North Atlantic: You Have Spread Your Dreams Under Their Feet

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Friday, 10 July 2015 23:57.

intro image
Don’t worry, I’m the kind of foreigner that you’ll like. Hopefully.

Majorityrights began with and has long been committed to freedom of speech, no matter how controversial the opinion, as I can clearly see from the archives. It has been published as an internet magazine with considerable bravery given the political environment and the risks that come from being misunderstood, and has had a pretty diverse set of contributors and viewers. On 14 October 2014, it marked its tenth year in operation, and I hope that its eleventh year coming in just a few months will be as illuminating as ever. As a newcomer, and as an East Asian woman, I feel privileged to be invited to submit articles from my perspective and experience.

Here, on what could be described as freedom of speech’s front porch in its tenth year, we have a good place to talk frankly and honestly as neighbours and allies with common interests. What I’m about to provide is what I see as a necessary polemic against some positions that exist in Majorityrights’ archives and an invitation to conversation as such.

It is said in warfare about the ‘turning manoeuvre’, that when you move into an opponent’s rear in order to cut them off from their support base, you are taking the risk of getting yourself cut off from your own.

A similar manoeuvre has been attempted by many ethno-nationalists in Europe since 2001 on a political level with regards to the War on Terror, through their decision to advance negative attitudes toward it and their decision to develop talking points that reinforce those attitudes. They are refusing to endorse the War on Terror under the belief that this non-endorsement is somehow a ‘good’ angle to protest the political establishment from. It is not good. Those ethno-nationalists are getting themselves cut off because what they are doing actually undermines their own ability to address a severe demographic threat and also undermines their ability to address a persistent international security threat. It’s an unfortunate situation, because it is crucial for people to be able to square the thoughts that are going on their heads with the reality on the ground: The reality of the necessity of overseas contingency operations.

To understand how things reached the stage that they have reached, first a person has to remember how things started out. The world was stunned to see the events that were taking place on television on 11 September 2001. Nineteen Arab men had hijacked airliners, and rather than putting the planes down at an airport and demanding a ransom, they chose to put the planes down by sending them into buildings in New York City.

People seem to have struggled to understand how this could happen.

Over time, a self-hating narrative built up in which the citizens of the North Atlantic were largely blaming their own governments for having allegedly ‘fanned the flames of conflict in the Middle East’ by allegedly ‘supporting radical Islamists’, while simultaneously also allegedly ‘fanning the flames of conflict in the Middle East’ by allegedly ‘opposing Islamists and offending Muslims’. Both of these narratives cannot make sense at the same time, and I would argue that neither of those narratives are true. Furthermore, the apparent implication in both of those narratives is that the North Atlantic should refrain from pursuing its interests in the zone to the south.

That is an idea that should be rejected on the basis that it leads only to paralysis in the political sphere, and a loss of initiative in the military sphere. Groups which argue that the North Atlantic should adopt a passive stance and not assert its interests, and those who place blame onto the wrong people, may mean well, but they do not realise that the narratives they are creating can lead to serious crises which may not have actually been intended by those dissenting groups.

The systems approach

From the perspective of systems thinking, the Atlantic power structure is made up of components including but not necessarily limited to:

  • its leadership and the messages communicated by the ideological state apparatus,
  • the resources required by that society,
  • the infrastructure and economy and the system of industrial relations which is continually reproducing itself,
  • the population’s policy preferences, the demography of that population, how those preferences manifest at the ballot box, and how politicians react to these preferences when trying to secure their own political careers,
  • the military leadership, the capabilities of the military, and the rules of engagement imposed upon it.

If a crisis of legitimacy on a domestic level were to exist for an extended period of a particular sort that would compromise the ability of the North Atlantic to access the resources and trade routes that it needs, then all parties - regardless of ideology or political affiliation - within the North Atlantic and among its allies would emerge as losers from that crisis, because it would become impossible to make military decisions and act on them within a reasonable time scale. This would have tangible economic effects that adversely affect the future.

While that paralysis would continue, the enemy would be able to get on the inside track of the decision-making process, as it would be able to act and react faster than the North Atlantic, which would constitute an advantage being given to the enemy.

No one wants that.

Overseas contingency operations

The War on Terror has a legitimacy, and in fact an inevitability to it as well. It was not a question of whether it would happen, but rather of how it would happen. As it would turn out - to use game theory terminology - it was the Islamists who defected first. Going back to the early 1990s, there was an imperative in the United States and United Kingdom to develop the energy supplies that would give the world market a greater diversity of supply and reduce the level of dependence on the Middle East. This would afford the market a buffer against oil shocks that tended historically to be trigged by political problems in that region.

Part of the solution to this, was a collection of plans to move oil across pipelines in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, through Afghanistan, into Pakistan, with the exit being at the port of Gwadar. These plans were proposed by Unocal Corporation, and supported by Delta Oil, Crescent Group and Gazprom. The problem they were having was that Afghanistan was in turmoil because of a civil war that was being waged in the country. Pakistan had previously been supporting the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan during the Cold War, and after the end of the Cold War they had been persuaded that they should actually go as far as to support the Taliban, as a type of ‘pipeline police’.

The Taliban were to be tolerated as ‘pipeline police’ because there was the view that the Northern Alliance was supported by India and Iran, and that if they built the pipeline with the Northern Alliance still in Kabul, they’d obstruct the construction process or destroy that section of the pipeline. For this reason, the consortium of oil companies along with the North Atlantic and Pakistan, more or less publicly supported Mullah Omar and the Taliban, against Ahmad Shah Masood who led the Northern Alliance.

Within the Islamic world, this had consequences that the Taliban reacted to in a way that was entirely treacherous and not without precedent. After the Taliban was enjoying more or less cordial relations with the developed world in 1996 after they had seized Kabul, Mullah Omar found himself exposed to something that all politicians are exposed to, namely journalism and public opinion. Pakistani journalist Hamid Mir visited and asked him questions about what was happening. When Mir met Mullah Omar in Kandahar, it is said that Omar asked Mir “why is it that you are writing against me?” And Mir responded that he did so because Omar “was supporting the Americans”.

Mullah Omar then responded, “If I fix your meeting with a big enemy of America, then will you write that I am not an American agent?”

Hamid Mir asked who that enemy was.

“Osama bin Laden.” was Mullah Omar’s response.

Yes, that is seriously what he said, and what he did. No one really should be surprised by this reality. The fact that the Taliban would be playing host to the leader of the ring who developed the plans for the 11 September 2001 attacks, even as the North Atlantic was not doing him any harm should not be surprising.

Islamists have agency and can take actions with or without your permission. They seek their own interests, and so the argument that somehow Islamists would absolutely behave themselves and that they wouldn’t strive to hurt you if you are only nice to them, doesn’t hold any water. It holds no water because the central case around which this argument is built, is one in which Islamists who had self-indoctrinated themselves with the ideas of Sayyid Qutb, and radical students of certain Madrassas set up by the Deobandis, were able to come together and facilitate attacks against New York City without having actually been ‘provoked’.

Many people like to say that the invasion of Iraq in 1991 was ‘provocative’ because it ‘killed Muslims’, and some readers may be thinking that right now. But again there is a logical problem, the problematic fact that the Ba’athist government of Saddam Hussein Al-Tikriti was a government which was absolutely hated by Al-Qaeda. Osama bin Laden had actually volunteered his services to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 1991 in that war, because he wanted to fight against the government of Iraq as well. He was disappointed to find that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia turned down his offer.

So will those who propagate the popular guilt narrative have to argue that the North Atlantic somehow ‘earned’ the hatred of Al-Qaeda and other Islamist groups because the North Atlantic managed to attack something that Al-Qaeda hated, before Al-Qaeda themselves could attack it? Will they argue that somehow the North Atlantic ‘earned’ the hatred of Al-Qaeda and other Islamist groups because the North Atlantic gave them foreign direct investment and support as the guardians-to-be of a pipeline that was intended to traverse Central Asia and South Asia up to the point of exit at the Pakistani seaport of Gwadar in the Indian Ocean?

No person among those Islamists would be capable of finding those things to be an ‘attack’ against themselves. So we have to look toward other reasons for why these people do the things that they do. And I think that all the readers know what those reasons are. It’s Islamic terrorism. It’s in the name.

An epochal crisis

Islamists feel that their economic and social relevance is being sidelined by the dominance of international finance capital and the national bourgeoisie of countries in the developing world who have been activated by the unbinding of the circle of North Atlantic finance that took place after the 1970s. After the 1970s, capital flowed out of the North Atlantic area and into the developing zones in the periphery.

As a result of that movement of capital, social transformations took place, which Islamist reactionaries of different sorts interpreted as being a threat to their own dominance over the civic spaces - some of these being countries, some of them being zones within countries - in the Middle East and Central Asia.

However, this chaotic process, out of which a new order will emerge, is entirely necessary and is justified by the role that the actors in the North Atlantic are playing. I use the word ‘justified’ not in the petty-moralist sense of the term, but rather, in the scientific and economic sense of the term. The international financial system exhibits its justification for existing - its historical role - through the fact that it takes its surplus wealth and uses it to wend its way through every corner of the earth looking for new ways to engender the development of productive forces. This is a role that it will continue to be justified in taking on, until such time as it exhausts its progressive potential and is necessarily sublated and superseded by new social and economic systems, ones which would be established on socialist or syndicalist foundations. There is considerable evidence since 2008 that the system of international investment is already approaching its structural limits, and that various actors are attempting to explore those limits. And that after the development and interconnectivity of South East Asia is completed, ‘zero-profit capitalism’ could next emerge.

Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera once wrote:

Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera, 06 Jun 1934 wrote:
“No revolutionary event is or ever has been justified with respect to the preceding juridical order. Every political system that exists in the world, without exception, has been born in open strife with the political order that was in force at the time of its advent; for one of the things not included among the faculties of political orders is the faculty of making a will.”

And:

Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera, 25 Jan 1935 wrote:
“Rebellions are always the product of at least two ingredients: the first ingredient, all pervading, is an internal explanation, a want of interior raison d’étre in the existing regime. This must be present for a rebellion to be raised with any likelihood of success; merely in order that a number of people shall rise in an attempt at rebellion, there must be a certain discontentment, a lack of any vital reason for existence on the part of the regime against which the rebellion is raised. As to this there is no doubt; rebellion have never been raised except against regimes beginning to totter. On the other hand, it is necessary that there shall exist a historical energy which seizes upon this state of discouragement, this want of internal raison d’étre in the political state it seeks to assail, to launch the attack with more or less good fortune.”

Ethno-nationalists of course would be waiting for such an opportunity to come.

Islamists on the other hand, being the ridiculous reactionaries that they are, are neither in favour of the present system, nor are they in favour of any system based on modernist idea that might emerge after it. Islamists are retrogressive clericial-reactionaries who want to go back to the social order that existed in the 8th century CE, and who are willing to do virtually anything to make that happen.

No one wants to go back to the 8th century, except Islamists.

Mass immigration as a component of the crisis

This leads to the question which I’m sure you all saw coming from the beginning of this article. Knowing what is known, who in their right mind within the countries of the North Atlantic would then issue a mass-invite to the very population groups which are statistically more likely to contain Islamist reactionaries, while simultaneously being engaged in wars against those same reactionaries abroad in order to secure resources and trade routes?

Perhaps the same people who then would have the incredible gall to turn around and claim that mass migration of Muslims into the European Union is apparently ‘okay’, but that the tensions that occur on European soil and the acts of terror which are perpetrated, such as the 7/7 bombings and the 21/7 bombing attempt - the remembrance day of the former having passed just days ago - are somehow ‘not good reasons’ to stop importing Muslims, but are somehow instead a ‘reason’ to abandon the North Atlantic’s foreign policy preferences and abandon all its hard-won strategic outposts in the south?

No, there is no way that that kind of ‘argument’ could ever be credible. Ethno-nationalists should not accept that kind of defeatist viewpoint. I find it disconcerting that there are articles from the past which were posted on Majorityrights by Lasha Darkmoon and by J. Richards, in which they seem to play into exactly that kind of defeatism.

It remains a fact that the crisis of mass migration is threatening to transform Europe and undermine social cohesion, and the chief negative effect of this - aside from the domestic upheavals that have been well covered and well expounded upon by many already - is to impede the ability of the peoples of the North Atlantic to form a common security agenda for themselves.

There really is nothing more effective at transmuting a security agenda into concrete actions than the old-world idea of the nation-state, in contrasdiction to the new-world idea of the proposition nation. But that at the same time, those nation-states no longer have the scope to affect the world by themselves, which is why ethno-regionalism becomes extremely important.

