Hiljaista Pohdintaa

Hiljaista Pohdintaa

sunnuntai 24. huhtikuuta 2016

Etnosentrisen ryhmän periaatteita ja muita aiheita

Seuraavassa on kokoelma kommenttejani eri yhteyksistä.


Evola makes some good points about race, but I modify his views.

I see race and ethnicity as baselines. This means is that I give freely "unearned privileges" to e.g. European-Americans. "Unearned privileges" resemble love of relatives. I see European-Americans in principle positively. I more easily cooperate with them; I am more interested about them and their well-being than outsiders; I support and help them more; I trust them more; I forgive them more;  I am more easily loyal with them; I empathize more with them; I more easily feel belonging to their groups; etc. You can see that many dogs are uninterested when people go by, as if people didnt exist, but when dogs go by they become wildly alive. In the same way I am fairly uninterested about outsiders, but I feel fully alive among Europeans.

This love cannot be abused. If I see that you are a flaming liberal, you despise Europeans, you hate me, you abuse my positive attitude, etc., then I punish and exclude you more than outsiders, although I may forgive you more readily, if you repent and change your ways.

I am writing here because of these reasons, I want to help Europeans around the world, to give them the intellectual tools they need to survive, multiply and prosper. I never write in east-Asian sites, black sites, middle-eastern sites, etc.

This positive attitude towards Europeans also requires reciprocity and exhorts to virtue, ethnocentrism, religiosity, self-development, education, loyalty, cooperation, etc.

I disagree with Evola on e.g. his views on nobility and always striving higher. Higher striving people strive to the top, and top is like mountaintop, downhill follows upward slope, downhill is the natural consequence of the blind scramble to get to the top, blind striving to get always forward. Also when these people are striving their impulse is often to stamp down on their people, to leave them behind, to exclude their people from themselves, to disparage their people, to raise their stocks by pressing down their people, etc. Blind striving higher is short term strategy, and long term strategists win out in long term. Liberalism and the civilizational and group decline it causes is a natural consequence of individualist people always striving higher without any moderating principles.

So how to make striving better? By combining group striving  inseparably with personal striving. By making group sacrifice higher principle than personal striving, by always moderating personal striving with group sacrifice.  By excluding without mercy those who dont make the necessary group sacrifices. By demarcating clearly the boundaries of the group. By desisting forever from some avenues of striving higher, whatever personal or group advantages they may give along with the disadvantages.

So maybe some European noble man sees that some highly intelligent, highly cultural and beautiful Japanese noble princess gives some advantages in some striving higher purposes, but abandoning this avenue is exactly the sacrifice that is necessary to make for the group. The Japanese princess, whatever she is, is an outsider. We can at the same time acknowledge that the Japanese princess is an excellent human being and still desist from marrying him, desisting in matter of fact more vigorously because she is a higher enticement.

Personal and group sacrifices are more important than striving higher. Sacrifices are the beginning and the foundation of the group.

Note that there untold millions of ways and people outside our groups, that could be avenues of striving higher, and which would dissolve and destroy Europeans and European ethnicities. Europeans dont have monopoly on highly intelligent people, noble and virtuous people, good people, religious people, brave people, creative people, diligent people, disease resistant people, strong people, beautiful people, etc. There are always countless utilitarian striving higher reasons to break down the ingroup.

Fish rottens mostly from the head down, so it is especially important what the noble Europeans do. If noble European marries Japanese princess, he sets example to the others. "If he can marry that Japanese princess, why cant I marry this Nigerian woman?" When noble European marries Japanese princess, the boundaries inside his own mind weakens. He had forbidden intermarriage before, but now he doesnt dare to forbid others of doing so, when he himself does it. If he would do it, people would accuse him of double standards and hypocrisy, "Do as I tell you, not as I do". Maybe he didnt care about ingroup boundaries at all to begin with, and intermarriage is just  the practical consequence of that. Etc.

We Europeans have many good qualities, but we are weak group competitors, we are one of the weakest group competitors in the world, dilettantes in ethnocentrism. The Jews have survived as an endogamous group (most communities) more than three thousand years in the most difficult and varying societal environments. We can learn a lot from them. I disagree with Kevin MacDonalds  general thesis about Jews in his trilogy, but he has a good chapter on what good endogamy requires in "People that Shall Dwell Alone" (good endogamy is a foundation of group strategy), and other important information needed in group competition, good functioning of group and everlasting longevity of group.


