russian officials today – has not led to the position of the Syrian government being any safer. In fact, it is precisely because the United States and the Russian Federation have been on good terms since Trump’s inauguration, that the probability of what has now transpired, happening, had increased.
A scenario in which the United States and Russia arrive at an agreement in which both countries have their geostrategic interests met, is a scenario in which Russia would probably turn against Bashar Al-Assad. With Trump in office, the chances of such a scenario manifesting are actually increased, because Trump has not until today presented himself as an opponent of Russia on anything, to say the least. The chances of them being able to ‘do a deal’, is greater. Russia has specific interests in Syria which do not absolutely necessitate the survival of Bashar Al-Assad’s government. Hypothetically they could be guaranteed in another way. Vladimir Putin himself signalled this yesterday evening just before the American airstrikes took place, when Vladimir Putin’s spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said, “Unconditional support is not possible in this current world.”
If the United States were to convincingly guarantee Russia’s specific interests on the Syrian territory – access to the warm-water port, a place in the pipeline consortium, a list of friendly future government figures – in some future arrangement mediated by Turkey, Qatar, UAE and Israel, via some backchannel communication, Russia might proceed to ‘take a deliberate dive to the mat’ diplomatically, and tacitly permit the United States to continue airstrikes against Syria.
People will need to watch for signs of that horrendous scenario continuing to develop.
One of the central features of British diplomacy and British foreign policy, is ‘hypocrisy’. It is not done in a haphazard way, but rather, it is done with method and purpose. It has evolved over the centuries because Britain’s stated position on any given issue – particularly when it comes to the issue of geopoliticised alleged ‘human rights violations’ – is often the opposite of what its governing instiutions have actually resolved to do, or not do.
Kerry Brown, the director of King’s College London’s Lau China Institute, once wryly referred to this behaviour as “the brilliant complexity of British hypocrisy”.
And brilliant is precisely what it is.
Today is no different. Boilerplate ‘agreement’ messages were offered by Sir Michael Fallon, presumably to stave off the American Communications Operators who would have tried to apply pressure to the British government. Giving them a statement of agreement means that there is nothing for the Americans to snappily quote and criticise in the social media domain. In actual reality, Britain is still bound by the non-intervention vote that was arrived at in parliament in 2013, and thus is not actually in ‘agreement’ with the United States.
ITV’s Paul Brand reports:
That’s basically how it is.
Standing against Islamic terror
Keeping British aircraft off the Syrian Arab Army’s back and away from its skies entirely, would give the Syrian Arab Army the space that is needed for them to keep fighting against outfits like ISIL, Tahrir Al-Sham, Ahrar Al-Sham, and all of the other Salafist-Jihadist outfits that are operating in Mesopotamia.
Those Islamist outfits are the same reactionary outfits who are constantly seeking ways to send fighters to conduct terrorist attacks across Europe and Asia.
It is better for all of us, that the Islamist reactionaries get killed in Syria at the hands of the Syrian Arab Army, than for them to be constantly free to organise terroristic actions across the world.
Bashar Al-Assad is operating one of the world’s great ideological garbage disposal services. It’s called the Syrian Arab Army. It’s very progressive. The Syrian Arab Army destroys reactionaries and traditionalists, twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, and it requires no payment for that service. I can’t think of a better deal than that.
One of the best ways to stand against Islamism, is to let Bashar Al-Assad do what needs to be done, without intervening against him.
What can you do to keep Britain safely out of this air-war?
Britain is the most consequential and capable military actor in Western Europe. Britain’s non-participation in airstrikes, not only would ensure that Britain does not end up actively participating on the wrong side of a conflict that never should have happened, it would also have a dampening effect on America’s attempt to form the ‘coalition’ that Rex Tillerson has been talking about since last night.
The question is, how can you become an active part of keeping British forces out of the air conflict? This is not exactly a difficult task, since it’s a case of simply reinforcing the status quo. The balance of forces in parliament simply needs to be maintained as it is, so that the deadlock on the issue is maintained.
This means that people need to write to their MPs, comment on social media, talk to their union leaders, and – for those who have such access, even at the local government level – engage productively in conversations with key people and keep presenting to them all of the real downsides of what intervention in the Syrian conflict could cause.
Make people aware that sentiments have not changed since 2013, and that no one wants to go to Syria to fight the Syrian Arab Army. The British public were interested in fighting against ISIL and against Tahrir Al-Sham. There is something to be strategically gained from that. There is nothing of any enduring value to Britain that can realistically be gained from fighting against the Syrian Arab Army.
It may also be a good idea to generate a list of any MPs and councillors in potentially vulnerable seats. They should be reminded that the British people have long memories, and that if any of them tries to start a parliamentary insurgency against the non-interventionist result that emerged in 2013’s vote, they should expect to be tarred on social media as being ‘a craven ally of interventionist Trump’. The threat should be formulated in such a way that it makes clear that everything will be done to try to remove those persons from their seats at the next election, if they try to bring this to a vote again. In other words, people need to make appropriate use of the space which liberal-democracy has carved out.
The Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy will not be participating in any airstrikes in Syria.
Let’s do what we can to help ensure that it really stays that way.
Kumiko Oumae works in the defence and security sector in the UK. Her opinions here are entirely her own.
“We all want a country that is fairer so that everyone has the chance to succeed. We all want a nation that is safe and secure for our children and grandchildren. We all want to live in a truly Global Britain that gets out and builds relationships with old friends and new allies around the world.” — Rt Hon Theresa May MP
Today is really a day of vindication. Both the detractors on the Eurofederalist side, and the detractors on the disruptive Alt-Right ‘Big Europe’ Russophile side had said that this day would never come and that the United Kingdom would descend into either chaos on the one hand or compromise on the other.
But to their manifest displeasure this day has indeed come.
The United Kingdom has formally given the EU notification that it intends to leave the bloc.
Sir Tim Barrow, UK ambassador to the EU, handed the written letter to European Council president Donald Tusk today.
The moment that the letter was accepted, the notification to leave was triggered.
The UK now has two years to negotiate an agreement with the 27 remaining EU countries over its future relationship with the bloc.
Theresa May told the House of Commons: “This is an historic moment from which there can be no turning back.”
She made the announcement as Article 50 was formally invoked when the letter Mrs May had signed was received by EU Council President Donald Tusk. She told MPs in the House of Commons this morning that she believes Britain’s “best days lie ahead”.
The Prime Minister said she would work for the “best possible deal” for Britain after Article 50 was formally triggered.
She added: “Now is the time for us to come together to be united across this House and across this country.”
A statement issued by the European Council said the talks would start by focusing on arrangements for an “orderly withdrawal” from the bloc.
The council, pledged to approach the talks constructively and hoped the UK would be a “close partner” after Brexit.
“We regret that the United Kingdom will leave the European Union, but we are ready for the process that we now will have to follow.
“Our first priority will be to minimise the uncertainty caused by the decision of the United Kingdom for our citizens, businesses and member states.”
Who will our key negotiators be?
Over the next two years the United Kingdom and the European Union will attempt to negotiate the details of a potential Brexit deal and shape the possible future of UK-European relations.
The main negotiators for the United Kingdom will be:
As the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, David Davis is responsible for the work of the Government’s Department for Exiting the European Union.
This department is responsible for overseeing negotiations to leave the EU and establishing future relations between the UK and the bloc.
Having been appointed to the role in July 2016, Mr Davis helped get the Article 50 Bill through Parliament, which allowed Theresa May to formally trigger Brexit earlier this month.
The Haltemprice and Howden MP will now play a key role in delivering what Britain wants from negotiations.
He will have to work closely with Parliament and the devolved powers across the UK to ensure the Brexit process is as smooth as possible.
Sir Tim ‘Deepstate’ Barrow
Sir Tim Barrow is Britain’s ambassador to the EU and assumes “overall responsibility” for the UK’s departure from the bloc.
He took up the position in January, having replaced Sir Ivan Rogers. Sir Ivan Rogers had been induced to quit after he had committed the cardinal diplomatic sin of publicly criticising what he erroneously viewed as the Government’s “muddled thinking” over Brexit.
As head of the UK’s permanent representation to the EU, it is now Sir Tim Barrow’s role to ensure Britain’s policies are explained to EU member states.
Sir Tim Barrow’s 30-year political career has included two prior terms serving in Brussels, and he will represent the UK in weekly meetings at the European Council in Belgium.
Today, he arrived in the Belgian capital to deliver Britain’s Article 50 letter, signed by Theresa May, to European Council president Donald Tusk.
Sir Tim Barrow is more than prepared for the job that has been assigned to him. Having also been former ambassador to Moscow is something that has given him extensive experience dealing with completely insufferable 1990s-era Adidas tracksuit-wearing swinehounds, and this means that he is prepared for almost anything. Having seen the worst of continental European diplomats already, there is nothing that can now surprise or intimidate him.
It has been said that Sir Tim Barrow “knows everyone and everything” and is very well respected and liked in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
Sir Tim Barrow’s nickname in the Foreign Office is ‘Deepstate’, because he is so well embedded in diplomatic circles.
Crucially, he has a very good relationship with Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary Boris Johnson. For those who understand the recent history of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the war of all against all that Boris Johnson has been inciting and waging both before and after his own appointment to that office, the fact that Barrow and Johnson are actually friends with each other is a very good sign. It means that there will be actual coordination and joined-up thinking going on.
Oliver Robbins is the Permanent Secretary for the Department for Exiting the European Union and he will work closely with David Davis.
Mr Robbins’ prime responsibility will be to support the department in the negotiations to leave the EU and help establish future relations.
In his role, he will help the Government to examine its options for future relations outside the EU, with Europe, and the rest of the world, as well as responsibility for the wider European and Global Issues Secretariat.
Mr Robbins is a seasoned civil servant.