To address Europe specifically, in order for ‘Europe’ to truly exist in the world, it has to be able to define itself for what it is, it has to be able to truly define ‘European-ness’ and define the borders of what ‘Europe’ is. It has to be able to work together on something and be able to say “we worked together to fight against this enemy, and this is the good result”, and it can only do that on the basis of a shared identity. Yes, much like the formation of traditional nation-states, a regional ‘European’ identity can only be forged in the crucible of shared interests, shared ideals, and of course, shared enemies.

Standing on the ground of reality

The unfortunate European tendency has very often since 1945 been to seek a transcendent and universal morality, a tendency to try to escape from action so as to escape from guilt for the outcomes of those actions. In order to control its own destiny as a continent, and for it to be a good trade partner for Asian countries, Europeans need to stop indulging in mawkish sentimentality and guilt narratives, and instead accept responsibility for themselves, no longer clinging to vague, ethereal and frankly unreal and incoherent ideas of ‘human rights’ and ‘tolerance’. It’s time for Europeans to look at the world in the context of straight power concepts.

Don’t be discouraged by how apparently unpopular straight power concepts - also known as reality - are today. Reality always catches up to people in the end, and no one should allow that moment to go to waste when it comes.

trade deals
The interests of Asia and those of the North Atlantic, fit together and complement each other.

You know what works: Nation-states are a great repository of political experience and a great framework in which to coordinate actions, and regional organisations are good for pooling competencies and for leveraging the advantages of a single market.

And you know what’s right: Europe, whole and free, and Europe as a fantastic trade partner for North America and for Asia.

There are many domestic issues that I’m sure Majorityrights readers are eager to see changed. But when it comes to geostrategy, the geostrategic imperatives that presently exist would still be the same, there would be total continuity in that respect.

Ethno-nationalists should not be tempted to abandon their principles and their knowledge of what works and what’s right, especially not in a historical period where they will need those principles the most.

You should say to the Islamist enemy with a note of danger in your voice, “Tread softly, for you are treading on our dreams.”

Kumiko Oumae works in the defence and security sector in the UK. Her opinions here are entirely her own.


Comments:


1

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 12 Jul 2015 06:38 | #

This article is pivotal not only in presenting a sober and informed view on Islam, but in polemic against some of the more dubious, wildly conspiratorial and vulgar articles and comments in MR’s archives.

MR has a need to overcome that and it will.

As the free speech forum that Majority Rights began as, it was bound to entertain essays and comments that in the end would justifiably be considered stigmatic.

As a coherent platform has emerged  from the crucible of its decade of unmitigated free speech, it is our challenge now to not let trolls, whether from that era or newly arrived, succeed in associating Majority Rights with justifiable stigma. 

But by justifiable stigma, I do Not mean our policy to not include Jews as a part of our interest group.

We do not have an agenda to kill Jews or exploit them. Rather, we are on safe ground as separatists. As such we are not committed to an irreversable agenda should it turn out that we overrate their power and influence (which I do not believe that we do - while we are not monocausalists, I am satisfied that they have disproportionate influence in the seven niches: finance, academia, media, politics, law, international business/strategy and religion), or whether we underestimate their power and influence - our autonomy, including very clearly from them, remains fundamental.

And because we make this distinction, we maintain an ongoing vigil as to who is Jewish and who is European so that we might catch those who are infiltratrating and subverting our interests by means of crypsis. It is also important to maintain that distinction and vigil because there is a genetic component to Jewishness which can resurface in subequent generations.

On the other hand, because we have not committed ourselves to an irreversable agenda, we do not run the risk of irreversably punishing as a Jew, someone who does not deserve to be punished as such.

But it is also crucial that we maintain a vigil on this distinction as a part of our ongoing hermeneutic systemic maintenance, advance and protection, so that the Nazi and Hitler worshippers cannot say, “see! we are the only ones who take the J.Q. seriously and know how to deal with it!”

We can’t let them have that card for various obvious reasons. Foremost, that Hitler idolatry will divide vast swathes of White people against eachother where we should be cooperating in our mutual defense.

Those positions in our archives which were beholden to Hitler and the third reich as if they were perfect are a part of what needs to be overcome.

Wild conspiracy theories are also a bad association.

I have always despised propensity to consipiracy theory, particularly where facts, cause and effect are in plain sight and imperative to address without dubious and speculative admixture.

in fact, it was because of my distaste for conspiracy theory that the whole 9-11 issue was repugnant to me.

Nevertheless, I disagree with Kumiko’s essay in its slight over-emphasis on the fact that Islam does not necessarily need provocation. I am sure it does not but it was provoked to an extent to enact 9-11. It is so clear indeed that The Unites States’ close ties with Israel was a part of the provocation of 9-11 that conspiracy theories after that are relatively superfluous.

Hence, I tended to treat the conspiracy theories as such - more a nuisance than anything, until I heard Susan Lindauer. Her intelligence and credibility as an insider caused me to listen a little more carefully, particularly regarding Israeli foreknowledge.

But even she agreed when she spoke with us that you don’t need “9-11” to know that one of the chief reasons, probably the chief reason, that Islam vilified The U.S. to that end was because of its ties with Israel.

Osama Bin Laden did refer to The U.S. as “Zionists.”

Nor did there even have to be foreknowledge for Israel to seize the opportunity to compel The U.S. military to fight its enemies for them.

One needs no conspiracy theory to make sense of Wolfowitz citing it as his inspiration for putting across his war policies to W. Bush, or for Benjamin Netanyahu saying that 9-11 was “good for Israel.”

Hence, I never bothered much with the conspiracy theories surrounding 9-11.

Therefore, when presented an opportunity to run a Lahsa Darkmoon article, I was largely unfamiliar with the lay of the 9-11 conspiracy landscape and posted it in appreciation of her reputation as an author respected and published at such reputatble places as The Occidental Observer and Counter-Currents.

More, it was an opportunity for another perspective at MR, one that was clearly Not my perspective.

I posted it, as I do all articles, with the confidence that if there are errors that that is what the comments are for.

Indeed, we got better than a comment, but a highly informed response from Kumiko.

With that, I would like to ask Kumiko if she might detail what “24 minutes” and “the BBC merely jumping quickly on a scoop” does to deflate some of the more wild conspiracy theories.. also if she would address the collapse of building 7.

Apart from that…

I have reservations regarding the positive view of the military, its use and its “complex” (pun intended), but I am interested in her differing perspective on how it and its apparatus might potentially be aligned with the true interests of European peoples.


2

Posted by Remove Putin/dissolve Russian Federation on Sun, 12 Jul 2015 08:06 | #

An argument for the removal of Putin and dissolution of The Russian Federation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCyUZjGV3Zg


3

Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 14 Jul 2015 18:49 | #

A well written article and a great new design for MR. Congratulations on both.


4

Posted by Mick Lately on Wed, 15 Jul 2015 10:51 | #

We all need dreams, especially snub-nosed, blond girls on the crest of crypsis :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11741109/Auschwitz-Oskar-Groning-is-going-to-jail-I-still-want-to-kill-Hitler.html

 

 


5

Posted by Eikos on Thu, 16 Jul 2015 01:09 | #

@Mick Lately Daily Stormer offensive incoming.


6

Posted by Mick Lately on Thu, 16 Jul 2015 04:23 | #

Cultural Marxism, Jewish subversion, insanity:

http://www.thejournal.ie/trans-rights-ireland-gender-recognition-self-declaration-2141181-Jun2015/

Another battle won in the war against nature and reality .


7

Posted by Mick Lately on Thu, 16 Jul 2015 06:34 | #

Laugh-out-loud silly-beyond-satire article on Go Set a Watchman in The Atlantic:

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/07/his-name-was-atticus/398600/


8

Posted by U.S. increasing military aid to Israel on Thu, 16 Jul 2015 18:37 | #

US ‘to boost’ military aid to Israel after Iran nuclear deal

http://www.rt.com/usa/310049-us-military-aid-israel/

The US has offered to increase military aid to Israel by another $1.5 billion per year to ease tensions over the nuclear deal with Iran, media has reported. Defense Secretary Ash Carter is expected to make the offer during next week’s visit to Tel Aviv.

The proposed increase would see Israel getting an additional squadron of F-35 fighter jets, funding for research and development of missile defense systems, and ammunition to replenish the stocks used in last year’s bombing of Gaza, Israeli sources told Jerusalem Post.

Under the current arrangement, Israel is receiving $3 billion a year, most of which is used to purchase US military hardware such as fighter jets and missile defense systems. Israeli and US officials have been discussing increasing the amount of aid to anywhere between $4.2 and $4.5 billion per year, sources familiar with the talks told the New York Times.


9

Posted by 200 years together on Fri, 17 Jul 2015 00:15 | #

As all of the world’s population, Europeans have been guilty of horrific acts and wars. But if we are going to recognize historical blame for our people, let us also recognize where we were not to blame.

When addressing issues such as this, the White left perspective is as useful as ever. We look first at two most likely sources of destruction - Jewish power and influence (we look there because they are the best organized and most obviously antagonistic ethnocentrism) and our own elite objectivist traitors.

We are also facilitated in recognizing patterns in the rank and file of Jews and Europeans; but since there is a means of accountabily afforded in the particularity of hermenetuic classification of the pattern, we are better able to tease out pejorative elements from the benign patterns.

I don’t absolve Russian elite, objectivist traitors, any more than I (or most WN nowadays) absolve elite American traitors.

And the masses who go along with Jewish power and influence or who are hoodwinked by objectivist treachery are as repugnant in Russia as they are in America.

Still, while we recognize the traitors among us as a crucial issue, I take note of these posts on “200 Years Together” from these other sites as it is exceedingly important to tease apart Jewish from European influence when tracing cultural patterns and culpability. Non-Whites, in particular, will tend to see Jews as “White” or acting in White interests and act with hostility toward us as a result. Even our own peoples have been susceptible to blaming other Europeans where Jewish instigation may have been at the root of conflict.

Take note in an effort to minimize Jewish and objectivist instigation of inter-European war

Both Counter Currents and Morgoth’s are discussing Solzhenitsyn’s 200 Years Togehter:

Some excerpts couresy Morgoth’s

. . several of the members hide behind pseudonyms and for two months refused to appear in public: no one knew exactly who was governing Russia. Later it came out that there were ten stupid soldiers in the EC for show, kept at arm’s length. Among the rest—the thirty active members—more than half were Jewish socialists. There were Russians, Caucasians, Latvians, and Poles, but the Russians amounted to less than a quarter of the whole.

“It must be stated clearly that the October Putsch was not led by the Jews (except for the glorious Trotsky and the young and dynamic Grigori Chudnovsky)” (p. 80).

“immediately after October, it was the Jews who saved the revolution by breaking the resistance of the civil servants” (p. 105).

There are many Jewish authors who to this very day either deny the support of Jews for Bolshevism, or even reject it angrily, or else—the most common case—only speak defensively about it. The matter is well-attested, however: these Jewish renegades were for several years leaders at the center of the Bolshevik Party, at the head of the Red Army (Trotsky), of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee (Sverdlov), of the two capitals (Zinoviev and Kamenev), of the Comintern (Zinoviev), of the Profintern (Dridzo-Lozovsky), and of the Komsomol (Oskar Ryvkin, then Lazar Shatskin). (p. 91)

Marxists are officially “internationalists,” of course, and Trotsky was especially emphatic in rejecting his ethnic heritage. But does it necessarily follow that he was not influenced by it? “To judge by the appointments he made,” Solzhenitsyn observes, “Jewish renegades were closer to him than Russian renegades” (p. 92)

The author goes on to discuss the roles of the Jews Uritsky, Drabkin, and Sverdlov in dispersing the Constituent Assembly, concluding with one of his strongest formulations: “by these sorts of operations the new Jewish form of government was sketched out” (p. 93)

[The writer Vladimir] Korolenko himself, liberal and hypertolerant as he was, entered into his Journal in the Spring of 1919: “Among the Bolsheviks there are a great number of Jewish men and women. Their tactlessness, their self-assurance are striking and irritating. . . . In their ranks, and above all in the Cheka [the secret police], you constantly see Jewish physiognomies, and this exacerbates the still virulent traditional feelings of Judeophobia [among the population].” (p. 99)

“the section charged with combating black marketers—the least dangerous and most lucrative—was in the hands of Jews” (p. 94)

“the proportion of Jews in the position of Political Adjuncts was especially high at all levels of the Red Army” (p. 136).