Pride is both social and anti-social emotion. Proud person wants to be seen, noticed, appreciated, respected, feared, viewed as awesome, liked, treated with deference etc. Pride is mostly generated by positive social comparisons (i.e. proud person needs positive social comparing), but may also be generated by positive developments or achievements of the self. Pride has tendency to be to some extent anti-social emotion, because it might lead to contemptuous, belittling, disparaging, devaluing, etc. feelings towards others; and because it might increase (false) feelings of self-sufficiency, separation from others, differentiation from others and perhaps unbridgeable chasm between self and others. Pride may reduce empathy towards others, pro-social behavior, voluntary work and giving to charity. Pride may increase selfishness, arrogance, hostility/anger, quick temper, self-deception, my side bias, feelings of entitlement, exaggerated beliefs about the self, overconfidence, etc.

The negative counterpart of pride is shame. The difference between pride and shame is steep. Proud person is often on the highest mountain, shamed proud person is often in the deepest ravine. The shamed person is often despised, rejected and held in contempt by both himself and others. Shamed person is wholly bad, not just one or some of his features. Proud person is often only one loss away from total shame. Thus pride is often tinged with fear. Pride is brittle, not robust. People who have narcissistic personality disorder, reside in psychopathic spectrum. They feel on average less fear than average person, but more than psychopaths. If fast words related to shame, challenge, disparagement or loss are shown to narcissists, fast subliminal or conscious fear shoots through their brains. Proud person often has high expectations for himself, and often his environment too, so this may mean he loses or fails easily or often according to his expectations. To counteract this tendency, proud person may use self-deception, pretending, lies, hiding the lossess, avoiding or fleeing shame-inducing social contexts, etc. In shame cultures winning often means narcissistic or dictatorship mindset, defeat might mean boot kissing obsequiousness, i.e. anyway the contrast is large. Because pride is showy self-confidence, it is often attractive to women. Pride could be said to be high cost signalling mating strategy, and protection strategy (protection of wealth, family, territory, etc.), because showy self-confidence, arrogance and easily aroused anger may repel challengers, robbers, attackers, etc.

Humility is generally the positive opposite of pride. Humble person generally lacks proud persons vanity, boasting, arrogance, selfishness, anti-social attitude, etc. Because of the contrast between humility and showy self-confidence of pride, some people think erroneously that humility means lack of self-confidence, but humble persons mostly have good self-confidence. Humility also doesnt mean submissiveness, humble person is just more socially oriented and doesnt have negativistic attitude towards accepted hierarchies, if there are no special reasons for opposing them. Because humble persons often have modest expectations for himself and others, they have tendency to succeed and win easily. Humility has tendency to be robust and it withstand problems well. If humble person with good self-confidence would fight with proud person with equally good self-confidence, humble person could smile and say, "The pleasure is all mine." To the proud person the fight would be more serious, excluding easy and calm mind, let alone smiling attitude.

In the Bible three types of pride is forbidden; pride which separates man from God; pride which is anti-social, which separates man from his community; and narcissistic boasting. Normal pride arising from person's or his community's accomplishments, abilities, victories, qualities, etc. is accepted. The Bible doesnt forbid emotions, nor force compulsory emotions on people. Bible accepts the full range of emotions, but it sets certain standards on how to beat in the seas of emotions. If Bible in some location opposes certain emotion without definitions, it is important to understand the larger context of the Bible to understand what parts or consequences of that emotion Bible opposes. Also it is important to understand that generally what is not forbidden, is allowed or accepted, although it is mostly not mentioned that it is allowed or accepted. According to Jewish teachings, emotions should not be prevented or smothered, but they should always be modified in varying extent by rationality before they are expressed, by rationality which has learned the Biblical virtues. This modifying could be small or bigger check, small or bigger increase, small or bigger redirection, small or bigger reform, small or bigger temperance, small or bigger contemplation, etc., depending on the situation, possibilities and requirements.


Ressentiment means envy and hatred which cant be acted upon, or only through long indirect routes, leading often to frustration. That is how liberal democracy has been planned to be.