Article 50 letter
These are the key sections of the Prime Minister’s letter which seem to warrant the most scrutiny:
This is what is called colloquially, ‘swallowing the medicine in one gulp’. The acquis communautaire will be repatriated in full into the United Kingdom in one step. After that, it will then be possible for the British parliamentary system to begin to repeal or amend whatever elements of the repatriated acquis communautaire that they feel the need to. It also allows for a smoother exit because the elements of the body of law that do not need to be altered, can be kept in place in the exact way that they are written.
In that section, Theresa May is signalling that she intends to move the United Kingdom toward a more federal structure. This is particularly for maintaining stability, as it is known that there are both internal and external pressures that will be brought to bear to try to break up the United Kingdom in this time of both opportunity and vulnerability.
To avert that possibility, offering greater federalism to the four nations of the United Kingdom will enable the central government to neutralise the soft middle in Scotland and in Northern Ireland.
It also supplies a black-and-white text counter argument which can be waved in the face of outside news organisations, for example RT, who have since 2014 been trying to promote Scottish independence in the hopes that they can weaken London. Scottish independence is something that will never be allowed to succeed.
This is a key difference between her strategy and the strategy that had previously been taken by David Cameron.
Cameron had made the crucial mistake of signalling that he wanted some kind of deal no matter what, and this emboldened the continental European negotiators on the other side of the table.
Theresa May is making no such mistake. Her statement plays game theory correctly. Theresa May is signalling here that while she would not want to leave the negotiations without a deal, she is actually willing to do so.
In fact, this, coupled with the last few months of ‘hard Brexit’ media coverage and her statements to the media which reinforced this, place her in a perfect position. The fact that very little is publicly known about what goes on in the inner space of her thoughts also makes it more difficult for continental European negotiators to know how to approach her. She is ‘difficult’, as all students of Geography are, and that is a good thing.
The United Kingdom is maintaining that it will not seek membership of the European single market, because to do so would be to accept ‘freedom of movement’, which the precise thing that Brexit is being initated to escape from.
The mention of ‘third countries around the world’ appears in the letter, and is a reference to what Theresa May called ‘the fastest growing export markets’, in her House of Commons statement.
House of Commons statement
The most salient elements of Theresa May’s House of Commons statement I would submit are the following:
The ‘fastest growing export markets in the world’ are ASEAN+3 and SAARC in Asia, and the Pacific Alliance in Central and South America.
This is a prelude of things to come. It means that what Theresa May is doing is flipping the script on the continental Europeans. Any hesitancy on their part to reach agreement during the economic element of the negotiations will be cast by the United Kingdom as “the European Union backsliding and regressing into protectionism.” It’s a good way to approach it, and it will be infuriating to the continental Europeans. Extra infuriation can be added by comparing the continental Europeans unfavourably to any of the non-European countries which the United Kingdom will also be trying to negotiate trade deals with.
That kind of talking point would take the form of “This other random country here is so eager to uphold the liberal free trade order which has prevailed since the mid-1970s, why aren’t you as agreeable as they are? Just do what we want you to do!”
We’ve all been waiting for this moment for so long. Theresa May has always been by our side.
She’ll make it come true, like she always does.
Kumiko Oumae works in the defence and security sector in the UK. Her opinions here are entirely her own.
The YouTube channel N.D.L has put out a new video today, which really captures the sadness of what policing in Sweden must be like now.
Progressive cultural manifestations flourish under the protection of the state, while at the same time the policymakers undermine that same protection by allowing a retrogressive demography to enter and replace the citizens of the country. Additionally, the Anarchist Bloc attacks the police at every turn, exacerbating the instability of the situation.
Sometimes video really does depict it better than text.
The government of Stefan Lofven really has the same kind of haplessness and incompetence that the government of Harold Wilson had. I’m sure that no one truly wishes for this in their heart of hearts—but I think that if the situation should deteriorate to an extent where governance is impossible in Sweden and the electoral system continues to deliver up the wrong result, in such a case I would hope that the Swedish security services have contingency plans on hand to fight the decline in the same way that British services had contingency plans in the 1970s.
Until the last moment.
Kumiko Oumae works in the defence and security sector in the UK. Her opinions here are entirely her own.
What is this?
Donald Trump’s increasingly roulette-like to-do list has now delivered up the latest ‘event’. Donald Trump will be addressing the US Congress today on Wednesday 0200 UTC (Tuesday 2100 EST). This is not a ‘State of Union Address’, because as a new president it is not expected that Donald Trump would yet know what the status of the United States is. For this reason it is customary that although a US President can call for a ‘State of the Union’ address at any time he wants, no president other than Dwight D. Eisenhower has ever called such an address in his first year.
As such, Trump’s address to the US Congress today should be understood as being an address, but not a ‘State of the Union’ address.
What should you look for?
When he addresses lawmakers from the Senate and the House, Trump will likely talk about tax cuts, and tax reform, regulatory adjustments, his plans for job creation, the construction of the border wall with Mexico, the abolition of the Affordable Care Act, and other issues, if White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer is to be believed. Spicer also added that the supposed theme of the address is going to be “the renewal of the American spirit.”
I can’t wait to see the kind of vacuous nonsensical stream-of-conscious word-salad which will be deployed across the lectern in search of a meaning, once Trump actually starts ad-libbing in the middle of his own speech as he so often tends to do.
