[MINISTRY] right to self-determination, "Democracy", (ethnic) nationalism --VS.-- Bolshevik internationalism/ globalism

[Zenaan Harkness]

The Ministry is proud of those who have caused certain topics to
become taboo, where terrorism is the fnord of our generation used to
legislate a multitude of human rights violations, and where certain
taboo topics are fnords for terrorism and extremism of another sort -
by our own "Democratic" governments against ourselves.

When any topic, hypothetical or otherwise, may not even be discussed
publicly -regardless- of content, relevance to our current society or
otherwise, you know The Ministry is in operation and cowardice and
the evil of government-mandated despotism prevails.

The Ministry prevails, as so few can overcome their conditioned
fnord responses, and in other cases, a desire for personal freedom
and sanity in the face of an insane world of very often cowardly
humans.

Yes fnord is the word of the day, see here:

  Falkvinge:
  http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Falkvingoe-on-Infopolicy/~3/Npac6U8CQVo
  “Reminder: In government training material, “terrorism” includes
  peacefully disagreeing with administration policy in public”


So yes, most programmed humans will miss the reasoning, the thought
processes, insight and applicability to informing our world today
based on nothing more than a superficial yet well programmed
("schooled" by school and MSM media), emotional reaction to any old
"shock headline".

The following is no exception to this rule:

  Essays
  If Hitler Had Won World War II We’d Have A Better, More Just
  World Today
  Bradford Hanson · January 29, 2017
  https://nationalvanguard.org/2017/01/if-hitler-won-world-war-ii-wed-have-a-better-more-just-world-today/

notwithstanding any nuggets which might be contained, for a couple
random examples:

 - “in the final analysis, WWII was essentially a war between two
   competing ideologies: Nationalism vs. internationalism/globalism”


 - “Adolf Hitler and his allies fought to preserve the concept of
   nationalism, not just for Germans but for all peoples the world
   over”

   This sounds rather like Russia's intentions today, with its
   usefully catchy "multi-polar world" byline.

   The revival of Russians back to "traditional Russianism" - i.e.
   nationalism, Christianity, and now a strong, and collective,
   denouncement of ideology-fueled Empire, is in fact incredibly
   impressive to witness from our Russkie brothers and sisters in the
   face of the journey of despotism they went through - Stalinism,
   "Communism" and essentially the complete wipe-out of their right
   to any religious expression at all, for half a century.

   Today's Russian revival evidences the virtue of the Russian's'
   inherent (collective) character, to come back from such atrocities
   as they have (unlike say Cambodia).


 - “Nationalism really just means the sovereignty of an ethnic people
   and the right of such ethnic people/nationalists — within their
   own bordered country — to self-determination.”


 - “Self-determination just means an ethnic people preserving their
   unique culture and heritage and pursuing their collective goals as
   a unique people.
   This applies to any ethnic peoples: Nigerians, Germans, Swedes,
   Vietnamese, Mexicans, Tibetans, etc.”

   (I would add a qualifier here - 'to the extent they, collectively
    and by the free exercise of their collective will, so choose to
    do,' - but of course we see very little in the way of actual
    democracy on the planet today…)


And plenty more besides.

One may of course disagree with certain premises underlying this
essay, yet is it wise to disregard the nuggets of truth embedded
therein, those insights implied and explicit?

Every war happens because certain humans with authority and
influence, intend for that war to happen, and intend for the confront
of bullets, bombs, death, atrocity and despotism to occur in a
specific (or not so specific) physical region/ area.

Without the intention manifested as communications and decisions in
all relevant forms, of those bankers - we should probably write
(((bankers))) if we wish to communicate more accurately - and war
hawks or "neo-cons" or any other noun of the year, then would we have
the wars we have?

Yes, it's another truism "war would not exist without the actions of
those who intend such wars" - yet who amongst the general population
actually proceeds to this second step in their mind when they
contemplate on the reality of war ongoing - on the TV, in the papers,
in our collective consciousness?


Good luck pepes,