acted as an extension of the government, advocating precisely what the wealthiest male stakeholders in the liberal-capitalist state would like them to advocate. The demography of the migrant flow is 70% male between ages 18 and 35, and the percentage of males rises to 90% when the age range of 16 to 17 years old alone is considered.
With liberal-feminist theorists and commentators in Europe now devoting themselves almost exclusively to the defence of Arab and African men, some people are beginning to ask how it could have ever been possible for things to have reached this point.
If we start with the consideration that incidents of violent crime, homicide, and sexual assault are statistically being committed overwhelmingly by men, and if we consider that feminism has been highlighting and talking about these statistics for as long as it has existed as a movement, why has this been completely forgotten now? Why is it that talking about the violent and anti-social tendencies of men has now been condemned as ‘prejudice’, where it was never condemned as such before?
It stands to reason that if men in general are a hazardous demographic, that the last thing any reasonable feminist would want to do is to set about inviting more men into a region that they are living in. What makes it even more of an absurd trend, is that the particular men who are being invited into Europe subscribe to social views which are magnitudes worse than the views held by European men. If young European men are a problem demographic, and they indeed are, then wait until you see young Arab and African men!
Some have advanced the absolutely bewildering argument that since there are already trouble-causing men in Europe, there should be no problem inviting millions more men into the continent. This makes no sense. Why would anyone want to increase the amount of a problem that already exists?
There seems to be no rationale until you realise that big business, specifically manufacturing, always wants more migration of ‘strong’ workers. And manufacturing essentially controls the German state, which forms the centre of this trend. European feminism has found itself acting as the cheerleaders for the most retrograde liberal economic policy preferences of German manufacturers and their Jewish-German financiers.
Given that feminism is a movement that originated not as a liberal movement, but rather, as a socialistic movement—which is to say, a movement which correctly perceived the liberal state as being a male-dominated capitalist assault vehicle against women and as such was opposed to the liberal state—it is quite a distance that has been travelled since the mid-1970s to get to the destructive pro-liberal capitalist position it is in now. There are important lessons to be learned on why this deformation happened and how to prevent such a deformation from happening again in the future.
Entering bourgeois government without a connection to working class organisationsAfter the events of May 1968 in France, it seemed as though there could be no limit to where feminist organising might go. The door had been thrown open, and the rise of ‘state feminism’ as a tendency was made possible. The conception of ‘state feminism’ was that by entering the bourgeois government, people who were feminist advocates could shape public policy in ways which delivered results for regular women.
As well-intentioned as this was, it suffered from the classic problem of how the needs of regular women, most of whom were working class, could continue to be met if they were unable to connect the engine of feminist theory to the drivetrain of policy-making after feminists and feminist-allies had entered the government.
Entering government without a coherent movement and a party structure behind them which was rooted in the struggles of the working class, meant that these attempts at ‘state feminism’ would become dependent almost immediately on campaign donations and grants from sections of the bourgeois state itself, and would become linked to bourgeois parties and made to conform to their concerns and priorities whenever feminist theory and liberal-capitalist economics came into contradiction.
Some women insisted that ‘gradualism’ was what was happening, and that it was not concessions that were being made. They insisted that those women who cautioned against these compromises were ‘too purist’ or ‘paranoid’, or even—ironically—‘man haters’.
Yet it has emerged in the end that those who were ‘paranoid’ were correct. The priorities of the ‘state feminists’ became warped and deformed, and the contours of their deformations aligned exactly with the demands of the liberal-capitalist state.
For example, the liberal-capitalist state requires compliant female workers who carry out double-duty in the home and the workplace. Rather than calling for the socialisation of childcare and home duties, instead the ‘state feminists’ studiously ignored that problem and began talking about quotas in boardrooms, boardrooms which most women will never get to inhabit, given that 67% of women are working class. That is just one example, and I’m sure you can think of many more, I don’t need to elaborate on all of them. Basically, all economic issues were shelved, and ‘state feminism’ became a talking shop in which only a minority of women were being catered to, or otherwise there was a lot of talk about ‘feelings’. I actually cannot count the number of times I’ve had to tell people “feminism is not your therapy session.”
This is what happens when you end up with liberal-feminism rather than socialist-feminism.
