Majorityrights Central > Category: Immigration and Politics

Straight at the target.

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

What happened?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[...]

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

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

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

[...]

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

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

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

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

[...]

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

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

There is an inherent contradiction between:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Reality is Confirmed

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

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

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

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

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

Return of Kings / Roosh Valizadeh, 22 Feb 2016:

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

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

Let’s check with Roosh himself to find out:

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

— Roosh (@rooshv) January 17, 2016

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

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

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

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

Return of Kings / Roosh Valizadeh, 22 Feb 2016:

What went wrong?

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

Return of Kings / Roosh Valizadeh, 22 Feb 2016:

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

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

Return of Kings / Roosh Valizadeh, 22 Feb 2016:

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

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

Return of Kings / Roosh Valizadeh, 22 Feb 2016:

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

Feminism.

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

Return of Kings / Roosh Valizadeh, 22 Feb 2016:

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

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

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

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

Return of Kings / Roosh Valizadeh, 22 Feb 2016:

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

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

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

Return of Kings / Roosh Valizadeh, 22 Feb 2016:

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

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

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

See here:

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

Genetic Similarity Theory

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

Social-assortment studies

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

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

[...]

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

[...]

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

[...]

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

[...]

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

[...]

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

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

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

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

Return of Kings / Roosh Valizadeh, 22 Feb 2016:

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

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

Return of Kings / Roosh Valizadeh, 22 Feb 2016:

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

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

Return of Kings / Roosh Valizadeh, 22 Feb 2016:

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

Again, irony.

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

Yet now he accuses everyone else of being subversive.

Return of Kings / Roosh Valizadeh, 22 Feb 2016:

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

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

No thanks. Not ever.

Roosh’s crypto-Muslim agenda

Lest anyone forget, Roosh also said this:

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

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

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

It is alien and pathetic.

To our female readers: A better way

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

Role reversal: Perhaps South Asians and East Asians will take pity on Germany. We’re all going to have to collect funds for poor white Germans after they’ve been evicted from their own country.

I’m going to adopt a new format here, where I’m going to cut up the articles and give my responses to the things being said inbetween. It’s just easier this way.

First there needs to be a flashback to November 2015. Andreas Kluth, a writer for the Economist wrote an article in The World In. In that article, it seemed like he was predicting Germany’s next moves, so rather than writing a post about it immediately, I chose to hold on to it to see if the predictions would come true first, which they now have done. The article also contains a lot of information about the mindset of the modern German liberal, a mindset which is every bit as absurd as you might have imagined.

So let’s get underway, we’re on a voyage through a sea of absurdity:

The World In, ‘The New Germans’, Andreas Kluth, 02 Nov 2015:

For centuries the Germans were wont to leave their homeland, emigrating to places such as America, where the Statue of Liberty welcomed them among the “huddled masses yearning to breathe free”. [...]

Off to a bad start in the very first line. The Statue of Liberty represents the lowest and most disgusting values of mankind, the values which call for love and acceptance of everyone no matter how low and wretched they are.

Emma (((Lazarus))) wrote, “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me: I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”

That is nothing to run a country on. It’s more like how to run a trash heap. It’s basically like saying: Send us your human trash from Africa and the Middle East!

But let’s continue:

The World In, ‘The New Germans’, Andreas Kluth, 02 Nov 2015:

[...] For all the Germans remaining at home, however, nationality remained a matter of “blood” (jus sanguinis, in Latin) rather than choice or place of birth. That identity was built into the language itself. The word deutsch, originating in the early Middle Ages, meant “belonging to the people”. And until recently the word for “people”, Volk, had an ethnic rather than a civic connotation. [...]

Germany is not unique in that tendency. To this day, the correctly-used word for ‘the people’ in Japanese is minzoku, which denotes the ethnic group. This is perfectly normal.

So, what’s the ‘problem’ with doing that, I wonder?

The World In, ‘The New Germans’, Andreas Kluth, 02 Nov 2015:

[...] To this day its adjective, völkisch, retains ugly racist associations with the Nazis. [...]

Oh, right. Everyone saw that coming, right? Recognising that the German ethnic group exists, of course leads inexorably to death camps and 6 million Jews, which is ‘evil’, or something like that.

How long will it be until the writer starts to call for the total abolition of the German ethnic group?

The World In, ‘The New Germans’, Andreas Kluth, 02 Nov 2015:

[...]

All that is history and will definitively be buried in 2016. [...]

Wow, immediately!

The World In, ‘The New Germans’, Andreas Kluth, 02 Nov 2015:

[...] Today Germany is second only to America in the number of immigrants it attracts. Most come from within the European Union (EU), but many come from farther afield. Among rich countries Germany also takes by far the most refugees—today’s “huddled masses”. About 1m were expected in 2015 alone, and the numbers in 2016 are sure to be big too.

These newcomers from Syria, Afghanistan, Africa and elsewhere come into a country where one in five already has a “migration background”, as German bureaucratic jargon calls all those with foreign roots. These include the “guest workers” who came to West Germany—mainly from Turkey, Italy and Greece—in the 1950s and 1960s to provide labour, along with their German-born children and grandchildren. Then there are the former Yugoslavs who came in the 1990s during a previous big refugee crisis, as well as Poles, Romanians and Bulgarians who now enter freely as citizens of the EU, and many others. [...]

Notice how Kluth doesn’t even feel the need to justify this any further. The fact that Hitler existed is all that Kluth seems to feel that he needs to justify the complete erasure of Germany. The logic of race replacement seems to take on an almost Christian redemptive aspect, where the only way to remove the apparent ‘sin’ of the Holocaust, is to get oneself baptised in the sperm of Africans and Arabs.

The World In, ‘The New Germans’, Andreas Kluth, 02 Nov 2015:

[...] Naturally an influx on this scale causes anxiety among some Bio-Deutsche, as Germans of ethnically “pure” stock are today called in ironic slang, with a pun on the German term for organic food. Many worry especially about Muslims: will they accept social norms such as sexual equality, secular values [...]

The answer to that question is “no.” They won’t accept any of that. But that’s not even the whole point. Even if they did accept those things, it’s still racial replacement, so I would think that the ‘Bio-Deutsche’ who are interested in remaining ‘Bio-Deutsche’ should still be worried.