Of special interest to students of Communism is the Cheka, the secret political police who carried out the Red Terror and eventually built the Gulag. In their early phase, national minorities composed almost 50 percent of the central apparatus of the Cheka, and nearly 70 percent of the responsible posts. An inventory on 25 September 1918 reveals, besides a great number of Latvians and a not insignificant number of Poles, a good showing by Jews. And of the judges assigned to the struggle against counter-revolution—by far the most important section in the structure of the Cheka—half were Jews (pp. 142–43).

The Ukrainian Cheka, in what used to be the Pale of Settlement, was composed about 80 percent of Jews (p. 150). In Kiev, which was 21 percent Jewish in 1919 (p. 156), key positions in the Cheka were “almost exclusively” in Jewish hands. Of the twenty members of the commission which decided people’s fate, fourteen were Jews (p. 148).

I have noticed that Jews more often than others insist that no attention must be paid to nationality. “What does it matter, one’s nationality?” they repeat; “national ‘traits,’ national ‘character’—do these even exist?”
But, with my hand on my heart: it is precisely Jews who scrutinize and strain to discern national peculiarities more jealously, more attentively, more secretly than others: those of their own nation. (p. 502)


10

Posted by Allah inspires Chatanooga shooter on Fri, 17 Jul 2015 08:42 | #

Chattanooga shooter: Prophet’s friends ‘fought Jihad for the sake of Allah’

A man who killed four Marines Thursday in shootings at a pair of military facilities in Chattanooga, started a blog about Islam just days ago that made references to jihad and life’s transience.

MORE FROM WASHINGTONPOST.COM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/07/17/chattanooga-shooter-blogged-about-jihad/?wpisrc=nl_mix&wpmm=1


11

Posted by AIPAC cancels vacations to quash Iran deal on Fri, 17 Jul 2015 12:17 | #

Regarding the Iran deal which could ease oil prices, provide options against oil bullies and ease international tensions, AIPAC has this to say:

(JTA) — Cancel your summer vacations.

That was the order AIPAC’s executive director, Howard Kohr, gave his employees in a staff meeting convened this week at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee after the United States announced the Iran nuclear deal.

With the influential pro-Israel lobby group pushing for Congress to reject the deal negotiated by the Obama administration, it’s all hands on deck. Lay leaders, too, are canceling their summer plans, and AIPAC activists already are calling lawmakers and hitting synagogue listservs with appeals to can the plan.

The two months that Congress has to review the deal will feature a pitched battle pitting the Obama administration and backers of the agreement against opponents and the Israeli government.

“We’ve regularly engaged with the Jewish community in the context of these negotiations,” a senior White House official told JTA on Thursday. “And now that we have a deal, we feel it’s important to continue and even accelerate this engagement.”

Bring it on, deal opponents are saying.

“We are undertaking a major and significant effort to urge Congress to oppose the deal and insist on a better agreement,” an AIPAC source told JTA.

Since the deal was finalized Tuesday, White House officials have blitzed the Jewish community with phone calls and pro-deal talking points. On Thursday, Jewish lawmakers were asked to come to the White House for a briefing.

J Street, the liberal Jewish Middle East lobby, which has largely backed President Barack Obama in all his Middle East strategies, raised $2 million to stump for the deal even before it was announced and already has unveiled a TV ad.

The group’s president, Jeremy Ben Ami, who routinely bristles when J Street is likened to AIPAC, insisting that they play different fields, on Wednesday embraced a fight with the older and larger lobby. Asked on MSNBC whether he was going “toe to toe” with AIPAC, he said, “Essentially we are.”

For his part, AIPAC’s Kohr distributed a phone script on Thursday morning to AIPAC’s tens of thousands of activists directed at members of Congress.

“I am calling to urge the senator/representative to oppose the Iran nuclear deal because it will not block Iran from getting a nuclear weapon,” the script says.

The Israeli government is sending officials to Washington to campaign against the plan, starting next week with the opposition leader, Zionist Union chief Isaac Herzog – a bid to show the wide breadth of Israeli opposition to the plan.

Additionally, according to multiple sources, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made clear to his U.S. counterparts that he will reject all U.S. overtures to discuss additional U.S. defense assistance to offset any expansion of regional Iranian influence until he is certain all avenues to killing the deal are unavailable.

Caught in the middle are the 28 Jewish lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate. Jewish lawmakers usually are AIPAC’s first avenue of access when they take on a major initiative. Yet the lawmakers, all but one of whom caucus with Democrats, also have been under pressure by the administration to back the deal.

Under a law passed earlier this year, Congress must review the deal achieved Tuesday in Vienna between the major powers and Iran, and may disapprove it. If a resolution of disapproval succeeds, Obama has said he will veto it, in which case congressional leaders may submit the deal to an override vote. That would require two-thirds of each chamber to vote no on the deal – a long shot.

On Thursday morning, Ben Rhodes, a deputy U.S. national security adviser, convened a meeting at the White House of Jewish lawmakers in the House of Representatives. About 15 of the 18 attended, and some were uncharacteristically silent about how it went.

“Congressman Israel has said it was a very informative meeting,” was all Caitlin Girouard, spokeswoman for Rep. Steve Israel of New York, would say after the meeting. Israel signs his statements the “highest ranking Jewish Democrat” in the House.

Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., a hard-liner on Iran who attended the meeting and has yet to decide how he will vote on the deal, said his impression is that the White House is successfully accruing support from Democrats in general and from Jewish Democrats in particular. Without substantial support from Democrats for killing the deal, there is no chance a veto override will happen.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, said this week that she was unequivocally in favor of the deal.

Pro-Israel insiders point to what they describe as White House love bombs to Israel: In addition to leaking to Jewish community leaders the Obama administration’s spurned offer to increase defense assistance to Israel, they note statements like that of Wendy Sherman, the undersecretary of state, who on Thursday in a phone call with Israeli reporters praised Netanyahu for helping to make the deal tougher on Iran by assuming a bad cop role.

AIPAC is planning on meeting with lawmakers at their district offices during the summer break and bringing in activists to Washington, D.C., when Congress reconvenes in September. Congress has until mid-September to decide whether it will vote the deal down.

Read more: http://forward.com/news/breaking-news/312181/aipac-cancels-staff-vacations-in-push-to-kill-iran-deal/#ixzz3gCphHLaM

 


12

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sat, 18 Jul 2015 03:47 | #

DanielS on July 12, 2015 wrote:
But it is also crucial that we maintain a vigil on this distinction as a part of our ongoing hermeneutic systemic maintenance, advance and protection, so that the Nazi and Hitler worshippers cannot say, “see! we are the only ones who take the J.Q. seriously and know how to deal with it!”

We can’t let them have that card for various obvious reasons.

It is certainly the case that there is an organised coalition of groups and individuals who lobby and act as pressure groups on behalf of Jewish ethno-religious interests. These interests by their very nature typically clash with the interests of European groups. I agree of course, that it is a matter of common sense that you should disambiguate their interests from yours and ensure that you are not being led into adopting policy preferences which do not cater to the needs and demands of the circumstances that you find yourself in.

This should be very obvious to everyone now, particularly after the Iran deal now that Benjamin Netanyahu has threatened to ‘kill himself’ if you don’t do what he wants you to do.

DanielS on July 12, 2015 wrote:
I have always despised propensity to consipiracy theory, particularly where facts, cause and effect are in plain sight and imperative to address without dubious and speculative admixture.

Same here, I don’t like how it becomes almost a kind of rabbit hole which people go down and then they never get back out of it again, and it becomes not only factual errors, but also compounded by the persistent distraction it causes and the bad conclusions that it causes people to come to.

DanielS on July 12, 2015 wrote:
With that, I would like to ask Kumiko if she might detail what “24 minutes” and “the BBC merely jumping quickly on a scoop” does to deflate some of the more wild conspiracy theories.. also if she would address the collapse of building 7.

I assume that you’re referring to the 24 minute delay between the BBC announcing the collapse of WTC7, and that collapse actually occurring.

The reason for that, is because WTC7 was damaged by falling wreckage from WTC1. The wreckage struck the building on the western side of its south face and this ignited fires on floors 7 to 9 and 11 to 13. Normally, this would cause the sprikler system to switch on, but this failed because the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 had already severed the water lines which connected to that area of Lower Manhattan. This meant that the fires continued to rage out of control inside WTC7.

After 7 hours of these uncontrolled fires, a steel girder on the 13th floor failed and floor 13 collapsed, causing a series of collapses down to floor 5. Column 79, which now was no longer supported by a girder, buckled, which caused in turn a cascading succession of structural failures moving east to west. All 23 columns, as well as the exterior columns then failed, and this is known as a ‘progressive collapse’.

The BBC reported the collapse before it occurred, because someone had told Jane Standley that the building was collapsing, 24 minutes beforehand. It is conceivable that the BBC misreported the time of the event because on the ground it would have been widely anticipated that the building was about to collapse, and someone simply called it too early.

DanielS on July 12, 2015 wrote:
Nevertheless, I disagree with Kumiko’s essay in its slight over-emphasis on the fact that Islam does not necessarily need provocation. I am sure it does not but it was provoked to an extent to enact 9-11. It is so clear indeed that The Unites States’ close ties with Israel was a part of the provocation of 9-11 [...] Osama Bin Laden did refer to The U.S. as “Zionists.”

This is one of those elements where there is an overlapping rationalisation that Islamists use, because they recognise that Israel functions as a kind of American satrap in the Levant, and because of this they will always try to name it as part of any ransom note that they write as a matter of course. However, if Israel did not exist then in its place there would be Trans-Jordan instead. So in that event they would simply target the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, by labelling it as a partner of the United Kingdom and United States which it has been even before it was a state, because of the politics of the Arab revolt.

Al-Qaeda and now ISIL all believe that the presently existing borders in the Middle East, not only the existence of Israel’s borders, are all ‘illegitimate’ and ‘designed by imperialists’, and so they would target them regardless. Even now, Jordan as it presently exists was threatened by Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi during the opening stages of the War on Terror, and today is still threatened by the rise of ISIL.

This is not to say that Israel is irrelevant, since clearly it is very relevant as it occupies the crossroads of the Levant, but it is not really the only reason. They would want you to be gone no matter which satrap you happened to be aligned to in that zone. However, the Jews were aware of the geopolitics of the area and were able to seek their goal of establishing their state there, by acting as a disruptive element against the Ottoman Empire, at the same time as the Arab revolt was being utilised by the British Empire for the same disruptive reason. It would only be around the time of the events of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, that the British Empire would then find itself facing a nascent Israel as a clearly identifiable opponent.


13

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sat, 18 Jul 2015 04:22 | #

Comment #8 on July 16, 2015 wrote:
US ‘to boost’ military aid to Israel after Iran nuclear deal

This was a small concession that Netanyahu managed to claw back after he threatened to ‘kill himself’. See here:

Al-Monitor, ‘Netanyahu threatens to ‘kill himself’ in order to stop Iran deal’, July 15, 2015:
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will have to make a very difficult decision over the next few days: whether to continue fighting the nuclear agreement with Iran with all his strength and, according to his spokespeople, “kill himself” over the vote in the US Congress or accept defeat and try to leverage something for the benefit of the security of the State of Israel.

Netanyahu’s record over recent years does not augur well for those who feel that Israel should do an about-face. There are those Israelis who feel that Netanyahu should cut his losses and take advantage of the situation to wrest a defense compensation package and a strategic cooperation/coordination deal from the United States. Netanyahu has repeatedly refused to succumb to tempting offers sent out by the US administration and refused to engage in serious negotiations on the issue. Netanyahu, a compulsive gambler, is now verging on being suicidal. The problem is that he is doing this in the name of an entire country.

[...]


This may mean that Netanyahu is in fact ‘cutting his losses’, since he hasn’t killed himself yet, and he has taken the defence compensation package.


14

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sat, 18 Jul 2015 23:32 | #

DanielS on July 17, 2015 wrote:
Non-Whites, in particular, will tend to see Jews as “White” or acting in White interests and act with hostility toward us as a result. Even our own peoples have been susceptible to blaming other Europeans where Jewish instigation may have been at the root of conflict.

Well, I didn’t want to talk about the Russia problem yet, there may need to be a whole different article for me to really give my in depth views on that. But I’ll give a non-comprehensive and very general response here anyway.