Influence in democracy is slow, goes through several indirect filters and modifiers, and never gets all goals accomplished, if any. Citizens are always pleading or influencing bureaucracies, politicians and other people to do this or that, or think this way or that way, pleading those they think have agency to accomplish things, or have capability to assist in making changes. This kind of psychological action structure in liberal democracy is an indirect acceptance of low pleading social status, which is dependent on the good will or lending of the ear of higher status people, higher status collective massess or higher status organizations. This process most of the time consumes extra 'political' energy and emotions left over by work and other daily tasks, so almost nothing is left to other avenues of influence.

 To make matters worse, every political coalition that is painstakingly gathered, lets say during four, eight or twelve years, can be lost in days by the whims of the massess, corruption of politicians, biased media influence or changes in the societal situation.  These kinds of lossess are inevitable in democracy, nothing is permanent, almost nothing and nobody can be fully relied on or trusted, leading to more frustration and anger.

Democracy functions together with consumer society and consumer mindset, and these penetrate everything, including marriages and family life. In the earlier times people saw families, among other things, as units of production, where inadequate and imperfect persons complement each other for the sake of children. Now people take their personal standards from the media, the richest billionaire, the best whatever athlete, the most handsome movie star, the most beautiful model or singer, the most intelligent scientist, etc. Many feel that they are in global competition with every person in the world, "I have to be competitive in the global marketplace for jobs, marriages, social status, wealth, etc." It doesnt necessarily help if one is, say the most intelligent person in the world. He maybe physically weak, not handsome, not self-confident, etc. People have a tendency to concentrate more on missing things than what they already have, so the most intelligent person in the world may well feel he is inadequate and bad. To counteract this kind inherent inadequacy, liberalized people create false narcissistic facades of perfection, self-confidence, pomposity,  popularity, skills, knowledge, intelligence, physical perfection (cosmetic surgeries, cosmetic implants, excessive make-up, etc.), etc. Men fear and feel shame most about weaknesses in any area, women about not being effortlessly perfect. Narcissistic facade means in reality that people demand too much from themselves, and so they will not demand any less from others. This is complemented by the fact that they are accustomed to demand, want and need excessively in democratic processes and consumer transactions. Hence in dating ordinary and average people demand that their spouse is 10+ perfect, more than perfect, and this makes marriages less likely. They see marriages as hedonistic and selfish consumer alliances. They want to know where the potential spouse would like to travel, what kind of restaurants and foods he likes, what kind of car he has, does he enjoy more sunrises or sunsets, etc. These kinds of hedonistic items must be in harmony and mutually fulfilling. If they end up marrying, the novelty and excitement of new allied consuming soon wears out. Like consumers, they become first dissatisfied with the present product, break up the marriage and start to look for a new product, new exciting partner to consume. The cycle begins again and repeats until they are so old and ugly that that they cannot compete in the consumer dating marketplace.

So this person so many Nietzscheans and others find contemptible, this ressentimenting person, is none other than your ordinary person in liberal democratic consumer society. Nietzsche had psychological problems, so he dismissed his own weaknesses, among others envy, nervousness, fears and hatred, and fantasized about superhuman prideful, narcissistic and calmly superior psychological qualities and capabilities, his childish comic book version of them.

Envy tells us that we have too little something valuable, and we must do something about. If it is moderated by temperance and channeled properly, it can be a positive feeling. It can be a strong good motivation to improve oneself and own community. If it becomes overbearing, and it is channeled to malevolent actions inside the community, like throwing round sticks to the wheels of others, stealing, sabotage, spreading false rumors, making a person a target of violence, etc., then it becomes a problem. Ten commandments of Bible dont forbid envy, but they forbid the possible malevolent products of it in your community.

Hatred, if it is moderated by suitable temperance, protects us from violence, exploitation, domination, etc. and it is often requirement in the realization of justice. Again the ten Commandments dont forbid hatred, but they forbid the malevolent products of it in your community.

So what to do?