The World In, ‘The New Germans’, Andreas Kluth, 02 Nov 2015:

[...] and Germany’s historic responsibility towards Israel?

Wahahah. If the ‘Bio-Deutsche’ are worried about mass Islamic migration because it might make it more difficult for them to bury their noses into Israel’s backside then they are already lost!

Let’s hope that that is not actually one of the reasons being fielded by German ethno-nationalists, and that it’s just one of Kluth’s own neuroses that he’s projecting onto them.

The World In, ‘The New Germans’, Andreas Kluth, 02 Nov 2015:

The spice of life

The task of integrating so many foreigners will test German politics and society in 2016. Yet Germany’s Willkommenskultur (“welcome culture”) will prevail, as most Germans understand that refugees deserve asylum, and immigrants enrich the country. [...]

Most Germans also happen to be as dim as a 20 Watt incandescent bulb, apparently.

Regarding Kluth’s non-ironic use of the word ‘enrich’, I suppose in a strictly dictionary sense of the word, the gallons of Arab and African semen that was poured in the direction of German women on New Year’s Eve could be described ‘enriching’.

But only in the same sense that having a diseased hobo with Hepatitis B peeing into the punch bowl that you are about to drink from could be described as ‘flavouring’.

The World In, ‘The New Germans’, Andreas Kluth, 02 Nov 2015:

[...] Today’s quintessential German stand-up snack is either a Turkish doner kebab or a Currywurst, which combines the archetypal Germanic sausage with spice from the sub-continent. In high and low culture, Germany has become unimaginable without such “foreign” influences. When Germany won the football World Cup in 1990, all its national players were Bio-Deutsche. When it won the cup again in 2014, two were Polish-born and others had family names such as Özil (Turkish), Khedira (Tunisian), Boateng (Ghanaian) and Mustafi (Albanian). [...]

Okay, so Currywurst exists, therefore Germany is ripe for mass immigration from those who eat curry?

By the same logic, Chicken Tikka Messala exists in Britain, is it time for Britain to be abolished in the same way? Pizza exists in Japan and South Korea, is it time for all of Italy to migrate to the Korean peninsula and the Japanese archipelago?

This is absolutely childish. The fact that any such thing would pass for argumentation in the western media is frankly laughable.

The World In, ‘The New Germans’, Andreas Kluth, 02 Nov 2015:

[...] Corporate bosses and policymakers, too, know that Germany needs immigrants. Bio-Deutsche make too few babies. New Germans who are today being fingerprinted as their asylum claims are processed will tomorrow care for the elderly and pay the taxes that fund a generous welfare state.

Absolutely false. Automation of the economy and mechanisation of the economy have led to the creation of a future overhang of structural unemployment. Germany will need less people in the future, not more. If the overhang is not dealt with, it will actually increase pressure on the welfare state, because a lot of people will be drawing unemployment benefits from the state.

Of course, the morons who command the German economy could just deliberately make themselves less efficient in order to keep their growing population employed, by perhaps digging ditches with lots of people holding spoons rather than with machines, and making widgets by hand rather than with robotics.

But then all their companies will be destroyed on the global market by Asian companies which are not having to do that kind of nonsense, and which would always be able offer the same product at lower prices as a result.

The World In, ‘The New Germans’, Andreas Kluth, 02 Nov 2015:

[...]

There is really only one last hurdle to Germany officially becoming a land of immigrants, and it is politics. The centre-right Christian Democratic Union, led by Angela Merkel, and its conservative Bavarian sister party, the Christian Social Union, insist on the fiction that Germany does not have permanent “immigrants” (Einwanderer) but rather temporary “in-comers” (Zuwanderer), such as guest workers, who will one day leave.

This is a travesty of reality and deserves the ridicule that the centre-left parties are meting out. In 2014 a law was tweaked that makes it easier for most children born in Germany to foreign parents to keep both citizenships indefinitely. But beyond this mini-liberalisation, Germany remains unusual among rich countries in having a patchwork of rules for special situations (spouses of Germans, say), but no coherent immigration law at all. [...]

The lack of a coherent immigration law is precisely how the German government has been able to do everything that it has done so far. The amorphous and sometimes contradictory nature of the laws has allowed them to carry through this plan without facing any significant formal legal challenge so far.

The World In, ‘The New Germans’, Andreas Kluth, 02 Nov 2015:

[...]

In 2016 Germany will pass such a law, because even the Christian Democrats will admit what is already obvious: Germany has become an immigrant country—a land of hope and opportunity to many who, in turn, simply by coming, keep Germany’s ageing society vibrant. The notion of identity by blood died long ago. In 2016 Germans will formally lay it to rest, and will take great pride in doing so.

Oh, yeah? Well, it’s only February, so perhaps it’s too early for anyone to know whether that prediction is going to come true or not. After all, Angela Merkel did promise from her mouth that the migrants ‘will go home’ once the conflict is over. She did say that, right? Right?

Now:

Zeit.de, ‘CDU will Schulpflicht für erwachsene Flüchtlinge’, 13 Feb 2016 (German to English, emphasis added):

With an extended compulsory education, exemption from the minimum wage laws and higher hurdles for a permanent residence permit, the CDU wants to accelerate the integration of refugees. The package of measures will be decided on Monday by the Federal Executive of the party, say sources in party circles.

The draft resolution of the CDU Board provides incentives, but also sanctions. Bild am Sonntag quoted some details from the paper that have been confirmed by persons from CDU party circles. The compulsory age for refugees leaving school without qualifications will be lifted from 18 years up to 25 years old. To facilitate their integration into working life, refugees are to be excluded from the minimum wage laws and are to be treated in the way that long-term unemployed are treated - they would thus in the first six months of employment not be entitled to the minimum wage of 8.50 euros per hour.

An amendment is to grant the indefinite right of permanent residence. Recognised refugees and asylum admissions are to receive that grant only when they can prove that they speak sufficient German, have knowledge of the local legal and social order, have committed no crimes and have the means to secure their livelihood. To date, the permanent residence permit has been issued after three years - regardless of whether someone has demonstrated language skills and ability to work.

Oh. That was fast.

