Because we are controlled by a separate ethnic group with a very effective parasite strategy.

Clear historical precedents on how to organize things when Jews are present:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_the_Byzantine_Empire#Theodosian_Code:_404%E2%80%93527

This is a religious war. I see us splitting into:

– the German Empire with its ‘liberal’ white suicide-genocide cult
– the American-Israeli Empire with its parasitic devouring of white gentile hosts
– and then the comparatively sane, sustainable and beautiful Russian Christian ‘sphere of influence’, with hopefully Salvini and Orban moving parts of Europe into this orbit.

I just don’t understand how guardians of the Empire such as Scarborough can possibly consider the primitive Bolshevik PC drivel they push (with its recitations on ‘white supremacy’, racism, hate, etc) as being a sustainable religion for the masses.

Under the Anglo-American neo-Bolshevik system, apparatchiks like Scarborough are promoted because they combine a lack of intellect and curiosity with a psychotic ambition and desire for influence.

However I think he is shrewd enough to realize it and let these crackpot ideas wither on the vine. Let’s hope so!

Crackpot ideas don’t wither on the vine when a dominant social grouping relies on them to sustain their political-power. They cling to the vine for decades or centuries and any attempts to dislocate them from the vine are viciously attacked, with the person who tried to dislocate them suborned and humiliated. This is why the entire MSM was so victorious and jubilant when the Orange Blormph adopted the crazed language of their cult – blaming “white supremacy”. He suborned himself. It was a completely demoralizing moment.

Not sure it’s right to say they “fought” two world wars because they didn’t do too much fighting (as far as I know). By a ‘German Empire’ I mean an empire construct as you outline, but with its heartland/centre in the territory currently called Germany.

I don’t know how the EU area will evolve culturally when/if Brexit happens, which will surely signify a split of the Zio-American-Anglo hemisphere and the European continental countries. Surely, the ideology of ‘liberal democracy’ will no longer bind the two areas.

By the way, the EU and Germany don’t seem to be as beholden to Israel as the UK and USA are – not sure but I don’t think the EU is as dominated by Jewry as the USA/UK are.

The Republicans’ role is to expand the frontiers of the Empire and rape and pillage foreign lands, while the Democrats’ is to propagate and profit from a domestic religious ideology.

Where this religion serves to legitimize foreign conquest and exploitation of the natives, then the Barons (Republicans) don’t care – literally could not give a rat’s behind – what the Priesthood (Democrats) make the peasants believe.

Republicans are not social conservatives, they are war-mongers and Barons (e.g. John McCain, John Bolton). You could even see John Bolton express openly and clearly this at the National Conservatism conference really. He doesn’t care what happens to the plebs domestically, just as long as they’re kept quiet.

What ‘the West’ did to South Africa and the Boer people is disgusting beyond belief. Genocide

The entirety of Nordic Europe – the part of the world that the right wing always says we should be like – is left libertarian. That’s why those nations have universal healthcare without insurance profiteers, gun control, reproductive rights, months of paid vacation and maternity leave, strong organized labor, good roads, good public schools, and tiny “defense” budgets, AND have much more freedom and better quality of life than the US.

The present US is the result of letting Sean Hannity, Glen Beck, Rupert Murdoch and the Koch brothers take over the country.

A very ‘normie’ perspective and post.

The moral system (Political Correctness) works so that white ‘racism’ is the Original Sin. Any expression of white self-interest or consciousness is racist, and is deeply sinful, shocking and taboo. Other races are encouraged to assert their self-interest by any means (seeking redress/equality). Therefore clearly, the white racial group has no ability to assert its self-interest via the usual communicative means (language). Yet blind extremists like you consider us to be advantaged or fixing things in our own interest. Ridiculous.

If all religions or systems of managing communal emotions emerge from a story of a tragedy, which in turn induces emotions of horror, guilt, fear etc – surely the defining story, which serves as the fundamental emotional basis from which our social interactions and behavior is then regulated (via taboo), is the ‘holocaust’. Not 9/11.

This has completely replaced the excellent and beautiful Protestant rationalization of social rules that should accrue, given the horrific murder of Jesus Christ.

Many Israeli Jews, a Jewish friend tells me, are baffled by the credulity of American Christian Zionists

Meaning ‘Evangelists’ – i.e. the most brainwashed idiots on the planet. They’ve been all taught the same blatant misreadings of the Bible to justify their idiotic devotion and cult of slavery to Zionism.

Vietnam – such a beautiful country with such beautiful people

Deplorables are a very similar status of peasant as the Kulaks were, and will suffer the same fate if we cannot escape this evil Bolshevik ideological system.

YES YOUR SPACE IS AFRICA. GO BACK THERE, IDIOT

French whites (the general population, rather than political class) are much more hostile to non-white outsiders than Anglos, and much more requiring of assimilation, and so are better equipped to survive the Evil Empire.

East Asians should be discriminated against because the purpose of American elite institutions should be to further the interests of the American nation, not foreign nations or of minority nations who reside within the American nation’s territory.

The United States of America is obviously borne out of European settlers. Therefore obviously “native Americans” have no right to force European settlers to leave, but rather the other way round. If the USA was instead the Cherokee nation, then Cherokees would have the ability to remove white Europeans within their borders, presumably. You seem very confused.

“Keep in mind that Michelle Malkin’s economic views are right wing, whereas those of the WN crowd are left-wing for the most part. Hence, they are accurately described as ‘Nationalist-Leftist’ or even more accurately ‘Tribalist-Leftist’.”

White nationalists’ economic views are nationalist – i.e. that economic affairs and economic actors/corporations should always be able to be subordinated by the power of the nation state in which they operate. That each nation state should then have the ability to organise economic activity within its borders in its national interest.

Leftist universalists’ economic views are internationalist – that economic actors and economies should only be subject to supranationalist organisational power, which is then in serve global/universal agendas, e.g. stopping the globe’s climate from changing, rebalancing wealth between nations.

Therefore WN’s economic views are still right-wing. Leftists’ economic views are still left-wing.

Whoever owns the taboo has the greatest control over society.

Our white Christian taboo is that excessive assertion of our ethnic self-interest is immoral and wrong and will lead to the mass slaughter of minorities and world war. It no longer has anything to do with the murder of a gentle man by the Pharisees.

We will not be able to assert our ethnic self-interest until we throw off the story of the Holocaust, as this defines our original sin. We need to throw off the story of the Holocaust otherwise we have no chance.

The activities of Termites result in more CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere than the activities of all of humankind together. The AGW theory is not a scientific theory (falsifiable theory that can be tested by repeatable experiment) so the author is wrong to give it any credence whatsoever.