Rather than having a philosophy of praxis, and rather than seeking out policy preferences which ran contrary to the established system and which trended toward setting the stage for socialism, ‘state feminists’ instead became the cheerleaders of almost every destructive domestic policy proposed by European capitalists.
At the end of the day, the form of feminism which triumphed in the west, liberal-feminism, was a hollow triumph which only became more hollow as time wore on. In liberal-feminism, the part in front of the hyphen is killing the part behind the hyphen. And that’s only to be expected, given that liberalism is the ideology of the haute-bourgeoisie.
The tricks and deceptions of the haute-bourgeoisieOne of the most often repeated claims that are made by liberals, and which is now parroted by liberal-feminists everywhere, is the claim that “Europeans are not having enough children”. What exactly decides how much is ‘enough’? Nations and regions have a carrying capacity, beyond which it becomes more and more difficult to house people and provide basic infrastructure without causing serious damage to the environment and stressing state budgets. There is also the fact that increasing automation and mechanisation of the economy has created a future in which structural unemployment looms unless the population is reduced.
In what world are Europeans not having enough children? They needed to have less children, because the development of productive forces and the advent of robotics on the production line and information systems cutting out ‘middle men’ everywhere, made it completely logical to have less children.
European populations should be applauded for having reacted so rationally to the prevailing economic conditions.
The manufacturing industries which are lamenting this trend, are those industries which failed to develop themselves because they failed to invest in capital equipment, and which now want to offset their bad decision making with a shot-in-arm through the importation of labourers from the Middle East and Africa. They should not be allowed to do that, and in fact, they should be made to run onto the wall and become bankrupt if they cannot adapt to an era of reduced population levels. Swim or be bankrupt is how it ought to be.
The more slothful manufacturers who have influence over the crafting of state policy refuse to accept that fate however, and so their strategy has been to induce the governments which they own to pile up workers from the Middle East and Africa as their ‘get out of a bankruptcy free’ card, and they’ve used their interface with the state to lobby for that outcome. False pseudo-economic pleas are made, appeals to humanitarianism, and faces of the most profound pity are all marshalled to support the mass migration cause.
The thing is that they can never win with that strategy anyway, because they are only delaying the inevitable. There is no way that any number of human beings can be more effective at carrying out mass production of widgets than robotics will be in the long term, so all the European companies who insist on adopting that strategy will ultimately find themselves being eclipsed by their Asian competitors who are increasingly investing in more capital equipment and will defeat them on the global market with rival products that are both higher quality and cheaper.
The end result is that these European manufacturers will still go bankrupt in the end, and then all their employees, be they white, Arab, or African, will all end up as ‘excess population’ claiming unemployment benefits and stressing the treasuries of European governments.
The public faces of European feminism have been marshalled as cheerleaders of this dire trend too. A movement and tendency which once—correctly—espoused positions that bordered on being anti-natalist and deep ecologist, now in 2016 mysteriously and insanely appears to be mouthing platitudes that are pro-natalist, quiver-full, and pregnancy fetishist. It’s as if they are saying “Too bad you weren’t a pregnancy fetishist, now we’ll have to invite in all these Arabs and Africans who are!”
Those strange and uncharacteristic positions that are being advanced, are another indicator of just how deformed and degenerated European feminist thought has become. It is scarcely recognisable as feminism.
The answers change depending on how much they want to kill youWe’ve heard that women are the curators and guardians of culture who are usually targeted first for pacification, and that whenever ethnic violence breaks out anywhere, women end up being targeted in acts of immense violence.
I had the dis-privilege once of having to talk to some liberal-feminists about feminism and nationalism, and what the complimentary and contradictory elements of these tendencies are when they are brought under the same roof.
Somehow the conversation came to the issue of violence in the Middle East and North Africa. A liberal began arguing that the instability in that region should not be attributed to the choices made by men in those societies entirely, because “it was the European powers who drew the borders the way that they were, and it should only be expected that conflicts would erupt when so many diverse peoples are placed within the same borders.”
And someone else piped up with something like, “Don’t forget that some of these borders were deliberately arranged so the inhabitants would be unable to form a common front to advocate for their interests.”
