Die Linke’s parliamentary leader Gregor Gysi. Photo: DPA

Its egregious intentions betray its egregious misnomer as “The Left” by the YKW media. Whereas a White Left would be a union of the entire nation of native peoples and thus organized in entirety against immigrant imposition - these workers and beneficiaries being the theoretical equivalent of scabs - and the consequences of elite betrayal. Accordingly, a true European Nationalist Left would not be of just one class, say the workers, let alone be in representation of scabs (foreigners) - as the latter in particular would be defined properly not as The Left but rather as a Neo-Liberal concern imposed on the classification of native national interests. The reason for the misnomer is plain, the YKW and the sell-outs, particularly of the international corporatist order, do not want us to be clear in the organizational concern of that union, which is a merging, in fact an overlap, of the class with native nationalism. Instead they want it associated with what is most repugnant to our interests.

The YKW and corporate elite sell-outs are aligned in this perversion of class interests - you can be even more afraid now as they obligingly ask:

“What does the Left Party want for Europe?”

The “Left Party” (wink), read “neo-liberal” and ask rather, what union of your interests do they represent - i.e., how are they a leftist union for you as a native European? Particularly when they advocate (hyerpbolic) neo-liberal policies as such?

“Die Linke is now the third biggest group in the German parliament, but what do their politicians want for Europe?”

Gysi pretends the leftist, denouncing the The EU for “pursuing ‘neo-liberal’ policy:”

“Die Linke overtook rivals the Greens ... to become the country’s third biggest parliamentary group – and has since made waves in foreign policy by its outspoken condemnation of US spying and conciliatory attitude to Russia’s actions in Ukraine.

Their charismatic parliamentary leader Gregor Gysi added to his party’s critical stance towards the EU system in an interview with Die Zeit newspaper. ‘It is pursuing a neo-liberal economic policy and stands for the opposite of socialism,’ he said.”

But then his party pursues this policy on immigration -

“Mobility and Immigration

Die Linke’s policy on immigration stands out from major parties by appearing dramatically in favour of making Europe more refugee-friendly.

They claim to promote the ‘unconditional right to stay and proper accommodation, social protection and equal rights for all refugees.’

And according to their manifesto, they also support refugees’ free choice of which country they wish to seek asylum in, as well as demanding the dissolution of EU border agency Frontex.”

You can’t get much more neo-liberal than that.

What does that have to do with the unionized representation of native European national interests?

We hear nothing representing the unionized interests of native European nationals in YKW media. Our interests are ignored and obfuscated beginning with the very terms, with the deliberately confusing mis-designation of neo-liberal policy - immigration and non-native imposition in particular - as “The Left.” By contrast, designating the proper representation of native European national interests as The White Left is to distinguish it from the liberal and Jewish affectations imposed on native European nationalist interests by The Red Left.

http://www.thelocal.de/20140514/what-do-die-linke-want-for-europe

                                 
                                      Gysi in his Soviet permutation
——————————————————————————
More past wind across the German border from “The Left”:

“The greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another. The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes, natives and immigrants, Christians and Muslims and Jews, cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down!”

A few weeks ago Daniel sent a request to Frank Salter, author of On Genetic Interests, to consent to be interviewed for MR Radio.  He was then in the process of a double-session interview with Red Ice.  We hope he might be interested in a more intellectually demanding approach to his thesis in OGI and his hopes for European peoples in the West.  He was unavailable.

In anticipation of a positive reply from Dr Salter I had scribbled down some questions – heads of discussion, really - which I hoped to put before him.  It is unlikely that they will be asked in that form now.  I thought they might be of interest to readers all the same, duly embroidered with some of my own understandings which would have emerged in the discussion.

1. Academics, science and politics

Dr Salter, you describe your profession as that of a political scientist and ethologist engaged in studying the motivational and organisational aspects – the laws that are at work, if you like -  in human group dynamics.  In the process you have afforded us all some unique insights into normative human behaviour, most particularly in the central thrust of On Genetic Interests.  Purely for myself, I would like to thank you for that; and I’m sure very many others with our politics would feel the same.