It is a nonsense to deny that human activity contributes to changes in the climate. This is because human activity must be an input into the system that results in the output that is “climate”.

It is also an impossibility to deny that sloths and herring contribute to changes in the climate, via the same logic.

It is also an impossibility to claim to be able to determine what any single input (contributed by any category of being over any course of time) will have on the final output (global climate) as the interaction between all the many millions of inputs is too complex for humans to comprehend.

Correlation with your theory does not imply causation (at all). Temperatures in the US are not representative of global climate. Widescale measurements of temperature (said to be representative of the entire landmass ‘the USA’) are unreliable now, and the idea that they were accurate in 1850 is laughable. You’re jumping on correlations in the manner of a zealot convinced that the manifestation of every physical phenomena proves the existence of his/her God.

The cycle of life, including termites, adds no net CO2 to the atmosphere. Animals breath out CO2, but they also eat plants that take up CO2.

If animals eat plants that take up CO2, then surely this leads to an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. In what respect is that a counterbalance to a produce a net zero (as you suggest above)? In what respect are the particulars of Termite behavior different to the particulars of human behaviour such that Termites’ CO2-producing behavior can be rationalized and excluded as being part of the “cycle of life” or “the regular carbon cycle” or as being “natural”, whereas humans’ behaviors cannot? Misanthropy. Nonsense. If Termites take over the planet, and the particular nature of their lives results in net CO2 output, then that would be part of the “regular carbon cycle” which cannot exist in a stasis.

Here we present a few examples of falsifiable predictions used to understand present and future climates that are made before running a climate model.

A falsifiable prediction used to inform a statistical model of a complex natural system does not mean that separate theory as to how that system will behave in future is falsifiable/can be subjected to repeated observation.

– The theory is that human activity will lead to catastrophic warming in climate in the near future.
– A model is an attempt to replicate a complex system, such that you can determine which inputs lead to which outputs

Neither represent falsifiable theories or conclusions, which can be subject to repeated experimentation. For example, an exact representation of all global and extraterrestrial inputs into the earth’s atmosphere at any single point in time, or over a long period of time, can never be replicated as inputs into a computer model, such that you can actually test whether the computer’s calculated input matches the output in the real world. N.O.N.S.E.N.S.E

Second, causality has been established, despite your idiotic braying that it hasn’t

Your report states;

As already noted in the Third Assessment Report11, unequivocal attribution would require controlled experimentation with the climate system. Since that is not possible, in practice attribution of anthropogenic climate change is understood to mean demonstration that a detected change is ‘consistent with the estimated responses to the given combination of anthropogenic and natural forcing’ and ‘not consistent with alternative, physically plausible explanations of recent climate change that exclude important elements of the given combination of forcings12. Therefore attribution analysis is mainly performed through the application of Global Circulation Models

But you stated above that AGW theory was a falsifiable theory that could be subject to repeated experimentation? Strange that the paper you reference explicitly contradicts that statement.

This is a study which states that, where any change in real-world phenomena is consistent with modelling, that correlation can be taken as validation of the relevant model’s explanation of the cause of that change. This is NONSENSE, does NOT meet the scientific standard, is completely insane with respect to any complex modelling. It is INSANE. If you do complex modelling of e.g. a financial market, you do not take any single instance of a trend in the market which is consistent with what your model predicts as absolute validation of your modelling. That is SO WRONG.

Wrong. The carbon cycle of life between plants and animals adds zero net carbon to the atmosphere. You forgot the other half of the carbon cycle that most people learned in 7th grade science class. Time to bone up on what you’ve lost…

Humans are animals, so according to your stated theory above, human activity adds zero net carbon to the atmosphere. Thanks and great that you’ve given up your cause so early.

https://skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements.htm

I stated the idea that there was in any way, an accurate record going back to 1850 is ridiculous. The link above just states that people are trying hard in the year 2011. So not relevant to my point. And your link is superficial in any case. In isolation, 30,000 thermometers (located overwhelming on the land and concentrated in particular areas) obviously do not measure the “global temperature” (single digit) such that we can say that the “global temperature” (singularly) is going up or down. Garbage again.

– You said that climate science was a falsifiable theory which could be tested via repeatable experimentation.
– I show you that a study that you’ve just cited explicitly states that it is not. In its introduction.

Just say you’re wrong. It’s not hard. Modelling a complex system is fine, but it isn’t a way of testing or proving a theory about the behavior of that complex system. Stop being a fraud and pretending that is.

If plants take CO2 out of the atmosphere (their existence reduces the volume of CO2 in the atmosphere), how can consumption of (destruction of) plants by animals offset the volume of CO2 that those animals expel into the atmosphere?

Explain yourself.

I thought human AGW zealots usually tried to offset carbon emissions by PLANTING trees and vegetation, not by eating them.

Please explain yourself.

Of course, ice melt in a particular location in the Swiss Alps might demonstrate warmer temperature at that particular location. But I thought you were claiming that the entire globe was getting warmer in a singular fashion? Surely you wouldn’t take evidence of warmer temperature in one particular location as evidence of your grand theory, would you? Surely you couldn’t be so unremittingly stupid? Or does evidence of decades of ice increases in various locations (e.g. Antartica) show that the entire globe is cooling? You wouldn’t claim otherwise would you, my little thermometer-doubter?

And again your link didn’t address the points I made, the study group just checked whether the readings should be adjusted for urban heat effects, which isn’t what I was talking about.

Let me break it down for you.

1. By breathing, termites, human-beings and all other beings add no net CO2 to the atmosphere, according to your hippy GAIA theory. You claim this is offset because animals often *destroy* vegetation (??!?) (I think you mean aid in the reproductive processes of vegetation)

2. By burning fossils, humans do add CO2 to the atmosphere. As a result of their particular behavior in consuming dead foliage, termites emit CO2 into the atmosphere, as a result of their particular digestion process (of which CO2 and methane are by-products).

No I EXPLICITLY said in my reply to you that i was NOT talking about urban heat effects. Obviously you feel unable to retort the points I’ve made to you. Hard luck.

Two links claiming that ice is increasing in Antartica:

doi:10.3402/polar.v28i2.6120.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

Because there is measurement indicating that ice volumes are increasing in one geographic region (the Antartic), this must mean the entire globe is cooling (<— pastiche of your "logic").

You’re an idiot who doesn’t understand 7th grade science class on the cycle of carbon. Animals eat carbon based life, they breath carbon into the atmosphere, the rather undestroyed vegetation of earth takes up that carbon again, and round and round it goes. Stop braying like a jackass about things you can’t get, but the average 7th grader can.

