Majorityrights News > Category: Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests

Prosecutors in Sicily are seeking to charge Mr. Salvini with illegally detaining the migrants…

Italy Lawmakers Strip Matteo Salvini of Immunity in Migrant Ship Case

Wall Street Journal 30 July 2020:

The former interior minister faces a possible trial for refusing to let a ship carrying 150 migrants dock in Italy last year

MILAN—The Italian Senate voted to lift the immunity of Matteo Salvini, paving the way for the country’s former interior minister and the leader of the opposition to face a possible trial for refusing to let a ship carrying 150 migrants dock in Italy last year, and bringing the issue of migration to Europe back to the fore as the continent tries to stem the spread of the coronavirus.

The Great Awokening and the Second American Revolution.

by Eric Kauffmann for Quillette.com 22 June 2020:
       

Statues toppled, buildings renamed, curricula “decolonized,” staff fired. The protests following George Floyd’s killing have emboldened cultural revolutionaries in America and Europe. The iconoclasts are changing minds, and could be in a position to enact a root-and-branch reconstruction of America into something completely unrecognizable to its present-day inhabitants. Imagine a country whose collective memory has been upended, with a new constitution, anthem, and flag, its name changed from the sinful “America” to something less tainted. Far-fetched? Not according to data I have collected on what liberal white Americans actually believe. Only a renewed American cultural nationalism can resist it.

According to multiple surveys, the effect of the riots which occurred at around the same time as the BLM protests is quite different from what occurred with previous waves of rioting. First, many of the participants in the major riots were white. Second, there has been no clear call for Nixonian law and order following the riots, but rather greater public acceptance of the BLM movement’s unsupported claims that contemporary structural racism explains why police shoot unarmed black men or violent crime plagues inner-city neighbourhoods. While 57 percent of Americans disagree with the protestors’ radical slogan, “defund the police,” an astounding 29 percent support it. This is so despite the deaths of a number of black people during the riots and the fact the riots have coincided with a steep rise in the number of black homicide deaths in inner-city neighbourhoods due to a “Ferguson Effect” of police reducing their presence in these areas.

Meanwhile Trump is polling well down after the riots, having dropped 2.5 points to Biden since Floyd’s death on May 25th. Trump’s repeated mistruths, unstatesmanlike behaviour and nepotistic employment of family members may have eroded the truth-based environment to such an extent that evidence-free shifts in issue position become increasingly easy. His sinking popularity tarnishes issue positions associated with his presidency, even when they are backed by the weight of evidence—as with the idea that indiscriminate police brutality rather than racism accounts for violence against unarmed blacks. The power of corporate and celebrity endorsement, magnified by “trendy” social media herding, has resulted in unusually high approval among whites for the activities of the rioters. This is an important departure from what occurred during, for example, the late 60s race riots, 1992 Rodney King riots, or even the 2014 Ferguson riots.

Statues, memory, and the social construction of harm

Progressive scholars are fond of emphasizing the socially-constructed nature of perceived reality. This is overstated, of course. Human minds are not blank slates. Gender can’t be readily reconstructed to make males dominate the caring professions and females the majority of ditch-diggers. Similarly, Americans can’t easily be convinced they are actually Russians.

But you don’t need to follow social construction to its postmodernist extreme to acknowledge that social construction does play a role in how we perceive the world. To a partial extent, there really is a “social construction of reality,” as Berger and Luckmann put it. Psychological research, for example, shows that flagging certain issues repeatedly, or framing them in particular ways, affects attitudes and feelings.

Let me interject here to make a correction in Kaufmann’s assessment of the abuse of social constructionism. The agentive aspect of social constructionism can be overstated [and I am sure that “progressive scholars” like to do that], but this would be an abuse of social constructionism indeed. As I like to emphasize, there are three important aspects to proper deployment of social constructionism: 1) The more literal, for example, as in people constructing a building together. 2) The metaphoric, for example, “a couple and a village socially constructing a child together”...or the social (re)construction of the narrative of a people’s history and 3) Post Hoc attribution as to how more brute facts come to count - e.g., fact, ‘my cousin was hit by lightning and killed’ but now there is a negotiation (social construction) as to whether the lightning strike was an act of god or triggered by events of physics; whether he has gone to heaven or is now just worm food, up for beatification or a good riddance, etc. ...is there something to be done to prevent lightning strikes or not?