Start to build an enduring ethnic community, on which you can rely on, and which makes you more than you can be alone. Dont put all your eggs to the fleeting basket of democracy. Follow inside your community the advice and commandments of Bible. Have self-compassion, be temperate, lower the excess expectations for yourself and others. Accept imperfection in imperfect world. Reject consumer lifestyle and mindset. Develop a mindset, which allows you to form lasting marriages, and have many children.


envy is a feeling that you lack something important, which other person has. Coveting is envy directed to that which the other person has in such a way that you want it for yourself, so you may end up stealing it, robbing it, misappropriating it by using stratagems, etc. Envy is not recommended in the Bible, nor it is a virtue, but it is not forbidden to envy, unless it leads to coveting, which is a prerequisite for a crime or infraction. Properly controlled and directed envy can lead to good things and often does.

Same kind of logic applies to hatred.


Envy is not automatically “willing evil”. Envious person can say, “Oh my goodness, Harry has so good X, I need that too”, and then go on to improve himself, or work harder, or redirect his attention and work in a new way, so that he gets the X. This is willing good. There are of course ways in which envy can lead to willing bad. Envy is one of the automatically occurring emotional results of social comparisons, i.e. it means that there first must be rational evolution of social differences, which then arouses envy (or some other emotion connected to social comparisons). People have inborn tendency to make social comparisons. Hierarchy is essential conservative value. Hierarchies need social comparisons to exist and to be maintained. Leveling hierarchies with force and laws doesnt remove social comparisons or hierarchical tendencies, on the contrary, it mostly intensifies them.

All this means that envy cannot be prevented or forbidden anymore than say anger or love, nor should we try. We can learn to live with envy, control it, modify it and direct it on good and constructive purposes. Ten commandments are a good guide on how to direct envy to good purposes by telling what to trim away.


You are of course right, but egalitarians are just as hierarchical as those who advocate hierarchy openly. Egalitarians would like to lift themselves to the top or nearer to the top, and drop the top to the bottom, but they cant say this openly, because:

1) Egalitarians want the largest coalition possible, and they want everybody on the bottom to feel that they will get equally large share when the hierarchy is turned upside down.

 2) If they would openly advocate turning the hierarchy upside down, then they would be open to the same accusations which they hurl against the present hierarchy. Egalitarianism is hence under the surface projective blaming (i.e. they accuse the present top about the same thing that they themselves want) and a form of blame avoidance.

3) Egalitarianism is an attempt to make the turning of the hierarchy upside down palatable and acceptable to everyone, even to the people at the top of hierarchy. Egalitarians try to appeal with their egalitarianism to the elites sense of justice, saying in essence that justice and righteousness = egalitarianism. Egalitarians want the people at the top to lay down their defenses and resistance because of the appealing nature of egalitarian ideology.

This is the reality in the present societal situation. But in more psychologically and socially healthy situations the egalitarian impulse can be honest, real, healthy and reasonable, especially in good communities. Of course in egalitarian communities there are hierarchies too, but they are not steep, they are gentle. People at the bottom of such hierarchies almost always have satisfying fast and concrete influence in the community. People at the top share the burdens and risks others share, i.e they cant charge others burdens and risks, and live themselves in ease, luxury, safety and idleness at the expense of others. To enable this kind of community to function, the members must be similar ethnically, religiously, intellectually, in values and morals, in cooperative spirit, in individual responsibility, etc.

The liberal elites know the political power of egalitarianism as an attack ideology against them, so they have co-opted egalitarianism to their power structure, not only making it harmless, but turning it to an essential tool to bolster their power and wealth. The more people demand equality, the higher the liberal elites will rise, and thus the higher the inequality. The more "equal" the masses become, the more atomized and interchangeable individuals become, hence the more worthless and less independently capable they become. Thus they become less able to form independent social structures, which could challenge the elites, and hence the more they can be used, controlled and exploited by the elites, and hence the higher elites rise, both in absolute terms and relative to the masses. This said the masses must get something for their egalitarian demands to keep them in their place, thus the little spoils dealing system of the liberal socialist state.

12 kommenttia:

Anonyymi kirjoitti...

Muuten, mitä eurooppalaisten pitäisi mielestäsi tehdä esim. Lähi-idän kristittyjen suhteen? Mitä ajattelet esim. Lähi-idän kristittyjen tilanteesta?

