Majorityrights News > Category: War of Discourse

We should be more eager to suspect Jewish deep state insiders who wanted Trump to win.

‘It takes a lot of work to lose to Donald Trump.’

Indeed, and that is why it looks like she may have gotten some “gentle encouragement” (read, subtle bum steer - part of ‘a lot of work’ from (((insiders)))) to not bother addressing typical White Americans - she would have won if she could have been at all bothered to treat them like normal human beings with legitimate concerns; rather than placing herself exclusively on the side and among an entourage of blacks, liberal feminists, married gay couples, etc. - anything to be in-the-face of Whites about the new, “tolerant”, America; i.e., basically anything to represent a cartoon of the political correctness that is totally intolerant of, and eager to ignore the concerns of White Americans; demonstrating more of the same, not giving a fig about them, as they’ve experienced for decades.

The Hill, “Axelrod on Clinton: ‘It takes a lot of work to lose to Donald Trump”, 3 May 2017:

Democratic strategist David Axelrod says Hillary Clinton would be well served to move on from last year’s presidential election and stop talking about it.

“It takes a lot of work to lose to Donald Trump,” Axelrod told CNN on Wednesday. “Let me tell you, he was the least popular presidential candidate to win in the history of polling.”

Clinton on Tuesday said she takes responsibility for her 2016 presidential election loss, but added she would have won if not for FBI Director James Comey, Russian hackers and WikiLeaks.

“If the election had been on Oct. 27, I would be your president,” she told CNN at a Women for Women event in New York on Tuesday, referencing Comey’s letter informing Congress that the FBI had discovered new emails that appeared pertinent to an investigation into Clinton’s handling of classified material.

“It wasn’t a perfect campaign - there is no such thing - but I was on the way to winning until a combination of Jim Comey’s letter on Oct. 28 and Russian WikiLeaks raised doubts in the minds of people who were inclined to vote for me and got scared off.”

Axelrod called the 2016 race a “miserable slog” and said nobody in America wants to relive it “except the combatants who keep going back to it.”

“She has a legitimate beef because Comey’s letter was instrumental I think in her defeat, so in a narrow sense she is right about it,” Axelrod said.

“But Jim Comey didn’t tell her not to campaign in Wisconsin after the convention. Jim Comey didn’t say don’t put any resources into Michigan until the final week of the campaign,” he continued.

“And one of the things that hindered her in the campaign was a sense that she never fully was willing to take responsibility for her mistakes, particularly that server.”

Axelrod then offered a piece of advice for Clinton.

“If I were her, if I were advising her, I would say, ‘Don’t do this. Don’t go back and appear as if you’re shifting responsibility.’ ... She said the words ‘I’m responsible,’ but the — everything else suggested that she doesn’t really feel that way,” he said.

“And I don’t think that helps her in the long run, so if I were her I would move on.”

Axelrod was chief strategist for both of Barack Obama’s presidential campaigns and worked in the Obama White House as a senior adviser.

Visigrad Post, “Poland: French presidential candidate Macron wants quick sanctions”, 28 April 2017:

France, Paris – The Liberal-Libertarian candidate for the French presidency assured that he would take, once elected, measures against Poland. According to him, Poland violated “all the principles of the European Union”.

“In the three months following my election, there will be a decision on Poland. I put my responsibility on the table on this subject,” Emmanuel Macron said in an interview on Thursday, April 27th.

“One cannot have a country that plays social tax differentials within the European Union and which is in breach of all the principles of the Union,” he warned.

But for the candidate who faces Marine Le Pen in the second round of the French presidential elections, the question also concerned the “values” of the European Union.

“I want sanctions on those who disrespect the rights and values ​​of the European Union,” he said. “We cannot have a Europe that debates to the decimal each of the budgetary subjects on each country when there’s a European Union member state that behaves like Poland or Hungary on such topics as University and knowledge, refugees, fundamental values, and decides not to do anything.

“According to his adviser for European affairs, Clément Beaune, this issue is close to the 39-year-old banker and former minister of the socialist government under François Hollande’s presidency.