...and poignantly, the fact of immigration, to be treated like a force of nature, a flow (as our enemies might like us to passively accept it), something that just happens? or rather an egregious social policy instantiated by hostile and irresponsible elites?

For Kaufmann to say that “social constructionism is overstated” is not accurate then. He might say with accuracy, that the agentive aspect of social constructionism can be overstated where it might attempt to say that it can make just whatever it likes of brute facts. But then that is neither particularly social nor anti-Cartesian indeed, but rather solipsistic, violating the corrective raison d’être of social constructionism and its means to harness social accountability.

Besides a red caping for the sake of Jewish interests, to dissuade Whites from this vital instrument (viz. for Whites to organize as a group), I believe much of the abuse of social constructionism has to do with the university being in the big business of selling talk and undergraduates being the paying customers that can be lured into liberal tenured professors’ language games by appealing to them with an “empowering” sense of overstated agency and liberal activism.

That correction at hand, back to Kauffmann

What society chooses to focus on and care about, the emotions it feels, the objects it sacralizes, the boundaries between groups, vary a lot across time and place. For instance, choosing not to shake someone’s hand is offensive in Western culture, but not in Japan, where a bow is the common greeting. Leaving food on one’s plate is treated as an insult in Japan, but not in the West. Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning show that in Western elite culture in 1800, as in violent inner-city neighborhoods today, insults were treated as violence, which can only be avenged by physical violence. But for most of us, who haven’t been inculcated into a touchy honor culture, verbal slights don’t carry the same emotional punch. We either ignore them or respond with a counter-insult. As the sociology of emotions tells us, the way societies and individuals emotionally respond to words is, to an important degree, socially constructed.

The same sensitizing dynamic works for history, literature, film, statues, and even words. Like Red Guards with a hair-trigger sensitivity for sniffing out the bourgeois, today’s [*internationalist left ergo liberal-modernist] offense archaeologists outdo each other in trying to reframe the world as racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, and so on. Turning the principle of charity on its head, they insist on the most suspicious interpretation of a person’s motives when the subject matter is associated with their canonical totems of race, gender, sexuality. A Hispanic man flicking his fingers outside his truck window gets fired because this was photographed, tweeted, and spun as the “OK” white power sign. The result is an atmosphere where inter-personal trust is as low as humanly possible while discursive power flows to the accuser. The new cultural revolutionaries have constructed our emotional and conceptual reality.

Once “harm”, “racism” and other concepts become unmoored from reality, more of the world is remade. Statues which were long ignored become offensive. Complex historical figures like Jefferson or Churchill, who embodied the prejudices of their time, or elites like Columbus or Ulysses Grant, whose achievements had both positive and negative effects, are viewed through a totalizing Maoist lens which collapses shades of grey into black and white. If a historic personage transgressed [liberal internationalist] left-modernist sacred values, their positives instantly evaporate and activists myopically focus on their transgressions.

Suddenly, an entire Orwellian world opens up: place names, history books, statues, buildings. When you’re equipped with the anti-racist hammer, everything begins to look like a nail. In this brave new world, it doesn’t matter whether a symbol like the Rhodes Scholarship has acquired a completely different meaning, or whether a statue has become a symbol of something completely different. All must be levelled to bring forth utopia.

What has occurred across the West, especially in the English-speaking world, is a steady [liberal internationalist] left-modernist march through the institutions. Beginning in the 1960s, former radicals entered universities and the media, capturing the meaning-producing machines of society. Once boomers became the establishment in the 1990s, the ethos of institutions started to shift. For good and ill, equality and diversity rose up the priority list. As these ideas filtered through Schools of Education and into the K-12 curriculum, older ideas of patriotism faded and the new critical theory perspective began to replace it. Sixty three percent of millennials (aged 22–37) now agree that “America is a racist country,” nearly half say it is “more racist than other countries” and 60 percent that it is a sexist country. Older generations are less radical, but 40–50 percent of boomers and Gen Xers agree with these statements, reflecting the long march of the [Internationalist Marxist] Left through American culture.

The deculturation of America

In order to find out how willing liberal Americans are to jettison the country’s cultural identity, I decided, on May 7th, to ask what I thought were outlandish questions—almost to the point of inflicting a Sokal Squared-style hoax on survey respondents. The answers I received amazed me. I then repeated the exercise on June 15th, after the George Floyd killing and subsequent protests to see whether things had gotten even crazier. It turns out they have.