In terms of the substance of his speech, I’m expecting that it will be in the combined tradition of Madison Grant, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Dwight D. Eisenhower – which is to say, a crybully session in which people will be entreated to ‘discover’ that all of the problems of White and Jewish Americans and Israeli Jews, all the problems that they have, are somehow to be blamed on Asians and Mexicans.
Aside from that, I think there should be a short list of things to watch for in this speech.
1. Which pledges does he remember to mention, and which does he quietly drop?
The White House has said that the first half of the president’s speech should focus on his campaign promises, and which ones he has been able to honour so far. I’d suggest that you should keep on hand – which is to say, keep in right in your hand on your tablet – the Washington Post’s tracker of the 60 key promises which Trump made to his constituents. By looking at what makes it into the speech and what does not, you might be able to discern what his emphasis is, or perhaps promises he’s demoted to a lesser priority or even abandoned.
2. Does he appear under pressure and agitated, or is he calm and confident?
Donald Trump is strongly influenced by Norman Vincent Peale, and a key to understanding his psychology is to understand Peale. If you don’t already know of that horrendous individual, I’m sad to say that you won’t have the time to get all briefed up on it before the speech airs, because it’s a whole tangled mess of nonsense which takes at least six hours to get familiar with.
What to watch for is his facial expression in tandem with his ‘off script’ moments, since the key to understanding his ‘off script’ moments is that they are spoken to himself and not to the audience. The audience can either choose to opt in or not, but his little utterances like “so true”, and “we are going to win bigly”, are as much for his own autohypnotic benefit as they are for providing a repetitive touchstone for his audience to engage in the same autohypnotic self-reassurance.
Another pattern that is clearly observable is Trump’s willingness to transform personal disputes into grand narratives which are then inserted ad-lib into his speeches. Anyone or anything that he chooses to go off script to mention for criticism, is going to be something that he is actually worried about in some way.
US Presidents also often tend to use opportunities when addressing the US Congress to define and signal against state or non-state actors that they view as adversaries. The time is generally not used to define or confront domestic political targets. Yet it it likely that he will do so.
The thing therefore to watch for, is whether he gets pre-occupied on targeting domestic political targets and ends up constraining or limiting the time he spends describing or explaining his foreign policy stances. The ratio of time spent will tell us perhaps not a lot about the direction of the whole administration, but it will tell us more about where Trump’s mind as ‘Commander in Chief’ is most focussed.
3. Law and Order?
His attitude toward his own constituents will be most perceived through the stances he takes on law and order issues, which form a large part of why his supporters backed him during the electoral campaign. The question is whether he will dignify them with adult explanations of the challenges that lie ahead, or whether he will stick with the sloganeering he has used so far.
A big signal to watch for is if he devotes this time to attacking ‘the press’ in sweeping generalised terms. If he does this, it should be interpreted as a sign that he is still in campaign mode, and that in fact, he may be planning to keep doing that because he is already looking toward the election campaign of 2020.
Expect the topics – if he chooses to treat the audience as adults – to be ranging among counter-terrorism, his Muslim countries immigration ban which curiously omits Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates and which he is planning to reintroduce with new wording, his attempts to deport undocumented Mexican migrants, the border wall, increased military spending or an end to the sequester, supporting the ‘blue lives matter’ phenomenon, and so on.
4. Addressing divisions?
Will he try to placate the demographic groups who are opposed to his presidency? Or will he ignore them?
Crucially, watch for him to try to reach out to African-Americans. There is a real chance that he will do that, because that is a ‘safe’ move. African-Americans are the most disorganised and least politically coherent group in the United States and it would be seen as a ‘great PR’ move which he would be able to execute at no actual political cost to himself.
He’d simply be getting criticism from the Alt-Right for it, a demographic group which he knows will support him no matter how much he spits on their faces, because they made memes for him and campaigned for him for free. They did it for free.
More crucially, it will be instructive to watch for how Donald Trump will address the accusations that he has not deterred supposed ‘anti-Semitic’ behaviour among his supporters. Trump may take this opportunity to respond by once again putting the Alt-Right under the bus, a move which again will come at no cost to himself, because the Alt-Right will still continue to support him after he does that.
Watch Twitter if you begin to see this happening during the speech, and you might even be able to see the Alt-Right live-Tweeting its own shameful cuckholdry. You could also look at the live thread on Daily Stormer to see the same cuck phenomenon take place.
I’m not saying it’s guaranteed to happen. I’m just saying it’s very likely to happen. There are a lot of variables in play.
5. Nonsensical Anglo-Saxon outreach?
Trump may try to make some kind of absurd outreach to Britain by trying to once again make a verbal connection between the social phenomenon which got him elected in the United States, and the phenomena which led to ‘Vote Leave’ being the outcome in the EU referendum in Britain in 2016.
If he makes this outreach, it should be interpreted as a sign of his weakness, as it would be a signal that he feels that he need to lean on the existence of a non-existent ‘club’.