I then asked why it was that they could so clearly see the concept of ‘the state as tax franchise’ and ‘divide and rule’ being used in the Middle East and North Africa, and yet at the same time still facilitate the creation of the precursors to the exact same ‘divide and rule’ structure inside the western world via mass migration. I followed up by slyly asking whether they thought that this would be a structure which would make it even more difficult to advocate for socialism, or whether they thought it would make advocacy for socialism easier.
Majorityrights readers will not be surprised to hear that it was decided that the conversation should end there and that I should be unceremoniously dis-invited from the venue in the future. The comedic element was that the liberals couldn’t come to agreement amongst themselves on the precise way in which I had offended their sensibilities, should they accuse me of being ‘a racist’, or ‘a communist’? Maybe I was a socialist, of the nationalist variety?
At any rate, it was all getting very illiberal, and they were having none of that thank-you-very-much.
Again, what we are seeing is a feminism that is afraid to reach conclusions that contradict the policy preferences of the liberal-capitalist state. It’s a form of epistemic closure.
The patriarchal rapefugee dialecticThink about it. For years we’ve all been told about how heteronormativity and patriarchy is something that needs to be challenged, yet suddenly no one seems to be interested in challenging it anymore. That concern which feminists took up, has now been superseded by a new concern, which is the concern to make sure that every African and Arab male feels happy and appreciated by the lands which they are essentially invading.
At the same time, the same feminists are to be found chanting “we are not your women”, when white males try to defend local women from sexual assault and rape at the hands of the African and Arab migrants.
This is part of what I like to call ‘the patriarchal rapefugee dialectic’. It goes like this:
- Western liberal-feminists short-sightedly try to defy ‘white men’ and ‘the repressive state’ by cheering for the importation of eleventy quadrillion ‘refugees’ from the Middle East and Africa.
- ‘Refugees’ become a massive problem for law and order, and begin raping women promptly.
- Because of the targeted anti-female nature of the violence, and the biological differences between men and women, it becomes difficult for most women to fight off the sexually violent ‘refugees’.
- ‘White men’ and ‘the repressive state’ become the only blunt instrument through which the sexual violence can be stopped, and as such they become more necessary and relevant than ever.
One way to have avoided that outcome may have been to have not imported the migrants in the first place, and to have thus avoided the ‘the patriarchal rapefugee dialectic’ entirely.
It’s kind of like how if you don’t want to be forced to pick up the phone and call the police to save you from rapists and serial killers because you are so ‘independent’, then you probably shouldn’t leave your front door wide open in the night with a sign up that says “Random Men Welcome”. That kind of scenario will have you requesting someone’s help pretty quickly, and you won’t stay independent for very long.
It’s simply an objective fact that in a society where the ontological framework of political discourse is defined by women and from the perspective of women, the bedrock foundation of all ‘independence and liberty’ most rationally flows from the firm establishment and enforcement of security. Security is fundamental to everything. Closed borders, CCTV, stiff counter-terrorism measures, and plenty of police officers on the beat, along with the kind of reporting process that comes from having tight-knit communities with strong bonds of blood and ethnicity, constitute the environment in which there is the most room for female liberty.
From a security standpoint, “Refugees Welcome” is a massive undermining of state security and the basic safety of women on the street as the streets descend into perpetual savagery, and consequently it is a massive boost for patriarchy because male power and narratives which support male power will obviously end up being marshalled to counteract it. It’s just that obvious.
To expect western feminists to understand this reality is perhaps too much ask, given that the (((professors))) in western (((humanities departments))) don’t have an interest in teaching this kind of basic logic.
Instead, they are singularly interested in talking about frivolous issues that they encounter in their relationships with men, and have done everything that they can to turn feminism into a gigantic therapy session for jilted women, the ones who are of course fat and disgusting.
There simply is not a real feminism in the West anymore.
Completely weaponlessAt some point it seems that western liberal-feminists decided that the only people who should be allowed to have guns are the ruling class in western states, the military, police, and criminals, all of whom are mostly male. You know you aren’t ‘sticking it to the man’ when your policy preference is that only ‘the man’ shall be armed with guns that can kill you.
It is said that “Smith & Wesson created all women equal”. Yet for decades, western liberal-feminists have stood four-square against the idea of raising the average combat strength of women in any way, much less relaxing gun control laws.
