International Jewry

International Jewry

The short answer is that International Jewry has long recognized the white genotype as its greatest threat to its aims for world domination and so part of its blueprint is the marginalization if not outright extermination of the race.

Here is a snippet that actually became popular with folks with a conspiratorial sense of history.




And here is a short video summarizing Sweden’s evolution away from its cultural heritage

The question people have to decide in themselves is whether a distinct ethnic group, including a distinct culture (=their kind of food, clothing, art, language, architecture, music, moral values, family order, and religion) have a right to preserve their own heritage of that ethnic/culture. If the answer is, “No,” because it’s called “racism” when in reality it is just preserving a “different way” of life, then let the “disintegration” continue to under the title of “integration.” If the answer is, “Yes,” then there has to be a “place” for that distinct ethnic group or culture to exist and continue.

The multi-culturalists call the disintegration of integration “freedom.” The “freedom” of other cultures “to” practice their “way” of life, their food, clothing, art, language, architecture, music, moral values, family order and religion.” “Freedom” sounds great. What could be wrong with that? But the “freedom to…” can only be balanced by “freedom from…” or else the “freedom” of others “to” will override the “freedom” of those different “from” the others. What if one culture wants to be free to preserve their way “from” other ways? It’s like keeping Mexican food distinct from Chinese food. “Integrate” the two and you have neither one as a distinct “variety” of food. The same is true for cultures.

An example is the Bikini people of the Bikini islands. The Bikini islands were blown up by the U.S. using them for Nuclear bomb tests back after World War II. (Look it up).http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/3347-american-battleship-uss-arkansas/ The Bikini people were relocated before the tests to the Samoan islands. Americans thought that they are all “Pacific Islanders.” So, they don’t need their own distinct homeland. They can just “integrate” with the Samoan people. However, after years of living on the Samoan islands, the King of Bikini complained that they their “ways” were “disintegrating” on Samoa, because they are not the same as the Samoans. Agitations were experienced between the two due to conflicts of “distinct ways” of life. So the King of Bikini petitioned to have his people removed from the Samoan islands. The U.S. responded by moving them to Hawaii. They thought, Hawaiians are “Pacific Islanders,” so they should get along fine. The problem turned out the same. So after 50 years, the King of Bikini wanted to go back to their islands, since the radioactivity had diminished to about 3 feet below ground level. He said there were only about 100 pure Bikini people left and they would be wiped out as a distinct people unless they could have a place to preserve their ethnicity and culture.

The question is, should the Bikini people be allowed to preserve their people and their way of life? Most people I talk to say, yes. I believe it is because they see the Bikini people as a minority and want to preserve them like a endangered species of animal in a zoo. Then I wonder, why is that okay for the “Bikini” people, but if the Swedish people, or god forbid the “German” people, Greek, etc want to do it, then, not only, “No,” but Hell NO!

                                 The things that make you go…Hmmm.

Cultural Diversity is a better idea than Multi-culturalism, because Cultural Diversity means maintaining the “diversity,” that is, the difference between cultures. By doing so, then we can go visit “Switzerland” and see how distinctly the Swiss do it. Same with the Aborigines of Australia, or the Invisible People of the Amazon, and oh my gods, the same with the Spanish, Italians, French, English, and yes, Germans.

I know the American motto is, “E Plurabus Unum,” (Of many One). So the multi-cultralists have a point there. But there has been a rebellion for decades against what the definition of the “One” is. The presumption of the founding fathers was the “One” would be an Anglo-American culture. The distinct cultures that have moved here are not all interested in becoming, “Anglicized.” They want cultural diversity, not the “melting pot” of blending into “One” culture decided by “others.” So they have a point also. Then that is the dilemma, are we going to maintain the motto of “E Plurabus Unum”? Or are we going to reverse it to “E Unum Plurabus” (Of One Many) out of respect for the diversity of cultures and their right to preserve their way of life? Unity is not the same as Uniformity. Unity requires diversity united to maintain the “freedom” of that diversity, which means “freedom to…and…freedom from.”