Thanks.

Again, what you originally said to me was:

The cycle of life, including termites, adds no net CO2 to the atmosphere. Animals breath out CO2, but they also eat plants that take up CO2.

Please explain to me – given what you wrote above – how the process of animals eating plants balances their expelling CO2 via respiration, such that it becomes net zero. Please explain this to me. Or just admit you don’t understand the theory you’re trying to expound to me. Because you’ve clearly got it wrong haven’t you, you total idiot. Again, no-one goes around trying to offset their carbon emissions by eating trees or more vegetation – they do so by planting more vegetation. You total clown.

Deliberately misrepresenting a simple 7th grade science lesson about the carbon cycle doesn’t help you efforts to deny science. Animals have been eating plants for millions of years, and surprisingly, plants are still around. Explain how you can’t grasp that.

Funnily enough, I wasn’t disputing there has been coexistence of animals and plants for a long time. You don’t seem to be able to understand what is under dispute. Oh dear. What I would like you to explain is your theory, that you posited above, which is that:

1. animals respire CO2
2. plants take in CO2, and animals eat plants.
3. the above two facts equate to all (non-human) animals having net zero CO2 output (because these non-human animals necessarily eat plants (in itself not true))

THIS IS THE THEORY YOU HAVE POSITED NUMEROUS TIMES ABOVE. FOR THE 10th OF ASKING, PLEASE CAN YOU TELL ME HOW IT MAKES ANY SENSE AT ALL.

The same applies to us. If we cease to exist, that outcome will be neither good nor bad. We will be in no position to frame that outcome as “bad.”

Does the same applies to you as an individual also? If you cease to exist – as a result of e.g. another murdering you and then taking all your possessions – would you preemptively describe that outcome as being neither “good” nor “bad” from your perspective? Presumably, you would be in no position to frame that outcome as “bad”, as you’d be dead.

So why bother defending yourself at all, if you’re too stupid/indecisive to make a preemptive moral judgement as to the desirability of your own demise. WEAK.

I think there is a lot of truth in this piece. Women are social creatures who do not like loners, or to be seen as one. Boys can be loners and still be somewhat accepted, but girls who are loners are bullied ceaselessly in school by the mean girls. Girls are being sent all kinds of mixed messages. On the one hand they are supposed to be smart, go into STEM, on the other hand they are still expected to be hot and popular, otherwise they are ostracized as gay or transgender. It’s why girls have much higher suicide attempt rate than boys(but succeed at a lower rate).

As for academia being more feminized, I think it’s more a result of 5 decades of relentless indoctrination by the left, which dominates the social sciences. Most professors of social sciences remain male and Jewish. Jewish men are much more effeminate, over sensitive and verbal than men of any other race. Being hysterical, easily offended, highly emotional, vengeful, punitive, lacking in self-restraint…all are Jewish characteristics. And these characteristics have now infected all of academia. Both male and female SJWs are equally capable of meltdowns and snowflake behavior.

Our young men and our colleges are not feminized, they are Jewified. The US is now a Jew nation, no longer a Christian nation.

Women ultimately have contempt for men that can’t/don’t control them, and the same applies to society at large.

My argument in no way rests on my being a woman. I just mentioned it so people wouldn’t assume I was a man. I’m merely arguing for merit-based opportunity, which only average men need fear in terms of displacement.

The article lays out clearly that genius men and also average men need to fear merit-based opportunity, where merit is determined in relation to effeminate characteristics.

Misogyny is a cancer that vitiates the ideas and views of males who are othewise rational, objective, hunest, and realistic, not only MRAs, the misogynist lunatics of the soi-disant “men’s movement.”

Except that ‘misogyny’ is largely imaginary. By contrast, misandry is real.

Incidentally, I’m a man and a heterosexual.

Any man who crows on and on about ‘misogyny’ is a creepy predator in disguise.

Juvenile comment. The purpose of religion is to bind people together in a shared purpose. It does not matter whether the religious stories which narrate this purpose to the flock are true or not. What matters is whether the priestly caste’s rationalisation (of these stories) comprises a good system for providing society with purpose, for inculcating young people into this purpose and so on. The Protestant rationalization of the crucifixion of Christ is an excellent system for a variety of reasons, and this is proven by the comparative advancement of societies that were subject to it.

BTW I thin it is empirically proven that a religious societies tend to out-compete ideologically-liberal or Godless or ‘heathen’ societies.

OK fuck this site. This is a bunch of old stupid men who can’t deal with women, period. The hate here should get you reported. Men created a farce of academia where no one was accepted. It is NOT women who destroyed academia, but the MALE CORPORATE SYSTEM and the MALE-CONTROLLED ZIONIST LEFT. And all of your disciplines are rife with idiocies, bullshit nonsense theories and corrupted fake science.

This article is complete shit. Funny how all of these absolute LOSER MALES cannot fault their own pathetic and insane patriarchal system and how it’s got to be because women have a spec, A SPEC, of power. Pathetic. I am seriously thinking of bringing defamation charges along with a group of women. Do not lump feminism, which is a real and serious cause, like I even have to defend it! considering the daily MURDER OF WOMEN AND GIRLS AROUND THE WORLD. IT’S CALLED FEMICIDE. Females are also traded and trafficked and never paid for the work they do. Fuck you UNZ. You have declared war on me now and I will fuck you. Fuck you idiotic cocks. You are truly shit for brains, as proven by our EXTINCTION EVENT under your control. Try to fail worse than that! Women would never carry out the idiocy of the biologically SECONDARY, otherwise utterly useless male. Women should rule the world, and articles like this show why the male is such an insecure, violent useless waste of life.

Typical feminist sense of entitlement – threatening to use the legal system because her sacred and noble gender has been criticized. This despite the fact that her own feminist ideology does nothing but negatively critique males and masculinity, as does her own post. Unbelievable hypocrite and sense of entitlement. Vile.

You can’t sue for defamation on behalf of groups, only individuals. That said, her frustration is more than understandable. Criticism is one thing; lies and scapegoating are something different.

Yes I know the principle of defamation (although unsure of how it works in the US),

On your second point, the article is well-researched (there is no “lying” that I am aware of), and of course criticism necessarily involves blame. The level of blame the author ascribes to women is totally proportionate, he just describes what he believes to be the consequences of their natural tendencies (cites evidence for these) where society constrains (or does not constrain or encourages) these in certain ways. How on earth can you complain about that and start throwing around your tedious feminist/Political Correctness cliches in response (“reactionary backlash”, “scapegoating”, “third-world hellholes” etc?