So many of the arguments advanced by the gun control advocates are absolutely fallacious, the most fallacious one in this context being the myth that ‘owning a gun for home defence usually results in greater risks being posed to yourself and your family rather than to the potential home invader’.
In fact, this is why I would always recommend that in cases where it is legally possible, one of the best home defence weapons is a decent quality shotgun like the Mossberg Model 88 Maverick 12-gauge special 8-shot shotgun, or the Model 500 12-gauge 6-shot shotgun. The main difference between these shotguns is the number of shots you have, but also the barrel length, as the former is 20 inches long and the latter is 18.5 inches long.
In all cases, these shotguns can be outfitted with a lot of tactical furniture that assist in handing the gun, the most salient additions being railed accessories such as a flashlight, an adjustable stock, and pistol grip. A pretty comprehensively useful long gun can be built in that way.
The best thing about pump action shotguns is that they are very easy to just pick up and use, when you hear something go ‘bump’ in the night and it turns out to be a home invader, you can just pick it up, chamber, point, and fire. A shooter should of course be aware that the spread after about 12 to 15 feet distance is somewhere between about 2 ½ inches and 3 ½ inches, so it is not just a matter of ‘point and shoot’ literally, a person still has to actually aim in order to hit the target.
“But won’t the shot go through the wall and hit your own family as well?”, the gun control advocates might ask.
Naturally, when pointing a loaded weapon at anything, you should be conscious of what may be behind the target, including beyond walls and other partitions that are typically found in the interior of a building. The way in which shotguns like the ones which I’ve described are useful in this case, is that there is a real versatility in ammunition that shotguns have.
There are a plethora of options, plenty of shotshell ammunition is designed to avoid overpenetration of a target and thus can be used for home defence since some ammunition may not travel through walls. However, the kind of loads that won’t travel through walls, such as birdshot, are also the kind of loads in many cases which will not have any real stopping power and might only lightly injure the target. This presents a unique problem. What is the correct compromise to make, so that you have a capability to deliver real stopping power, but also not travel too far through other objects in the case that you should miss?
Slugs are out of the question immediately, because slugs will travel through many walls, and will also travel completely through the human target, meaning that even if you hit the target, the slug will still continue on through several walls.
00 Buck and 0 Buck will go through the walls as well, and so will #4 Buck. #8 will also go through walls, it’s only when you get down to something like #7.5 with ~1350 feet per second muzzle velocity, which is essentially a clay target shooting shotshell, that the walls are not guaranteed to be completely penetrated if you miss a target. Missing with #7.5 with ~1350 feet per second inside of an apartment for example, would probably penetrate the outer surface of the wall and become embedded on the inside of the other side of that same wall.
The ideal solution to this problem is to have your shotgun set up with a diversity load, the best kind of diversity. Shotshells with increasingly greater pellet size and muzzle velocity are loaded into the weapon in ascending order. If #7.5 doesn’t stop the home invader, then your next shot will have to be placed more carefully and would be #8, and then #4 Buck, and so on, until you reach 00 Buck.
Above all, the most important thing is to know the inside of your own house in the dark, so that you can know where to stand and which are the best and safest positions to shoot from, taking into account the shotshell being used.
These are the kind of nuances that are unfortunately are completely lost on gun control advocates, and are entirely overlooked during gun debates. That’s mostly because gun control advocates ironically tend to know very little about guns themselves, they only know that ‘guns are scary’.
‘Guns are scary’ has been a deliberate part of the narrative in post-war Europe, because liberal governments are also afraid of how European populations might behave in the face of governments that are wildly unpopular, if those Europeans happened to also have ‘threat of force’ as one of the social bargaining chips on the table.
Guns and hatpinsAn interesting comparison can be made between the stance on self defence among western liberal-feminists today, and the stance on self-defence that existed previously during the time of the suffragettes in the United States.
The controversy had first emerged with the rise of a phenomenon called ‘mashing’, where men would try to grope women in the street on on public transport, during a time in the early 1900s in the United States when women were only just beginning to gain and utilise the kind of personal autonomy which everyone takes for granted today. A social worker called Jane Addams phrased it as “never before in civilization have such numbers of young girls been suddenly released from the protection of the home and permitted to walk unattended upon city streets and to work under alien roofs.”