But there’s more! See here:

The Jerusalem Post, ‘Report: Germany expects 500,000 refugees this year ‘, 15 Feb 2016 (emphasis added):

BERLIN - The German government expects 500,000 refugees to come to Germany this year, German newspaper Rheinische Post cited sources from the Federal Labour Office as saying.

German Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere told Frank-Juergen Weise, head of both the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) and the Federal Labour Office, to prepare for an influx of that size this year, the newspaper said in an advance copy of a report due to be published on Tuesday.

The German Interior Ministry was not immediately available to comment on the report.

I wonder how many times that number will be revised upward over the course of this year? I wonder how much more the security situation will be destabilised?

I thought the most interesting comment in and around Greg Johnson’s article, Roosh Really is a Rape Advocate (& a Rapist, if He’s Telling the Truth), was Greg’s own, in regard to the woman in Iceland who Roosh claimed to have sex with despite the fact that she was so drunk as to be incapacitated from consenting or not. Greg said that if she agreed to have sex with him the next morning that not only did that not mean she had not been raped the night before, but that consent afterward made it only worse for the fact that it could promote the idea that such behavior would have happy endings (with enough repetitions, it would not have happy endings).

I would like to add that I can well imagine that in a circumstance like that, a woman can agree to have sex with him the next morning and again in an attempt to reinterpret the relationship and her own agentive part in her mind, because it would be too painful to believe that she was violated in a profound way and had no agency. Thus, she might try to go with the idea of superimposing a relational level and her agency retroactively to reframe what was an instance of non-consent if not rape in that episode - re-framed under “a dating relationship with a ‘bad boy’ whose wild side I should be able to handle, being an independent woman and all.”

Long story short: she could have been raped even though she consented afterward - and a woman might act that way because she is insufficiently conscious of her interests and/or perhaps cannot handle the idea of the best and most important gift that she had to offer having been taken by the person treating her the worst - a con-man rapist who cared nothing for her as a person or on a relational level.

Speaking of which, that is what makes Roosh so disgusting. This sand ****** said it was his objective and continues to be his objective to have sex with as many beautiful woman as possible - and that he has been teaching men to do that as well. His response to antagonists in the media is that he will accumulate as many more women as he can.

I’m going to harness all this coverage that you are giving me and convert it to money and women

This was my first occasion to hear and see Roosh V. speak. I must say that I am negatively impressed - his attitude, his mannerisms, his way of speaking - bopping, swaying and grooving - his motives and his way of arguing are either entire affectations of black people or his middle eastern background is more n****rish than I had realized.

One thing is certain, he does not think and act like a European man and nobody should respect him as a model as such. He is a sand-wigger. It is no wonder that he is trying to teach White men how to act like n****rs and Muslims - and to have as much respect for White women as a n****r or Muslim would. Nor is it a wonder that he would now try to take cover under a position of Abrahamic religion - that he is promoting a traditional Muslim model of gender arrangements for all.

Neither he, nor the males he teaches, are cultivating a way to pursue relationships with women that they care about, confirming and reconstructing views and European ways that are important, in fact vital to them. No, just the technique to pander to the universally lowest common denominator of their basest instincts and reconstructing that, while going through their cautionary barriers, including White national barriers, and discarding them.

Who does he think he is to target White women - in as many numbers as possible - with his Negroid/Muslim mentality? And who got the idea that it was Ok for him to target White women and others and pursue alpha n****r behavior? Would this sand ****** talk and have people act this way to his sister, Iranian and Armenian women?

She typed in, “How many girls have you been with in Poland?”

“10,000.”

“No, really.”

“A couple.”

“Do you always bring home girls like this?”

“Never on Tuesdays. ”

“Do you want to see me again?”

“Of course. You’re pretty, you’re sexy, you’re fun. I see no reason why I wouldn’t want to see you again.” I kissed her.

Her tiny size really hit me when she took off her heels. I asked her how much she weighed. Thirty-five kilograms (77 pounds). Besides her surprisingly round ass, she had the body of a gymnast who hadn’t quite made it past puberty.

We moved to my bed. I got her down to her bra and panties, but she kept saying, “No, no.” I was so turned on by her beauty and petite figure that I told myself she’s not walking out my door without getting fucked. At that moment I accepted the idea of getting locked up in a Polish prison to make it happen.

She tried to go down on me but her mouth was too small.

Then I grabbed her and made her sit directly on my face. I ate her pussy, the first time I had done so in a couple of years. I enjoyed it.

I put on a condom, lubed up, and finally got her consent to put it in. The best way to visualize our lovemaking is an elephant mounting a kitten. My dick was half the thickness of her neck. I put her on her stomach and went deep, pounding her pussy like a pedophile.

“At that moment I accepted the idea of getting locked up in a Polish prison to make it happen.”

It would be nice if that happened - I could picture Roosh being held down and fucked by a few giant Polish queers in jail:

“It took four hours and at least thirty attempts to push into his ass:  ‘no, Roosh cried, no!’ until the large, very large penis was finally allowed to enter and stretch Roosh’s asshole to his great pain. Ooh the giant faggot sighed upon the most satisfying ejaculation into Roosh’s asshole, you are the finest little bitch! I just know you’ll come back to give me some skull in the morning -

    - I think your mouth IS big enough!”

Better still, stay the fuck out of Poland and all of Europe, sand-******.

Only a wigger could admire this guy and find him appealing. He has no place anywhere near WN. Quite the opposite.

Roosh is teaching and promoting R selection strategies among Europeans who are evolved for K selection strategies.

Since I am paying more attention to things Asian as a result of Kumiko’s participation here, a couple of videos and a composition of Facebook comments relevant and illustrative of issues that I have been discussing have come to my attention.

Asian illustrations of..

1. Advised social confirmation and elevation: of the value of ordinary routine practices; in this case, participation in social routine.

3. A composition of fake tweets: attributed to Americans apparently mocking the atomic bombing of Japan:
Captioned “stay ‘classy’ America” - the fraud and motive to create a division between Whites and East Asians is traceable to Jewish motives.

Coming to these examples throwing light on racial accountability from Asia, one at a time -

1. Advised celebration of ordinary routine:

Kumiko likes Korean and Japanese pop music videos and she showed me this Japanese one.

Participation in..