Females’ collective nature results in bad as well as good social outcomes when freed, encouraged or constrained in certain ways, as does men’s. Why do you think your gender should be uniquely immune from discussion of this, including discussion of where a lack of constraint or excess of constraint of whatever leads to bad social outcomes (“blaming women”)? Bizarre and wrong.

Completely insane and totally inappropriate use of the words “canard” and “trope” throughout Wikipedia reveal everyone’s favorite ethnic group play an active role in corrupting the search of truth for the purposes of promotion of their ethnic self-interest, as per usual.

No, it doesn’t. You can criticize a person for observable behaviors. Blame relates to consequences of behaviors.

Blame “relates to” identifying what is causing a particular fault to manifest. You would then put in place measures to so that this fault can be corrected. He isn’t recommending retributive justice and this isn’t the intent.

This author is well within his rights to express his opinion about women’s behavior, but to claim a causal relationship between said behaviors and the destruction of academia is entirely speculative. correlation in time would be the least you would need to prove such a causal relationship, though it certainly wouldn’t be sufficient.

His opinion about women’s general nature is referenced by third-party sources.

You acknowledge the correlation in time between the civil rights movement and decline in academic output in a post below, so I think you acknowledge a casual relationship below (increased participation of females is one of many underlying factors that have changed as a result of this movement and since that time).

Matters relating to social policy aren’t testable in controlled conditions and in laboratories like some scientific theories. Ideas as to how to mitigate faults (e.g. observed decline in the quality of academic output) come from a well-developed (as per this author’s) understanding of the nature of things and humans, and then seeing how mitigatory policies designed in light of this understanding work out in real-life.

The student body of Oberlin college was over one-third female back in the 1830s. Women have been going to college for a very long time.

He’s not talking about the effect of women attending colleges as students. Rather the effect of women managing/participating in the accumulation of knowledge in particular academic areas of study, or the accumulation of knowledge in academia being ‘feminized’ in terms of its approach.

You’re free to have this discussion all you want, but you are not entitled to make claims about females’ collective nature and any bad consequences of same with no evidence,

– It is clear that female participation in the process of accumulating knowledge has increased a great deal since the 1960s (as well as many other factors changing, to do with greater participation of different people and wider social/morality etc)
– You have admitted that there is a decline in quality since the 1960s below.
– Therefore the “evidence” comes from the casual relationship between entry and decline which you yourself admit exists (although of course it is possible to attribute blame to other of the many changes in underlying factors since the 1960s).
– In light of the casual relationship (evidence) which you acknowledge exists, he has posited a theory that – among the many underlying factors which have changed since the 1960s – women’s increased participation (not as students, but in the process of accumulation of knowledge in academic study) has had deleterious effect (again on accumulation of knowledge).
– He has supported his theory with references as to the nature of females – i.e hist theory is supported by scientific study into the nature of things.
– Proof of his theory would come from implementing policy in light of this theory. There can be no other means of establishing any proof.

and even if you do have evidence, you should expect to be criticized if you insist on draconian remedies in excess of what is needed to remedy your complaint.

#

As above, no-one knows what measures would be proportionate to the objective of increasing quality, and which would be “draconian” with respect to that objective. This would have to be tested. This if you agree that the most important objective is to increase quality of output – not to increase quality while at the same time considering a moral duty to be fair or give equal treatment to different groups of people in light of “historical injustice” or some other means of diluting the former objective to the benefit of the latter.

In other words, your burden is not only to prove that women are causally “to blame,” but also that the only remedy is the absence of women, rather than, say, robust protections for students’ freedom of speech and an end to harassment of dissidents on campus.

Irrespective of who has a burden of proof, we should attempt to prove the theories in this piece given how persuasive they are – and so let’s design policies in light of the understanding it creates and then implement them. I agree.

Policies relating to student’s freedom of speech are not directly/clearly related to the process of academia attaining knowledge in particular fields (students are just students, not academics), so we can dismiss these as effective alternative remedies straight away.

Therein precisely lies your problem. You must prove not only that women’s presence in academia was a contributing factor in the rise of political correctness.

Ok thanks for granting that we should prove this. According to your logic, we should therefore remove women and then see whether this is effective towards reducing Political Correctness. Because that is the only way we can work towards proof.

By the way, I do agree with you that the all-encompassing ideology which flows from the story of the holocaust is the problem (i.e. Political Correctness), that it is completely deranged and evil, and that it has replaced and destroyed a far better – immeasurably better – basic moral system provided by the German Protestant rationalisation of the crucifixion of Jesus.

By the way I don’t see this article as saying/recommending that women should be removed, rather the idea is that the general character of academic study be masculine and male-dominated. That doesn’t infer removal of women, just that they work within a male-dominated framework and that that shouldn’t be diluted or altered to accommodate females’ nature.

Not even proof that it was a but-for cause will do. Rather, you must prove that women’s presence would have produced political correctness even without Jewish influence and moreover exclusion is the only remedy.

If you want proof of that theory in your text above – which doesn’t properly represent the article I don’t think – then this necessitates a policy of removing all women to see whether PC withers away. I’ve no doubt it wouldn’t and prob agree with you that it runs deeper than that.

Again, as per the above, I think the idea is properly controlling the environment relating to accumulation of knowledge in academia according to masculine sensibilities and not diluting this on any other account or interest – accommodation of sensitivities, equal participation for those not particularly gifted and so on. These latter are feminine in character according to the author and I agree with him. But agree with your point-of-view that this can’t be corrected without completely reorganising the morality that sadly now underpins our society.

Presumably, White men aren’t planning to hand academia over to Jews again, so there is no need to exclude women.

As above.

Another problem you have is that women in general are not the relevant class. Tne relevant class is women who are qualified to study in a university. Far too many mediocre students, both Male and female, who are not really capable of independent, critical thinking, are attending university now.

Agree.

We are not going to accept your willingness to restrict our rights and privileges based on armchair speculation about “women’s nature.

Wrong and immoral, Accumulation of knowledge about the truth of the world is an end in itself. It is of such importance that it should be governed only with the above objective (accumulation of knowledge) in mind. It is elitist, as per selection for an elite soccer team. Your rights as a female and mine as a male are completely irrelevant and subordinate to that and the above objective should never be diluted by what you or I think our privilege or right to entry – either as an individual or in a group sense – should be because of some confused sense of history or whatever it might be.

I don’t know exactly what the best criteria for selection should be, but I don’t think it should take into account individual or group rights, just whatever evidence suggests will produce the best results.