“He assumes to be pro-European but we cannot be European without respecting fundamental principles,” his adviser told Reuters. “It is also a signal of strength and general credibility vis-à-vis Russia, vis-à-vis the United States and, internally, vis-à-vis Europeans.”

Emmanuel Macron is the favorite to win the French presidential elections which will end on May 7th.

My Disqus profile card as of 17 Apr 2017. Follow me, I’m lots of fun.

Introduction

As far as I’m aware, I’ve really made some figures in American White Nationalism upset with my latest two articles, ‘Donald Trump authorises reckless airstrikes against the legitimate government of Syria’, and ‘Silk Road News: First demonstration cargo train departs London for Yiwu, China’. But it doesn’t end there.

‘Armed recon’

It looks like my presence on Disqus comments threads has finally become the target of something resembling a rag-tag opposition. I have to say it took them long enough, given that I’ve been actively and openly voicing my opinions on that platform since Autumn 2015. Some people have now been drawn into mounting a weak and pathetic campaign against me and against Majorityrights.com generally.

Why am I jokingly calling this article ‘armed recon’ in the title? Because it has been kind of like the internet equivalent of that process, in the Vietnam era sense. See this definition:

In simple terms, it means going out there and thrashing around methodically in the brush and then seeing who comes out to shoot at you and what tactics they use while doing so.

That’s basically how all this started. I offer my unvarnished and real opinion, as always, and then I see who agrees and who disagrees. Here’s an example of that:

Disqus / AltRight.com, ‘Trump is Trophy Hunting in North Korea’, 15 Apr 2017:

And another example in a different thread:

Disqus / AltRight.com, ‘Meet Globalist Gary’, 14 Apr 2017:

These are clear stances.

What kind of person—if anyone—might appear out of the brush to tell me that I’m not allowed to hold those opinions because they are dangerous and that I had better sit down and shut my whore mouth immediately?

Well, I hit the jackpot.

Out comes Ted Sallis with an absolutely insane narrative:

Ted Sallis / EGI Notes, ‘Silk Road News: Asian Infiltration of AltRight.com’, 15 Apr 2017:

Apparently I’ve ‘infiltrated’ AltRight.com by simply commenting there like anyone else can do.

Are you surprised? I’m not surprised. After I made the comment about Gary Cohn, things got slightly interesting. One of the figures who seems to be associated with the American White Pride Network (AWPN.net) who was commenting under the name ‘Celestial Time’, began to obliquely defend Gary Cohn and the rest of the Zionist Trump administration. Seriously, that happened. You can read the thread to see how that played out.

In summary: My assertion was that Bob Whitacker’s mantra and the ‘anti-White’ discourse concept had been appropriated by Zionist forces and used as a method for defending Zionists. Their response was to laughably claim that my viewpoint on that was in and of itself an ‘anti-White’ viewpoint.

They say that my anti-Zionism is ‘anti-White’: I fire back

The entire conversation then devolved into a handwringing crybaby session on the part of the AWPN guy, who basically proceeded to redefine ‘anti-White’ to mean any opinion which happens to hurt his feelings, or could be conceivably interpreted by other White people as being hurtful to their feelings.

That’s about as vague as the definition of ‘anti-Semitism’. Incidentally, if they had chosen to use ‘anti-Semitic’ as their accusation toward me rather than ‘anti-White’, it would have made no functional difference because both discourses are being used to defend objectively Zionist outcomes.

So I went with the ‘whisper gently into the megaphone’ approach:

Disqus / AltRight.com, ‘Meet Globalist Gary’, 15 Apr 2017:

I am terrible, aren’t I? Profound butthurt on the part of my opponent ensued. I can’t be given a ‘free pass’ to ‘belittle’ the apparently ‘White’ people who are upset about my comments! I must be held to account!

