Trumped-Up Nativism

Donald Trump has far too many Jewish Ties; more than any other Politician; even more than that Castizo that will Likely be his V.P. Pick i.e. Ted Cruz.  This will Test his Economic Interests in Replacing China and Japan with Russia and any Racial Loyalty he may have; he will not Fight any Islamic Threat that Jewry Desires there to be, if Putin cannot Convince him that it is (in a Strictly-Materialistic, Short-Term Sense) Profitable to also Replace Jewry with Ethnically and Culturally-European Economic and Military Allies.

Otherwise, those same Russians he Invited to Invest in America will be Renounced as the same "Alien Enemy" that the Kaiser's Godson was in WWI for Owning a Mine with Better Health & Safety Standards, Medical Treatment, Equipment, Pay, Housing and Family-Oriented Services than were Provided by American-Owned Mines of the Day. Likewise, any American Student, Businessman, Actor or Actress, Director, Writer, Artist, Architect or other Cultural Figure who Traveled to, Invested in or otherwise Fraternized with either Russia or its Allies, may be Renounced as "Homegrown Subversives".  Those Propagandizing such View, then, could Ignite a Debate about whether or not to Label such "Foreign-Incited Subversives"; those not Approving this Label (as Considered by those Directing this Narrative, or Holding it Expedient to Portray such Infidelity has having Occurred), too, may be Deemed such.

This is when Ron Paul may Pretend to be "The Third Way", as if anything Significant will Change.  This is when the likes of Adam Kokesh can Introduce to America that Corporate Face of Communism that is Libertarianism.

Any Atraditional Fusion of Government and Corporation, as References - in its Founder(s) Intent(s) to Deviate from it, or its Nature(s) of doing so - any European Tradition(s), is Alienist Socialism; it is all Harmful.

All else is Nominal Difference and/or Situational; while Certain Socio-Economic Structures may be Preferable to Certain Groups of Europeans (whether Constituting one Ethnicity or Sub-Set thereof, or many; whether or not any Particular Cultural Commonality beyond that of all European Cultures is Present or Desired), for Certain Reasons of Past, Present and/or Foreseeable Future Developments, it - thus - is so that these may not be those Preferable for the Remainder of those People of European Lineage.

Whenever it cannot be Demonstrated that something is Better for The European Race for any Individual or Group thereof to Uphold, the aforesaid is to say, this is his, her or their Privilege to Utilize As Seen Fit thereby.

Only that which is Universally Applicable to a Population, by Genetics or Developed Condition, can Define its Duty; just as only that which is Inherent to the Individual's Genetics or Developed Condition can Dictate what is Required of that Individual, as Relates to The Greater Good of Our Race.

Why Have We Not Eradicated The Jews?

Is it a Logistical Problem?  No.  There is Ample Development, in Railroads, Streets, Airports and Communications.

Is it a Military Problem?  No.  It would be Easy, as many Events in History have Demonstrated.

Is it an Economic Problem?  No.  It is Cheap, and Brings Economic Benefit.  There are many Examples.

Is it a Matter of Public Opinion?  Not Ultimately.  Public Opinion Opposed Them, long before They were Able to Direct The Masses into Ignorance and Elements therein into Brutal Service.

So, I'll Ask Again: Why Have We Not Eradicated The Jews?

It has been Argued that there always Appeared to be a More-Pressing Concern; whether Moorish, Turkish, Mestizo or otherwise, perhaps such an Intangible as "Communism" or "Liberty", something always seemed a Priority.  Surely, these were the Military Might of Jewish Leaders and Social Engineers.  However, these could have been Eradicated Simultaneously.  In Fact, since They were already Cooperating with each other but this would Eliminate the False Dichotomy of one being an "Ally because of a Common Enemy", it would have been Easier To Deal With Both Threats Simultaneously.  Of course, there have always been the Alledged Collaborators.  These, however, often Made Their Treason Obvious; the Remainder just Provided Future Opportunities For Subversion.  Whether Incited or Exacerbated by Them, there have long been Fratricides that Interfered with Reconquistas or other Defences of Our Peoples, Cultures and Homelands.  Surely, any with the Intelligence to Organize any Significant Military Threat would have the Intelligence to Realize that Jews - At The Very Least - Present a Long-Term Detriment to Society; if nothing else, one's Legacy should be Viewed as Threatened.  Furthermore, it should be Noted that Jewry (Re-)Militarized Moorish and Played Both Sides of Byzantium and Russia's Wars with Turkish.  Why Pander, at all, when any Power these could Grant you - and, Ultimately, more - could be Acquired from within your own Race and Culture?

Once again, I will Ask this Question: Why Have We Not Eradicated The Jews?

On Existentialism

If Man is Without Innate Value, how does he Acquire it?  His Life would be Meaningless, and thus he could only Confer his Meaningless Views onto another.  Meaninglessness Begets Meaninglessness.  One does not Add Value by Developing or Adopting a View, but merely Alters his Existence and thus Establishes a Ripple Effect.  To this are Varying Degrees; these can be Qualified and Quantified, but the Effect is Contingent upon which thing has what Affect upon something else. Thus, one can say Objectively that he or she is Contributing to his or her own Survival or Destruction, as well as how this Relates to a Collective, both in Terms of Numerical Existence and Ideological Impact, but is left without any Morality or Immorality in doing so.  One does as one Pleases, and there is no Better or Worse but that which one Perceives there to be.  Life and Death, both Individual and Collective, are Equally Viable Options; that you may Aid or Deprive another is Irrelevant, unless you Believe otherwise.  This is not the Foundation of a Civilization, but a Means of Destroying it; by Encouraging one to Harbour such Sentiments, it Introduces Concepts that - even if later Rejected - Cause Harm that otherwise would not Exist.  Those that Innately would Harbour such Views, are then Reinforced; rather than Discouraged (even if this would only be Effective for a Time), one is Enticed to do what Threatens a Culture and People.  An Existentialist Society can Infanticide a Population with Potential to do things Traditionally Valued, because it sees no Inherent Worth; "Why be Burdened by a Parasite?", it asks in Regards to Reproduction and Child-Rearing. Thus, it Implies either it is a Parasite or that it has Transcended.  How has it Transcended?  It would have not had the Opportunity, if not for those not Afflicted with such a Mentality.