Assadin ollessa vallassa Syyrian kristityillä oli melko turvallinen elämä. Sama juttu Saddamin Irakissa. Saddamin ollessa vallassa jopa kristittyjen jumalanpalvelukset televisioitiin. Eräs arabikristitty pappi sanoi, että Saddamin aikana heidän elämänsä oli paljon turvallisempaa kuin nyt. Taloudelliset syyt kuitenkin ratkaisivat ja USA alkoi tukea noiden hallintojen syrjäyttämistä. Kun USA hyökkäsi Irakiin, niin paikalliset kristityt alettiin nähdä "Lännen kätyreinä".

Jos jatkamme nykytiellä (ottamalla pakolaisia), niin suomalaiset sulautuvat/katoavat muiden kansojen sekaan.

Tässä muutamia ideoita kristittyjen auttamiseksi:

1.) Euroopan hallitukset painostaisivat Lähi-idän ja muiden alueiden (esim. Pakistanin tai Intian) hallintoja (esim. taloudellisin keinoin), jos käy ilmi, että ne sortavat kristittyjä vähemmistöjä. Niitä hallintoja, jotka ottavat huomioon myös kristityt ja heidän turvallisuutensa, taas tuetaan.

2.) Kurdistanissa on tietääkseni kohtuu turvallista olla kristitty, mutta monissa muissa maissa ei ole. Olisiko aivan hullu idea, jos Euroopan maat alkaisivat ajaa omaa itsehallintoaluetta Lähi-idän kristityille? Samanlaista aluetta voitaisiin ajaa myös muiden maiden sorretuille kristityille.

USA on tukenut esim.Talibaneja taistelussa neuvostojoukkoja vastaan ja myöhemmin kun Assad oli määrä syrjäyttää, USA tuki jälleen islamisteja. Jos muistan oikein, niin CIA oli myös Shaahin syrjäyttämisen taustalla Iranissa? Yksi syy noiden tukemiselle on tietysti se, että USA:n tahtoa tottelemattomat hallinnot oli pakko saada pois pelistä, jotta päästään käsiksi luonnonvaroihin.

Olisiko yksi syy islamistien tukemiselle myös seuraava: USA tai Länsi ei kauheasti välitä esim. Lähi-idän kristityistä siksi, että muslimeja vain on niin paljon enemmän? Tukemalla islamisteja yritetään ehkä myös miellyttää ja lepytellä muslimienemmistöä?


Anonyymi kirjoitti...

"We Europeans have many good qualities, but we are weak group competitors, we are one of the weakest group competitors in the world, dilettantes in ethnocentrism."

Ei-eurooppalaisten etnisten ryhmien työkalupakkiin kuuluu sekin, että kotimaissa ollaan äärimmäisen etnosentrisiä eikä ulkopuolisille anneta esim. kansalaisuuksia (esim. arabit), mutta Eurooppaan tullessa vaaditaan kaikille tasa-arvoa ja samoja mahdollisuuksia/oikeuksia. Eurooppalaisia syyllistetään,kehutaan ("Suomi on niin tasa-arvoinen ja oikeudenmukainen maa. Islam toteutuu parhaiten Suomessa."), neuvotaan tai arvostellaan riippuen siitä, mikä on paras toimintatapa milläkin hetkellä halutun lopputuloksen aikaansaamiseksi.

Mitkä muut ryhmät ovat mielestäsi heikkoja etnisiä kilpailijoita? Mitä ajattelet Singaporesta? Alkuperäiskansa malajit on nuijittu varmaan aika huonoon asemaan ja heidän kieli myös.


vieras kirjoitti...

Singapore itsenäistyi 1965 kun se ei halunnut kuulua Malesiaan. Malesian osana se olisi ollut siihen kuuluva kiinalaiskaupunki. Olisiko sekään ollut kivaa....



Kun en ole muslimi niin minulla on myönteisempi käsitys Singaporesta kuin Malesiasta tai Indonesiasta.






vieras kirjoitti...

Lähi-idän kristittyjen tilanteesta näytettiin pääsiäisen aikaan englantilainen ohjelma, yllättäen Ylen kanavalla. Harmi kun en nähnyt sitä kokonaan enkä ehtinyt nähdä jälkilähetystä Areenasta.

Ohjelmassa kerrottiin että Saddam takasi Irakissa kristittyjen turvallisuuden. Nykyään Irakissa vain kurdialue on se missä kristityt ovat jotenkuten turvassa.