There is an easy way to understand how that kind of surreal outcome could manifest. You only need to know that Argumentum ad Asiatica is the new Argumentum ad Hitlerum. ‘Anti-White and anti-American’ is the new ‘anti-Semitic’. Up until now, the masters of cultural critique did not have a method for shutting down Asian criticisms of Zionist policies. The rise of Trump as a Zionist, and the affinity that certain pro-White activists have for Trump, means that by some historical accident Zionism is now effectively sheltering under ‘Whiteness’ in the American context.

Anyone who doubts this only needs to watch any of the top trending videos on Rebel Media’s youtube channel, which is controlled by none other than Israeli Zionist Ezra Levant. The trend is absolutely obvious.

Donald Trump card trick

I don’t know if you’ve had fun with this article, but I have.

I once heard about something called the ‘Donald Trump card trick’. It really illustrates how the Donald Trump campaign, as well as the Alt-Right opinion leaders who supported him, have run their operation. Let’s call this trick ‘The Donald’.

Check it out, it goes something like this.

To gain admission to the show, you have to basically mortgage your entire future for a generation or more. Having done that, you are in. You do that first.

So, secondly, they open a perfectly ordinary deck of cards, and you will be shown that they are indeed all different. Let’s say that the campaign is the card trick, and let’s say that the followers and voters have been asked by Trump, to pick a card.

Trump fans the cards out, and he acts like the selection of the cards doesn’t really matter. It’s an old magician’s trick; the selection of the card actually always matters. But you have to be a certain kind of nonchalant if you want to do a force.

And so Trump says, “Pick a card.” And the voters and supporters come together and pick a card and it’s the Jack of Hearts. Trump doesn’t know that. So the Trump campaign takes the card and slides it back into the deck.

Now, don’t forget, it’s the Jack of Hearts. It’s now somewhere in the middle of the deck.

Trump then gives the cards a shuffle while he’s talking. Now, the patter does not matter, Trump can say absolutely anything that pops into his head. Let’s say, “I’ve got a perfectly ordinary deck of cards here, and Mexicans are rapists.”

And then he shuffles a little bit more, and “I still have a perfectly ordinary deck of cards here, and Asian countries are ripping us off on trade via currency manipulation.”

And then he gives them another little shuffle and puts in a little bit more misdirection, like, “I could shoot somebody on fifth avenue and I wouldn’t lose any votes”, and, “She had blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her whatever”, “They are ripping us”, and “We’re going to build a big, beautiful wall.”

And when election time comes, after all this misdirection, all this shuffling, all this handling of the cards, Trump then has the card on top.

Clean-handed, and with great flourish, he produces the card, turns it around and holds it out, and says, “Is this your card?”

And it’s the…

Eight of Spades, not the Jack of Hearts.

Because he’s a fucking idiotic Zionist tool and so are you.

Related Articles:

• Trump and his cyber ‘czar’ Giuliani want to outsource US cybersecurity. Can you guess where-to?
  Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Saturday, 14 January 2017.


• Is Donald Trump playing 181 dimensional underwater jenga-chess? (Hint: No.)
  Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Monday, 05 December 2016.


• Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman: Trump Won Thanks To ‘The Jews’
  Posted by DanielS on Monday, 21 November 2016.


• Alt-Right or Alt-Lite? It’s worse than you think.
  Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Friday, 18 November 2016.


• Obvious ambush: Donald Trump embraces the Jews, and then opens fire against White Nationalists.
  Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Tuesday, 22 March 2016.


• We Told You So: Trump Panders to Israel
  Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 22 March 2016.


• Big Tent quartermasters faced with fresh spate of pro-Jewish pandering from Donald Trump.
  Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Wednesday, 16 March 2016.

A liberal, not a leftist

MjolnrMagazine, “WHY JOHNNY ROTTEN CAN GO F*** HIMSELF”, 13 April 2017:

Never mind the bollocks, although it’s very difficult where John Lydon is concerned. John Lydon, once styled Johnny Rotten, suddenly jumped onto the Brexit and Trump bandwagons and into the headlines a couple of weeks back, which caused a bit of a stir among the chatterers of society. Over the past forty years, Lydon has been groomed as a cultural ambassador by those in power, while playing the old game that he is somehow an anti-establishment rebel. The unfortunate thing is that many on the Alt Right - rather like what happened with Donald Trump - seem to have been taken in by him, so let us take a look at this new ‘hero’ and the cultural movement known as punk at large, which John Lydon as Johnny Rotten represented.