Hat pins were used by women as a form of self-defence against these attackers, because they were extremely sharp and sometimes could be between nine and twelve inches long.
By the year 1909, the phenomenon of hatpins being used as a weapon of self-defence had become an international issue, and cities in France and Germany were seeking to regulate their length.
In 1910, Chicago’s city council would, in a way that pre-echoes the gun rights debate that would come later, debated and passed ordinance that restricted all hat pins to less than nine inches long, and anyone who violated this would be arrested and fined $50. One of the male supporters of this law is said to have opined, “If women care to wear carrots and roosters on their heads, that is a matter for their own concern, but when it comes to wearing swords they must be stopped!”
Nan Davis, who was speaking on behalf of several women’s clubs, asked to address the council, and gave the response, “If the men of Chicago want to take the hatpins away from us, let them [first] make the streets safe,” she said. “No man has a right to tell me how I shall dress and what I shall wear.”
That was 1910.
Isn’t it remarkable how the situation in 2016 is the exact opposite now?
Now there are female mayors in Germany like Mayor Henriette Reker who seem to believe that women need to change their ‘code of conduct’ to accommodate the irrepressible urges of rapist Arab men, and there are senators in the United States like Dianne (((Feinstein))) along with former congresswomen like Elizabeth (((Holtzman))) who want to do everything possible to stop the spread of so-called “deadly assault weapons”, which they have of course defined as being basically anything that is not an antique musket.
Names that echo strangelyWhen it comes to those who are at the forefront of crafting the mass migration narrative which western liberal-feminists adopted, there is a notable gender and ethnic bias involved. I tried to compile a list and something really strange happened.
- George Soros
- Peter Sutherland
- David Schwarz
- Robert Aschberg
- Peter Wolodarski
- Barbera Lerner Spectre
- Anthony Lester
- Barbara Roche
- Jack Straw
- Emanuel Celler
- Jacob Javits
- Norbert Schlei
- Elizabeth Holtzman
- Dianne Feinstein
- Chuck Schumer
- Laurence Fabius
- Harlem Desir
- Bernard Henri-Levi
- Josepf Schuster
- Gregor Gysi
- Anetta Kahane
- Walter Lippmann
- David Manne
- Alan Schatter
- Ronit Lentin
- Franca Eckert Coen
- Job Cohen
- Ervin Kohn
- Angela Merkel
- Giles Fraser
- Pinchas Goldschmidt
- Albert Guigui
- Nicholas Katzenbach
- Earl Raab
- Marc Schneier
- Michel Serfaty
- Awraham Soentendorp
- etc, etc.
The list is of course incomplete, but I don’t see what the point of continuing to compile the list would be. With the exception of Peter Sutherland, absolutely every one of them has Jewish blood. It was not my intent to draft a list that is comprised of almost 100% Jews. It just happened to come out that way, because it is that way.
Remember this. Almost every single name that has decisive influence over the narrative on the migration issue, is Jewish.
There’s nothing more that even needs to be said about that.
Theory of social reproduction: the way to understand the problemCapitalism is an integrated system. It encompasses management of workers, but what is often not considered is that it also encompasses the management of the means through which the workers themselves are physically produced and maintained. The means through which worker power is produced and maintained is called ‘pregnancy’ and ‘motherhood’, respectively, activities and processes which are considered to be part of the ‘informal’ economy.
The three informal economic activities that reproduce labour power are:
- Regenerative actions: All the tasks involved in ‘home-making’, which allow workers to replenish themselves calorically, physically, and psychologically, so that they can return to work the next day.
- Preparatory actions: All tasks involved in ‘motherhood’, which is the act of maintaining non-workers who may one day become workers.
- Expansionary actions: Making fresh future workers. Literally childbirth.
Since women alone are the gender which is capable both of being workers and of producing new workers, women contribute enormously in both the formal and informal economy. Using a developed economy like the United States as an example, if women were to be removed from the formal economy, which is to say, if no additional women joined the workforce after 1970, the GDP of that country would be 25% less than it is today. If women’s work in the informal economy were to be assigned a value and enumerated as though it were part of the formal economy, official GDP figures would increase by 26%. So in total, women are already accounting for 51% of the economic activity in that country, if both their formal and informal contribution is accounted for.