Syyriassa Assadin hallinto on taannut kristittyjen turvallisuuden. Jos Assadin hallinto tai ylipäätään alaviittien romahtaa, niin kapinalliset todennäköisesti kohdistavat aggressioita kristittyihin.

Ihmettelin mikseivät Irakin ja Syyrian kristityt hanki itselleen aseita ja sotakoulutusta. Siltä varalta jos ei ole ketään tarjoamassa aseellista apua. Ei pyssyn käyttö ole monimutkaista oppia. Kai Assadin armeijalta liikenisi aseita ja ammuksia, ja voisivat hieman tarjota koulutusapua. Tai pyytää vaikka Venäjältä apua.

Libanonissa kristittyjen tilanne on helpompi kuin Syyriassa tai Irakissa, vaikkei kristityillä enää olekaan enemmistöä Libanonissa. Libanonin kristityt sanoivat haastattelijalle että pitäisi tuke Lähi-idän kristittyjä pysymään Lähi-idässä.

En muista sanottiinko ohjelmassa, että Libanonissa, Syyriassa on myös armenialaisia. Irakissa niitä on ainakin ollut. Iranissa lienee rauhallisinta.





Valkea kirjoitti...


kohdat 1) ja 2) ovat hyviä ehdotuksia. Lähi-idän kristityillä täytyy olla riittävästi jalansijaa omilla alueillaan.

Shaahi syrjäytettiin pitkälti iranilaisten omin voimin. Muslimeja on tietysti paljon, ja länsimaiset hallinnot yrittävät ja joko tulla niiden kanssa jotenkin toimeen tai sitten manipuloida tai pakottaa niitä tavalla tai toisella, ja se vaikuttaa länsimaiden politiikkaan. Mutta se, että länsimaiset liberaalit kohtelevat lähi-idän kristittyjä tilanteesta riippuen joko törkeästi tai välinpitämättömästi, kuin he olisivat ilmaa, johtuu siitä, että liberaalit vihaavat kristittyjä, ja se heijastuu myös lähi-idän kristittyjen kohteluun, vaikka he edustavat toiseutta.

Kommentoin toisaalla länsimaiden hyökkäystä Libyaan seuraavasti (johon liittyivät tyypilliset liberaalien motiivit sekaantua muslimimaiden asioihin, liberaalien tyypilliset valheet ja liberaalien tyypilliset surkeat lopputulokset):

Muistakaamme, että länsimainen liberaali eliitti markkinoi Libyan sotaa meille ihmisoikeussotana. Todelliset syyt olivat Libyan öljyntuotannon kontrolloiminen; Ranskan vaikutusvallan varmistaminen pohjois-Afrikan alueella / Gaddafin vaikutusvallan eliminoiminen; Sarkozyn vaikutusvallan lisääminen Ranskassa; Ranskan sotilaallisen voiman osoittaminen; ja tärkeimpänä Gaddafin kultaan ja hopeaan perustuvan itsenäisen valuutan syntymisen estäminen, joka olisi syrjäyttänyt Ranskan frangin Afrikan tärkeimpänä vaihdon valuuttana. Nämä ovat muutamia niistä lukuisista syistä, joiden takia ihmisoikeudet ovat pelkkää roskaa, valheita, joita syötetään tyhmille ja tietämättömille.

Kun Gaddafi oli vallassa, Libyan kautta ei tullut ollenkaan maahantulijoita Eurooppaan. Kun Gaddafi tapettiin, maahantulijoiden tulva käynnistyi, ja se aiheutti suurelta osin nykyisen maahanmuuttokatastrofin Euroopassa. Siinä olisi ollut yllin kyllin riittävästi syitä pitää Gaddafi ja Gaddafin seuraajat vallassa.


Valkea kirjoitti...


eskimot ja inuiitit ovat esimerkki huonoista etnisistä kilpailijoista ja suhteellisen heikosta etnisestä ryhmähengestä, mutta heitä on varjellut se, että he elävät usein alueilla, jonne juuri kukaan ei halua muuttaa. Malesiassa malaijit pitävät aika hyvin puolensa, ja kyllä he suhteellisen hyvin ajavat asioitaan myös Singaporessa, mutta siellä hallinto pyrkii määrätietoisesti estämään monien etnisten ryhmien kollektiivista toimintaa. Malaijien kiinalaisia huonompia taloudellinen ja poliittinen asema Singaporessa ei johdu niinkään sorrosta, vaan ryhmien erilaisista kognitiivisista kapasiteeteista ja kulttuureista.

vieras kirjoitti...