This could be a good article if corrected for the Jewish red cape and its misdirection into rightism or the “no left (social unionization) or right” reaction by contrast. I will add some annotation that would have helped a better telling of the story.

Let us begin with Lydon’s origins and rise, for these are intertwined with the punk phenomenon at large. Lydon’s immediate heritage is Irish, hence the title of his autobiography: Rotten: No Irish, No Blacks, No Dogs - the title being based on a typical sign on properties to let in the 1950s. The ‘No Irish’ part, which may look strange to us today, can be explained by the IRA terrorism of the time and also by the behaviour of Irish gypsies, otherwise known as Travellers. I remember in the good old days before political correctness, many public houses and inns would have signs on the entrance saying ‘No Travellers’.

It is clear, then, from the book’s title that he identifies his own purported second-class citizen status with that of the Negro, who, at the time of Lydon’s birth, had only been in the country in any meaningful sense for barely a decade. This has extended to raising his elderly wife’s half-caste grandchildren like a good little cuck. He has always identified himself with the Other and has an Irish rather than British passport to foreground his at least civic otherness. He therefore also identifies himself as working class in a Marxian sense, his idea of working class as being antagonistic to traditional British and even European norms. He talks about being purportedy working class at every given opportunity.

(((McLaren))), the YKW behind punk and its “ideology”

Certainly, his parents were working class, but is Lydon? There are two ironies here: the first is that he has married Nora Forster, a German publishing heiress fourteen years his senior; the second is that he has never done a working-class job in his life, manager Malcolm McLaren having turned him into a pop singer at the age of eighteen. Lydon is as bourgeois as they come. Indeed, it is telling that the venue for the very first Sex Pistols concert was St Martin’s Art College, about as middle-class as one can get. I must point out that I have nothing against anyone who is born into one class or another, but John Lydon has spent his entire life sneering at the middle classes despite his own bourgeois existence.

As regards that sneer - and the sneer worn by punks in general - one must look at the chief architect of punk rock itself, Malcolm McLaren. Born into a family of Jewish diamond merchants on his mother’s side and raised by his Jewish grandmother, McLaren was heavily influenced at art college by the Situationist avant-garde movement, led by French Communist Guy Debord and his Jewess wife Michèle Bernstein. On the artistic level, Situationism was a Leftist attack on the arts through absurdist or provocative happenings that deconstructed traditional norms and underpinned the May 1968 cultural revolution in France and Germany. The ultimate goal was to normalise the idea of a dictatorship of the proletariat.

We need to pause in the article here. Whenever you see a situation where Jews, Whether Marx, The Frankfurt School or McLaren, are defining a movement, its terms and their deployment, that should send up immediate red flags that the protection and interests of the native European nationalist union is not at heart - on the contrary, coalitions and anarchist forces are being drummed-up to attack these interests, terms are being reversed from their normalizing semantic content in order to confuse - the leftist unionization for fair treatment of workers; to protect them against scab labor (including migrants), to allow them to function unexploited alongside other vital functions/roles of society, is absurdly confounded with liberalism - with scabbing, dissolution of accountability, degeneracy of vital functions - not all of which can be captured by a “dictatorship of the proletariat” - a non genetic, economic group by Jewish design; and in opposition to the genetic union of the nation by contrast. That said, lets continue to look at the Jewish boondoggle against native nationalism that was Punk…

McLaren’s store

Starting with the shop that became SEX, a fetishwear retailer co-managed with fashion designer Vivienne Westwood, McLaren applied this ideology firstly to clothing and then to music. Clothing included t-shirts with two homosexual cowboys naked from the waist down and red leather fetishwear emblazoned with the hammer and sickle for the New York Dolls. John Lydon, a young nihilistic eighteen-year-old without any discernable talent but self-defined by what he hated, fit the bill perfectly for McLaren’s new musical project. Lydon could not sing a note in tune, but this was a plus point, as was his green hair, overall ugliness and ‘I hate Pink Floyd’ t-shirt.