After the preface, “To what extent do you think that the following should be done to address structural barriers to race and gender equality in America,” I presented 16 statements that an amalgamated sample of 870 American respondents could agree or disagree with. The sample is not representative of the American population—I used the Amazon Mechanical Turk and Prolific Academic survey platforms that thousands of academics use. Respondents on these platforms lean young, liberal, and white. But as this is precisely the group I wished to study, this is not a major limitation. Indeed, I have removed conservatives and centrists to focus only on liberals. Liberals are defined as those who rate themselves as a one “very liberal” or two “liberal” on a five-point scale from “very liberal” to “very conservative.” The liberal sample, consisting of 414 people, was 86 percent white and 53 percent male. Forty percent of liberals identified as “very liberal” and the other 60 percent as just “liberal.”

Responses ranged on a seven-point scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” I’ve simplified the seven categories into a binary agree-versus-disagree score. Those who scored a four—“neither agree nor disagree”—were dropped from the analysis, permitting me to gauge where the balance of committed opinion lies.

Here is what I asked people to agree or disagree with:

1. Rebalance the history taught in schools until its voices and subjects reflect the demographics of the population and heritage of Native people and citizens of color.

2. Move, after public consultation, to a new American anthem that better reflects our diversity as a people

3. Rename our cities and towns until they match the demographics of the population

4. Rebalance the art shown in museums across the country until an analysis of content shows that it reflects the demography of the population and perspective of Native people and citizens of color

5. Move, after an open public process, to a new name for our country that better reflects the contributions of Native Americans and our diversity as a people

6. Rename our states until they better reflect the heritage of Native people and citizens of color

7. Gradually replace many older public buildings with new structures that don’t perpetuate a Eurocentric order, until a more representative public space is achieved

8. Respectfully remove the monument to four white male presidents at Mount Rushmore, as they presided over the conquest of Native people and repression of women and minorities

9. Allow our public parks to return to their natural state, before a European sense of order was imposed upon them

10. Move, after public consultation, to a new American flag that better reflects our diversity as a people

11. Consider adopting a new national language, that will be forged from the immigrant and Native linguistic diversity of this country’s past

12. Remove existing statues of white men from public spaces until the stock of statues matches the demographics of the population

13. Gently remodel the statue of liberty to make it better reflect the diversity of America

14. Rename our streets and neighbourhoods until they match the demographics of the population

15. Move, after public consultation, to a new American constitution that better reflects our diversity as a people

16. Begin changing the layout of our cities, towns, and highways, moving away from the grid system to follow the more natural trails originally used by Native people

The problem of attractive Jewish women/mischlings and other attractive non-White/European women.

I suspect that denying the fact that there are attractive Jewish women does more harm than good, as it puts into question one’s very sensibilities as ground of judgment. It can also cast a shadow of radical subjectivism over one’s taste. Indeed, even if you don’t like this type, do you not like that one, or should everyone suspend disbelief in your proposal of “unattractiveness”?

One route of Jewish infiltration into European populations, viz. Ashkenazi, was through Italy, and being half Italian, that perhaps partly explains why it is that I can find this type (physically) attractive.

But even if you don’t like this type, what about that?

What can you say? That she is Jewish from her father’s side, therefore because she is not considered Jewish by some Jewish laws that makes her not Jewish? Or that the Aryan in her washes the Jewishness away? Genetic and cultural allegiance speak otherwise.

Or this?

Or this?

Dealing with the issue honestly might help some young guys from falling into a situation where they perpetuate infiltration and subversion of European peoples by means of direct spousal influence and the creation of mischlings.

Indeed, some Jewish beauty and I.Q. may be a result of gene hijacking, so to speak…

Hedy Lamarr: in her spare time experimented with radar technology, which included contributions to military radar jamming devices and “bluetooth” technology.

But what to say to young guys? I know that for me, I personally DID find some Jewish women very attractive (and that was part of my initial aversion to anti-Semitism). However, where they did not reject me out of snobbery or whatever, then before it was too late, I invariably found their strident liberalism and disrespect for European peoples and culture intolerable.

Nevertheless, it would be dishonest to say that none of them are attractive…

What do you think? What would you say to your son or daughter to warn them off?