The only circumstance I could see such a union happening is if immigrants of Irish Catholic descent in Scotland displace the native Scots to such an extent that they become the political elite and possibly majority of the population. I don’t know if Scotland is near that point yet, although I know that the percentage of people of Irish Catholic descent is quite high in Scotland, so much so that sectarianism in Glasgow and other parts of Scotland mirrors that of NI.

Scottish nationalists look to Scandinavia, not and never Ireland.

Irish-heritage people in Scotland are not a political faction with a strong and separate ethnic sense of consciousness, neither do they have any money – there’s just some fairly superficial cultural institutions such as Celtic Football Club and other Plastic Paddy-ism

Where are Welsh?
Welsh, Irish, and Scots are of Celtic descent.
Anglos, and Saxons are of German descents.
I guess Normans did assimilate into all those five nations.

Normans were just a small, conquering ruling-class, no mass migration. As such, the natives at that time cleaved to their ways, rather than assimilating a mass of immigrant Normans into their native culture. The more complicated/technical terminology in English mostly derives from French (Normans).

Wales and the Welsh are prob generally more integrated into England than Scotland and Ireland – for instance Wales has the same legal system as England, whereas Scotland does not. Scotland has a lot more recent history as an entity that existed independently from England.

Is truth important? We live in an industrial society — the idea of truth is necessary for the industry that keeps us alive. If what keeps us alive isn’t important, than neither is truth.

Agree with your post, but surely sometimes obscuring or asserting a particular narrative independent of any real effort to discern the truth can be important for survival also.

– As a nationalist, I tend to favour a glorified or even fictional version of the birth and history of my ethnic group/nation, as that is most likely to be conducive to its survival.
– Some socialists prefer a fictional or sanitised version of the nature of creatures – or to obscure the truth about the nature of creatures – perhaps because that is most conducive to ensuring the survival of the weak.
– As per your comment, the interests of technology and industry favour absolute devotion to the truth – e.g. via scientific method – because as-true-as-possible understanding of the nature of things is necessary so that humans can most effectively manipulate our environment (e.g. the nature of plants and agriculture).

A clever moral framework – e.g. Protestant Christianity – can allow for the above to be counterbalanced perhaps.

Just as I thought, you don’t have anything. Sure there are a few women who made major contributions but, on the whole, sience is a male dominated activity.

You ask why I care about identity politics which is not the subject of this article or my comment. I don’t have much use for identity politics but I have even less use and absolutely no respect for the kind of woman bashing that this author and those who follow his swill indulge in, like some dogs who can’t keep from rolling around in horse shit whenever they encounter it.

That we live in a female dominated society is part of the same kind of nonsense. Just look at the faces of those running our corporations and the government at every level. They are predominantly male. I actually should feel sorry for these men who are unable to relate to women as fellow human beings as well as for woman like yourself who wan’t to be told what to do. I’ll be polite and not give you my answer to that question.

If you value the feminine over the masculine that is fine, YOU ACTUALLY HAVE TO MAKE ARGUMENTS AS TO WHY YOU DO SO THOUGH YOU COMPLETE AND UTTER IDIOT. Rather than just spew your moronic snobbery everywhere, so disgusting and obnoxious. What an idiot.

Well, OK, scientific method is a cause of the end of societal myths. So, arguably, is Aristotelian logic applied to religion [1]. Both have to be widely believed in to maintain an industrial society, and that does make their effect larger.

As for the evil of government, you are right. Government does tend to deteriorate. But, if your argument is accepted, then we’re left with anarchy. The saying “Anarchy may not be very good, but it’s better than no government at all” more or less describes why anarchy is difficult to survive. See Hobbes, _Leviathan_ for the classical argument. The entire Enlightenment rests on the assumption that people prefer life to death, and will choose governmental forms that keep them alive. For example, areas that are raided often have, historically tended to favor feudal governments over centralized governments, as running to the castle of the local feudal leader was more survivable should a highly mobile raiding party be near than was waiting a month or so for the much less mobile central army to swing around.

Right now, the world has no governmental form suitable for industrial society. Even the Chinese form of government, which looks as good now as did the S. Korean and Japanese models c.a. 1990, can run into the same governmental decay and politically necessitated welfare state that took the Tiger out “Asian Tigers”. If the history of Chinese Imperial government is any guide, such a change is highly likely.

This is a problem, but not one that will be solved by “Anarchy may not be very good, but it’s better than no government at all”. The problem is more likely to be “solved” by the disappearance of industrialization (and maybe 6 billion people, even assuming a carrying capacity equal to that of AD 1900) than it is by an industrialized anarchy.

So: please consider Hobbes’ argument.

Counterinsurgency

1] Which is why Islam won’t have anything to do with Aristotelian logic, see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Incoherence_of_the_Philosophers

Thank you for reading my comment! It isn’t a good thing to be a woman that doesn’t buy into the BS. You think the feminist man is bad? Oh no, women are far nastier to women that don’t go along with the BS.

I cannot tell you how many times I get called a “traitor to my sex”. As if I owe something to women because we share the same reproductive organs. As if because we share those organs, we all must think, behave, want and feel the same way about everything. Nope. I know a scam when I see it and feminism is the biggest scam ever. All anyone has to do is look at it objectively!

Are women, by and large, happier now that they’re “liberated”? Not from what I see and what statistics I read. Divorces, antidepressants, general mental illness, discontent, broken homes, messed up children, I honestly cannot think of one area where things are better for women after all of this “liberation”. It looks to me like women now end up doing all of the domestic work in addition to being expected to have a full time job! No wonder they’re all miserable. I’d hate to put my kids in daycare (the stories I hear from women that have to go back to work make me sick, my own mother being one of them), it’s all so depressing and I’m eternally grateful to my husband!

Lots of people don’t understand how a traditional relationship works. Or what’s ostensibly traditional. My husband does everything for me. He attends any appointments I have, takes us to the doctors, makes any calls, handles everything and then some. But he isn’t my boss, an ogre, or abusive. He has never spent a cent of the money HE earns, without getting my input, even though he doesn’t have to and I’ve never asked him to! He likes to buy me things and asks every day if I need him to get something from the store on the way home.

I am absolutely “allowed” to do as I please but out of respect for him (and just genuinely because I love his company and feel like we are all safer with him accompanying us) we always do everything together. We’ve been together ten years. He cooks on weekends, will always change a diaper or wipe up something nasty. He will carry my purse in a store because it hurts my arm. Is that a controlling man? If it is, then they all should be controlling. He’s never raised a hand to me and never hurt me. He indulges my dumb whims like gardening and animal husbandry, he bought me a little farm despite him not being too into farming, and he helps out. I could sing his praises all day.