The story of Glen Matlock within the band is interesting. The only member who could actually play to a good level, he was ousted when McLaren caused friction between Matlock and Rotten. This made way for the talentless drug addict known as Sid Vicious. Matlock co-wrote all but a handful of the band’s songs and was just too good for a band with the intention of marketing crap to the masses. McLaren also set up post-punk band Bow Wow Wow, with its thirteen-year-old half-caste lead singer, Annabella Lwin, born Myant Myant Aye to a Burmese father and English mother. Lwin appeared naked on Bow Wow Wow’s debut album as McLaren assaulted traditional norms with miscegenation and child pornography. You will never watch the video to McLaren’s single ‘Double Dutch’ in the same way again.

Lydon is very fond of telling how he exposed Jimmy Savile as a paedophile. It is interesting though that he has tried to ban the recording of his comments back in 1978 from public usage in order to sell them as part of his latest album. Ever the altruist. He has also always been suspiciously quiet about his own ex-manager McLaren’s involvement in the world of paedophilia. Financed by both the BBC, under the auspices of (((Alan Yentob))), and EMI, in 1980 McLaren began creating an ostensibly music-related magazine that would be a more risqué version of Smash Hits, which had just been launched two years previously. In reality, the publication, originally titled Playkids, but then changed to Chicken, would serve to get child pornography into the mainstream. McLaren attempted to get the aforementioned Annabella Lwin to do a full-frontal nude shoot, but after she became distressed and tearful, brought in a replacement thirteen-year-old girl. Fortunately, enough concerns about the magazine ensured its shelving.

Punk rock was essentially a perversion of pub rock for middle-class Leftists.

Correction: Punk rock was perversion of pub rock as a vehicle to enlist naive/disingenuous middle-class liberals into rebellion against native nationalism.

For all the talk of it being a roots, working-class movement that ‘just sprang up’, it was in reality orchestrated by middle-class communists, who used a (sometimes miscegenated) underclass rabble as a musical battering ram against traditional norms. Pub rock, with bands like early Slade, Captain Beefheart, The Who and The Sensational Alex Harvey Band, was what punk rock purported to be.

I’ve seen both the Who and Captain Beefheart, have enjoyed them both - particularly Captain Beefheart on album - but they shouldn’t be accorded undue philosophical significance and authenticity (as they tend to be accorded).

Incidentally, my father rated the latter as the best live band he had ever seen. Bands like the Sex Pistols were fawned over by the Leftist media

Fawned over by the Jewish and (what is for us) liberal media.

and catapulted into the mainstream, while Beefheart and Harvey remained genuinely underground.

Beefheart’s producers tried very hard to make him a commercial success; it wasn’t in his nature to be commercial - it was just the opposite.

And therefore I say to Johnny Rotten in a style he might appreciate: Go fuck yourself, you fake posturing establishment shill.

That I can agree with. Good ending to the story.

Frank Meyer, father of (((Paleocons))), grandfather of “The Alternative Right.”

With the attack on Syria and the confirmation of Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, The Trump administration’s (((paleocon agenda))) has come to explicit fruition - any pretenses to wear its new wardrobe lent by the Alternative Right in their disingenuous/naive trendy support has been thrown off - cucks: they’ve been used. The denial of having been used as paleocons takes the form of saying “Trump has gone neocon”, when in fact, he hasn’t changed - he has just come out in the open with the paleoconservatism that’s always been behind the Alternative Right.

This turn of events should serve to illustrate why the terms we have to defend and negotiate our way in ethnonationalism are crucial to navigate our proper course. The terms to organize and understand our defense are not jargon, they are not complicated but they are very important.