My best argument probably boils down to patterns and their intermittent nature which provide for “exceptions” and entryism for liberal argumentation and nefarious influence.

Oakland Mayor, supports BLM, warns hundreds of illegal immigrants of ICE round-up.

Ghislaine Maxwell

Then there is the crucial matter of crypsis and the nefarious influence it may mask.

I’ll be posting other examples as time goes on and we’ll look at some attractive women from other non-White races as well.

(((Peggy Lipton))) and her daughter Rashida Jones, from her marriage to Quincy Jones.

READ MORE...

We have to start killing White people. Version on Bitchute

“If we really want a change in this world, we have to kill White people. We have to start killing them. Otherwise there will be no change, at all. They will continue to do what they do and they will be entitled about it and spoiled.

We have to kill them. I can’t stress that enough. Like, we need to start interbreeding with their women, fucking their women; having as many children as possible so that we can interbreed with their families; and get our race going. You know, they can’t be racist to a black person if they have a half black kid. You know what I mean? It’s a little more hard to be racists when you got children that are half black. You know?

       

And Mitch McConnell, we have to get him out of the fuckin’ Senate. He is the epitome of White people. Same with Trump. They lie, they use their hypocrisy and they’re terrible fuckin’ people. I mean, you just read, then look up any data or um, information and you can look it up for yourself; but people are too fuckin’ dumb to do that shit. Um.

I just, I’m, I’m really, at this point with White people like I just, we really need to fuckin’ get rid of them. You know? They don’t want to be here, they don’t want to be on our team, they don’t want to help, they don’t want to do anything with us, so lets fucking get them out of our fuckin country.
               

They’re not even fucking from here to fuckin begin with. They fucking from some other fucking place and then they come here and try to act like it’s theirs, like. This is why we need to kill them.

Like and if anybody’s serious about this shit, like I think I’m going to start a group on um, like on having talks about you know how they’re privileged and how they get away with everything…

You know, and when I say “White privilege”, I don’t mean like oh, you get something or you get money or something like that, like no. 

You don’t have to deal with the shit that we got to deal with. Let me see if you’ve ever dealt with any of this. This is what I consider White privilege:

1) Have you ever been arrested for a crime that you didn’t commit?

2) Have you ever been accused of a crime that you didn’t commit.

3) Have you ever spent time in jail for a crime that you didn’t commit?”

In the Sortocracy of the DNA Nations, incarcerated people of color could be freed to go to colored societies; and they would not be subject to White jurisdiction to begin with unless they attempted to transgress our borders without our consent.

Two White couples, two cities, in entirely different nations, Burnley, Lancashire England, and San Francisco, California, fired from their positions each, in four different companies, in effect for running afoul of “Black Lives Matter.”

WHITE COUPLE LOSE THEIR JOBS AFTER CALLING COPS ON NEIGHBOR FOR WRITING BLACK LIVES MATTER ON HIS PROPERTY

Black Enterprise.com 16 June 2020:

A white San Francisco couple, who called the police on their neighbor for writing “Black Lives Matter” in chalk at his own property, were both let go from their jobs after a social media post detailing the incident went viral, according to NewsOne.

Lisa Alexander, former CEO of LaFace Skincare (screenshot via Twitter)

A white San Francisco couple, who called the police on their neighbor for writing “Black Lives Matter” in chalk at his own property, were both let go from their jobs after a social media post detailing the incident went viral, according to NewsOne.

Lisa Alexander and her partner, Robert Larkins, originally accused James Juanillo, who is Filipino, of vandalizing the property and claimed that Juanillo didn’t live there. Juanillo says to Alexander “you don’t know if I live here or if this is my property,” to which Alexander responds, “We actually do know, that’s why we’re asking.

[...]

Due to the incident, Robert Larkins was fired by wealth management firm Raymond James on Monday as well. The company issues a statement regarding the firing on their Twitter account.

[...]

CBS News reported that Alexander apologized to her Filipino neighbor in a written statement. She was also fired from her position as the CEO of LaFace, a San Francisco-based skincare company.

JAKE HEPPLE CLAIMED RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE VILE BANNER...

Manchester Evening News 24 June 2020

The Burnley fan responsible for the ‘White Lives Matter’ banner flyover at the Etihad has been sacked from his job

...and his girlfriend Megan Rambadt has had her contract by Solace Foot Health and Reflexology terminated.