..routine social service..

If WN can show bearance upon what might otherwise be construed as an appeal to yellow fever by the presentation of this video, there is actually bearing upon an important point that I made in my article about “the dark side of self actualization” and how to otherwise moderate and optimize actualization.

That is to say, one thing that needs to happen in our re-socialization of actualization is for the value of individual self actualization to become part of a rotating and optimizing process of attention, to where it does not always and statically occupy the top of a hierarchy. That over-emphasis has, of course, destabilized and lent to the rupture of our racial/social systemic homeostasis. The inference I’ve made is that one of the aspects of actualization that needs to be constructed, elevated in importance and encouraged to enjoy is not only a sufficient amount of routine but also routine cooperative social participation in our tried and true practices and procedures. That will not only allow us to learn and develop skills from our forebears, to cultivate them, but it is also necessary to create a platform for elaboration and innovation; i.e., it is prerequisite and socially as important as actualization.

This video shows a song and dance of girls in Japanese postal service uniforms. The point that I am trying to make is that celebrative or otherwise reverential treatment like this, of the ordinary and social routine, might help to emphasize sufficient sufficience, so to speak, in enjoyment of necessary but ordinary social routines, unions, trade guilds, syndicates and with it, an elevation of appreciation of ordinary necessity so that it is not dwarfed nor its vital necessity discouraged by singular social appreciation and veneration of the extraordinary and the sacred.

I hypothesize this elevating celebration of routine (in this case social) practices as one side of the necessary elevation of the social esteem of routine; another side of “routine” elevation would be ceremony and sacral treatment of exemplary practices.

2. Bad parenting advice: The oriental woman in this video was adopted by Swedish parents and brought-up with that idea that she is “simply Swedish, the same as any other Swede”, by proposition.

If she were taught that she was an adopted girl of Korean descent, who was and should be welcomed as counting of a manageable, benign but accountable enclave of Swedish nationals, she would have an efficient enough explanation at her disposal to discharge most conflict on the issue.

By contrast, there is insufficient accountability in insistence upon her parents well meaning but bad advice - simply asserting that she is Swedish just like all other Swedes.

She sets herself up for abuse

Adopted by Swedish parents and growing up in Sweden, she responds to the question from a Swedish man, “where are you from?” that she is “from Sweden.” The man responds in turn, “no, where are you really from?”

She takes this as an example of “racism” and tries to correct the man in the motive she perceives of his question, answering that she is “Swedish just like every other Swedish national” - as her parents taught her.

However, I’d guess that the man’s question was not “racist” in a negative sense. Yes, it was racial in the sense that he was trying to get an accurate sense of how to classify her, but why? Because he thought negatively of her and of her being in Sweden? Probably not.

He was quite possibly asking her for one or all of the following three reasons:

a) He found her attractive and wanted to know where her sort was from for future and general reference.

b) He found her attractive and saw the question as an opportunity for an ice breaker.

c) If she answered, “Korea”, chances are that he would enjoy showing his good-will toward her, by confirming her honest account and her people as really OK, and that as a part of a reasonable and accountable number of her kind of immigration, take occasion to show support for her participation with Sweden.

That is to say, what the man was doing was “racism” by definition in the sense that he was attempting to classify people genetically (not doing the mere liberal thing of pretending to be blind to racial classifications but judging people instead by propositions), but it was, in all likelihood, a benign kind of classifying, motivated by respect and a wish for accountability.

Because she treated it as “racism”, i.e., classification for negative motives, she attempted to denounce it and hide behind the well meaning but fundamentally dishonest advice of her parents that as a propositional Swede she was the same as an evolutionary Swede.

As such she denies the possibility of honest accountability that would serve to limit negative treatment of her in Sweden and gain her support from those who have an honest concern for the management of native Swedes.

Instead, for denying accountability and denouncing the account requested as “racist” she sets herself up for abuse from at least two kinds in particular.

She will perhaps get some abuse from jealous and racially concerned Swedes, e.g., Swedish women miffed with yellow fever. That would be understandable if Asian immigration were taken too far at any rate, but when there is no accountability it is likely to be more provocative of the racially sensitive Swede for her to say, “I am the same as you”, have the same history, etc. But even at that, it is probable that she did not really receive much of the gaffe from true Swedish women. What abuse that she got and experienced, with truly saddening pain, most likely came from Jewish trolls looking to stir conflict between Whites and Asians.

She gets abused by what probably are some Jewish trolls trying to provoke conflict between Asians and racially aware Whites:

3. What makes me hypothesize Jewish trolling? viz., that Jewish trolls can be trying to provoke her and provoke conflict between Whites and Asians?:

How about this. Kumiko showed me this composition, supposedly of Facebook posts by American people speaking of their own accord, saying that they are happy that Japan sustained nuclear bomb attacks in WWII and would be quite happy for it to happen again.

I grew up in America and for 34 years spent there never encountered an American who would speak remotely like this about Japan or the atomic bombing of Japan. Furthermore, if one reads these comments it is clear by a careful discourse analysis that the writer of all of these comments is one or a few people. If one is more careful still, to take style and motive into account, the Jewish hand is evident.

Though it may seem like obvious trolling to some of us, unfortunately this was apparently taken seriously by some Japanese audiences and even shown on Japanese news as if it were an honest reflection of American sentiments - when in truth, these are not remotely accurate statements of Americans: Stay classy America? No, stay “classy” with your divide and conquer chutzpah Jews - greatest shame is upon you and we are watching you.

Full composition under the fold..

READ MORE...

This second part of my thoughts on culture and counter-culture represents something of a departure for me.  Although every nationalist is a cultural critic of sorts, I am not a very practised one.  I tend to a critique which is more psychological in its address, with an occasional gesture in the direction of philosophy.  Where possible, of course, psychology prefers fact over proposition.  The hard ground of genotype and sociobiology ... of Nature intruding into the Mind and into the lived life ... is an amenable place for a fact-junkie like me to seek permanent truths and, too, an understanding of Nature’s bounds and limits, and of the pathological pretence in the culture beyond that the natural bounds can not only be broken, but that we can be freed by breaking them.