Brexit, which gave rise to #GlobalBritain, is economically the complete and total opposite of #MAGA, and that is the most important sphere of reality which decides almost everything. Any attempt to link the two is really just an attempt of the latter to grasp the coattails of the former.
They share nothing.
6. Paul Ryan’s face and hands?
It should be possible to watch Paul Ryan’s reactions in order to gauge to some extent how far – if at all – Trump strays ‘off script’, as the Speaker of the House has vacillated between sometimes voicing support for the President, sometimes openly disagreeing with him, and occasionally taking the position of refusing to comment when asked about the content of Trump’s tweets.
Any adverse expressions on his face – a face which he will of course be trying to keep as stony and placid as possible throughout the speech if he can possibly do so – and any moments at which he pointedly refuses to clap when the cue comes for him to clap, could be indicative of a serious split between the Republicans in Congress and the White House, or indicative that Trump has simply dived off script in a dramatic way.
Keep in mind that ‘Trump off script’, can also mean ‘Trump actually mouthing neoreactionary things that Steve Bannon gleaned from Curtis Yarvin and then mouthed into Trump’s ear at the last minute before the speech’.
7. Length of the speech?
White House sources indicate that they expect the speech to last between 65 and 80 minutes. If it ends up being significantly shorter or significantly longer than that, then it would signal that something unexpected has happened, and it’ll be up to observers to assess what precisely that was.
Not just a government issue patriotard, but full-blown ZOG agent.
Brett Stevens isn’t just your average garden variety asshole - though he certainly is that as well - nor is he just your standard, government issue patriotard: he is an alphabet agent (or some proxy thereof) making word salad in service of ZOG and the YKW otherwise. The best that we can for him is that we might examine how an agent as such goes about twisting language games to the ends of his master.
I never liked what Brett Stevens was doing, was inclined to ignore him as being at best some sort of coward dispatched to re-direct WN into American patriotardism - with his dip-shit hamburger logo and all - likely an FBI agent, annoyingly, twisting our concepts around to that end: but now he’s emerged full blown didactic to illustrate how an FBI agent (or whatever kind of agent he is) goes about twisting and retooling language games to make them fully YKW and ZOG amenable.
Of course those in service of the YKW do not feel the need to be especially covert about their advocacy in all places nowadays, particularly with The Alternative Right Tentosphere being what (((it is))), as it is devised to be YKW friendly - markedly so in its charter name site, Alternative Right, which re-published the Brett Stevens article “The Roots of Modern Anti-Semitism.” They feel no need to be ashamed of their defense of Jewish interests, they are free to exercise their chutzpah, as they do by way of Stevens in this article. However, the real points for style in shabbos service come into play as Stevens and committee go to work confounding and re-directing proper ethno-nationalist understanding of the world that the more sophisticated and Jew-wise would otherwise be sorting out. We’ll have a protracted look at how Stevens is doing that in a recent Red Ice interview of his - “Deconstructing Modernity” with Henrik Palmgren - after we first take look at that short piece of his, “The Roots of Modern Anti-Semitism”, as it lays blame solely on the shoulders of Whites for their ethno-national disintegration, an argument typical of YKW chutzpah, and equally typical of them in tasking shabbos goy to argue as such.
Ok, so we can see that Stevens is not only shabbos goy enough to play the eternal scapegoat card on behalf of the YKW, but he would also play their card of blaming our demise solely on our individualism and lack of rectitude, and how convenient an argument, now that Jewish interests have more money than god - according to them, we are supposed to see “a pathological desire for ‘equality’ in ourselves, to believe we are afflicted with a vain wish to emulate quite the magnanimity of Zion. They want these conceits to be seen as the key and sole cause of our problems. We should not try to emulate their organizational success with any of that leftism stuff. They want us to believe that they simply can’t help it that they have vastly disproportionate money, power and influence, it is merely an offshoot of their inborn talent that they are able to be so magnanimous with your freedom, they’re just better than you are. According to them, we should not succumb to time immemorial prejudices, they want you to believe that these prejudices, looking upon their money as having been funneled up to them by usury, are as “baseless” as depicting them as the veritable blood suckers of social capital in a wood carving of old.
Right. Stevens wants us to believe that the Jewish population were probably once European…and a species, we should suppose, perhaps to be considered in the same genus and cultural milieu with us once again: According to him, we are supposed to empathize with them on two grounds: After all, since their diaspora, they believe that they have been subject to unfair prejudice, viz. as being parasites upon the various populations of the world that they have circulated among - an unfair prejudice, they believe, against a symptom of their being homeless - kind of like our European diaspora in America have been depicted in their “White privilege”; and, secondly, we should be able to relate to them as being of common European origin - even though there is ZERO genetic evidence of that.