Mirror 24 June 2020

Girlfriend of Burnley fan behind banner stunt sacked over alleged racist posts

Given all that we now know and see, the mass brainwashing and cultural appropriation by Zionism of English patriotism through one of the most rousing, inspiring and ostensibly patriotic English hymns, “Jerusalem”, looms horrifying - as a hymn to a false religion misdirecting English interests to our enemy, captivating the nation from its Royalty, in holy matrimony, to the commoners singing in overflow outside Westminster Abbey.

Even if the significance of what I have brought to bear has thus far been misunderstood by GW, the significance of his radically native English loyalty is not lost on me (and his resistance to my efforts perhaps partly explained); appreciated all the more as an occasion like this, the mass singing of the hymn “Jerusalem” at the Royal Wedding reveals the kind of appropriation and the daunting, egregious misdirection that it is up against.

The Royal Wedding - Jerusalem (29 April 2011)

Harry and the undifferentiating of the gentiles

We’ve discussed this before, and while I basically agreed with GW, of the song I was still captured somewhat for its beauty and inspiration, its fascinating interplay of paganism, Christianity and patriotism… such that I did not fully appreciate in this case the significance of GW’s stance against Christianity’s historically enmeshed, nefarious influence - de-ethnonationalizing, universalizing, blending away the gentile into undifferentiated mass, powerless to organize against the “chosen ones”, etc.

Commenting on GW’s post: The shaping of European altruism in left political form, part 1

Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 25 Jun 2012 16:39 | # 2

OK, back for literally a minute. Reading about the sickness of PC, here as elsewhere, why do you, GW, never weigh in on my White Zion argument (ie, that WNs of all persuasions - conservative, Christian, nationalist, pagan, NSM - will never be a majority of any sovereign polity, and thus our race is doomed unless there is some kind of emigration-ingathering so that we might attain a sovereign majority somewhere)?

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 25 Jun 2012 16:57 | # 3

I’m English, Leon.  England is Zion to me, not that I like or need Jewish symbols.

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 25 Jun 2012 17:30 | # 4

GW: I’m English, Leon.  England is Zion to me, not that I like or need Jewish symbols.

That was funny

...“And did those feet in ancient time, Walk upon England’s mountains green?”....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CN11bI1_sZo

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 25 Jun 2012 17:49 | # 5

No they didn’t, Daniel.

Let me now respond to that pithy remark with great respect.

At the time, I responded:

Posted by daniel on Mon, 25 Jun 2012 18:15 | # 6

GW: No they didn’t, Daniel.

That was funny too..

No, I guess not, but a good tune, rather inspirational in its own way…and I like the Blake poem as it goes back and forth from Christianity to paganism from verse to verse - it can be seen, in a sense, as urging Christians/Christianity to conform to English nationalist interests.

...but neither do I recommend that strategy. Enough middle eastern influence to sort out as it is.

You already have quite a temple mount there in the London Square Mile

Somewhat better, I did add:

Posted by daniel on Mon, 25 Jun 2012 21:23 | # 8

While I am seeing the humor in those few quips by GW, I must also say that I am moved by this essay. It is rather not funny - heart wrenching.

As GW values the pithy, precise and natural, let us bend our hermeneutic knee where it is due: “No they didn’t”

The lyrics to Jerusalem:

And did those feet in ancient time,
Walk upon England’s mountains green?
And was the holy lamb of god
On England’s pleasant pastures seen?
And did the countenance divine,
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here
Among these dark satanic mills?
Bring me my bow of burning gold!
Bring me my arrows of desire!
Bring me my spear, oh clouds unfold!
Bring me my chariot of fire!
I will not cease from mental fight,
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand
Til we have built Jerusalem
In England’s green and pleasant land.

  - William Blake

Inspiring a boomer generation with mixed and mxing messages -
Emerson, Lake and Palmer: Jerusalem.

Below the fold is the moving article of GW. And while I respect his patriotic resistance in the daunting face of such grand deception and defrauding of the English people, I must issue the caveat that his fight has been transferred mistakenly against the resource that I bring to bear. Though he does not elaborate on what he maintains to be “the left political form”, we must be assured by now that he does not mean an ethnonationalist left, but an international one.