Who on earth would think that this should be ignored when talking about the working class? The ruling class knows and understands very well how the two spheres of the economy are tightly integrated, and they exploit this knowledge constantly.
Repressions in the formal economy against organised labour through policies of reducing abilities to engage in collective bargaining—both female or male—can have ripple effects that extend into the informal economy in the form of (a) foreclosures, (b) domestic abuse, (c) unsettled life for children, and (d) poorer school performance which impacts job opportunities and makes the class system more rigid over the course of generations.
Deprivations targeted at the informal economy against childbearing women through policy preferences such as (a) reinforcing stringent means testing for access to social services, (b) enacting cuts to social services and cuts to education, (c) linking education funding to land taxation, (d) eliminating access to reproductive health services, and (e) eliminating access to abortion services, all have diverse ripple effects that negatively impact the ability of organised labour to engage in collective bargaining in the formal economy.
It may be instructive to describe how some of these attacks play out.
One of the most obvious attacks is found in the attempt to limit or discourage access to abortion services, coupled with systems of morality that make child-birthing seem like an obligation. If members of the working class are deprived of the ability to control the number of births per woman, then capitalists are being gifted with a reserve army of labour which can be used as a battering ram against wages. After all, labour is obviously going to be worth more when there is not an unending glut of more labourers being constantly produced without fail.
Another attack that should be explained is the attack against the school system. If working mothers are deprived of the ability to choose what kind of school environment their child will be raised in, because of integration policies that produce confused identities and neighbourhood infighting, then they will similarly find themselves unable to adequately organise at the picket line later on.
Another attack which may need explanation is how stringent means-testing is an attack against working mothers. First developed by capitalists in London during the Irish Great Famine, the model of means-testing that is in use everywhere today is the product of a vicious social experiment carried out against Irish workers and peasant farmers. By demanding that at every major economic downturn a worker or peasant must divest themselves of any assets they have in order to qualify for temporary assistance, it guarantees that at every major economic downturn, there would be no possibility of workers or peasants having the financial wherewithal to protest against the system which caused the downturn. They’d be trapped within a system where accepting ‘assistance’ is predicated on first making economic sacrifices which perversely deprive the workers of any ability to support themselves, causing them to fall into dependence on the very government which demanded those economic sacrifices in the first place. Through these privations, workers are kept in line, and in the case where they are female, they are told that if they don’t like it, then they ought to go and subject themselves to a man, a man who is himself experiencing those same exact privations.
The reason that capitalism supports these kinds of attacks on the informal economy is because these make the entire working class weaker and more vulnerable, and thus less capable of resisting attacks in the workplace. The capitalists attack the home and the neighbourhood because they know it enables them to win the battle later on in the workplace.
To struggle against these attacks, an integrated approach of criticising and subverting capitalism in both the formal and informal economy is needed, and women’s liberation must be a central part of that process. That integrated approach can be found in a form of socialism known as national syndicalism.
But why should we want a syndicalist economy? Because national liberation is impossible otherwise.
Any gains that are made in the ethnic or gender space can never be made permanent, unless there is bound up along with it a simultaneous plan for gradually bringing about the end of the capitalist system itself after its historical role has been exhausted, since it is the capitalist system which is the material basis of these problems.
Traditionalism is a shameless con-gameSome people—traditionalists—might start complaining about how advocating syndicalism, and about how talking about the inseparable necessity of women’s liberation to that process is ‘divisive’ among ethno-nationalists because it might alienate certain big capitalists and because it might alienate traditionalists and various old-fashioned moralists.
Okay, yes. But what would such complaints actually mean?
Through their complaints the traditionalists would be asking us to be conciliatory toward big capitalists, conciliatory toward traditionalists, and conciliatory toward clergy of various types.