Berlusconi ja Gaddafi sopivat siitä että Libyan kautta ei kulje porukkaa Italiaan. Gaddafi lupasi huolehtia siitä ja piti lupauksensa. Italia osti öljyä Libyasta kun sen jalostamot soveltuivat paremmin sieltä hankitun öljyn jalostukseen. Kun öljykaupat olivat tuottoisia Libyalle niin Gaddafi suostui tuohon mitä Italia halusi. Näin totesi Suomen Uutisille juttuja tekevä Henri Myllyniemi kommentissa numero 33. Gaddafi on mainittu muutamassa viestissä.


Libya itse oli paikka johon pyrittiin muualta Afrikasta. Libyan talous pyöri joten se pystyi ja suostui tarjoamaan töitä muualta Afrikasta tulleille. Ei sieltä edes tarvinnut lähteä Eurooppaan.

Berlusconi on varmaan lurjus hämärine bisneksineen mutta jos liberaali media oli häntä vastaan niin se tarkoittaa sitä että hän on keskimääräistä poliitikkoa parempi. Voi sanoa että liberaalin median osoittama vastustus on erään sortin laatutakuu. Ehkä tästä syystä onkin hyvä että hänellä on oma mediayhtiö. Pääministerinä Berlusconi mm. viittasi kintaalla ilmastonmuutoshypetykselle ja sympatisoi Israelia, missä vieraili.

Itävallassa paikallisella nuivalla puolueella FPÖ:llä on mahdollisuus saada presidentti kun heidän ehdokas voitti ekan kierroksen ja seuraavaksi käydään toinen kierros.


LS kirjoitti...

@Kommentoija & vieras,

Yksi syistä miksi USA kaappasi vallan Ukrainassa oli varastaa Ukrainan kansalliset kultavarannot, 33 tonnia. Yksi syistä miksi USA hyökkäsi Irakiin 2003 oli varastaa Irakin kansalliset kultavarannot. Yksi syistä miksi Libyaan huökättiin oli varastaa Libyan kansalliset kultavarannot, 144 tonnia. Yksi syistä miksi USA ajaa Saudi-Arabiaa kohti sisäistä luhistumista, on että Saudi-Arabian Sveitsissä sijaitsevat kultavarannot on varastettu. Joko kaava alkaa näkymään?

Kommentoija & vieras, haluatteko hypätä suoraan altaan syvempään päähän? Voilà:
Jim Willien uusin haastattelu (.mp3)

Olen seurannut Jim Willie:ä vuodesta 2012 lähtien, ja olen tilannut hänen uutiskirjettä vuodesta 2013 lähtien.


Olen kerännyt merkittävän osan kommenteistani tänne.

Anonyymi kirjoitti...

Hyvä kirjoitus:



Anonyymi kirjoitti...


Uskotko, että Kommunistinen vallankumous ja sitä seuranneet eurooppalaisiin kohdistuneet kansanmurhat/massamurhat olisivat jääneet tapahtumatta, jos kaikki tai lähes kaikki valkoiset venäläiset ja eurooppalaiset olisivat kuuluneet tuollaiseen tiiviisiin, hyvään kristinuskoon ja endogamiaan pohjautuviin yhteisöihin? Esim. jotkut venäläiset hakisivat kommunismista turvaa luodakseen oikeudenmukaisemman yhteiskunnan. Olisivatko he kyenneet vastustaman kommusnismin houkutusta, jos heillä olisi ollut tuollaiset yhteisöt?


Valkea kirjoitti...


olen vaikeassa tilanteessa, ja kirjoittamiseeni ja vastaamiseeni voi tulla pitkä tauko, tai se voi jäädä pysyväksi. Toivotan sinulle hyvää jatkoa ja Jumalan siunausta.

Anonyymi kirjoitti...

Ok, hyvää jatkoa ja Jumalan siunausta sinullekin.


Sivun näyttöjä yhteensä