You know what? WOMEN LOATHE ME because of him. He still opens my car door, we always hold hands, we love each other and don’t care what others think. We have “too many children”, I don’t want to work and he doesn’t want me to. Some have tried to give me the sisterhood spiel but I know better. They’re jealous and resentful. Their husbands don’t even like them!

It’s at its worst when he goes shopping with me, we went last weekend and I loved a purse but didn’t want to spend $35 on it and he insisted. The looks from the women nearby could have turned me to stone. He never tells me no but I also never take advantage of his generosity.

I’m nothing special, not a great beauty and not really that thin after so many kids. But I honestly believe this is how relationships used to be when men and women “knew their place”. It’s a partnership, not a power struggle. I listen to him and do what he requests of me and he does the same. We respect, love and genuinely like each other not only as partners but as people. This is something that people nowadays can not grasp and it seems to infuriate them. All they have to do is let go of their ego. Learn to be a partner not a combatant. Stop letting stupid ideologies deprive you of happiness.

I think the worst and most evil people are the women that lived by these ideologies, and cake to realize that they ruined their lives, yet they double down and try and push them harder on young women and girls, so that those women and girls have no hope of happiness. It’s bitter, twisted and thoroughly typical of women. The proof is in the pudding. Traditional women are happier. I will be damned if I let the modern ugly and miserable society destroy my happiness, just so I can fit in with the other miserable women!

Sorry this was so long but I felt it needed to be said.

There are many Holocaust deniers commenting on this article. I’d like to remind these anti-semites that the Holocaust is the most thoroughly documented event in human history. There are thousands of books written on the subject and hundreds of movies.

If you insist on denying history, I suggest that you visit your local Holocaust museum. Here in the U.S., large metropolitan areas will usually have a few museums. But even most smaller towns with populations above about 1,000 will offer a well staffed Holocaust study center. Admission is inexpensive. The gift shops have a wide range of educational material and all profits go directly to Holocaust survivors.

Once you see the huge piles of shoes at your local museum, which represent indisputable evidence of the killings, you will never again be a Holocaust denier.

The ADL is a hate group that needs to be confronted everywhere.

We are watching out culture get shredded, our government owned and all but overturned, a military that runs berserk, all for the goal of supporting the Jews in the plan to dominate and rule the world …. and we do absolutely nothing except congratulate ourselves on our perspicuity while cowering behind our keyboards.

Difficult to think what to do though. Join the Orthodox or Catholic Church and support the most appropriate political leadership available?

“Enough with the Jim Crow stuff. Who cares? ‘Oh, I had to drink out of a different water fountain.’ Big f—ing deal…oh no, they had to go to a different school…And even if it was bad, who cares?…it was better for them, it’s better for us.”

Laughing. But if you are nationalist, it’s bad for the country to hinder citizens who need every opportunity as every other.

Apartheid or ethnic separation is a good and moral policy where one ethnic group cannot assimilate the other but the two groups share common territory. Good way of keeping the peace.

2) The main motivation Groypers have to stop immigration is maintaining the white majority, but they won’t admit this publicly because of bad optics.

If this is the main motivation, what are other groups supposed to think? They are going to think these white people want to maintain power to dictate terms on everyone else and they would be right.

Groypers will admit that publicly and should do so. It is a morally just demand because it is their (American Christian white) nation in origin. The same as it is moral and right that “yellow nationalists” in Japan control immigration very much with the objective of maintaining the Japanese ethnic group’s control of the territory in mind. Any non-yellow-Japanese-nationalist visitor accepts this as a matter of course and as a decent expression of basic morality. American whites must establish the same basic respect for their ethnic group, they are treated like dogs, are totally demoralized and seem to have no self-respect whatsoever.

It’s weird how people who aren’t WASP, Nordic or even Irish like to make themselves megaphones for some pretty offensive and alienating racist rhetoric. I think some psychoanalysis of Malkin and Fuentes is in order. Could it be that in their non white-supremacist real personalities they have trouble asserting themselves so have taken on Hitler-like personas to work out their years of suppressed aggression? Wouldn’t it be safer if a trained therapist helped these faux white supremacists work out their issues in a safe, productive manner behind closed doors? I mean really…

To use Groyper terminology – typical ‘femoid’, producing femoid drivel emanating from her unthinking and gormless application of the tenets of her anti-white indoctrination to real-world events. “Femoid” – nice descriptive term, denoting how easily females are socially programmed.

Until and unless the right fully and publicly embraces some form of intelligent racism, they will continue be put on the defensive by cheap attacks from leftists and conservatives. There is no other way out.

The position for racism must be logical, cogent, consistent, and effective. It must be able to be readily encapsulated in memes. It starts with the following:

Politics depends on culture and religion, and culture depends on heredity/genetics. Then race is simply a more general classification of hereditary traits, traceable by correlation, NOT frequency, of alleles. Anyone who ignores such a hierarchy, anyone who denies the dependency between culture and genetics, is akin to a scientific throwback who asserts the sun revolves around the earth.

Racism is pattern recognition, which is the basis of science. Racism is realism, which is an acknowledgement of truth. Personal identity always includes race, whether you like it or not, whether you admit it or not. You may want to forget about racism and identity politics, but racism and identity politics cannot forget about you.

No more being scared to death of that single word ‘racist’. No more being brainwashed by the left to go into defensive paroxysms of guilt when you hear that trigger word. Every white should be proud of their hereditary European culture(s), and should be proud to be a race realist. In the final analysis, segregation and mutual respect for national boundaries are the only moral solutions.

Imagine how much white people would chimp out if they had to drink at a separate water fountain in China

Whites in China are transients – I don’t know but I would think they would be expected to, at the very least, live separately and in total subordination to the Han Chinese state apparatus if a group of them put down roots in a particular area of Chinese territory (which would be analogous).

“The kind of man who wants the government to adopt and enforce his ideas is always the kind of man whose ideas are idiotic” H.L.Mencken

Oh right which are these men who comment or write on political subjects and would rather that the government DID NOT adopt and enforce according to their point of view? Does the above quote take out the entirety of literature relating to political matters, given that every idea contained in such literature is likely to be “idiotic” (according to the logic of your quote)?

“The kind of man who copies out and then posts trite and idiotic witticisms, while mistakenly thinking that attributing to them some public figure gives them respectability, is well worth ignoring.” ME, JUST NOW.