Yes, they would have us believe that we should fully empathize with their right to a sovereign homeland while they have been integral in imposing unimaginably vile and burdensome numbers of interlopers upon us, in our nations and against our groups, against our will, because now they would lie and say, “we are of common stock and culture”...“but even so, they have evolved from us in these beleaguered diaspora circumstances to be different enough”, even more “the special light unto us goyim - to give us a lesson of what it means to live as diaspora among diversity; from their besieged sovereign of Zion.” According to them, we should be sympathetic to their aloof perch, because they are still like us in having started out in the same place as us; and with that duel empathic circumstance of origin and diaspora, were so “kind” as to have bequeathed a common Abrahamic “ethnic culture”, of Noahide law, a tutelary yoke of obsequiousness to their rule, which we are supposed to recognized as a kindness offered and accepted just as the Alternative Right has in their quid-pro-quo with Zionism ...we are supposed to treat it not as the imperialist base and rule of Jewish diaspora operations, but as a completely sympathetic national ally which never did us any harm, just like its scapegoated diaspora, who started out just like us - we are supposed to believe, were wandering tribes of Europe, just like us.
OK, that’s enough baloney there from Stevens’ more forthright advocacy for Jews. However, Stevens has not only been put-up to turning simple anti-Semitic “prejudices” of old on their heads and into “sympathetic” excuses for them, he is also tasked with going after the more arcane and sophisticated kinds of topoi used by myself, Kumiko, GW and Bowery - Stevens is at pains to twist careful ethno-nationalist thought around and into ZOG interests, as one can see in the recent interview that he did to pitch his book, “NIHILISM: BETWEEN NOTHINGNESS & ETERNITY”, in a podcast called “DECONSTRUCTING MODERNITY” with Henrik Palmgren at Red Ice Radio, 8 Feb 2017.
First of all, deconstruction is a mainstay premise of what modernity does to clear-away “the arbitrary” in its quest after foundational essences. It is NOT so concerned to not subject to arbitrary deconstruction and experimentation the precious inheritance that is. So, we already have a clue that Stevens is probably not going to give us something radically different from the modernity we’ve been getting as it concerns our interests at all (certainly not something like White Post Modernity) but something a lot more like bald modernity and nihilism in the service of the “reality of inequality”, a “reality” that just so happens to serve the ehem, rather unequal position now of Jewish power and interests - who will try to placate us, if we are good sheeple, by sneaking-in some “radically” traditional Noahide consolation (yoking).
Brett Stevens - Profile of a ZOG agent? Probably Yes.
Brett Stevens says that he “came to the Alternative Right” through the “Dark Enlightenment” and “Neo-Reaction” - the latter two spheres of the Internet always struck me as Jewish language games as well; though I never investigated these Internet bubbles, Kumiko tells me that they are, indeed, fronts to divert the attention of STEM types, in particular, away from Jewish power and influence as key problems; and to direct people instead to see problems as being located strictly in “modernity” and “solutions”, even if only stoically conciliatory, to be found by embracing “traditional” reaction by contrast - i.e., owning “reaction”, the devil term attributed by leftists to right-wingers (“reaction” being a “good thing” now that the YKW are on top). Not only are these YKW/Zionist dodges of “The Dark Enlightenment” and “Neo-Reaction” the auspices that Stevens has come through, but they have emerged especially meaningful to understand as strategic language games within the political era at hand, as it has been revealed by Steve Bannon that he recommends this material, having read it and having been significantly influenced by it.
It is important, therefore, to understand not only agent Stevens overt advocacy of Jews, but also to untangle the more covert web-spinning that he is using to obfuscate, enmesh, entangle and frap-up genuine ethno-nationalist concerns with whatever arcane language games, including Dark Enlightenment and Neo-Reactionary misdirection that he can avail, in this case with Henrik -
Regnery, Spencer, prime umbrellas of (((Alt-Right))) big-tentosphere.
Before moving on to detail the discussion that I had with Williams, I want to recap the left-right paradigm as it is conceived for majorityrights platform, since Williams was asking for my perspective on matters and since like everything that I’ve gleaned from academia and niftily re-tooled for our ethnonationlist interests, it has been attacked, no matter how well aimed, how effective and how coherent in those aims. Since I have not been able to overcome this misplaced jealousy, or naivety, bad advice or whatever causes the intransigence of this contentiousness, I must repeat myself.
Recently, I have been challenged again on the concept of left and right that I use. I refuse to back down and shouldn’t back down for the utility and intelligibility of the concept of left and right as I conceive it. It is intelligible, intuitive even, as it underlies patterns of ordinary language use. It only becomes confused and counter-productive as people try to play along with the more “sophisticated” versions (perversions, really) that Jews have spun through media and academia; which the disingenuous or naive have bought into - as they disingenuously/naively see it serving their interests - the more “sophisticated version” puts forth an oxymoronic definition - that the left is synonymous with liberalism - an oxymoron indeed, conceiving a “union” without prerogative of membership inclusion and exclusion; in fact, by this definition, a union would be just the opposite, it is a “union” that would constantly seek the opening of its membership bounds, to never exclude any “scab” as its highest value (to unionize the entire world as members of the union, we can only imagine). The “sophisticated” White response and what the Jews want, what those disingenuous/naively going along with the arrangement of their terms do, is to say, “no, I’m not a leftist, not a liberal, I’m on the right! - and I can prove that I am not a racist. I’m pure, not arbitrarily setting union bounds of my racial group, despite merit or not, I’m basing membership on unassailable, objective facts and merit alone.”
