Merkel is Close to Achieving Hitlers Dream


It has now been 70 years since World War 2 and the German dream continues. Merkel is well on her way to achieve the goals as determined by Hitler. If you recall those goals were expulsion and then later death to all Jews and German dominance in Europe over most of the other countries.

The Jewish Question

Merkel has made more progress towards expelling the Jews than any other German leader since Hitler. Record number of Jews have been leaving Europe since 2015 usually headed for Israel, the USA, or Canada. The record levels of emigration coincides with the decision of Merkel to unilaterally welcome millions of Muslim refugees from the Middle East which sparked one of the great refugee crisis Europe is now facing.

At the time she made the decision to unilaterally commit the EU in the major undertaking of welcoming millions of Islamic refugees everyone was confused as to why she made that decision. Now that we see the results the reasoning is clear. It is an understatement to say that there is some animosity between Jews and Muslims. Since the time of Hitler Muslim majority nations have banded together twice in an effort to eradicate Israel, the only Jewish nation on the planet. To this day Muslims still regularly send mortar, rocket, bomb, and other type of attacks into Israel. Some Muslim nations still deny the right of the Jewish state to exist as well. Importing an entire culture that hates the Jews would have the desired effect of expelling them.

Like Hitler Merkel will not stop at expulsion. As noted there are three major destinations for the Jews. Israel, USA, and Canada. Merkel has been very vocal about the USA and Canada accepting more Muslim refugees creating the same type of environment in those countries that have been successful in expelling the Jews from Europe. An inhospitable environment in those countries would then lead the Jews to go to the other destination, Israel. Germany under Merkel has been consistent in voting for sanctions against Israel at any opportunity and has generally sided with the countries who say Israel has no right to exist.

Continental Dominance

In the past Hitler tried to conquer Europe by force. He was able to get France and some other countries but ultimately failed. In the continuation of his dream Merkel has tried a different tactic. She has fostered the growth of the European Union. Of course this union is problematic for Germany as well. France and Britain are equally strong economies and in the case of Britain they have a stronger military as well. Instead of a system where Germany has complete dominance it is forced to share power with them.

Merkel in her usual brilliance used the same refugee crisis that helped expel the Jews to force out the economies that could survive on their own. Britain officially voted to leave the EU and by all indications France may soon follow. This then leaves the weaker economies which have been hurt by the strength of the Euro and by the refugee crisis as well. Greece who is on the verge of bankruptcy and unable to provide any social services to their people, has been denied any debt relief by Germany, yet has been criticized for not having the funding and infrastructure to deal with the refugee crisis. Germany as the dominant economy with the other weaker European economies attached to it is the European Empire Hitler always dreamed of. Once Germany is the dominant power we will see more consolidation of power in the EU and even a joint army moving it closer to a true German Empire.

We may hate the principles that Merkel stands for and her continuation of Hitler’s legacy but we cannot deny that she has been more effective at it than anyone else in history.



Demonization Works


Let me begin with my central thesis. Demonization is a valid and effective tool in changing the behavior of a given person or group. In this case speaking of Muslims. Whenever a terrorist attack happens leftist commentators inevitably point out that if it is a white person who is caught he would be declared a lone wolf, but if it were an Islamic person the blame would spread to the entire religion. They then proceed to point out how evil the right is for doing this and how counterproductive it is. Of course no mention as to how the terrorists are almost always Muslims but we will get to that later.

First off I want to show how collective punishment does work to change behavior. If you have ever been in the military or any similar institution you may remember the entire platoon being forced to run or do push-ups or given extra duties for the infractions of a few. The result is the members of the group try to get less infractions so that their unit gets punished less.

In the Philippines, India, and other third world countries there are community lending programs which lend to a group instead of an individual. Each member of the group would get their individual loans and each would be responsible for paying it back. If one member failed to repay their loan then the entire group would be punished by getting denied loans in the future. The result is that the group members themselves, often from the same community and in some cases the same family pressured the members to pay on behalf of the bank and there was a higher repayment rate. The funds ended up being used for business as well as there was an extra consequence of squandering it.

Consider North Carolina in America. The Governor did something the left did not agree with and businesses punished the state. This of course punished the workers for the actions of the state. As a result the state rescinded the laws and it sent a chilling effect to other states.

The liberal media attempts it all the time as well. You see headlines saying a certain survey shows all Trump voters are racist, all republicans are uneducated, and every other possible variation to imply that if you vote democrat then you are a great person but if you vote republican you are a terrible one. These are of course the very same people who tell us that demonization does not work.

Back to Islam. If you see a terrorist attack or mass murder on tv and think that a muslim did it you would be justified in thinking so. In 2015 99% of all terrorist attacks were done by Muslims. We only have 2 isolated incidents aside from that done by communist extremists. To make it worse there is no isolated sect of Islam responsible for the bombings. Both Sunni’s and Shia’s have groups which do it. Even joining Islam does not save you as half the targets of the suicide bombings are fellow muslims. As you can see there is something seriously wrong with Islamic ideology so much so that even when you give the entire world to them one half would still try to kill the other for religious reasons.

I always say that if I walk down elm street and get mugged every day I would be justified in having negative stereotypes of elm street and everyone living there. No one would complain if I reroute to another street particularly if I don’t get mugged there every day. The same analogy applies to terrorism and Islam.