If they were not important, Jewish interests would not have been so intent upon getting White advocates to identify their enemy as “the left” and to divert them into “the Alternative Right” big tent, which is just (((paleoconservatism))), revised with trendy terms, memes and a few more provisional adjunct circles to ease the entryism of Jews and sufficiently didactic right wingers (Captainchaos, take note) - largely a millennial generation internet bubble circle jerk; wherein they tell themselves that they are “rebelling” against boomer generation (((neoconservatism))), so that they can blame that instead of taking responsibility for having been hoodwinked in the garbed up (((paleoconservatism))) which had them as millennial fogies, getting behind Trump: “The Alternative Right” has aided, abetted, deepened entanglement and embrace of Whites with Jewish/Zionist interests.

While not naming the neocons explicitly, (((John K. Press)))‘s “culturalism” - published at Alternative Right - is definitively paleoconservative by contrast to neoconservatism.

With Trump’s coming out into the open in his paleocon agenda, Alt Righters are quickly encouraged to divert blame to the “neocons.”

(((Edmund Oslan))), who identifies as Alt Right and contributes to Alternative Right.org as well, cites Trump as having gone “Neocon” - Savage Hippie Episode 41 – Did Trump Go Neocon, or Is He a Crackhead?

Matt Heimbach and Sven Longshanks follow suit, blaming boomer generation neoconservatism for Trump’s actions in Syria.

MacDonald with Red Ice blames Trump for succumbing to neocon influence: Neocons to Remove Assad, Trump Buys the MSM Lie.

It goes without saying that the flagship of the AlternativeRight - viz Alt Right - would toe the Alternative Right/Paleocon line: Neocon Puppet Donald Trump Announces His Unilateral Attack On Syria.

Counter-Currents depicts their rightist contrast to Trump’s Syrian venture “neoconservatism” as well, not seeing the culpability which its rightism shares with all of the above for playing a part in support of Trump, not having extricated themselves from paleoconservatism.

All the while, the paleocon jargon that entangles would-be White advocacy with Jewish interests under the rubric of the alternative right is protected and defended against clarification and correction.

Concerns for balkanization of the US are in order but not mutually exclusive to other ethnonationalist concerns - they occur in hermeneutic process, attended to as relevant - for those in The US, perhaps a predominantly regular concern.

...he gets the wrong answer, of course. Garbage in means garbage out:

Emile Bruneau recently invited Muslim students and staff at the University of Pennsylvania to help him figure out one of the most pressing questions of our time: How can we stop despising each other?

Bruneau wanted to know more about what kind of arguments effectively combat common prejudices: that Muslims are terrorists, that they don’t want to assimilate, that they are intolerant and hate American freedom. Liberals often believe that Muslim women are oppressed. He enlisted members of the Muslim Students Association to look for videos they thought might prove persuasive. He thought firsthand experience with discrimination might be helpful. (He’s also working with former white nationalists.) He was looking, he told them, for “individualized psychological medicine.”

What worked best was a “very cerebral” video from Al Jazeera in which a Muslim woman said blaming all Muslims for terrorism was like blaming all Christians for the actions of Westboro Baptist Church or the KKK.

The question to ask is not, “how can we bridge our divides and induce Abrahamic religions and peoples to accept one another?”

It is rather to ask, “how can we disabuse people of Abrahamic religion and its universal imperialism in order to defend ethno-nationalism and human ecology against it; and failing completion of that task, contain its extant effects on people; keep our sane interests from being affected by its intransigent elements and lingering influences?”

Communicology is a fascinating and eminently useful discipline that we will be applying here at MR - correctly, unlike this effort from the Annenberg school. Nevertheless, there are some interesting take-away propositions here - notably, that Americans are low information decision makers, therefore equipping them with particularly helpful analogies for them to rationalize their coming to a position we like for them (in our case, we would want them to come to a natural and healthy ethnonationalist position for them and their people) is liable to work better than emotional appeals, despite a commonly ascribed-to school of thought which holds emotions to be the effective means to that end. 

Philly.com, “Penn professor uses science to bridge the political divide”, 2 April 2017:

Emile Bruneau studies conflict between groups and how to combat prejudice at the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School of Communication.

Emile Bruneau recently invited Muslim students and staff at the University of Pennsylvania to help him figure out one of the most pressing questions of our time: How can we stop despising each other?