Ironically, this objectivist response underpins liberalism itself, the very form of the affliction against racial and national maintenance.
Naturally, any halfway intelligent and conscientious White, concerned for White EGI, is going to be mortified that Whites are going along with this, as it puts precious, circumspect patterns at risk and frightens-away potential membership for its lack of accountability. The Jews know this and they promote White identity as right wing because they know that it is going to deter group loyalty where it does not have them reacting into headlong disaster - a trap, fighting on supremacist grounds, (hubris) where they literally become the bad guys who get into disastrous conflict with those that should be their allies (some of them White ethno-nationalists, some of them non-White ethno-nationalists) - vilified as subhuman, these ethno-nationalist adversaries (nemesis) are nevertheless able to fight back very well, and greatly damage the EGI authoritatively designated by the right as its cause, as their adversaries have the collective moral high ground in the concept of social accountability.
Quite naturally, such a fool’s game as this, bereft of social accountability as it is, and has been, is a sucker’s game that the Jews (and others, but the Jews most importantly) can take advantage of: it is ripe for them to find some White “leaders” and buy them-off or otherwise hoodwink them into leading, in accordance with Jewish interests, the White sheeple - who naively buy into the right wing, objectivist, “that’s the way it isness”, and less the matter of social construction and accountability that would allow them to effectively maintain their group defense, or even individual defense, ultimately - deliberate designation, delimitation of group boundaries, would immediately correspond with a form of unionization (you are in the union or you are not); an idea underlying any considered concept of “Left.” Whereas the disingenuous and naive go along with the Jewish arrangement of the terms, i.e., that “the left” means unionization only for non-Whites and those antagonistic to White men and their bounds - a prohibition of unionized boundaries for Whites, this is of course an absurd contradiction for Whites - from their end, it is liberalism: a prescription to rupture would-be unionized boundaries, borders, and the social accountability that would facilitate those boundaries and borders by contrast to sheer liberalized mishandling.
Lets pretend for a moment that people are not so retarded as to not be able to understand that and move on.
By contrast, what I have diagnosed as the concept of left nationalism within ordinary language and sustaining a consistent pattern of understanding, making consistent sense, is that: The moment one recognizes the truth by contrast - that we are in interaction, have some social connection and social indebtedness for the origin and maintenance of our manifest form of existence, therefore some responsibility and accountability; further recognizing that we make things together with other people, more or less - more, when we are more obviously responsible for a joint construction and less, but still some, in the agreement of how the more brute facts come to count - we are in the realm of the social and acknowledging the potential for accountability. And once we are in the world of accountability, we are in the world of delimitation, where not just anything goes. We are recognizing social responsibility and then the possibility that we have responsibility more to some than others - more responsibility to those within the “group”, the group designated by consensus and negotiated authority; including responsibility to those deserving of membership but requiring incentive to remain loyal, though they are not on top of the game and ready for higher organizational roles at this time.
In sum, leftism is about recognizing the inextricable reality of interaction, social indebtedness and responsibility, therefore the motion for unionization as a means of accountability and group maintenance, designating out-groups and in groups thereupon, with social accountability as such. Nationalism, ethno-nationalism and racial defense, are a matter of larger scale unions.
Rightism is a motion in its ultimate trajectory toward unassailable warrant in objectivity or divine ordinance, to reduce social accountability through purported objectivity, supra-social principles or divine will. Now, one might object that rightists can be nationalists, or responsive to social needs. What I would say to that is that the moment they are doing that, they are doing a “left thing”, they are going into the social world and its accountability, left nationalism, but without the premises that would solidly ground and sustain group systemic maintenance inasmuch as they retain rightist premises as their ideal and their aim, the lack of accountability thereof; as such, they are primed for subversion by people willing to use the leverage of collaborative agency against them.
Now lets see how this concept played out when I was queried by “RealNews” senior reporter, Lance Williams.
Naturally, at this point, I looked at the RealNews outfit’s website, took note of who headed and staffed it, what their basic mission is - obviously very Jewish, very anti-White (pardon the term, as it is misused by those who would misrepresent White ethno-nationalism), very involved in Jewish headed, non-White coalitions, antagonistic to White ethno-nationalism and its necessary alliances.
First on the list: Colored guy, perhaps mixed Semitc origin:
Second on the list, Jewish guy:
Third on the list,
Colored guy, who is apparently often assigned to do the audio interviews:
And on it goes; eventually the list comes to Lance Williams, who requested to talk to us and politely did just that (I don’t know if he’s part Jewish or not, but he clearly doesn’t have a big problem working with them):
The list goes on like this, apparently having some Whites, obviously liberal, a strong representation of those who are not White males, but it is well over-represented by Jews in its staff and at its leadership.
Bronstein! I’m not sure if he’s related to Trotsky, but!