(a) Can I begin by asking how you see yourself and your work?  Is an ethologist like you, with his basis of work with empirical data, fundamentally of the humanities or the sciences?  How do your politics, which are clearly quite nationalist, influence your selection and formulation of research projects?  Do you have to make additional efforts to function as a disinterested researcher, while your peers down the corridor in the politics and sociology faculties are quite free to operate as de facto campaigners for progressive causes?

(b) More than a decade since the death of Stephen J Gould, and with the Sociobiology Study Group a forgotten entity, what is your assessment generally of the state of truth-speaking in the biological sciences, in particular about human difference?  Would you say that the era of strict censorship has passed, and academic freedom now obtains?  Or has the focus merely moved from a rigid control on what can be studied to a more subtle but no less widespread control of how studies can be framed, how results can be presented, and so forth?

(c) What kind of reception have your conclusions had among your academic peers?  For example, has EGI, as a concept, been discussed by, or even incorporated in the thinking of, other political scientists with your ethological focus, or that of evolutionary biologists and psychologists, or even sociologists?

2. Politics and the public discourse

READ MORE...

                                                      James Watson

In service of their group classification and recognizing the threat to that by John Locke’s dismissing of social classification in priority of individual perception and rights, Jewish interests have made the objectivist concept didactic - taking it beyond Locke’s wish to undo unjust Aristocratic class discrimination as “non-empirical” - to where all social classification is deemed pernicious illusion - whether “racism, sexism, or homophobia” etc. While knowing all the time that they would never relinquish prerogative to classify themselves (and other non and anti-Whites) as a social group and consideration of their discrimination legitimate on its basis.

In a sick irony, now it is not only the existence of very real social classifications - Europeans and their distinct kinds - that are threatened by this hyperbolic distortion of Lockeatine philosophy - but one of our most important scientists ever: James Watson does not exist.

At least that is the case within the perverted Jewish narrative.

Majority Rights will have something to say about that.

And the managed correction of perception and less perceptible expanse of social classification, systemically, historically, is in hermeneutics - done by Europeans, for ourselves, of course it must be; not left to Jews to do anything but abuse the idea; or pernicious absurdities result: race and Watson will be relegated to virtual non-existence

Attention to this matter alerted by James B

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/11261872/James-Watson-selling-Nobel-prize-because-no-one-wants-to-admit-I-exist.html

By Keith Perry

6:15PM GMT 28 Nov 2014

James Watson, who won the Nobel Prize in 1962 as a co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, has become an un-person because he noticed that the average IQ score achieved by people of Sub-Saharan African descent is lower than the average IQ score achieved by other population groups by a statistically significant margin

.

READ MORE...

 

 

On the radio page now, the first of our planned conversations with the entertaining, authoritative and hugely passionate author and campaigner on global population, immigration, and quality of life, Frosty Wooldridge.  As an inveterate traveller who has observed humanity in all its diversity at first hand, and as a politically-aware white American, Frosty talks as much sense as you will hear from anyone who has made it on to the mainstream radio show circuit.

            Frosty weighs-in on Obama’s Executive Amnesty

READ MORE...

In the first of two interviews Frosty Wooldridge, the passionate and articulate campaigner against overpopulation and advocate for the environment, sustainability, and the European life speaks to Daniel and GW about his background, his travels, and his work. 1 hour 11 min. 64.9 MB.

             

Revealed here (below, press Continued) by this whining rant, Dutchsinse, and those like him, are beginning to get their own ‘just deserts’ for past weak-kneed acceptance of liberal k***j*w equalitarian multi-culturalism. Others fought it for decades, too often to be confronted by such a**holes as this, who now too late ‘see the light’.

                    - Bob in D.C.

READ MORE...

A couple of days ago I happened across a PDF of Murray’s 2003 opus, Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. To 1950.  Some may view it as an unwieldy attempt to produce an objective analysis from deeply subjective values and tastes.  But it is also a beautifully written account of the unsurpassed creativity of the European Mind, and an eloquent retort to those who bandy around notions of human equality above the neck.

The PDF is here.

https://www.gwern.net/docs/2003-murray-human-accomplishment.pdf