The illusion of choice makes you believe that:…In order to stop “White Genocide” (LOL) you must join the Roman fascist establishment Currently in control of the United States Military industrial Complex and fight against those who are destroying “western civilization” …NO not Oligarchs and Bankers but those DAMN insufferable Darkies and Muslims …but you must first join together …..SEPARATELY into your respective Color-coded identities ✊🏾✊🏻✊🏿✊🏽✊( )and get social programs established that oppress the low (caste) IQ elements of society (Darkies) that are detrimental to evolution and real progressive ideological frameworks like …Free market Socialism😂…where your duty is to “stand upright” “clean your room” and love all your other military police state responsibilities …FUNNY how COMMUNITARIANISM … is a “CHOICE” these leftist “alt right” collectivist monkeys 🐒 thought they made all by their high IQ selves 😂😂😂


21 Replies to “Mark Collett’s “Road to Zion” The Leftist “Alt Right“ Fascist Roman Racial Collectivist Movement”

  1. Found your channel not very long ago…wonderful content my friend. Its sad to see so many people becoming polorized and pitted against one another. Also glad to have found another channel that I agree with and that is on point in regards to the "un" holy roman empire.

  2. To the Englishman and American, moral success is contained in the goal of work, in success, money, wealth. Work is merely a path toward these goals, to be chosen with special consideration of its comfort and security. Obviously, conflict is unavoidable on the path to success, but the Puritan conscience can justify any means. Whoever stands in the way is simply pushed aside—individuals, whole classes, whole nations. That, after all, is the will of God. It is easy to see how such ideas, once applied in real life, can bring a nation to the very greatest heights of achievement.
    In order to overcome man’s inborn lethargy, the Prussian ethic maintains that the chief aim of life is not happiness. "Do your duty," it says, "by doing your work." The English capitalist ethic says, "Get rich, and then you won’t have to work any more." There is doubtless something provocative about this latter motto. It is tempting, it appeals to very basic human instincts. The working masses of ambitious nations have understood it well. As late as the nineteenth century it produced the Yankee type with his irresistible practical optimism. The other motto is forbidding. It is for the few who wish to inject it into the community and thus force it upon the masses. The first maxim is for a stateless country, for egoists and Viking types with the urge for constant personal combat, such as we find in English sportsmanship. It implies extreme independence of mind, the right to gain happiness at the expense of all others, as long as one’s strength holds out—in other words, scientific Darwinism. The other, however, is an expression of the socialist idea in all its profundity: the will to power, the struggle for happiness, but for the happiness of the totality, not of the individual. In this sense Frederick William I, and not Marx, was the first conscious communitarian. The universal collectivist movement had its start with this exemplary personality. Kant, with his categorical imperative, provided the movement with a formula.
    In the final phase of Western European culture two great schools of philosophy were founded, the English school of egoism and sensualism around 1700, and the Prussian school of idealism around 1800. They express what these nations are, as ethical, religious, political, and economic entities.
    Philosophy in itself is nothing—a collection of words, a series of books. Nor is it either true or false, in itself. It is language of the life of a great mind. For the Englishman, Hobbes is speaking the truth when he sets up the "selfish system" of egoism and the optimistic Whig philosophy of the common good ("the greatest happiness for the greatest number"). And Shaftesbury also speaks the truth, for the Englishman, with his portrait of the gentleman, the Tory, the sovereign personality living life to the fullest. Yet for us Kant is just as truthful with his contempt for "happiness" and usefulness, his categorical imperative of duty. Hegel, in our view, speaks the truth when, with his powerful sense of reality, he places the concrete destiny of individual nations, and not the well-being of "human society," at the center of his historical deliberations. Mandeville, in his Fable of the Bees, declares that the egoism of the individual is the driving force of the state; Fichte says it is the obligation to work. Which is the highest goal—freedom by means of wealth, or freedom from wealth? Ought we to prefer Kant’s categorical imperative: "Behave as if the precepts governing your behavior were to become law for all," or Bentham’s "Behave in such a way that you will have success"?
    Vikings and knights—both of these types live on the antithesis of the English and Prussian moral systems. The philosophical teachings that have since arisen out of these separate worlds of sensibility, the progeny of the philosophers of both nations, all bear the same distinguishing marks. The Englishman is a utilitarian, in fact the only one in Western Europe. He cannot be otherwise, and whenever he attempts to deny this strongest inner drive of his the result is the phenomenon that has become famous as "cant"—it can be found in its purest form in the letters of Lord Chesterfield. The English are a nation of theologians. Their great revolution took on primarily religious forms, and following the abolition of the state no language except theological language remained with which to express the concerns of communal life. And so it has been: a biblical interpretation of questionable business dealings can ease the conscience and greatly increase ambition and initiative. Out of consideration for the chances of success in the personal struggle for existence, the theological mentality tends to avoid naming by its proper name the true goal of all activity: wealth.
    If there is a similar conflict within the Prussian atmosphere, then it is concerned with position and rank. In many cases one is tempted to call it excessive ambition and title-seeking. In principle, however, it is a manifestation of the will to take on higher responsibility because one feels ready to do so. Enlightenment liberalism is off the left no right.

  3. Even though the neocons and neolibs are "ex"-Trotskyist communists who are part of the program to genocide the white race via mass demographic replacement, state feminism and endless miscegenation propaganda. Sure, just claim Jews are "white" (i.e. Turks, if not Semites) so as to continue justifying anti-white rhetoric and the acceleration of targeted white extinction.

    You need to offer a rational explanation as to how the Alt-Right is promoting Leninism and/or communitarianism (first by defining your terms) if you want awakened whites to wilfully give up their own racial interests. Otherwise you just sound like any anti-white leftist and will not be taken seriously.

  4. @norace I think you need to cover the blatant long term operation that summed up quickly was to transfer manufacturing to the 3rd world while the western world became brought down to 3rd world standards through immigration and indoctrination. .
    you will find this is the reason for most of the confusion.
    I suggest speaking with Jay dyer as he understands the same process occurred with the British empire.

Leave a Reply