Not a war between capitalism and socialism but a cultural war between nationalism and internationalism

The cultural conservative strategy ahead

As mentioned, a large majority of cultural conservatives are royalists. We want to preserve a monarchy that upholds its sacred oath as protector and be an embodiment of the traditions and values of the country. The Royal families that willingly and even gladly support the European hate-ideology known as multiculturalism will be replaced as soon as we, the cultural conservatives, seize power. There might even be a scenario where a monarch (supportive of cultural Marxism) decides to flee the country and chooses to reject our cultural conservative rule. In this case, he or she will be replaced with the next appropriate candidate in line of succession that is willing to continue to support European values and traditions.

Britain has a relatively large line of succession so it will not prove to be that challenging to find suitable candidates (cultural conservative). However, it might prove a lot more difficult in countries like Norway where there are limited candidates. Christian Frederik Carl Georg Valdemar Aksel was a Danish prince that was elected to be the King of Norway in the period 1905-1957 under the name Haakon VII. He was a member of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg abbreviated the Glücksburg dynasty. An alternative would be to select a cultural conservative candidate from either the Glücksburg or Bernadotte line. Other relevant alternatives are the Oldenburg line. Personally, I would prefer to genetically identify a suitable candidate from the Fairhair (Hårfagre) line. The suitable family would in this case be “coached” by a neighbouring and willing royal family for at least three years before a coronation could take place.

We must assume that a one, perhaps two of our European royal families will betray their oath and reject our rule in the future after a coup. We must be prepared to implement a concise strategy which preserves European monarchies.

European public welfare has a minor role regarding the ongoing suicide of Europe. This is primarily a cultural fight between nationalism (Monoculturalism) and internationalism (multiculturalism) and not an economical war between capitalism and socialism.

Being right-wing and anti-Marxist does not mean you oppose the idea of a welfare state. The Tory Party in Great Britain introduced the first pensions and the first state medical care for the poor although it is commonly thought that the socialists did it. Bismarck also contributed significantly to create a welfare state and no one would call him a left winger.

The brutal truth of the matter is the following; a welfare state will work perfectly well intertwined with capitalistic doctrines as long as the country is monocultural/the social cohesion level is at an acceptable level. A welfare state would never work in the US due to the lack of social cohesion, because they have large minority groups who are allowed parallel cultures, norms and ethics.

Blindly opposing welfare is an American neo-Con doctrine and has nothing to do with nationalism. There are certain aspects of modern civilisation and common decency which require degrees of state welfare. It is the way it is legislated and managed which is crucial. Multiculturalism will always result in the destruction of any welfare system because the majority will eventually disallow excessive taxation in order to subsidise thousands or millions of poor people with parallel and quite frankly inferior cultures and ethics.

Many right wing Americans live under the illusion that they won the cold war simply because capitalism prevailed. Americans often forget to differentiate socialism/welfare with Marxist internationalism but these set of doctrines are two entirely different concepts. The ongoing European civil war is not a fight between capitalism and socialism/welfare. It is a cultural war between nationalism and internationalism. The European welfare systems have little to do with the current cultural and demographical suicide of Europe. The main issue here is the struggle between internationalism (Marxism/multiculturalism/globalism) and nationalism (cultural conservatism).

Marxism/internationalism/globalism/multiculturalism is an ideology designed to deconstruct European traditions, cultures, identities and even nation states while nationalism is the anti-thesis. In order for the internationalists to succeed they have combined this political deconstruction with mass-Muslim immigration. Of course, motives vary. Globalist capitalists (like the Republican Party) are supporting mass Muslim immigration for the cheap labour while the Democratic Party (cultural Marxists) are supporting it for the votes.

A common misconception is that nationalism results in backwardness and halts progress, science and any form of development. The Marxists or capitalist globalists will say that you cannot stop or avoid globalism/multiculturalism which is of course nothing more than propaganda. Japan and South Korea proves very well that this statement is wrong. Both nations are monocultural and at the same time very developed and are considered two of the most successful countries.

But the US and other multicultural countries will without a doubt have a great advantage due to the fact that they are allowing highly educated immigrants? They will also gain a significant productivity level due to the fact that they allow modern day slavery (productive immigrants working under minimum wage)?

First of all, very few countries actually have a strict entry policies and will allow any and all depending on the fact that the candidate has higher education or not. Australia and the US are, on the other hand, quite strict and usually limit much of the immigration to these candidates.

However, the US does not have a welfare system so these immigrants will cost the society minimal if they lose their job. Secondly, the majority of immigrants accepted by most European countries are conservative Muslims with little or no education. This forms a destructive mix considering that they get full access to the welfare system.

Secondly, monocultural and highly developed countries such as Japan and South Korea prove that a well organised school system (see school systems for the future) will allow each country to develop enough professionals from their country without having to import from third world countries. The current trend of poaching highly educated foreign nationals is nothing more than a negative spiral which delays essential school reforms. Instead of accepting a dysfunctional school system by importing foreign nationals we intend to reform the system quite drastically. This will also involve copying Japanese and South Korean (old European) doctrines. These policies are actually our own as it is a blue print of the English system which was in effect in the 1950s.

On a personal level, considering the fact that others might see me as an anti-socialist elitist, considering the fact that I would like to see the massive European public sectors reduced drastically from current 40-70% down to 25%. However, this is not up to me but rather up to the future nationalist leadership of Europe. Furthermore, my loyalty to my nation and people surpasses any of my secondary or tertiary anti-socialist objectives. After all, we are fighting a war against internationalism, not against the European welfare state.

Дата добавления: 2015-05-31