Basically, the Russians threaten both NATO and the Asian states, it’s just that that the existence of Jewish lobbyist groups adds an extra layer of complication to the matter. What I’m increasingly seeing coming out of Russia these days, is a mixed message of them brandishing their weapons in all of our faces on one hand, and then on the other hand creating a bucket called ‘white people’, placing themselves inside that bucket and saying that they they are just like everyone else in Europe, and then when they are told that there is evidently a conflict of interests, they point toward the Jews and say that it’s all the fault of the Jews and that we shouldn’t blame ‘white people’ for what they say Jews ‘have done’. The Jews which they chose to work with the whole time, because Russians and Jews are friends.

I don’t think that my assessment of that situation can be considered ‘anti-white’. For example, when I support America and Britain against Russia in the Great Game which is presently playing out, that cannot reasonably be interpreted as me ‘hating white people’. That’s more like I’m preferring one armed group of white people (North Atlantic) over another armed group of white people (Russia).

With all due respect to the writers at Countercurrents and Morgoth’s, and of course without intending any disrespect to Mr Solzhenitsyn either, I have not yet seen any of them explain why people shouldn’t be able to pick and choose like that.

After all, it is not in the material or ethnic genetic interest of the North Atlantic, nor is it in the interest of East Asia, for Russia to be able to get back into the post-Soviet space. It would make no sense for me to ever support them.

Also, keep in mind also that many of the Jewish people who presently live in Israel, lived in Russia before they lived in Israel, and many of them are still in Russia right now.

Vladimir Putin is unabashed about acknowledging that monstrous reality:

EAJC, Russian Prime Minister Putin: Israel Is, in Fact, a Special State to Us, July 20, 2011:
Vladimir Putin exchanged his views with the Euro-Asian Jewish Congress Secretary General Professor Michael Chlenov, who represented the Federal Jewish National Cultural Autonomy, at a meeting with representatives of major Russian faiths, ethnic, cultural and public organizations, which took place in Moscow, hosted by the All-Russia Popular Front.

[...]

Putin said: “Israel is, in fact, a special state to us. It is practically a Russian-speaking country. Israel is one of the few foreign countries that can be called Russian-speaking. It’s obvious that more than half of the population speaks Russian.”

I view all of that as illegitimate. There should not be any such thing as a so-called ‘Euro-Asian Jewish Congress’. What the hell is that? From my perspective, neither the Russian colonialists nor the Jewish colonialists should be in Siberia in the first place.

Siberia is Asian land. Hopefully there will come a day, many decades from now although perhaps not within our lifetimes, when after much attrition the Russian Federation will be sufficiently weakened to the point that it would not be able to mount a defence of that land. And when the daybreak of the Asian Century reaches Siberia, wherever the light from the East is spreading to, all the Russian and Jewish colonialist structures and institutions in those areas will be abolished.


15

Posted by Herr Hitler on Sun, 19 Jul 2015 00:23 | #

The term “Asia’ is merely a construct of EUROPEAN cartographers. The commonalities between Western Asia’s Saudi Arabia and , say , Japan are non - existent.

Anyway, both the South Koreans and the Japanese have decided not to replace themselves, demographically speaking -  thus depriving Asia’s future of two high average IQ racial groups. Therefore, their roles in reclaiming lost lands will be non- existent.


16

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 19 Jul 2015 02:40 | #

Kumiko, there are important matters to tease apart here.

Let me quckly address your last statement first - regarding dispute over Asian territory.  Obviously, it is too large an issue to handle now, but another day we might take it on…

For now, I will just say that it is not, of course, a priority for Majority Rights to resolve this conflict in a way that will be satisfying to Japan, other east Asians, or for Russia, for that matter.

It is our concern, ultimately, that a non-military means will achieve a win win result in which resources are exchnaged and occupation of territories are negotiated fairly between nations.

Now to the J.Q.

You say:

What I’m increasingly seeing coming out of Russia these days, is a mixed message of them brandishing their weapons in all of our faces on one hand, and then on the other hand creating a bucket called ‘white people’, placing themselves inside that bucket and saying that they they are just like everyone else in Europe, and then when they are told that there is evidently a conflict of interests, they point toward the Jews and say that it’s all the fault of the Jews and that we shouldn’t blame ‘white people’ for what they say Jews ‘have done’. The Jews which they chose to work with the whole time, because Russians and Jews are friends.

1. I have not so much seen Russia instigating talk among WN that it should be considered a White nation. If anyone is overly disposed to “place Russians in a bucket with Whites” it would be our (WN) side.

2. Also in regard to being inclined to look to Jews first as the instigation of conflict, that would also be something which we (WN) would be inclined to do.

I do not see a reason to change these postions generally but beyond more nuance (which we could stand) Majority Rights is Not monocausal.

Thus, if we do not look at Jews first, we might look at Objectivists first. Objectivist is a term I use for natives, including native Russians who do not see themselves as accountable to the native people. Naturally, these objectivists are most dangerous when in powerful, elite positions.

We should not be naiive to them either, even as we may be eager to be past the cold war and to see the Russian rank and file as White and on our side.

Both elites and the masses who are led by them can be the worst thing the White race has ever known - whether in The US, Britain, Russia, etc.

Thus, the perspective you bring is very valuable.

We just need to refine the interfaces of various problems: whether elite them, rank and file them or elite us and rank and file us: and of those four groups, those loyal, those misguideed by traitors and those traitorous of their own accord.

The Jews which they chose to work with the whole time, because Russians and Jews are friends.

There is a logical fallacy here of overgeneralization.

It is like saying that “The Americans chose to work with the Jews”

Or The British chose to work with the Jews

or even, Germany had chosen to work with the Jews.

People are essentially tricked or coerced by necessity into working with Jews and find out belatedly that it is not in their interest.

They might at first give them a pass on religous grounds - if not “the chosen people” then look upon them as another people who are not going to integrate with us..

They might see Jews as productive - e.g., good doctors.

..even instrumental - good with geopolitical strategy.

Of course this is a misake, but it is a mistake that not just Russia, but all Western nations have made.

I don’t think that my assessment of that situation can be considered ‘anti-white’.

I don’t think that anti-White is your agenda either but there is an acuteness to the conflict of interest between Japan/Asia and Russia that WN don’t experience.

For example, when I support America and Britain against Russia in the Great Game which is presently playing out, that cannot reasonably be interpreted as me ‘hating white people’.

True, and it does not come across as if you hate White people.

That’s more like I’m preferring one armed group of white people (North Atlantic) over another armed group of white people (Russia).

There is a problem here of a lack of nuance that requires a few more words to your grammar of motives. This is the kind of thing that requires time. Prioratizing among enemies is a great challenge, that I (and most people probably) struggle with daily.

When I was younger (around your age) and caught in the emotions of dealing with an enemy, these nuances could seem like the advice of the enemy or a happless liberal rather than a refinement of the interface of your best interests to where it would be more effective and efficient.

For example, when I support America and Britain against Russia in the Great Game which is presently playing out, that cannot reasonably be interpreted as me ‘hating white people’. That’s more like I’m preferring one armed group of white people (North Atlantic) over another armed group of white people (Russia).

There is an important distinction that you are not making by thinking in terms of Western goverments as acting in accordance with Whites and White interests.

Most WN would now correctly believe that our goverments are not acting in our interests. That skepticism would, or should, extend to Russian goverment and elite bodies as well.

They are beholden to international corporations and plutocats where not beholden to Jewish interests. These interests, in turn, do not identify as White and are not accountable to White interests.

But taking a step back to the govermental and plutoratic level of powerful Whites: From our point of view, you are talking about one group of sell-out Whites against another group of sell out Whites. Traitors.

These people do not represent native national Whites; and I would not assume that Russia’s government and plutocrats have one and the same interests as the Russian population on the whole.

Certainly you must agree that there are differing levels of responsibilty.

Are you going to blame me for Reagan, The Bushes, Clinton, Obama?

With all due respect to the writers at Countercurrents and Morgoth’s, and of course without intending any disrespect to Mr Solzhenitsyn either, I have not yet seen any of them explain why people shouldn’t be able to pick and choose like that.

...for the corporations? Are you going to blame me for how Jewish intersts have taken so strong a hold on American and British (et al) concerns?

If they could do it to America, why should I believe that they had not done it to Russia. And that, in fact, many ordinary Russians, who you might have gotten along with ok, like other Europeans, would not have wound up in the communist bloodbath?

There is a reason, as you say, that so many Jews speak Russian. I can tell you this for sure: their presence among Russians was NOT good for Russians, even if some may have mistakenly believed that, or have been coerced to go along with them.

But the kind of people who may have negotiated and might still negotiate for more amenable relations in the east have surely been greatly muted as a result of Jewish influence.

Please see the point I am making again. I am not asking you to see Russians or any White people as innocent where they are not.

But neither do White nationalists. Don’t you hate your Japanese traitors more than anybody? Well so do we hate our traitors most.

And the most dangerous traitors are among the elite.

In theory, the elite can be working in the interests of natives, but as objectivists, they are not.

I will not defend Russian objectivists any more than I will defend western objectivists.

And I certainly will not commend a fratricial war in their interests. Because their interests are not White interests.

It is true that the rank and file can be terrible as well - the masses are asses, the sheep go along. But that is the same everywhere so far as I can tell - in America as well as Russia.  I agree with you that the masses and their pejorative patterns have to be gaurded against as well, but obviously it has to be done with less acuteness than with those in key choke points.

There is another critical distinction that has to be made as well - between imperialist aggression and nationalist homeostasis. I believe your concern is with imperialism and we can find common ground in talking in those terms as well.

 


17

Posted by Franklin Ryckaert on Sun, 19 Jul 2015 15:51 | #

@ Kumiko Oumae

”...Siberia is Asian land. Hopefully there will come a day, many decades from now although perhaps not within our lifetimes, when after much attrition the Russian Federation will be sufficiently weakened to the point that it would not be able to mount a defence of that land. And when the daybreak of the Asian Century reaches Siberia, wherever the light from the East is spreading to, all the Russian and Jewish colonialist structures and institutions in those areas will be abolished…”

I smell a revanchist-imperialist attitude here. Siberia was sparsely inhabited by primitive hunter-gatherer tribes, before it was colonized by the Russians. The indigenous peoples are well treated by the Russians, many enjoy local autonomy. I don’t see why Chinese or Japanese people would have more rights to colonize Siberia, merely because they are “also Mongolian”.

And if you want to talk about “historical rights”, what are the Japanese actually doing in Japan?  Have they not stolen the land from the Ainus?


18

Posted by GuestLurker on Sun, 19 Jul 2015 21:43 | #

Regarding Siberia, the 24,000 year old Mal’ta boy’s remains were only just recently tested, and he carries West Eurasian haplotype R on his paternal side,  and West Eurasian haplotype U on his maternal side.  Autosomally his DNA also reflects majority West Eurasian lineage. Your claim that Siberia is Asian is spurious. At least you’re honest and have come clean about your agenda and the geo-political expediency from your Asiatic perspective of nurturing a wedge between Europeans and Russians.  There’s nothing more to glean here.


19

Posted by Cimon on Mon, 20 Jul 2015 21:19 | #

I smell a revanchist-imperialist attitude here. Siberia was sparsely inhabited by primitive hunter-gatherer tribes, before it was colonized by the Russians. The indigenous peoples are well treated by the Russians, many enjoy local autonomy. I don’t see why Chinese or Japanese people would have more rights to colonize Siberia, merely because they are “also Mongolian”.

Isn’t genetic distance what determines legitimacy from the racialist perspective? That is, wouldn’t the Germans have more rights to colonize Sweden than, say, the Pakistanis would, regardless of how populated Sweden was or how well the Pakistanis would treat the Swedes, simply by virtue of genetic distance?

Regarding Siberia, the 24,000 year old Mal’ta boy’s remains were only just recently tested, and he carries West Eurasian haplotype R on his paternal side,  and West Eurasian haplotype U on his maternal side.  Autosomally his DNA also reflects majority West Eurasian lineage. Your claim that Siberia is Asian is spurious.

Haplogroup R is relatively new to Europe, entering Europe about 5,000 years ago. Scandinavian hunter-gatherers from about 8,000 years ago seem to have had a high frequency of the East Asian EDAR allele.


20

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 20 Jul 2015 23:39 | #

Guest Lurker, as you may allow yourself to become more familiar with Kumiko you will find that saying, “There’s nothing more to glean here”, is an absurdity.

It isn’t only that she has much to offer in sublime rationale; but also in being clear about her subjective/relative interests (“prejudices”), as you observe, we are better able to arrive at fair and equitable solutions.

Franklin,

The Asian and Russian conflict is unfamiliar territory to me.

But in terms of nativist claims regarding Siberia, fairly recent DNA evidence has shown that whereas Africa was “the cradle of man”, central Siberia was “the incubator.”