It becomes clear that the thing which they would most want to hear, is an assurance that once the nation—whichever nation is being discussed—has been liberated, their disgusting privileges will not be taken away from them. They are requesting that once liberation takes place, the next form of government should guard all of the systems of exploitation and all the accumulated wealth—the ‘granaries’—of the previous rulers so as to protect it from falling into the grasp of the ‘thin hands of the poor’. And that they should do this with exactly the same viciousness and remorselessness as the murderous round-table of Liberal party lords, clergy, bankers, and media figures did to the Irish during the Irish Great Famine, and to the Gaels in Scotland at an earlier juncture.
They would be saying that without an agreement that the exploitation by the capitalists and by the clergy shall continue forever, they would not cooperate with us. Instead they would decry us by screaming the word “Leftist” at us as though it is an epithet.
Someone who is progressive and who advocates national syndicalism is always going to be more of a threat to the established power than any of the people who are engaging in the vagueries of ‘radical traditionalism’.
‘Radical traditionalists’ are the kind of people who somehow claim to believe that it is possible to reconcile national liberation with the maintenance of the worst and most retrograde forms of economic repression against women in the informal sphere of the economy, as though somehow magically it would not have disastrous effects which ripple outward everywhere. But in fact it would create economic ripples which would only serve to sustain the most rapacious forms of capitalism and every other twisted form of social organisation flowing from the time of the Norman Conquest in England.
A national liberation which is not progressive and syndicalist, is one which is doomed to failure. International (((finance capitalists))) would still end up ruling everyone by proxy, and they would bring everything to ruin.
Setting out a plan to maintain capitalism and traditionalism forever and ever, would basically be like saying that the (((world-enemy))) had so successfully inculcated everyone with their perverted conceptions of morals and justice, that everyone had finally decided to accept those perverse ideas as their own, and no longer needed those people to violently enforce those ideas upon them.
It should be obvious: that which has enslaved you cannot make you free.
Driven to the edge of the unknownTotal systemic change is needed in order to remove the class of people who have infested the halls of power and who are making Europe weak and defenceless.
How can we get Europe to win at solving the problem of economic inequality and lack of productive growth? How can we get Europe to win on providing opportunities to all? How can we get Europe to win with progressive outcomes on healthcare, education, infrastructure development and military spending? How can we get Europe to win on women’s liberation and bring an end to systemic oppression of disadvantaged women, particularly in Eastern Europe and Southern Europe? How can we make Europe into a strong bulwark that can win against the rising tide of Arab and African reactionaries?
The answer is national syndicalism.
Ethno-nationalists should take the broad short-term concerns (8 - 16 years) of the mass of the people and link those short-term concerns to ideas about what actions have to be taken so as to secure their long-term interest (50 years) of carrying out total systemic change, through:
- The construction of counter-institutions that will engage in a ‘war of position’ so as to eventually facilitate a national syndicalist revolution.
- The fomentation of a crisis of legitimacy from which the liberal ruling class in the west would be unable to recover, something which becomes a more realistic possibility the longer that the twin crises of economics and migration continue.
- A transition to a ‘war of manoeuvre’ followed by regime change and the structural reform of Western states as the national-syndicalist counter-institutions become the only institutions.
That may sound like a tall order, even a mere dream right now, but in order to realise your dreams you have to have heart. You first have to be willing to take everything away from the (((world-enemies))) and tell them, “No, you do not represent our ethnic or gender interests, and I am not your shield.” That is the groundwork that needs to be done first.
Make a standThe (((world-enemies))) have erected a massive moral, religious, memetic, and philosophical edifice which is designed to demoralise and destroy the European continent. That whole edifice has to be gradually torn down brick by brick, in its entirely, comprehensively, so that the people who are trapped within it will be able to realise the truth. For most people, if we are able to have a conversation with them outside of the present framework that they are imprisoned in, and we are to say, “Hey, person, at the root of everything, when all artifice is stripped away down to the genes-eye view, we all want the same thing here, don’t we?”, they would be able to see the utility of defending their genetic heritage and the development of thought-forms which are most suited to their geographical and geopolitical reality.
People everywhere are talking about ‘the end of Europe’. But Europe is not finished. The real story of Europe is only just about to begin. It ought to begin with the unmasking and destruction of all false historical-philosophical-ideological thought-forms. It will not happen overnight. It will take many years and it will be extremely slow work at first. But together we can do this, we can take that first step, and to an extent it has already begun. Together we can make it happen. It’s going to happen. And we are going to do it.