Culture ... that fabulously coloured, capacious, elusive thing ... is a carrier of the natural too, of course.  The trick for anyone seeking to interdict or reform or revolutionise it should be to exorcise its pathologies by means of appeal to that nature.  It should be straightforward.  After all, people are able to struggle for existence, and in that cause to discriminate for good over evil, and for truth over lies.  They routinely refer to their instinctive interests and preferences as determinants of what is good, and what is natural, healthy and normal, and so on.  So you might think this would be easy … that the mind’s supervenient natural qualities must predominate ... that working with Nature’s grain must lead to a life-giving outcome.

Yet, the condition of our people in the pre-globality (let’s call it that, in the absence any generally accepted term) is such that little common understanding and agreement obtains on what constitutes pathology and what health, and little perception even that anything really fundamental is wrong.  Life’s truths have been forced down into a morass of moral relativism and bare-faced ideological aggression, and disgorged of their vital, identifying signs.  As a nationalist, one actually has to teach health, such is the confusion within the people whom we love and, because we love, seek to advantage and to serve.

The revolution in the European culture

READ MORE...

While I am adamant about the right and oughtness of fighting when one’s own borders and EGI are being infringed upon, I am not a hawk. Geopolitical warfare has never been something that appealed to me, let alone with any sort of passion.

I’m very averse to the idea of going beyond my national boundaries to fight, particularly when my own nation is totally screwed-up, needs tending and where innovative thinking might solve problems as opposed to trying to solve them by resorting to warring abroad.

The problem is that there are valid arguments that there are vital requirements along the Silk Road, in the Middle East and in Africa - resource and population management that is indispensably necessary even to the most innovative and independent peoples. In these concerns, I’m going to invite the reader to consider with me the possibility of re-drawing ethno-nationalist and regional lines on this map.

As you can guess, conversations with Kumiko have got me taking these matters under consideration, and I hope that she will soon put up an article discussing issues that the neo-cons have failed to make in clear and persuasive terms.

Tangential to neo-con issues is an interesting philosophical question for another day: how, in detailed form, to set up a rule structure which will sort out and punish the genetic legacy of criminals; and facilitate the rebirth of those genetic components that have suffered unjustly at the hands of criminals in previous generations. In this case, I am thinking more in terms of those who have historical grievances with Russians - while it is true that I don’t feel this grievance as do some others that I’ve known, it is nevertheless only practical to set the question aside for the time being - though it is a question that can apply to any people who have benefited or suffered from historical atrocities.

Europeans, now, are asked even more fundamental questions than relative guilt and merit, but are asked to address the matter of our identity, period - that we are a people (different from Jews and others), to establish who we are, what the nature of our common moral order is, to understand that the obfuscation of that would-be peoplehood is a part of a war against us - and that there is, indeed, a war against us; finally, we are asked what is the nature of that war and what it consists over?

When considering these matters from a White Nationalist perspective, Russian people are not conceived as inherent enemies, nor, even, is the humongous expanse of their nation high on the list, if on the list at all, of things intolerable to allow to remain. At first blush, I can imagine living with it - it’s always been that way in my lifetime; its reach contracted after the fall of The U.S.S.R., but still remains bigger than Pluto.

Nevertheless, we ought to reconsider this from an Asian perspective, and from a perspective of acute European interests.

I didn’t expect to have occasion at this point to consider aloud the possibility of attempting to align formal industrial military objectives with ours as White Nationalists. Oil, resources, even absurd and brutal regimes in the Middle East and Africa inflicting harm upon their own do not stir any passion in me to fight. The function of Asian countries and Western countries do, however, have requirements and rationale to get these nations under compliance. And in hopes of facilitating the human resource of Kumiko’s military perspective, I am going to imagine empathic military geo-political objectives, so that we might envisage a grand chess board result in our victory.

From that standpoint I attend to the fact that as nationalists and as White people in particular, fighting for the survival and sovereignty of our nations, that militarization and the geopolitics of resource and population management will ultimately be necessary.

Asia and the West have things that we need from one another, including cooperation against antagonisms from the Middle East and Africa.

Not only do we need resources from these places but we need mutual help in border control and repatriation projects.

What about Russia? It is so big. Why not just work with them and allow its vast space to become a place for White people to grow into?

While it is true that another traditional passion for some war mongers is hating Russians and maybe I should hate them, I don’t hate them. Nor do I care if people want to move there; furthermore, I completely understand not wanting to fight them. I don’t want to fight Russians; the war in Ukraine has been instigated by Judaized and neo-liberal means and motives and it disgusts me.

Even so, WN tendencies to look upon Russia as the great White hope ignore the propositional, neo-liberal, mercantile and Judaized aspects of Russia - as if its political class has no corruptions analogous to The US that will wreak havoc with such projects to connect with Russia as a partner in White Nationalism.

On the other hand, while I favor Ukrainian and Belarusian sovereignty, as I favor all ethnonational sovereignty, I am opposed to a hot war approach with Russia to increase their sovereignty.

But neither am I in favor of a hot war approach to defending Russia’s humongous eastern stretch and southern conflicts.

Rather than abandon to foreign invaders the natural ethnonationalist homelands of our European evolution and engage in White flight to move into lands that apparently represent imperialist aggrandizement - beyond ethnonational mandate - on the part of Russia, to reiterate, neither am I particularly interested in fighting to protect Russia’s imperial overreach.

In a word, defending what is apparently an imperial over-reach is Russia’s problem and an issue that can be turned to our advantage as Europeans in order to gain cooperation with our EGI, its borders and vital resources.

We need Chinese, Japanese and other Asian cooperation more than we need Russia’s imperialist headaches; and China and Japan are not about to start loving Russia more than their own interests which are impacted by Russia’s Eastern and Southern interference.

We need cooperation with Asia to compel compliance with regard to resource, EGI and border management. And we might compel Russia’s compliance as well with those needs by means of the West’s regional alliance with Asia.

Thus, while we might not engage a war of maneuver in either Russia’s west nor east, we might well consider lending approval to Asian positioning in Russia’s east and south.

That is, allowing the “stick” (as opposed to “carrot”) of some of these lands as potentially sovereign Asian places: with enclaves Russian and enclaves Asian, the farther east you go, the more the general area would be Asian with fewer Russian enclaves and vis a versa - the farther West, the fewer Asian enclaves until you reach a point where it would be a Russian only ethnostate. And the carrot to Russia would be less contentious relations with its neighbors, more secure borders, and more cooperation in resource garnering, management and use. That is not necessarily a bad deal.