DNA evidence shows that after coming out of Africa, man did not go in a direct line to Europe, or even a fairly indirect line to the east of the Black Sea.

Rather they went eastward to central Siberia. A population evolved there from which branched off East Asians and Europeans and to a lesser extent Indians.

Crucially, in looking at this man - named Niyazov - discovered as having the oldest Y side DNA lineage in central Asia (40,000 years in the area), one sees that he has a more European appearance (more specifically Caucasoid appearance) than East Asian.

That would argue his nativist claim to central Asia. Nevertheless, particularly as one moves eastward through Asia, the claim should become more ambiguous and more East Asian. Farther, there is some historical conflict, particularly the farther east you go, that probably needs to be taken into account.


Spencer Wells:

About 40,000 years ago sapiens have spread to central asia following the grasslands resulting from cooling climate. An episode of migrations begins that moves people from central Asia - two groups moved east to China’s north and south and another group moves down to India. It will take another five thousand years before the first people from central Asia migrate to Europe to become the Cro Magnon who create pictographs in Penche Merle cave in France.

Wells’ earlier expedition in 1998 had provided blood samples from Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Kazakhstan and he reconnects with a man named Niyazov -a Kazakh Turk who lives in Kazakhstan near the border of Kirgyzistan. Niyazov has African markers that go back 2000 generations and also has an important Y chromosome marker called M45. That indicates Central Asia is where M45 originated and where both Europeans and Native Americans were descendant from.

Niyazov

 


21

Posted by Mick Lately on Tue, 21 Jul 2015 05:17 | #

Ireland continues its semitically-assisted suicide:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/state-will-take-600-extra-migrants-in-eu-initiative-1.2289128

“Government agrees to relocation scheme as part of bid to tackle crisis in Mediterranean”

There’s that rubber-stamp word “bid”.

Irish women should embrace their future and be raped without rubbers.

And the shaming of Eastern Europe for not embracing Third-World immigration:

http://www.newsweek.com/central-europes-shameful-rejection-refugees-350115?piano_t=1


22

Posted by katana on Tue, 21 Jul 2015 08:41 | #

After getting over the surprise and novelty of seeing a Japanese female giving her opinion on geopolitics here on Majority Rights, I settled down with interest to read what Kumiko had to say.

Not surprisingly, coming from someone who works in the defence and security sector in the UK, it’s full of conventional and safe positions.

But, Kumiko, your position on 9/11, I have to say, takes the cake for being the teacher’s pet in parroting the official view on what happened on that day. In your comments here you endorse the official lies about the whole event, in regard to WTC 7, etc.

Why do you ignore the opinion of over 2,000 architects and engineers from the the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth who state that the twin towers and WTC were brought down with explosives?

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

[http://www.ae911truth.org/]

I understand that your livelihood is dependent on you going along with the official line on 9/11. That said, have some curiosity and investigate it properly and in the meanwhile I recommend that you don’t plug the official point of view, because it is a serious lie.


—————————

For my latest blog post, That Blackguard — Winston Churchill, click here >>> KATANA


23

Posted by Mick Lately on Tue, 21 Jul 2015 09:24 | #

@katana,

Perhaps Kumiko, like PNAC, wanted a new Pearl Harbour?


24

Posted by katana on Tue, 21 Jul 2015 09:57 | #

@Posted by Mick Lately on July 21, 2015, 09:24 AM | #

@katana,

Perhaps Kumiko, like PNAC, wanted a new Pearl Harbour?
————————

Good one!

I suspect that Kumiko is a sincere Japanese woman who has found herself in a well paid position that requires her to repeat the official jewish view that she finds herself surrounded by.


25

Posted by GuestLurker on Tue, 21 Jul 2015 09:57 | #

“Guest Lurker, as you may allow yourself to become more familiar with Kumiko you will find that saying, “There’s nothing more to glean here”, is an absurdity.”

The only absurdity here is yourself and how taken you are with her. There is nothing subtle or sublime about her rationale.  Just because you’re overly impressed with her doesn’t mean others have to be.


26

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 21 Jul 2015 10:37 | #

Oh, what a suprise, Guest Lurker and Katana have a hostile attitude toward a view that I entertain here (...because I don’t think Hitler and Nazi Germany were perfect I am “abusurd”).

What a surprise that you would try to say that there is nothing here because it wasn’t parroting Hitler’s view verbatim.

I don’t insist that you have to be impressed by her, I don’t insist that you visit MR, but I do observe the fact that you don’t know that much about her yet.

Some basic lines are clear, other’s aren’t.

To say “There’s nothing more to glean here” is not accurate.

...and here I was thinking that they would be eager to see MR doing well and entertaining interesting ideas to discuss…

I just can’t believe it…


27

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Thu, 23 Jul 2015 23:14 | #

There are many legitimate questions about Russia that have been asked, but they are way too involved to be discussed in the comments section of an article that they are only tangentially related to. So what I’ll do is make sure to comprehensively address these concerns that have been raised here in my next two subsequent articles, and then everyone will be free to fire as many questions or criticisms at me as they wish and it would be ‘on topic’ to do so.

That should happen by next week.

Regarding Katana’s mention of AE911, I’ll take a look at what they are saying and then get back to you in my next response here, since of course I would have to properly look at what they are saying before I can respond to you, so you’ll have to wait on that response for a couple of days!


28

Posted by katana on Sat, 25 Jul 2015 07:14 | #

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on July 23, 2015, 11:14 PM
Regarding Katana’s mention of AE911, I’ll take a look at what they are saying and then get back to you in my next response here, since of course I would have to properly look at what they are saying before I can respond to you, so you’ll have to wait on that response for a couple of days!

Please take your time Kumiko. Take a few weeks, but do reply.

I can, with full confidence, predict you will conclude the obvious — the buildings were taken down by controlled demolition. That’s the easy part for all with any commonsense.

The next part, the connecting of the subsequent dots can be difficult especially given our life-long brainwashing and control by the jew system we live under.

In short, once you accept the fact that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition and providing you have a desire for truth, all roads lead inexorably to organized jewry and its engineering of the false flag known as 9/11.

The jews did 9/11. It’s both as complicated and as simple as that.

—————-

For my latest blog post, Henry Ford — Teil 1: Vorwort des Herausgebers; Einleitung Mein Leitgedanke, click here >>> KATANA

[http://katana17.wordpress.com]

 


29

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sun, 26 Jul 2015 00:55 | #

katana on July 25, 2015 wrote:
I can, with full confidence, predict you will conclude the obvious — the buildings were taken down by controlled demolition. That’s the easy part for all with any commonsense.

Oh, not so fast, I am of course approaching AE911’s website and their conspiratorial-sounding claims with all the due skepticism which I think should be afforded to it. I see that whole narrative as being generated by those social forces which seek to exonerate the true Islamist culprits behind 9/11. I think that these denialist narratives really do serve only as a kind of intentional or unintentional attempt at influencing, disrupting, and dis-integrating the decision-making process within the North Atlantic, while keeping intact the decision-making process of the Al-Qaeda and Al-Qaeda-inspired groups.

Of course, I will read it because I don’t want to be unfair by trying to criticise something I haven’t read yet, so I’ll make sure to do at least that first before I make my criticisms of it. I assume that they will have very involved and complex explanations for their claims, which I’ll probably have to go through one by one.

However, in the meantime I would suggest that everyone should review the appropriate manuals which concern Counter-Insurgency (COIN), and Psychological Operations (PSYOP), because these would shed some light onto how an enemy—particularly Al-Qaeda which has a somewhat sophisticated public relations network—would be willing to provide certain statements which would appear to validate the narratives in the conspiracy theories.

For example, Osama bin Laden initially denied all knowledge of the 9/11 attacks, and the Taliban initially denied having sheltered Bin Laden, because they knew that these statements would be cited by people in the west, to create confusion. That was a calculated ambiguity by them, which persisted until they no longer felt that it was having the desired result. It would also not surprise me if Al-Qaeda and other Islamist groups were to endorse the 9/11 conspiracy theories for the same disruptive reasons.

I would say that everyone should be careful not to end up walking into exactly the kind of beliefs that Al-Qaeda and Al-Qaeda inspired groups would want you to believe.


30

Posted by katana on Sun, 26 Jul 2015 03:24 | #

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on July 26, 2015, 12:55 AM
Oh, not so fast, I am of course approaching AE911’s website and their conspiratorial-sounding claims with all the due skepticism which I think should be afforded to it.

As you will find out Kumiko, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth do NOT make any conspiratorial claims at all, as a cursory glance at their website will show.

[http://www.ae911truth.org/]

What they do state, in their professional opinion, is that the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC 7 is only adequately explained by controlled demolition. That the “official explanation” is nonsense.

They do NOT offer any opinion on who is responsible for this controlled demolition or why it was carried out.

—————-

For my latest blog post, Henry Ford — Part 2: The Beginning of Business, click here >>> KATANA

[http://katana17.wordpress.com]


31

Posted by Dan Dare on Tue, 28 Jul 2015 16:28 | #

The interests of Asia and those of the North Atlantic, fit together and complement each other.

Hmmm. Do they really?


32

Posted by Information's impact on work and wealth on Mon, 03 Aug 2015 00:28 | #

Information’s impact on the traditional understanding of work (defiance of gravity) and a long time misundersanding of the essence of economics, i.e., scarcity revealed as false, causing a return to the origin of economics, which is calculation as to how to divide abundance.

From the Kaiser report:

Paul Mason talking about the end of capitalism said that capitialism will be abolished by creating something dynamic, something new from within the existing system reshaping values and behaviors.

We see it in parallel currencies, in parrallel economic systems and this is called post capitalism.

Max Kaiser and George Gallaway: both socialism and capitalism have failed

Block chain technology will allow the Mayor of London to broadcast an economic change every time one is made, transparently, in real time.

Mason: as with the end of feudalism, capitalisms fall will be accelerated by external shocks and shaped by a new kind of human being (I take that to mean a new relation of labor) and it has started.

Whereas the time of feudalism was all about obligations - your obligations to the Lord, upon whose land you were tilling… and then we moved into partly because of the black plague, which killed a huge percentage of the population, there were fewer people to till the land, so they therefore had a market price for the value of their tilling the land so then we were moving into a time of capitalism which was based on market prices ...and now we are moving into a period where market prices no longer determine our economy and that is what Mason says is post capitalism.

Kaiser: I wouldn’t say that we’re at the end of market pricing…

We’re in a post Freudian economy where the ego is not as centric as it had been during the capitalist period, so you’re going to have the emergence of the universal ID, the network economy..

Post Freudian in that economic motivation is no longer about ego and id satisfaction, values are shifting…

Much of the psychological ailments of modern man were due to his sexual lust and pursuit of ego gratification

If you remove that you have a new set of parameters driving human beings.

We move past the lustful, ego centric power aggregation centric world toward this networked economy where values are shifting.

You have blooming around the world of a new consciousness which places the value of the network above individualism… though it’s not socialism, because socialism has failed.

Mason: returning to why post capitalism is now possible…

Information technology allows one to see into the raw value of a human, as in those coming together to develop a new currency technologies as opposed to the bankers applying the same old system..

It is possible because of three major changes information technology has brought about:

1. First, it has reduced the need for work, blurred the edges between work and free time and loosened the relationship between work and wages. The current wave of automation currently stalled because our infrastructure cannot bear the consequences will hugely dimnish the amount of work needed not just to subsist but to provide a decent life for all.

Kaiser: well work in the sense that this word has been understood for milennia has to do with overcoming gravity...and that this has favored a certain style of capitalism and at the hunter-gatherer phase that ended ten, twelve thousand years ago, those who could conquer gravity via the ability to leverage manpower, through huge assembly line techniques and the industrial revolution or those who could perhaps master technology in terms of compessing technology on a microprocessor, terrabites per chip, etc. have been able to usher in enormous economies of scale that have obsolesced in many ways ideas what we have come to understand as wealth and what work means. So, the nature of work will change.

The underlying social order will not disappear. All social interaction is work on some level. All relationships are social interaction that require a conscious effort to succeed on all levels. All societies and groupings of individuals in towns or villages or tribes require social interaction that you could equate to work on some level, that’s not go away.

So, his analysis about the end of capitalism is a little thin.

Mason:

2. Information is corroding the market’s ability to form prices correctly. That is because markets are based on scarcity while information is abundant.

The system’s defense mechanism is to form monopolies.

Giant tech companies have emerged on a scale in the past 200 years, yet they cannot last.