The conservative student group, which is effectively run by Shapiro, issued a statement last weekend saying “white nationalists” are not welcome in the conservative movement

This is obvious treason. White nationalism is the only defence against the White Genocide project. What are they pretending to conserve, anyway? Talmud? It sure as hell isn’t the race that built the country from nothing.

Yeah, it’s not about ‘left’ vs ‘right’. It’s about WHAT-JEWISH-SUPREMACISTS-WANT.

If it’s about favoring ‘left’ over ‘right’, why are Palestinian voices being crushed when BDS is still mostly a left-led movement?

The Power will favor Jewish ‘left’ over Goy ‘right’ and will favor Jewish ‘right’ over Goy ‘left’.

is the matrix (‘Deep State’ if you wish to call it that) which has told the government to pass legislation absolving its attack-dogs in the media from blame when it reports fake news and, perhaps more sinister, fails to report real news

Good analysis. I’d say it’s the intelligence agencies who tell the story-tellers what objective they need to achieve, and the story-tellers then create narratives/realities which have the effect of driving intervention from right-thinking (i.e. careerist) and bought off politicians

Guardian “journalist” and clear idiot Luke Harding unwittingly-but-explicitly explains this in this bizarre interview with Aaron Mate:

Video Link
The Atlantic Council is highly influential in this, making up fantasies and fairy-tales (“reports”) on behalf of the security agencies which are then regurgitated by idiot story-tellers and believed by credulous, unthinking careerist psychopaths (politicians). For example, it provided an official basis to the fairy tale that the ‘Internet Research Agency’ (a small commercial click-bait marketing agency posting pictures of puppies for clicks) was actually intent on “sewing division” as part of a sinister Kremlin plot to undermine the Jewish Supremacist Empire and way of life.

Good luck, professor.

Obviously she should be fired from the Provost role, you’ve laid it out very clearly.

You have quite accurately described the new religion and its modus operandi in the current left suffering from what you call Jewishness.

What is even worse though is that what you call the pre-traumatic stress syndrome, whether actually felt or just used to rationalize actually immoral behavior, is transforming into “pre-traumatic” violence.

In this new series on amazon prime produced by Jewish Hollywood by Jews https://twitter.com/BubetteS/status/1197895394853670917 the systematic hunt and murder of “Nazis” is produced as both sadistic murder pornography and twisted moral indoctrination.

Veit Harlan was accused that his film Jud Süß was used to justify the murder of innocent people. Make no mistake: productions like these are worse and gravely serious. They are part of an escalation propgramme by Jewish power in the USA and the Galut in the wider sense. Productions like these which the Jewish dominated cultural industry has pumped out relentlessly over the last years WILL help people get killed. By those who follow the message of racie-baiting Jewish bigots fully dehumanizing their opposition. And make no mistake: the “Nazis” in prodcutions like these stand for Germans; they stand for Trump voters; they stand for white, (christian) Europeans.

The religious tone and framing of particularly this production leaves no room for vague interpretations. It is fueled by ancient Jewish fundamentalism and deeply racist and religiously supremacist ideology which World Jewry has never fully addressed, let alone overcome. One reason is their self-immunization and complete shutdown of critical introspection because of the transformation of the holocaust, Jewish suffering, absolute Jewish innocence and unfounded persecution to religious dogmas. One root of totalitarianism, said Karl Popper, was to believe to know the end of history. And the programme by Jewish radicals like these is exactly that. A final solution to goy question.

As we can savely assume, the Mitzvot mentioned in the production refers to Amalek and the Amalekites. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amalek

And we know for a fact what these Mitzvots say and what the production implies:

598 Deut. 25:17 – Remember what Amalek did to the Israelites
599 Deut. 25:19 – Wipe out the descendants of Amalek
600 Deut. 25:19 – Not to forget Amalek’s atrocities and ambush on our journey from Egypt in the desert

White genocide stops being a far right conspiracy theory when Jewish radicals with access to tools of mass propaganda or political power and “pre-traumatic stress syndrome” use perceived threats of their allegedly genocide to rationalize and fascilitate very real violence and collective racial hatred in the present day.

I have seriously come to the conclusion that radicalized members of the tribe have become a mortal threat to especially my people, the Germans, and to white Europeans in the wider sense. Especially when you live like a sitting duck in still occupied Germany and when Jews in the past were in fact implied in attempts of genocide against German civilians in the poisoning attempt by the “Jewish Avengers” and in their role in post-war Germany and the greatest ethnic cleansing in human history of Germans from the Sudetenland and what is now Poland.

It is unacceptable, immoral, evil and it must be stopped. By any means necessary.

Yet in reality we know that the holocaust was used from the start as a weapon against occupied Germany from Nuremberg on, the Amalek inscription on The Hague is also no coincidence, and universal notions were rejected from the start. For the innocently murdered and ethnically cleansed Germans it was vae victis; for the Jews to this day it is the privilege to self-worship and the deification of their suffering as the moral, metaphysical framework of the current political world order. It is the mental virus killing us slowly but surely.

Well then, we children of Edom will have to liberate ourselves!

Clinton has also helped to convince many Democrats and members of the mainstream media that the 2016 election was stolen from her by Russian agents If this were really true – which is very doubtful – then Hillary should be the Democrats’ candidate for 2020 since Russian intervention should not be as successful as it allegedly was in 2016.

So silly. Seymour Hersch has it verified that Seth Rich sold the emails to Wikileaks.

Perhaps part of the reason that Trump often seems to be surrounded by people who don’t support his policies or values is, as Paul Craig Roberts suggested in 2016, that Trump would have real problems simply because he was an outsider. An outsider to the Washington swamp, a swamp that
Clinton had been swimming in for decades.
In short he didn’t know who to trust, who to keep “in the tent” & who to shut out. Thus, we have had this huge churn in Secretaries & on so on downwards.

The holocaust story has replaced the Crucifixion as the founding story of our civilisation, CoE idiots are too stupid to realise this or put up any fight. Great article from Joyce

The latest Star Wars films have the quality of Soviet propaganda, totally obnoxious levels of childish political messaging. Unwatchable.

While the critique of capital has some value, ultimately this article is irritating. The British people live on a small island. They do not want to be part of a global Empire legitimized under the rationale that its rulers can stop the climate changing and can ‘end racism’. Leftist atheists are always trying to create hell on earth.

Cook, like all of his leftist friends, is a fool and a traitor, his mind stuffed full of Marxist nonsense. Corbyn belongs in the Tower of London. There is nothing like seeing these self-righteous bastards handed their collective asses. I am well aware of the faults of the British Establishment but they pale beside the moral, intellectual, social, economic and political dung of the “Left”.