Majorityrights (at this point) advocates White/European ethno-nationalisms and sees itself as allied with Asian and Indio ethno-nationalisms. It does not identify with Jewish interests, as if they are White, it treats them as a separate racial category, outside of the White/European race; and, in fact, does not identify with Abrahamic religions at all - seeing them as destructive [providing maps destructive] to ethnonational interests. It does not identify with Nazism or any kind of supremacism or scientism - by scientism, I simply mean the notion that sheer “nature” and “objective” science should decide our course of action without individual and social correctives and cultivation. We are not Alternative Right, not Right wing in any sense as I conceive right and left to be: The right and with it, liberalism, is based on an idea of objectivism which is short on accountability - “because that’s just the way it is according to natural or divine law.” It lends itself to disingenuousness and hubris among elites and to naivety in the masses.
The left - a White Left Nationalism and any ethnonationalism as I hold it to be properly defined, is about accountability to the full social group as maintained through a form of unionization - that puts it in contrast to the universalism and pretenses of objectivity of the right; because there are in groups and out groups - you are in the union or you are not and the union - it looks after your relative interests as a member, not solely because of what is deemed your objective merit. It is a perspective which looks after the rank and file, to ensure that they are treated fairly and have incentive to maintain the union even though they may not be on top of the game or marginalized somehow, to make sure that they do not facilitate scabbing of the union so to speak; but it keeps a particular eye on elites, to hold them accountable to group systemic interests, to make sure that they do not betray us since obviously they are capable of doing the most damage. That concern is bringing us to people like Regnery, Spencer and those in the Alt-Right.
Because they take these right wing positions that we reject, positions which people cannot take or are justifiably afraid of, it turns-off a broad base as it is an incompassionate, insane and stupid position; but in order to try to connect with the mainstream and populism, they are forced to cobble together coalitions upon a tacit agreement to tolerate one another’s anti-social positions as such - whether its holocaust denial or supremacism, some sort of nutty Abrahamic religion; or, what is stigmatic from a White nationalist point of view, acceptance of Jews in their alliance. These cobbled-together anti-social coalitions of the Alt-Right I call the Alt Right tentosphere - a big tent of different tents. Some tents are completely friendly with Jews.
The template of running the gamut from Nazi sympathy to working with Jews and some members actually being Jews is completely consistent with Regnery, his publishing history and what I see as this strategy of Jewish alliance for shepherding masses into this tentosphere of the Alternative Right.
Now, the concept of the Alternative Right goes back to a 2008 article, edited by Richard Spencer, written by Paul Gottfried (who is Jewish); and with it he was trying to counteract the headlong destruction of Whites who could be valuable to Jewish interests and what he calls “Western values”, including Judeo-Christian values as he saw them being destroyed by means of a trajectory from Irving Kristol to the Neo-Cons; a trajectory that did not place enough emphasis on stabilizing enough useful idiots among Whites - the means to keep Whites from reacting too much and to be maintained as useful idiots for Jews was called paleoconservatism - it began with Frank Meyer, a Jewish scholar who shaped Reagan’s so called conservatism: Its not really a whole lot more conservative than the neocons because all it does is maintain capitalism (i.e., maintain a liberal economic system), maintain Judeo-Christianity (which for Whites is liberal - moral liberalism, altruism), pay some lip service to the wonderful culture of the west; while allowing for genetic arguments upon which Whites can survive on an “objective” basis; thus the selection for the relative interests and ways in which these useful idiots will be deployed and intermarry will remain with the Jews as the organizing factor among a right wing elitist cadre.
You’re witnessing that in Trump. But we need to say a bit more before we move onto Trump.
Now then, why do Regnery and Spencer take this position as “Alt-Right” against the quote “Left”? Well, you need to begin with why Jewish interests would want to take a position against the quote, “left.”
Jewish interests have had disproportionate power and hegemonic influence through seven key niches:
1) Media 2) Money and Finance 3) Academia 4) Politics 5) Religion 6) Law and Courts 7) Business and Industry.
Naturally, they don’t want organized peons criticizing, dismantling and taking away that power. So what do they do? Well, of course, they look toward the old faithful sell-outs among the White right-wing elitists - offer them deals in turn for compliance, ease their conscience with the objectivist arguments they’ve always coveted as unassailable warrant, “these are just the facts of life”....and “say, by the way, you’ve got money, want to keep it and have even more, don’t you? You can continue to do well for yourselves ..and you hate those ‘lefties’ anyway, complaining that they want some of that too, so lets organize a coalition, a “movement” to be popularized against the left. ...make it real stylish and edgy ...appeal to those disaffected millennials in their internet bubbles, we’ll call it ‘The Alternative Right”.
Of course now, a major left unit, left union so to speak, would be the union of ethno-nation. And the Jewish and right wing objectivist way to disrupt that unionization is to encourage right wing reactionary populism and its corollary reactionary liberalism.
Now then, again, Majorityrights platform is conceived so that a proper ethno-nationalist view is not buried by the Regnery circus (as our GW aptly calls it), not buried, enmeshed in what it has been doing with The Right and the Alternative Right.
They are only doing quasi ethno-nationalsim as it is perverted through objectivism and coalition with Jewish interests: fighting against social accountability, going along with the Jewish prescription of trying to represent White interests through right wing means.