By building buisiness models and share evaluations from the capture and privatization of all socially produced information, such firms are constructing a fragile corporate edifice at odds with the most basic need of humanity which is to use ideas freely.

Whereas they are having to create monopolies around information in order to create scarcity.

Kaiser (who has worked on creating prices for intellectual property etc.):

We aleady see that with the copywrite cartel, with the MPAA..who were willing to take extra-judicious measures.

But the idea that economics is based on scarcity is a bit of a common mistake that people make.

Economics started at the agricultural stage of human experience which is based on over-supply, it’s based on abundance. So when you suddenly have a huge abundance due to domestication of plants and animals this thing called economics was born: how do you divide the abundance?

It’s not really driven by scarcity.

So, we are not entering the true nature of what has been there all along.

With the abundance of information in the same way we had an abundance of domesticated plants and animals it’s the same problem that we’ve always had.

This is where it requires and ethos to emerge from the digital soup that will organize humans in a way that precludes egocentric thinking and fosters a certain kind of group ethical aesthetic which is going all the way back to paganism, hinduism…monotheism I would say is dead.

The three major monotheistic religions as such won’t survive this next turning of human’s experience here on earth.

Stacey adds: coming back to copywrites, it used to cost a lot of money to reproduce say, a Shakespear classic, now it can be put on the itenet for pennies and reproduced to uncountable numbers.

Mason: during and after the second world war economists viewed information as simply a public good. Then we began to understand intellectual property. In 1962, Kenneth Arrow, the “guru” of mainstream economics said that in a free market economy the purpose of inventing things is to create intellectual property rights. He noted, “precisely to the extent that it is successful, there is an underutilization of information.

So, the opposite of scarcity is what has created the revolutonary idea.

It’s revolutionary implications are obvious stated in reverse:
If a free market economy plus intellectual property leads to an underutilization of information then an economy based on the full utilization of information cannot tolerate the free market or the absolute intellectual property right.


33

Posted by katana on Thu, 06 Aug 2015 20:47 | #

Hey Kumiko, it’s been a couple of weeks now.

I’ve been waiting to hear your considered view on the controlled demolition of the twin towers and WTC 7 on 9/11 as detailed by over 2,000 architects and engineers over at:

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

[http://www1.ae911truth.org/]

Below are some points they make to conclude controlled demo:

——————————

WTC Building #7, a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane, exhibited all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives:

1. Rapid onset of collapse

2. Sounds of explosions

3. Symmetrical structural failure

4. Free-fall acceleration through the path of what was greatest resistance

5. Imploded, collapsing completely, landing almost in its own footprint

6. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds

7. Expert corroboration from the top European controlled demolition professional

8. Foreknowledge of “collapse” by media, NYPD, FDNY

In the aftermath of WTC7’s destruction, strong evidence of demolition using incendiary devices was discovered:

1. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples

2. Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly qualified witnesses

3. Chemical signature of the incendiary thermite found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples

 

WTC7 exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:

1. Slow onset with large visible deformations

2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)

3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel

4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never collapsed

——————


As seen in this revealing photo, the Twin Towers’ destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives:

1. Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration

2. Improbable symmetry of debris distribution

3. Extremely rapid onset of destruction

4. Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes

5. Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally

6. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking

7. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds

8. 1200-foot-diameter debris field: no “pancaked” floors found

9. Isolated explosive ejections 20–40 stories below demolition front

10. Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame

11. Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises

12. Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples

13. Evidence of explosives found in dust samples

 

The three high-rises exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:

1. Slow onset with large visible deformations

2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)

3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel

4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer-lasting fires have never collapsed

—————————

For my latest blog post, Henry Ford — Part 8: The Terror of the Machine click here >>> KATANA

[http://katana17.wordpress.com]


34

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:09 | #

The entire thing literally reads like a conspiracy theory. A conspiracy theory which would serve the interests of Al-Qaeda and Al-Qaeda-inspired groups, by shifting the focus away from them, and onto the US Government as though the US Government is somehow ‘hitting itself’.

The whole idea is preposterous and I can’t believe that you really fell for this hyper-liberal humanitarian agenda that they are pushing. Their claims all run completely contrary to the findings of NIST. NIST actually did put in some considerable effort into exploring every angle, and they found already that the events of the day of 11 September 2001 were indeed what they appeared to be.

19 Islamist hijackers who were linked to Al-Qaeda, flew planes into buildings. Those buildings were then destroyed in the way explained by NIST.

The reason that some liberal humanitarians refuse to believe the reality of what happened on live television in front of their own faces, is because it leads to conclusions about the world that those humanitarians find to be uncomfortable. The conclusion that there are people out there who you cannot make peace with. The conclusion that radical Islamists are a real enemy which needs to be fought against in the particular regions where they are obstructing the resource interests of the rest of the world. The conclusion that some problems in the world can only be settled through the organised use of force.

When the planes flew into those buildings on 11 September 2001, the Americans woke up for the first time to a true realisation of the material realities that literally every other country in the world had already been aware of. The American mainstream public were very comfortable ignoring Islamist activity in India, because they didn’t have to live there. They were very comfortable ignoring Islamists in Myanmar, and in Thailand, and they were happy to ignore other kinds of upheavals in the third world such as the war in Sierra Leone and the European fighters who had to go there on their own money to try and fix that. They were happy to ignore the plight of white South Africans and of Rhodesians, and happy to condemn the pseudo-operations and the counter-terrorism measures that were taken against Nelson Mandela, because that was a comfortable moral position to take when they had nothing on the line.

It’s like this isn’t even solely about Islam, it’s about a general view of life itself.

After the events of 11 September 2001, suddenly the Americans knew what it was like to actually be hit in a way that they could see plainly. They suddenly woke up to a reality that must have been entirely new for them.

But because life can be really funny sometimes, many of them refused to accept what they had seen, even when it had reached them in New York City. Instead, they created conspiracy theories, partly because they were seeking a kind of perverse ‘comfort’ in the idea that the US Government was somehow ‘in control’, because of the bizarre idea that ‘no one can hit America and only America can hit itself’. That is the first form of conspiracy theorising.

The flip-side to that is the other kind of conspiracy theorising, which seeks to bend facts in the same way but for a different reason. In the second form of conspiracy theorising, the theorists seek to propagate the idea that the group which has been designated as an enemy is somehow ‘not really the enemy’, because they ‘are not really fighting’. This is accomplished usually through denying the facts about various underlying events which led to the crisis. If the ones propagating these ideas are actually from the enemy camp, then their hope would of course be that they would create sufficient confusion that it would enable those enemies to accomplish their objectives with less difficulty than they otherwise would have encountered.

Speaking from a UK perspective since I’m seeing the UK a lot—for obvious reasons—the people in the UK who seem to be most interested in promoting 9/11 conspiracy theories are people like George Galloway. Galloway is literally an Islamist tool.

Another one is Anjem Choudary, who is on the record as having said that he hopes that any talk about Muslims will be kept to a minimum, especially around the time of elections, because it is his view that if ‘far-right parties’ were to focus on Islam and take more strident steps toward fighting it domestically and internationally, that would be inconvenient for him because he is an Islamist and he’d like to keep operating inside British society with minimal interference.

So when you come telling me that I’ve taken up ‘conventional’ and ‘safe’ positions, I have to remind you that there is no part of the War on Terror that is actually ‘conventional’ or ‘safe’. The whole thing is very unconventional and very unsafe, and it has already reached near to the limits of what western society has historically been capable of rationalising and carrying out.

We’re now literally in a situation where Islamic fighters are disguising themselves as ‘refugees’ so that they can slip into Europe and assemble terror cells. Just the other month, 16 men were discovered to be plotting an attack in Belgium after their cell was rolled up. How did they get into Belgium? Because liberals who love mass migration let them in. Why are ISIL cells in existence at all? Because western people—led by liberals—decided to pull out of Iraq before the job (regardless of the initial merits of that war, it inexorably became a necessary war because once someone starts a war they cannot un-start it) was done, and now the consequences are manifesting quite painfully.

This is not a particularly well-structured piece of writing because it’s just a comment-post. But the general points that I’m making are as follows:

1. The War on Terror is real, it is serious, and it affects the whole world.

2. Radical Muslims are not cute and they are not your friends. Just because they make trouble for Jews in Israel does not mean that you should start running apologetics for them. Jews and Islamists are two sides of the same problem, they are two forms of the same monotheistic disease.

3. To run a global economy you need resources to run industries. Many of the supply networks extend into East Asia, particularly China, but increasing South East Asia as well. These places get upwards of 50% of their oil supply from places that NATO has been engaged in combat in, for the obvious purpose of keeping those resources flowing. How many container ships full of items do you source from these countries?

4. 9/11 really happened, Al-Qaeda really did it.

5. The next problem is ISIL, which may be a generational conflict.

Denying reality won’t make it go away, and so people need to stop denying the reality.


35

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 13 Aug 2015 02:57 | #

White Nationalists are likely to raise contentions based on arguments such as those that can be found in Eustace Mullins’ book, ‘The Biological Jew’. It is relevant in this case that the Jews are not merely a religion and ideology. Though there is that aspect too (of religion, ideology, rules), which is important to watch as it not only serves in significant part to direct their actions and also those of others - as it has in the case of Americans, by various means of propaganda; notably Christianity - highly relevant in this case with W Bush and his Gog and Magog brand of Christianity being pushed into office by the neo-con branch of the Israeli lobby. However, the problem with Jews is not merely their religion, but the very fiber of their biology largely governs individual Jews as part of a group functioning organism; an organism which, in this case, has presence within the US government. This potently directs the animus in those (such as Muslims) who recognize that presence in the US government as pejorative and allied with Jews; and potently directs the animus (up close) from those Jewish occupiers toward the nativists of The US government with whom they have to contend.

One of the more level headed arguments from there being that the US was not exactly hitting itself, nor were its physically present and motivated ZOG occupiers hitting them, but if they did not have some foreknowledge, it was at very least an all too convenient excuse to launch PNAC - the plan being to use American military and money to fight Israel’s enemies and secure the nations surrounding Israel.

Nevertheless, you raise a challenging point, contrary to standard WN fare, that Israel’s motives are not the sole motives for American military activity in the region. Many of the issues you discuss are being buried by the conspiracy theorists and overwrought WN perspectives.


36

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Thu, 13 Aug 2015 06:32 | #

Well, I’ve never come across that book before, but from a quick scan of it I can see that what Mullins is doing is that he is talking about parasitic behaviour and applying that concept to describing the relationship between Europeans and the Jews.

However, I don’t see what conclusions they’d be able to draw from it in regards to the war. Would they like to argue that because the Jews have found some aspects of this war convenient for themselves, that everyone should therefore abandon it in order to spite them?

I don’t really think that the Jews would be overly concerned if the whole of the North Atlantic were absolutely washed in Muslims, since all they’d do in response to that is something that they’ve had a tendency to do all the time: setting themselves up as a cultural critics and managing the problems that they helped to create.

The same thing applies internationally. Israeli lobbyist groups—when they are addressing the issue of asymmetrical non-state actors—are less interested in securing themselves from terrorists than they are from state actors. If anything, the conflict known as the War on Terror is not fought for Israel, but in some respects is fought despite Israel.

Take for example the case of ISIL. This is by no means a comprehensive list, but I’m just randomly naming some instances as examples. Israel is decidedly not interested in fighting against ISIL, because they know that ISIL has very little capability to harm them, but they know that it does have a sizeable ability to harm and keep harming all other state actors in the Middle Eastern region. Israel also historically has not been interested in opposing Turkey on that issue. Israel also consistently supported Egypt when their interests overlap. Israel has also been known to have deliberately facilitated the rise of Hamas. They additionally were known to have helped Jundallah operatives to move around in Pakistan and inside the United Kingdom despite the express wishes of the British and American intelligence services that they should desist from doing that. There is a reason for that.

Jewish motivations and strategies are complex, and focussing solely on what the Jews are doing and then merely advocating the opposite, is like being unable to see the forest and only looking at trees. You just end up reacting to what they do, rather than having an agenda of your own.

If people want to oppose Jewish interests—and it is obvious that one would need to oppose them because they are not seeking what anyone else is seeking—then they should do it in a properly joined-up way.

If the North Atlantic backed out of the War on Terror, that would only lead to the kind of military and economic difficulties and defeats on the global stage that would make it more difficult for the North Atlantic countries to carry out the kind of actions that you want to see done later. So that would of course be a bad idea.

Also, on top of that, I don’t understand why people always have to place Jews as the singular vector of influence behind everything that happens in the world. They are not. They are a very important vector that influences actions and we’d be ignoring them at our peril, but they are not the single driver of human history.