What do we want to achieve by doing this? The first and best result would always be to wean its followers away from Islam. This hurts the terrorists the most as while they believe in Islam they also use its moderates as a shield to prevent the authorities from clamping down harder on them. The less adherents of Islam there is the weaker terrorists become as they have less places to hide. The next thing we want to achieve is to turn the moderates of Islam against the extremists. It has been reported that most radicalization occurs in mosques and other areas populated almost exclusively by Muslims. Showing the moderates that they are in a way tainted by association with the extremists would encourage them to turn them in more and to counsel against radicalization. Lastly we also hope that the extremists themselvess see that the reputation of Islam as a whole is suffering because of them.

Do not feel guilty for holding Islam accountable because of the actions of its followers. Remember the people who justify the suicide bombings are among those who have studied the Quran the longest. Pointing out the flaws of the religion may be the only thing that can save it, if indeed it can be saved.

Who Needs the UN?


When I was younger I belonged to this awesome gaming club. We tried out every new game we could get our hands on and I was happy to find a group willing to play Arkham Horror and Here I Stand. I didn’t even mind bringing more than my fair share of games as I got plenty of fun out of it. Of course life happens and I didn’t have time to play as many board games as I wanted anymore so it didn’t make sense to keep buying new games for this club.

This is similar to what we are going thru with the UN. Before we begin let us get the facts first. The US pays 22% of the UN general budget and 25% of the peacekeeping budget. While Russia and China both pay less than 3%. It doesn’t end here though, various UN agency ask for voluntary contributions from the US as well to supplement their projects. Nobody will really dispute the US pays more than its fair share of the UN.

Is it worth it? As a nationalist I was initially thrilled with the UN. Think about it. We had an international organization that we controlled. We were the only ones who really knew how to use it initially and it enabled us to claim the moral high ground in any activity we chose. We could use the UN to condemn our enemies and use that as propaganda. Did it matter that it was an international organization? Not really. All that mattered is that we could use it to further our national interest. I would have been perfectly happy paying 100% for that UN.

The problem is over time other countries have learned to use the UN to their own advantage. In fact if you look at the UN now most of its time is spent blocking the US and condemning Israel one of our principal allies despite numerous atrocities being done daily all across the world. The UN is being used to pressure countries into taking more and more muslim economic immigrants as well. It is fast becoming a negative rather than a positive.

Should we completely defund the UN? That is a solution, though it would most likely involve us leaving the UN entirely. At the very least we should be paying the same amount as China and Russia and not a penny more. One thing is clear. There is no advantage in funding an organization that is of no benefit to us.

The critique is that the US will be diminished if it pulls out of the UN and will no longer be relevant on the world stage. They have it backwards. The US is the US. It derives its power from being the US not from being part of any organization. In fact the organizations in question whether it be the UN , NATO, or anything else gets more power by having the US as a member. Even if it was not a member of any organization the US would still have 11 carrier battle groups, each with the capability of destroying the entire navy of any other power. Without the UN the US is still the most desirable market in the world, with a population possessing the highest amount of purchasing power. Without the UN the US would still be needed to enforce any ceasefires or humanitarian decrees.

The UN must make itself useful to the US to receive the same level of funding. Being a member is not enough as the UN derives greater value from having the US as a member than the US gets at being a member. If the UN fails at this then we have no reason to support it.

The Nationalist Case for Supporting Israel


The case is simple and can be summed up in one sentence. America should support Israel because they have a positive view of America and are longstanding Allies.

In the Israeli conflict we have two sides. The Palestinians who are at the very least affiliated with some jihadis who actively hate America and have no relations with us and Israel. In 2015 81% of Israelis viewed America positively and  Israel has been an American ally for the longest time.

The rationale is simple. We want to encourage more countries to be longstanding allies and to view America favorably and we want to punish countries who don’t so we can encourage the desired behavior from them. Does it mean that we should always blindly support our allies? Of course not. However the presumption of support must be given to our allies and that presumption must be stronger the longer the alliance lasts. For example if we had a new ally who was borderline in support towards us then a 60/40 case would be sufficient for us to consider the other side. For a longer ally like Britain or Israel a 70/30 or 80/20 case should be considered. In the case of Israel and Palestine, while both sides have valid arguments, they are close enough that our presumption should remain with Israel.

The counter argument is of course, would we not alienate more countries like Palestine in our quest to reward our allies? The answer is no. If we apply this consistently then nations will see there is a tangible benefit to becoming a long-term American ally and to popularize America with its population instead of demonizing it. For instance countries like the Philippines which love America should get much more foreign aid than Afghanistan or other Middle Eastern countries that hate it.

The reward MUST come after the change in behavior and not before. When you discipline a child do you reward him before he does the right thing? Or do you reward him after he gets good grades, does his homework, or a host of other things? The end result of this method of foreign policy should be an international community competing to who can be the best, most cooperative ally to be assured of US support. It is not a novel concept either. Supporting your allies and punishing your enemies have been around since ancient times. In fact the chinese have a saying “Do not trample over your old friends in your rush to make new”.

At the end of the day the issue itself is only tangential to how our decision is to be made. Unless the case is absurdly one-sided, which it is not in this case, then we must stand with our allies so we can create new allies in the future.