Toward an Asian-Atlantic regional cooperation.

1. The genetic-make-up and territorial boundaries of the European ethno-states shall be restored, maintained and protected.

2. To achieve this end we propose alignment with the Asian ethno-states and region.

3. Something like the E.U. and North Atlantic would be necessary to achieve that alliance and its success.

However, it will also involve some quid pro quo.

4. First, we see it as being in both of our interests to secure our peoples against impositions of Middle-Eastern and African populations; against imposition of the Abrahamic religions; and against interference of these peoples and religions in our vital resources.

5. Toward that end, it is in the interest of both Asians and Europeans to remove these populations to the greatest extent possible from our geo-political territories; and, again, to remove significant imposition/interference upon our mutual vital resource interests.

6.  Sacrosanct European territories in the Americas, Australia and New Zealand will likely need to become smaller at any rate in order to be maintained and defended. But with the increased manageability of defense will come an opportunity to offer cooperation to Asians to have some sacrosanct territories of their own in these places. We will respect and cooperate with one another toward the defense of our territories in diaspora, seeing African and Middle-Eastern (saliently Jewish and Muslim) populations as those who must be guarded against and compelled to as great a distance from our people as possible, removed from civic nationalization and its proximity.

7. Russia/ns will be seen as having an analogous situation to White Americans. In order to have a safer, more manageable ethno-state and something to offer in exchange with the Euro-Asian regional alliance, they will be required to contract in size considerably, particularly from its expanse eastward into Asia and its geo-political interference there and to its south, unilaterally along the Silk Road. Russia’s ethno-state will be more secure as it will be forced into a more cooperative and less antagonistic relation with the rest of the geo-polity.

The key deal is this: we will compel Russia to relinquish parts of its territory (leaving it no good choice but to comply). In exchange we will require Asian assistance in cleansing and defending our territories from imposition by non-natives - particularly Africans, Middle Easterners, Muslims and Jews. And we will require compliance in securing our vital resources and transportation routes.

The advantages to European peoples and Asians in this alliance is clear.

But what regional and national lines might you imagine and what advantages to Russia and others do you see for compliance? Discuss.

As there are no Russian cities larger than 600,000 east of lake Baikal (near the city of Irkutsk, centrally to the north of Mongolia), and only four larger than 300,000, one way of arranging the pockets, enclaves, ethno-state outposts as it were, would be to have a symmetrical “M.C. Escher-like” arrangement (as in the image called “Day and Night” above), i.e., an entering of these enclaves into the others general regional sphere - enclaves which would, nevertheless, represent sovereign states. 

The plan would emphasize deportation and re-doing citizenship in favor of native lines, viz., on the basis of ethnostates. That is unlike the Moscow - Berlin - Paris axis, which apparently seeks to reconstruct the same old right-wing, propositional/objectivist oil interests.

Note: I can see how this could create incentive for Eastern European nations to cooperate - from a position of strength and in cooperation with White diaspora (note the interview of Tomasz Szczepański under the fold).

The Eastern European nations may agree to cooperation despite history of disputes (sometimes serious), and facilitate this ethno-nationalist and regional cooperation if their borders and native populations are guaranteed. If they are a part of a plan that guarantees that and necessary resources from the Silk Road - accomplished by increased cooperation with Asia and a Russia dealing from a cooperative position; then perhaps ethnonational and regional alliance with Asia can work. I.e, Russia has to offer more than trade in natural resources garnered through its vast expanse and fist waving at anybody who doesn’t see their interests being secured inasmuch.

The area that is to be reserved as sacrosanct to the Russian ethnostate would be contracted from imperial dimensions and more in line with ethno-national proportions.

It is a contraction in concession to cooperation with other ethno-European nations that WN America will likely need to undergo as well.

This will make Russia more defensible and more worth cooperating with for the rest of Europe and Asia - as they will be required to join this Euro-Asian regional cooperation against middle eastern interference - whether Arab, Islamic or Jewish, they will be beholden to our terms and we will have the necessary resources of the Silk Road.

The other side of the deal for compliance and cooperation to garner vital resources, is that our vital EGI will be cooperated with in protection as well - including not only in border defense, repatriation and de-nationalization of the majority of non-natives from European and Asian countries, but most strictly the border defense, de-nationalization and removal of non-natives from European nations; while allowing for some accountable quota of Asians and Europeans in one another’s nations and regions.

READ MORE...

..give ‘who’ hell? For Jewish academics to play both sides of “PC” is nothing new. While the re-normalization and motion to institutionalize social classification is a positive development - via ‘give-em-hell Trump’ in his campaign talk - the most important issue in the end, is not just normalization, but where the lines of institutionalized discrimination are to be drawn.

Trump is saying some things that we might like to hear, with a candor that purports contempt for “political correctness”, a candor that has not been heard from the last 11 Presidents at least, spanning more than 60 years.

With that, he flouts the avoidance of “racial profiling” for having allowed the San Bernadino attack. It is indeed a positive development to assert the validity of “race” as a criteria.

“There were people who knew bad things were going on [with the family], and they didn’t report it because of racial profiling.”

Moreover, he takes the validity of “profiling”, i.e., classifying people, a bit further to say that there should be a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”

NBC, ‘Trump Calls for ‘Complete Shutdown’ of Muslims Entering the U.S.’, 7 Dec 2015:

Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump on Monday called for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,” the most dramatic response yet to the string of terrorist attacks that have Americans increasingly on edge.

Trump released a statement citing polling data he says shows “there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population.”

Trump Calls for ‘Complete Shutdown’ of All Muslims Entering U.S.

“Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life,” Trump said.

Yes, it is a candor and a disdain for pseudo-intellectual and polite appearance that we have not heard from a President since “give-em-hell Harry Truman.”

Excellent though it is that race and other social classifications, and borders, are being re-invoked by “give-em-hell Trump” and that he is taking steps to re-normalize and re-institutionalize these criteria as a legitimate basis for discrimination…

one might wonder what, say, Japanese, et al., might think about who-for and how the “no-nonsense” lines are being drawn.