It should be possible to write an article from an angle that doesn’t focus only on them, without people shrieking: “How could you write an article that wasn’t just yet another complaint tract about the Jews and their pernicious influence, Kumiko? How could you?”


37

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 13 Aug 2015 06:58 | #

Would they like to argue that because the Jews have found some aspects of this war convenient for themselves, that everyone should therefore abandon it in order to spite them?

No, but they need to sort out Israeli interests from The U.S. They need to be aware and capable of acting upon the disentangling of Israeli interests from U.S. interests and White interests in particular.

There is no question that Wolfowitz, Perle, Netanyahu et al. had disproportionate influence on The W. Bush Administration.

Jews have a disproportunate influence on U.S. policy (for one national example) and they have long passed for “White.”

It is exceedingly important thus, to maintain an ongoing vigil to sort out what is White and what is Jewish, so that Whites don’t get caught up and broad-brushed in interests other than theirs or even counter to theirs.

It is not too much for WN to ask for a fairly steady monitoring and disentangling of those motives, even if it is not the central focus of a particular article.

Jewish motivations and strategies are complex, and focussing solely on what the Jews are doing and then merely advocating the opposite,

MR is not monocausal and part of why we are not monocausal is because we do not want to react, as the right wingers do, with the absurd position that doing the opposite of what the Jews do is necessarily correct.

For example, the Jews are acting in group interests, ethnocentrically zionist, therefore we should advocate liberalism? That is a typically ridiculous right wing inference.

WN are susceptible to that kind of reasoning (the opposite of what the Jews are doing is always good for us), but it is not what I am saying.

is like being unable to see the forest and only looking at trees. You just end up reacting to what they do, rather than having an agenda of your own.

Yes, very well said. That is our MR position.

If people want to oppose Jewish interests—and it is obvious that one would need to oppose them because they are not seeking what anyone else is seeking—then they should do it in a properly joined-up way.

Agreed.

 


38

Posted by katana on Thu, 13 Aug 2015 07:19 | #

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Wed, 12 Aug 2015 18:09 | #

The entire thing literally reads like a conspiracy theory. A conspiracy theory which would serve the interests of Al-Qaeda and Al-Qaeda-inspired groups, by shifting the focus away from them, and onto the US Government as though the US Government is somehow ‘hitting itself’.

The whole idea is preposterous and I can’t believe that you really fell for this hyper-liberal humanitarian agenda that they are pushing. Their claims all run completely contrary to the findings of NIST. NIST actually did put in some considerable effort into exploring every angle, and they found already that the events of the day of 11 September 2001 were indeed what they appeared to be.

19 Islamist hijackers who were linked to Al-Qaeda, flew planes into buildings. Those buildings were then destroyed in the way explained by NIST.

Kumiko, what a disappointing response to my request for your comment on the professional opinions of 2,000 plus qualified architects and engineers that the Twin Towers and building WTC were taken down on 9/11 by controlled demolition. They take pains to make no mention of who did it or why.
That make clear that they are only concerned with how the buildings were brought down (controlled demo) and the need for a real investigation.

So how do you come to this view, “The entire thing literally reads like a conspiracy theory”?

I’d like you to explain your reasoning with reference to what they (A&E) actually say. They say that the NIST report is a whitewash and a coverup because it does NOT explain the collapses in a credible manner consistent with physical reality.

In my previous comment I’ve listed a summary of all the points why the destruction of those buildings throughly match controlled demo.

Watch the videos of the building and it’s plain to anyone with commonsense that they are being blown apart floor by floor in the case of the Twin Towers. In the case of WTC 7 (a traditional bottom up controlled demo), NIST was forced to admit that it went into free fall for about 2 seconds. This is proof positive in itself that controlled demolition occurred.

Once again, I ask, can you please respond in a credible manner with what Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth  actually say?

[http://www.ae911truth.org/]

To solve any crime, and 9/11 was certainly an audacious “9/11 crime on the chutzpah scale”, you need first to establish the actual facts. And a crucial fact, as 2,000 plus architects and engineers (and commonsense) state, is that the buildings were brought down NOT by the consequences of the plane crashes but by pre-staged explosives.


With regard to the rest of your comment I would like to respond after we have dealt with the above.

Thank you.

————

For my latest blog post, Henry Ford — Teil 9: Löhne click here >>> KATANA

[http://katana17.wordpress.com]

 


39

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Thu, 13 Aug 2015 08:20 | #

I just don’t buy any of it at all. They have ‘2000 plus qualified engineers and architects’, but look at their requirements and you’ll see that they allow people to sign up even if those people have no experience with any kind of buildings resembling those who were attacked on the day of 9/11. Amazingly, their signup form also allows engineering students to place their names onto the list as well. Isn’t that really convenient?

What do you think that a ‘credible’ response would look like? One that agrees with your agenda, an agenda which I completely and utterly reject?

I remain convinced that the people in your camp are trying to propagate conspiracy theories as a method through which you would try to undermine the strategic interests of the North Atlantic countries, and the resource interests of Asian states which need the resources to be secure because 60% of crude oil imports into Asia by sea have to traverse the Suez Canal, the Strait of Hormuz or the Gulf of Aden.

The kind of singular focus on Jews that you are putting forward, is lending itself to a diversion from the actually-existing North Atlantic and Asian interests in resource acquisition, and the development of productive forces, a process whose inputs are being placed under threat or obstructed by Al-Qaeda and Al-Qaeda-inspired groups.

I assume that you are not deliberately trying to undermine these interests by spreading these conspiracy-style narratives about 9/11, then you are doing so accidentally, which in a way might be even worse.


40

Posted by katana on Thu, 13 Aug 2015 09:53 | #

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Thu, 13 Aug 2015 13:20 | #

I just don’t buy any of it at all.

So this is it? This is your response to a serious request to examine what these architects and engineers declare was a controlled demolition on 9/11? You don’t accept their opinion, yet that is all you offer?

Surely you can do better than that?

They have ‘2000 plus qualified engineers and architects’, but look at their requirements and you’ll see that they allow people to sign up even if those people have no experience with any kind of buildings resembling those who were attacked on the day of 9/11. Amazingly, their signup form also allows engineering students to place their names onto the list as well. Isn’t that really convenient?

There are two lists, one for the qualified (including students of those professions) (2,354) and another for supporters (20,318). But what of it? Explain where they have erred in explaining how those building were blown up?

What do you think that a ‘credible’ response would look like? One that agrees with your agenda, an agenda which I completely and utterly reject?

I have stated several times that I only want you to examine the buildings’ destruction. A credible response would be to refute what these architects and engineers have stated, i.e., that controlled demo explains how these building were destroyed. There is no need to agree with me in regards to any agenda.

I remain convinced that the people in your camp are trying to propagate conspiracy theories as a method through which you would try to undermine the strategic interests of the North Atlantic countries, and the resource interests of Asian states which need the resources to be secure because 60% of crude oil imports into Asia by sea have to traverse the Suez Canal, the Strait of Hormuz or the Gulf of Aden.

The kind of singular focus on Jews that you are putting forward, is lending itself to a diversion from the actually-existing North Atlantic and Asian interests in resource acquisition, and the development of productive forces, a process whose inputs are being placed under threat or obstructed by Al-Qaeda and Al-Qaeda-inspired groups.

I assume that you are not deliberately trying to undermine these interests by spreading these conspiracy-style narratives about 9/11, then you are doing so accidentally, which in a way might be even worse.

This is all completely irrelevant to what I’ve been asking you to focus on, namely what caused those buildings to “self destruct”. This is important stuff.

I understand your reluctance, because once you concede the obvious, that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition, your whole elaborate house of cards, involving 19 Arabs, Al-Queda, etc., also comes tumbling down.


————

For my latest blog post, Henry Ford — Teil 9: Löhne click here >>> KATANA

[http://katana17.wordpress.com]


41

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Thu, 13 Aug 2015 10:23 | #

I’m not going to ever engage with what you’re saying, Katana. If you want to peddle denialist lies about 9/11, you can do that, but I will continue to regard you as an enemy of the North Atlantic and of global development in general, so long as you continue to do so.

And yes, this is important stuff, that’s why I’m not ever going to budge on it.

I am never going to entertain 9/11 conspiracy theories. If ridiculous conspiracy theories are the best argument you can bring against having the War on Terror, then it seems that you are really running short on arguments.


42

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 13 Aug 2015 12:59 | #

Interfacing the war on terror and White EGI:

I don’t think that I am unique among White nationalists in tending to be more than a little skeptical about “the war on terror;” I’ve been inclined rather to see it as something like a hole in the middle of the ocean in which endless amounts of money, social capital and lives are sunk, with no end in sight but to serve big money and Jewish interests and no concern for Whites per se, as a people.

I am, however, open and interested in how you will interface the “tiger” of the war on terror with the bona fide EGI of Whites. It is theoretically possible for these to coincide.


43

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Thu, 13 Aug 2015 17:27 | #

It’s not only ‘theoretically possible’, it’s absolutely inevitable. It’s pretty much obvious to me that not having your people killed by radical Muslims, and not having your oil services companies attacked by militants, is in your ethnic genetic interest. Particularly given that your standard of life, as the well as one of the inputs that power the industries that stand behind the world food supply, are connected to the ability of those oil services companies to operate unimpeded.

The day that it becomes a ‘Jewish interest’, is the day that stopping anarchic Somalian criminals from marauding through your neighbourhood in the absence of any law enforcement, also becomes a ‘Jewish interest’.

It’s literally incomprehensible to me how it is that European and American nationalists have come to convince themselves that any of this is connected to ‘Jewish interests’. The impression I get is that people are just coming up with reasons to be anti-war, and some liberal at some stage must have decided that telling nationalists that the war is a ‘Jewish interest’ would be a great way for them to troll many people into somehow echoing the anti-war red-loony left.

Fighting against clear and obvious opponents should not be as complicated as people have tried to make it.


44

Posted by katana on Fri, 14 Aug 2015 07:14 | #

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Thu, 13 Aug 2015 15:23 | #

I’m not going to ever engage with what you’re saying, Katana. If you want to peddle denialist lies about 9/11, you can do that, but I will continue to regard you as an enemy of the North Atlantic and of global development in general, so long as you continue to do so.

I can empathize with your anger as I was once a believer in the, “official 9/11 conspiracy theory” despite how ludicrous it actually is, once studied. The truth of 9/11 is seriously disturbing to most people because it requires a shattering change in their jewish Hollywood induced worldview.

The only “enemy” here is yourself with your adamant refusal to consider and look into what is actually the truth of what happened to those buildings. They were blown up. From there you can connect the dots to the whole story. You need to face up to the very unpleasant and disturbing truth that Western governments are controlled by psychopaths, and organizing false flags like 9/11 is their MO.

And yes, this is important stuff, that’s why I’m not ever going to budge on it.

A closed mind indeed. If are truly interested in the truth of what is going on you are going to have budge, … eventually.

I am never going to entertain 9/11 conspiracy theories. If ridiculous conspiracy theories are the best argument you can bring against having the War on Terror, then it seems that you are really running short on arguments.

But you do entertain conspiracy theories, namely the ludicrous official one.

There is no, “War on Terror” only a, “War OF Terror” being waged by organized jewry and their global non-jew “elite” traitors against humanity.

You need to stop drinking the Kool-Aid, Kumiko.

 


45

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Fri, 14 Aug 2015 07:55 | #

katana on Fri, 14 Aug 2015 12:14 wrote:
the very unpleasant and disturbing truth that Western governments are controlled by psychopaths, and organizing false flags like 9/11 is their MO.

What an absolutely pathetic response. It almost looks like the stuff of satire.

The most egregious weed-smoking liberal trolls would have written no different than you have.

Your appeal to ‘empathy’, as though I would ever care about the feelings you have, is also laugh-worthy.

Your narrative has been entirely wasted on me, and you pretending that you are ‘fighting against Jewish Hollywood’ while you are pushing a ridiculous story that sounds exactly like something out of a ridiculous movie script, does nothing to persuade me of anything. I entertained your point of view because I wanted to see where you would go with it, and it turns out that it’s just more of the same nonsense that conspiracy theorists have been saying for years now.

It is my intention however, that Majorityrights will adopt a policy on this sort of thing where anyone who espouses the denialist and conspiratorial views that you espouse on 9/11 and the events surrounding it, will have their posts removed going forward in most cases, because all you are doing is pushing nonsense which distracts from the very real tasks that need to be completed.