On the one hand, the article is a good example of Far Left delusions, ignoring Brexit and immigration. Or the travesty of the Dead Parliament. It also shows zero understanding of Boris.

On the other hand, yes the establishment media certainly was hostile to Corbyn. They want a Blair-type Globalist neo-liberal running things. They find Boris worryingly patriotic despite his liberalism on immigration; they fear he might actually do what he says he’ll do. But they hate Corbyn for stealing their party from them, and for depriving them of a real Globalist champion to back. Warmed-over Trotskyism doesn’t count.

Too many actually believe in the impossible, aka: the “holocaust” religion.

That ridiculous narrative is the great enabler of today for the war on Euro-whites.

There will be nothing to take when those who make are gone.

Because they can’t help themselves.

It’s a natural consequence of their worldview. Our white gentile ethnic self-interest is uniquely evil, while their ethnic self-interest will save the entire world. It’s why Schiff is determined to destroy any possibility of an alliance between white Christian America and white Christian Russia, as a matter of life or death for him and his kind.

I have a ¨Beef¨ with those traitorous Anglo Saxon whites that have served their Zionist Masters with no questions asked.

Tony Blair and Churchill are the arch-demons from the British perspective.

How’s that different to what China has done in Tibet and is doing to the Uighurs, you Yellow Supremacist psychopath? How do you think the Han people came to be in possession of the huge territory they currently reside in, you anti-whit Hate agent, you Yellow Supremacist nitwit?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinicization_of_Tibet

WE HAVE THE FACTS

Why would “white nationalists” wish for Yellow Supremacists-such-as-yourself’s demise? White nationalists’ political preoccupation is with their white nation, not your yellow nation. The clue is in the name.

There is no doubt about the evil ulterior motive of gaining friendship, rapport and camaraderie which you wouldn’t want any chinaman to have of course.

The kind of demented chip-on-the-shoulder passive-aggressive discourse popular with the oh-so-sacred “minorities”, and which makes our current society impossible and unbearable. You are brainwashed with Political Correctness dogma or something. Insane.

White people have never learned to be in harmony with other people and to exist within a plurality.

The sociological construct “white people” is American, and it arose through the amalgamation of people from a multitude of different European migrants, who moved to a different country and formed an overarching polity out of the multitude of their original ethnic groups (Germanic, Latin/Hispanic, Gallic Celtic/Irish, Slavic, etc) and different religious denominations. Your own use of terminology belies your point.

or Irish-Americans especially enjoying celebrating St Patrick’s Day or whatever. Anyone offended by either has lost the plot. Notice: no rampant unbalanced over-emotionalism nor extreme callousness in my statement? It is because I am not wrestling with any demons in making it.

I mean what has to be wrong with someone for them to read about small monies going from a Jewish charity to help some Jews and be outraged…what next?

OMG, some Jew donated a new set of chairs to a Synagogue?

Someone else set up a Yiddish library?

An Italian-American always dreamt of visiting Italy?

No you’re missing the point. The hypocrisy is outrageous. This is because Zionists/Jews spend a huge amount of their time, resources and energy zealously hectoring whites that any manifestation of our ethnic self-interest is a great evil (“racism”). But they openly and flagrantly flout their own moral law when it comes to their own Jew ethnic-centrism. In fact, they’re the most ethno-centric out of any group.

It’s a blatant Supremacist strategy. You obviously haven’t clocked this, bit slow.

It sounds like you see them as an exact representation of how you want to be. Not as they are. That’s weird.

No I’m telling you a pattern of behaviour I see in them, very straightforward and it clearly manifests.

Take it or leave it but don’t act like some advocate for them – a little troll that’s desperate to deflect every criticism of them, on their behalf with your silly slogans. That truly is weird.

these people should be physically assaulted for NOT wearing a mask in Asia like Asians are assaulted in the West for wearing one.

Were you educated at an American university or something? You seemed to have acquired the Jew Supremacist skill for making outrageous claims to ethnic victimhood. So rude, stupid, irritating. Yellow Supremacist drivel.

The population in lockdown.

Below is today’s complete speech of PM of Pakistan. It is 17:13 minutes long and it is in Urdu addressed to his nation and people. What I understand he is saying due to extreme poverty in Pakistan, they cannot have complete lock down as they don’t have the resources, and people will die of extreme hunger. Think about it how will it effect the entire world. I believe extreme poverty is the biggest disease and virus of the world. God has given us so many resources and only Israel is destroying these resources.

We could ask our resident Pakistani Talha to probably help translate the speech of Pakistani PM!

Video Link

The really interesting question is why are only straight white men not protected in this way and why is this only the case in countries where straight white men predominate at the highest levels of government? Given that they are just 5% of the world or less and their countries are few, it is a bizarre fact.

Care to offer an explanation?

Because these countries’ founding myth is no longer the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ, rather the “Holocaust” story. In this story, the Germanic white male plays the role of devil, and the Jewish people the role of Jesus, or the sacred victim. Germanic male has lowest status, Jew highest.

This founding myth was codified into the Political Correctness ideological system by Jew Supremacists (i.e. Jews), and is upheld by social programming/taboo, which in turn is carried out by various powerful groups/agencies of the state. Jews fervently promote the ideology in these countries through media, academia, banking allocation of resources, etc. The white Gentiles who are in the elite need to recite and promote Political Correctness dogma in order to gain/maintain their status. There are many silly and/or manically ambitious whites who genuinely believe in the ideology.

Something similar to the above.

Eliminating one form of tribalism by asserting another simply maintains the underlying psychopathology of violence toward, abuse of, and defamation of non-group members.

This is what nations are for. It is human nature to prefer one’s own kind, or were you nursing all the world at your breast? Universalism is a great academic and moral idea, but humans don’t work that way, and if a people believe things in opposition to human nature, well, they’re going to have a bad day. Whites are only about 11% of the world’s population, but our nations have a lot of the cool stuff, like plenty of food, clean water and sanitation, a stable power grid, a welfare state giving it all away, as well as a huge supply of hypersexualized women left vulnerable in their solitary go-girl career-focused lifestyles. “Imagine there’s no In-Group” in a world with in-group preferences leaves you defenseless to predation, which is exactly where Western Civilization is today, led there by a Jewish Elite that is the topic of the article.

So Jews talking about the Holocaust explains everything – in your worldview? Interesting…

No, read my comment again. You always reply with a tedious and obvious misrepresentation of your interlocutor’s original post. It’s idiotic.