Playing “for/against PC” is nothing new for Jewish academia; i.e., one side playing “vanguard” while the other is “hand of restraint.”

Playing “for and against PC” is nothing new for Jewish academia: In this 1990 essay for the New York Times, Richard J. Bernstein is playing the role of “restraint”  -

New York Times, ‘IDEAS & TRENDS; The Rising Hegemony of the Politically Correct”, 28 Oct, 1990:

Central to p.c.-ness, which has roots in 1960’s radicalism, is the view that Western society has for centuries been dominated by what is often called “the white male power structure” or “patriarchal hegemony.” A related belief is that everybody but white heterosexual males has suffered some form of repression and been denied a cultural voice or been prevented from celebrating what is commonly called “otherness.”

But more than an earnest expression of belief, “politically correct” has become a sarcastic jibe used by those, conservatives and classical liberals alike, to describe what they see as a growing intolerance, a closing of debate, a pressure to conform to a radical program or risk being accused of a commonly reiterated trio of thought crimes: sexism, racism and homophobia.

“It’s a manifestation of what some are calling liberal fascism,” said Roger Kimball, the author of “Tenured Radicals,” a critique of what he calls the politicization of the humanities. “Under the name of pluralism and freedom of speech, it is an attempt to enforce a narrow and ideologically motivated view of both the curriculum and what it means to be an educated person, a responsible citizen.”

The restrained activist vs the activist vanguardist

In a generation before, Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter* played the role of “restraint,” viz., the role of “activist restraint” opposed to “activist vanguard” - a role that shabbos goy Earl Warren was duped to take the lead in, as Chief Justice of an “activist Court.”

We should be on the watch as well, then, for the shabbos goy being fore-fronted as the “vanguard activist”, as:

Earl Warren was for the 1954 de-segregation (integration) decision and 1964 ”civil rights” legislation..

Teddy Kennedy was for the 1965 Immigration & Naturalization Act,

Either Trump or Hillary Clinton can be used for - what? - we might not know exactly what for sure yet, other than that it would be another travesty. Hillary Clinton may well fit the role of shabbos goy “vanguardist” for their next demonstration of “chutzpah.”

* Frankfurter, a Jew, presiding as Chief Justice in the Supreme Court prior, fancied his “a restrained activist Court” - and referred to his successor, Earl Warren, as “the dumb Swede” - worried that he would take the bait in such a headlong way of “activist vanguardism” that he would create an overly strong reaction.

Note: As it bears more attention, this article is duplicated from the MR News section, where it was originally published, 8 December 2015.

Introduction

This article is just a very condensed version of some observations that have been burning on my mind this week and which came up over tea and biscuits during conversations with some of my work colleagues. It may be edifying for European nationalists and regionalists, so I’ve chosen to make a short article about the subjects covered. People should feel free to ask me any questions they like in the comments section, if anyone would like a more expansive explanation about the concepts I’m trying—humorously but with serious intent—to illuminate here.

The somewhat provocative phraseology I’m using here is quite deliberate and is used for a reason that will be explained later on in the article.

Twilight of the Westphalian Model

We are living a world that has progressed and changed significantly since the advent of industrial warfare. In the early 1900s, everything about warfare tended to be the resolution of international disputes through a state actor’s military personnel and machinery clashing in the spacial battlefield until someone was decisively defeated.

Now, this is no longer the case, after the late 1900s and early 2000s, war increasingly has become a matter of non-state actors waging war against other non-state actors, and in the case where states of a Westphalian inspiration came into contradiction with these non-state actors, the Westphalian states’ objective usually was to find a settlement of the conflict that would satisfy the commercial and geostrategic needs of those nations. The battle also takes place in ‘hearts and minds’, getting hearts and minds on one’s side has become not just an optional extra, but in many cases can be a crucial and decisive element of strategy.

The battle of ‘hearts and minds’ is happening in the case where you have to influence a ‘foreign’ population to co-operate with and support military operations that you are conducting inside their territory, or the case where you have to convince a ‘foreign’ population that your occupation of their territory is capable of providing safety and stability through effective counter-terrorism operations.

Increasingly, these same needs apply within the North Atlantic states as well, because we are actually now in a new generation of warfare. This is 5th generation warfare, not 4th generation warfare now. The events which took place in France on 13 November 2015 were a stark sign of that transition between generations having taken place.

ISIL’s attack on Paris was not just an attack against state infrastructure in an attempt to affect the French government’s policy preferences. It was not an attack that could be understood within the context of the Westphalian state model, or the world order that this model had given rise to. Instead, it was an attack against the Westphalian state model itself, and that is why the attackers chose the targets that they chose. They selected places that French people and the foreign residents of other culturally advanced populations would go to enjoy themselves. They chose to deliberately have amongst the assailants a mixture of people carrying Syrian passports alongside people who were second or third generation Muslim residents of European countries such as Belgium.

By selecting the targets in the way that they did, they were announcing that it was a fight of one population against another, one social group against another, in their view, and their intent was to make this fact clear to everyone. We on the other side should not shy away from acknowledging that this is really how it is. They believe that there is a ‘global Ummah’, a community of Muslims unconstrained by national borders, who are trying to uphold and enforce the rules of the Abrahamic monotheistic god over ‘the Kaffir’ who are pagans (this includes people who adhere closely to bonds of blood, which Islamic doctrine considers to be part of ‘Jahiliyyah’), polytheists, atheists, and apostates.

The rise of this kind of view, represents a rise of what is best described as ‘armed social movements’. Social movements have qualities that are distinct from that of traditional Westphalian state structures, even when they come to occupy the seats of power in a state. Armed social movements tend to have a cleanly defined ‘us vs. them’ world view, and the manifestation of state power which is filled by such movements, tends to be an outcome of battles fought in and against civil society, in the terrain of popular culture or through street battles or asymmetrical warfare. The manifestation of state power is not imposed from above, but rather, the manifestation of state power is a sign that the armed social movement has already triumphed among the population itself. The process is ‘bottom up’, rather than ‘top down’.

Armed social movements fight against each other in the terrain of civil society and through popular culture, to determine who will ultimately capture state power in the long term future.