46

Posted by Sweden steps up Nato cooperation: w Poland on Tue, 15 Sep 2015 09:49 | #

Non-Nato Sweden signed a military co-operation deal on Monday with Nato-member Poland, as a first step in reaction to Russia’s increased activities in the Baltic sea. Defence minister Peter Hultqvist said Sweden would reinforce co-operation with Nato and increase its defence budget by 11 percent over the next five years.


47

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Tue, 06 Oct 2015 17:59 | #

Dan Dare on Tue, 28 Jul 2015 21:28 wrote:
Hmmm. Do they really?

This may have been a throwaway comment, but actually an event has occurred which has shown another instance of overlapping interests, so I think I should bring my article titled ‘Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Long Game’, to your attention.


48

Posted by 94 ISIL Killed in MOAB attack on Mon, 01 May 2017 06:05 | #

NPR, “Afghan Official Says 94 ISIL Fighters Killed In ‘Mother Of All Bombs’ Attack”, 14 April 2017:

A government spokesman has increased the death toll from Thursday’s bombing using the “Mother of All Bombs” in Afghanistan to 94, up from 36.

Ataullah Khogyani, the spokesman for the governor of Nangarhar province, said in a tweet Saturday that 94 ISIS members were killed in the attack on an ISIS underground complex, including four top commanders.

“Fortunately there is no report of civilians being killed in the attack,” Khogyani told The Associated Press on Saturday.

On Friday, U.S. Army Gen. John W. Nicholson Jr. called it “the right weapon against the right target.”

It was the most powerful non-nuclear bomb ever used in combat.

The bomb was dropped in the Achin district of Nangarhar province in eastern Afghanistan. A video of the strike shows it hitting at the lower edge of a mountain, along a narrow valley, producing a huge shock wave and blast plume.

The nearly 22,000-pound bomb is believed to have destroyed “large quantities” of weapons when it struck a network of tunnels, bunkers and other fortifications used by the offshoot group ISIS-K (for Khorasan province), according to an Afghan Defense Ministry spokesman.

The U.S. assessment is still in progress, a Pentagon official told NPR’s Tom Bowman, adding that there’s a chance the death toll might include results from two other smaller operations against ISIS-K that took place Thursday night.

Nicholson said the “MOAB” ordnance — for Massive Ordnance Air Blast, or less formally, the “Mother of All Bombs” — was “designed to destroy caves and tunnels, which ISIS-K have been using, along with extensive belts of IEDs, to thicken their positions against our offensive.”

U.S. special forces and Afghan commandos are now inspecting the site, Nicholson said, adding, “the weapon achieved its intended purpose.”

Nicholson, the commander of the NATO-led Resolute Support force, discussed the operation Friday in a news conference in Kabul.

When he was asked about the timing of the unprecedented strike, and whether it had been influenced by the White House, Nicholson said, “In regard to timing, it’s when we encountered this target on the battlefield.”

The general said that because the spring offensive against ISIS-K had been slowed by fighters using caves and tunnels, “It was the right time to use it tactically, against the right target on the battlefield.”

Addressing the Afghan public, Nicholson said all precautions were taken to prevent civilian casualties.

“We had persistent surveillance over the area before, during and after the operation, and now we have Afghan and U.S. forces on the site, and see no evidence of civilian casualties,” Nicholson said. “Nor have there been any reports of civilian casualties.

After providing an update on the operation, Nicholson recounted a litany of offenses committed by ISIS-K, from beheadings and other public executions to suicide bombings.

The strike is part of a broader offensive, which Nicholson said is a sign of Afghanistan’s commitment “to defeat Daesh in Afghanistan this year.”

The official designation for the MOAB is the GBU-43/B; here’s how NPR’s Phil Ewing explains its origin:

  “The GBU-43/B has been in the U.S. arsenal for more than 14 years, deployed to bases in the Middle East where it could be loaded aboard an American aircraft but never used until now. At more than 30 feet long, it’s too big to fit inside the weapons bay of a standard Air Force bomber. Instead, troops load it into the cargo compartment of a specialized transport, the MC-130 Combat Talon, which releases it over the target by opening its ramp in the same way it might for paratroopers or air-dropped supplies. The bomb is guided by satellite to its target.

NPR’s James Doubek contributed to this report.

Post by DanielS


49

Posted by Japan goes TPP without US on Fri, 10 Nov 2017 02:50 | #

      ...while US negotiates with comprador Razak

Reuters, “Japan PM Abe says welcomes broad agreement on TPP trade deal”, 10 Nov 2017:

DANANG, Vietnam (Reuters) - Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe on Friday welcomed “a broad agreement” reached by the 11 countries in the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), even as others in the trade pact disputed that any deal had been reached.

Trade ministers from the TPP countries met on Thursday on the sidelines of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Danang, Vietnam.

After the meeting, Japan said an agreement in principle had been reached, but the Canadian trade minister said on Twitter: “Despite reports, there is no agreement in principle on TPP.”

The spat highlighted the continuing challenge to reviving a pact whose survival was thrown into doubt when President Donald Trump ditched it, in one of his first acts in office, in favor of bilateral deal-making by the United States.

Abe told Peru’s President Pedro Pablo Kuczynski that he welcomed a broad agreement reached at the TPP ministerial meeting, a written statement by the Japanese government said on Friday.

The Japanese leader told Kuczynski that Japan would like to continue cooperating closely with Peru, one of the TPP countries, so that the pact will go into effect at an early date.

Japan had lobbied hard to proceed with a pact after the U.S. withdrawal that could also help to contain China’s growing regional dominance.

The TPP aims to eliminate tariffs on industrial and farm products across a bloc whose trade totaled $356 billion last year. It also has provisions for protecting everything from labor rights to the environment to intellectual property - one of the main sticking points.

Leaders of the 11 TPP countries are scheduled to meet Friday afternoon.

In a separate panel discussion at the APEC summit on Friday, Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak said he was “reasonably confident” a deal could be reached without the United States.

“We believe TPP is important for the region… The 11 countries led by Japan, we are trying to come up with our new version,” Najib said.

“I am reasonably confident. I am quite sanguine that we will get a deal but of course it has got to go through the process of ratification,” he said


50

Posted by Key moment in decline of US power in Asia-Pacific on Tue, 14 Nov 2017 10:13 | #

Guardian, “Trump Skips East Asian Summit on Final Day of 12 Day Tour, ” 14 Nov 2017:

“Annelise Riles, a professor of far east legal studies and anthropology at Cornell University, said Trump did not fulfil his agenda in Asia. “Historians will date this trip as a key moment in the decline of US power in the Asia-Pacific region, when Asian leaders stepped up and took the reins,” she said.”

 



Post a comment:


Name: (required)

Email: (required but not displayed)

URL: (optional)

Note: You should copy your comment to the clipboard or paste it somewhere before submitting it, so that it will not be lost if the session times out.

Remember me


Next entry: The Surveillance Society and Freedom-Curbing Legislation
Previous entry: Ten years, and how much has really changed?

image of the day

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Establishment Problem

Categories

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Immigration

Islamist Threat

Anti-white Media Networks

Audio/Video

Crime

Economics

Education

General

Historical Re-Evaluation

Controlled Opposition

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Europeans in Africa

Of Note

Comments

49% Jewish, 44% European West commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 06:52. (View)

Virgin of the Rocks, London commented in entry 'Leonardo da Vinci, Salvator Mundi: Divine Proportion of The Golden Ratio & More' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 06:43. (View)

(((Ilana Mercer))) commented in entry 'Chinese slur 'White Left' as Cultural Marxist shows Jewish power, influence, aversion to White Left' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 03:51. (View)

Right wing observations on the controlled right commented in entry 'Chinese slur 'White Left' as Cultural Marxist shows Jewish power, influence, aversion to White Left' on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 02:58. (View)

She's not prejudice, she's postjudice commented in entry 'Snyder's lessons applied to reality now: universalized liberalism tyrannizing over ethnonationalism' on Mon, 15 Jan 2018 13:50. (View)

Euromexmix + 2% Mali African commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Mon, 15 Jan 2018 13:14. (View)

100% European commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Mon, 15 Jan 2018 12:56. (View)

30,000 shekels for Israeli deportation workers commented in entry 'Netanyahu: “It Is Time to Deport Africans”' on Mon, 15 Jan 2018 02:23. (View)

Iranian Hijab Protest 1979 commented in entry 'Iran protest, organic grievances real, but tactless Trump endorsement abets reactionary entrenchment' on Sun, 14 Jan 2018 18:13. (View)

Intel replacement commented in entry 'Who Is It That Is Instigating Techno-Genocide Against the American H-1b's?' on Sun, 14 Jan 2018 18:08. (View)

Golden Ratio in Da Vinci's Salvator Mundi commented in entry 'Majority Radio: Dr Christian Lindtner speaks to DanielS and GW' on Sun, 14 Jan 2018 17:06. (View)

Boyo commented in entry 'Mary Beard and the BBC's imaginary Roman Africans' on Sun, 14 Jan 2018 04:52. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Snyder's lessons applied to reality now: universalized liberalism tyrannizing over ethnonationalism' on Sun, 14 Jan 2018 03:50. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Spencer: My conception of the ethnostate is imperialist - true ethno nationalism is a zero sum game.' on Sat, 13 Jan 2018 21:58. (View)

The first flower commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Sat, 13 Jan 2018 18:38. (View)

Spencer: on last chance for kosher immigration commented in entry 'Spencer: My conception of the ethnostate is imperialist - true ethno nationalism is a zero sum game.' on Sat, 13 Jan 2018 09:10. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'A crisis in the custody suite – seventh (and final) part' on Sat, 13 Jan 2018 07:52. (View)

This thug raped 64yr old in her home commented in entry 'black hyper-assertiveness' on Sat, 13 Jan 2018 03:32. (View)

Bringing untreatable forms of TB to Europe commented in entry 'black hyper-assertiveness' on Fri, 12 Jan 2018 23:55. (View)

TBB in Milan commented in entry 'black hyper-assertiveness' on Fri, 12 Jan 2018 23:48. (View)

Gurgaon, India, corporate-run city commented in entry 'Who Is It That Is Instigating Techno-Genocide Against the American H-1b's?' on Fri, 12 Jan 2018 23:04. (View)

Melbourne: African street gang problem commented in entry 'black hyper-assertiveness' on Fri, 12 Jan 2018 22:02. (View)

Heidi Przybyala et al. on Trump's shit hole commented in entry 'Snyder's lessons applied to reality now: universalized liberalism tyrannizing over ethnonationalism' on Fri, 12 Jan 2018 14:30. (View)

Steven the virulent bracket commented in entry 'Showcase: Arguing WN against virulent bracketry & why 'Americanism', 'exceptionalism' is ineffective' on Fri, 12 Jan 2018 05:43. (View)

Trump expands offshore oil assault on biodiversity commented in entry 'Paradise lost: Remote Henderson Island in the South Pacific is covered in 18 tons of our trash' on Fri, 12 Jan 2018 04:45. (View)

Czech losses 30 Years War/ Versailles commented in entry 'Spencer: My conception of the ethnostate is imperialist - true ethno nationalism is a zero sum game.' on Fri, 12 Jan 2018 04:09. (View)

Ahed Tamimi commented in entry '“Gaza: An Inquest into Its Martyrdom”: Norman Finkelstein on the Many Lies Perpetuated About Gaza' on Thu, 11 Jan 2018 08:58. (View)

Susan (((Wojcicki))) commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Thu, 11 Jan 2018 03:53. (View)

James LaFond on black hyper-assertiveness commented in entry 'black hyper-assertiveness' on Thu, 11 Jan 2018 03:24. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Spencer: My conception of the ethnostate is imperialist - true ethno nationalism is a zero sum game.' on Thu, 11 Jan 2018 01:24. (View)

Ryan Faulk 1/16th commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Thu, 11 Jan 2018 00:27. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Spencer: My conception of the ethnostate is imperialist - true ethno nationalism is a zero sum game.' on Wed, 10 Jan 2018 19:05. (View)

Captainchaos commented in entry 'Spencer: My conception of the ethnostate is imperialist - true ethno nationalism is a zero sum game.' on Wed, 10 Jan 2018 18:52. (View)

DanielS commented in entry '200,000 Salvadorans May Be Forced to Leave the U.S. As Trump Ends Immigration Protection' on Wed, 10 Jan 2018 18:42. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Spencer: My conception of the ethnostate is imperialist - true ethno nationalism is a zero sum game.' on Wed, 10 Jan 2018 17:52. (View)

affection-tone