Muslims and Christians may have been the groups he had in mind that day, but Bruneau, a child of California hippies who took an unusual route to Penn’s Annenberg School for Communication, ultimately has broader goals in mind.  What if there is a psychological key that could defuse the animosity between hate-filled groups around the globe? That includes U.S. Republicans and Democrats, who, his research has found, are almost as alienated from one another as Palestinians and Israelis. The only difference, he said, “is that we’re not actually killing each other.”

Most of us think the antidote to hate and close-mindedness is emotional. But, so far, Bruneau’s research shows that the way to the mind is not necessarily through the heart. In fact, he believes, the way to the heart is through the mind.

Bruneau wanted to know more about what kind of arguments effectively combat common prejudices: that Muslims are terrorists, that they don’t want to assimilate, that they are intolerant and hate American freedom. Liberals often believe that Muslim women are oppressed. He enlisted members of the Muslim Students Association to look for videos they thought might prove persuasive. He thought firsthand experience with discrimination might be helpful. (He’s also working with former white nationalists.) He was looking, he told them, for “individualized psychological medicine.”

READ MORE...

#6: What color the attackers were: Jez - “The Goat Pub, where the attackers of the Kurdish Iranian (asylum seeker) came from serves Zambian food and is known as ‘a black pub.”

James Fulford, VDare - “While it is occasionally a den of iniquity like the Star Wars Cantina, it is less multicultural than that famous tavern, and the licence holder is named Ngoma…

Yes, the Goat, while it claims to be a family friendly pub, is a family friendly Zambian pub, and its customers are mostly black.”

READ MORE...

Classical liberals make a two-paragraph declaration of obsolescence

No one ever thought that classical liberals would ever get around to actually acknowledging that they are fine with getting you and your family killed by roving bands of Islamic ‘migrants’ who are permanently conducting hijra for the past 1400 years and are always looking for a new location to park their reactionary socio-economic caravan of rampant misogyny, homophobia, mestizaje and genocide, but here it is:

Charles Johnson / FEE.org, ‘Why Free Immigration is a Right’, 30 Mar 2017:

Well good God, of course it is morally wrong for nations to pursue their “self-interest” in anything, and especially in border control policies. People have self-interests that matter, morally; nations do not. Nations are toxic hellholes of false identity and purveyors of monstrous political violence.

Nations are not rational people; they are not free associations or contractual agreements; they are unchosen, coercively assembled collectives, whose interests are typically an abortion of, if not an outright war against, the moral interests of individual people which actually deserve to be cultivated, practiced and respected. For anyone committed to individual liberty, a nations’ “interests” deserve no notice at all except to trample them underfoot.

So, there is that. That happened. A classical liberal man actually wrote those paragraphs, and he was not intoxicated when he wrote them.

That excerpt really is basically a two-paragraph declaration of ideological obsolescence on the part of classical liberalism.

Apparently if you pre-emptively use force so as to prevent your enemies from pillaging your lands and killing your family, that makes you ‘a bad person’ or something. Crucially though, it also happens to make you a winner, which I think is the most important thing.

Separately, Charles Johnson is indeed correct when he says that nations are ‘coercively assembled collectives’ which wage ‘outright war’ against ‘the moral interests of individual people’. The process of state formation is indeed an inherently violent array of actions from which all other actions of the state cannot be extricated, and the law itself is essentially an opinion with guns and detention facilities behind it. That is completely true.

With that said, though. Does anyone actually care?

Literally nobody even cares, so whatever

When asked to choose between the ‘liberty’ to have some individuals make moral choices in complete chaos and uncertainty, versus the ‘monstrous political violence’ of the state which creates stability and guarantees the safe existence of the people from which actual prosperity flows, the people should always choose the state.

Liberty has to be properly understood as not ‘freedom from’, but rather ‘freedom to’. The task of the state is to steer a course that allows for the flourishing of prosperity without undermining the social-economic position of the dominant class which creates and reproduces state power, and without significantly undermining the ethnic composition of the people within the jurisdiction of the state’s territory, as genes are a productive force and as such are a factor in the creation of the prosperity atop which the state subsists.