We are an international ‘Satanic Alliance’?

In light of all of the above, the epithet which the jihadists have labelled us with, the epithet ‘Satanic Alliance’ comes into play and is a gateway to understanding the fundamental issue presently facing western civilisation, as well as a method for coming to terms with it.

On 01 November 2015, Al-Qaeda leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri published a sixteen minute video which spread across the Islamic world on social media and jihadist websites, calling for a unified Islamic front against the coalition of groups who are fighting against the imposition of Sharia law, which he described as forming a front against “the Satanic Alliance that attacks Islam”. In his video, he takes a tone toward ISIL which is one of coalition-building, as he is seeking to caution them on the dangers that come from infighting among the various jihadist groups. He doesn’t want ISIL, Jahbat Al-Nusra, and Ahrar Al-Sham to keep fighting against each other over their differences, rather he wants them to suspend their disagreements on who commands the jihadists (ie, Ayman Al-Zawahiri or Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi?) and how it should be expressed (ie, Islam faithful to the 8th century, or Islam adapted to the 21st century?) and to instead unite against “the Satanic Alliance”, and to “hone” their conduct so that they can convince the other Muslims that they “want to be ruled over by Sharia”.

Whenever I hear these things, I always smile a little, because by saying things like that, they are drawing the lines very cleanly and obviously.

However, within the west there is still a muddled feeling amongst the general population about this, which needs to be ironed out. We are and have been and hopefully will continue to be—objectively speaking—living in an increasingly ‘Satanic’ society, if you take the definition of what ‘Satanic’ means from the religious texts of the three Abrahamic religions.

Look at what those three religions stand for, and then look at what we stand for and what we would like to see manifest, and you discover immediately that—as I’ve said before—we are a threat to the Abrahamic religions, we are their adversary. What does ‘Satan’ mean? It literally means ‘the adversary’.

There are many important distinctions between the two sides, but the most important one in the context of the interests of the readers of Majorityrights is this one:

These two views are irreconcilably and diametrically opposed, and always will be.

Two camps: Make a decision, make a choice

Although some find it to be unsettling, the arrival of this amazing narrative brings clarity and doctrinal purity to a situation that previously seemed to lack it. Since 11 September 2001, the middle ground ought to have become entirely vulnerable to erosion. When the planes crashed into the World Trade Centre buildings in 2001, and when the bombs exploded on the trains in Madrid in 2003, and when the bombs exploded on the buses in London in 2005, and now in the wake of the migration crisis and the Paris attacks of 2015, all of these have painted and highlighted—in blood—the existence of two camps before humankind that everyone would have to choose between.

Sometimes, unexpected mouths utter statements that are true. George W. Bush actually stumbled partially onto the truth of the existence of this paradigm when he said, “Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists”. Osama bin Laden also once said, “The world today is divided into two camps.”

Both Bush and Bin Laden were essentially correct about that basic reality, although neither of them understood just how correct they were.

All the different operations by the two camps have since served to expose the people who claimed to be ‘in the middle ground’ as being actually through their actions on one side or on the other side, whether they are conscious of it or not.

The shrinking middle ground

Many people on the so-called centre-right, and many so-called radical traditionalists and court ‘historians’ and court ‘scholars’ were immediately exposed by the terrorist attacks and by the wars, and by the mass migration crisis.

All of those who rushed to make apologetics, excuses, and justifications for the Islamists prancing around in their midst, or else, made mealy-mouthed statements about how they ‘respected’ Islam or ‘shared traditional values with them’ and so ‘are internally conflicted on how to react’, or alternately, sought to allocate blame and condemnation onto the victims of Islamic terrorist attacks rather than onto the perpetrators, were all exposed. Some, such as the Jews and the Christians who are milling around among the ruling class in every western state, went so far as to actively campaign for more migrants when the mass migration and infiltration crisis began.

By these actions, they revealed themselves to everyone. Even the most naive observer of political affairs can now be convinced that there really are only two camps.

It is also worth mentioning that in fact, many conservatives of the traditionalist and civic nationalist sort, and almost all social democrats of every stripe, had always been in ‘the camp of Islam’ insofar as they refused to oppose mass migration from the Middle East and Africa, and they refused to criticise the fundamental basis of monotheism itself, restricting themselves only to criticising the methods of the so-called ‘radicals’. Those who walked in ignorance were simply unaware of this, because court ‘historians’ and court ‘scholars’ and the mainstream media had all portrayed them as being opposed, and as a result, their actual complicity with ‘the camp of Islam’ went unrecognised. As a result of this confusion, such persons and groups only appeared to be in the middle ground in the eyes of the ignorant and the uninformed. So it is only in the sense of the perception of the people, that the events since 11 September 2001 have ‘driven’ those people out of the middle ground. In reality they were never in it. It only appeared to be so. A prime example of this would be Angela Merkel and most of the Christian Democratic Union party in Germany. The CDU is firmly in ‘the camp of Islam’, and always has been, it was only in the eyes of the ignorant that it has appeared otherwise (eg, those who were fooled by the false dichotomy of ‘multiculturalism vs. integration’), until recently when it became openly apparent for all to see.

And so the middle ground, and even the perception of there being a middle ground, can now begin to wither. Rather than whining about methods, such as who kills who in what kind of brutal way, we should begin talking about the purpose behind the conflict and what its philosophical and spiritual basis is, and then offer a choice. In other words, we need to get down to the fundamentals.

Be confident

If we, the apparent ‘Satanic Alliance’ can stand together and remain completely and ruthlessly consistent in our narrative and defend the attractiveness and beauty of our Promethean goals, then we can gently—when and where we can—push the dialogue which encourages people to make the choice to join such an ‘alliance’.

In that sense, everything which has happened since 11 September 2001, should be seen not as a disorganised series of tragedies and inconveniences, but rather, as an opportunity, a springboard from which we as ethno-nationalists and ethno-regionalists can jump forward and present—truthfully and with sincerity—the narratives and views of things like ‘the Satanic Alliance’ or ‘the DNA Nation’, ‘the dark side of the Enlightenment’, ‘post-modernity proper’, or ‘taking the kingdom of heaven by force’, or any other thought-form that is grounded in an absolute earthlyness of thought that we care to elucidate.