I always take for grated the maintaining of the genus and species (thus nationalism and native national borders) where I use the term “left” to attune consciousness to our interests. For GW’s penchant for strawmanning (lets be nice for a moment and call it Socratic challenge), it has taken volumes of repetition to assert that I am not talking about Marxism/ and its internationalist, supranational leftism, which is liberal with regard to our national borders.

I should have been able to take it for granted, as I was clear that I never advocated doing away with the borders of our people, be they racial genus or national species. But given the strawmanning of my potion, I have made what I mean by White Left explicit - i.e., White Left EthnoNationalism; and I have been explicit as to why I take that position.

That’s mostly irrelevant in this moment, but for the fact that “the form of left” is mentioned in GW’s title -

READ MORE...

I hate to present a note of sarcasm, but the stultification of our people’s understanding as a result of red caping of important philosophical concepts for social organization has been unbelievably thorough.

Social Construction of the DNA Nations: A major problem, obstruction really, that I have had in getting better ideas understood and underway has been the misrepresentation of these better ideas for social organization of European peoples; so much so have ideas of social organization been misrepresented that European peoples have been repulsed by the very ideas that they need most to facilitate their social organization and homeostasis.

Social Constructionism is prominent among the misrepresented ideas made didactically repulsive. Social Constructionism properly understood doesn’t maintain that you can merely make whatever you like of your existence – you can try, but if your ideas are absurd they are going to be thwarted in one way or another (in a word, how is being solipsistic – deciding that you can be whatever you like completely irrespective of what other people think, let alone the laws of biology and physics - how is that “social”? - it isn’t. It’s Cartesian).

Social Constructionism is a correction to Cartesian estrangement, in either of its two extreme directions, either beyond nature or within nature, but on either side, veering toward no account, “that’s just the-way-it-isness”, which is susceptible to leave our people unprotected for the lack of accountability to their relative group systemic interests.

The group system, which Aristotle called praxis, is the middle range between the Cartesian extremes, the social world, provided structure by the concept of unionization – as opposed to Cartesian runway beyond nature or on course of brute nature, unionization structures human, social systemic accountability, thereby correctivity, which corresponds to group homeostasis, which is what we want, our autonomy, our sovereignty, our agency. Our social group, praxis, which should be the default calibration, while truth quests the feedback. Through accountability as such, we may establish coherence, the first task of any individual or specific group in the world, and with accountability as such, we may establish agency and warranted assertability:

The idea of social constructionism rather is to sensitize and centralize our people as the most relevant perspective – viz., our relations and their necessity; and with that accountability and coherence we can call attention to the agency that we have in the construction of our world; always a fact in one of three ways:

More literally, as in the construction of a building.

More metaphorically, as in the “construction” of a child.

Post hoc in relation to brute facts, as in we retain that capacity to negotiate to some extent how those facts come to count.

Why am I bringing this up now?

Social constructionism properly understood is an innocuous idea at worst and at its best, it is honest in the way the world and knowledge construction actually works; facilitating the ongoing social construction and correction of knowledge – knowledge imperative to our survival as a people.

Because our people react to misrepresentations of the idea, they are not taking advantage of this idea which the internet facilitates so well.

The Internet is here! We can interact in the construction of the DNA Nations concept! And yet for these past ten years, people have been acting like they are still sitting in front of the television, movie screen or radio, or going to the media of yesteryear as Bowery notes, of the bible, and that I am in front of the congregation: I have been treated as if I am either Moses on Mount Sinai, who is supposed to deliver the commandments by magic transmission to their brains, or, as they seem to prefer, that I am an impostor that they must debunk, with vicious ad hominum for their gods, be they Moses indeed, Jesus or Hitler or some other icon.

They’ll do anything, it seems, but join me in interaction, the way that social construcionism is supposed to work, in ongoing development and correction of ideas.

You think you are so smart? Fine, lets see how you can help refine and advance these ideas. Think I am mistaken about something? Let me know where I can make a correction..etc.

I have been maintaining all along that I know that I have set out solid, important specificatory structures, now lets shape and craft them in our interests!

So the task now is to wait for/and or find those people who will help me to build the DNA Nations concept - they might care to help develop other ideas that I’ve advanced as well, but - the DNA Nations concept is most important to develop at this point – for obvious reasons now, it is urgent that we get this underway.