Talking to the invaders is useless

If someone virtue-signalled to Arabs through enacting lax border policies and then framed it as an act of kindness in the social media domain in the hopes that this would somehow smooth integration (still a stupid idea, of course, as integration is a stupid idea), it would actually be just liberals signalling to other liberals in a de facto echo chamber, because Arabs actually barely find time to read their own Arabic print media much less finding time to read English language in the social media domain. This is a fact that is known among most security consultants and among almost anyone who has ever been involved in Information Operations in Mesopotamia after 2003. ‘The Arab man in the street’ does not read. The Arab guy in the street has a political understanding gleaned from the oral pronouncements of his local Imam, a surface level understanding of current events from Arab language television, and a tangle of mutually contradictory conspiracy theories shared orally or across social media. In the case where social media is used, engagement-rates among Arabs are low, which is to say, they do not actually click links.

Almost 100% of the hearts and minds ‘messaging’ that classical liberal thinktanks who are trying to ‘defend values’ have engaged in, has actually been sent into an echo chamber of Europeans and Americans congratulating each other for crafting increasingly sophisticated narratives which all point toward strategically stupid conclusions which undermine European security.

Meanwhile, the mostly male Arab Muslim migrant wave has been ignoring it all while sitting in an ideological trash dumpster of misogyny and homophobia, as they despise all the progressive gains that have been made in regions of the world other than theirs. They have no respect for any other ethnic group and they believe that it is their mission to demographically infest the whole planet.

Safe beneath the watchful eyes

Without security there can be no real freedom. Most people know this almost instinctively, and that is for example why the United Kingdom’s referendum on membership of the European Union delivered up a ‘Leave’ result.

The British people have displayed a revealed preference for the untrammelled full spectrum dominance of the British security state led by Theresa May and Amber Rudd, rather than a European Union which has fallen under the de facto control of Angela Merkel.

We can conclude from this that the British people enjoy actually winning at counter-terrorism more than they enjoy virtue-signalling to a foaming tide of Arab Muslim ‘migrants’ who can barely find time to read their own Arabic print media much less reading English in the social media domain.

The British people don’t actually believe in classical liberalism. They believe in being real people. And that is a reason for optimism.

Classical liberal ‘freedom’ supposes that individuals can be abstracted from their origins, their environment, the context in which they live and where they exercise their choices, that is to say, abstracted from everything that makes them who they are specifically, and not someone else. It supposes that the individual is always prior to her ends. However, there is nothing that can prove that the individual can apprehend herself as a subject completely free of any allegiance, free of any form of determinism. There is no reason why she would prefer that form of ‘freedom’ over any other social good. Such a conception ignores commitments and attachments to clans or spiritual sects, bonds of blood and soil, long-term economic class interests, and the fact that nations are the deepest and most enduring source of political experience. Classical liberal ‘freedom’ is a purely formal conception, which is completely incapable of capturing the rich tapestry of what a real person is.

The real person seeks ‘love’ and ‘eternity’. ‘Love’ is the wish that someone or something should continue to flourish forever, or at least, that they should ‘get the last word’ in the world before the story of humanity ends. In that sense, love is a desire to pursue victory and create a meaning where there was originally none. When standing alone, the individual is always defeated and approaching death alone is the most final of all defeats. But while death is a threshold which must be crossed and can only be crossed alone, it does not have to be approached alone. If the individual can pool her identity with the group, so that she becomes one with the will of the group as it solves the historical tasks which have been placed before it, then she is all-seeing and all-knowing forever and ever—capable of knowing what she is, and what she can become. She is really free and has attained ‘eternity’. 

Victory becomes attainable. We become the gendarmes who protect the actualisation of eternal love so that others can become part of it. We never die because this empire never dies, as it is constructed not only in the physical domain, but is also fortified in the domain of the mind. As such, we are expected to fight eternally for it. 

We are not afraid of the conflicts that lie ahead and we are not sorry about anything. 

Because love will emerge victorious over terror.